Kanluwen wrote:
We're supposed to be a NPC race, just like Orks and Tyranids.

I just want to hear them say that they think skitarii rangers, kabalites, and neophytes should all be nerfed and have points increases, and pursue it with the same vigor that they are pursuing the 1ppm increase to guardsmen.

This absurd focus on putting guardsmen "in their place" whilst ignoring superior infantry from other factions even when those other infantry are direct upgrades (neophytes) or are provably mathematically superior (rangers, kabalites) is extremely odd. Especially when they are confronted with the evidence and they shy away from taking a firm stance, or try to defend the imbalance.

w1zard wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:
We also might see them go up 2 points, but since we haven't seen their codex yet it's best to leave them be for now. If they do end up with new traits and the same price point then we can talk about needing a points increase.

But in their current iteration they are too powerful correct? Again... straight up superior to 5ppm guardsmen.

I really wish people would stop dodging this.

Sure they are probably .5 points under costed. Since we can't increase things by 1/2 a point then let's just get rid of the neophyte's +1L until their codex comes out and we see what their kit eventually becomes. If that means that guardsmen go to 5ppm with no more complaints then so be it.

 DrGiggles wrote:
Sure they are probably .5 points under costed. Since we can't increase things by 1/2 a point then let's just get rid of the neophyte's +1L until their codex comes out and we see what their kit eventually becomes. If that means that guardsmen go to 5ppm with no more complaints then so be it.

A rational and sane position, and you indulged my desire for a definite stance on the issue. Thank you.

 Marmatag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I can't believe this didn't end with a BS 4+ model with 5+ armor with a 24" gun being worth more than 4 pts.

Because the goalposts are constantly shifted. We kicked a field goal from the SOUP yardline, and the goalposts moved. Then we kicked another one from the TOURNAMENT yardline, and the goalposts jumped again. Now we're setting up a field goal from GENESTEALER CULTS yards away, and the goalposts are starting to quiver.

I've read almost every post in this thread and i somehow missed all these "field goals"
1. Soup has constantly been shown to be a huge issue in this thread and every person posting has said that guard CP regeneration is an issue so not sure exactly
2. Not sure what field goal was kicked in the tournament section you were able to find 2 tournaments with IG lists...
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Richard-Windau-1st-Overall-Midwest-Conquest-GT-2018.pdf
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Mike-Whittington-1st-Overall-GrotsCon-2018.pdf
here's 2 tau ones I looked up in about 2 mins so are tau broken? I found everything from necrons to SM and the only common thread I see was lots of soup and a lot of mono DE (not saying DE are broken just think it takes a bit of time for the meta to shift)
3. Now i haven't played against gene steller cults so don't really know there stats so i have no clue about the validity of those arguments.

The main point I think you lose people on is kinda what your last post indicates. You claim things are "obvious" knowledge and then back them up with really weak evidence and expect to sway peoples minds. You claim to "kick field goals" by what? finding a guard list that's one a GT but somehow its obvious to everyone that they are brokenly good? Somehow defeating an argument about soup with there being no clear signs you did anything of the sort. I personally have found most if not every argument in this thread relatively poor. I mean the only response I even got when posting statistics about win percentages of factions was that they should somehow be discounted because tournaments have time limits.

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I can't believe this didn't end with a BS 4+ model with 5+ armor with a 24" gun being worth more than 4 pts.

Because the goalposts are constantly shifted. We kicked a field goal from the SOUP yardline, and the goalposts moved. Then we kicked another one from the TOURNAMENT yardline, and the goalposts jumped again. Now we're setting up a field goal from GENESTEALER CULTS yards away, and the goalposts are starting to quiver.

I've read almost every post in this thread and i somehow missed all these "field goals"
1. Soup has constantly been shown to be a huge issue in this thread and every person posting has said that guard CP regeneration is an issue so not sure exactly
2. Not sure what field goal was kicked in the tournament section you were able to find 2 tournaments with IG lists...
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Richard-Windau-1st-Overall-Midwest-Conquest-GT-2018.pdf
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Mike-Whittington-1st-Overall-GrotsCon-2018.pdf
here's 2 tau ones I looked up in about 2 mins so are tau broken? I found everything from necrons to SM and the only common thread I see was lots of soup and a lot of mono DE (not saying DE are broken just think it takes a bit of time for the meta to shift)
3. Now i haven't played against gene steller cults so don't really know there stats so i have no clue about the validity of those arguments.

The main point I think you lose people on is kinda what your last post indicates. You claim things are "obvious" knowledge and then back them up with really weak evidence and expect to sway peoples minds. You claim to "kick field goals" by what? finding a guard list that's one a GT but somehow its obvious to everyone that they are brokenly good? Somehow defeating an argument about soup with there being no clear signs you did anything of the sort. I personally have found most if not every argument in this thread relatively poor. I mean the only response I even got when posting statistics about win percentages of factions was that they should somehow be discounted because tournaments have time limits.

You didnt post win percentages you posted avarage win percentages.
Avarages without deviations are extremely limited in what they tell you. Outliers dramatically squew avarages, untill you or someone can produce the details behind these avarages they don't tell the story.

I really think people are overthinking here. 5+ saves are so strong on 4 point models. Most fire coming their way is AP 0, because the heavier stuff a) can't be spared when trying to shutdown Manticore batteries b) doesn't have the cost effectiveness necessary.

Stopping 33% of successful wounds on models that are 4 ppm and likely number in the 60+ range is soul crushing. And I'm pretending cover isn't a thing. Nor the cover strat.

Ice_can wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I can't believe this didn't end with a BS 4+ model with 5+ armor with a 24" gun being worth more than 4 pts.

Because the goalposts are constantly shifted. We kicked a field goal from the SOUP yardline, and the goalposts moved. Then we kicked another one from the TOURNAMENT yardline, and the goalposts jumped again. Now we're setting up a field goal from GENESTEALER CULTS yards away, and the goalposts are starting to quiver.

I've read almost every post in this thread and i somehow missed all these "field goals"
1. Soup has constantly been shown to be a huge issue in this thread and every person posting has said that guard CP regeneration is an issue so not sure exactly
2. Not sure what field goal was kicked in the tournament section you were able to find 2 tournaments with IG lists...
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Richard-Windau-1st-Overall-Midwest-Conquest-GT-2018.pdf
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Mike-Whittington-1st-Overall-GrotsCon-2018.pdf
here's 2 tau ones I looked up in about 2 mins so are tau broken? I found everything from necrons to SM and the only common thread I see was lots of soup and a lot of mono DE (not saying DE are broken just think it takes a bit of time for the meta to shift)
3. Now i haven't played against gene steller cults so don't really know there stats so i have no clue about the validity of those arguments.

The main point I think you lose people on is kinda what your last post indicates. You claim things are "obvious" knowledge and then back them up with really weak evidence and expect to sway peoples minds. You claim to "kick field goals" by what? finding a guard list that's one a GT but somehow its obvious to everyone that they are brokenly good? Somehow defeating an argument about soup with there being no clear signs you did anything of the sort. I personally have found most if not every argument in this thread relatively poor. I mean the only response I even got when posting statistics about win percentages of factions was that they should somehow be discounted because tournaments have time limits.

You didnt post win percentages you posted avarage win percentages.
Avarages without deviations are extremely limited in what they tell you. Outliers dramatically squew avarages, untill you or someone can produce the details behind these avarages they don't tell the story.

I posted the full averages for the entire tournament and while obviously not perfect data I find it far more conclusive then posting 2 GTs out of all the GTs having guard win and claiming this makes it obvious to everyone that they are broken. Id actually say there hasn't been a statistical data point presented in this entire thread that holds more weight than the actual win percentages as an average because its the only thing taking the frequency of armies into account.

w1zard wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
I think you're really overvaluing those two things. Primarily because Cult Ambush is to GSC as Orders are to Guard, and orders are guaranteed, but ou have to roll for the ambush type, which might suck. And cult ambush is only once a game while orders can be received each turn. And imo +1L is not worth a 20% increase in price especially when it puts neophytes at the same price as veterans who are 33% more killy.

Oh I agree that +1L and slightly better deployment options aren't worth a 20% increase in price (shifting neophytes to 6ppm). However, the fact that neophytes would be a direct upgrade to guardsmen for the same points costs would mean they need nerfs no? Otherwise you are just contradicting yourself.

I'm just trying to get this straight. I'm already convinced that guardsmen should be 5ppm, I'm just seriously baffled why everyone is not also supporting nerfs to infantry that are provably and mathematically superior in every respect to 5ppm guardsmen.

I don't get how you guys can be saying guardsmen are "worth" 5ppm and in the same breath say that neophytes who have the exact same stats as guardsmen, and the exact same weapons, with +1L, better deployment options, and a larger squad size should be the exact same price. That reeks of anti-guard bias.

Your objection is more academic than it is practical. Unfortunately points are not an exact science, most points are done by "feels right" more than anything. Bumping Neophytes to 6pts puts them at the same cost as veterans, and veterans are superior to neophytes. So what do we do? Bump veterans to 7 pts? But then we would need to bump Skitarii rangers to at least 9 pts. Then what happens to battle sisters? Up to 10 or 11 pts?
Oh, and let's not forget orks. Putting neophytes at 6 pts drops them right next to boyz who are about as durable but also a lot more killy. Both at range and in combat.

And i'm not even considering the abilities of these units: Orks also have strong morale and a charge re-roll. Rangers have Canticles and an invuln. Fire Warriors get bonds and better overwatch etc...

So, again, not an exact science. Neophytes and Guard Infantry are close enough to be the same point cost.

One bonus to the 4 point Guardsmen, is that I always see actual guardsmen on the table. Any time you see Guard on the table, theres always at least a platoons worth of Infantry squads. That's refreshing from a lore standpoint. If Guard were 5, I suspect I'd see a lot more conscripts instead.

 Insectum7 wrote:
One bonus to the 4 point Guardsmen, is that I always see actual guardsmen on the table. Any time you see Guard on the table, theres always at least a platoons worth of Infantry squads. That's refreshing from a lore standpoint. If Guard were 5, I suspect I'd see a lot more conscripts instead.

Everytime I play against a certain army, there's always a particular unit that they take.

:thinking:

Must mean that unit is perfectly balanced.

-

On a more serious note; 4ppm Conscripts and 5ppm Guardsman would solve a lot of their issues (especially in terms of balance to other races), while also giving them each their own identity.

fe40k wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
One bonus to the 4 point Guardsmen, is that I always see actual guardsmen on the table. Any time you see Guard on the table, theres always at least a platoons worth of Infantry squads. That's refreshing from a lore standpoint. If Guard were 5, I suspect I'd see a lot more conscripts instead.

Everytime I play against a certain army, there's always a particular unit that they take.

:thinking:

Must mean that unit is perfectly balanced.

Remember that at the start of 8th (ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE INCOMING) it seemed like everyone and their mother suddenly had a 'Conscript' army that they insisted they had always wanted to play.

I think that's what he's getting at. There's a tight line between Infantry Squads and Conscript Squads, with most of it coming down to Infantry Squads can take Orders more reliably and at longer ranges while also taking a Special and a HWT.

Conscripts just bring more bodies.

On a more serious note; 4ppm Conscripts and 5ppm Guardsman would solve a lot of their issues (especially in terms of balance to other races), while also giving them each their own identity.

So would just making Guardsmen closer to other armies in terms of their stats and downgrading Conscripts to be something more equivalent to Grots.
Ditch the Lasguns from Conscripts, give them Autorifles and/or Autopistols/CCWs instead(remember: Munitorum issues the Lasguns. Autoguns and that stuff can be locally sourced!).
Remove the <Regiment> tag and give them Auxilia instead so they can't receive Orders or benefit from <Regiment> traits then--but they also won't ruin the <Regiment> for Detachment.

 Insectum7 wrote:
One bonus to the 4 point Guardsmen, is that I always see actual guardsmen on the table. Any time you see Guard on the table, theres always at least a platoons worth of Infantry squads. That's refreshing from a lore standpoint. If Guard were 5, I suspect I'd see a lot more conscripts instead.

Typically - when 2 models have the exact same points but one is clearly inferior in every way (like a conscript) you never see that unit.

I'd rather see Infantry than Conscripts, so that's fine with me. Conscripts bring the 30? man unit, so they have that. Imo you might see more of them if Comissars hadn't been hit so hard.

Conscripts are more of a "flavor" unit anyways.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
One bonus to the 4 point Guardsmen, is that I always see actual guardsmen on the table. Any time you see Guard on the table, theres always at least a platoons worth of Infantry squads. That's refreshing from a lore standpoint. If Guard were 5, I suspect I'd see a lot more conscripts instead.

Typically - when 2 models have the exact same points but one is clearly inferior in every way (like a conscript) you never see that unit.

Until the Commissar nerf and the 4+ requirement for Orders, people preferred Conscripts if they didn't need specials/heavies(for things like, say, soup...)

"Might see more" is a bit of a stretch when they are completely inferior to Infantry squads for the same price. Less killy and more susceptible to morale. Also no special weapons/gear. So outside of die-hard fluff-players, people are just going to take infantry squads to do the exact same job. Even regular casual players won't use them.

Dandelion wrote:
"Might see more" is a bit of a stretch when they are completely inferior to Infantry squads for the same price. Less killy and more susceptible to morale. Also no special weapons/gear. So outside of die-hard fluff-players, people are just going to take infantry squads to do the exact same job. Even regular casual players won't use them.

And yet, people wouldn't shut up about them at the launch of 8th.

Gee, I wonder why that was?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
One bonus to the 4 point Guardsmen, is that I always see actual guardsmen on the table. Any time you see Guard on the table, theres always at least a platoons worth of Infantry squads. That's refreshing from a lore standpoint. If Guard were 5, I suspect I'd see a lot more conscripts instead.

Typically - when 2 models have the exact same points but one is clearly inferior in every way (like a conscript) you never see that unit.

Until the Commissar nerf and the 4+ requirement for Orders, people preferred Conscripts if they didn't need specials/heavies(for things like, say, soup...)

If your timeline is correct, then people preferred conscripts while they were still 3pts... and even then, people still found them useful later despite the bad commissars. It's the 4 pts that killed them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
"Might see more" is a bit of a stretch when they are completely inferior to Infantry squads for the same price. Less killy and more susceptible to morale. Also no special weapons/gear. So outside of die-hard fluff-players, people are just going to take infantry squads to do the exact same job. Even regular casual players won't use them.

And yet, people wouldn't shut up about them at the launch of 8th.

Gee, I wonder why that was?

cuz they were 3 pts, and hands down the best infantry per point if you ignored morale, which is what commissars did. The only reason you don't see them now is because infantry squads stole their thunder.

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
One bonus to the 4 point Guardsmen, is that I always see actual guardsmen on the table. Any time you see Guard on the table, theres always at least a platoons worth of Infantry squads. That's refreshing from a lore standpoint. If Guard were 5, I suspect I'd see a lot more conscripts instead.

Typically - when 2 models have the exact same points but one is clearly inferior in every way (like a conscript) you never see that unit.

Until the Commissar nerf and the 4+ requirement for Orders, people preferred Conscripts if they didn't need specials/heavies(for things like, say, soup...)

If your timeline is correct, then people preferred conscripts while they were still 3pts... and even then, people still found them useful later despite the bad commissars. It's the 4 pts that killed them.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
"Might see more" is a bit of a stretch when they are completely inferior to Infantry squads for the same price. Less killy and more susceptible to morale. Also no special weapons/gear. So outside of die-hard fluff-players, people are just going to take infantry squads to do the exact same job. Even regular casual players won't use them.

And yet, people wouldn't shut up about them at the launch of 8th.

Gee, I wonder why that was?

cuz they were 3 pts, and hands down the best infantry per point if you ignored morale, which is what commissars did. The only reason you don't see them now is because infantry squads stole their thunder.

Which was my point.

They were 3 pts, could ignore morale and filled the role that people wanted for them:
Cheap models in a soup.

I suspect a miscommunication. The "might see more" comment was directed at insectum, if that clears anything up.

Dandelion wrote:
I suspect a miscommunication. The "might see more" comment was directed at insectum, if that clears anything up.

Possibly. I just think it's important to remember that Conscripts were favored over Infantry Squads at launch, not by Guard players proper but for the soups.

Dandelion wrote:
"Might see more" is a bit of a stretch when they are completely inferior to Infantry squads for the same price. Less killy and more susceptible to morale. Also no special weapons/gear. So outside of die-hard fluff-players, people are just going to take infantry squads to do the exact same job. Even regular casual players won't use them.

Better in every way except squad size. Players might have a good reason to take big single squads of meat shields, since that's what they're for. A 30 man squad covers a lot of ground, and if Comissars still had their original rules or something closer, that could be an asset. Certainly if they could still be in squads of 50, too. There's a lot that changed along with their point value changing.

