Do we need old havocs?

[enasni127]

That would still make them difficult to deal with with melee but even harder to deal with with snipers/ranged fire/grenades/all their other counters. So no, that's an absolutely awful idea. Why do they deserve extra hp over the other set-up teams? No reason whatsoever.

cause they actually have LESS hp than other setup teams and take MORE damage, as far as I have understood rikus post.

Here are the numbers

Lootas: 750hp, infantry
Warriors:990hp, heavy infantry
heavy weapons team: 740hp, infantry
guardian weapons team: 675hp, infantry
havocs: 675hp, heavy infantry
devastators: 675hp, heavy infantry


so, if riku is right and heavy infantry gets a lot of bonus damage then havocs and devastators are the easiest to kill. I don't see any advantage if they just get a bit more hp.

[Torpid]

They are resistant to piercing damage which is the main way to deal with set-up teams outside of jump troops for SM and chaos. Eldar get snipers/grenades so they're a bit different. Orks/IG/nids just use piercing damage as their main counter to set-up teams. In the instances where piercing damage is being used havocs/devs perform better than lootas. HWT are a bit of an exception due to the extra model, it means they bleed more too, I don't see it as a particular advantage.

Warriors are an inappropriate comparison anyway due to their lack of range on their suppression weapon meaning they need far more health to get close enough to use it.

[Nurland]

HI is an advantage generally in T1 due to piercing damage resistance. But later on it becomes a liability for most parts due to extra damage from grenades and artillery, abundance of plasma, melta and inferno and more mobile, higher dps power melee squads.

[Daddy]

HI is an advantage generally in T1 due to piercing damage resistance. But later on it becomes a liability for most parts due to extra damage from grenades and artillery, abundance of plasma, melta and inferno and more mobile, higher dps power melee squads.

Agreed.

[Cheah18]

HI is an advantage generally in T1 due to piercing damage resistance. But later on it becomes a liability for most parts due to extra damage from grenades and artillery, abundance of plasma, melta and inferno and more mobile, higher dps power melee squads.

Agreed.

T1 however is kind of when resiliency matters: After, you get:

1)Vehicles, which lead to lascannons and thus long distance shooting: The team is not in a firefight with many enemy units, and is either countered or not.

2)Better, more potent counters, which similarly leads to the team being forced off or bled/wiped anyway.

IE. If I get my ogryns on an enemy set-up team, it doesn't matter what armour type they are, they will feel a lot of pain; they should be out of there already. And armour type doesn't matter if the lascannon team is placed far out of range, as any (non-vehicle) unit which gets into range is probably going to hurt it anyway

[TGZero]

Look, how about we just get rid of the MRA on both Havocs and Devastators and call it even? If you lose 'em, it's your own damn fault for not watching/supporting them.

[Nurland]

Melee resistance on devs isn't a huge problem. The Havoc melee resistance on the other hand is a bit much

[enasni127]

Melee resistance on devs isn't a huge problem. The Havoc melee resistance on the other hand is a bit much

I don't understand that. Devs and Havocs both have 40% melee resistance. Both units have 675hp and the same armor type. Why is it no problem on devs but too much on havocs? Or is it sarcasm cause nobody complains about the devs melee resistance?

[Dalakh]

I believe it comes to the massive amount of counter initiation chaos gets with tics and ktw.

[Torpid]

Melee resistance on devs isn't a huge problem. The Havoc melee resistance on the other hand is a bit much

I don't understand that. Devs and Havocs both have 40% melee resistance. Both units have 675hp and the same armor type. Why is it no problem on devs but too much on havocs? Or is it sarcasm cause nobody complains about the devs melee resistance?

No, it's due to how much better chaos are at counter-initiating with their heretics/csm which they often have many of compared to the SM shotgun scouts which they often have fewer of.

[enasni127]

Melee resistance on devs isn't a huge problem. The Havoc melee resistance on the other hand is a bit much

I don't understand that. Devs and Havocs both have 40% melee resistance. Both units have 675hp and the same armor type. Why is it no problem on devs but too much on havocs? Or is it sarcasm cause nobody complains about the devs melee resistance?

