March FAQ - Upcoming Guard Nerf

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Lance845**

Galas wrote:
If it has 9 wounds it can't degrade.

EDIT: I should have read everything

But ey, can't Tyranid Guard shoot 72" indirect fire weapons? that do flat 2 damage?

This dudes:

Spoiler:

Hive Guard have a heavy 2, 36", str 8, ap -2, d3 dmg gun that does not require LoS.

Their other gun is 24" and does require LoS.

**Martel732**

This reads just like an Eldar scatbike thread from just two years ago. Utterly amazing.

**kurhanik**

What is even going on in this thread at this point? Have any other leaks on the FAQ stuff surfaced beyond 5ppm Guardsmen, or is everything still hypothetical beyond that?

Infantry 5ppm, a blanket system wide Indirect Fire rule of a -1 to hit when out of LOS, price of Melta and Plasma swapped. I think that covers most of the issues with Guards too strong stuff, at least if the Smite nerf stays as is.

On the flip side - Veterans, Commissars, certain Leman Russ variants, and transports need some love.

Bumping Infantry up 1ppm gives Vets an indirect buff, but you still run into the issue that if you want bodies, Infantry and Conscripts are cheaper, and if you want quality shots, factoring in the fact that Veterans need a transport to be able to bring their weapons to bear, and Scions become a better option with their deep strike and better guns/armor. They just need something small to give them a better niche within the army. If Chimera get a small buff/points decrease, then that can also help Vets, but they still will play second fiddle to Scions.

Commissars, I dunno, they were too strong before, but they are too weak now. Maybe give them a niche rule where they reduce Leadership Penalties by 1. That way they have a purpose for being there, and can mitigate losses when facing stacked Leadership debuffs, but they are also not single handedly holding the line.

I am mostly curious though what the FAQ has in store for other armies as well, what is getting buffed, what is getting nerfed, etc. The single data point of Guard Infantry Squads +1ppm doesn't really tell us what else is going on.

**Galas**

Lance845 wrote:
Galas wrote:
If it has 9 wounds it can't degrade.

EDIT: I should have read everything

But ey, can't Tyranid Guard shoot 72" indirect fire weapons? that do flat 2 damage?

This dudes:

Spoiler:

Hive Guard have a heavy 2, 36", str 8, ap -2, d3 dmg gun that does not require LoS.

Their other gun is 24" and does require LoS.

Ok. Then it was my impresion that they had a 72" range

**koooaei**

Galas wrote:
Ohman Lasscannons are so underpowered. I keep shooting Ork Boyz with them and I only return like 10% of my investment in points in a 7 turn game!

Don't be disingenous, Unit.

Well, technically if you're shooting orks with an ig lazcannon team, you're returning around 70% of it's cost over a 7 turn game. That's if the ig dude is unbuffed.

I'd also like to point out that a plasma suicide scion comsquad returns around 45% of it's cost emidiately on the drop by shooting ork boyz. Ork boyz. The unit that's supposed to counter multi-wound special weapons.
GW please nerf.

**Vaktathi**

AnomanderRake wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:
Commissar Benny wrote:
...Manticore nerf...

What, the one that bumped it from 125 to 145pts (or whatever it was)?

I'd like to state for the record that my Warp Hunter is 245pts for a quarter of the Manticore's main gun and it is good. Calling a 20pt bump a "nerf" on a unit that's still at least 50pts too cheap is kind of silly.
Perhaps the Warp Hunter is absurdly overcosted instead? A Manticore is basically a barebones LRBT that trades potentially up to 3 turns of main weapon fire, a point lower of Toughness, an extra wound, extra weapons upgrades options, and Lumbering Behemoth...for the ability to shoot without LoS and a 9pt cost decrease. The ability to shoot without LoS is extremely variable in utility depending on an array of factors (sometimes it can be amazing, other times you're playing on planet bowling ball and it is utterly irrelevant), but ultimately the idea that a Manticore should be a 200pt tank is absurd.

Problem: The Warp Hunter isn't absurdly overcosted. It's a completely playable unit.

