Are the Astra Militarum really overpowered?

[Deschenus Maximus]

I think we are not understanding each other guys. I'm not proposing just flatly raising the whole ceiling. I want to see larger squads get more hits.

[M@verik115]

I think we are not understanding each other guys. I'm not proposing just flatly raising the whole ceiling. I want to see larger squads get more hits.

Unless they bring back templates or they say a model cannot be hit more than once and raise it to 2D6, then no its not happening. 

[Henimann]

Solution for that? A rule that states that officers who can give more than one order cannot give the same order twice. Still useful, but curbs some of the ridiculousness of FRFSRF.

 

 

This.   This would be the equivalent to the new Smite rule, in my opinion.  Doesn't reduce the effectiveness of the order, while curtailing abuse.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

I like your idea here - I think the major factor that hurts elite armies when facing a horde like Guard is lack of a reliable answer against large numbers of enemy units.  Even if squads are larger, or there are multiples of them, the dice-variable nature of former blast and Ordnance weapons doesnt let them be used as the horde-busters we are all used to them being.   Keeping the ceiling, but raising the floor, by reverting to multiples of d3 is a great idea, Mileposter.  It does not make the weapons more powerful, BUT it makes them more reliable.  Which is what they should be.  

 

Thing is, that does absolutely nothing to reign in hordes. It's a direct boost to blast weapons but said boost equally affects Marines AND hordes. So if you want Blasts to be part of the solution, the ceiling HAS to scale.

 

The problem is if the ceiling scales, then that will again affect every single army. 

I believe the main issue here is also morale. 

As it stands, morale is a joke. I have yet to feel it, but in previous iterations, while you wouldn't lose guys to it, it would render the whole squad incapable of operating. 

When I played IG 3rd edition onward, morale was a lot more devastating. Now? Meh... 

 

So while 8th did so many things right, some things are wrong too and as a guard player, I can tell you right now that I do not worry about morale at all and orders being carried out without fail makes playing guard feel more elite than playing marines, which shouldn't really be the case. 

 

 

Morale impact, or a lack thereof, is an issue, I admit that.   That said, it seems the issue with morale could only be addressed by modifying the base rules...hopefully GW realizes the issue and addressed it in the next Chapter Approved.  

 

About the blast weapons - instead of scaling them. why not just change the weapon profile for each army? GW already went away from a central armory this edition, why not change the same weapon so each army's version operated differently?  Take for example a missile launcher.  GEQ armies could have 2d3 hits for a frag missile, while MEQ/TEQ could have 3d3 hits/weapon.  From a fluff standpoint, it makes sense - a Marine Armory-built missile launcher and munitions would be of better quality, more destructive, and probably also larger (thus better) than a mass-produced Guard-issue tread fether.  

[M@verik115]

 

About the blast weapons - instead of scaling them. why not just change the weapon profile for each army? GW already went away from a central armory this edition, why not change the same weapon so each army's version operated differently?  Take for example a missile launcher.  GEQ armies could have 2d3 hits for a frag missile, while MEQ/TEQ could have 3d3 hits/weapon.  From a fluff standpoint, it makes sense - a Marine Armory-built missile launcher and munitions would be of better quality, more destructive, and probably also larger (thus better) than a mass-produced Guard-issue tread fether.  

 

That would make trying to remember weapon profiles even more difficult than it currently is. 

[Henimann]

 

 

About the blast weapons - instead of scaling them. why not just change the weapon profile for each army? GW already went away from a central armory this edition, why not change the same weapon so each army's version operated differently?  Take for example a missile launcher.  GEQ armies could have 2d3 hits for a frag missile, while MEQ/TEQ could have 3d3 hits/weapon.  From a fluff standpoint, it makes sense - a Marine Armory-built missile launcher and munitions would be of better quality, more destructive, and probably also larger (thus better) than a mass-produced Guard-issue tread fether.  

 

That would make trying to remember weapon profiles even more difficult than it currently is. 

