Dawn of War Codex

Dark Riku wrote:

That Torpid Gamer wrote:more hp

Explain? When you upgrade from a lvl2tacs squad or higher you will lose HP.

Imma say it again. Let them keep their levels. It makes no sense for an upgrade to make your squad lvl1 again with less MS, HP and all them stuffs that comes with levels. And revert vengeance rounds to old range or reload speed or both.

Well, they get more hp insofar that it means you permanently have a sergeant.


I also like plasma guns. I don't get them with my apo because missle just synergises better with him, but P guns I often get for my tacs when I play FC/TM. Better AV options exist for these heroes and I prefer dreads to RBs with them too so the plasma gun is just a better choice, but it's certainly not a no-brainer upgrade and I only get it when it's needed as should be the case given its cost.

Not sure you can say they flat out get more hp considering that a sergeant purchase is a prerequisite of SG, but okay. Anyway, iirc sternguards get more out of their levels than tacticals do, so assuming equal levels they'll have more hp.

I also see plasma guns as useful but only in very limited situations where the opposing composition is screaming that they are going very vehicle-light.

I can see where you're coming from Torpid but on Techmarine and Force Commander I find the Melta gun to be nice but not my style considering the really short range it has, and I think the power fist is overrated. So I prefer the TM or FC to pick up the Anti-infantry capability with Plasma gun/MCB or Power Sword/Thunder Hammer with tac missiles. I just find the plasma gun tacs underwhelming as a result, not because it isn't good at what it does, but because of the overall strategic implications of accomodating one in my build.

Codex wrote:Whenever I play SM, yes I don't like losing my levels on my tacs, but the fact of the matter is that I hold onto my tacs because of the missile option it gives me and as a result it will be generally lackluster against inappropriate targets, especially the later the game goes. The very fact that I tend buy flamer=> missile and then never change is because of the utility role that tacs give me: they fill the roles that I need considering the compositions I see...

...P.S. I really loathe getting plasma gun on tactical marines in general. It has little utility and is just dps, is expensive on power, and I hope you're willing to commit to a lasdev if they get a vehicle, or be happy to have bought a plasma gun just to switch out for a missile launcher. What are people's thoughts on the tac plasma gun?

First, your description of getting flamer tacs and transferring them into missile tacs is, in my opinion, the perfect example of how tactical marines are used and why Sternguard are not a popular upgrade. Flamer tacs early for gen bashing; missile tacs late for support AV.

I totally agree with your plasma gun post. Nobody gets the plasma gun because it turns the Tacs into a dedicated ranged combat unit. Tacs aren't good enough at that role to warrant sacrificing their missile launcher.

A little while ago I proposed turning the SG into a dedicated anti-infantry unit. Vengeance rounds for super heavy, kraken for heavy, hellfire for light, and dragonfire for anti-garrison. Nobody really gets a plasma gun on tacs. so that change would allow Sternguard to fill a dedicated anti-infantry role (A UNIQUE ROLE IN THE SM ARMY) while still giving tacs a unique and valuable role on the battlefield (flamer and missile launcher).

OR, I suppose they could just lower the price on plasma guns...and make tacs even more appealing, which would make Sternguard even less appealing.

Sternguard really need their own job in the SM army, beyond Hellfire rounds.

Codex wrote: I think the power fist is overrated.

Really? idk man, i think the thunder hammer got overnerfed in ELITE, and the powerfist can also control melee blobs (not as good ofc) since u can now use battle cry and not rage and the FC raping his own units with the fist special PLUS the fist will help u against vehicles were the hammer, well, wont

Ok what.

Read some of these posts again: this thread was so obviously created by a fluffbunny who wants his SUPER SPESS MEHREENS to be able to take on anything and is annoyed that his 1st company mehreens can't defeat anything and everything thrown at them cuz thats what sternguardz do.

Through this entire thread I have not found one good argument or piece of evidence that has made me even remotely consider a change to SG.

Some of the things suggested in this thread (amongst others):
- damage buff for tacs
- SG keeping levels
- Libby buffs
- Vanguard buffs
- Termies being allowed to level again. Wtf

Despite the variety of buffs suggested, there has never been any suggestion of a nerf to SM, for compensation or balance in current form. What a coincidence. This is basically a vague attempt by SM players to give moar powa to their race.

