Comparing in a vacuum doesn't work though. Not when there are Stratagems, regimental/hive fleet/chapter traits, and characters specifically designed to buff units. Right? It certainly makes fair comparison nearly impossible, but comparing in a vacuum, particularly in this edition, doesn't work at all.
Colonel Cross wrote: Comparing in a vacuum doesn't work though. Not when there are Stratagems, regimental/hive fleet/chapter traits, and characters specifically designed to buff units. Right? It certainly makes fair comparison nearly impossible, but comparing in a vacuum, particularly in this edition, doesn't work at all.
I believe it's better than the alternative which is aforementioned.
I'm also fairly certain it's the metric by which GW base the cost of things (in a vacuum).
Colonel Cross wrote: Comparing in a vacuum doesn't work though. Not when there are Stratagems, regimental/hive fleet/chapter traits, and characters specifically designed to buff units. Right? It certainly makes fair comparison nearly impossible, but comparing in a vacuum, particularly in this edition, doesn't work at all.
I believe it's better than the alternative which is aforementioned.
I'm also fairly certain it's the metric by which GW base the cost of things (in a vacuum).
Colonel Cross wrote: Comparing in a vacuum doesn't work though. Not when there are Stratagems, regimental/hive fleet/chapter traits, and characters specifically designed to buff units. Right? It certainly makes fair comparison nearly impossible, but comparing in a vacuum, particularly in this edition, doesn't work at all.
I believe it's better than the alternative which is aforementioned.
I'm also fairly certain it's the metric by which GW base the cost of things (in a vacuum).
Not really, given the way synergies are woven into the game in this edition. Vacuum considerations are misleading and unrepresentative when you think of what needs to change in the pursuit of equivalent playing power.
Also, no. A 4 ppm guardsman is strictly better than a 4 ppm cultist in a vacuum, for an example. Better saves and better leadership, even by pure statline.
That same list that came in 20th at BAO also won the Boise cup GT.
And, if you follow the action you'd know that Brandon Grant was an unlucky roll away from winning his first loss, which would have had a ripple effect throughout the tournament. if that guard list got into the top 8 it could win the tournament. He had bad luck.
"Guard players winning tournaments is fake news" - Guard players
Marmatag wrote: That same list that came in 20th at BAO also won the Boise cup GT.
And, if you follow the action you'd know that Brandon Grant was an unlucky roll away from winning his first loss, which would have had a ripple effect throughout the tournament. if that guard list got into the top 8 it could win the tournament. He had bad luck.
"Guard players winning tournaments is fake news" - Guard players
By your logic, he got one lucky roll in the Boise Cup GT.
Marmatag wrote: That same list that came in 20th at BAO also won the Boise cup GT.
And, if you follow the action you'd know that Brandon Grant was an unlucky roll away from winning his first loss, which would have had a ripple effect throughout the tournament. if that guard list got into the top 8 it could win the tournament. He had bad luck.
"Guard players winning tournaments is fake news" - Guard players
By your logic, he got one lucky roll in the Boise Cup GT.
This isn't logic. It's *fact* - there is nothing to deduce here. And i've seen his guard list in action, it is terrifying.
Marmatag wrote: That same list that came in 20th at BAO also won the Boise cup GT.
And, if you follow the action you'd know that Brandon Grant was an unlucky roll away from winning his first loss, which would have had a ripple effect throughout the tournament. if that guard list got into the top 8 it could win the tournament. He had bad luck.
"Guard players winning tournaments is fake news" - Guard players
By your logic, he got one lucky roll in the Boise Cup GT.
This isn't logic. It's *fact* - there is nothing to deduce here. And i've seen his guard list in action, it is terrifying.
Facts aren't fake news.
What is the list - having trouble finding it. I see his Boise list. Huge mega orgyn squad.
Marmatag wrote: That same list that came in 20th at BAO also won the Boise cup GT.
And, if you follow the action you'd know that Brandon Grant was an unlucky roll away from winning his first loss, which would have had a ripple effect throughout the tournament. if that guard list got into the top 8 it could win the tournament. He had bad luck.
"Guard players winning tournaments is fake news" - Guard players
Guess we just need to toss out every stat we have and add a note next to all of them "theoretically these could be different had people rolled differently in each game"
Yet, funnily enough, we can discuss the merits of how guard would perform "if i had only rolled x" but nobody will discuss the statistics gathered over the entire BAO event where IG as a primary faction didn't make the top list for win % or Points earned per round (including soup builds that are very strong)
You really shouldn't paint all Guard players with the same brush.
I've played Guard since the Eye of Terror codex, and this is definitely the strongest we've been, which by extension means ever.
I think our infantry is under costed compared to other infantry. I'm good with raising Guard Infantry by a point each, lowering Marines by a point or two, and then shifting the remaining infantry in cost once that's settled.
I'd include IG as "a" codex that could, potentially, win a tournament without allies. I'd say that Knights could, potentially, but there's so much more utility in taking a few allies that it would seem foolish not to, so I doubt a tourney player would really be any to. CWE? Maybe, and I have no idea about Drukari, or whatever they're called now. Again, from a competitive perspective, Eldar soup seems easy and powerful, so I don't know if anyone would try.
Whereas Guard players tend to like our main army well enough, and currently is powerful enough, to warrant taking the shot at a tourney, without allies.
I'd be interested in seeing how non-allied results stack against each other. Do IG armies rank highest because they're the majority of non-allied armies being played?
Guard have a powerful codex that can potentially win tournaments going solo. The game currently lacks widespread efficient ways to deal with horde infantry that isn't also really good at wiping out elite infantry. Much like facing a Knight list, horde lists present a gear check for your army, and that can be tough to handle if you don't tailor towards that somewhat.
Please don't refer to Guard players as the problem, even those that disagree with you. The game design and codex are the issue, not the players of the faction. Last edition, my collection of models were crap on the table, and now they're amazing. Same models, same approach to the game, but fortune favours Guard this edition.
I wish it were better balanced. Early in the edition, I was playing my friends with a 10% handicap to help balance the games. The game has shifted since then, and we tend to play multiplayer most of the time, so I'm playing at full points again. Free-for-all games tend to balance out with the "weaker" factions combining forces to tackle the "stronger" factions in that situation.
Colonel Cross wrote: Comparing in a vacuum doesn't work though. Not when there are Stratagems, regimental/hive fleet/chapter traits, and characters specifically designed to buff units. Right? It certainly makes fair comparison nearly impossible, but comparing in a vacuum, particularly in this edition, doesn't work at all.
I believe it's better than the alternative which is aforementioned.
I'm also fairly certain it's the metric by which GW base the cost of things (in a vacuum).
Not really, given the way synergies are woven into the game in this edition. Vacuum considerations are misleading and unrepresentative when you think of what needs to change in the pursuit of equivalent playing power.
Also, no. A 4 ppm guardsman is strictly better than a 4 ppm cultist in a vacuum, for an example. Better saves and better leadership, even by pure statline.
This topic isn't about the game in it's entirety or the way synergies intertwine to make super-powerful units. This topic is about whether the cost of Guardsmen should rise to 5ppm. We've seen what happens when people start adding random stratagems, chapter tactics and other buffs to various units, check out the last 11 or so pages. It's an absolute gak storm.
Only on page 1 of thread but I hope this is repeated I only play a mono list as well.
I may find otherwise but is the core contention that a 2000 point infantry focused IG army with say 9 squads in it 90 points too cheap? 4.5%... That is some careful calibrating you are all going in for
Personally I do think the mass of troops set up is a bit too strong and makes for slow games. But they aren't necessarily too cheap given the odd way 40k games work. Where they are though is as the oft mentioned bare bones CP battery.
I would think the solution is to make base troop squads for many factions more expensive by factoring in equipment into their cost.
So sticking with guard the bare bones squad would be the 10 guys, costing 55 points.
But the cost of upgrades is changed. A vox is 1 point. Special weapons are 2 points cheaper and heavy weapons 5 points cheaper.
So before and after this mod is essentially the same cost. The difference is there is something of a punishment for those fielding guardsmen as bare bodies rather than the conscripts designed for that role. They are meant to have their gear and not taking it is now a far smaller saving.
I don't think the cost of average guardsmen is our big flaw, or if it's likely to make a large difference. I think we should be looking at balance in other areas. Maybe upping the cost of gear for AM specific units? Plasma spam is a major issue, as is mortar spam. Lets raise the costs of mortars, plasma, launchers, bullgryn shields, bullgryn mauls, anything on HQ or SGTs, etc. I think our vehicle sponson costs and extra gear costs are fine. But infantry gear needs a touch up in cost. I don't think altering model cost would affect me greatly, it's the 20 or so plasma rifles I'm ramming down your throat each turn.
An Actual Englishman wrote: This topic isn't about the game in it's entirety or the way synergies intertwine to make super-powerful units. This topic is about whether the cost of Guardsmen should rise to 5ppm. We've seen what happens when people start adding random stratagems, chapter tactics and other buffs to various units, check out the last 11 or so pages. It's an absolute gak storm.
Ok, so you want to do comparisons?
Guardsman - WS 4+, BS 4+, S3, T3, W1, A1, 5+, LD6 with a 24" rapidfire1 STR3 AP- lasgun. For 4 points.
Skitarii ranger - Is a guardsmen with a 4+, 6++ and a 30" bolter for 7 points.
Fire warrior - Is a guardsmen with a 4+ and a 30" str5 bolter for 7 points and is slightly crappier in melee.
Termagant - Is a guardsmen with a 6+, 1 less leadership, and a 12" bolter (1 shot) for 3 points.
GSC - is a guardsman with +1 leadership for 5 points.
Compared totally in a vacuum. 4 point guardsmen sound about right.
Most people don't even take gear on infantry squads. There is no reason to. You get to shoot twice with a lasgun for 4 points. It is super efficient. God forbid you have t3 and get shot by these things.
Mortars for sure are too cheap. It's a 10 point weapon at minimum.
An Actual Englishman wrote: This topic isn't about the game in it's entirety or the way synergies intertwine to make super-powerful units. This topic is about whether the cost of Guardsmen should rise to 5ppm. We've seen what happens when people start adding random stratagems, chapter tactics and other buffs to various units, check out the last 11 or so pages. It's an absolute gak storm.
Ok, so you want to do comparisons?
Guardsman - WS 4+, BS 4+, S3, T3, W1, A1, 5+, LD6 with a 24" rapidfire1 STR3 AP- lasgun.
Skitarii ranger - Is a guardsmen with a 4+, 6++ and a 30" bolter for 7 points.
Fire warrior - Is a guardsmen with a 4+ and a 30" str5 bolter for 7 points and is slightly shittier in melee.
Termagant - Is a guardsmen with a 6+, 1 less leadership, and a 12" bolter (1 shot) for 3 points.
GSC - is a guardsman with +1 leadership for 5 points.
Compared totally in a vacuum. 4 point guardsmen sound about right.
Don't forget the Skitarii Ranger also gets BS3+ as part of his 7 points.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Ironically, the only codex recently to have won a tournament without allies was SM, with a Guilliman list, if I have my brain correct.
As has been said, Brandon Grandt won the boise cup super recently with the same list that did well at BAO. It is pure guard.
And, the lists topping bao have splashes of other things. They are listed as AM and are primarily AM.
"Guard is bad. Anything else is fake news." - Guard players.
Xenomancers wrote: Mortars for sure are too cheap. It's a 10 point weapon at minimum.
*Rolls eyes* Please...
Heavy bolters are 8 points and are STR 5 AP -1. I can see a mortar going up to 8 pts because 12" more of range and the ability to ignore LOS is pretty good, but not 10 pts.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Ironically, the only codex recently to have won a tournament without allies was SM, with a Guilliman list, if I have my brain correct.
As has been said, Brandon Grandt won the boise cup super recently with the same list that did well at BAO. It is pure guard.
And, the lists topping bao have splashes of other things. They are listed as AM and are primarily AM.
"Guard is bad. Anything else is fake news." - Guard players.
Care to actually find someone who plays Guard saying they're bad?
You can find people saying they don't need nerfs, but that's not the same as saying they're bad.
An Actual Englishman wrote: This topic isn't about the game in it's entirety or the way synergies intertwine to make super-powerful units. This topic is about whether the cost of Guardsmen should rise to 5ppm. We've seen what happens when people start adding random stratagems, chapter tactics and other buffs to various units, check out the last 11 or so pages. It's an absolute gak storm.
Ok, so you want to do comparisons?
Guardsman - WS 4+, BS 4+, S3, T3, W1, A1, 5+, LD6 with a 24" rapidfire1 STR3 AP- lasgun. For 4 points.
Skitarii ranger - Is a guardsmen with a 4+, 6++ and a 30" bolter for 7 points.
Fire warrior - Is a guardsmen with a 4+ and a 30" str5 bolter for 7 points and is slightly crappier in melee.
Termagant - Is a guardsmen with a 6+, 1 less leadership, and a 12" bolter (1 shot) for 3 points.
GSC - is a guardsman with +1 leadership for 5 points.
Compared totally in a vacuum. 4 point guardsmen sound about right.
An Actual Englishman wrote: This topic isn't about the game in it's entirety or the way synergies intertwine to make super-powerful units. This topic is about whether the cost of Guardsmen should rise to 5ppm. We've seen what happens when people start adding random stratagems, chapter tactics and other buffs to various units, check out the last 11 or so pages. It's an absolute gak storm.
Ok, so you want to do comparisons?
Guardsman - WS 4+, BS 4+, S3, T3, W1, A1, 5+, LD6 with a 24" rapidfire1 STR3 AP- lasgun. For 4 points.
Skitarii ranger - Is a guardsmen with a 4+, 6++ and a 30" bolter for 7 points.
Fire warrior - Is a guardsmen with a 4+ and a 30" str5 bolter for 7 points and is slightly shittier in melee.
Termagant - Is a guardsmen with a 6+, 1 less leadership, and a 12" bolter (1 shot) for 3 points.
GSC - is a guardsman with +1 leadership for 5 points.
Compared totally in a vacuum. 4 point guardsmen sound about right.
Stop with those misleading stats
A firewarior doesn have a strength 5 bolter
Xenomancers wrote: Mortars for sure are too cheap. It's a 10 point weapon at minimum.
*Rolls eyes* Please...
Heavy bolters are 8 points and are STR 5 AP -1. I can see a mortar going up to 8 pts because 12" more of range and the ability to ignore LOS is pretty good, but not 10 pts.
Ignore LOS is strong dude. It should double the value of a weapon IMO.
Except is -1 WS on a shooty model really worth losing a point?
And if we're comparing to Catachans, they're Borkan, for a 36" range S5 Rapid Fire weapon. They can, in Dawn of War deployment, literally sit at their table edge and still hit the edge of the opponent's DZ.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Ironically, the only codex recently to have won a tournament without allies was SM, with a Guilliman list, if I have my brain correct.
As has been said, Brandon Grandt won the boise cup super recently with the same list that did well at BAO. It is pure guard.
And, the lists topping bao have splashes of other things. They are listed as AM and are primarily AM.
"Guard is bad. Anything else is fake news." - Guard players.
Care to actually find someone who plays Guard saying they're bad?
You can find people saying they don't need nerfs, but that's not the same as saying they're bad.
Saying they don't need nerfs is the same as saying they are average. Which is downright wrong. They are top teir lol.
So a fire warrior has -1WS +1Save so base worth the same as a normal guardsmen and actually worth less than a catachan due to the -1 Strength
Catachans are taking a specific doctrine, which costs 0 points. Don't want to be misleading, right?
Ok the get a S5 gun vrs a S3 gun so +2 points
So 7 -2 =5 Guardsmen
You get a S5 gun and a 4+ save, along with an extra 6" of range and rolls of 6s for Morale Tests becoming autopasses thanks to the Bonding Knife Ritual.
An Actual Englishman wrote: This topic isn't about the game in it's entirety or the way synergies intertwine to make super-powerful units. This topic is about whether the cost of Guardsmen should rise to 5ppm. We've seen what happens when people start adding random stratagems, chapter tactics and other buffs to various units, check out the last 11 or so pages. It's an absolute gak storm.
Ok, so you want to do comparisons?
Guardsman - WS 4+, BS 4+, S3, T3, W1, A1, 5+, LD6 with a 24" rapidfire1 STR3 AP- lasgun. For 4 points.
Skitarii ranger - Is a guardsmen with a 4+, 6++ and a 30" bolter for 7 points.
Fire warrior - Is a guardsmen with a 4+ and a 30" str5 bolter for 7 points and is slightly crappier in melee.
Termagant - Is a guardsmen with a 6+, 1 less leadership, and a 12" bolter (1 shot) for 3 points.
GSC - is a guardsman with +1 leadership for 5 points.
Compared totally in a vacuum. 4 point guardsmen sound about right.
There we go! Someone willing to post comparisons.
Strange though, I read everything you wrote and we came to a different conclusion.
GSC = more expensive.
Termagant = worse save, worse range and worse LD for 1 pt less.
Fire Warrior = more expensive.
Skitarii Ranger = more expensive.
The Fire Warrior and Skit Ranger are particularly telling because they're almost twice the cost. Guardians are exactly twice the cost aren't they? For WS and BS 3+, 12" range gun, LD7 and greater movement.
From your comparisons I get the feeling Guardsmen are a little too tanky for their points cost but their damage output (in a vacuum at least) is about right. This is also how I feel about them generally to be honest so perhaps it's just my natural bias. 5ppm to me is on the money. I certainly don't think it would drastically hurt Guard players.
JNAProductions wrote: Except is -1 WS on a shooty model really worth losing a point?
And if we're comparing to Catachans, they're Borkan, for a 36" range S5 Rapid Fire weapon. They can, in Dawn of War deployment, literally sit at their table edge and still hit the edge of the opponent's DZ.
Firewarriors are probably the next best troop next to gaurdsmen. Super cheap for what you get - buffed by cheap HQ's too. Gaurdsmen still compare favorable to firewarriors at 5 points. All the math has already been done. Including buffs and all that. 5 point guardsmen actually beat fire-warriors in most scenarios.
An Actual Englishman wrote: This topic isn't about the game in it's entirety or the way synergies intertwine to make super-powerful units. This topic is about whether the cost of Guardsmen should rise to 5ppm. We've seen what happens when people start adding random stratagems, chapter tactics and other buffs to various units, check out the last 11 or so pages. It's an absolute gak storm.
Ok, so you want to do comparisons?
Guardsman - WS 4+, BS 4+, S3, T3, W1, A1, 5+, LD6 with a 24" rapidfire1 STR3 AP- lasgun. For 4 points.
Skitarii ranger - Is a guardsmen with a 4+, 6++ and a 30" bolter for 7 points.
Fire warrior - Is a guardsmen with a 4+ and a 30" str5 bolter for 7 points and is slightly crappier in melee.
Termagant - Is a guardsmen with a 6+, 1 less leadership, and a 12" bolter (1 shot) for 3 points.
GSC - is a guardsman with +1 leadership for 5 points.
Compared totally in a vacuum. 4 point guardsmen sound about right.
There we go! Someone willing to post comparisons.
Strange though, I read everything you wrote and we came to a different conclusion.
GSC = more expensive.
Termagant = worse save, worse range and worse LD for 1 pt less.
Fire Warrior = more expensive.
Skitarii Ranger = more expensive.
The Fire Warrior and Skit Ranger are particularly telling because they're almost twice the cost. Guardians are exactly twice the cost aren't they? For WS and BS 3+, 12" range gun, LD7 and greater movement.
From your comparisons I get the feeling Guardsmen are a little too tanky for their points cost but their damage output (in a vacuum at least) is about right. This is also how I feel about them generally to be honest so perhaps it's just my natural bias. 5ppm to me is on the money. I certainly don't think it would drastically hurt Guard players.
Termagants are actually 4 points -not 3. It's one of the main gross comparisons you can make. How can these 2 units have the same point cost?
JNAProductions wrote: Except is -1 WS on a shooty model really worth losing a point?
And if we're comparing to Catachans, they're Borkan, for a 36" range S5 Rapid Fire weapon. They can, in Dawn of War deployment, literally sit at their table edge and still hit the edge of the opponent's DZ.
You pay for stats using them or not was the argument used against marine players so yes it's worth a point as guard can charge some other units for another round of S3/S4 attacks that hit on 4's thats not an option for firewarriors.
Sounds like skitarii at 7 are probably 8ppm if they are getting +1BS +1Sv and +1S shooting. I genuinely don't believe that the 6+inv is worth much as how often will it even come into play really?
Saying something doesn't need to be nerfed is saying that it's at a good balance point-meaning that more things should be in line with Guard (able to field many different builds and still do well, and an actual choice between various chapter tactics, for instance).
Is that incorrect? Should we balance at where Grey Knights are, instead? Or should we balance to where soup is?
JNAProductions wrote: Except is -1 WS on a shooty model really worth losing a point?
And if we're comparing to Catachans, they're Borkan, for a 36" range S5 Rapid Fire weapon. They can, in Dawn of War deployment, literally sit at their table edge and still hit the edge of the opponent's DZ.
You pay for stats using them or not was the argument used against marine players so yes it's worth a point as guard can charge some other units for another round of S3/S4 attacks that hit on 4's thats not an option for firewarriors.
Sounds like skitarii at 7 are probably 8ppm if they are getting +1BS +1Sv and +1S shooting. I genuinely don't believe that the 6+inv is worth much as how often will it even come into play really?
But hey, you pay for stats using them or not. So you gotta pay for that 6+ Invuln.
An Actual Englishman wrote: This topic isn't about the game in it's entirety or the way synergies intertwine to make super-powerful units. This topic is about whether the cost of Guardsmen should rise to 5ppm. We've seen what happens when people start adding random stratagems, chapter tactics and other buffs to various units, check out the last 11 or so pages. It's an absolute gak storm.
Ok, so you want to do comparisons?
Guardsman - WS 4+, BS 4+, S3, T3, W1, A1, 5+, LD6 with a 24" rapidfire1 STR3 AP- lasgun. For 4 points.
Skitarii ranger - Is a guardsmen with a 4+, 6++ and a 30" bolter for 7 points.
Fire warrior - Is a guardsmen with a 4+ and a 30" str5 bolter for 7 points and is slightly crappier in melee.
Termagant - Is a guardsmen with a 6+, 1 less leadership, and a 12" bolter (1 shot) for 3 points.
GSC - is a guardsman with +1 leadership for 5 points.
Compared totally in a vacuum. 4 point guardsmen sound about right.
There we go! Someone willing to post comparisons.
Strange though, I read everything you wrote and we came to a different conclusion.
GSC = more expensive.
GSC also is able to 'tank' wounds for nearby characters or become immune to Morale. Not to mention they arguably get more weapon options and they have an alternative deployment method.
Termagant = worse save, worse range and worse LD for 1 pt less.
Also able to be immune to morale simply by virtue of placement.
Fire Warrior = more expensive.
Skitarii Ranger = more expensive.
The Fire Warrior and Skit Ranger are particularly telling because they're almost twice the cost. Guardians are exactly twice the cost aren't they? For WS and BS 3+, 12" range gun, LD7 and greater movement.
Rangers and Fire Warriors are also a point higher of save with 6" longer range on their weapons.
From your comparisons I get the feeling Guardsmen are a little too tanky for their points cost but their damage output (in a vacuum at least) is about right. This is also how I feel about them generally to be honest so perhaps it's just my natural bias. 5ppm to me is on the money. I certainly don't think it would drastically hurt Guard players.
And you'd be wrong.
If people are so hellbent on Mortars and the like being OP, then start petitioning GW to restrict them to Heavy Weapon Squads instead of allowing for them to be in basic Guard squads. Push for Guard Squads to be more like Neophyte Hybrids and their weapon/squad options.
Saying something doesn't need to be nerfed is saying that it's at a good balance point-meaning that more things should be in line with Guard (able to field many different builds and still do well, and an actual choice between various chapter tactics, for instance).
Is that incorrect? Should we balance at where Grey Knights are, instead? Or should we balance to where soup is?
JNAProductions wrote: Except is -1 WS on a shooty model really worth losing a point?
And if we're comparing to Catachans, they're Borkan, for a 36" range S5 Rapid Fire weapon. They can, in Dawn of War deployment, literally sit at their table edge and still hit the edge of the opponent's DZ.
You pay for stats using them or not was the argument used against marine players so yes it's worth a point as guard can charge some other units for another round of S3/S4 attacks that hit on 4's thats not an option for firewarriors.
Sounds like skitarii at 7 are probably 8ppm if they are getting +1BS +1Sv and +1S shooting. I genuinely don't believe that the 6+inv is worth much as how often will it even come into play really?
But hey, you pay for stats using them or not. So you gotta pay for that 6+ Invuln.
But having a save and and invulnerable is redundancy of stats, slightly diffrent from a straight stat. As the 6++ only comes into play against -3AP weapons, who is shooting -3AP at infantry consistently?
JNAProductions wrote: Saying something doesn't need to be nerfed is saying that it's at a good balance point-meaning that more things should be in line with Guard (able to field many different builds and still do well, and an actual choice between various chapter tactics, for instance).
Is that incorrect? Should we balance at where Grey Knights are, instead? Or should we balance to where soup is?
JNAProductions wrote: Except is -1 WS on a shooty model really worth losing a point?
And if we're comparing to Catachans, they're Borkan, for a 36" range S5 Rapid Fire weapon. They can, in Dawn of War deployment, literally sit at their table edge and still hit the edge of the opponent's DZ.
You pay for stats using them or not was the argument used against marine players so yes it's worth a point as guard can charge some other units for another round of S3/S4 attacks that hit on 4's thats not an option for firewarriors.
Sounds like skitarii at 7 are probably 8ppm if they are getting +1BS +1Sv and +1S shooting. I genuinely don't believe that the 6+inv is worth much as how often will it even come into play really?
But hey, you pay for stats using them or not. So you gotta pay for that 6+ Invuln.
But having a save and and invulnerable is redundancy of stats, slightly diffrent from a straight stat. As the 6++ only comes into play against -3AP weapons, who is shooting -3AP at infantry consistently?
And a 3+ WS only comes into play when you get charged or charge, which Devastators pretty much should never be doing.
Either you pay for stats no matter how useful they are, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
Can you shoot and charge a target in the same turn? Yes
Is WS stat redudent no.
Can you take an armour save and an invulnerable save against the same attack no
You can use either not both you can use both BS and WS.
Though quite frankly the game could do with loosing some invulnerable saves as they have got out of hand.
Ice_can wrote: Can you shoot and charge a target in the same turn? Yes
Is WS stat redudent no.
Can you take an armour save and an invulnerable save against the same attack no
You can use either not both you can use both BS and WS.
Though quite frankly the game could do with loosing some invulnerable saves as they have got out of hand.
I look forward to seeing all those battle reports where Devastators charge into the enemy lines and their WS 3+ serves them well. Or they get charged and, only due to the ability to hit on a 3+ do they vanquish their foes and live to shoot again.
No, pointing something based on stats they don't use is dumb. Most people agree, Marines are either overcosted or underpowered, depending on whether they feel they should stay the same and get cheaper or stay the same points and get stronger.
Now, obviously Tau with WS 2+ are better than Tau with WS 5+, but not by much, since they're still one attack, S3, and no melee weapons.
Colonel Cross wrote: We're all off track here, why aren't we petitioning GW to bring back lasguns for SGTs?!
It's kinda hilarious that you can give them a FRICKIN BOLTER, but not a lasgun. A Bolter would throw a normal human on his butt after each shot, and forget about repeated rapid fire use. But no, a Lasgun is TOO MUCH GUN FOR A SGT! He'd BE OVERPOWERED! What about a str 5 ap1 weapon with rapid fire, for 1 POINT. Sure.
Colonel Cross wrote: We're all off track here, why aren't we petitioning GW to bring back lasguns for SGTs?!
All the YES. (and for the other officers too, so I can have a real rifle company!)
Anyway, back to the OP. Is the problem with Guard, the Guardsman; do they really do that much in any game? Mostly they just seem to die and maybe hold and objective while the rest of the army actually kills stuff.
Kanluwen wrote: GSC also is able to 'tank' wounds for nearby characters
Only used in combat because a meat shield surrounding a character is all the tanking they tend to need from shooting.
Kanluwen wrote: or become immune to Morale. Not to mention they arguably get more weapon options and they have an alternative deployment method.
You're bringing in other factors again. Something that is both unhelpful and spins an untrue narrative.
Kanluwen wrote: Also able to be immune to morale simply by virtue of placement.
No, not by placement but by having another model that grants this. Again, we're supposed to be ignoring outside factors because it massively skews things.
Kanluwen wrote: Rangers and Fire Warriors are also a point higher of save with 6" longer range on their weapons.
You see, it's throwaway, stupid comments like this that really don't encourage a discussion. WHY am I wrong? Provide some evidence to back up your flat statement. Don't just throw out a ton of evidence and make a statement with no evidence to back up your reasoning.
As Xeno said earlier, the comparison to Gaunts, if they are 4ppm also, is a massive tell that Guardsmen are too cheap. They are objectively better in almost every way.
Colonel Cross wrote: We're all off track here, why aren't we petitioning GW to bring back lasguns for SGTs?!
It's kinda hilarious that you can give them a FRICKIN BOLTER, but not a lasgun. A Bolter would throw a normal human on his butt after each shot, and forget about repeated rapid fire use. But no, a Lasgun is TOO MUCH GUN FOR A SGT! He'd BE OVERPOWERED! What about a str 5 ap1 weapon with rapid fire, for 1 POINT. Sure.
Eh what boltgun are you using thats S5 AP-1 as my marines need to have words with the mechanics as they only got S4 AP0 bolters
JNAProductions wrote: Saying something doesn't need to be nerfed is saying that it's at a good balance point-meaning that more things should be in line with Guard (able to field many different builds and still do well, and an actual choice between various chapter tactics, for instance).
Is that incorrect? Should we balance at where Grey Knights are, instead? Or should we balance to where soup is?
No-one is suggesting that Guard receive the Grey Knight treatment or that Grey Knights are in a good place.
I don't think increasing the cost of Guardsmen to 5ppm would do much to hurt Guard players. I don't think their codex is amazingly well balanced internally either. What place to Conscripts have when they cost the same amount of points as a Guardsman who is objectively better? They literally serve no purpose.
Kanluwen wrote: GSC also is able to 'tank' wounds for nearby characters
Only used in combat because a meat shield surrounding a character is all the tanking they tend to need from shooting.
Kanluwen wrote: or become immune to Morale. Not to mention they arguably get more weapon options and they have an alternative deployment method.
You're bringing in other factors again. Something that is both unhelpful and spins an untrue narrative.
Kanluwen wrote: Also able to be immune to morale simply by virtue of placement.
No, not by placement but by having another model that grants this. Again, we're supposed to be ignoring outside factors because it massively skews things.
Kanluwen wrote: Rangers and Fire Warriors are also a point higher of save with 6" longer range on their weapons.
You see, it's throwaway, stupid comments like this that really don't encourage a discussion. WHY am I wrong? Provide some evidence to back up your flat statement. Don't just throw out a ton of evidence and make a statement with no evidence to back up your reasoning.
As Xeno said earlier, the comparison to Gaunts, if they are 4ppm also, is a massive tell that Guardsmen are too cheap. They are objectively better in almost every way.
He's a guard apologist.
It's becoming all those facts do fit my narative time to break out the fake news excuses.
Next he'll be blaming guard going to 5ppm on the lizard people at GW spreading Xeno loving Guard hating propaganda due to incompetent marine player whinging.
It's becoming all those facts do fit my narative time to break out the fake news excuses.
Next he'll be blaming guard going to 5ppm on the lizard people at GW spreading Xeno loving Guard hating propaganda due to incompetent marine player whinging.
I lol'd.
The lizard people aren't pleasant though, to be fair.
Kanluwen wrote: GSC also is able to 'tank' wounds for nearby characters
Only used in combat because a meat shield surrounding a character is all the tanking they tend to need from shooting.
Kanluwen wrote: or become immune to Morale. Not to mention they arguably get more weapon options and they have an alternative deployment method.
You're bringing in other factors again. Something that is both unhelpful and spins an untrue narrative.
Kanluwen wrote: Also able to be immune to morale simply by virtue of placement.
No, not by placement but by having another model that grants this. Again, we're supposed to be ignoring outside factors because it massively skews things.
Kanluwen wrote: Rangers and Fire Warriors are also a point higher of save with 6" longer range on their weapons.
You see, it's throwaway, stupid comments like this that really don't encourage a discussion. WHY am I wrong? Provide some evidence to back up your flat statement. Don't just throw out a ton of evidence and make a statement with no evidence to back up your reasoning.
As Xeno said earlier, the comparison to Gaunts, if they are 4ppm also, is a massive tell that Guardsmen are too cheap. They are objectively better in almost every way.
To add to this, Guard have plenty of ways to buff their infantry,
- They can take Vox-casters
- They can get better morale (previously morale immunity but that was nerfed, which might indicate the future of GSC)
- Psychic morale immunity
- A stratagem to reduce morale loss (and not the BRB one)
- Orders (FRFSRF is the Guard's bread and butter)
- A stratagem to merge squads together
-etc..
which kanluwen always downplays while simultaneously arguing that being able to pay for a cult icon is worth a full point, but being able to take a vox caster is not.
And if you bring any of these up he says they're not worth it and then accuses you of not playing Guard, before finally saying you're just wrong with no further explanation.
Kanluwen wrote: GSC also is able to 'tank' wounds for nearby characters
Only used in combat because a meat shield surrounding a character is all the tanking they tend to need from shooting.
Sniper weapons exist. As does positioning and alternate deployment methods.
It's amazing how you're trying to just downplay what is a huge benefit for an army that relies on its characters for auras.
Kanluwen wrote: or become immune to Morale. Not to mention they arguably get more weapon options and they have an alternative deployment method.
You're bringing in other factors again. Something that is both unhelpful and spins an untrue narrative.
Do they or do they not get these things? Alternate deployment methods ARE factored into points costs when they're just baked in.
Kanluwen wrote: Also able to be immune to morale simply by virtue of placement.
No, not by placement but by having another model that grants this. Again, we're supposed to be ignoring outside factors because it massively skews things.
It really doesn't. When people try to argue crap about Orders, that's another model granting a onetime buff.
Auras are a different kettle of fish entirely. They're on until the character granting them is dead.
Kanluwen wrote: Rangers and Fire Warriors are also a point higher of save with 6" longer range on their weapons.
I read, again, they're almost twice the cost.
With notable improvements over the basic Guardsman and some fairly impressive options that affect them(Markerlights for Fire Warriors and Omnispex for Rangers...unless you want to claim that a 0 Rend weapon getting to ignore the effects of Cover isn't a big deal?).
They also start out at half the unit size and can be bolstered up, while still having effectively the same amount of specialty items as the Guard Squad can.
But you'll probably just play that off as "outside factors".
You see, it's throwaway, stupid comments like this that really don't encourage a discussion. WHY am I wrong? Provide some evidence to back up your flat statement. Don't just throw out a ton of evidence and make a statement with no evidence to back up your reasoning.
You know what else doesn't encourage a discussion? The same people continually trying to justify their reasonings while not actually knowing what they're talking about. People who want to claim that you have to "ignore outside factors" while wanting to talk about them when it suits their argument.
You want to have a productive discussion with me? Show me what you think a Guard army is supposed to be like on the tabletop. Write up an army list. Then come back and we'll talk.
As Xeno said earlier, the comparison to Gaunts, if they are 4ppm also, is a massive tell that Guardsmen are too cheap. They are objectively better in almost every way.
They're also wildly different in terms of how they function thanks to those wonderful "outside factors" you're trying to tell people they need to ignore.
