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.

 Bobthehero wrote:

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
50/50 is not a penalty its baseline

7th had penalties for indirect fire with full scatter

a -1 to hit for indirect fire is more than fair.

7th had no way to stack that full scatter with other penalties.

Thats why a 6 should always hit.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
I'm assuming people who are saying the guard artillery is too good are still scarred from the opening days of 8th where tourny guard armies were plasma Scions, conscripts, and a half dozen Earthshaker platforms?

My basilisk regularly only gets 1 or 2 damage rolls through. 2-6 dmg per turn is too effective? I gotta tell ya, I only take mine if I have 108 points open in my list. I'd rather take my Hellhound! You Nerf that stuff any more and it'll go the way of the Commissar.

For 108 pts, yes, it's too effective. I can't sniff anything that does that kind of damage for 108. Much less something that ignores LoS.

Mono-Faction: Hey Soup, look at all these cool faction specific toys I get!

Soup: Big deal....we get those too.

Mono-Faction: But you get to cherry pick all the best units???

Soup: Haha, yeah.

Median Trace wrote:
Mono-Faction: Hey Soup, look at all these cool faction specific toys I get!

Soup: Big deal....we get those too.

Mono-Faction: But you get to cherry pick all the best units???

Soup: Haha, yeah.

The key is eliminating the concept of "best" units.

 WrentheFaceless wrote:
50/50 is not a penalty its baseline

50/50 absolutely is a penalty when similar units(Whirlwinds, Thunderfire Cannons for example) are coming in tens of points cheaper with minor differences and BS 3+.

7th had penalties for indirect fire with full scatter

a -1 to hit for indirect fire is more than fair.

As mentioned, indirect fire with full scatter is a very different beast to Indirect Fire being a -1 to hit and another penalty for an army trait, with potentially a third -1 to hit in the mix thanks to a unit's special ability or a Psyker power or something of that nature.

Sorry some armies have actual functional answers to IG cheese units, but the rest of us would like a chance to win, too. I still find it really hard to believe that a good IG list can't brute force through a -1 to hit. They have so many high quality guns.

Are people really trying to undermine just how good the 108 point Basilisk is? The unit that hits hard with functionally unlimited range (on the standard 6x4), ignores LOS, has an in-built means to improve how many shots it gets and has easy access to accuracy improvements? Really? The unit that populates many Guard armies whether in tank or artillery form will "go the way of the Commissar" if you nerf it more?

As I stated earlier, this is JUST like 7th ed Eldar players. At least 8th ed Eldar players KNOW there is a problem with Dark Reapers.

Personally, I field neither Guardsmen or Basilisks, so whatever happens to them is irrelevant, however I do have indirect fire units I'd rather not see nerfed (Earthshaker Platforms and Thudd guns)

Blast style weapons could have their attacks capped at the number of models in the unit they're attacking as one option. Thematically though the whole point should really be to take out light infantry hiding from direct fire. I don't really hate the -1 either though. I do think there should probably be a rule that -1's don't stack though, as single D6's have a very narrow viable band in general and it doesn't take much to warp the curve. Ideally you'd probably make it so they only suffer the largest positive and negative modifier in general.

Martel732 wrote:

 Colonel Cross wrote:
I'm assuming people who are saying the guard artillery is too good are still scarred from the opening days of 8th where tourny guard armies were plasma Scions, conscripts, and a half dozen Earthshaker platforms?

My basilisk regularly only gets 1 or 2 damage rolls through. 2-6 dmg per turn is too effective? I gotta tell ya, I only take mine if I have 108 points open in my list. I'd rather take my Hellhound! You Nerf that stuff any more and it'll go the way of the Commissar.

For 108 pts, yes, it's too effective. I can't sniff anything that does that kind of damage for 108. Much less something that ignores LoS.

...seriously?

Whirlwinds are S7 AP-1 2D with Heavy 2D3 shots at 72" base(they get more shots with a Castellan but lose a point of Strength and a point of AP--plus it's an additional 25 points) versus a Basilisk's 240" range(honest to God, has anyone actually ever made full use of that range aside from gimmicky games where you 'get to shoot onto another game'?) Heavy D6 S9 AP-3 D3(roll 2D6 instead of 1D6, discarding the lowest, for the number of attacks made).

