greatbigtree wrote:
@ Smirrors:

I loathe the quote and reply, line by line format. I remember what I wrote... you can just reply to that as a whole.

But it's easier for others to read, not just you.

You seem to be attempting to disagree with me. And that's fine, but you're taking my reply, to someone else, out of context.

If its out of context its because you didn't quote the person who you were responding to...

I have no innate issue with playing a high-powered codex, though I do prefer the challenge of taking on high-powered codices with a mid-range dex. Part of my enjoyment of this game, which I admit is on the wane, is meeting my opponent's challenge.

If you are just playing for fun, then just take a balanced list. I don't think the lack of challenge that you speak of is due to the guard codex being overpowered but other army codex being not as good. Certainly the BIG Faq adjustments made guard better so maybe they do need to adjust something.

I'm quite aware that the price change won't impact soup. Which is why I pointed out the measly 1.5% price impact. I presented this in a way that agrees with your statement.

Part of the reason people want to address the guardsmen points lately is due to their over representation in soup lists to purely supply 5CP and regen CP. I am saying that the change in price does nothing to change this.

Based on my experience, a Guardsman is worth 5 ppm, though. Both my in-game and out-game analysis points to this. Such an adjustment isn't a punishment, it is simply adjusting the points to accurately reflect my opinion of their battlefield capability.

And this is where we disagree. The base squad of guardsmen doesn't have much capability over any other armies troop choices, they are just cheap. Their capability comes from being able to receive orders so you should price their officers accordingly. Are 30pt commanders and 20pt platoon commanders too cheap?

I can easily fit a Brigade into 1500 points, using my (nearly) decades old collection of models. I don't have a lot, but I have a little of everything. It is really easy to do. I have never spent all my CP in a game, when I play this way. Again, I'd rather *everyone* just get more CP, then to have this battery be a part of the competitive game. CP tied to detachments and all that.

And not everyone wants to take a brigade. There are plenty of other formations people take and some of them may want some CP regeneration. The reason you don't spend all your CP in a game is because guard strategems aren't crazy strong or form an important part of a strategy as it does with other armies. This is a well designed codex IMO.

I do agree that some other armies need more CP but that should be addressed by those individual armies.

People should be able to soup because they like having mixed forces. CP should not be the reason.

I also play Guard. I know this is the most powerful Codex Guard has had since 3rd edition. (I didn't play them in 2nd). Frankly, I don't experience a challenge in my one-on-one games, though with the new Knight codex I'm thinking that will be changing.

Maybe thats to do with your opponents or you are just an amazing player. I would challenge you to take a balanced mono guard list and see how well you go. Outside of the recent catachan/artemia hellhound combos (artemias will probably get a 20pt increase each), I suspect you will end up in the middle somewhere.

I don't follow tournaments. It sounds like Guard's contribution to the top 10 recently was *mostly* as a Battery for other codices that have a hard time generating CP. I think that of all the codices I've encountered, Guard is the codex most *capable* of running mono-faction in a competitive environment.

Mostly batteries or some combo of lots of hellhounds, catachans and small soup of captains or knights.

Does anyone have results for Mono-Faction builds in large tournaments? I'm curious how Mono-Faction lists do in comparison to one another

No singular results but mono armies do appear sporadically here and there.

This channel does monthly reports and lo and behold the guard are at the top:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXthA8TSvxA

Honestly what I think Warhammer needs as a whole is to double everything's points. You can even have 4, 000 point games as the standard then. With that we can have better granularity of points vs value. I mean think about it if five-point Guardsmen are too expensive and four-point Guardsmen are too cheap if you doubled everything's points and did 9 point Guardsman that will be a nice happy medium. This would also work for balancing out the other troops from other factions like Rangers and firewarriors.

I seen a lot of talk before about how a D6 system is to constrictive, and I can see that point. But the D6 system is unlikely to change. So why not make the granularity in points rather than dice. I know this is Semi off topic but it kind of is what we're talking about as well.

 SHUPPET wrote:

It should probably be edited into the OP at this point, but Guard Primary armies (not the batteries) are extremely dominant in tournament atm, being the top army in multiple aspects.

The meta ebs and flows as new codex comes in and shakes things up. The guard lists doing well are Catachan hoards with cheap Hellhounds complimented by squaring up the guard weakness of close combat with shield captains or blood angel captains, or reinforcing it with more fire power with knights.

Cherry picking the best units from codex does this.

Can I have Alpha Legion cultists instead of Guardsmen? I'll trade stratagems too, sounds fair to me.

w1zard wrote:

fe40k wrote:
Lastly, I hope your argument isn't, "I admit my army could use a nerf, but unless they also nerf everyone else at the same time, you shouldn't nerf us!". - I mean, come on.

No... my argument is "Nerfing guard without touching any of the other factions just makes guard weak and then nobody wins. If we are going to nerf guard it has to be a part of a bigger, sweeping balance change." Sounds better doesn't it?

tbh It sounds like the exact same thing

Also worth randomly saying, 10 guardsmen who can shoot like normal people cost 40.

10 guardsmen who can shoot Omg OP Fire Twice costs 55 points.

Well, thanks for breaking my heart there w1zard.

w1zard wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This would be a good start though and it wouldn't be too drastic as to potentially break Guard for 6 months while they wait for Chapter Approved/a big FAQ.

See that is the thing. I think it will nerf guard so badly that mono-guard won't be able to compete with the top tier factions like knights, eldar, and DE. I mean, even with 4ppm guardsmen we barely hold our own against the top lists.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. Mono-ANYTHING lists generally don't compete well at the top level. If you take a mono-guard list, you won't be against another mono-faction like Knights, Eldar and DE. You'll be against a soup army. However, just to put this into perspective for you; the top mono-list (finishing 19th I believe) at the last major tournament was Tau. The 2nd mono-list (finishing 20th I think) was GUARD. The fact that, as a mono-faction, you're able to compete in the top arena at all, is pretty telling of the strength of Guard. Bear in mind that many xeno factions don't have the option to soup at all, while guard do. So the fact that a competitive player was taking a mono-faction build shows that he believes the faction to be able to compete at the top level without even needing to soup. Let that sink in because the same probably wouldn't be said for some of the other strongest performing competitive lists at the moment (Custodes, IK).

w1zard wrote:
Fixing guardsmen to where they should be and not touching anything else just hurts guard. Either everything should get fixed at once, or guardsmen should be left how they are. I agree 5 pt guardsmen are an easy fix, but I'm worried it's so easy that they'll do it and never fix any of the other factions because the other factions have issues that are more fundamental than some undercosted infantry.

As for the math on 5 pt guardsmen vs 7 point rangers:

VS 40 boltgun shots:
Guard - (80/3) wounds -> (160/9) unsaved wounds -> 88.88 points of dead guardsmen
Rangers - (80/3) wounds -> (80/6) unsaved wounds -> 93.33 points of dead rangers

This is close enough to be fine

35 points of X shooting at GEQ assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 14 shots -> 7 hits -> (7/2) wounds -> (7/3) unsaved wounds -> 2.33 dead GEQ
Rangers 10 shots -> (20/3) hits -> (40/9) wounds -> (80/27) unsaved wounds -> 2.96 dead GEQ

Point for point, rangers are approximately 27% better at killing GEQ than 5 pt guardsmen.

35 points of X shooting at marines assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 14 shots -> 7 hits -> (7/3) wounds -> (7/9) unsaved wounds -> 0.78 dead marines
Rangers 10 shots -> (20/3) hits -> (10/3) wounds -> (10/9) unsaved wounds -> 1.11 dead marines

Point for point, rangers are approximately 42% better at killing marines than 5 pt guardsmen.

This also doesn't factor in that rangers have a 6++, better base movement than guardsmen, and have a 6" longer range on their gun.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
...+1 LD may simply be to make them equal with IS who are able to better deal with morale....

I thought we were comparing in a vacuum and not considering buff from other units? IS aren't able to deal with morale at all outside of comissars or banners and those cost points.

So, just to be clear, Guardsmen are 5% more durable, point for point than Rangers (even when increased to 5ppm), their damage output is slightly less against GEQ and even worse against MEQ? This sounds balanced to me. Either way, as I've stated, we're here to talk about Guardsmen. If you want to discuss Neophites or Rangers create another thread.

We are comparing in a vacuum, but since you keep asking a very specific question about a singular element of a unit compared to another I have to answer as best I can. Also, as I've said many times now, perhaps Neophites need an increase? Guard are far better than their equivalent costed units at 4ppm. They aren't much better or worse than 5ppm units, the difference is negligible.

w1zard wrote:

fe40k wrote:
How does the math change when you factor in the fact that Rangers have fewer wounds total than Guardsman?

Already factored in. A +4 save at 7 points means less wounds total, but those wounds are harder to remove. The per-point durability is basically the same vs bolter fire or lasgun fire for that matter. You can check my math if you wish.

fe40k wrote:
Also, there's the fact that Guardsman can get an extra 6" on their gun, making them equal there. Alternatively, they could have RR1, which changes the math a little too.

I wasn't factoring in regimental traits. If we want to go up that route then rangers can make everyone get -1 to hit on them outside 12" and all other sorts of shenanigans. Rangers get that extra 6" baseline and guardsmen don't.

fe40k wrote:
Lastly, I hope your argument isn't, "I admit my army could use a nerf, but unless they also nerf everyone else at the same time, you shouldn't nerf us!". - I mean, come on.

No... my argument is "Nerfing guard without touching any of the other factions just makes guard weak and then nobody wins. If we are going to nerf guard it has to be a part of a bigger, sweeping balance change." Sounds better doesn't it?

Compair 5ppm Guard vrs Firewarriors at 7ppm and their balanced
Compair 7ppm Rangers vrs Firewarriors and the Rangers are better
, both can't be worth 7ppm so either firewarriors are only worth 6ppm which is just giving infantry less and less ppm to be different or Rangers are 8ppm.
Just making every unit cheap enough to compete with the most OP stuff leads to the current mess we have where frankly a 6x8 table is no longer large enough for a 2k game really.

Guard isn't a mono-faction army, and shouldn't be balanced as though they are. If you are going to balance them as they are, the only comparison is to other armies as a mono-faction as well. By either measure, Guardsmen are not a 4 pt model.

I'm a Krieg player, which means I'm used to playing 5ppm guardsmen, without access to frfsrf. Even then, they're a great unit.

IS have lots of shots, access to the best movement in the troop bracket, are some of the best bubblewrap going (in a faction that uses bubblewrap better than any other), put obsec all over the place, are more killy than most troop choices in the game, and are stupid cheap. 5ppm is a steal.

Ice_can wrote:
Compair 5ppm Guard vrs Firewarriors at 7ppm and their balanced
Compair 7ppm Rangers vrs Firewarriors and the Rangers are better
, both can't be worth 7ppm so either firewarriors are only worth 6ppm which is just giving infantry less and less ppm to be different or Rangers are 8ppm.
Just making every unit cheap enough to compete with the most OP stuff leads to the current mess we have where frankly a 6x8 table is no longer large enough for a 2k game really.

Sure they can.

Are Rangers remotely effecting the meta right now? Are Ad Mech or Ad Mech soups the terror of the lists?
Seemingly no.
So I don't really see what basis is being made for them being too good and needing a nerf.

This idea that the 6++ matters also indicates a lack of experience of playing the game. Okay your ranger holds up a bit better versus plasma guns and thunder hammers. How often does that come up? If said things are going into rangers that's usually a sign everything else is dead.

It's also worth noting that the offensive ability of guardsmen is largely a non factor. Although they are effective damage dealers per point, a single squad does very little damage. Their real value comes into play defensively, especially as allies to armies that would otherwise pay a lot more for a unit to sit back on objectives like Custodes and knights.

So people comparing the offensive ability of guard and rangers are missing the point. Being able to take a 10 wound objective holding squad for 40 points is so much better than a 10 wound objective holding squad for 70 points that does sightly more largely irrelevant damage. Simply existing is the guardsmen greatest strength. Other units can be relied on for damage. I'm calling it now that when ITC fixes reaper you'll start seeing a lot less mortars in your ally squads.

Tyel wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Compair 5ppm Guard vrs Firewarriors at 7ppm and their balanced
Compair 7ppm Rangers vrs Firewarriors and the Rangers are better
, both can't be worth 7ppm so either firewarriors are only worth 6ppm which is just giving infantry less and less ppm to be different or Rangers are 8ppm.
Just making every unit cheap enough to compete with the most OP stuff leads to the current mess we have where frankly a 6x8 table is no longer large enough for a 2k game really.

Sure they can.

Are Rangers remotely effecting the meta right now? Are Ad Mech or Ad Mech soups the terror of the lists?
Seemingly no.
So I don't really see what basis is being made for them being too good and needing a nerf.

This idea that the 6++ matters also indicates a lack of experience of playing the game. Okay your ranger holds up a bit better versus plasma guns and thunder hammers. How often does that come up? If said things are going into rangers that's usually a sign everything else is dead.

Rangers out shoot firewarriors head to head. When Have I said the 6++ mattered, the +1WS and +1BS sure do though

Just about everything in 8th edition has been left with no way to be rebalanced but points increases as post codex nothing can loose more pointa without becoming the next OP unit as theirs no space when stuff hits 2,3, 4ppm and they are everywhere.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. Mono-ANYTHING lists generally don't compete well at the top level. If you take a mono-guard list, you won't be against another mono-faction like Knights, Eldar and DE. You'll be against a soup army.

Mono-eldar and mono-DE does very well... also, wasn't the winning list of the last BAO a mono-knight list?

I expect my faction to be competitive when played mono, you don't? I mean... definitely not bleeding edge competitiveness because as you correctly pointed out soup is always going to be better simply by the virtue of being able to pick the best units from all the codices available, but mono factions should still be able to compete. In fact, I would argue that the ability of a mono-anything codex to compete with soup is the mark of a well designed faction/codex. Guard is where EVERY codex should be in terms of competitiveness, general usability, and cool mechanics.

I still agree with you that guardsmen should be 5 pts BTW.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
So, just to be clear, Guardsmen are 5% more durable, point for point than Rangers (even when increased to 5ppm), their damage output is slightly less against GEQ and even worse against MEQ? This sounds balanced to me.

You are being disingenuous. A 27% damage advantage over guardsmen against GEQ is not "slightly" less... and why is it ok that rangers are 42% better against marines than guardsmen (even after factoring points cost in) when they are pretty much equal defensively?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
We are comparing in a vacuum, but since you keep asking a very specific question about a singular element of a unit compared to another I have to answer as best I can. Also, as I've said many times now, perhaps Neophites need an increase? Guard are far better than their equivalent costed units at 4ppm. They aren't much better or worse than 5ppm units, the difference is negligible.

+1L is actually useful on 10 man squads, it is not "negligible". Even if it was "negligible" neophytes are guardsmen+ for the same points cost and that is not fair by your own standards. So let me be clear on this. Do you support points increases OR nerfs to units like rangers and neophytes that are pretty much directly superior to 5 pt guardsmen? You have been implying it, I want to hear you say it.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Guard isn't a mono-faction army, and shouldn't be balanced as though they are....

I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry.

There are factions that are not designed to function outside of soup such as knights, assassins, inquisition, SOS etc. IG is not one of them.

w1zard wrote:

I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry.

You've been in here crying so far, so I'd say you already made that decision

 SHUPPET wrote:
You've been in here crying so far, so I'd say you already made this decision

Contribute something to the discussion or leave. All you are doing is sitting on the sidelines and throwing out personal attacks and snark and it's getting really old.

LMAO I literally just contributed a logic based opinion, that YOU responded to with "I don't know whether to laugh or cry".

Don't get upset that that you got snark in return for your own, you were the one who quoted me first to do so.

I've contributed more sanity than most people to this thread already, yourself included, so have the tiniest bit of self awareness and take a measure of your own advice on this one.

Ice_can wrote:
Rangers out shoot firewarriors head to head. When Have I said the 6++ mattered, the +1WS and +1BS sure do though

Just about everything in 8th edition has been left with no way to be rebalanced but points increases as post codex nothing can loose more pointa without becoming the next OP unit as theirs no space when stuff hits 2,3, 4ppm and they are everywhere.

Whether rangers outshoot fire warriors head to head doesn't matter.

The guard defenders are right that units have to be considered in context of the army and available buffs.
Rangers are an okay unit in a pretty weak, one dimensional codex, with limited soup upside.
Rangers are therefore an issue for no one.

Guardsmen by contrast are a staple of the most meta relevant soup, and what is probably the best single codex in the game.

We are trying to make IG worse because they are currently too good. Making guard a bit worse, and then nerfing a swathe of other factions, doesn't get you that result.

w1zard wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. Mono-ANYTHING lists generally don't compete well at the top level. If you take a mono-guard list, you won't be against another mono-faction like Knights, Eldar and DE. You'll be against a soup army.

Mono-eldar and mono-DE does very well... also, wasn't the winning list of the last BAO a mono-knight list?

If you mean the BAO that just past the other week, then no. The winning list was DG and a small allied detachment of Renegade Knights.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. Mono-ANYTHING lists generally don't compete well at the top level. If you take a mono-guard list, you won't be against another mono-faction like Knights, Eldar and DE. You'll be against a soup army.

Mono-eldar and mono-DE does very well... also, wasn't the winning list of the last BAO a mono-knight list?

If you mean the BAO that just past the other week, then no. The winning list was DG and a small allied detachment of Renegade Knights.

Wait... wasnt it 3 Knights? Might have been another list i saw.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. Mono-ANYTHING lists generally don't compete well at the top level. If you take a mono-guard list, you won't be against another mono-faction like Knights, Eldar and DE. You'll be against a soup army.

Mono-eldar and mono-DE does very well... also, wasn't the winning list of the last BAO a mono-knight list?

If you mean the BAO that just past the other week, then no. The winning list was DG and a small allied detachment of Renegade Knights.

Wait... wasnt it 3 Knights? Might have been another list i saw.

It was one big knight, two armigers, PBCs and Blightlord terminators.

Guard is also problematic in terms of balance because there is little counter play.

Commander Spam was nerfed because it was too strong, and there was no real documented counter play. People knew what the list was for about a year, and it was still doing very well overall as an index based army. Like you knew *exactly* what list you'd face against Index Tau but that wouldn't help you. That's how it is with Guard. You essentially know what you're going to get. And, there's little that can be done for it. None of us have efficient tools to remove the chaff, which is required to kill the artillery that's pounding you without LOS. If Guard want to be great at melee they can do that too.

At the end of the day this one faction has way too much and it's too cheap. They present a distinct balance problem in 40k.