So conscripts would need a now non-existant ability to make them worth their points? An ability that in all likelihood is never coming back in any shape or form?
But even so, conscripts were still plenty competitive post-codex and post the commissar nerf. And tbh, if commissars still had their old rules, people would have still switched to Infantry because why spend extra on a babysitter? Each model costs the same, and guard can spam squads so why bother?
If guard infantry goes to 5 pts, people will actually start to reconsider conscripts and potentially make them work. But for now there's no real point.

^well the post you originally responded to mentioned less-nerfed Comissars, so I'm not sure why that idea is so shocking. Imo giant fearless squds would still have a niche value, even at the same points cost.

I doubt it since 3 10-man squads work just as well as 1 30-man squad. That and no babysitter required.

Dandelion wrote:
Neophytes and Guard Infantry are close enough to be the same point cost.

I disagree. When one unit is literally exactly the same as another unit except superior, that is entirely unfair that they cost the same.

Maybe the solution isn't increasing neophytes point costs, but instead nerfing their stats in some way.

I find it entirely hypocritical to say that guardsmen need to be nerfed to 5ppm because they are mathematically superior to most other options, and in the same breath say that 5ppm neophytes (which are literally guardsmen except superior in multiple ways) are perfectly fine.

Unless you are arguing that guardsmen should go to 5 points AND be buffed +1L, gain the ability to deepstrike, and have the ability to take more than 10 men in a squad. Because I am perfectly fine with that.

Again, I'm convinced guardsmen should be costed 5 points... But I'm starting to think that the reason people want guardsmen nerfed to 5ppm isn't because they want a more balanced game. I think that guardsmen are a VERY visible boogeyman unit that people are tired of losing against and are scapegoating. It's the only reason I can think of for the logic dissonance behind the whole "Guardsmen need to be 5ppm" and simultaneous "5ppm neophytes and 7ppm rangers are perfectly fine".

 Xenomancers wrote:
Typically - when 2 models have the exact same points but one is clearly inferior in every way (like a conscript) you never see that unit.

Wow! What a thought!

Dandelion wrote:
I doubt it since 3 10-man squads work just as well as 1 30-man squad. That and no babysitter required.

Are you one of those "morale doesn't exist" guys, too?

w1zard wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Neophytes and Guard Infantry are close enough to be the same point cost.

I disagree. When one unit is literally exactly the same as another unit except superior, that is entirely unfair that they cost the same.

Maybe the solution isn't increasing neophytes point costs, but instead nerfing their stats in some way.

I find it entirely hypocritical to say that guardsmen need to be nerfed to 5ppm because they are mathematically superior to most other options, and in the same breath say that 5ppm neophytes (which are literally guardsmen except superior in multiple ways) are perfectly fine.

Unless you are arguing that guardsmen should go to 5 points AND be buffed +1L, gain the ability to deepstrike, and have the ability to take more than 10 men in a squad. Because I am perfectly fine with that.

Again, I'm convinced guardsmen should be costed 5 points... But I'm starting to think that the reason people want guardsmen nerfed to 5ppm isn't because they want a more balanced game. I think that guardsmen are a VERY visible boogeyman unit that people are tired of losing against and are scapegoating. It's the only reason I can think of for the logic dissonance behind the whole "Guardsmen need to be 5ppm" and simultaneous "5ppm neophytes and 7ppm rangers are perfectly fine".

Rangers should be 8ppm I agreed with you on that pages back.

The reason no-one is complaining about neophytes being +1LD is it isn't worth a full point to most player's.

Your picking on the things neophytes have while ignoring what they loose for those things. I'll break it down for you

gain the ability to deepstrike in exchange for no regiment traits

and have the ability to take more than 10 men in a squadas points are payed per model why does the number you can take count towards the value of the individual model

Their charictors have aura buffsthey get fixed aura's not orders

Things dont have to be the same to be equals.

Also in the response to rely on leadersgip casualties crowd, why should a tac list have LD casualties as part of its plan.

Many armies have moral mitigating units or strategums, or are forced into MSU for CP.
People aren't building to rely on LD as its to unreliable. Rely on it and you loose out on scoring an objective etc because if its a game winner you can be sure that auto pass strategum etc will be in play.

Until GW starts putting base costs on units with additional cost per model added, there is not enough difference between Infranty Squad Guardsman and Neophyte Hybrids.

Better leadership is good and so is Cult Ambush, but not 1 point per model good, especially when only half the units in your army get to use Cult Ambush anyway.

I thank a lot of the points issue like guardsman vs conscripts could be solved by buying models by the squad and not the individual.

think conscripts which are probably worth around the high end of 3 points per model vs a guardsman who is on the high end of 4 points per model.

just say we come to the conclusion that conscripts should be 3.8 points per model and a guardsman should be worth 4.6 points per model because of the differences... well instead of saying they are both 4 points per model make them 19 points per 5 extra. after the initial 20 man squad costing 76 points. in the case of a guardsman the 10 man squad would be 46 points.

same rules could be applied to other units/armies. take my fav army Orks. an ork boy is pretty good for 6 points. but not a 7 point model. probably close to the 6 thasn the 7 so say it come out to 6.4 points per model. suddenly boyz are bought at 64 points per 10 rather than 6 points each.

I have a suggestion: what if we first looked to clamp down on Soup? e.g. restricting CP spending to the faction that generated them; having either bonuses for mono-faction armies or penalties for soup armies etc.

Then, once those changes sink in, we see if IG Infantry Squads are still causing issues. If so, we make them 5pts. If not, we leave them where they are.

Does that sound reasonable?

 vipoid wrote:
I have a suggestion: what if we first looked to clamp down on Soup? e.g. restricting CP spending to the detachments that generated them; having either bonuses for mono-faction armies or penalties for soup armies etc.

Then, once those changes sink in, we see if IG Infantry Squads are still causing issues. If so, we make them 5pts. If not, we leave them where they are.

Does that sound reasonable?

Absolutely, to me. Kill soup/CP regen first, then check if IG is still OP. If it is, then we can adjust IG. I suspect it won't be OP, others suspect it will, but at least for my part the argument will be fully resolved with me in the "IG is OP" camp if this happens.

Wouldn't a large nerf to the IG CP toys have a similar impact?

I like CP being restricted to the generating detatchment in theory. But I think it's more overhead than it's worth.

 vipoid wrote:
I have a suggestion: what if we first looked to clamp down on Soup? e.g. restricting CP spending to the faction that generated them; having either bonuses for mono-faction armies or penalties for soup armies etc.

Then, once those changes sink in, we see if IG Infantry Squads are still causing issues. If so, we make them 5pts. If not, we leave them where they are.

Does that sound reasonable?

We already proved they were a problem mathematically. The Guard players here are just pulling mental gymnastics like Eldar defenders for the last two editions.

Bharring wrote:
Wouldn't a large nerf to the IG CP toys have a similar impact?

Maybe, but then you're nerfing them for the sake of soup. Wouldn't it make more sense to nerf soup? Then you're also future-proofed in case people find a new CP-generator.

I mean, IG can certainly generate a ton of CP, but it rarely does them much good. They have relatively few good stratagems and in general just don't have many ways to spend the amount of CP they generate.

It only becomes a problem when Soup is involved and those CPs can be spent on stratagems for other factions, which would normally have very limited CP.

Bharring wrote:
I like CP being restricted to the generating detatchment in theory. But I think it's more overhead than it's worth.

It's not ideal but still seems better than the alternative.


That said, one thing I will say is that I'm not a fan of CP regeneration abilities in general. I think either CP should be built around regenerating CPs (in which case it should be a part of the core mechanics - not limited to certain factions/abilities), or else there should just be no regeneration at all. I say this for internal balance as much as external - in that it's depressing how CP-regeneration artefacts or warlord traits are almost always leagues better than the alternatives.

So, if you want to scrap *all* CP regeneration (not just the IG abilities), I'd be okay with that.

However, I still think that we need some actual downsides to Soup armies.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I have a suggestion: what if we first looked to clamp down on Soup? e.g. restricting CP spending to the faction that generated them; having either bonuses for mono-faction armies or penalties for soup armies etc.

Then, once those changes sink in, we see if IG Infantry Squads are still causing issues. If so, we make them 5pts. If not, we leave them where they are.

Does that sound reasonable?

We already proved they were a problem mathematically. The Guard players here are just pulling mental gymnastics like Eldar defenders for the last two editions.

Been saying that from the start, every data that is being pulled right now is polluted by the broken CP mechanic. We can't say anything for sure before that is fixed.

And no, guards being mathematically better than alternatives has not been demonstrated in this thread. There were some improbable show offs with no actual meaning.
I could easily make one in which termagants are the most broken troop in the game, because math in this game doesn't mean much if you don't analyze extremely specific situations. You can calculate the average wounds of x vs y, but calculating the performance of a model in relation to it's cost is something that requires days of math from a professional. Making mathematical models for this game is a real challenge, don't take it lightly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Wouldn't a large nerf to the IG CP toys have a similar impact?

Maybe, but then you're nerfing them for the sake of soup. Wouldn't it make more sense to nerf soup? Then you're also future-proofed in case people find a new CP-generator.

I mean, IG can certainly generate a ton of CP, but it rarely does them much good. They have relatively few good stratagems and in general just don't have many ways to spend the amount of CP they generate.

It only becomes a problem when Soup is involved and those CPs can be spent on stratagems for other factions, which would normally have very limited CP.

Bharring wrote:
I like CP being restricted to the generating detatchment in theory. But I think it's more overhead than it's worth.

It's not ideal but still seems better than the alternative.


That said, one thing I will say is that I'm not a fan of CP regeneration abilities in general. I think either CP should be built around regenerating CPs (in which case it should be a part of the core mechanics - not limited to certain factions/abilities), or else there should just be no regeneration at all. I say this for internal balance as much as external - in that it's depressing how CP-regeneration artefacts or warlord traits are almost always leagues better than the alternatives.

So, if you want to scrap *all* CP regeneration (not just the IG abilities), I'd be okay with that.

However, I still think that we need some actual downsides to Soup armies.

If as a start we have all the "regenerate CP" abilities work only on the CPs spent on stratagems of that faction, you limit the issues with it a lot and give a bonus to non soup troops, in the form of more CPs (all your CPs will be spent on stratagems that can regenerate).

Spoletta wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I have a suggestion: what if we first looked to clamp down on Soup? e.g. restricting CP spending to the faction that generated them; having either bonuses for mono-faction armies or penalties for soup armies etc.

Then, once those changes sink in, we see if IG Infantry Squads are still causing issues. If so, we make them 5pts. If not, we leave them where they are.

Does that sound reasonable?

We already proved they were a problem mathematically. The Guard players here are just pulling mental gymnastics like Eldar defenders for the last two editions.

Been saying that from the start, every data that is being pulled right now is polluted by the broken CP mechanic. We can't say anything for sure before that is fixed.

And no, guards being mathematically better than alternatives has not been demonstrated in this thread. There were some improbable show offs with no actual meaning.
I could easily make one in which termagants are the most broken troop in the game, because math in this game doesn't mean much if you don't analyze extremely specific situations. You can calculate the average wounds of x vs y, but calculating the performance of a model in relation to it's cost is something that requires days of math from a professional. Making mathematical models for this game is a real challenge, don't take it lightly.

I will wait with baited breath for your termagant example. Comparing the performance of one model to another model that is similarly priced does not take days of math from a professional when programs like excel exist.

Ultimately the CP battery doesn't cost enough. The premise behind it is fine.

An easy fix would be a detachment with less than 500 points spent on it doesn't generate CP.

Then, another fix would be that you can only make one CP regeneration roll per stratagem. So if you spend 1 CP you can roll 1 dice, not 3.

But that's entirely different than Guard being too strong. Bringing 500 points of guard is absolutely not a downside, that faction is very, very strong.

 Marmatag wrote:
Ultimately the CP battery doesn't cost enough. The premise behind it is fine.

I disagree. It's a very 'gamey' build (if you'll excuse the term), and one which makes no sense whatsoever in terms of flavour.

 vipoid wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Ultimately the CP battery doesn't cost enough. The premise behind it is fine.

I disagree. It's a very 'gamey' build (if you'll excuse the term), and one which makes no sense whatsoever in terms of flavour.

So you object then, logically, to the formation system in 8th edition? Because by design it rewards an army like guard which has dirt cheap everything.

 Marmatag wrote:
So you object then, logically, to the formation system in 8th edition? Because by design it rewards an army like guard which has dirt cheap everything.

I like aspects of it and prefer it to the formations in 7th.

However, I'm really not keen on it being used to determine starting CPs.


EDIT: To be honest, I find myself wondering whether the detachment system is the best way to be building armies. Do you think a percentage system might be better? Or maybe just let people build armies freely but have restrictions on individual, non-troop units. Maybe a reward for taking a higher percentage of troops or such?

 vipoid wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
So you object then, logically, to the formation system in 8th edition? Because by design it rewards an army like guard which has dirt cheap everything.

I like aspects of it and prefer it to the formations in 7th.

However, I'm really not keen on it being used to determine starting CPs.


EDIT: To be honest, I find myself wondering whether the detachment system is the best way to be building armies. Do you think a percentage system might be better? Or maybe just let people build armies freely but have restrictions on individual, non-troop units. Maybe a reward for taking a higher percentage of troops or such?

Something like in order to unlock the CP from a formation, you have to spend a minimum of 100 times the CP rewarded in that formation. So a guard battalion would need 500 points invested to produce 5CP.

It doesn't solve the problem of guard being generally undercosted/overpowered as a faction, but at least it stops people from taking the minimum.

 Marmatag wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Ultimately the CP battery doesn't cost enough. The premise behind it is fine.

I disagree. It's a very 'gamey' build (if you'll excuse the term), and one which makes no sense whatsoever in terms of flavour.

So you object then, logically, to the formation system in 8th edition? Because by design it rewards an army like guard which has dirt cheap everything.

There is no "formation system" in 8th edition. We have detachments.

Formations are a totally different beast, which are part of the book proper and tend to be balanced accordingly.

Formation, detachment, same difference. Don't argue to argue.

 Marmatag wrote:
Formation, detachment, same difference. Don't argue to argue.

But they are different, a Detachment is just a modified FoC, Formations are Must take units......

 Marmatag wrote:
Formation, detachment, same difference. Don't argue to argue.

Formations are literal "must-take" units. Not as in "OMG those are amazing!", but "In order to get the benefits for this, you have to take these items".

You can claim it's "arguing to argue", but the simple fact is these are not the same things.

Realistically formations and detachments are exactly the same. They have required unit selections and give you a bonus of some kind. Detachments give you CP - that you can use on stratagems which are free rules. Formations gave you free rules.

I kind of like this system better than formations - but CP just needs to switch to a flat rate that every army starts with and stratagems need to have equal power levels across armies. Honestly I don't think any armies stratagems are out of line except some IK and DE and CWE strats are too strong and some SM and GK strats are too weak.

Outside of that - having a flat rate of say 15 CP to start the game would fix almost every problem with soup. Then we can just focus on what units need point changes.

Taking soup should be about synergies and covering weakness - not about taking cheap CP units so you can run your own codex better. It should also cost you CP to include allies. Not but - but some.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Formation, detachment, same difference. Don't argue to argue.

Formations are literal "must-take" units. Not as in "OMG those are amazing!", but "In order to get the benefits for this, you have to take these items".

You can claim it's "arguing to argue", but the simple fact is these are not the same things.

Taking a unit to use the tyranid infantry shoot twice for 2 CP stratagem is just as must take as any formation was for a tyranid army or any other army. It's the same thing IMO.

The inferiority complex is strong in this thread

 Xenomancers wrote:
Realistically formations and detachments are exactly the same. They have required unit selections and give you a bonus of some kind. Detachments give you CP - that you can use on stratagems which are free rules. Formations gave you free rules.

I kind of like this system better than formations - but CP just needs to switch to a flat rate that every army starts with and stratagems need to have equal power levels across armies. Honestly I don't think any armies stratagems are out of line except some IK and DE and CWE strats are too strong and some SM and GK strats are too weak.

Outside of that - having a flat rate of say 15 CP to start the game would fix almost every problem with soup. Then we can just focus on what units need point changes.

Taking soup should be about synergies and covering weakness - not about taking cheap CP units so you can run your own codex better. It should also cost you CP to include allies. Not but - but some.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Formation, detachment, same difference. Don't argue to argue.

Formations are literal "must-take" units. Not as in "OMG those are amazing!", but "In order to get the benefits for this, you have to take these items".

You can claim it's "arguing to argue", but the simple fact is these are not the same things.

Taking a unit to use the tyranid infantry shoot twice for 2 CP stratagem is just as must take as any formation was for a tyranid army or any other army. It's the same thing IMO.

They are not the same thing..... not at all......