 

True, but what would be easier?   That or a table for scaled shots for blast weapons?  I think either option could work, it just comes down to how they would impact game flow.  Personally I would prefer just knowing how many dice to throw rather than referencing a chart, since that would probably take less time, but YMMV.  

[Mileposter]

 

Solution for that? A rule that states that officers who can give more than one order cannot give the same order twice. Still useful, but curbs some of the ridiculousness of FRFSRF.

 

 

This.   This would be the equivalent to the new Smite rule, in my opinion.  Doesn't reduce the effectiveness of the order, while curtailing abuse.

 

Think I could get behind a change of this style. It would also raise the value of the Laurels of Command relic, which is a positive I believe.

 

 

 

About the blast weapons - instead of scaling them. why not just change the weapon profile for each army? GW already went away from a central armory this edition, why not change the same weapon so each army's version operated differently?  Take for example a missile launcher.  GEQ armies could have 2d3 hits for a frag missile, while MEQ/TEQ could have 3d3 hits/weapon.  From a fluff standpoint, it makes sense - a Marine Armory-built missile launcher and munitions would be of better quality, more destructive, and probably also larger (thus better) than a mass-produced Guard-issue tread fether.

That would make trying to remember weapon profiles even more difficult than it currently is.

 

I disagree with this sentiment. I recall it being stated in more than one of their Warhammer Community posts that part of the direction of 8th publication/design is that you only need to know your own army. So you still only need to know the one profile as before.

 

That said, I'm not so sure I'm onboard with the proposal either... Except I don't as of yet have any concrete rebuttal. It does make balancing more of a pain, but it also makes corrective measures easier. Might simply be a design flavor issue.

[Deschenus Maximus]

 

I think we are not understanding each other guys. I'm not proposing just flatly raising the whole ceiling. I want to see larger squads get more hits.

Unless they bring back templates or they say a model cannot be hit more than once and raise it to 2D6, then no its not happening. 

 

 

Why? They already have precisely that for some weapons (see Demolisher cannon). They just need to make that more widespread.

 

But actually, I like your idea of having a high ceiling but limiting number of hits to one per model in the army. That is actually a lot simpler and more elegant. *thumbs up*

[M@verik115]

 

 

 

About the blast weapons - instead of scaling them. why not just change the weapon profile for each army? GW already went away from a central armory this edition, why not change the same weapon so each army's version operated differently?  Take for example a missile launcher.  GEQ armies could have 2d3 hits for a frag missile, while MEQ/TEQ could have 3d3 hits/weapon.  From a fluff standpoint, it makes sense - a Marine Armory-built missile launcher and munitions would be of better quality, more destructive, and probably also larger (thus better) than a mass-produced Guard-issue tread fether.  

 

That would make trying to remember weapon profiles even more difficult than it currently is. 

 

True, but what would be easier?   That or a table for scaled shots for blast weapons?  I think either option could work, it just comes down to how they would impact game flow.  Personally I would prefer just knowing how many dice to throw rather than referencing a chart, since that would probably take less time, but YMMV.  

 

If they made a rule that states that variable shot weapons can never hit more models than are in a unit, even if you roll more hits that that would automatically penalize units with more models and would reward you for taking multiples of smaller units. 

[Henimann]

 

 

 

 

About the blast weapons - instead of scaling them. why not just change the weapon profile for each army? GW already went away from a central armory this edition, why not change the same weapon so each army's version operated differently?  Take for example a missile launcher.  GEQ armies could have 2d3 hits for a frag missile, while MEQ/TEQ could have 3d3 hits/weapon.  From a fluff standpoint, it makes sense - a Marine Armory-built missile launcher and munitions would be of better quality, more destructive, and probably also larger (thus better) than a mass-produced Guard-issue tread fether.  

 

That would make trying to remember weapon profiles even more difficult than it currently is. 

