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.

 vict0988 wrote:

Spoiler:

Attacks that automatically hit or wound do not benefit from Hammer of the Emperor.

For attacks hitting on 2+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,04/1,1/1,2/1,4/2.

For attacks hitting on 3+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,05/1,125/1,25/1,5/2,25.

For attacks hitting on 4+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,07/1,17/1,33/1,67/2,67.

For attacks hitting on 5+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,1/1,25/1,5/2/3,5.

For attacks hitting on 6+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,2/1,4/2/3/6.

Armour of Contempt does not benefit models with storm shields or in cases where the invulnerable save is more than good enough or where the save is more than good enough (1+ Sv vs AP-1 or any Sv vs AP- weapons).

+1 to Sv multiplies damage taken for 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+/7+ by 1/0,5/0,67/0,75/0,8/0,83.

If you attack Space Marines with a 3+ Sv with an AP-1 weapon you go from a 4+ Sv to now a 3+ Sv because of the rule, so you multiply damage by 0,67.

My gut told me that armour of contempt was better, but after doing all this math I think HotE is more impactful.

Your math might tell you HotE, but in the end you're wrong.
Because HotE only comes into play when the Guard are involved in a game. AoC? Overall there's alot more people playing SM/GK/SoB/CSM type armies than there are Guard. Local metas might vary of course, but your odds of dealing with -1ap are far greater than being auto-wounded by the IG....

And Guard aren't likely to be competitive even with it. Whereas there are going to be a lot of armies that can leverage the AoC cheese to win a lot of matchups just on the power of brute math.

ccs wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Spoiler:

Attacks that automatically hit or wound do not benefit from Hammer of the Emperor.

For attacks hitting on 2+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,04/1,1/1,2/1,4/2.

For attacks hitting on 3+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,05/1,125/1,25/1,5/2,25.

For attacks hitting on 4+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,07/1,17/1,33/1,67/2,67.

For attacks hitting on 5+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,1/1,25/1,5/2/3,5.

For attacks hitting on 6+ and wounding on 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+ HotE multiplies damage by 1,2/1,4/2/3/6.

Armour of Contempt does not benefit models with storm shields or in cases where the invulnerable save is more than good enough or where the save is more than good enough (1+ Sv vs AP-1 or any Sv vs AP- weapons).

+1 to Sv multiplies damage taken for 2+/3+/4+/5+/6+/7+ by 1/0,5/0,67/0,75/0,8/0,83.

If you attack Space Marines with a 3+ Sv with an AP-1 weapon you go from a 4+ Sv to now a 3+ Sv because of the rule, so you multiply damage by 0,67.

My gut told me that armour of contempt was better, but after doing all this math I think HotE is more impactful.

Your math might tell you HotE, but in the end you're wrong.
Because HotE only comes into play when the Guard are involved in a game. AoC? Overall there's alot more people playing SM/GK/SoB/CSM type armies than there are Guard. Local metas might vary of course, but your odds of dealing with -1ap are far greater than being auto-wounded by the IG....

But the thread is which is the greater buff, not which are you most likely to see. HoE has the biggest impact to a single army I feel, likewise even if it's not enough to get guard at top tables, it seems a bigger step up than AoC is.

I just think we need more evidence.

The issue as I see it is that most IG players have ditched the hobby - or if not, aren't in position to run some guardsmen horde that would really optimise this rule.

Its a bit like you are seeing reviews online to the tune of "I brought my random grab bag of [bad marine faction] and played Tau or Custodes, and I still lost, but you know it was closer". Which is sort of a "yeah... okay. but... how about you play the good versions of Marines pls?"

Math isn't what matters in 40k fundamentally, what matters is how that math translates to the table. Guard getting a damage bonus that still isn't enough to remove key targets doesn't actually help much, no matter what the mathematical increase is. If you need to deal 10 damage to win games and this gets you from 4 to 6 it doesn't actually get you where you need to go even if it's a 50% increase.

