Source who has been correct about every IG nerf this edition prior to release says guardsmen will be 5ppm. Lets talk.
First off, IG players will be fine. We are a resourceful bunch. That is not what this is about.
This is about Games Workshop being completely oblivious & rather than resolving the root cause of balance issues they opt to apply bandages to a mortal wound. What am I going on about?
Imperial Soup.
Did any of these stop imperial soup players from taking cheap IG units as fodder?
Conscript nerf x2
Commissar nerf
Plasma gun nerf
Melta gun nerf
Astropath nerf
Primaris psycher nerf
Valhallan nerf
Manticore nerf
Ratling nerf
Wyvern nerf Half a dozen other nerfs I cannot be bothered to list because I have already illustrated my point.
"Well clearly the issue is Imperial Guard is overpowered then!"
Funny you mention that. How many pure IG list made it into the top 10 at the LVO? ZERO.
Nerfing guardsmen to 5ppm will resolve nothing. Until matched play restricts Imperial soup players from using cheap fodder units from other armies, IG will continue to be nerfed into irrelevance until we are right back to where we were in 6th & 7th edition.
Update 2/22/18: Expect changes in the way of command points. He has since changed his position regarding 5ppm update to uncertain. May come with CA.
I really don't understand the problem with "soup" armies. Whether it be Imperium, Chaos or Aeldari, they are extremely in keeping with the fluff. If those players want to play them and break elements of the game... well fine, you don't have to play against them.
Of course it will do nothing. The issue though isn't just GW. It's the people feeding them playtest/tournament data.
When stuff gets labeled as "Astra Militarum faction" but then has just as many points spent in other Imperial lists...it's not AM.
It's a shame that rather than instigating a requirement for Conscripts that they can never be taken outside of a Brigade or Battalion Detachment, they chose to just nerf the gak out of them.
BlackLobster wrote: I really don't understand the problem with "soup" armies. Whether it be Imperium, Chaos or Aeldari, they are extremely in keeping with the fluff. If those players want to play them and break elements of the game... well fine, you don't have to play against them.
The problem being, the IG codex continues to be nerfed repeatedly for over performing despite being unable to hold its own in a tournament setting. We have been nerfed more than any codex & will continue to get nerfed simply because Imperial Soup lists are permitted. Oddly enough, the armies who often field IG units remain unscathed while IG gets nerfed again & again.
BlackLobster wrote: I really don't understand the problem with "soup" armies. Whether it be Imperium, Chaos or Aeldari, they are extremely in keeping with the fluff. If those players want to play them and break elements of the game... well fine, you don't have to play against them.
The problem being, the IG codex continues to be nerfed repeatedly for over performing despite being unable to hold its own in a tournament setting. We have been nerfed more than any codex & will continue to get nerfed simply because Imperial Soup lists are permitted. Oddly enough, the armies who often field IG units remain unscathed while IG gets nerfed again & again.
Every nerf guard received (except for the Conscripts points increase) is deserved if we want any sort of balance in this game. Guardsman are worth much more than 4 ppm (every other infantry is worse than an IG Guardsman for the same points cost or even more)
5 ppm is really about right for them. They'll still be really good. Cheap 5+ wounds are great. I;m also awaiting a much needed nerf to scion command squads.
BlackLobster wrote: I really don't understand the problem with "soup" armies. Whether it be Imperium, Chaos or Aeldari, they are extremely in keeping with the fluff. If those players want to play them and break elements of the game... well fine, you don't have to play against them.
The problem being, the IG codex continues to be nerfed repeatedly for over performing despite being unable to hold its own in a tournament setting. We have been nerfed more than any codex & will continue to get nerfed simply because Imperial Soup lists are permitted. Oddly enough, the armies who often field IG units remain unscathed while IG gets nerfed again & again.
Every nerf guard received (except for the Conscripts points increase) is deserved if we want any sort of balance in this game. Guardsman are worth much more than 4 ppm (every other infantry is worse than an IG Guardsman for the same points cost or even more)
Got any proof to back up that hot take there, sonny jim?
koooaei wrote: 5 ppm is really about right for them. They'll still be really good. Cheap 5+ wounds are great. I;m also awaiting a much needed nerf to scion command squads.
5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if Commissars hadn't gotten absolutely shanked months ago and remained absolute garbage.
5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if they had a feature similar to Camo Cloaks where they got to add 2 points to their saves while in Cover or if they had a Cult Ambush styled rule.
