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.

Ordana wrote:

kurhanik wrote:

Ordana wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Yeah, I prefer mech-Scions all the way, but theres nearly 0 reasons to use them. Just deepstrike where you want them to be.

So reduce Scions by 2 ppm and make deepstrike a 2ppm upgrade. You can mech, I can airborne.

I would say that currently Scions are to cheap for what they do (as is most of the Guard codex, as I have repeatedly said) and this is coming from someone who plans to use a whole bunch of Scions in a competitive list.

78 points for 2 plasma guns and a plasma pistol on 3+ BS deepstriking models is insanely good value.

Its solely in the Plasma form that they overperform really. Their base guns cannot rapid fire in their Deep Strike range, Melta cannot use its special rules in that range, and Volley Guns are heavy so they suffer a -1 to hit when using Deep Strike. Plasma meanwhile is in its sweet spot at that range.

Its why basically my #1 suggestion to nudge Scions is to swap Plasma and Melta prices to better reflect their utility. Yes, Plasma Scions would get nerfed, but on the flip side Melta Scions would have a reason to exist.

Yeah I can see that. Sadly GW isnt that good at math so they haven't figured out how Melta's are not really better then Plasma.

You guys miss big issue here. Plasma is consistently good against very wide range of targets, starting on W1 infantry, through various elites, all the way to light vehicles. It only starts dropping off against heavy targets, but even then, it's very useful through, making pricing easy. Melta, though, is useless against light targets, and is schizophrenic against the targets you want to target - it might be useless by whiffing and rolling 1, or you might roll two 6s and delete that primarch off the table with a single tactical squad. How do you price it? Low enough to make it useful even against slightly not optimal targets? You might cause disappearance of heavy targets off gaming tables, much like plasma did to W2 models. Price it according to expected usefulness and average damage on heavy target? It remains useless in most cases and extremely situational. What melta needs is complete retool, not tweaking points as that leads nowhere. Maybe make it deal flat 3 damage, 6 if in half range? Or add low powered 'sweep' firing mode to widen the usefulness range?

Flat 3 damage will make to 3W models what Plasma did to 2W ones.
As you said the problem with Melta is how niche it is. I agree with you that it should receive rewritten rules. I don't know what should be rewritten, but something should be done to make it a little less "niche", and easier to balance.

 Galas wrote:
Flat 3 damage will make to 3W models what Plasma did to 2W ones.

Not really, because these are rarer, and melta doesn't have biggest issue of plasma, namely rapid fire. You're still getting 1 shot, that will be more valuable 'spent' on biggest target around, 3W models being just optional OK target (but not that good, you still have 6D option that will be subpar on everything with 3 wounds or less) that won't be deleted as fast as plasma does with 2W models due to 2+ shots.

To me, melta killing 3W model outright makes much more sense than current one having 1/3 of chance of leaving it alive and kicking even on hit/failed save, I can't think of 3W model that in fluff would honestly shrug off being hit with melta. If in fluff and older crunch a chapter master in terminator armour could be slain with a single melta shot (see - Huron), the fact in 8th regular terminators have a better chance of surviving melta hit than plasma fire due to rolling 1 damage makes zero sense IMO.

 Vaktathi wrote:

kurhanik wrote:


Vanquishers for example are kind of garbage, but if they are buffed to true tank killers, then they'd be too strong without a big points increase. What would be a good middle ground where they are actually good at their job while also not becoming an auto-take?

S9 AP-4, done. Not amazing, still actually slightly worse than a battlecannon against T6/7, but more functional against against heavy armor (Knights, other Russ tanks, Land Raiders, etc) for its cost.

Alteratively, AP-4 and reroll failed wounds against units with the "Vehicle" keyword, makes it even more effective against tanks of all kinds than just straight S9, but not as effecient against monsters and heavy infantry as say, something like a Lascannon predator.

