Dawn of War Codex

I am not sure if I understood you correctly here Sub_Zero but I will try to convey my counters to the Dragonfire things.

Forcing your opponent to leave the cover or the garrison is a win for you is it not? I mean often times you have other stuff also firing that is necessarily not anti-cover/garrison so leaving the cover might not really be exactly favorable/desirable for your enemy due to possibly taking loads of extra damage from other squads. Or you can even switch ammo types to Kraken/Lulfire.

I know switching ammo will cause a short moment with no dakka and your opponent can then proceed to take the cover again but he spends micro, hp and potential damage by moving the squad.

Does dragonfire do bonus dmg to units in cover or something?

fv100 wrote:Does dragonfire do bonus dmg to units in cover or something?

hellfire has the same dps as kraken (other than the % boost vs HI), but hellgfire ignores cover's mitigation effects.
so hellfire basically means your SG have about the same dps as a tac squad, but they ignore cover. im not sure if it applies to energy shields though.

also the more i read these posts from windu, myradal and nurland i realise the logic behind the nerf. i withdraw my previous statement.

Sub_Zero wrote:Let me reiterate and explain my point.

Dragonfire are the rounds that do the job vs garrisons and covers. You (the enemy) never want them to do the job on your units. If you have units in a garrison and they are shot at then you command them to leave and the job of dragonfire ends here. If you have units in cover and they are shot at then you command them to relocate and the job of dragonfire ends here again. That is exactly my point, that is why we don't see it in action. You either counter it or take tremendous damage and retreat. And it is really easy to counter it.

Pretty much what Nurland said. In "countering" it, Dragonfire has done its job by forcing the enemy into a less favorable position. It doesn't even have to do damage, necessarily, to be effective.

Sub_Zero wrote:I cannot say whether you read through the whole topic but in my two messages there are notes that I take that into consideration. So I do not discard these bonuses. And my point here is that the DOT with all its benefits is the unique thing sternguard veterans get but despite that in my opinion they should not lose their basic DPS.

I did read through the whole topic. And if you mean this:

Am I? Too powerful on retreat?, Maybe the DOT ignores 50% damage resistance of units in melee, count that too then - these are my words that testify that I AM NOT COMPLETELY IGNORING THESE FACTORS. I omitted some details, yes, I did.

You say the LI damage is insufficient, but I've provided counter-arguments that say it isn't. What are your reasons? You say you've considered these things, but why do you not think they make up for the fact that Hellfire got a 2 DPS decrease? I can't really say, definitively, whether you're right or wrong if you don't explain all of the things you've analyzed to come to your conclusion.

Ven wrote:im not sure if it applies to energy shields though

Nope, Energy Shields block Dragonfire.

So what are the damage modifiers of dragonfire against units in cover vs units not in cover?

fv100 wrote:So what are the damage modifiers of dragonfire against units in cover vs units not in cover?

i believe they're exactly the same. so 14dps to units out of cover, 14dps to units in cover.

Then why would it be advantageous to leave cover if you're getting hit by dragon rounds? Or am I just confused?

fv100 wrote:Then why would it be advantageous to leave cover if you're getting hit by dragon rounds? Or am I just confused?

you're getting confused. its adventagous to the SM player, forcing your enemy player out of cover with dragonfire means that the rest of your army can do more damage, so the opponent either stays in cover and takes full damage from the SG. or they step out and they take even more damage from the rest of the SM army.

Ven wrote:

fv100 wrote:Then why would it be advantageous to leave cover if you're getting hit by dragon rounds? Or am I just confused?

you're getting confused. its adventagous to the SM player, forcing your enemy player out of cover with dragonfire means that the rest of your army can do more damage, so the opponent either stays in cover and takes full damage from the SG. or they step out and they take even more damage from the rest of the SM army.

You're getting confused about FVs impressive point that I think a lot of people (including myself) missed. Dragonfire rounds don't do extra damage when you are out of cover. Other ammos do more damage to their optimal targets when they are out of cover than when they are in and they do more damage than dragonfire rounds to foes outside of cover.

Therefore, even in a scenario whereby there are only two units - sternguard and another ranged unit which they are fighting - the other ranged unit should never leave cover as leaving cover and being in cover makes NO DIFFERENCE with regards to the damage of dragonfire, whereas being inside cover is hugely advantageous vs all the other rounds. Therefore it is always better to remain in cover vs sternguard even when they are using dragonfire rounds.

