News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Some IG Tank ideas  (Read 13373 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline khaine

  • This happens when I am bored.
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1376
  • Country: england
  • Truly Dread
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #40 on: February 3, 2016, 04:34:11 PM »
As I said I'm not sure it was something I would do, just pointing out there are plenty of other options beyond AV12.

Other options would be 2D6 for damage and take the lowest roll/defender picks or -1 to the damage roll. iirc all 3 versions exist in some form in the game already so it's not inventing anything new. The real issue with working out something ike this is exactly what sort of % rise in survivability you are aiming for and what range that effect should be applied to.

My biggest concern wuld be that if having AV10 on a vehicle is a "broken rule" because they "need to move forwards" then there's a lot of vehicles out there that need the same fix.

  There's no stopping what can't be stopped, no killing what can't be killed

You can't see the eyes of the demon until him come calling.

This is dread man, truly dread.


"Childhood is when you idolize Batman. Adulthood is when you realize that the Joker makes more sense."

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #41 on: February 3, 2016, 11:06:15 PM »
*High fives Elephant. Enjoys tall, hot mug of smug.*

My suggestion for higher AV is due to it's simplicity. I also happen to think it's appropriate and builds towards my next point. :) In regards to the antiquity of the rule, Russ are a special case, along with Vindicators, and to a lesser extent Predators, off the top of my head.

"Imperial" armies used to have this head-on approach that was enforced through their vehicle's AV's. You're expected to face your enemy and die with honour, sort of deal. That was workable, when everything moved slower. You had time to react. You weren't being surrounded immediately. Head-on doesn't work anymore, due to the increased mobility but particularly the effect of placing objectives before deployment zones are determined, potentially forcing units towards the centre that simply can't handle being surrounded. The points values and survivability haven't kept pace. Without getting too off topic, I think both Vindis and Preds should have their side AV increased by a point, and the Vindi should get at least one, maybe two points to the rear armour.

Currently, most transports are "simple" delivery systems, designed to deploy troops to locations. Really, aside from the Wave Serpent, all other transports could merrily burst into flames the moment their cargo was deployed. The Wave Serpent has the benefit of knowing that when it's cargo are deployed, whatever would have been threatening it at close range is about to be torn into impossibility as they get sucked into the warp. ;)

Aside from Walkers, what other vehicles need to dive face-first into point blank range? Land Raiders have higher rear AV. As do Monoliths. As do Ghost Arks for Necrons. The higher rear AV allows the GA to continue regenerating those pesky Warriors in close proximity to enemies. I guess I just can't think of any other "Battle Tanks" beside the Russ and Vindicator that would want / need to get up close and personal like that. Higher Rear AV on the Vindi is mostly because it needs to get to the mid-board to have range, at which point it's going to be surrounded.

Russ need to be able to survive at close range like no other tanks do. That's why it's important for them to get that boost, in my not-in-any-way-humble opinion. Most other tanks don't need it to fulfill their function. IG Infantry need that mobile heavy weapon support to clear objectives, and they need it with them to create local force superiority... topic for another day, I suppose.

You don't need to combine any rules. There's no problem with separate rules.

Big beslubberin' Tank: If you fire an Ordnance weapon, you can still fire all other weapons as normal. IE: Other weapons do not fire as snap shots.

Unstopable Hulk: Seige Russ, or maybe all Russ, gain some kind of toughness boost. This rule only applies if the AV thing is tossed out.

If the AV thing is distasteful, another simple fix would be to give the tank an Armour save. A 3+ armour save protects it from high-volume firepower, while leaving it susceptible to dedicated Anti-Tank. Front and Side AV are mostly unchanged... though the odd weapon becomes notably less effective than it was before, but that's rare. It lets Krak Grenades / Scatter Lasers hurt it, but give a good chance to resist that damage... while still getting smoked by Meltabombs and Monstrous Creatures. And Power Fists.

Downgrading Pens is NOT the correct fix. While I still occasionally one-shot a vehicle and I think it's still an important consideration to gain initiative, most vehicles still die to HP loss. More HP could be valid... maybe it's my secret IG fanboy / complete lack of fluff knowledge, but the Russ always seemed to me like it should be a big lump of invulnerable steel.

If you don't like the idea of raising AV's, then as incongruous as it will feel, an Armour Save would fix the glaring problems of close range destruction. Tee-hee, give it a 2+. Really stick it to Missile Launchers.

Your whole "Why don't Marines have it?" Thing is what's forcing the AM into their fluff role of being chumps that can't actually win without the in-game equivalent of 3 times the points of the enemy. Quit it! It doesn't matter in game. Fluff can go fluff itself. I want a game that works, damnit!

The AM codex, as a shooty codex, needs to be balanced between 3 existing non-marine armies.

Tau have overwhelming firepower. Necrons have overwhelming durability. Eldar have overwhelming mobility. And everything else. I play against Eldar too much lately. You know how much fun 2 WK is, backed up by 15 more D-Weapons? It's not.

Right now, we have less firepower than Tau or Eldar... similar / better than Necrons.
We have less durability than Necrons and Eldar... probably less than Tau. Hard to tell when they delete units at a time, you can't shoot back. ;)
We have less mobility than everyone.

My vision for the Guard would be to be Shootier than Necrons, but not as overwhelming as Tau.
Tougher than Tau/Eldar, but not as tough as Necrons.
Gain mobility to be the equal or slightly better than Necrons... a good start would be re-pricing the transports and giving the Vendetta a ten-man capacity again. I like what's going on with the Talon company. I love it, in fact. I'd like to see the return of a working Harker and some version of Captain Al. It doesn't have to be bikes, but something to allow us to plunk down some place and hold ground. Drop Pods - like option would be perfect.

Something to think about, anyhow.
« Last Edit: February 3, 2016, 11:09:59 PM by Spectral Arbor »

Offline The GrimSqueaker

  • The Badger on the Road | Staff Infection Officer | Debased Vassal Slayer | Title Barfly | XOXOXO Gossip Girl | Bent Over
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19053
  • Country: nz
  • From the Fourth Necromantic House
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #42 on: February 3, 2016, 11:43:18 PM »
My biggest concern wuld be that if having AV10 on a vehicle is a "broken rule" because they "need to move forwards" then there's a lot of vehicles out there that need the same fix.

