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.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
HoLy Terra

23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard, for like the 100th Guard thread in a row. The guy is utterly tireless

Literally arguing that 9 scouts are as good as 9 mortars lool why hasn't the tournament scene caught up to this next level display of game comprehension yet

>Talks about the tournament scene
>Zomg haha scouts aren't dominating
>Forgets that mono guard isn't dominating the tournament scene and you can pull up just as many mono SM armies winning with G-man as mono guard armies winning

>thinks allies are banned in tournament

lel

then why are you talking about nuking guard and not adjusting allies? This over 20 page thread has been people crying about guard, only to be shown that data doesn't support guard being broken. Meanwhile, you are all the first to shoot down suggested changes to the allies system that would actually address the real issue (the big three being able to cherry pick the best units over multiple codexes thus supplementing the weaknesses of any individual codex)

Asmodios wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
HoLy Terra

23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard, for like the 100th Guard thread in a row. The guy is utterly tireless

Literally arguing that 9 scouts are as good as 9 mortars lool why hasn't the tournament scene caught up to this next level display of game comprehension yet

>Talks about the tournament scene
>Zomg haha scouts aren't dominating
>Forgets that mono guard isn't dominating the tournament scene and you can pull up just as many mono SM armies winning with G-man as mono guard armies winning

>thinks allies are banned in tournament

lel

then why are you talking about nuking guard and not adjusting allies? This over 20 page thread has been people crying about guard, only to be shown that data doesn't support guard being broken. Meanwhile, you are all the first to shoot down suggested changes to the allies system that would actually address the real issue (the big three being able to cherry pick the best units over multiple codexes thus supplementing the weaknesses of any individual codex)

I'm all for tournament scene being solo armies. I have talked about that too.

If that's not going to happen, then the game has to be adjusted for the strongest elements of the strongest soup lists to be toned down. This is the game we both have to play. If you don't like it, or choose to play with self imposed restrictions, nobody can tell you otherwise, as it is though you are trying to stand in the way of a balanced game cause "muh Guard". If my GSC Magus got too powerful as they were almost looking for a bit, I'd handily accept a nerf to them, even tho solo GSC is basically a form of humor.


This thread is over 20 pages because of posters like you and w1zard. Every Guard thread is. You The last one, you literally had SEVEN ENTIRE PAGES worth of responses alone. What an achievement. These arguments don't get carried on for so long when there isn't a couple of people rejecting reality to preach their bias in response to every single disagreeing opinion. You act like people are against nerfing other armies best units as well along with Guard. The reason their threads die so much quicker is because they don't employ these ridiculous tactics you two seem to live by. E.G. there is WAY more talk about nerfing the Castellan. Where's all the Knight players arguing to save the Castellan because solo knights are literally invisible in the meta right now? rational communities don't suffer this problem.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
HoLy Terra

23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard, for like the 100th Guard thread in a row. The guy is utterly tireless

Literally arguing that 9 scouts are as good as 9 mortars lool why hasn't the tournament scene caught up to this next level display of game comprehension yet

>Talks about the tournament scene
>Zomg haha scouts aren't dominating
>Forgets that mono guard isn't dominating the tournament scene and you can pull up just as many mono SM armies winning with G-man as mono guard armies winning

>thinks allies are banned in tournament

lel

then why are you talking about nuking guard and not adjusting allies? This over 20 page thread has been people crying about guard, only to be shown that data doesn't support guard being broken. Meanwhile, you are all the first to shoot down suggested changes to the allies system that would actually address the real issue (the big three being able to cherry pick the best units over multiple codexes thus supplementing the weaknesses of any individual codex)

I'm all for tournament scene being solo armies. I have talked about that too.

If that's not going to happen, then the game has to be adjusted for the strongest elements of the strongest soup lists to be toned down. This is the game we both have to play. If you don't like it, or choose to play with self imposed restrictions, nobody can tell you otherwise, as it is though you are trying to stand in the way of a balanced game cause "muh Guard". If my GSC got Magus got too powerful as they were almost looking for a bit, I'd handily accept a nerf to them, even tho solo GSC is basically a form of humor.


