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.

 warhead01 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah that's sort of the hilarious drum beat for me.

It makes guardsmen slightly more effective against enemy infantry, and HUGELY AMAZINGLY more effective against enemy tanks, compared to how they were before.

Like an old squad against Marines did something like 2 wounds with FRFSRF. The new squad does 3. About a 50% increase.

Against a Predator tank, the old squad did 1. The new squad does roughly 3 (2.66), for a 300% damage increase.

And with no Ap and average roll the tank is probably unscathed. But it might encourage the Sm player to field a techmarine. doubtful but maybe.

I included the tank's save into the maths. On average, a predator is more than 25% dead to a guard squad within 12"

Predators were garbage before now, who cares?

 Insectum7 wrote:
Great! So presuming this basic idea of letting even basic infantry contribute something, I'd like to point out the older rules under the old AV paradigm where basic infantry armed even with Frag Grenades could assault and potentially harm a vehicle by planting grenades in vulnerable areas (always counting as hitting the rear armor of a vehicle). Additionally, allowing infantry AT specialists or squad leaders to carry much better AT grenades for even more spectacular effect.

Imo there are much smarter ways to go about achieving your desired goal than what GW has given us.

Maybe I'm misremembering, or maybe that predates me. From what I recall when I started in 5th, frags ("assault grenades") couldn't be used to hurt vehicles. Krak grenades could (basically giving each model a single attack at S6), but krak grenades were kind of rare outside of marine units (who were already S4 and could thus threaten most vehicles rear armor already). But I started with craftworlders, and they didn't have anti-vehicle grenades on anything other than swooping hawks and fire dragons. (And maybe autarchs?) So once my dedicated anti-tank units were dead, I was basically stuck doing donuts with my vehicles until the game ended. And heaven forbid you got trapped in combat with a walker.

You're right about there being other ways to let all units contribute. I just want to point out that there were still units that couldn't contribute against skew lists (like imperial knights) as of the last edition to use the AV system (7th). I'm open to change. Maybe that means giving all S3 armies abundant sources of anti-vehicle damage. Maybe that means lowering rear AV to 9 instead of 10. Maybe something else entirely. I just don't want to go back to matches where it's literally impossible for most of my army to do damage.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So allow me to ask a thought experiment, and some math hammering.

What is now more dangerous to a max squad of intercessors?

A. A fully loaded Chimera 60+60( max squad of Troops with a HWT) and a HB is 128 pts.

OR

B. 4 Scout Sentinels with Multi-lasers? 35x4 is 140 points


I'm trying to do the math on this and honestly asking. Did they just make laser-arrays deadly?

Someone can double check me on this, as I do my calculations a little....differently.

as far as the latter case:
12 shots, hitting on 4s means 6 hits. Assuming 2 rolls are 6's, then that's two auto wounds. Out of the 4 remaining, that's 3s to wound which, rounded down means 2 additional wounds.

3+ save against 4 ap 0 wounds rounded up means a whole 1 damage.

(I always round down "my" side and round up the "opponent")

For the former case:
Assuming loadout of Chimera is: Multi-Laser, Heavy Bolter, and Storm Bolter
Assuming: Infantry Squad loadout is: Sgt Bolter, Plasma, HWT with Heavy Bolter*, rest lasguns.
Assuming: rapid-fire range, no orders, Infantry Squad disembarked that turn (counts as moving). No faction bonuses applied.

Storm Bolter+Bolter: 3 hits, 1 auto wound and 1 regular wound
Lasgun: 14 shots, 7 hits, 2 auto wounds and 1 regular wound (5 hits, 5+ to wound rounded down= 1 wound)
Multi-Laser: 1 hit, 1 wound**
Plasma: 2 shots, overcharged, 1 hit, Assuming 1 wound (2+ to wound)
Heavy Bolters: 1 hit each, as HWT is at -1 to hit and rounding down Chimera's hit roll, 1 auto wound, other one misses**
Net wounds: 6 ap0 D1, 1 ap0 D2, 1 ap-1 D2
Unsaved wounds: 2, 4 if either the Plasma or Heavy Bolter wounds go through, so I'll average this to 3 wounds, resulting in 1.5 dead Marines.