My sense is that AoC is going to change the outcome of games, and that HotE isn't. AoC on terminators in cover is going to bring back marines lists that win by simply existing IMO, especially with the nerfs to indirect that make it basically totally irrelevant against them.

IG player here. I've only left anything relatively competitive. My stuff is in storage mostly, thanks to move complications, but I'll still be collecting and painting stuff.

We're the Imperial Guard. We hold the line, and die standing.

AoC is definitely the stronger rule, because it benefits more of the army, most of the time. HotE isn't that useful for low ROF high strength weapons, as those 6s will come less often, and have less effect. But Marines and SoB will see the benefits of reducing AP all of the time in most games, and it's a significant bonus for Marines especially, because the better the armour save, the greater the benefit, and most of their units are packing 3+ and 2+ armour saves.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
What do you mean?

I think it's another attempt at "Dakka said this, and now Dakka is saying this thing that contradicts their previous statement" which attempts to paint Dakka as some sort of hive mind.

Not at all. The same people posting about how they needed AoC are the same people that were heavily against Dakka^3.
I just find it funny, that's all.

 Eonfuzz wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
What do you mean?

I think it's another attempt at "Dakka said this, and now Dakka is saying this thing that contradicts their previous statement" which attempts to paint Dakka as some sort of hive mind.

Not at all. The same people posting about how they needed AoC are the same people that were heavily against Dakka^3.
I just find it funny, that's all.

There's no correlation between the two? People disliked dakka^3 because it slowed the shooting phase to a crawl and I've witnessed first hand the stupidity of shine shot weapons splitting into multiple shots somehow etc. It wasn't a good rule to interact with. Conversely I aren't sure on AoC either, I feel the game needs to be brought down an AP, not just when firing at marines/sisters.

Dudeface wrote:


But the thread is which is the greater buff, not which are you most likely to see. HoE has the biggest impact to a single army I feel, likewise even if it's not enough to get guard at top tables, it seems a bigger step up than AoC is.

I disagree. AM got a nice buff but I don't think it doesn't put them on par with most solid mid tiers, let alone the best armies. Factions benefitting from AoC are straight near the top builds IMHO instead. If not close to the top tiers at least pretty on par with the most solid mid tiers or superior.

And since lots of factions will benefit from it most changes will change because of that. I'm starting to consider dropping several AP-1 shots from my lists to increase the higher qualities shots now. No one would change their lists to counter or to get the highest benefits from hammer of the emperor instead.

 Blackie wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


But the thread is which is the greater buff, not which are you most likely to see. HoE has the biggest impact to a single army I feel, likewise even if it's not enough to get guard at top tables, it seems a bigger step up than AoC is.

I disagree. AM got a nice buff but I don't think it doesn't put them on par with most solid mid tiers, let alone the best armies. Factions benefitting from AoC are straight near the top builds IMHO instead. If not close to the top tiers at least pretty on par with the most solid mid tiers or superior.

And since lots of factions will benefit from it most changes will change because of that. I'm starting to consider dropping several AP-1 shots from my lists to increase the higher qualities shots now. No one would change their lists to counter or to get the highest benefits from hammer of the emperor instead.

Probably because you can't build to counter hammer of the emperor directly. AoC is a very straightforward maths equation, it looks better because it affects more armies, some of which were mid-tables and it might bump them up. Likewise its easy for you to counter draft it as its common and it has a very visible and obvious impact on your list.

Guard aren't as common as you note, they're bottom of the barrell but the buff applies to their output, which you can't directly influence or control, the same way you can to work around -1ap. That's the biggest strength of hammer, but like I said it isn't going to make them win events, but is a bigger step up, relative, than AoC imo.

When I first read it I thought that HotE was far too good. Guard shouldn't be getting auto wounds considering the amount of small arms fire they can put out. But then after thinking about it, it's not as bad as I first thought because saves are still there. It's a small boost for the army. Meanwhile... as a space marine player I am really pleased with AoC as marines needed something and this has helped make us more durable without being overpowered.

