Dai wrote: Yarrick was literally THE iconic special character and commisars the well known guard hq since at least the early 90s. There's unpopular opinion and then there's not knowing ya history. Noobs...
...calls people "noobs" while holding up a character that showed up in 2000 as "THE iconic special character since at least the early 90s".
Dai wrote: Yarrick was literally THE iconic special character and commisars the well known guard hq since at least the early 90s. There's unpopular opinion and then there's not knowing ya history. Noobs...
...calls people "noobs" while holding up a character that showed up in 2000 as "THE iconic special character since at least the early 90s".
Yarrick was in "Battle for Armageddon", released in 1992.
Dai wrote: Yarrick was literally THE iconic special character and commisars the well known guard hq since at least the early 90s. There's unpopular opinion and then there's not knowing ya history. Noobs...
...calls people "noobs" while holding up a character that showed up in 2000 as "THE iconic special character since at least the early 90s".
Dai wrote: Yarrick was literally THE iconic special character and commisars the well known guard hq since at least the early 90s. There's unpopular opinion and then there's not knowing ya history. Noobs...
...calls people "noobs" while holding up a character that showed up in 2000 as "THE iconic special character since at least the early 90s".
The current model is from 2000, Yarrick however was most definitely in the mid 90's 2E codex, just with an older (more Blanche-ey) model.
Dai wrote: Yarrick was literally THE iconic special character and commisars the well known guard hq since at least the early 90s. There's unpopular opinion and then there's not knowing ya history. Noobs...
...calls people "noobs" while holding up a character that showed up in 2000 as "THE iconic special character since at least the early 90s".
I don't know for the model, but there is art work of Yarrick and mention of him the fluff as early as the early 2nd edition. Here you have an early day Yarrick.
Considering what has been posted right before, it wouldn't even be far fetched to say that Yarrick was the first commissar of GW. I haven't found images of older models of Commissars.
Mmmpi wrote: Yeah, that's what I get for an off the cuff post. Should have done my research a bit more.
An accurate summary or your contribution so far to this thread.
The conventional definition of spammed is simply a unit that is taken more than others and to a large degree. Something Guard are without question.
Did you not earlier say that you saw no mono lists and no lists with more than the minimum taken? Both if these statements are incorrect. I'm not sure of the relevance of the squads being 'naked'?
Its nothing to do with Marines not having a rule, it's about Guard having MORE than every other army in the game. This is imbalanced and is a reason for the current issues with the game.
Mmmpi wrote: Yeah, that's what I get for an off the cuff post. Should have done my research a bit more.
An accurate summary or your contribution so far to this thread.
The conventional definition of spammed is simply a unit that is taken more than others and to a large degree. Something Guard are without question.
Did you not earlier say that you saw no mono lists and no lists with more than the minimum taken? Both if these statements are incorrect. I'm not sure of the relevance of the squads being 'naked'?
Its nothing to do with Marines not having a rule, it's about Guard having MORE than every other army in the game. This is imbalanced and is a reason for the current issues with the game.
Today I learned that taking the minimum amount required of a unit was the same thing as spamming.
Next time I play a Sororitas opponent, I'll make sure to accuse them of spamming if they take at least one Canoness. After all, one HQ is required, and they could have used a Preacher.
Dai wrote: Yarrick was literally THE iconic special character and commisars the well known guard hq since at least the early 90s. There's unpopular opinion and then there's not knowing ya history. Noobs...
...calls people "noobs" while holding up a character that showed up in 2000 as "THE iconic special character since at least the early 90s".
The current model is from 2000, Yarrick however was most definitely in the mid 90's 2E codex, just with an older (more Blanche-ey) model.
Okay so fine. He was there beforehand.
But was he "THE iconic special character"? No. Not by a damn long shot. Solar Macharius was.
Dai wrote: Yarrick was literally THE iconic special character and commisars the well known guard hq since at least the early 90s. There's unpopular opinion and then there's not knowing ya history. Noobs...
...calls people "noobs" while holding up a character that showed up in 2000 as "THE iconic special character since at least the early 90s".
The current model is from 2000, Yarrick however was most definitely in the mid 90's 2E codex, just with an older (more Blanche-ey) model.
Okay so fine. He was there beforehand.
But was he "THE iconic special character"? No. Not by a damn long shot. Solar Macharius was.
Dai wrote: Yarrick was literally THE iconic special character and commisars the well known guard hq since at least the early 90s. There's unpopular opinion and then there's not knowing ya history. Noobs...
...calls people "noobs" while holding up a character that showed up in 2000 as "THE iconic special character since at least the early 90s".
The current model is from 2000, Yarrick however was most definitely in the mid 90's 2E codex, just with an older (more Blanche-ey) model.
Okay so fine. He was there beforehand.
But was he "THE iconic special character"? No. Not by a damn long shot. Solar Macharius was.
As a source of quotes? Maybe.
But he only appeared in the game (with a model) in 3rd edition, and cycled out in the following book (from memory).
Yarrick, on the other hand, has been a playable special character since the 2nd edition Codex, at a bare minimum. He's pretty darned iconic as far as playable Imperial Guard special characters go.
Dai wrote: Yarrick was literally THE iconic special character and commisars the well known guard hq since at least the early 90s. There's unpopular opinion and then there's not knowing ya history. Noobs...
...calls people "noobs" while holding up a character that showed up in 2000 as "THE iconic special character since at least the early 90s".
The current model is from 2000, Yarrick however was most definitely in the mid 90's 2E codex, just with an older (more Blanche-ey) model.
Okay so fine. He was there beforehand.
But was he "THE iconic special character"? No. Not by a damn long shot. Solar Macharius was.
Mmmpi wrote: Yeah, that's what I get for an off the cuff post. Should have done my research a bit more.
An accurate summary or your contribution so far to this thread.
The conventional definition of spammed is simply a unit that is taken more than others and to a large degree. Something Guard are without question.
Did you not earlier say that you saw no mono lists and no lists with more than the minimum taken? Both if these statements are incorrect. I'm not sure of the relevance of the squads being 'naked'?
Its nothing to do with Marines not having a rule, it's about Guard having MORE than every other army in the game. This is imbalanced and is a reason for the current issues with the game.
Today I learned that taking the minimum amount required of a unit was the same thing as spamming.
Next time I play a Sororitas opponent, I'll make sure to accuse them of spamming if they take at least one Canoness. After all, one HQ is required, and they could have used a Preacher.
Today I learned that the minimum amount of something is not "0". "But Imperial Soup lists can only take Guardsmen as their troop choice!" I hear you cry. But wait. That's not right. They actually have access to the most troops in the game but they all choose to take Guardsmen in all of their lists. "But IG only have one troop unit!" I hear you cry. But wait. That's wrong too.
Your above claim is both strawmanning and inaccurate as I have already shown that people are taking much more than the minimum amount.
Mmmpi wrote: Yeah, that's what I get for an off the cuff post. Should have done my research a bit more.
An accurate summary or your contribution so far to this thread.
The conventional definition of spammed is simply a unit that is taken more than others and to a large degree. Something Guard are without question.
Did you not earlier say that you saw no mono lists and no lists with more than the minimum taken? Both if these statements are incorrect. I'm not sure of the relevance of the squads being 'naked'?
Its nothing to do with Marines not having a rule, it's about Guard having MORE than every other army in the game. This is imbalanced and is a reason for the current issues with the game.
Today I learned that taking the minimum amount required of a unit was the same thing as spamming.
Next time I play a Sororitas opponent, I'll make sure to accuse them of spamming if they take at least one Canoness. After all, one HQ is required, and they could have used a Preacher.
Today I learned that the minimum amount of something is not "0". "But Imperial Soup lists can only take Guardsmen as their troop choice!" I hear you cry. But wait. That's not right. They actually have access to the most troops in the game but they all choose to take Guardsmen in all of their lists. "But IG only have one troop unit!" I hear you cry. But wait. That's wrong too.
Your above claim is both strawmanning and inaccurate as I have already shown that people are taking much more than the minimum amount.
Made me chuckle nonetheless.
So three units to fill a Battalion is spamming? Since most only take the 32.
You can say, with accuracy, the Loyal 32 are spammed, in that they're in a disproportionate number of Imperium tournament lists. But the Loyal 32 themselves are not spamming Infantry squads.
Trickstick wrote: I mean I like Macharius, but he wasn't even alive by the 999999m41 time period that the game has revolved around for most of its life.
So? Neither was Gaunt, yet people try to paint him as some kind of pivotal figure.
JNAProductions wrote: So three units to fill a Battalion is spamming? Since most only take the 32.
You can say, with accuracy, the Loyal 32 are spammed, in that they're in a disproportionate number of Imperium tournament lists. But the Loyal 32 themselves are not spamming Infantry squads.
We've already ascertained that there are more than just the loyal 32 getting taken in competitive Imperium lists. Many of the most successful take 60 and 80 models....
When the same models are getting taken in 90% of Imperium lists in numbers of 30, 60 and more I think it's pretty conclusive.
Edit - Kan seriously Yarrick is an absolute legend and probably the most well known Imperial Guard character tied with CREEEEEEED. His name also sounds very similar to my own which makes him even more bad ass.
Mmmpi wrote: Yeah, that's what I get for an off the cuff post. Should have done my research a bit more.
An accurate summary or your contribution so far to this thread.
The conventional definition of spammed is simply a unit that is taken more than others and to a large degree. Something Guard are without question.
Did you not earlier say that you saw no mono lists and no lists with more than the minimum taken? Both if these statements are incorrect. I'm not sure of the relevance of the squads being 'naked'?
Its nothing to do with Marines not having a rule, it's about Guard having MORE than every other army in the game. This is imbalanced and is a reason for the current issues with the game.
Today I learned that taking the minimum amount required of a unit was the same thing as spamming.
Next time I play a Sororitas opponent, I'll make sure to accuse them of spamming if they take at least one Canoness. After all, one HQ is required, and they could have used a Preacher.
Today I learned that the minimum amount of something is not "0". "But Imperial Soup lists can only take Guardsmen as their troop choice!" I hear you cry. But wait. That's not right. They actually have access to the most troops in the game but they all choose to take Guardsmen in all of their lists. "But IG only have one troop unit!" I hear you cry. But wait. That's wrong too.
Your above claim is both strawmanning and inaccurate as I have already shown that people are taking much more than the minimum amount.
Made me chuckle nonetheless.
Today i learned that you can have have the most troops in the game even if you have only 3 while there are factions with 5
Mmmpi wrote: Yeah, that's what I get for an off the cuff post. Should have done my research a bit more.
An accurate summary or your contribution so far to this thread.
The conventional definition of spammed is simply a unit that is taken more than others and to a large degree. Something Guard are without question.
Did you not earlier say that you saw no mono lists and no lists with more than the minimum taken? Both if these statements are incorrect. I'm not sure of the relevance of the squads being 'naked'?
Its nothing to do with Marines not having a rule, it's about Guard having MORE than every other army in the game. This is imbalanced and is a reason for the current issues with the game.
Today I learned that taking the minimum amount required of a unit was the same thing as spamming.
Next time I play a Sororitas opponent, I'll make sure to accuse them of spamming if they take at least one Canoness. After all, one HQ is required, and they could have used a Preacher.
Today I learned that the minimum amount of something is not "0". "But Imperial Soup lists can only take Guardsmen as their troop choice!" I hear you cry. But wait. That's not right. They actually have access to the most troops in the game but they all choose to take Guardsmen in all of their lists. "But IG only have one troop unit!" I hear you cry. But wait. That's wrong too.
Your above claim is both strawmanning and inaccurate as I have already shown that people are taking much more than the minimum amount.
Made me chuckle nonetheless.
Today i learned that you can have have the most troops in the game even if you have only 3 while there are factions with 5
Sorry, i couldn't resist
I think Imperial Soup lists have access to more than 3 troop choices duder....
Guard have 3 troops choices yes. One is the classic basic backbone of the army. One is a flavor option that has been nerfed into pointlessness. The last has to be taken in its own detachment for all its mechanics to kick in as a mini-faction and functions entirely differently from the rest of the army. That one would see the classic backbone in most lists make sense. Seeing more than 6 squads, while it happens, is nowhere near the norm, in most cases, just enough to fill the detachment are taken. Classic IG infantry wall lists aren't winning much of anything these days on their own.
As for other armies, again, thats primarily the CP battery. Break the CP sharing and that will be...dramatically less popular.
To me, Yarrick was the sole reason for starting Steel Legion back when I first got into 40k. Yarrick vs. Ghazgkull will always be one of the most memorable hero/villain-setups in 40k.
Macharius, on the other hand, never did anything for me. Perhaps because he looks like a fancy schmuck compared to the badass that Yarrick is. To be fair, I never looked into his lore, so I might have missed out.
Macharius has some pretty awesome fluff, he is essentially Alexander the great in space and what you would get if you fused creed and yarrick together, super smart general who also smashes faces on melee. That said his tabletop presence is nonexistent, he's entirely a fluff character unlike Yarrick who's one of guards most iconic tabletop characters.
That said this is starting to get off topic.
In regards to infantry squads, I have to agree with vaktathi, most of the time you see guard squads, you see the minimum required for the detachment, he that 3 for a battalion or 6 for a Brigade. The increased number you see on the field doesn't detract from the point that you tend to see the minimum required to gain that much CP and you pretty much never see detachments maxing out how many guardsmen that they can take.
Dai wrote: Yarrick was literally THE iconic special character and commisars the well known guard hq since at least the early 90s. There's unpopular opinion and then there's not knowing ya history. Noobs...
...calls people "noobs" while holding up a character that showed up in 2000 as "THE iconic special character since at least the early 90s".
The current model is from 2000, Yarrick however was most definitely in the mid 90's 2E codex, just with an older (more Blanche-ey) model.
Okay so fine. He was there beforehand.
But was he "THE iconic special character"? No. Not by a damn long shot. Solar Macharius was.
Going to be honest with you, I never saw either on a table. (because it was the Grand Old Days of Thou Shall Not Use Special Characters)
But people talked about Yarrick. Yarrick was amazing, able to out-ork the orks in general and Margaret Thatcher specifically. Macharius was an irrelevant footnote that wandered off in the wrong direction.
Dai wrote: Yarrick was literally THE iconic special character and commisars the well known guard hq since at least the early 90s. There's unpopular opinion and then there's not knowing ya history. Noobs...
...calls people "noobs" while holding up a character that showed up in 2000 as "THE iconic special character since at least the early 90s".
The current model is from 2000, Yarrick however was most definitely in the mid 90's 2E codex, just with an older (more Blanche-ey) model.
Okay so fine. He was there beforehand.
But was he "THE iconic special character"? No. Not by a damn long shot. Solar Macharius was.
Lol, no. Yarrick was the icon people knew from back in the day. Solar Macharius is a fine character, but Yarrick was more known by players. Macharius didnt get a model until later, like 3rd. I'm not sure he existed prior to that.
Insectum7 wrote: Lol, no. Yarrick was the icon people knew from back in the day. Solar Macharius is a fine character, but Yarrick was more known by players. Macharius didnt get a model until later, like 3rd. I'm not sure he existed prior to that.
In my opinion, Macharius is to the Imperial Guard what the Primarchs are to Space Marines in 40K. They are long dead heroes who pretty much represent the very best they aspire to be, an examplar of perfection that can nver be reached again, but that the very best can get close to. Macharius was a fearless general with a genius for conquest unseen anywhere else. Planets were named after him and he bace a Saint upon his death. Like the Primarchs were in 40K though, he is a footnote, a lore element. The living thing that could be the next Macharius is Sebastian Yarrick.
Mmmpi wrote: Yeah, that's what I get for an off the cuff post. Should have done my research a bit more.
An accurate summary or your contribution so far to this thread.
Then you haven't been reading my posts. Don't be a jerk.
The conventional definition of spammed is simply a unit that is taken more than others and to a large degree. Something Guard are without question.
I agree with your definition of spammed. But not in how you're applying it to guard. Taking the literal minimum is bey definition not spam. Them showing up everywhere means they're common.
Did you not earlier say that you saw no mono lists and no lists with more than the minimum taken? Both if these statements are incorrect. I'm not sure of the relevance of the squads being 'naked'?
I also noticed that you have yet to back up what you said. Sorry buddy. I said where I did my research.
Its nothing to do with Marines not having a rule, it's about Guard having MORE than every other army in the game. This is imbalanced and is a reason for the current issues with the game.
I disagree. It's about people whining about their Mary Sues not being Mary Sue enough. Guard have had orders for four editions now. They haven't changed much. In fact, despite not changing, the other armies have caught up. Everyone can advance now, not just guard. Many armies can fight, or shoot twice, and can do that with more than S3 lasguns and bayonets. Many armies have ways to ignore moral, and in ways that effect more than one squad a turn. Reroll 1 auras are in every HQ except guard, and can possible effect an entire army. So yeah. The only ones who seem to have a problem are the same group of space marine players.
Mmmpi wrote: Yeah, that's what I get for an off the cuff post. Should have done my research a bit more.
An accurate summary or your contribution so far to this thread.
The conventional definition of spammed is simply a unit that is taken more than others and to a large degree. Something Guard are without question.
Did you not earlier say that you saw no mono lists and no lists with more than the minimum taken? Both if these statements are incorrect. I'm not sure of the relevance of the squads being 'naked'?
Its nothing to do with Marines not having a rule, it's about Guard having MORE than every other army in the game. This is imbalanced and is a reason for the current issues with the game.
Today I learned that taking the minimum amount required of a unit was the same thing as spamming.
Next time I play a Sororitas opponent, I'll make sure to accuse them of spamming if they take at least one Canoness. After all, one HQ is required, and they could have used a Preacher.
Today I learned that the minimum amount of something is not "0". "But Imperial Soup lists can only take Guardsmen as their troop choice!" I hear you cry. But wait. That's not right. They actually have access to the most troops in the game but they all choose to take Guardsmen in all of their lists. "But IG only have one troop unit!" I hear you cry. But wait. That's wrong too.
Your above claim is both strawmanning and inaccurate as I have already shown that people are taking much more than the minimum amount.
Made me chuckle nonetheless.
There you go, being a jerk to people again. Yes the minimum. They have to take three troop choices (or six). And basic guard are the cheapest. So they take 3 (or 6) squads and no more. Of course if they don't take a guard detachment, it's now 0 guard squads, but now they have to take a minimum of scout squads. Or guants. Or whatever.
Mmmpi wrote: Yeah, that's what I get for an off the cuff post. Should have done my research a bit more.
An accurate summary or your contribution so far to this thread.
Then you haven't been reading my posts. Don't be a jerk.
The conventional definition of spammed is simply a unit that is taken more than others and to a large degree. Something Guard are without question.
I agree with your definition of spammed. But not in how you're applying it to guard. Taking the literal minimum is bey definition not spam. Them showing up everywhere means they're common.
There should also be a noted difference when talking about Spam and the Imperial Guard. This is an army that, by definition, works through spam. It's built around attrition, the Imperial Guard is all about having *lots* of units. Always has been.
Troops should also be the most common/populous units in an army (in theory). They're what a list *should* rely on. In that regard, this is the first and only edition thus far where the basic Guardsmen has been seen as a good solid unit in and of itself (as opposed to being the minimum filler to take the good stuff or the lesser-known cousins of the more capable Veteran unit which is also no longer a Troop)
So, when talking about Spam and Infantry Squads, there also needs to be some acceptance that we're talking about a unit and an army that should be fielding lots of these units.
JNAProductions wrote: So three units to fill a Battalion is spamming? Since most only take the 32.
You can say, with accuracy, the Loyal 32 are spammed, in that they're in a disproportionate number of Imperium tournament lists. But the Loyal 32 themselves are not spamming Infantry squads.
We've already ascertained that there are more than just the loyal 32 getting taken in competitive Imperium lists. Many of the most successful take 60 and 80 models....
When the same models are getting taken in 90% of Imperium lists in numbers of 30, 60 and more I think it's pretty conclusive.
Edit - Kan seriously Yarrick is an absolute legend and probably the most well known Imperial Guard character tied with CREEEEEEED. His name also sounds very similar to my own which makes him even more bad ass.
We actually have figured out that with one exception, people are taking the minimum guard infantry requirements. The rest of it is your verbally flailing about. Post a source. Show us these mighty 200 man IG tournament lists.
Again, what you describe is when something is common, not spammed. Removed - BrookM
Mmmpi wrote: Yeah, that's what I get for an off the cuff post. Should have done my research a bit more.
An accurate summary or your contribution so far to this thread.
The conventional definition of spammed is simply a unit that is taken more than others and to a large degree. Something Guard are without question.
Did you not earlier say that you saw no mono lists and no lists with more than the minimum taken? Both if these statements are incorrect. I'm not sure of the relevance of the squads being 'naked'?
Its nothing to do with Marines not having a rule, it's about Guard having MORE than every other army in the game. This is imbalanced and is a reason for the current issues with the game.
Today I learned that taking the minimum amount required of a unit was the same thing as spamming.
Next time I play a Sororitas opponent, I'll make sure to accuse them of spamming if they take at least one Canoness. After all, one HQ is required, and they could have used a Preacher.
Today I learned that the minimum amount of something is not "0". "But Imperial Soup lists can only take Guardsmen as their troop choice!" I hear you cry. But wait. That's not right. They actually have access to the most troops in the game but they all choose to take Guardsmen in all of their lists. "But IG only have one troop unit!" I hear you cry. But wait. That's wrong too.
Your above claim is both strawmanning and inaccurate as I have already shown that people are taking much more than the minimum amount.
Made me chuckle nonetheless.
Today i learned that you can have have the most troops in the game even if you have only 3 while there are factions with 5
Sorry, i couldn't resist
I think Imperial Soup lists have access to more than 3 troop choices duder....
And we're talking about the detachment they put guardsmen in. Which means they have three options.
Gitdakka wrote: I think they should remove orders for AM, that would stop them from doing post super human feats. Just give their officers the same reroll 1s to hit aura that everybody else has and call it a day. A 40-50 pts unit should not perform so extraordinarily.
Orders have been a thing for guard since 5th edition. Taking that away would be a massive nerf to guard. Arguably, some problematic orders like FRFSRF need to be reworked, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Kanluwen wrote: If you want to make that argument, then you should remember that the "iconic" Commissars aren't. The Gaunts and Yarricks and whatever the hell his name is from the crummy joke books?
I assume you are talking about Ciaphas Cain? They have more humor then most 40kBL novels do but why does that make them "crummy joke" books?
BertBert wrote: Macharius, on the other hand, never did anything for me. Perhaps because he looks like a fancy schmuck compared to the badass that Yarrick is. To be fair, I never looked into his lore, so I might have missed out.
It is actually really good. He was assassinated by the high lords of Terra because he was too good at conquering stuff, and they were afraid that he was becoming so popular among the masses and so successful in reclaiming worlds for the Imperium that he would have the ability to rebel and crown himself the new emperor. He would never do something like that, but they were afraid of the possibility anyway.
Mmmpi wrote: Yeah, that's what I get for an off the cuff post. Should have done my research a bit more.
An accurate summary or your contribution so far to this thread.
Then you haven't been reading my posts. Don't be a jerk.
The conventional definition of spammed is simply a unit that is taken more than others and to a large degree. Something Guard are without question.
I agree with your definition of spammed. But not in how you're applying it to guard. Taking the literal minimum is bey definition not spam. Them showing up everywhere means they're common.
There should also be a noted difference when talking about Spam and the Imperial Guard. This is an army that, by definition, works through spam. It's built around attrition, the Imperial Guard is all about having *lots* of units. Always has been.
Troops should also be the most common/populous units in an army (in theory). They're what a list *should* rely on. In that regard, this is the first and only edition thus far where the basic Guardsmen has been seen as a good solid unit in and of itself (as opposed to being the minimum filler to take the good stuff or the lesser-known cousins of the more capable Veteran unit which is also no longer a Troop)
So, when talking about Spam and Infantry Squads, there also needs to be some acceptance that we're talking about a unit and an army that should be fielding lots of these units.
And people are still taking the bare minimum of them. Maxing out on Smash captains and Jetbike Lords though. Sometimes both in the same list.
As for what should be the most common, I can see people wanting to make a list that focuses on elites. There should be more of a trade off though to do it.
It is actually really good. He was assassinated by the high lords of Terra because he was too good at conquering stuff, and they were afraid that he was becoming so popular among the masses and so successful in reclaiming worlds for the Imperium that he would have the ability to rebel and crown himself the new emperor. He would never do something like that, but they were afraid of the possibility anyway.
I hope the High Lords will will find the courage to do the same to Guilliman.
Crimson wrote: I hope the High Lords will will find the courage to do the same to Guilliman.
Except Guilliman is not a man, he is a Primarch, and a living embodiment of the Emperor's will. The high lords would no more have him assassinated than they would Celestine. To do so would be Heresy against the emperor himself. Killing an Imperial general who is too good at his job, and justifying it by saying it was for the "stability of the Imperium" (and in some ways being right) is just another day at the office in comparison.
Gitdakka wrote: I think they should remove orders for AM, that would stop them from doing post super human feats. Just give their officers the same reroll 1s to hit aura that everybody else has and call it a day. A 40-50 pts unit should not perform so extraordinarily.
Orders have been a thing for guard since 5th edition. Taking that away would be a massive nerf to guard. Arguably, some problematic orders like FRFSRF need to be reworked, but let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
I'd be cool with that, same reroll 1's aura everyone else has? Same wording as Rites of Battle but with <Regiment> instead of <Chapter>? Done. I'll take that trade in a heartbeat, no hesitation.
I think most opponents will want me to go back to dealing with Orders after the first game though
And people are still taking the bare minimum of them. Maxing out on Smash captains and Jetbike Lords though. Sometimes both in the same list.
Indeed, it's usually just the 3 or 6.
Actually, the spammiest successful tournament infantry squad list I could find had a total of 8 IS's...and then 3 smash captains and 3 Jetbike captains.
Well yes, but I disagree with the sentiment that they fit the setting poorly.
Aren’t the Cain books just offical parodies, essentially, of the 40K setting?
If anything they’re more realistic than a lot of the other fiction written in the 40k world. Most of which takes itself far too seriously. Cain actually seems to mostly show an Imperium that’s actually full of people, rather than the Ludicrously over the top and nonsensically grim dark of most other novels.
Insectum7 wrote: Lol, no. Yarrick was the icon people knew from back in the day. Solar Macharius is a fine character, but Yarrick was more known by players. Macharius didnt get a model until later, like 3rd. I'm not sure he existed prior to that.
In my opinion, Macharius is to the Imperial Guard what the Primarchs are to Space Marines in 40K. They are long dead heroes who pretty much represent the very best they aspire to be, an examplar of perfection that can nver be reached again, but that the very best can get close to. Macharius was a fearless general with a genius for conquest unseen anywhere else. Planets were named after him and he bace a Saint upon his death. Like the Primarchs were in 40K though, he is a footnote, a lore element. The living thing that could be the next Macharius is Sebastian Yarrick.
Which might all be true, making him an icon of the IG in-universe. Playerbase though? For those of us who have been here for a looong time, it's Yarrick by a long shot. A character who was introduced in the early 90's, is the nemesis of Ghazgul Thrakka, featured in many White Dwarf battles, and has had 2 models made, unlike Macharius, who had just the one and it hasn't been on their website for some time now.
Insectum7 wrote: Which might all be true, making him an icon of the IG in-universe. Playerbase though? For those of us who have been here for a looong time, it's Yarrick by a long shot. A character who was introduced in the early 90's, is the nemesis of Ghazgul Thrakka, featured in many White Dwarf battles, and has had 2 models made, unlike Macharius, who had just the one and it hasn't been on their website for some time now.
On that we both agree. Now let's complain about something because it is, after all, the internet.
I think the idea of re-pricing the Guardsmen at 10 pts and then Tactical Space Marines at lets say 22 pts (and then everything else from there) seems like a brilliant idea to me. By keeping games at around 2000-2500 pts we could actually return to a level of point where power armors and toughness 4 are worth a little bit more in relative term and where troops are more sizeable portion of the army.
Insectum7 wrote: Lol, no. Yarrick was the icon people knew from back in the day. Solar Macharius is a fine character, but Yarrick was more known by players. Macharius didnt get a model until later, like 3rd. I'm not sure he existed prior to that.
In my opinion, Macharius is to the Imperial Guard what the Primarchs are to Space Marines in 40K. They are long dead heroes who pretty much represent the very best they aspire to be, an examplar of perfection that can nver be reached again, but that the very best can get close to. Macharius was a fearless general with a genius for conquest unseen anywhere else. Planets were named after him and he bace a Saint upon his death. Like the Primarchs were in 40K though, he is a footnote, a lore element. The living thing that could be the next Macharius is Sebastian Yarrick.
Which might all be true, making him an icon of the IG in-universe. Playerbase though? For those of us who have been here for a looong time, it's Yarrick by a long shot. A character who was introduced in the early 90's, is the nemesis of Ghazgul Thrakka, featured in many White Dwarf battles, and has had 2 models made, unlike Macharius, who had just the one and it hasn't been on their website for some time now.
Not to mention Yarrick is orginal Material. [Even if the Armageddon setting is a copy-paste of World War 2, Specifically the German invasion of the Soviet Union, and if you don't believe me it's noted such in the designers commentary for Battle for Armageddon.] Where was Macharius himself is a copy paste of Alexander the Great, and it'd be awkward if your flagship character was so obviously just a parody.
Macharius was a lame model. Don’t know his story as I didn’t want the model or know anyone with it. Not really iconic... wanted to be, yes. Succeeded, no.
Yarrick was a badass, even more so in his original sculpt. His story was ace and he was very popular in both incarnations of the miniature. Yarrick is FAR more iconic. He landed with Ghazghull Mk I! “Name a more iconic duo” meme, etc.
argonak wrote: If anything they’re more realistic than a lot of the other fiction written in the 40k world. Most of which takes itself far too seriously. Cain actually seems to mostly show an Imperium that’s actually full of people, rather than the Ludicrously over the top and nonsensically grim dark of most other novels.
Agreed. I read the short-story "Fifteen Hours" and was wondering why the commissar didn't just shoot the inept Imperial Guard General, because you know... that's his job and it was obvious that the General didn't know what the feth he was doing. Stories like "Fifteen Hours" that try to be as grimdark as possible even when it doesn't make any sense, are absurd to the point where they break suspension of disbelief for me. Cain's internal monologues get goofy sometimes, but I find his genuine humanity and humbleness, as well as the far more realistic view of the IOM a refreshing experience compared to the grimdark bolter porn of most SM centered BL novels, which are far more "parodies" in my mind than the Cain novels will ever be.
I'm glad Gulliman is back and injected a bit of hope into the setting. Before Dark Imperium, the 40k setting was stagnating in it's own grimdark juices to the point where it was becoming a parody of itself.
I love the fact that the Cain novels are canon too, so I can tell anyone who doesn't like them to feth off.
On topic: I agree that GW have painted themselves into a corner, with point costs being so low that there is not enough granularity to price things appropriately at the lower points costs. Nevertheless, I think that a total points rework is completely unrealistic for 8th edition. The soonest that would happen would be 9th.
Mmmpi I'm not going to quote your repeated posts to me. Why you've split them up and not responded to me in one post makes no sense and is really irritating to respond to.
My source is BCP mate.
Let's debunk a few logical fallacies I've seen flying around in this thread.
1.Imperial soup lists don't need to take ANY Guardsmen for their lists to function. If they're desperate for Guard units they could take a Spearhead or Vanguard detachment. If they're desperate for CP they could fill the troop and HQ slots with choices from any other Imperium codex.
2. As my point above is true (read this a few times over, let it sink in) the minimum amount of Guardsmen units any Imperial soup list can take is zero.
3. Imperial soup players are taking more than the minimum number of Guardsmen to fill detachments. There are lists with anything from 70 to 90 Guardsmen that are not taken to add CP or for any other function than to get more Guardsmen in the list. So let's not pretend otherwise.
4. No one is talking about spam in the contest of Imperial Guard. We're talking about spam in the context of Imperial soup. Regardless the point is the same, if I play an IG player with 15 Leman Russes I think it's fair to say he has spammed them. Or if he has a ton of mortars (a common sight in Imperial soup lists) they have been spammed. IG don't get special exceptions because you think they should.
5. There isn't some grand scheme to destroy Guard. The suggestions for these changes aren't because people want Guard to be awful or they hate seeing Guardsmen kill Marines or any other stupid reason you invent. Its because Guardsmen are mathematically and evidently the best troop in the game at 4ppm as they are now. They are the most populous troop taken in competitive lists and they are an outlier in terms of effectiveness on the battlefield (their combined durability and output point for point exceeds any other unit by quite a margin).
6. If units were fairly balanced against each other across different factions soup wouldn't be an issue at all.
7. These changes are suggested to help balance the game and make the game better.
As an aside, can't you see that the reason Conscripts are so unattractive is because they cost the same as Guardsmen but are literally worse units? They haven't been 'nerfed into uselessness', the problem is that Guardsmen are way too cheap and compete in the same slot. Conscripts would be taken in other armies if they had access to them. Also if you think its wrong that Conscripts and Guardsmen cost the same points while one is obviously a worse unit than the other, how do you defend all those 4ppm/5ppm units that are evidently worse than Guardsmen like the aforementioned Gants?
Guardsmen are the best troop in the game at 4 ppm : yes, but how is that a problem, and if that is indeed a problem, why should it be resolved by nerfing guardsmen ? Imo, having a good troop choice with important tactical role should be a good thing for most armies.
WhiteDog wrote: Guardsmen are the best troop in the game at 4 ppm : yes, but how is that a problem, and if that is indeed a problem, why should it be resolved by nerfing guardsmen ? Imo, having a good troop choice with important tactical role should be a good thing for most armies.
Well you have two options if one troop far exceeds the abilities of other troops - you either buff every other troop or nerf the singular offender. Given the Guardsmen outperform many elite choices across different factions too and the fact that Cultists recently went up to 5ppm, I think the resolution is obvious.
I did it so you could see specifically which point I was addressing.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Mmmpi I'm not going to quote your repeated posts to me. Why you've split them up and not responded to me in one post makes no sense and is really irritating to respond to.
My source is BCP mate.
Could you clarify please? I couldn't find anything but banks in a quick five minute google search for BCP. Seriously, please clarify.
Let's debunk a few logical fallacies I've seen flying around in this thread.
1.Imperial soup lists don't need to take ANY Guardsmen for their lists to function. If they're desperate for Guard units they could take a Spearhead or Vanguard detachment. If they're desperate for CP they could fill the troop and HQ slots with choices from any other Imperium codex.
I don't see you mentioning any of your posts here. What are you trying to debunk?
1. True, but that's outside the point of discussing guardsman use. I also addressed that. Please tell me, outside of new sisters, which army can get you 5 CP for 180 points. I'll wait.
2. As my point above is true (read this a few times over, let it sink in) the minimum amount of Guardsmen units any Imperial soup list can take is zero.
Why? I've already read it every time you posted it. We're discussing the use of guardsmen, so going with that line of thinking makes the conversation moot. Aside from the fact that there are no imperial soup lists that don't take 3 squads.
3. Imperial soup players are taking more than the minimum number of Guardsmen to fill detachments. There are lists with anything from 70 to 90 Guardsmen that are not taken to add CP or for any other function than to get more Guardsmen in the list. So let's not pretend otherwise.
No, imperial soup players are only taking the minimum number of squads with one exception. And they're not taking multiple guard detachments, even when guard is the main force in the army. While there are lists (one) with more than 6 guard squads, that's no where near the majority. Others have pointed this out to you too.
4. No one is talking about spam in the contest of Imperial Guard. We're talking about spam in the context of Imperial soup. Regardless the point is the same, if I play an IG player with 15 Leman Russes I think it's fair to say he has spammed them. Or if he has a ton of mortars (a common sight in Imperial soup lists) they have been spammed. IG don't get special exceptions because you think they should.
Yes. Which is confusing, because you seem to think the bare minimum is spam. If you take a guard detachment, you have to take guard. Guard infantry squads are the cheapest troop. People are taking three of them. Unless they're maining guard, in which case they use a brigade and take six. Those are the bare minimums for battalions and brigades respectively. Almost no one in competative is going over that. And yes, 15 leman russ are spam. But 15 russ aren't the bare minimum in a guard detachment. If large numbers of people were taking 9+ guard squads you'd have a point, but if that were the case we wouldn't be having this argument because I'd be agreeing with you. As for mortars, yeah. They're common because they're dirt cheap. People who take the max number are taking 30. 27 in heavy support, and 3 in their three infantry squads. So, no I'm not giving guard an exception, because their's nothing to except them from.
5. There isn't some grand scheme to destroy Guard. The suggestions for these changes aren't because people want Guard to be awful or they hate seeing Guardsmen kill Marines or any other stupid reason you invent. Its because Guardsmen are mathematically and evidently the best troop in the game at 4ppm as they are now. They are the most populous troop taken in competitive lists and they are an outlier in terms of effectiveness on the battlefield (their combined durability and output point for point exceeds any other unit by quite a margin).
Never said there was, but I'll not you're not seeing many guard or xenos players complaining. Just butthurt space marine players. As for points, I never mentioned them, and that's not the topic of this thread. Guard are only as durable as they are because everyone is maxing out on AT to fight Superheavies, Magnus, and Knights. Space marines still out kill them with small arms. And the only reason you see them in lists at all is because they're cheap. Taking them gives you the bare minimum points outlay for CP to fuel a knight or a smash captain or three. If conscripts were cheaper per unit (even at 3pts there weren't cheaper, 40 is still less than 60), people would be using them instead.
6. If units were fairly balanced against each other across different factions soup wouldn't be an issue at all.
That is too big a topic for tonight, considering that's half of dakka's 40K threads. Yes, I'm being sarcastic about the half part.
7. These changes are suggested to help balance the game and make the game better.
Too bad they all suck. Find the strengths of your army, and let guard keep their iconic ability.
As an aside, can't you see that the reason Conscripts are so unattractive is because they cost the same as Guardsmen but are literally worse units? They haven't been 'nerfed into uselessness', the problem is that Guardsmen are way too cheap and compete in the same slot. Conscripts would be taken in other armies if they had access to them. Also if you think its wrong that Conscripts and Guardsmen cost the same points while one is obviously a worse unit than the other, how do you defend all those 4ppm/5ppm units that are evidently worse than Guardsmen like the aforementioned Gants?
No, if conscripts didn't have the order nerf people would still be using them. What's a better use of buffs? 10 guys, or 50 guys? The increase in points didn't kill conscripts, having orders fail on them half the time did. When IG first came out, the only troop taken (yes, most of the time, not all... ) was conscripts. Once it became hit or miss to buff them, people stopped using them. Guard never stepped up into that role. They're just cheap meatshields, and source of CP. Conscripts were killing things (when buffed). If conscripts could get buffed by orders, you'd see them everywhere again.
As for gaunts, people who know more about them (I haven't played against tyrannids since 6th first dropped) have already addressed your concerns with them.
WhiteDog wrote: Guardsmen are the best troop in the game at 4 ppm : yes, but how is that a problem, and if that is indeed a problem, why should it be resolved by nerfing guardsmen ? Imo, having a good troop choice with important tactical role should be a good thing for most armies.
Well you have two options if one troop far exceeds the abilities of other troops - you either buff every other troop or nerf the singular offender. Given the Guardsmen outperform many elite choices across different factions too and the fact that Cultists recently went up to 5ppm, I think the resolution is obvious.
Except that guard don't 'vastly outperform' most elite choices. Or even most troop choices. They just cost less when they die. Cultists, don't forget get full access to Chaos auras and psychic powers. Guard don't get them.
Mmmpi wrote: I did it so you could see specifically which point I was addressing.
It didn't help I'm afraid and I can work out what point you're responding to on my own without you breaking the quotation up into little bits over multiple posts. But as you are insistent we'll do it your way.
Could you clarify please? I couldn't find anything but banks in a quick five minute google search for BCP. Seriously, please clarify.
Jesus. You don't know what BCP is?
I don't see you mentioning any of your posts here. What are you trying to debunk?
Literally answered in my points 1-7.
1. True, but that's outside the point of discussing guardsman use. I also addressed that. Please tell me, outside of new sisters, which army can get you 5 CP for 180 points. I'll wait.
So players that have the option of taking over half the troop choices in the game deciding to take Guardsmen has no bearing on a discussion around Guardsman use? What? You haven't addressed it. In fact you seem to think it has no bearing on this discussion, for some incredible reason I can't fathom.
With regards 5 CP for 180 points you've kinda proven my point. Doesn't it seem stupid that some factions are able to generate CP for so little points investment while others can't? Increasing the cost of Guardsmen helps with this.
Why? I've already read it every time you posted it. We're discussing the use of guardsmen, so going with that line of thinking makes the conversation moot. Aside from the fact that there are no imperial soup lists that don't take 3 squads.
We're discussing "why are Guardsmen so awesome in game" actually. So you admit that you found no Imperial soup lists that don't take at least 30 Guardsmen (I don't believe this is accurate by the way)? Regardless, what does that tell you about the balance of Guardsmen relative to every other troop choice Imperial soup has access to?
Let's say it another way to (maybe) make it clearer. Imagine (was reality not so long ago) that every single competitive Chaos list ever from now on contained Brimstone Horrors. They all took them without fail. What would you think about Brimstone Horrors in relation to their performance against other troops that a Chaos soup list has access to? Imagine that they became so ingrained into the meta that they had a specific, unique name to describe a certain configuration of their units, the "Brimstone Bundle". Every Chaos player was taking the Brimstone Bundle. Surely it would cross your mind that perhaps Brimstones needed to be looked at since they are omnipresent in Chaos lists and have become such a staple that it is far rarer not to see them in a list?
No, imperial soup players are only taking the minimum number of squads with one exception. And they're not taking multiple guard detachments, even when guard is the main force in the army. While there are lists (one) with more than 6 guard squads, that's no where near the majority. Others have pointed this out to you too.
You and others are wrong and I've told you this a few times now. As you don't know what BCP is I'm not surprised. Your data is lacking. You're not going to see multiple Guard detachments outside of a mono Guard list so that's irrelevant really.
Yes. Which is confusing, because you seem to think the bare minimum is spam. If you take a guard detachment, you have to take guard. Guard infantry squads are the cheapest troop. People are taking three of them. Unless they're maining guard, in which case they use a brigade and take six. Those are the bare minimums for battalions and brigades respectively. Almost no one in competative is going over that. And yes, 15 leman russ are spam. But 15 russ aren't the bare minimum in a guard detachment. If large numbers of people were taking 9+ guard squads you'd have a point, but if that were the case we wouldn't be having this argument because I'd be agreeing with you. As for mortars, yeah. They're common because they're dirt cheap. People who take the max number are taking 30. 27 in heavy support, and 3 in their three infantry squads. So, no I'm not giving guard an exception, because their's nothing to except them from.
This frustrates me because earlier you agreed that the MINIMUM GUARD UNITS THAT AN IMPERIAL SOUP PLAYER CAN TAKE IS ACTUALLY ZERO. They don't have to take a guard detachment. They are choosing to take one for multiple reasons. One is that Guardsmen are too cheap. Another is that Guardsmen are too efficient. As above, there are lists that take 9 Guard squads. There are lists that take more than the minimum. Also note that Imperial Soup players ARE CHOOSING TO 'MAIN' GUARD. Which means they are making a conscious decision to take the majority of their 2000 point lists as a Guard army. These same players have the option to pick from any Imperial codex. They could go Deathwatch, Grey Knights, IK, Space Marines Custodes or any other Imperial codex as their 'main' but they are choosing to go Guard. This isn't an enforced thing. They aren't taking the "minimum". They are actively deciding to make Guard their primary because they feel that Guard units are the most competitive. Does that make sense?
