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.

 Rihgu wrote:
I dunno, I'm sure people playing all infantry guard because they saw that old flashlight comic about how a lot of flashlights do a whole lot of diddly are pretty pleased with this.

In the context of making the game fun for those people, it makes sense.

If they wanted to cater to people who enjoy infantry guard, the solutions would have been:
1) Don't make infantry/biker units absurdly durable, to the point where you need a ridiculous number of guardsmen to kill them. Shocking as this might sound, some of us would like guardsmen to be more than human-shields for our tanks. 8th started off reasonably well in this regard but we've rapidly descended into the territory of 7th edition Wraiths and TWC, where you needed two entire platoons of guardsmen rapid-firing to kill a single model.
2) Don't then overcompensate for the above by giving newer units a preposterous number of shots, such that infantry-guard players are advised to buy a Citadel Dustpan & Brush Fast Casualty Removal Device (a snip at $47.99!) to save time during games.

As someone who enjoyed infantry guard, the above would have been infinitely preferable to 'lasguns auto-wound an Imperial Knight if they roll a 6 to hit'.

Yeah I can dig out black library novels that have examples of massed lasgun fire punching clean through power armor and disabling tanks, so saying guardsmen with lasguns "shouldn't" be able to do something "because fluff", when the fluff demonstrates and justifies the exact thing you're claiming is unfluffy, doesn't seem like a solid argument.

I suppose if your only grasp of the fluff is "hurr durr flashlights go plink" then you wouldn't get it, but menes != fluff. The fluff also suggests a squad of space marines should be able to roll an entire regiment of gusrdsmen, and yet...

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah I can dig out black library novels that have examples of massed lasgun fire punching clean through power armor and disabling tanks, so saying guardsmen with lasguns "shouldn't" be able to do something "because fluff", when the fluff demonstrates and justifies the exact thing you're claiming is unfluffy, doesn't seem like a solid argument.

Ok. Find me the massed lasguns disable tank fluff.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah I can dig out black library novels that have examples of massed lasgun fire punching clean through power armor and disabling tanks, so saying guardsmen with lasguns "shouldn't" be able to do something "because fluff", when the fluff demonstrates and justifies the exact thing you're claiming is unfluffy, doesn't seem like a solid argument.

I suppose if your only grasp of the fluff is "hurr durr flashlights go plink" then you wouldn't get it, but menes != fluff. The fluff also suggests a squad of space marines should be able to roll an entire regiment of gusrdsmen, and yet...

In the Gaunt's series a sniper shoots the driver and gunners out from a tank that's rushing them. And they disable several other tanks this way. Cain's series has lots of instances of a Lasrifle dropping a Marine with a headshot.

and I would say autowounding a tank or a marine on a 6 would be representative of exactly that.

"every man a sniper" - glad the guardsman with his rifle can shoot the crew out of tanks far better than the myriad super soldiers of the setting.

Guard training really is on point, shame about the 4+ though.

If you fire enough shots, one of them is bound to probabilistically find its way through a vision slit or weakpoint.

chaos0xomega wrote:
If you fire enough shots, one of them is bound to probabilistically find its way through a vision slit or weakpoint.

Which is why even today troops are trained to empty magazine after magazine of bullets into the enemy tank -

After all, one is bound to find a weakspot someday.

Right?

I mean I sure as hell know that when armies around the world think of getting infantry anti-tank weapons, the procurement officers laugh and just buy deeper magazines/longer belts instead.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Cain's series has lots of instances of a Lasrifle dropping a Marine with a headshot.

There are some instances where a melta kills a marine. I can't remember any time lasguns have an effect, altough this doesn't mean much because there are very few marines in the Cain stories. Sometimes it seems as if they only fight nids and orks in the eastern fringe.

Because guardsmen and their lasguns are so like our modern day infantry with their gunpowder bullets, amirite?

chaos0xomega wrote:
Because guardsmen and their lasguns are so like our modern day infantry with their gunpowder bullets, amirite?

Tanks won't exist in a setting where they can't be immune to small arms (and the lasgun is the smallest of small), because if all it took to kill tanks were "more of the same" then tanks wouldn't be cost effective.

But what am I saying? It's 40k and nothing has to make sense! My guardsmen are going to have sixteen arms, because reality means nothing.

"Sir I made this multi-million dollar armored box for you"
"What is it armored against?"
"Well not bullets that's for sure. Snakes I suppose"

The arguement that mass fire can punch through a tank and so that justifies a 6 to hit wounding is the stupidest thing i have seen argued.

Ok you hit it, you still need to wound as well, its a horrible representation of rules, and lore, its a just a lazy half baked attempt to "Balance" a broken army that needs a HELL of a lot more then just "6 to hit auto wounds."

zero changes or buffs for orks and a massive nerf to them with armour of contempt.... cheers GW

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Because guardsmen and their lasguns are so like our modern day infantry with their gunpowder bullets, amirite?

