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.

Is it time to rethink the fact that a lowly Guardsman can tote Meltas, Flamers, and Plasma Weapons around like a Space Marine?

Should a guardsman be able to rapid fire a plasma rifle? I don't think so, but I'm likely wrong.

Suggestions for the board:

Plasma Rifle changes to RF1, range 18. They shouldn't be able to do exactly what everyone else can do with them. In my opinion.
Melta becomes heavy 2. These also need the 12" buff for guard at least.
Flamers become Heavy d6 Auto-hitting. So the Heavy doesn't matter, but you can't advance and spam.
Grenade Launchers should be:
Frag - Assault 2d6.
Krak - Assault 2.
Sniper Rilfe needs to be Heavy 1 48" 3d damage against infantry. 1d against vehicles.

I just feel it's odd that we haven't updated the Guard Weapon profiles to make them more actually unique to Guard. I admit that specialists like Command Squads, Characters, or Scions should get better profiles, but I'm slightly more concerned with the common trooper being given a plasma rifle and having roughly the same ability with it as a Scion.

So you wanna nerf guard? And make even more unique weapons?

Hard pass.

A terrible solution for a problem which doesn't exist in the first place.

Personally at this point I'm ok with a little homogenization among Imperial factions. I'm getting kind of sick of each faction's weapons getting a new name, depending on who's using it.

I do understand that makes it a little easier to tweak the rules if necessary but sometimes trying to remember the difference between an auto, regular & stalker; executor, heavy & hellstorm; cognis or ironhail [insert weapon name here] and who is equipped with what is just absurd.

An Imperial Plasma Gun (with two profiles itself mind you) should just be an Imperial Plasma Gun regardless of who is using it.

To use your example: In most situations those Guardsmen toting special weapons are most likely, to use a Necromunda term, "heavies"; bulkier troops that can manage the weight of a more cumbersome weapon. Additionally, whose to say these weapons aren't being braced in some manner before rapid firing? No reason a Plasma Gun braced on a stack of sand bags couldn't produce a steady stream of shots.

the difference between a Space Marine using a Plasma Gun and a Guardsmen using a Plasma Gun is that one hits on a 3+ and the other hits on a 5+. it's represented well enough

There might be some abstraction anyway, as a guard Sergeant may take a boltgun that has the exact same stats as a marines, but in lore is a slightly lighter different weapon. The differences are just too minor to matter in game

What problem are we solving here? Why is it an issue that Guard weapons have identical stats to the same weapons used by SM? The differentiation of effectiveness comes from unit stats and points cost, not by creating even more weapons for no good reason.

Why would a plasma gun lose range just because a guardsman is holding it? And what is the "12 buff" for meltas?

oh, i just realised, its a Fezzik post lmao

But that's JUST it, Guard aren't paying for these anymore. They just get them for free. I also understand that Guard have much worse ballistic skill, but as I've said before, I think we need to give in order to get here. You can't micro alter your current Guard way of life, and suddenly make them a feasible force in 9th, let alone barely playable. They need a rather severe shake up in order to play. Auto-wounding 6's was a start. It was a complete shake up to how Guard play in 9th. Now it's no longer stacking lots of high value rounds, it's stacking hundreds of dice onto a target and praying for 6's. A Punisher Cannon is now a bigger threat to most things than a Battle Cannon. They've completely flipped the way guard play. I don't even know why I'm arguing for revamp of Guard. They are clearly one of the last actual codex's (I think space dwarves are the last) before 10th drops, at which point they will instantly become irrelevant again.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
But that's JUST it, Guard aren't paying for these anymore. They just get them for free. I also understand that Guard have much worse ballistic skill, but as I've said before, I think we need to give in order to get here. You can't micro alter your current Guard way of life, and suddenly make them a feasible force in 9th, let alone barely playable. They need a rather severe shake up in order to play. Auto-wounding 6's was a start. It was a complete shake up to how Guard play in 9th. Now it's no longer stacking lots of high value rounds, it's stacking hundreds of dice onto a target and praying for 6's. A Punisher Cannon is now a bigger threat to most things than a Battle Cannon. They've completely flipped the way guard play. I don't even know why I'm arguing for revamp of Guard. They are clearly one of the last actual codex's (I think space dwarves are the last) before 10th drops, at which point they will instantly become irrelevant again.

And you're suggesting to make them worse, do you not see that?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I don't even know why I'm arguing for revamp of Guard.

Because it's Tuesday morning & your wasting time at your desk/cubicle vs getting any productive work done?