Either would work well for the vehicle at its current cost and relative to contemporaries like the Predator and Fire Prism.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:


Chimeras are probably appropriately priced, or close to it.
The problem is that a 30pt HQ character can reliably make up to two squads move 12+2d6", and a 20pt Elite character can make one move that way. Not only is that amazing, but it also helps cheaply fill up a Brigade for CP harvesting. Against that, who needs Chimeras? They can't move as far, and they make it harder to fill a Brigade.

It's not just that, almost a hundred points for a transport that typically is carrying a unit that costs much as less, particularly when a Chimera is sporting nothing more impressive than a couple of heavy bolters that are usually going to be hitting on 5's, is why they sit on shelves this edition. Even if there were no character based mobility options, the Chimera just isn't an attractive choice. It'a too expensive for the firepower and mobility it brings to such weeny units.

I've been a fan of AP-4 and a generic Shred, so that it hits singular targets as a whole better.

 Marmatag wrote:
IG's dominance is not subjective - that's a fact.
IG (pre-nerf) having better morale than Space Marines - that's a fact.
Tyranids have inherent weaknesses that IG doesn't. And you know this. People don't complain about factions they can beat.

IG in its current form still renders a lot of armies irrelevant. The fact that commissars aren't being used is because your screens can still do their job without them. If you capped all squad sizes at 10 and restored Commissar's previous ability, I doubt people would bother with them. But they would have the same ability.

Ah yes that's why pure guards were top of pure armies at LVO...Oh wait. They weren't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bobthehero wrote:
They got their weapon cost increased to compensate, there's no need to increase their price further.

They got weapon costs increased due to BS3+. Not due to deep strike.

Alright to those who think that Guard are not to cost effective throughout (most) of their codex. I challenge you to this.

My planned Custodes army uses a 329 point Guard Battalion.
(2 Tempestor Prime with command rods and 1 power axe, 3x5 Scions with 2 plasma guns and 1 plasma pistol, Warlord with Grand Statagist and Kurov's Aquilla).
Find me a similar costed detachment in any codex that is remotely as effective as this. Bonus points for it being Imperial.

Nothing can come close to the point effectiveness of Guard.

Ordana wrote:
Alright to those who think that Guard are not to cost effective throughout (most) of their codex. I challenge you to this.

My planned Custodes army uses a 329 point Guard Battalion.
(2 Tempestor Prime with command rods and 1 power axe, 3x5 Scions with 2 plasma guns and 1 plasma pistol, Warlord with Grand Statagist and Kurov's Aquilla).
Find me a similar costed detachment in any codex that is remotely as effective as this. Bonus points for it being Imperial.

Nothing can come close to the point effectiveness of Guard.

So your proof that IG are too cost-effective throughout most of their codex is to post a detachment that spams a single unit (plasma scions)? Sure...

Ordana wrote:
Alright to those who think that Guard are not to cost effective throughout (most) of their codex. I challenge you to this.

My planned Custodes army uses a 329 point Guard Battalion.
(2 Tempestor Prime with command rods and 1 power axe, 3x5 Scions with 2 plasma guns and 1 plasma pistol, Warlord with Grand Statagist and Kurov's Aquilla).
Find me a similar costed detachment in any codex that is remotely as effective as this. Bonus points for it being Imperial.

Nothing can come close to the point effectiveness of Guard.

It would depend on what you want to do - a Canoness + 2 Excorcists are 315 points - 14 points for upgrades, meaning you could get a Storm Bolter for both Excorcists and a Hunter Killer Missile for one of them. That is 2d6 48" Strength 8, AP -4 D3 damage shots, as well as 2 Rapid Fire 2 24" strength 4 shots, and, unless I am missing something in the Canoness' stat block, all hit rolls of 1 can be rerolled. All 3 units have a 3+/6++ and can attempt to block psychic powers, even if it is a low chance to do so.

I don't know Sisters that well, I'm waiting for beautiful plastic to come out before I dive into them, but that seems like it could be a somewhat effective unit - not many boots on the ground, but its still clocks in at 29 3+/6++ wounds, 24 of them being T8. Admittedly you'd either need to buy a 3rd Excorcist (135 points) or a Battle Sister Squad (45 points) to make the above legal - depending on if you want a few bodies to block for the Excorcist / force Deep Strikers further away or more damage output. Still, 360 points nets you a Patrol Detachment.