Further problem: "Potentially up to three turns of main weapon fire" is a bit of a joke; I have yet to see an 8e game that wasn't decided by most of one side dying by turn four, and the alpha strike is way too decisive for the tradeoff in shooting in turn five and on to matter.

Addendum: Grinding Advance bumps you from d6 shots to 2d6 shots. The Manticore already has 2d6 shots. The ability to move and fire at no penalty is irrelevant when you're comparing it to a unit that can shoot the entire table without moving.

On considering the facts I will amend that if you were to ignore the ability to fire without line of sight you might be more correct (you're making a unit a bit squishier to make it hit a bit harder), but fundamentally to me the problem is that the Manticore is giving up things that don't matter for things that do matter. You're giving up the ability to move and fire at no penalty in exchange for the ability to hit the entire table without moving. You're trading Toughness/Wounds for the ability to camp in a corner behind a layer of chaff the thickness of your deployment zone and still contribute 100% of your firepower to the game. You're giving up shooting from turn five onwards in exchange for a vastly stronger/more reliable alpha strike that can't be avoided by counter-deploying.

The issue of ignoring line of sight is vastly more important than you're suggesting it is, simply because line of sight allows me to force a Leman Russ to move up the table to engage. A Manticore can camp in the corner where I can't interact with it because it's got the range to cover the table and doesn't give a s*** about line of sight, which means it's positioning is always perfectly optimal, whereas a Russ may have to choose between exposing itself to shorter ranged weapons/chargers and not getting shots.

So yeah. The Manticore on pure stats isn't OP by comparison to the Russ, but every disadvantage it gets is mitigated, negated, or outright ignored by indirect fire.

If ample LoS blocking terrain is present in the right spots, sure.

However, this is far from certain. Sometimes the terrain spread just doesn't work to make the Manticore worth it over a Russ. Sometimes the table will just not have lots of LoS blocking terrain period. Sometimes such terrain literally isnt available at the club/store/event/basement/etc. I've been to tournaments where game 1 theres almost no LoS to anything further away than 24" and game 2 everything has LoS to everywhere from anywhere. Sometimes a flank collapses or a unit Deep Strikes into the right spot and the tank has to move or die.

Sometimes games are close and what happens in the late game matters. With changes to facings, cover and LoS with 8E, direct LoS is a lot less of an issue for the battle tanks than it used to be.

There's enough there that the Manticore's advantages will not universally and reliably apply, and simply assuming it always will and demanding it cost 200pts as a result is a good way to see Manticores disappear from tables overnight.

To me, they balance pretty well with the couple usable Russ variants as HS units. The tables you play on will have a much bigger factor than the simple basic costing.

**Xenomancers**

kurhanik wrote:
What is even going on in this thread at this point? Have any other leaks on the FAQ stuff surfaced beyond 5ppm Guardsmen, or is everything still hypothetical beyond that?

Infantry 5ppm, a blanket system wide Indirect Fire rule of a -1 to hit when out of LOS, price of Melta and Plasma swapped. I think that covers most of the issues with Guards too strong stuff, at least if the Smite nerf stays as is.

On the flip side - Veterans, Commissars, certain Leman Russ variants, and transports need some love.

Bumping Infantry up 1ppm gives Vets an indirect buff, but you still run into the issue that if you want bodies, Infantry and Conscripts are cheaper, and if you want quality shots, factoring in the fact that Veterans need a transport to be able to bring their weapons to bear, and Scions become a better option with their deep strike and better guns/armor. They just need something small to give them a better niche within the army. If Chimera get a small buff/points decrease, then that can also help Vets, but they still will play second fiddle to Scions.

Commissars, I dunno, they were too strong before, but they are too weak now. Maybe give them a niche rule where they reduce Leadership Penalties by 1. That way they have a purpose for being there, and can mitigate losses when facing stacked Leadership debuffs, but they are also not single handedly holding the line.