Torpid wrote:

Ven wrote:

fv100 wrote:Then why would it be advantageous to leave cover if you're getting hit by dragon rounds? Or am I just confused?

you're getting confused. its adventagous to the SM player, forcing your enemy player out of cover with dragonfire means that the rest of your army can do more damage, so the opponent either stays in cover and takes full damage from the SG. or they step out and they take even more damage from the rest of the SM army.

You're getting confused about FVs impressive point that I think a lot of people (including myself) missed. Dragonfire rounds don't do extra damage when you are out of cover. Other ammos do more damage to their optimal targets when they are out of cover than when they are in and they do more damage than dragonfire rounds to foes outside of cover.

Therefore, even in a scenario whereby there are only two units - sternguard and another ranged unit which they are fighting - the other ranged unit should never leave cover as leaving cover and being in cover makes NO DIFFERENCE with regards to the damage of dragonfire, whereas being inside cover is hugely advantageous vs all the other rounds. Therefore it is always better to remain in cover vs sternguard even when they are using dragonfire rounds.

hmm you have a point. perhaps dragonfire needs to be looked at.

Nurland wrote:Switching SG rounds is literally pressing 2 buttons in succession if you don't have SG selected. That is like saying Tac kraken bolts significantly taxes your micro.

DA require significantly more micro than SG. 5 vastly different abilities which most of them are more troublesome to use than switching the ammo type. T2 SS require a lot more micro than SG. Warp Spiders require more micro than SG. So do Dark Reapers imho. Scouts and heretics tax my micro a lot more than SG.

You may be frustrated with this conversation, but this ^ is obviously wrong. Throwing a grenade, or teleporting, those are choices you make one or two times in a fight. Clicking kraken rounds is something you do ONCE. Optimizing SG dps requires round switching constantly. Enemy commander approaching, load kraken, force a retreat and load hellfire to devil him on the way out, his T2 walker is also there, go vengeance, then back to hellfire to shoot his light infantry blob. Uh oh, they got in a garrison to escape your assault marines so go for dragonfire. You have to baby those SG constantly just to maintain average tactical marine dps.

Your warpspiders and dark reapers cost you more micro than that? I find that very hard to believe. Even if it were the case:

http://www.dawnofwar.info/index.php?pag ... rp_spiders
http://www.dawnofwar.info/index.php?pag ... rk_reapers

I mean just look at them. Two warpspider squads give you all that damage and the eldar equivalent of the FC power fist stun, attached to a teleport. Dark reapers give you inferno damage in a significant burst. When they are needed, both those squads have IMPACT, in a way SG just don't.

The level loss, the arbitrary limit on the number you can build, the lousy damage compared to most tier 2 ranged infantry, and the micro investment needed just to keep their dps steady. So you get a free sarge, that free sarge comes with higher reinforcement costs. You also sacrifice the burst that tacs give you (3 man tac squads with special weapons are pretty rad). I can't shake the feeling that the DoT effect is to blame for all this. It's the only mechanic attached to SG that could ever really spiral out of control balance-wise, and the limitations on the unit feel like compensation for it. Why, for example, can't I get two of them? What is the reason that I am limited to 1 SG squad while my ork opponent, for example, ends up with 3 flash gitz? It's because of hellfire, I would bet it is.

I've said my peace on this for now. I'd rather not argue anymore. There's too much else to do.

(Also, Torpid, that's an excellent, and succinct, analysis of dragonfire round use. I never thought of that before.)

Forgive me if the structure is not great and if there are some typos (on mobile and doing stuff with my family meanwhile so not 100% focused here)

DR and Warp spiders are squishy units that bleed hard if they take damage. DR require you to try to keep them at max range and they have 2 abilities to use.

WS teleports can screw you over (aggressive ones) unless they are executed well. WS require fast reactions to teleport away from danger since they have no fotm and have to remain stationary while pewpewing stuff. Not to mention that your double WS build is usually not very desirable anyways. There are cases where it works well but usually not the greatest idea.

SG rounds are not meant to be constantly switched in the midst of an engagement. Hence the downtime while switching ammo. Unless you can minimize that by switching the ammo types while the squad is reloading. SG aren't a super high impact unit. They are a soft/complementary counter to many things while WS are anti LI/melee/anti vehicle. DR are more anti HI/SHI and they are new squads that cost extra pop, upkeep and more power/req so ofc they have a "bigger impact". Ammo switching has never felt anything that taxes my micro more than a tiny bit.

