News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Improving the Astra Militarum  (Read 38643 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wyddr

  • Author Eminence: Hereticus Liber Daemonica | Fio'shas Shi
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5254
  • Country: us
    • My blog about SF/F stuff
  • Armies: Daemons, Imperial Fists, Tau, Ksons, Vostroyans
Re: Improving the Astra Militarum
« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2015, 03:11:54 PM »
I don't think Chimera's as "heavy vehicles" makes a lot of sense from either a fluff or a gameplay perspective. So, what, you gain a couple shots with a heavy bolter? Meh. I'd rather have a transport I can zoom 18" on turn one, thanks.

If you want to make the Chimera better (and I don't think it needs it, really, but still), let it take the same weapon options as the Taurox Prime--the mini battle cannon, the TL Gatling gun, and an autocannon--in addition to the multilaser/Heavy bolter/Heavy Flamer. That would make things interesting indeed.

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: Improving the Astra Militarum
« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2015, 03:29:50 PM »
I guess the Chimera doesn't really need work then.  That's OK.  What about Valkyries as DTs.  Too much?  It's probably too much.  :P

Also, I'm working on a way for orders to be better implemented for vehicles, using a simple d6 roll 'borrowed' (ie, stolen) from Forge World.  With this, Tank Commanders can order units outside of their squadron.  A 1 is inspired tactics, 2-3 is a normal pass, 4-5 is a fail, and 6 is incompetent command.   No need to worry about assigning vehicles a leadership value.  And a new piece of equipment, improved comms, allows a re-roll on that table.  How does this sound?

Offline Wyddr

  • Author Eminence: Hereticus Liber Daemonica | Fio'shas Shi
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5254
  • Country: us
    • My blog about SF/F stuff
  • Armies: Daemons, Imperial Fists, Tau, Ksons, Vostroyans
Re: Improving the Astra Militarum
« Reply #22 on: March 13, 2015, 04:05:48 PM »
I guess the Chimera doesn't really need work then.  That's OK.  What about Valkyries as DTs.  Too much?  It's probably too much.  :P

I don't think it sounds terrible, but it should be restricted to Vets and Scions. I'd also like to see a Vet Improvement (along the lines of Grenadiers or Forward Sentries) called "grav chutes" which would let them deepstrike. Charge them 20 points or something.

Oh, and Forward Sentries should have Scout, dammit. It's ridiculous that they don't.

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: Improving the Astra Militarum
« Reply #23 on: March 13, 2015, 06:07:05 PM »
I don't think it sounds terrible, but it should be restricted to Vets and Scions. I'd also like to see a Vet Improvement (along the lines of Grenadiers or Forward Sentries) called "grav chutes" which would let them deepstrike. Charge them 20 points or something.

Oh, and Forward Sentries should have Scout, dammit. It's ridiculous that they don't.

I'm open to the idea of Vets getting more options.  And having thought about it, would having Valks as DTs make sense from a fluff point of view, what with that whole 'separation of ground and air forces thing'?  Maybe vets and platoons could have doctrines that allow it.  Like, 'Air Calvary' (or a better name) that says the PCS and all infantry squads in the platoon must take Valkyries as a DT.  Honestly, I'm in favor of infantry platoons having doctrines as well...just not as varied as vets.  Grenadiers yes, demolitions no for example.

Also, about giving heavy (and increased side armor) to a Chimera...it might not be popular but hear me out.  Yes, it might only be able to fire an extra heavy bolter (and a pintle mounted weapon if you take it) at the cost of speed but assuming that you have multiple vehicles those extra guns start to add up.  My idea is that with heavy, the Chimera becomes a sort of fighting platform for the infantry inside (which is how I always used them) to contrast the 'fast' battlefield taxi that is the Tauros.  Guard infantry are squishy, but when put into a tough transport that allows 80% of them to still shoot away they become well, tough.  Humans need their machines.  ;)

It's really not a big deal though and I'll drop it if no one agrees.

EDIT:

I'm making this edit here so as to avoid a double post, and I hope somebody sees it.  I have a few more ideas for armored warfare in the IG.  A vehicle order system taken straight from the Forge World Armored list and some new equipment too.

