JNAProductions wrote: Such quantities being the minimum for your detachment, usually a battalion, with one example of people taking more than that?
You’ll notice most troops are taken in their minimum quantities for the detachment but as I’ve said, repeatedly in this thread, there are many more examples of more than the minimum number of Guardsmen to fulfil the detachment being taken and they feature in almost every competitive Imperium list. The minimum number of Guardsmen a soup list can take is 0 by the way. They could take another troop of another faction.
In the lists I've seen, most include an IG Battalion (3 squads), a decent minority have a Brigade (6 squads) and one had two extra squads (8 total).
Because, yes, there's a reason you see IG in Soup lists. They're a good combination of giving cheap CP, board presence, and a decent amount of shooting. While other battalions can be slightly cheaper or barely more expensive, they have less synergy or board presence. But Infantry Squads themselves are not spammed.
In the lists I've seen, most include an IG Battalion (3 squads), a decent minority have a Brigade (6 squads) and one had two extra squads (8 total).
Because, yes, there's a reason you see IG in Soup lists. They're a good combination of giving cheap CP, board presence, and a decent amount of shooting. While other battalions can be slightly cheaper or barely more expensive, they have less synergy or board presence. But Infantry Squads themselves are not spammed.
Several of those lists went above the minimum. What are you talking about?
Spoletta wrote: We are pointing our guns at the wrong target, leave the grunts alone and look at ultra cheap HQs, the problem is there.
That's a fair point. This thread was originally about how the orders make the guardsmen perform patently superhuman feats. Perhaps nerfing the orders would be a good solution from both the balance and fluff perspective.
I proffer a new idea. Perhaps officers have to pay for orders.
We already have an example with the Tempestor Prime.
Perhaps an officer gets one order base (being an infantry officer, after all), and add 5 as an upgrade.
CCs could have a maximum of of two, so paying 5 points like the Tempestor Prime.
Platoon Commanders stay the same and get played more?
Yes, let's follow the example of one of the most maligned HQs in the Guard book!
No. Tempestor Primes are stupidly done and thinking that it is somehow a solution is just ridiculous. Remember that Tempestor Primes are ONLY able to affect Militarum Tempestus units like Officers are ONLY able to affect <Regiment> Infantry. There's a reason why the TP kinda/sorta works and it's that there's three units total with MT tags(one of which is the TP himself).
Platoon Commanders are a whole different kettle of fish and remember this simple fact:
They are not HQs.
Pretending that they need help to "get played more" is patently ridiculous when you consider the circumstances surrounding them. They're an Elite choice, not an HQ choice. People tend to pack the Elites with the Priests when we're talking about the normal soupy crap.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Anyone arguing that allies is the issue seems to have forgotten the last two editions where theoretically your Tyranid army could've ran Scatterbikes if it wanted. In my Necron army, I could run a Tyranid detachment with 3 Flyrants with little recourse.
Armies being able to ally in Scatterbikes and Flyrants didn't lead to them being broken. They were already broken by themselves due to how they were designed. CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past.
In this instance, the two units largely already did the same thing, put out lots of mobile S6 shooting, and didn't really synergize, and had deployment and proximity restrictions. You wouldn't ever really run those together. Not every mismatch is a powercombo.
That said, we saw plenty of issues with allies in the previous edition with shennanigans like Skitarii in Drop Pods, BS/SW/DA superfriends deathstar lists, 6E Taudar ridiculousness, etc.
Allies have been a constant source of problems since their 6E reintroduction.
So what synergy is offered with allied Guard outside the CP for 8th?
The CP's are a huge one thay can't be discounted. Being able to pull in an extra 8-10 CP between the 32 themselves and thr CP regen they can bring, thats often enough right there in and of itself.
However one of the other big things is board control and numbers. These are powerful abilities for armies like Knights and Custodes and Smashcaptain lists that otherwise would often lack the ability to play objectives while they simultaneously smash the bejeesus out of everything and refuse to die, or would lack screeners that would enable many other opponents to more effectively get to grips. That's been no secret. Likewise, it enables access to things like psyker support that some armies dont inherently already have, or cheaper psyker options that do nothing else but that.
We can see this in non-IG related examples as well. DE don't natively have access to Doom but get made way stronger when allied with CWE (often just for Doom).
However, that's something the Infantry offer on their own merit though, and that's all your listing. Even if you included the clause from Come The apocalypse for allies like last edition they would still be taken. On their own merits.
All the ally problems you listed were due to unit, transport, and HQ interactions. There is zero of that now and just purely the allying is happening. Even if CP wasn't shared, the Infantry would still be taken for that strength.
It's just easy enough to get the CP you do it. If Knights only had access to using a Patrol for allies, the Infantry would still be taken for their merit.
Spoletta wrote: We are pointing our guns at the wrong target, leave the grunts alone and look at ultra cheap HQs, the problem is there.
That's a fair point. This thread was originally about how the orders make the guardsmen perform patently superhuman feats. Perhaps nerfing the orders would be a good solution from both the balance and fluff perspective.
I proffer a new idea. Perhaps officers have to pay for orders.
We already have an example with the Tempestor Prime.
Perhaps an officer gets one order base (being an infantry officer, after all), and add 5 as an upgrade.
CCs could have a maximum of of two, so paying 5 points like the Tempestor Prime.
Platoon Commanders stay the same and get played more?
Yes, let's follow the example of one of the most maligned HQs in the Guard book!
No. Tempestor Primes are stupidly done and thinking that it is somehow a solution is just ridiculous. Remember that Tempestor Primes are ONLY able to affect Militarum Tempestus units like Officers are ONLY able to affect <Regiment> Infantry. There's a reason why the TP kinda/sorta works and it's that there's three units total with MT tags(one of which is the TP himself).
Platoon Commanders are a whole different kettle of fish and remember this simple fact:
They are not HQs.
Pretending that they need help to "get played more" is patently ridiculous when you consider the circumstances surrounding them. They're an Elite choice, not an HQ choice. People tend to pack the Elites with the Priests when we're talking about the normal soupy crap.
In the lists I've seen, most include an IG Battalion (3 squads), a decent minority have a Brigade (6 squads) and one had two extra squads (8 total).
Because, yes, there's a reason you see IG in Soup lists. They're a good combination of giving cheap CP, board presence, and a decent amount of shooting. While other battalions can be slightly cheaper or barely more expensive, they have less synergy or board presence. But Infantry Squads themselves are not spammed.
I’m not sure what more you want from me? I’ve given my source - BCP.
Have a quick look at the most successful Guard lists - I’ve found 4 or 5 that have more than the minimum number of infantry to fill a detachment in a 5 minute search. One took 6 in a battalion if I’m not mistaken.
And the brigade is far, FAR more popular than you imply.
Look at that that, the only bit of maths I’ve seen backs up what is actually happening with Infantry being the most popular troop choice.
7ppm Boyz Vs 4ppm Guardsmen explains in a nutshell why Guard are under priced...or conversely why boyz are severely over priced
I am more of the mind that Guardsmen should be 5ppm and Boyz should be 6ppm.
Once again, Boyz are technically the same price as long as you were bringing multiples of 10 and buying the bomb upgrade, due to it being free now.
If you weren't buying it before, well, you're buying it now.
Ahh, so we are forced into taking a Tankbusta bomb in order to make back those 10pts per 10 orkz we are charged. Well, I mean, at least you are actually arguing a semi-valid point compared to the people who say 7ppm boyz are just as good as 6ppm boyz were.
Tankbusta bombs aren't worth 10pts which is self evident by the fact that Space Marines can take them (Melta Bombs for 5pts not 10), and they tend to have better accuracy when chucking them...you know that whole BS3+ vs 5+ thing (unless you roll 3 shots), teamed with having -4AP as opposed to Tankbusta bombs which have -2AP ohh, and Melta bombs get reroll wounds vs vehicles, tankbusta bombs dont.....not to mention the fact that in a mob of 30 you have to take 3 melta bombs but you can only ever use 1 per shooting phase.
So with that in mind I think your argument is incorrect in its assumption that a Tankbusta bomb per 10 boys somehow justifies the increased points cost when at most it covers 5pts per 10 boyz....and that is being generous since Melta bombs as shown are significantly better.
But lets do the comparison again, planet bowling ball (which means a vacuum and therefore all results must be taken with a grain of salt....a pinch of salt....a bunch of salt)
at 4ppm you can take 7 Guardsman for the cost of 4 Ork Boyz. At 24' range the guardsman open fire and get 3.5 hits and 1.17ish wounds vs a 6+ save means 1 dead Ork. the 3 orkz than move, and advance for an average of 8.5',....lets make them evil sunz to give them more range and the ability to shoot their shoota's after advancing....so 6' move and 4.5 advance for 10.5' advance, still too far for a charge but they can unload 6 shoota shots for 2 hits, 1 reroll which will most likely miss but 2.33 hits for about 1.6 wounds vs a 5+ save = 1 dead Guardsman. Guard move 3' forward to get everyone into double tap range and fire off a volley of 12 shots, 6 hits and 2 wounds for 1.33 dead orkz. Orkz are now down to less than 2 boyz they move forward and shoot 4 shots for 1.4-1.5 hits and 1 wound for .66ish dead gaurd....lets say this finishes off another one, they charge, 5 guard get 10 shots for 1.66 hits and .55 wounds for lets say 1 more dead boy adding in that .33 from last time, so now its 1 boy vs 5 guard.....1 boy gets 2 attacks, 1.33 hits and 1 wound for .66 dead Guard, 4 guard remaining is 4 attacks 2 hits and .66 wounds for .55 dead Orkz...statistically the guard win this CC.
Now again, planet bowling ball so take that with a grain of salt. But statistically, without adding in any buffs for the guard (I added in Klan bonus for Orkz) the guard can shoot an equivalent # of points of orkz off the table, almost before they get into CC. And if you put this on a Macro scale you have to factor in morale which will absolutely crush the orkz
Guardsman are either too cheap or Ork boyz are too expensive, its one or the other or its both...but it definitely isn't neither of them.
Bobthehero wrote: You also put them on planet bowling ball at max range of the lasguns.
What is the average distance between armies starting in most 40k games? that is why I did that.
Yeah you could add in buffs like "da Jump" and Painboyz and warbosses to let them charge after advancing but than you have to give equivalent buffs to the guardsman...and again, I gave the boyz Kulture bonuses but didn't give the guard anything. If you add in just a simple commander to give orders or maybe a doctrine it would have been a blood bath. FRFSRF would dismantle a mob of boyz in a second. 40 shots, 20 hits 7 wounds, basically killing 6 boyz (or 42pts) in a single shooting phase is nuts for a 40pt unit of guard with a cheap HQ choice. (70pts with a company commander, or 110pts if you get a 2nd squad of guard to utilize his 2nd voice of command ability)
So you went with the average distance but litteraly the best terrain in mind for the Guard, so of course they should win this, you'll have cover or even LOS blocking terrain in most 40k games, as well.
Bobthehero wrote: So you went with the average distance but litteraly the best terrain in mind for the Guard, so of course they should win this, you'll have cover or even LOS blocking terrain in most 40k games, as well.
You know what else you have in most 40k games, objectives which are basically be at a point on the board, which generally means having to move, so just hiding out of LoS is just away to loose the game slower.
Bobthehero wrote: You can move to other cover or from no cover to LOS blocking terrain or in cover.
How do you propose we model terrain into these calculations of unit efficiencies?
In reality cover suits Guard who inevitably sit in it firing at the Orks (thus benefitting from a cover save) while the Orks trundle forward in the open.
Unless you can think of a way to model cover and LOS into these calculations I suggest we stick with the basics for now. Particularly as I’d call the differences you describe as ‘player skill differences’. A good 40k player will always beat a bad one and the things you’ve asked to be somehow factored into the calculations are almost entirely down to player skill.
Basics are slanted in favor of the shooting unit, you could probably achieve similar results with other shooty units either versus Boys or other CC units.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Anyone arguing that allies is the issue seems to have forgotten the last two editions where theoretically your Tyranid army could've ran Scatterbikes if it wanted. In my Necron army, I could run a Tyranid detachment with 3 Flyrants with little recourse.
Armies being able to ally in Scatterbikes and Flyrants didn't lead to them being broken. They were already broken by themselves due to how they were designed. CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past.
In this instance, the two units largely already did the same thing, put out lots of mobile S6 shooting, and didn't really synergize, and had deployment and proximity restrictions. You wouldn't ever really run those together. Not every mismatch is a powercombo.
That said, we saw plenty of issues with allies in the previous edition with shennanigans like Skitarii in Drop Pods, BS/SW/DA superfriends deathstar lists, 6E Taudar ridiculousness, etc.
Allies have been a constant source of problems since their 6E reintroduction.
So what synergy is offered with allied Guard outside the CP for 8th?
The CP's are a huge one thay can't be discounted. Being able to pull in an extra 8-10 CP between the 32 themselves and thr CP regen they can bring, thats often enough right there in and of itself.
However one of the other big things is board control and numbers. These are powerful abilities for armies like Knights and Custodes and Smashcaptain lists that otherwise would often lack the ability to play objectives while they simultaneously smash the bejeesus out of everything and refuse to die, or would lack screeners that would enable many other opponents to more effectively get to grips. That's been no secret. Likewise, it enables access to things like psyker support that some armies dont inherently already have, or cheaper psyker options that do nothing else but that.
We can see this in non-IG related examples as well. DE don't natively have access to Doom but get made way stronger when allied with CWE (often just for Doom).
However, that's something the Infantry offer on their own merit though, and that's all your listing. Even if you included the clause from Come The apocalypse for allies like last edition they would still be taken. On their own merits.
All the ally problems you listed were due to unit, transport, and HQ interactions. There is zero of that now and just purely the allying is happening. Even if CP wasn't shared, the Infantry would still be taken for that strength.
It's just easy enough to get the CP you do it. If Knights only had access to using a Patrol for allies, the Infantry would still be taken for their merit.
Spoletta wrote: We are pointing our guns at the wrong target, leave the grunts alone and look at ultra cheap HQs, the problem is there.
That's a fair point. This thread was originally about how the orders make the guardsmen perform patently superhuman feats. Perhaps nerfing the orders would be a good solution from both the balance and fluff perspective.
I proffer a new idea. Perhaps officers have to pay for orders.
We already have an example with the Tempestor Prime.
Perhaps an officer gets one order base (being an infantry officer, after all), and add 5 as an upgrade.
CCs could have a maximum of of two, so paying 5 points like the Tempestor Prime.
Platoon Commanders stay the same and get played more?
Yes, let's follow the example of one of the most maligned HQs in the Guard book!
No. Tempestor Primes are stupidly done and thinking that it is somehow a solution is just ridiculous. Remember that Tempestor Primes are ONLY able to affect Militarum Tempestus units like Officers are ONLY able to affect <Regiment> Infantry. There's a reason why the TP kinda/sorta works and it's that there's three units total with MT tags(one of which is the TP himself).
Platoon Commanders are a whole different kettle of fish and remember this simple fact:
They are not HQs.
Pretending that they need help to "get played more" is patently ridiculous when you consider the circumstances surrounding them. They're an Elite choice, not an HQ choice. People tend to pack the Elites with the Priests when we're talking about the normal soupy crap.
I agree. Tempestor Primes were handled terribly.
Yeah, I don’t fully like how Tempestor Primes are, giving up their side arms to hold order sticks, but if we considered this, perhaps they could be changed as well.
What I’m more interested in, however, is what an order is worth.
Let’s assume things like company commanders still get their first order free, as well as platoon commanders. What is an optional second order upgrade cost pointswise? GW decided with their weirdness 5 points in the Tempestor Prime. What do you think?
However, that's something the Infantry offer on their own merit though, and that's all your listing. Even if you included the clause from Come The apocalypse for allies like last edition they would still be taken. On their own merits.
All the ally problems you listed were due to unit, transport, and HQ interactions. There is zero of that now and just purely the allying is happening. Even if CP wasn't shared, the Infantry would still be taken for that strength.
It's just easy enough to get the CP you do it. If Knights only had access to using a Patrol for allies, the Infantry would still be taken for their merit.
In some instances that's absolutely true, but then they wouldn't be fueling power-ups for super units while doing so and those lists wouldn't be quite as powerful. For many other lists, the CP is going to be the overriding reason for the inclusion and they'll either go back to a mono-build or look for an ally that supports the list better in another way. For some it'll be a deal killer, for others it won't, but either way it'll be less of an issue and less ubiquitous.
Also, at least to me, it makes more background sense. The logistical, doctrinal, organization, and command structure (as expressed by CP) of an Imperial Guard unit fighting alongside a Space Marine chapter isn't going to be directly enabling a Space Marine Captain to make a devastating charge or calling down a Battle Barge's bombardment guns for instance the way it could bring down a preliminary artillery bombardment, deploy a pre-trained mass grenade attack by allied troops, or expand an allied company commander's relic armory
I'll still be advocating for that long after Guardsmen are made 5ppm
However, that's something the Infantry offer on their own merit though, and that's all your listing. Even if you included the clause from Come The apocalypse for allies like last edition they would still be taken. On their own merits.
All the ally problems you listed were due to unit, transport, and HQ interactions. There is zero of that now and just purely the allying is happening. Even if CP wasn't shared, the Infantry would still be taken for that strength.
It's just easy enough to get the CP you do it. If Knights only had access to using a Patrol for allies, the Infantry would still be taken for their merit.
In some instances that's absolutely true, but then they wouldn't be fueling power-ups for super units while doing so and those lists wouldn't be quite as powerful. For many other lists, the CP is going to be the overriding reason for the inclusion and they'll either go back to a mono-build or look for an ally that supports the list better in another way. For some it'll be a deal killer, for others it won't, but either way it'll be less of an issue and less ubiquitous.
Also, at least to me, it makes more background sense. The logistical, doctrinal, organization, and command structure (as expressed by CP) of an Imperial Guard unit fighting alongside a Space Marine chapter isn't going to be directly enabling a Space Marine Captain to make a devastating charge or calling down a Battle Barge's bombardment guns for instance the way it could bring down a preliminary artillery bombardment, deploy a pre-trained mass grenade attack by allied troops, or expand an allied company commander's relic armory
I'll still be advocating for that long after Guardsmen are made 5ppm
Remember that the Loyal 32 are the same price as an Armiger. So even with just a Patrol, a Knight or Custodes player will take them without the CP.
It's simply more beneficial to get said CP. However, part of that issue is both miscosted Strategems and inability for some factions to take in CP.
Techpriestsupport wrote: The great Unspeakable One finally got tired of spanking to ultramarines and switched his obsessive fhanboi fetish to guardsmen?
You're about five years late on the memes. He hasn't worked at the company for years in anything but a freelance capacity doing short stories.