And finally just for lulz, this comment (by thread author) just sums up what the content of this thread has been from the start:

Magus Magi wrote:I think Sternguard should outperform Tactical Marines when using their appropriate ammo type against the corresponding armor type.

i.e. this thread is plain bullshit, made by someone who does not care about overall balance or wants his units to compensate for his lack of skill. Probably a combo of the two.

I absolutely oppose any buffs for SG/tacs.

However Vanguards could be re-evaluated here. They never seem like the best or most cost-efficient choice.

but it's OK to buff CSM because they do under perform right?

Raffa wrote: P.S. I do not want to appear rude, if it is then please tell me I will happily edit it.

You're post is rude man. Fluffbunny? This thread is plain bullshit made by someone who does not care about overall balance? I want the changes to compensate for my lack of skill?

The quote of mine you picked out was in the context of a proposed SG rework that saw them losing AV capability, Gen-bashing ability, and capping speed in exchange for filling a dedicated anti-infantry role. The way you presented it distorts the message to make it look like I want SG to do more damage with all ammo types while continuing to fill their current role.

More importantly, the list of things included in your "summary" of my thread didn't include an increase in sternguard ammo range, or the original propositions about lowering the repurchase cost of tactical marine special/heavy weapons. Both of which featured prominently. The range increase for vengeance rounds has also seen a pretty good amount of support from a variety of players.

Also, the way you structured your "summary" of this thread makes it sound like I advocated providing terminators with the ability to level, which isn't accurate.

Seriously man, wtf is the matter with you? You just threw a massive bitch fit full of personal attacks, and didn't even both to ensure your critique was presented accurately. I genuinely see a problem with SG balance. So do some other people on here. That doesn't mean you should throw a lot of insults around and rant and rave. Also, not one good piece of evidence to convince you to change SG at all? Among all these posts?

So, now that you've told me what you think I am...why don't I let you in on how I see you. I think your an alarmist. I think you're whining and crying about the idea of SG changes because your defensive with regards to outside commentary and scared of change. Anything Caeltos implements, he can turn around and revert. There's nothing to be lost from playtesting new ideas.

Why don't you go through the various arguments, their pros and cons, and explain why you don't like them instead of arguing just to protect the status quo.

Oh...I almost forgot...

P.S. I do not want to appear rude, if it is then please tell me I will happily edit it.

Raffa wrote: Despite the variety of buffs suggested, there has never been any suggestion of a nerf to SM, for compensation or balance in current form. What a coincidence. This is basically a vague attempt by SM players to give moar powa to their race.

...this isn't a thread about nerfing space marines...it's a thread I started because I don't think SG and Tacs are good enough. Although, my problem with Tacs was pretty much limited to weapon repurchase costs remaining at 100%. I've cooled somewhat on that.

So...if you want some aspect of marine play nerfed...why don't you go start a thread about it...

Sterns position is good as it is, like I already said they do a good dps in the anti-inf departement which SM lacks, effectively the vengeance ammunitions should go back to the old range, the dps/fire rate/recharge is good as it is, and still with the same point as before they should retain levels.

About plasma tacts, they work very well, especially vs Nids and they are still very usable vs everyone else, probably the only race where you can't use them is eldar but vs everyone else is fine if you need plasma damage, and the fact that specialized tacts are better than sterns is good and fine because they are meant to be so, the only upgrade tacts are missing is anti infantry and anti-single entity and that's the main role of sterns.

About vans, I tested them today and pretty much nothing changed, sure the come out of the base a couple of seconds faster but their combat power is unchanged, still a useless upgrade unless you purchase ASM in t3.

Ace of Swords wrote:Sterns position is good as it is, like I already said they do a good dps in the anti-inf departement which SM lacks, effectively the vengeance ammunitions should go back to the old range, the dps/fire rate/recharge is good as it is, and still with the same point as before they should retain levels.

The fundamental problem I have with retaining levels is the SG's extra hp increases as they level, basically the free boost this gives to a unit that already at least soft counters everything and the spiking dps of the DoT rounds. This is really evident in the Ork/Eldar MUs, and these 2 would be hit very hard by such a buff. Elaborate on Vengeance rounds?