Instead of trying to come up with a system based on leadership, and then having to assign leadership values to vehicles, this one (going by the name 'mechanized orders' for now) is based on a simple 1d6 chart; 1 is incompetent command, 2-3 is a fail, 4-5 is a pass, and 6 is inspired tactics.  A model with the mechanized orders rule can issue one order to a unit of vehicles within 12'', measuring from the base of the hull.  Said orders will be similar to what's already in the book.  With this, a tank commander can now issue orders to units outside of his squadron.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2015, 05:45:55 AM by Tangi »

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: Improving the Astra Militarum
« Reply #24 on: March 27, 2015, 08:01:44 PM »
Hey guys, I've got more ideas to improve IG units.  I hope to get these all out of the way before we take a look at the fliers.

First of all, Ratlings, the unit I weirdly like.  I have some wargear to give them:

One Ratling in the unit may replace their sniper rifle with a vox caster (free).

The whole squad may take any of the following:
- camo gear (+2pts per model)
- rat traps (+2pts per model)
- snare mines (+1pt per model)


Rat traps: After your army deploys, Scouts redeploy and Infiltrators deploy, but before the roll to Seize the Initiative, each unit with rat traps in your army may booby-trap a single piece of area terrain on the table.  The piece of area terrain should be marked with a small marker (a coin will do) to remind both players that it has been booby-trapped.  Enemy models treat booby-trapped pieces of area terrain as dangerous terrain.  Note that having multiple units booby-trap the same piece of area terrain has no additional effect.  A unit with rat traps which begins the game in Reserve may still booby-trap a piece of terrain.

It's obvious where I got the idea for Rat Traps from (*cough* marinescoutbikers!), but I think it's something that really suits Ratlings, who are the IG's infiltrators after all, and sneaky little buggers to boot.  The points on that wargear may be off though.  What do you guys think?

Next up, Scions.  I have two suggestions.  First, give them Scouts.  I think Infiltrate might be too much for them but Scout however is a good balance.

I also suggest this change to Clarion Vox Net:

Units with this special rule receiving orders from a model who also has this special rule may use the ordering models leadership.  I think this suits the fluff much better.  Voxes should always concern orders, and this rule now represents the Primes orders coming through the advanced, static resistant radio system loud and clear.  Is it clear or does that seem confusing?

Also, I have this suggestion about Tank Commanders.  If you do take a Tank Commander, then you should be able to field Leman Russ squadrons as Troops instead of Heavy Support, with the condition that the squadrons must consist of at least two vehicles.  See, I think that Battle Tank Squadrons should be as important to the IG as the infantry.  In ww2, tanks were king, and battles consisted of both sides fielding huge numbers of them against each other.  The IG should be like that.  Huge phalanxes of Leman Russes should be the Imperium's main line of attack most of the time.  This idea would represent a force were the tanks are the main element and the infantry are support, as opposed to the usual situation which is the other way around.

Finally, I have a suggestion for both kinds of Sentinels: Give them both Fleet and let them move up to 12'' in the movement phase, essentially turning them into mechanical cavalry.  This actually goes beyond the IG.  I think GW should make a distinction between slow moving 'stompy' walkers like Dreadnoughts, Hellbrutes, Defilers, Deff Dreads and Killa Kans, and fast moving 'runners' like Sentinels and War Walkers.  Picture how an Ostrich runs...that's what they should like moving flat out.  With this, sentinels can finally be called 'fast', and combined with increased squadron sizes might now be fully competitive.

What do you guys think?

Offline Ludo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 710
  • Country: us
  • Why, you ask. Why not?
  • Armies: Marines, Flesh Tearers, Dark Eldar, Guard, Tau
Re: Improving the Astra Militarum
« Reply #25 on: March 28, 2015, 09:01:14 AM »
I like the rat traps. I miss the old cluster mines scouts use to have. Surprise 2d6 wounds! I am ok with how they are written.

I agree that the sentinels need to be sped up a bit.  I think 12" might be a little much. How about something like the dunestrider rule that just came out for the new Skitari unit?  It would speed them up a good 3 inches in the movement phase. I still think they should be slowed down by difficult terrain. D6+3" through difficult terrain is still pretty good.  If they dropped 5 points per model and could be taken in squadrons of 6 I think they would be great.