This thread is over 20 pages because of posters like you and w1zard. Every Guard thread is. You The last one, you literally had SEVEN ENTIRE PAGES worth of responses alone. What an achievement. These arguments don't get carried on for so long when there isn't a couple of people rejecting reality to preach their bias in response to every single disagreeing opinion. You act like people are against nerfing other armies best units as well along with Guard. The reason their threads die so much quicker is because they don't employ these ridiculous tactics you two seem to live by. E.G. there is WAY more talk about nerfing the Castellan. Where's all the Knight players arguing to save the Castellan because solo knights are literally invisible in the meta right now? rational communities don't suffer this problem.

These threads are so long because posters like you are too short sided to see what nuking the FOTM unit and not the other real issue does.

If you balance soup where there is a drawback to soup you will bring all armies closer in line. The game gets more balanced and everyone wins both soup and mono players

If you go nuking units based on performance you will get this
Unit x is strong in soup increase the points of unit x
Unit x is now not the most efficient choice for soup. Soup will replace unit x with unit y
Soup has had its overall effectiveness hurt but not as much as mono codex containing unit x. Codex x is now worse mono and even more encouraged to soup
Unit y is strong in soup increase the points of unit y
Unit y is now not the most efficient choice for soup. Soup will replace unit y with unit z
Soup has had its overall effectiveness hurt but not as much as mono codex containing unit y. Codex y is now worse mono and even more encouraged to soup
Unit z is strong in soup increase the points of unit z
Unit z is now not the most efficient choice for soup. Soup will replace unit z with unit a^1
Soup has had its overall effectiveness hurt but not as much as mono codex containing unit z. Codex z is now worse mono and even more encouraged to soup

rinse and repeat until you have exactly one balanced viable build and a slew of mono codexes that get blown out of the water by everything unless they soup. People are adamant about this point because your proposed fix is terrible for the overall game balance. All your proposed "fix" will do in the long run is reduce unit/army diversity and make 8th an edition less fun...... On the other hand, addressing soup and then adjusting army balance will actually lead to more lists diversity and a more enjoyable gaming experience.

Too bad you are too blinded by your hate for a single codex to see the course this type of change sets 8th on

Asmodios wrote:

These threads are so long because posters like you are too short sided to see what nuking the FOTM unit and not the other real issue does.

I mean, that's immediately even disproven by the post you just responded to. Castellan is FOTM and everyone, including myself, wants that gone, I see no 100 pages of debate about that tho, clearly there's another factor here lol

you're incapable of self awareness my man

 SHUPPET wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

These threads are so long because posters like you are too short sided to see what nuking the FOTM unit and not the other real issue does.

I mean, that's immediately even disproven by the post you just responded to. Castellan is FOTM and everyone, including myself, wants that gone, I see no 100 pages of debate about that tho, clearly there's another factor here lol

you're incapable of self awareness my man

I've brought up in other threads I don't want it gone..... in order to be OP it needs a funnel of CP that is not possible in its mono codex and only operates as broken when taken in soup. If you were unable to share CP between detachments i doubt you would need to adjust it..... The shame is mono knight players just got shafted by the most recent FAQ while castellan soup builds were hardly effected.... proving my point

 SHUPPET wrote:
What a strawman. You've argued for ages that Guardsmen should not be 5 points, or that if they do get nerfed to 5 points everyone elses infantry have to be nerfed too, completely invalidating it.

At one point I did think that guardsmen should not have been 5 points, until someone laid down the math for me. I changed my mind in that thread, you know, something that a reasonable person should do when confronted with evidence that their opinion is incorrect? I have espoused that view for months now, and am firmly in the "5ppm" guardsmen camp.

I have never argued that "everyone elses" infantry needs to be nerfed along with guardsmen, my point in the "5ppm guardsmen" thread was that if guardsmen going to 5ppm and ONLY guardsmen going to 5ppm is not fair to guard when things like 6 point kabalites, 7 point rangers, and 5 point neophytes exist. Guardsmen going to 5 points needs to happen, but it also needs to happen as part of a larger, sweeping balance change that sees buffs for factions that need it (SM, GK, etc...) and nerfs to other OP units. Putting guardsmen at 5ppm and changing nothing else only hurts guard in relation to everything else and contributes very little toward overall game balance. Guard are strong, but they are NOT the king of the hill, and do not deserve to be singled out for balance changes to the exclusion of all other factions.

 SHUPPET wrote:
At no point did I say 7ppm Guardsmen, nor did I see anyone else say it, nor did I agree with that, so why you are attributing that to my statements, isn't actually a surprise to me, because you care naught for logic or facts when going on one of your overly biased rants. Why would this time be any different I guess.

