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.

Things should be balanced across factions. Khorne Skull cannons should be good shooting units. Tau shooting units shouldn't be just "better" (In overall power, they could be better if they cost more points, etc...). But the difference between Khorne and Tau is that Khorne has ONE shooting unit, and Tau has much more and can actually make different playstiles of shooting work. (Or they should). Kroot, for example, could be competitive and usefull light-meele units, but with the lack of other meele units in the army, obviously Tau, as a faction, can't work as a meele army even if Kroots by themselves are usefull and balanced. They are just a small tactical aid to a very focused faction.

If Tyranid receive a artillery unit, it should be, in a power level scale, at the same level as Imperial Guard ones, just like Ogryns/Bullgryns should be usefull meele units (As they are now, at least bullgryns) and not paying a "tax" for being in Imperial Guard. Because, even with that "tax" being nice in theory, in practice it translated to no one using those units and doubling down in the units that are good for the army.

If you want to keep the "theme" of a faction, then just don't give Tyranids a ton of artillery like Imperial Guard has, don't give Khorne a ton of shooting, etc... but if they have one of those units? They should be absolutely competitive and comparable with other equivalent units in other armies in their designed space.

Zerg shooting units don't pay any kind of "tax" because they are in a "rush meele army" compared with Terran ones, that have literally no meele units. They are all balanced and usefull, and comparable with similar units of other factions.

(Please refrain from "but if everything is balanced everything is the same!" because thats not how it works.)

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Why require GWs to make changes when tournaments are literally playing by their own rules?

I think that highlights an important point... this is all just an exercise in futility. No one will require anything of GW, because they have no power beyond how much money they give the company or maybe influence changes based on feedback, attending tournaments, etc.

I realize I can just not read the thread and go occupy my time elsewhere (and I shall), but what is the point of all this, really? None of these proposed changes are likely to ever be implemented. Carry on, don't mind me, it just doesn't seem worth the time.

 Insectum7 wrote:

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.

And when two units fill the same role and one is strictly better, you're telling them too bad and to L2P. So Like usual you're missing the point.

Guard have nothing similar to a Genestealer role, but an indirect fire unit with high strength rather than JUST penetration? We can make the comparison.

 Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote:

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Why require GWs to make changes when tournaments are literally playing by their own rules?

I think that highlights an important point... this is all just an exercise in futility. No one will require anything of GW, because they have no power beyond how much money they give the company or maybe influence changes based on feedback, attending tournaments, etc.

I realize I can just not read the thread and go occupy my time elsewhere (and I shall), but what is the point of all this, really? None of these proposed changes are likely to ever be implemented. Carry on, don't mind me, it just doesn't seem worth the time.

You said it much better than I could. It's an exercise in futility and people get a crummy attitude. All the while, GW 40k rules writers will continue bumbling their way along through the last of the codexes and the next FAQ.

And Orks don't get Space Marines, because they're Orks. Mind-boggling concept, I know.

Guards going to 5ppm is fine however they need to fix the commissar and just make him an optional reroll to morale with no model dying as ancost. It’s simple and the same Effect most armies get.

RogueApiary wrote:

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.

Okay. To be clear, they are not using the combined arms missions, then? That's what I'm familiar with. What's the EoR scoring format, because combined arms missions don't have those.

 Insectum7 wrote:
And Orks don't get Space Marines, because they're Orks. Mind-boggling concept, I know.

You're deliberately being obtuse at this point. Orks can get units with similar roles, and you can compare efficiency.

This is NOT rocket science to figure out. Mind-boggling concept, I know.

Wait, this is at 17 pages and there is still not a single reliable source?

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Nids are not a melee army. Nids can be specialized to shoot or melee or both.

 Grimgold wrote:
Wait, this is at 17 pages and there is still not a single reliable source?

You are correct.

 Grimgold wrote:
Wait, this is at 17 pages and there is still not a single reliable source?

If it would help, we could add Commissar Benny's ass to the rumor tracker. Since that's the origin of this rumor.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Wait, this is at 17 pages and there is still not a single reliable source?

If it would help, we could add Commissar Benny's ass to the rumor tracker. Since that's the origin of this rumor.

