Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Does the Sergeant getting options REALLY matter like you say it does? No.
When the most commonly used Order literally uses a specific weapon type that the Sergeant has no access to? Yes, it does matter.
Also, complaining about the static nature of Infantry is honestly laughable. Fire Warriors are pretty darn static too and they have a transport they're supposed to go in!
Reading is fundamental, kids.
...the fact that Infantry Squads are static units with no sliding scale for unit size nor do the Sergeants have any options.
TLDR version:
Saying they're "inferior versions of Guardsmen" misses the point. Militia are what Conscripts should have been and comparing them to the Guard Infantry Squad is disingenuous.
That's a lot of words to say "I agree but here's some other stuff nobody mentioned and which isn't relevant". Militia are inferior to Infantry Squad in every possible regard. Qualifying it and throwing in a bunch of malarkey doesn't change the fact that they are inferior. Nor does it alter that they cost the same ppm.
We'll swap your Stratagems, WTs and Relics for our Covenants then, shall we? You'd be happy with that? Four whole choices, one of which is for when your WS5+ dudes are in melee, one of which means you can get to and die in melee quicker but can't shoot your gunline in a gunline army, one that's decent and one that means you shoot overwatch at 5+?
Would you [Expletive Deleted]. Away and [Expletive Deleted]..
TLDR version: Saying they're "inferior versions of Guardsmen" misses the point. Militia are what Conscripts should have been and comparing them to the Guard Infantry Squad is disingenuous.
That's a lot of words to say "I agree but here's some other stuff nobody mentioned and which isn't relevant". Militia are inferior to Infantry Squad in every possible regard. Qualifying it and throwing in a bunch of malarkey doesn't change the fact that they are inferior. Nor does it alter that they cost the same ppm.
People like you are why we can't have these discussions in a reasonable manner.
Militia are not supposed to be Infantry Squads. The WS/BS5+ should have been the big tipoff since that's the same as Conscripts, a unit which is traditionally said to (shock!) recruit from militias.
We'll swap your Stratagems, WTs and Relics for our Covenants then, shall we? You'd be happy with that? Four whole choices, one of which is for when your WS5+ dudes are in melee, one of which means you can get to and die in melee quicker but can't shoot your gunline in a gunline army, one that's decent and one that means you shoot overwatch at 5+?
I think you don't quite understand how R&H are supposed to work. You do know that you don't have to take the WS5+ dudes with the Khorne Covenant right?
Also, you're an Index Army. You're upset about not getting something that no Index army had.
Kanluwen wrote: "The maths" are useless. They don't factor in outlying factors such as the fact that Infantry Squads are static units with no sliding scale for unit size nor do the Sergeants have any options.
If you keep trying to say "I made this wonderful formula that shows the round peg fits in the round hole" while widening the hole, of course the round peg will fit.
Irrelevant factors in the scheme of things. But evidently gw agrees with you congrats.
I agree that Militia are not supposed to Infantry Squads. It just isn't relevant, except for the fact that they're priced the same.
Weirdly, you consider everything relevant except the only thing that actually is; they're inferior and they cost the same.
Yep, I'm aware you don't have to take Militia with the Covenant of Khorne and can make it slightly less bad.
Well done, you've refuted my point entirely with that.
I'm also not 'upset' about our lack of Relics et al, that's just dismissive nonsense. I wouldn't play R&H if I was 'upset' at it, I'm just not going to pretend that lacking Relics et al is irrelevant when you're comparing them to a unit that costs the same, is natively better and can be buffed to be even better than that.
G00fySmiley wrote: Cruddace is a strong hand in 8th edition. he was not going to allow his precious guard to be balanced by having them go to the 5 points where they should be. In a fair game conscripts would be 4 points, guardsman 5 points as is , and vetrand 6 points, veterans would be the same as now but with a 4+ armor
That's funny, considering Robin Cruddance was responsible for the awful 5th edition guard codex, in which the only really good unit was the vendetta, and which took away our doctrines and sergeant loadouts that we have had since 2nd edition.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Re; Infantry being 5 ppm models. The maths has been done to death on this in countless threads. At 4 ppm infantry are the best troop in the game. At 5 ppm they are still the best troop in the game but the gap is smaller.
This is not true. I am a guard player who thinks IS need to go to 5ppm, but the math at 5 ppm guardsmen puts them equal in both damage output and durability-per-point to fire warriors. 5ppm guardsmen are not the best troop in the game by a longshot.
Kanluwen wrote: "The maths" are useless. They don't factor in outlying factors such as the fact that Infantry Squads are static units with no sliding scale for unit size nor do the Sergeants have any options.
If you keep trying to say "I made this wonderful formula that shows the round peg fits in the round hole" while widening the hole, of course the round peg will fit.
This is some good excuse manufacturing right here. Your outlying factors are bogus. Infantry squads are best played as static units, this is a choice the player makes to maximise efficiency. The sliding scale for unit size is nowhere near as important as you claim and the lack of options for Sergeants is cry me a river territory. Boo hoo your Sergeant can't take a lasgun to maximise efficiency even more on a unit that is by far the most efficient. My heart bleeds.
Stop making excuses for an evidently over performing unit. Not only do the theoretical maths show it but when we look at competitive lists you'll notice that Infantry squads are the most used unit in the game.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Re; Infantry being 5 ppm models. The maths has been done to death on this in countless threads. At 4 ppm infantry are the best troop in the game. At 5 ppm they are still the best troop in the game but the gap is smaller.
This is not true. I am a guard player who thinks IS need to go to 5ppm, but the math at 5 ppm guardsmen puts them equal in both damage output and durability-per-point to fire warriors. 5ppm guardsmen are not the best troop in the game by a longshot.
Fire Warriors are mathematically one of the best troops in the game and at 5 ppm Infantry still outperform them vs certain targets. If you've seen the maths on this you know it's true.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also, complaining about the static nature of Infantry is honestly laughable. Fire Warriors are pretty darn static too and they have a transport they're supposed to go in!
I'm pretty sure Kan's point here is that you have to buy them in blocks of 10 - no options for under- or over-sized squads in the 'dex.
TLDR version: Saying they're "inferior versions of Guardsmen" misses the point. Militia are what Conscripts should have been and comparing them to the Guard Infantry Squad is disingenuous.
That's a lot of words to say "I agree but here's some other stuff nobody mentioned and which isn't relevant". Militia are inferior to Infantry Squad in every possible regard. Qualifying it and throwing in a bunch of malarkey doesn't change the fact that they are inferior. Nor does it alter that they cost the same ppm.
People like you are why we can't have these discussions in a reasonable manner.
Militia are not supposed to be Infantry Squads. The WS/BS5+ should have been the big tipoff since that's the same as Conscripts, a unit which is traditionally said to (shock!) recruit from militias.
We'll swap your Stratagems, WTs and Relics for our Covenants then, shall we? You'd be happy with that? Four whole choices, one of which is for when your WS5+ dudes are in melee, one of which means you can get to and die in melee quicker but can't shoot your gunline in a gunline army, one that's decent and one that means you shoot overwatch at 5+?
I think you don't quite understand how R&H are supposed to work. You do know that you don't have to take the WS5+ dudes with the Khorne Covenant right?
Also, you're an Index Army. You're upset about not getting something that no Index army had.
Knaluwen, you are wrong. How ? By taking a gander at the 7th Ed IA13 list . Militia is not a designated unit type it is a template that could either reach Guardsmen standard in equipment and training at the same cost as a standard guardsmen then or be cheaper for worse stuff.
So yes Militia is used in the R&H sense as a groupe name that includes varying stages of discipline or motivation.
Edit: So they need to fill and should fill all of these roles, by FW's late 7th design: Infantry line: With bs 4+ Cannonfodder for 3 pts in a mass assult list. Traitor Guard squad with a 5+ sv and a 4+ BS/WS
Which they atm don't. Which is why a lot of people that saw IA13 started their army for their personal taste and are now upset at the GAK we got handled by FW/GW shortly afterwards because remember IA13 is late 7th. Also Goalpost moving, if you have no idea how the army should function you are not in the right tell someone that his opinion about the 4ppm militia is wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Your version of "Orders" is blended with your version of the "Regiments" tagline, giving you the Covenants. You having no Stratagems, Relics, or Warlord Traits means nothing as no Index lists had them until we saw Chapter Approved's first iteration.
Also not true since certain index armies got handed some stratagems by CA17 if i remember correctly. Meanwhile neither DKoK nor R&H nor Elysians have seen any bone thrown to them.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Fire Warriors are mathematically one of the best troops in the game and at 5 ppm Infantry still outperform them vs certain targets. If you've seen the maths on this you know it's true.
First, it's actually the fire warriors that outperform the (5 ppm) guardsmen against high T targets, while performing only slightly worse against T3 and T4 targets.
Secondly, fire warriors (and thus 5ppm guardsmen) lose to both kabalites and skitarii rangers in a direct comparison. Fire warriors aren't bad, but I wouldn't say they are "one of the best troops in the game"...
The fact that you can bring almost twice the amount of guard infantry as ork boyz feels just wrong. I think the +1 pt to ork boyz and cultists was fair, but I am dumbfounded at people defending 4 pt guardsmen... How is this even a discussion.
Sluggaloo wrote: The fact that you can bring almost twice the amount of guard infantry as ork boyz feels just wrong. I think the +1 pt to ork boyz and cultists was fair, but I am dumbfounded at people defending 4 pt guardsmen... How is this even a discussion.
Because they have a case of don't nerf me guard itis.
Symptoms include passionate pleading that soup is the issue, it's all soups fault, guard are weak.
If left untreated "don't nerf me guard itis" maye result in vomiting falsehoods as facts.
Be on the lookout for "don't nerf me gaurd itis", do your civic duty and report them to the inquisition for treatment.
Sluggaloo wrote: The fact that you can bring almost twice the amount of guard infantry as ork boyz feels just wrong. I think the +1 pt to ork boyz and cultists was fair, but I am dumbfounded at people defending 4 pt guardsmen... How is this even a discussion.
Because they have a case of don't nerf me guard itis.
Symptoms include passionate pleading that soup is the issue, it's all soups fault, guard are weak.
If left untreated "don't nerf me guard itis" maye result in vomiting falsehoods as facts.
Be on the lookout for "don't nerf me gaurd itis", do your civic duty and report them to the inquisition for treatment.
case in point though, in soup guardsmen are a bigger issue then in mono dex armies.
Are they too effective, most likely but Kabalites and firewarriors fall in the same offending group of troop choices. Meanwhile cultists and boyz got the shaft and are now less powerfull.
Had a discussion with a friend about this, He plays Traitor guard using AM codex, and Im firmly in the "they should be 5 ppm." and his rebuttle to me was 'How can I demand that whilst I have 4ppm Termagants??'
I just believe across the board models are too cheap now days and it has ruined game balance. hell when I started Chaos Daemons bloodletters were 15ppm!
Bump point costs back up, make list building actual decisions and stop letting people bring ALL the toys, we luckily have narrative play for that
On the other side, yes Termagants are THE ideal 4ppm unit, as by god their damage is abysmal, armour is pathetic and the buffs it has available are pretty crappy baring synapse fearless.... which is 100% mandatory otherwise they're hit with -1 to hit and charge against non closest enemy unit, thus balancing things out.
Gir Spirit Bane wrote: Had a discussion with a friend about this, He plays Traitor guard using AM codex, and Im firmly in the "they should be 5 ppm." and his rebuttle to me was 'How can I demand that whilst I have 4ppm Termagants??'
I just believe across the board models are too cheap now days and it has ruined game balance. hell when I started Chaos Daemons bloodletters were 15ppm!
Bump point costs back up, make list building actual decisions and stop letting people bring ALL the toys, we luckily have narrative play for that
On the other side, yes Termagants are THE ideal 4ppm unit, as by god their damage is abysmal, armour is pathetic and the buffs it has available are pretty crappy baring synapse fearless.... which is 100% mandatory otherwise they're hit with -1 to hit and charge against non closest enemy unit, thus balancing things out.
Nope, the ideal 4 ppm model is clearly the castellan, as it is such a integral part of the Knight codex
jokes aside, doubling the prices of all units and doubling the point played and then begin the finetuning, would be severly needed in my opinion. Maybee also implement a d10 system?
Stux wrote: Guard are much better than Termagants in most situations, so I'm not sure how that's an argument?
Not only are Guard better as they come, there are more powerful synergies available across the army to use them.
Devilgaunts look scary, but that's doubling your point value. Tervigons are still very expensive too.
Yes I was arguing with him Termagants do barely any damage, they really are just board space/ meat shields for the cost. Devilgants are scary yes, but at 8 points a pop hardly cheap for how fragile and they don't get orders for a pittance, instead they get a MC which is STILL overcosted for its effects and offensive output and kills nearby gants when it dies!
Guard infantry squads could go to 5, still output good damage and be cheap enough for crazy amount of CP and be excellent board denial units with access to some fantastic buffs from within AM and the Imperium soup as a whole.
I'll parrot myself again, increase all models point costs for more granularity as it is IS are way and ahead PPM than anything. (Plus do they still get the option to take a HWT in the squad? If so that's SUCH a nice advantage, an un-snipeable mortar, heavy bolter/autocannon!)
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Also, complaining about the static nature of Infantry is honestly laughable. Fire Warriors are pretty darn static too and they have a transport they're supposed to go in!
I'm pretty sure Kan's point here is that you have to buy them in blocks of 10 - no options for under- or over-sized squads in the 'dex.
Seeing as most other models are 7-8 points and their 5 man total is 35 or 40, the latter being the price of 10 Infantry models...
An Actual Englishman wrote: Fire Warriors are mathematically one of the best troops in the game and at 5 ppm Infantry still outperform them vs certain targets. If you've seen the maths on this you know it's true.
First, it's actually the fire warriors that outperform the (5 ppm) guardsmen against high T targets, while performing only slightly worse against T3 and T4 targets.
Secondly, fire warriors (and thus 5ppm guardsmen) lose to both kabalites and skitarii rangers in a direct comparison. Fire warriors aren't bad, but I wouldn't say they are "one of the best troops in the game"...
They don't lose to Kalabites. I haven't a clue where you got that idea from.
Ice_can wrote: Because they have a case of don't nerf me guard itis.
Symptoms include passionate pleading that soup is the issue, it's all soups fault, guard are weak.
Soup players, meanwhile, have no such illness. They're just rabidly defend the idea that Soup should actually be balanced against mono-armies, lest they be forced to actually use skill to win.
Sluggaloo wrote: The fact that you can bring almost twice the amount of guard infantry as ork boyz feels just wrong. I think the +1 pt to ork boyz and cultists was fair, but I am dumbfounded at people defending 4 pt guardsmen... How is this even a discussion.
Because they have a case of don't nerf me guard itis.
Symptoms include passionate pleading that soup is the issue, it's all soups fault, guard are weak.
If left untreated "don't nerf me guard itis" maye result in vomiting falsehoods as facts.
Be on the lookout for "don't nerf me gaurd itis", do your civic duty and report them to the inquisition for treatment.
Its so ironic seeing "pleading that soup is the issue" as "vomiting falsehoods" yet can you provide any data that suggests otherwise? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that every winning "guard" list since the conscript nerf has been soup? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that SM, Orks, DE, Eldar, Tau all have more mono GT wins then guard? Do you have any evidence that suggests the issue is guardsmen in and of themselves and not simply there ability to provide CP to elite armies like knights? I'd be all for a guard increase in points if I believed they were the issue and not simply soup (like all data suggests). Why not address the issue of shared CP pools and then fine tweak points instead of increasing guard by a point which won't change any of those loyal 32 lists? I think it would actually be nice to see some mono imperial lists from time to time at the top tables but as long as CP is shared with no drawback your going to simply see buffs/nerfs that only make sense in the context of uninhibited souping and ruin the chances of any mono faction to truly compete.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: They don't lose to Kalabites. I haven't a clue where you got that idea from.
Assuming the target is say... an MEQ within rapidfire range of both the firewarrior and kabalite.
Kabalite (6ppm) - 2 shots -> (4/3) hits -> (2/3) wounds -> (2/9) unsaved wounds -> (1/27) unsaved wounds per point during one shooting phase
Fire warrior (8ppm) - 2 shots -> 1 hit -> (2/3) wounds -> (2/9) unsaved wounds -> (1/36) unsaved wounds per point during one shooting phase
I picked a target of middling toughness for fairness sake... kabalites get better the higher the toughness goes because their weapon wounds on 4+ regardless of toughness... but let's look at the scenario that advantages the fire warrior the most, shooting at GEQ:
Kabalite (6ppm) - 2 shots -> (4/3) hits -> (2/3) wounds -> (4/9) unsaved wounds -> (2/27) unsaved wounds per point during one shooting phase ~ 0.074
Fire warrior (8ppm) - 2 shots -> 1 hit -> (5/6) wounds -> (5/9) unsaved wounds -> (5/72) unsaved wounds per point during one shooting phase ~0.069
Kabalite still has better damage output per point than a fire warrior does, even against the fire warrior's "best" target.
