i dislike cheese greatly. I like to play games where tactics count for more than printing off the newest goofy netlist. Looking at the usual BS tourney players come up with, it's always the same formula, spam cheap unit x, plop 100 models on table and go, "you can't kill that many, I win, good game." Boring. But the current fix seems to be increasing point cost on fodder units, which then makes them lose their place as fodder, or simply be replaced by the next cheapest unit in the meta.
Instead of that, there's a real simple way to fix the broken nature of spammy cheese lists and get that BS out of the game while still having a place for fodder. Just create a new unit type, so in addition to hq, elite, troops, etc, make one called auxiliary or something that all fodder troops are in, conscripts, pox walkers, brimstone, cultists, scouts, ripper swarms, etc. And add the rule that only 1 auxiliary unit can be taken per 2 regular troop choices.
Then those units would have their rightful place in armies and we'd maybe start seeing actual armies as lists instead of boring cheese. You could then also make things like conscripts 2 points, cheap trash as they're meant to be, but also not capable of being the bulk of your army as they shouldn't be. Cheap units wouldn't break the game anymore and player s would *gasp* maybe have to play a game instead of just play list-printer 40k.

I like the idea, almost every faction has it too.

You are aware that Infantry Squads are troops, are the same price as Conscripts, are only 1 PPM more expensive than what Conscripts used to be, and are far better?

You are also aware that G-Man with Razorback and Devastator spam uses no chaff, or only minimal amounts?

Finally, you are aware that this would in no way stop all cheese, it would just make a new meta?

As JNAProductions said, and most of this "solutions" shown, with this you don't "destroy" the cheese, you just make it have a different form.

The meta will always exist. If you don't fix the balance problems unit by unit, it doesn't matter what type of arbitrary and superficial limitations you put on top.

the issue her would be that in the rock paper sissors lizard spock game that is warhammer 40k some armies can defeat a horde while some cannot. meanwhile some armies can only work as a horde (like orks) and any nerf to the ability to take a horde would in essence hurt already suffering armies. additionally several of your listed units are really not hard for most armies to deal with they just require taking less tank killing and more mass shots. for space marines mixing some heavy bolters in units and assault cannons on vehicles instead of lascannons everywhere works. though admittedly those heavy bolters will be useless in a fight against imperial knight house lists. That is why I like power level where both players know what they will play before putting equipment on usually the people who will want this kind of game were not likely to bring cheese anyway though to be honest). I would have preferred GW in making 8th to make all weapons on a unit the same cost in a category and just rebalance them. Example a lascannon retains current profile, same with missile launcher, but make the heavy bolter spew out enough shots to equal the points of both (likely 5-6 shots, or inversely keep heavy 3 heavy bolter and bring lascannon and missile down to D3 dmg) then one could decide when dropping the unit what heavy weapon they have issued based on available intelligence, or if they paid for a special weapon what special weapon they have.

The solution is just to have the points costs be appropriate.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
the issue her would be that in the rock paper sissors lizard spock game that is warhammer 40k some armies can defeat a horde while some cannot. meanwhile some armies can only work as a horde (like orks) and any nerf to the ability to take a horde would in essence hurt already suffering armies. additionally several of your listed units are really not hard for most armies to deal with they just require taking less tank killing and more mass shots. for space marines mixing some heavy bolters in units and assault cannons on vehicles instead of lascannons everywhere works. though admittedly those heavy bolters will be useless in a fight against imperial knight house lists. That is why I like power level where both players know what they will play before putting equipment on usually the people who will want this kind of game were not likely to bring cheese anyway though to be honest). I would have preferred GW in making 8th to make all weapons on a unit the same cost in a category and just rebalance them. Example a lascannon retains current profile, same with missile launcher, but make the heavy bolter spew out enough shots to equal the points of both (likely 5-6 shots, or inversely keep heavy 3 heavy bolter and bring lascannon and missile down to D3 dmg) then one could decide when dropping the unit what heavy weapon they have issued based on available intelligence, or if they paid for a special weapon what special weapon they have.

I wouldn't see ork boys as being designated auxiliary units, they're the core of an ork army. I didn't mean every cheap unit, I meant every unit that should be auxilury to the main force, that shouldn't form the bulk of any army.

Tournament lists primarily seek to overwhelm the wound mechanic in some manner, the screens are there to give them enough time to accomplish that. They aren't winning these games because you can't kill all their scrubs, they're winning because they're pumping out more wounds.

This will not address that issue.

 JNAProductions wrote:
You are aware that Infantry Squads are troops, are the same price as Conscripts, are only 1 PPM more expensive than what Conscripts used to be, and are far better?

You are also aware that G-Man with Razorback and Devastator spam uses no chaff, or only minimal amounts?

Finally, you are aware that this would in no way stop all cheese, it would just make a new meta?

You are aware that the conscripts points were increased which is why they stopped being as spammable, and is exactly the type of scenario my suggestion would have addressed more eliquntly than simply increasing the points and passing the buck to the next cheapest unit fodder?

You are aware I didn't but say this would fix every balance issue in the game and primarchs are a whole different problem right?
You are aware that stating your incorrect points in the form of condescending questions doesn't make you any less wrong aren't you?

If you're going to pretend that spamming whatever today's cheapest unit is isn't one of the biggest issues with balance, you're not going to get a serious reply because that's just laughable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
The solution is just to have the points costs be appropriate.

I disagree that it's all about points. Should conscripts cost the same as guardsman? Of course not, they're worse, but if you make them cheaper then they're too easy to cover an entire table with and win by default.
There's more to balance than point costs, army compesition is a huge piece to balance that I feel is oft ignored but is really where you can balance units away from cheese while still letting them be powerful and useful.

By far the strongest fodder unit in the game is the Imperial Guardsman, which is also the primary troop choice for Guard. What are you going to do about that?

Something similar could be said for Orks. Is it maximum one squad of boyz for every two squads of grots, or is it one squad of grots for every two blobs of boyz? In both cases you are talking about 90 models.

And should both Termagants and Hormagaunts be restricted to one unit per two unit of Genestealers? Really? And then there are chaos: Having to take two minimum squads of CSM for every 40-model blob of cultist is hardly what I would call a fix.

 Galas wrote:
As JNAProductions said, and most of this "solutions" shown, with this you don't "destroy" the cheese, you just make it have a different form.

The meta will always exist. If you don't fix the balance problems unit by unit, it doesn't matter what type of arbitrary and superficial limitations you put on top.

It's not arbitrary to say an army probably wouldn't be composed 90% of fresh recruits. No, your solution of simply increasing point cost gives the result you're saying, simply changing the cheese to the next cheapest fodder or spammable units. My suggestion balance allows for cheap and or highly point deficient units without th m breaking the game.

This will by no means stop cheesing. There are enough cheesy lists without fodder. easiest ex. 3 knights and magnus.
The problem is players. They blaim losing on there list in stead of there game and start looking for more powerfull lists until you arrive in a meta where games take 1-2 turns to know who wins, 3 turns max to complete a wipe. The only thing needed to start the creep is one competitve player that starts pounding everyone and you will see that in no time all lists will become more powerfull. People always find there list still okay. What other people play is cheese.

The game is designed to be "flawed" this way and I am sure that is the way it is meant to be.
If you do not like cheesy play, stay away from tournaments, and play with friends that are on the same wavelength concerning fun games.

The only way to stop min-maxing is making competitive lists balanced to eachother for all players. Players would not be allowed to make there own list.

Ex if you want to play ultramarines, you choose between 3 pre-made lists etc etc.

pismakron wrote:
By far the strongest fodder unit in the game is the Imperial Guardsman, which is also the primary troop choice for Guard. What are you going to do about that?

Something similar could be said for Orks. Is it maximum one squad of boyz for every two squads of grots, or is it one squad of grots for every two blobs of boyz? In both cases you are talking about 90 models.