As it stands, 5ppm and 4ppm is absolute garbage and anyone who feels it's "appropriate" needs to stop commenting on Guard related threads.
BlackLobster wrote: I really don't understand the problem with "soup" armies. Whether it be Imperium, Chaos or Aeldari, they are extremely in keeping with the fluff. If those players want to play them and break elements of the game... well fine, you don't have to play against them.
The problem being, the IG codex continues to be nerfed repeatedly for over performing despite being unable to hold its own in a tournament setting. We have been nerfed more than any codex & will continue to get nerfed simply because Imperial Soup lists are permitted. Oddly enough, the armies who often field IG units remain unscathed while IG gets nerfed again & again.
There's also nothing in a marine list to nerf. Marines are using guardsmen as crutches because the are so much more efficient. If something gets spammed at tourneys, GW is gonna nerf it now. Get used to it. Spamming means its probably at the wrong price point.
So I'm a mono-guard player and I'm okay with this.
It shaves 30-60 points off my superheavy lists, because it's a shame because that's one or two fewer non-superheavy things I can buy, but if it makes the anti-guard players stop whining, it's fine.
Plus, 30-60 points isn't that much. It's not an intolerable nerf, and IMO it does bring casual IG in line with other casual lists without crippling our bottom line.
It's unfortunate, and I think it's unnecessary, but I won't be losing any sleep or anything over it.
koooaei wrote: 5 ppm is really about right for them. They'll still be really good. Cheap 5+ wounds are great. I;m also awaiting a much needed nerf to scion command squads.
5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if Commissars hadn't gotten absolutely shanked months ago and remained absolute garbage.
5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if they had a feature similar to Camo Cloaks where they got to add 2 points to their saves while in Cover or if they had a Cult Ambush styled rule.
As it stands, 5ppm and 4ppm is absolute garbage and anyone who feels it's "appropriate" needs to stop commenting on Guard related threads.
13ppm for tac marines isn’t so hot either, yet the marine threads get plenty of “deal with it bro” style responses. It’s a horde meta; guardsmen were clearly underpriced at 4ppm. I’m happy to see the price hike. At this point I’m not sure GWs points system has enough nuance to it, and I wouldn’t be opposed to seeing a change in the way that works.
So I can expect the see my GMDK get nerfed? I mean we all know how OPGKs are.
In other words because of someone else's abuses GK get hit with the nerf bat as well. If GW is going to make costs codex specific and then change all of the entries for a weapon/model in every codex why don't they just publish one master list? Otherwise give me back my lower priced Storm Ravens, Assault Cannons and, Razorbacks. GK never could abuse them and now it's harder for them to even use them properly.
I'm sure Guard aren't the only thing on the chopping block for nerfs, and in all honesty making them more expensive balances the game more (150 points instead of 120 for 3 infantry squads means less spamming Brigades for command points, even in soups).
I'm curious to see what else is coming in terms of the nerfs (like Dark Reapers), but I wouldn't start flipping tables since we're still a month out and don't know what's coming yet.
BlackLobster wrote: I really don't understand the problem with "soup" armies. Whether it be Imperium, Chaos or Aeldari, they are extremely in keeping with the fluff.
Hrm, only in the most strategic of senses. Guilliman and Celestine are probably not accompanied by guardsmen, in a tactical battlefield sense, in nearly every battle. Having both the Daemon primarchs of the Tzeentch and Nurgle legions in the same army feels...very off.
It's one of those things that, yeah you can see once in a while, or that makes sense in really big games, but when you see it in any size game all the time, it really starts to cheapen background elements. A huge part of the universe is not just how each faction is arrayed against each other but how many of them don't even get along with themselves necessarily all the time. The Imperium is defined by its byzantine dysfunction and internal conflict that reaches the level of open warfare with regularity, as well as distinct social stratification where different elements of the Imperium don't necessarily openly mix quite as regularly or easily as is often portrayed on the table. The legions of Chaos are famously disunited. Even among the Eldar, the Dark Eldar and Craftworlders represent diametrically opposed political, philisophical, economic and cultural norms which regularly sees bloodshed with direct malicious intent.
IG players can flip the tables all they like. GW did some serious miscalculations with their entire list, but unlike previous editions, they aren't letting it stand. 4 ppm guardsmen are showing up everywhere for a reason. Just like dark reapers are showing up everywhere for a reason.
BlackLobster wrote: I really don't understand the problem with "soup" armies. Whether it be Imperium, Chaos or Aeldari, they are extremely in keeping with the fluff.
