See? It looks like in Spain we are 5-6 months behind in our meta. Here everyone is still rocking Coldstars with fusions.
Now the new Tau hotness are Riptides, Stormsurge, Commanders and like 30-50 drones.
But yeah, a Commander with 4 missile pods calling Kauyon turn 1 sounds actually very sweet. I'll try it next tournament, thanks Xenomancer. I play Vior'la, both for thematic and for list reasons (I ran a TON of assault weapons. I even ran piranhas. I know they suck but what can I do, they are my favourite models alongside stealth suits)
Galas wrote: See? It looks like in Spain we are 5-6 months behind in our meta. Here everyone is still rocking Coldstars with fusions.
Now the new Tau hotness are Riptides, Stormsurge, Commanders and like 30-50 drones.
I don't think there is an actual tau meta. There are a bunch of ways to build their lists.
You can go 2+ to hit spam (commanders/longstrike and hammerheads)
Surge spam (3 surges/markerlights/ and commanders)
Tigershark spam (I don't know anyone that owns 3 Tigersharks but that is just scary...)
or you can take the combines arms approach with lots of marker lights(drones) riptides/boradsides/ and drones.
I can't tell you which is better - it's all reasonable strong.
Marmatag wrote: Tau has not been finishing ahead of Guard, though? That may change post FAQ. Tau are very solid though, despite the fact that their fanbase is generally just horrible.
And I've seen the data mines, as well as follow BoK. Additionally, I know people going to these tournaments. I've seen the lists both on the table top as well as in text form.
Mono tau has finished ahead of mono guard in lots of major GTs. Guard soup finishes ahead of tau in almost every instance
And mono Guard has won a lot of GTs. Although, the builds may change, because the Tallarn Shadowsword was nerfed along with everything else that DS turn 1. But this is where "mono" vs "soup" becomes the ultimate in pedantic arguing. If a Guard player spends points of a Shadowsword as a super heavy aux it's not soup, but a castellan, it is, and suddenly mono guard are weak ZOMGBBQWTF. It's so silly. In both cases its a strong core with a super heavy supporting it. Saying "oh it's not mono" is just flat stupid, and has 0 meaning in the context of balance in 8th.
Marmatag wrote: Tau has not been finishing ahead of Guard, though? That may change post FAQ. Tau are very solid though, despite the fact that their fanbase is generally just horrible.
And I've seen the data mines, as well as follow BoK. Additionally, I know people going to these tournaments. I've seen the lists both on the table top as well as in text form.
Mono tau has finished ahead of mono guard in lots of major GTs. Guard soup finishes ahead of tau in almost every instance
And mono Guard has won a lot of GTs. Although, the builds may change, because the Tallarn Shadowsword was nerfed along with everything else that DS turn 1. But this is where "mono" vs "soup" becomes the ultimate in pedantic arguing. If a Guard player spends points of a Shadowsword as a super heavy aux it's not soup, but a castellan, it is, and suddenly mono guard are weak ZOMGBBQWTF. It's so silly. In both cases its a strong core with a super heavy supporting it. Saying "oh it's not mono" is just flat stupid, and has 0 meaning in the context of balance in 8th.
Exactly. I try to make this argument over and over but really you said it best.
Marmatag wrote: Tau has not been finishing ahead of Guard, though? That may change post FAQ. Tau are very solid though, despite the fact that their fanbase is generally just horrible.
And I've seen the data mines, as well as follow BoK. Additionally, I know people going to these tournaments. I've seen the lists both on the table top as well as in text form.
Mono tau has finished ahead of mono guard in lots of major GTs. Guard soup finishes ahead of tau in almost every instance
And mono Guard has won a lot of GTs. Although, the builds may change, because the Tallarn Shadowsword was nerfed along with everything else that DS turn 1. But this is where "mono" vs "soup" becomes the ultimate in pedantic arguing. If a Guard player spends points of a Shadowsword as a super heavy aux it's not soup, but a castellan, it is, and suddenly mono guard are weak ZOMGBBQWTF. It's so silly. In both cases its a strong core with a super heavy supporting it. Saying "oh it's not mono" is just flat stupid, and has 0 meaning in the context of balance in 8th.
Except there are differences in form, function, and capabilities of these units. A Shadowsword is arguably an overpowered unit, and broadly fills the same role of "big shooty thing", but doesn't have access to the stratagems and abilities of a Knight unit.
Likewise, it's a relatively narrow example. Guard have nothing that fill the same broad role as a Smash or Custodes Jetbike captain, where the pairing with Guard make either more powerful than any component force on its own.
Marmatag wrote: Tau has not been finishing ahead of Guard, though? That may change post FAQ. Tau are very solid though, despite the fact that their fanbase is generally just horrible.
And I've seen the data mines, as well as follow BoK. Additionally, I know people going to these tournaments. I've seen the lists both on the table top as well as in text form.
Mono tau has finished ahead of mono guard in lots of major GTs. Guard soup finishes ahead of tau in almost every instance
And mono Guard has won a lot of GTs. Although, the builds may change, because the Tallarn Shadowsword was nerfed along with everything else that DS turn 1. But this is where "mono" vs "soup" becomes the ultimate in pedantic arguing. If a Guard player spends points of a Shadowsword as a super heavy aux it's not soup, but a castellan, it is, and suddenly mono guard are weak ZOMGBBQWTF. It's so silly. In both cases its a strong core with a super heavy supporting it. Saying "oh it's not mono" is just flat stupid, and has 0 meaning in the context of balance in 8th.
Except there are differences in form, function, and capabilities of these units. A Shadowsword is arguably an overpowered unit, and broadly fills the same role of "big shooty thing", but doesn't have access to the stratagems and abilities of a Knight unit.
Likewise, it's a relatively narrow example. Guard have nothing that fill the same broad role as a Smash or Custodes Jetbike captain, where the pairing with Guard make either more powerful than any component force on its own.
Marmatag wrote: Tau has not been finishing ahead of Guard, though? That may change post FAQ. Tau are very solid though, despite the fact that their fanbase is generally just horrible.
And I've seen the data mines, as well as follow BoK. Additionally, I know people going to these tournaments. I've seen the lists both on the table top as well as in text form.
Mono tau has finished ahead of mono guard in lots of major GTs. Guard soup finishes ahead of tau in almost every instance
And mono Guard has won a lot of GTs. Although, the builds may change, because the Tallarn Shadowsword was nerfed along with everything else that DS turn 1. But this is where "mono" vs "soup" becomes the ultimate in pedantic arguing. If a Guard player spends points of a Shadowsword as a super heavy aux it's not soup, but a castellan, it is, and suddenly mono guard are weak ZOMGBBQWTF. It's so silly. In both cases its a strong core with a super heavy supporting it. Saying "oh it's not mono" is just flat stupid, and has 0 meaning in the context of balance in 8th.
Except there are differences in form, function, and capabilities of these units. A Shadowsword is arguably an overpowered unit, and broadly fills the same role of "big shooty thing", but doesn't have access to the stratagems and abilities of a Knight unit.
Likewise, it's a relatively narrow example. Guard have nothing that fill the same broad role as a Smash or Custodes Jetbike captain, where the pairing with Guard make either more powerful than any component force on its own.
Mono vs Soup is a very valid distinction to make.
Yeah it's certainly valid but we are really only talking about the distinction between the shadowsword and the castellan at this point. OFC - the castellan is better.
Marmatag wrote: And mono Guard has won a lot of GTs. Although, the builds may change, because the Tallarn Shadowsword was nerfed along with everything else that DS turn 1. But this is where "mono" vs "soup" becomes the ultimate in pedantic arguing. If a Guard player spends points of a Shadowsword as a super heavy aux it's not soup, but a castellan, it is, and suddenly mono guard are weak ZOMGBBQWTF. It's so silly. In both cases its a strong core with a super heavy supporting it. Saying "oh it's not mono" is just flat stupid, and has 0 meaning in the context of balance in 8th.
Exactly. I try to make this argument over and over but really you said it best.
I disagree completely. "Everything guard except a knight" is not mono-guard. That model accounts for a sizable portion of the army's points and comes from a completely different codex. Nerfing the guard codex because knights are good and have good synergy with guard completely misses where the problem lies.
Vaktathi wrote: Except there are differences in form, function, and capabilities of these units. A Shadowsword is arguably an overpowered unit, and broadly fills the same role of "big shooty thing", but doesn't have access to the stratagems and abilities of a Knight unit.
Likewise, it's a relatively narrow example. Guard have nothing that fill the same broad role as a Smash or Custodes Jetbike captain, where the pairing with Guard make either more powerful than any component force on its own.
Marmatag wrote: Tau has not been finishing ahead of Guard, though? That may change post FAQ. Tau are very solid though, despite the fact that their fanbase is generally just horrible.
And I've seen the data mines, as well as follow BoK. Additionally, I know people going to these tournaments. I've seen the lists both on the table top as well as in text form.
Mono tau has finished ahead of mono guard in lots of major GTs. Guard soup finishes ahead of tau in almost every instance
For the month of September, mono guard did worse against tau/dark eldar/nids/eldar.
Marmatag wrote: Tau has not been finishing ahead of Guard, though? That may change post FAQ. Tau are very solid though, despite the fact that their fanbase is generally just horrible.
And I've seen the data mines, as well as follow BoK. Additionally, I know people going to these tournaments. I've seen the lists both on the table top as well as in text form.
Mono tau has finished ahead of mono guard in lots of major GTs. Guard soup finishes ahead of tau in almost every instance
For the month of September, mono guard did worse against tau/dark eldar/nids/eldar.
This is the kind of post that makes me laugh. There is no report out there that tracks mono Guard. This is made up data. And no one is playing Nids, because you can't beat Knights with Nids.
"Oh this guard player brought 1 assassin in an auxiliary detachment. He isn't mono guard." Guard players are the new Tau players. Jesus.
Marmatag wrote: Tau has not been finishing ahead of Guard, though? That may change post FAQ. Tau are very solid though, despite the fact that their fanbase is generally just horrible.
And I've seen the data mines, as well as follow BoK. Additionally, I know people going to these tournaments. I've seen the lists both on the table top as well as in text form.
Mono tau has finished ahead of mono guard in lots of major GTs. Guard soup finishes ahead of tau in almost every instance
For the month of September, mono guard did worse against tau/dark eldar/nids/eldar.
This is the kind of post that makes me laugh. There is no report out there that tracks mono Guard. This is made up data. And no one is playing Nids, because you can't beat Knights with Nids.
"Oh this guard player brought 1 assassin in an auxiliary detachment. He isn't mono guard." Guard players are the new Tau players. Jesus.
Nah they're the new Eldar players where even some of their worse units function better than the best units of other codices.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nah they're the new Eldar players where even some of their worse units function better than the best units of other codices.
I'd love to hear how chimeras are better than the best units in the Tau/Eldar/Tyranid/ etc codices...
Marmatag wrote: "Oh this guard player brought 1 assassin in an auxiliary detachment. He isn't mono guard." Guard players are the new Tau players. Jesus.
That is an extreme example, but it is still correct. A guard army with one assassin ceases to be mono-guard by definition... unless you are misunderstanding what mono-guard means.
You can make the argument that it is "close enough" to mono-guard not to matter but that definition shouldn't extend to say, a guard army with a knight... because that changes things considerably more than a single assassin.
Marmatag wrote: Tau has not been finishing ahead of Guard, though? That may change post FAQ. Tau are very solid though, despite the fact that their fanbase is generally just horrible.
And I've seen the data mines, as well as follow BoK. Additionally, I know people going to these tournaments. I've seen the lists both on the table top as well as in text form.
Mono tau has finished ahead of mono guard in lots of major GTs. Guard soup finishes ahead of tau in almost every instance
For the month of September, mono guard did worse against tau/dark eldar/nids/eldar.
This is the kind of post that makes me laugh. There is no report out there that tracks mono Guard. This is made up data. And no one is playing Nids, because you can't beat Knights with Nids.
"Oh this guard player brought 1 assassin in an auxiliary detachment. He isn't mono guard." Guard players are the new Tau players. Jesus.
Nah they're the new Eldar players where even some of their worse units function better than the best units of other codices.
*snort* yeah, lemme know how Vanquishers, Armored Sentinels and Chimeras are better than the best units of any other codex.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nah they're the new Eldar players where even some of their worse units function better than the best units of other codices.
I'd love to hear how chimeras are better than the best units in the Tau/Eldar/Tyranid/ etc codices...
Marmatag wrote: "Oh this guard player brought 1 assassin in an auxiliary detachment. He isn't mono guard." Guard players are the new Tau players. Jesus.
That is an extreme example, but it is still correct. A guard army with one assassin ceases to be mono-guard by definition... unless you are misunderstanding what mono-guard means.
You can make the argument that it is "close enough" to mono-guard not to matter but that definition shouldn't extend to say, a guard army with a knight... because that changes things considerably more than a single assassin.
You have your own LOW you shouldn't be allowed knights.
You have enough broken crap in your own codex, stop trying to get knights nerfed into being guard dependent to be playable.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Nah they're the new Eldar players where even some of their worse units function better than the best units of other codices.
I'd love to hear how chimeras are better than the best units in the Tau/Eldar/Tyranid/ etc codices...
Marmatag wrote: "Oh this guard player brought 1 assassin in an auxiliary detachment. He isn't mono guard." Guard players are the new Tau players. Jesus.
That is an extreme example, but it is still correct. A guard army with one assassin ceases to be mono-guard by definition... unless you are misunderstanding what mono-guard means.
You can make the argument that it is "close enough" to mono-guard not to matter but that definition shouldn't extend to say, a guard army with a knight... because that changes things considerably more than a single assassin.
You have your own LOW you shouldn't be allowed knights.
You have enough broken crap in your own codex, stop trying to get knights nerfed into being guard dependent to be playable.
Knights should be nerfed into being dependent on allies. Fighting 4+ knights freaking sucks unless you tool out specifically for it at which point you've effectively conceded your matches against anybody who brought a TAC list or even slightly skewed horde. Screw Knights.
Just to emphasize how freaking stupid Imperial Knights are, ELEVEN of the "OP" Leman Russes (9 regular + 2 tank commanders, or 1762 points worth) with Cadian re-roll 1's and the +1 to hit stratagem will fail to kill a 3++ Knight with average rolls in a single round of shooting.
You have your own LOW you shouldn't be allowed knights.
...lol?
Knights have their own special rules for fielding LoW Detachments. They shouldn't be allowed Guard!
You have enough broken crap in your own codex, stop trying to get knights nerfed into being guard dependent to be playable.
It's funny, we had this exact same situation happening with the Knights+Cult Mechanicus and Skitarii. It ended up with Skitarii getting rolled into Cult stuff and losing their unique rules to instead be frigging Stratagems.
Ice_can wrote: You have enough broken crap in your own codex, stop trying to get knights nerfed into being guard dependent to be playable.
And I would rather mono-guard remain a viable force outside of being CP batteries and meatshields for stronger soup armies. Nerfing the guard codex only hurts mono-guard and does nothing to effect the worst of the soup lists because it misses the reason WHY soup lists take guard detachments.
Is some stuff in the guard codex too good? Absolutely. But the same can be said for the Eldar/DE/Tau/Tyranid codices.
Ice_can wrote: You have enough broken crap in your own codex, stop trying to get knights nerfed into being guard dependent to be playable.
And I would rather mono-guard remain a viable force outside of being CP batteries and meatshields for stronger soup armies. Nerfing the guard codex only hurts mono-guard and does nothing to effect the worst of the soup lists because it misses the reason WHY soup lists take guard detachments.
Is some stuff in the guard codex too good? Absolutely. But the same can be said for the Eldar/DE/Tau/Tyranid codices.
I mean one of the reasons people take guard in soup is because you can put together a hyper-mobile infantry force that punches as hard as a marine for much less points that can be used to push aggressively for mid-field objectives. If you think Guardsmen are being used solely to generate CP then you have a very serious lack of understanding of your own army.
Ice_can wrote: You have enough broken crap in your own codex, stop trying to get knights nerfed into being guard dependent to be playable.
And I would rather mono-guard remain a viable force outside of being CP batteries and meatshields for stronger soup armies. Nerfing the guard codex only hurts mono-guard and does nothing to effect the worst of the soup lists because it misses the reason WHY soup lists take guard detachments.
Is some stuff in the guard codex too good? Absolutely. But the same can be said for the Eldar/DE/Tau/Tyranid codices.
I mean one of the reasons people take guard in soup is because you can put together a hyper-mobile infantry force that punches as hard as a marine for much less points that can be used to push aggressively for mid-field objectives. If you think Guardsmen are being used solely to generate CP then you have a very serious lack of understanding of your own army.
Exactly. For my Deathwatch I basically can't hold home objectives and have no CP. Guard alleviate the issue so that, even though I WANT to run pure Deathwatch, I can at least put a majority of points into them still and have a solid backline. Vostroyan and Cadian work well for what I want to do whereas people like being aggressive with Catachan.
Arachnofiend wrote: I mean one of the reasons people take guard in soup is because you can put together a hyper-mobile infantry force that punches as hard as a marine for much less points that can be used to push aggressively for mid-field objectives. If you think Guardsmen are being used solely to generate CP then you have a very serious lack of understanding of your own army.
They are there to generate CP, serve as cheap screens for more important things, and act as meatshields on backfield objectives... Am I missing anything?
Infantry squads are too cheap per wound, but nobody takes a guard battalion for its killing power. (Maybe catachan battalion, but that requires a larger point investment to work).
Probably suggested ad nauseam but why not give CPs the faction keyword of the detachment that generated them?
Doesn’t punish monoarmies, reduces the ‘easy CP’ generation of tacking on a cheap detachment for ‘soup’ armies without punishing multi-detachment ‘same faction’ armies.
GhostRecon wrote: Probably suggested ad nauseam but why not give CPs the faction keyword of the detachment that generated them?
Doesn’t punish monoarmies, reduces the ‘easy CP’ generation of tacking on a cheap detachment for ‘soup’ armies without punishing multi-detachment ‘same faction’ armies.
Interestingly, that already is a thing with Rogue Trader 'armies' - the Eluterian Starstriders from Kill Team: Rogue Trader.
Vhane's warlord trait gives you a bag of CPs that can only be spent on her own faction's stratagems, all of which namecheck either her faction keyword or named characters from the faction.
GhostRecon wrote: Probably suggested ad nauseam but why not give CPs the faction keyword of the detachment that generated them?
Doesn’t punish monoarmies, reduces the ‘easy CP’ generation of tacking on a cheap detachment for ‘soup’ armies without punishing multi-detachment ‘same faction’ armies.
It's been proposed many times and is one of my favorite possible fixes to this.
GhostRecon wrote: Probably suggested ad nauseam but why not give CPs the faction keyword of the detachment that generated them?
Doesn’t punish monoarmies, reduces the ‘easy CP’ generation of tacking on a cheap detachment for ‘soup’ armies without punishing multi-detachment ‘same faction’ armies.
It is, but enough people kept screaming the "it's tooooooo complicated nonsense", pretending that tracking three different CP pools would be too much for 40K players, who have no issue tracking wounds on three or four different models along with a flurry of mission conditions in tournament games in particular, that it seems it stuck with Robin Cruddace.
IMO it would certainly be more elegant, more in tune with the existing CP regen rules and wouldn't need so many hamfisted exceptions and extra-rulings as the current version.
That said, the current version is better than nothing at all.
GhostRecon wrote: Probably suggested ad nauseam but why not give CPs the faction keyword of the detachment that generated them?
Doesn’t punish monoarmies, reduces the ‘easy CP’ generation of tacking on a cheap detachment for ‘soup’ armies without punishing multi-detachment ‘same faction’ armies.
It's been proposed many times and is one of my favorite possible fixes to this.
But if only "fixs" CP abuse when two or three good different detachments are used. If someone has to use ally, because his army does not work, the limitation to CP, will mean they may just as well not play ally at all, or play the ally without their main army.
Doesn’t punish monoarmies, reduces the ‘easy CP’ generation of tacking on a cheap detachment for ‘soup’ armies without punishing multi-detachment ‘same faction’ armies.
That is not true. If you have an army that is elite and non efficient as far as CP goes, and it is your main army, you were taking the IG dudes to supply it with CP it could not generate on its own. And there is no replacment for that CP generation for those armies. GK for example do not have a cheap battalion or brigade, neither do tney have CP regenaration of their own which seems to be the staple of all good armies, among other things of course.
There's no single silver bullet that's going to fix the issue of soup and CP and make every single codex that's already been written equal in footing.
GK need more than a silver bullet to fix them. They at the very least need heavy point adjustments and at worst an extensive rework.
GhostRecon wrote: Probably suggested ad nauseam but why not give CPs the faction keyword of the detachment that generated them?
Doesn’t punish monoarmies, reduces the ‘easy CP’ generation of tacking on a cheap detachment for ‘soup’ armies without punishing multi-detachment ‘same faction’ armies.
It's been proposed many times and is one of my favorite possible fixes to this.
I think that's probably the best way to go even if it sacrifices Knights in competitive play. Will still see them in matched play games and lower levels, but they'll be pretty weak without at least a dozen CP for turn 1 and 2, which they can't acquire themselves.
GhostRecon wrote: Probably suggested ad nauseam but why not give CPs the faction keyword of the detachment that generated them?
Doesn’t punish monoarmies, reduces the ‘easy CP’ generation of tacking on a cheap detachment for ‘soup’ armies without punishing multi-detachment ‘same faction’ armies.
It's been proposed many times and is one of my favorite possible fixes to this.
I think that's probably the best way to go even if it sacrifices Knights in competitive play. Will still see them in matched play games and lower levels, but they'll be pretty weak without at least a dozen CP for turn 1 and 2, which they can't acquire themselves.
IMO there's no need to "sacrifice" codexes like knights and BA. If after a change like this, these codexes struggle, they can simply have their strategems reduced in cost. If CP was limited per the detachment that generated it you would no longer have to price the strats as if they might benefit from soup. It would actually give GW another good tool for balance that isn't points or stats adjustment.
I love pro monocodex advocates that have 0 problem sacrificing monocodex because they are factions they dont like or dont feel should exist. The hipocrisy.
Galas wrote: I love pro monocodex advocates that have 0 problem sacrificing monocodex because they are factions they dont like or dont feel should exist. The hipocrisy.
90% of these monodex advocates are Guard players that don't want their OP bullcrap to be nerfed and don't really care about anything else.
Galas wrote: I love pro monocodex advocates that have 0 problem sacrificing monocodex because they are factions they dont like or dont feel should exist. The hipocrisy.
I love people who don't read. He's arguing that those books should be tuned if they're struggling afterCP is limited to the Detachment generating it.
The hypocrisy is that the same people who want Guard nerfed because of something they provide don't want an actual nerf to soup. The issue is and will continue to be soup.
Galas wrote: I love pro monocodex advocates that have 0 problem sacrificing monocodex because they are factions they dont like or dont feel should exist. The hipocrisy.
90% of these monodex advocates are Guard players that don't want their OP bullcrap to be nerfed and don't really care about anything else.
Considering soup is the "OP bullcrap" (mono guard isn't running around winning tournaments left and right) and every pro mono build person is advocating for soup being nerfed it's kinda hard to argue that its mono players wanting to protect "OP bullcrap".... If anything advocating for soup being toned down is an advocate for every mono dex in the game that cannot soup receiving a buff (tau, necron, orks, ect). Actually, it's those defending soup that are wanting to protect every top list at NOVA and keep factions like tau, necrons ect from ever being able to consistently reach the top tables
Considering soup is the "OP bullcrap" (mono guard isn't running around winning tournaments left and right) and every pro mono build person is advocating for soup being nerfed it's kinda hard to argue that its mono players wanting to protect "OP bullcrap".... If anything advocating for soup being toned down is an advocate for every mono dex in the game that cannot soup receiving a buff (tau, necron, orks, ect). Actually, it's those defending soup that are wanting to protect every top list at NOVA and keep factions like tau, necrons ect from ever being able to consistently reach the top tables
And of course nerfing the soup while leaving the Guard untouched will let the Guard reign supreme. Soup is not inherently a problem, sure there are couple of specific powerful soup builds, and if those are even 1% more powerful than monobuilds, then that's what is used in tournaments. But please do understand that monoguard is more powerful than any imperial soup build that does not include Guard and many soups which do (I guess Knights + Ad Mech might be able to challenge mono guard, maybe.)
It's like this:
Tier 1: Guard + Knights, BA or Custodes
Tier 2: Monoguard
Tier 3: Guard + some other imperial army
Tier 4: Imperial soup without Guard
Tier 5: Mono non-guard Imperial
You want to nerf 1, 3 and 4; I want to nerf 1,2 and 3. My approach brings the power of these different builds closer together, your approach pushes them further apart, while crowning the monoguard as the top dog.
Considering soup is the "OP bullcrap" (mono guard isn't running around winning tournaments left and right) and every pro mono build person is advocating for soup being nerfed it's kinda hard to argue that its mono players wanting to protect "OP bullcrap".... If anything advocating for soup being toned down is an advocate for every mono dex in the game that cannot soup receiving a buff (tau, necron, orks, ect). Actually, it's those defending soup that are wanting to protect every top list at NOVA and keep factions like tau, necrons ect from ever being able to consistently reach the top tables
And of course nerfing the soup while leaving the Guard untouched will let the Guard reign supreme. Soup is not inherently a problem, sure there are couple of specific powerful soup builds, and if those are even 1% more powerful than monobuilds, then that's what is used in tournaments. But please do understand that monoguard is more powerful than any imperial soup build that does not include Guard and many soups which do (I guess Knights + Ad Mech might be able to challenge mono guard, maybe.)
It's like this:
Tier 1: Guard + Knights, BA or Custodes
Tier 2: Monoguard
Tier 3: Guard + some other imperial army
Tier 4: Imperial soup without Guard
Tier 5: Mono non-guard Imperial
You want to nerf 1, 3 and 4; I want to nerf 1,2 and 3. My approach brings the power of these different builds closer together, your approach pushes them further apart, while crowning the monoguard as the top dog.
1. There is no proof that removing soup will "let guard reign supreme". The fact is we have seen just as many mono g-man, tau, eldar, DE lists gain top spots at tournaments as mono guard. Until you have some sort of evidence to back this claim you shouldn't present it as some sort of obvious knowledge.
2. If guard was found to be broken after a soup fix then nerf guard plain and simple. If there is clear evidence of mono IG being too strong after this fix nobody will complain about a nerf.
You really don't need to be a genius (although naturally I am ) to realise that monoguard is far stronger than majority of soup builds. Do you honestly believe that for exampe Ad Mech + Iron Hands is somehow a powerful build that needs a nerf while a monoguard isn't?