Since the balance document dropped I have played two games so far (a third tonight) using the new rule. The first was a 2K game against Necrons. In this game it didn't help me all that much but I put that down to my opponent bringing primarily 2 damage plus weapons. When i did fail a save it was a dead marine. The second was a 3K game against Tyranids (last game of the old codex) and in that game AoC performed so much better for me and for only the second time in nearly twenty years I've beat a competitive Tyranid list. Close game but AoC kept my marines alive so I could stay in the game.

In my opinion the benefits of both help their respective armies but it does depend on what army and list they are playing against. AoC is slightly stronger.

Played the first round of a guard (Emperor's blade assault company) vs craftworld (a silly list made to max out the number of farseers) last night (it's on TTS, so we plan on continuing throughout the week as we have time). My rolls were hilariously good, so HotE came up most times I shot (plus I was first turn). It also came in handy when firing overwatch with an empty chimera (2/9 shots from multilaser+heavy bolter+pintle mounted heavy stubber). Actually, HotE feels like it's made pintel mounts worth the points again (maybe they always were but I never realized it?). My opponent was having more average rolls with his dice, so a fair few of the wounds made it through his saves. I ended up losing an infantry squad that I dumped onto the center objective to concentrated shooting and lost a chimeria to eldritch storm while I almost wiped one guardian squad (thanks to a demolisher tank commander), took another to just over half power (manticore), and picked off a single ranger (center objective guard squad).

Will it make a difference in win/lose? No clue. Will it make a difference in my enjoyment...well rolling 6s is a lot more exciting, so absolutely. Will it decrease the enjoyment of my opponent? Doubtful (probably makes it more enjoyable because now he has to care about my infantry squads at least nominally, providing more meaningful interactions across the board)

How many punishers can you field?

I'm curious about a Lambdan Lions (whatever force that adds +1 to AP) with max taurox prime punishers and hot shot volley guns on everyone and everything.

I took AM to a game at the FLGS this weekend. Hammer of the Emperor did generate some autowounds against some high toughness Ork units, but it didn't seem game changing. Lasguns are still AP0. Not having to roll to wound on the odd Lascannon/Battlecannon shot was nice. The "free" upgrades to squads were, perhaps, more impactful. I did find, though, that HotE made Overwatch more effective.

I think that Armour of Contempt is a more impactful change.

Between the two? AoC is way better. HB are basically useless once again.

But both rules were created because of the flawed system of the rending AP and the removal of template.

All or nothing AP system created a ground where you had to bring specific weapons to deal with specific threat levels, it had its flaws but it was more robust then the rending system we have now. In fact, we are repeating the mistakes already made in 2nd ed, not to the same extent or degree, but we are seeing heavy infentry being useless once more.

Hammer of the Emperor is another attempt to try and make guard good, but once more dances around the actual issue. Guards strength came from being able to amass templates, for cheap, where the only roll you really had to worry about was landing a hit, or not scattering enough. Before the exhcage of fire between a basalisk and a target was the scatter roll, the wounding roll, then if applicable a saving roll. On average you dealt with 3 total rolls. Now, its roll for number of shots, roll for number of hits, roll for wounds, roll for saves. its leaves way to much up to cahnce.

A much better fix for guard would have been, "Any weapon that has xd6 hits doubles results of 1 and 2. Any weapon that fires xd3 hit, doubles a result of 1."
Guard rely on large number of hits that is tempered by their low BS, the game has to many chances to roll a low number of hits with their multi hit weapons.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
All or nothing AP system created a ground where you had to bring specific weapons to deal with specific threat levels, it had its flaws but it was more robust then the rending system we have now.