*rounding down, single Lascannon hitting on 4+ always misses, and the Autocannon with my method would do 1 hit and no wounds.
**I think it's a little unfair here that both the Multi-Laser and Heavy Bolter just straight miss, so in the spirit of "lowering", I'll make the Multi-Laser wound here

 warhead01 wrote:
Kinda funny about the IG. 60 points is basically a power level. haha. but what to bring in a squad? maybe a Lascannon and something for the Sgt. Can't think of a special I know I'd get excited for instead of a lasgun. What's funny is at 60 points I feel I have to bring the heavy weapons, which I don't really feel all that excited to do it feels more like it's required due to the packaging.
Meh.

I feel like plasma guns are the go-to special weapon, no? Same range as your lasguns. Good against a wide variety of targets. Cheap enough on a guardsman that you don't care if it gets hot. Although you could maybe pull off some tricky attacks with a meltagunner; especially advancing a tallarn squad out of a chimera. Catch an enemy character at an unexpected angle and see if you get lucky. I feel like lascannons and autocannons are probably my first picks for the heavy weapons. The former for a lucky damage spike. The latter for slightly more consistency.

Apprehensive as I am about free point, it is kind of exciting to be looking at troop squad wargear again.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Works on Scions too as far as I can tell, contrary to what GH and some other places have suggested. Which makes the hotshot lasguns very good.

Scions don't have the <regimental> key word.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah that's sort of the hilarious drum beat for me.

It makes guardsmen slightly more effective against enemy infantry, and HUGELY AMAZINGLY more effective against enemy tanks, compared to how they were before.

Like an old squad against Marines did something like 2 wounds with FRFSRF. The new squad does 3. About a 50% increase.

Against a Predator tank, the old squad did 1. The new squad does roughly 3 (2.66), for a 300% damage increase.

If GW were to take another stab at this rule change, I could see them changing it to not work against monsters and vehicles. Get rid of some of the weirdness while still helping against other targets. Not that I love the auto-wound rule in general. Seems like an attempt to reduce dice rolling that mostly just shrinks your to-wound pool.

Wyldhunt wrote:

If GW were to take another stab at this rule change, I could see them changing it to not work against monsters and vehicles. Get rid of some of the weirdness while still helping against other targets. Not that I love the auto-wound rule in general. Seems like an attempt to reduce dice rolling that mostly just shrinks your to-wound pool.

LOL, this literally is what some of the scrubs in this very thread have been saying FRFSRF should be for lasguns.

No. It should stay exactly as it is.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Oh no! People are thinking about it!

So you're telling me that 120 points plus an HQ ( so about 155 ) does 6 wounds to a 150 point unit when they're within 12" of it. Oh no. The game is over. What Ever Will We Do? Surely no one has figured out how to kill T3 5+ before they get within 12". Dooooom.

I'm not sure if the angle you're taking is 'basic Guardsmen getting nearly 50% return against their least optimal target type is fine' or 'Leman Russes actually should be optimal targets for Guardsmen' but either way I would encourage you to sit down and have a long think about whether this is a good thing rather than continue to defend the trench you've dug.

Problem is that it appears that your math was wrong.

80 * .167 * .167 = 2.2 // auto-wounds
80 * .333 * .167 * .167 = 0.7

So, 3 wounds is what they'll do. Or have I missed something? I think rather you should put this into a practical application instead of modeling bowling ball scenarios.

You're right. In the moment I forgot that Russes have been patched to have 2+ saves.

So sub in Onagers, or Predators, or Defilers, or Hammerheads, or Knights, or pretty much any other heavy armored vehicle in the game, because the point is not about Leman Russes specifically- basic Guardsmen with nothing but lasguns shouldn't be getting better returns against vehicles than they do against infantry, fer chrissakes.