Your not even arguing to revamp the Guard effectively.
Most people, even if their ideas are bad, try & improve a force. Or at least make it more interesting.
You? You're just stacking negatives on both the army AND the players.
(You should stop before GW accidentally hears you)

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
But that's JUST it, Guard aren't paying for these anymore. They just get them for free. I also understand that Guard have much worse ballistic skill, but as I've said before, I think we need to give in order to get here. You can't micro alter your current Guard way of life, and suddenly make them a feasible force in 9th, let alone barely playable. They need a rather severe shake up in order to play. Auto-wounding 6's was a start. It was a complete shake up to how Guard play in 9th. Now it's no longer stacking lots of high value rounds, it's stacking hundreds of dice onto a target and praying for 6's. A Punisher Cannon is now a bigger threat to most things than a Battle Cannon. They've completely flipped the way guard play. I don't even know why I'm arguing for revamp of Guard. They are clearly one of the last actual codex's (I think space dwarves are the last) before 10th drops, at which point they will instantly become irrelevant again.

I'm still not seeing how we get from "the guns are now free" to the requirement to reduce their effectiveness. Clearly GW felt IG Infantry Squads needed some help and giving them free weapon upgrades is one of the ways they've done this. By advocating for reducing the effectiveness of some of those guns, you're trying to undo a buff to an army that is still languishing down at the bottom.

Why? Initially it sounded like you were trying to make changes based on lore (which is wrong anyway because GW have been pretty clear that Imperial special weapons aren't any different between the various users of those guns). But now you're making an argument based on tabletop performance. If you're advocating for a change you should be able to at least state why the change is necessary. What problems does it fix? If it's about tabletop effectiveness, how does it achieve your desired goals? If it's lore-based, can you back up your changes with relevant examples from the background? Can you justify such a change from a balance perspective as well?

 Valkyrie wrote:
A terrible solution for a problem which doesn't exist in the first place.

Yep, it this.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Is it time to rethink the fact that a lowly Guardsman can tote Meltas, Flamers, and Plasma Weapons around like a Space Marine?

No, because one hits on 3s and the other on 4s, and one is protected by multiple wounds and a 3+ armor save versus one wound and a 5+.

Same weapon, vastly better platform, and there is nothing at all wrong with that. Same goes for the heavy weapons, where a single Marine is considerably tougher than the amalgamated W2 profile of the pair of Guardsmen handling their weapon.

 catbarf wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Is it time to rethink the fact that a lowly Guardsman can tote Meltas, Flamers, and Plasma Weapons around like a Space Marine?

No, because one hits on 3s and the other on 4s, and one is protected by multiple wounds and a 3+ armor save versus one wound and a 5+.

And then one can also hit on 3s, by being alive long enough.

Same weapon, vastly better platform, and there is nothing at all wrong with that. Same goes for the heavy weapons, where a single Marine is considerably tougher than the amalgamated W2 profile of the pair of Guardsmen handling their weapon.

There is 100% room for a "Rare/Officer Issued Weapons" list in Guard, for things like Plasma Guns. You don't hear people grousing about GSC having multiple weapon lists to pull from for their units.

So why is it some sacred cow that can never, ever, ever, EVER be touched with Guard?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Is it time to rethink the fact that a lowly Guardsman can tote Meltas, Flamers, and Plasma Weapons around like a Space Marine?

No, because one hits on 3s and the other on 4s, and one is protected by multiple wounds and a 3+ armor save versus one wound and a 5+.

And then one can also hit on 3s, by being alive long enough.

Same weapon, vastly better platform, and there is nothing at all wrong with that. Same goes for the heavy weapons, where a single Marine is considerably tougher than the amalgamated W2 profile of the pair of Guardsmen handling their weapon.

There is 100% room for a "Rare/Officer Issued Weapons" list in Guard, for things like Plasma Guns. You don't hear people grousing about GSC having multiple weapon lists to pull from for their units.

So why is it some sacred cow that can never, ever, ever, EVER be touched with Guard?

Perhaps because guard has had those weapons since before most armies took anything resembling their modern form and just taking them out would be a slap in the face for many players.

Also, because they've buffed HBs to such an insane degree that they are now the preferable AT weapon for HWT. A heavy 3 shot S5 D2 weapon is better than a Heavy 1, S9 Dd6 platform. And the latter costs almost twice as much.

That is why they need a review. Either make the AC something better, make the LC d3+3, or make the HB heavy 2. But right now with the way HBs are across the board, what's the point of taking mortars, LC, ML, or AC?

The HB is trash now too after AoC. The only good heavy weapons are mortars and lascannons.

 Dolnikan wrote:

Perhaps because guard has had those weapons since before most armies took anything resembling their modern form and just taking them out would be a slap in the face for many players.

You know that nobody is saying "take them out", right?

This is the problem with having literally any discussion about Guard. People can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea of "maybe a reorganization would be a good thing".