Crimson wrote: You really don't need to be a genius (although naturally I am ) to realise that monoguard is far stronger than majority of soup builds. Do you honestly believe that for exampe Ad Mech + Iron Hands is somehow a powerful build that needs a nerf while a monoguard isn't?
Have you played mono guard against mono admech stygies? One of my brothers plays mono stygies (the -1 hit admech) and let me tell you it is just as hard as every other -hit list i face and currently i have a negative record against it. Personally, I think it would not only be foolish but quite stupid to assume IG would be some unstoppable force considering the prevalence of -1 or -2 hit in the game. Having such an easy and obvious counter across multiple factions will imo keep mono IG from being dominant.
1. There is no proof that removing soup will "let guard reign supreme". The fact is we have seen just as many mono g-man, tau, eldar, DE lists gain top spots at tournaments as mono guard. Until you have some sort of evidence to back this claim you shouldn't present it as some sort of obvious knowledge.
2. If guard was found to be broken after a soup fix then nerf guard plain and simple. If there is clear evidence of mono IG being too strong after this fix nobody will complain about a nerf.
The problem is that no matter what, some people will find some new goalpost to shift it to for Guard to be broken instead of whatever the soup FOTM is.
We saw it at the launch of 8th with the Conscript+Commissar crying. Some people cried that they were too cheap for the board control and Command Points they granted, some people cried that they were "unbreakable" because of Commissars while being too "offensively capable" because of Orders, and some people just plain cried.
Fast forward to now, Conscripts are rarely if ever taken and Commissars are considered a joke unit. People predicted that Conscripts were going to get overnerfed for the soup crowd and rendered unplayable effectively for Guard players as a result and we got the Commissar errata'd to be absolutely awful(even in its now second errata'd state it's just bad for what it is supposed to be) for any metric that isn't someone covering their eyes from spite.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: You really don't need to be a genius (although naturally I am ) to realise that monoguard is far stronger than majority of soup builds. Do you honestly believe that for example Ad Mech + Iron Hands is somehow a powerful build that needs a nerf while a monoguard isn't?
This is a ridiculous comparison and you know it.
Neither one of those is taking the other to specifically generate CPs to power up one specific unit.
Neither one of those is being taken specifically to cover the gaps in the other's roster.
Conscripts+commisars where stupidly op. The fault is on GW, for making them so powerfull and then making them so bad. But most if other nerfs in 8th have been much more sensible. The nerfed units are weaker but not unusable.
This is a ridiculous comparison and you know it.
Neither one of those is taking the other to specifically generate CPs to power up one specific unit.
Neither one of those is being taken specifically to cover the gaps in the other's roster.
So? That's kinda the point. There are crap ton of non-problematic soup builds which yet would be affected by any blanket soup nerfs. I just want fixes to specific issues, instead of blanket solutions which throw innocent parties under the buss. I want better balance between units. You're completely right that commissar nerf was a step too far and there are also many underperforming Guard units. Those are things that needs to be addressed too. It is also not that Guard is alone in having some OP units, OP units in all armies need to be addressed. But I just don't believe the soup is inherently a problem, if there was better balance between units and factions it would not be an issue.
Galas wrote: Conscripts+commisars where stupidly op. The fault is on GW, for making them so powerfull and then making them so bad. But most if other nerfs in 8th have been much more sensible. The nerfed units are weaker but not unusable.
And this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. "Conscripts+Commissars were stupidly OP"--how? What made them such a gangbusters unit?
Conscripts saw a price bump, the addition of a 50:50 split on being able to receive an Order, and a reduction in squad sizes. They didn't get saddled with a reduction in their Armor Saves(something I'd advocated for), an inability to receive Orders(most people weren't even doing anything other than the "act normally after falling back" Order--which is admittedly huge, but still locks you out from other Orders on that unit) and Regimental Traits by giving them Auxilia.
This is a ridiculous comparison and you know it.
Neither one of those is taking the other to specifically generate CPs to power up one specific unit.
Neither one of those is being taken specifically to cover the gaps in the other's roster.
So? That's kinda the point. There are crap ton of non-problematic soup builds which yet would be affected by any blanket soup nerfs. I just want fixes to specific issues, instead of blanket solutions which throw innocent parties under the buss. I want better balance between units. You're completely right that commissar nerf was a step too far and there are also many underperforming Guard units. Those are things that needs to be addressed too. It is also not that Guard is alone in having some OP units, OP units in all armies need to be addressed. But I just don't believe the soup is inherently a problem, if there was better balance between units and factions it would not be an issue.
But therein lies the issue.
You're talking about soup as though it is "not inherently a problem" by using cornercases like your Iron Hands+AdMech example. You've accused myself and others of effectively being delusional and "ignoring the facts".
Fact is that soup is the problem. End of story.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: But good thing is that once the infantry squads get bumped into 5 ppm in the next CA, the conscripts might be worth taking again! (And veterans too!)
Veterans will never be worth taking since they're Elites.
Conscripts were never worth taking to anyone except the soup players or the people who kept trying to theoryhammer Lasguns into the end all, be all weapon.
Galas wrote: I love pro monocodex advocates that have 0 problem sacrificing monocodex because they are factions they dont like or dont feel should exist. The hipocrisy.
I love people who don't read. He's arguing that those books should be tuned if they're struggling afterCP is limited to the Detachment generating it.
The hypocrisy is that the same people who want Guard nerfed because of something they provide don't want an actual nerf to soup. The issue is and will continue to be soup.
It doesn't take a genius to see there's issues with those codices being ran by themselves already. Or are you seriously suggesting we need to "wait and see" if Blood Angels are going to be bad after the Slamguinus and CP hit that just happened in the first place?
Or do we need to "wait and see" if there are issues with Grey Knights? None of that is related to allies. It's all related to internal and external balance. You ignore that of course because it doesn't fit your narrative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: But good thing is that once the infantry squads get bumped into 5 ppm in the next CA, the conscripts might be worth taking again! (And veterans too!)
As long as Vets are in the Elite slot, nobody is going to take them. Moving them to Troops and fixing the ghastly Transport issue solves their problems.
Galas wrote: I love pro monocodex advocates that have 0 problem sacrificing monocodex because they are factions they dont like or dont feel should exist. The hipocrisy.
I love people who don't read. He's arguing that those books should be tuned if they're struggling afterCP is limited to the Detachment generating it.
The hypocrisy is that the same people who want Guard nerfed because of something they provide don't want an actual nerf to soup. The issue is and will continue to be soup.
It doesn't take a genius to see there's issues with those codices being ran by themselves already. Or are you seriously suggesting we need to "wait and see" if Blood Angels are going to be bad after the Slamguinus and CP hit that just happened in the first place?
Or do we need to "wait and see" if there are issues with Grey Knights? None of that is related to allies. It's all related to internal and external balance. You ignore that of course because it doesn't fit your narrative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: But good thing is that once the infantry squads get bumped into 5 ppm in the next CA, the conscripts might be worth taking again! (And veterans too!)
As long as Vets are in the Elite slot, nobody is going to take them. Moving them to Troops and fixing the ghastly Transport issue solves their problems.
Who says you can't address soup AND lower-performing Codecs at the same time?
Limit CP to the generating faction.
Drop the BA Strats back down to the original amounts, and take a look at what's performing badly in them, and bring them up in power/down in points/both.
Take a long, hard look at GK and scrap the whole 'dex, then rewrite it better.
Remove Bobby G so Marines can be balanced properly, or change Bobby G to something that's not so skewy.
Galas wrote: I love pro monocodex advocates that have 0 problem sacrificing monocodex because they are factions they dont like or dont feel should exist. The hipocrisy.
I love people who don't read. He's arguing that those books should be tuned if they're struggling afterCP is limited to the Detachment generating it.
The hypocrisy is that the same people who want Guard nerfed because of something they provide don't want an actual nerf to soup. The issue is and will continue to be soup.
It doesn't take a genius to see there's issues with those codices being ran by themselves already. Or are you seriously suggesting we need to "wait and see" if Blood Angels are going to be bad after the Slamguinus and CP hit that just happened in the first place?
Or do we need to "wait and see" if there are issues with Grey Knights? None of that is related to allies. It's all related to internal and external balance. You ignore that of course because it doesn't fit your narrative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: But good thing is that once the infantry squads get bumped into 5 ppm in the next CA, the conscripts might be worth taking again! (And veterans too!)
As long as Vets are in the Elite slot, nobody is going to take them. Moving them to Troops and fixing the ghastly Transport issue solves their problems.
I think we already know about BA and GK. We are just waiting for something meaningful to happen.
Galas wrote: I love pro monocodex advocates that have 0 problem sacrificing monocodex because they are factions they dont like or dont feel should exist. The hipocrisy.
I love people who don't read. He's arguing that those books should be tuned if they're struggling afterCP is limited to the Detachment generating it.
The hypocrisy is that the same people who want Guard nerfed because of something they provide don't want an actual nerf to soup. The issue is and will continue to be soup.
It doesn't take a genius to see there's issues with those codices being ran by themselves already. Or are you seriously suggesting we need to "wait and see" if Blood Angels are going to be bad after the Slamguinus and CP hit that just happened in the first place?
Not my problem. Slamguinius needed nerfing. End of story.
Or do we need to "wait and see" if there are issues with Grey Knights? None of that is related to allies. It's all related to internal and external balance. You ignore that of course because it doesn't fit your narrative.
I've never once said anything about Grey Knights. I don't know their book well enough to comment, so I don't. If there's problems with Grey Knights then fix the damn book.
Crimson wrote: But good thing is that once the infantry squads get bumped into 5 ppm in the next CA, the conscripts might be worth taking again! (And veterans too!)
As long as Vets are in the Elite slot, nobody is going to take them. Moving them to Troops and fixing the ghastly Transport issue solves their problems.
Moving them to Troops just creates another fun new target unit for the "NERF GUARD!" whiners when it comes to soup.
Veterans are an Infantry Squad that can take 3x Plasma Guns and a Mortar...
You know what? Yeah. Move 'em to Troops. I want to hear the internet after that nonsense starts getting souped in.
You're talking about soup as though it is "not inherently a problem" by using cornercases like your Iron Hands+AdMech example. You've accused myself and others of effectively being delusional and "ignoring the facts".
"Any Imperial soups that do not involve guard and most of them that do" are not corner cases. Corner cases are the handful of the specific overperforming combos that we see in tournaments. So if you stop ignoring the facts I stop accusing you of doing so.
Fact is that soup is the problem. End of story.
Stellar argument mate! Soup is not a problem, end of story!
You're talking about soup as though it is "not inherently a problem" by using cornercases like your Iron Hands+AdMech example. You've accused myself and others of effectively being delusional and "ignoring the facts".
"Any Imperial soups that do not involve guard and most of them that do" are not corner cases. Corner cases are the handful of the specific overperforming combos that we see in tournaments. So if you stop ignoring the facts I stop accusing you of doing so.
Actually yeah, you pulling out the stuff you are is you pulling out the cornercases. We're talking about nerfing Guard based on those "specific overperforming combos"(read: Guard CP battery+BA assault element with cheapest objective holding infantry+a Knight) that become the standard metric for discussion, since mono-Guard players aren't the ones doing that garbage.
But hey. Keep shifting those goalposts!
Fact is that soup is the problem. End of story.
Stellar argument mate! Soup is not a problem, end of story!
Better than most of your contributions to this thread.
"OH LOOK ADMECH AND IRON HANDS AREN'T OP, SOUP ISN'T THE PROBLEM!"
Galas wrote: I love pro monocodex advocates that have 0 problem sacrificing monocodex because they are factions they dont like or dont feel should exist. The hipocrisy.
I love people who don't read. He's arguing that those books should be tuned if they're struggling afterCP is limited to the Detachment generating it.
The hypocrisy is that the same people who want Guard nerfed because of something they provide don't want an actual nerf to soup. The issue is and will continue to be soup.
It doesn't take a genius to see there's issues with those codices being ran by themselves already. Or are you seriously suggesting we need to "wait and see" if Blood Angels are going to be bad after the Slamguinus and CP hit that just happened in the first place?
Or do we need to "wait and see" if there are issues with Grey Knights? None of that is related to allies. It's all related to internal and external balance. You ignore that of course because it doesn't fit your narrative.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: But good thing is that once the infantry squads get bumped into 5 ppm in the next CA, the conscripts might be worth taking again! (And veterans too!)
As long as Vets are in the Elite slot, nobody is going to take them. Moving them to Troops and fixing the ghastly Transport issue solves their problems.
Who says you can't address soup AND lower-performing Codecs at the same time?
Limit CP to the generating faction.
Drop the BA Strats back down to the original amounts, and take a look at what's performing badly in them, and bring them up in power/down in points/both.
Take a long, hard look at GK and scrap the whole 'dex, then rewrite it better.
Remove Bobby G so Marines can be balanced properly, or change Bobby G to something that's not so skewy.
Well according to Kan we can't.
However, there ARE clearly just problem units, so hitting problem units and buffing bad units helps fix the issues with allies. Remember how Eldar could ally with ANYBODY in 7th and they actually didn't need to. It was because of broken aspects of the codex yeah, but the few things they felt like bringing in they actually didn't need to
Galas wrote: I love pro monocodex advocates that have 0 problem sacrificing monocodex because they are factions they dont like or dont feel should exist. The hipocrisy.
I love people who don't read. He's arguing that those books should be tuned if they're struggling afterCP is limited to the Detachment generating it.
The hypocrisy is that the same people who want Guard nerfed because of something they provide don't want an actual nerf to soup. The issue is and will continue to be soup.
It doesn't take a genius to see there's issues with those codices being ran by themselves already. Or are you seriously suggesting we need to "wait and see" if Blood Angels are going to be bad after the Slamguinus and CP hit that just happened in the first place?
Not my problem. Slamguinius needed nerfing. End of story.
Or do we need to "wait and see" if there are issues with Grey Knights? None of that is related to allies. It's all related to internal and external balance. You ignore that of course because it doesn't fit your narrative.
I've never once said anything about Grey Knights. I don't know their book well enough to comment, so I don't. If there's problems with Grey Knights then fix the damn book.
Crimson wrote: But good thing is that once the infantry squads get bumped into 5 ppm in the next CA, the conscripts might be worth taking again! (And veterans too!)
As long as Vets are in the Elite slot, nobody is going to take them. Moving them to Troops and fixing the ghastly Transport issue solves their problems.
Moving them to Troops just creates another fun new target unit for the "NERF GUARD!" whiners when it comes to soup.
Veterans are an Infantry Squad that can take 3x Plasma Guns and a Mortar...
You know what? Yeah. Move 'em to Troops. I want to hear the internet after that nonsense starts getting souped in.
1. So even though Slamguinus took the hit he needed to, is he still going to be allied in? Maybe on occasion, but now he's not broken, so you'll see him just some of the time. Funny how balancing a unit does that, huh?
2. If you aren't already having plans for codices that can't function, who are you to say which units and codices are the problems? Grey Knights are bad and rely on other codices to basically carry them.
So I want your proposed fixes for Codex Grey Knights to go along with your feelings on allies. I'm waiting.
3. As long as they pay the appropriate price for their weapons nobody is going to care. Once again part of their problem is transports being REALLY bad.
You're talking about soup as though it is "not inherently a problem" by using cornercases like your Iron Hands+AdMech example. You've accused myself and others of effectively being delusional and "ignoring the facts".
"Any Imperial soups that do not involve guard and most of them that do" are not corner cases. Corner cases are the handful of the specific overperforming combos that we see in tournaments. So if you stop ignoring the facts I stop accusing you of doing so.
Actually yeah, you pulling out the stuff you are is you pulling out the cornercases. We're talking about nerfing Guard based on those "specific overperforming combos"(read: Guard CP battery+BA assault element with cheapest objective holding infantry+a Knight) that become the standard metric for discussion, since mono-Guard players aren't the ones doing that garbage.
But hey. Keep shifting those goalposts!
Fact is that soup is the problem. End of story.
Stellar argument mate! Soup is not a problem, end of story!
Better than most of your contributions to this thread.
"OH LOOK ADMECH AND IRON HANDS AREN'T OP, SOUP ISN'T THE PROBLEM!"
There are units that need to be hit, end of story. I'm sorry your favorite faction finally does something but they need to be reigned in. You're like Master of Ordnance without the flat admittance that they were happy Guard were broken.
No, according to Kan we should be targeting soup first and then looking at the follow-up results. We shouldn't be nerfing solo books we should be coming up with ways to address soup in a more comprehensive manner.
How many times have I suggested a rule disallowing Guard Warlords in soup? I know you're aware of it, because you argued against it.
However, there ARE clearly just problem units, so hitting problem units and buffing bad units helps fix the issues with allies. Remember how Eldar could ally with ANYBODY in 7th and they actually didn't need to. It was because of broken aspects of the codex yeah, but the few things they felt like bringing in they actually didn't need to
And this is wrong.
There are not "clearly just problem units". There's problem units in the context of soup thanks to this edition.
Remember how Eldar had to ally in Dark Eldar to power up their Wraithknights with Command Points? No? Oh right--it's because different editions are different.
Actually yeah, you pulling out the stuff you are is you pulling out the cornercases. We're talking about nerfing Guard based on those "specific overperforming combos"(read: Guard CP battery+BA assault element with cheapest objective holding infantry+a Knight) that become the standard metric for discussion, since mono-Guard players aren't the ones doing that garbage.
Guard players are not bringing infantry squads and company commanders? That's news to me. At least I am talking about nerfing the specific units in the problem builds; when I'm talking about nerfing guard, I don't mean that sentinels need a point increase. That being said, the biggest issue, the CP regen has been addressed. Some units in the codex need point adjustments, but that is not so urgent. I hope we see some in CA though (including point decreases for underperforming units, of course.)
Better than most of your contributions to this thread.
"OH LOOK ADMECH AND IRON HANDS AREN'T OP, SOUP ISN'T THE PROBLEM!"
Your continued use of kindergarden level argumentation doesn't do you any favours. You know very well that it was just one specific example, especially as I spelled it out for you. Non-problematic soup builds include majority of the soup builds, and I repeat it again and you can pretend not to see it: Any Imperial soups that do not involve guard and most of them that do are not a problem. Only the handful of the specific overperforming combos that we see in tournaments are a problem.
1. So even though Slamguinus took the hit he needed to, is he still going to be allied in? Maybe on occasion, but now he's not broken, so you'll see him just some of the time. Funny how balancing a unit does that, huh?
It's always cute how you assume he was the one being allied in, not the other way around.
2. If you aren't already having plans for codices that can't function, who are you to say which units and codices are the problems? Grey Knights are bad and rely on other codices to basically carry them.
So I want your proposed fixes for Codex Grey Knights to go along with your feelings on allies. I'm waiting.
Buy me a copy of C: Grey Knights and I'll totally give you my proposed fixes and feelings.
3. As long as they pay the appropriate price for their weapons nobody is going to care. Once again part of their problem is transports being REALLY bad.
No, "part of their problem" is they lost all of their other wargear options. Grenadier Vets(4+ saves) were a thing for a reason.
There are units that need to be hit, end of story. I'm sorry your favorite faction finally does something but they need to be reigned in. You're like Master of Ordnance without the flat admittance that they were happy Guard were broken.
The difference being that if I genuinely felt like something were broken, I'd admit it. I don't feel that way. I feel that people like you keep harping upon tournament standings and other garbage while flatout ignoring that SOUP IS THE PROBLEM.
No, according to Kan we should be targeting soup first and then looking at the follow-up results. We shouldn't be nerfing solo books we should be coming up with ways to address soup in a more comprehensive manner.
Kanluwen wrote: Not my problem. Slamguinius needed nerfing. End of story.
So when it is a BA unit in the soup causing a problem it is fine to nerf the unit, but when it is a guard unit the solution needs to be to nerf the soup instead. Good to see your hypocrisy being expressed this plainly and clearly.
Actually yeah, you pulling out the stuff you are is you pulling out the cornercases. We're talking about nerfing Guard based on those "specific overperforming combos"(read: Guard CP battery+BA assault element with cheapest objective holding infantry+a Knight) that become the standard metric for discussion, since mono-Guard players aren't the ones doing that garbage.
Guard players are not bringing infantry squads and company commanders? That's news to me.
Serious question: What the hell else are they supposed to bring? Tank Commanders and Conscripts? Company Commanders and Leman Russes? Tempestor Primes and Veterans?
Do you not understand the mechanics of how Guard works? Is that the problem?
At least I am talking about nerfing the specific units in the problem builds; when I'm talking about nerfing guard, I don't mean that sentinels need a point increase. That being said, the biggest issue, the CP regen has been addressed. Some units in the codex need point adjustments, but that is not so urgent. I hope we see some in CA though (including point decreases for underperforming units, of course.)
Except you're not talking about nerfing those specific units. You're continually focused upon nerfing Infantry Squads for some moronic reason. You're continually focused upon nerfing the Guard element while ignoring that it literally only gets taken to provide a pool of Command Points for the actual heavy lifting.
Better than most of your contributions to this thread.
"OH LOOK ADMECH AND IRON HANDS AREN'T OP, SOUP ISN'T THE PROBLEM!"
Your continued use of kindergarden level argumentation doesn't do you any favours.
"Kindergarten". If you want to play the insult game, I'll play the correcting your grammar game.
You know very well that it was just one specific example, especially as I spelled it out for you. Non-problematic soup builds include majority of the soup builds, and I repeat it again and you can pretend not to see it: Any Imperial soups that do not involve guard and most of them that do are not a problem. Only the handful of the specific overperforming combos that we see in tournaments are a problem.
And yet we see an overrepresentation of those "specific overperforming combos", now don't we?
You can continue to say that "it was just one specific example", but this is not the first time you've attempted this argument.
No, according to Kan we should be targeting soup first and then looking at the follow-up results. We shouldn't be nerfing solo books we should be coming up with ways to address soup in a more comprehensive manner.
Kanluwen wrote: Not my problem. Slamguinius needed nerfing. End of story.
So when it is a BA unit in the soup causing a problem it is fine to nerf the unit, but when it is a guard unit the solution needs to be to nerf the soup instead. Good to see your hypocrisy being expressed this plainly and clearly.
Considering the BA unit is a single character build and not the basic frigging infantry unit of the army?
Yup. You're damn right it's fine to nerf the unit.
The cherrypicking complaint is pretty damn silly when some factions have only a handful units to choose from while others have way over hundred! How is that fair?
So yeah. Guard players are taking Company Commanders and Infantry Squads. Because there's not a whole hell of a lot of options for HQs that actually let the army function as intended(read: Orders) when selecting Infantry Squads.
It's like you constantly ignore the fact that I've made suggestions as to how to dramatically alter the Troop choice without simply hiking up the points.
Let's face a single fact here, people: The Infantry Squad cannot be touched unless it is part of a comprehensive overhaul of the Guard book. It is basically the only functioning <Regiment> infantry(little i) unit in the Guard. Heavy Weapon Squads come close, but Special Weapon Squads? Who takes those? Conscripts? Veterans?
Ratlings, Bullgryns, Scions all function as they should be(and the Bullgryn change was needed IMO) but they are Auxilias not <Regiment>.
Galas wrote: I love pro monocodex advocates that have 0 problem sacrificing monocodex because they are factions they dont like or dont feel should exist. The hipocrisy.
Or it's a recognition that GW's execution was really stupid and these should be handled in other ways. I don't see how that's hypocrisy...in fact, the Guard codex shows exactly how best it should be done with Stormtroopers, a distinct separate faction built into the larger Guard codex that integrates relatively seamlessly without needing to open *EVERYTHING* from all other armies. Things like Knights,Assassins, the Inquisition, etc shouldn't be treated as their own distinct forces, because largely they're not, they should be treated as plug-ins for Imperial armies the way Stormtroopers are for Guard. Same thing with stuff like Harlequins. When the game size is appropriate, some of these factions can be played as their own armies, but at many points levels they just can't be played independently, or lack enough units and capabilities to be played independently at any level.
At a minimum, restricting CP's to the factions that generated them is a no-brainer balance move, and one that makes sense from a background perspective as well. The logistics train and command structure of the Imperial Guard isn't something a Knight Household is going to be able to make direct use of for example.
What the hell else are they supposed to bring? Tank Commanders and Conscripts? Company Commanders and Leman Russes? Tempestor Primes and Veterans?
Sure. If there is multiple options in an army for specific slot, yet only one option is used most of the time then it is a sign that the internal balance is fethed. And it is. And of course this extends to whole Imperium faction, Infantry Squads are not only the flat out best troop option available to Guard, they're the flat out best troop option available to Imperium as a whole. This doesn't mean they need to be nerfed to ground and become unusable, but the balance needs to addressed.
Do you not understand the mechanics of how Guard works? Is that the problem?
I understand just fine. I have a small Guard army. And couple of other armies. So I am pretty well aware of the power discrepancies. For example when you start allying Guard to vanilla marines, from competitive perspective there is really no reason to not just ditch the marines altogether. The reason why I don't do so has everything to do with me wanting to use my painstakingly painted marine models and nothing to do with the performance of the units.
Except you're not talking about nerfing those specific units. You're continually focused upon nerfing Infantry Squads for some moronic reason. You're continually focused upon nerfing the Guard element while ignoring that it literally only gets taken to provide a pool of Command Points for the actual heavy lifting.
The math of why guardsmen are too good to be 4ppm has been presented several times, but as you're immune to both math and reason it is futile to go over it again. And I am not against nerfing other problem units, I'm all for it. And BA captain, Custodes biker captain and Castellan all already got nerfed (though I'm not sure nerfing the fly was a good way to address the issue with flying captains) and I except to see further nerfs in CA; Castellan will probably get a point bump.
"Kindergarten". If you want to play the insult game, I'll play the correcting your grammar game.
Sure. If it makes you happy.
And yet we see an overrepresentation of those "specific overperforming combos", now don't we?
In tournaments, of course. If something offers even a tiny advantage over other options it gets taken. But most people don't play tournament net lists and most ally use is not for such purposes. Thus it would be unwise to issue blanket nerfs that along with those top builds would hurt many completely unproblematic builds.
Considering the BA unit is a single character build and not the basic frigging infantry unit of the army?
Yup. You're damn right it's fine to nerf the unit.
Yet it was the only unit keeping the struggling army afloat. So you're basically for killing BA as even remotely competitively viable army. A bit odd stance if you claim to care about monoarmies...
I mean, I think that it needed a nerf, but so does some of the guard stuff, and underperforming units in both armies need a buff.
Oh and if you want to talk hypocrisy?