It comes down to different gaming systems. Rather than three facings (front/side/rear) there are usually at least five (front/side/rear/top/bottom). Even ground vehicles have vulnerable bottoms (ooh, ah) due to mines and such. As I mentioned before, top armour is vulnerable to pop-up attacks from missiles/flyers/huge walking things/etc. If you armour everything the same you lose mobility. So it comes down to choice as to what threat you prioritise over others and then mobility.

Eldar/Necron/Tau have "ground" vehicles that are able to move in 3-dimensions. Land Speeders/Jet Bikes count as well but they're bullet magnets already. Technically their rear armour should be equal or better than their bottom armour with top armour being a middle ground compared to side and front. It all gets really complicated very quickly once you expand the rule mechanics.

The old Renegade Legion series had an armour mechanic that was pure fun. Especially as every different weapon had a different wound pattern.
Quote from: @TracyAuGoGO
Tact is for people who are too slow witted to be sarcastic.
Drink
Knights Tippler
Quote from: Surviving the World
If you can't make fun of something, it's probably not worth taking seriously.

You have to love the smell of science in the morning. It smells of learning.... or perhaps a gas leak.

Offline Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #43 on: February 4, 2016, 07:17:20 AM »
You keep saying that Russes need to get into close range to be effective, but how close is "close range"?  The closest you need to be with any Russ to provide reasonable fire support is 23"; 20" at worst to ensure a better number of hits with the Demolisher.  Perhaps the issue you are having with your Russes being overwhelmed is that you are still operating under the mentality that you must move forward to fire, and that you need to guarantee that you are in range before measuring.  You can pre-measure, remember? 

Often times I will measure the extent of the range I want my Vindicators to fire at, and move them to be at that exact point because the majority of the time they will be beyond charge range.
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

Offline khaine

  • This happens when I am bored.
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1376
  • Country: england
  • Truly Dread
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #44 on: February 4, 2016, 09:59:59 AM »
It comes down to different gaming systems. Rather than three facings (front/side/rear) there are usually at least five (front/side/rear/top/bottom). Even ground vehicles have vulnerable bottoms (ooh, ah) due to mines and such. As I mentioned before, top armour is vulnerable to pop-up attacks from missiles/flyers/huge walking things/etc. If you armour everything the same you lose mobility. So it comes down to choice as to what threat you prioritise over others and then mobility.

City Fight did introduce the concept of top armour, valuing it the same as rear armour unless you had the siege armour upgrade which raised it to match side armour. The Demolisher (The only Siege Russ at the time) came with the upgrade for free. Bobby traps and mines also tend to struck against the rear AV effectively giving us Front/Side/Rear+Top+Bottom armour values.

Of course the one vehicle that messes with it all is the Minotaur which has a higher Rear AV than any other facing.  ::)

As you say it's about the trade off between protection and mobility/operating range and you can't just go a wield steel plate over the top of every weak spot.

  There's no stopping what can't be stopped, no killing what can't be killed

You can't see the eyes of the demon until him come calling.

This is dread man, truly dread.


"Childhood is when you idolize Batman. Adulthood is when you realize that the Joker makes more sense."

Offline Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #45 on: February 4, 2016, 12:07:54 PM »
@ Spectral

I want to create another thread to address those issues you outlined, because I agree with you a lot.

I propose a rule to add 3 inches to the Movement and Run distances of Sentinels.  Like I mentioned once before, I think this should have been a rule in the BRB to create a difference between slower moving 'stomping' walkers like Dreadnaughts, and faster moving 'Chicken Walkers' like Sentinels.  With this single rule, Sentinels become proper Fast Attack vehicles because they would be faster than your infantry.  My WIP name for this rule would be 'Reconnassance Walker'.

About the side armor of Chimeras and the cost of transports, here's what I would do.  Bump up the side armour of all chimera based vehicles to 12, not just the chimera itself.  Meanwhile, the Taurox would have it's price reduced to 35pts.  It's supposed to be a dirt cheap light transport vehicle; the Guards answer to a Land Rover or Humvee.  So you can either pay the high price for the tough, well armed Infantry Fighting Vehicle, or pay the budget price for the little APC.  Right now it seems that nobody wants the the Taurox, and that's a shame.

As for the Battle Tanks; I said that it's possible to drop a grenade into the tank and blow it up from the inside.  However, this isn't a problem for a Land Raider.  It's tough all over.  So I'm wondering, if the Land Raider can be that tough, and the Storm Raven can have armour that tough...why can't we?  Is there any reason why a specially adapted close range assault tank couldn't have their rear armour set at 12, protecting from Krak grenades?

Offline khaine

  • This happens when I am bored.
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1376
  • Country: england
  • Truly Dread
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #46 on: February 4, 2016, 01:21:07 PM »
As for the Battle Tanks; I said that it's possible to drop a grenade into the tank and blow it up from the inside.  However, this isn't a problem for a Land Raider.  It's tough all over.  So I'm wondering, if the Land Raider can be that tough, and the Storm Raven can have armour that tough...why can't we?  Is there any reason why a specially adapted close range assault tank couldn't have their rear armour set at 12, protecting from Krak grenades?

Why can't Guardsmen have power armour?

There are 2 driving reasons behind things like this in 40k, the background and game balance. Of the 2 game balances tends to win out and is why a single Marine can't take on a platoon of IG.

GW have been asked many times over the years to print the formula they use to calculate points values, they always maintained there was no magic formula and the final points value is decided by how a unit interacts within it's native army. They more or less proved this point when they published the VDR rules and everybody realised how broken they were. If you can find a copy of them they are well worth looking at as a bad example of game development.

Currently the Russ has a certain place in the IG army, it's a heavy hitter with good armour that requires support and intelligent use to make the most of it. This is reflected in it's point values. As you raise something like rear armour you strip away the need to support the unit and also diminishes the value of other units. Why bother with a Basilisk that can fire indirectly when you can just drive a Russ wherever you want and fire direct?