Ace of Swords wrote:tacts are missing is anti infantry and anti-single entity and that's the main role of sterns.

Precisely.

Ace of Swords wrote:About vans, I tested them today and pretty much nothing changed...still a useless upgrade unless you purchase ASM in t3.

I'm leaning towards this. Will play around with them tomorrow some more.

Tl:DR magus I do not care, I don't argue with noobs these days, just gets codex angry

Can't step off without the "noob" comment huh?

I picked a fight with your post because it was full of insults and misinformation. You should be a big enough man to admit wrongdoing when it comes to that sort of behavior. It doesn't compromise your credibility as a player to do so.

You misrepresented my opinions and purpose in starting this thread. That's something I take seriously. I'm not going to run off because you called me a fluffbunny, or a noob. A lot of good players are on here posting comments about what they think are good changes and what aren't. I'm glad I chose to share my thoughts on here, the result has been productive.

How productive was your addition though, the one primarily designed to attack me? Worried Codex will get mad at you for responding? Is that because you can't find a way to respond without name-calling?

My position on all of my aforementioned ideas is now:

1. I would like to see SG vengeance round range reverted.

2. I no longer feel very strongly about tactical marine special weapon costs on repurchase...except maybe the plasma gun. That might be one way of making it more useful...if you could repurchase it for a discount. Just an idea.

3. I still think SG and VG should keep their levels (if it is mechanically possible).

4. I liked Riku's idea of making VG tier 2, and making their powerfist upgrade tier 3.

If vanguard are made t2 or sternguards retain their exp from tacs, then I shall probably play solely the lictor alpha for the rest of eternity.

That Torpid Gamer wrote:If vanguard are made t2 or sternguards retain their exp from tacs, then I shall probably play solely the lictor alpha for the rest of eternity.

A sternguard squad, at level 2, has about 60 more health than a level 2 tactical squad.

60 more hp on the battlefield in tier 2 would cause you to play the lictor in every game?

A level 2 sternguard squad has 200 more hp than a level 1 sternguard squad and does 5% more dps.

A 200 hp difference for the one SG squad you have to fight would cause you to play the lictor in every game?

I just don't think I'm asking for something as game changing as how you make it sound. If I'm wrong, and the Sternguard were changed, they could just be reverted in the next patch after game testing.

Source of stats:
http://dawnofwar.info/index.php?page=el ... ce_marines

That Torpid Gamer wrote:

Dark Riku wrote:Explain? When you upgrade from a lvl2tacs squad or higher you will lose HP.

Well, they get more hp insofar that it means you permanently have a sergeant.

You realize this makes no sense right? If they lose a model they also lose the health pool like when you would lose the tac sarge... or any model for that matter.

Raffa wrote:Elaborate on Vengeance rounds?

Read the thread! Raffa you are my friend but I don't know why you are still allowed to post on the forums.

That Torpid Gamer wrote:If vanguard are made t2 or sternguards retain their exp from tacs, then I shall probably play solely the lictor alpha for the rest of eternity.

Dandy for you... Now what does this add to the subject? --> Nothing.

Tbh I wouldnt mind seeing vengeance round range increased. But i think these units are fine as is. If it ain't broke, don't fix it

Eh I dont really get them anymore unless i'm screwing around, the power is better used getting something else. In the end everything that works against tacs works against them too so you're really not doing yourself much by getting them. If they kept exp I'd consider them a good upgrade because I can do it later and not have to at the very beginning of t2 so not as much exp goes to waste.

Vans I think are a good way of getting a t3 jump unit on the field that arent terminators, but losing the melta bomb can be a pretty big blow. They do a lot of damage, especially to h/shi. Since they start out at level 1 though they get knocked around like a trailer wife in melee combat and can die pretty quick. Keeping their exp, melta, or increasing their Melee skill a couple points would make it a better investment

They do look cool though

PS
I assume there was a limit of one placed on them because they were supposed to be better than regular tacs, so much so that having more than one would be OP.