Let's look at defense shall we?
10 bolter shots fired by marines at a unit of kabalites and a unit of fire warriors
Well... would you look at that. Kabalites have the same durability per point as fire warriors against small arms while having better damage output per point against everything except vehicles, having much better weapon skill, and having better movement. Oh, I guess fire warriors have 3" more rapidfire range and 6" more total range.
Sluggaloo wrote: The fact that you can bring almost twice the amount of guard infantry as ork boyz feels just wrong. I think the +1 pt to ork boyz and cultists was fair, but I am dumbfounded at people defending 4 pt guardsmen... How is this even a discussion.
Because they have a case of don't nerf me guard itis.
Symptoms include passionate pleading that soup is the issue, it's all soups fault, guard are weak.
If left untreated "don't nerf me guard itis" maye result in vomiting falsehoods as facts.
Be on the lookout for "don't nerf me gaurd itis", do your civic duty and report them to the inquisition for treatment.
Its so ironic seeing "pleading that soup is the issue" as "vomiting falsehoods" yet can you provide any data that suggests otherwise? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that every winning "guard" list since the conscript nerf has been soup? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that SM, Orks, DE, Eldar, Tau all have more mono GT wins then guard? Do you have any evidence that suggests the issue is guardsmen in and of themselves and not simply there ability to provide CP to elite armies like knights? I'd be all for a guard increase in points if I believed they were the issue and not simply soup (like all data suggests). Why not address the issue of shared CP pools and then fine tweak points instead of increasing guard by a point which won't change any of those loyal 32 lists? I think it would actually be nice to see some mono imperial lists from time to time at the top tables but as long as CP is shared with no drawback your going to simply see buffs/nerfs that only make sense in the context of uninhibited souping and ruin the chances of any mono faction to truly compete.
Orks and Tau are not able to soup up.. So is that really supposed to be an argument that they have more mono wins because they are always going to be mono? Eldar and DE can soup with each other, but have no reason to because there's no real synergy like an Imperium or Chaos army grants so they tend to stay mono as well.
As for more Mono GT wins.. Well they're going to take the best thing possible, which is usually going to be soup, and IG can soup quite well.
ZebioLizard2 wrote: Orks and Tau are not able to soup up.. So is that really supposed to be an argument that they have more mono wins because they are always going to be mono? Eldar and DE can soup with each other, but have no reason to because there's no real synergy like an Imperium or Chaos army grants so they tend to stay mono as well.
As for more Mono GT wins.. Well they're going to take the best thing possible, which is usually going to be soup, and IG can soup quite well.
So... the data is that soup is the problem? Say it ain't so!
Plus, there absolutely have been mono guard lists at tournaments, and they're not making very good showings compared to those listed. Mono-guard shows up.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: They don't lose to Kalabites. I haven't a clue where you got that idea from.
Assuming the target is say... an MEQ within rapidfire range of both the firewarrior and kabalite.
Kabalite (6ppm) - 2 shots -> (4/3) hits -> (2/3) wounds -> (2/9) unsaved wounds -> (1/27) unsaved wounds per point during one shooting phase
Fire warrior (8ppm) - 2 shots -> 1 hit -> (2/3) wounds -> (2/9) unsaved wounds -> (1/36) unsaved wounds per point during one shooting phase
I picked a target of middling toughness for fairness sake... kabalites get better the higher the toughness goes because their weapon wounds on 4+ regardless of toughness... but let's look at the scenario that advantages the fire warrior the most, shooting at GEQ:
Kabalite (6ppm) - 2 shots -> (4/3) hits -> (2/3) wounds -> (4/9) unsaved wounds -> (2/27) unsaved wounds per point during one shooting phase ~ 0.074
Fire warrior (8ppm) - 2 shots -> 1 hit -> (5/6) wounds -> (5/9) unsaved wounds -> (5/72) unsaved wounds per point during one shooting phase ~0.069
Kabalite still has better damage output per point than a fire warrior does, even against the fire warrior's "best" target.
Let's look at defense shall we?
10 bolter shots fired by marines at a unit of kabalites and a unit of fire warriors
Well... would you look at that. Kabalites have the same durability per point as fire warriors against small arms while having better damage output per point against everything except vehicles, having much better weapon skill, and having better movement. Oh, I guess fire warriors have 3" more rapidfire range and 6" more total range.
That's where I got that idea from.
Fire Warriors are 7 points I thought? That's how one of my opponents a while back was playing them.
Its so ironic seeing "pleading that soup is the issue" as "vomiting falsehoods" yet can you provide any data that suggests otherwise? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that every winning "guard" list since the conscript nerf has been soup?
Please do provide data detailing of this 0% winrate for mono guard since Chapter Approved '17.
Are we supposed to ignore the fact that SM, Orks, DE, Eldar, Tau all have more mono GT wins then guard?
Pointless comparison. Orks, Tau and Tyranids have no way of allying with anything else other than their own respective factions. Because hey, I agree, soup is too strong. The fact that any imperial player can soup up with undercosted guardsmen is a big part of the problem, but soup being a problem doesn't change the fundamental issue specific to guardsmen, which are undercosted. There's a reason they exist in the vast majority of imperial armies at the moment. They, along with my ork boyz, and jimmy's cultists, and jane's firewarriors are the reason people are struggling to find a reason to ever bring power armor to the table. Cheap, undercosted units spammed are too good at what they do. Board control, tarpitting, screening vs assault, objective denial, durability per point etc are vital in this edition.
Do you have any evidence that suggests the issue is guardsmen in and of themselves and not simply there ability to provide CP to elite armies like knights? I'd be all for a guard increase in points if I believed they were the issue and not simply soup (like all data suggests). Why not address the issue of shared CP pools and then fine tweak points instead of increasing guard by a point which won't change any of those loyal 32 lists?
As I mentioned above, I agree that soup is dumb. I'd go as far to say that most players don't like soup (GW is happy with it as MORE SALES). Fact is though, that is another issue. Because on the other hand, guardsmen are too good for 4 pts. Look at other 4 pt units like termagaunts, look at 3 pt units like grots. Guardsmen are much better.
I think it would actually be nice to see some mono imperial lists from time to time at the top tables but as long as CP is shared with no drawback your going to simply see buffs/nerfs that only make sense in the context of uninhibited souping and ruin the chances of any mono faction to truly compete.
It would be nice to see mono guard, but just because guard have access to all of the juicy toys the imperium has to offer through soup, doesn't mean they're weak. Imperial players are absolutely spoilt for choice in units you can take. If we were to make mono-faction armies a rule, AM would completely gak on any other army easily just from the raw, cheap firepower and board control alone. Just like in the index days.
I think it's not that there's a 0% win-rate, it's that they've never placed highest out of all the mono lists at any tournament.
Asmodios has the data (as I've seen him make this argument probably eighty times without it being refuted), but the general theme is:
- Mono lists don't usually show up in the top 10, but are present in the top 25 of most tournaments. - Of those high-placing mono lists, guard are present, but have never actually done the best - The ones Asmodios has listed have actually been the armies that place on the top, if soup lists are disregarded.
So essentially, if you take tournament data and strip out every list that takes its army from more than one Codex, Guard are absolutely top tier, but they're top tier with other people (DE, Tau, etc), rather than just being ridiculously OP and everyone else having to kneel at their feet.
but let's look at the scenario that advantages the fire warrior the most, shooting at GEQ:
Kabalite (6ppm) - 2 shots -> (4/3) hits -> (2/3) wounds -> (4/9) unsaved wounds -> (2/27) unsaved wounds per point during one shooting phase ~ 0.074
Fire warrior (8ppm) - 2 shots -> 1 hit -> (5/6) wounds -> (5/9) unsaved wounds -> (5/72) unsaved wounds per point during one shooting phase ~0.069
Kabalite still has better damage output per point than a fire warrior does, even against the fire warrior's "best" target.
If you want to look at the scenario that advantages Fire Warriors the most, then surely you should be looking at vehicles (which Kabalites can only ever wound on 6s)?
Sluggaloo wrote: The fact that you can bring almost twice the amount of guard infantry as ork boyz feels just wrong. I think the +1 pt to ork boyz and cultists was fair, but I am dumbfounded at people defending 4 pt guardsmen... How is this even a discussion.
Because they have a case of don't nerf me guard itis.
Symptoms include passionate pleading that soup is the issue, it's all soups fault, guard are weak.
If left untreated "don't nerf me guard itis" maye result in vomiting falsehoods as facts.
Be on the lookout for "don't nerf me gaurd itis", do your civic duty and report them to the inquisition for treatment.
Its so ironic seeing "pleading that soup is the issue" as "vomiting falsehoods" yet can you provide any data that suggests otherwise? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that every winning "guard" list since the conscript nerf has been soup? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that SM, Orks, DE, Eldar, Tau all have more mono GT wins then guard? Do you have any evidence that suggests the issue is guardsmen in and of themselves and not simply there ability to provide CP to elite armies like knights? I'd be all for a guard increase in points if I believed they were the issue and not simply soup (like all data suggests). Why not address the issue of shared CP pools and then fine tweak points instead of increasing guard by a point which won't change any of those loyal 32 lists? I think it would actually be nice to see some mono imperial lists from time to time at the top tables but as long as CP is shared with no drawback your going to simply see buffs/nerfs that only make sense in the context of uninhibited souping and ruin the chances of any mono faction to truly compete.
Congratulations on making the point perfectly
1 you didn't actually read what was writen
2 You haven't actually addressed anything said
3 you've gone all out on trying to change the narrative (futher reinforcing the stero type)
4 You have history of arguing that 1400 points of guard plus a knight is soup and doesn't show guard as anything but weak, that 1600 points of guard plus 3 dawn eagles is soup and hence shows nothing but that guard are weak.
You refuse to admit that players dont take 1400 to 1600 points of weakness and go win tournaments.
But you do you, arguing with guard apologists is kinda like arguing with a religious zealot, no matter what evidence or facts you present they have their beliefs and they'll die for them.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think it's not that there's a 0% win-rate, it's that they've never placed highest out of all the mono lists at any tournament.
Asmodios has the data (as I've seen him make this argument probably eighty times without it being refuted), but the general theme is:
- Mono lists don't usually show up in the top 10, but are present in the top 25 of most tournaments.
- Of those high-placing mono lists, guard are present, but have never actually done the best
- The ones Asmodios has listed have actually been the armies that place on the top, if soup lists are disregarded.
So essentially, if you take tournament data and strip out every list that takes its army from more than one Codex, Guard are absolutely top tier, but they're top tier with other people (DE, Tau, etc), rather than just being ridiculously OP and everyone else having to kneel at their feet.
So according to his data.. imperial players can choose between bullgryns or smash captains. No wonder you have most guard players opting for a non-mono guard army. Actual relevant data for guard's standings versus other mono-faction armies would be from results of MONO-FACTION ONLY TOURNAMENTS. Where guard would still do well. Instead of relying on smash captains for melee threat, or custodes, they will rely on bullgryns instead. Just because you have a bazillion options to choose from, some of which are better than your codex equivalent, does not mean your codex would suffer in a mono-faction environment.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think it's not that there's a 0% win-rate, it's that they've never placed highest out of all the mono lists at any tournament.
Asmodios has the data (as I've seen him make this argument probably eighty times without it being refuted), but the general theme is:
- Mono lists don't usually show up in the top 10, but are present in the top 25 of most tournaments.
- Of those high-placing mono lists, guard are present, but have never actually done the best
- The ones Asmodios has listed have actually been the armies that place on the top, if soup lists are disregarded.
So essentially, if you take tournament data and strip out every list that takes its army from more than one Codex, Guard are absolutely top tier, but they're top tier with other people (DE, Tau, etc), rather than just being ridiculously OP and everyone else having to kneel at their feet.
He yet again every time he's been asked for player names or win history, goes quite, because the top competitive player's arn't going to play moni when their is no downside to playing soup, the fact that relatively unknowns are taking mono guard to the same level as the top players of the forced mono factions shows just how OP they are mono codex to mono codex.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think it's not that there's a 0% win-rate, it's that they've never placed highest out of all the mono lists at any tournament.
Asmodios has the data (as I've seen him make this argument probably eighty times without it being refuted), but the general theme is:
- Mono lists don't usually show up in the top 10, but are present in the top 25 of most tournaments. - Of those high-placing mono lists, guard are present, but have never actually done the best - The ones Asmodios has listed have actually been the armies that place on the top, if soup lists are disregarded.
So essentially, if you take tournament data and strip out every list that takes its army from more than one Codex, Guard are absolutely top tier, but they're top tier with other people (DE, Tau, etc), rather than just being ridiculously OP and everyone else having to kneel at their feet.
So according to his data.. imperial players can choose between bullgryns or smash captains. No wonder you have most guard players opting for a non-mono guard army. Actual relevant data for guard's standings versus other mono-faction armies would be from results of MONO-FACTION ONLY TOURNAMENTS. Where guard would still do well. Instead of relying on smash captains for melee threat, or custodes, they will rely on bullgryns instead. Just because you have a bazillion options to choose from, some of which are better than your codex equivalent, does not mean your codex would suffer in a mono-faction environment.
Right, that's the point.
Guard would absolutely do well and no one is denying that. What people are saying, is they aren't the best ever or head and shoulders above everyone else. They'd be among the top tier (as I mentioned in the very post you quoted) but so would a variety of other mono-codexes (such as the examples given), which is a Good Thing™, and should be the position everyone is in.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think it's not that there's a 0% win-rate, it's that they've never placed highest out of all the mono lists at any tournament.
Asmodios has the data (as I've seen him make this argument probably eighty times without it being refuted), but the general theme is:
- Mono lists don't usually show up in the top 10, but are present in the top 25 of most tournaments. - Of those high-placing mono lists, guard are present, but have never actually done the best - The ones Asmodios has listed have actually been the armies that place on the top, if soup lists are disregarded.
So essentially, if you take tournament data and strip out every list that takes its army from more than one Codex, Guard are absolutely top tier, but they're top tier with other people (DE, Tau, etc), rather than just being ridiculously OP and everyone else having to kneel at their feet.
He yet again every time he's been asked for player names or win history, goes quite, because the top competitive player's arn't going to play moni when their is no downside to playing soup, the fact that relatively unknowns are taking mono guard to the same level as the top players of the forced mono factions shows just how OP they are mono codex to mono codex.
I can't even parse what you said. First of all, player names and win history aren't available - all that's usually available is FACTION (MONO/NOT MONO) and PLACEMENT. Sometimes you can get the lists.
I would be willing to concede that it's unknown how a mono-codex-only tournament would go, but I suspect there would be a variety of lists at the top, weighting a bit towards Drukhari and CWE.
I just don't understand why he's bothering to point out that guard have less mono-faction wins than armies that can't even soup, pointing at data from tournaments that don't punish soup at all. Ridiculous goal-posting. /Rant
Sluggaloo wrote: I just don't understand why he's bothering to point out that guard have less mono-faction wins than armies that can't even soup, pointing at data from tournaments that don't punish soup at all. Ridiculous goal-posting. /Rant
I think the point is that, with the data available, mono-guard has peers. While the data available are limited, there's not really any other information available besides pure speculation and contextually-independent math, which inevitably devolves into the discussion about context.
Without information, there's not very much utility in debating. I can, for example, assert that in my local meta, a mono-Drukhari list has tabled my Mono-Guard, my Soup Guard (though it did better), a friend's Mono-Guard, another friend's tournament preparation mono-guard, and others. It's currently the "List To Beat" in my local meta. However, my local meta isn't as much data as a tournament, so that's useless.
Sluggaloo wrote: I just don't understand why he's bothering to point out that guard have less mono-faction wins than armies that can't even soup, pointing at data from tournaments that don't punish soup at all. Ridiculous goal-posting. /Rant
I think the point is that, with the data available, mono-guard has peers. While the data available are limited, there's not really any other information available besides pure speculation and contextually-independent math, which inevitably devolves into the discussion about context.
Without information, there's not very much utility in debating. I can, for example, assert that in my local meta, a mono-Drukhari list has tabled my Mono-Guard, my Soup Guard (though it did better), a friend's Mono-Guard, another friend's tournament preparation mono-guard, and others. It's currently the "List To Beat" in my local meta. However, my local meta isn't as much data as a tournament, so that's useless.
So because the data doesn't show it we can't hit units are clearly a problem? That's basically the argument he's been making all along.
Sluggaloo wrote: I just don't understand why he's bothering to point out that guard have less mono-faction wins than armies that can't even soup, pointing at data from tournaments that don't punish soup at all. Ridiculous goal-posting. /Rant
I think the point is that, with the data available, mono-guard has peers. While the data available are limited, there's not really any other information available besides pure speculation and contextually-independent math, which inevitably devolves into the discussion about context.
Without information, there's not very much utility in debating. I can, for example, assert that in my local meta, a mono-Drukhari list has tabled my Mono-Guard, my Soup Guard (though it did better), a friend's Mono-Guard, another friend's tournament preparation mono-guard, and others. It's currently the "List To Beat" in my local meta. However, my local meta isn't as much data as a tournament, so that's useless.