Hrm, only in the most strategic of senses. Guilliman and Celestine are probably not accompanied by guardsmen, in a tactical battlefield sense, in nearly every battle. Having both the Daemon primarchs of the Tzeentch and Nurgle legions in the same army feels...very off.
It's one of those things that, yeah you can see once in a while, or that makes sense in really big games, but when you see it in any size game all the time, it really starts to cheapen background elements. A huge part of the universe is not just how each faction is arrayed against each other but how many of them don't even get along with themselves necessarily all the time. The Imperium is defined by its byzantine dysfunction and internal conflict that reaches the level of open warfare with regularity, as well as distinct social stratification where different elements of the Imperium don't necessarily openly mix quite as regularly or easily as is often portrayed on the table. The legions of Chaos are famously disunited. Even among the Eldar, the Dark Eldar and Craftworlders represent diametrically opposed political, philisophical, economic and cultural norms which regularly sees bloodshed with direct malicious intent.
The problem is that soup isn't just Celestine and Guilliman or the two Chaos Primarchs.
Soup can instead be an Adeptus Mechanicus detachment running along with some Imperial Superheavies to help secure and protect the relic tanks. Or it can be Imperial Guardsmen trying to hold back the tide of daemons while the Grey Knights teleport into battle. Or it can be a Knight Household of thundering war-engines striding amongst the skitarii of Ryza to engage the Orks.
Soup is fine at 1000 (like the novel Dark Adeptus which is 5 Grey Knight Terminators, an Archmagos, a regular Techpriest, and 20 Skitarii), 1500 points (like the novel Gunheads where Leman Russ tanks and Guard infantry are accompanied by a Magos and a few tech-priests to recover a wrecked baneblade), or 2000 points (like the novel Titanicus where a PDF fights alongside Adeptus Mechanicus Skitarii and an Astra Militarum tank regiment, to drive back the traitors).
BlackLobster wrote: I really don't understand the problem with "soup" armies. Whether it be Imperium, Chaos or Aeldari, they are extremely in keeping with the fluff.
Hrm, only in the most strategic of senses. Guilliman and Celestine are probably not accompanied by guardsmen, in a tactical battlefield sense, in nearly every battle. Having both the Daemon primarchs of the Tzeentch and Nurgle legions in the same army feels...very off.
It's one of those things that, yeah you can see once in a while, or that makes sense in really big games, but when you see it in any size game all the time, it really starts to cheapen background elements. A huge part of the universe is not just how each faction is arrayed against each other but how many of them don't even get along with themselves necessarily all the time. The Imperium is defined by its byzantine dysfunction and internal conflict that reaches the level of open warfare with regularity, as well as distinct social stratification where different elements of the Imperium don't necessarily openly mix quite as regularly or easily as is often portrayed on the table. The legions of Chaos are famously disunited. Even among the Eldar, the Dark Eldar and Craftworlders represent diametrically opposed political, philisophical, economic and cultural norms which regularly sees bloodshed with direct malicious intent.
Guilliman and Celestine could be easily leading a force of Astra Militarum during the important moments of a major engagement so I don't see a fluff problem there. Magnus and Mortarion together in a single list... that I would issues with. Not fluffy.
But combined forces are going to happen a lot more in the canon universe than you might think so having those on the tables are fine. For myself I collect Death Guard and Nurgle Daemons, two armies that do fight together.
I'm fairly certain out of the top 8 at LVO, one was mono-blood angels, and 5 were Eldar. The 5 were 'soups', but forcing them to be mono wouldn't have harmed the lists at all. Mono-eldar can still spam 30 Dark Reapers with buffs. You'd reduce their list efficiency by like 2% by removing the Ynnari detachment. So that leaves 2 soup lists in the top 8 at LVO.
6 non-soup (or practically non-soup) lists in the top 8, including the victor. Wow, really struggling there.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It shaves 30-60 points off my superheavy lists, because it's a shame because that's one or two fewer non-superheavy things I can buy, but if it makes the anti-guard players stop whining, it's fine.
You know better than that.
It's not going to murder my list, but I probably will miss those 60 extra points. I wonder if this will affect special weapons squads as well.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It shaves 30-60 points off my superheavy lists, because it's a shame because that's one or two fewer non-superheavy things I can buy, but if it makes the anti-guard players stop whining, it's fine.
You know better than that.
It's not going to murder my list, but I probably will miss those 60 extra points. I wonder if this will affect special weapons squads as well.