 

True, but what would be easier?   That or a table for scaled shots for blast weapons?  I think either option could work, it just comes down to how they would impact game flow.  Personally I would prefer just knowing how many dice to throw rather than referencing a chart, since that would probably take less time, but YMMV.  

 

If they made a rule that states that variable shot weapons can never hit more models than are in a unit, even if you roll more hits that that would automatically penalize units with more models and would reward you for taking multiples of smaller units. 

 

 

Hmm.  Simple, straightforward, easy to apply to existing ruleset.   I like it!  

[Mileposter]

If they made a rule that states that variable shot weapons can never hit more models than are in a unit, even if you roll more hits that that would automatically penalize units with more models and would reward you for taking multiples of smaller units.

I like this concept, and could be worded very simply for ease of inclusion, but it does still have the issue of variance killing the usefulness of the weapons. If something like this AND a tighter mean were used, like my d3 scale mentioned before, I think we'd start to see the niche for these weapons realized.

[chapter master 454]

As for the issue people mention about people taking 5 man squads. Those aren't the issues. Horde armies are what are the problem and this hurts them instead of elites. It's almost like elite armies are able to spread out with tactics to avoid enemy bombardment by being fewer in number and well trained ;)

[micahwc]

I think giving more weapons the "for every 5 models in this unit add 1d3 shots" rule would help out a lot.

[depthcharge12]

While I agree with some of the sentiments on here, I think it’s funny that people want to make troops less and less useful when people were clamoring for the opposite for the past 3 editions.

 

Perhaps FRFSRF should be 3 shots instead of 4 sort of like how a Tau fireblade works or you can only use one type of order per officer per turn as a previous poster had mentioned. As a Krieg player, I don’t notice some of the extra stacking that Guard has as we only have cult of sacrifice (no morale from shooting) as our special rule (unless you count a 3+ WS...which is yeah lol). Regiment + Doctrines + orders dramatically begins to scale the usefulness of basic dudesmen, which is really fun, but I wish other armies could have the same thing to encourage Infantry usage.

[Ishagu]

Hordes isn't the only thing making Guard powerful. Heck, they could use Bullgrins as Shields that are almost as effective and powerful in different ways.

[Finkmilkana]

Guard either way runs many small squads right know, this whole „blast weapon“ discussion is pointless if you think guard is op. It would hurt demons, orcs, necron, tyranids etc though. Even Black Templars run larger squads than guard.

 

Officers should probably cost more though. But not too much more or instead of 2 squads and an officer guard would just bring 3-4 squads.

 

And the offensive output of troop choices in general needs to be rebalanced. Some races just have great troop offensive power (guard, tyranids etc) while others don’t. Those with good troops are usually considered strong right now, while those without are not. The rest of the armies often doesn’t seem to come up in these discussions.

[The Unseen]

Another thing.

Orders were something Guard should've kept, absolutely. It's been integral to their codex since 5th.

 

But they should have been made into Strategems, just like everyone elses old special rules were.

Guard now get to "double dip" effectively, with lots of CPs to spend on strategems, and a whole other mechanic that's also super easy to spam (officers) granting abilities similar in power to said strategems at no further cost.

 

Should've made orders strategems that rely on officers being close to the target unit.

Suddenly rule of one limits FRSRF, and Guard are limited by CP to break the rules just like everyone else. They would still have more CP than anyone else, but they would also spend them faster to buff their units.

 

How is it fair that Guard can fight again at the cost of a single auto-pass order, but for marines it cost 3 CP, just as an example?

 

So make the Guard player spend CP and have an officer within range, and then, as is more thematically appropriate, having an officer nearby allows guard to perform the same as other factions (have strategems used on them) ,rather than an officer with maybe a few decades of experience being a better force multiplier than commanders with centuries or millenia of experience.

 

Would give guard commanders a small aura buff so they wouldn't be totally worthless without cp to spend, say +1 leadership or something?

[BitsHammer]

Cadia's Doctrine needs a tweak too. Gunlines shouldn't be getting a buff to hit for not moving baked in. That just encourages static play that, while strong for tournament play, isn't interesting to play against outside of that.