Guard need a Psyker to make them immune to Morale, Tyranids just need a Synapse critter in range. Guard can't ever benefit from FRFSRF at 100% efficiency thanks to their Sergeants having no option for the same weapon as their squad...do Gaunts have that same issue?(no) Guard can't benefit from more than one Order except with two specific circumstances: a Relic and Warlord trait--one provides an additional Order to the Ordered unit on a 4+ and one allows for the Order to affect a second unit of the same type[Infantry or Tank] on a 4+.
Guard need a Psyker to make them immune to Morale, Tyranids just need a Synapse critter in range.
Guard can't ever benefit from FRFSRF at 100% efficiency thanks to their Sergeants having no option for the same weapon as their squad...do Gaunts have that same issue?(no)
Guard can't benefit from more than one Order except with two specific circumstances: a Relic and Warlord trait--one provides an additional Order to the Ordered unit on a 4+ and one allows for the Order to affect a second unit of the same type[Infantry or Tank] on a 4+.
The synapse creature pays for the synapse. If it's unbalanced then you adjust the synapse creature, not the receivers of the synapse.
So we give sergeants lasguns. yay.
It's a good thing Guard commanders are cheap. For 150 pts (3 CC and 3 PC) and a trait, Guard can buff 10 squads up to 18" away, one of which can be a merged squad.
To add to this, Guard have plenty of ways to buff their infantry, - They can take Vox-casters
Only work if the Officer issuing Orders is also within range of one, additionally Vox-Casters are limited to certain units out of the roster and their effect is not an aura.
- They can get better morale (previously morale immunity but that was nerfed, which might indicate the future of GSC)
We would have seen it in Chapter Approved last year.
Also, it still is a mandatory reroll for the morale test. Seen many Commissars lately?
- Psychic morale immunity
So, something that can be Denied. Cool.
- A stratagem to reduce morale loss (and not the BRB one)
You roll a D3 instead of a D6. Yeah, it's nice--but it's no immunity.
- Orders (FRFSRF is the Guard's bread and butter)
12" range without extending Warlord Trait or a Vox-Caster and only applies one Order to one unit at a time, automatically at a 90% effectiveness since Sergeants/Tempestors have no Lasgun or Hotshot Lasguns. Degrades by 10% every time you add a Special or Heavy Weapon in the squad.
- A stratagem to merge squads together
Incorrect. It is a Stratagem to put two Infantry Squads(it's specific to that datasheet, you can't merge Scions, Heavy Weapon Squads, Special Weapon Squads, Ratling Squads, or Veterans or anything else).
This is what I'm talking about when I mention the whole "people who misrepresent information", I might add.
-etc..
Super helpful.
which kanluwen always downplays while simultaneously arguing that being able to pay for a cult icon is worth a full point, but being able to take a vox caster is not. And if you bring any of these up he says they're not worth it and then accuses you of not playing Guard, before finally saying you're just wrong with no further explanation.
Yeah, no. Vox-Casters are worth it and have been since the removal of the nonsensical requirement to "roll to cast your Order!".
And to be brutally honest, when you're repeating the same argument repeatedly to certain people? There's no reason to give "further explanation". They know they're wrong, they know they've been proven wrong in the past but they'll just keep repeating it and there's no reason to clog up the thread with anything but "you're wrong".
Kanluwen wrote: People who want to claim that you have to "ignore outside factors" while wanting to talk about them when it suits their argument.
You just described yourself. You consistently bring up outside factors for termagants, GSC or whatever while ignoring FRFSRF because sergeants and order numbers. Orders exist so if you bring in synapse and whatnot you need to prove that synapse is sooo superior to orders that the receiving unit must pay for it but Guard infantry should not also pay for orders.
Guard need a Psyker to make them immune to Morale, Tyranids just need a Synapse critter in range.
Guard can't ever benefit from FRFSRF at 100% efficiency thanks to their Sergeants having no option for the same weapon as their squad...do Gaunts have that same issue?(no)
Guard can't benefit from more than one Order except with two specific circumstances: a Relic and Warlord trait--one provides an additional Order to the Ordered unit on a 4+ and one allows for the Order to affect a second unit of the same type[Infantry or Tank] on a 4+.
The synapse creature pays for the synapse. If it's unbalanced then you adjust the synapse creature, not the receivers of the synapse.
And yet we had Conscripts changed to only receive Orders on a 4+...
So we give sergeants lasguns. yay.
It's a good thing Guard commanders are cheap. For 150 pts (3 CC and 3 PC) and a trait, Guard can buff 10 squads up to 18" away, one of which can be a merged squad.
So in order for your thing to work:
You need to be playing Cadians and you need to have Vox-Casters on every squad.
So your 150 pts just morphed to 200pts.
Kanluwen wrote: People who want to claim that you have to "ignore outside factors" while wanting to talk about them when it suits their argument.
You just described yourself. You consistently bring up outside factors for termagants, GSC or whatever while ignoring FRFSRF because sergeants and order numbers. Orders exist so if you bring in synapse and whatnot you need to prove that synapse is sooo superior to orders that the receiving unit must pay for it but Guard infantry should not also pay for orders.
You've claimed that I "downplay it" but realistically if you're going to argue that FRFSRF is such a huge factor for Infantry Squads that we need to see a point increase on them, you can bet that I'll point out that Sergeants are immediately contributing to a degradation of the Order's effectiveness and that Orders have a finite number in the army.
A Cadian army is more likely to be issuing "Take Aim!" to its Infantry Squads that remain stationary, since that affects all weapons in the squad and allows them to reroll all failed to hit rolls.
Bring enough guns so you don't have to choose between the 1st knight and the 2nd knight. [LIST BUILDING]
Tyel wrote: There is how to abuse the assault rules optimally.
Need to bring units that can effectively "abuse" assault rule (not sure why you're saying it's abuse when it's RAW and not any form of exploitation of rules..) [LIST BUILDING]
Tyel wrote: There is remembering the objectives and whether you push them, or don't.
One of the few existing tactics left in the game. Usually irrelevant because table wipe happens before VP from objectives matter.
Tyel wrote: The game is about stacking the odds in your favour.
As you've agreed, [LIST BUILDING]
Don't get me wrong. There are plenty decisions that needs to be made in game. But win/loss largely (by a near 99% margin) depends on list building.
Kanluwen wrote: Sniper weapons exist. As does positioning and alternate deployment methods.
It's amazing how you're trying to just downplay what is a huge benefit for an army that relies on its characters for auras.
Sniper weapons don't exist across every faction, I don't see them in mine for example. Most of my friends' snipers don't seem to achieve much. Positioning? It's not hard to block a character from shooting. What exactly do you mean by 'alternate deployment methods'? Turn 2 DS and the like? It's really not difficult to screen it out.
I think you're really, really overplaying this, personally.
Kanluwen wrote: Do they or do they not get these things? Alternate deployment methods ARE factored into points costs when they're just baked in.
They don't get all the things you mentioned for free, no. "More weapon options" isn't necessarily a benefit.
Kanluwen wrote: It really doesn't. When people try to argue crap about Orders, that's another model granting a onetime buff.
Auras are a different kettle of fish entirely. They're on until the character granting them is dead.
It absolutely does skew things. You're purposefully doing it here to try and justify your position.
Kanluwen wrote: With notable improvements over the basic Guardsman and some fairly impressive options that affect them(Markerlights for Fire Warriors and Omnispex for Rangers...unless you want to claim that a 0 Rend weapon getting to ignore the effects of Cover isn't a big deal?).
They also start out at half the unit size and can be bolstered up, while still having effectively the same amount of specialty items as the Guard Squad can.
"Notable improvements" meaning 4+ save and worse WS? A better gun? Anything else that's actually built into the unit and not an outside factor? Not sure on the relevance of the unit size for this comparison?
Kanluwen wrote: But you'll probably just play that off as "outside factors".
Nope, just irrelevant and/or false.
Kanluwen wrote: You know what else doesn't encourage a discussion? The same people continually trying to justify their reasonings while not actually knowing what they're talking about. People who want to claim that you have to "ignore outside factors" while wanting to talk about them when it suits their argument.
I have done neither, I've followed this thread for a while, watched it devolve into a mess and decided to offer a solution to help shed light rather than have people just throw gak at each other. I have ignored outside factors for every comparison because that is objective and I believe it is far more clear.
Kanluwen wrote: You want to have a productive discussion with me? Show me what you think a Guard army is supposed to be like on the tabletop. Write up an army list. Then come back and we'll talk.
What on Earth has this got to do with whether Guardsmen should be 5ppm or not? We're talking about a specific unit, not an army list or build. Frankly I couldn't care less how a Guard army "looks" or is "supposed to be", that's up to the player.
Kanluwen wrote: They're also wildly different in terms of how they function thanks to those wonderful "outside factors" you're trying to tell people they need to ignore.
We can include function if you wish but I don't think it will go well for anyone claiming that Guardsmen are at the right points level. As I said in my first post, my belief is that they are, point for point, the most efficient and effective objective holder in the game right now bar none. Holding objectives literally wins games.
Kanluwen wrote: Guard need a Psyker to make them immune to Morale, Tyranids just need a Synapse critter in range.
Guard can't ever benefit from FRFSRF at 100% efficiency thanks to their Sergeants having no option for the same weapon as their squad...do Gaunts have that same issue?(no)
Guard can't benefit from more than one Order except with two specific circumstances: a Relic and Warlord trait--one provides an additional Order to the Ordered unit on a 4+ and one allows for the Order to affect a second unit of the same type[Infantry or Tank] on a 4+.
I'm not sure why you're talking about orders and synapse when I've repeatedly asked you to discuss only the units and their stats in a vacuum? I know you might not be used to it. You might not even think it's useful. But why not humour me?
Only work if the Officer issuing Orders is also within range of one, additionally Vox-Casters are limited to certain units out of the roster and their effect is not an aura.
So? They can take them and they do buff guard. I never claimed otherwise.
Watch this: Synapse isn't good because if you leave synapse range your units just suck.
We would have seen it in Chapter Approved last year.
Also, it still is a mandatory reroll for the morale test. Seen many Commissars lately?
Or in their shiny new codex right?
It's an optional roll now. Talk about misinformation
So, something that can be Denied. Cool.
Remember that thing I said about you downplaying things?
You roll a D3 instead of a D6. Yeah, it's nice--but it's no immunity.
Never said immunity. But again, you downplay it despite it being a legit buff. For this list you should consider a yes/no question. is it a buff or not?
12" range without extending Warlord Trait or a Vox-Caster and only applies one Order to one unit at a time, automatically at a 90% effectiveness since Sergeants/Tempestors have no Lasgun or Hotshot Lasguns. Degrades by 10% every time you add a Special or Heavy Weapon in the squad.
More downplaying. FRFSRF is objectively good. Sergeants should get lasguns so that would solve that. There's also "move, move, move" "get back in the fight" etc... that really really boost Guard options.
Incorrect. It is a Stratagem to put two Infantry Squads(it's specific to that datasheet, you can't merge Scions, Heavy Weapon Squads, Special Weapon Squads, Ratling Squads, or Veterans or anything else).
What are you? A lawyer? In the context of the discussion I assumed you would understand it as "Infantry Squad". I guess I should run my posts by an editor first.
This is what I'm talking about when I mention the whole "people who misrepresent information", I might add.
*looks at point 2* hmmm...
-etc..
Super helpful.
ditto
Yeah, no. Vox-Casters are worth it and have been since the removal of the nonsensical requirement to "roll to cast your Order!".
Hmm, I seem to remember you downplaying the worth of vox-casters. Maybe I interpolated your stance a tad too far.
And to be brutally honest, when you're repeating the same argument repeatedly to certain people? There's no reason to give "further explanation". They know they're wrong, they know they've been proven wrong in the past but they'll just keep repeating it and there's no reason to clog up the thread with anything but "you're wrong".
Then maybe you should consider a new argument? Or maybe consider that your argument is at least partly wrong?
And yet we had Conscripts changed to only receive Orders on a 4+...
Yeah, and it didn't solve the problem. It wasn't until commissars were nerfed that conscripts were actually nerfed. Thanks for proving my point.
So in order for your thing to work:
You need to be playing Cadians and you need to have Vox-Casters on every squad.
So your 150 pts just morphed to 200pts.
Your honor! This is misinformation!
- Master of Command gives you +1 order, and is available to everyone.
- the 150 pts is just the commanders. You can pay for vox-casters if you want them, perhaps I should have said "potentially up to 18" "
You've claimed that I "downplay it" but realistically if you're going to argue that FRFSRF is such a huge factor for Infantry Squads that we need to see a point increase on them, you can bet that I'll point out that Sergeants are immediately contributing to a degradation of the Order's effectiveness and that Orders have a finite number in the army.
You really should keep track of what is an argument and what is a counter argument. YOU claimed (or at least strongly insinuated) that outside buffs should be considered in the cost of units, such as termagants. I was merely applying that logic to Guard to show it's absurdity.
A Cadian army is more likely to be issuing "Take Aim!" to its Infantry Squads that remain stationary, since that affects all weapons in the squad and allows them to reroll all failed to hit rolls.
So an order was exchanged for another better order, and this proves what?. but that's still Cadians, I'm sure Steel Legion would rather FRFSRF.
Strange though, I read everything you wrote and we came to a different conclusion.
GSC = more expensive.
Termagant = worse save, worse range and worse LD for 1 pt less.
Fire Warrior = more expensive.
Skitarii Ranger = more expensive.
The Fire Warrior and Skit Ranger are particularly telling because they're almost twice the cost. Guardians are exactly twice the cost aren't they? For WS and BS 3+, 12" range gun, LD7 and greater movement.
From your comparisons I get the feeling Guardsmen are a little too tanky for their points cost but their damage output (in a vacuum at least) is about right. This is also how I feel about them generally to be honest so perhaps it's just my natural bias. 5ppm to me is on the money. I certainly don't think it would drastically hurt Guard players.
My bad, I thought termagaunts were 3 points.
I don't think it's fair to dismiss the fire warrior and skitarii ranger comparisons simply because they are "more expensive".
If guardsmen were 5 points, do you really think a 4+ save, a 6++, an extra 6" on their gun, +1 S on their gun, and 3+ BS are worth 2 points? - Ranger
If guardsmen were 5 points, do you really think a 4+ save, an extra 6" on their gun, +2 S on their gun, and tougher moral is worth -1 WS and 2 points? -Fire Warrior
I don't see anyone claiming fire warriors or rangers are OP. Unless you are, but at that point if every faction's basic infantry is "OP" to you maybe you should consider that what you think is "OP" is wrong. SM and GK are comically, comically bad this edition, and they should not be considered as a fair "balancing point".
Maybe termagaunts should be 3 points instead of 4.
Maybe grots should be 2 points?
Additionally, 5ppm won't hurt guard CP batteries, as they buy the minimum amount of IS squads to achieve the CP points, but it will hurt mono-guard players like me, who are looking at roughly 20 less bodies in my 2,000 pt list and I don't even play an infantry heavy list. Going from 4ppm to 5ppm is a 25% increase in cost.
Strange though, I read everything you wrote and we came to a different conclusion.
GSC = more expensive.
Termagant = worse save, worse range and worse LD for 1 pt less.
Fire Warrior = more expensive.
Skitarii Ranger = more expensive.
The Fire Warrior and Skit Ranger are particularly telling because they're almost twice the cost. Guardians are exactly twice the cost aren't they? For WS and BS 3+, 12" range gun, LD7 and greater movement.
From your comparisons I get the feeling Guardsmen are a little too tanky for their points cost but their damage output (in a vacuum at least) is about right. This is also how I feel about them generally to be honest so perhaps it's just my natural bias. 5ppm to me is on the money. I certainly don't think it would drastically hurt Guard players.
My bad, I thought termagaunts were 3 points.
I don't think it's fair to dismiss the fire warrior and skitarii ranger comparisons simply because they are "more expensive".
If guardsmen were 5 points, do you really think a 4+ save, a 6++, an extra 6" on their gun, +1 S on their gun, and 3+ BS are worth 2 points? - Ranger
Rangers should probably be 8ppm as even vrs the other 7ppm firewarriors they have advantages for no points cost.
At 8pp vrs 5ppm Guardsmen yeah that's pretty fair IMHO If guardsmen were 5 points, do you really think a 4+ save, an extra 6" on their gun, +2 S on their gun, and tougher moral is worth -1 WS and 2 points? -Fire Warrior
Yes as the only thing you've brought up is moral but much like marines even with their lower leadership as they are mainly taken MSU without some other leadership countering HQ so like ATSKNF it never comes into play people over kill the squad or ignore them.
I don't see anyone claiming fire warriors or rangers are OP. Unless you are, but at that point if every faction's basic infantry is "OP" to you maybe you should consider that what you think is "OP" is wrong.
Maybe termagaunts should be 3 points instead of 4.
Maybe grots should be 2 points?
Additionally, 5ppm won't hurt guard CP batteries, as they buy the minimum amount of IS squads to achieve the CP points, but it will hurt mono-guard players like me, who are looking at roughly 20 less bodies in my 2,000 pt list and I don't even play an infantry heavy list.
Why do you keep bringing up CP batteries thats not the point of 5ppm Guardsmen it that with a 5+Sv and no decent any horde weapons they can just camp ovjectives and win games.
Nothing in the game counters them effectively that guard cant just out shoot while outsurving them point for point.
Infantry Squads are better than 4ppm units
Infantry Squads are better than Firewarriors at 4ppm and 7ppm respectively.
Infantry Squads are better than everything that competes with them for obsec objective camping
w1zard wrote: My bad, I thought termagaunts were 3 points.
I don't think it's fair to dismiss the fire warrior and skitarii ranger comparisons simply because they are "more expensive".
If guardsmen were 5 points, do you really think a 4+ save, a 6++, an extra 6" on their gun, +1 S on their gun, and 3+ BS are worth 2 points? - Ranger
If guardsmen were 5 points, do you really think a 4+ save, an extra 6" on their gun, +2 S on their gun, and tougher moral is worth -1 WS and 2 points? -Fire Warrior
I don't see anyone claiming fire warriors or rangers are OP. Unless you are, but at that point if every faction's basic infantry is "OP" to you maybe you should consider that what you think is "OP" is wrong.
Maybe termagaunts should be 3 points instead of 4.
Maybe grots should be 2 points?
Additionally, 5ppm won't hurt guard CP batteries, as they buy the minimum amount of IS squads to achieve the CP points, but it will hurt mono-guard players like me, who are looking at roughly 20 less bodies in my 2,000 pt list and I don't even play an infantry heavy list.
I mean, the Fire Warrior and Skit Ranger are almost twice the cost. So for every one of those bodies I have 2 Guardsmen near as damn it. That's a pretty big differential.
To answer your specific questions though - perhaps Rangers are also too cheap but because they still cost 7 pts they aren't spammed as much? I think the 6++ save is a bit of a red herring, it'll very rarely come into play. I wouldn't think of the 4+, extra 6" and STR on their weapon and 3+ BS as "worth 2 points" but instead as a percentage increase, they're 140% of the cost or a 40% increase which sounds a lot more reasonable.
The same goes for the Fire Warrior.
We're not here to discuss whether the Fire Warrior or Rangers are "OP" or not. We're not here to discuss whether Guardsmen are OP or not. We're here to discuss whether Guardsmen are appropriately priced for their stats and whether their price should increase to 5ppm.
5ppm won't hurt mono-guard players too much I don't think. 20% less bodies won't hurt and I'm sure you'll find other efficiencies elsewhere to make up for the shortfall.
Soup and CP batteries is another mess entirely that probably deserves it's own thread. I'm not a fan. But that's not a topic for discussion here.
Only work if the Officer issuing Orders is also within range of one, additionally Vox-Casters are limited to certain units out of the roster and their effect is not an aura.
So? They can take them and they do buff guard. I never claimed otherwise.
Watch this: Synapse isn't good because if you leave synapse range your units just suck.
What's Synapse range again? What all grants Synapse?
We would have seen it in Chapter Approved last year.
Also, it still is a mandatory reroll for the morale test. Seen many Commissars lately?
Or in their shiny new codex right?
It's an optional roll now. Talk about misinformation
You're right, they changed it as of April 16th. That's my bad.
Doesn't change my point about seeing Commissars though.
So, something that can be Denied. Cool.
Remember that thing I said about you downplaying things?
You roll a D3 instead of a D6. Yeah, it's nice--but it's no immunity.
Never said immunity. But again, you downplay it despite it being a legit buff. For this list you should consider a yes/no question. is it a buff or not?
It being a buff doesn't change that it's not as impressive as some stuff that existed.
12" range without extending Warlord Trait or a Vox-Caster and only applies one Order to one unit at a time, automatically at a 90% effectiveness since Sergeants/Tempestors have no Lasgun or Hotshot Lasguns. Degrades by 10% every time you add a Special or Heavy Weapon in the squad.
More downplaying.
So downplaying, in your mind, is stating a fact? Good to know.
FRFSRF is objectively good. Sergeants should get lasguns so that would solve that.
FRFSRF is objectively good when you're running Conscripts as part of an allied contingent or running bare Infantry Squads as meatshields--or There's also "move, move, move" "get back in the fight" etc... that really really boost Guard options.
"Get Back in the Fight" allows for you to pull a unit out of combat and then they get to shoot normally.
Mx3 is basically just Advancing twice.
In any regards, if you get any of those Orders--you can't get FRFSRF'd outside of a 4+ with Laurels of Command.
Incorrect. It is a Stratagem to put two Infantry Squads(it's specific to that datasheet, you can't merge Scions, Heavy Weapon Squads, Special Weapon Squads, Ratling Squads, or Veterans or anything else).
What are you? A lawyer? In the context of the discussion I assumed you would understand it as "Infantry Squad". I guess I should run my posts by an editor first.
You're correct that I would understand it as "Infantry Squads", but this is a public forum and we're not engaged in private messaging.
This is what I'm talking about when I mention the whole "people who misrepresent information", I might add.
*looks at point 2* hmmm...
Yep, I messed up. It happens sometimes--especially with a unit that got an absolutely minor word change to not be absolutely never take to maybe take.
Yeah, no. Vox-Casters are worth it and have been since the removal of the nonsensical requirement to "roll to cast your Order!".
Hmm, I seem to remember you downplaying the worth of vox-casters. Maybe I interpolated your stance a tad too far.
My "downplaying the worth of vox-casters" is less about the points value and more about the way they work.
In order for a unit to benefit from Vox-Casters, the Officers issuing the Orders have to be within 3" of a Vox-Caster themselves--or you can burn 1CP to give a Chimera the same effect for a turn. Add to it that 5 units(Veterans, Infantry Squads, Scions, and Command Squads of both Company and Scion flavors) have Vox-Casters it becomes a bit questionable to try to use Vox-Casters as justification for a price bump on Infantry Squads by themselves. The Officers still have to be in range of Special and Heavy Weapon Squads, can't issue Orders to any Auxilia(I'm fine with this mind you--just pointing out that things like Ratlings and Ogryn can't benefit from them, as some people seem to think they can) or Scions.
It doesn't allow for two orders to be placed, it doesn't do anything fancy. It just boosts the range up by 6" for 5 pts.
And to be brutally honest, when you're repeating the same argument repeatedly to certain people? There's no reason to give "further explanation". They know they're wrong, they know they've been proven wrong in the past but they'll just keep repeating it and there's no reason to clog up the thread with anything but "you're wrong".
Then maybe you should consider a new argument? Or maybe consider that your argument is at least partly wrong?
The same thing could be said to a great many of the people who argue things like "FRFSRF makes them broken" or "They're the cheapest infantry in the game!" and when faced with the argument of "Well, let's give them some stuff to boost up the points cost then!" will then decry it as me trying to get "something for nothing".
If you want Guard Infantry Squads to be sitting at 5 ppm(the same as a faction that has auras that give flat benefits and alternate deployment methods) or even at 7 or 8ppm--you have to accept that it will radically alter the dynamic of the Guard.
If you want Guard Officers to be sitting at a higher points cost, you have to accept that there will have to be significant mechanical changes to the way the Order System works.
I've put forward ideas in the past. The same people who argue against cheap infantry have argued against reworking the army into a more points intensive army.
I don't think it's fair to dismiss the fire warrior and skitarii ranger comparisons simply because they are "more expensive".
If guardsmen were 5 points, do you really think a 4+ save, a 6++, an extra 6" on their gun, +1 S on their gun, and 3+ BS are worth two points? - Ranger
If guardsmen were 5 points, do you really think a 4+ save, an extra 6" on their gun, +2 S on their gun, and tougher moral is worth -1 WS and 2 points? -Fire Warrior
I don't see anyone claiming fire warriors or rangers are OP. Unless you are, but at that point if every faction's basic infantry is "OP" to you maybe you should consider that what you think is "OP" is wrong.
Maybe termagaunts should be 3 points instead of 4.
Mathematically and in a vacuum, 5pt guard are about on par when fighting 7pt fire warriors. Those 2 pts represent a 40% increase in cost, which is like the difference between a tactical marine and an intercessor, which accounts for +1 wound, +1 attack and +1 AP.
Durability-wise (with 5pt guard):
With 40 botlgun hits
- Kills 13.33 FW = 93 pts
- Kills 17.77 Guard= 89 pts
So per point they are equivalent
However, against marines:
- It takes 9 FW (63 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
- It takes 18 Guard ( 90 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
Guard lose out. They still have access to special weapons and FW have a turret.
- 5 FW+1 SMS (50 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
- 7 guard+1plasma+1HB (50 pts) to kill 1 MEQ
Martel732 wrote: This is exactly 7th ed eldar apologist logic and its nauseating.
No you see the scat-bike might be double the points of a tactical marine, but with jink, and a 4 shot S6 gun, and that free move, and really fast movement generally, you know, its the same.
Look Eldar might have made up 30% of all tournament lists.
But they didn't win every single tournament ever.
So its fine.
And yet we had Conscripts changed to only receive Orders on a 4+...
Yeah, and it didn't solve the problem. It wasn't until commissars were nerfed that conscripts were actually nerfed. Thanks for proving my point.
Except remember that the solutions came at the same time. Commissars got nerfed not long after the book dropped, and the book dropping is what added the Orders on a 4+.
So in order for your thing to work:
You need to be playing Cadians and you need to have Vox-Casters on every squad.
So your 150 pts just morphed to 200pts.
Your honor! This is misinformation!
- Master of Command gives you +1 order, and is available to everyone.
- the 150 pts is just the commanders. You can pay for vox-casters if you want them, perhaps I should have said "potentially up to 18" "
My bad, I was assuming that you'd go for more Order synergy via Cadians and their "4+ gives two units the same Order instead of 1 unit getting Orders".
You've claimed that I "downplay it" but realistically if you're going to argue that FRFSRF is such a huge factor for Infantry Squads that we need to see a point increase on them, you can bet that I'll point out that Sergeants are immediately contributing to a degradation of the Order's effectiveness and that Orders have a finite number in the army.
You really should keep track of what is an argument and what is a counter argument. YOU claimed (or at least strongly insinuated) that outside buffs should be considered in the cost of units, such as termagants. I was merely applying that logic to Guard to show it's absurdity.
I think you're misunderstanding my argument in this case.
I'm trying to say that you shouldn't factor out Auras when it comes to pointing things. You can always rely on an aura being active, as long as you're in range. You cannot always rely on a specific Order's effectiveness being present since Infantry Squads are effectively in the same boat as a Tactical Squad when it comes to loadouts.
A Cadian army is more likely to be issuing "Take Aim!" to its Infantry Squads that remain stationary, since that affects all weapons in the squad and allows them to reroll all failed to hit rolls.
So an order was exchanged for another better order, and this proves what?. but that's still Cadians, I'm sure Steel Legion would rather FRFSRF.
"Take Aim" is reroll 1s to Hits.
Cadians get a Regimental bonus where if the unit remains stationary, it gets to reroll all to Hits instead.
Steel Legion would more likely use their own Order("Mount Up!"--fire and then embark), assuming they didn't Disembark that turn.
Mordians are more likely to use their own Order, "Form Firing Squad!"(can target characters with Rapid Fire weapons even if not the closest unit)
There's quite a few Regimental specific Orders that give a bit more benefit in certain circumstances than FRFSRF.
Steel Legion would more likely use their own Order("Mount Up!"--fire and then embark), assuming they didn't Disembark that turn.
Mordians are more likely to use their own Order, "Form Firing Squad!"(can target characters with Rapid Fire weapons even if not the closest unit)
There's quite a few Regimental specific Orders that give a bit more benefit in certain circumstances than FRFSRF.
i've got things to do so I'll just reply to this:
Steel Legion in all likelihood will use FRFSRF more than mount up because you cannot disembark and use the order. So they will disembark, FRFSRF, try to survive then mount up. And if they die then no mount up at all.
In case you couldn't tell I love playing Steel Legion, 18" rapid fire is just sooo good. Now, maybe this has skewed my perception of FRFSRF, but it's hard to tell.
Steel Legion would more likely use their own Order("Mount Up!"--fire and then embark), assuming they didn't Disembark that turn.
Mordians are more likely to use their own Order, "Form Firing Squad!"(can target characters with Rapid Fire weapons even if not the closest unit)
There's quite a few Regimental specific Orders that give a bit more benefit in certain circumstances than FRFSRF.
i've got things to do so I'll just reply to this:
Steel Legion in all likelihood will use FRFSRF more than mount up because you cannot disembark and use the order. So they will disembark, FRFSRF, try to survive then mount up. And if they die then no mount up at all.
In case you couldn't tell I love playing Steel Legion, 18" rapid fire is just sooo good. Now, maybe this has skewed my perception of FRFSRF, but it's hard to tell.
There's a reason why I put the caveat of "Assuming they didn't Disembark that turn".
I think it's important to remember that I'm not arguing that FRFSRF isn't good--but it isn't the end all, be all it used to be.
Yeah, when I don't have good points I just start telling people they should be banned for disagreeing with me.
You've been disagreeing with me for days, and I've been disagreeing with others on here for years. I said you should be banned for disrupting discussion, something entirely different and something you are purposefully doing now.
Asmodios wrote: If finishing 20th at a GT makes your army broken every army in the game is.
Guard didn't finish 20th tho. They finished 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and three other places in the top 10.
You said armies taking an allied detachment don't count - that's the only reason we are looking at this 20th placing to begin with. 20 armies did not beat them without the use of allies, so by your own measure, that makes IG a top 2 placing by your own ridiculous arbitrary restrictions, that have zero basis in how this game is actually played, and TBH reflect nothing competitively.
Without your restrictions Guard were even more dominant. You have talked yourself into this hole, don't try and argue out of it by acting as though it makes any sense to argue that Guard is weak, just because mixing 3 other dexes together in one army placed higher than SOLO Guard, while excluding all allied detachment of Guard or even Guard primary's from the discussion if they included even a single ally. You keep whining about Nurgle, so apply the same standards, and compare how high the solo Nurgle did to Guard. There is nothing even remotely resembling objectivity here.
As others have said, you are just being absurd. You know you're wrong, we know you're wrong, even other Guard players have agreed you're wrong. Nothing you are saying is even making sense anymore. Your low level understanding of this game has collapsed beneath stronger logic. So now you're relying on gak like this:
Asmodios wrote: Please post pics of all your first place finishes I’d love to see them
Really? this is the prerequisite for him having an opinion now? You mind matching that same requirement first, before continuing to talk on the exact same topic he is? Sounds like you just don't like what he's saying, I don't blame you because your second grader logic is not withstanding any sort of scrutiny here
Dandelion wrote: Mathematically and in a vacuum, 5pt guard are about on par when fighting 7pt fire warriors. Those 2 pts represent a 40% increase in cost, which is like the difference between a tactical marine and an intercessor, which accounts for +1 wound, +1 attack and +1 AP.
Durability-wise (with 5pt guard):
With 40 botlgun hits
- Kills 13.33 FW = 93 pts
- Kills 17.77 Guard= 89 pts
So per point they are equivalent
However, against marines:
- It takes 9 FW (63 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
- It takes 18 Guard ( 90 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
Guard lose out. They still have access to special weapons and FW have a turret.
- 5 FW+1 SMS (50 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
- 7 guard+1plasma+1HB (50 pts) to kill 1 MEQ
I'm fine with this.
Math checks out, fair enough.
But, you are forgetting that fire warriors have better morale then guardsmen due to bonding knife ritual.
Also, if guardsmen go up to 5 pts, then GSC will have to be nerfed as they will be pretty much guardsmen +1L and with better deployment options for the same price.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I mean, the Fire Warrior and Skit Ranger are almost twice the cost. So for every one of those bodies I have 2 Guardsmen near as damn it. That's a pretty big differential.
To answer your specific questions though - perhaps Rangers are also too cheap but because they still cost 7 pts they aren't spammed as much? I think the 6++ save is a bit of a red herring, it'll very rarely come into play. I wouldn't think of the 4+, extra 6" and STR on their weapon and 3+ BS as "worth 2 points" but instead as a percentage increase, they're 140% of the cost or a 40% increase which sounds a lot more reasonable.
The same goes for the Fire Warrior.
We're not here to discuss whether the Fire Warrior or Rangers are "OP" or not. We're not here to discuss whether Guardsmen are OP or not. We're here to discuss whether Guardsmen are appropriately priced for their stats and whether their price should increase to 5ppm.
5ppm won't hurt mono-guard players too much I don't think. 20% less bodies won't hurt and I'm sure you'll find other efficiencies elsewhere to make up for the shortfall.
Soup and CP batteries is another mess entirely that probably deserves it's own thread. I'm not a fan. But that's not a topic for discussion here.
Steel Legion would more likely use their own Order("Mount Up!"--fire and then embark), assuming they didn't Disembark that turn.
Mordians are more likely to use their own Order, "Form Firing Squad!"(can target characters with Rapid Fire weapons even if not the closest unit)
There's quite a few Regimental specific Orders that give a bit more benefit in certain circumstances than FRFSRF.
i've got things to do so I'll just reply to this:
Steel Legion in all likelihood will use FRFSRF more than mount up because you cannot disembark and use the order. So they will disembark, FRFSRF, try to survive then mount up. And if they die then no mount up at all.
In case you couldn't tell I love playing Steel Legion, 18" rapid fire is just sooo good. Now, maybe this has skewed my perception of FRFSRF, but it's hard to tell.
There's a reason why I put the caveat of "Assuming they didn't Disembark that turn".
I think it's important to remember that I'm not arguing that FRFSRF isn't good--but it isn't the end all, be all it used to be.
When Lasguns are better than ever, I'd say yes it's the be-all-end-all.
Bring enough guns so you don't have to choose between the 1st knight and the 2nd knight. [LIST BUILDING]
Tyel wrote: There is how to abuse the assault rules optimally.
Need to bring units that can effectively "abuse" assault rule (not sure why you're saying it's abuse when it's RAW and not any form of exploitation of rules..) [LIST BUILDING]
Tyel wrote: There is remembering the objectives and whether you push them, or don't.
One of the few existing tactics left in the game. Usually irrelevant because table wipe happens before VP from objectives matter.
Tyel wrote: The game is about stacking the odds in your favour.
As you've agreed, [LIST BUILDING]
Don't get me wrong. There are plenty decisions that needs to be made in game. But win/loss largely (by a near 99% margin) depends on list building.
It's 60% list building 35% dice 5% decision making.
You play with many lasguns, Slayer? Ever roll 100 lasgun attacks? Guess how many wounds you get, vs MEQ?
Spoiler:
100/2/3/3 = 5.55. Usually, between 4 and 7 wounds. I usually take a Plasmagun, and a Heavy in my squads, so that leaves 6 guys with Lasguns to fire. Optimally, with everyone SOMEHOW within 12", that would require 5 squads, each with FRF, SRF active to accomplish that volume of firepower.
