Switch Theme:

Changing the way Astra Militarum plays  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I was watching the recap of Tabletop Titans, and something they said hit me, making me want to change the Astra Militarum (IG) playstyle entirely. The key comment they made was "AdMech and Tau have a very non-interactive playstyle" (which is the same as IG): If our opponent gets to IG, they lose, otherwise they win, end of story. That is our barrier to a fun & effective game that needs to change

The 2nd problem is that Guard output is about half of where it needs to be. For example (no buffs included here, just baselines):
- A 55-point IG Infantry does 1W to intercessors in Rf range (without FRFSRF), but 54 points Skitarii Rangers do 2, for about the same durability (Intercessors do 2.5W to rangers, ~5 to IG)
-a 160-point LRBT with a BC does 2.5W to intercessors, but a 115-point AdMech Onager Dunecrawler with Twin Phos Blaser does 4.7, for the same durability against Lascannons and Multi-meltas.


So here's my proposal:

- Drop Get Back in the Fight, Fix Bayonets, FRFSRF, the Defensive gunners strat and Grinding Advance (Change weapons that get 2d6 on grinding advance to a flat 2d6, as they're still at half the damage because of BS4).
- new order: Defend Yourselves! (lasts until your next command phase) Infantry can shoot with their weapons in melee rather than fight with a bayonet (a-la old True Grit). Tanks can shoot non-blast weapons in engagement range without the -1 hit penalty. Turret weapons can still fire at units not in engagement range during our shooting phase, unless there is a monstrous creature or another vehicle unit within engagement range.
- Units not given "Defend Yourselves!" can shoot twice in the shooting phase (drop FRFSRF), but uses their normal attacks against models in engagement range.


There is precedent for this, with the old "True Grit" and the new Tau codex shooting in melee.


This changes IG dramatically:

-opponents can't just tag a tank anymore, they either kill it, or it's still murdering them, If the tank was given the "Defend yourself" order. It makes consolidating into a tank an actual decision, but also forces a decision on the IG player's part, to either shoot twice, or shoot 3 times at a much higher risk.
-IG don't have to increase their overall firepower by 3x/4x/5x, they can probably be in the 1.25x range since they'll interact in 2 more phases. Most of that increase can come thru just fixing the weapon damage profiles and getting the normal re-roll auras armies are getting in 9th
- It would be funny and fluffy as hell to give a Leman Russ "Defend Yourself", have it fire once in shooting, charge your opponent, then shoot in each of the next 2 melee phases.
- It buffs our ranged firepower (via player decision), without having to be excessive.
- It buffs our melee at a cost of ranged firepower, or boosts our ranged firepower at a cost of melee power - in short, it forces a player choice.

I think there would have to be a couple nerfs to units, as I'm pretty sure they'd be OP with this:
- Hellhounds. A 110-point Hellhound with 4d6 S6 AP-1 auto-hitting shots is a bit more than a Dakkajet at 120 (14 hits vs. 12 for the Dakkajet), plus another 2d6 Heavy flamer hits on top of that is a LOT of output
- We'd have to limit TCs to 1 per detachment. That should be OK considering they're 200 points a pop, and the other units in the army will be brought up to compensate.


Now it's not an "auto-lose" if IG tanks get into melee, and our infantry can at least consider it. It forces our opponents to have to choose between staying in melee with a Hellhound that explodes on a 4+ and getting shot, or taking the falling back penalty. And if they can't damage a Leman Russ, then getting into melee is a boon for us!

Furthermore, with the new missions in CA2022, there's going to be a lot of vying for the mid-board, where IG just don't play, except for throwing a guard unit out and hoping it doesn't die. This should make IG more fire-and-maneuver as opposed to the current "fire and hope you go hot to kill it"
   
Made in ca
Librarian with Freaky Familiar






They dont need to be changed, they need to be buffed, but not changed.
You are not taking guard infantry to do damage, you are taking them as a tax for the other things guard gets.
Thats because you are using a battle canon against infentry, NOW that said, they were a lot better at doing that when we had templates. If you are trying to gun down marines, you should be using something like, a demo canon.
Its blast so you are going to get more hits, S10 so wounding on 2s, and AP -3 D6 damage.

Guard are meant to be a gun line, the other thing that makes guard good, is that they are a swiss army knife, they can bring a unit that is the answer to any problem. Hordes? Punisher cannon, High armor? Plasma, Vehicles? Executioner battle canon.

Guard as a play style are fine they just need a new dex.

Overall what would help guard, and basically any army that uses vehicles is a buff to vehicles in general. One of the draw backs of guard is that all their good stuff come in the forms of vehicles, and those kinda suck right now.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/26 20:21:56


To many unpainted models to count. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





brainpsyk wrote:
If our opponent gets to IG, they lose, otherwise they win, end of story. That is our barrier to a fun & effective game that needs to change

With this in mind as our goal...

So here's my proposal:

- Drop Get Back in the Fight, Fix Bayonets, FRFSRF, the Defensive gunners strat and Grinding Advance (Change weapons that get 2d6 on grinding advance to a flat 2d6, as they're still at half the damage because of BS4).
- new order: Defend Yourselves! (lasts until your next command phase) Infantry can shoot with their weapons in melee rather than fight with a bayonet (a-la old True Grit). Tanks can shoot non-blast weapons in engagement range without the -1 hit penalty. Turret weapons can still fire at units not in engagement range during our shooting phase, unless there is a monstrous creature or another vehicle unit within engagement range.
- Units not given "Defend Yourselves!" can shoot twice in the shooting phase (drop FRFSRF), but uses their normal attacks against models in engagement range.

...I'm not sure these changes really accomplish that goal. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your proposal. As I read it, it seems like this actually makes the IG playstyle even less interactive. It's just that instead of auto-losing when you get tagged, you maybe get to ignore your opponent's choices enough to win even after your opponent breaches your lines. So instead of having to screen vehicles with infantry, consider having countercharge units to bail your dudes out, or use less powerful units as charge bait so they can fall back and keep your more powerful units to keep firing, you just... don't do any of that. And keep shooting.

So the IG player is making fewer meaningful choices, and so is your opponent. You're giving up the dynamic push and pull of having downsides to being in melee and replacing it with a presumably slightly higher win rate for IG because their offensive units can't be countered in as many ways as before.


- It would be funny and fluffy as hell to give a Leman Russ "Defend Yourself", have it fire once in shooting, charge your opponent, then shoot in each of the next 2 melee phases.

So funny. :S Maybe I'm a stick in the mud, but I'm not sure I'd be as entertained by having that used against me as you would be to use it.


Now it's not an "auto-lose" if IG tanks get into melee, and our infantry can at least consider it.

Is it really an auto-lose right now? Your tanks can generally shoot into melee at the moment (exceptions being blast weapons that generally hide in your back lines anyway), and you can always fall back with a unit to let the rest of your army punish the enemy that charged. And if your entire army is in melee at the same time, is that not an indication that you've failed to screen/protect your big guns? I don't mean that as an attack but as an honest question. Shouldn't getting into melee with the entire enemy gunline probably be bad for the gunline?

As for infantry going into melee, I'm honestly probably fine with letting them shoot in melee (or at least treat their lasguns as pistol 2 or something). But should guardsmen ever really be "good" in melee? How far off the mark are they currently compared to where you feel they should be?