Eh. All-or-nothing combined with a plurality of armies on tables being 3+ across-the-board meant that you didn't generally take a varied mix of weapons; you took the ones that were AP3 or better and the rest was only good if you could mass it. We still see this in Heresy. Mauler bolt cannons, yes please. Lightning guns, eh, might as well roll for that one shot I guess.

In a game with more varied armor saves I think I'd like it a lot more.

The AP modifier system allows for more graceful degradation of saves, but it also has odd behavior due to the math involved. A single point of AP on something like a Heavy Bolter is far more useful against Marines than against Guardsmen. The main problem with GW's current implementation is that giving out AP like candy devalues armor altogether, but a more restrained system (eg reducing all AP by 1) would have side effects like plasma guns no longer cutting through Marine armor as they should.

Something in between the two would probably work better, but that would mean a AP-vs-save table (boo, hiss), or at least a more elegant ground-up implementation like Dust Warfare's baked-in firepower system.

So I don't really see AP modifiers going anywhere, but scaling back a bit would be nice versus clunky solutions like Armour of Contempt.

The current AP system is fine, if GW made Ork choppas and Tau pulse rifles AP4 in 5th or introduced a Troops choice fully equipped with AP3 guns (AP2 turn 1) it'd have caused problems as well.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
... Hammer of the Emperor is another attempt to try and make guard good, but once more dances around the actual issue. Guards strength came from being able to amass templates...

Why was AM OP in 8th and UP in 7th? Your hypothesis is not supported by historical evidence. The only thing that matters is pts-efficiency, that's the only reason why people don't just spam titans to fill up their entire deployment zone and why people take Intercessors instead of Centurions.

The current AP system is fine as a base rule, GW just did what GW always does and couldn't resist stat inflation. Which made the system fall down. And then of course they chose the laziest, worst possible solution with AoC, somehow managing to pile even more distortion on top of the existing distortion by devaluing low AP even further than they already had via the stat inflation.

 vict0988 wrote:
The current AP system is fine, if GW made Ork choppas and Tau pulse rifles AP4 in 5th or introduced a Troops choice fully equipped with AP3 guns (AP2 turn 1) it'd have caused problems as well.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
... Hammer of the Emperor is another attempt to try and make guard good, but once more dances around the actual issue. Guards strength came from being able to amass templates...

Why was AM OP in 8th and UP in 7th? Your hypothesis is not supported by historical evidence. The only thing that matters is pts-efficiency, that's the only reason why people don't just spam titans to fill up their entire deployment zone and why people take Intercessors instead of Centurions.

Because in 8th you took them for CP spam and farm IE the loyal32 being the top tier list because it let you spam CP for knights. On top of that the game generally was less lethally in 8th so their tanks were not being vaporized across the board so that T8 russ was a much bigger threat.

7th it was underpowered because of the sheer about of lethality that existed in the game as well, the main cluprit there being psyker power, which, guess what the most popular power was? Invis, guess what invis did? Could only snap shot the target, guess what could not shap snot? blast weapons. Womp womp. IE guards main gimmick was negated.

so what was that about not supported?

AM were good outside CP batteries in 8th and blaming 1 psychic power for AM being bad in 7th is silly since most lists were not deathstars.

 vict0988 wrote:
AM were good outside CP batteries in 8th and blaming 1 psychic power for AM being bad in 7th is silly since most lists were not deathstars.

Yeah and i said they were as well, dont ignore that part, i said every took them for CP farm, AND because the game was less lethal, so a T8 sv3 model was a lot more scary.

I dont know what game you were playing then, because almost EVERY list at the competitive level was running death stars, that would capitilize on psyker power stacking

Some of the best lists where Eldar spamming psyker powers that would gut the BS of things shooting at them while also being able to jink and cover save, Demon flying circse was a thing which again, flying, gutted the ability for AM to be able to hit them AND also took out their ability to hit them with templates as well.

7th they were underpowered BECUASE of psyker powers and because the entire meta was centered around untouchable death stars that guard suffered the most from because templates did not do anything to them.