So because the data doesn't show it we can't hit units are clearly a problem? That's basically the argument he's been making all along.
Yes?
That's how data works. To argue a point that the data doesn't show is ... silly. The only reliable way to determine if a unit is a problem in the first place is to consult the data. Anything else is just saying "I think this unit is a problem because X", which is not valuable.
Sluggaloo wrote: I just don't understand why he's bothering to point out that guard have less mono-faction wins than armies that can't even soup, pointing at data from tournaments that don't punish soup at all. Ridiculous goal-posting. /Rant
I think the point is that, with the data available, mono-guard has peers. While the data available are limited, there's not really any other information available besides pure speculation and contextually-independent math, which inevitably devolves into the discussion about context.
Without information, there's not very much utility in debating. I can, for example, assert that in my local meta, a mono-Drukhari list has tabled my Mono-Guard, my Soup Guard (though it did better), a friend's Mono-Guard, another friend's tournament preparation mono-guard, and others. It's currently the "List To Beat" in my local meta. However, my local meta isn't as much data as a tournament, so that's useless.
So because the data doesn't show it we can't hit units are clearly a problem? That's basically the argument he's been making all along.
This. "Oh everyone and their mum is bringing IG, but it's only because 180pts gets you 5cp.. their points are totally ok".
1400 points of guard+Castellan>2000 points of guard.
Pretty sure you could express this mathematically if you wanted to, and yes it fits "the data".
What doesn't automatically follow is that because the above exists and is top tier, guard are fine on their own, the castellan is fine on its own, but there is this magical thing called soup which is a problem.
I mean fine - nerf the soup. Then look at the meta. But so long as GW won't do that, and there are reasons why they might never accept it as necessary, they need to nerf either the guard, or the castellan, or preferably both.
Sluggaloo wrote: I just don't understand why he's bothering to point out that guard have less mono-faction wins than armies that can't even soup, pointing at data from tournaments that don't punish soup at all. Ridiculous goal-posting. /Rant
I think the point is that, with the data available, mono-guard has peers. While the data available are limited, there's not really any other information available besides pure speculation and contextually-independent math, which inevitably devolves into the discussion about context.
Without information, there's not very much utility in debating. I can, for example, assert that in my local meta, a mono-Drukhari list has tabled my Mono-Guard, my Soup Guard (though it did better), a friend's Mono-Guard, another friend's tournament preparation mono-guard, and others. It's currently the "List To Beat" in my local meta. However, my local meta isn't as much data as a tournament, so that's useless.
So because the data doesn't show it we can't hit units are clearly a problem? That's basically the argument he's been making all along.
This. "Oh everyone and their mum is bringing IG, but it's only because 180pts gets you 5cp.. their points are totally ok".
Well, no. I recognize that's silly, because there's cheaper battalions out there.
What people are bringing IG for is their firepower and numbers. Those numbers are very valuable screening something as strong as a Knight Castellan, and that firepower is very valuable supporting something like Smash Captains or whatever (as are the CP).
The argument is that numbers and firepower are all IG have, without the durability and sheer craziness of the Castellan, nor the melee power of the Smash Captain. Bringing mono-guard means simply bringing more of the same, which is considerably easier to defeat than soup.
1350 points of guard with a Castellan are much stronger than 2000 points of Guard, even though Guard make up the majority of the first list.
Sluggaloo wrote: I just don't understand why he's bothering to point out that guard have less mono-faction wins than armies that can't even soup, pointing at data from tournaments that don't punish soup at all. Ridiculous goal-posting. /Rant
I think the point is that, with the data available, mono-guard has peers. While the data available are limited, there's not really any other information available besides pure speculation and contextually-independent math, which inevitably devolves into the discussion about context.
Without information, there's not very much utility in debating. I can, for example, assert that in my local meta, a mono-Drukhari list has tabled my Mono-Guard, my Soup Guard (though it did better), a friend's Mono-Guard, another friend's tournament preparation mono-guard, and others. It's currently the "List To Beat" in my local meta. However, my local meta isn't as much data as a tournament, so that's useless.
So because the data doesn't show it we can't hit units are clearly a problem? That's basically the argument he's been making all along.
This. "Oh everyone and their mum is bringing IG, but it's only because 180pts gets you 5cp.. their points are totally ok".
Well, no. I recognize that's silly, because there's cheaper battalions out there.
What people are bringing IG for is their firepower and numbers. Those numbers are very valuable screening something as strong as a Knight Castellan, and that firepower is very valuable supporting something like Smash Captains or whatever (as are the CP).
The argument is that numbers and firepower are all IG have, without the durability and sheer craziness of the Castellan, nor the melee power of the Smash Captain. Bringing mono-guard means simply bringing more of the same, which is considerably easier to defeat than soup.
1350 points of guard with a Castellan are much stronger than 2000 points of Guard, even though Guard make up the majority of the first list.
Good! Moving naturally from that conclusion, then, the problem is the ability to soup Guard, not the Imperial Guard codex itself. Nerfing Imperial Guard directly would only cripple its mono-codex lists, while the soup lists move on to the Next Big Thing™ and continue to be on top. If you truly wish to see Guard & Castellan leave the top tables, then you have to nerf Guard & Castellan, not just nerf IG and call it a day, while Castellan & Sisters' Faithful 17 or Castellan & AdMech's Robo-32 continue to stomp about largely unimpeded. Admech can bring basically the same abilities as IG now, for almost the same price. 1350 of Admech plus a Castellan would only be slightly worse than 1350 of IG plus a Castellan after Chapter Approved, I suspect, with the biggest absence being the IG's indirect fire assets going missing.
Good! Moving naturally from that conclusion, then, the problem is the ability to soup Guard, not the Imperial Guard codex itself.
Ehhh, just because something is more problematic than guard doesn't mean guard itself isn't problematic.
And honestly, saying Guard would be "crippled" by a hike on infantry is hyperbole, most guard players run 80 or so guardsmen which would bump their lists by 80 pts total.
And that's before the drops from CA, Guard players would still have a net savings on points even if infantry were to go up 1 pt.
Anyway the whole point of bumping infantry is to bring them in line with other troop choices, because otherwise we'd need to drop marines to 10 pts/dire avengers to 9 pts/guardians to 6pts/necron warriors to 9pts/termagants to 3pts etc... just to compensate for 4 pt guard. Sure we could, but then we'd be cramming everything under 10 pts and that reduces granularity. It's far better to bump the cheapest stuff and balance around that then go the other way.
And honestly, saying Guard would be "crippled" by a hike on infantry is hyperbole, most guard players run 80 or so guardsmen which would bump their lists by 80 pts total.
And that's before the drops from CA, Guard players would still have a net savings on points even if infantry were to go up 1 pt.
This is probably accurate, despite being annoyed at what appears to be an obvious points discrepancy between Guard and Cultists, many of my lists ended up net positive on points due to other CA discounts.
Im not in favour of outright banning Soup since there would be no way to pretend witch hunters still exist without some Soup.
But what if they introduced a point limit on allies like AoS does? like allies can only be 10 or 20% the total point/power cost of the game.
Will that stop certain abuse cases? no.
will that stop some fluffy lists? unfortunately maybe
but it should tone done some of the shenanigans that go on
Just have that only apply to matched so you can still go hog wild in narrative and open play
Ultimately, for the next year or so at least until potentially CA 2019, Guardsmen will be 4ppm. I expect guardsmen will be made 5ppm eventually. That said, I don't think it will solve many of the problems people ascribe to them however. I expect that for many Soup lists, the screening and CP bonuses would keep the "loyal 32" CP battery viable even with price increases that would break the functionality of guardsmen within an actual IG army.
I was surprised they didn't get the bump to 5 with CA however, that was unexpected, though not as much as a 25pt decreaae on Tank Commanders and Ork Boyz getting made 7ppm was shocking, I still don't know how GW came to those conclusions
Vaktathi wrote: Ultimately, for the next year or so at least until potentially CA 2019, Guardsmen will be 4ppm. I expect guardsmen will be made 5ppm eventually. That said, I don't think it will solve many of the problems people ascribe to them however. I expect that for many Soup lists, the screening and CP bonuses would keep the "loyal 32" CP battery viable even with price increases that would break the functionality of guardsmen within an actual IG army.
I was surprised they didn't get the bump to 5 with CA however, that was unexpected, though not as much as a 25pt decreaae on Tank Commanders and Ork Boyz getting made 7ppm was shocking, I still don't know how GW came to those conclusions
In essence, if you play marines, take a year off. Or, learn to love playing Imperial Guard. Because Imperial Guard is the best army in the game. And there is no downside to bringing them.
Vaktathi wrote: Ultimately, for the next year or so at least until potentially CA 2019, Guardsmen will be 4ppm. I expect guardsmen will be made 5ppm eventually. That said, I don't think it will solve many of the problems people ascribe to them however. I expect that for many Soup lists, the screening and CP bonuses would keep the "loyal 32" CP battery viable even with price increases that would break the functionality of guardsmen within an actual IG army.
I was surprised they didn't get the bump to 5 with CA however, that was unexpected, though not as much as a 25pt decreaae on Tank Commanders and Ork Boyz getting made 7ppm was shocking, I still don't know how GW came to those conclusions
In essence, if you play marines, take a year off. Or, learn to love playing Imperial Guard. Because Imperial Guard is the best army in the game. And there is no downside to bringing them.
scuse me? but best army ? how do you quantify that marmatag?
Vaktathi wrote: Ultimately, for the next year or so at least until potentially CA 2019, Guardsmen will be 4ppm. I expect guardsmen will be made 5ppm eventually. That said, I don't think it will solve many of the problems people ascribe to them however. I expect that for many Soup lists, the screening and CP bonuses would keep the "loyal 32" CP battery viable even with price increases that would break the functionality of guardsmen within an actual IG army.
I was surprised they didn't get the bump to 5 with CA however, that was unexpected, though not as much as a 25pt decreaae on Tank Commanders and Ork Boyz getting made 7ppm was shocking, I still don't know how GW came to those conclusions
Like I've said in another thread, the Boyz thing is more complicated than saying "Oh no they made my guyz more expensive GW hates Orks".
On top of Klan rules they also added the Dakka rule. It probably doesn't make Boyz a point more, but what ALSO happened is that the codex made some Grenade upgrade free. and you got one per 10 Boyz.
So assuming you were already buying the upgrade with Index Orks, your squads are still the same price. If you weren't buying the upgrade, you're kinda forced into purchasing the upgrade. Which is free.
Tyel wrote: 1400 points of guard+Castellan>2000 points of guard.
True.
But:
2000 points of guard> 2000 points of any Imperial army without guard or Castellan, soup or mono.
This is why the guard is the problem. You can't just nerf the soup, because then you're nerfing several armies which are way weaker than the mono guard.
Nerf the Guard, nerf the Castellan*.
(*Preferably by nerfing the problematic stratagems and relics, so builds without them wouldn't be affected.)
Sluggaloo wrote: The fact that you can bring almost twice the amount of guard infantry as ork boyz feels just wrong. I think the +1 pt to ork boyz and cultists was fair, but I am dumbfounded at people defending 4 pt guardsmen... How is this even a discussion.
Because they have a case of don't nerf me guard itis.
Symptoms include passionate pleading that soup is the issue, it's all soups fault, guard are weak.
If left untreated "don't nerf me guard itis" maye result in vomiting falsehoods as facts.
Be on the lookout for "don't nerf me gaurd itis", do your civic duty and report them to the inquisition for treatment.
Its so ironic seeing "pleading that soup is the issue" as "vomiting falsehoods" yet can you provide any data that suggests otherwise? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that every winning "guard" list since the conscript nerf has been soup? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that SM, Orks, DE, Eldar, Tau all have more mono GT wins then guard? Do you have any evidence that suggests the issue is guardsmen in and of themselves and not simply there ability to provide CP to elite armies like knights? I'd be all for a guard increase in points if I believed they were the issue and not simply soup (like all data suggests). Why not address the issue of shared CP pools and then fine tweak points instead of increasing guard by a point which won't change any of those loyal 32 lists? I think it would actually be nice to see some mono imperial lists from time to time at the top tables but as long as CP is shared with no drawback your going to simply see buffs/nerfs that only make sense in the context of uninhibited souping and ruin the chances of any mono faction to truly compete.
Orks and Tau are not able to soup up.. So is that really supposed to be an argument that they have more mono wins because they are always going to be mono? Eldar and DE can soup with each other, but have no reason to because there's no real synergy like an Imperium or Chaos army grants so they tend to stay mono as well.
As for more Mono GT wins.. Well they're going to take the best thing possible, which is usually going to be soup, and IG can soup quite well.
So all the data points to soup being the issue.....
Asmodios wrote: So all the data points to soup being the issue.....
Getting rid of soup goes against the fiduciary responsibility of management. But please, let's resurrect a complaint about something that is simply never going away. As if this thread hasn't explored the depths of futility already...
Its so ironic seeing "pleading that soup is the issue" as "vomiting falsehoods" yet can you provide any data that suggests otherwise? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that every winning "guard" list since the conscript nerf has been soup?
Please do provide data detailing of this 0% winrate for mono guard since Chapter Approved '17.
Are we supposed to ignore the fact that SM, Orks, DE, Eldar, Tau all have more mono GT wins then guard?
Pointless comparison. Orks, Tau and Tyranids have no way of allying with anything else other than their own respective factions. Because hey, I agree, soup is too strong. The fact that any imperial player can soup up with undercosted guardsmen is a big part of the problem, but soup being a problem doesn't change the fundamental issue specific to guardsmen, which are undercosted. There's a reason they exist in the vast majority of imperial armies at the moment. They, along with my ork boyz, and jimmy's cultists, and jane's firewarriors are the reason people are struggling to find a reason to ever bring power armor to the table. Cheap, undercosted units spammed are too good at what they do. Board control, tarpitting, screening vs assault, objective denial, durability per point etc are vital in this edition.
Do you have any evidence that suggests the issue is guardsmen in and of themselves and not simply there ability to provide CP to elite armies like knights? I'd be all for a guard increase in points if I believed they were the issue and not simply soup (like all data suggests). Why not address the issue of shared CP pools and then fine tweak points instead of increasing guard by a point which won't change any of those loyal 32 lists?
As I mentioned above, I agree that soup is dumb. I'd go as far to say that most players don't like soup (GW is happy with it as MORE SALES). Fact is though, that is another issue. Because on the other hand, guardsmen are too good for 4 pts. Look at other 4 pt units like termagaunts, look at 3 pt units like grots. Guardsmen are much better.
I think it would actually be nice to see some mono imperial lists from time to time at the top tables but as long as CP is shared with no drawback your going to simply see buffs/nerfs that only make sense in the context of uninhibited souping and ruin the chances of any mono faction to truly compete.
It would be nice to see mono guard, but just because guard have access to all of the juicy toys the imperium has to offer through soup, doesn't mean they're weak. Imperial players are absolutely spoilt for choice in units you can take. If we were to make mono-faction armies a rule, AM would completely gak on any other army easily just from the raw, cheap firepower and board control alone. Just like in the index days.
How can you say that "If we were to make mono-faction armies a rule, AM would completely gak on any other army easily just from the raw, cheap firepower and board control alone" when you see more mono armies winning tournaments then mono guard. If mono guard was so much better then Tau DE Eldar Orks ect then surely we would see it have more wins. The fact that these lists win Gts with the more competitive soup list builds yet mono guard isn't showing either A.mono guard not brought or B. not winning. Both scenarios show that mono guard is inherently less competitive then those mono books (especially when factions like Eldar can stack -hit which is the ultimate counter to mono guard). The fact is that there is zero evidence to show that guardsmen are causing any issues in the meta beside CP sharing (which a 1 point increase wont fix). So people should either work on fixing the actual issue or provide evidence for their claims
Asmodios wrote: So all the data points to soup being the issue.....
Getting rid of soup goes against the fiduciary responsibility of management. But please, let's resurrect a complaint about something that is simply never going away. As if this thread hasn't explored the depths of futility already...
Nobody wants to get rid of soup.... there should simply be some sort of a downside for soup or a bonus for mono
Vaktathi wrote: Ultimately, for the next year or so at least until potentially CA 2019, Guardsmen will be 4ppm. I expect guardsmen will be made 5ppm eventually. That said, I don't think it will solve many of the problems people ascribe to them however. I expect that for many Soup lists, the screening and CP bonuses would keep the "loyal 32" CP battery viable even with price increases that would break the functionality of guardsmen within an actual IG army.
I was surprised they didn't get the bump to 5 with CA however, that was unexpected, though not as much as a 25pt decreaae on Tank Commanders and Ork Boyz getting made 7ppm was shocking, I still don't know how GW came to those conclusions
It's already been pretty much confirmed that CA was playtested back in march-july ish and was based on basically a post FAQ1 meta, it hasn't been updated to take into account what has been going on since be that codex's etc and not FAQ2.
It's not bad it's just not exactly cutting-edge meta.
So all the data points to soup being the issue.....