 Marmatag wrote:
Guard is also problematic in terms of balance because there is little counter play.

Commander Spam was nerfed because it was too strong, and there was no real documented counter play. People knew what the list was for about a year, and it was still doing very well overall as an index based army. Like you knew *exactly* what list you'd face against Index Tau but that wouldn't help you. That's how it is with Guard. You essentially know what you're going to get. And, there's little that can be done for it. None of us have efficient tools to remove the chaff, which is required to kill the artillery that's pounding you without LOS. If Guard want to be great at melee they can do that too.

At the end of the day this one faction has way too much and it's too cheap. They present a distinct balance problem in 40k.

This!

I don't think Tau Commanders got limited because they were too good. I don't seem to remember them winning tournaments left and right, or even being that upsetting compared to certain other things.

They got nerfed because GW decided they didn't want people building Tau armies around commander spam. They would eventually try and stop spam more generally with the rule of 3.

 Marmatag wrote:
Guard is also problematic in terms of balance because there is little counter play.

Commander Spam was nerfed because it was too strong, and there was no real documented counter play. People knew what the list was for about a year, and it was still doing very well overall as an index based army. Like you knew *exactly* what list you'd face against Index Tau but that wouldn't help you.

Commander spam was nerfed because it was strong and because people were foregoing actual Crisis Suits in favor of just bringing HQs.

It's like if Tactical Marines were replaced by Captains and Lieutenants.

That's how it is with Guard. You essentially know what you're going to get. And, there's little that can be done for it. None of us have efficient tools to remove the chaff, which is required to kill the artillery that's pounding you without LOS. If Guard want to be great at melee they can do that too.

At the end of the day this one faction has way too much and it's too cheap. They present a distinct balance problem in 40k.

They really don't. They're the epitome of how the shooting factions should work. Tau should be similar to Guard. AdMech should be similar to Guard.

Also, "Guard great at melee" is lols. Just lols.

And now we have come to the "Guard isn't a mono-faction army, and shouldn't be balanced as though they are" So after all the arguing that guard themselves are broken when there is no Data to actually back up the claim you simply pick up the goalpost and move it to guard aren't supposed to be played as a mono faction. Seems like someone is coming round to the fact that soup is the issue and that we need to do something about it instead of nerfing one army in the soup.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Plenty of Guard players are fine with 5 ppm Infantry.
Anyhow, the myth that Guard players don't accept / appreciate their powerful codex is a myth. Get over it.

It looks like all the guard player posts after this one are complaints that Guard aren't OP and their dex isn't a problem...

bananathug wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Plenty of Guard players are fine with 5 ppm Infantry.
Anyhow, the myth that Guard players don't accept / appreciate their powerful codex is a myth. Get over it.

It looks like all the guard player posts after this one are complaints that Guard aren't OP and their dex isn't a problem...

And it looks like most of the complaints about Guard Infantry are based upon soup, while claiming that the dex itself is the problem not soup.

Funny how that works...

w1zard wrote:
Mono-eldar and mono-DE does very well... also, wasn't the winning list of the last BAO a mono-knight list?

See below. I've told you what the top mono faction and next top mono faction was at the BAO. For some reason you missed it out of your quotation response. Here it is again; "However, just to put this into perspective for you; the top mono-list (finishing 19th I believe) at the last major tournament was Tau. The 2nd mono-list (finishing 20th I think) was GUARD. The fact that, as a mono-faction, you're able to compete in the top arena at all, is pretty telling of the strength of Guard. Bear in mind that many xeno factions don't have the option to soup at all, while guard do. So the fact that a competitive player was taking a mono-faction build shows that he believes the faction to be able to compete at the top level without even needing to soup. Let that sink in because the same probably wouldn't be said for some of the other strongest performing competitive lists at the moment (Custodes, IK)." Yea, mono Eldar and DE do well. Not as well as mono Tau or Guard if BAO is anything to go by.

w1zard wrote:
I expect my faction to be competitive when played mono, you don't? I mean... definitely not bleeding edge competitiveness because as you correctly pointed out soup is always going to be better simply by the virtue of being able to pick the best units from all the codices available, but mono factions should still be able to compete. In fact, I would argue that the ability of a mono-anything codex to compete with soup is the mark of a well designed faction/codex. Guard is where EVERY codex should be in terms of competitiveness, general usability, and cool mechanics.

Since my faction can only be played mono yea I fething hope it's competitive. When you're talking about the top 10 or 20 placings at a tournament as big as BAO you're talking about bleeding edge competitiveness so there'll always be soup. As I said earlier, a player is (in most cases) hamstringing himself if he picks a mono faction and attends a tournament. Guard as a whole might be "where every codex should be", but Guardsmen aren't. This discussion is regarding Guardsmen.

w1zard wrote:
I still agree with you that guardsmen should be 5 pts BTW.

Thank feth for that.

w1zard wrote:
You are being disingenuous. A 27% damage advantage over guardsmen against GEQ is not "slightly" less... and why is it ok that rangers are 42% better against marines than guardsmen (even after factoring points cost in) when they are pretty much equal defensively?

I don't think I am being disingenuous, actually. The role of Guardsmen is not to kill a ton of things with their flashlights. It's to sit on objectives. They are point for point better at that than Rangers even at 5ppm. Objectives literally win you games. You are being disingenuous when you say they are "pretty much equal defensively". This is false now and it'll be false if their points is increased. Guardsmen are better. Without stratagems and orders....

w1zard wrote:
+1L is actually useful on 10 man squads, it is not "negligible". Even if it was "negligible" neophytes are guardsmen+ for the same points cost and that is not fair by your own standards. So let me be clear on this. Do you support points increases OR nerfs to units like rangers and neophytes that are pretty much directly superior to 5 pt guardsmen? You have been implying it, I want to hear you say it.

I don't think +1 LD is worth a point and I wouldn't cry if Neophites lost it. Nor would I cry if they kept it and retained their points cost. I think, in comparison to the difference between Guardsmen and Hormagaunts or Termagaunts for example, the difference of +1 LD is pretty damn negligible. You've yet to convince me that Rangers are directly superior to 5ppm Guardsmen, in a vacuum or otherwise. Since you're so desperate for my personal stance on this though, here it is - I support both; if Guardsmen went up to 5ppm, I'd see no reason (in a vacuum) that Neophites should keep their +1 LD. This discussion isn't about Neophites or Rangers though. It's about Guardsmen.

This is what really annoys me about these sorts of topics. Inevitably the defenders of their faction/unit automatically try and bring in another unit that's over/under costed and shift the focus on to that. Yes other units might also need a tweak. Make a thread and we'll discuss it in there. Don't bring in these other units because you don't like the spotlight on your own.

E -

 Kanluwen wrote:
And it looks like most of the complaints about Guard Infantry are based upon soup, while claiming that the dex itself is the problem not soup.

Funny how that works...

People are complaining both from a soup perspective and from a mono one. BOTH the dex AND soup are problems. The problem with Guard obviously lies in it's own dex. The problem with Guard Infantry is that they are evidently too good for their cost, whether souped or mono is not massively relevant.

Asmodios wrote:
And now we have come to the "Guard isn't a mono-faction army, and shouldn't be balanced as though they are" So after all the arguing that guard themselves are broken when there is no Data to actually back up the claim you simply pick up the goalpost and move it to guard aren't supposed to be played as a mono faction. Seems like someone is coming round to the fact that soup is the issue and that we need to do something about it instead of nerfing one army in the soup.

There is data to back it up, you just ignored all of it because it destroyed your argument. That doesn't mean it stopped existing lol, the rest of us all still remember it. And refusing to fix a balance problem in the competitive scene simply because the army in question COULD be run in a weaker way, is not how this game works, for anybody. You are the one choosing to hamper yourself, and overpowered stuff cannot be allowed to run a muck just so that weaker lists from lower caliber players are not impacted.

And taking the first fraction of a post out of context doesn't make for a very compelling argument. I said they shouldn't be balanced as a solo army as in, you comparing SOLO Guard to soup lists makes no sense. I also said immediately after that we can compare them as a solo faction - in which case you would compare them to other solo factions... You know, the logical thing to do. Super simple stuff.

But I guess you and w1zard saw that first half a sentence and started frothing at the mouth too much to read the rest of it.

5+ armor on a 4 pt model is soul-crushing and shouldn't exist.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
And now we have come to the "Guard isn't a mono-faction army, and shouldn't be balanced as though they are" So after all the arguing that guard themselves are broken when there is no Data to actually back up the claim you simply pick up the goalpost and move it to guard aren't supposed to be played as a mono faction. Seems like someone is coming round to the fact that soup is the issue and that we need to do something about it instead of nerfing one army in the soup.

There is data to back it up, you just ignored all of it because it destroyed your argument. That doesn't mean it stopped existing lol, the rest of us all still remember it. And refusing to fix a balance problem in the competitive scene simply because the army in question COULD be run in a weaker way, is not how this game works, for anybody. You are the one choosing to hamper yourself, and overpowered stuff cannot be allowed to run a muck just so that weaker lists from lower caliber players are not impacted.

And taking the first fraction of a post out of context doesn't make for a very compelling argument. I said they shouldn't be balanced as a solo army as in, you comparing SOLO Guard to soup lists makes no sense. I also said immediately after that we can compare them as a solo faction - in which case you would compare them to other solo factions... You know, the logical thing to do. Super simple stuff.

But I guess you and w1zard saw that first half a sentence and started frothing at the mouth too much to read the rest of it.

No you have still provided 0 data that mono guard is broken in any way. You have provided plenty of data that soup is and issue yet everyone is focused on guard instead of addressing soup. When compared as a solo faction IG are not broken and running around stomping stuff as you claim.

 Larks wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Larks wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Most people don't even take gear on infantry squads. There is no reason to. You get to shoot twice with a lasgun for 4 points. It is super efficient. God forbid you have t3 and get shot by these things.

Mortars for sure are too cheap. It's a 10 point weapon at minimum.

If this is the level of misrepresentation you bring to the table, you should be surprised anyone is agreeing with you at all.

That "shooting twice" with a lasgun ability you've frequently mis-labelled (it does not let the squad shoot twice), will cost the Guard player 70 points for 9 "double-shooting" lasguns.

It's not 4pts/model for that ability. If you're going to decry the cost, include the entire cost that makes the mechanic you're complaining so loudly about actually possible.

What on earth are you talking about? Nobody wastes points upgrading Guardsmen, and by shooting twice, he means every model having 2 shots in rapid fire range.

No.

Xenomancers has repeatedly decried a 4pt Guardsman's ability to "shoot twice" - and yes, he was talking about FRFSRF, not just their standard lasguns - to call-out "shooting twice at 4pts/model" is to be disingenuous. 40 points will not get you that.

That's not surprising though, given that the theme of this thread is that somehow Guard being good this edition means they need to be "brought in line" - regardless that they haven't won on the back of their Codex alone. Using cherry picked "mathhammer" scenarios to prove a point, and constantly mis-representing what an Imperial Guard player gets for 40 points is the "in" thing to do around here.

5 point Guardsmen won't break the codex, but it's still an unnecessary change.

Uhhh - No? Everyone knows what FRFSRF does. It's really just guard players that underestimate how good it is. Guard can in fact reroll all hits with a squad if they are cadian. This has a surprising similarity to doubling your shots as well when you hit at bs 4+. So my statement is correct - twice.

And it's really only non-Guard who think they get FSFSRF for 4ppm.

Forget frfsf. They don't even need guns to be good at 4ppm. Just get in the way and take up space.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Uhhh - No? Everyone knows what FRFSRF does. It's really just guard players that underestimate how good it is. Guard can in fact reroll all hits with a squad if they are cadian. This has a surprising similarity to doubling your shots as well when you hit at bs 4+. So my statement is correct - twice.

Yeah, no. It's not "reroll all hits with a squad if they are Cadian".

Cadians, base, get to reroll 1s to hit if they do not move.
If you put "Take Aim!"(reroll 1s to hit) on them(which prevents you from putting "First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire!" unless you have Laurels of Command on), then you get to reroll all hits.

While sure, most Guard armies aren't going to be doing a whole heck of a lot of moving--retreating from a combat will make it so that you have to use the rally Order and prevents others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Forget frfsf. They don't even need guns to be good at 4ppm. Just get in the way and take up space.

And this is why it's impossible to take Martel seriously.

 ph34r wrote:
Also worth randomly saying, 10 guardsmen who can shoot like normal people cost 40.

10 guardsmen who can shoot Omg OP Fire Twice costs 55 points.

Required HQ's don't really work this way. Everyone pays a required HQ tax and wouldn't spend on HQ for things that aren't (bike captains, DP, Hive tyrants) if they didn't have to. AM are gifted with the fact that their required HQ's are way too cheap and doulbe the firepower of a unit that costs more than them.

And there goes martel again dragging the goal post to a new location

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Uhhh - No? Everyone knows what FRFSRF does. It's really just guard players that underestimate how good it is. Guard can in fact reroll all hits with a squad if they are cadian. This has a surprising similarity to doubling your shots as well when you hit at bs 4+. So my statement is correct - twice.

Yeah, no. It's not "reroll all hits with a squad if they are Cadian".

Cadians, base, get to reroll 1s to hit if they do not move.
If you put "Take Aim!"(reroll 1s to hit) on them(which prevents you from putting "First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire!" unless you have Laurels of Command on), then you get to reroll all hits.

While sure, most Guard armies aren't going to be doing a whole heck of a lot of moving--retreating from a combat will make it so that you have to use the rally Order and prevents others.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Forget frfsf. They don't even need guns to be good at 4ppm. Just get in the way and take up space.

And this is why it's impossible to take Martel seriously.

I thought no one was taking the Infantry unit for it's firepower? It seems it is a pretty important fact. Also considering the firepower is better than most other troop units for the points and usually double when you use FRFSRF.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
And there goes martel again dragging the goal post to a new location

No - it's a perfectly valid statement - in most games against blood angels - the infantry units don't even need to shoot to beat him. The manticores and basalisks and battle tanks can do that easily provided the infantry block his assault units - which they do easily.

Asmodios wrote:
And there goes martel again dragging the goal post to a new location

No. I'm simply refuting the idea that this about the criminally undercosted officers. It isn't. Think about what i posted before you start screaming about goal posts.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
Also worth randomly saying, 10 guardsmen who can shoot like normal people cost 40.

10 guardsmen who can shoot Omg OP Fire Twice costs 55 points.

Required HQ's don't really work this way. Everyone pays a required HQ tax and wouldn't spend on HQ for things that aren't (bike captains, DP, Hive tyrants) if they didn't have to. AM are gifted with the fact that their required HQ's are way too cheap and doulbe the firepower of a unit that costs more than them.

Then make it so Infantry Squads start at 5 models with a special or a heavy, 10 models to have both.

This is the part that you and many others seem to forget/ignore. Guard Infantry can't be higher than 10 or lower than 10.

No - it's a perfectly valid statement - in most games against blood angels - the infantry units don't even need to shoot to beat him. The manticores and basalisks and battle tanks can do that easily provided the infantry block his assault units - which they do easily.

By this logic, CC units don't need weapons. They can charge, that's all that's needed to beat a shooting army right?

Bharring wrote:
And it's really only non-Guard who think they get FSFSRF for 4ppm.

Is there an army that pays less for HQ than guard? No...so really - this is a bonus - not a downside.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
And it's really only non-Guard who think they get FSFSRF for 4ppm.

Is there an army that pays less for HQ than guard? No...so really - this is a bonus - not a downside.

Is there an army whose HQs can only apply 1 buff to a unit, regardless of how many buffs they could apply?

No...so really-this is a balancing factor-not a downside.

"Required HQ's don't really work this way. Everyone pays a required HQ tax and wouldn't spend on HQ for things that aren't (bike captains, DP, Hive tyrants) if they didn't have to. AM are gifted with the fact that their required HQ's are way too cheap and doulbe the firepower of a unit that costs more than them. "

As someone who can take Warlocks and Farseers, let me tell you this: yes, it's obviously going to be taken. But that doesn't mean for 0 points. A Protect'd and Fortune'd Guardian squad is *not* 8ppm.

Sure, the AM HQs aren't expensive, but when you factor them in, FRFSRF is more than 4ppm. Also, Orders are limited by a couple factors (number of units affected, access to other orders, etc). I agree that they're too cheap and FRFSRF is too good, but how can we reasonably debate just how good it is if we start claiming crazy stuff like this?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 ph34r wrote:
Also worth randomly saying, 10 guardsmen who can shoot like normal people cost 40.

10 guardsmen who can shoot Omg OP Fire Twice costs 55 points.

Required HQ's don't really work this way. Everyone pays a required HQ tax and wouldn't spend on HQ for things that aren't (bike captains, DP, Hive tyrants) if they didn't have to. AM are gifted with the fact that their required HQ's are way too cheap and doulbe the firepower of a unit that costs more than them.

Then make it so Infantry Squads start at 5 models with a special or a heavy, 10 models to have both.

This is the part that you and many others seem to forget/ignore. Guard Infantry can't be higher than 10 or lower than 10.

No - it's a perfectly valid statement - in most games against blood angels - the infantry units don't even need to shoot to beat him. The manticores and basalisks and battle tanks can do that easily provided the infantry block his assault units - which they do easily.

By this logic, CC units don't need weapons. They can charge, that's all that's needed to beat a shooting army right?

That would be true if they couldn't just fall back and shoot you to death...with things like...fly keyword...or the the case of imperial gaurd - GET BACK IN THE FIGHT. This is just getting too rich man. You can't defend infantry. They are OP. I could take a 20 man rubric squad - and be made competely useless for the rest of the game if a unit gets into CC with me. That is nearly a 400 point unit. Ig infantry squads though...they can get back in the fight. It is indefensible that a unit so cheap has so much utility. It is a joke.

How substantially cheaper is an Officer than an SM LT? When you're taking them in small volume, what % of the list is that difference?

It would be a great insult to be taken seriously by kanluwen. This thread is a battle between those who get it and those who don't. I don't think the "don't get it crowd" ever will.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
How substantially cheaper is an Officer than an SM LT? When you're taking them in small volume, what % of the list is that difference?

Less than half usually.

Why does squad number mater...do you really want to be able to take 20 point 5 man infantry squads...come on man...

You do know that a squad that fell back and is now shooting is not getting FRFSRF? More likely, though, wouldn't another squad be getting FRFSRF and what fell back won't be shooting?

Honestly, is spending an order so the remnants of a 10-man Guard squad after being blendered can shoot RF1 S3AP0 guns without FRFSRF really that much of a change?