No, it's due to how much better chaos are at counter-initiating with their heretics/csm which they often have many of compared to the SM shotgun scouts which they often have fewer of.

ah ok, might be true. At least it seems harder to fight off melee attackers for sm than for chaos.

[SirSid]

Yha im having a really hard time vs havocs sudenly. IMO any supresion team ( but especialy havocs ) need to be hard countered in some way or you losse to much map presence.

Lossing set up teams to whipes on retreat is not something that is nice to have happen but something that NEEDS to happen , especialy in 1v1. Sure in team games set up teams get gibed on retreat way to offten , however that is the risk you take. The reward is forcing large scale attacks on a locked down area so i have no problem with that.

I feel this change was a mistake, less so for team games but a major problem for 1v1 .

I have to say IDK why the havocs needed this at all ? i mean how many ways do chaos have to protect set up teams.. all heros + a starter t1 unit. so that's 2 units the chaos player has to work with just by loading into the game .

1 more thing to say about this. Chaos is SOOoooo good at protecting thare set up teams that 90 % of the time i get mark of khorn on them , cuz why not they don't even need to supres to be effective.

[appiah4]

The instant suppression was a million times worse, they are pretty fair now.

[Nurland]

Nah. The melee resistance is OTT. They could maybe have it on retreat or something. But no real other need for it imho.

[Ar-Aamon]

I fully agree with Nurland.

[Sub_Zero]

They could maybe have it on retreat or something

So there is no punishment for mistakes? No, thanks.

[Ven]

They could maybe have it on retreat or something

So there is no punishment for mistakes? No, thanks.

the havocs being forced off is punishment enough, even without melee resist you could easily counter initiate with tics and then back off the havocs, so having to retreat them in punishment enough for a mistake.

i still think that havocs need something to increase their survivability as riku has said in the past, with HI taking extra damage from so many different damage sources come T2, but i dont think melee resist is that solution.

[Vapor]

Then maybe tie melee resistance to havocs' t2 upgrades, or make it activate upon reaching t2? The thing is, they are way too durable in t1 and even just adding melee resist on retreat increases the amount of time they can be kept on the field without risking a wipe (although it would be an improvement over the current situation).

I think if melee resist were removed, default havocs could use a slight dmg increase at short range to compensate

[Dark Riku]

I think if melee resist were removed, default havocs could use a slight dmg increase at short range to compensate

Removing a previous buff would result into another buff because? ~~Logic~~

[Torpid]

They already got a big damage buff last patch...

"Chaos Havoc Bolter damage increased from 12 to 23"

This is why even ignoring melee resistance havocs are better this patch than before despite "losing instant suppression".

[Vapor]

I think if melee resist were removed, default havocs could use a slight dmg increase at short range to compensate

Removing a previous buff would result into another buff because? ~~Logic~~

I meant to compensate for the loss of instant suppression, but Torpid says their damage already got increased so I stand corrected. Anyway the point is havocs are too good with melee resist, and it really wasn't that hard to keep them alive without it before

[Dark Riku]

I meant to compensate for the loss of instant suppression,

Even that reasoning wouldn't make sense since they still suppress faster than any other setupteam.
Just because something is nerfed or buffed doesn't mean it needs compensation one way or the other.
It means something was either over or under performing.

[Sub_Zero]

So there is no punishment for mistakes? No, thanks.

If you have heretics around it is impossible to kill havocs in retreat unless some jump squad receives high speed and immunity to suppression. If you don't have heretics around you are in retreat already by the time the jump squad lands on them. This is what I meant. If you do not have heretics around and you do not retreat in time then die, you traitorous scum!

Even that reasoning wouldn't make sense since they still suppress faster than any other setupteam.