I know better than what? I don't understand your comment.
And yeah, it'll probably ripple through the list and reinforce scions as the best troops choices.
koooaei wrote: 5 ppm is really about right for them. They'll still be really good. Cheap 5+ wounds are great. I;m also awaiting a much needed nerf to scion command squads.
5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if Commissars hadn't gotten absolutely shanked months ago and remained absolute garbage.
5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if they had a feature similar to Camo Cloaks where they got to add 2 points to their saves while in Cover or if they had a Cult Ambush styled rule.
As it stands, 5ppm and 4ppm is absolute garbage and anyone who feels it's "appropriate" needs to stop commenting on Guard related threads.
You don't even need a comissar to keep a large blob intact. IG is swimming in command points.
As is ig troops are too effective for points. 10 extra for 10 dudes is not really all that much. That's just 30-60 off from a list. And you still have amazing battle tanks, overpowered stormtrooper comsquads and other great stuff.
Guards are showing in like 80% competitive imperium lists. It's a clear indicator that something is wrong with them. Maybe if you're playing a casual semi-optimised list, you won't notice that they're too good. But if you do, you also won't notice 30-60 points going away from your list cause of one unit getting more expensive and going back to your list cause another unit got cheaper.
As for soup lists, yep, not getting any penalties for mixing stuff from different books is a real problem here. But keep in mind that gw gets sales increas because they actually allow you to take whatever you want. So, soup's here to stay.
Unit1126PLL wrote: if it makes the anti-guard players stop whining, it's fine.
Big if...
Well, what're you going to do. It's like people that complain about zergs in Elder Scrolls Online PVP. "Let's play a war-game!" "Okay, I bring a reasonable army with tons of troops backed up by heavy guns and tanks." "Now what is my Navy SEAL squad led by James Bond supposed to do about that! It's unfair!"
koooaei wrote: 5 ppm is really about right for them. They'll still be really good. Cheap 5+ wounds are great. I;m also awaiting a much needed nerf to scion command squads.
5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if Commissars hadn't gotten absolutely shanked months ago and remained absolute garbage.
5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if they had a feature similar to Camo Cloaks where they got to add 2 points to their saves while in Cover or if they had a Cult Ambush styled rule.
As it stands, 5ppm and 4ppm is absolute garbage and anyone who feels it's "appropriate" needs to stop commenting on Guard related threads.
And yet lots of people voted Infantry Squads as one of the most powerful units. Commissars were never really for regular squads anyway.
Perhaps the perspective from IG players is potentially biased? At least you'll have a reason to take conscripts now.
Maybe they are "poor" for that cost, but it still makes them a great flexible unit out front of some very effective vehicles.
koooaei wrote: 5 ppm is really about right for them. They'll still be really good. Cheap 5+ wounds are great. I;m also awaiting a much needed nerf to scion command squads.
5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if Commissars hadn't gotten absolutely shanked months ago and remained absolute garbage. 5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if they had a feature similar to Camo Cloaks where they got to add 2 points to their saves while in Cover or if they had a Cult Ambush styled rule.
As it stands, 5ppm and 4ppm is absolute garbage and anyone who feels it's "appropriate" needs to stop commenting on Guard related threads.
13ppm for tac marines isn’t so hot either, yet the marine threads get plenty of “deal with it bro” style responses. It’s a horde meta; guardsmen were clearly underpriced at 4ppm. I’m happy to see the price hike. At this point I’m not sure GWs points system has enough nuance to it, and I wouldn’t be opposed to seeing a change in the way that works.
Tac Marines are WS/BS3+ S/T4 1W LD7 with a 3+ save and rerollable Failed Morale tests(ATSNKF). Every model includes a Bolt Pistol and a Boltgun and Frag and Krak Grenades.
They're not comparable. A Guardsman is a WS/BS4+ S/T3 1W LD6 model with a 5+(2 points worse) save and only features a Lasgun and Frag Grenades. Jumping from BS 4+ to 3+ alone is considered worth 2 points(as evidenced by the price jump from a standard Guardsman to a Veteran) and going from a 5+ save to a 4+ is likely another point in and of itself(it's hard to make an exacting conversion on this one since the Scions have fairly significant stat differences to a Veteran on their weapons, and they also come equipped with Krak Grenades as well and have an alternate deployment method as well).