Bharring wrote:
You do know that a squad that fell back and is now shooting is not getting FRFSRF? More likely, though, wouldn't another squad be getting FRFSRF and what fell back won't be shooting?

Honestly, is spending an order so the remnants of a 10-man Guard squad after being blendered can shoot RF1 S3AP0 guns without FRFSRF really that much of a change?

There are lots of situations where you get locked up and take 0 casualties. Consolidation. Sure it's not a lot a firepower - but its firepower that every other non fly base troop that isn't a harlequin or and ultramarine loses out on. Oh and the Ultra marines get a penalty for it...because if guard can fall back and shoot at full BS. Why would a space marine be able to do that without a -1 penalty? Also considering he costs 3x as much. LOL. It really is getting to absurd levels. Rational argument has reached it's peek here. Defenders wont listen. Just trying to protect their camp - which I understand. Just know - this is part of the reason why GW has such a hard time balancing their games. People being unwilling to be honest.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Bharring wrote:
And it's really only non-Guard who think they get FSFSRF for 4ppm.

Is there an army that pays less for HQ than guard? No...so really - this is a bonus - not a downside.

Is there an army whose HQs can only apply 1 buff to a unit, regardless of how many buffs they could apply?

No...so really-this is a balancing factor-not a downside.

Necron Overlords for starters.

I wouldn't agree that the UM penalty for falling back and shooting (-1 to hit) is worse than the IG one (no FRFSRF).

I do think 'buffhammer' is doing much more harm than good to the balance of the game. It's really hard to balance IG when they can cheaply (but not freely) fire twice or fallback and shoot. Or balance Iron Hands without making UM and RG op.

Incapable of being honest is more like it.

One of the reasons "Defenders won't listen" is because you're just producing noise.

As soon as you claim FSRSRF IG are 4ppm, it becomes really hard to take anything else you say seriously. If you were to clean up your arguments to be more accurate (whether that's an honesty issue or a comprehension issue), a rational discussion might be possible.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Why does squad number mater...do you really want to be able to take 20 point 5 man infantry squads...come on man...

You don't think people would like 120 point battilions?

Or 20 point 5w objective holders?

I think they would.

Bharring wrote:
One of the reasons "Defenders won't listen" is because you're just producing noise.

As soon as you claim FSRSRF IG are 4ppm, it becomes really hard to take anything else you say seriously. If you were to clean up your arguments to be more accurate (whether that's an honesty issue or a comprehension issue), a rational discussion might be possible.

Yet you have no trouble saying Hormagants are 5ppm and have synapse, and Termagants are 4ppm and have synapse.

If we factor in a neurothrope for 20 hormagants, that's 170 points, or 8.5 points per model.

 Marmatag wrote:

Bharring wrote:
One of the reasons "Defenders won't listen" is because you're just producing noise.

As soon as you claim FSRSRF IG are 4ppm, it becomes really hard to take anything else you say seriously. If you were to clean up your arguments to be more accurate (whether that's an honesty issue or a comprehension issue), a rational discussion might be possible.

Yet you have no trouble saying Hormagants are 5ppm and have synapse, and Termagants are 4ppm and have synapse.

If we factor in a neurothrope for 20 hormagants, that's 170 points, or 8.5 points per model.

How many units is that one Thrope buffing? Two? Five?

Because a Company Commander buffs two and no more, meaning he effectively adds 15 points to the cost. Not to mention, the Thrope is pretty useful even outside providing buffs. A Company Commander, not so much.

Marmatag,
Gaunts are not 4/5ppm with synapse. They're 4/5ppm unbuffed. Instinctive Behavior is part of costing them.

Also, Synapse works quite different from Orders in that it's an always-on aura. So you're not limited to how many Gaunts an individual HQ protects.

I agree that it's a valid comparison.

Jcd,
I think his point is that the *other side of the table* would have a problem with that.

Bharring wrote:
I wouldn't agree that the UM penalty for falling back and shooting (-1 to hit) is worse than the IG one (no FRFSRF).

I do think 'buffhammer' is doing much more harm than good to the balance of the game. It's really hard to balance IG when they can cheaply (but not freely) fire twice or fallback and shoot. Or balance Iron Hands without making UM and RG op.

Sure it is - the space marine can not fire his bolter twice for any reason - the IG can do that any turn he is not in assault. The ultra marine has to be charged to even make use of his trait - then he has to suffer a penalty to shoot if he uses it..

Oh and the 3 command commanders that cost 90 points...are about equal to my captain that gives reroll 1's if I give him a CC weapon...A catachan army can get reroll 1's with a freaking 50 point elite character for help filling out brigades if they want. HOLY CRAP. They are shoot twice and rerolling 1's? This army sucks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jcd386 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Why does squad number mater...do you really want to be able to take 20 point 5 man infantry squads...come on man...

You don't think people would like 120 point battilions?

Or 20 point 5w objective holders?

I think they would.

OFC they would.

Which makes IG with FRFSRF... roughly 5ppm!

Now, I think that's too low. Clearly, Xeno agrees. But it's easier to talk about it either that way, or talk about IG as 4ppm without FRFSRF.

Bharring wrote:
Marmatag,
Gaunts are not 4/5ppm with synapse. They're 4/5ppm unbuffed. Instinctive Behavior is part of costing them.

Also, Synapse works quite different from Orders in that it's an always-on aura. So you're not limited to how many Gaunts an individual HQ protects.

I agree that it's a valid comparison.

Jcd,
I think his point is that the *other side of the table* would have a problem with that.

Right, then we agree, Guardsmen are brutally undercosted relative to Tyranid troops.

Synapse isn't a buff, it's a requirement to function.

Bharring wrote:
Which makes IG with FRFSRF... roughly 5ppm!

Now, I think that's too low. Clearly, Xeno agrees. But it's easier to talk about it either that way, or talk about IG as 4ppm without FRFSRF.

5.5 points per model, for the first six. More expensive after, due to the rule of three.

"the space marine can not fire his bolter twice for any reason "
No, but Gman can double the firepower of the bolter. Same number of shots, but twice the impact. Aura ability, not restricted to the grunts, does not preempt Gmans other impacts, but also costs a trucklode. And Gman makes SM really, really hard to balance fairly. Coincidence?

"The ultra marine has to be charged to even make use of his trait"
An IG needs to be charged to make use of 'get back in there'!

"- then he has to suffer a penalty to shoot if he uses it"
Then is penalized by not getting FRFSRF, which is an even bigger hit

"A catachan army can get reroll 1's with a freaking 50 point elite character"
Because a 60pt LT is so much more expensive!

Suddenly, UM seem awfully like IG!
But IG are 4ppm, Tacs are 13ppm - maybe that's a more interesting place to persue the problem?

"HOLY CRAP. They are shoot twice and rerolling 1's? This army sucks. "
I think this is a comprehension problem. Most of the people you're arguing with are *NOT* saying IG suck. They're arguing your specific claims. If you'd clean up your claims a bit, you may find more agreement in the community than you do just spouting off.

You lose any credibility when you start assuming Guilliman. Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Imperial Fists, White Scars, Iron Hands, Raven Guard, etc do not have access to Guilliman.

Guilliman lists are flatly inferior to imperial guard lists. This is nothing new. They require first turn to be competitive.

 Marmatag wrote:
You lose any credibility when you start assuming Guilliman. Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Imperial Fists, White Scars, Iron Hands, Raven Guard, etc do not have access to Guilliman.

Sure, and Cadians don't have access to Harker.
Catachans don't have access to Creed or Kell.


His "credibility" is no more impugned by the idea of Guilliman being present than yours is for assuming Cadians won't move. Certain styles of list will basically be guaranteed to have it that way.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
You lose any credibility when you start assuming Guilliman. Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Imperial Fists, White Scars, Iron Hands, Raven Guard, etc do not have access to Guilliman.

Sure, and Cadians don't have access to Harker.
Catachans don't have access to Creed or Kell.


His "credibility" is no more impugned by the idea of Guilliman being present than yours is for assuming Cadians won't move. Certain styles of list will basically be guaranteed to have it that way.

You're not seriously suggesting that Cadians actually need Creed to function though right?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
You lose any credibility when you start assuming Guilliman. Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Imperial Fists, White Scars, Iron Hands, Raven Guard, etc do not have access to Guilliman.

His "credibility" is no more impugned by the idea of Guilliman being present than yours is for assuming Cadians won't move. Certain styles of list will basically be guaranteed to have it that way.

Emphasis.

I'm not assuming Gman. I'm drawing parallels to Gman, to show how the same effect played out in a weaker army. Look at what Gman does to discussions of Marines, then take another pass on what Officer orders do to discussions of IG. There are some major differences, but also some major parallels.

Bottom line tends to be:
"Any Marine units need to be balanced around Gman possibly being in the list" vs "Marine units need to be balanced in absence of Gman".
Both sides make *very* good points. Without agreeing or disagreeing with either (here), does this not suggest that IG are not the only faction where comparing their units gets harder because of the presence, or lack of, buffing units? Can we really say only IG is a problem because only they can double the firepower of their units when SM can do that too?

So perhaps the interesting points, the things worth discussing, are more nuanced than that? Perhaps if we looked at the issue more carefully and more accurately, we might get a better picture?

Because the claim that only IG can double their firepower, therefore they're OP is busted because both (1) IG isn't the only faction that can do it, and (2) another faction that can do it certainly isn't OP right now.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
You lose any credibility when you start assuming Guilliman. Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Imperial Fists, White Scars, Iron Hands, Raven Guard, etc do not have access to Guilliman.

Sure, and Cadians don't have access to Harker.
Catachans don't have access to Creed or Kell.


His "credibility" is no more impugned by the idea of Guilliman being present than yours is for assuming Cadians won't move. Certain styles of list will basically be guaranteed to have it that way.

You're not seriously suggesting that Cadians actually need Creed to function though right?

Of course not, but he's just listing off factions and not mentioning anything about them simply because they can't take Guilliman.

Dark Angels don't get Guilliman, but they do have their own stable of characters. Same with BA and Wolves. Grey Knights could use some work there, and the rest could use at least two characters in their stables.

I'm not even clear what you guys are arguing. Are you suggesting that buffs applied to IG can't be overpowered because similar buffs are also applied elsewhere? Because that's a pitiful argument and will fall apart rather quickly.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
You lose any credibility when you start assuming Guilliman. Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves, Grey Knights, Imperial Fists, White Scars, Iron Hands, Raven Guard, etc do not have access to Guilliman.

Sure, and Cadians don't have access to Harker.
Catachans don't have access to Creed or Kell.


His "credibility" is no more impugned by the idea of Guilliman being present than yours is for assuming Cadians won't move. Certain styles of list will basically be guaranteed to have it that way.

You're not seriously suggesting that Cadians actually need Creed to function though right?

Of course not, but he's just listing off factions and not mentioning anything about them simply because they can't take Guilliman.

Dark Angels don't get Guilliman, but they do have their own stable of characters. Same with BA and Wolves. Grey Knights could use some work there, and the rest could use at least two characters in their stables.

Difference here is that Infantry aren't priced like they always have an Officer to give orders. Instead they're priced cheap enough to do that. Marines are instead universally priced like they all have access to Roboute, which isn't a generic character.

That's what the poster was trying to say. Makes sense?

Mamatag,
What I'm arguing is that a buff that doubles firepower does not necessarily make a faction OP.

It might help you actually trace my logic and see how I tried to show that.

I was arguing against a specific point. I clearly think IG are OP. I think I've been direct about that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer,
Then the poster should have said that. Like I did, upthread.

Instead, the poster argued that UM don't show that a faction isn't OP just because it has an option because non-UM don't have said option. Which doesn't make much sense.

Bharring wrote:
Mamatag,
What I'm arguing is that a buff that doubles firepower does not necessarily make a faction OP.

No, but it is a balancing nightmare.

Which is another aspect of what I was trying to show. Remember all those Big G discussions? "Fun" times...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Difference here is that Infantry aren't priced like they always have an Officer to give orders. Instead they're priced cheap enough to do that. Marines are instead universally priced like they all have access to Roboute, which isn't a generic character.

That's what the poster was trying to say. Makes sense?

It's possible that I'm letting past discussions and clashes with the poster color my reading of the matter, but I definitely didn't get that from my read. I got the impression instead that "Guilliman isn't everywhere, so Marines can't be powerful".

Bharring wrote:
Mamatag,
What I'm arguing is that a buff that doubles firepower does not necessarily make a faction OP.

It might help you actually trace my logic and see how I tried to show that.

I was arguing against a specific point. I clearly think IG are OP. I think I've been direct about that.

Okay, then we agree.

I don't agree with the others, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Difference here is that Infantry aren't priced like they always have an Officer to give orders. Instead they're priced cheap enough to do that. Marines are instead universally priced like they all have access to Roboute, which isn't a generic character.

That's what the poster was trying to say. Makes sense?

It's possible that I'm letting past discussions and clashes with the poster color my reading of the matter, but I definitely didn't get that from my read. I got the impression instead that "Guilliman isn't everywhere, so Marines can't be powerful".

You shouldn't even be talking about Guilliman anyway. It's irrelevant. IG are overpowered regardless of whatever nonsense is happening in Codex: Space Marines. Until my Tyranids can take Guilliman as a lord of war, and get the radial buff applied to my hive guards, i don't even care about it.

 Crimson wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Mamatag,
What I'm arguing is that a buff that doubles firepower does not necessarily make a faction OP.

No, but it is a balancing nightmare.

It really isn't.

It affects one type of gun and can be applied to 4 units in total.
-Scions(Hotshot Lasguns)
-Veterans(Lasguns)
-Conscripts(Lasguns)
-Infantry Squad(Lasguns)

The only reason we don't see a huge hubbub made about Scions getting it is that they're usually given other Orders or are taken as kamikaze squads so the number of Hotshots is exceedingly rare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Difference here is that Infantry aren't priced like they always have an Officer to give orders. Instead they're priced cheap enough to do that. Marines are instead universally priced like they all have access to Roboute, which isn't a generic character.

That's what the poster was trying to say. Makes sense?

It's possible that I'm letting past discussions and clashes with the poster color my reading of the matter, but I definitely didn't get that from my read. I got the impression instead that "Guilliman isn't everywhere, so Marines can't be powerful".

You shouldn't even be talking about Guilliman anyway. It's irrelevant. IG are overpowered regardless of whatever nonsense is happening in Codex: Space Marines. Until my Tyranids can take Guilliman as a lord of war, and get the radial buff applied to my hive guards, i don't even care about it.

He produced Guilliman as an example of "doubling firepower". We could go for the Cadre Fireblade example instead if you want, but the point is there are other armies out there with aura buffs that do the same thing as FRFSRF yet nobody whines about them.

You've picked Guard as the "No more!" line for whatever reason.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Mamatag,
What I'm arguing is that a buff that doubles firepower does not necessarily make a faction OP.

No, but it is a balancing nightmare.

It really isn't.

It affects one type of gun and can be applied to 4 units in total.
-Scions(Hotshot Lasguns)
-Veterans(Lasguns)
-Conscripts(Lasguns)
-Infantry Squad(Lasguns)

The only reason we don't see a huge hubbub made about Scions getting it is that they're usually given other Orders or are taken as kamikaze squads so the number of Hotshots is exceedingly rare.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Difference here is that Infantry aren't priced like they always have an Officer to give orders. Instead they're priced cheap enough to do that. Marines are instead universally priced like they all have access to Roboute, which isn't a generic character.

That's what the poster was trying to say. Makes sense?

It's possible that I'm letting past discussions and clashes with the poster color my reading of the matter, but I definitely didn't get that from my read. I got the impression instead that "Guilliman isn't everywhere, so Marines can't be powerful".

You shouldn't even be talking about Guilliman anyway. It's irrelevant. IG are overpowered regardless of whatever nonsense is happening in Codex: Space Marines. Until my Tyranids can take Guilliman as a lord of war, and get the radial buff applied to my hive guards, i don't even care about it.

He produced Guilliman as an example of "doubling firepower". We could go for the Cadre Fireblade example instead if you want, but the point is there are other armies out there with aura buffs that do the same thing as FRFSRF yet nobody whines about them.

You've picked Guard as the "No more!" line for whatever reason.

Ha ha your saying a Cadre Fireblade is the same as FRFSRF.
It's one additional shot at half range vrs Rapid fire 2 thats not an equivalent buff.

But continue with you neither A Cadre fireblade or Gman alloq for double shooting.

Ice_can wrote:

Ha ha your saying a Cadre Fireblade is the same as FRFSRF.
It's one additional shot at half range vrs Rapid fire 2 thats not an equivalent buff.

Cheap HQ(39 pts--strange number but c'est la vie) that grants a buff to the basic weapon of an army with a conditional application seems fairly equivalent to me.

You're not wrong about it being unequivalent though, as the weapons are able to be RFing at 15" rather than 12", and the Fireblade can join in or grant +1 to hit via his Markerlight(not to mention any Drones he might have).

But continue with you neither A Cadre fireblade or Gman alloq for double shooting.

And you continue with pretending that Officers are the big bugbears of the game.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Ha ha your saying a Cadre Fireblade is the same as FRFSRF.
It's one additional shot at half range vrs Rapid fire 2 thats not an equivalent buff.

Cheap HQ(39 pts--strange number but c'est la vie) that grants a buff to the basic weapon of an army with a conditional application seems fairly equivalent to me.

You're not wrong about it being unequivalent though, as the weapons are able to be RFing at 15" rather than 12", and the Fireblade can join in or grant +1 to hit via his Markerlight(not to mention any Drones he might have).

But continue with you neither A Cadre fireblade or Gman alloq for double shooting.

And you continue with pretending that Officers are the big bugbears of the game.

Try 42 as markerlights arn't free. Neither are drones
Guard at 4ppm arn't balanced.

Officers with Kurovs and grand strategist arr broke as feth but again it was guard players who keep pointing to CP as the issue with 4ppm guardsmen not the fact that they are more durable and more offensive per point than everyone else's infantry.

Ice_can wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Ha ha your saying a Cadre Fireblade is the same as FRFSRF.
It's one additional shot at half range vrs Rapid fire 2 thats not an equivalent buff.

Cheap HQ(39 pts--strange number but c'est la vie) that grants a buff to the basic weapon of an army with a conditional application seems fairly equivalent to me.

You're not wrong about it being unequivalent though, as the weapons are able to be RFing at 15" rather than 12", and the Fireblade can join in or grant +1 to hit via his Markerlight(not to mention any Drones he might have).

But continue with you neither A Cadre fireblade or Gman alloq for double shooting.