[Deschenus Maximus]

Another thing.

Orders were something Guard should've kept, absolutely. It's been integral to their codex since 5th.

 

But they should have been made into Strategems, just like everyone elses old special rules were.

Guard now get to "double dip" effectively, with lots of CPs to spend on strategems, and a whole other mechanic that's also super easy to spam (officers) granting abilities similar in power to said strategems at no further cost.

 

Should've made orders strategems that rely on officers being close to the target unit.

Suddenly rule of one limits FRSRF, and Guard are limited by CP to break the rules just like everyone else. They would still have more CP than anyone else, but they would also spend them faster to buff their units.

 

How is it fair that Guard can fight again at the cost of a single auto-pass order, but for marines it cost 3 CP, just as an example?

 

So make the Guard player spend CP and have an officer within range, and then, as is more thematically appropriate, having an officer nearby allows guard to perform the same as other factions (have strategems used on them) ,rather than an officer with maybe a few decades of experience being a better force multiplier than commanders with centuries or millenia of experience.

 

Would give guard commanders a small aura buff so they wouldn't be totally worthless without cp to spend, say +1 leadership or something?

 

Yeah that makes more sense.

[Finkmilkana]

Another thing.

Orders were something Guard should've kept, absolutely. It's been integral to their codex since 5th.

 

But they should have been made into Strategems, just like everyone elses old special rules were.

Guard now get to "double dip" effectively, with lots of CPs to spend on strategems, and a whole other mechanic that's also super easy to spam (officers) granting abilities similar in power to said strategems at no further cost.

 

Should've made orders strategems that rely on officers being close to the target unit.

Suddenly rule of one limits FRSRF, and Guard are limited by CP to break the rules just like everyone else. They would still have more CP than anyone else, but they would also spend them faster to buff their units.

 

How is it fair that Guard can fight again at the cost of a single auto-pass order, but for marines it cost 3 CP, just as an example?

 

So make the Guard player spend CP and have an officer within range, and then, as is more thematically appropriate, having an officer nearby allows guard to perform the same as other factions (have strategems used on them) ,rather than an officer with maybe a few decades of experience being a better force multiplier than commanders with centuries or millenia of experience.

 

Would give guard commanders a small aura buff so they wouldn't be totally worthless without cp to spend, say +1 leadership or something?

It‘s an interesting idea, though it would require that officers are given something else that makes them worth their points.

Otherwise people would simply buy another guardsmen squad instead of an officer. At which point the question becomes if it would really be a nerf to guard at all. Unless it’s handled with utmost care, I think simply making officers a bit more expensive would be far easier. Maybe 5-10 points. Any more and they would just get replaced by more bodies, which would make guard even more annoying to deal with for anyone without a large volume of shots, though their damage would go down.

[depthcharge12]

@TheUnseen

Removing orders like that would be a terrible nerf. It would hinder incentive to take HQs in the first place, let alone encourage tactical play. It would be just as bad, if not worse, as removing jet pack moves from battlesuits this edition. No tactical forethought, no reason to take said unit, and no real variety to gameplay.

 

Honestly, if you guys were so worried about officers themselves, take snipers. Usually no one takes them because muh Mathhammer and min maxing, when they’d be incredibly useful in this situation...you’d effectively cut the Guard player’s shooting in half.

[Deschenus Maximus]

So the solution is to get expensive, inefficient units to deal with a super cheap and effective HQ? Instead of actually dealing with the problem itself?

 

Surely you jest.

[The Unseen]

@TheUnseen

Removing orders like that would be a terrible nerf. It would hinder incentive to take HQs in the first place, let alone encourage tactical play. It would be just as bad, if not worse, as removing jet pack moves from battlesuits this edition. No tactical forethought, no reason to take said unit, and no real variety to gameplay.

 

Honestly, if you guys were so worried about officers themselves, take snipers. Usually no one takes them because muh Mathhammer and min maxing, when they’d be incredibly useful in this situation...you’d effectively cut the Guard player’s shooting in half.