Saying "Marines have xxx why can't Guard have it?" Is like saying "Guard have front Av14, why can't Eldar have it?"

In short; if everybody gets everything then all armies would be the same. Just because you can give a unit something doesn't mean you should.


So could a specialy adapted siege tank have AV12? Yes it could. It's called the Malcador.

  There's no stopping what can't be stopped, no killing what can't be killed

You can't see the eyes of the demon until him come calling.

This is dread man, truly dread.


"Childhood is when you idolize Batman. Adulthood is when you realize that the Joker makes more sense."

Offline Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #47 on: February 4, 2016, 02:13:18 PM »
@ khaine

For the record, I already knew this, to an extent.  I just wanted to play devils advocate and see the reasons spelled for me.

...anyone buying that?  ;)

Seriously though, I'm going to stick with advocating that the armour values remain as they are.  It's just easier.  There's other ways to get around weaker rear armor, and it's supporting it with ground troops or sentinel outriders.

With the work around for ordinance weapons, can we still lower the prices of the tanks?

Offline Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #48 on: February 4, 2016, 02:21:04 PM »
About the side armor of Chimeras and the cost of transports, here's what I would do.  Bump up the side armour of all chimera based vehicles to 12, not just the chimera itself. 
Under what justification?  The only Chimera based vehicles that have armour 12 are the Hellhound variants, which have an incredibly short range, and the Deathstrike, which needs the added survivability. 

The Chimera itself is already a well rounded, well priced transport.  To increase the side armour values, an appropriate price increase would be at least 35 to 40 points based solely on how much more survivable the vehicle had just become.  You have just given it 270 degrees of "immune to strength 5."

Is that worth it for a transport?  Take that change and bring it over to the other Chimera chassis, and you are increasing the cost of the artillery that don't need the added survivability.  Do you really want to pay 160pts for a single Basilisk?  Or 100pts for a single Wyvren?

This is one change I can not support at all because of how it affects the game balance.

As for the Battle Tanks; I said that it's possible to drop a grenade into the tank and blow it up from the inside.  However, this isn't a problem for a Land Raider.  It's tough all over.  So I'm wondering, if the Land Raider can be that tough, and the Storm Raven can have armour that tough...why can't we?  Is there any reason why a specially adapted close range assault tank couldn't have their rear armour set at 12, protecting from Krak grenades?

The best way to do a comparison is via the Lexicanum articles for both the Land Raider and the Leman Russ.

The Land Raider is the purest definition of a line breaker.  It is designed to carry heavy weapons and fully armoured Space Marines to the enemy's front lines and punch a hole.  That means it is designed to put itself in a position that is a vulnerability for most tanks.  The actual construction of the tank has the interior completely sealed, allowing the crew and transported Marines to operate in any environment (including a complete vacuum if I am not mistaken).  The outer layer of the tank is Adamantine with further layers of fancy 40k types of armour.

The Russ, by comparison, is the purest definition of a Main Battle Tank.  It is designed to take a beating while dishing out a serious amount of pain.  For it to deal the damage, you will generally have the front of the tank pointed at the enemy, which is why the front is so heavily armoured.  The armour is described, quite literally, as being half as intricate as the Land Raider's.  They even go as to describe that the armour is less around the sides and rear and why it is designed like that. 

The Russ is a Lumbering Behemoth of a vehicle, which is why it got a rule named that for years.  The Land Raider is the pinnacle of Imperial armoured technology with a completely different battlefield role.  The two should not be compared.  The comparison is like comparing a Tiger to an Abrams and wondering why the Tiger isn't as well protected as the Abrams.  It just doesn't work.

Frankly, Russes should have some vulnerability to combat.  They are not meant to be in a position to be charged.  The Land Raider, on the other hand, is.
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #49 on: February 4, 2016, 02:27:08 PM »
@ GML: My experience with Guard is that the infantry protect the tanks while they advance to an objective, and then the tanks protect the infantry once they get there.

Infantry bubble wrap the tanks during advance, do prevent the tanks being assaulted or melta'd. Once they get to the objective, presumably in cover, the infantry become the unit more likely to endure [for a turn, anyhow] close range combat, particularly assault. The tanks thus trade roles and become LOS blockers to ensure the survival of the infantry.

Guard units all have to work together. Not to put a fine point on it, but there are no Deathstars in the AM codex. Everything needs mutual support, in a local area. To give us something to work with? A 16" diameter circle kind of idea.

Going back to the central cluster point, one would need infantry to protect the heavy hitting tanks during the advance [in my not-so-humble opinion, again] and if the AM player managed to push the opposition away from that central cluster, the tanks would then set up a perimeter as best they could to protect the squishies inside from being shot / easily assaulted. Hypothetically, again, it's quite hard in practice to actually pull off.

But nothing works well on it's own in the Guard army. That's why I'm saying the Russ "Need" to advance with the infantry. The guys need the big guns, the Russ needs the protection.

Per my earlier challenge, imagine 3 objectives placed in a triangle around the centre of the board. Your opponent is playing whatever army you want... Marines ok with you? How do you move in and take that 3 objective section of the board, roughly a foot around? Send in infantry in Chimerae? I assure you that with the paper-sides they don't hold up to fire, and then the boys inside? Do you prefer shot or stabbed?

Anyhow, if you disagree with the concept that IG are truly a combined arms force, that's up to you. My observation is that they are, and those combined arms need to remain within a rough 16" circle in order to ensure their mutual support. The exact distance can vary, but I can fit all necessary components for one block inside an Aegis, formed in a Half-circle against the edge of a board. I tend to run 2-3 such blocks in 1500 to 1850 points.


The Chimera is more expensive than a HB Razorback, and delivers much more vulnerable cargo, at a greater price. Your claim that a Chimera is in any way reasonably priced compared to a Rhino or Pod shows a seeming ignorance of AM's potential.