And you continue with pretending that Officers are the big bugbears of the game.

Try 42 as markerlights arn't free. Neither are drones

Fine, he pays for them--but so do Guard for Vox-Casters to improve the range of Orders. You'll also notice that the Drones aren't assumed to be there(that's what "not to mention any Drones he might have" means), but rather are mentioned as another item he might have with him.

Guard at 4ppm arn't balanced.

Officers with Kurovs and grand strategist arr broke as feth but again it was guard players who keep pointing to CP as the issue with 4ppm guardsmen not the fact that they are more durable and more offensive per point than everyone else's infantry.

And nobody is fricking denying those two things, but again the bigger issue is people are taking those things specifically to game the CP system. Removing the ability for HQs to be taken as Allies would go a long way towards fixing that complaint, or alternatively removing the ability for Allies to bring Relics or Warlord Traits to the table.

 Kanluwen wrote:

And nobody is fricking denying those two things, but again the bigger issue is people are taking those things specifically to game the CP system. Removing the ability for HQs to be taken as Allies would go a long way towards fixing that complaint, or alternatively removing the ability for Allies to bring Relics or Warlord Traits to the table.

No. That CP regen is just broken in mono guard too. It is just wrong, it needs to be gone. The end.

Okay. What does removing the CP Regen have to do with increasing a basic Guardsmen's cost by 25%?

Because I'd be totally fine with removing Kurov's entirely, and replacing Grand Strategist with either 5+ to regain per strat you spend, or something else entirely.

"But continue with you neither A Cadre fireblade or Gman alloq for double shooting." Nor do Officers. Basically you get +90%.

Cadre Fireblade, sure, it's only a +50% firepower conditionally.

Big G:
Best case is hitting on 6s wounding on 6s, actually. +5/6 hits/shot, +5/6 wounds/hit, compounded. +*236*% firepower.

Consider hitting on 4s, wounding on 4s. You get 50% more shots. If you wound on 4s, you get a (compounded) 50% more wounds. For a 125% increase in firepower.

More likely, you're hitting on 3s wounding on 4s, so it's +1/3 * +1/2, which works out to exactly +100% firepower.

So you're correct, neither Cadre Fireblade nor Gman are exactly 100%. Fireblade is only 50%. Gman ranges from +236% to +36%, depending (hitting on 6s and hitting on 2s, respectively). With most cases being +100% or better.

Further, we shouldn't be this technical. If we did, we'd need to point out that FRFSRF is *not* +100% firepower. It's only +90%. And only on the stock weapon. So lets not get too hung up on specifics.

At any rate, the point is that Gman has an equal or better (much better) buff than FRFSRF. So to claim that having a buff as powerful as FRFSRF (which is very powerful) means an army is OP would require UltraMarines to be OP. I would argue that they are not, thus the claim is incorrect.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Okay. What does removing the CP Regen have to do with increasing a basic Guardsmen's cost by 25%?

Because I'd be totally fine with removing Kurov's entirely, and replacing Grand Strategist with either 5+ to regain per strat you spend, or something else entirely.

Guard need quite a few nerfs. Guardsmen going up in price is just one example of many.

Guilliman is extremely powerful and Ultramarines players pay for that extreme power, to the tune of 400 points. He’s far superior to either an order or a Cadre Fireblade but he isn’t costed like a cheap HQ either.

Guilliman Ultramarines armies are a fringe faction, arguably even more fringe than Tau are. Not a top tier competitive faction like Guard and allied Guard.

(And no, orders obviously aren’t the sole reason that Guard are top tier)

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And nobody is fricking denying those two things, but again the bigger issue is people are taking those things specifically to game the CP system. Removing the ability for HQs to be taken as Allies would go a long way towards fixing that complaint, or alternatively removing the ability for Allies to bring Relics or Warlord Traits to the table.

No. That CP regen is just broken in mono guard too. It is just wrong, it needs to be gone. The end.

That CP regen is a bit questionable in mono Guard, if we're going to be honest. How many times are you going to use the Vortex Missile Stratagem? Consolidate Squads?

I'm perfectly fine with toning it down significantly though. Hell, I'm perfectly fine with tearing the book down and rebuilding everything. I've thrown ideas out for Orders and Officers to get radically shifted but they always get dumped on.

Which would you rather have:
Specific levels of officers(Senior, Junior, and Sergeants) where each one grants a specific style of buff in the vein of the Protocols on the Kastelan Robots(Perk+Downside)...or the system we have now?

Cause I'd rather have the former than the latter, where each 'level' of Officer(Seniors as HQs, Juniors as Elites, Sergeants only applying to their squads) brings something unique and interesting to the army but once they're dead they lose access to that buff.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Which would you rather have:
Specific levels of officers(Senior, Junior, and Sergeants) where each one grants a specific style of buff in the vein of the Protocols on the Kastelan Robots(Perk+Downside)...or the system we have now?

Cause I'd rather have the former than the latter, where each 'level' of Officer(Seniors as HQs, Juniors as Elites, Sergeants only applying to their squads) brings something unique and interesting to the army but once they're dead they lose access to that buff.

I think the basis of the current command system is good (if not all of the commands.) It is way more interesting than the Marine system, where one guy just buffs everything around him. I rather wish marines had a command system too, instead of auras. Also, a system where there is a limit on how many and what sort of units one character can buff is much easier to balance. Guilliman is ludicrously overcosted if he is buffing couple of tactical squads, but park a maniple of Leviathan Dreadnoughts around him and he becomes magnitudes more powerful.

Tyel wrote:
I don't think Tau Commanders got limited because they were too good. I don't seem to remember them winning tournaments left and right, or even being that upsetting compared to certain other things.

They got nerfed because GW decided they didn't want people building Tau armies around commander spam. They would eventually try and stop spam more generally with the rule of 3.

Tau commanders were and still are too good.
- Sincerely a tau player

But seriously consider this, Tau commanders and gun drones were by far the best units in the tau index and both got nerfed. Now look at the Tau, they're better off now than they were before. The codex gave some needed internal balance and made more units worth taking.

Now consider Guard. Guard have no reason to take either conscripts or veterans because you cannot justify conscripts being the same price as infantry nor can you justify +2pts for a measly +1BS in addition to increased plasma and melta prices.
And there are plenty of other units that can be adjusted to level the adjustments: chimera and sentinels for example.

The way I see it, adjusting the points of Guard infantry is the first step to reaching a semblance of internal and external balance. And if Guard go up, we gain more granularity in points to further distinguish units. Skitarii rangers can go to 8 or even 9 pts, kabalites go up to 7 or 8 etc...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Which would you rather have:
Specific levels of officers(Senior, Junior, and Sergeants) where each one grants a specific style of buff in the vein of the Protocols on the Kastelan Robots(Perk+Downside)...or the system we have now?

Cause I'd rather have the former than the latter, where each 'level' of Officer(Seniors as HQs, Juniors as Elites, Sergeants only applying to their squads) brings something unique and interesting to the army but once they're dead they lose access to that buff.

I think the basis of the current command system is good (if not all of the commands.) It is way more interesting than the Marine system, where one guy just buffs everything around him. I rather wish marines had a command system too, instead of auras. Also, a system where there is a limit on how many and what sort of units one character can buff is much easier to balance. Guilliman is ludicrously overcosted if he is buffing couple of tactical squads, but park a maniple of Leviathan Dreadnoughts around him and he becomes magnitudes more powerful.

Yeah, I love the Order system and wish we could just replace all auras with unit by unit orders. Fireblades give volley fire to up to 2 squads. guilliman gives rerolls to say 3 squads etc...

Gman would be really OP in a guard army. In space marines - he just doubles down on their weakness - they have no survivability. That's 400 points less of durability. My best lists don't have guilliman in it. They have Clagar and a Lut - because it's better. I'd have to bring 2 Hq's anyways - and those HQ's are more or less useless when you have Gman around. So Gman is almost like being 600 points in a marine army.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Which would you rather have:
Specific levels of officers(Senior, Junior, and Sergeants) where each one grants a specific style of buff in the vein of the Protocols on the Kastelan Robots(Perk+Downside)...or the system we have now?

Cause I'd rather have the former than the latter, where each 'level' of Officer(Seniors as HQs, Juniors as Elites, Sergeants only applying to their squads) brings something unique and interesting to the army but once they're dead they lose access to that buff.

I think the basis of the current command system is good (if not all of the commands.) It is way more interesting than the Marine system, where one guy just buffs everything around him. I rather wish marines had a command system too, instead of auras. Also, a system where there is a limit on how many and what sort of units one character can buff is much easier to balance. Guilliman is ludicrously overcosted if he is buffing couple of tactical squads, but park a maniple of Leviathan Dreadnoughts around him and he becomes magnitudes more powerful.

And this is where it's a "grass is greener" situation seems to come into play.

So you'd rather that you have:
a) A numerical limit as to how many buffs you can give out in a turn
b) A unit limitation as to who can receive those buffs in a turn
c) Situational mandates for some of those buffs
d) Ranged limitations for those buffs, coupled with a requirement for a piece of wargear to extend the buffs

I'd rather have a tiered system, where different characters grant different buffs to the army, nearby squads, and their own squad(in that order)
Senior Officers granting an "objective" order(Hold the line, Go on the offensive, or Consolidate forces--etc, etc) that applies to the whole army
Junior Officers granting a "situational" order(Units near objectives get bonuses to morale or fire rates, units that get charged can overwatch better, etc) that applies to squads within a certain range of them.
Sergeants granting an "immediate" order(Ability to single out an enemy character for a single weapon in the squad, ability to bolster indirect fire weapons' effectiveness, bonus for being in cover, etc) to their squads.

Give each of those orders a two-tiered system like the Doctrina Imperatives for Skitarii, where having a Vox-Caster improves it slightly and boom--a more effective system that makes it so that Officers can be upped in points costs.

I'd also heavily rework infantry squads but that won't happen until if or when we see a new box, sadly.

Asmodios wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
And now we have come to the "Guard isn't a mono-faction army, and shouldn't be balanced as though they are" So after all the arguing that guard themselves are broken when there is no Data to actually back up the claim you simply pick up the goalpost and move it to guard aren't supposed to be played as a mono faction. Seems like someone is coming round to the fact that soup is the issue and that we need to do something about it instead of nerfing one army in the soup.

There is data to back it up, you just ignored all of it because it destroyed your argument. That doesn't mean it stopped existing lol, the rest of us all still remember it. And refusing to fix a balance problem in the competitive scene simply because the army in question COULD be run in a weaker way, is not how this game works, for anybody. You are the one choosing to hamper yourself, and overpowered stuff cannot be allowed to run a muck just so that weaker lists from lower caliber players are not impacted.

And taking the first fraction of a post out of context doesn't make for a very compelling argument. I said they shouldn't be balanced as a solo army as in, you comparing SOLO Guard to soup lists makes no sense. I also said immediately after that we can compare them as a solo faction - in which case you would compare them to other solo factions... You know, the logical thing to do. Super simple stuff.

But I guess you and w1zard saw that first half a sentence and started frothing at the mouth too much to read the rest of it.

No you have still provided 0 data that mono guard is broken in any way. You have provided plenty of data that soup is and issue yet everyone is focused on guard instead of addressing soup. When compared as a solo faction IG are not broken and running around stomping stuff as you claim.

Have you considered that it's just guardsmen that are broken and not mono-guard?
If people take guard infantry and knights instead of guard infantry and baneblades, or marines and knights that tells me that guard infantry is better than marines, and knights are better than baneblades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
[
So you'd rather that you have:
a) A numerical limit as to how many buffs you can give out in a turn
b) A unit limitation as to who can receive those buffs in a turn
c) Situational mandates for some of those buffs
d) Ranged limitations for those buffs, coupled with a requirement for a piece of wargear to extend the buffs

Yes, that's exactly what I want. It quantifies the amount of buffs possible, restricts them to specific units and allows tactical flexibility instead of just "shoot better". We definitely need more of this, not less.

And nothing beats being able to yell "First Rank Fire! Second Rank Fire!" and then rolling all your dice.
(the other ones are nice to yell too)

Dandelion wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
And now we have come to the "Guard isn't a mono-faction army, and shouldn't be balanced as though they are" So after all the arguing that guard themselves are broken when there is no Data to actually back up the claim you simply pick up the goalpost and move it to guard aren't supposed to be played as a mono faction. Seems like someone is coming round to the fact that soup is the issue and that we need to do something about it instead of nerfing one army in the soup.

There is data to back it up, you just ignored all of it because it destroyed your argument. That doesn't mean it stopped existing lol, the rest of us all still remember it. And refusing to fix a balance problem in the competitive scene simply because the army in question COULD be run in a weaker way, is not how this game works, for anybody. You are the one choosing to hamper yourself, and overpowered stuff cannot be allowed to run a muck just so that weaker lists from lower caliber players are not impacted.

And taking the first fraction of a post out of context doesn't make for a very compelling argument. I said they shouldn't be balanced as a solo army as in, you comparing SOLO Guard to soup lists makes no sense. I also said immediately after that we can compare them as a solo faction - in which case you would compare them to other solo factions... You know, the logical thing to do. Super simple stuff.

But I guess you and w1zard saw that first half a sentence and started frothing at the mouth too much to read the rest of it.

No you have still provided 0 data that mono guard is broken in any way. You have provided plenty of data that soup is and issue yet everyone is focused on guard instead of addressing soup. When compared as a solo faction IG are not broken and running around stomping stuff as you claim.

Have you considered that it's just guardsmen that are broken and not mono-guard?
If people take guard infantry and knights instead of guard infantry and baneblades, or marines and knights that tells me that guard infantry is better than marines, and knights are better than baneblades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
[
So you'd rather that you have:
a) A numerical limit as to how many buffs you can give out in a turn
b) A unit limitation as to who can receive those buffs in a turn
c) Situational mandates for some of those buffs
d) Ranged limitations for those buffs, coupled with a requirement for a piece of wargear to extend the buffs

Yes, that's exactly what I want. It quantifies the amount of buffs possible, restricts them to specific units and allows tactical flexibility instead of just "shoot better". We definitely need more of this, not less.

And nothing beats being able to yell "First Rank Fire! Second Rank Fire!" and then rolling all your dice.
(the other ones are nice to yell too)

So then you have rolled back around to soup being broken. Increasing the points of guardsmen will then disproportionately hurt the Mono IG players. Not only that it does very little to affect actual soup... If you want to town down soup CP being shared across armies needs to be addressed.

Edit: I also agree that instead of aura abilities, having everyone have something like orders for guard is much better as it would really help balance out units.... but that type of sweeping change won't happen till 8.2 or 9th

Dandelion wrote:

Have you considered that it's just guardsmen that are broken and not mono-guard?
If people take guard infantry and knights instead of guard infantry and baneblades, or marines and knights that tells me that guard infantry is better than marines, and knights are better than baneblades.

This fails to factor in metas and the way the game is actually set up, where batteries of cheap troops to fill out detachments is preferable to some people rather than actually playing their fricking faction.

 Kanluwen wrote:
[
So you'd rather that you have:
a) A numerical limit as to how many buffs you can give out in a turn
b) A unit limitation as to who can receive those buffs in a turn
c) Situational mandates for some of those buffs
d) Ranged limitations for those buffs, coupled with a requirement for a piece of wargear to extend the buffs

Yes, that's exactly what I want. It quantifies the amount of buffs possible, restricts them to specific units and allows tactical flexibility instead of just "shoot better". We definitely need more of this, not less.

And nothing beats being able to yell "First Rank Fire! Second Rank Fire!" and then rolling all your dice.
(the other ones are nice to yell too)

Cool, you can have that--I want my version.

I'm not sure if this was already mentioned, but the DkoK guardsmen are 5ppm and do not get access to FRFSRF or roll 1s to hit. Granted they get a WS4 and Death cult. But the WS barely comes into play.

I dont have a problem playing 5ppm for a guardsmen, seeing how I already do.

 Kanluwen wrote:

And this is where it's a "grass is greener" situation seems to come into play.

I have a small guard force too, I have experience of both systems.

So you'd rather that you have:
a) A numerical limit as to how many buffs you can give out in a turn
b) A unit limitation as to who can receive those buffs in a turn
c) Situational mandates for some of those buffs
d) Ranged limitations for those buffs, coupled with a requirement for a piece of wargear to extend the buffs

Yes! Gameplay choices that matter! Characters that can spread out instead of all them castling together and boringly passively buffing as many squads that can be shoved next to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:

And nothing beats being able to yell "First Rank Fire! Second Rank Fire!" and then rolling all your dice.
(the other ones are nice to yell too)

Marines being able to "First Rank Fire! Second Rank Fire!" with bolt weapons would go a long way to fix their pathetic offence!

What if your characters could "join" a squad, to give that squad the buff? And couldn't be shot until the squad was wiped out?

I mean, I'm kidding, but wanted to remind people of that.

One of the driving reasons for the character change was so that we wouldn't have all these HQs bunched up buffing what's by them to destroy everything else. But now, instead, we have the HQs bunch up in a castle so the guys there can destroy everything else. I'm not saying it wasn't an improvement, I'm just saying it wasn't completely successful.

FRF, SRF does less for damage output, then adding a Plasmagun.

FRF, SRF does not double a unit's damage output, because a real Guard player knows that Lasguns are a joke. Period.

10 double-shot lasguns can expect to kill one MEQ in the open.

10 QUADRUPLE-shot lasguns can expect to kill one MEQ in cover.

Two double-tapping Plasma guns can expect to kill one or two MEQ, in cover or out.

Two PG are cheaper than one Commander. Therefore, and this is really gonna blow your mind... Guardsmen spam Plasma to deal damage! NOT FRF,SRF.

Because of the 200 lasgun shots to kill 5 MEQ in cover. It doesn't work. You are fishing for MAYBE one extra wound with FRF, SRF.

Try it on a table. Just try it.

FRFSRF is a solid ability in the right context. Lasguns really hurt my Hormagants.

But, let's be real, everyone is issuing take aim and relying on mortars. We cannot pretend Cadian take aim doesn't exist.

 greatbigtree wrote:
FRF, SRF does less for damage output, then adding a Plasmagun.

FRF, SRF does not double a unit's damage output, because a real Guard player knows that Lasguns are a joke. Period.

10 double-shot lasguns can expect to kill one MEQ in the open.

10 QUADRUPLE-shot lasguns can expect to kill one MEQ in cover.

Two double-tapping Plasma guns can expect to kill one or two MEQ, in cover or out.

Two PG are cheaper than one Commander. Therefore, and this is really gonna blow your mind... Guardsmen spam Plasma to deal damage! NOT FRF,SRF.