I am mostly curious though what the FAQ has in store for other armies as well, what is getting buffed, what is getting nerfed, etc. The single data point of Guard Infantry Squads +1ppm doesn't really tell us what else is going on.

If vetrens need love - literally every infantry in the game that isn't an IG infantry squad needs more love. Except maybe the new pink horrors.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
AnomanderRake wrote:
Commissar Benny wrote:
...Manticore nerf...

What, the one that bumped it from 125 to 145pts (or whatever it was)?

I'd like to state for the record that my Warp Hunter is 245pts for a quarter of the Manticore's main gun and it is good. Calling a 20pt bump a "nerf" on a unit that's still at least 50pts too cheap is kind of silly.
Perhaps the Warp Hunter is absurdly overcosted instead? A Manticore is basically a barebones LRBT that trades potentially up to 3 turns of main weapon fire, a point lower of Toughness, an extra wound, extra weapons upgrades options, and Lumbering Behemoth...for the ability to shoot without LoS and a 9pt cost decrease. The ability to shoot without LoS is extremely variable in utility depending on an array of factors (sometimes it can be amazing, other times you're playing on planet bowling ball and it is utterly irrelevant), but ultimately the idea that a Manticore should be a 200pt tank is absurd.

Problem: The Warp Hunter isn't absurdly overcosted. It's a completely playable unit.

Further problem: "Potentially up to three turns of main weapon fire" is a bit of a joke; I have yet to see an 8e game that wasn't decided by most of one side dying by turn four, and the alpha strike is way too decisive for the tradeoff in shooting in turn five and on to matter.

Addendum: Grinding Advance bumps you from d6 shots to 2d6 shots. The Manticore already has 2d6 shots. The ability to move and fire at no penalty is irrelevant when you're comparing it to a unit that can shoot the entire table without moving.

On considering the facts I will amend that if you were to ignore the ability to fire without line of sight you might be more correct (you're making a unit a bit squishier to make it hit a bit harder), but fundamentally to me the problem is that the Manticore is giving up things that don't matter for things that do matter. You're giving up the ability to move and fire at no penalty in exchange for the ability to hit the entire table without moving. You're trading Toughness/Wounds for the ability to camp in a corner behind a layer of chaff the thickness of your deployment zone and still contribute 100% of your firepower to the game. You're giving up shooting from turn five onwards in exchange for a vastly stronger/more reliable alpha strike that can't be avoided by counter-deploying.

The issue of ignoring line of sight is vastly more important than you're suggesting it is, simply because line of sight allows me to force a Leman Russ to move up the table to engage. A Manticore can camp in the corner where I can't interact with it because it's got the range to cover the table and doesn't give a s*** about line of sight, which means it's positioning is always perfectly optimal, whereas a Russ may have to choose between exposing itself to shorter ranged weapons/chargers and not getting shots.

So yeah. The Manticore on pure stats isn't OP by comparison to the Russ, but every disadvantage it gets is mitigated, negated, or outright ignored by indirect fire.
If ample LoS blocking terrain is present in the right spots, sure.

However, this is far from certain. Sometimes the terrain spread just doesn't work to make the Manticore worth it over a Russ. Sometimes the table will just not have lots of LoS blocking terrain period. Sometimes such terrain literally isnt available at the club/store/event/basement/etc. I've been to tournaments where game 1 theres almost no LoS to anything further away than 24" and game 2 everything has LoS to everywhere from anywhere. Sometimes a flank collapses or a unit Deep Strikes into the right spot and the tank has to move or die.

Sometimes games are close and what happens in the late game matters. With changes to facings, cover and LoS with 8E, direct LoS is a lot less of an issue for the battle tanks than it used to be.

There's enough there that the Manticore's advantages will not universally and reliably apply, and simply assuming it always will and demanding it cost 200pts as a result is a good way to see Manticores disappear from tables overnight.

To me, they balance pretty well with the couple usable Russ variants as HS units. The tables you play on will have a much bigger factor than the simple basic costing.