The side AV of *crap* prevents it from being used to advance troops, which is it's intended purpose. When was the last time you saw a Chimera in their opponent's deployment zone? You're not speaking from a well-knowing position.
« Last Edit: February 4, 2016, 02:31:03 PM by Spectral Arbor »

Offline Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #50 on: February 4, 2016, 02:42:13 PM »
@ GML

My justification was that it should be able to get close to the enemy.  It's similar to what the issue with the Leman Russes rear armor is.  It's a way for the otherwise squishy infantry to actually move forward and challenge the enemy face to face, without the worry for being easily taken out with shots to the side. 

But, I don't think I've thought it through enough.   :P

The rise for the others was simply because they share identical chassis.  Thanks for the explanation for the land raider.  It puts things into perspective.

I'm starting to think that I'm not very good at this rules writing thing.  :(

Offline The GrimSqueaker

  • The Badger on the Road | Staff Infection Officer | Debased Vassal Slayer | Title Barfly | XOXOXO Gossip Girl | Bent Over
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19053
  • Country: nz
  • From the Fourth Necromantic House
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #51 on: February 4, 2016, 02:45:20 PM »
Bobby traps and mines also tend to struck against the rear AV effectively giving us Front/Side/Rear+Top+Bottom armour values.

For convenience it works but I'd probably lower the belly armour a tad so it's less than the sides or top. I'm more used to hover tank battles where the units are on levels rather than a plane and so getting a belly shot at someone was not only possible but preferred. Top and rear being semi-equal sounds about right. Depending on how far back we go in 40K there used to be turret armour values as well (awful template days). 40K doesn't currently need such detail though.
Quote from: @TracyAuGoGO
Tact is for people who are too slow witted to be sarcastic.
Drink
Knights Tippler
Quote from: Surviving the World
If you can't make fun of something, it's probably not worth taking seriously.

You have to love the smell of science in the morning. It smells of learning.... or perhaps a gas leak.

Offline Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #52 on: February 4, 2016, 06:38:13 PM »
@ GML: My experience with Guard is that the infantry protect the tanks while they advance to an objective, and then the tanks protect the infantry once they get there.

Infantry bubble wrap the tanks during advance, do prevent the tanks being assaulted or melta'd. Once they get to the objective, presumably in cover, the infantry become the unit more likely to endure [for a turn, anyhow] close range combat, particularly assault. The tanks thus trade roles and become LOS blockers to ensure the survival of the infantry.

Guard units all have to work together. Not to put a fine point on it, but there are no Deathstars in the AM codex. Everything needs mutual support, in a local area. To give us something to work with? A 16" diameter circle kind of idea.

Going back to the central cluster point, one would need infantry to protect the heavy hitting tanks during the advance [in my not-so-humble opinion, again] and if the AM player managed to push the opposition away from that central cluster, the tanks would then set up a perimeter as best they could to protect the squishies inside from being shot / easily assaulted. Hypothetically, again, it's quite hard in practice to actually pull off.

But nothing works well on it's own in the Guard army. That's why I'm saying the Russ "Need" to advance with the infantry. The guys need the big guns, the Russ needs the protection.

Per my earlier challenge, imagine 3 objectives placed in a triangle around the centre of the board. Your opponent is playing whatever army you want... Marines ok with you? How do you move in and take that 3 objective section of the board, roughly a foot around? Send in infantry in Chimerae? I assure you that with the paper-sides they don't hold up to fire, and then the boys inside? Do you prefer shot or stabbed?
I completely agree that the infantry are there to bubble wrap the tanks.  But does that mean the tanks have to be within 3" of the infantry?  No.  Against an army that has a heavy deep strike force (drop pods), then you may way to keep the infantry close until they come down.  But use the range on the tanks.  At worst, the Leman Russ has a minimum threat range of 30".  If you infantry is at risk of being charged, then you shouldn't have your Russes close enough that they are next.  The tanks do have a reverse gear.

What is the more important for the effectiveness of your army?  Your infantry that get slaughtered by the boatload, or your Russes who can blast chunks out of the enemy's defence?

Anyhow, if you disagree with the concept that IG are truly a combined arms force, that's up to you. My observation is that they are, and those combined arms need to remain within a rough 16" circle in order to ensure their mutual support. The exact distance can vary, but I can fit all necessary components for one block inside an Aegis, formed in a Half-circle against the edge of a board. I tend to run 2-3 such blocks in 1500 to 1850 points.
I've never said the Guard aren't a combined arms type force.  They rely on mutual support completely.  Still doesn't justify increase the armour on a Russ beyond 11.


The Chimera is more expensive than a HB Razorback, and delivers much more vulnerable cargo, at a greater price. Your claim that a Chimera is in any way reasonably priced compared to a Rhino or Pod shows a seeming ignorance of AM's potential.
You are right, it is more expensive than a HB Razorback, but with good reason.  It has more guns, a stronger turret, carries more troops, fire points that allow more than just two models to fire, and superior frontal armour.

Also, comparing the Chimera to the Rhino or Drop Pod does nothing as they are very different animals.  A Rhino does one thing: transports Marines.  Granted, it does it very well, but it has no offensive capabilities and relatively light on the armour.  The Drop Pod delivers a unit within a 12" radius of where you want it, allowing that unit to do what it does very well.  But once that happens, it is useless aside from holding an objective.  It has no offensive capabilities, and the only thing going for it later in the game is that it is a tougher nut to crack.


The side AV of *crap* prevents it from being used to advance troops, which is it's intended purpose. When was the last time you saw a Chimera in their opponent's deployment zone? You're not speaking from a well-knowing position.

The Chimera, contrary to popular believe, is not a pure transport; it is a gunboat.  It is a weapons platform that also transports troops.  It has enough raw firepower to rival a Wave Serpent.  It is completely capable of advancing troops, but that does not mean you have to try and cram it down your opponent's throat like a Marine player with a Rhino or Drop pod.  Think about your advances more than just "I are going to push tank forward!"  Can you advance in a way that you can have your front armour facing the majority of the incoming fire?  If yes, then do that.  If not, and it is early in the game, then maybe it is a better idea to stay put for now and push for the objectives later (if you are playing Eternal War).

