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.

Guard are pretty borked right now-they need more than a paragraph to fix them.

I mean, Space Wolves and the Angels got a “get you by” PDF when SM2 came out.
GW can do a lot more when they care. They just… don’t.

I can't believe that guard literally have the Gauss rule from 3rd Ed.

 Blndmage wrote:
I can't believe that guard literally have the Gauss rule from 3rd Ed.

They don't. They have a better rule LOL

Old Gauss was that a 6 to wound/pen always wounded or at minimum glanced.

 solkan wrote:

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.

Simply, a lot of us don't think the rule should have been at all. Guard need help that much is true, but this rule is not the way to do it, it's whole concept is just silly.

lmfao what is this garbage? Next balance slate we will see orks get a rule that makes them automatically pass armor saves on a 6+. Or something.


Just more rules bloat to remember. And more "Feth You" to those that aren't playing a Mehriiien faction. Next!

 Eonfuzz wrote:
lmfao what is this garbage? Next balance slate we will see orks get a rule that makes them automatically pass armor saves on a 6+. Or something.


Just more rules bloat to remember. And more "Feth You" to those that aren't playing a Mehriiien faction. Next!

Sisters got it too

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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.

Because I dont enjoy vehicles being plinked away by small arms fire as a valid gameplay strategy, I prefer my armoured vehicles hard to kill and my anti-tank weapons being devastatingly powerful in the right applications. Today the game has neither and I don't particularly care for the "death by a thousand cuts" approach the game currently allows for. But that being the prevalent design paradigm of the day, I have to live with it, so that being the case Im on board with gusrd having the ability to do something which helps balance them while also being congruent with established fluff. *Should* a standard-isdue low-end rifle be able to pumch a hole through a leman russ? Probably not, but 40k fluff is filled with silly and inconsistent things like that, because the writers have no sense of scale, it is what it is.

You already got examples from another poster, im not going to be bothered to dig up more examples for you, they are very clearly there as he detailed and we both know that Rick Priestly, Gav Thorpe, and Andy Chambers themselves could descend from the heavens and show you passages affirming as such, and you would still argue against it

 solkan wrote:

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...)

GW forgets that chariots exist, so the rule would be consistent with their writing stype. It's always funny when my opponent tries to use a rule that works vs Vehicles and I have to inform them that Daemon Chariots aren't Vehicles. So many confused looks.

JakeSiren wrote:

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.

Oh no, it'll be pure awesomeness. It'll be everything you ever wanted it to be. You'll see.

UNFORTUNATELY..... You'll only have around 3-5 weeks to enjoy it in its proper glory. Then it'll be nerfed back beyond its present state. And 5 months later 10e will roll out dooming you to another 3 years of complete silence concerning the force.
At best you'll be collaterall damage by catching a few more random nerfs aimed at other forces.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Sisters got it too

Can you imagine this thread if they hadn't?

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

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.

Because I dont enjoy vehicles being plinked away by small arms fire as a valid gameplay strategy, I prefer my armoured vehicles hard to kill and my anti-tank weapons being devastatingly powerful in the right applications. Today the game has neither and I don't particularly care for the "death by a thousand cuts" approach the game currently allows for. But that being the prevalent design paradigm of the day, I have to live with it, so that being the case Im on board with gusrd having the ability to do something which helps balance them while also being congruent with established fluff. *Should* a standard-isdue low-end rifle be able to pumch a hole through a leman russ? Probably not, but 40k fluff is filled with silly and inconsistent things like that, because the writers have no sense of scale, it is what it is.

You already got examples from another poster, im not going to be bothered to dig up more examples for you, they are very clearly there as he detailed and we both know that Rick Priestly, Gav Thorpe, and Andy Chambers themselves could descend from the heavens and show you passages affirming as such, and you would still argue against it

So instead of trying to fix the problem, you will just suffer, nice.

As for what the other poster gave as examples, he was talking about sniping the crew by a regiment known for its snipers like Mkoll and Larkin. That is considerably different from regular Conscript hordes crippling a tank with a volley of rifle fire.

And no, if that happened I probably wouldn't fight it - I would just go play Battletech where the tanks are better and make more logical sense. So, uh, good talk I guess?

One argument that could be used for lasguns in particular is that they have way, way more ammo than anyone else. A marine carries what, a few hundred rounds at most? A guardsman however has, in comparison, nearly infinite ammunition which means that they can really spray and pray.

Not that it makes any more sense. And what I find really hilarious is that it probably won't even make them do all that much better in the game either.

GK Paladins with Armored Resilience in Tide of Shadows or light cover are looking tough now thanks to the new dataslate.

 Dolnikan wrote:
One argument that could be used for lasguns in particular is that they have way, way more ammo than anyone else. A marine carries what, a few hundred rounds at most? A guardsman however has, in comparison, nearly infinite ammunition which means that they can really spray and pray.

Not that it makes any more sense. And what I find really hilarious is that it probably won't even make them do all that much better in the game either.

