PDA

View Full Version : Lascannons



Mike3791
10-08-2007, 11:02
why do lascannons in a SM tac squad cost less then in a IG squad? That makes both a sm with lascannon cost the same as a guardsmen with lascannon! Absurd!

Born Again
10-08-2007, 11:16
There could be a couple of reasons for this. Firstly, Lascannons slow down the unit, as they require the model be stationary to fire. This is a bigger downside for SM who excel in a shock/assault role, as opposed to Guard who are typically stationary and firing anyway. Also, the lascannon is a more valuable commodity to the guardsmen, as it provides some much needed stopping power to them, while marines are fairly deadly on their own. You also need to take into consideration the place of the weapon and unit in the army as a whole, as opposed to the squad on it's own. But you're right, also taking into cosideration the higher BS and saving throw of SM, I would've expected this to even things out...

colmarekblack
10-08-2007, 11:31
Taking out Guardsmen with Lascannon can be sometimes dificult compared to killing a Marine with lascannon, since you have to kill the gunner and the loader along with the rest of the squad to get rid of the weapon. Marine heavies can be neutralised in one shot.

Guardsman can potentially get more Lascannons per troop choice than spacemarines as well.

Lord Malorne
10-08-2007, 11:36
when you start comparing point values in different armies you are bound to find things which annoy you though all armies have as they claim been extensivley tested and thus are considered fair point values!

keatsmeister
10-08-2007, 11:37
For Marines, giving them a Lascannon is like buying yourself a swish sports car, it does the job your car normally does, but a lot better. Giving a Guardsman a Lascannon is like getting yourself an Abrams tank, it'll get you from A to B, just like your old car did, but it'll do a whole load of other stuff too.

Marines have a lot of firepower and survivability before upgrades, so relatively, a Lascannon is not as huge an upgrade as it is for a Guard squad.

Petrov_101
10-08-2007, 11:43
Guard squads are dirt cheap. If they didn't increase the point value of the lascannon for guard, you'd have one in every squad for far less than what a SM army can muster.

Commissar_Sven
10-08-2007, 12:10
There could be a couple of reasons for this. Firstly, Lascannons slow down the unit, as they require the model be stationary to fire. This is a bigger downside for SM who excel in a shock/assault role, as opposed to Guard who are typically stationary and firing anyway. Also, the lascannon is a more valuable commodity to the guardsmen, as it provides some much needed stopping power to them, while marines are fairly deadly on their own. You also need to take into consideration the place of the weapon and unit in the army as a whole, as opposed to the squad on it's own. But you're right, also taking into cosideration the higher BS and saving throw of SM, I would've expected this to even things out...

The reason why you don't see guard squads moving is because they have a heavy weapon. Also by your logic because guard are weaker they should have to pay more for weapons that do less.:wtf:

Leunam
10-08-2007, 13:16
Dont compare weapon costs across armies. Everything has been priced differently according to the army itself and what it has available and doesnt take other armies into account.

Born Again
10-08-2007, 13:19
Yes, perhaps not very well worded. I knew what I meant. Keatsmeister basically said what I was trying to, but alot better.

ratfusion
10-08-2007, 17:04
This has always upset me. Who cares if the guard can take more, isn't that kind of the point with lower BS, T, and armor?

I've come to the conclusion that theres really no rhyme or reason to their 'balancing', or they'd test and release all the codexes at once. The system works as it does however to encourage sales as each new codex comes out.

One would expect that if they were attempting to balance everything, every trait would have a base cost, plus some modifier for army specific special rules. Weapon prices would be equal in most cases, with most of the balancing taking place in the cost of the unit.

Gaius_Baltar
10-08-2007, 20:34
Well IG LasCannon teams get an extrea guy maning it, so it technicly has 2 wounds.

Perfect Organism
10-08-2007, 21:41
A guard squad is cheap enough to use as nothing other than a lascannon platform, so they pay 'full price' for a lascannon. A full sized space marine tactical squad* is two and a half times as expensive as the guardsmen, so they get a 'discount' on the lascannon to reflect the fact that you have to leave an expensive unit standing around while one of them uses the anti-tank weapon. Marines who can take a greater proportion of heavy weapons per squad (so they waste fewer points standing around per heavy weapon), like devastators, typically pay more for their heavy weapons.

* currently space marines can field a heavy weapon in a half-sized squad, which is a much better deal, but it looks like that is likely to change soon (as it has already for Dark Angels and Chaos Marines).

Commissar_Sven
10-08-2007, 21:57
Well IG LasCannon teams get an extrea guy maning it, so it technicly has 2 wounds.

Most of the time that doesen't even matter. I don't get why people make a big deal out of this.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
10-08-2007, 22:19
Like Leunam said, you can't just compare weapons costs across the board. There are a lot of things that come into play when they do the playtesting, and Perfect Oranism hit on a bunch of reasonable-sounding ones. We don't work for GW playtesting armies and setting point values, so we don't know what qualifications they use for assigning points. I guarantee you that there are enough Warhammer and 40K fanatical geeks working there that they wouldn't let "Oh, let's just make this 15 points because I want to get this product out the door" happen. Sure, it's a business, but the managers want to get the best bang for their buck out of their rules writers and playtesters, so they expect reasonable methods behind the codecis.

Although sometimes it does seem like it was merely..."I dunno, my wife's birthday is in October, how about 10 points?"

Malchek
10-08-2007, 23:56
Never have I seen a thread with so much absurdity - so much in fact I'll probably get banned and/or die of old age if I take each point seperately and shoot it down in flames.

Quite simply, a 10 man IG infatnry squad has 10 wounds +5 armour save and BS 3. With a sergeant and lascannon it costs 91pts

A 5 man space marine squad has 5 wounds a +3 armour save and BS4. With a lascannon it costs 90pts

Now basically these two units are virtually identical. The 5 SM wounds equate to 10 IG wounds because they all have a +3 save. Although the marines have better BS, everything else is virtually identical where the SM's advantages are offset by the IG's greater numbers.