Yeah, you go ahead and try and tell me to spend hundreds of points to "try" and remove a half dozen dirt cheap force multipliers.

 

And how would it discourage HQs, if orders just cost CP?

That doesn't make sense.

[depthcharge12]

So the solution is to get expensive, inefficient units to deal with a super cheap and effective HQ? Instead of actually dealing with the problem itself?

 

Surely you jest.

Does it matter the price of a unit if it does the intended job? Perhaps it isn’t quite expensive if they EFFECTIVELY HALF THE FIREPOWER OF THE OPPONENT’S ARMY (sorry that’s in bold because you might have skipped over that). Your solution is what happened to the commissars and conscripts; they needed a shift but not such in a way that have now made them useless in a game. First it was them, then it will be guardsmen and officers, what next? When will you be happy?

 

Do the guardsmen need to go back to 5 ppm at least with all the new stacking they get? Definitely. Do regular marines need to go down a few points? Sure. Should we eliminate a system that is intrinsic to the force, it’s strategy, and method of forcing your opponent to take something other than Guilliman with lasbacks? Hell no.

 

Want to make it so you can only use one type of order per turn? I can understand that and think it needs playtesting before we jump the gun and have to go back later to fix it. Orders are supposed to represent the chain of command telling the guard to reform, assault, defend, or dig in. Without it, they are just low morale dudes with regular firing lasguns.

 

I also am a fan of the 2d3/4d3 idea to bring up the thresholds of blast weapons. Granted, that affects everyone, but should alleviate the issue of killing off only a couple gants/guardsmen/orks. Perhaps changing flamers to be able to hit on deep strike would also be helpful.

 

 

@unseen

Using CPs for orders would kill the system. Assuming you have 12 at 2000 points, that would be two orders per turn (if they all cost 1 cp) for 6 turns. You would not be able to use the strategems because the guardsmen would just be wounds to chop through and nothing more to add value to. At 2000 points, I have 8 infantry units, 1 of cav, and 4 weapon batteries. How am I supposed to get the most out of these units all game if I burn all my CPs turn 1?

 

Why use HQ units to give orders if they just suck out CPs? People will just start spamming more guardsmen to fill up the board since the units are useless and there aren’t many tactics left for them. It won’t encourage strategy and we will be back to 7th in no time. Let’s say we take away lieutenants and captains ability in space marines to give rerolls for hits and wounds...what would you be left with? Why would you take anything other than just a beatstick captain or a minimum priced one? You can still spend a Command point for them to do that, but rarely would you ever want to spend your precious Command points to do so. Say goodbye to DA hellblaster gunlines, say goodbye to Guilliman lasback lists, say goodbye to blood angel sanguinary Death Star.

[Morticon]

It's difficult to both comment critically on this, and simultaneously be at odds with so many people's lived experiences facing guard (and inevitably sound like i'm dissing them or their opponents).  So, with that in mind, please take the comments here in good faith, and know that the criticism or views are not an attack on any player!   

I'll start off by saying this - guard have access to everything an 8th ed list needs to be successful - and they have it in spades. 
 

Because of this, if you are playing a guard list with a marine list and "not having any problem with them" - I would be inclined to think that your opponent is either not as good as they can be, or their list is subpar. (Alternatively there is some other factor not present - eg: very favourable, multiple LOS blocking terrain). 

The IG lists that we have locally have at least 3 Russes in each - some have more. Others are then supported by cheap basilisks, and bubble wrapped intelligently with plenty of guardsmen.  There is no way in, and you cannot outshoot them. 
 
They then have snipe-dropping scions to take out key units, and psyker support if needed. 

With infantry, orders alone are enough to cause a headache -but its the Basilisks and the Russes that allow the AM/IG to shine.  The amount of hard, multi-dam, low AP dakka a Russ puts out is unreal. All this on a T8 chassis? 