So yeah. Guard players are taking Company Commanders and Infantry Squads. Because there's not a whole hell of a lot of options for HQs that actually let the army function as intended(read: Orders) when selecting Infantry Squads.
Guard is one of the armies with most options. Sure, they're not the Space Marines, but they've got more stuff than many other armies. If it feels to you that there is really is no choice as many units are just not worth taking, guess what, it is the crap internal balance. Nerf OP units, buff bad units, and presto: there is more choice as all units are worth using!
The Infantry Squad cannot be touched unless it is part of a comprehensive overhaul of the Guard book. It is basically the only functioning <Regiment> infantry(little i) unit in the Guard. Heavy Weapon Squads come close, but Special Weapon Squads? Who takes those? Conscripts? Veterans?
Then it needs to be done! Yes, nerf the infantry squads, buff those other things! This needs to happen, they all should be usable!
45 points for very little increase in power, as compared to 40 points as they are now.
I'm not opposed to it, but I think people are overfocusing on infantry squads. Even if they just simply go up to 5ppm, I don't think that's going to change anything in the metagame with regards to allies. Most lists will find an easy 30pts to cut.
More fundamentally, Guard just don't fit the structure most other armies do. There was a reason that Guard had Platoons in previous editions, the FoC structure just didn't work well with armies based around *lots* of distinct small cheap units, as opposed to a few large units composed of lots of cheap dudes. We're running into the same issue here, albeit in reverse (in previous editions, it was possible without the platoon structure to just not have enough troops slots, now it's possible to far too easily fill them out when paired with other factions).
What the hell else are they supposed to bring? Tank Commanders and Conscripts? Company Commanders and Leman Russes? Tempestor Primes and Veterans?
Sure. If there is multiple options in an army for specific slot, yet only one option is used most of the time then it is a sign that the internal balance is fethed. And it is. And of course this extends to whole Imperium faction, Infantry Squads are not only the flat out best troop option available to Guard, they're the flat out best troop option available to Imperium as a whole. This doesn't mean they need to be nerfed to ground and become unusable, but the balance needs to addressed.
Do you not understand the mechanics of how Guard works? Is that the problem?
I understand just fine. I have a small Guard army. And couple of other armies. So I am pretty well aware of the power discrepancies. For example when you start allying Guard to vanilla marines, from competitive perspective there is really no reason to not just ditch the marines altogether. The reason why I don't do so has everything to do with me wanting to use my painstakingly painted marine models and nothing to do with the performance of the units.
I don't think you actually do understand.
You keep talking about "power discrepancies" and other nonsense. You LITERALLY CANNOT USE CERTAIN THINGS TOGETHER.
If I take Scions, I cannot issue them Orders unless I take a Tempestor Prime. If I take Scions, they cannot get their Regimental bonus if there is anything(including Auxilia!) without the Tempestus keywords.
If I take a Tank Commander? He cannot issue Orders to Infantry.
If I take a Company Commander? Cannot issue Orders to tanks.
Veterans as the core of the army via a Vanguard Detachment? No Objective Secured!
Oh and if you want to talk hypocrisy?
So yeah. Guard players are taking Company Commanders and Infantry Squads. Because there's not a whole hell of a lot of options for HQs that actually let the army function as intended(read: Orders) when selecting Infantry Squads.
Guard is one of the armies with most options. Sure, they're not the Space Marines, but they've got more stuff than many other armies. If it feels to you that there is really is no choice as many units are just not worth taking, guess what, it is the crap internal balance. Nerf OP units, buff bad units, and presto: there is more choice as all units are worth using!
It feels to me "that there is really no choice" because the army functions in a specific manner.
I can't take Tank Commanders with Infantry alone and expect to have a functioning army. Tank Commanders don't give out an aura, they issue Tank Orders. I can't take Company Commanders with Tanks alone and expect to have a functioning army. I can't expect to take a Tempestor Prime and have a functioning army. I can't expect to take Veterans and have Objective Secured.
It's like you constantly ignore the fact that I've made suggestions as to how to dramatically alter the Troop choice without simply hiking up the points.
Let's face a single fact here, people:
The Infantry Squad cannot be touched unless it is part of a comprehensive overhaul of the Guard book. It is basically the only functioning <Regiment> infantry(little i) unit in the Guard. Heavy Weapon Squads come close, but Special Weapon Squads? Who takes those? Conscripts? Veterans?
Ratlings, Bullgryns, Scions all function as they should be(and the Bullgryn change was needed IMO) but they are Auxilias not <Regiment>.
That would've been the same argument that Space Wolves players would've used to argue their Grey Hunters shouldn't be touched: what about the rest of the codex, or the other troop choice Blood Claws?
The fact of the matter is that Conscripts HAD to be hit. Now, is the new 4 points too much? Absolutely, but literally nobody has denied that. Then we already know Vets need a fix and we have ways to do it. Until then, it's already proven that Infantry at 4 points outperform several troop choices and they need to be tuned down. I'm not gonna want to nerf them so hard to make them 5 points (which is why I always propose a flat 45 for the squad, and then the vox you may or may not buy makes it a cool 50), but there ARE adjustments that need to be made.
You keep talking about "power discrepancies" and other nonsense. You LITERALLY CANNOT USE CERTAIN THINGS TOGETHER.
You literally can use all those thing you mention together.
If I take Scions, I cannot issue them Orders unless I take a Tempestor Prime. If I take Scions, they cannot get their Regimental bonus if there is anything(including Auxilia!) without the Tempestus keywords.
So. Put them in separate detachment.
If I take a Tank Commander? He cannot issue Orders to Infantry.
So take tanks with them.
If I take a Company Commander? Cannot issue Orders to tanks.
So take infantry with them. IG stuff is so cheap you can put all these things in one army easily. Also, all of these issues are exactly the sort of problems any soup army faces.
Veterans as the core of the army via a Vanguard Detachment? No Objective Secured!
It's like you constantly ignore the fact that I've made suggestions as to how to dramatically alter the Troop choice without simply hiking up the points.
Let's face a single fact here, people: The Infantry Squad cannot be touched unless it is part of a comprehensive overhaul of the Guard book. It is basically the only functioning <Regiment> infantry(little i) unit in the Guard. Heavy Weapon Squads come close, but Special Weapon Squads? Who takes those? Conscripts? Veterans?
Ratlings, Bullgryns, Scions all function as they should be(and the Bullgryn change was needed IMO) but they are Auxilias not <Regiment>.
That would've been the same argument that Space Wolves players would've used to argue their Grey Hunters shouldn't be touched: what about the rest of the codex, or the other troop choice Blood Claws?
Except again, thanks to the way the codex is designed Guard literally cannot rely on a core mechanic of the army that people like yourself love to harp on as being so much better than Auras when taking anything other than Infantry Squads.
Conscripts are 50:50 on receiving Orders and Scions require a Tempestor Prime. HWS and SWS require an Officer to be within Orders range since they can't take voxes. Auxilia units can't take Orders, barring the Scions and their Tempestor Primes.
The fact of the matter is that Conscripts HAD to be hit. Now, is the new 4 points too much? Absolutely, but literally nobody has denied that.
Sure, nobody has denied it--but they also don't acknowledge that Conscripts had to be hit not solely because of their presence in Guard armies but in soup lists.
Then we already know Vets need a fix and we have ways to do it. Until then, it's already proven that Infantry at 4 points outperform several troop choices and they need to be tuned down. I'm not gonna want to nerf them so hard to make them 5 points (which is why I always propose a flat 45 for the squad, and then the vox you may or may not buy makes it a cool 50), but there ARE adjustments that need to be made.
Like I said, no matter how much you play around with points there will always be some reason to nerf them from people.
Guard, as a codex, needs to be rewritten from the ground up. There's a lot of mechanical issues that need to be addressed before I will remotely say that "I'm okay with raising Guard to 5pts". I'm hoping that the Voidsmen and some of the rules in Kill Team are a testbed for this.
You literally can use all those thing you mention together. So. Put them in separate detachment. So take tanks with them. So take infantry with them. IG stuff is so cheap you can put all these things in one army easily. Also, all of these issues are exactly the sort of problems any soup army faces. So? Neither do elites of other armies.
And this tells me everything I need to know.
YOU argued that Company Commanders and Infantry Squads are being overrepresented because they're OP. I tried to address your argument in a way that assumed you didn't know that mechanically they're the only way for the units to function.
Now I know that you're just more interested in arguing and either don't know or don't actually care that the mechanics of the army don't allow for these things to function in the way the army is supposed to function, thanks to the way Orders are setup.
It's like you constantly ignore the fact that I've made suggestions as to how to dramatically alter the Troop choice without simply hiking up the points.
Let's face a single fact here, people:
The Infantry Squad cannot be touched unless it is part of a comprehensive overhaul of the Guard book. It is basically the only functioning <Regiment> infantry(little i) unit in the Guard. Heavy Weapon Squads come close, but Special Weapon Squads? Who takes those? Conscripts? Veterans?
Ratlings, Bullgryns, Scions all function as they should be(and the Bullgryn change was needed IMO) but they are Auxilias not <Regiment>.
That would've been the same argument that Space Wolves players would've used to argue their Grey Hunters shouldn't be touched: what about the rest of the codex, or the other troop choice Blood Claws?
Except again, thanks to the way the codex is designed Guard literally cannot rely on a core mechanic of the army that people like yourself love to harp on as being so much better than Auras.
Conscripts are 50:50 on receiving Orders and Scions require a Tempestor Prime. HWS and SWS require an Officer to be within Orders range since they can't take voxes.
Auxilia units can't take Orders, barring the Scions and their Tempestor Primes.
The fact of the matter is that Conscripts HAD to be hit. Now, is the new 4 points too much? Absolutely, but literally nobody has denied that.
Sure, nobody has denied it--but they also don't acknowledge that Conscripts had to be hit not because of their presence in Guard armies but in soup lists.
Then we already know Vets need a fix and we have ways to do it. Until then, it's already proven that Infantry at 4 points outperform several troop choices and they need to be tuned down. I'm not gonna want to nerf them so hard to make them 5 points (which is why I always propose a flat 45 for the squad, and then the vox you may or may not buy makes it a cool 50), but there ARE adjustments that need to be made.
Like I said, no matter how much you play around with points there will always be some reason to nerf them from people.
Guard, as a codex, needs to be rewritten from the ground up. There's a lot of mechanical issues that need to be addressed before I will remotely say that "I'm okay with raising Guard to 5pts". I'm hoping that the Voidsmen and some of the rules in Kill Team are a testbed for this.
First of all, Conscripts HAD to be hit because 40 dudes with a save that doesn't just get ignored that don't run away is broken whether it's with allies or not. You can't deny that.
Secondly, if you wanted Scions pure of course you need their own officer to make them take orders. That's why they ended up with their own codex in 6th. Whether or not it was actually necessary is of course up for discussion.
Thirdly, as far as I'm aware you couldn't use Commanders to give tanks Orders anyway.
Fourthly, we already know which units are underperforming and I'm sure we have good ideas to fix them. I made my proposal for Vets already, for example (though how to fine tune the Chimera will require arguing). However, that doesn't mean other things don't need to be brought down. Roboute going up in cost was absolutely necessary even though the rest of the codex sucks, right? You agreed Slamguinus needed to be hit, yes? Why is it all the sudden YOUR unit is to be exempt?
First of all, Conscripts HAD to be hit because 40 dudes with a save that doesn't just get ignored that don't run away is broken whether it's with allies or not. You can't deny that.
It's a 5+ save. I'd like to point out I've said they should go to a 6+ multiple times. I'd also like to point out that I argued for Commissars' abilities to potentially 'miscast' on the Conscripts and have the Conscripts shoot back at them--but leaving it to work 'as intended' for Infantry/Veteran Squads. I've also argued for them to be reclassified as Auxilia--meaning no Regimental Traits or ability to receive Orders.
It's also worth mentioning that it wasn't "40 dudes with a save". It was commonly 50, because that was the unit cap. It was reduced to 30 models tops, starting at 20, when the Codex came out.
Secondly, if you wanted Scions pure of course you need their own officer to make them take orders. That's why they ended up with their own codex in 6th. Whether or not it was actually necessary is of course up for discussion.
Not true. Scions could take Orders from Regimental Officers in the previous book. There was nothing preventing a Regimental Officer from issuing an Order to Scion Squads, but the Tempestor Prime only was available in the Tempestus Platoons for the 'standard' Guard book while the Tempestus book had them set up only in squads for whatever reason(you'd think the Platoon would have been there instead).
So for them to both receive Orders and get their Regimental Trait, they have to be a 'pure' Tempestus Detachment. You cannot even take any Auxilia units for their Regimental Trait to function; meaning that the Tempestus Start Collecting is technically illegal.
Thirdly, as far as I'm aware you couldn't use Commanders to give tanks Orders anyway.
Right...but quite a few auras get granted to tanks. Since you lot looooooooove to equate auras to Orders, there's a big issue there.
Fourthly, we already know which units are underperforming and I'm sure we have good ideas to fix them. I made my proposal for Vets already, for example (though how to fine tune the Chimera will require arguing). However, that doesn't mean other things don't need to be brought down. Roboute going up in cost was absolutely necessary even though the rest of the codex sucks, right? You agreed Slamguinus needed to be hit, yes? Why is it all the sudden YOUR unit is to be exempt?
Because, again, the whole book needs to be redone and soup needs to be addressed before I think we'll really get a Guard book that people like Crimson aren't going to whine about.
And "finetuning the Chimera" to make it something interesting isn't really too hard. -Mobile Command Center rule is readded. -A rule granting an additional shot to the weapon(ala a Fireblade) of an infantry based unit is added to the Chimera. Points are adjusted accordingly.
Since only Regimental units can take advantage of Chimeras, it makes for an interesting way to open up some new options and makes even Veterans potentially feasible.
I've gone over my ideas for Infantry Squads quite frequently at this point. I've gone over my ideas for Heavy Weapons Squads, Special Weapon Squads, etc.
But it always comes down to this: The other side keeps moving the damned goalposts. Anything I suggest that they think is going to make Guard better, they whine that it's a buff when the book needs to be nerfed. They refuse to understand that I'm not advocating for buffs with no shifts--I'm arguing for a whole fricking rework of the Guard as a faction. I think Skitarii need the same damn thing to happen to them as well.
It's a 5+ save. I'd like to point out I've said they should go to a 6+ multiple times.
That cannot happen for WYSIWYG reasons, unless other non-scion guard infantry goes to 6+ too, they use same models.
Not true. Scions could take Orders from Regimental Officers in the previous book. There was nothing preventing a Regimental Officer from issuing an Order to Scion Squads, but the Tempestor Prime only was available in the Tempestus Platoons for the 'standard' Guard book while the Tempestus book had them set up only in squads for whatever reason(you'd think the Platoon would have been there instead).
Them not being able to be ordered by normal officers goes with usual (and good) 8E logic. In preivious editions most buffs could affect pretty much any unit, in 8E they're way more restricted. An Imperial Fist Captain's aura does not affect Ultramarines either. It's the same thing.
But it always comes down to this:
The other side keeps moving the damned goalposts. Anything I suggest that they think is going to make Guard better, they whine that it's a buff when the book needs to be nerfed. They refuse to understand that I'm not advocating for buffs with no shifts--I'm arguing for a whole fricking rework of the Guard as a faction. I think Skitarii need the same damn thing to happen to them as well.
No, you just refuse to accept any nerfs. It is one of the strongest factions in the game, nerfs are needed, but I have always consistently said that they should be accompanied by buffs to underperforming units. Your ideas for 'nerfs' are usually bad and do not address actual issues.
It's a 5+ save. I'd like to point out I've said they should go to a 6+ multiple times.
That cannot happen for WYSIWYG reasons, unless other non-scion guard infantry goes to 6+ too, they use same models.
Not true. Scions could take Orders from Regimental Officers in the previous book. There was nothing preventing a Regimental Officer from issuing an Order to Scion Squads, but the Tempestor Prime only was available in the Tempestus Platoons for the 'standard' Guard book while the Tempestus book had them set up only in squads for whatever reason(you'd think the Platoon would have been there instead).
Them not being able to be ordered by normal officers goes with usual (and good) 8E logic. In preivious editions most buffs could affect pretty much any unit, in 8E they're way more restricted. An Imperial Fist Captain's aura does not affect Ultramarines either. It's the same thing.
But it always comes down to this:
The other side keeps moving the damned goalposts. Anything I suggest that they think is going to make Guard better, they whine that it's a buff when the book needs to be nerfed. They refuse to understand that I'm not advocating for buffs with no shifts--I'm arguing for a whole fricking rework of the Guard as a faction. I think Skitarii need the same damn thing to happen to them as well.
No, you just refuse to accept any nerfs. It is one of the strongest factions in the game, nerfs are needed, but I have always consistently said that they should be accompanied by buffs to underperforming units. Your ideas for 'nerfs' are usually bad and do not address actual issues.
Yes, how dare they recommend that Conscripts go to a 6+ save and Auxilia, meaning they're less durable, can never take orders, and don't even get regimental tactics! That's clearly just a ploy to make them OP!
I'm pretty sure the point is that regardless of whether or not it's a good idea from a gameplay perspective Conscripts are modeled with carapace armor so it's important that they have the same save as everything else modeled with carapace armor. Same reason GW wouldn't come out with a gun that looks exactly like a heavy bolter but is S8 AP-3 for some reason.
Arachnofiend wrote: I'm pretty sure the point is that regardless of whether or not it's a good idea from a gameplay perspective Conscripts are modeled with carapace armor so it's important that they have the same save as everything else modeled with carapace armor. Same reason GW wouldn't come out with a gun that looks exactly like a heavy bolter but is S8 AP-3 for some reason.
Conscripts don't have a kit. They never have had a kit. It's literally just been "Use the standard Guard Infantry Squad, don't build a Sergeant, don't build a Vox-Caster, don't add a Flamer or Grenade Launcher but do paint the helmet with a white stripe".
They have, since their inception, been less than the standard Infantry Squad when it comes to BS. How are you lot not getting confused by that but you somehow think them having two different armor saves will be causing mass hysteria?
I should also add that I've advocated that the current Cadian kit needs to be refreshed and part of that could be with a way to visually distinguish the standard Infantry Squads and Veteran Squads from Conscripts. I've also argued specifically the point that you're using here but with the caveat of giving Conscripts Autoguns to make a "visually distinctive" unit...since nobody really takes Veteran Squads with Autoguns.
It's a 5+ save. I'd like to point out I've said they should go to a 6+ multiple times.
That cannot happen for WYSIWYG reasons, unless other non-scion guard infantry goes to 6+ too, they use same models.
So Conscripts, Infantry Squads, Special Weapon Squads, and Heavy Weapon Squads should go to BS3+? I mean, they use the same basic look for all of those as Veterans do.
Not true. Scions could take Orders from Regimental Officers in the previous book. There was nothing preventing a Regimental Officer from issuing an Order to Scion Squads, but the Tempestor Prime only was available in the Tempestus Platoons for the 'standard' Guard book while the Tempestus book had them set up only in squads for whatever reason(you'd think the Platoon would have been there instead).
Them not being able to be ordered by normal officers goes with usual (and good) 8E logic. In preivious editions most buffs could affect pretty much any unit, in 8E they're way more restricted. An Imperial Fist Captain's aura does not affect Ultramarines either. It's the same thing.
No actually it isn't. There isn't really a "same thing" since Ultramarines are not specifically granted the ability to join an Imperial Fist Detachment and let the Imperial Fists retain their traits.
But it always comes down to this: The other side keeps moving the damned goalposts. Anything I suggest that they think is going to make Guard better, they whine that it's a buff when the book needs to be nerfed. They refuse to understand that I'm not advocating for buffs with no shifts--I'm arguing for a whole fricking rework of the Guard as a faction. I think Skitarii need the same damn thing to happen to them as well.
No, you just refuse to accept any nerfs. It is one of the strongest factions in the game, nerfs are needed, but I have always consistently said that they should be accompanied by buffs to underperforming units. Your ideas for 'nerfs' are usually bad and do not address actual issues.
And you don't seem to understand that the "underperforming units" aren't going to magically be making things okay.
You lack a mechanical understanding of the army and your arguments are fallacious at best, propped up by a refusal to admit that the core issue is not the Guard Infantry Squad but rather the issue is soup.
So Conscripts, Infantry Squads, Special Weapon Squads, and Heavy Weapon Squads should go to BS3+? I mean, they use the same basic look for all of those as Veterans do.
No, because unlike armour, ballistic skill is not a piece of equipment, and thus is not represented on the model.
No actually it isn't. There isn't really a "same thing" since Ultramarines are not specifically granted the ability to join an Imperial Fist Detachment and let the Imperial Fists retain their traits.
Right. But that is just one part of guard favouritism. If it worked like with other armies putting Scions in a detachment with other regiment would make both lose their traits.
And you don't seem to understand that the "underperforming units" aren't going to magically be making things okay.
Of course not. Considering that currently the situation for the guard is way above okay, to make it just okay will take some nerfs. But buffing underperforming units will improve the internal balance and thus make army construction more interesting.
You lack a mechanical understanding of the army and your arguments are fallacious at best, propped up by a refusal to admit that the core issue is not the Guard Infantry Squad but rather the issue is soup.
I really don't think accusing others of what you're doing is a good tactic. You're so insanely defensive and biased that you're completely unable to see the big picture.
So Conscripts, Infantry Squads, Special Weapon Squads, and Heavy Weapon Squads should go to BS3+? I mean, they use the same basic look for all of those as Veterans do.
No, because unlike armour, ballistic skill is not a piece of equipment, and thus is not represented on the model.
And yet the introduction of Conscripts with Whiteshields specifically called out you painting the helmets white so that you could easily distinguish which units had what ballistic skill. Same thing goes for the helmets and the like on Marines.
No actually it isn't. There isn't really a "same thing" since Ultramarines are not specifically granted the ability to join an Imperial Fist Detachment and let the Imperial Fists retain their traits.
Right. But that is just one part of guard favouritism. If it worked like with other armies putting Scions in a detachment with other regiment would make both lose their traits.
So Kroot should make Tau lose their traits? Skitarii should make Cult lose their traits?
That's a hot take from you...
And you don't seem to understand that the "underperforming units" aren't going to magically be making things okay.
Of course not. Considering that currently the situation for the guard is way above okay, to make it just okay will take some nerfs. But buffing underperforming units will improve the internal balance and thus make army construction more interesting.
...and this is where we come to. You trying to justify your nonsense again with "army construction". You did it in the other thread with regards to the rambling about a Black Templars+Sisters "crusade" force and you've done it here with the AdMech+Iron Hands.
You lack a mechanical understanding of the army and your arguments are fallacious at best, propped up by a refusal to admit that the core issue is not the Guard Infantry Squad but rather the issue is soup.
I really don't think accusing others of what you're doing is a good tactic. You're so insanely defensive and biased that you're completely unable to see the big picture.
I understand how my army works. I've explained it to you and Slayer at this point. The fact that you seemingly cannot understand why your solution of "NERF THE INFANTRY SQUAD!" is so armybreakingly ridiculous without a full blown revamp of the Guard book justifies me putting you on ignore. Toodles!
Arachnofiend wrote: I'm pretty sure the point is that regardless of whether or not it's a good idea from a gameplay perspective Conscripts are modeled with carapace armor so it's important that they have the same save as everything else modeled with carapace armor. Same reason GW wouldn't come out with a gun that looks exactly like a heavy bolter but is S8 AP-3 for some reason.
Don't see why the model would matter much as just like IRL i can buy bulletproof vests that look identical but provide different levels of protection. One of my older vests actually had removable plates so you can adjust what type of round you are looking to stop. All they would need is something along the lines of
"while it might appear that conscripts have access to the same gear as a regular guardsman they are commonly handed out lighter weight riot vests and helmets. While this gear offers little protection on the battlefield the Imperium has noticed an increase in moral when soldiers have it. Keep in mind that this gear is usually identified by a stripe on the helmet. Make sure to separate the gear appropriately as you wouldn't want to waste actual war gear on a conscript"
So Conscripts, Infantry Squads, Special Weapon Squads, and Heavy Weapon Squads should go to BS3+? I mean, they use the same basic look for all of those as Veterans do.
No, because unlike armour, ballistic skill is not a piece of equipment, and thus is not represented on the model.
Id just like to point out that military gear often looks identical to civilian gear other than serial numbers and performs completely different. For instance on a gun you can have everything from different materials that make certain pieces all the way to different modes of fire/ being able to chamber different rounds all out of a platform that looks identical.
And yet the introduction of Conscripts with Whiteshields specifically called out you painting the helmets white so that you could easily distinguish which units had what ballistic skill. Same thing goes for the helmets and the like on Marines.
What is this I don't even... Unit marking have really nothing to do with this.
So Kroot should make Tau lose their traits? Skitarii should make Cult lose their traits?
No. Skitarii operates under Ad Mech command and Kroot operate under Tau command. Scions do not operate under Catachan command, they're a separate regiment with their own command structure just like the Tallarn or Mordians.
...and this is where we come to. You trying to justify your nonsense again with "army construction". You did it in the other thread with regards to the rambling about a Black Templars+Sisters "crusade" force and you've done it here with the AdMech+Iron Hands.
Because it is relevant. Do you understand that it is crap design that there are a bunch of units that are not worth using? You should be able to play an Imperial Guard army containing sentinels and veterans, you should be able to play Sister and Black Templar crusade. The key to all this is balance between units. It is not good for the game if some units are way better than others. Soup is not the problem, but soup accentuates the problem with badly balanced units, as you can draw undercosted units from many sources.
I understand how my army works. I've explained it to you and Slayer at this point. The fact that you seemingly cannot understand why your solution of "NERF THE INFANTRY SQUAD!" is so armybreakingly ridiculous without a full blown revamp of the Guard book justifies me putting you on ignore. Toodles!
You don't understand how the game works. The infantry squad is the best troop unit in the guard codex and the best troop unit in the Imperium faction. This is plain to see to everyone who is not completely wrapped in their own biased narrative. But indeed, please do put me on ignore, there indeed is not much point in continuing. I have not encountered such dogmatic refusal to understand and complete denial of facts since debating creationists.
Don't see why the model would matter much as just like IRL i can buy bulletproof vests that look identical but provide different levels of protection. One of my older vests actually had removable plates so you can adjust what type of round you are looking to stop. All they would need is something along the lines of
"while it might appear that conscripts have access to the same gear as a regular guardsman they are commonly handed out lighter weight riot vests and helmets. While this gear offers little protection on the battlefield the Imperium has noticed an increase in moral when soldiers have it. Keep in mind that this gear is usually identified by a stripe on the helmet. Make sure to separate the gear appropriately as you wouldn't want to waste actual war gear on a conscript"
It's just not how GW operates, it is not a realistic suggestion if there is no separate conscript kit.