Never said there was, but I'll not you're not seeing many guard or xenos players complaining. Just butthurt space marine players. As for points, I never mentioned them, and that's not the topic of this thread. Guard are only as durable as they are because everyone is maxing out on AT to fight Superheavies, Magnus, and Knights. Space marines still out kill them with small arms. And the only reason you see them in lists at all is because they're cheap. Taking them gives you the bare minimum points outlay for CP to fuel a knight or a smash captain or three. If conscripts were cheaper per unit (even at 3pts there weren't cheaper, 40 is still less than 60), people would be using them instead.
I don't have a single Space Marine force and I'm complaining so it's not just "butthurt" SM players and I got to be honest that's a really stupid thing to say. Points are absolutely relevant to the thread of "Why are Guardsmen so awesome in game?". They are the primary factor, no less. You don't seem to understand my reasoning either. Guard are more durable on a point for point basis than any other troop in the game. Take 100 pts of Guard and compare them to 100 pts of another faction's troops, Guard outlive them against any weapons. Both at 4ppm and 5ppm by the way. Their damage output is also higher on a point for point basis, generally speaking.
6. If units were fairly balanced against each other across different factions soup wouldn't be an issue at all.
That is too big a topic for tonight, considering that's half of dakka's 40K threads. Yes, I'm being sarcastic about the half part.
Yes but you seem to fail to grasp that if Imperial Guardsmen weren't the most attractive troop choice to all Imperial players they wouldn't be seen in so many lists. You seem to be missing the fact that their attractiveness comes from a variety of reasons, cost and performance per point being the primary drivers.
Too bad they all suck. Find the strengths of your army, and let guard keep their iconic ability.
I didn't realise it was an "iconic ability" to have extra stratagems on the most cost effective troop in the game.
No, if conscripts didn't have the order nerf people would still be using them. What's a better use of buffs? 10 guys, or 50 guys? The increase in points didn't kill conscripts, having orders fail on them half the time did. When IG first came out, the only troop taken (yes, most of the time, not all... ) was conscripts. Once it became hit or miss to buff them, people stopped using them. Guard never stepped up into that role. They're just cheap meatshields, and source of CP. Conscripts were killing things (when buffed). If conscripts could get buffed by orders, you'd see them everywhere again.
As for gaunts, people who know more about them (I haven't played against tyrannids since 6th first dropped) have already addressed your concerns with them.
So orders aren't very valuable but making them not work on Conscripts all the time 'killed' them? Right.
No one has addressed the issue around comparing Gaunts and Guardsmen. They keep citing "but you're fearless lolol" (when a 10 man squad of Guardsmen realistically never lose any units to morale, while ignoring the cost of the synapse creature) and "but they can have cool traits like 6+++" (when S4 Guardsmen exist for 4ppm, lol). They make excuses to justify a Guardsman's incredibly (and wrongly) pointed value.
Except that guard don't 'vastly outperform' most elite choices. Or even most troop choices. They just cost less when they die. Cultists, don't forget get full access to Chaos auras and psychic powers. Guard don't get them.
Except they do. Do your maths and compare a Guardsmen against any troop in the game that you think is of comparable value. You'll be surprised to see the per point difference I think. As someone who doesn't play Chaos I believe that there is absolutely no way to justify a difference in cost between a Cultist and a Guardsman. Cultists don't get orders. Guard have psychic powers. Guard have auras.
Also, as you just yourself said, new sisters do a battalion for less.
People do not take guardsmen battalions only for CP, imperial soup has cheaper options for CP farming.
They take guardsman battalions because guardsmen paired with 2 CCs outperform any other detachment at that point level to an absurd degree because of their flexibility with orders.
Those skitarii rangers can't do anything REMOTELY like pumping out 40 shots from a 40 point squad, or booking it 19" across the table to obsec swarm an objective. Every other cheap as chips filler battalion in the game can do little more than stand around and die. Guardsmen with a tournament vet playing them win people games, regularly.
Could you clarify please? I couldn't find anything but banks in a quick five minute google search for BCP. Seriously, please clarify.
Its the Best Coast Pairings App. It does a variety of things for tournament organisers, and as a result it tracks gaming events (including most significant 40k tournaments) across the world. It then records results. The free version is a bit meh ("Player 1: Faction name, X Wins, Y points etc, Player 2: Faction name, K Wins...). If you subscribe however you gain access to all the rosters in events recorded on the BCP database.
This means you can identify which lists are doing well, and that yes, imperial brigades regularly place.
In another thread, I've read a thoughtful post on the fact that armies used to have particular identities and that nowadays it is not the case. Imo having cheap and efficient mass supported by tanks is the identity of the imperial guard. The problem is rather that other armies (SM specifically) do not have the tools to deal with that efficiently. The amount of firepower an intercessor troop can deal is very weak in regards to its price, and the nerf of flamers made those troops even more efficient. It's not just guardsmen tbh, poxwalkers are very efficient and mass poxwalkers armies pretty durable with the right support. At least that's my own limited experience. Elite armies should be elite and should have tools to face populus armies as their troop choice.
FWIW - because Admech was the thing I had my battlescribe opened to, I ran a quick durability calculation. 90 points of Kataphron Breachers actually do outlive guardsmen against any weapon until you get into Overcharged Plasma territory, when the multiwound and toughness max favors the guardsmen for obvious reasons.
Other elite troops like custodes, intercessors etc outperform guardsmen versus small arms, and then you've got troops like brims that will solidly outperform guardsmen against anything that has AP, again for pretty obvious reasons.
The statement that Guardsmen are more durable against anything than any other troop for the points is patently false. But they're pretty unusually durable for the points considering that most other comparable infantry either has drastically worse defenses (grots, gaunts) or costs a large percentage more (guardians, kabalites, fire warriors etc). Or both. And none of them even come even in the neighborhood of the ridiculous flexibility afforded to guard by orders.
Mmmpi wrote: I did it so you could see specifically which point I was addressing.
It didn't help I'm afraid and I can work out what point you're responding to on my own without you breaking the quotation up into little bits over multiple posts. But as you are insistent we'll do it your way.
Could you clarify please? I couldn't find anything but banks in a quick five minute google search for BCP. Seriously, please clarify.
Jesus. You don't know what BCP is?
Nope, should I have?
I don't see you mentioning any of your posts here. What are you trying to debunk?
Literally answered in my points 1-7.
Except you didn't. Sorry try again.
1. True, but that's outside the point of discussing guardsman use. I also addressed that. Please tell me, outside of new sisters, which army can get you 5 CP for 180 points. I'll wait.
So players that have the option of taking over half the troop choices in the game deciding to take Guardsmen has no bearing on a discussion around Guardsman use? What? You haven't addressed it. In fact you seem to think it has no bearing on this discussion, for some incredible reason I can't fathom.
With regards 5 CP for 180 points you've kinda proven my point. Doesn't it seem stupid that some factions are able to generate CP for so little points investment while others can't? Increasing the cost of Guardsmen helps with this.
Yes. Because we're not talking about other troops. We're talking about guardsmen. A ubiquitous choice, but not taken in more than them minimum when they are taken.
Why? I've already read it every time you posted it. We're discussing the use of guardsmen, so going with that line of thinking makes the conversation moot. Aside from the fact that there are no imperial soup lists that don't take 3 squads.
We're discussing "why are Guardsmen so awesome in game" actually. So you admit that you found no Imperial soup lists that don't take at least 30 Guardsmen (I don't believe this is accurate by the way)? Regardless, what does that tell you about the balance of Guardsmen relative to every other troop choice Imperial soup has access to?
Let's say it another way to (maybe) make it clearer. Imagine (was reality not so long ago) that every single competitive Chaos list ever from now on contained Brimstone Horrors. They all took them without fail. What would you think about Brimstone Horrors in relation to their performance against other troops that a Chaos soup list has access to? Imagine that they became so ingrained into the meta that they had a specific, unique name to describe a certain configuration of their units, the "Brimstone Bundle". Every Chaos player was taking the Brimstone Bundle. Surely it would cross your mind that perhaps Brimstones needed to be looked at since they are omnipresent in Chaos lists and have become such a staple that it is far rarer not to see them in a list?
I understood that people took them because they were cheap. Not because they were particularly good.
No, imperial soup players are only taking the minimum number of squads with one exception. And they're not taking multiple guard detachments, even when guard is the main force in the army. While there are lists (one) with more than 6 guard squads, that's no where near the majority. Others have pointed this out to you too.
You and others are wrong and I've told you this a few times now. As you don't know what BCP is I'm not surprised. Your data is lacking. You're not going to see multiple Guard detachments outside of a mono Guard list so that's irrelevant really.
I haven't seen multiple guard detachments in a mono-guard list either. At least none, that used guardsmen. Maybe a spearhead, but that's about it.
Yes. Which is confusing, because you seem to think the bare minimum is spam. If you take a guard detachment, you have to take guard. Guard infantry squads are the cheapest troop. People are taking three of them. Unless they're maining guard, in which case they use a brigade and take six. Those are the bare minimums for battalions and brigades respectively. Almost no one in competative is going over that. And yes, 15 leman russ are spam. But 15 russ aren't the bare minimum in a guard detachment. If large numbers of people were taking 9+ guard squads you'd have a point, but if that were the case we wouldn't be having this argument because I'd be agreeing with you. As for mortars, yeah. They're common because they're dirt cheap. People who take the max number are taking 30. 27 in heavy support, and 3 in their three infantry squads. So, no I'm not giving guard an exception, because their's nothing to except them from.
This frustrates me because earlier you agreed that the MINIMUM GUARD UNITS THAT AN IMPERIAL SOUP PLAYER CAN TAKE IS ACTUALLY ZERO. They don't have to take a guard detachment. They are choosing to take one for multiple reasons. One is that Guardsmen are too cheap. Another is that Guardsmen are too efficient. As above, there are lists that take 9 Guard squads. There are lists that take more than the minimum. Also note that Imperial Soup players ARE CHOOSING TO 'MAIN' GUARD. Which means they are making a conscious decision to take the majority of their 2000 point lists as a Guard army. These same players have the option to pick from any Imperial codex. They could go Deathwatch, Grey Knights, IK, Space Marines Custodes or any other Imperial codex as their 'main' but they are choosing to go Guard. This isn't an enforced thing. They aren't taking the "minimum". They are actively deciding to make Guard their primary because they feel that Guard units are the most competitive. Does that make sense?
Yes 0. But we're talking about when they are taken. Start a new thread if you want about using scouts instead.
There are. At casual tables. Post your sources that say competitive players are taking more than 6 squads.
Never said there was, but I'll not you're not seeing many guard or xenos players complaining. Just butthurt space marine players. As for points, I never mentioned them, and that's not the topic of this thread. Guard are only as durable as they are because everyone is maxing out on AT to fight Superheavies, Magnus, and Knights. Space marines still out kill them with small arms. And the only reason you see them in lists at all is because they're cheap. Taking them gives you the bare minimum points outlay for CP to fuel a knight or a smash captain or three. If conscripts were cheaper per unit (even at 3pts there weren't cheaper, 40 is still less than 60), people would be using them instead.
I don't have a single Space Marine force and I'm complaining so it's not just "butthurt" SM players and I got to be honest that's a really stupid thing to say. Points are absolutely relevant to the thread of "Why are Guardsmen so awesome in game?". They are the primary factor, no less. You don't seem to understand my reasoning either. Guard are more durable on a point for point basis than any other troop in the game. Take 100 pts of Guard and compare them to 100 pts of another faction's troops, Guard outlive them against any weapons. Both at 4ppm and 5ppm by the way. Their damage output is also higher on a point for point basis, generally speaking.
I already said I don't necessarily disagree with you on points. And I have made the comparison. It's usually within a standard deviation. And yes. For both.
6. If units were fairly balanced against each other across different factions soup wouldn't be an issue at all.
That is too big a topic for tonight, considering that's half of dakka's 40K threads. Yes, I'm being sarcastic about the half part.
Yes but you seem to fail to grasp that if Imperial Guardsmen weren't the most attractive troop choice to all Imperial players they wouldn't be seen in so many lists. You seem to be missing the fact that their attractiveness comes from a variety of reasons, cost and performance per point being the primary drivers.
Cost is about it. Wounds per point. The fact that they don't suck at everything else is another factor.
Too bad they all suck. Find the strengths of your army, and let guard keep their iconic ability.
I didn't realise it was an "iconic ability" to have extra stratagems on the most cost effective troop in the game.
Let me know when guard are getting extra stratagems. I just see orders that replace most of the auras other armies get.
No, if conscripts didn't have the order nerf people would still be using them. What's a better use of buffs? 10 guys, or 50 guys? The increase in points didn't kill conscripts, having orders fail on them half the time did. When IG first came out, the only troop taken (yes, most of the time, not all... ) was conscripts. Once it became hit or miss to buff them, people stopped using them. Guard never stepped up into that role. They're just cheap meatshields, and source of CP. Conscripts were killing things (when buffed). If conscripts could get buffed by orders, you'd see them everywhere again.
As for gaunts, people who know more about them (I haven't played against tyrannids since 6th first dropped) have already addressed your concerns with them.
So orders aren't very valuable but making them not work on Conscripts all the time 'killed' them? Right.
No one has addressed the issue around comparing Gaunts and Guardsmen. They keep citing "but you're fearless lolol" (when a 10 man squad of Guardsmen realistically never lose any units to morale, while ignoring the cost of the synapse creature) and "but they can have cool traits like 6+++" (when S4 Guardsmen exist for 4ppm, lol). They make excuses to justify a Guardsman's incredibly (and wrongly) pointed value.
No, guard usually just die before moral comes into it. Guard also don't come in easy to buff groups of 30.
Except that guard don't 'vastly outperform' most elite choices. Or even most troop choices. They just cost less when they die. Cultists, don't forget get full access to Chaos auras and psychic powers. Guard don't get them.
Except they do. Do your maths and compare a Guardsmen against any troop in the game that you think is of comparable value. You'll be surprised to see the per point difference I think. As someone who doesn't play Chaos I believe that there is absolutely no way to justify a difference in cost between a Cultist and a Guardsman. Cultists don't get orders. Guard have psychic powers. Guard have auras.
I've done it. The only one they out perform are marines, and only in how much you lose when they die, compared to marines. Cultists get auras that improve their performance. They get powers that improve their performance. Cultists come in squads of up to 40. Guard powers protect ten guys. Guard orders buff ten guys and outside of other abilities don't stack the way auras do. Guard auras buff leadership, but we already established that they die before it becomes an issue.
Also, as you just yourself said, new sisters do a battalion for less.
People do not take guardsmen battalions only for CP, imperial soup has cheaper options for CP farming.
They take guardsman battalions because guardsmen paired with 2 CCs outperform any other detachment at that point level to an absurd degree because of their flexibility with orders.
Those skitarii rangers can't do anything REMOTELY like pumping out 40 shots from a 40 point squad, or booking it 19" across the table to obsec swarm an objective. Every other cheap as chips filler battalion in the game can do little more than stand around and die. Guardsmen with a tournament vet playing them win people games, regularly.
Forgot about Admech. Sisters Faithful 17 still costs 215 points. Yup. 40 shots at str3, if you take the squads naked. And 30 guard aren't a swarm. Particularly if they didn't do anything on the turn they did their 'swarming'.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WhiteDog wrote: In another thread, I've read a thoughtful post on the fact that armies used to have particular identities and that nowadays it is not the case.
Imo having cheap and efficient mass supported by tanks is the identity of the imperial guard. The problem is rather that other armies (SM specifically) do not have the tools to deal with that efficiently. The amount of firepower an intercessor troop can deal is very weak in regards to its price, and the nerf of flamers made those troops even more efficient.
It's not just guardsmen tbh, poxwalkers are very efficient and mass poxwalkers armies pretty durable with the right support. At least that's my own limited experience. Elite armies should be elite and should have tools to face populus armies as their troop choice.
They do have the tools, but no one is taking them, because everyone has to deal with knights ect.
Not really, it's a pretty niche acronym to just throw out there. It's not like people should be shocked that others don't know about specific tournament support apps.
Could you clarify please? I couldn't find anything but banks in a quick five minute google search for BCP. Seriously, please clarify.
Its the Best Coast Pairings App. It does a variety of things for tournament organisers, and as a result it tracks gaming events (including most significant 40k tournaments) across the world. It then records results. The free version is a bit meh ("Player 1: Faction name, X Wins, Y points etc, Player 2: Faction name, K Wins...). If you subscribe however you gain access to all the rosters in events recorded on the BCP database.
This means you can identify which lists are doing well, and that yes, imperial brigades regularly place.
Thanks for the actual source. The argument wasn't that brigades don't get used. I was wrong when I first said that. I'm saying that my research into it showed a minimum of guard squads being used. If there's a guard brigade, they're taking 6 squads, not 12. I found one example.
Not really, it's a pretty niche acronym to just throw out there. It's not like people should be shocked that others don't know about specific tournament support apps.
Could you clarify please? I couldn't find anything but banks in a quick five minute google search for BCP. Seriously, please clarify.
Its the Best Coast Pairings App. It does a variety of things for tournament organisers, and as a result it tracks gaming events (including most significant 40k tournaments) across the world. It then records results. The free version is a bit meh ("Player 1: Faction name, X Wins, Y points etc, Player 2: Faction name, K Wins...). If you subscribe however you gain access to all the rosters in events recorded on the BCP database.
This means you can identify which lists are doing well, and that yes, imperial brigades regularly place.
Thanks for the actual source. The argument wasn't that brigades don't get used. I was wrong when I first said that. I'm saying that my research into it showed a minimum of guard squads being used. If there's a guard brigade, they're taking 6 squads, not 12. I found one example.
Not really, it's a pretty niche acronym to just throw out there. It's not like people should be shocked that others don't know about specific tournament support apps.
Yeah, that's what I figured. Thanks for the info.
If you're wanting to discuss balance and in particular statistics of army builds with a shred of integrity I'd expect you to not only know what BCP was but also be using it regularly. Anyone who plays regularly in tournaments will know what it is. And many people who don't.
It's pointless discussing this anymore with you. You don't seem to understand my arguments (or you're willfully ignoring them). You have other people explaining that Guard aren't taken simply because they are the cheapest troop choice in Imperial soup. You have very limited data that is not giving you a full picture of competitive lists and your limited data is taking you to incorrect conclusions.
The maths for Guardsmen show that they outperform many troops for their cost. It has been done to death. Either you're not doing it properly or you aren't doing it at all.
Hey also have way, WAAY more flexibility than other units through orders.
Finally real life backs all of this up. Which is why they are taken en masse in the vast majority of Imperial lists.
You can keep making excuses all you like but until they change people will continue to take them and the game will continue to be imbalanced. Which means less people want to play the game. Which means less hobbyists, less money for GW and stores and we all lose.
A big problem with balancing guard troops is that guard is supposed to have the cheapest troops in the game. And in a game where units are all individually supposed to match to each other instead of, say, “Oh, the Mechanicus are the robot vehicle people, they should have vehicles that are cheaper than everyone else’s to represent their vehicle affinity.” We have a problem where the balance has to be between humans with rifles compared to (what the next cheapest thing, kabs?) Eldar super aliens.
We should probably buff all the other units to match guardsmen in effectiveness. I could only imagine the smile on a SM player’s face if he or she found out that Tac marine points stayed the same, but they got a super killy new rule or two.
I faced a DA army with 5 10-man Ranger squads from AdMech on Monday. Sure, not a tourny-level list. The cheapo bodies let him castle up all his DA in one 3-story ruins.
He could put everything DA in Azrael's bubble + a LT. It was 2 10-man LCDev squads, 2 Rifleman Dreads, and a Hellblaster squad. All with cover, 4++, reroll-hits, reroll-wounds-of-1, T4+. All in a nice little corner.
What made it really nasty, though, was that instead of spending 13ppm on bodies in front of it, he spent 7ppm per body. With a 4+ 6++ 6+++, BS3+ S4 gun with 30" range and a special rule. Removing the biggest weakness an SM castle typically has.
Now, this is nothing new. It's not even a particularly nasty flavor (obviously things like replace-rangers-with-guardsmen and whatnot, but that BS3+ S4 30" gun worked better than the extra bodies would have, as I was running an Aspect Host w/no deathstar).
It also has it's weaknesses (I pushed him in, then stepped back and played the objectives - by time he realized what i was doing it was too late. I had 2 Aspect Warriors and 4 HQ still alive at the end of game, but won 12-6). But if Guardsmen are undercosted because it's what IG does, and Marines can take Guardsmen at the same cost, then Guardsmen are undercosted despite not being what Marines "does".
Automatically Appended Next Post: "We should probably buff all the other units to match guardsmen in effectiveness. I could only imagine the smile on a SM player’s face if he or she found out that Tac marine points stayed the same, but they got a super killy new rule or two."
I have long felt that there's two levels they've been balancing troops towards:
I had hoped they'd rebalance towards the "Marine" level, but CA suggests they're trying to rebalance to the Guardsman.
CA also strongly suggests Marines themselves aren't getting another balance change, reinforcing that their days are numbered, but that's another thread. However, several other troops in their range and worse were adjusted downward.
I faced a DA army with 5 10-man Ranger squads from AdMech on Monday. Sure, not a tourny-level list. The cheapo bodies let him castle up all his DA in one 3-story ruins.
He could put everything DA in Azrael's bubble + a LT. It was 2 10-man LCDev squads, 2 Rifleman Dreads, and a Hellblaster squad. All with cover, 4++, reroll-hits, reroll-wounds-of-1, T4+. All in a nice little corner.
What made it really nasty, though, was that instead of spending 13ppm on bodies in front of it, he spent 7ppm per body. With a 4+ 6++ 6+++, BS3+ S4 gun with 30" range and a special rule. Removing the biggest weakness an SM castle typically has.
Now, this is nothing new. It's not even a particularly nasty flavor (obviously things like replace-rangers-with-guardsmen and whatnot, but that BS3+ S4 30" gun worked better than the extra bodies would have, as I was running an Aspect Host w/no deathstar).
It also has it's weaknesses (I pushed him in, then stepped back and played the objectives - by time he realized what i was doing it was too late. I had 2 Aspect Warriors and 4 HQ still alive at the end of game, but won 12-6). But if Guardsmen are undercosted because it's what IG does, and Marines can take Guardsmen at the same cost, then Guardsmen are undercosted despite not being what Marines "does".
Automatically Appended Next Post: "We should probably buff all the other units to match guardsmen in effectiveness. I could only imagine the smile on a SM player’s face if he or she found out that Tac marine points stayed the same, but they got a super killy new rule or two."
I have long felt that there's two levels they've been balancing troops towards:
I had hoped they'd rebalance towards the "Marine" level, but CA suggests they're trying to rebalance to the Guardsman.
CA also strongly suggests Marines themselves aren't getting another balance change, reinforcing that their days are numbered, but that's another thread. However, several other troops in their range and worse were adjusted downward.
A lot of problems just seem to come back to an army’s ability to soup in whatever they want to cover it’s weak spots.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, do you put Scion in your first level or the marine level?
I'm not entirely sure which one I'd put Scions on. I haven't seen them on the table enough to be sure. For fluff reasons, I mostly ignore them beyond tabletop crunch ("Scions" is a terrible way of spelling "Vets", and a celebration of GW's aspires-to-flandarization mentality as well. In other words, a great example of much of what goes wrong at GW.). As such, I don't pay much attention to them.
Bharring wrote: I'm not entirely sure which one I'd put Scions on. I haven't seen them on the table enough to be sure. For fluff reasons, I mostly ignore them beyond tabletop crunch ("Scions" is a terrible way of spelling "Vets", and a celebration of GW's aspires-to-flandarization mentality as well. In other words, a great example of much of what goes wrong at GW.). As such, I don't pay much attention to them.
Well, they are different units than vets. We still have vets and Scions. I’d more expect the joke to be a misspelling of “stormtroopers,” however.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Finally real life backs all of this up. Which is why they are taken en masse in the vast majority of Imperial lists.
I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.
Do you think they'd be showing up in every soup list if CP generation were nerfed? If so, why, if currently nobody is taking any more than they are required to for CP purposes?
The "absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements" is 0. You can take any faction. They chose IG.
The CP farm is a big part of it. However, there's only a critical mass of bodies needed to do their job. What that critical mass is is quite debateable. But you can get that critical mass *and* get the CP from the detatchement at the same time.
Lets say somehow you think 20 bodies are the perfect amount of chaff. Would you take 20 bodies and an HQ for 1 CP when you could take 30 bodies and 2 HQ for only a few more points to get a bunch of CP? Lets say you think 50 bodies are the right amount of chaff. Why not bring 60 and a few other not-bad-choice units for even more CP?
You only see the "minimums" because the lists optimize the chaff bodies:CP ratio, for optimal returns. They aren't taking Guardsmen to run the table, they're taking them to do a job. And that job requires 30 or 60 Guardsmen, not 20 or 60 or 200.
I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.
So why it is always the Guard and not other factions that can also generate CP cheaply such as SoB or Ad Mech?
Not really, it's a pretty niche acronym to just throw out there. It's not like people should be shocked that others don't know about specific tournament support apps.
Not to mention that they are using the same source.
BCP = Blood of Kittens
And both those sources are highly flawed since they get only ITC results.
If you want to discuss balance please use the lists from GW Heats, anything else is useless in a balance discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the actual matter.
The numbers clearly show that guards are taken becaue they are the best CP detachment.
You don't fix this by increasing the cost of guards, the loyal 32 would be taken even if they costed 30 points more. While you would increase by 120 points the cost of mono AM lista that are 100% fine and not a problem for the balance.
As was already said in this thread, the really good aspect of the guards as a CP detachment is not in the (excellent) stats of the guards, but in the flexibility of the orders.
Do you want to do something that hurts guards CP detachment without crippinling mono AM? Bring CC to 55 points, which is only fair considering how much stuff they do.
Now you increased the loyal 32 by 50 points, with minimal impacts on the mono AM lists.
I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.
So why it is always the Guard and not other factions that can also generate CP cheaply such as SoB or Ad Mech?
My guess is that it's the body count over all. The guard however to have access to longer ranged weapons, meaning they can camp backfield objectives better.
Both sisters and Admech are only fielding 17 models, as opposed to 32. Officers are more combat oriented then Techpriests, and techpriests can't fix stuff outside of IG or AdMech. Officers are cheaper than a canoness, and have options, unlike the current Missionary.
Not really, it's a pretty niche acronym to just throw out there. It's not like people should be shocked that others don't know about specific tournament support apps.
Not to mention that they are using the same source.
BCP = Blood of Kittens
And both those sources are highly flawed since they get only ITC results.
If you want to discuss balance please use the lists from GW Heats, anything else is useless in a balance discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: On the actual matter.
The numbers clearly show that guards are taken becaue they are the best CP detachment.
You don't fix this by increasing the cost of guards, the loyal 32 would be taken even if they costed 30 points more. While you would increase by 120 points the cost of mono AM lista that are 100% fine and not a problem for the balance.
As was already said in this thread, the really good aspect of the guards as a CP detachment is not in the (excellent) stats of the guards, but in the flexibility of the orders.
Do you want to do something that hurts guards CP detachment without crippinling mono AM? Bring CC to 55 points, which is only fair considering how much stuff they do.
Now you increased the loyal 32 by 50 points, with minimal impacts on the mono AM lists.
I was on board with everything until CC to 55 points. Jeez, what would you do to Tempestor Primes?
My guess is that it's the body count over all. The guard however to have access to longer ranged weapons, meaning they can camp backfield objectives better.
Both sisters and Admech are only fielding 17 models, as opposed to 32. Officers are more combat oriented then Techpriests, and techpriests can't fix stuff outside of IG or AdMech. Officers are cheaper than a canoness, and have options, unlike the current Missionary.
So you're saying that the Guard are better for their points than other alternatives? Almost like they were too cheap for what they bring!
I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.
So why it is always the Guard and not other factions that can also generate CP cheaply such as SoB or Ad Mech?
My guess is that it's the body count over all. The guard however to have access to longer ranged weapons, meaning they can camp backfield objectives better.
Both sisters and Admech are only fielding 17 models, as opposed to 32. Officers are more combat oriented then Techpriests, and techpriests can't fix stuff outside of IG or AdMech. Officers are cheaper than a canoness, and have options, unlike the current Missionary.
Guard also have access to a warlord trait or relic that will essentially give another free 5-6CP over the course of the game. before the CP change, it was essentially unlimited CP but 5-6 is still amazing utility for a cheap squad. Also currently sisters are waiting for their new model line so I suspect even most tournament players aren't going to run out and buy overpriced outdated metal miniatures when you can buy cheap guard plastic instead
My guess is that it's the body count over all. The guard however to have access to longer ranged weapons, meaning they can camp backfield objectives better.
Both sisters and Admech are only fielding 17 models, as opposed to 32. Officers are more combat oriented then Techpriests, and techpriests can't fix stuff outside of IG or AdMech. Officers are cheaper than a canoness, and have options, unlike the current Missionary.
So you're saying that the Guard are better for their points than other alternatives? Almost like they were too cheap for what they bring!
No, I said more bodies.
Fifteen sisters actually have more fire power and both have more durability per model. Actually, AdMech probably have more firepower as well. But It's the bodies that people value right now.
My guess is that it's the body count over all. The guard however to have access to longer ranged weapons, meaning they can camp backfield objectives better.
Both sisters and Admech are only fielding 17 models, as opposed to 32. Officers are more combat oriented then Techpriests, and techpriests can't fix stuff outside of IG or AdMech. Officers are cheaper than a canoness, and have options, unlike the current Missionary.
So you're saying that the Guard are better for their points than other alternatives? Almost like they were too cheap for what they bring!
I think he's saying that guard are better for sitting on the backfield simply squatting on objectives. Part of the problem with soup is that you can take another army to do "x" job you don't excel at. Why take a techpriest as a CP detachment when its ability to fix tanks is completely wasted and why take skitari with good 30 inch shooting when they are going to just sit in the back all game not really shooting. When you can take units to do ever job but just sit on something you are obviously going to default to the cheapest wounds per model to do the sitting
Fifteen sisters actually have more fire power and both have more durability per model. Actually, AdMech probably have more firepower as well. But It's the bodies that people value right now.
Then that's better value!
This is not rocket science, if you can choose from all the troop choices of the Imperium, but one is almost always chosen over the others by the top end competitive players, then that troop choice is (for whatever reason) clearly the best! It brings more value for its points than other options. It is undercosted compared to the others.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Finally real life backs all of this up. Which is why they are taken en masse in the vast majority of Imperial lists.
I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.
Do you think they'd be showing up in every soup list if CP generation were nerfed? If so, why, if currently nobody is taking any more than they are required to for CP purposes?
Guardsmen and CCs are not taken purely for CP generation purposes. As I explained above, if they were, then people would be taking 15 rangers+2 techpriests instead, for 15 fewer points.
Guardsmen and CCs are taken because 180 points of them are as useful or more useful than 400-500 points of other armies' CP generating troops.
Every CP generating screen detachment is going to have two major purposes: The obvious, giving 5 or 12cp to your real workhorse units (it's in the name) and whatever secondary use you can get out of them. Guard has the second-cheapest Battalion in the game behind admech at 165 with other competitors being Chaos Daemons at 292 for the usually-taken nurgle battalion and Drukhari at 234 (imperial soup has a huge advantage in CP generation over the other soups). Tau are not a soup army but they do out-do guard at 160pts I believe (forget the exact pts cost of a fireblade).
One is screening, keeping your opponent from getting close turn 1/2 by putting a paper-thin buffer zone of movement blocking models on the table. Guardsmen are not the best at this job at the Battalion level, because they have no pregame movement with which to widen the net zone - currently, only Nurglings and marine Scouts do this from the troops role for free. I'll take "the reason scouts exist in competitive 40k" for 300, Alex. Guard does do this if you go to Brigade level by bringing Scout Sentinels, who you see start to crop up any time a fast assault turn 1 or an all-out deep strike turn 1 becomes a meta move. Depending on how ork da jump affects the meta, you'll probably see guard detachments go from battalion to brigade.
One is bubblewrap, keeping your opponent from getting close by actually not dying, and tying things up. Guard have no competition here, their CP detachments are nearly 1.5x as durable for the points as their closest competitor, nurglings/poxwalkers/plaguebearers, and they blow away competition like marine scouts, grots, kabalites and skitarii. To be more durable than naked guardsmen with no support for the points against anti-chaff firepower, you need to either be elite infantry with extreme weaknesses against anti-elite firepower (intercessors, kataphrons, etc) or you need to be buffed up by expensive aura buffers.
Another is damage. Again, thanks to orders, the Little Guard Detachment That Could is head and shoulders better than any competition even close to their price bracket. Guardsmen outdamage the cheaper admech minimum detachment by 2x against almost all targets. Pretty good for 15pts. many min detachments (like nurglings, grots, wracks, and brims) put out zero firepower. Their closest competition I believe is Tau, makes sense, the longrange shooting faction, who Guard only outperform by 33%. You wear that second-place medal proudly, tau.
Another is holding objectives. Guess which minimum obsec detachment moves the fastest? Hint, it's not Eldar.
One more time for the people in the back: Tournament players are not taking minimum guard detachments just because they give the best CP for the points. Because they don't. people are taking minimum guard detachments because they are head-and-shoulders above every other CP-generating detachment in the entire game while still being one of the very cheapest. And not just better at one thing. Better at everything. Anything you want to do with cheap troops from any faction, Guard does better.
My guess is that it's the body count over all. The guard however to have access to longer ranged weapons, meaning they can camp backfield objectives better.
Both sisters and Admech are only fielding 17 models, as opposed to 32. Officers are more combat oriented then Techpriests, and techpriests can't fix stuff outside of IG or AdMech. Officers are cheaper than a canoness, and have options, unlike the current Missionary.
So you're saying that the Guard are better for their points than other alternatives? Almost like they were too cheap for what they bring!
No, I said more bodies.
Fifteen sisters actually have more fire power and both have more durability per model. Actually, AdMech probably have more firepower as well. But It's the bodies that people value right now.
This is the most hilariously short-sighted way of looking at this, that I'm not even certain how to respond to it.
Are you actually trying to say that orders should be discounted for the guard detachments when you take two company commanders in every one?
against nearly any target, Guard+2CCs with FRFSRF outdamage:
15 skitarii rangers
15 tau firewarriors (assuming Tau are in range of the Cadre Fireblades they brought with AND the fireblades got 1 markerlight on their target)
15 marine scouts (assuming the scouts have a captain aura)
15 sisters of battle (assuming the sisters have the same aura from one of their canonesses)
30 GSC neophytes
30 Termagants
30 grots+2 smites from weirdboyz
15 kabalites in an archon aura (and even if they have the reroll 1 to wound aura relic too)
and obviously, all the min detachments that don't shoot at all, of which there are several.
and this damage gap comes along with the fact that the loyal 32 are often 2/3 to 1/2 as expensive as many competing detachments.
Fifteen sisters actually have more fire power and both have more durability per model. Actually, AdMech probably have more firepower as well. But It's the bodies that people value right now.
Then that's better value!
This is not rocket science, if you can choose from all the troop choices of the Imperium, but one is almost always chosen over the others by the top end competitive players, then that troop choice is (for whatever reason) clearly the best! It brings more value for its points than other options. It is undercosted compared to the others.
Apparently it is rocket science.
Guard have better long ranged guns, and twice the wounds.
If that's what you need, that's what you take.
If you need massive short ranged fire power, and psychic defense, you take the sisters. 215 points for four DtW attempts?
If you need repair stuff and mid ranged fire power, take the AdMech.
The latter two are both more durable per wound than guardsmen.
If your army however is a knight and three smash captains, the bonus wounds are more useful. It's all a trade off, and people chose cheap easy to kill bodies.
To better reflect the massive, inescapably slow bureaucracy and overhead of managing a force the size of the Astra Militarum, with it's countless soldiers and innumerable apparatus of war, I propose all AM detachments award only half the CP they normally would (rounding up).
Monoguard players won't notice because it wasn't like they were using those CP for guard strats anyway
Mmmpi wrote:I'll I got from this is that you're acting like an elitist prick because I don't use your specific app of choice.
Until you decide to remove your head from your butt, we are done.
PS: I win.
First rule 1.
Second its not my 'app of choice' its simply the most comprehensive database we have on competitive 40k.
There is nothing to win. Nothing is at stake here man. Just 2 people trying to have a discussion.
Put yourself in my shoes. Imagine you knew something for a fact but I kept denying it, asking for a source and then didn't know the source when it was provided. You'd get frustrated too I suspect.
Apple Peel wrote: A big problem with balancing guard troops is that guard is supposed to have the cheapest troops in the game. And in a game where units are all individually supposed to match to each other
I don't understand what you mean here. Where has anyone said that Guard are supposed to have the cheapest troops in the game? Did GW say this?
An Actual Englishman wrote: Finally real life backs all of this up. Which is why they are taken en masse in the vast majority of Imperial lists.
I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.
Do you think they'd be showing up in every soup list if CP generation were nerfed? If so, why, if currently nobody is taking any more than they are required to for CP purposes?
I've already said like a hundred times in this thread that they aren't only taken in minimum sizes to fulfil CP requirements. Are you sure you read the last few pages?
Scotsman also mentioned a cheaper Imperial Battalion in Ad Mech. If cost was the only factor that would be taken instead but it isn't.
Not to mention that they are using the same source.
BCP = Blood of Kittens
And both those sources are highly flawed since they get only ITC results.
What? BCP is not the same as Blood of Kittens. Blood of kittens uses BCP and that's it. Also if they were the same how did our friend above fail to find those lists that have more than 6 units of Guardsmen?
ITC is the standard for competitive 40k. It's also the most common. It suits our needs for a discussion around balance unless you know a more commonly used format?
Mmmpi wrote: My guess is that it's the body count over all. The guard however to have access to longer ranged weapons, meaning they can camp backfield objectives better.
Both sisters and Admech are only fielding 17 models, as opposed to 32. Officers are more combat oriented then Techpriests, and techpriests can't fix stuff outside of IG or AdMech. Officers are cheaper than a canoness, and have options, unlike the current Missionary.
Almost like there should be a minimum cost per troop wound for Imperial soup and that 4 ppm is too low right? priced
E - so I read the responses that happened as I was writing this post and it is clear to me that the Guard apologists aren't going to change their tack on this, regardless of all the logical arguments presented their way. They literally have an excuse for everything. This discussion is pointless and really, really sad. In my experience Guard players are a lot more open to change of their units, that they admit are under priced, in real life. Its a shame some of you can't be so open and honest on here.
My guess is that it's the body count over all. The guard however to have access to longer ranged weapons, meaning they can camp backfield objectives better.
Both sisters and Admech are only fielding 17 models, as opposed to 32. Officers are more combat oriented then Techpriests, and techpriests can't fix stuff outside of IG or AdMech. Officers are cheaper than a canoness, and have options, unlike the current Missionary.
So you're saying that the Guard are better for their points than other alternatives? Almost like they were too cheap for what they bring!
No, I said more bodies.
Fifteen sisters actually have more fire power and both have more durability per model. Actually, AdMech probably have more firepower as well. But It's the bodies that people value right now.
This is the most hilariously short-sighted way of looking at this, that I'm not even certain how to respond to it.
Are you actually trying to say that orders should be discounted for the guard detachments when you take two company commanders in every one?
against nearly any target, Guard+2CCs with FRFSRF outdamage:
15 skitarii rangers
15 tau firewarriors (assuming Tau are in range of the Cadre Fireblades they brought with AND the fireblades got 1 markerlight on their target)
15 marine scouts (assuming the scouts have a captain aura)
15 sisters of battle (assuming the sisters have the same aura from one of their canonesses)
30 GSC neophytes
30 Termagants
30 grots+2 smites from weirdboyz
15 kabalites in an archon aura (and even if they have the reroll 1 to wound aura relic too)
and obviously, all the min detachments that don't shoot at all, of which there are several.
and this damage gap comes along with the fact that the loyal 32 are often 2/3 to 1/2 as expensive as many competing detachments.
Then why did you respond?
But I suppose you want an actual answer to your wondering.
When did I say orders should be discounted? RF2 las guns don't really equal the damage on heavier things compared to two meltas and a combi-plasma.
I think you're also forgetting all the other abilities those units have besides raw firepower.
Lemondish wrote: To better reflect the massive, inescapably slow bureaucracy and overhead of managing a force the size of the Astra Militarum, with it's countless soldiers and innumerable apparatus of war, I propose all AM detachments award only half the CP they normall would (rounding up).
Monoguard players won't notice because it wasn't like they were using those CP for guard anyway
Could there be an exception for Militarum Tempestus detachments? They are more efficient.
Guard have better long ranged guns, and twice the wounds.
If that's what you need, that's what you take.
If you need massive short ranged fire power, and psychic defense, you take the sisters. 215 points for four DtW attempts?
If you need repair stuff and mid ranged fire power, take the AdMech.
The latter two are both more durable per wound than guardsmen.
If your army however is a knight and three smash captains, the bonus wounds are more useful. It's all a trade off, and people chose cheap easy to kill bodies.
This is just nonsense. Half of what you're saying is not even true, and the other half obviously isn't worth it, as people are not taking these other things. It is undeniable that guard brings more value for its points than these other detachments.
Mmmpi wrote:I'll I got from this is that you're acting like an elitist prick because I don't use your specific app of choice.
Until you decide to remove your head from your butt, we are done.
PS: I win.
Put yourself in my shoes. Imagine you knew something for a fact but I kept denying it, asking for a source and then didn't know the source when it was provided. You'd get frustrated too I suspect.
That's the problem. You just described my situation in our discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Almost like there should be a minimum cost per troop wound for Imperial soup and that 4 ppm is too low right?
No, it's almost like people chose more wounds as a trade off over something else.
Nah, if you want to repair stuff, you don't play tournaments, because nothing gets repaired.
If you want massive short range firepower and DTW attempts, you take a guard brigade, which has 120 S3 AP- attacks within 12 +9d6 S4 Ap- attacks that ignore LOS and have range = board, 3 DTW attempts that can also be 3 smites, and costs 609 points.
15 sisters with reroll aura do not outdamage 30 guardsmen with FRFSRF. At any range. Try again.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, lol@ "more durable per wound."
Because that's a thing people consider, right? it's why Terminators are the best units in the game.
Guard have better long ranged guns, and twice the wounds.
If that's what you need, that's what you take.
If you need massive short ranged fire power, and psychic defense, you take the sisters. 215 points for four DtW attempts?
If you need repair stuff and mid ranged fire power, take the AdMech.
The latter two are both more durable per wound than guardsmen.
If your army however is a knight and three smash captains, the bonus wounds are more useful. It's all a trade off, and people chose cheap easy to kill bodies.
This is just nonsense. Half of what you're saying is not even true, and the other half obviously isn't worth it, as people are not taking these other things. It is undeniable that guard brings more value for its points than these other detachments.
Of course it's not worth it to the people not taking it. ...I flat out said people were choosing wounds over the other cheap options. But that's because it's what the current meta feels it needs.
Fifteen sisters actually have more fire power and both have more durability per model. Actually, AdMech probably have more firepower as well. But It's the bodies that people value right now.
Then that's better value!
This is not rocket science, if you can choose from all the troop choices of the Imperium, but one is almost always chosen over the others by the top end competitive players, then that troop choice is (for whatever reason) clearly the best! It brings more value for its points than other options. It is undercosted compared to the others.
Apparently it is rocket science.
Guard have better long ranged guns, and twice the wounds.
If that's what you need, that's what you take.
If you need massive short ranged fire power, and psychic defense, you take the sisters. 215 points for four DtW attempts?
If you need repair stuff and mid ranged fire power, take the AdMech.
The latter two are both more durable per wound than guardsmen.
If your army however is a knight and three smash captains, the bonus wounds are more useful. It's all a trade off, and people chose cheap easy to kill bodies.
I also proffer the “Schola 17” and it variations.
The cheapest version at 205, with two lord Commissars and three MSU Scion squads
The most expensive at 220, with two Tempestor Primes, only one has Command rod, and three MSU Scion squads
This deepstrikes to grab enemy objective and hold them.
My guess is that it's the body count over all. The guard however to have access to longer ranged weapons, meaning they can camp backfield objectives better.