No. I don't see Ad Mech + Iron Hands winning tournaments, I don't see SoB + Inquisition + Assassins winning tournaments. Most soup builds are not powerful, there is only a tiny fraction of them that are, and on Imperium side all of those include Guard.
Its so ironic seeing "pleading that soup is the issue" as "vomiting falsehoods" yet can you provide any data that suggests otherwise? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that every winning "guard" list since the conscript nerf has been soup?
Please do provide data detailing of this 0% winrate for mono guard since Chapter Approved '17.
Are we supposed to ignore the fact that SM, Orks, DE, Eldar, Tau all have more mono GT wins then guard?
Pointless comparison. Orks, Tau and Tyranids have no way of allying with anything else other than their own respective factions. Because hey, I agree, soup is too strong. The fact that any imperial player can soup up with undercosted guardsmen is a big part of the problem, but soup being a problem doesn't change the fundamental issue specific to guardsmen, which are undercosted. There's a reason they exist in the vast majority of imperial armies at the moment. They, along with my ork boyz, and jimmy's cultists, and jane's firewarriors are the reason people are struggling to find a reason to ever bring power armor to the table. Cheap, undercosted units spammed are too good at what they do. Board control, tarpitting, screening vs assault, objective denial, durability per point etc are vital in this edition.
Do you have any evidence that suggests the issue is guardsmen in and of themselves and not simply there ability to provide CP to elite armies like knights? I'd be all for a guard increase in points if I believed they were the issue and not simply soup (like all data suggests). Why not address the issue of shared CP pools and then fine tweak points instead of increasing guard by a point which won't change any of those loyal 32 lists?
As I mentioned above, I agree that soup is dumb. I'd go as far to say that most players don't like soup (GW is happy with it as MORE SALES). Fact is though, that is another issue. Because on the other hand, guardsmen are too good for 4 pts. Look at other 4 pt units like termagaunts, look at 3 pt units like grots. Guardsmen are much better.
I think it would actually be nice to see some mono imperial lists from time to time at the top tables but as long as CP is shared with no drawback your going to simply see buffs/nerfs that only make sense in the context of uninhibited souping and ruin the chances of any mono faction to truly compete.
It would be nice to see mono guard, but just because guard have access to all of the juicy toys the imperium has to offer through soup, doesn't mean they're weak. Imperial players are absolutely spoilt for choice in units you can take. If we were to make mono-faction armies a rule, AM would completely gak on any other army easily just from the raw, cheap firepower and board control alone. Just like in the index days.
How can you say that "If we were to make mono-faction armies a rule, AM would completely gak on any other army easily just from the raw, cheap firepower and board control alone" when you see more mono armies winning tournaments then mono guard. If mono guard was so much better then Tau DE Eldar Orks ect then surely we would see it have more wins. The fact that these lists win Gts with the more competitive soup list builds yet mono guard isn't showing either A.mono guard not brought or B. not winning. Both scenarios show that mono guard is inherently less competitive then those mono books (especially when factions like Eldar can stack -hit which is the ultimate counter to mono guard). The fact is that there is zero evidence to show that guardsmen are causing any issues in the meta beside CP sharing (which a 1 point increase wont fix). So people should either work on fixing the actual issue or provide evidence for their claims
No your once agiain arguing logical fallacies as facts.
It's like saying vanilla ice cream is clearly rubbish because when given the choice of vanilla with any topping of their choice(chocolate sauce, marshmallows etc) or just plain raspberry ice cream. No-one choose plain vanilla ice-cream.
That isn't what the data actually proves.
Its so ironic seeing "pleading that soup is the issue" as "vomiting falsehoods" yet can you provide any data that suggests otherwise? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that every winning "guard" list since the conscript nerf has been soup?
Please do provide data detailing of this 0% winrate for mono guard since Chapter Approved '17.
Are we supposed to ignore the fact that SM, Orks, DE, Eldar, Tau all have more mono GT wins then guard?
Pointless comparison. Orks, Tau and Tyranids have no way of allying with anything else other than their own respective factions. Because hey, I agree, soup is too strong. The fact that any imperial player can soup up with undercosted guardsmen is a big part of the problem, but soup being a problem doesn't change the fundamental issue specific to guardsmen, which are undercosted. There's a reason they exist in the vast majority of imperial armies at the moment. They, along with my ork boyz, and jimmy's cultists, and jane's firewarriors are the reason people are struggling to find a reason to ever bring power armor to the table. Cheap, undercosted units spammed are too good at what they do. Board control, tarpitting, screening vs assault, objective denial, durability per point etc are vital in this edition.
Do you have any evidence that suggests the issue is guardsmen in and of themselves and not simply there ability to provide CP to elite armies like knights? I'd be all for a guard increase in points if I believed they were the issue and not simply soup (like all data suggests). Why not address the issue of shared CP pools and then fine tweak points instead of increasing guard by a point which won't change any of those loyal 32 lists?
As I mentioned above, I agree that soup is dumb. I'd go as far to say that most players don't like soup (GW is happy with it as MORE SALES). Fact is though, that is another issue. Because on the other hand, guardsmen are too good for 4 pts. Look at other 4 pt units like termagaunts, look at 3 pt units like grots. Guardsmen are much better.
I think it would actually be nice to see some mono imperial lists from time to time at the top tables but as long as CP is shared with no drawback your going to simply see buffs/nerfs that only make sense in the context of uninhibited souping and ruin the chances of any mono faction to truly compete.
It would be nice to see mono guard, but just because guard have access to all of the juicy toys the imperium has to offer through soup, doesn't mean they're weak. Imperial players are absolutely spoilt for choice in units you can take. If we were to make mono-faction armies a rule, AM would completely gak on any other army easily just from the raw, cheap firepower and board control alone. Just like in the index days.
How can you say that "If we were to make mono-faction armies a rule, AM would completely gak on any other army easily just from the raw, cheap firepower and board control alone" when you see more mono armies winning tournaments then mono guard. If mono guard was so much better then Tau DE Eldar Orks ect then surely we would see it have more wins. The fact that these lists win Gts with the more competitive soup list builds yet mono guard isn't showing either A.mono guard not brought or B. not winning. Both scenarios show that mono guard is inherently less competitive then those mono books (especially when factions like Eldar can stack -hit which is the ultimate counter to mono guard). The fact is that there is zero evidence to show that guardsmen are causing any issues in the meta beside CP sharing (which a 1 point increase wont fix). So people should either work on fixing the actual issue or provide evidence for their claims
No your once agiain arguing logical fallacies as facts.
It's like saying vanilla ice cream is clearly rubbish because when given the choice of vanilla with any topping of their choice(chocolate sauce, marshmallows etc) or just plain raspberry ice cream. No-one choose plain vanilla ice-cream.
That isn't what the data actually proves.
But people do bring mono guard to GTs they simply dont win often... People do bring mono DE, E, Orks Tau, Tyranid and SM all which win more then mono guard. This is not a falacy it is raw data. The reason why even in an all mono meta guard would still not be the number 1 is simply that they are so easy to counter with -hit modifiers. That's why guard NEED a soup detachment in order to win GTs. They need something that covers this glaring weakness and they need somewhere to dump CPs. Without soup its a very good codex that can and will be countered quiet often
Please provide this "data" Asmodios because last I checked mono Guard had won a GT and other events.
For the sake of any logical discussion I would expect you to understand that if a faction is the majority of an army (>1000 points in a 2k game) it is the 'primary' and we can see that primary Guard is literally always on the top tables.
This wouldn't happen if Guard weren't incredibly powerful as a force.
In a world of no downside to souping you will always see factions that have the option to soup doing so. It happens in armies that are forced to be mono too. I guess that my Orks are 'souping' if I take a detachment of Evil Sunz and Bad Moonz? If I claimed that Ork boyz were fine at 4 ppm because the problem is actually those Bad Moonz Ork boyz I wonder how long I'd get away with it?
I can't believe some of you still cling to the idea that 4 ppm Guardsmen is fair and in any way balanced. It is clearly broken and needs to be fixed.
Trickstick wrote: I think the power of chaos has mutated this cultist thread into the once-thought-dead 5pt Guardsmen thread...
It was inevitable.
Seems to me the strength of a mono-faction list should be inversely proportional to its soup options, in which case mono-guard should be on the weak side of mono-faction options.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Fire Warriors are 7 points I thought? That's how one of my opponents a while back was playing them.
I actually really don't know. I don't own the Tau codex and always assumed they were 8ppm.
If fire warriors really are 7ppm that is actually a valid reason why guard should stay at 4ppm, because 5ppm guardsmen are roughly equal to 8ppm fire warriors in terms of mathematics. I believe the analysis that I saw between fire warriors and guardsmen had fire warriors listed as 8ppm.
vipoid wrote: If you want to look at the scenario that advantages Fire Warriors the most, then surely you should be looking at vehicles (which Kabalites can only ever wound on 6s)?
You shouldn't be shooting at vehicles with infantry that have anti-infantry guns.
Seems to me the strength of a mono-faction list should be inversely proportional to its soup options, in which case mono-guard should be on the weak side of mono-faction options.
Just a thought.
Why? Mono factions SHOULD be able to compete with soup lists. If your faction can't compete with soup lists as a mono-faction it probably means it needs buffs.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Fire Warriors are 7 points I thought? That's how one of my opponents a while back was playing them.
I actually really don't know. I don't own the Tau codex and always assumed they were 8ppm.
If fire warriors really are 7ppm that is actually a valid reason why guard should stay at 4ppm, because 5ppm guardsmen are roughly equal to 8ppm fire warriors in terms of mathematics. I believe the analysis that I saw between fire warriors and guardsmen had fire warriors listed as 8ppm.
vipoid wrote: If you want to look at the scenario that advantages Fire Warriors the most, then surely you should be looking at vehicles (which Kabalites can only ever wound on 6s)?
You shouldn't be shooting at vehicles with infantry that have anti-infantry guns.
Seems to me the strength of a mono-faction list should be inversely proportional to its soup options, in which case mono-guard should be on the weak side of mono-faction options.
Just a thought.
Why? Mono factions SHOULD be able to compete with soup lists. If your faction can't compete with soup lists as a mono-faction it probably means it needs buffs.
Even at 7PPM firewarriors still loose to guardsmen in a shoot out.
They loose to 5PPM Guard as soon as buffs are applied, guard buffs are cheaper (HQ) and stronger/easier.
7PPM Firewarriors also loose to 5PPM guard in Close combat
Firewarriors at 7PPM and Guard at 5 is actually the balance point for those two units, Also 5PPM guard start balancing against Termagaunts, ork boys etc a lot less one sided at 5PPM than at 4PPM. Does it mean guard might actually loose an infantry shoot out yes, will they loose a slap fight, yes, wilk they auto loose every game NO.
It just a shame Choas players have to play uphill with 5PPM on Cultists, just removing heritic astartes (they aint astartes GW come on Know your own Fluff) would have be a much better solution than 5PPM.
It doesn't make sense to balance Fire Warriors Vs Guardsmen based on them fighting each other. Fire Warriors have a strength 5 weapon, strength 5 is identical to strength 4 Vs toughness 3.
You're essentially saying Fire Warriors shouldn't pay for that extra point of strength. They should, it just doesn't help them when shooting guard, it isn't their optimal target.
You shouldn't be shooting at vehicles with infantry that have anti-infantry guns.
I guess if you happen to be facing a full Knight list, you're just not going to shoot them with your anti-infantry guns? You'll just let all your men practise their shooting on sparrows or something.
Or if you're facing a DE army with a lot of T5 vehicles, you'll just completely ignore the fact that the basic Tau guns wound them on 4s.
Stux wrote: It doesn't make sense to balance Fire Warriors Vs Guardsmen based on them fighting each other. Fire Warriors have a strength 5 weapon, strength 5 is identical to strength 4 Vs toughness 3.
You're essentially saying Fire Warriors shouldn't pay for that extra point of strength. They should, it just doesn't help them when shooting guard, it isn't their optimal target.
No I was comparing fire warriors to kabalites.
Ice_can wrote: Even at 7PPM firewarriors still loose to guardsmen in a shoot out.
I definitely believe they lose to 4ppm guardsmen, but what about 5ppm guardsmen? Mind showing me some math? I'm not saying I don't believe you I'm just saying I'd like to see it first. All of the comparisons I have seen puts 5ppm guardsmen roughly on par with 8ppm fire warriors IIRC.
Ice_can wrote: They loose to 5PPM Guard as soon as buffs are applied, guard buffs are cheaper (HQ) and stronger/easier.
Irrelevant. Should we bring markerlights into the equation too? You can't balance off of what buffs a unit MIGHT have because that balance becomes null and void as soon as those buffs aren't there. If guard buffs are too good then make the argument to nerf our buffing units, but infantry squads should not be paying the price for that.
Ice_can wrote: 7PPM Firewarriors also loose to 5PPM guard in Close combat
Ok, I'll buy this without question, but fire warriors can shoot further, what is your point?
Ice_can wrote: Firewarriors at 7PPM and Guard at 5 is actually the balance point for those two units, Also 5PPM guard start balancing against Termagaunts, ork boys etc a lot less one sided at 5PPM than at 4PPM. Does it mean guard might actually loose an infantry shoot out yes, will they loose a slap fight, yes, wilk they auto loose every game NO.
Again, show me the math. If it checks out, I will agree with you.
You shouldn't be shooting at vehicles with infantry that have anti-infantry guns.
I guess if you happen to be facing a full Knight list, you're just not going to shoot them with your anti-infantry guns? You'll just let all your men practise their shooting on sparrows or something.
A "full knight" list isn't going to have adequate screens. I think I'd rather charge with my infantry in that situation and tie up the knights in melee then shoot at them (almost) uselessly.
@everyone Look, I agree that cultists being 5ppm and guardsmen still being 4ppm is bullgak. But GW seems to have doubled down in the direction of cheap infantry. It's looking more and more like GW are saying that skitarii rangers, kabalites, and guardsmen are the "appropriately" priced infantry and everything else is just gak.
w1zard wrote: Why? Mono factions SHOULD be able to compete with soup lists. If your faction can't compete with soup lists as a mono-faction it probably means it needs buffs.
I'm getting the impression you're not understanding the concept of inversely proportional, that being said, I've put my thoughts out there and have no particular interest in engaging in the eternal soup hate debate.
w1zard, he's saying mono faction should be stronger than soup lists. That doesn't mean buffing the armies, that just benefits soup as well. It means buffing mechanics for solo factions, or even better, nerfing soup mechanics
If fire warriors really are 7ppm that is actually a valid reason why guard should stay at 4ppm, because 5ppm guardsmen are roughly equal to 8ppm fire warriors in terms of mathematics. I believe the analysis that I saw between fire warriors and guardsmen had fire warriors listed as 8ppm.
I know which math you're talking about (I did it) and it was done with 7pt FW vs 5pt guard. In a shootout FW still lose a tiny bit to Guard but they perform better against marines. But Guardsmen can take more special weapons which evens the gap considerably vs marines. Adding heavy bolter + plasma is better point for point against MEQ than FW at long range, but they're even at short range. This was without considering external buffs.
It's clear now that GW is not balancing between codices, but only within a given codex. 4 ppm guardsmen are total bs, but in the context of their own codex, they are fine. Of course, that begs the question if anything in that codex is appropriately costed.
If fire warriors really are 7ppm that is actually a valid reason why guard should stay at 4ppm, because 5ppm guardsmen are roughly equal to 8ppm fire warriors in terms of mathematics. I believe the analysis that I saw between fire warriors and guardsmen had fire warriors listed as 8ppm.
I know which math you're talking about (I did it) and it was done with 7pt FW vs 5pt guard. In a shootout FW still lose a tiny bit to Guard but they perform better against marines. But Guardsmen can take more special weapons which evens the gap considerably vs marines. Adding heavy bolter + plasma is better point for point against MEQ than FW at long range, but they're even at short range. This was without considering external buffs.
Take that as you will.
This is why GW needs to go ahead and make Infantry a 4.5 point model. 45 for a squad is about all I can think of to not annoy both sides of the argument.
45 pts for 10 guys might reduce some of the complaints, but many of the people arguing for 4 or 5 are doing so from the stance that 4 is high enough or below 5 is unacceptable; it's not that there isn't a middleground position that they'd both like, it's that they see very different value in the Guardsman.
That said, bump the Sarge to 9ppm and leave the Guardsman unchanged, and you implement what you're looking for without having to put "4.5 ppm" (or other fractional points) into the system.
I know they won't do it, but I wish they did that with Marines to incentivise larger squads from time to time. I'd love to see 10mans be viable, but there's just no reason to. Bump Sarge's points and drop the PPM, and you could reach a point it's viable to not play MSU.
(I want my Exarchs to get a bump too, but not to push non-MSU: Aspects in MSU makes much more sense - the problem is Exarchs are actually worth more per model than their squadies (unlike stock Sarges).)
Bharring wrote: 45 pts for 10 guys might reduce some of the complaints, but many of the people arguing for 4 or 5 are doing so from the stance that 4 is high enough or below 5 is unacceptable; it's not that there isn't a middleground position that they'd both like, it's that they see very different value in the Guardsman.