Therefore the two units are pretty much balanced and therefore cost the same amount of pts. That simple.

Malchek ;)

the1stpip
11-08-2007, 00:10
So it's not due to the author (was it McNeill) who got nobbed off about Las/Plas squads (shock horror) and so decided to up the points...

Randy
11-08-2007, 00:45
No >_> It isn't >_> And I've never been annoyed by a 6 man (or any other number) las/plas squad >_>

Stella Cadente
11-08-2007, 01:18
why do lascannons in a SM tac squad cost less then in a IG squad? That makes both a sm with lascannon cost the same as a guardsmen with lascannon! Absurd!

do you really think GW are gonna make there trophy army pay more for there weaponry, don't be absurd.:p

dybbukdude
11-08-2007, 06:00
SM shouldnt have lascannons its to igish

chinnfrequent
11-08-2007, 07:07
Considering your standard issue weapon is a high powered flashlight, you should be happy you get lascannons at all.

Rioghan Murchadha
11-08-2007, 07:19
Never have I seen a thread with so much absurdity - so much in fact I'll probably get banned and/or die of old age if I take each point seperately and shoot it down in flames.

Quite simply, a 10 man IG infatnry squad has 10 wounds +5 armour save and BS 3. With a sergeant and lascannon it costs 91pts

A 5 man space marine squad has 5 wounds a +3 armour save and BS4. With a lascannon it costs 90pts

Now basically these two units are virtually identical. The 5 SM wounds equate to 10 IG wounds because they all have a +3 save. Although the marines have better BS, everything else is virtually identical where the SM's advantages are offset by the IG's greater numbers.

Therefore the two units are pretty much balanced and therefore cost the same amount of pts. That simple.

Malchek ;)

Ah, but you can't take 'just' a 10 man IG squad, unless you're running vets, stormtroopers, or some other funkyness..

To get a lascannon in a single troop selection costs IG 185 pts for a min size platoon with nothing but the lascannon.

A SM tac squad, with a full 10 men, and lascannon is only 165.

Never mind the fact that SM can pump out min size 5 man squads with LCs for much much cheaper than guard can get them for.

Sergeant Uriel Ventris
11-08-2007, 07:44
You know what, I think they've got a point. No more lascannons for Space Marines. They're so overpowered!! GW's babies, that's what they are. Always getting the good stuff, never have to pay enough for anyhting, overpowered, need to be nerfed, raaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!

*continues ranting, trails off*

Any actual game developers here that can shed some light on the actual points assignment process? Or do we just get to sit here and keep spitballing until we get bored and unsubscribe? I hope it's the latter.

Buddha777
11-08-2007, 07:47
Well from a purley fluff standpoint Lascannons are relativley hard to make technology and consequently only organizations like the Astartes would have easy access to them. The average guard squad most likley isn't going to be equipped with something as valuable as a lascannon which is represented in the point cost increase.

bungeeboy
11-08-2007, 08:40
why do lascannons in a SM tac squad cost less then in a IG squad? That makes both a sm with lascannon cost the same as a guardsmen with lascannon! Absurd!


hmm, that is odd


i dont know anything about IG, but it does seem pretty stupid....:wtf:

Bunnahabhain
11-08-2007, 09:14
I can understand the Guard lascannon being more expensive, as they're going to be standing and shooting anyway.

How come then, to make the 10 man guard squad into a passable close combat unit, ie one that only takes a 2;1 advantage in numbers to bring down MEQs requires the use of 3 out of your 5 doctrines, and takes the squad to 101 points, (Warrior weapons, hardened fighters, vet sarge, and close order drill, 41 pts total)

Perfect Organism
11-08-2007, 09:40
do you really think GW are gonna make there trophy army pay more for there weaponry, don't be absurd.:p

Yes I do. Look the latest Dark Angels codex (or the Blood Angels one, since it's available online for free). All heavy weapons have increased in price and decreased in availability for tactical squads (they are still slightly cheaper than Imperial Guard ones for tactical squads, but the devastator ones are significantly more expensive). Same story in the new chaos space marines codex. I fully expect the changes to be carried over to the new main space marines codex.

lanrak
11-08-2007, 10:26
Hi all.
The method of allcating PV (3rd ed onwards)was influenced by marketing .Same as the codex/army book release shedue is decided by 'higher ups... not the devs.':wtf:

And as the devs only work on one army one book at a time, the optimum method for 'cohesive marketing' aparently.:eyebrows:

So most of the units in a single codex/army book are reasonably ballanced in reguard to each other.Well some fudging due to the subjective opinions of the devs.(IG have over costed troops and cheaper vehicles to compensate aparently?)

But thier is no consistant level of ballance at the unit level over the range of codexes/army books.

But finaly the devs' are looking at unit effectiveness, not individual elements that are not directly effective ,(micro assesing)then balancing at the army level(macro assesing).
In fact its only the hard work of the game developers that we get the level of game play and game ballance we have now!

I do wish GW PLC would let the devs develop the games ,rather than treat them as an extension of the marketing department.
When they are 'left to run free as nature intended' they show how good they realy are !

TTFN
Lanrak.

Snake1311
11-08-2007, 11:57
When the SM redux comes out Lascannons won't be as cheap or as easily accessible for marines. The predator LC sponsons also go up I believe.

Patience, grasshopper...

Randy
11-08-2007, 13:08
The most elite army in the imperium that is supposedly armed and armoured with the best the imperium can offer shouldn't get lascannons?

Are you on crack?

Mike3791
11-08-2007, 14:45
Never have I seen a thread with so much absurdity - so much in fact I'll probably get banned and/or die of old age if I take each point seperately and shoot it down in flames.