Both sisters and Admech are only fielding 17 models, as opposed to 32. Officers are more combat oriented then Techpriests, and techpriests can't fix stuff outside of IG or AdMech. Officers are cheaper than a canoness, and have options, unlike the current Missionary.
So you're saying that the Guard are better for their points than other alternatives? Almost like they were too cheap for what they bring!
No, I said more bodies.
Fifteen sisters actually have more fire power and both have more durability per model. Actually, AdMech probably have more firepower as well. But It's the bodies that people value right now.
This is the most hilariously short-sighted way of looking at this, that I'm not even certain how to respond to it.
Are you actually trying to say that orders should be discounted for the guard detachments when you take two company commanders in every one?
against nearly any target, Guard+2CCs with FRFSRF outdamage:
15 skitarii rangers
15 tau firewarriors (assuming Tau are in range of the Cadre Fireblades they brought with AND the fireblades got 1 markerlight on their target)
15 marine scouts (assuming the scouts have a captain aura)
15 sisters of battle (assuming the sisters have the same aura from one of their canonesses)
30 GSC neophytes
30 Termagants
30 grots+2 smites from weirdboyz
15 kabalites in an archon aura (and even if they have the reroll 1 to wound aura relic too)
and obviously, all the min detachments that don't shoot at all, of which there are several.
and this damage gap comes along with the fact that the loyal 32 are often 2/3 to 1/2 as expensive as many competing detachments.
Then why did you respond?
But I suppose you want an actual answer to your wondering.
When did I say orders should be discounted? RF2 las guns don't really equal the damage on heavier things compared to two meltas and a combi-plasma.
I think you're also forgetting all the other abilities those units have besides raw firepower.
Please explain what extra abilities they have as your soo confident that top competitive lists are clearly not using the best options in the game?
You still haven't actually answered the point that for the points (the only metric that actually matter) guard out damage and or out last almost every other faction.
That is a balance problem.
No army can be harder to kill and do more damage for a given amount of points in the game without being detrimental to the balance of the game.
Lemondish wrote: To better reflect the massive, inescapably slow bureaucracy and overhead of managing a force the size of the Astra Militarum, with it's countless soldiers and innumerable apparatus of war, I propose all AM detachments award only half the CP they normally would (rounding up).
Monoguard players won't notice because it wasn't like they were using those CP for guard strats anyway
I think that's fine... Or honestly, you could take some of the absurd ppm suggestions throughout the thread and just implement them for any guardsmen taken in an army that isn't pure guard. In most games though I find myself with more than enough CP so cutting it in half is absolutely fine
Of course it's not worth it to the people not taking it. ...I flat out said people were choosing wounds over the other cheap options. But that's because it's what the current meta feels it needs.
Then those wounds are too cheap! (Also, you keep ignoring the fact that guard can outdamage and out move the alternatives. You're making up strengths for the other options that do not actually exist.)
Mmmpi wrote:I'll I got from this is that you're acting like an elitist prick because I don't use your specific app of choice.
Until you decide to remove your head from your butt, we are done.
PS: I win.
Put yourself in my shoes. Imagine you knew something for a fact but I kept denying it, asking for a source and then didn't know the source when it was provided. You'd get frustrated too I suspect.
That's the problem. You just described my situation in our discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Almost like there should be a minimum cost per troop wound for Imperial soup and that 4 ppm is too low right?
No, it's almost like people chose more wounds as a trade off over something else.
Unbelievable.
The problem is, my blissfully and completely unaware friend, that there is no tradeoff for those extra wounds. Those extra wounds are also dealing more damage and cost less than the alternatives.
Feel free to join us in reality whenever you like. I'll be waiting metaphysical arms spread wide to welcome you.
You guys do realize a major problem with the data you were talking about right?
Until two or three weeks ago, guard *were* the cheapest battalion.
To say no one takes the AdMech 17 or Faithful 17 to tournaments is self evident - they weren't cheaper till a bit ago. Now that they are, I suspect they might go up in popularity.
I know my superheavy tanks are using an IG bn AND an AdMech BN. :p
Mmmpi wrote:I'll I got from this is that you're acting like an elitist prick because I don't use your specific app of choice.
Until you decide to remove your head from your butt, we are done.
PS: I win.
First rule 1.
Second its not my 'app of choice' its simply the most comprehensive database we have on competitive 40k.
There is nothing to win. Nothing is at stake here man. Just 2 people trying to have a discussion.
Put yourself in my shoes. Imagine you knew something for a fact but I kept denying it, asking for a source and then didn't know the source when it was provided. You'd get frustrated too I suspect.
Apple Peel wrote: A big problem with balancing guard troops is that guard is supposed to have the cheapest troops in the game. And in a game where units are all individually supposed to match to each other
I don't understand what you mean here. Where has anyone said that Guard are supposed to have the cheapest troops in the game? Did GW say this?
An Actual Englishman wrote: Finally real life backs all of this up. Which is why they are taken en masse in the vast majority of Imperial lists.
I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.
Do you think they'd be showing up in every soup list if CP generation were nerfed? If so, why, if currently nobody is taking any more than they are required to for CP purposes?
I've already said like a hundred times in this thread that they aren't only taken in minimum sizes to fulfil CP requirements. Are you sure you read the last few pages?
Scotsman also mentioned a cheaper Imperial Battalion in Ad Mech. If cost was the only factor that would be taken instead but it isn't.
Not to mention that they are using the same source.
BCP = Blood of Kittens
And both those sources are highly flawed since they get only ITC results.
What? BCP is not the same as Blood of Kittens. Blood of kittens uses BCP and that's it. Also if they were the same how did our friend above fail to find those lists that have more than 6 units of Guardsmen?
ITC is the standard for competitive 40k. It's also the most common. It suits our needs for a discussion around balance unless you know a more commonly used format?
Mmmpi wrote: My guess is that it's the body count over all. The guard however to have access to longer ranged weapons, meaning they can camp backfield objectives better.
Both sisters and Admech are only fielding 17 models, as opposed to 32. Officers are more combat oriented then Techpriests, and techpriests can't fix stuff outside of IG or AdMech. Officers are cheaper than a canoness, and have options, unlike the current Missionary.
Almost like there should be a minimum cost per troop wound for Imperial soup and that 4 ppm is too low right? priced
E - so I read the responses that happened as I was writing this post and it is clear to me that the Guard apologists aren't going to change their tack on this, regardless of all the logical arguments presented their way. They literally have an excuse for everything. This discussion is pointless and really, really sad. In my experience Guard players are a lot more open to change of their units, that they admit are under priced, in real life. Its a shame some of you can't be so open and honest on here.
Blood of kittens simply reorganizes BCP data, so using one or the other is actualy using the same source.
For data you can use Downunderpairings, that one should include both ITC and not ITC events.
My guess is that it's the body count over all. The guard however to have access to longer ranged weapons, meaning they can camp backfield objectives better.
Both sisters and Admech are only fielding 17 models, as opposed to 32. Officers are more combat oriented then Techpriests, and techpriests can't fix stuff outside of IG or AdMech. Officers are cheaper than a canoness, and have options, unlike the current Missionary.
So you're saying that the Guard are better for their points than other alternatives? Almost like they were too cheap for what they bring!
No, I said more bodies.
Fifteen sisters actually have more fire power and both have more durability per model. Actually, AdMech probably have more firepower as well. But It's the bodies that people value right now.
This is the most hilariously short-sighted way of looking at this, that I'm not even certain how to respond to it.
Are you actually trying to say that orders should be discounted for the guard detachments when you take two company commanders in every one?
against nearly any target, Guard+2CCs with FRFSRF outdamage:
15 skitarii rangers
15 tau firewarriors (assuming Tau are in range of the Cadre Fireblades they brought with AND the fireblades got 1 markerlight on their target)
15 marine scouts (assuming the scouts have a captain aura)
15 sisters of battle (assuming the sisters have the same aura from one of their canonesses)
30 GSC neophytes
30 Termagants
30 grots+2 smites from weirdboyz
15 kabalites in an archon aura (and even if they have the reroll 1 to wound aura relic too)
and obviously, all the min detachments that don't shoot at all, of which there are several.
and this damage gap comes along with the fact that the loyal 32 are often 2/3 to 1/2 as expensive as many competing detachments.
Then why did you respond?
But I suppose you want an actual answer to your wondering.
When did I say orders should be discounted? RF2 las guns don't really equal the damage on heavier things compared to two meltas and a combi-plasma.
I think you're also forgetting all the other abilities those units have besides raw firepower.
What detachment here has 2 meltas and a combi-plasma? The sisters one? Because that's not a 215 point detachment, that's a 332 point detachment. And it does do more damage against vehicles within 12". For the points, it does...a bit more than twice as much more.
For the points, guard lasguns do a little less than half as much damage versus TANKS
Fifteen sisters actually have more fire power and both have more durability per model.
You keep saying "more durability per model" or "more durability per wound" but why does that matter if the competing option has more durability per point?
Unit1126PLL wrote: You guys do realize a major problem with the data you were talking about right?
Until two or three weeks ago, guard *were* the cheapest battalion.
To say no one takes the AdMech 17 or Faithful 17 to tournaments is self evident - they weren't cheaper till a bit ago. Now that they are, I suspect they might go up in popularity.
I know my superheavy tanks are using an IG bn AND an AdMech BN. :p
Faithful 17 is not cheaper.
Let's just say I...strongly suspect that the guard battalion having twice the durability, twice the firepower, twice the movement range and twice the screening footprint will probably be worth 15 points to most tournament players.
the_scotsman wrote: Nah, if you want to repair stuff, you don't play tournaments, because nothing gets repaired.
If you want massive short range firepower and DTW attempts, you take a guard brigade, which has 120 S3 AP- attacks within 12 +9d6 S4 Ap- attacks that ignore LOS and have range = board, 3 DTW attempts that can also be 3 smites, and costs 609 points.
15 sisters with reroll aura do not outdamage 30 guardsmen with FRFSRF. At any range. Try again.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, lol@ "more durable per wound."
Because that's a thing people consider, right? it's why Terminators are the best units in the game.
Math.
Assuming rapid fire range, firing on marines in the open. The guard squads have a Plasma gun and a mortar.
Lasguns: 5.33
Mortars: .87
Plasma Guns: 2.08
Las pistols. .17
Total dead marines: 8.45
Assuming five sister squads each with two meltas and a combi-plasma (plasma only) against the same marines. Sisters reroll 1's to equate to two officers worth of orders. (canoness, with no other participation)
Plasma 2.78
Melta 3.89
Krak grenades .78
Bolters .78
Total dead marines: 8.22
So yeah. Roughly equivalent shooting. The guard managed to kill 2.99 more points of marines.
You still haven't actually answered the point that for the points (the only metric that actually matter) guard out damage and or out last almost every other faction.
That is a balance problem.
No army can be harder to kill and do more damage for a given amount of points in the game without being detrimental to the balance of the game.
Of course it's not worth it to the people not taking it. ...I flat out said people were choosing wounds over the other cheap options. But that's because it's what the current meta feels it needs.
Then those wounds are too cheap! (Also, you keep ignoring the fact that guard can outdamage and out move the alternatives. You're making up strengths for the other options that do not actually exist.)
Tell me what I'm making up. Because I can see what I said written in their codex.
Unit1126PLL wrote: You guys do realize a major problem with the data you were talking about right?
Until two or three weeks ago, guard *were* the cheapest battalion.
To say no one takes the AdMech 17 or Faithful 17 to tournaments is self evident - they weren't cheaper till a bit ago. Now that they are, I suspect they might go up in popularity.
I know my superheavy tanks are using an IG bn AND an AdMech BN. :p
Faithful 17 is not cheaper.
Let's just say I...strongly suspect that the guard battalion having twice the durability, twice the firepower, twice the movement range and twice the screening footprint will probably be worth 15 points to most tournament players.
You are arguing dishonestly in the most blatant way.
Why, in a post where you say "it's not cheaper, by 35 points" presumably referring to the 180 point Guard Battalion and the 215 point sisters battalion, do you give the guard squads a plasma gun and a mortar each and the sisters squads two meltas and a plasma?
None of those things are in the minimum detachments. You're also looking here at 332 points of sisters versus 222 points of guardsmen...and the guardsmen still do more damage, lol.
You have to resort to "versus marines, in a detachment entirely unlike the detachments we're actually talking about, within 12", and with 100 more points, guardsmen only do very slightly more damage" to try and muddy the waters at this point.
Please, keep going, I'm having a wonderful time. Next analyze 600 points of fire warriors vs 180 points of guardsmen at 25" range to prove why fire warriors are better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The minimum sisters of battle detachment is 35 points more, which is 210 points of sisters with BOLTGUNS, not special weapons.
They do less than half as much damage against all targets, at all ranges. They move half as much. They die at a faster rate to all weapons, from lasguns on up. They have half the footprint on the table.
They have one, and exactly one, redeeming feature, which you mentioned: DTW attempts. Imperial Guard can add DTW attempts at 25pts per, if they want them.
PSA: mmpi's math here is absolute nonsense. For fun, try figuring out how many sisters squads with 2 melta, 1 combi-plasma and 2 boltguns it takes to do those numbers to marines in 12".
The answer is different for each category of weapon.
Why, in a post where you say "it's not cheaper, by 35 points" presumably referring to the 180 point Guard Battalion and the 215 point sisters battalion, do you give the guard squads a plasma gun and a mortar each and the sisters squads two meltas and a plasma?
None of those things are in the minimum detachments. You're also looking here at 332 points of sisters versus 222 points of guardsmen...and the guardsmen still do more damage, lol.
You have to resort to "versus marines, in a detachment entirely unlike the detachments we're actually talking about, within 12", and with 100 more points, guardsmen only do very slightly more damage" to try and muddy the waters at this point.
Please, keep going, I'm having a wonderful time. Next analyze 600 points of fire warriors vs 180 points of guardsmen at 25" range to prove why fire warriors are better.
Assuming rapid fire range, firing on marines in the open. The guard squads have a Plasma gun and a mortar.
Lasguns: 5.33
Mortars: .87
Plasma Guns: 2.08
Las pistols. .17
Total dead marines: 8.45
Assuming five sister squads each with two meltas and a combi-plasma (plasma only) against the same marines. Sisters reroll 1's to equate to two officers worth of orders. (canoness, with no other participation)
Plasma 2.78
Melta 3.89
Krak grenades .78
Bolters .78
Total dead marines: 8.22
So yeah. Roughly equivalent shooting. The guard managed to kill 2.99 more points of marines.
You're comparing the damage output of 168pts to 213pts (I'm ignoring the points difference in the HQs which is actually in your favour) so not only do the guardsmen outperform the sisters, they outperform them substantially per point. 0.05wounds per point compared to 0.038 - that's 30% more per point.
And still no response to the comments about your "more durable per wound" nonsense?
Also...wait...the math is just wrong here. He's got the mortar and laspistol numbers from 3 squads of guardsmen, the lasgun numbers are for 4.5 squads of guardsmen, and the plasma gun numbers are for 4 squads of guardsmen.
I think this is all just made up. The sisters are also doing 25% more damage with their plasma than they should be, 25% more with their melta, half as much with their bolters...
I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.
So why it is always the Guard and not other factions that can also generate CP cheaply such as SoB or Ad Mech?
Flexibility.
You need them to do more damage? FRFSRF.
You need them to run and gun? FftE.
You need them to fallback and shoot? GBitF.
You need them to be on an objective faster than a bike could be? MMM.
You need them to fight twice? FB.
You want a unit of Catachans to move, shoot with FRFSRF, charge, and then fight twice? You can do that.
You want to put more orders on? Consolidate squads.
You need them to have a 4+ save? Easy.
You want to toss 10 frag grenades with reroll 1s to wound? Sure.
And that doesn't really scratch all that you can do as most people ignore anything outside Cadian and Catachan.
Yep, they can shoot better than the alternatives, they can move faster, they're more durable and they can occupy more of the table. They bring a level of utility that the other options do not have.
But I do question why MEQ-hunting squads take anti-tank weapons.
nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope, try again. You're off on those guard numbers by about 3x. Lasgun shots do not have a 1/6 chance to kill marines, they have a 1/18 chance.
I have a serious question for all the people chomping at the bit for a guardsmen nerf. If guardsmen are so broken and so OP why have we not seen a spam guardsmen list perform at the top of the meta? We know that spam has been taken in guard lists this edition (conscript and hellhound) so its not like its against some internal code. Also, spam, in general, has been incredibly strong we have seen
Cultist Spam
Termigants Spam
Hellhound Spam
PBC Spam
and on and on and on
So where are the 200 guardsmen lists? there's effectively no limit on how many you can take. According to dakka they are always going to be in rapid-fire orders range melting everything on the field and they are utterly unkillable. So why do we see not only other units but other troop units spammed to great effect but not the beyond overpowered guardsmen? Its almost like there real strength is CP generation and that's what we see them for. We saw more of the loyal 32 before the CP generation change and more battalion now but still no actual spam lists.
Honestly curious why we haven't seen it if they are the super soldiers some seem to think they are
An Actual Englishman wrote: I've already said like a hundred times in this thread that they aren't only taken in minimum sizes to fulfil CP requirements. Are you sure you read the last few pages?
Scotsman also mentioned a cheaper Imperial Battalion in Ad Mech. If cost was the only factor that would be taken instead but it isn't.
Perhaps I'm missing a post, but I haven't seen much evidence of soup players using more than the bare minimum required for CP. Looking through the top ITC lists for October from Blood of Kittens, and feel free to tell me if this is an outlier, I see the following:
Minimum battalion: 5
Minimum brigade: 2
More-than-minimum battalion: 1 (6 Inf + Straken + Priest, so going for that melee blob)
More-than-minimum brigade: 1 (all-Guard list save for a Castellan, took 8 Inf squads)
That doesn't exactly scream 'infantry are great and you should spend lots of points on them' to me, it says that they're the best choice for soup lists to fill battalion/brigade slots. I can absolutely buy that they're the best CP tax available to soup lists, but being the best CP tax doesn't necessarily mean they're brokenly overpowered. It just means that they're the only sub-200pt battalion that actually pulls its own weight (in contrast to, for example, the useless Tech-Priests in AdMech battalions), which is a very different thing from performing above their cost. Kill CP farming and I suspect the number of Guardsmen showing up in tournament-winning lists will drop considerably.
I've said before and feel I should reiterate: I'm strongly in favor of Guardsmen going to 5ppm, and I'm okay with reworking orders to make them a little more subtle/reasonable, since Guardsmen seriously should not be the most flexible infantry in the game. I just don't think this idea that Guard hordes are sweeping the tournament scene is an accurate assessment; they show up in every soup list because they're the best CP battery, and killing that mechanic should cut down on the number of Guardsmen showing up in tournaments. Then we can look at how they actually perform as a unit without this 'they're in 2935% of tournament lists!' baggage muddying the waters.
I'm also not sure why people keep repeating that AdMech have a cheaper battalion. That is only true as of CA a couple of weeks ago, so of course we're not seeing it much in tournaments yet (although one of the winning lists in the link above did actually take an AdMech battalion for CP). Give it time.
It screams "Infantry are better than any *other* IoM chaff".
Infantry are the majority of points in those detatchements. If they didn't want Infantry, they could use just about any other troops. They'ed cost more per CP, but being cheap is the Guardman's schtick.
Lemondish wrote: To better reflect the massive, inescapably slow bureaucracy and overhead of managing a force the size of the Astra Militarum, with it's countless soldiers and innumerable apparatus of war, I propose all AM detachments award only half the CP they normall would (rounding up).
Monoguard players won't notice because it wasn't like they were using those CP for guard anyway
Could there be an exception for Militarum Tempestus detachments? They are more efficient.
You know, it was a joke, but I see no reason why not. They used to be their own thing after all.
Asmodios wrote: I have a serious question for all the people chomping at the bit for a guardsmen nerf. If guardsmen are so broken and so OP why have we not seen a spam guardsmen list perform at the top of the meta? We know that spam has been taken in guard lists this edition (conscript and hellhound) so its not like its against some internal code. Also, spam, in general, has been incredibly strong we have seen
Cultist Spam
Termigants Spam
Hellhound Spam
PBC Spam
and on and on and on
So where are the 200 guardsmen lists? there's effectively no limit on how many you can take. According to dakka they are always going to be in rapid-fire orders range melting everything on the field and they are utterly unkillable. So why do we see not only other units but other troop units spammed to great effect but not the beyond overpowered guardsmen? Its almost like there real strength is CP generation and that's what we see them for. We saw more of the loyal 32 before the CP generation change and more battalion now but still no actual spam lists.
Honestly curious why we haven't seen it if they are the super soldiers some seem to think they are
Ah yes, the old "if evolution is real, why do we not have a link between man and this LAST link I asked for???" argument.
in the span of time between conscripts not being mathematically superior to guardsmen and now, I see 31 winning "guard-primary" lists on bloodofkittens. The vast majority have brigades, usually with 6 squads, then a soup detachment to take care of the one thing guard don't do best of the imperial factions - spend CP on killing heavy elite models. Custode Captains, Smashcaptains, and Raven Castellans are taken to do that.
Argument: There does not exist a CP-generating unit with better firepower, faster movement speed, or greater durability per point than guardsmen.
Response: Then why isn't anyone taking a list with only them in it?
Because you use something else to spend the CP the guardsmen generate.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I've already said like a hundred times in this thread that they aren't only taken in minimum sizes to fulfil CP requirements. Are you sure you read the last few pages?
Scotsman also mentioned a cheaper Imperial Battalion in Ad Mech. If cost was the only factor that would be taken instead but it isn't.
Perhaps I'm missing a post, but I haven't seen much evidence of soup players using more than the bare minimum required for CP. Looking through the top ITC lists for October from Blood of Kittens, and feel free to tell me if this is an outlier, I see the following:
Minimum battalion: 5
Minimum brigade: 2
More-than-minimum battalion: 1 (6 Inf + Straken + Priest, so going for that melee blob)
More-than-minimum brigade: 1 (all-Guard list save for a Castellan, took 8 Inf squads)
That doesn't exactly scream 'infantry are great and you should spend lots of points on them' to me, it says that they're the best choice for soup lists to fill battalion/brigade slots. I can absolutely buy that they're the best CP tax available to soup lists, but being the best CP tax doesn't necessarily mean they're brokenly overpowered. It just means that they're the only sub-200pt battalion that actually pulls its own weight (in contrast to, for example, the useless Tech-Priests in AdMech battalions), which is a very different thing from performing above their cost. Kill CP farming and I suspect the number of Guardsmen showing up in tournament-winning lists will drop considerably.
I've said before and feel I should reiterate: I'm strongly in favor of Guardsmen going to 5ppm, and I'm okay with reworking orders to make them a little more subtle/reasonable, since Guardsmen seriously should not be the most flexible infantry in the game. I just don't think this idea that Guard hordes are sweeping the tournament scene is an accurate assessment; they show up in every soup list because they're the best CP battery, and killing that mechanic should cut down on the number of Guardsmen showing up in tournaments. Then we can look at how they actually perform as a unit without this 'they're in 2935% of tournament lists!' baggage muddying the waters.
I'm also not sure why people keep repeating that AdMech have a cheaper battalion. That is only true as of CA a couple of weeks ago, so of course we're not seeing it much in tournaments yet (although one of the winning lists in the link above did actually take an AdMech battalion for CP). Give it time.
"guardsmen spam is sweeping the tournament scene" is not the argument being put forward, it is the argument being assigned by the opposition to create a strawman.
Exactly what you listed is the argument: min detachments of guardsmen massively outperform min detachments of anything else, leading to a balance problem where they are an auto-include to generate CPs.
Asmodios wrote: I have a serious question for all the people chomping at the bit for a guardsmen nerf. If guardsmen are so broken and so OP why have we not seen a spam guardsmen list perform at the top of the meta? We know that spam has been taken in guard lists this edition (conscript and hellhound) so its not like its against some internal code. Also, spam, in general, has been incredibly strong we have seen
Cultist Spam
Termigants Spam
Hellhound Spam
PBC Spam
and on and on and on
So where are the 200 guardsmen lists? there's effectively no limit on how many you can take. According to dakka they are always going to be in rapid-fire orders range melting everything on the field and they are utterly unkillable. So why do we see not only other units but other troop units spammed to great effect but not the beyond overpowered guardsmen? Its almost like there real strength is CP generation and that's what we see them for. We saw more of the loyal 32 before the CP generation change and more battalion now but still no actual spam lists.
Honestly curious why we haven't seen it if they are the super soldiers some seem to think they are
Ah yes, the old "if evolution is real, why do we not have a link between man and this LAST link I asked for???" argument.
in the span of time between conscripts not being mathematically superior to guardsmen and now, I see 31 winning "guard-primary" lists on bloodofkittens. The vast majority have brigades, usually with 6 squads, then a soup detachment to take care of the one thing guard don't do best of the imperial factions - spend CP on killing heavy elite models. Custode Captains, Smashcaptains, and Raven Castellans are taken to do that.
Argument: There does not exist a CP-generating unit with better firepower, faster movement speed, or greater durability per point than guardsmen.
Response: Then why isn't anyone taking a list with only them in it?
Because you use something else to spend the CP the guardsmen generate.
If we decided to throw infantry squad spam lists into these tournaments, would we expect to see similar results, with the spam lists taking all the top lists or not? Lets look into a world where some of the tournament players, not all, we still need soup presence lists for the argument, took IS spam lists, regardless that they could spend the command points better in a soup list. Would they outperform Imperial Soup lists?
Asmodios wrote: I have a serious question for all the people chomping at the bit for a guardsmen nerf. If guardsmen are so broken and so OP why have we not seen a spam guardsmen list perform at the top of the meta? We know that spam has been taken in guard lists this edition (conscript and hellhound) so its not like its against some internal code. Also, spam, in general, has been incredibly strong we have seen
Cultist Spam
Termigants Spam
Hellhound Spam
PBC Spam
and on and on and on
So where are the 200 guardsmen lists? there's effectively no limit on how many you can take. According to dakka they are always going to be in rapid-fire orders range melting everything on the field and they are utterly unkillable. So why do we see not only other units but other troop units spammed to great effect but not the beyond overpowered guardsmen? Its almost like there real strength is CP generation and that's what we see them for. We saw more of the loyal 32 before the CP generation change and more battalion now but still no actual spam lists.
Honestly curious why we haven't seen it if they are the super soldiers some seem to think they are
Ah yes, the old "if evolution is real, why do we not have a link between man and this LAST link I asked for???" argument.
in the span of time between conscripts not being mathematically superior to guardsmen and now, I see 31 winning "guard-primary" lists on bloodofkittens. The vast majority have brigades, usually with 6 squads, then a soup detachment to take care of the one thing guard don't do best of the imperial factions - spend CP on killing heavy elite models. Custode Captains, Smashcaptains, and Raven Castellans are taken to do that.
Argument: There does not exist a CP-generating unit with better firepower, faster movement speed, or greater durability per point than guardsmen.
Response: Then why isn't anyone taking a list with only them in it?
Because you use something else to spend the CP the guardsmen generate.
So what im getting from you is
>I see people taking a brigade of guard for an easy 12 CP that most lists deemed necessary after the CP regeneration change
yeah once again nobody is denying that CP generation is an issue. But what im seeing in this thread is that guard is some powerhouse unit that is ppm better then everything else in the game yet we haven't seen guard spam. At the same time, you will see that cultists and termagants are awful and terrible in comparison but we have seen winning spam lists of those this edition. Heck, when conscripts were clearly OP with commisar moral immunity guess what we saw...... conscript spam. but please respond when you want to answer the actual question
the_scotsman wrote: Argument: There does not exist a CP-generating unit with better firepower, faster movement speed, or greater durability per point than guardsmen.
Response: Then why isn't anyone taking a list with only them in it?
Because you use something else to spend the CP the guardsmen generate.
Then the most straightforward and necessary nerf is to kill their ability to generate CP for other things, no?
If they're only being taken in the minimum quantity needed to generate those CP, then clearly they're being chosen for CP first and firepower/movement/durability second.
Edit:
the_scotsman wrote: "guardsmen spam is sweeping the tournament scene" is not the argument being put forward, it is the argument being assigned by the opposition to create a strawman.
Exactly what you listed is the argument: min detachments of guardsmen massively outperform min detachments of anything else, leading to a balance problem where they are an auto-include to generate CPs.
Several in this thread have explicitly stated that Guardsman spam armies are overpowered. I distinctly recall one user outright saying that it's virtually an auto-win against even meta lists. I'll go dig up the quotes if you want; I'm not trying to put words in anyone's mouth.
And I'm not sure that Guardsman detachments being able to pull their own weight is necessarily reflective of them being intrinsically overpowered, more that there's a general lack of cheap battalions where the HQs synergize with the Troops and aren't just slot-fillers. The Guard minimum battalion is unique in that both the HQ and Troops choices are cheap, but the HQs directly buff the Troops as well. That's a problem when they can generate CPand be a decent combat force in their own right, where other factions have to choose to spend their points on one or the other- so let's kill the cross-faction CP battery mechanic, and then it stops being an issue.
So what im getting from you is
>I see people taking a brigade of guard for an easy 12 CP that most lists deemed necessary after the CP regeneration change
yeah once again nobody is denying that CP generation is an issue. But what im seeing in this thread is that guard is some powerhouse unit that is ppm better then everything else in the game yet we haven't seen guard spam. At the same time, you will see that cultists and termagants are awful and terrible in comparison but we have seen winning spam lists of those this edition. Heck, when conscripts were clearly OP with commisar moral immunity guess what we saw...... conscript spam. but please respond when you want to answer the actual question
The bolded is what's called a strawman. It's been used so often in the past few pages that I think it's starting to fall apart right as we read it...
So what im getting from you is
>I see people taking a brigade of guard for an easy 12 CP that most lists deemed necessary after the CP regeneration change
yeah once again nobody is denying that CP generation is an issue. But what im seeing in this thread is that guard is some powerhouse unit that is ppm better then everything else in the game yet we haven't seen guard spam. At the same time, you will see that cultists and termagants are awful and terrible in comparison but we have seen winning spam lists of those this edition. Heck, when conscripts were clearly OP with commisar moral immunity guess what we saw...... conscript spam. but please respond when you want to answer the actual question
The bolded is what's called a strawman. It's been used so often in the past few pages that I think it's starting to fall apart right as we read it...
I see multiple arguments going on across all of these pages, and I'm sure other people are looking at different posts and making a confusing jumble. Is it a strawman for what you might be referring to, or someone else's argument with someone else over a similar issue?
the_scotsman wrote: Argument: There does not exist a CP-generating unit with better firepower, faster movement speed, or greater durability per point than guardsmen.
Response: Then why isn't anyone taking a list with only them in it?
Because you use something else to spend the CP the guardsmen generate.
Then the most straightforward and necessary nerf is to kill their ability to generate CP for other things, no?
If they're only being taken in the minimum quantity needed to generate those CP, then clearly they're being chosen for CP first and firepower/movement/durability second.
^
exactly and the proof is the list composition they are taken in in tournaments
thus how do you fix them?
You curb either the amount of CP they generate or their ability to share it. What you don't need to do is up their point cost so that themed lists that do take heavy guard infantry to do even worse
PS. I'm all for nerfing the catachan trait as it is imo far too efficient
So what im getting from you is
>I see people taking a brigade of guard for an easy 12 CP that most lists deemed necessary after the CP regeneration change
yeah once again nobody is denying that CP generation is an issue. But what im seeing in this thread is that guard is some powerhouse unit that is ppm better then everything else in the game yet we haven't seen guard spam. At the same time, you will see that cultists and termagants are awful and terrible in comparison but we have seen winning spam lists of those this edition. Heck, when conscripts were clearly OP with commisar moral immunity guess what we saw...... conscript spam. but please respond when you want to answer the actual question
The bolded is what's called a strawman. It's been used so often in the past few pages that I think it's starting to fall apart right as we read it...
ummmm go read the thread.... the entire thing. This is the argument that is being made over and over and over. Nobody is arguing that generating CP isnt an issue
the_scotsman wrote: Argument: There does not exist a CP-generating unit with better firepower, faster movement speed, or greater durability per point than guardsmen.
Response: Then why isn't anyone taking a list with only them in it?
Because you use something else to spend the CP the guardsmen generate.
Then the most straightforward and necessary nerf is to kill their ability to generate CP for other things, no?
If they're only being taken in the minimum quantity needed to generate those CP, then clearly they're being chosen for CP first and firepower/movement/durability second.
That still does not address the other three problem with Guard. There is no unit even close to their price range that does what they do, and it has never been demonstrated that just because you take them in the configuration where the squads grant you CP, they are not overly efficient with that CP generation being a factor in their cost.
Guard squads are taken in multiples of 3, or 6, most commonly, because in those configurations the guard squads are generating you CPs in addition to their other capabilities.
If you removed their ability to generate CPs for Knights, Blood Angels and Custodes, would we see people taking lists of only Knights, Blood Angels and Custodes, or would we see people taking lists of only Guard, replacing the heavy element with something like a Catachan Shadowsword in a Supreme Command?
We don't know, because that hasn't happened, but in tournaments prior to the Blood Angel/Knight codex release, Catachan Brigades with a Shadowsword were pretty common, usually showing up alongside a Celestine+culexus mini-detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another issue is that we don't yet have a way to nerf a unit's "CP generation" besides making them not troops, upping minimum squad size, or upping point costs.
So what im getting from you is
>I see people taking a brigade of guard for an easy 12 CP that most lists deemed necessary after the CP regeneration change
yeah once again nobody is denying that CP generation is an issue. But what im seeing in this thread is that guard is some powerhouse unit that is ppm better then everything else in the game yet we haven't seen guard spam. At the same time, you will see that cultists and termagants are awful and terrible in comparison but we have seen winning spam lists of those this edition. Heck, when conscripts were clearly OP with commisar moral immunity guess what we saw...... conscript spam. but please respond when you want to answer the actual question
The bolded is what's called a strawman. It's been used so often in the past few pages that I think it's starting to fall apart right as we read it...
No it's someone misquoting to change the narrative to better suit their own agenda, but quite frankly at this point it's a pattern of behaviour that a group of problem guard players continue to embrace without care for the impact it has on their fellow guard players or the health of the game in general.
the_scotsman wrote: Argument: There does not exist a CP-generating unit with better firepower, faster movement speed, or greater durability per point than guardsmen.
Response: Then why isn't anyone taking a list with only them in it?
Because you use something else to spend the CP the guardsmen generate.
Then the most straightforward and necessary nerf is to kill their ability to generate CP for other things, no?
If they're only being taken in the minimum quantity needed to generate those CP, then clearly they're being chosen for CP first and firepower/movement/durability second.
That still does not address the other three problem with Guard. There is no unit even close to their price range that does what they do, and it has never been demonstrated that just because you take them in the configuration where the squads grant you CP, they are not overly efficient with that CP generation being a factor in their cost.
Guard squads are taken in multiples of 3, or 6, most commonly, because in those configurations the guard squads are generating you CPs in addition to their other capabilities.
If you removed their ability to generate CPs for Knights, Blood Angels and Custodes, would we see people taking lists of only Knights, Blood Angels and Custodes, or would we see people taking lists of only Guard, replacing the heavy element with something like a Catachan Shadowsword in a Supreme Command?
We don't know, because that hasn't happened, but in tournaments prior to the Blood Angel/Knight codex release, Catachan Brigades with a Shadowsword were pretty common, usually showing up alongside a Celestine+culexus mini-detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another issue is that we don't yet have a way to nerf a unit's "CP generation" besides making them not troops, upping minimum squad size, or upping point costs.
There is actually a super simple way to nerf the CP generation. Just make detachments unable to share CP. Then you can balance CP costs for armies based on how cheap their minimum detachments are not guards
the_scotsman wrote: If you removed their ability to generate CPs for Knights, Blood Angels and Custodes, would we see people taking lists of only Knights, Blood Angels and Custodes, or would we see people taking lists of only Guard, replacing the heavy element with something like a Catachan Shadowsword in a Supreme Command?
I don't know. I could see it going either way. But I'd like to actually see the outcome of that change before making further conclusions about what nerfs Guard do or don't need, because right now the issue of CP generation and the issue of Guardsmen being OP for the price are wrapped up together and it makes it hard to do any kind of objective assessment.
As for how to implement: CP generated by a detachment can only be spent on stratagems for that detachment, or something to that effect. Or give each player a starting number of CPs that they spend on detachments, rather than generating them. There are a couple of ways to kill the CP battery as a mechanic.
Also, I edited my previous post while you were replying, to address your post to me. Just FYI.
the_scotsman wrote: Argument: There does not exist a CP-generating unit with better firepower, faster movement speed, or greater durability per point than guardsmen.
Response: Then why isn't anyone taking a list with only them in it?
Because you use something else to spend the CP the guardsmen generate.
Then the most straightforward and necessary nerf is to kill their ability to generate CP for other things, no?
If they're only being taken in the minimum quantity needed to generate those CP, then clearly they're being chosen for CP first and firepower/movement/durability second.
That still does not address the other three problem with Guard. There is no unit even close to their price range that does what they do, and it has never been demonstrated that just because you take them in the configuration where the squads grant you CP, they are not overly efficient with that CP generation being a factor in their cost.
Guard squads are taken in multiples of 3, or 6, most commonly, because in those configurations the guard squads are generating you CPs in addition to their other capabilities.
If you removed their ability to generate CPs for Knights, Blood Angels and Custodes, would we see people taking lists of only Knights, Blood Angels and Custodes, or would we see people taking lists of only Guard, replacing the heavy element with something like a Catachan Shadowsword in a Supreme Command?
We don't know, because that hasn't happened, but in tournaments prior to the Blood Angel/Knight codex release, Catachan Brigades with a Shadowsword were pretty common, usually showing up alongside a Celestine+culexus mini-detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another issue is that we don't yet have a way to nerf a unit's "CP generation" besides making them not troops, upping minimum squad size, or upping point costs.
There is actually a super simple way to nerf the CP generation. Just make detachments unable to share CP. Then you can balance CP costs for armies based on how cheap their minimum detachments are not guards
No thanks my sisters of silence and mixed tau doesn't need to be nerfed into oblivion just so guard can keep their ability to break the current CP rules.
the_scotsman wrote: Argument: There does not exist a CP-generating unit with better firepower, faster movement speed, or greater durability per point than guardsmen.
Response: Then why isn't anyone taking a list with only them in it?
Because you use something else to spend the CP the guardsmen generate.
Then the most straightforward and necessary nerf is to kill their ability to generate CP for other things, no?
If they're only being taken in the minimum quantity needed to generate those CP, then clearly they're being chosen for CP first and firepower/movement/durability second.
That still does not address the other three problem with Guard. There is no unit even close to their price range that does what they do, and it has never been demonstrated that just because you take them in the configuration where the squads grant you CP, they are not overly efficient with that CP generation being a factor in their cost.
Guard squads are taken in multiples of 3, or 6, most commonly, because in those configurations the guard squads are generating you CPs in addition to their other capabilities.
If you removed their ability to generate CPs for Knights, Blood Angels and Custodes, would we see people taking lists of only Knights, Blood Angels and Custodes, or would we see people taking lists of only Guard, replacing the heavy element with something like a Catachan Shadowsword in a Supreme Command?
We don't know, because that hasn't happened, but in tournaments prior to the Blood Angel/Knight codex release, Catachan Brigades with a Shadowsword were pretty common, usually showing up alongside a Celestine+culexus mini-detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another issue is that we don't yet have a way to nerf a unit's "CP generation" besides making them not troops, upping minimum squad size, or upping point costs.
There is actually a super simple way to nerf the CP generation. Just make detachments unable to share CP. Then you can balance CP costs for armies based on how cheap their minimum detachments are not guards
No thanks my sisters of silence and mixed tau doesn't need to be nerfed into oblivion just so guard can keep their ability to break the current CP rules.
Sorry, I assumed you had read the other threads. Tau wouldn't be affected as the entire army consists entirely with the <tau> or whatever keyword. What I'm proposing is that you couldn't give <Imperial guard> CP to <knights>. You can then balance the cost of knights strategems because you know they can't gain access to 12 CP. This would bring every mono codex army in the game up in power level and reduce every popular soup in power level encouraging more mono builds thus making the game much easier to balance as you dont have to worry about the point cost of a unit in another codex making strategems too cheap even though many players will never play from the other codex
Imagine a 40k game where there is no CP generation and no units other than troops.
Guardsmen win every game. Their performance, both in theory and evidenced by the fact that they are by far the most popular ingredient in Imperial soup lists, is an outlier for their cost.
The reason we don't see armies of nothing but Guardsmen is for a few reasons. The army would be boring and time consuming to play (an issue now chess clocks are a thing), it is not as efficient as taking Guardsmen + Smash Captain + Castellan, people don't own 300+ Guardsmen, they would struggle to deploy their force legally etc
Also the existence of other, OP units does not impact on whether Guardsmen are OP. Castellans and Smash Captains are also OP and they perform certain functions better than Guardsmen. This does not mean that Guardsmen are fine.
"Why don't we see armies of only Guardsmen?" is a complete and utter false equivalence. The answer is the same reason you don't see armies of pure kabalite warriors, or 4ppm Cultists or any other troop unit you believe to be under costed. There is a strength in taking mixed lists that maximise efficiencies, strangely enough.
Imagine a 40k game where there is no CP generation and no units other than troops.
Guardsmen win every game. Their performance, both in theory and evidenced by the fact that they are by far the most popular ingredient in Imperial soup lists, is an outlier for their cost.
The reason we don't see armies of nothing but Guardsmen is for a few reasons. The army would be boring and time consuming to play (an issue now chess clocks are a thing), it is not as efficient as taking Guardsmen + Smash Captain + Castellan, people don't own 300+ Guardsmen, they would struggle to deploy their force legally etc
Also the existence of other, OP units does not impact on whether Guardsmen are OP. Castellans and Smash Captains are also OP and they perform certain functions better than Guardsmen. This does not mean that Guardsmen are fine.
"Why don't we see armies of only Guardsmen?" is a complete and utter false equivalence. The answer is the same reason you don't see armies of pure kabalite warriors, or 4ppm Cultists or any other troop unit you believe to be under costed. There is a strength in taking mixed lists that maximise efficiencies, strangely enough.
1. Was conscript spam not boring/ time consuming to play? Cultist Spam? Termagant Spam? yet we have seen all of those
2. So its not only "not as efficient" as soup..... so once again soup is the real issue here
3. People clearly have the models as conscript spam was just as many bodies and uses the same models, or did people melt their armies after the nerf?
4. Once again the combination of several units that on their own do not perform in mono lists extraordinarily are too good when combined together..... maybe we should start focusing on how these units keep interacting as everytime you nuke one unit it will simply be replaced by the next best thing and all together mono lists get hurt more then the intended soup build.
also we did see armies of massed cultists and termagaunts win multiple GTs this edition and remain popular lists
the_scotsman wrote: Argument: There does not exist a CP-generating unit with better firepower, faster movement speed, or greater durability per point than guardsmen.
Response: Then why isn't anyone taking a list with only them in it?
Because you use something else to spend the CP the guardsmen generate.
Then the most straightforward and necessary nerf is to kill their ability to generate CP for other things, no?
If they're only being taken in the minimum quantity needed to generate those CP, then clearly they're being chosen for CP first and firepower/movement/durability second.
That still does not address the other three problem with Guard. There is no unit even close to their price range that does what they do, and it has never been demonstrated that just because you take them in the configuration where the squads grant you CP, they are not overly efficient with that CP generation being a factor in their cost.
Guard squads are taken in multiples of 3, or 6, most commonly, because in those configurations the guard squads are generating you CPs in addition to their other capabilities.
If you removed their ability to generate CPs for Knights, Blood Angels and Custodes, would we see people taking lists of only Knights, Blood Angels and Custodes, or would we see people taking lists of only Guard, replacing the heavy element with something like a Catachan Shadowsword in a Supreme Command?