As for your comment about seeing a Chimera in the opponent's deployment zone, my group primarily plays Maelstrom mission.  That means the Guard players advance to claim objectives throughout the game instead of being concerned about camping on three in the middle.  So quite often I will see a Chimera in an opponent's deployment zone because the flow of the game has meant there are more important targets than a Chimera with 10 Veterans.

Also, I would like to point out that Tangii wanted to change the side armour for all Chimera chassis tanks, which would include the artillery.  The Basilisk has no need for side armour 12.

But hey, after 17 years, what do I know about this game?  I mean, I don't play as Guard; I just face them on a regular basis.  How could I possibly know what it takes for Guard to win based on objectives.  I mean, they have the most complex strategies to pull from in the entire game.
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

Offline Calamity

  • Concussor Concussed Dice | Captain
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3055
  • Country: gb
  • Cocking up miniatures since 1998
  • Armies: Kharadron Overlords, Bloodbound, Celestial Lions
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #53 on: February 4, 2016, 06:43:24 PM »
I did want to do that, and I feel very foolish now for suggesting it.

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #54 on: February 4, 2016, 07:52:52 PM »
You shouldn't. The Bassies could certainly use it.

Invisible Jetbikes have munched mine the last couple times I faced them. You can't fight back. More an issue with Invis, I guess, but still.

You've been playing for 17 years. I've been at it since whenever Chaos Terminators got the Reaper Autocannon miniature, in 2nd edition. The White Dwarf with the picture is what cemented my desire to get into the game, and that's when I bought in. I started with Chaos Marines, because of that picture. 1996, 98 maybe? Sonofabe-atch it's been almost 20 years. Ballsagna. I'd been maining IG since the Eye of Terror, up until 7th edition hit. So 2003 to 2014, so half of that time spent with it as my main army. A decade, and I was damned good with them up until about 3 months into 7th.

Ask the guys that play AM at your club if they think raising the side AV of Chimera would make AM more competitive. Ask about the Russ's rear AV. Would they consider it broken? See what they think. Ask them what they think would be the best way to make them better.

Most important, and what I'd be most interested in, is ask them what they'd do if their opponent, in Maelstrom or EW, put 3 objectives in the centre of the board. Ask them how they'd deal with that. Just ask. See what they say. You seem to have respect for their opinion. If they come up with something useful, please let me know. I'd like to take advantage of that wisdom.

PS: Chimera have two firepoints, just like Rhinos. They can shoot some lasguns more or less straight to the sides. Know what 3 las-shots do? They cost MORE than the basic squad inside. Would you use a Rhino that cost 80 points? No? Why not? Would it seem impractical? The guns are junk. Who uses Heavy bolters? With piddly BS, you might get lucky and score two hits with the Multi-laser. And only if you move slowly. And then you get surrounded and pop goes the weasel.

The point is that Guard don't have another transport option. If you want to move bodies, that's your option. You gonna run chumps across open ground and expect to live?
« Last Edit: February 4, 2016, 07:58:14 PM by Spectral Arbor »

Offline The GrimSqueaker

  • The Badger on the Road | Staff Infection Officer | Debased Vassal Slayer | Title Barfly | XOXOXO Gossip Girl | Bent Over
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19053
  • Country: nz
  • From the Fourth Necromantic House
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #55 on: February 4, 2016, 08:03:26 PM »
The Chimera, contrary to popular believe, is not a pure transport; it is a gunboat.

That's the APC vs IFV argument. APCs are lad carriers only while IFVs can support the infantry and help engage other armoured threats. Rhino vs Chimera essentially.
Quote from: @TracyAuGoGO
Tact is for people who are too slow witted to be sarcastic.
Drink
Knights Tippler
Quote from: Surviving the World
If you can't make fun of something, it's probably not worth taking seriously.

You have to love the smell of science in the morning. It smells of learning.... or perhaps a gas leak.

Offline Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #56 on: February 4, 2016, 09:10:21 PM »
You shouldn't. The Bassies could certainly use it.
Ahahahahahaha.... ahhh, I needed that laugh.

Oh... wait... you were serious?  You honestly think that a vehicle that can park in the corner and cover every inch of the table while always presenting its front armour needs 12 on the side?

Invisible Jetbikes have munched mine the last couple times I faced them. You can't fight back. More an issue with Invis, I guess, but still.
Culexus Assassin.  Problem solved for 140pts. 

Also, that isn't a problem with Guard vehicles.  That is a problem with Eldar Jetbikes.

Ask the guys that play AM at your club if they think raising the side AV of Chimera would make AM more competitive. Ask about the Russ's rear AV. Would they consider it broken? See what they think. Ask them what they think would be the best way to make them better.
We have had discussions on what would make the Guard better, and changing the armour values on the vehicles wasn't brought up at all.  Mostly it was the inclusion of formations and price changes.

Most important, and what I'd be most interested in, is ask them what they'd do if their opponent, in Maelstrom or EW, put 3 objectives in the centre of the board. Ask them how they'd deal with that. Just ask. See what they say. You seem to have respect for their opinion. If they come up with something useful, please let me know. I'd like to take advantage of that wisdom.
You mean like what happens in pretty much every game we play?  The answer is simple.  Blow the ever living beslubber out of the enemy until they can't hold an objective any more.  It's amazing the amount of wounds a squadron of Wyvrens can put out.

PS: Chimera have two firepoints, just like Rhinos. They can shoot some lasguns more or less straight to the sides. Know what 3 las-shots do? They cost MORE than the basic squad inside. Would you use a Rhino that cost 80 points? No? Why not? Would it seem impractical? The guns are junk. Who uses Heavy bolters? With piddly BS, you might get lucky and score two hits with the Multi-laser. And only if you move slowly. And then you get surrounded and pop goes the weasel.
What has the potential to do more damage?  2 Guardsmen from the hatch + three lasguns from the side, or two marines from the hatch?

What has the potential to do more damage?  3 St6 shots + 3 St5 shots at BS3, or 2 St4 shots at BS4?  We could even out the points on this and make it two Rhinos, bump it up to 4 St4 shots... but my money is still on the single Chimera.