If you are specifically looking for Deep Strikers, than yeah, Scions are the best that I know of, largely because they are both range focused without spending points on melee they try to avoid using, and have the ideal ranged weapon to go with it.

 Peregrine wrote:

Ordana wrote:
Alright to those who think that Guard are not to cost effective throughout (most) of their codex. I challenge you to this.

My planned Custodes army uses a 329 point Guard Battalion.
(2 Tempestor Prime with command rods and 1 power axe, 3x5 Scions with 2 plasma guns and 1 plasma pistol, Warlord with Grand Statagist and Kurov's Aquilla).
Find me a similar costed detachment in any codex that is remotely as effective as this. Bonus points for it being Imperial.

Nothing can come close to the point effectiveness of Guard.

So your proof that IG are too cost-effective throughout most of their codex is to post a detachment that spams a single unit (plasma scions)? Sure...

Not only that, the list even spams Command Point recycling abilities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Bobthehero wrote:
They got their weapon cost increased to compensate, there's no need to increase their price further.

They got weapon costs increased due to BS3+. Not due to deep strike.

Not strictly due to Deep Strike maybe, but when the points cost was being discussed in the run-up to the release of the Guard codex they made it clear that Deep Strike absolutely 100% was a factor in the decision.

That's partly why Guard players were so vocal about the change because it nerfing Scion Plasma Parties was reasonable but it also defanged Veteran Squads which are already struggling to justify their existence.

Ordana wrote:
Alright to those who think that Guard are not to cost effective throughout (most) of their codex. I challenge you to this.

My planned Custodes army uses a 329 point Guard Battalion.
(2 Tempestor Prime with command rods and 1 power axe, 3x5 Scions with 2 plasma guns and 1 plasma pistol, Warlord with Grand Statagist and Kurov's Aquilla).
Find me a similar costed detachment in any codex that is remotely as effective as this. Bonus points for it being Imperial.

Nothing can come close to the point effectiveness of Guard.

Pre-nerf Elysians and Renegades beat this build with ridiculous ease (cue people claiming 'FW is totes fine and balanced'), even after nerf they are at least as good if you min-max them. Eldar Dark Reaper spam beats this too, with better save, range, damage, BS, literally everything. Sisters can make very strong showing, BA also have nasty alpha strike tricks, as do infiltrating RG/AL. Tau commander spam can also match this, as can at least 2-3 other books.

But everyone knows only IG is the only problematic faction in the game and 8th edition will instantly become balanced as soon as IG is banned from the tables

 Irbis wrote:
Pre-nerf Elysians and Renegades beat this build with ridiculous ease (cue people claiming 'FW is totes fine and balanced')

Oh look, you found a single overpowered FW unit that was only overpowered for a brief time between GW nerfing the codex version and GW applying the same nerf (which we all knew was coming, we were just waiting for the pdf to be uploaded) to the FW version. By your reasoning it's stupid to claim that GW is 'totes fine and balanced' and codex units should be banned. After all, I bet I can find at least one codex unit that beats a similar FW build.

kurhanik wrote:

Ordana wrote:
Alright to those who think that Guard are not to cost effective throughout (most) of their codex. I challenge you to this.

My planned Custodes army uses a 329 point Guard Battalion.
(2 Tempestor Prime with command rods and 1 power axe, 3x5 Scions with 2 plasma guns and 1 plasma pistol, Warlord with Grand Statagist and Kurov's Aquilla).
Find me a similar costed detachment in any codex that is remotely as effective as this. Bonus points for it being Imperial.

Nothing can come close to the point effectiveness of Guard.

It would depend on what you want to do - a Canoness + 2 Excorcists are 315 points - 14 points for upgrades, meaning you could get a Storm Bolter for both Excorcists and a Hunter Killer Missile for one of them. That is 2d6 48" Strength 8, AP -4 D3 damage shots, as well as 2 Rapid Fire 2 24" strength 4 shots, and, unless I am missing something in the Canoness' stat block, all hit rolls of 1 can be rerolled. All 3 units have a 3+/6++ and can attempt to block psychic powers, even if it is a low chance to do so.