Tanks won't exist in a setting where they can't be immune to small arms (and the lasgun is the smallest of small), because if all it took to kill tanks were "more of the same" then tanks wouldn't be cost effective.

But what am I saying? It's 40k and nothing has to make sense! My guardsmen are going to have sixteen arms, because reality means nothing.

"Sir I made this multi-million dollar armored box for you"
"What is it armored against?"
"Well not bullets that's for sure. Snakes I suppose"

So you're offended by the notion that a lasgun can damage a tank... but not by the notion that an autogun, a grot blasta, bolter, a chainsword, a combat knife, claws and teeth, an 'urty syringe, etc. can also do the same? You're talking about a game where literally every rusty dagger and small caliber pistol has the potential of damaging a tank, but you're bothered that the one weapon which is arguably more powerful than most of the ones I just listed (I mean, its not like there haven't been multiple instances and mentions in the fluff of a lasgun power cell set to maximum output punching clean through concrete or adamantium armor, etc.) being slightly better at it? Like... get over yourself?

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Because guardsmen and their lasguns are so like our modern day infantry with their gunpowder bullets, amirite?

Tanks won't exist in a setting where they can't be immune to small arms (and the lasgun is the smallest of small), because if all it took to kill tanks were "more of the same" then tanks wouldn't be cost effective.

But what am I saying? It's 40k and nothing has to make sense! My guardsmen are going to have sixteen arms, because reality means nothing.

"Sir I made this multi-million dollar armored box for you"
"What is it armored against?"
"Well not bullets that's for sure. Snakes I suppose"

So you're offended by the notion that a lasgun can damage a tank... but not by the notion that an autogun, a grot blasta, bolter, a chainsword, a combat knife, claws and teeth, an 'urty syringe, etc. can also do the same? You're talking about a game where literally every rusty dagger and small caliber pistol has the potential of damaging a tank, but you're bothered that the one weapon which is arguably more powerful than most of the ones I just listed (I mean, its not like there haven't been multiple instances and mentions in the fluff of a lasgun power cell set to maximum output punching clean through concrete or adamantium armor, etc.) being slightly better at it? Like... get over yourself?

I have been against that ever since it was announced at the beginning of 8th edition, and been repeatedly told it's not a problem.

Even when Marines had full rerolls and were crippling tanks with bolt rifles, I was told it wasn't a problem.

Now Guardsmen are crippling tanks with lasrifles and it still "isn't a problem".

I want them to roll back the to-wound table just as much as you do, but clutching your pearls over *this* when GW lets any weapon wound anything on a 6+ is kinda silly.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I want them to roll back the to-wound table just as much as you do, but clutching your pearls over *this* when GW lets any weapon wound anything on a 6+ is kinda silly.

Well, if you know it is wrong, why would you say this:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah I can dig out black library novels that have examples of massed lasgun fire punching clean through power armor and disabling tanks, so saying guardsmen with lasguns "shouldn't" be able to do something "because fluff", when the fluff demonstrates and justifies the exact thing you're claiming is unfluffy, doesn't seem like a solid argument.

Because that seems to imply the mechanic is totally right. Oh, and still waiting for those examples btw.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Because guardsmen and their lasguns are so like our modern day infantry with their gunpowder bullets, amirite?

Tanks won't exist in a setting where they can't be immune to small arms (and the lasgun is the smallest of small), because if all it took to kill tanks were "more of the same" then tanks wouldn't be cost effective.

But what am I saying? It's 40k and nothing has to make sense! My guardsmen are going to have sixteen arms, because reality means nothing.

"Sir I made this multi-million dollar armored box for you"
"What is it armored against?"
"Well not bullets that's for sure. Snakes I suppose"

So you're offended by the notion that a lasgun can damage a tank... but not by the notion that an autogun, a grot blasta, bolter, a chainsword, a combat knife, claws and teeth, an 'urty syringe, etc. can also do the same? You're talking about a game where literally every rusty dagger and small caliber pistol has the potential of damaging a tank, but you're bothered that the one weapon which is arguably more powerful than most of the ones I just listed (I mean, its not like there haven't been multiple instances and mentions in the fluff of a lasgun power cell set to maximum output punching clean through concrete or adamantium armor, etc.) being slightly better at it? Like... get over yourself?

I have been against that ever since it was announced at the beginning of 8th edition, and been repeatedly told it's not a problem.

Even when Marines had full rerolls and were crippling tanks with bolt rifles, I was told it wasn't a problem.

Now Guardsmen are crippling tanks with lasrifles and it still "isn't a problem".

