Are the Astra Militarum really overpowered?

[Mileposter]

I haven't seen any data suggesting that Orders are a problem point. Theory crafting what-ifs have been far off-base.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong again, but I haven't seen a post of someone actually explaining a problem they've had with Guard on the field - only quoting theorycrafting numbers in a vacuum.

 

For myself, I know that anytime I've faced guard their armor seem to be carrying the weight, not Infantry.

[Colonel Cross]

Dude at that point you'd see guard armies with no officers and just Primaris Psykers filling in HQ slots.

[MrZakalwe]

I haven't seen any data suggesting that Orders are a problem point. Theory crafting what-ifs have been far off-base.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong again, but I haven't seen a post of someone actually explaining a problem they've had with Guard on the field - only quoting theorycrafting numbers in a vacuum.

 

For myself, I know that anytime I've faced guard their armor seem to be carrying the weight, not Infantry.

You are entirely correct- folks in this thread keep missing the fact that guard players take the minimum number of infantry they can.

 

If infantry squads with orders were overpowered people would take the maximum amount rather than the minimum, right?

[Claws and Effect]

Okay, would you be okay with my Tactical squads doubling their damage output every turn for free if they had a LT standing by them?

 

Oh, and Marines CAN take a ton of Scouts to get command points, but it's half the number of guys for 15 points more. 18 S3 shots at 24" beats 5 S4 shots at the same range every time. And that turns into 36 vs 10 at 12" or less.

[Colonel Cross]

But when the scouts are in cover I need heavy weapons to remove them. Not a very good comparison.

 

And your captains and LTs are very effective when hell blasters, vehicles, etc are nearby. And just gave to sit there. How does FRFSRF help my plasma gunner or heavy weapon in a squad? It doesn't. I used to run all infantry before the codex. And I struggled to kill anything that was resilient. My friends with 1 knight or some termies could act with impunity. Plus just playing with 120+ infantry wasn't very fun for either myself or my opponent. Set up time was obnoxious. Movement phase was annoying. And rolling all these lasgun shots just to strip a wound or 2 off vehicles or 2+ save models wasn't even worth the time. I gradually just stopped firing the lasguns most games. None of my friends ever thought orders were OP unless they saw me mmm a squad 20+ inches in a turn.

 

I now take minimum troops. Usually 60 with maybe 3 commanders. I rarely end a game with more than a handful of troops left lol.

[MrZakalwe]

Okay, would you be okay with my Tactical squads doubling their damage output every turn for free if they had a LT standing by them?

 

Oh, and Marines CAN take a ton of Scouts to get command points, but it's half the number of guys for 15 points more. 18 S3 shots at 24" beats 5 S4 shots at the same range every time. And that turns into 36 vs 10 at 12" or less.

I actually think tacs should get a once per battle 'fury of the legion' style ability whereby they can fire their bolters twice completely independent of the presence or absence of a character - I think tacs should be a little more independent.

 

The problem you've raised there is that tac marines are poo.

 

I'll ask again though- if guard infantry are overpowered why does nobody take more than the minimum?

[Claws and Effect]

 

Okay, would you be okay with my Tactical squads doubling their damage output every turn for free if they had a LT standing by them?

 

Oh, and Marines CAN take a ton of Scouts to get command points, but it's half the number of guys for 15 points more. 18 S3 shots at 24" beats 5 S4 shots at the same range every time. And that turns into 36 vs 10 at 12" or less.

I actually think tacs should get a once per battle 'fury of the legion' style ability whereby they can fire their bolters twice completely independent of the presence or absence of a character - I think tacs should be a little more independent.

 

The problem you've raised there is that tac marines are poo.

 

I'll ask again though- if guard infantry are overpowered why does nobody take more than the minimum?

Because there are other things worth taking, too.

 

A unit being overpowered for its cost doesn't automatically make it the best unit in its codex.

[OnboardG1]

Guard are fine. It’s a well designed codex with few lemons and a lot of good builds. That doesn’t make them overpowered. More dexes should be like that.

[NatBrannigan]

I actually think Claws had a good idea there with the roll for orders. Used to be the case so why not again? Be fine with that.

 

And I'd be delighted if your Tactical Marines doubled their damage output. Maybe just with bolt weapons? I mean, that might actually be another good idea? I've said before basic marines units (maybe all of them, but at a points cost) need a significant boost. Someone's already mentioned the HH bolter squad thing where you can shoot twice one turn at the cost of not shooting the next?