And should both Termagants and Hormagaunts be restricted to one unit per two unit of Genestealers? Really? And then there are chaos: Having to take two minimum squads of CSM for every 40-model blob of cultist is hardly what I would call a fix.

I wouldn't touch guardsman or ork boys, you seem to be misunderstanding for the sake of exaggeration. You're trying to twist what I said into an over simplistic "cheap units" then stretching that definition to argue against something I didn't say. Which what you consider "cheap" is arbitrary. No, what I mean is fodder units, the things that shouldn't be spammable because as I said, shouldn't form the bulk of an army, such as those things I listed.
An imperial guard army obviously contains a lot of guardsman, an ork army obviously contains a lot of boys, don't be silly. Now a guardsman army shouldn't be 90% conscripts and an ork army shouldn't be 90% grots.

Danny slag wrote:


I disagree that it's all about points. Should conscripts cost the same as guardsman? Of course not, they're worse, but if you make them cheaper then they're too easy to cover an entire table with and win by default.

Well, guardsman should be 5 ppm at the bare minimum. They are the best infantry unit in the game by a pretty big margin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Danny slag wrote:

pismakron wrote:
By far the strongest fodder unit in the game is the Imperial Guardsman, which is also the primary troop choice for Guard. What are you going to do about that?

Something similar could be said for Orks. Is it maximum one squad of boyz for every two squads of grots, or is it one squad of grots for every two blobs of boyz? In both cases you are talking about 90 models.

And should both Termagants and Hormagaunts be restricted to one unit per two unit of Genestealers? Really? And then there are chaos: Having to take two minimum squads of CSM for every 40-model blob of cultist is hardly what I would call a fix.

I wouldn't touch guardsman or ork boys, you seem to be misunderstanding for the sake of exaggeration. You're trying to twist what I said into an over simplistic "cheap units" then stretching that definition to argue against something I didn't say. Which what you consider "cheap" is arbitrary. No, what I mean is fodder units, the things that shouldn't be spammable because as I said, shouldn't form the bulk of an army, such as those things I listed.
An imperial guard army obviously contains a lot of guardsman, an ork army obviously contains a lot of boys, don't be silly. Now a guardsman army shouldn't be 90% conscripts and an ork army shouldn't be 90% grots.

I don't think that there is anything arbitrary about it. Spamming Guardsman may be fluffy, but it is still a problem because Guardsmen are extremely durable and very killy at 4 ppm. So I really don't think your suggestion solves any problem that the game has. No one spams tzaangors or gretchin, because those units are pretty mediocre.

Danny slag wrote:

 Galas wrote:
As JNAProductions said, and most of this "solutions" shown, with this you don't "destroy" the cheese, you just make it have a different form.

The meta will always exist. If you don't fix the balance problems unit by unit, it doesn't matter what type of arbitrary and superficial limitations you put on top.

It's not arbitrary to say an army probably wouldn't be composed 90% of fresh recruits. No, your solution of simply increasing point cost gives the result you're saying, simply changing the cheese to the next cheapest fodder or spammable units. My suggestion balance allows for cheap and or highly point deficient units without th m breaking the game.

The problem with Conscripts is the same problem of Assault Marines vs Vanguard Veterans or Basilisk vs FW Earthshaker artillery. When you have two units that are literally used for the same purpose, one will always be mathematically more efficient.
The solution is to not do that kind of redundant options.

In the case of Conscripts vs Infantry Squads: You want cheap bodies, nothing more, so you take the cheaper body.
In the case of Assault Marines vs Vanguard Veterans, Vanguards are just Assault Marines +1. Sternguard and Tacticals have both their own clear use, but theres isn't that difference with Vanguard ones.
In the case of Basilisk vs Earthshaker, the Earthshaker was basically a Basilisk without useless things you didn't want anyway, so it was cheaper but it had the same offensive power and it was mathematically more efficient.

Lets put it this way. If you could chose between a cheap psyker for 30 points or a more expensive psyker that was literally the same in everything but comes with a Force Sword and Grenades for 50 points... what would to use? The cheap one, obviously, because that equipement is just redundant and it doesn't give the body anything you want anyway.

 G00fySmiley wrote:
the issue her would be that in the rock paper sissors lizard spock game that is warhammer 40k some armies can defeat a horde while some cannot. meanwhile some armies can only work as a horde (like orks) and any nerf to the ability to take a horde would in essence hurt already suffering armies. additionally several of your listed units are really not hard for most armies to deal with they just require taking less tank killing and more mass shots. for space marines mixing some heavy bolters in units and assault cannons on vehicles instead of lascannons everywhere works. though admittedly those heavy bolters will be useless in a fight against imperial knight house lists. That is why I like power level where both players know what they will play before putting equipment on usually the people who will want this kind of game were not likely to bring cheese anyway though to be honest). I would have preferred GW in making 8th to make all weapons on a unit the same cost in a category and just rebalance them. Example a lascannon retains current profile, same with missile launcher, but make the heavy bolter spew out enough shots to equal the points of both (likely 5-6 shots, or inversely keep heavy 3 heavy bolter and bring lascannon and missile down to D3 dmg) then one could decide when dropping the unit what heavy weapon they have issued based on available intelligence, or if they paid for a special weapon what special weapon they have.

You know, I always wondered if having a sideboard of 200-300 points wouldn't change things. MtG has a 15 card sideboard for changing out up to that many cards between games, all to try and ease rock/paper/scizzor matchups.

Of course it would make armies with more options stronger. But I suppose you could try and make it cost command points and have the side tbe static too; if you side for one unit, you have to side for all units in the sideboard. Facing a knight house and only have 1 devastator squads? Swap that veteran squad and some heavy bolter for the melta guns and another dev squad that was your sideboard. Then make it costs 5 command points to access said sideboard (could always adjust this so it costs more for toolbox/brigade armies). Now you have to choose if your odds of winning are worth the costs, meaning you'll only be touching the sideboard in extreme cases like the aforementioned knight house.

Guardsmen are undercosted. They should be 7ppm

The solution for the cheap fodder units should really be the morale issue. Seems like that’s the root issue to me. There’s a mechanic that makes them much easier to deal with, but then GW went way out of their way to ignore it as much as possible.

I'd be okay with this.

However, this won't fix all of the cheese.

Cheap army builds do exist outside of cheap troops.

You guys bother with troops? lol

ERJAK wrote:
You guys bother with troops? lol

In the first edition where troops actually matter because they can finally do what they are supposed to do? Where they actually do it so well that it has become a balance issue?
You bet i'm gonna bother with them!

Danny slag wrote:
Now a guardsman army shouldn't be 90% conscripts and an ork army shouldn't be 90% grots.

So, having 90% of your army be conscripts is a balance problem but having 90% of your army be the same number of superior guardsmen is fine?

Please explain what it is you think this accomplishes. Are you not aware of the CA conscript nerf?

Spoletta wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
You guys bother with troops? lol

In the first edition where troops actually matter because they can finally do what they are supposed to do? Where they actually do it so well that it has become a balance issue?
You bet i'm gonna bother with them!

I think ERJAK's point is that not all armies give a hoot about their troops units (like Sisters) or don't need to spam the same one over and over because they have a good spread of worthwhile choices like Eldar. Not all armies troop choices are the same.

To the OP. Sounds like you just want to put a 0 - ? limit on specific units just on the bottom end of the quality scale vs those on the top.

Danny slag wrote:

I disagree that it's all about points. Should conscripts cost the same as guardsman? Of course not, they're worse, but if you make them cheaper then they're too easy to cover an entire table with and win by default.
There's more to balance than point costs, army compesition is a huge piece to balance that I feel is oft ignored but is really where you can balance units away from cheese while still letting them be powerful and useful.