And yet the introduction of Conscripts with Whiteshields specifically called out you painting the helmets white so that you could easily distinguish which units had what ballistic skill. Same thing goes for the helmets and the like on Marines.
What is this I don't even... Unit marking have really nothing to do with this.
So Kroot should make Tau lose their traits? Skitarii should make Cult lose their traits?
No. Skitarii operates under Ad Mech command and Kroot operate under Tau command. Scions do not operate under Catachan command, they're a separate regiment with their own command structure just like the Tallarn or Mordians.
...and this is where we come to. You trying to justify your nonsense again with "army construction". You did it in the other thread with regards to the rambling about a Black Templars+Sisters "crusade" force and you've done it here with the AdMech+Iron Hands.
Because it is relevant. Do you understand that it is crap design that there are a bunch of units that are not worth using? You should be able to play an Imperial Guard army containing sentinels and veterans, you should be able to play Sister and Black Templar crusade. The key to all this is balance between units. It is not good for the game if some units are way better than others. Soup is not the problem, but soup accentuates the problem with badly balanced units, as you can draw undercosted units from many sources.
I understand how my army works. I've explained it to you and Slayer at this point. The fact that you seemingly cannot understand why your solution of "NERF THE INFANTRY SQUAD!" is so armybreakingly ridiculous without a full blown revamp of the Guard book justifies me putting you on ignore. Toodles!
You don't understand how the game works. The infantry squad is the best troop unit in the guard codex and the best troop unit in the Imperium faction. This is plain to see to everyone who is not completely wrapped in their own biased narrative. But indeed, please do put me on ignore, there indeed is not much point in continuing. I have not encountered such dogmatic refusal to understand and complete denial of facts since debating creationists.
Don't see why the model would matter much as just like IRL i can buy bulletproof vests that look identical but provide different levels of protection. One of my older vests actually had removable plates so you can adjust what type of round you are looking to stop. All they would need is something along the lines of
"while it might appear that conscripts have access to the same gear as a regular guardsman they are commonly handed out lighter weight riot vests and helmets. While this gear offers little protection on the battlefield the Imperium has noticed an increase in moral when soldiers have it. Keep in mind that this gear is usually identified by a stripe on the helmet. Make sure to separate the gear appropriately as you wouldn't want to waste actual war gear on a conscript"
It's just not how GW operates, it is not a realistic suggestion if there is no separate conscript kit.
Don't see why not. Just like different chapters/regiments/septs get different range on their guns despite the model being identical. I mean we have chapters of space marines that fundamentally change all types of stats based on armor color but we can't change an armor save with a stripe on a helmet?
Don't see why not. Just like different chapters/regiments/septs get different range on their guns despite the model being identical. I mean we have chapters of space marines that fundamentally change all types of stats based on armor color but we can't change an armor save with a stripe on a helmet?
I just don't think GW approaches these things that way. They think models first. Vostroyans specifically have longer ranged lasguns because their models actually have different looking, longer lasguns.
Don't see why not. Just like different chapters/regiments/septs get different range on their guns despite the model being identical. I mean we have chapters of space marines that fundamentally change all types of stats based on armor color but we can't change an armor save with a stripe on a helmet?
I just don't think GW approaches these things that way. They think models first. Vostroyans specifically have longer ranged lasguns because their models actually have different looking, longer lasguns.
Don't see why not. Just like different chapters/regiments/septs get different range on their guns despite the model being identical. I mean we have chapters of space marines that fundamentally change all types of stats based on armor color but we can't change an armor save with a stripe on a helmet?
I just don't think GW approaches these things that way. They think models first. Vostroyans specifically have longer ranged lasguns because their models actually have different looking, longer lasguns.
Don't see why not. Just like different chapters/regiments/septs get different range on their guns despite the model being identical. I mean we have chapters of space marines that fundamentally change all types of stats based on armor color but we can't change an armor save with a stripe on a helmet?
I just don't think GW approaches these things that way. They think models first. Vostroyans specifically have longer ranged lasguns because their models actually have different looking, longer lasguns.
What models? There's no official Vostroyan model.
Erm...
Converted. Awesome conversions, but not a model GW sells.
Go on, check the site for Vostroyan Firstborn. You won't find them.
Edit: Not to mention, are there Bork'An Sept models? They also get a range boost.
I really wish people would stop comparing IG to marines and trying to use that as proof that IG is overpowered. Marines are hot garbage and need buffs across the board... IG don't need to be nerfed down to marine levels.
We should really be comparing IG to other upper tier codices like DE/Eldar/Tau/Tyranids.
IG do need nerfs in a few areas (such as infantry squads going to 5 points) but they also need buffs to certain units (chimeras, LR:vanquishers, sentinels), but EVERY codex needs nerfs and buffs to certain units.
If you compare IG to SM or GK, yea IG is going to gak all over them, but it's because SM and GK are BAD, not because IG is too good. If you compare IG to the other upper tier codices the power gap is much more narrow and arguable.
Crimson wrote: I'm not that familiar with the Tau. I don't recall such models.
There you go. 6" of range on their guns extra, and no different models.
It seems reaching to use a Sub-Faction rule here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
w1zard wrote: I really wish people would stop comparing IG to marines and trying to use that as proof that IG is overpowered. Marines are hot garbage and need buffs across the board... IG don't need to be nerfed down to marine levels.
We should really be comparing IG to other upper tier codices like DE/Eldar/Tau/Tyranids.
IG do need nerfs in a few areas (such as infantry squads going to 5 points) but they also need buffs to certain units (chimeras, LR:vanquishers, sentinels), but EVERY codex needs nerfs and buffs to certain units.
If you compare IG to SM or GK, yea IG is going to gak all over them, but it's because SM and GK are BAD, not because IG is too good. If you compare IG to the other upper tier codices the power gap is much more narrow and arguable.
Which is why I'm not for totally killing off Infantry and even suggested a modest .5 point increase. However, people keep blaming the Allies boogeyman and they really shouldn't.
w1zard wrote: I really wish people would stop comparing IG to marines and trying to use that as proof that IG is overpowered. Marines are hot garbage and need buffs across the board... IG don't need to be nerfed down to marine levels.
We should really be comparing IG to other upper tier codices like DE/Eldar/Tau/Tyranids.
IG do need nerfs in a few areas (such as infantry squads going to 5 points) but they also need buffs to certain units (chimeras, LR:vanquishers, sentinels), but EVERY codex needs nerfs and buffs to certain units.
If you compare IG to SM or GK, yea IG is going to gak all over them, but it's because SM and GK are BAD, not because IG is too good. If you compare IG to the other upper tier codices the power gap is much more narrow and arguable.
IG are being compared to other Imperium armies because those are the armies they are competing with for cheap Battalions for CP.
No other Imperium army can compete with Guard for infantry. Skitarii comes closest and they still lose out massively by having double the cost per model, no synergy with their cheap HQ's and nothing in the world that can compare to Mortars.
The problem with only comparing IG to other top codexes from different factions and concluding that they are fine means that every Imperium army until 9th edition will be Guard + whatever else is currently strongest.
I seriously can't believe people still bitch about mortars. A full three HS slots full of them get an average of 31.5 Str 4 shots that kill an average of 2.6 marines or 6.8 GEQ per turn. Rule of Three stopped the craziness with bringing 15+ of them to really leverage their cheap cost and on top of that, in ITC they're a huge vulnerability in that they're easy kills for the primary objectives and DBTC (now Butcher's Bill which is even easier to get against these since you only need to kill two units/turn).
Ordana wrote: IG are being compared to other Imperium armies because those are the armies they are competing with for cheap Battalions for CP.
No other Imperium army can compete with Guard for infantry. Skitarii comes closest and they still lose out massively by having double the cost per model, no synergy with their cheap HQ's and nothing in the world that can compare to Mortars.
The problem with only comparing IG to other top codexes from different factions and concluding that they are fine means that every Imperium army until 9th edition will be Guard + whatever else is currently strongest.
And this is exactly why CPs should be limited to the faction that generated them.
Alternatively, make players pick a primary faction (the one with their warlord), and say that they can't use stratagems from other factions and can only include Patrol or Auxiliary Support Detachments for other factions.
Either of these would prevent any Imperium army from including an IGCP battery.
RogueApiary wrote: I seriously can't believe people still bitch about mortars. A full three HS slots full of them get an average of 31.5 Str 4 shots that kill an average of 2.6 marines or 6.8 GEQ per turn. Rule of Three stopped the craziness with bringing 15+ of them to really leverage their cheap cost and on top of that, in ITC they're a huge vulnerability in that they're easy kills for the primary objectives and DBTC (now Butcher's Bill which is even easier to get against these since you only need to kill two units/turn).
31 bolter shots that can reach most of the table and don't need LoS for 100 points.
You understand how no other army can field something that efficient right?
Is it bonkers OP? ..... kinda yeah.
It means for a completely minimal investment I can kill my opponents weaker units and keep my heavy hitters focused on yours.
'But its only 6.8 GEQ' you say. And that's enough I say. I've numerous games simply because my Mortars were plunking away all game and the enemy just ran out of units to capture objectives with.
When the faq nerfed CP regen I went looking around for other battalions to replace my Guard with. And the answer every time was the same, I can get some troops for cheap but nothing can ever replace the 'incidental' damage that mortars do that ends up winning you games.
Ordana wrote: IG are being compared to other Imperium armies because those are the armies they are competing with for cheap Battalions for CP.
No other Imperium army can compete with Guard for infantry. Skitarii comes closest and they still lose out massively by having double the cost per model, no synergy with their cheap HQ's and nothing in the world that can compare to Mortars.
The problem with only comparing IG to other top codexes from different factions and concluding that they are fine means that every Imperium army until 9th edition will be Guard + whatever else is currently strongest.
And this is exactly why CPs should be limited to the faction that generated them.
Alternatively, make players pick a primary faction (the one with their warlord), and say that they can't use stratagems from other factions and can only include Patrol or Auxiliary Support Detachments for other factions.
Either of these would prevent any Imperium army from including an IGCP battery.
And in one stroke you invalidated every Imperium army except Guard, because none of them can generate the CP they need to function on their own. (most notably BA/IK/Custodes).
Ordana wrote: Either of these would prevent any Imperium army from including an IGCP battery.
And in one stroke you invalidated every Imperium army except Guard, because none of them can generate the CP they need to function on their own. (most notably BA/IK/Custodes).
I don't even know what you people want anymore.
"This is terrible - IG are acting as CP batteries for every Imperium faction!"
'Okay, here are some ways to stop that...'
"This is terrible, IG won't be able to be CP batteries for every Imperium faction!!!"
RogueApiary wrote: I seriously can't believe people still bitch about mortars. A full three HS slots full of them get an average of 31.5 Str 4 shots that kill an average of 2.6 marines or 6.8 GEQ per turn. Rule of Three stopped the craziness with bringing 15+ of them to really leverage their cheap cost and on top of that, in ITC they're a huge vulnerability in that they're easy kills for the primary objectives and DBTC (now Butcher's Bill which is even easier to get against these since you only need to kill two units/turn).
31 bolter shots that can reach most of the table and don't need LoS for 100 points.
You understand how no other army can field something that efficient right?
Is it bonkers OP? ..... kinda yeah.
It means for a completely minimal investment I can kill my opponents weaker units and keep my heavy hitters focused on yours.
'But its only 6.8 GEQ' you say. And that's enough I say. I've numerous games simply because my Mortars were plunking away all game and the enemy just ran out of units to capture objectives with.
When the faq nerfed CP regen I went looking around for other battalions to replace my Guard with. And the answer every time was the same, I can get some troops for cheap but nothing can ever replace the 'incidental' damage that mortars do that ends up winning you games.
Ordana wrote: IG are being compared to other Imperium armies because those are the armies they are competing with for cheap Battalions for CP.
No other Imperium army can compete with Guard for infantry. Skitarii comes closest and they still lose out massively by having double the cost per model, no synergy with their cheap HQ's and nothing in the world that can compare to Mortars.
The problem with only comparing IG to other top codexes from different factions and concluding that they are fine means that every Imperium army until 9th edition will be Guard + whatever else is currently strongest.
And this is exactly why CPs should be limited to the faction that generated them.
Alternatively, make players pick a primary faction (the one with their warlord), and say that they can't use stratagems from other factions and can only include Patrol or Auxiliary Support Detachments for other factions.
Either of these would prevent any Imperium army from including an IGCP battery.
And in one stroke you invalidated every Imperium army except Guard, because none of them can generate the CP they need to function on their own. (most notably BA/IK/Custodes).
If your opponent let your mortars live to plink away for a whole game, either you were already winning hard and he couldn't split off enough assets to kill 9 T3/2W/5+ models, you weren't playing ITC rules so he wasn't incentivized to go after them for easy VP, or he's bad.
At what point cost would mortars be 'balanced'? There's an upper ceiling of 7 points, because at 8 points or above you would just take Heavy Bolters. I saw one idiot in this thread call for 10 point mortars, which would be hilarious in that you may as well just delete them from the game at that price. Which is one of the biggest problems with the current points system, there isn't enough granularity because the majority of infantry models and weapons are crammed into 8 or 9 points of design space. The game would really benefit from doubling the cost of everything and then adjusting with the extra room.
Ordana wrote: And in one stroke you invalidated every Imperium army except Guard, because none of them can generate the CP they need to function on their own. (most notably BA/IK/Custodes).
I don't even know what you people want anymore.
"This is terrible - IG are acting as CP batteries for every Imperium faction!"
'Okay, here are some ways to stop that...'
"This is terrible, IG won't be able to be CP batteries for every Imperium faction!!!"
I give up.
Probably because this thread has more then 1 person talking and different people see different problems and different solutions.
Here is my position.
cheap battalions to bring additional CP is needed for many elite armies to be viable because they are only viable through their use of Stratagems.
If you want to get rid of outside CP you need to redesign most, if not all, of the codexes.
This is not happening, so getting rid of outside CP is bad.
Currently the only option for outside CP is Guard. This is undesireable.
So lets make other armies a viable option compared to Guard.
Buffing everyone else to be as good as Guard is probably a bad thing for the game if your not Imperial and again takes a redesign of all codexes.
So bring the bad elements of Guard down a bit, buff some other armies in little ways to close the gap and see where the game is then.
31 bolter shots that can reach most of the table and don't need LoS for 100 points.
You understand how no other army can field something that efficient right?
Is it bonkers OP? ..... kinda yeah.
It means for a completely minimal investment I can kill my opponents weaker units and keep my heavy hitters focused on yours.
'But its only 6.8 GEQ' you say. And that's enough I say. I've numerous games simply because my Mortars were plunking away all game and the enemy just ran out of units to capture objectives with.
When the faq nerfed CP regen I went looking around for other battalions to replace my Guard with. And the answer every time was the same, I can get some troops for cheap but nothing can ever replace the 'incidental' damage that mortars do that ends up winning you games.
Liar
There is a army list that can pull even more Mortars then IG and add up CP for Chaos. but then again "No other army can field something that efficent" seems to have gone to your head.
RogueApiary wrote: I seriously can't believe people still bitch about mortars. A full three HS slots full of them get an average of 31.5 Str 4 shots that kill an average of 2.6 marines or 6.8 GEQ per turn. Rule of Three stopped the craziness with bringing 15+ of them to really leverage their cheap cost and on top of that, in ITC they're a huge vulnerability in that they're easy kills for the primary objectives and DBTC (now Butcher's Bill which is even easier to get against these since you only need to kill two units/turn).
31 bolter shots that can reach most of the table and don't need LoS for 100 points.
You understand how no other army can field something that efficient right?
Is it bonkers OP? ..... kinda yeah.
It means for a completely minimal investment I can kill my opponents weaker units and keep my heavy hitters focused on yours.
'But its only 6.8 GEQ' you say. And that's enough I say. I've numerous games simply because my Mortars were plunking away all game and the enemy just ran out of units to capture objectives with.
When the faq nerfed CP regen I went looking around for other battalions to replace my Guard with. And the answer every time was the same, I can get some troops for cheap but nothing can ever replace the 'incidental' damage that mortars do that ends up winning you games.
Ordana wrote: IG are being compared to other Imperium armies because those are the armies they are competing with for cheap Battalions for CP.
No other Imperium army can compete with Guard for infantry. Skitarii comes closest and they still lose out massively by having double the cost per model, no synergy with their cheap HQ's and nothing in the world that can compare to Mortars.
The problem with only comparing IG to other top codexes from different factions and concluding that they are fine means that every Imperium army until 9th edition will be Guard + whatever else is currently strongest.
And this is exactly why CPs should be limited to the faction that generated them.
Alternatively, make players pick a primary faction (the one with their warlord), and say that they can't use stratagems from other factions and can only include Patrol or Auxiliary Support Detachments for other factions.
Either of these would prevent any Imperium army from including an IGCP battery.
And in one stroke you invalidated every Imperium army except Guard, because none of them can generate the CP they need to function on their own. (most notably BA/IK/Custodes).
If your opponent let your mortars live to plink away for a whole game, either you were already winning hard and he couldn't split off enough assets to kill 9 T3/2W/5+ models, you weren't playing ITC rules so he wasn't incentivized to go after them for easy VP, or he's bad.
At what point cost would mortars be 'balanced'? There's an upper ceiling of 7 points, because at 8 points or above you would just take Heavy Bolters. I saw one idiot in this thread call for 10 point mortars, which would be hilarious in that you may as well just delete them from the game at that price. Which is one of the biggest problems with the current points system, there isn't enough granularity because the majority of infantry models and weapons are crammed into 8 or 9 points of design space. The game would really benefit from doubling the cost of everything and then adjusting with the extra room.
Firstly there is a world outside the US that doesn't play ITC.
Secondly, I play Custodes bikes. My opponents tend to be busy not dying to 10 bikes in their face to worry about 9 mortars at the edge of the board outside of range AND LoS of their weapons. If your shooting your basilisk, Hiveguard or whatever at my Mortars rather then the bikes in your face I will thank you.
Thirdly. Why cant a Mortar cost more or the same as a Heavy Bolter? It has more range and ignores LoS. Its a trade of in safety compared to damage and considering their role in my army I would take atleast some 10 point mortars over 8 point Heavy Bolters.
31 bolter shots that can reach most of the table and don't need LoS for 100 points.
You understand how no other army can field something that efficient right?
Is it bonkers OP? ..... kinda yeah.
It means for a completely minimal investment I can kill my opponents weaker units and keep my heavy hitters focused on yours.
'But its only 6.8 GEQ' you say. And that's enough I say. I've numerous games simply because my Mortars were plunking away all game and the enemy just ran out of units to capture objectives with.
When the faq nerfed CP regen I went looking around for other battalions to replace my Guard with. And the answer every time was the same, I can get some troops for cheap but nothing can ever replace the 'incidental' damage that mortars do that ends up winning you games.
Liar
There is a army list that can pull even more Mortars then IG and add up CP for Chaos. but then again "No other army can field something that efficent" seems to have gone to your head.
(I assume you mean Renegades) A good old forge world. Probably why its banned in so many places around the world.
My point still stands.
Your point doesn't stand. Infact you even lied more: FW is a offical GW branch and very much allowed in all GW stores and even in Tournaments. so before you dig your hole ever deeper i reccomend you stop.
Not Online!!! wrote: Your point doesn't stand. Infact you even lied more: FW is a offical GW branch and very much allowed in all GW stores and even in Tournaments. so before you dig your hole ever deeper i reccomend you stop.
But sure, have it your way. Lets limit ourselves to Imperium since that's what most of the discussion in this thread is about.
Does anything come close to the efficiency of Mortar teams?
RogueApiary wrote: I seriously can't believe people still bitch about mortars. A full three HS slots full of them get an average of 31.5 Str 4 shots that kill an average of 2.6 marines or 6.8 GEQ per turn. Rule of Three stopped the craziness with bringing 15+ of them to really leverage their cheap cost and on top of that, in ITC they're a huge vulnerability in that they're easy kills for the primary objectives and DBTC (now Butcher's Bill which is even easier to get against these since you only need to kill two units/turn).
31 bolter shots that can reach most of the table and don't need LoS for 100 points.
You understand how no other army can field something that efficient right?
Is it bonkers OP? ..... kinda yeah.
It means for a completely minimal investment I can kill my opponents weaker units and keep my heavy hitters focused on yours.
'But its only 6.8 GEQ' you say. And that's enough I say. I've numerous games simply because my Mortars were plunking away all game and the enemy just ran out of units to capture objectives with.
When the faq nerfed CP regen I went looking around for other battalions to replace my Guard with. And the answer every time was the same, I can get some troops for cheap but nothing can ever replace the 'incidental' damage that mortars do that ends up winning you games.
Ordana wrote: IG are being compared to other Imperium armies because those are the armies they are competing with for cheap Battalions for CP.
No other Imperium army can compete with Guard for infantry. Skitarii comes closest and they still lose out massively by having double the cost per model, no synergy with their cheap HQ's and nothing in the world that can compare to Mortars.
The problem with only comparing IG to other top codexes from different factions and concluding that they are fine means that every Imperium army until 9th edition will be Guard + whatever else is currently strongest.
And this is exactly why CPs should be limited to the faction that generated them.
Alternatively, make players pick a primary faction (the one with their warlord), and say that they can't use stratagems from other factions and can only include Patrol or Auxiliary Support Detachments for other factions.
Either of these would prevent any Imperium army from including an IGCP battery.
And in one stroke you invalidated every Imperium army except Guard, because none of them can generate the CP they need to function on their own. (most notably BA/IK/Custodes).
If your opponent let your mortars live to plink away for a whole game, either you were already winning hard and he couldn't split off enough assets to kill 9 T3/2W/5+ models, you weren't playing ITC rules so he wasn't incentivized to go after them for easy VP, or he's bad.
At what point cost would mortars be 'balanced'? There's an upper ceiling of 7 points, because at 8 points or above you would just take Heavy Bolters. I saw one idiot in this thread call for 10 point mortars, which would be hilarious in that you may as well just delete them from the game at that price. Which is one of the biggest problems with the current points system, there isn't enough granularity because the majority of infantry models and weapons are crammed into 8 or 9 points of design space. The game would really benefit from doubling the cost of everything and then adjusting with the extra room.
Firstly there is a world outside the US that doesn't play ITC.
Secondly, I play Custodes bikes. My opponents tend to be busy not dying to 10 bikes in their face to worry about 9 mortars at the edge of the board outside of range AND LoS of their weapons. If your shooting your basilisk, Hiveguard or whatever at my Mortars rather then the bikes in your face I will thank you.
Thirdly. Why cant a Mortar cost more or the same as a Heavy Bolter? It has more range and ignores LoS. Its a trade of in safety compared to damage and considering their role in my army I would take atleast some 10 point mortars over 8 point Heavy Bolters.
31 bolter shots that can reach most of the table and don't need LoS for 100 points.
You understand how no other army can field something that efficient right?
Is it bonkers OP? ..... kinda yeah.
It means for a completely minimal investment I can kill my opponents weaker units and keep my heavy hitters focused on yours.
'But its only 6.8 GEQ' you say. And that's enough I say. I've numerous games simply because my Mortars were plunking away all game and the enemy just ran out of units to capture objectives with.
When the faq nerfed CP regen I went looking around for other battalions to replace my Guard with. And the answer every time was the same, I can get some troops for cheap but nothing can ever replace the 'incidental' damage that mortars do that ends up winning you games.
Liar
There is a army list that can pull even more Mortars then IG and add up CP for Chaos. but then again "No other army can field something that efficent" seems to have gone to your head.
(I assume you mean Renegades) A good old forge world. Probably why its banned in so many places around the world.
My point still stands.
Because the extra strength, AP, and consistent number of shots all easily trump an extra 12" of range and the indirect ability? 48" vs 36" is a marginal gain on anything but Hammer and Anvil and Spearhead Assault and unless your terrain happens to include a bunch of enclosed ruins, getting LOS on one of the three 60mm bases in a mortar squad is not difficult. Those Custodes bikers in your opponent's hands could easily split some bolter fire their way before charging a juicier target.
Not Online!!! wrote: Your point doesn't stand. Infact you even lied more: FW is a offical GW branch and very much allowed in all GW stores and even in Tournaments. so before you dig your hole ever deeper i reccomend you stop.
Large parts of Europe don't allow Forge World.
But sure, have it your way. Lets limit ourselves to Imperium since that's what most of the discussion in this thread is about.
Does anything come close to the efficiency of Mortar teams?
Source?
Oh wait NVM since the last Tournaments in europe also allowed FW.
And yes there are quite alot of things that are equally broken pts efficency wise: DP's, Leman russes, Ofcourse good ol Knights. You know the commons. Of course can't miss out on Custodes jetbikes and smashcaptains.
Not Online!!! wrote: Your point doesn't stand. Infact you even lied more: FW is a offical GW branch and very much allowed in all GW stores and even in Tournaments. so before you dig your hole ever deeper i reccomend you stop.
Do you want to address that R&H are BS 5+ and only a 6+ save unit without orders or regiment traits.
I would say that makes IG mortar teams more efficient
Not Online!!! wrote: Your point doesn't stand. Infact you even lied more: FW is a offical GW branch and very much allowed in all GW stores and even in Tournaments. so before you dig your hole ever deeper i reccomend you stop.
Do you want to address that R&H are BS 5+ and only a 6+ save unit without orders or regiment traits.
I would say that makes IG mortar teams more efficient
While we are at it. Milita HWT's are cheaper and sadly the maths goes in their favour for that.
Yeah Renegade HWTs with Mortars are more efficient 1 on 1 compared to the Guard version. But unlike Guard, the rest of the Renegade units are pretty bad, which is why you don't see them. That and FW has discontinued most of their range (seriously, the only renegade units FW still sells are the vehicles/artillery they shared with Guard/Admech).
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Yeah Renegade HWTs with Mortars are more efficient 1 on 1 compared to the Guard version.
But unlike Guard, the rest of the Renegade units are pretty bad, which is why you don't see them.
Thank you.
Except if you ever want indirect fire investing in something like this might make your day.
commander
Not Online!!! wrote: Your point doesn't stand. Infact you even lied more: FW is a offical GW branch and very much allowed in all GW stores and even in Tournaments. so before you dig your hole ever deeper i reccomend you stop.
But sure, have it your way. Lets limit ourselves to Imperium since that's what most of the discussion in this thread is about.
Does anything come close to the efficiency of Mortar teams?
Because ETC is the only one organizing in europe......