Spoletta wrote: We are pointing our guns at the wrong target, leave the grunts alone and look at ultra cheap HQs, the problem is there.
That's a fair point. This thread was originally about how the orders make the guardsmen perform patently superhuman feats. Perhaps nerfing the orders would be a good solution from both the balance and fluff perspective.
I proffer a new idea. Perhaps officers have to pay for orders. We already have an example with the Tempestor Prime. Perhaps an officer gets one order base (being an infantry officer, after all), and add 5 as an upgrade. CCs could have a maximum of of two, so paying 5 points like the Tempestor Prime. Platoon Commanders stay the same and get played more?
Yes, let's follow the example of one of the most maligned HQs in the Guard book!
No. Tempestor Primes are stupidly done and thinking that it is somehow a solution is just ridiculous. Remember that Tempestor Primes are ONLY able to affect Militarum Tempestus units like Officers are ONLY able to affect <Regiment> Infantry. There's a reason why the TP kinda/sorta works and it's that there's three units total with MT tags(one of which is the TP himself).
Platoon Commanders are a whole different kettle of fish and remember this simple fact: They are not HQs.
Pretending that they need help to "get played more" is patently ridiculous when you consider the circumstances surrounding them. They're an Elite choice, not an HQ choice. People tend to pack the Elites with the Priests when we're talking about the normal soupy crap.
You havn't explained why you think that it would be a bad idea to increase the cost of orders, to me it seems to be the most logical solution.
Guards are not being taken in soups due to their durability, because at 6 ppm they suck durability wise, and that's what you are paying them in soup. The loyal 32 are everywhere due to the combination of 3 factors:
1) One of the cheapest possible battalions 2) 3 Obsec troops with Move, Move, Move. 3) Good firepower on call thanks to FRFSRF.
Increase the cost of orders and you solved all 3 points together, with minimal impact on the mono AM lists, which i honestly don't see as a problem.
Guardsmen without orders or support are 4ppm models.
Pleas Sir? Can my Grots pay +1pt per model, and get extra shots, movement, str, tough, Sv, range, ws and ld?
Can we make it so guardsmen can start taking shots for tanks or HWTs? ill take a reduced stat line for that ability any day
Hey, no problem. Just place them around the required model and shout ‘pop’ each time one dies :-) Although Orks do have to pay cp to get grots to catch bullets. Must be the extra ‘good boy’ treats.
Bobthehero wrote: Basics are slanted in favor of the shooting unit, you could probably achieve similar results with other shooty units either versus Boys or other CC units.
He picked shooty Boys. These are our shooty troop unit. Have you played Orks often? The only time you see Boys in cover is when they have been practically destroyed through fire and the remaining models occupy it. I always see Guardsmen in cover and it wasn't factored into their save. If anything the assumptions favour Guard. And they still win by a mile.
Since there is no reasonable way to model player skill the basics will suffice for now. And look at that, Guard are more efficient.
And? They haven't done that for at least two editions now.
It's known that he hasn't worked there for at least 4-6 years. People made a big hooplah when Ward made a comment that he was "back at GW for meetings" awhile back but it was clear that it was in a freelance capacity dealing strictly with background/fiction.
Spoletta wrote:You havn't explained why you think that it would be a bad idea to increase the cost of orders, to me it seems to be the most logical solution.
Of course it would to you.
Does the cost of a model with Auras go up if they affect multiple units at once? No?
Guards are not being taken in soups due to their durability, because at 6 ppm they suck durability wise, and that's what you are paying them in soup.
The loyal 32 are everywhere due to the combination of 3 factors:
1) One of the cheapest possible battalions
Which means it's because of Command Points.
2) 3 Obsec troops with Move, Move, Move.
...Seriously? That's your argument?
Scions are used for kamikaze drops and Conscripts aren't used much, if at all, since they got nerfed.
3) Good firepower on call thanks to FRFSRF.
Oh yeah, those lasguns man!
Increase the cost of orders and you solved all 3 points together, with minimal impact on the mono AM lists, which i honestly don't see as a problem.
You know what else solves those points?
1) Command Points being tied strictly to the Detachment generating them.
2) Nothing--this isn't really an issue. People for whatever reason seem to think Guard should be slow and unable to quickmarch for an objective. M^3 means you can't do any shooting with that unit.
3) No need for a change. FRFSRF is literally just Lasguns and Hotshot Lasguns.
And? They haven't done that for at least two editions now.
It's known that he hasn't worked there for at least 4-6 years. People made a big hooplah when Ward made a comment that he was "back at GW for meetings" awhile back but it was clear that it was in a freelance capacity dealing strictly with background/fiction.
Spoletta wrote:You havn't explained why you think that it would be a bad idea to increase the cost of orders, to me it seems to be the most logical solution.
Of course it would to you.
Does the cost of a model with Auras go up if they affect multiple units at once? No?
Guards are not being taken in soups due to their durability, because at 6 ppm they suck durability wise, and that's what you are paying them in soup.
The loyal 32 are everywhere due to the combination of 3 factors:
1) One of the cheapest possible battalions
Which means it's because of Command Points.
2) 3 Obsec troops with Move, Move, Move.
...Seriously? That's your argument?
Scions are used for kamikaze drops and Conscripts aren't used much, if at all, since they got nerfed.
3) Good firepower on call thanks to FRFSRF.
Oh yeah, those lasguns man!
Increase the cost of orders and you solved all 3 points together, with minimal impact on the mono AM lists, which i honestly don't see as a problem.
You know what else solves those points?
1) Command Points being tied strictly to the Detachment generating them.
2) Nothing--this isn't really an issue. People for whatever reason seem to think Guard should be slow and unable to quickmarch for an objective. M^3 means you can't do any shooting with that unit.
3) No need for a change. FRFSRF is literally just Lasguns and Hotshot Lasguns.
Do we want to clarify if CP can be transferred across detachments with the same keywords, a la the army’s two guard detachments can share CP but the SM detachment can’t use the guard CP?
And? They haven't done that for at least two editions now.
It's known that he hasn't worked there for at least 4-6 years. People made a big hooplah when Ward made a comment that he was "back at GW for meetings" awhile back but it was clear that it was in a freelance capacity dealing strictly with background/fiction.
Spoletta wrote:You havn't explained why you think that it would be a bad idea to increase the cost of orders, to me it seems to be the most logical solution.
Of course it would to you.
Does the cost of a model with Auras go up if they affect multiple units at once? No?
Guards are not being taken in soups due to their durability, because at 6 ppm they suck durability wise, and that's what you are paying them in soup. The loyal 32 are everywhere due to the combination of 3 factors:
1) One of the cheapest possible battalions
Which means it's because of Command Points.
2) 3 Obsec troops with Move, Move, Move.
...Seriously? That's your argument? Scions are used for kamikaze drops and Conscripts aren't used much, if at all, since they got nerfed.
3) Good firepower on call thanks to FRFSRF.
Oh yeah, those lasguns man!
Increase the cost of orders and you solved all 3 points together, with minimal impact on the mono AM lists, which i honestly don't see as a problem.
You know what else solves those points?
1) Command Points being tied strictly to the Detachment generating them. 2) Nothing--this isn't really an issue. People for whatever reason seem to think Guard should be slow and unable to quickmarch for an objective. M^3 means you can't do any shooting with that unit. 3) No need for a change. FRFSRF is literally just Lasguns and Hotshot Lasguns.
Commanders don't have auras, you know EXACTLY how many units they are going to effect. On SMHQs this is impossible, so correctly you pay for the auras partially on the model and the partially on the potentially benefitting units. Since we don't want guards to partially pay for orders, because at that point they absolutely need to be 5 ppm if not more, then you pay it all on the officers. Right now the advantages given by those orders are much greater than the cost of the officers, so they should be increased.
Oh by the way, i'm 100% with you on segregating CPs.
Commanders don't have auras, you know EXACTLY how many units they are going to effect. On SMHQs this is impossible, so correctly you pay for the auras partially on the model and the partially on the potentially benefitting units. Since we don't want guards to partially pay for orders, because at that point they absolutely need to be 5 ppm if not more, then you pay it all on the officers. Right now the advantages given by those orders are much greater than the cost of the officers, so they should be increased.
So you should be paying MORE for Auras than Orders, since Orders are finite resources and block you from benefiting from another Order with the exception of a Relic's effect? Sounds like there might be a reason Officers are so cheap!
Oh by the way, i'm 100% with you on segregating CPs.
That's fine and dandy.
One of the biggest mistakes of 40k 8th was not taking advantage of the mechanisms that AoS has established with regards to "Command Abilities" that certain figures get when serving as your army's General and the mechanism for generating CPs where everyone gets a base amount and you get an additional +1 CP, at the start of the game and able to be saved for later, for each Warscroll Battalion you take.
Do we want to clarify if CP can be transferred across detachments with the same keywords, a la the army’s two guard detachments can share CP but the SM detachment can’t use the guard CP?
No sharing CP unless three Faction keywords match.
So you'd need: Imperium(Match) Astra Militarum(Match) <Regiment>(Match)
And while we're at it? Add a Lord of War slot to every Detachment. It's ridiculous that we can take 0-2 Flyers as part of most Detachments.
Spoletta wrote: Doesn't work, Tyranids and Tau for example would not be able to share CPs this way. They have max 2 keywords in common.
Change 3 to "all keywords must match" then.
Not hard.
The point, with any regards, is to make it so that the army needs matching keywords to share their CPs. Since an army is made up of Detachments, this makes it so that soup can still be a thing--but you are going to be required to track the CPs for each Detachment.
Except it won't stop Infantry from being taken for the other tools they bring to the table. It just makes Custodes and Knights weaker (though the latter needs a hit anyway).
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except it won't stop Infantry from being taken for the other tools they bring to the table. It just makes Custodes and Knights weaker (though the latter needs a hit anyway).
So is the goal to make infantry not taken at all? I thought it was to limit the mass advantage that soup provided while still allowing players to field the army they enjoy
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except it won't stop Infantry from being taken for the other tools they bring to the table. It just makes Custodes and Knights weaker (though the latter needs a hit anyway).
If the choice was between taking the loyal 32 at 0 CP, or investing those 180 points into troops from your own faction to actually gain some hardly needed CP, then you wouldn't see many guards around.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except it won't stop Infantry from being taken for the other tools they bring to the table. It just makes Custodes and Knights weaker (though the latter needs a hit anyway).
So is the goal to make infantry not taken at all? I thought it was to limit the mass advantage that soup provided while still allowing players to field the army they enjoy
The goal should be units being at a fair enough price that you don't still feel obligated to take them.
Fact of the matter is that taking away CP sharing won't stop Infantry from being taken, as they outperform SEVERAL units at a particular task. They're a problem unit, the math proves it, and they need have a solution created.
I'm not for nerfing them to oblivion, and heck it's certainly nice Imperial Guard can be fielded without being laughed at now. However, the apologists are pulling the same mental gymnastics we criticized certain Eldar players for and they don't even realize it.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except it won't stop Infantry from being taken for the other tools they bring to the table. It just makes Custodes and Knights weaker (though the latter needs a hit anyway).
If the choice was between taking the loyal 32 at 0 CP, or investing those 180 points into troops from your own faction to actually gain some hardly needed CP, then you wouldn't see many guards around.
How many armies are going to be able to provide that same amount of bodies for 180 points? AdMech can already get a decent amount of CP by themselves, so they certainly wouldn't care, and they were already being used when Battalions were only a 3CP bonus. Sisters can easily do a Brigade by themselves, so the 5CP lost from the Guard is no big deal for an army wanting a tool that can stand back and shoot while the rest of the army charges forward.
You're in denial if you aren't realizing HOW many tools the Loyal 32 provides for the points.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except it won't stop Infantry from being taken for the other tools they bring to the table. It just makes Custodes and Knights weaker (though the latter needs a hit anyway).
That's an assumption. It really is. It's also worth noting that there are mechanisms in place that could have been utilized to make it so that Custodes and Knights could benefit more from the Detachments that they can reliably field.
I'd like to point out, again, that I've also suggested Mortars, Lascannons, and other "two man team" weapon options need to be removed from Infantry Squads or be given a "move OR fire" requirement as part of alleviating one of the sillier reasons to take them. Or that <Regiment> Infantry units need to be entirely reworked, period.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except it won't stop Infantry from being taken for the other tools they bring to the table. It just makes Custodes and Knights weaker (though the latter needs a hit anyway).
So is the goal to make infantry not taken at all? I thought it was to limit the mass advantage that soup provided while still allowing players to field the army they enjoy
The goal should be units being at a fair enough price that you don't still feel obligated to take them.
Fact of the matter is that taking away CP sharing won't stop Infantry from being taken, as they outperform SEVERAL units at a particular task. They're a problem unit, the math proves it, and they need have a solution created.
I'm not for nerfing them to oblivion, and heck it's certainly nice Imperial Guard can be fielded without being laughed at now. However, the apologists are pulling the same mental gymnastics we criticized certain Eldar players for and they don't even realize it.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except it won't stop Infantry from being taken for the other tools they bring to the table. It just makes Custodes and Knights weaker (though the latter needs a hit anyway).
If the choice was between taking the loyal 32 at 0 CP, or investing those 180 points into troops from your own faction to actually gain some hardly needed CP, then you wouldn't see many guards around.
How many armies are going to be able to provide that same amount of bodies for 180 points? AdMech can already get a decent amount of CP by themselves, so they certainly wouldn't care, and they were already being used when Battalions were only a 3CP bonus. Sisters can easily do a Brigade by themselves, so the 5CP lost from the Guard is no big deal for an army wanting a tool that can stand back and shoot while the rest of the army charges forward.
You're in denial if you aren't realizing HOW many tools the Loyal 32 provides for the points.
This is where we disagree. Guards are not THAT much better than other choices, we are talking about a few percentage points since the guards are effectively a 4,6 point model and not a 4 point model. They usually outperform by about 10%. 10% difference on a few points of troops is a negligible difference, you are not going to scrap useful CPs for that, especially sisters and Admech which have battalions that are already comparable with the loyal 32.
If factions cannot soup that easily, but it comes with an hefty cost in CPs, then it is fine that some factions are better at some things than other factions.
So apart from
Cheap CPs,
Best Damage output sub T6,
Best defensive stats,
Best board footprint,
and best late game objective grabbing ability,
what have Guardsmen ever done for us?
Kanluwen wrote: Yeah, T3 5+ save with no ability to get a -1 to hit is downright amazing. Wonder what you lot must think of Eldar Rangers...
In cover (so 3+ save) with the -1 to hit Rangers have the same defensive stats as guardsmen out of cover against BS4+, AP- shots.
They have worse defensive stats against BS3+ or anything with AP.
Kanluwen wrote: Yeah, T3 5+ save with no ability to get a -1 to hit is downright amazing. Wonder what you lot must think of Eldar Rangers...
In cover (so 3+ save) with the -1 to hit Rangers have the same defensive stats as guardsmen out of cover against BS4+, AP- shots.
They have worse defensive stats against BS3+ or anything with AP.
You understand that it's always better to have a -1 to be hit than to not have one, right?
Really only matters in soup. There's not enough Stratagems in the book to justify Brigades when playing pure Guard.
Best Damage output sub T6,
Are we talking about Lasguns again?
Best defensive stats,
Yeah, T3 5+ save with no ability to get a -1 to hit is downright amazing. Wonder what you lot must think of Eldar Rangers...
Best board footprint,
Ever fought a Gretchin horde list?
and best late game objective grabbing ability,
Kill the officers and this ceases to exist.
Or use your own Troops.
Snipers got a big point decrease in admech CA as well I think this is also a new real threat to any IG list running around a bunch of foot slogging CC. Those were already a bane when playing my brothers -1 to hit admech and now with their points drop as well as other units that's going to be an incredibly tough matchup for mono guard. I think SM sniper spam might become popular as well after CA. ITs going to be very interesting to see how popular those commanders are outside of soup lists
Really only matters in soup. There's not enough Stratagems in the book to justify Brigades when playing pure Guard.
Best Damage output sub T6,
So if you don't think that the command point or lasguns matter, then certainly we can make it so that IS again require a platoon to fill a single troop slot and we can remove FRFSRF? You obviously don't need these things in your pure guard army, and it would fix the problem pretty well so everyone would be happy!
Really only matters in soup. There's not enough Stratagems in the book to justify Brigades when playing pure Guard.
Best Damage output sub T6,
So if you don't think that the command point or lasguns matter, then certainly we can make it so that IS again require a platoon to fill a single troop slot and we can remove FRFSRF? You obviously don't need these things in your pure guard army, and it would fix the problem pretty well so everyone would be happy!
Yeah, I would be fine with that you have to work really hard to burn through all your CP in an all-guard list (at least from my experience). personally id like to see CP regeneration abilities go away across the board as guards ability to bring another 5-6 free CP over the course of a game to any army they are plugged into is also a major reason why we always see the soup
Really only matters in soup. There's not enough Stratagems in the book to justify Brigades when playing pure Guard.
Best Damage output sub T6,
So if you don't think that the command point or lasguns matter, then certainly we can make it so that IS again require a platoon to fill a single troop slot and we can remove FRFSRF? You obviously don't need these things in your pure guard army, and it would fix the problem pretty well so everyone would be happy!
I’m running Scions, which share the order system with guard, which is why I’m invested in this discussion. Just because some people aren’t imaginative enough to use all the CP they get doesn’t mean others aren’t. I’d rather keep FRFSRF, because dropping Scions from Valkyries or hopping them out of Taurox Primes is going to be my big chaff killer.
Really only matters in soup. There's not enough Stratagems in the book to justify Brigades when playing pure Guard.
Best Damage output sub T6,
So if you don't think that the command point or lasguns matter, then certainly we can make it so that IS again require a platoon to fill a single troop slot and we can remove FRFSRF? You obviously don't need these things in your pure guard army, and it would fix the problem pretty well so everyone would be happy!
I’m running Scions, which share the order system with guard, which is why I’m invested in this discussion. Just because some people aren’t imaginative enough to use all the CP they get doesn’t mean others aren’t. I’d rather keep FRFSRF, because dropping Scions from Valkyries or hopping them out of Taurox Primes is going to be my big chaff killer.
Personally id like to see just a rebalancing of CP costs once soup is fixed without adding different FOC for different armies as it punishes certain peoples ideal playstyles more then others
Really only matters in soup. There's not enough Stratagems in the book to justify Brigades when playing pure Guard.
Best Damage output sub T6,
So if you don't think that the command point or lasguns matter, then certainly we can make it so that IS again require a platoon to fill a single troop slot and we can remove FRFSRF? You obviously don't need these things in your pure guard army, and it would fix the problem pretty well so everyone would be happy!