Furthermore, with the new missions in CA2022, there's going to be a lot of vying for the mid-board, where IG just don't play, except for throwing a guard unit out and hoping it doesn't die.

My eldar sympathize. From the outside looking in though, it has always seemed like the answer for IG is just, "you troops are cheap." A 10 man squad of guardsmen costs about half as much as a 10 man squad of guardians and has about twice as many bodies as a squad of dire avengers. I'm sure both of our troops are being outperformed by those that have 9th edition books, but you can kind of afford to just lob wave after wave of bodies into the grinder and in sufficient numbers to simply outnumber your opponent when determining who controls an objective. MMM! even lets you launch a cheap squad from behind a ruin onto an objective from a distance without having to expose them to enemy fire beforehand.

IG could certainly use a buff and a playstyle tinkering, but I feel like you're already in a better position to fight over the center of the table than some of my armies.

This should make IG more fire-and-maneuver as opposed to the current "fire and hope you go hot to kill it"

Rather than just ignoring the downsides of melee, I think I'd rather see IG gain some tools to encourage a forward presence and/or maneuvering. Off the top of my head:
* Give chimeras the devilfish treatment where they become a good support for guardsmen that travel inside of them. This would let you keep both units cheap and not especially killy (so not stepping on the toes of your elites/heavies) while still making it more attractive to field units that want to move towards the enemy.

* Include orders or stratagems that make guardsmen better at catching (surviving) charges or incoming fire. So they can block the enemy and then fall back to expose the enemy to the rest of your army's guns. Imagine if guardsmen could take a "dig in" action to gain gain +2 to saves from cover if they don't shoot, for instance. So you'd be trading their meh offense for the ability to sit on objectives and keep your forward lines alive longer. Your opponent would still have counterplay in the form of melee combat, prioirtizing different targets, maneuvering differently, etc., but it makes your guardsmen more useful while in a forward position.

*Give guard something like the crossfire mechanics GSC are getting. So positioning matters more and encourages/rewards having units take forward positions.

All of those suggestions seem like they would help buff guard and make their playstyle more "interactive" without basically just letting them ignore being charged.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




First of all, great feedback, love it!
Wyldhunt wrote:

...I'm not sure these changes really accomplish that goal. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your proposal. As I read it, it seems like this actually makes the IG playstyle even less interactive. It's just that instead of auto-losing when you get tagged, you maybe get to ignore your opponent's choices enough to win even after your opponent breaches your lines. So instead of having to screen vehicles with infantry, consider having countercharge units to bail your dudes out, or use less powerful units as charge bait so they can fall back and keep your more powerful units to keep firing, you just... don't do any of that. And keep shooting.

So the IG player is making fewer meaningful choices, and so is your opponent. You're giving up the dynamic push and pull of having downsides to being in melee and replacing it with a presumably slightly higher win rate for IG because their offensive units can't be countered in as many ways as before.


I view interactivity as the phases in which both players are doing something. By that definition, IG right now are non-interactive, because my opponent does nothing in my command, psychic movement and shooting phases, while the guard player does nothing in my opponents command, movement, psychic, shooting, melee phase, as well as our own melee phase. So doing more in the melee phase means we're both doing more in both melee phases, which I view as a higher level of interaction.

Right now, IG and our opponent are zero decisions. We have to take 60+ guardsmen (more with conscripts, so it's closer to 120, which just a meme army) just to screen, because touching a tank takes it 100% out of the game. For example, a 160 point LRBT with 3 HBs while engaged kills one T3/T4 3+ Sv, model. It's absolutely a no-brainer.

Right now, the choice is "a)more screens & more range weapons and got hot or b) lose". That's not a meaningful choice. But, if we can reduce the number of screening models, the IG player is now presented with 3 choices: take less infantry (less screening) so we will get into melee more, do more in melee but less in shooting, or find a balance between screening, shooting and melee. And that's just in list construction.

So a couple more wounds doesn't really take away choices from our opponent. Our melee phase still won't be strong, but it also won't be so lopsided. Furthermore, it means our opponent has to put more into a tank to kill it, otherwise it will still keep on shooting, and stopping the tank from shooting was the whole point of tagging it! So it forces more decisions on opponents as well.

Wyldhunt wrote:


Now it's not an "auto-lose" if IG tanks get into melee, and our infantry can at least consider it.

Is it really an auto-lose right now? Your tanks can generally shoot into melee at the moment (exceptions being blast weapons that generally hide in your back lines anyway), and you can always fall back with a unit to let the rest of your army punish the enemy that charged. And if your entire army is in melee at the same time, is that not an indication that you've failed to screen/protect your big guns? I don't mean that as an attack but as an honest question. Shouldn't getting into melee with the entire enemy gunline probably be bad for the gunline?

As for infantry going into melee, I'm honestly probably fine with letting them shoot in melee (or at least treat their lasguns as pistol 2 or something). But should guardsmen ever really be "good" in melee? How far off the mark are they currently compared to where you feel they should be?

It pretty much is auto-lose. "Shooting into melee" when you can only kill 1 model, then we can back out 12, but most opponents can move 6, leaving them with a 6" charge to get back into melee. If I'm trying to clear a unit off my tank (which can only be done with another tank right now), then I'm not clearing an objective, so it's really a triple negative.

Guardsmen won't ever be good in melee. Even if they can shoot in melee with 2 shots each, a 55 point squad does 1W to intercessors, over 1 shooting phase and 2 melee phases for a grand total of 3W. It's far from OP, but it's at least a step in the right direction.

Wyldhunt wrote:


Furthermore, with the new missions in CA2022, there's going to be a lot of vying for the mid-board, where IG just don't play, except for throwing a guard unit out and hoping it doesn't die.

My eldar sympathize. From the outside looking in though, it has always seemed like the answer for IG is just, "you troops are cheap." A 10 man squad of guardsmen costs about half as much as a 10 man squad of guardians and has about twice as many bodies as a squad of dire avengers. I'm sure both of our troops are being outperformed by those that have 9th edition books, but you can kind of afford to just lob wave after wave of bodies into the grinder and in sufficient numbers to simply outnumber your opponent when determining who controls an objective. MMM! even lets you launch a cheap squad from behind a ruin onto an objective from a distance without having to expose them to enemy fire beforehand.

IG could certainly use a buff and a playstyle tinkering, but I feel like you're already in a better position to fight over the center of the table than some of my armies.

Right now, I feel for your eldar. But at least your codex is on the horizon (and it's looking mighty sweet!)

Seeing what happened to Orks, IG can't just be in a place of spamming cheap troops. After 1 game of pushing around 60-120 bodies just to pick them up is tiresome, much less 3 games in a day.

MMM! needs to change. It really is OP right now, because we can shoot something so far across the board. But we have to keep it because our troops are just 'picked up' the moment we put them out, just from plink fire. Without it, we couldn't even get a unit onto a point more than 6" from our DZ because our troops literally won't survive, and they have *zero* punch to even defend themselves. It's literally an average of 10 guard squads within 18" with FRFSRF to kill 5 Intercessors right now. Just try to get 100 models within 18" of 5 marines.

