Dandelion wrote:

 gbghg wrote:

I've seen plenty of mathhammer of firewarrior's vs guardsmen but I don't think I've ever seen one run with the range starting at 30" or higher, it's always starting at 24" negating the range advantage pulse rifles get over lasguns, on the same vein if you take buffs into account you could also run the numbers on firewarriors with 42" pulse rifles from the bor'khan trait and a pulse accelerator drone.

Do we really need to say that a unit with 30" range will outshoot a unit with 24" when targeting units at 30" range? But if you really want to know, a 10-man Fire warrior team will kill 2 Guardsmen at 30". Which I brought up before, and factored into my scenario. Of course, it was dismissed by someone who said FW and Guardsmen don't have the same role and so are incomparable.

But since you seem more reasonable let's give it a go:
1) No buffs:
- 12 fire warriors (84 pts)
- 20 Guard (80 pts)
Round 1 at 24-30"
- FW kill 2 Guardsmen
- Guard move 6", and get within 24". Kill 2 FW
Round 1 losses: 2 Guardsmen (8pts) 2 FW (14 pts)
I really don't need to continue, since it only gets worse for the tau.

2) Steel Legion guard with commander vs Borkan tau with fireblade and accelerator drone
- 20 Guard + 1 C Commander (110 pts)
- 12 FW + 1 Fireblade + 1 drone (132 pts)
Round 1 at 42"
- FW kill 2 Guard
- Guard move 15" with "Move! Move! Move!" to get within 27" of the FW
Round 2 at 27"
12 FW vs 18 Guard
- FW retreat 6" (33" total away) and fire: 2 kills
- Guard advance and get within 24", use "Forwards for the Emperor": 2 kills
Round 3:
10 FW vs 16 Guard
- FW move up to within 21": 7 kills
- Guard move up to within 18", FRFSRF: 5 kills
Round 4:
5 FW vs 9 Guard
- FW shoot: 3 kills
- Guard FRFSRF: 3 kills
Round 5:
2 FW vs 6 Guard
- FW shoot: 1 kill
- Guard FRFSRF: 2 kills

Guard win.
Of course, depending on terrain and the board, the Guard could have made it into combat by round 4, which still nets a win for them.
Note: commander and fireblade contributions (other than buffs) were ignored since I was focusing on the squad outputs. If you want to know, the fireblade would have killed 5 guard total, and the c commander would have killed 1-2 FW if he gets into combat at round 4, but that would have locked down the FW and fireblade from shooting for the last turn saving 3 Guardsmen. So, maybe 2 more guard die than shown above, but the end result is the same.

Now, you may be wondering why I chose to compare 110pts of guard vs 132 pts of tau, well, because if guard go to 5pts that would be 130pt vs 132pts.

Edit: I'd like to take a moment to appreciate how saying the orders makes the whole scenario more cinematic. Hands down my favorite part of playing guard.

This is untrue. Guardsman > Firewarriors, and all other troopers, pound for pound.

Guardsman - 4ppm
Range 24" Rapid Fire 1, S3, AP-0

Firewarrior - 7ppm
Range 30", Rapid Fire 1, S5, AP-0

17 Guardsman+1 Boltgun (Sergeant) = 68+1pts
10 Firewarriors = 70 points

17 Guardsman shooting at Firewarriors, Range24"
16 Lasgun shots; 16*.5*.5*.5 = 2 unsaved wounds
1 Boltgun shot; 1*.5*.666*.5 = 0.1665 unsaved wounds
TOTAL: 2.1665

10 Firewarriors shooting at Guardsman, Range30"
10 Pulse Rifle shots; 10*.5*.666*.666 = 2.21778 unsaved wounds
TOTAL: 2.21778

Unbuffed; Tau win outside of Rapid Fire range - but, the Guardsman have 17 wounds versus the Firewarriors 10; which is a massive deal in terms of durability, 58.8% more durable. The moment the shooting goes past one rounds worth, Guardsman>Firewarriors.

Let's talk buffs:
20 Guardsman(2 Boltguns)+1 Company Commander = 112pts
10 Firewarriors+1 Cadre Fireblade = 112pts

20 Guardsman(2 Boltguns)+1 Company Commander (issuing FRSRF x2) shooting at Firewarriors, Range12"
18*4 Lasgun shots: 72*.5*.5*.5 = 9 unsaved wounds
2 Boltgun shots: 2*.5*.5*.5 = .25 unsaved wouds
TOTAL: 9.25

10 Firewarriors+1 Cadre Fireblade, shooting at Guardsman, Range15"
1 Markerlight shot: 1*.8333 = ~1 hit
10*3 Pulse Rifle shots: 10*.5*.666*.666 = 6.65334 unsaved wounds
Rerolling the 1's adds... 5*(.333)*.5*.666*.666 = .277xxx unsaved wounds
TOTAL: 6.93034

Buffed: It's not even close. Guardsman >>> Firewarriors, while having 21 wounds VS 11 wounds. - Speaking of the value of traits, Guardsman can get the same range as Firewarriors, unless the Firewarriors also take the +range trait. Firewarriors can get +1cover save, which brings down 18*4 Lasgun shots expected output to... 5.994, a significant reduction - but still not enough to win them a prolonged shootout; and they lose it if they move. If Guardsman don't have to move either, they could also take the re-roll 1's trait, which adds... 1.4985 unsaved wounds, for 18*4 Lasgun shots.

Guardsman do not deserve to be 4ppm under any circumstances; at least not with their statline, relative to the stats/prices of other factions armies. Adding in a 30PPM Company Commander brings a Guardsman squad up to 5.5PPM/7PPM (2/1 squads buffed by CompanyCommander); which sounds reasonable, but STILL blows out other factions troopers. 4pts = 1W, Sv5+, and 1/2/4 Lasgun shots.

Guardsman win the infantry war point for point, and back that up with an excessive number of Artillery/Tank units (up to 3x as many models as other factions, thanks to squadrons), all of which are competitive in their own right.

Let's talk buffs:
20 Guardsman(2 Boltguns)+1 Company Commander = 112pts
10 Firewarriors+1 Cadre Fireblade = 112pts
VS
MEQ; T4, Sv3+
5EQ (Custodes); T5, Sv2+

20 Guardsman(2 Boltguns)+1 Company Commander (issuing FRSRF x2) shooting at MEQ, Range12"
[I'm leaving the 2 Boltguns and 1 Laspistol out of the equations below; it's a lot more lines/calculations for what ultimately amounts to... a smaller bonus than what it's worth for this comparison.]
VS MEQ
R24": (18)*.5*.333*.333 = .998001
Cadia RR1's: (9)*(.333)*.5*.333*.333 = .1661671665
TOTAL: 1.1641681665
R12": (18*4)*.5*.333*.333 = 3.992004
Cadia RR1's: (36)*(.333)*.5*.333*.333 = .664668666
TOTAL: 4.656672666
VS 5EQ
R24": (18)*.5*.333*.166 = .497502
Cadia RR1's: (9)*(.333)*.5*.333*.166 = .082834083
TOTAL: .580336083
R12": (18*4)*.5*.333*.166 = 1.990008
Cadia RR1's: (36)*(.333)*.5*.333*.166 = .331336332
TOTAL: 2.321344332

10 Firewarriors+1 Cadre Fireblade, shooting at MEQ, Range15"
VS MEQ
R24": (10)*.5*.666*.333 = 1.10889
Markerlight RR1's: (5).(.333)*.5*.666*.333 = .184630185
TOTAL: 1.293520185
R12": (10*3)*.5*.666*.333 = 3.32667
Markerlight RR1's: (15)*(.333)*.5*.666*.333 = .553890555
TOTAL: 3.88056055
VS 5EQ
R24": (10)*.5*.5*.166 = .415
Markerlight RR1's: (5)*(.333)*.5*.5*.166 = .0690975
TOTAL: .4840975
R12": (10*3)*.5*.5*.166 = 1.245
Markerlight RR1's: (15)*(.333)*.5*.5*.166 = .2072925
TOTAL: 1.4522925

Short version: Don't underestimate sheer volume of fire - Lasguns generally tie or win out against your T5 and down targets; and when they get in Rapid Fire range (12"-15", 4 shots*4ppm > 3shots*7ppm [yes, they're missing the ppm of commanders and fireblades; if you made a brick of Firewarriors, you may be able to get the PPM to even out (since 1 Cadre Fireblade can buff a large number of units, while you need UNITS/2 in Company Commanders), if not get closer together after all calculations...]; and again, don't forget that the Guardsman have 21wounds to the Firewarriors 11wounds - and take up additional board space, which is a huge deal.

Firewarrior's S5 guns start to win out when you start shooting T6-T9 models; add in the +1 to wound rolls stratagem, and they can do real work.

I'll make an Overwatch post some time in the future, maybe; but with Firewarriors having 3shots VS 2//4shots (if IG interweave the 20Guardsman (2 squads), they get an additional set of overwatches), and potentially RR1's (not likely, but maybe they'll get a markerlight on a random target beforehand); it'll be close. I think interlocked IG squads will come out on top (40 shots vs 30 shots) by a little - if you add in other Firewarrior squads nearby, they'll come out ahead - but, that's even more points (albeit ones that the IG couldn't leverage even if they wanted to, unless they mix 3 infantry squads together... Mordian Doctrine ties with T'au Doctrine (hitting on 5+s), so... it's really a wash.

 vipoid wrote:


This just in: If you enter a tournament, you are not allowed to play something just because you enjoy it. You must use the most competitive army possible, even it it means including units you have no interest in using or armies you have no interest in playing. Do that or GTFO.

Spoletta wrote:

Spoiler:

fe40k wrote:
Quoting two of my different responses; the first is Guardsman vs Firewarriors (T3), the second is Guardsman/Firewarriors vs MEQ/5EQ (T4/T5).

This is untrue. Guardsman > Firewarriors, and all other troopers, pound for pound.

Guardsman - 4ppm
Range 24" Rapid Fire 1, S3, AP-0

Firewarrior - 7ppm
Range 30", Rapid Fire 1, S5, AP-0

17 Guardsman+1 Boltgun (Sergeant) = 68+1pts
10 Firewarriors = 70 points

17 Guardsman shooting at Firewarriors, Range24"
16 Lasgun shots; 16*.5*.5*.5 = 2 unsaved wounds
1 Boltgun shot; 1*.5*.666*.5 = 0.1665 unsaved wounds
TOTAL: 2.1665

10 Firewarriors shooting at Guardsman, Range30"
10 Pulse Rifle shots; 10*.5*.666*.666 = 2.21778 unsaved wounds
TOTAL: 2.21778

Unbuffed; Tau win outside of Rapid Fire range - but, the Guardsman have 17 wounds versus the Firewarriors 10; which is a massive deal in terms of durability, 58.8% more durable. The moment the shooting goes past one rounds worth, Guardsman>Firewarriors.

Let's talk buffs:
20 Guardsman(2 Boltguns)+1 Company Commander = 112pts
10 Firewarriors+1 Cadre Fireblade = 112pts

20 Guardsman(2 Boltguns)+1 Company Commander (issuing FRSRF x2) shooting at Firewarriors, Range12"
18*4 Lasgun shots: 72*.5*.5*.5 = 9 unsaved wounds
2 Boltgun shots: 2*.5*.5*.5 = .25 unsaved wouds
TOTAL: 9.25

10 Firewarriors+1 Cadre Fireblade, shooting at Guardsman, Range15"
1 Markerlight shot: 1*.8333 = ~1 hit
10*3 Pulse Rifle shots: 10*.5*.666*.666 = 6.65334 unsaved wounds
Rerolling the 1's adds... 5*(.333)*.5*.666*.666 = .277xxx unsaved wounds
TOTAL: 6.93034

Buffed: It's not even close. Guardsman >>> Firewarriors, while having 21 wounds VS 11 wounds. - Speaking of the value of traits, Guardsman can get the same range as Firewarriors, unless the Firewarriors also take the +range trait. Firewarriors can get +1cover save, which brings down 18*4 Lasgun shots expected output to... 5.994, a significant reduction - but still not enough to win them a prolonged shootout; and they lose it if they move. If Guardsman don't have to move either, they could also take the re-roll 1's trait, which adds... 1.4985 unsaved wounds, for 18*4 Lasgun shots.

Guardsman do not deserve to be 4ppm under any circumstances; at least not with their statline, relative to the stats/prices of other factions armies. Adding in a 30PPM Company Commander brings a Guardsman squad up to 5.5PPM/7PPM (2/1 squads buffed by CompanyCommander); which sounds reasonable, but STILL blows out other factions troopers. 4pts = 1W, Sv5+, and 1/2/4 Lasgun shots.

Guardsman win the infantry war point for point, and back that up with an excessive number of Artillery/Tank units (up to 3x as many models as other factions, thanks to squadrons), all of which are competitive in their own right.

Let's talk buffs:
20 Guardsman(2 Boltguns)+1 Company Commander = 112pts
10 Firewarriors+1 Cadre Fireblade = 112pts
VS
MEQ; T4, Sv3+
5EQ (Custodes); T5, Sv2+

20 Guardsman(2 Boltguns)+1 Company Commander (issuing FRSRF x2) shooting at MEQ, Range12"
[I'm leaving the 2 Boltguns and 1 Laspistol out of the equations below; it's a lot more lines/calculations for what ultimately amounts to... a smaller bonus than what it's worth for this comparison.]
VS MEQ
R24": (18)*.5*.333*.333 = .998001
Cadia RR1's: (9)*(.333)*.5*.333*.333 = .1661671665
TOTAL: 1.1641681665
R12": (18*4)*.5*.333*.333 = 3.992004
Cadia RR1's: (36)*(.333)*.5*.333*.333 = .664668666
TOTAL: 4.656672666
VS 5EQ
R24": (18)*.5*.333*.166 = .497502
Cadia RR1's: (9)*(.333)*.5*.333*.166 = .082834083
TOTAL: .580336083
R12": (18*4)*.5*.333*.166 = 1.990008
Cadia RR1's: (36)*(.333)*.5*.333*.166 = .331336332
TOTAL: 2.321344332

10 Firewarriors+1 Cadre Fireblade, shooting at MEQ, Range15"
VS MEQ
R24": (10)*.5*.666*.333 = 1.10889
Markerlight RR1's: (5).(.333)*.5*.666*.333 = .184630185
TOTAL: 1.293520185
R12": (10*3)*.5*.666*.333 = 3.32667
Markerlight RR1's: (15)*(.333)*.5*.666*.333 = .553890555
TOTAL: 3.88056055
VS 5EQ
R24": (10)*.5*.5*.166 = .415
Markerlight RR1's: (5)*(.333)*.5*.5*.166 = .0690975
TOTAL: .4840975
R12": (10*3)*.5*.5*.166 = 1.245
Markerlight RR1's: (15)*(.333)*.5*.5*.166 = .2072925
TOTAL: 1.4522925

Short version: Don't underestimate sheer volume of fire - Lasguns generally tie or win out against your T5 and down targets; and when they get in Rapid Fire range (12"-15", 4 shots*4ppm > 3shots*7ppm [yes, they're missing the ppm of commanders and fireblades; if you made a brick of Firewarriors, you may be able to get the PPM to even out (since 1 Cadre Fireblade can buff a large number of units, while you need UNITS/2 in Company Commanders), if not get closer together after all calculations...]; and again, don't forget that the Guardsman have 21wounds to the Firewarriors 11wounds - and take up additional board space, which is a huge deal.