We don't know, because that hasn't happened, but in tournaments prior to the Blood Angel/Knight codex release, Catachan Brigades with a Shadowsword were pretty common, usually showing up alongside a Celestine+culexus mini-detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another issue is that we don't yet have a way to nerf a unit's "CP generation" besides making them not troops, upping minimum squad size, or upping point costs.
There is actually a super simple way to nerf the CP generation. Just make detachments unable to share CP. Then you can balance CP costs for armies based on how cheap their minimum detachments are not guards
No thanks my sisters of silence and mixed tau doesn't need to be nerfed into oblivion just so guard can keep their ability to break the current CP rules.
Sorry, I assumed you had read the other threads. Tau wouldn't be affected as the entire army consists entirely with the <tau> or whatever keyword. What I'm proposing is that you couldn't give <Imperial guard> CP to <knights>. You can then balance the cost of knights strategems because you know they can't gain access to 12 CP. This would bring every mono codex army in the game up in power level and reduce every popular soup in power level encouraging more mono builds thus making the game much easier to balance as you dont have to worry about the point cost of a unit in another codex making strategems too cheap even though many players will never play from the other codex
Why did I ecen think you could be reasoned with
I did read them and showed you time and again areas where your grand guard fix nerfed a bunch of non power builds, but you didn't care. As it protects your precious guardsmen at 4ppm.
So index armies and other things like inquisition and assasins should just be squated then?
1. Was conscript spam not boring/ time consuming to play? Cultist Spam? Termagant Spam? yet we have seen all of those
2. So its not only "not as efficient" as soup..... so once again soup is the real issue here
3. People clearly have the models as conscript spam was just as many bodies and uses the same models, or did people melt their armies after the nerf?
4. Once again the combination of several units that on their own do not perform in mono lists extraordinarily are too good when combined together..... maybe we should start focusing on how these units keep interacting as everytime you nuke one unit it will simply be replaced by the next best thing and all together mono lists get hurt more then the intended soup build.
also we did see armies of massed cultists and termagaunts win multiple GTs this edition and remain popular lists
There are several barriers to all horde lists - some of them have been added since the days of index conscripts...a year and a half ago.
- Purchasing
- Chess clocks
- Painting
- Chess clocks
- Deployment
- Chess clocks
- Multiple morale tests
- Chess clocks
- Issuing orders can take a really long time
- Chess clocks
- It's boring as hell
- Chess clocks
Cultists and gants are just a single blob instead of 3 or 4 individual units that each need their own commander to be in place and you don't need to worry about differentiating different units.
2. So its not only "not as efficient" as soup..... so once again soup is the real issue here
So where is Marines + Sisters soup? Ad Mech + Custodes soup? If the soup in itself was some magic thing that makes stuff über, we would be seeing wide variety of different soups. Yet almost always the core element of the Imperial soup is the Guard.
the_scotsman wrote: Argument: There does not exist a CP-generating unit with better firepower, faster movement speed, or greater durability per point than guardsmen.
Response: Then why isn't anyone taking a list with only them in it?
Because you use something else to spend the CP the guardsmen generate.
Then the most straightforward and necessary nerf is to kill their ability to generate CP for other things, no?
If they're only being taken in the minimum quantity needed to generate those CP, then clearly they're being chosen for CP first and firepower/movement/durability second.
That still does not address the other three problem with Guard. There is no unit even close to their price range that does what they do, and it has never been demonstrated that just because you take them in the configuration where the squads grant you CP, they are not overly efficient with that CP generation being a factor in their cost.
Guard squads are taken in multiples of 3, or 6, most commonly, because in those configurations the guard squads are generating you CPs in addition to their other capabilities.
If you removed their ability to generate CPs for Knights, Blood Angels and Custodes, would we see people taking lists of only Knights, Blood Angels and Custodes, or would we see people taking lists of only Guard, replacing the heavy element with something like a Catachan Shadowsword in a Supreme Command?
We don't know, because that hasn't happened, but in tournaments prior to the Blood Angel/Knight codex release, Catachan Brigades with a Shadowsword were pretty common, usually showing up alongside a Celestine+culexus mini-detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another issue is that we don't yet have a way to nerf a unit's "CP generation" besides making them not troops, upping minimum squad size, or upping point costs.
There is actually a super simple way to nerf the CP generation. Just make detachments unable to share CP. Then you can balance CP costs for armies based on how cheap their minimum detachments are not guards
No thanks my sisters of silence and mixed tau doesn't need to be nerfed into oblivion just so guard can keep their ability to break the current CP rules.
Sorry, I assumed you had read the other threads. Tau wouldn't be affected as the entire army consists entirely with the <tau> or whatever keyword. What I'm proposing is that you couldn't give <Imperial guard> CP to <knights>. You can then balance the cost of knights strategems because you know they can't gain access to 12 CP. This would bring every mono codex army in the game up in power level and reduce every popular soup in power level encouraging more mono builds thus making the game much easier to balance as you dont have to worry about the point cost of a unit in another codex making strategems too cheap even though many players will never play from the other codex
Why did I ecen think you could be reasoned with
I did read them and showed you time and again areas where your grand guard fix nerfed a bunch of non power builds, but you didn't care. As it protects your precious guardsmen at 4ppm.
So index armies and other things like inquisition and assasins should just be squated then?
It has been a while, but what stratagems did Inquisition and Assasins have access to besides the BRB ones?
Also, If I remember correctly from that one Vigilus Weekender, didn't GW say they didn't really envision inquisition in the table top army seen much anymore or something similar to that regard? If so, then GW is already on that.
the_scotsman wrote: Argument: There does not exist a CP-generating unit with better firepower, faster movement speed, or greater durability per point than guardsmen.
Response: Then why isn't anyone taking a list with only them in it?
Because you use something else to spend the CP the guardsmen generate.
Then the most straightforward and necessary nerf is to kill their ability to generate CP for other things, no?
If they're only being taken in the minimum quantity needed to generate those CP, then clearly they're being chosen for CP first and firepower/movement/durability second.
That still does not address the other three problem with Guard. There is no unit even close to their price range that does what they do, and it has never been demonstrated that just because you take them in the configuration where the squads grant you CP, they are not overly efficient with that CP generation being a factor in their cost.
Guard squads are taken in multiples of 3, or 6, most commonly, because in those configurations the guard squads are generating you CPs in addition to their other capabilities.
If you removed their ability to generate CPs for Knights, Blood Angels and Custodes, would we see people taking lists of only Knights, Blood Angels and Custodes, or would we see people taking lists of only Guard, replacing the heavy element with something like a Catachan Shadowsword in a Supreme Command?
We don't know, because that hasn't happened, but in tournaments prior to the Blood Angel/Knight codex release, Catachan Brigades with a Shadowsword were pretty common, usually showing up alongside a Celestine+culexus mini-detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Another issue is that we don't yet have a way to nerf a unit's "CP generation" besides making them not troops, upping minimum squad size, or upping point costs.
There is actually a super simple way to nerf the CP generation. Just make detachments unable to share CP. Then you can balance CP costs for armies based on how cheap their minimum detachments are not guards
No thanks my sisters of silence and mixed tau doesn't need to be nerfed into oblivion just so guard can keep their ability to break the current CP rules.
Sorry, I assumed you had read the other threads. Tau wouldn't be affected as the entire army consists entirely with the <tau> or whatever keyword. What I'm proposing is that you couldn't give <Imperial guard> CP to <knights>. You can then balance the cost of knights strategems because you know they can't gain access to 12 CP. This would bring every mono codex army in the game up in power level and reduce every popular soup in power level encouraging more mono builds thus making the game much easier to balance as you dont have to worry about the point cost of a unit in another codex making strategems too cheap even though many players will never play from the other codex
Why did I ecen think you could be reasoned with
I did read them and showed you time and again areas where your grand guard fix nerfed a bunch of non power builds, but you didn't care. As it protects your precious guardsmen at 4ppm.
So index armies and other things like inquisition and assasins should just be squated then?
No I've said multiple times that this would allow you to actually balance armies that aren't seen. Also, index armies need to be updated into an actual codex.
2. So its not only "not as efficient" as soup..... so once again soup is the real issue here
So where is Marines + Sisters soup? Ad Mech + Custodes soup? If the soup in itself was some magic thing that makes stuff über, we would be seeing wide variety of different soups. Yet almost always the core element of the Imperial soup is the Guard.
those soups arent at top tables because they are being played for fluff and don't leverage the broken part of soup (CP generation). The funny part is my proposed change wouldn't make those lists any less viable then they are and would only hurt the truly abusive soup builds. There still needs to be a drawback to soup, bringing up a few weird fluff builds that won't be affected doesn't change that
1. Was conscript spam not boring/ time consuming to play? Cultist Spam? Termagant Spam? yet we have seen all of those
2. So its not only "not as efficient" as soup..... so once again soup is the real issue here
3. People clearly have the models as conscript spam was just as many bodies and uses the same models, or did people melt their armies after the nerf?
4. Once again the combination of several units that on their own do not perform in mono lists extraordinarily are too good when combined together..... maybe we should start focusing on how these units keep interacting as everytime you nuke one unit it will simply be replaced by the next best thing and all together mono lists get hurt more then the intended soup build.
also we did see armies of massed cultists and termagaunts win multiple GTs this edition and remain popular lists
There are several barriers to all horde lists - some of them have been added since the days of index conscripts...a year and a half ago.
- Purchasing
- Chess clocks
- Painting
- Chess clocks
- Deployment
- Chess clocks
- Multiple morale tests
- Chess clocks
- Issuing orders can take a really long time
- Chess clocks
- It's boring as hell
- Chess clocks
Cultists and gants are just a single blob instead of 3 or 4 individual units that each need their own commander to be in place and you don't need to worry about differentiating different units.
Yeah, this doesn't address why we were seeing cultist and termagant 200+ model spam and not guard. They both have the same exact limitations yet guard has never been effectively taken (except for when conscripts were broken)
"Why don't we see armies of only Guardsmen?" is a complete and utter false equivalence. The answer is the same reason you don't see armies of pure kabalite warriors, or 4ppm Cultists or any other troop unit you believe to be under costed. There is a strength in taking mixed lists that maximise efficiencies, strangely enough.
If I may offer a counterpoint: there are other units also composed of Guardsmen that can fill other roles in ways which have no equivalents for these units from other armies, that do allow you to build a whole cohesive army. Heavy and Special weapons squads and Veterans. Yet these units are relatively rarely seen next to the Infantry Squad, despite being similarly costed with the same orders and abilities and weapons and arguably even more cost effective in some respects at many tasks.
What we see 90% of the time in the competitive arena is just enough troop guardsmen to fill out the detachment requirements, with these other units rarely fielded (HWS's appear sometimes, almost exclusively with just mortars).
Now, to be fair, the rule of 3 kneecaps these other units to some extent, but we still see these other Guardsmen composed units relatively rarely despite otherwise offering pretty much the same advantages except theyre just not Troops.
So index armies and other things like inquisition and assasins should just be squated then?
These things aren't really armies in the first place in and of themselves, and GW handling of them really needs to be changed. They need to be generic plug ins for Imperial armies, Assassins are not an army on their own in any sense and shouldnt be treated as such. Neither is the Inquisition, they take command of armies but are not an army inherently. Index lists need to be updated.
The CP sharing needs to be addressed however, Guardsmen or no. Allies shenanigans are, above and beyond any one faction, the single largest issue the game faces.
1. Was conscript spam not boring/ time consuming to play? Cultist Spam? Termagant Spam? yet we have seen all of those
2. So its not only "not as efficient" as soup..... so once again soup is the real issue here
3. People clearly have the models as conscript spam was just as many bodies and uses the same models, or did people melt their armies after the nerf?
4. Once again the combination of several units that on their own do not perform in mono lists extraordinarily are too good when combined together..... maybe we should start focusing on how these units keep interacting as everytime you nuke one unit it will simply be replaced by the next best thing and all together mono lists get hurt more then the intended soup build.
also we did see armies of massed cultists and termagaunts win multiple GTs this edition and remain popular lists
1. Yes, it was. Which is why they didn't last long. Cultist and Termagant spam happened when? Must've missed that dominating the meta.
2. There is no army of only troop units that would beat a well rounded army with maximum efficiencies. Makes no difference to the fact that Guard are currently vastly undercosted.
3. Perhaps people want to play with their big, stompy, 'cool' knight model?
4. Guardsmen also perform extraordinarily well in mono Guard lists. Guardsmen are too efficient compared to any other troop in the game.
Where are these pure Gant/Cultist armies? When did they dominate?
Yeah, this doesn't address why we were seeing cultist and termagant 200+ model spam and not guard. They both have the same exact limitations yet guard has never been effectively taken (except for when conscripts were broken)
Yes, it does, because we're not seeing 200 cultists or gants. 80 or 120 tops for cultists. It's also much simpler to manipulate 3 units than 20 units plus commanders.
Bharring wrote: Aren't there far more IG-based Soup armies that place top 10 than non-IG-based Soup armies? By based, I mean 30+ Guardsmen.
If IoM Soup > Non-IoM Soup, and IG were not much better than AdMech, SoB, etc, then shouldn't we see more non-IGIoM Soup placing above non-IoM lists?
You'd think wouldn't you?
That does make complete logical sense.
But I reckon someone will have an answer as to why this isn't the case shortly. Possibly something around the magical power of soup and interactions between units.
1. Was conscript spam not boring/ time consuming to play? Cultist Spam? Termagant Spam? yet we have seen all of those
2. So its not only "not as efficient" as soup..... so once again soup is the real issue here
3. People clearly have the models as conscript spam was just as many bodies and uses the same models, or did people melt their armies after the nerf?
4. Once again the combination of several units that on their own do not perform in mono lists extraordinarily are too good when combined together..... maybe we should start focusing on how these units keep interacting as everytime you nuke one unit it will simply be replaced by the next best thing and all together mono lists get hurt more then the intended soup build.
also we did see armies of massed cultists and termagaunts win multiple GTs this edition and remain popular lists
1. Yes, it was. Which is why they didn't last long. Cultist and Termagant spam happened when? Must've missed that dominating the meta.
2. There is no army of only troop units that would beat a well rounded army with maximum efficiencies. Makes no difference to the fact that Guard are currently vastly undercosted.
3. Perhaps people want to play with their big, stompy, 'cool' knight model?
4. Guardsmen also perform extraordinarily well in mono Guard lists. Guardsmen are too efficient compared to any other troop in the game.
Where are these pure Gant/Cultist armies? When did they dominate?
We have seen several competitive spam cultist lists and termagant lists this edition. The only time we saw spammed infantry from guard was with conscripts. People clearly have the models and inclination to run massed guard infantry but they don't. Also for you "mono list" number 4 its funny that DE were the single most winning mono list in all of 8th but I don't see a "nuke DE" thread every day on dakka
Why? because they are dirt cheap and are insanely durable for their low points cost and even with a S3 weapon can put out a decent amount of ranged firepower when teamed with orders or in double tap range.
Guardsman: T3 5+ Save 4pts
Ork Boy: T4 6+ save 7pts.
Guardsman: S3 Weapon, ranged 24 rapid fire BS 4+ easy access to buffs to increase accuracy.
Ork Boy: S4 weapon, ranged 12/18 pistol/assault 2 BS5+, only 1 real klan that gives a benefit to shooting. (two if you count freeboota)
Ork boyz are only better in assault. So one out of 3 phases the boyz are better than the IG.
So why are they awesome? because they are dirt cheap and are significantly better than their price would indicate.
Yeah, this doesn't address why we were seeing cultist and termagant 200+ model spam and not guard. They both have the same exact limitations yet guard has never been effectively taken (except for when conscripts were broken)
Yes, it does, because we're not seeing 200 cultists or gants. 80 or 120 tops for cultists. It's also much simpler to manipulate 3 units than 20 units plus commanders.
There's been plenty of spam cultist and gants lists do incredibly well this edition. even popular 40k talking heads like TLWs kenny was made because his 200 cultist list wouldn't be as effective. Yet (other then conscripts at the beginning of 8th) nobody has taken guardsmen to the same effect
Also, I would absolutely hate the idea of facing a Guardsman Horde. Hell, even a partial guardsman horde. My ork green tide list was over 1,260pts of just boyz and that got me 210 models at the time, for that same price a guard horde could take 315 models and basically turn the game into a stalemate from turn 1 because there's no way you can remove that many bodies by the end of turn 5, so they would automatically get their objectives and could easily spend the last 740pts on just tanks or even more infantry to further skew the list.
I'm telling you if you if a couple of guys in this thread pooled their money each painted 25 guardsmen and sent one of you to the LVO you would be guaranteed the big cash prize. None of these "top 40k" players has yet to discover the overwhelming OP fire the guardsmen blob would bring
Asmodios wrote: I have a serious question for all the people chomping at the bit for a guardsmen nerf. If guardsmen are so broken and so OP why have we not seen a spam guardsmen list perform at the top of the meta?
Because Guardsmen + Knights/Shield Captains/Slam Captains is even better.
Asmodios wrote: I have a serious question for all the people chomping at the bit for a guardsmen nerf. If guardsmen are so broken and so OP why have we not seen a spam guardsmen list perform at the top of the meta?
Because Guardsmen + Knights/Shield Captains/Slam Captains is even better.
Asmodios wrote: I have a serious question for all the people chomping at the bit for a guardsmen nerf. If guardsmen are so broken and so OP why have we not seen a spam guardsmen list perform at the top of the meta?
Because Guardsmen + Knights/Shield Captains/Slam Captains is even better.
So soup is an issue?
Definitely. Is it the only issue? Hard to tell until soup is not allowed anymore.
Asmodios wrote: I have a serious question for all the people chomping at the bit for a guardsmen nerf. If guardsmen are so broken and so OP why have we not seen a spam guardsmen list perform at the top of the meta?
Because Guardsmen + Knights/Shield Captains/Slam Captains is even better.
So soup is an issue?
As are guardsman by themselves. especially if boyz are at 7ppm and guard are 4ppm
Asmodios wrote: I have a serious question for all the people chomping at the bit for a guardsmen nerf. If guardsmen are so broken and so OP why have we not seen a spam guardsmen list perform at the top of the meta?
Because Guardsmen + Knights/Shield Captains/Slam Captains is even better.
So soup is an issue?
No because soup is only an issue where undercosted/overpowered units exist. Like Guardsmen. If units were properly and fairly costed, soup is not a problem.
Asmodios wrote: I have a serious question for all the people chomping at the bit for a guardsmen nerf. If guardsmen are so broken and so OP why have we not seen a spam guardsmen list perform at the top of the meta?
Because Guardsmen + Knights/Shield Captains/Slam Captains is even better.
So soup is an issue?
As are guardsman by themselves. especially if boyz are at 7ppm and guard are 4ppm
what metric do you use when you only see guard brought in soup competitively.... Yet orks just won a GT right after their codex dropped
Asmodios wrote: I'm telling you if you if a couple of guys in this thread pooled their money each painted 25 guardsmen and sent one of you to the LVO you would be guaranteed the big cash prize. None of these "top 40k" players has yet to discover the overwhelming OP fire the guardsmen blob would bring
There would be too many to kill. Guaranteed win. Throw in commissars, platoon commanders, company commanders, etc. You are winning.
Asmodios wrote: I'm telling you if you if a couple of guys in this thread pooled their money each painted 25 guardsmen and sent one of you to the LVO you would be guaranteed the big cash prize. None of these "top 40k" players has yet to discover the overwhelming OP fire the guardsmen blob would bring
There would be too many to kill. Guaranteed win. Throw in commissars, platoon commanders, company commanders, etc. You are winning.
didn't the winner get like 7 grand last year? why don't you just go clean up should be super easy
"Why don't we see armies of only Guardsmen?" is a complete and utter false equivalence. The answer is the same reason you don't see armies of pure kabalite warriors, or 4ppm Cultists or any other troop unit you believe to be under costed. There is a strength in taking mixed lists that maximise efficiencies, strangely enough.
If I may offer a counterpoint: there are other units also composed of Guardsmen that can fill other roles in ways which have no equivalents for these units from other armies, that do allow you to build a whole cohesive army. Heavy and Special weapons squads and Veterans. Yet these units are relatively rarely seen next to the Infantry Squad, despite being similarly costed with the same orders and abilities and weapons and arguably even more cost effective in some respects at many tasks.
What we see 90% of the time in the competitive arena is just enough troop guardsmen to fill out the detachment requirements, with these other units rarely fielded (HWS's appear sometimes, almost exclusively with just mortars).
Now, to be fair, the rule of 3 kneecaps these other units to some extent, but we still see these other Guardsmen composed units relatively rarely despite otherwise offering pretty much the same advantages except theyre just not Troops.
So index armies and other things like inquisition and assasins should just be squated then?
These things aren't really armies in the first place in and of themselves, and GW handling of them really needs to be changed. They need to be generic plug ins for Imperial armies, Assassins are not an army on their own in any sense and shouldnt be treated as such. Neither is the Inquisition, they take command of armies but are not an army inherently. Index lists need to be updated.
The CP sharing needs to be addressed however, Guardsmen or no. Allies shenanigans are, above and beyond any one faction, the single largest issue the game faces.
HWS aren't seen? When half the reason the rule of 3 exists is because people were taking 15+ mortar teams in their lists?
Special weapons squads and veteran squads aren't seen because their job is done better by Command Squads and Scions who have the same special weapons access but get deep strike/don't have to take lasgun bodies.
When there is a unit that is strong to decent, but there exists a 100% better version that uses the same models, you'll basicaly never see that unit no matter how good they might be.
I bet you a nickel the ratio of tactical squads to company veteran squads/sternguard squads we'll be seeing in marine lists from now on is going to have a 0: on one end of it.
Asmodios wrote: I'm telling you if you if a couple of guys in this thread pooled their money each painted 25 guardsmen and sent one of you to the LVO you would be guaranteed the big cash prize. None of these "top 40k" players has yet to discover the overwhelming OP fire the guardsmen blob would bring
Ah, the old 'I don't have an answer to the concerns raised so let's make up ridiculous strawman arguments' technique. A classic.
If by "guaranteed the big cash prize" you mean "run out of time every game and lose", sure. The reason you don't see mass infantry is because it is extremely difficult to play a 2k infantry list within a reasonable amount of time.
Yeah, this doesn't address why we were seeing cultist and termagant 200+ model spam and not guard. They both have the same exact limitations yet guard has never been effectively taken (except for when conscripts were broken)
Yes, it does, because we're not seeing 200 cultists or gants. 80 or 120 tops for cultists. It's also much simpler to manipulate 3 units than 20 units plus commanders.
There's been plenty of spam cultist and gants lists do incredibly well this edition. even popular 40k talking heads like TLWs kenny was made because his 200 cultist list wouldn't be as effective. Yet (other then conscripts at the beginning of 8th) nobody has taken guardsmen to the same effect
Dude. Diminishing returns. You can't easily get 200 models with 24" gun in range of everything you want dead right now, but you can if it's 80 or 100 while still profiting from the dynamic and having strong back field support.
There have been not 200 model lists on top table since 2017.
LVO - the #2 list had Straken, 100 Catachans, 9 mortars, and enough other units to fill out a battalion.
Asmodios wrote: I'm telling you if you if a couple of guys in this thread pooled their money each painted 25 guardsmen and sent one of you to the LVO you would be guaranteed the big cash prize. None of these "top 40k" players has yet to discover the overwhelming OP fire the guardsmen blob would bring
Ah, the old 'I don't have an answer to the concerns raised so let's make up ridiculous strawman arguments' technique. A classic.
I've given plenty of answers but apparently, guardsmen are the end all be all of the game so i say they should go clean up tournament after tournament winning all the prizes until gw fixes them. Clearly, you all know more than the top tournament players and I wanna see my fellow dakka members make out like bandits so have at it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trickstick wrote: If by "guaranteed the big cash prize" you mean "run out of time every game and lose", sure. The reason you don't see mass infantry is because it is extremely difficult to play a 2k infantry list within a reasonable amount of time.
plenty of top players have played over 250 model count hoards with time to spare listen to some of the long war podcasts when he talks about playing his cultist spam. If he can do it with cultists they can do it with guardsmen. Also all those spam conscript lists used just as many models
Yeah, this doesn't address why we were seeing cultist and termagant 200+ model spam and not guard. They both have the same exact limitations yet guard has never been effectively taken (except for when conscripts were broken)
Yes, it does, because we're not seeing 200 cultists or gants. 80 or 120 tops for cultists. It's also much simpler to manipulate 3 units than 20 units plus commanders.
There's been plenty of spam cultist and gants lists do incredibly well this edition. even popular 40k talking heads like TLWs kenny was made because his 200 cultist list wouldn't be as effective. Yet (other then conscripts at the beginning of 8th) nobody has taken guardsmen to the same effect
Dude. Diminishing returns. You can't easily get 200 models with 24" gun in range of everything you want dead right now, but you can if it's 80 or 100 while still profiting from the dynamic and having strong back field support.
There have been not 200 model lists on top table since 2017.
LVO - the #2 list had Straken, 100 Catachans, 9 mortars, and enough other units to fill out a battalion.
wait hold on..... are you saying that math hammer has some kind of limitation like spacing, terrain, position issues, ect and that it cant be the only metric used to evaluate a units effectiness on the board?
Asmodios wrote: I'm telling you if you if a couple of guys in this thread pooled their money each painted 25 guardsmen and sent one of you to the LVO you would be guaranteed the big cash prize. None of these "top 40k" players has yet to discover the overwhelming OP fire the guardsmen blob would bring
Ah, the old 'I don't have an answer to the concerns raised so let's make up ridiculous strawman arguments' technique. A classic.
I've given plenty of answers but apparently, guardsmen are the end all be all of the game so i say they should go clean up tournament after tournament winning all the prizes until gw fixes them. Clearly, you all know more than the top tournament players and I wanna see my fellow dakka members make out like bandits so have at it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trickstick wrote: If by "guaranteed the big cash prize" you mean "run out of time every game and lose", sure. The reason you don't see mass infantry is because it is extremely difficult to play a 2k infantry list within a reasonable amount of time.
plenty of top players have played over 250 model count hoards with time to spare listen to some of the long war podcasts when he talks about playing his cultist spam. If he can do it with cultists they can do it with guardsmen. Also all those spam conscript lists used just as many models
Yeah, this doesn't address why we were seeing cultist and termagant 200+ model spam and not guard. They both have the same exact limitations yet guard has never been effectively taken (except for when conscripts were broken)
Yes, it does, because we're not seeing 200 cultists or gants. 80 or 120 tops for cultists. It's also much simpler to manipulate 3 units than 20 units plus commanders.
There's been plenty of spam cultist and gants lists do incredibly well this edition. even popular 40k talking heads like TLWs kenny was made because his 200 cultist list wouldn't be as effective. Yet (other then conscripts at the beginning of 8th) nobody has taken guardsmen to the same effect
Dude. Diminishing returns. You can't easily get 200 models with 24" gun in range of everything you want dead right now, but you can if it's 80 or 100 while still profiting from the dynamic and having strong back field support.
There have been not 200 model lists on top table since 2017.
LVO - the #2 list had Straken, 100 Catachans, 9 mortars, and enough other units to fill out a battalion.
wait hold on..... are you saying that math hammer has some kind of limitation like spacing, terrain, position issues, ect and that it cant be the only metric used to evaluate a units effectiness on the board?
You've given no answers that make any sense and please stop strawmanning.
No one believes Guard to be the best unit bar none. They are the best troop though and this can be evidenced.
Your desperation to defend their current points cost is a classic case of 'I don't want my toys to be made worse-itus'. Unfortunately its good for the game and needs to happen. Other units that are performing far too well will also need to be adjusted.
SemperMortis wrote: Also, I would absolutely hate the idea of facing a Guardsman Horde. Hell, even a partial guardsman horde. My ork green tide list was over 1,260pts of just boyz and that got me 210 models at the time, for that same price a guard horde could take 315 models and basically turn the game into a stalemate from turn 1 because there's no way you can remove that many bodies by the end of turn 5, so they would automatically get their objectives and could easily spend the last 740pts on just tanks or even more infantry to further skew the list.
240 guards in a double brigade is the maximum number possible in a 2000 point list, and you don't have any spare points for tanks, you have 6 sentinels 3 mortars 3 basilisks and then only commissars and commanders to fill the slots. It would be a really crappy list, even with the cobined fire of the 240 guards with all the possible FRFSRF and somehow all in range for double tap, you wouldn't take down a couple of rhinos, and 240 guards without support are not that hard to kill.
Asmodios wrote: I'm telling you if you if a couple of guys in this thread pooled their money each painted 25 guardsmen and sent one of you to the LVO you would be guaranteed the big cash prize. None of these "top 40k" players has yet to discover the overwhelming OP fire the guardsmen blob would bring
Ah, the old 'I don't have an answer to the concerns raised so let's make up ridiculous strawman arguments' technique. A classic.
I've given plenty of answers but apparently, guardsmen are the end all be all of the game so i say they should go clean up tournament after tournament winning all the prizes until gw fixes them. Clearly, you all know more than the top tournament players and I wanna see my fellow dakka members make out like bandits so have at it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trickstick wrote: If by "guaranteed the big cash prize" you mean "run out of time every game and lose", sure. The reason you don't see mass infantry is because it is extremely difficult to play a 2k infantry list within a reasonable amount of time.
plenty of top players have played over 250 model count hoards with time to spare listen to some of the long war podcasts when he talks about playing his cultist spam. If he can do it with cultists they can do it with guardsmen. Also all those spam conscript lists used just as many models
Yeah, this doesn't address why we were seeing cultist and termagant 200+ model spam and not guard. They both have the same exact limitations yet guard has never been effectively taken (except for when conscripts were broken)
Yes, it does, because we're not seeing 200 cultists or gants. 80 or 120 tops for cultists. It's also much simpler to manipulate 3 units than 20 units plus commanders.
There's been plenty of spam cultist and gants lists do incredibly well this edition. even popular 40k talking heads like TLWs kenny was made because his 200 cultist list wouldn't be as effective. Yet (other then conscripts at the beginning of 8th) nobody has taken guardsmen to the same effect
Dude. Diminishing returns. You can't easily get 200 models with 24" gun in range of everything you want dead right now, but you can if it's 80 or 100 while still profiting from the dynamic and having strong back field support.
There have been not 200 model lists on top table since 2017.
LVO - the #2 list had Straken, 100 Catachans, 9 mortars, and enough other units to fill out a battalion.
wait hold on..... are you saying that math hammer has some kind of limitation like spacing, terrain, position issues, ect and that it cant be the only metric used to evaluate a units effectiness on the board?
You've given no answers that make any sense and please stop strawmanning.
No one believes Guard to be the best unit bar none. They are the best troop though and this can be evidenced.
Your desperation to defend their current points cost is a classic case of 'I don't want my toys to be made worse-itus'. Unfortunately its good for the game and needs to happen. Other units that are performing far too well will also need to be adjusted.
Actually if you remember earlier in this thread im on the 9ppm guardsmen train thats been thrown out there. I want to see what the next soup detatchment auto include is going to be and i wanna watch all the new "x unit is overpowered" threads
SemperMortis wrote: Also, I would absolutely hate the idea of facing a Guardsman Horde. Hell, even a partial guardsman horde. My ork green tide list was over 1,260pts of just boyz and that got me 210 models at the time, for that same price a guard horde could take 315 models and basically turn the game into a stalemate from turn 1 because there's no way you can remove that many bodies by the end of turn 5, so they would automatically get their objectives and could easily spend the last 740pts on just tanks or even more infantry to further skew the list.
240 guards in a double brigade is the maximum number possible in a 2000 point list, and you don't have any spare points for tanks, you have 6 sentinels 3 mortars 3 basilisks and then only commissars and commanders to fill the slots. It would be a really crappy list, even with the cobined fire of the 240 guards with all the possible FRFSRF and somehow all in range for double tap, you wouldn't take down a couple of rhinos, and 240 guards without support are not that hard to kill.
On the other hand i just calculated that you can play 360 morale immune termagants, now THAT is dirty!
Asmodios wrote: I have a serious question for all the people chomping at the bit for a guardsmen nerf. If guardsmen are so broken and so OP why have we not seen a spam guardsmen list perform at the top of the meta?
Because Guardsmen + Knights/Shield Captains/Slam Captains is even better.
So soup is an issue?
As are guardsman by themselves. especially if boyz are at 7ppm and guard are 4ppm
what metric do you use when you only see guard brought in soup competitively.... Yet orks just won a GT right after their codex dropped
wait....the new codex that isn't hot garbage won a single GT right after it dropped before competitive players had a chance to learn how to counter the newest codex? Go figure.....almost like we don't have a track record of this exact thing happening repetitively.
How good is the top ranked ork player in ITC? You know, since the codex is great and all, at least according to your metric that they wont a GT. Well turns out its a guy named Richard Kilton who is currently ranked....68th in the world. Ohh and the only GT he was in he placed 3rd, and one of his top 4 games on record was index, not codex. So unarguably the best Ork player in the world is only 68th. Maybe you shouldn't factor in 1 or even a couple tournament results vs the overwhelming data that says otherwise
And what metric do I use? simple, how cheap/cost efficient is the unit. Guardsmen without buffs cost 40pts, fill up a troop slot and do metric fethloads of things better than ork boyz can...and can do everything better than Grotz can do who are 3ppm. T2, S2 WS 5+ 6+ save, so why are grotz 1 point cheaper but Guard are 3pts cheaper than boyz? Almost like boyz or guard aren't priced properly.
Asmodios wrote: I have a serious question for all the people chomping at the bit for a guardsmen nerf. If guardsmen are so broken and so OP why have we not seen a spam guardsmen list perform at the top of the meta?
Because Guardsmen + Knights/Shield Captains/Slam Captains is even better.
So soup is an issue?
As are guardsman by themselves. especially if boyz are at 7ppm and guard are 4ppm
what metric do you use when you only see guard brought in soup competitively.... Yet orks just won a GT right after their codex dropped
wait....the new codex that isn't hot garbage won a single GT right after it dropped before competitive players had a chance to learn how to counter the newest codex? Go figure.....almost like we don't have a track record of this exact thing happening repetitively.
How good is the top ranked ork player in ITC? You know, since the codex is great and all, at least according to your metric that they wont a GT. Well turns out its a guy named Richard Kilton who is currently ranked....68th in the world. Ohh and the only GT he was in he placed 3rd, and one of his top 4 games on record was index, not codex. So unarguably the best Ork player in the world is only 68th. Maybe you shouldn't factor in 1 or even a couple tournament results vs the overwhelming data that says otherwise
And what metric do I use? simple, how cheap/cost efficient is the unit. Guardsmen without buffs cost 40pts, fill up a troop slot and do metric fethloads of things better than ork boyz can...and can do everything better than Grotz can do who are 3ppm. T2, S2 WS 5+ 6+ save, so why are grotz 1 point cheaper but Guard are 3pts cheaper than boyz? Almost like boyz or guard aren't priced properly.
Oh if we are going for highest ITC we could talk about the single best performing mono codex army and currently has a top 10 ITC player playing mono as DE...... funny I don't see 5 nuke DE threads a day. I also get to listen to people talk about GT wins from mono guard from when they were one of the first codexes and had broken earthshakers and conscripts
Oh if we are going for highest ITC we could talk about the single best performing mono codex army and currently has a top 10 ITC player playing mono as DE...... funny I don't see 5 nuke DE threads a day. I also get to listen to people talk about GT wins from mono guard from when they were one of the first codexes and had broken earthshakers and conscripts
Ahh, well if that is the case than of course please continue to throw up strawmen to defend against some random person's argument..because you know, me and that person are exactly the same
If you are going to argue/debate with me than don't worry about what some rando did 3 pages ago or 3 months ago.
Spoletta wrote: 240 guards in a double brigade is the maximum number possible in a 2000 point list, and you don't have any spare points for tanks, you have 6 sentinels 3 mortars 3 basilisks and then only commissars and commanders to fill the slots. It would be a really crappy list, even with the cobined fire of the 240 guards with all the possible FRFSRF and somehow all in range for double tap, you wouldn't take down a couple of rhinos, and 240 guards without support are not that hard to kill.
I have perhaps embarrassingly just spent the last 20 minutes working out a list.
Something like:
Staken
2 company commanders
2 platoon commanders
1 priest
12*10 infantry.
3 scout sentinels
3 basilisks
Points:1124 (I think, doing this quickly, might have missed something).
Total: 1995. (As said, doing this quickly, may well have missed some gear especially on the special characters).
Creed as warlord for 29 command points (not sure what you would use them for, but lets work that out later). You have 14 orders+Superior Tactical Training, and I guess throw in Laurels somewhere if you wanted too.
Not sure it would be that crap on the table. You are right against an armoured wall I wouldn't be doing much damage. But I am not convinced 240 guardsmen are that easy to deal with.
I doubt however it would be much fun to play or play against.
I also think taking 1 Brigade and 2 battalions would allow you to take 240 guardsmen and be more flexible. Ditch the basilisks and commissars. Throw in a plasma gun on every guard unit, and maybe add 3 squads of vets for additional warm bodies.
Oh if we are going for highest ITC we could talk about the single best performing mono codex army and currently has a top 10 ITC player playing mono as DE...... funny I don't see 5 nuke DE threads a day. I also get to listen to people talk about GT wins from mono guard from when they were one of the first codexes and had broken earthshakers and conscripts
Ahh, well if that is the case than of course please continue to throw up strawmen to defend against some random person's argument..because you know, me and that person are exactly the same
If you are going to argue/debate with me than don't worry about what some rando did 3 pages ago or 3 months ago.
Well, I'm not really sure what to discuss with you... a new codex coming and stomping a large GT right after release is apparently no big deal and clearly shows that one of the staples of that army is overprinted
wait....the new codex that isn't hot garbage won a single GT right after it dropped before competitive players had a chance to learn how to counter the newest codex? Go figure.....almost like we don't have a track record of this exact thing happening repetitively.
How good is the top ranked ork player in ITC? You know, since the codex is great and all, at least according to your metric that they wont a GT. Well turns out its a guy named Richard Kilton who is currently ranked....68th in the world. Ohh and the only GT he was in he placed 3rd, and one of his top 4 games on record was index, not codex. So unarguably the best Ork player in the world is only 68th. Maybe you shouldn't factor in 1 or even a couple tournament results vs the overwhelming data that says otherwise
And what metric do I use? simple, how cheap/cost efficient is the unit. Guardsmen without buffs cost 40pts, fill up a troop slot and do metric fethloads of things better than ork boyz can...and can do everything better than Grotz can do who are 3ppm. T2, S2 WS 5+ 6+ save, so why are grotz 1 point cheaper but Guard are 3pts cheaper than boyz? Almost like boyz or guard aren't priced properly.
Flip the script. If some rando can come to the table with Orks and smash face then Orks are in a pretty good place even when people learn to adjust.
wait....the new codex that isn't hot garbage won a single GT right after it dropped before competitive players had a chance to learn how to counter the newest codex? Go figure.....almost like we don't have a track record of this exact thing happening repetitively.
How good is the top ranked ork player in ITC? You know, since the codex is great and all, at least according to your metric that they wont a GT. Well turns out its a guy named Richard Kilton who is currently ranked....68th in the world. Ohh and the only GT he was in he placed 3rd, and one of his top 4 games on record was index, not codex. So unarguably the best Ork player in the world is only 68th. Maybe you shouldn't factor in 1 or even a couple tournament results vs the overwhelming data that says otherwise
And what metric do I use? simple, how cheap/cost efficient is the unit. Guardsmen without buffs cost 40pts, fill up a troop slot and do metric fethloads of things better than ork boyz can...and can do everything better than Grotz can do who are 3ppm. T2, S2 WS 5+ 6+ save, so why are grotz 1 point cheaper but Guard are 3pts cheaper than boyz? Almost like boyz or guard aren't priced properly.
Flip the script. If some rando can come to the table with Orks and smash face then Orks are in a pretty good place even when people learn to adjust.
And we're not talking small margin wins.
Flip the table? How so? The best ork player isn't even in the top 50. He also isn't a rando as much as the best ork player in the world. your analogy is broken from the start. And I haven't seen orkz smashing faces as of late. Once the smoke settled they are settling in to mid tier as I predicted. Do you have more information to provide that shows them winning lots of games? and if so, how many boyz did they take to keep this on topic in regards to IG being under priced.
HWS aren't seen? When half the reason the rule of 3 exists is because people were taking 15+ mortar teams in their lists?
There's lots of reasons for the rule of 3, who knows what the specifics in GW's minds were. That said; two points. First, HWS's are, much like basic guardsmen, fundamentally intended to be spammed. They're cheap and small and are the only concentrated source of heavy weapons not stuck to a tank. Last time you could take them as an HS choice on their own it used to have to be in a heavy weapons platoon. Second, with respect to 8E, how often do we see them as anything but detachment fillers, and how often do we see them with arguably very cost effective weapons like autocannons or lascannon? Almost never.
Special weapons squads and veteran squads aren't seen because their job is done better by Command Squads and Scions who have the same special weapons access but get deep strike/don't have to take lasgun bodies.
When there is a unit that is strong to decent, but there exists a 100% better version that uses the same models, you'll basicaly never see that unit no matter how good they might be.
1 for 1 they absolutely are better, no question, but a large contention in this thread has been over cost effectiveness.
Lets go back to the earlier Guard vs Sisters example and look at killing power per squad against Marines. We'll assume no Doctrines for now.
Looking at an Infantry Squad with a mortar, PG, and PP, and FRFSRF for 57pts we inflict 2.66 wounds, or 21.43pts per wound output per turn.
SWS w/3 Plasmas is 45pts.
With FRFSRF on lasguns and 3 PG's, that unit is inflicting killing 2.75 Marines a turn, or about 16.36pts per wound output per turn.
A command squad with 4 plasma guns is 68pts
FRFSRF doesn't apply, so it's just the 4 BS3+ PG's, so this unit is killing 3.7 Marines per turn, or about 18.38pts per wound output per turn.
Veterans with 3 plasma guns and a PP cost 88pts
With FRFSRF they're inflicting 5.01 marine wounds a turn, or 17.56pts per wound output per turn.
A min sized Stormtrooper squad with 2 PG's and a PP costs 72pts. (These guys have DS so that's a factor that isn't accounted for here but does explain their popular effectiveness otherwise)
With FRFSRF on 2 hotshot lasguns and 5 PG shots, that unit is killing 3.5 Marines per turn, or about 20.57pts per wound output per turn.
The Special Weapons Squad is, mathematically, the most cost effective unit in this evaluation in terms of damage output, the Infantry Squad being almost a full third more expensive per wound generated. The SWS has the lowest absolute damage output aside from the IS, but offers the biggest bang for your buck, and are clearly more resilient than the command squads and arent too far behind the Stormtroopers, yet, we rarely ever see them, even just to fill small points gaps really.
On that note...I honestly cant recall seeing a command squad in any list in recent history either.
So, we have a grip of units that are roughly as cost effective as Infantry Squads, definitively moreso in an offensive context, that nobody uses. All of them are relatively cost effective, but we really only see a couple of these units ever. There should be plenty of room in any large IG army for them with the rule of 3 in play, we should see horde IG armies showing up and doing well at large events, but largely dont. Why then is the focus on Infantry Squads and their ubiquitousness then?
Because they're the one that fills out detachments for CP
wait....the new codex that isn't hot garbage won a single GT right after it dropped before competitive players had a chance to learn how to counter the newest codex? Go figure.....almost like we don't have a track record of this exact thing happening repetitively.
How good is the top ranked ork player in ITC? You know, since the codex is great and all, at least according to your metric that they wont a GT. Well turns out its a guy named Richard Kilton who is currently ranked....68th in the world. Ohh and the only GT he was in he placed 3rd, and one of his top 4 games on record was index, not codex. So unarguably the best Ork player in the world is only 68th. Maybe you shouldn't factor in 1 or even a couple tournament results vs the overwhelming data that says otherwise
And what metric do I use? simple, how cheap/cost efficient is the unit. Guardsmen without buffs cost 40pts, fill up a troop slot and do metric fethloads of things better than ork boyz can...and can do everything better than Grotz can do who are 3ppm. T2, S2 WS 5+ 6+ save, so why are grotz 1 point cheaper but Guard are 3pts cheaper than boyz? Almost like boyz or guard aren't priced properly.