As far as Guardsmen wounding on 6s to hit...you guys went to the extreme example righ away...why? T8 2+ armor isn't what they will be shooting into, its units more similar to my T5 (and below) Orkz and other units.

Pre "update" 80 shots against a unit of Ork boyz (why are you taking ork boyz? ) is 40 hits, 13.3 wounds and 11ish dead Boyz.

Now with this new rule its 80 shots = 20.3 dead Boyz. Thats 180pts of dead Orkz from significantly less Guardsmen in a single round of shooting. And of course that doesn't include their FREE heavy weapon/special weapon they now get.

Personally I think this is way too far in terms of buffing Imperial guard. I think they needed some serious help, but Auto-wounding on 6s, their new free weapons rules and other stuff just makes them push well above mid tier and straight into 2nd tier at worst.

But more than that, I am concerned with the Power armor ignores the 1st -1AP. Now my best weapons against most armies are completely useless against Marines. My Big choppas just became useless and my Choppas are going back to how they used to be in 8th.

So now GW has removed Ork horde build entirely through lack of support characters, rules, buffs, stratagems etc, they nerfed their morale and there durability, they increased their price by 22% and only gave them T5 to compensate for it. At this point my Alphork strike list is effectively dead, and other orkz Speed Waaagh builds are dead, our indirect fire units are completely useless, why am I going to pay points for a unit that hits on 6s and gives my enemy +1 armor?

I would just really love for GW to hire a damn Ork player to be on their staff and review their rules so they can understand how it will horribly impact my Army as opposed to doing all the above and saying "BUT T5!"

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Great! So presuming this basic idea of letting even basic infantry contribute something, I'd like to point out the older rules under the old AV paradigm where basic infantry armed even with Frag Grenades could assault and potentially harm a vehicle by planting grenades in vulnerable areas (always counting as hitting the rear armor of a vehicle). Additionally, allowing infantry AT specialists or squad leaders to carry much better AT grenades for even more spectacular effect.

Imo there are much smarter ways to go about achieving your desired goal than what GW has given us.

Maybe I'm misremembering, or maybe that predates me. From what I recall when I started in 5th, frags ("assault grenades") couldn't be used to hurt vehicles. Krak grenades could (basically giving each model a single attack at S6), but krak grenades were kind of rare outside of marine units (who were already S4 and could thus threaten most vehicles rear armor already). But I started with craftworlders, and they didn't have anti-vehicle grenades on anything other than swooping hawks and fire dragons. (And maybe autarchs?) So once my dedicated anti-tank units were dead, I was basically stuck doing donuts with my vehicles until the game ended. And heaven forbid you got trapped in combat with a walker.

You're right about there being other ways to let all units contribute. I just want to point out that there were still units that couldn't contribute against skew lists (like imperial knights) as of the last edition to use the AV system (7th). I'm open to change. Maybe that means giving all S3 armies abundant sources of anti-vehicle damage. Maybe that means lowering rear AV to 9 instead of 10. Maybe something else entirely. I just don't want to go back to matches where it's literally impossible for most of my army to do damage.

So iirc, it was 4th ed specifically that did the Frags count as S4 against vehicles thing.

We're on the same page about a poor balance implementation of Superheavies in 7th. I'd do anumber of things about that specifically. That said I do think it should be a viable tactic to take out AT units and then have relative impunity, however I'd give more units more options especially using the Grenade route, and I'd look for other ways to make skewing Vehicles a dangerous idea in general.

As for Eldar, looking back at my 2nd ed book Guardians could take Frag and Krak. Personally I'd distribute grenades among Aspect Warriors, and in particular Haywire or something reasonable to Exarchs too.

I'm pretty positive we could find a way to reach agreement, generally.

Guard should have been 6s to hit inflict an additional hit.
Still an extremely powerful buff, but not as lore breaking as autowounding on 6s.

That being said, I do consider the dataslate a mostly improvement for the game, with only the Guard stuff being particularly stupid.