There is zero issue with Mortars being slotted in only as a Heavy Support option of a "Mortar Squad".
There is zero issue with Sergeants, Veterans, Scions, and Officers being the only ones able to take Plasma Guns.
There is zero issue with Lascannons being locked to Anti-Tank squads(and given another weapon option to go alongside of them--preferably the Hellshots), while Missile Launchers get slotted into the Special Weapons spot to replace Plasma Guns.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Also, because they've buffed HBs to such an insane degree that they are now the preferable AT weapon for HWT. A heavy 3 shot S5 D2 weapon is better than a Heavy 1, S9 Dd6 platform. And the latter costs almost twice as much.

That is why they need a review. Either make the AC something better, make the LC d3+3, or make the HB heavy 2. But right now with the way HBs are across the board, what's the point of taking mortars, LC, ML, or AC?

Did I miss some buffs? Granted I play SW, so I haven't paid too much attention to Guard. It looks like it's no where near twice the cost. HWT is 50 points for 3x HB(or mortar, or autocannon), or 65 for 3x LC(or missile launcher) or am I mistaken?For AT, it looks like LC easily wins.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Is it time to rethink the fact that a lowly Guardsman can tote Meltas, Flamers, and Plasma Weapons around like a Space Marine?

Nope.

Why shouldn't they have access to these weapons? They're not unique, nor are they in low supply.

 Kanluwen wrote:
There is 100% room for a "Rare/Officer Issued Weapons" list in Guard, for things like Plasma Guns. You don't hear people grousing about GSC having multiple weapon lists to pull from for their units.

Plasma weapons are rare in the Guard, so rare in fact that they only have the resources to give one out per squad.

 Kanluwen wrote:
There is zero issue with Mortars being slotted in only as a Heavy Support option of a "Mortar Squad".
There is zero issue with Sergeants, Veterans, Scions, and Officers being the only ones able to take Plasma Guns.
There is zero issue with Lascannons being locked to Anti-Tank squads(and given another weapon option to go alongside of them--preferably the Hellshots), while Missile Launchers get slotted into the Special Weapons spot to replace Plasma Guns.

This is more of your psychotic "My Skitarii got screwed, so everyone else can suffer!" mentality, isn't it?

To that I say: No lasgun Sergeants!

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Plasma Rifle changes to RF1, range 18. They shouldn't be able to do exactly what everyone else can do with them. In my opinion.
Melta becomes heavy 2. These also need the 12" buff for guard at least.
Flamers become Heavy d6 Auto-hitting. So the Heavy doesn't matter, but you can't advance and spam.
Grenade Launchers should be:
Frag - Assault 2d6.
Krak - Assault 2.
Sniper Rilfe needs to be Heavy 1 48" 3d damage against infantry. 1d against vehicles.

So let me get this straight, you want to nerf weapons that are shared across the majority of the Imperial factions? Simply because the army that's at the bottom of the competitive ladder, and still at the bottom after the weapons became free.

- Plasma needs no change. It's fine.
- Melta needs no change. It's also fine.
- Flamer needs to either be cheaper at 3 points, become D6+2 shots like Tau, become AP-1 like BT flamers, or become S6 like Sister ones. Right now it's basically just D6 autohit bolter shots, that's not great.
- Grenade Launchers like the Flamer should just be cheaper, make them 3 points as well.
- Sniper Rifles just need better AP. In the lore they use hotshot power packs, what else uses a hotshot power packs? Hotshot lasguns. Make them AP-2 like hotshots and they'd be fine.

That's it. We fixed them.

 Kanluwen wrote:
People can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea of "maybe a reorganization would be a good thing".

Reorganizing back into platoons, sure!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Also, because they've buffed HBs to such an insane degree that they are now the preferable AT weapon for HWT. A heavy 3 shot S5 D2 weapon is better than a Heavy 1, S9 Dd6 platform. And the latter costs almost twice as much.

The math on that statement doesn't check out even if the target has a 4+ invuln.

HB: 0.5×0.333×0.5×2×3= .49

LC: 0.5×0.666×0.5×3.5= .58

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:

Perhaps because guard has had those weapons since before most armies took anything resembling their modern form and just taking them out would be a slap in the face for many players.

You know that nobody is saying "take them out", right?

You did see who the OP is, right? (note: not sarcastically repeating the ", right?", just can't think of a way to rephrase it atm)

This is the problem with having literally any discussion about Guard. People can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea of "maybe a reorganization would be a good thing".

I think the issue here is that a reorg Could be a good thing. Depending on the scale of the reorg, it could end up invalidating significant portions of a collection for no benefit whatsoever. I don't think you're wrong about Guard players being a bit unwilling to accept major changes, but I also don't think it's unfair for people to be skeptical of massive change proposals without a bit more discussion/evidence.

There is zero issue with Mortars being slotted in only as a Heavy Support option of a "Mortar Squad".
There is zero issue with Sergeants, Veterans, Scions, and Officers being the only ones able to take Plasma Guns.
There is zero issue with Lascannons being locked to Anti-Tank squads(and given another weapon option to go alongside of them--preferably the Hellshots), while Missile Launchers get slotted into the Special Weapons spot to replace Plasma Guns.

