PDA

View Full Version : IG Wyvern OP, or is it just me?



Flayed One Tastic
17-11-2014, 13:47
I am a Guard player, so please don't think I'm just angry after being on the receiving end of Wyverns, because I'm not.

65 points for a vehicle which...

a) doesn't require line of sight
b) removes cover saves
c) re-rolls To Hit and To Wound with 4 small blast templates
d) has a long enough range to cover most of the table
e) can be taken in 3 squads of 3 if you so wish

I have an IG tank army and have realised that, with a squad of 3 Wyverns deployed behind a building, I'm pretty much guaranteed First Blood unless my opponent gets very lucky with a penetrating hit. I can basically pick and remove a squad a turn (and have seen people doing a dirty sort of template-crawl back to the target if their initial shot misses and still causing tons of hits). I've only ever played against Wyverns once, with my Necrons. In the first turn, 165 points of Wyverns inflicted 56 hits on my Necron Overlord's Warrior squad. Next turn it was 96 hits because the first barrage forced me into a kamikaze 'deep strike & rapid fire' manoeuvre.

In spite of this, I've never seen Wyverns taking any flak from the internet. Are they really that bad?

Denny
17-11-2014, 13:54
I think its 100% OP, but I play Dark Eldar and anything cover ignoring is instantly a pain.
Combined with super accurate and rerolls means any squad targeted is probably dead.

Perhaps its less on an issue with Marine-type armies who have decent armour?

T10
17-11-2014, 14:34
It's not going to kill any tanks, so I guess there's that...

-T10

Ironbone
17-11-2014, 14:54
In spite of this, I've never seen Wyverns taking any flak from the internet
They are fragile ( opentopend + Av12 only of front) and struggle a bit against anything with even averange armour (heck, even guardsmen normaly useless flak t-shirts offer some protection ). Plus spacing models is always a rebiable tactic to counter blast weapons.

MajorWesJanson
17-11-2014, 15:13
1 Wyvern is strong. 2 Wyverns in a squadron are Nasty. a squadron of 3 wyverns, or more, are highly OP, and straight broken against certain armies.

The big problem is that they reroll hit and wound, ignore cover, and use the multiple barrage rules, so even a clean miss can be walked over to a target, or multiple units covered by a single barrage.

Flayed One Tastic
17-11-2014, 16:11
They are fragile ( opentopend + Av12 only of front)
But you can deploy them behind buildings, hills, other terrain and other units to either completely conceal them or give them a cover save. And if people are shooting your Wyverns they're not shooting the advancing LR Demolishers you'll inevitably have.


Perhaps its less on an issue with Marine-type armies who have decent armour?
When you're rolling 20+ armour saves I doubt it matters much whether you have a 3+ or 5+ armour save lol

Denny
17-11-2014, 16:26
When you're rolling 20+ armour saves I doubt it matters much whether you have a 3+ or 5+ armour save lol

Oh believe me it does . . . :(

At least with a 3+ you have a snowball's chance in hell. ;)

Vipoid
17-11-2014, 16:38
It's overkill against infantry... but don't guard already have a ton of anti-infantry weapons? Lasguns are good for little else (and can benefit from FRFSRK), their infantry can have a ton of flamers, virtually every vehicle comes with a Heavy Bolter or Heavy Flamer (in addition to its main weapon), about 90% of their HS choices are tanks with large blasts etc..

I guess to me it feels like a 'win more' unit. It seems like all it really does is give you a devastating victory against armies you're already good against - while doing little to help against vehicles, MCs, fliers and other, more troublesome units.


In any case, for those who think it's too strong, what would you suggest to bring it down to a more reasonable level?

Flayed One Tastic
17-11-2014, 16:48
I think that even if GW removed Shred and twin-linked, the Wyvern would still be a good choice.

T10
17-11-2014, 17:03
On one hand, the Wyvern has Twin-linked, Shred and Ignores Cover going for it. But it also uses the small blast marker, so armies that can afford the table-top real-estate can spread out. Making "proper use" of the 2" coherency range could reduce the effect of each template to 0-2 hits.

It is also debatable wether the rules for Multiple Barrages allow for Twin-linked to be used to re-roll the scatter dice when placing secondary templates.

You may also need to direct some firepower in the Wyvern's direction, which should be worth it: It doesn't have awesome armour, and it is susceptible to being Shaken and Stunned (its Barrage weapons cannot fire snap shots). You don't have to rely on blowing it up if you only need it to stay quiet for a round.

Also, its major weapon system is actually made up of two weapons, which means that if it moves at Combat Speed it can only fire one of them (none at Cruising Speed). An Imperial Guard player taking Wyverns in squadrons may need to take som hard decisions when it comes to shuffling his vehicles around to manage effective damage distribution (i.e. exposing an undamaged Wyvern to enemy fire while moving damaged ones back).

-T10

GuroG
17-11-2014, 17:17
I faced 3 of them camped out on a sky shield they were tough to shift, after the smoke had cleared victory went to my Blood Angels!


Luck - Courage - Skill!

Commissar Merces
17-11-2014, 17:46
They are certainly a very good unit. Unsure if they are really OP though due to all the drawbacks T10 mentioned. I usually will field two in most of my competitive lists.

Personally, I find Pask in a Punisher to be more damaging but even he has his drawbacks.

itcamefromthedeep
17-11-2014, 17:48
They struggle against vehicles (and they're only okay against MCs).

Since the metagame already has plenty of ways to ignore light infantry or sweep them off the table, it didn't change much. People went from not to taking slugga boyz to... still not taking slugga boyz. It answers a question the game wasn't asking. It answers it really well, such that light infantry can't ever really be a problem for the game until that model changes, but the Knights and Riptides and Wave Serpents (oh my) don't get shifted down the totem pole as a result.

Ironbone
17-11-2014, 20:45
I guess to me it feels like a 'win more' unit
It kinda is. Wywern excel at exterminating fragile units, who already have very hard time beeing playable. It's...ok against most armies, wich a lot depending how skilled is opposite player at positioning units. Decenty displaced tac marines unit can withstand full barrage of whole wywern battery ( like 20+ hits ) with just few casualties - not that much for supposevly OP unit :p. IMHO more important is their barrage abbility - as wounds are alocated from center of the first blast, and with twin-linked, hiting inteded place its quite reliable, wywerns are excelent snipers. You may not end killing a lot of enemies, but often end killing who you wanted to kill.

CrownAxe
17-11-2014, 20:51
Wyverns are awesome but are very specialized. They are pretty much useless against vehicles and their effectiveness greatly dwindles as you get to T5 and T6-T7. And being small blasts they have a hard time generating appreciable amounts of hits against 40mm and 60mm bases that spread out effectively.

Retrospectus
17-11-2014, 21:52
They do nasty things to terminator type units due to sheer number of wounds. especially after deep strike.

Vaktathi
17-11-2014, 21:53
It's a very powerful muppet mower, but really guard already have lots of anti-infantry and those HS slots are usually better served for AT/anti-MC use than more generic infantry killing. They're very strong but not utilized too much for exactly that reason.

Losing Command
18-11-2014, 00:35
Wyverns are indeed rediculus, but only against infantery, which probably is why there's so little rage against them, as most OP cheesebeard units these days are vehicles, monstrous creatures or the larger version of the two.

But I would bet Wyvern spam makes a daemonfarm army cry rivers :p

Ghungo
18-11-2014, 04:01
Wyvern is a replacement for all the artillery that was removed from the AM book. It is great at its role, killing tightly packed infantry and useless vs everything else. Youre not touching a vehicle, transport, monstrous creature, or heavily armored infantry at str4 ap6. So really the complaint is a wyvern kills infantry well? That's not really overpowered especially on a fairly weak platform. It's not like they were the 5th edition vendetta able to kill any target with 3x twin linked las cannons on a extremely durable platform that could tranport melta vets or plasma vets anywhere on the board.

AngryAngel
18-11-2014, 06:16
I think everyone has got pretty good grip of it, the wyvern is amazing. However, it also has some very really draw backs of it is specialized for anti troop, open topped, av 12 just on front just for some. However what it does, it does damn well. Crump infantry that are too huddled up.

Why don't you hear crys of OP ? Because it does just what it does well, and it is kill infantry, doesn't do much vs MC's and nothing to tanks. As well, it is near about the only OP unit in a book, that isn't really OP in itself. Vendettas are just good, but no longer super good, Pask in punisher is very good, Wyvern is very good, most other choices are Average. You also don't see them stomping everyone in the tournament scene so they don't tend to get the OP label.

TheBearminator
18-11-2014, 07:16
It's not going to kill any tanks, so I guess there's that...

-T10

Yeah, so those poor mechanised Eldar armies won't be too bothered. That's a relief... Funny. That always seems to be the case for my armies. Everything I have that is considered good is pointless against eldar. "Playing mechanised are you? Well it's a good thing I brought all these lance weapons, that downgrade all your armour to... 12."

MasterDecoy
18-11-2014, 07:57
as a tyranid player, I think they're filthy. (but I also tend not to pack in as many MC's as I can fit, and put more gaunts in)

Basically If i see a squadron of 3 across the table, I may as well not even bother deploying any infantry at all (yep, even warriors at 3 wounds a piece don't have a snowballs chance in hell of of surviving a barrage from them)

I've routinely seen them just erase entire units from the board regardless of size and coherency.

BigHammer
18-11-2014, 08:40
They definitely need a look at, if only to increase their cost. I have no qualms with a unit being good at what it's designed to do, and there's no argument that the Wyvern is one of the best infantry killing machines in 40k. However, getting everything in one package and not paying through the nose for it is stretching it a bit; a single Wyvern costs as much as the average Dark Eldar Venom, or about the same as a single War Walker, both of which are good units, but neither of which excel at their role in the same way as the Wyvern.

I think it would be worth its cost if it didn't ignore cover, or if it didn't have barrage, or if it had half the amount of shots, but for what it does, it's simply too cheap. It also contributes to promoting the rather boring, IMO, mechanised-only meta that competitive play is seeing at the moment.

Vipoid
18-11-2014, 10:32
They definitely need a look at, if only to increase their cost. I have no qualms with a unit being good at what it's designed to do, and there's no argument that the Wyvern is one of the best infantry killing machines in 40k. However, getting everything in one package and not paying through the nose for it is stretching it a bit; a single Wyvern costs as much as the average Dark Eldar Venom, or about the same as a single War Walker, both of which are good units, but neither of which excel at their role in the same way as the Wyvern.

I'm not sure either of those are good comparisons. Venoms have multiple roles - in that they're a transport as well as a weapon-platform. And, after that, it depends how you rate poison and mobility. The latter certainly helps its transport role, and the former makes it much better against, say, MCs than the Wyvern.

War Walkers are likewise worse against infantry, but have markedly more versatility. Their basic S6 shots are a lot better at threatening MCs and can also down light transports.

TheBearminator
19-11-2014, 06:16
It also contributes to promoting the rather boring, IMO, mechanised-only meta that competitive play is seeing at the moment.

This is indeed a shame. Both the trend and the wyverns contribution to it, regardless how small.

Vaktathi
19-11-2014, 06:34
To be fair, a big part of that is that the IG infantry just aren't very impressive. Blob platoons see tables and a place in competitive events, but the rest of the platoon parts largely left aside. Special weapons squads, short range units with Ld7 and consist of six T3 5+sv models with no ability to take a transport besides hitching a ride in a Valk? Heavy weapon squads, Ld7 T3 5+sv units with a 50% base points premium over the cost of a special weapon squad before buying guns? Conscripts...why bother when Blob platoons exist and you have to take at least 2 Infantry Squads before you can take conscripts anyway? The same Ld and resiliency (and cost) issues with IG elites as well, which are entirely infantry and long regarded as the worst part of the codex.

BigHammer
19-11-2014, 07:43
To be fair, a big part of that is that the IG infantry just aren't very impressive. Blob platoons see tables and a place in competitive events, but the rest of the platoon parts largely left aside. Special weapons squads, short range units with Ld7 and consist of six T3 5+sv models with no ability to take a transport besides hitching a ride in a Valk? Heavy weapon squads, Ld7 T3 5+sv units with a 50% base points premium over the cost of a special weapon squad before buying guns? Conscripts...why bother when Blob platoons exist and you have to take at least 2 Infantry Squads before you can take conscripts anyway? The same Ld and resiliency (and cost) issues with IG elites as well, which are entirely infantry and long regarded as the worst part of the codex.

That's not what I meant; I'm not talking about AM armies being all mech because of lacklustre infantry, I'm talking about every army (except nids, obs) being all mech because everyone has too many toys that simply remove entire units of infantry regardless of what they are, a problem of which Wyverns are definitely a part. Other culprits are Riptides and buffmanders for Tau, Wave Serpents (both for the large number of shots they can throw out and for being so good a choice as to want as many as possible), thunderfire cannons, et al. Elite infantry are bought as cheaply as possible because it's likely they'll do their job once then be removed the following turn; basic infantry is bought to be mobile, cheap and reservable so that they only have one very simple task; jump onto an objective late game. Even maelstrom missions don't care about infantry; dedicated transports for troops have obsec, so the points go on making the transport survivable rather than making the unit effective, and the whole thing goes round in a circle. It's the (IMO) main problem 5th ed had; scoring transports = no need for infantry, backed up by infantry having the lifespan of a gnat on a meteor.

But I digress. IMO, the whole thing can be fixed by changing ignores cover in some way; perhaps to force rerolls of successful cover saves, or to reduce it by some set value rather than entirely (a -2 would still swing the odds against most units, eg). This allows infantry to still have some chance of survival, and means these weapons encourage going to ground against them rather than the backwards "that thing ignores cover so I won't bother using it at all" system of thinking that exists now. It's not going to happen, but it would be nice...

Vaktathi
19-11-2014, 08:25
There's a lot of issues with that. One being that, since 4th, heavy weapons and largely been actually able to use their max ranges instead of a 2" thick piece of area terrain blocking LoS and many armies never getting to shoot at much of anything beyond 24". On top of that, there isn't a reason not to be mechanized for most armies, both because of the protection and speed, and because there's no actions most units are going to take that aren't generally enhanced by mechanization. Other games allow infantry to dig in and entrench themselves (as opposed to just diving for cover), spot for heavy weapons, require objectives to be held for something other than a single turn, etc.

I agree that dedicated transports getting classed as Objective Secured scoring units was ridiculous, though GW didn't really seem to put much care or thought into force composition with this edition either.

That said, those transports also are easier to kill and provide a whole lot less assault utility than they used to. Something like a Rhino needs half the average number of autocannon hits to kill than it did back in fifth edition just a couple years ago, while any unit inside isn't assaulting before turn 3 (as opposed to the often seen turn 2 assault on 4E/5E).

One thing you see a lot is other unit types (not just transports) having much more value. In 3E/early 4E, SM bikes were like 30/33pts and had no Jink (only got the save when they turboboosted), Eldar jetbikes were 34pts each couldn't get to any point on the board in one turn, etc. Now SM bikes are 20pts and and Eldar Jetbikes are 17pts each, both are (or can be made) Troops units, and pack equal or greater firepower than infantry equivalents and far more resiliency and speed, often for not much more than an infantry unit after kit, and thus, if you're looking at tac marines or guardians, if you're not going mechanized you might as well go for the bikes. Jump Marines meanwhile gained a potential extra attack and likewise went from ~30ish points to almost half that, and both for bikes and jump infantry, the removed most of the threat of dangerous terrain. It makes basic infantry somewhat superfluous in many instances.


As for cover, there's more cover ignoring mechanics and weapons, but also a whole lot more cover than previous editions. In 3E/4E, vehicles couldn't get cover saves at all, and LoS was just simply blocked a lot of the rest of the time. That changed in 5E, then suddenly everything practically got access to a 4+ cover save for everything all the time, and then they made Stealth much more common, and introduced Shrouded to add +2, as well as vehicle wargear that gave +1 to cover saves, then included stealth in Nightfight (and in sixth both Stealth and Shrouded) and added Nightfight to every single game (instead of 1 in 3 or specialized scenarios) and thus you get games where 3+ and 2+ cover saves aren't at all unheard of nor uncommon (whereas there used to be only one or two units routinely capable of enjoying such a save), often times making certain units near impossible to remove without specialized removes-cover weapons or through assaults. The only "removes cover" weapons I think that GW clearly went overboard on were the Serpent Shield, and the Heldrake (which has been somewhat fixed with the most current FAQ). It makes the Wyvern powerful, but this is offset by its low AP, thus most units still get to take at least an armor save. That said, I'd trade it and the Wyvern in a heartbeat for the old Hydra. :p

Vipoid
19-11-2014, 11:11
I think part of the problem is that GW are far too quick to escalate their game.

e.g. Torrent Flamers seem like something that should be pretty damn rare. I mean, I thought the whole point of flamers was that they sacrificed a lot of range for increased accuracy over blast weapons and the ability to ignore cover. So, being able to use them at range seems a little silly (especially when they are positioned with absolute accuracy - there's no scatter or chance to miss). But then, they also tend to be stronger than both flamers and heavy flamers - with most being S6 AP4, and some exceeding even that. Oh, and several are attached (or can be attached) to bikers, fliers and a MC that can teleport 30" - so they can easily be in range turn 1 (or the turn the flier arrives). Then we have the general increase in other weapons that can ignore cover (with things like the Hydra and Thunderfire Cannon spewing out blasts), plus Markerlights, Psychic Powers, Orders etc. which can also hand out ignores cover.

And then this is "balanced" by many units having stupid amounts of cover bonuses - Shrouded, Stealth, various unnamed bonuses, 4+ Jink as standard on all skimmers, bikes, fliers etc.

I guess I just feel that we should be dialling things back a bit - reducing the general amount of cover and the number of weapons that ignore it, as well as perhaps toning down some of the individual offenders.

Xerkics
19-11-2014, 12:54
Compare wyverns to a Biovore unit. Biovores are really good but not overpowered. And you'll get the answer you want

as a tyranid player, I think they're filthy. (but I also tend not to pack in as many MC's as I can fit, and put more gaunts in)

Basically If i see a squadron of 3 across the table, I may as well not even bother deploying any infantry at all (yep, even warriors at 3 wounds a piece don't have a snowballs chance in hell of of surviving a barrage from them)

I've routinely seen them just erase entire units from the board regardless of size and coherency.
Essentially any kind of guard tank spam list makes a lot of tyranid armies all but unplayable so if I'm facing guard I always switch to necrons . Il still lose tonns of models per turn bit at least I can bring doom scythe to punish car parks.

wyvirn
19-11-2014, 17:33
Compare wyverns to a Biovore unit. Biovores are really good but not overpowered. And you'll get the answer you want.

I, for one, would love to see a chimera based tank that shot guardsmen out of a cannon.

Saunders
19-11-2014, 18:06
Wyverns are ridiculous, I agree. The counter-assertion appears to be that wyverns are on a vulnerable chassis, but for 65 pts a 3 HP vehicle with AV12 front armor is actually quite decent. Most vehicles in that price range are a varying combination of AV10, 2 HP, and/or transports with more limited weaponry. Then there's the argument that many have already stated, that they can simply remain out of LoS... at any rate.


I, for one, would love to see a chimera based tank that shot guardsmen out of a cannon.

tank that shot marbos, that subsequently threw demolition charges.

stonehorse
19-11-2014, 18:34
Their points cost is if I remember correctly a not far off a Heavy Weapons Mortar team... This to me is all the proof needed that it is too cheap.

Vipoid
19-11-2014, 18:55
Their points cost is if I remember correctly a not far off a Heavy Weapons Mortar team... This to me is all the proof needed that it is too cheap.

Which isn't exactly the best comparison - Heavy Weapon Squads are badly overcosted, and Mortars are just awful weapons.

itcamefromthedeep
19-11-2014, 22:05
I think comparisons to Whirlwinds and Hellhounds do the job. Both those units are a bit too expensive, but Wyverns pants them both really hard.

Vaktathi
19-11-2014, 22:15
The big balancer for the Wyvern, to me at least, is that it's a heavy support unit. If you're taking specialized anti-infantry units from there, then you're not taking heavy armor or anti-tank weapons or AA options. Muppet mowing can be accomplished relatively well by the rest of the IG army.

That said, the can be pretty abuseable as allies.

MasterDecoy
19-11-2014, 22:30
Compare wyverns to a Biovore unit. Biovores are really good but not overpowered. And you'll get the answer you want

Essentially any kind of guard tank spam list makes a lot of tyranid armies all but unplayable so if I'm facing guard I always switch to necrons . Il still lose tonns of models per turn bit at least I can bring doom scythe to punish car parks.

