I can't stop talking about Tacs n' Sternguard...

[taco86]

There is no doubt in my mind that the reinforce cost between the two is of significant importance. This econ upgrade in terms of a power bleed reduction most certainly must be looked at and part of the consideration. You're trading higher req bleed and xp feed for no power bleed.

TSM vs SGSM is pretty much perfect other than the fact that you have to re level. TSM sergeant really increases the melee defense of the squad, i don't really see why the tac squad should have more hp as well (unless you get sterns to 3 or 4). Always giving the SGSM squad more HP (which is what would happen if they did not de level) would at least some what make up for their increased melee vulnerability.

[Forestradio]

There is no doubt in my mind that the reinforce cost between the two is of significant important. This econ upgrade in terms of a power bleed reduction most certainly must be looked at and part of the consideration.

Overall I think TSM vs SGSM is pretty much perfect other than the fact that you have to re level.

Don't forget that due to some dumb reason, squad leaders (justicars, purifier leader, shees exarch) tend to stand in front of their brethren. They are thus the first to be shot at, sniped, and swarmed with melee attacks. 25 power for those guys is a lot.

[Magus Magi]

http://dawnofwar.info/index.php?page=el ... eran_squad ?

Lulgrim, joining Taco in the ranks of pure bossdom by coming through with stats.

I stand by my previous statements saying that Sternguard, if allowed to keep their levels, would not be overpowered. (Also those statements about increasing vengeance round reload/range, and decreasing the repurchase cost on Tactical Marine special weapons.)

[Lulgrim]

Uh stop saying boss...

[Magus Magi]

Uh stop saying boss...

You got it boss! (Maybe I should play Orks...lol.)

[Cyris]

Sternguard are worth purchasing if there is a lot of light infantry in T2 and/or a melee commander who you need more dps on. The rest of the time, the hard AV of the ML is way better then short ranged, low damage vengance rounds, and the plasma rifle is a much lower investment and resistant to bleed damage reduction against HI. SHI are better fought with other units. If their intention was to soft dps unit against all aromor types, then more changes need to be made. I used to love this unit, but I learned over time it isn't worth the investment and XP loss.

Vanguards are similar: losing the meta nade is just too much, and it's a unit you prolly got to level 2 or 3 by T3. When I do get them, it's because I never picked up ASM and upgrade the unit fully in T3, but for the cost I can get a pred or terminators. So they get purchased rarely.

IMHO:
Nerf the DoT rounds. Undo the completely incorrect range nerf on vengance rounds. Keep levels. Keep melta nades. Both units would go from hyper-niche to more generally usable.

ALSO.... STERNS STILL CAN GET STUCK WITH NO AMMO TYPE IN BETA 4. This, more then anything, is why I've posted here, and have stopped using them again.

PS: I've always assumed tacs don't keep levels because it is a technical limitation, as the unit is a full swap out and likely doesn't know what the level of the former unit was.

[Black Relic]

So i did dosome poking around with my own mod. I am not sure about if elite can do it. But i think having SG retain their levels is a no can do since i am sure it is a technical thing. Since the SG purchase changes the Tacs into a completely new squad. And as everyone know, new squads all start at level 1.

As for SG. No damage buff is needed. It does stink that they have some limitations but I think SM always have to have them. They would be just too strong is they didn't. Like imagine if vengeance rounds on Devs could be toggled. That would be AWESOME, but huge. I guess when you think about it SG are fine. They just seem like they need the changed since everyone know what they can do if given even 5 seconds do shoot at stuff. LIke MoT CSM. I am sure they are one of the few things that people want gone in the beginning of an engagement. But they dont need a change since they primary targets are HI and I. SG on the other hand can target what ever and still hurt it a decent amount with the proper ammo type.

So again they might not get a change in anything. They might not need it. Although it seems like it (I still think so), but looking at what they squad has to offer as a whole they are fine. I also look at thing from a different stand point, that's why it might seem i have a change of heart.