Leman Russ as troops would be great.  Maybe 1 squadron of leman russ as troops per tank commander with a min size of 2.

Scions need something to make them better.  A drop in points, a longer range on their gun, scout, -d6 on their deep strike scatter, or perhaps +1S to their gun.  Not all of them, but 1-3 of those would be great.  For 15 points more I can take a blood angels assault squad that has a better armor save and a free drop pod. Their guns are longer range and higher strength.  I think the premium scions are paying for the AP of their weapon isn't worth the cost. 
Smurf Hero Extrodinaire

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: Improving the Astra Militarum
« Reply #26 on: March 28, 2015, 11:19:11 AM »
I like the rat traps. I miss the old cluster mines scouts use to have. Surprise 2d6 wounds! I am ok with how they are written.

Thanks!  The old ones were better but they've changed and I like to keep things consistent.  It might be possible to create a vet doctrine that gives them these as well btw.

I agree that the sentinels need to be sped up a bit.  I think 12" might be a little much. How about something like the dunestrider rule that just came out for the new Skitari unit?  It would speed them up a good 3 inches in the movement phase. I still think they should be slowed down by difficult terrain. D6+3" through difficult terrain is still pretty good.  If they dropped 5 points per model and could be taken in squadrons of 6 I think they would be great. 

I saw that new unit (a Dragoon I think it's called) but I was unsure how it worked.  Since the idea is to get them moving faster than infantry I think that could certainly work.  A points drop and increased squadron sizes are definitely in.

Actually, here's a suggestion: What about a 'Sentinel Platoon' consisting of 1-3 squadrons of sentinels (either armored or scout, no mixing types within a platoon) with an optional command sentinel (a BS:4 sentinel that can issue 'Move! Move! Move!', 'Forwards for the Emperor!' and 'Smite At Will' to sentinels using the 1d6 vehicle order system).  Does that sound OK or should we just stick with bigger squadron sizes?

Leman Russ as troops would be great.  Maybe 1 squadron of leman russ as troops per tank commander with a min size of 2. 

That would mean that you need two commanders to build a decent sized tank army though.  I think that one commander should be enough (especially with the two tank minimum) but if others disagree then I can agree.  :)

Oh, and just to be clear, this 'Armored Assault' rule means that you can take Leman Russ tanks as either heavy support or troops, not both.  It represents the armored units being the main element of the force as opposed to support.

Scions need something to make them better.  A drop in points, a longer range on their gun, scout, -d6 on their deep strike scatter, or perhaps +1S to their gun.  Not all of them, but 1-3 of those would be great.  For 15 points more I can take a blood angels assault squad that has a better armor save and a free drop pod. Their guns are longer range and higher strength.  I think the premium scions are paying for the AP of their weapon isn't worth the cost. 

I think that the penalty to the range of hot-shot pistols and guns needs to go.  I think GW were worried that low ap guns as standard like that would be scarily broken when they made them but the truth is, the low strength still makes them mediocre weapons.  So yeah, I think we should slap +6'' to the range of hot shot laspistols and guns.  That, and the addition of the scout rule makes them work imo.

Oh, and this is a little niggle, but I think that they should have pistols instead of close combat weapons as secondary weapons.  Just like how marines carry such a combo.  To me, ordinary IG infantry should do the whole 'World War 1 rifle and bayonet' deal while the elite scions should be more like modern day military units in style (just like how ratlings carry pistols as back up weapons, which makes them like army rangers or something).  This is a really issue though and it's not that important really.

Offline Ludo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 710
  • Country: us
  • Why, you ask. Why not?
  • Armies: Marines, Flesh Tearers, Dark Eldar, Guard, Tau
Re: Improving the Astra Militarum
« Reply #27 on: March 28, 2015, 01:48:31 PM »

Leman Russ as troops would be great.  Maybe 1 squadron of leman russ as troops per tank commander with a min size of 2. 

That would mean that you need two commanders to build a decent sized tank army though.  I think that one commander should be enough (especially with the two tank minimum) but if others disagree then I can agree.  :)

Oh, and just to be clear, this 'Armored Assault' rule means that you can take Leman Russ tanks as either heavy support or troops, not both.  It represents the armored units being the main element of the force as opposed to support.

