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.

Ice_can wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
The most interesting thing I've seen recently on this is the relative point values GW assigned to these 'core' troops units in Kill Team. Is it the same ruleset? No, but still very similar with generally the same rules:

Spoiler:

Space Marine Scout 10 (11 with Camo Cloak)
Space Marine Tactical Marine 12

Astra Militarum Infantry Guardsman 5

Adeptus Mechanicus Skitarii Ranger/Vanguard 9

Chaos Space Marine 12
Chaos Space Marine Cultist 4

Death Guard Plague Marines 14
Death Guard Pox Walkers 3

Thousand Sons Rubric Marines 16
Thousand Sons Tzaangors 7
Asuryani Guardian Defender 7
Asuryani Storm Guardian 6
Asuryani Ranger 11
Asuryani Dire Avenger 10

Drukari Kabalite Warrior 7
Drukari Wych 8

Necron Warrior 12
Necron Immortal 16

Ork Boy 6
Ork Gretchin 3

Tau Fire Warrior 8
Tau Breacher 8

Tyranid Termagant 4
Tyranid Hormagaunt 4
Tyranid Warrior 20
Tyranid Genestealer 11

Genestealer Cults Neophyte Hybrid 5

Seems in this limited selection of units, the Guardman is near the bottom with only Cultist and Gretchin coming in lower for obvious reasons. Others have been adjusted around, so its might not be just Guardsman that are in need of a points adjustment to level the playing field.

Are Drukari missing power from pain or something else to explain why they're getting what at first glance feel like undercosted units?

Well, there are a few possible reasons for DE being cheap:

- Outside of special weapons, DE infantry have very lacklustre offence. Kabalite Warriors have what is probably the second-worst weapon on a basic infantry unit after the lasgun, but without the orders and such that make the lasgun effective. Wyches are a S3 melee unit.

- They're still pretty fragile. Kabalites are Guardsmen with 6+ FNP, Wyches (when not in combat) have a 6++ and 6+ FNP.

- Perhaps more importantly, DE infantry have almost no HQ support. They have no psychic powers, and only 1 HQ aura that can affect each subfaction. So, while marines have stuff like: reroll 1s to hit, reroll all hits, reroll 1s to wound, reroll all wounds, reroll all misses in combat etc. Wyches can reroll 1s to hit in combat with a nearby Succubus. That's it. De Warriors can reroll 1s to hit with an Archon, but if either of them is on a transport then they won't even get that bonus.

To be honest, I'm not sure whether I'm keen on DE troops being so cheap/disposable, especially with their elites being scrapped. Regardless, the above is my best guess for why they're cheap.

I was asking specifically about how they work in kill team to understand why they seem to have come of better than most in the kill team points system. But it does show that current 40K infantry points costs appear to be very off.

But just to pick upon your comparison of kabs to guardsmen Kabalities arn't guardsmen stats.
I don't see many BS3+, WS4+ guardsmen on the table as they are 6ppm aswell as kabs but without WS3+, PFP or fast open top transports with FNP's to zip about in.

Splinter Rifles go a lot further in regular 40k where higher toughness is more common

 SHUPPET wrote:

Splinter Rifles go a lot further in regular 40k where higher toughness is more common

I disagree. A lot of high-toughness targets are vehicles, against which splinter rifles are all but useless. And stuff like Monsters typically have so many wounds (not to mention armour and such) that trying to take them down - or even do meaningful damage - with AP- 4+ poison is a joke.

Meanwhile, it leaves Dark Eldar very poor against actual infantry.

This thread is starting to feel like a contest of who can downplay their top 5 army the hardest.

If kalibites had to footslog or only had basic weapons some of this might be valid. You can't just ignore the synergy of their incredible transports or access to special weapons when evaluating the unit.

JimOnMars wrote:Anti-horde weapons could get 1 shot for every 10 models in a target unit, round up. Kind of a kludge but it would do the trick.

I dunno, I always feel a horde is "more than 10 models", not 10 exactly. Too many units start at 5 and buy up to 10, with taking the 10 often seeing only a small payout, for 10 to be the number. Who would ever take a full unit of Skitarii, or a full Tactical Squad if they knew that by doing that, they are subject to an extra d6 shots or the like. 11+ means that Combined Infantry Squads, Conscripts, Cultists, and bricks of Boyz get the extra hits, but not a full squad of elite or semi-elite infantry.

Enigma of the Absolute wrote:What is required is an abstract rule mechanic which adequately represents the fact that larger groups of massed infantry will clustered more closely together and will therefore be more susceptible to high RoF or explosive weapons when compared with smaller elite units.