Just b.c they share 1 aspect of each other doesnt mean they are the same, a Hamburger shares the same animal as a steak, it doesnt mean they are the same thing.

A formation is a set list of certain units that you MUST take with no other Units as options allowed, a Detachment is a FoC that has been modified and you can take literally any units within those small restrictions.

You're applying the definition of formation as it applies in 7th edition. That is not what the word fundamentally means. Time to get over it.

 Marmatag wrote:
You're applying the definition of formation as it applies in 7th edition. That is not what the word fundamentally means. Time to get over it.

There is no Formations in 8th, there is no words or rules for them, you are trying to use a word that all 40k players know of to make stupid arguments, stop trying to make stupid arguments.

Formations are a 7th thing, not an 8th thing.

When talking about formations it will ALWAYS be refereed to 7th formations, EDIT: Unless 8th comes out with them, but i dont see that happening at all due to 7th.

 Marmatag wrote:
You're applying the definition of formation as it applies in 7th edition. That is not what the word fundamentally means. Time to get over it.

You misspoke. It's not a big deal. Detachments aren't Formations, but Formations were Detachments.
Since Formations don't exist in 40k anymore, there's no argument that realistically should be using them in anything but hypotheticals as a way to curb some of the CP nonsense that exists now.

You play AoS. Haven't you noticed yet that CP spam isn't anywhere near as hellaciously bad there?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Realistically formations and detachments are exactly the same. They have required unit selections and give you a bonus of some kind. Detachments give you CP - that you can use on stratagems which are free rules. Formations gave you free rules.

No. That's not even remotely the same thing.

One thing(formations) might be:

Blarghity Bloo Attackerydoods
Two units of Boomsticks
One unit of Fireguys
A Firestick Guy

Fwoosh!: The Fireguys can shoot their Firesticks when the Boomsticks get charged by enemy units and support with Overwatch.

The other might be:

Detachment
2 Troops
1 HQ
0-2 everything else

Restricted units != "must takes". This is a wonderful example of your disingenuous and downright fallacious arguing style.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Realistically formations and detachments are exactly the same. They have required unit selections and give you a bonus of some kind. Detachments give you CP - that you can use on stratagems which are free rules. Formations gave you free rules.

I kind of like this system better than formations - but CP just needs to switch to a flat rate that every army starts with and stratagems need to have equal power levels across armies. Honestly I don't think any armies stratagems are out of line except some IK and DE and CWE strats are too strong and some SM and GK strats are too weak.

Outside of that - having a flat rate of say 15 CP to start the game would fix almost every problem with soup. Then we can just focus on what units need point changes.

Taking soup should be about synergies and covering weakness - not about taking cheap CP units so you can run your own codex better. It should also cost you CP to include allies. Not but - but some.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Formation, detachment, same difference. Don't argue to argue.

Formations are literal "must-take" units. Not as in "OMG those are amazing!", but "In order to get the benefits for this, you have to take these items".

You can claim it's "arguing to argue", but the simple fact is these are not the same things.

Taking a unit to use the tyranid infantry shoot twice for 2 CP stratagem is just as must take as any formation was for a tyranid army or any other army. It's the same thing IMO.

On the proposed rules forum I suggested a CP system similar to this
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/761692.page
This system gives you flat CP depending on how many points you have in a faction (so taking other factions reduces CP), it still uses detachment CP bonuses, but they are cut down to pre FAQ (to still encourage larger detachments). I also would include the rule Marmatag suggested about limiting CP generation to detachments with 500+ points, but modify it to your largest detachment, so you would have to bring much more IG to get the regeneration and if a newly created faction can also generate CP you can't stack them with IG.

There are a number of "Detatchemnts cost CP" suggestions floating around Proposed Rules. I like them. But those are other threads.

I would be curious to see what GW considers the point value of 1 command point to be, relative to each codex.

I doubt they've done that kind of math, but they absolutely should have. Because free CP is like free points, at the end of the day.

 Marmatag wrote:
Ultimately the CP battery doesn't cost enough. The premise behind it is fine.

An easy fix would be a detachment with less than 500 points spent on it doesn't generate CP.

Then, another fix would be that you can only make one CP regeneration roll per stratagem. So if you spend 1 CP you can roll 1 dice, not 3.

But that's entirely different than Guard being too strong. Bringing 500 points of guard is absolutely not a downside, that faction is very, very strong.

If you change this rule from 500+ to largest detachment, you could further increase the battery cost to 668 (1001 if only 2 detachments) This would hurt soup and wouldn't hurt IG that much.

 Marmatag wrote:
I would be curious to see what GW considers the point value of 1 command point to be, relative to each codex.

I doubt they've done that kind of math, but they absolutely should have. Because free CP is like free points, at the end of the day.

They don't consider it "relative to each codex". It's relative to the points played.

It's 50pts:1CP

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
I doubt it since 3 10-man squads work just as well as 1 30-man squad. That and no babysitter required.

Are you one of those "morale doesn't exist" guys, too?

???
How did you get that conclusion? I was literally showing you that morale mattered. Conscripts have worse morale and larger squads, which means a commissar is required for them to try to match infantry squads' base morale. If anything you're the one ignoring morale when proclaiming larger squads as categorically better.

In order to guarantee a squad rout, you need to kill 8 guardsmen in each infantry squad, for a total of 24 killed. If you feel like taking a little chance you can stop at 7 killed per squad and hope the other player doesn't roll low. So 21 killed minimum there.
For conscripts, you only need to kill about 15-16 to guarantee a rout of the rest of the squad. Bringing a commissar bumps that to about 18.

So at the end of the day you've spent more points to buy less shooty and less durable troops.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I would be curious to see what GW considers the point value of 1 command point to be, relative to each codex.

I doubt they've done that kind of math, but they absolutely should have. Because free CP is like free points, at the end of the day.

They don't consider it "relative to each codex". It's relative to the points played.

It's 50pts:1CP

For AoS thats true, but some of the DE and tyranids CP's are a complete waste, the Haemonculus Stratagem, Crucible of Malediction was a free wargear, and now it cost 2CP, most players never used it anyways, or Soul Trap, something that might get once a game, it used to cost 10pts now is 1CP, or Tyranids Sporefield.... it cost 3CP let them DS/Scout pregame, but the FW ones do it for free, if the SPorefield was 3 units of Spore AND that rule without any reinforcement points it might be worth it, as it is now, you better off using the FW spores b.c they cost the same and have that stratagem as a rule so you dont waste 3CP.

The CP's are ridiculously unbalanced between themselves. GW has no idea how to balance them.

Ice_can wrote:
Rangers should be 8ppm I agreed with you on that pages back.

I don't think anyone else has.

Ice_can wrote:
The reason no-one is complaining about neophytes being +1LD is it isn't worth a full point to most player's.

That's fine... but +1L is not all that neophytes get. Even if it was +1L... neophytes are still guardsmen with +1L and should be nerfed... It is quite literally the definition of unfair otherwise.

Ice_can wrote:
Your picking on the things neophytes have while ignoring what they loose for those things. I'll break it down for you

gain the ability to deepstrike in exchange for no regiment traits

and have the ability to take more than 10 men in a squadas points are payed per model why does the number you can take count towards the value of the individual model

Their charictors have aura buffsthey get fixed aura's not orders

Things dont have to be the same to be equals.

1. The ability to deepstrike is an amazing tactical flexibility that often times has more value than a regimental trait. I'd gladly sacrifice even the cadian/catachan traits if my entire army could deepstrike. You do have something of a point here though.

2. The ability to take more than 10 men in a squad has massive value. It allows you to make big blob tarpit units that can recieve buffs from auras all at once. I would be running all of my infantry squads in blobs if I could for the purposes of orders, the ability to tarpit, and the reduction in killpoints it offers. Hell, this is so good for guard that it is a stratagem that costs CP!

3. Auras are arguably better than orders. They can effect an infinite number of units as long as a single model of that unit is within 6" as opposed to guard orders that can only effect 1 or 2 units.

I think the guardsmen-neophyte comparison is valid. Neophytes are everything guardsmen are except better at 5ppm and you can't just ignore that without getting called out for being a hypocrite. Neophytes are in no way worse then guardsmen at anything.

I'm sorry for being so stuck on this but holy crap the cognitive dissonance is REAL. And people are actually trying to DEFEND the idea that neophytes should be better.

 alextroy wrote:
Until GW starts putting base costs on units with additional cost per model added, there is not enough difference between Infranty Squad Guardsman and Neophyte Hybrids.

Better leadership is good and so is Cult Ambush, but not 1 point per model good, especially when only half the units in your army get to use Cult Ambush anyway.

Then neophytes should lose their +1L, cult ambush, and ability to blob squad. If guardsmen are going to 5ppm it's entirely intolerable that neophytes are literally guardsmen (same stats, same weapons, same everything) except better in many ways and worse in no way.

Where's the outrage over neophytes? Right... there is none because everyone is so busy hating guardsmen they are completely blind to everything else.

Only if guard lose all regimental bonuses, stratagems, all but 2 of their vehicles comparable to the GSC vehicles, all soup options except with Militarum Tempestus, lose all access to super heavies, etc. Don't be obtuse, there is more to the quality of a unit than its individual statline. And even if you factor all of the buffs GSC can receive or dole out, Guardsmen are still superior, because they have orders, and regiments, etc.

 Marmatag wrote:
Only if guard lose all regimental bonuses, stratagems, all but 2 of their vehicles comparable to the GSC vehicles, all soup options except with Militarum Tempestus, lose all access to super heavies, etc. Don't be obtuse, there is more to the quality of a unit than its individual statline. And even if you factor all of the buffs GSC can receive or dole out, Guardsmen are still superior, because they have orders, and regiments, etc.

GSC are going to get all of that when their book releases. It's also wrong to punish guard infantry because we have a wide selection of vehicles, that is not how faction balance is supposed to work

"We are going to make guard infantry statistically worse in every way then GSC infantry, but cost the same because guard have leman russes" sounds pretty silly to me.

This includes City of Traps rules, which simulate the devious Genestealer Cults’ methods of fighting on home turf

Hrmh, what's this now? Some new rules for GSC? In the big box going up for preorder on Saturday?

w1zard wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Only if guard lose all regimental bonuses, stratagems, all but 2 of their vehicles comparable to the GSC vehicles, all soup options except with Militarum Tempestus, lose all access to super heavies, etc. Don't be obtuse, there is more to the quality of a unit than its individual statline. And even if you factor all of the buffs GSC can receive or dole out, Guardsmen are still superior, because they have orders, and regiments, etc.

GSC are going to get all of that when their book releases. It's also wrong to punish guard infantry because we have a wide selection of vehicles, that is not how faction balance is supposed to work. "Hurr durr we are going to make guard infantry statistically worse in every way then GSC infantry because guard have leman russes" sounds pretty silly to me.

Of course it sounds silly to you because you're biased. Only imperial guard players would take such a narrow view of balance such that you should ignore the model range represented in the codex when discussing balance. Assault cannon razorbacks weren't nerfed because GK were overperforming, it had a lot to do with Guilliman.

 Marmatag wrote:
Of course it sounds silly to you because you're biased. Only imperial guard players would take such a narrow view of balance such that you should ignore the model range represented in the codex when discussing balance. Assault cannon razorbacks weren't nerfed because GK were overperforming, it had a lot to do with Guilliman.

A unit or model should be pointed at what it is WORTH, not at what it is worth in relation to other things that just happen to exist in the codex that may or may not be taken in a list. I think YOU are the biased one.

Otherwise we get silly situations in which Space Marines are super weak because they just happen to have a wide selection of datasheets.

The idea that guard infantry should be worse per point then other infantry simply because we have a wide selection of vehicles is utterly ridiculous.

w1zard wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Of course it sounds silly to you because you're biased. Only imperial guard players would take such a narrow view of balance such that you should ignore the model range represented in the codex when discussing balance. Assault cannon razorbacks weren't nerfed because GK were overperforming, it had a lot to do with Guilliman.

A unit or model should be pointed at what it is WORTH, not at what it is worth in relation to other things that just happen to exist in the codex that may or may not be taken in a list. I think YOU are the biased one.

Otherwise we get silly situations in which Space Marines are super weak because they just happen to have a wide selection of datasheets.

The idea that guard infantry should be worse per point then other infantry simply because we have a wide selection of vehicles is utterly ridiculous.

If you don't point a unit based on the contest of the faction in which it is played, you can forget about balance. The same unit can be mediocre/bad in a faction (hellblasters in Blood Angels) but close to broken in another (hellblasters in Alaitoc) or utterly crap in another (hellblasters in Tyranids, bye bye rerolls). If you try to point the hellblasters without looking at what factions has those, you will never point it appropriately, because at the end of the day, the stats of a model only tell half of the story.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DrGiggles wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I have a suggestion: what if we first looked to clamp down on Soup? e.g. restricting CP spending to the faction that generated them; having either bonuses for mono-faction armies or penalties for soup armies etc.

Then, once those changes sink in, we see if IG Infantry Squads are still causing issues. If so, we make them 5pts. If not, we leave them where they are.

Does that sound reasonable?

We already proved they were a problem mathematically. The Guard players here are just pulling mental gymnastics like Eldar defenders for the last two editions.

Been saying that from the start, every data that is being pulled right now is polluted by the broken CP mechanic. We can't say anything for sure before that is fixed.

And no, guards being mathematically better than alternatives has not been demonstrated in this thread. There were some improbable show offs with no actual meaning.
I could easily make one in which termagants are the most broken troop in the game, because math in this game doesn't mean much if you don't analyze extremely specific situations. You can calculate the average wounds of x vs y, but calculating the performance of a model in relation to it's cost is something that requires days of math from a professional. Making mathematical models for this game is a real challenge, don't take it lightly.

I will wait with baited breath for your termagant example. Comparing the performance of one model to another model that is similarly priced does not take days of math from a professional when programs like excel exist.

You are delusional if you really believe that. To compare a model to another one you need to take in consideration all the possible situations and roles that they will be called to cover, assess what they are worth in that situation and then make a weighted average based on the probability of each single situation. In many of those situations a termagant does outshine guardsmen, which is why i said that you can easily show with that math that termagants are better than guards (after all point per point they are more durable and immune to morale). Does this mean that termagants are better? No! Because after you weight the situations where the termagants are better, against the ones where guardsmen are better (which are a lot when you start looking at offensive scenarios), you will see that on average the guardsmen are better. This is something though that i can say as a personal opinion, if i had to demonstrate it mathematically i would have to skip work for at least a couple of days.

Spoletta wrote:
If you don't point a unit based on the contest of the faction in which it is played, you can forget about balance. The same unit can be mediocre/bad in a faction (hellblasters in Blood Angels) but close to broken in another (hellblasters in Alaitoc) or utterly crap in another (hellblasters in Tyranids, bye bye rerolls). If you try to point the hellblasters without looking at what factions has those, you will never point it appropriately, because at the end of the day, the stats of a model only tell half of the story.

I get that things can be fair separately but when working together become broken... But in that case specific synergy rules should be introduced to combat that particular synergy, instead of pointing a unit into uselessness outside of that synergy.

Guard tanks are good. That doesn't mean guard infantry need to be useless to make up for it, NOR useless in relation to other infantry. Guard tanks and infantry can both be costed what they are worth.

Hellblasters are bad in blood angels because they don't synergize well with the rest of the army, and are much better in the ultramarines. But blood angels hellblasters shouldn't be cheaper than ultramarines hellblasters just because of that. Yes this means that some factions naturally rely on some units more then others, but that isn't a bad thing IMO. As long as everything is pointed what it is worth it is all fair.

I find the whole idea of "Lol our infantry are worthless but our tanks are OP to make up for it" both to be bad for balance and extremely boring. You just get people trying to take the most of the OP stuff and trying to minimize taking the UP stuff.

w1zard wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Rangers should be 8ppm I agreed with you on that pages back.

I don't think anyone else has.

um, me too. I even said that Fire warriors and rangers can both be 8 pts.

w1zard wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Only if guard lose all regimental bonuses, stratagems, all but 2 of their vehicles comparable to the GSC vehicles, all soup options except with Militarum Tempestus, lose all access to super heavies, etc. Don't be obtuse, there is more to the quality of a unit than its individual statline. And even if you factor all of the buffs GSC can receive or dole out, Guardsmen are still superior, because they have orders, and regiments, etc.

GSC are going to get all of that when their book releases. It's also wrong to punish guard infantry because we have a wide selection of vehicles, that is not how faction balance is supposed to work

"We are going to make guard infantry statistically worse in every way then GSC infantry, but cost the same because guard have leman russes" sounds pretty silly to me.

So whe point GSC on abilities that noone has seen and say their 6ppm for their codex rules and do nothing when GW give them some broken as heck rules?

You can only point a model based upon the stats and rules it has not what it might have.