Firstly, I never attributed that to you, so stop putting words in my mouth. You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension.

Secondly:

 Marmatag wrote:
Nah the better answer is that Guard should just be appropriately costed. 6ppm Guardsmen 5ppm Conscripts. Then no one cares if they use Guard as a battery for CP as they're balanced with the rest of the troops out there.

Martel732 wrote:
I can certainly see guardsmen as 6 ppm.

Although I will apologize for saying 7ppm, that was apparently incorrect. Either I misremembered or they edited their comments after realizing how stupid they sounded. 6ppm is almost equally as ridiculous.

I can dig up many more ridiculously stupid ideas for "balancing" guard in this thread if you wish.

 SHUPPET wrote:
If that's not going to happen, then the game has to be adjusted for the strongest elements of the strongest soup lists to be toned down. This is the game we both have to play. If you don't like it, or choose to play with self imposed restrictions, nobody can tell you otherwise, as it is though you are trying to stand in the way of a balanced game cause "muh Guard".

Nerfing guard so that they are balanced in a soup environment may make them totally underpowered outside of that soup environment. That may be acceptable for you, but it is not for me. I want my faction to function outside of being meatshields for Custodes, or CP batteries for knights.

If soup is the problem, then nerf soup. Both mono lists AND soup lists should be viable against each other. If being able to ally things together willy nilly is creating balance issues, then impose restrictions or penalties for allying things together, such as limiting CP to the detachment that generated it. There is a smarter way to do things then continuously hitting problem combos with a mallet, when the units that make up those combos may not be a problem individually. Nerf the synergy, not the units themselves.

 SHUPPET wrote:
E.G. there is WAY more talk about nerfing the Castellan. Where's all the Knight players arguing to save the Castellan because solo knights are literally invisible in the meta right now? rational communities don't suffer this problem.

As if "mono knights" can even function as an army? Yea armigers... so I guess "Technically" you can have a mono-knight army, but small model count heavy hitter armies need screens to really function. The reason you don't see people arguing to save "mono knights" is because "mono knights" didn't even exist as an army choice until 8th edition, and realistically still doesn't. You are acting like "mono-guard" is some niche way to play... it was the ONLY way to play them until 8th edition, and I am willing to bet that most people who have guard models (outside the FOTM people who picked up a battalion of guardsmen because they are good right now) run them as a mono force.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
What a strawman. You've argued for ages that Guardsmen should not be 5 points, or that if they do get nerfed to 5 points everyone elses infantry have to be nerfed too, completely invalidating it.

At one point I did think that guardsmen should not have been 5 points, until someone laid down the math for me. I changed my mind in that thread, you know, something that a reasonable person should do when confronted with evidence that their opinion is incorrect? I have espoused that view for months now, and am firmly in the "5ppm" guardsmen camp.

I didn't read all 45 pages of the thread, or even just the fascinating 7 pages that were your posts so I had no idea you changed your mind on that. I did however see you confronted with overwhelming evidence for many of the proceeding pages and, by your own description, act like a completely unreasonable person and just discount it all. Glad to hear you weren't totally immune to logic.


Fix the formatting on the rest of your post and I'll read it, I'm not doing this this gak where I have to sift through an individual quote per sentence reply, it's god awful to read. I can remember what I said, just respond to it in turn, or limit the in-passage quotes to where it's most needed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
The shame is mono knight players just got shafted by the most recent FAQ while castellan soup builds were hardly effected.... proving my point

I'm not arguing that your wrong, or right, about the way to balance Knights, I'm saying that Knights are a much larger target than AM for balance from both the players and GW, and yet there isn't 100 pages whining about it, while there is one for guard, proving MY point. Allies need to be changed, but GW says they won't do that, in which case the strongest components of "soup" lists need to be toned down, and Castellan is definitely one of them imo. 50 page Knight thread is go?

 SHUPPET wrote:
I didn't read all 45 pages of the thread, or even just the fascinating 7 pages that were your posts so I had no idea you changed your mind on that. I did however see you confronted with overwhelming evidence for many of the proceeding pages and, by your own description, act like a completely unreasonable person and just discount it all. Glad to hear you weren't totally immune to logic.


Fix the formatting on the rest of your post and I'll read it, I'm not doing this this gak where I have to sift through an individual quote per sentence reply, it's god awful to read. I can remember what I said, just respond to it in turn, or limit the in-passage quotes to where it's most needed.