That middle one never happened. When full rerolls were a thing, bolt rifles were complete garbage. It was assault cannon spam in those days.

 bullyboy wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
This is the FIFTH major nerf Sisters of battle have gotten since january. I hate GW so goddam much.

Oh yeah, lets disregard the two buffes they got today.

If you hate GW, look at Grimdark future by OnePageRules

Exactly, maybe a nerf to his Jank, but the entire army getting one better save (except his 30 sacresants I’m guessing) and 5 more miracle dice (at least) per game.

Do you guys even understand how many absurd and/or drastic nerfs SoB got in the last few months? 2 relatively tame buffs are by no means making up for that, we are at best talking about baby steps into the right direction here.

ERJAK wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Because guardsmen and their lasguns are so like our modern day infantry with their gunpowder bullets, amirite?

Tanks won't exist in a setting where they can't be immune to small arms (and the lasgun is the smallest of small), because if all it took to kill tanks were "more of the same" then tanks wouldn't be cost effective.

But what am I saying? It's 40k and nothing has to make sense! My guardsmen are going to have sixteen arms, because reality means nothing.

"Sir I made this multi-million dollar armored box for you"
"What is it armored against?"
"Well not bullets that's for sure. Snakes I suppose"

So you're offended by the notion that a lasgun can damage a tank... but not by the notion that an autogun, a grot blasta, bolter, a chainsword, a combat knife, claws and teeth, an 'urty syringe, etc. can also do the same? You're talking about a game where literally every rusty dagger and small caliber pistol has the potential of damaging a tank, but you're bothered that the one weapon which is arguably more powerful than most of the ones I just listed (I mean, its not like there haven't been multiple instances and mentions in the fluff of a lasgun power cell set to maximum output punching clean through concrete or adamantium armor, etc.) being slightly better at it? Like... get over yourself?

I have been against that ever since it was announced at the beginning of 8th edition, and been repeatedly told it's not a problem.

Even when Marines had full rerolls and were crippling tanks with bolt rifles, I was told it wasn't a problem.

Now Guardsmen are crippling tanks with lasrifles and it still "isn't a problem".

That middle one never happened. When full rerolls were a thing, bolt rifles were complete garbage. It was assault cannon spam in those days.

History blurs for me but there were distinct games where huge chunks were taken out of tanks by aggressors and intercessors with full rerolls that I played. Probably the same time as when tournament lists were running assault cannons, sure, I would concede easily.

Honestly, I think right when they are about to release this dataslate, some designer grabs a drink, leans back at his desk, smiles, tells his mates “watch this”, and then hits “enter”.

Tanks already suck in this meta. Now you won't see them at all because a squad of guard can blow them up just by volume of fire. What is the point of taking tanks if the enemy doesn't need to commit to any anti tank units to kill them?

Karol wrote:

yes, but that would make eldar, tau, ad mecha and even orks, to a very small degree , more resilient. And those armies don't need it. It also would not require the changing of AP on anti tank weapons or weapons with AP2-AP3. Power armoured armies are the ones having problems with the AP system right now, so they get a patch fix. It isn't awesome, but it is all GW can do without dropping 10th in a month.

Yes...Orkz...renowned in 9th for their *Checks notes* Durability? I'm sorry sir, but what exactly have you been drinking to come up with that statement? T5 T-shirt saves, no invulns to really speak of, no FNP worth using...umm...I really don't even know how to respond to how ridiculously wrong that statement is.

Karol wrote:

Thing is AP is free on basic guns, making the whole dimnishing return not a thing of weapon AP, but rather the armour save one has. When most weapons are ap1 or better, the armies that have their resiliance build around a +2 or +3 save drops very fast. Specially in case of spammed -2AP or higher weapons and the fact units are run MSU in 9th, means a unit of 5 +2 dudes is less resilient, then a unit of +3 guys, when they cost half the points.

Ah yes, lets see. My most basic guns are....Shootas AP0....Big Shootas....AP0....Dakkagunz! AP0...........KUSTOM SHOOTAS!.....AP0. But hey its ok, because once a game I can use an army wide rule that bumps those guns up to AP-1! Oh wait, this new rule completely invalidates 50% of the point of Speed Waaaagh.

Karol, I get it, your special army gets new rules that make you have to rely less on skill and more on rules, that doesn't make it a good thing when everyone else not playing a meta army gets fethed over.

The most unsurprising part about this entire thing is that they handed out pretty hefty nerfs to Orkz without giving us a single buff in return.

The Red headed step-child of the Ork codex, Squigbuggies got hit with ANOTHER nerf which makes it now the worst buggy in the entire codex by a LARGE margin. But to add insult to injury they also just stripped away the only useful buff orkz received with their 9th edition codex, AP-1 Choppas. About 50% of the game now functionally ignores AP-1 choppas entirely. All Space Marine chapters, Grey Knights, Sisters, Chaos Marines, DeathGuard, Thousand Sons and Daemons all functionally ignore AP-1 now. Congrats to GW for yet again not understanding basic fundamental problems with their own game.