In previous editions this was dealt with less abstractly with the use of templates but that allowed for gamey model placement shenanigans.

One idea would be to address this with key words. Let's say you have 'Shock Infantry' and 'Horde Infantry'. Regular infantry doesn't have a codeword and weapons affect it normally. Some weapons have a greater or lesser effect against Shock Infantry or Horde Infantry.

The shock / horde distinction would largely represent a tactical distinction. Horde infantry are units which rely primarily on strength of numbers whereas shock infantry are going to use mobility and cover to use the element of surprise.

In previous editions, with the exception of large blasts and torrent weapons, you could usually position to make template weapons have a fairly minimal effect.

For your other point, I actually really like that - but would units be granted keywords by how they are played, or how they are designed within their army? For example, in the context of Guard, Conscripts are Horde, Scions are Shock, and Infantry Squads and Veterans are "Regular".

Still, I can see some potential here...so long as it isn't made overly complex. For example, the Flamer would only have to have one small line added to its description "This weapon makes an additional 1d6 attacks vs units with the Horde keyword" or "This weapon is considered to be Assault 2d6 vs units with the Horde keyword."

Huh, it could also work with buff/debuff type units as well, instead of buffing everything in a 6" bubble, the buffer could grant a more interesting/varied buff to a specific keyword.

jcd386 wrote:
If kalibites had to footslog or only had basic weapons some of this might be valid. You can't just ignore the synergy of their incredible transports or access to special weapons when evaluating the unit.

Especially if the Guardsmen being compared to are considered to be in range of an Officer.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Your exercise doesn't work as Intercessors are already pretty durable to D1 weapons. Try any other unit and you'll see what happens. Then you have the matter of D2+ weapons.

Under the current system expensive elite infantry just doesn't work at one wound (unless they have Discusntingly Resilient or something like that.) I mean sure, it might work for sacrifial glass cannon unit, but not if you're supposed to build your entire army on them like the marines. Lets all just accept this and stop trying to fix the tactical marines. Be like Cawl and accept that they're a failure and embrace the replacement. Primaris statline will work, GW just need to show some restraint in handing out D2+ weapons or at least price them appropriately.

 SHUPPET wrote:
This thread is starting to feel like a contest of who can downplay their top 5 army the hardest.

Same thing as usual then.

I can see why an SM player would complain about Guardsmen and Kabalites.
DE/Guard players complaining at each other feels silly.

Then you have people pointing out that mathematically 7 point Skitarri Rangers are quite good - and they are - but how many Ad Mech mass ranger builds are sweeping the meta?

The thing about a unit is you have the offensive curve and the defensive curve. The problem with tacticals and intercessors is that they are okay versus small arms, bad versus high AP/D2 weapons, and they always have crap guns.
Sort out the guns and the toughness would be less of an issue.

@ Slayerfan:

Yes, the idea was to create a weapon profile that was more efficient at killing GEQ than it is at killing Elite infantry. For example, if we resolve 36 s4 hits with a +1 save modifier, and treat 1+ saves, or better, as 2+ with a 4+ reroll, we could have...

T5, 2+ base > 36 hits, 12 wounds, 11 saves (2+, 4+ rr) = 1 damage

T4,3+ base > 36 hits, 18 wounds, 15 saves, 3 damage

T3,5+ base > 36 hits, 24 wounds, 12 saves, 12 damage.

Bonuses to saves result in better improvements to better save models, because failure rates drop more substantially. MEQ with a +1 save have their save failure rate halved, while GEQ have their failure rate go to 3/4. T-shirt saves are only improved to 4/5 the previous rate.

If people are looking to have a weapon with an anti-horde focus, S4 with a +1 save mod and lots of shots is where it's at. Fluff-wise, some kind of high RoF shotgun, firing relatively low velocity shot that would bounce harmlessly off of ceramite due to lack of penetration power, but that would shred exposed flesh from the bone. Something like a Fragstorm cannon.

Against GEQ, S2 should be the way to go, since T3 models are wounded twice as much as T4 models. Maybe even ignoring armor saves of 5+ or worse but no AP against other models.

That way, each hit would kill 1/3 of a GEQ but 1/12 Necron Warriors or 1/18 MEQs.
Fire Warriors and Skitarii might be problematic with their 4+ save, only losing 1/6 wounds per hit.

But introducing a wholly new weapon profile should result in point adjustments anyway.

S2 has no functional difference between T4, and T5, and T5 has become a fairly common Infantry profile. In that case, S2 becomes more efficient vs T5 than it is against T4.

You are right. S2 would need a special rule so it cannot wound T5 oder T6 models.

From a game mechanic perspective, GW has moved away from ignoring a given save value, and instead prefers modifiers.