I was thinking similar to the space marine codex where a captain means you can take 1 squad of bikes as troops.  I think I have found a better idea for you though.  The new trend is for formations and not for FOC changes so how about a formation consisting of:
1 Tank CDR
1-3 Leman Russ Squadrons
0-4 Veteran Squadrons (must purchase a chimera)
Command Benefits: All veterans and Leman Russ Squadrons gain objective secured
Smurf Hero Extrodinaire

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: Improving the Astra Militarum
« Reply #28 on: March 28, 2015, 09:28:20 PM »
I was thinking similar to the space marine codex where a captain means you can take 1 squad of bikes as troops.  I think I have found a better idea for you though.  The new trend is for formations and not for FOC changes so how about a formation consisting of:
1 Tank CDR
1-3 Leman Russ Squadrons
0-4 Veteran Squadrons (must purchase a chimera)
Command Benefits: All veterans and Leman Russ Squadrons gain objective secured

That sounds like a much better idea!

What about this Sentinel Platoon idea?  Is it viable or is it too much?  I also read the Dunestrider rule for Skitarri units and it's perfect for IG Sentinels (and Eldar war walkers).  Imo it should be a universal rule to distinguish between stompy walkers and agile walkers.

Offline faitherun (Fay-ith-er-run)

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1505
  • Country: 00
  • Armies: Pointy Ears and bugs
Re: Improving the Astra Militarum
« Reply #29 on: March 30, 2015, 12:26:19 AM »
I think it was necrons recently that had a 'master' formation and smaller other formations could fit inside that of they met the requirements.  I think this approach is much better suited for the IG (they will always be IG to me)

So why not use that to give benefits like an extra 3 inches movement to sentinels. I'm too tired atm to do the proper research on this idea but thought I'd throw it out regardless
So, what your saying is it's not your fault you look stupid by using words you don't get?
Flawless logic.

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: Improving the Astra Militarum
« Reply #30 on: March 30, 2015, 05:12:07 PM »
I've yet to actually pick up a 7th edition codex so Formations still confuse me a little.  :P  They do however seem like a great way to get some of the IG's full potential out onto the board, if I am understanding them right.  What is a typical number for formations in an average Codex?  Do they have fixed units or is it just FOC slots, or both?

There should be an Emperor's Fist Tank Company, some sort of Catachan Jungle Fighter formation, maybe the two Scion Formations from Codex: Militarum Tempestus, with a clause saying that the Tempestor Prime may be your Warlord, and gains the Senior Officer special rule?

Another issue...super heavy tanks.  We have a lot.  These will obviously be Lords Of War in the future I take it?  Squadrons of Baneblades would be...grossly unfair right?  Right?  ;)

 

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: Improving the Astra Militarum
« Reply #31 on: April 2, 2015, 06:52:08 PM »
OK guys, I've been putting it off for too long.  I think it's time to finally get the IG fliers fixed.

First off, the Valkyrie Assault Carrier.  As it currently stands I think it's a fine unit.  It just needs it's weapons tweaked, and to be better used by the army as a whole.

I put this idea forward before, but how do people feel about Valkyries becoming a dedicated transport option?  At first it sounds like it's terribly OP, but the player would be limited by their cost and the sheer size of the models.  What about from a fluff perspective?  Just like their tanks, I think the IG should be able to field Valkyries in huge numbers.  Ever see footage of the US air Calvary in Vietnam?  There's always dozens of Huey helicopters buzzing around in them.  It would help solve the speed problem they have.

To help balance it out, I would make it a bulk deal.  CCS and vet squads get them straight up, but platoons (both normal and scion) have to take the 'Air Calvary' doctrine which decrees that all units in the platoon have to take a Valk as a DT.

About the weapons...what do we do about those damn Hellstrikes?  There's several options available the way I see it.  It definitely needs to lose ordinance.  People take fliers for the amount of weapons they can bring to bare and nobody wants a weapon that limits that.  However, with ordinance removed it just becomes a hunter killer missile and that's not good enough.  What else can we do?  If we gave it large blast that might work.  It is described as a high explosive warhead, but I'm not a weapons expert though.  :P

Another point, I think Valkyries should be able to swap their Hellstrikes for Hellfurry missles.  But that's just me.