No, it really wouldn't. Stating that "there's not enough Stratagems in the book to justify Brigades when playing pure Guard" is a simple enough statement that I think even you would be able to understand with ease. There's a limited number of non-situational/unit specific Stratagems. They basically boil down to: A) Regiment's stratagem B) Bonus Relic stratagem C) An Order stratagem
It's not really too different to most armies, in that there's a finite number of "good" stratagems, but the big issue is that it is exacerbated by the fact that Guard can wind up with such a large pool of CPs that they become very useful for souping.
Additionally, anyone who thinks platoons would fix anything is fooling themselves. You people whine and whine and whine about lasguns(a weapon that can, outside of a Conscript Squad and Command Squad, never benefit 100% from FRFSRF). Then it's to "board footprint". Then it's "best defensive stats". And then we circle back to CPs.
Apple Peel wrote:I’m running Scions, which share the order system with guard, which is why I’m invested in this discussion. Just because some people aren’t imaginative enough to use all the CP they get doesn’t mean others aren’t.
When someone has a large pool of CPs and a finite number of Stratagems that apply to them, you're really going to try to say that it is "some people aren't imaginative enough to use all the CP they get"?
I’d rather keep FRFSRF, because dropping Scions from Valkyries or hopping them out of Taurox Primes is going to be my big chaff killer.
And I'd rather you never gotten put into my Codex to begin with. The Scions book flatout removed that Order from you lot, and it should have remained that way if you were getting rolled in as a "Regiment".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: Scions can have a different set of orders than the regular mooks.
They did when they had their own book.
They had one that granted all of their weapons Rending when shooting MCs/vehicles, one that made it so they fired 1 shot and couldn't charge but got Sniper and Pinning(and that only affected hotshot laspistols+lasguns, no volley guns), a Fleet Order, twin-linked for all weapons when firing, Preferred Enemy for a shooting attack, and Crusader for the rest of the turn.
It is fine for a troop unit to be the great at a thing, be it board control, CP generation, offence, defence or mobility. But when one unit is great at all of these things, then it is a problem. Nerfing IS on some these areas would be enough.
Crimson wrote: It is fine for a troop unit to be the great at a thing, be it board control, CP generation, offence, defence or mobility. But when one unit is great at all of these things, then it is a problem. Nerfing IS on some these areas would be enough.
Crimson wrote: It is fine for a troop unit to be the great at a thing, be it board control, CP generation, offence, defence or mobility. But when one unit is great at all of these things, then it is a problem. Nerfing IS on some these areas would be enough.
"Great"...lol.
Lasguns can kill Baneblades guys, remember!
The math has been provided for FRFSRF lasguns outperforming pretty much all other troop options in the game, often by a significant margin. Discussing with you is pointless, because you don't believe in math.
Crimson wrote: It is fine for a troop unit to be the great at a thing, be it board control, CP generation, offence, defence or mobility. But when one unit is great at all of these things, then it is a problem. Nerfing IS on some these areas would be enough.
"Great"...lol.
Lasguns can kill Baneblades guys, remember!
I'm not sure if you're bring sarcastic here but you realise that Guardsmen have one of the strongest damage per point of any troop combined with one of the best durability per point ratios right?
You gather this has been proven in this thread and many, many others?
As has been stated, they are a problem unit and they would be taken even if they provided no CP
Crimson wrote: It is fine for a troop unit to be the great at a thing, be it board control, CP generation, offence, defence or mobility. But when one unit is great at all of these things, then it is a problem. Nerfing IS on some these areas would be enough.
"Great"...lol.
Lasguns can kill Baneblades guys, remember!
The math has been provided for FRFSRF lasguns outperforming pretty much all other troop options in the game, often by a significant margin. Discussing with you is pointless, because you don't believe in math.
Geegollywillickers, a buff specifically intended to buff a specific gun makes that gun more effective? Gosh I never would have suspected such a thing could happen!
For the record, it's not that I "don't believe in math". It's that I feel the math is consistently misrepresentative of the situation.
Crimson wrote: It is fine for a troop unit to be the great at a thing, be it board control, CP generation, offence, defence or mobility. But when one unit is great at all of these things, then it is a problem. Nerfing IS on some these areas would be enough.
"Great"...lol.
Lasguns can kill Baneblades guys, remember!
I'm not sure if you're bring sarcastic here but you realise that Guardsmen have one of the strongest damage per point of any troop combined with one of the best durability per point ratios right?
You gather this has been proven in this thread and many, many others?
As has been stated, they are a problem unit and they would be taken even if they provided no CP
I think part of the disconnect is often how the information is presented (we saw a lot of this in the old conscript threads as well).
It will be stated that Guardsmen have the best defense (often putting them in cover)
Best board control (using MMM)
Best damage output (using FRFSRF)
all while simultaneously being the best back objective holder and best screener
But doing any one of the above renders the other ones inefficient that turn
If you are just sitting in cover holding an objective you most likely aren't effectively screening arent in rapid fire range of any anything
If you are going for board control with MMM then you typically aren't in cover, you aren't shooting, you're not screening
If you are using FRFSRF you first have to get 2 squads and CC into position with 0 casualties. You most likely aren't screening, not holding an objective and not flying around the board using MMM Yet these arguments are almost universally used as if they are all available options at all times. These examples also rarely take into account the cost of the CC, actually only being able to do any one of these things good at one time, Physic power/ strategem force multiplier (much lower on groups of 10 vs 30-40) and most importantly the lack of abilities like TOT and Unstable Green Tide. For example at 4ppm you can bring back a possible 156 points in a game (with repositioning) an ork at 6ppm can bring back 174 points. GW has put a premium on free points this edition making you pay upfront one way or another
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except it won't stop Infantry from being taken for the other tools they bring to the table. It just makes Custodes and Knights weaker (though the latter needs a hit anyway).
That's an assumption. It really is. It's also worth noting that there are mechanisms in place that could have been utilized to make it so that Custodes and Knights could benefit more from the Detachments that they can reliably field.
I'd like to point out, again, that I've also suggested Mortars, Lascannons, and other "two man team" weapon options need to be removed from Infantry Squads or be given a "move OR fire" requirement as part of alleviating one of the sillier reasons to take them. Or that <Regiment> Infantry units need to be entirely reworked, period.
Removing those heavy weapons doesn't really fix the problem because Mortars are merely a bonus at that point.
Also everything is conjecture. You saying removing CP sharing fixes a problem. I'm saying that's not even close to the problem. AdMech can do easy Batallions for CP. So can Sisters.
I think part of the disconnect is often how the information is presented (we saw a lot of this in the old conscript threads as well).
It will be stated that Guardsmen have the best defense (often putting them in cover)
Best board control (using MMM)
Best damage output (using FRFSRF)
all while simultaneously being the best back objective holder and best screener
But doing any one of the above renders the other ones inefficient that turn
If you are just sitting in cover holding an objective you most likely aren't effectively screening arent in rapid fire range of any anything
If you are going for board control with MMM then you typically aren't in cover, you aren't shooting, you're not screening
If you are using FRFSRF you first have to get 2 squads and CC into position with 0 casualties. You most likely aren't screening, not holding an objective and not flying around the board using MMM Yet these arguments are almost universally used as if they are all available options at all times. These examples also rarely take into account the cost of the CC, actually only being able to do any one of these things good at one time, Physic power/ strategem force multiplier (much lower on groups of 10 vs 30-40) and most importantly the lack of abilities like TOT and Unstable Green Tide. For example at 4ppm you can bring back a possible 156 points in a game (with repositioning) an ork at 6ppm can bring back 174 points. GW has put a premium on free points this edition making you pay upfront one way or another
This is where your slightly misleading the argument.
All of those orders are available at all time's due to HQ's being mandatory in detachments and Guard ones being cheap.
Being able to decied on a turn by turn unit be unit basis if they are going to run 18+ inches this turn, or fall back and shoot, or become the most rediculous speedshooters. Is actually worth more than just having one permanent buff as you have flexibility to do whatever you need that unit to do.
Removing those heavy weapons doesn't really fix the problem because Mortars are merely a bonus at that point.
Which is it: are Mortars a big draw or a "bonus"?
Also everything is conjecture. You saying removing CP sharing fixes a problem. I'm saying that's not even close to the problem.
And quite frankly, you'd be wrong. What's the consistent issue that we keep seeing and how armies are being setup?
For CP sharing when possible.
AdMech can do easy Batallions for CP. So can Sisters.
Which is the one being consistently used again?
Which is the one that actually synergizes again?
AdMech "can do easy Battalions for CP"...but then their unit that is effectively the IS equivalent doesn't synergize with the HQ choices available. It's astonishing how quickly people seem to forget that Skitarii don't benefit from an HQ choice that is for them and they don't have their benefit that they used to(Doctrina Imperatives) outside of it being a Stratagem now...and the fricking Stratagem requires a Data-Tether to get to where the previous ones put you.
Sisters are seemingly still in flux. I don't care enough about them to really say anything beyond "I'm sure someone has done it".
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except it won't stop Infantry from being taken for the other tools they bring to the table. It just makes Custodes and Knights weaker (though the latter needs a hit anyway).
That's an assumption. It really is. It's also worth noting that there are mechanisms in place that could have been utilized to make it so that Custodes and Knights could benefit more from the Detachments that they can reliably field.
I'd like to point out, again, that I've also suggested Mortars, Lascannons, and other "two man team" weapon options need to be removed from Infantry Squads or be given a "move OR fire" requirement as part of alleviating one of the sillier reasons to take them. Or that <Regiment> Infantry units need to be entirely reworked, period.
Removing those heavy weapons doesn't really fix the problem because Mortars are merely a bonus at that point.
Also everything is conjecture. You saying removing CP sharing fixes a problem. I'm saying that's not even close to the problem. AdMech can do easy Batallions for CP. So can Sisters.
Which is the one being consistently used again?
The one that gives cheap CP, a bonus 5-6 CP and the most bubble wrap for your soup. Also, CA just dropped with new sisters and Ad mech pricing so that impact hasn't also been seen (but not much will change without CP sharing changing. Think we have what 10 days or something for LVO list submission? it's going to be interesting seeing what the top players are thinking.
I think part of the disconnect is often how the information is presented (we saw a lot of this in the old conscript threads as well).
It will be stated that Guardsmen have the best defense (often putting them in cover)
Best board control (using MMM)
Best damage output (using FRFSRF)
all while simultaneously being the best back objective holder and best screener
But doing any one of the above renders the other ones inefficient that turn
If you are just sitting in cover holding an objective you most likely aren't effectively screening arent in rapid fire range of any anything
If you are going for board control with MMM then you typically aren't in cover, you aren't shooting, you're not screening
If you are using FRFSRF you first have to get 2 squads and CC into position with 0 casualties. You most likely aren't screening, not holding an objective and not flying around the board using MMM Yet these arguments are almost universally used as if they are all available options at all times. These examples also rarely take into account the cost of the CC, actually only being able to do any one of these things good at one time, Physic power/ strategem force multiplier (much lower on groups of 10 vs 30-40) and most importantly the lack of abilities like TOT and Unstable Green Tide. For example at 4ppm you can bring back a possible 156 points in a game (with repositioning) an ork at 6ppm can bring back 174 points. GW has put a premium on free points this edition making you pay upfront one way or another
This is where your slightly misleading the argument.
All of those orders are available at all time's due to HQ's being mandatory in detachments and Guard ones being cheap.
Being able to decied on a turn by turn unit be unit basis if they are going to run 18+ inches this turn, or fall back and shoot, or become the most rediculous speedshooters. Is actually worth more than just having one permanent buff as you have flexibility to do whatever you need that unit to do.
Once again there is a severe limitation on those orders though. and there is a cost to those orders when doing a price comparison. That also doesn't address unit size limitations so less bang for your buck on strategems and psychic powers. Also the free points in the game through TOT and UGW.
I think part of the disconnect is often how the information is presented (we saw a lot of this in the old conscript threads as well).
It will be stated that Guardsmen have the best defense (often putting them in cover)
Best board control (using MMM)
Best damage output (using FRFSRF)
all while simultaneously being the best back objective holder and best screener
But doing any one of the above renders the other ones inefficient that turn
If you are just sitting in cover holding an objective you most likely aren't effectively screening arent in rapid fire range of any anything
If you are going for board control with MMM then you typically aren't in cover, you aren't shooting, you're not screening
If you are using FRFSRF you first have to get 2 squads and CC into position with 0 casualties. You most likely aren't screening, not holding an objective and not flying around the board using MMM Yet these arguments are almost universally used as if they are all available options at all times. These examples also rarely take into account the cost of the CC, actually only being able to do any one of these things good at one time, Physic power/ strategem force multiplier (much lower on groups of 10 vs 30-40) and most importantly the lack of abilities like TOT and Unstable Green Tide. For example at 4ppm you can bring back a possible 156 points in a game (with repositioning) an ork at 6ppm can bring back 174 points. GW has put a premium on free points this edition making you pay upfront one way or another
I think this is very, very misrepresentative. The disconnect is primarily apologists refusing to accept reality.
In a previous post on an earlier page we can see that Guardsmen have better durability than Eldar rangers when the latter are in cover and the Guardsmen are standing in the open. It is obvious their durability is incredible. They are 4ppm with T3 and a 5+ save. That is insane. Grots, for comparison are 3ppm with T2 and a 6+ save.
We know the damage output of Guardsmen without orders is higher than almost every other troop (against their preferred targets. With orders this damage output goes from 'slightly above' to 'omfg why would I not take this troop?! above'.
Not only are they one of the most durable and one of the most damaging troops in the game base but they also have huge flexibility afforded by orders. Flexibility that makes no sense on the tabletop or in the fluff. Guardsmen should never, ever, ever under any circumstances be able to move faster than a plane or than a Harlequin half demon thing.
I'm genuinely amazed that GW haven't increased their points cost, I hope you IG players understand what a bullet you've somehow dodged. I seriously hope it's corrected soon though, the meta is becoming really stagnant.
Its not just Infantry that need adjusting by the way. Castellans not going up in CA was incredible. As was Skit Rangers going down. Obviously soup brings its own set of problems that need to be addressed too. But they are all different discussions.
I think part of the disconnect is often how the information is presented (we saw a lot of this in the old conscript threads as well).
It will be stated that Guardsmen have the best defense (often putting them in cover)
Best board control (using MMM)
Best damage output (using FRFSRF)
all while simultaneously being the best back objective holder and best screener
But doing any one of the above renders the other ones inefficient that turn
If you are just sitting in cover holding an objective you most likely aren't effectively screening arent in rapid fire range of any anything
If you are going for board control with MMM then you typically aren't in cover, you aren't shooting, you're not screening
If you are using FRFSRF you first have to get 2 squads and CC into position with 0 casualties. You most likely aren't screening, not holding an objective and not flying around the board using MMM Yet these arguments are almost universally used as if they are all available options at all times. These examples also rarely take into account the cost of the CC, actually only being able to do any one of these things good at one time, Physic power/ strategem force multiplier (much lower on groups of 10 vs 30-40) and most importantly the lack of abilities like TOT and Unstable Green Tide. For example at 4ppm you can bring back a possible 156 points in a game (with repositioning) an ork at 6ppm can bring back 174 points. GW has put a premium on free points this edition making you pay upfront one way or another
I think this is very, very misrepresentative. The disconnect is primarily apologists refusing to accept reality.
In a previous post on an earlier page we can see that Guardsmen have better durability than Eldar rangers when the latter are in cover and the Guardsmen are standing in the open. It is obvious their durability is incredible. They are 4ppm with T3 and a 5+ save. That is insane. Grots, for comparison are 3ppm with T2 and a 6+ save.
We know the damage output of Guardsmen without orders is higher than almost every other troop (against their preferred targets. With orders this damage output goes from 'slightly above' to 'omfg why would I not take this troop?! above'.
Not only are they one of the most durable and one of the most damaging troops in the game base but they also have huge flexibility afforded by orders. Flexibility that makes no sense on the tabletop or in the fluff. Guardsmen should never, ever, ever under any circumstances be able to move faster than a plane or than a Harlequin half demon thing.
I'm genuinely amazed that GW haven't increased their points cost, I hope you IG players understand what a bullet you've somehow dodged. I seriously hope it's corrected soon though, the meta is becoming really stagnant.
Its not just Infantry that need adjusting by the way. Castellans not going up in CA was incredible. As was Skit Rangers going down. Obviously soup brings its own set of problems that need to be addressed too. But they are all different discussions.
GW is only balancing codices internally, not externally.
I think part of the disconnect is often how the information is presented (we saw a lot of this in the old conscript threads as well).
It will be stated that Guardsmen have the best defense (often putting them in cover)
Best board control (using MMM)
Best damage output (using FRFSRF)
all while simultaneously being the best back objective holder and best screener
But doing any one of the above renders the other ones inefficient that turn
If you are just sitting in cover holding an objective you most likely aren't effectively screening arent in rapid fire range of any anything
If you are going for board control with MMM then you typically aren't in cover, you aren't shooting, you're not screening
If you are using FRFSRF you first have to get 2 squads and CC into position with 0 casualties. You most likely aren't screening, not holding an objective and not flying around the board using MMM Yet these arguments are almost universally used as if they are all available options at all times. These examples also rarely take into account the cost of the CC, actually only being able to do any one of these things good at one time, Physic power/ strategem force multiplier (much lower on groups of 10 vs 30-40) and most importantly the lack of abilities like TOT and Unstable Green Tide. For example at 4ppm you can bring back a possible 156 points in a game (with repositioning) an ork at 6ppm can bring back 174 points. GW has put a premium on free points this edition making you pay upfront one way or another
I think this is very, very misrepresentative. The disconnect is primarily apologists refusing to accept reality.
In a previous post on an earlier page we can see that Guardsmen have better durability than Eldar rangers when the latter are in cover and the Guardsmen are standing in the open. It is obvious their durability is incredible. They are 4ppm with T3 and a 5+ save. That is insane. Grots, for comparison are 3ppm with T2 and a 6+ save.
We know the damage output of Guardsmen without orders is higher than almost every other troop (against their preferred targets. With orders this damage output goes from 'slightly above' to 'omfg why would I not take this troop?! above'.
Not only are they one of the most durable and one of the most damaging troops in the game base but they also have huge flexibility afforded by orders. Flexibility that makes no sense on the tabletop or in the fluff. Guardsmen should never, ever, ever under any circumstances be able to move faster than a plane or than a Harlequin half demon thing.
I'm genuinely amazed that GW haven't increased their points cost, I hope you IG players understand what a bullet you've somehow dodged. I seriously hope it's corrected soon though, the meta is becoming really stagnant.
Its not just Infantry that need adjusting by the way. Castellans not going up in CA was incredible. As was Skit Rangers going down. Obviously soup brings its own set of problems that need to be addressed too. But they are all different discussions.