Often completely hiding your manticore isn't necessary - though it's what you prefer to do when you can. Just deploying them last and making sure that most of your enemies big guns that get negatives for trying to move into LOS of the manticores is enough.

**Martel732**

200 pts is too much, but if you compare to what other armies get for 145 pts, that doesn't seem quite right either.

**Insectum7**

Marmatag wrote:
It just needs to be priced appropriately.

My proposal for the Manticore:

Lower the wounds to 9; Degrading at 6 wounds, and 3 wounds.
Lower the toughness to 5.
Lower the range to 36".
Set the shots to a flat 6.
Drop the strength of the gun to 8.
Increase the cost slightly.
Lower the save to 4+
If not within 24" of a unit capable of issuing orders, it suffers -1 to hit for not targeting the closest enemy.

Sound fair? This is what Tyranids get for indirect fire.

So what do Guard get as Genestealer replacements?

**Galas**

koooaei wrote:
Galas wrote:
Ohman Lasscannons are so underpowered. I keep shooting Ork Boyz with them and I only return like 10% of my investment in points in a 7 turn game!

Don't be disingenous, Unit.

Well, technically if you're shooting orks with an ig lazcannon team, you're returning around 70% of it's cost over a 7 turn game. That's if the ig dude is unbuffed.

I'd also like to point out that a plasma suicide scion comsquad returns around 45% of it's cost emidiately on the drop by shooting ork boyz. Ork boyz. The unit that's supposed to counter multi-wound special weapons.
GW please nerf.

I keep saying that Scions should be like Primaris Reivers. Reduce their point cost by 1ppm, and make them pay for they grav-chute, 4ppm. That way Tempestus in Tauroxes are more viable, and you can better balance plasma deepstriking scions without destroying any possibility of using them in transports. (And yeah before "b-b-but other units don't pay for they depstrike!" Ideally all should. More flexibility for us)

Insectum7 wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
It just needs to be priced appropriately.

My proposal for the Manticore:

Lower the wounds to 9; Degrading at 6 wounds, and 3 wounds.
Lower the toughness to 5.
Lower the range to 36".
Set the shots to a flat 6.
Drop the strength of the gun to 8.
Increase the cost slightly.
Lower the save to 4+
If not within 24" of a unit capable of issuing orders, it suffers -1 to hit for not targeting the closest enemy.

Sound fair? This is what Tyranids get for indirect fire.

So what do Guard get as Genestealer replacements?

Bullgryns, one of the best meele units in the game right now? (And I say this as somebody that plays regularly with 9 bullgryns+Celestine. 2+/4++ easy peasy.)

**Slayer-Fan123**

Insectum7 wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
It just needs to be priced appropriately.

My proposal for the Manticore:

Lower the wounds to 9; Degrading at 6 wounds, and 3 wounds.
Lower the toughness to 5.
Lower the range to 36".
Set the shots to a flat 6.
Drop the strength of the gun to 8.
Increase the cost slightly.
Lower the save to 4+
If not within 24" of a unit capable of issuing orders, it suffers -1 to hit for not targeting the closest enemy.

Sound fair? This is what Tyranids get for indirect fire.

So what do Guard get as Genestealer replacements?

They don't NEED a Genestealer replacement! You're completely missing the point.

**Insectum7**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Marmatag wrote:
It just needs to be priced appropriately.

My proposal for the Manticore:

Lower the wounds to 9; Degrading at 6 wounds, and 3 wounds.
Lower the toughness to 5.
Lower the range to 36".
Set the shots to a flat 6.
Drop the strength of the gun to 8.
Increase the cost slightly.
Lower the save to 4+
If not within 24" of a unit capable of issuing orders, it suffers -1 to hit for not targeting the closest enemy.

Sound fair? This is what Tyranids get for indirect fire.

So what do Guard get as Genestealer replacements?

They don't NEED a Genestealer replacement! You're completely missing the point.

Nope. Different armies get different ***t. Easy peasy.

**kurhanik**

Xenomancers wrote:
kurhanik wrote:
What is even going on in this thread at this point? Have any other leaks on the FAQ stuff surfaced beyond 5ppm Guardsmen, or is everything still hypothetical beyond that?