I don't know Sisters that well, I'm waiting for beautiful plastic to come out before I dive into them, but that seems like it could be a somewhat effective unit - not many boots on the ground, but its still clocks in at 29 3+/6++ wounds, 24 of them being T8. Admittedly you'd either need to buy a 3rd Excorcist (135 points) or a Battle Sister Squad (45 points) to make the above legal - depending on if you want a few bodies to block for the Excorcist / force Deep Strikers further away or more damage output. Still, 360 points nets you a Patrol Detachment.

If you are specifically looking for Deep Strikers, than yeah, Scions are the best that I know of, largely because they are both range focused without spending points on melee they try to avoid using, and have the ideal ranged weapon to go with it.

Except I have the same shots as the Exorcists above 12". More then double within 12 with only slightly worse AP. Also re-rolling 1's thanks to orders. The Exorcists are sturdier by a lot, but its not a legal detachment so it gives no CP, vs 3 and recycling.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

Ordana wrote:
Alright to those who think that Guard are not to cost effective throughout (most) of their codex. I challenge you to this.

My planned Custodes army uses a 329 point Guard Battalion.
(2 Tempestor Prime with command rods and 1 power axe, 3x5 Scions with 2 plasma guns and 1 plasma pistol, Warlord with Grand Statagist and Kurov's Aquilla).
Find me a similar costed detachment in any codex that is remotely as effective as this. Bonus points for it being Imperial.

Nothing can come close to the point effectiveness of Guard.

So your proof that IG are too cost-effective throughout most of their codex is to post a detachment that spams a single unit (plasma scions)? Sure...

3 Company Commanders, 3 infantry squads (2 lascannon, 1 mortor), 1 Basilisk. 333 pts. Same deal.
Replace the basilisk with a Hellhound? Heavy weapon teams? Heck bring 10 ratling snipers.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Irbis wrote:

Ordana wrote:
Alright to those who think that Guard are not to cost effective throughout (most) of their codex. I challenge you to this.

My planned Custodes army uses a 329 point Guard Battalion.
(2 Tempestor Prime with command rods and 1 power axe, 3x5 Scions with 2 plasma guns and 1 plasma pistol, Warlord with Grand Statagist and Kurov's Aquilla).
Find me a similar costed detachment in any codex that is remotely as effective as this. Bonus points for it being Imperial.

Nothing can come close to the point effectiveness of Guard.

Pre-nerf Elysians and Renegades beat this build with ridiculous ease (cue people claiming 'FW is totes fine and balanced'), even after nerf they are at least as good if you min-max them. Eldar Dark Reaper spam beats this too, with better save, range, damage, BS, literally everything. Sisters can make very strong showing, BA also have nasty alpha strike tricks, as do infiltrating RG/AL. Tau commander spam can also match this, as can at least 2-3 other books.

But everyone knows only IG is the only problematic faction in the game and 8th edition will instantly become balanced as soon as IG is banned from the tables

Who here has denied that Dark Reapers are broken and need fixing?
And lol at bringing up FW Guard as a counter argument to Guard being to cost effective.

Ordana wrote:
Alright to those who think that Guard are not to cost effective throughout (most) of their codex. I challenge you to this.

My planned Custodes army uses a 329 point Guard Battalion.
(2 Tempestor Prime with command rods and 1 power axe, 3x5 Scions with 2 plasma guns and 1 plasma pistol, Warlord with Grand Statagist and Kurov's Aquilla).
Find me a similar costed detachment in any codex that is remotely as effective as this. Bonus points for it being Imperial.

Nothing can come close to the point effectiveness of Guard.

State your rules for the challenge, what do you mean for "as effective as this"?
Number of CP generated per point?
Durability per point?
Firepower per point?