DA require micro in between combats for fleet and shields (these can br used in combat too) embolden is also a combat ability. Repair micro mid combat is fairly taxing (avoiding path blocks etc) compared to switching rounds. Not to mention that nade spiking is harder and requires more micro than ammo swithing.

Flash Gitz are kinda ridiculous atm, I'll give you that but that doesn't warrant for SG to get buffs/changes.

You say you've considered these things, but why do you not think they make up for the fact that Hellfire got a 2 DPS decrease?

I want to repeat again my example. One person thinks that 2 is too much and some other person thinks that 3 is not enough. You think it is fine, I think it should be returned to the previous level. My argument is that this unit deserves this damage it used to deal given all its drawbacks, costs. Also when you say 2 DPS nerf one on his subconcious level perceives that as something really unimportant, I think it is more correct to say 8 DPS nerf because we consider performance of the whole squad. And now it bears some weight. It is not a single model that is a unit. If we nerf hormagaunts' health by 10 hp from a model and keep saying that is just a 10 hp nerf then it will not be correct really. It is a 80 hp nerf (100 hp nerf) to this unit. And now it is not a pitiful amount of 10 hp, is it?

Looks like I was wrong about dragonfire rounds. I thought they dealt damage to all occupants of cover/building. And in fact they don't. I really haven't had a lot of opportunities to use them due to absence of covers in T2, buildings on certain maps and people's tendency to immediately extract their units out of buildings because the damage is significant, especially to LI. Whether it is balanced or not I am not sure now, though this matter is worth creating a new thread, let's focus on the specific rounds we've been talking about.

Sub_Zero wrote:I want to repeat again my example. One person thinks that 2 is too much and some other person thinks that 3 is not enough. You think it is fine, I think it should be returned to the previous level. My argument is that this unit deserves this damage it used to deal given all its drawbacks, costs. Also when you say 2 DPS nerf one on his subconcious level perceives that as something really unimportant, I think it is more correct to say 8 DPS nerf because we consider performance of the whole squad. And now it bears some weight. It is not a single model that is a unit. If we nerf hormagaunts' health by 10 hp from a model and keep saying that is just a 10 hp nerf then it will not be correct really. It is a 80 hp nerf (100 hp nerf) to this unit. And now it is not a pitiful amount of 10 hp, is it?

Fine, we'll call it an 8 DPS nerf if you want, although it's actually 7. So the 58.32 non-DoT DPS drops to 51.32. You're avoiding my point. You still haven't explained to me why you don't think all of the other things I've mentioned make up for the nerf. All you've talked about is Hellfire DPS, and I need a more detailed analysis than that.

If I may:
You say that upgrading (promoting?) tactical space marines to Sternguard allows them to deal some damage against all unit types on the battlefield. I would say, rather, that promoting tactical space marines to Sternguard prevents me from specializing tactical space marines into a unit that can actually pose a significant threat against the enemy.

Kraken bolt Sternguard are just worse than the plasma gun tactical space marine squad in terms of DPS. The plasma gun also has the advantage of burst damage and DPS drop-off is reduced, as the plasma gun is transferred upon the death of its user. Dragonfire rounds have the range advantage, but they have none of the other perks of the tactical marine flamer, including increased damage against units in cover, buildings (generators) and splash. Then you have vengeance rounds, that deals less DPS than the missile launcher, has less range, has less burst damage and has greater damage drop-off. The sternguard simply don't stand up to properly kitted out tactical space marines, who also keep their levels and get a sergeant who has a chainsword and has apparently been coached in bolt pistol shooting by Lord Cypher.

Also, since I need to get additional support for both missile launcher tactical marines and vengeance round sternguard veterans anyway, why wouldn't I want to get the missile launcher? The tactical marines have levels (which also buff ranged damage) and a better weapon (missile launcher vs. vengeance rounds, see above).

Therefore I believe that sternguard should deal more damage in general, so that their DPS, even in the absence of the levels they lost, can remain competitive against tactical space marines.