AS for Vanguard Veterans from previous posts. There is only one way they can scale well with other melee squads that late in to the game. Melee skill. Even though they are Vanguard Veterans their melee skill starts at 70. Which is why they probably get knocked about alot by other melee squads. For a proper change, their default melee skill should be 72 or 73 (i want 75 though) from a balanced stand point. They should pull off more specials against melee squads and not get raped them selves. They are the Vanguard. Thousands of battles honed them it to what they are. I guess it doesn't help much though (that was a joke if no one catches it).

[Ace of Swords]

tbh I would't mind if the whirlind was removed and the SG moved as a T2 squad kind of like PM, just to have that extra long ranged shooty dps that SM misses, you know, once you have sterns and tacts that starts to do quite some work.

[Magus Magi]

tbh I would't mind if the whirlind was removed and the SG moved as a T2 squad kind of like PM, just to have that extra long ranged shooty dps that SM misses, you know, once you have sterns and tacts that starts to do quite some work.

I don't hate this idea. If it means that Sternguard combat efficiency would improve, then I'm pretty much good with anything at this point. Seeing the mathematical differences between Tacs and Sternguard really was the last nail in the coffin for me. Even taking into account the special ammos (as compared to the Tac Kraken rounds and spec./heavy weapons).

My understanding is that Space Marines (and Grey Knights to be fair) really aren't considered to be in a balanced place with IG, Eldar, CSM, Nids, and Orks (I know there is some variation in MU, but I suspect SM have a worse time of it than the rest (except Grey Knights, to be fair)). I think the core changes I've suggested might help that problem. (Especially the cheaper repurchase of weapons for tactical marines, I think that probably has the most potential behind it...)

Also, I'd like to hear from one of the mod developers on whether it is possible for Sternguard to keep their tactical marine levels. If they can't, then I feel a flat dps buff is warranted, in addition to a fix for Vengeance round range.

ALTERNATIVELY! If people really don't want Sternguard peeling models off enemy squads with increased dps, I have another idea. Why not allow Kraken rounds increased range? That might be an interesting way to differentiate Sternguard from Tactical marines without changing too much about them. (If this eventuality were approved of, I would still want Vengeance round range/RoF to return to normal.)

[Dark Riku]

PS: I've always assumed tacs don't keep levels because it is a technical limitation, ...

I think Lul mentioned this before and said it's possible for them to retain their levels.
Because it's stupid that you upgrade your squad and it loses health, X MS, etc.
edit: There apparently is a "spawn with executer level" function or something similar.
Lul doesn't know if it works and what would happen
(keep all the exp, keep just the levels or it borks :p)


My points still stay the same:

Stern- and Vangaurd should keep the levels accumulated by their base squads.

Vengeance rounds should revert to their old range and reload speed.

Vangaurd should be moved to T2 (keeping the powerfist upgrade T3)
Or stay in T3 but not lose their meltabombs.

[Magus Magi]

^ Everything that he (Riku) just said, plus tactical marine weapon repurchase prices should be dropped.

[Forestradio]

^ Everything that he (Riku) just said, plus tactical marine weapon repurchase prices should be dropped.

The repurchase prices are there to make sure you can't go crazy swapping out weapons on everything.
Also, the quick build time of the flamer means that every time you win an engagement, you can kill some generators for free if you already got the flamer in T1. That 15 power investment means that for the whole game you have the potential to wipe a farm. That's OP.

If you get a missile launcher to kill a wartrukk, then want the plasma gun to kill some nobz, you should have to pay to get that extra AV on the field if the Ork player decides to get another vehicle. It's not like commander wargear.

[Magus Magi]

I'm not necessarily arguing for the complete elimination of weapon costs on repurchase. But to pay the entire amount again? I think that's excessive. Not only would the decrease in special/heavy weapon repurchase costs encourage dynamic play, it would serve as a nice round-about way of buffing the Tactical Marine's effect on the SM early/mid game.

Also, I don't think that having access to a flamer on Tacs would be OP. By the time a SM player hits tier 2, they can field a number of effective power bashing units. The same is true in tier 3.

I don't think SM are doing too well right now in most MUs...particularly in the early/mid game...the changes I'm advocating (to both SG and Tacs) would, I believe, improve that while also making them a more interesting faction to play.