Whirlwind: 104pts; 70 point hull paying 34 pts for the Whirlwind Vengeance Launcher.
Basilisk: 100 pts; 100 point hull with a mandatory 8 pts for the Heavy Bolter or 17 pts for the Heavy Flamer in the hull mount.

If the 5 ppm thing happens, I doubt much else will happen. Lists with indirect fire weapons didn't do that well at LVO. If they make a huge comeback at NOVA, though, maybe then something happens.

Personally, I do think that indirect fire should have some penalty, from a fundamental gameplay design in general. That said, we could add more depth to the game as well. We could talk about spotters, either an indirect fire wrapon requiring a spotter who can draw LoS to the target, or a -1 to hit penalty that is removed if a spotter can draw LoS, might be something to consider.

As long as Eldar get deserved nerfs, I don't mind Guard getting some targeted nerfs to a few units. The LVO Top 10 and the actual lists those players were using should be what they base a lot of their changes on.

What I'm really hoping for is a fundamental change to how Space Marines function on the table-top, namely that being over-reliant on Guilliman does not excuse the rest of the codex being weak compared to the newer codices. GW simply has no idea how to get them right and it negatively rubs off on other armies. Too much to hope for with an FAQ, but should be possible in Chapter Approved if they put some effort into it.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Colonel Cross wrote:
I'm assuming people who are saying the guard artillery is too good are still scarred from the opening days of 8th where tourny guard armies were plasma Scions, conscripts, and a half dozen Earthshaker platforms?

My basilisk regularly only gets 1 or 2 damage rolls through. 2-6 dmg per turn is too effective? I gotta tell ya, I only take mine if I have 108 points open in my list. I'd rather take my Hellhound! You Nerf that stuff any more and it'll go the way of the Commissar.

For 108 pts, yes, it's too effective. I can't sniff anything that does that kind of damage for 108. Much less something that ignores LoS.

...seriously?

Whirlwinds are S7 AP-1 2D with Heavy 2D3 shots at 72" base(they get more shots with a Castellan but lose a point of Strength and a point of AP--plus it's an additional 25 points) versus a Basilisk's 240" range(honest to God, has anyone actually ever made full use of that range aside from gimmicky games where you 'get to shoot onto another game'?) Heavy D6 S9 AP-3 D3(roll 2D6 instead of 1D6, discarding the lowest, for the number of attacks made).

Whirlwind: 104pts; 70 point hull paying 34 pts for the Whirlwind Vengeance Launcher.
Basilisk: 100 pts; 100 point hull with a mandatory 8 pts for the Heavy Bolter or 17 pts for the Heavy Flamer in the hull mount.

Yes, the basilisk is far more powerful. Thanks for pointing that out.

Caederes wrote:
As long as Eldar get deserved nerfs, I don't mind Guard getting some targeted nerfs to a few units. The LVO Top 10 and the actual lists those players were using should be what they base a lot of their changes on.

What I'm really hoping for is a fundamental change to how Space Marines function on the table-top, namely that being over-reliant on Guilliman does not excuse the rest of the codex being weak compared to the newer codices. GW simply has no idea how to get them right and it negatively rubs off on other armies. Too much to hope for with an FAQ, but should be possible in Chapter Approved if they put some effort into it.

Something I've started to give some consideration to is that Lords of War with the "Character" Keyword need to get a rule associated with them that mandates they take a Supreme Command Detachment rather than being taken as a Superheavy Auxiliary Detachment.

I don't think it would affect Magnus too much, but it would definitely impact Mortarion and Guilliman I feel.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Colonel Cross wrote:
I'm assuming people who are saying the guard artillery is too good are still scarred from the opening days of 8th where tourny guard armies were plasma Scions, conscripts, and a half dozen Earthshaker platforms?

My basilisk regularly only gets 1 or 2 damage rolls through. 2-6 dmg per turn is too effective? I gotta tell ya, I only take mine if I have 108 points open in my list. I'd rather take my Hellhound! You Nerf that stuff any more and it'll go the way of the Commissar.

For 108 pts, yes, it's too effective. I can't sniff anything that does that kind of damage for 108. Much less something that ignores LoS.

...seriously?