Think you bros are missing the point of Sternguard. As they stand, you pay 100/30 on top of a tac + sarge to get access to usable rounds against any kind of target. This discussion against Sternguard has been going on since before I even joined the forum

The Hellfire rounds really were a tad much pre-patch and I think it was evened out appropriately. If Sternguard outperformed the specialized tactical marine at their job then there would be no point in ever not going Sternguard. These comparisons to plasma gun tacs and the like are a bit silly in that regard.

I view Sternguard as a side upgrade and a fallback to tacs as opposed to a direct upgrade. In particular, I think they work well with the drop pod(in t2) since not only can you reinforce all your losses at once, but it gives you a completely fresh tac squad you can take to Sternguard while still keeping any tacs you built earlier leveled and available for specialization.

In general though, I see a noticeable sentiment in the forums and in the community about how UP SM are that I think is just not true. X vs SM is probably the most well documented and practiced matchup for any faction since everyone and their mother plays SM and that plays a huge part of it imo. I also hate to say it since I am literally being racist, but the vast majority of SM players are just not that good either :/. It's viewed as a "beginner" race in a lot of ways and I think that that stereotype is not wholly undeserved since it feels like everyone plays SM when they start.

I guess I, once again, see it differently from you. You're looking for Sternguard that are mediocre (as in does more than scratch paint but not insanely effective) against all targets. I want sternguard ammunition to actually do whatever it is advertised to do. I'm sure there's some overlap between the two, though.

Dragonfire rounds are incapable of driving enemies out of cover, and so do not do their job of countering cover. I propose for them to deal more damage through cover. Similarly, I want kraken rounds to give sternguard an advantage against things like, say, Mark of Tzeentch Chaos Space Marines; more range, for example. I hope you get the idea of what I'm trying to say. I'm not necessarily asking for sternguard to do the job of tactical marines, but more for them to actually accomplish something.

@lolzarz You are saying that SG should have an edge over a more expensive dedicated anti-HI squad, have super powerful anti garrison/anti cover (they already outperform non-flamer tacticals here hard and even flamer Tacs to certain extent due to range advantage) and potent anti vehicle?

Their AV dps is higher than Missile Launcher atm. and fotm making them better at chasing and harder to tie in melee to prevent firing. ofc ML has the advantage of burst damage and front loaded damage. ML also has lesser damage fall off.

Just trying to figure out what is the level of performance you want SG to have.

Sub_Zero wrote:Standard tactical marines with a sergeant DPS: 14.58 x 3 + 15.64 = 59.38
Standard tactical marines with a sergeant (level 2*) DPS: (14.58 x 3 + 15.64) x 1.05 damage modifier = 62.349
Sternguard veterans DPS: 12.83 x 4 + 3.50 DOT x 4 = 65.32

65.32 - 59.38 = 5.94 (the error in my approximate calculations is 1.94 DPS)
65.32 - 62.349 = 2.971 (no error in my approximate calculations)

These numbers are pointless. Again, standard bolters and hellfire do not function in the same way and the reason is the DoT component in hellfire dps. Your comparison is valid only in the case when the targets are not a) in any cover, b) in melee, c) retreating or d) buffed with ranged dmg reduction. Thus you have given a very limited and artificial measure on hellfire performance which you use as basis for your proposed buff. This is what I'm criticizing and perhaps I was a bit harsh, for that I'm sorry. Anyway, if we want to get any further this must be addressed

Wise Windu wrote:I can't really say, definitively, whether you're right or wrong if you don't explain all of the things you've analyzed to come to your conclusion.

(This means more than simply stating your opinion)

lolzarz wrote:Dragonfire rounds are incapable of driving enemies out of cover, and so do not do their job of countering cover.

If you're referring to the example above then no, it's not a given. The point made was that you're exposed to increased damage out of cover, which I'd say is fairly obvious, but whether you should stay there is a different matter. In a heavy cover to cover fight the enemy should not stay in cover vs dragonfire, it would likely not be in his favour attempting your 70-75% dmg reduction (assuming he doesn't have anti cover bonus as well). So he can either fall back or if it's beneficial try to negate the cover bonus of SG by repositioning. This might be the better move if he can tank, deal higher dps (eg MoT csm) and isn't at a disadvantage for too long. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see the problem with dragonfire.

According to the Codex, the Sternguard Hellfire DoT is 1.5 DPS for four seconds, which translates to 6 extra DPS if the entire squad's alive.