Multiple Rocket Pods...what to do with these.  Personally I think they work just fine as is but others would like them changed to multiple shot non-blast weapons.  What do people think?

Then there's the Vendetta Gunship.  Here's the thing...game wise, I love it.  It's a fine unit and one of the best anti-tank, anti-mc and anti-air units in the game.  Army list wise...I don't like it.  It's a unit GW designed without initially making a model for it and now we're stuck with a gunship that's also a half hearted transport and isn't as good as it could be.  I'd rather replace the Vendetta with the Vulture which is a much better dedicated attack craft, but for better or worse the Vendetta exists and it has to be dealt with.

I say that it should be given more weapon options, and in contrast to the blasty missiles of the Valkyrie, these should be shooty gun weapons.  I'm thinking replacing the wing mounted twinlinked lascannons with punisher cannons (yes, two of them!) along with other weapons.  So that a vendetta is now armed with:

A multi-laser and two twin-linked lascannons, with the multi-laser being upgradeable to a twin-linked lascannon, and the twin-linked lascannons being upgradeable to two punisher cannons (with heavy bolters as an option too).  Hellfury missiles would be removed and given to the Valkyrie.  How's all this sound?

Offline faitherun (Fay-ith-er-run)

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1505
  • Country: 00
  • Armies: Pointy Ears and bugs
Re: Improving the Astra Militarum
« Reply #32 on: April 8, 2015, 01:06:10 PM »


Now, for the valk and vendetta..... I think the valk should give up the missles altogether. Instead let it keep the mulit laser,  and give it two heavy bolters under the wings and a tail mounted storm bolter. Let the heavy bolters be able to be swapped for the mmp.

For the vulture I'd say, allow it to swap it's lascannons for multi-meltas at no additional cost. And drop all troop transport ability.

I'd also like to see a new missile either flyer can take for 35 pts per. 

Flack missile.
True to their form, the guard have figured that quantity has a quality of its own. This can be seen in their Flack missiles, which streak towards their target and then explode into a mass of small, ragged balls. These are designed to get stuck in engines, between tracks, and clog gun barrels and eye slots,disorenting and confusing
Rng -  48"  str - 4 A -  6 type - heavy 6, debris

Debris: any vehicle hit by this counts as being crew stunned, in addition to any other effects it may or may not suffer. This does not take a hull point unless the shot is also a glancing or perpetrating hit as well.
So, what your saying is it's not your fault you look stupid by using words you don't get?
Flawless logic.

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: Improving the Astra Militarum
« Reply #33 on: April 8, 2015, 03:06:46 PM »
Oh yeah, I forgot about your post faith.  Thanks for the input.   :)

I think now would be a good time to list all the stuff we've come up with so far, just to recap:

Lord Commissar: +1 Initative, Voice Of Command as standard.
Commissar: +1 Wound.
Primarus Pysker: Move to Elites (1 per FOC, but 1 becomes a free FOC if pysker battle squad taken).
Ministorum Priest: New Wargear list:

Priests come with flak armour, a rosarus, a laspistol, a close combat weapon and frag grenades as standard.  They may then choose to replace either their laspistol with one of the following weapons:

shotgun/autogun (free)
bolt pistol/boltgun (+1pt)
storm bolter (+3pts)
plasma pistol (+10pts)
combi bolter/flamer/melta/plasmagun (+15pts)
plasma gun (+15pts)
eviscerator (+20pts)


Scions: Scouts.
Oygrns + Bullgrns: No change (yet).
Ratlings: Option to buy camo gear, snare mines, and rat traps (cluster mines).
Taurox: Replace autos with one of the three Taurox weapons.
Sentinels: Strider (+3’’ to Moving, Running and Charge distances).
Valkyrie: May take Hellfury missiles, and change to Hellstrike missile stats (still no idea yet).
Vendetta: May take two punisher cannons instead of twin-linked lascannons.
Leman Russ: Reduce normal to 125pts, demolisher to 150pts.


I would also like to propose +1 Wound for Platoon Commanders, bringing them up to spec with Commissars, Primarus Pyskers and Tempestor Primes.