If you're too lazy to even read my responses, then don't read it, and good riddance. Someone who has almost 4 times my amount of posts shouldn't be slinging insults about posting too much.

I have 4x as many posts as you but I've been here for over 6x as long as you. Regardless, my point wasn't about posting much, nor was it to insult you, it was about the folly of posting nonstop in the one thread and then wondering why it reaches 45 pages long and why it feels like everyone is targeting Guard, when in reality people just want a balanced game for every race. Other people aren't acting like you are.

I main Nids and have done for a decade, and I'm allying Guard in with them, stop and think about that for a second

Nah it's clearly Tyranids that are the problem not the Guard. After all it isn't like Tyranids have cheap ways to get CP. Nope. Not at all. None whatsoever.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nah it's clearly Tyranids that are the problem not the Guard. After all it isn't like Tyranids have cheap ways to get CP. Nope. Not at all. None whatsoever.

Well if he could he would also probably ally in a Castellan.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nah it's clearly Tyranids that are the problem not the Guard. After all it isn't like Tyranids have cheap ways to get CP. Nope. Not at all. None whatsoever.

Well if he could he would also probably ally in a Castellan.

Yep, I'd definitely give that a go too, and that's exactly my point. These incredibly strong units that push soup list over the top need to balanced down if the rules for taking them will not be, as GW has expressed they want their design philosophy to be concerning allies.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nah it's clearly Tyranids that are the problem not the Guard. After all it isn't like Tyranids have cheap ways to get CP. Nope. Not at all. None whatsoever.

Well if he could he would also probably ally in a Castellan.

Yep, I'd definitely give that a go too, and that's exactly my point. These incredibly strong units that push soup list over the top need to balanced down if the rules for taking them will not be, as GW has expressed they want their design philosophy to be concerning allies.

Honestly the worst offenders ( slamguiniusses, castellans and Co.kg) need a nerf aswell as a general rework of allies. But that is my two cents.

Slamguinius just got a nerf

 SHUPPET wrote:
Slamguinius just got a nerf

Still massively underpriced for what it can do.

Edit: i'd also like some buffs for units like necron warriors. Old marine profile users (assult,raptors etc.)
I also generally think that some troops (guardsmen, kabalites, firewarriors) should probably slightly increase in price in order to stop the duality of either terrible troop choices and Auto troop choices.

I didnt edit anything. 6 ppm factors in the absurdity of orders coming from a 30pt dude.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The mortar is not a 5 point weapon. It's an 8 point weapon and the base cost of a HWT should be 10 because 2 guardsmen should be 5 points each.

A heavy weapons team is not 2 guardsmen, it's a W2 guardsman. This is an important distinction.

That would pretty much fix them and yes - they will still be spammed because they are still only 18 points for an indirect fire weapon with 48" range. Can you believe that is what I pay for an intercessor right now?

You know, that's only a hair under what they were in previous editions (18ppm vs 20ppm)...where nobody ever took them and they were universally regarded as garbage despite being an indirect fire weapon with a 48" range. A two-thirds price increase is no joke.

They get d6 shots now instead of the 1-2 they probably averaged in 7th. So they hit about double. Str 4 is a lot stronger now (wounds most things on 5's). Indirect fire does not make you hit worse. Plus now we have brigades. Before they wasted important slots - now slots can be had for nothing.

Basically - theres a lot of reasons why it's a better weapon than it has been in the past.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The mortar is not a 5 point weapon. It's an 8 point weapon and the base cost of a HWT should be 10 because 2 guardsmen should be 5 points each.

A heavy weapons team is not 2 guardsmen, it's a W2 guardsman. This is an important distinction.

That would pretty much fix them and yes - they will still be spammed because they are still only 18 points for an indirect fire weapon with 48" range. Can you believe that is what I pay for an intercessor right now?

You know, that's only a hair under what they were in previous editions (18ppm vs 20ppm)...where nobody ever took them and they were universally regarded as garbage despite being an indirect fire weapon with a 48" range. A two-thirds price increase is no joke.

They get d6 shots now instead of the 1-2 they probably averaged in 7th. So they hit about double. Str 4 is a lot stronger now (wounds most things on 5's). Indirect fire does not make you hit worse. Plus now we have brigades. Before they wasted important slots - now slots can be had for nothing.

Basically - theres a lot of reasons why it's a better weapon than it has been in the past.