But please go on.
Because ETC is the only one organizing in europe......
Population wise? that is exactly what happens. You would have to be swiss or nord europe to see a lot of events that are lax with FW units being used.
Why not do a simple fix to IG, remove it as a playable solo faction. And give each imperial army to run some of their models. The IG and IG players problem goes away. Other imperial armies get access to CP and CP generation, and don't have to spam scouts etc.
Why not do a simple fix to IG, remove it as a playable solo faction. And give each imperial army to run some of their models. The IG and IG players problem goes away. Other imperial armies get access to CP and CP generation, and don't have to spam scouts etc.
Well, that is about as sensible and fair suggestion than banning soup...
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Yeah Renegade HWTs with Mortars are more efficient 1 on 1 compared to the Guard version.
But unlike Guard, the rest of the Renegade units are pretty bad, which is why you don't see them.
That and FW has discontinued most of their range (seriously, the only renegade units FW still sells are the vehicles/artillery they shared with Guard/Admech).
How many points are they? I doubt they really are, especially once you include the Regiment traits into the matter (though that's not a top many of them).
Why not do a simple fix to IG, remove it as a playable solo faction. And give each imperial army to run some of their models. The IG and IG players problem goes away. Other imperial armies get access to CP and CP generation, and don't have to spam scouts etc.
Well, that is about as sensible and fair suggestion than banning soup...
Or you could give Marines their own Chapter Auxiliaries the way Chaos Marines have Cultists...without deleting Guard as a standalone book, maybe?
And in one stroke you invalidated every Imperium army except Guard, because none of them can generate the CP they need to function on their own. (most notably BA/IK/Custodes).
100% Hogwash, they can be built and play as their own armies without IG support. They may not be as top tier competitive without an IGCP battery crutch, but they will absolutely function.
Ordana wrote: IG are being compared to other Imperium armies because those are the armies they are competing with for cheap Battalions for CP.
No other Imperium army can compete with Guard for infantry. Skitarii comes closest and they still lose out massively by having double the cost per model, no synergy with their cheap HQ's and nothing in the world that can compare to Mortars.
The problem with only comparing IG to other top codexes from different factions and concluding that they are fine means that every Imperium army until 9th edition will be Guard + whatever else is currently strongest.
Skitarii rangers are only 7 ppm not double the cost of guardsmen.... Anyway I've already said guard infantry need to go to 5 points, that will make them mathematically about as efficient as fire warriors.
As for mortars, if you think removing 7 GEQ models or 3 tac marines a turn for 100 points is "broken OP" even if they can do it outside of LOS, I don't know what to tell you... consider that 100 points of scouts can kill 6 GEQ with just bolter fire.
Ordana wrote: ...because none of them can generate the CP they need to function on their own.
Guard have a lot of CPs, but they are balanced internally by having their stratagems be lackluster. The other factions have less CP, but are balanced by having their stratagems be strong. Guard providing CP to factions with strong stratagems is a problem with soup, not a problem with guard.
I'm not advocating banning soup, but I am advocating tweaking the soup rules instead of nerfing singular factions across the board for being problematic when combined with units from other codices. Nerfing singular factions for being too good in soup is a good way of making them useless OUTSIDE of soup.
Mono-guard are strong, but they aren't winning tournaments left and right. Even in a tournament that banned soup and only allowed mono lists, guard still wouldn't be undisputed top dogs, as DE/Eldar have strong mono-codices, as well as Tau/Tyranids/AdMech having generally weaker codices with a few strong builds that can compete.
Karol wrote: Why not do a simple fix to IG, remove it as a playable solo faction. And give each imperial army to run some of their models. The IG and IG players problem goes away. Other imperial armies get access to CP and CP generation, and don't have to spam scouts etc.
The sad part is, I cannot tell if you are being sarcastic or not because I am sure there are people (in this thread) that genuinely think that way.
w1zard wrote: Anyway I've already said guard infantry need to go to 5 points, that will make them mathematically about as efficient as fire warriors.
Then we are in agreement. That's exactly what most people who think Guard needs to be nerfed want. Nothing more drastic.
Guard have a lot of CPs, but they are balanced internally by having their stratagems be lackluster. The other factions have less CP, but are balanced by having their stratagems be strong.
There is zero reason to believe that this is intentional at all. Some factions get good stratagems, some get bad, it is random failure by the writers to balance things. Also, Guard has some pretty decent stratagems, and they definitely have better ones than vanilla marines.
w1zard wrote: Anyway I've already said guard infantry need to go to 5 points, that will make them mathematically about as efficient as fire warriors.
Then we are in agreement. That's exactly what most people who think Guard needs to be nerfed want. Nothing more drastic.
Guard have a lot of CPs, but they are balanced internally by having their stratagems be lackluster. The other factions have less CP, but are balanced by having their stratagems be strong.
There is zero reason to believe that this is intentional at all. Some factions get good stratagems, some get bad, it is random failure by the writers to balance things. Also, Guard has some pretty decent stratagems, and they definitely have better ones than vanilla marines.
Ehhhhhh that really depends. Half the IG stratagems are basically worthless since they are too specific. (grenadiers for exemple.
I do belive that this is the idea the writers had planned to balance mass cp armies and on a Mono playing field it actually kinda works but soup literally throws that idea out the window.
For the last time... VANILLA MARINES ARE GARBAGE IN 8TH EDITION AND NEED AN ENTIRELY REWRITTEN CODEX TO BE VIABLE OUTSIDE OF GIMMICKY BUILDS FOCUSED AROUND SPECIAL CHARACTERS, STOP USING THEM AS A MEASURING STICK FOR BALANCE.
w1zard wrote: Anyway I've already said guard infantry need to go to 5 points, that will make them mathematically about as efficient as fire warriors.
Then we are in agreement. That's exactly what most people who think Guard needs to be nerfed want. Nothing more drastic.
Guard have a lot of CPs, but they are balanced internally by having their stratagems be lackluster. The other factions have less CP, but are balanced by having their stratagems be strong.
There is zero reason to believe that this is intentional at all. Some factions get good stratagems, some get bad, it is random failure by the writers to balance things. Also, Guard has some pretty decent stratagems, and they definitely have better ones than vanilla marines.
Ehhhhhh that really depends. Half the IG stratagems are basically worthless since they are too specific. (grenadiers for exemple.
I do belive that this is the idea the writers had planned to balance mass cp armies and on a Mono playing field it actually kinda works but soup literally throws that idea out the window.
I wouldn't throw grenadiers under the bus. Is a tank too close to your 10-man scion squad that's just outfitted for chaff clearing? Ten krak grenades in the shooting phase, plus an order like Take Aim, or Elimination Protocol Sanctioned.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Yeah Renegade HWTs with Mortars are more efficient 1 on 1 compared to the Guard version.
But unlike Guard, the rest of the Renegade units are pretty bad, which is why you don't see them.
That and FW has discontinued most of their range (seriously, the only renegade units FW still sells are the vehicles/artillery they shared with Guard/Admech).
How many points are they? I doubt they really are, especially once you include the Regiment traits into the matter (though that's not a top many of them).
24 points for a squad of 3, and the squad can be increased to 6 teams strong.
Obviously a Castellan which can be 3++ and reroll all 1s for 3 turns is better than one which can do it for one turn. It isn't however immediately obvious that its awful without these abilities. If we go "a Castellan is always going to have an IG brigade to feed it CP" then it should probably be 750~ points. at the same time however this is going to make it even worse in a mono knight build.
Right now its hard to talk about mono armies because the meta is dominated by soup. If they would eliminate soup from space (i.e. rules such that make it obviously sub-optimal in competitive play) then we could look at the meta then. We could then have a serious discussion about what is viable and what is not.
It might still be "mono space marines (any flavour) are still not great" - but they would be bumped up, because the gap between them and the top wouldn't be so extreme.
Tyel wrote: I don't know what people mean by viable.
Obviously a Castellan which can be 3++ and reroll all 1s for 3 turns is better than one which can do it for one turn. It isn't however immediately obvious that its awful without these abilities. If we go "a Castellan is always going to have an IG brigade to feed it CP" then it should probably be 750~ points. at the same time however this is going to make it even worse in a mono knight build.
Right now its hard to talk about mono armies because the meta is dominated by soup. If they would eliminate soup from space (i.e. rules such that make it obviously sub-optimal in competitive play) then we could look at the meta then. We could then have a serious discussion about what is viable and what is not.
It might still be "mono space marines (any flavour) are still not great" - but they would be bumped up, because the gap between them and the top wouldn't be so extreme.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Mono Knights players can go pound sand, nobody likes playing against that gak and I struggle to believe anyone enjoys actually playing it outside of the satisfaction they get from curb stomping any list that isn't tailor made to kill Knights and only Knights.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Mono Knights players can go pound sand, nobody likes playing against that gak and I struggle to believe anyone enjoys actually playing it outside of the satisfaction they get from curb stomping any list that isn't tailor made to kill Knights and only Knights.
Whilst I wouldn't put it that bluntly, yes, it is not necessary that the optimal way to run the knights is mono. They're an army that make perfect sense with allies, and frankly running them that way makes it a more pleasant gaming experience to everyone involved.
People that still complains about playing agaisnt mono-Imperial Knight armies should receive notice that we are in 8th, not in 7th anymore.
Horde-skewed lists are much worse as a gameplay experience. I can use Assault Cannons and Huracan Bolters vs Imperial Knights. My infantry can cap objetives without a problem vs a full Knight list with 5-7 models. Imperial Knights degrade when they take wounds.
My plasma cannons, Autocannons and Lasscannons do gak agaisnt a Ork or Imperial Guard horde-army. A TAC list that isn't Grey Knights (And maybe Orks) has 0 problems vs a mono-Imperial Knight army.
I thought Knights were a mistake when they were first introduced and I still hold to that.
Even if they are 'ok' or 'balance' or whatever, they are extremely stiffling to the meta.
If you can't kill a knight in 1 turn you don't need to show up looking to perform well in a competitive tournament.
Which is also why so many Imperium armies are throwing in a Castellan now. Because they need it to be able to combat the inevitable Knights they run into.
And yes that is because its to point efficient when shooting at big stuff.
Between running a Castellan and the practically mandatory guard battalion you've spend half your points before you even start putting together the actual army you wanted to run in the first place.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Yeah Renegade HWTs with Mortars are more efficient 1 on 1 compared to the Guard version.
But unlike Guard, the rest of the Renegade units are pretty bad, which is why you don't see them.
That and FW has discontinued most of their range (seriously, the only renegade units FW still sells are the vehicles/artillery they shared with Guard/Admech).
How many points are they? I doubt they really are, especially once you include the Regiment traits into the matter (though that's not a top many of them).
24 points for a squad of 3, and the squad can be increased to 6 teams strong.
So it's an extra 9 points for the extra BS and Regiments and access to Orders. I'd say the Guard edges out, but the ability to get 6 in a squad is pretty nice.
Tyel wrote: I don't know what people mean by viable.
Obviously a Castellan which can be 3++ and reroll all 1s for 3 turns is better than one which can do it for one turn. It isn't however immediately obvious that its awful without these abilities. If we go "a Castellan is always going to have an IG brigade to feed it CP" then it should probably be 750~ points. at the same time however this is going to make it even worse in a mono knight build.
Right now its hard to talk about mono armies because the meta is dominated by soup. If they would eliminate soup from space (i.e. rules such that make it obviously sub-optimal in competitive play) then we could look at the meta then. We could then have a serious discussion about what is viable and what is not.
It might still be "mono space marines (any flavour) are still not great" - but they would be bumped up, because the gap between them and the top wouldn't be so extreme.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Mono Knights players can go pound sand, nobody likes playing against that gak and I struggle to believe anyone enjoys actually playing it outside of the satisfaction they get from curb stomping any list that isn't tailor made to kill Knights and only Knights.
I bet those Gundam weebs that are loyal to the Imperium like the idea of a mono-knight list.
Horde-skewed lists are much worse as a gameplay experience. I can use Assault Cannons and Huracan Bolters vs Imperial Knights.
My plasma cannons, Autocannons and Lasscannons do gak agaisnt a Ork or Imperial Guard horde-army.
Against an archetypal T8 24W 3+ sv Knight, an assault cannon with 6 shots and BS3+ is going to average 0.66 wounds against a Knight. 12 shot Hurricane Bolters in double-tap range with BS3+ will average 0.44 wounds.
Now, without getting into Armigers or Castellans, assuming say, 5 Knights in a 2k list, that's 120 wounds.
Now, lets look at those other weapons against Guardsmen. A Plasma Cannon with BS3+ is going to average 1.11 wounds, an Autocannon will average 0.93, and a Lascannon will average 0.55
Now, most Guard armies are going to have a broadly similar number of wounds depending on makeup (you can expect most Guard armies to field 100-170 wounds depending on makeup), and will be vulnerable to losses from Morale as well in many instances. The Plasma Cannon and Autocannon are both dramatically more effective against the Guardsmen than the Assault Cannon or ideally positioned Hurricane bolters will be against the Knights, while the Lascannon right between the AssCan & Hurricane.
Seems like there's a disconnect in your argument here. It also ignores the fact that most Guard armies are also fielding tanks where those Lascannons and Plasma Cannons can be put to good use.
JNAProductions wrote: Notice he didn't say a typical army, he said a horde skew list.
You can field around 400 bodies, easy, in a skew list, if you have the models.
Big guns shooting at hordes kill models, not enough but you see your guns do their thing.
Small guns shooting at Knights do (next to) nothing.
Even if the proportional effect is equal or in favor of the Horde human psychology and perception makes the 2nd scenario feel worse.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Yeah Renegade HWTs with Mortars are more efficient 1 on 1 compared to the Guard version.
But unlike Guard, the rest of the Renegade units are pretty bad, which is why you don't see them.
That and FW has discontinued most of their range (seriously, the only renegade units FW still sells are the vehicles/artillery they shared with Guard/Admech).
How many points are they? I doubt they really are, especially once you include the Regiment traits into the matter (though that's not a top many of them).
24 points for a squad of 3, and the squad can be increased to 6 teams strong.
So it's an extra 9 points for the extra BS and Regiments and access to Orders. I'd say the Guard edges out, but the ability to get 6 in a squad is pretty nice.
Yeah with proper support pts vs pts, Guard HWT definitely are better. I only consider the Renegade version more efficient because you can take double the amount of them under the Rule of 3.
JNAProductions wrote: Notice he didn't say a typical army, he said a horde skew list.
You can field around 400 bodies, easy, in a skew list, if you have the models.
We're not really seeing armies like that though. Even the hordiest Guard or Ork lists will generally run under 200 models, and those already have major trouble fitting in deployment zones and generally aren't winning tournaments. To fit 400 bodies in an IG list, at bare minimum, you'd need to be playing a game larger than 2K (because even the cheapest HQ choices are 7.5x what a 4pt Guardsmen runs).
w1zard wrote: For the last time... VANILLA MARINES ARE GARBAGE IN 8TH EDITION AND NEED AN ENTIRELY REWRITTEN CODEX TO BE VIABLE OUTSIDE OF GIMMICKY BUILDS FOCUSED AROUND SPECIAL CHARACTERS, STOP USING THEM AS A MEASURING STICK FOR BALANCE.
Outside of a specific Gulliman spam build (and even then, it's no where nearly as devastating as it was a year ago), marines in no way compete in top tier - people really need to understand that.
Horde-skewed lists are much worse as a gameplay experience. I can use Assault Cannons and Huracan Bolters vs Imperial Knights.
My plasma cannons, Autocannons and Lasscannons do gak agaisnt a Ork or Imperial Guard horde-army.
Against an archetypal T8 24W 3+ sv Knight, an assault cannon with 6 shots and BS3+ is going to average 0.66 wounds against a Knight. 12 shot Hurricane Bolters in double-tap range with BS3+ will average 0.44 wounds.
Now, without getting into Armigers or Castellans, assuming say, 5 Knights in a 2k list, that's 120 wounds.
Now, lets look at those other weapons against Guardsmen. A Plasma Cannon with BS3+ is going to average 1.11 wounds, an Autocannon will average 0.93, and a Lascannon will average 0.55
Now, most Guard armies are going to have a broadly similar number of wounds depending on makeup (you can expect most Guard armies to field 100-170 wounds depending on makeup), and will be vulnerable to losses from Morale as well in many instances. The Plasma Cannon and Autocannon are both dramatically more effective against the Guardsmen than the Assault Cannon or ideally positioned Hurricane bolters will be against the Knights, while the Lascannon right between the AssCan & Hurricane.
Seems like there's a disconnect in your argument here. It also ignores the fact that most Guard armies are also fielding tanks where those Lascannons and Plasma Cannons can be put to good use.
Eh... and how expensive are those wounds? 1.1 wounds of guardsmen is 4.4 points. 0.66 wounds of a castellan is aprox 15 points. Also, droping one castellan from 3+ to 4+ is much bigger than killing 10 guardsmen, for example. And if you factor rerolls to wound and to hit, the numbers skyrocketd in favour of using anti-infantry or medium guns vs Imperial Knights, because no matter how much you invest, a 25 poin lasscannon will only max kill 1 guardsmen for 4 points.
. And yeah, a guardsmen list with 120-170 wounds, if hes using infantry and a couple of vehicles/elite models, is not a horde-skewed list. Have you faced 90 Plaguebearers+80-120 cultists protecting 3 Death Guard guys with the flamethrowers and Daemon Princes? THATS a Horde list. And is obnoxious to play. 0 vehicles for your antitank, you can only shoot at Plaguebearers or Cultists. They literally fill out the board with bodies. Literally. Theres no room for manouvering.
Do those lists appear on ITC? No they dont. Do they appear on ETC and Full Hammer? Oh yeah, I can assure you they do. Are they invincible? No. But they need very specific builds to be able to face them. A TAC lists can't. But I can win with a TAC lists vs Mono Imperial Knights no problem. At least if the TAC lists comes from a good faction.
But I can understand that you have read "Horde-skewed list", mentioning both Imperial Guard and Orks, as another post complaining about imperial guard. I wasn't.
JNAProductions wrote: Notice he didn't say a typical army, he said a horde skew list.
You can field around 400 bodies, easy, in a skew list, if you have the models.
We're not really seeing armies like that though. Even the hordiest Guard or Ork lists will generally run under 200 models, and those already have major trouble fitting in deployment zones and generally aren't winning tournaments. To fit 400 bodies in an IG list, at bare minimum, you'd need to be playing a game larger than 2K (because even the cheapest HQ choices are 7.5x what a 4pt Guardsmen runs).
depends, my ork list for 1750 I run 2x battalion
battalion 1 - warboss, wierdboy 5x 30 boys (with nob and pk) = 152 models
battalion 2 - weirdboyy x2 , 30 boyz x2 (plus nob and pk) plus 3 10 man gretchin models. = 92 models
244 models at 1750 and it s apretty typical ork list righ tnow, will see how that changes with the codex though
I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Mono Knights players can go pound sand, nobody likes playing against that gak and I struggle to believe anyone enjoys actually playing it outside of the satisfaction they get from curb stomping any list that isn't tailor made to kill Knights and only Knights.
Whilst I wouldn't put it that bluntly, yes, it is not necessary that the optimal way to run the knights is mono. They're an army that make perfect sense with allies, and frankly running them that way makes it a more pleasant gaming experience to everyone involved.
I donno, I've played against mono-knights a time or two and it's more fun than playing against mono-guard or mono-Death Guard.
My plasma cannons, Autocannons and Lasscannons do gak agaisnt a Ork or Imperial Guard horde-army. A TAC list that isn't Grey Knights (And maybe Orks) has 0 problems vs a mono-Imperial Knight army.
Plasma Cannons do the same vs. Guard as a Heavy Bolter. Better if they're in cover. They cost more but they obviously threaten vehicles and elites way better. A good gun.
My plasma cannons, Autocannons and Lasscannons do gak agaisnt a Ork or Imperial Guard horde-army. A TAC list that isn't Grey Knights (And maybe Orks) has 0 problems vs a mono-Imperial Knight army.
Plasma Cannons do the same vs. Guard as a Heavy Bolter. Better if they're in cover. They cost more but they obviously threaten vehicles and elites way better. A good gun.
As a Dark Angel player I really like my plasma cannons, and vs most lists they are very good. But doing "the same" isn't really the "same" when they are more expensive
I really feared mono-knights would be a meta defining monster. I'd argue they were in 7th - representing yet another chasm between the good armies and everyone else.
In 8th though I have not found them especially scary - and almost every list I can think of seems better with a guard battalion in it. In fact the more you cut back the more you end up concluding that less is more.
Would be interesting to see how say 5 Gallants would do charging face first into Imperial Soup with a 230~ point guard battalion camping at the back. Then again I can see it not working out well at all - especially if you didn't get the first turn.
Galas wrote: Horde-skewed lists are much worse as a gameplay experience.
See, I'd actually much prefer to play against a Horde-skewed list than a full Knight list.
I don't know whether my army would necessarily perform better against a horde army, but i think it would be a hell of a lot more fun.
I might lose in the end, but at lest against a horde army I can get the gratification of seeing a ton of enemy models removed from the table. I personally find that far more enjoyable than eventually killing what might as well be an armed brick.
However, I'm also aware that I'm rather weird, so I might well be in the minority here.
My plasma cannons, Autocannons and Lasscannons do gak agaisnt a Ork or Imperial Guard horde-army. A TAC list that isn't Grey Knights (And maybe Orks) has 0 problems vs a mono-Imperial Knight army.
Plasma Cannons do the same vs. Guard as a Heavy Bolter. Better if they're in cover. They cost more but they obviously threaten vehicles and elites way better. A good gun.
As a Dark Angel player I really like my plasma cannons, and vs most lists they are very good. But doing "the same" isn't really the "same" when they are more expensive
So few platforms have the option to get Plasma Cannons that taking a Heavy Bolter instead is generally a waste of the opportunity to take something better than a Heavy Bolter, if you get my meaning. The choice is exceedingly platform-dependent. Like if we're talking costs, Storm Bolters are better than Heavy Bolters against GEQ.
Of course if you're just specifically building against hordes that's a different matter. It's just the real challenge tends to lie in building an army that can handle hordes AND lists that skew in the opposite direction, obviously.
Hey, here's another 'fluke' for all you marine players. Nick Nanavati took 4th at BFS using UM (a whopping 3 assassin's allied in so I know you haters will complain it's not 'pure' enough). But please, keep saying blaming all your woes on the big guard bogeyman rather than looking inward for the source of your failures.
Edit: BFS results site didn't have all three detachments listed and it turns out he did bring Gman. Ovrrall point stands, Marines have competitive legs, even if Gman is a bit of a crutch.
RogueApiary wrote: Hey, here's another 'fluke' for all you marine players. Nick Nanavati took 4th at BFS using UM WITHOUT Guilliman (a whopping 3 assassin's allied in so I know you haters will complain it's not 'pure' enough). But please, keep saying blaming all your woes on the big guard bogeyman rather than looking inward for the source of your failures.
Are you sure it was without Guilliman? He made a blog post about this list prior to the event and it was like this:
Obviously he could have changed the list. Assuming this is the list he ended up taking what's interesting to me is how many psykers he has - three Librarians from three different disciplines. It's almost like a Chaos list.
RogueApiary wrote: Hey, here's another 'fluke' for all you marine players. Nick Nanavati took 4th at BFS using UM WITHOUT Guilliman (a whopping 3 assassin's allied in so I know you haters will complain it's not 'pure' enough). But please, keep saying blaming all your woes on the big guard bogeyman rather than looking inward for the source of your failures.
Are you sure it was without Guilliman? He made a blog post about this list prior to the event and it was like this:
Obviously he could have changed the list. Assuming this is the list he ended up taking what's interesting to me is how many psykers he has - three Librarians from three different disciplines. It's almost like a Chaos list.
Looks like you're right. The BFS site must have cut the last detachment but since the first two detachments are identical he has to be there. Bummer. Still a competitive marine list making it into top 4 at a major.
Looks like you're right. The BFS site must have cut the last detachment but since the first two detachments are identical he has to be there. Bummer. Still a competitive marinesoup list making it into top 4 at a major.
Looks like you're right. The BFS site must have cut the last detachment but since the first two detachments are identical he has to be there. Bummer. Still a competitive marinesoup list making it into top 4 at a major.
Fixed that for you.
So, adding even 255 points of not Marines makes it Soup?
Looks like you're right. The BFS site must have cut the last detachment but since the first two detachments are identical he has to be there. Bummer. Still a competitive marinesoup list making it into top 4 at a major.
Fixed that for you.
So, adding even 255 points of not Marines makes it Soup?
Got it.
A list that contains 4 codexes, with all the cross Stratagems and powers it entails, damn straight it's soup
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I honestly can't see it doing well. It ain't going to get first turn and you can easily take out a lot in that list.
Also no clue how it kills even a single Knight.
Guess you missed the part where it apparently took 4th at a GT. Does that count as doing well in your book? Reece also hit top 16 at Nova with a very similar list.
It's still using Guilliman as a crutch, and like all previous viable marine lists, it is entirely dependent on spamming the most effective units.
Looks like you're right. The BFS site must have cut the last detachment but since the first two detachments are identical he has to be there. Bummer. Still a competitive marinesoup list making it into top 4 at a major.
Fixed that for you.
So, adding even 255 points of not Marines makes it Soup?
Got it.
A list that contains 4 codexes, with all the cross Stratagems and powers it entails, damn straight it's soup
You're bloody hopeless. If that's soup, then long live soup. I hope it never disappears.
Looks like you're right. The BFS site must have cut the last detachment but since the first two detachments are identical he has to be there. Bummer. Still a competitive marinesoup list making it into top 4 at a major.
Fixed that for you.
So, adding even 255 points of not Marines makes it Soup?
Got it.
A list that contains 4 codexes, with all the cross Stratagems and powers it entails, damn straight it's soup
I mean, realistically the list has the power of one codex. Literally the only thing he's taking from the snowflake marine books is 2 psychic powers each.
Obviously he could have changed the list. Assuming this is the list he ended up taking what's interesting to me is how many psykers he has - three Librarians from three different disciplines. It's almost like a Chaos list.
This is a soup list that uses Guilliman and Telion as crutches. That is not a good example of a "competitive vanilla marine list", especially when I have already talked about the "gimmicky special character" marine lists that do end up doing somewhat well in tournaments.
Really, trying to argue that vanilla marines are even remotely competitive at this point is just pathetic and delusional. I still don't think that guard needs to be nerfed down to vanilla marine level to be "fair".
JNAProductions wrote: Notice he didn't say a typical army, he said a horde skew list.