Also, creating a rule that prevents S2 from wounding T5+ goes against another mechanic of allowing anything to wound on a 6+, in 8th edition.

Not that it's a bad idea, but it breaks two key game mechanics.

 SHUPPET wrote:
This thread is starting to feel like a contest of who can downplay their top 5 army the hardest.

Yeah, this is bananas.

But at least something positive has come out of this. It wasn't something about "Tau players" or "Eldar players" as a group, like many people claimed during 7th edition. When presented with the dilema of admiting that the faction they play is unbalanced/OP/etc..., many, many players will become apologists for their faction.

 greatbigtree wrote:
From a game mechanic perspective, GW has moved away from ignoring a given save value, and instead prefers modifiers.

Also, creating a rule that prevents S2 from wounding T5+ goes against another mechanic of allowing anything to wound on a 6+, in 8th edition.

Not that it's a bad idea, but it breaks two key game mechanics.

That's true, but why should GW keep it if it doesn't work properly?

Trollbert wrote:
Against GEQ, S2 should be the way to go, since T3 models are wounded twice as much as T4 models. Maybe even ignoring armor saves of 5+ or worse but no AP against other models.

Simpler idea - S4 gun that deals two hits per shot if the target is T3 or lower. That way it wouldn't affect as much T5 people complain above, though IMO that's really non-issue.

@ Trollbert:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a traditionalist for tradition's sake, but the solution I presented works without special rules that break overall design philosophy... other than adding the rules for resolving 1+ saves, which I think should be universal. Good reason for Terminators to be in cover, to improve their survival against small arms in general. I propose my solution resolves the issue of creating a weapon profile that is more efficient ( in terms of points killed) at killing chaff infantry than it is at killing elite infantry, while maintaining overall game design features.

@ Irbis:

That profile ignores chaff infantry like Orks. Not that Orks particularly need to be shat upon any more than they have been, the goal I perceived was to create a profile suitable for efficiently clearing all hordes.

Just make infantry 5 points. A conscript cost 4 points and has bs 5+. It's obvious. There is no point in debate. Just make it happen GW.

Also - while your at it GW. Why don't you just make it so every army capable of generation the number of command points they need to function. Allies should be a cool option - not a requirement for competitive play.

kurhanik wrote:

JimOnMars wrote:Anti-horde weapons could get 1 shot for every 10 models in a target unit, round up. Kind of a kludge but it would do the trick.

I dunno, I always feel a horde is "more than 10 models", not 10 exactly. Too many units start at 5 and buy up to 10, with taking the 10 often seeing only a small payout, for 10 to be the number. Who would ever take a full unit of Skitarii, or a full Tactical Squad if they knew that by doing that, they are subject to an extra d6 shots or the like. 11+ means that Combined Infantry Squads, Conscripts, Cultists, and bricks of Boyz get the extra hits, but not a full squad of elite or semi-elite infantry.

Personally I'd favour something along the lines of "Gains d3 shots for every 5 models in the unit" this would limit their usage against low model count unit's (which also tend to be quite expensive) but would make them increasingly useful the larger the unit it's fired against is for example a 5 man unit of tac's would only receive d3 shots whereas a 30 man unit of conscripts would receive 6d3 shots. Player's could or course get around it by taking smaller unit's or by buying upgrades that reduce the size of the unit etc (Heavy weapons in infantry squads for example) but things like that come with disadvantages of their own.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Just make infantry 5 points. A conscript cost 4 points and has bs 5+. It's obvious. There is no point in debate. Just make it happen GW.

Also - while your at it GW. Why don't you just make it so every army capable of generation the number of command points they need to function. Allies should be a cool option - not a requirement for competitive play.

I'm all for guardsmen being 5 points per model, gives a nice gradient from conscripts to vets and makes both a little more appealing. There's also the fact that I don't think it'll really change anything, it'll hurt pure guard lists because it'll cut down on our firepower by a fair bit but the CP batteries everyone complains about? it'll add what, 30 points to the cost of one? The CP those provides are still worth the increase in points, it'll hurt those lists a bit for sure but I doubt it'll change anything massively. Bumping guardsmen up a point might solve some issues but it doesn't change the fact that allies are still busted and that the CP system could probably use some improvements. Fix those first then we'll be in a better place to evaluate guardsmen's value.

Guardsmen should be at least 6 points. Mortar Teams should also be more expensive.

Their HQs are also deserving of a price increase.

I still maintain that the real problem is lethality.

The lethality of Warhammer 40k has escalated to the point where the only way to survive is to say "I literally have more wounds than you have bullets."