Its not even that, Im usually ok with tank spam, other tanks typically don't just turn entire squads (we're talking up to and in excess of 30 kills per turn) into red mist with little to no effort. You can work around other tanks, via cover, LoS blocking terrain, or target saturation. The wyrven allows none of this counter play, you just pay your 200 points and evaporate unit after unit after unit.

I honestly think it was a typo with the weapon stat though, I think I was meant to either be A) twin linked 2 shots or b) 2x 2 shots not twin linked (going by the usual standard of 1 shot per barrel on the actual miniature, YMMV though) Either of which I could live with

In all fairness though, it probably has 1 too many special rules which tips it over the point of fairness, IF it loses any of "ignores cover, shred or twin linked", It wouldn't be so bad.

BigHammer
19-11-2014, 22:53
The big balancer for the Wyvern, to me at least, is that it's a heavy support unit. If you're taking specialized anti-infantry units from there, then you're not taking heavy armor or anti-tank weapons or AA options. Muppet mowing can be accomplished relatively well by the rest of the IG army.

That said, the can be pretty abuseable as allies.

AM heavy armour comes in squadrons, though, and you rarely need more than 3 Leman Russ tanks. When you do need more, you can take them in your HQ slots with a tank commander. As for AA, aren't Valks/Vendettas still FA? I'm failing to see how, even with only one CAD, an AM army would struggle for slots if it took two units of 3 Wyverns.

Vipoid
19-11-2014, 22:54
As a question, what about the Thunderfire Cannon? Is that considered too good as well?


I honestly think it was a typo with the weapon stat though, I think I was meant to either be A) twin linked 2 shots or b) 2x 2 shots not twin linked (going by the usual standard of 1 shot per barrel on the actual miniature, YMMV though) Either of which I could live with.

I wondered the same thing. As you say, 4 barrels usually means either 4 shots, or 2 TL shots.

CrownAxe
19-11-2014, 23:15
As a question, what about the Thunderfire Cannon? Is that considered too good as well?

No but that's because it costs 35 points more, doesn't come with twin-linked and shred, and can't buy multiple in the same unit/FoC slot so its damage is capped at just 4 blasts. It does have the bonus of different shells to choose from, and being an artillery unit could be better then a chimera chasis (but probably not much) but the higher cost and lack of rerolls on everything keeps it from being overpowered.

Vaktathi
19-11-2014, 23:22
AM heavy armour comes in squadrons, though, and you rarely need more than 3 Leman Russ tanks. Squadroned tanks are not like taking multiple single tanks. Squadroned vehicles are much easier to kill (they're easier to concentrate fire on, no worries about wasted overkill and it's actually possible for a Russ tank to be killed through an assault, getting hit on rear armor, by an enemy model up to 21" away if squadroned) and cannot engage different targets.

That's fine with smaller, light, single purpose vehicles, but not so much with expensive-ish generalist battle tanks. There's a reason most people avoid this if they can, as adding an additional tank to a squadron isn't doubling the value of the initial tank, it's more like 1.5x'ing it.


When you do need more, you can take them in your HQ slots with a tank commander. Which is a minimum of two tanks and nearly 300pts


As for AA, aren't Valks/Vendettas still FA? I'm failing to see how, even with only one CAD, an AM army would struggle for slots if it took two units of 3 Wyverns.Really what it is is that you're taking a lot of concentrated muppet mowing, when you're already getting that niche filled from a large number of units that you'll already have to take regardless, even if they're not quite as good at it, while many of the truly unique IG army capabilities are in that HS slot.

Commissar Davis
20-11-2014, 13:04
Don't see the issue with the Wyvern, it replaced some really good artillery and can only be describe as being good at one thing.

I think SM are under costed for what they can do, eldar have far to many rules of their own as do necrons and are OP, while nids are too good at close combat and my AM don't have a counter assault unit that is viable enough to do anything about it.

Just remember that those Wyverns are all that there is other than the Basilisk as far as artillery goes, and be thankful that the player hasn't decided to bring along what they could have from imperial armour, as a Dominus and some of those alternative shells for the Russ could really ruin your day.

Carnelian
20-11-2014, 13:41
Don't see the issue with the Wyvern, it replaced some really good artillery and can only be describe as being good at one thing.

That 'one thing' they can be described as being good at is murdering any infantry unit...

Denny
20-11-2014, 13:47
That 'one thing' they can be described as being good at is murdering any infantry unit...

This is really the issue. If you play an all infantry army the Wyvern is rather unfun simply because there is no direct counter; you can't use cover, you can't avoid it by breaking line of sight, you can't get out of range of it, and (assuming its lurking behind some line of sight blocking building) you can't even return fire.

Unless your infantry is rocking power armour your units just disappear. :(

Its not unbeatable or anything, but its very hard to 'engage with' if that makes sense? :)

Ghungo
20-11-2014, 14:15
That 'one thing' they can be described as being good at is murdering any infantry unit...
Closely packed Non armoured infantry
That are also not in enclosed transports or flyers.

And it's not just power armour the wyvern is ap6. 4+ armour has 50% chance to ignore wounds and 5+ has 33% chance. Those are hardly neglible numbers.

However I can see the wyvern go up 5-10 points. But that's no where near omg it's overpowered.

Denny
20-11-2014, 14:39
And it's not just power armour the wyvern is ap6. 4+ armour has 50% chance to ignore wounds and 5+ has 33% chance. Those are hardly neglible numbers.

True, but when you have suffered 20+ wounds it doesn't help much. :)
('Spread out' I hear you cry, which would be fine except I rather need a cover save to have a chance at getting past the other firepower being pointed at me, and to get that cover save I have to bunch up a little more than I'd like . . .)

Commissar Davis
20-11-2014, 14:44
That 'one thing' they can be described as being good at is murdering any infantry unit...

Any infantry unit? That's stretching it more than a little bit.


This is really the issue. If you play an all infantry army the Wyvern is rather unfun simply because there is no direct counter; you can't use cover, you can't avoid it by breaking line of sight, you can't get out of range of it, and (assuming its lurking behind some line of sight blocking building) you can't even return fire.

Unless your infantry is rocking power armour your units just disappear. :(

Its not unbeatable or anything, but its very hard to 'engage with' if that makes sense? :)

If it is not using LoS then there is a very good chance that it will miss. Plenty of things to take it out with, just take something more akin to an all comers list.

Denny
20-11-2014, 15:16
If it is not using LoS then there is a very good chance that it will miss.

1 in 3 chance of a direct hit with a reroll, plus a reroll on every folloiwng template.

Somone else can do the maths (because I will only get them wrong) but I think the odds are more likely that it will cause a direct hit than it will miss, even not using LoS, and the rerolls on the following templates means that even if it does miss it can quickly be brought back on target.

EDIT: I should point out that I think its only OP against certain builds, but its annoying that I'm trying not to use Serpent spam with my Eldar, but everytime I see one of these things it wipes out any units I don't mech up . . . :( ;)

Vipoid
20-11-2014, 15:26
Assuming you reroll *all* misses:
1/3*(2/3*1/3) = 5/9

So, you can expect to hit a little over 50% of the time, with the rest scattering (on average) 7", assuming no LoS.

After that, it depends a lot on infantry-density, spacing, armour etc.

Yvain
20-11-2014, 15:29
This is really the issue. If you play an all infantry army the Wyvern is rather unfun simply because there is no direct counter; you can't use cover, you can't avoid it by breaking line of sight, you can't get out of range of it, and (assuming its lurking behind some line of sight blocking building) you can't even return fire.

Unless your infantry is rocking power armour your units just disappear. :(

Its not unbeatable or anything, but its very hard to 'engage with' if that makes sense? :)


I agree with you and Carnelian.

It does one thing really really well. You can't spam them and call it instant win because armor or MC pretty much ignore it. It can still be negated somewhat by smart model placement even verse its prime target low armor infantry. I think in another post someone made the comment on bringing more than 2 to a fight is unfair for his opponents so he stopped. I have had plenty of games where it has done next to nothing simply because the opponent realized it was a threat and took steps to mitigate it. Even in a primarily infantry army you should be smart and use your other tools to negate it. They are rather easy to pop if you just deep strike something next to them. It is still a really awesome choice and it may be a tad too cheap, but it isn't op status.

Denny
20-11-2014, 15:45
Assuming you reroll *all* misses:
1/3*(2/3*1/3) = 5/9

So, you can expect to hit a little over 50% of the time, with the rest scattering (on average) 7", assuming no LoS.

After that, it depends a lot on infantry-density, spacing, armour etc.

Yay, maths!
Seriously, once you get past a single dice roll I start struggling. Thanks :)

Commissar Davis
20-11-2014, 15:54
1 in 3 chance of a direct hit with a reroll, plus a reroll on every folloiwng template.

Somone else can do the maths (because I will only get them wrong) but I think the odds are more likely that it will cause a direct hit than it will miss, even not using LoS, and the rerolls on the following templates means that even if it does miss it can quickly be brought back on target.

EDIT: I should point out that I think its only OP agaisnt certain builds, but its annoying that I'm trying not to use Serpent spam with my Eldar, but everytime I see one of these things it wipes out any untis I don't mech up . . . :( ;)

Because Eldar haven't got units that can get into combat range turn one or two, right ;) (I have no sympathy for Eldar players)

The Wyvern is new, it will probably be 10pts more next edition of battered with nerf.

Denny
20-11-2014, 15:59
Because Eldar haven't got units that can get into combat range turn one or two, right ;) (I have no sympathy for Eldar players)

Without wave serpents? Sure.

. . . I mean, not enough to survive a turn's firepower from an average guard army, but they can sure get close before they die. :)

Zombie P
20-11-2014, 16:14
I'll just throw my hat in here as a user and past abuser of wyverns...

In "most" games that are played at a friendly level which means they dont involve death stars, excessive gimmicks or shtick like that, they are abusive. If you dont spread your models out to the maximum then you are going to get punished, but in a friendly environment most people dont spread their models out as much as possible. So what I have found from my 20 odd games with them against various armies is that they will reliably evaporate a unit* a turn. In a friendly environment this is simply unacceptable as it is too rude.

This has led me to the fact that I dont use them in friendly games, because they are not fair. I use a manticore instead and most people seem happy with this. The wyvern is SO good at what it does, but it is only good at that. So in the grand META I would say it is not OP, simply a good unit, but it is definitely not for friendly usage.

*By a unit I mean a unit of say 10 marines, or 20 guardsmen/orks/cultists, or 5 terminators. I have in my time killed entire units of terminators in a single round of shooting from 2 wyverns. The roll call is preposterous and that is why I have stopped using them for friendlies.

ZP

Vipoid
20-11-2014, 16:23
I'd be more open to reducing the power of the wyvern if IG were going to get buffed in other areas at the same time.

e.g. Could we perhaps make Mortars (and HWSs in general) not quite as crap?


Yay, maths!
Seriously, once you get past a single dice roll I start struggling. Thanks :)

No worries. :)

Commissar Davis
20-11-2014, 17:35
Without wave serpents? Sure.

. . . I mean, not enough to survive a turn's firepower from an average guard army, but they can sure get close before they die. :)

Then I definitely need to get some to rid the table of Jet Bikes, Farseers in general and the outrageous things that they can have an Eldar army do and take care of Spiders et al.

And its not like Eldar shooting is bad in any way.

Hint: There is a kind of Aspect Warrior that excels in doing what the Wyvern does.

itcamefromthedeep
20-11-2014, 19:23
In-game, I've seen Wyverns wreck Wraithguard units. Not because they rolled well, but because a unit of 3 put out 20 wounds in a single turn. 12 templates, average of 3 models per template (there was a place where 4 could be caught, due to a terrain bottleneck). The Wyverns rolled a little well to-wound (like rolling 6 dice and getting a pair o 6s... hardly absurd luck). The Eldar player rolled a little poorly on saves.

300-ish points of Wraithguard fell in one turn. To Wyverns.

You won't convince me that only light infantry have a Wyvern problem. I have too much empirical evidence to the contrary. I've watched too many games. I've played against them too many times.

Yvain
20-11-2014, 21:15
In-game, I've seen Wyverns wreck Wraithguard units. Not because they rolled well, but because a unit of 3 put out 20 wounds in a single turn. 12 templates, average of 3 models per template (there was a place where 4 could be caught, due to a terrain bottleneck). The Wyverns rolled a little well to-wound (like rolling 6 dice and getting a pair o 6s... hardly absurd luck). The Eldar player rolled a little poorly on saves.

300-ish points of Wraithguard fell in one turn. To Wyverns.

You won't convince me that only light infantry have a Wyvern problem. I have too much empirical evidence to the contrary. I've watched too many games. I've played against them too many times.

3x Wyvern is around 200 points. 200 vs 300 is a good trade off, not overly skewed when you take into account that the situation you are pointing to is the ideal scenario. A manticore with its d3 roll, could also hypothetically score that many wounds against the same unit for slightly cheap in the same scenario. Any player who sees that there are mass artillery on the IG side, should be wary for bunching their units up.

As already pointed out, they are very good against all infantry. Against MC, smaller spread out units of infantry, and vehicles are where they are weak. There gap in target profile is what keeps them from being OP and just a great unit.

madden
20-11-2014, 21:33
Unless you go up against deamons or nids or de(not so much) then seeing one is a niggtmare seeing 2+ is a disaster waiting to happen. The same applies to thunder fires but with a higher strength and not quite as accurate. These two weapons are a nightmare for me to deal with at range (deamons and nids) sure there are ways but you (could) lose multiple units before getting to them and those units most effected are troops whose main job is to claim where as the big bugs kill.
Opps minnie rant there sorry. Its a very strong weapon against certain armys and weak on others but it puts so many wounds on non vehicals it silly. Plus being s4 barrage it can glance certain transports to.

Flayed One Tastic
20-11-2014, 21:47
I think part of the problem is that GW are far too quick to escalate their game.

e.g. Torrent Flamers seem like something that should be pretty damn rare. I mean, I thought the whole point of flamers was that they sacrificed a lot of range for increased accuracy over blast weapons and the ability to ignore cover. So, being able to use them at range seems a little silly (especially when they are positioned with absolute accuracy - there's no scatter or chance to miss). But then, they also tend to be stronger than both flamers and heavy flamers - with most being S6 AP4, and some exceeding even that. Oh, and several are attached (or can be attached) to bikers, fliers and a MC that can teleport 30" - so they can easily be in range turn 1 (or the turn the flier arrives). Then we have the general increase in other weapons that can ignore cover (with things like the Hydra and Thunderfire Cannon spewing out blasts), plus Markerlights, Psychic Powers, Orders etc. which can also hand out ignores cover.

And then this is "balanced" by many units having stupid amounts of cover bonuses - Shrouded, Stealth, various unnamed bonuses, 4+ Jink as standard on all skimmers, bikes, fliers etc.

I guess I just feel that we should be dialling things back a bit - reducing the general amount of cover and the number of weapons that ignore it, as well as perhaps toning down some of the individual offenders.
This. I've reached the stage where I can't tell if people are pulling my leg when they tell me about the latest army/unit rules.

Also, what got me asking this question about the Wyverns in the first place is that I've seen people (myself included) offering to 'just take the unit off' after suffering the first hit from a squad of Wyverns. And it's happened when I've used Wyverns on people too. 'Just take it off'. Turn after turn.

MasterDecoy
20-11-2014, 21:58
Its not even that I think its too strong at what it does, it is after all very specialized. Its just that it provides me with exactly 2 options (as a nid player) A) Reserve anything that it could murder (I.E almost my entire force) and hope I can drop them before my reserves arrive, or B) deploy everything and hope that I can destroy it before too many of my units turn to mist.

It provides exactly zero counter play, which IMO is bad.
Triptides I can can counter play (take out the marker lights, Use LoS blocking terrain, and stick to cover/tar pit), Flyer spam I can counter play (stick as close to them as possible and use their limited maneuverability against them, lure them into hover mode/ignore), IK detatchment I can counter play (Stick to cover, hold objectives, limit damage, bubble wrap)

Vaktathi
20-11-2014, 22:00
In-game, I've seen Wyverns wreck Wraithguard units. Not because they rolled well, but because a unit of 3 put out 20 wounds in a single turn. 12 templates, average of 3 models per template (there was a place where 4 could be caught, due to a terrain bottleneck). The Wyverns rolled a little well to-wound (like rolling 6 dice and getting a pair o 6s... hardly absurd luck). The Eldar player rolled a little poorly on saves.

300-ish points of Wraithguard fell in one turn. To Wyverns.

You won't convince me that only light infantry have a Wyvern problem. I have too much empirical evidence to the contrary. I've watched too many games. I've played against them too many times.The Wyverns need 6's to wound, though they get rerolls. An average of 3 hits per template (which assumes either tightly packed formation or excellent hitting without too much overscatter), with 12 templates, needing 6's to wound with rerolls, should average 11 forced armor saves and 3.66 wounds getting through on a Wraithguard unit.


So those Wyverns needed to to be rolling above average to hit 3 per template, and wounding exceptionally, uncharactersitically well, and the Eldar player needed to be rolling total crap. When that happens, anything can look overpowered.

Vipoid
20-11-2014, 22:11
Something I feel I should say, actually:

Regardless of whether Wyverns, Thunderfire Cannons and similar weapons are considered OP, I think they're a bad thing to have in the game.

My problem is that the game is already strongly pushing people towards mechanisation and MCs, over infantry. So, having units that can annihilate masses of infantry from the other side of the board - without even needing LoS - seems like a step in the wrong direction.

I guess I just feel we're a bit more in need of weapons to make people think twice about spamming MCs and vehicles, rather than weapons that will make infantry even more scarce.

Ghungo
20-11-2014, 22:19
True, but when you have suffered 20+ wounds it doesn't help much. :)
('Spread out' I hear you cry, which would be fine except I rather need a cover save to have a chance at getting past the other firepower being pointed at me, and to get that cover save I have to bunch up a little more than I'd like . . .)

Seriously how are you getting 20+ wounds from 4 small blast templates which are usually lucky to have two targets per blast marker. So now your talking about using at least a unit of 3 wyverns costing 195 Pts to target one infantry unit. That will average close to -20 Wounds if none of the blasts scatter and if you include rerolls on toughness 3 units. This still doesn't include any armour saves which reduces those wounds significantly. I really don't know where you come up with your statements it's not even remotely accurate.

MasterDecoy
20-11-2014, 22:22
Seriously how are you getting 20+ wounds from 4 small blast templates which are usually lucky to have two targets per blast marker. So now your talking about using at least a unit of 3 wyverns costing 195 Pts to target one infantry unit. That will average close to -20 Wounds if none of the blasts scatter and if you include rerolls on toughness 3 units. This still doesn't include any armour saves which reduces those wounds significantly. I really don't know where you come up with your statements it's not even remotely accurate.

Except that most of the time is closer to 2 to 3 because you know, terrain.....

Vaktathi
20-11-2014, 22:27
Most other games require barrage artillery to have a spotter unit in order to open fire on something they can't see, but most of those are also 15mm/10mm scale games like Flames of War or Dropzone Commander or Heavy Gear, and they don't try to hamfist in divisional level artillery assets into a 28mm game where the type of melee weapon is relevant and individual pistol shots are rolled for :p

It also hasn't helped that, particularly with MC's, there's more of them, and they're more resilient than ever. MC's used to be scary when they were T5 W4 3+sv and T6 W4 MC's were nearly overpowering, now we've got T8 W6 jump MC's, T6 W5 2+/5++/3++ Riptides, T6 W4 2+/4++ 30" shunting Dreadknights, T6 W6 breeder monsters, etc. Meanwhile we've got skimmer armies that can roam around with transports that can get 3+ cover saves on demand in the open with zero effects on passengers, while armies like IG just have overcosted infantry options that simply need too much babysitting to be effective (and have never been particularly hardy even in 3E/4E) and thus the mechanization option is easier. :p

Ghungo
20-11-2014, 22:27
In-game, I've seen Wyverns wreck Wraithguard units. Not because they rolled well, but because a unit of 3 put out 20 wounds in a single turn. 12 templates, average of 3 models per template (there was a place where 4 could be caught, due to a terrain bottleneck). The Wyverns rolled a little well to-wound (like rolling 6 dice and getting a pair o 6s... hardly absurd luck). The Eldar player rolled a little poorly on saves.

300-ish points of Wraithguard fell in one turn. To Wyverns.

You won't convince me that only light infantry have a Wyvern problem. I have too much empirical evidence to the contrary. I've watched too many games. I've played against them too many times.
You are using the wrong template if you are getting 3 wraith guard in a small template. Or completely stacking models on top of each other. You realize it's a 3 in template?