Once again though you are looking at the game in far too narrow of a vacuum. For instance on grots not recognizing the sheer utility of a strategem like grot shields paired with lootas. The disconnect seems to be people who think "unit a standing x inches away from unit b will do y more damage per turn" is the end all be all of unit balance and those saying that there is far more to the game than that. It's my point from pages back that if "guard in FRFSRF" was the sole metric deriving balance then we should be seeing armies of nothing but guardsmen and CC dominating the game. But the simple fact is mono guard can barely ever place along with soup and the best performing mono dex in the game is DE. Clearly, there is more to balance than "guardsmen FRFSRF" statistics. Clearly GW who now has groups of testers all over the place working on balance agrees that there is more to this games balance then placing guardsmen within rapid fire range on sub T6 targets
This is where your slightly misleading the argument.
He really isn't. It boggles the mind that people think that he is "misleading the argument" while pointing out that there are three definitives with regards to Orders:
1) Officers have a limited number of them that can be issued. This can be modified via Warlord Traits(specifically #6 on the basic Guard table, which grants VoC to a model or an additional Order if they already are able to or the Cadian WT which on a 4+ lets you apply the same Order to a unit of the same type[Infantry or Tank]), a Relic(roll a 4+ with Laurels of Command and you get to issue an additional[can't be the same!] Order to the unit you just issued an Order to), a Stratagem(Inspired Tactics--1CP, immediately after issuing an Order you can do another one) or as another potential bit for Cadians--a specific character(Jarran Kell).
2) Once you've been issued an Order? You're done. The only exception is Laurels of Command granting an additional Order.
3) Like begets like. Tank Commanders can't Order Infantry units and vice versa.
All of those orders are available at all time's due to HQ's being mandatory in detachments and Guard ones being cheap.
Guard ones being cheap means nothing when you literally cannot provide more than one buff on a unit at a time.
Being able to decied on a turn by turn unit be unit basis if they are going to run 18+ inches this turn, or fall back and shoot, or become the most rediculous speedshooters. Is actually worth more than just having one permanent buff as you have flexibility to do whatever you need that unit to do.
That's not what GW's designers feel apparently. They have apparently decided that auras are priced higher given that they can be layered(X gives rerolls to Hit rolls, Y gives rerolls to Wound rolls, Z gives the ability to Pile In or Shoot before models are removed, etc) while Guard Orders need a Relic to be 'layered' and that can only happen one time.
I think this is very, very misrepresentative. The disconnect is primarily apologists refusing to accept reality.
In a previous post on an earlier page we can see that Guardsmen have better durability than Eldar rangers when the latter are in cover and the Guardsmen are standing in the open. It is obvious their durability is incredible. They are 4ppm with T3 and a 5+ save. That is insane. Grots, for comparison are 3ppm with T2 and a 6+ save.
And that math doesn't add up.
You have a -1 to be hit and a 3+ save, yet somehow the Guardsmen in the open "have better durability than Eldar Rangers"?
We know the damage output of Guardsmen without orders is higher than almost every other troop (against their preferred targets. With orders this damage output goes from 'slightly above' to 'omfg why would I not take this troop?! above'.
Again, wonderful qualifiers! Why is it that you always have qualifiers? You stress the "without Orders" part and then immediately try to downplay the "against their preferred targets" bit.
Not only are they one of the most durable and one of the most damaging troops in the game base but they also have huge flexibility afforded by orders. Flexibility that makes no sense on the tabletop or in the fluff. Guardsmen should never, ever, ever under any circumstances be able to move faster than a plane or than a Harlequin half demon thing.
Flexibility that is afforded to them because it literally does not get bolstered by anything outside of situationals.
Also, if you have a problem with Move, Move, Move?
I'm genuinely amazed that GW haven't increased their points cost, I hope you IG players understand what a bullet you've somehow dodged. I seriously hope it's corrected soon though, the meta is becoming really stagnant.
I'm not. You lot don't seem to understand that the Infantry Squad, outside of soup, either needs a complete overhaul as part of a Guard book rewrite by someone competent or needs to be left as is.
Its not just Infantry that need adjusting by the way. Castellans not going up in CA was incredible. As was Skit Rangers going down. Obviously soup brings its own set of problems that need to be addressed too. But they are all different discussions.
No they really aren't. For whatever reason you are ALWAYS in these threads whining and whining and whining about Guard. You were in the Conscript threads, the Commissar threads, and now these.
Soup is the issue. Guard needed a complete overhaul from the ground up for this new edition, not to be one of the early books. Don't like what happened? Tell GW you want someone competent put in charge of the Guard rewrite and stress you want an overhaul, not just a slight shift.
I think part of the disconnect is often how the information is presented (we saw a lot of this in the old conscript threads as well).
It will be stated that Guardsmen have the best defense (often putting them in cover)
Best board control (using MMM)
Best damage output (using FRFSRF)
all while simultaneously being the best back objective holder and best screener
But doing any one of the above renders the other ones inefficient that turn
If you are just sitting in cover holding an objective you most likely aren't effectively screening arent in rapid fire range of any anything
If you are going for board control with MMM then you typically aren't in cover, you aren't shooting, you're not screening
If you are using FRFSRF you first have to get 2 squads and CC into position with 0 casualties. You most likely aren't screening, not holding an objective and not flying around the board using MMM Yet these arguments are almost universally used as if they are all available options at all times. These examples also rarely take into account the cost of the CC, actually only being able to do any one of these things good at one time, Physic power/ strategem force multiplier (much lower on groups of 10 vs 30-40) and most importantly the lack of abilities like TOT and Unstable Green Tide. For example at 4ppm you can bring back a possible 156 points in a game (with repositioning) an ork at 6ppm can bring back 174 points. GW has put a premium on free points this edition making you pay upfront one way or another
I think this is very, very misrepresentative. The disconnect is primarily apologists refusing to accept reality.
In a previous post on an earlier page we can see that Guardsmen have better durability than Eldar rangers when the latter are in cover and the Guardsmen are standing in the open. It is obvious their durability is incredible. They are 4ppm with T3 and a 5+ save. That is insane. Grots, for comparison are 3ppm with T2 and a 6+ save.
We know the damage output of Guardsmen without orders is higher than almost every other troop (against their preferred targets. With orders this damage output goes from 'slightly above' to 'omfg why would I not take this troop?! above'.
Not only are they one of the most durable and one of the most damaging troops in the game base but they also have huge flexibility afforded by orders. Flexibility that makes no sense on the tabletop or in the fluff. Guardsmen should never, ever, ever under any circumstances be able to move faster than a plane or than a Harlequin half demon thing.
I'm genuinely amazed that GW haven't increased their points cost, I hope you IG players understand what a bullet you've somehow dodged. I seriously hope it's corrected soon though, the meta is becoming really stagnant.
Its not just Infantry that need adjusting by the way. Castellans not going up in CA was incredible. As was Skit Rangers going down. Obviously soup brings its own set of problems that need to be addressed too. But they are all different discussions.
Castellans are not a proble,.
A trait making them 4++ (and then 3++) is a problem.
Once again though you are looking at the game in far too narrow of a vacuum. For instance on grots not recognizing the sheer utility of a strategem like grot shields paired with lootas. The disconnect seems to be people who think "unit a standing x inches away from unit b will do y more damage per turn" is the end all be all of unit balance and those saying that there is far more to the game than that. It's my point from pages back that if "guard in FRFSRF" was the sole metric deriving balance then we should be seeing armies of nothing but guardsmen and CC dominating the game. But the simple fact is mono guard can barely ever place along with soup and the best performing mono dex in the game is DE. Clearly, there is more to balance than "guardsmen FRFSRF" statistics. Clearly GW who now has groups of testers all over the place working on balance agrees that there is more to this games balance then placing guardsmen within rapid fire range on sub T6 targets
So Grots are ONLY taken for the Grot shield stratagem and to provide cheap CP to Ork lists. They are also a requirement of Lootas to function so Lootas are effectively 20 pt models.
My view is not narrow. Quite the opposite. I'm comparing the durability, damage output and versatility of Guardsmen to every other troop in the game and they come out on top in almost every situation. This isn't just a comparison of 'unit a standing x inches away from unit b dealing y damage' as you wrongly state above. In very simple terms Guard to almost everything better than their competitors, whether it is dealing damage, soaking damage (at any distance), holding objectives, screening, board control and contesting objectives - they do it better. This is a problem for the game because it means they are the most attractive troop bar none. We can see this with a number of high placing chaos lists taking renegade Guardsmen instead of Cultists back when they were 4ppm.
Please stop misrepresenting my argument. I have never said the game and balance boils down to FRFSRF statistics. This is just a useful indicator as to why Guardsmen are so popular. And make no mistake - they are the most popular troop in the entire game at the moment. This should be enough to tell you something is wrong.
I have to be honest - I don't trust GW's testers or their ability to balance one bit while the Stompa costs over 900 pts and while they think there is any value to the Mek shop.
Finally - mono Guard are incredibly competitive and have placed top more than once, beating the dreaded soup list. Regardless PRIMARY Guard (which is the measure we should use for competitive discussions) is the second best performing faction after Ynarri (for obvious reasons). Stop pretending that the lack of mono Guard lists has any bearing on the strength of Guardsmen or that you 'should see lists of nothing but Guardsmen'. That is extremely misrepresentative of the argument put forward which is, for the hundredth time and for clarity: that Guardsmen are the best troop unit in the game and are too cheap for all they offer a player.
No they really aren't. For whatever reason you are ALWAYS in these threads whining and whining and whining about Guard. You were in the Conscript threads, the Commissar threads, and now these.
Soup is the issue. Guard needed a complete overhaul from the ground up for this new edition, not to be one of the early books. Don't like what happened? Tell GW you want someone competent put in charge of the Guard rewrite and stress you want an overhaul, not just a slight shift.
Kanluwen your arguments are so poorly constructed that you have become a meme on these boards for what a 'Guard apologist' looks like. Its like you were patient zero of the apologists that spawned all the others somehow. Unhappy at the Guard book despite it containing evidently some of the strongest units in the game. You are a joke and I can't take what you say seriously.
Take note of the maths above that is correct and try to integrate it into your discussion around this topic. Your beliefs are wrong. You are wrong. It can be evidenced and you make yourself look stupid when you are proven wrong so quickly and easily.
Once again though you are looking at the game in far too narrow of a vacuum. For instance on grots not recognizing the sheer utility of a strategem like grot shields paired with lootas. The disconnect seems to be people who think "unit a standing x inches away from unit b will do y more damage per turn" is the end all be all of unit balance and those saying that there is far more to the game than that. It's my point from pages back that if "guard in FRFSRF" was the sole metric deriving balance then we should be seeing armies of nothing but guardsmen and CC dominating the game. But the simple fact is mono guard can barely ever place along with soup and the best performing mono dex in the game is DE. Clearly, there is more to balance than "guardsmen FRFSRF" statistics. Clearly GW who now has groups of testers all over the place working on balance agrees that there is more to this games balance then placing guardsmen within rapid fire range on sub T6 targets
So Grots are ONLY taken for the Grot shield stratagem and to provide cheap CP to Ork lists. They are also a requirement of Lootas to function so Lootas are effectively 20 pt models.
My view is not narrow. Quite the opposite. I'm comparing the durability, damage output and versatility of Guardsmen to every other troop in the game and they come out on top in almost every situation. This isn't just a comparison of 'unit a standing x inches away from unit b dealing y damage' as you wrongly state above. In very simple terms Guard to almost everything better than their competitors, whether it is dealing damage, soaking damage (at any distance), holding objectives, screening, board control and contesting objectives - they do it better. This is a problem for the game because it means they are the most attractive troop bar none. We can see this with a number of high placing chaos lists taking renegade Guardsmen instead of Cultists back when they were 4ppm.
Please stop misrepresenting my argument. I have never said the game and balance boils down to FRFSRF statistics. This is just a useful indicator as to why Guardsmen are so popular. And make no mistake - they are the most popular troop in the entire game at the moment. This should be enough to tell you something is wrong.
I have to be honest - I don't trust GW's testers or their ability to balance one bit while the Stompa costs over 900 pts and while they think there is any value to the Mek shop.
Finally - mono Guard are incredibly competitive and have placed top more than once, beating the dreaded soup list. Regardless PRIMARY Guard (which is the measure we should use for competitive discussions) is the second best performing faction after Ynarri (for obvious reasons). Stop pretending that the lack of mono Guard lists has any bearing on the strength of Guardsmen or that you 'should see lists of nothing but Guardsmen'. That is extremely misrepresentative of the argument put forward which is, for the hundredth time and for clarity: that Guardsmen are the best troop unit in the game and are too cheap for all they offer a player.
No they really aren't. For whatever reason you are ALWAYS in these threads whining and whining and whining about Guard. You were in the Conscript threads, the Commissar threads, and now these.
Soup is the issue. Guard needed a complete overhaul from the ground up for this new edition, not to be one of the early books. Don't like what happened? Tell GW you want someone competent put in charge of the Guard rewrite and stress you want an overhaul, not just a slight shift.
Kanluwen your arguments are so poorly constructed that you have become a meme on these boards for what a 'Guard apologist' looks like. Its like you were patient zero of the apologists that spawned all the others somehow. Unhappy at the Guard book despite it containing evidently some of the strongest units in the game. You are a joke and I can't take what you say seriously.
Take note of the maths above that is correct and try to integrate it into your discussion around this topic. Your beliefs are wrong. You are wrong. It can be evidenced and you make yourself look stupid when you are proven wrong so quickly and easily.
A trait making them 4++ (and then 3++) is a problem.
Cawl's wrath is a problem.
Fix those two and the castellan is fine.
I disagree but that discussion is not for this thread.
See the way you brush off grots and loota combo is part of the issue here. Mono orks (obviously) went to a GT immediately after their book dropped running that list and absolutely spanked the competition for a first place win. Obviously a very imposing combination both mathematically and in practice. Your test for guards survivability and damage output is obviously far to narrow for real game application. You are holding far to many variables constant and that's why your math doesn't line up with reality usage by top players in the game. infantry guard mono cannot walk out and destroy a GT because the game is not (20 guardsmen sitting 12 inches from unit x using FRFSRF). In fact, top players consistently use guard to fill out a minimum battalion or brigade (much more common after CP regen nerf) suggesting that their main strength is, in fact, cheap bodies for CP. All this complaining is also directly on the backend of CA when we have yet to acquire any data on the effect of game wide point changes. You can continue to throw out incredibly narrow focused math hammer but until real-world gaming results match up with it you probably arent going to get far with your arguments.
Edit: was just reading this and it puts into perspective what i wrote above http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/12/40k-top-list-of-the-week-december-29th-imperial-knights-dethroned.html this week alone IG has dropped 5 places in the most winning category and 4 in most played (looks like CA is having an effect). This is also including them as a primary, not a mono which would drop their power even more. CSM actually beat them out this week for most winning faction after the cultist nerfs and they are sitting one spot ahead of necrons for the week which the general consensious is they are pretty bad.
See the way you brush off grots and loota combo is part of the issue here. Mono orks (obviously) went to a GT immediately after their book dropped running that list and absolutely spanked the competition for a first place win.
Why is it when Orks win a GT they ‘absolutely spanked the competition’ but when primary Guard win it’s because of soup?
How many GTs have primary Guard won?
Obviously a very imposing combination both mathematically and in practice.
Just like Guardsmen. Except Guardsmen have a lot more data (more than a single GT) proving their value in reality. Data you repeatedly ignore for some reason.
Your test for guards survivability and damage output is obviously far to narrow for real game application.
Why?
You are holding far to many variables constant and that's why your math doesn't line up with reality usage by top players in the game.
What? My maths absolutely lines up with reality usage by top players. Guardsmen are by far the most popular troop choice, which makes sense because they are also the best mathematically.
infantry guard mono cannot walk out and destroy a GT because the game is not (20 guardsmen sitting 12 inches from unit x using FRFSRF).
Mono Guard can and have walked out and destroyed a GT. This has literally happened.
In fact, top players consistently use guard to fill out a minimum battalion or brigade (much more common after CP regen nerf) suggesting that their main strength is, in fact, cheap bodies for CP.
No, this is where you keep twisting the facts and getting confused. Imperial soup players have the option of taking almost any troop in the game. They actively choose to take Guardsmen to fill their detachments. It is not *just* because they are cheap CP, this can be evidenced because other factions that Imperial soup players have access to provide cheaper CP gains. I believe that the cheap CP provision is one reason, as well as the myriad of others that have been discussed in this thread already including (but not limited to); excellent durability, excellent damage output, incredible versatility and excellent board control.
All this complaining is also directly on the backend of CA when we have yet to acquire any data on the effect of game wide point changes. You can continue to throw out incredibly narrow focused math hammer but until real-world gaming results match up with it you probably arent going to get far with your arguments.
This is hilarious for a few reasons, the primary one is that REAL-WORLD GAMING RESULTS ALREADY MATCH UP WITH MY (and others) MATHS. As previously stated, the maths is neither narrow nor false.
Edit: was just reading this and it puts into perspective what i wrote above http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/12/40k-top-list-of-the-week-december-29th-imperial-knights-dethroned.html this week alone IG has dropped 5 places in the most winning category and 4 in most played (looks like CA is having an effect). This is also including them as a primary, not a mono which would drop their power even more. CSM actually beat them out this week for most winning faction after the cultist nerfs and they are sitting one spot ahead of necrons for the week which the general consensious is they are pretty bad.
Lol this proves nothing. December is notorious (as I believe you already stated) as having very few events. We’ll see how the meta shakes out in the months to come but I wonder what you’ll say when the results back up the maths that Guardsmen are undercosted (again)?
That BoLS article is what really annoys me about their supposed
Stats is they don't break down imperial knights vrs renegade knights.
They also don't ever break down soup lists properly, they seem to take what player's report at face value, not actually the largest single points from a codex in a list.
It's one area where I do hope the new ITC/frontline list format will help.
See the way you brush off grots and loota combo is part of the issue here. Mono orks (obviously) went to a GT immediately after their book dropped running that list and absolutely spanked the competition for a first place win.
Why is it when Orks win a GT they ‘absolutely spanked the competition’ but when primary Guard win it’s because of soup?
How many GTs have primary Guard won?
Obviously a very imposing combination both mathematically and in practice.
Just like Guardsmen. Except Guardsmen have a lot more data (more than a single GT) proving their value in reality. Data you repeatedly ignore for some reason.
Your test for guards survivability and damage output is obviously far to narrow for real game application.
Why?
You are holding far to many variables constant and that's why your math doesn't line up with reality usage by top players in the game.
What? My maths absolutely lines up with reality usage by top players. Guardsmen are by far the most popular troop choice, which makes sense because they are also the best mathematically.
infantry guard mono cannot walk out and destroy a GT because the game is not (20 guardsmen sitting 12 inches from unit x using FRFSRF).