Assuming you had 2 squads in Rapid Fire range, and didn't take any upgrades, and you had 2 squads outside of Rapid Fire range, without upgrades, and issue FRF, SRF to all 4 squads, you'd have 108 shots.
Seriously, FRF SRF seems scary until you try to apply it in a game. I need to get 2 FULL units of Guardsmen within 12" of something, somehow, without them suffering casualties, and then another 2 FULL units of Guardsmen within 13 to 24 of the same target, somehow, without them suffering casualties, to reliably kill 5 MEQ, most of the time. 108 attacks to reliably kill 5 MEQ, in the open, no less.
Let's say Guardsmen are 5 points per model. That's 200 points of Dudes, plus another 60 points of non-upgraded commanders. 260 points. Going full optimization towards this endeavor. Drop them back to 4 points each, you're looking at 220 points, to reliably delete those 5 Marines, in the open, most of the time.
FRF, SRF makes lasguns NOT entirely, absolutely worthless. Without FRF, SRF, You'd need 70 Guardsmen, half in Rapid Fire range, to reliably inflict 5 wounds, most of the time, against MEQ in the open. 280 points of pure Guardsmen, no upgrades, to wipe a combat squad... standing in the open... having taken no casualties... and somehow getting 35 Guardsmen within 12" and LOS...
Guard are strong, but the belief they're somehow a magical army that winds up in these make-believe scenarios where they are at full strength in ideal circumstances, I think if you haven't tried it, you don't know what you're talking about.
greatbigtree wrote: You play with many lasguns, Slayer? Ever roll 100 lasgun attacks? Guess how many wounds you get, vs MEQ?
Spoiler:
100/2/3/3 = 5.55. Usually, between 4 and 7 wounds. I usually take a Plasmagun, and a Heavy in my squads, so that leaves 6 guys with Lasguns to fire. Optimally, with everyone SOMEHOW within 12", that would require 5 squads, each with FRF, SRF active to accomplish that volume of firepower.
Assuming you had 2 squads in Rapid Fire range, and didn't take any upgrades, and you had 2 squads outside of Rapid Fire range, without upgrades, and issue FRF, SRF to all 4 squads, you'd have 108 shots.
Seriously, FRF SRF seems scary until you try to apply it in a game. I need to get 2 FULL units of Guardsmen within 12" of something, somehow, without them suffering casualties, and then another 2 FULL units of Guardsmen within 13 to 24 of the same target, somehow, without them suffering casualties, to reliably kill 5 MEQ, most of the time. 108 attacks to reliably kill 5 MEQ, in the open, no less.
Let's say Guardsmen are 5 points per model. That's 200 points of Dudes, plus another 60 points of non-upgraded commanders. 260 points. Going full optimization towards this endeavor. Drop them back to 4 points each, you're looking at 220 points, to reliably delete those 5 Marines, in the open, most of the time.
FRF, SRF makes lasguns NOT entirely, absolutely worthless. Without FRF, SRF, You'd need 70 Guardsmen, half in Rapid Fire range, to reliably inflict 5 wounds, most of the time, against MEQ in the open. 280 points of pure Guardsmen, no upgrades, to wipe a combat squad... standing in the open... having taken no casualties... and somehow getting 35 Guardsmen within 12" and LOS...
Guard are strong, but the belief they're somehow a magical army that winds up in these make-believe scenarios where they are at full strength in ideal circumstances, I think if you haven't tried it, you don't know what you're talking about.
You do understand how strong the Lasgun got straight from 7th to 8th, right? It wounds T5 on a 5+ now and, while talks of them killing tanks was greatly overstated, it allows them to actually put wounds on units they couldn't ever hurt before.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: And in this arena, most games are decided before the first turn, because one player is not as skilled, and will make mistakes that cause the game to be lost..
No the game is won at list building level in this edition. Bad rolls lose you the game for a tourney winning lists. There's almost no strategy left in the game currently.
There is to hide or not hide behind LOS blocking blocks of polystyrene. There is where to deep strike. There is target priority. There is how to abuse the assault rules optimally. There is remembering the objectives and whether you push them, or don't.
People who consistently place highly in tournaments tend to be better at this than the guy who just googled Imperial soup.
The game is about stacking the odds in your favour. You can't escape this - no army can do well if you screw up every single dice roll and if you play enough this will happen some times. The hope is however it won't happen in a tournament game. List building is the first step to stacking the odds in your favour. This is why you take a lot of IG/Knights/DE/CWE etc rather than (if it were allowed) some soup of Grey Knights & Necrons.
Exactly.
Here's someone who understands who this game works, and of course Dakka comes in to tell him how wrong he is.
>YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY PLAY YOUR ARMIES JUST COPY PASTE LISTS
>WHY DO I KEEP LOSING
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: This is exactly 7th ed eldar apologist logic and its nauseating.
Ok, so it now takes 100 shots to put 5 wounds on T5, instead of 200 shots... I wasn't actively attacking T5 with Lasguns anyhow. It was, and is, Hail Mary for the last wound on a squad.
It takes roughly 20 shots to put a wound on MEQ. So double tap range for a full squad, or FRF, SRF on a full squad at long range. If you have a pair of squads, without upgrades (which I don't use), otherwise, you're throwing all the lasgun shot from 3 squads, in hopes of getting one or two wounds to finish off a unit.
They're really not that amazing, unless you have 100 shots. At which point, you've amassed the incredible killing power of 4 Plasmaguns that hit on 3+ in double-tap range. Whoopee!
Colonel Cross wrote: We're all off track here, why aren't we petitioning GW to bring back lasguns for SGTs?!
It's kinda hilarious that you can give them a FRICKIN BOLTER, but not a lasgun. A Bolter would throw a normal human on his butt after each shot, and forget about repeated rapid fire use. But no, a Lasgun is TOO MUCH GUN FOR A SGT! He'd BE OVERPOWERED! What about a str 5 ap1 weapon with rapid fire, for 1 POINT. Sure.
Eh what boltgun are you using thats S5 AP-1 as my marines need to have words with the mechanics as they only got S4 AP0 bolters
I'm sorry, I was wrong. I was thinking HBs, because I caught the dumb. But lore wise, and logic wise, it's still laughable. It's a great upgrade for the SGTs, but unless you gimp a spacemarine spru, they don't even make the parts for guardsmen to carry. Why do they list things that aren't technically possible? WHOS WRITING THIS CRAP?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY PLAY YOUR ARMIES JUST COPY PASTE LISTS
WHY DO I KEEP LOSING
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: This is exactly 7th ed eldar apologist logic and its nauseating.
^^ this
It's the same people that think they can play chess because they have the awesome queen, rooks, and bishops, but they forget about the pawns and the knights, and then loose. You have the play the game strategically. If you enter the match without 3 plans, your already loosing.
1. Plan overall - This will likely crash and fail after the first turn, but adapt!
2. Back up plan - this is your fall back option that you can throw out to upset the enemy strat. Flankers, DS, hell, have Creed and this plan basically writes itself. He's a walking backup plan.
3. End Game - What are you doing to win? Is this a points match, a mission, what? What is your purpose? Granted this is what most players start with, and go from. Which is why most people suck at this game.
In summation, I have seen GK players wipe the floor with Tau players who didn't prepare their backfield, I have seen AM players BARELY hold onto a victory point mission because they went off hunting instead of holding the victory point.
If you say this game has no strategy, I declare you are likely loosing most of your serious matches.
It's the same people that think they can play chess because they have the awesome queen, rooks, and bishops, but they forget about the pawns and the knights, and then loose. You have the play the game strategically. If you enter the match without 3 plans, your already loosing.
1. Plan overall - This will likely crash and fail after the first turn, but adapt!
2. Back up plan - this is your fall back option that you can throw out to upset the enemy strat. Flankers, DS, hell, have Creed and this plan basically writes itself. He's a walking backup plan.
3. End Game - What are you doing to win? Is this a points match, a mission, what? What is your purpose? Granted this is what most players start with, and go from. Which is why most people suck at this game.
In summation, I have seen GK players wipe the floor with Tau players who didn't prepare their backfield, I have seen AM players BARELY hold onto a victory point mission because they went off hunting instead of holding the victory point.
If you say this game has no strategy, I declare you are likely loosing most of your serious matches.
Of course there's Strategy, every game has Strategy (from Tabletop to Monopoly).
Strategy is often decided at list building. In your case "Take ranged Tau units while covering our ass"
What the game doesn't have though, are Tactics; and the game sure does need more of them.
I personally think this lack of tactics on the tabletop is because of how homogenous every unit is aside from Strategems. Basically, for Tactical decisions Marines are the same as Imperial Guard aside from 'just shoot them with high shots vs shoot them with high ap'.
Aside from putting in a bunch of smaller, complex rulesets (ie, terrain rules and gun vs tag interactions) I don't think there can be room for actual Tactics.
All of this is compounded by the problem that your general player isn't willing to put effort in and learn rulesets. Heck, there were people complaining that the current ruleset is too hard and confusing!
What the game doesn't have though, are Tactics; and the game sure does need more of them.
I personally think this lack of tactics on the tabletop is because of how homogenous every unit is aside from Strategems. Basically, for Tactical decisions Marines are the same as Imperial Guard aside from 'just shoot them with high shots vs shoot them with high ap'.
I somewhat disagree with your conclusion on homogenous units. The closer 2 units are to being the same, the more your decisions matter.
As an example:
I have Ork slugga boyz and my opponent has Fire Warriors. What are my options to engage? Do I sit back and shoot? No. I have to rush in and start chopping. My opponent on the other hand will only really have the option to run away.
This really illustrates my distaste for "hard counters". The more something counters another something, the less my decisions actually matter.
Compare this with 2 guard gunlines. If I go second and just sit back, I will lose. It's at this point that I will start maneuvering to increase my chances of winning while decreasing my opponent's chances. That said, more terrain interaction is a must for this to actually play out.
If you are familiar with "Wargame: Red Dragon", you would see that each faction has different flavors of essentially the same units. However, the interaction with LOS, cover, hiding etc... give the game huge tactical depth, and the minute differences between units can be exploited by clever deployment to gain an advantage over otherwise similar units.
What the game doesn't have though, are Tactics; and the game sure does need more of them.
I personally think this lack of tactics on the tabletop is because of how homogenous every unit is aside from Strategems. Basically, for Tactical decisions Marines are the same as Imperial Guard aside from 'just shoot them with high shots vs shoot them with high ap'.
I somewhat disagree with your conclusion on homogenous units. The closer 2 units are to being the same, the more your decisions matter.
As an example:
I have Ork slugga boyz and my opponent has Fire Warriors. What are my options to engage? Do I sit back and shoot? No. I have to rush in and start chopping. My opponent on the other hand will only really have the option to run away.
This really illustrates my distaste for "hard counters". The more something counters another something, the less my decisions actually matter.
Compare this with 2 guard gunlines. If I go second and just sit back, I will lose. It's at this point that I will start maneuvering to increase my chances of winning while decreasing my opponent's chances. That said, more terrain interaction is a must for this to actually play out.
If you are familiar with "Wargame: Red Dragon", you would see that each faction has different flavors of essentially the same units. However, the interaction with LOS, cover, hiding etc... give the game huge tactical depth, and the minute differences between units can be exploited by clever deployment to gain an
advantage over otherwise similar units.
Perhaps I should rephrase myself, "Homogenous and Flat" units.
My issue is that every unit basically acts the same and has the same options as the other. Only varying by degrees of success.
Because of this, and the rather shallow ruleset, there is usually only a single Tactic in every situation that is just optimal. I would love to see more side tactics that have a 'ripple effect' on the way the game plays out, that may not be optimal at the time.
I'll have to take a look at "Wargame: Red Dragon", I haven't heard of it and I'd love to see how their system works.
You must always take into consideration how that model interacts with it's faction, or you will never get usefull results.
I mean, if we look at them without army traits, stratagems and powers, then i guess that Dark Reapers and shining spears coild really use a buff, they are so UP on paper. Lol, silly GW how could they ever think that a 34 pt model with a single wound (at T3 nonetheless!!) could be ever worth taking, when tactical marines already show us that at 13 points you already need more than one wound?
Dandelion wrote: Mathematically and in a vacuum, 5pt guard are about on par when fighting 7pt fire warriors. Those 2 pts represent a 40% increase in cost, which is like the difference between a tactical marine and an intercessor, which accounts for +1 wound, +1 attack and +1 AP.
Durability-wise (with 5pt guard):
With 40 botlgun hits
- Kills 13.33 FW = 93 pts
- Kills 17.77 Guard= 89 pts
So per point they are equivalent
However, against marines:
- It takes 9 FW (63 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
- It takes 18 Guard ( 90 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
Guard lose out. They still have access to special weapons and FW have a turret.
- 5 FW+1 SMS (50 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
- 7 guard+1plasma+1HB (50 pts) to kill 1 MEQ
I'm fine with this.
Math checks out, fair enough.
But, you are forgetting that fire warriors have better morale then guardsmen due to bonding knife ritual.
Also, if guardsmen go up to 5 pts, then GSC will have to be nerfed as they will be pretty much guardsmen +1L and with better deployment options for the same price.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I mean, the Fire Warrior and Skit Ranger are almost twice the cost. So for every one of those bodies I have 2 Guardsmen near as damn it. That's a pretty big differential.
To answer your specific questions though - perhaps Rangers are also too cheap but because they still cost 7 pts they aren't spammed as much? I think the 6++ save is a bit of a red herring, it'll very rarely come into play. I wouldn't think of the 4+, extra 6" and STR on their weapon and 3+ BS as "worth 2 points" but instead as a percentage increase, they're 140% of the cost or a 40% increase which sounds a lot more reasonable.
The same goes for the Fire Warrior.
We're not here to discuss whether the Fire Warrior or Rangers are "OP" or not. We're not here to discuss whether Guardsmen are OP or not. We're here to discuss whether Guardsmen are appropriately priced for their stats and whether their price should increase to 5ppm.
5ppm won't hurt mono-guard players too much I don't think. 20% less bodies won't hurt and I'm sure you'll find other efficiencies elsewhere to make up for the shortfall.
Soup and CP batteries is another mess entirely that probably deserves it's own thread. I'm not a fan. But that's not a topic for discussion here.
See my post above.
I'm not worried about the slightly better leadership for FW.
GSC don't "have to go up" and we're not here to discuss them.
You must always take into consideration how that model interacts with it's faction, or you will never get usefull results.
I mean, if we look at them without army traits, stratagems and powers, then i guess that Dark Reapers and shining spears coild really use a buff, they are so UP on paper. Lol, silly GW how could they ever think that a 34 pt model with a single wound (at T3 nonetheless!!) could be ever worth taking, when tactical marines already show us that at 13 points you already need more than one wound?
Please GW buff Dark Reapers.
That was not a good example of a unit that has bad maths
JNAProductions wrote: So Cult Ambush and +1 Ld are worth nothing, but +1 WS is worth a point?
I don't think I could've made it clearer when I joined this thread and said "other units might be too cheap so we need to compare to a swathe of units".
The question isn't what Cult Ambush and +1LD are worth. It's 'what are Guardsmen worth?'
JNAProductions wrote: So Cult Ambush and +1 Ld are worth nothing, but +1 WS is worth a point?
I don't think I could've made it clearer when I joined this thread and said "other units might be too cheap so we need to compare to a swathe of units".
The question isn't what Cult Ambush and +1LD are worth. It's 'what are Guardsmen worth?'
Well you cant compare if you dont know the worth of the units you are comparing them to.
You must always take into consideration how that model interacts with it's faction, or you will never get usefull results.
I mean, if we look at them without army traits, stratagems and powers, then i guess that Dark Reapers and shining spears coild really use a buff, they are so UP on paper. Lol, silly GW how could they ever think that a 34 pt model with a single wound (at T3 nonetheless!!) could be ever worth taking, when tactical marines already show us that at 13 points you already need more than one wound?
Please GW buff Dark Reapers.
If you want to prove pure math is bad, please actually do the math to show us why it is bad. Take Reapers and compare their durability and shootiness to other equivalent units (devastators, heavy weapons teams etc...), their preferred target and some standard infantry, and please give us the totals in points for comparisons.
If you don't then you haven't actually done any math, and instead just looked at some stats.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: So Cult Ambush and +1 Ld are worth nothing, but +1 WS is worth a point?
I would say that it can depend. At the points we're talking, neither of those are worth a full point. Going from 4 pts to 5 pts for +1 save is equivalent to upping the cost of a Russ by 40 pts for the same thing.
JNAProductions wrote: So Cult Ambush and +1 Ld are worth nothing, but +1 WS is worth a point?
I don't think I could've made it clearer when I joined this thread and said "other units might be too cheap so we need to compare to a swathe of units".
The question isn't what Cult Ambush and +1LD are worth. It's 'what are Guardsmen worth?'
Well you cant compare if you dont know the worth of the units you are comparing them to.
This is why we compare to a RANGE of units instead of just picking out one.
Either way to answer your question - no, I don't think Cult Ambush and +1LD is worth a point. It's worth is probably about equal to the value of having access to orders. We're also comparing codex to index units, the latter of which are likely subject to change.
What the game doesn't have though, are Tactics; and the game sure does need more of them.
I personally think this lack of tactics on the tabletop is because of how homogenous every unit is aside from Strategems. Basically, for Tactical decisions Marines are the same as Imperial Guard aside from 'just shoot them with high shots vs shoot them with high ap'.
I somewhat disagree with your conclusion on homogenous units. The closer 2 units are to being the same, the more your decisions matter.
As an example:
I have Ork slugga boyz and my opponent has Fire Warriors. What are my options to engage? Do I sit back and shoot? No. I have to rush in and start chopping. My opponent on the other hand will only really have the option to run away.
This really illustrates my distaste for "hard counters". The more something counters another something, the less my decisions actually matter.
Compare this with 2 guard gunlines. If I go second and just sit back, I will lose. It's at this point that I will start maneuvering to increase my chances of winning while decreasing my opponent's chances. That said, more terrain interaction is a must for this to actually play out.
If you are familiar with "Wargame: Red Dragon", you would see that each faction has different flavors of essentially the same units. However, the interaction with LOS, cover, hiding etc... give the game huge tactical depth, and the minute differences between units can be exploited by clever deployment to gain an advantage over otherwise similar units.
does it still have a community? I always wanted to get into that game
Xenomancers wrote: Most people don't even take gear on infantry squads. There is no reason to. You get to shoot twice with a lasgun for 4 points. It is super efficient. God forbid you have t3 and get shot by these things.
Mortars for sure are too cheap. It's a 10 point weapon at minimum.
If this is the level of misrepresentation you bring to the table, you should be surprised anyone is agreeing with you at all.
That "shooting twice" with a lasgun ability you've frequently mis-labelled (it does not let the squad shoot twice), will cost the Guard player 70 points for 9 "double-shooting" lasguns.
It's not 4pts/model for that ability. If you're going to decry the cost, include the entire cost that makes the mechanic you're complaining so loudly about actually possible.
Xenomancers wrote: Most people don't even take gear on infantry squads. There is no reason to. You get to shoot twice with a lasgun for 4 points. It is super efficient. God forbid you have t3 and get shot by these things.
Mortars for sure are too cheap. It's a 10 point weapon at minimum.
If this is the level of misrepresentation you bring to the table, you should be surprised anyone is agreeing with you at all.
That "shooting twice" with a lasgun ability you've frequently mis-labelled (it does not let the squad shoot twice), will cost the Guard player 70 points for 9 "double-shooting" lasguns.
It's not 4pts/model for that ability. If you're going to decry the cost, include the entire cost that makes the mechanic you're complaining so loudly about actually possible.
What on earth are you talking about? Nobody wastes points upgrading Guardsmen, and by shooting twice, he means every model having 2 shots in rapid fire range.
SHUPPET wrote: What on earth are you talking about? Nobody wastes points upgrading Guardsmen, and by shooting twice, he means every model having 2 shots in rapid fire range.
The point is that you don't get FRFSRF at 4ppm, you have to pay for an officer to give that order (and do very little else). That increases the point cost of the guardsmen to more than 4ppm. So you can either talk about 4ppm guardsmen with single lasgun shots or more expensive guardsmen with double the shots. Anything else is dishonest.
And yes, you are taking an officer to upgrade to FRFSRF. For +2ppm you double a 4ppm unit's firepower. The only reason to even acknowledge that 4ppm guardsmen without FRFSRF exist is in the context of CP batteries taken at the absolute minimum cost, in which case why do you care about the lasgun shots?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
bibotot wrote: Overwatch at 5+ if not moving in previous turn.
SHUPPET wrote: What on earth are you talking about? Nobody wastes points upgrading Guardsmen, and by shooting twice, he means every model having 2 shots in rapid fire range.
The point is that you don't get FRFSRF at 4ppm, you have to pay for an officer to give that order (and do very little else). That increases the point cost of the guardsmen to more than 4ppm. So you can either talk about 4ppm guardsmen with single lasgun shots or more expensive guardsmen with double the shots. Anything else is dishonest.
And yes, you are taking an officer to upgrade to FRFSRF. For +2ppm you double a 4ppm unit's firepower. The only reason to even acknowledge that 4ppm guardsmen without FRFSRF exist is in the context of CP batteries taken at the absolute minimum cost, in which case why do you care about the lasgun shots?
No, thats the cost of the character, the character has that rule not the guardsman.
Thats like saying an Imagifier adds 40pts to a unit of SIsters for an ability that the Imagifier has.
Mathematically and in a vacuum, 5pt guard are about on par when fighting 7pt fire warriors. Those 2 pts represent a 40% increase in cost, which is like the difference between a tactical marine and an intercessor, which accounts for +1 wound, +1 attack and +1 AP.
Durability-wise (with 5pt guard):
With 40 botlgun hits
- Kills 13.33 FW = 93 pts
- Kills 17.77 Guard= 89 pts
So per point they are equivalent
However, against marines:
- It takes 9 FW (63 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
- It takes 18 Guard ( 90 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
Guard lose out. They still have access to special weapons and FW have a turret.
- 5 FW+1 SMS (50 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
- 7 guard+1plasma+1HB (50 pts) to kill 1 MEQ
I'm fine with this.
That shows that guard at 5ppm are actually balanced not as guard players keep complaining broken and unplayable.
You must always take into consideration how that model interacts with it's faction, or you will never get usefull results.
I mean, if we look at them without army traits, stratagems and powers, then i guess that Dark Reapers and shining spears coild really use a buff, they are so UP on paper. Lol, silly GW how could they ever think that a 34 pt model with a single wound (at T3 nonetheless!!) could be ever worth taking, when tactical marines already show us that at 13 points you already need more than one wound?
Please GW buff Dark Reapers.
If you want to prove pure math is bad, please actually do the math to show us why it is bad. Take Reapers and compare their durability and shootiness to other equivalent units (devastators, heavy weapons teams etc...), their preferred target and some standard infantry, and please give us the totals in points for comparisons.
If you don't then you haven't actually done any math, and instead just looked at some stats.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: So Cult Ambush and +1 Ld are worth nothing, but +1 WS is worth a point?
I would say that it can depend. At the points we're talking, neither of those are worth a full point. Going from 4 pts to 5 pts for +1 save is equivalent to upping the cost of a Russ by 40 pts for the same thing.
Are you being ironic? Do you really believe that math wise dark reapers are good???
Ok, i'll bait. Here is your comparison, 165 points of marines (sarg and 4 lascannon devs) vs 5 darks reapers (170) points. No cherub for ease of math and to make it even more stacked against marines, which are not even a competitive choice to begin with. The sarg does not even have an auspex! He also forgot his bolter home! The exarch also has a reaper launcher instead of the typical exarch weapon which would make him look bad in this AT comparison.
Durability: No match here, same exact stats except that marines are T4. This does not count against artillery o LR fire of Str8+ but against mortars, burst cannons, devourers, and the like increases durability by 20% or 33%. Marines also have an ablative wound in the sarg.
Firepower:
Against an LR equivalent (T8 3+) we have 5,08 wounds for marines 3,26 for Reapers. Marines inflict 56% more damage.
Against Predator/PBC equivalent (T7 3+) we have 5,08 wounds for marines and 4,32 for Reapers. Marines inflict 18% more damage. PBC have DR, but it impatcs both weapons for the same percentage. Marines still win by the same margin.
Against TVault/knight equivalent (T8 4++) we have 3,05 for marines and 2,47 for Reapers. Marines inflict 23% more damage.
Against Armiger equivalent (T7 5++) we have 4,02 for marines and 4,32 for reapers. Reapers win by 7%.
Against flyrant equivalent (T7 4++) we have 3,04 for marines and 3,267 for reapers. Reapers win by 7%.
Both weapons have the same range.
Satisfied? Dark reapers SUCK in AT against a non competitive choice even with the deck stacked heavily in theyr favor AND losing on durability. The are only marginally better at some type of targets, but against highly competitive choices like PBC, Leman Russes, Knights and so on, they lag a lot behind a simple dev lascannon team.
If you want to compare them against light armored targets like DE vehicles, i can give you the math for that, for i'm going to spoil it now. They will lose heavily against dedicated light AT fire, even non competitive ones.
Dark Reapers are at most a niche sidegrade for an AT choice when you want a generalist that can do a bit of light AT and a bit of heavy AT. Or that would be if you only looked at them in a vacuum, because as we all know, they are meta defining monsters. Because they have alaitoc, because the have Ynnari, because they have lighning reflexes, because they have fire and fade, because they have wave serpesents, because they have doom, because they have fortune, because they are guided and so on and so on.
Do we want to do the same for shining spears?
Those things in a vacuum woundn't even work! They have no threat turn 1 at all, no advance and charge, no double move, no nothing. They move 16" and have an AT 6" range weapon which will at most hit a screen. Oh and they are sooo durable! A scout bike is 50% more durable than them against bolters while costing 25% less and actually getting to do something turn 1 against screens!
You really don't want to see a comparison with a tomb blade, but i guess necrons are just broken, right?
Please GW buff shining spears, they are useless!
Every time you assess a model efficency you should ALWAYS look at it in the framework of it's faction.
Amishprn86 wrote: No, thats the cost of the character, the character has that rule not the guardsman.
Thats like saying an Imagifier adds 40pts to a unit of SIsters for an ability that the Imagifier has.
The character is a 20-point upgrade to an infantry squad. It has no purpose besides applying a buff to a single unit. For all relevant purposes you can treat it as part of the squad it is buffing.
Amishprn86 wrote: No, thats the cost of the character, the character has that rule not the guardsman.
Thats like saying an Imagifier adds 40pts to a unit of SIsters for an ability that the Imagifier has.
The character is a 20-point upgrade to an infantry squad. It has no purpose besides applying a buff to a single unit. For all relevant purposes you can treat it as part of the squad it is buffing.
No, b.c that character also helps will Brigades and Battlions, it also cant be killed without powers/sniper/melee (character rule), they need to be treated as their own independent rules set like the are.
You must always take into consideration how that model interacts with it's faction, or you will never get usefull results.
I mean, if we look at them without army traits, stratagems and powers, then i guess that Dark Reapers and shining spears coild really use a buff, they are so UP on paper. Lol, silly GW how could they ever think that a 34 pt model with a single wound (at T3 nonetheless!!) could be ever worth taking, when tactical marines already show us that at 13 points you already need more than one wound?
Please GW buff Dark Reapers.
If you want to prove pure math is bad, please actually do the math to show us why it is bad. Take Reapers and compare their durability and shootiness to other equivalent units (devastators, heavy weapons teams etc...), their preferred target and some standard infantry, and please give us the totals in points for comparisons.
If you don't then you haven't actually done any math, and instead just looked at some stats.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JNAProductions wrote: So Cult Ambush and +1 Ld are worth nothing, but +1 WS is worth a point?
I would say that it can depend. At the points we're talking, neither of those are worth a full point. Going from 4 pts to 5 pts for +1 save is equivalent to upping the cost of a Russ by 40 pts for the same thing.
Are you being ironic? Do you really believe that math wise dark reapers are good???
Ok, i'll bait. Here is your comparison, 165 points of marines (sarg and 4 lascannon devs) vs 5 darks reapers (170) points. No cherub for ease of math and to make it even more stacked against marines, which are not even a competitive choice to begin with. The sarg does not even have an auspex! He also forgot his bolter home! The exarch also has a reaper launcher instead of the typical exarch weapon which would make him look bad in this AT comparison.
Durability: No match here, same exact stats except that marines are T4. This does not count against artillery o LR fire of Str8+ but against mortars, burst cannons, devourers, and the like increases durability by 20% or 33%. Marines also have an ablative wound in the sarg.
Firepower:
Against an LR equivalent (T8 3+) we have 5,08 wounds for marines 3,26 for Reapers. Marines inflict 56% more damage.
Against Predator/PBC equivalent (T7 3+) we have 5,08 wounds for marines and 4,32 for Reapers. Marines inflict 18% more damage. PBC have DR, but it impatcs both weapons for the same percentage. Marines still win by the same margin.
Spoiler:
Against TVault/knight equivalent (T8 4++) we have 3,05 for marines and 2,47 for Reapers. Marines inflict 23% more damage.
Against Armiger equivalent (T7 5++) we have 4,02 for marines and 4,32 for reapers. Reapers win by 7%.
Against flyrant equivalent (T7 4++) we have 3,04 for marines and 3,267 for reapers. Reapers win by 7%.
Both weapons have the same range.
Satisfied? Dark reapers SUCK in AT against a non competitive choice even with the deck stacked heavily in theyr favor AND losing on durability. The are only marginally better at some type of targets, but against highly competitive choices like PBC, Leman Russes, Knights and so on, they lag a lot behind a simple dev lascannon team.
If you want to compare them against light armored targets like DE vehicles, i can give you the math for that, for i'm going to spoil it now. They will lose heavily against dedicated light AT fire, even non competitive ones.
Dark Reapers are at most a niche sidegrade for an AT choice when you want a generalist that can do a bit of light AT and a bit of heavy AT. Or that would be if you only looked at them in a vacuum, because as we all know, they are meta defining monsters. Because they have alaitoc, because the have Ynnari, because they have lighning reflexes, because they have fire and fade, because they have wave serpesents, because they have doom, because they have fortune, because they are guided and so on and so on.
Do we want to do the same for shining spears?
Those things in a vacuum woundn't even work! They have no threat turn 1 at all, no advance and charge, no double move, no nothing. They move 16" and have an AT 6" range weapon which will at most hit a screen. Oh and they are sooo durable! A scout bike is 50% more durable than them against bolters while costing 25% less and actually getting to do something turn 1 against screens!
You really don't want to see a comparison with a tomb blade, but i guess necrons are just broken, right?
Please GW buff shining spears, they are useless!
Every time you assess a model efficency you should ALWAYS look at it in the framework of it's faction.
A PBC is 3+, 5++ and 5+ FnP just FYI so reapers actually do more damage against them than the dev squad.
Secondly Guardsmen have been mathed without buffs and outperforms most of the field they have been mathed with buffs and outperformed most of the field.
Their is a few edge cases like Custodes against -3 to hit rangers that outperform them but we're talking extreme edge cases with strategums and faction bonus which people agree are busted.
Apparently in Peregrine's meta, people are allying in Guard battalion's to buff a 10 man infantry squad, and leaving Grand Strategist and the Aquila at home.
Either way to answer your question - no, I don't think Cult Ambush and +1LD is worth a point. It's worth is probably about equal to the value of having access to orders. We're also comparing codex to index units, the latter of which are likely subject to change.
So, termagaunts and guardsmen both being 4 points is wrong because guardsmen are obviously better... Fair. But GSC being obviously better than guardsmen for the same points cost is okay? Way to contradict yourself.
SHUPPET wrote: What on earth are you talking about? Nobody wastes points upgrading Guardsmen, and by shooting twice, he means every model having 2 shots in rapid fire range.
This is incorrect. People running guard CP batteries don't upgrade as they are meant to be cheap as possible. Almost everyone who runs mono-guard gets a plasma gun and sometimes a heavy bolter for the firepower boost.
Either way to answer your question - no, I don't think Cult Ambush and +1LD is worth a point. It's worth is probably about equal to the value of having access to orders. We're also comparing codex to index units, the latter of which are likely subject to change.
So, termagaunts and guardsmen both being 4 points is wrong because guardsmen are obviously better... Fair. But GSC being a straight upgrade to guardsmen for the same points cost is okay? Way to contradict yourself.
You think Neophytes are a straight upgrade to Guardsmen now?
I'm just chilling here with popcorn now. Everytime I think you guys are done coming out with hilarious quotables you just keep delivering
Either way to answer your question - no, I don't think Cult Ambush and +1LD is worth a point. It's worth is probably about equal to the value of having access to orders. We're also comparing codex to index units, the latter of which are likely subject to change.
So, termagaunts and guardsmen both being 4 points is wrong because guardsmen are obviously better... Fair. But GSC being a straight upgrade to guardsmen for the same points cost is okay? Way to contradict yourself.
SHUPPET wrote: What on earth are you talking about? Nobody wastes points upgrading Guardsmen, and by shooting twice, he means every model having 2 shots in rapid fire range.
This is incorrect. People running guard CP batteries don't upgrade as they are meant to be cheap as possible. Almost everyone who runs running mono-guard often get a plasma gun and sometimes a heavy bolter for the firepower boost.
Hey hey hey, Gants are so much better with their no Rapid fire guns, that are only 12" vs 24", 6+ saves vs 5+, with IB (if no synapse then -1 to shoot and charge) and no sargents (so no extra weapon for them or LD or attack), with 4pts to gain +2 shots per gant
Im not saying gants are bad, or guardsman are better, just like to point of the difference in a vacuum to be a bit snarky.
SHUPPET wrote: Why are we giving Neophytes their army rule for this comparison but not Guardsmen :S
I am not familiar with GSC in all honesty, I thought cult ambush was baked into their deployment option. If that counts as their army trait, then fine we can ignore that part.
Neophytes being guardsmen +1L at the same points costs is okay to you? Keep in mind that +1L actually matters as you have to take them in squads of 10. It's not something you can just ignore like on MSU.
SHUPPET wrote: Why are we giving Neophytes their army rule for this comparison but not Guardsmen :S
I am not familiar with GSC in all honesty, I thought cult ambush was baked into their deployment option. If that counts as their army trait, then fine we can ignore that part.
Neophytes being guardsmen +1L at the same points costs is okay to you? Keep in mind that +1L actually matters as you have to take them in squads of 10. It's not something you can just ignore like on MSU.
Well it depends, can the guard have ways to help LD or ignore moral? And can the GSC also gain LD buffs/ignore it? If the GSC CAN NOT then, yes it is fine.
Points isnt a vacuum, you need to see what the army can bring and cant bring.
Well it depends, can the guard have ways to help LD or ignore moral? And can the GSC also gain LD buffs/ignore it? If the GSC CAN NOT then, yes it is fine.
And can GSC double the firepower of their basic guns?
Spoletta wrote: Are you being ironic? Do you really believe that math wise dark reapers are good???
Well, yes?
Apply a minus 1 to all your marine hit rolls and look what happens.
You could potentially apply 2 - or 3.
Let the Exarch shoot through walls versus... not shooting at all - or shooting something less optimal.
Except that most of those targets can't sport a -1?
Leman russes can't (and marines would still be better even if they could), knights can't, TVaults can't, predators can't, armigers can't, PBCs can't. There are some powers here and there that give 1 unit a -1, but when you have 48" range that is not a problem.
Heavy targets in general do not have access to -1 to hit, with the following exceptions:
Alaitoc Fire prism, Hyve Tyrant (sometimes), Cfex and some stygiebots. I think that they don't even make 10% of the total targets usually seen on the table.
The tempest launcher costs more than a reaper launcher, and performs worse against T8 targets and about same against T7. The fact that it can shoot out of LOS is worth almost zero in a game where claiming LOS is close to impossible (points are made for 40K, not for ITC), when it has only range 36" and when is only on the leader of a single squad which means that it cannot reach critical mass and threath any meaningful target.