There seems to be a bit of wiggle room in points costing at times, but the rule of thumb seems to be that any stat(barring Leadership--which doesn't seem like it really gets priced unless it goes at or over 7--the only tangible difference between a Neophyte Hybrid and a standard Guardsman is LD7. It also seems that WS is exempted from this when the model has no CC weapon or is below a certain threshhold of S/T) going from 5+ to 4+ is 1ppm while any stat going from a 4+ to 3+ is instead 2 points of difference. It also seems that going from 3s to 4s on Toughness/Strength is +1ppm
So from that, one could speculate that Tactical Marines are: +6ppm for the WS/BS/Sv3+. +2ppm for S/T4. +1ppm for LD7(8 on the Sergeant).
That's a difference of 9 points from a Guardsman.
Now, if you want to argue that Guard should pay for their Sergeants and/or Heavy Weapon Teams(Currently, an Infantry or Veteran Squad that takes a HWT don't pay for it in points--they just pay for the weapon)? Sure. Fine. But I want more options for the Sergeants; including an option to fething have a Lasgun--and I want to see FRFSRF altered to include ALL weapons in a squad. Not just Lasguns.
koooaei wrote: 5 ppm is really about right for them. They'll still be really good. Cheap 5+ wounds are great. I;m also awaiting a much needed nerf to scion command squads.
5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if Commissars hadn't gotten absolutely shanked months ago and remained absolute garbage.
5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if they had a feature similar to Camo Cloaks where they got to add 2 points to their saves while in Cover or if they had a Cult Ambush styled rule.
As it stands, 5ppm and 4ppm is absolute garbage and anyone who feels it's "appropriate" needs to stop commenting on Guard related threads.
And yet lots of people voted Infantry Squads as one of the most powerful units. Commissars were never really for regular squads anyway.
That didn't stop people from claiming that the Commissar "nerf" made them more helpful for SWS/HWS/Infantry Squads...despite the fact that it clearly didn't.
Perhaps the perspective from IG players is potentially biased? At least you'll have a reason to take conscripts now.
I don't want a "reason to take conscripts". I want my damn army left alone until we actually see full codices out for everyone.
I could have fixed the damn unit months ago by simply making it so that they can never be taken in anything less than a Brigade Detachment. I even submitted it as an idea to GW.
Maybe they are "poor" for that cost, but it still makes them a great flexible unit out front of some very effective vehicles.
Not if they require you to take a fething Brigade Detachment they don't.
koooaei wrote: 5 ppm is really about right for them. They'll still be really good. Cheap 5+ wounds are great. I;m also awaiting a much needed nerf to scion command squads.
5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if Commissars hadn't gotten absolutely shanked months ago and remained absolute garbage.
5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if they had a feature similar to Camo Cloaks where they got to add 2 points to their saves while in Cover or if they had a Cult Ambush styled rule.
As it stands, 5ppm and 4ppm is absolute garbage and anyone who feels it's "appropriate" needs to stop commenting on Guard related threads.
It is entirely possible that they could change commissars in the FAQ as well, maybe guardsman go up to 5 points and commissars get UN-nerfed,
A bolt gun can still only kill so many models. If you have loads of 4ppm on the table then its gak. Few Armies can deal with that many shots in a game.
Guardians are almost the same as Guard in stats.
They move faster, They hit better (not sure why) and they have a vastly superior gun (well 12" gun)
You put 20 guard lined up vs 10 Guardians it will be a slaughter. That is not fair. Make Guardians 6 points and give them 24 range lasguns like they used to have and Ill be happy to surround my dark reapers with 80+ bodies. Try that on for size.
Now that is what its like to face Manticores/Basilisk/Pask/etc.
koooaei wrote: 5 ppm is really about right for them. They'll still be really good. Cheap 5+ wounds are great. I;m also awaiting a much needed nerf to scion command squads.
5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if Commissars hadn't gotten absolutely shanked months ago and remained absolute garbage. 5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if they had a feature similar to Camo Cloaks where they got to add 2 points to their saves while in Cover or if they had a Cult Ambush styled rule.
As it stands, 5ppm and 4ppm is absolute garbage and anyone who feels it's "appropriate" needs to stop commenting on Guard related threads.
You don't even need a comissar to keep a large blob intact. IG is swimming in command points.
It costs you 1CP to use the 'Consolidate Squads' Stratagem to do a 'Blob Squad' at the end of your Movement phase. It also requires an INFANTRY SQUAD to be 2" from another INFANTRY SQUAD and both to be the same <Regiment>.