I could argue that a guardsman should be 10ppm on that logic as it might have re roll ones for stationary, overwatch on a 5+, move and fire heavy weapons without penalty, S4, +6 inch rapid fire range.

Points costing hypotecal codex rules isn't compatible with the idea of balance.
Guard infantry at 5ppm are still stronger than firewarriors, every marine, Guardians they arn't weak.

Also while an aura can potentially affect more units it's also a fixed effect, it can't be changed from a damage buff, a reroll buff, a fight phase buff to a movement buff. Having to stack 6 charictors and huddle up also realy kills your ability to move, use terrain and hold objectives.

I can't flawlessly tier the power level of the armies right now, but threads like this definitely make it easy to tier the skill level of their players

Ice_can wrote:
So whe point GSC on abilities that noone has seen and say their 6ppm for their codex rules and do nothing when GW give them some broken as heck rules?

I never said neophytes should be 6ppm, I said it wasn't fair that neophytes are "guardsmen-plus" for the same price. If they aren't "worth" 6ppm, maybe they should be nerfed to be brought in line with guardmen do you agree? Neophytes aren't going to get worse when the GSC book releases they are going to get better.

Ice_can wrote:
You can only point a model based upon the stats and rules it has not what it might have.

I agree. Which was my entire point against marmatag. See my quote...

w1zard wrote:
A unit or model should be pointed at what it is WORTH, not at what it is worth in relation to other things that just happen to exist in the codex that may or may not be taken in a list. I think YOU are the biased one.

RIGHT NOW, neophytes are BETTER then 5ppm guardsmen. Not better in some ways, no kind of trade off (even if you consider cult ambush their "regimental trait"). Straight. Up. Better. Or. Equal. For the same hypothetical points cost (5ppm). They are only going to get even better when the GSC book releases as they are going to get stratagems and probably something akin to regimental traits. Why is it okay that guardsmen are literally neophytes (same stats, same gun, same cost) except worse?

lol the delusions

You saying something does not make it true.


In fact, your track record would probably suggest that it isn't

 SHUPPET wrote:
lol the delusions

You saying something does not make it true.

I'd like to hear an explanation of how I am wrong then.

Please explain to me how neophytes aren't better to or equal to 5ppm guardsmen in every way. And please don't try to bring up orders, that is not applicable here because:

Ice_can wrote:
You can only point a model based upon the stats and rules it has not what it might have.

and because neophytes have their own auras as well.

In this case the question is not “are they better”, rather iit is “are they 20% better?” That’s how much better they need to be to justify being 6 points compared to a 5 point Guardsmen.

 alextroy wrote:
In this case the question is not “are they better”, rather iit is “are they 20% better?” That’s how much better they need to be to justify being 6 points compared to a 5 point Guardsmen.

That's why I propose a flat cost of 45 points per Infantry squad.

 alextroy wrote:
In this case the question is not “are they better”, rather iit is “are they 20% better?” That’s how much better they need to be to justify being 6 points compared to a 5 point Guardsmen.

Which is why I proposed nerfing them "down" to guardsmen level. Losing their +1L and ability to take more than 10 men would be good enough until the GSC book comes out, at that point we can re-evaluate. Does that sound fair?

It's not about being "better enough" to justify an increased points cost, it's about being "better" period. If there was a unit that was 7 points and was exactly the same as fire warriors, except they could deepstrike (instead of sept), had +1L and the ability to take more than 10 in a unit, would you think that was fair? I certainly don't think that unit would be worth 8ppm but would it be fair?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's why I propose a flat cost of 45 points per Infantry squad.

GW probably won't go for that. They seem to want to assign each model a whole integer point cost. Which sucks because it is often too granular at the lower points levels but that is how GW designed it.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
lol the delusions

You saying something does not make it true.

I'd like to hear an explanation of how I am wrong then.

Please explain to me how neophytes aren't better to or equal to 5ppm guardsmen in every way. And please don't try to bring up orders, that is not applicable here because:

Ice_can wrote:
You can only point a model based upon the stats and rules it has not what it might have.

and because neophytes have their own auras as well.

Again, just because you say something doesn't count, doesn't make it so. Orders is a rule available to Guardsmen. The invented stratagems and army rules for Neophytes that you have absolutely zero knowledge of right now, are not. For all you know their cost will be raised to reflect it, or they will not have gak all impact on Neophytes.

Army rules are the most important qualifier of all, and as such, Guardsmen are probably better than Neophytes even at 5 points, let alone 4. When you see what rules GSC get, if Neophytes get a bunch of significant buffs and remain 5 points, you then have an argument that should also be costed higher - none of what you say is an argument for why Guardsmen should be 4 points, even if your theoretical scenario concerning Neophytes did turn out to be true.


But you won't comprehend any of that, you'll just circleback to one of your earlier points that has been proven utterly incorrect as you have done for 45 pages running now, as you are not in this for a rational outcome, you're in this because you don't want your undercosted unit to be balanced.

w1zard wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
In this case the question is not “are they better”, rather iit is “are they 20% better?” That’s how much better they need to be to justify being 6 points compared to a 5 point Guardsmen.

Which is why I proposed nerfing them "down" to guardsmen level. Losing their +1L and ability to take more than 10 men would be good enough until the GSC book comes out, at that point we can re-evaluate. Does that sound fair?

Are you dropping them to 4 points as well?

 SHUPPET wrote:
Are you dropping them to 4 points as well?

No, because in this hypothetical scenario guardsmen are 5ppm remember? The whole thing I was trying to point out was that if guardsmen were 5ppm then neophytes would be straight up superior and they are.

 SHUPPET wrote:
But you won't comprehend any of that, you'll just circleback to one of your earlier points that has been proven utterly incorrect as you have done for 45 pages running now, as you are not in this for a rational outcome, you're in this because you don't want your undercosted unit to be balanced.

I already said I'm fine with having guardsmen at 5 points. My umbrage is with units that are mathematically superior (rangers, kabalites) or obviously superior (neophytes) to 5ppm guardsmen. Where is the outrage to fix them? I don't see any 45 page threads about rangers being OP, or kabalites needing nerfs.

 SHUPPET wrote:
For all you know their cost will be raised to reflect it...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Sorry that was a good one. Neophytes aren't getting nerfed at all in the GSC codex. I'd be willing to bet almost anything that they get better or stay at the same, with the addition of stratagems and cult traits.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Are you dropping them to 4 points as well?

No, because in this hypothetical scenario guardsmen are 5ppm remember? The whole thing I was trying to point out was that if guardsmen were 5ppm then neophytes would be straight up superior and they are.

You seem to think that you saying this makes it a fact, but it does not. Neophyte have great army rules, so do Guard. They would be as close to equally balanced for the same points cost as I could imagine any two different units, and if I had to give it one way it would still be Guard's way. At any rate, it's much better than than having Guardsmen a whole point ahead of them. And other 4-5 point units like Termagants/Hormagants compared to Guardsmen, or are you arguing that Termagants should be 3 points? lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
But you won't comprehend any of that, you'll just circleback to one of your earlier points that has been proven utterly incorrect as you have done for 45 pages running now, as you are not in this for a rational outcome, you're in this because you don't want your undercosted unit to be balanced.

I already said I'm fine with having guardsmen at 5 points. My umbrage is with units that are mathematically superior (rangers, kabalites) or obviously superior (neophytes) to 5ppm guardsmen. Where is the outrage to fix them? I don't see any 45 page threads about rangers being OP, or kabalites needing nerfs.

My bad. I hadn't seen you say this. It sounds like we're on the same page then in essence, though I don't think Neophytes are a unit that are unbalanced at 5 points. There is not a 20% difference in power level between these units. I actually think they are about as close to even as you can get.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
For all you know their cost will be raised to reflect it...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Sorry that was a good one. Neophytes aren't getting nerfed at all in the GSC codex. I'd be willing to bet almost anything that they get better or stay at the same, with the addition of stratagems and cult traits.

But according to you it wouldn't be a nerf if they are getting buffed at the same time? Regardless, we can't balance against your hypothetical speculation of what Neophytes will be, and if they are significantly stronger, it sounds like they may just become one of the best infantry in the game themselves, potentially also too much for the points.

 SHUPPET wrote:
You seem to think that you saying this makes it a fact, but it does not. Neophyte have great army rules, so do Guard. They would be as close to equally balanced for the same points cost as I could imagine any two different units, and if I had to give it one way it would still be Guard's way.

Please go look up the stats for neophytes and guardsmen. I'll give you a breakdown. Neophytes are guardsmen (same weapons, same statline) except they have +1L, and the ability to take more than 10 men in a unit. They also have cult ambush (which in my mind is fair compensation for lack of a regimental trait). Please tell me how having both of these at 5ppm is fair again? Straight up superior, or equal in every way. And, like I said, I'd be willing to bet anything they are just going to get better when the GSC book drops. You can quote me on that.

 SHUPPET wrote:
...or are you arguing that Termagants should be 3 points? lol

I'd have to do the math on it, but possibly, yes.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
You seem to think that you saying this makes it a fact, but it does not. Neophyte have great army rules, so do Guard. They would be as close to equally balanced for the same points cost as I could imagine any two different units, and if I had to give it one way it would still be Guard's way.

Please go look up the stats for neophytes and guardsmen. I'll give you a breakdown. Neophytes are guardsmen (same weapons, same statline) except they have +1L, and the ability to take more than 10 men in a unit. They also have cult ambush (which in my mind is fair compensation for lack of a regimental trait). Please tell me how having both of these at 5ppm is fair again? Straight up superior, or equal in every way.

Because they don't have orders. They don't have a choice of 9 different army tactics (let's just call it Catachan for a free army wide +1S, and that +1L back, shall we?). They don't have access to Straken for a second attack.

They have access to their own buffs of course. But since you want to maths it, do the maths of 2x 10 units of Guardsmen vs 20 Neophytes and see how much of an advantage they get from the ability to take more than 10 men in a unit. Neophytes don't get orders to begin with, duh.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Because they don't have orders. They don't have a choice of 9 different army tactics (let's just call it Catachan for a free army wide +1S, and that +1L back, shall we?). They don't have access to Straken for a second attack.

We aren't talking about Straken. We aren't talking about orders. You cannot balance units around what happens to exist in the codex and may or may not be in any list. Otherwise you get units that are pointed into uselessness outside of the broken combos. You can only point on what is on the datasheet, period. The idea that my unit should be mathematically inferior to others, on purpose, simply because I have access to other "good" units in my codex (who may themselves need price increases) is ludicrous. GSC are going to get regimental traits when their codex drops.

I run valhallan guard. I will never have access to Straken. Why is it fair to point infantry squads on the assumption that he is there?

 SHUPPET wrote:
They have access to their own buffs of course. But since you want to maths it, do the maths of 2x 10 units of Guardsmen vs 20 Neophytes and see how much of an advantage they get from the ability to take more than 10 men in a unit.

The ability to take more than ten men in a unit allows for better tarpitting, and allows stratagems and auras to effect more models at once, along with reducing killpoints. It is an extremely valuable ability to have. It's only downside is increasing the unit's vulnerability to morale losses (this can be mitigated in many ways).

I would absolutely run all of my guardsmen in giant blob squads if I could, but it costs guard CP to do that and it can only be done under very specific circumstances.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Because they don't have orders. They don't have a choice of 9 different army tactics (let's just call it Catachan for a free army wide +1S, and that +1L back, shall we?). They don't have access to Straken for a second attack.

We aren't talking about Straken. We aren't talking about orders. You cannot balance units around what happens to exist in the codex and may or may not be in any list. Otherwise you get units that are pointed into uselessness outside of the broken combos. You can only point on what is on the datasheet, period. The idea that my unit should be mathematically inferior to others on purpose simply because I have access to "good" units in my codex is ludicrous.

Utter garbage. You can, in fact you have to, balance around the strongest way to play an army or unit - not the subpar ways. Yes, it nerfs the worse ways of running it, that's how nerfs work. That's how they worked when we nerfed cultists for example. There's zero reason to evaluate a unit on how it performs in a statline as opposed to how it performs in play. You are also including Ambush, their army rule, but not your own, even though your own are far more reliable, or in some case guaranteed. Here's that inescapable bias you haven't been able to drop for 43 pages.

w1zard wrote:
GSC are going to get regimental traits when their codex drops.

And when that comes out, maybe they'll be too strong, or maybe they'll get other changes that make them worse. Here's that circular logic. Stick to what is actually playable in 40k, not your headcanon, thanks.

w1zard wrote:
The ability to take more than ten men in a unit allows for better tarpitting

How? Genuine question I haven't considered this.

w1zard wrote:
and allows stratagems and auras to effect more models at once

Which stratagems for Neophytes lol? And god forbid having to include a single nother model within 6" radius?

w1zard wrote:
along with reducing killpoints

Also reducing qualifiers for battalion making CP much easier.

w1zard wrote:
It is an extremely valuable ability to have.

I thought we were comparing maths? Because this has feth all effect on the maths here. If we are talking about "extremely valuable abilities to have", +1 attack is definitely one of them, from the math's stand point you insisted on having this comparison by.






There's so many arbitrary qualifiers on what you will and won't count for these comparisons that it's hard to keep up with. You won't even count Orders, but you will willfully compare it against a unit that you don't even know the rules for. I fear this debate is beyond the reach of logic, you're far too emotionally invested, and it seems almost everyone over the span of this VERY long thread has recognised that.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Utter garbage. You can, in fact you have to, balance around the strongest way to play an army or unit - not the subpar ways.

I don't think we will ever agree on this point. Infantry squads should not be pointed on the assumption they are going to receive buffs from anything. The units GIVING the buffs should be pointed appropriately for that. If you start pointing infantry squads on the assumption they will be receiving orders (you know you can run an army without company commanders right?) and on the assumption that hero characters like Straken are present they become absolutely useless outside of having those conditions met. Just like tac marines should not be pointed on the assumption that both a captain and lieutenant are present.

If we are going to start penalizing armies for having a wide selection of datasheets and abilties, then marines are right where they should be and people should stop complaining.

If your army doesn't have a wide selection of units, tough... petition GW for new ones. But don't punish the armies that do.

 SHUPPET wrote:
I thought we were comparing maths? Because this has feth all effect on the maths here. If we are talking about "extremely valuable abilities to have", +1 attack is definitely one of them, from the math's stand point you insisted on having this comparison by.

Guardsmen don't have +1 attack. A certain faction of guard has the ability to receive +1 attack from another unit that COSTS POINTS. There is a difference.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Utter garbage. You can, in fact you have to, balance around the strongest way to play an army or unit - not the subpar ways.

I don't think we will ever agree on this point. Infantry squads should not be pointed on the assumption they are going to receive buffs from anything. The units GIVING the buffs should be pointed appropriately for that. If you start pointing infantry squads on the assumption they will be receiving orders (you know you can run an army without company commanders right?) and on the assumption that hero characters like Straken are present they become absolutely useless outside of having those conditions met. Just like tac marines should not be pointed on the assumption that both a captain and lieutenant are present.

Overpowered units cannot be allowed to run rampant in the meta, just because it may disrupt subpar strategies. That is not how balance works, not for this game, not for any game.

w1zard wrote:
If your army doesn't have a wide selection of units, tough... petition GW for new ones. But don't punish the armies that do.

No idea how you got that from this.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
I thought we were comparing maths? Because this has feth all effect on the maths here. If we are talking about "extremely valuable abilities to have", +1 attack is definitely one of them, from the math's stand point you insisted on having this comparison by.

Guardsmen don't have +1 attack. A certain faction of guard has the ability to receive +1 attack from another unit that COSTS POINTS. There is a difference.

Then they have +1S and +1 LD from the HQ you are forced to take to play a game, at the cost of zero additional points. You can't include the army rules for one unit and ignore it for another. You can't ignore them for any army - THESE ARE RULES THEY CAN AND WILL TAKE lol.

Got it. So cost marines as if they have full rerolls to hit and wound

 JNAProductions wrote:
Got it. So cost marines as if they have full rerolls to hit and wound

Yeah Because Guilliman is fair comparison to a Chapter Tactic lol

w1zard wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
In this case the question is not “are they better”, rather iit is “are they 20% better?” That’s how much better they need to be to justify being 6 points compared to a 5 point Guardsmen.

Which is why I proposed nerfing them "down" to guardsmen level. Losing their +1L and ability to take more than 10 men would be good enough until the GSC book comes out, at that point we can re-evaluate. Does that sound fair?

I don't think the best way to fix the game is to make it so generic that Infantry Squads and Neophyte Hybrids need to have exactly the same stats just because the cost the same points. +1 Leadership is helpful, until you take more then 10 models and start needing to take some serious Leadership checks when you lose half a 20-model squad in one turn.

It's not about being "better enough" to justify an increased points cost, it's about being "better" period. If there was a unit that was 7 points and was exactly the same as fire warriors, except they could deepstrike (instead of sept), had +1L and the ability to take more than 10 in a unit, would you think that was fair? I certainly don't think that unit would be worth 8ppm but would it be fair?