It's always a matter of points. Conscripts are not very good for their abilities, they're very good because they can screen a lot of cheap and effective shooty stuff. Make the AM firepower cost properly and conscripts/guardsmen won't be broken anymore. Screeners don't ruin the game, the units that are screened by the most effective ones do.

If AM loses much of their firepower than players would be forced to cut some screeners and bring other stuff to compensate. Honestly guardsmen and conscripts are decently balanced, solid troop choices but not that better compared to average troops. It's what they screen that makes AM overpowered and their screeners so valuable.

The only way to really fix the game is to tailor both lists in order to have a fair match. Otherwise you may have a balanced match or not, 40k is too unbalanced (and always will be) to create a formula that works most of the times.

The points should simply be adjusted, and outside of very rare circumstances, a fodder group should have poor leadership and suffer for it.

GW, as it very nearly always does, needs its rules writers to be far better at game balance, understanding their own rules and how they will interact with other armies. There are plenty of solutions, but the reality is that they should get the rules closer to correct in the first instance.

Under no circumstances (outside of a spelling or wording error) should two random guys on the internet get an advanced copy of the Codex, read it, and find glaring issues while reviewing it. If two normal players pick up on something that immediately (and it's often picked up immediately on the forums and other video channels) then it's something that should never have made it to print in the first place. The technical and game editing is really poor in some instances.

Across various codices there are just too many instances of "this model is heaps better...and costs 2 points more than the other one", etc. That shouldn't be the case at all, but remains a common theme. I think it's less egregious than previous editions, but it's still present.

can we take a moment to clarify why the OP thinks grots are a balance issue?

T2, 3 points, no save? Those grots?

 JNAProductions wrote:
You are aware that Infantry Squads are troops, are the same price as Conscripts, are only 1 PPM more expensive than what Conscripts used to be, and are far better?

This is entirely incorrect.

There was never a time before Conscripts and Commissars getting nerfed into the ground that someone said "Hey I think I'm going to take an Infantry Squad instead!".

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You are aware that Infantry Squads are troops, are the same price as Conscripts, are only 1 PPM more expensive than what Conscripts used to be, and are far better?

This is entirely incorrect.

There was never a time before Conscripts and Commissars getting nerfed into the ground that someone said "Hey I think I'm going to take an Infantry Squad instead!".

Thats how broken Conscripts where, that even one of the best troop unit in the game was totally eclipsed by them and their sinergy with Commisars.
But I'll don't derrail this topic with another Conscript discussion, feel free to answer this or PM me or something.

 Galas wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
You are aware that Infantry Squads are troops, are the same price as Conscripts, are only 1 PPM more expensive than what Conscripts used to be, and are far better?

This is entirely incorrect.

There was never a time before Conscripts and Commissars getting nerfed into the ground that someone said "Hey I think I'm going to take an Infantry Squad instead!".

Thats how broken Conscripts were, that even one of the best troop unit in the game was totally eclipsed by them and their sinergy with Commisars.
But I'll don't derrail this topic with another Conscript discussion, feel free to answer this or PM me or something.

No, you don't get to dump and run to PMs.

Conscripts weren't broken. Nor was their synergy with Commissars. Not when you've got Tyranids doing the same thing, Iyanden doing the same thing, Valhallans doing the same thing with Pietrov's, and any future examples of this.

The Conscript nerfs just showcase that you cannot balance these things 100%.

Keep telling that Conscripts+Commisars weren't broken. Maybe someone will believe you someday, like the idea that a codex for both Skitarii and Cult Mechanicus is a bad thing.

This seems like a specific case of disliking efficient hordes, which directly translates to "Nerf Guard."

People want Guard nerfed. The simplest way is to appropriately cost Guard units, which they currently aren't.

Seriously, a Guardsmen should be either 5 or 6 points, for what they can do. It may be that upgrades aren't properly costed [ie undercosted] but that can also be fixed. I do also like the idea of each "upgrade category" having the same cost. A special weapon is 12 points, and you can choose from a flamer worth 12 points [d6+4 hits, maybe 10" range?] or a Meltagun worth 12 points [longer range?] or a Plasmagun worth 12 [as it is?] or a Grenade Launcher worth 12 [D6 hits / S6 Shot with a better modifier/d3 damage?]

It would make list-writing easier. You could choose the tools as you deploy, as this pricing would accommodate the weapons' POTENTIAL in a good scenario, if the player is good enough to make it work. Plasma may be good against marines, but a Grenade Launcher would be better against Ork Boys. You can choose which equally valued weapon to use as appropriate, to ensure you can reach maximum potential in your game.

Because that's how this game needs to be priced. Based on the POTENTIAL of models to achieve goals.

 greatbigtree wrote:
This seems like a specific case of disliking efficient hordes, which directly translates to "Nerf Guard."

People want Guard nerfed. The simplest way is to appropriately cost Guard units, which they currently aren't.

Seriously, a Guardsmen should be either 5 or 6 points, for what they can do. It may be that upgrades aren't properly costed [ie undercosted] but that can also be fixed. I do also like the idea of each "upgrade category" having the same cost. A special weapon is 12 points, and you can choose from a flamer worth 12 points [d6+4 hits, maybe 10" range?] or a Meltagun worth 12 points [longer range?] or a Plasmagun worth 12 [as it is?] or a Grenade Launcher worth 12 [D6 hits / S6 Shot with a better modifier/d3 damage?]

If a standard Guardsman gets bumped to 5 or 6 points, then they need a 4+ save or something to make the standard GEQ units(Guard Infantry Squad, Special Weapon Squad, Heavy Weapon Squad) more survivable. Veterans would need to get that 4+ save as well. Special Weapon Squads and Heavy Weapon Squads would need to be shifted to be 100% special/heavy weapons as well to justify their existence.

Because as it stands? The standard Guard statline really is barely worth 4 points and that took Conscripts being put up to the same price as a standard Guardsman and Commissars being rendered to the point of uselessness for that to happen.

Some of the biggest problem units relating to Guard are static artillery pieces that FW has. Those got somewhat of a fix in that they had their points adjusted and it further clarified that Masters of Ordnance didn't affect them, but there's still a lot of work that could be done on them.

the_scotsman wrote:
can we take a moment to clarify why the OP thinks grots are a balance issue?

T2, 3 points, no save? Those grots?

I'm similarly bewildered by their mention of Ripper Swarms.

Conscripts were heinously broken, but I'm not entirely sure that infantry squads are inherently the best troop choice in the game right now. Brimstone Horrors are certainly better in terms of per-point-durability, exchanging that for having none of the offensive power infantry squads have.

This is something that I may have missed, but why were conscripts considered broken?

 BlackLobster wrote:
This is something that I may have missed, but why were conscripts considered broken?

Because they weren't killed by the fist full by a tac squad with only bolters

 Luke_Prowler wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
This is something that I may have missed, but why were conscripts considered broken?

Because they weren't killed by the fist full by a tac squad with only bolters

Yes. According to Dakka conscripts are broken because you can't kill them in one turn with equal points of anti-horde and shadowswords are broken because they can kill 1/3 their points in tanks per turn.

 BlackLobster wrote:
This is something that I may have missed, but why were conscripts considered broken?

They were 3 points per model with a S3 AP0 D1 weapon that had 24" and was Rapid Fire 1. They came in units of 20-30 models and had Frag Grenades at 0 points.
They were Troops choices, and thus could be fit easily into Imperial Soup armies, with a Commissar Lord as your HQ to effectively make them immune to Morale tests.

Apparently that was broken.

Every tournament list and their mothers running 60-120 conscripts was just because they where all flufly Valhallan players that where really really into casual play.

Yeah. Good ol revisionism. In less than 3 months. And I'll add that I oppose the "Marines are the worst" crow and the "Everything IG is OP and they should be nerfed into te ground", but common guys. Next thing you'll say Malefic Lords, Stormravens and Brimstones were fine pre-nerfs.