MasterDecoy
20-11-2014, 22:29
You are using the wrong template if you are getting 3 wraith guard in a small template. Or completely stacking models on top of each other. You realize it's a 3 in template?

or you know, they where bunched up due to a bottleneck. Terrain is a thing, a thing you seem to keep ignoring...

Ghungo
20-11-2014, 22:37
or you know, they where bunched up due to a bottleneck. Terrain is a thing, a thing you seem to keep ignoring...
So you played poorly and stacked up models to be the perfect target for a blast template. The AM player had exceptional rolls to wound considering he needs 6 to wound a wraithguard and almost no missed templates as vakathi pointed out and the elder player rolled poorly on saves and that is what makes this unit overpowered?

Flayed One Tastic
20-11-2014, 22:44
So you played poorly and stacked up models to be the perfect target for a blast template. The AM player had exceptional rolls to wound considering he needs 6 to wound a wraithguard and almost no missed templates as vakathi pointed out and the elder player rolled poorly on saves and that is what makes this unit overpowered?
Do you genuinely not believe that the Wyvern is too good for its points cost, even discounting the Wraithguard example?

itcamefromthedeep
20-11-2014, 22:46
So those Wyverns needed to to be rolling above average to hit 3 per template, and wounding exceptionally, uncharactersitically well, and the Eldar player needed to be rolling total crap. When that happens, anything can look overpowered.The Wyverns rolled a bit above average, but not much (like I said, it was like rolling a pair of 6s on 6 dice, which happens as often as you suffer Perils on 6 dice). The Eldar player rolled a bit below average, but not by much.

People in this thread were talking about how Wyverns weren't such a big deal to more durable units. That's not the case, when they can justify their price in one turn against models that they're supposed to be bad at fighting.

---

Allow me to reiterate: Wraithguard are a *terrible* target for Wyverns. Marines, Guard, Fire Warriors, and any number of other kinds of troops are much more vulnerable. Wraithguard are relatively durable to Wyverns, and Wyverns are *still* a decent choice for removing Wraithguard from the table, at least for the price.


You are using the wrong template if you are getting 3 wraith guard in a small template. Or completely stacking models on top of each other. You realize it's a 3 in template?One on either end, and two in the middle. They were making their way through a bottleneck in the terrain.

Incidentally, the Eldar player was willing to sacrifice wide spacing that turn so that he could get more models into range to pop a Leman Russ. He was successful in killing the Russ, but that left his troops uncharacteristically vulnerable to that 3" template. Sometimes realities of the tabletop mean that you can't or shouldn't position your models for optimal durability against blasts. Assuming that you'll only ever get 1 or 2 40mm bases under a 3" blast is not a safe assumption.

MasterDecoy
20-11-2014, 22:47
So you played poorly and stacked up models to be the perfect target for a blast template. The AM player had exceptional rolls to wound considering he needs 6 to wound a wraithguard and almost no missed templates as vakathi pointed out and the elder player rolled poorly on saves and that is what makes this unit overpowered?
Not my game, i don't presume to know the conditions that attributed to this situation.

Perhaps you should actually start reading posts.

Vaktathi
20-11-2014, 22:50
The Wyverns rolled a bit above average, but not much (like I said, it was like rolling a pair of 6s on 6 dice, which happens as often as you suffer Perils on 6 dice). The Eldar player rolled a bit below average, but not by much. To wipe out a 300pt wraithguard unit, they would have to be significantly other than average. As explained above, with 12 blasts hitting 3 per template on average, that should net a total of 11 wounds pre-saves, 3.66 failed saves. Losing as many as you describe would require significantly out of the ordinary rolling.

Meanwhile against something like a Leman Russ tank or a Basilisk (costing less than the 3 Wyverns), the unit could be potentially wiped out far easier.

Ghungo
20-11-2014, 22:54
I don't think the wyvern is a must take unit in an AM list. I don't think it's overpowered. I think it's completely able to be mitigated. I've had games where a pair of wyverns didnt do much. If it's undercosted it's not more then 5-10 points which really doesn't change anything about it. It's a good unit for a specific target. I usually take a manticore over a wyvern because in every game I play it's a threat to every target on the board. It doesn't even need reroll to hit because d3 large blast templates are rarely going to miss and str 10 means I usually only need 2s to wound (plus the benefit of insta death everything toughness 5 and below) It's AP is also significantly better then the wyvern And it's cheaper then 3 wyverns.

Ghungo
20-11-2014, 23:03
Not my game, i don't presume to know the conditions that attributed to this situation.

Perhaps you should actually start reading posts.
But you felt the need to defend the example regardless. To get 3 40m bases in a 3in template in 4 seperate templates requires some exceptionally bad planning and playing.

MasterDecoy
20-11-2014, 23:15
But you felt the need to defend the example regardless. To get 3 40m bases in a 3in template requires some exceptionally bad planning and playing.
No i defended the notion that is not at all difficult or uncommon to get 2 to 3 hits per small marker.

Something you seem to think should "never" happen

Ghungo
20-11-2014, 23:21
No i defended the notion that is not at all difficult or uncommon to get 2 to 3 hits per small marker.

Dolton you seem to think should"never" happen
I never said it shouldn't happen but getting 2 models in a small template is the most common scenario. To get three 40m bases in a 3in blast with 4 separate templates is exceptionally bad. It's even worse then that since this occurred with three wyverns in a row.

itcamefromthedeep
20-11-2014, 23:48
The guy accepted poor spacing for models so that the units involved could get better shots on a Russ (Demolisher, if I recall correctly). I do believe Vakathi just identified that tank as a bigger threat than the Wyverns, so bunching up for that shot was a relatively good play. I'm sure the Eldar player thought "hey, they're just Wyverns, I'll get by with my T6 and 3+". That round of shooting changed his opinion on Wyverns as a threat to his particular army.

Sure, it was a lucky round of shooting. It should only have killed 3 or 4 Wraithguard and it killed 8 or 9. Rounds of shooting that kill twice or more as many models as the average happen with casual regularity, as do rounds of shooting that kill 1/10 of the models that they're supposed to.

By all accounts in this thread before this anecdote came out, people would call Wraithguard a very inefficient target for Wyverns.

Now, pleasantly, people seem to be happy to say that there aren't any infantry that are bad targets for a Wyvern.

Retrospectus
21-11-2014, 03:12
that's like saying guardsmen are OP because I once wiped a 5-man terminator squad off the table in one shooting phase with a 20 strong blob of lasguns (true story)

Denny
21-11-2014, 09:09
Seriously how are you getting 20+ wounds from 4 small blast templates which are usually lucky to have two targets per blast marker. So now your talking about using at least a unit of 3 wyverns costing 195 Pts to target one infantry unit. That will average close to -20 Wounds if none of the blasts scatter and if you include rerolls on toughness 3 units. This still doesn't include any armour saves which reduces those wounds significantly. I really don't know where you come up with your statements it's not even remotely accurate.

Because I have a 20 strong unit of toughness 3 troops with a +5 save being bunch up by terrain.
Plus, y'know, when a template scatters it sometimes ends up covering more models rather than less (because its no longer centred over a model it can clip 4 or 5 models easily).

. . . Not sure why this is hard . . . :eyebrows:

Lord General Armstrong
21-11-2014, 09:29
It deserves to go up 15 points, or lose twin-linked and go up another 5 points.

A.T.
21-11-2014, 09:39
It deserves to go up 15 points, or lose twin-linked and go up another 5 points.Or go down 10 points, according to forgeworld...

lordbeefy
21-11-2014, 10:13
The wyvern is extremely situational. It requires extensive protection against high strength weapons and deep striking units. It has a single battlefield use at which it excels. Its a glass cannon......working as intended. No change required.

CrownAxe
21-11-2014, 10:57
Or go down 10 points, according to forgeworld...

You failed to mention the fact all IG vehicles in the renegades list went down 10 points because they're now BS2

Of course being a TL'ed barrage that made little difference on its effectiveness, but its keeping it consistent with the rest of the army.

A.T.
21-11-2014, 11:47
You failed to mention the fact all IG vehicles in the renegades list went down 10 points because they're now BS2Not all vehicles - the arvus for instance went down 20 points... on a unit that can only ever fire snapshots. And the griffon mortar is a full 40 points cheaper (less than half the price).
The stuff isn't even consistently cheaper as you have vehicles like the bombard going up in cost.

Though I do think forgeworld are nudging some of these points in the wrong directions.

Xerkics
21-11-2014, 12:48
,
Not all vehicles - the arvus for instance went down 20 points... on a unit that can only ever fire snapshots. And the griffon mortar is a full 40 points cheaper (less than half the price).
The stuff isn't even consistently cheaper as you have vehicles like the bombard going up in cost.

Though I do think forgeworld are nudging some of these points in the wrong directions.
That sounds open to abuse , is that provisional rules? Because if it's printed I can see a lot of people refusing to play against it.

A.T.
21-11-2014, 12:56
That sounds open to abuse , is that provisional rules? Because if it's printed I can see a lot of people refusing to play against it.It's the new imperial armour 13 book - the renegade list.
Battle brothers to CSM who as a result now have more artillery than the imperial guard (think krieg, only more so, and much much cheaper - the lighter stuff is half price)

Also gives the CSM a cheap-ish transport flyer for deepstriking havoks, some cheap-ish warp charge generators (175pts for 5 psy-levels), hydras (at BS3), and a selection of cheap militia rabble and cheap spawn.


(I started in epic so i'm actually quite in to the whole traitor/csm warband style rather than the loyalist-like legions, the theme of what forgeworld is doing seems all good but they make 3-wyvern guard look tame)

CrownAxe
21-11-2014, 17:24
Renegades don't have an open-topped transport

A.T.
21-11-2014, 17:35
Renegades don't have an open-topped transportAh, so they don't. I mixed up the salamander with one of the other forgeworld vehicles. Will correct the other post.

Not used to seeing artillery without the centaur - the traitor artillery has all the gun carriage rules for it.

Vaktathi
22-11-2014, 00:51
Not all vehicles - the arvus for instance went down 20 points... on a unit that can only ever fire snapshots. And the griffon mortar is a full 40 points cheaper (less than half the price).
The stuff isn't even consistently cheaper as you have vehicles like the bombard going up in cost.

Though I do think forgeworld are nudging some of these points in the wrong directions. To be fair, both the Griffon and Medusa went way down in points, they got removed from the codex, so FW was free to price them as they saw fit. They probably went low on the Griffon, but it's only available to that one list at that price. The Arvus is priced somewhat sanely for once.

This is also in an army with variable Leadership and no Orders, and nothing else in that list can be taken as-is outside of that list. :p

Yvain
22-11-2014, 01:08
To be fair, both the Griffon and Medusa went way down in points, they got removed from the codex, so FW was free to price them as they saw fit. They probably went low on the Griffon, but it's only available to that one list at that price. The Arvus is priced somewhat sanely for once.

This is also in an army with variable Leadership and no Orders, and nothing else in that list can be taken as-is outside of that list. :p

I find it rather absurd if you take the griffon and wyvern in that book and hold them right to a mortar team. My mortar team will be hidden in its boxes forever :(

Vaktathi
22-11-2014, 02:27
Mortar teams have been absurdly undercapable/overpriced basically forever. I don't think there's any edition where they've been particularly good. HWS's in general have had issues for a while, primarily being really expensive for what they bring and really easy to remove and hard to support, they're amongst the least cost effective and probably the least durable heavy weapons unit in the game.

MajorWesJanson
22-11-2014, 02:47
If the Wyvern lost ignores cover, it would be much more balanced. As it is, it can be a hard counter to swarms and to the Dark Eldar codex.

Commissar Davis
22-11-2014, 12:10
Dark Eldar have many tricks, and it is not like guard are that brilliant in combat once the swarms get close.

Be prepared for that they could be on the table.

Vipoid
22-11-2014, 12:25
If the Wyvern lost ignores cover, it would be much more balanced. As it is, it can be a hard counter to swarms and to the Dark Eldar codex.

Would removing ignores cover really help that much? I thought the problem was the sheer number of wounds it could put out.

Also, what makes it a counter to the DE codex?

Denny
22-11-2014, 13:07
Also, what makes it a counter to the DE codex?

Quite a few units use cover in various ways (Reavers, mandrakes, the cover saves granted by Realspace Raiders, even the jinking transports, though admittedly shooting at these with a wyvern would be silly unless they were insanely cramped up)

Additionally the shred at S4 murders most Dark Eldar units, and armour saves on the whole are pretty rubbish.

It's not that the wyvern in OP, it's just the units it's really good at killing make up quite a lot of the entries in the Dark Eldar codex . . .:)

Vipoid
22-11-2014, 13:14
Quite a few units use cover in various ways (Reavers, mandrakes, the cover saves granted by Realspace Raiders, even the jinking transports, though admittedly shooting at these with a wyvern would be silly unless they were insanely cramped up)

Additionally the shred at S4 murders most Dark Eldar units, and armour saves on the whole are pretty rubbish.

It's not that the wyvern in OP, it's just the units it's really good at killing make up quite a lot of the entries in the Dark Eldar codex . . .:)

But, isn't it just as good at killing a lot of units in the IG codex, the nid codex and the ork codex?

Denny
22-11-2014, 13:35
But, isn't it just as good at killing a lot of units in the IG codex, the nid codex and the ork codex?

Yep.

But guardsmen, Nids and orks are far cheaper per model (plus orks are tougher). It's still nasty against them, but they can afford to lose far more models.

MajorWesJanson
23-11-2014, 03:34
Yep.

But guardsmen, Nids and orks are far cheaper per model (plus orks are tougher). It's still nasty against them, but they can afford to lose far more models.

And Guard and orks can take vehicles with armor better than 10 (11 in the case of the ravager) that are simply immune to Wyvern fire. Nids have higher toughtness and armor MCs, and have a number of ways to respawn termagants and gargoyles between skyblight and tervigons. Dark Eldar are glass cannons, and the wyvern is a kid throwing handfuls of rocks.

Geep
23-11-2014, 05:47
it is not like guard are that brilliant in combat once the swarms get close
The problem with things like Wyverns being on the table is that the swarm can't get close. The swarm is dead.

The Wyvern is another, particularly horrible nail in the coffin of swarm armies- particularly foot slogging ones- but swarm armies have been dead for a long time. That coffin has so many nails it's more like an iron maiden now.

ehlijen
23-11-2014, 05:59
The wyvern was costed with the assumption that, as stories about 5th ed have it, everyone would be in rhinos because why wouldn't you be given how cheap they are?

That of course fails to take into account non rhino-rushing armies or players who just plain want to not use such armies.

They are too good for their points cost, but they are also too niche in 7th to be a valid choice if costed much higher than they are.

Lord General Armstrong
23-11-2014, 06:09
Would removing ignores cover really help that much? I thought the problem was the sheer number of wounds it could put out.

This, I'd either remove the twin-linked, or shred. Whilst also increasing it by a modest 5 points.

Vaktathi
23-11-2014, 07:10
The wyvern was costed with the assumption that, as stories about 5th ed have it, everyone would be in rhinos because why wouldn't you be given how cheap they are?

That of course fails to take into account non rhino-rushing armies or players who just plain want to not use such armies.

They are too good for their points cost, but they are also too niche in 7th to be a valid choice if costed much higher than they are.I was contemplating exactly this today. With the number of armies running just normal infantry being far less than in previous editions, with stuff like enhanced toughness bikes, wraithguard, terminators (often with enhanced invuls and/or toughness), T6 W6 MC's, etc as Troops (and often cheaper than ever), armies composed of Knights, armies that don't have to take Troops at all (things like Champions of Fenris lists that just run a ton of TWC units), etc, infantry mulching often just isn't a niche that needs filling.

I just finished a tournament a few hours ago and had some interesting thoughts and experiences. My first opponent ran two units of Grots, one Big Mek on a bike, a formation with a Stompa and three gorkanaughts, and a voidshield generator as his entire army, with the grots hiding in the building and in the stompa. My second opponent's Vulkan list had two tac squads and the rest was terminators, tanks, dreads and flyers. My last opponent was a Daemon army where everything that actually served a functional purpose in the army was a psyker flying MC, an AV13 Soulgrinder, or a lvl3 Biomancy sporting Great Unclean One and the infantry were there to fill the two troops slots and one cavalry unit along with a unit of nurglings to sit on the backfield objective. Going into the event I was thinking I would have liked to try some Wyvern's and then realized at the end of it they would have really had nothing to do besides kill the squad of nurglings really.

Curiously, out of all of my games, my armor horde of 14 tanks still had almost as much infantry as all three of my opponents combined, and were far more relevant to my army's functionality, and adding Wyvern's really wouldn't have added anything to the army.

Now, that's all anecdotal, but seems to be an increasingly common experience.

Carnage
23-11-2014, 07:41
Oh believe me it does . . . :(

At least with a 3+ you have a snowball's chance in hell. ;)

<sigh>

Per model hit

Chance to kill a guardsman per hit = 59.25 = 2.96 points per guardsman hit (at 5 points per guardsman)
Chance to kill a marine per hit = 25% = 3.5 points per marine hit (at 14 point marines)
Chance to kill a terminator per hit = 12.5% = 5 points per terminator hit (at 40 points each)
Chance to kill a marine biker per hit = 18.5% = 3.85 points per biker hit (at 21 points each)

Basically, you want to target whatever you can get the most hits against. The space marine's increased staying power is completely offset by their increased cost.

Ironically, Guardsmen has the better staying power against Wyverns, point for point, than most things in the game.


Would removing ignores cover really help that much? I thought the problem was the sheer number of wounds it could put out.


It IS the volume of hits that is the issue more than anything, as ignores cover with AP6 isn't really an issue for anything other than maybe Orks and a gaunt heavy Nid list, and MAYBE some manner of fortification heavy Eldar/IG list.

Denny
23-11-2014, 07:58
<sigh>

Chance to kill a guardsman per hit = 59.25 = 2.96 points per guardsman hit (at 5 points per guardsman)
Chance to kill a marine per hit = 25% = 3.5 points per marine hit (at 14 point marines)
Chance to kill a terminator per hit = 12.5% = 5 points per terminator hit (at 40 points each)
Chance to kill a marine biker per hit = 18.5% = 3.85 points per biker hit (at 21 points each)

Ironically, Guardsmen has the better staying power against Wyverns, point for point, than most things in the game.

That's nice. I'm playing Eldar and Dark Eldar though, so I'm not sure the maths quite holds up for me. :)

Vipoid
23-11-2014, 10:38
This, I'd either remove the twin-linked, or shred. Whilst also increasing it by a modest 5 points.

Perhaps instead halve the number of blasts?

So give it 2 Heavy 1 weapons, instead of 2 Heavy 2 weapons. This would also be more consistent with TL guns having 2 barrels per shot.

Commissar Davis
23-11-2014, 13:21
While complaining about this unit, there are plenty of others that are more abusive, so in context is is just a good unit like many others.

There have always been units that cause a bit of fuss, particularly new ones, so I really don't understand the fuss.

Vipoid
23-11-2014, 13:40
The problem with things like Wyverns being on the table is that the swarm can't get close. The swarm is dead.

The Wyvern is another, particularly horrible nail in the coffin of swarm armies- particularly foot slogging ones- but swarm armies have been dead for a long time. That coffin has so many nails it's more like an iron maiden now.

I agree, but then, I'd still like to see most of those nails removed.

Perhaps I'm biased, but I just think swarms are one of the nicest looking army-types and one of the most fun to face.

So, I'd really like to see the game give some love to swarm armies - rather than making them less relevant with each edition.

Grudgedesign
23-11-2014, 13:54
And Guard and orks can take vehicles with armor better than 10 (11 in the case of the ravager) that are simply immune to Wyvern fire. Nids have higher toughtness and armor MCs, and have a number of ways to respawn termagants and gargoyles between skyblight and tervigons. Dark Eldar are glass cannons, and the wyvern is a kid throwing handfuls of rocks.

Ork vehicles are open topped, unless you buy the 'ard case upgrade, which is useless as it makes assaulting or shooting out of them pointless. I figure the best counter is perhaps instead suicide units of deffkoptas. Maybe also rokkit buggies, or perhaps stormboys.

Commissar Davis
23-11-2014, 14:01
Ork vehicles are open topped, unless you buy the 'ard case upgrade, which is useless as it makes assaulting or shooting out of them pointless. I figure the best counter is perhaps instead suicide units of deffkoptas. Maybe also rokkit buggies, or perhaps stormboys.

I don't get why Orks would have a problem with Wyverns, the Stompa is in the Ork codex and can wipe out certain lists on it own.

Vipoid
23-11-2014, 14:05
I don't get why Orks would have a problem with Wyverns, the Stompa is in the Ork codex and can wipe out certain lists on it own.