Sorry, you would have to do better to make reaper appear any good (without them being in the CWE faction).
If hellblasters were Eldar, they would be sick. Faction contest is everything.
Ice_can wrote: So storm talon and storm hawks arn't hard targets? But predators are?
Razorwings and VoidRavens are or arn't hard targets?
Falcons, Crimspn Hunters, Hemlocks, nightwing and Pheonix arnt hard targets? Also those last 4 are -2 to hit FYI
Night Scythe, Doom Scythe and Night shroud arn't hard targets?
Actually no, those are not hard targets, they are airborne targets. I did not include those in the analysis because they have different types of counters. I can give you the math for those, but as long as the penalty isn't -2 or worse, then dark reapers still lag behing specialist units.
So the analysis result is the same, math wise if dark reapers were not showered into CWE goodness, they would hardly be the terrifying thing that we know, they would be decent generalist units, which would lose to specialists.
Unit1126PLL wrote: ITT:
"This army that came in 20th in a tournament and 2nd if we only include mono armies is OP."
This was in response to a post that claimed mono guards are trash tier I believe. 20th out of hundreds of players are far from trash tier IMO.
Mono guards are no longer S-tier after the codex creep, but they are one of the stronger A-tier armies.
Absolutely. Guard are strong, but not the strongest. They are about the level where I'd hope most armies are - flexible, capable, and interesting. The fact that some aren't is a travesty, but not an indictment of Codex: Astra Militarum. Rather, it's an indication that the less fortunate codexes need buffs. 12 or 11-pt tactical marine chassis, for example, would be a good start. Similarly, making overcharging plasma overheat on a natural 1 before re-rolls would do wonders to enhance the durability of elite infantry like Terminators.
So, I don't see how increasing the model costs of guard infantry will matter much to the stated problem. What I don't understand is why people are focusing on this one unit? Surely Guard squads are not the issue? Conscripts are an issue, CCs are an issue, Command/Veteran Squads are slightly overpowered, but Guard squads? Why the focus on a 10 model squad of guard, unmodded?
The only fix I can see, if this REALLY is the biggest issue, is keeping them 4ppm but lowering their LD to 5.
But again, I don't see the major problem with guard squads. And I don't see how mucking around with the ppm makes the slightest difference. There is so much other bloat in the AM Codex to go after, that is raping people. Maybe if you can justify how Guard squads are unfair, we can proceed to fixing them. In 15 pages, you haven't succeeded in making that point, so I guess, no? Guardsquads are good at 4ppm.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, I don't see how increasing the model costs of guard infantry will matter much to the stated problem. What I don't understand is why people are focusing on this one unit? Surely Guard squads are not the issue? Conscripts are an issue, CCs are an issue, Command/Veteran Squads are slightly overpowered, but Guard squads? Why the focus on a 10 model squad of guard, unmodded?
The only fix I can see, if this REALLY is the biggest issue, is keeping them 4ppm but lowering their LD to 5.
But again, I don't see the major problem with guard squads. And I don't see how mucking around with the ppm makes the slightest difference. There is so much other bloat in the AM Codex to go after, that is raping people. Maybe if you can justify how Guard squads are unfair, we can proceed to fixing them. In 15 pages, you haven't succeeded in making that point, so I guess, no? Guardsquads are good at 4ppm.
Guards are extremely good because they are in the right faction to make the best of theyr stat line, not because they are undercosted (probably, i'm not 100% sure yet).
If guards were given to Khorne i'm not sure they would be used. Not really useful when you are the one advancing.
Ice_can wrote: So storm talon and storm hawks arn't hard targets? But predators are?
Razorwings and VoidRavens are or arn't hard targets?
Falcons, Crimspn Hunters, Hemlocks, nightwing and Pheonix arnt hard targets? Also those last 4 are -2 to hit FYI
Night Scythe, Doom Scythe and Night shroud arn't hard targets?
Actually no, those are not hard targets, they are airborne targets. I did not include those in the analysis because they have different types of counters. I can give you the math for those, but as long as the penalty isn't -2 or worse, then dark reapers still lag behing specialist units.
So the analysis result is the same, math wise if dark reapers were not showered into CWE goodness, they would hardly be the terrifying thing that we know, they would be decent generalist units, which would lose to specialists.
Point vs stat is hardly telling the whole story.
So what about just 5 devs moving for LoS vrs Reparrs doing the same? There's an instant source of -1 to hit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, I don't see how increasing the model costs of guard infantry will matter much to the stated problem. What I don't understand is why people are focusing on this one unit? Surely Guard squads are not the issue? Conscripts are an issue, CCs are an issue, Command/Veteran Squads are slightly overpowered, but Guard squads? Why the focus on a 10 model squad of guard, unmodded?
The only fix I can see, if this REALLY is the biggest issue, is keeping them 4ppm but lowering their LD to 5.
But again, I don't see the major problem with guard squads. And I don't see how mucking around with the ppm makes the slightest difference. There is so much other bloat in the AM Codex to go after, that is raping people. Maybe if you can justify how Guard squads are unfair, we can proceed to fixing them. In 15 pages, you haven't succeeded in making that point, so I guess, no? Guardsquads are good at 4ppm.
Seriously Vet squads you think are a problem? Just Wow is the denial strong with you.
Mathematically and in a vacuum, 5pt guard are about on par when fighting 7pt fire warriors. Those 2 pts represent a 40% increase in cost, which is like the difference between a tactical marine and an intercessor, which accounts for +1 wound, +1 attack and +1 AP.
Durability-wise (with 5pt guard):
With 40 botlgun hits
- Kills 13.33 FW = 93 pts
- Kills 17.77 Guard= 89 pts
So per point they are equivalent
However, against marines:
- It takes 9 FW (63 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
- It takes 18 Guard ( 90 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
Guard lose out. They still have access to special weapons and FW have a turret.
- 5 FW+1 SMS (50 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
- 7 guard+1plasma+1HB (50 pts) to kill 1 MEQ
I'm fine with this.
That shows that guard at 5ppm are actually balanced not as guard players keep complaining broken and unplayable.
At their current 4ppm
40 boltgun hits would only kill 71pts of guard
Shouting at GEU
Guard take 24point to kill a guardsmen to the firewarriors 31.5 pts of firewarriors or inother words they have 2 spare guardsmens worth of points advantage!
It would take a bare lasguns only 72 points to kill a Marine
Add in plasma and heavy bolter and your down to 41 points to kill a MEQ so once again an advantage of 2 Guardsmen spare!
Thats a huge level of undercosted compaired to one of the better troops choices.
Yeah, when I don't have good points I just start telling people they should be banned for disagreeing with me.
You've been disagreeing with me for days, and I've been disagreeing with others on here for years. I said you should be banned for disrupting discussion, something entirely different and something you are purposefully doing now.
Asmodios wrote: If finishing 20th at a GT makes your army broken every army in the game is.
Guard didn't finish 20th tho. They finished 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and three other places in the top 10.
You said armies taking an allied detachment don't count - that's the only reason we are looking at this 20th placing to begin with. 20 armies did not beat them without the use of allies, so by your own measure, that makes IG a top 2 placing by your own ridiculous arbitrary restrictions, that have zero basis in how this game is actually played, and TBH reflect nothing competitively.
Without your restrictions Guard were even more dominant. You have talked yourself into this hole, don't try and argue out of it by acting as though it makes any sense to argue that Guard is weak, just because mixing 3 other dexes together in one army placed higher than SOLO Guard, while excluding all allied detachment of Guard or even Guard primary's from the discussion if they included even a single ally. You keep whining about Nurgle, so apply the same standards, and compare how high the solo Nurgle did to Guard. There is nothing even remotely resembling objectivity here.
As others have said, you are just being absurd. You know you're wrong, we know you're wrong, even other Guard players have agreed you're wrong. Nothing you are saying is even making sense anymore. Your low level understanding of this game has collapsed beneath stronger logic. So now you're relying on gak like this:
Asmodios wrote: Please post pics of all your first place finishes I’d love to see them
Really? this is the prerequisite for him having an opinion now? You mind matching that same requirement first, before continuing to talk on the exact same topic he is? Sounds like you just don't like what he's saying, I don't blame you because your second grader logic is not withstanding any sort of scrutiny here
No, you have continually dodged my actual post then throw out that I should be banned for "disruption" as a further distraction from my other points. Because your reading comprehension is really bad i will lay it out for you one more time.
1. People continue to state that mono guard is broken in this thread with zero evidence other then an illegal list that finished first almost a year ago and a single 20th place finish. If you are going to claim it as a fact that mono guard is an issue the burden of proof is on you and im just not seeing it
2. I agree that soup guard is incredibly strong but when I posted the statistics from the BAO showing the primary detachment statistics they were never addressed. As a primary detachment guard did not finish in the top 5 factions for A. Win percentage B. Points earned per round. You have yet to reply to this actual point and I doubt this fruitless discussion will
This thread is going round in circles because of people stating "facts" without providing any additional data or responding to counter data posted.
Spoletta wrote: Except that most of those targets can't sport a -1?
Any unit in the game can force Space Marine Devastators to have a minus 1 to hit by just forcing them to move.
If you genuinely think los-ignoring is worthless then I don't really know what to say.
Also this "my Devs do better versus predators, my X does better versus hard flyers, my K does better versus Dark Eldar boats, my plasma does better versus MEQ" misses the other point. Reapers are efficient against a whole range of targets, which is another perk in their favour.
Ice_can wrote: So storm talon and storm hawks arn't hard targets? But predators are?
Razorwings and VoidRavens are or arn't hard targets?
Falcons, Crimspn Hunters, Hemlocks, nightwing and Pheonix arnt hard targets? Also those last 4 are -2 to hit FYI
Night Scythe, Doom Scythe and Night shroud arn't hard targets?
Actually no, those are not hard targets, they are airborne targets. I did not include those in the analysis because they have different types of counters. I can give you the math for those, but as long as the penalty isn't -2 or worse, then dark reapers still lag behing specialist units.
So the analysis result is the same, math wise if dark reapers were not showered into CWE goodness, they would hardly be the terrifying thing that we know, they would be decent generalist units, which would lose to specialists.
Point vs stat is hardly telling the whole story.
So what about just 5 devs moving for LoS vrs Reparrs doing the same? There's an instant source of -1 to hit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, I don't see how increasing the model costs of guard infantry will matter much to the stated problem. What I don't understand is why people are focusing on this one unit? Surely Guard squads are not the issue? Conscripts are an issue, CCs are an issue, Command/Veteran Squads are slightly overpowered, but Guard squads? Why the focus on a 10 model squad of guard, unmodded?
The only fix I can see, if this REALLY is the biggest issue, is keeping them 4ppm but lowering their LD to 5.
But again, I don't see the major problem with guard squads. And I don't see how mucking around with the ppm makes the slightest difference. There is so much other bloat in the AM Codex to go after, that is raping people. Maybe if you can justify how Guard squads are unfair, we can proceed to fixing them. In 15 pages, you haven't succeeded in making that point, so I guess, no? Guardsquads are good at 4ppm.
Seriously Vet squads you think are a problem? Just Wow is the denial strong with you.
Mathematically and in a vacuum, 5pt guard are about on par when fighting 7pt fire warriors. Those 2 pts represent a 40% increase in cost, which is like the difference between a tactical marine and an intercessor, which accounts for +1 wound, +1 attack and +1 AP.
Durability-wise (with 5pt guard):
With 40 botlgun hits
- Kills 13.33 FW = 93 pts
- Kills 17.77 Guard= 89 pts
So per point they are equivalent
However, against marines:
- It takes 9 FW (63 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
- It takes 18 Guard ( 90 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
Guard lose out. They still have access to special weapons and FW have a turret.
- 5 FW+1 SMS (50 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
- 7 guard+1plasma+1HB (50 pts) to kill 1 MEQ
I'm fine with this.
That shows that guard at 5ppm are actually balanced not as guard players keep complaining broken and unplayable.
At their current 4ppm
40 boltgun hits would only kill 71pts of guard
Shouting at GEU
Guard take 24point to kill a guardsmen to the firewarriors 31.5 pts of firewarriors or inother words they have 2 spare guardsmens worth of points advantage!
It would take a bare lasguns only 72 points to kill a Marine
Add in plasma and heavy bolter and your down to 41 points to kill a MEQ so once again an advantage of 2 Guardsmen spare!
Thats a huge level of undercosted compaired to one of the better troops choices.
Ok, I don't think they are OP, I just mentioned them as one area that can be toned down. Anything that can give you 4 Plasma guns for under 200pts, with good BS, maybe can be looked at. Thats all I'm saying. I don't understand what you mean by "Denial is strong". Can you illustrate what I am denying? Also, I am just saying you are metagamming this, or mathhammering this, way out of proportion. You could make guard 6ppm and it wouldn't make a difference. Guard squads then go from 41ppm (No additions, which no one plays) to 58ppm. That still wouldn't stop me from loading up on guard squads.
I guess my question STILL remains. What tangible affect are you looking to accomplish by increasing cost of ppm? Because changing the guard squad costs wouldn't affect anything. They will still be extremely cost effective meat shields and point defense.
FrozenDwarf wrote: Do not balance for soup!
5ppm whitout stat buff would hurt mono IG just as the stupid 3 unit rule does.
Really did you even read the thread?
You already know the answer to that question. Lol.
Honestly - this is a tiny change for Guard - maybe 100 points in a 2000 point list. Are you saying Guard are 5% overpowered? That is a very fine judgement to make on limited data. If they consistently clean up I would suggest the problem is bigger than that?
My biggest guard beef is my squad transport is more effective and expensive than the troops it transports - a very strange approach to mechanised infantry!
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Actually my major beef is how rubbish my Hydra is because I keep finding it in my model case and end up using it on the table...)
Ice_can wrote: So storm talon and storm hawks arn't hard targets? But predators are?
Razorwings and VoidRavens are or arn't hard targets?
Falcons, Crimspn Hunters, Hemlocks, nightwing and Pheonix arnt hard targets? Also those last 4 are -2 to hit FYI
Night Scythe, Doom Scythe and Night shroud arn't hard targets?
Actually no, those are not hard targets, they are airborne targets. I did not include those in the analysis because they have different types of counters. I can give you the math for those, but as long as the penalty isn't -2 or worse, then dark reapers still lag behing specialist units.
So the analysis result is the same, math wise if dark reapers were not showered into CWE goodness, they would hardly be the terrifying thing that we know, they would be decent generalist units, which would lose to specialists.
Point vs stat is hardly telling the whole story.
So what about just 5 devs moving for LoS vrs Reparrs doing the same? There's an instant source of -1 to hit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, I don't see how increasing the model costs of guard infantry will matter much to the stated problem. What I don't understand is why people are focusing on this one unit? Surely Guard squads are not the issue? Conscripts are an issue, CCs are an issue, Command/Veteran Squads are slightly overpowered, but Guard squads? Why the focus on a 10 model squad of guard, unmodded?
The only fix I can see, if this REALLY is the biggest issue, is keeping them 4ppm but lowering their LD to 5.
But again, I don't see the major problem with guard squads. And I don't see how mucking around with the ppm makes the slightest difference. There is so much other bloat in the AM Codex to go after, that is raping people. Maybe if you can justify how Guard squads are unfair, we can proceed to fixing them. In 15 pages, you haven't succeeded in making that point, so I guess, no? Guardsquads are good at 4ppm.
Seriously Vet squads you think are a problem? Just Wow is the denial strong with you.
Mathematically and in a vacuum, 5pt guard are about on par when fighting 7pt fire warriors. Those 2 pts represent a 40% increase in cost, which is like the difference between a tactical marine and an intercessor, which accounts for +1 wound, +1 attack and +1 AP.
Durability-wise (with 5pt guard):
With 40 botlgun hits
- Kills 13.33 FW = 93 pts
- Kills 17.77 Guard= 89 pts
So per point they are equivalent
However, against marines:
- It takes 9 FW (63 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
- It takes 18 Guard ( 90 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
Guard lose out. They still have access to special weapons and FW have a turret.
- 5 FW+1 SMS (50 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
- 7 guard+1plasma+1HB (50 pts) to kill 1 MEQ
I'm fine with this.
That shows that guard at 5ppm are actually balanced not as guard players keep complaining broken and unplayable.
At their current 4ppm
40 boltgun hits would only kill 71pts of guard
Shouting at GEU
Guard take 24point to kill a guardsmen to the firewarriors 31.5 pts of firewarriors or inother words they have 2 spare guardsmens worth of points advantage!
It would take a bare lasguns only 72 points to kill a Marine
Add in plasma and heavy bolter and your down to 41 points to kill a MEQ so once again an advantage of 2 Guardsmen spare!
Thats a huge level of undercosted compaired to one of the better troops choices.
Ok, I don't think they are OP, I just mentioned them as one area that can be toned down. Anything that can give you 4 Plasma guns for under 200pts, with good BS, maybe can be looked at. Thats all I'm saying. I don't understand what you mean by "Denial is strong". Can you illustrate what I am denying? Also, I am just saying you are metagamming this, or mathhammering this, way out of proportion. You could make guard 6ppm and it wouldn't make a difference. Guard squads then go from 41ppm (No additions, which no one plays) to 58ppm. That still wouldn't stop me from loading up on guard squads.
I guess my question STILL remains. What tangible affect are you looking to accomplish by increasing cost of ppm? Because changing the guard squad costs wouldn't affect anything. They will still be extremely cost effective meat shields and point defense.
Making them 5ppm is about balance, not trying to make guard unplayable.
Just not making every other troop choice an auto loose in when fighting guardsmen for objectives.
I've never seen anyone play vets its all scions for plasma as it needs to be in rapid fire range for overcharge and deepstirke for free with a 4+ Sv does that way better.
People state that at 5ppm or 50 points for the squad they are unplayable, plenty of people are playing units that perform at the 5ppm Guardsmen level or worse.
Unit1126PLL wrote:ITT:
"This army that came in 20th in a tournament and 2nd if we only include mono armies is OP."
Uhhhhhhhh.... they were in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 3 other spots in the top 10 at that tournament. As a Primary army, they had more spots than any other army with 3 primary Guard placings in that same top 10, and as a primary army, were the #1 army in top 3 placings in tournament this month. The only reason that the #20 placing is placing is referenced at all, is because a certain person said "literally none of that matters at all, it only matters what position they were able to take without a single ally", which everyone agreed is stupid as hell, but was soon pointed out that even by this ridiculous standard they were still extremely successful.
Did you read this thread, or just what you wantsd to see?
Unit1126PLL wrote:ITT:
"This army that came in 20th in a tournament and 2nd if we only include mono armies is OP."
Uhhhhhhhh.... they were in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 3 other spots in the top 10 at that tournament. As a Primary army, they had more spots than any other army with 3 primary Guard placings in that same top 10, and as a primary army, were the #1 army in top 3 placings in tournament this month. The only reason that the #20 placing is placing is referenced at all, is because a certain person said "literally none of that matters at all, it only matters what position they were able to take without a single ally", which everyone agreed is stupid as hell, but was soon pointed out that even by this ridiculous standard they were still extremely successful.
Did you read this thread, or just what you wantsd to see?
As no one else here seems to be able to understand my question, or answer it with any intelligence, I will try you. You seem to at least have played the game.
You seem to be advocating the stance that in their current state AM is unbalanced at best, and op at worst. Please correct me if this is wrong. I can't read every response in 15 pages of back and forth. If that accurately summs up your stance, then please help me to understand your next point. How will altering the cost of the models in a single infantry unit have the desire re-balancing effect? If the army is unbalanced, what good does model points have? Shouldn't we be taking a wider approach to the issue? Shouldn't the cost of more seemingly broken units which get abused be altered? CC Spam is an issue, as is Lehman Russ Spam. Why target the weakest model in the whole codex?
While I agree that punishing one codex because rest of the others are underperforming is in poor form, but it's not really the case.
Guardsmen are undercosted for what they bring to the table, and if you refuse to believe that, then obviously the discussion can't go on as it'll just go in circles.
+1 point to guardsmen is not going to make IG obsolete/end the world/make them unplayable etc.
If you truly believe 5ppm guardsmen is going to ruin the faction, please post us before and after army list so we can actually see the impact it has on the list.
Unit1126PLL wrote:ITT:
"This army that came in 20th in a tournament and 2nd if we only include mono armies is OP."
Uhhhhhhhh.... they were in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 3 other spots in the top 10 at that tournament. As a Primary army, they had more spots than any other army with 3 primary Guard placings in that same top 10, and as a primary army, were the #1 army in top 3 placings in tournament this month. The only reason that the #20 placing is placing is referenced at all, is because a certain person said "literally none of that matters at all, it only matters what position they were able to take without a single ally", which everyone agreed is stupid as hell, but was soon pointed out that even by this ridiculous standard they were still extremely successful.
Did you read this thread, or just what you wantsd to see?
All I read is: "Imperial Guard, when taken with units that shore up their weaknesses, can take the top spot at tournaments."
Well no gak, sherlock. Perhaps the problem is that their weaknesses are so obvious that they're easy to shore up? Maybe they have the weaknesses that the rest of the Imperium armory easily addresses? That doesn't mean the army is over-powered as a mono-codex.
Being the primary detachment means that the codex is good, for sure, but it doesn't mean overpowered until that primary detachment, alone without friends to prop it up, starts to actually score points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: While I agree that punishing one codex because rest of the others are underperforming is in poor form, but it's not really the case.
Guardsmen are undercosted for what they bring to the table, and if you refuse to believe that, then obviously the discussion can't go on as it'll just go in circles.
+1 point to guardsmen is not going to make IG obsolete/end the world/make them unplayable etc.
If you truly believe 5ppm guardsmen is going to ruin the faction, please post us before and after army list so we can actually see the impact it has on the list.
This is what people said about 4ppm conscripts, and now conscripts are unplayable.
This is what people said about 4ppm conscripts, and now conscripts are unplayable.
Only because the guardsmen cost the same. Of course no one is gonna take the worse unit when better one is available for the same price. (Which is idiotic, It's like if Tacticals and Intercessors costed the same.)
Unit1126PLL wrote:ITT: "This army that came in 20th in a tournament and 2nd if we only include mono armies is OP."
Uhhhhhhhh.... they were in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 3 other spots in the top 10 at that tournament. As a Primary army, they had more spots than any other army with 3 primary Guard placings in that same top 10, and as a primary army, were the #1 army in top 3 placings in tournament this month. The only reason that the #20 placing is placing is referenced at all, is because a certain person said "literally none of that matters at all, it only matters what position they were able to take without a single ally", which everyone agreed is stupid as hell, but was soon pointed out that even by this ridiculous standard they were still extremely successful.
Did you read this thread, or just what you wantsd to see?
As no one else here seems to be able to understand my question, or answer it with any intelligence, I will try you. You seem to at least have played the game.
You seem to be advocating the stance that in their current state AM is unbalanced at best, and op at worst. Please correct me if this is wrong. I can't read every response in 15 pages of back and forth. If that accurately summs up your stance, then please help me to understand your next point. How will altering the cost of the models in a single infantry unit have the desire re-balancing effect? If the army is unbalanced, what good does model points have? Shouldn't we be taking a wider approach to the issue? Shouldn't the cost of more seemingly broken units which get abused be altered? CC Spam is an issue, as is Lehman Russ Spam. Why target the weakest model in the whole codex?
forgetting CP farm allies for a second and talking on guard as a solo faction: I honestly think Guard are fairly balanced. Very strong, but not breaking the game strong (nobody is), and a good example of an army with good and bad match ups. However, as it stands I think they need to be tweaked down a little to be on par with the general power level of the rest of the game, and there is one stand out instance of poor balance in that dex, and that's the Guardsmen - 4 points for what is in every other army a 5 point model. If for some reason they were a static unit at that level it might be a bit understandable while units like Neophytes are a point higher, but Guardsmen in fact get some of the best army rules, and between regiment, units like Straken, and orders; their cost just lends this unnecessary weight towards Guard that they simply don't deserve or need, and I think just fixing them to 5 pts is one of the easiest and most obvious changes GW could make, that has no chance of killing an army but a strong chance of normalising them to the level of every other.
That's my serious take on this topic.
Now if you don't mind I'd like to get back to eating popcorn and watching how a hole deep Asmodios can dig himself
greatbigtree wrote: Ok, so it now takes 100 shots to put 5 wounds on T5, instead of 200 shots... I wasn't actively attacking T5 with Lasguns anyhow. It was, and is, Hail Mary for the last wound on a squad.
It takes roughly 20 shots to put a wound on MEQ. So double tap range for a full squad, or FRF, SRF on a full squad at long range. If you have a pair of squads, without upgrades (which I don't use), otherwise, you're throwing all the lasgun shot from 3 squads, in hopes of getting one or two wounds to finish off a unit.
They're really not that amazing, unless you have 100 shots. At which point, you've amassed the incredible killing power of 4 Plasmaguns that hit on 3+ in double-tap range. Whoopee!
The things you are saying to have a lot of value without scale or comparison.
PPD is about all the matters. When talking about weapons. 3 guardsmen have roughly the same cost as a bolter marine
What does more damage?
6 shots hitting on 4's or 2 shots hitting on 3?
3 hits to 1.33
1 wound to .666 against t4.
It's pretty easy to see the las guns are winning here. Plus the las guns can shoot twice. All the bolters can do is hit better with a max hits of 2. So max wounds of 2.
A 10 man infantry unit can easily have a fantastic roll and force 25 saves on something with FRFSRF. This is something a squad with 5 bolters could never do (and they cost more). More shots is always better than an equal average value of damage from less shots.
Unit1126PLL wrote:ITT:
"This army that came in 20th in a tournament and 2nd if we only include mono armies is OP."
Uhhhhhhhh.... they were in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 3 other spots in the top 10 at that tournament. As a Primary army, they had more spots than any other army with 3 primary Guard placings in that same top 10, and as a primary army, were the #1 army in top 3 placings in tournament this month. The only reason that the #20 placing is placing is referenced at all, is because a certain person said "literally none of that matters at all, it only matters what position they were able to take without a single ally", which everyone agreed is stupid as hell, but was soon pointed out that even by this ridiculous standard they were still extremely successful.
Did you read this thread, or just what you wantsd to see?
As no one else here seems to be able to understand my question, or answer it with any intelligence, I will try you. You seem to at least have played the game.
You seem to be advocating the stance that in their current state AM is unbalanced at best, and op at worst. Please correct me if this is wrong. I can't read every response in 15 pages of back and forth. If that accurately summs up your stance, then please help me to understand your next point. How will altering the cost of the models in a single infantry unit have the desire re-balancing effect? If the army is unbalanced, what good does model points have? Shouldn't we be taking a wider approach to the issue? Shouldn't the cost of more seemingly broken units which get abused be altered? CC Spam is an issue, as is Lehman Russ Spam. Why target the weakest model in the whole codex?
forgetting CP farm allies for a second and talking on guard as a solo faction: I honestly think Guard are fairly balanced. Very strong, but not breaking the game strong (nobody is), and a good example of an army with good and bad match ups. However, as it stands I think they need to be tweaked down a little to be on par with the general power level of the rest of the game, and there is one stand out instance of poor balance in that dex, and that's the Guardsmen - 4 points for what is in every other army a 5 point model. If for some reason they were a static unit at that level it might be a bit understandable while units like Neophytes are a point higher, but Guardsmen in fact get some of the best army rules, and between regiment, units like Straken, and orders; their cost just lends this unnecessary weight towards Guard that they simply don't deserve or need, and I think just fixing them to 5 pts is one of the easiest and most obvious changes GW could make, that has no chance of killing an army but a strong chance of normalising them to the level of every other.
That's my serious take on this topic.
Now if you don't mind I'd like to get back to eating popcorn and watching how a hole deep Asmodios can dig himself
Completely agree.
I think I have even stated it exactly like that "It is the easiest and most obvious change GW could make to bring guard in line".
Unit1126PLL wrote:ITT:
"This army that came in 20th in a tournament and 2nd if we only include mono armies is OP."
Uhhhhhhhh.... they were in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 3 other spots in the top 10 at that tournament. As a Primary army, they had more spots than any other army with 3 primary Guard placings in that same top 10, and as a primary army, were the #1 army in top 3 placings in tournament this month. The only reason that the #20 placing is placing is referenced at all, is because a certain person said "literally none of that matters at all, it only matters what position they were able to take without a single ally", which everyone agreed is stupid as hell, but was soon pointed out that even by this ridiculous standard they were still extremely successful.
Did you read this thread, or just what you wantsd to see?
All I read is: "Imperial Guard, when taken with units that shore up their weaknesses, can take the top spot at tournaments."
Well no gak, sherlock. Perhaps the problem is that their weaknesses are so obvious that they're easy to shore up? Maybe they have the weaknesses that the rest of the Imperium armory easily addresses? That doesn't mean the army is over-powered as a mono-codex.
Being the primary detachment means that the codex is good, for sure, but it doesn't mean overpowered until that primary detachment, alone without friends to prop it up, starts to actually score points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: While I agree that punishing one codex because rest of the others are underperforming is in poor form, but it's not really the case.
Guardsmen are undercosted for what they bring to the table, and if you refuse to believe that, then obviously the discussion can't go on as it'll just go in circles.
+1 point to guardsmen is not going to make IG obsolete/end the world/make them unplayable etc.
If you truly believe 5ppm guardsmen is going to ruin the faction, please post us before and after army list so we can actually see the impact it has on the list.
This is what people said about 4ppm conscripts, and now conscripts are unplayable.
Conscripts are unplayable because there is a unit that has the exact same cost that has better stats. This is utterly asinine to even mention. It is utterly asinine that GW could consider that change a fix to anything.
If GW listened to the intelligent people on the topic. Here is what they would have done a freaking year ago (yet we will wait for GW to make competent rules).
They would have made conscript unable to receive orders. Plus raise the cost to 4 PPM.
They would have raised the cost of an infantry to 5 PPM.
They would have made orders go off on a 4+. (doubling 2 units firepower for 30 points automatically is absolutely slowed)
They would have made the commissar change but written it in such a way that it didn't force you to reroll and acceptable dice roll and risk rolling a worse one.
Xenomancers wrote: Conscripts are unplayable because there is a unit that has the exact same cost that has better stats. This is utterly asinine to even mention. It is utterly asinine that GW could consider that change a fix to anything.
If GW listened to the intelligent people on the topic. Here is what they would have done a freaking year ago (yet we will wait for GW to make competent rules). They would have made conscript unable to receive orders. Plus raise the cost to 4 PPM. They would have raised the cost of an infantry to 5 PPM. They would have made orders go off on a 4+. (doubling 2 units firepower for 30 points automatically is absolutely slowed) They would have made the commissar change but written it in such a way that it didn't force you to reroll and acceptable dice roll and risk rolling a worse one.
Conscripts are unplayable because they die horribly and aren't immune to leadership. No one is taking unupgraded Imperial Guard squads for their offensive power. People are taking unupgraded Guard squads because they're at less risk of dying to leadership than Conscripts are, since not dying is literally their only function. The "better stats" are better, sure, but not really, not unupgraded with a lasgun. Equal points shooting at Marines, it's less than a single wound of difference, i.e. disappears into the noise. That's how bad lasguns are. 4ppm conscripts die too easily to be useful, telling me that they'd've been fine at 3ppm, all other things being the way they are now.
If GW listened to actually intelligent people and not your warped perception of what is intelligent (which funnily enough matches up with what you think of yourself; Dunning-Kruger perhaps?), here's what would have happened if they implemented your changes: - Conscripts would be, and still are, unplayable. - This is probably fine, but I don't actually think fixes any problems, since Guard being OP is a spurious claim. It just hurts guard because you emotionally dislike them and want to hurt them. - Only as soon as you have to roll a 4+ to turn your Auras on for a turn. Remember, Guard get Orders instead of Auras. - Yes, we agree on this, and this actually has been done.
Unit1126PLL wrote:ITT:
"This army that came in 20th in a tournament and 2nd if we only include mono armies is OP."
Uhhhhhhhh.... they were in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 3 other spots in the top 10 at that tournament. As a Primary army, they had more spots than any other army with 3 primary Guard placings in that same top 10, and as a primary army, were the #1 army in top 3 placings in tournament this month. The only reason that the #20 placing is placing is referenced at all, is because a certain person said "literally none of that matters at all, it only matters what position they were able to take without a single ally", which everyone agreed is stupid as hell, but was soon pointed out that even by this ridiculous standard they were still extremely successful.
Did you read this thread, or just what you wantsd to see?
As no one else here seems to be able to understand my question, or answer it with any intelligence, I will try you. You seem to at least have played the game.
You seem to be advocating the stance that in their current state AM is unbalanced at best, and op at worst. Please correct me if this is wrong. I can't read every response in 15 pages of back and forth. If that accurately summs up your stance, then please help me to understand your next point. How will altering the cost of the models in a single infantry unit have the desire re-balancing effect? If the army is unbalanced, what good does model points have? Shouldn't we be taking a wider approach to the issue? Shouldn't the cost of more seemingly broken units which get abused be altered? CC Spam is an issue, as is Lehman Russ Spam. Why target the weakest model in the whole codex?
forgetting CP farm allies for a second and talking on guard as a solo faction: I honestly think Guard are fairly balanced. Very strong, but not breaking the game strong (nobody is), and a good example of an army with good and bad match ups. However, as it stands I think they need to be tweaked down a little to be on par with the general power level of the rest of the game, and there is one stand out instance of poor balance in that dex, and that's the Guardsmen - 4 points for what is in every other army a 5 point model. If for some reason they were a static unit at that level it might be a bit understandable while units like Neophytes are a point higher, but Guardsmen in fact get some of the best army rules, and between regiment, units like Straken, and orders; their cost just lends this unnecessary weight towards Guard that they simply don't deserve or need, and I think just fixing them to 5 pts is one of the easiest and most obvious changes GW could make, that has no chance of killing an army but a strong chance of normalising them to the level of every other.
That's my serious take on this topic.
Now if you don't mind I'd like to get back to eating popcorn and watching how a hole deep Asmodios can dig himself
Ah another jab at me with no actual response to any Data i presented.... Not to mention the top of your post is you agreeing with me that "Guard are fairly balanced. Very strong, but not game breaking".
I guess having you agree with my overal point is somehow me digging myself a hole? whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night
If guardsmen are only going up to 5 points, and not the 6 or 7 they deserve, Lasguns should be strength 2, and their save should be 6+. Conscripts should be 7+.
I bring Termagants, which have T3, 1 shot at 12". I can't take them in squads of 9 like IG can to avoid reaper. They have a 6+ save. They cost me 4ppm.
IG puts too many wounds on the table in general. Their artillery tanks are not fragile enough given their costs, and 4 pts is too cheap for anything with a 5+ base save.
Marmatag wrote: If guardsmen are only going up to 5 points, and not the 6 or 7 they deserve, Lasguns should be strength 2, and their save should be 6+. Conscripts should be 7+.
Why should guardsmen be 7 points when Skitarii Rangers are also 7 points and much much much much better?
Marmatag wrote: If guardsmen are only going up to 5 points, and not the 6 or 7 they deserve, Lasguns should be strength 2, and their save should be 6+. Conscripts should be 7+.
Why should guardsmen be 7 points when Skitarii Rangers are also 7 points and much much much much better?
Because Guardsmen have more synergy and serve a more valuable purpose in the context of Astra Militarum & Imperium.
Hormagants have 0 ranged weapons, a 6+ save, cannot receive orders, don't have kickass cheap tanks to back them up, and cost 5ppm. Explain why Guardsmen should be either cheaper (the reality) or the same cost (what people are advocating and Fake News Guard players are whinging about), when in reality they should at least be 1 point more.