What can be harder to penetrate with the front of the vehicle facing the firing unit?  Armour 11 or Armour 12?

The point is that Guard don't have another transport option. If you want to move bodies, that's your option. You gonna run chumps across open ground and expect to live?
You mean the Taurox, Valkyrie, and Vendetta aren't transports?  News to me.

Look, I understand you want to go back to the Guard's hayday when you had 55pt Chimeras, but that day has passed.  You are going to get no argument that Guard are outclassed by the newer books, but the answer is in formations and cost changes.  Not by pointing at another army and saying "we should have that!"  Increasing the side armour of a Chimera is pointing to the Wave Serpent and saying "I want that."  Increasing the rear of a Russ to 12 is pointing at a Land Raider and saying "I want that."  If that is the only way you can think to improve the army, then why not just play the armies you want to copy?

Can I point to a Leman Russ and say that my Vindicators should have a 14/13/12 armour profile because they are designed to be close ranged fire support for my Marines and are always getting charged?  The model clearly has thicker armour on the front and sides compared to a Predator, so the change is justified.  Right now, Vindicators are getting flipped because I am putting them in a position where they are being charged by 10 Tactical Marines with Krak Grenades.  Clearly the answer to make them more survivable is to increase their armour and not change how I play them.
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #57 on: February 4, 2016, 10:40:31 PM »
Sigh. It's not wanting what others have, it's realizing what you need to get ahead and realizing you don't have it.

The answer is not in formations, or price changes. Making things cheaper just means buying more models. That can only go so far.

You can't park a Bassie in the corner and present FA to the whole board. They have narrow fronts which make them have tiny front arcs. And who, exactly, is using Bassies prior to the recent formations?

NooooooBody!

The real solution isn't an Assassin, because that's a different codex. That's not fixing the Guard. It's saying, well, Guard suck so go play something else. Thanks for coming out.

You talk about POTENTIAL damage, but what's the real damage? Nothing. Weak BS, and once you MOVE which you kind of need to do you're oh, beslubber it. You know full well it's a weak codex. You know full well that models go in the bin by the handful. They can't do that if you want IG to have a chance to win. They aren't fast enough, or punchy enough.

You seriously want an army that's slow, fragile, but somehow Shootier than Tau? That's what they would need to be to overcome both weaker mobility and softer vehicles. Tau Jink. Tau have decent side armour. Tau have all the short-ranged tools that Guard can only dream of. Honest to Emperor, it's not a case of not knowing how to play. It's a case of "I don't want to fix these two issues by somehow making their shooting so unfathomably powerful that literally anything that's in LOS disappears." I can deal with low mobility. I can deal with weaker than Tau shooting. But something's got to get a buff, and I feel it should be IG's ability to soak damage, without needing to buy twice as many models.

That you consider the Taurox a viable option is the real joke. A Valkyrie? 140 points for a Flying Chimera! Look out! I've got two large blasts that are weaker than bolters! You've got serious reality issues if you're saying they're viable transports. You got out of the plane? Sorry, those 5 tacticals are going to assault you and you're going to die. Seriously!

I can ally a Techie, 5 scouts, and a Drop Pod for the price of one Valk. For the price of two Valks, I could take a Techie, 5 scouts, and *5* pods. If I want to fix mobility, I'd just ally pods, and deliver 5 squads, for certain, instead of hoping on 2 in the birds. Birds that can't fight other birds, and can't support ground troops. Do you have any idea how impracticaly over-costed Valkyries are? Shake thine head, for it is full of misguided and impure thoughts. And that's not fixing the Guard codex, either. Look how far mobility in the codex needs to come, to compare with stolen Allied pods.

I've justified my reasons. At length. You see what you want. I've done the math. I've recognized the realistic scenarios of what you need to face. You still haven't come up with a way for IG to take a central cluster, by the way. You can't shoot them off the middle AND be able to take it, before you're side-swiped by a faster foe, which is everyone. Have any of your crew won a "challenging" game with IG? Something that wasn't a pure fluff list? Come on, we're all friends here. You can confide your misleading ways. :)

« Last Edit: February 4, 2016, 10:45:50 PM by Spectral Arbor »

Offline Grand Master Lomandalis

  • Grand Master of the Deathwing | Oh the lolmanity! | 40kOnline's Care Bear of LOL!
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11372
  • Country: ca
  • We were murderers first, last, and always!
  • Armies: Dark Angels, Custodes, Knights, Night Lords
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #58 on: February 4, 2016, 11:40:28 PM »
Sigh. It's not wanting what others have, it's realizing what you need to get ahead and realizing you don't have it.

The answer is not in formations, or price changes. Making things cheaper just means buying more models. That can only go so far.

You can't park a Bassie in the corner and present FA to the whole board. They have narrow fronts which make them have tiny front arcs. And who, exactly, is using Bassies prior to the recent formations?

NooooooBody!
If you are only playing pitched battles (standard 12" along the long table edge) deployment, then you are right.  But last time I checked, 2/3 of the deployment types available allowed you to do exactly that.

If these problems are things that need to be done to make guard competitive again, then why was guard competitive in 4th and 5th edition without these changes in place?  Why have Chimeras had the same armour value since 3rd edition and gone through an age when they were all Guard players ever took?  Clearly the issue was not with the amount of shots, their armour, or their mobility.  The only thing that changed was that they increased 10 points.  A points increase that was justified because there is no way they were equal to a Razorback.  The tank, as it stands, is a better platform than the Razorback.

Now, I do believe that GW acknowledge that the Russ needed a boost and increased the side armour from 12 to 13.  But the strange thing is that they left the rear armour alone.  I wonder why that is?  Is it because they understand that the tank is not meant to be at the very front of your army, leading the charge, and being placed in a position where it can get beslubbered up by infantry?

As for Bassies not being used, that is because there are better choices in the heavy support section than the Basilisk.  The issue there is that the Basilisk is too expensive for what it does.  How do you fix that issue?  You guessed it, a price correction.