That said, bump the Sarge to 9ppm and leave the Guardsman unchanged, and you implement what you're looking for without having to put "4.5 ppm" (or other fractional points) into the system.
I know they won't do it, but I wish they did that with Marines to incentivise larger squads from time to time. I'd love to see 10mans be viable, but there's just no reason to. Bump Sarge's points and drop the PPM, and you could reach a point it's viable to not play MSU.
(I want my Exarchs to get a bump too, but not to push non-MSU: Aspects in MSU makes much more sense - the problem is Exarchs are actually worth more per model than their squadies (unlike stock Sarges).)
30k does the same thing where an initial squad costs X amount, but adding more dudes is cheaper and certain upgrades might just be a flat cost for the whole squad rather than a per-model basis. So yeah you can do your MSU but it can cost you in the long run.
I hadn't considered just making the Sergeant 9 points simply because every other Sergeant equivalent is priced the same as their other squad members. 7th edition was clearly too long ago for me hahaha!
Bharring wrote: 45 pts for 10 guys might reduce some of the complaints, but many of the people arguing for 4 or 5 are doing so from the stance that 4 is high enough or below 5 is unacceptable; it's not that there isn't a middleground position that they'd both like, it's that they see very different value in the Guardsman.
That said, bump the Sarge to 9ppm and leave the Guardsman unchanged, and you implement what you're looking for without having to put "4.5 ppm" (or other fractional points) into the system.
I know they won't do it, but I wish they did that with Marines to incentivise larger squads from time to time. I'd love to see 10mans be viable, but there's just no reason to. Bump Sarge's points and drop the PPM, and you could reach a point it's viable to not play MSU.
(I want my Exarchs to get a bump too, but not to push non-MSU: Aspects in MSU makes much more sense - the problem is Exarchs are actually worth more per model than their squadies (unlike stock Sarges).)
If you bump the Sergeant up, I want him to actually fething do something. This is something I've addressed in the past with my attempts at reworking the Orders system to be a bit closer to 'armywide auras'.
As it stands now? He's basically an Officer that takes up a Lasgun slot in my squad and gives no Order to the squad.
Kan,
The point in bumping the Sarge up here, is to retain a specific points level for the squad.
For the purpose of this discussion, lets assume the squad, as a whole, is worth 45 points. You can imagine they got a 4+ save half the time or whatever if you think that's too much for what they are now (or a 6+ half the time if you think that's too little). Whatever. Squad is worth 45 points in this hypothetical.
With the squad being worth 45 points, would it really be a problem to bump the Sarge to 9ppm, but keep the Squaddies at 4ppm?
Alternately, if Guardsmen are worth 4ppm, would you have a problem if the Sarge went up to 13ppm, but Guardsmen went down to 3ppm (net 0 change), without the Sarge getting buffed?
Bharring wrote: Kan,
The point in bumping the Sarge up here, is to retain a specific points level for the squad.
For the purpose of this discussion, lets assume the squad, as a whole, is worth 45 points. You can imagine they got a 4+ save half the time or whatever if you think that's too much for what they are now (or a 6+ half the time if you think that's too little). Whatever. Squad is worth 45 points in this hypothetical.
With the squad being worth 45 points, would it really be a problem to bump the Sarge to 9ppm, but keep the Squaddies at 4ppm?
Alternately, if Guardsmen are worth 4ppm, would you have a problem if the Sarge went up to 13ppm, but Guardsmen went down to 3ppm (net 0 change), without the Sarge getting buffed?
Until the Sergeant is something other than a Laspistol, it doesn't matter how much you try to justify it as 'buffing' the squad's points. I can point to the fact that he comes with nothing but a Laspistol and Frag Grenades as why the squad is cheap. The only difference between him and the 'squaddies' is the lack of a Lasgun, lack of any meaningful upgrades(oh boy a Bolt Pistol, Plasma Pistol, Boltgun or a Chainsword or Power Sword!), and that he comes with an extra attack and point of Leadership.
So until the Sergeant is packing a Lasgun or able to issue Orders to the Squad or do something other than literally just be a fething body with a pistol that doesn't even benefit from FRFSRF anymore, I don't want to hear any suggestions about 'buffing' the squad's points cost that route.
Bharring wrote: Kan,
The point in bumping the Sarge up here, is to retain a specific points level for the squad.
For the purpose of this discussion, lets assume the squad, as a whole, is worth 45 points. You can imagine they got a 4+ save half the time or whatever if you think that's too much for what they are now (or a 6+ half the time if you think that's too little). Whatever. Squad is worth 45 points in this hypothetical.
With the squad being worth 45 points, would it really be a problem to bump the Sarge to 9ppm, but keep the Squaddies at 4ppm?
Alternately, if Guardsmen are worth 4ppm, would you have a problem if the Sarge went up to 13ppm, but Guardsmen went down to 3ppm (net 0 change), without the Sarge getting buffed?
Until the Sergeant is something other than a Laspistol, it doesn't matter how much you try to justify it as 'buffing' the squad's points. I can point to the fact that he comes with nothing but a Laspistol and Frag Grenades as why the squad is cheap. The only difference between him and the 'squaddies' is the lack of a Lasgun, lack of any meaningful upgrades(oh boy a Bolt Pistol, Plasma Pistol, Boltgun or a Chainsword or Power Sword!), and that he comes with an extra attack and point of Leadership.
So until the Sergeant is packing a Lasgun or able to issue Orders to the Squad or do something other than literally just be a fething body with a pistol that doesn't even benefit from FRFSRF anymore, I don't want to hear any suggestions about 'buffing' the squad's points cost that route.
Why does it matter if a point increase is loaded onto the sergeant? It makes absolutely no difference, the squad is always a set size. It's just a good way to give them a point bump without increasing every model by a full point.
If your argument is they shouldn't go up at all then fair enough, I disagree but I could understand it. But this seems like a really weird place to draw a line in the sand.
Trickstick wrote: Is there even a mechanism to have different parts of a squad cost different amounts? I thought they got rid of that when 8th came out.
Upgrades and other stuff baked into the model.
To put it in perspective:
A Guardsman is 4ppm with his Lasgun and Frag Grenades.
A Sergeant is 4ppm as it stands now with his Laspistol and Frag Grenades.
A Platoon Commander(one of the closest equivalents to a Sergeant as it stands) comes with a Laspistol, Refractor Field, Voice of Command, Frag Grenades along with a bump to WS/BS 3+ and an 2 additional Wounds and an additional Attack compared to a normal Sergeant. For 20 points, he comes with a 5+ Invulnerable, the ability to issue a single Order, an additional point of WS/BS plus an additional attack and another 2 Wounds.
Ideally, Sergeants don't need to bring that much craziness--but ffs they should do something if we can't even give them the same weapon as the rest of the basic squad loadout.
Why does it matter if a point increase is loaded onto the sergeant? It makes absolutely no difference, the squad is always a set size. It's just a good way to give them a point bump without increasing every model by a full point.
If your argument is they shouldn't go up at all then fair enough, I disagree but I could understand it. But this seems like a really weird place to draw a line in the sand.
The reason why it shouldn't be on the Sergeant is that the Sergeant gets no benefit other than being a 'tax' in the unit effectively.
The squad is always a set size of 10, and one model is always a Sergeant. That means that from the outset you have a single model that can never benefit from FRFSRF and is, for most intents and purposes, going to be standing around like a wallflower with that 1 additional point of LD.
You make it so that the Sergeant can take a special weapon at points cost for the weapon or they come standard with the same gun as the rest of the squad? Fine. Boost the points up to 5 or 6 for the Sergeant, making the squad a bit more expensive base. Hell--make the Sergeant BS3+, meaning they'll pay more points for Plasmas or Meltas as well.
Bharring wrote: Kan,
The point in bumping the Sarge up here, is to retain a specific points level for the squad.
For the purpose of this discussion, lets assume the squad, as a whole, is worth 45 points. You can imagine they got a 4+ save half the time or whatever if you think that's too much for what they are now (or a 6+ half the time if you think that's too little). Whatever. Squad is worth 45 points in this hypothetical.
With the squad being worth 45 points, would it really be a problem to bump the Sarge to 9ppm, but keep the Squaddies at 4ppm?
Alternately, if Guardsmen are worth 4ppm, would you have a problem if the Sarge went up to 13ppm, but Guardsmen went down to 3ppm (net 0 change), without the Sarge getting buffed?
Until the Sergeant is something other than a Laspistol, it doesn't matter how much you try to justify it as 'buffing' the squad's points. I can point to the fact that he comes with nothing but a Laspistol and Frag Grenades as why the squad is cheap. The only difference between him and the 'squaddies' is the lack of a Lasgun, lack of any meaningful upgrades(oh boy a Bolt Pistol, Plasma Pistol, Boltgun or a Chainsword or Power Sword!), and that he comes with an extra attack and point of Leadership.
So until the Sergeant is packing a Lasgun or able to issue Orders to the Squad or do something other than literally just be a fething body with a pistol that doesn't even benefit from FRFSRF anymore, I don't want to hear any suggestions about 'buffing' the squad's points cost that route.
I mean it's either that or we do my route that's kinda convoluted, OR we can listen to the people that really want to destroy all Guard armies with a bunch of nerfs.
I'm just coming up with a compromise between two parties.
I mean it's either that or we do my route that's kinda convoluted, OR we can listen to the people that really want to destroy all Guard armies with a bunch of nerfs.
I'm just coming up with a compromise between two parties.
But there's the crux of the issue: Some people won't be happy until Guard are effectively an NPC faction. There are people who seriously think that the trained troops who have served in active warzones should be BS5+, same as the raw recruits(a literal rule the unit has!) or random scum that in some cases are as wildly undisciplined as Orks. There are people who seriously think that Orders for every army would 'even the playing field' while ignoring that those armies also have things allowing for multiple auras to overlap or be attached to Psyker abilities.
I've said before and I'll continue to repeat this:
Guard need a complete redesign from the ground up. Releasing them 'as is' was a terrible idea.
Why does it matter if a point increase is loaded onto the sergeant? It makes absolutely no difference, the squad is always a set size. It's just a good way to give them a point bump without increasing every model by a full point.
If your argument is they shouldn't go up at all then fair enough, I disagree but I could understand it. But this seems like a really weird place to draw a line in the sand.
The reason why it shouldn't be on the Sergeant is that the Sergeant gets no benefit other than being a 'tax' in the unit effectively.
But there's nothing wrong with that. Because you can't take a sergeant on its own. There's literally no practical difference being a sergeant being 9pts and Guardsmen all costing 4.5pts, except the former is much cleaner to implement.
I mean it's either that or we do my route that's kinda convoluted, OR we can listen to the people that really want to destroy all Guard armies with a bunch of nerfs.
I'm just coming up with a compromise between two parties.
But there's the crux of the issue: Some people won't be happy until Guard are effectively an NPC faction. There are people who seriously think that the trained troops who have served in active warzones should be BS5+, same as the raw recruits(a literal rule the unit has!) or random scum that in some cases are as wildly undisciplined as Orks. There are people who seriously think that Orders for every army would 'even the playing field' while ignoring that those armies also have things allowing for multiple auras to overlap or be attached to Psyker abilities.
I've said before and I'll continue to repeat this:
Guard need a complete redesign from the ground up. Releasing them 'as is' was a terrible idea.
Well it isn't like we both have to listen to that party in question. I don't think most people think it's unreasonable for Sergeants to get Lasguns at all.
Kanluwen wrote: But there's the crux of the issue: Some people won't be happy until Guard are effectively an NPC faction.
Pretty sure this feeling of persecution is shared by almost every user of almost every faction in the game, myself included.
Given what we're seeing from the Vigilus book, BSF, and specialist detachments from KT, I expect that is the avenue of improvement that GW will be pursuing until the release of 9th edition, at which point most of it will get rolled up into whatever 9th edition codex comes out.
It's definitely not the best approach, but it's not the worst either.
Marmatag wrote: If soup was the only issue, every Imperial faction would be placing as well as Imperial Guard is. They aren't, so it's not.
I would support and enjoy trying out a monofaction event. Imperial Guard or Tyranids would win, but it would still be fun.
Imperial guard is just currently the best ingredient in soup... soup is still the issue look at the top lists for every faction
Imperium top lists
IG+knights+BA Chaos
TSDP arimahn+ whatever (bloodletter bomb/demons/cultists ect
Space Elves
Yannari soup
Tyranids
Soup with GSC allies
What exactly goes in these list has changed with FAQ updates ect but the overarching theme is that soup dominates all edition. Currently, guard is A. Cheap which equals effective CP and good objective holders B. Has a relic that used to give unlimited and still gives 5-6 free CP per game. If both of these change you aren't going to see mono lists simply a different flavor of soup like you have seen all edition for every major faction that can soup. Right now IG is just the most efficient soup for the Imperium but if you think that if guard disappeared soup wouldn't be king still you are just naive
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
An Actual Englishman wrote: Please provide this "data" Asmodios because last I checked mono Guard had won a GT and other events.
For the sake of any logical discussion I would expect you to understand that if a faction is the majority of an army (>1000 points in a 2k game) it is the 'primary' and we can see that primary Guard is literally always on the top tables.
This wouldn't happen if Guard weren't incredibly powerful as a force.
In a world of no downside to souping you will always see factions that have the option to soup doing so. It happens in armies that are forced to be mono too. I guess that my Orks are 'souping' if I take a detachment of Evil Sunz and Bad Moonz? If I claimed that Ork boyz were fine at 4 ppm because the problem is actually those Bad Moonz Ork boyz I wonder how long I'd get away with it?
I can't believe some of you still cling to the idea that 4 ppm Guardsmen is fair and in any way balanced. It is clearly broken and needs to be fixed.
I've shared this data in the last like 100 "nuke guard" threads. Simply go find a list of GTs and add up the wins for mono lists or go back through my post history. FLG also has some great data collected from some major tournaments.
As there is no downside to soup there is absolutely no reason not to.
In a competitive setting why would I ever not soup if my faction had the opportunity?
IG is one of the top PRIMARY FACTIONs of every competitive Imperium list. Where they aren’t the primary faction in Imperial lists they are the secondary or tertiary of the vast majority. There are many reasons for that but one of them is the fact that they have the most cost effective troop in the game with Guardsmen at 4ppm.
So increasing the points of Infantry to 5 ppm has the dual benefit of balancing them fairly against every other troop in the game, but also making them slightly (though not enough) less attractive to all those soupers.
I hate to tell you, but “mono Guard aren’t winning a ton of tournaments” is not an excuse and does not defend the obvious imbalance of 4ppm Infantry. Particularly when Guard feature in some 90% of top Imperium lists.
In a competitive setting why would I ever not soup if my faction had the opportunity?
IG is one of the top PRIMARY FACTIONs of every competitive Imperium list. Where they aren’t the primary faction in Imperial lists they are the secondary or tertiary of the vast majority. There are many reasons for that but one of them is the fact that they have the most cost effective troop in the game with Guardsmen at 4ppm.
So increasing the points of Infantry to 5 ppm has the dual benefit of balancing them fairly against every other troop in the game, but also making them slightly (though not enough) less attractive to all those soupers.
I hate to tell you, but “mono Guard aren’t winning a ton of tournaments” is not an excuse and does not defend the obvious imbalance of 4ppm Infantry. Particularly when Guard feature in some 90% of top Imperium lists.
You hit the nail on the head when you said "why would I ever not soup" that is the issue. There is only benefits to soup
1. increased unit diversity to fill gaps
2. CP farming,
for example, guards two major weaknesses are A. sub-par strategies and weakness to -hit modifiers. So when you add soup with 0 drawbacks they can plug those holes easily and have no effective weakness.
This leaves any faction that cannot soup at a distinct disadvantage and anyone who doesn't want to soup at a disadvantage. There should be a downside of soup or the game will never be balanced especially if you don't want to go out and by the new FOTM soup build. Increase guardsman points to 5 nothing will change... up it by a point a weak and nothing will change until people drop guard and put in the next best version of the loyal 32. If instead, you give some sort of balancing to soup you can begin to balance codexes properly against one another
There is a downside for souping. Your auras and most of your other buff abilities and psychic powers do not benefit your allies. That may not be as strong downside than some might like, but it is there. Remember the last couple of editions when this often was not the case.
The argument "mono guard aren't doing anything" also assumes that (a) mono guard aren't actually winning, which is false, (b) mono guard are unable to win simply because they're adding castellans, which is also false, and not proven with the nonsense offhand "but it arn't mono" comments, why take even the tiniest risk of a counter when you can build an un-counterable guard list with a modicum of allies and (c) other imperial factions can do just as well as imperial guard, because the main reason for success is soup, which is clearly false, lastly (d) mono or not is not a meaningful metric in this game because there is no penalty to bringing allies, the game must be balanced around the access to allies.
I mean it's either that or we do my route that's kinda convoluted, OR we can listen to the people that really want to destroy all Guard armies with a bunch of nerfs.
I'm just coming up with a compromise between two parties.