'Blob Squads' functionally do not exist as they used to(50 models with Commissars and Priests thrown in to tarpit elite units)
Additionally, "Fight to the Death" only allows for you to roll D3 for the Morale Test rather than a D6--it does not negate the Morale Test entirely or allow for you to remove 'just' one model instead.
As is ig troops are too effective for points. 10 extra for 10 dudes is not really all that much. That's just 30-60 off from a list.
And you still have amazing battle tanks
"An amazing battle tank". Vanquishers are still garbage. It's really just the basic LRBT and the Punisher that are making showings of themselves.
overpowered stormtrooper comsquads and other great stuff.
Oh boofrigginghoo about Scion Command Squads. They're Elite choices and for every Scion Command Squad you're required to also take a Tempestor Prime(That's an investment of 36 points before weapons on the Command Squad and an additional 40 for the Tempestor Prime).
Guards are showing in like 80% competitive imperium lists. It's a clear indicator that something is wrong with them. Maybe if you're playing a casual semi-optimised list, you won't notice that they're too good. But if you do, you also won't notice 30-60 points going away from your list cause of one unit getting more expensive and going back to your list cause another unit got cheaper.
Or it's because the people who dropped hundreds of dollars into Conscripts are just swapping them over to Guardsmen?
As for soup lists, yep, not getting any penalties for mixing stuff from different books is a real problem here. But keep in mind that gw gets sales increas because they actually allow you to take whatever you want. So, soup's here to stay.
Not even remotely the issue really. The issue is that they had two units that were the same basic setup(Lasguns), one of which was abused to hell and back again since there was no methodology to keep them out of allied lists. When that unit got nerfed, quite a few people switched one in every 10 models over to a Sergeant and maybe added some HWTs and called it a day.
koooaei wrote: 5 ppm is really about right for them. They'll still be really good. Cheap 5+ wounds are great. I;m also awaiting a much needed nerf to scion command squads.
5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if Commissars hadn't gotten absolutely shanked months ago and remained absolute garbage. 5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if they had a feature similar to Camo Cloaks where they got to add 2 points to their saves while in Cover or if they had a Cult Ambush styled rule.
As it stands, 5ppm and 4ppm is absolute garbage and anyone who feels it's "appropriate" needs to stop commenting on Guard related threads.
It is entirely possible that they could change commissars in the FAQ as well, maybe guardsman go up to 5 points and commissars get UN-nerfed,
They didn't unnerf Commissars when they nerfed literally every other 'problem' unit.
I don't want them to leave the OP armies alone untill everyhting is balanced. Even at 5 ppmGEq tanks most shots(S2ap0 and S6 ap0 being the exceptions I can find the fastest) more point efficiently then MEQ at 13.
And this is coming from an CWE player.
Soup is a separate discusion entirely but IMHO it boils down to more options will mostly beat less options.
admironheart wrote: A bolt gun can still only kill so many models. If you have loads of 4ppm on the table then its gak. Few Armies can deal with that many shots in a game.
Guardians are almost the same as Guard in stats.
They move faster, They hit better (not sure why) and they have a vastly superior gun (well 12" gun)
You put 20 guard lined up vs 10 Guardians it will be a slaughter. That is not fair. Make Guardians 6 points and give them 24 range lasguns like they used to have and Ill be happy to surround my dark reapers with 80+ bodies. Try that on for size.
20 Guard is 2 squads of Guardsmen.
A Lasgun is also Rapid Fire 1 with a 24" range(9 of them per squad; 6 if you have a Special Weapon bearer and a HWT as the Sergeant can never have a Lasgun), meaning that you putting your Guardians into range for their Shuriken Catapults are playing into the Guardsmen's strength.
Now take a unit of Rangers and shoot at the Guardsmen.
Now that is what its like to face Manticores/Basilisk/Pask/etc.
Basically every problem unit in the Guard book got nerfed with Chapter Approved or their errata/FAQ.
Eldar still have Dark Reapers. Your whining is irrelevant.
You have to be slowed to think they are going to nerf one thing and not buff something else. The meta is hordes right now. If your army is to good at hording, it will get nerfed. All those other units you say are gak? They will most likely get some love. That's what is happening to every codex. If they get enough love or not is yet to be seen, but they will get it. I'm sure we will see equal amounts of QQ out of Chaos players when they nerf Obliterators, Plague tanks, and other OP gak.
andysonic1 wrote: You have to be slowed to think they are going to nerf one thing and not buff something else. The meta is hordes right now. If your army is to good at hording, it will get nerfed. All those other units you say are gak? They will most likely get some love. That's what is happening to every codex. If they get enough love or not is yet to be seen, but they will get it. I'm sure we will see equal amounts of QQ out of Chaos players when they nerf Obliterators, Plague tanks, and other OP gak.