Whirlwinds are S7 AP-1 2D with Heavy 2D3 shots at 72" base(they get more shots with a Castellan but lose a point of Strength and a point of AP--plus it's an additional 25 points) versus a Basilisk's 240" range(honest to God, has anyone actually ever made full use of that range aside from gimmicky games where you 'get to shoot onto another game'?) Heavy D6 S9 AP-3 D3(roll 2D6 instead of 1D6, discarding the lowest, for the number of attacks made).

Whirlwind: 104pts; 70 point hull paying 34 pts for the Whirlwind Vengeance Launcher.
Basilisk: 100 pts; 100 point hull with a mandatory 8 pts for the Heavy Bolter or 17 pts for the Heavy Flamer in the hull mount.

Yes, the basilisk is far more powerful. Thanks for pointing that out.

Uhhuh.

Do you know how dice rolls work?

Clearly you don't, or you wouldn't be trying to equate these two units.

Yeah a Basilisk is much better than a Whirlwind. I'm not saying this because the basilisk should be nerfed, probably the Whirlwind should be buffed.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Personally, I do think that indirect fire should have some penalty, from a fundamental gameplay design in general. That said, we could add more depth to the game as well. We could talk about spotters, either an indirect fire wrapon requiring a spotter who can draw LoS to the target, or a -1 to hit penalty that is removed if a spotter can draw LoS, might be something to consider.

It’s easy to want a direct explicit drawback to things but sometimes you take a statistical loss instead. Variable shots with Bolter stats behind them aren’t exactly the most spectacular stats for a specialty weapon after all.

 Kanluwen wrote:

...seriously?

Whirlwinds are S7 AP-1 2D with Heavy 2D3 shots at 72" base(they get more shots with a Castellan but lose a point of Strength and a point of AP--plus it's an additional 25 points) versus a Basilisk's 240" range(honest to God, has anyone actually ever made full use of that range aside from gimmicky games where you 'get to shoot onto another game'?) Heavy D6 S9 AP-3 D3(roll 2D6 instead of 1D6, discarding the lowest, for the number of attacks made).

Whirlwind: 104pts; 70 point hull paying 34 pts for the Whirlwind Vengeance Launcher.
Basilisk: 100 pts; 100 point hull with a mandatory 8 pts for the Heavy Bolter or 17 pts for the Heavy Flamer in the hull mount.

Strength 9 is massively superior to Strength 7. Strength 9 wounds T7/8 on 3s (i.e. almost every big model in the entire game) and wounds T4 on 2s. The upgrade from AP-1 to AP-2 is not inconsequential either. The Basilisk is way more efficient at killing big targets than the Whirlwind, and it does anti-infantry just as well or better in some cases.

It's by no means the strongest aspect of Guard and how it performed at LVO is indicative of that, but to say it's not very efficient for its points is a blatant lie (another poster implied that, not specifically you) Basilisks are definitely good units.

I'm sorry but the Whirlwind in no way compares to a Basilisk. A Basilisk can reliably hurt most things you want it to hurt. A Whirlwind can't, and applying the Guilliman band-aid to it doesn't solve its core problems, much like the Space Marine codex as a whole. Their efficiency is limited compared to other factions to compensate for Guilliman existing in his current form. It sucks, especially if you don't play Ultramarines.

Regarding the Lord of War/Supreme Command thing, I'm 50/50 on that as a solution, especially now that Magnus has been nerfed to a point where he's great against some armies and weak against others as any unit really should be. If you make Guilliman less appealing, you have to buff the rest of the Space Marine codex to compensate because currently they are balanced around him buffing them. Both he and the codex as a whole need to change.

 Bobthehero wrote:


So might as well remove out of LOS shooting then...

We should give everyone LOS weapons for free. Job done.

Martel732 wrote:
Clearly you don't, or you wouldn't be trying to equate these two units.

Please then, enlighten me as to how it's better to have variable damage instead of flat damage.

You would have a point if the Basilisk were 2D6, cumulative, but it's not. It's 2D6, discarding the lowest, with a D3 damage value rather than 2d3(i.e. the results of dice roll 1 and roll 2 added together) with a flat damage value of 2.

I have a point because of S9. Can you try to debate in good faith, please?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Clearly you don't, or you wouldn't be trying to equate these two units.

Please then, enlighten me as to how it's better to have variable damage instead of flat damage.

You would have a point if the Basilisk were 2D6, cumulative, but it's not. It's 2D6, discarding the lowest, with a D3 damage value rather than 2d3(i.e. the results of dice roll 1 and roll 2 added together) with a flat damage value of 2.