Presumably because not all Ork lists include a Stompa?

Commissar Davis
23-11-2014, 14:27
Presumably because not all Ork lists include a Stompa?

What is your point? Not all Guard lists have Wyverns.

Vipoid
23-11-2014, 14:31
What is your point? Not all Guard lists have Wyverns.

Because not everyone wants a game of 'who can bring the most broken units' or thrilling games of Paper vs Scissors.

If an Ork player decided to bring an infantry-heavy list and finds that his opponent is using multiple wyverns then it's unlikely to be a good game. I'm just confused about why he should take comfort in the fact that Orks can get Stompas.

Commissar Davis
23-11-2014, 14:42
Because not everyone wants a game of 'who can bring the most broken units' or thrilling games of Paper vs Scissors.

If an Ork player decided to bring an infantry-heavy list and finds that his opponent is using multiple wyverns then it's unlikely to be a good game. I'm just confused about why he should take comfort in the fact that Orks can get Stompas.

Who says it is unlikely to be a good game? I would stress that the Ork player may find it challenging, but that just makes a win all the more sweeter.

The same reason as to why a guard player should take any comfort in the fact that another may play with Wyverns. The Ork player had the options, made their choice, but ended up against someone who was geared to take on swarms who had made their choice with what options they had.

AngryAngel
23-11-2014, 17:02
I don't get why Orks would have a problem with Wyverns, the Stompa is in the Ork codex and can wipe out certain lists on it own.

This response further highlights the 7th ed issues. Yeah, sure, take a stompa, show that wyvern what is up. Why not take a bane blade then just to kill that stompa ? Maybe because a lot of players don't want LoW or Super heavies in their games ? Though honestly, this thread has gone mighty far for an anti infantry unit that aside from pask in a punisher is really the only great unit in a middle of the road codex. I didn't know they sowed so much fear in their wake.

Commissar Davis
23-11-2014, 17:52
This response further highlights the 7th ed issues. Yeah, sure, take a stompa, show that wyvern what is up. Why not take a bane blade then just to kill that stompa ? Maybe because a lot of players don't want LoW or Super heavies in their games ? Though honestly, this thread has gone mighty far for an anti infantry unit that aside from pask in a punisher is really the only great unit in a middle of the road codex. I didn't know they sowed so much fear in their wake.

Each player makes a choice, and with the amount of stuff available, it is not a simple job of working out what you are likely to face.

I just made a comment as an example, there is nothing stopping an Ork player from taking anything they wish from the Ork codex other than limits in points, it is that simple.

AngryAngel
23-11-2014, 20:09
That means, what exactly ? You are saying we can make our armies of units in our army ? Why I never understood that, I always had my opponent make my list. I'll be ding dang dooed, that makes so much sense, I can pick the units. However, if we were being true, the Ork player, or any player can pick any units nor just from their codex but also from forgeworld, or even other armies they take as allies, formations etc.

I don't see what that at all has to do with a Wyvern in any way however.

Just to clarify, I'm of mind the wyvern is very good for its intended targets, but not OP as that target is situational, and renders it near useless on things it is not designed for.

Geep
24-11-2014, 00:57
I agree, but then, I'd still like to see most of those nails removed.

Perhaps I'm biased, but I just think swarms are one of the nicest looking army-types and one of the most fun to face.

So, I'd really like to see the game give some love to swarm armies - rather than making them less relevant with each edition.
I agree with this too. I used to love the idea of a foot-slogging 'Nid horde and, once upon a time it even used to be able to win games. With multiple rocket pods, manticores and now wyverns (and that's only a small selection of guard-specific items) getting a swarm to be a possible threat again will be next to impossible without serious rule changes.


I don't get why Orks would have a problem with Wyverns, the Stompa is in the Ork codex and can wipe out certain lists on it own.
This is part of what I see as a massive problem with 40k right now. It's very paper-scissors-rock, and you can often have a good idea of the winner based on list alone. A Stompa being a cure-all for Wyvern troubles is not a good thing, and a Wyvern being a perfect remedy to infantry is also not good.

Ghungo
24-11-2014, 04:56
To be fair ork horde lists are the ideal target for the wyvern. Nearly everyone else has an armour save. Fortunately the most prolific ork horde list is the greentide. The best way to play that list is to mix in at least two units of ard boys and the main upgrade for that list is a painboy so they still have multiple saves and fnp.

i play both orks and AM. Even playing with 2 wyverns and a manticore (which is better IMHO)the AM list loses every time. Why? Because the Greentide list also has a CAD with fink in cap that is like a 90% chance to get infiltrate. The green tide takes one round of shooting survives with few casualties from wyverns due to intermixed 4+ saves and 5+ fnp. And charges into assault on turn 2 completely destroying the unit of wvyerns and nearly everything else in the AM book because they all fold like paper in assault.

So how come this army with a broken overpowered unit is destroyed each and every timewhen it's facing what each of you claim is it's ideal target? Or is the fact this unit with an extremely limited target selection just isn't as great as you claim it is?

To me the manticore is significantly better. It's str 10 means I am usually wounding on 2+ (insta killing toughness 5 and below) d3 large blasts means I rarely miss anything I am aiming for and usually cause more wounds then the wyvern vs the tide because of 2 large blasts cover more terrain (3 blasts is significantly more area). Incidentally the manticore also has a better AP (which ignores the eavy armour orks and fnp). It's also a threat to every target in game while costing less then 3 wyverns. Oddly enough It's also usually the first target people aim for while they ignore my pair of wyverns. And yet your claiming the wyvern is overpowered because it kills cheap blob squads well.

Geep
24-11-2014, 21:00
I'm not too familiar with Orks, so I'm wondering why the Wyvern is targeting 4+/5++ troops, when they should be left to the Manticore as the Wyverns pulverise the weaker troops? Target priority is still important, even with something as insanely good at its job as the Wyvern. Also, even with Infiltrate I'm not sure how you manage to take these out after 1 turn. Do you not use LoS blocking terrain? Does your opponent put them too far forward? Does he not screen them with his other troops?
I saw an extremely disappointing 'Nid vs IG game a few weeks ago- the first time I'd seen a horde used in a long time. The 'nid player got the first turn and did well, running some venomthropes into cover mid-field while the swarm units stretched out to benefit from the 'thrope cover and synapse. It looked intimidating. Then a Psyker cast the 'ignore cover' power on a heavy weapon squad, and the 'thropes disappeared. From front to back the artillery then completely pulverised the swarms on one flank. The remaining flank managed to wipe out some guard squads in its next turn, but nothing important before it too was devastated by artillery. By turn 3 it was a dull mop-up game. The 'Nid player didn't really make any mistakes- he lost because hordes just aren't the threat they appear to be, and that's been my experience for a long time now.


And yet your claiming the wyvern is overpowered because it kills cheap blob squads well.
It's hard to say whether the Wyvern is overpowered. It does only have 1 job- and it does that job extremely well (maybe too well?)- but in the current environment most opponents don't supply it with the right target anyway, so it ends up not looking as nasty as it could.

Ghungo
24-11-2014, 22:26
I'm not too familiar with Orks, so I'm wondering why the Wyvern is targeting 4+/5++ troops, when they should be left to the Manticore as the Wyverns pulverise the weaker troops? Target priority is still important, even with something as insanely good at its job as the Wyvern. Also, even with Infiltrate I'm not sure how you manage to take these out after 1 turn. Do you not use LoS blocking terrain? Does your opponent put them too far forward? Does he not screen them with his other troops?
I saw an extremely disappointing 'Nid vs IG game a few weeks ago- the first time I'd seen a horde used in a long time. The 'nid player got the first turn and did well, running some venomthropes into cover mid-field while the swarm units stretched out to benefit from the 'thrope cover and synapse. It looked intimidating. Then a Psyker cast the 'ignore cover' power on a heavy weapon squad, and the 'thropes disappeared. From front to back the artillery then completely pulverised the swarms on one flank. The remaining flank managed to wipe out some guard squads in its next turn, but nothing important before it too was devastated by artillery. By turn 3 it was a dull mop-up game. The 'Nid player didn't really make any mistakes- he lost because hordes just aren't the threat they appear to be, and that's been my experience for a long time now.


It's hard to say whether the Wyvern is overpowered. It does only have 1 job- and it does that job extremely well (maybe too well?)- but in the current environment most opponents don't supply it with the right target anyway, so it ends up not looking as nasty as it could.

The greentide formation is IMHO one of the strongest ork list and predominantly a Horde list. Its basically 101+ infantry in one large fearless blob on the table. With infiltrate you have 101+ infantry with up to 11 (I usually run 6) intermixed nobs with powerklaws (~5atks each@Str9-10, ap2) within charge range of your entire army. Not every unit in the blob has a 4+ armour save its an upgrade and cost 4 points a model. So Imho its not worth it for 101 infantry however just upgrading your nobs and 1-2 groups with eavy armour seriously stops the wounds from adding up on the blob by allowing saves on anything without AP4 or better. The painboy is a unit buff that gives the entire unit 5++ Fnp so its really one of the best upgrades for the other 101 boys in the unit.

The reason the wyverns target those 101+ boys is because the greentide is an immediate charge range (waaghh from warlord (if u use him) allows Move, run and charge and orks can reroll 1 charge die) threat and while they can target the 2 objective secured min troop choices from the CAD or whatever else is on the table (bikes/deffkoptas) most people feel overwhelmed with 101+ boys in thier deployment zone and throw everything at what they percieve is the immediate threat and ignore the 2x gretchin or ork boy units on the board. Lots of LOS terrain doesnt matter an infiltrating greentide deploys as close as possible into your deployment zone. Screening with other troops is the best choice, but any screen you put in front of 101+ boys quickly folds to that many atks.

I understand your issue watching the NID game. Nids generally (kinda like guard imho) were not really competative without specific builds and most nid lists have hard counters. I think alot more has opened up for nids now with the new formations and models. AM and Nids and Orks are all horde lists I still have a hard time making an AM horde list viable, but the Ork Horde list is probably one of the strongest lists even when faced with multiple wyverns that are ideal at killing them. Then again ork horde lists dont rely on questionable cover saves either.

Just for reference a greentide list with 2 units upgraded to eavy armour with a warboss and fearless and 3 min powerklaws is only 885pts. Add a CAD with bigmek w da finkin cap (reroll warlord triat for infiltrate) and painboy and 2 units of grots is only 165 more points for 1050 points leaving you plenty of points to add in whatever else you want to supplement you backfield and objective grabbing units; you can even field a stompa and 2 meks for 1850.

My entire point is the wyvern is entirely subjected to a specific target choice and extremely vulnerable to assault in an army already weak vs assault army. This makes the wyvern mostly wasted on well designed lists and armies that dont rely or build completely around hordes of cheap troops with cover saves. I sympathize with the frustration of dark elder players the most considering their army relys on cover saves (and Fnp) for most of thier army and they are a much smaller army with generally lower toughness then orks or nids, but seriously there are ways to mitigate str 4 cover ignoring shooting for them as well. What do they do vs tau who throw out insane amounts of str4+cover ignoring shooting as well?

ColShaw
24-11-2014, 22:30
Of course, a Wyvern battery could just drop the templates right on top of the Painboy and snipe out the FNP from the unit with the first volley, and the IG could use a cheap sacrificial screen to absorb the initial charge, then shoot the Orks to pieces.

Ghungo
24-11-2014, 22:49
Of course, a Wyvern battery could just drop the templates right on top of the Painboy and snipe out the FNP from the unit with the first volley, and the IG could use a cheap sacrificial screen to absorb the initial charge, then shoot the Orks to pieces.

True but that painboy still gets a 2+ LOS and a 5++ fnp on every unit until he dies. Hardly a garauntee on a multiwound toughness 4 independant character who likes to hide out behind the horde or my personal favorite placement on the board edge where a small scatter makes your entire template go bye bye. Its defintely no garauntee your killing the painboy and even if he does die its not like he was a major threat he is just a durability unit who likely did enough of his job to limit the amount of casualties on the first turn before the orks initial charge.

The cheap sacrificial screen is indeed your best option but lets be honest 101+ infiltrating boys is surrounding your deployment zone and a cheap sacrificial unit is going to have a hard time cover that much of your deployment zone. Even if they do i have no problem multicharging a cheap unit and a wveryn or whatever else they are bubblewrapping. They will both still die. The worst thing i've charged with the greentide is a knight in the enemy deployment zone as stomp kills so many boyz its ridiculous. However the knight still died and its subsequent blast took out alot more boyz and some of the marines army as well but the horde was effectively neutered. I dont know how the greentide can take out multiple knights but then again thats a problem for alot of armies and i guess I am relying on the whatever support i can get with the rest of my 500-800 points to take out multiple knight lists as well.

Lets be honest the greentide player is going to be picking up handfulls of orks each turn regardless. The question is are those 101+ orks durable enough and threat neutralized enough (3-11 powerklaws)for you to handle. In essence the entire point of this formation is just to take away attention from the rest of the army on the board. Including the 2 min troop objective secured choices, Bikers, deffkoptas, stompas, Big mek guns or whatever else you can field for ~500-800 points. That are running around grabbing objectives and being a nusiance. Is there ways to defeat this list of course there is. Spread out your deployment zone since infiltrators cant be placed by your units. Servo skullz can also push the tide further back on the board. And there is always a chance the ork player fails 4 rolls on the strategic table for infiltrate and gives you more time to shoot the orks off the board before they get into charge range. Snipe out the fearless banner wielding warlord, snipe out the painboy/weirdboy. Kill as many Powerklaw wielding nobs as you can before they get into melee. Its alot easier to handle Str 4 on the charge boyz then str 9 nobs. But back to the point of this article the wyvern isnt really overpowered when faced with toughness 4, 4+ save, 2+(or4+) LOS, and 5++ Fnp units. Its only real targets are cheap unarmoured horde units. And even vs orks which are ideal targets for the wyvern or tau most armies has ways to build them to mitigate this type of units strength.

ehlijen
24-11-2014, 23:19
The thing is, for its cost, the wyvern is insane compared to every other unit with the same mission profile in the IG codex. Mortar squads? Barely cheaper and very much inferior in firepower alone, before you even consider fragility. HB squads? Same cost and don't even have IDF for protection.

You can also just spam HS slots now, so it doesn't even compete with manticores or basilisks anymore.

The only reason you don't see it spammed more is that it's mission profile is so easily made redundant.


As for painboy sniping: there is a range limit to LoS. Enough wyverns can in fact chew through the ablative bodies, and you can get three wyverns for one full size mob with klawnob.

Ghungo
24-11-2014, 23:55
The thing is, for its cost, the wyvern is insane compared to every other unit with the same mission profile in the IG codex. Mortar squads? Barely cheaper and very much inferior in firepower alone, before you even consider fragility. HB squads? Same cost and don't even have IDF for protection.

You can also just spam HS slots now, so it doesn't even compete with manticores or basilisks anymore.

The only reason you don't see it spammed more is that it's mission profile is so easily made redundant.


As for painboy sniping: there is a range limit to LoS. Enough wyverns can in fact chew through the ablative bodies, and you can get three wyverns for one full size mob with klawnob.

You are also comparing the wyvern to one of the most underpowered units in the AM codex. In fact its pretty safe to say most competitive lists wouldnt run mortars or HB squads even if the wyvern NEVER existed. They are mostly worthless as LD7 bs3 toughness3 low model count units. That have a hard time receiving orders and usually break at the first casualty and are overpriced compared to just adding heavy weapons to an infantry squad. In fact mortars were rare last edition before the addition of the wyvern and they got further nerfed this edition with the removal of pinning. The reason you dont see more of them now has little to do with redundancy and more to do with they are BAD units. If HWS (mortar/Heavy bolters) were 10 points cheaper each is pretty much the only point you will see more of them on the table and even then it will mostly be autocannons and lascannons. The wyvern isnt really undercosted and if it is, then its not much more then 5 points. As i said before I play both AM and orks. I dont believe the wyvern is a must take unit. I still beleive the manticore is a better artillery unit. At str10 I mostly only need 2+ to wound, with D3 large blasts i generally gain more hits then 4 small blasts. I cover more terrain and hit more models with 2 large blast templates then 4 small ones. 3 large blasts is significantly better. Furthermore its more reliable versus everything except power armour at ap4 compared to ap6. Its a threat to more targets with d3 str 10 templates then 4 str 4 templates (while also ID'ing toughness 5 and lower units). Personally i wouldnt field more then 2 wyverns its completely useless versus most armies. 3 is overkill versus certain targets and useless versus the rest. I will and can directly compare it to the manticore/basilisk because every time i make a list that is EXACTLY the units i am chosing between on what to field. And you know what unless i am list building versus a certain opponent be it 1000 point or 2000 points the first unit i chose is the manticore the next unit I take is a pair of wyverns. With the Steelhost formation or tank commander unit I really dont wory about HS slots anymore.

As i said before painboy sniping is the least of the tides concern. The time it takes you to snipe the 4-6 boys in LOS range with 4 toughness, 5++ fnp, 4+ armour and do 2 more wounds to the toughness 4, 5++ painboy. He already did his job and ate up the 2-3 wveryn small blast templates or whatever else you threw at him and thats including if the ork player placed the painboy and fearless banner warlord correctly and put them on the table edge or backfield while infiltrating his army to reduce the amount of wounds from blasts. The pain boy is going to die thats not a problem but he is also going to eat up alot of wasted shots in the process giving the tide enough time to survive the initial volley.

ehlijen
25-11-2014, 00:07
I disagree on HWS. Mortar ones are great. 3 heavy weapons that can easily be hidden and cost less than most faction's unupgraded minimal troops choices? What's not to like? (Also, they can barrage snipe! Yay...)

The only reason mortar squads aren't widespread is that, once again, the FO rules make denying them targets way too easy.

HB ones shouldn't cost extra, but aren't too bad either. Still very cheap and instead of taking up HS slots they are free addons to a trooops one (no wait, 7th. Who cares about slots :( )

The wyvern not costing significantly more is bad internal balance, but with new models that's pretty much par for the course from GW.

Geep
25-11-2014, 03:47
Slight thread derailing, but it sounds to me like the Green Tide formation is kind of broken. All counting as one unit so they all benefit from the FnP and all gain Infiltrate? I don't think that was intended/ thought through. It really does have what it needs to make it through the Wyverns, but then that's also one formation available to one horde army.
Do you think that an Ork horde on foot without the Green Tide formation would stand a chance?

Manticores are another unit I'm currently against. Sure, they're not too cheap, 'only' AP4 and the D3 is random, but those plates can cover a lot and Str10 means they don't have to be picky with what they hit. Back when all Necrons had 3+ saves I lost more than half my army to some Manticores in turn 1, and they're a 'tough' army. They're just another thing that can casually slaughter hordes with too much ease.

Fortunately you're right about the new 'nids- the return of our beloved mycetic spore is excellent news and really adds a lot of options.

Ghungo
25-11-2014, 07:10
Slight thread derailing, but it sounds to me like the Green Tide formation is kind of broken. All counting as one unit so they all benefit from the FnP and all gain Infiltrate? I don't think that was intended/ thought through. It really does have what it needs to make it through the Wyverns, but then that's also one formation available to one horde army.
Do you think that an Ork horde on foot without the Green Tide formation would stand a chance?

Manticores are another unit I'm currently against. Sure, they're not too cheap, 'only' AP4 and the D3 is random, but those plates can cover a lot and Str10 means they don't have to be picky with what they hit. Back when all Necrons had 3+ saves I lost more than half my army to some Manticores in turn 1, and they're a 'tough' army. They're just another thing that can casually slaughter hordes with too much ease.

Fortunately you're right about the new 'nids- the return of our beloved mycetic spore is excellent news and really adds a lot of options.
It's not broken it's beatable with good planning and playing. And sure you can combine 11 units into one blob but it still counts as 11 victory points if destroyed. However I think you missed the point. You can avoid the wyvern by planning towards its weaknesses. Armour saves, fnp, invuln saves, higher toughness, transports, spacing models, etc. every army has access to some of these. It's not like youre building your army specifically against wyverns eithers. Tau themselves are overloaded with str4+ Ignore cover shooting. But honestly it sounds like you're against any unit that kills your specific army. Here's a hint don't play weak horde units that rely solely on cover against units that are only good at killing weak horde units they solely rely on cover without supporting them properly. I gave the green tide as one example. It's an example of how to support your army and shore up its weakness not claim it's overpowered.