Baneblades/Knights getting deleted in a single turn is a symptom of a game that has a huge lethality problem. Hordes are strong only because they do not die quickly, since there is a cap on the number of shots that can be fired at them.

If, like AOS, damage spilled over (so a Lascannon hit could kill d6 guardsmen), you'd see even Hordes evaporate. So perhaps we could start by reducing the lethality of big guns, which makes elite units tougher, while keeping the same lethality of currently "useless" guns (e.g. bolters). That way, the typical guns fired at Guardsmen would kill them just as dead, but the typical guns fired at Space Marines would not kill Marines as dead.

Double-firing on the Leman Russ is bad. 24 Str 6 shots from a Hive Tyrant is bad. Captain Smash one-rounding a Knight is bad. 500 attacks in the Fight Phase is bad. There are so many units that fire a bazillionty shots that hit like a truck that the only way to survive is to have a bazillionty-and-one wounds on the board, which is best accomplished by buying the cheapest wounds possible.

I'm not surprised to see a forum where Castellans are getting one-shot complain about Guard. The amount of sheer lethality in 40k is Too Damn High!

 Marmatag wrote:
Guardsmen should be at least 6 points. Mortar Teams should also be more expensive.

Their HQs are also deserving of a price increase.

At 5 they are still great. The real problem outside of being undercosted base is orders. Orders are absolutely too powerful and need to be brought down. Their effects should be random/limmited to infantry squads/ the hq's should also be more expensive or - maybe their hq's should be 1 wound.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Guardsmen should be at least 6 points. Mortar Teams should also be more expensive.

Their HQs are also deserving of a price increase.

At 5 they are still great. The real problem outside of being undercosted base is orders. Orders are absolutely too powerful and need to be brought down. Their effects should be random/limmited to infantry squads/ the hq's should also be more expensive or - maybe their hq's should be 1 wound.

I think instead of nerfing orders, just get rid of regimental doctrines. Give Regiments an extra unique order to make up for it, but it's still limited by how many orders can be issued so would be a lot fairer!

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I still maintain that the real problem is lethality.

The lethality of Warhammer 40k has escalated to the point where the only way to survive is to say "I literally have more wounds than you have bullets."

Baneblades/Knights getting deleted in a single turn is a symptom of a game that has a huge lethality problem. Hordes are strong only because they do not die quickly, since there is a cap on the number of shots that can be fired at them.

If, like AOS, damage spilled over (so a Lascannon hit could kill d6 guardsmen), you'd see even Hordes evaporate. So perhaps we could start by reducing the lethality of big guns, which makes elite units tougher, while keeping the same lethality of currently "useless" guns (e.g. bolters). That way, the typical guns fired at Guardsmen would kill them just as dead, but the typical guns fired at Space Marines would not kill Marines as dead.

Double-firing on the Leman Russ is bad. 24 Str 6 shots from a Hive Tyrant is bad. Captain Smash one-rounding a Knight is bad. 500 attacks in the Fight Phase is bad. There are so many units that fire a bazillionty shots that hit like a truck that the only way to survive is to have a bazillionty-and-one wounds on the board, which is best accomplished by buying the cheapest wounds possible.

I'm not surprised to see a forum where Castellans are getting one-shot complain about Guard. The amount of sheer lethality in 40k is Too Damn High!

Option 1: Nebulous plan involving total rebalancing of the game.
Option 2: Increase cost of guardsmen 1-2 points per model.

hmm

Stux wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Guardsmen should be at least 6 points. Mortar Teams should also be more expensive.

Their HQs are also deserving of a price increase.

At 5 they are still great. The real problem outside of being undercosted base is orders. Orders are absolutely too powerful and need to be brought down. Their effects should be random/limmited to infantry squads/ the hq's should also be more expensive or - maybe their hq's should be 1 wound.

I think instead of nerfing orders, just get rid of regimental doctrines. Give Regiments an extra unique order to make up for it, but it's still limited by how many orders can be issued so would be a lot fairer!

So now that every codex in the game is getting a form of "regimental doctrines" IG should be stript of theirs.... This thread is becoming more laughable by the day

I love the idea of +1 to armor save weapons.

I think that should be the profile of flamers. Up the range to 12", d3 shots per 5 models in the unit.

S3-4, +1 ap. Makes them work against hordes, actually some defense to getting charged and won't totally destroy elite units.

Could also change a couple weapon profiles to fit this anti-horde niche (s3, +1 ap and hella shots).

I feel like this is the best weapon profile. Even if guard go to 5-6 points (should be 5) and grand strat + kuvo's get nerfed to the ground (1 roll per strat, no stacking) there needs to be a weapon that can deal with hordes (especially once Orks get their dex and we are overrun by the green tide WWWWAAAAAGGGGHHHH!!!!)