You can field around 400 bodies, easy, in a skew list, if you have the models.
We're not really seeing armies like that though. Even the hordiest Guard or Ork lists will generally run under 200 models, and those already have major trouble fitting in deployment zones and generally aren't winning tournaments. To fit 400 bodies in an IG list, at bare minimum, you'd need to be playing a game larger than 2K (because even the cheapest HQ choices are 7.5x what a 4pt Guardsmen runs).
WTF? Under 200 models for orks? That's 3 turns and you are wiped out in these days. And less than 1500 pts...And no trouble fitting. I have deployed over 320 models and that's with movement trays that eat space.
Sub-200 ork army is super soft army for casual games among casual games. Any decent gunline in tournament will easily kill 50-60 models a turn so unless you deliberately slowplay like hell(320 models, 3h games, quite doable so sub-200 3h games you need to slowplay like hell to not get to the end) to ensure game continues max 2 turns.
JNAProductions wrote: Notice he didn't say a typical army, he said a horde skew list.
You can field around 400 bodies, easy, in a skew list, if you have the models.
We're not really seeing armies like that though. Even the hordiest Guard or Ork lists will generally run under 200 models, and those already have major trouble fitting in deployment zones and generally aren't winning tournaments. To fit 400 bodies in an IG list, at bare minimum, you'd need to be playing a game larger than 2K (because even the cheapest HQ choices are 7.5x what a 4pt Guardsmen runs).
WTF? Under 200 models for orks? That's 3 turns and you are wiped out in these days. And less than 1500 pts...And no trouble fitting. I have deployed over 320 models and that's with movement trays that eat space.
Sub-200 ork army is super soft army for casual games among casual games. Any decent gunline in tournament will easily kill 50-60 models a turn so unless you deliberately slowplay like hell(320 models, 3h games, quite doable so sub-200 3h games you need to slowplay like hell to not get to the end) to ensure game continues max 2 turns.
I gotta love the strange world we live in where 60 odd guardsmen can't be killed fast enough, yet 200 Orks is wiped out in 3 turns.
Lemondish wrote: It's still using Guilliman as a crutch, and like all previous viable marine lists, it is entirely dependent on spamming the most effective units.
What kind of lame complaint is that? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all successful tournament lists, whatever the faction, use nothing but the most effective units?
Tyel wrote: I don't know what people mean by viable.
Obviously a Castellan which can be 3++ and reroll all 1s for 3 turns is better than one which can do it for one turn. It isn't however immediately obvious that its awful without these abilities. If we go "a Castellan is always going to have an IG brigade to feed it CP" then it should probably be 750~ points. at the same time however this is going to make it even worse in a mono knight build.
Right now its hard to talk about mono armies because the meta is dominated by soup. If they would eliminate soup from space (i.e. rules such that make it obviously sub-optimal in competitive play) then we could look at the meta then. We could then have a serious discussion about what is viable and what is not.
It might still be "mono space marines (any flavour) are still not great" - but they would be bumped up, because the gap between them and the top wouldn't be so extreme.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Mono Knights players can go pound sand, nobody likes playing against that gak and I struggle to believe anyone enjoys actually playing it outside of the satisfaction they get from curb stomping any list that isn't tailor made to kill Knights and only Knights.
So people shouldn't play mono-knights and instead play even more powerfull list...Ummm...right. You want to play the more broken version?
JNAProductions wrote: Notice he didn't say a typical army, he said a horde skew list.
You can field around 400 bodies, easy, in a skew list, if you have the models.
We're not really seeing armies like that though. Even the hordiest Guard or Ork lists will generally run under 200 models, and those already have major trouble fitting in deployment zones and generally aren't winning tournaments. To fit 400 bodies in an IG list, at bare minimum, you'd need to be playing a game larger than 2K (because even the cheapest HQ choices are 7.5x what a 4pt Guardsmen runs).
WTF? Under 200 models for orks? That's 3 turns and you are wiped out in these days. And less than 1500 pts...And no trouble fitting. I have deployed over 320 models and that's with movement trays that eat space.
Sub-200 ork army is super soft army for casual games among casual games. Any decent gunline in tournament will easily kill 50-60 models a turn so unless you deliberately slowplay like hell(320 models, 3h games, quite doable so sub-200 3h games you need to slowplay like hell to not get to the end) to ensure game continues max 2 turns.
I gotta love the strange world we live in where 60 odd guardsmen can't be killed fast enough, yet 200 Orks is wiped out in 3 turns.
Well I don't think 60 guardsmen is particularly tough to kill either. The point of those guardsmen isn't to be super tough uber soldiers. 60 guardsmen are there to give you 12 CP to fuel up the main killers. And of course the fact those guardsmen have real killers along helps as nobody bothers to shoot at some chaff when there's actual killers around.
JNAProductions wrote: Notice he didn't say a typical army, he said a horde skew list.
You can field around 400 bodies, easy, in a skew list, if you have the models.
We're not really seeing armies like that though. Even the hordiest Guard or Ork lists will generally run under 200 models, and those already have major trouble fitting in deployment zones and generally aren't winning tournaments. To fit 400 bodies in an IG list, at bare minimum, you'd need to be playing a game larger than 2K (because even the cheapest HQ choices are 7.5x what a 4pt Guardsmen runs).
WTF? Under 200 models for orks? That's 3 turns and you are wiped out in these days. And less than 1500 pts...And no trouble fitting. I have deployed over 320 models and that's with movement trays that eat space.
Sub-200 ork army is super soft army for casual games among casual games. Any decent gunline in tournament will easily kill 50-60 models a turn so unless you deliberately slowplay like hell(320 models, 3h games, quite doable so sub-200 3h games you need to slowplay like hell to not get to the end) to ensure game continues max 2 turns.
I gotta love the strange world we live in where 60 odd guardsmen can't be killed fast enough, yet 200 Orks is wiped out in 3 turns.
Not really considering orks need to make it across the board into melee to do the most damage and don't tend to get the benifit of cover 95% of the time. So a 6+ or a 5++ at best. Also quite hard to overkill a 30 model unit
Guard do shoot well for their points and can stay in cover to rock a 4+ and at 10 model units either don't get wiped or are overkilled wasting firepower.
Also while I get it's interesting to see people doing well with "spacemarine" lists that list has 15 marines in it and the minute GW address the reroll to wound rolls for Guilliman it's dead.
You can win with scouts, it's just not what most people think of when they think spacemarine lists.
JNAProductions wrote: Notice he didn't say a typical army, he said a horde skew list.
You can field around 400 bodies, easy, in a skew list, if you have the models.
We're not really seeing armies like that though. Even the hordiest Guard or Ork lists will generally run under 200 models, and those already have major trouble fitting in deployment zones and generally aren't winning tournaments. To fit 400 bodies in an IG list, at bare minimum, you'd need to be playing a game larger than 2K (because even the cheapest HQ choices are 7.5x what a 4pt Guardsmen runs).
WTF? Under 200 models for orks? That's 3 turns and you are wiped out in these days. And less than 1500 pts...And no trouble fitting. I have deployed over 320 models and that's with movement trays that eat space.
In 1500pts? Maybe if you're running buttloads of Grots, but you're going to have trouble killing much of anything. What does your list look like just out of curiosity? I think the largest 2k Ork list I've come across was 250 models, though admittedly I don't see many of them these days and haven't played mine since selling them off in 7E.
Not really considering orks need to make it across the board into melee to do the most damage and don't tend to get the benifit of cover 95% of the time. So a 6+ or a 5++ at best. Also quite hard to overkill a 30 model unit
Guard do shoot well for their points and can stay in cover to rock a 4+
To be fair, cover exists outside of deployment zones, and there's usually nowhere near enough to ensure all, or even most, guardsmen are getting the benefit just sitting in their deployment zone, especially if they're having to be used as bubble-wrap or are running a giant horde list.
and at 10 model units either don't get wiped or are overkilled wasting firepower.
While true, it also makes such units really vulnerable to fire that other units would consider trivial (things like Rhino Storm bolters), and not all Guardsmen units are 10 strong (e.g. heavy weapons squads)
Vaktathi wrote: In 1500pts? Maybe if you're running buttloads of Grots, but you're going to have trouble killing much of anything. What does your list look like just out of curiosity? I think the largest 2k Ork list I've come across was 250 models, though admittedly I don't see many of them these days and haven't played mine since selling them off in 7E.
I thought we were talking tournaments where standards are either 1750 or even more 2000. For 1500 I got somewhere around 215-220 plus KMK grot grews.
And orks DON'T kill much. That's the life of orks. They have worthwhile units: boyz&stormboyz(both exists to create THREAT of h2h so enemy doesn't dare to come forward more than actually killing anything), KMK, grots and characters. Their whole strategy lies upon holding objectives.
Only thing that can actually kill anything without being overpriced junk are boyz&stormboyz(which struggle getting to combat alive) and KMK.
While true, it also makes such units really vulnerable to fire that other units would consider trivial (things like Rhino Storm bolters), and not all Guardsmen units are 10 strong (e.g. heavy weapons squads)
Those storm bolters aren't all that much scarier because squad is 10 strong. And only HWS that are worth taking are mortar ones as they can be put out of LOS.
The winning list especially is Eldar soup but not as we know it - and I don't really see how it avoids being shot off the table. (Yes, 500 points of skyweavers - but 28 wyches, the Avatar of Khaine, 40 foot guardians?). I often argue people (especially on forums) under-estimate troop blobs with ob-sec at tournaments, but I wonder if he just ran into lists which were all geared up for anti-knight work (Knights seem to have been a big thing at the tournament looking at pictures) and found themselves with nothing worth shooting (just as was described on the last page).
This might also explain the success of Nanavati's list too (although really RG is good and we know it.)
Other than that though you have imperial soups, eldar soups, chaos soups although you do have one mono Eldar, one triple vault list, a tyranid and an Ork army in the top 16.
Lemondish wrote: It's still using Guilliman as a crutch, and like all previous viable marine lists, it is entirely dependent on spamming the most effective units.
What kind of lame complaint is that? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't all successful tournament lists, whatever the faction, use nothing but the most effective units?
It's more a comment that marines have rely heavily on this one dimensional gimmick spam. Eldar have really strong options everywhere, and if you look at the lists that hit the top 16 at BFS, they were fairly different than what we've seen in the past.
This is just a one dimensional MW fishing brigade that runs with Guilliman as its core still. It's the same formula over and over again for marines. There's simply so many sub par units in codex marines that without selecting the clear best and leveraging a gimmick by spamming them alongside Guilliman, you can't compete.
Nothing wrong with selecting the best units to do the job. What's wrong is that there are so few good units for codex marines that you end up ignoring so much of the book in favour of gimmicks.
Crimson wrote: I think a lot of people would like to see the crazy discrepancies in different armies ability to generate CP to be addressed.
I'm sure many would. In my experience, the difficult part is getting any kind of consensus on how that might be achieved.
I think the intent was to have elite armies with strong, reliable stratagems but fewer CP to activate them juxtaposed against armies with a high pool of CP and a boatload of low impact strats you use more often. The problem came when you could fuel the expensive elite stuff with cheap CP generated by the factions that can get high pools.
Best suggestion I've heard is to limit CP generated by a faction in a detachment to that faction. To avoid harming detachments of the same faction, they might need to use the battle brothers wording. Then perhaps to avoid the potential of tracking 4 pools, just give the BFCP to the Warlord's faction?
Best suggestion I've heard is to limit CP generated by a faction in a detachment to that faction. To avoid harming detachments of the same faction, they might need to use the battle brothers wording. Then perhaps to avoid the potential of tracking 4 pools, just give the BFCP to the Warlord's faction?
That was what I initially suggested, but was immediately met with cries of 'No! We need IG to fuel our elite factions! Removing that will kill them entirely!'
So, adding even 255 points of not Marines makes it Soup?
Got it.
Well, that's the logic IG apologists have been using for months...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lemondish wrote: I think the intent was to have elite armies with strong, reliable stratagems but fewer CP to activate them juxtaposed against armies with a high pool of CP and a boatload of low impact strats you use more often.
I don't believe that was ever the intent, it is just how some people on Dakka would want it to work. GW fully expected people to use allies. The most elite of these elite armies, the Custodes, even have built in rules to support allies.
RogueApiary wrote: Hey, here's another 'fluke' for all you marine players. Nick Nanavati took 4th at BFS using UM (a whopping 3 assassin's allied in so I know you haters will complain it's not 'pure' enough). But please, keep saying blaming all your woes on the big guard bogeyman rather than looking inward for the source of your failures.
Edit: BFS results site didn't have all three detachments listed and it turns out he did bring Gman. Ovrrall point stands, Marines have competitive legs, even if Gman is a bit of a crutch.
Clearly not a realistical tournament - people also winning with avatars and guardian spam.
I also think a lot of people are underestimating people like Nicks and Reece's ability to play the missions.
Those culexes were probably getting points, capping objectives and being general impossible to remove nuisances.
Getting into position go get that -2 on an enemies biggest threat or spread it out to -1 on two threats without being in range of enemy denies is hard to do.
I have no idea how that list doesn't get tabled but it's obviously doing something right. I was thinking of running something similar in a local RTT this weekend but I don't have scout snipers and I think they are kind of important to make this thing work.
The meat of the list is Guilliman, culexus assassins, wolf + DA librarians and scout bikers? Turn 1 scout bikers die, turn 2 scouts die but by then guilliman is in your face smashing things? The shield eternal smash captain is very resilient and the emperors champion is no joke. I don't get the storm shields on the company vets but I have issues making 3+ saves and it's only 50ish points to get them protected.
I feel like this list is the equivalent of the necron triple vault list. Relies on a gimmick and good player skill but will still loose to better lists if player skill can be controlled for.
I think people shouting that this "proves that space marines are viable" have a strange idea of what viable is.
bananathug wrote: I also think a lot of people are underestimating people like Nicks and Reece's ability to play the missions.
Those culexes were probably getting points, capping objectives and being general impossible to remove nuisances.
Getting into position go get that -2 on an enemies biggest threat or spread it out to -1 on two threats without being in range of enemy denies is hard to do.
I have no idea how that list doesn't get tabled but it's obviously doing something right. I was thinking of running something similar in a local RTT this weekend but I don't have scout snipers and I think they are kind of important to make this thing work.
The meat of the list is Guilliman, culexus assassins, wolf + DA librarians and scout bikers? Turn 1 scout bikers die, turn 2 scouts die but by then guilliman is in your face smashing things? The shield eternal smash captain is very resilient and the emperors champion is no joke. I don't get the storm shields on the company vets but I have issues making 3+ saves and it's only 50ish points to get them protected.
I feel like this list is the equivalent of the necron triple vault list. Relies on a gimmick and good player skill but will still loose to better lists if player skill can be controlled for.
I think people shouting that this "proves that space marines are viable" have a strange idea of what viable is.
There is only 1 way that list doesn't just get tabled in 3 turns. Way to friggen much LOS blocking terrain.
I'm also watching the stream now and he should have lost guilliman turn 1 to Jared Parker (they misplayed the knight gauntlet strat). Near the 30 minute mark. Guilliman wouldn't have been able to deal 18 wounds to the knight and the whole game would have been different.
It's a shame that people don't know the rules to their own army (not Nicks fault)...
bananathug wrote: I'm also watching the stream now and he should have lost guilliman turn 1 to Jared Parker (they misplayed the knight gauntlet strat). Near the 30 minute mark. Guilliman wouldn't have been able to deal 18 wounds to the knight and the whole game would have been different.
It's a shame that people don't know the rules to their own army (not Nicks fault)...
How did they misplay it? Did they forget the d3 automatic mortals you get when you hit the first time? Did they not keep going when Gman loses stregnth tests?
Also - I find it odd that "the best palyer in 40k" doesn't know how deathgrip works. Playing dumb for advantage much more likely.
I think that if the same things keep happening - trash units win, terrible list builders win with their terrible lists, etc - perhaps conceptual models that suggest these things can't happen/should rarely ever happen might not be solid?
Best suggestion I've heard is to limit CP generated by a faction in a detachment to that faction. To avoid harming detachments of the same faction, they might need to use the battle brothers wording. Then perhaps to avoid the potential of tracking 4 pools, just give the BFCP to the Warlord's faction?
That was what I initially suggested, but was immediately met with cries of 'No! We need IG to fuel our elite factions! Removing that will kill them entirely!'
Said before, saying again:
The people crying the most about Guard CP generation also will cry the most when the Guard CP isn't available to them. They don't want the soup issue fixed, they want Guard nerfed.
Bharring wrote: I think that if the same things keep happening - trash units win, terrible list builders win with their terrible lists, etc - perhaps conceptual models that suggest these things can't happen/should rarely ever happen might not be solid?
It's almost like there is some luck involved in 40k and we only see these lists when they do well. We don't see them when they loose 4/5 games.
Best suggestion I've heard is to limit CP generated by a faction in a detachment to that faction. To avoid harming detachments of the same faction, they might need to use the battle brothers wording. Then perhaps to avoid the potential of tracking 4 pools, just give the BFCP to the Warlord's faction?
That was what I initially suggested, but was immediately met with cries of 'No! We need IG to fuel our elite factions! Removing that will kill them entirely!'
Said before, saying again:
The people crying the most about Guard CP generation also will cry the most when the Guard CP isn't available to them. They don't want the soup issue fixed, they want Guard nerfed.
They are just realists. the chance of GW fixing they own faction to have good CP generation is much smaller, then GW keeping IG out performing other factions.
Plus people bought models and do not want to see them nerfed. Because that is what GW does, either their fix is not really a fix and the unit or faction still does great and keeps getting used, or they kill a combo or faction. No one wants to spend 100-200$ only to have it changed in to a paper weight a few months later.
It's not really a paper-weight, it's just not as likely to win. The trick to avoiding this issue, I've found, is just to collect what you like and let the meta shift around you.
Karol wrote: Plus people bought models and do not want to see them nerfed. Because that is what GW does, either their fix is not really a fix and the unit or faction still does great and keeps getting used, or they kill a combo or faction. No one wants to spend 100-200$ only to have it changed in to a paper weight a few months later.
Guard players don't want this either you know. Guard took a LOT of well deserved nerfs early this edition... More seems like overkill, at least until the CP issue is fixed and the meta settles again.
They are just realists. the chance of GW fixing they own faction to have good CP generation is much smaller, then GW keeping IG out performing other factions.
Plus people bought models and do not want to see them nerfed. Because that is what GW does, either their fix is not really a fix and the unit or faction still does great and keeps getting used, or they kill a combo or faction. No one wants to spend 100-200$ only to have it changed in to a paper weight a few months later.
And yet your "realist" opinion turns my $500+ army into paperweights while the people buying Guard for "good CP generation" still get their money's worth.
Infantry Squads turning into poor units still generates CPs.
Nah the better answer is that Guard should just be appropriately costed. 6ppm Guardsmen 5ppm Conscripts. Then no one cares if they use Guard as a battery for CP as they're balanced with the rest of the troops out there.
They are just realists. the chance of GW fixing they own faction to have good CP generation is much smaller, then GW keeping IG out performing other factions.
Plus people bought models and do not want to see them nerfed. Because that is what GW does, either their fix is not really a fix and the unit or faction still does great and keeps getting used, or they kill a combo or faction. No one wants to spend 100-200$ only to have it changed in to a paper weight a few months later.
And yet your "realist" opinion turns my $500+ army into paperweights while the people buying Guard for "good CP generation" still get their money's worth.
Infantry Squads turning into poor units still generates CPs.
Marmatag wrote: Nah the better answer is that Guard should just be appropriately costed. 6ppm Guardsmen 5ppm Conscripts. Then no one cares if they use Guard as a battery for CP as they're balanced with the rest of the troops out there.
Mhm a guardsmen at the same price of a kabalite?
Even though it is worse in all things profile and weapon wise?
I mean with that logic we should price primaris marines at custodes base level aswell.....
Marmatag wrote: Nah the better answer is that Guard should just be appropriately costed. 6ppm Guardsmen 5ppm Conscripts. Then no one cares if they use Guard as a battery for CP as they're balanced with the rest of the troops out there.
Mhm a guardsmen at the same price of a kabalite?
Even though it is worse in all things profile and weapon wise?
I mean with that logic we should price primaris marines at custodes base level aswell.....
Kabalites don't get orders, or the same level of synergy. And you know it. Guardsmen would still be immensely popular at 6ppm.
Marmatag wrote: Nah the better answer is that Guard should just be appropriately costed. 6ppm Guardsmen 5ppm Conscripts. Then no one cares if they use Guard as a battery for CP as they're balanced with the rest of the troops out there.
Mhm a guardsmen at the same price of a kabalite?
Even though it is worse in all things profile and weapon wise?
I mean with that logic we should price primaris marines at custodes base level aswell.....
Kabalites don't get orders, or the same level of synergy. And you know it. Guardsmen would still be immensely popular at 6ppm.
Orders are not free. You need officers and they are restricted by ammount, range and regiment.
Secondly: pain rule.
Thirdly: ynnari soup shenanigans ergo more synergy.
Marmatag wrote: Nah the better answer is that Guard should just be appropriately costed. 6ppm Guardsmen 5ppm Conscripts. Then no one cares if they use Guard as a battery for CP as they're balanced with the rest of the troops out there.
If by "balanced with the rest of the troops out there" you mean:
Less BS(Kabalites and Guardians are 3+) and/or Less Sv(Skitarii and Fire Warriors are 4+ saves, Skitarii are BS3+ as well).
I love that you seem to think you have some deep insight...when really you're just slinging crap at the wall and hoping nobody calls you out on it.
Orders are free, because you have to bring HQs in your army.
Power from pain really only matters for the 6+ FNP on Kabalites since they're not in melee.
Ynnari shenanigans are wasted on Kabalites.
Lastly, Guardsmen also serve to protect some of the strongest shooting stuff in the game. This isn't an apples to apples comparison. In the context of Guard & Imperium, Guardsmen are 6ppm models.
Marmatag wrote: Orders are free, because you have to bring HQs in your army.
Power from pain really only matters for the 6+ FNP on Kabalites since they're not in melee.
Ynnari shenanigans are wasted on Kabalites.
Lastly, Guardsmen also serve to protect some of the strongest shooting stuff in the game. This isn't an apples to apples comparison.
So you think IG does pay nothing for hq? Or elites?
You can replace the same about any top list atmbtw.
Nerfing guard however will not accomplish anything anyways so long soup goes unpunished and gw feels the need for knights beeing broken via cp and allready Borderline op without cp. 6 ppm would just mean admech with -1 to hit trait would now be used instead.
See you solved nothing, except If you wanted to make IG mono unplayable.
Well done.
Lastly, Guardsmen also serve to protect some of the strongest shooting stuff in the game. This isn't an apples to apples comparison. In the context of Guard & Imperium, Guardsmen are 6ppm models.
A: They definitely aren't worth 6.
B: Shoot past the screens, or dedicate the effort to killing the screen if you need to. Guardsmen aren't magical LOS Barriers or anything.
People are bringing DE into their Ynnari soup, that's true, but it's not with Kabalites. Successful lists are actually using Prophets of Flesh with Wracks. Some lists bring 1 unit of Kabalites just for access to Vect. They don't see the play that guardsmen do for very good reason. Kabalites are solid troops. They're costed fairly. Guardsmen are stellar troops, and costed unfairly. It isn't an apples to apples comparison no matter how hard you try.
Six points is obviously too much, five is fine. Conscripts 4, normal guardsmen 5, veterans 6. Makes perfect sense. Company commanders need a small point bump too, maybe five point more or so.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I can certainly see guardsmen as 6 ppm. Especially using marine pricing theory, which is clearly based off having a perma-BobbyG aura.
I mean sure, fair point. But marines need point drop, 5ppm guardsmen are OK when compared to most other troops.
Vaktathi wrote: Not all HQ's have Infantry Orders, you have to purchase specific Order issuing HQ officers that have squat all other use on the table.
Those 30 point Company Commanders really add up huh?
What else are you supposed to use for issuing Orders, Commissars? Primaris Psykers? Tank Commanders?
What else is the Company Commander supposed to do, sit back and snipe with a *checks notes*...boltgun?
People love to trot this line out about the Company Commanders being 30 points. It's a T3 model with a 5+ save and a 5+ invulnerable save...with no real access to any other items. I can't turn him into a buffbot in the same vein as a Tau Commander rocking a Drone Controller with a bunch of Markerlight Drones. I can't turn him into a deep striking menace.
I pay those 30 points, he's literally just there to shout at people.
This all depends on how much you are going to charge for possible synergies. I can easily see a guardsmen with access to FRFSF as a justification to cost the same as a kabalite. Doubling rate of fire with 100% reliability is fething nuts. Esp as IG buff models are so much cheaper than Drukhari buff models.
I think auras and orders were mistakes in 8th ed. I'd take them out and see what points look like then as a starting point.
What else are you supposed to use for issuing Orders, Commissars? Primaris Psykers? Tank Commanders?
Platoon Commanders (which should be a HQ choice.) If the rules are built so that they encourage you to bring multiple Company Commanders over Platoon Commanders, then the rules are fethed up. It's like when people always brought Chapter Masters in previous editions because they were just flat out better than Captains at a negligible cost.
Martel732 wrote: "I pay those 30 points, he's literally just there to shout at people."
And hold objectives protected by the magical character force field. No character should only cost 30 pts with that rule in effect.
What should he cost? A Neurothrope is a Synapse HQ, Psyker, has Fly, comes with a 3+ invuln and is 70 points.
For what the commander actually does, which is just "shout at people", 30 points doesn't seem far off. An SM Lieutennant costs 60, better stats, better buff, better gear options etc.
Ive played with commanders a lot now. You'd have to get them up to primaris psyker levels before I'd stop using them. They're still a bargain at that price compared to crappy ass marine characters. I'm playing with both now, so I'm in a good position to comapre them. Marine characters, across the board, are a joke compared to IG characters. Bobby G is an exception. But there's no way I can ever leverage a single librarian to match two primaris psykers.
If I had more time to paint, I'd replace all marines with IG equivalents. They're better across board.
For what the commander actually does, which is just "shout at people", 30 points doesn't seem far off. An SM Lieutennant costs 60, better stats, better buff, better gear options etc.
Lieutenant definitely doesn't have better buffs! I would switch to Company Commander buffs in an instant! Can I have a Lieutenant that allows two squads of marines shoot their bolt weapons twice? Or his regular buff, only for two squads, or swith to Captain buff for those squads in case they need to shoot with overheated plasma? Or move twice, or fall back and move, or fight twice! Jesus, I think I found a way to fix the marines, give them IG orders!