 

I would have thought with all the armies now able to have a blanket -1 / -2 to hit at ranges over 12" (pretty much neutralising Guard by the way) that Guard would be considered pretty balanced. Again, is the only real problem that Marines got the first codex and it's a bit underpowered? Not to Grey Knight standards but still...

[MrZakalwe]

Right so by the logic the following units are all overpowered (as you choose them over infantry) Bullgryns, Manticors, Basilisks, Leman Russ (most flavours), Hellhounds, scions, scion command squads, ratlings, heavy weapon teams (all flavours but missile launchers), Valkyries, Taurox primes, Primaris Psykers... I could keep going but I think the point is made.

 

Now that's an incredible amount of overpowered units for a codex that hasn't placed in the top 5 outside of a soup list since Chapter Approved 2017 dropped...

 

Remember that within a guard list infantry aren't prioritised and the guard army as a whole doesn't seem to compete with soups..

 

To me that points to a structural problem with troops choices that weakening guard squads would do nothing to fix. You'd be attacking something that isn't actually a problem to deal with an issue it wouldn't fix.

[NatBrannigan]

Yes! This, pretty much all troops choices are a "tax" to some extent. Some are better than others. Guard Infantry are better (I'd say) and gel well with the rest of the army. Marine Tacticals and Chaos marines are pants. Make Tacticals useful again, I'd be a happy boy. Just please, leave my poor Infantry squads alone...? I'm just happy mine get a bonus for being in tidy ranks now :(

[Schlitzaf]

Honesty to beat this poor horse, but if we do this “double tap Tacticals” will this be applied to all four Tacticals Variants (Tacticals, Chaos Marines, Crusaders and Grey Hunters), because the latter two are very well off. For one reason or another (NB none of those reasons they are ‘well off’ mechanically is due to Special Rules, or Strategems. Crusaders simply leverage Neophytes for Cheap Bodies, Extra PowSword adds surprisingly amount of increase in Damage in actual gameplay, and avoid Bolter Tax (I.e they have Bolter or Chain depending on unit setup), Grey Hunters because Double Sgt, Bolter/Chain, Banner, and Extra Plasma Pistol Shot able to move quickly and put out an acceptable damage with shooting then closing in with Chains to finish. And for those curious, Eviscerators (because of -4), actually make Assault Marines on par with Crusaders/GreyHunters).

 

Why do Chaos Marines and Tacticals fall short of both units? I said this on the Tactical Thread, and I keep beating this horse because;

1) Cannot Be Chain Option Or Flexible Loadout, Chaos Marines have both. And still ‘trash’ compared to Hunters and Crusaders

2) It cannot be they MSU better (which for the record they do), because the 5 Man Crusaders and 6 Man Hunters are not that much better than Tacticals and Chaos Marines (sense Extra Plasma Shot from Hunters, and +2 Atk Frostsword, and Crusaders additionally Heavy Weapon, (adding 25-27 points to the squad) does not make either squad that make better than basic 5 Man MSU Double Special. Every 3 of those Squads gets you almost 4th MSU Double Specials or so. (13-19 more points would make the difference).

3) It cannot be the Mathhammer of Killy, because if so we’d see more Assault Marine Squads. Which at 10 Man, Double Eviscerator, Triple PlasPistol and Sword is offensively not that much different than Hunters or Crusaders (being Troops is a massive plus I will admit).

 

So it cannot be the fact they MSU or they have some weird rule, because each squad has neither. And if we do give Tacticals Marines Double Tapping bolters or shooting, we could easily return to the era of 6th-7th were non-Tacticals Tacticals were obsolete (hello Battle Company).

 

The reason I keep beating this horse, is because these suggestions don’t fix the root problem. 5 Man’s are generally considered competitive, and the 5 Man MSU setups between all four main tactical variants are functionally the same. Yet Crusaders and Hunters at 10+ Men, dominate their fellow Tactical Equivalents. Why?

If it was bolters suck, Crusaders wouldn’t be better than Tacticals or Chaos Marines, while Hunters have an effective +2 Specials (Plasma Pistol and Frostsword) and partly makes them better, Crusader just throw out a lot of STR 4 AP - Attacks.