Infantry 5ppm, a blanket system wide Indirect Fire rule of a -1 to hit when out of LOS, price of Melta and Plasma swapped. I think that covers most of the issues with Guards too strong stuff, at least if the Smite nerf stays as is.

On the flip side - Veterans, Commissars, certain Leman Russ variants, and transports need some love.

Bumping Infantry up 1ppm gives Vets an indirect buff, but you still run into the issue that if you want bodies, Infantry and Conscripts are cheaper, and if you want quality shots, factoring in the fact that Veterans need a transport to be able to bring their weapons to bear, and Scions become a better option with their deep strike and better guns/armor. They just need something small to give them a better niche within the army. If Chimera get a small buff/points decrease, then that can also help Vets, but they still will play second fiddle to Scions.

Commissars, I dunno, they were too strong before, but they are too weak now. Maybe give them a niche rule where they reduce Leadership Penalties by 1. That way they have a purpose for being there, and can mitigate losses when facing stacked Leadership debuffs, but they are also not single handedly holding the line.

I am mostly curious though what the FAQ has in store for other armies as well, what is getting buffed, what is getting nerfed, etc. The single data point of Guard Infantry Squads +1ppm doesn't really tell us what else is going on.

If vetrens need love - literally every infantry in the game that isn't an IG infantry squad needs more love. Except maybe the new pink horrors.

Imperial Guard Veterans - 6ppm, Elite slot, 5+ save, lasgun (s3, rapid fire 1, 24")
Skirtarii Ranger - 7ppm, Troop slot, 4+ save, 6+ invulnerable save, Canticles, and Galvanic Rifle (s4, rapid fire 1, 30", AP -1 on wound roll of 6)
Battle Sister Squad - 9ppm, Troop slot, 3+ save, +1 leadership, Shield of Faith (6+ invuln, small chance of denying psykers), Acts of Faith, Boltgun (s4 rapid fire 1, 24")

Yup, they compare very favorably with literally every single infantry unit in the game.

**Vaktathi**

Xenomancers wrote:

Often completely hiding your manticore isn't necessary - though it's what you prefer to do when you can. Just deploying them last and making sure that most of your enemies big guns that get negatives for trying to move into LOS of the manticores is enough.

Sometimes, sure, absolutely, but you can do the same thing to a Russ also. Sometimes its not about hiding the Manticore itself, sometimes there's just no need for LoS ignoring capabilities because the opponent doesn't have anything to hide behind or is choosing not to depending on the table and opposing force.

Marmatag wrote:
It just needs to be priced appropriately.

My proposal for the Manticore:

Lower the wounds to 9; Degrading at 6 wounds, and 3 wounds.
Lower the toughness to 5.
Lower the range to 36".
Set the shots to a flat 6.
Drop the strength of the gun to 8.
Increase the cost slightly.
Lower the save to 4+
If not within 24" of a unit capable of issuing orders, it suffers -1 to hit for not targeting the closest enemy.

Sound fair? This is what Tyranids get for indirect fire.

sure, if we're taking a single ability as the entire value of a unit and assuming all other stats are irrelevant, and taking it out of a force that has always been focused on long range firepower and artillery and try to run it in an army that has never been intended to possess powerful long range artillery.

But that would be silly

**Martel732**

My proposal for the ignore LoS unit is to keep upping their cost unit they are no longer autotakes/autospammed. There is such a price point for every unit as written.

**Colonel Cross**

How many of you are actually playing against imperial guard players and experiencing this overwhelmingly OP butt kicking? Just lol. Get off the computer and actually go play with your toy soldiers.

I feel like most people here just play "here's my army and it fights your army" and don't ever randomize the deployment zones or missions. If you play against a guard army in a maelstrom of war game and you only had a handful of models left while he still had 1/4 of his army, guess what? You still WON the game. Guard are strong at a stand up fight but if you actually play OBJs they're going to struggle.