Firewarrior's S5 guns start to win out when you start shooting T6-T9 models; add in the +1 to wound rolls stratagem, and they can do real work.

I'll make an Overwatch post some time in the future, maybe; but with Firewarriors having 3shots VS 2//4shots (if IG interweave the 20Guardsman (2 squads), they get an additional set of overwatches), and potentially RR1's (not likely, but maybe they'll get a markerlight on a random target beforehand); it'll be close. I think interlocked IG squads will come out on top (40 shots vs 30 shots) by a little - if you add in other Firewarrior squads nearby, they'll come out ahead - but, that's even more points (albeit ones that the IG couldn't leverage even if they wanted to, unless they mix 3 infantry squads together... Mordian Doctrine ties with T'au Doctrine (hitting on 5+s), so... it's really a wash.

Sorry but this way of doing math is IMHO misleading. Troops having a shoot out between each other is an absurd scenario that is never going to matter in the game. What you should calculate, as i did, is how much wounds per point those troops inflict on typical targets, and at what range.
Or how durable they are against the typical shooting profiles.

If you do this, you will discover that when no buffs are applied, guards are the most durable troops in the game, but they are FAR from being the most powerful. Many factions have troops that easily outshoot them. What is unique to guards is their durability, but please let's not say that guardsmen are OP due to their firepower, because that would 100% false.

Now, the combination of an OK firepower and high durability can be worth 5 points, i agree. But if you claim that you have "mathematically shown" something, do it in a reasonable
way.

That said, fixing guardmen is not even in the top 5 of changes that are most urgent for guards, so i don't see why it is getting all the hate.
Before that you should:

1) Fix grand strategist
2) Nerf Artemis Hellhounds
3) Nerf vanilla Hellhounds
4) Nerf shadowswords (the fact that the Castellan is even more OP doesn't mean that the shadowsword is now fair)
5) Take Cover doen not influence invul saves.

All of those are more important that increasing by 1 point the guardsmen.

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Take a basic squad of each thing, no buffs, and go from there.

???
But I did. Multiple times, and they come out ahead in every scenario against other unbuffed infantry. And when I do that people are all like "but you have to consider the faction as a whole" so I do the math again but with buffs affecting both sides, and guard still win handily. And then people go "orders are different from auras so it's not the same" and then just declare all the math unrepresentative. Or even better, that the comparison involves units that don't have the same role and so is wrong.

And it really baffles me when people downplay the effects of FRFSRF, saying it doesn't do much because it's S3. I mean, 3 guard infantry squads can use FRFSRF to keep up with a double tapping Russ Punisher's firepower, and that's at long range. At half range, the punisher is completely outdone. And most Guard players seem to think that the punisher needs a point increase, so...

Kdash wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Take a basic squad of each thing, no buffs, and go from there.

???
But I did. Multiple times, and they come out ahead in every scenario against other unbuffed infantry. And when I do that people are all like "but you have to consider the faction as a whole" so I do the math again but with buffs affecting both sides, and guard still win handily. And then people go "orders are different from auras so it's not the same" and then just declare all the math unrepresentative. Or even better, that the comparison involves units that don't have the same role and so is wrong.

And it really baffles me when people downplay the effects of FRFSRF, saying it doesn't do much because it's S3. I mean, 3 guard infantry squads can use FRFSRF to keep up with a double tapping Russ Punisher's firepower, and that's at long range. At half range, the punisher is completely outdone. And most Guard players seem to think that the punisher needs a point increase, so...

Ok, so I’ve just done a bit more math myself in regards to “who comes out on top unbuffed”. That even means not rapid firing – but being able to shoot from turn 1. This is also not taking into account morale losses. (As a morale trade off, I’ve not taken the decision of presuming you’d remove Guard sergeants first – otherwise morale would play a bigger factor).

Vs Marines.
2 squads of Guard vs 1 squad of 6 Marines (80 points v 78)
If Guard go first, the Marines are dead at the end of turn 4 with only 17.26% Casualties.
If Marines go first, the Marines are dead at the end of turn 6. 29.23% Casualties.
Guard win.

Vs T’au
2 squads of Guard vs 11 Fire warriors (80 points v 77)
If Guard go first, Guard win. 37.55% Casualties vs 91.83%
If T’au go first, Guard win. 65.55% Casulaties vs 62.72%.
Advantage to Guard. Neither side is “tabled”.

Vs Nids
2 squads of Guard vs 3 Warriors with Deathspitters (not even going to bother with it being vs 10 Termagants with devourers) (80 points v 75)
If Guard go first, Guard win. 55.56% Casualties vs 66.67%.
If Nids go first, Nids win. 33.33% Casualties vs 77.78%.
Draw over 6 turns, with slight advantage to Nids. Neither side is “tabled”.

Vs Thousand Sons
6 squads of Guard vs 11 Rubrics (one with Soulreaper and killing off Sorcerer first) (240 points v 240)
If Guard go first, Guard win. 35.5% Casualties vs 59.92%
If Sons go first, Guard win. 44.34% Casualties vs 47.1%.
Guard win, though, it is pretty close if Sons go first. Neither side is “tabled”.

Vs Orks
3 squads of Guard vs 20 Boyz (120 points vs 120)
If Guard go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 5. 16.54% Casualties.
If Orks go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 6. 29.71% Casualties.
Easy Guard win.

Vs Necrons
3 squads of Guard vs 1 unit of Warriors
If Guard go first, Necrons win. 33.61% Casualties to 50.5%.
If Necrons go first, then Necrons win. 41.09% Casualties vs 57.28%.
Necrons win over 6 turns. Neither side is “tabled”.

Vs Admech (Rangers)
1 squad v 1 squad (40 points each)
If Guard go first, Guard win. Admech tabled turn 6. 27.8% Guard Casualties.
If Admech go first, Guard win. 51.9% Casualties vs 80.06%.
Guard win.


So - from a DURABILITY point alone (one of the points that seems to get mentioned over and over again, Guardsmen aren't the "best" across the board troop for troop.

Of course, this changes when you start having other squads shoot at the Guardsmen etc, but, in the troop v troop situation it is slightly different.

Ice_can wrote:

Spoiler:

Kdash wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Take a basic squad of each thing, no buffs, and go from there.

???
But I did. Multiple times, and they come out ahead in every scenario against other unbuffed infantry. And when I do that people are all like "but you have to consider the faction as a whole" so I do the math again but with buffs affecting both sides, and guard still win handily. And then people go "orders are different from auras so it's not the same" and then just declare all the math unrepresentative. Or even better, that the comparison involves units that don't have the same role and so is wrong.

And it really baffles me when people downplay the effects of FRFSRF, saying it doesn't do much because it's S3. I mean, 3 guard infantry squads can use FRFSRF to keep up with a double tapping Russ Punisher's firepower, and that's at long range. At half range, the punisher is completely outdone. And most Guard players seem to think that the punisher needs a point increase, so...

Ok, so I’ve just done a bit more math myself in regards to “who comes out on top unbuffed”. That even means not rapid firing – but being able to shoot from turn 1. This is also not taking into account morale losses. (As a morale trade off, I’ve not taken the decision of presuming you’d remove Guard sergeants first – otherwise morale would play a bigger factor).

Vs Marines.
2 squads of Guard vs 1 squad of 6 Marines (80 points v 78)
If Guard go first, the Marines are dead at the end of turn 4 with only 17.26% Casualties.
If Marines go first, the Marines are dead at the end of turn 6. 29.23% Casualties.
Guard win.

Vs T’au
2 squads of Guard vs 11 Fire warriors (80 points v 77)
If Guard go first, Guard win. 37.55% Casualties vs 91.83%
If T’au go first, Guard win. 65.55% Casulaties vs 62.72%.
Advantage to Guard. Neither side is “tabled”.

Vs Nids
2 squads of Guard vs 3 Warriors with Deathspitters (not even going to bother with it being vs 10 Termagants with devourers) (80 points v 75)
If Guard go first, Guard win. 55.56% Casualties vs 66.67%.
If Nids go first, Nids win. 33.33% Casualties vs 77.78%.
Draw over 6 turns, with slight advantage to Nids. Neither side is “tabled”.

Vs Thousand Sons
6 squads of Guard vs 11 Rubrics (one with Soulreaper and killing off Sorcerer first) (240 points v 240)
If Guard go first, Guard win. 35.5% Casualties vs 59.92%
If Sons go first, Guard win. 44.34% Casualties vs 47.1%.
Guard win, though, it is pretty close if Sons go first. Neither side is “tabled”.

Vs Orks
3 squads of Guard vs 20 Boyz (120 points vs 120)
If Guard go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 5. 16.54% Casualties.
If Orks go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 6. 29.71% Casualties.
Easy Guard win.

Vs Necrons
3 squads of Guard vs 1 unit of Warriors
If Guard go first, Necrons win. 33.61% Casualties to 50.5%.
If Necrons go first, then Necrons win. 41.09% Casualties vs 57.28%.
Necrons win over 6 turns. Neither side is “tabled”.

Vs Admech (Rangers)
1 squad v 1 squad (40 points each)
If Guard go first, Guard win. Admech tabled turn 6. 27.8% Guard Casualties.
If Admech go first, Guard win. 51.9% Casualties vs 80.06%.
Guard win.


So - from a DURABILITY point alone (one of the points that seems to get mentioned over and over again, Guardsmen aren't the "best" across the board troop for troop.

Of course, this changes when you start having other squads shoot at the Guardsmen etc, but, in the troop v troop situation it is slightly different.

All you have shown is they are better than Tau, Marines, Thousand sons, orks and Admech.
While in your example the warriors win, I don't think that would hold up inna game as reanimation protocols are easy to play arround by focusing unit afyer unit off the table.

So they only one it was even close with was nids and you have a huge board control advantage over them.

 Earth127 wrote:
Ice_can I am afraid your math is wrong.


You cannot use the basic chance formula ove rmultiple turns. All chances have to be independent of each other. Losses aren't.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


This just in: If you enter a tournament, you are not allowed to play something just because you enjoy it. You must use the most competitive army possible, even it it means including units you have no interest in using or armies you have no interest in playing. Do that or GTFO.

This just in: people take what they believe to be the most competitive list they have to a tournament. People are taking mono Guard armies and performing better than other armies that are forced to do mono. Also players can still play something they enjoy if they play Guard because they can take a Guard army AND ally in other armies to suit.

Marin wrote:
That topic really become pointless. Calculating damage infantry vs infantry have little value. 5 points per guard are 10 more per squad and 60 more for 6 and that is not really game breaking in most lists. If really really the price is the problem guard can deploy conscripts for 4 points. That seam to little to be even worth a argument. Force 20 per unit for conscript and 15 per guard and than we are talking of doing something.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Marin wrote:
That topic really become pointless. Calculating damage infantry vs infantry have little value. 5 points per guard are 10 more per squad and 60 more for 6 and that is not really game breaking in most lists. If really really the price is the problem guard can deploy conscripts for 4 points. That seam to little to be even worth a argument. Force 20 per unit for conscript and 15 per guard and than we are talking of doing something.

Conscript units start at 20 models and can add 10 more(down from the Index letting you add 30 more) to cap the unit out at 30.
Infantry and Veteran Squads themselves are 10 models to start and cannot have their numbers bolstered. Infantry Squads(as in: the unit called Infantry Squad) can be merged via the "Combined Squads" stratagem during the course of the game.

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

 JNAProductions wrote:
They've been FAQed to have Slab Shields only work on armor saves, if I recall correctly.

And where are the rerolls coming from?

 Marmatag wrote:
My favorite example of Infantry squads being broken is when you use the synergy with Guard HQs.

Isn't it great when Infantry have 3 attacks per guy at strength 4 with rerolls? And you can order them to fight twice? Just combine a couple squads, charge in, and you will throw out 60 attacks with rerolls on an 80 point unit. Maybe order them, so it's 120? Seems fair right?

You guys talk about how guard aren't winning tournaments. That's because Imperium soup is insane. Castellans ARE that good. Custode Dawneagles ARE that good. Guard are super strong wall to wall.

That doesn't change the fact that guard are better than most armies in melee

and better than most armies in shooting. Do i want guard nerfed into the floor? No, but this faction has had it all for far too long. Their literal only weakness is BS4+ and that is something that these forum users whine about constantly. It is the literal only weakness guard has. And it's only 1 side of a dice worse than marine shooting (read: most accurate shooting in game).

 Marmatag wrote:

Isn't it great when Infantry have 3 attacks per guy at strength 4 with rerolls? And you can order them to fight twice? Just combine a couple squads, charge in, and you will throw out 60 attacks with rerolls on an 80 point unit. Maybe order them, so it's 120? Seems fair right?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Marin wrote:
That topic really become pointless. Calculating damage infantry vs infantry have little value. 5 points per guard are 10 more per squad and 60 more for 6 and that is not really game breaking in most lists. If really really the price is the problem guard can deploy conscripts for 4 points. That seam to little to be even worth a argument. Force 20 per unit for conscript and 15 per guard and than we are talking of doing something.

Conscript units start at 20 models and can add 10 more(down from the Index letting you add 30 more) to cap the unit out at 30.
Infantry and Veteran Squads themselves are 10 models to start and cannot have their numbers bolstered. Infantry Squads(as in: the unit called Infantry Squad) can be merged via the "Combined Squads" stratagem during the course of the game.

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

So now you want us to start comparing 10 models vs 10 models? You'll be proud of how Terminators hold up!

 vipoid wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Isn't it great when Infantry have 3 attacks per guy at strength 4 with rerolls? And you can order them to fight twice? Just combine a couple squads, charge in, and you will throw out 60 attacks with rerolls on an 80 point unit. Maybe order them, so it's 120? Seems fair right?

It seems very disingenuous to not include the cost of the support units in this.

Straken costs almost as much as those two squads (75pts), and a Ministrum Priest is another 35pts. So you're paying about 40% more for support units than for the squads you're actually buffing. Worth noting also that, whilst you can include multiple Priests, Straken is a special character and thus you're already limited in the number of squads you can realistically pull this trick with.

Also, the Fix Bayonets Order requires the squad to already be in melee when you use it. So, no, you can't just charge in with double attacks.


What's more, I think you're vastly overestimating the threat posed by melee guardsmen. Those 60 attacks amount to, what, a dead 5-man marine squad? So you're spending 190pts to kill 65pts of a squad that pretty much everyone agrees isn't good to begin with. And this is assuming absolutely perfect conditions - with the guardsmen advancing completely unscathed up the field (perfectly reasonable for T3 5+ models), their target obligingly coming to them or not backing away from the cumbersome melee blob, the support characters never being sniped out, the opponent not taking the opportunity to charge himself with actual assault units, the squad taking no damage from overwatch etc.

I don't deny that IG are strong but is anyone seriously dominating with melee-IG?

 Marmatag wrote:
My favorite example of Infantry squads being broken is when you use the synergy with Guard HQs.

Isn't it great when Infantry have 3 attacks per guy at strength 4 with rerolls? And you can order them to fight twice? Just combine a couple squads, charge in, and you will throw out 60 attacks with rerolls on an 80 point unit. Maybe order them, so it's 120? Seems fair right?