But there's the crux of the issue: Some people won't be happy until Guard are effectively an NPC faction. There are people who seriously think that the trained troops who have served in active warzones should be BS5+, same as the raw recruits(a literal rule the unit has!) or random scum that in some cases are as wildly undisciplined as Orks. There are people who seriously think that Orders for every army would 'even the playing field' while ignoring that those armies also have things allowing for multiple auras to overlap or be attached to Psyker abilities.
I've said before and I'll continue to repeat this:
Guard need a complete redesign from the ground up. Releasing them 'as is' was a terrible idea.
You mean like BA have been since the Warddex? Yeah, not much pity from over here. IG are miserable to play against as anyone not named Alaitoc. There is no justification for that.
Marmatag wrote: The argument "mono guard aren't doing anything" also assumes that (a) mono guard aren't actually winning, which is false, (b) mono guard are unable to win simply because they're adding castellans, which is also false, and not proven with the nonsense offhand "but it arn't mono" comments, why take even the tiniest risk of a counter when you can build an un-counterable guard list with a modicum of allies and (c) other imperial factions can do just as well as imperial guard, because the main reason for success is soup, which is clearly false, lastly (d) mono or not is not a meaningful metric in this game because there is no penalty to bringing allies, the game must be balanced around the access to allies.
Marmatag wrote: The argument "mono guard aren't doing anything" also assumes that (a) mono guard aren't actually winning, which is false, (b) mono guard are unable to win simply because they're adding castellans, which is also false, and not proven with the nonsense offhand "but it arn't mono" comments, why take even the tiniest risk of a counter when you can build an un-counterable guard list with a modicum of allies and (c) other imperial factions can do just as well as imperial guard, because the main reason for success is soup, which is clearly false, lastly (d) mono or not is not a meaningful metric in this game because there is no penalty to bringing allies, the game must be balanced around the access to allies.
So much this.
RIGHT? PROBLEM IS SOUP.. NOT ALSO BECAUSE GUARD ARE CHEAP AS CHIPS FOR WHAT THEY BRING... PROMISE
honestly, at this point id love for guardsmen to just be 15ppm so I could watch all the new "nuke unit x" threads for the next big souped in unit and watch the same posters on dakka say "there's nothing wrong with soup having no downside x unit is the issue" as mono armies and factions get pushed further into obscurity and soup becomes more and more necessary
Asmodios wrote: honestly, at this point id love for guardsmen to just be 15ppm so I could watch all the new "nuke unit x" threads for the next big souped in unit and watch the same posters on dakka say "there's nothing wrong with soup having no downside x unit is the issue" as mono armies and factions get pushed further into obscurity and soup becomes more and more necessary
That's right, when you don't have an answer to a discussion, back out with a dumb statement. Says a lot.
Asmodios wrote: honestly, at this point id love for guardsmen to just be 15ppm so I could watch all the new "nuke unit x" threads for the next big souped in unit and watch the same posters on dakka say "there's nothing wrong with soup having no downside x unit is the issue" as mono armies and factions get pushed further into obscurity and soup becomes more and more necessary
That's right, when you don't have an answer to a discussion, back out with a dumb statement. Says a lot.
I've provided stats and statistics in thread after thread just to be met by "if you put 2 undamaged squads of guardsmen within rapid fire range with a commander so they can shoot a firewarrior clearly guard are OP". Yet almost ever top tournament is won by soup, the most winning list in 40k isn't guard its yannari, at tournaments like nova the higher % of guard your army included the more your win % dropped and on and on and on. There clearly is no amount of data that you will listen to so at this point it would be hilarious for guardsmen to be nuked into oblivion and have nothing actually change.
Asmodios wrote: honestly, at this point id love for guardsmen to just be 15ppm so I could watch all the new "nuke unit x" threads for the next big souped in unit and watch the same posters on dakka say "there's nothing wrong with soup having no downside x unit is the issue" as mono armies and factions get pushed further into obscurity and soup becomes more and more necessary
That's right, when you don't have an answer to a discussion, back out with a dumb statement. Says a lot.
I've provided stats and statistics in thread after thread just to be met by "if you put 2 undamaged squads of guardsmen within rapid fire range with a commander so they can shoot a firewarrior clearly guard are OP". Yet almost ever top tournament is won by soup, the most winning list in 40k isn't guard its yannari, at tournaments like nova the higher % of guard your army included the more your win % dropped and on and on and on. There clearly is no amount of data that you will listen to so at this point it would be hilarious for guardsmen to be nuked into oblivion and have nothing actually change.
Your data sure as hell proves soup is strong. That's not anything anyone else in this thread is debating. The dumb thing is guardsmen staying at 4ppm when other armies have had their troops bumped up in price. Stop citing your data when soup is a different issue.
Asmodios wrote: honestly, at this point id love for guardsmen to just be 15ppm so I could watch all the new "nuke unit x" threads for the next big souped in unit and watch the same posters on dakka say "there's nothing wrong with soup having no downside x unit is the issue" as mono armies and factions get pushed further into obscurity and soup becomes more and more necessary
That's right, when you don't have an answer to a discussion, back out with a dumb statement. Says a lot.
I've provided stats and statistics in thread after thread just to be met by "if you put 2 undamaged squads of guardsmen within rapid fire range with a commander so they can shoot a firewarrior clearly guard are OP". Yet almost ever top tournament is won by soup, the most winning list in 40k isn't guard its yannari, at tournaments like nova the higher % of guard your army included the more your win % dropped and on and on and on. There clearly is no amount of data that you will listen to so at this point it would be hilarious for guardsmen to be nuked into oblivion and have nothing actually change.
Your data sure as hell proves soup is strong. That's not anything anyone else in this thread is debating. The dumb thing is guardsmen staying at 4ppm when other armies have had their troops bumped up in price. Stop citing your data when soup is a different issue.
That's the issue soup makes it impossible to actually judge the strength of a codex and its units on that specific army. Not to mention when you nerf units based on soup you hurt mon armies which are already struggling in a soup meta and make it even harder for them to compete against soup.... But whatever nuke guard I wanna see what becomes the new "op unit" and watch the next wave of mono armies get whacked because of it
Sorry man, but in a soup allowing meta, choosing to not soup is your own choice to make. I don't like it either, but it's GW's stance. I grew up loving DOW1, and to this day those sort of army compositions are what I'd love to see in 40k. Mono faction armies, with a balance of infantry and vehicles, no superheavies... I'd love to see armies being given a separate quota for vehicles to bring and infantry to bring, as to whether that would work...that's another discussion entirely.
That's the issue soup makes it impossible to actually judge the strength of a codex and its units on that specific army. Not to mention when you nerf units based on soup you hurt mon armies which are already struggling in a soup meta and make it even harder for them to compete against soup.... But whatever nuke guard I wanna see what becomes the new "op unit" and watch the next wave of mono armies get whacked because of it
You just don't get it. Soup is not actually its own thing. There is no soup codex, no soup units, no soup chapter tactics or stratagems. It is merely its ingredients. IG + Knights soup has more in common with pure IG than with Marines + SoB soup. By nerfing the individual components of the problematic soup builds, you nerf that specific, build, but not some completely unrelated builds that had literally nothing in common with that build. And yes, this nerfs those specific armies from which those components originated as well. However, it doesn't nerf them in relation of that soup build, as that got nerfed too.
That's the issue soup makes it impossible to actually judge the strength of a codex and its units on that specific army. Not to mention when you nerf units based on soup you hurt mon armies which are already struggling in a soup meta and make it even harder for them to compete against soup.... But whatever nuke guard I wanna see what becomes the new "op unit" and watch the next wave of mono armies get whacked because of it
You just don't get it. Soup is not actually its own thing. There is no soup codex, no soup units, no soup chapter tactics or stratagems. It is merely its ingredients. IG + Knights soup has more in common with pure IG than with Marines + SoB soup. By nerfing the individual components of the problematic soup builds, you nerf that specific, build, but not some completely unrelated builds that had literally nothing in common with that build. And yes, this nerfs those specific armies from which those components originated as well. However, it doesn't nerf them in relation of that soup build, as that got nerfed too.
Add in the fact that IG's codex got point reductions elsewhere, you know, shuffling power away from the guardsmen? But then left guardsmen intact?????..Idk. As long as soup is allowed, units have to be priced against how soup will use them.
Add in the fact that IG's codex got point reductions elsewhere, you know, shuffling power away from the guardsmen? But then left guardsmen intact?????..Idk. As long as soup is allowed, units have to be priced against how soup will use them.
And price cuts for other units is a good point. If you need to nerf some unit (even due its over performance in the soup) you can compensate by lowering price of some other units in the affected codex if there is a fear that the nerf would be too harsh for the army when fielded as mono.
Asmodios wrote: honestly, at this point id love for guardsmen to just be 15ppm so I could watch all the new "nuke unit x" threads for the next big souped in unit and watch the same posters on dakka say "there's nothing wrong with soup having no downside x unit is the issue" as mono armies and factions get pushed further into obscurity and soup becomes more and more necessary
That's right, when you don't have an answer to a discussion, back out with a dumb statement. Says a lot.
I've provided stats and statistics in thread after thread just to be met by "if you put 2 undamaged squads of guardsmen within rapid fire range with a commander so they can shoot a firewarrior clearly guard are OP". Yet almost ever top tournament is won by soup, the most winning list in 40k isn't guard its yannari, at tournaments like nova the higher % of guard your army included the more your win % dropped and on and on and on. There clearly is no amount of data that you will listen to so at this point it would be hilarious for guardsmen to be nuked into oblivion and have nothing actually change.
Your data sure as hell proves soup is strong. That's not anything anyone else in this thread is debating. The dumb thing is guardsmen staying at 4ppm when other armies have had their troops bumped up in price. Stop citing your data when soup is a different issue.
That's the issue soup makes it impossible to actually judge the strength of a codex and its units on that specific army. Not to mention when you nerf units based on soup you hurt mon armies which are already struggling in a soup meta and make it even harder for them to compete against soup.... But whatever nuke guard I wanna see what becomes the new "op unit" and watch the next wave of mono armies get whacked because of it
So you're saying we don't need to hit the Castellan because we don't know its real strength as a unit?
And also, absolute LUL at the thought that 5ppm guardsmen means they are suddenly unusable. feth receiving the same +1pt treatment as other, overperforming troops from other armies such as Ork Boyz or cultists.
SHUPPET wrote: w1zard, he's saying mono faction should be stronger than soup lists. That doesn't mean buffing the armies, that just benefits soup as well. It means buffing mechanics for solo factions, or even better, nerfing soup mechanics
My bad, I read that too fast and misunderstood what he was saying. I think to an extent soup is always going to be stronger because it offers a wider array of options than limiting yourself to a single codex. However, mono-codex shouldn't be so weak in comparison that it totally can't compete IMO.
Dandelion wrote: I know which math you're talking about (I did it) and it was done with 7pt FW vs 5pt guard. In a shootout FW still lose a tiny bit to Guard but they perform better against marines. But Guardsmen can take more special weapons which evens the gap considerably vs marines. Adding heavy bolter + plasma is better point for point against MEQ than FW at long range, but they're even at short range. This was without considering external buffs.
Take that as you will.
Ah ok, then that was my mistake. Would you mind posting the analysis here again?
TwinPoleTheory wrote: Pretty sure this feeling of persecution is shared by almost every user of almost every faction in the game, myself included.
Yeah, but I have had people literally tell me to my face that guard shouldn't even be a playable faction and that normal humans shouldn't be a viable fighting force in the 40k setting. I highly doubt everyone who wants guard nerfed shares that opinion, but I am sure some do, and I don't think any other factions have that issue. Some people get really salty when their genetically enhanced supersoldiers/psychic uber elves/space egyptian killbots get destroyed by a bunch of plain jane humans wearing cardboard armor and wielding gakky laser pointers,
Yeah, but I have had people literally tell me to my face that guard shouldn't even be a playable faction and that normal humans shouldn't be a viable fighting force in the 40k setting. I highly doubt everyone who wants guard nerfed shares that opinion, but I am sure some do, and I don't think any other factions have that issue. Some people get really salty when their genetically enhanced supersoldiers/psychic uber elves/space egyptian killbots get destroyed by a bunch of plain jane humans wearing cardboard armor and wielding gakky laser pointers,
Some people say the same thing about Orks not belonging in 40k. So yeah, not just your faction, you can say that about any faction. Because there's always THOSE people.
w1zard wrote: ...wearing cardboard armor and wielding gakky laser pointers,
I always laugh at this. Flak vests, and especially lasguns, are insanely high tech when you look at them. A lasgun is such a good weapon, it is only because the enemies are all super soldiers and daemons that it looks weak.
Peregrine wrote: IMO it's a great nerf. Cultists are supposed to be a minor support element for the marines that are the core of the CSM faction, they should be on the weak side to discourage cultist spam armies. Infantry squads are the core of the IG faction, so they should be one of the stronger units in the codex.
Units should be priced on how they perform. Pricing in regards of other factors is why GW have problems with balance and its why some units are just completely useless in the game.
Sluggaloo wrote: Sorry man, but in a soup allowing meta, choosing to not soup is your own choice to make. I don't like it either, but it's GW's stance. I grew up loving DOW1, and to this day those sort of army compositions are what I'd love to see in 40k. Mono faction armies, with a balance of infantry and vehicles, no superheavies... I'd love to see armies being given a separate quota for vehicles to bring and infantry to bring, as to whether that would work...that's another discussion entirely.
Sluggaloo wrote: Some people say the same thing about Orks not belonging in 40k. So yeah, not just your faction, you can say that about any faction. Because there's always THOSE people.
Personally, I want to hear the justification for that one lol
There just seems to be a lot more of "THOSE people" in relation to guard then there are against other factions, at least in my subjective experience. It doesn't help that guard as a tabletop fighting force has been pretty mediocre since 2nd or 3rd edition with only small windows of competitiveness in 5th and 6th. That fact seems to reinforce the idea of guard as a "NPC" faction in a lot of people's heads.
Sluggaloo wrote: Some people say the same thing about Orks not belonging in 40k. So yeah, not just your faction, you can say that about any faction. Because there's always THOSE people.
Personally, I want to hear the justification for that one lol
There just seems to be a lot more of "THOSE people" in relation to guard then there are against other factions, at least in my subjective experience. It doesn't help that guard as a tabletop fighting force has been pretty mediocre since 2nd or 3rd edition with only small windows of competitiveness in 5th and 6th. That fact seems to reinforce the idea of guard as a "NPC" faction in a lot of people's heads.
Don't need to go far in dakka to find either:
1) People that say Orks are an NPC faction, that should be there just as target practice for MUH SPESHMEHREENS, i.e. shouldn't shoot well due to them never shooting well (when they used to have similar BS to space marines iirc in 2nd edition). Similarly so, that they should have dumb elements where there is equal chance for them to hurt themselves with their own weapons, which on the table top game gets old QUICK.
2) Others say that they don't fit into the general aesthetic of 40k, be it through being too "cartoony", "goofy"; or lorewise, through the fact that they're having a blast, bearing huge grins when every other faction is living in the nightmarish future.
Sluggaloo wrote: Sorry man, but in a soup allowing meta, choosing to not soup is your own choice to make. I don't like it either, but it's GW's stance. I grew up loving DOW1, and to this day those sort of army compositions are what I'd love to see in 40k. Mono faction armies, with a balance of infantry and vehicles, no superheavies... I'd love to see armies being given a separate quota for vehicles to bring and infantry to bring, as to whether that would work...that's another discussion entirely.
Necrons, Tau, and Orks disagree.
Again, factions should be balanced against the soup they can bring. Otherwise you'd never see anything other than imperium vs Ynarri/DE every top table winning tournaments. So yeah, thank feth Orks and Tau have some mean lists they can bring too, I feel bad for necrons though.
Sluggaloo wrote: Some people say the same thing about Orks not belonging in 40k. So yeah, not just your faction, you can say that about any faction. Because there's always THOSE people.
Personally, I want to hear the justification for that one lol.
Orks are a 'comedy' faction that no longer fit the tone of 40k. They have to keep them around though because they have too many fans.
That's the issue soup makes it impossible to actually judge the strength of a codex and its units on that specific army. Not to mention when you nerf units based on soup you hurt mon armies which are already struggling in a soup meta and make it even harder for them to compete against soup.... But whatever nuke guard I wanna see what becomes the new "op unit" and watch the next wave of mono armies get whacked because of it
Are you really trying to claim that increasing the points of Infantry from 4ppm to 5ppm is "nuking" Guard? Really?
Your mono IG list is not better than a soup Imperium list on paper. That is another problem that needs to be fixed in a different way. Note, however, that if all units were balanced equally soup wouldn't be a problem. If a Baneblade were as effective as a Castellan for example then mono Guard players don't need to soup for this option.
I'm not sure that GW can balance this way though because of the sheer number of options a codex opens up. A Castellan will always be better than a Baneblade because it has specific Household traits and a ton of stratagems to raise it above, even if the Baneblade is pointed more efficiently than the Castellan.
Soup is another problem, but for me the answer is restricted CP or even restricted Stratagems. Only stratagems from your primary faction may be used.