If it was full on deep strike abillity, the would be a worth a point. Cult Ambush has a 50% chance of being less than that. Not having full control over where you can place your unit out of reserves is s serious downgrade that can cost you the game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's why I propose a flat cost of 45 points per Infantry squad.

GW probably won't go for that. They seem to want to assign each model a whole integer point cost. Which sucks because it is often too granular at the lower points levels but that is how GW designed it.

I'll leap for joy the day GW decides to move to a base unit cost + per additional model cost for Match Play. Not holding my breath for it to happen.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Overpowered units cannot be allowed to run rampant in the meta, just because it may disrupt subpar strategies. That is not how balance works, not for this game, not for any game.

Then you nerf the synergy between the two units that is causing the overpoweredness, you don't nerf the units themselves so they are underpowered outside of that synergy.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Then they have +1S and +1 LD from the HQ you are forced to take to play a game, at the cost of zero additional points. You can't include the army rules for one unit and ignore it for another. You can't ignore them for any army - THESE ARE RULES THEY CAN AND WILL TAKE lol.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here, guard aren't forced to take any particular HQ. Some of our HQs give no bonuses to infantry.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Yeah Because Guilliman is fair comparison to a Chapter Tactic lol

Not sure what you are saying here. Pricing marines on the assumption that guilliman is present is pretty comparable to pricing guardsmen on the assumption that straken is present.

 alextroy wrote:
I don't think the best way to fix the game is to make it so generic that Infantry Squads and Neophyte Hybrids need to have exactly the same stats just because the cost the same points. +1 Leadership is helpful, until you take more then 10 models and start needing to take some serious Leadership checks when you lose half a 20-model squad in one turn.

You aren't getting it. I realize that neophytes aren't worth 6ppm. But how is it fair that neophytes are everything that guardsmen are at 5ppm except better?

Do you support buffing guardsmen so that they have +1L and the ability to take more than 10 men in a squad? Do you support nerfing neophytes so that they can only take 10 men in a squad and losing their +1L. Or do you support the imbalance between two units that cost exactly the same, but one unit is simply better than another? Pick one...

You don't get it. Regiment buffs are free. Catachan Guardsmen are Neophytes with 4S, but can't risky DS. That's alone unit that is at least worth the same cost. And that's pretending gak like Straken doesn't exist for the sake of your argument. But at the end of the day he still does lol.

Also,the intellectual dishonesty needed to pretend that a 400 pt LoW is the same cost as a 70 pt HQ "because they both aren't free" is astounding. Some armies don't even have HQ cheaper than 70 points, and Straken gives double orders to make up for it, that's not a real tax lol.

And when GSC get their equivalent to regiment tactics, should they still be worth the same as a Guardsman?

 JNAProductions wrote:
And when GSC get their equivalent to regiment tactics, should they still be worth the same as a Guardsman?

Exactly my point. Especially considering they will get cult ambush on top of those genestealer regimental traits. I was considering cult ambush their equivalent to a "regimental trait" previous to this, which is why I wasn't mentioning regimental traits for guard.

 SHUPPET wrote:
You don't get it. Regiment buffs are free. Catachan Guardsmen are Neophytes with 4S, but can't risky DS.

You are forgetting that neophytes have +1L and have the ability to take more than 10 men in a unit.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Also,the intellectual dishonesty needed to pretend that a 400 pt LoW is the same cost as a 70 pt HQ "because they both aren't free" is astounding. Some armies don't even have HQ cheaper than 70 points, and Straken gives double orders to make up for it, that's not a real tax lol.

Straken isn't horrible, but he isn't very good either. Melee guard is not the optimal way to play, it's a fun thing to do if you want a thematic army. 70 points for a melee beatstick that gives a +1 attack aura and has two orders sounds about right, considering that a company commander that gives two orders is 30 points and is worthless in assault.

If your army doesn't have an HQ worth less than 70 points, that sounds like a weakness with your army you should bring up with GW.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And when GSC get their equivalent to regiment tactics, should they still be worth the same as a Guardsman?

You have utterly no idea how Neophytes will look or what tactics they will get. It's highly possible and even likely from what we've heard, that cult ambush becomes a chapter tactic. At worst, they become an OP unit too - it won't change whether or Guardsmen are undercosted, so stop circling back to this empty point everytime your argument gets countered just so that you can then circle back to what you said initially and pretend nobody noticed that it was already proven false. You cannot balance against the POTENTIAL case of an unreleased unit coming out and being OP, just that's absurdity and with this you may as well just admit right now that you've been wrong from the start. As it stands Neophytes are balanced at 5 points, and Guardsmen being 4S Neophytes certainly would be too.

 SHUPPET wrote:

You have utterly no idea how Neophytes will look or what tactics they will get. It's highly possible and even likely from what we've heard, that cult ambush becomes a chapter tactic. At worst, they become an OP unit too - it won't change whether or Guardsmen are undercosted, so stop circling back to this empty point everytime your argument gets countered just so that you can then circle back to what you said initially and pretend nobody noticed that it was already proven false. You cannot balance against the POTENTIAL case of an unreleased unit coming out and being OP, just that's absurdity and with this you may as well just admit right now that you've been wrong from the start. As it stands Neophytes are balanced at 5 points, and Guardsmen being 4S Neophytes certainly would be too.

Please.

I've already agreed guardsmen should be 5 points.

My response was "well ok, if guardsmen should be five points, what about these other units that are better than guardsmen at 5 points?".

The response seems to be "well... we aren't talking about those units and guardsmen are OP anyway", which is a massive dodge if I have ever heard one.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

You have utterly no idea how Neophytes will look or what tactics they will get. It's highly possible and even likely from what we've heard, that cult ambush becomes a chapter tactic. At worst, they become an OP unit too - it won't change whether or Guardsmen are undercosted, so stop circling back to this empty point everytime your argument gets countered just so that you can then circle back to what you said initially and pretend nobody noticed that it was already proven false. You cannot balance against the POTENTIAL case of an unreleased unit coming out and being OP, just that's absurdity and with this you may as well just admit right now that you've been wrong from the start. As it stands Neophytes are balanced at 5 points, and Guardsmen being 4S Neophytes certainly would be too.

Please.

I've already agreed guardsmen should be 5 points.

My response was "well ok, if guardsmen should be five points, what about these other units that are better then guardsmen at 5 points?".

The response seems to be "well... we aren't talking about those units and guardsmen are OP anyway", which is a massive dodge if I have ever heard one.

Which other units? So far I've only heard you give Neophytes as an example, who are in fact a weaker unit than Gaurdsmen mathematically at 5 points.

Then everytime you're proven wrong here, you point to a unit that has no rules yet as "also being OP".

I've said yes, if Neophytes come out and are also OP, well then that should be fixed too. I don't think they will be though. Why are we comparing to units that don't exist yet? As it stands, Catachan Gaurdsmen are 4S Neophytes and that should be 5 points minimum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Also,the intellectual dishonesty needed to pretend that a 400 pt LoW is the same cost as a 70 pt HQ "because they both aren't free" is astounding. Some armies don't even have HQ cheaper than 70 points, and Straken gives double orders to make up for it, that's not a real tax lol.

Straken isn't horrible, but he isn't very good either. Melee guard is not the optimal way to play, it's a fun thing to do if you want a thematic army. 70 points for a melee beatstick that gives a +1 attack aura and has two orders sounds about right, considering that a company commander that gives two orders is 30 points and is worthless in assault.

lol at "Straken isn't very good". If you have no familiarity with competitive 40k, you probably shouldn't weigh in on these discussions. I'd recommend attending more tournaments, or at least reading up on them a bit more online, and build a stronger understanding for what's actually strong and what isn't. A good core of Catachan Guardsmen with Straken support is currently the strongest way to play Guard.

w1zard wrote:
If your army doesn't have an HQ worth less than 70 points, that sounds like a weakness with your army you should bring up with GW.

Actually, it works just fine. 70 points for a solid HQ with multiple buffs, is a great price for such a unit.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Which other units?

Skitarii rangers and kabalites for starters. I did the math on rangers to prove it pages back.

 SHUPPET wrote:
So far I've only heard you give Neophytes as an example, who are in fact a weaker unit than Gaurdsmen mathematically at 5 points.

No. I've already explained that neophytes are guardsmen except with +1L and the ability to take blob squads. Which means they are better than guardsmen. I am assuming cult ambush is replacing the regimental trait.

If you can explain to me why you think guardsmen are better than neophytes without bringing up auras and buffs from other units (which cost points and introduce other factors into the comparison) then I may be inclined to change my mind. Until then I am going to assume you are being willfully ignorant.

 SHUPPET wrote:
lol at "Straken isn't very good". If you have no familiarity with competitive 40k, you probably shouldn't weigh in on these discussions. I'd recommend attending more tournaments, or at least reading up on them a bit more online, and build a stronger understanding for what's actually strong and what isn't. A good core of Catachan Guardsmen with Straken support is currently the strongest way to play Guard.

Did you seriously get beat by melee guard? Wow... I think that it speaks volumes about your skill as opposed to mine.

If you are allowing Straken+catachans to charge you, you are doing it wrong.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
So far I've only heard you give Neophytes as an example, who are in fact a weaker unit than Gaurdsmen mathematically at 5 points.

No. I've already explained that neophytes are guardsmen except with +1L and the ability to take blob squads. Which means they are better than guardsmen. I am assuming cult ambush is replacing the regimental trait.

If you can explain to me why you think guardsmen are better than neophytes without bringing up auras and buffs from other units (which cost points and introduce other factors into the comparison) then I may be inclined to change my mind. Until then I am going to assume you are being willfully ignorant.

They are Neophytes with +1S, before needing any HQ buffs. With Catachan tactics they have the same LD for free, as well as orders on top of that - you have the cheapest HQ's in the game, there is no additional cost there, you literally cannot take an army without taking these units, just as Neophytes can't be played without taking even stronger units. This logic you use here basically states that Tyranids need a leadership buff, and are horrendously underpowered, because they can only ever shoot or charge the closest thing - acting as though Synapse doesn't exist, or you don't literally have to take HQ's just to take these units, is just playing a different game. Guardsmen at 5 points are stronger than the same amount of points in Neophytes. Arbitrarily selecting which rules to count is just nonsense, use the power of critical thinking that you were blessed with and think for a second that maybe access to these buffs that literally don't cost a thing, isn't something you should write off when evaluating the strength of a unit.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
lol at "Straken isn't very good". If you have no familiarity with competitive 40k, you probably shouldn't weigh in on these discussions. I'd recommend attending more tournaments, or at least reading up on them a bit more online, and build a stronger understanding for what's actually strong and what isn't. A good core of Catachan Guardsmen with Straken support is currently the strongest way to play Guard.

Did you seriously get beat by melee guard? Wow... I think that it speaks volumes about your skill as opposed to mine.

Actually, it speaks volumes of your own for apparently being unable to win even against average players at your local, with an army that took 2 spots inside the top 5 of the latest major tournament. inb4 "b-b-but allies!" - nope, still the strongest way to play Guard. Highest solo Guard player was also running Catachan.

w1zard wrote:
Although I suppose shooting and then charging would be pretty effective.

No gak, maybe you should try it.

w1zard wrote:
Still, if you are allowing Straken+catachans to charge you, you are doing it wrong.

If you are forced to avoid charges because they that efficient in CC, that is a massive strength.

Please post the lists, or link to them. I'm tired of all these claims about tournaments without anyone bothering to post them.

I linked to the BAO lists, none of which featured solo or majority Guard in the top 5. Do link me to these tournaments where Guard took the top five.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Please post the lists, or link to them. I'm tired of all these claims about tournaments without anyone bothering to post them.

I word for word claimed, "A good core of Catachan Guardsmen with Straken support is currently the strongest way to play Guard."

Let's see the two highest placings that Guard primaries took:

#3, battalion with 6 infantry squads, catachan, Straken HQ

#8, battalion with 6 infantry squads, catachan, Straken HQ


I can't link them because it's on the BCP app, if you have link to the lists feel free to verify for yourself
You're right, wasn't 2 in the top 5, only 1, the other 1 got that terrible low position of top 10. What a fraud, right!


hmmmmmmmmmm seems awfully like a "A good core of Catachan Guardsmen with Straken support is currently the strongest way to play Guard."

 JNAProductions wrote:
Please post the lists, or link to them. I'm tired of all these claims about tournaments without anyone bothering to post them.

I linked to the BAO lists, none of which featured solo or majority Guard in the top 5. Do link me to these tournaments where Guard took the top five.

Well. USA ETC winning team had at significant h2h guard. Of course also BA and knights so only half the army was guard so doesn't count. Plus ETC being ETC also makes it fairly irrelevant as ETC isn't even close to being comparable to normal 40k as the armies don't just worry about winning but doing their part(in normal 40k you don't make list _designed with assumption you are going to lose_ for starters)

So, out of a 2k army, there was about 500 points of Guard?

That's... Certainly a good showing, for Guardsmen, but why focus on the fourth when the other three-fourths are the more significant part of the army?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, out of a 2k army, there was about 500 points of Guard?

That's... Certainly a good showing, for Guardsmen, but why focus on the fourth when the other three-fourths are the more significant part of the army?

Half the army=1000 pts(well 970 to be exact).

tneva82 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, out of a 2k army, there was about 500 points of Guard?

That's... Certainly a good showing, for Guardsmen, but why focus on the fourth when the other three-fourths are the more significant part of the army?

Half the army=1000 pts(well 970 to be exact).

6 Infantry Squads are 40-60 points apiece. So that's 240-360.
Straken is 75, or 70? I'll say 70-80.
Another HQ is, call it 40.

That's... 480, at max. And I'm just AFB and can't check Straken's point cost. I mean, I GUESS if you loaded up on Vox-casters and stuff, it'd be more, but that's not competitive, usually.

Was part of the list left out?

+ TEAM: USA
+ PLAYER TOURNEYKEEPER PROFILE: Tony Kopach, 5534
+ ARMY FACTION: Astra Militarum
+ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
== Brigade Detachment== Astra Militarum [65 Power Level] [970 Points] {12 CP]
HQ1: Colonel Iron Hand Straken(75) [4 PL] [75pts]
HQ2: Company Commander (30), Powerfist (8), laspistol (0) [2 PL] [38pts]
HQ3: Company Commander (30), Powerfist (8), laspistol (0)Kurovs Aquilla (RELIC-FREE) [2 PL] [38pts] -WARLORD< Strategic
Genius>
Elite1: Ministorum Priest (35), Chainsword (0), laspistol (0) [2 Pl] [35pts]
Elite2: Platoon Commander (20), Powerfist (8), laspistol (0) [2 PL] [28pts]
Elite3: Platoon Commander (20), Powerfist (8), laspistol (0) [2 PL] [28pts]
TR1: Infantry Squad (4x10=40), Chainsword (0) [3 Pl] [40pts]
TR2: Infantry Squad (4x10=40), Chainsword (0) [3 Pl] [40pts]
TR3: Infantry Squad (4x10=40), Chainsword (0) [3 Pl] [40pts]
TR4: Infantry Squad (4x10=40), Chainsword (0) [3 Pl] [40pts]
TR5: Infantry Squad (4x10=40), Chainsword (0) [3 Pl] [40pts]
TR6: Infantry Squad (4x10=40), Chainsword (0) [3 Pl] [40pts]
TR7: Infantry Squad (4x10=40), Chainsword (0) [3 Pl] [40pts]
TR8: Infantry Squad (4x10=40), Chainsword (0) [3 Pl] [40pts]
FA1: Hellhound (73), Inferno cannon (20), Heavy bolter (8), Storm bolter (2) [6 Pl] [103pts]
FA2: Hellhound (73), Inferno cannon (20), Heavy bolter (8), Storm bolter (2) [6 Pl] [103pts]
FA3: Hellhound (73), Inferno cannon (20), Heavy bolter (8), Storm bolter (2) [6 Pl] [103pts]
HS1: Heavy Weapon Squad (6x3=18), Mortar (3x5=15) [3 Pl] [33pts]
HS2: Heavy Weapon Squad (6x3=18), Mortar (3x5=15) [3 Pl] [33pts]
HS3: Heavy Weapon Squad (6x3=18), Mortar (3x5=15) [3 Pl] [33pts]
==Battalion Detachment== Blood Angels [24 Power Level] [423 Points] [5 CP]
HQ4: Captain with Jump Pack (93), Thunderhammer (21), Storm Shield (15) (6 PL) [129pts]
HQ5: Captain with Jump Pack (93), Thunderhammer (21), Storm Shield (15) (6 PL) [129pts]
TR9: Scout Squad (5x11=55), 4x Bolters (0), Combat knife(0), Chainsword(0) [4 PL] [55pts]
TR10: Scout Squad (5x11=55), 4x Bolters (0), Combat knife(0), Chainsword(0) [4 PL] [55pts]
TR11: Scout Squad (5x11=55), 4x Bolters (0), Combat knife(0), Chainsword(0) [4 PL] [55pts]
== Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment== Imperial Knights [30 Power Level] {604 Points] [0 CP}
LoW1: Knight Castellan (510), Twin Seigebreaker Cannon (2x35=70), Shield Breaker Missiles (2x12=24) [30 Power Level]
[604pts}

3 hellhounds(new hotness in IG, 9 mortars. Ministorum priest, 3 HQ's total.