Because of the 200 lasgun shots to kill 5 MEQ in cover. It doesn't work. You are fishing for MAYBE one extra wound with FRF, SRF.

Try it on a table. Just try it.

And yet that double firing lasgun guardsman deals just much damage than marine with a bolter. For a tiny fraction of the price. So you don't think FRFSRF lasguns are not worth it. That mayby so. How would you like paying three times as much for that same firepower?

Any damage a guardsmen does is simply icing on the cake of their awesome durability. Lasguns aren't really killing anyone in real games.Neither are bolters, whatever gun rangers have, etc. These units are either there to take up space, or as vehicles for special / heavy weapons that actually do damage.

The issue with guardsmen is that there are no guns that are good at killing guardsman. For example, a guardsmen would have to cost 7.8 points before it would be as durable as a marine is against a heavy bolter out of cover.

Either guardsmen need to go up, or almost everything else in the game needs to go down or gain new abilities that makes them more durable.

I like how this thread has gone precisely nowhere in 24 pages.

At least we didn't have 9 pages of people explaining to a player that he's not allowed to play WYSIWYG because the rules for his models are bad.

Some threads you know are a trainwreck before they even start. Sometimes, they surprise you.

Asmodios wrote:

So then you have rolled back around to soup being broken. Increasing the points of guardsmen will then disproportionately hurt the Mono IG players. Not only that it does very little to affect actual soup... If you want to town down soup CP being shared across armies needs to be addressed.

No, in fact I said nothing of the sort. Guard are appearing in soup because they are too cheap for their value. If Tactical marines were 8 pts a pop, people wouldn't be getting enough of them, you'd see them everywhere. The problem unit is the marine in this case.
Besides, "soup" doesn't mean anything because it means everything. If I put down 1900pts of guard and an Assassin and then win, was it the assassin or the Guard that did the heavy lifting? You keep using it as some boogeyman that is somehow unrelated to its constituent units. The Guard infantry is the soup, just as much as Knights are soup.

Also, don't you dare take my soup away, I'm working on a Deimos skitarii escort for some grey knights and big knights and that's more important to me than some min/max cheese at a tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Marines being able to "First Rank Fire! Second Rank Fire!" with bolt weapons would go a long way to fix their pathetic offence!

Only if they're allowed to take lasguns

But in all seriousness, they can get their own version, or just something more interesting than "reroll 1s"

 greatbigtree wrote:
FRF, SRF does less for damage output, then adding a Plasmagun.

FRF, SRF does not double a unit's damage output, because a real Guard player knows that Lasguns are a joke. Period.

10 double-shot lasguns can expect to kill one MEQ in the open.

10 QUADRUPLE-shot lasguns can expect to kill one MEQ in cover.

Two double-tapping Plasma guns can expect to kill one or two MEQ, in cover or out.

Two PG are cheaper than one Commander. Therefore, and this is really gonna blow your mind... Guardsmen spam Plasma to deal damage! NOT FRF,SRF.

Because of the 200 lasgun shots to kill 5 MEQ in cover. It doesn't work. You are fishing for MAYBE one extra wound with FRF, SRF.

Try it on a table. Just try it.

HOW is this true?

Cite your sources, and consider there are more targets in the game than just T4, Sv3+ targets.

Lasguns are really effective, especially this edition. They equal stat-lines to the weapons wielded by many other rank and file troops, but have 2-4x as much firepower. Additionally, they are backed up by incredible point:wound durability ratios.

Lasguns. are. not. a. joke. ; They're a legitimate weapon, backed up by an extreme amounts of shots, thanks to FRSRF.

And, while plasma is the most superior weapon by its nature this edition - the extra firepower additional lasguns instead of plasmas goes a long way versus many other target types; say, tyranid 'gaunts for example. Don't underestimate the advantages you have with sheer amounts of dice. - There's a limit to how many plasma gun shots can kill a target, and it's at best equal, or half, of what a lasguns potential is. I'm not saying that you can expect every shot to hit/wound/get past armor saves, because that's where math comes in; but, you can kill more targets with more lasguns, especially if the target is other T3 or other lesser units (Eldar/Tau/Tyranid/etc).

Also, I love how your argument for 2xshots lasguns = 1 marine, while 4xshots lasguns = ...1 marine, but in-cover. Instead of continuing with 4xshots = 2 marines. Keep a consistent unit of measure, when you're making comparisons, please.

Dandelion wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

So then you have rolled back around to soup being broken. Increasing the points of guardsmen will then disproportionately hurt the Mono IG players. Not only that it does very little to affect actual soup... If you want to town down soup CP being shared across armies needs to be addressed.

No, in fact I said nothing of the sort. Guard are appearing in soup because they are too cheap for their value. If Tactical marines were 8 pts a pop, people wouldn't be getting enough of them, you'd see them everywhere. The problem unit is the marine in this case.
Besides, "soup" doesn't mean anything because it means everything. If I put down 1900pts of guard and an Assassin and then win, was it the assassin or the Guard that did the heavy lifting? You keep using it as some boogeyman that is somehow unrelated to its constituent units. The Guard infantry is the soup, just as much as Knights are soup.

Also, don't you dare take my soup away, I'm working on a Deimos skitarii escort for some grey knights and big knights and that's more important to me than some min/max cheese at a tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Marines being able to "First Rank Fire! Second Rank Fire!" with bolt weapons would go a long way to fix their pathetic offence!

Only if they're allowed to take lasguns

But in all seriousness, they can get their own version, or just something more interesting than "reroll 1s"

If 1900 points of guard is put on the table and then 100 points of something else then soup is winning that game. There is a reason why mono guard is not running around stomping tournaments and its because on their own they are very strong but not broken. What is broken is the ability to mix and match armies to cover all the built-in weaknesses in any single codex. The simple fact that you don't constantly see mono guard claiming top spots at tournaments shows that they are not strong enough solo to compete at top tables. It's funny how an all knight list can make it to the top tables at BAO though and there isn't a 25-page nuke knights thread.... Nope just nuke guard no other ingredients of the soup need work

meleti wrote:
I like how this thread has gone precisely nowhere in 24 pages.

I think we've reached the conclusion that 4ppm guardsmen are a bit much while 5ppm guardsmen are still among the best basic troops available.

The hangup seems to be whether or not a change weakening mono guard can be justified without also fixing other current meta issues/powerful units.

 Sleep Spell wrote:

meleti wrote:
I like how this thread has gone precisely nowhere in 24 pages.

I think we've reached the conclusion that 4ppm guardsmen are a bit much while 5ppm guardsmen are still among the best basic troops available.

The hangup seems to be whether or not a change weakening mono guard can be justified without also fixing other current meta issues/powerful units.

It's only "weakening" if the unit wasn't over the line anyways.

You absolutely can, and SHOULD, bring units in line with their competition; so what if other units/armies are also out of line? They too CAN be adjusted, even if it comes afterwards. - You need to set where the line is in the first place, and you can't do that if you never to create a standard, and start making the necessary changes to which comparisons can be held against.

 Sleep Spell wrote:

meleti wrote:
I like how this thread has gone precisely nowhere in 24 pages.

I think we've reached the conclusion that 4ppm guardsmen are a bit much while 5ppm guardsmen are still among the best basic troops available.

The hangup seems to be whether or not a change weakening mono guard can be justified without also fixing other current meta issues/powerful units.

Considering mono-guard still needs a fat nerf i'd say it's fine.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Sleep Spell wrote:

meleti wrote:
I like how this thread has gone precisely nowhere in 24 pages.

I think we've reached the conclusion that 4ppm guardsmen are a bit much while 5ppm guardsmen are still among the best basic troops available.

The hangup seems to be whether or not a change weakening mono guard can be justified without also fixing other current meta issues/powerful units.

Considering mono-guard still needs a fat nerf i'd say it's fine.

It's not fine - we haven't nerfed every other faction as well first.

Therefore, there never needs to be adjustments, unless everything else is ALSO perfectly balanced. We really should have left Dark Reapers alone tbh.

fe40k wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Sleep Spell wrote:

meleti wrote:
I like how this thread has gone precisely nowhere in 24 pages.

I think we've reached the conclusion that 4ppm guardsmen are a bit much while 5ppm guardsmen are still among the best basic troops available.

The hangup seems to be whether or not a change weakening mono guard can be justified without also fixing other current meta issues/powerful units.

Considering mono-guard still needs a fat nerf i'd say it's fine.

It's not fine - we haven't nerfed every other faction as well first.

Therefore, there never needs to be adjustments, unless everything else is ALSO perfectly balanced. We really should have left Dark Reapers alone tbh.

Yeah, dark reapers, hive tyrants, razorbacks, Guilliman, poxwalkers, tau commanders, malefic lords, cultists, brimstone horrors, warp time, hive commander... should i stop?

 Marmatag wrote:

 Sleep Spell wrote:

meleti wrote:
I like how this thread has gone precisely nowhere in 24 pages.

I think we've reached the conclusion that 4ppm guardsmen are a bit much while 5ppm guardsmen are still among the best basic troops available.

The hangup seems to be whether or not a change weakening mono guard can be justified without also fixing other current meta issues/powerful units.

Considering mono-guard still needs a fat nerf i'd say it's fine.

Please provide some data that mono guard needs a "fat nerf" i have seen 0 data showing that mono guard is causing any types of issues.

fe40k wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Sleep Spell wrote:

meleti wrote:
I like how this thread has gone precisely nowhere in 24 pages.

I think we've reached the conclusion that 4ppm guardsmen are a bit much while 5ppm guardsmen are still among the best basic troops available.

The hangup seems to be whether or not a change weakening mono guard can be justified without also fixing other current meta issues/powerful units.

Considering mono-guard still needs a fat nerf i'd say it's fine.

It's not fine - we haven't nerfed every other faction as well first.

Therefore, there never needs to be adjustments, unless everything else is ALSO perfectly balanced. We really should have left Dark Reapers alone tbh.

Was just saying we've gone somewhere in 20+ pages of comparing guardsmen to rangers etc.

I agree that you need to start somewhere and guards unfortunately have a big target on their back due to their prevalence in soup/tournament winning lists. Though I doubt that they will be entirely singled out for adjustments...

 Marmatag wrote:

fe40k wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Sleep Spell wrote:

meleti wrote:
I like how this thread has gone precisely nowhere in 24 pages.

I think we've reached the conclusion that 4ppm guardsmen are a bit much while 5ppm guardsmen are still among the best basic troops available.

The hangup seems to be whether or not a change weakening mono guard can be justified without also fixing other current meta issues/powerful units.

Considering mono-guard still needs a fat nerf i'd say it's fine.

It's not fine - we haven't nerfed every other faction as well first.

Therefore, there never needs to be adjustments, unless everything else is ALSO perfectly balanced. We really should have left Dark Reapers alone tbh.

Yeah, dark reapers, hive tyrants, razorbacks, Guilliman, poxwalkers, tau commanders, malefic lords, cultists, brimstone horrors, warp time, hive commander... should i stop?

Please keep going.

One of the main arguments against 5ppm Guardsman is that they're unfairly singled out, and should be immune to nerfs because no-one else is getting nerfed at the same time.

And yet, no pure IG player has been able to post a list that gets crippled by 5ppm guardsmen...

 skchsan wrote:
And yet, no pure IG player has been able to post a list that gets crippled by 5ppm guardsmen...

And no player has posted a mono guard list that's stomping through the tournament scene.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Bear in mind that many xeno factions don't have the option to soup at all, while guard do.

Guard shouldn't pay for the ability to soup any more than marines should. That is an 8th edition ruleset issue not a guard issue.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Yea, mono Eldar and DE do well. Not as well as mono Tau or Guard if BAO is anything to go by.

Mono-eldar and mono-DE are better than mono-guard.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Since my faction can only be played mono yea I fething hope it's competitive. When you're talking about the top 10 or 20 placings at a tournament as big as BAO you're talking about bleeding edge competitiveness so there'll always be soup. As I said earlier, a player is (in most cases) hamstringing himself if he picks a mono faction and attends a tournament. Guard as a whole might be "where every codex should be", but Guardsmen aren't. This discussion is regarding Guardsmen.

I should be able to go against a "competitive" mono-eldar list with a "competitive" mono-guard list and have a decent chance of winning. This is barely happening right now with 4ppm guardsmen.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I don't think I am being disingenuous, actually. The role of Guardsmen is not to kill a ton of things with their flashlights. It's to sit on objectives. They are point for point better at that than Rangers even at 5ppm. Objectives literally win you games. You are being disingenuous when you say they are "pretty much equal defensively". This is false now and it'll be false if their points is increased. Guardsmen are better. Without stratagems and orders....

So a 5% defensive increase is worth 27% and 42% less offense against GEQ and marines respectively? Please...

If this doesn't convince you that rangers are better than 5ppm guardsmen point for point...

w1zard wrote:
As for the math on 5 pt guardsmen vs 7 point rangers:

VS 40 boltgun shots:
Guard - (80/3) wounds -> (160/9) unsaved wounds -> 88.88 points of dead guardsmen
Rangers - (80/3) wounds -> (80/6) unsaved wounds -> 93.33 points of dead rangers

Guardsmen have a 5% edge on defense.

35 points of X shooting at GEQ assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 14 shots -> 7 hits -> (7/2) wounds -> (7/3) unsaved wounds -> 2.33 dead GEQ
Rangers 10 shots -> (20/3) hits -> (40/9) wounds -> (80/27) unsaved wounds -> 2.96 dead GEQ

Point for point, rangers are approximately 27% better at killing GEQ than 5 pt guardsmen.

35 points of X shooting at marines assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 14 shots -> 7 hits -> (7/3) wounds -> (7/9) unsaved wounds -> 0.78 dead marines
Rangers 10 shots -> (20/3) hits -> (10/3) wounds -> (10/9) unsaved wounds -> 1.11 dead marines

Point for point, rangers are approximately 42% better at killing marines than 5 pt guardsmen.

This also doesn't factor in that rangers have a 6++, better base movement than guardsmen, and have a 6" longer range on their gun.

...Then I don't think we can have any kind of reasonable discussion, because not acknowledging that is completely irrational.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I don't think +1 LD is worth a point and I wouldn't cry if Neophites lost it. Nor would I cry if they kept it and retained their points cost.

Then you are contradicting yourself. How can it be "not okay" that guardsmen are better then termagaunts at 4ppm... but you "wouldn't cry" if neophytes are better than guardsmen at 5ppm.

Asmodios wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
And yet, no pure IG player has been able to post a list that gets crippled by 5ppm guardsmen...

And no player has posted a mono guard list that's stomping through the tournament scene.

Because your definition of soup is anything less than 2000points of pure guard is soup and doesn't show guard as strong only soup.

Guard beat every other troop choice they have been compaired to in both damage resistance and output at 4ppm and start to become balance against some of the best at 5ppm.

The fact that people are taking guard battalions even without Grand Strategists and Kurov's Admittedly not doing as well, but are taking them says the are bringing more than the CP regeneration over evey other imperial troop unit.

They don't have to to prove you wrong as your criteria for restriction isn't based off a tournament setting at all. There is no data based on mono faction tournaments because nobody plays the game that way, so there will be no tournament data to reference what you're saying. The way it is played, Guard is dominant, so the game mode that is played competitively is the one that we balance around - not the one that doesn't exist. This is how GW has been balancing the game so far in this edition so you are lying to yourself if you think this won't continue going forward. An easy comparison that has direct parallels with this topic, would be the Nerf that Cultists got even though solo CSM was nowhere near as dominant as Chaos "soup". So your entire argument is based on a fallacious and low level understanding of how balance works.
Additionally, there's zero reason to believe that all the reasons for Guard being a 5 pt model would suddenly stop being true in a mono faction setting. YOU are the one claiming how this would change the army if it is restricted to mono-faction, so the onus is on YOU to provide some data for that. The rest of us are unmistakably discussing Guards overpowered nature as a primary in the tournament scene.

Ice_can wrote:
...and start to become balance against some of the best at 5ppm.

Except rangers... and neophytes... anyone have the stats for kabalites? I'd love to do the math to compare kabalites to 5ppm guardsmen. Can we have the stats for skitarii vanguard while we are at it? PM me if you think it's going to be an issue posting on the forum.

EDIT:
The math on 5 pt guardsmen vs 8 point vanguards:

VS 40 boltgun shots:
Guard - (80/3) wounds -> (160/9) unsaved wounds -> 88.88 points of dead guardsmen
Vanguard - (80/3) wounds -> (80/6) unsaved wounds -> 106.66 points of dead vanguard

Guardsmen have a 20% edge on defense.

40 points of X shooting at GEQ assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 16 shots -> 8 hits -> 4 wounds -> (8/3) unsaved wounds -> 2.66 dead GEQ
Vanguards 15 shots -> 10 hits -> 5 wounds -> (10/3) unsaved wounds -> 3.33 dead GEQ

Point for point, vanguard are approximately 25% better at killing GEQ than 5 pt guardsmen.

40 points of X shooting at marines assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 16 shots -> 8 hits -> (8/3) wounds -> (8/9) unsaved wounds -> 0.88 dead marines
Vanguards 15 shots -> 10 hits -> (10/3) wounds -> (10/9) unsaved wounds -> 1.11 dead marines

Point for point, vanguard are approximately 26% better at killing marines than 5 pt guardsmen.

This is a more interesting comparison than rangers. I could accept the argument that a 20% increase in durability is worth a 25% decrease in firepower. However, this also doesn't factor in that vanguard have a 6++, better base movement than guardsmen, better leadership, the -1T aura in melee, and exploding 6s on their guns. Conclusuion: Vanguards are better then 5ppm guardsmen.

Guardsmen have 6" more range to do ONE shot, but vanguard have 6" further range to do their full damage and they can advance and shoot because of their assault weapons. -I think this is a wash in terms of tradeoff.

Asmodios wrote:

If 1900 points of guard is put on the table and then 100 points of something else then soup is winning that game. There is a reason why mono guard is not running around stomping tournaments and its because on their own they are very strong but not broken. What is broken is the ability to mix and match armies to cover all the built-in weaknesses in any single codex. The simple fact that you don't constantly see mono guard claiming top spots at tournaments shows that they are not strong enough solo to compete at top tables. It's funny how an all knight list can make it to the top tables at BAO though and there isn't a 25-page nuke knights thread.... Nope just nuke guard no other ingredients of the soup need work

The time of single codex factions is over. 8th has ushered in a new era: Behold the mighty "Imperium" faction!