Wyldhunt wrote:

This should make IG more fire-and-maneuver as opposed to the current "fire and hope you go hot to kill it"

Rather than just ignoring the downsides of melee, I think I'd rather see IG gain some tools to encourage a forward presence and/or maneuvering. Off the top of my head:
* Give chimeras the devilfish treatment where they become a good support for guardsmen that travel inside of them. This would let you keep both units cheap and not especially killy (so not stepping on the toes of your elites/heavies) while still making it more attractive to field units that want to move towards the enemy.

* Include orders or stratagems that make guardsmen better at catching (surviving) charges or incoming fire. So they can block the enemy and then fall back to expose the enemy to the rest of your army's guns. Imagine if guardsmen could take a "dig in" action to gain gain +2 to saves from cover if they don't shoot, for instance. So you'd be trading their meh offense for the ability to sit on objectives and keep your forward lines alive longer. Your opponent would still have counterplay in the form of melee combat, prioirtizing different targets, maneuvering differently, etc., but it makes your guardsmen more useful while in a forward position.

*Give guard something like the crossfire mechanics GSC are getting. So positioning matters more and encourages/rewards having units take forward positions.

All of those suggestions seem like they would help buff guard and make their playstyle more "interactive" without basically just letting them ignore being charged.


We already give up so many points for Bring It Down that adding Chimeras (unless the Chimera is ObSec and units can move after disembarking) won't do anything for us. At T7 11W and no ramshackle, it's 2 BID points, and it's not ObSec, and is slower than infantry with MMM!. Plus, best case it has 2 HBs, which kills 1 intercessor. It's the BS4 that nukes the guard output. So Chimera's aren't really an option without really boosting their output as well.

We have a 1CP strat for +1 save, but on a 55 point guard squad? So a rapid-firing 5-man intercessor squad normally does 4W (median), 3W with Take Cover!. So 1CP for a 5.5 point model? we'd have to get powered armor, or a 5+++, which makes no sense on guardsmen. Going to +2 from cover really helps Kommandos as they are T5. On T3 model, those intercessors are down to only killing 2 guardsmen. That's far more reasonable, but it still leaves guardsmen in a state of "they're just here to die", so we still spend a long time moving them just to pick them up.

Crossfire is a different story. With where the meta is now, our current firepower needs to double. +1 to hit is a 16% improvement. Still another 84% to go. With a guard squad, we'd have to roll 36 dice per squad (and we take 6 of them!) normally. I like rolling dice, but 180 dice to kill 5 intercessors sucks. If we improve the overall output, then we don't have to roll so many (meaningless) dice.

Then we try to take a forward position, which is usually in melee range. And you can see how well that works for us...


Again, thank you for the constructive feedback. You really made me think about this more. Love it!



Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Backspacehacker wrote:
They dont need to be changed, they need to be buffed, but not changed.
You are not taking guard infantry to do damage, you are taking them as a tax for the other things guard gets.
Thats because you are using a battle canon against infentry, NOW that said, they were a lot better at doing that when we had templates. If you are trying to gun down marines, you should be using something like, a demo canon.
Its blast so you are going to get more hits, S10 so wounding on 2s, and AP -3 D6 damage.

Guard are meant to be a gun line, the other thing that makes guard good, is that they are a swiss army knife, they can bring a unit that is the answer to any problem. Hordes? Punisher cannon, High armor? Plasma, Vehicles? Executioner battle canon.

Guard as a play style are fine they just need a new dex.

Overall what would help guard, and basically any army that uses vehicles is a buff to vehicles in general. One of the draw backs of guard is that all their good stuff come in the forms of vehicles, and those kinda suck right now.

I agree with what you're saying. I don't want a flat change to how guard play, I want to keep our unique playstyle while adding options. I have 5 LRBTs, and I'm about to buy ~12 more from a buddy of mine. I want to play them all. But because our normal units (everything besides TCs and Manticores) are so ineffective, our playstyle and army lists are extremely limited.

Personally, I'd prefer the infantry not to just be a tax. Back in 3-7th edition, an infantry squad did 1W to marines, which killed 1 marine, now it kills 1/2 a marine. I just want to get it back to about 1. That's not really changing, it's just a buff, but the question is how do we get those buffs? One way is just more dice in the shooting phase. I like rolling dice, but I think we roll enough as-is. This proposed change would still increase the number of dice, but spread it out more so it can happen in more than 1 phase of the game, but doesn't have to. This is more decisions, which I like.

The battle cannon is what should be used against MEQ infantry, the Punisher (god I love my Punisher!) against soft targets (GEQ), and the DC should be used against hard targets (Thicc City). We have to take a DC right now because most other weapons don't have play into most armies nowadays, and we can only get 3 of them (4 if you're cadian). But but either way, even a DC only kills about 2-3 marines (median 2, avg 2.9). On a 160 point LRBT, that's 25% output efficiency, which isn't enough to compete on the new boards (it really doesn't compete now, most 'good' units are in the 80% range). You have to contest the middle, and firing lanes aren't that big. With more terrain, you have less opportunities to fire, and more opportunities to get tagged. So that 160 point tank needs to be at least 50% efficiency, which is doubling our firepower. At BS4, that's twice as many dice, and that's assuming our opponent isn't using Transhuman or have a 5++). Since we do nothing in melee, all of that increase has to come in the shooting phase. God forbid the guard opponent can hide out of LOS where we can't shoot them (like Death Company forlorn fury, advance and charge DE, etc.).

Now, we can shift that a bit. With this new order, we can take a normal LRBT with DC and 3 flamers that we can push up the board. Tag him and I'll flame you 3 times (9 with my 3-flamer Hellhound, then I'll blow up in your face on a 4+ ). Fail to kill my tank, and I'll still flame you and kill your buddies with the DC. Now the BCs/3HB LRBT can sit in the back providing fire support, and *both* tanks can move up to 12" instead of just 6". More options in list building, shooting and melee.

I agree with you that vehicles need a buff. I think guard and the Orders system are uniquely positioned to buff vehicles and infantry without having to restructure the game (I like 9th, except for the extreme imbalances in the codexes). By tying this capability to Orders, you don't change all armies, or all vehicles, just guard ones, and you make guard more effective while keeping their playstyle and adding flexibility. We can still do gunline with our normal orders (shoot the fighty ones, just do it twice), or go into melee (fight the shooty ones, and shoot them 3 times). We keep our Orders system, make our units more effective, and do it with more interactivity.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/27 02:52:36


 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




One of the best and simplest buffs for Guard vehicles is just reducing their heavy weapon costs to match the infantries.

For example a heavy bolter costs 10 points for a Heavy Weapon Team, but 15 points on a vehicle.

Just doing this means:
- Sentinel weapon upgrades would drop by 5 points. So a Sentinel with an autocannon would be 40 points rather than 45.
- Chimeras turret weapon upgrades would drop by 5 points. So a duel heavy bolter or heavy flamer Chimera would be 80 points rather than 85.
- Leman Russ Tanks/Tank Commanders/Pask would all drop another 5 points, as they only have to pay 10 points for the mandatory heavy bolter instead of 15. Each of their sponson upgrades would drop by 10 points (5 points per gun).
- Valkyrie lascannon upgrade would drop to 10 points, and just like the above their 2 heavy bolter upgrade would drop by 10 points.
- Possibly the biggest benefitter of such a change is the Baneblade, who's sponson upgrade would drop to 70 points from 100 (20 from 4 heavy bolters and another 10 from 2 lascannons).
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Again, thank you for the constructive feedback. You really made me think about this more. Love it!