Flip the script. If some rando can come to the table with Orks and smash face then Orks are in a pretty good place even when people learn to adjust.
And we're not talking small margin wins.
Flip the table? How so? The best ork player isn't even in the top 50. He also isn't a rando as much as the best ork player in the world. your analogy is broken from the start. And I haven't seen orkz smashing faces as of late. Once the smoke settled they are settling in to mid tier as I predicted. Do you have more information to provide that shows them winning lots of games? and if so, how many boyz did they take to keep this on topic in regards to IG being under priced.
The "smoke settled" because we moved into the dead period of the ITC during the Christmas season. Unless every competitive podcast I listen to is 100% wrong they are predicted to be a top-tier codex and something to be feared going into the LVO. Also, you ever think that the top ork codex player isn't higher cause we are at the very end of the ITC season and they just now got their codex?
wait....the new codex that isn't hot garbage won a single GT right after it dropped before competitive players had a chance to learn how to counter the newest codex? Go figure.....almost like we don't have a track record of this exact thing happening repetitively.
How good is the top ranked ork player in ITC? You know, since the codex is great and all, at least according to your metric that they wont a GT. Well turns out its a guy named Richard Kilton who is currently ranked....68th in the world. Ohh and the only GT he was in he placed 3rd, and one of his top 4 games on record was index, not codex. So unarguably the best Ork player in the world is only 68th. Maybe you shouldn't factor in 1 or even a couple tournament results vs the overwhelming data that says otherwise
And what metric do I use? simple, how cheap/cost efficient is the unit. Guardsmen without buffs cost 40pts, fill up a troop slot and do metric fethloads of things better than ork boyz can...and can do everything better than Grotz can do who are 3ppm. T2, S2 WS 5+ 6+ save, so why are grotz 1 point cheaper but Guard are 3pts cheaper than boyz? Almost like boyz or guard aren't priced properly.
Flip the script. If some rando can come to the table with Orks and smash face then Orks are in a pretty good place even when people learn to adjust.
And we're not talking small margin wins.
Flip the table? How so? The best ork player isn't even in the top 50. He also isn't a rando as much as the best ork player in the world. your analogy is broken from the start. And I haven't seen orkz smashing faces as of late. Once the smoke settled they are settling in to mid tier as I predicted. Do you have more information to provide that shows them winning lots of games? and if so, how many boyz did they take to keep this on topic in regards to IG being under priced.
The "smoke settled" because we moved into the dead period of the ITC during the Christmas season. Unless every competitive podcast I listen to is 100% wrong they are predicted to be a top-tier codex and something to be feared going into the LVO. Also, you ever think that the top ork codex player isn't higher cause we are at the very end of the ITC season and they just now got their codex?
Spoiler:
November 2018
Friday Night iTC Fight, San Antonio, TX, November 2nd, 2018
Warhammer 40KRTT: Extra Life Edition, Military Gamer Supply, El Paso, TX, November 3rd, 2018
Kelowna 40k Tournament 2, Quantum Games, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada, November 3-4th, 2018
Mid-MO Maelstrom, Ashland MO, November 3rd, 2018
Cataclysm Clash of Champions, Machesney Park IL, November 3rd, 2018
Fargo Badlands RTT, Fargo, ND, November 3rd, 2018
Armacon: Stavanger Singels Championship 40k 2018, Sola, Norway, November 3rd, 2018
Mugu Games’ November 3rd, 2000 ITC Event “Turkey Time”, Everett, WA, November 3rd, 2018
GT: The Steel City Showdown!, Legions Hobbies and Games, Pittsburgh, PA, November 3-4th, 2018
GT: WH40k: Grand Tournament!, Power 9 Games, North Las Vegas, NV, November 3-4th, 2018
GT: Overwatch Open V 2000pt ITC 40k Event, New South Wales, Australia, November 3-4th, 2018
GT: Scottish Take Over 4 GT, The Seaforth Club, Elgin, United Kingdom, November 3-4th, 2018
Dragon’s Lair 1750 Point40K ITC Tournament, Austin, TX, November 4th, 2018
Tournament of Legends Nov 2018, Legends Comics and Games, San Jose, CA, November 4th, 2018
Warhammer 40k 8th Edition Tournament November, Critical Hit Games Cafe, Liverpool, United Kingdom, November 4th, 2018
ITC 40K Tournament, MJ Cards and Comics, Wasilla, AK, November 10th, 2018
November Warhammer 40k 2k Tournament, Dice N Duels, Fernley, NV, November 10th, 2018
Warhammer 40K Tournament, Recess Games, North Olmsted, OH, November 10th, 2018
40K 8th Edition Scenario Showdown!, Jack’s on Queen, Ontario, Canada, November 10th, 2018
Warhammer 40k ITC Team Tournament, Game Empire Pasadena, Pasadena, CA, November 10th, 2018
Titan Games And Hobbies November RTT, Lutherville-Timonium, MD, November 10th, 2018
Conquest 2018, Comics Compulsion, Christchurch, New Zealand, November 10-11th, 2018
Realm WH40k Q4 ITC Tournament, The Realm Games & Comics, Brea, CA, November 10th, 2018
ITC Warhammer 40k Tournament, Gamer’s Hollow, Nacogdoches, TX, November 11th, 2018
GT: Da Boyz Singles Warhammer 40K Grand Tournament, Henrietta, NY, November 10-11th, 2018
MAJOR: Warzone: Atlanta 2018, Atlanta, GA, November 10-11th, 2018
Da Momma’s Boyz Fall Bash, Moscow, ID, November 10-11th, 2018
LBK Tour 43, Linkoping, Sweden, November 11th, 2018
ITC Warhammer 40K Mid Week, Campbelltown, Australia, November 15th, 2018
Warhammer 40k ITC Tournaments, Paragon City Games, Draper, UT, November 17th, 2018
Warhammer 40k ITC “Champions Missions” Tournament, Green Tower Games, Santa Clarita, CA, November 17th, 2018
Warhammer 40K: Fallen Heroes Event, Campbelltown, Australia, November 17th, 2018
Dicehammer November 40k ITC Tournament, Lake Forest CA, November 17th, 2018
Portal Warhammer 40K 2,000 Point ITC Tournament, Bethlehem PA, November 17th, 2018
Knuckle-Buster Warhammer 40k 2000pts, Legacy Defined Games, Killeen, TX, November 17th, 2018
Slaughterfest 2018, Philomath, OR, November 17th, 2018
Warhammer 40k local 2000point, Dirt Road Comics and Collectibles, Willow Springs, MO, November 17th, 2018
Imps Open 2018, England, United Kingdom, November 17th, 2018
November Bel Air Games 40kRTT, Bel Air, MD, November 17th, 2018
Navigator Challenge V, Goblin Gaming, Northwich, England, November 17th, 2018
7th Annual Turkey Shoot, TC War Room, Traverse City, MI, November 17th, 2018
Renegade BeerHammer, Plymouth, MN, November 17th, 2018
MAJOR: Renegade Open GT, Plymouth, MN, November 17-18th, 2018
GT: There Will Be Blood GT, Imperial Outpost, Glendale, AZ, November 17-18th, 2018
MAJOR: Alliance Open – 40K – Dutch Grand Tournament, Hoofddorp, Netherlands, November 17-18th, 2018
Jolt Games Warhammer 40K ITC Competitive Tournaments, Mitchell, Australian Capital Territory, November 17th, 2018
The Tanksgiving Open by AG 2018, Adventure Games, Dickson City, PA, November 18th, 2018
Battle For Utopia, Modesto CA, November 18th, 2018
November 1650 ITC At The Gobbo, Halton Hills, Ontario, Canada, November 18th, 2018
The War Zone Way, Monthly 40KRTT, Mattoon, IL, November 18th, 2018
Hobbytown Kennesaw 40k Tournament, Kennesaw, GA, November 24th, 2018
Warhammer 40K ITC Monthly event, Tier 1 Cards & Games, Anchorage, AK, November 24th, 2018
HFX Games 40k Nov 2018 Tournament, Dartmouth, NS, November 24th, 2018
Command Zone Games & Hobbies Warhammer 40K Tournament, Hanford, CA, November 24th, 2018
Warhammer 40K ITC Monthly event, Tier 1 Cards & Games, Anchorage, AK, November 24th, 2018
Warhammer 40k @ Silver Dragon Tavern, Miami, FL, November 24th, 2018
Saskatoon ‘Ard Boyz 2018, Saskatoon, Canada, November 24th, 2018
November 24th Geekery 40k Tournament, Shawnee, KS, November 24th, 2018
Critical Fail RTT ITC, Sir Games-A-Lot, Ontario, Canada, November 24th, 2018
Sword and Board Open, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 24th, 2018
Rumble in Romford Nov 2018, Hornchurch Essex, United Kingdom, November 24th, 2018
40K United’s Turkey Tango, Miniature Market Retail Superstore, St. Louis, MO, November 24th, 2018
Gameology 40K ITC Tournament, Gameology, Montclair, CA, November 24th, 2018
MAJOR: Element Games Grand Slam – 40k, Element Games North West Gaming Centre, Stockport, England, November 24-25th, 2018
ITC Warhammer 40K 3 Weekday Tournament, Campbelltown, Australia, November 28th, 2018
December 2018
WH40k: ITC Tournament, Power 9 Games, North Las Vegas, NV, December 1st, 2018
Fat ogre Christmas Tournament, Spring, TX, December 1st, 2018
Grimdark RTT, San Antonio ,TX, December 1st, 2018
SÃO PAULO CLASH – Tournament Of WH40k, Sao Paulo, Brazil, December 1st, 2018
The War College ITC 2k, Aurora, CO, December 1st, 2018
The Gathering Games Warhammer 40k ITC Winter Brawl, The Gathering Games, New Richmond, WI, December 1st, 2018
ITC Warhammer 40K 1 Day Tournament, Campbelltown, Australia, December 1st, 2018
Dicehammer December Doubles 40k ITC Tournament, Lake Forest CA, December 1st, 2018
GT: Allies of Convenience Wales GT, Firestorm Games, Cardiff, Wales, December 1-2nd, 2018
No Surrender 40K, Woolston Club Inc., Christchurch, New Zealand, December 1-2nd, 2018
GT: Nowhere GT: Warhammer 40K, Military Gamer Supply, El Paso, TX, December 1-2nd, 2018
GT: 4th Annual Portal Warhammer 40kGT, The Portal, Manchester, CT, December 1-2nd, 2018
MAJOR: Games of Westeros V (Westeros ITC IX), Västerås, Sweden, December 1-2nd, 2018
Scroogehammer Invitational RTT, Louisville, KY, December 2nd, 2018
The Twisted Road To The LCO, England, December 2nd, 2018
Warhammer 40k 8th Edition Tournament December, Critical Hit Games Cafe, Liverpool United Kingdom, December 2nd, 2018
Big Easy 40k Warhammer Tournament, Covington, LA, December 8th, 2018
Dragons Den ITC Tournament, Dragons Den, Grand Haven, MI, December 8th, 2018
Bourbon Brothers Child’s Play Fundraiser, Louisville, KY, December 8th, 2018
Tate’s Eighth day Of Exterminatus 40kRTT, Lauderhill FL, December 8th, 2018
Bismarck Badlands RTT, Bismarck ND, December 8th, 2018
December 40kRTT, Pittsburgh PA, December 8th, 2018
CWL 40K Open, Sentry Box, Alberta, Canada, December 8th, 2018
The Rudder GT, Alder Security, Orem, UT, December 8-9th, 2018
Athoria December Rtt, Mesa, AZ, December 9th, 2018
LBK Tour 44, Linkoping, Sweden, December 9th, 2018
ITC Warhammer 40K 3 Weekday Tournament, Campbelltown, Australia, December 12th, 2018
Merry Slaaneshmas 2018, Aberdeen, WA, December 15th, 2018
Warhammer 40K Tournament, Recess Games, North Olmsted, OH, December 15th, 2018
Gamehaven Dec RTT, St. George ,UT, December 15th, 2018
Warhammer 40k Champions Missions 2,000pt Tournament, Green Tower Games, Santa Clarita, CA, December 15th, 2018
Guild Gaming RTT December 2018, Woodbridge, VA, December 15th, 2018
Winter Solstice Showdown, The Game Closet, Waco, TX, December 15th, 2018
Warhammer 40,000 ITC 1 Day Tournament, Campbelltown, Australia, December 15th, 2018
40k ITC Tournament, Game Nite, St. Louis, MO, December 15th, 2018
GT: Bel Air Crucible Of Winter GT, Bel Air, MD, December 15-16th, 2018
GT: A Cutthroat Christmas 40kGT, HobbyTown Westminster, CO, December 15-16th, 2018
Christmas 40k Tournament: Tri-Hards Cup, Memory Lane Antique Mall, Gate City, VA, December 15th, 2018
Gamer’s Haven December 40K ITC Tournament, Colton, CA, December 16th, 2018
AG Presents: The Fight Before Christmas 2018, Adventure Games, Dickson City, PA, December 16th, 2018
Fanatix 40k December ITC 2000 Point RTT, Enterprise, AL, December 16th, 2018
Merry Crushmas 40k! Presented By The Imperial Pimps, The Garage: Games & Geekery, British Columbia, Canada, December 16th, 2018
ITC Warhammer 40K 3 Weekday Tournament, Campbelltown, Australia, December 19th, 2018
I’m Not Good Enough For A GT, Fountain, CO, December 22nd, 2018
Tantum est Fortis – Warhammer 40k Tournament, Gam3Escape, Hilo, HI, December 23rd, 2018
ITC Warhammer 40k Winter Tournament Circuit – Tourney Two, The Armchair Adventurer, Honolulu, HI, December 29th, 2018
Command Zone Games & Hobbies Warhammer 40K Tournament, Hanford, CA, December 29th, 2018
ITC Warhammer 40k Winter Tournament Circuit – Tourney Two, Honolulu, HI, December 29th, 2018
Ylva Open III, Gothenburg, Sweden, December 29th, 2018
Warhammer 40k @ Silver Dragon, Miami, FL, December 29th, 2018
2nd Annual Porter Potluck, Oakville, WA, December 29th, 2018
RTT: End Times at the Tower: Warhammer 40k Tournament, Dark Tower Games, Bellingham, WA, December 29th, 2018
ITC Warhammer 40K Weekend Tournament, Campbelltown, Australia, December 29th, 2018
End of year celebration, Dirt Road Comics and Collectibles, Willow Springs, MO, December 29th, 2018
Westeros ITC RTT #4, Vasteras, Sweden, December 30th, 2018
That is a fair amount of tournaments in November alone, let alone December But that is a fair point. But again, the best ork player in the game has better Index ratings than Codex
The "smoke settled" because we moved into the dead period of the ITC during the Christmas season. Unless every competitive podcast I listen to is 100% wrong they are predicted to be a top-tier codex and something to be feared going into the LVO. Also, you ever think that the top ork codex player isn't higher cause we are at the very end of the ITC season and they just now got their codex?
Off topic, we're discussing the strengths of GUARDSMEN not Orks but rest assured the strength of the Ork codex is not down to under priced troop options.
Throwing around 'B b b but Orks won a GT!!!11' is not a defence of the cost of Guardsmen. How many GTs have primary Guard lists won? A few more than 1 I suspect.
The "smoke settled" because we moved into the dead period of the ITC during the Christmas season. Unless every competitive podcast I listen to is 100% wrong they are predicted to be a top-tier codex and something to be feared going into the LVO. Also, you ever think that the top ork codex player isn't higher cause we are at the very end of the ITC season and they just now got their codex?
Off topic, we're discussing the strengths of GUARDSMEN not Orks but rest assured the strength of the Ork codex is not down to under priced troop options.
Throwing around 'B b b but Orks won a GT!!!11' is not a defence of the cost of Guardsmen. How many GTs have primary Guard lists won? A few more than 1 I suspect.
7ppm Boyz Vs 4ppm Guardsmen explains in a nutshell why Guard are under priced...or conversely why boyz are severely over priced
I am more of the mind that Guardsmen should be 5ppm and Boyz should be 6ppm.
wait....the new codex that isn't hot garbage won a single GT right after it dropped before competitive players had a chance to learn how to counter the newest codex? Go figure.....almost like we don't have a track record of this exact thing happening repetitively.
How good is the top ranked ork player in ITC? You know, since the codex is great and all, at least according to your metric that they wont a GT. Well turns out its a guy named Richard Kilton who is currently ranked....68th in the world. Ohh and the only GT he was in he placed 3rd, and one of his top 4 games on record was index, not codex. So unarguably the best Ork player in the world is only 68th. Maybe you shouldn't factor in 1 or even a couple tournament results vs the overwhelming data that says otherwise
And what metric do I use? simple, how cheap/cost efficient is the unit. Guardsmen without buffs cost 40pts, fill up a troop slot and do metric fethloads of things better than ork boyz can...and can do everything better than Grotz can do who are 3ppm. T2, S2 WS 5+ 6+ save, so why are grotz 1 point cheaper but Guard are 3pts cheaper than boyz? Almost like boyz or guard aren't priced properly.
Flip the script. If some rando can come to the table with Orks and smash face then Orks are in a pretty good place even when people learn to adjust.
And we're not talking small margin wins.
Flip the table? How so? The best ork player isn't even in the top 50. He also isn't a rando as much as the best ork player in the world. your analogy is broken from the start. And I haven't seen orkz smashing faces as of late. Once the smoke settled they are settling in to mid tier as I predicted. Do you have more information to provide that shows them winning lots of games? and if so, how many boyz did they take to keep this on topic in regards to IG being under priced.
The "smoke settled" because we moved into the dead period of the ITC during the Christmas season. Unless every competitive podcast I listen to is 100% wrong they are predicted to be a top-tier codex and something to be feared going into the LVO. Also, you ever think that the top ork codex player isn't higher cause we are at the very end of the ITC season and they just now got their codex?
Spoiler:
November 2018
Friday Night iTC Fight, San Antonio, TX, November 2nd, 2018
Warhammer 40KRTT: Extra Life Edition, Military Gamer Supply, El Paso, TX, November 3rd, 2018
Kelowna 40k Tournament 2, Quantum Games, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada, November 3-4th, 2018
Mid-MO Maelstrom, Ashland MO, November 3rd, 2018
Cataclysm Clash of Champions, Machesney Park IL, November 3rd, 2018
Fargo Badlands RTT, Fargo, ND, November 3rd, 2018
Armacon: Stavanger Singels Championship 40k 2018, Sola, Norway, November 3rd, 2018
Mugu Games’ November 3rd, 2000 ITC Event “Turkey Time”, Everett, WA, November 3rd, 2018
GT: The Steel City Showdown!, Legions Hobbies and Games, Pittsburgh, PA, November 3-4th, 2018
GT: WH40k: Grand Tournament!, Power 9 Games, North Las Vegas, NV, November 3-4th, 2018
GT: Overwatch Open V 2000pt ITC 40k Event, New South Wales, Australia, November 3-4th, 2018
GT: Scottish Take Over 4 GT, The Seaforth Club, Elgin, United Kingdom, November 3-4th, 2018
Dragon’s Lair 1750 Point40K ITC Tournament, Austin, TX, November 4th, 2018
Tournament of Legends Nov 2018, Legends Comics and Games, San Jose, CA, November 4th, 2018
Warhammer 40k 8th Edition Tournament November, Critical Hit Games Cafe, Liverpool, United Kingdom, November 4th, 2018
ITC 40K Tournament, MJ Cards and Comics, Wasilla, AK, November 10th, 2018
November Warhammer 40k 2k Tournament, Dice N Duels, Fernley, NV, November 10th, 2018
Warhammer 40K Tournament, Recess Games, North Olmsted, OH, November 10th, 2018
40K 8th Edition Scenario Showdown!, Jack’s on Queen, Ontario, Canada, November 10th, 2018
Warhammer 40k ITC Team Tournament, Game Empire Pasadena, Pasadena, CA, November 10th, 2018
Titan Games And Hobbies November RTT, Lutherville-Timonium, MD, November 10th, 2018
Conquest 2018, Comics Compulsion, Christchurch, New Zealand, November 10-11th, 2018
Realm WH40k Q4 ITC Tournament, The Realm Games & Comics, Brea, CA, November 10th, 2018
ITC Warhammer 40k Tournament, Gamer’s Hollow, Nacogdoches, TX, November 11th, 2018
GT: Da Boyz Singles Warhammer 40K Grand Tournament, Henrietta, NY, November 10-11th, 2018
MAJOR: Warzone: Atlanta 2018, Atlanta, GA, November 10-11th, 2018
Da Momma’s Boyz Fall Bash, Moscow, ID, November 10-11th, 2018
LBK Tour 43, Linkoping, Sweden, November 11th, 2018
ITC Warhammer 40K Mid Week, Campbelltown, Australia, November 15th, 2018
Warhammer 40k ITC Tournaments, Paragon City Games, Draper, UT, November 17th, 2018
Warhammer 40k ITC “Champions Missions” Tournament, Green Tower Games, Santa Clarita, CA, November 17th, 2018
Warhammer 40K: Fallen Heroes Event, Campbelltown, Australia, November 17th, 2018
Dicehammer November 40k ITC Tournament, Lake Forest CA, November 17th, 2018
Portal Warhammer 40K 2,000 Point ITC Tournament, Bethlehem PA, November 17th, 2018
Knuckle-Buster Warhammer 40k 2000pts, Legacy Defined Games, Killeen, TX, November 17th, 2018
Slaughterfest 2018, Philomath, OR, November 17th, 2018
Warhammer 40k local 2000point, Dirt Road Comics and Collectibles, Willow Springs, MO, November 17th, 2018
Imps Open 2018, England, United Kingdom, November 17th, 2018
November Bel Air Games 40kRTT, Bel Air, MD, November 17th, 2018
Navigator Challenge V, Goblin Gaming, Northwich, England, November 17th, 2018
7th Annual Turkey Shoot, TC War Room, Traverse City, MI, November 17th, 2018
Renegade BeerHammer, Plymouth, MN, November 17th, 2018
MAJOR: Renegade Open GT, Plymouth, MN, November 17-18th, 2018
GT: There Will Be Blood GT, Imperial Outpost, Glendale, AZ, November 17-18th, 2018
MAJOR: Alliance Open – 40K – Dutch Grand Tournament, Hoofddorp, Netherlands, November 17-18th, 2018
Jolt Games Warhammer 40K ITC Competitive Tournaments, Mitchell, Australian Capital Territory, November 17th, 2018
The Tanksgiving Open by AG 2018, Adventure Games, Dickson City, PA, November 18th, 2018
Battle For Utopia, Modesto CA, November 18th, 2018
November 1650 ITC At The Gobbo, Halton Hills, Ontario, Canada, November 18th, 2018
The War Zone Way, Monthly 40KRTT, Mattoon, IL, November 18th, 2018
Hobbytown Kennesaw 40k Tournament, Kennesaw, GA, November 24th, 2018
Warhammer 40K ITC Monthly event, Tier 1 Cards & Games, Anchorage, AK, November 24th, 2018
HFX Games 40k Nov 2018 Tournament, Dartmouth, NS, November 24th, 2018
Command Zone Games & Hobbies Warhammer 40K Tournament, Hanford, CA, November 24th, 2018
Warhammer 40K ITC Monthly event, Tier 1 Cards & Games, Anchorage, AK, November 24th, 2018
Warhammer 40k @ Silver Dragon Tavern, Miami, FL, November 24th, 2018
Saskatoon ‘Ard Boyz 2018, Saskatoon, Canada, November 24th, 2018
November 24th Geekery 40k Tournament, Shawnee, KS, November 24th, 2018
Critical Fail RTT ITC, Sir Games-A-Lot, Ontario, Canada, November 24th, 2018
Sword and Board Open, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November 24th, 2018
Rumble in Romford Nov 2018, Hornchurch Essex, United Kingdom, November 24th, 2018
40K United’s Turkey Tango, Miniature Market Retail Superstore, St. Louis, MO, November 24th, 2018
Gameology 40K ITC Tournament, Gameology, Montclair, CA, November 24th, 2018
MAJOR: Element Games Grand Slam – 40k, Element Games North West Gaming Centre, Stockport, England, November 24-25th, 2018
ITC Warhammer 40K 3 Weekday Tournament, Campbelltown, Australia, November 28th, 2018
December 2018
WH40k: ITC Tournament, Power 9 Games, North Las Vegas, NV, December 1st, 2018
Fat ogre Christmas Tournament, Spring, TX, December 1st, 2018
Grimdark RTT, San Antonio ,TX, December 1st, 2018
SÃO PAULO CLASH – Tournament Of WH40k, Sao Paulo, Brazil, December 1st, 2018
The War College ITC 2k, Aurora, CO, December 1st, 2018
The Gathering Games Warhammer 40k ITC Winter Brawl, The Gathering Games, New Richmond, WI, December 1st, 2018
ITC Warhammer 40K 1 Day Tournament, Campbelltown, Australia, December 1st, 2018
Dicehammer December Doubles 40k ITC Tournament, Lake Forest CA, December 1st, 2018
GT: Allies of Convenience Wales GT, Firestorm Games, Cardiff, Wales, December 1-2nd, 2018
No Surrender 40K, Woolston Club Inc., Christchurch, New Zealand, December 1-2nd, 2018
GT: Nowhere GT: Warhammer 40K, Military Gamer Supply, El Paso, TX, December 1-2nd, 2018
GT: 4th Annual Portal Warhammer 40kGT, The Portal, Manchester, CT, December 1-2nd, 2018
MAJOR: Games of Westeros V (Westeros ITC IX), Västerås, Sweden, December 1-2nd, 2018
Scroogehammer Invitational RTT, Louisville, KY, December 2nd, 2018
The Twisted Road To The LCO, England, December 2nd, 2018
Warhammer 40k 8th Edition Tournament December, Critical Hit Games Cafe, Liverpool United Kingdom, December 2nd, 2018
Big Easy 40k Warhammer Tournament, Covington, LA, December 8th, 2018
Dragons Den ITC Tournament, Dragons Den, Grand Haven, MI, December 8th, 2018
Bourbon Brothers Child’s Play Fundraiser, Louisville, KY, December 8th, 2018
Tate’s Eighth day Of Exterminatus 40kRTT, Lauderhill FL, December 8th, 2018
Bismarck Badlands RTT, Bismarck ND, December 8th, 2018
December 40kRTT, Pittsburgh PA, December 8th, 2018
CWL 40K Open, Sentry Box, Alberta, Canada, December 8th, 2018
The Rudder GT, Alder Security, Orem, UT, December 8-9th, 2018
Athoria December Rtt, Mesa, AZ, December 9th, 2018
LBK Tour 44, Linkoping, Sweden, December 9th, 2018
ITC Warhammer 40K 3 Weekday Tournament, Campbelltown, Australia, December 12th, 2018
Merry Slaaneshmas 2018, Aberdeen, WA, December 15th, 2018
Warhammer 40K Tournament, Recess Games, North Olmsted, OH, December 15th, 2018
Gamehaven Dec RTT, St. George ,UT, December 15th, 2018
Warhammer 40k Champions Missions 2,000pt Tournament, Green Tower Games, Santa Clarita, CA, December 15th, 2018
Guild Gaming RTT December 2018, Woodbridge, VA, December 15th, 2018
Winter Solstice Showdown, The Game Closet, Waco, TX, December 15th, 2018
Warhammer 40,000 ITC 1 Day Tournament, Campbelltown, Australia, December 15th, 2018
40k ITC Tournament, Game Nite, St. Louis, MO, December 15th, 2018
GT: Bel Air Crucible Of Winter GT, Bel Air, MD, December 15-16th, 2018
GT: A Cutthroat Christmas 40kGT, HobbyTown Westminster, CO, December 15-16th, 2018
Christmas 40k Tournament: Tri-Hards Cup, Memory Lane Antique Mall, Gate City, VA, December 15th, 2018
Gamer’s Haven December 40K ITC Tournament, Colton, CA, December 16th, 2018
AG Presents: The Fight Before Christmas 2018, Adventure Games, Dickson City, PA, December 16th, 2018
Fanatix 40k December ITC 2000 Point RTT, Enterprise, AL, December 16th, 2018
Merry Crushmas 40k! Presented By The Imperial Pimps, The Garage: Games & Geekery, British Columbia, Canada, December 16th, 2018
ITC Warhammer 40K 3 Weekday Tournament, Campbelltown, Australia, December 19th, 2018
I’m Not Good Enough For A GT, Fountain, CO, December 22nd, 2018
Tantum est Fortis – Warhammer 40k Tournament, Gam3Escape, Hilo, HI, December 23rd, 2018
ITC Warhammer 40k Winter Tournament Circuit – Tourney Two, The Armchair Adventurer, Honolulu, HI, December 29th, 2018
Command Zone Games & Hobbies Warhammer 40K Tournament, Hanford, CA, December 29th, 2018
ITC Warhammer 40k Winter Tournament Circuit – Tourney Two, Honolulu, HI, December 29th, 2018
Ylva Open III, Gothenburg, Sweden, December 29th, 2018
Warhammer 40k @ Silver Dragon, Miami, FL, December 29th, 2018
2nd Annual Porter Potluck, Oakville, WA, December 29th, 2018
RTT: End Times at the Tower: Warhammer 40k Tournament, Dark Tower Games, Bellingham, WA, December 29th, 2018
ITC Warhammer 40K Weekend Tournament, Campbelltown, Australia, December 29th, 2018
End of year celebration, Dirt Road Comics and Collectibles, Willow Springs, MO, December 29th, 2018
Westeros ITC RTT #4, Vasteras, Sweden, December 30th, 2018
That is a fair amount of tournaments in November alone, let alone December But that is a fair point. But again, the best ork player in the game has better Index ratings than Codex
Yeah unless he's planning on going every weekend to an event both months and being in multiple places at once its really no too many . We will see but i really think they are going to be good and all indicators are pointing to them being very competative so far.
HWS aren't seen? When half the reason the rule of 3 exists is because people were taking 15+ mortar teams in their lists?
There's lots of reasons for the rule of 3, who knows what the specifics in GW's minds were. That said; two points. First, HWS's are, much like basic guardsmen, fundamentally intended to be spammed. They're cheap and small and are the only concentrated source of heavy weapons not stuck to a tank. Last time you could take them as an HS choice on their own it used to have to be in a heavy weapons platoon. Second, with respect to 8E, how often do we see them as anything but detachment fillers, and how often do we see them with arguably very cost effective weapons like autocannons or lascannon? Almost never.
Special weapons squads and veteran squads aren't seen because their job is done better by Command Squads and Scions who have the same special weapons access but get deep strike/don't have to take lasgun bodies.
When there is a unit that is strong to decent, but there exists a 100% better version that uses the same models, you'll basicaly never see that unit no matter how good they might be.
1 for 1 they absolutely are better, no question, but a large contention in this thread has been over cost effectiveness.
Lets go back to the earlier Guard vs Sisters example and look at killing power per squad against Marines. We'll assume no Doctrines for now.
Looking at an Infantry Squad with a mortar, PG, and PP, and FRFSRF for 57pts we inflict 2.66 wounds, or 21.43pts per wound output per turn.
SWS w/3 Plasmas is 45pts.
With FRFSRF on lasguns and 3 PG's, that unit is inflicting killing 2.75 Marines a turn, or about 16.36pts per wound output per turn.
A command squad with 4 plasma guns is 68pts
FRFSRF doesn't apply, so it's just the 4 BS3+ PG's, so this unit is killing 3.7 Marines per turn, or about 18.38pts per wound output per turn.
Veterans with 3 plasma guns and a PP cost 88pts
With FRFSRF they're inflicting 5.01 marine wounds a turn, or 17.56pts per wound output per turn.
A min sized Stormtrooper squad with 2 PG's and a PP costs 72pts. (These guys have DS so that's a factor that isn't accounted for here but does explain their popular effectiveness otherwise)
With FRFSRF on 2 hotshot lasguns and 5 PG shots, that unit is killing 3.5 Marines per turn, or about 20.57pts per wound output per turn.
The Special Weapons Squad is, mathematically, the most cost effective unit in this evaluation in terms of damage output, the Infantry Squad being almost a full third more expensive per wound generated. The SWS has the lowest absolute damage output aside from the IS, but offers the biggest bang for your buck, and are clearly more resilient than the command squads and arent too far behind the Stormtroopers, yet, we rarely ever see them, even just to fill small points gaps really.
On that note...I honestly cant recall seeing a command squad in any list in recent history either.
So, we have a grip of units that are roughly as cost effective as Infantry Squads, definitively moreso in an offensive context, that nobody uses. All of them are relatively cost effective, but we really only see a couple of these units ever. There should be plenty of room in any large IG army for them with the rule of 3 in play, we should see horde IG armies showing up and doing well at large events, but largely dont. Why then is the focus on Infantry Squads and their ubiquitousness then?
Because they're the one that fills out detachments for CP
So just to be clear your 57pt infantry squad kills 34.58 poiny of marine's or 61% in a single round of shooting.
Thats rediculous returns for a base infanty unit.
What you haven't taken into consideration in that maths is how many casualties dies it take to half the units fire power?
Why, in a post where you say "it's not cheaper, by 35 points" presumably referring to the 180 point Guard Battalion and the 215 point sisters battalion, do you give the guard squads a plasma gun and a mortar each and the sisters squads two meltas and a plasma?
None of those things are in the minimum detachments. You're also looking here at 332 points of sisters versus 222 points of guardsmen...and the guardsmen still do more damage, lol.
You have to resort to "versus marines, in a detachment entirely unlike the detachments we're actually talking about, within 12", and with 100 more points, guardsmen only do very slightly more damage" to try and muddy the waters at this point.
Please, keep going, I'm having a wonderful time. Next analyze 600 points of fire warriors vs 180 points of guardsmen at 25" range to prove why fire warriors are better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The minimum sisters of battle detachment is 35 points more, which is 210 points of sisters with BOLTGUNS, not special weapons.
They do less than half as much damage against all targets, at all ranges. They move half as much. They die at a faster rate to all weapons, from lasguns on up. They have half the footprint on the table.
They have one, and exactly one, redeeming feature, which you mentioned: DTW attempts. Imperial Guard can add DTW attempts at 25pts per, if they want them.
Those weapons aren't in the minimum detachment. But that's not what people here have generally asked when talking about those. Sorry I didn't post a phonebook of all the various ways you can point out each detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: Also...wait...the math is just wrong here. He's got the mortar and laspistol numbers from 3 squads of guardsmen, the lasgun numbers are for 4.5 squads of guardsmen, and the plasma gun numbers are for 4 squads of guardsmen.
I think this is all just made up. The sisters are also doing 25% more damage with their plasma than they should be, 25% more with their melta, half as much with their bolters...
Yeah this is all just a fantasy.
Nope, three plasma guns for the guard, and the lasguns are FRF'ing. Keep in mind that the mortar teams have a lasgun each.
I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.
So why it is always the Guard and not other factions that can also generate CP cheaply such as SoB or Ad Mech?
Flexibility.
You need them to do more damage? FRFSRF.
You need them to run and gun? FftE.
You need them to fallback and shoot? GBitF.
You need them to be on an objective faster than a bike could be? MMM.
You need them to fight twice? FB.
You want a unit of Catachans to move, shoot with FRFSRF, charge, and then fight twice? You can do that.
You want to put more orders on? Consolidate squads.
You need them to have a 4+ save? Easy.
You want to toss 10 frag grenades with reroll 1s to wound? Sure.
And that doesn't really scratch all that you can do as most people ignore anything outside Cadian and Catachan.
Want to point out that guard aren't fighting twice in the same turn as all the rest, at least not with orders.
Asmodios wrote: I'm telling you if you if a couple of guys in this thread pooled their money each painted 25 guardsmen and sent one of you to the LVO you would be guaranteed the big cash prize. None of these "top 40k" players has yet to discover the overwhelming OP fire the guardsmen blob would bring
Ah, the old 'I don't have an answer to the concerns raised so let's make up ridiculous strawman arguments' technique. A classic.
I've given plenty of answers but apparently, guardsmen are the end all be all of the game so i say they should go clean up tournament after tournament winning all the prizes until gw fixes them. Clearly, you all know more than the top tournament players and I wanna see my fellow dakka members make out like bandits so have at it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trickstick wrote: If by "guaranteed the big cash prize" you mean "run out of time every game and lose", sure. The reason you don't see mass infantry is because it is extremely difficult to play a 2k infantry list within a reasonable amount of time.
plenty of top players have played over 250 model count hoards with time to spare listen to some of the long war podcasts when he talks about playing his cultist spam. If he can do it with cultists they can do it with guardsmen. Also all those spam conscript lists used just as many models
Yeah, this doesn't address why we were seeing cultist and termagant 200+ model spam and not guard. They both have the same exact limitations yet guard has never been effectively taken (except for when conscripts were broken)
Yes, it does, because we're not seeing 200 cultists or gants. 80 or 120 tops for cultists. It's also much simpler to manipulate 3 units than 20 units plus commanders.
There's been plenty of spam cultist and gants lists do incredibly well this edition. even popular 40k talking heads like TLWs kenny was made because his 200 cultist list wouldn't be as effective. Yet (other then conscripts at the beginning of 8th) nobody has taken guardsmen to the same effect
Dude. Diminishing returns. You can't easily get 200 models with 24" gun in range of everything you want dead right now, but you can if it's 80 or 100 while still profiting from the dynamic and having strong back field support.
There have been not 200 model lists on top table since 2017.
LVO - the #2 list had Straken, 100 Catachans, 9 mortars, and enough other units to fill out a battalion.
wait hold on..... are you saying that math hammer has some kind of limitation like spacing, terrain, position issues, ect and that it cant be the only metric used to evaluate a units effectiness on the board?
You've given no answers that make any sense and please stop strawmanning.
No one believes Guard to be the best unit bar none. They are the best troop though and this can be evidenced.
Your desperation to defend their current points cost is a classic case of 'I don't want my toys to be made worse-itus'. Unfortunately its good for the game and needs to happen. Other units that are performing far too well will also need to be adjusted.[/quote
Actually, his posts make quite a bit of sense. Which is why I'm guessing you're accusing him of strawmanning. None of us are defending the current points. We're also not saying guard aren't a powerful choice. Only that it's not the doom and gloom you're making it sound like.
Why, in a post where you say "it's not cheaper, by 35 points" presumably referring to the 180 point Guard Battalion and the 215 point sisters battalion, do you give the guard squads a plasma gun and a mortar each and the sisters squads two meltas and a plasma?
None of those things are in the minimum detachments. You're also looking here at 332 points of sisters versus 222 points of guardsmen...and the guardsmen still do more damage, lol.
You have to resort to "versus marines, in a detachment entirely unlike the detachments we're actually talking about, within 12", and with 100 more points, guardsmen only do very slightly more damage" to try and muddy the waters at this point.
Please, keep going, I'm having a wonderful time. Next analyze 600 points of fire warriors vs 180 points of guardsmen at 25" range to prove why fire warriors are better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The minimum sisters of battle detachment is 35 points more, which is 210 points of sisters with BOLTGUNS, not special weapons.
They do less than half as much damage against all targets, at all ranges. They move half as much. They die at a faster rate to all weapons, from lasguns on up. They have half the footprint on the table.
They have one, and exactly one, redeeming feature, which you mentioned: DTW attempts. Imperial Guard can add DTW attempts at 25pts per, if they want them.
Those weapons aren't in the minimum detachment. But that's not what people here have generally asked when talking about those. Sorry I didn't post a phonebook of all the various ways you can point out each detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: Also...wait...the math is just wrong here. He's got the mortar and laspistol numbers from 3 squads of guardsmen, the lasgun numbers are for 4.5 squads of guardsmen, and the plasma gun numbers are for 4 squads of guardsmen.
I think this is all just made up. The sisters are also doing 25% more damage with their plasma than they should be, 25% more with their melta, half as much with their bolters...
Yeah this is all just a fantasy.
Nope, three plasma guns for the guard, and the lasguns are FRF'ing. Keep in mind that the mortar teams have a lasgun each.
I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.
So why it is always the Guard and not other factions that can also generate CP cheaply such as SoB or Ad Mech?
Flexibility.
You need them to do more damage? FRFSRF.
You need them to run and gun? FftE.
You need them to fallback and shoot? GBitF.
You need them to be on an objective faster than a bike could be? MMM.
You need them to fight twice? FB.
You want a unit of Catachans to move, shoot with FRFSRF, charge, and then fight twice? You can do that.
You want to put more orders on? Consolidate squads.
You need them to have a 4+ save? Easy.
You want to toss 10 frag grenades with reroll 1s to wound? Sure.
And that doesn't really scratch all that you can do as most people ignore anything outside Cadian and Catachan.
Want to point out that guard aren't fighting twice in the same turn as all the rest, at least not with orders.
Asmodios wrote: I'm telling you if you if a couple of guys in this thread pooled their money each painted 25 guardsmen and sent one of you to the LVO you would be guaranteed the big cash prize. None of these "top 40k" players has yet to discover the overwhelming OP fire the guardsmen blob would bring
Ah, the old 'I don't have an answer to the concerns raised so let's make up ridiculous strawman arguments' technique. A classic.
I've given plenty of answers but apparently, guardsmen are the end all be all of the game so i say they should go clean up tournament after tournament winning all the prizes until gw fixes them. Clearly, you all know more than the top tournament players and I wanna see my fellow dakka members make out like bandits so have at it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trickstick wrote: If by "guaranteed the big cash prize" you mean "run out of time every game and lose", sure. The reason you don't see mass infantry is because it is extremely difficult to play a 2k infantry list within a reasonable amount of time.
plenty of top players have played over 250 model count hoards with time to spare listen to some of the long war podcasts when he talks about playing his cultist spam. If he can do it with cultists they can do it with guardsmen. Also all those spam conscript lists used just as many models
Yeah, this doesn't address why we were seeing cultist and termagant 200+ model spam and not guard. They both have the same exact limitations yet guard has never been effectively taken (except for when conscripts were broken)
Yes, it does, because we're not seeing 200 cultists or gants. 80 or 120 tops for cultists. It's also much simpler to manipulate 3 units than 20 units plus commanders.
There's been plenty of spam cultist and gants lists do incredibly well this edition. even popular 40k talking heads like TLWs kenny was made because his 200 cultist list wouldn't be as effective. Yet (other then conscripts at the beginning of 8th) nobody has taken guardsmen to the same effect
Dude. Diminishing returns. You can't easily get 200 models with 24" gun in range of everything you want dead right now, but you can if it's 80 or 100 while still profiting from the dynamic and having strong back field support.
There have been not 200 model lists on top table since 2017.
LVO - the #2 list had Straken, 100 Catachans, 9 mortars, and enough other units to fill out a battalion.
wait hold on..... are you saying that math hammer has some kind of limitation like spacing, terrain, position issues, ect and that it cant be the only metric used to evaluate a units effectiness on the board?
You've given no answers that make any sense and please stop strawmanning.
No one believes Guard to be the best unit bar none. They are the best troop though and this can be evidenced.
Your desperation to defend their current points cost is a classic case of 'I don't want my toys to be made worse-itus'. Unfortunately its good for the game and needs to happen. Other units that are performing far too well will also need to be adjusted.
Actually, his posts make quite a bit of sense. Which is why I'm guessing you're accusing him of strawmanning. None of us are defending the current points. We're also not saying guard aren't a powerful choice. Only that it's not the doom and gloom you're making it sound like.
So your willing to admit that they should have be made a minimum of 5ppm in CA 2018 then?
Why, in a post where you say "it's not cheaper, by 35 points" presumably referring to the 180 point Guard Battalion and the 215 point sisters battalion, do you give the guard squads a plasma gun and a mortar each and the sisters squads two meltas and a plasma?
None of those things are in the minimum detachments. You're also looking here at 332 points of sisters versus 222 points of guardsmen...and the guardsmen still do more damage, lol.