Quite simply, a 10 man IG infatnry squad has 10 wounds +5 armour save and BS 3. With a sergeant and lascannon it costs 91pts

A 5 man space marine squad has 5 wounds a +3 armour save and BS4. With a lascannon it costs 90pts

Now basically these two units are virtually identical. The 5 SM wounds equate to 10 IG wounds because they all have a +3 save. Although the marines have better BS, everything else is virtually identical where the SM's advantages are offset by the IG's greater numbers.

Therefore the two units are pretty much balanced and therefore cost the same amount of pts. That simple.

Malchek ;)

Um yea, but the lascannon hits more often with SM and cost less. The question isn't about the unit, its about the guy maning the lascannon. If the lascannon cost more, that cuts down on IG numbers. IG already have a problem with numbers because out of 50 lasgun shots 25 will hit and 9 will wound and about 3 marines will die. Does that make sense? The HW costs effect the entire guard army.

Acheron,Bringer of Terror
11-08-2007, 15:47
in most recent codices MEQs have to pay:

DA: 165 to get 10 man tactical squad with one lascannon and nake sarge

125 to get 5 man devastator squad with one lascannon and nake sarge

Chaos : same. (chaos space marine squad or havoc squad)

WHO PAY MORE ?

Randy
11-08-2007, 18:58
Blood angels? LCs are more then PCs for us :(

Gutlord Grom
11-08-2007, 19:09
Yay, Marine hate thread #56454765536543 has started.

carlisimo
11-08-2007, 20:43
Aren't lascannons in Devastator squads more expensive than in Tac squads? How does that compare to IG?

Rioghan Murchadha
11-08-2007, 21:50
in most recent codices MEQs have to pay:

DA: 165 to get 10 man tactical squad with one lascannon and nake sarge

125 to get 5 man devastator squad with one lascannon and nake sarge

Chaos : same. (chaos space marine squad or havoc squad)

WHO PAY MORE ?

Guard pay more.

A bare bones infantry platoon with ONLY a single lascannon, naked sergeants, naked command squad etc. etc.. = 185 pts

Yes, guard can get a lascannon in a min sized Heavy Weapon Platoon at 65pts, but that's just a 5 man command squad with no gear.. How long you think that's going to survive? It also eats a Doctrine, and a Heavy Support slot.

Foxx5
12-08-2007, 01:56
I have reviewed both sides and it seems pretty fair, my friend plays IG and he has a 1500 point IG army with over 70 lascannons, I fear the day I have to play him. :evilgrin:

cuda1179
12-08-2007, 02:18
Malchek,
Do you really think that 5 marines Vs. 10 guardsmen is even close to a fair fight? Tell you what, I'll take the marines, you take the guard. I'll bet you that I'll win 90% of the time.

Bunnahabhain
12-08-2007, 02:20
I have reviewed both sides and it seems pretty fair, my friend plays IG and he has a 1500 point IG army with over 70 lascannons, I fear the day I have to play him. :evilgrin:


One of those figures is wrong. A Lascannon for any Guard infantryman costs 25 pts.

1500pts/70 lascannons = 21.42 pt per lascannon. Therefore each weapons team carrying them costs - 3.58 points each, assuming the rest of the army is free.

The others are on sentinals or russes, so aren't cheap either...


BTW, a full FOC, taking every Lascannon possible has 89 of them.

I <3 W
12-08-2007, 02:34
cuz space marfines are cheap

EDIT:Necrons also have screwy point values ('cept theyre too high): a necron warrior is stronger than a space marine over all plus WBB, 18 points is fair, but certain models are too high. (my opinion when comparing). Necrons definatly are god darn strong, but I think they have the highest oints in the game...anyways I'll stop grumblin'

Lord Cook
12-08-2007, 02:46
People this isn't AOL. "cuz" is not, despite what you may have heard, a real word. This isn't just me being a jerk, this is a policy of warseer and the mods do follow up on it. Thank you for sparing us a few extra seconds of your time.


I have reviewed both sides and it seems pretty fair, my friend plays IG and he has a 1500 point IG army with over 70 lascannons, I fear the day I have to play him. :evilgrin:

You are aware that 70 lascannons would cost 1750 points on their own? This doesn't include anything else, not even the guardsmen needed to fire them. This is either a careless mistake or a BS lie made in the hopes we're stupid enough to fall for it. Probably the former.

Gutlord Grom
12-08-2007, 06:50
If it helps, in about a year or so, Space Marines will get a points increase on las-cannons, so you can stop having your "Marines !s teh cheexorz!!11!!!!! and getz al the cheapnezz" panic attack.

But anyway, I'd rather have ten Guardmen then five Marines. Just the simple fact more guns and more men in the end equal more kills.And also remember a single Guard troop choice can bring at least six las cannons. Plus the 7-8 plasma guns to take as special weapons, and seven plasma pistols for your vet sarges and officers. For it's points, it's really ******* expensive. However compared to Space Marines at full strength, that's a lot of killy-killy.

alex03
12-08-2007, 07:29
Space marines can get at most 6 lascannons from troops choices. Guard can get considerably more. Thats one of the reasons for the increased cost.

As others have pointed out the cost of tactical lascannons is going up as well. And min maxing to get lascannons is out. So dont worry too much.

Guard also get relativly cheap battle cannons, where marines get none. So hows that for balance?

sebster
12-08-2007, 13:19
Guard pay more.

A bare bones infantry platoon with ONLY a single lascannon, naked sergeants, naked command squad etc. etc.. = 185 pts

Yes, but anyone running around buying a complete infantry platoon in order to deploy a single lascannon deserved to be ripped off at every available opportunity. For the points investment you've given have 3 troops choices all capable of taking a lascannon, so why you'd take just the one and then declare IG are being ripped off seems a mystery.