Also, "Find me a similar costed detachment" automatically makes it impossible, cheap battalions have always been the territory of IG due to extremely cheap HQ. this doesn't make them broken.
I'm sure that with DA i can cook something that is as good as that for durability and firepower (per point), but if you are mainly interested in extra CPs then no, IG is clearly the best one.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that IGs are fine, but the way you stated the challenge, it's meaningless.

And then is that part of soap or part of IG? Value of that detachment varies by that. It should even be reflected in point cost costing different to IG than to part of soup.

Spoletta wrote:

Ordana wrote:
Alright to those who think that Guard are not to cost effective throughout (most) of their codex. I challenge you to this.

My planned Custodes army uses a 329 point Guard Battalion.
(2 Tempestor Prime with command rods and 1 power axe, 3x5 Scions with 2 plasma guns and 1 plasma pistol, Warlord with Grand Statagist and Kurov's Aquilla).
Find me a similar costed detachment in any codex that is remotely as effective as this. Bonus points for it being Imperial.

Nothing can come close to the point effectiveness of Guard.

State your rules for the challenge, what do you mean for "as effective as this"?
Number of CP generated per point?
Durability per point?
Firepower per point?

Also, "Find me a similar costed detachment" automatically makes it impossible, cheap battalions have always been the territory of IG due to extremely cheap HQ. this doesn't make them broken.
I'm sure that with DA i can cook something that is as good as that for durability and firepower (per point), but if you are mainly interested in extra CPs then no, IG is clearly the best one.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that IGs are fine, but the way you stated the challenge, it's meaningless.

Considering I'm deepstriking Scions within 12" I would say durability isn't high on the list. The CP's are certainly significant but that just further exemplifies how broken Grand Strategist is. Its equivalent Traits/relics all only allowed 1 roll per stratagem, instead of 1 per CP spend. And does any other armies have both your own and enemy CP recycling? Should both Grand Strategist and Kurov's Aquilla be in the army which already has access to the most CP's?

Ordana wrote:

The CP's are certainly significant but that just further exemplifies how broken Grand Strategist is. Its equivalent Traits/relics all only allowed 1 roll per stratagem, instead of 1 per CP spend. And does any other armies have both your own and enemy CP recycling? Should both Grand Strategist and Kurov's Aquilla be in the army which already has access to the most CP's?

While every army may not have a Relic(meaning that when the bearer dies, the effect ceases to exist) to potentially gain a CP(it's a 5+ on a single D6; it's not guaranteed) when an enemy uses a Stratagem, some do have multiple ways of gaining additional CPs.

Marines, for example, can bring Guilliman and Calgar for +5 CPs at a fairly significant points outlay. Marines can get +3 for Guilliman or +2 for Calgar when they're your army's Warlord. Death Guard have the Tallyman.

Also worth mentioning that Mechanicus literally do have a Warlord trait that is effectively worded the same as Grand Strategist just that it triggers on a 6 instead of a 5 and specifies "you or your opponent" using a Stratagem.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

kurhanik wrote:


Vanquishers for example are kind of garbage, but if they are buffed to true tank killers, then they'd be too strong without a big points increase. What would be a good middle ground where they are actually good at their job while also not becoming an auto-take?

S9 AP-4, done. Not amazing, still actually slightly worse than a battlecannon against T6/7, but more functional against against heavy armor (Knights, other Russ tanks, Land Raiders, etc) for its cost.

Alteratively, AP-4 and reroll failed wounds against units with the "Vehicle" keyword, makes it even more effective against tanks of all kinds than just straight S9, but not as effecient against monsters and heavy infantry as say, something like a Lascannon predator.

Either would work well for the vehicle at its current cost and relative to contemporaries like the Predator and Fire Prism.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:


Chimeras are probably appropriately priced, or close to it.
The problem is that a 30pt HQ character can reliably make up to two squads move 12+2d6", and a 20pt Elite character can make one move that way. Not only is that amazing, but it also helps cheaply fill up a Brigade for CP harvesting. Against that, who needs Chimeras? They can't move as far, and they make it harder to fill a Brigade.