And I have a Formation too; the Emperor's Fist Company:

1 Leman Russ Command Squadron
3 Leman Russ Squadrons

The number of tanks in each squadron is up the player, so it's between 4 and 12 Leman Russ Tanks.  If those numbers don't seem to add up, it's because the Command Squadron will no longer need a minimum of two tanks thanks to my new 1d6 tank order system.

Only question is, what special bonus to give it?  A re-roll on the IG Warlord Trait table?  What else? 

Offline Ludo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 710
  • Country: us
  • Why, you ask. Why not?
  • Armies: Marines, Flesh Tearers, Dark Eldar, Guard, Tau
Re: Improving the Astra Militarum
« Reply #34 on: April 9, 2015, 12:02:30 AM »

Primarus Pysker: Move to Elites (1 per FOC, but 1 becomes a free FOC if pysker battle squad taken).
 

Why are we reducing the number of psykers taken?  I don't think the primarus psykers are all that powerful.  Perhaps change them so they are like Haemonculus used to be.  May take up to 3 Psykers (ML1), may upgrade one to a primarus (ML2)

I could see changing a company commander to 2W but I don't think a platoon commander needs the upgrade. If we are going to give voice of command to a Lord Commissar (which I think is brilliant) I think they are going to need a point upgrade. Perhaps a piece of relic wargear that grants voice of command to a Lord Comissar for 25 points so that there is an option to leave them as is in case you want a cheap IC as your HQ.
Smurf Hero Extrodinaire

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: Improving the Astra Militarum
« Reply #35 on: April 9, 2015, 02:49:20 PM »

Primarus Pysker: Move to Elites (1 per FOC, but 1 becomes a free FOC if pysker battle squad taken).
 

Why are we reducing the number of psykers taken?  I don't think the primarus psykers are all that powerful.  Perhaps change them so they are like Haemonculus used to be.  May take up to 3 Psykers (ML1), may upgrade one to a primarus (ML2)

Oh yeah, this was from a conversation I was having in real life.  Some people seem to think that the IG have too much physic support, what with access to Primarus Psykers, Astropaths and the Battle Squads.  They claim it's because the rules were written for 6th ed, before Psykers got a whole turn phase to themselves, and in 7th ed. it's now unfair.  I disagreed but I sort of got brow beaten into making that change.  But I think I should reverse it immediately.


Primarus Pysker: Move to Elites (1 per FOC, but 1 becomes a free FOC if pysker battle squad taken).
 
I could see changing a company commander to 2W but I don't think a platoon commander needs the upgrade. If we are going to give voice of command to a Lord Commissar (which I think is brilliant) I think they are going to need a point upgrade. Perhaps a piece of relic wargear that grants voice of command to a Lord Comissar for 25 points so that there is an option to leave them as is in case you want a cheap IC as your HQ.

Years ago Platoon Commanders used to have multiple wounds.  I think the reduction came about as a result of 5th ed's. rules on close combat.  It's a small and possibly even pointless change but I just feel like it's needed.  PCs are literally the lieutenants of the army, and the lieutenants of most factions (Marine Chaplains, Ork Big Meks etc) have at least a couple of wounds.

And great, I'm glad you like the idea of VoC for the Lord Commissar!  I'm not sure that a point increase will be needed that much for it though, or if it is, a small one at best.  With VoC and +1 Initiative, I think 60-70pts is fine for them.  Especially since a CCS (without real upgrades) will realistically set you back about the same price, and they're still more useful overall.

Speaking of platoons...there's one unit in them that I think really really really need work: heavy weapon squads, and to a lesser extent, special weapon squads.  Imo, they both pretty useless at the moment.  HWSs are too fragile, cowardly and can't follow orders well.  SWSs also suffer from this a bit, and are also outclassed by veteran squads.

So, how do we fix them?  They need to be made more durable, and they need some sort of leader.  And voxes.  Why the hell support weapon teams like these don't have voxes I'll never understand. :P

Offline faitherun (Fay-ith-er-run)

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1505
  • Country: 00
  • Armies: Pointy Ears and bugs
Re: Improving the Astra Militarum
« Reply #36 on: April 9, 2015, 09:23:41 PM »
Why not just have the heavy weapons teams and support teams have the option to attach to their parent squad in the same fashion as an IC can, with the same rules and restrictions.

So, what your saying is it's not your fault you look stupid by using words you don't get?
Flawless logic.