Easiest way is one of two things

1) Comp score
2) More limited on Detachments

Either way, each army can have a "bonus" to take more of certain units, DE can take more FA, Guard more Heavy etc...

 BlackLobster wrote:
This is something that I may have missed, but why were conscripts considered broken?

The amount of table space they take up for their points easily negated enemy close range, melee elements, and deep strikes; in addition to the fact that they were hilariously hard to remove with a commissar hiding somewhere nearby. They also filled troop slots for CP, and could hurt anything just by throwing fist-fulls of lasgun shots, especially if given orders. Their large unit size cap allowed for very efficient orders as well as a small number of deployments to gain first turn. And finally because good anti-horde weapons aren't really a thing in the game right now, while good anti-elite weapons and abilities, such as the 57 different flavors of smite, suck against them.

And the general theme that a wall of cheap bodies at the front of the army is fantastic is still going strong thanks to a lot of those issues not being addressed yet.

They do serve as a good knowledge check though. If you ask someone about them and they claim that they weren't broken, odds are you are talking to someone completely out of touch with the actual competitive tables.

i thought the issues were being fixed with 7th. Or was it 8th? Chapter approved? When everyone has a codex?

The way to stop cheese is to balance the game and tweak it when the units that are too good or bad become evident (like Mantic).

GW do not seem to be interested in balancing their game to a competition capable level; as far as I can tell that is not the kind of game GW want to make. Which is fine, it's good fun, but don't be or play against an donkey-cave.

It all comes down to points. Units are played based on their points' efficiency when combined with inherent faction synergies and other potential buffs.

Conscripts at 4 PPM are reasonable.
Infantry should be more expensive; 5 or 6 PPM on account that they are objectively better than Conscripts.

Personally, I'm just going to throw this out there and feel free to argue against or disagree with what I'm about to say, but I get the feeling GW haven't considered the points' cost of Orders when pricing AM units. Or more specifically; they haven't properly considered the value of Orders on huge groups of infantry when pricing the characters that can deliver them or the units that can make use of them. Orders are effectively free stratagems as they stand now. They must have a points cost associated with them but I can't see it anywhere.

With regards to proposed "fixes" for the current meta. As others have stated there is no fix. As one unit becomes less attractive in terms of points' cost another will rise to fill it's place. This is normal, it's what keeps the meta shifting and the game fresh. Ideally it will start shifting a little quicker - akin to changes in MOBAs that regularly shake up the meta.

Marines are 13 pts of pure worthlessness. It should cost IG more than 4 pts to occupy real estate. A 5 or 6 pt unit is STILL A CHAFF UNIT. T3 is much better in 8th and 5+ is MUCH MUCH better in 8th.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It all comes down to points. Units are played based on their points' efficiency when combined with inherent faction synergies and other potential buffs.

Conscripts at 4 PPM are reasonable.
Infantry should be more expensive; 5 or 6 PPM on account that they are objectively better than Conscripts.

Personally, I'm just going to throw this out there and feel free to argue against or disagree with what I'm about to say, but I get the feeling GW haven't considered the points' cost of Orders when pricing AM units. Or more specifically; they haven't properly considered the value of Orders on huge groups of infantry when pricing the characters that can deliver them or the units that can make use of them. Orders are effectively free stratagems as they stand now. They must have a points cost associated with them but I can't see it anywhere.

With regards to proposed "fixes" for the current meta. As others have stated there is no fix. As one unit becomes less attractive in terms of points' cost another will rise to fill it's place. This is normal, it's what keeps the meta shifting and the game fresh. Ideally it will start shifting a little quicker - akin to changes in MOBAs that regularly shake up the meta.

Can't find the points cost of orders. Hmmmmmmm.... Hmmmmmmmm? Your unit must have missed out on the latest info from the 20/30/40 point officer (Platoon/Company/Tempestor) due to a lack of Vox Casters (5 points each - extend order range to 18" if officer is in 3" of a vox caster and unit receiving order has a vox caster). Considering you don't often take Guard Commander units for their individual combat prowess, I would assume the "cost" of the order is baked into them rather than the Infantry Squad.

5ppm Guardsmen seem fine, if it ends things with a more balanced game. 6 points is too high though, at that point it goes to why bother? The only pro there is it would make Veteran Squads look good suddenly. Unless basic upgrades like a Vox Caster are baked into the Squad pricing at least and boltguns become free for Sergeants or the like.

Martel732 wrote:
Marines are 13 pts of pure worthlessness. It should cost IG more than 4 pts to occupy real estate. A 5 or 6 pt unit is STILL A CHAFF UNIT. T3 is much better in 8th and 5+ is MUCH MUCH better in 8th.

If T3 is much better in 8th and 5+ is MUCH MUCH better in 8th, then T4 with 3+ is godlike.

A "5 or 6 point unit" is not a chaff unit when it is your army's standard unit. When someone is running a list that is built around that specific unit as part of your army? It's a Big Deal.

That people seem to continually fail to grasp this is why we are still having arguments about Conscripts and Commissars despite both being nerfed into oblivion.

I'm sorry that you can't just walk all over Guard anymore people, but realistically? Quit bitching about Conscripts. It's over. You won. They're nerfed.

Never mind that we could have had them tied to Infantry Squads to beef up the points requirements or things like that. They're gone. Over. Finito.

 BlackLobster wrote:
This is something that I may have missed, but why were conscripts considered broken?

Because of commissars. The intended balancing factor to conscripts was their poor leadership, effectively making any casualties inflicted count double. But for a relatively cheap price you could completely negate that drawback and give the unit effectively twice the intended durability. This made them way too point-efficient, especially when also given access to cheap and reliable orders (which no longer depend on a unit's leadership). Take away the ability to buff them and make them stand on their own merits and they're a lot less impressive. But unfortunately, instead of applying the obvious fix, GW just removed them from the codex.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
It all comes down to points. Units are played based on their points' efficiency when combined with inherent faction synergies and other potential buffs.

Conscripts at 4 PPM are reasonable.
Infantry should be more expensive; 5 or 6 PPM on account that they are objectively better than Conscripts.

This is incorrect.

5 or 6ppm would be acceptable if the unit came standard with a Vox-Caster. They don't. You pay for it.
5 or 6ppm would be acceptable if the unit was outfitted all with the same weapon. They aren't. Sergeants come standard with a Laspistol and Frag Grenades, having to buy a CCW or any non-Laspistol ranged weapon(they can't buy a Lasgun or in the case of Scions, the Tempestor cannot buy a Hot-Shot Lasgun--thus cannot get full benefits from FRFSRF). Taking a Special Weapon or HWT also minimizes the number of guys firing Lasguns in FRFSRF.
5 or 6ppm would be acceptable if the unit had some kind of benefit when parked in cover or was sitting on a 4+ save.

None of those things have happened, thus 5 or 6ppm is not acceptable. Stop trying to suggest/insinuate that it is.

Personally, I'm just going to throw this out there and feel free to argue against or disagree with what I'm about to say, but I get the feeling GW haven't considered the points' cost of Orders when pricing AM units. Or more specifically; they haven't properly considered the value of Orders on huge groups of infantry when pricing the characters that can deliver them or the units that can make use of them. Orders are effectively free stratagems as they stand now. They must have a points cost associated with them but I can't see it anywhere.

Then you haven't looked hard enough.

It's called Officers, Vox-Casters, and range.
Officers must be on foot to issue Orders, excepting those mounted in a Chimera and given the "Mobile Command Vehicle" stratagem(something that used to be a basic rule for the Chimera; now it's just your Officer is always counted as being within 3" of a Vox-Caster if embarked in a Chimera).