It's not just that, almost a hundred points for a transport that typically is carrying a unit that costs much as less, particularly when a Chimera is sporting nothing more impressive than a couple of heavy bolters that are usually going to be hitting on 5's, is why they sit on shelves this edition. Even if there were no character based mobility options, the Chimera just isn't an attractive choice. It'a too expensive for the firepower and mobility it brings to such weeny units.

I've been a fan of AP-4 and a generic Shred, so that it hits singular targets as a whole better.

The problem with all of the above is that it assumes that a russ battle cannon is balanced (different issue).

If you math hammer it out a Vanquisher actually compairs favourably with a lascannon predator and lascannon razerback, ignoring doctirins and orders which I would expect to improve the vanquishers performance.

The russ is also a T8 W12 Sv3 hull to the predators T7 W11 Sv3 hull
Making a Vanquisher S9 and Ap -4 just creates a new OP unit.
I could see Ap-4 or S9 not both.

Simply put the balancd issue isn't vanquishers being bad its a battle cannon not having a down side making it Ap-1 keeps it usefull everywhere but makes specialised tanks better at thier specialist role than the russ.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Marines, for example, can bring Guilliman and Calgar for +5 CPs at a fairly significant points outlay.

They only give CPs if they're the Warlords.

Ice_can wrote:

The problem with all of the above is that it assumes that a russ battle cannon is balanced (different issue).

If you math hammer it out a Vanquisher actually compairs favourably with a lascannon predator and lascannon razerback, ignoring doctirins and orders which I would expect to improve the vanquishers performance.

They wouldn't, because none of the Tank Orders do anything significant for them. "Gunners, Kill on Sight!" lets it reroll 1s to hit(so does being a Cadian...and that doesn't require a Tank Commander to be used) and "Strike and Shroud!" lets it fire and use its Smoke Launchers in the same turn(requires the tank to not have used Smoke to begin with).

Even the Cadian Tank Order is garbage for it, since the Cadian Tank Order is just rerolling the number of attacks that a turret weapon has.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Marines, for example, can bring Guilliman and Calgar for +5 CPs at a fairly significant points outlay.

They only give CPs if they're the Warlords.

So they do! That's on me; I missed the Warlord part.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Ordana wrote:

The CP's are certainly significant but that just further exemplifies how broken Grand Strategist is. Its equivalent Traits/relics all only allowed 1 roll per stratagem, instead of 1 per CP spend. And does any other armies have both your own and enemy CP recycling? Should both Grand Strategist and Kurov's Aquilla be in the army which already has access to the most CP's?

While every army may not have a Relic(meaning that when the bearer dies, the effect ceases to exist) to potentially gain a CP(it's a 5+ on a single D6; it's not guaranteed) when an enemy uses a Stratagem, some do have multiple ways of gaining additional CPs.


Marines, for example, can bring Guilliman and Calgar for +5 CPs at a fairly significant points outlay. Death Guard have the Tallyman.

Also worth mentioning that Mechanicus literally do have a Warlord trait that is effectively worded the same as Grand Strategist just that it triggers on a 6 instead of a 5 and specifies "you or your opponent" using a Stratagem.

Its Guilliman for +3CP if you warlord or Calgar for +2CP if your warlord no stacking and thats an almost (for now) 400p LOW or a 200p HQ with regaining CP's on a 5+ fixed warlord trait

Ordana wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Ordana wrote:
Alright to those who think that Guard are not to cost effective throughout (most) of their codex. I challenge you to this.

My planned Custodes army uses a 329 point Guard Battalion.
(2 Tempestor Prime with command rods and 1 power axe, 3x5 Scions with 2 plasma guns and 1 plasma pistol, Warlord with Grand Statagist and Kurov's Aquilla).
Find me a similar costed detachment in any codex that is remotely as effective as this. Bonus points for it being Imperial.

Nothing can come close to the point effectiveness of Guard.

State your rules for the challenge, what do you mean for "as effective as this"?
Number of CP generated per point?
Durability per point?
Firepower per point?

