Dawn of War Codex

I hear what your saying. But I strongly disagree with several of your previous statements.

Firstly, there is more than one reason to add a unit to the game. Why were Sternguard added? Because they're cool. Because it's a 40k game and people want to mess around with Sternguard.

If that wasn't the reason, and the only purpose of SG was to fill an existing gap in the space marine roster, an ability/attack of similar effect and net cost to Hellfire rounds could have been added to Tactical marines.

Second, it has been repeated consistently on these forums that the intent of Sternguard was to introduce a unit into the Space Marine arsenal that lacked the specialized firepower of a tactical marine squad with heavy/special weapon upgrade in exchange for a universal soft counter with superior defensive scaling capabilities.

I'll admit, that's not what I would have done with Sternguard. If you don't like the idea of Sternguard being a super generalist unit, that's something we have in common. That said, I don't think the original objective was to make them into: HELLFIRE ROUNDS, vengeance rounds, kraken rounds dragonfire rounds. People have said it in my threads over and over again: "Sternguard are a sidegrade not an upgrade, they trade the specialization of a tac squad for the ability to switch between damage types." I know that must sound familiar.

Torpid, I can understand concern for game balance. Having solid mechanics is the backbone of a good game. But too often I see posts on here aimed at maintaining a status quo instead of being a little adventurous with game design.

Caeltos keeps describing the BETA versions of this mod as just that: BETA versions. Each new patch is one more chance to experiment. I love Atlas' idea of switching the Sternguard round damage around for a while. I loved the implementation of the Vindicare assassin as a means of improving Grey Knight long ranged AV, instead of just giving them a stock imperial lascannon for purgation squads. For that matter, I loved the implementation of the Grey Knights as a faction.

You may be a little tired of posts like mine. I totally understand, because I'm a little tired of posts like yours. The fact remains that it takes both perspectives to create a great game.

If sterns were to be a generalist unit they would be a complete unit of their own not an upgrade of tacts, which heavily, or rather, the whole faction heavily missed an infatry stuff and upgrade, literally the only 2 things good against infantry sm has is the plasma cannon and hellfire rounds.

Caeltos keeps describing the BETA versions of this mod as just that: BETA versions.

Yeah at this point beta is just a buzzword, there hasn't been an official release ever.

Ace of Swords:

So you believe that Sternguard exist to be a specialized upgrade to tactical marines which focus on improving SM anti-light infantry capability? I agree. I just don't think that's a worthwhile niche for a unit with the type of ammo switching mechanic that Sternguard uniquely employ. It also wasn't, I strongly believe, their intended role.

I also disagree with the following: "...literally the only 2 things good against infantry sm has is the plasma cannon and hellfire rounds"

The terminator heavy flamer, the tactical marine flamer, librarian smite (it should be anyway, that's it's obvious application), apo vials, the sweeping barrage on the dreadnought assault cannon, the Emperor's fist on the dreadnought, disruption for ranged blobs from assault marines or the WW or the teleporting FC, the land raider redeemer, to name a few.

Light infantry are the easiest thing in the game to kill. The primary counter to light infantry is to shoot/stab them. Of course, what tools you use to do that depends on what brand of light infantry specialization you're dealing with. My point is really that SM as a faction do not DEPEND on SG to fight light infantry.

Also, there have been official releases...in between each cluster of Beta tests there has been an official release before the beginning of the next Beta. I remember for a while there was a 2.0 version. I even remember Caeltos saying, "If you don't like the Beta changes, just play the 2.0 version."

Hellfire provide ranged dps against light infantry and heroes at standard weapon range. A lot of the stuff you mentioned involves abilities with cooldowns, a costly vehicle purchase, T3 super units, short range flamer, etc. IMO sterns fill a niche without obsoleting anything and the ammo changing mechanic as implemented encourages ammo changing well enough. They also look badass, so all in all I think the unit as implemented is great.

Unless there's an actual balance concern then IMO there's no sense in changing things.

Arbit

That's certainly a valid viewpoint. I suppose the main point which I disagree with is:

"...the ammo changing mechanic as implemented encourages ammo changing well enough."

That's really what this thread was first about. I think the incentive to bounce between Hellfire and Vengeance is too strong. I originally proposed expanding the role of kraken rounds and dragonfire rounds to further incentivize the investment in micro and attention that regular round switching involves. That said, if nobody really agrees with me it's fine. I enjoy proposing something on here and then absorbing the waves of feedback I get, and interacting with the players providing that feedback.

Generally

On a different note, I do think there is sometimes too much reticence among this community to keep an open mind with regard to proposed unit implementation/changes. Not everything is a good idea, I'll admit it (I've come up with my fair share of bad ideas on here). But I'm always excited to see Caeltos implement "improvements" to the game. The "if it ain't broke" attitude is fine to a point, but I, for one, would much rather hear someone tell me their new idea for improving the game.

TL;DR

+1 to whatever Ace/Torpid said.

99% chance it's reflective of my POV in a thread like this.

Magus Magi wrote:Generally

On a different note, I do think there is sometimes too much reticence among this community to keep an open mind with regard to proposed unit implementation/changes. Not everything is a good idea, I'll admit it (I've come up with my fair share of bad ideas on here). But I'm always excited to see Caeltos implement "improvements" to the game. The "if it ain't broke" attitude is fine to a point, but I, for one, would much rather hear someone tell me their new idea for improving the game.

It's much easier to point out the flaws in somebody's plans than to come up with a plan yourself that completely overshadows theirs. Nonetheless that doesn't make the act of critiquing their plan a waste of time - especially when the topic at hand doesn't particularly demand addressing in the first place. It's intuitive that we would seek to deal with the aspects of balance that are most troublesome at present before making changes for the sake of experience or lulz, because they can throw the meta way off and our strife towards balance in general

Raffa

Raffa wrote:TL;DR

+1 to whatever Ace/Torpid said.

99% chance it's reflective of my POV in a thread like this.

^ This is unhelpful, and what's more, you know it. More importantly, its demonstrative of precisely what I just said.


Torpid

Nothing wrong with critiquing ideas. I don't believe I ever said anything about it being a "waste of time." Just to be clear, what I did say was that there was too much reticence among this community to keep an open mind. Raffa just demonstrated that point nicely.

Also, Caeltos makes the changes to the game. I can prioritize whatever I'm most interested in when it comes to proposing gameplay changes, just like you can. If I choose something a little obscure to discuss, you could always ignore me in favor of more relevant balance discussions.

I'll admit, I would rather you didn't. I have genuinely enjoyed discussing this topic with you. I wouldn't keep posting if I didn't find the conversation interesting.

I think some bonuses that Sternguard offers over Tacticals is cost and switch speed, but the Hellfire rounds is still likely the key factor.

For 100/30 you can basically get access to useable versions of all three Tactical upgrades (20,30,40 power total iirc) that while not as strong in a side by side, can be switched freely and quickly even if for some reason you DID buy all weapons on your Tacs. Not that I really think that's a good thing.

But let's REALLY break down this whole Hellfire thing. The main things that I've read is that you basically just swap between Hellfire/Vengeance, no one uses Dragonfire and Kraken is just sort of there.

Here's a dirty splice of the damage graphs for Sternguard rounds. These come from the Codex site database. These numbers don't account for accuracy, cover etc etc but as far as I can tell they DO account for damage type vs armor type with the exception of the Hellfire's DoT effect. More on that in a bit. Whether they account for damage bonuses is something I'm not entirely sure about so I'm assuming it doesn't.

The first takeaways I see are that Dragonfire and Hellfire rounds have an identical damage graph, the lowered dps for most things for Vengeance and...

...that Kraken chart O.o. That looks awesome! It pretty much deals with everything minus vehicles and it's wrapped in one package. It matches the Vengeance on Super Heavy, is King of Heavy and competes favorably even off-type. It's the ultimate jack ammunition for a supposed ultimate generalist unit.

So why isn't the Kraken rounds the "lazy" ammo choice instead of Hellfire? I'd like to think that we're all a bunch of reasonable gents and gals who don't just like singing Hellfire from The Hunchback of Notre Dame in their games. Although maybe you do....

Well, I against propose one of my first observations; the fact that it deals the bonus DoT damage to light infantry and commanders. 1.5 piercing dps every 4 seconds iirc. Just that simple change is likely why we don't see nearly as much Dragonfire and Kraken usage despite an identical damage profile in the former and an overall better damage profile midbattle in the latter. Players seem to value it that much.

In conclusion I'll repeat what I said earlier; Hellfire usage is likely a result of the overall lack of options against light infantry in the SM roster. Other alternatives require a new squad purchase or a less then optimal accommodation in your current forces for a faction that is generally accepted to be built on a core of units that adapt to the enemy composition. Hellfire arguably might not even be the best ammunition type available, but it is the most useful and unique. Other rounds seem to be sufficiently powerful to do their assigned jobs, with the possibility that perhaps Kraken rounds are too versatile.



Just my newb opinion though.

Look at those charts. Those are some good looking charts.

Atlas

I agree with all your conclusions. That's a darn fine breakdown you've provided. My suggestions are based around moving those damage values around to incentivize increased use of the several rounds. So, switching the dragonfire round "building light" dps and the Vengeance round "building light" dps, lowering kraken round dps against light infantry and commanders, and lowering vengeance round dps vs. super heavy infantry.

Essentially leaving Vengeance round for vehicles, Kraken rounds for both kinds of heavy infantry, Hellfire for light and commander, and dragonfire for garrisons and light buildings.

Other damage altering schemes would also be fine with me, so long as they pushed for increased kraken and dragonfire usage generally.

Those charts just confirm my gut feeling that all ammo types except the kraken feel pointless and now I have a better idea about why 80% of the time I get SG I wish I had stuck with just Tactical Marines with a Sergeant.

EDIT: Please, for comparison's sake, add the damage of a Tactical Squad + Sergeant + Plasmagun to that chart?

I'm almost sure it will outperform every ammo type on every occasion. Not to mention that you will keep your levels.

For Christ's sake...

appiah4 wrote:I'm almost sure it will outperform every ammo type on every occasion. Not to mention that you will keep your levels.

If plasma/rocket didn't outperform kraken/vengeance then that would defeat the purpose wouldn't it Sunshine?

To be honest I don't care if SG are not perfectly lore friendly and you normally buy them because of Kraken rounds. That's their speciality, anti infantry and anti hero. You need that you usually buy SG. The other ammo types are useful but first and foremost you buy SG for hellfire rounds. SG work, are balanced and close enough to tabletop for me. No good reason to change.

Magus Magi wrote:its demonstrative of precisely what I just said.

No. I am completely open to new ideas (you would know that if you read any threads outside of your ones on tacs and sternguard). I am not however open to ideas which put lore before balance by changing something which already works well, which is exactly what your threads about tacs and SG are.

There's nothing new here that we didn't see 10 times already in your last thread about SG.

But hey if you make this go on for 27 pages too you might get another sympathy buff

Raffa wrote:If plasma/rocket didn't outperform kraken/vengeance then that would defeat the purpose wouldn't it Sunshine?

Please re-read; I requested the damage for Sergeant + Plasma specifically to compare with all SG ammo types. So I wanted to prove that the Plasmagun is a better upgrade than ANY SG ammo type, making the SG upgrade pointless as a whole. Never did I try to argue anything with the fact that Plasma and Missile Launcher are better than their on demand SG ammo type equivalents, that's the obvious truth.

And I still think the Plasmagun upgrade is better than the SG upgrade because it's better than the Kraken ammo, especially with the Kraken Rounds ability, which in turn is better than every other ammo available to the SG, as per the graphs.

Some reading comprehension goes a long way, Sunshine.

Kraken rounds vs hi/shi; hellfire rounds vs commanders and light infantry; dragonfire rounds vs garrisons, covers and structures (turrets, generators etc); vengeance rounds vs vehicles.

Who fails to see this concept is just a blind seahorse. Who fails to see that it doesnt buff sternguard in any way is just a brainless tyranid. This concept is perfect! It gives more uses for dragonfire rounds and removes the efficiency of vengeance rounds vs shi.

It has to be done. Why? Because the concept clearly defines each round's purpose. No more overlaping, please.

Atlas wrote:Tables

EDIT: My tables were wong as well, recalculating. Will repost.

EDIT2: Here they are.







Hard to argue against Plasma Tacs, now, isn't it?

According to your table Sternguard do less damage to commanders than fully upgraded tactical marines? If it is true then I just don't know... Awaiting an answer from Lulgrim.

Sorry if I missed it, but does someone have the base DoT numbers for hellfire? Like how much dps is applied on each hit, and for how long?

fv100 wrote:Sorry if I missed it, but does someone have the base DoT numbers for hellfire? Like how much dps is applied on each hit, and for how long?

1,5dps for 4 seconds. With 4 guns that makes 6 dps. I don't know how they stack, so I assumed they don't, for my calculations; i.e. If you hit the same model twice it doesn't go up to 3dps in my method. If it does, that would make calculating it fairly difficult, but I'd wager you'd see around 3dps or so rather than 1,5dps per model.

I was under the impression it does stack with each hit, but someone more knowledgeable should clarify things. If it does stack then the effective dps obviously depends on how frequent the hits are...

fv100 wrote:I was under the impression it does stack with each hit, but someone more knowledgeable should clarify things. If it does stack then the effective dps obviously depends on how frequent the hits are...

If it DOES stack, then considering they fire once every 1,71 seconds in 4 seconds they will take 2,33 shots, which means 3,5dps per bolter. Pretty close to what I eyeballed. Adjusted thus, the tables become:








This is however misleading because since Hellfire does a good portion of its damage as DOT (19,35% in fact) it is better countered with regeneration wargear etc. than plasma burst damage. Regardless, the Plasma is still better because;

Comparable damage in every category
No need to micromanage
Losing models is less of a deal since you never lose the Plasmagun model
The Sergeant scales very well in melee and can even fend off things like banshees and AC Tics with ATSKNF
Most importantly, you don't lose levels, which you will have accumulated at least 1 of, by the time you get the SG upgrade. (So in essence the SG upgrade also costs HP, melee damage and ranged damage.)

Sternguard are still better vs vehicles, and they have an advantage vs commanders/infantry (keep in mind the DoT applies fully on retreat).... Yes they are worse vs (S)HI but that is intended, no?

fv100 wrote:Sternguard are still better vs vehicles, and they have an advantage vs commanders/infantry (keep in mind the DoT applies fully on retreat).... Yes they are worse vs (S)HI but that is intended, no?

Yeah true, but just how much better? Their edge is around 10% in the cases they are better (except vs vehicles, but 16dps ve 8 dps vs vehicles is really a LOLWTF difference), and if your Tactical squad is Lvl 2+ you already have enough ranged damage bonus to partially or completely mitigate that, so not only are they now doing equal damage, but have more HP, better melee, less micromanagement, and do MUCH BETTER against HI and SHI..

Why should I EVER upgrade my levelled Tacs to SG?

Answer: You should NEVER upgrade your levelled Tacs to SG. Buy the Plasmagun and thank me.

The Hellfire DoT effect is "per hit" and applied separately every time the weapon hits. So you can consider it as 25 + 6 damage per burst (for valid targets, the DoT only affects light infantry and commander armor IIRC).

Lulgrim wrote:The Hellfire DoT effect is "per hit" and applied separately every time the weapon hits. So you can consider it as 25 + 6 damage per burst (for valid targets, the DoT only affects light infantry and commander armor IIRC).

Thanks for the clarification, the second table should be correct then.

Raffa wrote:For Christ's sake...

(QUOTE SECTION REMOVED)

Magus Magi wrote:its demonstrative of precisely what I just said.

No. I am completely open to new ideas (you would know that if you read any threads outside of your ones on tacs and sternguard). I am not however open to ideas which put lore before balance by changing something which already works well, which is exactly what your threads about tacs and SG are.

There's nothing new here that we didn't see 10 times already in your last thread about SG.

But hey if you make this go on for 27 pages too you might get another sympathy buff

You just proved my point a second time. Seriously, well done you.

Nothing in this thread is even remotely similar to requests voiced in my previous thread (which called for keeping levels, increasing range on vengeance, and lowered cost for subsequent tactical marine weapon purchases). This thread is calling for moving the best anti light structure damage to dragonfire from vengeance, LOWERING the vengeance round damage against super heavy infantry, and LOWERING the kraken round damage against light infantry and heroes (or some similar variation generally geared towards increasing kraken/dragonfire usage). THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LORE BEFORE BALANCE! IT HAS TO DO WITH ENOURAGING ROUND SWITCHING IN GAME!

I don't think normalizing vengeance round range was a "sympathy buff," I have more respect for Caeltos than that. You're such a troll. I'm amazed anyone pays you any attention at all with the way you behave.

Appiah4

I like the charts. I'm a big fan.

There's nothing like accurate damage calculations to spice up a thread. If I wasn't leaving the house in five minutes, I'd be giving them all a closer look. I will do, when I get back on here later.

But at a trade-off for the plasma gun you lose anti-garrison, permanent sergeant (negated by higher reinforce cost and normal sarge being better in combat than a stern), retreat kill potential, additional damage vs cover and AV potential (without paying for missle of course).

People are also forgetting that the sternguard get a PERMANENT SERGEANT.

Which means they bleed absolutely no power at all.

I really shouldn't have to explain how awesome that is.

Radio the Forest wrote:People are also forgetting that the sternguard get a PERMANENT SERGEANT.

Which means they bleed absolutely no power at all.

I really shouldn't have to explain how awesome that is.

It also means they get shut down and have their asses kicked by anything that melees them. I see Sternguard, I would melee them with anything that happens to be near, maybe even a setup team. I mean, why not, only 60 melee skill and shitty melee damage, no special attacks..

I've been playing SM for what, 5 years now, and I can easily say the Tactical Squad Sergeant is one of the most survivable and useful squad character upgrades in the game. He alone can get a squad out of many things that counter it by meleeing it, by himself. TSKNF + Kraken Bolts can really ruin a lot of units' day when you have a levelled Sergeant in there.

Coincidentally, I've been playing a lot of double tac builds (1 SG, 1 plas tac). Appiah, I don't really see your calculations borne out in game. AFAIK the hellfire DOT operates much like the PC DOT, so it ignores cover and does full damage on retreat.

This makes a huge difference when picking off the last few retreating models. 14.58 after retreat modifiers means you're doing ~3 dps. Assuming the hellfire DOT is 3.5 dps that means a sternguard squad is doing more than double damage (~7.5 dps) to a retreating light infantry squad or hero. 7.5 * 4 = 30 dps which is not bad at all considering you would normally need 150 dps of non-DOT damage to achieve similar results.

If their target has cover it likewise makes a huge difference.
Light cover
14.58
Accuracy modifier 0.8
Damage reduction 0.625
14.58 * 0.8 * 0.625 = 7.29 < Tac squad member dps
Hellfire DOT (this would be reduced by the accuracy modifier)
3.5 * 0.8 + 7.29 = 10.09 < SG squad member dps
So you're doing roughly 38% more damage there.

Heavy cover
14.58
Accuracy modifier 0.6
Damage reduction 0.416667
14.58 * 0.6 * 0.416667 = 3.65 < Tac squad member dps
Hellfire DOT (this would be reduced by the accuracy modifier)
3.5 * 0.6 + 3.65 = 5.75 < SG squad member dps
63% more damage here.

I think even if you give the tacs an extra level, factor in the plasma gun, and account for the marginal extra damage the sarge brings, they're still going to lose out.

It's a lot like the PC. On paper, his bolter looks like utter shit. In practice, it's pretty damn good.

Regarding the sarge

It also means they get shut down and have their asses kicked by anything that melees them. I see Sternguard, I would melee them with anything that happens to be near, maybe even a setup team. I mean, why not, only 60 melee skill and shitty melee damage, no special attacks..

Tac squad melee damage
83.15 dps
SG squad melee damage
72 dps

A tac squad does 15% more damage and the sarge has a special attack... that does not make that big of a difference as you're stating here. SG still do a fine job of ripping through squads that don't have melee resistance and will beat up a setup team any day. They won't be as good against a dedicated melee squad but most dedicated melee squads will tear up a tac/SG squad anyway. What will matter is whether ATSKNF is up.

I just... totally disagree that the tac sarge is one of the most survivable and useful squad leaders in the game. If you asked people to rate squad leaders, the tac sarge would probably fall somewhere near the bottom (I know, appeal to popularly held opinion here but whatevs I'm not going to do a comprehensive comparison...). You can push a SG squad a lot harder knowing that the sarge can be replaced for the cost of a standard member, which has especially nice synergy with the razorback. You just can't push a tac squad the same way because Baldy McStandsInFront is going to get shot and die.