Sure thing! I love this kind of discussion. I don't completely agree with you, but your points are well-made.


ATTENTION
. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
 
   
Made in it
Waaagh! Ork Warboss




Italy

I don't think AM should be seen as a gunline army. They're a shooting oriented army, but not a pure static force. They went gunline style over the years just because game's editions and faction abilities encouraged players to do so.

But they have transports, flyers, tanks with flamers, bullgryins, melta/flamers specialists which are all units that encourage a more aggressive style of playing.

Playing with and against gunlines is boring for many players, and AM could easily be a good army without being one dimensional. Which means they don't need to be strong in melee (although bullgryins can certainly be and should be pretty good melee specialists) but effective at very close range. That's something that would match 9th edition style and would force AM players to make some decisions during the game, making their army much more interacting.

So rather than playing 9 battle tanks and 2 tank commanders, let the player build his list around 3-4 long range tanks at most instead (and possibly even none) then hellhounds, sentinels, chimeras with infantries carrying low range weapons (meltas, flamers...), bullgryings, etc...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
brainpsyk wrote:


Personally, I'd prefer the infantry not to just be a tax.


Infantries are needed to score. That's their role. Much more expensive dudes can be deadly instead, but 5ppm or even 7ppm models shouldn't really be good at killing anything.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/27 10:37:56


 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






brainpsyk wrote:
I was watching the recap of Tabletop Titans, and something they said hit me, making me want to change the Astra Militarum (IG) playstyle entirely. The key comment they made was "AdMech and Tau have a very non-interactive playstyle" (which is the same as IG): If our opponent gets to IG, they lose, otherwise they win, end of story. That is our barrier to a fun & effective game that needs to change

Except for all the tools Astra Militarum already have, like fall back and shoot, Bullgryns and units that are generally cheap enough that losing out on shooting one of them isn't a big deal. Maybe the trend towards shooting units doing more damage in melee than actual melee units is not a good one, maybe I'm being crazy here but if I send in my anti-tank melee warscythe Lychguard with your long-ranged LRBT I want them to win, tell me if I'm being crazy here.
The 2nd problem is that Guard output is about half of where it needs to be.

Fortunate they can double it with FRFSRF then. Not that they actually need it, try doing the math across a wider array of enemies, I know Marines are everywhere but it's not fair to compare an anti-Marine unit with an anti-light infantry unit only against Intercessors. You could do SS Terminators, Guardsmen, Ork Boyz and Rhinos.
the same durability (Intercessors do 2.5W to rangers, ~5 to IG)

For every 4 AP- wounds Guardsmen take Rangers take 3. AP-1 is a 5/4. AP-2 or better is 6/5. I don't know what's up with your math.
-a 160-point LRBT with a BC does 2.5W to intercessors, but a 115-point AdMech Onager Dunecrawler with Twin Phos Blaser does 4.7, for the same durability against Lascannons and Multi-meltas.

It's amazing that a LRBT can do as little as 2,5 W to Intercessors when its heavy bolter does 1 on its own, I'm going to need help understanding how 1,9 unsaved wounds translates into 1,5 damage on a D3 damage weapon, it looks to me that they do very similar amounts of damage to Intercessors and that the battle cannon is vastly better against T7-8 targets. Multi-meltas do 6% less damage against a LRBT, unless the MM is benefitting from Devastator Doctrine.

Astra Militarum have a pts and victory points issue, not a rules issue.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

I like the idea of changing their feel. I thought the blasting away and in their face more blasting was a neat idea.

I think Guard do need some work. I think too often they end up being a chaff force. So you have the Russian/human wave bit which I guess is the newly buffled whiteshields. But all too often you end up with chaff infantry - as one person above says a tax - of disposable 10 man basic weapon squads. Then the cadian esk heavily armed infantry squad. Which has no survivability for its points.

I think the motif of heavy firepower and massed lasguns is fine, but the infantry has to mean more. I think the whiteshield larger lasgun squad is fine, but infantry squads need to come with their gear (vox, basic special and basic heavy) baked into a lower price, so yeah they can die but still they would hit with the firepower bit associated with guard combined with all the somewhat pointless las fire. The vox gives more flexibility.

From that you can build from there. So say Chimera allow squads to receive orders and auras whilst inside and so on. Get the feeling of hierarchical command and control and things being directed to work together and the ability to point those lasguns combined with big explosions at something to flatten it.

If you want comparisons with Tau they would have fewer better shots. Guard more blast weapons and massed weaker shots.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 vict0988 wrote:
brainpsyk wrote:
I was watching the recap of Tabletop Titans, and something they said hit me, making me want to change the Astra Militarum (IG) playstyle entirely. The key comment they made was "AdMech and Tau have a very non-interactive playstyle" (which is the same as IG): If our opponent gets to IG, they lose, otherwise they win, end of story. That is our barrier to a fun & effective game that needs to change

Except for all the tools Astra Militarum already have, like fall back and shoot, Bullgryns and units that are generally cheap enough that losing out on shooting one of them isn't a big deal. Maybe the trend towards shooting units doing more damage in melee than actual melee units is not a good one, maybe I'm being crazy here but if I send in my anti-tank melee warscythe Lychguard with your long-ranged LRBT I want them to win, tell me if I'm being crazy here.
The 2nd problem is that Guard output is about half of where it needs to be.

Fortunate they can double it with FRFSRF then. Not that they actually need it, try doing the math across a wider array of enemies, I know Marines are everywhere but it's not fair to compare an anti-Marine unit with an anti-light infantry unit only against Intercessors. You could do SS Terminators, Guardsmen, Ork Boyz and Rhinos.
the same durability (Intercessors do 2.5W to rangers, ~5 to IG)

For every 4 AP- wounds Guardsmen take Rangers take 3. AP-1 is a 5/4. AP-2 or better is 6/5. I don't know what's up with your math.
-a 160-point LRBT with a BC does 2.5W to intercessors, but a 115-point AdMech Onager Dunecrawler with Twin Phos Blaser does 4.7, for the same durability against Lascannons and Multi-meltas.

It's amazing that a LRBT can do as little as 2,5 W to Intercessors when its heavy bolter does 1 on its own, I'm going to need help understanding how 1,9 unsaved wounds translates into 1,5 damage on a D3 damage weapon, it looks to me that they do very similar amounts of damage to Intercessors and that the battle cannon is vastly better against T7-8 targets. Multi-meltas do 6% less damage against a LRBT, unless the MM is benefitting from Devastator Doctrine.

Astra Militarum have a pts and victory points issue, not a rules issue.

As the game is rumored to be based around a 20-point intercessor (AP-1), I use that as my baseline for shooting output and target durability. Once we get to T6-T8 I use 3 Eradicators for the output against target durability, as that is quite common meta choice.

Using intercessors with AP-1 as a baseline, I mistyped, it should be mean 2.9 (median 3 +/- 1 std. deviation), not 2.5 against Skitarii Rangers. (all the f'king numbers gets confusing)

While guardsmen have fallback and shoot (using an order from an officer), tanks do not, and we can see how effective guardmen shooting is. FRFSRF does bring up guardmen shooting to what it should be, but that requires orders, and potentially Vox Casters and multiple officers depending on need, not baseline capability. All the numbers here are baseline capability, so no doctrines, power from pain, etc.