 Tyran wrote:
Guard should have been 6s to hit inflict an additional hit.
Still an extremely powerful buff, but not as lore breaking as autowounding on 6s.

That being said, I do consider the dataslate a mostly improvement for the game, with only the Guard stuff being particularly stupid.

Reasonably sure to a fairly big extent that Orkz just went from Mid tier to bottom tier in a single "balance Patch" that literally didn't even change anything on them specifically. Pretty epic of GW to pull that one off.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Predators were garbage before now, who cares?

As long as Kan gets the Guard they want, everyone else can feth off LOL

Wyldhunt wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Great! So presuming this basic idea of letting even basic infantry contribute something, I'd like to point out the older rules under the old AV paradigm where basic infantry armed even with Frag Grenades could assault and potentially harm a vehicle by planting grenades in vulnerable areas (always counting as hitting the rear armor of a vehicle). Additionally, allowing infantry AT specialists or squad leaders to carry much better AT grenades for even more spectacular effect.

Imo there are much smarter ways to go about achieving your desired goal than what GW has given us.

Maybe I'm misremembering, or maybe that predates me. From what I recall when I started in 5th, frags ("assault grenades") couldn't be used to hurt vehicles. Krak grenades could (basically giving each model a single attack at S6), but krak grenades were kind of rare outside of marine units (who were already S4 and could thus threaten most vehicles rear armor already). But I started with craftworlders, and they didn't have anti-vehicle grenades on anything other than swooping hawks and fire dragons. (And maybe autarchs?) So once my dedicated anti-tank units were dead, I was basically stuck doing donuts with my vehicles until the game ended. And heaven forbid you got trapped in combat with a walker.

You're right about there being other ways to let all units contribute. I just want to point out that there were still units that couldn't contribute against skew lists (like imperial knights) as of the last edition to use the AV system (7th). I'm open to change. Maybe that means giving all S3 armies abundant sources of anti-vehicle damage. Maybe that means lowering rear AV to 9 instead of 10. Maybe something else entirely. I just don't want to go back to matches where it's literally impossible for most of my army to do damage.

It's a little fuzzy now but I recall those grenades counting as a ST4 attack so 4+D6 would get you rear armour on some/most vehicles but it's been ages so it may have been limited to only working on AV 10 as I can't recall the specifics of older close combat again vehicles accurately.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 warhead01 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah that's sort of the hilarious drum beat for me.

It makes guardsmen slightly more effective against enemy infantry, and HUGELY AMAZINGLY more effective against enemy tanks, compared to how they were before.

Like an old squad against Marines did something like 2 wounds with FRFSRF. The new squad does 3. About a 50% increase.

Against a Predator tank, the old squad did 1. The new squad does roughly 3 (2.66), for a 300% damage increase.

And with no Ap and average roll the tank is probably unscathed. But it might encourage the Sm player to field a techmarine. doubtful but maybe.

I included the tank's save into the maths. On average, a predator is more than 25% dead to a guard squad within 12"

Didn't realize you had, I'm not a math guy. I just see my usual opponent passing every save almost every time I think I have the upper hand in nearly every game over the last 20 years. You'd think his lick would run out but he just rolls better. It's disgusting.
I can't be overly impressed by an infantry squad putting a couple of auto wounds in, Ya it'll help but that squad is probably hamburger after that. I super hate 9th. and edition so good it needs continual updates because they couldn't be bothered to do a better job from the word go.

Tresson wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Works on Scions too as far as I can tell, contrary to what GH and some other places have suggested. Which makes the hotshot lasguns very good.

Scions don't have the <regimental> key word.

They do, though. MILITARUM TEMPESTUS is their <Regiment> keyword. See the 8th edition codex:

"Units with the MILITARUM TEMPESTUS keyword treat this as their <REGIMENT> keyword in all respects

And the Nachmund FAQ:

Q: Can I include Militarum Tempestus units in the same army as units from another Regiment (e.g. Cadian)?