This faction has been busted wall to wall for some time. The fact that Guard can lose to things that stack -1 to hit penalties, or Guard Soup which includes Custodes and Knights, doesn't take away from the faction's power.

You guys talk about how guard aren't winning tournaments. That's because Imperium soup is insane. Castellans ARE that good. Custode Dawneagles ARE that good. Guard are super strong wall to wall.

That doesn't change the fact that guard are better than most armies in melee, and better than most armies in shooting. Do i want guard nerfed into the floor? No, but this faction has had it all for far too long. Their literal only weakness is BS4+ and that is something that these forum users whine about constantly. It is the literal only weakness guard has. And it's only 1 side of a dice worse than marine shooting (read: most accurate shooting in game).

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
My favorite example of Infantry squads being broken is when you use the synergy with Guard HQs.

Isn't it great when Infantry have 3 attacks per guy at strength 4 with rerolls? And you can order them to fight twice? Just combine a couple squads, charge in, and you will throw out 60 attacks with rerolls on an 80 point unit. Maybe order them, so it's 120? Seems fair right?

I mean, if we're combining the base unit and cherrypicked Stratagems, Officers & Orders, Regiment Bonuses, and appropriate maneuver of all elements in acting in coordination at full strength, sure, but then how much of that is the Infantry Squad, and how much of that is the successful convergence all those things at the time and place of the commanders choosing?

 Vaktathi wrote:

You guys talk about how guard aren't winning tournaments. That's because Imperium soup is insane. Castellans ARE that good. Custode Dawneagles ARE that good. Guard are super strong wall to wall.

Still wondering about those Chimeras...

 Vaktathi wrote:

That doesn't change the fact that guard are better than most armies in melee

In cherrypicked webforum thought experiments involving extremely specific contexts? Maybe. Let me know when a melee guard amy beats another army inherently built around melee combat, I've never seen one.

 Vaktathi wrote:

and better than most armies in shooting. Do i want guard nerfed into the floor? No, but this faction has had it all for far too long. Their literal only weakness is BS4+ and that is something that these forum users whine about constantly. It is the literal only weakness guard has. And it's only 1 side of a dice worse than marine shooting (read: most accurate shooting in game).

And only 1pt better than Orks, the worst shooting in the game

 Marmatag wrote:
Bullgryns are what terminators should have been.

It's always funny when you see Bullgryns with a 1+/2++ spitting out 5x Strength 7, AP-1, 2 damage attacks, hitting on 3s, with some reroll synergy.

If terminators had this the guard community would be crying "broken." In fact if any faction had this they'd be crying broken... except guard obviously, because guard should have the best melee in the game.

 Marmatag wrote:
My favorite example of Infantry squads being broken is when you use the synergy with Guard HQs.

Isn't it great when Infantry have 3 attacks per guy at strength 4 with rerolls? And you can order them to fight twice? Just combine a couple squads, charge in, and you will throw out 60 attacks with rerolls on an 80 point unit. Maybe order them, so it's 120? Seems fair right?

This faction has been busted wall to wall for some time. The fact that Guard can lose to things that stack -1 to hit penalties, or Guard Soup which includes Custodes and Knights, doesn't take away from the faction's power. .

jaxor1983 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Bullgryns are what terminators should have been.

It's always funny when you see Bullgryns with a 1+/2++ spitting out 5x Strength 7, AP-1, 2 damage attacks, hitting on 3s, with some reroll synergy.

If terminators had this the guard community would be crying "broken." In fact if any faction had this they'd be crying broken... except guard obviously, because guard should have the best melee in the game.

The only rerolls available to Bullgryns are from Yarrick (1's to hit) and Old Grudges (all wounds vs a single unit selected at the beginning of the game), if they are within 6" of the warlord (who can't also be Yarrick, mind you).

They are capable of getting a 3++, for 52 points per model.

 CommunistNapkin wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
My favorite example of Infantry squads being broken is when you use the synergy with Guard HQs.

Isn't it great when Infantry have 3 attacks per guy at strength 4 with rerolls? And you can order them to fight twice? Just combine a couple squads, charge in, and you will throw out 60 attacks with rerolls on an 80 point unit. Maybe order them, so it's 120? Seems fair right?

This faction has been busted wall to wall for some time. The fact that Guard can lose to things that stack -1 to hit penalties, or Guard Soup which includes Custodes and Knights, doesn't take away from the faction's power. .

Part of the problem with threads like this are posts exactly like this. This post is grossly misleading. For one, there is no way that infantry squads can gain rerolls to hit in close combat. I assume you are talking about the Ministorum Priest who has the Zealot special rule, which allows HIM to reroll close combat attacks on the turn he charges, was charged, or makes a heroic intervention; this does not effect any other units. 60 attacks with an 80 point unit? I can only assume you're referring to two Infantry Squads, which would bring the attacks up to 64 due to the sergeants with chainswords. However, this fails to take into account the points for both Strakken (75 points, and very possibly undercosted for what he can do), as well as the Ministorum Priest (35 points). So now we're looking at 190 points to make this happen. Is that undercosted? Maybe, but I would definitely point at Strakken as being the biggest problem, along with the Catachan Regimental traits.

This is certainly not IG being busted "wall to wall". This is a potential problem with one character (Strakken), one Regimental trait (Catachan), and possibly, possibly Infantry Squads, and I'll even go out and throw in Hellhounds (again, really only seem to be too powerful with the Catachan trait). Saying that the faction is "busted wall to wall" is the reason that people get so defensive about this topic, especially when there are so many bad units and mediocre units in the codex already.

 Marmatag wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CommunistNapkin wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
My favorite example of Infantry squads being broken is when you use the synergy with Guard HQs.

Isn't it great when Infantry have 3 attacks per guy at strength 4 with rerolls? And you can order them to fight twice? Just combine a couple squads, charge in, and you will throw out 60 attacks with rerolls on an 80 point unit. Maybe order them, so it's 120? Seems fair right?

This faction has been busted wall to wall for some time. The fact that Guard can lose to things that stack -1 to hit penalties, or Guard Soup which includes Custodes and Knights, doesn't take away from the faction's power. .

Part of the problem with threads like this are posts exactly like this. This post is grossly misleading. For one, there is no way that infantry squads can gain rerolls to hit in close combat. I assume you are talking about the Ministorum Priest who has the Zealot special rule, which allows HIM to reroll close combat attacks on the turn he charges, was charged, or makes a heroic intervention; this does not effect any other units. 60 attacks with an 80 point unit? I can only assume you're referring to two Infantry Squads, which would bring the attacks up to 64 due to the sergeants with chainswords. However, this fails to take into account the points for both Strakken (75 points, and very possibly undercosted for what he can do), as well as the Ministorum Priest (35 points). So now we're looking at 190 points to make this happen. Is that undercosted? Maybe, but I would definitely point at Strakken as being the biggest problem, along with the Catachan Regimental traits.

This is certainly not IG being busted "wall to wall". This is a potential problem with one character (Strakken), one Regimental trait (Catachan), and possibly, possibly Infantry Squads, and I'll even go out and throw in Hellhounds (again, really only seem to be too powerful with the Catachan trait). Saying that the faction is "busted wall to wall" is the reason that people get so defensive about this topic, especially when there are so many bad units and mediocre units in the codex already.

I love the TLDR is essentially:

1. This is made up of infantry squads, Straken, and a Priest. It also requires orders, and command points.
2. Admits that Straken might be broken
3. Admits that priest might be broken
4. Admits that infantry squads might be broken
5. Admits that the trait might be broken

Get over it! Guard get better melee than almost every army without even having to commit to it. This pittance of points gets you a ridiculous counter-melee force, that you can COMFORTABLY fit in, on top of all the artillery in the world + a Castellan or a Shadowsword.

 Marmatag wrote:

jaxor1983 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Bullgryns are what terminators should have been.

It's always funny when you see Bullgryns with a 1+/2++ spitting out 5x Strength 7, AP-1, 2 damage attacks, hitting on 3s, with some reroll synergy.

If terminators had this the guard community would be crying "broken." In fact if any faction had this they'd be crying broken... except guard obviously, because guard should have the best melee in the game.

The only rerolls available to Bullgryns are from Yarrick (1's to hit) and Old Grudges (all wounds vs a single unit selected at the beginning of the game), if they are within 6" of the warlord (who can't also be Yarrick, mind you).

They are capable of getting a 3++, for 52 points per model.

Don't forget your psychic powers.

I love the TLDR is essentially:

1. This is made up of infantry squads, Straken, and a Priest. It also requires orders, and command points.
2. Admits that Straken might be broken
3. Admits that priest might be broken
4. Admits that infantry squads might be broken
5. Admits that the trait might be broken

Get over it! Guard get better melee than almost every army without even having to commit to it. This pittance of points gets you a ridiculous counter-melee force, that you can COMFORTABLY fit in, on top of all the artillery in the world + a Castellan or a Shadowsword.

 CommunistNapkin wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CommunistNapkin wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
My favorite example of Infantry squads being broken is when you use the synergy with Guard HQs.

Isn't it great when Infantry have 3 attacks per guy at strength 4 with rerolls? And you can order them to fight twice? Just combine a couple squads, charge in, and you will throw out 60 attacks with rerolls on an 80 point unit. Maybe order them, so it's 120? Seems fair right?

This faction has been busted wall to wall for some time. The fact that Guard can lose to things that stack -1 to hit penalties, or Guard Soup which includes Custodes and Knights, doesn't take away from the faction's power. .

Part of the problem with threads like this are posts exactly like this. This post is grossly misleading. For one, there is no way that infantry squads can gain rerolls to hit in close combat. I assume you are talking about the Ministorum Priest who has the Zealot special rule, which allows HIM to reroll close combat attacks on the turn he charges, was charged, or makes a heroic intervention; this does not effect any other units. 60 attacks with an 80 point unit? I can only assume you're referring to two Infantry Squads, which would bring the attacks up to 64 due to the sergeants with chainswords. However, this fails to take into account the points for both Strakken (75 points, and very possibly undercosted for what he can do), as well as the Ministorum Priest (35 points). So now we're looking at 190 points to make this happen. Is that undercosted? Maybe, but I would definitely point at Strakken as being the biggest problem, along with the Catachan Regimental traits.

This is certainly not IG being busted "wall to wall". This is a potential problem with one character (Strakken), one Regimental trait (Catachan), and possibly, possibly Infantry Squads, and I'll even go out and throw in Hellhounds (again, really only seem to be too powerful with the Catachan trait). Saying that the faction is "busted wall to wall" is the reason that people get so defensive about this topic, especially when there are so many bad units and mediocre units in the codex already.

I love the TLDR is essentially:

1. This is made up of infantry squads, Straken, and a Priest. It also requires orders, and command points.
2. Admits that Straken might be broken
3. Admits that priest might be broken
4. Admits that infantry squads might be broken
5. Admits that the trait might be broken

Get over it! Guard get better melee than almost every army without even having to commit to it. This pittance of points gets you a ridiculous counter-melee force, that you can COMFORTABLY fit in, on top of all the artillery in the world + a Castellan or a Shadowsword.

Let's try not to misrepresent my points too much, eh? For one, I never said that Ministorum Priests are anything remotely resembling broken. My greater point is that you seem to have a lot of issues with one specific Regiment and that Regiment's special characters, yet are calling the entire codex "busted wall to wall." If the problem is that the Catachan Regimental trait is too good (possibly for both Infantry and Vehicles), or that Strakken is undercosted for what he can do, why not change those things? Why nerf units that other Regiments use that are clearly not as powerful for those other Regiments? Nobody complains about Valhallan Hellhounds or Vostroyan Ministorum Priests.

 Xenomancers wrote:

This might be taken out of context because I am a well known space marine fanboy. Really though. Guardsmen should not be able to compete with space marines in close combat under any circumstance. Much less - do almost 9 times the damage per point. Point is that cheap units benefit from buffs the most. Cheap units should really not have buffs like this available.

Straken and a priest is cheap as heck - calgar is 200 points (not saying he is not worth that) this is what other armys pay for their buff units though.

Spoletta wrote:
You know what? Chaplains giving 1 more attack in the bubble would do a lot of good to the marine factions.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
My favorite example of Infantry squads being broken is when you use the synergy with Guard HQs.

Isn't it great when Infantry have 3 attacks per guy at strength 4 with rerolls? And you can order them to fight twice? Just combine a couple squads, charge in, and you will throw out 60 attacks with rerolls on an 80 point unit. Maybe order them, so it's 120? Seems fair right?

I mean, if we're combining the base unit and cherrypicked Stratagems, Officers & Orders, Regiment Bonuses, and appropriate maneuver of all elements in acting in coordination at full strength, sure, but then how much of that is the Infantry Squad, and how much of that is the successful convergence all those things at the time and place of the commanders choosing?

Why on God's green earth shouldn't we assume this?

You guys talk about how guard aren't winning tournaments. That's because Imperium soup is insane. Castellans ARE that good. Custode Dawneagles ARE that good. Guard are super strong wall to wall.

Still wondering about those Chimeras...

Still wondering why you have the best army in the game and require more...

That doesn't change the fact that guard are better than most armies in melee

In cherrypicked webforum thought experiments involving extremely specific contexts? Maybe. Let me know when a melee guard amy beats another army inherently built around melee combat, I've never seen one.

It happens frequently. Bullgryns with 1+/2++ and 5 attacks per guy? 120 attacks out of infantry squads? On top of all the artillery and a Castellan? Guard can do melee better without fully committing to it. Only guard players don't see this as a problem. You are spoiled.

and better than most armies in shooting. Do i want guard nerfed into the floor? No, but this faction has had it all for far too long. Their literal only weakness is BS4+ and that is something that these forum users whine about constantly. It is the literal only weakness guard has. And it's only 1 side of a dice worse than marine shooting (read: most accurate shooting in game).

And only 1pt better than Orks, the worst shooting in the game

Yeah, and that's a good point, because Orks can also take a Castellan (hits on 3s) or a Shadow Sword (hits on 2s), and Hellhound tanks (auto hit), and mortar squads (full rerolls).

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

This might be taken out of context because I am a well known space marine fanboy. Really though. Guardsmen should not be able to compete with space marines in close combat under any circumstance. Much less - do almost 9 times the damage per point. Point is that cheap units benefit from buffs the most. Cheap units should really not have buffs like this available.

Straken and a priest is cheap as heck - calgar is 200 points (not saying he is not worth that) this is what other armys pay for their buff units though.

Straken's a 5+/5++ T4 5W model, whose primary benefit(Orders) can only affect 2 units per turn. His +1A also only applies to friendly Catachan units within 6" of him at the start of the Fight phase.
A Priest is a 6+/4++ T3 4W model, whose benefit only applies to CC characteristics in a primarily shooting dominated army.

Straken is 75pts(includes wargear) and a Priest is 35(not including wargear...but effectively everything he has access to is 0 pts so it does).
So it's 110pts for the two of them vs 200 pts for a 2+/4++(with all damage suffered halved[rounding up]) T4 5W model whose toting a pair of Powerfists that don't make him subtract from his rolls and a ranged weapon and a Relic Blade...and if he's your Warlord, you receive an immediate additional 2 CPs and friendly Ultramarines units within 6" of him can reroll failed hit rolls(whether or not he's your Warlord for the Chapter Master perk)...

Did I mention that those items are sitting on a WS/BS 2+ that has 5A?