And I can't believe people are actually thinking Manticores are OP. I only used mine twice since the codex dropped. Hardly an auto include. My shop doesn't have very good LoS blocking terrain and most of my opponents have tons of strong flyers and deep striking lists so there's no safety.

**Martel732**

IG excel at ITC objectives, because I have to score them at the beginning of my next turn. IG have no problems with ITC maelstrom at all. Murdering huge chunks of enemy army every turn generally fixes all woes.

My games against IG:

Concession turn 3
Concession turn 2
Narrow victory turn 7
Concession turn 4
Concession turn 1
Concession turn 3

**Colonel Cross**

I don't play ITC, I play with my friends and folks at the local shop. We use actual GW missions.

And tournaments at my local shop do not allow units over a certain PL and generally limit #s of FOCs and usually must be mono faction.

**Martel732**

Colonel Cross wrote:
I don't play ITC, I play with my friends and folks at the local shop. We use actual GW missions.

And tournaments at my local shop do not allow units over a certain PL and generally limit #s of FOCs and usually must be mono faction.

We're basically not playing the same game, so it's hard to compare experiences. Mono faction is certainly not the norm in 8th ed.

However, it's not like guardsmen can't move twice in a turn with orders. That's as fast as a jump pack marine.

**Colonel Cross**

That's the point. Why require GWs to make changes when tournaments are literally playing by their own rules?

When I play my friends and random people at the shop with regular GW missions and rules, the games are almost always fun and come down to the wire. Occasionally they'll be decided early but none of us are power gamers and just play lists we like. Not spammy net lists. My 2k TAC pure Catachan list just almost lost a maelstrom game to my buddy's pure Primaris list. But I got a solid turn 4 and 5 card draw and put everything I had into hail Mary plays. It was a super close game and my buddy thought I was going to tap out in turn 3 it was looking so bad for me but my guard don't retreat so we played it out. It ended up being our most fun game of 8th so far.

I think people forget that 40k was never designed to be a competitive tabletop wargame and just try having fun with it. And if people are running a min-maxing list, simply don't play against them.

I swear people are perma butt hurt on this forum and I'd wager I'd decline a game with most because it wouldn't be and fun to play against grown men crying about toy soldiers. There should be a sub forum expressly for the WAAC gamers who play these lame ITC tournaments so us normal hobbyists don't have to sort through threads of whining about OP Eldar or guard.

**Martel732**

Because in most matchups, ITC rules make for better games than GW's rules.

So in competitive play, everyone is a power gamer basically, and are looking for the most efficient everything. And that's the environment where we can detect miscosted units.

**Colonel Cross**

This is where your opinion of "better" and mine differ.

Is the Relic mission necessarily balanced? No way. Is it a freaking blast Everytime I play it? Heck yes.

Are ITC missions balanced? I haven't thought about it much but I'd guess most agree they are. Are they fun? I'd say no.

**bananathug**

I don't understand people like Colonel Cross.

How does people wanting a balanced game hurt your casual beer and pretzels experience? If you guys are just making up all the rules you want to enjoy the game your way who says you have to use updated points. It shouldn't matter to your gaming group.

My shop has plenty of terrain, super competitive gamers and I want to be able to play there with my models without creating our own version of 40k (8.5e)

In order to not just pick-up my guys by turn 2 (or my opponent to do the same) I need there to be some form of balance between armies. For you to show up to your beer and pretzels game night who cares what the rules are.

Good for you that people in your meta don't spam the nastiest armies they can find. But for those of us that play 40k by the rules given to us by GW some pretty unbalanced things need to be fixed (reapers, spears, guard, fire raptors, oblits).

You've obviously never played the relic mission against celestine who just runs out there, grabs it turn 1 and then flys back to the other side of the board. That is not a fun game. Getting tabled top of turn 2 is not a fun game.

The answer of "well just don't play them" is a defeatist attitude that does nothing to advance the hobby. I'm not shedding real life tears over 4 vs 5 point guardsmen but I fail to see why people trying to tease out what a good balance point would be is so offensive to some people.