You can tell the meta is hordes right now by all those horde armies that won in LVO.
You know, horde armies like mono BA and Dark Reaper spam. (/sarcasm)
The problem isn't soup... Having one faction with another faction doesn't automatically make them OP.... The problem is with players having a mentality that they must win at all costs (even if that cost means people losing all respect in them, their bank account being diminished and them cheesing the hell out of a game). None of this would be a problem if people didn't just play this game for fun rather than turning it into a competitive game.The only players who are punished are the ones who play for fun and have a set fluffy army they play with! Compt players just move on to another game or another army...
This happens to all the games I play every single time! It's a nice casual experience until people start to realise they get a little more of a high if they win... They are loud and push the devs to go for a competitive game which then knocks everyone else out of the water.
andysonic1 wrote: You have to be slowed to think they are going to nerf one thing and not buff something else. The meta is hordes right now. If your army is to good at hording, it will get nerfed. All those other units you say are gak? They will most likely get some love. That's what is happening to every codex. If they get enough love or not is yet to be seen, but they will get it. I'm sure we will see equal amounts of QQ out of Chaos players when they nerf Obliterators, Plague tanks, and other OP gak.
Let's see, as a GK player I got nerfed by upping the cost of my Storm Ravens, all types of assault cannons and, Razorback. In return GW "buffed" my terminators from way over priced to only slightly over priced. Yep seems like an equal trade to me.
Well, if guardsmen did go up to 5 ppm, renegade infantry wouldn’t look quite as terrible on paper at 4 ppm. But then one remembers they still don’t get orders or stratagems and that extra 1 ppm is still a steal...
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: Well, if guardsmen did go up to 5 ppm, renegade infantry wouldn’t look quite as terrible on paper at 4 ppm. But then one remembers they still don’t get orders or stratagems and that extra 1 ppm is still a steal...
To be fair, that's an index vs codex problem. The R&H list is an index list, and just like all index lists it lacks stratagems, a lot of army special rules, ... literally everything.
Punisher Heavy40 tanks are not ok either - in fact, there's a fair number of other Guard things that are also a bit over the top.
Is Guard the only faction that has overperforming/underpriced units? No. They're also not the only faction going to get nerfed.
Just because XYZ is nerfed multiple times in a row does NOT mean it's not warrented - sometimes it really is.
Seriously, try to look at this game through a non-imperial/non-biased lens; some things ARE overperforming, or underpriced - faction is irrelevant with these facts. It's not the end of the world if your army gets nerfed - it feels like it sucks, but if it's better for the game's health; so be it. I'd rather have them attempt to make a balanced game than cater to everyone's emotional whims.
koooaei wrote: 5 ppm is really about right for them. They'll still be really good. Cheap 5+ wounds are great. I;m also awaiting a much needed nerf to scion command squads.
5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if Commissars hadn't gotten absolutely shanked months ago and remained absolute garbage.
5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if they had a feature similar to Camo Cloaks where they got to add 2 points to their saves while in Cover or if they had a Cult Ambush styled rule.
As it stands, 5ppm and 4ppm is absolute garbage and anyone who feels it's "appropriate" needs to stop commenting on Guard related threads.
13ppm for tac marines isn’t so hot either, yet the marine threads get plenty of “deal with it bro” style responses. It’s a horde meta; guardsmen were clearly underpriced at 4ppm. I’m happy to see the price hike. At this point I’m not sure GWs points system has enough nuance to it, and I wouldn’t be opposed to seeing a change in the way that works.
Tac Marines are WS/BS3+ S/T4 1W LD7 with a 3+ save and rerollable Failed Morale tests(ATSNKF). Every model includes a Bolt Pistol and a Boltgun and Frag and Krak Grenades.
They're not comparable. A Guardsman is a WS/BS4+ S/T3 1W LD6 model with a 5+(2 points worse) save and only features a Lasgun and Frag Grenades.
Jumping from BS 4+ to 3+ alone is considered worth 2 points(as evidenced by the price jump from a standard Guardsman to a Veteran) and going from a 5+ save to a 4+ is likely another point in and of itself(it's hard to make an exacting conversion on this one since the Scions have fairly significant stat differences to a Veteran on their weapons, and they also come equipped with Krak Grenades as well and have an alternate deployment method as well).