Also it's weirdly specific to have picked Calgar for the comparison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
You know what? Chaplains giving 1 more attack in the bubble would do a lot of good to the marine factions.

Honestly, I'd just make it so "Astartes Combat Knives" had the same effects as a Chainsword(each time the bearer fights, it can make 1 additional attack with this weapon) and become part of the standard kit across all non-Terminator Armor/vehicle models.

Make it so that Chaplains have an ability allowing them to have a "Deny the Witch" bubble around them or grant a "Disgustingly Resilient" style perk.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

This is completely pants on head crazy, even from you. Of fething course we need to compare equal points! But hey, if the points don't matter, we can make the guardsmen 15 ppm, and their effectiveness is not diminished as long as the squad size remains the same!

Xenomancers wrote:"the unit can immiediately fight as if it were the fight phase" or in other words. When they fight. It's the Gakking fight phase.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

This is completely pants on head crazy, even from you. Of fething course we need to compare equal points! But hey, if the points don't matter, we can make the guardsmen 15 ppm, and their effectiveness is not diminished as long as the squad size remains the same!

 Marmatag wrote:
The closest comparison would be Pedro Kantor.

But then marines don't get orders, and don't have stratagems on par with Guard, and cost more than double per model.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

This is completely pants on head crazy, even from you. Of fething course we need to compare equal points! But hey, if the points don't matter, we can make the guardsmen 15 ppm, and their effectiveness is not diminished as long as the squad size remains the same!

This entire thread is pants on head crazy. Guard apologists have nothing to stand on, except "it takes some of our amazing near-free synergy to make things even more amazing than they already are."

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

This is completely pants on head crazy, even from you. Of fething course we need to compare equal points! But hey, if the points don't matter, we can make the guardsmen 15 ppm, and their effectiveness is not diminished as long as the squad size remains the same!

So when comparing oranges to watermelons in terms of their flavor and taste, we should just bring as many oranges as it takes to match the watermelon?

That's what these nonsense comparisons are. When we have units being taken effectively understrength just so you can "make the points match", it should be showing you that simply mathhammering things is an exercise in futility.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

This is completely pants on head crazy, even from you. Of fething course we need to compare equal points! But hey, if the points don't matter, we can make the guardsmen 15 ppm, and their effectiveness is not diminished as long as the squad size remains the same!

So when comparing oranges to watermelons in terms of their flavor and taste, we should just bring as many oranges as it takes to match the watermelon?

That's what these nonsense comparisons are. When we have units being taken effectively understrength just so you can "make the points match", it should be showing you that simply mathhammering things is an exercise in futility.

Xenomancers wrote:"the unit can immiediately fight as if it were the fight phase" or in other words. When they fight. It's the Gakking fight phase.

So when I'm firing Overwatch, I can also issue Orders?

Cool deal!

 DrGiggles wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

This is completely pants on head crazy, even from you. Of fething course we need to compare equal points! But hey, if the points don't matter, we can make the guardsmen 15 ppm, and their effectiveness is not diminished as long as the squad size remains the same!

So when comparing oranges to watermelons in terms of their flavor and taste, we should just bring as many oranges as it takes to match the watermelon?

That's what these nonsense comparisons are. When we have units being taken effectively understrength just so you can "make the points match", it should be showing you that simply mathhammering things is an exercise in futility.

That is a false analogy if I have ever seen one.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

This is completely pants on head crazy, even from you. Of fething course we need to compare equal points! But hey, if the points don't matter, we can make the guardsmen 15 ppm, and their effectiveness is not diminished as long as the squad size remains the same!

So when comparing oranges to watermelons in terms of their flavor and taste, we should just bring as many oranges as it takes to match the watermelon?

That's what these nonsense comparisons are. When we have units being taken effectively understrength just so you can "make the points match", it should be showing you that simply mathhammering things is an exercise in futility.

Xenomancers wrote:"the unit can immiediately fight as if it were the fight phase" or in other words. When they fight. It's the Gakking fight phase.

So when I'm firing Overwatch, I can also issue Orders?

Cool deal!

Orders have to be given in the shooting phase per voice of command.

 Marmatag wrote:
The closest comparison would be Pedro Kantor.

But then marines don't get orders, and don't have stratagems on par with Guard, and cost more than double per model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

This is completely pants on head crazy, even from you. Of fething course we need to compare equal points! But hey, if the points don't matter, we can make the guardsmen 15 ppm, and their effectiveness is not diminished as long as the squad size remains the same!

This entire thread is pants on head crazy. Guard apologists have nothing to stand on, except "it takes some of our amazing near-free synergy to make things even more amazing than they already are."

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The closest comparison would be Pedro Kantor.

But then marines don't get orders, and don't have stratagems on par with Guard, and cost more than double per model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

This is completely pants on head crazy, even from you. Of fething course we need to compare equal points! But hey, if the points don't matter, we can make the guardsmen 15 ppm, and their effectiveness is not diminished as long as the squad size remains the same!

This entire thread is pants on head crazy. Guard apologists have nothing to stand on, except "it takes some of our amazing near-free synergy to make things even more amazing than they already are."

The crazy part of the thread could be the people calling guard "obviously broken" while pointing to their greatest example a mono guard list finishing 20th at a GT.

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The closest comparison would be Pedro Kantor.

But then marines don't get orders, and don't have stratagems on par with Guard, and cost more than double per model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

This is completely pants on head crazy, even from you. Of fething course we need to compare equal points! But hey, if the points don't matter, we can make the guardsmen 15 ppm, and their effectiveness is not diminished as long as the squad size remains the same!

This entire thread is pants on head crazy. Guard apologists have nothing to stand on, except "it takes some of our amazing near-free synergy to make things even more amazing than they already are."

The crazy part of the thread could be the people calling guard "obviously broken" while pointing to their greatest example a mono guard list finishing 20th at a GT.

He also won first place at another not that long before it.

Fun fact for those of you who don't attend tournaments: When everyone has a stellar list & they know how to play it, a few bad rolls can drop you from 1st to 20th. Additionally, matchups are important. That said, not many lists can stand up to the standard knights + guard list right now. But that is obviously getting adjusted, starting with the Castellan. It will be a blip on the radar, whereas Guard have been broken for the duration of 8th.

 Kanluwen wrote:

You understand the concept of "round peg, square hole" yeah?

Because that is a common trend with the "points vs points" comparisons. People throwing understrength units or just randomly tossing point values out there does nothing to showcase anything. And people ignoring that starting at the point when both sides can engage is a bit misrepresentative, since there's still potentially actions going on before then.

Someone brought it up already with regards to Tau Fire Warriors and the 6" difference between their guns and a Lasgun, but that's a whole potential Shooting Phase being ignored when talking about the math.

 DrGiggles wrote:

Going past that though, how is this a round peg and square hole? The reason people do "point vs point" comparisons is because that is the best way to see if a unit is over or under performing compared to other similar units. How would you propose comparing units then if you aren't going to use "point vs point"?

 DrGiggles wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

You understand the concept of "round peg, square hole" yeah?

Because that is a common trend with the "points vs points" comparisons. People throwing understrength units or just randomly tossing point values out there does nothing to showcase anything. And people ignoring that starting at the point when both sides can engage is a bit misrepresentative, since there's still potentially actions going on before then.

Someone brought it up already with regards to Tau Fire Warriors and the 6" difference between their guns and a Lasgun, but that's a whole potential Shooting Phase being ignored when talking about the math.

@Dandelion already did a comparision with Fire Warriors @ 30" with FW going first and guardsmen still won that shootout.

Going past that though, how is this a round peg and square hole? The reason people do "point vs point" comparisons is because that is the best way to see if a unit is over or under performing compared to other similar units. How would you propose comparing units then if you aren't going to use "point vs point"?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

You understand the concept of "round peg, square hole" yeah?

Because that is a common trend with the "points vs points" comparisons. People throwing understrength units or just randomly tossing point values out there does nothing to showcase anything. And people ignoring that starting at the point when both sides can engage is a bit misrepresentative, since there's still potentially actions going on before then.

Someone brought it up already with regards to Tau Fire Warriors and the 6" difference between their guns and a Lasgun, but that's a whole potential Shooting Phase being ignored when talking about the math.

@Dandelion already did a comparision with Fire Warriors @ 30" with FW going first and guardsmen still won that shootout.

Because he was basically called out for ignoring it with his examples. Also worth mentioning that he didn't actually show the maths, just threw out the casualties. For all you know he was using 20 Guardsmen with Lasguns(not an uncommon thing with these examples that get thrown out) rather than the 18 that actually would be the case(reiterating once again for those in the back:SERGEANTS DON'T GET LASGUNS).

Going past that though, how is this a round peg and square hole? The reason people do "point vs point" comparisons is because that is the best way to see if a unit is over or under performing compared to other similar units. How would you propose comparing units then if you aren't going to use "point vs point"?

By actually comparing a unit as would commonly be fielded to another unit?

I'm not going to compare "500 points of Crisis Suits" to "500 points of Y". I'm going to compare a reasonable build of Crisis Suits to a reasonable build of whatever Y is.

This isn't rocket science here.

 DrGiggles wrote:

Let's hear it then, what "reasonable" unit would you compare guardsmen with?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:

Let's hear it then, what "reasonable" unit would you compare guardsmen with?

Whatever the unit in question is commonly fielded/potentially fielded as...?

10 Guard vs 12 Strike Team Fire Warriors with Pulse Rifles(the unit number here is a legacy item and really should have been normalized to 10), whatever unit sizes Rangers(both Aeldari and AdMech), Vanguard, etc are being fielded at.

This is the point I've been trying to iterate for god knows how long at this point but constantly get garbage like Crimson's little personal attack about. Is it so frigging wrong to want to see a squad vs squad comparison?

Ice_can wrote:

Most people arn't fielding 12 man strike teams of fire warriors it's mostly start with 6 5 man units then maybe add a few models if there's points left in your list or if you know you're going to need a unit to take a charge 8th edition is MSU centric.

 Kanluwen wrote:

10 Guard vs 12 Strike Team Fire Warriors with Pulse Rifles(the unit number here is a legacy item and really should have been normalized to 10), whatever unit sizes Rangers(both Aeldari and AdMech), Vanguard, etc are being fielded at.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

10 Guard vs 12 Strike Team Fire Warriors with Pulse Rifles(the unit number here is a legacy item and really should have been normalized to 10), whatever unit sizes Rangers(both Aeldari and AdMech), Vanguard, etc are being fielded at.

Yeah, fething bonkers. How the hell are you going to figure out if point costs are right if you ignore the points? But by this logic it doesn't matter if the guardsmen point cost is increased, they remain just as effective because their squad size stays the same!

 Galas wrote:
So Catachan brigades with 60-120 Infantry Squads, Straken, priest, and basically a meele horde are very common in tournaments (Reecius ran one a couple of months ago).

 Galas wrote:
Of curse, with soup, because why woun't you take Smashfester or Adeptus Custodes Captains.

 Galas wrote:
But people from Dakkadakka come and say that guard meele is only good on paper and it is cherrypicked, and not actually good.

 Galas wrote:
Wow.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This topic has devolved into the Olympic games of mental gymnastics. Its really, really sad to see Guard players desperately try and defend their broken toys. The credibility you had, as a community, is rapidly going out the window.

Infantry are under costed at 4ppm, likely at 5ppm too. There is no maths that makes any sense and goes against this. Obviously equal points worth of units must be considered, I can't believe any other comparison is even suggested.

Priests also look, on the face of it, way, way too cheap.

 Galas wrote:
So Catachan brigades with 60-120 Infantry Squads, Straken, priest, and basically a meele horde are very common in tournaments (Reecius ran one a couple of months ago). Of curse, with soup, because why woun't you take Smashfester or Adeptus Custodes Captains.

But people from Dakkadakka come and say that guard meele is only good on paper and it is cherrypicked, and not actually good.
Wow.

Pure meele armies don't exist in this game. All have some amount of shooting.

Asmodios wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This topic has devolved into the Olympic games of mental gymnastics. Its really, really sad to see Guard players desperately try and defend their broken toys. The credibility you had, as a community, is rapidly going out the window.

Infantry are under costed at 4ppm, likely at 5ppm too. There is no maths that makes any sense and goes against this. Obviously equal points worth of units must be considered, I can't believe any other comparison is even suggested.

Priests also look, on the face of it, way, way too cheap.

Only tournament results that show mono guard isn't top tier. The IG hate community should show some actual facts to back up their hate.

There is even counter-evidence. FLG posted the percentages of armies with keywords (so this means not even mono guard but the much better soup). At the BAO armies with a "primary" detachment of guard did not make the top tier for win % or points earned per round. The more guard at BAO that was included in your army your win % and points per round decreased.

Asmodios wrote:

Only tournament results that show mono guard isn't top tier. The IG hate community should show some actual facts to back up their hate.

There is even counter-evidence. FLG posted the percentages of armies with keywords (so this means not even mono guard but the much better soup). At the BAO armies with a "primary" detachment of guard did not make the top tier for win % or points earned per round. The more guard at BAO that was included in your army your win % and points per round decreased.

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:

This right here is the reason Guard players are so unwilling to agree to nerfs. Despite the claims, and the mathhammer, and the speculation, the raw data is showing guard to be performing solidly average. Maybe that's because the soup lists are so much more overpowered that it's keeping guard from dominating, who knows? It's clear the first step is to nerf soup as its near universally agreed to be a issue in competitive play. If Guard starts to dominate afterwards, then nerf guard.

 Crimson wrote:
How hard can it be to understand that soup is made of its ingredients? The core part of every competitive Imperial soup build is the Guard battalion or brigade.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Only tournament results that show mono guard isn't top tier. The IG hate community should show some actual facts to back up their hate.

There is even counter-evidence. FLG posted the percentages of armies with keywords (so this means not even mono guard but the much better soup). At the BAO armies with a "primary" detachment of guard did not make the top tier for win % or points earned per round. The more guard at BAO that was included in your army your win % and points per round decreased.

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:

This right here is the reason Guard players are so unwilling to agree to nerfs. Despite the claims, and the mathhammer, and the speculation, the raw data is showing guard to be performing solidly average. Maybe that's because the soup lists are so much more overpowered that it's keeping guard from dominating, who knows? It's clear the first step is to nerf soup as its near universally agreed to be a issue in competitive play. If Guard starts to dominate afterwards, then nerf guard.

I posted evidence. Various and multiple times in this thread but you Guard players keep moving the goalposts.

First it was stated that 'Guard are only taken as a CP farm min detachment!' So I provided evidence of how well armies that ran primary Guard lists (including mono) have performed over the last 6 months competitively compared to all other factions, including mixed Aeldari and Chaos. Its something like 3 first place finishes, 2 4th place finishes, a second place and a third place. I posted this about 2 pages ago if you'd like to check. The the goalposts moved 'well they aren't doing the heavy lifting' or 'they aren't only mono Guard lists so they don't count'. Its a joke.

The exact same thing has happened with the maths - 'show us the maths that Guardsmen are too strong!' *maths is shown*, 'no that isn't the right maths - do it with this buff and with this taken into account', *maths is done, as requested*, 'maths doesn't represent reality and isn't useful for discussions'.

Basically Guard players are showing themselves to be completely unable to accept that any part of their army is too powerful. The maths backs up the raw data and it all points to Guard having SOME UNITS (not all) that need to be brought in line. As other factions have SOME UNITS that are too strong.