Just face it, 8th was designed and balanced *gasp* to play like this. And yeah, I can empirically prove that Custodes were designed to ally with other Imperium units. So that whole "in-built weakness" is just how you would design the game and not how it is actually designed.
But I get it, you don't like soup. Too bad I love soup since it let's me do all sorts of cool wacky things with my army(ies).

(also, don't be disingenuous, plenty of people have mentioned Knights)

Ice_can wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
And yet, no pure IG player has been able to post a list that gets crippled by 5ppm guardsmen...

And no player has posted a mono guard list that's stomping through the tournament scene.

Because your definition of soup is anything less than 2000points of pure guard is soup and doesn't show guard as strong only soup.

Guard beat every other troop choice they have been compaired to in both damage resistance and output at 4ppm and start to become balance against some of the best at 5ppm.

The fact that people are taking guard battalions even without Grand Strategists and Kurov's Admittedly not doing as well, but are taking them says the are bringing more than the CP regeneration over evey other imperial troop unit.

Yeah mono IG is exactly what it sounds like "only IG' the second you start mixing in stuff you are now souping stuff. Nobody is saying IG + unit x you funnel your CP into is not strong. What you want to do is punish every mono IG player for the sins of soup instead of just fixing soup. Mono IG is in a good place right now where they are strong as a solo dex but not running around crushing tournaments.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

If 1900 points of guard is put on the table and then 100 points of something else then soup is winning that game. There is a reason why mono guard is not running around stomping tournaments and its because on their own they are very strong but not broken. What is broken is the ability to mix and match armies to cover all the built-in weaknesses in any single codex. The simple fact that you don't constantly see mono guard claiming top spots at tournaments shows that they are not strong enough solo to compete at top tables. It's funny how an all knight list can make it to the top tables at BAO though and there isn't a 25-page nuke knights thread.... Nope just nuke guard no other ingredients of the soup need work

The time of single codex factions is over. 8th has ushered in a new era: Behold the mighty "Imperium" faction!

Just face it, 8th was designed and balanced *gasp* to play like this. And yeah, I can empirically prove that Custodes were designed to ally with other Imperium units. So that whole "in-built weakness" is just how you would design the game and not how it is actually designed.
But I get it, you don't like soup. Too bad I love soup since it let's me do all sorts of cool wacky things with my army(ies).

(also, don't be disingenuous, plenty of people have mentioned Knights)

If you actually want to balance with soup in mind then give units multiple costs. Guardsmen can be 6ppm in soup and 4ppm when taken in a mono list. You might think that soup is the only way people play but i guarantee if GW did a survey many more people own mono faction armies then go out and buy the flavor of the week


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:
They don't have to to prove you wrong as your criteria for restriction isn't based off a tournament setting at all. There is no data based on mono faction tournaments because nobody plays the game that way, so there will be no tournament data to reference what you're saying. The way it is played, Guard is dominant, so the game mode that is played competitively is the one that we balance around - not the one that doesn't exist. This is how GW has been balancing the game so far in this edition so you are lying to yourself if you think this won't continue going forward. An easy comparison that has direct parallels with this topic, would be the Nerf that Cultists got even though solo CSM was nowhere near as dominant as Chaos "soup". So your entire argument is based on a fallacious and low level understanding of how balance works.
Additionally, there's zero reason to believe that all the reasons for Guard being a 5 pt model would suddenly stop being true in a mono faction setting. YOU are the one claiming how this would change the army if it is restricted to mono-faction, so the onus is on YOU to provide some data for that. The rest of us are unmistakably discussing Guards overpowered nature as a primary in the tournament scene.

You keep proving yourself wrong...... if guard was an issue you would see it at tournaments...... Soup is the issue and its why you are seeing it everywhere at tournaments.

The tournament data shows you exactly what is being taken because its op and its not IG and especially not IG with 150 guardsman.... Soup is op and its why you see it everywhere... so fix soup

w1zard wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
...and start to become balance against some of the best at 5ppm.

Except rangers... and neophytes... anyone have the stats for kabalites? I'd love to do the math to compare kabalites to 5ppm guardsmen. Can we have the stats for skitarii vanguard while we are at it? PM me if you think it's going to be an issue posting on the forum.

I already posted that Rangers IMHO are 8ppm not 7.

The reason no-one is complaining about Rangers is they arn't common in top competitive lists, same goes for Vanguard. Simply put Infantry Squads a 4ppm are better tan 7ppm Rangers. Move guard to 5ppm and if top soup list leap on mass to Rangers we've just found the next most powerful troop, make the 8ppm if the next jump is to Vanguard we look at those I'm not sure Vanguard are OP at 8ppm and making them 9ppm could be interesting as thats SoB territory.

Kabalites are straight up broken, but that's Eldar and both dex's need sweeping changes. The eldar dex is a bit like marines Alitoc is OP everything else kinda sucks in comparison. Untill Alitoc is fixed, like remove Alitoc from vehicals, where is Non Alitoc eldar powerwise? Alitoc is all you ever seem to see in tournaments.

Ice_can wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
And yet, no pure IG player has been able to post a list that gets crippled by 5ppm guardsmen...

And no player has posted a mono guard list that's stomping through the tournament scene.

Because your definition of soup is anything less than 2000points of pure guard is soup and doesn't show guard as strong only soup.

Just so we're clear:
You're making the argument that anything that includes another faction isn't soup, provided the count is low enough? Is that right?

Because that's kind of a silly measure to use.

Also, I actually posted the BAO lists-at least, the top five.

The four that had actual lists used the bare minimum of guard, and the one that didn’t have a complete list most definitely had BA and Knights, just of an unknown amount.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Also, I actually posted the BAO lists-at least, the top five.

The four that had actual lists used the bare minimum of guard, and the one that didn’t have a complete list most definitely had BA and Knights, just of an unknown amount.

But see, if they used the bare minimum of Guard it means they're a Guard list!

 Kanluwen wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
And yet, no pure IG player has been able to post a list that gets crippled by 5ppm guardsmen...

And no player has posted a mono guard list that's stomping through the tournament scene.

Because your definition of soup is anything less than 2000points of pure guard is soup and doesn't show guard as strong only soup.

Just so we're clear:
You're making the argument that anything that includes another faction isn't soup, provided the count is low enough? Is that right?

Because that's kind of a silly measure to use.

Well I can't take 1800 points of marines and a shield captain on jet bike as say it's soup thats weak, if only I hadn't taken that custodes HQ.
Top table lists don't take weak units everything is chosen as it is the best unit at what you want it to do.
Units are chosen for soup becuase they are the best available unit.

Since we're talking about soup. If Guard infantry are as prevalent is soup armies as mono IG, doesn't that make Guard their own worst enemy?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Also, I actually posted the BAO lists-at least, the top five.

The four that had actual lists used the bare minimum of guard, and the one that didn’t have a complete list most definitely had BA and Knights, just of an unknown amount.

But see, if they used the bare minimum of Guard it means they're a Guard list!

I believe the cut-off point was 1500 pts of guard to be "primarily guard" (from what I saw).

Then Asmodios takes the stance the 1900 pts of Guard +100 pts of Assassins does not reflect the strength of guard, but rather the strength of soup.

Dandelion wrote:
Since we're talking about soup. If Guard infantry are as prevalent is soup armies as mono IG, doesn't that make Guard their own worst enemy?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Also, I actually posted the BAO lists-at least, the top five.

The four that had actual lists used the bare minimum of guard, and the one that didn’t have a complete list most definitely had BA and Knights, just of an unknown amount.

But see, if they used the bare minimum of Guard it means they're a Guard list!

I believe the cut-off point was 1500 pts of guard to be "primarily guard" (from what I saw).

Then Asmodios takes the stance the 1900 pts of Guard +100 pts of Assassins does not reflect the strength of guard, but rather the strength of soup.

It does...... when you have to add in something from another list in order to make IG work and IG cant win alone it is showing the power of souping

 JNAProductions wrote:
Also, I actually posted the BAO lists-at least, the top five.

The four that had actual lists used the bare minimum of guard, and the one that didn’t have a complete list most definitely had BA and Knights, just of an unknown amount.

Uhhh... It had 1 Knight and no BA, so you're wrong on that. Only one of the top 3 Guard Primary lists had BA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dakkas Guard players keep exposing themselves as the least skilled and I love it. I guess it is the army aimed at bringing hobbyists into the fold, so makes sense.

Ice_can wrote:
I already posted that Rangers IMHO are 8ppm not 7.

The reason no-one is complaining about Rangers is they arn't common in top competitive lists, same goes for Vanguard. Simply put Infantry Squads a 4ppm are better tan 7ppm Rangers. Move guard to 5ppm and if top soup list leap on mass to Rangers we've just found the next most powerful troop, make the 8ppm if the next jump is to Vanguard we look at those I'm not sure Vanguard are OP at 8ppm and making them 9ppm could be interesting as thats SoB territory.

Kabalites are straight up broken, but that's Eldar and both dex's need sweeping changes. The eldar dex is a bit like marines Alitoc is OP everything else kinda sucks in comparison. Untill Alitoc is fixed, like remove Alitoc from vehicals, where is Non Alitoc eldar powerwise? Alitoc is all you ever seem to see in tournaments.

Right so guard at 4ppm are NOT where they should be, on that we agree. But pushing them to 5ppm without touching anything else instantly makes them worse then rangers, vanguards, neophytes, kabalites, and probably most other basic infantry (with the exception of fire warriors).

You fix those other units at the same time and you can fix guardsmen, not before. Otherwise we will run into a situation where guard is dead for 6 months until CA comes out, or longer if GW is lazy and doesn't fix the other factions.

I think what the 5ppm guardsmen crowd are really arguing for is a sweeping change to chaff infantry?

I posted my sources, earlier in the thread. List #3 is the one without a complete list, so unless you’re saying my source is wrong...

Dandelion wrote:
Since we're talking about soup. If Guard infantry are as prevalent is soup armies as mono IG, doesn't that make Guard their own worst enemy?

You would think so, but nobody ever goes that route...

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Also, I actually posted the BAO lists-at least, the top five.

The four that had actual lists used the bare minimum of guard, and the one that didn’t have a complete list most definitely had BA and Knights, just of an unknown amount.

But see, if they used the bare minimum of Guard it means they're a Guard list!

I believe the cut-off point was 1500 pts of guard to be "primarily guard" (from what I saw).

Then Asmodios takes the stance the 1900 pts of Guard +100 pts of Assassins does not reflect the strength of guard, but rather the strength of soup.

This is one of those things where I have to take issue:
1500 points of Guard as "primarily Guard" sounds like it's a tournament list thing. Is that correct?

I'd, personally, argue that as soon as any allies make it in(and hell--I'll even say other <Regiment/Sept/Chapter> units would count) it becomes a bit watered down. Once you bring another army in for whatever reason, it seems like you should consider that a soup list.

That's my take on it. But I'm looking it from the AoS POV where you can only take a certain percentage of your army as an allied faction--doesn't matter how many models it is, just certain percentage of points total.

@ fe40k, Re: Plasmagun Upgrade

Vs MEQ in the open:

40 pts: 9 Lasgun shots, long range, avg 0.5 Marines Killed - 80 points per casualty

51 pts: 8 Lasgun shots, 1 "Standard Charge" Plasma shot, long range, avg 0.722 Marines killed, 70.64 points per casualty

51 pts: 8 LG shots, 1 "Overcharge" Plasma shot, long range, avg 0.792 Marines (over) killed, 64.39 points per casualty

55 pts: 18 Lasgun shots, (half a Commander's points) long range, avg 1.0 Marines killed, 55 points per casualty.

- Unless targeting multi-wound infantry, lasguns output more damage *while the entire unit is alive*.

40 points: (5 dead, killed the Sarge) 5 shots long range, 0.278 dead Marines, 143.88 points per casualty

51 points (5 dead, killed the Sarge) 4x LG, 1x PG (Standard), long range, 0.5 dead Marines, 102 points per casualty

51 points (5 dead, killed the Sarge) 4x LG, 1x PG (OC), long range, 0.569 (Over) dead Marines, 89.63 points per casualty

55 points (5 dead, killed the Sarge, half a Commander's points) 10x LG, long range, 0.556 dead Marines, 98.92 points per casualty

- Once the casualties start piling up, and they do, handfuls at a time, having a single weapon able to inflict significant damage is more valuable. And against any target with multiple wounds, the Plasmagun squad becomes more efficient, even at full size.

- Guard win via attrition. People point out that there's no efficient way to kill off Guardsmen. This is correct. However, you can still deplete their damage potential with wounds. A single Plasmagun accounts for 44% of a FULL Strength squad's damage output, against MEQ, and more against Multi-wound targets. This damage is continuous until the final wound, and does not decrease with wounds, unlike FRF, SRF. The Plasmagun is more valuable to the way Guard actually operate on the table.

- The same logic applies to Heavy weapons, but not everyone uses those...


The game seldom provides ideal circumstances. Lasguns are still a poor weapon, as are bolters, and Gauss Rifles, and Shootas... They're all crap. 100% better crap is just bigger crap. Lasguns are still just space fillers, and wound markers for your upgrades.

Imagine, you have 100 lasguns. You shoot them. You kill 4-7 Marines. Yes, they're awesome against little nids, and they're good against Orks... now what do you do about the other 100 little nids, or 50 Orks?

Vs T6, 3+? 1/36 lasgun shots will wound. To inflict 6 wounds? 216 shots. Divided by 4, to put all of these Lasguns in Rapid Fire with FRF, SRF range? 54 Lasgunners.

6, Full Strength Infantry Squads, with Three officers to issue orders, all in rapid fire range (they snuck up on and surrounded that silly Monstrous Creature, without taking damage!).

Put 60 Models, in a circle 12" radius, around a monstrous creature. And you inflict 6 wounds, on average. Sometimes, (about half) not that many. So about 60% of the time, you inflict 6+ wounds on a Monstrous Creature and let's say kill it. and you somehow manouvered this all into position, without taking damage. 40% of the time, that MC is going to live and start mulching dudes. *It was in cover?!?* Whoops! Now we need 120 lasgunners, and 6 Senior officers to kill that thing, rolling 480 attack dice!

Plus, you just directed over 200 attacks at something (mediocre... an Armoured Sentinel!) and it didn't die. And now, what's your opponent going to do? They were nice, and didn't attack you for 3 turns while you set up your shooting gallery, and now you are in for a world of hurt because you didn't stop the tide before it got to within 12" of you.

FRF, SRF genuinely is not impressive once it hits the table. Double-tapping 6 OC Plasma? An average of 6.6 wounds. And you only need to get 6 guys into range, instead of 60. And that didn't use the Order for targeting MC or Vehicles... which would have made that better. Seriously. FRF, SRF is a sucker's game.


Knights have something like 24 wounds, don't they? Let's take 250 Lasgunners, (1000 points) all in rapid fire, all getting FRF, SRF, and shoot them! 1000/2/6/3 = 28 wounds, horray! We reliably down a Knight in some magical world where the Knight moved into the centre of a ruin, and we had 10 layers of ruins so all 250 guys could all get in Rapid Fire range, and we really let him have it!

These scenarios don't exist in real games.

Asmodios wrote:

If you actually want to balance with soup in mind then give units multiple costs. Guardsmen can be 6ppm in soup and 4ppm when taken in a mono list. You might think that soup is the only way people play but i guarantee if GW did a survey many more people own mono faction armies then go out and buy the flavor of the week

I don't think soup is the only way to play. However, you cannot deny that GW intentionally designed 8th to allow all the allies you could ever want.
Everything from the way detachments work to Faction keywords was designed to allow and encourage allies. 8th is already balanced around "soup".

But let's take a step back. You have mentioned time and again how factions need to have weaknesses right? So what happened when GW gave Guard access to:
- Admech Techpriest Enginseers
- Ministorum Priests
AND
- Ministorum Crusaders
?

Are these not soup options added to shore up weaknesses? And on top of that, Guard are the only faction that can take them without breaking regiments!
So while Guard get access to Enginseers, Admech get what? Well, it certainly wasn't a chimera.

Then what happened to Assassins? GW had to patch together a fix to keep them legal because they were designed to mix within other detachments.

Lastly you seem to have this idea that "soup" is only used by people who want to game the system and not good casual/normal/fluffy players. So tell me, is my WIP Deimos Skitarii army supported by Grey Knights and Mechanicus knights "flavor of the week" or is it just another army?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

I'd, personally, argue that as soon as any allies make it in(and hell--I'll even say other <Regiment/Sept/Chapter> units would count) it becomes a bit watered down. Once you bring another army in for whatever reason, it seems like you should consider that a soup list.

That's my take on it. But I'm looking it from the AoS POV where you can only take a certain percentage of your army as an allied faction--doesn't matter how many models it is, just certain percentage of points total.

If that's your take then "soup" has little to no meaning. You're starting to treat it like it's its own uber-faction. Soup won the last tourney, not DG+RK then?

Dandelion wrote:
Are these not soup options added to shore up weaknesses? And on top of that, Guard are the only faction that can take them without breaking regiments!
So while Guard get access to Enginseers, Admech get what? Well, it certainly wasn't a chimera.

Soup breaks guard regiments too... just saying. The enginseer has been a unit in the guard codex since 3rd edition. We have our own datasheet with the astra militarum keyword, we aren't lifting anything from the cult mechanicus book. If anything, cult mechanicus stole the enginseer from guard.

w1zard wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Are these not soup options added to shore up weaknesses? And on top of that, Guard are the only faction that can take them without breaking regiments!
So while Guard get access to Enginseers, Admech get what? Well, it certainly wasn't a chimera.

Soup breaks guard regiments too... just saying.

Not for these three units it doesn't.
Page 132:
- Advisors and auxilia:
The units listed below can be included in an a ASTRA MILITARUM detachment without preventing other units from gaining a Regimental Doctrine:
- Enginseer
- Servitor
- Priest
- Crusader

Ho hum

Dandelion wrote:

w1zard wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Are these not soup options added to shore up weaknesses? And on top of that, Guard are the only faction that can take them without breaking regiments!
So while Guard get access to Enginseers, Admech get what? Well, it certainly wasn't a chimera.

Soup breaks guard regiments too... just saying.

Not for these three units it doesn't.
Page 132:
- Advisors and auxilia:
The units listed below can be included in an a ASTRA MILITARUM detachment without preventing other units from gaining a Regimental Doctrine:
- Enginseer
- Servitor
- Priest
- Crusader

Ho hum

Outside of the Crusaders, those items have been in the Guard book for a long time.

Those units also don't gain a Regimental Doctrine or any benefits. And one of those Auxilia is Scions, who also cannot receive Orders or their own Regimental Doctrine unless taken in a singular Regiment.