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I still maintain that the real problem is lethality.

The lethality of Warhammer 40k has escalated to the point where the only way to survive is to say "I literally have more wounds than you have bullets."

Baneblades/Knights getting deleted in a single turn is a symptom of a game that has a huge lethality problem. Hordes are strong only because they do not die quickly, since there is a cap on the number of shots that can be fired at them.

If, like AOS, damage spilled over (so a Lascannon hit could kill d6 guardsmen), you'd see even Hordes evaporate. So perhaps we could start by reducing the lethality of big guns, which makes elite units tougher, while keeping the same lethality of currently "useless" guns (e.g. bolters). That way, the typical guns fired at Guardsmen would kill them just as dead, but the typical guns fired at Space Marines would not kill Marines as dead.

Double-firing on the Leman Russ is bad. 24 Str 6 shots from a Hive Tyrant is bad. Captain Smash one-rounding a Knight is bad. 500 attacks in the Fight Phase is bad. There are so many units that fire a bazillionty shots that hit like a truck that the only way to survive is to have a bazillionty-and-one wounds on the board, which is best accomplished by buying the cheapest wounds possible.

I'm not surprised to see a forum where Castellans are getting one-shot complain about Guard. The amount of sheer lethality in 40k is Too Damn High!

Option 1: Nebulous plan involving total rebalancing of the game.
Option 2: Increase cost of guardsmen 1-2 points per model.

hmm

To be honest I agree with Unit116. But as you point out they are different issues, and one is much more complex than the other. You can both make Guadsmen 1 point more expensive and try to achieve a less letal game.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I still maintain that the real problem is lethality.

The lethality of Warhammer 40k has escalated to the point where the only way to survive is to say "I literally have more wounds than you have bullets."

Baneblades/Knights getting deleted in a single turn is a symptom of a game that has a huge lethality problem. Hordes are strong only because they do not die quickly, since there is a cap on the number of shots that can be fired at them.

If, like AOS, damage spilled over (so a Lascannon hit could kill d6 guardsmen), you'd see even Hordes evaporate. So perhaps we could start by reducing the lethality of big guns, which makes elite units tougher, while keeping the same lethality of currently "useless" guns (e.g. bolters). That way, the typical guns fired at Guardsmen would kill them just as dead, but the typical guns fired at Space Marines would not kill Marines as dead.

Double-firing on the Leman Russ is bad. 24 Str 6 shots from a Hive Tyrant is bad. Captain Smash one-rounding a Knight is bad. 500 attacks in the Fight Phase is bad. There are so many units that fire a bazillionty shots that hit like a truck that the only way to survive is to have a bazillionty-and-one wounds on the board, which is best accomplished by buying the cheapest wounds possible.

I'm not surprised to see a forum where Castellans are getting one-shot complain about Guard. The amount of sheer lethality in 40k is Too Damn High!

Option 1: Nebulous plan involving total rebalancing of the game.
Option 2: Increase cost of guardsmen 1-2 points per model.

hmm

Option 3: Look at actual statistics being gathered from tournaments like the BAO and recognize that armies that were primary IG did not even make the top 5 for win % or points earned per round and that pure IG is considered so bad nobody even attempts to take it

Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Guardsmen should be at least 6 points. Mortar Teams should also be more expensive.

Their HQs are also deserving of a price increase.

At 5 they are still great. The real problem outside of being undercosted base is orders. Orders are absolutely too powerful and need to be brought down. Their effects should be random/limmited to infantry squads/ the hq's should also be more expensive or - maybe their hq's should be 1 wound.

Stux wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Guardsmen should be at least 6 points. Mortar Teams should also be more expensive.

Their HQs are also deserving of a price increase.

At 5 they are still great. The real problem outside of being undercosted base is orders. Orders are absolutely too powerful and need to be brought down. Their effects should be random/limmited to infantry squads/ the hq's should also be more expensive or - maybe their hq's should be 1 wound.

I think instead of nerfing orders, just get rid of regimental doctrines. Give Regiments an extra unique order to make up for it, but it's still limited by how many orders can be issued so would be a lot fairer!

Are you two both being serious right now?!

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Guardsmen should be at least 6 points. Mortar Teams should also be more expensive.

Their HQs are also deserving of a price increase.

At 5 they are still great. The real problem outside of being undercosted base is orders. Orders are absolutely too powerful and need to be brought down. Their effects should be random/limmited to infantry squads/ the hq's should also be more expensive or - maybe their hq's should be 1 wound.

You should have to pay points for Chapter Tactics and Psyker spells then.