If it was Crusaders having cheap Marine because Neophytes, Hunters wouldn’t be better than Tacticals and Chaos Marines, and they are effectivelg more points per model than Tacticals or Chaos Marines due to Frostsword and Plasma Pistol upgrade. So it’s demonstrably not a point issue with Marine Chassis at 13.

If it was Crusaders having an additional PowSword and able to go beyond 10 Man, Chaos Marines could take cheap Plasma Pistol + Special instead of Double Special and they like Crusaders can go to 20 Men.

 

The only commonality these two units share, is that both put out raw amount of STR 4 AP - Attacks. Crusaders larger Squads sizes means more attacks in Melee while Hunters have Chain/Bolter. That is the only commonality between the two squads lacked by Tacticals and Chaos Marines. The only fix is the double tap shooting. Note both of these squads to actually effectively leverage these additional attacks need to get in melee. (Yes I know Crusaders get Boltguns but then they are poor at reception of charge, which is partly makes Crusaders strong is they receive charges well. Due to ablative wounds and being able to hit back about as hard as they were hit even after losing 4-5 models). Words.

 

I am not trying to be rhetoerical, but what do these squads have at 10+ Men that Tacticals/Chaos Marines don’t. If the answer is simply raw STR 4 AP - Attacks, nothing would change. Sense as showcased in various threads no one values that attack. And even then Intercessors for +5 Points, already have that built in, and Crusader Squads durability. It takes best (non-Specials/Heavy/Etc) mechanical attributes form Hunters and Crusaders puts them into one Squad. By Mathhammer they are far closer to each Hunters or Crusaders then Tacticals and Chaos Marines are, just makes that more salient. And once Chapter tactics and strategems are added in they are functionally on par with both units. Yet still folks see Intercessors are bad.

 

Tl;dr The issue with Tacticals is not the lack of x or otherwise, because if it was Crusaders or Grey Hunters wouldn’t be. Each of them lacks one of the criteria folks say Tacticals need yet are still viable. Intercessors furthermore actually both of the basic traits that make Hunters and Crusaders unique, and still seen as poor choices compared to scouts by Math Folks. So riddle me this, what makes Hunters and Crusaders better?

[depthcharge12]

 

 

Guard player complaining he doesnt get enough cp? I play Ravenwing/Deathwing at 2000 points I can at most get 5 CP, I literally do burn through all my CP in 1 or two turns.

Damn guard gets to shoot twice for free any time every time. My super badass Deathwing Terminators can only do it once for 3 CP and only on deep strike. Guard players have no right to complain.

 

Not even bringing up how good and cheap Guard Super heavies are.

3 CPs for a 10 man squad firing 80 storm Bolter shots and 4 krak missiles on bs3+ possibly with rerolls of Belial (oh and you can do the first round of shooting to move back the 9” bubble before deep striking another unit closer). Nope totally the same thing as firing a bunch of S3 lasguns at BS4+ with the occasional plasma gun shots.

 

Come on man, even you know that’s silly

 

Captains, lieutenants, Ravenwing speeder dude, etc give rerolls for 1’s to hit and/or wound for ANY <chapter> units within 6”.

 

Ye except you didnt do point calculations on this 10 dudes with Belial. Thats 642 points for 25 wounds of MEQ or 11 models. That is equivalent of 160 guardsmen models and you still got 2 points spare.  80 bolter shots with rerolls only kill 20 guardsmen (not in cover) on average, Thats not even putting a dent in average guard numbers. Now flip that, and 160 guardsmen shooting 11 Terminator will wipe them off the floor in a single turn just due to number of shots. If they all do FRFSRF thats 640 shots.  And for 750 points you can easily build a brigade and have 9cp while for 750 ill have a vanguard with 4 cp.

 

 

Lol

 

160 guardsmen.

 

Lol

 

You realize that's 16 squads of guardsmen assuming you just killed two other units of them. And there has to be 8 officers or 6 at the very least within 6" of them or 18" of two voxes to give them all FRSRF. And that's also assuming you can get all 160 guardsmen within 12" of said terminators.

 

 

Do you even play this game? I have yet to see anyone take that many guardsmen + officers let alone be able to fit them on the board. You're absolutely hilarious :P 

 

Also for those saying we get brigades easily...you realized that's taking the absolute cheapest units right? Cheap doesn't always translate to effective. 