Guard carry more ammo than marines/ have fewer logistical issues and therefore can use volume fire. That might be unique for human/ Imperial factions but I don't see eldar, necrons or nids running low on ammo either.

The Black Adder wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:
One argument that could be used for lasguns in particular is that they have way, way more ammo than anyone else. A marine carries what, a few hundred rounds at most? A guardsman however has, in comparison, nearly infinite ammunition which means that they can really spray and pray.

Not that it makes any more sense. And what I find really hilarious is that it probably won't even make them do all that much better in the game either.

Guard carry more ammo than marines/ have fewer logistical issues and therefore can use volume fire. That might be unique for human/ Imperial factions but I don't see eldar, necrons or nids running low on ammo either.

I wasn't saying that it would be the best argument. But I would assume that they carry more than most given the logistics of lasguns compared to say Tyranid weapons. That said, other energy weapons have the same thing going for them. But it's some kind of argument at least compared to just instating it as a blanket rule.

Generally though, it feels like GW has little to no idea on how to balance their game. The indirect fire thing kind of makes sense in most cases, but aside from that, the armour of contempt thing also is weird (why doesn't it work for anything else?)

Only on Dakka do you get 2 pages of complains about lasguns potentially hurting tanks despite it never actually being a factor on the tabletop.

"Oh no, 200 lasguns can kill a tank, the game is dying!!".

yes its a dumb rule, its a bandaid to give a faction that is completely in the gutter with an old codex, and unlikely to see a new one any time soon by the looks of it, a quick an dirty leg up.
Be happy they get something

In this case it's only 40ish lasguns to kill a tank.

40 infantrymen (240 points) with FRFSRF and 0 other buffs (including not using their free weapons from the Dataslate) kill a 12 wound 3+ save tank on average.

 Ordana wrote:
Only on Dakka do you get 2 pages of complains about lasguns potentially hurting tanks despite it never actually being a factor on the tabletop.

and the complains are about, why GW think this is a solution to the problem IG armies have

Now I remember why I rarely visit this board.

This dataslate is absolutely fantastic. One of the best publications we had from the GW in years, perfectly responding to the current issues of the game... and in here it is threated like the advent of another dark crusade...

In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost

...

Seriously, when did this board become like this? You really suck the joy out of everything.

Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
In this case it's only 40ish lasguns to kill a tank.

40 infantrymen (240 points) with FRFSRF and 0 other buffs (including not using their free weapons from the Dataslate) kill a 12 wound 3+ save tank on average.

Yeah, but it's also super easy to kill those squishy footslogging infantrymen and they have to get in range to kill that tank.

So what if they are easy to kill? Guardsmen shouldn't be able to auto-wound everything.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
So what if they are easy to kill? Guardsmen shouldn't be able to auto-wound everything.

Well, as I was told when I suggested orks shouldn't be base bs4+ army wide, its an abstraction, the numbers on a datasheet mean whatever you want them to mean and it's better to roll fewer dice.

As shown in these threads, every guardsman is clearly a sniper able to hit eye lenses and vision slits, the bs4+ here is a mechanical arrangement to produce some arbitrary stats unrelated from the fluff for game balance. /s

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
In this case it's only 40ish lasguns to kill a tank.

40 infantrymen (240 points) with FRFSRF and 0 other buffs (including not using their free weapons from the Dataslate) kill a 12 wound 3+ save tank on average.

160 shots, 80 hits of which 13 auto wound. the remaining 67 hits wound 11, 24 saves = 8 wounds.

How are you getting 12 wounds?

Also why did I let you walk 40 guardsman to within 12" of my tank without killing them with a stiff breeze?

 Ordana wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
In this case it's only 40ish lasguns to kill a tank.

40 infantrymen (240 points) with FRFSRF and 0 other buffs (including not using their free weapons from the Dataslate) kill a 12 wound 3+ save tank on average.

160 shots, 80 hits of which 13 auto wound. the remaining 67 hits wound 11, 24 saves = 8 wounds.

How are you getting 12 wounds?

Also why did I let you walk 40 guardsman to within 12" of my tank without killing them with a stiff breeze?

160 shots is 27 wounds (1/6th) automatically before the normal roll to wound.
1/3rd will hit without wounding (about 53) 1/6th of which will go on to wound (another 9). So about 36 wounds total before saves.

And you were busy dealing with the other 80 guardsmen that are less than 25% of my list?or maybe the other 200 guardsmen that are like 1200 points?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
In this case it's only 40ish lasguns to kill a tank.

40 infantrymen (240 points) with FRFSRF and 0 other buffs (including not using their free weapons from the Dataslate) kill a 12 wound 3+ save tank on average.

160 shots, 80 hits of which 13 auto wound. the remaining 67 hits wound 11, 24 saves = 8 wounds.

How are you getting 12 wounds?

Also why did I let you walk 40 guardsman to within 12" of my tank without killing them with a stiff breeze?

160 shots is 27 wounds (1/6th) automatically before the normal roll to wound.