The BC is avg 2.5, median 2 (std deviation from 1-4), HB is average 1, median 0 (std deviation from 0-2). So we're talking the median/average range from 2-3, I picked 2.5. Apologies if this was misleading. For the 'average' value I use the mean of a 4000-iteration sim. Most folks on these boards use approximations, not true medians/means (means are subject to outliers, like a BC hitting & wounding on all 12 shots doing 3D each, but those are rare).

For tank durability, again I use 3 eradicators, as that's the meta choice, and is about the same output and cost as 3 attack bikes. So 3 Eradicators shooting at:
- a LRBTs (T8, AV2): median 5 +/-3 for std deviation, avg 5.0 damage
- Onager Dunecrawler (T7, AV3, 5++): median 5 (+/-3 std deviation), avg 5.3 damage.

Now using 4 Lascannon shots:
- a LRBTs (T8, AV2): median 3 +/-2 for std deviation, avg 3.6 damage
- Onager Dunecrawler (T7, AV3, 5++): median 3 (+/-2 std deviation), avg 3.5 damage.

With doctrines, the AP goes up, so the Onager actually does better than the LRBT, since the Onager has the 5++. But I'm ignoring doctrines for now.

As for your Lychguard, they would still win if they charge the LRBT. Even with a BC and HBs a LRBT does 2-2.7 damage (median 2 for the BC, 0 median, 0.7 average), back to the lychguard. But with what I'm proposing, the BC still can't fire at the unit in engagement range, the BC can fire at targets out of engagement range. In return, the Lychgard to median 6 (+/-2) avg 5.6 back to the tank. And that's for a 140 point squad of lychguard vs. the 160 point LRBT.
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




Aus

Jack of All master of none really is the IG mantra isn't it? I like the idea of being able to buff certain aspects slightly to facilitate playstyles (ie I want an Elysian drop army, I want mech steel legion, I want armoured focused army) whilst still not becoming an elite army.
   
Made in hk
Longtime Dakkanaut





Feels like Admech, IG and Tau all play the same way. Shoot off your opponent, if they get to them, they lose. Admech has a bit more play now with some good melee units. But Tau and IG are basically similar in style. Shoot people to death.
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




 vict0988 wrote:
Astra Militarum have a pts and victory points issue, not a rules issue.


Completely this. Look at Hellhounds for example. What they should be worth is:
- Hellhound should be 100 points.
- Devil Dog should be 95 points.
- Bane Wolf should be 90 points.

Why do I say this? I'll use the Devil Dog as an example first. Take the Chimera, and hypothetically speaking say we could give it a multi-melta as an upgrade. That would cost 20 points, putting the Chimera to 95. So, at this point what's the difference between these 2 vehicles? The Chimera has a transport capacity and lasgun arrays, while the Devil Dog has 1 more wound and its weapon is assault. That's it. Is 1 more wound and the assault classification worth the loss of transport capacity and some extra (if almost meaningless) firepower? I don't so.

Now, look at the Hellhound. It has 1 more wound, 4 inch more range, an extra D6 shots, and 1 more strength. Though like the Devil Dog it loses transport capacity and lasgun arrays when compared to the Chimera, as well as having a much easier chance to explode. Which I would consider a curse more than a blessing. Now, again, hypothetically speaking we could take a 3rd heavy flamer on a Chimera for another 10 points. That makes the Chimera 95 points like the above example. Now that means all the Hellhound has going for it is 1 more wound, 4 inch more range, and 1 more strength with all the same drawbacks. Lets say compared to the Devil Dog its advantages do outweigh the cons but not by much. So we make it 5 points more, getting us to 100.

The Bane Wolf? The Bane Wolf is just bad, and as the MFM 2022 suggests it should be at least 10 points cheaper than the Hellhound. Making it 90 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
brainpsyk wrote:

For tank durability, again I use 3 eradicators, as that's the meta choice, and is about the same output and cost as 3 attack bikes. So 3 Eradicators shooting at:
- a LRBTs (T8, AV2): median 5 +/-3 for std deviation, avg 5.0 damage
- Onager Dunecrawler (T7, AV3, 5++): median 5 (+/-3 std deviation), avg 5.3 damage.

Now using 4 Lascannon shots:
- a LRBTs (T8, AV2): median 3 +/-2 for std deviation, avg 3.6 damage
- Onager Dunecrawler (T7, AV3, 5++): median 3 (+/-2 std deviation), avg 3.5 damage.

With doctrines, the AP goes up, so the Onager actually does better than the LRBT, since the Onager has the 5++. But I'm ignoring doctrines for now.


Continuing this comparison. A LR Vanquisher compared to a Dunecrawler with a Neutron laser both are considered bad choices currently.

- LRV: 2 shots, 4+ to Hit, S8, AP-3, D6 roll 2 choose highest.
- Dunecrawler: D3 shots, 3+ to Hit, S12, AP-4, D3 + 3

Against a T6 W10 3+ 5++ vehicle:
- Vanquisher: Roughly 2.487 damage.
- Dunecrawler: Roughly 4 damage.

Against a T7 W11 3+ 5++ vehicle:
- Vanquisher: Roughly 2.487 damage.
- Dunecrawler: Roughly 3.259 damage.

Against a T8 W12 3+ 5++ vehicle:
- Vanquisher: Roughly 1.99 damage.
- Dunecrawler: Roughly 3.111 damage.

So with similar survivability and worse damage output. The LR Vanquisher should be around 115 points.

If you want to do similar comparisons between other variants. The Exterminator against a Dunecrawler with the phosphor blasters. Instead of writing out all the math I'll just list a few examples. Against Chaos Cultists equal, both kill 4 models. Against marines both kill 2 models. Even against a T7 W10 vehicle they both do 2 - 3 damage. All of these also include the hull heavy bolter. So the Exterminator should also be around 115 points.

Eradicator? Similar deal to the Exterminator, however, it can actually beat the Dunecrawler with the phosphor blasters against a T4 or T5 W2 3+ save target in light cover. Everything else is roughly equal or worse. So also around 115 points.

I'm running out of time, but I'd using these 3 examples above I'd say an Executioner would be around 120 points. Battle Tank around 125. Demolisher around 130 points. Punisher is a bit harder, but I'd probably also put it around 130 points.

Tank Commanders could possibly become 50 + cost of Leman Russ, and Pask would be roughly 65 + cost of Leman Russ.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2022/01/29 07:04:15


 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






I think Tank Commanders and Pask need to be costed according to the equipment you give them. A Demolisher Pask is a giant target and is probably going to die real quick, but he is still a more worthwhile upgrade than for a vanquisher LRBT.
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




 vict0988 wrote:
I think Tank Commanders and Pask need to be costed according to the equipment you give them. A Demolisher Pask is a giant target and is probably going to die real quick, but he is still a more worthwhile upgrade than for a vanquisher LRBT.


That's why I say you make them X points + cost of leman russ. Which makes them cheaper or more expensive depending on variant.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Jarms48 wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Astra Militarum have a pts and victory points issue, not a rules issue.


Completely this. Look at Hellhounds for example. What they should be worth is:
- Hellhound should be 100 points.
- Devil Dog should be 95 points.
- Bane Wolf should be 90 points.