Mono Guard can and have walked out and destroyed a GT. This has literally happened.
In fact, top players consistently use guard to fill out a minimum battalion or brigade (much more common after CP regen nerf) suggesting that their main strength is, in fact, cheap bodies for CP.
No, this is where you keep twisting the facts and getting confused. Imperial soup players have the option of taking almost any troop in the game. They actively choose to take Guardsmen to fill their detachments. It is not *just* because they are cheap CP, this can be evidenced because other factions that Imperial soup players have access to provide cheaper CP gains. I believe that the cheap CP provision is one reason, as well as the myriad of others that have been discussed in this thread already including (but not limited to); excellent durability, excellent damage output, incredible versatility and excellent board control.
All this complaining is also directly on the backend of CA when we have yet to acquire any data on the effect of game wide point changes. You can continue to throw out incredibly narrow focused math hammer but until real-world gaming results match up with it you probably arent going to get far with your arguments.
This is hilarious for a few reasons, the primary one is that REAL-WORLD GAMING RESULTS ALREADY MATCH UP WITH MY (and others) MATHS. As previously stated, the maths is neither narrow nor false.
Edit: was just reading this and it puts into perspective what i wrote above http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/12/40k-top-list-of-the-week-december-29th-imperial-knights-dethroned.html this week alone IG has dropped 5 places in the most winning category and 4 in most played (looks like CA is having an effect). This is also including them as a primary, not a mono which would drop their power even more. CSM actually beat them out this week for most winning faction after the cultist nerfs and they are sitting one spot ahead of necrons for the week which the general consensious is they are pretty bad.
Lol this proves nothing. December is notorious (as I believe you already stated) as having very few events. We’ll see how the meta shakes out in the months to come but I wonder what you’ll say when the results back up the maths that Guardsmen are undercosted (again)?
1. Because there codex just dropped guard has been out the entire edition and after the conscript nerf its been few and far between
2. Guardsmen "more data" shows they are taken to fill detachments 90% of the time
3. Yes battalions are the new hotness after the CP regen change this doesn't change the fact they are taken to fill detachments
4. nobody is arguing that soup players choose soup for guard.... they fill the roll of soup better then anyone else. nobody is doubting this
also the math is clearly narrow because we arent playing a nepolion war recreation where we line up 12 inches from eachother and just shoot. The real world aplication is off as well evidenced by such data as the article with most recent standings that i just linked
edit: so because we dont have much data post FAQ we should ignore said data to use old data pre faq?
9 marines shoot at guardsmen.
9 shots. 6 hits. 4 wounds. 2.666 dead guardsmen. 10.666 points.
9 marines shoot at rangers.
9 shots. 4.5 hits. 3 wounds. 1 dead ranger. 12 points.
As said - same durability versus BS4+ Ap- weapons. Worse against anything better.
Best durability *for the points* I think people are missing that last part too often and attacking the first part. T3 5+ is terrible durability in concept.
So just to be clear your 57pt infantry squad kills 34.58 poiny of marine's or 61% in a single round of shooting.
Thats rediculous returns for a base infanty unit.
If there's an officer nearby giving orders and the target is within 12", then yes thats what the math shows. But then, it's not just a base 57pt infantry unit at that point either because it requires a nearby character that does nothing but buff the weeny infantry.
The big point however, magnificently illustrated here, was that similar units that are doing even more for even less, but everyone focuses on the Infantry Squad. In fact, the Infantry Squad drops down to inflicting only 2.08 wounds (27pts) without the officer, the plasma SWS still does 2.42 (31.46pts) and is only 45pts. Yet we hear nothing about this unit and nobody takes it
Why this focus on the Infantry Squad over everything else? Because it fills out detachments for CP's. It's not basic infantry like guardsmen that are doing the bulk of the killing in armies, often the "loyal 32" are all dead before they ever have a chance to fire a shot. The value that we see so widespread is from the CP battery and secondarily the board control offered by bodies, not their killing power.
What you haven't taken into consideration in that maths is how many casualties dies it take to half the units fire power?
Mainly because for most of the units compared, it'd be about the same, the only difference was directly with the Infantry Squad, and even there we're just talking about a couple dead guardsmen, none of these are stunningly resilient units.
Also, defining halved firepower can be rather hard
This SWS argument is very misleading.
- SWS do not have obsec.
- SWS lose more points of models faster and become a bigger target.
- SWS don't benefit from orders as well.
- You're mostly forced Cadian so you're not dropping your own squad.
So 18 models for 135 points or 31 models for 150 points. A round of shooting that eliminates SWS still has IS in the fight.
Best durability *for the points* I think people are missing that last part too often and attacking the first part. T3 5+ is terrible durability in concept.
Of course. T3 5+ 1W doesn’t sound great until you realise it costs only 4 points.
See the way you brush off grots and loota combo is part of the issue here. Mono orks (obviously) went to a GT immediately after their book dropped running that list and absolutely spanked the competition for a first place win.
Why is it when Orks win a GT they ‘absolutely spanked the competition’ but when primary Guard win it’s because of soup?
How many GTs have primary Guard won?
Obviously a very imposing combination both mathematically and in practice.
Just like Guardsmen. Except Guardsmen have a lot more data (more than a single GT) proving their value in reality. Data you repeatedly ignore for some reason.
Your test for guards survivability and damage output is obviously far to narrow for real game application.
Why?
You are holding far to many variables constant and that's why your math doesn't line up with reality usage by top players in the game.
What? My maths absolutely lines up with reality usage by top players. Guardsmen are by far the most popular troop choice, which makes sense because they are also the best mathematically.
infantry guard mono cannot walk out and destroy a GT because the game is not (20 guardsmen sitting 12 inches from unit x using FRFSRF).
Mono Guard can and have walked out and destroyed a GT. This has literally happened.
In fact, top players consistently use guard to fill out a minimum battalion or brigade (much more common after CP regen nerf) suggesting that their main strength is, in fact, cheap bodies for CP.
No, this is where you keep twisting the facts and getting confused. Imperial soup players have the option of taking almost any troop in the game. They actively choose to take Guardsmen to fill their detachments. It is not *just* because they are cheap CP, this can be evidenced because other factions that Imperial soup players have access to provide cheaper CP gains. I believe that the cheap CP provision is one reason, as well as the myriad of others that have been discussed in this thread already including (but not limited to); excellent durability, excellent damage output, incredible versatility and excellent board control.
All this complaining is also directly on the backend of CA when we have yet to acquire any data on the effect of game wide point changes. You can continue to throw out incredibly narrow focused math hammer but until real-world gaming results match up with it you probably arent going to get far with your arguments.
This is hilarious for a few reasons, the primary one is that REAL-WORLD GAMING RESULTS ALREADY MATCH UP WITH MY (and others) MATHS. As previously stated, the maths is neither narrow nor false.
Edit: was just reading this and it puts into perspective what i wrote above http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/12/40k-top-list-of-the-week-december-29th-imperial-knights-dethroned.html this week alone IG has dropped 5 places in the most winning category and 4 in most played (looks like CA is having an effect). This is also including them as a primary, not a mono which would drop their power even more. CSM actually beat them out this week for most winning faction after the cultist nerfs and they are sitting one spot ahead of necrons for the week which the general consensious is they are pretty bad.
Lol this proves nothing. December is notorious (as I believe you already stated) as having very few events. We’ll see how the meta shakes out in the months to come but I wonder what you’ll say when the results back up the maths that Guardsmen are undercosted (again)?
1. Because there codex just dropped guard has been out the entire edition and after the conscript nerf its been few and far between
2. Guardsmen "more data" shows they are taken to fill detachments 90% of the time
3. Yes battalions are the new hotness after the CP regen change this doesn't change the fact they are taken to fill detachments
4. nobody is arguing that soup players choose soup for guard.... they fill the roll of soup better then anyone else. nobody is doubting this
also the math is clearly narrow because we arent playing a nepolion war recreation where we line up 12 inches from eachother and just shoot. The real world aplication is off as well evidenced by such data as the article with most recent standings that i just linked
edit: so because we dont have much data post FAQ we should ignore said data to use old data pre faq?
I literally have no idea what you’re talking about but it seems to me you’re just ignoring facts now.
Please answer my points as I’ve raised them, this 1. 2. 3. Etc business makes no sense to me.
Best durability *for the points* I think people are missing that last part too often and attacking the first part. T3 5+ is terrible durability in concept.
Of course. T3 5+ 1W doesn’t sound great until you realise it costs only 4 points.
See the way you brush off grots and loota combo is part of the issue here. Mono orks (obviously) went to a GT immediately after their book dropped running that list and absolutely spanked the competition for a first place win.
Why is it when Orks win a GT they ‘absolutely spanked the competition’ but when primary Guard win it’s because of soup?
How many GTs have primary Guard won?
Obviously a very imposing combination both mathematically and in practice.
Just like Guardsmen. Except Guardsmen have a lot more data (more than a single GT) proving their value in reality. Data you repeatedly ignore for some reason.
Your test for guards survivability and damage output is obviously far to narrow for real game application.
Why?
You are holding far to many variables constant and that's why your math doesn't line up with reality usage by top players in the game.
What? My maths absolutely lines up with reality usage by top players. Guardsmen are by far the most popular troop choice, which makes sense because they are also the best mathematically.
infantry guard mono cannot walk out and destroy a GT because the game is not (20 guardsmen sitting 12 inches from unit x using FRFSRF).
Mono Guard can and have walked out and destroyed a GT. This has literally happened.
In fact, top players consistently use guard to fill out a minimum battalion or brigade (much more common after CP regen nerf) suggesting that their main strength is, in fact, cheap bodies for CP.
No, this is where you keep twisting the facts and getting confused. Imperial soup players have the option of taking almost any troop in the game. They actively choose to take Guardsmen to fill their detachments. It is not *just* because they are cheap CP, this can be evidenced because other factions that Imperial soup players have access to provide cheaper CP gains. I believe that the cheap CP provision is one reason, as well as the myriad of others that have been discussed in this thread already including (but not limited to); excellent durability, excellent damage output, incredible versatility and excellent board control.
All this complaining is also directly on the backend of CA when we have yet to acquire any data on the effect of game wide point changes. You can continue to throw out incredibly narrow focused math hammer but until real-world gaming results match up with it you probably arent going to get far with your arguments.
This is hilarious for a few reasons, the primary one is that REAL-WORLD GAMING RESULTS ALREADY MATCH UP WITH MY (and others) MATHS. As previously stated, the maths is neither narrow nor false.
Edit: was just reading this and it puts into perspective what i wrote above http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/12/40k-top-list-of-the-week-december-29th-imperial-knights-dethroned.html this week alone IG has dropped 5 places in the most winning category and 4 in most played (looks like CA is having an effect). This is also including them as a primary, not a mono which would drop their power even more. CSM actually beat them out this week for most winning faction after the cultist nerfs and they are sitting one spot ahead of necrons for the week which the general consensious is they are pretty bad.
Lol this proves nothing. December is notorious (as I believe you already stated) as having very few events. We’ll see how the meta shakes out in the months to come but I wonder what you’ll say when the results back up the maths that Guardsmen are undercosted (again)?
1. Because there codex just dropped guard has been out the entire edition and after the conscript nerf its been few and far between
2. Guardsmen "more data" shows they are taken to fill detachments 90% of the time
3. Yes battalions are the new hotness after the CP regen change this doesn't change the fact they are taken to fill detachments
4. nobody is arguing that soup players choose soup for guard.... they fill the roll of soup better then anyone else. nobody is doubting this
also the math is clearly narrow because we arent playing a nepolion war recreation where we line up 12 inches from eachother and just shoot. The real world aplication is off as well evidenced by such data as the article with most recent standings that i just linked
edit: so because we dont have much data post FAQ we should ignore said data to use old data pre faq?
I literally have no idea what you’re talking about but it seems to me you’re just ignoring facts now.
Please answer my points as I’ve raised them, this 1. 2. 3. Etc business makes no sense to me.
I've answered your question 1,2,3 several times now and explained why you are looking at this in far to narrow of a vacuum and have now posted evidence of the first post FAQ data we have where CSM have outperformed IG as a whole yet its ignored. Tau also outperformed IG and was number one but according to you this shouldn't be possible because if we put fire warriors 12 inches away from guardsmen they aren't as points efficient. Real game results and the way we see IG infantry simply don't match up with your very poorly implemented math hammer. Its the equivalent at looking only at a cars quarter mile times when it's about to race in the indie 500
I've answered your question 1,2,3 several times now and explained why you are looking at this in far to narrow of a vacuum and have now posted evidence of the first post FAQ data we have where CSM have outperformed IG as a whole yet its ignored. Tau also outperformed IG and was number one but according to you this shouldn't be possible because if we put fire warriors 12 inches away from guardsmen they aren't as points efficient. Real game results and the way we see IG infantry simply don't match up with your very poorly implemented math hammer. Its the equivalent at looking only at a cars quarter mile times when it's about to race in the indie 500
You’ve answered nothing though?
You say Guard are taken because they are cheap CP. My response is that there are cheaper detachments for Imperial soup lists that aren’t taken and Guardsmen are taken above minimum quantities for CP. Your response seems to be ‘no that’s wrong because I say so’. Do you have any counterpoints to that or any of my other points because I can’t see them.
BOLS data on December listings is not as credible as the entire of data we have since the IG codex dropped showing them as persistently one of the better armies. For your one month of ‘counter evidence’ there are countless months showing that you’re completely wrong. It also doesn’t do anything to counter the argument that Guardsmen are too cheap, despite your (yet again) misquoted/attempted straw man argument around Fire Warriors.
Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though.
E - wait, in your first point are you seriously trying to claim that post Conscript fix Primary Guard haven’t won many GTs?! Really?! This is just plain wrong. It couldn’t be more wrong.
- SWS do not have obsec.
- SWS lose more points of models faster and become a bigger target.
- SWS don't benefit from orders as well.
-You're mostly forced Cadian so you're not dropping your own squad.
So 18 models for 135 points or 31 models for 150 points. A round of shooting that eliminates SWS still has IS in the fight.
You're right, they're not identical and they serve different purposes. That said, there should be a case for taking them at least sometimes (they're less reliant on orders for damage output, they have a substantially higher damage output, etc), but nobody seems eager to take 'em if they don't unlock CP's.
The SWS's should benefit from Orders as they're Infantry units with the <Regiment> Keyword, unless I've been missing something
I've answered your question 1,2,3 several times now and explained why you are looking at this in far to narrow of a vacuum and have now posted evidence of the first post FAQ data we have where CSM have outperformed IG as a whole yet its ignored. Tau also outperformed IG and was number one but according to you this shouldn't be possible because if we put fire warriors 12 inches away from guardsmen they aren't as points efficient. Real game results and the way we see IG infantry simply don't match up with your very poorly implemented math hammer. Its the equivalent at looking only at a cars quarter mile times when it's about to race in the indie 500
You’ve answered nothing though?
You say Guard are taken because they are cheap CP. My response is that there are cheaper detachments for Imperial soup lists that aren’t taken and Guardsmen are taken above minimum quantities for CP. Your response seems to be ‘no that’s wrong because I say so’. Do you have any counterpoints to that or any of my other points because I can’t see them.
BOLS data on December listings is not as credible as the entire of data we have since the IG codex dropped showing them as persistently one of the better armies. For your one month of ‘counter evidence’ there are countless months showing that you’re completely wrong. It also doesn’t do anything to counter the argument that Guardsmen are too cheap, despite your (yet again) misquoted/attempted straw man argument around Fire Warriors.
Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though.
No go back and read my answers several times. Guard not only provide cheap CP they provide an additional 5-6 per game depending on the game length making the most efficient CP generation. Also for their job of CP and holding backfield objectives they offer the most wounds to pass off making them the perfect souped unit. Also in the vast majority of lists, we see either 3 for battalion or 6 for the brigade that is more popular post big FAQ.
"Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though" look you got it armies are balanced more than unit A v unit B. This is complicated even more over soup. You cannot simply give every unit in the game matching stats and points or soon we will be playing chess. Armies are supposed to be different and have different strengths and weaknesses and balance out as a whole where any army can be competitive.
I've answered your question 1,2,3 several times now and explained why you are looking at this in far to narrow of a vacuum and have now posted evidence of the first post FAQ data we have where CSM have outperformed IG as a whole yet its ignored. Tau also outperformed IG and was number one but according to you this shouldn't be possible because if we put fire warriors 12 inches away from guardsmen they aren't as points efficient. Real game results and the way we see IG infantry simply don't match up with your very poorly implemented math hammer. Its the equivalent at looking only at a cars quarter mile times when it's about to race in the indie 500
You’ve answered nothing though?
You say Guard are taken because they are cheap CP. My response is that there are cheaper detachments for Imperial soup lists that aren’t taken and Guardsmen are taken above minimum quantities for CP. Your response seems to be ‘no that’s wrong because I say so’. Do you have any counterpoints to that or any of my other points because I can’t see them.
BOLS data on December listings is not as credible as the entire of data we have since the IG codex dropped showing them as persistently one of the better armies. For your one month of ‘counter evidence’ there are countless months showing that you’re completely wrong. It also doesn’t do anything to counter the argument that Guardsmen are too cheap, despite your (yet again) misquoted/attempted straw man argument around Fire Warriors.
Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though.
No go back and read my answers several times. Guard not only provide cheap CP they provide an additional 5-6 per game depending on the game length making the most efficient CP generation. Also for their job of CP and holding backfield objectives they offer the most wounds to pass off making them the perfect souped unit. Also in the vast majority of lists, we see either 3 for battalion or 6 for the brigade that is more popular post big FAQ.
"Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though" look you got it armies are balanced more than unit A v unit B. This is complicated even more over soup. You cannot simply give every unit in the game matching stats and points or soon we will be playing chess. Armies are supposed to be different and have different strengths and weaknesses and balance out as a whole where any army can be competitive.
Except that is the whole point of points, they should be the measure of effectiveness.
The idea that codex's can have better troops or worse troops for the points is a logical fallacy.
Point for points units need to balance out or a faction will always have an advantage.
This idea you have that infantry squads can be undercosted, because it's balanced out by overcosted guard elites or such falls appart because elites arn't mandatory.
Troopa unfortunately with the current CP rules are effectively mandatory.
An Actual Englishman wrote: BOLS data on December listings is not as credible as the entire of data we have since the IG codex dropped showing them as persistently one of the better armies. For your one month of ‘counter evidence’ there are countless months showing that you’re completely wrong. It also doesn’t do anything to counter the argument that Guardsmen are too cheap, despite your (yet again) misquoted/attempted straw man argument around Fire Warriors.
Not sure why you are still bothering - and this will be taken as special pleading - but to add to this, not all tournaments are created equally.