Vox-Casters allow for Officers to boost their effective range to 18" if the Officer is within 3" of a Vox-Caster and issuing Orders to units with Vox-Casters. Otherwise the range is 6".
You also can't have "Orders on huge groups of infantry" since Officers are limited in the number of Orders they can issue. Platoon Commanders(Elite choice) can issue 1 Order per turn, Company Commanders(HQ choice) can issue 2 Orders per turn, and Creed can issue 3 Orders per turn.

Outside of the Cadian Warlord trait or a specific Relic, each individual unit can only be issued one Order per turn. There's a Cadian Warlord trait allowing for you to, on a roll of 4+ to issue the same Order to an additional unit of the same type(Infantry or Tank--it's allowing for Tank Commanders to issue as well). There's a Relic called the "Laurels of Command" which allows for you to issue an additional Order to the unit to start with on a roll of a 4+.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
This is something that I may have missed, but why were conscripts considered broken?

Because of commissars. The intended balancing factor to conscripts was their poor leadership, effectively making any casualties inflicted count double. But for a relatively cheap price you could completely negate that drawback and give the unit effectively twice the intended durability. This made them way too point-efficient, especially when also given access to cheap and reliable orders (which no longer depend on a unit's leadership). Take away the ability to buff them and make them stand on their own merits and they're a lot less impressive. But unfortunately, instead of applying the obvious fix, GW just removed them from the codex.

They took away the 100% chance for Orders specifically on Conscripts. That's the whole point of their "Raw Recruits" rule which required a 4+ roll for Orders issued to Conscripts.
They did that in the shift from Index to Codex.

 Kanluwen wrote:
They took away the 100% chance for Orders specifically on Conscripts. That's the whole point of their "Raw Recruits" rule which required a 4+ roll for Orders issued to Conscripts.
They did that in the shift from Index to Codex.

Well yes, once GW started nerfing conscripts the complaints were less valid. I'm talking about pre-nerf conscripts and why people thought a nerf was necessary in the first place.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 BlackLobster wrote:
This is something that I may have missed, but why were conscripts considered broken?

They were 3 points per model with a S3 AP0 D1 weapon that had 24" and was Rapid Fire 1. They came in units of 20-30 models and had Frag Grenades at 0 points.
They were Troops choices, and thus could be fit easily into Imperial Soup armies, with a Commissar Lord as your HQ to effectively make them immune to Morale tests.

Apparently that was broken.

You know they were, only you, MoO, and Melissa say otherwise. They were the perfect unit in this ruleset, cheap bodies that got a good armor save against standard infantry weapons and we're pointless to shoot at with anything else, because you would be losing point efficency to do so.

I made two (three?) threads on this. I KNEW they would be cornerstones on tourney lists. They invalidated melee and deepstrike armies and the only other factions that could remove them were IG mortars or Ass can Razorbacks, but they would potentially lose on objectives still. You are out of touch for saying they were anything but metadefining.

Maybe GK are also have a unicorn build that no one has discovered yea?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh you're talking after the commisar nerf.

GK do have a very unstoppable army stratagem but it's secret and anyone who sees it must be eliminated.

Meh, guys who wanna play elites think hordes are cheese. Guys who wanna play with large armies think Lords of War are cheese. This is not a solution.

Ah yes, the box. The box the Sigilite gave us? The one we open in our darkest hour? That box?

The strategems in that box would break a man

Lords of War are definitely not cheese in 8th as they are downed readily by lascannons, don't take up much real estate and generally are VERY expensive. Ironically, the IG seems to have the best LoW as well.

 Quickjager wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh you're talking after the commisar nerf.

Yes and no.

Specifically, once the Guard book was out and the Orders became a 4+ thing for Conscripts? I think that was going to be enough to invalidate the complaints about the damage output side of things. We should have waited and seen a bit further down the road to see how things were going to go once the points and whatnot changes(which were confirmed to be in the works/testing when they swung the nerf bat at Commissars) were underway rather than just kneecapping Commissars.
The Commissar nerf was way too much. Anyone who suggests otherwise in the age of Synapse doing the same damn thing but with more models able to give it out is a fool.

I, personally, think we could have fixed this issue without bombing Commissars or Conscripts both into oblivion. There were a lot of possible ways to address Conscripts in Imperial Soup other than taking a bat to the knees for Guard proper.

Things like making it so that Conscripts didn't count as your "mandatory Troops choices" in a Patrol or they couldn't be taken in anything outside of Brigade or Battalions could have been added in. Making it so that Conscripts required an Infantry Squad for every Conscript Squad you took.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Quickjager wrote:
Ah yes, the box. The box the Sigilite gave us? The one we open in our darkest hour? That box?

The strategems in that box would break a man

Implement Taco Tuesday?

IG are still hilariously overpowered. I think you're fine. 15 10-man squads is even better in some ways. They basically autowin vs any power armor based list.

Martel732 wrote:
IG are still hilariously overpowered. I think you're fine. 15 10-man squads is even better in some ways. They basically autowin vs any power armor based list.

Sure, when they're you.

Meanwhile in the real world, people aren't spamming Tacticals to try to outhorde a horde army.

If you don't have a perfect record vs power armor, you a poor IG player. Period. IG are literally elite-proof.

IG is also the only gunline that gets better the more terrain there is on the table. Nuts.

Well, 40k is a dynamically expanding game.
But in opposition to previous incarnations of the game, GW is fixing ''cheese'' at a higer rate from index to codex to chapter approved.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, 40k is a dynamically expanding game.
But in opposition to previous incarnations of the game, GW is fixing ''cheese'' at a higer rate from index to codex to chapter approved.

Agreed. Right now, I'd say IG and Nids need some hefty point increases. Especially Nids. Manticores and dakkafexes are standouts. Eldar are much more manageable than I thought outside dark reapers, who can also be fixed with a substantial point increase.

Martel732 wrote:
IG are still hilariously overpowered. I think you're fine. 15 10-man squads is even better in some ways. They basically autowin vs any power armor based list.

IG is fine now, high up on the competitive ladder for sure, but not overpowered. The definition of OP is now reserved for more serious stuff.

Infantry based IG lists are much weaker than the old conscript ones, they don't work so well as screens, require a lot of points invested if you want to use orders, less overwatch...
IG excel in long range firepower, but suffer a lot from hit penalties and have a mostly land based force, so once enemy models start infiltrating their lines they lose power really fast.

Regarding the problems with the "Cheap hordes", it's not a problem. It's a correct game design if you have synergy between line troops that die in the front and the specialist units that do the heavy work. That's how an army works! The problem is that some factions cannot do this, especially SM of any flavor. If the tactical marines were a bit more soakyer (is that a word?) for their points, 80% of this edition's problems would be solved.

It is far from fine. Manticores should NOT be cheaper than predators or hammerheads. IG still needs a bucket of nerfs.

Poor nyds. Let them alone a little while. They dont see OP. Have they had good placements in tournaments?

Really the only nerf they still need is 10-15% price hike on some stuff and everyoen alse to have their codex.

The way the codex works seems fine right now, it's just a lot of stuff is undercosted.

Also on topic: there is no universally good way of avoiding cheese, only a scalpel army by army approach.

 Galas wrote:
Poor nyds. Let them alone a little while. They dont see OP. Have they had good placements in tournaments?

Nids are winning everything around me except vs IG. If not IG or Nids, players are't winning. New people especially are getting really upset. Just yesterday a new guy asked if six mortar teams, manticore, and double basilisk was common because he died in three turns.

LoW are like Flyers, they drastically affect the meta. I prefer Apocalypse being a different game.

But no, they are not cheese. Neither are hordes.

Martel732 wrote:
If you don't have a perfect record vs power armor, you a poor IG player. Period. IG are literally elite-proof.

Or maybe I don't play all Conscripts with Manticores...?

IG is also the only gunline that gets better the more terrain there is on the table. Nuts.

Whaaat, the kings of artillery faction is kings of artillery?

Say it ain't so!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
It is far from fine. Manticores should NOT be cheaper than predators or hammerheads. IG still needs a bucket of nerfs.