 

 

If I don't post for the next day or so, assume I'm in the hospital from laughing so hard at the prospect of having 160 guardsmen within 12" of terminators and also all receiving orders.

[Zodd1888]

IMO the simplest way to look at it is this:

 

OBSEC is based on troops and highest total # of models in range of objective holds it.

 

Guard has the most wounds per point.

 

The damage economy from shooting by things doesn't often equal the amount of wounds required, partially as a result of wounds not carrying over making multi-damage weapons less effective, to remove guard from objectives by other factions.

 

You either need incredibly cheap hordes of fire to deal with it, or the high priced flamer and hope your troops can make it there to take a shot. It's a challenge, and an imbalance, but fixing hordes doesn't just pertain to guard. Two seperate issues between tacticals and hordes.

[chapter master 454]

Honesty to beat this poor horse, but if we do this “double tap Tacticals” will this be applied to all four Tacticals Variants (Tacticals, Chaos Marines, Crusaders and Grey Hunters), because the latter two are very well off. For one reason or another (NB none of those reasons they are ‘well off’ mechanically is due to Special Rules, or Strategems. Crusaders simply leverage Neophytes for Cheap Bodies, Extra PowSword adds surprisingly amount of increase in Damage in actual gameplay, and avoid Bolter Tax (I.e they have Bolter or Chain depending on unit setup), Grey Hunters because Double Sgt, Bolter/Chain, Banner, and Extra Plasma Pistol Shot able to move quickly and put out an acceptable damage with shooting then closing in with Chains to finish. And for those curious, Eviscerators (because of -4), actually make Assault Marines on par with Crusaders/GreyHunters).

 

Why do Chaos Marines and Tacticals fall short of both units? I said this on the Tactical Thread, and I keep beating this horse because;

1) Cannot Be Chain Option Or Flexible Loadout, Chaos Marines have both. And still ‘trash’ compared to Hunters and Crusaders

2) It cannot be they MSU better (which for the record they do), because the 5 Man Crusaders and 6 Man Hunters are not that much better than Tacticals and Chaos Marines (sense Extra Plasma Shot from Hunters, and +2 Atk Frostsword, and Crusaders additionally Heavy Weapon, (adding 25-27 points to the squad) does not make either squad that make better than basic 5 Man MSU Double Special. Every 3 of those Squads gets you almost 4th MSU Double Specials or so. (13-19 more points would make the difference).

3) It cannot be the Mathhammer of Killy, because if so we’d see more Assault Marine Squads. Which at 10 Man, Double Eviscerator, Triple PlasPistol and Sword is offensively not that much different than Hunters or Crusaders (being Troops is a massive plus I will admit).

 

So it cannot be the fact they MSU or they have some weird rule, because each squad has neither. And if we do give Tacticals Marines Double Tapping bolters or shooting, we could easily return to the era of 6th-7th were non-Tacticals Tacticals were obsolete (hello Battle Company).

 

The reason I keep beating this horse, is because these suggestions don’t fix the root problem. 5 Man’s are generally considered competitive, and the 5 Man MSU setups between all four main tactical variants are functionally the same. Yet Crusaders and Hunters at 10+ Men, dominate their fellow Tactical Equivalents. Why?

If it was bolters suck, Crusaders wouldn’t be better than Tacticals or Chaos Marines, while Hunters have an effective +2 Specials (Plasma Pistol and Frostsword) and partly makes them better, Crusader just throw out a lot of STR 4 AP - Attacks.

If it was Crusaders having cheap Marine because Neophytes, Hunters wouldn’t be better than Tacticals and Chaos Marines, and they are effectivelg more points per model than Tacticals or Chaos Marines due to Frostsword and Plasma Pistol upgrade. So it’s demonstrably not a point issue with Marine Chassis at 13.

If it was Crusaders having an additional PowSword and able to go beyond 10 Man, Chaos Marines could take cheap Plasma Pistol + Special instead of Double Special and they like Crusaders can go to 20 Men.

 

The only commonality these two units share, is that both put out raw amount of STR 4 AP - Attacks. Crusaders larger Squads sizes means more attacks in Melee while Hunters have Chain/Bolter. That is the only commonality between the two squads lacked by Tacticals and Chaos Marines. The only fix is the double tap shooting. Note both of these squads to actually effectively leverage these additional attacks need to get in melee. (Yes I know Crusaders get Boltguns but then they are poor at reception of charge, which is partly makes Crusaders strong is they receive charges well. Due to ablative wounds and being able to hit back about as hard as they were hit even after losing 4-5 models). Words.