Regarding the thread in general, there isn't much value in picking out a single option in one codex and comparing it with the same option in another codex. Individual items are much more valuable in one army than in another. It's all part of the cohesion of things.

Alexandr Ulyanov
12-08-2007, 14:07
Space marines can get at most 6 lascannons from troops choices. Guard can get considerably more. Thats one of the reasons for the increased cost.

Very valid point if having enough guard to field a ton of troop mounted lascannons didn't make the army suffer from deployment and speed of game issues.



Guard also get relativly cheap battle cannons, where marines get none. So hows that for balance?
First, you just implied that the current SM are more balanced than IG. For that, the commissar may find you wanting.

Second, you took a somewhat reasonable comparison (same weapon in shooting oriented troop squads in two armies) and said that it was invalid because you can make an unreasonable, taken-to-extremes comparison (army unique weapon vs. a lack of that army unique weapon). By that logic, Necrons get Monoliths and eldar don't, so necrons are unbalanced. Obviously not a valid point.


Well from a purley fluff standpoint Lascannons are relativley hard to make technology and consequently only organizations like the Astartes would have easy access to them. The average guard squad most likley isn't going to be equipped with something as valuable as a lascannon which is represented in the point cost increase.
From a purely fluff standpoint there are thousands of IG per space marine and recruiting, training, and equipping a new SM is insanely expensive and takes much more time. So Marines should cost over 1000 times more than a guardsman. Obviously, a setup like that would make a tabletop game difficult. (10 marines vs. 5,000 guard with support vehicles!!!)

Saying that guard heavy weapons have two wounds is silly, especially when considering infantry squads. SM and everybody else can remove any model they want when they take casualties unless your opponent has artfully limited his LOS/range with perfect precison (a strategy to which heavy weapon teams are equally vulnerable) while you ignored him or he is using a vindicare. So, in 95%+ of situations, it's the same as having a single guy operating the gun.

The big point that GW completely ignored in regards to pricing guard lascannons is the guiding principle of "the more benefit a unit gets from it, the more the option costs." A guard lascannon hits less often than a marine one and the squad it's in is more fragile. The guard squad is also more likely to suffer from morale effects and thus fail target priority or lose the use of their lascannon due to pinning or fall back.



Quite simply, a 10 man IG infatnry squad has 10 wounds +5 armour save and BS 3. With a sergeant and lascannon it costs 91pts
A 5 man space marine squad has 5 wounds a +3 armour save and BS4. With a lascannon it costs 90pts
Now basically these two units are virtually identical. The 5 SM wounds equate to 10 IG wounds because they all have a +3 save. Although the marines have better BS...
...Therefore the two units are pretty much balanced and therefore cost the same amount of pts. That simple.

Not that simple. Here are some important factors necessary for a more accurate calculation:
+SM morale advantage
+The fact that 5+ saves are ignored by most weapons in game and 3+ saves are not
+The SM wounds are at a higher toughness of 4
And you skimmed over the BS advantage.

Randy
12-08-2007, 14:42
If you want to play fluff then a marine wouldn't die form a lascannon hitting them square in the chest.

If you want toplay fluff, lasguns couldn't hurt themat all.

If you want toplay fluff, marines would get special weapons cheaper then guard because they'd befar mroe likely to be equipped with highquality weapons to reflect their elite status.

Alexandr Ulyanov
12-08-2007, 14:50
If you want to play fluff then a marine wouldn't die form a lascannon hitting them square in the chest.

Yeah, the more recent marine-worship fluff. But anyway, if I could get 1000 guardsmen per SM I could still win by crushing the SM under tons of man-flesh.



If you want toplay fluff, lasguns couldn't hurt themat all.

Hey, how about the old fluff where they used lasguns on each other?



If you want toplay fluff, marines would get special weapons cheaper then guard because they'd befar mroe likely to be equipped with highquality weapons to reflect their elite status.
No, in fluff heavy weapons are not discounted for status or balance or army theme. A bolter costs X to produce whether an IG officer gets it or an SM gets it.

Now let's get back on topic.

Randy
12-08-2007, 15:11
But my point is the marines have more lascannons per gun then the IG do (Or at least they should given that they're meant to be the best of the best) so they're effectively more avaliable to them.

Alexandr Ulyanov
12-08-2007, 15:26
But my point is the marines have more lascannons per gun then the IG do (Or at least they should given that they're meant to be the best of the best) so they're effectively more avaliable to them.
Yeah. But that's already the way it is with codex SM, even without the point discrepancy. SM could have 1 lascannon to about every 4 bolters in those rules, while guard can have somewhat more than 1 lascannon to every 9 lasguns.

Joewrightgm
12-08-2007, 15:40
actually, a Dark Angel's Tactical Squad is only paying 5 pts less than a Guard Squad or Guard Anti-Tank Squad, while my Devastators are paying 10 point more.

Which, along with the fact my Angels have to buy 5 more marines before we buy the lascannon means that our troop choices are more restricted in when/how I can take a Lascannon, which in my opinion at least, makes it slightly less valuable.

Alexandr Ulyanov
12-08-2007, 15:55
actually, a Dark Angel's Tactical Squad is only paying 5 pts less than a Guard Squad or Guard Anti-Tank Squad, while my Devastators are paying 10 point more.
.



Which, along with the fact my Angels have to buy 5 more marines before we buy the lascannon means that our troop choices are more restricted in when/how I can take a Lascannon, which in my opinion at least, makes it slightly less valuable.
DA are more restricted than codex SM marines in lascannon selection, but not much more restricted than IG. Infantry squads also need 10 men to take a heavy weapon and anti-tank squads are supposed to be IG devastators. The big difference is that IG command squads can get a lascannon too.

I think that these changes are a step in the right direction as far as balance goes, but still do not completely balance out the discrepancy. I think the real answer is not in nerfing SM more than DA, though, but in improving IG when their new dex is released.