Sometimes I tell myself necrons sure do seem overpowered every time I play my AM mech list. But it's probably more the fact I play a one dimensional list that has major issues and I make no effort to shore up those weaknesses like giving them cover.

ehlijen
25-11-2014, 07:53
It's not broken it's beatable with good planning and playing. And sure you can combine 11 units into one blob but it still counts as 11 victory points if destroyed.
Wow, from a game design perspective that's terrible. Excessive ability to concentrate force through expensive units was already one of 40ks problems, but if you can just have one mob 2k point armies, there is no pretending anymore that there are tactical choices involved :(



However I think you missed the point. You can avoid the wyvern by planning towards its weaknesses. Armour saves, fnp, invuln saves, higher toughness, transports, spacing models, etc. every army has access to some of these.

I think it's you who's missing the point. The wyvern is easy to negate through army selection, yes. But that is despite the fact that it is really a bit too cheap for what it does. A wyvern costs as much as 5 naked marines. So for every actually capable marine squad, there are 2-3 wyverns, that don't even have to be squadroned.


It's not like youre building your army specifically against wyverns eithers. Tau themselves are overloaded with str4+ Ignore cover shooting. But honestly it sounds like you're against any unit that kills your specific army. Here's a hint don't play weak horde units that rely solely on cover against units that are only good at killing weak horde units they solely rely on cover without supporting them properly.


So your hint is to list tailor? To accept that some valid armies (as in chosen by obeying all book and codex rules) just suck even though the background frequently describes them as powerful?



I gave the green tide as one example. It's an example of how to support your army and shore up its weakness not claim it's overpowered.

One specific example that breaks the very concept of wargame design. (Seriously, look up the 10 soldiers with 10hp and 1dam guns vs an identical group example. I'd give the name if I remembered it, but it's a very famous explanation of the concept of force concentration and how all wargaming revolves around it.)



Sometimes I tell myself necrons sure do seem overpowered every time I play my AM mech list. But it's probably more the fact I play a one dimensional list that has major issues and I make no effort to shore up those weaknesses like giving them cover.

Or it could be that 40k allows too much abuse of the open FO system? It's always had a problem with list RPS, but now it openly embraces that problem for some reason.

Geep
25-11-2014, 09:22
However I think you missed the point. You can avoid the wyvern by planning towards its weaknesses. Armour saves, fnp, invuln saves, higher toughness, transports, spacing models, etc. every army has access to some of these.
This is the problem- not every army has access to all of those options and, even if you do, that really limits the way you must play- This is exactly why so many units stay in transports, and why 'Nids rely on FMCs rather than the old footslogger hordes that were once their archetype. Spacing models is also a joke- you simply can't space out a full horde army the necessary amount. I have completely filled my deployment zone before. Or, if you do space them out, casualties can 'push you back' a long way, and you can't bring your numbers to bear.


It's not like youre building your army specifically against wyverns eithers. Tau themselves are overloaded with str4+ Ignore cover shooting.
Yes, Tau are painful, but they're not as bad as the Guard against hordes because they tend to lack blast weapons. That'll no doubt change over time.


But honestly it sounds like you're against any unit that kills your specific army. Here's a hint don't play weak horde units that rely solely on cover against units that are only good at killing weak horde units they solely rely on cover without supporting them properly.
I speak about what hurts 'Nid hordes because that's my experience of horde armies failing. I understand that may make it come across as a personal whine, but it's not- I'm trying to highlight a problem in the game as it stands (if you consider hordes being unviable as a problem). Weak hordes were one of the main ways to play 'Nids back-in-the-day. You don't see that anymore, and I consider that a shame. It's not just from the Wyvern- it's the sheer volume of shooting in the game has ramped up enormously. Once 4 shots a round from one weapon was pretty damn good- now some things pump out 6, 12, 20 or even up to 40 (Stormlord). Once, a large blast was pretty impressive. Now there's multiple cheap barrage (Wyvern), multiple large blast (Manticore, Valkyrie) or the crazy apocalypse blasts.
Multi-shot hurts everyone pretty much equally, but blasts are best against hordes (more models = more hits), and hordes are the things I no longer see on the table- so that's where I look to for the problem.
Now that I think more on it, despite model costs going down I'm pretty sure there used to be more models on the field (manly infantry) 3 or 4 editions ago than now- surely that strikes people as odd?


I gave the green tide as one example. It's an example of how to support your army and shore up its weakness not claim it's overpowered.

The green tide seems to me to be a pretty amazing exception to the usual way hordes go. You don't usually get a 4+ save horde. You can't usually give an entire horde FnP. Fearless isn't too uncommon, but infiltrating all of them is madness.
Again, since it's my experience, with Tyranids- My options are to use psychic powers to give a unit FnP. Easy enough, but it's a random power and casting is random- very unreliable and only gives a 5++ save to one horde unit. Venomthropes are nice- Cover is great, but the front line will only usually have a 5+, many things can ignore cover, and the venomthropes are very squishy and can't hide in a unit like your painboy. I can't give the full horde infiltrate- I can give it to a few models (take genestealers, etc.) but that comes with its own drawbacks (lack of synapse, less hoardy, etc.).

The Green Tide's rules seem very much an exception to normal with hordes, and it's pretty clear to see how that makes it viable.


It's not broken it's beatable with good planning and playing. And sure you can combine 11 units into one blob but it still counts as 11 victory points if destroyed.
Different people define 'broken' differently- to me, it's when rules are working in a way other than intended. I think the Green Tide epitomises that. I doubt they rules writers ever considered the entire blob-horde infiltrating, or all benefitting from the FnP. I'm pretty sure this is exploitation of rules loopholes. That doesn't mean it's unbeatable, just far tougher than intended.

I'll ask again- Do you think a foot-slogging ork horde could stand a chance if it wasn't for the Green Tide formation?

Ghungo
25-11-2014, 13:59
This is the problem- not every army has access to all of those options and, even if you do, that really limits the way you must play- This is exactly why so many units stay in transports, and why 'Nids rely on FMCs rather than the old footslogger hordes that were once their archetype. Spacing models is also a joke- you simply can't space out a full horde army the necessary amount. I have completely filled my deployment zone before. Or, if you do space them out, casualties can 'push you back' a long way, and you can't bring your numbers to bear.


Yes, Tau are painful, but they're not as bad as the Guard against hordes because they tend to lack blast weapons. That'll no doubt change over time.


I speak about what hurts 'Nid hordes because that's my experience of horde armies failing. I understand that may make it come across as a personal whine, but it's not- I'm trying to highlight a problem in the game as it stands (if you consider hordes being unviable as a problem). Weak hordes were one of the main ways to play 'Nids back-in-the-day. You don't see that anymore, and I consider that a shame. It's not just from the Wyvern- it's the sheer volume of shooting in the game has ramped up enormously. Once 4 shots a round from one weapon was pretty damn good- now some things pump out 6, 12, 20 or even up to 40 (Stormlord). Once, a large blast was pretty impressive. Now there's multiple cheap barrage (Wyvern), multiple large blast (Manticore, Valkyrie) or the crazy apocalypse blasts.
Multi-shot hurts everyone pretty much equally, but blasts are best against hordes (more models = more hits), and hordes are the things I no longer see on the table- so that's where I look to for the problem.
Now that I think more on it, despite model costs going down I'm pretty sure there used to be more models on the field (manly infantry) 3 or 4 editions ago than now- surely that strikes people as odd?


The green tide seems to me to be a pretty amazing exception to the usual way hordes go. You don't usually get a 4+ save horde. You can't usually give an entire horde FnP. Fearless isn't too uncommon, but infiltrating all of them is madness.
Again, since it's my experience, with Tyranids- My options are to use psychic powers to give a unit FnP. Easy enough, but it's a random power and casting is random- very unreliable and only gives a 5++ save to one horde unit. Venomthropes are nice- Cover is great, but the front line will only usually have a 5+, many things can ignore cover, and the venomthropes are very squishy and can't hide in a unit like your painboy. I can't give the full horde infiltrate- I can give it to a few models (take genestealers, etc.) but that comes with its own drawbacks (lack of synapse, less hoardy, etc.).

The Green Tide's rules seem very much an exception to normal with hordes, and it's pretty clear to see how that makes it viable.


Different people define 'broken' differently- to me, it's when rules are working in a way other than intended. I think the Green Tide epitomises that. I doubt they rules writers ever considered the entire blob-horde infiltrating, or all benefitting from the FnP. I'm pretty sure this is exploitation of rules loopholes. That doesn't mean it's unbeatable, just far tougher than intended.

I'll ask again- Do you think a foot-slogging ork horde could stand a chance if it wasn't for the Green Tide formation?

Yes I do. While obviously not as powerful as the green tide I had good luck playing a mogrok's boss boy formation with two. 30 boy units infiltrating or outflanking. That one I used a warlord with da lucky stikk and a big mek with kunnin but brutal warlord trait. I took two pain boys in my cad one was mad dok. This gave me two units of 32-33 boys. One fearless with infiltrate. The other either gates w psycher or outflanks. Each led by a 2 wound toughness 4 2+ rerollable armor save and 5++ fnp 2+ Los warlord or bigmek. It wasn't as strong but was the same concept except I tried to use a tough unit up front to eat the shooting.

I play two of the three main horde armies ork hordes can be viable. AM hordes I have issues making them survivable so I play a tank command mech list. Unfortunately it feels like necrons is a hard counter to that list.

Ghungo
25-11-2014, 14:27
Wow, from a game design perspective that's terrible. Excessive ability to concentrate force through expensive units was already one of 40ks problems, but if you can just have one mob 2k point armies, there is no pretending anymore that there are tactical choices involved :(


I think it's you who's missing the point. The wyvern is easy to negate through army selection, yes. But that is despite the fact that it is really a bit too cheap for what it does. A wyvern costs as much as 5 naked marines. So for every actually capable marine squad, there are 2-3 wyverns, that don't even have to be squadroned.

So your hint is to list tailor? To accept that some valid armies (as in chosen by obeying all book and codex rules) just suck even though the background frequently describes them as powerful?

One specific example that breaks the very concept of wargame design. (Seriously, look up the 10 soldiers with 10hp and 1dam guns vs an identical group example. I'd give the name if I remembered it, but it's a very famous explanation of the concept of force concentration and how all wargaming revolves around it.)


Or it could be that 40k allows too much abuse of the open FO system? It's always had a problem with list RPS, but now it openly embraces that problem for some reason.

I see the open foc as a benefit that allows me to play the army I want to play. That doesn't mean every random assortment of 1850 Pts of models are going to be very competitive. I enjoyed playing my AM mech list with a pask tank squad, 3 vet units in chimeras and 2 wyverns a manticore and vendetta. It's a decent list feels kinda fluffy however it's not going to win any completions cause it has hard counters.

The green tide formation isn't anywhere near 2k points it's min 885 points if supported ok. It's also about as fluffy as orks get. It also has lists it struggles against multiple knights being an example.

Like I said before I have issues making an AM horde list durable. There is some ally shenanigans that can make AM hordes durable and a priest makes them fearless for only 25 points. However they are stil just a weak gunline army and have issues versus several lists. Unfortunately one if those weaknesses is assault from 101+ infiltrating orks.

Vipoid
25-11-2014, 14:37
The green tide formation isn't anywhere near 2k points it's min 885 points if supported ok. It's also about as fluffy as orks get.

I'm not sure an infiltrating green tide is especially fluffy.

Ghungo
25-11-2014, 14:54
I'm not sure an infiltrating green tide is especially fluffy.

Yet almost every image from gw shows something like hundreds of ork boys assaulting an imperial guard gun line.

The infiltrating warlord trait isn't a garauntee however is extremely likely given 4 rolls on the strategic table. But even if I don't get it. It feels thematic to me because I usually get two other things from the strategic table like night fighting and +1 to steal initiative and reserves. Which to me makes me think the orks were trying to sneak up on the imperial forces in the middle of the night on foot and got caught. So now they need to move, run, and then charge across the table to get into combat.

I play two horde armies because that is what I like to play. Ork was my first army in 2nd edition, I even bought gorkamorka. I played AM for a bit in 3rd and went back to orks when I wanted to play more assault based hordes. Unfortunately assault hasn't gotten a lot of love recently. I'm just glad orks have a viable way to play assault hordes again. I would love to see a similar support formation used for nid gene stealers because fluff wise that is what they do as well.

Denny
25-11-2014, 15:02
Yet almost every image from gw shows something like hundreds of ork boys assaulting an imperial guard gun line.

I think its the infiltrating bit that might be unfluffy . . . though I have seen some orks that are masters of surprise ambushes.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_y9Y2xh431vE/TA1K8lXKXcI/AAAAAAAAAFE/4awst9WzyUQ/s1600/ork_kommandos.jpg

Flayed One Tastic
25-11-2014, 15:33
Yet almost every image from gw shows something like hundreds of ork boys assaulting an imperial guard gun line.
Because that's a more dramatic image than hundreds of Ork boys piled up dead miles away as the dregs make it through lol

MasterDecoy
25-11-2014, 17:30
im also fairly sure those orks charged across no mans land and lost plenty of the comrades, they didn't sneak/teleport to within earshot then start charging.

Im not even convinced infiltrate is all necessary to the lists working, it gains you like what 6" on almost every mission (you usually start 24" away) and you cant infiltrate closer than 18" (cause you are gonna be in LoS), and prevents you from charging in your first turn anyway. Statistically speaking you would cover the same ground anyway by moving and running in your first turn and popping waaagh in the second.

ehlijen
25-11-2014, 23:43
I see the open foc as a benefit that allows me to play the army I want to play. That doesn't mean every random assortment of 1850 Pts of models are going to be very competitive. I enjoyed playing my AM mech list with a pask tank squad, 3 vet units in chimeras and 2 wyverns a manticore and vendetta. It's a decent list feels kinda fluffy however it's not going to win any completions cause it has hard counters.

The green tide formation isn't anywhere near 2k points it's min 885 points if supported ok. It's also about as fluffy as orks get. It also has lists it struggles against multiple knights being an example.

Like I said before I have issues making an AM horde list durable. There is some ally shenanigans that can make AM hordes durable and a priest makes them fearless for only 25 points. However they are stil just a weak gunline army and have issues versus several lists. Unfortunately one if those weaknesses is assault from 101+ infiltrating orks.

I'm going by what you say. If the formation can be 11 combined units, and 1 ork mob can easily reach 150-200pts, then 2k points for one unit is definitely possible. If that is not correct, what is the maximum size of this formation?

I'm not asking about the minimum, I'm asking about the maximum. And I'm not sure how 11 powerklaws (you are taking plenty of nobs, right?) would be struggling against anything.

But to illustrate my point as to why the mere existence of such a formation is bad:

Imagine you have an army of 10 guys. Each has 10 hp and shoots a gun that does 1 damage. The enemy has the same.

If each soldier shoots a different enemy soldier, then neither side will lose any models until the side that went first kills all enemies in its 10th turn, leaving all their own soldiers at 1HP. Going first means you win, going second means you lose using this tactic.

But what if the second player concentrates all shots onto the same target? The first player would bring all of his opponent's guys to 9hp, and then the second player kills one opponent. Now the first player only does 9 damage a round, and that number will decrease until the second player takes their first casualty in round 10. This way, the second player will win with only two casualties.

Wargaming is about force concentration. Whichever player uses the superior tactics achieves local superiority in an otherwise balanced game, which gives him a lead to exploit from then on.
The essence of a wargame is that such local superiority must be won through tactics, not through list building, or you are just playing list RPS and the actual game becomes void of any decisions.

So what happens if one player has a list that lets him exchange all his 10 guys for 1 guy that's 10 times as tough and powerful? He can no longer lose against an enemy that doesn't do the same.

Being able to sink all your points into one big unit in 40k is bad game design. You may win, you may lose (there are dice and terrain as well as hard counter units not reflected in the above example), but the point of the game has been lost because neither you nor the opponent are still trying to achieve local superiority, you're just hammering at each other hoping for better dice rolls.


And what do pictures of orks charging gunlines have to do with infiltrating? If anything, those orks clearly didn't infiltrate, or why are they charging the gunlines from their strongest direction?

ColShaw
26-11-2014, 00:52
It isn't just wargaming that's about force concentration. It's war itself. It's all over Clausewitz. And Lanchester's N-squared law.

ehlijen
26-11-2014, 01:08
It isn't just wargaming that's about force concentration. It's war itself. It's all over Clausewitz. And Lanchester's N-squared law.

True, but it's especially important in gaming, because, at least in any decent game, all parties start at equal power levels and superior force concentration is needed to get ahead.

Geep
26-11-2014, 02:31
Like I said before I have issues making an AM horde list durable. There is some ally shenanigans that can make AM hordes durable and a priest makes them fearless for only 25 points. However they are stil just a weak gunline army and have issues versus several lists.
So I gather that, through AM at least, you do see the problem with the unviability of hordes?

Infiltrating Orks is very unfluffy, outside of an all-kommando army. Ork images, much like the images of many races, have foes within feet of each other just because that looks heroic.


I'm just glad orks have a viable way to play assault hordes again. I would love to see a similar support formation used for nid gene stealers because fluff wise that is what they do as well.
From the sounds of it ork hordes can be pretty viable, though I disagree with the methods from a games design perspective. Relying on infiltrate from random pre-game rolls (yes you can slant this in your favour, but it's not a guarantee), excessive concentration of force with no effort (as Ehlijen points out), and using super-characters to tank hits against the horde.

From what you've said I don't think we're in disagreement that most hordes struggle (2 out of the 3 we've been talking about clearly do). Our disagreement seems to be on what would fix them. Your preference is for things done during list building and, I don't mean this offensively, gaming the rules on the field (your orks clearly achieve this very well). I'd like to see the problem addressed through a toning down of blasts in general (and a few other rules), so that the effectiveness of the horde comes more from how it used in game.

Tastyfish
26-11-2014, 13:25
I think with infiltrating Green Tides, it's best to think of them as being the survivors from the multiple 200+ strong Green tides that charged across the board on turn 0 through the Guard's preliminary bombardments.

Vipoid
26-11-2014, 13:54
I think with infiltrating Green Tides, it's best to think of them as being the survivors from the multiple 200+ strong Green tides that charged across the board on turn 0 through the Guard's preliminary bombardments.

So, shouldn't the guard have extra Manticores, Wyverns or Basilisks in that case?

Commissar Davis
26-11-2014, 15:53
So, shouldn't the guard have extra Manticores, Wyverns or Basilisks in that case?

Nah, the Orks have just hit the picket line.

AngryAngel
26-11-2014, 20:55
Sounds fair to me.

Memnos
26-11-2014, 21:01
So I gather that, through AM at least, you do see the problem with the unviability of hordes?

Infiltrating Orks is very unfluffy, outside of an all-kommando army. Ork images, much like the images of many races, have foes within feet of each other just because that looks heroic.


From the sounds of it ork hordes can be pretty viable, though I disagree with the methods from a games design perspective. Relying on infiltrate from random pre-game rolls (yes you can slant this in your favour, but it's not a guarantee), excessive concentration of force with no effort (as Ehlijen points out), and using super-characters to tank hits against the horde.

From what you've said I don't think we're in disagreement that most hordes struggle (2 out of the 3 we've been talking about clearly do). Our disagreement seems to be on what would fix them. Your preference is for things done during list building and, I don't mean this offensively, gaming the rules on the field (your orks clearly achieve this very well). I'd like to see the problem addressed through a toning down of blasts in general (and a few other rules), so that the effectiveness of the horde comes more from how it used in game.

I'd like to hear more. Can you explain how to creatively use a 100+ man blob in-game? I'd have thought it would either be:

1) First man, Fire! Second man, fire! Commissars for when they get in combat.

and:

2) Forward! 'ere we go, 'ere we go, 'ere we go.

Are there a lot of ways to use hordes that lowering blast weapons wouldn't make deathstars more prevalent?

ehlijen
26-11-2014, 22:02
I'd like to hear more. Can you explain how to creatively use a 100+ man blob in-game? I'd have thought it would either be:

1) First man, Fire! Second man, fire! Commissars for when they get in combat.

and:

2) Forward! 'ere we go, 'ere we go, 'ere we go.

Are there a lot of ways to use hordes that lowering blast weapons wouldn't make deathstars more prevalent?

In general, the larger the mobs, the fewer gaming pieces (which in 40k are whole units) and thus the fewer options you have. So if you want creative tactics, don't mob up all your squads.

Horde armies, and this is where in my opinion nid books keep failing, can't just run at the target and drown it in numbers; the table isn't big enough. You need deployment in depth, ie some units charge, some units offer midrange support and grab objectives, some units stay all the way back and offer long range support.

Hordes need range in order to actually bring superior force to bear on a target, that's why IG do it reasonably well (except their tanks are just better at it) and orks can, too, despite their low BS because they have lot's of guns with good range. Only running at the enemy doesn't work because you just can't charge with a large enough horde all at once, you're offering the enemy a chance to take you apart piecemeal as you run in. You have to actually hurt them back from the get go, ie with ranged weapons yourself. That also creates target priority challenges for the opponent: if most units in your army can hurt them at the same time, there is not as obvious a right answer as to what to shoot first.