Finally can all you Guard players stop strawmanning a ridiculous anti-Guard agenda you wrongly believe certain posters to have? Its about a very few and select group of units, relics and stratagems that need sorting, not the "nuke" so many of you claim.

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
Yeah the few hundred points worth of dudes sitting on objectives providing cp and tossing a few mortar rounds is the problem, not the Castellan that can shoot anything off the board in one turn, or the smash captains that kill 4x worth their points in melee.

Nerfing the parts doesn't solve the problem either, it just makes people find new ingredients for the soup.

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
You provided unreliable mathhammer and anecdotal evidence. The only actual stats we have showing Guard performance in competitive events shows them to be average.

Basically Guard haters are showing themselves to be completely unable to accept that any part of their argument is wrong. The raw data doesn't backup their math and it all points to Guard performing average.

 Crimson wrote:

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
Yeah the few hundred points worth of dudes sitting on objectives providing cp and tossing a few mortar rounds is the problem, not the Castellan that can shoot anything off the board in one turn, or the smash captains that kill 4x worth their points in melee.

Both of those things need to be nerfed too.

Nerfing the parts doesn't solve the problem either, it just makes people find new ingredients for the soup.

Nerfing OP units does actually solve the issue, unless one thinks the soup existing is the issue. For example, if you nerf Castellan to the level of IG superheavy tanks then you can bring either and still compete.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Here's those Guard results again for all of you who missed it first time:

In contrast to your statement, armies that are primarily Guard (ie - those that spend more points on a Guard detachment than any other) have been doing extremely well (read - too well) competitively for some time, here's how they placed in the ITC over the last few months;

August - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
July - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
June - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events
May - 2nd most top 3 results in all ITC events
April - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
March - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events

But I guess they're actually really weak right?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Here's those Guard results again for all of you who missed it first time:

In contrast to your statement, armies that are primarily Guard (ie - those that spend more points on a Guard detachment than any other) have been doing extremely well (read - too well) competitively for some time, here's how they placed in the ITC over the last few months;

August - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
July - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
June - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events
May - 2nd most top 3 results in all ITC events
April - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
March - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events

But I guess they're actually really weak right?

 Crimson wrote:

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
Yeah the few hundred points worth of dudes sitting on objectives providing cp and tossing a few mortar rounds is the problem, not the Castellan that can shoot anything off the board in one turn, or the smash captains that kill 4x worth their points in melee.

Both of those things need to be nerfed too.

Nerfing the parts doesn't solve the problem either, it just makes people find new ingredients for the soup.

Nerfing OP units does actually solve the issue, unless one thinks the soup existing is the issue. For example, if you nerf Castellan to the level of IG superheavy tanks then you can bring either and still compete.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Here's those Guard results again for all of you who missed it first time:

In contrast to your statement, armies that are primarily Guard (ie - those that spend more points on a Guard detachment than any other) have been doing extremely well (read - too well) competitively for some time, here's how they placed in the ITC over the last few months;

August - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
July - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
June - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events
May - 2nd most top 3 results in all ITC events
April - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
March - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events

But I guess they're actually really weak right?

 gbghg wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

*some mathhammer*

Thanks for taking the time to run the maths, my only question would be are you taking the fireblade's buff into account? that's an extra shot on everyone of those firewarriors and 2 dead guardsmen seems pretty low output for 24 shots against t3 5+. plugging numbers into a mathhammer site shows that they should net 5 dead guardsmen on each of the first two rounds which leads to the guard squad being wiped round 4 with 5 firewarrior's left standing.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:

@Dandelion already did a comparision with Fire Warriors @ 30" with FW going first and guardsmen still won that shootout.

Because he was basically called out for ignoring it with his examples. Also worth mentioning that he didn't actually show the maths, just threw out the casualties. For all you know he was using 20 Guardsmen with Lasguns(not an uncommon thing with these examples that get thrown out) rather than the 18 that actually would be the case(reiterating once again for those in the back:SERGEANTS DON'T GET LASGUNS).

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Here's those Guard results again for all of you who missed it first time:

In contrast to your statement, armies that are primarily Guard (ie - those that spend more points on a Guard detachment than any other) have been doing extremely well (read - too well) competitively for some time, here's how they placed in the ITC over the last few months;

August - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
July - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
June - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events
May - 2nd most top 3 results in all ITC events
April - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
March - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events

But I guess they're actually really weak right?

 Kanluwen wrote:
You understand the concept of "round peg, square hole" yeah?

Because that is a common trend with the "points vs points" comparisons. People throwing understrength units or just randomly tossing point values out there does nothing to showcase anything. And people ignoring that starting at the point when both sides can engage is a bit misrepresentative, since there's still potentially actions going on before then.

Someone brought it up already with regards to Tau Fire Warriors and the 6" difference between their guns and a Lasgun, but that's a whole potential Shooting Phase being ignored when talking about the math.

Dandelion wrote:

 gbghg wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

*some mathhammer*

Thanks for taking the time to run the maths, my only question would be are you taking the fireblade's buff into account? that's an extra shot on everyone of those firewarriors and 2 dead guardsmen seems pretty low output for 24 shots against t3 5+. plugging numbers into a mathhammer site shows that they should net 5 dead guardsmen on each of the first two rounds which leads to the guard squad being wiped round 4 with 5 firewarrior's left standing.

The fireblade's buff only works at half range of the weapon. The FW only get one shot each at 42", they then get 3 at 21".

 Kanluwen wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:

@Dandelion already did a comparision with Fire Warriors @ 30" with FW going first and guardsmen still won that shootout.

Because he was basically called out for ignoring it with his examples. Also worth mentioning that he didn't actually show the maths, just threw out the casualties. For all you know he was using 20 Guardsmen with Lasguns(not an uncommon thing with these examples that get thrown out) rather than the 18 that actually would be the case(reiterating once again for those in the back:SERGEANTS DON'T GET LASGUNS).

Just FYI, sergeant pistols were factored into all my math. In the unbuffed shootout, 2 guard died out of 20 in the first turn, leaving 16 lasguns to shoot. 16*1/2*1/2*1/2=2 killed FW.

But then once you start taking casualties you can always knock off the sergeant if you're not worried about morale. Wait, maybe that's where commissars help in the grander game!

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You understand the concept of "round peg, square hole" yeah?

Because that is a common trend with the "points vs points" comparisons. People throwing understrength units or just randomly tossing point values out there does nothing to showcase anything. And people ignoring that starting at the point when both sides can engage is a bit misrepresentative, since there's still potentially actions going on before then.

Someone brought it up already with regards to Tau Fire Warriors and the 6" difference between their guns and a Lasgun, but that's a whole potential Shooting Phase being ignored when talking about the math.

I'd like to mention that all those points are considered in my math. 2 10-man guard squads vs 1 12-man FW squad. FW shoot first every time due to range but that's about it. Oh, and sergeant pistols too. It's nice to know you ignore the math and scenario completely and then make things up.

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:

And most of those guard blobs were backed up by knights and smash captains. Congrats you've proved what everyone else already knows that soup is overpowered.

I'll say it again in case you missed it the first time. Nerf the way a soup army's detachments interact with each other and more specifically their cp. Don't change any units (except maybe the Castellan) and see how things play out over the fall. If Guard, Blood Angel Captians, Kabal of the Black Heart, etc. is still over performing then you nerf them. Doing everything at the same times leads to over nerfs and under nerfs especially with GW. Hell if Guard is still over performing I'll be right beside you championing for a nerf.

Asmodios wrote:

Yeah a a single 1 maybe 2 of all of those is a mono guard list.... thanks for pointing out that soup is the issue yet again

Spoletta wrote:

Is it so hard to understand that those stats prove nothing?
We have battle reports with a castellan knight keeping the fight for 2 more turns after his whole army was deleted in the first 2 and almost won the game alone, since he had a lot of CP to spare.

1400 guard + castellan is not representaive of what mono guard can do.
The same is true with smashers and bananas.

Smashers in particular make the army sooo much better than the equivalent points in guards, because they are the counter to every guard weakness.

I want to see IG nerfed in many ways, but those numbers are not a good basis for an analysis.

 Crimson wrote:
How hard can it be to understand that soup is made of its ingredients?

 vipoid wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
How hard can it be to understand that soup is made of its ingredients?

Soup is made of its ingredients, but it's more than the sum of its parts. That's the real issue.

Nerfing the individual parts does nothing to address the fact that Soup is still going to be outright better because it's all upside and no downside.

Soup needs to be addressed - to the point where they're on equal footing to mono-armies - and this needs to happen *before* you start nerfing individual options.

If anything, you're just going to make mono-armies even worse, because (unlike Soup), when one of their units gets nerfed they can't just swap out for the best replacement unit from all available codices.


I don't like to assume bad intent, but it really seems like a lot of people in these threads just want to see Imperial Guard nerfed out of some sort of personal grudge, whilst their own Soup armies remain dominant.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:

And most of those guard blobs were backed up by knights and smash captains. Congrats you've proved what everyone else already knows that soup is overpowered.

I'll say it again in case you missed it the first time. Nerf the way a soup army's detachments interact with each other and more specifically their cp. Don't change any units (except maybe the Castellan) and see how things play out over the fall. If Guard, Blood Angel Captians, Kabal of the Black Heart, etc. is still over performing then you nerf them. Doing everything at the same times leads to over nerfs and under nerfs especially with GW. Hell if Guard is still over performing I'll be right beside you championing for a nerf.

Asmodios wrote:

Yeah a a single 1 maybe 2 of all of those is a mono guard list.... thanks for pointing out that soup is the issue yet again

Spoletta wrote:

Is it so hard to understand that those stats prove nothing?
We have battle reports with a castellan knight keeping the fight for 2 more turns after his whole army was deleted in the first 2 and almost won the game alone, since he had a lot of CP to spare.

1400 guard + castellan is not representaive of what mono guard can do.
The same is true with smashers and bananas.

Smashers in particular make the army sooo much better than the equivalent points in guards, because they are the counter to every guard weakness.

I want to see IG nerfed in many ways, but those numbers are not a good basis for an analysis.

Lol these excuses are unreal. You realise some of these results are PRE KNIGHT CODEX right? That they have been performing consistently at the top as soon as their codex was released?

There is no discussion to be had here - you apologists will make excuses out of anything. When I'm next at a computer in a week or so I'll go back over all their results since their codex and we can see how strong Guard have been since 8th dropped.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 gbghg wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

*some mathhammer*

Thanks for taking the time to run the maths, my only question would be are you taking the fireblade's buff into account? that's an extra shot on everyone of those firewarriors and 2 dead guardsmen seems pretty low output for 24 shots against t3 5+. plugging numbers into a mathhammer site shows that they should net 5 dead guardsmen on each of the first two rounds which leads to the guard squad being wiped round 4 with 5 firewarrior's left standing.

The fireblade's buff only works at half range of the weapon. The FW only get one shot each at 42", they then get 3 at 21".

The Fireblade's buff might only work at half range of the weapon, but the Fireblade's buff can also scale with expanding the range of the weapon.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:

@Dandelion already did a comparision with Fire Warriors @ 30" with FW going first and guardsmen still won that shootout.

Because he was basically called out for ignoring it with his examples. Also worth mentioning that he didn't actually show the maths, just threw out the casualties. For all you know he was using 20 Guardsmen with Lasguns(not an uncommon thing with these examples that get thrown out) rather than the 18 that actually would be the case(reiterating once again for those in the back:SERGEANTS DON'T GET LASGUNS).

Just FYI, sergeant pistols were factored into all my math. In the unbuffed shootout, 2 guard died out of 20 in the first turn, leaving 16 lasguns to shoot. 16*1/2*1/2*1/2=2 killed FW.

Maybe you should have showed that in the math then?

But then once you start taking casualties you can always knock off the sergeant if you're not worried about morale. Wait, maybe that's where commissars help in the grander game!

lol commissars. that's a good one!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You understand the concept of "round peg, square hole" yeah?

Because that is a common trend with the "points vs points" comparisons. People throwing understrength units or just randomly tossing point values out there does nothing to showcase anything. And people ignoring that starting at the point when both sides can engage is a bit misrepresentative, since there's still potentially actions going on before then.

Someone brought it up already with regards to Tau Fire Warriors and the 6" difference between their guns and a Lasgun, but that's a whole potential Shooting Phase being ignored when talking about the math.

I'd like to mention that all those points are considered in my math. 2 10-man guard squads vs 1 12-man FW squad. FW shoot first every time due to range but that's about it. Oh, and sergeant pistols too. It's nice to know you ignore the math and scenario completely and then make things up.

Oh you mean the "scenario" where nothing is really labeled outside of the two things shooting at each other? Where you used Steel Legion as the Regiment?

 DrGiggles wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You understand the concept of "round peg, square hole" yeah?

Because that is a common trend with the "points vs points" comparisons. People throwing understrength units or just randomly tossing point values out there does nothing to showcase anything. And people ignoring that starting at the point when both sides can engage is a bit misrepresentative, since there's still potentially actions going on before then.

Someone brought it up already with regards to Tau Fire Warriors and the 6" difference between their guns and a Lasgun, but that's a whole potential Shooting Phase being ignored when talking about the math.

I'd like to mention that all those points are considered in my math. 2 10-man guard squads vs 1 12-man FW squad. FW shoot first every time due to range but that's about it. Oh, and sergeant pistols too. It's nice to know you ignore the math and scenario completely and then make things up.

Oh you mean the "scenario" where nothing is really labeled outside of the two things shooting at each other? Where you used Steel Legion as the Regiment?

Read the actual post. The first example had 2 10 man guard squads vs the 12 man FW squad included no buffs. No CC's, no regimental doctrines, etc.

Dandelion wrote:

Spoiler:

Do we really need to say that a unit with 30" range will outshoot a unit with 24" when targeting units at 30" range? But if you really want to know, a 10-man Fire warrior team will kill 2 Guardsmen at 30". Which I brought up before, and factored into my scenario. Of course, it was dismissed by someone who said FW and Guardsmen don't have the same role and so are incomparable.

But since you seem more reasonable let's give it a go:
1) No buffs:
- 12 fire warriors (84 pts)
- 20 Guard (80 pts)
Round 1 at 24-30"
- FW kill 2 Guardsmen
- Guard move 6", and get within 24". Kill 2 FW
Round 1 losses: 2 Guardsmen (8pts) 2 FW (14 pts)
I really don't need to continue, since it only gets worse for the tau.

2) Steel Legion guard with commander vs Borkan tau with fireblade and accelerator drone
- 20 Guard + 1 C Commander (110 pts)
- 12 FW + 1 Fireblade + 1 drone (132 pts)
Round 1 at 42"
- FW kill 2 Guard
- Guard move 15" with "Move! Move! Move!" to get within 27" of the FW
Round 2 at 27"
12 FW vs 18 Guard
- FW retreat 6" (33" total away) and fire: 2 kills
- Guard advance and get within 24", use "Forwards for the Emperor": 2 kills
Round 3:
10 FW vs 16 Guard
- FW move up to within 21": 7 kills
- Guard move up to within 18", FRFSRF: 5 kills
Round 4:
5 FW vs 9 Guard
- FW shoot: 3 kills
- Guard FRFSRF: 3 kills
Round 5:
2 FW vs 6 Guard
- FW shoot: 1 kill
- Guard FRFSRF: 2 kills

Guard win.
Of course, depending on terrain and the board, the Guard could have made it into combat by round 4, which still nets a win for them.
Note: commander and fireblade contributions (other than buffs) were ignored since I was focusing on the squad outputs. If you want to know, the fireblade would have killed 5 guard total, and the c commander would have killed 1-2 FW if he gets into combat at round 4, but that would have locked down the FW and fireblade from shooting for the last turn saving 3 Guardsmen. So, maybe 2 more guard die than shown above, but the end result is the same.