ChaosMaster
12-08-2007, 16:07
why do lascannons in a SM tac squad cost less then in a IG squad? That makes both a SM with lascannon cost the same as a guardsmen with lascannon! Absurd!

There is a simple reason for this which GW has explained in the past. It's because when you put it in a Tactical Squad, either it doesn't get to shoot effectively all the time (e.g., when the squad moves up to bolter range, it can't shoot) and when it sits back at long range shooting at heavy armour then the rest of the squad is ineffective. Less average effectiveness over the course of an entire game means lower points cost.

Alexandr Ulyanov
12-08-2007, 16:24
There is a simple reason for this which GW has explained in the past. It's because when you put it in a Tactical Squad, either it doesn't get to shoot effectively all the time (e.g., when the squad moves up to bolter range, it can't shoot) and when it sits back at long range shooting at heavy armour then the rest of the squad is ineffective. Less average effectiveness over the course of an entire game means lower points cost.
That is the reason a devastator pays more than a tactical squad member, not the reason that IG pay more. IG are in the same boat with their infantry platoons as SM are with their tactical squads; if they didn't have a heavy weapon they'd be moving and shooting too, and probably benefitting from that fact.

CauCaSus
12-08-2007, 16:43
Taking out Guardsmen with Lascannon can be sometimes dificult compared to killing a Marine with lascannon, since you have to kill the gunner and the loader along with the rest of the squad to get rid of the weapon. Marine heavies can be neutralised in one shot.

Guardsman can potentially get more Lascannons per troop choice than spacemarines as well.

Uh...what?
SM heavy weapons don't come in single models that can be killed with one shot, they come in units of between 5 or 10 models, just like IG heavy weapons. On top of this SM have higher T, Armour and Ld, making them a lot harder to take out than guardsmen.

You are correct about the number of heavy weapons though (both considering the cost of men and the number of lascannons per FO-chart) and I think this was discussed in the designer's notes when Codex: IG came out for 3rd/4th ed.

Lord Cook
12-08-2007, 17:31
Saying that guard heavy weapons have two wounds is silly, especially when considering infantry squads. SM and everybody else can remove any model they want when they take casualties unless your opponent has artfully limited his LOS/range with perfect precison (a strategy to which heavy weapon teams are equally vulnerable) while you ignored him or he is using a vindicare.

Not true I'm afraid. IG heavy weapons do have two wounds, because you have to kill both the gunner and loader to put the heavy weapon out of action. Even if something like a vindicare or mind war attack has killed the gunner, the loader can still fire the heavy weapon. This was clarified in an FAQ some time ago, if you want a link I will have to PM Lord Malek for it, but I assure you it exists.


If you want to play fluff then a marine wouldn't die form a lascannon hitting them square in the chest.

Yes he would. That's just fanboy marine players getting overexcited and spewing out exaggerated rubbish.

Higgen
12-08-2007, 23:00
I'd like to see that FAQ. It's been discussed to death before, but suffice to say that there is no rule in the entire codex that says anything of the sort. If that was a true ruling, you would have ridiculous things happening where the Heavy Weapon physically moves on the table during the enemy shooting phase. There's also, of course the bullet point in the ImpGuard FAQ about Warrior Weapons and Heavy/Special weapons. It implies that when you give a Heavy/Special weapon, you lose the lasgun, and thus lose the ability to gain 2 CCWs. If you're only gaining one HW per HW team, one person keeps his lasgun and the other loses him. If the one gaining the weapon dies, how does a model with 2 CCWs get to use a Heavy weapon?

ChaosMaster
13-08-2007, 01:17
That is the reason a devastator pays more than a tactical squad member, not the reason that IG pay more. IG are in the same boat with their infantry platoons as SM are with their tactical squads; if they didn't have a heavy weapon they'd be moving and shooting too, and probably benefitting from that fact.

And that is why most of my own regular platoon IG squads don't have heavy weapons, because I need them to move and capture objectives or move up and rapid fire (and flame) to protect more static troop positions. Only 2 of my 6 regular platoon squads have heavy weapons and their job during games is usually to anchor some position in which they are deployed during setup. The heavy weapon just gives them something useful to do to support the rest of the force while they are sitting back out of lasgun range.

As to why IG do not pay less than SM, I would think that has more to do with the fact that the Codices for the two armies were drafted and released some time apart and as always happens, the game designers and playtesters are constantly re-evaluating what they think are reasonable points costs for squad upgrades. It's probably just that simple and I can give you another fine example of this kind of re-evaluation: the change in points costs for Rhinos in the latest Space Marine army list/Codex releases and the fact that equipment which every vehicle should have (e.g., smoke launchers, searchlights) is now standard instead of an upgrade.

40K is constantly changing. I've been involved in it since Rogue Trader. It's very common for these types of point costs to change over time as the game changes and designers have a chance to "do better" (or at least, different) with each release.

alex03
13-08-2007, 05:49
Very valid point if having enough guard to field a ton of troop mounted lascannons didn't make the army suffer from deployment and speed of game issues..

Isnt that what the guard are all about? Lots and lots of soldiers. Horde armies DO take a long time to deploy. Thats just the way mob armies play.


First, you just implied that the current SM are more balanced than IG. For that, the commissar may find you wanting.

Well, I AM starting a chaos army. :D


Second, you took a somewhat reasonable comparison (same weapon in shooting oriented troop squads in two armies) and said that it was invalid because you can make an unreasonable, taken-to-extremes comparison (army unique weapon vs. a lack of that army unique weapon). By that logic, Necrons get Monoliths and eldar don't, so necrons are unbalanced. Obviously not a valid point..

My point is that all armies have different factors ALL THEIR OWN for balance. Imperial guard have other powerfull heavy support options that do considerable damage. Marines have lascannons. Marines pretty much rely on lascannons (and missile launchers, but the same pts arguements would aply there as well) to do all their long range anti vehilce work.

i.e. look at fire dragons. Each one of them caries a meltagun and they are only 16 pts each. Why no big outcry there?