Marines are toast up against that.  And with LOS ignoring bassies- there's nowhere to hide.

I have managed to beat an IG player with my BA.... but *only* because the terrain was very favourable, and I pulled some once-off tricks that will never work against him again.  

 

IG are exceptionally strong at their core - and with units like the Russ and the Basilisk, I believe they get a push into the "tier1" or even "OP" category.  

If i'm missing anything, or have overlooked some great combos or lists, please post here- especially the guys that have beat the AM.  

[Claws and Effect]

 

So the solution is to get expensive, inefficient units to deal with a super cheap and effective HQ? Instead of actually dealing with the problem itself?

 

Surely you jest.

Does it matter the price of a unit if it does the intended job? Perhaps it isn’t quite expensive if they EFFECTIVELY HALF THE FIREPOWER OF THE OPPONENT’S ARMY (sorry that’s in bold because you might have skipped over that). Your solution is what happened to the commissars and conscripts; they needed a shift but not such in a way that have now made them useless in a game. First it was them, then it will be guardsmen and officers, what next? When will you be happy?

 

Do the guardsmen need to go back to 5 ppm at least with all the new stacking they get? Definitely. Do regular marines need to go down a few points? Sure. Should we eliminate a system that is intrinsic to the force, it’s strategy, and method of forcing your opponent to take something other than Guilliman with lasbacks? Hell no.

 

Want to make it so you can only use one type of order per turn? I can understand that and think it needs playtesting before we jump the gun and have to go back later to fix it. Orders are supposed to represent the chain of command telling the guard to reform, assault, defend, or dig in. Without it, they are just low morale dudes with regular firing lasguns.

 

I also am a fan of the 2d3/4d3 idea to bring up the thresholds of blast weapons. Granted, that affects everyone, but should alleviate the issue of killing off only a couple gants/guardsmen/orks. Perhaps changing flamers to be able to hit on deep strike would also be helpful.

 

 

@unseen

Using CPs for orders would kill the system. Assuming you have 12 at 2000 points, that would be two orders per turn (if they all cost 1 cp) for 6 turns. You would not be able to use the strategems because the guardsmen would just be wounds to chop through and nothing more to add value to. At 2000 points, I have 8 infantry units, 1 of cav, and 4 weapon batteries. How am I supposed to get the most out of these units all game if I burn all my CPs turn 1?

 

Why use HQ units to give orders if they just suck out CPs? People will just start spamming more guardsmen to fill up the board since the units are useless and there aren’t many tactics left for them. It won’t encourage strategy and we will be back to 7th in no time. Let’s say we take away lieutenants and captains ability in space marines to give rerolls for hits and wounds...what would you be left with? Why would you take anything other than just a beatstick captain or a minimum priced one? You can still spend a Command point for them to do that, but rarely would you ever want to spend your precious Command points to do so. Say goodbye to DA hellblaster gunlines, say goodbye to Guilliman lasback lists, say goodbye to blood angel sanguinary Death Star.

 

 

The problem there is it is entirely possible for Guard to have 21 CP at 1500 points, and more than that at 2000. Guard can field a fraking Brigade for right around 750 points. Sure, it might lack a bit in firepower, but who cares when you have 240 lasgun shots per turn. 6 Infantry squads, 3 mortar teams, 3 Sentinals, and a few elite single model units. It's not hard to get there. 

 

With 21 CP and the means to get some of them back, a Guard player can spam CP the whole game without worrying about running out. 

 

The other point made was how the hell is it fair for Guard to get an ability for free that Marines have to pay nearly half their total CP to do? I'm referring to the "fight again" order. Free for Guard via an auto-pass Order, 3 CP for Marines. And if you happen to be playing Catachans, an Infantry squad is every bit as effective in melee as a Tactical squad. 

 

No one is saying to take Orders away altogether, just charge CP for them. You know, since the special rules of pretty much every other faction ​got turned into Strategems that cost CP, and Guard got to keep theirs on top of getting useful Strategems.