Sluggaloo wrote: Some people say the same thing about Orks not belonging in 40k. So yeah, not just your faction, you can say that about any faction. Because there's always THOSE people.
Personally, I want to hear the justification for that one lol.
Orks are a 'comedy' faction that no longer fit the tone of 40k. They have to keep them around though because they have too many fans.
Nothing fits the tone of 40k better than the so called 'comedy' of Orks. Things that are funny to them probably aren't to anyone else.
Sluggaloo wrote: 2) Others say that they don't fit into the general aesthetic of 40k, be it through being too "cartoony", "goofy"; or lorewise, through the fact that they're having a blast, bearing huge grins when every other faction is living in the nightmarish future.
Stux wrote: Orks are a 'comedy' faction that no longer fit the tone of 40k. They have to keep them around though because they have too many fans.
IDK. Yeah the way orks talk to each other is a little goofy, and that is a holdover from the RT days when 40k was basically an unapologetic parody.
But to me at least, an entire race of ridiculously tough fungoids that incorporate violence as a central pillar of their biology that both facilitates their asexual reproduction and serves to make them even stronger and tougher as long as they survive is fething terrifying. Add onto that fact they are all low-level psychics that can literally bend/rewrite reality with the strength of their collective belief, negating the need for higher intelligence and real technology... Orks are a serious contender with tyranids for the label of "perfect biological lifeform". I don't even play orks and I think that orks are absolutely beautiful, and unique to the 40k setting, nothing comes even close to them in any other sci-fi setting that I know of. They are pretty fething awesome.
Sluggaloo wrote: 2) Others say that they don't fit into the general aesthetic of 40k, be it through being too "cartoony", "goofy"; or lorewise, through the fact that they're having a blast, bearing huge grins when every other faction is living in the nightmarish future.
Stux wrote: Orks are a 'comedy' faction that no longer fit the tone of 40k. They have to keep them around though because they have too many fans.
IDK. Yeah the way orks talk to each other is a little goofy, and that is a holdover from the RT days when 40k was basically an unapologetic parody.
But to me at least, an entire race of ridiculously tough fungoids that incorporate violence as a central pillar of their biology that both facilitates their asexual reproduction and serves to make them even stronger and tougher as long as they survive is fething terrifying. Add onto that fact they are all low-level psychics that can literally bend/rewrite reality with the strength of their collective belief, negating the need for higher intelligence and real technology... Orks are a serious contender with tyranids for the label of "perfect biological lifeform". I don't even play orks and I think that orks are absolutely beautiful, and unique to the 40k setting, nothing comes even close to them in any other sci-fi setting that I know of. They are pretty fething awesome.
I was being a little bit devil's advocate, I don't actually think they should be removed from the game. They just aren't my cup of tea. It's more than how they talk though, it's their tech and the way they use squigs and almost everything about their presentation that is at least a little tongue in cheek.
I understand the view that 40k maybe needs a bit of levity though, I'm also not a fan of making everything super grimdark just for the sake of everything being super grimdark!
And yes, I do like the core concept. Fungal race that grows on a planet like an infection and spreads through spores. Genuinely interesting idea for an alien race.
That's the issue soup makes it impossible to actually judge the strength of a codex and its units on that specific army. Not to mention when you nerf units based on soup you hurt mon armies which are already struggling in a soup meta and make it even harder for them to compete against soup.... But whatever nuke guard I wanna see what becomes the new "op unit" and watch the next wave of mono armies get whacked because of it
Are you really trying to claim that increasing the points of Infantry from 4ppm to 5ppm is "nuking" Guard? Really?
Your mono IG list is not better than a soup Imperium list on paper. That is another problem that needs to be fixed in a different way. Note, however, that if all units were balanced equally soup wouldn't be a problem. If a Baneblade were as effective as a Castellan for example then mono Guard players don't need to soup for this option.
I'm not sure that GW can balance this way though because of the sheer number of options a codex opens up. A Castellan will always be better than a Baneblade because it has specific Household traits and a ton of stratagems to raise it above, even if the Baneblade is pointed more efficiently than the Castellan.
Soup is another problem, but for me the answer is restricted CP or even restricted Stratagems. Only stratagems from your primary faction may be used.
Sluggaloo wrote: Some people say the same thing about Orks not belonging in 40k. So yeah, not just your faction, you can say that about any faction. Because there's always THOSE people.
Personally, I want to hear the justification for that one lol.
Orks are a 'comedy' faction that no longer fit the tone of 40k. They have to keep them around though because they have too many fans.
Nothing fits the tone of 40k better than the so called 'comedy' of Orks. Things that are funny to them probably aren't to anyone else.
Yes increasing the points of guardsmen hurts mono guard armies (that already aren't winning) thus a "nuke" or "nerf". Increasing of guard has almost 0 effect on the most common soup build (which is winning) 32 total points. I'm not sure what the magic number for guardsmen is when soup players will decide to switch to the next best thing but what I do know is it isn't a 1 point increase so we will inevitably get back to "nuke guard" threads so lets skip the incremental point increases and just jump them to 10 or 15 at which point soup will still be alive and well guard will just be dead (which seems to be what posters that frequent these threads want as guard are NPC faction, boring to play against, dull, ect ect). The funny thing is those arguing that we should fix soup and then balance are constantly called "guard apologist" but my real concern is for A. codexes that cannot soup B. players that don't want to soup. Some peoples chosen army doesn't have the option of slapping 32 extra guardsmen onto their list to farm cp and other players simply don't want to. Id like for someone who wants to play DA and just DA to have some fighting chance against someone that's decided to cover all the weaknesses of their main army by bringing 2 other codexes to the game with 0 downsides. I think the fastest way to show people that souping is fundamentally broken (not any single unit) this edition is to just nuke guard into oblivion then watch the threads to nuke the next detachment that takes its place.
That's the issue soup makes it impossible to actually judge the strength of a codex and its units on that specific army. Not to mention when you nerf units based on soup you hurt mon armies which are already struggling in a soup meta and make it even harder for them to compete against soup.... But whatever nuke guard I wanna see what becomes the new "op unit" and watch the next wave of mono armies get whacked because of it
Are you really trying to claim that increasing the points of Infantry from 4ppm to 5ppm is "nuking" Guard? Really?
Your mono IG list is not better than a soup Imperium list on paper. That is another problem that needs to be fixed in a different way. Note, however, that if all units were balanced equally soup wouldn't be a problem. If a Baneblade were as effective as a Castellan for example then mono Guard players don't need to soup for this option.
I'm not sure that GW can balance this way though because of the sheer number of options a codex opens up. A Castellan will always be better than a Baneblade because it has specific Household traits and a ton of stratagems to raise it above, even if the Baneblade is pointed more efficiently than the Castellan.
Soup is another problem, but for me the answer is restricted CP or even restricted Stratagems. Only stratagems from your primary faction may be used.
Sluggaloo wrote: Some people say the same thing about Orks not belonging in 40k. So yeah, not just your faction, you can say that about any faction. Because there's always THOSE people.
Personally, I want to hear the justification for that one lol.
Orks are a 'comedy' faction that no longer fit the tone of 40k. They have to keep them around though because they have too many fans.
Nothing fits the tone of 40k better than the so called 'comedy' of Orks. Things that are funny to them probably aren't to anyone else.
Yes increasing the points of guardsmen hurts mono guard armies (that already aren't winning) thus a "nuke" or "nerf". Increasing of guard has almost 0 effect on the most common soup build (which is winning) 32 total points. I'm not sure what the magic number for guardsmen is when soup players will decide to switch to the next best thing but what I do know is it isn't a 1 point increase so we will inevitably get back to "nuke guard" threads so lets skip the incremental point increases and just jump them to 10 or 15 at which point soup will still be alive and well guard will just be dead (which seems to be what posters that frequent these threads want as guard are NPC faction, boring to play against, dull, ect ect). The funny thing is those arguing that we should fix soup and then balance are constantly called "guard apologist" but my real concern is for A. codexes that cannot soup B. players that don't want to soup. Some peoples chosen army doesn't have the option of slapping 32 extra guardsmen onto their list to farm cp and other players simply don't want to. Id like for someone who wants to play DA and just DA to have some fighting chance against someone that's decided to cover all the weaknesses of their main army by bringing 2 other codexes to the game with 0 downsides. I think the fastest way to show people that souping is fundamentally broken (not any single unit) this edition is to just nuke guard into oblivion then watch the threads to nuke the next detachment that takes its place.
Just stop with the 32 BS it's a full brigade for the post CA rediculous price of 900points
Using between 60 and 80 guardsmen pluss 3 Order bots(also undercosted) 3 hell hounds and Heavy weapons teams (which should be paying the same points per guardsmen as infantry as they share stats keywords and orders with.
Elites slots to taste
That's the issue soup makes it impossible to actually judge the strength of a codex and its units on that specific army. Not to mention when you nerf units based on soup you hurt mon armies which are already struggling in a soup meta and make it even harder for them to compete against soup.... But whatever nuke guard I wanna see what becomes the new "op unit" and watch the next wave of mono armies get whacked because of it
Are you really trying to claim that increasing the points of Infantry from 4ppm to 5ppm is "nuking" Guard? Really?
Your mono IG list is not better than a soup Imperium list on paper. That is another problem that needs to be fixed in a different way. Note, however, that if all units were balanced equally soup wouldn't be a problem. If a Baneblade were as effective as a Castellan for example then mono Guard players don't need to soup for this option.
I'm not sure that GW can balance this way though because of the sheer number of options a codex opens up. A Castellan will always be better than a Baneblade because it has specific Household traits and a ton of stratagems to raise it above, even if the Baneblade is pointed more efficiently than the Castellan.
Soup is another problem, but for me the answer is restricted CP or even restricted Stratagems. Only stratagems from your primary faction may be used.
Sluggaloo wrote: Some people say the same thing about Orks not belonging in 40k. So yeah, not just your faction, you can say that about any faction. Because there's always THOSE people.
Personally, I want to hear the justification for that one lol.
Orks are a 'comedy' faction that no longer fit the tone of 40k. They have to keep them around though because they have too many fans.
Nothing fits the tone of 40k better than the so called 'comedy' of Orks. Things that are funny to them probably aren't to anyone else.
Yes increasing the points of guardsmen hurts mono guard armies (that already aren't winning) thus a "nuke" or "nerf". Increasing of guard has almost 0 effect on the most common soup build (which is winning) 32 total points. I'm not sure what the magic number for guardsmen is when soup players will decide to switch to the next best thing but what I do know is it isn't a 1 point increase so we will inevitably get back to "nuke guard" threads so lets skip the incremental point increases and just jump them to 10 or 15 at which point soup will still be alive and well guard will just be dead (which seems to be what posters that frequent these threads want as guard are NPC faction, boring to play against, dull, ect ect). The funny thing is those arguing that we should fix soup and then balance are constantly called "guard apologist" but my real concern is for A. codexes that cannot soup B. players that don't want to soup. Some peoples chosen army doesn't have the option of slapping 32 extra guardsmen onto their list to farm cp and other players simply don't want to. Id like for someone who wants to play DA and just DA to have some fighting chance against someone that's decided to cover all the weaknesses of their main army by bringing 2 other codexes to the game with 0 downsides. I think the fastest way to show people that souping is fundamentally broken (not any single unit) this edition is to just nuke guard into oblivion then watch the threads to nuke the next detachment that takes its place.
Just stop with the 32 BS it's a full brigade for the post CA rediculous price of 900points
Using between 60 and 80 guardsmen pluss 3 Order bots(also undercosted) 3 hell hounds and Heavy weapons teams (which should be paying the same points per guardsmen as infantry as they share stats keywords and orders with.
Elites slots to taste
The vast majority of list were 32 guardsmen that's where the loyal 32 meme comes from..... but I guess that's now a conspiracy?
Also, the FW hellhound went up in points making that build less viable (funny you don't see anyone pointing that out or "guard apologists" complaining because most everyone found that unit to be blatantly under costed)
And heavy weapons teams are essentially fine right where they are (you don't see them abused besides the mortar) Which i think indirect fire weapons in general could be looked at and I wouldn't be surprised if they get an increase
That's the issue soup makes it impossible to actually judge the strength of a codex and its units on that specific army. Not to mention when you nerf units based on soup you hurt mon armies which are already struggling in a soup meta and make it even harder for them to compete against soup.... But whatever nuke guard I wanna see what becomes the new "op unit" and watch the next wave of mono armies get whacked because of it
Are you really trying to claim that increasing the points of Infantry from 4ppm to 5ppm is "nuking" Guard? Really?
Your mono IG list is not better than a soup Imperium list on paper. That is another problem that needs to be fixed in a different way. Note, however, that if all units were balanced equally soup wouldn't be a problem. If a Baneblade were as effective as a Castellan for example then mono Guard players don't need to soup for this option.
I'm not sure that GW can balance this way though because of the sheer number of options a codex opens up. A Castellan will always be better than a Baneblade because it has specific Household traits and a ton of stratagems to raise it above, even if the Baneblade is pointed more efficiently than the Castellan.
Soup is another problem, but for me the answer is restricted CP or even restricted Stratagems. Only stratagems from your primary faction may be used.
Sluggaloo wrote: Some people say the same thing about Orks not belonging in 40k. So yeah, not just your faction, you can say that about any faction. Because there's always THOSE people.
Personally, I want to hear the justification for that one lol.
Orks are a 'comedy' faction that no longer fit the tone of 40k. They have to keep them around though because they have too many fans.
Nothing fits the tone of 40k better than the so called 'comedy' of Orks. Things that are funny to them probably aren't to anyone else.
Yes increasing the points of guardsmen hurts mono guard armies (that already aren't winning) thus a "nuke" or "nerf". Increasing of guard has almost 0 effect on the most common soup build (which is winning) 32 total points. I'm not sure what the magic number for guardsmen is when soup players will decide to switch to the next best thing but what I do know is it isn't a 1 point increase so we will inevitably get back to "nuke guard" threads so lets skip the incremental point increases and just jump them to 10 or 15 at which point soup will still be alive and well guard will just be dead (which seems to be what posters that frequent these threads want as guard are NPC faction, boring to play against, dull, ect ect). The funny thing is those arguing that we should fix soup and then balance are constantly called "guard apologist" but my real concern is for A. codexes that cannot soup B. players that don't want to soup. Some peoples chosen army doesn't have the option of slapping 32 extra guardsmen onto their list to farm cp and other players simply don't want to. Id like for someone who wants to play DA and just DA to have some fighting chance against someone that's decided to cover all the weaknesses of their main army by bringing 2 other codexes to the game with 0 downsides. I think the fastest way to show people that souping is fundamentally broken (not any single unit) this edition is to just nuke guard into oblivion then watch the threads to nuke the next detachment that takes its place.
Just stop with the 32 BS it's a full brigade for the post CA rediculous price of 900points
Using between 60 and 80 guardsmen pluss 3 Order bots(also undercosted) 3 hell hounds and Heavy weapons teams (which should be paying the same points per guardsmen as infantry as they share stats keywords and orders with.
Elites slots to taste
The vast majority of list were 32 guardsmen that's where the loyal 32 meme comes from..... but I guess that's now a conspiracy?
Also, the FW hellhound went up in points making that build less viable (funny you don't see anyone pointing that out or "guard apologists" complaining because most everyone found that unit to be blatantly under costed)
And heavy weapons teams are essentially fine right where they are (you don't see them abused besides the mortar) Which i think indirect fire weapons in general could be looked at and I wouldn't be surprised if they get an increase
The Loyal 32 is a nickname for the Battalion that's easily added. If you look at the various lists, you'll see plenty of Brigades, and many of the lists are going above their minimum requirements for Infantry on top of that.
Asmodios wrote: Also, the FW hellhound went up in points making that build less viable (funny you don't see anyone pointing that out or "guard apologists" complaining because most everyone found that unit to be blatantly under costed)
The Artemia pattern was a mistake in CA 2017 though. They missed out the cost of the weapon and never picked up on it because it was a FW unit and no one really bothers with them at GW.
Yeah, but I have had people literally tell me to my face that guard shouldn't even be a playable faction and that normal humans shouldn't be a viable fighting force in the 40k setting. I highly doubt everyone who wants guard nerfed shares that opinion, but I am sure some do, and I don't think any other factions have that issue. Some people get really salty when their genetically enhanced supersoldiers/psychic uber elves/space egyptian killbots get destroyed by a bunch of plain jane humans wearing cardboard armor and wielding gakky laser pointers,
I've definitely encountered this several times. The most memorable was 4E, in a rare victory over Eldar, my opponent was mad not because he lost but because he lost to the *Guard* which just wasnt supposed to happen, it wasn't "fluffy" and the Guard were supposed to just be bad (which, to be fair, in 4E they were atrocious).
Had another incident where I played a demo game with a new player, I just brought some footslogging infantry, a pretty casual list built mostly around Autocannons (and almost nothing that would ignore his armor) and figured itd be a fun game for a new SM player. Well, being new to the game it didn't go so great for my opponent but it wasn't unfun for either of us and we played again thereafter several times. He was surprised however at the end, he thought that since he was fighting Guard that it was gonna be an easy rollover game because he figured they were just supposed to be hapless dudes incapable of actually winning.