Alexandr Ulyanov
14-08-2007, 02:27
Well, I AM starting a chaos army. :D

I'm sorry for your loss.



i.e. look at fire dragons. Each one of them caries a meltagun and they are only 16 pts each. Why no big outcry there?
Because eldar have several things that are much less balanced than that that draw all the criticism, like harlequins.

Fire Dragons are probably a bit too cheap since I would have taken them in the last codex and our group's eldar player did; now they're cheaper AND better...:wtf:
I think people would still take them if they were 20 pts each, and I would like to playtest them that way.

burning crome
14-08-2007, 04:32
This is getting wonderfully bitter. I think as SM player I’d give you laz cannon’s cheaper if you hand over some of those battle cannon wielding tanks?? evey army has strenths and weakness, remember SM only have access to one A14 tank and that way over priced, this augment could be about any thing here. The line up in codexs simply doesn’t compare.

unclejimbo827
14-08-2007, 06:14
Not true I'm afraid. IG heavy weapons do have two wounds, because you have to kill both the gunner and loader to put the heavy weapon out of action. Even if something like a vindicare or mind war attack has killed the gunner, the loader can still fire the heavy weapon. This was clarified in an FAQ some time ago, if you want a link I will have to PM Lord Malek for it, but I assure you it exists.

As far as I know IG weapon teams are just like any other single infantryman with a heavy weapon - the loader is just on the base for convenience.

In fact, the FAQ says just that - http://us.games-workshop.com/errata/assets/imperial_guard_faq_v4-0.pdf

Lord Cook
14-08-2007, 16:24
It wasn't that particular FAQ, it was a series of questions posed (I believe) to one of the Devs. I'll be back later with a link of some sort.

EDIT: It was WD306, summarised in this (http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1630402&postcount=11http://www.warseer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1630402&postcount=11) post by Lord Malek the Red Knight.

Notice the bit at the end that says "Both have to be killed to disable the heavy weapon."

ChaosMaster
14-08-2007, 16:43
As far as I know IG weapon teams are just like any other single infantryman with a heavy weapon - the loader is just on the base for convenience.

In fact, the FAQ says just that - http://us.games-workshop.com/errata/assets/imperial_guard_faq_v4-0.pdf

That sounds correct both with and without the FAQ regarding heavy weapon teams.

That FAQ is a bit suspect in some ways though. For example, it says that Servitors DO count toward the wargear limit of Engineseers, but the later printings of the IG Codex specifically state that Servitors do NOT count toward the wargear limit. Now, which do we believe. Which is it? If they do count toward the limit, that means that Engineseers with a gun servitor other than a heavy bolter never have the points for a useful retinue.

Alexandr Ulyanov
15-08-2007, 11:24
It wasn't that particular FAQ, it was a series of questions posed (I believe) to one of the Devs. I'll be back later with a link of some sort.

EDIT: It was WD306

Notice the bit at the end that says "Both have to be killed to disable the heavy weapon."
So those of us without that issue of WD have no way of proving the way the rules look to our opponents or judges, and either might say the FAQ overrides it. What a mess.

Arkturas
15-08-2007, 14:35
I wouldn't start wishing for a new IG codex to right this perceived imbalance. The way long ranged anti-tank weapon costs have been going the guard will likely be paying a bit more for a lascannon in any new codex.

Lord Cook
15-08-2007, 17:41
So those of us without that issue of WD have no way of proving the way the rules look to our opponents or judges, and either might say the FAQ overrides it. What a mess.

I agree. Trust GW to keep all their rules and clarifications in one place :eyebrows:.

Skibbles
15-08-2007, 19:36
So much whining. The two armies aren't even supposed to be played in the same way and comparing the two point for point is just rediculous.

linvus232
15-08-2007, 21:01
Having a two-wounded heavy weapon teamer really is not all that big an advantage even if it's true, since the only thing it would help against is the Vindicare Assassin.

I'm all for the argument based on Devestators/Havocs. You can field more heavy weapons per choice, thus they are more expensive. You can also be more flexible with their deployment.

The weapons and stats they are effectively nullifying are also less potent since with a Marine Lascannon, you're wasting the Marine (and his squad)'s WS, S and I of 4 and all of their Boltguns whereas Guard are more optimised for long-range shooting with weaker combat stats and short-ranged weapons.

Just my $0.02.

Alexandr Ulyanov
16-08-2007, 05:46
Having a two-wounded heavy weapon teamer really is not all that big an advantage even if it's true, since the only thing it would help against is the Vindicare Assassin.

Well, it can also help vs. mind war and gift of chaos, but the point is that it ALMOST never matters.



I'm all for the argument based on Devestators/Havocs. You can field more heavy weapons per choice, thus they are more expensive. You can also be more flexible with their deployment.

If we want to go by the argument that guardsmen should pay more because they get more lascannons, then we have some problems:
1) guard lists that have a larger number of lascannons than CSM/SM lists do not necessarily have more firepower, since SM are more accurate. This does not appear to be factored in, and it's pretty obvious that getting a lot of hits is more important than getting a lot of shots.
2) More heavy weapons per choice matters for IG mainly when you're filling out a large list, not in a moderate point tournament army. The SM pay 540 pts and get 6 bs4 tactical lascannons, and the IG pay 705 to get 9 BS 3 lascannons(close to the same firepower). After that point, yeah, the IG can fit more lascannons in than the SM but only if they really lean on the infantry. (Most posters seemed to agree in the problems with guard thread that the infantry was a little weak for its points, so going even so heavy as 705 pts into your troops in a ~1500 pt game would be introducing weakness IMO)
Though you point about flexible deployment applies unless the IG already have a clogged deployment zone.