You have to resort to "versus marines, in a detachment entirely unlike the detachments we're actually talking about, within 12", and with 100 more points, guardsmen only do very slightly more damage" to try and muddy the waters at this point.
Please, keep going, I'm having a wonderful time. Next analyze 600 points of fire warriors vs 180 points of guardsmen at 25" range to prove why fire warriors are better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The minimum sisters of battle detachment is 35 points more, which is 210 points of sisters with BOLTGUNS, not special weapons.
They do less than half as much damage against all targets, at all ranges. They move half as much. They die at a faster rate to all weapons, from lasguns on up. They have half the footprint on the table.
They have one, and exactly one, redeeming feature, which you mentioned: DTW attempts. Imperial Guard can add DTW attempts at 25pts per, if they want them.
Those weapons aren't in the minimum detachment. But that's not what people here have generally asked when talking about those. Sorry I didn't post a phonebook of all the various ways you can point out each detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: Also...wait...the math is just wrong here. He's got the mortar and laspistol numbers from 3 squads of guardsmen, the lasgun numbers are for 4.5 squads of guardsmen, and the plasma gun numbers are for 4 squads of guardsmen.
I think this is all just made up. The sisters are also doing 25% more damage with their plasma than they should be, 25% more with their melta, half as much with their bolters...
Yeah this is all just a fantasy.
Nope, three plasma guns for the guard, and the lasguns are FRF'ing. Keep in mind that the mortar teams have a lasgun each.
I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.
So why it is always the Guard and not other factions that can also generate CP cheaply such as SoB or Ad Mech?
Flexibility.
You need them to do more damage? FRFSRF.
You need them to run and gun? FftE.
You need them to fallback and shoot? GBitF.
You need them to be on an objective faster than a bike could be? MMM.
You need them to fight twice? FB.
You want a unit of Catachans to move, shoot with FRFSRF, charge, and then fight twice? You can do that.
You want to put more orders on? Consolidate squads.
You need them to have a 4+ save? Easy.
You want to toss 10 frag grenades with reroll 1s to wound? Sure.
And that doesn't really scratch all that you can do as most people ignore anything outside Cadian and Catachan.
Want to point out that guard aren't fighting twice in the same turn as all the rest, at least not with orders.
Asmodios wrote: I'm telling you if you if a couple of guys in this thread pooled their money each painted 25 guardsmen and sent one of you to the LVO you would be guaranteed the big cash prize. None of these "top 40k" players has yet to discover the overwhelming OP fire the guardsmen blob would bring
Ah, the old 'I don't have an answer to the concerns raised so let's make up ridiculous strawman arguments' technique. A classic.
I've given plenty of answers but apparently, guardsmen are the end all be all of the game so i say they should go clean up tournament after tournament winning all the prizes until gw fixes them. Clearly, you all know more than the top tournament players and I wanna see my fellow dakka members make out like bandits so have at it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trickstick wrote: If by "guaranteed the big cash prize" you mean "run out of time every game and lose", sure. The reason you don't see mass infantry is because it is extremely difficult to play a 2k infantry list within a reasonable amount of time.
plenty of top players have played over 250 model count hoards with time to spare listen to some of the long war podcasts when he talks about playing his cultist spam. If he can do it with cultists they can do it with guardsmen. Also all those spam conscript lists used just as many models
Yeah, this doesn't address why we were seeing cultist and termagant 200+ model spam and not guard. They both have the same exact limitations yet guard has never been effectively taken (except for when conscripts were broken)
Yes, it does, because we're not seeing 200 cultists or gants. 80 or 120 tops for cultists. It's also much simpler to manipulate 3 units than 20 units plus commanders.
There's been plenty of spam cultist and gants lists do incredibly well this edition. even popular 40k talking heads like TLWs kenny was made because his 200 cultist list wouldn't be as effective. Yet (other then conscripts at the beginning of 8th) nobody has taken guardsmen to the same effect
Dude. Diminishing returns. You can't easily get 200 models with 24" gun in range of everything you want dead right now, but you can if it's 80 or 100 while still profiting from the dynamic and having strong back field support.
There have been not 200 model lists on top table since 2017.
LVO - the #2 list had Straken, 100 Catachans, 9 mortars, and enough other units to fill out a battalion.
wait hold on..... are you saying that math hammer has some kind of limitation like spacing, terrain, position issues, ect and that it cant be the only metric used to evaluate a units effectiness on the board?
You've given no answers that make any sense and please stop strawmanning.
No one believes Guard to be the best unit bar none. They are the best troop though and this can be evidenced.
Your desperation to defend their current points cost is a classic case of 'I don't want my toys to be made worse-itus'. Unfortunately its good for the game and needs to happen. Other units that are performing far too well will also need to be adjusted.
Actually, his posts make quite a bit of sense. Which is why I'm guessing you're accusing him of strawmanning. None of us are defending the current points. We're also not saying guard aren't a powerful choice. Only that it's not the doom and gloom you're making it sound like.
So your willing to admit that they should have be made a minimum of 5ppm in CA 2018 then?
I don’t quite think that is what he is saying in this post. I think you are being overly-uppity (not regular uppity, as people could reasonably be, but overly-uppity).
Why, in a post where you say "it's not cheaper, by 35 points" presumably referring to the 180 point Guard Battalion and the 215 point sisters battalion, do you give the guard squads a plasma gun and a mortar each and the sisters squads two meltas and a plasma?
None of those things are in the minimum detachments. You're also looking here at 332 points of sisters versus 222 points of guardsmen...and the guardsmen still do more damage, lol.
You have to resort to "versus marines, in a detachment entirely unlike the detachments we're actually talking about, within 12", and with 100 more points, guardsmen only do very slightly more damage" to try and muddy the waters at this point.
Please, keep going, I'm having a wonderful time. Next analyze 600 points of fire warriors vs 180 points of guardsmen at 25" range to prove why fire warriors are better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The minimum sisters of battle detachment is 35 points more, which is 210 points of sisters with BOLTGUNS, not special weapons.
They do less than half as much damage against all targets, at all ranges. They move half as much. They die at a faster rate to all weapons, from lasguns on up. They have half the footprint on the table.
They have one, and exactly one, redeeming feature, which you mentioned: DTW attempts. Imperial Guard can add DTW attempts at 25pts per, if they want them.
Those weapons aren't in the minimum detachment. But that's not what people here have generally asked when talking about those. Sorry I didn't post a phonebook of all the various ways you can point out each detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: Also...wait...the math is just wrong here. He's got the mortar and laspistol numbers from 3 squads of guardsmen, the lasgun numbers are for 4.5 squads of guardsmen, and the plasma gun numbers are for 4 squads of guardsmen.
I think this is all just made up. The sisters are also doing 25% more damage with their plasma than they should be, 25% more with their melta, half as much with their bolters...
Yeah this is all just a fantasy.
Nope, three plasma guns for the guard, and the lasguns are FRF'ing. Keep in mind that the mortar teams have a lasgun each.
I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.
So why it is always the Guard and not other factions that can also generate CP cheaply such as SoB or Ad Mech?
Flexibility.
You need them to do more damage? FRFSRF.
You need them to run and gun? FftE.
You need them to fallback and shoot? GBitF.
You need them to be on an objective faster than a bike could be? MMM.
You need them to fight twice? FB.
You want a unit of Catachans to move, shoot with FRFSRF, charge, and then fight twice? You can do that.
You want to put more orders on? Consolidate squads.
You need them to have a 4+ save? Easy.
You want to toss 10 frag grenades with reroll 1s to wound? Sure.
And that doesn't really scratch all that you can do as most people ignore anything outside Cadian and Catachan.
Want to point out that guard aren't fighting twice in the same turn as all the rest, at least not with orders.
Asmodios wrote: I'm telling you if you if a couple of guys in this thread pooled their money each painted 25 guardsmen and sent one of you to the LVO you would be guaranteed the big cash prize. None of these "top 40k" players has yet to discover the overwhelming OP fire the guardsmen blob would bring
Ah, the old 'I don't have an answer to the concerns raised so let's make up ridiculous strawman arguments' technique. A classic.
I've given plenty of answers but apparently, guardsmen are the end all be all of the game so i say they should go clean up tournament after tournament winning all the prizes until gw fixes them. Clearly, you all know more than the top tournament players and I wanna see my fellow dakka members make out like bandits so have at it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trickstick wrote: If by "guaranteed the big cash prize" you mean "run out of time every game and lose", sure. The reason you don't see mass infantry is because it is extremely difficult to play a 2k infantry list within a reasonable amount of time.
plenty of top players have played over 250 model count hoards with time to spare listen to some of the long war podcasts when he talks about playing his cultist spam. If he can do it with cultists they can do it with guardsmen. Also all those spam conscript lists used just as many models
Yeah, this doesn't address why we were seeing cultist and termagant 200+ model spam and not guard. They both have the same exact limitations yet guard has never been effectively taken (except for when conscripts were broken)
Yes, it does, because we're not seeing 200 cultists or gants. 80 or 120 tops for cultists. It's also much simpler to manipulate 3 units than 20 units plus commanders.
There's been plenty of spam cultist and gants lists do incredibly well this edition. even popular 40k talking heads like TLWs kenny was made because his 200 cultist list wouldn't be as effective. Yet (other then conscripts at the beginning of 8th) nobody has taken guardsmen to the same effect
Dude. Diminishing returns. You can't easily get 200 models with 24" gun in range of everything you want dead right now, but you can if it's 80 or 100 while still profiting from the dynamic and having strong back field support.
There have been not 200 model lists on top table since 2017.
LVO - the #2 list had Straken, 100 Catachans, 9 mortars, and enough other units to fill out a battalion.
wait hold on..... are you saying that math hammer has some kind of limitation like spacing, terrain, position issues, ect and that it cant be the only metric used to evaluate a units effectiness on the board?
You've given no answers that make any sense and please stop strawmanning.
No one believes Guard to be the best unit bar none. They are the best troop though and this can be evidenced.
Your desperation to defend their current points cost is a classic case of 'I don't want my toys to be made worse-itus'. Unfortunately its good for the game and needs to happen. Other units that are performing far too well will also need to be adjusted.
Actually, his posts make quite a bit of sense. Which is why I'm guessing you're accusing him of strawmanning. None of us are defending the current points. We're also not saying guard aren't a powerful choice. Only that it's not the doom and gloom you're making it sound like.
So your willing to admit that they should have be made a minimum of 5ppm in CA 2018 then?
I don’t quite think that is what he is saying in this post. I think you are being overly-uppity (not regular uppity, as people could reasonably be, but overly-uppity).
It's really simple, your either defending them staying at 4ppm or they are 5ppm there isn't any middle ground.
It's a simple question that doesn't need pages of misdirection and obfuscation to answer it's a simple question.
Why, in a post where you say "it's not cheaper, by 35 points" presumably referring to the 180 point Guard Battalion and the 215 point sisters battalion, do you give the guard squads a plasma gun and a mortar each and the sisters squads two meltas and a plasma?
None of those things are in the minimum detachments. You're also looking here at 332 points of sisters versus 222 points of guardsmen...and the guardsmen still do more damage, lol.
You have to resort to "versus marines, in a detachment entirely unlike the detachments we're actually talking about, within 12", and with 100 more points, guardsmen only do very slightly more damage" to try and muddy the waters at this point.
Please, keep going, I'm having a wonderful time. Next analyze 600 points of fire warriors vs 180 points of guardsmen at 25" range to prove why fire warriors are better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The minimum sisters of battle detachment is 35 points more, which is 210 points of sisters with BOLTGUNS, not special weapons.
They do less than half as much damage against all targets, at all ranges. They move half as much. They die at a faster rate to all weapons, from lasguns on up. They have half the footprint on the table.
They have one, and exactly one, redeeming feature, which you mentioned: DTW attempts. Imperial Guard can add DTW attempts at 25pts per, if they want them.
Those weapons aren't in the minimum detachment. But that's not what people here have generally asked when talking about those. Sorry I didn't post a phonebook of all the various ways you can point out each detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: Also...wait...the math is just wrong here. He's got the mortar and laspistol numbers from 3 squads of guardsmen, the lasgun numbers are for 4.5 squads of guardsmen, and the plasma gun numbers are for 4 squads of guardsmen.
I think this is all just made up. The sisters are also doing 25% more damage with their plasma than they should be, 25% more with their melta, half as much with their bolters...
Yeah this is all just a fantasy.
Nope, three plasma guns for the guard, and the lasguns are FRF'ing. Keep in mind that the mortar teams have a lasgun each.
I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.
So why it is always the Guard and not other factions that can also generate CP cheaply such as SoB or Ad Mech?
Flexibility.
You need them to do more damage? FRFSRF.
You need them to run and gun? FftE.
You need them to fallback and shoot? GBitF.
You need them to be on an objective faster than a bike could be? MMM.
You need them to fight twice? FB.
You want a unit of Catachans to move, shoot with FRFSRF, charge, and then fight twice? You can do that.
You want to put more orders on? Consolidate squads.
You need them to have a 4+ save? Easy.
You want to toss 10 frag grenades with reroll 1s to wound? Sure.
And that doesn't really scratch all that you can do as most people ignore anything outside Cadian and Catachan.
Want to point out that guard aren't fighting twice in the same turn as all the rest, at least not with orders.
Asmodios wrote: I'm telling you if you if a couple of guys in this thread pooled their money each painted 25 guardsmen and sent one of you to the LVO you would be guaranteed the big cash prize. None of these "top 40k" players has yet to discover the overwhelming OP fire the guardsmen blob would bring
Ah, the old 'I don't have an answer to the concerns raised so let's make up ridiculous strawman arguments' technique. A classic.
I've given plenty of answers but apparently, guardsmen are the end all be all of the game so i say they should go clean up tournament after tournament winning all the prizes until gw fixes them. Clearly, you all know more than the top tournament players and I wanna see my fellow dakka members make out like bandits so have at it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trickstick wrote: If by "guaranteed the big cash prize" you mean "run out of time every game and lose", sure. The reason you don't see mass infantry is because it is extremely difficult to play a 2k infantry list within a reasonable amount of time.
plenty of top players have played over 250 model count hoards with time to spare listen to some of the long war podcasts when he talks about playing his cultist spam. If he can do it with cultists they can do it with guardsmen. Also all those spam conscript lists used just as many models
Yeah, this doesn't address why we were seeing cultist and termagant 200+ model spam and not guard. They both have the same exact limitations yet guard has never been effectively taken (except for when conscripts were broken)
Yes, it does, because we're not seeing 200 cultists or gants. 80 or 120 tops for cultists. It's also much simpler to manipulate 3 units than 20 units plus commanders.
There's been plenty of spam cultist and gants lists do incredibly well this edition. even popular 40k talking heads like TLWs kenny was made because his 200 cultist list wouldn't be as effective. Yet (other then conscripts at the beginning of 8th) nobody has taken guardsmen to the same effect
Dude. Diminishing returns. You can't easily get 200 models with 24" gun in range of everything you want dead right now, but you can if it's 80 or 100 while still profiting from the dynamic and having strong back field support.
There have been not 200 model lists on top table since 2017.
LVO - the #2 list had Straken, 100 Catachans, 9 mortars, and enough other units to fill out a battalion.
wait hold on..... are you saying that math hammer has some kind of limitation like spacing, terrain, position issues, ect and that it cant be the only metric used to evaluate a units effectiness on the board?
You've given no answers that make any sense and please stop strawmanning.
No one believes Guard to be the best unit bar none. They are the best troop though and this can be evidenced.
Your desperation to defend their current points cost is a classic case of 'I don't want my toys to be made worse-itus'. Unfortunately its good for the game and needs to happen. Other units that are performing far too well will also need to be adjusted.
Actually, his posts make quite a bit of sense. Which is why I'm guessing you're accusing him of strawmanning. None of us are defending the current points. We're also not saying guard aren't a powerful choice. Only that it's not the doom and gloom you're making it sound like.
So your willing to admit that they should have be made a minimum of 5ppm in CA 2018 then?
I don’t quite think that is what he is saying in this post. I think you are being overly-uppity (not regular uppity, as people could reasonably be, but overly-uppity).
It's really simple, your either defending them staying at 4ppm or they are 5ppm there isn't any middle ground.
It's a simple question that doesn't need pages of misdirection and obfuscation to answer it's a simple question.
Agreed.
If he doesn't believe their current points cost is correct (which is what 'none of us are defending their current points' sounds like) he shouldn't have a problem answering this simple question.
I don't see how its uppity either? Its the first thing I thought to ask when I eventually read his response.
I have seen people defend their current points too.
Mmmpi, the best you could do to attempt to manufacture a scenario where another troop unit was better at something than Guardsmen was to set up a scenario where ~200 points of guardsmen do equivalent damage to ~300 points of sisters of battle.
It's not like there aren't other viable units that exist in the game - Imperium is only one of four soupable "mega-factions" and one of five (possibly six) viable factions depending how orks shake out.
On top of all that, guardsmen do fall off against T6 or greater targets where their lasguns start to wound on 6s, which is why you tend to see every imperium soup list be "Guard+Heavy Killing Stuff".
But it's lunacy to insist that the crazy killing power of FRFSRF lasguns has not heavily directed the competitive meta of 8th edition. As soon as Conscripts became inefficient, Infantry immediately took over. The only time when they weren't the anti-infantry staple of every competitive imperial list was during the brief window of assault cannon/hurricane bolter stormraven spam and the time when Marines were pretty much the only codex in town and people were running asscans with guilliman.
Orks, Tau, Eldar Soup, Tyranid Soup, and Chaos Soup also exist in the competitive scene. They've got options that are on par with guardsmen, and which also need nerfs because they're shoving alternatives out of the competitive scene. But it's silly to pretend Guardsmen aren't a consistent problem, and dishonest to try and invent scenarios that make them look worse than they are.
Wait are people still thinking gaunts are equal to guardsmen? Big gaunt bubbles are cool and all as a nid player but tyranids have nowhere near the same buff levels Imperial guard or even Imperial Soup has. Also a double edged sword as huge blobs are just as easy to debuff.
Also synapse is cool and all but its not always easy to keep those synapse lynch pin units/characters alive and gaunts are so penalized by instinctive behaviour when out of synapse.
Lastly Im not sure on exact maths but dont equal points of guardsmen EASILY destroy gaunts at range (standard fleshborer is just an assault bolt pistol) and god help us jf we factor in orders and doctrines...
4 points for gaunts to me is fair. 4 points for guard is a bit toi cheap. We've seen units which clearly are preffered to a point to overshadows other choices get nerfed, guardsmen are in the same boat.
Why, in a post where you say "it's not cheaper, by 35 points" presumably referring to the 180 point Guard Battalion and the 215 point sisters battalion, do you give the guard squads a plasma gun and a mortar each and the sisters squads two meltas and a plasma?
None of those things are in the minimum detachments. You're also looking here at 332 points of sisters versus 222 points of guardsmen...and the guardsmen still do more damage, lol.
You have to resort to "versus marines, in a detachment entirely unlike the detachments we're actually talking about, within 12", and with 100 more points, guardsmen only do very slightly more damage" to try and muddy the waters at this point.
Please, keep going, I'm having a wonderful time. Next analyze 600 points of fire warriors vs 180 points of guardsmen at 25" range to prove why fire warriors are better.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The minimum sisters of battle detachment is 35 points more, which is 210 points of sisters with BOLTGUNS, not special weapons.
They do less than half as much damage against all targets, at all ranges. They move half as much. They die at a faster rate to all weapons, from lasguns on up. They have half the footprint on the table.
They have one, and exactly one, redeeming feature, which you mentioned: DTW attempts. Imperial Guard can add DTW attempts at 25pts per, if they want them.
Those weapons aren't in the minimum detachment. But that's not what people here have generally asked when talking about those. Sorry I didn't post a phonebook of all the various ways you can point out each detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
the_scotsman wrote: Also...wait...the math is just wrong here. He's got the mortar and laspistol numbers from 3 squads of guardsmen, the lasgun numbers are for 4.5 squads of guardsmen, and the plasma gun numbers are for 4 squads of guardsmen.
I think this is all just made up. The sisters are also doing 25% more damage with their plasma than they should be, 25% more with their melta, half as much with their bolters...
Yeah this is all just a fantasy.
Nope, three plasma guns for the guard, and the lasguns are FRF'ing. Keep in mind that the mortar teams have a lasgun each.
I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.
So why it is always the Guard and not other factions that can also generate CP cheaply such as SoB or Ad Mech?
Flexibility.
You need them to do more damage? FRFSRF.
You need them to run and gun? FftE.
You need them to fallback and shoot? GBitF.
You need them to be on an objective faster than a bike could be? MMM.
You need them to fight twice? FB.
You want a unit of Catachans to move, shoot with FRFSRF, charge, and then fight twice? You can do that.
You want to put more orders on? Consolidate squads.
You need them to have a 4+ save? Easy.
You want to toss 10 frag grenades with reroll 1s to wound? Sure.
And that doesn't really scratch all that you can do as most people ignore anything outside Cadian and Catachan.
Want to point out that guard aren't fighting twice in the same turn as all the rest, at least not with orders.
Asmodios wrote: I'm telling you if you if a couple of guys in this thread pooled their money each painted 25 guardsmen and sent one of you to the LVO you would be guaranteed the big cash prize. None of these "top 40k" players has yet to discover the overwhelming OP fire the guardsmen blob would bring
Ah, the old 'I don't have an answer to the concerns raised so let's make up ridiculous strawman arguments' technique. A classic.
I've given plenty of answers but apparently, guardsmen are the end all be all of the game so i say they should go clean up tournament after tournament winning all the prizes until gw fixes them. Clearly, you all know more than the top tournament players and I wanna see my fellow dakka members make out like bandits so have at it
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trickstick wrote: If by "guaranteed the big cash prize" you mean "run out of time every game and lose", sure. The reason you don't see mass infantry is because it is extremely difficult to play a 2k infantry list within a reasonable amount of time.
plenty of top players have played over 250 model count hoards with time to spare listen to some of the long war podcasts when he talks about playing his cultist spam. If he can do it with cultists they can do it with guardsmen. Also all those spam conscript lists used just as many models
Yeah, this doesn't address why we were seeing cultist and termagant 200+ model spam and not guard. They both have the same exact limitations yet guard has never been effectively taken (except for when conscripts were broken)
Yes, it does, because we're not seeing 200 cultists or gants. 80 or 120 tops for cultists. It's also much simpler to manipulate 3 units than 20 units plus commanders.
There's been plenty of spam cultist and gants lists do incredibly well this edition. even popular 40k talking heads like TLWs kenny was made because his 200 cultist list wouldn't be as effective. Yet (other then conscripts at the beginning of 8th) nobody has taken guardsmen to the same effect
Dude. Diminishing returns. You can't easily get 200 models with 24" gun in range of everything you want dead right now, but you can if it's 80 or 100 while still profiting from the dynamic and having strong back field support.
There have been not 200 model lists on top table since 2017.
LVO - the #2 list had Straken, 100 Catachans, 9 mortars, and enough other units to fill out a battalion.
wait hold on..... are you saying that math hammer has some kind of limitation like spacing, terrain, position issues, ect and that it cant be the only metric used to evaluate a units effectiness on the board?
You've given no answers that make any sense and please stop strawmanning.
No one believes Guard to be the best unit bar none. They are the best troop though and this can be evidenced.
Your desperation to defend their current points cost is a classic case of 'I don't want my toys to be made worse-itus'. Unfortunately its good for the game and needs to happen. Other units that are performing far too well will also need to be adjusted.
Actually, his posts make quite a bit of sense. Which is why I'm guessing you're accusing him of strawmanning. None of us are defending the current points. We're also not saying guard aren't a powerful choice. Only that it's not the doom and gloom you're making it sound like.
So your willing to admit that they should have be made a minimum of 5ppm in CA 2018 then?
I don’t quite think that is what he is saying in this post. I think you are being overly-uppity (not regular uppity, as people could reasonably be, but overly-uppity).
It's really simple, your either defending them staying at 4ppm or they are 5ppm there isn't any middle ground.
It's a simple question that doesn't need pages of misdirection and obfuscation to answer it's a simple question.
Agreed.
If he doesn't believe their current points cost is correct (which is what 'none of us are defending their current points' sounds like) he shouldn't have a problem answering this simple question.
I don't see how its uppity either? Its the first thing I thought to ask when I eventually read his response.
I have seen people defend their current points too.
Yeah, he isn’t defending their current points cost. That y’all read. Then y’all act uppity by skipping over how he believes y’all are being ridiculous for saying everything people say in that you disagree with is a strawman. All this is is argumentum abusi fallacia. Y’all dismiss the points of others that y’all don’t like by arguing it’s a logical fallacy. If it is such a bad point, y’all could prove it, rather than saying it is bad because “I said so.”
Its actually a really simple reason. Guard are as good as they are right now, because they can do everything decent. They are a jack of all trade armies, but masters of none. Because of that, no matter what you bring to the table, they can handle it.
Ice_can wrote: So just to be clear your 57pt infantry squad kills 34.58 poiny of marine's or 61% in a single round of shooting.
When under the effect of the best buff available to Guard, without factoring the cost of that buff into the equation, yes. So let's add half the cost of a CC to that 57pts, and it becomes effectively a 72pt infantry squad inflicting 34.58pts of damage, for an efficiency of 48% against Marines.
Meanwhile ten Skitarii Rangers with a pair of Arc Rifles, not exactly the be-all and end-all of infantry, cost 78pts. With no buffs, they kill an average of 38.6pts of Marines, for an efficiency of 49%.
Completely unbuffed Skitarii Rangers are more points efficient at killing MEQs than buffed Guardsmen, and longer-ranged, and better against high-T targets too. They're also tougher by a good margin, both through their better save and Shroudpsalm. But nobody's taking Skitarii Rangers in soup (yet- we'll see how the CA points changes shake things up) because if you want them to generate CP, you have to also take a pair of Tech-Priests that do little besides eat up points. It's not unrivaled combat ability for the points that's leading anyone to choose Guardsmen, it's a Battalion that's cheap, flexible, and doesn't waste points on non-combat-relevant HQ taxes. If CP generation goes away, so does the most compelling reason for Guard to show up in soup.
I've said before and I'll say again, I think the Infantry Squad should be 5ppm, but these assessments of Guardsmen are unreasonable. Of course an army that relies heavily on buffs is going to overperform when you assume the models are always buffed and don't take the cost of that buff into account.
I have not been dismissing everything people have said in this thread by saying they are logical fallacies. If you look, you'll notice that the ONLY thing I am disputing as a strawman is the person reframing the argument to make it easier to attack. You know. Creating a strawman.
The actual argument being made is that Guardsmen are undercosted for what they do, and that orders make them far more powerful than they should be for the cost that they're at, and that this is evidenced by the fact that they appear in nearly every imperial tournament list.
Counter-arguments that they are solely used because they are the cheapest troop, that there are other troops better at their job and we just haven't seen them yet because CA2018 was just released, and that guardsmen just look good because space marines are bad, I have happily debated with math and unit comparisons over the last few pages.
The counter-argument of "oh, so if you think guardsmen are the strongest unit in the game why don't you just go win tournaments with 300 of them?" is a strawman. It isn't necessary to make arguments to prove that guardsmen are the strongest unit in the game, because I didn't make that argument, Asmodios assigned it to me. Guardsmen are not the strongest unit in the game if you're taking units that aren't supplying you additional CPs, which is why you see them taken in battalion and brigades. They're the best CP-providing troop choice.
Ice_can wrote: So just to be clear your 57pt infantry squad kills 34.58 poiny of marine's or 61% in a single round of shooting.
When under the effect of the best buff available to Guard, without factoring the cost of that buff into the equation, yes. So let's add half the cost of a CC to that 57pts, and it becomes effectively a 72pt infantry squad inflicting 34.58pts of damage, for an efficiency of 48% against Marines.
Meanwhile ten Skitarii Rangers with a pair of Arc Rifles, not exactly the be-all and end-all of infantry, cost 78pts. With no buffs, they kill an average of 38.6pts of Marines, for an efficiency of 49%.
Completely unbuffed Skitarii Rangers are more points efficient at killing MEQs than buffed Guardsmen, and longer-ranged, and better against high-T targets too. They're also tougher by a good margin, both through their better save and Shroudpsalm. But nobody's taking Skitarii Rangers in soup (yet- we'll see how the CA points changes shake things up) because if you want them to generate CP, you have to also take a pair of Tech-Priests that do little besides eat up points. It's not unrivaled combat ability for the points that's leading anyone to choose Guardsmen, it's a Battalion that's cheap, flexible, and doesn't waste points on non-combat-relevant HQ taxes. If CP generation goes away, so does the most compelling reason for Guard to show up in soup.
I've said before and I'll say again, I think the Infantry Squad should be 5ppm, but these assessments of Guardsmen are unreasonable. Of course an army that relies heavily on buffs is going to overperform when you assume the models are always buffed and don't take the cost of that buff into account.
The cost of the buffs is taken into account, at least in the math I've been doing.
3 infantry squads and 2 CCs versus any other min battalion in the game, the Guard battalion is third-cheapest (behind Tau and Admech) while also being the most durable versus anti-infantry firepower, the fastest movement if you need to go claim an objective thanks to move move move, the highest damage against anything T6 or less, and tied for the biggest table footprint.
That, combined with cheap and efficient elite, heavy and fast choices for an amazing min brigade, is why Guard is near-universal in imperium lists and why I say I suspect the sisters and admech will not be doing much to replace them after CA. In a world where CPs can be transferred to other detachments, Guard will never not be a problem. 5PPM guardsmen would go a long way to fixing it, but IMO until FRFSRF and Move Move Move are nerfed I think they'll still be an issue.
if CPs did not transfer and Move Move Move and FRFSRF were reverted to their previous edition incarnation, I think 4ppm guardsmen would be fine.
the_scotsman wrote: The actual argument being made is that Guardsmen are undercosted for what they do, and that orders make them far more powerful than they should be for the cost that they're at, and that this is evidenced by the fact that they appear in nearly every imperial tournament list.
See, this is what I have a problem with. There are a whole host of reasons why a unit might regularly show up in tournament lists that don't directly translate into being too powerful in combat ability. They're a cheap unit that fills slots and can be taken with a similarly cheap HQ choice that directly synergizes with them, allowing you to take a battalion that isn't sacrificing points on useless units to meet battalion requirements. You need CPs, you need decent combat troops to hold objectives, and you need decent HQs to fill those slots, and Guard are the only faction that provides A, B, and C for low cost. It's not about just taking the cheapest battalion possible, it's about taking the cheapest battalion that can still pull its own weight.
You seem to acknowledge this when you say:
the_scotsman wrote: Guardsmen are not the strongest unit in the game if you're taking units that aren't supplying you additional CPs, which is why you see them taken in battalion and brigades. They're the best CP-providing troop choice.
So you recognize that they're not chosen because orders and their stats make them unrivaled killing units, but because they're decent on their own and generate CP. Once CP is taken out of the equation, they become a suboptimal choice. So if that aspect of them is addressed, preferably by just changing the CP system so that soup isn't the go-to mechanic, then Guardsmen stop being auto-includes for soup. Simply increasing their cost until they're no longer attractive for soup disproportionately hurts mono-Guard, without really addressing the underlying issue.
This is why I've been saying that I'd like to see a nerf to the soup mechanic, then assess how Guard need to be tweaked, because 'are Guardsmen too cheap for their combat ability?' and 'are Guard too attractive to soup as CP-generating units?' are really two completely different questions with different causes.
I understand your frustration with the perception that your argument is being straw-manned, but there are actually several people in this thread claiming that Guardsmen are completely overpowered combat units and that 100+ Guardsmen lists are an unbeatable horde that out-shoots anything they go up against. I think that's bogus, and it's a different issue from why Guard always show up in soup.
The problem is Orders and CP generation, neither of which is anything specific to the Infantry unit?
Well, glad the infantry aren't the problem then.
Now we can move along and talk about orders and soup. Soup is a problem, and some of the orders are silly (though IIRC the earlier editions MMM was the same, and FRFSRF gave you one fewer shot than it does now. Are people really that worried about 9 lasgun shots?).
The problem is Orders and CP generation, neither of which is anything specific to the Infantry unit?
Well, glad the infantry aren't the problem then.
Now we can move along and talk about orders and soup. Soup is a problem, and some of the orders are silly (though IIRC the earlier editions MMM was the same, and FRFSRF gave you one fewer shot than it does now. Are people really that worried about 9 lasgun shots?).
Yeah, with Scions’ hot-shot weaponry being free and special weapons being cheaper, I’m just waiting for people to get riled up about FRFSRF with lasguns that have -2 AP. That is actually dangerous.
the_scotsman wrote: I have not been dismissing everything people have said in this thread by saying they are logical fallacies. If you look, you'll notice that the ONLY thing I am disputing as a strawman is the person reframing the argument to make it easier to attack. You know. Creating a strawman.
The actual argument being made is that Guardsmen are undercosted for what they do, and that orders make them far more powerful than they should be for the cost that they're at, and that this is evidenced by the fact that they appear in nearly every imperial tournament list.
Counter-arguments that they are solely used because they are the cheapest troop, that there are other troops better at their job and we just haven't seen them yet because CA2018 was just released, and that guardsmen just look good because space marines are bad, I have happily debated with math and unit comparisons over the last few pages.
The counter-argument of "oh, so if you think guardsmen are the strongest unit in the game why don't you just go win tournaments with 300 of them?" is a strawman. It isn't necessary to make arguments to prove that guardsmen are the strongest unit in the game, because I didn't make that argument, Asmodios assigned it to me. Guardsmen are not the strongest unit in the game if you're taking units that aren't supplying you additional CPs, which is why you see them taken in battalion and brigades. They're the best CP-providing troop choice.
Ice_can wrote: So just to be clear your 57pt infantry squad kills 34.58 poiny of marine's or 61% in a single round of shooting.
When under the effect of the best buff available to Guard, without factoring the cost of that buff into the equation, yes. So let's add half the cost of a CC to that 57pts, and it becomes effectively a 72pt infantry squad inflicting 34.58pts of damage, for an efficiency of 48% against Marines.
Meanwhile ten Skitarii Rangers with a pair of Arc Rifles, not exactly the be-all and end-all of infantry, cost 78pts. With no buffs, they kill an average of 38.6pts of Marines, for an efficiency of 49%.
Completely unbuffed Skitarii Rangers are more points efficient at killing MEQs than buffed Guardsmen, and longer-ranged, and better against high-T targets too. They're also tougher by a good margin, both through their better save and Shroudpsalm. But nobody's taking Skitarii Rangers in soup (yet- we'll see how the CA points changes shake things up) because if you want them to generate CP, you have to also take a pair of Tech-Priests that do little besides eat up points. It's not unrivaled combat ability for the points that's leading anyone to choose Guardsmen, it's a Battalion that's cheap, flexible, and doesn't waste points on non-combat-relevant HQ taxes. If CP generation goes away, so does the most compelling reason for Guard to show up in soup.
I've said before and I'll say again, I think the Infantry Squad should be 5ppm, but these assessments of Guardsmen are unreasonable. Of course an army that relies heavily on buffs is going to overperform when you assume the models are always buffed and don't take the cost of that buff into account.
The cost of the buffs is taken into account, at least in the math I've been doing.
3 infantry squads and 2 CCs versus any other min battalion in the game, the Guard battalion is third-cheapest (behind Tau and Admech) while also being the most durable versus anti-infantry firepower, the fastest movement if you need to go claim an objective thanks to move move move, the highest damage against anything T6 or less, and tied for the biggest table footprint.
That, combined with cheap and efficient elite, heavy and fast choices for an amazing min brigade, is why Guard is near-universal in imperium lists and why I say I suspect the sisters and admech will not be doing much to replace them after CA. In a world where CPs can be transferred to other detachments, Guard will never not be a problem. 5PPM guardsmen would go a long way to fixing it, but IMO until FRFSRF and Move Move Move are nerfed I think they'll still be an issue.
if CPs did not transfer and Move Move Move and FRFSRF were reverted to their previous edition incarnation, I think 4ppm guardsmen would be fine.
So after all this your admitting that the main issue is there ability to generate CPs for other factions...... and that we need to fix it..... So my claim that we need to fix CP sharing then re-evaluate the cost of units isn't crazy?
the_scotsman wrote: I have not been dismissing everything people have said in this thread by saying they are logical fallacies. If you look, you'll notice that the ONLY thing I am disputing as a strawman is the person reframing the argument to make it easier to attack. You know. Creating a strawman.
The actual argument being made is that Guardsmen are undercosted for what they do, and that orders make them far more powerful than they should be for the cost that they're at, and that this is evidenced by the fact that they appear in nearly every imperial tournament list.
Counter-arguments that they are solely used because they are the cheapest troop, that there are other troops better at their job and we just haven't seen them yet because CA2018 was just released, and that guardsmen just look good because space marines are bad, I have happily debated with math and unit comparisons over the last few pages.
The counter-argument of "oh, so if you think guardsmen are the strongest unit in the game why don't you just go win tournaments with 300 of them?" is a strawman. It isn't necessary to make arguments to prove that guardsmen are the strongest unit in the game, because I didn't make that argument, Asmodios assigned it to me. Guardsmen are not the strongest unit in the game if you're taking units that aren't supplying you additional CPs, which is why you see them taken in battalion and brigades. They're the best CP-providing troop choice.
Ice_can wrote: So just to be clear your 57pt infantry squad kills 34.58 poiny of marine's or 61% in a single round of shooting.
When under the effect of the best buff available to Guard, without factoring the cost of that buff into the equation, yes. So let's add half the cost of a CC to that 57pts, and it becomes effectively a 72pt infantry squad inflicting 34.58pts of damage, for an efficiency of 48% against Marines.
Meanwhile ten Skitarii Rangers with a pair of Arc Rifles, not exactly the be-all and end-all of infantry, cost 78pts. With no buffs, they kill an average of 38.6pts of Marines, for an efficiency of 49%.
Completely unbuffed Skitarii Rangers are more points efficient at killing MEQs than buffed Guardsmen, and longer-ranged, and better against high-T targets too. They're also tougher by a good margin, both through their better save and Shroudpsalm. But nobody's taking Skitarii Rangers in soup (yet- we'll see how the CA points changes shake things up) because if you want them to generate CP, you have to also take a pair of Tech-Priests that do little besides eat up points. It's not unrivaled combat ability for the points that's leading anyone to choose Guardsmen, it's a Battalion that's cheap, flexible, and doesn't waste points on non-combat-relevant HQ taxes. If CP generation goes away, so does the most compelling reason for Guard to show up in soup.
I've said before and I'll say again, I think the Infantry Squad should be 5ppm, but these assessments of Guardsmen are unreasonable. Of course an army that relies heavily on buffs is going to overperform when you assume the models are always buffed and don't take the cost of that buff into account.
The cost of the buffs is taken into account, at least in the math I've been doing.
3 infantry squads and 2 CCs versus any other min battalion in the game, the Guard battalion is third-cheapest (behind Tau and Admech) while also being the most durable versus anti-infantry firepower, the fastest movement if you need to go claim an objective thanks to move move move, the highest damage against anything T6 or less, and tied for the biggest table footprint.
That, combined with cheap and efficient elite, heavy and fast choices for an amazing min brigade, is why Guard is near-universal in imperium lists and why I say I suspect the sisters and admech will not be doing much to replace them after CA. In a world where CPs can be transferred to other detachments, Guard will never not be a problem. 5PPM guardsmen would go a long way to fixing it, but IMO until FRFSRF and Move Move Move are nerfed I think they'll still be an issue.
if CPs did not transfer and Move Move Move and FRFSRF were reverted to their previous edition incarnation, I think 4ppm guardsmen would be fine.
So after all this your admitting that the main issue is there ability to generate CPs for other factions...... and that we need to fix it..... So my claim that we need to fix CP sharing then re-evaluate the cost of units isn't crazy?
Wow, let’s just change the points cost so guardsmen are too expensive. Command point farm be like *changes to Admech 17*
Huh, huh, at least that aren’t as good as guardsmen! And they are still only taken for the command points.
Guys, people are only taking Admech 17 for how cheaply they generate command points! Lol, let’s just increase their points cost.
There is a SOB thing as well, no?
the_scotsman wrote: I have not been dismissing everything people have said in this thread by saying they are logical fallacies. If you look, you'll notice that the ONLY thing I am disputing as a strawman is the person reframing the argument to make it easier to attack. You know. Creating a strawman.
The actual argument being made is that Guardsmen are undercosted for what they do, and that orders make them far more powerful than they should be for the cost that they're at, and that this is evidenced by the fact that they appear in nearly every imperial tournament list.
Counter-arguments that they are solely used because they are the cheapest troop, that there are other troops better at their job and we just haven't seen them yet because CA2018 was just released, and that guardsmen just look good because space marines are bad, I have happily debated with math and unit comparisons over the last few pages.
The counter-argument of "oh, so if you think guardsmen are the strongest unit in the game why don't you just go win tournaments with 300 of them?" is a strawman. It isn't necessary to make arguments to prove that guardsmen are the strongest unit in the game, because I didn't make that argument, Asmodios assigned it to me. Guardsmen are not the strongest unit in the game if you're taking units that aren't supplying you additional CPs, which is why you see them taken in battalion and brigades. They're the best CP-providing troop choice.
Ice_can wrote: So just to be clear your 57pt infantry squad kills 34.58 poiny of marine's or 61% in a single round of shooting.
When under the effect of the best buff available to Guard, without factoring the cost of that buff into the equation, yes. So let's add half the cost of a CC to that 57pts, and it becomes effectively a 72pt infantry squad inflicting 34.58pts of damage, for an efficiency of 48% against Marines.
Meanwhile ten Skitarii Rangers with a pair of Arc Rifles, not exactly the be-all and end-all of infantry, cost 78pts. With no buffs, they kill an average of 38.6pts of Marines, for an efficiency of 49%.
Completely unbuffed Skitarii Rangers are more points efficient at killing MEQs than buffed Guardsmen, and longer-ranged, and better against high-T targets too. They're also tougher by a good margin, both through their better save and Shroudpsalm. But nobody's taking Skitarii Rangers in soup (yet- we'll see how the CA points changes shake things up) because if you want them to generate CP, you have to also take a pair of Tech-Priests that do little besides eat up points. It's not unrivaled combat ability for the points that's leading anyone to choose Guardsmen, it's a Battalion that's cheap, flexible, and doesn't waste points on non-combat-relevant HQ taxes. If CP generation goes away, so does the most compelling reason for Guard to show up in soup.
I've said before and I'll say again, I think the Infantry Squad should be 5ppm, but these assessments of Guardsmen are unreasonable. Of course an army that relies heavily on buffs is going to overperform when you assume the models are always buffed and don't take the cost of that buff into account.
The cost of the buffs is taken into account, at least in the math I've been doing.
3 infantry squads and 2 CCs versus any other min battalion in the game, the Guard battalion is third-cheapest (behind Tau and Admech) while also being the most durable versus anti-infantry firepower, the fastest movement if you need to go claim an objective thanks to move move move, the highest damage against anything T6 or less, and tied for the biggest table footprint.
That, combined with cheap and efficient elite, heavy and fast choices for an amazing min brigade, is why Guard is near-universal in imperium lists and why I say I suspect the sisters and admech will not be doing much to replace them after CA. In a world where CPs can be transferred to other detachments, Guard will never not be a problem. 5PPM guardsmen would go a long way to fixing it, but IMO until FRFSRF and Move Move Move are nerfed I think they'll still be an issue.
if CPs did not transfer and Move Move Move and FRFSRF were reverted to their previous edition incarnation, I think 4ppm guardsmen would be fine.
So after all this your admitting that the main issue is there ability to generate CPs for other factions...... and that we need to fix it..... So my claim that we need to fix CP sharing then re-evaluate the cost of units isn't crazy?
No, of course not. What's annoying is that in order I guess to disagree with the premise of the thread, you assigned a more extreme stance to my argument than I was actually claiming (that guard were somehow the most OP unit in the game rather than arguably the best provider of CPs).