Thank you.

 SHUPPET wrote:
They are Neophytes with +1S, before needing any HQ buffs. With Catachan tactics they have the same LD for free, as well as orders on top of that - you have the cheapest HQ's in the game, there is no additional cost there, you literally cannot take an army without taking these units, just as Neophytes can't be played without taking even stronger units. This logic you use here basically states that Tyranids need a leadership buff, and are horrendously underpowered, because they can only ever shoot or charge the closest thing - acting as though Synapse doesn't exist, or you don't literally have to take HQ's just to take these units, is just playing a different game. Guardsmen at 5 points are stronger than the same amount of points in Neophytes. Arbitrarily selecting which rules to count is just nonsense, use the power of critical thinking that you were blessed with and think for a second that maybe access to these buffs that literally don't cost a thing, isn't something you should write off when evaluating the strength of a unit.

Stop. You are making a number of assumptions that are incorrect.

1. Stop factoring in regimental traits. Guardsmen get them for free, but they don't get cult ambush. Cult Ambush ARE neophytes regimental trait, and is arguably more valuable than +1S which rarely gets used on guardsmen unless you are running a gimmicky melee army.

2. You can absolutely have a guard army without orders or officers. Tank commanders are HQs that do not affect infantry. Primaris psykers are HQs that do not affect infantry (unless you want to blow a spell on an IS which is a waste). Both are good units that regularly see high level play. Stop assuming orders and leadership buffs are always present because they aren't. Even if they are present they are a result of paying points for the buffing units and that invalidates the comparison.

3. It doesn't matter that guard has the cheapest HQs in the game, we are talking about 5ppm guardsmen vs neophytes. Datasheet vs datasheet.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Actually, it speaks volumes of your own for apparently being unable to win even against average players at your local, with an army that took 2 spots inside the top 5 of the latest major tournament. inb4 "b-b-but allies!" - nope, still the strongest way to play Guard. Highest solo Guard player was also running Catachan.

Never said I had a problem winning against anyone, but please, tell me how to play an army I have played since third edition.

w1zard wrote:
3. It doesn't matter that guard has the cheapest HQs in the game, we are talking about 5ppm guardsmen vs neophytes. Datasheet vs datasheet.

Too bad datasheet vs datasheet comparisons aren't relevant. Now army vs army we are talking.

tneva82 wrote:

w1zard wrote:
3. It doesn't matter that guard has the cheapest HQs in the game, we are talking about 5ppm guardsmen vs neophytes. Datasheet vs datasheet.

Too bad datasheet vs datasheet comparisons aren't relevant. Now army vs army we are talking.

It is extremely relevant. Units shouldn't be punished for other units in the army being good. Everything should be pointed on what it is worth on its own datasheet. Anything else is bad balance where units in a codex are intentionally bad on purpose in order to make up for broken crap.

w1zard wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

w1zard wrote:
3. It doesn't matter that guard has the cheapest HQs in the game, we are talking about 5ppm guardsmen vs neophytes. Datasheet vs datasheet.

Too bad datasheet vs datasheet comparisons aren't relevant. Now army vs army we are talking.

It is extremely relevant. Units shouldn't be punished for other units in the army being good. Everything should be pointed on what it is worth on its own datasheet. Anything else is bad balance where units in a codex are intentionally bad on purpose in order to make up for broken crap.

This would only make sense if there are no buffs in the game.
Its never going to happen.

But please, in a world where Guardsmen are 5 points, what should the totally unfair Neophytes with +1 LD cost? 5.1 points?

Tyel wrote:
This would only make sense if there are no buffs in the game.
Its never going to happen.

Or you know, you can point the buffing units appropriately? It's crazy I know...

Tyel wrote:
But please, in a world where Guardsmen are 5 points, what should the totally unfair Neophytes with +1 LD cost? 5.1 points?

Neophytes should cost 5 points, and lose their +1L and ability to take more than 10 men in a unit. Or the 5ppm guardsmen should be buffed with +1L and the ability to take more than 10 men in a unit. These are non-negligible advantages.

I still don't see why people are defending how neophytes are straight up better than 5ppm guardsmen simply because the difference (arguably) isn't worth a point.

w1zard wrote:

Tyel wrote:
This would only make sense if there are no buffs in the game.
Its never going to happen.

Or you know, you can point the buffing units appropriately? It's crazy I know...

Tyel wrote:
But please, in a world where Guardsmen are 5 points, what should the totally unfair Neophytes with +1 LD cost? 5.1 points?

Neophytes should cost 5 points, and lose their +1L and ability to take more than 10 men in a unit. Or the 5ppm guardsmen should be buffed with +1L and the ability to take more than 10 men in a unit. These are non-negligible advantages.

I still don't see why people are defending how neophytes are straight up better than 5ppm guardsmen simply because the difference (arguably) isn't worth a point.

Because your fixation with Squadsize and LD ship making neophytes better than guardsmen. Doesn't ring true for most player's.

+1LD ship doesn't have a significant game effect. It doesn't have any guaranteed effects and if you play assuminh it will remove that last model from a squad your plan goes SNAFU when the insane bravery strategum is played. Its going to cost you maybe 3-4 dudes in a 2K game before counters. It's just not something a player can build a plan around attacking.

You pay points per model and you get CP for filling out detachments.
Having 3 units of 20 insteadnof 6 units of 10 is already handicapping yourself hence why most people take MSU with maybe 1 or 2 large units.

Ice_can wrote:
Because your fixation with Squadsize and LD ship making neophytes better than guardsmen. Doesn't ring true for most player's.

+1LD ship doesn't have a significant game effect. It doesn't have any guaranteed effects and if you play assuminh it will remove that last model from a squad your plan goes SNAFU when the insane bravery strategum is played. Its going to cost you maybe 3-4 dudes in a 2K game before counters. It's just not something a player can build a plan around attacking.

You pay points per model and you get CP for filling out detachments.
Having 3 units of 20 insteadnof 6 units of 10 is already handicapping yourself hence why most people take MSU with maybe 1 or 2 large units.

+1L may not be a HUGE advantage but it is non-negligible. Guard have to pay 10 points for it as a banner. Consider an infantry squad that takes 5 casualties in a round. +1L is the difference between taking 1-2 casualties on average due to morale and taking none.

As for squad size, taking MSU certainly has it's advantages. It means morale isn't an issue and it generates more CP. But having a large squad size has it's advantages too. Having a large squad allows for better board coverage and better screens, allows more soldiers to be effected by orders/stratagems/auras, and reduces killpoints. Certainly having the option of taking MSU neophytes or blob neophytes depending on circumstance is an advantage and not a disadvantage correct?

You seem to think "yea they are a little better but it doesn't matter that much". I'm saying that guardsmen being directly and totally inferior to another infantry unit AT THE SAME POINTS COST is unacceptable, regardless to the extent of which that inferiority is. It's not just guardsmen, I would say the same thing if there were a hypothetical unit exactly the same as fire warriors except better or equal in every way for the same points cost. I don't play tau.

Nobody seems to have offered an explanation besides "well... they aren't THAT much better..." or "but we aren't talking about those units, guardsmen need nerfed", except for the one gentlemen who said he was fine with the neophytes losing the leadership advantage until the GSC codex dropped.

w1zard wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Because your fixation with Squadsize and LD ship making neophytes better than guardsmen. Doesn't ring true for most player's.

+1LD ship doesn't have a significant game effect. It doesn't have any guaranteed effects and if you play assuminh it will remove that last model from a squad your plan goes SNAFU when the insane bravery strategum is played. Its going to cost you maybe 3-4 dudes in a 2K game before counters. It's just not something a player can build a plan around attacking.

You pay points per model and you get CP for filling out detachments.
Having 3 units of 20 insteadnof 6 units of 10 is already handicapping yourself hence why most people take MSU with maybe 1 or 2 large units.

+1L may not be a HUGE advantage but it is non-negligible. Guard have to pay 10 points for it as a banner. Consider an infantry squad that takes 5 casualties in a round. +1L is the difference between taking 1-2 casualties on average due to morale and taking none.

As for squad size, taking MSU certainly has it's advantages. It means morale isn't an issue and it generates more CP. But having a large squad size has it's advantages too. Having a large squad allows for better board coverage and better screens, allows more soldiers to be effected by orders/stratagems/auras, and reduces killpoints. Certainly having the option of taking MSU neophytes or blob neophytes depending on circumstance is an advantage and not a disadvantage correct?

You seem to think "yea they are a little better but it doesn't matter that much". I'm saying that guardsmen being directly and totally inferior to another infantry unit AT THE SAME POINTS COST is unacceptable, regardless to the extent of which that inferiority is. It's not just guardsmen, I would say the same thing if there were a hypothetical unit exactly the same as fire warriors except better or equal in every way for the same points cost. I don't play tau.

Nobody seems to have offered an explanation besides "well... they aren't THAT much better..." or "but we aren't talking about those units, guardsmen need nerfed", except for the one gentlemen who said he was fine with the neophytes losing the leadership advantage until the GSC codex dropped.

Except +1LD is not 0 vrs 1-2 its literally 1 dude of a difference if and this is the point your not accounting for if someone does enough casualties to the unit to firce a moral check with a significant chance of failing without killing the unit outright and that unit also not being important enough to the game state to be worth bypassing the moral check completely. It also requires that the unit not be in range of any additional LD improving effects.
Thats a lot of qualifiers that need to be met for that LD difference to effect the game.

As for unit size I dont thinknthe number of models one can take in a unit inherently makes a model worth more points than a similar model in a smaller squad its still the same datasheet with the same rules.
Also large squads for maximum buffing suffer more to moral hence will be more likely to be a target hence die faster and can actually be worth less than a smaller unit as they are often a low priority target.

If we multiplied points by 10 and set guardsmen at a baseline of 50points I would say yeah a neophyte is worth 52points but GW keeps reducing points and doesn't think people can cope with such large numbers despite this being the era where everyone and their gran has a smart phone. So you devide 50 points by 10 and 52 point by 10 and to the nearest whole number they both give 5points per model.

Firewarriors have that unit its called skitari rangers and quite frankly it's annoying in mirror matches but they also have diffrent traits and strategums. The issue is again granularity a fire warrior is probably a 67point model to the rangers 74 but with the point scale GW wants they both end up at 7ppm currently Rangers probably should be 8ppm but they would then be the 78point model being rounded up while Vanguard would be the 83 poitn model being rounded down.

w1zard wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Because your fixation with Squadsize and LD ship making neophytes better than guardsmen. Doesn't ring true for most player's.

+1LD ship doesn't have a significant game effect. It doesn't have any guaranteed effects and if you play assuminh it will remove that last model from a squad your plan goes SNAFU when the insane bravery strategum is played. Its going to cost you maybe 3-4 dudes in a 2K game before counters. It's just not something a player can build a plan around attacking.

You pay points per model and you get CP for filling out detachments.
Having 3 units of 20 insteadnof 6 units of 10 is already handicapping yourself hence why most people take MSU with maybe 1 or 2 large units.

+1L may not be a HUGE advantage but it is non-negligible. Guard have to pay 10 points for it as a banner. Consider an infantry squad that takes 5 casualties in a round. +1L is the difference between taking 1-2 casualties on average due to morale and taking none.

As for squad size, taking MSU certainly has it's advantages. It means morale isn't an issue and it generates more CP. But having a large squad size has it's advantages too. Having a large squad allows for better board coverage and better screens, allows more soldiers to be effected by orders/stratagems/auras, and reduces killpoints. Certainly having the option of taking MSU neophytes or blob neophytes depending on circumstance is an advantage and not a disadvantage correct?

You seem to think "yea they are a little better but it doesn't matter that much". I'm saying that guardsmen being directly and totally inferior to another infantry unit AT THE SAME POINTS COST is unacceptable, regardless to the extent of which that inferiority is. It's not just guardsmen, I would say the same thing if there were a hypothetical unit exactly the same as fire warriors except better or equal in every way for the same points cost. I don't play tau.

Nobody seems to have offered an explanation besides "well... they aren't THAT much better..." or "but we aren't talking about those units, guardsmen need nerfed", except for the one gentlemen who said he was fine with the neophytes losing the leadership advantage until the GSC codex dropped.

Ohh boy by this logic you would be in favour of a buff to cultists?
They pay atm 4 pts aswell for 1 dude with the same equipment, oh wait, not even the same equipment but inferior armor by 50%!
Infact it get's even worse when we compare to R&H militia and Mutants, with less stats and armor !
Would you be in favour of 3ppm Cultists then aswell?
or 2 PPM Militia and Mutant rabble squads?
Don't forget that orders double the effectivness of guardsmen, without even considering faction traits, which btw IG has some of the better ones.

Yes i am normaly in favour of balancing a unit without faction buffs and without auras. Does need to be costed in the buff provider, but since GW in their wisdom decided to make faction buffs free and vary the power of those massively, cough -1 to hit vs an ATSKNF wannabee alone in the CSM codex, and if that is even a contest in pick and effect on the map in your eyes you allready are a lost cause. They won't ever be capable of balancing their lists properly because of that. Same with Eldar, why play anything but alaitoc -bs shenanigans?
Heck go to the CSM tactics thread, there are a shitton of people playing their WB as Alpha Legion simply because WB suck compared to the free Alpha Legion buff. Same with World Eaters, why even bother with the World Eaters buff which is negliable when you can guarantee a first turn charge with alpha legion and give berzerkers actual survivability? Infact, why even bother fielding any cultmarine in their respective Legion / Book when playing them as Alpha Legion elites makes them instantly superior?
Take regular plague marines vs Alpha Legion Plague marines, let's see who wins a long range firefight or has more flexibility in their deployment.

IN the end you should realise that certain factions have to pay more for the same units in essence because certain faction buffs and or certain unit combinations can lead to problems else.
Is this a good solution? No. How could that be fixed? by making faction buffs affect pts paid and further diversfiyng the subfactions.
Will that happen? no.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Ohh boy by this logic you would be in favour of a buff to cultists?
They pay atm 4 pts aswell for 1 dude with the same equipment, oh wait, not even the same equipment but inferior armor by 50%!
Infact it get's even worse when we compare to R&H militia and Mutants, with less stats and armor !
Would you be in favour of 3ppm Cultists then aswell?
or 2 PPM Militia and Mutant rabble squads?
Don't forget that orders double the effectivness of guardsmen, without even considering faction traits, which btw IG has some of the better ones.

Or maybe guardsmen should be 5pts per model, because at the moment they are the same points cost as conscripts but with better WS and BS!

Not Online!!! wrote:
Ohh boy by this logic you would be in favour of a buff to cultists?
They pay atm 4 pts aswell for 1 dude with the same equipment, oh wait, not even the same equipment but inferior armor by 50%!
Infact it get's even worse when we compare to R&H militia and Mutants, with less stats and armor !
Would you be in favour of 3ppm Cultists then aswell?
or 2 PPM Militia and Mutant rabble squads?

In our example, we are assuming 5ppm guardsmen. So 4ppm cultists sounds about right, but I'd have to do some math to be sure. Maybe cultists should go down to 3ppm.

Ice_can wrote:
Except +1LD is not 0 vrs 1-2 its literally 1 dude of a difference if and this is the point your not accounting for if someone does enough casualties to the unit to firce a moral check with a significant chance of failing without killing the unit outright and that unit also not being important enough to the game state to be worth bypassing the moral check completely. It also requires that the unit not be in range of any additional LD improving effects.
Thats a lot of qualifiers that need to be met for that LD difference to effect the game.

As for unit size I dont thinknthe number of models one can take in a unit inherently makes a model worth more points than a similar model in a smaller squad its still the same datasheet with the same rules.
Also large squads for maximum buffing suffer more to moral hence will be more likely to be a target hence die faster and can actually be worth less than a smaller unit as they are often a low priority target.

If we multiplied points by 10 and set guardsmen at a baseline of 50points I would say yeah a neophyte is worth 52points but GW keeps reducing points and doesn't think people can cope with such large numbers despite this being the era where everyone and their gran has a smart phone. So you devide 50 points by 10 and 52 point by 10 and to the nearest whole number they both give 5points per model.