Ho hum.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

w1zard wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Are these not soup options added to shore up weaknesses? And on top of that, Guard are the only faction that can take them without breaking regiments!
So while Guard get access to Enginseers, Admech get what? Well, it certainly wasn't a chimera.

Soup breaks guard regiments too... just saying.

Not for these three units it doesn't.
Page 132:
- Advisors and auxilia:
The units listed below can be included in an a ASTRA MILITARUM detachment without preventing other units from gaining a Regimental Doctrine:
- Enginseer
- Servitor
- Priest
- Crusader

Ho hum

Outside of the Crusaders, those items have been in the Guard book for a long time.

Those units also don't gain a Regimental Doctrine or any benefits. And one of those Auxilia is Scions, who also cannot receive Orders or their own Regimental Doctrine unless taken in a singular Regiment.

Ho hum.

Neato observations there. I suppose you agree with me since none of that contradicts what I said.

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

w1zard wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Are these not soup options added to shore up weaknesses? And on top of that, Guard are the only faction that can take them without breaking regiments!
So while Guard get access to Enginseers, Admech get what? Well, it certainly wasn't a chimera.

Soup breaks guard regiments too... just saying.

Not for these three units it doesn't.
Page 132:
- Advisors and auxilia:
The units listed below can be included in an a ASTRA MILITARUM detachment without preventing other units from gaining a Regimental Doctrine:
- Enginseer
- Servitor
- Priest
- Crusader

Ho hum

Outside of the Crusaders, those items have been in the Guard book for a long time.

Those units also don't gain a Regimental Doctrine or any benefits. And one of those Auxilia is Scions, who also cannot receive Orders or their own Regimental Doctrine unless taken in a singular Regiment.

Ho hum.

Neato observations there. I suppose you agree with me since none of that contradicts what I said.

All those items still feature "Astra Militarum" as a keyword--and they're in the army book.

I mean, I get what you're driving at--but your example is flawed.

I don't typically agree with Kanluwen, but in this case I have to.
Out of all the things to get up at about Guard, it's ridiculous to take aim at units they've had for multiple editions that don't even benefit from the normal Doctrines.

Iirc the Enginseer wasn't even in the 7th Editon Cult Mechanicus codex.

Also Servitors? Really? You mean that unit that all flavours of Loyalist Marines also have that actually have the <Chapter> keyword and benefit from Chapter Tactics? (Not saying they're good, just pointing out a double standard)

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I don't typically agree with Kanluwen, but in this case I have to.
Out of all the things to get up at about Guard, it's ridiculous to take aim at units they've had for multiple editions that don't even benefit from the normal Doctrines.

Well I know for a fact Death Guard lose their bonus the moment they decide to include a couple of Plaguebearers, and I am pretty sure Thousand Sons suffer the same fate.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I don't typically agree with Kanluwen, but in this case I have to.
Out of all the things to get up at about Guard, it's ridiculous to take aim at units they've had for multiple editions that don't even benefit from the normal Doctrines.

Well I know for a fact Death Guard lose their bonus the moment they decide to include a couple of Plaguebearers, and I am pretty sure Thousand Sons suffer the same fate.

Of course, and as a Chaos player I agree it's kind of stupid that GW would put those unit datasheets in the codex only for summoning, but at the same time CSMs and Daemons proper have been in different codexes since 4th. (I'm not counting the generic, summonable Greater and Lesser statlines from 4th and 5th because they aren't proper daemons)

It's a different situation.

 Kanluwen wrote:

All those items still feature "Astra Militarum" as a keyword--and they're in the army book.

I mean, I get what you're driving at--but your example is flawed.

To be perfectly clear, I am not knocking Guard for having these. I am refuting Asmosdios' claim that soup balance should be separate from mono-faction balance.
His arguments tend to revolve around faction identity and faction weaknesses and how other factions should pay a premium for the privelage of taking allies because they "aren't balanced" outside of their faction. I brought up the auxilia to demonstrate that GW wants people to soup and that 8th edition was designed from the ground up with this in mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I don't typically agree with Kanluwen, but in this case I have to.
Out of all the things to get up at about Guard, it's ridiculous to take aim at units they've had for multiple editions that don't even benefit from the normal Doctrines.

Iirc the Enginseer wasn't even in the 7th Editon Cult Mechanicus codex.

Also Servitors? Really? You mean that unit that all flavours of Loyalist Marines also have that actually have the <Chapter> keyword and benefit from Chapter Tactics? (Not saying they're good, just pointing out a double standard)

Try differentiating my thesis from my argument. (also, keep in mind the context of the conversation, asmodios said that to balance soup non-guard armies should pay 6pts for guardsmen while mono-Guard only pay 4pts)

Thesis: GW designed and balanced 8th to allow and even encourage "soup"

Arguments:
- Faction Keywords
- Detachments
- Guard Auxilia
- Custodes banner thing

As for the servitors, they were just part of the auxilia list so I included them.
We good?

Dandelion wrote:

No, in fact I said nothing of the sort. Guard are appearing in soup because they are too cheap for their value. If Tactical marines were 8 pts a pop, people wouldn't be getting enough of them, you'd see them everywhere.

No its got nothing to do with being cheap. Its do with giving 5CP plus CP regen. You think that if the price stayed the same and no 5CP/regen from secondary/soup detachment that people would still take IG battalion? I think not. Heck increase it to 5ppm and a minimum batallion of 210 and people will still take it. The guardsmen are just the icing on the cake.

A min Admech battalion is 201 pts. I suspect there is more to the story than just CP.
I don't even have to suspect it, I've been told flat out by someone who uses Guard that's it's due to their durability. (and they even play admech)

As for CP regen. It's too much. Other factions only get 1 way to regen CP and it's usually on a 6.
So basically there is a plethora of issues in 8th that need to be fixed, and 4pt guard is just one of them.

Anyway, I'm pretty tapped out from all this so peace out.

Dandelion wrote:
A min Admech battalion is 201 pts. I suspect there is more to the story than just CP.
I don't even have to suspect it, I've been told flat out by someone who uses Guard that's it's due to their durability. (and they even play admech)

As for CP regen. It's too much. Other factions only get 1 way to regen CP and it's usually on a 6.
So basically there is a plethora of issues in 8th that need to be fixed, and 4pt guard is just one of them.

Anyway, I'm pretty tapped out from all this so peace out.

Well anecdotal evidence shouldn't be used to back an argument. From all the list reviews I have done for the past several months (and I am not saying this is conclusive) there has never been a guard battalion added that isn't a CP regen battalion and to give the list 5CP boost. Every reviewer will tell you that a guard battalion is purely for CP and regen. Outside of this thread I haven't heard anyone bring up the amazing durability of the humble guardsmen. We are here analysing it in a vaccum. On the battlefield guard battalions get cleared pretty quickly outside of some flukey 5+ saves.

I do believe CP regen should be fixed, guard dont really need it (but then not all guard take battalions, a 9CP battalion and spearhead is pretty common) and other armies are just using guard to get to it. I would like to see 8.5 edition that tweaks how CP and strategems are distributed.

 Smirrors wrote:
Every reviewer will tell you that a guard battalion is purely for CP and regen.

I've never heard anyone ever say that. It doesn't even make sense, if that was the case just grab a Supreme Command. Everyone says it adds multiple things to your army, and that those units often pull their own weight over the course of a game. Listen to Geoff Robinson talk about his success with Custode's, for example.


Also nevermind the fact that half these Battalions are taking more than just the minimum as well, I'd say your theory is pretty much bust

The battalion also adds a lot of bodies, which is important for many different armies. It's not just for the CP battery, although the CP battery is a defining feature of the Guard battalion over other battalions.

Scrap CP regen abilities and/or otherwise alter how CP & stratagem access currently works for soup armies.
Scrap -1 to hit outside 12" chapter tactics abilities.
Raise Dissies by 3-5 points.

See where the game is after that and balance accordingly.
I suspect IG/Knights/DE would be top tier.

Soup wise simply saying Detachment generated CPs can only be spent on their own strategems would make a big change.

Dandelion wrote:
Since we're talking about soup. If Guard infantry are as prevalent is soup armies as mono IG, doesn't that make Guard their own worst enemy?

I encounter three guard builds typically. Infantry troop heavy (storm troopers or guard), tank heavy (the classic Leman Russ company, often tallarn) or super heavy (3 super heavies plus supporting elements).

Overall though to be perfectly clear on all those who think the infantry cost too little, are you saying that if you were facing my guard army with say 6 squads in it at 2000pts, you think it will only be a fair game if I give you an additional 60 points to spend on your army?

Wait, so if I take an Alaitoc detatchment with Asurmen, and it were OP, that would be soup, not Alaitoc, that's OP becasue Asurmen doesn't have the Alaitoc keyword?

Bharring wrote:
Wait, so if I take an Alaitoc detatchment with Asurmen, and it were OP, that would be soup, not Alaitoc, that's OP becasue Asurmen doesn't have the Alaitoc keyword?

This is basically the logic espoused here, yes.

Dandelion wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

If you actually want to balance with soup in mind then give units multiple costs. Guardsmen can be 6ppm in soup and 4ppm when taken in a mono list. You might think that soup is the only way people play but i guarantee if GW did a survey many more people own mono faction armies then go out and buy the flavor of the week

I don't think soup is the only way to play. However, you cannot deny that GW intentionally designed 8th to allow all the allies you could ever want.
Everything from the way detachments work to Faction keywords was designed to allow and encourage allies. 8th is already balanced around "soup".

But let's take a step back. You have mentioned time and again how factions need to have weaknesses right? So what happened when GW gave Guard access to:
- Admech Techpriest Enginseers
- Ministorum Priests
AND
- Ministorum Crusaders
?

Are these not soup options added to shore up weaknesses? And on top of that, Guard are the only faction that can take them without breaking regiments!
So while Guard get access to Enginseers, Admech get what? Well, it certainly wasn't a chimera.

Then what happened to Assassins? GW had to patch together a fix to keep them legal because they were designed to mix within other detachments.

Lastly you seem to have this idea that "soup" is only used by people who want to game the system and not good casual/normal/fluffy players. So tell me, is my WIP Deimos Skitarii army supported by Grey Knights and Mechanicus knights "flavor of the week" or is it just another army?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

I'd, personally, argue that as soon as any allies make it in(and hell--I'll even say other <Regiment/Sept/Chapter> units would count) it becomes a bit watered down. Once you bring another army in for whatever reason, it seems like you should consider that a soup list.

That's my take on it. But I'm looking it from the AoS POV where you can only take a certain percentage of your army as an allied faction--doesn't matter how many models it is, just certain percentage of points total.

If that's your take then "soup" has little to no meaning. You're starting to treat it like it's its own uber-faction. Soup won the last tourney, not DG+RK then?

I'm really confused at what your trying to get at here..... Somehow mixing books isn't soup because IG has units Like engineers in its codex? Like are you saying adding kroot to tau is somehow the same as mixing codexes together? not sure what any of what you posted has to do with any point I've made in this thread?

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Overall though to be perfectly clear on all those who think the infantry cost too little, are you saying that if you were facing my guard army with say 6 squads in it at 2000pts, you think it will only be a fair game if I give you an additional 60 points to spend on your army?

A good question which I hope is answered. If the change is as simple as "give opponents extra points equal to the number of Infantry Squad models in your list" to test the theory, that'd be good to gather data with.

@asmodios
No, I do believe mixing codexes is "soup" or "allies" or whatever. However, I have many reasons to believe that mixing factions is entirely intentional and that "fixing" soup would just reverse 8th's core design. Soup is the new standard, so you cannot disregard guard infantry's contribution to soup because someone thought an armiger was better than a russ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Overall though to be perfectly clear on all those who think the infantry cost too little, are you saying that if you were facing my guard army with say 6 squads in it at 2000pts, you think it will only be a fair game if I give you an additional 60 points to spend on your army?

A good question which I hope is answered. If the change is as simple as "give opponents extra points equal to the number of Infantry Squad models in your list" to test the theory, that'd be good to gather data with.

More fair, yes. But 6 infantry squads is a little light. Players running 10-12+ squads are the ones I'm worried about, 400 pts for 100 individual wounds is a bit much for me.

Dandelion wrote:
@asmodios
No, I do believe mixing codexes is "soup" or "allies" or whatever. However, I have many reasons to believe that mixing factions is entirely intentional and that "fixing" soup would just reverse 8th's core design. Soup is the new standard, so you cannot disregard guard infantry's contribution to soup because someone thought an armiger was better than a russ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Overall though to be perfectly clear on all those who think the infantry cost too little, are you saying that if you were facing my guard army with say 6 squads in it at 2000pts, you think it will only be a fair game if I give you an additional 60 points to spend on your army?

A good question which I hope is answered. If the change is as simple as "give opponents extra points equal to the number of Infantry Squad models in your list" to test the theory, that'd be good to gather data with.

More fair, yes. But 6 infantry squads is a little light. Players running 10-12+ squads are the ones I'm worried about, 400 pts for 100 individual wounds is a bit much for me.

Well, you'd get an extra 100-120 points from those players, yes? I play with 3 squads of infantry and 3 squads of Skitarii in my superheavy list, for example, so only 30 extra points.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
@asmodios
No, I do believe mixing codexes is "soup" or "allies" or whatever. However, I have many reasons to believe that mixing factions is entirely intentional and that "fixing" soup would just reverse 8th's core design. Soup is the new standard, so you cannot disregard guard infantry's contribution to soup because someone thought an armiger was better than a russ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Overall though to be perfectly clear on all those who think the infantry cost too little, are you saying that if you were facing my guard army with say 6 squads in it at 2000pts, you think it will only be a fair game if I give you an additional 60 points to spend on your army?

A good question which I hope is answered. If the change is as simple as "give opponents extra points equal to the number of Infantry Squad models in your list" to test the theory, that'd be good to gather data with.

More fair, yes. But 6 infantry squads is a little light. Players running 10-12+ squads are the ones I'm worried about, 400 pts for 100 individual wounds is a bit much for me.

Well, you'd get an extra 100-120 points from those players, yes? I play with 3 squads of infantry and 3 squads of Skitarii in my superheavy list, for example, so only 30 extra points.

Pretty much.

Adding 60 is not nearly as meaningful as taking 60 away.

And it wouldn't be just 60, because Guard artillery, mortar teams, HQs, etc, should all go up in price.

In reality it would be more fair to see 1800 or so points of Guard versus 2000 of your average mid-tier army.

 Marmatag wrote:
Adding 60 is not nearly as meaningful as taking 60 away.

And it wouldn't be just 60, because Guard artillery, mortar teams, HQs, etc, should all go up in price.

In reality it would be more fair to see 1800 or so points of Guard versus 2000 of your average mid-tier army.

So you're advocating that everything with the Astra Militarum keyword should go up by about 10%, or ?

I'd say that certain things could use tweaking up in price (HWT are also a bit cheap), but things like sentinels and chimera really should go down (or just get better).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So you're advocating that everything with the Astra Militarum keyword should go up by about 10%, or ?

Sounds about right to me.

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So you're advocating that everything with the Astra Militarum keyword should go up by about 10%, or ?

Sounds about right to me.

Can I quote you in the future when I make a post claiming that Malcadors, Rough Riders, and Chimeras need to go up 10%?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So you're advocating that everything with the Astra Militarum keyword should go up by about 10%, or ?

Sounds about right to me.

Can I quote you in the future when I make a post claiming that Malcadors, Rough Riders, and Chimeras need to go up 10%?

No. It is 10% on average. Some units do not need point increase at all while some need greater one.

Dandelion wrote:
@asmodios
No, I do believe mixing codexes is "soup" or "allies" or whatever. However, I have many reasons to believe that mixing factions is entirely intentional and that "fixing" soup would just reverse 8th's core design. Soup is the new standard, so you cannot disregard guard infantry's contribution to soup because someone thought an armiger was better than a russ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Overall though to be perfectly clear on all those who think the infantry cost too little, are you saying that if you were facing my guard army with say 6 squads in it at 2000pts, you think it will only be a fair game if I give you an additional 60 points to spend on your army?

A good question which I hope is answered. If the change is as simple as "give opponents extra points equal to the number of Infantry Squad models in your list" to test the theory, that'd be good to gather data with.

More fair, yes. But 6 infantry squads is a little light. Players running 10-12+ squads are the ones I'm worried about, 400 pts for 100 individual wounds is a bit much for me.

I don't deny that soup is perfectly legal to take and valid.... I have nothing against people that soup for fluff or to make super strong builds. What I am against is nerfing an individual faction that is not an issue because of soup. There are plenty of ways to tone down soup without hurting mono faction players. I for starters would
1. remove CP regeneration from the game completely. There is no need for it and unless everyone has access to it, its going to be impossible to balance
2. Change the way CP works between various armies. Make it so that any codex generated by army x has to be used on army x
My comment about multiple points for soup was to point out that everyone pointing to "OP IG" keeps holding up soup for the example yet everyone wants to nuke IG instead of the actual beast going around stomping tournaments that is soup. There are lots of different and creative ways to make it so that soup isn't the obvious go-to stronger pick. There should be pros and cons to mixing books because without a con the factions that cannot soup will always be at a disadvantage

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So you're advocating that everything with the Astra Militarum keyword should go up by about 10%, or ?

Sounds about right to me.

Can I quote you in the future when I make a post claiming that Malcadors, Rough Riders, and Chimeras need to go up 10%?

No. It is 10% on average. Some units do not need point increase at all while some need greater one.

Oh!
This I agree with. Now if only we could agree on what units those are. I'm inclined to think things like Basilisks should probably go up. Probably Scions, too, by 1 or 2 points. Infantry squads are fine, though, in my experience (hence my reaction to this thread). Cheaper things probably include the Chimera, and perhaps Special Weapon Squads (since they're never ever taken ever because scions).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

So you're advocating that everything with the Astra Militarum keyword should go up by about 10%, or ?

Sounds about right to me.

Can I quote you in the future when I make a post claiming that Malcadors, Rough Riders, and Chimeras need to go up 10%?

No. It is 10% on average. Some units do not need point increase at all while some need greater one.

Oh!
This I agree with. Now if only we could agree on what units those are. I'm inclined to think things like Basilisks should probably go up. Probably Scions, too, by 1 or 2 points. Infantry squads are fine, though, in my experience (hence my reaction to this thread). Cheaper things probably include the Chimera, and perhaps Special Weapon Squads (since they're never ever taken ever because scions).

When was the last time you saw more than 1-2 Chimeras on the table? Or any for that matter.