 

I am not trying to be rhetoerical, but what do these squads have at 10+ Men that Tacticals/Chaos Marines don’t. If the answer is simply raw STR 4 AP - Attacks, nothing would change. Sense as showcased in various threads no one values that attack. And even then Intercessors for +5 Points, already have that built in, and Crusader Squads durability. It takes best (non-Specials/Heavy/Etc) mechanical attributes form Hunters and Crusaders puts them into one Squad. By Mathhammer they are far closer to each Hunters or Crusaders then Tacticals and Chaos Marines are, just makes that more salient. And once Chapter tactics and strategems are added in they are functionally on par with both units. Yet still folks see Intercessors are bad.

 

Tl;dr The issue with Tacticals is not the lack of x or otherwise, because if it was Crusaders or Grey Hunters wouldn’t be. Each of them lacks one of the criteria folks say Tacticals need yet are still viable. Intercessors furthermore actually both of the basic traits that make Hunters and Crusaders unique, and still seen as poor choices compared to scouts by Math Folks. So riddle me this, what makes Hunters and Crusaders better?

 

Good info but you missed a tiny detail in those squads, both Crusaders and Hunters can freely take chainswords. While space wolves for some reason pay an odd 1 point tax for grey hunters, Hunters and Crusaders are both able to freely bring chainswords without sacrificing gear. Any Initiate or Hunter can take a chainsword, not in lieu of anything which when read effectively means "They have chainswords" since they cost 0 and there is no reason not to have them.

This detail means that crusader squads and hunter squads have marines that have by effect 2 attacks instead of 1. That allow may account for why they aren't trash. I can't speak for chaos marines (don't have the codex) but that detail jumps out to me as there is no cost surrounding their ability to take chainswords.

This means that they have the same loadout and possibly even same gear options as Tacticals but yet get to have chainswords for some reason. This may seem like a small detail but I will contend this with some evidence.

 

Notice that people regularly say to drop the cost of marines by 1-2 points. What sort of upgrade would be worth that amount? A chainsword. While most armies get such a basic weapon free, stat changes are worth points and in this case chainswords equal +1 attack and could easily push tacticals into the realm of no longer being considered bad as now they cost the what they are worth.

For Crusaders, looking at them their options are just Tactical options but expanded. You can give them Chainswords over their boltguns and their heavy weapon slot even extends into various close combat weapons such as power fists, power swords and power mauls. It may seem like they are gearing towards melee but yet you can equip a crusader squad EXACTLY like a tactical squad but go beyond that and tailor them to what you want: melee or ranged or even go for the mix. Crusader Squads should be called Tactical Squad Superior because they are literally just better due to options.

As for Grey Hunters they can literally just run around with chainswords for nothing. Just take chainsword in their options. May as well Ctrl+X that entry and just Ctrl+C it up in their unit composition entry regarding their gear. They lose out on Heavy weapons but as currently being established, no-one thinks heavy weapons in these troop choices are a decent use of points not are they well suited to it as the squad is expected to move and hold objectives. This means you need only mid range at most for infantry and be able to handle melee which note that crusaders can gear themselves for by bringing some melee boys and grey hunters tick all the boxes with no penalties.

 

So stupid really. What makes tacticals suck? BECAUSE THEY ARE INFERIOR TROOPS. Again this comes round to something I stated, marines being used a the measuring stick. Look at Crusader Squads and Grey Hunters and realise they were tactical squads but with their options ether added to or just shuffled up a little while removing certain elements that never mattered. In the case of Crusaders they were just raw upgraded and lost nothing for their options while grey hunters lost heavy weapons which never matter as they never used them (instead like every sensible marine player they used their devastator equals which again note: just strictly better devastators).

We need to not be the measuring stick and be a force to be reckoned with. Crusaders should be distinguished by the presence of neophytes and thus benefit from them (maybe they don't hit so well but for each initiate present, they get 1 re-roll a phase to represent their tutoring). Grey Hunters are fine, they paid their tax of 14 points and can be left alone. Crusaders however need to swap wargear option entries with Tactical marines badly.