Also, "Find me a similar costed detachment" automatically makes it impossible, cheap battalions have always been the territory of IG due to extremely cheap HQ. this doesn't make them broken.
I'm sure that with DA i can cook something that is as good as that for durability and firepower (per point), but if you are mainly interested in extra CPs then no, IG is clearly the best one.

Disclaimer: I'm not saying that IGs are fine, but the way you stated the challenge, it's meaningless.

Considering I'm deepstriking Scions within 12" I would say durability isn't high on the list. The CP's are certainly significant but that just further exemplifies how broken Grand Strategist is. Its equivalent Traits/relics all only allowed 1 roll per stratagem, instead of 1 per CP spend. And does any other armies have both your own and enemy CP recycling? Should both Grand Strategist and Kurov's Aquilla be in the army which already has access to the most CP's?

Kurov's Aquila and that warlord trait are not broken exactly because they are in IG, like total immunity to morale within 12" as a warlord trait isn't broken because it is in DA.
Relics and traits that improve something you are already good at, are much less good than relics and traits that cover a weakness.
IG is THE faction for CP. That makes it the perfect ingredient for soups, which is fine by me, because actually you see IG in almost every conflict in the fluff.

My problem with IG is not that they are good for souping, but the fact that the presence of infantry squads is skewing the mathematical basis of the game.
The concept that anti hordes weapon don't work because they kill tac squads as easily as they kill hordes, is completely false math wise. It is true only because of the presence of that single model, which is so prevalent, that it has become the basis for every comparison. I can surely tell you that a bolter scores points much better on Orks and hormagaunts than on tac marines.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

The problem with all of the above is that it assumes that a russ battle cannon is balanced (different issue).

If you math hammer it out a Vanquisher actually compairs favourably with a lascannon predator and lascannon razerback, ignoring doctirins and orders which I would expect to improve the vanquishers performance.

They wouldn't, because none of the Tank Orders do anything significant for them. "Gunners, Kill on Sight!" lets it reroll 1s to hit(so does being a Cadian...and that doesn't require a Tank Commander to be used) and "Strike and Shroud!" lets it fire and use its Smoke Launchers in the same turn(requires the tank to not have used Smoke to begin with).

Even the Cadian Tank Order is garbage for it, since the Cadian Tank Order is just rerolling the number of attacks that a turret weapon has.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Marines, for example, can bring Guilliman and Calgar for +5 CPs at a fairly significant points outlay.

They only give CPs if they're the Warlords.

So they do! That's on me; I missed the Warlord part.

Rerolling that heavy D6 trait sounds like it would be really helpful in mitigating the bad rolls but again that will just make a battle cannon better than it already is without helping the vanquishers.

Any solid info or other rumors RE: the FAQ yet?

Ice_can wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

The problem with all of the above is that it assumes that a russ battle cannon is balanced (different issue).

If you math hammer it out a Vanquisher actually compairs favourably with a lascannon predator and lascannon razerback, ignoring doctirins and orders which I would expect to improve the vanquishers performance.

They wouldn't, because none of the Tank Orders do anything significant for them. "Gunners, Kill on Sight!" lets it reroll 1s to hit(so does being a Cadian...and that doesn't require a Tank Commander to be used) and "Strike and Shroud!" lets it fire and use its Smoke Launchers in the same turn(requires the tank to not have used Smoke to begin with).

Even the Cadian Tank Order is garbage for it, since the Cadian Tank Order is just rerolling the number of attacks that a turret weapon has.

Rerolling that heavy D6 trait sounds like it would be really helpful in mitigating the bad rolls but again that will just make a battle cannon better than it already is without helping the vanquishers.

Vanquishers are Heavy 1.

Hence why the Cadian Tank Order("Pound Them Into the Dust!") is garbage for a Vanquisher.

I agree, was more saying it helps a standard battle cannon have less bad rolls, while leaving a vanquisher unloved and having to work even harder to catch up.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Ordana wrote:

The CP's are certainly significant but that just further exemplifies how broken Grand Strategist is. Its equivalent Traits/relics all only allowed 1 roll per stratagem, instead of 1 per CP spend. And does any other armies have both your own and enemy CP recycling? Should both Grand Strategist and Kurov's Aquilla be in the army which already has access to the most CP's?