The real solution isn't an Assassin, because that's a different codex. That's not fixing the Guard. It's saying, well, Guard suck so go play something else. Thanks for coming out.
You complain about Invisibility, so I give you a solution.  The same solution that every other Imperial player aside from Grey Knights has.  An assassin.  And FYI, it isn't a different codex.  It is a Dataslate that is available online and is open to use. 

Your complaint is more or less regarding psychic defence, and how the Guard does not have much of it.  Well, feel good that you have at least SOME in your codex.  You know who really suffer against a concentrated psychic phase?  Tau, Necrons, and Dark Eldar.  What do they have for psychic defence?  Zilch.  Even marines suffer from psychic powers.  What is a Librarian going to do against Eldar, Grey Knights, or Tyranids when it comes to stopping psychic powers?  Usually the answer is "sweet beslubber all."  Use the tools that are available to you or don't.  The choice is yours.  But if you are having an issue where invisible jetbikes are beslubbering up your Russes, bring a Culexus and watch as those Invisible bikes disappear.

You talk about POTENTIAL damage, but what's the real damage? Nothing. Weak BS, and once you MOVE which you kind of need to do you're oh, beslubber it. You know full well it's a weak codex. You know full well that models go in the bin by the handful. They can't do that if you want IG to have a chance to win. They aren't fast enough, or punchy enough.
Yes, I talk about potential damage.  I talk about potential damage because we play this game with these things called "dice." What these "dice" do is they give you random results that indicate how well your unit has done something.  The good thing about how the game system works, is that you can work out the probability of how well it will do through this thing called "math."  So let us use "math" now to show you why I talk about potential damage.

Let's start with the Storm Bolter on the Drop Pod or Rhino firing at a Tactical Squad (the most common unit of troops):
2 shots x 66% chance to hit
= 1.32 hits x 50% chance to wound
= 0.66 wounds x 33% chance to kill
= 0.2178 wounds done

Now the Chimera:
3 Heavy Bolter shots x 50% chance to hit / 3 Multilaser shots x 50% chance to hit
= 1.5 hits x 66% chance to wound / 1.5 hits x 83% chance to wound
= 0.99 wounds x 33% chance to kill / 1.245 wounds x 33% chance to kill
= 0.3267 wounds done / 0.41085 wounds done
0.3267 + 0.41085 = 0.73755 wounds

Mathematically speaking, the Chimera has three times the potential to kill marines than a Rhino does.  And that is just going by odds.  Now let's change it to really throw things off.  Your dice are rolling really well, and every time you fire a Chimera you are wounding with 6 out of 6 shots.  It can happen; it has happened.  You have the potential to kill 3 times the number of models a Rhino can, and twice as many as a Razorback.  So yeah, you need to discuss potential when you are comparing vastly different vehicles.

You seriously want an army that's slow, fragile, but somehow Shootier than Tau? That's what they would need to be to overcome both weaker mobility and softer vehicles. Tau Jink. Tau have decent side armour. Tau have all the short-ranged tools that Guard can only dream of.
You mean like how the Guard was able to outshoot tau from 3rd edition right up to 6th?  And what short range tools are you referring to?  Fusion blasters?  Guard have those, they call them "Meltas."  Plasma?  Guard has them too.

Honest to Emperor, it's not a case of not knowing how to play. It's a case of "I don't want to fix these two issues by somehow making their shooting so unfathomably powerful that literally anything that's in LOS disappears." I can deal with low mobility. I can deal with weaker than Tau shooting. But something's got to get a buff, and I feel it should be IG's ability to soak damage, without needing to buy twice as many models.
And how do you buff vehicles that are already good, and that have been good for well over a decade?  Give them additional rules (like they did by giving Russes Lumbering Behemoth) and change their point cost.  As I have said before, the Chimera is a fine vehicle.  Is it a good vehicle at 65pts?  Might be pushing it.  Is it a good vehicle at 55pts?  No, it's beslubbering fantastic.  So where is the balance?  60pts?  Sounds reasonable to me.

Guard fight a war of attrition.  Their method of absorbing damage is to have enough bodies that the numbers they lose aren't as crucial as the numbers they inflict.  Losing 10 guardsmen, no big deal.  Lose 10 marines, has a fairly sizeable impact.  Lose 10 Terminators and my game plan has drastically changed.

That you consider the Taurox a viable option is the real joke. A Valkyrie? 140 points for a Flying Chimera! Look out! I've got two large blasts that are weaker than bolters! You've got serious reality issues if you're saying they're viable transports. You got out of the plane? Sorry, those 5 tacticals are going to assault you and you're going to die. Seriously!
You said nothing about viable.  You said "the guard have no other transports."  I'm sorry, but that is a lie.  You want a cheap transport to get your guardsmen from point A to point B, you have 4 standard options.  Taurox, Chimera, Valkyrie, Vendetta.  Is the Chimera still the best option?  Probably.  Is it the only option?  No.  Look at it all comparatively.  The Taurox is pretty much a Razorback.  Little bit cheaper, better gun, more troop carrying capacity, slightly weaker armour profile, slightly worse BS.  For what you are claiming you want, it is pretty much bang on.  It gets your Guardsmen from point A to point B and is more or less a pure transport.  Or you can spend 15pts more and get the superior Chimera that is more than just a transport.

I have no issue with the idea of the Chimera getting a boost in the side armour value.  I do have an issue with it being done at the same point cost it is at right now.  You want it to be 12/12/10?  Fine.  Your stock Chimera is now 100pts.  At 12/12/10 your Chimera is a superior vehicle to the Devilfish.  More weapons and better armour profile.  Minimum 100pt cost at least.  Does that seem like a solution that fits the Guard's M.O?  Cause that doesn't feel very Guard-like to me.

I can ally a Techie, 5 scouts, and a Drop Pod for the price of one Valk. For the price of two Valks, I could take a Techie, 5 scouts, and *5* pods. If I want to fix mobility, I'd just ally pods, and deliver 5 squads, for certain, instead of hoping on 2 in the birds. Birds that can't fight other birds, and can't support ground troops. Do you have any idea how impracticaly over-costed Valkyries are? Shake thine head, for it is full of misguided and impure thoughts.
I agree that the Valk has issues, which is why you never see them.  Interesting that you totally skipped over Vendettas though.