[Forestradio]

I'm not necessarily arguing for the complete elimination of weapon costs on repurchase. But to pay the entire amount again? I think that's excessive. Not only would the decrease in special/heavy weapon repurchase costs encourage dynamic play, it would serve as a nice round-about way of buffing the Tactical Marine's effect on the SM early/mid game.

Also, I don't think that having access to a flamer on Tacs would be OP. By the time a SM player hits tier 2, they can field a number of effective power bashing units. The same is true in tier 3.

I don't think SM are doing too well right now in most MUs...particularly in the early/mid game...the changes I'm advocating (to both SG and Tacs) would, I believe, improve that while also making them a more interesting faction to play.

SM are doing just fine most MUs.

Your sternguard points I like most of them. Keeping their levels is nice.

Tac points.... sorry. Tac squads are the most tactically flexible unit in the game, with the possible exception of T3 kommandos. They don't need a buff to their flexibility. And buffing a unit doesn't make it a more interesting faction.
If you buy a weapon for your tacs, keep in mind that you may have to switch it out.

How would you do the prices for repurchases? 50% of the original value? 20 power for a missile launcher??????

[Lulgrim]

I'm not necessarily arguing for the complete elimination of weapon costs on repurchase. But to pay the entire amount again? I think that's excessive.

No other unit has that option at all. That's why it costs.

Sternguard/Vanguard spawning at level 1 is intentional for now, we never tried to make them spawn with XP.

[Magus Magi]

I'll admit, I'm more attached to my Sternguard points than the tactical marine one.

I think I would go for a 50% price decrease. I can see where your (forestradio) coming from though about the 20 power missile launcher. That would be pretty swanky.

75% cost maybe? A 30 power missile launcher isn't too bad on repurchase. That means 70 power on a missile launcher for one squad. Even a 20 power one means 60 power total.

[Panda]

I cannot think of a MU where tacs consistently struggle or underperform. There will be games where SG are not the best choice for the cost, and there will be games where they will be the best choice. They're situational, so yes if you just blindly buy them they will likely underperform.

I cannot condone reducing tac weapons costs, imo that's just ridiculous. Sternguard and Vanguard become very very powerful with levelling because of the hp and damage spikes - I mean seriously you're suggesting having lv3/4 asms in T3, and making them right into lv3/4 Vanguards for 100/30? With heavy melee for another 30 power? It's the retail SM snowball effect all over again.

If you absolutely must make SG/VG keep their levels then I'd like to see a serious damage nerf on both of them and drastically reduced levelling bonuses to compensate.

[Lulgrim]

The general design of DoW2 is that once you upgrade a unit, you can't go back. Tac special weapons allow you to bend this fundamental rule, for a significant cost. It is expensive on purpose, not on oversight.

Their versatility/adaptability is not that they can change the weapon all the time, it's that they can change it at all.

I don't really see a need for a price reduction there, personally.

[ThongSong]

I'm perfectly happy with where tacs are atm.

regarding sternguard, right now it only feels worth it to get them against infantry based armies. They overpreform vs heroes and infantry armies but severely underperform against anything else. I think something needs to be done to balance this

[saltychipmunk]

You know what , the whole idea of sterns and vanguards gaining levels is a little silly.

Arent these guys supposed to be Veterans? Should they not be like terminators and just be unleveled ?


Remove leveling from the equation and scale up their hp and damage to something proper and we can side step this mess entirely and add more personality to the upgrades.

You lose the late game potency of high unit levels , for the more current potency of a early high hp / damage squad.


If we keep levels in this equation they will always be too shit when you buy them and too good after the first two levels .

[Asmon]

I'm perfectly happy with where tacs are atm.

regarding sternguard, right now it only feels worth it to get them against infantry based armies. They overpreform vs heroes and infantry armies but severely underperform against anything else. I think something needs to be done to balance this

Their DPS were adjusted vs HI and SHI only a little while ago and I don't remember them being used in a decent replay recently. New values won't change until heavy testing is done. If you think they underperform so much, provide replays.

To remove leveling on Sternguard and Vanguard Veterans is a pretty bad idea to say the least.

[Forestradio]

You know what , the whole idea of sterns and vanguards gaining levels is a little silly.

Arent these guys supposed to be Veterans? Should they not be like terminators and just be unleveled ?