They probably average more hits, which is fair to grant, though quantifying that is difficult given the variability of old blast weapons. S4 wounding stuff on 5's applies to most basic weapons in the game and a host of other stuff, it's not a magnificent buff to Mortars, especially considering it really only applies to T6+ stuff that they're not terribly effective at hurting (and that usually has more wounds now as well) nor typically targeting either way. I'm not sure what important slots they wasted before considering that HWS's were part of the Troops Platoon structure and you could take potentially 30 of them in a single FoC/CAD.

Martel732 wrote:
I didnt edit anything. 6 ppm factors in the absurdity of orders coming from a 30pt dude.

If there's an issue that should be addressed with the HQ, not the basic troops. That 30pt dude also does literally nothing else, and is the same price as officers have been (not counting the rest of their command squad) for almost the last decade and preceding 3 editions.

Martel732 wrote:
I didnt edit anything. 6 ppm factors in the absurdity of orders coming from a 30pt dude.

Nope they are no Boy. orders also have limited range and uses per turn. If you want more range then you need to buy voxes.

5 ppm would be fair, but so would be 7ppm kabalites etc.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The mortar is not a 5 point weapon. It's an 8 point weapon and the base cost of a HWT should be 10 because 2 guardsmen should be 5 points each.

A heavy weapons team is not 2 guardsmen, it's a W2 guardsman. This is an important distinction.

That would pretty much fix them and yes - they will still be spammed because they are still only 18 points for an indirect fire weapon with 48" range. Can you believe that is what I pay for an intercessor right now?

You know, that's only a hair under what they were in previous editions (18ppm vs 20ppm)...where nobody ever took them and they were universally regarded as garbage despite being an indirect fire weapon with a 48" range. A two-thirds price increase is no joke.

They get d6 shots now instead of the 1-2 they probably averaged in 7th. So they hit about double. Str 4 is a lot stronger now (wounds most things on 5's). Indirect fire does not make you hit worse. Plus now we have brigades. Before they wasted important slots - now slots can be had for nothing.

Basically - theres a lot of reasons why it's a better weapon than it has been in the past.

They probably average more hits, which is fair to grant, though quantifying that is difficult given the variability of old blast weapons. S4 wounding stuff on 5's applies to most basic weapons in the game and a host of other stuff, it's not a magnificent buff to Mortars, especially considering it really only applies to T6+ stuff that they're not terribly effective at hurting (and that usually has more wounds now as well) nor typically targeting either way. I'm not sure what important slots they wasted before considering that HWS's were part of the Troops Platoon structure and you could take potentially 30 of them in a single FoC/CAD.

Martel732 wrote:
I didnt edit anything. 6 ppm factors in the absurdity of orders coming from a 30pt dude.

If there's an issue that should be addressed with the HQ, not the basic troops. That 30pt dude also does literally nothing else, and is the same price as officers have been (not counting the rest of their command squad) for almost the last decade and preceding 3 editions.

You could also take HWT as HS slots no? Didn't see a lot of IG play in 7th around platoons. It was almost always vets in my meta.

Anyways - the key issue here is indirect fire and their range. It was as useful in 7th but you couldn't hurt a lot of things. Now in 8th - it's basically impossible for mortars to not have a good target while shooting from the back of your DPZ (unless it's an army of knights). The weapon cost needs increasing based on indirect fire.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I didnt edit anything. 6 ppm factors in the absurdity of orders coming from a 30pt dude.

Nope they are no Boy. orders also have limited range and uses per turn. If you want more range then you need to buy voxes.

5 ppm would be fair, but so would be 7ppm kabalites etc.

Are you seriously having issues with having your character protected company commander being in range to cast orders? Did you forget to move them?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The mortar is not a 5 point weapon. It's an 8 point weapon and the base cost of a HWT should be 10 because 2 guardsmen should be 5 points each.

A heavy weapons team is not 2 guardsmen, it's a W2 guardsman. This is an important distinction.

That would pretty much fix them and yes - they will still be spammed because they are still only 18 points for an indirect fire weapon with 48" range. Can you believe that is what I pay for an intercessor right now?

You know, that's only a hair under what they were in previous editions (18ppm vs 20ppm)...where nobody ever took them and they were universally regarded as garbage despite being an indirect fire weapon with a 48" range. A two-thirds price increase is no joke.