It was not just one singular thing that prevented guard from being good in 7th, there is a long list, at the top of it was psyker powers crippling Guard before they could do anything.

Changing the level of lethality in the game means nothing, both glass cannons and tanky units have been competitive in 9th, no matter where on the sliding scale AM find themselves they'd be competitive with low enough pts costs and because their prices have not been low enough on most units in 9th they have been uncompetitive. The most competitive AM build in 9th involved Death Rider spam, I wonder what part of the core rules or meta made them so good and what changed to make it less viable?

Competitive 7th edition armies that were not deathstars: Necron Decurion, Tau Triptide, Flyrant spam, White Scars grav spam, Thousand Sons, Drukhari Talos spam and AdMech Warconvo.

 vict0988 wrote:
Changing the level of lethality in the game means nothing

what.....

I vote for Armor of Contempt, it just cancel Hammer of The Emperor buff. The weapons that benefit AM buff have 0 or -1 AP and now even their big guns are less effective. AM already struggle vs power armor and it just got worst.

Marin wrote:
I vote for Armor of Contempt, it just cancel Hammer of The Emperor buff. The weapons that benefit AM buff have 0 or -1 AP and now even their big guns are less effective. AM already struggle vs power armor and it just got worst.

It benefits all AM weapons...

Dudeface wrote:

Marin wrote:
I vote for Armor of Contempt, it just cancel Hammer of The Emperor buff. The weapons that benefit AM buff have 0 or -1 AP and now even their big guns are less effective. AM already struggle vs power armor and it just got worst.

It benefits all AM weapons...

Right, but a Battlecannon goes from doing 10 instances of d3 damage per 36 shots to MEQ out of cover, to only doing 8 instances of damage.

Net loss.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Marin wrote:
I vote for Armor of Contempt, it just cancel Hammer of The Emperor buff. The weapons that benefit AM buff have 0 or -1 AP and now even their big guns are less effective. AM already struggle vs power armor and it just got worst.

It benefits all AM weapons...

Right, but a Battlecannon goes from doing 10 instances of d3 damage per 36 shots to MEQ out of cover, to only doing 8 instances of damage.

Net loss.

Oh for sure, but that wasn't the point. Marin seemed to misunderstand what hammer of the emperor does. Or is poorly wording "the weapons it greatest benefits are"

He is not wrong though, the weapons the benifit the most from this are massed high volume low STR weapons.
Las guns, multi las, punisher cannon, things like that. However it does not REALLY benefit them.
All the benefits that everyone is talking about here assumes that the game rolls perfectly average. Which we all know this is not the case, im sure every one of us has been through their share of games only rolling maybe a handful of 6s.
So even if you are rolling statistically average by some strage force of the universe, you have to hope those 6s appear in the to hit potion of your game, not else where.

The hammer of the emperor buff can best be explained by the old saying "One in the hand is worth two in the bush."
Yeah, the two in the bush are better, but you are assuming you are actually going to be able to grab two of them.
Yeah the hammer of the emperor is better, buts thats assuming you roll 6s when you need to.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
He is not wrong though, the weapons the benifit the most from this are massed high volume low STR weapons.
Las guns, multi las, punisher cannon, things like that. However it does not REALLY benefit them.
All the benefits that everyone is talking about here assumes that the game rolls perfectly average. Which we all know this is not the case, im sure every one of us has been through their share of games only rolling maybe a handful of 6s.
So even if you are rolling statistically average by some strage force of the universe, you have to hope those 6s appear in the to hit potion of your game, not else where.

The hammer of the emperor buff can best be explained by the old saying "One in the hand is worth two in the bush."
Yeah, the two in the bush are better, but you are assuming you are actually going to be able to grab two of them.
Yeah the hammer of the emperor is better, buts thats assuming you roll 6s when you need to.

AoC doesn't matter because I only roll 1s for saves /s..