The weapons and stats they are effectively nullifying are also less potent since with a Marine Lascannon, you're wasting the Marine (and his squad)'s WS, S and I of 4 and all of their Boltguns whereas Guard are more optimised for long-range shooting with weaker combat stats and short-ranged weapons.

The "I get it for less since I can't fully use all my advantages at once" isn't apparently much of a consideration for most armies according to GW. After all, DE warriors get cheap heavy weapons despite their relative fragility; Eldar guardians also don't pay inordinately much (though they do pay for the ability to move and fire).
It's a pretty weak argument besides. Basically, you're saying that if a model is good all-around it should pay less for its upgrades than if it is only good at one thing. Now, if your model could ONLY ever shoot or assault, for instance, this point would be valid: if you are truly prohibited from assaulting, your assault stats are useless and vice versa. However, in the course of a game you can both shoot and assault/be assaulted in mulitple phases and all of those stats will help.
A better argument is that you throw away the bolter for the lascannon, and since a bolter is better than a lasgun so there should be more of a point "refund" for the bolter. The problem with that is simply that a bolter is not that superior to a lasgun, and neither is even close to a lascannon. So, the cost of upgrade should be similar and relatively high for both.

Lord Cook
16-08-2007, 13:38
Having a two-wounded heavy weapon teamer really is not all that big an advantage even if it's true, since the only thing it would help against is the Vindicare Assassin.

More importantly it works against ToF. Which is quite common and doesn't require specific units, like mind war, vindicare sniping and gift of chaos.

Alexandr Ulyanov
17-08-2007, 07:25
More importantly it works against ToF. Which is quite common and doesn't require specific units, like mind war, vindicare sniping and gift of chaos.
Good point.

However, unless you've got cover torrent of fire probably means most to all of the guard are dead anyway, since most weapons are AP5 or better. That ceases to be as much of an issue with carapace armor and the like, though.

alex03
17-08-2007, 07:48
1) guard lists that have a larger number of lascannons than CSM/SM lists do not necessarily have more firepower, since SM are more accurate. This does not appear to be factored in, and it's pretty obvious that getting a lot of hits is more important than getting a lot of shots.


Not true. You have MORE chances to hit with more shots, even at a lower BS. You have the possability to do better than the marines. I would take 3 shots at bs3 over 2 shots at bs4 anytime because you have the chance to get three hits. I would give the firepower edge to the guard in this instance.

Thats why shooty orks armies do well. Volume of fire works wonders.

Sgt Biffo
17-08-2007, 08:03
when you start comparing point values in different armies you are bound to find things which annoy you


Dont compare weapon costs across armies.

Pay no attention to these guys Mike3791!

Points are there solely for gaming balance.

A BS3 Las Canon is (in theory) less effective than a BS4 one. Hence the lower points cost. Though increases in Stats are more often refected in basic troop cost rather than weapon cost within an army (Sharp Shooting for example).

Alexandr Ulyanov
17-08-2007, 17:05
"guard lists that have a larger number of lascannons than CSM/SM lists do not necessarily have more firepower, since SM are more accurate. This does not appear to be factored in, and it's pretty obvious that getting a lot of hits is more important than getting a lot of shots."


Not true.
Really? So you believe one or more of the following:
1) Guard lists with more lascannons necessarily have more firepower than SM lists even if the SM avg. more hits overall
2) The accuracy is factored into the cost
3) Getting more shots is more important than getting more hits
While number 2 is perhaps open for some debate, the others are obviously wrong.



You have MORE chances to hit with more shots, even at a lower BS. You have the possability to do better than the marines.
Yeah, the maximum number of hits possible is higher. If your average number of hits is lower, though, you are going to do worse in the long run than the marines.
Maximum number of successes possible should be a minor consideration if it is considered at all. For instance, 20 gretchin could theoretically inflict 20 wounds on 10 plague marines and 10 SM could only inflict 10, but it's obvious that gretchin are not better.



I would take 3 shots at bs3 over 2 shots at bs4 anytime because you have the chance to get three hits.

As to 3 BS3 shots vs. 2 BS4 shots
EVERYONE would like 3 BS3 shots over 2 BS4 shots since the BS3 avg 1.5 hits while the BS4 avg only 1.33. However, guard can't get 3 lascannons for the price of 2 SM lascannons; in a platoon vs tac comparison, the best ratio per point guard can achieve is 1.2 lascannons to every marine lascannon. (3 in platoon, 3x5 man tacs)
I would rather have 1 BS 4 shot than 1.2 BS3 shots, and so should everyone else.



Thats why shooty orks armies do well. Volume of fire works wonders.
You must be in the wrong dimension. What are these shooty orks of which you speak?

alex03
18-08-2007, 01:50
You must be in the wrong dimension. What are these shooty orks of which you speak?

I think i'm in the right dimension. Which one is this again? :confused:

When each mob of orks can have three big shoots, or three rockit launha's, they put out a lot of firepower. Plus they can move and fire. And since each ork is dirt cheap, you can get lots and lots of mobs, thus lots of shooting, even at bs2. When a friend and I were playing in the Toirl campaing he played a new codex eldar list designed to screw orks over with shooting, and using an ork force, I out shot him. It was pretty scarry. (I found it extremely funny, since he designed his list knowing who he was going up against, ect) Orks are not even my army, and I'm no master of using them. It wasnt even lucky dice rolls. On average I put out way more shots then he put out. Those are the shooty orks of which I speak.


Your statement was also "its more important to get lots of hits than lots of shots" which in itself is not true, if the average chance of getting hits is the same in both cases but one side has a potential to get MORE hits, it has higher firepower because it will generate more hits. Thats what I was getting at. I used to play dark elves in fantasy. I know about getting more hits through volume of fire at reduced accuracy. Maybe you should be more specific when you make your generalized statements?