Nids don't get a lot of good guns, and those they do get have comparatively little range. Additionally, instead of powerful short range special guns (plasma, melta), they're supposed to charge with rending units, which in 7th just doesn't compare.

Vipoid
26-11-2014, 22:43
Hordes need range in order to actually bring superior force to bear on a target, that's why IG do it reasonably well (except their tanks are just better at it)

The bracketed part makes me sad. :(

As a question, do IG horde armies not suffer manoeuvrability/mobility issues (since most of the weapons you'd want to use with them are Heavy)? Also, do they not have a big survivability problem? It seems like there are a lot of weapons/units these days that can easily sweep hordes of guardsmen off the table.



Nids don't get a lot of good guns, and those they do get have comparatively little range. Additionally, instead of powerful short range special guns (plasma, melta), they're supposed to charge with rending units, which in 7th just doesn't compare.

I think the other aspect is that their horde units are incapable of killing many vehicles even in melee. A single Armoured Sentinel can hold up an entire gaunt/hormogaunt squad for the entire game. Likewise, any vehicle with AV11+ rear armour might as well be a Land Raider (and they need to buy an upgrade just to hurt AV10 vehicles). And, this is in an edition when your opponent's army can be nothing but Imperial Knights.

ehlijen
26-11-2014, 23:43
The bracketed part makes me sad. :(

As a question, do IG horde armies not suffer manoeuvrability/mobility issues (since most of the weapons you'd want to use with them are Heavy)? Also, do they not have a big survivability problem? It seems like there are a lot of weapons/units these days that can easily sweep hordes of guardsmen off the table.

Mobility is some issue, but not because of weapons (several 24" Assault or Rapid fire weapons are available). It's much more an issue because of the sheer space a horde at present day points values takes up. Finding cover for every unit is going to be difficult, and that makes the survivability problem an issue.

However, while guardsmen and easily killed, a large number shooting back can also kill most enemies reasonably well. Excepting the usual RPS list problems everyone in 40k has these days, as long as you can bring X amount of firepower to bear on the enemy, you can also handle X amount being thrown back at you. Victory will, of course, only come if you imbalance those exchanges in your favour, but that's where use of terrain and target priority comes in. A proper deep IG foot army can do that, but won't walk over most enemies either. You have to play well to make it work (and hope you don't run your paper into enemy scissors, but again, that's a general problem with 40k, not a horde specific one).


I think the other aspect is that their horde units are incapable of killing many vehicles even in melee. A single Armoured Sentinel can hold up an entire gaunt/hormogaunt squad for the entire game. Likewise, any vehicle with AV11+ rear armour might as well be a Land Raider (and they need to buy an upgrade just to hurt AV10 vehicles). And, this is in an edition when your opponent's army can be nothing but Imperial Knights.

And then there is that. Nids need their rending claws for this, but those are still not as good as melta guns which they are supposed to replace...

AngryAngel
27-11-2014, 00:17
And then there is that. Nids need their rending claws for this, but those are still not as good as melta guns which they are supposed to replace...

Yes but if they had rending claws on everything, that would over compensate for lack of melta guns. You can't take meltas on even a third of your guard models and if guard units had rending " hands " on everyone, I think they'd be ok not taking meltas. Just my opinion of course.

Geep
27-11-2014, 00:34
I'd like to hear more. Can you explain how to creatively use a 100+ man blob in-game? I'd have thought it would either be:

1) First man, Fire! Second man, fire! Commissars for when they get in combat.

and:

2) Forward! 'ere we go, 'ere we go, 'ere we go.

Are there a lot of ways to use hordes that lowering blast weapons wouldn't make deathstars more prevalent?
Ehlijen makes very good points.

My reason for looking at blast markers as a problem is because they force horde units to spread out, and a spread out horde has little option about where on the table it can go (it's everywhere!). If you can clump up a little more you can seek cover more easily, concentrate your fire more effectively and generally have more options when it comes to how you want to move.

My last experience (that I remember) of trying to play a foot-slogging 'Nid horde saw me take up the entire deployment zone. I advanced as fast as possible, unable to hurt the enemy due to the awful range of 'Nid weapons. In the enemy turn, pretty much every lead model died, pushing me back quite a few inches. In my turn again, due to this ground loss I once again had to advance and could deal no damage. This was repeated until I was finally in range to do my own shooting and combat, but with units that were so pathetically depleted I couldn't possibly make a comeback.

If bunching up was less suicidal I could try a refused-flank style manoeuvre, I could make more use of cover- in essence, I could make my numbers actually mean something.
Other solutions would include longer ranged guns, being able to have venomthropes attach to units or to generally make the horde faster. The return of the Spore really helps here.

I have had to laugh at the latest 2 'Nid book releases. The focus has been on 'Nidzilla is back!', because by focussing on that you can easily gloss over the loss of our hordes.

Apologies for such a 'Nid centred post.

Xerkics
27-11-2014, 13:57
One of my friends always makes fun of my nids saying they are an npc army designed to look scary but die horribly to make other armies look good :) This ss especially true now against guard since they nerFed flyrants ability to charge vehicles

Vipoid
27-11-2014, 14:04
I have had to laugh at the latest 2 'Nid book releases. The focus has been on 'Nidzilla is back!', because by focussing on that you can easily gloss over the loss of our hordes.

Honestly, I feel this is a big problem with 40k in general at the moment.

The game just seems to be moving away from infantry in general and towards armies of vehicles, MCs and the like.

I think it's partially due to weaponry. Many MCs and vehicles can take really heavy ordnance, whilst most infantry are stuck with S3-4 weapons with negligible AP. Essentially, infantry weapons just don't seem to be keeping up with the game's endless escalation.


One of my friends always makes fun of my nids saying they are an npc army designed to look scary but die horribly to make other armies look good :)

I heard once that GW deliberately make some armies worse, so that they'll lose to SMs most of the time. No idea whether it's true or not.

Commissar Davis
27-11-2014, 14:26
Yes but if they had rending claws on everything, that would over compensate for lack of melta guns. You can't take meltas on even a third of your guard models and if guard units had rending " hands " on everyone, I think they'd be ok not taking meltas. Just my opinion of course.

Rending hands... Why can't guard have rending hands:(;)

Vipoid
27-11-2014, 14:32
Rending hands... Why can't guard have rending hands:(;)

Guard obviously needs to employ more werewolves. :evilgrin:

Ghungo
27-11-2014, 14:32
I'd like to hear more. Can you explain how to creatively use a 100+ man blob in-game? I'd have thought it would either be:

1) First man, Fire! Second man, fire! Commissars for when they get in combat.

and:

2) Forward! 'ere we go, 'ere we go, 'ere we go.

Are there a lot of ways to use hordes that lowering blast weapons wouldn't make deathstars more prevalent?

The best use of AM horde style army I've had is when they are not the focus of the army.

Tanks and artillery are are best units right now. Even though I love the new conscripts. I keep my hordes cheap w conscripts bubbles wrappijg and supporting tanks. A combined infantry squad holding the home objective and pcs squad and melta vets or sws w flamers grabbing objectives.
The main punch of the army however is still leman Russes. It's a decent army but it's not without its counters. What formations we did get for AM have been for tanks or elites. We still haven't gotten a supplement for AM. So nothing that improves basic infantry.

Commissar Davis
27-11-2014, 14:38
The best use of AM horde style army I've had is when they are not the focus of the army.

Tanks and artillery are are best units right now. Even though I love the new conscripts. I keep my hordes cheap w conscripts bubbles wrappijg and supporting tanks. A combined infantry squad holding the home objective and pcs squad and melta vets or sws w flamers grabbing objectives.
The main punch of the army however is still leman Russes. It's a decent army but it's not without its counters. What formations we did get for AM have been for tanks or elites. We still haven't gotten a supplement for AM. So nothing that improves basic infantry.

Guard could do with a supplement that just has Doctrines with upgrade sprue for different regiments (and maybe some werewolves)

Ghungo
27-11-2014, 16:58
Guard could do with a supplement that just has Doctrines with upgrade sprue for different regiments (and maybe some werewolves)
I have krieg not catachan models but I'd love to see a catachan supplement because their army style is completely different then Cadian.

they focus less on leman russes and more on hell hounds, sentinels, infiltrating or scout veteran squads, demo charges and Flamers, snipers, mortars and some of the best independent characters game wise. (Not to mention the return of marbo would be welcomed) I would gladly take this supplement that improved on the above units.

Greyhound
27-11-2014, 19:08
My opponent uses his wyverns setup in the corner (1" from the table edge) and with another ring of Russ and chimeras around them. I therefore cannot ever outflank / infiltrate assault them until I cleared the rest of his army.

Playing orks my solution to wreck 8+ vehicles including a knight is the powa klaw.

For this purpose I can either:
1) walk all the way there but his 3 wyverns do terrible things to my army
2) outflank / infiltrate as mentioned before but last game he managed to wipe my entire army and horde of 120 model in 1.5 turns with all the pie plates and blasts
3) run with bikes and stormboys using cover / jink which the wyverns ignore.

I am now escalating into gargantuan squiggoth and other shenanigans to see if I can see the start of turn 3.

To me one or two batteries of wyverns mean the end of ork army if the rest of his army is dedicated Pask/anti tank.

AngryAngel
27-11-2014, 23:54
I would love a guard supplement and new vehicles, or even new infantry units. It seems GW doesn't want me to buy more however.

Lord General Armstrong
28-11-2014, 02:52
Rending hands... Why can't guard have rending hands:(;)

With Psykers they can! ;)

Vaktathi
28-11-2014, 03:37
Filthy dirty psykers...

:p

Ghungo
28-11-2014, 06:01
My opponent uses his wyverns setup in the corner (1" from the table edge) and with another ring of Russ and chimeras around them. I therefore cannot ever outflank / infiltrate assault them until I cleared the rest of his army.

Playing orks my solution to wreck 8+ vehicles including a knight is the powa klaw.

For this purpose I can either:
1) walk all the way there but his 3 wyverns do terrible things to my army
2) outflank / infiltrate as mentioned before but last game he managed to wipe my entire army and horde of 120 model in 1.5 turns with all the pie plates and blasts
3) run with bikes and stormboys using cover / jink which the wyverns ignore.

I am now escalating into gargantuan squiggoth and other shenanigans to see if I can see the start of turn 3.

To me one or two batteries of wyverns mean the end of ork army if the rest of his army is dedicated Pask/anti tank.

Sounds like he is playing a Parking lot gunline guard which guards are amazing at. The reason that hasn't worked well for them this edition is mobility and maelstrom missions kill that type of list. I don't know your points level or missions or what models you have. Or If you guys use lord of wars. Which if he plays a knight he really has no ground to not want to play with lord of war. You can use the regenerating stompa list Or manz missiles. the stompa can easily protect at least 1 objective secured unit.

Personally I like the infiltrating green tide and I'm trying to have a regenerating Stompa as well with a decent support from 5 kmk mek gunz.

Geep
28-11-2014, 08:13
Sounds like he is playing a Parking lot gunline guard which guards are amazing at. The reason that hasn't worked well for them this edition is mobility and maelstrom missions kill that type of list. I don't know your points level or missions or what models you have.
The problem with this, in my opinion, is that a complete wipe out is still auto-loss. If you can reliably table the enemy you don't need to worry about objectives.

Greyhound
28-11-2014, 10:26
We play anything even unbound. My current tentative solution is the gargantuan squiggoth

Flayed One Tastic
29-11-2014, 23:23
I just wanted to point out that since starting this thread, I've put my Guard tank army on eBay. I also have a Necron army which is hundreds of times more interesting to play than my Guard, which put out 19 templates, 6 lascannons and 9 multi-meltas per turn from an AV14 wall. That's not even including my Veterans' weapons. Sure, the Guard list could erase my Necrons in 3 turns tops, but my god it's a boring game. I'd rather convert that Guard army into a new graphics card than field it again.

Vaktathi
30-11-2014, 10:35
That's an interesting experience, with the current codex books out there, a well built Necron list should generally have a much easier time dealing with most guard armies than vice versa, particularly as the Necrons are built so well to the particulars of the 6E/7E core rules (e.g. having Jink on most vehicles and particularly its interaction with Tesla, having enhanced rear armor which protects from the absurd fragility of most vehicles in CC, AV13 shields that protect from most HP stripping spam guns like scatterlasers and autocannons, flyer transports that don't harm their cargo when they crash, etc).

Geep
30-11-2014, 16:22
It very much depends on the kind of Necron force you want. I've been playing Necrons since they first came out, and I still like to have armies they way they originally were in WD- mostly foot sloggers or jetbikes (destroyers). Even the first Necron book didn't give many transport options. I'm not against the new stuff at all- in fact I quite like all the 'new' models- but what you state really highlights the problem. Everything you've listed as making Necrons a solid army is a vehicle. Troops are very much an afterthought, even when the troops are as good as Necron Immortals. Yes the vehicles often help the infantry and don't outright replace them, but still- as a player I don't want to field an armour wall, but that is very much the best kind of list in the current game. There are a few reasons to this, but the Wyvern is a good model for showing one of these problems.

Vipoid
30-11-2014, 16:38
It very much depends on the kind of Necron force you want. I've been playing Necrons since they first came out, and I still like to have armies they way they originally were in WD- mostly foot sloggers or jetbikes (destroyers). Even the first Necron book didn't give many transport options. I'm not against the new stuff at all- in fact I quite like all the 'new' models- but what you state really highlights the problem. Everything you've listed as making Necrons a solid army is a vehicle. Troops are very much an afterthought, even when the troops are as good as Necron Immortals. Yes the vehicles often help the infantry and don't outright replace them, but still- as a player I don't want to field an armour wall, but that is very much the best kind of list in the current game. There are a few reasons to this, but the Wyvern is a good model for showing one of these problems.

Off topic, but I completely agree. I was saddened that the 5th edition Necron book focussed almost entirely on the new vehicles, with the troops being little more than an afterthought. And the move to 6th/7th only added to this.

Though, even outside of Necrons, I think the game has gone far too much towards vehicles and MCs dominating, with infantry being sidelined. I'm probably just biased here, but I want to play games against infantry armies with some tanks/MCs as support - not armies of tanks/MCs with the smallest possible amount of infantry (potentially none, if unbound).

It's why I'm saddened by things like the IG Tank Commanders/Pask. Did they really have to be eligible as warlords? Sorry, but I just find the idea of an army being led by a tank really dull. What's worse is that they frequently seem to be the strongest available warlords. Because, I really love having to decide between a weaker list and breaking my rule of 'None of my Warlords will have an AV value'.

AngryAngel
30-11-2014, 18:49
Off topic, but I completely agree. I was saddened that the 5th edition Necron book focussed almost entirely on the new vehicles, with the troops being little more than an afterthought. And the move to 6th/7th only added to this.

Though, even outside of Necrons, I think the game has gone far too much towards vehicles and MCs dominating, with infantry being sidelined. I'm probably just biased here, but I want to play games against infantry armies with some tanks/MCs as support - not armies of tanks/MCs with the smallest possible amount of infantry (potentially none, if unbound).

It's why I'm saddened by things like the IG Tank Commanders/Pask. Did they really have to be eligible as warlords? Sorry, but I just find the idea of an army being led by a tank really dull. What's worse is that they frequently seem to be the strongest available warlords. Because, I really love having to decide between a weaker list and breaking my rule of 'None of my Warlords will have an AV value'.

I'm actually of different mind about this. Why should Guard be punished by being forced to have TP soft warlords all the time ? I mean they already forced you pretty much to take a Lord Commissar if you didn't want to cough up that warlord point pretty easily. Now with the fact LCs can't be your warlord if you have a CCS, tank commanders is the only other way to run both.

It is more a game design issue that vehicles are more exciting/better then infantry. Tank commanders was one of the only things that actually was new and good with the codex drop, so not placing it in would be a real kick in the sack. However that may also be because the new guard book was meh in terms of changing or giving new things. Especially coinsidering, the only really good release was the Wyvern, with Ogryns staying poor and ST's getting much balnder yet cheaper but still not amazing. Really there wasn't a lot to be excited about as most of the issues with the army, stayed, showing they gave them near zero thought to updating it and especially to the infantry aspect of it.

Only helpful part to it, as far as infantry, cheaper conscripts ( If you wanted to run them anyways ) , priests made worlds better and useful for blobs , different placement for commissars and not auto killing sgts ( they can also be placed with conscripts once more, good ) , tech priests getting some additional ability , primaris psykers not using a slot and being cheaper as well as the way advisors work, all of that is good.

I don't think the game however, will ever change back to really being infantry focused as it was in editions past. They want to sell more and bigger kits and most of those are MC's and vehicles. I don't think infantry will ever die off really, as lets be honest, an army needs men, and some people love their hordes and some can be done well still.

Vipoid
30-11-2014, 19:15
I'm actually of different mind about this. Why should Guard be punished by being forced to have TP soft warlords all the time ? I mean they already forced you pretty much to take a Lord Commissar if you didn't want to cough up that warlord point pretty easily. Now with the fact LCs can't be your warlord if you have a CCS, tank commanders is the only other way to run both.

But, if fragile commanders are a problem for guard, surely they should make an effort to make them a bit more durable? I mean, if you want to make a Company Commander or Lord Commissar more survivable, your current options are:
- Take Yarrick instead (because, naturally, no one is allowed to be as durable/epic as a GW special character. Sigh.)
- Take the Death Mask (Yeah, now my T3 model with no EW has a 4++ and IWND. How could he possibly die? :rolleyes:)
- Take Carapace Armour (With this 4+ save, I'll be invincible. :eyebrows:)
- Take Camo Cloaks (Good job nothing ignores cover in this edition... right...?)

I understand the problem with fragile IG commanders. Believe me, I do. However, what I want is a way to make those infantry commanders more survivable. I don't just want the option to take a tank instead. Because, that just leaves me with fragile commanders, and the feeling that I'm being punished for the gall of actually wanting a character as my warlord - rather than a bloody tank. :skull:



It is more a game design issue that vehicles are more exciting/better then infantry. Tank commanders was one of the only things that actually was new and good with the codex drop, so not placing it in would be a real kick in the sack. However that may also be because the new guard book was meh in terms of changing or giving new things. Especially coinsidering, the only really good release was the Wyvern, with Ogryns staying poor and ST's getting much balnder yet cheaper but still not amazing. Really there wasn't a lot to be excited about as most of the issues with the army, stayed, showing they gave them near zero thought to updating it and especially to the infantry aspect of it.

I at least agree with you on that front.

Vaktathi
30-11-2014, 19:35
I don't see anything wrong with an armored company type list, they've had those around for a while between the Chapter Approved and FW Armoured Battlegroup lists. Besides, if Great Unclean ones and Hive Tyrants can be Warlords (and Hive Tyrants have long been the primary Tyranid HQ unit, at some points literally the *only* HQ unit until relatively recently), I certainly don't see why tank squadron leader can't be.

EDIT: Besides that, IG tank commander Warlord units tend to usually run 300-400pts, usually in excess of 400 if running Pask, and aren't exactly the hardest things in the world to kill given how much DS'ing melta there is out there, and just how absurdly easy tanks are to delete from the board once anything gets into close combat, particularly in Squadrons (it's actually possible for a model up to 21" away from a tank in a squadron to land hits on its rear armor and kill it).

Vipoid
30-11-2014, 19:37
I don't see anything wrong with an armored company type list, they've had those around for a while between the Chapter Approved and FW Armoured Battlegroup lists. Besides, if Great Unclean ones and Hive Tyrants can be Warlords (and Hive Tyrants have long been the primary Tyranid HQ unit, at some points literally the *only* HQ unit until relatively recently), I certainly don't see why tank squadron leader can't be.

Fair point, though I think the durability aspect still stands.

AngryAngel
30-11-2014, 21:14
It is fair to say tank commanders won't live forever. However, they still are the toughest HQ to run for not just giving up the point for your warlord. The only choice that could be tougher to knock out for good would be Yarrick. However Pask will " Punish " people pretty hard and with proper spacing, bubble wrap, etc, they aren't super easy to knock out. This is perhaps the best reason why we'll still see infantry for guard. Not because they are really good on their own, but because you need them to protect your tanks from assault and force out meltas, fend off deep strikes close to them, etc.