I've justified my reasons. At length. You see what you want. I've done the math. I've recognized the realistic scenarios of what you need to face. You still haven't come up with a way for IG to take a central cluster, by the way. You can't shoot them off the middle AND be able to take it, before you're side-swiped by a faster foe, which is everyone.
Well, considering that has been the strategy of the Guard for as long as the game has been around, yeah... you can.  You can try charging them, but that isn't going to work.  Or you can park on top of the objective and pray they don't exploit your weakness, which is combat... but that isn't going to work either.  What does that leave for a strategy?  Oh, right.  Shoot the amphetamine parrot out of them.  You're concerned about faster moving enemies, reconsider your target priority.  Is shooting at that marine squad camped in ruins on an objective on turn two as important as shooting the Grav-Centurions that just drop podded in and wasted a Russ?

Have any of your crew won a "challenging" game with IG? Something that wasn't a pure fluff list? Come on, we're all friends here. You can confide your misleading ways. :)
If I recall correctly, you play in London and have Dan Platt in your local gaming group, right?  If you are aware of the tournament scene in Southern Ontario, then you know who Ricky Johnson is.  He played Guard competitively for years until the codex creep got to the point where they were not a top tier army like they used to be.  Do you remember the tournament scene when 50% of the armies there were either Grey Knights or Imperial Guard?  Because I do.

Chris Mollink brought his guard to a tournament in Niagara Falls that was attended by most of the top players in SW-Ontario (including Dan) and placed 2nd.  Is that enough of a "challenge" for you?

If you keep having an issue with your Guard, maybe the problem isn't with the army, but with the general.
If there is anything that recent politics has taught us, it is that quotes taken out of context can mean what ever you want them to.
Well I always liked the globals...
I knew I had fans!!!

Quote
"Dark Angels are Traitors" is the 40k equivalent of Flat Earthers.  You can provide all of the proof you want that says otherwise, but people just can't let it go...

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Re: Some IG Tank ideas
« Reply #59 on: February 5, 2016, 03:11:57 PM »
Could you provide me a link to the tournament pack? I'm curious about the comp rules / missions pack.

I won all but 2 games in 6th edition. The problem isn't the general, but the game changing around it.

Devilfish > Chimera, even with side AV 12, because DFish can jink. So no, not better, not by a long shot. The extra guns on a Chimera are worthless, because you have to move.

I'm sorry that I didn't specify that there weren't any other "viable" transports. I forgot your penchant for literalism to the point of making conversation nigh impossible.

People don't use bassies because there are better, more SURVIVABLE options. It's overpriced by 25 points, but I'd pay it if they could survive longer.

The invis vs bassies issue is not being able to fire the pieplate at them. Thus they have no means of removing them, and I already acknowledged the problem was with invis, but thanks for misunderstanding a perfectly explained point.

Chimera Damage output: First off, you compared 1 to 1, when points wise it's much closer to 1 to 2. So we could effectively double the damage output from the SB's, but you also assumed that the Chimera would be able to fire both weapons, which is inaccurate in nearly all cases, so it's much more like 0.667 to 2 [especially if you give the Chim Dozer Blades, which I would]

So if we assume you did your maths correctly, it's more like 0.5 wounds for a Chimera vs 0.44 from a pair of Rhino / Pod. So yeah... the other transports are significantly better value in that they can deploy infantry to a location, that can support themselves, without needing to invest in a transport worth as much as the unit.

Chimera with Dozer + Vets in Carapace with 2x Plasma Gun = 175 pts -> 40% points spent on transport
Rhino w/ Dozer + 8 Tactical with Plasmagun and Combi-Plas = 177 pts -> 23% points spent on transport

You don't want to acknowledge the way the units actually play. That's fine. You live in your dream world where somehow someone is taking a unit in a Chimera as a Fire Support role, rather than an objective grabbing role. I might point out, that a well-loaded Plasma-Russ would be cheaper than those Vets in Chimera, if one was looking for fire support, but that wouldn't matter, because the Chimera is a Gun boat. LULZ! The inability to see this tank in relation to the rest of the army is the failing in your comparision. You don't use a Chimera as a gun-boat. It is used as a transport. It is pitifully overpriced in that regard, but it's what we've got, and we need to use them, but that doesn't make them good, or in anyway undue for toughness increase.

Guard vehicles were good in previous incarnations of the rules, but not anymore. Simply, the game has changed. You can burrow into your nice warm cave all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that the game has fundamentally changed to the point where mobility is now able to circumvent our weaknesses to a point that there is no defence, no give-and-take. Just bin models and so you need to buy more models to allow your opponents to bin them at a rate that you can still shoot back, I guess?

Short ranged tools for Tau referring to Crisis loadouts that can stock up on deep-strike goodness then jump out of harms way. Or Devilfish that unload a gadjillion shots on you when your blueys jump out. Breacher teams, and they all ignore cover thanks to ML's and the boosted BS. Come on, you don't see a slight benefit there? You're absolutely failing to see this in the bigger picture, at all. Do you REALLY want Guard's balance to come from outshooting Tau, really?

I skipped Vendettas because they can only carry 6 dudes, so you can't even fit a proper infantry squad in them. Given the TOTAL shift away from Platoons by most everyone I know... maybe you know someone? Then you can only transport a CCS in there, and what are you going to do? Drop them by themselves in the middle of nowhere and hope they live? Less likely than when using a Valk? The Vendetta is not... oh, wait... isn't a practical transport, but I just need to git guud, ammirite?

You honestly think, given all the time and effort I've spent on statistics for this game, that I couldn't find a way to "Shoot the amphetamine parrot" out of an opponent fast enough? Please, your argument is, again, completely ignoring the reality and evidence around you. I know how to make a Leafblower style list, but it will still be eliminated and will still not score victory points because as soon as it moves, you lose.

I've had my say, you're welcome to the last word. But please, try to make it have some connection to reality.

And please, give me a link to the tournament rules, if you're able. I'd like to see how they modified the game away from the BRB to make it work for guard. ;)

 


Powered by EzPortal