Of course the reason Guard battalions and brigades are universal in imperial lists is the fact that they can hold their own while also providing extremely cheap CPs. of course wanting to remove the ability to share Cps between factions is reasonable before evaluating unit balance.
Realistically, the biggest effect of removing Cp-sharing would be an enormous drop in the number of imperial and chaos lists. Eldar Soup largely to get access to doom, rather than CPs, and the one instance where they soup to get CPs they use those Cps with the detachment (bh min battalion to get Vect).
The problem is Orders and CP generation, neither of which is anything specific to the Infantry unit?
Well, glad the infantry aren't the problem then.
Now we can move along and talk about orders and soup. Soup is a problem, and some of the orders are silly (though IIRC the earlier editions MMM was the same, and FRFSRF gave you one fewer shot than it does now. Are people really that worried about 9 lasgun shots?).
Yeah, with Scions’ hot-shot weaponry being free and special weapons being cheaper, I’m just waiting for people to get riled up about FRFSRF with lasguns that have -2 AP. That is actually dangerous.
18" range on a unit that almost always deploys over 9" (deep strike) means that for scions, FRFSRF actually works pretty much like it did last edition (one extra shot).
Amazingly, that wasn't OP then, and it doesn't seem to be OP now. scions tend to get used as special weapon-toters rather than lasgunners because you waste their deep strike capabilities if you want to use their lasguns effectively.
Though I have to say in casual games scions in taurox Primes are pretty fun.
The problem is Orders and CP generation, neither of which is anything specific to the Infantry unit?
Well, glad the infantry aren't the problem then.
Now we can move along and talk about orders and soup. Soup is a problem, and some of the orders are silly (though IIRC the earlier editions MMM was the same, and FRFSRF gave you one fewer shot than it does now. Are people really that worried about 9 lasgun shots?).
Nope, MMM has been pretty much quadrupled in effectiveness since last edition. it was "roll 3d6 when you run, take the highest result" adding an average of 2.5", it is now " run AGAIN" adding an average of 9.5" of movement.
I don't think you should be looking at basic lasguns for your close-range anti infantry damage needs. Something is a little weird IMO when giving your guard infantry a flamer actually reduces the damage they do to most light targets for the points (2.5 lasgunners with frfsrf is always better than 1 flamer guardsman).
If I were changing FRFSRF I'd either leave it the same but require the unit not to move (you know, like you would with formation-based rank fire) or just bring it back down to the +1 shot.
MMM is just goofy in its current incarnation. Put it back to its previous incarnation or maybe make it an auto-6 advance ( have your guardsmen motivated to the peak of human abiliites rather than suddenly making them faster than superfast eldar close combat specialists) and remove the "no shooting" stipulation so you can use it to position flamers/meltas/be cool Tallarn guys.
So just to be clear your 57pt infantry squad kills 34.58 poiny of marine's or 61% in a single round of shooting.
Thats rediculous returns for a base infanty unit.
If there's an officer nearby giving orders and the target is within 12", then yes thats what the math shows. But then, it's not just a base 57pt infantry unit at that point either because it requires a nearby character that does nothing but buff the weeny infantry.
The big point however, magnificently illustrated here, was that similar units that are doing even more for even less, but everyone focuses on the Infantry Squad. In fact, the Infantry Squad drops down to inflicting only 2.08 wounds (27pts) without the officer, the plasma SWS still does 2.42 (31.46pts) and is only 45pts. Yet we hear nothing about this unit and nobody takes it
Why this focus on the Infantry Squad over everything else? Because it fills out detachments for CP's. It's not basic infantry like guardsmen that are doing the bulk of the killing in armies, often the "loyal 32" are all dead before they ever have a chance to fire a shot. The value that we see so widespread is from the CP battery and secondarily the board control offered by bodies, not their killing power.
What you haven't taken into consideration in that maths is how many casualties dies it take to half the units fire power?
Mainly because for most of the units compared, it'd be about the same, the only difference was directly with the Infantry Squad, and even there we're just talking about a couple dead guardsmen, none of these are stunningly resilient units.
Also, defining halved firepower can be rather hard
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Anyone that thinks stopping CP sharing will stop Infantry from being taken is delusional, pure and simple.
Well...no. They are one of what, three troop choices in a viable faction. You're probably going to see them. Why would you want to stop infantry from being taken?
A faction having good, flexible light infantry is fine, as long as they don't also have access to the most efficient CP-burners in the game. Guard on their own don't have that. Guard with knights do.
the_scotsman wrote: I have not been dismissing everything people have said in this thread by saying they are logical fallacies. If you look, you'll notice that the ONLY thing I am disputing as a strawman is the person reframing the argument to make it easier to attack. You know. Creating a strawman.
The actual argument being made is that Guardsmen are undercosted for what they do, and that orders make them far more powerful than they should be for the cost that they're at, and that this is evidenced by the fact that they appear in nearly every imperial tournament list.
Counter-arguments that they are solely used because they are the cheapest troop, that there are other troops better at their job and we just haven't seen them yet because CA2018 was just released, and that guardsmen just look good because space marines are bad, I have happily debated with math and unit comparisons over the last few pages.
The counter-argument of "oh, so if you think guardsmen are the strongest unit in the game why don't you just go win tournaments with 300 of them?" is a strawman. It isn't necessary to make arguments to prove that guardsmen are the strongest unit in the game, because I didn't make that argument, Asmodios assigned it to me. Guardsmen are not the strongest unit in the game if you're taking units that aren't supplying you additional CPs, which is why you see them taken in battalion and brigades. They're the best CP-providing troop choice.
Ice_can wrote: So just to be clear your 57pt infantry squad kills 34.58 poiny of marine's or 61% in a single round of shooting.
When under the effect of the best buff available to Guard, without factoring the cost of that buff into the equation, yes. So let's add half the cost of a CC to that 57pts, and it becomes effectively a 72pt infantry squad inflicting 34.58pts of damage, for an efficiency of 48% against Marines.
Meanwhile ten Skitarii Rangers with a pair of Arc Rifles, not exactly the be-all and end-all of infantry, cost 78pts. With no buffs, they kill an average of 38.6pts of Marines, for an efficiency of 49%.
Completely unbuffed Skitarii Rangers are more points efficient at killing MEQs than buffed Guardsmen, and longer-ranged, and better against high-T targets too. They're also tougher by a good margin, both through their better save and Shroudpsalm. But nobody's taking Skitarii Rangers in soup (yet- we'll see how the CA points changes shake things up) because if you want them to generate CP, you have to also take a pair of Tech-Priests that do little besides eat up points. It's not unrivaled combat ability for the points that's leading anyone to choose Guardsmen, it's a Battalion that's cheap, flexible, and doesn't waste points on non-combat-relevant HQ taxes. If CP generation goes away, so does the most compelling reason for Guard to show up in soup.
I've said before and I'll say again, I think the Infantry Squad should be 5ppm, but these assessments of Guardsmen are unreasonable. Of course an army that relies heavily on buffs is going to overperform when you assume the models are always buffed and don't take the cost of that buff into account.
The cost of the buffs is taken into account, at least in the math I've been doing.
3 infantry squads and 2 CCs versus any other min battalion in the game, the Guard battalion is third-cheapest (behind Tau and Admech) while also being the most durable versus anti-infantry firepower, the fastest movement if you need to go claim an objective thanks to move move move, the highest damage against anything T6 or less, and tied for the biggest table footprint.
That, combined with cheap and efficient elite, heavy and fast choices for an amazing min brigade, is why Guard is near-universal in imperium lists and why I say I suspect the sisters and admech will not be doing much to replace them after CA. In a world where CPs can be transferred to other detachments, Guard will never not be a problem. 5PPM guardsmen would go a long way to fixing it, but IMO until FRFSRF and Move Move Move are nerfed I think they'll still be an issue.
if CPs did not transfer and Move Move Move and FRFSRF were reverted to their previous edition incarnation, I think 4ppm guardsmen would be fine.
So after all this your admitting that the main issue is there ability to generate CPs for other factions...... and that we need to fix it..... So my claim that we need to fix CP sharing then re-evaluate the cost of units isn't crazy?
Wow, let’s just change the points cost so guardsmen are too expensive. Command point farm be like *changes to Admech 17*
Huh, huh, at least that aren’t as good as guardsmen! And they are still only taken for the command points.
Guys, people are only taking Admech 17 for how cheaply they generate command points! Lol, let’s just increase their points cost.
There is a SOB thing as well, no?
There are people on these forums that have called for 7 ppm guardsmen. The point is that you just by raising the points costs on units only, then players will just take the next cheapest thing when it becomes more efficient.
So just to be clear your 57pt infantry squad kills 34.58 poiny of marine's or 61% in a single round of shooting.
Thats rediculous returns for a base infanty unit.
If there's an officer nearby giving orders and the target is within 12", then yes thats what the math shows. But then, it's not just a base 57pt infantry unit at that point either because it requires a nearby character that does nothing but buff the weeny infantry.
The big point however, magnificently illustrated here, was that similar units that are doing even more for even less, but everyone focuses on the Infantry Squad. In fact, the Infantry Squad drops down to inflicting only 2.08 wounds (27pts) without the officer, the plasma SWS still does 2.42 (31.46pts) and is only 45pts. Yet we hear nothing about this unit and nobody takes it
Why this focus on the Infantry Squad over everything else? Because it fills out detachments for CP's. It's not basic infantry like guardsmen that are doing the bulk of the killing in armies, often the "loyal 32" are all dead before they ever have a chance to fire a shot. The value that we see so widespread is from the CP battery and secondarily the board control offered by bodies, not their killing power.
What you haven't taken into consideration in that maths is how many casualties dies it take to half the units fire power?
Mainly because for most of the units compared, it'd be about the same, the only difference was directly with the Infantry Squad, and even there we're just talking about a couple dead guardsmen, none of these are stunningly resilient units.
Also, defining halved firepower can be rather hard
There are people on these forums that have called for 7 ppm guardsmen. The point is that you just by raising the points costs on units only, then players will just take the next cheapest thing when it becomes more efficient.
That was one person being hyperbolic. Hardly a point to use for your own cause.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Anyone that thinks stopping CP sharing will stop Infantry from being taken is delusional, pure and simple.
Well...no. They are one of what, three troop choices in a viable faction. You're probably going to see them. Why would you want to stop infantry from being taken?
A faction having good, flexible light infantry is fine, as long as they don't also have access to the most efficient CP-burners in the game. Guard on their own don't have that. Guard with knights do.
I'm saying that Infantry will be taken as allies regardless of what you do with CP, due to the efficiency that they perform. For my Deathwatch? That 5CP is merely the cherry on top of having durable objective keepers (with arguable offensive prowess to boot).
The "smoke settled" because we moved into the dead period of the ITC during the Christmas season. Unless every competitive podcast I listen to is 100% wrong they are predicted to be a top-tier codex and something to be feared going into the LVO. Also, you ever think that the top ork codex player isn't higher cause we are at the very end of the ITC season and they just now got their codex?
Off topic, we're discussing the strengths of GUARDSMEN not Orks but rest assured the strength of the Ork codex is not down to under priced troop options.
Throwing around 'B b b but Orks won a GT!!!11' is not a defence of the cost of Guardsmen. How many GTs have primary Guard lists won? A few more than 1 I suspect.
7ppm Boyz Vs 4ppm Guardsmen explains in a nutshell why Guard are under priced...or conversely why boyz are severely over priced
I am more of the mind that Guardsmen should be 5ppm and Boyz should be 6ppm.
Once again, Boyz are technically the same price as long as you were bringing multiples of 10 and buying the bomb upgrade, due to it being free now.
If you weren't buying it before, well, you're buying it now.
Yeah, he isn’t defending their current points cost. That y’all read. Then y’all act uppity by skipping over how he believes y’all are being ridiculous for saying everything people say in that you disagree with is a strawman. All this is is argumentum abusi fallacia. Y’all dismiss the points of others that y’all don’t like by arguing it’s a logical fallacy. If it is such a bad point, y’all could prove it, rather than saying it is bad because “I said so.”
Its odd that you apologists say you aren't defending the current points cost of Guardsmen when all through the thread that's exactly what you've been doing and you refuse to acknowledge that 4 ppm is too cheap. If you don't believe 4 ppm is too cheap, you are by definition defending their current points cost. Here's a quotation from like 2 pages back that sounds to me like he's exactly defending their current points cost, I've bolded the relevant bits for you:
me, a few pages ago wrote:Almost like there should be a minimum cost per troop wound for Imperial soup and that 4 ppm is too low right?
No, it's almost like people chose more wounds as a trade off over something else.
The arguments put forward aren't all straw man. Many of them are simply dishonest (but we've had straw man too) or misdirectional. We've already seen a comparison of SOB vs Guardsmen where 300 odd points of SOB were compared against 200 odd points of Guard (not mentioned in the comparison) and still performed worse. This has also been proven mathematically earlier in the thread. It's not a matter of 'my opinion is right and yours is wrong'. It's actually 'you are not comparing apples with apples therefore your conclusion is completely incorrect'. Literally its right there. Have you read the thread at all?
Now what you are doing, ironically, is straw manning us, claiming that we are being 'uppity' and we claim that 'everything we disagree with is straw man'. Nice try. No cigar I'm afraid. Regardless of your liberal use of "y'all".
Mmmpi wrote:I'll I got from this is that you're acting like an elitist prick because I don't use your specific app of choice.
Until you decide to remove your head from your butt, we are done.
PS: I win.
First rule 1.
Second its not my 'app of choice' its simply the most comprehensive database we have on competitive 40k.
There is nothing to win. Nothing is at stake here man. Just 2 people trying to have a discussion.
Put yourself in my shoes. Imagine you knew something for a fact but I kept denying it, asking for a source and then didn't know the source when it was provided. You'd get frustrated too I suspect.
Apple Peel wrote: A big problem with balancing guard troops is that guard is supposed to have the cheapest troops in the game. And in a game where units are all individually supposed to match to each other
I don't understand what you mean here. Where has anyone said that Guard are supposed to have the cheapest troops in the game? Did GW say this?
An Actual Englishman wrote: Finally real life backs all of this up. Which is why they are taken en masse in the vast majority of Imperial lists.
I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.
Do you think they'd be showing up in every soup list if CP generation were nerfed? If so, why, if currently nobody is taking any more than they are required to for CP purposes?
I've already said like a hundred times in this thread that they aren't only taken in minimum sizes to fulfil CP requirements. Are you sure you read the last few pages?
Scotsman also mentioned a cheaper Imperial Battalion in Ad Mech. If cost was the only factor that would be taken instead but it isn't.
Not to mention that they are using the same source.
BCP = Blood of Kittens
And both those sources are highly flawed since they get only ITC results.
What? BCP is not the same as Blood of Kittens. Blood of kittens uses BCP and that's it. Also if they were the same how did our friend above fail to find those lists that have more than 6 units of Guardsmen?
ITC is the standard for competitive 40k. It's also the most common. It suits our needs for a discussion around balance unless you know a more commonly used format?
Mmmpi wrote: My guess is that it's the body count over all. The guard however to have access to longer ranged weapons, meaning they can camp backfield objectives better.
Both sisters and Admech are only fielding 17 models, as opposed to 32. Officers are more combat oriented then Techpriests, and techpriests can't fix stuff outside of IG or AdMech. Officers are cheaper than a canoness, and have options, unlike the current Missionary.
Almost like there should be a minimum cost per troop wound for Imperial soup and that 4 ppm is too low right? priced
E - so I read the responses that happened as I was writing this post and it is clear to me that the Guard apologists aren't going to change their tack on this, regardless of all the logical arguments presented their way. They literally have an excuse for everything. This discussion is pointless and really, really sad. In my experience Guard players are a lot more open to change of their units, that they admit are under priced, in real life. Its a shame some of you can't be so open and honest on here.
Vaktathi wrote: If there's an officer nearby giving orders and the target is within 12", then yes thats what the math shows. But then, it's not just a base 57pt infantry unit at that point either because it requires a nearby character that does nothing but buff the weeny infantry.
buff the weeny infantry AND provide a cheap HQ for cheap CPs.
Vaktathi wrote: The big point however, magnificently illustrated here, was that similar units that are doing even more for even less, but everyone focuses on the Infantry Squad. In fact, the Infantry Squad drops down to inflicting only 2.08 wounds (27pts) without the officer, the plasma SWS still does 2.42 (31.46pts) and is only 45pts. Yet we hear nothing about this unit and nobody takes it
Why this focus on the Infantry Squad over everything else?
Because it fills out detachments for CP's. Because it's incredibly durable for its cost. Because its one of the cheapest sources of CP. Because they are prolific in Imperial soup lists. Because they are one of (if not the) most flexible units in the game.
Vaktathi wrote: It's not basic infantry like guardsmen that are doing the bulk of the killing in armies, often the "loyal 32" are all dead before they ever have a chance to fire a shot. The value that we see so widespread is from the CP battery and secondarily the board control offered by bodies, not their killing power.
The correct and more true account is that it's 'not JUST their killing power that makes them an attractive proposition to competitive Imperial soup players' because that is certainly above average for their cost. It's also their durability, ability to hold objectives, control the board, move to where they need to be to contest objectives, screen more valuable other units as a few, quick reasons. They don't cost enough for all they offer a player.
Yeah, he isn’t defending their current points cost. That y’all read. Then y’all act uppity by skipping over how he believes y’all are being ridiculous for saying everything people say in that you disagree with is a strawman. All this is is argumentum abusi fallacia. Y’all dismiss the points of others that y’all don’t like by arguing it’s a logical fallacy. If it is such a bad point, y’all could prove it, rather than saying it is bad because “I said so.”
Its odd that you apologists say you aren't defending the current points cost of Guardsmen when all through the thread that's exactly what you've been doing and you refuse to acknowledge that 4 ppm is too cheap. If you don't believe 4 ppm is too cheap, you are by definition defending their current points cost. Here's a quotation from like 2 pages back that sounds to me like he's exactly defending their current points cost, I've bolded the relevant bits for you:
me, a few pages ago wrote:Almost like there should be a minimum cost per troop wound for Imperial soup and that 4 ppm is too low right?
No, it's almost like people chose more wounds as a trade off over something else.
The arguments put forward aren't all straw man. Many of them are simply dishonest (but we've had straw man too) or misdirectional. We've already seen a comparison of SOB vs Guardsmen where 300 odd points of SOB were compared against 200 odd points of Guard (not mentioned in the comparison) and still performed worse. This has also been proven mathematically earlier in the thread. It's not a matter of 'my opinion is right and yours is wrong'. It's actually 'you are not comparing apples with apples therefore your conclusion is completely incorrect'. Literally its right there. Have you read the thread at all?
Now what you are doing, ironically, is straw manning us, claiming that we are being 'uppity' and we claim that 'everything we disagree with is straw man'. Nice try. No cigar I'm afraid. Regardless of your liberal use of "y'all".
Once again, Boyz are technically the same price as long as you were bringing multiples of 10 and buying the bomb upgrade, due to it being free now.
If you weren't buying it before, well, you're buying it now.
What fething bomb upgrade are you on about?
No, It rather looks like he is disagreeing that there should be a minimum troops cost per wound for Imperial soup. It seems nuance is lost on you. Just like claiming believing something is too cheap is not equal to defending that position. That is changing things up a bit.
There are people on these forums that have called for 7 ppm guardsmen. The point is that you just by raising the points costs on units only, then players will just take the next cheapest thing when it becomes more efficient.
STOP. The only people I've read that are calling for anything more than 5 pt guardsmen in this thread are wanting to completely double the points on every unit to allow for more granularity in unit costing.
No, It rather looks like he is disagreeing that there should be a minimum troops cost per wound for Imperial soup. It seems nuance is lost on you. Just like claiming believing something is too cheap is not equal to defending that position. That is changing things up a bit.
Oh I disagree given the context of the discussion and the thread. But it doesn't matter. There's a real simple way for you to prove me wrong - all he has to do is say what he believes Guardsmen should cost if not 4 ppm. As requested earlier.
Its odd, the normal response to 'Guardsmen at 4ppm are mathematically better than most other troops in the game' if you weren't defending their cost probably wouldn't be to spout out a load of reasons as to why Guardsmen aren't undercosted?
There are people on these forums that have called for 7 ppm guardsmen. The point is that you just by raising the points costs on units only, then players will just take the next cheapest thing when it becomes more efficient.
STOP. The only people I've read that are calling for anything more than 5 pt guardsmen in this thread are wanting to completely double the points on every unit to allow for more granularity in unit costing.
I recall seeing people call for 6 ppm on other threads. That's why I pointed out forums, not this thread.
There are people on these forums that have called for 7 ppm guardsmen. The point is that you just by raising the points costs on units only, then players will just take the next cheapest thing when it becomes more efficient.
STOP. The only people I've read that are calling for anything more than 5 pt guardsmen in this thread are wanting to completely double the points on every unit to allow for more granularity in unit costing.
Slayer, I would challenge that your Deathwatch army would really be better off taking Guardsmen over more DW vets/HQs if the guardsmen didn't provide Cps to the rest of the army and the vets did.
SB/SS vets are only 25% less efficient for the points at shooting GEQ than Infantry squads with the distributed cost of 1/2 of a company commander. And they're hugely more efficient at shooting higher toughness targets because they are poison 2+. embedded naked termies in the unit are nearly as good at soaking no ap fire while the vets are better against most weapons with good ap (the exception being low strength ap-1 stuff that is also not S6, like Heavy Bolters I guess?)
If the guard can only use their 5cp on themselves you'll be throwing extremely inefficient CPs onto them...or just losing them entirely if the guardsmen get toasted turn 1.
If you take away CP transference entirely, the loyal 32 go away. Simple as that. Guard solo would most likely remain a viable faction, post CA2018 Deathwatch miiiiiiiiiight give pure marines a presence on par with like nids, Knights and Custodes would likely go poof, and the tourney scene would be largely Ynnari/Drukhari until those got nerfed.
There are people on these forums that have called for 7 ppm guardsmen. The point is that you just by raising the points costs on units only, then players will just take the next cheapest thing when it becomes more efficient.
STOP. The only people I've read that are calling for anything more than 5 pt guardsmen in this thread are wanting to completely double the points on every unit to allow for more granularity in unit costing.
I recall seeing people call for 6 ppm on other threads. That's why I pointed out forums, not this thread.
I said it was arguable. But gw does not appear to be balancing between codices, only within a codex.
No, It rather looks like he is disagreeing that there should be a minimum troops cost per wound for Imperial soup. It seems nuance is lost on you. Just like claiming believing something is too cheap is not equal to defending that position. That is changing things up a bit.
Oh I disagree given the context of the discussion and the thread. But it doesn't matter. There's a real simple way for you to prove me wrong - all he has to do is say what he believes Guardsmen should cost if not 4 ppm. As requested earlier.
Its odd, the normal response to 'Guardsmen at 4ppm are mathematically better than most other troops in the game' if you weren't defending their cost probably wouldn't be to spout out a load of reasons as to why Guardsmen aren't undercosted?
There is a lot more going on here than just the cost of guardsmen. There are people wanting to scrap the orders system entirely, or those that are exaggerating the orders system. There is more than just points here.
"Hah, guardsmen are running faster than supersonic jets." At the cost of not shooting, taking up two phases to run instead of one. Just for example.
No, It rather looks like he is disagreeing that there should be a minimum troops cost per wound for Imperial soup. It seems nuance is lost on you. Just like claiming believing something is too cheap is not equal to defending that position. That is changing things up a bit.
Oh I disagree given the context of the discussion and the thread. But it doesn't matter. There's a real simple way for you to prove me wrong - all he has to do is say what he believes Guardsmen should cost if not 4 ppm. As requested earlier.
Its odd, the normal response to 'Guardsmen at 4ppm are mathematically better than most other troops in the game' if you weren't defending their cost probably wouldn't be to spout out a load of reasons as to why Guardsmen aren't undercosted?
There is a lot more going on here than just the cost of guardsmen. There are people wanting to scrap the orders system entirely, or those that are exaggerating the orders system. There is more than just points here.
"Hah, guardsmen are running faster than supersonic jets." At the cost of not shooting, taking up two phases to run instead of one. Just for example.
Sorry, can I get my Harlequins to run faster than supersonic jets if they don't shoot and "take up two phases to run" please? I didn't realize that was an option - it'd be nice for them to be able to run faster than guardsmen.
Martel732 wrote: I don't even have the option. Why cant my marines double time? BA are supposed to be about speed.
yeah, it's weird, it seems like for every other faction in the game there's this other option for your models "double timing" where you add a D6 to their movement stat and they go a bit farther while giving up the ability to shoot most weapons.
No, It rather looks like he is disagreeing that there should be a minimum troops cost per wound for Imperial soup. It seems nuance is lost on you. Just like claiming believing something is too cheap is not equal to defending that position. That is changing things up a bit.
Oh I disagree given the context of the discussion and the thread. But it doesn't matter. There's a real simple way for you to prove me wrong - all he has to do is say what he believes Guardsmen should cost if not 4 ppm. As requested earlier.
Its odd, the normal response to 'Guardsmen at 4ppm are mathematically better than most other troops in the game' if you weren't defending their cost probably wouldn't be to spout out a load of reasons as to why Guardsmen aren't undercosted?
There is a lot more going on here than just the cost of guardsmen. There are people wanting to scrap the orders system entirely, or those that are exaggerating the orders system. There is more than just points here.
"Hah, guardsmen are running faster than supersonic jets." At the cost of not shooting, taking up two phases to run instead of one. Just for example.
Sorry, can I get my Harlequins to run faster than supersonic jets if they don't shoot and "take up two phases to run" please? I didn't realize that was an option - it'd be nice for them to be able to run faster than guardsmen.
Maybe if your Harlequins weren't a bunch of panzy actors and actresses they could
Martel732 wrote: I don't even have the option. Why cant my marines double time? BA are supposed to be about speed.
yeah, it's weird, it seems like for every other faction in the game there's this other option for your models "double timing" where you add a D6 to their movement stat and they go a bit farther while giving up the ability to shoot most weapons.
But, can't they still fire assault weapons? I'm pretty sure guardsmen can't fire any weapons at all after Move Move Moving.
Any unit that can charge can go as fast as Guardsmen, so long as it can either advance and charge or has a 12" base move.
The problem with MMM isn't the speed (my Slaanesh are faster), but the flexibility in order to achieve that speed, the enemy has to have someone I can charge at the end.
I honestly wouldn't have a problem with MMM simply giving an extra d6" or something. If MMM is the problem, it can be nerfed fairly easily without changing points one lick.
Guardsmen without orders or support are 4ppm models.
the_scotsman wrote: Slayer, I would challenge that your Deathwatch army would really be better off taking Guardsmen over more DW vets/HQs if the guardsmen didn't provide Cps to the rest of the army and the vets did.
SB/SS vets are only 25% less efficient for the points at shooting GEQ than Infantry squads with the distributed cost of 1/2 of a company commander. And they're hugely more efficient at shooting higher toughness targets because they are poison 2+. embedded naked termies in the unit are nearly as good at soaking no ap fire while the vets are better against most weapons with good ap (the exception being low strength ap-1 stuff that is also not S6, like Heavy Bolters I guess?)
If the guard can only use their 5cp on themselves you'll be throwing extremely inefficient CPs onto them...or just losing them entirely if the guardsmen get toasted turn 1.
If you take away CP transference entirely, the loyal 32 go away. Simple as that. Guard solo would most likely remain a viable faction, post CA2018 Deathwatch miiiiiiiiiight give pure marines a presence on par with like nids, Knights and Custodes would likely go poof, and the tourney scene would be largely Ynnari/Drukhari until those got nerfed.
My cheapest backfield camping unit for Deathwatch is pure (and nothing else) 5 Vets with nothing at 75 points. If I want some offensive bite, I might give them the Stalker upgrade (S4 Heavy 2 30") and that's now a 90 point unit.
For 180 points, I get to camp three objectives with superb durability.
Also you have NO idea how prohibitive the cost of Marine HQ units is. I mean, I WANT to run more Deathwatch troops, but in order to do that I gotta spend a lot of points to do it, to the point my one potential list with NINE troop choices can't be used effectively. I can go around this via using a specialist detachment (for example, I went with an Outrider and used 3 Tarantula Guns, which are useful on their own to be fair) but that only grants a single CP.
Honestly that's part of why I think the Marine issue is down to their HQ costs on top of costlier than other troops.
Martel732 wrote: Bottom line is that you have to build around removing guardsmen when list building. Most codices dont have access to a good way to do that, though.
Don't most people build their lists with the idea of taking out certain units in mind? Like taking anti-tank weapons for tanks, and taking anti-infantry weapons for infantry. Some faction may not excel at one or the other of those, but that is what you get when we have different factions with different flavors of playstyle.
There is a lot more going on here than just the cost of guardsmen. There are people wanting to scrap the orders system entirely, or those that are exaggerating the orders system. There is more than just points here.
"Hah, guardsmen are running faster than supersonic jets." At the cost of not shooting, taking up two phases to run instead of one. Just for example.
If orders are removed then obviously there would be a costing implication of that.
Regardless assuming everything stays as is in terms of orders and stats - what cost is appropriate to a Guardsmen?
Let's be honest. Orders aren't going anywhere. Guardsmen should not, in my opinion, ever be able to run faster than a supersonic jet. Missing out on the shooting phase is a tiny, inconsequential cost to pay for such an ability. As an example my Evil Sunz bikes can do a very similar thing. It costs 2CP, must be used on 'Speed Freeks' units only, is locked to Evil Sunz and stops the unit charging.
Vaktathi wrote: If there's an officer nearby giving orders and the target is within 12", then yes thats what the math shows. But then, it's not just a base 57pt infantry unit at that point either because it requires a nearby character that does nothing but buff the weeny infantry.
buff the weeny infantry AND provide a cheap HQ for cheap CPs.
Indeed, however within a self contained IG army, that doesn't really do much. For an allied army looking for a CP battery, it's huge. Cut the CP sharing, and that goes out the window.
Because it fills out detachments for CP's. Because it's incredibly durable for its cost. Because its one of the cheapest sources of CP. Because they are prolific in Imperial soup lists. Because they are one of (if not the) most flexible units in the game.
And yet the same could be said of that special weapons squad that nobody ever takes. Its slightly less resilient point for point but dramatically punchier point for point at the same time. Aside from that, it does everything an IS does, and they never appear in army lists.
What's the difference?
CP generation.
The correct and more true account is that it's 'not JUST their killing power that makes them an attractive proposition to competitive Imperial soup players' because that is certainly above average for their cost. It's also their durability, ability to hold objectives, control the board, move to where they need to be to contest objectives, screen more valuable other units as a few, quick reasons. They don't cost enough for all they offer a player.
Except I pointed out other units that do all of these things, some things dramatically better, and nobody cares or takes them.
The unit that we see everywhere is the one that unlocks CP's.
I'm saying that Infantry will be taken as allies regardless of what you do with CP, due to the efficiency that they perform. For my Deathwatch? That 5CP is merely the cherry on top of having durable objective keepers (with arguable offensive prowess to boot).
Thought exercise here: at what point do you stop taking them? What would it take to drop them?
More to the point, when do you stop looking to other armies and just use those points on actual Deathwatch units?
If all you need are objective holding bodies, do you still take them without any CP's, no orders, and at 6ppm? That should still be far more cost effective for simple objective babysitting than having DW units do it, but would make them awful for the core of IG armies.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Any unit that can charge can go as fast as Guardsmen, so long as it can either advance and charge or has a 12" base move.
The problem with MMM isn't the speed (my Slaanesh are faster), but the flexibility in order to achieve that speed, the enemy has to have someone I can charge at the end.
I honestly wouldn't have a problem with MMM simply giving an extra d6" or something. If MMM is the problem, it can be nerfed fairly easily without changing points one lick.
Guardsmen without orders or support are 4ppm models.
Not even close, really. But keep telling yourself you earned those wins.
That's basically what this comes down to. Just eldar didnt earn their wins in 7th, ig and eldar soup dont earn theirs. They autowin so many matchups by existing. Through superior math.
Vaktathi wrote: If there's an officer nearby giving orders and the target is within 12", then yes thats what the math shows. But then, it's not just a base 57pt infantry unit at that point either because it requires a nearby character that does nothing but buff the weeny infantry.
buff the weeny infantry AND provide a cheap HQ for cheap CPs.
Indeed, however within a self contained IG army, that doesn't really do much. For an allied army looking for a CP battery, it's huge. Cut the CP sharing, and that goes out the window.
Because it fills out detachments for CP's. Because it's incredibly durable for its cost. Because its one of the cheapest sources of CP. Because they are prolific in Imperial soup lists. Because they are one of (if not the) most flexible units in the game.
And yet the same could be said of that special weapons squad that nobody ever takes. Its slightly less resilient point for point but dramatically punchier point for point at the same time. Aside from that, it does everything an IS does, and they never appear in army lists.
What's the difference?
CP generation.
The correct and more true account is that it's 'not JUST their killing power that makes them an attractive proposition to competitive Imperial soup players' because that is certainly above average for their cost. It's also their durability, ability to hold objectives, control the board, move to where they need to be to contest objectives, screen more valuable other units as a few, quick reasons. They don't cost enough for all they offer a player.
Except I pointed out other units that do all of these things, some things dramatically better, and nobody cares or takes them.
The unit that we see everywhere is the one that unlocks CP's.
I'm saying that Infantry will be taken as allies regardless of what you do with CP, due to the efficiency that they perform. For my Deathwatch? That 5CP is merely the cherry on top of having durable objective keepers (with arguable offensive prowess to boot).
Thought exercise here: at what point do you stop taking them? What would it take to drop them?
More to the point, when do you stop looking to other armies and just use those points on actual Deathwatch units?
If all you need are objective holding bodies, do you still take them without any CP's, no orders, and at 6ppm? That should still be far more cost effective for simple objective babysitting than having DW units do it, but would make them awful for the core of IG armies.
So obviously the trick is to make Infantry actually be a fair cost.
6 points wouldn't be a good cost for Deathwatch to use for objective sitting. Cheaper doesn't mean better, but the cost of Infantry is already too cheap to not use them for the task, if that makes sense.
I don't want to nerf them to uselessness, but the apologists make me really want to argue for it. A flat 5 point hike for their Sergeant (making them 45 points total) is probably the only compromise both parties will take. Mathematically they're still good at 5 points but the apologists are in denial about that so...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: Any unit that can charge can go as fast as Guardsmen, so long as it can either advance and charge or has a 12" base move.
The problem with MMM isn't the speed (my Slaanesh are faster), but the flexibility in order to achieve that speed, the enemy has to have someone I can charge at the end.
I honestly wouldn't have a problem with MMM simply giving an extra d6" or something. If MMM is the problem, it can be nerfed fairly easily without changing points one lick.
Guardsmen without orders or support are 4ppm models.
Yet they outperform several other troop choices for that cost. 4 points isn't correct, sorry.
Vaktathi wrote: And yet the same could be said of that special weapons squad that nobody ever takes. Its slightly less resilient point for point but dramatically punchier point for point at the same time. Aside from that, it does everything an IS does, and they never appear in army lists.
What's the difference?
CP generation.
Except I pointed out other units that do all of these things, some things dramatically better, and nobody cares or takes them.
The unit that we see everywhere is the one that unlocks CP's.
Of course there is a value in CP generation. This isn't under debate. Welcome to 8th edition list building I guess? The debate is around Guardsmen being more efficient than other troops for their cost and hence contributing to why they are the de facto 'CP generating' troop of choice for Imperial soup players.
Tell me - do you think Space Marine players would take scouts as their CP troop if they had the option to take Guardsmen? How about Chaos players now cultists cost 5 ppm?
Also I must've imagined all those HWTs and other units in Imperial soup lists that have a brigade of Guard?
Be careful, shifting the focus to other, also extremely cost effective Guard units might not be the best idea.
E - Guardsmen need to be 5ppm. Please stop with this 45 pts for a squad nonsense. 5 ppm won't break them as a unit and they'll still perform exceptionally (probably too) well.
Yet they outperform several other troop choices for that cost. 4 points isn't correct, sorry.
Do you have a math citation without Orders? I would like to see them compared to Kabalites, plague bearers, and Fire Warriors. And remember, no buffs allowed.
Yet they outperform several other troop choices for that cost. 4 points isn't correct, sorry.
Do you have a math citation without Orders? I would like to see them compared to Kabalites, plague bearers, and Fire Warriors. And remember, no buffs allowed.
That math is in a dozen threads. Your head is in the sand.
An Actual Englishman wrote: The correct and more true account is that it's 'not JUST their killing power that makes them an attractive proposition to competitive Imperial soup players' because that is certainly above average for their cost. It's also their durability, ability to hold objectives, control the board, move to where they need to be to contest objectives, screen more valuable other units as a few, quick reasons. They don't cost enough for all they offer a player.
For the same cost as two moderately-equipped (plas+HB) Infantry squads and an officer, I can take 20 Skitarii Rangers split into four five-man teams.
The Rangers are more powerful, longer-ranged, harder to kill, and have the same bodycount to hold objectives. They can also spread out more, allowing them to better control the board and screen. The only things the Guardsmen beat them on are situational mobility thanks to MMM, and the ability to more easily fill a battalion.
Which brings us right back to them being taken for CP, so, nerf CP generation, and revert MMM to something more sensible while we're at it. Neither of those is an issue with the pricing of Guardsmen themselves.
This whole thread feels like a motte-and-bailey argument. It starts with 'Guard are taken in soup because they're too powerful for their points', and then when examples are given of other units that are more effective, the argument changes to 'Guard are taken in soup because they give CPs and better choices don't'. Well yes, even Guard apologists agree with that, but then why keep going back to 'Guard OPpls nerf' if it's the CP generation mechanic that's the issue?
I'm still in the camp of 5pts being probably the right cost, but the sheer inconsistency of these arguments is really frustrating. If CP is ignored entirely, are Guardsmen still too good for their cost? If so, explain the comparison with other units that offer better combat ability but aren't considered overpowered. If not, then the problem is the CP mechanic, and nerfing Guardsmen is just putting a band-aid on it while hurting mono-Guard players. Pick one argument and stick with it.
Yet they outperform several other troop choices for that cost. 4 points isn't correct, sorry.
Do you have a math citation without Orders? I would like to see them compared to Kabalites, plague bearers, and Fire Warriors. And remember, no buffs allowed.
Have you just never seen that done in other threads? Like, at all?
I mean I can present it if you want on my lunch, but I find it hard to believe you've not come across it yet.
No, It rather looks like he is disagreeing that there should be a minimum troops cost per wound for Imperial soup. It seems nuance is lost on you. Just like claiming believing something is too cheap is not equal to defending that position. That is changing things up a bit.
Oh I disagree given the context of the discussion and the thread. But it doesn't matter. There's a real simple way for you to prove me wrong - all he has to do is say what he believes Guardsmen should cost if not 4 ppm. As requested earlier.
Its odd, the normal response to 'Guardsmen at 4ppm are mathematically better than most other troops in the game' if you weren't defending their cost probably wouldn't be to spout out a load of reasons as to why Guardsmen aren't undercosted?
It’s hard to say because of CP generation right now. Imo you reduce the effectiveness of the catachan and you are fine at 4ppm. But it’s truely hard to evaluate as their main strength is CP generation. That’s why I have advocated fix CP sharing let the dust settle then start fine tuning from their
Yet they outperform several other troop choices for that cost. 4 points isn't correct, sorry.
Do you have a math citation without Orders? I would like to see them compared to Kabalites, plague bearers, and Fire Warriors. And remember, no buffs allowed.
I'm sure it has been done already but keen to see it again also.
Although its kind of a moot point because orders exist and there seem to o be no plans to remove them.
An Actual Englishman wrote: The correct and more true account is that it's 'not JUST their killing power that makes them an attractive proposition to competitive Imperial soup players' because that is certainly above average for their cost. It's also their durability, ability to hold objectives, control the board, move to where they need to be to contest objectives, screen more valuable other units as a few, quick reasons. They don't cost enough for all they offer a player.
For the same cost as two moderately-equipped (plas+HB) Infantry squads and an officer, I can take 20 Skitarii Rangers split into four five-man teams.
The Rangers are more powerful, longer-ranged, harder to kill, and have the same bodycount to hold objectives. They can also spread out more, allowing them to better control the board and screen. The only things the Guardsmen beat them on are situational mobility thanks to MMM, and the ability to more easily fill a battalion.
Which brings us right back to them being taken for CP, so, nerf CP generation, and revert MMM to something more sensible while we're at it. Neither of those is an issue with the pricing of Guardsmen themselves.
This whole thread feels like a motte-and-bailey argument. It starts with 'Guard are taken in soup because they're too powerful for their points', and then when examples are given of other units that are more effective, the argument changes to 'Guard are taken in soup because they give CPs and better choices don't'. Well yes, even Guard apologists agree with that, but then why keep going back to 'Guard OPpls nerf' if it's the CP generation mechanic that's the issue?
I'm still in the camp of 5pts being probably the right cost, but the sheer inconsistency of these arguments is really frustrating. If CP is ignored entirely, are Guardsmen still too good for their cost? If so, explain the comparison with other units that offer better combat ability but aren't considered overpowered. If not, then the problem is the CP mechanic, and nerfing Guardsmen is just putting a band-aid on it while hurting mono-Guard players. Pick one argument and stick with it.
I think most people would argue Skitarii Rangers need to go back to 8 points, so I don't know what your point is.
Your comparison is dubious because you included upgraded weapons that no one takes.
The argument is both for clarity. Not only is it cheap CP but its also that they outperform other TROOPS for their cost.
There is no point comparing elites and heavies with them as they 'pay' by not being troop choices and therefore not generating CP. In that it is part of their cost.
Oh I disagree given the context of the discussion and the thread. But it doesn't matter. There's a real simple way for you to prove me wrong - all he has to do is say what he believes Guardsmen should cost if not 4 ppm.
It’s hard to say because of CP generation right now. Imo you reduce the effectiveness of the catachan and you are fine at 4ppm. But it’s truely hard to evaluate as their main strength is CP generation. That’s why I have advocated fix CP sharing let the dust settle then start fine running from their
Get out.
You realise these comparisons where Guardsmen stuff other units don't even include the Catachan doctrine?
Your comparison is dubious because you included upgraded weapons that no one takes.
The argument is both for clarity. Not only is it cheap CP but its also that they outperform other TROOPS for their cost.
There is no point comparing elites and heavies with them as they 'pay' by not being troop choices and therefore not generating CP. In that it is part of their cost.
Oh I disagree given the context of the discussion and the thread. But it doesn't matter. There's a real simple way for you to prove me wrong - all he has to do is say what he believes Guardsmen should cost if not 4 ppm.
It’s hard to say because of CP generation right now. Imo you reduce the effectiveness of the catachan and you are fine at 4ppm. But it’s truely hard to evaluate as their main strength is CP generation. That’s why I have advocated fix CP sharing let the dust settle then start fine running from their
Get out.
You realise these comparisons where Guardsmen stuff other units don't even include the Catachan doctrine?
You realize you asked for my opinion and I gave it.... I never said we were analyzing the doctrine I was saying what I feel like should have happened now before a CP change. You have some deep seated anger issues about this clearly as you have to tell people to “get out” of a discussion after asking for an opinion
You realize you asked for my opinion and I gave it.... I never said we were analyzing the doctrine I was saying what I feel like should have happened now before a CP change. You have some deep seated anger issues about this clearly as you have to tell people to “get out” of a discussion after asking for an opinion
I didn't ask for your opinion, I wanted mmpi's. Because he said and I quote: 'none of us are defending their (Guardsmen's) current points'. Except you it looks like.
So while we're here what's your reasoning for believing 4ppm Guardsmen is fair if Catachan is 'tweaked'? Given all the evidence to the contrary (that I know you've seen).
Of course there is a value in CP generation. This isn't under debate. Welcome to 8th edition list building I guess? The debate is around Guardsmen being more efficient than other troops for their cost and hence contributing to why they are the de facto 'CP generating' troop of choice for Imperial soup players.