I will agree with you on one thing, I think the Guard army is somewhat weak. I don't think its number of heavy weapons is the problem, I think the bigger problem is that the guard troop himself is overcosted. I would lower his cost to 5 pts and leave the weapons costs the same, considering the marine heavies went up. I would also say the other guard problem is a lack of good mobility. In a game of objectives and movement, the guard lack in these areas. One big reason why skimmer armies do so well, as well.

Also the marine basic squad to get a heavy weapon is going to be 185 points to the guards, what, 90 points? If you detach the other combat squad and remove thier points from consideration, its still going to cost 95 points. And considering the guard squad will have 10 wounds to the marines 5, I would say its fairly balanced, but only if leave both squads to sit and just shost the heavy weapon. I know you are now going to say "but they wont just sit there, and the bolters will decimate the guard" to which I will say right now, then the marines arn't shooting their lascannon. Maybe thats considered in why weapons cost the way they do? Hmmmmmm

What would make you happy, anyways? Cheaper heavies and specials for the guard squads? Little white ponies? Can you image the gun lines they could whip out then? Heres my 14 80pt squads with lascannon and plasma guns. AND I STILL have 3 leman russ's/basalisks. Goodbye.

I know what you really want. You want each stat point to have a base cost for every army. So how would they do that? Each pt of bs would be 1point? But then is bs worth more than ws? So if each ws is worth 1 point is 1 bs worth 2 pts? And is 1 point of bs on a toughness 4 creature worth more than on a toughness 3 one? So should there be multipliers as well? Like 1 pt of bs on a t4 is worth 2.5 points? Then also is you have consider other factors such as armor and leadership so multiply and multiply again? Do you see what im getting it?

It would be increadibly complex to sit down work it out. It is probably possible to do so, but thats NOT what the game dev's have been doing the last 10+ years. They just feel it out. (some would say ajust points and power to sell models) So unless they scrap the whole points system and start from scratch, your not going to get what you want. You have to trust that the army on the whole will balance out vs others. Sometimes the dev's succeed. Sometimes they fail.

Im going on and on it seems. He's my ending thoughts. I think in the heavy weapons department the guard are fine. (I do think the support squads could use a price reduction, actually). It is in other areas where I believe imbalances are. Now Im tapping out.

Alexandr Ulyanov
18-08-2007, 02:45
I think i'm in the right dimension. Which one is this again? :confused:
The one with holo-falcons which take about a hundred rokkit shots on avg to immobilize or destroy.

The one where dire avengers kill whole mobs in a phase, get saves vs. most of your shooting, and nerf your charge with defend.

I'm sorry, but the idea that orks are a stronger shooting army than mech eldar is currently just silly.

alex03
18-08-2007, 02:52
I see you posted while I was editing my post. I was booted for taking so damn long to type. See above.

alex03
18-08-2007, 03:03
The one with holo-falcons which take about a hundred rokkit shots on avg to immobilize or destroy.

The one where dire avengers kill whole mobs in a phase, get saves vs. most of your shooting, and nerf your charge with defend.

I'm sorry, but the idea that orks are a stronger shooting army than mech eldar is currently just silly.

Not really. You dont need to destroy the falcon, just shake it so it cant shoot. Not hard to do.

If the dire avengers have defend, then they dont have bladestorm, now do they? (or can they have both?, my eldar loving pansy friend either takes one or the other)

Anyways it happened. My friend didnt do the eldar air force that game, either. He took lots of warwalkers with scatter lasers, dire avengers, shining spears, some kind of artillery piece that shoots inderct, ect. Everything he thought would just cream orks.

Perhaps the eldar SHOULD outshoot the orks. Maybe mech eldar is the way to go. Im sure the eldar air force has been descussed to death already anyways. He's keen on trying one out soon, as he's been dissapointed with his balanced eldar's performance so far.

Alexandr Ulyanov
18-08-2007, 03:25
If the dire avengers have defend, then they dont have bladestorm, now do they? (or can they have both?, my eldar loving pansy friend either takes one or the other)

I have read the codex, and I think they can have both. It's a nightmare to find little tidbits like that due to the lack of organization, though.



Perhaps the eldar SHOULD outshoot the orks. Maybe mech eldar is the way to go. Im sure the eldar air force has been descussed to death already anyways. He's keen on trying one out soon, as he's been dissapointed with his balanced eldar's performance so far.
Yeah, he really didn't seem to get it. He apparently took shadow weavers(unpredictably performing indirect artillery) and war walkers(good, but fragile) instead of fire prisms or falcons(good bet for survival, powerful shots when they get them). I'm surprised he took shining spears, as they are anti-vehicle/anti-high armor save units and the orks have much of neither; a better choice would have been the excellent warp spiders. Dire avengers are great, but they pretty much need a transport to shine.

The general consensus I got when discussing things like "best shooting army" has been that eldar are even better than tau, so long as the range is ~36". Beyond that the Tau are better, but the eldar are usually capable of closing the gap quickly.

Lord Cook
18-08-2007, 17:42
The general consensus I got when discussing things like "best shooting army" has been that eldar are even better than tau, so long as the range is ~36". Beyond that the Tau are better, but the eldar are usually capable of closing the gap quickly.

Beyond 36", no one can outshoot the Guard. Without basic weapons in range it comes down to a heavy weapon duel, and the IG rule that particular battlefield. I would agree that both Eldar and Tau have the potential to outshine the IG in a close quarter firefight, but it's still a toss up.

It's largely pointless to discuss the "best shooting army", because some excel in certain areas and not in others. For example, Tau are better than the IG against other shooting armies thanks to their mobility and emphasis on pure shooting. But the Guard have far more durability and counter attack capability, giving them an edge against assault armies. At least in my experience. The Eldar have the firepower of neither the Tau nor the IG, but unparalleled mobility (except the DE) lets them place their firepower where it will do the most damage. It comes down to the terrain and the player as much as anything else.