I am in agreement the infantry element in the game in general needs more attention, I just don't think we'll see it addressed in the age of super vehicles and giant monsters we now live in. I think as good as it will get for them is to be a needed addition to protect your actual good units, but by themselves be rather meh.

ehlijen
30-11-2014, 23:51
I don't see anything wrong with an armored company type list, they've had those around for a while between the Chapter Approved and FW Armoured Battlegroup lists. Besides, if Great Unclean ones and Hive Tyrants can be Warlords (and Hive Tyrants have long been the primary Tyranid HQ unit, at some points literally the *only* HQ unit until relatively recently), I certainly don't see why tank squadron leader can't be.

EDIT: Besides that, IG tank commander Warlord units tend to usually run 300-400pts, usually in excess of 400 if running Pask, and aren't exactly the hardest things in the world to kill given how much DS'ing melta there is out there, and just how absurdly easy tanks are to delete from the board once anything gets into close combat, particularly in Squadrons (it's actually possible for a model up to 21" away from a tank in a squadron to land hits on its rear armor and kill it).

The problem isn't tank commanders, it's when an army can consist of nothing but units with enough AV or T to make S3 or even S4 weapons entirely useless. It doesn't matter how many points the tanks are, the question is how many points are S3 or 4 weapons in a game where it's possible that they'll be utterly impotent? You can't make them free, even though they are worth pretty much nothing in such games. But how high can you cost them if it's possible they'll literally do nothing before people will just pretend they're not even in the army book?

Tank commanders are fine (in my opinion they should take both an HQ and a HS slot, but that assumes slots had meaning), but troop tanks/the ability to simply not take troops are what breaks the game. (Not 'breaks' as in favours one side over the other, but as in destroys several core concepts around which the basic rules were written. Who wins doesn't matter if neither side thinks the path there was interesting.)

Vaktathi
01-12-2014, 02:02
Troop vehicles are relatively rare aside from dedicated transports, and it's not like IA Armoured Battlegroups or Chapter Approved Armored Company lists have ever really been tremendously competitive. I can see the point that's being driven at, but the concern over tanks seems odd to me, as these things have been around for quite a while in some cases and were never particularly popular or spectacularly competitive.

Honestly though, what we're really getting at is the issue of scale. 40k is a game with a tremendous amount of focus on insane detail right down when it comes to infantry, with statlines, equipment and special rules all appropriate to a small scale skirmish game of 5-12 models. The game is typically played however with 60-150 models, and with units which in a "real world" sense would be directed at only the highest echelons of command, stuff that often is more appropriate to a game like Epic or even larger scale. Weapons like Titans, orbital bombardments, interceptor fighter aircraft, intercontinental ballistic missile carriers, self propelled heavy artillery, the greatest of daemons, etc really don't have any business in a game where the type of blade a power weapon that an individual infantryman has is relevant, and vice versa.

GW also hasn't done much to keep infantry specifically relevant. Their actions are somewhat limited, whereas in other games they may spot for heavy weapons, dig in and reinforce positions, stand watch with "prepared actions" to act when an enemy comes into view, etc, in 40k largely they're limited to moving, shooting, and assaulting. On top of that, many infantry units remain poorly implemented, IG heavy weapons squads and special weapons squads are prime examples of units that simply do not function terribly well, particularly for their investment.

And of course, as noted, any sort of structure or meaningful limitations on what can be taken has gone straight out the window. Between being able to duplicate FoC's as many times as you want, Formations that cost zero additional points and grant often powerful special rules and abilities along with their unit allocation ignoring the FoC entirely, things like Allies, and Unbound lists, it's all really gone full ham.

That said, even with the massed armor lists I run when using the basic IG codex, I usually still have more infantry in my army than most of my opponents :p

ehlijen
01-12-2014, 02:19
Troop vehicles are relatively rare aside from dedicated transports,

And in any edition that didn't nerf them, they were very popular.


and it's not like IA Armoured Battlegroups or Chapter Approved Armored Company lists have ever really been tremendously competitive.

That doesn't change the fact that a full russ army would make for a very boring game against someone who didn't tailor for it. Those lists weren't very popular mostly because few people wanted to play against them. But the so called leafblower (mass chimera hull spam) was quite powerful.


I can see the point that's being driven at, but the concern over tanks seems odd to me, as these things have been around for quite a while in some cases and were never particularly popular or spectacularly competitive.

They have been around, yes. But for most of their time tanks were limited to HS and because everyone knows that tanks have the advantage of being invulnerable to many weapons and so stocks up on AT guns.


Honestly though, what we're really getting at is the issue of scale. 40k is a game with a tremendous amount of focus on insane detail right down when it comes to infantry, with statlines, equipment and special rules all appropriate to a small scale skirmish game of 5-12 models. The game is typically played however with 60-150 models, and with units which in a "real world" sense would be directed at only the highest echelons of command, stuff that often is more appropriate to a game like Epic or even larger scale. Weapons like Titans, orbital bombardments, interceptor fighter aircraft, intercontinental ballistic missile carriers, self propelled heavy artillery, the greatest of daemons, etc really don't have any business in a game where the type of blade a power weapon that an individual infantryman has is relevant, and vice versa.

Worse yet, while infantry rules are very complex, superheavy rules are abstracted to the point of almost zero tactical depth. It's the complete inverse of a what a game that really wants to have both units types should do (keep the little stuff simple to make the game move fast, make the big stuff tactical so people have about the same decision space per point spent).



GW also hasn't done much to keep infantry specifically relevant. Their actions are somewhat limited, whereas in other games they may spot for heavy weapons, dig in and reinforce positions, stand watch with "prepared actions" to act when an enemy comes into view, etc, in 40k largely they're limited to moving, shooting, and assaulting. On top of that, many infantry units remain poorly implemented, IG heavy weapons squads and special weapons squads are prime examples of units that simply do not function terribly well, particularly for their investment.

They had rules (cities of death they were one of the few units that could score, 5th ed troops were the only units that could score)! They just threw them out for reasons I don't get. But even in those days, FO mutating meant that 'Troops' could be almost anything.

I do however disagree on platoon support squads. They work quite well if used to support a line squad army. You can't rely on them, but they are cheap enough so you don't have to.



And of course, as noted, any sort of structure or meaningful limitations on what can be taken has gone straight out the window. Between being able to duplicate FoC's as many times as you want, Formations that cost zero additional points and grant often powerful special rules and abilities along with their unit allocation ignoring the FoC entirely, things like Allies, and Unbound lists, it's all really gone full ham.

That said, even with the massed armor lists I run when using the basic IG codex, I usually still have more infantry in my army than most of my opponents :p

In the kind of system that 7th is, no unit should be immune to any other unit. Otherwise those inferior units may as well be struck from their books.

AngryAngel
01-12-2014, 03:04
I will argue till the cows come home on HWS being costed cheaply or effectively. If they cost the same as the same amount of guard that make up the squad, that would go a long way to righting them. But paying extra for them, just because they can carry a heavy weapon is awful. Especially with how they are insta killed and have poop LD so take on base off and they have a very real chance just to run away. Not even taking into effect how hard it is to set them up in terrain, their terrible line of sight for the models, etc.

SWS are just near pointless and serve little good function. Giving the platoon structure some oomph would be a god send, they did well with the ability to blob, and orders they just need to right some problem areas.

MajorWesJanson
01-12-2014, 03:08
I will argue till the cows come home on HWS being costed cheaply or effectively. If they cost the same as the same amount of guard that make up the squad, that would go a long way to righting them. But paying extra for them, just because they can carry a heavy weapon is awful. Especially with how they are insta killed and have poop LD so take on base off and they have a very real chance just to run away. Not even taking into effect how hard it is to set them up in terrain, their terrible line of sight for the models, etc.

SWS are just near pointless and serve little good function. Giving the platoon structure some oomph would be a god send, they did well with the ability to blob, and orders they just need to right some problem areas.

Artillery models have T7 and crew. That would be extreme for guard.
Why not compromise and make HWTs 2 wound T5 models that replace 2 infantry models? It wouldn't really affect blob squads at all (minus ID threshold for the HWTs), but it would make HW squads far more viable.

SW teams are also basically inferior to Veteran squads (lower models, lower BS, no upgrade options)
How much more viable would they be if they became a 10 man squad with a sergeant, 4 special weapons, and option for a vox?

Vaktathi
01-12-2014, 03:40
Yeah, the platoon support units are just awkward. The heavy weapons squads pay half again as much for their basic infantry before guns...just because, and then they're still amongst the least effective heavy weapons troops in the game, on top of the fact that they're Ld7 and a single S6 hit getting through (extremely common these days) will force a morale test and lose you 1/3rd of the firepower of the unit. I can't think of a single other unit in the game so routinely easily negated. SWS's aren't so much overcosted as that a platoon command squad largely serves the same role, and they have most of the same problems as HWS's in that they're Ld7 and exceedingly easy to break or simply wipe out due to the small unit size, even stuff like drop pod storm bolters are a potentially unit-breaking threat.

There are ways to mitigate some of these things, yeah, but they require far more support than they really should, and those mitigators can often themselves be quite easy to remove or get around. I've done it to other IG players quite viciously.

In regards to the all tank armies, most lists nowadays have plenty of ways of dealing with armor. Again, one will notice that IG heavy tank armies aren't exactly at the top of anybody's "I don't want to face that" list. Between massive amounts of deep striking/fast moving melta, their punitively extreme vulnerability to CC, the high degree of hamstringing involved with the Squadrone rules, and that most such IG tanks armies will lack either a certain critical type of firepower or a sufficient quantity of it, along with a few other things, many armies don't find dealing with them significantly harder than dealing with lighter vehicles and most armies these days pack tons of anti-tank weapons because those are often exactly the same weapons you'd also use against MC's and extremely tough infantry.

Personally, I've never minded facing tank armies, packing sufficient AT isn't really an issue for most of them. What I find truly onerous to face are the units that technically can be hurt by just about anything, but against whom even the most powerful weapons are little more capable than the weakest and just shrug off so much of it anyway that functionally they're immune to almost everything. Stuff like TH/SS termi's, Great Unclean Ones and Flying FMC's sporting Iron Arm, Jetseer units with Invisibility, FNP riptides, etc. Those are far more of an issue to deal with generally than the scariest tank.

It is extremely odd though that they abstracted so much of the Superheavy stuff while retaining the extreme emphasis on individual infantry models :p

Geep
01-12-2014, 10:57
One thing that really annoys me is that GW has gone in the right direction of troops supporting tanks before. Many years ago now they made a WD armoured company list that addressed many of these problems. They even had a designer notes section where the designers specifically pointed out the problems they knew would come from such a vehicle heavy list, and how they'd tried to address them. I only remember two of the main rules:
1) A tank couldn't get within X" (6" maybe?) of cover-save granting terrain unless there was an unmounted infantry unit within X" of the tank (the story being that, due to limited visibility, the tank crew couldn't be sure no anti-tank enemy were hiding in the cover)
2) Any shot, of any strength, that hit a tank would roll for AP. If a 6 was rolled but wasn't sufficient to hurt the tank it would be re-rolled. On another 6 a glancing hit was caused (using the old glancing hit table, though I think with a -1 modifier)

Those rules kept infantry with weak guns relevant to both the armoured company player and their opponent.

Vaktathi
01-12-2014, 17:59
They removed those rules in the next iteration of the list very quickly because it made the list outrageously non-functional both from a list-building perspective and gameplay perspective.

ehlijen
02-12-2014, 00:25
They removed those rules in the next iteration of the list very quickly because it made the list outrageously non-functional both from a list-building perspective and gameplay perspective.

Which, in my opinion, should have been a clue that the rules system wasn't meant for all heavy tank armies.

Vaktathi
02-12-2014, 00:41
To be fair, those rules weren't applied to any other armies (even those that could field tons of tanks) and effectively made the AC list unable to operate (particularly the terrain one where you could deploy and then couldn't move, and a single round of bolter fire against a Russ had a 50/50 chance of killing it, making them *way* too easy to kill). Those rules didn't really function as balancing mechanics, they just crippled the army, which is why they removed them.

As for the ruleset not really being made for all heavy tank armies, the ruleset as is isn't really meant for anything, it tries to do everything, but doesn't do anything particularly well. All tank armies, all infantry armies, all MC armies, and every sort of mix and match. The game has a problem of with scale and focus, which is far more evident in 7th than any other edition.

ehlijen
02-12-2014, 01:34
What other tank armies do you mean?

Closest I can think of is Eldar sticking some minimum guardian squads in wave serpents. No one else really had all that tough tanks outside the HS section.

Vaktathi
02-12-2014, 01:46
Eldar back then would be the prime example, but even back in 3rd (at least with the 3.5E book, not *quite* as much with the 3.0 book), IG could run an AV12 wall list if they wanted, the vehicle and transport rules simply made such armies a trivial matter to table :p (I remember running an army back when a single penetrating hit would automatically enforce disembarkation and a pinning test and if you moved 12" you'd take wounds also).

ehlijen
02-12-2014, 02:48
Eldar back then would be the prime example, but even back in 3rd (at least with the 3.5E book, not *quite* as much with the 3.0 book), IG could run an AV12 wall list if they wanted, the vehicle and transport rules simply made such armies a trivial matter to table :p (I remember running an army back when a single penetrating hit would automatically enforce disembarkation and a pinning test and if you moved 12" you'd take wounds also).

I don't think it was quite that easy. Infantry platoons were 1+ choices and did not have the option for chimeras (that was the purview of Armoured fist squads). So you would end up with some infantry outside of tanks. If you used doctrines to get around that, you still ended up with side AV10 vehicles making up the bulk of your wall, meaning bolters were not invalidated.

Geep
02-12-2014, 03:30
They removed those rules in the next iteration of the list very quickly because it made the list outrageously non-functional both from a list-building perspective and gameplay perspective.
I'm not saying that the rules were great- it'd be amazing if the first run of the written rules was perfect- but I the core concepts were good. The designers recognised that there would be problems, knew what those problems were, and took steps to address them. They failed in making a good ruleset, but to then completely throw those ideas away was the wrong move (the old 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' approach).

Vaktathi
02-12-2014, 03:41
I don't think it was quite that easy. Infantry platoons were 1+ choices and did not have the option for chimeras (that was the purview of Armoured fist squads). So you would end up with some infantry outside of tanks. If you used doctrines to get around that, you still ended up with side AV10 vehicles making up the bulk of your wall, meaning bolters were not invalidated.True, but you could say the same thing of Leman Russ tanks, they had rear AV10 (making it still *possible* to kill them with Bolters, though I don't subscribe to the theory that every weapon and unit *must* be able to potentially hurt anything and everything in the opposing army) and only had side armor of 12 at the time (making AT weapons much more effective against them then than they are now). Given how few total targets you'd typically have with an Armored Company, a 1500pt army would only have 7-8 tanks, even just taking out two or three (particularly the specialist vehicles) would very quickly crippled the army.



I'm not saying that the rules were great- it'd be amazing if the first run of the written rules was perfect- but I the core concepts were good. The designers recognised that there would be problems, knew what those problems were, and took steps to address them. They failed in making a good ruleset, but to then completely throw those ideas away was the wrong move (the old 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' approach).I would argue that they proved unnecessary rather than being a simple failure of execution. Once removed, the Armored Company still didn't exactly start topping tournaments or become the scourge of local playgroups before GW phased it out in 2007, the army was just never particularly good :p

ehlijen
02-12-2014, 03:53
Rear AV10 on a 72" range tank is lot less of a vulnerability then rear + long sides AV10 with at most 36" range, especially in an edition where CC attacks hit the facing AV and kraks were expensive upgrades. Ie park your butt to the edge and you may as well not have a rear AV.

And if some units just can't hurt anything in the enemy army without that army pulling stupid manoeuvers, what's the point in bringing them? Would it just not be easier to simply play with less points than the AC is bringing, save everyone some time?

Many armies would be hard pressed to have more then 7-8 units on the table, let along more than 7-8 units that can hurt russes in 3rd ed's rules.

The real reason why the AC fared so badly wasn't because it was underpowered, it was because most players loved using AT weapons because they were so good at taking out marines. The meta was already against them so it didn't need to change.

Vaktathi
02-12-2014, 04:30
Rear AV10 on a 72" range tank is lot less of a vulnerability then rear + long sides AV10 with at most 36" range, especially in an edition where CC attacks hit the facing AV and kraks were expensive upgrades. Ie park your butt to the edge and you may as well not have a rear AV.

And if some units just can't hurt anything in the enemy army without that army pulling stupid manoeuvers, what's the point in bringing them? Would it just not be easier to simply play with less points than the AC is bringing, save everyone some time? Because they may have other points like objective nabbing or whatnot, or the unit may still have weapons that can inflict harm (e.g. a Tac squad will have a special and heavy weapon, often a Powerfist). That said, it's not uncommon (or unique to the AC) that many units may not have much of a point, I think in my last five games combined my Lasguns have inflicted a grand total of three or four unsaved wounds in total? Such weapons and the models carrying them largely are irrelevant to the army's offensive killing power even against non-vehicle units, but they're there anyway. Perhaps that goes back to the earlier point about escalation, but I digress.


Many armies would be hard pressed to have more then 7-8 units on the table, let along more than 7-8 units that can hurt russes in 3rd ed's rules. Depends on the army, but even without the restrictions, the list was perfectly legal in events and GT's for several years, and never did particularly well. It was slow, had limited types of firepower, and the terrain rules very often prevented those long ranges from being used in 3E and 4E as area terrain would often block LoS completely.


The real reason why the AC fared so badly wasn't because it was underpowered, it was because most players loved using AT weapons because they were so good at taking out marines. The meta was already against them so it didn't need to change.This too :p

ehlijen
02-12-2014, 06:56
Because they may have other points like objective nabbing or whatnot, or the unit may still have weapons that can inflict harm (e.g. a Tac squad will have a special and heavy weapon, often a Powerfist).

If you have those options and brought them. If not bringing them becomes a bad choice, is it really still a choice to bring them? Why would, if I had the choice between weapon A, B or C and some units were immune to A but no unit was immune to B or C, would I ever take option A? Why would option A then need to exist at all?


That said, it's not uncommon (or unique to the AC) that many units may not have much of a point, I think in my last five games combined my Lasguns have inflicted a grand total of three or four unsaved wounds in total?

Thus robbing conscripts of what little point they still had and making their entry wasted ink, no? It's not even like GW needed to keep the models backwards compatible (they're just guardsmen models).


Such weapons and the models carrying them largely are irrelevant to the army's offensive killing power even against non-vehicle units, but they're there anyway. Perhaps that goes back to the earlier point about escalation, but I digress.

And I think that's a sad state of affairs when the basic trooper with the basic weapon is nothing more than space filler. Why do we bother giving them rules if we don't expect them to do anything? Why is the imperium wasting its time making lasguns if they're expected to fail to achieve anything?

It comes back to my earlier point. If A is potentially useless but B and C aren't, you would not bother with A. But just in case the opponent does, why not take the units that make you immune to their A? And now we're in a game environment where you must spam anti-anti-A weapons to keep up, because that's the opponent's doing (and GW keeps throwing in type B and C weapons that also function as A types, just for the fun of it).


Depends on the army, but even without the restrictions, the list was perfectly legal in events and GT's for several years, and never did particularly well. It was slow, had limited types of firepower, and the terrain rules very often prevented those long ranges from being used in 3E and 4E as area terrain would often block LoS completely.


For most armies, potent units come in at the 150-250 point mark. That means you're looking at 6-10 units in 1.5k, with most anti russ units coming in in the higher points ranges.

But sure, it was legal. That doesn't mean it was a good thing. The siren psychic power of 3.5 chaos was also legal, and it still broke the game.
And no, it wasn't very powerful a list, mostly because people were already spamming AT weapons, as I said.

But how fun were the games? How fun is having a squad sit on an objective and not fire back, just hoping to make it to the end of the game? How fun was blowing up 8 tanks in 3 turns with minimal effort? The list was very likely to result in bad games, no matter which side won.

For best effect you needed to warn the opponent that the AC was coming (to make sure he wouldn't end up with half his army unable to contribute) and then hope he wouldn't be a meanie and tailor to the point where you wouldn't have fun. It was a very poorly conceived list that had exactly the problems 7th now has.

Vaktathi
02-12-2014, 07:36
I don't want to get too into a detailed reply right now given how late it is and I'm about to go off to bed, but I'll leave it at this. I agree with the sentiment about 7th and its craziness, but I don't think the AC list was really in the same ballpark given its plentiful drawbacks of limited speed, lack of certain types of firepower, extremely common availability and ubiquitous use of hardcounters, the LoS rules of the time limiting range, and evidence of its "bark being nastier than its bite" being its almost complete lack of success in competitive circles, unlike the various Daemon Prince shennanigans or things like Mech Eldar which routinely did much better against a greater variety of opponents.

ehlijen
02-12-2014, 09:36
It doesn't matter if a list is powerful or not. If it has a very real chance of turning a game into a turkey shoot (whichever direction) that's no fun for one or more players, it's a broken list.

itcamefromthedeep
03-12-2014, 17:29
If lasguns are generally bad at removing stuff from the table (I subscribe to this assessment), then I don't see the problem in allowing them a snowball's chance in Hell of hurting a big bad guy, rather than no chance at all. So long as lasguns are worse at killing tanks than they are at killing a Fortuned jetlock, I don't see a big problem.