So you want Predators and Hammerheads to only be able to fire a limited amount of shots over the course of the game? Not just based upon their shooting phase being active mind.

Fine with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Earth127 wrote:
Really the only nerf they still need is 10-15% price hike on some stuff and everyoen alse to have their codex.

The way the codex works seems fine right now, it's just a lot of stuff is undercosted.

Also on topic: there is no universally good way of avoiding cheese, only a scalpel army by army approach.

The biggest issue with Guard right now is that the stuff which is undercosted is either available on only one platform(hence the undercosting--it's supposed to be specific to one or maybe units) or has a better available option from FW for a similar price(artillery batteries) that don't have the same downsides of the codex version.

Add in that people still don't seem to 'get' how Orders work when they complain about them and it just is pathetic complaining about Guard at the moment.

Arson Fire wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
can we take a moment to clarify why the OP thinks grots are a balance issue?

T2, 3 points, no save? Those grots?

I'm similarly bewildered by their mention of Ripper Swarms.

I didn't, but dakka people can be really dense and especially WAAC players.

I simply said all fodder type units that shouldn't be able to be taken as core troops. This includes those units.

This isn't hard to wrap your head around, if a unit is an auxiliary style unit, it would fall under this designation.

Why shouldn't they be scoring troops?

Go into any armies tactics thread, any of them. Every single one is about 0% actual tactics, and just "spam x unit." Where x is whatever the cheapest unit in the codex or an allied codex is.
Scroll through any of them and you'll occasionally see someone trying to discus something tactics, immediately followed by "all units are trash, they're worthless, if you take anything but spamming unit X you're army is garbage."
cheap fodder units have something you can't adjust with points cost, board control, which is why if you honestly go look at tactics you'll see exactly what I just described and why adjusting army comp so we have some actual armies on tables instead of ridiculousness spam lists would be good for adding some actual competition to the game.

When most people say "competitive" what they actually mean is the least amount of competition possible. They want the game to boil down to showing each other their lists and declaring a victor. I prefer games that are won based on how you play with your army men on the table.

Okay but that doesn't really mean "fodder" shouldn't score. That means you rebalance points. The whole "X troops per non troop unit" idea is just bad.

Martel732 wrote:
Lords of War are definitely not cheese in 8th as they are downed readily by lascannons, don't take up much real estate and generally are VERY expensive. Ironically, the IG seems to have the best LoW as well.

Are you talking in a vacuum or in the context of a list? The Shadowsword is probably better than Magnus or Mortarion on their own, but Magnus and Mortarion together make up a much better list than any two baneblade equivalents.

Okay maybe not rick and morty.

Martel732 wrote:
It is far from fine. Manticores should NOT be cheaper than predators or hammerheads. IG still needs a bucket of nerfs.

Comparing something to hammerheads isn't fair sport, come on.

As for predators, a quad las pred inflicts 66% more damage on targets from T6 to T8 3+. Care to explain me why it should cost LESS than a manticore? Right now it costs 34% more, and i'd say that it is the right place.

Because the pred has to sometimes move and can't ignore LoS.

Manticores are better than almost any tank in any army anywhere. They play like 180 pt models.

Martel732 wrote:
Because the pred has to sometimes move and can't ignore LoS.

Manticores are better than almost any tank in any army anywhere. They play like 180 pt models.

And what happens when the Manticores run out of rockets?

Danny slag wrote:
Go into any armies tactics thread, any of them. Every single one is about 0% actual tactics, and just "spam x unit." Where x is whatever the cheapest unit in the codex or an allied codex is.
Scroll through any of them and you'll occasionally see someone trying to discus something tactics, immediately followed by "all units are trash, they're worthless, if you take anything but spamming unit X you're army is garbage."
cheap fodder units have something you can't adjust with points cost, board control, which is why if you honestly go look at tactics you'll see exactly what I just described and why adjusting army comp so we have some actual armies on tables instead of ridiculousness spam lists would be good for adding some actual competition to the game.

When most people say "competitive" what they actually mean is the least amount of competition possible. They want the game to boil down to showing each other their lists and declaring a victor. I prefer games that are won based on how you play with your army men on the table.

So how does restricting access to grots and rippers achieve this?

In both cases the army has a better spammable board control unit which you aren't restricting.

It doesn't. Making models pay for existing and taking up real estate does.

Martel732 wrote:
Because the pred has to sometimes move and can't ignore LoS.

Manticores are better than almost any tank in any army anywhere. They play like 180 pt models.

Better for what? I surely hope that you don't think that they are good at anti tank, because you wouldn't like the math on that.

Even against MEQ you are taking out 2 per turn, good luck making your points back in 4 shooting phases like that.

They blow up my tanks real good. So there's that. They kill my marines real good too.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Whaaat, the kings of artillery faction is kings of artillery?

Say it ain't so!

The biggest issue with Guard right now is that the stuff which is undercosted is either available on only one platform(hence the undercosting--it's supposed to be specific to one or maybe units) or has a better available option from FW for a similar price(artillery batteries) that don't have the same downsides of the codex version.

Add in that people still don't seem to 'get' how Orders work when they complain about them and it just is pathetic complaining about Guard at the moment.

The reason for people complaining about Guard Kanluwen, you might be amazed to learn, is because they went from a low tier army to the highest tier army this edition. They are currently too strong, many of their units and mechanics are undercosted. Don't believe me? Look at tournament results. Look at what people are bringing to tournaments. Look at how well they are consistently performing. Something tells me that Guard players didn't suddenly become genius tacticians over night, rather their army has a distinct and clear advantage over others.

We understand exactly how Orders work, the problem is that they're far too cheap and the units that make best use of them have been costed too low.

5 or even 6 PPM Infantry is the correct price, when you answered me earlier, you gave no reasons as to why it was too expensive (without a random buff that you believe must be included). They have the same statline as units that are more expensive. Conscripts are probably too good for what they do at 4 PPM. At 3 PPM they were a joke. Grots are 3 PPM (M5", WS5+, BS4+, S2, T2, 6+ save, LD4), compare them to Conscripts and tell me how they are possibly worth the same amount of points?

Kings of artillery should still pay appropriate costs for their units.

I’m of the opinion that limits of X per troop choice isn’t the right answer, at least from a fluff perspective. IG easily field entire regiments of conscript equivalents that, whether by design or accident, see combat, so in a particular battle you could see 90% conscripts easily. Also the tabletop really only represents an almost insignificant amount of combat; when conscripts are used I wouldn’t be surprised if they were fielded in the thousands to drown out the opponent, so your proposed fix prevents them from being used as intended in the fluff. Also it would prevent Gretchin Revolutionary Commitee armies from being fielded without a large number of Orks, which instantly turns me off from this proposal.

Honestly I think it’s a core rules issue/meta favoring massed and cheap bodies, and if I had my way I’d change something there rather than make “cheap bodies” a liability to get.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Whaaat, the kings of artillery faction is kings of artillery?

Say it ain't so!

The biggest issue with Guard right now is that the stuff which is undercosted is either available on only one platform(hence the undercosting--it's supposed to be specific to one or maybe units) or has a better available option from FW for a similar price(artillery batteries) that don't have the same downsides of the codex version.

Add in that people still don't seem to 'get' how Orders work when they complain about them and it just is pathetic complaining about Guard at the moment.

The reason for people complaining about Guard Kanluwen, you might be amazed to learn, is because they went from a low tier army to the highest tier army this edition. They are currently too strong, many of their units and mechanics are undercosted. Don't believe me? Look at tournament results. Look at what people are bringing to tournaments. Look at how well they are consistently performing. Something tells me that Guard players didn't suddenly become genius tacticians over night, rather their army has a distinct and clear advantage over others.

We understand exactly how Orders work, the problem is that they're far too cheap and the units that make best use of them have been costed too low.