Why do I say this? I'll use the Devil Dog as an example first. Take the Chimera, and hypothetically speaking say we could give it a multi-melta as an upgrade. That would cost 20 points, putting the Chimera to 95. So, at this point what's the difference between these 2 vehicles? The Chimera has a transport capacity and lasgun arrays, while the Devil Dog has 1 more wound and its weapon is assault. That's it. Is 1 more wound and the assault classification worth the loss of transport capacity and some extra (if almost meaningless) firepower? I don't so.

Now, look at the Hellhound. It has 1 more wound, 4 inch more range, an extra D6 shots, and 1 more strength. Though like the Devil Dog it loses transport capacity and lasgun arrays when compared to the Chimera, as well as having a much easier chance to explode. Which I would consider a curse more than a blessing. Now, again, hypothetically speaking we could take a 3rd heavy flamer on a Chimera for another 10 points. That makes the Chimera 95 points like the above example. Now that means all the Hellhound has going for it is 1 more wound, 4 inch more range, and 1 more strength with all the same drawbacks. Lets say compared to the Devil Dog its advantages do outweigh the cons but not by much. So we make it 5 points more, getting us to 100.

The Bane Wolf? The Bane Wolf is just bad, and as the MFM 2022 suggests it should be at least 10 points cheaper than the Hellhound. Making it 90 points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
- LRV: 2 shots, 4+ to Hit, S8, AP-3, D6 roll 2 choose highest.
- Dunecrawler: D3 shots, 3+ to Hit, S12, AP-4, D3 + 3

Against a T6 W10 3+ 5++ vehicle:
- Vanquisher: Roughly 1.778 damage.
- Dunecrawler: Roughly 3.704 damage.

Against a T7 W11 3+ 5++ vehicle:
- Vanquisher: Roughly 1.778 damage.
- Dunecrawler: Roughly 2.963 damage.

Against a T8 W12 3+ 5++ vehicle:
- Vanquisher: Roughly 1.333 damage.
- Dunecrawler: Roughly 2.963 damage.

So with similar survivability and worse damage output. The LR Vanquisher should be around 115 points.

If you want to do similar comparisons between other variants. The Exterminator against a Dunecrawler with the phosphor blasters. Instead of writing out all the math I'll just list a few examples. Against Chaos Cultists equal, both kill 4 models. Against marines both kill 2 models. Even against a T7 W10 vehicle they both do 2 - 3 damage. All of these also include the hull heavy bolter. So the Exterminator should also be around 115 points.

Eradicator? Similar deal to the Exterminator, however, it can actually beat the Dunecrawler with the phosphor blasters against a T4 or T5 W2 3+ save target in light cover. Everything else is roughly equal or worse. So also around 115 points.

I'm running out of time, but I'd using these 3 examples above I'd say an Executioner would be around 120 points. Battle Tank around 125. Demolisher around 130 points. Punisher is a bit harder, but I'd probably also put it around 130 points.

Tank Commanders could possibly become 50 + cost of Leman Russ, and Pask would be roughly 65 + cost of Leman Russ.


I think you're trying to compare within the codex too much. The Guard problem isn't within the codex, it's when you start comparing our codex to other, more modern codexes (even ones that are 9-12 months old).

For example, I'm not sure where you're getting 100 points for the Hellhound (with hull HF this is a mean/median of 3 dmg). I'd say the most comparable unit is the Ork Kustom Boosta Blasta with 4xFlamers (2.0 median/mean dmg) and a rivet cannon (another 2.0 median/mean, for a total mean/median of 4 damage) for 80 points. Durability is about the same, T6/8W with ramshackle vs T7 11W (HH gives up 2 BID points, the KBB gives up 1, and the HH is 50% likely to blow up in our face with a 6" explosion). The Hellhound would be at 75% output for 25% more cost. This is even ignoring the spiked ram (MWs on the charge) and 4+ WS of the KBB.

Also, looking at your LRV vs. Dunecrawler, making the LRV 115 points would give you a tank with the same durability and half the firepower. We're still behind unit-for-unit (or best-case on par), compared against mid-tier units from other armies, and the LRBT is supposed to be a top-tier unit in the guard codex.

9th is a trading game, and we'd still be trading down, even with my proposed change, . In our codex, we have *one* unit with the potential to trade up, and that's the FP Manticore (4 rounds of shooting is a potential 24W, but that's only because the Manti can hide all game). TCs with DCs, if they go slightly above average, can almost trade across, but rely on the Manti to finish that trade. Everything else trades down 1- points-wise, 2 - VP-wise and 3 - output-wise. This proposal is only about bringing the output up to par, but we'd still be trading down points-wise and VP-wise
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Jarms48 wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
I think Tank Commanders and Pask need to be costed according to the equipment you give them. A Demolisher Pask is a giant target and is probably going to die real quick, but he is still a more worthwhile upgrade than for a vanquisher LRBT.


That's why I say you make them X points + cost of leman russ. Which makes them cheaper or more expensive depending on variant.

I'm saying Z pts * cost of leman russ because the value is multiplicative, not additive.
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






I think the main issue here is thinking that 40k is an interactive wargame.

Give me 1 example of "interactive army" as opposed to the so-called "non-interactive army".

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/28 15:54:37


 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




 vict0988 wrote:

I'm saying Z pts * cost of leman russ because the value is multiplicative, not additive.


Why though? Nothing else is treated like this in the game. It also wouldn’t change very much either. For example using the current Russ cost after the MFM change of 145, 150, or 165 then making the TC 33% more they’d be. 192.85, 199.5, and 219.45. So we’ve just made each tank commander more expensive and done nothing to actually fix Guard.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/29 06:37:27


 
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






Jarms48 wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:

I'm saying Z pts * cost of leman russ because the value is multiplicative, not additive.


Why though? Nothing else is treated like this in the game. It also wouldn’t change very much either. For example using the current Russ cost after the MFM change of 145, 150, or 165 then making the TC 33% more they’d be. 192.85, 199.5, and 219.45. So we’ve just made each tank commander more expensive and done nothing to actually fix Guard.

Veterans pay more for plasma guns than Infantry Squads do, I want the same thing for TCs and Pask. I don't think demolisher TCs need a buff, I'd change a few weapons just to make them more interesting and then make some other weapons cheaper.
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




brainpsyk wrote:

For example, I'm not sure where you're getting 100 points for the Hellhound (with hull HF this is a mean/median of 3 dmg). I'd say the most comparable unit is the Ork Kustom Boosta Blasta with 4xFlamers (2.0 median/mean dmg) and a rivet cannon (another 2.0 median/mean, for a total mean/median of 4 damage) for 80 points. Durability is about the same, T6/8W with ramshackle vs T7 11W (HH gives up 2 BID points, the KBB gives up 1, and the HH is 50% likely to blow up in our face with a 6" explosion). The Hellhound would be at 75% output for 25% more cost. This is even ignoring the spiked ram (MWs on the charge) and 4+ WS of the KBB.


I did explain my reasoning above. Though one thing I typically suggest doing for Guard is reducing their vehicle heavy weapon costs to match the infantry’s. For example Guard vehicles pay 15 points for heavy bolters when Guard infantry pay 10 points.