Right. Chimeras should be cheaper

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right. Chimeras should be cheaper

Miss read, thought you meant them by 1-2pts, i was thinking "1-2pts? do you mean 20-30pts?"

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right. Chimeras should be cheaper

Miss read, thought you meant them by 1-2pts, i was thinking "1-2pts? do you mean 20-30pts?"

Oh no.
Personally, WRT Scions, I would split them into 2 units: 9ppm one with basic Lasguns, same special weapon options and statline, but no Deep Strike. Maybe give them the regiment keyword instead of MT and call them Grenadiers. Then, the existing Scions would be 11ppm, 12 with the Hotshot.

This would allow for "heavy infantry Regiments" with 9ppm Grenadiers as troops, while still also allowing MT a unique niche for Guard in the form of deep-striking specialists for targeting exposed enemy units but are too expensive to suicide superplasma drop.

The deep strike capability for Scions should definitely be an option for extra point instead of always on ability. It is crazy they they have these dedicated transports that only they can use, but they never actually ride in them.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right. Chimeras should be cheaper

Miss read, thought you meant them by 1-2pts, i was thinking "1-2pts? do you mean 20-30pts?"

Oh no.
Personally, WRT Scions, I would split them into 2 units: 9ppm one with basic Lasguns, same special weapon options and statline, but no Deep Strike. Maybe give them the regiment keyword instead of MT and call them Grenadiers. Then, the existing Scions would be 11ppm, 12 with the Hotshot.

This would allow for "heavy infantry Regiments" with 9ppm Grenadiers as troops, while still also allowing MT a unique niche for Guard in the form of deep-striking specialists for targeting exposed enemy units but are too expensive to suicide superplasma drop.

Wait, how do you justify 9pt no deepstrike scions with 4pt infantry? It's more than double the price for +1sv, and +1 BS.

But I like the grenadier idea regardless. You could even just replace veterans with them.

Dandelion wrote:
@asmodios]
No, I do believe mixing codexes is "soup" or "allies" or whatever. However, I have many reasons to believe that mixing factions is entirely intentional and that "fixing" soup would just reverse 8th's core design. Soup is the new standard, so you cannot disregard guard infantry's contribution to soup because someone thought an armiger was better than a russ.

And that would be bad, because ..? 8th has horrible rules, and the soup mechanics on one side gives GW the excuse to not fix bad armies, and at the same time eliminates units, or even whole codex from use.

Why use a shortrange melee/shoting hybrid army like GK, when Custodes do everything better? Why fix GK, when you can just spend more money on other armies trying to fix them, and if in the end your IG+GK army turns in to Custodes+IG+no GK, it is even better for GW.

Dandelion wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right. Chimeras should be cheaper

Miss read, thought you meant them by 1-2pts, i was thinking "1-2pts? do you mean 20-30pts?"

Oh no.
Personally, WRT Scions, I would split them into 2 units: 9ppm one with basic Lasguns, same special weapon options and statline, but no Deep Strike. Maybe give them the regiment keyword instead of MT and call them Grenadiers. Then, the existing Scions would be 11ppm, 12 with the Hotshot.

This would allow for "heavy infantry Regiments" with 9ppm Grenadiers as troops, while still also allowing MT a unique niche for Guard in the form of deep-striking specialists for targeting exposed enemy units but are too expensive to suicide superplasma drop.

Wait, how do you justify 9pt no deepstrike scions with 4pt infantry? It's more than double the price for +1sv, and +1 BS.

But I like the grenadier idea regardless. You could even just replace veterans with them.

Oh right. I discounted the Hotshot price but perhaps they could be 8ppm, so +1 point for better weapon options and more size flexibility (5-10), +2 pts for BS (following the Veteran model) and +1 pt for save?

If you guys don't want a hefty price increase, remember that it isn't like they can increase squad size or anything.

Make them 45 points per squad. That's 4.5 per model.

Too bad marines can't take hot-shot lasguns.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If you guys don't want a hefty price increase, remember that it isn't like they can increase squad size or anything.

Make them 45 points per squad. That's 4.5 per model.

This also is good - a 12.5%

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right. Chimeras should be cheaper

Miss read, thought you meant them by 1-2pts, i was thinking "1-2pts? do you mean 20-30pts?"

Oh no.
Personally, WRT Scions, I would split them into 2 units: 9ppm one with basic Lasguns, same special weapon options and statline, but no Deep Strike. Maybe give them the regiment keyword instead of MT and call them Grenadiers. Then, the existing Scions would be 11ppm, 12 with the Hotshot.

This would allow for "heavy infantry Regiments" with 9ppm Grenadiers as troops, while still also allowing MT a unique niche for Guard in the form of deep-striking specialists for targeting exposed enemy units but are too expensive to suicide superplasma drop.

Vets need to be Troops again. That would literally fix all their issues without having touched the transport options. The fact they're not troops but Scions are is kinda silly.

Scions should stay troops in their own detachments of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If you guys don't want a hefty price increase, remember that it isn't like they can increase squad size or anything.

Make them 45 points per squad. That's 4.5 per model.

This also is good - a 12.5%

Then you make Vets into Troops and fix their transports. Bam done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
Too bad marines can't take hot-shot lasguns.

Well if Bolt weapons weren't junk it wouldn't be an issue. That's said, the Volley Hotshot would be cool as an option I guess.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right. Chimeras should be cheaper

Miss read, thought you meant them by 1-2pts, i was thinking "1-2pts? do you mean 20-30pts?"

Oh no.
Personally, WRT Scions, I would split them into 2 units: 9ppm one with basic Lasguns, same special weapon options and statline, but no Deep Strike. Maybe give them the regiment keyword instead of MT and call them Grenadiers. Then, the existing Scions would be 11ppm, 12 with the Hotshot.

This would allow for "heavy infantry Regiments" with 9ppm Grenadiers as troops, while still also allowing MT a unique niche for Guard in the form of deep-striking specialists for targeting exposed enemy units but are too expensive to suicide superplasma drop.

Vets need to be Troops again. That would literally fix all their issues without having touched the transport options. The fact they're not troops but Scions are is kinda silly.

Scions should stay troops in their own detachments of course.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If you guys don't want a hefty price increase, remember that it isn't like they can increase squad size or anything.

Make them 45 points per squad. That's 4.5 per model.

This also is good - a 12.5%

Then you make Vets into Troops and fix their transports. Bam done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
Too bad marines can't take hot-shot lasguns.

Well if Bolt weapons weren't junk it wouldn't be an issue. That's said, the Volley Hotshot would be cool as an option I guess.

Agreed, though I'd like to see vets get an option for a 4+ save just for fluff reasons; on the whole, I think these changes would be a good mix to really see diverse IG troops in the future (esp. in mono-IG lists) rather than "Infantry Squad x6, Scion Squad x3" which is roughly what I tend to see these days.

The HVG should remain a Scion only weapon, like grav stuff for Marines

Dandelion wrote:
I'd say that certain things could use tweaking up in price (HWT are also a bit cheap), but things like sentinels and chimera really should go down (or just get better).

Said it before, saying it again:

I have no problems with removing or limiting certain weapons to Heavy Weapon Squads only. Mortars shouldn't be in infantry squads.

Every transport in the game that isn't a wave serpant/ raider/ or venom / or starweaver should get a hefty price cut.

You might notice...these are all eldar. All but 1 is open topped. The other one does mortal wounds and reduces all damage by 1 making it about as durable as a repulsor which is almost 3x more expensive.

Thunderhawks do not need a price cut. Neither does the space wolf flying coffin.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Every transport in the game that isn't a wave serpant/ raider/ or venom / or starweaver should get a hefty price cut.

You might notice...these are all eldar. All but 1 is open topped. The other one does mortal wounds and reduces all damage by 1 making it about as durable as a repulsor which is almost 3x more expensive.

The problem is IMO transports are extreme hard to balance, a Rhino is 72pts a Venom is 65pts, a venom has less wounds, less armor (but 5++) less toughness (by 2) and 4 poison shots (A SB is better IMO), that can only carry 5 guys (squads are in size of 5 so no characters with troops), its main buffs are Fly and -1 to hit

When you look at that way, a Venom is +4 buffs (Fly, Open top, 5++, more movement) but the Rhino is +4 (Wounds, toughness, armor, capacity)
* So comparing the 2, they have equal buffs on each other (to GW eyes, IMO Fly should be more costly)


The Rhino should be 60pts (base) if you want to try and balance it with the Venom (tho i can see Venoms going up 5pts soon).

The problem then comes into play, if they are too cheap then you just spam 10 Rhinos and deny objectives for the opponent, tho i would rather see 4-5 Rhinos on the table than 0

That's pretty good analysis. Yeah it seems like transports are difficult to balance.

The humble Chimera is a base 93pt transport, I'd rather it have no damn guns on it for as bad as it is as firing it's weapons when it moves. I still take 3 but I'd certainly be better off with equal number of points in more infantry.

Interestingly, it's also worth noting that the Null-Maiden Rhino from GW is only 60 pts (62, I think with SB, but that's not mandatory), for the Sisters of Silence.

This tells me that at least one of these 3 things is true:
1) GW typo'd and it should be 70 points (wrong, I think).
2) GW recognizes the Rhino isn't worth 70, but hasn't done anything for factions not SoS (also wrong).
3) GW recognizes that what a transport is transporting affects its cost (also wrong, in my opinion, as a Rhino can hold anything from a scout squad (worse than SOS I'd argue) to a Sternguard Squad (considerably better than SOS))

What're the thoughts on that?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Every transport in the game that isn't a wave serpant/ raider/ or venom / or starweaver should get a hefty price cut.

You might notice...these are all eldar. All but 1 is open topped. The other one does mortal wounds and reduces all damage by 1 making it about as durable as a repulsor which is almost 3x more expensive.

The problem is IMO transports are extreme hard to balance, a Rhino is 72pts a Venom is 65pts, a venom has less wounds, less armor (but 5++) less toughness (by 2) and 4 poison shots (A SB is better IMO), that can only carry 5 guys (squads are in size of 5 so no characters with troops), its main buffs are Fly and -1 to hit

When you look at that way, a Venom is +4 buffs (Fly, Open top, 5++, more movement) but the Rhino is +4 (Wounds, toughness, armor, capacity)
* So comparing the 2, they have equal buffs on each other (to GW eyes, IMO Fly should be more costly)


The Rhino should be 60pts (base) if you want to try and balance it with the Venom (tho i can see Venoms going up 5pts soon).

The problem then comes into play, if they are too cheap then you just spam 10 Rhinos and deny objectives for the opponent, tho i would rather see 4-5 Rhinos on the table than 0

You forgot that the Passengers can fire from their vehicle. That's why with my Deathwatch I'd take Venoms or Raiders in a heartbeat. They have the speed and ability to not hamper my offensive ability, which is ALREADY an issue for Marine armies in the first place. You give Kabalites a Rhino and you don't care because they're cheap enough that the offense isn't lost. Too bad they're not bad offensively for the price either!

 Marmatag wrote:
Thunderhawks do not need a price cut. Neither does the space wolf flying coffin.

The space wolf flyer is OP. It just gets more guns for the same price as a raven. I assume it will go up in the codex.

Never seen a thunderhawk once. I've looked at it's stats a few times. Thought it sucked. I was mostly referring to codex entires anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Every transport in the game that isn't a wave serpant/ raider/ or venom / or starweaver should get a hefty price cut.

You might notice...these are all eldar. All but 1 is open topped. The other one does mortal wounds and reduces all damage by 1 making it about as durable as a repulsor which is almost 3x more expensive.

The problem is IMO transports are extreme hard to balance, a Rhino is 72pts a Venom is 65pts, a venom has less wounds, less armor (but 5++) less toughness (by 2) and 4 poison shots (A SB is better IMO), that can only carry 5 guys (squads are in size of 5 so no characters with troops), its main buffs are Fly and -1 to hit

When you look at that way, a Venom is +4 buffs (Fly, Open top, 5++, more movement) but the Rhino is +4 (Wounds, toughness, armor, capacity)
* So comparing the 2, they have equal buffs on each other (to GW eyes, IMO Fly should be more costly)


The Rhino should be 60pts (base) if you want to try and balance it with the Venom (tho i can see Venoms going up 5pts soon).

The problem then comes into play, if they are too cheap then you just spam 10 Rhinos and deny objectives for the opponent, tho i would rather see 4-5 Rhinos on the table than 0

Venom has stats that actually matter where a rhino does nothing. Fly keyword for a vehicle is amazing. Moving 16 inches is also amazing if your job is to move units around. Open topped is amazing.

What is the Value of a metal box that transports units that does nothing deep striking a unit couldn't do better? It's worth about 35-40 points IMO. Venom is worth roughly 75.

Venoms are fantastic. Open topped is a huge, huge deal.

The point was each has difference strengths, the rhino has almost twice as many wounds, better save, better capacity, the venoms is fasters, has fly, cheaper, but also has its weakness, due to the nature of the venom its used to house the cheapest Aeldari troops only b.c it can be spammd.

Compare it to a Raider then (same wounds, but 2T less), you dont see Raider spam... and they have fly, better movement, 10 capacity, a better gun. Venoms are only spammed b.c how cheap they are (and they are going up in points soon so that wont be a problem anymore).

So a Raider is better than a rhino, then why isnt that spammed? The kabals can have better shots, re-rolls etc.. so the firepower is there for the Open-top abilities.

This is why i was giving examples as to why Transports are hard to balance.


PS: Venoms are spammed not just b.c they are cheap and kabals are cheap, but b.c its pointless to take 10mans and Ravagers/RWJF's will always be a better platform for Heavy Weapons. Even when Venoms go up 5pts, they still will be spammed, mostly b.c Kabals are not good, and taking 10mans doesnt make them better. Venom spam is partly b.c the troops dont have any good buffs for being in 10mans, another SC wont do anything and a DL on a moving guy means -1 to hit, so thats points and they now have LD problems. Most DE fire power doesnt come from Kabals, finally Kabals+Venoms are DE's best/cheapest anti infanty, when players are taking 100-200 models with 5/6+ saves, you need lots of shots.


And this is why Venoms wasnt played in the Index, b.c they were to much, Venoms so far are either to cheap or to costly, its VERY hard to get them balanced, 4/10 poison shots on the venoms isnt going anything much honestly, they on average with 1 SC vs IG kills 2 per turn, for 10pts more and the 5 kabals in Rapid fire range you only kill 4-5 guardsman (thats within 12" of the unit) on average you only kill 2-3 a turn for 95pts, thats 30pts per kill....

If you think Rhinos don't have stats that matter, you've never been charged by one after it delivered. Or tried to prevent the unit from being delivered. It *does* have stats that matter. It just pays too much for those stats.

The costing seems to be a casualty of a la carte. The Rhino and the Pred are the same chasis. The big difference is the guns on it. Cost the chasis appropriate for what a Rhino should be, and Preds/Razorbacks are way undercosted. Cost the chasis for what a Pred should be and Rhinos are far too expensive.

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have no problems with removing or limiting certain weapons to Heavy Weapon Squads only. Mortars shouldn't be in infantry squads.

I suppose it depends what you consider Infantry Squads to be.

If you consider them the closest equivalent to normal infantry platoons, then they should absolutely have mortars. I'd instead lean towards removing their options for lascannons and maybe autocannons.

However, if you think they can/do represent dedicated heavy-weapon squads, then I'd drop the mortars and maybe the heavy bolters.

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have no problems with removing or limiting certain weapons to Heavy Weapon Squads only. Mortars shouldn't be in infantry squads.

I suppose it depends what you consider Infantry Squads to be.

If you consider them the closest equivalent to normal infantry platoons, then they should absolutely have mortars. I'd instead lean towards removing their options for lascannons and maybe autocannons.

However, if you think they can/do represent dedicated heavy-weapon squads, then I'd drop the mortars and maybe the heavy bolters.

No, we actually have a unit called Heavy Weapon Squads. That's where those weapons should be. The whole concept of the Heavy Weapons Team needs to be revisited.

Lol why the hell shouldn't mortars be in infantry squads?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have no problems with removing or limiting certain weapons to Heavy Weapon Squads only. Mortars shouldn't be in infantry squads.

I suppose it depends what you consider Infantry Squads to be.

If you consider them the closest equivalent to normal infantry platoons, then they should absolutely have mortars. I'd instead lean towards removing their options for lascannons and maybe autocannons.

However, if you think they can/do represent dedicated heavy-weapon squads, then I'd drop the mortars and maybe the heavy bolters.

No, we actually have a unit called Heavy Weapon Squads. That's where those weapons should be. The whole concept of the Heavy Weapons Team needs to be revisited.

So Tac Marimes shouldnt get ML or other heavy weapons b.c of Dev squads? and shouldnt get melee weapons b.c Assault squads? ANd should have plasma or melta b.c Vet squads?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
I have no problems with removing or limiting certain weapons to Heavy Weapon Squads only. Mortars shouldn't be in infantry squads.

I suppose it depends what you consider Infantry Squads to be.

If you consider them the closest equivalent to normal infantry platoons, then they should absolutely have mortars. I'd instead lean towards removing their options for lascannons and maybe autocannons.

However, if you think they can/do represent dedicated heavy-weapon squads, then I'd drop the mortars and maybe the heavy bolters.

No, we actually have a unit called Heavy Weapon Squads. That's where those weapons should be. The whole concept of the Heavy Weapons Team needs to be revisited.

So Tac Marimes shouldnt get ML or other heavy weapons b.c of Dev squads? and shouldnt get melee weapons b.c Assault squads? ANd should have plasma or melta b.c Vet squads?

You missed the part of "the concept of the Heavy Weapons Team needs to be revisited"?

Infantry Squads are not the same thing as the old Infantry Platoons. Platoons(A single Troops choice) had Platoon Command Squads(now two separate units, Platoon Commander as an Elite and Command Squad as Elite) Infantry Squads(Troops now), Conscript Squads(Troops now), Special Weapon Squads(Elites now), and Heavy Weapon Squads(Heavy Support now) all as options within the Platoon.

Guard really should not have been such an early release within 8th. They should have taken their time revising the army's mechanics before releasing it. A complete revamp to the basic Infantry Squad would be even better, with access to more Special Weapons and the addition of some pseudo-Heavy Weapons that one Guardsman could have. Things like a Heavy Stubber, the 'Hellshot' sniper rifle mentioned in Redemption Corps--stuff that one guy could carry around and operate with no issue.

Move the current Heavy Weapons to just the Heavy Weapon Squads, give them rules where if they are in cover or near an objective they can boost their ROF and saves and it makes the delineation between an Infantry Squad and a HWS much more interesting.