Sometimes they need to suppress a squad that appears to be in the middle of their firing arc and there is a significant delay, I am pretty sure that if any other setup team catches something in the middle of their firing it suppresses it immediately. I've got a feeling something is wrong about havocs, I will repeat once again the only thing that maybe needed a fix is their insta suppression on super-long ranges. Should not have touched other modifiers. I still don't mind returning their insta suppression as something that distinguishes them from other setup teams. And tough devs seem fine to me. And now we have different setup teams. HWT could repair and fire again too... And we certainly have really different units that serves one purpose which is cool.

[Surprise Attack!]

I agree with Nurland.

I also have a YouTube video that kinda highlights the problem everyone is talking about. BTW, I didn't forget to retreat my Havocs, I left them in there because I knew they wouldn't die.



But I also have a problem with the Havoc's previous stats, mostly because I main CS and he has a hard time dealing with single entities. Having to T my Havocs out the instant an engagement begins pretty much guarantees an engagement loss in many scenarios.

Maybe all that we needed was a HP buff to havocs while devs keep their melee resist?

[Torpid]

I agree with Nurland.

I also have a YouTube video that kinda highlights the problem everyone is talking about. BTW, I didn't forget to retreat my Havocs, I left them in there because I knew they wouldn't die.



But I also have a problem with the Havoc's previous stats, mostly because I main CS and he has a hard time dealing with single entities. Having to T my Havocs out the instant an engagement begins pretty much guarantees an engagement loss in many scenarios.

Maybe all that we needed was a HP buff to havocs while devs keep their melee resist?

Why would you buff the HP of havocs? That just makes them resistant to both melee and ranged and it is completely unjustified.

These changes to havocs/devs are frankly disgusting. I mean, they're just so blatantly absurd. And with proposals to nerf banshees chasing ability even being suggested and the current absolute inability of orks to do anything to chaos/SM things don't look great...

Havocs are definitely worse but devs are OP too with this I find. Why not just make it so they get melee resistance on retreat but not otherwise? It is absurdly hard to actually force off these suppression teams and you bleed way too much trying to do so. Add in the nerfed snipers... I mean, it's just such a backward step in the balance, especially in team games. It's just "let's spam more suppression" and inevitably that just leads to very predictable and very boring artillery spams in T2.

In other news, purification vials and the blight grenades do too much damage.

[Surprise Attack!]

Why would you buff the HP of havocs? That just makes them resistant to both melee and ranged and it is completely unjustified.

These changes to havocs/devs are frankly disgusting. I mean, they're just so blatantly absurd. And with proposals to nerf banshees chasing ability even being suggested and the current absolute inability of orks to do anything to chaos/SM things don't look great...

Havocs are definitely worse but devs are OP too with this I find. Why not just make it so they get melee resistance on retreat but not otherwise? It is absurdly hard to actually force off these suppression teams and you bleed way too much trying to do so. Add in the nerfed snipers... I mean, it's just such a backward step in the balance, especially in team games. It's just "let's spam more suppression" and inevitably that just leads to very predictable and very boring artillery spams in T2.

In other news, purification vials and the blight grenades do too much damage.

I'm not talking about a huge buff to their HP, just enough to make slightly more survivable, which was the original goal of the MRA. Without MRA, 25 per model to bring total squad HP to 750, maybe?

It would mean that its HP would be similar to non space marine squads, but those have other benefits.

[Torpid]

I'm not talking about a huge buff to their HP, just enough to make slightly more survivable, which was the original goal of the MRA. Without MRA, 25 per model to bring total squad HP to 750, maybe?

It would mean that its HP would be similar to non space marine squads, but those have other benefits.

HI is still a huge benefit vs 3 of the 6 main races - IG, tyranids and orks who all rely heavily on piercing damage to force off set-up teams. Why buff their hp and make them even more resistant to ranged attacks when they are resistant enough to such? Just address the issue with them being too vulnerable to wipes from melee on retreat.

[MaxPower]

I might not be the best one to ask if it comes to balance, just because I only main SM. But I do agree with the statement that Havos + Devs are kinda strong at the moment with their melee resistance.

Hence I do agree with Torpids note of removing the melee resistance on both setup teams, while giving them melee resist once they are retreating.

[Surprise Attack!]

Agreed, I concede the point.