Man, but when was the last time we had a thread raging about Imperial Guard? The LVO one did us lost track of the real target and focus on Eldar like, for a WHOLE week.
It feels good to go back to the proper tradition.

Has no one mentioned DKoK? They’re 5 ppm. Since we know GW doesn’t screw with forgeworld rules, doesn’t that just mean that DKoK are just better guardsmen now? This doesn’t make any sense.

What are DKoK rules?

lliu wrote:
Has no one mentioned DKoK? They’re 5 ppm. Since we know GW doesn’t screw with forgeworld rules, doesn’t that just mean that DKoK are just better guardsmen now? This doesn’t make any sense.

Not exactly, they lose out on some of the most powerful orders and don't really have unique strategems or things like that. Not to mention most of the high end competitive lists value offense over defense, which means regiments like cadia and catachan beat them out even if the guardsmen are the same cost.

 Galas wrote:
What are DKoK rules?

Too many differences to really list here.

So Basically Commissar Benny invited all of the guard haters and apologist to a fight, and they have been going at it for 17 pages based on a "heard it from a guy who can't be named" style of rumor? I suppose The more surprising question is the mods are ok with this?

Whats the difference? People discuss armies over/under costs all the time. Either it will be true and well have this thread again or it wont and well probably have this thread again.

Why would a mod step in as long as everyone is folowing the rules.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
And Orks don't get Space Marines, because they're Orks. Mind-boggling concept, I know.

You're deliberately being obtuse at this point. Orks can get units with similar roles, and you can compare efficiency.

This is NOT rocket science to figure out. Mind-boggling concept, I know.

Nope. Theres no reason for armies to even have comparable units. Tau don't get assault terminators, marines don't get heavy artillery, and IG don't get greater daemons. Welcome to the faction diversity of 40k.

Martel732 wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

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.

Okay. To be clear, they are not using the combined arms missions, then? That's what I'm familiar with. What's the EoR scoring format, because combined arms missions don't have those.

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2017/10/09/itc-champions-missions-draft/

These have been in effect largely unchanged since SoCal Open...

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
And Orks don't get Space Marines, because they're Orks. Mind-boggling concept, I know.

You're deliberately being obtuse at this point. Orks can get units with similar roles, and you can compare efficiency.

This is NOT rocket science to figure out. Mind-boggling concept, I know.

Nope. Theres no reason for armies to even have comparable units. Tau don't get assault terminators, marines don't get heavy artillery, and IG don't get greater daemons. Welcome to the faction diversity of 40k.

1) Krootoxen
2) Whirlwind
3) Sly Marbo

GG EZ

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
And Orks don't get Space Marines, because they're Orks. Mind-boggling concept, I know.

You're deliberately being obtuse at this point. Orks can get units with similar roles, and you can compare efficiency.

This is NOT rocket science to figure out. Mind-boggling concept, I know.

Nope. Theres no reason for armies to even have comparable units. Tau don't get assault terminators, marines don't get heavy artillery, and IG don't get greater daemons. Welcome to the faction diversity of 40k.

1) Krootoxen
2) Whirlwind
3) Sly Marbo

GG EZ

. Except those aren't equivalent units, merely similar.

Lold at Marbo

Armies don't need equivalent units, but a way to deal with everything. I mean orks need some anti tank like anyone else but it doesn't mean that they should have a lascannon equivalent, they could wreck armors in melee for example.

Every army should be able to counter any kind of opponent but not in the same way. Faction diversity is a value, but all the factions should be on a similar level of competitiveness.

When you can chose units from 10 codexes with no drawbacks, while other armies can choose from 2-3 or just a single one, it's impossible to have a balanced game.

I'm saying this because guardsmen don't need a nerf, AM tanks and artillery do. Pure AM lists' strenght is based on their cheap heavy weapons, not the spam of the tiny solidiers. Soups rely a lot on those soldiers, but the problem is the nature of the soup itself, not the unit. Ban the soup, fix those few overpowered units (not the guardsmen) and problem solved.

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
And Orks don't get Space Marines, because they're Orks. Mind-boggling concept, I know.

You're deliberately being obtuse at this point. Orks can get units with similar roles, and you can compare efficiency.