Why not buff them but make them more expensive too? If the intent is for them to be situational, but the squad itself doesnt specialize in anything... I don't get it, but if its the intent then its working

i don't have any problems with sternguard, as already stated plenty of times they're a soft counter to everything. If you want a hard counter theres no reason for you to get them and get the tacs with their upgrades for hard countering whatever it is you need to hard counter. Otherwise everyone would just build tacs

To OP Poster one of the reasons this post is raising so much controversy is because of the way you term things "i would like" and "I think" well i would like for GK to have more commanders. Instead of using these terms try using other words such as "I suggest" or "How about". It makes it seem more like you're proposing instead of demanding.

crazyman64335 wrote:To OP Poster one of the reasons this post is raising so much controversy is because of the way you term things "i would like" and "I think" well i would like for GK to have more commanders. Instead of using these terms try using other words such as "I suggest" or "How about". It makes it seem more like you're proposing instead of demanding.

I really appreciate your advice. I legitimately do. I especially appreciate that you're reading my posts clearly enough to pick up on the language I'm using.

I chose to use the sentence structure you've noticed when I began laying out my talking points on this thread. I made a conscious choice to use "I think," and "I would like" because it limits the scope of my statements to include only my opinions (I was worried about making blanket statements of "fact" without a qualifier) and avoids implied expressions of authority (I don't feel that I have the extrinsic ethos to make suggestions to so many more experienced players).

I know that I'm probably not half as good as some of the people weighing in on this discussion, so I didn't feel comfortable offering them suggestions. Instead, I opted to present my ideas as personal wants and opinions. It just seemed more direct and honest that way. I certainly didn't mean for my posts to come off as demands and I really appreciate you giving me a heads-up if they do.

I like "how about..." I may have to steal that from you man.

I am going to go back to an early suggestion i made. The suggestion was lowering the repurchase of the specialized weapons for Tactical Marines. I know that most would not like halving the repurchase of a missile launcher which would be 40\20. That is low cost a weapon upgrade. But hear me out first.

However, that is repurchasing the missile launcher. So minimum, you spend 80\40 on the first purchase of your missile launcher. Then the lowest weapon upgrade they have is the flamer 65\15. So already that is 145\55. Now the repurchase would make it 185\75. That would be the end of it unless you get a sergeant for them 260\100. And that is with the halving of repurchasing of an upgrade. (Lets assume your sergeant never dies)

With out it that would be 300\120 in weapon upgrades. I don't know about y'all but I feel that is a bit too much. Doesn't have to be a large price reduction like halving it. But i do feel like it should be lowered a little. Thoughts on this?

The one weapon upgrade that should NOT get a decrease in its repurchasing price is the flamer since it already has a low cost + benefits.

This is my opinion but i think the flamer should get a cost increase to 75\15 or 80\15. Since that weapon really hurts everything, with some exceptions, early game. With it you kind of force units out of cover since the flamer will do extra dps to them.

I just found this out but, the flamer does 50% more dps to unit is heavy cover (that are in its "cone" of course). And only (i think) 20% more to unit in a garrison. and 10% more in light...maybe some one could enlighten me? But reason why it hurts unit in garrisons so much (in case someone doesn't know) is damages all the occupants. So all in all it is an effective weapon vs infantry, HI in cover (wish i saw more of the flamer). The bashing gens is like a bonus for me. I am also sure that kraken bolts work with the flamer as well so ouch to HI even more if they are in any sort cover.


Now using what i just said about the weapon upgrades and their costs. Leave Steurguard alone now? Since it has already been stated that they are a soft counter the AV and a straight up monster to low hp infantry squads. The best part is that you don't have to pay again to adapt to what your opponent is throwing at you. Just switch their ammo. Plus no bleed form the sergeant which also has been stated.

Now I am going to sound like a hypocrite right now. Can Vengeance rounds get a small range increase though? Say 2 or 3? Doesn't really like my dedicated ranged squad being in practically charge range of any melee squad. Despite how close to the lore that is. 18 inches i think right?

If tactical marines were to get a buff to their weapon costs, which I would heartily approve, I don't think that Sternguard would need to (or should) remain the same.

I don't think that Sternguard need to counterbalance tactical marine buffs by remaining the same. I think of Sternguard and Tacs as two distinct units, requiring two distinct balance calculations.