There is a significant difference between Guard placing (and winning) tournaments with 5 rounds and 80~ people, and Tau winning some 3 round tournaments with 12-14 players where no one seems to have brought ynnari despite it being generally consisted the toppest of top tier.
In fact Tau experience at tournaments increases rapidly when flavours of Eldar are not present in significant numbers. This has not however been the case at majors to date.
I've answered your question 1,2,3 several times now and explained why you are looking at this in far to narrow of a vacuum and have now posted evidence of the first post FAQ data we have where CSM have outperformed IG as a whole yet its ignored. Tau also outperformed IG and was number one but according to you this shouldn't be possible because if we put fire warriors 12 inches away from guardsmen they aren't as points efficient. Real game results and the way we see IG infantry simply don't match up with your very poorly implemented math hammer. Its the equivalent at looking only at a cars quarter mile times when it's about to race in the indie 500
You’ve answered nothing though?
You say Guard are taken because they are cheap CP. My response is that there are cheaper detachments for Imperial soup lists that aren’t taken and Guardsmen are taken above minimum quantities for CP. Your response seems to be ‘no that’s wrong because I say so’. Do you have any counterpoints to that or any of my other points because I can’t see them.
BOLS data on December listings is not as credible as the entire of data we have since the IG codex dropped showing them as persistently one of the better armies. For your one month of ‘counter evidence’ there are countless months showing that you’re completely wrong. It also doesn’t do anything to counter the argument that Guardsmen are too cheap, despite your (yet again) misquoted/attempted straw man argument around Fire Warriors.
Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though.
No go back and read my answers several times. Guard not only provide cheap CP they provide an additional 5-6 per game depending on the game length making the most efficient CP generation. Also for their job of CP and holding backfield objectives they offer the most wounds to pass off making them the perfect souped unit. Also in the vast majority of lists, we see either 3 for battalion or 6 for the brigade that is more popular post big FAQ.
"Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though" look you got it armies are balanced more than unit A v unit B. This is complicated even more over soup. You cannot simply give every unit in the game matching stats and points or soon we will be playing chess. Armies are supposed to be different and have different strengths and weaknesses and balance out as a whole where any army can be competitive.
Except that is the whole point of points, they should be the measure of effectiveness.
The idea that codex's can have better troops or worse troops for the points is a logical fallacy.
Point for points units need to balance out or a faction will always have an advantage.
This idea you have that infantry squads can be undercosted, because it's balanced out by overcosted guard elites or such falls appart because elites arn't mandatory.
Troopa unfortunately with the current CP rules are effectively mandatory.
No if points for points every unit is equal at everything we are playing one boring game that im not interested with and it will be completely void of lore
Tau should not be as point efficient as Khorne demons ate melle
DE should not be point for point as resilient DG all these armies should be able to have a close fair game against one another leveraging their strength against each other though
No if points for points every unit is equal at everything we are playing one boring game that im not interested with and it will be completely void of lore
Tau should not be as point efficient as Khorne demons ate melle
DE should not be point for point as resilient DG all these armies should be able to have a close fair game against one another leveraging their strength against each other though
So at what are the guardsmen are bad for their points then? What you say is indeed how it should be, but currently the guardsmen are good at everything.
I've answered your question 1,2,3 several times now and explained why you are looking at this in far to narrow of a vacuum and have now posted evidence of the first post FAQ data we have where CSM have outperformed IG as a whole yet its ignored. Tau also outperformed IG and was number one but according to you this shouldn't be possible because if we put fire warriors 12 inches away from guardsmen they aren't as points efficient. Real game results and the way we see IG infantry simply don't match up with your very poorly implemented math hammer. Its the equivalent at looking only at a cars quarter mile times when it's about to race in the indie 500
You’ve answered nothing though?
You say Guard are taken because they are cheap CP. My response is that there are cheaper detachments for Imperial soup lists that aren’t taken and Guardsmen are taken above minimum quantities for CP. Your response seems to be ‘no that’s wrong because I say so’. Do you have any counterpoints to that or any of my other points because I can’t see them.
BOLS data on December listings is not as credible as the entire of data we have since the IG codex dropped showing them as persistently one of the better armies. For your one month of ‘counter evidence’ there are countless months showing that you’re completely wrong. It also doesn’t do anything to counter the argument that Guardsmen are too cheap, despite your (yet again) misquoted/attempted straw man argument around Fire Warriors.
Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though.
No go back and read my answers several times. Guard not only provide cheap CP they provide an additional 5-6 per game depending on the game length making the most efficient CP generation. Also for their job of CP and holding backfield objectives they offer the most wounds to pass off making them the perfect souped unit. Also in the vast majority of lists, we see either 3 for battalion or 6 for the brigade that is more popular post big FAQ.
"Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though" look you got it armies are balanced more than unit A v unit B. This is complicated even more over soup. You cannot simply give every unit in the game matching stats and points or soon we will be playing chess. Armies are supposed to be different and have different strengths and weaknesses and balance out as a whole where any army can be competitive.
Except that is the whole point of points, they should be the measure of effectiveness.
The idea that codex's can have better troops or worse troops for the points is a logical fallacy.
Point for points units need to balance out or a faction will always have an advantage.
This idea you have that infantry squads can be undercosted, because it's balanced out by overcosted guard elites or such falls appart because elites arn't mandatory.
Troopa unfortunately with the current CP rules are effectively mandatory.
No if points for points every unit is equal at everything we are playing one boring game that im not interested with and it will be completely void of lore
Tau should not be as point efficient as Khorne demons ate melle
DE should not be point for point as resilient DG all these armies should be able to have a close fair game against one another leveraging their strength against each other though
Once again your missing the point, and using misdirection to avoid admitting that Guard are a problem.
Just becuase a unit has strengths and weaknesses that are different. That doesn't mean their performance per point can't be the same.
As you say Tau shouldn't out perform Bloodletters in CC, but what they shoulde be able to do is shoot them enough that they don't just get close combated into chunks.
The issue is guardsmen not only outshoot firewarriors, they also out CC firewarriors and give up less points to attacks.
Units need to have a balance of strengths and weaknesses that are appropriately costed, guardsmen break this balance.
No if points for points every unit is equal at everything we are playing one boring game that im not interested with and it will be completely void of lore
Tau should not be as point efficient as Khorne demons ate melle
DE should not be point for point as resilient DG all these armies should be able to have a close fair game against one another leveraging their strength against each other though
So at what are the guardsmen are bad for their points then? What you say is indeed how it should be, but currently the guardsmen are good at everything.
Guardsmen cannot horde 30-40 guys like other chaff units so CP and psychic powers are less efficient on them
They also do not have the ability to bring back 29-39 of them like other codex troop choices
They are not good at close combat (yes catachan S4 all the time is over the top and not fitting with lore it needs to change you won't get any argument from me about this it is far too good)
Guard lore wise are supposed to be the staple of cheap reliable infantry. They fill this and in mono lists seem to be balanced well with lackluster strategems and hard countered by -1 to hit. Once again DE are the single most winning mono army in the game and i believe last time i checked quiet a few armies are ahead of them. Guard as a whole balance out very well and play mostly true to the lore right up until they are dumping CP into another faction and not simply acting as meat shields
I've answered your question 1,2,3 several times now and explained why you are looking at this in far to narrow of a vacuum and have now posted evidence of the first post FAQ data we have where CSM have outperformed IG as a whole yet its ignored. Tau also outperformed IG and was number one but according to you this shouldn't be possible because if we put fire warriors 12 inches away from guardsmen they aren't as points efficient. Real game results and the way we see IG infantry simply don't match up with your very poorly implemented math hammer. Its the equivalent at looking only at a cars quarter mile times when it's about to race in the indie 500
You’ve answered nothing though?
You say Guard are taken because they are cheap CP. My response is that there are cheaper detachments for Imperial soup lists that aren’t taken and Guardsmen are taken above minimum quantities for CP. Your response seems to be ‘no that’s wrong because I say so’. Do you have any counterpoints to that or any of my other points because I can’t see them.
BOLS data on December listings is not as credible as the entire of data we have since the IG codex dropped showing them as persistently one of the better armies. For your one month of ‘counter evidence’ there are countless months showing that you’re completely wrong. It also doesn’t do anything to counter the argument that Guardsmen are too cheap, despite your (yet again) misquoted/attempted straw man argument around Fire Warriors.
Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though.
No go back and read my answers several times. Guard not only provide cheap CP they provide an additional 5-6 per game depending on the game length making the most efficient CP generation. Also for their job of CP and holding backfield objectives they offer the most wounds to pass off making them the perfect souped unit. Also in the vast majority of lists, we see either 3 for battalion or 6 for the brigade that is more popular post big FAQ.
"Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though" look you got it armies are balanced more than unit A v unit B. This is complicated even more over soup. You cannot simply give every unit in the game matching stats and points or soon we will be playing chess. Armies are supposed to be different and have different strengths and weaknesses and balance out as a whole where any army can be competitive.
Except that is the whole point of points, they should be the measure of effectiveness.
The idea that codex's can have better troops or worse troops for the points is a logical fallacy.
Point for points units need to balance out or a faction will always have an advantage.
This idea you have that infantry squads can be undercosted, because it's balanced out by overcosted guard elites or such falls appart because elites arn't mandatory.
Troopa unfortunately with the current CP rules are effectively mandatory.
No if points for points every unit is equal at everything we are playing one boring game that im not interested with and it will be completely void of lore
Tau should not be as point efficient as Khorne demons ate melle
DE should not be point for point as resilient DG all these armies should be able to have a close fair game against one another leveraging their strength against each other though
Once again your missing the point, and using misdirection to avoid admitting that Guard are a problem.
Just becuase a unit has strengths and weaknesses that are different. That doesn't mean their performance per point can't be the same.
As you say Tau shouldn't out perform Bloodletters in CC, but what they shoulde be able to do is shoot them enough that they don't just get close combated into chunks.
The issue is guardsmen not only outshoot firewarriors, they also out CC firewarriors and give up less points to attacks.
Units need to have a balance of strengths and weaknesses that are appropriately costed, guardsmen break this balance.
Right here though you purposely leave out too major strengths for fire warriors
longer range
higher damage output against tougher targets
Once again all these slight variations in mathhammer are fundamentally flawed because they leave out the entirity of the rest of the game. This is shown by guard infantry not being spammed in game despite them being so amazing at shooting T3 targets 12 inches away from them. If we start balancing using this kind of mathammer the game will become either
A. fundementally unbalance (because your not costing the army correctly based around all of its tools)
B. fundementally unfun (as we start playing the same units simply with different cosmetic skins)
Asmodios wrote: No go back and read my answers several times.
I’ve read them, there aren’t any answers there.
Guard not only provide cheap CP they provide an additional 5-6 per game depending on the game length making the most efficient CP generation.
That’s not an ability of Guardsmen though?
Also for their job of CP and holding backfield objectives they offer the most wounds to pass off making them the perfect souped unit.
So Guardsmen are too cheap then? This durability is too cheap for their cost, as we’ve discussed.
Also in the vast majority of lists, we see either 3 for battalion or 6 for the brigade that is more popular post big FAQ.
Yes they are taken ‘in the vast majority of lists’ which is indicative of their cost being too low, you aren’t defending Guardsmen’s points, you’re helping to explain why it should be higher.
"Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though" look you got it armies are balanced more than unit A v unit B.
This is what I said to you, you were the one failing to understand why we don’t see armies of only Guardsmen.
This is complicated even more over soup. You cannot simply give every unit in the game matching stats and points or soon we will be playing chess. Armies are supposed to be different and have different strengths and weaknesses and balance out as a whole where any army can be competitive.
Agreed, unfortunately Guardsmen are better than every other troop which is why they’re a problem. That’s why they’re taken in every Imperial soup list. Competitive soup lists, by definition, take the best units available to them. The best LOW in the Castellan. The best suicide missile in Slamguinius. The best troop in Guardsmen.
Asmodios wrote: No go back and read my answers several times.
I’ve read them, there aren’t any answers there.
Guard not only provide cheap CP they provide an additional 5-6 per game depending on the game length making the most efficient CP generation.
That’s not an ability of Guardsmen though?
Also for their job of CP and holding backfield objectives they offer the most wounds to pass off making them the perfect souped unit.
So Guardsmen are too cheap then? This durability is too cheap for their cost, as we’ve discussed.
Also in the vast majority of lists, we see either 3 for battalion or 6 for the brigade that is more popular post big FAQ.
Yes they are taken ‘in the vast majority of lists’ which is indicative of their cost being too low, you aren’t defending Guardsmen’s points, you’re helping to explain why it should be higher.
"Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though" look you got it armies are balanced more than unit A v unit B.
This is what I said to you, you were the one failing to understand why we don’t see armies of only Guardsmen.
This is complicated even more over soup. You cannot simply give every unit in the game matching stats and points or soon we will be playing chess. Armies are supposed to be different and have different strengths and weaknesses and balance out as a whole where any army can be competitive.
Agreed, unfortunately Guardsmen are better than every other troop which is why they’re a problem. That’s why they’re taken in every Imperial soup list. Competitive soup lists, by definition, take the best units available to them. The best LOW in the Castellan. The best suicide missile in Slamguinius. The best troop in Guardsmen.
Its clear at this point you don't want to actually read my posts so I'll just leave you with this
Clearly, GW agrees with me that parking 2 units 12 inches away from each other and yelling fire isn't the pinnacle of balance. I would say they are making the right call considering we have seen a great amount of diversity over the course of this edition and its selling better than ever before. Keep beating your head against a wall for the next 6 months until the next big FAQ or a year till chapter approved for 5 point guardsmen. In the meantime ill be actually playing the game and looking at real tournament results. If guardsmen become an issue in and of themselves (outside soup) I'm sure they will fix them like every other unit that's been smacked down. I wish you the best and don't lose too much sleep over 4 point guardsmen it's going to be ok.
Asmodios wrote: Right here though you purposely leave out too major strengths for fire warriors
longer range
higher damage output against tougher targets
Once again all these slight variations in mathhammer are fundamentally flawed because they leave out the entirity of the rest of the game. This is shown by guard infantry not being spammed in game despite them being so amazing at shooting T3 targets 12 inches away from them. If we start balancing using this kind of mathammer the game will become either
A. fundementally unbalance (because your not costing the army correctly based around all of its tools)
B. fundementally unfun (as we start playing the same units simply with different cosmetic skins)
Guardsmen ARE THE DEFINITION OF A SPAMMED UNIT. They are by far the most popular troop in the game.
We’ve also seen the maths that show that Guard OUTDAMAGE Fire Warriors against all targets with FRFSRF so your supposed strength of Fire Warriors is yer another thing that Guardsmen best them at.
Your arguments are becoming ludicrous and embarrassing.
Asmodios wrote: No go back and read my answers several times.
I’ve read them, there aren’t any answers there.
Guard not only provide cheap CP they provide an additional 5-6 per game depending on the game length making the most efficient CP generation.
That’s not an ability of Guardsmen though?
Also for their job of CP and holding backfield objectives they offer the most wounds to pass off making them the perfect souped unit.
So Guardsmen are too cheap then? This durability is too cheap for their cost, as we’ve discussed.
Also in the vast majority of lists, we see either 3 for battalion or 6 for the brigade that is more popular post big FAQ.
Yes they are taken ‘in the vast majority of lists’ which is indicative of their cost being too low, you aren’t defending Guardsmen’s points, you’re helping to explain why it should be higher.
"Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though" look you got it armies are balanced more than unit A v unit B.
This is what I said to you, you were the one failing to understand why we don’t see armies of only Guardsmen.
This is complicated even more over soup. You cannot simply give every unit in the game matching stats and points or soon we will be playing chess. Armies are supposed to be different and have different strengths and weaknesses and balance out as a whole where any army can be competitive.
Agreed, unfortunately Guardsmen are better than every other troop which is why they’re a problem. That’s why they’re taken in every Imperial soup list. Competitive soup lists, by definition, take the best units available to them. The best LOW in the Castellan. The best suicide missile in Slamguinius. The best troop in Guardsmen.
Its clear at this point you don't want to actually read my posts so I'll just leave you with this
Clearly, GW agrees with me that parking 2 units 12 inches away from each other and yelling fire isn't the pinnacle of balance. I would say they are making the right call considering we have seen a great amount of diversity over the course of this edition and its selling better than ever before. Keep beating your head against a wall for the next 6 months until the next big FAQ or a year till chapter approved for 5 point guardsmen. In the meantime ill be actually playing the game and looking at real tournament results. If guardsmen become an issue in and of themselves (outside soup) I'm sure they will fix them like every other unit that's been smacked down. I wish you the best and don't lose too much sleep over 4 point guardsmen it's going to be ok.
I’m literally responding to your points one by one so obviously reading them, unfortunately for me.
I see you’ve finally resorted to the age old ‘I don’t have an answer to your points so I’m going to go with snark instead’ technique. A solid choice.
9 marines shoot at guardsmen.
9 shots. 6 hits. 4 wounds. 2.666 dead guardsmen. 10.666 points.
9 marines shoot at rangers.
9 shots. 4.5 hits. 3 wounds. 1 dead ranger. 12 points.
As said - same durability versus BS4+ Ap- weapons. Worse against anything better.
Your using some very odd maths here which is also false
9 Guardsmen only kill 1.13 guardsmen in cover outside rapid fire with no buffs or 4.5 points of guardsmen not even close to the 6 points you claim
9 marines only kill 2 guardsmen in cover so 8 points not the 10.6 you claimed
Thats 117 points of marines to kill 8 points of guard in cover GG GW GG
5 rangers 60 points
Kill 1.1 guardsmen in cover plus .56 MW for a combined 1.66 wounds or 6.64 points of guardsmen
So for the cost of 15 guardsmen rangers can do less damage against guardsmen in cover than 15 guardsmen with no buffs.
14 lasguns kikk 1.75 guardsmen in cover for 7 points.
Asmodios wrote: Right here though you purposely leave out too major strengths for fire warriors
longer range
higher damage output against tougher targets
Once again all these slight variations in mathhammer are fundamentally flawed because they leave out the entirity of the rest of the game. This is shown by guard infantry not being spammed in game despite them being so amazing at shooting T3 targets 12 inches away from them. If we start balancing using this kind of mathammer the game will become either
A. fundementally unbalance (because your not costing the army correctly based around all of its tools)
B. fundementally unfun (as we start playing the same units simply with different cosmetic skins)
Guardsmen ARE THE DEFINITION OF A SPAMMED UNIT. They are by far the most popular troop in the game.
We’ve also seen the maths that show that Guard OUTDAMAGE Fire Warriors against all targets with FRFSRF so your supposed strength of Fire Warriors is yer another thing that Guardsmen best them at.
Your arguments are becoming ludicrous and embarrassing.
Asmodios wrote: No go back and read my answers several times.
I’ve read them, there aren’t any answers there.