[Stormxlr]

 

 

 

Guard player complaining he doesnt get enough cp? I play Ravenwing/Deathwing at 2000 points I can at most get 5 CP, I literally do burn through all my CP in 1 or two turns.

Damn guard gets to shoot twice for free any time every time. My super badass Deathwing Terminators can only do it once for 3 CP and only on deep strike. Guard players have no right to complain.

 

Not even bringing up how good and cheap Guard Super heavies are.

3 CPs for a 10 man squad firing 80 storm Bolter shots and 4 krak missiles on bs3+ possibly with rerolls of Belial (oh and you can do the first round of shooting to move back the 9” bubble before deep striking another unit closer). Nope totally the same thing as firing a bunch of S3 lasguns at BS4+ with the occasional plasma gun shots.

 

Come on man, even you know that’s silly

 

Captains, lieutenants, Ravenwing speeder dude, etc give rerolls for 1’s to hit and/or wound for ANY <chapter> units within 6”.

 

Ye except you didnt do point calculations on this 10 dudes with Belial. Thats 642 points for 25 wounds of MEQ or 11 models. That is equivalent of 160 guardsmen models and you still got 2 points spare.  80 bolter shots with rerolls only kill 20 guardsmen (not in cover) on average, Thats not even putting a dent in average guard numbers. Now flip that, and 160 guardsmen shooting 11 Terminator will wipe them off the floor in a single turn just due to number of shots. If they all do FRFSRF thats 640 shots.  And for 750 points you can easily build a brigade and have 9cp while for 750 ill have a vanguard with 4 cp.

 

 

Lol

 

160 guardsmen.

 

Lol

 

You realize that's 16 squads of guardsmen assuming you just killed two other units of them. And there has to be 8 officers or 6 at the very least within 6" of them or 18" of two voxes to give them all FRSRF. And that's also assuming you can get all 160 guardsmen within 12" of said terminators.

 

 

Do you even play this game? I have yet to see anyone take that many guardsmen + officers let alone be able to fit them on the board. You're absolutely hilarious

 

Also for those saying we get brigades easily...you realized that's taking the absolute cheapest units right? Cheap doesn't always translate to effective. 

 

 

If I don't post for the next day or so, assume I'm in the hospital from laughing so hard at the prospect of having 160 guardsmen within 12" of terminators and also all receiving orders.

 

You can lol all you want, the point is that You can have 160 guardsmen for the price of 11 terminators and those terminators will never be able to deal with all the guardsmen. Point-wise 11 Terminators should be able to deal with 160 guardsmen just like 160 guardsmen should be able to deal with 11 terminators because points are equal, both are infantry and both are equipped to deal with infantry. Except Just due to number of bodies and number of shots/dice, its a lot easier to take out 11 terminators than 160 guardsmen. The whole point is that you can do it, even if its just 160 shots at 24" you gonna average rolling about 25 1s on 160d6s. Sure thats not how game works you are right you probably will have about ~70 guardsmen,and couple russes shooting twice. While I spent 650 points and 3 cp to kill ~20 guardmens. Again you can lol all you want and tell me that i dont know how this game works. Except I think you are the one who doesnt know how this game works. This game is about leveraging chance into your favor and having as many redundancies as possible. 160 guardsmen for 640 points is amazing redundancy and chance levarage because thats 160 wounds someone must chew through versus 25 wounds. Doesnt matter how good the wounds are, what matters is that you are wasting shots to kill them. You need at least 160 shots to kill 160 guardsmen while you only need 25 to kill the same number of points (even less for multiwound shots)

[Mileposter]

I...

 

... wat.

[Schlitzaf]

Chapter Master, Crusader Squad exchange a Boltgun for Chainsword and second GreyHunters now Cost 13 Post Approved. And Chainswords exchange for Bolters in theory worse that Boltguns +1 attack in melee and use Pistol. Vs Long 1 and Rapid 2.

[BitsHammer]

I kind of get the point: points should be equal across all options.

 

And while I can agree that there is a problem right now where points in one army aren't equal to another, that's not going to change overnight.

 

If anything I almost feel like giving Marines a combat knife (+1 attack) option would probably fix them just because they're supposed to shoot then punch their targets to death but they don't do the job well enough right now.

[The Unseen]

Perhaps you could point me straight, but I'm not aware of any other army core mechanics that were turned into stratagems... So why make the guard core mechanic Stratagem-dependent?