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: Improving the Astra Militarum
« Reply #37 on: April 9, 2015, 09:38:42 PM »
Why not just have the heavy weapons teams and support teams have the option to attach to their parent squad in the same fashion as an IC can, with the same rules and restrictions.

Do you mean giving Heavy Weapon Teams the Combined Squad rule so that they can be joined up with each other and/or infantry squads?  Because I've often considered doing that, and it would probably work, but my concern is that it forces you to stick them to infantry squads to get them to work without fixing the squad themselves.

Another idea I had was to introduce doctrines to IG platoons, and one of them would turn infantry squads into heavy weapon squads.  Something like; the squad must replace four guardsmen with lasguns with two weapon teams.  But that sounds messy and complicated. :P

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Re: Improving the Astra Militarum
« Reply #38 on: April 9, 2015, 11:49:07 PM »
Another option would be to change the Combined Squads rule to instead allow an infantry squad to be attached to any other unit from that platoon. No more than two squads may be attached to each other, preventing 3 Infantry Squads from attaching to one another before the last links to a Platoon Command Squad, for example.

While 50 man blobs are funny, they're horribly impractical on the field. Even 30 is a lot, and I only liked them in 5th edition when I faced mechanized assault in EVERY game I played.

Being able to bulk out PCS and Special Weapons teams would allow you to more safely move infantry around the board, as you have the needed cushion to keep those expensive specials alive. Plus better Ld, a Vox. A Vox becomes much more worthwhile when you have more specials to take advantage of a SO's better orders.

There's no way to balance a slow, shooty army against armies that have increased their mobility by at least a factor of 2 in the last two editions of the game. A squad of Guardsmen has dropped roughly 10% of it's base cost, while upgrades have remained more or less constant or increased slightly. Other armies have come down as well, but their mobility has doubled while our firepower has been stagnant. It's not so much that they can be on top of you in two turns, that was always possible. It's instances where you can now move across the board in a single turn, to either coordinate glass cannon firepower, or to simply break off and claim uncontestable objectives.

Without Drop Pods, we have no cheap way to put our low-mobility assets on the other side of a table. Chimera get blown up. Valks are too expensive to transport Vets that crumple to Tactical Marines in CC. If you move closer, you need to be able to counter that simple, "Well, they're within 12". I could shoot them for a few turns, and lose the exchange, or I could charge them with 5 Tactical marines and kick their teeth in for certain. Hmmm..." To that end, we'd need something like Dreads in Pods that can provide firepower, but also a CC deterrent.

The 7th edition game denies "defensive" play. You can't place objectives in your deployment zone [for certain] in most missions, because objectives are deployed before deployment zone "style" is determined, much less sides chosen by players. So with low mobility, you have to try to place them in locations that are within a "couple moves" of each deployment zone. So you MUST move. No castling up on an objective, like any sensible Guardsman would do. Nope, we are going to try to have a static, shooty army that has to move forwards, losing firepower, losing the value in our long ranged weapons, and making it easier for our enemies to get up close and personal with us. We're required to lower our damage output while increasing our vulnerability in order to achieve win conditions, but the prices we pay for units doesn't reflect that.

We need an edition change, with changes that return us to the potential for defensive play. Or make everything sooooo cheap that even when moving, our 30 point Heavy Weapon SQUADS are worthwhile. Snap fire those Autocannons, boys! :)

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: Improving the Astra Militarum
« Reply #39 on: April 10, 2015, 03:53:06 PM »
Another option would be to change the Combined Squads rule to instead allow an infantry squad to be attached to any other unit from that platoon. No more than two squads may be attached to each other, preventing 3 Infantry Squads from attaching to one another before the last links to a Platoon Command Squad, for example.

While 50 man blobs are funny, they're horribly impractical on the field. Even 30 is a lot, and I only liked them in 5th edition when I faced mechanized assault in EVERY game I played.

Being able to bulk out PCS and Special Weapons teams would allow you to more safely move infantry around the board, as you have the needed cushion to keep those expensive specials alive. Plus better Ld, a Vox. A Vox becomes much more worthwhile when you have more specials to take advantage of a SO's better orders.