That's the issue soup makes it impossible to actually judge the strength of a codex and its units on that specific army. Not to mention when you nerf units based on soup you hurt mon armies which are already struggling in a soup meta and make it even harder for them to compete against soup.... But whatever nuke guard I wanna see what becomes the new "op unit" and watch the next wave of mono armies get whacked because of it
Are you really trying to claim that increasing the points of Infantry from 4ppm to 5ppm is "nuking" Guard? Really?
Your mono IG list is not better than a soup Imperium list on paper. That is another problem that needs to be fixed in a different way. Note, however, that if all units were balanced equally soup wouldn't be a problem. If a Baneblade were as effective as a Castellan for example then mono Guard players don't need to soup for this option.
I'm not sure that GW can balance this way though because of the sheer number of options a codex opens up. A Castellan will always be better than a Baneblade because it has specific Household traits and a ton of stratagems to raise it above, even if the Baneblade is pointed more efficiently than the Castellan.
Soup is another problem, but for me the answer is restricted CP or even restricted Stratagems. Only stratagems from your primary faction may be used.
Sluggaloo wrote: Some people say the same thing about Orks not belonging in 40k. So yeah, not just your faction, you can say that about any faction. Because there's always THOSE people.
Personally, I want to hear the justification for that one lol.
Orks are a 'comedy' faction that no longer fit the tone of 40k. They have to keep them around though because they have too many fans.
Nothing fits the tone of 40k better than the so called 'comedy' of Orks. Things that are funny to them probably aren't to anyone else.
Yes increasing the points of guardsmen hurts mono guard armies (that already aren't winning) thus a "nuke" or "nerf". Increasing of guard has almost 0 effect on the most common soup build (which is winning) 32 total points. I'm not sure what the magic number for guardsmen is when soup players will decide to switch to the next best thing but what I do know is it isn't a 1 point increase so we will inevitably get back to "nuke guard" threads so lets skip the incremental point increases and just jump them to 10 or 15 at which point soup will still be alive and well guard will just be dead (which seems to be what posters that frequent these threads want as guard are NPC faction, boring to play against, dull, ect ect). The funny thing is those arguing that we should fix soup and then balance are constantly called "guard apologist" but my real concern is for A. codexes that cannot soup B. players that don't want to soup. Some peoples chosen army doesn't have the option of slapping 32 extra guardsmen onto their list to farm cp and other players simply don't want to. Id like for someone who wants to play DA and just DA to have some fighting chance against someone that's decided to cover all the weaknesses of their main army by bringing 2 other codexes to the game with 0 downsides. I think the fastest way to show people that souping is fundamentally broken (not any single unit) this edition is to just nuke guard into oblivion then watch the threads to nuke the next detachment that takes its place.
Just stop with the 32 BS it's a full brigade for the post CA rediculous price of 900points
Using between 60 and 80 guardsmen pluss 3 Order bots(also undercosted) 3 hell hounds and Heavy weapons teams (which should be paying the same points per guardsmen as infantry as they share stats keywords and orders with.
Elites slots to taste
The vast majority of list were 32 guardsmen that's where the loyal 32 meme comes from..... but I guess that's now a conspiracy?
Also, the FW hellhound went up in points making that build less viable (funny you don't see anyone pointing that out or "guard apologists" complaining because most everyone found that unit to be blatantly under costed)
And heavy weapons teams are essentially fine right where they are (you don't see them abused besides the mortar) Which i think indirect fire weapons in general could be looked at and I wouldn't be surprised if they get an increase
The Loyal 32 is a nickname for the Battalion that's easily added. If you look at the various lists, you'll see plenty of Brigades, and many of the lists are going above their minimum requirements for Infantry on top of that.
Kind of like at the BAO where a bunch of lists whent over the "loyal 32" and statistically lowered their win percentage and points per round the higher the amount over that they took of guard. Obviously there is more then one way to skin a cat but does not change the fact that the main issue is the guard funneling CP to another army while acting as glorified objective holders.
Seriously though if guardsmen were the issue and more guard=more winning then why aren't we seeing guard infantry spam lists dominating the meta? Reality just doesn't line up with the hypothesis that guard are broken. Meanwhile, soup is the predominant thing taken for every single faction in the game that can take it yet somehow we are the ones denying reality? Seriously why havent players like nick nanavati figured out that hes being stupid by not just spaming guardsmen and instantly winning games. Heck why dont you go steam roll the LVO this year with your brilliance and pick up that nice cash prize.... all these idiot top players keep gravitating to soup and the most winning faction in the game yannari
Asmodios wrote: Also, the FW hellhound went up in points making that build less viable (funny you don't see anyone pointing that out or "guard apologists" complaining because most everyone found that unit to be blatantly under costed)
The Artemia pattern was a mistake in CA 2017 though. They missed out the cost of the weapon and never picked up on it because it was a FW unit and no one really bothers with them at GW.
This statement is undervalued, especcially when we look at the Index lists.
In recent Chapter Tactics #93 podcast Reecius & Co talk about cultist point increase (starting around 50:30) we get some hilarious quotes:
-'Chaos Space Marines [The Troop choice] are just bad' (and did not have any point changes in CA18)
-'Cultist [point change] is kick in the nuts'
They also talk about force multipliers with the 40 Cultist units and point out large model sized units scale better with stratagems. Well I'm sure we all understand that 'Shoot twice' (as an example) is times 2 the damage output, so Doubling damage costs same amount of CP for 20 model unit and 40 model unit, which means that you actually get more damage from the used CPs. So they suggest leaving cultists at 4 points but capping maximum unit size to 30 would have been better adjustment. However the statement on this is finished in dumbfounding manner:
-'Real fix for Cultists would have been making them [go] up to a maximum of 30 [models per unit], leave them at 4 points, [which] In my opinion would have been better than 40 models [per unit] and 5 points, but that's not what chapter approved is for.'
Reecius implies CA is not the place to change unit size limitations, only the point costs? I hope this is just a mid-discussion offhand blurb than honest opinion. Every chapter approved entry has 'Models per unit' entry next to 'Points per model' entry, so CA clearly is a place to change the model limits of datasheets.
I'm jumping at this because
1) Reecius is part of the playtesters (to my understanding?)
2) Him being part of the playtesters implies he is in contact with those who makes decisions on these changes
3) Therefore Reecius and other playtesters inherently have much better handle of the thought processes on GW's end.
Therefore I sincerely hope the above offhand comment is not a reflection of the balance team's approch on point and rule adjustment process.
P.S. They also say Mutilators are still horrible, but no one is surprised really
While we can only trust the Reecius is correct, we can't doubt what we see in CA. There are 16 pages of Points Updates and 4 updated Datasheets that could have easily been covered by Errata to the impacted codexes. They probably just didn't want to have to add errata for Intercessors in five different codexes plus Horrors in three different codexes.
As for the impact of Stratagems on Cultist, is there any doubt? I pretty sure no body uses stratagems on the 10 model objective camper units. It's all about the maximum sized units that get to wreck face due to mass fire. I'm sure if they limited cultist to 20 models per unit we would see far less than half as many cultist on the table.
The thing is, they DID change rules. They updated datasheets for Intercessors and Daemons. So "Chapter Approved isn't the place for rules" is factually incorrect.
Besides, Reecius is basically the GW Minister of Propaganda at this point, so I'd take anything he says with a grain of salt because of his relationship with them.
Intercessors: Added Melee weapon options to all Intercessor Squads based on the various update packs available including the newly released Imperial Fist upgrade pack. Yes, it's and update. It also could have been released as errata to C:SM, C:BA, CA, C:SW and CW. I guess they decided a new data sheet in CA was a better option than 5 errata.
Horrors: Updated to the latest version of the rules instead of having errata to C:CSM, C:TS, and C:CD. Doesn't this just match the errata already put out?
Bloodcrushers: Updated data sheet to go with Wrath and Rapture that gives more reflective stats and adds unit Champion. Could have been errata.
Bloodcrushers: Updated data sheet to go with Wrath and Rapture that adds unit Champion. Could have been errata.
Fiends: Updated data sheet to go with Wrath and Rapture that adds unit Champion. Could have been errata.
How do I know this? Because GW said so on CA page 140.
Of course, I haven't heard every comment that the guy has made. Could he have said something horrible at some point? Sure, I guess. But I'm not going to believe it unless presented with the quote in question, in context. I think that is a reasonable approach in an age where it is easy to jump to conclusions on little evidence.
I'm not sure of "derogatory" but he has in the past said things like Necrons/GK will be good (he was one of the ones saying GK will be super happy with CA while the response seems to be more like "They threw us a bone"), and has been quickly proven wrong (although in his defense, he might be going off of future rules).
At the risk of going off-topic, I think Reece has committed the Cardinal Sin of "being a name to attack". Same thing happened with Ward, people like to be able to target a person with their negativity, so they will twist minor infractions into major problems. It's just how people work.
Wayniac wrote: I'm not sure of "derogatory" but he has in the past said things like Necrons/GK will be good (he was one of the ones saying GK will be super happy with CA while the response seems to be more like "They threw us a bone"), and has been quickly proven wrong (although in his defense, he might be going off of future rules).
maybe he knows rules years in advanced. Maybe in 11 months there is going to be a new GK codex or rule book, and suddenly the 2018 CA makes eldar tier.
alextroy wrote: There are no absolutes in life or Chapter Approved, but go ahead and hate on Reese if it helps.
Honestly? After his derogatory statements towards GK players he deserves any bit of hate he gets.
This is an unbelievably ignorant comment, but I guess I should expect that by now.
The idea of Reece making "derogatory comments" would be like a kitten pulling a knife on you...
Well if someone tells the hungry to eat cake instead of bread, it is techniclly not derogatory, because there is nothing bad in eating cake. In fact most people love cakes. The "problem" ,and am assuming what other GK players think about this, is that he said that GK will get fixed by FAQ and CA, and when it didn't he just said people don't know how to play and gave examples of lists and units all GK are already using. Not everyone gets happy, just because things didn't get much worse. Some do, some don't care. From what I see from non GK players there are two groups of people a huge group of people who don't care and a small group saying that bad GK is good, because they were great in the past.
alextroy wrote: There are no absolutes in life or Chapter Approved, but go ahead and hate on Reese if it helps.
Honestly? After his derogatory statements towards GK players he deserves any bit of hate he gets.
This is an unbelievably ignorant comment, but I guess I should expect that by now.
You haven't an idea what he said, huh? He said the army was fine and that everyone was playing them wrong, and when we didn't have finalized Smite rules he said they shouldn't care.
That's pretty derogatory if you ask me. Do you want to defend him on his statements?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You haven't an idea what he said, huh? He said the army was fine and that everyone was playing them wrong, and when we didn't have finalized Smite rules he said they shouldn't care.
That's pretty derogatory if you ask me. Do you want to defend him on his statements?
Without taking a side, that is not providing a quote. How do I know that you have accurately portrayed what was said? Context is key, after all.
I'm not sure what all the hate on Mr. Reese's pieces is about. I get that he does try to put a positive spin on stuff but I've also heard him say he didn't agree with some of the changes GW.
With a lot of people its that he made a successful comp system that others feel that they HAVE to use because its a standard, and its a mixture of hating having to use fan comp and also that a fan was able to get said fan comp semi official in the first place.
Huh, Cultists are the same ppm and role as Kroot Carnivores. Except kroot aren't taken all that much because the unit cost is higher than more synergistic elite infantry. Meanwhile cultists are still cheaper than CSM by 15ppu, daemonettes by 10ppu, bloodletters/horrors/plaguebearers by 20ppu, and nurglings by a mere 4ppu.
But Kroot have +1" move and a 7"vanguard, +1S in CC and ranged, +1WS, and can take 2 HQs for 90pts giving ld9 and pick 2 reroll 1s to hit if not moving, reroll advance, 6+++, or ignore 1 casualty in morale. That's a lot more getting on objectives and taking pot shots, plus some light means of durability for cheap battalion.
The daemon troop options have no ranged attacks so they don't sit back all that well and require a babysitter (60+pts) and 20+ models in a unit to work appropriately. Ofc them working is swarming over the opponent, slaughtering soft targets or tying heavy ones. the 5++ is better than 5+in cover tho. Overall too expensive for 3*10 battalion supporting csm unless you're going for a different unit anyways.
Cultists have stratagem access and higher max model count (a problematic combo). They've got ranged attacks and 70+pt hqs for spells or rerolls. Looks like cultists are overpriced but the only option for the role of obsec and potshots.
Conclusion: they do what GW wants each army to have, but can serve a 2nd undesired punchy role due to 40model unit cap. Bring back to 4ppm, remove VotLW, cap at 20-30 models. They'll be boring but do the job, can be phyched up for special occasions but shouldn't be.
Otherwise I'd like to have kroot chaos mercs! They'd do everything better without eating up the CP I brought them for.
SHUPPET wrote: Yeah. Let me guess, by 'derogatory comments', he means "waa he said something I dislike about GK from a balance perspective"
Karol wrote: Well if someone tells the hungry to eat cake instead of bread, it is techniclly not derogatory, because there is nothing bad in eating cake. In fact most people love cakes. The "problem" ,and am assuming what other GK players think about this, is that he said that GK will get fixed by FAQ and CA, and when it didn't he just said people don't know how to play and gave examples of lists and units all GK are already using. Not everyone gets happy, just because things didn't get much worse. Some do, some don't care. From what I see from non GK players there are two groups of people a huge group of people who don't care and a small group saying that bad GK is good, because they were great in the past.
So basically "waaaaaaaaaaaa he said something I dislike, about GK, from a balance perspective".
?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You haven't an idea what he said, huh? He said the army was fine and that everyone was playing them wrong, and when we didn't have finalized Smite rules he said they shouldn't care.
That's pretty derogatory if you ask me. Do you want to defend him on his statements?
1.) I don't have to defend a statement to realise that even with you recounting it in a manner to make it sound as bad as possible, that it's still not derogatory.
2.) Let's watch you never source this ever, but I'm sure that I'll see you posting about it again the next time you want to cry about Reece.
Reece doesn't make derogatory statements, his opinions on game balance are just unreliable at best and useless at worse whenever he's previewing something.
1. Reece is a salesman, its just his personality. Everything Is Awesome All the Time up until there's undeniable proof that it isn't.
2. Reece is a GW hype-man. Every time GW has a new product and they allow him to preview it, that's money in his pocket. Ergo he has a direct financial incentive to not bite the hand that feeds by having a negative outlook on whatever he's basically being paid to market.
None of that makes him a bad person or anything. But it does mean that you need to treat him the same way you'd treat any rumor-monger: you take what he says with a grain of salt and remain skeptical until you have the books in your hands.
BlaxicanX wrote: 2. Reece is a shill. Every time GW has a new produxt
I've seen the word shill used incorrectly so much recently. You have to have an undisclosed relationship to be a shill! If you freely tell everyone that you are involved with a company, you can't be a shill for them.
Option B: Get overly offended and accuse him of derogatory statements across online 40k forums.
The guy's signature thing is not just arguing in defense of the weaker units in the game, but also playing them and doing well with them. God forbid that getting a points drop to every single unit in the dex would be enough to make him think GK would be doing alright.
BlaxicanX wrote: 2. Reece is a shill. Every time GW has a new produxt
I've seen the word shill used incorrectly so much recently. You have to have an undisclosed relationship to be a shill! If you freely tell everyone that you are involved with a company, you can't be a shill for them.
SHUPPET wrote: Yeah. Let me guess, by 'derogatory comments', he means "waa he said something I dislike about GK from a balance perspective"
Karol wrote: Well if someone tells the hungry to eat cake instead of bread, it is techniclly not derogatory, because there is nothing bad in eating cake. In fact most people love cakes. The "problem" ,and am assuming what other GK players think about this, is that he said that GK will get fixed by FAQ and CA, and when it didn't he just said people don't know how to play and gave examples of lists and units all GK are already using. Not everyone gets happy, just because things didn't get much worse. Some do, some don't care. From what I see from non GK players there are two groups of people a huge group of people who don't care and a small group saying that bad GK is good, because they were great in the past.
So basically "waaaaaaaaaaaa he said something I dislike, about GK, from a balance perspective".
?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: You haven't an idea what he said, huh? He said the army was fine and that everyone was playing them wrong, and when we didn't have finalized Smite rules he said they shouldn't care.
That's pretty derogatory if you ask me. Do you want to defend him on his statements?
1.) I don't have to defend a statement to realise that even with you recounting it in a manner to make it sound as bad as possible, that it's still not derogatory.
2.) Let's watch you never source this ever, but I'm sure that I'll see you posting about it again the next time you want to cry about Reece.
I'll look for it again. This was during the proposed Smite nerf so this was a while ago.
I feel like you were talking about this article here, but just taking great liberties in describing what was actually said. You may have played it up as much worse in your own mind then what was actually said.