It also presupposes that the SM LT actualy can do something with the stats. In practice it just gets run over by shining spears like a company commander. So why pay for him? I'd much rather have my points spread out so the shining spears might only kill 30 pts in one charge, and have to charge again to get the other 30 pts.
For what the commander actually does, which is just "shout at people", 30 points doesn't seem far off. An SM Lieutennant costs 60, better stats, better buff, better gear options etc.
Lieutenant definitely doesn't have better buffs! I would switch to Company Commander buffs in an instant! Can I have a Lieutenant that allows two squads of marines shoot their bolt weapons twice? Or his regular buff, only for two squads, or swith to Captain buff for those squads in case they need to shoot with overheated plasma? Or move twice, or fall back and move, or fight twice! Jesus, I think I found a way to fix the marines, give them IG orders!
If you ignore the number of units/points they can buff at a time, sure. But when I can plunk down a 60 point model that can simultaneously buff 1500+ points of models (fairly common for me), I'll take the Lieutenant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: It also presupposes that the SM LT actualy can do something with the stats. In practice it just gets run over by shining spears like a company commander. So why pay for him? I'd much rather have my points spread out so the shining spears might only kill 30 pts in one charge, and have to charge again to get the other 30 pts.
With the recent FAQ the Shining Spears should have a much harder time getting to your Lt.
But since snipers are so godawful in a general sense, the IG character is safe for the most part. And if not, it's a 30 pt sacrifice. Having next to nothing invested in each model is so powerful.
I can't afford to fall all over myself hunting down 3 dum dums when I"ve got manticores and gak raining death on me. It's just the 30 pts that breaks the camel's back.
Martel732 wrote: "I pay those 30 points, he's literally just there to shout at people."
And hold objectives protected by the magical character force field. No character should only cost 30 pts with that rule in effect.
If they're doing that without anything else also being close enough to hold it, then they're not issuing orders either. There's a number of other characters that don't cost much more that can do largely the same thing.
What else are you supposed to use for issuing Orders, Commissars? Primaris Psykers? Tank Commanders?
Platoon Commanders (which should be a HQ choice.)
That'd make creating cheap Guard CP battery detachments even easier...
If the rules are built so that they encourage you to bring multiple Company Commanders over Platoon Commanders, then the rules are fethed up. It's like when people always brought Chapter Masters in previous editions because they were just flat out better than Captains at a negligible cost.
Ultimately, I think the Platoon Commander is something of a redundant holdover unit from the Troops Platoon structure of previous editions. They were never available outside of that structure before, and even then only embedded within a command squad who's primary value was more in the quad special weapons they bore than anything the Platoon Commander was doing. Right now they serve to fill out Elites slots on Brigade detachments, but don't really have a distinct role otherwise. There just isn't a need for multiple levels of officer, particularly when detachments require you to take multiple HQ's in the first place.
Martel732 wrote: It also presupposes that the SM LT actualy can do something with the stats. In practice it just gets run over by shining spears like a company commander.
With the FAQ change he shouldn't be getting picked out quite so easily going forward, and most characters of that nature aren't going to win going mano-a-mano with a dedicated CC unit all on their lonesome.
"With the FAQ change he shouldn't be getting picked out quite so easily going forward, and most characters of that nature aren't going to win going mano-a-mano with a dedicated CC unit all on their lonesome."
Exactly. So paying as little as possible is good. Since your character won't win anyway.
Martel732 wrote: "With the FAQ change he shouldn't be getting picked out quite so easily going forward, and most characters of that nature aren't going to win going mano-a-mano with a dedicated CC unit all on their lonesome."
Exactly. So paying as little as possible is good. Since your character won't win anyway.
Just because a Space Marine LT can't (and isn't intended to) defeat a dedicated heavy CC unit one-on-one doesn't mean that extra combat ability is worthless.
Martel732 wrote: "With the FAQ change he shouldn't be getting picked out quite so easily going forward, and most characters of that nature aren't going to win going mano-a-mano with a dedicated CC unit all on their lonesome."
Exactly. So paying as little as possible is good. Since your character won't win anyway.
Just because a Space Marine LT can't (and isn't intended to) defeat a dedicated heavy CC unit one-on-one doesn't mean that extra combat ability is worthless.
I've used them a lot. As a BA LT, even. They are pretty damn useless in CC. If you use them in a gun castle, they never punch. If you go out and punch, you aren't buffing enough units. The aura scheme is bad and GW should feel bad. BA characters not named capt smash are godawful for their points.
JNAProductions wrote: Also, it takes only 10 Scouts with Sniper Rifles to one-round a Company Commander.
It takes 48 to do the same to a terminator captain.
This would matter if snipers were viable in a general sense. Being buffed up by Bobby G doesn't count, and never has.
Say that to AdMech or Necrons. Preferably from somewhere completely out of LoS. Oh wait, the Necron snipers also have Deep Strike.
You... are aware that Deathmark guns are 24" rapid fire, right? If you actually allowed them to double tap your backline buffer HQ you absolutely deserved to lose that game.
Martel732 wrote: "With the FAQ change he shouldn't be getting picked out quite so easily going forward, and most characters of that nature aren't going to win going mano-a-mano with a dedicated CC unit all on their lonesome."
Exactly. So paying as little as possible is good. Since your character won't win anyway.
Just because a Space Marine LT can't (and isn't intended to) defeat a dedicated heavy CC unit one-on-one doesn't mean that extra combat ability is worthless.
I've used them a lot. As a BA LT, even. They are pretty damn useless in CC. If you use them in a gun castle, they never punch. If you go out and punch, you aren't buffing enough units. The aura scheme is bad and GW should feel bad. BA characters not named capt smash are godawful for their points.
They could probably use a points decrease, I'm not saying they're great as is currently, but rather that the standard to which their value is measured can't be soloing dedicated heavy CC units, because that's never been the role or purpose of such units really. They're there to support the other units in the army (which should include supplemental CC hitting power), not to be a purpose-built CC monster all on their own.
I'm just saying what happens in practice. Which is how units need to be priced. They contribute to a castle, or go punch. Not both. They are priced to do both, and they can't. Standard marine problem.
Martel732 wrote: I'm just saying what happens in practice. Which is how units need to be priced. They contribute to a castle, or go punch. Not both. They are priced to do both, and they can't. Standard marine problem.
Indeed. That's been the problem with the MEQ statline for 20 years.
Martel732 wrote: Imperium doesn't have them, practically speaking. Bobby G does. I forgot about Eldar. They do.
Not having an Eldar codex yet, what do their snipers do that that sets them apart from the Imperials you dismiss?
Eldar Rangers have access to the Alaitoc trait(-1 to be hit at 12" or further) and their Camoleoline Cloaks grant an additional -1 to be hit and +2 to saving throws while in Cover.
Plus there's a stratagem that does something I don't recall offhand.
Martel732 wrote: Imperium doesn't have them, practically speaking. Bobby G does. I forgot about Eldar. They do.
Not having an Eldar codex yet, what do their snipers do that that sets them apart from the Imperials you dismiss?
Eldar Rangers have access to the Alaitoc trait(-1 to be hit at 12" or further) and their Camoleoline Cloaks grant an additional -1 to be hit and +2 to saving throws while in Cover.
Plus there's a stratagem that does something I don't recall offhand.
There's another -1 to be hit (Lightning Reflexes, I think?) and an "Only be hit on 6s" strat.
Martel732 wrote: Imperium doesn't have them, practically speaking. Bobby G does. I forgot about Eldar. They do.
Not having an Eldar codex yet, what do their snipers do that that sets them apart from the Imperials you dismiss?
Eldar Rangers have access to the Alaitoc trait(-1 to be hit at 12" or further) and their Camoleoline Cloaks grant an additional -1 to be hit and +2 to saving throws while in Cover.
Plus there's a stratagem that does something I don't recall offhand.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Raven Guard scouts do exactly the same thing? They have camo cloaks as well for that +2 cover.
Martel732 wrote: Imperium doesn't have them, practically speaking. Bobby G does. I forgot about Eldar. They do.
Not having an Eldar codex yet, what do their snipers do that that sets them apart from the Imperials you dismiss?
Eldar Rangers have access to the Alaitoc trait(-1 to be hit at 12" or further) and their Camoleoline Cloaks grant an additional -1 to be hit and +2 to saving throws while in Cover.
Plus there's a stratagem that does something I don't recall offhand.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Raven Guard scouts do exactly the same thing? They have camo cloaks as well for that +2 cover.
Raven Guard, period, get access to a -1 to be hit at 12" or further.
Marine camo cloaks grant just the bonus to saving throws, no penalties to Hit rolls for targeting them.
Marmatag wrote: Nah the better answer is that Guard should just be appropriately costed. 6ppm Guardsmen 5ppm Conscripts. Then no one cares if they use Guard as a battery for CP as they're balanced with the rest of the troops out there.
Sheesh that would make guardsmen equal point with stuff that outshoots them and outtoughs them. Oh yeah. Let's have extra range, +1S,4+ save for free. Yeah. That's balanced. Or howabout equal to somebody hitting on 3+ and wounding every infantry on 4+. Yep yep. Completely equal.
Why not just say "I want GW to kill IG from the game" since that's what you are proposing? At least be honest with your motivations.
Martel732 wrote: Imperium doesn't have them, practically speaking. Bobby G does. I forgot about Eldar. They do.
Not having an Eldar codex yet, what do their snipers do that that sets them apart from the Imperials you dismiss?
They get used. That's basically it. I'm guessing its because they fill out minimal troops effectively. Imperials can go with bolter scouts and get even cheaper. There's no way sniper scouts are worth 15 ppm. Maybe Eldar scouts aren't worth 12 ppm, but they seem to get used a lot more.
They are all a terrible way to get rid of a 30 pt model.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NurglesR0T wrote: Rangers are 5+ base at 12 pts
Scout with sniper is 15pts
so 3 points buys you +1 save, +1 toughness. Given that Rangers are harder to hit, but when they are hit, die easier it sounds like a fair trade off
Marmatag wrote: Kabalites don't get orders, or the same level of synergy. And you know it. Guardsmen would still be immensely popular at 6ppm.
Even with orders, kabalites are better than 6ppm guardsmen. You do realize skitarii rangers are stormtroopers with 30" bolters that explode on sixes, a 6++, and more movement for 7ppm right?
And mono-guard don't have access to auras outside of a couple of catachan special characters and priests. Orders are IG auras, they are stronger with the tradeoff of being only able to affect 1-2 units at a time, and each unit can only have 1 order active (unless you have a particular relic).
Martel732 wrote: But other threads have discussed the duality of infantry in the game. If compared to marines, guardsmen are 6-7 ppm. Rangers, 5 ppm.
Marines shouldn't be used as a measuring stick for balance, they are woefully underpowered. Guardsmen should be compared against other viable light/medium infantry like kabalites, fire warriors, skitarii rangers, etc. Almost anything looks good when you compare it to a tac marine.
Let's be honest here - that is cloud cuckoo stuff. Why should the mono guard players be forced to pay 60-90pts more because tournament players took them to supercharge a broken Knight model and a CP intense HQ character?
Refunding/stealing CP is a problem across all armies but worse in the guard as they can take both and I'll freely admit it was a problem. GW has now addressed it.
But why are people still banging the drum that guard are the problem when it was quite blatant that the stuff being buffed by the guard CP farm was the problem? I doubt that this conversation would still be going if the CP costs were their adjusted values at launch while the castellan was 700pts+.
But no, let's still carp on about how guard out shoot, out survive and out every other infantry choice in game. Even though they have to be in a certain situation to use them and can only receive one order a turn unless a warlord trait or relic is used (which might be the case now!)
Or are people still salty that their MSU infantry get out shot by full 10 man squads and can survive due to the new AP system being much fairer than the auto kill no saves allowed stupidity from 3rd to 7th?
Dr. Mills wrote: Why should the mono guard players be forced to pay 60-90pts more because tournament players took them to supercharge a broken Knight model and a CP intense HQ character?
I run 8 IS in a 2k point list, that isn't even infantry skew, and 6 point guardsmen would up my infantry cost by 160 points lol
Imagine the poor fethers that run 12+ IS at 2k points...
Martel732 wrote: Imperium doesn't have them, practically speaking. Bobby G does. I forgot about Eldar. They do.
Not having an Eldar codex yet, what do their snipers do that that sets them apart from the Imperials you dismiss?
Eldar Rangers have access to the Alaitoc trait(-1 to be hit at 12" or further) and their Camoleoline Cloaks grant an additional -1 to be hit and +2 to saving throws while in Cover.
Plus there's a stratagem that does something I don't recall offhand.
There's another -1 to be hit (Lightning Reflexes, I think?) and an "Only be hit on 6s" strat.
Almost correct there is alaitoc ranger stratagem for 1cp make them -1 and if you pay 2 pts for lighting fast, you can make them -4. But most eldar players wont pay CP to protect rangers and usually they have very low target priority, with +3 str weapon you can hardly call them good snipers. Most eldar players will gladly replace rangers with 4pts units that can soulburst. Guardians 12 range, guards 24 range omegalul.
I find it interesting Dakka has this strange love of Skitarii Rangers when their meta impact is zero.
Principally because - drum roll - the crappy HQ options.
You can either take a 47 point nearly totally useless Engineseer (guess you can repair Guard tanks or put a wound back on a knight if you have any - he's not helping the rangers at all though), or an extremely expensive Dominus (120-130~ points with mandatory items if I remember?)
This tax really weighs against the units.
By contrast 30 point company commanders are cheap slot fillers - which any DE player would enviously tell you is a perk all its own - and are a massive buff on an already excellent units. Or you can take similarly cheap psykers.
Let's be honest here - that is cloud cuckoo stuff. Why should the mono guard players be forced to pay 60-90pts more because tournament players took them to supercharge a broken Knight model and a CP intense HQ character?
Funny thing is it would hurt more mono guard than soup that would basically shrug it off.
Let that sink in. They are claiming MONO IG is bigger issue than Imperial soup. That's right. According to them mono IG is the ultimate uber cheese that outclass combination of best of the best Imperium can offer in combined soup.
Let's be honest here - that is cloud cuckoo stuff. Why should the mono guard players be forced to pay 60-90pts more because tournament players took them to supercharge a broken Knight model and a CP intense HQ character?
Funny thing is it would hurt more mono guard than soup that would basically shrug it off.
Let that sink in. They are claiming MONO IG is bigger issue than Imperial soup. That's right. According to them mono IG is the ultimate uber cheese that outclass combination of best of the best Imperium can offer in combined soup.
How anybody can think of that...
If you want to nerf soup howabout nerf the soup?
They aren't 6ppm but neither are they 4ppm units.
At 5ppm they are a lot closer to balanced than they are currently, but additionally if the ammount of CP they generate can't be addressed as some people claim it hurts mono guard more than soup, then they are worth more than 5ppm to a imperium army.
And the 5ppm hurts mono guard waaaaaaaaay more than soup. Soup barely notices it. Mono guard(oh yeah that dominating build with 200+ IG soldiers are everywhere right?) gets hurt lot more.
People keep claimin soup is the problem yet are firing all cylinders nerfing mono guard rather than soup. True GW style!
Tyel wrote: I find it interesting Dakka has this strange love of Skitarii Rangers when their meta impact is zero.
It's not Dakka. It always comes down to certain individuals when it fits their nonsense.
By contrast 30 point company commanders are cheap slot fillers - which any DE player would enviously tell you is a perk all its own - and are a massive buff on an already excellent units. Or you can take similarly cheap psykers.
30 point Company Commanders also contribute nothing except their buff to two units at a time.
Let's be honest here - that is cloud cuckoo stuff. Why should the mono guard players be forced to pay 60-90pts more because tournament players took them to supercharge a broken Knight model and a CP intense HQ character?
Refunding/stealing CP is a problem across all armies but worse in the guard as they can take both and I'll freely admit it was a problem. GW has now addressed it.
But why are people still banging the drum that guard are the problem when it was quite blatant that the stuff being buffed by the guard CP farm was the problem? I doubt that this conversation would still be going if the CP costs were their adjusted values at launch while the castellan was 700pts+.
But no, let's still carp on about how guard out shoot, out survive and out every other infantry choice in game. Even though they have to be in a certain situation to use them and can only receive one order a turn unless a warlord trait or relic is used (which might be the case now!)
Or are people still salty that their MSU infantry get out shot by full 10 man squads and can survive due to the new AP system being much fairer than the auto kill no saves allowed stupidity from 3rd to 7th?
I've seen 4pt models commanded by 30 pt models do too much stuff that much more expensive models can not.
tneva82 wrote: And the 5ppm hurts mono guard waaaaaaaaay more than soup. Soup barely notices it. Mono guard(oh yeah that dominating build with 200+ IG soldiers are everywhere right?) gets hurt lot more.
People keep claimin soup is the problem yet are firing all cylinders nerfing mono guard rather than soup. True GW style!
Even Guard players bar the minority who are just anti anything that might effect guard admit that infantry are 5ppm.
You either balance codex to codex and limit the interactions of soup, or you balance at the topp level keywords.
In a codex to codex comparison bar the Aeldari cheese (which GW will never balance) guard are a top tier codex which lost very little from FAQ2 and gained alot. In this model they very much are worth 5ppm.
The alternative is you balance at Imperium, Choas and Aeldari keywords, in that meta infantry squads are probably too cheap even at 5ppm and are worth probably 6 or possibly even more points each because of them having a higher value individualy when you are only taking the minimum you need to achive their task of Cp and back field screening.
Let's be honest here - that is cloud cuckoo stuff. Why should the mono guard players be forced to pay 60-90pts more because tournament players took them to supercharge a broken Knight model and a CP intense HQ character?
Funny thing is it would hurt more mono guard than soup that would basically shrug it off.
Let that sink in. They are claiming MONO IG is bigger issue than Imperial soup. That's right. According to them mono IG is the ultimate uber cheese that outclass combination of best of the best Imperium can offer in combined soup.
How anybody can think of that...
If you want to nerf soup howabout nerf the soup?
Imperial soup is driven by cheap IG troops. It is the source of all problems.
Let's be honest here - that is cloud cuckoo stuff. Why should the mono guard players be forced to pay 60-90pts more because tournament players took them to supercharge a broken Knight model and a CP intense HQ character?
Funny thing is it would hurt more mono guard than soup that would basically shrug it off.
Let that sink in. They are claiming MONO IG is bigger issue than Imperial soup. That's right. According to them mono IG is the ultimate uber cheese that outclass combination of best of the best Imperium can offer in combined soup.
How anybody can think of that...
If you want to nerf soup howabout nerf the soup?
Imperial soup is driven by cheap IG troops. It is the source of all problems.
Imperial soup is driven by there being no drawback/ negative to souping. Even if you removed IG 100% from the game you will still see 9/10 imperium armies being comprised of soup. Whenever you can take options from another book not available to your own codex with zero negatives it will be the more competitive option. Keep nerfing the FOTM choice for soup and soup players will simply move on to the next option meanwhile mono players have their army completely broken. Fix soup and you will have a nice mix of both soup and mono builds leading to more list diversity in the game
JNAProductions wrote: Also, it takes only 10 Scouts with Sniper Rifles to one-round a Company Commander.
It takes 48 to do the same to a terminator captain.
This would matter if snipers were viable in a general sense. Being buffed up by Bobby G doesn't count, and never has.
Say that to AdMech or Necrons. Preferably from somewhere completely out of LoS. Oh wait, the Necron snipers also have Deep Strike.
You... are aware that Deathmark guns are 24" rapid fire, right? If you actually allowed them to double tap your backline buffer HQ you absolutely deserved to lose that game.
The game where that came up somebody dropped two squads of the things and then rolled a lot of 6s to-wound. It was the first time I'd ever seen them so it made an impression.
Kanluwen wrote: A Marine Captain rocking a jump pack and a Thunder Hammer contributes a hell of a lot more than his buff.
I'd hope so given he costs almost as much as 25 guardsmen on top of a company commander.
But that's not what your argument was. You said:
Tyel wrote:Most of the non-psychic characters in the game contribute nothing but their buff. They are still twice or more as much.
He's an example of "most of the non-psychic characters in the game" that contribute FAR more than "nothing but their buff".
I ask again: What the hell do people expect Guard Company Commanders to contribute? Their wargear options are pathetic and even decked out with melee gear, they just aren't capable of doing much.
Kanluwen wrote: A Marine Captain rocking a jump pack and a Thunder Hammer contributes a hell of a lot more than his buff.
I'd hope so given he costs almost as much as 25 guardsmen on top of a company commander.
But that's not what your argument was. You said:
Tyel wrote:Most of the non-psychic characters in the game contribute nothing but their buff. They are still twice or more as much.
He's an example of "most of the non-psychic characters in the game" that contribute FAR more than "nothing but their buff".
I ask again: What the hell do people expect Guard Company Commanders to contribute? Their wargear options are pathetic and even decked out with melee gear, they just aren't capable of doing much.
And yet there's a lot more characters that grant something other than "just their buffs"(which I might add [i]are specifically targeted to a single unit and they cannot overlay additional "buffs" without a specific Relic/Warlord Trait setup) when talking about things.
Kanluwen wrote: A Marine Captain rocking a jump pack and a Thunder Hammer contributes a hell of a lot more than his buff.
I'd hope so given he costs almost as much as 25 guardsmen on top of a company commander.
But that's not what your argument was. You said:
Tyel wrote:Most of the non-psychic characters in the game contribute nothing but their buff. They are still twice or more as much.
He's an example of "most of the non-psychic characters in the game" that contribute FAR more than "nothing but their buff".
I ask again: What the hell do people expect Guard Company Commanders to contribute? Their wargear options are pathetic and even decked out with melee gear, they just aren't capable of doing much.
CC's synergize well with Infantry Squads while costing almost nothing. FRFSRF and MMM are more then worth having even on bog standard 10 basic Guardsman.
The next cheapest Imperial Battalion is AdMech and then your paying 50% more for mandatory HQ choices with completely no synergy at all to their troops.
I don't really care about that. I care about 4 ppm models backed up 30 point models punching WAY ABOVE their cost. Cheaper is going to be better in 8th almost by default. But we can make can control the degree.
Martel732 wrote: 36 extra shots. For 30 pts. That's what. I do it all the time. It's not fair, but I use it anyway.
Under optimal conditions that requires specifc positioning of at least 4 distinct units (the officer, two Infantry Squads assumed to be at full strength both within orders range of the officer, and at least one target unit in optimal rapid fire doubletap range), firing what is the weakest basic weapon in the game.
Is that the hardest thing in the world to set up? No, but it's not just an automatic "hey 36 extra shots" either.
That said, if they changed it back to just one extra shot instead of doubling the RF value, I wouldn't cry, though GW appears to want to use FRFSRF to highlight their new RF mechanic as it doesnt pop up too much elsewhere aside from Stormbolters.
Let's be honest here - that is cloud cuckoo stuff. Why should the mono guard players be forced to pay 60-90pts more because tournament players took them to supercharge a broken Knight model and a CP intense HQ character?
Funny thing is it would hurt more mono guard than soup that would basically shrug it off.
Let that sink in. They are claiming MONO IG is bigger issue than Imperial soup. That's right. According to them mono IG is the ultimate uber cheese that outclass combination of best of the best Imperium can offer in combined soup.
How anybody can think of that...
If you want to nerf soup howabout nerf the soup?
Imperial soup is driven by cheap IG troops. It is the source of all problems.
Imperial soup is driven by there being no drawback/ negative to souping. Even if you removed IG 100% from the game you will still see 9/10 imperium armies being comprised of soup. Whenever you can take options from another book not available to your own codex with zero negatives it will be the more competitive option. Keep nerfing the FOTM choice for soup and soup players will simply move on to the next option meanwhile mono players have their army completely broken. Fix soup and you will have a nice mix of both soup and mono builds leading to more list diversity in the game
Yeah but you wont see it dominating as hard. IG gives you more CP-more bodies-more shots - for less. It is a big deal. I'm not opposed to some negative for soup. In my CP proposal allied detachments cost you CP.
First - AM infantry/CC need to be put in line with other troops units and cheap HQ's - currently they are well above the bar - 5 points and 40 points respectively and they are still top tier. This change would dramatically fix the broken nature of soup - it would still be broken but it would be a lot better.
Those changes are required simply from a game balance prospective not even addressing command points. However - a change to the command point system would also hugely benefit the game. A system in which gives all armies fair access to CP (meaning without taking allies) is REQUIRED for a fair game experience.
Kanluwen wrote: A Marine Captain rocking a jump pack and a Thunder Hammer contributes a hell of a lot more than his buff.
I'd hope so given he costs almost as much as 25 guardsmen on top of a company commander.
But that's not what your argument was. You said:
Tyel wrote:Most of the non-psychic characters in the game contribute nothing but their buff. They are still twice or more as much.
He's an example of "most of the non-psychic characters in the game" that contribute FAR more than "nothing but their buff".
I ask again: What the hell do people expect Guard Company Commanders to contribute? Their wargear options are pathetic and even decked out with melee gear, they just aren't capable of doing much.
CC's synergize well with Infantry Squads while costing almost nothing. FRFSRF and MMM are more then worth having even on bog standard 10 basic Guardsman.
See again about how "their wargear options are pathetic". This kind of nonsense is the perfect example of circular logic.
Also, lol @ FRFSRF "more than worth having even on bog standard 10 basic Guardsmen"...well no gak. It literally only affects bog standard basic Guardsmen.
Oh, and if you want to get technical? It only affects 9 out of the 10. Sergeants can't take Lasguns for some asinine reason.
The next cheapest Imperial Battalion is AdMech and then your paying 50% more for mandatory HQ choices with completely no synergy at all to their troops.
This ignores the fact that the current AdMech book is a joke that happened thanks to the insufferable whining from those precious little Cult Mechanicus players who "couldn't field armies!!11!!" without using Skitarii to have cheap troops.
AdMech got what the whiners wanted. Skitarii players didn't want this, and quite a few of us have flatout stated that they should not have been rolled in or at the goddamned least should have been given a few HQ options synergizing specifically with them.
Same thing goes for the fact that the hallmark facet of the Skitarii(Doctrina Imperatives) was thrown into Stratagems that now require you to take the worst unit upgrade on Skitarii(Data-Tethers) to get full use of the stratagems.
Skitarii being separate from the rest of the AdMech never made much sense and the army was woefully incomplete on its own. The problem was that GW really just didn't appear to think through that project much and delivered two incomplete factions that didn't quite add up to a full complete army even when combined, and with 8E they really ham-fisted them together instead of taking the time to properly merge and flesh them out.
That fact that the MF'inf *AdMech* didnt even have a transport (and still doesnt really, the Termite in its current incarnation doesnt really fit well) is absurd.