5 or even 6 PPM Infantry is the correct price, when you answered me earlier, you gave no reasons as to why it was too expensive (without a random buff that you believe must be included). They have the same statline as units that are more expensive. Conscripts are probably too good for what they do at 4 PPM. At 3 PPM they were a joke. Grots are 3 PPM (M5", WS5+, BS4+, S2, T2, 6+ save, LD4), compare them to Conscripts and tell me how they are possibly worth the same amount of points?

Price your basic Guardsmen at 6ppm, and the question turns to "why not take Veterans or Scions" - Veterans are 6ppm and are considered pretty garbage since they pay more for weapons than your average guardsmen and need a delivery system if they want to actually take advantage of their better BS, and Scions are already considered to be really good. If you bump up the points of both of those units too, it becomes "why bother bringing guardsmen at all" when you could say jump armies and just take a Battle Sister with a better BS, better save, better gun, better morale, and krak grenades and a 6+ invulnerable save for 9ppm. Bonus points for the fact that you can take a Cannoness for 45 points with better WS, BS, wounds, attacks, leadership, armor save, and invulnerable saves than a Company Commander, and also built in give the reroll 1s order to all <order> units within 6".

Remember - Guard has Orders instead of auras, with the exception of a handful of special characters that lock you into a specific regiment. Yarrick is the only special character with an aura that does not restrict you to either Cadian or Catachan. Other than that, you are, for a naked Company Commander, paying 30 points to give out 2 orders to two different units. If you want it beyond spitting range you need to invest in vox casters (5 points each). If you want to give an order to Conscripts, you need to roll for it. If you want to give an order to Scions, you need a 40 point Tempestor (who if he or she wants to give orders to more than one unit must give up their gun and pay 5 extra points). Orders are useful, but short of spamming a few relics and hoping for good rolls, they are limited - while say an aura will just automatically work on any unit in X inches.

I can see your basic Guardsman working at 5ppm - I still think we should wait and see how the Chapter Approved nerfs settle and the next couple of codices look though. I guess with March as the next big rebalance date that means we have time to see how things look.

Cannoness is also likely undercosted.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Whaaat, the kings of artillery faction is kings of artillery?

Say it ain't so!

The biggest issue with Guard right now is that the stuff which is undercosted is either available on only one platform(hence the undercosting--it's supposed to be specific to one or maybe units) or has a better available option from FW for a similar price(artillery batteries) that don't have the same downsides of the codex version.

Add in that people still don't seem to 'get' how Orders work when they complain about them and it just is pathetic complaining about Guard at the moment.

The reason for people complaining about Guard Kanluwen, you might be amazed to learn, is because they went from a low tier army to the highest tier army this edition. They are currently too strong, many of their units and mechanics are undercosted. Don't believe me? Look at tournament results. Look at what people are bringing to tournaments. Look at how well they are consistently performing. Something tells me that Guard players didn't suddenly become genius tacticians over night, rather their army has a distinct and clear advantage over others.

Look at tournament results, look at the lists, and see that very few lists have been strictly Guard. There was the Vostroyan list that was illegal because he had a Primaris Psyker leading his Cadian Detachment which I know of for sure.

There's been a few that were Guard with Renegades & Heretics spamming Malefics--but that isn't strictly Guard either.
There's been a ton with Guard+Inquisitors+Guilliman, but guess what...that isn't strictly Guard either.

We understand exactly how Orders work, the problem is that they're far too cheap and the units that make best use of them have been costed too low.

"The units that make best use of them" are Infantry Squads, Veteran Squads, Special Weapon Squads(LOL! Like anyone uses those, right?), Heavy Weapon Squads, and Command Squads.
Because Scions, Ratlings, Ogryns, etc can't be issued Orders by anything with <Regiment>. Scions require a Tempestor to receive Orders.

5 or even 6 PPM Infantry is the correct price, when you answered me earlier, you gave no reasons as to why it was too expensive (without a random buff that you believe must be included).

I literally did give a reason as to why it is too expensive. At 5 or 6 PPM, you're almost at/ at the same points value as Veterans(6ppm) or approaching the points value of Scions (9ppm).
Both of those units are BS3+ and Scions are rocking 4+ saves with a Deep Strike ability and starting at a squad size of 5 instead of 10.
Both of those units also get multiple special weapons in their squads.

You're also getting close to the points value of a Tau Fire Warrior, of which a whole squad has the same weapon across the board meaning that the unit doesn't have to worry about a 'wasted' model like Guard do with their Sergeants lacking Lasguns when it comes to FRFSRF.

They have the same statline as units that are more expensive. Conscripts are probably too good for what they do at 4 PPM. At 3 PPM they were a joke. Grots are 3 PPM (M5", WS5+, BS4+, S2, T2, 6+ save, LD4), compare them to Conscripts and tell me how they are possibly worth the same amount of points?

Conscripts were 6" 5+/5+3/3/1/1/4/5+
Same leadership, same WS, worse BS, 1 point higher T, M, S, and Save.

They also had a rule requiring you to roll for when you attempted an Order on them, needing a 4+. Even if you failed the Officer issuing the Order was counted as having issued one and the Conscripts had no benefit applied.

Gretchin, on the other hand, if taken in a unit of 20+ get to add 1 to their CC and Shooting hit rolls.

But yes. Clearly, Conscripts were "the issue".

Martel732 wrote:
Cannoness is also likely undercosted.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

You leave my Canoness alone!

Part of the core mechanics behind Guard's playstyle is *attempting* to force your opponent to deal with your chaff units while you punch them with your heavy hitters.

In my not-so-humble-opinion, long time Guard generals have been practicing a winning strategy [board control] in 8th for several editions. It's just how the army has always worked. Except that now, it's very effective, and probably wasn't obvious to playtesters that reasonably focused on the Marine side of things. I expect that PA vs PA games are pretty well balanced, all things considered.

It's the cheap board filler that makes this strategy viable. Guardsmen can't be costed *only* on their direct offence / defence capabilities, but also on the ability to prevent efficient attacks on vulnerable, high-damage output models.

Again, this game needs to be pointed based on potential, and that would be nearly impossible given the nigh-infinite combinations of units that allies allow. Infantry can protect a single Basilisk, which isn't that big of a deal. They can also be used to protect a battery of artillery, and that is a big deal. The potential of 10 infantry to protect a single Bassie is low. The potential of 30 infantry to protect 5 Artillery pieces is VERY high. In an ideal situation, infantry are very valuable as shields. So they really need to be valued as such.

Which in turn, leads to an issue with scale. If 150 points of infantry can effectively protect another 500 points of models from dying all game, those Infantry should be worth more. Board control is more valuable than their actual stats.

But that also means that if infantry are NOT being used in that way, that they are overcosted, to account for their potential. You wouldn't see any infantry EXCEPT where they are protecting other, higher value pieces. You would ENCOURAGE static gunlines. As it is, Infantry are cheap enough to march forward to engage mid-board. As they rise in value, there's less return on that use, and so will be relegated to Artillery babysitting even more. Something to keep in mind, if you dislike facing gunlines that don't move.

7th edition was a game of mobility and "indestructibility".

8th edition is a game of board control and alpha strike, Guard's current and traditional strengths. Defense is less valuable [difference between 2+ and 3+ save is less important and thus less valuable] Mobility is valuable, but is often easily mitigated by cheap bodies that prevent ideal movement. It's a different game, and one that Elite armies are at a disadvantage at... much as low mobility, low defence armies were in 7th. Which was Guard's weakness.

The fundamental winning strategy of 40k is vastly different between 7th and 8th. Guard are powerful and in need of points adjustments [I've been a proponent of a 10% increase, at least, across the board, with a minimum 1 pt increase for all non-Veteran Infantry units].