They get d6 shots now instead of the 1-2 they probably averaged in 7th. So they hit about double. Str 4 is a lot stronger now (wounds most things on 5's). Indirect fire does not make you hit worse. Plus now we have brigades. Before they wasted important slots - now slots can be had for nothing.

Basically - theres a lot of reasons why it's a better weapon than it has been in the past.

They probably average more hits, which is fair to grant, though quantifying that is difficult given the variability of old blast weapons. S4 wounding stuff on 5's applies to most basic weapons in the game and a host of other stuff, it's not a magnificent buff to Mortars, especially considering it really only applies to T6+ stuff that they're not terribly effective at hurting (and that usually has more wounds now as well) nor typically targeting either way. I'm not sure what important slots they wasted before considering that HWS's were part of the Troops Platoon structure and you could take potentially 30 of them in a single FoC/CAD.

Martel732 wrote:
I didnt edit anything. 6 ppm factors in the absurdity of orders coming from a 30pt dude.

If there's an issue that should be addressed with the HQ, not the basic troops. That 30pt dude also does literally nothing else, and is the same price as officers have been (not counting the rest of their command squad) for almost the last decade and preceding 3 editions.

You could also take HWT as HS slots no? Didn't see a lot of IG play in 7th around platoons. It was almost always vets in my meta.

HWS's were also available as HS units in 3E/4E (also as a Platoon type structure, with multiple per HS slot) in addition to Troops platoons, but not after that, except for FW lists like DKoK, but were always available in vast numbers in Platoons,

Anyways - the key issue here is indirect fire and their range.

This hasn't changed for IG mortars in over 20 years however.

It was as useful in 7th but you couldn't hurt a lot of things.

Finding any pre 8E list (even going back to 2E) with Mortars even in a noncompetitive environment would be difficult. Despite having indirect fire they were never terribly useful for what they cost and they havent changed what they can *realistically* hurt all that much.

They also lost their Pinning capability with 7E/8E.

Now in 8th - it's basically impossible for mortars to not have a good target while shooting from the back of your DPZ (unless it's an army of knights).

Aside from AV11+ vehicles and t8+ units, they could hurt anything they can now, with broadly equal effectiveness (e.g. they wound a Carnifex on a 5 now instead of a 6, but theyve got 7 wounds instead of 4 also).

Of those things they couldn't hurt that they can now, they're still not exactly effective, only able to resort to desperation fire. For example, while they couldn't hurt a Rhino or Predator in 3E-7E, they need an average of 180-200 shots to kill a Rhino or Predator now (17-19 HWS's worth of shooting, 561-627pts worth), not exactly effective or reliable. It was actully easier slightly easier to kill a side-AV 10 Chimera chassis vehicle with Mortars in older editions than now as though they only glanced on 6's the Chimera chassis had no save and only 3 wounds (requiring an average of 10-15 units of fire depending on if they had LoS or not)

Even if there's a case for upping the cost of a mortar HWS, going back to their old price range would likely see them disappear again. I wouldn't cry if Mortars were made 8pt weapons, but a heavy weapons team also going to 10ppm on top of that would be punitive.

Indirect fire has changed though - it does not lose accuracy outside of LOS.

You are getting d6 shots at that carnifex with a 50% chance to hit vs 1 max shot with about a 45% chance to hit or much less if you are out of LOS.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the weapon is not better in the current game? All small blast weapons are a lot better now - compared to 7th. Can be fired on the move - can shoot flyers - can do more than 1 hit to a single target - average more hits. None of these weapons should have gone down in cost. The mortar did - and so did the guy carrying it - even though he got better in the current game.

GW logic. Mortars get better and get price cut. Landraiders get worse and get huge price increase.

Sure, though the relevancy of that is hard to judge. Against a vehicle target for example, you were hitting outright 33% of the time and still hitting with a scatter of 2-4" depending on the vehicle size, so you're not gaining that much, if anything. Against a small and spread out infantry unit the mortars are much more effective now, while against a large clumped up horde they're probably less effective. They're also probably less accurate now than in previous editions when they do have LoS, particularly against larger targets.

Meanwhile they've lost the ability to Pin units that they had in most previous editions, and as cover has changed their ability to ignore intervening cover also became meaningless.

Edit: the rae of fire vs single targets is a fair point, as I granted above, but again, it's still not like Mortars are spectacularly effective against those larger targets, you're going to need a dozen mortar squads worth of fire to kill a Carnifex, about 18 to kill most tanks, and thats only if there aren't any better infantry targets to kill anyway.