Remove leveling from the equation and scale up their hp and damage to something proper and we can side step this mess entirely and add more personality to the upgrades.

You lose the late game potency of high unit levels , for the more current potency of a early high hp / damage squad.


If we keep levels in this equation they will always be too shit when you buy them and too good after the first two levels .

By that standard, nobz shouldn't be able to level, seer council shouldn't be able to level, heroes shouldn't be able to level.

I mean the chaos lord is a bloodthirsty champion of Khorne, and wears terminator armor. He's the best in his warband. Why is he able to level?

[saltychipmunk]

You be talking to someone who wouldn't mind seeing nobs and the seer council losing their levels . Level 1 seer councils are garbage against everything except stuff you can just use banshees against. level 4 seer councils are just evil. And nobs only get more unmanageable the more levels they stack on easily out pacing the inferior terminators.

So yeah I am for those losing their levels too , but that is not the issue at hand.


heroes are heroes and you can argue the chaos lord is gaining power as he gains favor with his gods .. etc.

I never got why only terminators were banned from leveling when clearly nobs and the seer council can be considered comparable units to terminators.


Regardless , removing levels from sterns and vanguard and then buffing them accordingly would most certainly solve this issue in a more or less fluffy way.

[Nurland]

Well when Terminators could level, lvl 4 Assault Terminators 7,2k hp SHI armor and 180 dps heavy melee. Clawminators had 6k hp and 280 dps power melee + splash. Normal Terminators would have the 6k hp and roughly 118 dps piercing damage (148 dps with Assault Cannon). This should answer why Terminators can't level.

[Forestradio]

Well when Terminators could level, lvl 4 Assault Terminators 7,2k hp SHI armor and 180 dps heavy melee. Clawminators had 6k hp and 280 dps power melee + splash. Normal Terminators would have the 6k hp and roughly 118 dps piercing damage (148 dps with Assault Cannon). This should answer why Terminators can't level.

Yeah termies obviously shouldn't level, simply because the % increases in damage and health are waaaaay overboard.
But sternguard and vanguard? They should level.

[saltychipmunk]

Well when Terminators could level, lvl 4 Assault Terminators 7,2k hp SHI armor and 180 dps heavy melee. Clawminators had 6k hp and 280 dps power melee + splash. Normal Terminators would have the 6k hp and roughly 118 dps piercing damage (148 dps with Assault Cannon). This should answer why Terminators can't level.

well it is not like we are forced to have those stats, they could have easily just reduced the base stats and kept the levels. They could have made the base hp 3000 , they could have had less damage. It could have conceivably been done.

The terminators could have been balanced around levels , it was a solution, but it wasnt the best solution.

And that is what I see here , levels are not the best solution for the sterns and vanguard. The fact that vanguard are considered a downgrade to leveled asm ( which you will have in t3) is proof that it is not a good solution.

[taco86]

The problem with that salty is termis are very late game. Many games end before you can effectively field them. Even in longer games where they will see use I don't they would get over lvl 2.

I'd much rather just keep their stats as is OR just allow them to level to 2 max and make it take as much xp as getting to lvl 3 or something. Overall I don't really see the need for a change with termies tho. SGSM and VGSM should most certainly retain their levels tho.

[saltychipmunk]

anything in t3 can be considered late game , I can get terminators as my first t3 unit in most games that I make to t3. At the very least vanguard would fall into this category,

I can accept levels on the sterns since they are t2.

[Ace of Swords]

Tacts weapons are fine as they are, Sterns...yeah they could retain levels, not so much because of the squad itself underperforms but because tacts rarely hit level 2 before t2 or early t2, and if they are level T2 or higher that means you opponent fucked up badly in some way and I don't see why the winning player should be punished, Vans, they are in a weird position, like I said they could get the inspiration buff and leave everything else as it is.

The problem with that salty is termis are very late game. Many games end before you can effectively field them. Even in longer games where they will see use I don't they would get over lvl 2.

When termies could level they used to get to level 4 in no time.

[saltychipmunk]

"When termies could level they used to get to level 4 in no time."


And this is in part because you could build around getting them at the beginning of t3 like any other t3 infantry unit. 350 red is very easy to get if you don't waste it on globals