Okay, the Codex says the Hellfire DPS (without the DOT added) is 12.83, with each bolter hit coming out as 22 damage per hit (this is less than Tac bolters, which are 14.58 DPS with 25 damage per hit). As far as I can tell this translates to roughly a bolter hit every one-two seconds (for the Sterns it's apparently 1.71 seconds, for Tacs, the same actually). So both squads shoot at the same frequency if the Codex is accurate.

That means you get roughly one bolter hit (and thus one application of DoT) per model every two seconds or so.

Stern DPS is 14.33 including the DoT, which comes out as 57.32 for the entire squad. Assuming you only get off one shot (opening salvo of an engagement followed by retreat), that comes out as a total of 75.32 damage with 18 of that dealt over three seconds. If they stay in, they'll fire another volley within the four seconds of DoT, which applies another DoT.

Tac DPS is easier to go with, 43.74 for the bolter models and 15.64 for the sergeant, which comes out as 59.38 DPS for the squad.

So technically the Tacs have more raw DPS, but the Sternguard DOT will technically add another 6 damage in between shots, causing the Sternguard to deal 63.32 damage. So Sterns will do slightly more than Tacs with one volley due to the DoT.

This is raw DPS (and IIRC the DoT ignores cover so Sterns have a slight advantage there too) and just from my own experience I know the squads aren't going to shoot quite as smoothly as I've portrayed here even without being tied up or anything, but the Sterns are doing 63.32 damage per volley vs 59.38 damage per volley for vanilla Tacs with Sergeant. Levels will complicate things obviously, but just comparing a Level 1 Tac squad to Level 1 Sternguard, the Sternguard function better against LI (albeit slightly).

(also Dragonfire has the same DPS as vanilla Tac bolters, so it does 58.32 DPS)

I think the basic issue is working out how much the Sternguard need to trade off for being able to adapt on the fly at no cost. They definitely shouldn't beat out one of the specialised Tacs at that specific role, that defeats the point of Tacs having Flamer, Plasma Gun and Missile Launcher upgrades to begin with, but I think there is a fair argument to be made that given how much you invest in them, they should feel valuable to your composition.

Dragonfire rounds shouldn't be underestimated. Not only ignores the cover damage modifiers, but also ignores the cover accuracy modifiers.

@phantom: The DoT does 6 dmg over 4s that stacks. With a rate of fire of 7/12 the damage averages out at 6 * 7/12 = 3.5 dps or 16.33 dps in total.

Lost Son of Nikhel wrote:Dragonfire rounds shouldn't be underestimated. Not only ignores the cover damage modifiers, but also ignores the cover accuracy modifiers.

whoa you're back Nikhel? Welcome back

Lost Son of Nikhel wrote:Dragonfire rounds shouldn't be underestimated. Not only ignores the cover damage modifiers, but also ignores the cover accuracy modifiers.

^ this man gets it.

There was some talk earlier about how Dragonfire doesn't "force" units out of cover because it doesn't do a bonus to units in cover. Even as is, you're going to lose that fight if you stick around getting pelted like you're out in the open. There's not a whole lot of units that can stand up to that.

My only real concern about this is how does Dragonfire and other anti-cover weapons like flamers behave against energy shields?

Energy shields block everything. Everything

But are energy shields still effected by cover modifiers? As in, does the energy shield take bonus damage from flamers or something to that effect?

dragonfire rounds are tits, although not as good as a flamer in some situations, they are pretty nice against units even in light cover.

^in addition to that, it's much easier to sitin heavy cover with sternguard wwith dragonfire and tank a bunch of damage than with flamer tacs. The problem I usually run into with flamer units is that you have to leave cover in order to get close enough to use it, putting the unit more at risk. Dragonfire ensures that you can always have the advantage in one on one cover battles. Yeah it doesn't do increased damage like flamers, but the ability to sit in cover and use them more than makes up for that imho

Crewfinity wrote:^in addition to that, it's much easier to sitin heavy cover with sternguard wwith dragonfire and tank a bunch of damage than with flamer tacs. The problem I usually run into with flamer units is that you have to leave cover in order to get close enough to use it, putting the unit more at risk. Dragonfire ensures that you can always have the advantage in one on one cover battles. Yeah it doesn't do increased damage like flamers, but the ability to sit in cover and use them more than makes up for that imho

Yo, crew, dragonfire or vengeance vs gens?

Vengeance does more damage against gens. You can look things like that up on the Codex ^^