Guard not only provide cheap CP they provide an additional 5-6 per game depending on the game length making the most efficient CP generation.
That’s not an ability of Guardsmen though?
Also for their job of CP and holding backfield objectives they offer the most wounds to pass off making them the perfect souped unit.
So Guardsmen are too cheap then? This durability is too cheap for their cost, as we’ve discussed.
Also in the vast majority of lists, we see either 3 for battalion or 6 for the brigade that is more popular post big FAQ.
Yes they are taken ‘in the vast majority of lists’ which is indicative of their cost being too low, you aren’t defending Guardsmen’s points, you’re helping to explain why it should be higher.
"Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though" look you got it armies are balanced more than unit A v unit B.
This is what I said to you, you were the one failing to understand why we don’t see armies of only Guardsmen.
This is complicated even more over soup. You cannot simply give every unit in the game matching stats and points or soon we will be playing chess. Armies are supposed to be different and have different strengths and weaknesses and balance out as a whole where any army can be competitive.
Agreed, unfortunately Guardsmen are better than every other troop which is why they’re a problem. That’s why they’re taken in every Imperial soup list. Competitive soup lists, by definition, take the best units available to them. The best LOW in the Castellan. The best suicide missile in Slamguinius. The best troop in Guardsmen.
Its clear at this point you don't want to actually read my posts so I'll just leave you with this
Clearly, GW agrees with me that parking 2 units 12 inches away from each other and yelling fire isn't the pinnacle of balance. I would say they are making the right call considering we have seen a great amount of diversity over the course of this edition and its selling better than ever before. Keep beating your head against a wall for the next 6 months until the next big FAQ or a year till chapter approved for 5 point guardsmen. In the meantime ill be actually playing the game and looking at real tournament results. If guardsmen become an issue in and of themselves (outside soup) I'm sure they will fix them like every other unit that's been smacked down. I wish you the best and don't lose too much sleep over 4 point guardsmen it's going to be ok.
I’m literally responding to your points one by one so obviously reading them, unfortunately for me.
I see you’ve finally resorted to the age old ‘I don’t have an answer to your points so I’m going to go with snark instead’ technique. A solid choice.
Can’t wait for GW to fix Guardsmen.
Nah I've been responding but you clearly either aren't reading or have terrible comprehension
For example, multiple posters in this thread pointing out over and over and over that filling out the troop choice to the minimum to get a brigade or battalion 90% of the time is not spamming a unit
or the fact that me and other posters keep pointing out the evidence of guardsmen only being an issue in soup and you pointing to examples of soup then claiming its guardsmen and not soup that's the issue
I have no interest in spending my time I could be working on my new army talking with someone that has no interest in an actual conversation. Think you "won" if you like but your clearly so dug in your unable to have an actual conversation. At least posters like Ice are making points and counter points instead of just spinning in curcles
I've answered your question 1,2,3 several times now and explained why you are looking at this in far to narrow of a vacuum and have now posted evidence of the first post FAQ data we have where CSM have outperformed IG as a whole yet its ignored. Tau also outperformed IG and was number one but according to you this shouldn't be possible because if we put fire warriors 12 inches away from guardsmen they aren't as points efficient. Real game results and the way we see IG infantry simply don't match up with your very poorly implemented math hammer. Its the equivalent at looking only at a cars quarter mile times when it's about to race in the indie 500
You’ve answered nothing though?
You say Guard are taken because they are cheap CP. My response is that there are cheaper detachments for Imperial soup lists that aren’t taken and Guardsmen are taken above minimum quantities for CP. Your response seems to be ‘no that’s wrong because I say so’. Do you have any counterpoints to that or any of my other points because I can’t see them.
BOLS data on December listings is not as credible as the entire of data we have since the IG codex dropped showing them as persistently one of the better armies. For your one month of ‘counter evidence’ there are countless months showing that you’re completely wrong. It also doesn’t do anything to counter the argument that Guardsmen are too cheap, despite your (yet again) misquoted/attempted straw man argument around Fire Warriors.
Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though.
No go back and read my answers several times. Guard not only provide cheap CP they provide an additional 5-6 per game depending on the game length making the most efficient CP generation. Also for their job of CP and holding backfield objectives they offer the most wounds to pass off making them the perfect souped unit. Also in the vast majority of lists, we see either 3 for battalion or 6 for the brigade that is more popular post big FAQ.
"Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though" look you got it armies are balanced more than unit A v unit B. This is complicated even more over soup. You cannot simply give every unit in the game matching stats and points or soon we will be playing chess. Armies are supposed to be different and have different strengths and weaknesses and balance out as a whole where any army can be competitive.
Except that is the whole point of points, they should be the measure of effectiveness.
The idea that codex's can have better troops or worse troops for the points is a logical fallacy.
Point for points units need to balance out or a faction will always have an advantage.
This idea you have that infantry squads can be undercosted, because it's balanced out by overcosted guard elites or such falls appart because elites arn't mandatory.
Troopa unfortunately with the current CP rules are effectively mandatory.
No if points for points every unit is equal at everything we are playing one boring game that im not interested with and it will be completely void of lore
Tau should not be as point efficient as Khorne demons ate melle
DE should not be point for point as resilient DG all these armies should be able to have a close fair game against one another leveraging their strength against each other though
Once again your missing the point, and using misdirection to avoid admitting that Guard are a problem.
Just becuase a unit has strengths and weaknesses that are different. That doesn't mean their performance per point can't be the same.
As you say Tau shouldn't out perform Bloodletters in CC, but what they shoulde be able to do is shoot them enough that they don't just get close combated into chunks.
The issue is guardsmen not only outshoot firewarriors, they also out CC firewarriors and give up less points to attacks.
Units need to have a balance of strengths and weaknesses that are appropriately costed, guardsmen break this balance.
Right here though you purposely leave out too major strengths for fire warriors
longer range
higher damage output against tougher targets Once again all these slight variations in mathhammer are fundamentally flawed because they leave out the entirity of the rest of the game. This is shown by guard infantry not being spammed in game despite them being so amazing at shooting T3 targets 12 inches away from them. If we start balancing using this kind of mathammer the game will become either
A. fundementally unbalance (because your not costing the army correctly based around all of its tools)
B. fundementally unfun (as we start playing the same units simply with different cosmetic skins)
Firewarriors only outdamage against T7,T8 tanks untill orders are applied the moment FRFSRF is applied guard laserpointers are more efficent.
Also firewarriors can't add heavy weapons or assualt weapons they have 1 weapon period.
They also loose in CC to guard, loose direct shoot outs with guard, loose objectives and most insulting even a Y'varha can't keep up with Move move move guardsmen.
Your using some very odd maths here which is also false
9 Guardsmen only kill 1.13 guardsmen in cover outside rapid fire with no buffs or 4.5 points of guardsmen not even close to the 6 points you claim
9 marines only kill 2 guardsmen in cover so 8 points not the 10.6 you claimed
Thats 117 points of marines to kill 8 points of guard in cover GG GW GG
5 rangers 60 points
Kill 1.1 guardsmen in cover plus .56 MW for a combined 1.66 wounds or 6.64 points of guardsmen
So for the cost of 15 guardsmen rangers can do less damage against guardsmen in cover than 15 guardsmen with no buffs.
14 lasguns kikk 1.75 guardsmen in cover for 7 points.
More damage and more durable YES they are.
I think you've misunderstood. I was arguing the Guardsmen are superior. They give up the same amount of points to shooting from BS4+ AP- weapons in the open to Eldar rangers in cover. Kanluwen seemed to believe otherwise and said the maths was wrong. It isn't.
Guardsmen combine the best shooting, assault, defensive stats, footprint, movement and close to the cheapest CPs in the troops slot. Do you want them to take out Knights or cheap mech walls? No. Thats however the only meaningful weakness and to my knowledge no troops unit is good at that task.
Your using some very odd maths here which is also false
9 Guardsmen only kill 1.13 guardsmen in cover outside rapid fire with no buffs or 4.5 points of guardsmen not even close to the 6 points you claim
9 marines only kill 2 guardsmen in cover so 8 points not the 10.6 you claimed
Thats 117 points of marines to kill 8 points of guard in cover GG GW GG
5 rangers 60 points
Kill 1.1 guardsmen in cover plus .56 MW for a combined 1.66 wounds or 6.64 points of guardsmen
So for the cost of 15 guardsmen rangers can do less damage against guardsmen in cover than 15 guardsmen with no buffs.
14 lasguns kikk 1.75 guardsmen in cover for 7 points.
More damage and more durable YES they are.
I think you've misunderstood. I was arguing the Guardsmen are superior. They give up the same amount of points to shooting from BS4+ AP- weapons in the open to Eldar rangers in cover. Kanluwen seemed to believe otherwise and said the maths was wrong. It isn't.
Guardsmen combine the best shooting, assault, defensive stats, footprint, movement and close to the cheapest CPs in the troops slot. Do you want them to take out Knights or cheap mech walls? No. Thats however the only meaningful weakness and to my knowledge no troops unit is good at that task.
Ah ok
Yeah guardsmen are super busted.
Firewarriors are quite good at shooting knights, just not as good at as guard with orders.
I've answered your question 1,2,3 several times now and explained why you are looking at this in far to narrow of a vacuum and have now posted evidence of the first post FAQ data we have where CSM have outperformed IG as a whole yet its ignored. Tau also outperformed IG and was number one but according to you this shouldn't be possible because if we put fire warriors 12 inches away from guardsmen they aren't as points efficient. Real game results and the way we see IG infantry simply don't match up with your very poorly implemented math hammer. Its the equivalent at looking only at a cars quarter mile times when it's about to race in the indie 500
You’ve answered nothing though?
You say Guard are taken because they are cheap CP. My response is that there are cheaper detachments for Imperial soup lists that aren’t taken and Guardsmen are taken above minimum quantities for CP. Your response seems to be ‘no that’s wrong because I say so’. Do you have any counterpoints to that or any of my other points because I can’t see them.
BOLS data on December listings is not as credible as the entire of data we have since the IG codex dropped showing them as persistently one of the better armies. For your one month of ‘counter evidence’ there are countless months showing that you’re completely wrong. It also doesn’t do anything to counter the argument that Guardsmen are too cheap, despite your (yet again) misquoted/attempted straw man argument around Fire Warriors.
Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though.
No go back and read my answers several times. Guard not only provide cheap CP they provide an additional 5-6 per game depending on the game length making the most efficient CP generation. Also for their job of CP and holding backfield objectives they offer the most wounds to pass off making them the perfect souped unit. Also in the vast majority of lists, we see either 3 for battalion or 6 for the brigade that is more popular post big FAQ.
"Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though" look you got it armies are balanced more than unit A v unit B. This is complicated even more over soup. You cannot simply give every unit in the game matching stats and points or soon we will be playing chess. Armies are supposed to be different and have different strengths and weaknesses and balance out as a whole where any army can be competitive.
Except that is the whole point of points, they should be the measure of effectiveness.
The idea that codex's can have better troops or worse troops for the points is a logical fallacy.
Point for points units need to balance out or a faction will always have an advantage.
This idea you have that infantry squads can be undercosted, because it's balanced out by overcosted guard elites or such falls appart because elites arn't mandatory.
Troopa unfortunately with the current CP rules are effectively mandatory.
No if points for points every unit is equal at everything we are playing one boring game that im not interested with and it will be completely void of lore
Tau should not be as point efficient as Khorne demons ate melle
DE should not be point for point as resilient DG all these armies should be able to have a close fair game against one another leveraging their strength against each other though
Once again your missing the point, and using misdirection to avoid admitting that Guard are a problem.
Just becuase a unit has strengths and weaknesses that are different. That doesn't mean their performance per point can't be the same.
As you say Tau shouldn't out perform Bloodletters in CC, but what they shoulde be able to do is shoot them enough that they don't just get close combated into chunks.
The issue is guardsmen not only outshoot firewarriors, they also out CC firewarriors and give up less points to attacks.
Units need to have a balance of strengths and weaknesses that are appropriately costed, guardsmen break this balance.
Right here though you purposely leave out too major strengths for fire warriors
longer range
higher damage output against tougher targets Once again all these slight variations in mathhammer are fundamentally flawed because they leave out the entirity of the rest of the game. This is shown by guard infantry not being spammed in game despite them being so amazing at shooting T3 targets 12 inches away from them. If we start balancing using this kind of mathammer the game will become either
A. fundementally unbalance (because your not costing the army correctly based around all of its tools)
B. fundementally unfun (as we start playing the same units simply with different cosmetic skins)
Firewarriors only outdamage against T7,T8 tanks untill orders are applied the moment FRFSRF is applied guard laserpointers are more efficent.
Also firewarriors can't add heavy weapons or assualt weapons they have 1 weapon period.
They also loose in CC to guard, loose direct shoot outs with guard, loose objectives and most insulting even a Y'varha can't keep up with Move move move guardsmen.
See this jumps the shark though. See how its "just T7 T8 until order" thats the point im trying to get across. You can all of a sudden add an outside source (which is legitimate and should be what we do) the next logical step is to add marker lights... then strategems.... then support units and on and on and on. The game cannot and should not be balanced by sitting 2 units 12 inches away from each other and measuring out the average amount of wounds there are tens of thousands of different permutations that come into play. I'm not saying math hammer is useless btw I think its a good starting point to get you in the ballpark of what you are looking for. But it alone will not properly measure an army. My arguments about limiting CP are because i feel it makes balance beyond hard to find as units like guardsmen gain an almost intangible advantage. Their ability to generate and give CP/ wounds to other armies is just too great and cannot be fixed by points alone. You continue to hurt mono guard by not really hurting soup right up until they switch to the next best thing. This type of balancing would also make soup more necessary to stay competitive. So soup needs a rework and then we need to go look at armies/ combos over preforming. I also think we need to wait just a little while for the effects of CA to come to light before we immediatly start whacking stuff.
Asmodios, people are frustrated with you because you keep saying things that provably are not true. You claim guardsmen have weaknesses in areas where in reality they don't, and there's math to prove it.
I think you've misunderstood. I was arguing the Guardsmen are superior. They give up the same amount of points to shooting from BS4+ AP- weapons in the open to Eldar rangers in cover. Kanluwen seemed to believe otherwise and said the maths was wrong. It isn't.
I said the math is wrong because you're undervaluing the ability to modify a hit roll. But since you want to keep pretending that the cover save is the only benefit Rangers have over Guardsmen? Cool deal.
Crimson wrote: Asmodios, people are frustrated with you because you keep saying things that provably are not true. You claim guardsmen have weaknesses in areas where in reality they don't, and there's math to prove it.
You at the same time are claiming that guard have no weaknesses. Logically if this is true we should see spammed army of guardsmen as they have no weaknesses and are mathematically superior to everything.
Once again you are also looking at all these units is far to small of a bubble that leaves out the vast majority of how the game plays. If you believe that that simple math is enough to balance units around then multiple game systems would be producing games with as many factions and near perfect balance. People getting frustrated is fine and if you honestly believe that that math fully encompasses game and unit balance I can understand.
Also when saying that im saying things that aren't "provable" I assume you're saying that what im discussing is too complicated to quantify and to that, I agree on that's why more emphasis needs to be put into tournament results (like gw is doing). It allows you to see not only which units are over performing but if they are doing it on their own (16 hellhound lists) or if they are part of a larger problem (guardsmen overperforming entirely in soup)
Crimson wrote: Asmodios, people are frustrated with you because you keep saying things that provably are not true. You claim guardsmen have weaknesses in areas where in reality they don't, and there's math to prove it.
Lasguns have 24” range. Firewarrior rifles have 30” range. Fact. Guardsmen are weaker in regards to range.
He is talking about tangible bits like this. You are a frustration for others as you can not seem to comprehend and add this to the balancing pool.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Its not just Infantry that need adjusting by the way. Castellans not going up in CA was incredible. As was Skit Rangers going down. Obviously soup brings its own set of problems that need to be addressed too. But they are all different discussions.
Not if the timeline that has been mentioned is accurate - if they started work on CA before the release of the IK book, then presumably it wasn't in scope for balance changes, outside of universal repricing of some weapons. This would also apply to the Space Wolves and Orks, at a minimum (as well as the factions from Rogue Trader and characters from Blackstone Fortress, I guess).
Crimson wrote: Asmodios, people are frustrated with you because you keep saying things that provably are not true. You claim guardsmen have weaknesses in areas where in reality they don't, and there's math to prove it.
Lasguns have 24” range. Firewarrior rifles have 30” range. Fact. Guardsmen are weaker in regards to range.
He is talking about tangible bits like this. You are a frustration for others as you can not seem to comprehend and add this to the balancing pool.
Yeah and do you know what the movement of a guardsmen is?
Oh It's 6 inches so while the firewarriors might get first shot, LoS permitting, the guardsmen can walk forward and FRFSRF the firewarriors in return.
They firewarriors can't make it to with 15 inches to actually reply with rapid fire shooting so they either trade at 24 to 30 inches repeatedly or try and move closer and loose when the guardsmen make it to 12 inches.
That 6 inches gets one round of long range shooting, which doesn't reduce the guard fire power enough to tip the scales
And GW head people's pleas and sayd " Here take this new chapter tactic for your horde problems! Merry Christmas Hohoho!"
A crimson fist veteran squad for 80 points (and 1 CP) shreds 40 points of guards, a 50% return! At the same time it kills only 33 points in MEQ, the first true anti horde solution!
This is at range 12" you say? This is not good you say? But GW also covered this! Take your aggressors and have the same returns from 27,5" away! 5 Crimson fist aggressors, WHILE ADVANCING, kill 23 guards per turn, not bad for a 185 point unit! Spread the casualties carefully and you get the chance to almost blow away a loyal 32 in a single shooting action from them!
But there is more, did you fear that taking aggressors only to tackle hordes wasn't good enough in a list? No problem! They were also given a stratagem to allow them to shred a demon primarch or a Flyrant coming at you! Those 5 aggressors at 18" range outright kill a flyrant, or put 12 wounds on a magnus.
Really, Crimsons fists is now where competitve marines should look, the bolter drill stratagem combined with hit bonuses against characters and hordes gives them so many scary combinations...
Spoletta wrote: And GW head people's pleas and sayd " Here take this new chapter tactic for your horde problems! Merry Christmas Hohoho!"
A crimson fist veteran squad for 80 points (and 1 CP) shreds 40 points of guards, a 50% return! At the same time it kills only 33 points in MEQ, the first true anti horde solution!
This is at range 12" you say? This is not good you say? But GW also covered this! Take your aggressors and have the same returns from 27,5" away! 5 Crimson fist aggressors, WHILE ADVANCING, kill 23 guards per turn, not bad for a 185 point unit! Spread the casualties carefully and you get the chance to almost blow away a loyal 32 in a single shooting action from them!