You know that in average, 2d6 discarding the lowest is better than 2d3, no? And you'll have the max number of shots more times than with 2d3. The only drawback is that your minimun is 1 instead of 2.

At the same time, 1D3 for damage is more random than flat 2 damage, but the average is the same.
And thats ignoring the extra range, the S9 vs S7 (So you wound T7 in 3+ instead of 4+ and T8 in 3+ instead of 5+), the -3 AP vs -1 AP, etc...
And all of that for just +4 points.

Caederes wrote:

Strength 9 is massively superior to Strength 7. Strength 9 wounds T7/8 on 3s (i.e. almost every big model in the entire game) and wounds T4 on 2s. The upgrade from AP-1 to AP-2 is not inconsequential either. The Basilisk is way more efficient at killing big targets than the Whirlwind, and it does anti-infantry just as well or better in some cases.

It's by no means the strongest aspect of Guard and how it performed at LVO is indicative of that, but to say it's not very efficient for its points is a blatant lie (another poster implied that, not specifically you) Basilisks are definitely good units.

I'm sorry but the Whirlwind in no way compares to a Basilisk. A Basilisk can reliably hurt most things you want it to hurt. A Whirlwind can't, and applying the Guilliman band-aid to it doesn't solve its core problems, much like the Space Marine codex as a whole. Their efficiency is limited compared to other factions to compensate for Guilliman existing in his current form. It sucks, especially if you don't play Ultramarines.

The Whirlwind actually compares fairly well to the Basilisk, barring the differences in the statlines. Having a static 2 damage is nothing to sneeze at.

Regarding the Lord of War/Supreme Command thing, I'm 50/50 on that as a solution, especially now that Magnus has been nerfed to a point where he's great against some armies and weak against others as any unit really should be. If you make Guilliman less appealing, you have to buff the rest of the Space Marine codex to compensate because currently they are balanced around him buffing them. Both he and the codex as a whole need to change.

It's Ultramarines that are balanced around him buffing them. Nobody else really benefits significantly from him, outside of his buff that some people claim was making Guard broken as well.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Clearly you don't, or you wouldn't be trying to equate these two units.

Please then, enlighten me as to how it's better to have variable damage instead of flat damage.

You would have a point if the Basilisk were 2D6, cumulative, but it's not. It's 2D6, discarding the lowest, with a D3 damage value rather than 2d3(i.e. the results of dice roll 1 and roll 2 added together) with a flat damage value of 2.

Not only will 2D6 pick the highest average the same or more shots than 2D3, you're ignoring that Strength 9 is a gigantic improvement over Strength 7. AP-2 over AP-1 is also nothing to sneeze at.

d3 vs 2D

d3 = 33% chance less damage, 33% same damage, 33% more damage

so... d3 > 2D

 Kanluwen wrote:

The Whirlwind actually compares fairly well to the Basilisk, barring the differences in the statlines. Having a static 2 damage is nothing to sneeze at.

It's Ultramarines that are balanced around him buffing them. Nobody else really benefits significantly from him, outside of his buff that some people claim was making Guard broken as well.

Strength 9. AP-2. I'm sorry but how can you not see how much better the Basilisk is based on those two stats alone?


I missed the part where Salamanders/Black Templars/Raven Guard/Imperial Fists/White Scars/Crimson Fists/Iron Hands had access to a Guilliman-equivalent model. How often do you see those Chapters competitively, and how often do you see a Space Marine army without Guilliman? Space Marines need buffs to their codex full-stop, nerf Guilliman into the ground as well and almost everyone will be happy as larry.

You know if you did give the -1 penalty for no LoS then that should be the only penalty applicable. Since you can't see your target anyway it doesn't matter what optical stealth it uses (be it trees or holograms). Cover might matter as far as damage is concerned but concealment won't matter one iota.

pismakron wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:

 kronk wrote:
How certain are we that guard are getting bumped to 5 ppm, anyway?

I want them to publish the FAQ with them reduced to 3 ppm with a quick correctly within 24 hours just to taste those glorious 24 hours of panic and rage.

That would indeed be hilarious. This and a five point drop on Dark Reapers. Witness the rage

GW being GW both are quite plausible. Just imagine how sales of those models would skyrocket.