Firewarriors have that unit its called skitari rangers and quite frankly it's annoying in mirror matches but they also have different traits and stratagems. The issue is again granularity a fire warrior is probably a 67point model to the rangers 74 but with the point scale GW wants they both end up at 7ppm currently Rangers probably should be 8ppm but they would then be the 78point model being rounded up while Vanguard would be the 83 poitn model being rounded down.

The difference is though that rangers and fire warriors do different things. They have different stats and different guns. The ranger is much better statistically than the fire warrior in most situations but there are still things that a fire warrior does better than a ranger.

There is nothing that 5ppm guardsmen do better than neophytes. Neophytes are 5ppm guardsmen (same guns, same stats, same armor, same everything) except better or equal in every way. It makes guardsmen redundant.

w1zard wrote:


Nobody seems to have offered an explanation besides "well... they aren't THAT much better..." or "but we aren't talking about those units, guardsmen need nerfed", except for the one gentlemen who said he was fine with the neophytes losing the leadership advantage until the GSC codex dropped.

People have given you the explanation, that even by the exact same arbitrary qualifications of what does and doesnt count, that you have shaped to spin your narrative in which Neophytes are better than Gaurdsmen, you are STILL left +1S on the Guardsmen, a stat most people hold as much more relevant, and a tied LD anyway, thanks to Chapter tactics.

Or are you somehow not taking HQ's?


The most competitive use for the army has shown to be in a manner that takes the cheapest HQ's possible, cutting costs for HQ other armies would have, and these cheap HQ's provide excellent buffs.


You say you've played the army since 3rd yet you have absolutely no concept of what it's strengths are in this edition. I'd personally be hesitant about sneering at people for stating the strengths of Straken and Catachan infantry as though it means they have lost to some kind of low level build (and not something consistently taking top tables at high level tournaments), while at the same time stating that you've played the game since 3rd edition. It shows a stubbornness in learning and your progression as a player to still be at such a level after such a long period of time.

w1zard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Ohh boy by this logic you would be in favour of a buff to cultists?
They pay atm 4 pts aswell for 1 dude with the same equipment, oh wait, not even the same equipment but inferior armor by 50%!
Infact it get's even worse when we compare to R&H militia and Mutants, with less stats and armor !
Would you be in favour of 3ppm Cultists then aswell?
or 2 PPM Militia and Mutant rabble squads?

In our example, we are assuming 5ppm guardsmen. So 4ppm cultists sounds about right, but I'd have to do some math to be sure. Maybe cultists should go down to 3ppm.

Ice_can wrote:
Except +1LD is not 0 vrs 1-2 its literally 1 dude of a difference if and this is the point your not accounting for if someone does enough casualties to the unit to firce a moral check with a significant chance of failing without killing the unit outright and that unit also not being important enough to the game state to be worth bypassing the moral check completely. It also requires that the unit not be in range of any additional LD improving effects.
Thats a lot of qualifiers that need to be met for that LD difference to effect the game.

As for unit size I dont thinknthe number of models one can take in a unit inherently makes a model worth more points than a similar model in a smaller squad its still the same datasheet with the same rules.
Also large squads for maximum buffing suffer more to moral hence will be more likely to be a target hence die faster and can actually be worth less than a smaller unit as they are often a low priority target.

If we multiplied points by 10 and set guardsmen at a baseline of 50points I would say yeah a neophyte is worth 52points but GW keeps reducing points and doesn't think people can cope with such large numbers despite this being the era where everyone and their gran has a smart phone. So you devide 50 points by 10 and 52 point by 10 and to the nearest whole number they both give 5points per model.

Firewarriors have that unit its called skitari rangers and quite frankly it's annoying in mirror matches but they also have different traits and stratagems. The issue is again granularity a fire warrior is probably a 67point model to the rangers 74 but with the point scale GW wants they both end up at 7ppm currently Rangers probably should be 8ppm but they would then be the 78point model being rounded up while Vanguard would be the 83 poitn model being rounded down.

The difference is though that rangers and fire warriors do different things. They have different stats and different guns. The ranger is much better statistically than the fire warrior in most situations but there are still things that a fire warrior does better than a ranger. There is nothing that 5ppm guardsmen do better than neophytes. Neophytes are 5ppm guardsmen (same guns, same stats, same armor, same everything) except better or equal in every way. It makes guardsmen redundant.

Ehm yes there is actually quite alot that guardsmen do better then Neophytes.
Chief ammong that Shooting lasguns/autoguns through FRFSRF. Or by just having doctrinal buffs like i mentioned above.
Additionally i know what the thought experiment was, but i wanted to see if you would go through with your logic, which you showed you were sceptic, even tough we all clearly can see which is the superior unit just by looking at the stats alone and not even include buffs or special rules or god forbid orders.

What i will give you though is that conscripts at equal price to guardsmen is just ridicoulos. Infact for that alone i would be in favour of 5ppm guardsmen which still would be effective and 4 ppm conscripts just to get the internal codex scale right again. The main problem then is what do you do with cultists. Is the additional armor of conscripts worth the worse BS/WS?Or would you just buff cultists armor and make them basically traitor guardsmen in combination with a 5ppm cost, even tough they can't have orders, which again would skew balance massively torwards the guardsmen?
Anyways the scale allready got broken thanks to subfaction buffs, orders,etc.

Just remove conscripts from the game.

Why the heck are we talking about leadership? It is mostly irrelevant. I can count the number of times I've lost significant points to leadership in 8th on 1 hand.

Large units will just use the 2 CP auto rally. Small units can use a command reroll if they have reasonable roll to suffer no or little losses. Plus most units have some ignore leadership gimmick.

It is an issue when you are running 10 man elite units with multiple wounds. It is not an issue with 5 point chaff units.

There are 4 attributes that matter in this game in this order. Damage > defense > mobility > range. (the order of value can change depending on the unit)

If it is not on this list - it really doesn't matter. Infantry squads crush all comparable units in these categories at least 3-1. There are several units they beat in every category and they always cost less - always take up more space too. It is an absolute joke to even continue discussing this.

Nobody would bat an eye if Neophytes lost an LD because it's still one of the most useless stats in the game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody would bat an eye if Neophytes lost an LD because it's still one of the most useless stats in the game.

That's what people used to say about Bravery in AoS, and then when they rejigged the morale slightly...it all of a sudden became a fairly big deal.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody would bat an eye if Neophytes lost an LD because it's still one of the most useless stats in the game.

That's what people used to say about Bravery in AoS, and then when they rejigged the morale slightly...it all of a sudden became a fairly big deal.

Well you know what? This isn't AoS. Morale isn't rejigged. As is, nobody would bat an eye if Neophytes lost a point of LD.

Marmatag's Tier List
Tiers assume these armies will be played by a good player, in an ITC scenario.

Tier A - Have a strict advantage over the field by design.
Custodes + Imperial Guard Battery
Knights + Imperial Guard Battery
Eldar Soup

Tier B - Very strong armies. May struggle with tier A.
Chaos Soup (Includes Death Guard, Thousand Sons, Renegade Knights, etc)
Tau
Imperial Guard (mono & /w some allies)

Tier C - Mid-tier armies that do okay. Generally won't win events. Cannot compete with Tier A and expect to lose against Tier B.
Space Marines + Allies (includes Ultramarines, RG, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, et al)
Tyranids
Mechanicus Knights + Ad-Mech

Tier D - Can compete with Tier C but that's about it.
Necrons
Orks

Armies with low representation aren't ranked, and many armies are combined under 1 heading. Like it's obvious Grey Knights are god awful so why tier them.

Tier A is missing Renegade Knights + Choas Soup.

Imperial Knights solo maybe Tier B haven't studied the new secondary missions to understand if that impacts them.

Ice_can wrote:
Tier A is missing Renegade Knights + Choas Soup.

Imperial Knights solo maybe Tier B haven't studied the new secondary missions to understand if that impacts them.

Chaos in general has SO many varying and viable builds. I think they're ranked appropriately. As we saw, Death Guard + Renegades won the BAO. In a general sense, i think they're rated appropriately - on the cusp of being automatically dominant by design. But the amount of options, synergies, and overall complexity of chaos make it more difficult to play than people think. Those wins may be lucky but they're also earned.

I'm not really bothering with "mono" rankings since that isn't how the game is played in 8th edition. The only armies that play mono faction are:

Tyranids, Tau, Orks, Necrons - -

for obvious reasons.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody would bat an eye if Neophytes lost an LD because it's still one of the most useless stats in the game.

That's what people used to say about Bravery in AoS, and then when they rejigged the morale slightly...it all of a sudden became a fairly big deal.

Well you know what? This isn't AoS. Morale isn't rejigged. As is, nobody would bat an eye if Neophytes lost a point of LD.

And constantly saying that "LD doesn't matter" isn't helping with these kinds of things.

Is Leadership playing the part that it likely was meant to? Absolutely not. But that's because there's easy access to a Stratagem for ignoring Morale and one of the first things people seem to build for in their lists is a way to counteract morale losses.

How are you going to feel if Neophytes get buffed in the new codex by being reduced to 4 points? Clearly with that +1LD its going to break the meta, and we will never see another guardsman again grace a top table.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody would bat an eye if Neophytes lost an LD because it's still one of the most useless stats in the game.

That's what people used to say about Bravery in AoS, and then when they rejigged the morale slightly...it all of a sudden became a fairly big deal.

Well you know what? This isn't AoS. Morale isn't rejigged. As is, nobody would bat an eye if Neophytes lost a point of LD.

And constantly saying that "LD doesn't matter" isn't helping with these kinds of things.

Is Leadership playing the part that it likely was meant to? Absolutely not. But that's because there's easy access to a Stratagem for ignoring Morale and one of the first things people seem to build for in their lists is a way to counteract morale losses.

What on earth are you talking about lol he's saying it direct response to the guy who's brought it up in here a thousand times, and he saw said it like twice. The person constantly bringing up the thing that isn't helping is w1zard lol but you won't call that out simply because he's on the side of "feth logic, don't balance muh Guard" right next to you.

 SHUPPET wrote:
What on earth are you talking about lol he's saying it direct response to the guy who's brought it up in here a thousand times, and he saw said it like twice. The person constantly bringing up the thing that isn't helping is w1zard lol but you won't call that out simply because he's on the side of "feth logic, don't balance muh Guard" right next to you.

I already said I'm fine with guardsmen going to 5 points. I want guard to be balanced.

What I'm concerned about is guard's relation to other factions, and our ability to compete with top tier armies. Guard fixes are pretty easy, mostly undercosted stuff that could just use points adjustments. Other factions, however, have deeper issues (such as -1 to hit on eldar) that can't really be fixed unless the codices are rewritten. What I'm really worried about is guard being "fixed", but none of the other top tier factions being "fixed" alongside of it. As a result, guard is relegated to the shelf for another X editions. I was picking on neophytes because it seemed to be a particularly bad case of cognitive dissonance, where you have an obviously superior unit to 5ppm guardsmen (albeit superior in minor ways, and yes, I still stand by that assertion) and nobody seems to care. It seems that nobody cares about OP units unless they are being spammed in the meta.

As I said I have been playing guard on and off since third edition. Unless I missed something somewhere... outside of a couple narrow windows (vendetta spam in 5th, and leafblower in 6th) Guard have never been that good. Guard are finally good for once, not the best, but good, for the first time in a long time. I guess I'm just wondering where all of the 45 page nerf eldar threads are.

 Marmatag wrote:
Marmatag's Tier List
Tiers assume these armies will be played by a good player, in an ITC scenario.

Tier A - Have a strict advantage over the field by design.
Custodes + Imperial Guard Battery
Knights + Imperial Guard Battery
Eldar Soup

Tier B - Very strong armies. May struggle with tier A.
Chaos Soup (Includes Death Guard, Thousand Sons, Renegade Knights, etc)
Tau
Imperial Guard (mono & /w some allies)

Tier C - Mid-tier armies that do okay. Generally won't win events. Cannot compete with Tier A and expect to lose against Tier B.
Space Marines + Allies (includes Ultramarines, RG, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, et al)
Tyranids
Mechanicus Knights + Ad-Mech

Tier D - Can compete with Tier C but that's about it.
Necrons
Orks

Armies with low representation aren't ranked, and many armies are combined under 1 heading. Like it's obvious Grey Knights are god awful so why tier them.

Is it weird if I say I absolutely agree with all of that, and still see no problem with guard being at tier B? But rather, that other armies need buffs to tier B levels?

Guard CP batteries can be fixed with removal of CP generators (like Kurov's Aquila and Strategic Genius) and a rewrite of the CP system.

But Neophytes aren't superior. Going from 3-->4 strength is a much more relevant stat than 6-->7 LD. Regardless, the Guardsmen get +1 LD anyway. So the cognitive dissonance is thinking that somehow Neophytes are better. In fact they may still need buffs just to be on par with Guardsmen.

Also GSC as an army gains a lot less IMO from cheap chaff units standing between them and their shooting elements like guard + whatever do. So I'm not sure what the argument is here.

 SHUPPET wrote:
But Neophytes aren't superior. Going from 3-->4 strength is a much more relevant stat than 6-->7 LD. Regardless, the Guardsmen get +1 LD anyway. So the cognitive dissonance is thinking that somehow Neophytes are better. In fact they may still need buffs just to be on par with Guardsmen.

Where are the Guardsmen getting +1LD from?

Oh right. Your hypothetical somehow consistently references the unit being:
a) Catachan
b) Within 6" of a Catachan Officer.

Yet if I were to point out that you could get the same +1 Strength on a unit of Neophytes, rerolls to failed Morale tests, and a FNP vs losing Wounds by being in the same range of an Iconward with the Chapter Approved Relic...I'd be moving the goalposts.

I think if you aren't taking the whole faction and the buffs the unit is going to have 99% of the time into account then you're only going to able to achieve a very basic level of analysis.

jcd386 wrote:
Also GSC as an army gains a lot less IMO from cheap chaff units standing between them and their shooting elements like guard + whatever do. So I'm not sure what the argument is here.

A lot of it is just circular bickering at the moment. Neophytes have been brought up as the 'closest parallel to Guardsmen' but for whatever reason people have been ignoring Cult Ambush and the additional point of Leadership present on the models, arguing that it's "no match for Regimental Traits" when others have argued those features are what have driven the points cost up.

I'd also say that while GSC might gain less from cheap chaff units standing between them and their shooting elements...it's not like the GSC characters are lacking protections against both shooting and CC engagement at this point. Not to the level of them being untouchable, but it sure as hell is fairly respectable.

w1zard wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Marmatag's Tier List
Tiers assume these armies will be played by a good player, in an ITC scenario.

Tier A - Have a strict advantage over the field by design.
Custodes + Imperial Guard Battery
Knights + Imperial Guard Battery
Eldar Soup

Tier B - Very strong armies. May struggle with tier A.
Chaos Soup (Includes Death Guard, Thousand Sons, Renegade Knights, etc)
Tau
Imperial Guard (mono & /w some allies)

Tier C - Mid-tier armies that do okay. Generally won't win events. Cannot compete with Tier A and expect to lose against Tier B.
Space Marines + Allies (includes Ultramarines, RG, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, et al)
Tyranids
Mechanicus Knights + Ad-Mech

Tier D - Can compete with Tier C but that's about it.
Necrons
Orks

Armies with low representation aren't ranked, and many armies are combined under 1 heading. Like it's obvious Grey Knights are god awful so why tier them.

Is it weird if I say I absolutely agree with all of that, and still see no problem with guard being at tier B? But rather, that other armies need buffs to tier B levels?

Guard CP batteries can be fixed with removal of CP generators (like Kurov's Aquila and Strategic Genius) and a rewrite of the CP system.

I don't see a problem with Guard being tier B.

The problem right now is that there is a massive gap between Tier B & Tier C. Most of the armies in Tier C simply cannot compete with the armies in Tier B. I don't care how we get there - buffs to Nids, marines, etc - or nerfs to the higher ups. As long as we get there.

But GW's changes post adepticon prove to me they don't understand how to balance Nids. Rule of 3, and price increase for Tyrants? Where have Tyranids gone after the nerf?

Rule of 3 wasn't aimed specifically at Tyranids though. It might have seemed like it, but it was aimed at basically anyone that spammed certain things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcd386 wrote:
I think if you aren't taking the whole faction and the buffs the unit is going to have 99% of the time into account then you're only going to able to achieve a very basic level of analysis.

This is a big part of where the issue lies.

There are some arguing that Orders should always 100% be factored in when considering Guard but Auras in other armies shouldn't be, since "Orders have longer ranges". It ignores that Orders cannot stack outside of a specific Relic and that you have a fairly limited number of Orders vs Auras being able to move to where needed.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
But Neophytes aren't superior. Going from 3-->4 strength is a much more relevant stat than 6-->7 LD. Regardless, the Guardsmen get +1 LD anyway. So the cognitive dissonance is thinking that somehow Neophytes are better. In fact they may still need buffs just to be on par with Guardsmen.