And you were busy dealing with the other 80 guardsmen that are less than 25% of my list?or maybe the other 200 guardsmen that are like 1200 points?

Nah I just quit because it was the still turn 2 after 3 hours of playing.

Dudeface wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
In this case it's only 40ish lasguns to kill a tank.

40 infantrymen (240 points) with FRFSRF and 0 other buffs (including not using their free weapons from the Dataslate) kill a 12 wound 3+ save tank on average.

160 shots, 80 hits of which 13 auto wound. the remaining 67 hits wound 11, 24 saves = 8 wounds.

How are you getting 12 wounds?

Also why did I let you walk 40 guardsman to within 12" of my tank without killing them with a stiff breeze?

160 shots is 27 wounds (1/6th) automatically before the normal roll to wound.

And you were busy dealing with the other 80 guardsmen that are less than 25% of my list?or maybe the other 200 guardsmen that are like 1200 points?

Nah I just quit because it was the still turn 2 after 3 hours of playing.

~balance~

Spoletta wrote:
Now I remember why I rarely visit this board.

This dataslate is absolutely fantastic. One of the best publications we had from the GW in years, perfectly responding to the current issues of the game... and in here it is threated like the advent of another dark crusade...

In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives
- the AP gets more important
- the AP0 weapons are given a new role
- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant
- the power armor factions get a boost
- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed
- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line
- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost

...

Seriously, when did this board become like this? You really suck the joy out of everything.

Give praise where praise is do.
This dataslate was a spectacular job from GW and we should give praise so that the next time, they know what we want.

Yeah, it's not perfect but it's very good...apart from nids...who are about to go nom nom nom.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
In this case it's only 40ish lasguns to kill a tank.

40 infantrymen (240 points) with FRFSRF and 0 other buffs (including not using their free weapons from the Dataslate) kill a 12 wound 3+ save tank on average.

160 shots, 80 hits of which 13 auto wound. the remaining 67 hits wound 11, 24 saves = 8 wounds.

How are you getting 12 wounds?

Also why did I let you walk 40 guardsman to within 12" of my tank without killing them with a stiff breeze?

160 shots is 27 wounds (1/6th) automatically before the normal roll to wound.
1/3rd will hit without wounding (about 53) 1/6th of which will go on to wound (another 9). So about 36 wounds total before saves.

And you were busy dealing with the other 80 guardsmen that are less than 25% of my list?or maybe the other 200 guardsmen that are like 1200 points?

doh, yeah did 1/6 of the shots, not the hits auto wounds.
I need more coffee it seems.

Still, like every other "X, guards can in theory kill a vehicle" complaint. It exists only on paper, its never been a problem on the actual table.

Feel free to win a tournament with 200+ guardsmen to prove me wrong.

Spoletta wrote:

In this dataslate:
-the lethality of the game nosedives

Only if you're a Space Marine or Sister, otherwise get fethed.

- the AP gets more important

Unless it's AP1, which can get fethed

- the AP0 weapons are given a new role

Ah yeah, low power weaponary, famous for being the marine-killers the galaxy over. Heavy bolters? Why are you pointing that at a Space Marine? A lasgun is all you need son!

- the invulnerability saves are made less relevant

Unless you're not an Astartes or Sister of Battle (I said Sisters before, but actually Sisters of Silence can get fethed too).

- the power armor factions get a boost

Neat.
I always felt Dark Angels, Deathguard, and Thousand Sons were just too damned squishy.

- the bodyguard rule and indirect fire rules are fixed

Neat.
Unless you're Imperial Guard, because Atkins with his metal tube is more accurate than advanced xenos self-tracking ammunition.

- the worst offenders of the meta are brought back in line

Neat.

- the worst faction in the game gets a big boost

Neat

 Ordana wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ordana wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
In this case it's only 40ish lasguns to kill a tank.

40 infantrymen (240 points) with FRFSRF and 0 other buffs (including not using their free weapons from the Dataslate) kill a 12 wound 3+ save tank on average.

160 shots, 80 hits of which 13 auto wound. the remaining 67 hits wound 11, 24 saves = 8 wounds.

How are you getting 12 wounds?

Also why did I let you walk 40 guardsman to within 12" of my tank without killing them with a stiff breeze?

160 shots is 27 wounds (1/6th) automatically before the normal roll to wound.
1/3rd will hit without wounding (about 53) 1/6th of which will go on to wound (another 9). So about 36 wounds total before saves.

And you were busy dealing with the other 80 guardsmen that are less than 25% of my list?or maybe the other 200 guardsmen that are like 1200 points?

doh, yeah did 1/6 of the shots, not the hits auto wounds.
I need more coffee it seems.

Still, like every other "X, guards can in theory kill a vehicle" complaint. It exists only on paper, its never been a problem on the actual table.

Feel free to win a tournament with 200+ guardsmen to prove me wrong.

I am not arguing it is unbalanced. I am arguing it is immersion-breaking....