While every army may not have a Relic(meaning that when the bearer dies, the effect ceases to exist) to potentially gain a CP(it's a 5+ on a single D6; it's not guaranteed) when an enemy uses a Stratagem, some do have multiple ways of gaining additional CPs.

Marines, for example, can bring Guilliman and Calgar for +5 CPs at a fairly significant points outlay. Marines can get +3 for Guilliman or +2 for Calgar when they're your army's Warlord. Death Guard have the Tallyman.

Also worth mentioning that Mechanicus literally do have a Warlord trait that is effectively worded the same as Grand Strategist just that it triggers on a 6 instead of a 5 and specifies "you or your opponent" using a Stratagem.

As per my point the adMech is strictly worse then either. being a 6 instead of a 5 and being 1 per stratagem instead of 1 per CP for your own stratagems.

Ice_can wrote:

If you math hammer it out a Vanquisher actually compairs favourably with a lascannon predator and lascannon razerback, ignoring doctirins and orders which I would expect to improve the vanquishers performance.

The russ is also a T8 W12 Sv3 hull to the predators T7 W11 Sv3 hull
Making a Vanquisher S9 and Ap -4 just creates a new OP unit.
I could see Ap-4 or S9 not both.

Simply put the balancd issue isn't vanquishers being bad its a battle cannon not having a down side making it Ap-1 keeps it usefull everywhere but makes specialised tanks better at thier specialist role than the russ.

A Vanquisher with a hull lascannon (assuming stationary, firing two shots from the main gun, hitting on 4+), will do 2.8 wounds on average to an enemy T8 3+ vehicle. That's using both the main gun and the hull lascannon. This tank will cost 162pts; you could add sponsons too, but Russes don't get lascannon sponsons, only a choice of short range meltas, plasma cannons that will kill you, or anti infantry stuff.
A Lascannon predator decked out with four lascannons (turret and sponsons), again stationary and hitting on 3+, will do an average of 5.2 wounds to an enemy T8 3+ target. A pred like this will cost around 190points, more than the Vanquisher above, but 30pts more is a bargain for being twice as good. And keep in mind the Predator in this config is also much better at killing Terminator-equivalent targets.

A twin las Razorback will do half the damage of the Pred, having only half the number of lascannons, but it's also only 120pts and a transport vehicle - yet it keeps up with the supposed tank killer main battle tank of the Imperial Guard...


Buffing the Vanquisher won't make it OP. Remember you have to pay for the whole hull just to bring that main gun.

Make the Vanquisher S16 AP-4 and, also using the hull lascannon, it will on average still only cause 4.7 damage to an enemy T8 3+ vehicle, and that's with the main gun firing twice also. Almost on par with a lascannon predator, but not quite. Make the gun 2D6 damage as well, almost like a miniature, single shot Volcanon Cannon, and it will do 6.8 damage (5.8 just from the main gun, firing twice). At this point it can be called a legit tank killer, as it's supposed to be. If you feel that would be OP, just up the points cost as well. I don't really mind if it's not efficient at its cost - I just want it to actually be good at the one thing it's supposed to excel at.

No need to make it S16. A simple Shred rule and AP-4 with 2 shots (thanks to Grinding Advance) is pretty good if you buy 3 of them. Then together you either annihilate your target or severely cripple it.

The main issue with the predator comparison is its damage is better than a vanquisher but the Vanquisher cannon out ranges the lascannons the hull also out T and W's a predator, compair a twin lass extrrminator and it's clear GW doesn''t math hammer.

Does almost the same damage static vrs static but does more within grinding advance vrs a moving predator on a T8 12W platform vrs a T7 11W predator and could take sponsons on top.

Also as you say the predator pays an odd premium over a razorback for 1 w and the option to take sponsons.

The Vanquisher also gets Regiment benefits. Not all of them are good on it, as to be expected like for most units nowadays, but some of them are tasty.