There was a massive discussion about offensive killing capability a few pages back, and why we didn't see entire armies of Guardsmen if they were so great. The response was that, like Kabalites and Cultists, you needed other stuff that these units couldnt do. The retort was that there were Guardsmen units that could, and they're not super common. The driving force behind the irritation with Guardsmen is the CP generation/regeneration in allied armies that have powerful 2/3CP stratagems for super units, which will be an issue as long as it's allowed. 5ppm isnt going to solve that particular issue. Within the context of a mono-IG list, the CP thing is much less pressing, and yet we don't often see these other guardsmen-composed units nor an excess of infantry squads beyond whats required for the detachment.
Tell me - do you think Space Marine players would take scouts as their CP troop if they had the option to take Guardsmen?
Space Marines have their own set of issues entirely separate from the IG (a basic Tac should be more 10ppm than 13ppm, the scale of the game has really outgrown them in a lot of ways). I suspect you could substitute most troops and get the same answer. As for Chaos, I dont think Cultists should have gone to 5ppm, but that appears to be an effect of GW balancing internally as others have noted. I dont know why they went up and Guardsmen stayed at 4, I was honestly surprised that they did not go up, but nowhere near as surprised as the Tank Commander going *down* 25pts
Also I must've imagined all those HWTs and other units in Imperial soup lists that have a brigade of Guard?
Generally mortar HWS's to fill out the brigade. You almost never see them used competitively aside from that (same thing with multilaser Scout sentinels). You almost never see SWS or Command Squad units either.
Martel732 wrote: This might be worse than 7th ed eldar. 1.5 yrs in and I'm really sick of ig apologists.
At least Eldar apologists have years of experience. The Guard apologists are too new to learn the subtle nuances of defending poor balance.
or perhaps people are focusing on the wrong things?
There's lots of stuff that should be toned down with the IG codex. Catachan doctrine is too strong (particularly on tanks and artillery where it has no business being so), Shadowswords are over gunned, Tank Commanders being grossly undercosted, CP regen relics and traits, and others, I'll even grant MMM.
But the thing that gets everyone super hot and bothered is...the basic putz guardsman being a little cheap (when this is about the first time ever in the history of the game that the basic core infantry squad has finally been considered a decent solid unit on its own, particularly when not being overshadowed by Vets) Primarily in the context of use by other factions
So obviously the trick is to make Infantry actually be a fair cost.
The problem is that a "fair cost" is a very different thing when talking about an IG army and a Soup list.
6 points wouldn't be a good cost for Deathwatch to use for objective sitting. Cheaper doesn't mean better, but the cost of Infantry is already too cheap to not use them for the task, if that makes sense.
For DW I can see that, though I suspect for many armies it may still be seen as viable, particularly those heavily reliant on the CP.
I don't want to nerf them to uselessness, but the apologists make me really want to argue for it. A flat 5 point hike for their Sergeant (making them 45 points total) is probably the only compromise both parties will take. Mathematically they're still good at 5 points but the apologists are in denial about that so...
Honestly I expect they'll be 5ppm at some point. I was surprised CA didn't make them so. However, within the context of the IG itself, its ultimately a minor issue and there's a whole lot else that's probably in need of addressing both up and down, its when paired with other armies that the issue is magnified and the Infantry Squad suddenly grabs everyone's attention.
Vaktathi wrote: The problem is that a "fair cost" is a very different thing when talking about an IG army and a Soup list.
No, it really isn't and this is the problem with your reasoning.
A fair cost is a fair cost.
Imagine that all units and stratagems were equally balanced against each other across all factions - soup wouldn't be an issue at all. It would be a decision based on preference of aesthetics and fluff, rather than performance.
Vaktathi wrote: The problem is that a "fair cost" is a very different thing when talking about an IG army and a Soup list.
No, it really isn't and this is the problem with your reasoning.
A fair cost is a fair cost.
Imagine that all units and stratagems were equally balanced against each other across all factions - soup wouldn't be an issue at all. It would be a decision based on preference of aesthetics and fluff, rather than performance.
This is going back to the idea where a CC is just cheap detachment filler for CP in a soup list and just a regular take in a mono guard list. That is why it is different for balancing and determining a fair cost, and the same goes for guardsmen as well, so don’t go with the whole CC are the problem.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, good luck with that lofty balance goal of yours.
You realize you asked for my opinion and I gave it.... I never said we were analyzing the doctrine I was saying what I feel like should have happened now before a CP change. You have some deep seated anger issues about this clearly as you have to tell people to “get out” of a discussion after asking for an opinion
I didn't ask for your opinion, I wanted mmpi's. Because he said and I quote: 'none of us are defending their (Guardsmen's) current points'. Except you it looks like.
So while we're here what's your reasoning for believing 4ppm Guardsmen is fair if Catachan is 'tweaked'? Given all the evidence to the contrary (that I know you've seen).
Because (as I stated earlier in the thread) they do not have access to
Unit strength 40
-1 to hit
Moral immunity
VOTLW Slannesh double tap
And last but most importantly a 40 man tide of trators which if used once more then pays for the 1 point increase. Now I do believe you could have left cultists at 4ppm even with all of the above had they needed to pay points for TOT like guard have to for SITNW. But because they don’t the bump to five seems fine. These rules is once again why cultist spam lists were popular up until now while guard spam infantry list aren’t taken (no I don’t consider filling out a min 6 squads for a cheap brigade spam) unless I’m a fluffy list
Vaktathi wrote: The problem is that a "fair cost" is a very different thing when talking about an IG army and a Soup list.
No, it really isn't and this is the problem with your reasoning.
Sorry, context matters.
A fair cost is a fair cost
Ceteris paribus sure. That is not what we are dealing with here however. Basic econ 101 concept here.
Imagine that all units and stratagems were equally balanced against each other across all factions - soup wouldn't be an issue at all. It would be a decision based on preference of aesthetics and fluff, rather than performance.
Except different armies function in different ways and stuff has different values in different contexts and thats why we have often similar or identical stuff with different costs in different armies.
Different armies have different strenghts and weaknesses. They have access to different things. Relatively little of this game is balanced with mixing everything in mind and the track record we have is that GW's primary balance focus is on internal codex balance.
When the allies systems allows armies to partake of units, capabilities, and other things they werent designed around having, we get absurdly powerful stuff that mixes elements of many different factions. Diversification has real power.
The overwhelming dominance of Soup lists, and the near total absence of mono lists at the competitivr level illustrates that better than any words I can write here.
Anyone arguing that allies is the issue seems to have forgotten the last two editions where theoretically your Tyranid army could've ran Scatterbikes if it wanted. In my Necron army, I could run a Tyranid detachment with 3 Flyrants with little recourse.
Armies being able to ally in Scatterbikes and Flyrants didn't lead to them being broken. They were already broken by themselves due to how they were designed. CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Anyone arguing that allies is the issue seems to have forgotten the last two editions where theoretically your Tyranid army could've ran Scatterbikes if it wanted. In my Necron army, I could run a Tyranid detachment with 3 Flyrants with little recourse.
Armies being able to ally in Scatterbikes and Flyrants didn't lead to them being broken. They were already broken by themselves due to how they were designed. CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past.
Guardsmen without orders or support are 4ppm models.
Pleas Sir? Can my Grots pay +1pt per model, and get extra shots, movement, str, tough, Sv, range, ws and ld?
Can we make it so guardsmen can start taking shots for tanks or HWTs? ill take a reduced stat line for that ability any day
It's a Strategem. And no, you wouldn't actually take it.
yeah, I would in a second..... do you know how good tank commanders would be if i could spend a cp and transfer wounds to conscripts
Also, Id argue that what you can do with your CP and your ability to generate it is the single most important factor in an army this edition and I think the splash that vect caused before its cost adjustment is good evidence that it's a true statement. The dominance of soup points to this as well because as once again a recurring issue has been dumping CP into units that don't have access to enough CP to spam those useful strategems. For instance, knights have never been an issue outside the ability to spam cp from guard. Thats why "CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past" doesn't hold up. Those "few moments" are making and breaking whole armies
Knights were an issue the moment they got their codex and you know that. That's part of their poor design and the universal "hey all the relics cost the same". They can get CP all on their own using the mini-knights and actually have a functional army.
What Guard bring is simply a few more CP and better objective coverage. For the price of an Armiger, why wouldn't you take it?
You also have yet to prove Flyrants and Scatterbikes were broken in 7th because everyone could take them.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Knights were an issue the moment they got their codex and you know that. That's part of their poor design and the universal "hey all the relics cost the same". They can get CP all on their own using the mini-knights and actually have a functional army.
What Guard bring is simply a few more CP and better objective coverage. For the price of an Armiger, why wouldn't you take it?
You also have yet to prove Flyrants and Scatterbikes were broken in 7th because everyone could take them.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Knights were an issue the moment they got their codex and you know that. That's part of their poor design and the universal "hey all the relics cost the same". They can get CP all on their own using the mini-knights and actually have a functional army.
What Guard bring is simply a few more CP and better objective coverage. For the price of an Armiger, why wouldn't you take it?
You also have yet to prove Flyrants and Scatterbikes were broken in 7th because everyone could take them.
First off don't you want them to have a functioning army?
Secondly, they had a day 1 FAQ so they could get CP Thirdly, I don't remember knights "being an issue the moment they got their codex" outside of soup. Mono knights were more a gatekeeper list then anything meta dominating
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Knights were an issue the moment they got their codex and you know that. That's part of their poor design and the universal "hey all the relics cost the same". They can get CP all on their own using the mini-knights and actually have a functional army.
What Guard bring is simply a few more CP and better objective coverage. For the price of an Armiger, why wouldn't you take it?
You also have yet to prove Flyrants and Scatterbikes were broken in 7th because everyone could take them.
“Few more CP”
Yeah, it IS only a few more. Are you gonna argue otherwise or make more emoticon gestures.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Knights were an issue the moment they got their codex and you know that. That's part of their poor design and the universal "hey all the relics cost the same". They can get CP all on their own using the mini-knights and actually have a functional army.
What Guard bring is simply a few more CP and better objective coverage. For the price of an Armiger, why wouldn't you take it?
You also have yet to prove Flyrants and Scatterbikes were broken in 7th because everyone could take them.
First off don't you want them to have a functioning army?
Secondly, they had a day 1 FAQ so they could get CP Thirdly, I don't remember knights "being an issue the moment they got their codex" outside of soup. Mono knights were more a gatekeeper list then anything meta dominating
1. Should Imperial Knights be a functioning army on their own? Absolutely, sure. I was one of the people defending them when they were first released, after all. Heck, I used to own a Styrix that I used as a Magaera (already not a great choice too) and I loved it.
The issue is how universal principles are applied (all the relics are free, as obviously even their Reaper Chainsword weapon is worth the same as the dinky Chainsword that Loyalists and Alpha Legion get) or ignored (give everyone a Warlord Trait and relic for only a few more CP).
The codex needs a full rewrite.
2. That day 1 FAQ kinda proves they didn't put much thought into Knights, doesn't it?
3. A single codex shouldn't be a "gatekeeper". That's not how the game should work.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: Right back to the maths to answer the question
1 basic infantry squad 40 points
At 24 inches
9 lasgun shots
Hit on 4+ wound T3 on 4+ Ap0
2.25 wounds before armour
Within 12
18 lasgun shots and a laspistol
4.75 wounds before armour
Firewarriors
6 with just rifles is 42 points
Hit on 4+ wound T3 on 3+ Ap0
2 wounds before armour
In 15
4 wounds before armour.
Add orders and the guard get further ahead.
Technically with the Fire Warriors being 42 to the Infantry's 40, you can add a Bolter to the Sergeant and let him contribute!
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Anyone arguing that allies is the issue seems to have forgotten the last two editions where theoretically your Tyranid army could've ran Scatterbikes if it wanted. In my Necron army, I could run a Tyranid detachment with 3 Flyrants with little recourse.
Armies being able to ally in Scatterbikes and Flyrants didn't lead to them being broken. They were already broken by themselves due to how they were designed. CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past.
Guardsmen without orders or support are 4ppm models.
Pleas Sir? Can my Grots pay +1pt per model, and get extra shots, movement, str, tough, Sv, range, ws and ld?
Can we make it so guardsmen can start taking shots for tanks or HWTs? ill take a reduced stat line for that ability any day
It's a Strategem. And no, you wouldn't actually take it.
yeah, I would in a second..... do you know how good tank commanders would be if i could spend a cp and transfer wounds to conscripts
Also, Id argue that what you can do with your CP and your ability to generate it is the single most important factor in an army this edition and I think the splash that vect caused before its cost adjustment is good evidence that it's a true statement. The dominance of soup points to this as well because as once again a recurring issue has been dumping CP into units that don't have access to enough CP to spam those useful strategems. For instance, knights have never been an issue outside the ability to spam cp from guard. Thats why "CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past" doesn't hold up. Those "few moments" are making and breaking whole armies
Shame it only works on INFANTRY then isn't it? Do you have a clue about half of what you write?
And can you stop desperately trying to take the discussion away from Guardsmen (that are the topic).
Your reasoning for wanting the most powerful point for point troop unit is because they don't get the same access to stratagems and powers that cultists have? Pathetic.
Guardsmen are better than Cultists point for point when they're both the same cost, they trade the damage output of Cultists for a massive boost in durability. Now that cultists are a point more the difference is even more vast.
We're discussing Guardsmen, I'm getting sick of the apologists desperately trying to take the thread into a discussion around soup by means of a pitiful defence. Guardsmen are point for point too efficient. It has been evidenced time and time and time again. Regardless of any changes to soup and CP, their cost needs to increase.
I can't wait until this topic comes up again and all you apologists ask for the maths on Guardsmen over performing, again. It truly never gets old.
wow you are just angry today... settle down buddy its supposed to be a friendly discussion. I know it works only on infantry I was simply musing on how it would be amazing IF i could take wounds for a tank commander because I've found that most of my friends immediately kill them each game. Also, why is it that i'm "desperately trying to take the discussion away from Guardsmen" when i was responding to someones else's post about grots? I think you might wanna take a break and a few deep breaths.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Anyone arguing that allies is the issue seems to have forgotten the last two editions where theoretically your Tyranid army could've ran Scatterbikes if it wanted. In my Necron army, I could run a Tyranid detachment with 3 Flyrants with little recourse.
Armies being able to ally in Scatterbikes and Flyrants didn't lead to them being broken. They were already broken by themselves due to how they were designed. CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past.
Guardsmen without orders or support are 4ppm models.
Pleas Sir? Can my Grots pay +1pt per model, and get extra shots, movement, str, tough, Sv, range, ws and ld?
Can we make it so guardsmen can start taking shots for tanks or HWTs? ill take a reduced stat line for that ability any day
It's a Strategem. And no, you wouldn't actually take it.
yeah, I would in a second..... do you know how good tank commanders would be if i could spend a cp and transfer wounds to conscripts
Also, Id argue that what you can do with your CP and your ability to generate it is the single most important factor in an army this edition and I think the splash that vect caused before its cost adjustment is good evidence that it's a true statement. The dominance of soup points to this as well because as once again a recurring issue has been dumping CP into units that don't have access to enough CP to spam those useful strategems. For instance, knights have never been an issue outside the ability to spam cp from guard. Thats why "CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past" doesn't hold up. Those "few moments" are making and breaking whole armies
Yeah almost as good as ork vehicles would be if they could use that stratagem :/ unfortunately nobody's stratagem does that.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Anyone arguing that allies is the issue seems to have forgotten the last two editions where theoretically your Tyranid army could've ran Scatterbikes if it wanted. In my Necron army, I could run a Tyranid detachment with 3 Flyrants with little recourse.
Armies being able to ally in Scatterbikes and Flyrants didn't lead to them being broken. They were already broken by themselves due to how they were designed. CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past.
Guardsmen without orders or support are 4ppm models.
Pleas Sir? Can my Grots pay +1pt per model, and get extra shots, movement, str, tough, Sv, range, ws and ld?
Can we make it so guardsmen can start taking shots for tanks or HWTs? ill take a reduced stat line for that ability any day
It's a Strategem. And no, you wouldn't actually take it.
yeah, I would in a second..... do you know how good tank commanders would be if i could spend a cp and transfer wounds to conscripts
Also, Id argue that what you can do with your CP and your ability to generate it is the single most important factor in an army this edition and I think the splash that vect caused before its cost adjustment is good evidence that it's a true statement. The dominance of soup points to this as well because as once again a recurring issue has been dumping CP into units that don't have access to enough CP to spam those useful strategems. For instance, knights have never been an issue outside the ability to spam cp from guard. Thats why "CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past" doesn't hold up. Those "few moments" are making and breaking whole armies
Yeah almost as good as ork vehicles would be if they could use that stratagem :/ unfortunately nobody's stratagem does that.
I think it would still be amazing with HWT but man are lootas mean with a grot shield. Haven't watched a Battle report yet where they haven't just shredded units. Wish they could do it for at least their smaller vehicles wouldnt make sense for the really big stuff like stompas though
wow you are just angry today... settle down buddy its supposed to be a friendly discussion. I know it works only on infantry I was simply musing on how it would be amazing IF i could take wounds for a tank commander because I've found that most of my friends immediately kill them each game.
Guardsmen without orders or support are 4ppm models.
Pleas Sir? Can my Grots pay +1pt per model, and get extra shots, movement, str, tough, Sv, range, ws and ld?
Can we make it so guardsmen can start taking shots for tanks or HWTs? ill take a reduced stat line for that ability any day
Asmodios wrote: Also, why is it that i'm "desperately trying to take the discussion away from Guardsmen" when i was responding to someones else's post about grots? I think you might wanna take a break and a few deep breaths.
Its literally all you do? You're 'defence' of Guardsmen being too cheap is that they don't get chaos buffs. Or its a problem with soup and CP sharing. Or anything else not related to Guardsmen (or reality).
Also I'm not sure why you think I'm angry? Your posts are comedic.
Nah, you are still being overly uppity. Some guy asked him about grots and their points in comparison to guardsmen. Get over yourself.
Ice_can wrote: Right back to the maths to answer the question
1 basic infantry squad 40 points 5+ Sv
At 24 inches
9 lasgun shots
Hit on 4+ wound T3 on 4+ Ap0
2.25 wounds before armour
Within 12
18 lasgun shots and a laspistol
4.75 wounds before armour
Firewarriors
6 with just rifles is 42 points 4+ Sv Hit on 4+ wound T3 on 3+ Ap0
2 wounds before armour
In 15
4 wounds before armour.
Add orders and the guard get further ahead.
Cultists at post CA2018
10 cultist at 50 points 6+Sv 10 autoguns
Hit on 4+ wound T3 on 4+ Ap0
2.5 wounds before armour
5 wounds before armour
If we factor in the extra range of the fire warrior and the fact their gun hurt light vehicle a bit more easily, this seems to be fairly well balanced as long as you don't add any order or boost. I would even say that the fire warrior come out a bit ahead of guards in such a comparison thanks to those advantages and slightly better armor.
The tricky part is how do we price unit synergy and optional boost. Right now, Guards are almost certainly underpriced because of their synergy and optional boosts.
Ice_can wrote: Right back to the maths to answer the question
1 basic infantry squad 40 points 5+ Sv
At 24 inches
9 lasgun shots
Hit on 4+ wound T3 on 4+ Ap0
2.25 wounds before armour
Within 12
18 lasgun shots and a laspistol
4.75 wounds before armour
Firewarriors
6 with just rifles is 42 points 4+ Sv Hit on 4+ wound T3 on 3+ Ap0
2 wounds before armour
In 15
4 wounds before armour.
Add orders and the guard get further ahead.
Cultists at post CA2018
10 cultist at 50 points 6+Sv 10 autoguns
Hit on 4+ wound T3 on 4+ Ap0
2.5 wounds before armour
5 wounds before armour
If we factor in the extra range of the fire warrior and the fact their gun hurt light vehicle a bit more easily, this seems to be fairly well balanced as long as you don't add any order or boost,.
The tricky part is how do we price unit synergy and optional boost. Right now, Guards are almost certainly underpriced because of their synergy and optional boosts.
How do you think their durability per point compares? Also its 40 points of Guard vs 42 points of FW.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Anyone arguing that allies is the issue seems to have forgotten the last two editions where theoretically your Tyranid army could've ran Scatterbikes if it wanted. In my Necron army, I could run a Tyranid detachment with 3 Flyrants with little recourse.
Armies being able to ally in Scatterbikes and Flyrants didn't lead to them being broken. They were already broken by themselves due to how they were designed. CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past.
In this instance, the two units largely already did the same thing, put out lots of mobile S6 shooting, and didn't really synergize, and had deployment and proximity restrictions. You wouldn't ever really run those together. Not every mismatch is a powercombo.
That said, we saw plenty of issues with allies in the previous edition with shennanigans like Skitarii in Drop Pods, BS/SW/DA superfriends deathstar lists, 6E Taudar ridiculousness, etc.
Allies have been a constant source of problems since their 6E reintroduction.
How do you think their durability per point compares? Also its 40 points of Guard vs 42 points of FW.
Its roughly comparable. The Guard have more models, but have a worst save. I would say the guards are more durable, but considering the guards could all get killed without being able to land a scratch on the fire warriors without being forced out of position, it's an interesting tradeoff. It's also possible that, being more numerous and having the same base size, not all ten guardsmen will be in range to fire on the fire warriors since the larger a squad get the harder it is to play on distences. A squad of six can play distence fairly easily. I don't know how moral would affect a squad of 10 vs a squad of 6 though.
A final warning and reminder to all participants of this thread: Rule #1 is not optional. Kindly stick to the topic and do not resort to insults, name calling or whatnot.
Right we need someone who is mathematically minded to do the comparative maths of Guardsmen with and without orders vs a variety of other troops that we consider to be competitive.
Both in terms of durability and output per point, probably against MEQ, GEQ and a vehicle unit as well as Lasguns, Bolters and a heavier weapon of choice.
It’s been done before and I can’t be bothered to do it again.
That will give us a good baseline for conversation rather than throwing incorrect assumptions about.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Right we need someone who is mathematically minded to do the comparative maths of Guardsmen with and without orders vs a variety of other troops that we consider to be competitive.
Both in terms of durability and output per point, probably against MEQ, GEQ and a vehicle unit as well as Lasguns, Bolters and a heavier weapon of choice.
It’s been done before and I can’t be bothered to do it again.
That will give us a good baseline for conversation rather than throwing incorrect assumptions about.
Don't forget you also need an analysis of different buffs they can receive, doctrines, range, cc ability, strategems, unit size, optional upgrades and what role are they filling general troops for an army or slot fillers to funnel CP to another army.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Right we need someone who is mathematically minded to do the comparative maths of Guardsmen with and without orders vs a variety of other troops that we consider to be competitive.
Both in terms of durability and output per point, probably against MEQ, GEQ and a vehicle unit as well as Lasguns, Bolters and a heavier weapon of choice.
It’s been done before and I can’t be bothered to do it again.
That will give us a good baseline for conversation rather than throwing incorrect assumptions about.
The reason why GW seems to have trouble with pointing correctly all its units seems to be linked to that difficulty. There is so much variable and different combinasion of units, weapons, strategical boosts, special rules, etc. that the point system is almost bound to be disbalanced in an area or another. It's a very difficult task even with the help of a mathematically minded person.
Plus, due to problem of scale, a point difference in infantry can make a sizeable difference. That's why I loved the idea of 10 pts guardsmen so much. It would allow more granularity. Right now, a barebone guard is 4 pts. It seems too low for my taste, but at the same time 5 pts per model might be a bit much if you make abstraction of all potential bonuses. A 4.5 pts would seem ideal, but beside skaven slaves in Fantasy, GW never made 1/2 point a thing.
How do you think their durability per point compares? Also its 40 points of Guard vs 42 points of FW.
Its roughly comparable. The Guard have more models, but have a worst save. I would say the guards are more durable, but considering the guards could all get killed without being able to land a scratch on the fire warriors without being forced out of position, it's an interesting tradeoff. It's also possible that, being more numerous and having the same base size, not all ten guardsmen will be in range to fire on the fire warriors since the larger a squad get the harder it is to play on distences. A squad of six can play distence fairly easily. I don't know how moral would affect a squad of 10 vs a squad of 6 though.
It's really not comparible durability.
10 5+ wounds is way more durable than 6 4+ wounds.
Because incoming firepower doesn't scale with unit size.
It takes 15 wounds before armour to kill those 10 guardsmen outright. It takes 12 wounds before armour to kill those firewarriors.
Don't forget you also need an analysis of different buffs they can receive, doctrines, range, cc ability, strategems, unit size, optional upgrades and what role are they filling general troops for an army or slot fillers to funnel CP to another army.
Not in the first instance. Orders = the most common buffs but we can include doctrines and their equivalents if you wish. Range snd cc ability should be included but generally it’s the same for the units. Unit size and optional upgrades are irrelevant at this stage. My proposal is to compare only troops with other troops. I fail to see what any troop is if it is not a slot filler to funnel CP into something.
The reason why GW seems to have trouble with pointing correctly all its units seems to be linked to that difficulty. There is so much variable and different combinasion of units, weapons, strategical boosts, special rules, etc. that the point system is almost bound to be disbalanced in an area or another. It's a very difficult task even with the help of a mathematically minded person.
Plus, due to problem of scale, a point difference in infantry can make a sizeable difference. That's why I loved the idea of 10 pts guardsmen so much. It would allow more granularity. Right now, a barebone guard is 4 pts. It seems too low for my taste, but at the same time 5 pts per model might be a bit much if you make abstraction of all potential bonuses. A 4.5 pts would seem ideal, but beside skaven slaves in Fantasy, GW never made 1/2 point a thing.
GW have stated that they don’t use formulas for things and they go with what ‘feels right’ which probably accounts for the odd points of some units and weapons.
I think 5 ppm is absolutely fine personally but let’s wait and see what the maths says.
Don't forget you also need an analysis of different buffs they can receive, doctrines, range, cc ability, strategems, unit size, optional upgrades and what role are they filling general troops for an army or slot fillers to funnel CP to another army.
Not in the first instance. Orders = the most common buffs but we can include doctrines and their equivalents if you wish. Range snd cc ability should be included but generally it’s the same for the units. Unit size and optional upgrades are irrelevant at this stage. My proposal is to compare only troops with other troops. I fail to see what any troop is if it is not a slot filler to funnel CP into something.
The reason why GW seems to have trouble with pointing correctly all its units seems to be linked to that difficulty. There is so much variable and different combinasion of units, weapons, strategical boosts, special rules, etc. that the point system is almost bound to be disbalanced in an area or another. It's a very difficult task even with the help of a mathematically minded person.
Plus, due to problem of scale, a point difference in infantry can make a sizeable difference. That's why I loved the idea of 10 pts guardsmen so much. It would allow more granularity. Right now, a barebone guard is 4 pts. It seems too low for my taste, but at the same time 5 pts per model might be a bit much if you make abstraction of all potential bonuses. A 4.5 pts would seem ideal, but beside skaven slaves in Fantasy, GW never made 1/2 point a thing.
GW have stated that they don’t use formulas for things and they go with what ‘feels right’ which probably accounts for the odd points of some units and weapons.
I think 5 ppm is absolutely fine personally but let’s wait and see what the maths says.
All of those are important because they all have attached value to them. When evaluating a unit you have to look at everything it can bring to the table so everything I listed above and probably more I didn't even think of such as deployment options (ie forward operators and the such). Looking at simply how much damage a unit does at x inches to a unit fails to capture what a unit brings to the board and is an inadequate way to look at balance. If that is the only point costing factor in the game then the balance would be simple to achieve from simply x points will do y damage while having z durability while no other factors were important
An Actual Englishman wrote: Right we need someone who is mathematically minded to do the comparative maths of Guardsmen with and without orders vs a variety of other troops that we consider to be competitive.
Both in terms of durability and output per point, probably against MEQ, GEQ and a vehicle unit as well as Lasguns, Bolters and a heavier weapon of choice.
It’s been done before and I can’t be bothered to do it again.
That will give us a good baseline for conversation rather than throwing incorrect assumptions about.
I did it for guards against FW and kabalites, and i'm not going to do it again.
The end result was that guards were heavily outgunned (without orders) by those two troops, but obiously won big when it came to durability.
Once you consider the orders though, they outgun pretty much ayone.
So to answer some previous questions. I think that the correct cost of a guard without orders and buffs is around 4,6 , so if it was brought to 5 i would have found it reasonable, but even at 4 is not a big problem. The cost of a gard with oders is the same, the problem is in the cost of the orders, they are too cheap. We are pointing our guns at the wrong target, leave the grunts alone and look at ultra cheap HQs, the problem is there.
By the way, the cost of a guardman in a soup is 6 points already if you consider the fact that once you shred those 30 guys he has 2 useless models. Those 30 guards cost 180 points, but they are still taken, so increasing the cost of guards is moot as long as there is CP sharing (for the loyal 32),
Also, let's try to keep down the hyperboles. The guards being at 4 ppm is not on the same level of 7th eldars, stating the contrary means being heavy biased in the matter. Sorry if you play BA, they are hard countered by guards, but half the factions in the game have no particular hard matchup against mono AM, especially after the artemia nerf. They are a good faction, but not an OP one (when mono).
7ht eldars were the most broken things the game have experienced at least in the past 4 editions, while here we are discussing a truly marginal matter for the balance of the game. If tomorrow the guards were to be brought to 5ppm, there would be ZERO impact on the meta.
How do you think their durability per point compares? Also its 40 points of Guard vs 42 points of FW.
Its roughly comparable. The Guard have more models, but have a worst save. I would say the guards are more durable, but considering the guards could all get killed without being able to land a scratch on the fire warriors without being forced out of position, it's an interesting tradeoff. It's also possible that, being more numerous and having the same base size, not all ten guardsmen will be in range to fire on the fire warriors since the larger a squad get the harder it is to play on distences. A squad of six can play distence fairly easily. I don't know how moral would affect a squad of 10 vs a squad of 6 though.
It's really not comparible durability.
10 5+ wounds is way more durable than 6 4+ wounds.
Because incoming firepower doesn't scale with unit size.
It takes 15 wounds before armour to kill those 10 guardsmen outright. It takes 12 wounds before armour to kill those firewarriors.
You really only have to do something like 12 wounds to the Guardsmen as well because of morale. 8 dead means the remaining 2 more run away on a 1+.
The firewarriors at LD7 also need 12 wounds to wipe out, ish, because there is a nonzero chance the remaining sergeant will not run away - in fact, with bonding knives, there is always a nonzero chance of the remaining model fleeing, though I think that costs extra. Even at ld6 with no sergeant, you still aren't guaranteed to wipe out the squad unless you do 12 wounds - same with Imperial Guard.
Spoletta wrote: We are pointing our guns at the wrong target, leave the grunts alone and look at ultra cheap HQs, the problem is there.
That's a fair point. This thread was originally about how the orders make the guardsmen perform patently superhuman feats. Perhaps nerfing the orders would be a good solution from both the balance and fluff perspective.
How do you think their durability per point compares? Also its 40 points of Guard vs 42 points of FW.
Its roughly comparable. The Guard have more models, but have a worst save. I would say the guards are more durable, but considering the guards could all get killed without being able to land a scratch on the fire warriors without being forced out of position, it's an interesting tradeoff. It's also possible that, being more numerous and having the same base size, not all ten guardsmen will be in range to fire on the fire warriors since the larger a squad get the harder it is to play on distences. A squad of six can play distence fairly easily. I don't know how moral would affect a squad of 10 vs a squad of 6 though.
It's really not comparible durability.
10 5+ wounds is way more durable than 6 4+ wounds.
Because incoming firepower doesn't scale with unit size.
It takes 15 wounds before armour to kill those 10 guardsmen outright. It takes 12 wounds before armour to kill those firewarriors.
You really only have to do something like 12 wounds to the Guardsmen as well because of morale. 8 dead means the remaining 2 more run away on a 1+.
The firewarriors at LD7 also need 12 wounds to wipe out, ish, because there is a nonzero chance the remaining sergeant will not run away - in fact, with bonding knives, there is always a nonzero chance of the remaining model fleeing, though I think that costs extra. Even at ld6 with no sergeant, you still aren't guaranteed to wipe out the squad unless you do 12 wounds - same with Imperial Guard.
Identical in fact.
This assumes that Ld isn't mitigated by strategum use, it will be if it's game critical, it's also depending upon all that damage being done in a single turn for moral to kick in.
Do damage over multiple turns and guard win big in durability.
So, just to be clear, we're assuming this is ACTUALLY a 1v1, and not just a minor part of a larger battle?
Because if so, then yeah, of course a Guard player will spend 2 CP to save four guardsmen. But how often does that happen in an actual game, where you have other units that matter more?
How do you think their durability per point compares? Also its 40 points of Guard vs 42 points of FW.
Its roughly comparable. The Guard have more models, but have a worst save. I would say the guards are more durable, but considering the guards could all get killed without being able to land a scratch on the fire warriors without being forced out of position, it's an interesting tradeoff. It's also possible that, being more numerous and having the same base size, not all ten guardsmen will be in range to fire on the fire warriors since the larger a squad get the harder it is to play on distences. A squad of six can play distence fairly easily. I don't know how moral would affect a squad of 10 vs a squad of 6 though.
It's really not comparible durability.
10 5+ wounds is way more durable than 6 4+ wounds.
Because incoming firepower doesn't scale with unit size.
It takes 15 wounds before armour to kill those 10 guardsmen outright. It takes 12 wounds before armour to kill those firewarriors.
You really only have to do something like 12 wounds to the Guardsmen as well because of morale. 8 dead means the remaining 2 more run away on a 1+.
The firewarriors at LD7 also need 12 wounds to wipe out, ish, because there is a nonzero chance the remaining sergeant will not run away - in fact, with bonding knives, there is always a nonzero chance of the remaining model fleeing, though I think that costs extra. Even at ld6 with no sergeant, you still aren't guaranteed to wipe out the squad unless you do 12 wounds - same with Imperial Guard.
Identical in fact.
This assumes that Ld isn't mitigated by strategum use, it will be if it's game critical, it's also depending upon all that damage being done in a single turn for moral to kick in.
Do damage over multiple turns and guard win big in durability.
So assuming no buffs from stratagem or characters, and assuming the Guardsmen take multiple turns to kill the 10! then you need to maybe (depending on morale) need to do 3 more total wounds to the squad over those multiple turns.
JNAProductions wrote: So, just to be clear, we're assuming this is ACTUALLY a 1v1, and not just a minor part of a larger battle?
Because if so, then yeah, of course a Guard player will spend 2 CP to save four guardsmen. But how often does that happen in an actual game, where you have other units that matter more?
Spoletta wrote: We are pointing our guns at the wrong target, leave the grunts alone and look at ultra cheap HQs, the problem is there.
That's a fair point. This thread was originally about how the orders make the guardsmen perform patently superhuman feats. Perhaps nerfing the orders would be a good solution from both the balance and fluff perspective.
I wouldn't mind a reworking of orders. I find them fluffy so don't want them to go away but wouldn't mind personally if they had reduced effectiveness. Peoples main issue always seems to be FRFSRF so maybe just reduce the number of added shots
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Anyone arguing that allies is the issue seems to have forgotten the last two editions where theoretically your Tyranid army could've ran Scatterbikes if it wanted. In my Necron army, I could run a Tyranid detachment with 3 Flyrants with little recourse.
Armies being able to ally in Scatterbikes and Flyrants didn't lead to them being broken. They were already broken by themselves due to how they were designed. CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past.
In this instance, the two units largely already did the same thing, put out lots of mobile S6 shooting, and didn't really synergize, and had deployment and proximity restrictions. You wouldn't ever really run those together. Not every mismatch is a powercombo.
That said, we saw plenty of issues with allies in the previous edition with shennanigans like Skitarii in Drop Pods, BS/SW/DA superfriends deathstar lists, 6E Taudar ridiculousness, etc.
Allies have been a constant source of problems since their 6E reintroduction.
So what synergy is offered with allied Guard outside the CP for 8th?
The answer is none. They would be taken on their own merit.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Anyone arguing that allies is the issue seems to have forgotten the last two editions where theoretically your Tyranid army could've ran Scatterbikes if it wanted. In my Necron army, I could run a Tyranid detachment with 3 Flyrants with little recourse.
Armies being able to ally in Scatterbikes and Flyrants didn't lead to them being broken. They were already broken by themselves due to how they were designed. CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past.
In this instance, the two units largely already did the same thing, put out lots of mobile S6 shooting, and didn't really synergize, and had deployment and proximity restrictions. You wouldn't ever really run those together. Not every mismatch is a powercombo.
That said, we saw plenty of issues with allies in the previous edition with shennanigans like Skitarii in Drop Pods, BS/SW/DA superfriends deathstar lists, 6E Taudar ridiculousness, etc.
Allies have been a constant source of problems since their 6E reintroduction.
So what synergy is offered with allied Guard outside the CP for 8th?
The answer is none. They would be taken on their own merit.
They offer 3
1. Cheap CP (the main reason they are taken)
2. Cheap objective holders (remove armies like knights or custodes main weakness)
3. Cheap screens (once again turns an ok army like knights into a powerhouse when the easiest place to kill them (cc) is now hard to get to)
Adding in soup right now offers key benefits in CP and unit diversity with 0 drawbacks that's why it has dominated the entirety of the edition so far
An Actual Englishman wrote: Right we need someone who is mathematically minded to do the comparative maths of Guardsmen with and without orders vs a variety of other troops that we consider to be competitive.
Both in terms of durability and output per point, probably against MEQ, GEQ and a vehicle unit as well as Lasguns, Bolters and a heavier weapon of choice.
It’s been done before and I can’t be bothered to do it again.
That will give us a good baseline for conversation rather than throwing incorrect assumptions about.
I did it for guards against FW and kabalites, and i'm not going to do it again.
The end result was that guards were heavily outgunned (without orders) by those two troops, but obiously won big when it came to durability.
Once you consider the orders though, they outgun pretty much ayone.
So to answer some previous questions. I think that the correct cost of a guard without orders and buffs is around 4,6 , so if it was brought to 5 i would have found it reasonable, but even at 4 is not a big problem. The cost of a gard with oders is the same, the problem is in the cost of the orders, they are too cheap. We are pointing our guns at the wrong target, leave the grunts alone and look at ultra cheap HQs, the problem is there.
By the way, the cost of a guardman in a soup is 6 points already if you consider the fact that once you shred those 30 guys he has 2 useless models. Those 30 guards cost 180 points, but they are still taken, so increasing the cost of guards is moot as long as there is CP sharing (for the loyal 32),
Also, let's try to keep down the hyperboles. The guards being at 4 ppm is not on the same level of 7th eldars, stating the contrary means being heavy biased in the matter. Sorry if you play BA, they are hard countered by guards, but half the factions in the game have no particular hard matchup against mono AM, especially after the artemia nerf. They are a good faction, but not an OP one (when mono).
7ht eldars were the most broken things the game have experienced at least in the past 4 editions, while here we are discussing a truly marginal matter for the balance of the game. If tomorrow the guards were to be brought to 5ppm, there would be ZERO impact on the meta.
Right once again for the hard of reading
9 lasgun guard with a bolter sargent 41 points
Non Rapid Fire
1.72 guardsmen
1.3 Firewarriors
.58 marines
.31 wounds on T7 3+
.28 wounds on T8 3+
Rapid Fire
3.44 guardsmen
2.58 Firewarriors
1.17 marines
.61 wounds on T7 3+
.56 wounds on T8 3+
Non Rapid Fire FRFSRF 3.22 guardsmen
2.42 Firewarriors
1.08 marines
.56 wounds on T7 3+
.53 wounds on T8 3+
Rapid Fire FRFSRF 6.44 guardsmen
4.83 Firewarriors
2.17 marines
1.11 wounds on T7 3+
1.06 wounds on T8 3+
6 Firewarriors 42 points
Non Rapid Fire
1.33 guardsmen
1 Firewarriors
.67 marines
.33 wounds on T7 3+
.33 wounds on T8 3+
Rapid Fire
2.67 guardsmen
2 Firewarriors
1.33 marines
.67 wounds on T7 3+
.67 wounds on T8 3+
Rapid Fire with Cadre Fireblade(only works on rapid fire)
4 guardsmen
3 Firewarriors
2 marines
1 wounds on T7 3+
1 wounds on T8 3+
Also as I feel points matter
Guard
Non Rapid Fire
6.88 guardsmen
9.04 Firewarriors
7.58 marines
Rapid Fire
13.78 guardsmen
18.08 Firewarriors
15.17marines
Non Rapid Fire FRFSRF 12.89 guardsmen
16.92 Firewarriors
14.08 marines
Rapid Fire FRFSRF 25.78 guardsmen
33.83 Firewarriors
28.17 marines
6 Firewarriors 42 points
Non Rapid Fire
5.33 guardsmen
7 Firewarriors
8.67 marines
Rapid Fire
10.67 guardsmen
14 Firewarriors
17.33 marines
Rapid Fire with Cadre Fireblade(only works on rapid fire)
16 guardsmen
21 Firewarriors
26 marines
Your basic infantry are overly durable for their points, even at 5ppm they still give up less points unbuffed to enemy shooting.
Add the rediculous over performance of orders and it's a perfect example of just how broken you can make a unit.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Anyone arguing that allies is the issue seems to have forgotten the last two editions where theoretically your Tyranid army could've ran Scatterbikes if it wanted. In my Necron army, I could run a Tyranid detachment with 3 Flyrants with little recourse.
Armies being able to ally in Scatterbikes and Flyrants didn't lead to them being broken. They were already broken by themselves due to how they were designed. CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past.
In this instance, the two units largely already did the same thing, put out lots of mobile S6 shooting, and didn't really synergize, and had deployment and proximity restrictions. You wouldn't ever really run those together. Not every mismatch is a powercombo.
That said, we saw plenty of issues with allies in the previous edition with shennanigans like Skitarii in Drop Pods, BS/SW/DA superfriends deathstar lists, 6E Taudar ridiculousness, etc.
Allies have been a constant source of problems since their 6E reintroduction.
So what synergy is offered with allied Guard outside the CP for 8th?
The CP's are a huge one thay can't be discounted. Being able to pull in an extra 8-10 CP between the 32 themselves and thr CP regen they can bring, thats often enough right there in and of itself.
However one of the other big things is board control and numbers. These are powerful abilities for armies like Knights and Custodes and Smashcaptain lists that otherwise would often lack the ability to play objectives while they simultaneously smash the bejeesus out of everything and refuse to die, or would lack screeners that would enable many other opponents to more effectively get to grips. That's been no secret. Likewise, it enables access to things like psyker support that some armies dont inherently already have, or cheaper psyker options that do nothing else but that.
We can see this in non-IG related examples as well. DE don't natively have access to Doom but get made way stronger when allied with CWE (often just for Doom).
JNAProductions wrote: So, just to be clear, we're assuming this is ACTUALLY a 1v1, and not just a minor part of a larger battle?
Because if so, then yeah, of course a Guard player will spend 2 CP to save four guardsmen. But how often does that happen in an actual game, where you have other units that matter more?
Rarely.
Had it done to both my armies atleast once.
Simply put having those 16 points of guard stick around means that having a 300+ point riptide or 400+ point knight on an objective ment nothing. Because that inconsequential obsec rule.
Which means overly durable troops are a problem.
Spoletta wrote: We are pointing our guns at the wrong target, leave the grunts alone and look at ultra cheap HQs, the problem is there.
That's a fair point. This thread was originally about how the orders make the guardsmen perform patently superhuman feats. Perhaps nerfing the orders would be a good solution from both the balance and fluff perspective.
I proffer a new idea. Perhaps officers have to pay for orders.
We already have an example with the Tempestor Prime.
Perhaps an officer gets one order base (being an infantry officer, after all), and add 5 as an upgrade.
CCs could have a maximum of of two, so paying 5 points like the Tempestor Prime.
Platoon Commanders stay the same and get played more?
) was conscripts. Once it became hit or miss to buff them, people stopped using them. Guard never stepped up into that role. They're just cheap meatshields, and source of 