 

Even if Orders are indeed an issue, making them into Stratagems seems silly if there's not significant precedent. Stratagems are supposed to be additive to armies, not mandatory for showing up.

Off the top of my head, all the bonuses marine vehicles used to get for squadroning up, chapter master upgrade and orbital bombardment became 2 different strategems no less, hellfire shells and flakk missiles, daemons deep strike rules, BA overcharged engines and the free move for Death Company at the start of the game, eldars webway portals, Dark Angels shoot twice when you deepstrike terminators, and I think Ghosthelms for eldar.

 

Those are all special rules or wargear choices that got made into strategems, just the ones I can think of off-hand, I'm sure there are more.

 

Guard are pretty much the only faction to not have their old rules stripped out and made into strategems.

[Mileposter]

 

Perhaps you could point me straight, but I'm not aware of any other army core mechanics that were turned into stratagems... So why make the guard core mechanic Stratagem-dependent?

 

Even if Orders are indeed an issue, making them into Stratagems seems silly if there's not significant precedent. Stratagems are supposed to be additive to armies, not mandatory for showing up.

Off the top of my head, all the bonuses marine vehicles used to get for squadroning up, chapter master upgrade and orbital bombardment became 2 different strategems no less, hellfire shells and flakk missiles, daemons deep strike rules, BA overcharged engines and the free move for Death Company at the start of the game, eldars webway portals, Dark Angels shoot twice when you deepstrike terminators, and I think Ghosthelms for eldar.

 

Those are all special rules or wargear choices that got made into strategems, just the ones I can think of off-hand, I'm sure there are more.

 

Guard are pretty much the only faction to not have their old rules stripped out and made into strategems.

 

Core Mechanic. Of those listed, only perhaps the Dark Angels deepstriking bit could be argued, and even then, not so much.

[BitsHammer]

 

 

Perhaps you could point me straight, but I'm not aware of any other army core mechanics that were turned into stratagems... So why make the guard core mechanic Stratagem-dependent?

 

Even if Orders are indeed an issue, making them into Stratagems seems silly if there's not significant precedent. Stratagems are supposed to be additive to armies, not mandatory for showing up.

Off the top of my head, all the bonuses marine vehicles used to get for squadroning up, chapter master upgrade and orbital bombardment became 2 different strategems no less, hellfire shells and flakk missiles, daemons deep strike rules, BA overcharged engines and the free move for Death Company at the start of the game, eldars webway portals, Dark Angels shoot twice when you deepstrike terminators, and I think Ghosthelms for eldar.

 

Those are all special rules or wargear choices that got made into strategems, just the ones I can think of off-hand, I'm sure there are more.

 

Guard are pretty much the only faction to not have their old rules stripped out and made into strategems.

 

Core Mechanic. Of those listed, only perhaps the Dark Angels deepstriking bit could be argued, and even then, not so much.

Formations weren't core mechanics? Fair enough, but to claim wargear is is a little silly. That's a straight upgrade option that was built into the model's options.

 

Also Baal Pattern engines weren't just wargear, they were one of the things that made Blood Angels different than more vanilla Marines.

[Mileposter]

 

 

Perhaps you could point me straight, but I'm not aware of any other army core mechanics that were turned into stratagems... So why make the guard core mechanic Stratagem-dependent?

 

Even if Orders are indeed an issue, making them into Stratagems seems silly if there's not significant precedent. Stratagems are supposed to be additive to armies, not mandatory for showing up.

 

 

Off the top of my head, all the bonuses marine vehicles used to get for squadroning up, chapter master upgrade and orbital bombardment became 2 different strategems no less, hellfire shells and flakk missiles, daemons deep strike rules, BA overcharged engines and the free move for Death Company at the start of the game, eldars webway portals, Dark Angels shoot twice when you deepstrike terminators, and I think Ghosthelms for eldar.

 

Those are all special rules or wargear choices that got made into strategems, just the ones I can think of off-hand, I'm sure there are more.

 

Guard are pretty much the only faction to not have their old rules stripped out and made into strategems.

Core Mechanic. Of those listed, only perhaps the Dark Angels deepstriking bit could be argued, and even then, not so much.

 

Formations weren't core mechanics? Fair enough, but to claim wargear is is a little silly. That's a straight upgrade option that was built into the model's options.