In LoTR, a hobbit can (technically) hurt a Balrog, and that's fine from a game design perspective. It falls comfortably within the appropriate "realism"-to-playability dynamic you need for this genre of game. Compromises need to be made on scale (measurement) and compromises need to be made in unit interaction ("movie marines" would make for a poor tabletop experience for Marine players, because they wouldn't have enough space to field a plausible task force against plausible opposition).

---

Tank commanders can be inreresting. I liked Fury, after all.

I think the game should be written to handle an AC, if that's what players would like to field.

MasterDecoy
03-12-2014, 22:27
I think a lot of the problems stems from objectives, It doesn't matter if you cant hurt a tank/titan/MC, if you don't need too.

Having annihilation as a secondary win condition is just a terrible idea (from a game standpoint).


I've been thinking about the Maelstrom objectives lately and how to improve them, and I toyed with the idea of instead of drawing new objectives each turn, you draw say a dozen after deployment and choose 4 or 5 to be your mission objectives for the game. (completed objectives are not discarded, but can be scored each turn, Exception: Kingslayer, which awards maximum points once)

This slants list building towards taking and holding objectives (as 50% of the cards refer to taking and holding objectives), promotes maneuvering and conflict over areas of interest on the board (objective 2 might be worth 0 VP a turn to you, but preventing the enemy from taking it will prevent them from gaining 2 VP a turn from it), and you can tailor your objectives somewhat to they type of force you have brought, Finally I would simply make annihilation worth D3 VP, because removing all opposition should be a good thing, just whether it was worth the resources spent achieving it is another matter altogether.

In such a game, an Armoured company is fine, sure 2/3rds of your models may be unable to hurt said tanks, but can they drive you off objectives fast enough, will you draw big game hunter and make every kill worth a VP, will wiping you out even net them a draw?

Likewise an Armoured company isn't neutered either, they can still claim objectives (though not as well), they might draw overwhelming firepower and score some extra points that way, their objective may be to camp your deployment zone via behind enemy lines.


I plan on testing this format when i get the chance.

Vipoid
03-12-2014, 23:20
I think a lot of the problems stems from objectives, It doesn't matter if you cant hurt a tank/titan/MC, if you don't need too.

Having annihilation as a secondary win condition is just a terrible idea (from a game standpoint).

Well, look at it the other way - it would be a bit silly if you could have your entire army wiped off the board and somehow not lose. :p

MasterDecoy
03-12-2014, 23:33
Well, look at it the other way - it would be a bit silly if you could have your entire army wiped off the board and somehow not lose. :p

what if your forces mission objective didn't require it to survive, for example a Suicide mission (plenty of those in the grimdarkness of 40k)
Such examples could include but are not limited to:
1) make a martyr of yourself, like Leonidas in 300 to rally support.
2) delaying action to give the main force time to re-enforce/prepare, like the battle of helms deep.
3) setting up orbital strike transponders, prepping a weapon of mass destruction, or booby trapping the area, like at the end of battlefield earth where the the guy teleports to the enemy planets and hand drops a nuke.
4) probing the enemy force for weakness, your force didn't intend to get wiped out, but hey you still sent back valuable battlefield Intel that will swing the war effort in your favor
5) scouting enemy force composition and/or movements, which once again, may not have started as a suicide mission, but only requires you to survive long enough to radio back.
6) Your attempting to destroy any valuable salvage in the area denying the enemy of precious resources, meaning they may have committed more than they gained in the battle at hand.

6 examples of the top of my head, I'm sure you can think of more.


It makes much more sense when you stop looking at each battle as the be all and end of the conflict and look at the battle from an operational viewpoint.

Vipoid
03-12-2014, 23:38
what if your forces mission objective was didnt require it to survive, for example a Suicice mission (plenty of those in the grimdarkness of 40k)
Such examples could include but are not limited to:
1) make a martyr of yourself, like Leonidas in 300 to rally support.

So, how is it even possible for an opponent to win if that's your objective?
- If you rout them, you win.
- If they rout you, you become a martyr and still win.



2) delaying action to give the main force time to re-enforce/prepare, like the battle of helms deep.
3) setting up orbital strike transponders, prepping a weapon of mass destruction, or booby trapping the area, like at the end of battlefield earth where the the guy teleports to the enemy planets and hand drops a nuke.
4) probing the enemy force for weakness, your force didn't intend to get wiped out, but hey you still sent back valuable battlefield Intel that will swing the war effort in your favor
5) scouting enemy force composition and/or movements, which once again, may not have started as a suicide mission, but only requires you to survive long enough to radio back.

5 examples of the top of my head, im sure you can think of more.

Those would be great... if they were actually proper missions. If one player had an objective like the above, and the other player had to stop them, that would be fine. Great, in fact.

It just doesn't work with the current missions.

Geep
03-12-2014, 23:40
Having annihilation as a secondary win condition is just a terrible idea (from a game standpoint).

Agreed. Too many lists are around that can ignore objectives because they can so reliably go for the kill.


I think a lot of the problems stems from objectives, It doesn't matter if you cant hurt a tank/titan/MC, if you don't need too.
Objectives certainly help, but this is a wargame and we are vicious little sods- Killing the enemy is a large part of the fun, so not being able to do that is pretty bad.


In such a game, an Armoured company is fine, sure 2/3rds of your models may be unable to hurt said tanks, but can they drive you off objectives fast enough, will you draw big game hunter and make every kill worth a VP, will wiping you out even net them a draw?

Although I like your general idea, I see two main problems here- one with your system, one with the game in general. For your system- as you say, drawing 'Big Game Hunter' will be a big deal. It should never be the case that one random card should dictate the game so strongly (the element of player choice for 5 of the 12 cards does little to help this). Simply knowing that every tank or MC could be worth 3VPs to the enemy (with the right card combination) will seriously discourage anyone taking tanks or MCs at all. For the game- Tanks are brilliant at driving the enemy off objectives, thanks to tank shock. I can't express my hate at this rule enough, as an empty rhino can roll over a big tide of infantry to contest an objective at a critical moment. It's not even a two-way street- my monstrous creatures must get stuck at the first peon they make base contact with, so there's no chance to go for a desperate last second victory/denial.

MasterDecoy
03-12-2014, 23:55
So, how is it even possible for an opponent to win if that's your objective?
- If you rout them, you win.
- If they rout you, you become a martyr and still win.



Those would be great... if they were actually proper missions. If one player had an objective like the above, and the other player had to stop them, that would be fine. Great, in fact.

It just doesn't work with the current missions.

1) can be simulated with tac obs like holding objectives, king slayer and assassination, overwhelming firepower, hungry for glory ect ect, if you win you win, if you lose but do it with style, you win, if you lose, but sucked hard, you still lose, and if you win, but still sucked, you lose.
The different sides of the PR spin could go as such
"The commander stubbornly held his ground against all odds and despite suffering mortal wounds at the hands of the villainous red army managed to inflict massive casualty's against them, Join the Imperial guard today so his loss was not in vein...." (Won In VP, got annihilated)
"The commander stubbornly held his ground against the tide of the red army, managing to drive back the invaders and force them into full retreat....." (Won in VP and possibly annihilated the enemy)
"The commander foolishly held his ground against the unstoppable might of the red army, his defeat serves as a stern lesson to aspiring officers about the folly of not following orders...." (lost in VP and possibly got annihilated)
"The commander foolishly committed his force to the ploy of the red army in search of glory, in the process losing several valuable military assets to destroy what turned out to a diversionary force, leaving the main gates of the city undefended....." (lost in VP, possibly annihilated the enemy"

You can use this same logic for any mission type.



EDit:

As to geeps comments, knowing that each tank you lose could give the enemy up to 3VP would just change how you played the army wouldn't it? It certainly wouldn't stop me from taking tanks, If the enemy decided to use that card though, I would just be a hell of a lot more cautious with them (clearly my war effort cannot afford to lose tanks as readily as my enemy's so I must be careful to protect them, this could be because I have no reinforcements, or simply the enemy has 10 tanks to every one of mine)

Geep
04-12-2014, 02:49
As to geeps comments, knowing that each tank you lose could give the enemy up to 3VP would just change how you played the army wouldn't it? It certainly wouldn't stop me from taking tanks, If the enemy decided to use that card though, I would just be a hell of a lot more cautious with them (clearly my war effort cannot afford to lose tanks as readily as my enemy's so I must be careful to protect them, this could be because I have no reinforcements, or simply the enemy has 10 tanks to every one of mine)
The problem would come from the fact that the tac cards are one of the last things you draw before a battle- so if I've decided to take a rhino-heavy marine army and suddenly all of my rhinos are worth 3VP to the enemy, what do I do? Park all Rhinos far from the enemy and hope my depleted infantry will be enough to carry the game? Obviously that's not a good solution, but this kind of army has little other option, so already by the simple chance of this scenario occurring I'm being limited in my choice of playstyles.
I'm using extreme examples to make the point as clear as possible.

I think you'd also need a poker-style re-draw system. Even with 12 cards it's possible to have terrible luck, and if they are the only cards you have all game that can kill all fun before a single dice is rolled in anger.

MasterDecoy
04-12-2014, 03:11
The problem would come from the fact that the tac cards are one of the last things you draw before a battle- so if I've decided to take a rhino-heavy marine army and suddenly all of my rhinos are worth 3VP to the enemy, what do I do? Park all Rhinos far from the enemy and hope my depleted infantry will be enough to carry the game? Obviously that's not a good solution, but this kind of army has little other option, so already by the simple chance of this scenario occurring I'm being limited in my choice of playstyles.
I'm using extreme examples to make the point as clear as possible.

I think you'd also need a poker-style re-draw system. Even with 12 cards it's possible to have terrible luck, and if they are the only cards you have all game that can kill all fun before a single dice is rolled in anger.
See this is where i think we disagree, but i guess if you where super concerned about it you could implement an additional rule where by you can, vito one tac cards you're opponent drew before they choose (and they draw again), although that takes some of the decision-making out of list building.

knowing the limitations and potential pitfalls of a particular list is strong motivation not to "put all your eggs in one basket"

Now i understand that a mechanized force is extremely fluffy, but wouldn't it also make sense that the enemy force may wish to nuetrilize this advantage to force the mechanized force to fight on the enemy's terms hence the strong emphasis on destroying their transports?


Edit: i guess it's because i play the game to facilitate a narrative, which means i can have just as much fun if not more getting pwned if the mission is set up correctly.

Geep
04-12-2014, 03:54
i guess it's because i play the game to facilitate a narrative, which means i can have just as much fun if not more getting pwned if the mission is set up correctly.
I guess so- my view is that a game should always have both sides with an equal chance of winning (or as close to that as possible). It should be the player skill that determines the winner more than any other factor, and I get my fun in games from competing against my opponent to the best of our abilities. I don't mind if I lose, so long as I feel I had a good chance to begin with and know that either my skills or luck were the problem.

MasterDecoy
04-12-2014, 04:03
I guess so- my view is that a game should always have both sides with an equal chance of winning (or as close to that as possible). It should be the player skill that determines the winner more than any other factor, and I get my fun in games from competing against my opponent to the best of our abilities. I don't mind if I lose, so long as I feel I had a good chance to begin with and know that either my skills or luck were the problem.

and I respect that viewpoint, although I do feel like 40k has never, and will never be "that kind of game".

Tournament play (and by tournament, I'm lumping PuG's in here as well, I mean a scenario specifically designed so that every list has equal chance of winning, regaurdless of its compisition, which quite frankly is a pipe dream IMHO), relies far too heavily on the list building stage (bring the rock, as it where to say)

I do however feel that my scenario helps alleviate this problem quite a bit by making the onus of list mismatches on the player making the list, rather than the "hard counter" the opponent brought.

Your not going to lose that game before it started because of anything your opponent brought, you potentially going to lose it because of what you brought and even with a objective mismatch, you have the ability to play around it, Use strategy, limit the damage.

To use your mechanized list vs big game hunter example: sure you may have like 4 or 5 rhinos, and you know the enemy will probably be gunning for them for easy points, you can use this to set up bait and distractions, lure them out of position and Finnish them off when they're vulnerable, Make them work for it while you complete some of your easier objectives they've wasted 2 or 3 turns hunting down your rhinos. Sounds like a good game to me.

ehlijen
04-12-2014, 05:24
and I respect that viewpoint, although I do feel like 40k has never, and will never be "that kind of game".

It may not have been that kind of game, but it pretty clearly tried to appear to be that kind of game.

Symmetric core missions, a points value balancing system, in earlier editions an FO chart that restricted armies...all that was clearly included to promote a balanced starting point for games. If 40k was never that kind of game, then frankly, the rules have been lying about what kind of game it is.

MasterDecoy
04-12-2014, 05:33
It may not have been that kind of game, but it pretty clearly tried to appear to be that kind of game.

Symmetric core missions, a points value balancing system, in earlier editions an FO chart that restricted armies...all that was clearly included to promote a balanced starting point for games. If 40k was never that kind of game, then frankly, the rules have been lying about what kind of game it is.
I don't deny they tried to make it kind of game, i think we can all agree that they failed spectacularly though.

Hence my statement is true.

And the current direction the game is going makes it clear they don't want (at least at this point in time) to be that kind of game.

AngryAngel
04-12-2014, 18:51
I have to agree, if you want a game that rewards skill over list building, 40k isn't it and has never been it. I do disagree that just because they tried and failed, they shouldn't try harder to make it " that kind of game " It is a matter of effort however and I think GW have shown they will have none of that for game design.

DJElam
05-12-2014, 18:20
It's OPed in it's own book. And for that reason I won't use it.

A heavy weapons team with 3 motors is 60pts, yet for 5 more points you get a tank(lots tougher then a heavy weapons team), an extra shot, twin-linked, ignore cover, shred, and unlike a heavy weapons team it can move and still shot. So what would you pick? Heavy weapon teams or a Wyvern? I think that's all that needs to be said.

Vipoid
05-12-2014, 19:13
It's OPed in it's own book. And for that reason I won't use it.

A heavy weapons team with 3 motors is 60pts, yet for 5 more points you get a tank(lots tougher then a heavy weapons team), an extra shot, twin-linked, ignore cover, shred, and unlike a heavy weapons team it can move and still shot. So what would you pick? Heavy weapon teams or a Wyvern? I think that's all that needs to be said.

Are we pretending Mortars are a well-priced unit? :eyebrows:

AngryAngel
05-12-2014, 19:57
It's OPed in it's own book. And for that reason I won't use it.

A heavy weapons team with 3 motors is 60pts, yet for 5 more points you get a tank(lots tougher then a heavy weapons team), an extra shot, twin-linked, ignore cover, shred, and unlike a heavy weapons team it can move and still shot. So what would you pick? Heavy weapon teams or a Wyvern? I think that's all that needs to be said.

This whole train of thought is like saying an MMA fighter kicks way more butt then a 90 year old woman, so we should hobble the MMA fighter and degrade his muscles while making him partly blind so he isn't the go to choice in a fight. Mortars and HWS in general are awful and have been for some time now so using them for the proper price point, if other guard units used that as the perfect place to be the book would be so bad I doubt you'd see it much.




Are we pretending Mortars are a well-priced unit? :eyebrows:

I'm afraid I can't pretend that much, there are limits to even my love for fantasy.

ehlijen
05-12-2014, 23:04
I disagree that 7th isn't pretending to be a balanced game anymore. GW isn't trying, that much is clear, but we still have points values, symmetric missions and FO rules that are written with the assumption that following them is some kind of restriction (as in you get rewards for doing so).

If GW truly want to proudly be seen as a non-balanced story game, they need to completely stop pretending they are balanced and take whatever popularity hit that brings. Right now, 7th is just a poor wargame and a poor narrative story game.


And I for one think mortar squads are about right. I always tried to include some because some indirect fire in case the enemy did actually leave their APCs for those points was good buy.

AngryAngel
05-12-2014, 23:18
I disagree, there is no reason why those mortar squads cost as much as they do, at around 40 pts, I'd say they are not awful. IF HWS didn't suffer from the insta death to str 6 and terribad LD issues, perhaps as well. The system for them is cumbersome, poor and they end up paying too much for their gear for all those negatives built into them.

Vaktathi
05-12-2014, 23:28
There are points values for some things. Formations for example have no points values (barring a couple of exceptions) aside from the models they contain despite . We still have FO rules, but they're so loose and malleable as to be almost nonexistent. :p

Mortar squads (and HWS's in general), are silly expensive for what they do, particularly as an add-on that requires three squads be bought first. If they were 45pts, they'd be more on the money, but at 60pts they're not only not bringing much firepower for what they cost, they're amongst the easiest units in the game to remove as well if anything can draw a bead on them. Even before the Wyvern, Mortar squads almost never showed up in army lists. I haven't seen one a table in four years. There's really no explicable reason why HWS's pay either 50% more for each basic putz in the squad or 10pts extra per heavy weapon relative to the rest of the army, particularly given their otherwise extremely basic stats and options.

Geep
06-12-2014, 01:19
There's really no explicable reason why HWS's pay either 50% more for each basic putz in the squad or 10pts extra per heavy weapon relative to the rest of the army, particularly given their otherwise extremely basic stats and options.
There is an excellent theoretical reason, which is efficient concentration of force. One heavy weapon squad can bring 3 lascannons to a small part of the table and, when they fire, that fire is concentrated (so more likely to do something) and there's very little 'wastage' (no models standing around twiddling thumbs). Getting the same effect from other guard infantry units would require 3 squads, 30 guys, taking up much more table space and having more trouble in being arranged in such a way as to not block LoS for each other. Then you've got 24 lasgun-wielding guys wasted, as they're not likely to be able to hurt what the lascannons are targeting. It's a simple matter of efficiency, and efficiency that should be accounted for in points.
The idea fails for a few reasons- 1) there's the assumption that having 24 lasgun shots wasted is some kind of loss, which it really isn't anymore. 2) Not everything follows this idea- I don't think Devastators pay more for heavy weapons, despite gaining the same advantages*. 3) There are better options- as pointed out above, 5 extra points to go from a mortar squad to a Wyvern is crazy.

*A failure to carry design ideas across books is common for GW, and very annoying. I remember in- I think it was 6th ed?- Fantasy the Empire and Orcs & Goblins were the first armies with new books out. It had been known for some time that cavalry was too powerful, so those books increased the price of cavalry to even things up. By the third book of that edition that plan had been flushed- we were back to cavalry dominating, and Empire and Orcs & Goblins just had to put up with inferior cavalry. It can be easy to come in, glance at those books and declare that Empire and Orcs & Goblins were bad books, but really the initial idea was fine, and the failure came because the design idea was not followed further as it should have been.

AngryAngel
06-12-2014, 02:09
I disagree that these reasons for HWS being so dire makes any sense from a game play sense. Game play sense wise I mean, it doesn't work perhaps the way it was designed. Which I think was more a design choice based on model and less on game table worth. I also think this isn't a lack of carrying over design ideals, as they have been awful since their 5th ed book which gave them plenty of time to see, and fix the problem, they simply don't care to. As it is now the only time I see these units run, is from very new players, as their positives don't outweigh their negatives.

Lets see all their long list of poor..

Poor LoS and cover granting as they are all knelt down so everything they shoot just about gets cover. Awful leadership, wonky insta death worries, huge base so difficult to place in ruins or even find good cover with, which they need btw. If it ends up a kill points game, they bleed kill points.

As their own squads they are dire, in guard blobbed platoons they have some point for heavy fire power in their troop squads and can be kept safer from large groups of standard guard in the way, they also end up cheaper in the squads over by themselves.

MasterDecoy
06-12-2014, 06:05
....and unlike a heavy weapons team it can move and still shot. ......

Just want to clarify this bit, while technically true, wyrvens aren't fast vehicles, so can only shoot 1 half of its barrages when it moves. (i.E 2 twin linked blast shots)

ehlijen
06-12-2014, 15:08
Just want to clarify this bit, while technically true, wyrvens aren't fast vehicles, so can only shoot 1 half of its barrages when it moves. (i.E 2 twin linked blast shots)

Which is still more mortar shots (or HB shots, it has one of those too) than a moving HWS.