Plus, if you buff tacs to make their weapons more accessible, you increase the likelihood that people will ignore Sternguard. My response to lowering tactical marine weapon prices on repurchase would be to change Sternguard to make them more distinct from Tacs (thus making them fill a different role) instead of leaving them the same.

I would like to see Vengeance round range reverted to normal. I cannot understand why that hasn't already been done, especially considering the circumstances that led to the initial decision to lower their range.

Frankly, I'd also like Kraken rounds to be more effective against heavy infantry (as good as Tac Kraken rounds). If Tactical marine squads can out damage a Sternguard squad against heavy armor WITHOUT a plasma gun, even if it's only for the duration of their Kraken rounds ability, that's a sign that Sternguard dps is too low.

Why can you only get one Sternguard squad? Why are they limited like sub-commanders or super units? I understand why you can't get 3 baneblades, why can you only get one SG? I used to think it was because SG is an upgrade to Tacs, but people on here keep telling me that it's more of a sidegrade and SG aren't supposed to be any better than Tacs. (SG should be an upgrade...it makes sense on many levels)

Right now Sternguard do one niche thing for the Space Marine army. Hellfire rounds. That's it. I wouldn't purchase them for anything else, and frankly I wouldn't give up the Tac levels just for Hellfire. Switching between Flamer and missile tacs is the better option.

SG are probably the best T2 unit in the game at putting pure ranged dps on heroes.

Magus I'm aware you believe passionately that tacs and sg should be buffed, but I'm afraid I must disagree with you. Like I said, I could concede a range increase on vengeance rounds but that's it for me.

I may be misinformed, but I believe the general consensus among the community is that tac weapons costs are expensive because they offer a versatility way beyond that of any other unit, maybe except kommandos but they r a t3 unit fer cryin out loud.

Panda...I know you're right. I really appreciate how chill your response was.

I should stop hating on Hellfire rounds. They do a job, and they do it well.

I'd almost rather they were nerfed a bit in exchange for more Kraken round dps. If that's what it would cost for Kraken rounds to get a little more oomph behind each shot, I'd take it.

For now. I know I should be limiting my complaints to the Vengeance round range. Of all the things I blather about in these posts, that one is the most straightforward.

I got a bit carried away in that last post of mine. This is a great mod, and it's got a great community, so I should sit back and let you guys work.

(This thread has over 3000 views and over 200 posts! People really are willing to have interesting, in-depth, discussions on unit balance on here and I appreciate you all taking the time to comment! )

If http://www.dawnofwar.info/elite/weapon. ... _vengeance is right (I suppose it is) then Vengeance Rounds are fine. If not, the only buff I will give is increase the range to 30.

18.68 dps against vehicles is almost twice dps it does the Rocket Launcher. A constant and more controllable damage, yes, but still a very good one.

Please refrain from saying the same things over and over again. This topic has had pretty much no new points for the last 10 or so pages.

To be honest I don't think there's anything new to say here. If something's going to get changed with tacs/SG it will be changed. The last 10 pages are pretty much all the same stuff just regurgitated and reworded.

Again I'm sorry Magus but I cannot even fathom a change to tacs, and hardly one for SG. Because my opinion is that these are two of the best balanced units in the game. I'm aware you disagree.

I really think we should let this topic go now. I'm sure Mr Boss Man got all the info a long time ago.

I'm good with letting this thread die out. Everyone who wants to weigh in probably has.

Thank you all for participating in this discussion. It was very cool to hear all of your opinions. I think it was a very productive conversation.

...Caeltos, please revert Vengeance round range so that it matches the other rounds.

Alright, I'm done. You all won't be hearing from me again unless another issue comes up that I feel really strongly about. Thank you for your time.

Would like to ask the community a question to see if this would be too OP in their minds.

In t3 (with the purchase of the upgrade) would be given inspiration on kill. the Inspiration on kill would be low. .005% or so. Just curious to hear what people would say on this matter.

Note that i suggested it that low for a reason (poor guardsmen). Again just curious to hear what people would say about this.

You mean like 0,005% or 5% or 0,5% or what?