The fact that you (Colonel) fall back on insults "lame tournaments" "grown men crying about plastic soldiers" illustrates the worst part of the CAAC mindset. Anyone not doing it my way is a lame cry baby. Even calling yourself "normal hobbyist" is trying to take a dig at players who don't play the game your way.

No one is forcing you to wade through 16+ pages of salt, flames and one or two good posts but if you are going to why not try to post something that will move the conversation forward or some sort of input instead of a post that literally boils down to "you guys are stupid for wanting a balanced game..."

**HuskyWarhammer**

Maybe it's just me/my group of friends, but I feel like we're almost always in a nice middle ground between the extreme casual and extreme competitive that bananaslug describes. He seems to really acknowledge those scenarios, where most of my games are balanced by player consent/communication beforehand. Things like, "Hey, I haven't run my knight/scatbikes/etc. in a while, mind if I do?" and the players adjust as needed.

I admit, this is extremely anecdotal, but I suspect it's more how most people play.

bananathug wrote:
But for those of us that play 40k by the rules given to us by GW

I do think we could use without the condescension, though. And Colonel, I mean you, too. Perhaps moreso.

**Colonel Cross**

I thought it was easy to understand. This is a hobby. With adults playing with toy soldiers and people on here are having aneurysms over it. It just sickens me. It's depressing.

All of this discussion and speculation and math is just wasted breathe because everyone here has put more thought into these changes than GW, I'd wager. I just don't understand why people get so worked up over it knowing that GW doesn't really have a system for balancing the game. Honestly, I read these threads because I always half expect some genius programmer type to have developed a program to balance points, abilities, weapons, stats, etc and offer the results as a sort of beta for people here to try out. I recall one argument proposed before about changing points across the board. I think they wanted to double everything so there was better granularity. I'd support the hell out of that.

I'm not saying I don't want a balanced game. That's obviously what everyone wants.

**RogueApiary**

Martel732 wrote:
IG excel at ITC objectives, because I have to score them at the beginning of my next turn. IG have no problems with ITC maelstrom at all. Murdering huge chunks of enemy army every turn generally fixes all woes.

My games against IG:

Concession turn 3
Concession turn 2
Narrow victory turn 7
Concession turn 4
Concession turn 1
Concession turn 3

How do IG 'excel' at ITC? If anything, the 2.5 hour limit coupled with the format seriously handicaps them. Every EoR scoring is mini kill points, which guard are terrible at because of all the small fragile units. You can't even bring Scions to ITC missions without giving your opponent an easy 3 VP. Bringing a Tank Commander/Pask likewise gives up as much as five points for destroying a single model. My opponents regularly got three or four of the DBTC secondary points just by whacking a vehicle and two infantry squads or Sentinels. That Raven Guard player who beat me by 15 points and the DA player were damn near tabled, but it didn't matter because the round ended and they had more points from their strong early game and control of the center board objectives.

**andysonic1**

Colonel Cross wrote:
knowing that GW doesn't really have a system for balancing the game.

They do. It's called ITC.

**Colonel Cross**

andysonic1 wrote:
Colonel Cross wrote:
knowing that GW doesn't really have a system for balancing the game.
They do. It's called ITC.

I meant balancing of the game in development by the rules writers and developers. Not in "patches."

**NurglesR0T**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
fe40k wrote:
See edit: You're aiming a 1d3 weapon at 1W models. It's overkill - find a better target (big monster) to shoot at, and you'll get more accurate results.

More "accurate?"

Perhaps the way to beat manticores is to not try to fight them with big stuff, mmh? Though I will say my superheavy tanks have also crushed our 9-manticore friend, mostly because there's no terrain in the world to hide 9 manticores behind and they die to a stiff breeze. Like a Baneblade cannon.

So the solution to beat IG is to play IG? Priceless.

**Peregrine**

Marmatag wrote:
Sound fair? This is what Tyranids get for indirect fire.

IOW, a 100% shooting army with a major artillery theme has better artillery than a melee army.