 

Also Baal Pattern engines weren't just wargear, they were one of the things that made Blood Angels different than more vanilla Marines.

 

I'm not disagreeing with the notion that some of these things shouldn't have been moved to Stratagems - Just the notion that they constitute a Core Mechanic. I disagree with the concept that some items being unjustly moved too Stratagems justifies other items being unjustly moved to Stratagems.

[BitsHammer]

 

 

 

Perhaps you could point me straight, but I'm not aware of any other army core mechanics that were turned into stratagems... So why make the guard core mechanic Stratagem-dependent?

 

Even if Orders are indeed an issue, making them into Stratagems seems silly if there's not significant precedent. Stratagems are supposed to be additive to armies, not mandatory for showing up.

 

 

Off the top of my head, all the bonuses marine vehicles used to get for squadroning up, chapter master upgrade and orbital bombardment became 2 different strategems no less, hellfire shells and flakk missiles, daemons deep strike rules, BA overcharged engines and the free move for Death Company at the start of the game, eldars webway portals, Dark Angels shoot twice when you deepstrike terminators, and I think Ghosthelms for eldar.

 

Those are all special rules or wargear choices that got made into strategems, just the ones I can think of off-hand, I'm sure there are more.

 

Guard are pretty much the only faction to not have their old rules stripped out and made into strategems.

Core Mechanic. Of those listed, only perhaps the Dark Angels deepstriking bit could be argued, and even then, not so much.

 

Formations weren't core mechanics? Fair enough, but to claim wargear is is a little silly. That's a straight upgrade option that was built into the model's options.

 

Also Baal Pattern engines weren't just wargear, they were one of the things that made Blood Angels different than more vanilla Marines.

 

I'm not disagreeing with the notion that some of these things shouldn't have been moved to Stratagems - Just the notion that they constitute a Core Mechanic. I disagree with the concept that some items being unjustly moved too Stratagems justifies other items being unjustly moved to Stratagems.

Their point stands: things intergral to the army as we knew it were taken away for CP but Guard largely avoided that trap. Now either everyone should have kept those options without them costing CP, or Guard should be paying CP for some of the stuff they managed to keep.

 

Actually I think Leman Russes shooting twice should have cost CP. That's broken-tier at the moment.

[Mileposter]

 

 

 

 

Perhaps you could point me straight, but I'm not aware of any other army core mechanics that were turned into stratagems... So why make the guard core mechanic Stratagem-dependent?

 

Even if Orders are indeed an issue, making them into Stratagems seems silly if there's not significant precedent. Stratagems are supposed to be additive to armies, not mandatory for showing up.

 

 

Off the top of my head, all the bonuses marine vehicles used to get for squadroning up, chapter master upgrade and orbital bombardment became 2 different strategems no less, hellfire shells and flakk missiles, daemons deep strike rules, BA overcharged engines and the free move for Death Company at the start of the game, eldars webway portals, Dark Angels shoot twice when you deepstrike terminators, and I think Ghosthelms for eldar.

 

Those are all special rules or wargear choices that got made into strategems, just the ones I can think of off-hand, I'm sure there are more.

 

Guard are pretty much the only faction to not have their old rules stripped out and made into strategems.

Core Mechanic. Of those listed, only perhaps the Dark Angels deepstriking bit could be argued, and even then, not so much.

 

Formations weren't core mechanics? Fair enough, but to claim wargear is is a little silly. That's a straight upgrade option that was built into the model's options.

 

Also Baal Pattern engines weren't just wargear, they were one of the things that made Blood Angels different than more vanilla Marines.

 

I'm not disagreeing with the notion that some of these things shouldn't have been moved to Stratagems - Just the notion that they constitute a Core Mechanic. I disagree with the concept that some items being unjustly moved too Stratagems justifies other items being unjustly moved to Stratagems.

 

Their point stands: things intergral to the army as we knew it were taken away for CP but Guard largely avoided that trap. Now either everyone should have kept those options without them costing CP, or Guard should be paying CP for some of the stuff they managed to keep.

 

That is the exact sentiment I disagree with. Eye for an Eye has never worked well inside or outside balancing.

 

Actually I think Leman Russes shooting twice should have cost CP. That's broken-tier at the moment.

I don't disagree with this, but I'm interested in the comparison - you feel it is broken on the Leman Russ, but what of the Fire Prism?