Vaktathi wrote: Skitarii being separate from the rest of the AdMech never made much sense and the army was woefully incomplete on its own.
You are kidding, right? 2x Troops choices(Vanguard and Rangers) 2x Elites choices(Infiltrators and Ruststalkers) 2x Heavy Support choices(Ballistarius Ironstriders and Onagers) 1x Fast Attack(Sydonian Dragoons)
The only thing the army was missing was an HQ--and given that the Ironstriders got moved to Fast Attack in 8E, it goes from 1FA and 2HS to 2FA and 1 HS. That's a fairly "complete" force as it stands.
Compare to Cult Mechanicus at its launch: 2x Troops(Destroyers and Breachers) 2x Elites(Electropriest variants) 0x FA 1x Heavy Support (Kastelan Robots--Datasmiths were part of this unit) 1x HQ (Techpriest Dominus--It took Agents of the Imperium for the Enginseer and Servitors to be added and then 13th Black Crusade to bring in Cawl)
Skitarii was a far more "complete" army than Cult was.
The problem was that GW really just didn't appear to think through that project much and delivered two incomplete factions that didn't quite add up to a full complete army even when combined, and with 8E they really ham-fisted them together instead of taking the time to properly merge and flesh them out.
You say this and yet the intention was clear that they weren't supposed to "add up to a full complete army even when combined". Skitarii had the ability to run without HQs(their unique FOC allowed for them to have 0 HQs) and Cult had a FOC with 0 FAs, they required formations to even have their army abilities crossover.
That fact that the MF'inf *AdMech* didnt even have a transport (and still doesnt really, the Termite in its current incarnation doesnt really fit well) is absurd.
I'll agree on the Cult side of things, but I never had mobility issues with Skitarii.
The real issue was that the dedicated assault unit(Ruststalkers) had no way to prevent Overwatch.
Vaktathi wrote: Skitarii being separate from the rest of the AdMech never made much sense and the army was woefully incomplete on its own.
You are kidding, right?
2x Troops choices(Vanguard and Rangers)
2x Elites choices(Infiltrators and Ruststalkers)
2x Heavy Support choices(Ballistarius Ironstriders and Onagers)
1x Fast Attack(Sydonian Dragoons)
Which amounts to a fraction of the unit options of something like Eldar, Chaos, Guard, Marines, Orks, etc, and most of these are just equipment swaps of fundamentally the same base unit, and lacking HQ's and transports.
Compare to Cult Mechanicus at its launch:
2x Troops(Destroyers and Breachers)
2x Elites(Electropriest variants)
0x FA 1x Heavy Support (Kastelan Robots--Datasmiths were part of this unit)
1x HQ (Techpriest Dominus--It took Agents of the Imperium for the Enginseer and Servitors to be added and then 13th Black Crusade to bring in Cawl)
Skitarii was a far more "complete" army than Cult was.
So they only had 6 instead of 7 units
Neither was terribly complete, and having the Skitarii being a distinct faction from the AdMech made little sense outside of GW's marketing windows for that time.
The problem was that GW really just didn't appear to think through that project much and delivered two incomplete factions that didn't quite add up to a full complete army even when combined, and with 8E they really ham-fisted them together instead of taking the time to properly merge and flesh them out.
You say this and yet the intention was clear that they weren't supposed to "add up to a full complete army even when combined".
I guess one could see that as intentional, I saw it as a poorly planned release in what was by far the most poorly handled edition the game has ever bad.
Skitarii had the ability to run without HQs(their unique FOC allowed for them to have 0 HQs)
Only by dint of GW going out of their way to make a new FoC for them because they wouldnt fit the one they built every other army to for the preceding 16 years and 3 editions
The real issue was that the dedicated assault unit(Ruststalkers) had no way to prevent Overwatch.
Most dedicated assault units did not, that was rather rare, the only one I can remember off the top of my head that could was Banshees IIRC.
Don't get sucked in. Admech standalone obviously have issues stemming from a limited range. In general Imperium has a lot of "incomplete" standalone factions because allies are supposed to be available to them.
You're just in an argument which has devolved into "Defend Guard At All Costs."
Vaktathi wrote: Skitarii being separate from the rest of the AdMech never made much sense and the army was woefully incomplete on its own.
You are kidding, right?
2x Troops choices(Vanguard and Rangers)
2x Elites choices(Infiltrators and Ruststalkers)
2x Heavy Support choices(Ballistarius Ironstriders and Onagers)
1x Fast Attack(Sydonian Dragoons)
Which amounts to a fraction of the unit options of something like Eldar, Chaos, Guard, Marines, Orks, etc, and most of these are just equipment swaps of fundamentally the same base unit, and lacking HQ's and transports.
It amounted to a fraction of the unit options of established factions that had how many years to get bloated?
Ironstriders were distinct to Dragoons even though they were "equipment swaps". The same goes for Ruststalkers+Infiltrators, etc.
So they only had 6 instead of 7 units
Neither was terribly complete, and having the Skitarii being a distinct faction from the AdMech made little sense outside of GW's marketing windows for that time.
And yet GSC and Harlequins didn't get rolled into other books. GSC, if you strip out the Guard items they have rebadged into the book(Leman Russes, Chimeras, Sentinels), are sitting around these same numbers. Same with Harlequins.
You say they "made little sense out of GW's marketing windows" while ignoring they were effectively introducing brand new factions into the game.
I guess one could see that as intentional, I saw it as a poorly planned release in what was by far the most poorly handled edition the game has ever bad.
Then I don't think you actually ever played someone who went full Skitarii and enjoyed the army, but instead dealt with metachasers bringing Convocations and Flesh Tearers crap.
Only by dint of GW going out of their way to make a new FoC for them because they wouldnt fit the one they built every other army to for the preceding 16 years and 3 editions
And yet the same thing happened with Harlequins, I don't see you calling for them to get rolled into Aeldari.
The real issue was that the dedicated assault unit(Ruststalkers) had no way to prevent Overwatch.
Most dedicated assault units did not, that was rather rare, the only one I can remember off the top of my head that could was Banshees IIRC.
Banshees, a few armies had abilities that could be cast or used to deny Overwatch.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: Don't get sucked in. Admech standalone obviously have issues stemming from a limited range. In general Imperium has a lot of "incomplete" standalone factions because allies are supposed to be available to them.
AdMech "standalone" has issues right now because they crammed two distinctive factions into one book without any thought as to what made the factions work(or not work in the case of Cult).
Skitarii were effective solo because of their Doctrina Imperatives--their CC element was lacking, but you could potentially just ignore it and bring a Knight as an Ally instead.
Cult weren't effective because they had a few Canticles that buffed CC but their only dedicated CC unit(Electropriests) was expensive, didn't have a lot of survivability, and had no effective delivery system or protection for slogging across the field.
Cult was effective when you ran Destroyers, Breachers, and Kastelan Death Stars.
Skitarii lost their Doctrina Imperatives(they're now Stratagems) and their Vanguard move that they got, along with some of their more unique items going down in effectiveness(see Arc Rifles now vs then as an example or Galvanic Rifles and their Precision Shots ability that actually made Rangers quite nasty) or flatout just being made far less able to function in the manner the unit was designed on.
You're just in an argument which has devolved into "Defend Guard At All Costs."
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...
Clearly nobody could have actually enjoyed playing Skitarii. Clearly...
Spoiler:
Funny how people seem to forget that some actually enjoyed Skitarii before Cult stuff came out.
It amounted to a fraction of the unit options of established factions that had how many years to get bloated?
Even comparing them to their early 2E iterations where they got their first proper codex books, these were on the thin side.
And yet GSC and Harlequins didn't get rolled into other books. GSC, if you strip out the Guard items they have rebadged into the book(Leman Russes, Chimeras, Sentinels), are sitting around these same numbers. Same with Harlequins.
And I'm of the opinion it was a mistake not to roll them in with their parent armies. I've said so in other thrads more than once. I think splitting them into separate books has force fed the allies shenanigans that fuel so much of the top end of the metagame. Treat them the way Guard organically incorporates Stormtroopers as a subfaction (and having their own book didnt work out well in 6E/7E).
You say they "made little sense out of GW's marketing windows" while ignoring they were effectively introducing brand new factions into the game.
Well, they were introduced. Given how awkwardly theyve been handled, not sure Id say it was spectacularly effective.
Then I don't think you actually ever played someone who went full Skitarii and enjoyed the army, but instead dealt with metachasers bringing Convocations and Flesh Tearers crap.
Oh I did, especially before the Convocation garbage came out and became the default army for them in 7E, but I said even back then they didn't feel like a complete release and felt like half an army.
And yet the same thing happened with Harlequins, I don't see you calling for them to get rolled into Aeldari.
I have stated exactly this in other threads, it just hasn't been pertinent here.
It amounted to a fraction of the unit options of established factions that had how many years to get bloated?
Even comparing them to their early 2E iterations where they got their first proper codex books, these were on the thin side.
Did you ever think that maybe it's because these books weren't trying to artificially inflate unit counts?
I mean, I could have added another 2 or 3 units at least by simply adding "Sniper Teams" made up of Transauranic Arquebi(bonus: it would have required the sale of multiple boxes to make it work--a thing that GW was accused of doing at the time as well), "Plasma Teams", etc.
And yet GSC and Harlequins didn't get rolled into other books. GSC, if you strip out the Guard items they have rebadged into the book(Leman Russes, Chimeras, Sentinels), are sitting around these same numbers. Same with Harlequins.
And I'm of the opinion it was a mistake not to roll them in with their parent armies. I've said so in other thrads more than once. I think splitting them into separate books has force fed the allies shenanigans that fuel so much of the top end of the metagame. Treat them the way Guard organically incorporates Stormtroopers as a subfaction (and having their own book didnt work out well in 6E/7E).
Let's be honest here:
Scions was a poor book not because they were a subfaction, but because it was a poorly done book. For whatever reason the Guard book proper was able to field as many, if not more Scions as the Scions book thanks to the Scion Platoons present in the Guard book. Things also weren't helped by the $35 for 5 price tag on Scions either.
It amounted to a fraction of the unit options of established factions that had how many years to get bloated?
Even comparing them to their early 2E iterations where they got their first proper codex books, these were on the thin side.
Did you ever think that maybe it's because these books weren't trying to artificially inflate unit counts?
While there's definitely a case for that to be made with many armies (looking at you Space Marines), the fact that the *Adeptus Mechanicus* of all things (and and even then originally only from the Skitarii) has a grand total of *one* tank unit, no transports, and only a couple light Sentinel-esque sized walkers (built on the same shared chassis) as the sum total of its vehicle fleet is...silly and unfortunate, and also fewer than Guard or Marines or Eldar had even back in 2E when they got their very first codex books. The Guard alone in 2E had Sentinels, Hellhounds, LRBTs, Demolishers, Griffons, Chimeras, and Basilisks.
Let's be honest here:
Scions was a poor book not because they were a subfaction, but because it was a poorly done book. For whatever reason the Guard book proper was able to field as many, if not more Scions as the Scions book thanks to the Scion Platoons present in the Guard book. Things also weren't helped by the $35 for 5 price tag on Scions either.
The Scion book was a total abortion of both background fluff and game design, no argument from me there, but they didn't need to ther own book or to be their own distinct army either for what was basically one infantry unit and a commander with new transport and a borrowed Commissar and Valkyrie entry
Maybe GW wants people to buy rules like EA DLC player packs. So you would buy the codex for full, but if you want something like a pask you have to pay extra, Want a better set of rules for your Lemman Russ, 1.99$ etc
It amounted to a fraction of the unit options of established factions that had how many years to get bloated?
Even comparing them to their early 2E iterations where they got their first proper codex books, these were on the thin side.
Did you ever think that maybe it's because these books weren't trying to artificially inflate unit counts?
While there's definitely a case for that to be made with many armies (looking at you Space Marines), the fact that the *Adeptus Mechanicus* of all things (and and even then originally only from the Skitarii) has a grand total of *one* tank unit, no transports, and only a couple light Sentinel-esque sized walkers (built on the same shared chassis) as the sum total of its vehicle fleet is...silly and unfortunate, and also fewer than Guard or Marines or Eldar had even back in 2E when they got their very first codex books. The Guard alone in 2E had Sentinels, Hellhounds, LRBTs, Demolishers, Griffons, Chimeras, and Basilisks.
There was some discussion going on when Skitarii, Cult, and Harlequins all came out that GW was having production issues. We've since learned that yes they had issues (supposedly they're resolved now) but it makes sense they'd keep the initial books small when introducing a faction that was an unproven bit. Not to mention their model catalog is fairly large.
Supposedly there's a Skitarii HQ that passed the design+concept stage, just waiting to actually come out.
Let's be honest here:
Scions was a poor book not because they were a subfaction, but because it was a poorly done book. For whatever reason the Guard book proper was able to field as many, if not more Scions as the Scions book thanks to the Scion Platoons present in the Guard book. Things also weren't helped by the $35 for 5 price tag on Scions either.
The Scion book was a total abortion of both background fluff and game design, no argument from me there, but they didn't need to ther own book or to be their own distinct army either for what was basically one infantry unit and a commander with new transport and a borrowed Commissar and Valkyrie entry
Scions, period, were poor in terms of background fluff...but at the same time they made a hell of a lot more sense than the original Stormtrooper Regiments.
Them as their own book/army would have worked if they focused on the 'elite infantry' aspect of them.
These are the same complaints just a different method since like 6th edition.
Allies, the ability for models from another army able to use spells or auras on their allies.
What keywords have solved, command points buying Stratagems has taken away.
The mingling of abilities designed for a different army codex will always create balance problems.
I agree 100% that the points and Stratagems should be confined to the army they are designed for.
Soup I thought initially was a big problem but it it not.
It is the interaction of rules for one army applying to another that is hard to design for and kills the balance we all like to see.
The mix can be pleasing to the eye and give some advantage in addressing the weaknesses of one army with the strengths of another.
Vaktathi wrote: Skitarii being separate from the rest of the AdMech never made much sense and the army was woefully incomplete on its own. The problem was that GW really just didn't appear to think through that project much and delivered two incomplete factions that didn't quite add up to a full complete army even when combined, and with 8E they really ham-fisted them together instead of taking the time to properly merge and flesh them out.
That fact that the MF'inf *AdMech* didnt even have a transport (and still doesnt really, the Termite in its current incarnation doesnt really fit well) is absurd.
This is completely wrong and to be honest, as a Skitarii player, I HATE being forced to take either a super expensive HQ for any amount of synergy or a cheap HQ that does diddly squat.
Also the Termite is fantastic (although maybe 10-20 points too expensive) so you can take that back as you know little about the army clearly.
Vaktathi wrote: Skitarii being separate from the rest of the AdMech never made much sense and the army was woefully incomplete on its own. The problem was that GW really just didn't appear to think through that project much and delivered two incomplete factions that didn't quite add up to a full complete army even when combined, and with 8E they really ham-fisted them together instead of taking the time to properly merge and flesh them out.
That fact that the MF'inf *AdMech* didnt even have a transport (and still doesnt really, the Termite in its current incarnation doesnt really fit well) is absurd.
This is completely wrong and to be honest, as a Skitarii player, I HATE being forced to take either a super expensive HQ for any amount of synergy or a cheap HQ that does diddly squat.
Sounds like that syncs up pretty well with exactly what I said about it being a poorly planned out faction, I wish they'd had more stuff to fill out all those niches and balanced them better. They're a cool faction, but not one GW appeared to really flesh out well.
Unless you're just talking about having to take an HQ at all...
Also the Termite is fantastic (although maybe 10-20 points too expensive) so you can take that back as you know little about the army clearly.
*faints on couch* oh noes, someone disagrees with me so I automatically know nothing!
Calm down there pal.
As a general infantry transport, particularly in the common Imperial vein, it doesn't really fit that role (I wouldn't have ever considered the Hades Breaching Drill such either), and, more importantly, having your only transport be a $120 special-order model makes for an uncommonly seen unit, at least in my experience. There's no available on-shelf ~$40 transport Rhino/Chimera-esque transport option. I'm all for FW and love the stuff, but if thats your only option for a transport, particularly a faction whos fluff revolves around the Machine God and its Cult, something was missed in the codex development.
Vaktathi wrote: Skitarii being separate from the rest of the AdMech never made much sense and the army was woefully incomplete on its own. The problem was that GW really just didn't appear to think through that project much and delivered two incomplete factions that didn't quite add up to a full complete army even when combined, and with 8E they really ham-fisted them together instead of taking the time to properly merge and flesh them out.
That fact that the MF'inf *AdMech* didnt even have a transport (and still doesnt really, the Termite in its current incarnation doesnt really fit well) is absurd.
This is completely wrong and to be honest, as a Skitarii player, I HATE being forced to take either a super expensive HQ for any amount of synergy or a cheap HQ that does diddly squat.
Sounds like that syncs up pretty well with exactly what I said about it being a poorly planned out faction, I wish they'd had more stuff to fill out all those niches and balanced them better. They're a cool faction, but not one GW appeared to really flesh out well.
Unless you're just talking about having to take an HQ at all...
Let's be clear here:
The reason why the HQs don't really have synergy? It's because the HQs were designed for Cult Mechanicus, not Skitarii. The only one who really does anything is Cawl, who ties you specifically to Mars.
Also the Termite is fantastic (although maybe 10-20 points too expensive) so you can take that back as you know little about the army clearly.
*faints on couch* oh noes, someone disagrees with me so I automatically know nothing!
Calm down there pal.
As a general infantry transport, particularly in the common Imperial vein, it doesn't really fit that role (I wouldn't have ever considered the Hades Breaching Drill such either), and, more importantly, having your only transport be a $120 special-order model makes for an uncommonly seen unit, at least in my experience. There's no available on-shelf ~$40 transport Rhino/Chimera-esque transport option. I'm all for FW and love the stuff, but if thats your only option for a transport, particularly a faction whos fluff revolves around the Machine God and its Cult, something was missed in the codex development.
There's a couple of other transport options, but again they're still FW and they're tied to Cyraxus for us getting them in 40k proper.
Prior to this edition, Cult had access to Deep Strike for their HQ and Kataphron via a formation and Skitarii just had bonus move before the game started.
Vaktathi wrote: Skitarii being separate from the rest of the AdMech never made much sense and the army was woefully incomplete on its own. The problem was that GW really just didn't appear to think through that project much and delivered two incomplete factions that didn't quite add up to a full complete army even when combined, and with 8E they really ham-fisted them together instead of taking the time to properly merge and flesh them out.
That fact that the MF'inf *AdMech* didnt even have a transport (and still doesnt really, the Termite in its current incarnation doesnt really fit well) is absurd.
This is completely wrong and to be honest, as a Skitarii player, I HATE being forced to take either a super expensive HQ for any amount of synergy or a cheap HQ that does diddly squat.
Sounds like that syncs up pretty well with exactly what I said about it being a poorly planned out faction, I wish they'd had more stuff to fill out all those niches and balanced them better. They're a cool faction, but not one GW appeared to really flesh out well.
Unless you're just talking about having to take an HQ at all...
Let's be clear here:
The reason why the HQs don't really have synergy? It's because the HQs were designed for Cult Mechanicus, not Skitarii. The only one who really does anything is Cawl, who ties you specifically to Mars.
Sure, and I have no problem acknowledging that as an issue, hence my point about GW borking the whole AdMech (in the grand sense, not the specific keyword Cult Mechanicus) faction. When they introduced AdMech with Skitarii as a distinct faction, with the Cult Mechanicus following that up as a separate entity, that was an error, and neither line was really done well, and then they meshed them back together without really addressing any of their issues, and now we have something of an unnecessary artificial divide and a faction that lacks tons of stuff it really should have. I complained about that back then in 7E too
There's a couple of other transport options, but again they're still FW and they're tied to Cyraxus for us getting them in 40k proper.
Prior to this edition, Cult had access to Deep Strike for their HQ and Kataphron via a formation and Skitarii just had bonus move before the game started.
Yeah I remember the bonus move and Formation stuff, but it felt like a cheap cop out for not actually having developed a transport or additional armor elements. I love the models for the other transports, but as you noted, they're awkward to incorporate and are really expensive
Martel732 wrote: 36 extra shots. For 30 pts. That's what. I do it all the time. It's not fair, but I use it anyway.
You are assuming two barebones infantry squads within 6" of a single officer, both shooting at a target unit within 12" of both infantry squads.
Infantry squads are almost never run barebones first of all, so this is inaccurate.
Secondly, if the guard player is good enough to maneuver into this highly advantageous situation without you being able to lock him into melee, kill his officer, incapacitate his units, or debuff his troops somehow, then he deserves it. 36 extra shots of the weakest gun in the game shouldn't scare you too badly unless you are GEQ, considering that half of them are going to miss anyway.
This is 8th edition, first turn charges are a thing and many factions have access to them.
I still think guardsmen need to go to 5 points, but I fail to see why guard is such a boogeyman to some posters here. It isn't even the strongest mono-codex (Eldar). I think it has something to do with guard being a stronger faction than space marines in 8th, inducing nerd-rage cognitive dissonance.
I run them that way. To me, there's no other way TO run them. Giving them equipment seems self-defeating to me. Keep them cheap, all upside and no downside.
No one can first turn charge my guardsmen b/c scouts are in the way. They also have a tendency to be ignored. They are terrible targets when scouts are available. Although bringing 100+ fixes this issue as well.
Lasguns kill more points of meq than geq per volley. They kill even more points of eldar per volley. They also harm T5 3+ just like a bolter. They are stupid good compared to other sources of mid-range anti-infantry fire.
Martel732 wrote: I run them that way. To me, there's no other way TO run them. Giving them equipment seems self-defeating to me. Keep them cheap, all upside and no downside.
No one can first turn charge my guardsmen b/c scouts are in the way. They also have a tendency to be ignored. They are terrible targets when scouts are available. Although bringing 100+ fixes this issue as well.
Lasguns kill more points of meq than geq per volley. They kill even more points of eldar per volley. They also harm T5 3+ just like a bolter. They are stupid good compared to other sources of mid-range anti-infantry fire.
So you made your guardsmen better by bringing in soup?
Really the guardsmen are making my marines better. 5 CP and better shooting than tacticals for a fraction of the price. And two smiters hiding behind it all.
Really the guardsmen are making my marines better. 5 CP and better shooting than tacticals for a fraction of the price. And two smiters hiding behind it all.
How are you ordering 100 Guardsmen? Because without orders, they don't shoot NEARLY as well.
Martel732 wrote: You don't order the front ones. You use them as sacrificial goats taking the place of the scouts you were referring to.
But now the enemy is pretty much in your DZ, instead of being pushed back halfway across the board.
While IGcan use Scout Sentinels for a similar purpose, they're a lot less good at taking up space than Scouts are. (Also Ratlings, but with 18"... Blech.)
I don't really care how close they are. As long as Capt smash, libby dread and Mephy are between my tanks and the enemy, I'm probably okayish. Especially since no one is flying over me now.
Slightly off topic, but I wish AdMech had a Ruststalker HQ. I think the Ruststalker leader model looks fantastic, and it seems like such a waste to have him just be a random grunt.
Martel732 wrote: I run them that way. To me, there's no other way TO run them. Giving them equipment seems self-defeating to me. Keep them cheap, all upside and no downside.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'll always take a special weapon with them. Usually, I'll have either:
- Plasma Pistol (on sergeant) and Plasmagun or Flamer
or
- Plasmagun and Heavy Weapon Team (usually a Lascannon, but I've also used Missile Launchers and Autocannons on occasion)
The first one is what I use with Tallarn, the second is what I used for most other regiments. I used to mainly run the latter option, but I've since started to move away from Heavy Weapons, as I prefer the mobility of Tallarn (the Plasma Pistol is to make up for the lack of Heavy Weapon).
However, I do play lists that are basically all-infantry, so that might skew my choices a fair bit.
I know they are gonna die miserably. I KNOW this. They get nothing. Maybe mortars. I don't have the models, though. I'm new to IG.
The officer doesn't get a vox caster, because they are gonna die, too. 6" is fine. It's a 30 pt model.
But the temporal cost on the opponent is crushing. Even if they don't realize it. Every time they shoot a 4 pt dum dum, or even assault them, I'm pulling ahead. Unless I'm being forced to kill guardsmen, too.
Martel732 wrote: I know they are gonna die miserably. I KNOW this. They get nothing. Maybe mortars. I don't have the models, though. I'm new to IG.
The officer doesn't get a vox caster, because they are gonna die, too. 6" is fine. It's a 30 pt model.
But the temporal cost on the opponent is crushing. Even if they don't realize it. Every time they shoot a 4 pt dum dum, or even assault them, I'm pulling ahead. Unless I'm being forced to kill guardsmen, too.
I agree, my IG squads are going to die. They've been doing this in 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e, & into early 6e. And, as the table tops have filled up with ever more crazy-large-dangerous models while I've been away, I'm sure that'll continue nowdays.
But that's no reason for me to discard a build pattern that's always served me well before. In fact, quite the opposite I think....
Have you ever heard the Boy Scout motto of "Be Prepared"? That's my basic IG squad. I'll pay those pts for the frag/krak grenades, melta-bombs, vox casters, special & heavy weapons. Hell, I'll bring those chimeras as well.
Every squad is capable of doing the job. Hold objectives? Check. Kill infantry? Check. Kill armor/high toughness things? Check.
I'd rather pay for gear & not need it, or even see it die, than have a squad facing something they can't effect* (though that's lessened here in 8th, & I'll roll for those lasguns, I'm still bringing the AT)
On "wasting" AT shots on mere infantry? I'm OK with that. Because it's either threatening me, in my way of achieving an objective, IS the objective, or maybe it's the only/best target in range/LoS. In any case, if I'm shooting it it's because I want it dead & I'll not fret about overkilling it. That & I have more AT weapons. On killing basic infantry in general? See above. I'll kill whatever I need to win a game.
* I've seen plenty of that over the years. People bunching their heavy weapons (especially the AT) & not investing in squad options. And then when those HWT get killed they have no answer to tanks & such. And I love killing those armies.
I don't want to upset people, but putting stuff in your IG squads is just a bad idea. You are not giving yourself redundancy - you are just turning some of the least efficient to shoot units in the game into point pinatas.
Guardsmen are not hard to kill - but the problem is you wipe a squad and its just 40 points. The Guard/Imperial player has plenty of more stuff - and most likely, plenty of more guardsmen.
You load them up with a lascannon, and a plasma gun, give the sergeant some stuff, throw in a vox and suddenly I am getting double or more the return when I wipe the squad. Which I can still do just as easily before.