Ah now this is a good idea!  I'd rewrite the rule so that:

The decision to form a Combined Squad (the CS rule) must be made immediately before determining your Warlord Traits.  Any squad with the CS rule may join another squad from the same platoon who also have the CS rule.  If you decide to form Combined Squads in this manner, they're treated as a single unit for the whole of the game.

I know you said that huge squads are stupid (and they are), but I'm all about choice.  Should there be a limit to it (say, no more than three squads may form a single unit), or should it be a free for all and the player just has to stand by their choice?

Also, I'm worried about opponents being confused about what is being combined with what so...this is probably going to be a really controversial idea but...what if infantry squads had the option to take heavy weapon teams removed from them altogether?  So that the opponent can see that if a squad was 20 ordinary guardsmen and 3 heavy weapon teams, the combined squad is clearly 2 infantry squads and a heavy weapon team joined up?  Yes...no?  Probably no.  :P

I think in real life most armies have their heavy weapons used in dedicated squads to support light infantry (rifle) squads.  I think this system reflects that well.

I wouldn't give Combined Squad to either Conscript Squads (they're not proper Guardsmen  ;)).  And I had a long hard think about it, and I think it would be a bad idea to give it to the Platoon Command Squad, on account of the medic, banner etc.  They complicate things, and people might complain about big units gaining FNP etc.  Plus, it feels wrong being able to deny the opponent the +1 VP for killing the command element of the platoon, when a platoon is literally a minor army.

Special Weapon Squads (who could probably get a cooler name) could be reworked so that they consist of a sergeant and 9 guardsmen, with four of them having to take special weapons (including demo charges), with the option for a dedicated transport and a vox caster.  No combined squad, but in my opinion that's OK.

So erm, long story short...combined combined squads for infantry squads and heavy weapon squads, no heavy weapon teams for infantry squads, and 10 men with sgt, 4 specials, a possible vox and DTs for Special Weapon Squads.  Oh, and +1 W for the platoon commander, platoon standard rewritten as reroll fear, morale and pinning within 12'', and the option of a vox for Conscripts, because come on.  :P

What do you guys think of all this? 

There's no way to balance a slow, shooty army against armies that have increased their mobility by at least a factor of 2 in the last two editions of the game. A squad of Guardsmen has dropped roughly 10% of it's base cost, while upgrades have remained more or less constant or increased slightly. Other armies have come down as well, but their mobility has doubled while our firepower has been stagnant. It's not so much that they can be on top of you in two turns, that was always possible. It's instances where you can now move across the board in a single turn, to either coordinate glass cannon firepower, or to simply break off and claim uncontestable objectives.

Without Drop Pods, we have no cheap way to put our low-mobility assets on the other side of a table. Chimera get blown up. Valks are too expensive to transport Vets that crumple to Tactical Marines in CC. If you move closer, you need to be able to counter that simple, "Well, they're within 12". I could shoot them for a few turns, and lose the exchange, or I could charge them with 5 Tactical marines and kick their teeth in for certain. Hmmm..." To that end, we'd need something like Dreads in Pods that can provide firepower, but also a CC deterrent.

The 7th edition game denies "defensive" play. You can't place objectives in your deployment zone [for certain] in most missions, because objectives are deployed before deployment zone "style" is determined, much less sides chosen by players. So with low mobility, you have to try to place them in locations that are within a "couple moves" of each deployment zone. So you MUST move. No castling up on an objective, like any sensible Guardsman would do. Nope, we are going to try to have a static, shooty army that has to move forwards, losing firepower, losing the value in our long ranged weapons, and making it easier for our enemies to get up close and personal with us. We're required to lower our damage output while increasing our vulnerability in order to achieve win conditions, but the prices we pay for units doesn't reflect that.

We need an edition change, with changes that return us to the potential for defensive play. Or make everything sooooo cheap that even when moving, our 30 point Heavy Weapon SQUADS are worthwhile. Snap fire those Autocannons, boys! :)

It's true, we've gotten slower over the years.  No more deep striking all around.  No more infiltrating Harker's Devils.  But I don't think that we need to change the whole edition just yet.  What we need is the ability to cheaply move our units about quickly.  I think giving scout to Scions and Vets is a start but we need more.  But don't say Drop Pods.  They're for the marines, not us.  We need our own thing.  ;)

 


Powered by EzPortal