A: Yes. Though Militarum Tempestus is a sub-faction keyword, it is not a keyword that is selected by the player (i.e. it is not presented within angular brackets), and so is exempt from the rules that require every unit that has a selectable keyword to have the same selectable keyword. Note though that if the Militarum Tempestus units are using the Ordo Tempestus rules from Psychic Awakening: The Greater Good (which gives them the <Tempestus Regiment> keyword), then all Militarum Tempestus units from your armymust be from the same Tempestus Regiment.

In other words, MILITARUM TEMPESTUS is their <REGIMENT>, so they get it. What's somewhat unclear (my read is no, but some people seem to think otherwise) is whether you still get it if you have a mixed scion and normal guard army. But you definitely get it if you have a 100% scion force.

Tempestus cannot also have Regiment. That's like saying Blood Angels can also be Ultra Marines. Scions are a sub faction basically. Their regiment is specific to them.

Read the post directly above yours. MILITARUM TEMPESTUS is their <REGIMENT> and is treated as such "in all respects." Hence they get the bonus (at least if your army doesn't have any units from other regiments).

 Insectum7 wrote:

I'm pretty positive we could find a way to reach agreement, generally.

Agreed.

If its 'on any 6 to hit', isn't that also going to skew tanks in favour of the gatling gun leman russ variant?

locarno24 wrote:
If its 'on any 6 to hit', isn't that also going to skew tanks in favour of the gatling gun leman russ variant?

I've wondered before if these would have been go-to tanks given being able to shoot while locked in combat. The jumped out at me at the start of 9th as a tank I would defiantly wish to field just for that.
Unfortunately I've never given it a try and just sold my 4 Russ's yesterday.

9th still reminds me a lot of 2nd in a lot of ways. Tanks are hit or miss on the table for example. Loads of damage output. That sort of thing.

I'm all for anything getting me a little more use from my squads as their life expectancy is so low and if it gets AM players to play more aggressively then good. Having thought on this for a day my mood has changed from I don't want to play anymore 9th to I might be up to giving it another game or two.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Read the post directly above yours. MILITARUM TEMPESTUS is their <REGIMENT> and is treated as such "in all respects." Hence they get the bonus (at least if your army doesn't have any units from other regiments).

Just so I understand you, you're saying it's currently legal to have Cadian Gorgonnes, with exploding AND autowounding 6's? Or Cadian Iotan Dragons? With Re-rolling 1's 24" Hotshot Lasguns?

You do know that's wrong, right? Because if that were the case, they wouldn't need their very OWN commanders to issue orders. They could just get orders from any Company Commander, instead of A Tempestor. But they can't. Because they are VERY OBVIOUSLY Seperate units. Sort of like how this DOESN'T INCLUDE Commissars or Bullgryns.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Read the post directly above yours. MILITARUM TEMPESTUS is their <REGIMENT> and is treated as such "in all respects." Hence they get the bonus (at least if your army doesn't have any units from other regiments).

Just so I understand you, you're saying it's currently legal to have Cadian Gorgonnes

No, he's saying that MILITARUM TEMPESTUS is explicitly treated as a keyword replacement for REGIMENT, and no provision in the rules is given to replace it with anything else.

But if you are playing a MILITARUM TEMPESTUS detachment, then per PA: The Greater Good you also get the TEMPESTUS REGIMENT keyword, which can be replaced with only the Tempestus regiments given in a specific list.

So you have the MILITARUM TEMPESTUS keyword- which is treated as a REGIMENT keyword- and then you can also have the IOTAN GORGONNES keyword, which is a replacement for the wholly separate TEMPESTUS REGIMENT keyword. You can't take CADIANS as a keyword, but you do count as having a REGIMENT.

Clear as mud.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
Read the post directly above yours. MILITARUM TEMPESTUS is their <REGIMENT> and is treated as such "in all respects." Hence they get the bonus (at least if your army doesn't have any units from other regiments).