See, this is kind of what I was talking about. You're suggesting reorgs that would require some people to change up significant portions of their lists with nothing but the assertion that there's "nothing wrong" with the ideas. What issues are those proposals trying to solve? What's wrong with an Infantry Squad having an embedded Mortar team? Plasma may be generally rare, but what about planets supplied by Ryza, or who historically preferred plasma rifles as their special weapon - why can't they keep doing that? You're getting the "burden of proof" backwards here - it's not on Guard players to come up with reasons not to make those changes, you as the proposer have to explain why the changes should be made in the first place.

 waefre_1 wrote:

This is the problem with having literally any discussion about Guard. People can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea of "maybe a reorganization would be a good thing".

I think the issue here is that a reorg Could be a good thing. Depending on the scale of the reorg, it could end up invalidating significant portions of a collection for no benefit whatsoever. I don't think you're wrong about Guard players being a bit unwilling to accept major changes, but I also don't think it's unfair for people to be skeptical of massive change proposals without a bit more discussion/evidence.

I've discussed it far, far more than I should have had to. You get to prove why it's a bad idea.

"Invalidating significant portions of a collection" is literally nothing to be acting all indignant about, because spoiler alert: they're doing it to other people too.

There is zero issue with Mortars being slotted in only as a Heavy Support option of a "Mortar Squad".
There is zero issue with Sergeants, Veterans, Scions, and Officers being the only ones able to take Plasma Guns.
There is zero issue with Lascannons being locked to Anti-Tank squads(and given another weapon option to go alongside of them--preferably the Hellshots), while Missile Launchers get slotted into the Special Weapons spot to replace Plasma Guns.

See, this is kind of what I was talking about. You're suggesting reorgs that would require some people to change up significant portions of their lists with nothing but the assertion that there's "nothing wrong" with the ideas.

I happen to 100% know that there is no issue with doing these changes on Guard, because I've been around long enough to have had multiple weapon and armor options removed from characters.

The only people this would be a problem for are metachasers who built their armies based on netlists. And I have zero issues with inconveniencing them. I could use the bits sales to finance another project.

What issues are those proposals trying to solve?

What issue is solved by letting plasma guns be the constant, 100% de facto choice for a squad's special weapon choice?

Because that's where the issue sits:
Special Weapons is a broader category than our dumpsterfire of a book pretends it is--and Heavy Weapon Teams don't belong in infantry squads, period.

What's wrong with an Infantry Squad having an embedded Mortar team?

Seriously?

This isn't rocket science. It creates a non-interactive playstyle. It also creates more problems than it should--and it NEVER should have been allowed to be a thing in the first damn place.

Plasma may be generally rare, but what about planets supplied by Ryza, or who historically preferred plasma rifles as their special weapon - why can't they keep doing that?

If Ryza's Skitarii Legions can't take 3 plasma calivers in a single squad, why should "planets supplied by Ryza" have such a crazy high supply of them to be tossing them out to basic troopers in basic infantry squads?

Because remember: that's what effectively happens. You replace a BASIC Guardsman with a Plasma Gunner. At least putting it on a Sergeant or an Officer makes a modicum of sense, given that they're usually a veteran.

You're getting the "burden of proof" backwards here - it's not on Guard players to come up with reasons not to make those changes, you as the proposer have to explain why the changes should be made in the first place.

Or you could read literally any of the bloody treatises I've wrote on the subject over the years.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
People can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea of "maybe a reorganization would be a good thing".

Reorganizing back into platoons, sure!

Post some proof as to why it's necessary.

Because yeah, we both know they aren't.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Post some proof as to why it's necessary.

Because yeah, we both know they aren't.

Saves CP and points for not needing to take additional detachments for more troops slots and HQ tax. Also means you could take more infantry squads instead of being capped out at 18 from taking 3 battalions.

 Kanluwen wrote:
If Ryza's Skitarii Legions can't take 3 plasma calivers in a single squad...

AHAHAHAHAHAH!

I was right. I was completely right.

You're so angry about plasma guns and your precious Skitarii that you want everyone else to suffer as a result. That goes beyond a toxic attitude, Kan. As I said above: It's a psychotic attitude to have.

Jarms48 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Post some proof as to why it's necessary.

Because yeah, we both know they aren't.

Saves CP and points for not needing to take additional detachments for more troops slots and HQ tax. Also means you could take more infantry squads instead of being capped out at 18 from taking 3 battalions.

So basically, nothing except "it lets me run skew lists easier"?

Why should anyone need to have more than 18 frigging infantry squads in a game?

Because he/she just likes collecting/painting infantry models more than tanks and wants to play with his/her collection too?
At least that would be my personal reason for the sake of the argument.