Land Raiders actually got better. The problem is that the guns which target land raiders also got better.

And honestly with prepared positions you'll have 1+ land raiders.

The problem is they came out with models like the Castellan, and other stuff with -5 shooting.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the weapon is not better in the current game? All small blast weapons are a lot better now - compared to 7th.

Tangentially to the topic, I'd like to see all former-blast weapons get a rule to better reflect their area-effect nature- maybe a bonus shot for every 5 models in the target unit, but if the target is a single model it only gets one shot, or something like that. Battle Cannons and Earthshakers shouldn't be better anti-tank guns than Vanquishers.

 Marmatag wrote:
Land Raiders actually got better. The problem is that the guns which target land raiders also got better.

And honestly with prepared positions you'll have 1+ land raiders.

The problem is they came out with models like the Castellan, and other stuff with -5 shooting.

Speaking from a net perspective - LR got worse. They went up in cost and they don't survive well. They even get murdered by rockets and plasma guns and battle cannons now.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

catbarf wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the weapon is not better in the current game? All small blast weapons are a lot better now - compared to 7th.

Tangentially to the topic, I'd like to see all former-blast weapons get a rule to better reflect their area-effect nature- maybe a bonus shot for every 5 models in the target unit, but if the target is a single model it only gets one shot, or something like that. Battle Cannons and Earthshakers shouldn't be better anti-tank guns than Vanquishers.

Agreed - how is it that it has gone this far into the edition with that being the case?

catbarf wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Are you seriously trying to suggest that the weapon is not better in the current game? All small blast weapons are a lot better now - compared to 7th.

Tangentially to the topic, I'd like to see all former-blast weapons get a rule to better reflect their area-effect nature- maybe a bonus shot for every 5 models in the target unit, but if the target is a single model it only gets one shot, or something like that. Battle Cannons and Earthshakers shouldn't be better anti-tank guns than Vanquishers.

I think the issue here is more that the Vanquisher cannon is just fundamentally bad.

You can nerf the Battlecannon as much as you want, nobody is going to suddenly start fielding Vanquishers. At 162pts with a hull lascannon, assuming no movement (so full BS on hull gun and two shots from turret gub), a Vanq averages 3.5 wounds against a T7 target and 2.83 wounds vs a T8 target. For a dedicated tank hunter at that cost, that's just not pulling its weight.

Edit: it should also be noted that weapons like the Earthshaker and Battlecannon were always supposed to be multirole weapons but were comparatively garbage against single targets (relative to what they cost, 125pts for a Basilisk to get a single S9 shot on a tank or MC for instance) in previous editions, with the Basilsk in particular being relatively uncommon in general and the Battlecannon seen largely as an anti-MEQ gun.

Battle Cannons used to take...

4 HP
11/36 chance of glancing
Call it a 3/4 chance of hitting, since Land Raiders are big.

It would require...

17.45 Battle Cannon shots to kill a Land Raider.

Now, it requires...
16 HP
8 failed saves
16 wounds
32 hits
64 BS 4+ shots, or 48 BS 3+

But Battlecannons do 3.5 the amounts of hits, so in total...

They're more durable against BS 4+ Battle Cannons, less durable against BS 3+.

Rockets, they're DEFINITELY less durable against, same with Plasma.

But they got one HELL of a lot better against Melta.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Battle Cannons used to take...

4 HP
11/36 chance of glancing
Call it a 3/4 chance of hitting, since Land Raiders are big.

It would require...

17.45 Battle Cannon shots to kill a Land Raider.

Now, it requires...
16 HP
8 failed saves
16 wounds
32 hits
64 BS 4+ shots, or 48 BS 3+

But Battlecannons do 3.5 the amounts of hits, so in total...

They're more durable against BS 4+ Battle Cannons, less durable against BS 3+.

Rockets, they're DEFINITELY less durable against, same with Plasma.

But they got one HELL of a lot better against Melta.

Math looks good here. So from this we can conclude that LR take 100% more damage from standard russ battle cannon (not factoring catachan reroll) If you have 9 heavy bolter shots that were previously wasted for no split fire now those same shots average about another wound too! It also went up in cost about 40% too.

Yeah, Land Raiders suck. Water is wet, 2+2=4.

We're well aware that Marines need a buff, and that very much includes Land Raiders.