Now, you may be wondering why I chose to compare 110pts of guard vs 132 pts of tau, well, because if guard go to 5pts that would be 130pt vs 132pts.

Edit: I'd like to take a moment to appreciate how saying the orders makes the whole scenario more cinematic. Hands down my favorite part of playing guard.

Guardsmanwaffle wrote:You've been repeating yourself for the past 10 pages while backhand insulting anyone that disagrees with you. You refuse to listen to or even consider any feedback that isn't calling for a kneejerk nerf to guard.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:

And most of those guard blobs were backed up by knights and smash captains. Congrats you've proved what everyone else already knows that soup is overpowered.

I'll say it again in case you missed it the first time. Nerf the way a soup army's detachments interact with each other and more specifically their cp. Don't change any units (except maybe the Castellan) and see how things play out over the fall. If Guard, Blood Angel Captians, Kabal of the Black Heart, etc. is still over performing then you nerf them. Doing everything at the same times leads to over nerfs and under nerfs especially with GW. Hell if Guard is still over performing I'll be right beside you championing for a nerf.

Asmodios wrote:

Yeah a a single 1 maybe 2 of all of those is a mono guard list.... thanks for pointing out that soup is the issue yet again

Spoletta wrote:

Is it so hard to understand that those stats prove nothing?
We have battle reports with a castellan knight keeping the fight for 2 more turns after his whole army was deleted in the first 2 and almost won the game alone, since he had a lot of CP to spare.

1400 guard + castellan is not representaive of what mono guard can do.
The same is true with smashers and bananas.

Smashers in particular make the army sooo much better than the equivalent points in guards, because they are the counter to every guard weakness.

I want to see IG nerfed in many ways, but those numbers are not a good basis for an analysis.

Lol these excuses are unreal. You realise some of these results are PRE KNIGHT CODEX right? That they have been performing consistently at the top as soon as their codex was released?

There is no discussion to be had here - you apologists will make excuses out of anything. When I'm next at a computer in a week or so I'll go back over all their results since their codex and we can see how strong Guard have been since 8th dropped.

Guard feature in EVERY IMPERIAL SOUP LIST, they are the most common and largest ingredient of the soup list therefore they need the most balancing. Keep dreaming up those excuses though guys, its always entertaining to see how someone will turn away from reality so much when it doesn't suit them.

 Crimson wrote:

Imperial soup relies on Guard CP. Pure Guard army is far less dependant on CP regeneration. If you nerf the Guard's ability to generate CP, it will hurt those CP intensive soup builds more than it will hurt pure Guard.

 vipoid wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Imperial soup relies on Guard CP. Pure Guard army is far less dependant on CP regeneration. If you nerf the Guard's ability to generate CP, it will hurt those CP intensive soup builds more than it will hurt pure Guard.

But why only guard? Surely it would be better to change CP so that allied detachments can't generate CP or use stratagems at all, or so that CP can only be used by the detachments that generated it?

This would not only stop IG CP batteries in Imperial Soup, it would also stop *all* CP batteries in Imperial Soup and even future-proof the game against CP batteries in as-yet unreleased factions.

Ice_can wrote:

The reason a lot of people are against the blanket locking of CP to detachments is because it impacts mono codex factions mixing subfactions and factions that can't generate CP.

It simply swings a huge nerfbad around and still leaves Guard with 20+CP a game thats a reroll every phase of every turn. That alone is powerful regardless of how much guard players try and spin it that they don't have strategums worth spending CP on anyway.

Ice_can wrote:
The reason a lot of people are against the blanket locking of CP to detachments is because it impacts mono codex factions mixing subfactions and factions that can't generate CP.

Ice_can wrote:

It simply swings a huge nerfbad around and still leaves Guard with 20+CP a game thats a reroll every phase of every turn. That alone is powerful regardless of how much guard players try and spin it that they don't have strategums worth spending CP on anyway.

 vipoid wrote:
2) Your Warlord's faction is considered your Primary Faction, with all other factions being Secondary. Secondary factions do not generate CP and you can only spend CP on rulebook stratagems or stratagems from your Primary faction.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

The fireblade's buff only works at half range of the weapon. The FW only get one shot each at 42", they then get 3 at 21".

The Fireblade's buff might only work at half range of the weapon, but the Fireblade's buff can also scale with expanding the range of the weapon.

1) No buffs:
- 12 fire warriors (84 pts)
- 20 Guard (80 pts)
Round 1 at 24-30"
- FW kill 2 Guardsmen
12 pulse rifle shots: 12*1/2*2/3*2/3 = 8/3 = 2.66 kills
- Guard move 6", and get within 24". Kill 2 FW
17-18 guard left: either A) 3 guardsmen die, B) 2 sergeants die and 1 guardsmen, C) 1 sergeant and 2 guardsmen, D) 2 Guardsmen die, E) 1 Sergeant and 1 guardsmen, or F) 2 Sergeants die
- A) 15 lasgun shots: 15*1/2*1/2*1/2 = 15/8 = 1.875 kills
- B) and E) 17 lasgun shots: 17*1/2*1/2*1/2 = 17/8 = 2.125 kills
- C) and D) 16 lasgun shots: 16*1/2*1/2 *1/2 = 2 kills
- F) 18 lasguns shots: 18*1/2*1/2*1/2= 2.25 kills
Now, 2 sergeants being killed is highly unlikely so we will take the average ignoring those 2 cases (B and F):
[1.875 (A)+ 2*2 (C and D) + 2.125 (E)]/4= 2 kills
Round 1 losses: 2 Guardsmen (8pts) 2 FW (14 pts)
If you want to be more precise, change the guard casualty to 2.66 and pts lost to 10.64
I really don't need to continue, since it only gets worse for the tau.

Ice_can wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Imperial soup relies on Guard CP. Pure Guard army is far less dependant on CP regeneration. If you nerf the Guard's ability to generate CP, it will hurt those CP intensive soup builds more than it will hurt pure Guard.

But why only guard? Surely it would be better to change CP so that allied detachments can't generate CP or use stratagems at all, or so that CP can only be used by the detachments that generated it?

This would not only stop IG CP batteries in Imperial Soup, it would also stop *all* CP batteries in Imperial Soup and even future-proof the game against CP batteries in as-yet unreleased factions.

The reason a lot of people are against the blanket locking of CP to detachments is because it impacts mono codex factions mixing subfactions and factions that can't generate CP.

It simply swings a huge nerfbad around and still leaves Guard with 20+CP a game thats a reroll every phase of every turn. That alone is powerful regardless of how much guard players try and spin it that they don't have strategums worth spending CP on anyway.

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

The fireblade's buff only works at half range of the weapon. The FW only get one shot each at 42", they then get 3 at 21".

The Fireblade's buff might only work at half range of the weapon, but the Fireblade's buff can also scale with expanding the range of the weapon.

Read the second sentence.

Anyway, since you don't trust my math:

1) No buffs:
- 12 fire warriors (84 pts)
- 20 Guard (80 pts)
Round 1 at 24-30"
- FW kill 2 Guardsmen
12 pulse rifle shots: 12*1/2*2/3*2/3 = 8/3 = 2.66 kills
- Guard move 6", and get within 24". Kill 2 FW
17-18 guard left: either A) 3 guardsmen die, B) 2 sergeants die and 1 guardsmen, C) 1 sergeant and 2 guardsmen, D) 2 Guardsmen die, E) 1 Sergeant and 1 guardsmen, or F) 2 Sergeants die
- A) 15 lasgun shots: 15*1/2*1/2*1/2 = 15/8 = 1.875 kills
- B) and E) 17 lasgun shots: 17*1/2*1/2*1/2 = 17/8 = 2.125 kills
- C) and D) 16 lasgun shots: 16*1/2*1/2 *1/2 = 2 kills
- F) 18 lasguns shots: 18*1/2*1/2*1/2= 2.25 kills
Now, 2 sergeants being killed is highly unlikely so we will take the average ignoring those 2 cases (B and F):
[1.875 (A)+ 2*2 (C and D) + 2.125 (E)]/4= 2 kills
Round 1 losses: 2 Guardsmen (8pts) 2 FW (14 pts)
If you want to be more precise, change the guard casualty to 2.66 and pts lost to 10.64
I really don't need to continue, since it only gets worse for the tau.

In case it's not obvious, I also believe that FW are likely undercosted, so guardsmen outperform an undercosted unit...

Asmodios wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Imperial soup relies on Guard CP. Pure Guard army is far less dependant on CP regeneration. If you nerf the Guard's ability to generate CP, it will hurt those CP intensive soup builds more than it will hurt pure Guard.

But why only guard? Surely it would be better to change CP so that allied detachments can't generate CP or use stratagems at all, or so that CP can only be used by the detachments that generated it?

This would not only stop IG CP batteries in Imperial Soup, it would also stop *all* CP batteries in Imperial Soup and even future-proof the game against CP batteries in as-yet unreleased factions.

The reason a lot of people are against the blanket locking of CP to detachments is because it impacts mono codex factions mixing subfactions and factions that can't generate CP.

It simply swings a huge nerfbad around and still leaves Guard with 20+CP a game thats a reroll every phase of every turn. That alone is powerful regardless of how much guard players try and spin it that they don't have strategums worth spending CP on anyway.

Once you limit CP to detachment or codex you can address this issue much like they did with the knight mini-FAQ. First off remove all CP regeneration from the game. Once codexes have a finite CP amount per game simply balance by raising or lowering the amount of CP generated by an armies detachment. Do we find that custodes need more CP.... fine increase the amount they generate for a battalion from 5 to X (x being the appropriate amount). Restricting the sharing of CP allows CP to be used as an additional balancing tool. The more tools you have for balance the more you can fine-tune the game.

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

The fireblade's buff only works at half range of the weapon. The FW only get one shot each at 42", they then get 3 at 21".

The Fireblade's buff might only work at half range of the weapon, but the Fireblade's buff can also scale with expanding the range of the weapon.

Read the second sentence.

Anyway, since you don't trust my math:

Spoiler:

1) No buffs:
- 12 fire warriors (84 pts)
- 20 Guard (80 pts)
Round 1 at 24-30"
- FW kill 2 Guardsmen
12 pulse rifle shots: 12*1/2*2/3*2/3 = 8/3 = 2.66 kills
- Guard move 6", and get within 24". Kill 2 FW
17-18 guard left: either A) 3 guardsmen die, B) 2 sergeants die and 1 guardsmen, C) 1 sergeant and 2 guardsmen, D) 2 Guardsmen die, E) 1 Sergeant and 1 guardsmen, or F) 2 Sergeants die
- A) 15 lasgun shots: 15*1/2*1/2*1/2 = 15/8 = 1.875 kills
- B) and E) 17 lasgun shots: 17*1/2*1/2*1/2 = 17/8 = 2.125 kills
- C) and D) 16 lasgun shots: 16*1/2*1/2 *1/2 = 2 kills
- F) 18 lasguns shots: 18*1/2*1/2*1/2= 2.25 kills
Now, 2 sergeants being killed is highly unlikely so we will take the average ignoring those 2 cases (B and F):
[1.875 (A)+ 2*2 (C and D) + 2.125 (E)]/4= 2 kills
Round 1 losses: 2 Guardsmen (8pts) 2 FW (14 pts)
If you want to be more precise, change the guard casualty to 2.66 and pts lost to 10.64
I really don't need to continue, since it only gets worse for the tau.

In case it's not obvious, I also believe that FW are likely undercosted, so guardsmen outperform an undercosted unit...

Kcalehc wrote:How do things change if the Guardsmen have a 6+ save I wonder. (like they used to many moons ago)

Ice_can wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Imperial soup relies on Guard CP. Pure Guard army is far less dependant on CP regeneration. If you nerf the Guard's ability to generate CP, it will hurt those CP intensive soup builds more than it will hurt pure Guard.

But why only guard? Surely it would be better to change CP so that allied detachments can't generate CP or use stratagems at all, or so that CP can only be used by the detachments that generated it?

This would not only stop IG CP batteries in Imperial Soup, it would also stop *all* CP batteries in Imperial Soup and even future-proof the game against CP batteries in as-yet unreleased factions.

The reason a lot of people are against the blanket locking of CP to detachments is because it impacts mono codex factions mixing subfactions and factions that can't generate CP.

It simply swings a huge nerfbad around and still leaves Guard with 20+CP a game thats a reroll every phase of every turn. That alone is powerful regardless of how much guard players try and spin it that they don't have strategums worth spending CP on anyway.

Spoletta wrote:

I actually liked the idea of tying CPs to points spent in a detachment. Something like:

Battalions give 1 CP for every 50 points of troops in the detachment.
Brigades give 1 CP for every 50 points of troops and 1 more for every 100 points of other units

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Imperial soup relies on Guard CP. Pure Guard army is far less dependant on CP regeneration. If you nerf the Guard's ability to generate CP, it will hurt those CP intensive soup builds more than it will hurt pure Guard.

But why only guard? Surely it would be better to change CP so that allied detachments can't generate CP or use stratagems at all, or so that CP can only be used by the detachments that generated it?

This would not only stop IG CP batteries in Imperial Soup, it would also stop *all* CP batteries in Imperial Soup and even future-proof the game against CP batteries in as-yet unreleased factions.

The reason a lot of people are against the blanket locking of CP to detachments is because it impacts mono codex factions mixing subfactions and factions that can't generate CP.

It simply swings a huge nerfbad around and still leaves Guard with 20+CP a game thats a reroll every phase of every turn. That alone is powerful regardless of how much guard players try and spin it that they don't have strategums worth spending CP on anyway.

as far as im concerned the CP regen things can go byebye, if they're meant to be a limited resource then they shouldnt be regenable outside rare instances anyway. That said, I don't think it will have the effect on Guard some think it will, as they don't need it to generate 20 CP if that's what they're after.

However, the sharing of CP between factions needs to be cut either way first and foremost, as that is the single largest balance issue above and beyond anything else, as is plainly evident by every tournament result we've seen, way more than anything related to any single army. The allies rules are simply way too permissive.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Vaktathi specifically said they're okay with CP Regen going away.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except Guard doesn't have an excessive need for CP. Yes, they can potentially spam rerolls, but is that really borked compared to, say, rerolling literally every hit and wound?

 Kanluwen wrote:

And read my whole statement. I'm not refuting that the Fireblade's buff only works at half range, I specifically noted that the buff scales with expanding the range of the weapon. That's a thing that some people overlook.

I'm not questioning your math specifically--I've been using your example as an example of what gets thrown out there. People just throw numbers out there and don't showcase the actual numbers they run. If I did that nonsense in any math class I'd ever taken, it would have been considered incomplete.

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And read my whole statement. I'm not refuting that the Fireblade's buff only works at half range, I specifically noted that the buff scales with expanding the range of the weapon. That's a thing that some people overlook.

Now I'm confused. I said that the FW get 3 shots at 21", using Borkan and a PA drone which is that expanded half range. Were you just clarifying that?