Voss wrote:
Daemons are either perfectly fine or non-existent to GW, can't tell.

As a Daemons player, I suspect that the eventual 9th Ed codex will be disappointing.

Given the volume of shots in the game, I'm not sure what GW can do to make non-monster mash Daemons viable. But evidently it's not on their radar.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
My equations...

... don't matter!

You still think that this problem is a problem because of likely outcomes. Like I already said:

"It doesn't matter whether this ability is powerful. It doesn't matter whether this ability is not powerful. It doesn't matter if it is unbalanced. It doesn't matter if it fundamentally changes the nature of the competitive scene, or is something that scarcely makes a dent in the meta."

 Daedalus81 wrote:
I guess I'm sorry that my toy dolls don't get me all angry when they don't precisely act according to the fluff.

This is a pathetic attempt to belittle anyone who has fluff problems with that. I figured you were better than that. Now we know.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Perhaps an army that has like a 20% win rate and doesn't use infantry offensively could use a good buff until their codex is out regardless of how the mechanic is applied.

And again, this has nothing to do with "win rates". I know you cleave to your tournament results like your life depends on them, but so so many of us just don't give a gak about that stuff.

Letting every Guard unit fish for 6's because GW hasn't or can't make Guard work as an army isn't good game design. It's lazy, no... it's negligent game design.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Or do we just prefer GW do nothing so that we can continue to bitch at them for not doing anything for Guard ?

Wow. That's such a terrible argument - "They should just do something!" - that it's hardly worth responding to.

First they gave Cadians mini-Transhuman, which was bad enough, and now all Guard auto-wound on 6's. And people are fine with this. Lunacy.

I'm not sure whether the complaining would be louder if the rule were something like "makes an attack with a weapon other than a Lasgun", or "if a unit other than the standard trooper squad makes an attack" for the Imperial Guard rule.

How much clunkier (more specific) would it have to be for that complaining to equal the current complaining?

 solkan wrote:
I'm not sure whether the complaining would be louder if the rule were something like "makes an attack with a weapon other than a Lasgun", or "if a unit other than the standard trooper squad makes an attack" for the Imperial Guard rule.

How much clunkier (more specific) would it have to be for that complaining to equal the current complaining?

the rule should be :

"An unmodified hit roll of 6 automatically wounds INFANTRY, BIKES, SWARMS and BEASTS. If the attack has a strength of 5 or more, it also automatically wounds vehicles and monsters"

 solkan wrote:
I'm not sure whether the complaining would be louder if the rule were something like "makes an attack with a weapon other than a Lasgun", or "if a unit other than the standard trooper squad makes an attack" for the Imperial Guard rule.

How much clunkier (more specific) would it have to be for that complaining to equal the current complaining?

It doesn’t make sense with Autoguns, or Autocannons, or Plasma guns, or Multilasers, or Lascannons… should I go on?

I don't think it would change anything. It's still fundamentally stupid and completely out of character with the fluff either way.

IG need a lot more than a stupid gimmick bonus and GW's stubbornness in refusing to do anything significant outside a codex shouldn't be excused. This is the laziest of lazy changes, a flat buff that doesn't even fit. It'd be like if they had randomly given Eldar +1 to toughness prior to the codex to try to make them better.

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 solkan wrote:
I'm not sure whether the complaining would be louder if the rule were something like "makes an attack with a weapon other than a Lasgun", or "if a unit other than the standard trooper squad makes an attack" for the Imperial Guard rule.

How much clunkier (more specific) would it have to be for that complaining to equal the current complaining?

the rule should be :

"An unmodified hit roll of 6 automatically wounds INFANTRY, BIKES, SWARMS and BEASTS. If the attack has a strength of 5 or more, it also automatically wounds vehicles and monsters"

No effect on CAVALRY and CHARIOTS? (You'd be surprised how many minor keywords there are, if what you're trying to do is make the rule not auto-wound knights and titans without saying so...)

JNAProductions wrote:

 solkan wrote:
I'm not sure whether the complaining would be louder if the rule were something like "makes an attack with a weapon other than a Lasgun", or "if a unit other than the standard trooper squad makes an attack" for the Imperial Guard rule.

How much clunkier (more specific) would it have to be for that complaining to equal the current complaining?

It doesn’t make sense with Autoguns, or Autocannons, or Plasma guns, or Multilasers, or Lascannons… should I go on?

Yeah. Please do. I want to see what you think the rule should have been. You've got one paragraph of text to specify the rule. That's the goal post.