But there is more, did you fear that taking aggressors only to tackle hordes wasn't good enough in a list? No problem! They were also given a stratagem to allow them to shred a demon primarch or a Flyrant coming at you! Those 5 aggressors at 18" range outright kill a flyrant, or put 12 wounds on a magnus.
Really, Crimsons fists is now where competitve marines should look, the bolter drill stratagem combined with hit bonuses against characters and hordes gives them so many scary combinations...
Well, bottom line still is marine codex has mostly joke chapter rules, which GW refuses to fix and instead they make one pay more for the new and improved one.
Spoletta wrote: And GW head people's pleas and sayd " Here take this new chapter tactic for your horde problems! Merry Christmas Hohoho!"
A crimson fist veteran squad for 80 points (and 1 CP) shreds 40 points of guards, a 50% return! At the same time it kills only 33 points in MEQ, the first true anti horde solution!
This is at range 12" you say? This is not good you say? But GW also covered this! Take your aggressors and have the same returns from 27,5" away! 5 Crimson fist aggressors, WHILE ADVANCING, kill 23 guards per turn, not bad for a 185 point unit! Spread the casualties carefully and you get the chance to almost blow away a loyal 32 in a single shooting action from them!
But there is more, did you fear that taking aggressors only to tackle hordes wasn't good enough in a list? No problem! They were also given a stratagem to allow them to shred a demon primarch or a Flyrant coming at you! Those 5 aggressors at 18" range outright kill a flyrant, or put 12 wounds on a magnus.
Really, Crimsons fists is now where competitve marines should look, the bolter drill stratagem combined with hit bonuses against characters and hordes gives them so many scary combinations...
Well, bottom line still is marine codex has mostly joke chapter rules, which GW refuses to fix and instead they make one pay more for the new and improved one.
Those rules are on the white dwarf, and i wouldn't say that the rule itself is better. +1 to hit against units with double your models is not more powerful than ravenguard or salamander, but it covers a big hole of the marine lists.
Spoletta wrote: And GW head people's pleas and sayd " Here take this new chapter tactic for your horde problems! Merry Christmas Hohoho!"
A crimson fist veteran squad for 80 points (and 1 CP) shreds 40 points of guards, a 50% return! At the same time it kills only 33 points in MEQ, the first true anti horde solution!
This is at range 12" you say? This is not good you say? But GW also covered this! Take your aggressors and have the same returns from 27,5" away! 5 Crimson fist aggressors, WHILE ADVANCING, kill 23 guards per turn, not bad for a 185 point unit! Spread the casualties carefully and you get the chance to almost blow away a loyal 32 in a single shooting action from them!
But there is more, did you fear that taking aggressors only to tackle hordes wasn't good enough in a list? No problem! They were also given a stratagem to allow them to shred a demon primarch or a Flyrant coming at you! Those 5 aggressors at 18" range outright kill a flyrant, or put 12 wounds on a magnus.
Really, Crimsons fists is now where competitve marines should look, the bolter drill stratagem combined with hit bonuses against characters and hordes gives them so many scary combinations...
I think its good GW are trying to make Marines better - although putting key faction abilities in specific chapter tactics (whether the tactic itself or stratagems etc) feels bad to me.
With that said - your 80 point veteran squad using a CP generates a 50% return in 12 inches.
A basic 40 point guard squad with FRFSRF gets (37*1/2*1/3*1/3=2.0555. *16=32.888 points, = 82.22% return against your veterans in 12 inches. Even if we include 15 points per order (because apparently guard alone should pay no HQ stat tax) you get 59.8% return. This isn't meant to be sarcastic or cutting, but just to show again the lethal ability of guardsmen. (Running the numbers versus Aggressors is pretty ugly too, even if a guard squad only kills a single aggressor on average.)
Aggressors were good on paper before - and even better with these abilities. There remains however the meta problem that a lot of competitive stuff in game unintentionally hard-counters aggressors, and CA hasn't obviously changed this. (Thinking Riptides, Ravagers etc).
Spoletta wrote: Those rules are on the white dwarf, and i wouldn't say that the rule itself is better. +1 to hit against units with double your models is not more powerful than ravenguard or salamander, but it covers a big hole of the marine lists.
Sorry, sarcasm is difficult to account for in written text, although admittedly you were pretty clear with that.
I'm still inherently opposed and alienated by GW approach of fixing problems, which in this case is the introduction of new chapter rules instead of fixing and extending the older ones. The Crimsom fists are provided far more flexibility than codex chapters.
Vaktathi wrote: The SWS's should benefit from Orders as they're Infantry units with the <Regiment> Keyword, unless I've been missing something
Fewer models to benefit. Fewer weapons that benefit. Less chance to be alive.
SWS would be more attractive if they were a full 10 man squad that allowed you to take 3 specials, and no heavy weapons IMO. I know that clashes with the veteran squad, but we all know vets should be troops anyway.
SWS would be more attractive if they were a full 10 man squad that allowed you to take 3 specials, and no heavy weapons IMO. I know that clashes with the veteran squad, but we all know vets should be troops anyway.
You could just combine SWSs and Veterans into one unit. It is actually a bit weird how the Veterans have better BS, that's not how other armies work. IG Conscript: BS 5+ IG Grunt: BS 4+ IG Veteran: BS3+; Marine Scout: BS 3+, Standard Marine: BS 3+, Marine Veteran: BS 3+...
Crimson wrote: Asmodios, people are frustrated with you because you keep saying things that provably are not true. You claim guardsmen have weaknesses in areas where in reality they don't, and there's math to prove it.
Lasguns have 24” range. Firewarrior rifles have 30” range. Fact. Guardsmen are weaker in regards to range.
He is talking about tangible bits like this. You are a frustration for others as you can not seem to comprehend and add this to the balancing pool.
And guard get nearly twice the wounds and shots for the same cost.
Any advantage one unit can have over another can easily be washed away by cost.
30" range? Awesome. S5? Awesome. Double tap at 15"? Awesome. Those are benefits for Tau commensurate with their cost. 39 points for an extra shot with Fireblades, that's good, too, right?
The thing is I could take Vostroyans and have 30" range. And the "Fireblade" doubles the shots at long AND short range. Or I could double tap at 18" with Armageddon. Hell, I could mob up two Vostroyan unts and get them +1 to hit pretty easily.
Ok, but no one takes those, which has a lot to do with how good the Catachan synergies are and the availability of models. In any case Cadians are getting reroll 1s without the need for markerlights. The range benefit of Tau is mitigated by simply moving, which can be done much faster with MMM...and with much less concern, because Catachans fight far better.
And again, all with nearly twice the wounds and shots.
Now I can't say with 100% certainty what IS should cost, but I'm relatively confident that they're under cost at least a bit.
SWS would be more attractive if they were a full 10 man squad that allowed you to take 3 specials, and no heavy weapons IMO. I know that clashes with the veteran squad, but we all know vets should be troops anyway.
You could just combine SWSs and Veterans into one unit. It is actually a bit weird how the Veterans have better BS, that's not how other armies work. IG Conscript: BS 5+ IG Grunt: BS 4+ IG Veteran: BS3+; Marine Scout: BS 3+, Standard Marine: BS 3+, Marine Veteran: BS 3+...
Honestly? If it were me...SWS would be dropped entirely and replaced by:
-Sniper Squad: a 6 model unit, breaks into 3 'teams' of a sniper with sniper rifle and spotter with lasgun that have to deploy within 1" of each other then get to operate independently. Snipers get to reroll failed hit and wound rolls when shooting with their sniper rifles if the target is also visible to their 'spotter'. I'd make them get Camo Cloaks or the same "Naturally Stealthy" rule as Rein and Raus(=2 to saving throws instead of 1 in cover).
-Arcaeotech Squad: 6 model unit breaking into 3 teams of a Meltagunner/Plasma Gunner and a model carrying a Demo Charge/Krak Grenades+Lasgun. No independent operation for the constituting models, just acting normal beyond splitting into 3 teams.
-Suppression Squad: 6 model unit breaking into 3 teams of a Flamer/Grenade Launcher/Heavy Stubber and a model carrying a Lasgun and Stun Grenades(lower enemy Movement value, -1 to hit). Act normal otherwise.
Give all of the lasgunners the ability to take a Vox as well and it creates an interesting little setup without being too crazy.
And guard get nearly twice the wounds and shots for the same cost.
And Tau get Drones that can eat wounds or Ethereals can pop Sense of Stone to grant a 6" bubble of 6+ Invuln.
Any advantage one unit can have over another can easily be washed away by cost.
30" range? Awesome. S5? Awesome. Double tap at 15"? Awesome. Those are benefits for Tau commensurate with their cost. 39 points for an extra shot with Fireblades, that's good, too, right?
The thing is I could take Vostroyans and have 30" range. And the "Fireblade" doubles the shots at long AND short range. Or I could double tap at 18" with Armageddon. Those Vostroyans. Hell, I could mob up two Vostroyan unts and get them +1 to hit pretty easily.
And I can take Bor'kan Sept for an extra 6" range on Rapid Fire and Heavy weapons to make Fire Warriors double tap at 18", with an additional shot via the Fireblade at that point.
Or for real hilarity? Take a Pathfinder Squad with a Pulse Accelerator Drone for a 42" range Pulse Rifle, double-tapping at 21".
Ok, but no one takes those, which has a lot to do with how good the Catachan synergies are and the availability of models. In any case Cadians are getting reroll 1s without the need for markerlights. The range benefit of Tau is mitigated by simply moving, which can be done much faster with MMM...and with much less concern, because Catachans fight far better.
Cadians are getting reroll 1s for remaining stationary.
Ethereals grant it via "Storm of Fire" and that extends to all Infantry and Battlesuit units within 6" of them, no matter the Sept.
Also, if you MMM you can't Charge so Catachans "fighting far better" doesn't mean a whole lot unless you're trying to say they'll absorb a Charge from a dedicated CC unit better.
And again, all with nearly twice the wounds and shots.
Is this factoring in drone screens or naaaaaaaaaah?
Oh the idea that someone is going to use a 10 point drone to improve the survivability of a 7 point firewarrior?
We have a new level of strawman logic there.
Kanluwen I have to as are you just violently opposed to fairly costed guardsmen or are you actually believing the insanity your posting?
Ice_can wrote: Oh the idea that someone is going to use a 10 point drone to improve the survivability of a 7 point firewarrior?
We have a new level of strawman logic there.
Kanluwen I have to as are you just violently opposed to fairly costed guardsmen or are you actually believing the insanity your posting?
More just calling everything a strawman. We are bringing up potential modifiers that people are not accounting for. Only bring up the drones. Good grief. What about the sept that adds range. I do so recall someone bringing up Vostroyans. Why can't we bring up all the potential modifiers on each side and stop pretending that every fight happens in the most optimal conditions?
An infantry squad might move up into a Fire Warrior squad's range and not move move move, as they are doing something else. They get shot for a turn. That is going to impact a scenario incredibly.
Ice_can wrote: Oh the idea that someone is going to use a 10 point drone to improve the survivability of a 7 point firewarrior?
We have a new level of strawman logic there.
Kanluwen I have to as are you just violently opposed to fairly costed guardsmen or are you actually believing the insanity your posting?
More just calling everything a strawman. We are bringing up potential modifiers that people are not accounting for. Only bring up the drones. Good grief. What about the sept that adds range. I do so recall someone bringing up Vostroyans. Why can't we bring up all the potential modifiers on each side and stop pretending that every fight happens in the most optimal conditions?
An infantry squad might move up into a Fire Warrior squad's range and not move move move, as they are doing something else. They get shot for a turn. That is going to impact a scenario incredibly.
Firewarriors are a great troop choice, I don't deny that.
I actually play the army though and Kanluwen clearly hasn't even read their codex to understand that drones are not some magical answer, they are seperate units not charictors so die like flies.
Also a pulse accelerator drone has to be bought with a pathfinder unit.
Pathfinders are too expensive and die turn 1 every game, hence your adding a tax to a tax unit, that can be easily killed. Hence why they arn't usually taken.
Also in my maths I gave you the numbers for firewarriors buffed by a cadre fireblade and they were still beaten by lasguns with FRFSRF.
Also firewarriors
Can't move upto 24 inches in a turn
Can't benifit from a cadre outside half range.
Can't shoot after falling back
Can't double fight in the fightphase
The one thing they should be able to do is outshoot guardsmen and they can't do that, because of your undercosted units.
You infantry squad by virtue of being with 30 inches to get shot by the firewarriors are within 6 inches of moving within 24 inches.
The mental gymnastics your using to defend 4ppm is astonishing.
Ice_can wrote: Oh the idea that someone is going to use a 10 point drone to improve the survivability of a 7 point firewarrior?
We have a new level of strawman logic there.
Kanluwen I have to as are you just violently opposed to fairly costed guardsmen or are you actually believing the insanity your posting?
More just calling everything a strawman. We are bringing up potential modifiers that people are not accounting for. Only bring up the drones. Good grief. What about the sept that adds range. I do so recall someone bringing up Vostroyans. Why can't we bring up all the potential modifiers on each side and stop pretending that every fight happens in the most optimal conditions?
An infantry squad might move up into a Fire Warrior squad's range and not move move move, as they are doing something else. They get shot for a turn. That is going to impact a scenario incredibly.
Firewarriors are a great troop choice, I don't deny that.
I actually play the army though and Kanluwen clearly hasn't even read their codex to understand that drones are not some magical answer, they are seperate units not charictors so die like flies.
Also a pulse accelerator drone has to be bought with a pathfinder unit.
Pathfinders are too expensive and die turn 1 every game, hence your adding a tax to a tax unit, that can be easily killed. Hence why they arn't usually taken.
Also in my maths I gave you the numbers for firewarriors buffed by a cadre fireblade and they were still beaten by lasguns with FRFSRF.
Also firewarriors
Can't move upto 24 inches in a turn
Can't benifit from a cadre outside half range.
Can't shoot after falling back
Can't double fight in the fightphase
The one thing they should be able to do is outshoot guardsmen and they can't do that, because of your undercosted units.
You infantry squad by virtue of being with 30 inches to get shot by the firewarriors are within 6 inches of moving within 24 inches.
The mental gymnastics your using to defend 4ppm is astonishing.
Ah, you didn’t read very well. They are within the fire warriors’ range because they moved there, for whatever reason, giving the fire warriors an unfettered round of shooting.
I’m not defending 4ppm, I’m defending the idea that units should not be compared based on the most optimal conditions.
You are angry about Fire Warriors not being able to fight twice after consuming an order resource? As if fire warriors want to be fighting. If these guardsmen get into charge range, can’t those fire warriors benefit from For the Greater Good?
As well as they have photon grenades?
There is so much more that needs to be taken into account than getting units into their most optimal ranges, and not doing this makes a flawed deduction.
Firewarriors are a great troop choice, I don't deny that. I actually play the army though and Kanluwen clearly hasn't even read their codex to understand that drones are not some magical answer, they are seperate units not charictors so die like flies.
They're "separate units" that dependent upon the type of Drone grant either: a) An aura of a 6+ Invulnerable Save for the Strike Team or a 5+ Invulnerable Save for the Breacher Teams.(Guardian Drones) b) A 4+ Invulnerable Save that, when they suffer a Wound then get to roll an additional dice to potentially ignore the Wound.(Shield Drones)
There's also Gun Drones which aren't the cheapest but do bring the whole Savior Protocols thing into play.
It's cute that you assume I haven't read their codex though(let alone that I don't actually play them)!
Also a pulse accelerator drone has to be bought with a pathfinder unit.
I literally stated that. You missed it while trying to justify your interpretation of my statement as "DRONES FIX EVERYTHING"(which wasn't the point: I noticed you ignored the whole bit about Bor'kan and Ethereals. Coolcoolcool!)
Pathfinders are too expensive and die turn 1 every game, hence your adding a tax to a tax unit, that can be easily killed. Hence why they arn't usually taken.
Er no. Pathfinders "aren't usually taken" because Markerlight Drones are cheaper and can bolstered in a cheaper fashion by the Drone Controller wargear. Pathfinders also, for whatever silly reason, are far outshone by the Firesight Marksman who is a BS3+ Markerlight who gets to be a 2+ save when in Cover thanks to his Stealth Field--and can grant a bit of additional BS to a unit of Sniper Drones that are Rapid Fire 48".
I'd also like to point out that Pathfinders do bring a bit of utility vs the (apparently terrifying) Catachan "charges" thanks to also being able to bring a Grav-Inhibitor Drone that you can park out of LOS which removes D3" of Charge Movement if they try to start a charge within 12" of the Drone(no LOS required!).
Also in my maths I gave you the numbers for firewarriors buffed by a cadre fireblade and they were still beaten by lasguns with FRFSRF.
That's nice. You also immediately then tried to downplay it as the Guardsmen are somehow able to constantly fly across the board and ignore being shot at outside of their effective range.
Also firewarriors Can't move upto 24 inches in a turn
"Up to". That's the important part to note. Your amazing, flying Guardsmen require the rolls for your initial Advance and then the follow-up Move, Move, Move attempt.
Can't benifit from a cadre outside half range.
Shame you can't modify what "half range" is, eh?
Oh right...you can! Pulse Accelerator Drones are a thing. Just because Pathfinders aren't amazing does not mean that options do not exist.
Can't shoot after falling back
Darkstrider says "Sup".
I mean, you do know that he's a fairly cheap BS2+ HQ that grants the ability for T'au Sept Infantry units within 6" of him to fire normally even if they Fell Back right? And as a bonus, he gets to pick an enemy unit visible to him and a grant +1 to Wound rolls for a friendly T'au Sept Infantry unit within 6" of him.
Can't double fight in the fightphase
Neither can Guard. Fix Bayonets is you make a CC attack during the Shooting Phase while you're already within 1" of an enemy unit, meaning you did not Fall Back with that unit.
The one thing they should be able to do is outshoot guardsmen and they can't do that, because of your undercosted units.
What's the qualifier for "outshooting"? Number of shots being landed? Number of shots thrown downrange? Because it's worth repeating: 10 shots at 30" is only doable by Vostroyans. That's a whole 10 shots that the Guard aren't landing, period, unless they take a weapon team or special weapon with range.
You infantry squad by virtue of being with 30 inches to get shot by the firewarriors are within 6 inches of moving within 24 inches.
Yeah, cool? We get it--you can move 6 inches and be in (unmodified, basic) Lasgun range where you can be pretend Rapid Firing...but also making it so that any potential HWT within is now at a -1 to hit.
Maybe you'd be better served by starting to add a Smart Missile System Turret to your FW squads to add a bit more shootery to the squad.
The mental gymnastics your using to defend 4ppm is astonishing.
And the mental gymnastics used to constantly downplay what Tau can potentially do to extend the range gap is quite impressive as well.
GG