I'm not questioning your math specifically--I've been using your example as an example of what gets thrown out there. People just throw numbers out there and don't showcase the actual numbers they run. If I did that nonsense in any math class I'd ever taken, it would have been considered incomplete.

But is the math I presented an acceptable data-point now?
I've satisfied all your criteria afaik:
- full squads
- no buffs
- sergeant pistols
- range difference
- math is shown

Ice_can wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Imperial soup relies on Guard CP. Pure Guard army is far less dependant on CP regeneration. If you nerf the Guard's ability to generate CP, it will hurt those CP intensive soup builds more than it will hurt pure Guard.

But why only guard? Surely it would be better to change CP so that allied detachments can't generate CP or use stratagems at all, or so that CP can only be used by the detachments that generated it?

This would not only stop IG CP batteries in Imperial Soup, it would also stop *all* CP batteries in Imperial Soup and even future-proof the game against CP batteries in as-yet unreleased factions.

The reason a lot of people are against the blanket locking of CP to detachments is because it impacts mono codex factions mixing subfactions and factions that can't generate CP.

It simply swings a huge nerfbad around and still leaves Guard with 20+CP a game thats a reroll every phase of every turn. That alone is powerful regardless of how much guard players try and spin it that they don't have strategums worth spending CP on anyway.

as far as im concerned the CP regen things can go byebye, if they're meant to be a limited resource then they shouldnt be regenable outside rare instances anyway. That said, I don't think it will have the effect on Guard some think it will, as they don't need it to generate 20 CP if that's what they're after.

However, the sharing of CP between factions needs to be cut either way first and foremost, as that is the single largest balance issue above and beyond anything else, as is plainly evident by every tournament result we've seen, way more than anything related to any single army. The allies rules are simply way too permissive.

Well done on making my point for me.

So people playing inquisition forces or my personal one of Sisters of Silence plus knight's so 9 CP total at 2k should loose the ability to share CP.
But Guard with 22 starting CP shouldn't lose Grand Strategists and Kurov's.

So having 22 CP alone doesn't give you a big enough advantage?

You keep saying soup is the issue, to deflect from the fact that your faction broke the CP balance for 8th edition.

Purely being able to throw down a reroll per phase per turn is extremely powerful.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And then how do you expect Grey Knights and Deathwatch to function without a heavy rewrite?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
And then how do you expect Grey Knights and Deathwatch to function without a heavy rewrite?

Ice_can wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And read my whole statement. I'm not refuting that the Fireblade's buff only works at half range, I specifically noted that the buff scales with expanding the range of the weapon. That's a thing that some people overlook.

Now I'm confused. I said that the FW get 3 shots at 21", using Borkan and a PA drone which is that expanded half range. Were you just clarifying that?

I'm not questioning your math specifically--I've been using your example as an example of what gets thrown out there. People just throw numbers out there and don't showcase the actual numbers they run. If I did that nonsense in any math class I'd ever taken, it would have been considered incomplete.

But is the math I presented an acceptable data-point now?
I've satisfied all your criteria afaik:
- full squads
- no buffs
- sergeant pistols
- range difference
- math is shown

Your actually giving the guard an advantage as you haven't included the points cost of the pathfinders that a required to unlock said drone.

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
I have looked at all the lists that placed in the top 3 of a Major or GT from January 2018 to July 2018 as listed on Blood of Kittens http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/ and compiled all the lists containing any amount of Astra Militarum along with making a few notes about any standout units the list contained. 

Spoiler:

http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Cody-Jensen-3rd-Overall-Salt-Lake-Gaming-Con-2018.pdf - Patrol Detachment of Guard with Admech and a Knight.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Colin-McDade-3rd-Overall-Warzone-Houston-GT-2018.pdf - Custodes with 2 Battalions of Guard each consisting of 2 company commanders 3 Infantry squads and Mortar heavy weapon teams.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Cyle-Thompson-1st-Overall-Slaughterhouse-GT-2018.pdf - Catachan Guard, Smash Captains, Castellan, you know the drill. 
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Dan-Sammons-3rd-Overall-Show-Me-Showdown-2018.pdf  - Guard battery and a bunch of knights. Dan seems to have a sense of humor with his choice of watermark
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Garry-Sacco-2nd-Overall-TSHFT-40K-Championship-2018.pdf  - Custodes, scions, pask, 1 infantry squad and some sentinels.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Jack-Harpster-3rd-Overall-BAO-2018.pdf  - Guard, Castellan, and space wolves.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/John-Weyermuller-2nd-Overall-BAO-2018.pdf  - Guard battery and Knights.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lee-Durkin-2nd-Overall-The-North-West-Open-2018.pdf - Guard battery, Shadowsword, Knights.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Mani-Cheema-1st-Overall-Caledonian-Revolution-2018.pdf  - Guard Brigade, Custodes, and smash captains.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Matthew-Obermark-1st-Overall-Salt-Lake-Gaming-Con-2018.pdf  - Sister of battle, Guard Battalion, Shadowsword.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Michael-Walsh-1st-Overall-Barnyard-Brawl-2018.pdf  - Guard Birgade, Smash Captain, Castellans
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Mike-Porter-1st-Overall-The-North-West-Open-2018.pdf  - Guard Brigade, Smash Captains, Custodes
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Mitch-Pelham-1st-Overall-TSHFT-40K-Championship-2018.pdf - The list that ruled nova. Guard Brigade, Smash Captain, Castellan
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Nick-Antzoulatos-2nd-Overall-Barnyard-Brawl-2018.pdf  - Smash Capatins, Guard Brigade, Custodes
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Aurelio-Correa-1st-Overall-Gentlemens-GT-2018.pdf  - Guard Brigade, Custodes, Culexus
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Brandon-Grant-1st-Overall-Boise-Cup-2018.pdf  - Holy crap! A MONO GUARD LIST! 8 infantry squads, hellhounds, basilisks, and a shadowsword.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Cyle-Thompson-2nd-Overall-Flying-Monkey-GT-2018.pdf - Guard Battalion, Smash Captains, Castellan, yawn.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/David-Villareal-1st-Overall-Sidewinder-GT-2018.pdf - Scions, Smash Captains, Custodes.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Trent-Northington-1st-Overall-Flying-Monkey-GT-2018.pdf - Guard Battalion, Smash Captains, Castellan.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/David-Koszka-3rd-Overall-Goldensprue-GT-2018.pdf - Scions, 4 Assassins, Admech.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/K%C3%A5re-Schmidt-Ettup-3rd-Overall-Warzone-Slagelse-GT-2018.pdf - Guard Brigade, Smash Captain, and a mix of sisters of battle and assassins.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Gerath-Hunt-3rd-Overall-Wetcoast-GT-2018.pdf - Guard Battlery mixed with Blood Angels.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Andreas-Berglund-2nd-Overall-Westeros-ITC-VII-2018.pdf - Celestine leading Guard, Shadowsword, and a Smash Captain.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Mitchell-Pelham-1st-Overall-Da-Momma%E2%80%99s-Boyz-Spring-Brawl-2018.pdf – Smash Captains, 3 Guard Squads, and 14 fething Artemia pattern Hellhounds.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Nathan-Cartmell-2nd-Overall-Colorado-Cutthroat%E2%80%99s-Grand-Tournament-2018.pdf - Grey Knights, Guard Battery, and assassins.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Michael-Walsh-1st-Overall-Barnyard-Brawl-1-2018.pdf - Guard Brigade, Smash Captains, Custodes
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Brandon-Grant-3rd-Overall-Broadside-Bash-2018.pdf - Another mostly mono guard list Guard brigade with a shadowsword and a single Seraphim squad in a Auxiliary detachment.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Cyle-Thompson-2nd-Overall-Plains-of-War-GT-2018.pdf - Guard Battlion, Smash Captain, Custodes.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Brenden-Chrustie-1st-Overall-Plains-of-War-GT-2018.pdf - 3rd mono Guard list. Pretty balanced list, 6 infantry squads, Hellhounds, Leman Russes, Mortar Squads.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Mike-Brandt-3rd-Overall-London-GT-2018.pdf - Guard Brigade, Smash Captains, Custodes.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Mike-Porter-1st-Overall-London-GT-2018.pdf - Guard Brigade, Custodes, Assassins.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Colin-Mcdade-3rd-Overall-The-Alamo-GT-2018.pdf - Custodes with a Guard Battery.

There are 3 mono guard lists that placed in the top 3 of a GT or Major between January and July. That's less top 3s than Tau and Tyranids. Guard is not dominating competitive warhammer, soup is dominating competitive warhammer, and that's any soup Imperial, Eldar, and Chaos are all widely out performing any mono faction lists.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So any unit worth taking is OP?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I don't get how anyone could say that stopping the broken units from being broken isn't the correct fix and the REAL fix is to leave those units alone.

The fact is Guard Infantry will be taken even if you limited CP they generate to their Detachment.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
I have looked at all the lists that placed in the top 3 of a Major or GT from January 2018 to July 2018 as listed on Blood of Kittens http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/ and compiled all the lists containing any amount of Astra Militarum along with making a few notes about any standout units the list contained. 

Spoiler:

http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Cody-Jensen-3rd-Overall-Salt-Lake-Gaming-Con-2018.pdf - Patrol Detachment of Guard with Admech and a Knight.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Colin-McDade-3rd-Overall-Warzone-Houston-GT-2018.pdf - Custodes with 2 Battalions of Guard each consisting of 2 company commanders 3 Infantry squads and Mortar heavy weapon teams.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Cyle-Thompson-1st-Overall-Slaughterhouse-GT-2018.pdf - Catachan Guard, Smash Captains, Castellan, you know the drill. 
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Dan-Sammons-3rd-Overall-Show-Me-Showdown-2018.pdf  - Guard battery and a bunch of knights. Dan seems to have a sense of humor with his choice of watermark
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Garry-Sacco-2nd-Overall-TSHFT-40K-Championship-2018.pdf  - Custodes, scions, pask, 1 infantry squad and some sentinels.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Jack-Harpster-3rd-Overall-BAO-2018.pdf  - Guard, Castellan, and space wolves.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/John-Weyermuller-2nd-Overall-BAO-2018.pdf  - Guard battery and Knights.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Lee-Durkin-2nd-Overall-The-North-West-Open-2018.pdf - Guard battery, Shadowsword, Knights.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Mani-Cheema-1st-Overall-Caledonian-Revolution-2018.pdf  - Guard Brigade, Custodes, and smash captains.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Matthew-Obermark-1st-Overall-Salt-Lake-Gaming-Con-2018.pdf  - Sister of battle, Guard Battalion, Shadowsword.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Michael-Walsh-1st-Overall-Barnyard-Brawl-2018.pdf  - Guard Birgade, Smash Captain, Castellans
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Mike-Porter-1st-Overall-The-North-West-Open-2018.pdf  - Guard Brigade, Smash Captains, Custodes
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Mitch-Pelham-1st-Overall-TSHFT-40K-Championship-2018.pdf - The list that ruled nova. Guard Brigade, Smash Captain, Castellan
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Nick-Antzoulatos-2nd-Overall-Barnyard-Brawl-2018.pdf  - Smash Capatins, Guard Brigade, Custodes
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Aurelio-Correa-1st-Overall-Gentlemens-GT-2018.pdf  - Guard Brigade, Custodes, Culexus
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Brandon-Grant-1st-Overall-Boise-Cup-2018.pdf  - Holy crap! A MONO GUARD LIST! 8 infantry squads, hellhounds, basilisks, and a shadowsword.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Cyle-Thompson-2nd-Overall-Flying-Monkey-GT-2018.pdf - Guard Battalion, Smash Captains, Castellan, yawn.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/David-Villareal-1st-Overall-Sidewinder-GT-2018.pdf - Scions, Smash Captains, Custodes.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Trent-Northington-1st-Overall-Flying-Monkey-GT-2018.pdf - Guard Battalion, Smash Captains, Castellan.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/David-Koszka-3rd-Overall-Goldensprue-GT-2018.pdf - Scions, 4 Assassins, Admech.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/K%C3%A5re-Schmidt-Ettup-3rd-Overall-Warzone-Slagelse-GT-2018.pdf - Guard Brigade, Smash Captain, and a mix of sisters of battle and assassins.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Gerath-Hunt-3rd-Overall-Wetcoast-GT-2018.pdf - Guard Battlery mixed with Blood Angels.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Andreas-Berglund-2nd-Overall-Westeros-ITC-VII-2018.pdf - Celestine leading Guard, Shadowsword, and a Smash Captain.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Mitchell-Pelham-1st-Overall-Da-Momma%E2%80%99s-Boyz-Spring-Brawl-2018.pdf – Smash Captains, 3 Guard Squads, and 14 fething Artemia pattern Hellhounds.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Nathan-Cartmell-2nd-Overall-Colorado-Cutthroat%E2%80%99s-Grand-Tournament-2018.pdf - Grey Knights, Guard Battery, and assassins.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Michael-Walsh-1st-Overall-Barnyard-Brawl-1-2018.pdf - Guard Brigade, Smash Captains, Custodes
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Brandon-Grant-3rd-Overall-Broadside-Bash-2018.pdf - Another mostly mono guard list Guard brigade with a shadowsword and a single Seraphim squad in a Auxiliary detachment.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Cyle-Thompson-2nd-Overall-Plains-of-War-GT-2018.pdf - Guard Battlion, Smash Captain, Custodes.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Brenden-Chrustie-1st-Overall-Plains-of-War-GT-2018.pdf - 3rd mono Guard list. Pretty balanced list, 6 infantry squads, Hellhounds, Leman Russes, Mortar Squads.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Mike-Brandt-3rd-Overall-London-GT-2018.pdf - Guard Brigade, Smash Captains, Custodes.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Mike-Porter-1st-Overall-London-GT-2018.pdf - Guard Brigade, Custodes, Assassins.
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Colin-Mcdade-3rd-Overall-The-Alamo-GT-2018.pdf - Custodes with a Guard Battery.

There are 3 mono guard lists that placed in the top 3 of a GT or Major between January and July. That's less top 3s than Tau and Tyranids. Guard is not dominating competitive warhammer, soup is dominating competitive warhammer, and that's any soup Imperial, Eldar, and Chaos are all widely out performing any mono faction lists.

How many Imperium soup lists that placed in the top 3 contained no Guard?

Why would any Guard player not soup when there is absolutely no negative to doing so? Perhaps there are more mono Tau top 3s because they cannot soup in any way shape or form so all Tau players have to run mono or not run at all? Do you really think if Tau had the Imperium keyword you'd see any mono Tau armies? Nids, ironically and ridiculously, can soup with some Guard units via GSC.

You're correct in that soup is dominating. Out of all soup options Imperial is the strongest. The largest part of the Imperial soup is Guard. There are certain units that are always, without fail, taken in a competitive imperial soup list - these units need changes. Those units highly popular in other soup lists also need changing, whether that flavour of soup is Chaos or Aeldari.

Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
Before Knights came out Eldar soup was dominating and before that Chaos soup. Imperial soup with guard has been a thing since the Guard codex came out, it was only after knights came out that it became dominant. Guard plus knights plus smash captains is overpowered, guard plus smash captains is powerful, mono guard is average at best based on their tournament results.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
Before Knights came out Eldar soup was dominating and before that Chaos soup. Imperial soup with guard has been a thing since the Guard codex came out, it was only after knights came out that it became dominant. Guard plus knights plus smash captains is overpowered, guard plus smash captains is powerful, mono guard is average at best based on their tournament results.