So, with this in mind. Something like a Chimera would only pay 5 points to swap its multi-laser for a heavy bolter because you have to factor in the 5 points of the multi-laser as well. Which reduces its top points cost from 85 to 80. So using my same reasoning for the Hellhound variants we’d get:

- Hellhound: 95 points.
- Devil Dog: 90 points.
- Bane Wolf: 85 points.

Which I think seems pretty reasonable compared to your example.

Also, looking at your LRV vs. Dunecrawler, making the LRV 115 points would give you a tank with the same durability and half the firepower. We're still behind unit-for-unit (or best-case on par), compared against mid-tier units from other armies, and the LRBT is supposed to be a top-tier unit in the guard codex.


I was slightly off in my math earlier. I updated the above as I forgot to factor in the secondary weapons which actually makes it a bit more comparable. It’s closer to a 1/3 less firepower than 1/2.

I also don’t see the LRV getting much cheaper. From memory the cheapest T8 vehicle is the Hunter at 110 points. I doubt GW would ever make anything especially a Russ lower than that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 vict0988 wrote:

Veterans pay more for plasma guns than Infantry Squads do, I want the same thing for TCs and Pask. I don't think demolisher TCs need a buff, I'd change a few weapons just to make them more interesting and then make some other weapons cheaper.


GW could change Guard heavy weapon costs to BS4+/BS3+ costs, IE:

- Heavy Bolter 10/15
- Heavy Flamer 10
- Lascannon 15/20
- Plasma Cannon 15/20
- Multi-melta 20/25

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2022/01/29 09:29:15


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




I think this nicely sums up the problem with just adjusting points:

Jarms48 wrote:
It’s closer to a 1/3 less firepower than 1/2.

That means we IG players would be coming in with LRBTs, our opponents are coming in with TCs (ish).
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




brainpsyk wrote:
That means we IG players would be coming in with LRBTs, our opponents are coming in with TCs (ish).


At that kind of point cost, you do still have to consider that Ad-Mech maxes out at 3 Dunecrawlers, whereas Guard can have 9 standard Russes. For example if you took 9 of the above 115 point variants that's 1035 points compared to 1305 after the MFM 2022 change. That's a 270 point change for what could be a decent skew list.

If Tank Commanders were also made 50 points + Cost of Leman Russ, as well as having 2 tank orders and 18 inch order range then a tank company list might be viable. As well as combined arms Guard having better incentive to actually take a mixture of Tank Commanders and regular Leman Russes, as Tank Commanders will actually have additional orders to give.

We would need to change Pask, as his Knight Commander would essensially be useless. My suggestion has always been to give him a free Tank Ace trait. Which fits his theme as well, a named tank ace.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/30 23:12:14


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Jarms48 wrote:
brainpsyk wrote:
That means we IG players would be coming in with LRBTs, our opponents are coming in with TCs (ish).


At that kind of point cost, you do still have to consider that Ad-Mech maxes out at 3 Dunecrawlers, whereas Guard can have 9 standard Russes. For example if you took 9 of the above 115 point variants that's 1035 points compared to 1305 after the MFM 2022 change. That's a 270 point change for what could be a decent skew list.

If Tank Commanders were also made 50 points + Cost of Leman Russ, as well as having 2 tank orders and 18 inch order range then a tank company list might be viable. As well as combined arms Guard having better incentive to actually take a mixture of Tank Commanders and regular Leman Russes, as Tank Commanders will actually have additional orders to give.

We would need to change Pask, as his Knight Commander would essensially be useless. My suggestion has always been to give him a free Tank Ace trait. Which fits his theme as well, a named tank ace.

To a certain extent, I agree with what you're saying, but then the problem is if you only take 1, then you've way overpaid for capabilities you're not taking, and we're back in the same boat we're in right now. If you take 9 then you've overpaid for that unused capability nine times over. I think we'd be better off to say IG can't take more than 3-4 of the same variant and price them appropriately for their capability, or no more than 2 of the same type in a tank platoon, or you have to specify tank platoon type (like fire support: BCs/Vanq, Assault: DCs/Exterminators/punishers). I don't really consider taking 9xLRBTs a problem, because in a TAC list, if you're prepared to deal with Knights (and Tau hammerhead railguns), you're prepared to deal with LRBTs.

TCs need even bigger changes. Their orders would need to affect themselves and tanks/platoons within X" , and you'd have to give them some form of LOS!, otherwise they'd just get popped and guard loses its effectiveness. Maybe (throwing an idea out) if a TC is within 6" of a tank platoon, then the TC gets LOS!. With orders affecting 1 tank platoon in (for example) a 6" aura, Pask could give 2 orders, and would be absolutely unholy.

Given that, A base TC with BC&HB should be around 130, plus the cost of orders. With a BC, a TC is about the same effectiveness as a Dunecrawler with Twin Phosphor Blasers (median 4, avg 4.7~), so 50 points seems reasonable here, as it would affect a whole platoon. An order is a ~16% effectiveness boost, so 16% of 300 is ~50, and that is assuming our firepower comes up to snuff.

Even still, guard effectiveness is still way below where it needs to be. Watching Richard Siegler at LVO this weekend, guard is in trouble with the clock. AdMech shooting, model-for-model, is far more effective than guard, and he was running out of time, and we have to throw a LOT more dice.
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




To a certain extent, I agree with what you're saying, but then the problem is if you only take 1, then you've way overpaid for capabilities you're not taking, and we're back in the same boat we're in right now. If you take 9 then you've overpaid for that unused capability nine times over. I think we'd be better off to say IG can't take more than 3-4 of the same variant and price them appropriately for their capability, or no more than 2 of the same type in a tank platoon, or you have to specify tank platoon type (like fire support: BCs/Vanq, Assault: DCs/Exterminators/punishers). I don't really consider taking 9xLRBTs a problem, because in a TAC list, if you're prepared to deal with Knights (and Tau hammerhead railguns), you're prepared to deal with LRBTs.


Well, I think we've balanced their points cost between the variants above. Another consideration is things like additional secondary weapons, something the Dunecrawler doesn't have except for the cognis heavy stubber. If we use my other suggestion of lowering vehicle heavy weapon costs to match the infantry versions then all Leman Russ variants could take things like sponson heavy bolters for 20 rather than 30 points, or sponson multi-meltas for 40 rather than 50 points. Which does give it much more firepower, espessially compared to what that'd currently cost. For example an Exterminator with sponson heavy bolter sponsons would be 135 points, rather than 190 that it is now.

To bring in another vehicle to compare that to, such as the Castigator at 150 points. That's not too bad. While the Castigator also does about 33% more damage to MEQ's as well, it is 15 points more expensive and less durable.

TCs need even bigger changes. Their orders would need to affect themselves and tanks/platoons within X" , and you'd have to give them some form of LOS!, otherwise they'd just get popped and guard loses its effectiveness. Maybe (throwing an idea out) if a TC is within 6" of a tank platoon, then the TC gets LOS!. With orders affecting 1 tank platoon in (for example) a 6" aura, Pask could give 2 orders, and would be absolutely unholy.


It needs a complete overhaul yes, but if we're talking about something along the lines of a balance datasheet change. Then just making it work exactly like the new Voice of Command would be nice. Choose a vehicle to order and you can also give that order to other vehicles within 6 inch (except characters). That'd be nice.

I wouldn't give Tank Commanders LoS, that's open to abuse.