Just so I understand you, you're saying it's currently legal to have Cadian Gorgonnes, with exploding AND autowounding 6's? Or Cadian Iotan Dragons? With Re-rolling 1's 24" Hotshot Lasguns?

You do know that's wrong, right? Because if that were the case, they wouldn't need their very OWN commanders to issue orders. They could just get orders from any Company Commander, instead of A Tempestor. But they can't. Because they are VERY OBVIOUSLY Seperate units. Sort of like how this DOESN'T INCLUDE Commissars or Bullgryns.

No. Read what I actually said. MILITARUM TEMPESTUS is their <regiment>. Of course they can't be Cadian too, that'd be having two regiments.

Scions have MILITARUM TEMPESTUS as their <regiment> in the exact same was that Creed has CADIAN as his regiment.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:


No, he's saying that MILITARUM TEMPESTUS is explicitly treated as a keyword replacement for REGIMENT, and no provision in the rules is given to replace it with anything else.

But if you are playing a MILITARUM TEMPESTUS detachment, then per PA: The Greater Good you also get the TEMPESTUS REGIMENT keyword, which can be replaced with only the Tempestus regiments given in a specific list.

So you have the MILITARUM TEMPESTUS keyword- which is treated as a REGIMENT keyword- and then you can also have the IOTAN GORGONNES keyword, which is a replacement for the wholly separate TEMPESTUS REGIMENT keyword. You can't take CADIANS as a keyword, but you do count as having a REGIMENT.

Clear as mud.

Yeah, it's awkward for sure. Basically, the Scion sub-factions are actually sub-sub-factions, something that to my knowledge doesn't exist anywhere else in the game.

MILITARUM TEMPESTUS is the <regiment> of all Scions. Then they additionally have this other keyword that gives them a specialization - Gorgonnes, etc. But their <regiment> is MILITARUM TEMPESTUS, and so they get the 6s to hit from the new dataslate if your army is pure scions.

I personally hope it works because I had a Scion force with all four assassins I was hoping to bust out next month.

It 100% works if the Scions are the only <regiment> units in your army.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It 100% works if the Scions are the only <regiment> units in your army.

Does it have to be a PURE Refiment though? I had a force of half Dragons and half Jackals. I'd hate to pick just ONE.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
...Because this game is a dead horse, that keeps popping it's pustules and farting out corpse gas in the form of "balance updates", and we keep paying to give it another kick...

I keep telling people that all the problems with 8th/9th are the exact same problems as the problems with 7th (too many bespoke rules invalidating the core rules, faction bloat, sub-faction bloat, new-Codex-wins, horribly uneven distribution of models, scale creep, power creep, no design space that all the books are written towards, endless rules churn prioritizing getting new players into the game over retaining old players...), and they kept not believing me, though I think we're starting to see all the "no, GW's turned over a new leaf!" people starting to realize that they really never did after two editions of the same old crap.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

If GW were to take another stab at this rule change, I could see them changing it to not work against monsters and vehicles. Get rid of some of the weirdness while still helping against other targets. Not that I love the auto-wound rule in general. Seems like an attempt to reduce dice rolling that mostly just shrinks your to-wound pool.

LOL, this literally is what some of the scrubs in this very thread have been saying FRFSRF should be for lasguns.

No. It should stay exactly as it is.

You probably shouldn't be calling other people in this thread "scrubs" considering you're an avowed PL player.

Hecaton wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

If GW were to take another stab at this rule change, I could see them changing it to not work against monsters and vehicles. Get rid of some of the weirdness while still helping against other targets. Not that I love the auto-wound rule in general. Seems like an attempt to reduce dice rolling that mostly just shrinks your to-wound pool.

LOL, this literally is what some of the scrubs in this very thread have been saying FRFSRF should be for lasguns.

No. It should stay exactly as it is.

You probably shouldn't be calling other people in this thread "scrubs" considering you're an avowed PL player.

I'm not sure that using a different army building method determines if someone is a scrub or not. If the art of war guys started playing with PL sometimes would they become scrubs?