Where are the Guardsmen getting +1LD from?

Oh right. Your hypothetical somehow consistently references the unit being:
a) Catachan
b) Within 6" of a Catachan Officer.

Yet if I were to point out that you could get the same +1 Strength on a unit of Neophytes, rerolls to failed Morale tests, and a FNP vs losing Wounds by being in the same range of an Iconward with the Chapter Approved Relic...I'd be moving the goalposts.

Neophytes don't have the option of going Catachan. That is a cost free upgrade to Guardsmen. You can't build a list without HQs. Your list of buffs for Neophytes requires a specific HQ, a specific relic. If you want to compare the buffs they can potentially receive, I already did that, and Guard win out handily and for MUCH cheaper too. W1zard didn't like that, and said you can't count specific unit buffs, which is why we're just down to comparing statlines and army rules - a comparison that still sees Guard ahead. So yes, it would be moving the goalposts, except to a point where a touchdown was already scored some go ahead and do so if you insist.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
But Neophytes aren't superior. Going from 3-->4 strength is a much more relevant stat than 6-->7 LD. Regardless, the Guardsmen get +1 LD anyway. So the cognitive dissonance is thinking that somehow Neophytes are better. In fact they may still need buffs just to be on par with Guardsmen.

Where are the Guardsmen getting +1LD from?

Oh right. Your hypothetical somehow consistently references the unit being:
a) Catachan
b) Within 6" of a Catachan Officer.

Yet if I were to point out that you could get the same +1 Strength on a unit of Neophytes, rerolls to failed Morale tests, and a FNP vs losing Wounds by being in the same range of an Iconward with the Chapter Approved Relic...I'd be moving the goalposts.

Neophytes don't have the option of going Catachan. That is a cost free upgrade to the unit. You can't build a list without HQs.

I can build a list without a Catachan Officer, that will remain battleforged. Lord Commissars are HQs and Primaris Psykers are HQs--both of which don't have the "Officer" keyword, and Primaris Psykers were fairly popular for awhile as HQs for Guard allied detachments.

Your list of buffs for Neophytes requires a specific HQ, a specific relic. If you want to compare the buffs they can potentially receive, I already did that, and Guard win out handily and for MUCH cheaper too. W1zard didn't like that, and said you can't count specific unit buffs, which is why we're just down to comparing statlines and army rules - a comparison that still sees Guard ahead. So yes, it would be moving the goalposts, except to a point where a touchdown was already scored some go ahead and do so if you insist.

And your list requires a specific Regiment, specific HQs, and specific placement.

Mine at least isn't wildly unfeasible since there's only one Relic for GSC at the moment, it costs no points to take a Relic, and it doesn't overwrite the already substantial benefit that an Iconward grants.

OK then we'll factor in orders, and double attacks for Guard through literally just Straken, and Neophytes lose every single time. You want to compare with buffs Neophytes lose, you want to compare without Neophytes lose. This is established, stop moving the goalposts on what we can and can't include because the outcome remains identical.

 Marmatag wrote:
I don't see a problem with Guard being tier B.

The problem right now is that there is a massive gap between Tier B & Tier C. Most of the armies in Tier C simply cannot compete with the armies in Tier B. I don't care how we get there - buffs to Nids, marines, etc - or nerfs to the higher ups. As long as we get there.

But GW's changes post adepticon prove to me they don't understand how to balance Nids. Rule of 3, and price increase for Tyrants? Where have Tyranids gone after the nerf?

I'm not sure about nids, there are no nids players in my area and I have never played the faction myself personally. I can say however, playing against space marines, that they need buffs badly, holy gak. I have always been supportive of marine and GK buffs.

 SHUPPET wrote:
OK then we'll factor in orders, and double attacks for Guard through literally just Straken, and Neophytes lose every single time. You want to compare with buffs Neophytes lose, you want to compare without Neophytes lose. This is established, stop moving the goalposts on what we can and can't include because the outcome remains identical.

If the guardsmen are getting orders, then the neophytes should be getting buffs from whatever their aura unit is then fair? I still think it is stupid to make comparisons assuming buffs from other units that cost POINTS are present.

 SHUPPET wrote:
OK then we'll factor in orders, and double attacks for Guard through literally just Straken, and Neophytes lose every single time. You want to compare with buffs Neophytes lose, you want to compare without Neophytes lose. This is established, stop moving the goalposts on what we can and can't include because the outcome remains identical.

I'm not the one who's been saying what to include or what not to include. You understand this right?

Also WTF is with your obsession with Catachans? You know that Straken doesn't "double attacks" right? He grants +1A for Catachan units in 6" of him at the start of the Fight phase.

I think we also have to wait until the GSC book comes out to really understand what their codex is really even trying to do, and how it effects the meta, before we can really compare it to guard+imperium. Right now they are in a really weird place and need to be fleshed out some more IMO before we start saying their units are too good or bad.

Right now the fact is that the only two relevant troop choices in the game are dirt cheap chaff and units with scout deployment. Guardsmen and cultists are the most obvious offenders, because eldar and necrons don't quite have chaff units (thank god), and nids/orks/GSC usually aren't using chaff as defensively (since their chaff units actually do a lot of their damage).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
OK then we'll factor in orders, and double attacks for Guard through literally just Straken, and Neophytes lose every single time. You want to compare with buffs Neophytes lose, you want to compare without Neophytes lose. This is established, stop moving the goalposts on what we can and can't include because the outcome remains identical.

I'm not the one who's been saying what to include or what not to include. You understand this right?

Also WTF is with your obsession with Catachans? You know that Straken doesn't "double attacks" right? He grants +1A for Catachan units in 6" of him at the start of the Fight phase.

To be fair that does effectively double the attacks if the average guardsmen blob.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
OK then we'll factor in orders, and double attacks for Guard through literally just Straken, and Neophytes lose every single time. You want to compare with buffs Neophytes lose, you want to compare without Neophytes lose. This is established, stop moving the goalposts on what we can and can't include because the outcome remains identical.

I'm not the one who's been saying what to include or what not to include. You understand this right?

Also WTF is with your obsession with Catachans? You know that Straken doesn't "double attacks" right? He grants +1A for Catachan units in 6" of him at the start of the Fight phase.

You jumped into and quoted a post that was written in response to the person who DID put those qualifiers as to what we can and can't include. That's the ONLY reason I also included them - if you disagree with them, then go argue with HIM about it, trust me we all think they're stupid too. The FACT is that you won't, simply because he's also defending Guard. Prove me wrong - you won't. But until then, at the very least don't try to berate other people for proving him wrong on both accounts.


Hey mathswhiz - Ask yourself, how many attacks do Guardsmen have? Then ask yourself if giving them +1 attacks is the same as double that number. It was a shorter way of saying the exact same thing in 99% of all relevant situations.

I'm comparing them to Catachan because it's the strongest regiment right now, especially for Guardsmen. If you want to play them weaker go for it, for balancing we compare to high level play though.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
OK then we'll factor in orders, and double attacks for Guard through literally just Straken, and Neophytes lose every single time. You want to compare with buffs Neophytes lose, you want to compare without Neophytes lose. This is established, stop moving the goalposts on what we can and can't include because the outcome remains identical.

I'm not the one who's been saying what to include or what not to include. You understand this right?

Also WTF is with your obsession with Catachans? You know that Straken doesn't "double attacks" right? He grants +1A for Catachan units in 6" of him at the start of the Fight phase.

You jumped into and quoted a post that was written in response to the person who DID put those qualifiers as to what we can and can't include. That's the ONLY reason I also included them - if you disagree with them, then go argue with HIM about it, trust me we all think they're stupid too. The FACT is that you won't, simply because he's also defending Guard. Prove me wrong - you won't. But until then, at the very least don't try to berate other people for proving him wrong on both accounts.


Hey mathswhiz - Ask yourself, how many attacks do Guardsmen have? Then ask yourself if giving them +1 attacks is the same as double that number. It was a shorter way of saying the exact same thing in 99% of all relevant situations.

I'm comparing them to Catachan because it's the strongest regiment right now, especially for Guardsmen. If you want to play them weaker go for it, for balancing we compare to high level play though.

I think they are nitpicking in the same way they say that FRFSRF doesn't double their ranged damage because of the sarg...+1 attack is only a 90.9% increase for the average guard squad. Less if they have a heavy weapon squad. It's hard to not look at this as an obvious distraction, though.

Also, since you guys feel so strongly about having perfect harmony between your own Dex and GSC's, I'll take it you'll be happy with tanks no longer receiving regiment tactics, because as it stands LRBT are identical between these two dexes except AM ones get regiment tactics, and GSC can't take as many models per unit, and cost 10 more points. That's a much better example of "straight up equivalent or better" than Neophytes to Guardsmen since it LITERALLY is this, instead of "better in ways I decide counts but worse in ways that I decide aren't relevant". So we can easily agree what the issue is there, so I'm taking it you guys are pushing for this to be changed as well?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcd386 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
OK then we'll factor in orders, and double attacks for Guard through literally just Straken, and Neophytes lose every single time. You want to compare with buffs Neophytes lose, you want to compare without Neophytes lose. This is established, stop moving the goalposts on what we can and can't include because the outcome remains identical.

I'm not the one who's been saying what to include or what not to include. You understand this right?

Also WTF is with your obsession with Catachans? You know that Straken doesn't "double attacks" right? He grants +1A for Catachan units in 6" of him at the start of the Fight phase.

You jumped into and quoted a post that was written in response to the person who DID put those qualifiers as to what we can and can't include. That's the ONLY reason I also included them - if you disagree with them, then go argue with HIM about it, trust me we all think they're stupid too. The FACT is that you won't, simply because he's also defending Guard. Prove me wrong - you won't. But until then, at the very least don't try to berate other people for proving him wrong on both accounts.


Hey mathswhiz - Ask yourself, how many attacks do Guardsmen have? Then ask yourself if giving them +1 attacks is the same as double that number. It was a shorter way of saying the exact same thing in 99% of all relevant situations.

I'm comparing them to Catachan because it's the strongest regiment right now, especially for Guardsmen. If you want to play them weaker go for it, for balancing we compare to high level play though.

I think they are nitpicking in the same way they say that FRFSRF doesn't double their ranged damage because of the sarg...+1 attack is only a 90.9% increase for the average guard squad. Less if they have a heavy weapon squad. It's hard to not look at this as an obvious distraction, though.

Ah of course. I think you're right, just more misdirection, knowing that it has absolutely no bearing on the point being made that proved him wrong - he had to respond to something but had no response for that, so instead responds to irrelevant technicalities that don't even remotely disprove the conclusion.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Also, since you guys feel so strongly about having perfect harmony between your own Dex and GSC's, I'll take it you'll be happy with tanks no longer receiving regiment tactics, because as it stands LRBT are identical between these two dexes except AM ones get regiment tactics. That's a much better example of "straight up equivalent or better" than Neophytes to Guardsmen since it LITERALLY is this, instead of "better in ways I decide counts but worse in ways that I decide aren't relevant". So we can easily agree what the issue is there, so I'm taking it you guys are pushing for this to be changed as well?

No, because when the GSC book drops they are going to get the equivalent of regimental traits for their vehicles as well.

How many times do I have to say it? Neophytes and GSC in general are going to get better when their codex drops, not worse... if prior codex releases are anything to go by.

I mean, I suppose you can argue that GSC in general and neophytes in particular are going to see price increases for the "privilege" of having stratagems and regimental traits but then I would just laugh at you.

BTW, you haven't answered my question.

w1zard wrote:
If the guardsmen are getting orders, then the neophytes should be getting buffs from whatever their aura unit is then fair? I still think it is stupid to make comparisons assuming buffs from other units that cost POINTS are present.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Also, since you guys feel so strongly about having perfect harmony between your own Dex and GSC's, I'll take it you'll be happy with tanks no longer receiving regiment tactics, because as it stands LRBT are identical between these two dexes except AM ones get regiment tactics. That's a much better example of "straight up equivalent or better" than Neophytes to Guardsmen since it LITERALLY is this, instead of "better in ways I decide counts but worse in ways that I decide aren't relevant". So we can easily agree what the issue is there, so I'm taking it you guys are pushing for this to be changed as well?

We're not the schmucks who keep trying to pretend that GSC are literally just Guardsmen that are pointed differently. There's different rules, different unit sizes, different weapon availability, different buffs available, and even the listed Leadership value is different.

And I love how you keep trying to compare Cult Ambush to Regimental Tactics. But hey, let's add Cult Ambush and Unquestioning Loyalty to Leman Russes--hell, to all the GSC vehicles. I'm fine with that.

Ah of course. I think you're right, just more misdirection, knowing that it has absolutely no bearing on the point being made that proved him wrong - he had to respond to something but had no response for that, so instead responds to irrelevant technicalities that don't even remotely disprove the conclusion.

You've been part of the crowd jumping down everyone's throats with mathematics.

You said "doubling". You were wrong. It adds a single attack. FRFSRF adds 1 to the Rapid Fire characteristic, which can result in drastically different numbers predicated upon range--but "doubling" means something specific. "Doubling" someone like Harker's stats would mean he gets 8 attacks. He doesn't. He gets 5, thanks to the +1. An Officer won't "double" the number of his attacks--he adds 1.

You want to try to paint me as moving goalposts, then I'll damn well call you out every time you try to handwave garbage like this away.

 Kanluwen wrote:

We're not the schmucks who keep trying to pretend that GSC are literally just Guardsmen that are pointed differently. There's different rules, different unit sizes, different weapon availability, different buffs available, and even the listed Leadership value is different.

And I love how you keep trying to compare Cult Ambush to Regimental Tactics. But hey, let's add Cult Ambush and Unquestioning Loyalty to Leman Russes--hell, to all the GSC vehicles. I'm fine with that.

I all fairness, I AM arguing that neophytes are literally guardsmen except better. I am also attributing cult ambush to the the neophytes version of a regimental trait. I still think neophytes are better than 5ppm guardsmen when compared directly.

The only argument I've heard is "b-but guardsmen get better buffs through other units that cost points". I'm saying it's irrelevant. If the buffs are too much that they need to be toned down, then nerf the BUFFING UNITS. However, two units from different codices being literally exactly the same and costing the same, except one unit is better than another simply to make up for strengths of something else that just happen to exist in one codex is an absolutely intolerable state of affairs IMO.

I would say this if guard was on the benefiting end, even if it meant nerfs to guard.

Tyel wrote:
How are you going to feel if Neophytes get buffed in the new codex by being reduced to 4 points? Clearly with that +1LD its going to break the meta, and we will never see another guardsman again grace a top table.

Really? All those Imperium armies are going to start taking Neophytes instead?

Let's get real here. There is definitely a difference between Infantry Squads and Neophyte Hybrids. You can easily argue that Neophytes are better, because in a vacuum they are. Compared to IS, they have Autopistols, an additional point of Leadership, and Cult Ambush. They can even purchase blob squads of over 10 models if they want. We can ignore faction traits because, barring a radical revision by GW, they will get one of those on top of their current abilities, whether it has choices or is just one trait like Death Guard and Thousand Sons.

The question is, how much is that worth at the low points that IS and NH are at? Is it enough to make IS 4 and NH 5? Or IS 5 and NH 6? Or is it still close enough for both to be 5 points?

I'm inclined to think it is not worth much, when you consider the various 7 and 8 point infantry models out there.

That being said, I really hope that GW takes the opportunity of Chapter Approved 2018 to do a in-depth look at the Matched Play point values of units and published complete, new points cost for all Codexes. Then we can have 5 point IS, 6 point NH, 8 Point Fire Warriors and Skitarii Rangers, and 11 point Tactical Marines. I dream, I'm sure, but we have a right to dream.

 alextroy wrote:
Let's get real here. There is definitely a difference between Infantry Squads and Neophyte Hybrids. You can easily argue that Neophytes are better, because in a vacuum they are. Compared to IS, they have Autopistols, an additional point of Leadership, and Cult Ambush. They can even purchase blob squads of over 10 models if they want. We can ignore faction traits because, barring a radical revision by GW, they will get one of those on top of their current abilities, whether it has choices or is just one trait like Death Guard and Thousand Sons.

Thank you for at least acknowledging that. That is the ONLY point I was trying to make.

Marm,

You know nids and marines are not on the same level. Maybe marines + knights or a supreme command of smash captains in something but that's not marines. Hive guard, flyrants, carnifexes and genestealers are better than anything in the marine dex outside of smash captains.

Better psychic, better psychic powers, better strats

So many units need points adjustments at this time wailing for 5 point guardsmen seems to be a waste of time. As long as triple dissie cannon ravagers are out there benefiting from doom all the things and shining spears/dark reapers are soul bursting entire armies to shreds 5 point guardsmen seem trivial...

This is why I'm saying the only solution is 45 points for the total squad. GW wouldn't do that though.