Patently false given my previous statistics around the success of primary Guard armies prior to the IK codex release.

You have no data on 'mono Guard' because virtually no one plays them. Soup is king. Your data also only tells a tiny part of the full story. A part, obviously, that you want to propagate because it suits your argument.

Its been stated already but the broken elements of.soup need to be addressed or the meta stagnates. Part of the broken elements are Infantry and Commanders. CP, Stratagems and relics do not completely change the unit from middling to OP, they are OP standalone.

An Actual Englishman wrote:

Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
Before Knights came out Eldar soup was dominating and before that Chaos soup. Imperial soup with guard has been a thing since the Guard codex came out, it was only after knights came out that it became dominant. Guard plus knights plus smash captains is overpowered, guard plus smash captains is powerful, mono guard is average at best based on their tournament results.

Patently false given my previous statistics around the success of primary Guard armies prior to the IK codex release.

You have no data on 'mono Guard' because virtually no one plays them. Soup is king. Your data also only tells a tiny part of the full story. A part, obviously, that you want to propagate because it suits your argument.

Its been stated already but the broken elements of.soup need to be addressed or the meta stagnates. Part of the broken elements are Infantry and Commanders. CP, Stratagems and relics do not completely change the unit from middling to OP, they are OP standalone.

Guardsmanwaffle wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
Before Knights came out Eldar soup was dominating and before that Chaos soup. Imperial soup with guard has been a thing since the Guard codex came out, it was only after knights came out that it became dominant. Guard plus knights plus smash captains is overpowered, guard plus smash captains is powerful, mono guard is average at best based on their tournament results.

Patently false given my previous statistics around the success of primary Guard armies prior to the IK codex release.

You have no data on 'mono Guard' because virtually no one plays them. Soup is king. Your data also only tells a tiny part of the full story. A part, obviously, that you want to propagate because it suits your argument.

Its been stated already but the broken elements of.soup need to be addressed or the meta stagnates. Part of the broken elements are Infantry and Commanders. CP, Stratagems and relics do not completely change the unit from middling to OP, they are OP standalone.

I have sourced my data, anyone is welcome to view it. Everything points to mono guard performing average and soup of all kinds to be over performing. Nerfing guard does nothing to fix the problem that is soup and makes a already average performing faction worse.

Soup in all forms needs a nerf that part is 100% clear. There is nothing stopping GW from nerfing soup as a whole to be on par with mono factions and if Guard is dominating after the nerf to soup then nerf them in the next faq.

Marin wrote:
Many fractions are made not to faction without soap, so most IG players prepositions are not really viable. If mono guard was winning tournaments than the balance of the game will totally be broken. So no mono guard should never be a thing in this editions and IG players will have to learn to life with that.

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:

Marin wrote:
Many fractions are made not to faction without soap, so most IG players prepositions are not really viable. If mono guard was winning tournaments than the balance of the game will totally be broken. So no mono guard should never be a thing in this editions and IG players will have to learn to life with that.

So your saying that every faction that can soup needs to be inferior just because they have the option to soup? Yeah that's gonna be a no from me dawg.

BrianDavion wrote:

 Guardsmanwaffle wrote:

Marin wrote:
Many fractions are made not to faction without soap, so most IG players prepositions are not really viable. If mono guard was winning tournaments than the balance of the game will totally be broken. So no mono guard should never be a thing in this editions and IG players will have to learn to life with that.

So your saying that every faction that can soup needs to be inferior just because they have the option to soup? Yeah that's gonna be a no from me dawg.

ditto from me, not everybody WANTS to soup, I shouldn't have to buy 3 friggen extra armies just because I want to play Space Marines for example.

Ice_can wrote:
Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.

It still leaves allies intact and as guard have "unusable" strategums thry won't miss the CP.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.

It still leaves allies intact and as guard have "unusable" strategums thry won't miss the CP.

Come again? How about we buff some gakky units first before we do something so petty and Single out one army, which we only ever saw perform in soup and arguably even there they were just picked for their cp.
For exemple Necrons and orkz (albeit maybee the codex does some good)

But then again you'd rather nerf solely guard into the ground instead of taming outliers like castellans /knights, and slamguiniusses, etc.
I have the distinct feeling that you are just petty and not really interested in propper balance.

Ice_can wrote:
Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.

It still leaves allies intact and as guard have "unusable" strategums thry won't miss the CP.

Spoletta wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.

It still leaves allies intact and as guard have "unusable" strategums thry won't miss the CP.

It's a dumb fix. Screws mono guards while not touching imperial soups. Oh nice they will have 2-3 less CPs, how terrible for them!

No, the only good and simple fix here is keeping CPs in detachment/faction. I can't use more than one CP for my allies? Then maybe if you want to use stratagems on your allies, bring a battalion of them, not a plugged in force.
You word it the way that the new minidexes are wording it, so if you want to reroll something on an assassin, you can use the 3 starting CPs for this.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.

It still leaves allies intact and as guard have "unusable" strategums thry won't miss the CP.

It's a dumb fix. Screws mono guards while not touching imperial soups. Oh nice they will have 2-3 less CPs, how terrible for them!

No, the only good and simple fix here is keeping CPs in detachment/faction. I can't use more than one CP for my allies? Then maybe if you want to use stratagems on your allies, bring a battalion of them, not a plugged in force.
You word it the way that the new minidexes are wording it, so if you want to reroll something on an assassin, you can use the 3 starting CPs for this.

This, thank you

Ice_can wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.

It still leaves allies intact and as guard have "unusable" strategums thry won't miss the CP.

It's a dumb fix. Screws mono guards while not touching imperial soups. Oh nice they will have 2-3 less CPs, how terrible for them!

No, the only good and simple fix here is keeping CPs in detachment/faction. I can't use more than one CP for my allies? Then maybe if you want to use stratagems on your allies, bring a battalion of them, not a plugged in force.
You word it the way that the new minidexes are wording it, so if you want to reroll something on an assassin, you can use the 3 starting CPs for this.

This, thank you

So uour saying that guard having double the amount of rerolls is fair?
Way to show the hypocrisy.

Ice_can wrote:
Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.

It still leaves allies intact and as guard have "unusable" strategums thry won't miss the CP.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I've yet to see a convincing reason why we shouldn't nerf the elements of soup that are always taken (hence OP). Guard players are acting as if it'll only affect their army but there are other units that make up the most common imperial soup list and will also need nerfing. The same goes for Eldar and Chaos.

If every unit was balanced against each other soup would not provide any benefit over mono armies, apart from access to stratagems. Let that sink in. If Guardsmen weren't the objectively best Imperial troop in the game people would instead take Conscripts or another similarly costed unit. The same goes for Hellhounds, Smash Captains, Custard Jet Bikes and the Castellan. The same also goes for those units in Chaos soup that are always taken and Shining Spears, Dark Reapers for Eldar soup.

Any change in how CP is spent or accrued in a soup list will not effect soup lists build, we have already seen a soup list win a major event with only 5 CP.

I'm also struggling to understand why Guard should have the best troop in the game and not expect a nerf to said troop, or why it makes any sense that Conscripts and Infantry are the same points. 3 ppm Conscripts were way too cheap. 4 ppm Infantry are way too cheap.

Kdash wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.

It still leaves allies intact and as guard have "unusable" strategums thry won't miss the CP.

It's a dumb fix. Screws mono guards while not touching imperial soups. Oh nice they will have 2-3 less CPs, how terrible for them!

No, the only good and simple fix here is keeping CPs in detachment/faction. I can't use more than one CP for my allies? Then maybe if you want to use stratagems on your allies, bring a battalion of them, not a plugged in force.
You word it the way that the new minidexes are wording it, so if you want to reroll something on an assassin, you can use the 3 starting CPs for this.

This, thank you

So uour saying that guard having double the amount of rerolls is fair?
Way to show the hypocrisy.

How much is a single re-roll worth in a mono Guard army?

Genuine question. I’m curious as to what the impact of having a re-roll in 6 shoot phases is vs armies that will only maybe have 3-4.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.

It still leaves allies intact and as guard have "unusable" strategums thry won't miss the CP.

I’m guessing this is in regards to Battalions and Brigades only, right?

As for mono Guard and stratagems – you can still easily burn through a lot with Guard, it is just that the impact of those stratagems isn’t exactly “high”.

Over the course of a turn, in mono Guard I’d expect to be using Take Cover, Jury Rigging, Consolidate squads, at least 1 CP re-roll and potentially Fight to the Death and Inspired tactics – not to mention any spent on regiment specific ones or pre-game.

Now, looking at those overall, they (even collectively) have a relatively minor impact on any game. Sure, regaining a wound on a tank to up its bracket has a bigger impact than when it’s used to just gain a wound, and combining squads could come up clutch late game to prevent kill points.

By reducing Guard CP by half, you essentially limit the impact of their collectively weak stratagems even more, when, in reality, there is little reason to do so (imo).

Not Online!!! wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I've yet to see a convincing reason why we shouldn't nerf the elements of soup that are always taken (hence OP). Guard players are acting as if it'll only affect their army but there are other units that make up the most common imperial soup list and will also need nerfing. The same goes for Eldar and Chaos.

If every unit was balanced against each other soup would not provide any benefit over mono armies, apart from access to stratagems. Let that sink in. If Guardsmen weren't the objectively best Imperial troop in the game people would instead take Conscripts or another similarly costed unit. The same goes for Hellhounds, Smash Captains, Custard Jet Bikes and the Castellan. The same also goes for those units in Chaos soup that are always taken and Shining Spears, Dark Reapers for Eldar soup.

Any change in how CP is spent or accrued in a soup list will not effect soup lists build, we have already seen a soup list win a major event with only 5 CP.

I'm also struggling to understand why Guard should have the best troop in the game and not expect a nerf to said troop, or why it makes any sense that Conscripts and Infantry are the same points. 3 ppm Conscripts were way too cheap. 4 ppm Infantry are way too cheap.

And you again run into scalling problems, a guardsmen at 5 pts compared to a kabalite profile seems off, etc.

Also again by your logic any frequently picked unit would need to be reconsidered. You don't need a sledge hammer to screw in a handle now do you?

Edit: i also like how you accuse everyone that "defends " guard as beeing an implied egotistical guard player.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I've yet to see a convincing reason why we shouldn't nerf the elements of soup that are always taken (hence OP).

 vipoid wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I've yet to see a convincing reason why we shouldn't nerf the elements of soup that are always taken (hence OP).

Because Soup is often the main reason that these units are overpowered in the first place, as it gives them access to stuff (particularly excess CP) that they would otherwise have no or limited access to.

Why is it so hard to grasp that Soup armies are not merely equal to the sum of their parts but are greater than the sum of their parts?


If a unit is fine in the context of its own army, but overpowered in a Soup army, then it is Soup that needs to change - not that unit.

This is why I've said repeatedly that we need to fix Soup *first*. I am not saying that potentially-overpowered units in IG and other armies should never be fixed, merely that they need to be looked at purely in the context of their own army. And this simply cannot be done whilst Soup is dominant, because everything is being examined in that context.

So I say once again, bring Soup into line *first* and then see what the meta looks like. If Smashcaptains are still running wild even without allied CP-batteries, by all means nerf them. If Guardsmen melee armies are slicing their way through enemy armies, by all means nerf them.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I've yet to see a convincing reason why we shouldn't nerf the elements of soup that are always taken (hence OP). Guard players are acting as if it'll only affect their army but there are other units that make up the most common imperial soup list and will also need nerfing. The same goes for Eldar and Chaos.

If every unit was balanced against each other soup would not provide any benefit over mono armies, apart from access to stratagems. Let that sink in. If Guardsmen weren't the objectively best Imperial troop in the game people would instead take Conscripts or another similarly costed unit. The same goes for Hellhounds, Smash Captains, Custard Jet Bikes and the Castellan. The same also goes for those units in Chaos soup that are always taken and Shining Spears, Dark Reapers for Eldar soup.

Any change in how CP is spent or accrued in a soup list will not effect soup lists build, we have already seen a soup list win a major event with only 5 CP.

I'm also struggling to understand why Guard should have the best troop in the game and not expect a nerf to said troop, or why it makes any sense that Conscripts and Infantry are the same points. 3 ppm Conscripts were way too cheap. 4 ppm Infantry are way too cheap.

And you again run into scalling problems, a guardsmen at 5 pts compared to a kabalite profile seems off, etc.

Also again by your logic any frequently picked unit would need to be reconsidered. You don't need a sledge hammer to screw in a handle now do you?

Edit: i also like how you accuse everyone that "defends " guard as beeing an implied egotistical guard player.

Strawmanning aside I've yet to see a convincing mathematical argument that shows 5ppm Guardsmen to be 'off' the profile of a Kabalite warrior. If that is the case though, there are far less Kabalite warrior examples as there are units that come nowhere near a Guardsman. Including the oft cited Fire Warrior.

So the change makes sense.

 vipoid wrote:


If a unit is fine in the context of its own army, but overpowered in a Soup army, then it is Soup that needs to change - not that unit.

Kdash wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I've yet to see a convincing reason why we shouldn't nerf the elements of soup that are always taken (hence OP). Guard players are acting as if it'll only affect their army but there are other units that make up the most common imperial soup list and will also need nerfing. The same goes for Eldar and Chaos.

If every unit was balanced against each other soup would not provide any benefit over mono armies, apart from access to stratagems. Let that sink in. If Guardsmen weren't the objectively best Imperial troop in the game people would instead take Conscripts or another similarly costed unit. The same goes for Hellhounds, Smash Captains, Custard Jet Bikes and the Castellan. The same also goes for those units in Chaos soup that are always taken and Shining Spears, Dark Reapers for Eldar soup.

Any change in how CP is spent or accrued in a soup list will not effect soup lists build, we have already seen a soup list win a major event with only 5 CP.

I'm also struggling to understand why Guard should have the best troop in the game and not expect a nerf to said troop, or why it makes any sense that Conscripts and Infantry are the same points. 3 ppm Conscripts were way too cheap. 4 ppm Infantry are way too cheap.

And you again run into scalling problems, a guardsmen at 5 pts compared to a kabalite profile seems off, etc.

Also again by your logic any frequently picked unit would need to be reconsidered. You don't need a sledge hammer to screw in a handle now do you?

Edit: i also like how you accuse everyone that "defends " guard as beeing an implied egotistical guard player.

Strawmanning aside I've yet to see a convincing mathematical argument that shows 5ppm Guardsmen to be 'off' the profile of a Kabalite warrior. If that is the case though, there are far less Kabalite warrior examples as there are units that come nowhere near a Guardsman. Including the oft cited Fire Warrior.

So the change makes sense.

So, for 60 points, you can get 10 Kabalites – 10 points more than your proposed 5ppm Guard squad.
For those 10 points you get
+1 movement
+1 ws
+1 bs
+1 ld
A weapon that always wounds infantry on 4s
Turn 1 onwards 6+++ (it is a free buff so must be included, unlike including orders)

Now – I think we can all agree that the 10 points is well worth it when comparing it vs the “new” Guard.

Are 10 Fire Warriors, worth only 20 points more than 10 Guardsmen? Given that they wound everything far more reliably than Guardsmen can?