This is NOT rocket science to figure out. Mind-boggling concept, I know.

Nope. Theres no reason for armies to even have comparable units. Tau don't get assault terminators, marines don't get heavy artillery, and IG don't get greater daemons. Welcome to the faction diversity of 40k.

1) Krootoxen
2) Whirlwind
3) Sly Marbo

GG EZ

DId you just compare a low level assassin style unit to a Greater Daemon? WTF?!?!

Carol says: "Hey guys, this Guardsman, wow his muscles are as a Great Daemon, no?"
Literally the full Platoon: "Shut up Carol"

I dont even want to know why you think Marbo is equal to a Greater Daemon in anyway.......

 Blackie wrote:
Armies don't need equivalent units, but a way to deal with everything. I mean orks need some anti tank like anyone else but it doesn't mean that they should have a lascannon equivalent, they could wreck armors in melee for example.

Every army should be able to counter any kind of opponent but not in the same way. Faction diversity is a value, but all the factions should be on a similar level of competitiveness.

When you can chose units from 10 codexes with no drawbacks, while other armies can choose from 2-3 or just a single one, it's impossible to have a balanced game.

I'm saying this because guardsmen don't need a nerf, AM tanks and artillery do. Pure AM lists' strenght is based on their cheap heavy weapons, not the spam of the tiny solidiers. Soups rely a lot on those soldiers, but the problem is the nature of the soup itself, not the unit. Ban the soup, fix those few overpowered units (not the guardsmen) and problem solved.

I would argue that AM needs a lot of adjustment for their own internal balance and balance with everyone else. Making IS 5ppm would be really good for the internal balance of conscripts vs IS vs Vets and giving each of those units more of a place. It also just so happens to match up better with external balance and the way these units compare to others infantry in terms of stat line and effectiveness as well. Likewise Tac marines could stand to drop a point or 2.

Their cheap heavy weapons are also a problem. But it's not the only problem.

However, Vets can't have a place until they're troops again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
And Orks don't get Space Marines, because they're Orks. Mind-boggling concept, I know.

You're deliberately being obtuse at this point. Orks can get units with similar roles, and you can compare efficiency.

This is NOT rocket science to figure out. Mind-boggling concept, I know.

Nope. Theres no reason for armies to even have comparable units. Tau don't get assault terminators, marines don't get heavy artillery, and IG don't get greater daemons. Welcome to the faction diversity of 40k.

Hazard Suits going into melee (which did happen, but they became stupid expensive at the end of it) are the best comparison to Terminators and what they're meant to be (I like you tried to separate them as though that mattered. Good one!) Which is an elite shock close quarters shock trooper, and Marines have plenty of artillery. What makes it "heavy" to you? The artillery is going to be categorized by price and the target it beat goes after.

Greater Daemon isn't a category so I don't know what you really want. Distraction perhaps?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The better comparison there would be doing Greater Daemons vs other Monstrous Creatures in other armies. Good job being disingenuous again though.

Alright slayer fan, nice missing the point there.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
And Orks don't get Space Marines, because they're Orks. Mind-boggling concept, I know.

You're deliberately being obtuse at this point. Orks can get units with similar roles, and you can compare efficiency.

This is NOT rocket science to figure out. Mind-boggling concept, I know.

Nope. Theres no reason for armies to even have comparable units. Tau don't get assault terminators, marines don't get heavy artillery, and IG don't get greater daemons. Welcome to the faction diversity of 40k.

1) Krootoxen
2) Whirlwind
3) Sly Marbo

GG EZ

DId you just compare a low level assassin style unit to a Greater Daemon? WTF?!?!

Carol says: "Hey guys, this Guardsman, wow his muscles are as a Great Daemon, no?"
Literally the full Platoon: "Shut up Carol"

I dont even want to know why you think Marbo is equal to a Greater Daemon in anyway.......

Not sure if this is serious or not so I'm going to leave this here....


In my opinion, soup is fine since it can fix holes that certain armies have like daemons needing good shooting and custodes needing guardsmen or skitarii blobs to protect them. The fact that it's so easy to use and abuse is the problem. I'd fix it by needing lists to have one main codex which can have any detachment, and the rest only being able to use patrol detachments.