Do you know how much better Tyranids would be if they could take Guardsmen as troops in a <HIVE FLEET> detachment?
Xenomancers wrote: Conscripts are unplayable because there is a unit that has the exact same cost that has better stats. This is utterly asinine to even mention. It is utterly asinine that GW could consider that change a fix to anything.
If GW listened to the intelligent people on the topic. Here is what they would have done a freaking year ago (yet we will wait for GW to make competent rules).
They would have made conscript unable to receive orders. Plus raise the cost to 4 PPM.
They would have raised the cost of an infantry to 5 PPM.
They would have made orders go off on a 4+. (doubling 2 units firepower for 30 points automatically is absolutely slowed)
They would have made the commissar change but written it in such a way that it didn't force you to reroll and acceptable dice roll and risk rolling a worse one.
Conscripts are unplayable because they die horribly and aren't immune to leadership. No one is taking unupgraded Imperial Guard squads for their offensive power. People are taking unupgraded Guard squads because they're at less risk of dying to leadership than Conscripts are, since not dying is literally their only function. The "better stats" are better, sure, but not really, not unupgraded with a lasgun. Equal points shooting at Marines, it's less than a single wound of difference, i.e. disappears into the noise. That's how bad lasguns are. 4ppm conscripts die too easily to be useful, telling me that they'd've been fine at 3ppm, all other things being the way they are now.
If GW listened to actually intelligent people and not your warped perception of what is intelligent (which funnily enough matches up with what you think of yourself; Dunning-Kruger perhaps?), here's what would have happened if they implemented your changes:
- Conscripts would be, and still are, unplayable.
- This is probably fine, but I don't actually think fixes any problems, since Guard being OP is a spurious claim. It just hurts guard because you emotionally dislike them and want to hurt them.
- Only as soon as you have to roll a 4+ to turn your Auras on for a turn. Remember, Guard get Orders instead of Auras.
- Yes, we agree on this, and this actually has been done.
You claim to be intelligent yet make this idiotic statement. "no one is taking upgraded infantry for their firepower?"
Pretty sure everyone who takes infantry squads intends to shoot with them during the game. And mathematically they will get more out of it per point than practically any troop unit. Plus my solutions are good solutions.
When they made this conscript nerf I said - "great - now people will just spam OP infantry squads" - then looked what happened.
Because they didn't increase the cost of Guardsmen, which we all knew they should. 6-7 PPM is the right spot for Guardsmen given 8th edition as a whole.
You can bring an infantry squad + a mortar and deny reaper, for cheaper than i can bring 10 Hormagants. i will have no ranged weapons, meanwhile you'll be taking aim & rerolling all hits for free.
Marmatag wrote: If guardsmen are only going up to 5 points, and not the 6 or 7 they deserve, Lasguns should be strength 2, and their save should be 6+. Conscripts should be 7+.
Why should guardsmen be 7 points when Skitarii Rangers are also 7 points and much much much much better?
Because Guardsmen have more synergy and serve a more valuable purpose in the context of Astra Militarum & Imperium.
Hormagants have 0 ranged weapons, a 6+ save, cannot receive orders, don't have kickass cheap tanks to back them up, and cost 5ppm. Explain why Guardsmen should be either cheaper (the reality) or the same cost (what people are advocating and Fake News Guard players are whinging about), when in reality they should at least be 1 point more.
Do you know how much better Tyranids would be if they could take Guardsmen as troops in a <HIVE FLEET> detachment?
Marmatag wrote: Because they didn't increase the cost of Guardsmen, which we all knew they should. 6-7 PPM is the right spot for Guardsmen given 8th edition as a whole.
You can bring an infantry squad + a mortar and deny reaper, for cheaper than i can bring 10 Hormagants. i will have no ranged weapons, meanwhile you'll be taking aim & rerolling all hits for free.
Couldn't we achieve balance by increasing the cost of officers and making infantry 5ppm...maybe droping horms to 4 PPM and giving both terms and horms a 5+ save?
Marmatag wrote: If guardsmen are only going up to 5 points, and not the 6 or 7 they deserve, Lasguns should be strength 2, and their save should be 6+. Conscripts should be 7+.
I bring Termagants, which have T3, 1 shot at 12". I can't take them in squads of 9 like IG can to avoid reaper. They have a 6+ save. They cost me 4ppm.
But Gants can; get 3 shots, have ways to DS 20-30 mans, Double shoot and even have MW's via stratagems, have -1 to hit via other units, immune to Moral, re-rolls with X or more, an HQ that buffs them and rebirths them, able to get FnP.
You can NOT measure units against each other without ALL the buffs they can get.
Martel732 wrote: It's hard to say guardsmen should be 6 ppm when kabalites are 6 ppm.
Kabalites are a 7-8ppm unit easily, but that's neither here nor there, eldar in some form have always been broken. And we cannot evaluate Eldar until ALAITOC is nerfed honestly.
The claim that Guard armies are winning on the back of the Infantry Squad doing anything other than dying is ... just bonkers. Infantry Squads die well, that's about all they do. Their offensive power is fairly irrelevant. In my games, I can usually count on a single hand how many wounds were dealt to the enemy by lasguns.
Guard at 7ppm would no longer be better for Imperium than Skitarii Rangers, because the whole reason Guard are good for Imperium armies right now is cheapness...
Marmatag wrote: If guardsmen are only going up to 5 points, and not the 6 or 7 they deserve, Lasguns should be strength 2, and their save should be 6+. Conscripts should be 7+.
I bring Termagants, which have T3, 1 shot at 12". I can't take them in squads of 9 like IG can to avoid reaper. They have a 6+ save. They cost me 4ppm.
But Gants can; get 3 shots, have ways to DS 20-30 mans, Double shoot and even have MW's via stratagems, have -1 to hit via other units, immune to Moral, re-rolls with X or more, an HQ that buffs them and rebirths them, able to get FnP.
You can NOT measure units against each other without ALL the buffs they can get.
You have to pay for base stats first IMO. This is. Stats and weapons - you increase the base cost of that with abiltiies the units have on their data sheet. Synergies with other units should factor into the cost of those abilities. Nether Gants or Infantry have any data sheet abilities worth note (gaunts get reroll 1's to wound in units of 20+) but every units gets 1 freebie like this - with guardsmen it's really their weapon being rapid fire.
IMO a stratagem should not affect the cost of a unit. The stratagem has a cost to pay for it - if the synergy is too strong - increase the cost of the strat.
Martel732 wrote: It's hard to say guardsmen should be 6 ppm when kabalites are 6 ppm.
Kabalites are a 7-8ppm unit easily, but that's neither here nor there, eldar in some form have always been broken. And we cannot evaluate Eldar until ALAITOC is nerfed honestly.
Yes b.c T3 5+ guys with Poison bolters are amazing and thats why you see 80+ in every DE army on the table and not the minimum 3 units or 6 units for CP's.
Marmatag wrote: If guardsmen are only going up to 5 points, and not the 6 or 7 they deserve, Lasguns should be strength 2, and their save should be 6+. Conscripts should be 7+.
I bring Termagants, which have T3, 1 shot at 12". I can't take them in squads of 9 like IG can to avoid reaper. They have a 6+ save. They cost me 4ppm.
But Gants can; get 3 shots, have ways to DS 20-30 mans, Double shoot and even have MW's via stratagems, have -1 to hit via other units, immune to Moral, re-rolls with X or more, an HQ that buffs them and rebirths them, able to get FnP.
You can NOT measure units against each other without ALL the buffs they can get.
i started typing so many things and deleted them because i just don't know where to begin on how wrong this is.
However it is probably my favourite comment so far, so please don't stop, I want to see where this leads
The claim that Guard armies are winning on the back of the Infantry Squad doing anything other than dying is ... just bonkers. Infantry Squads die well, that's about all they do. Their offensive power is fairly irrelevant. In my games, I can usually count on a single hand how many wounds were dealt to the enemy by lasguns.
Guard at 7ppm would no longer be better for Imperium than Skitarii Rangers, because the whole reason Guard are good for Imperium armies right now is cheapness...
If Infantry only "die well", please present a troop choice more durable for the cost. I'll be waiting.
Marmatag wrote: If guardsmen are only going up to 5 points, and not the 6 or 7 they deserve, Lasguns should be strength 2, and their save should be 6+. Conscripts should be 7+.
Why should guardsmen be 7 points when Skitarii Rangers are also 7 points and much much much much better?
Because Guardsmen have more synergy and serve a more valuable purpose in the context of Astra Militarum & Imperium.
Hormagants have 0 ranged weapons, a 6+ save, cannot receive orders, don't have kickass cheap tanks to back them up, and cost 5ppm. Explain why Guardsmen should be either cheaper (the reality) or the same cost (what people are advocating and Fake News Guard players are whinging about), when in reality they should at least be 1 point more.
Do you know how much better Tyranids would be if they could take Guardsmen as troops in a <HIVE FLEET> detachment?
This is in fact happening since Tyranid players are using GSC Neophyte which are superior to Tyranids Hormas/Termas even in their Index status...so sad
Are you being ironic? Do you really believe that math wise dark reapers are good???
I don't play against eldar so I wouldn't know.
Ok, i'll bait. Here is your comparison, 165 points of marines (sarg and 4 lascannon devs) vs 5 darks reapers (170) points. No cherub for ease of math and to make it even more stacked against marines, which are not even a competitive choice to begin with. The sarg does not even have an auspex! He also forgot his bolter home! The exarch also has a reaper launcher instead of the typical exarch weapon which would make him look bad in this AT comparison.
Durability: No match here, same exact stats except that marines are T4. This does not count against artillery o LR fire of Str8+ but against mortars, burst cannons, devourers, and the like increases durability by 20% or 33%. Marines also have an ablative wound in the sarg.
Firepower:
Against an LR equivalent (T8 3+) we have 5,08 wounds for marines 3,26 for Reapers. Marines inflict 56% more damage.
Against Predator/PBC equivalent (T7 3+) we have 5,08 wounds for marines and 4,32 for Reapers. Marines inflict 18% more damage. PBC have DR, but it impatcs both weapons for the same percentage. Marines still win by the same margin.
Against TVault/knight equivalent (T8 4++) we have 3,05 for marines and 2,47 for Reapers. Marines inflict 23% more damage.
Against Armiger equivalent (T7 5++) we have 4,02 for marines and 4,32 for reapers. Reapers win by 7%.
Against flyrant equivalent (T7 4++) we have 3,04 for marines and 3,267 for reapers. Reapers win by 7%.
Well, don't forget that Reapers have 2W on their leader, so that would likely skew durability to about even.
- it takes 27 boltgun hits to kill a 5 reaper squad.
- 30 boltguns to kill the 5 man dev squad.
so +10% durability for marines.
Now for output:
Shooting at a Russ:
-Reapers: 3.33 W
-Devs: 5.18 W (3.88 W if moving)
+55% (+16%) for devs Shooting at a Predator:
- Reapers: 4.44 W
- Devs: 5.18 W (3.88 W if moving)
+16% for devs (+14% for Reapers)
Shooting at a Riptide:
- Reapers: 4.44 W
- Devs: 4.15 W (3.11 if moving)
+7% (+42%) for Reapers
Shooting at a Ghostkeel (w/ shield, no drones):
- Reapers: 3.33 W
- Devs: 2.33 W (1.55 W if moving)
+42% (+114%) for reapers
Shooting at an Armored Sentinel:
- Reapers: 4.44 W
- Devs: 5.18 W (3.88 W if moving)
+16% for devs (+14% for Reapers)
Shooting at a Custode:
- Reapers: 3.33 W
- Devs: 2.66 W (2W if moving)
+28% (+65%) for Reapers
Shooting at an Intercesssor:
- Reapers: 5.9 W
- Devs: 3.7 W (2.77 W if moving)
+59% (+112%) for Reapers
So basically, devs win out against toughness 8, no invuln/shenanigans models. But against anything else, Reapers win.
In the case of the predator and sentinel, the two are about even when considering variable movement, so if the devs only move once every 2 turns, the damage averages out.
Marmatag wrote: If guardsmen are only going up to 5 points, and not the 6 or 7 they deserve, Lasguns should be strength 2, and their save should be 6+. Conscripts should be 7+.
I bring Termagants, which have T3, 1 shot at 12". I can't take them in squads of 9 like IG can to avoid reaper. They have a 6+ save. They cost me 4ppm.
But Gants can; get 3 shots, have ways to DS 20-30 mans, Double shoot and even have MW's via stratagems, have -1 to hit via other units, immune to Moral, re-rolls with X or more, an HQ that buffs them and rebirths them, able to get FnP.
You can NOT measure units against each other without ALL the buffs they can get.
i started typing so many things and deleted them because i just don't know where to begin on how wrong this is.
However it is probably my favourite comment so far, so please don't stop, I want to see where this leads
Please type, b.c a unit in a vacuum is pointless to measure, do i agree that IG should be 5ppm? sure i can take it, do i think they are so OP that they make Gants pointless? No i dont, many tournaments players are using 60-90 mix gants and winning, i use gants and like them, i feel 4ppm is fine for them.
If you are familiar with "Wargame: Red Dragon", you would see that each faction has different flavors of essentially the same units. However, the interaction with LOS, cover, hiding etc... give the game huge tactical depth, and the minute differences between units can be exploited by clever deployment to gain an advantage over otherwise similar units.
does it still have a community? I always wanted to get into that game
There's about 300ish people on at a given time. I would suggest getting a friend to play with first to learn the ropes though since multiplayer is brutal. I got it for $10 during a sale, and they have sales fairly often.
Marmatag wrote: You can bring an infantry squad + a mortar and deny reaper, f you'll be taking aim & rerolling all hits for free.
No? You can only do that if you're Cadian, and you gotta pay for an officer (which bumps the cost of Guardsmen to 6ppm, right now)
Why is people ussing officers has an argument to defend how Infantry Squads are not OP when the fact that you are forced to bring HQ in any kind of detachment and officers are so cheap and so usefull is actually one of the best parts of IG.
Infantry squads are not "worse" because they need an Officer to work properly. Is the opposite, many armies would kill for HQ's like Officers.
If you are familiar with "Wargame: Red Dragon", you would see that each faction has different flavors of essentially the same units. However, the interaction with LOS, cover, hiding etc... give the game huge tactical depth, and the minute differences between units can be exploited by clever deployment to gain an advantage over otherwise similar units.
does it still have a community? I always wanted to get into that game
There's about 300ish people on at a given time. I would suggest getting a friend to play with first to learn the ropes though since multiplayer is brutal. I got it for $10 during a sale, and they have sales fairly often.
I own the game. Played it with a friend for a bit, who I also played 40k with, but unfortunately had a falling out with. I was teaching him how to get good at 40k and he was teaching me Wargame (at the time Airland Battle was the wave) but I dropped it at the same time as dropping him as a friend. However, the game itself also seemed pretty awesome. I'm in Australia though, is that gonna mean its no-one?
Bobthehero wrote: Officers are cheap, not free, which was my point, yeah you'll usually have one buffing your squad, but its not like you don't pay for it.
They basically don't pay for it. They are basically free compared to other armies' HQ choices.
Bobthehero wrote: Officers are cheap, not free, which was my point, yeah you'll usually have one buffing your squad, but its not like you don't pay for it.
They basically don't pay for it. They are basically free compared to other armies' HQ choices.
30 Points to buff two squads as compared to 75ish points to buff as many as you can squeeze within 6"? Seems like a fair tradeoff, especially considering the 75 point model shoots better with a better gun, fights better with a better melee weapon, and is tougher.
Marmatag wrote: You can bring an infantry squad + a mortar and deny reaper, f you'll be taking aim & rerolling all hits for free.
No? You can only do that if you're Cadian, and you gotta pay for an officer (which bumps the cost of Guardsmen to 6ppm, right now)
Why is people ussing officers has an argument to defend how Infantry Squads are not OP when the fact that you are forced to bring HQ in any kind of detachment and officers are so cheap and so usefull is actually one of the best parts of IG.
Infantry squads are not "worse" because they need an Officer to work properly. Is the opposite, many armies would kill for HQ's like Officers.
I try to argue this point all the time. It falls on deaf ears most the time.
Marmatag wrote: You can bring an infantry squad + a mortar and deny reaper, f you'll be taking aim & rerolling all hits for free.
No? You can only do that if you're Cadian, and you gotta pay for an officer (which bumps the cost of Guardsmen to 6ppm, right now)
Why is people ussing officers has an argument to defend how Infantry Squads are not OP when the fact that you are forced to bring HQ in any kind of detachment and officers are so cheap and so usefull is actually one of the best parts of IG.
Infantry squads are not "worse" because they need an Officer to work properly. Is the opposite, many armies would kill for HQ's like Officers.
"Fake News, I feel that Guard HQs are bigly expensive. Sad." -Guard players
Bobthehero wrote: Officers are cheap, not free, which was my point, yeah you'll usually have one buffing your squad, but its not like you don't pay for it.
They basically don't pay for it. They are basically free compared to other armies' HQ choices.
30 Points to buff two squads as compared to 75ish points to buff as many as you can squeeze within 6"? Seems like a fair tradeoff, especially considering the 75 point model shoots better with a better gun, fights better with a better melee weapon, and is tougher.
60 points to fill HQ requirements for a batallion and turn 54 shots into 108....it's absolutely insane man. Probably also twinlinking a mortar unit too.
The aura hq is still only 1 hq too. You have to bye another. So the end result is - you have a batallion that is super buffed and I have 2 hq's with nothing buff yet.
Think of it like this:
A Guard squad with a Heavy and Special Weapon + an officer isn't much more expensive than a Tactical Marine squad with a Plasma Gun.
Everything in this discussion falls on deaf ears. This is the same people who argued that IG is weak because nobody runs it solo. These are the new equivalent of 6th-7th Tau community.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Think of it like this: A Guard squad with a Heavy and Special Weapon + an officer isn't much more expensive than a Tactical Marine squad with a Plasma Gun.
And that Guard Squad with a Heavy and Special Weapon is degrading its effectiveness when given FRFSRF, a Tac Marine Squad with a Plasma Gun isn't degrading its effectiveness from a trait unless it is Imperial Fists.
Unless there's an aura I've missed explicitly affecting Boltguns?
SHUPPET wrote: Everything in this discussion falls on deaf ears. This is the same people who argued that IG is weak because nobody runs it solo. These are the new equivalent of 6th-7th Tau community.
Eh more like Eldar I'd wager. Not to say 7th Tau was weak of course, but I find the apologists more like Eldar players defending their units compared to Tau players who, in their defense, had a worse written codex.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Think of it like this:
A Guard squad with a Heavy and Special Weapon + an officer isn't much more expensive than a Tactical Marine squad with a Plasma Gun.
And that Guard Squad with a Heavy and Special Weapon is degrading its effectiveness when given FRFSRF, a Tac Marine Squad with a Plasma Gun isn't degrading its effectiveness from a trait unless it is Imperial Fists.
Unless there's an aura I've missed explicitly affecting Boltguns?
Hard to say it's degrading the effectiveness of an order when the Order is effectively still 6+ free shots instead of 9. Poor you :(
Bobthehero wrote: Officers are cheap, not free, which was my point, yeah you'll usually have one buffing your squad, but its not like you don't pay for it.
They basically don't pay for it. They are basically free compared to other armies' HQ choices.
30 Points to buff two squads as compared to 75ish points to buff as many as you can squeeze within 6"? Seems like a fair tradeoff, especially considering the 75 point model shoots better with a better gun, fights better with a better melee weapon, and is tougher.
60 points to fill HQ requirements for a batallion and turn 54 shots into 108....it's absolutely insane man. Probably also twinlinking a mortar unit too.
The aura hq is still only 1 hq too. You have to bye another. So the end result is - you have a batallion that is super buffed and I have 2 hq's with nothing buff yet.
60 points gets you four orders. Just four. So you can only FRFSRF four squads, for 36 into 72 shots.
And Marines can buy a Lieutenant, which stacks just fine with a Captain/Chapter Master. Guard can get a Commisar, if they want... Which sucks.
Note: I'm not saying Marines are as good as guard. They aren't-but again, why say "Nerf Guard!" when guard are in a good place, especially in relation to being able to run different things and still perform well, instead of saying "Buff Marines!" so everyone can enjoy all aspects of their codex?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Think of it like this:
A Guard squad with a Heavy and Special Weapon + an officer isn't much more expensive than a Tactical Marine squad with a Plasma Gun.
And that Guard Squad with a Heavy and Special Weapon is degrading its effectiveness when given FRFSRF, a Tac Marine Squad with a Plasma Gun isn't degrading its effectiveness from a trait unless it is Imperial Fists.
Unless there's an aura I've missed explicitly affecting Boltguns?
Hard to say it's degrading the effectiveness of an order when the Order is effectively still 6+ free shots instead of 9. Poor you :(
So you're for having to choose which auras apply and making them more restrictive weapon-wise?
Bobthehero wrote: Officers are cheap, not free, which was my point, yeah you'll usually have one buffing your squad, but its not like you don't pay for it.
They basically don't pay for it. They are basically free compared to other armies' HQ choices.
30 Points to buff two squads as compared to 75ish points to buff as many as you can squeeze within 6"? Seems like a fair tradeoff, especially considering the 75 point model shoots better with a better gun, fights better with a better melee weapon, and is tougher.
But in practice, its not. Table coverage is a thing. Being forced to castle sucks.
30 Points to buff two squads as compared to 75ish points to buff as many as you can squeeze within 6"? Seems like a fair tradeoff, especially considering the 75 point model shoots better with a better gun, fights better with a better melee weapon, and is tougher.
If FRFSRF would just let you just reroll ones instead of doubling the firepower of your lasguns I'd buy that as an argument...
30 Points to buff two squads as compared to 75ish points to buff as many as you can squeeze within 6"? Seems like a fair tradeoff, especially considering the 75 point model shoots better with a better gun, fights better with a better melee weapon, and is tougher.
If FRFSRF would just let you just reroll ones instead of doubling the firepower of your lasguns I'd buy that as an argument...
You're buffing a weaker gun with a worse BS. Again, Guard are better than Marines, no argument there, but why demand Guard be nerfed instead of buffing Marines?
Where is everyone getting these hundreds of shots from? 1x 10 man squad has 9 lasguns, sgt has a pistol. so in Rapid fire range, that's 18 shots. with FRSSRF that is doubled, so 36 shots. Per 10 man squad. So you need 3x squads all firing to get 100 shots. There is no list in existence that wins with any major frequency that uses the 6x unaltered 10 man squads that is required to get 200 shots.
Finally, to get this Game breaking majesty, you have to expend all your orders on this, for the turn. Lets not spend any orders on Take Aim, or an extra Melee round for the bullgryns, or a extra advance order. No, the only thing used in mathhammer tourny is FRFSRF. This is extremely hard to pull off with any regularity, and it only happens with extremely stupid opponents that charge into 12" range of ALL 6 GUARD SQUADS.
The end of this arguement is this. The game was balanced around a very key idea. YOU AREN'T A COMPLETE MORON. I now know that GW balanced the game wrong, because you man babies are completely gak at this game. For emperors sake you keep arguing like AM players are running around with unaltered 10 man squads. No one does this. It's a crappy tactic that will lose you the game.
30 Points to buff two squads as compared to 75ish points to buff as many as you can squeeze within 6"? Seems like a fair tradeoff, especially considering the 75 point model shoots better with a better gun, fights better with a better melee weapon, and is tougher.
If FRFSRF would just let you just reroll ones instead of doubling the firepower of your lasguns I'd buy that as an argument...
So then what does "Take Aim!" do? Let you target characters without penalty?
I'd be down for FRFSRF seeing more utility(affecting all the weapons in a squad) in exchange for some kind of penalty.
Maybe something like:
First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire!: Until your next turn, models in this unit get to fire twice with their weapon when firing Overwatch. They cannot fire or charge or fight in combat during your turn or they lose this bonus.
30 Points to buff two squads as compared to 75ish points to buff as many as you can squeeze within 6"? Seems like a fair tradeoff, especially considering the 75 point model shoots better with a better gun, fights better with a better melee weapon, and is tougher.
If FRFSRF would just let you just reroll ones instead of doubling the firepower of your lasguns I'd buy that as an argument...
So then what does "Take Aim!" do? Let you target characters without penalty?
I'd be down for FRFSRF seeing more utility(affecting all the weapons in a squad) in exchange for some kind of penalty.
Maybe something like:
First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire!: Until your next turn, models in this unit get to fire twice with their weapon when firing Overwatch. They cannot fire or charge or fight in combat during your turn or they lose this bonus.
Eh, that's pretty crappy. You get 1/6*2=1/3 hits per normal shot, as compared to the straight 1/2 you get from shooting normally.
30 Points to buff two squads as compared to 75ish points to buff as many as you can squeeze within 6"? Seems like a fair tradeoff, especially considering the 75 point model shoots better with a better gun, fights better with a better melee weapon, and is tougher.
If FRFSRF would just let you just reroll ones instead of doubling the firepower of your lasguns I'd buy that as an argument...
You're buffing a weaker gun with a worse BS. Again, Guard are better than Marines, no argument there, but why demand Guard be nerfed instead of buffing Marines?
Marines are unlikely to get buffs big enough to close the gap. That's why.
30 Points to buff two squads as compared to 75ish points to buff as many as you can squeeze within 6"? Seems like a fair tradeoff, especially considering the 75 point model shoots better with a better gun, fights better with a better melee weapon, and is tougher.
If FRFSRF would just let you just reroll ones instead of doubling the firepower of your lasguns I'd buy that as an argument...
So then what does "Take Aim!" do? Let you target characters without penalty?
I'd be down for FRFSRF seeing more utility(affecting all the weapons in a squad) in exchange for some kind of penalty.
Maybe something like:
First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire!: Until your next turn, models in this unit get to fire twice with their weapon when firing Overwatch. They cannot fire or charge or fight in combat during your turn or they lose this bonus.
Eh, that's pretty crappy. You get 1/6*2=1/3 hits per normal shot, as compared to the straight 1/2 you get from shooting normally.
By "fire twice", I mean they actually get to perform two shooting attack chains.
Ie: 2 shots for RF range and then another 2 shots for RF range, heavy 3*2, etc.
Since it's all on 6s and only on specific units for Overwatch, you'd think the haters would be all about this.
Bobthehero wrote: Officers are cheap, not free, which was my point, yeah you'll usually have one buffing your squad, but its not like you don't pay for it.
They basically don't pay for it. They are basically free compared to other armies' HQ choices.
30 Points to buff two squads as compared to 75ish points to buff as many as you can squeeze within 6"? Seems like a fair tradeoff, especially considering the 75 point model shoots better with a better gun, fights better with a better melee weapon, and is tougher.
60 points to fill HQ requirements for a batallion and turn 54 shots into 108....it's absolutely insane man. Probably also twinlinking a mortar unit too.
The aura hq is still only 1 hq too. You have to bye another. So the end result is - you have a batallion that is super buffed and I have 2 hq's with nothing buff yet.
60 points gets you four orders. Just four. So you can only FRFSRF four squads, for 36 into 72 shots.
And Marines can buy a Lieutenant, which stacks just fine with a Captain/Chapter Master. Guard can get a Commisar, if they want... Which sucks.
Note: I'm not saying Marines are as good as guard. They aren't-but again, why say "Nerf Guard!" when guard are in a good place, especially in relation to being able to run different things and still perform well, instead of saying "Buff Marines!" so everyone can enjoy all aspects of their codex?
Do I really need to break this down?
9x lasguns has 18 shots in rapid fire range. 27 las guns = 3x18 infantry units has 54 base shots - double that (frfsrf) you get 108.
30 Points to buff two squads as compared to 75ish points to buff as many as you can squeeze within 6"? Seems like a fair tradeoff, especially considering the 75 point model shoots better with a better gun, fights better with a better melee weapon, and is tougher.
If FRFSRF would just let you just reroll ones instead of doubling the firepower of your lasguns I'd buy that as an argument...
You're buffing a weaker gun with a worse BS. Again, Guard are better than Marines, no argument there, but why demand Guard be nerfed instead of buffing Marines?
Marines are unlikely to get buffs big enough to close the gap. That's why.
Rerolling hits and wounds of 1s as auras is a fairly big deal when you're BS/WS3+.
Being able to still perform a fight or shooting attack when you're slain(Ancients) in an aura is a fairly big deal.
Seriously, what do you think Marines need to "close the gap"? Mortal wounds on save rolls of 6+? Immunity to S3 or lower weapons?
Okay, you didn't say that you were assuming Rapid Fire range, and three squads of Infantry. Especially since, if they are within 12", add three shots for the pistols, for 111.
And, as a reminder, 111 shots are 55.5 hits, which is 18.5 wounds, which is just over 6 dead Marines.
180 points to kill 78 points of Marines, who closed to Rapid Fire range but didn't charge or anything.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Where is everyone getting these hundreds of shots from? 1x 10 man squad has 9 lasguns, sgt has a pistol. so in Rapid fire range, that's 18 shots. with FRSSRF that is doubled, so 36 shots. Per 10 man squad. So you need 3x squads all firing to get 100 shots. There is no list in existence that wins with any major frequency that uses the 6x unaltered 10 man squads that is required to get 200 shots.
Finally, to get this Game breaking majesty, you have to expend all your orders on this, for the turn. Lets not spend any orders on Take Aim, or an extra Melee round for the bullgryns, or a extra advance order. No, the only thing used in mathhammer tourny is FRFSRF. This is extremely hard to pull off with any regularity, and it only happens with extremely stupid opponents that charge into 12" range of ALL 6 GUARD SQUADS.
The end of this arguement is this. The game was balanced around a very key idea. YOU AREN'T A COMPLETE MORON. I now know that GW balanced the game wrong, because you man babies are completely gak at this game. For emperors sake you keep arguing like AM players are running around with unaltered 10 man squads. No one does this. It's a crappy tactic that will lose you the game.
You mean like - they failed a charge and now they get to get exterminated by 4 point models? Or they are trying to get into rapid fire range themselves...or the guard play is moving up with a horde of 60 units while 9+ big gun units are raining fire?
JNAProductions wrote: Okay, you didn't say that you were assuming Rapid Fire range, and three squads of Infantry. Especially since, if they are within 12", add three shots for the pistols, for 111.
And, as a reminder, 111 shots are 55.5 hits, which is 18.5 wounds, which is just over 6 dead Marines.
180 points to kill 78 points of Marines, who closed to Rapid Fire range but didn't charge or anything.
It's always interesting how often that kind of thing gets left out.
And I'd potentially give the Marines a further edge by saying they're Raven Guard, since at 12 inches or further they're at a -1 to be hit.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Where is everyone getting these hundreds of shots from? 1x 10 man squad has 9 lasguns, sgt has a pistol. so in Rapid fire range, that's 18 shots. with FRSSRF that is doubled, so 36 shots. Per 10 man squad. So you need 3x squads all firing to get 100 shots. There is no list in existence that wins with any major frequency that uses the 6x unaltered 10 man squads that is required to get 200 shots.
Finally, to get this Game breaking majesty, you have to expend all your orders on this, for the turn. Lets not spend any orders on Take Aim, or an extra Melee round for the bullgryns, or a extra advance order. No, the only thing used in mathhammer tourny is FRFSRF. This is extremely hard to pull off with any regularity, and it only happens with extremely stupid opponents that charge into 12" range of ALL 6 GUARD SQUADS.
The end of this arguement is this. The game was balanced around a very key idea. YOU AREN'T A COMPLETE MORON. I now know that GW balanced the game wrong, because you man babies are completely gak at this game. For emperors sake you keep arguing like AM players are running around with unaltered 10 man squads. No one does this. It's a crappy tactic that will lose you the game.
You mean like - they failed a charge and now they get to get exterminated by 4 point models? Or they are trying to get into rapid fire range themselves...or the guard play is moving up with a horde of 60 units while 9+ big gun units are raining fire?
I wish I played the Marine players that let me do that.
You mean like - they failed a charge and now they get to get exterminated by 4 point models? Or they are trying to get into rapid fire range themselves...or the guard play is moving up with a horde of 60 units while 9+ big gun units are raining fire?
Rapid Fire range for Marines is the same as it is for Guard, unless the Guard player is using Vostroyans.
You mean like - they failed a charge and now they get to get exterminated by 4 point models? Or they are trying to get into rapid fire range themselves...or the guard play is moving up with a horde of 60 units while 9+ big gun units are raining fire?
Rapid Fire range for Marines is the same as it is for Guard, unless the Guard player is using Vostroyans.
So why didn't the Marine player rapid fire first?
To be fair, Armageddon Steel Legion also has a very long rapid fire range.
JNAProductions wrote: Okay, you didn't say that you were assuming Rapid Fire range, and three squads of Infantry. Especially since, if they are within 12", add three shots for the pistols, for 111.
And, as a reminder, 111 shots are 55.5 hits, which is 18.5 wounds, which is just over 6 dead Marines.
180 points to kill 78 points of Marines, who closed to Rapid Fire range but didn't charge or anything.
182 pts of fire warriors kills 75 pts of marines in rapid fire.
Or 182 pts of tacts to kill 40 pts of marines.
You mean like - they failed a charge and now they get to get exterminated by 4 point models? Or they are trying to get into rapid fire range themselves...or the guard play is moving up with a horde of 60 units while 9+ big gun units are raining fire?
Rapid Fire range for Marines is the same as it is for Guard, unless the Guard player is using Vostroyans.
So why didn't the Marine player rapid fire first?
To be fair, Armageddon Steel Legion also has a very long rapid fire range.
Shows how often I run into Steel Legion that I always forget their 18" and vehicle buff!
Your chaff is cheaper than mine and way stronger, it is:
1. Stronger on offense (range, strength, accuracy)
2. Stronger on defense (5+ save vs 6+ save)
3. Cheaper
4. Immune to Reaper (my squads give my opponent 1 point, yours give 0)
5. Able to receive orders. Shooting twice costs me 2CP, it costs you an order.
Explain to me how this is fair, thanks.
Tiny wall of guardsmen WILL be in rapid fire range at some point because Tyranids rely on assault and close range.
Bobthehero wrote: Officers are cheap, not free, which was my point, yeah you'll usually have one buffing your squad, but its not like you don't pay for it.
They basically don't pay for it. They are basically free compared to other armies' HQ choices.
30 Points to buff two squads as compared to 75ish points to buff as many as you can squeeze within 6"? Seems like a fair tradeoff, especially considering the 75 point model shoots better with a better gun, fights better with a better melee weapon, and is tougher.
60 points to fill HQ requirements for a batallion and turn 54 shots into 108....it's absolutely insane man. Probably also twinlinking a mortar unit too.
The aura hq is still only 1 hq too. You have to bye another. So the end result is - you have a batallion that is super buffed and I have 2 hq's with nothing buff yet.
60 points gets you four orders. Just four. So you can only FRFSRF four squads, for 36 into 72 shots.
And Marines can buy a Lieutenant, which stacks just fine with a Captain/Chapter Master. Guard can get a Commisar, if they want... Which sucks.
Note: I'm not saying Marines are as good as guard. They aren't-but again, why say "Nerf Guard!" when guard are in a good place, especially in relation to being able to run different things and still perform well, instead of saying "Buff Marines!" so everyone can enjoy all aspects of their codex?
Because guard don't just outshoot Marines
They out shoot everyone Point for Point.
FW vrs IS IS wins
Tac Squad Vrs IS IS wins
Dire avenger Vrs IS IS wins
Don't forget that detachment limits are a thing as well. Those 180 points of Guardsmen that killed 6 marines? They're an entire Battalion, or a good chunk of a Brigade (180/560-odd points). In order to bring that many guardsmen, you've given up at least one detachment slot, and killed 6 space marines.
This is why I think the mythical Guard boogeyman doesn't actually show up in games; the actual practicality of the list when taken out of a vacuum isn't there. I agree Guard is strong, and I would like to see the CP regen nerfed into the ground so they stop getting souped with people just for that, but I'm not sure the "Guard behemoth that is unbeatable" is really actually true.
JNAProductions wrote: Okay, you didn't say that you were assuming Rapid Fire range, and three squads of Infantry. Especially since, if they are within 12", add three shots for the pistols, for 111.
And, as a reminder, 111 shots are 55.5 hits, which is 18.5 wounds, which is just over 6 dead Marines.
180 points to kill 78 points of Marines, who closed to Rapid Fire range but didn't charge or anything.
182 pts of fire warriors kills 75 pts of marines in rapid fire.
Or 182 pts of tacts to kill 40 pts of marines.
That's an issue with those units and the conversion for some weapons from AP5 to the new system.
I'm not against Pulse Rifles(not Carbines!) and Bolters getting a buff, whether it be 6s cause MWs or something like that.
Marmatag wrote: Why does it matter how many marines it kills?
Your chaff is cheaper than mine and way stronger, it is:
1. Stronger on offense (range, strength, accuracy)
2. Stronger on defense (5+ save vs 6+ save)
3. Cheaper
4. Immune to Reaper (my squads give my opponent 1 point, yours give 0)
5. Able to receive orders. Shooting twice costs me 2CP, it costs you an order.
Explain to me how this is fair, thanks.
Tiny wall of guardsmen WILL be in rapid fire range at some point because Tyranids rely on assault and close range.
Range, yes. Strength, no-aren't Fleshborers S4? Accuracy, no, they both hit on a 4+.
Defense, yes... Until you run into morale, which Nids can easily be immune to and Guardsmen are not.
Cheaper... Are Termagants 5 Points? If they are, they can definitely go down to 4. If they're 4... They're the same price.
Reaper only matters if you play ITC.
And Teramagants can receive a -1 to hit, cover in the open, Synapse...
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Think of it like this:
A Guard squad with a Heavy and Special Weapon + an officer isn't much more expensive than a Tactical Marine squad with a Plasma Gun.
And that Guard Squad with a Heavy and Special Weapon is degrading its effectiveness when given FRFSRF, a Tac Marine Squad with a Plasma Gun isn't degrading its effectiveness from a trait unless it is Imperial Fists.
Unless there's an aura I've missed explicitly affecting Boltguns?
Hard to say it's degrading the effectiveness of an order when the Order is effectively still 6+ free shots instead of 9. Poor you :(
So you're for having to choose which auras apply and making them more restrictive weapon-wise?
Cool! Great to hear!
Firing twice with 6 of those weapons in a 10 man squad is FAR better than rerolling 1's to hit with 6 dudes. Simple math.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Think of it like this:
A Guard squad with a Heavy and Special Weapon + an officer isn't much more expensive than a Tactical Marine squad with a Plasma Gun.
And that Guard Squad with a Heavy and Special Weapon is degrading its effectiveness when given FRFSRF, a Tac Marine Squad with a Plasma Gun isn't degrading its effectiveness from a trait unless it is Imperial Fists.
Unless there's an aura I've missed explicitly affecting Boltguns?
Hard to say it's degrading the effectiveness of an order when the Order is effectively still 6+ free shots instead of 9. Poor you :(
So you're for having to choose which auras apply and making them more restrictive weapon-wise?
Cool! Great to hear!
Firing twice with 6 of those weapons in a 10 man squad is FAR better than rerolling 1's to hit with 6 dudes. Simple math.
And having multiple squads of 5, hitting on 3+s and wounding on 4s usually, rerolling 1s to hit and 1s to wound is pretty good too.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Think of it like this:
A Guard squad with a Heavy and Special Weapon + an officer isn't much more expensive than a Tactical Marine squad with a Plasma Gun.
And that Guard Squad with a Heavy and Special Weapon is degrading its effectiveness when given FRFSRF, a Tac Marine Squad with a Plasma Gun isn't degrading its effectiveness from a trait unless it is Imperial Fists.
Unless there's an aura I've missed explicitly affecting Boltguns?
Hard to say it's degrading the effectiveness of an order when the Order is effectively still 6+ free shots instead of 9. Poor you :(
So you're for having to choose which auras apply and making them more restrictive weapon-wise?
Cool! Great to hear!
Firing twice with 6 of those weapons in a 10 man squad is FAR better than rerolling 1's to hit with 6 dudes. Simple math.
Except the reroll 1s is an aura. You can use it to affect, in theory, 2,000 points. Now, obviously that's not a game-winning tactic, but you can pretty easily get 400-500 points affected by a 6" bubble.
Whereas orders (excepting Tank Orders, which only come from Tank Commanders) can only affect something like 100 points, top.
Marmatag wrote: Why does it matter how many marines it kills?
Your chaff is cheaper than mine and way stronger, it is:
1. Stronger on offense (range, strength, accuracy)
2. Stronger on defense (5+ save vs 6+ save)
3. Cheaper
4. Immune to Reaper (my squads give my opponent 1 point, yours give 0)
5. Able to receive orders. Shooting twice costs me 2CP, it costs you an order.
Explain to me how this is fair, thanks.
Tiny wall of guardsmen WILL be in rapid fire range at some point because Tyranids rely on assault and close range.
Range, yes. Strength, no-aren't Fleshborers S4? Accuracy, no, they both hit on a 4+.
Defense, yes... Until you run into morale, which Nids can easily be immune to and Guardsmen are not.
Cheaper... Are Termagants 5 Points? If they are, they can definitely go down to 4. If they're 4... They're the same price.
Reaper only matters if you play ITC.
And Teramagants can receive a -1 to hit, cover in the open, Synapse...
Hormagants are S3 and cost 5 points.
Termagants do have S4 guns, at 12" range. Guardsmen HANDILY win this fight... and Termagants are rarely in range of anything. They're there to die, and Guardsmen do that better.
Reaper only matters if you play ITC... what a BS comment.
meleti wrote: This thread is so weird. Drowning the world in a sea of flashlights is pretty far down the “why Guardsmen are good” list.
Lasguns are easily the most buffed weapon in the entire game from the transition of 7 to 8.
1. It wounds T5 like T4 now
2. You can maybe even inflict 1 wounds on a vehicle
3. It doesn't care about having AP0, because most weapons became like this
4. Because Infantry became cheaper in the transition, you get even more shots compared to other units with basic weapons
Marmatag wrote: Why does it matter how many marines it kills?
Your chaff is cheaper than mine and way stronger, it is:
1. Stronger on offense (range, strength, accuracy)
2. Stronger on defense (5+ save vs 6+ save)
3. Cheaper
4. Immune to Reaper (my squads give my opponent 1 point, yours give 0)
5. Able to receive orders. Shooting twice costs me 2CP, it costs you an order.
Explain to me how this is fair, thanks.
Tiny wall of guardsmen WILL be in rapid fire range at some point because Tyranids rely on assault and close range.
Range, yes. Strength, no-aren't Fleshborers S4? Accuracy, no, they both hit on a 4+.
Defense, yes... Until you run into morale, which Nids can easily be immune to and Guardsmen are not.
Cheaper... Are Termagants 5 Points? If they are, they can definitely go down to 4. If they're 4... They're the same price.
Reaper only matters if you play ITC.
And Teramagants can receive a -1 to hit, cover in the open, Synapse...
Hormagants are S3 and cost 5 points.
Termagants do have S4 guns, at 12" range. Guardsmen HANDILY win this fight... and Termagants are rarely in range of anything. They're there to die, and Guardsmen do that better.
Reaper only matters if you play ITC... what a BS comment.
"No one plays ITC, it's fake news" -Guard players
I didn't say no one plays ITC, I said Reaper only matters if you play ITC. For me, personally, I do not play ITC.
And in tournaments... Guard are not stomping around. They're good, they're competitive, but they aren't OP.
For casual play, one could argue Guard are too good. (I'd argue that other stuff could stand to be buffed.) But casual play isn't ITC, and doesn't feature Reaper.
Guard are stomping people, they were better represented at BAO in the top 10 by a wide margin. They are winning GTs now as mono-guard. (Boise comes to mind, a recent GT taken by mono-guard). They are also winning competitive RTTs.
Here's your reply: "This is fake news that never happened, bigly sad."
Marmatag wrote: Guard are stomping people, they were better represented at BAO in the top 10 by a wide margin. They are winning GTs now as mono-guard. (Boise comes to mind, a recent GT taken by mono-guard). They are also winning competitive RTTs.
Here's your reply: "This is fake news that never happened, bigly sad."
Imperium Soup, with Guard as part of it, is stomping around.
When was Boise? If I remember correctly, that was last year, which was several FAQs and whatnot ago. And wasn't that one won with an illegal list? Or am I thinking of a different tournament?
Marmatag wrote: Guard are stomping people, they were better represented at BAO in the top 10 by a wide margin. They are winning GTs now as mono-guard. (Boise comes to mind, a recent GT taken by mono-guard). They are also winning competitive RTTs.
Here's your reply: "This is fake news that never happened, bigly sad."
Almost none of that is due to the damage dealing capabilities of basic Guardsmen, though. Which makes this current discussion hilarious.
Marmatag wrote: Guard are stomping people, they were better represented at BAO in the top 10 by a wide margin. They are winning GTs now as mono-guard. (Boise comes to mind, a recent GT taken by mono-guard). They are also winning competitive RTTs.
Here's your reply: "This is fake news that never happened, bigly sad."
Imperium Soup, with Guard as part of it, is stomping around.
When was Boise? If I remember correctly, that was last year, which was several FAQs and whatnot ago. And wasn't that one won with an illegal list? Or am I thinking of a different tournament?
Was last month. I think Brandon Grant won it with the Catachan brigade list and maybe some Knights.
You mean like - they failed a charge and now they get to get exterminated by 4 point models? Or they are trying to get into rapid fire range themselves...or the guard play is moving up with a horde of 60 units while 9+ big gun units are raining fire?
Rapid Fire range for Marines is the same as it is for Guard, unless the Guard player is using Vostroyans.
So why didn't the Marine player rapid fire first?
Rapid fire range is totally attainable im saying. It's especially attainable when the opponent is coming at you and trying to charge you. Gaurd players don't typically move until it's to get into rapid fire range.
Marmatag wrote: Guard are stomping people, they were better represented at BAO in the top 10 by a wide margin. They are winning GTs now as mono-guard. (Boise comes to mind, a recent GT taken by mono-guard). They are also winning competitive RTTs.
Here's your reply: "This is fake news that never happened, bigly sad."
Imperium Soup, with Guard as part of it, is stomping around.
When was Boise? If I remember correctly, that was last year, which was several FAQs and whatnot ago. And wasn't that one won with an illegal list? Or am I thinking of a different tournament?
What unit can go up against equal points of Infantry squads and win? What units can go up againy equal points of Infantry squads plus Commanders and win?
Marmatag wrote: Guard are stomping people, they were better represented at BAO in the top 10 by a wide margin. They are winning GTs now as mono-guard. (Boise comes to mind, a recent GT taken by mono-guard). They are also winning competitive RTTs.
Here's your reply: "This is fake news that never happened, bigly sad."
Almost none of that is due to the damage dealing capabilities of basic Guardsmen, though. Which makes this current discussion hilarious.
Marmatag wrote: Guard are stomping people, they were better represented at BAO in the top 10 by a wide margin. They are winning GTs now as mono-guard. (Boise comes to mind, a recent GT taken by mono-guard). They are also winning competitive RTTs.
Here's your reply: "This is fake news that never happened, bigly sad."
Imperium Soup, with Guard as part of it, is stomping around.
When was Boise? If I remember correctly, that was last year, which was several FAQs and whatnot ago. And wasn't that one won with an illegal list? Or am I thinking of a different tournament?
Was last month. I think Brandon Grant won it with the Catachan brigade list and maybe some Knights.
Where do you come up with that nonsense though? It's already been mathematically proven countless times that Infantry are very efficient shooters...Catachan infantry have 2 str 4 attacks around straken....like...you do realize that is better than an ork shoota boy...LOL.
Marmatag wrote: Why does it matter how many marines it kills?
Your chaff is cheaper than mine and way stronger, it is:
1. Stronger on offense (range, strength, accuracy)
2. Stronger on defense (5+ save vs 6+ save)
3. Cheaper
4. Immune to Reaper (my squads give my opponent 1 point, yours give 0)
5. Able to receive orders. Shooting twice costs me 2CP, it costs you an order.
Explain to me how this is fair, thanks.
Tiny wall of guardsmen WILL be in rapid fire range at some point because Tyranids rely on assault and close range.
Range, yes. Strength, no-aren't Fleshborers S4? Accuracy, no, they both hit on a 4+.
Defense, yes... Until you run into morale, which Nids can easily be immune to and Guardsmen are not.
Cheaper... Are Termagants 5 Points? If they are, they can definitely go down to 4. If they're 4... They're the same price.
Reaper only matters if you play ITC.
And Teramagants can receive a -1 to hit, cover in the open, Synapse...
Hormagants are S3 and cost 5 points.
Termagants do have S4 guns, at 12" range. Guardsmen HANDILY win this fight... and Termagants are rarely in range of anything. They're there to die, and Guardsmen do that better.
Reaper only matters if you play ITC... what a BS comment.
"No one plays ITC, it's fake news" -Guard players
I didn't say no one plays ITC, I said Reaper only matters if you play ITC. For me, personally, I do not play ITC.
And in tournaments... Guard are not stomping around. They're good, they're competitive, but they aren't OP.
For casual play, one could argue Guard are too good. (I'd argue that other stuff could stand to be buffed.) But casual play isn't ITC, and doesn't feature Reaper.
I think I understand where you are coming from now.
Here is the truth - if you are consistantly showing up in the top 10 at events. Chances are every single unit in your list is OP.
Marmatag, I think earlier in the thread I asked you if you actually had access to the lists in question and if I could see them.
I've heard conflicting reports, even between things like FLG and BCP, about what lists had what in them. I'd be curious to see that data if you managed to save it.
I'm satisfied now that 5 ppm guardsmen are where they should be. The math against fire warriors really impressed me and as a guard player I am convinced now.
However, I still stand by my assertion that 5ppm guardsmen would hurt guard a LOT, unless a lot of other changes are made to the game first. Namely price increases for kabalites, rangers and other units that would be flat out superior to 5ppm guardsmen, and nerfs for neophytes, which are guardsmen +1L for the same price point. To all of the people saying a 1ppm increase isn't much, it absolutely is, it is a 25% increase in infantry price. It would increase my 2000 pt army almost 100 pts and I don't even play infantry-heavy guard, Infantry-heavy guard lists are looking at possibly as high as 250 pt increases.
If someone on the opposite side could make a reasoned response to my second paragraph instead of snarking at me I would appreciate it.
Marmatag wrote: Why does it matter how many marines it kills?
Your chaff is cheaper than mine and way stronger, it is:
1. Stronger on offense (range, strength, accuracy)
2. Stronger on defense (5+ save vs 6+ save)
3. Cheaper
4. Immune to Reaper (my squads give my opponent 1 point, yours give 0)
5. Able to receive orders. Shooting twice costs me 2CP, it costs you an order.
Explain to me how this is fair, thanks.
Tiny wall of guardsmen WILL be in rapid fire range at some point because Tyranids rely on assault and close range.
Range, yes. Strength, no-aren't Fleshborers S4? Accuracy, no, they both hit on a 4+.
Defense, yes... Until you run into morale, which Nids can easily be immune to and Guardsmen are not.
Cheaper... Are Termagants 5 Points? If they are, they can definitely go down to 4. If they're 4... They're the same price.
Reaper only matters if you play ITC.
And Teramagants can receive a -1 to hit, cover in the open, Synapse...
Hormagants are S3 and cost 5 points.
Termagants do have S4 guns, at 12" range. Guardsmen HANDILY win this fight... and Termagants are rarely in range of anything. They're there to die, and Guardsmen do that better.
Reaper only matters if you play ITC... what a BS comment.
"No one plays ITC, it's fake news" -Guard players
I didn't say no one plays ITC, I said Reaper only matters if you play ITC. For me, personally, I do not play ITC.
And in tournaments... Guard are not stomping around. They're good, they're competitive, but they aren't OP.
For casual play, one could argue Guard are too good. (I'd argue that other stuff could stand to be buffed.) But casual play isn't ITC, and doesn't feature Reaper.
I think I understand where you are coming from now.
Here is the truth - if you are consistantly showing up in the top 10 at events. Chances are every single unit in your list is OP.
So why is everyone talking about just guard and not BA or Knights or Custodes?
Because, let's see, what appeared in the top lists...
We've got Daemon Princes, Blightlord Terminators, Foul Blightspawn, Plagueburst Crawlers, Helverins and dual-Gatling Knights.
We've got Company Commander and Infantry squads, pretty much solely to provide CP for a Castellan, a Crusader, and two Gallants.
We've got more Guard providing CP for Slamginiusi and a Castellan.
We've got more Guard providing CP for Custodes and a Culexus for fun.
And we've got more CP Batteries providing Blood Angels and Knights.
Which, yeah, I totally agree that slotting in a Battalion of 32 Guardsmen for 5 CP, 5+ regen on your CP and 5+ regen on your opponent's strats is bonkers good.
But without Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist... They're not. And this proposal-increasing the CP battery's cost by 30 points-would require barely any changes to the existing lists.
If you want to talk about nerfing the CP Battery or Soup, that's fine! Those show up in 4 of the top 5 lists.
But Guardsmen make up about 10% of each of those lists. Not very much.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Don't forget that detachment limits are a thing as well. Those 180 points of Guardsmen that killed 6 marines? They're an entire Battalion, or a good chunk of a Brigade (180/560-odd points). In order to bring that many guardsmen, you've given up at least one detachment slot, and killed 6 space marines.
This is why I think the mythical Guard boogeyman doesn't actually show up in games; the actual practicality of the list when taken out of a vacuum isn't there. I agree Guard is strong, and I would like to see the CP regen nerfed into the ground so they stop getting souped with people just for that, but I'm not sure the "Guard behemoth that is unbeatable" is really actually true.
Are you seriously complaining that you can't bring more infantry? That is what it sounds like.
Gaurd CPgen is not the problem. I can get the exact same thing by Bringing Gman. With any imperial army. 3 auto command points (equal to 9 stratagems played by aquila) and the exact same regen trait. Heck - I even get a super beast in the process. Know what I am not getting? 30 models that take up space and put out 108 shots a turn to clear chaff (one of the most important things in the game) for less than half the cost.
You never hear anyone complaining about GMan generating command points? Why? Mostly because he is overcosted. The issues is cost.
w1zard wrote: I'm satisfied now that 5 ppm guardsmen are where they should be. The math against fire warriors really impressed me and as a guard player I am convinced now.
However, I still stand by my assertion that 5ppm guardsmen would hurt guard a LOT, unless a lot of other changes are made to the game first. Namely price increases for kabalites, rangers and other units that would be flat out superior to 5ppm guardsmen, and nerfs for neophytes, which are guardsmen +1L for the same price point. To all of the people saying a 1ppm increase isn't much, it absolutely is, it is a 25% increase in infantry price. It would increase my 2000 pt army almost 100 pts and I don't even play infantry-heavy guard, Infantry-heavy guard lists are looking at possibly as high as 250 pt increases.
If someone on the opposite side could make a reasoned response to my second paragraph instead of snarking at me I would appreciate it.
The reasoned response will probably be "sure but we're not talking about kabalites, and rangers, and other units like neophytes."
And then never mention them again once they have completed their vendetta against IG.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Don't forget that detachment limits are a thing as well. Those 180 points of Guardsmen that killed 6 marines? They're an entire Battalion, or a good chunk of a Brigade (180/560-odd points). In order to bring that many guardsmen, you've given up at least one detachment slot, and killed 6 space marines.
This is why I think the mythical Guard boogeyman doesn't actually show up in games; the actual practicality of the list when taken out of a vacuum isn't there. I agree Guard is strong, and I would like to see the CP regen nerfed into the ground so they stop getting souped with people just for that, but I'm not sure the "Guard behemoth that is unbeatable" is really actually true.
Are you seriously complaining that you can't bring more infantry? That is what it sounds like.
Gaurd CPgen is not the problem. I can get the exact same thing by Bringing Gman. With any imperial army. 3 auto command points (equal to 9 stratagems played by aquila) and the exact same regen trait. Heck - I even get a super beast in the process. Know what I am not getting? 30 models that take up space and put out 108 shots a turn to clear chaff (one of the most important things in the game).
You never hear anyone complaining about GMan generating command points? Why? Mostly because he is overcosted. The issues is cost.
Isn't GMan 5+ per strat you spend, not 5+ per CP spent and 5+ per start your enemy spends?
And doesn't he, you know, give full rerolls to hit and wound for nearby Ultramarines? If Marines were better costed, he'd be insane.
Edit: And if the CP isn't the issue, why do the 4 of the top 5 lists that include Guard include them for CP regen purposes?
Marmatag wrote: Guard are stomping people, they were better represented at BAO in the top 10 by a wide margin. They are winning GTs now as mono-guard. (Boise comes to mind, a recent GT taken by mono-guard). They are also winning competitive RTTs.
Here's your reply: "This is fake news that never happened, bigly sad."
Almost none of that is due to the damage dealing capabilities of basic Guardsmen, though. Which makes this current discussion hilarious.
Marmatag wrote: Guard are stomping people, they were better represented at BAO in the top 10 by a wide margin. They are winning GTs now as mono-guard. (Boise comes to mind, a recent GT taken by mono-guard). They are also winning competitive RTTs.
Here's your reply: "This is fake news that never happened, bigly sad."
Imperium Soup, with Guard as part of it, is stomping around.
When was Boise? If I remember correctly, that was last year, which was several FAQs and whatnot ago. And wasn't that one won with an illegal list? Or am I thinking of a different tournament?
Was last month. I think Brandon Grant won it with the Catachan brigade list and maybe some Knights.
Where do you come up with that nonsense though? It's already been mathematically proven countless times that Infantry are very efficient shooters...Catachan infantry have 2 str 4 attacks around straken....like...you do realize that is better than an ork shoota boy...LOL.
I think you’re getting lost in the math. Catachan guardsmen are great at killing T3 chaff in melee, especially with a ministorum priest. They aren’t actually much of a damage dealing element in those lists outside of that scenario, though. Guardsmen are there for board control, screening, back line duty, and CP generation. There’s much more killy units in Imperium lists that handle the actual workload of destroying more units.
w1zard wrote: I'm satisfied now that 5 ppm guardsmen are where they should be. The math against fire warriors really impressed me and as a guard player I am convinced now.
However, I still stand by my assertion that 5ppm guardsmen would hurt guard a LOT, unless a lot of other changes are made to the game first. Namely price increases for kabalites, rangers and other units that would be flat out superior to 5ppm guardsmen, and nerfs for neophytes, which are guardsmen +1L for the same price point. To all of the people saying a 1ppm increase isn't much, it absolutely is, it is a 25% increase in infantry price. It would increase my 2000 pt army almost 100 pts and I don't even play infantry-heavy guard, Infantry-heavy guard lists are looking at possibly as high as 250 pt increases.
If someone on the opposite side could make a reasoned response to my second paragraph instead of snarking at me I would appreciate it.
The reasoned response will probably be "sure but we're not talking about kabalites, and rangers, and other units like neophytes."
And then never mention them again once they have completed their vendetta against IG.
Please quit playing martyr. We didn't buy it for Eldar players in 6th/7th and we don't buy what you're doing now.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Don't forget that detachment limits are a thing as well. Those 180 points of Guardsmen that killed 6 marines? They're an entire Battalion, or a good chunk of a Brigade (180/560-odd points). In order to bring that many guardsmen, you've given up at least one detachment slot, and killed 6 space marines.
This is why I think the mythical Guard boogeyman doesn't actually show up in games; the actual practicality of the list when taken out of a vacuum isn't there. I agree Guard is strong, and I would like to see the CP regen nerfed into the ground so they stop getting souped with people just for that, but I'm not sure the "Guard behemoth that is unbeatable" is really actually true.
Are you seriously complaining that you can't bring more infantry? That is what it sounds like.
Gaurd CPgen is not the problem. I can get the exact same thing by Bringing Gman. With any imperial army. 3 auto command points (equal to 9 stratagems played by aquila) and the exact same regen trait. Heck - I even get a super beast in the process. Know what I am not getting? 30 models that take up space and put out 108 shots a turn to clear chaff (one of the most important things in the game).
You never hear anyone complaining about GMan generating command points? Why? Mostly because he is overcosted. The issues is cost.
I usually bring 30 guardsmen and 2 commanders to my games and I am also not getting 108 shots to clear chaff, because the games where my opponent obligingly wanders into rapid-fire range of all 3 squads while doing 0 damage have never actually happened.
You live in a fantasy land.
You are also continuing to peddle misinformation, as the Gman gives only 3 points for 440, not 5, and the regen trait is Per Stratagem for ultramarines, not Per Command Point Spent. The Imperial Guard detachment gives 5 CP (Battalion) plus the regen. Gman gives 3 CP (not a Battalion) plus shittier regen and no Aquila at all.
w1zard wrote: I'm satisfied now that 5 ppm guardsmen are where they should be. The math against fire warriors really impressed me and as a guard player I am convinced now.
However, I still stand by my assertion that 5ppm guardsmen would hurt guard a LOT, unless a lot of other changes are made to the game first. Namely price increases for kabalites, rangers and other units that would be flat out superior to 5ppm guardsmen, and nerfs for neophytes, which are guardsmen +1L for the same price point. To all of the people saying a 1ppm increase isn't much, it absolutely is, it is a 25% increase in infantry price. It would increase my 2000 pt army almost 100 pts and I don't even play infantry-heavy guard, Infantry-heavy guard lists are looking at possibly as high as 250 pt increases.
If someone on the opposite side could make a reasoned response to my second paragraph instead of snarking at me I would appreciate it.
The reasoned response will probably be "sure but we're not talking about kabalites, and rangers, and other units like neophytes."
And then never mention them again once they have completed their vendetta against IG.
Please quit playing martyr. We didn't buy it for Eldar players in 6th/7th and we don't buy what you're doing now.
Demonstrate unequivocally and without misinformation that Mono-Guard in 8th is as bad as Mono-Eldar in 6th/7th. I'll wait.
Marmatag wrote: Why does it matter how many marines it kills?
Your chaff is cheaper than mine and way stronger, it is:
1. Stronger on offense (range, strength, accuracy)
2. Stronger on defense (5+ save vs 6+ save)
3. Cheaper
4. Immune to Reaper (my squads give my opponent 1 point, yours give 0)
5. Able to receive orders. Shooting twice costs me 2CP, it costs you an order.
Explain to me how this is fair, thanks.
Tiny wall of guardsmen WILL be in rapid fire range at some point because Tyranids rely on assault and close range.
Range, yes. Strength, no-aren't Fleshborers S4? Accuracy, no, they both hit on a 4+.
Defense, yes... Until you run into morale, which Nids can easily be immune to and Guardsmen are not.
Cheaper... Are Termagants 5 Points? If they are, they can definitely go down to 4. If they're 4... They're the same price.
Reaper only matters if you play ITC.
And Teramagants can receive a -1 to hit, cover in the open, Synapse...
Hormagants are S3 and cost 5 points.
Termagants do have S4 guns, at 12" range. Guardsmen HANDILY win this fight... and Termagants are rarely in range of anything. They're there to die, and Guardsmen do that better.
Reaper only matters if you play ITC... what a BS comment.
"No one plays ITC, it's fake news" -Guard players
I didn't say no one plays ITC, I said Reaper only matters if you play ITC. For me, personally, I do not play ITC.
And in tournaments... Guard are not stomping around. They're good, they're competitive, but they aren't OP.
For casual play, one could argue Guard are too good. (I'd argue that other stuff could stand to be buffed.) But casual play isn't ITC, and doesn't feature Reaper.
I think I understand where you are coming from now.
Here is the truth - if you are consistantly showing up in the top 10 at events. Chances are every single unit in your list is OP.
So why is everyone talking about just guard and not BA or Knights or Custodes?
Because, let's see, what appeared in the top lists...
We've got Daemon Princes, Blightlord Terminators, Foul Blightspawn, Plagueburst Crawlers, Helverins and dual-Gatling Knights.
We've got Company Commander and Infantry squads, pretty much solely to provide CP for a Castellan, a Crusader, and two Gallants.
We've got more Guard providing CP for Slamginiusi and a Castellan.
We've got more Guard providing CP for Custodes and a Culexus for fun.
And we've got more CP Batteries providing Blood Angels and Knights.
Which, yeah, I totally agree that slotting in a Battalion of 32 Guardsmen for 5 CP, 5+ regen on your CP and 5+ regen on your opponent's strats is bonkers good.
But without Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist... They're not. And this proposal-increasing the CP battery's cost by 30 points-would require barely any changes to the existing lists.
If you want to talk about nerfing the CP Battery or Soup, that's fine! Those show up in 4 of the top 5 lists.
But Guardsmen make up about 10% of each of those lists. Not very much.
My proposals would increase the cost of the batery by 50 points. 5 point gaurdsmen with 40 point commanders. IMO this is quite generous. The CC quite lierally generates 36 str 3 shots on his own. That is worth well more than 40 points.
Marmatag wrote: Why does it matter how many marines it kills?
Your chaff is cheaper than mine and way stronger, it is:
1. Stronger on offense (range, strength, accuracy)
2. Stronger on defense (5+ save vs 6+ save)
3. Cheaper
4. Immune to Reaper (my squads give my opponent 1 point, yours give 0)
5. Able to receive orders. Shooting twice costs me 2CP, it costs you an order.
Explain to me how this is fair, thanks.
Tiny wall of guardsmen WILL be in rapid fire range at some point because Tyranids rely on assault and close range.
Range, yes. Strength, no-aren't Fleshborers S4? Accuracy, no, they both hit on a 4+.
Defense, yes... Until you run into morale, which Nids can easily be immune to and Guardsmen are not.
Cheaper... Are Termagants 5 Points? If they are, they can definitely go down to 4. If they're 4... They're the same price.
Reaper only matters if you play ITC.
And Teramagants can receive a -1 to hit, cover in the open, Synapse...
Hormagants are S3 and cost 5 points.
Termagants do have S4 guns, at 12" range. Guardsmen HANDILY win this fight... and Termagants are rarely in range of anything. They're there to die, and Guardsmen do that better.
Reaper only matters if you play ITC... what a BS comment.
"No one plays ITC, it's fake news" -Guard players
I didn't say no one plays ITC, I said Reaper only matters if you play ITC. For me, personally, I do not play ITC.
And in tournaments... Guard are not stomping around. They're good, they're competitive, but they aren't OP.
For casual play, one could argue Guard are too good. (I'd argue that other stuff could stand to be buffed.) But casual play isn't ITC, and doesn't feature Reaper.
I think I understand where you are coming from now.
Here is the truth - if you are consistantly showing up in the top 10 at events. Chances are every single unit in your list is OP.
So why is everyone talking about just guard and not BA or Knights or Custodes?
Because, let's see, what appeared in the top lists...
We've got Daemon Princes, Blightlord Terminators, Foul Blightspawn, Plagueburst Crawlers, Helverins and dual-Gatling Knights.
We've got Company Commander and Infantry squads, pretty much solely to provide CP for a Castellan, a Crusader, and two Gallants.
We've got more Guard providing CP for Slamginiusi and a Castellan.
We've got more Guard providing CP for Custodes and a Culexus for fun.
And we've got more CP Batteries providing Blood Angels and Knights.
Which, yeah, I totally agree that slotting in a Battalion of 32 Guardsmen for 5 CP, 5+ regen on your CP and 5+ regen on your opponent's strats is bonkers good.
But without Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist... They're not. And this proposal-increasing the CP battery's cost by 30 points-would require barely any changes to the existing lists.
If you want to talk about nerfing the CP Battery or Soup, that's fine! Those show up in 4 of the top 5 lists.
But Guardsmen make up about 10% of each of those lists. Not very much.
Are you really arguing people wouldn't bring in Guard as 180 points for +5CP without the Relics? You're pretty shortsighted aren't ya?
Marmatag wrote: Why does it matter how many marines it kills?
Your chaff is cheaper than mine and way stronger, it is:
1. Stronger on offense (range, strength, accuracy)
2. Stronger on defense (5+ save vs 6+ save)
3. Cheaper
4. Immune to Reaper (my squads give my opponent 1 point, yours give 0)
5. Able to receive orders. Shooting twice costs me 2CP, it costs you an order.
Explain to me how this is fair, thanks.
Tiny wall of guardsmen WILL be in rapid fire range at some point because Tyranids rely on assault and close range.
Range, yes. Strength, no-aren't Fleshborers S4? Accuracy, no, they both hit on a 4+.
Defense, yes... Until you run into morale, which Nids can easily be immune to and Guardsmen are not.
Cheaper... Are Termagants 5 Points? If they are, they can definitely go down to 4. If they're 4... They're the same price.
Reaper only matters if you play ITC.
And Teramagants can receive a -1 to hit, cover in the open, Synapse...
Hormagants are S3 and cost 5 points.
Termagants do have S4 guns, at 12" range. Guardsmen HANDILY win this fight... and Termagants are rarely in range of anything. They're there to die, and Guardsmen do that better.
Reaper only matters if you play ITC... what a BS comment.
"No one plays ITC, it's fake news" -Guard players
I didn't say no one plays ITC, I said Reaper only matters if you play ITC. For me, personally, I do not play ITC.
And in tournaments... Guard are not stomping around. They're good, they're competitive, but they aren't OP.
For casual play, one could argue Guard are too good. (I'd argue that other stuff could stand to be buffed.) But casual play isn't ITC, and doesn't feature Reaper.
I think I understand where you are coming from now.
Here is the truth - if you are consistantly showing up in the top 10 at events. Chances are every single unit in your list is OP.
So why is everyone talking about just guard and not BA or Knights or Custodes?
Because, let's see, what appeared in the top lists...
We've got Daemon Princes, Blightlord Terminators, Foul Blightspawn, Plagueburst Crawlers, Helverins and dual-Gatling Knights.
We've got Company Commander and Infantry squads, pretty much solely to provide CP for a Castellan, a Crusader, and two Gallants.
We've got more Guard providing CP for Slamginiusi and a Castellan.
We've got more Guard providing CP for Custodes and a Culexus for fun.
And we've got more CP Batteries providing Blood Angels and Knights.
Which, yeah, I totally agree that slotting in a Battalion of 32 Guardsmen for 5 CP, 5+ regen on your CP and 5+ regen on your opponent's strats is bonkers good.
But without Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist... They're not. And this proposal-increasing the CP battery's cost by 30 points-would require barely any changes to the existing lists.
If you want to talk about nerfing the CP Battery or Soup, that's fine! Those show up in 4 of the top 5 lists.
But Guardsmen make up about 10% of each of those lists. Not very much.
My proposals would increase the cost of the batery by 50 points. 5 point gaurdsmen with 40 point commanders. IMO this is quite generous. The CC quite lierally generates 36 str 3 shots on his own. That is worth well more than 40 points.
That's still not much. And why aren't you talking about nerfing Slamginuis, or Knights, or Custodes? They're all in the top lists-hell, Knights were ALSO in 4/5 top lists, including number 1!
Unit1126PLL wrote: Don't forget that detachment limits are a thing as well. Those 180 points of Guardsmen that killed 6 marines? They're an entire Battalion, or a good chunk of a Brigade (180/560-odd points). In order to bring that many guardsmen, you've given up at least one detachment slot, and killed 6 space marines.
This is why I think the mythical Guard boogeyman doesn't actually show up in games; the actual practicality of the list when taken out of a vacuum isn't there. I agree Guard is strong, and I would like to see the CP regen nerfed into the ground so they stop getting souped with people just for that, but I'm not sure the "Guard behemoth that is unbeatable" is really actually true.
Are you seriously complaining that you can't bring more infantry? That is what it sounds like.
Gaurd CPgen is not the problem. I can get the exact same thing by Bringing Gman. With any imperial army. 3 auto command points (equal to 9 stratagems played by aquila) and the exact same regen trait. Heck - I even get a super beast in the process. Know what I am not getting? 30 models that take up space and put out 108 shots a turn to clear chaff (one of the most important things in the game).
You never hear anyone complaining about GMan generating command points? Why? Mostly because he is overcosted. The issues is cost.
I usually bring 30 guardsmen and 2 commanders to my games and I am also not getting 108 shots to clear chaff, because the games where my opponent obligingly wanders into rapid-fire range of all 3 squads while doing 0 damage have never actually happened.
You live in a fantasy land.
You are also continuing to peddle misinformation, as the Gman gives only 3 points for 440, not 5, and the regen trait is Per Stratagem for ultramarines, not Per Command Point Spent. The Imperial Guard detachment gives 5 CP (Battalion) plus the regen. Gman gives 3 CP (not a Battalion) plus shittier regen and no Aquila at all.
w1zard wrote: I'm satisfied now that 5 ppm guardsmen are where they should be. The math against fire warriors really impressed me and as a guard player I am convinced now.
However, I still stand by my assertion that 5ppm guardsmen would hurt guard a LOT, unless a lot of other changes are made to the game first. Namely price increases for kabalites, rangers and other units that would be flat out superior to 5ppm guardsmen, and nerfs for neophytes, which are guardsmen +1L for the same price point. To all of the people saying a 1ppm increase isn't much, it absolutely is, it is a 25% increase in infantry price. It would increase my 2000 pt army almost 100 pts and I don't even play infantry-heavy guard, Infantry-heavy guard lists are looking at possibly as high as 250 pt increases.
If someone on the opposite side could make a reasoned response to my second paragraph instead of snarking at me I would appreciate it.
The reasoned response will probably be "sure but we're not talking about kabalites, and rangers, and other units like neophytes."
And then never mention them again once they have completed their vendetta against IG.
Please quit playing martyr. We didn't buy it for Eldar players in 6th/7th and we don't buy what you're doing now.
Demonstrate unequivocally and without misinformation that Mono-Guard in 8th is as bad as Mono-Eldar in 6th/7th. I'll wait.
Im not spreading mis information. I'm talking about regeneration ability. Not the base CP you get.
Xenomancers wrote: Im not spreading mis information. I'm talking about regeneration ability. Not the base CP you get.
Which you are misinformed about (or worse, are misinforming others about), because the Guard regen ability is better than Gmans and is why it desperately needs nerfing.
Marmatag wrote: Why does it matter how many marines it kills?
Your chaff is cheaper than mine and way stronger, it is:
1. Stronger on offense (range, strength, accuracy)
2. Stronger on defense (5+ save vs 6+ save)
3. Cheaper
4. Immune to Reaper (my squads give my opponent 1 point, yours give 0)
5. Able to receive orders. Shooting twice costs me 2CP, it costs you an order.
Explain to me how this is fair, thanks.
Tiny wall of guardsmen WILL be in rapid fire range at some point because Tyranids rely on assault and close range.
Range, yes. Strength, no-aren't Fleshborers S4? Accuracy, no, they both hit on a 4+.
Defense, yes... Until you run into morale, which Nids can easily be immune to and Guardsmen are not.
Cheaper... Are Termagants 5 Points? If they are, they can definitely go down to 4. If they're 4... They're the same price.
Reaper only matters if you play ITC.
And Teramagants can receive a -1 to hit, cover in the open, Synapse...
Hormagants are S3 and cost 5 points.
Termagants do have S4 guns, at 12" range. Guardsmen HANDILY win this fight... and Termagants are rarely in range of anything. They're there to die, and Guardsmen do that better.
Reaper only matters if you play ITC... what a BS comment.
"No one plays ITC, it's fake news" -Guard players
I didn't say no one plays ITC, I said Reaper only matters if you play ITC. For me, personally, I do not play ITC.
And in tournaments... Guard are not stomping around. They're good, they're competitive, but they aren't OP.
For casual play, one could argue Guard are too good. (I'd argue that other stuff could stand to be buffed.) But casual play isn't ITC, and doesn't feature Reaper.
I think I understand where you are coming from now.
Here is the truth - if you are consistantly showing up in the top 10 at events. Chances are every single unit in your list is OP.
So why is everyone talking about just guard and not BA or Knights or Custodes?
Because, let's see, what appeared in the top lists...
We've got Daemon Princes, Blightlord Terminators, Foul Blightspawn, Plagueburst Crawlers, Helverins and dual-Gatling Knights.
We've got Company Commander and Infantry squads, pretty much solely to provide CP for a Castellan, a Crusader, and two Gallants.
We've got more Guard providing CP for Slamginiusi and a Castellan.
We've got more Guard providing CP for Custodes and a Culexus for fun.
And we've got more CP Batteries providing Blood Angels and Knights.
Which, yeah, I totally agree that slotting in a Battalion of 32 Guardsmen for 5 CP, 5+ regen on your CP and 5+ regen on your opponent's strats is bonkers good.
But without Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist... They're not. And this proposal-increasing the CP battery's cost by 30 points-would require barely any changes to the existing lists.
If you want to talk about nerfing the CP Battery or Soup, that's fine! Those show up in 4 of the top 5 lists.
But Guardsmen make up about 10% of each of those lists. Not very much.
My proposals would increase the cost of the batery by 50 points. 5 point gaurdsmen with 40 point commanders. IMO this is quite generous. The CC quite lierally generates 36 str 3 shots on his own. That is worth well more than 40 points.
That's still not much. And why aren't you talking about nerfing Slamginuis, or Knights, or Custodes? They're all in the top lists-hell, Knights were ALSO in 4/5 top lists, including number 1!
That is another discussion. Knights are OP - I play them. Castellan is at least 100 points under. Bringing knights back to life shouldn't happen. Plauge crawlers are a 180 point tank you get for 140. There are a lot of busted things in this game. I don't only pick on gaurd. Eldar Crimson hunters - DE ravagers and void ravens? These are all things that are at least 30 points undercosted.
So it looks like this thread has come full circle to look at the top lists of the BAO which all feature guard to superpower another imperium faction and not mono guard running around stomping everything in sight
JNAProductions wrote: Which, yeah, I totally agree that slotting in a Battalion of 32 Guardsmen for 5 CP, 5+ regen on your CP and 5+ regen on your opponent's strats is bonkers good.
But without Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist... They're not. And this proposal-increasing the CP battery's cost by 30 points-would require barely any changes to the existing lists.
You're definitely correct. Whilst I think guardsmen should be 5 points, that is not gonna fix the CP battery issue. The CP regen just needs to be nuked from the orbit.
Xenomancers wrote: That is another discussion. Knights are OP - I play them. Castellan is at least 100 points under. Bringing knights back to life shouldn't happen. Plauge crawlers are a 180 point tank you get for 140. There are a lot of busted things in this game. I don't only pick on gaurd. Eldar Crimson hunters - DE ravagers and void ravens? These are all things that are at least 30 points undercosted.
Hmm, lemme look at General Discussion:
Guardsmen Whining
Infantry vs Elite Infantry
Rule of Three Question
Kill Team
Female Incubi
Kill Team
Command Points
Primaris Marines as Regular Marines
40k Players A Weird Crowd
Thousand Sons Advice
Ork Speculation
Kill Team
Superheavies at 1k
Ebay Discount
...
Ok. Glad to see you also have other complaints that you clearly care very deeply about and this isn't just a vendetta against Guard.
Xenomancers wrote: That is another discussion. Knights are OP - I play them. Castellan is at least 100 points under. Bringing knights back to life shouldn't happen. Plauge crawlers are a 180 point tank you get for 140. There are a lot of busted things in this game. I don't only pick on gaurd. Eldar Crimson hunters - DE ravagers and void ravens? These are all things that are at least 30 points undercosted.
Hmm, lemme look at General Discussion:
Guardsmen Whining
Infantry vs Elite Infantry
Rule of Three Question
Kill Team
Female Incubi
Kill Team
Command Points
Primaris Marines as Regular Marines
40k Players A Weird Crowd
Thousand Sons Advice
Ork Speculation
Kill Team
Superheavies at 1k
Ebay Discount
...
Ok. Glad to see you also have other complaints that you clearly care very deeply about and this isn't just a vendetta against Guard.
So because there isn't an active thread about it, it's just a vendetta against Imperial Guard?
Once again...drop the martyr act. Please.
Make one - I will agree with the OP crap in there that needs to be nerfed. Honestly - I think there wouldn't be any disagree about it.
Is the Castellan OP?
Pretty much everyone "Yeah...It hurt me bad" "It's OP".
I stopped using it. I was playing it again my buddy who was playing a mech IG list and it killed a shadowsword and a command tank in the same turn. I felt like I sucked his soul out through his chest. He looked so sad after that. I knew at that point...this thing is busted. Because he lived through 2 rounds of shadow sword fire (3++ save OP).
Marmatag wrote: Why does it matter how many marines it kills?
Your chaff is cheaper than mine and way stronger, it is:
1. Stronger on offense (range, strength, accuracy)
2. Stronger on defense (5+ save vs 6+ save)
3. Cheaper
4. Immune to Reaper (my squads give my opponent 1 point, yours give 0)
5. Able to receive orders. Shooting twice costs me 2CP, it costs you an order.
Explain to me how this is fair, thanks.
Tiny wall of guardsmen WILL be in rapid fire range at some point because Tyranids rely on assault and close range.
Range, yes. Strength, no-aren't Fleshborers S4? Accuracy, no, they both hit on a 4+.
Defense, yes... Until you run into morale, which Nids can easily be immune to and Guardsmen are not.
Cheaper... Are Termagants 5 Points? If they are, they can definitely go down to 4. If they're 4... They're the same price.
Reaper only matters if you play ITC.
And Teramagants can receive a -1 to hit, cover in the open, Synapse...
Hormagants are S3 and cost 5 points.
Termagants do have S4 guns, at 12" range. Guardsmen HANDILY win this fight... and Termagants are rarely in range of anything. They're there to die, and Guardsmen do that better.
Reaper only matters if you play ITC... what a BS comment.
"No one plays ITC, it's fake news" -Guard players
I didn't say no one plays ITC, I said Reaper only matters if you play ITC. For me, personally, I do not play ITC.
And in tournaments... Guard are not stomping around. They're good, they're competitive, but they aren't OP.
For casual play, one could argue Guard are too good. (I'd argue that other stuff could stand to be buffed.) But casual play isn't ITC, and doesn't feature Reaper.
I think I understand where you are coming from now.
Here is the truth - if you are consistantly showing up in the top 10 at events. Chances are every single unit in your list is OP.
So why is everyone talking about just guard and not BA or Knights or Custodes?
Because, let's see, what appeared in the top lists...
We've got Daemon Princes, Blightlord Terminators, Foul Blightspawn, Plagueburst Crawlers, Helverins and dual-Gatling Knights.
We've got Company Commander and Infantry squads, pretty much solely to provide CP for a Castellan, a Crusader, and two Gallants.
We've got more Guard providing CP for Slamginiusi and a Castellan.
We've got more Guard providing CP for Custodes and a Culexus for fun.
And we've got more CP Batteries providing Blood Angels and Knights.
Which, yeah, I totally agree that slotting in a Battalion of 32 Guardsmen for 5 CP, 5+ regen on your CP and 5+ regen on your opponent's strats is bonkers good.
But without Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist... They're not. And this proposal-increasing the CP battery's cost by 30 points-would require barely any changes to the existing lists.
If you want to talk about nerfing the CP Battery or Soup, that's fine! Those show up in 4 of the top 5 lists.
But Guardsmen make up about 10% of each of those lists. Not very much.
My proposals would increase the cost of the batery by 50 points. 5 point gaurdsmen with 40 point commanders. IMO this is quite generous. The CC quite lierally generates 36 str 3 shots on his own. That is worth well more than 40 points.
That's still not much. And why aren't you talking about nerfing Slamginuis, or Knights, or Custodes? They're all in the top lists-hell, Knights were ALSO in 4/5 top lists, including number 1!
Imperial Knights were NOT in the winning list
Renegade Knights where that 2 seperate codex's your combining. That would be like saying Aldari codex is OP.
Also I'm still waiting on an answer as to
What unit can go up against equal points of Infantry squads and win? What units can go up againy equal points of Infantry squads plus Commanders and win?
If the answer is none then infantry are undercosted at 4ppm.
This thread is about are Infantry squads more balanced a 5ppm than 4pp. All the math so far says yes.
The CP mechanics of 8th need work but with or without CP or Allies Infantry squads still don't seem to have a reasonable counter.
Xenomancers wrote: That is another discussion. Knights are OP - I play them. Castellan is at least 100 points under. Bringing knights back to life shouldn't happen. Plauge crawlers are a 180 point tank you get for 140. There are a lot of busted things in this game. I don't only pick on gaurd. Eldar Crimson hunters - DE ravagers and void ravens? These are all things that are at least 30 points undercosted.
Hmm, lemme look at General Discussion:
Guardsmen Whining
Infantry vs Elite Infantry
Rule of Three Question
Kill Team
Female Incubi
Kill Team
Command Points
Primaris Marines as Regular Marines
40k Players A Weird Crowd
Thousand Sons Advice
Ork Speculation
Kill Team
Superheavies at 1k
Ebay Discount
...
Ok. Glad to see you also have other complaints that you clearly care very deeply about and this isn't just a vendetta against Guard.
So because there isn't an active thread about it, it's just a vendetta against Imperial Guard?
Once again...drop the martyr act. Please.
I mean we can go back and compare the total number of threads complaining about Guard vs. complaining about knights/DE/CE/Plague Crawlers if you want, but it still tends to disproportionately favor Guard. I'm not certain why that's the case, unless it really is a vendetta against Guard.
Guard are certainly good, but there's better / more annoying stuff out there to play against. All the focus on Guard doesn't make sense, unless it's just an irrational fixation.
Xenomancers wrote: That is another discussion. Knights are OP - I play them. Castellan is at least 100 points under. Bringing knights back to life shouldn't happen. Plauge crawlers are a 180 point tank you get for 140. There are a lot of busted things in this game. I don't only pick on gaurd. Eldar Crimson hunters - DE ravagers and void ravens? These are all things that are at least 30 points undercosted.
Hmm, lemme look at General Discussion:
Guardsmen Whining
Infantry vs Elite Infantry
Rule of Three Question
Kill Team
Female Incubi
Kill Team
Command Points
Primaris Marines as Regular Marines
40k Players A Weird Crowd
Thousand Sons Advice
Ork Speculation
Kill Team
Superheavies at 1k
Ebay Discount
...
Ok. Glad to see you also have other complaints that you clearly care very deeply about and this isn't just a vendetta against Guard.
Well - I do think there is a reason why there is less complaining about non AM stuff.
Getting beat by a giant robot of destruction kind of has this..."well that figures" feeling goes along with it. getting beat by hordes of human just doesn't have any good feeling that comes with it...
It's kind of like...why are these pathetic humans are strong as a space marine? (catachans) Why do they do more damage than my space marine (all gaurd) These are the thoughts that consume lot of players minds.
What unit can go up against equal points of Infantry squads and win? What units can go up againy equal points of Infantry squads plus Commanders and win?
Do you really want a list of units that can do this? Baneblades are a start, and they're not considered good. (Shadowswords would actually be bad in this situation). Land Raider Crusaders (also not considered good) Land Raider Proteus... Hurricane-Bolter flyers such as the Stormwolf or Stormraven...
heck, there's too many to count. I'll do the math on one of your choosing though.
Make one - I will agree with the OP crap in there that needs to be nerfed. Honestly - I think there wouldn't be any disagree about it.
Is the Castellan OP?
Pretty much everyone "Yeah...It hurt me bad" "It's OP".
I stopped using it. I was playing it again my buddy who was playing a mech IG list and it killed a shadowsword and a command tank in the same turn. I felt like I sucked his soul out through his chest. He looked so sad after that. I knew at that point...this thing is busted. Because he lived through 2 rounds of shadow sword fire (3++ save OP).
I don't really understand what a castellan was tested against that they concluded that it worse only worth that many points? I suppose it probably is if you take no relic or Warlord trait but seriously who isn't going to be doing their best to protect and maximise a 600point model. It's way better than a vallient but not costed like it is.
Aggressors put out, at 18", 12+2d6 shots each at S4 AP0 when not moving.
That's 19 shots per dude, for 57 on a 111 point squad.
So that's 38 hits, 25.33 wounds, and 16.89 dead Guardsmen.
That leaves 3 Guard and a Company Commander left, who put out 6 S3 shots and 1 S4 shot (there's a point leftover, I'm giving the Commander a Boltgun). For 3.67 hits, 1.22 wounds, and .41 wounds actually dealt. Double that to .82 if the Guardsmen walk into charge range to get Rapid Fire.
Next round, the Aggressors kill the remaining Guardsmen with bullets to spare. Commander shoots one more time, does barely anything, and gets pasted.
Edit: One Captain on Dawneagle with Bolters puts out 12 shots in Rapid Fire range. Give the Guardsmen first turn AND start 'em in Rapid Fire.
That's 108 BS 4+ shots and 2 BS 3+ shots, for 55.33 hits, 9.22 wounds, and 1.54 go through. The Captain then shoots 12 times, hits 11.67 times, wounds 7.78 and kills 5.19. He then charges the Commanders (or, since he has Fly and a 14" movement, shot one and charged the other) and kills, we'll say JUST ONE. Just the Commander. The 5 Guardsmen in the one squad do 6 swings, 3 hits, .5 wounds, and .08 dealt.
Next turn, the 5 Guard fall back, the other two FRFSRF, for 74 BS 4+ and 1 BS 3+, or 37.67 hits, 6.11 wounds, and 1.02 dealt. Our Captain is now on about 4.5 wounds left. He then shoots, killing another 5, charges the Commander and kills him, leaving us with 20 Guardsmen and no orders.
Xenomancers wrote: It's kind of like...why are these pathetic humans are strong as a space marine? (catachans) Why do they do more damage than my space marine (all gaurd) These are the thoughts that consume lot of players minds.
The catachans example is understandable. I have no idea why they're just flat Str 4 for free. I'd at least have said "+1 strength on the charge" or something.
The flip side of me admitting that though is asking players to understand the value of quantity. A Guardsman does not do as much damage as a Space Marine, period. Three Guardsmen do about as much damage than a Space Marine, setting aside external buffs.
Yeah, Plagueburst Crawlers are definitely too strong for their points. This is nothing new. But they are restricted by the rule of 3. This was a fairly recent nerf to them. Meanwhile guard dance around these nerfs with squads.
JNAProductions wrote: Aggressors put out, at 18", 12+2d6 shots each at S4 AP0 when not moving.
That's 19 shots per dude, for 57 on a 111 point squad.
So that's 38 hits, 25.33 wounds, and 16.89 dead Guardsmen.
That leaves 3 Guard and a Company Commander left, who put out 6 S3 shots and 1 S4 shot (there's a point leftover, I'm giving the Commander a Boltgun). For 3.67 hits, 1.22 wounds, and .41 wounds actually dealt. Double that to .82 if the Guardsmen walk into charge range to get Rapid Fire.
Next round, the Aggressors kill the remaining Guardsmen with bullets to spare. Commander shoots one more time, does barely anything, and gets pasted.
so Stationary unhurt aggressors which have an 18inch range get to shoot first against a unit with a 24 inch range? Way to stack that example so blatantly
If the agressors move or the guard shoot first?
JNAProductions wrote: Aggressors put out, at 18", 12+2d6 shots each at S4 AP0 when not moving.
That's 19 shots per dude, for 57 on a 111 point squad.
So that's 38 hits, 25.33 wounds, and 16.89 dead Guardsmen.
That leaves 3 Guard and a Company Commander left, who put out 6 S3 shots and 1 S4 shot (there's a point leftover, I'm giving the Commander a Boltgun). For 3.67 hits, 1.22 wounds, and .41 wounds actually dealt. Double that to .82 if the Guardsmen walk into charge range to get Rapid Fire.
Next round, the Aggressors kill the remaining Guardsmen with bullets to spare. Commander shoots one more time, does barely anything, and gets pasted.
so Stationary unhurt aggressors which have an 18inch range get to shoot first against a unit with a 24 inch range? Way to stack that example so blatantly
If the agressors move or the guard shoot first?
JNAProductions wrote: Aggressors put out, at 18", 12+2d6 shots each at S4 AP0 when not moving.
That's 19 shots per dude, for 57 on a 111 point squad.
So that's 38 hits, 25.33 wounds, and 16.89 dead Guardsmen.
That leaves 3 Guard and a Company Commander left, who put out 6 S3 shots and 1 S4 shot (there's a point leftover, I'm giving the Commander a Boltgun). For 3.67 hits, 1.22 wounds, and .41 wounds actually dealt. Double that to .82 if the Guardsmen walk into charge range to get Rapid Fire.
Next round, the Aggressors kill the remaining Guardsmen with bullets to spare. Commander shoots one more time, does barely anything, and gets pasted.
so Stationary unhurt aggressors which have an 18inch range get to shoot first against a unit with a 24 inch range? Way to stack that example so blatantly
If the agressors move or the guard shoot first?
Just as much as always assuming Guardsmen are always in rapid fire and always have orders.
Besides, Raven Guard Aggressors can do that easily.
Marmatag wrote: How do i put Aggressors in my Tyranids list? And once i get them in there, how do I deal with being screened out of range?
What is screening you so badly that you're out of range of the screens? We're literally talking about aggressors vs. the screen; they're not going to be screened away by the screen... that's just... what?
Also the way you get Aggressors in your Tyranid list is the same way I get them in my Slaanesh list - in other words, I stop moving the goalposts when someone responds to an unrelated claim.
JNAProductions wrote: Aggressors put out, at 18", 12+2d6 shots each at S4 AP0 when not moving.
That's 19 shots per dude, for 57 on a 111 point squad.
So that's 38 hits, 25.33 wounds, and 16.89 dead Guardsmen.
That leaves 3 Guard and a Company Commander left, who put out 6 S3 shots and 1 S4 shot (there's a point leftover, I'm giving the Commander a Boltgun). For 3.67 hits, 1.22 wounds, and .41 wounds actually dealt. Double that to .82 if the Guardsmen walk into charge range to get Rapid Fire.
Next round, the Aggressors kill the remaining Guardsmen with bullets to spare. Commander shoots one more time, does barely anything, and gets pasted.
so Stationary unhurt aggressors which have an 18inch range get to shoot first against a unit with a 24 inch range? Way to stack that example so blatantly
If the agressors move or the guard shoot first?
I see you ignored my chosen examples...
Qhen your first example is an Imperial Guard LOW
And the others a 400 point models so what does 8 infantry squads with FRFSRF do to a landradier? And its a 12 inch range land raider charge it and it's doing 0 shooting and cant even contest an objective.
JNAProductions wrote: Aggressors put out, at 18", 12+2d6 shots each at S4 AP0 when not moving.
That's 19 shots per dude, for 57 on a 111 point squad.
So that's 38 hits, 25.33 wounds, and 16.89 dead Guardsmen.
That leaves 3 Guard and a Company Commander left, who put out 6 S3 shots and 1 S4 shot (there's a point leftover, I'm giving the Commander a Boltgun). For 3.67 hits, 1.22 wounds, and .41 wounds actually dealt. Double that to .82 if the Guardsmen walk into charge range to get Rapid Fire.
Next round, the Aggressors kill the remaining Guardsmen with bullets to spare. Commander shoots one more time, does barely anything, and gets pasted.
Edit: One Captain on Dawneagle with Bolters puts out 12 shots in Rapid Fire range. Give the Guardsmen first turn AND start 'em in Rapid Fire.
That's 108 BS 4+ shots and 2 BS 3+ shots, for 55.33 hits, 9.22 wounds, and 1.54 go through. The Captain then shoots 12 times, hits 11.67 times, wounds 7.78 and kills 5.19. He then charges the Commanders (or, since he has Fly and a 14" movement, shot one and charged the other) and kills, we'll say JUST ONE. Just the Commander. The 5 Guardsmen in the one squad do 6 swings, 3 hits, .5 wounds, and .08 dealt.
Next turn, the 5 Guard fall back, the other two FRFSRF, for 74 BS 4+ and 1 BS 3+, or 37.67 hits, 6.11 wounds, and 1.02 dealt. Our Captain is now on about 4.5 wounds left. He then shoots, killing another 5, charges the Commander and kills him, leaving us with 20 Guardsmen and no orders.
Now we have come full circle to old threads about guard where they are magically always in RF range at full strength, with orders while simultaneously holding objectives and screening an entire army.
But if you do the math on any other unit being in RF range of the guardsman at full strength you're being unrealistic
JNAProductions wrote: Aggressors put out, at 18", 12+2d6 shots each at S4 AP0 when not moving.
That's 19 shots per dude, for 57 on a 111 point squad.
So that's 38 hits, 25.33 wounds, and 16.89 dead Guardsmen.
That leaves 3 Guard and a Company Commander left, who put out 6 S3 shots and 1 S4 shot (there's a point leftover, I'm giving the Commander a Boltgun). For 3.67 hits, 1.22 wounds, and .41 wounds actually dealt. Double that to .82 if the Guardsmen walk into charge range to get Rapid Fire.
Next round, the Aggressors kill the remaining Guardsmen with bullets to spare. Commander shoots one more time, does barely anything, and gets pasted.
so Stationary unhurt aggressors which have an 18inch range get to shoot first against a unit with a 24 inch range? Way to stack that example so blatantly If the agressors move or the guard shoot first?
I see you ignored my chosen examples...
Qhen your first example is an Imperial Guard LOW And the others a 400 point models so what does 8 infantry squads with FRFSRF do to a lanradier?
Lets take a look: A LRC is about 300 points (8 for 2 Hurricane Bolters, 44 for Twin Assault Cannon, 244 base for 296) For that price, you can get: 6 Squads and 2 commanders, giving you 4 squads with orders and 2 squads without, OR 5 squads and 3 Commanders, giving you 5 squads with Orders..
Case 1 (6 squads) 144 shots in rapid fire from FRFSRF, 180 total 90 hits 15 wounds 2.5 through saves.
The Crusader returns fire, split-firing at 3 different squads, 1 for each gun: Squad 1 Hurricane Bolter: 3.5 dead Squad 2 Hurricane Bolter: 3.5 dead Squad 3 Twin Assault Cannon: 5.5 dead. Total: 12 dead, rounding down.
//ignore morale here, because even without it the Crusader wins
The Guardsmen fire back, with the 3 Full Strength Squads and 1 least-damaged squad (3 men dead) receiving FRFSRF: 132 FRFSRF, 154 after the damaged squads remaining added 77 hits 13 wounds 2 after saves (Crusader is now at 12)
The Crusader fires back at the remaining 3 Full Strength Squads, with similar effect: one reduced by 3 men, one reduced by 4 men, one reduced by 5 men; 12 more casualties. This leaves two 7 Men squads, two 6 Men squads, and two 5 man squads remaining.
//ignore morale here, because even without the Crusader wins.
The Guardsmen fire back, with the strongest squads receiving FRFSRF again. 124 shots 62 hits 10 wounds 2 through armor (Crusader is now at 10 wounds)
The Crusader fires back at the stronger squads, with similar effect: one reduced by 3, to 4, one reduced by 4, to 3, and one reduced by 5, to 1 (must be a 6 man squad!)
//ignore morale here because even without it the crusader wins
The orders are given to the strongest squads (now there is a 6 man, two 5 men, a 4 man, a 3 man, and a sergeant.) 64 from FRFSRF, 14 more from non-ordered, for a total of 78 shots 39 hits 6.5 wounds Crusader suffers 1 wound (down to 9)
Crusader fires back at the stronger squads, with similar effect: One is reduced by 3 to 2, one is reduced by 4 to 1, and one is reduced by 5 to 1.
//ignore morale here, because even without it, the Crusader wins
The orders are given to the strongest of the remaining squads: a 4 man, a 3 man, a two man, and 3 sergeants. 24 shots from FRFSRF, none from other sergeants (if it's fair to ignore morale, it's fair to ignore their laspistols). 12 hits 2 wounds Crusader suffers 0 barring bad luck, still at 9.
Crusader fires back, destroying the 3 man, destroying the 4 man, and destroying the two man, leaving 3 sergeants.
The Imperial Guard lose and the Crusader remains in its top bracket, even if we ignore morale.
Asmodios wrote: Now we have come full circle to old threads about guard where they are magically always in RF range at full strength, with orders while simultaneously holding objectives and screening an entire army.
But if you do the math on any other unit being in RF range of the guardsman at full strength you're being unrealistic
Agressors are good man. One of the best anti infantry in the game. They are my all stars. I take 3 units of 5 in 3 repulsors with calgar lut and some scouts and that is my list. Go first or lose pretty much.
Plays like an eldar list - not a space marine list.
JNAProductions wrote: Aggressors put out, at 18", 12+2d6 shots each at S4 AP0 when not moving.
That's 19 shots per dude, for 57 on a 111 point squad.
So that's 38 hits, 25.33 wounds, and 16.89 dead Guardsmen.
That leaves 3 Guard and a Company Commander left, who put out 6 S3 shots and 1 S4 shot (there's a point leftover, I'm giving the Commander a Boltgun). For 3.67 hits, 1.22 wounds, and .41 wounds actually dealt. Double that to .82 if the Guardsmen walk into charge range to get Rapid Fire.
Next round, the Aggressors kill the remaining Guardsmen with bullets to spare. Commander shoots one more time, does barely anything, and gets pasted.
so Stationary unhurt aggressors which have an 18inch range get to shoot first against a unit with a 24 inch range? Way to stack that example so blatantly
If the agressors move or the guard shoot first?
I see you ignored my chosen examples...
Qhen your first example is an Imperial Guard LOW
And the others a 400 point models so what does 8 infantry squads with FRFSRF do to a lanradier?
Lets take a look:
A LRC is about 300 points (8 for 2 Hurricane Bolters, 44 for Twin Assault Cannon, 244 base for 296)
For that price, you can get:
6 Squads and 2 commanders, giving you 4 squads with orders and 2 squads without, OR
5 squads and 3 Commanders, giving you 5 squads with Orders..
Case 1 (6 squads)
144 shots in rapid fire from FRFSRF, 180 total
90 hits
15 wounds
2.5 through saves.
The Crusader returns fire, split-firing at 3 different squads, 1 for each gun:
Squad 1 Hurricane Bolter: 3.5 dead
Squad 2 Hurricane Bolter: 3.5 dead
Squad 3 Twin Assault Cannon: 5.5 dead.
Total: 12 dead, rounding down.
//ignore morale here, because even without it the Crusader wins
The Guardsmen fire back, with the 3 Full Strength Squads and 1 least-damaged squad (3 men dead) receiving FRFSRF:
132 FRFSRF, 154 after the damaged squads remaining added
77 hits
13 wounds
2 after saves (Crusader is now at 12)
The Crusader fires back at the remaining 3 Full Strength Squads, with similar effect: one reduced by 3 men, one reduced by 4 men, one reduced by 5 men; 12 more casualties.
This leaves two 7 Men squads, two 6 Men squads, and two 5 man squads remaining.
//ignore morale here, because even without the Crusader wins.
The Guardsmen fire back, with the strongest squads receiving FRFSRF again.
124 shots
62 hits
10 wounds
2 through armor (Crusader is now at 10 wounds)
The Crusader fires back at the stronger squads, with similar effect: one reduced by 3, to 4, one reduced by 4, to 3, and one reduced by 5, to 1 (must be a 6 man squad!)
//ignore morale here because even without it the crusader wins
The orders are given to the strongest squads (now there is a 6 man, two 5 men, a 4 man, a 3 man, and a sergeant.)
64 from FRFSRF, 14 more from non-ordered, for a total of 78 shots
39 hits
6.5 wounds
Crusader suffers 1 wound (down to 9)
Crusader fires back at the stronger squads, with similar effect: One is reduced by 3 to 2, one is reduced by 4 to 1, and one is reduced by 5 to 1.
//ignore morale here, because even without it, the Crusader wins
The orders are given to the strongest of the remaining squads: a 4 man, a 3 man, a two man, and 3 sergeants.
24 shots from FRFSRF, none from other sergeants (if it's fair to ignore morale, it's fair to ignore their laspistols).
12 hits
2 wounds
Crusader suffers 0 barring bad luck, still at 9.
Crusader fires back, destroying the 3 man, destroying the 4 man, and destroying the two man, leaving 3 sergeants.
The Imperial Guard lose and the Crusader remains in its top bracket, even if we ignore morale.
and if you charge even once in that equation the crusaders does how much damage?
Asmodios wrote: Now we have come full circle to old threads about guard where they are magically always in RF range at full strength, with orders while simultaneously holding objectives and screening an entire army.
But if you do the math on any other unit being in RF range of the guardsman at full strength you're being unrealistic
How else to you evalute rapid fire weapons? Just divide the damage by 2 and you have your single shot comparison. This is valid with every rapid fire weapon. Please stop trolling.
We also aren't factoring in the voleys of artillery blast that have probably made this game moot anyways...unless the opponent is eldar. So lets try to keep this as simple as possible. IDK about you - but I try to get my rapid fire units into rapid fire range asap.
Asmodios wrote: Now we have come full circle to old threads about guard where they are magically always in RF range at full strength, with orders while simultaneously holding objectives and screening an entire army.
But if you do the math on any other unit being in RF range of the guardsman at full strength you're being unrealistic
How else to you evalute rapid fire weapons? Just divide the damage by 2 and you have your single shot comparison. This is valid with every rapid fire weapon. Please stop trolling.
We also aren't factoring in the voleys of artillery blast that have probably made this game moot anyways...unless the opponent is eldar. So lets try to keep this as simple as possible. IDK about you - but I try to get my rapid fire units into rapid fire range asap.
You take a nuanced look at how much damage it does in rapid fire range, what that range is, and how the unit's mobility and role impact its ability to get into rapid fire range against the targets it desires.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of the goalposts running away.
What movement, they are in the same place as they started
What unit can go up against equal points of Infantry squads and win? What units can go up againy equal points of Infantry squads plus Commanders and win?
Is or is not charging a landradier a valid tactic? Yes it i.
At this point the landraider doesn't win, unless its wiping out an full squad in overwatch.
Asmodios wrote: Now we have come full circle to old threads about guard where they are magically always in RF range at full strength, with orders while simultaneously holding objectives and screening an entire army.
But if you do the math on any other unit being in RF range of the guardsman at full strength you're being unrealistic
How else to you evalute rapid fire weapons? Just divide the damage by 2 and you have your single shot comparison. This is valid with every rapid fire weapon. Please stop trolling.
We also aren't factoring in the voleys of artillery blast that have probably made this game moot anyways...unless the opponent is eldar. So lets try to keep this as simple as possible. IDK about you - but I try to get my rapid fire units into rapid fire range asap.
You take a nuanced look at how much damage it does in rapid fire range, what that range is, and how the unit's mobility and role impact its ability to get into rapid fire range against the targets it desires.
Is there really an army that doesn't want to assault gaurd? Their biggest threats are tanks that can't fall back and shoot. It's basically your only chance to win against gaurd - to assault and tie up their big guns...because they are going to out damage you. This leads to IG squads having rapid rie range more often than not.
Regardless of these facts - the evaluation of the lasgun is usually does with rapid fire. No one is hiding the fact that it's rapid fire. You are fully free to do the math yourself (this is typically mental math) of dividing by 2 to get the answer.
Asmodios wrote: Now we have come full circle to old threads about guard where they are magically always in RF range at full strength, with orders while simultaneously holding objectives and screening an entire army.
But if you do the math on any other unit being in RF range of the guardsman at full strength you're being unrealistic
How else to you evalute rapid fire weapons? Just divide the damage by 2 and you have your single shot comparison. This is valid with every rapid fire weapon. Please stop trolling.
We also aren't factoring in the voleys of artillery blast that have probably made this game moot anyways...unless the opponent is eldar. So lets try to keep this as simple as possible. IDK about you - but I try to get my rapid fire units into rapid fire range asap.
You take a nuanced look at how much damage it does in rapid fire range, what that range is, and how the unit's mobility and role impact its ability to get into rapid fire range against the targets it desires.
Is there really an army that doesn't want to assault gaurd? Their biggest threats are tanks that can't fall back and shoot. It's basically your only chance to win against gaurd - to assault and tie up their big guns...because they are going to out damage you. This leads to IG squads having rapid rie range more often than not.
Regardless of these facts - the evaluation of the lasgun is usually does with rapid fire. No one is hiding the fact that it's rapid fire. You are fully free to do the math yourself (this is typically mental math) of dividing by 2 to get the answer.
Tau as firewarriors loose to guardsmen in CC.
Riptides etc tend to muddle through and have fly but their infantry definataly doesn't.
Asmodios wrote: Now we have come full circle to old threads about guard where they are magically always in RF range at full strength, with orders while simultaneously holding objectives and screening an entire army.
But if you do the math on any other unit being in RF range of the guardsman at full strength you're being unrealistic
How else to you evalute rapid fire weapons? Just divide the damage by 2 and you have your single shot comparison. This is valid with every rapid fire weapon. Please stop trolling.
We also aren't factoring in the voleys of artillery blast that have probably made this game moot anyways...unless the opponent is eldar. So lets try to keep this as simple as possible. IDK about you - but I try to get my rapid fire units into rapid fire range asap.
You take a nuanced look at how much damage it does in rapid fire range, what that range is, and how the unit's mobility and role impact its ability to get into rapid fire range against the targets it desires.
Is there really an army that doesn't want to assault gaurd? Their biggest threats are tanks that can't fall back and shoot. It's basically your only chance to win against gaurd - to assault and tie up their big guns...because they are going to out damage you. This leads to IG squads having rapid rie range more often than not.
Regardless of these facts - the evaluation of the lasgun is usually does with rapid fire. No one is hiding the fact that it's rapid fire. You are fully free to do the math yourself (this is typically mental math) of dividing by 2 to get the answer.
Tau as firewarriors loose to guardsmen in CC.
Riptides etc tend to muddle through and have fly but their infantry definataly doesn't.
Riptides - ghostkeels - even stealthsuits want to charge IG.
Asmodios wrote: Now we have come full circle to old threads about guard where they are magically always in RF range at full strength, with orders while simultaneously holding objectives and screening an entire army.
But if you do the math on any other unit being in RF range of the guardsman at full strength you're being unrealistic
How else to you evalute rapid fire weapons? Just divide the damage by 2 and you have your single shot comparison. This is valid with every rapid fire weapon. Please stop trolling.
We also aren't factoring in the voleys of artillery blast that have probably made this game moot anyways...unless the opponent is eldar. So lets try to keep this as simple as possible. IDK about you - but I try to get my rapid fire units into rapid fire range asap.
I was responding specifically to this "so Stationary unhurt aggressors which have an 18inch range get to shoot first against a unit with a 24 inch range? Way to stack that example so blatantly
If the agressors move or the guard shoot first?"
Asmodios wrote: Now we have come full circle to old threads about guard where they are magically always in RF range at full strength, with orders while simultaneously holding objectives and screening an entire army.
But if you do the math on any other unit being in RF range of the guardsman at full strength you're being unrealistic
How else to you evalute rapid fire weapons? Just divide the damage by 2 and you have your single shot comparison. This is valid with every rapid fire weapon. Please stop trolling.
We also aren't factoring in the voleys of artillery blast that have probably made this game moot anyways...unless the opponent is eldar. So lets try to keep this as simple as possible. IDK about you - but I try to get my rapid fire units into rapid fire range asap.
You take a nuanced look at how much damage it does in rapid fire range, what that range is, and how the unit's mobility and role impact its ability to get into rapid fire range against the targets it desires.
Is there really an army that doesn't want to assault gaurd? Their biggest threats are tanks that can't fall back and shoot. It's basically your only chance to win against gaurd - to assault and tie up their big guns...because they are going to out damage you. This leads to IG squads having rapid rie range more often than not.
Regardless of these facts - the evaluation of the lasgun is usually does with rapid fire. No one is hiding the fact that it's rapid fire. You are fully free to do the math yourself (this is typically mental math) of dividing by 2 to get the answer.
Yeah, a lot of armies will just shoot the Guardsmen, both of the objective holding and unit screening variety. And if you're using Guardsmen to hold backline objectives (like Custodes, Knights, and Space Marines lists will often do) the Guardsmen will be fairly static and not getting to rapid fire a lot.
Asmodios wrote: Now we have come full circle to old threads about guard where they are magically always in RF range at full strength, with orders while simultaneously holding objectives and screening an entire army.
But if you do the math on any other unit being in RF range of the guardsman at full strength you're being unrealistic
How else to you evalute rapid fire weapons? Just divide the damage by 2 and you have your single shot comparison. This is valid with every rapid fire weapon. Please stop trolling.
We also aren't factoring in the voleys of artillery blast that have probably made this game moot anyways...unless the opponent is eldar. So lets try to keep this as simple as possible. IDK about you - but I try to get my rapid fire units into rapid fire range asap.
I was responding specifically to this "so Stationary unhurt aggressors which have an 18inch range get to shoot first against a unit with a 24 inch range? Way to stack that example so blatantly
If the agressors move or the guard shoot first?"
Well unless they are ravengaurd - agressors are always going to have to move to get into range of IG infantry. Totally agree with that. Ravengaurd agressors though - if they don't have first turn - are going to be deploying within rapid fire range of the gaurdsmen - or risk not shooting all game. So really - it should be evaluated both ways because it's basically a coin flip.
Asmodios wrote: Now we have come full circle to old threads about guard where they are magically always in RF range at full strength, with orders while simultaneously holding objectives and screening an entire army.
But if you do the math on any other unit being in RF range of the guardsman at full strength you're being unrealistic
How else to you evalute rapid fire weapons? Just divide the damage by 2 and you have your single shot comparison. This is valid with every rapid fire weapon. Please stop trolling.
We also aren't factoring in the voleys of artillery blast that have probably made this game moot anyways...unless the opponent is eldar. So lets try to keep this as simple as possible. IDK about you - but I try to get my rapid fire units into rapid fire range asap.
You take a nuanced look at how much damage it does in rapid fire range, what that range is, and how the unit's mobility and role impact its ability to get into rapid fire range against the targets it desires.
Is there really an army that doesn't want to assault gaurd? Their biggest threats are tanks that can't fall back and shoot. It's basically your only chance to win against gaurd - to assault and tie up their big guns...because they are going to out damage you. This leads to IG squads having rapid rie range more often than not.
Regardless of these facts - the evaluation of the lasgun is usually does with rapid fire. No one is hiding the fact that it's rapid fire. You are fully free to do the math yourself (this is typically mental math) of dividing by 2 to get the answer.
Yeah, a lot of armies will just shoot the Guardsmen, both of the objective holding and unit screening variety. And if you're using Guardsmen to hold backline objectives (like Custodes, Knights, and Space Marines lists will often do) the Guardsmen will be fairly static and not getting to rapid fire a lot.
Depends on the situation - I can think of a lot better units to hold backline objectives than infantry...like...manticores - basalisks - battletanks - mortar teams.
Infantry are for taking midfeild objectives. Unless you are playing a knight list/ or custodian list with CP battery or something - but knights don't win on objectives - they table you.
Infantry definitely hold a lot of backline objectives. Probably the most common backline units these days are Guardsmen with a mortar.
Tabling isn't an automatic win in ITC so you always need to consider scoring objectives with your army. Even the pure Knights lists are going to be paying attention to scoring objectives. Most of the Custodes and Knights lists have Guard detachments in part to score objectives (CP generation is another very important consideration).
You don't see threads for pages on the front page about other broken things because the people that play those things have the sense to realize they are broken.
The aggressors vs guardsmen. Sure they kill a squad of guardsmen then die in a fire to whatever else wants to shoot at them not getting close to their points back. Great use of 110ish points. With all the 2d weapons available to guard (and every other army out there at this point) they aren't really a threat because if anyone plays DE/eldar in your meta the marine player hopefully has realized that you cannot put any primaris on the table if the opponent has dissie cannons or reapers...
But who cares.
Just boosting guardsmen up to 5 points does not fix IG nor does it even address the larger issue of balance in the game. Guardsmen at 4 are not more broken than mortars, no los artillery, shining spears, knights, ravagers, soul burst in general, dissie cannons, stacking negs to hit, doom, jinx, PBCs, tzeench princes, guard CP batteries, tessseract vaults, eldar flyers, 2++ bulgryn, flyrants, commanders, hive guard and those are just the most egregious units I can think of off the top of my head.
I can see how IG players feel persecuted because they are just part of the gak balancing that plagues the most play tested version of 40k ever. Guardsmen to 5 would have to be part of a huge balance overhaul to fight against the power creep that was obvious in the game since the guard codex dropped.
The poster who mentioned you can't just take the units in a vacuum was right. Guard at 4 fit in with the other currently broken gak. To just take that away without addressing the loads of other broken units seems arbitrary (although NOT WRONG).
Lol I disappear from this thread for a day to attend a wedding and what a treat I return to! What's this, like 6 or 7 extra pages?! Hooo that was a lot of reading and I see we've mostly digressed from a discussion around Guardsmen and have instead resorted to generally throwing gak at each other again.
Still, I did spot one gem, one nugget of hope that helped me believe this thread is on the right track;
w1zard wrote: So, termagaunts and guardsmen both being 4 points is wrong because guardsmen are obviously better... Fair.
Then imagine my ecstasy, my unfettered joy when I saw this;
w1zard wrote: I'm satisfied now that 5 ppm guardsmen are where they should be. The math against fire warriors really impressed me and as a guard player I am convinced now.
Hallelujah! We've convinced one Guard player! The miracle has happened! Can everyone stand and raise their glasses to w1zard, who fought through his bias, looked at undeniable logic and accepted it might be good for the game. What a man. What a legend. I might have to screenshot this moment and frame it.
As a reward for this unexpected turnaround I'll try and answer the following as requested;
w1zard wrote: However, I still stand by my assertion that 5ppm guardsmen would hurt guard a LOT, unless a lot of other changes are made to the game first. Namely price increases for kabalites, rangers and other units that would be flat out superior to 5ppm guardsmen, and nerfs for neophytes, which are guardsmen +1L for the same price point. To all of the people saying a 1ppm increase isn't much, it absolutely is, it is a 25% increase in infantry price. It would increase my 2000 pt army almost 100 pts and I don't even play infantry-heavy guard, Infantry-heavy guard lists are looking at possibly as high as 250 pt increases.
If someone on the opposite side could make a reasoned response to my second paragraph instead of snarking at me I would appreciate it.
I'm not sure why you believe rangers and kabalites would be flat out superior to 5ppm guardsmen? I'm not sure the maths on this stacks up? Summon our resident maths wiz to sort it, I believe it was Dandelion, the people's champion. Don't worry about neophites until their codex is released, +1 LD may simply be to make them equal with IS who are able to better deal with morale. If you're taking 100-250 models of Infantry, I'd say that was pretty heavy on the infantry front.
I agree that this isn't a small change. I don't think it's designed to be. A 25% increase seems about right for what they currently do. I'm sure Guard players would come up with other creative ways to make their lists work. This is part of the fun of building lists, no?
I wouldn't say this is a miracle fix either. There's plenty of other things GW needs to solve, both with regards IG/AM and other factions. This would be a good start though and it wouldn't be too drastic as to potentially break Guard for 6 months while they wait for Chapter Approved/a big FAQ.
Plenty of Guard players are fine with 5 ppm Infantry.
Plenty of Guard players readily acknowledge we have a top teir codex.
Plenty of Guard players have pointed out our Soup contribution is going to change by 30 points. At tournaments of 2000 points, that's 1.5% difference. So that's not going to change much.
I don't *understand* why Guard were given the ability to recoup CP. We can already generate more than we need, without recouping. I don't attribute to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence, so I just assume GW thought Guard was going to make greater use of the somewhat mediocre strategems we have?
I believe the key tournament issue is that Guard generate cheap, renewable CP. In several other threads, I've explained how detachment-based cp generation is flawed, and here is the prime example. I'd happily get rid of the CP regen abilities, they aren't helping mono-Guard much, and we can all have equal CP so that allying Guard becomes pointless.
Guardsmen are efficient, but Lasguns are still just flashlights. Still take 20 shots to wound an MEQ in the open, 40 if they're in cover. You need to coordinate 200 flashlights to wipe out a 5-man marine unit, in cover. That would be roughly 10 units, each getting a FRF, SRF order, somehow, with the rule of three, but for the giggles, 550 points of infantry all with LoS (100 models) to take out one Squad.
Mono-Guard players don't do that, by the way. We take upgrades like a Plasmagun, and usually a heavy (Lascannon these days, pop them hard targets!) so that we don't have to roll 200 attacks, 100 wound rolls, to then watch 33 saves *usually* eliminate a combat squad. Seriously, FRF SRF is a joke when you actually use it. Try it out, use proxies if you have to. Put 100 duders on a proper battlefield, with terrain; and make it so they all have LoS to a 5 man Tac squad. Now put 10 more commanders, so that they're able to issue orders to those units, and roll those 200 dice! It's impractical, in a real game.
Anyhow, the myth that Guard players don't accept / appreciate their powerful codex is a myth. Get over it.
An Actual Englishman wrote: This would be a good start though and it wouldn't be too drastic as to potentially break Guard for 6 months while they wait for Chapter Approved/a big FAQ.
See that is the thing. I think it will nerf guard so badly that mono-guard won't be able to compete with the top tier factions like knights, eldar, and DE. I mean, even with 4ppm guardsmen we barely hold our own against the top lists.
Fixing guardsmen to where they should be and not touching anything else just hurts guard. Either everything should get fixed at once, or guardsmen should be left how they are. I agree 5 pt guardsmen are an easy fix, but I'm worried it's so easy that they'll do it and never fix any of the other factions because the other factions have issues that are more fundamental than some undercosted infantry.
As for the math on 5 pt guardsmen vs 7 point rangers:
VS 40 boltgun shots:
Guard - (80/3) wounds -> (160/9) unsaved wounds -> 88.88 points of dead guardsmen
Rangers - (80/3) wounds -> (80/6) unsaved wounds -> 93.33 points of dead rangers
This is close enough to be fine
35 points of X shooting at GEQ assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 14 shots -> 7 hits -> (7/2) wounds -> (7/3) unsaved wounds -> 2.33 dead GEQ Rangers 10 shots -> (20/3) hits -> (40/9) wounds -> (80/27) unsaved wounds -> 2.96 dead GEQ
Point for point, rangers are approximately 27% better at killing GEQ than 5 pt guardsmen.
35 points of X shooting at marines assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 14 shots -> 7 hits -> (7/3) wounds -> (7/9) unsaved wounds -> 0.78 dead marines
Rangers 10 shots -> (20/3) hits -> (10/3) wounds -> (10/9) unsaved wounds -> 1.11 dead marines
Point for point, rangers are approximately 42% better at killing marines than 5 pt guardsmen.
This also doesn't factor in that rangers have a 6++, better base movement than guardsmen, and have a 6" longer range on their gun.
An Actual Englishman wrote: ...+1 LD may simply be to make them equal with IS who are able to better deal with morale....
I thought we were comparing in a vacuum and not considering buff from other units? IS aren't able to deal with morale at all outside of comissars or banners and those cost points.
Xenomancers wrote: Well - I do think there is a reason why there is less complaining about non AM stuff.
Getting beat by a giant robot of destruction kind of has this..."well that figures" feeling goes along with it. getting beat by hordes of human just doesn't have any good feeling that comes with it...
It's kind of like...why are these pathetic humans are strong as a space marine? (catachans) Why do they do more damage than my space marine (all gaurd) These are the thoughts that consume lot of players minds.
You hit the nail on the head.
There is an inherent bias against guard "doing well" because a lot of players think they are the "NPC faction". Nobody likes seeing their superbugs or supersoldiers gunned down by bog standard army men. I think there's a very small and loud group of players that want guard to be bad because they think they should bad and feth balance or people who like playing IG.
Xenomancers wrote: Most people don't even take gear on infantry squads. There is no reason to. You get to shoot twice with a lasgun for 4 points. It is super efficient. God forbid you have t3 and get shot by these things.
Mortars for sure are too cheap. It's a 10 point weapon at minimum.
If this is the level of misrepresentation you bring to the table, you should be surprised anyone is agreeing with you at all.
That "shooting twice" with a lasgun ability you've frequently mis-labelled (it does not let the squad shoot twice), will cost the Guard player 70 points for 9 "double-shooting" lasguns.
It's not 4pts/model for that ability. If you're going to decry the cost, include the entire cost that makes the mechanic you're complaining so loudly about actually possible.
What on earth are you talking about? Nobody wastes points upgrading Guardsmen, and by shooting twice, he means every model having 2 shots in rapid fire range.
No.
Xenomancers has repeatedly decried a 4pt Guardsman's ability to "shoot twice" - and yes, he was talking about FRFSRF, not just their standard lasguns - to call-out "shooting twice at 4pts/model" is to be disingenuous. 40 points will not get you that.
That's not surprising though, given that the theme of this thread is that somehow Guard being good this edition means they need to be "brought in line" - regardless that they haven't won on the back of their Codex alone. Using cherry picked "mathhammer" scenarios to prove a point, and constantly mis-representing what an Imperial Guard player gets for 40 points is the "in" thing to do around here.
5 point Guardsmen won't break the codex, but it's still an unnecessary change.
An Actual Englishman wrote: This would be a good start though and it wouldn't be too drastic as to potentially break Guard for 6 months while they wait for Chapter Approved/a big FAQ.
See that is the thing. I think it will nerf guard so badly that mono-guard won't be able to compete with the top tier factions like knights, eldar, and DE. I mean, even with 4ppm guardsmen we barely hold our own against the top lists.
Fixing guardsmen to where they should be and not touching anything else just hurts guard. Either everything should get fixed at once, or guardsmen should be left how they are. I agree 5 pt guardsmen are an easy fix, but I'm worried it's so easy that they'll do it and never fix any of the other factions because the other factions have issues that are more fundamental than some undercosted infantry.
As for the math on 5 pt guardsmen vs 7 point rangers:
VS 40 boltgun shots:
Guard - (80/3) wounds -> (160/9) unsaved wounds -> 88.88 points of dead guardsmen
Rangers - (80/3) wounds -> (80/6) unsaved wounds -> 93.33 points of dead rangers
This is close enough to be fine
35 points of X shooting at GEQ assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 14 shots -> 7 hits -> (7/2) wounds -> (7/3) unsaved wounds -> 2.33 dead GEQ Rangers 10 shots -> (20/3) hits -> (40/9) wounds -> (80/27) unsaved wounds -> 2.96 dead GEQ
Point for point, rangers are approximately 27% better at killing GEQ than 5 pt guardsmen.
35 points of X shooting at marines assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 14 shots -> 7 hits -> (7/3) wounds -> (7/9) unsaved wounds -> 0.78 dead marines
Rangers 10 shots -> (20/3) hits -> (10/3) wounds -> (10/9) unsaved wounds -> 1.11 dead marines
Point for point, rangers are approximately 42% better at killing marines than 5 pt guardsmen.
This also doesn't factor in that rangers have a 6++, better base movement than guardsmen, and have a 6" longer range on their gun.
An Actual Englishman wrote: ...+1 LD may simply be to make them equal with IS who are able to better deal with morale....
I thought we were comparing in a vacuum and not considering buff from other units? IS aren't able to deal with morale at all outside of comissars or banners and those cost points.
Xenomancers wrote: Well - I do think there is a reason why there is less complaining about non AM stuff.
Getting beat by a giant robot of destruction kind of has this..."well that figures" feeling goes along with it. getting beat by hordes of human just doesn't have any good feeling that comes with it...
It's kind of like...why are these pathetic humans are strong as a space marine? (catachans) Why do they do more damage than my space marine (all gaurd) These are the thoughts that consume lot of players minds.
You hit the nail on the head.
There is an inherent bias against guard "doing well" because a lot of players think they are the "NPC faction". Nobody likes seeing their superbugs or supersoldiers gunned down by bog standard army men. I think there's a very small and loud group of players that want guard to be bad because they think they should bad and feth balance or people who like playing IG.
I already agreed Rangers are 8ppm models as they have better BS skill than firewarrios who are also 7ppm they arn't both 7ppm models.
You see much less Rangers to have thier undercosting by 1ppm be as noticeable. Also 1 point out of 8 is 12.5% Better than they should be
1ppm less than 5ppm is a 20% undercosting for guard, and there are alot more guardsmens in the game than rangers.
Observation of guard constantly being a pita to remove from objectives by your own obsec troops highlights them as a problem unit.
An Actual Englishman wrote: This would be a good start though and it wouldn't be too drastic as to potentially break Guard for 6 months while they wait for Chapter Approved/a big FAQ.
See that is the thing. I think it will nerf guard so badly that mono-guard won't be able to compete with the top tier factions like knights, eldar, and DE. I mean, even with 4ppm guardsmen we barely hold our own against the top lists.
Fixing guardsmen to where they should be and not touching anything else just hurts guard. Either everything should get fixed at once, or guardsmen should be left how they are. I agree 5 pt guardsmen are an easy fix, but I'm worried it's so easy that they'll do it and never fix any of the other factions because the other factions have issues that are more fundamental than some undercosted infantry.
As for the math on 5 pt guardsmen vs 7 point rangers:
VS 40 boltgun shots:
Guard - (80/3) wounds -> (160/9) unsaved wounds -> 88.88 points of dead guardsmen
Rangers - (80/3) wounds -> (80/6) unsaved wounds -> 93.33 points of dead rangers
This is close enough to be fine
35 points of X shooting at GEQ assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 14 shots -> 7 hits -> (7/2) wounds -> (7/3) unsaved wounds -> 2.33 dead GEQ Rangers 10 shots -> (20/3) hits -> (40/9) wounds -> (80/27) unsaved wounds -> 2.96 dead GEQ
Point for point, rangers are approximately 27% better at killing GEQ than 5 pt guardsmen.
35 points of X shooting at marines assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 14 shots -> 7 hits -> (7/3) wounds -> (7/9) unsaved wounds -> 0.78 dead marines
Rangers 10 shots -> (20/3) hits -> (10/3) wounds -> (10/9) unsaved wounds -> 1.11 dead marines
Point for point, rangers are approximately 42% better at killing marines than 5 pt guardsmen.
This also doesn't factor in that rangers have a 6++, better base movement than guardsmen, and have a 6" longer range on their gun.
TBH I was surpised when Rangers dropped from 10 pts to 7. They are easily worth 8pts, and are IMO in the top 3 for basic infantry.
Ultimately though, the main reason I would like to see 5 pt Guard is to increase point differences between cheap units. Push Guard up to 5 pts, then adjust problem units upward while giving things like termagants breathing room.
Plenty of Guard players readily acknowledge we have a top teir codex.
There is nothing wrong with having a top tier codex, but fix some of the lower tier ones intead
Plenty of Guard players have pointed out our Soup contribution is going to change by 30 points. At tournaments of 2000 points, that's 1.5% difference. So that's not going to change much.
For soup armies, it will make no change to their decision to take the the guard battery.
For mono guard it punishes them and even more so as many will take 60 or 90 infantry. Then combined with peoples complaints about cheap commanders, hellhounds, artillery, and they are just as likely to be punished further.
I don't *understand* why Guard were given the ability to recoup CP. We can already generate more than we need, without recouping. I don't attribute to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence, so I just assume GW thought Guard was going to make greater use of the somewhat mediocre strategems we have?
Well there are some combos of guard that can make good use of the extra CP, a battalion with a spearhead (9CP) is not uncommon at lower points, so extra CP is nice. Not everyone takes a brigade.
I believe the key tournament issue is that Guard generate cheap, renewable CP. In several other threads, I've explained how detachment-based cp generation is flawed, and here is the prime example. I'd happily get rid of the CP regen abilities, they aren't helping mono-Guard much, and we can all have equal CP so that allying Guard becomes pointless.
Yes and as mentioned a 30 point increase wont deter armies like custodes and knights which have no choice.
And also as mentioned you should not punish mono guard who want to be able to generate extra CP, just dont allow soup armies to do it will solve most of the issues.
Anyhow, the myth that Guard players don't accept / appreciate their powerful codex is a myth. Get over it.
I am a guard player, I know the guard codex is a good one. Do i still have a challenge when I take on other armies. You bet i do.
As a top tier codex it only makes sense that you see guard in the top placings, they are good as an all comers army. Will they win all the tournaments, absolutely not and the results show it.
An Actual Englishman wrote: This would be a good start though and it wouldn't be too drastic as to potentially break Guard for 6 months while they wait for Chapter Approved/a big FAQ.
See that is the thing. I think it will nerf guard so badly that mono-guard won't be able to compete with the top tier factions like knights, eldar, and DE. I mean, even with 4ppm guardsmen we barely hold our own against the top lists.
Fixing guardsmen to where they should be and not touching anything else just hurts guard. Either everything should get fixed at once, or guardsmen should be left how they are. I agree 5 pt guardsmen are an easy fix, but I'm worried it's so easy that they'll do it and never fix any of the other factions because the other factions have issues that are more fundamental than some undercosted infantry.
As for the math on 5 pt guardsmen vs 7 point rangers:
VS 40 boltgun shots:
Guard - (80/3) wounds -> (160/9) unsaved wounds -> 88.88 points of dead guardsmen
Rangers - (80/3) wounds -> (80/6) unsaved wounds -> 93.33 points of dead rangers
This is close enough to be fine
35 points of X shooting at GEQ assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 14 shots -> 7 hits -> (7/2) wounds -> (7/3) unsaved wounds -> 2.33 dead GEQ Rangers 10 shots -> (20/3) hits -> (40/9) wounds -> (80/27) unsaved wounds -> 2.96 dead GEQ
Point for point, rangers are approximately 27% better at killing GEQ than 5 pt guardsmen.
35 points of X shooting at marines assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 14 shots -> 7 hits -> (7/3) wounds -> (7/9) unsaved wounds -> 0.78 dead marines
Rangers 10 shots -> (20/3) hits -> (10/3) wounds -> (10/9) unsaved wounds -> 1.11 dead marines
Point for point, rangers are approximately 42% better at killing marines than 5 pt guardsmen.
This also doesn't factor in that rangers have a 6++, better base movement than guardsmen, and have a 6" longer range on their gun.
How does the math change when you factor in the fact that Rangers have fewer wounds total than Guardsman? Is the 6++ enough to turn the tide? Also, there's the fact that Guardsman can get an extra 6" on their gun, making them equal there. Alternatively, they could have RR1, which changes the math a little too.
Once you factor in 40 points of support, per 2 Guardsman squads... the math goes significantly askew. "Eldar Farseers have comparable psychic powers too!" - sure, but price point, reliability, and final factor of effect; Guardsman with a 40pt Commander, things begin to change REAL quick. To show it simply: 80pts Guardsman+40points Commander (120pts) has the same output as 160pts of Guardsman (4xGuardsman squad). Sure, the second option also has double the wounds, but...
Lastly, I hope your argument isn't, "I admit my army could use a nerf, but unless they also nerf everyone else at the same time, you shouldn't nerf us!". - I mean, come on.
Xenomancers wrote: Well - I do think there is a reason why there is less complaining about non AM stuff.
Getting beat by a giant robot of destruction kind of has this..."well that figures" feeling goes along with it. getting beat by hordes of human just doesn't have any good feeling that comes with it...
It's kind of like...why are these pathetic humans are strong as a space marine? (catachans) Why do they do more damage than my space marine (all gaurd) These are the thoughts that consume lot of players minds.
Once you factor in 40 points of support, per 2 Guardsman squads... the math goes significantly askew. "Eldar Farseers have comparable psychic powers too!" - sure, but price point, reliability, and final factor of effect; Guardsman with a 40pt Commander, things begin to change REAL quick. To show it simply: 80pts Guardsman+40points Commander (120pts) has the same output as 160pts of Guardsman (4xGuardsman squad). Sure, the second option also has double the wounds, but...
Lastly, I hope your argument isn't, "I admit my army could use a nerf, but unless they also nerf everyone else at the same time, you shouldn't nerf us!". - I mean, come on.
Sorry to disappoint you further but a commander is only 30pts!
That said I dont believe all troops choices need to be comparable output and survivability. Yes the humble guard squad can get buffed to increase its utility and output but that's what makes them unique and they should not pay the price for having the ability to receive orders. If anything the commander could have a slight price increase, say 10pts, making the cheapest battalion 200pts. Unlike other HQ's he only there to do orders, he has very little utility outside of that (no auras, neither useful in shooting or close combat).
Galas wrote: I'm a Tau player and I think Firewarriors should go back to 8ppm.
Skitarii Rangers and Fire Warriors can both go to 8 pts, and I'm honestly not worried about the differences between them, (which are also greater than the differences between guardsmen and GSC).
Of course, if guard don't budge then it becomes harder to justify this, hence my insistence on the issue.
Xenomancers wrote: Well - I do think there is a reason why there is less complaining about non AM stuff.
Getting beat by a giant robot of destruction kind of has this..."well that figures" feeling goes along with it. getting beat by hordes of human just doesn't have any good feeling that comes with it...
It's kind of like...why are these pathetic humans are strong as a space marine? (catachans) Why do they do more damage than my space marine (all gaurd) These are the thoughts that consume lot of players minds.
I loathe the quote and reply, line by line format. I remember what I wrote... you can just reply to that as a whole.
Like this!
You seem to be attempting to disagree with me. And that's fine, but you're taking my reply, to someone else, out of context. There seems to be an overall perception that Guard players are unaware of our power levels, or denying that they are what they are, which for the most part is inaccurate.
I have no innate issue with playing a high-powered codex, though I do prefer the challenge of taking on high-powered codices with a mid-range dex. Part of my enjoyment of this game, which I admit is on the wane, is meeting my opponent's challenge.
I'm quite aware that the price change won't impact soup. Which is why I pointed out the measly 1.5% price impact. I presented this in a way that agrees with your statement. Based on my experience, a Guardsman is worth 5 ppm, though. Both my in-game and out-game analysis points to this. Such an adjustment isn't a punishment, it is simply adjusting the points to accurately reflect my opinion of their battlefield capability. When Guard were weak, I argued for improvements. When they are (by definition) overpowered, I wish to see their value corrected. I'm interested in the balance of the game, and playing on an even field. I feel this would help that goal.
I can easily fit a Brigade into 1500 points, using my (nearly) decades old collection of models. I don't have a lot, but I have a little of everything. It is really easy to do. I have never spent all my CP in a game, when I play this way. Again, I'd rather *everyone* just get more CP, then to have this battery be a part of the competitive game. CP tied to detachments and all that.
As above, I am not seeking to *punish* Guard. I honestly believe the value of a squad of Guardsmen should be 50 points base. Their abilities in this game are suited to that level. More than any mathammer regarding lethality or survivability, their board presence / control is more valuable than they're charged for. In previous editions, board control and screening more valuable (tanks) units was more difficult, and risky. Guard were worth less then, as they couldn't control the board nearly as well as they can now. Not even remotely close. Apples and... Bowling Balls. Not even two different fruits but two different classes of object. They're more valuable than 40 points, for the space they take, and the space they *prevent* others from occupying.
I also play Guard. I know this is the most powerful Codex Guard has had since 3rd edition. (I didn't play them in 2nd). Frankly, I don't experience a challenge in my one-on-one games, though with the new Knight codex I'm thinking that will be changing.
I don't follow tournaments. It sounds like Guard's contribution to the top 10 recently was *mostly* as a Battery for other codices that have a hard time generating CP. I think that of all the codices I've encountered, Guard is the codex most *capable* of running mono-faction in a competitive environment.
Does anyone have results for Mono-Faction builds in large tournaments? I'm curious how Mono-Faction lists do in comparison to one another.
It's pretty rare for any imperium faction other than guard to show up without soup, since for the most part the guard CP battery and/or BA captain battery are all that's keeping the knights and custodes competitive. Other space Marines, AdMech, and sisters are all a teir (or two) below them.
Eldar and DE are also run pure, but it's sort of foolish not to combine them, since the eldar powers are great for DE, and agents of vect is the best strategem in the game.
Nids are probablu the only faction that can ally but doesn't feel like it has to, but that's because GSC are an index army.
But yeah, most armies are going to be soup/have allies when the rule set explicitly encourages you to combine various detachments and take the best elements of multiple codexes.
I don't follow tournaments. It sounds like Guard's contribution to the top 10 recently was *mostly* as a Battery for other codices that have a hard time generating CP. I think that of all the codices I've encountered, Guard is the codex most *capable* of running mono-faction in a competitive environment.
Does anyone have results for Mono-Faction builds in large tournaments? I'm curious how Mono-Faction lists do in comparison to one another.
It should probably be edited into the OP at this point, but Guard Primary armies (not the batteries) are extremely dominant in tournament atm, being the top army in multiple aspects.
As for Mono-faction lists, nobody really records that, because it's not how the game is played, and when we balance armies, we balance them on what they CAN take, not what they CHOOSE NOT TO. However, we know Guard got like 20th at BAO, I think it was a Tau list with a tied record at like 4132 resistance points compared to 4131 or something, and a Knight list apparently, above it.
jcd386 wrote: It's pretty rare for any imperium faction other than guard to show up without soup, since for the most part the guard CP battery and/or BA captain battery are all that's keeping the knights and custodes competitive. Other space Marines, AdMech, and sisters are all a teir (or two) below them.
Eldar and DE are also run pure, but it's sort of foolish not to combine them, since the eldar powers are great for DE, and agents of vect is the best strategem in the game.
Nids are probablu the only faction that can ally but doesn't feel like it has to, but that's because GSC are an index army.
Most top Tyranids actually has 500 ish points of GSC and some DE has CWE for the anti shield cap/celestine powers so you can deal with them in 1 turn and not get tided up by them.
fe40k wrote: How does the math change when you factor in the fact that Rangers have fewer wounds total than Guardsman?
Already factored in. A +4 save at 7 points means less wounds total, but those wounds are harder to remove. The per-point durability is basically the same vs bolter fire or lasgun fire for that matter. You can check my math if you wish.
fe40k wrote: Also, there's the fact that Guardsman can get an extra 6" on their gun, making them equal there. Alternatively, they could have RR1, which changes the math a little too.
I wasn't factoring in regimental traits. If we want to go up that route then rangers can make everyone get -1 to hit on them outside 12" and all other sorts of shenanigans. Rangers get that extra 6" baseline and guardsmen don't.
fe40k wrote: Lastly, I hope your argument isn't, "I admit my army could use a nerf, but unless they also nerf everyone else at the same time, you shouldn't nerf us!". - I mean, come on.
No... my argument is "Nerfing guard without touching any of the other factions just makes guard weak and then nobody wins. If we are going to nerf guard it has to be a part of a bigger, sweeping balance change." Sounds better doesn't it?
I only play a mono list as well.