Even still, guard effectiveness is still way below where it needs to be. Watching Richard Siegler at LVO this weekend, guard is in trouble with the clock. AdMech shooting, model-for-model, is far more effective than guard, and he was running out of time, and we have to throw a LOT more dice.


Competitively there's no point to shoot with Infantry Squads or Conscripts, most players, myself included don't waste our time rolling those dice. I doubt GW will change that. Any kind of buffs to the lasgun just undervalues the bolter. The only things I see changing, is lasguns maybe going up to 30 inch range or in an effort to reduce the amount of dice rolled GW change FRFSRF to autowounds on 6's to Hit (except vehicles).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/31 23:35:54


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Jarms48 wrote:
To a certain extent, I agree with what you're saying, but then the problem is if you only take 1, then you've way overpaid for capabilities you're not taking, and we're back in the same boat we're in right now. If you take 9 then you've overpaid for that unused capability nine times over. I think we'd be better off to say IG can't take more than 3-4 of the same variant and price them appropriately for their capability, or no more than 2 of the same type in a tank platoon, or you have to specify tank platoon type (like fire support: BCs/Vanq, Assault: DCs/Exterminators/punishers). I don't really consider taking 9xLRBTs a problem, because in a TAC list, if you're prepared to deal with Knights (and Tau hammerhead railguns), you're prepared to deal with LRBTs.


Well, I think we've balanced their points cost between the variants above. Another consideration is things like additional secondary weapons, something the Dunecrawler doesn't have except for the cognis heavy stubber. If we use my other suggestion of lowering vehicle heavy weapon costs to match the infantry versions then all Leman Russ variants could take things like sponson heavy bolters for 20 rather than 30 points, or sponson multi-meltas for 40 rather than 50 points. Which does give it much more firepower, espessially compared to what that'd currently cost. For example an Exterminator with sponson heavy bolter sponsons would be 135 points, rather than 190 that it is now.

To bring in another vehicle to compare that to, such as the Castigator at 150 points. That's not too bad. While the Castigator also does about 33% more damage to MEQ's as well, it is 15 points more expensive and less durable.


Agreed. Having the secondary weapons be based on infantry costs is absolutely the right thing to do. I just want to make sure the main output of the LRBT is based on the turret weapon, not the secondary weapons. We have to get the base model up to par without relying on the secondary weapons otherwise we just have a 130-point platform for 3 HBs. At that point we should just bring back the legends chimera with 3xHBs and call it good.

Jarms48 wrote:


TCs need even bigger changes. Their orders would need to affect themselves and tanks/platoons within X" , and you'd have to give them some form of LOS!, otherwise they'd just get popped and guard loses its effectiveness. Maybe (throwing an idea out) if a TC is within 6" of a tank platoon, then the TC gets LOS!. With orders affecting 1 tank platoon in (for example) a 6" aura, Pask could give 2 orders, and would be absolutely unholy.


It needs a complete overhaul yes, but if we're talking about something along the lines of a balance datasheet change. Then just making it work exactly like the new Voice of Command would be nice. Choose a vehicle to order and you can also give that order to other vehicles within 6 inch (except characters). That'd be nice.

I wouldn't give Tank Commanders LoS, that's open to abuse.


I should have been more clear. I'd say a TC needs to be within 6" of a squadron of 2 or more LRBTs then it gets LOS!. If only TCs can give orders, then the enemy just pops that 1 tank and then the LRBTs are out of 16% (or more) efficiency. So in a 300 point squadron, that's ~250 points of damage (or more!) by losing a 200 point TC. So we've got to protect them somehow. If you need 2 LRBTs, then ~200 points is far too much to have them sitting there doing nothing.

Jarms48 wrote:

Even still, guard effectiveness is still way below where it needs to be. Watching Richard Siegler at LVO this weekend, guard is in trouble with the clock. AdMech shooting, model-for-model, is far more effective than guard, and he was running out of time, and we have to throw a LOT more dice.


Competitively there's no point to shoot with Infantry Squads or Conscripts, most players, myself included don't waste our time rolling those dice. I doubt GW will change that. Any kind of buffs to the lasgun just undervalues the bolter. The only things I see changing, is lasguns maybe going up to 30 inch range or in an effort to reduce the amount of dice rolled GW change FRFSRF to autowounds on 6's to Hit (except vehicles).


That's just it, I WANT to be able to shoot my infantry again (I only shoot them in crusade games right now, and I rarely roll their attacks in melee either). I think it's beyond stupid to place 100 models on the table just to pick them up because it's not worth doing anything with them.

At 55 points at 1VP per squad, something has to give. We can't just hand our opponent 12VPs for killing our infantry, another 10VPs for our vehicles, let them pick up a secondary where they can just sit back, and expect us to win very much. Unless we can contest the mid-board, we won't get that 50% win rate. And the mid-board usually decided in the melee phase.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut






All I'll say is that sometimes I feel bad for my opponent as I roll a buckets of dice while he stands around waiting to chip off 5 wounds or so.
   
Made in dk
Loyal Necron Lychguard






 RegularGuy wrote:
All I'll say is that sometimes I feel bad for my opponent as I roll a buckets of dice while he stands around waiting to chip off 5 wounds or so.

Don't be sorry, it feels good. It's just how the game has to be when it's a 5 pt model vs a 17 pt model.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



London

Jarms48 wrote:

Competitively there's no point to shoot with Infantry Squads or Conscripts, most players, myself included don't waste our time rolling those dice. I doubt GW will change that. Any kind of buffs to the lasgun just undervalues the bolter. The only things I see changing, is lasguns maybe going up to 30 inch range or in an effort to reduce the amount of dice rolled GW change FRFSRF to autowounds on 6's to Hit (except vehicles).


I dream of GW having mercy and saying FRFSRF means infantry autohit. Mathematically its the same. Its only a strength three no save mod weapon. Gods let me skip to rolling to wound...
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




vict0988 wrote:
 RegularGuy wrote:
All I'll say is that sometimes I feel bad for my opponent as I roll a buckets of dice while he stands around waiting to chip off 5 wounds or so.

Don't be sorry, it feels good. It's just how the game has to be when it's a 5 pt model vs a 17 pt model.


Except Wracks, Skitarii rangers & vanguard are ~8ppm, and actually pretty good. Guard at 5.5ppm shouldn't do much individually, but at 55 points a squad, they should do more than 40 points of Wracks, Rangers and Vanguard. Right now, a 55 point 10-model Guard infantry squad does less than 24 points of Rangers, even before factoring in the Doctrinas/Imperatives.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Jarms48 wrote:

Competitively there's no point to shoot with Infantry Squads or Conscripts, most players, myself included don't waste our time rolling those dice. I doubt GW will change that. Any kind of buffs to the lasgun just undervalues the bolter. The only things I see changing, is lasguns maybe going up to 30 inch range or in an effort to reduce the amount of dice rolled GW change FRFSRF to autowounds on 6's to Hit (except vehicles).


I dream of GW having mercy and saying FRFSRF means infantry autohit. Mathematically its the same. Its only a strength three no save mod weapon. Gods let me skip to rolling to wound...


Then we can just scale the whole Orders system down to just FRFSRF and MMM. If you're advancing you MMM, if you're not advancing then you do FRFSRF. Then the problem is FRFSRF really is underpowered for 9th, because FRFSRF brings infantry output up to where it should be without FRFSRF.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: