Dawn of War Codex

Arbit: "Baldy McStandsInFront" (when referring to the tactical marine sergeant, February 12, 2014).

Yeah, that is something to be remembered.

I've been playing with 3x tacs build and the FC's storm shield. 2x standart marines and 1 sternguard seem to work really well.

Well, I would like to point out yet again that I want to see dragonfire rounds more in action. What happens in the game? If you opponent knows that your sternguard have anti-garrison options then he will never occupy a garrison if there is sternguard around. Or if he did then he will be in hurry to leave it. And we never see that awesome looking rounds in play. Please, give it yet another function - anti-building. So I can bash generators, destroy turrets or shrines and enjoy the awesome visual effect. It doesn't ruin balance. It does push you to use dragonfire rounds more often. Really, I can't even remember the hotkey due to how rarely I have to use these rounds. Kraken - I, Vengeance - T (annoying! the same hotkey is ATSKNF -__-), Hellfire - V, Dragonfire - D (not sure).

So it has become more of a general discussion issue. Does anyone have objections concerning this issue?

appiah4 wrote: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.

That honour belongs to the Dire Avengers Exarch. AFAIK I never saw him die except if is a squad wipe.

I don't know why is the people complaining about DragonFire rounds. If the old Elite wiki is right, have a 100% acuraccy/damage against any infantry squad in any cover or garrison.

Of course, Dragonfire rounds still have the armour type/size type modifiers.

http://dow.wikia.com/wiki/Elite/SM_Dragonfire_Bolts

Lost Son of Nikhel:

The accuracy and damage of dragonfire rounds speaks to their dps value. The complaints being voiced here do not involve that aspect of sternguard play.

If you check out Sub_Zero's post, or one of my previous posts, we aren't looking for any increase in damage, or accuracy, or any factor that would increase the net dps of Sternguard squads. (I hope I interpreted your post correctly Sub_Zero)

What's being requested, is a switch in the damage values of various rounds to make Dragonfire rounds the go to for damaging building armor (or in the case of Atlas' post earlier in the thread, to make dragonfire rounds the anti-infantry round instead of Hellfire, etc., etc.).

I think I messed this up by putting it in the "Balance" forum instead of the general gameplay forum. This topic does not regard a perceived lack or excess of dps for SG. It speaks to the implementation of the round-switching mechanic, and ways to encourage the use of that mechanic for more than just hellfire and vengeance rounds.

(I thought I'd throw in a previous series of lines from a previous post of mine: 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).)

Lost Son of Nikhel may be on to something.

Link to dragonfire round damage type

Link to piercing damage type (damage type used by hellfire)

Note for dragonfire it's straight 1s for accuracy and damage regardless of the type of cover, and the piercing damage type suffers severe reductions. Even factoring in the DOT effect, dragonfire should outdamage hellfire against light infantry targets in cover. I think people should experiment more with dragonfire more before doing anything.

Magus, if you're looking for dragonfire to have an expanded niche, well... it might have always had one and no one recognized it

Have you seen dragonfires on buildings? The damage is craaazy because it's like they're in the open, they can't get out fast enough. The same applies to cover, although the main reason I use hellfire still against infantry in cover is that it has better retreat wiping potential via the DOT.

I'm not going to be posting any more graphs or anything since I've pretty much said all I wanted to say, but I'm going to try more tactical heavy play when I get back on and see if I can put some of this discussion into practice.

Being a newb I dunno how good it'll be but still....
If anyone is playing with Sternguard, it would be awesome to post some replays here with some cool Tactical/Sternguard play that ould be pretty cool.

I've always been aware of the fact that Dragonfire rounds ignore cover. I didn't know about the 100% accuracy, I'll admit. I still don't find much regular use for them. It pays to have Hellfire on when the enemy retreats, as Torpid said, and many of the engagements in DoW II are so fluid, it seems rare that their isn't some squad or hero moving outside of cover, or between cover, to shoot at.

You're post has gotten me thinking Arbit, and I would be very interested to explore what the DPS calculations are for comparing Dragonfire damage to enemies in cover to Hellfire damage to enemies in cover. My suspicion is that the DoT effect makes up for the difference. That suspicion was wrong, according to previous damage calculations by Arbit, Hellfire rounds deal 10 dps against light cover and 5 against heavy. So, I have to admit, Dragonfire would be the superior choice in a straight shootout with a light armor unit in cover.

Dragonfire rounds have ignored cover since the start and they still aren't used very often. You'd think, if that was going to be the magic bullet that makes Dragonfire a more frequently employed round it would have happened at some point since the introduction of the SG into the game. It's been long enough that I feel pretty comfortable saying that it isn't enough to increase usage.

Also, what exactly is the objection to allowing dragonfire round to have vengeance round dps vs. building light and lowering the vengeance round dps to what the dragonfire round value was? It would increase the incentive to switch rounds, so what's the problem? Is it still just, "if it ain't broke," because for a change this small and ultimately mechanics based that really doesn't apply with the same gravitas that it would for a change relating to dps. All this particular change stands to do is slightly increase how often we see the cool dragonfire animation...what's the problem?

Atlas:

I like your plan, I'll be very interested to see your next post.

Coming back after saying I'd try more tactical heavy play.

So far, I'm not impressed with using them as both the Apothecary and the Techmarine. They might be a lot better with the Force Commander who can get the Storm Shield and deal with supression without needing to buy an assault squad.

Still, it's very difficult to keep up with your opponent both in terms of speed and tech with multiple tacticals. Missile Launchers don't snare and double missiles aren't that impressive damage wise, especially considering Tacticals have to keep up with the retreating vehicle.

Likewise, double flamers haven't wowed me either. Don't make much sense really unless they're going something like triple guardsman and catachans only.

Double plasma seems to be the most viable in terms of team games though. You can put out a fair amount of the deeps that way but again, no av and you'd still likely need an assault squad.

Now when it comes to stern+tac, it's a little different but not amazingly so. The Apo heals nicely and the TM... mark targets in T2 I guess? Imo, the TM has problems supporting infantry in general.

Still, a strategy intentionally working to get Sternguard doesn't seem all that productive so far. Feels like the Sternguard is more of an incidental upgrade when you don't really need the missile launcher or you're dealing with a lot of light infantry.
In that case, it works well.

If I could just add a quick question to the discussion...

Why are the Sternguard/Vanguard purchasable upgrades, instead of seperate units in the HQ?

Is it just me, or does anyone else find their current implementation very jarring to the gameplay? I mean, no other unit in the game (bar the FC) can do this... it just feels a little "off", in terms of the design philosophy of the game.

DontTouchMyCrumpets wrote:If I could just add a quick question to the discussion...

Why are the Sternguard/Vanguard purchasable upgrades, instead of seperate units in the HQ?

Is it just me, or does anyone else find their current implementation very jarring to the gameplay? I mean, no other unit in the game (bar the FC) can do this... it just feels a little "off", in terms of the design philosophy of the game.

They're "sidegrades" rather than upgrades. i.e. deliberately situational, plus keep dem fanbois happy because 1st company :p

Raffa wrote:They're "sidegrades" rather than upgrades. i.e. deliberately situational, plus keep dem fanbois happy because 1st company :p

Well, yeah, I know that part (thanks anyway Raffa), but I meant more along the lines of why are they not normal units, from the HQ?

Because they wouldn't work. They'de either be overpowered or underpowered really.

I honestly dont think id would be worth getting another units that doesn't specialize in anything (unless it is in t1) if its a unit all on its own. This upgrade (along with vanguard) are in their own little world. I quite like it how it is. Gives the Sm roster more diversity with their builds without sacrificing pop or the resources in getting another unit/squad.

Black Relic wrote:I honestly dont think id would be worth getting another units that doesn't specialize in anything (unless it is in t1) if its a unit all on its own. This upgrade (along with vanguard) are in their own little world. I quite like it how it is. Gives the Sm roster more diversity with their builds without sacrificing pop or the resources in getting another unit/squad.

Well, if they are both T2 units, it would make replacing them a hell lot easier if lost, for example. I mean, if given the choice, you could not build ASM in T1 and just wait till T2 to buy Vanguard. Wouldn't that acheive more build diversity? I don't quite get what you mean about no pop or resource cost though. They do have a cost already??

That Torpid Gamer wrote:Because they wouldn't work. They'de either be overpowered or underpowered really.

Perhaps. Though, balance can be adjusted like with everything else.

I'd like to hear from Caeltos on this. Does anybody know if he made them sidegrades due to a lack of HQ T2 slots? Or were they always meant to be like this? Reason being is I could remove that limitation.

I think that Sternguard and Vanguard are...I am so loathe to use the word..."sidegrades" because you want to be able to access them without redundancy.

Vanguard are currently a tier 3 squad. Imagine a situation where a SM player goes for a 1,1,1 build and their Assault Marines survive all the way into tier 3. However, that SM player decides that he really wants to purchase some vanguard veterans in order to combat a particular tier 3 threat. Getting the Vanguard in addition to the Assault marines might not be what the player wants, or it might be exactly what he/she wants. Making Vanguard vets a..."sidegrade"... allows you to choose either option. It's just one more manifestation of SM versatility.

If Vanguard were a separate purchasable unit, then you would be stuck with your assault marines unless you wanted to double up on jump troops.

Imagine a situation where a SM player goes for a 1,1,1 build and their Assault Marines survive all the way into tier 3.

If my ASM survived all that way I wouldnt go for Vanguards on my original squad, because I'd loose all my levels.

Double jump troops that are so similar seem a bit niche, I guess replacing the AS is convenient. I once threw out a random idea of working the VV into an Apo exclusive call-in ("heroic intervention" or somesuch rule from the codex + the signature synergy with Apo specifically).

SG I could see working as a separate T2 unit as well. Tac + SG doesn't seem too niche surely.

As for the original reason for making them upgrades I don't remember anymore, I think there would be a HQ slot for both at the moment? Remember that Kasrkin were also meant to be a GM upgrade, although it was left on some to-do list and forgotten eventually.

But yes the upgrade-replace mechanic seems a bit unintuitive and illogical to me, convenient as it may be, so I wouldn't mind working on a redesign.

I dont think its illogical; but I allways felt the mechanic, like it is right now, doesnt feel all that space marine-y.

Reminds me more on how marks work, on chaos.

Getting immobile and beeing vulnerable till it pops in.

Van- and Sternguards hitting the battlefields as shock troops just would fit the SM design a bit better imho.
No matter if they were their own unit, or still an upgrade for Tacs/ASM -
have them come in via Drop Pod / Jump Pack ( "heroic intervention" ).

Yeah I've heard that the Drop Pod call in used to have Tactical Marines included with it. going back to that only with Sternguard and Vanguard would be really cool imo. Obviously blance and etc etc but still.

On the other hand just as a personal thing, I don't really like call-in globals. Yes, I understand the need/want to limit options for some heroes or add some to another but I really miss that extra red ability sometimes. Especially on heroes that have multiple call ins like the Lord General and Techmarine :/

Idk, it just feels like sometimes the red list is filled with too many callins. It's mostly seen with IG,SM and Nids and to be fair even if it is a problem idk how to fix it.

I tried something like this in my MOD where you would be able to call in veteran squads (an excellent example would be your playing Blood Angels. And with a global you call in the 2 Death Company squads[veterans with the Death company models]) but never really liked it and removed it from my MOD. It would be similar to without number. And i don't like that global.

And I dont really like spending too much pop especially with SM since their squads take up loads of pop. So i think these upgrades make sense and i like them. Even if i dont use them that often.

I wouldn't mind seeing Sternguard/Vanguard repurposed into a call-in/base unit. I'm always interested in seeing new ideas tested.

I quite like having tacs transform into sterns. It lets me build two tacs in T1 and leaves the option open to transform one into a stern squad. If they were built from the HQ, I can't imagine ever going two tacs in T1 and getting essentially what is a third tac squad in T2. It also lets a 1x tac build still get sterns without having to commit another 20 pop to another tactical style squad.

Sterns being an upgrade allows for some more flexibility with army builds IMO. There are drawbacks to the transformation/upgrade method - notably, the loss of experience and it's a real kick in the balls to pay for the squad + sarge + upgrade all at once if replacing a lost stern squad - but I think the pros of the transformation method outweigh the cons.

+1 arbit

Arbit wrote:I quite like having tacs transform into sterns. It lets me build two tacs in T1 and leaves the option open to transform one into a stern squad. If they were built from the HQ, I can't imagine ever going two tacs in T1 and getting essentially what is a third tac squad in T2. It also lets a 1x tac build still get sterns without having to commit another 20 pop to another tactical style squad.

Sterns being an upgrade allows for some more flexibility with army builds IMO. There are drawbacks to the transformation/upgrade method - notably, the loss of experience and it's a real kick in the balls to pay for the squad + sarge + upgrade all at once if replacing a lost stern squad - but I think the pros of the transformation method outweigh the cons.

pretty much what i said but in more detail. so +1

Orkfaeller wrote:I dont think its illogical

Well the unit isn't really upgraded like CSM, it's removed and replaced by something else altogether. It doesn't make much sense - why would you send away the Tac Squad?

vacation

Lulgrim wrote:

Orkfaeller wrote:I dont think its illogical

Well the unit isn't really upgraded like CSM, it's removed and replaced by something else altogether. It doesn't make much sense - why would you send away the Tac Squad?

To recieve their first company honours and the crux terminatus?^^

Orkfaeller wrote:

Lulgrim wrote:

Orkfaeller wrote:I dont think its illogical

Well the unit isn't really upgraded like CSM, it's removed and replaced by something else altogether. It doesn't make much sense - why would you send away the Tac Squad?

To recieve their first company honours and the crux terminatus?^^

In this case, you're assuming the tactical squad and the sternguard are comprised of the same space marines. In that case, why do I lose my experience? Why are my veterans even greener than the original tactical squad?

But as to sending away the tacs, I guess that the Chapter Master (obviously off-screen) decided that if you are assigned a squad of sternguard, you can spare the tactical space marines for other commanders? I mean, it's not the imperial guard; it's a space marine chapter with 1000 fighting men. They need every space marine they can get.

the performance of a sternguard squad actually is at the level of a level 4 Tac squad ... so you can say that the sternguard levels your tacs immediately to level 4 with the possibility to level up even more