That said, I don't think that everyone has adjusted to that new mentality. Simply put, the armies that were good in 7th are not mechanically suited to the 8th environment, so players that "Gitted Gud" in 7th with underperforming armies will now be able to transfer that skill to an edition that suits it.

8th meta is blob-star.

Guard do blob-star the best.

Martel732 wrote:
Because the pred has to sometimes move and can't ignore LoS.

Manticores are better than almost any tank in any army anywhere. They play like 180 pt models.

We've been through this. They're matching the firepower of an LRBT turret against 95% of targets, but without any of the possible 3 other weapons (sponson and hull), with lower T and fewer wounds, they suffer penalties to firing if they do have to move (if something gets into the backline, not by any means impossible), and only have 4 turns of fire total over the course of a potentially 7 turn game. All it gets in return is the ability to fire without LoS. While that isn't nothing, it's highly variable depending on the opponent, board setup, terrain, deployment zones, etc. If Manticores were 180pts, you would never see one on a table.

Danny slag wrote:
Go into any armies tactics thread, any of them. Every single one is about 0% actual tactics, and just "spam x unit." Where x is whatever the cheapest unit in the codex or an allied codex is.
Scroll through any of them and you'll occasionally see someone trying to discus something tactics, immediately followed by "all units are trash, they're worthless, if you take anything but spamming unit X you're army is garbage."
cheap fodder units have something you can't adjust with points cost, board control, which is why if you honestly go look at tactics you'll see exactly what I just described and why adjusting army comp so we have some actual armies on tables instead of ridiculousness spam lists would be good for adding some actual competition to the game.

When most people say "competitive" what they actually mean is the least amount of competition possible. They want the game to boil down to showing each other their lists and declaring a victor. I prefer games that are won based on how you play with your army men on the table.

Exactly this.

The game is spiraling out of control only 6 months in AFTER A FULL HARD RESET, and everyone feels that.

Even the biggest of GW fanboys is locking eyes with the dumpster fire that is 8th edition rules and feeling the heat.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Because the pred has to sometimes move and can't ignore LoS.

Manticores are better than almost any tank in any army anywhere. They play like 180 pt models.

We've been through this. They're matching the firepower of an LRBT turret against 95% of targets, but without any of the possible 3 other weapons (sponson and hull), with lower T and fewer wounds, they suffer penalties to firing if they do have to move (if something gets into the backline, not by any means impossible), and only have 4 turns of fire total over the course of a potentially 7 turn game. All it gets in return is the ability to fire without LoS. While that isn't nothing, it's highly variable depending on the opponent, board setup, terrain, deployment zones, etc. If Manticores were 180pts, you would never see one on a table.

Maybe. I guess we'll see what march brings. It seems still super undercosted, along with most of the IG codex.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Because the pred has to sometimes move and can't ignore LoS.

Manticores are better than almost any tank in any army anywhere. They play like 180 pt models.

We've been through this. They're matching the firepower of an LRBT turret against 95% of targets, but without any of the possible 3 other weapons (sponson and hull), with lower T and fewer wounds, they suffer penalties to firing if they do have to move (if something gets into the backline, not by any means impossible), and only have 4 turns of fire total over the course of a potentially 7 turn game. All it gets in return is the ability to fire without LoS. While that isn't nothing, it's highly variable depending on the opponent, board setup, terrain, deployment zones, etc. If Manticores were 180pts, you would never see one on a table.

When games are typically done deals by turn 3, only being able to fire for four turns is an irrelevant disadvantage. Like a dnd character taking a crippling fear of white bengal tigers to get bonus points elsewhere.

Being str 10 is just a super insult to every T8 unit in the game at the manticore's price point. Make the manticore more expensive or make every T8 unit a lot cheaper because this thing exists. You can't hide from it, you can't get out of range, there is no counterplay other than your own gunline. If it's a low terrain board.

I must be the only person who doesn't see this "spiralling out of control" or "over by turn 3" thing. In the last seven months since 8th's release I have seen nothing of the sort. In fact this edition has been nothing but a breath of fresh air and a lot more fun. Perhaps that is because it is a game designed around casual play now rather than competitive?

Actually, they are using tourney data to balance it. So, no. It's not designed around casual play. Whatever that even is.

 BlackLobster wrote:
I must be the only person who doesn't see this "spiralling out of control" or "over by turn 3" thing. In the last seven months since 8th's release I have seen nothing of the sort. In fact this edition has been nothing but a breath of fresh air and a lot more fun. Perhaps that is because it is a game designed around casual play now rather than competitive?

Being a filthy casual as well, I sort of agree, but actually think its the opposite if you look a little closer.

The power level between lists taking the most efficient options as well as lists tuned to the meta and lists taken based on other approaches are needed if you want that sort of fun to be part of a tournament game. It's like deck building in Magic: The Gathering. If all cards were equal and you couldn't get an advantage by figuring out which were best or figuring out how to create synergy between cards many people would stop playing.

40k is the same way. I think it's more of what the hardcore tournament players want and fails the not quite as serious player the most. But only when there's a mismatch of expectations. When your opponent is doing something totally different with the game.

I too have not seen any "spiraling out of control" in my games because I play with like minded individuals. If I took the little forces I build and put them together into a 2500 point army and played against a tuned and designed from the ground up tournament army, I wouldn't stand a chance. Especially given that the person who plays such an army is also interested in it winning as much as possible where I think my approach is more RPG like. I play to see what happens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Actually, they are using tourney data to balance it. So, no. It's not designed around casual play. Whatever that even is.

If you just take what you think looks cool, what excites you to paint, make sure you have variety and don't just spam the same unit over and over again and play interesting scenarios and your opponent does the same thing, 8th edition 40k works amazingly.

If you take what you think is the strongest for the points, build synergies into the list to get even more power than the points would otherwise indicate and do everything you can to make sure you have the best chance of winning in any potential scenario coming up and your opponent does the same thing, 8th edition 40k works amazingly.

Martel732 wrote:
Actually, they are using tourney data to balance it. So, no. It's not designed around casual play. Whatever that even is.

I know that tournament players and organisers were used to test this edition and help provide info for the Index books. However reading these forums and my own gaming experiences I would say that competitive play is where things are breaking down. Turn up and play with a basic casual list and you'll find that all these problems being discussed on here right now just melt away.

Martel732 wrote:
Being str 10 is just a super insult to every T8 unit in the game at the manticore's price point. Make the manticore more expensive or make every T8 unit a lot cheaper because this thing exists.

What, like Russ tanks?

You can't hide from it, you can't get out of range, there is no counterplay other than your own gunline. If it's a low terrain board.

How's that different than every other edition this unit existed in? You couldn't hide from it or outrange it in 5th, 6th, or 7th, what makes 8th different?

 niv-mizzet wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Because the pred has to sometimes move and can't ignore LoS.

Manticores are better than almost any tank in any army anywhere. They play like 180 pt models.

We've been through this. They're matching the firepower of an LRBT turret against 95% of targets, but without any of the possible 3 other weapons (sponson and hull), with lower T and fewer wounds, they suffer penalties to firing if they do have to move (if something gets into the backline, not by any means impossible), and only have 4 turns of fire total over the course of a potentially 7 turn game. All it gets in return is the ability to fire without LoS. While that isn't nothing, it's highly variable depending on the opponent, board setup, terrain, deployment zones, etc. If Manticores were 180pts, you would never see one on a table.

When games are typically done deals by turn 3, only being able to fire for four turns is an irrelevant disadvantage. Like a dnd character taking a crippling fear of white bengal tigers to get bonus points elsewhere.

Yes, the game is alpha strikey, very much so, but lets not make it out like missing out on 1-3 turns of potential shooting in the last few turns isn't nothing either, especially from a back-line support unit that may be the only thing you have to reach out and touch a far away objective. It's definitely less crippling than something like the Deathstrike which can't shoot turn 1 at all, but it's not unimportant either.