There seems to be a bit of wiggle room in points costing at times, but the rule of thumb seems to be that any stat(barring Leadership--which doesn't seem like it really gets priced unless it goes at or over 7--the only tangible difference between a Neophyte Hybrid and a standard Guardsman is LD7. It also seems that WS is exempted from this when the model has no CC weapon or is below a certain threshhold of S/T) going from 5+ to 4+ is 1ppm while any stat going from a 4+ to 3+ is instead 2 points of difference. It also seems that going from 3s to 4s on Toughness/Strength is +1ppm
So from that, one could speculate that Tactical Marines are:
+6ppm for the WS/BS/Sv3+. +2ppm for S/T4. +1ppm for LD7(8 on the Sergeant).
That's a difference of 9 points from a Guardsman.
Now, if you want to argue that Guard should pay for their Sergeants and/or Heavy Weapon Teams(Currently, an Infantry or Veteran Squad that takes a HWT don't pay for it in points--they just pay for the weapon)?
Sure. Fine. But I want more options for the Sergeants; including an option to fething have a Lasgun--and I want to see FRFSRF altered to include ALL weapons in a squad. Not just Lasguns.
Why not calculate?
1 unbuffed tactical marine kills 3.33 points of orks within rapid fire range. That's 0.256 points of dead orks per point of marines.
1 unbuffed guardsman kills 1.667 points of orks within rapid fire range. That's 0.417 points of dead orks per point of 4 ppm guarsman (63% better than a tactical marine).
If you include the most common and easiest buff to get for both guards and marines - those are double the shots for a guardsman and re-roll of ones to hit for a marine, 4ppm guardsman becomes 177% better at dealing damage to orks than a tactical marine.
I say, consider yourself lucky GW doesn't do basic math on their stuff. Otherwise, you'd get 6 ppm guards and a nerf to frf srf.
Man if only there was some difference between "Re-Roll 1s" and "FRFSRF."
You know, like one being an aura that works on every single unit within a certain distance throughout every phase of the game, while the other one works on a single unit in one phase and excludes any number of other neat things you could do to that unit.
But I guess since they're not different at all they're completely directly comparable, you know. Since one's a single-point buff for a single phase and the other one works forever on everyone.
(jesus christ this is like a videogame forum. "My AOE damage abilities that are easier to hit with are weaker against a single target than my SINGLE TARGET damage abilities that are very hard to use REEEEEEEE")
Why not calculate?
1 unbuffed tactical marine kills 3.33 points of orks within rapid fire range. That's 0.256 points of dead orks per point of marines.
1 unbuffed guardsman kills 1.667 points of orks within rapid fire range. That's 0.417 points of dead orks per point of 4 ppm guarsman (63% better than a tactical marine).
If you include the most common and easiest buff to get for both guards and marines - those are double the shots for a guardsman and re-roll of ones to hit for a marine, 4ppm guardsman becomes 177% better at dealing damage to orks than a tactical marine.
I say, consider yourself lucky GW doesn't do basic math on their stuff. Otherwise, you'd get 6 ppm guards and a nerf to frf srf.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Man if only there was some difference between "Re-Roll 1s" and "FRFSRF."
You know, like one being an aura that works on every single unit within a certain distance throughout every phase of the game, while the other one works on a single unit in one phase and excludes any number of other neat things you could do to that unit.
But I guess since they're not different at all they're completely directly comparable, you know. Since one's a single-point buff for a single phase and the other one works forever on everyone.
(jesus christ this is like a videogame forum. "My AOE damage abilities that are easier to hit with are weaker against a single target than my SINGLE TARGET damage abilities that are very hard to use REEEEEEEE")
Eldar are Guardsman with elite PPM model cost. "But they get buffs!" - Sure, from 75-100+ point cost models; add in the support costs, and Guardsman still win out.
Also; Guardsman have no lack of orders, between their named units and other HQ choices. Isn't there a 40 point commander that can issue two orders per turn? Sure, that's all he'l do, but that's still good enough.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Man if only there was some difference between "Re-Roll 1s" and "FRFSRF."
You know, like one being an aura that works on every single unit within a certain distance throughout every phase of the game, while the other one works on a single unit in one phase and excludes any number of other neat things you could do to that unit.
But I guess since they're not different at all they're completely directly comparable, you know. Since one's a single-point buff for a single phase and the other one works forever on everyone.
(jesus christ this is like a videogame forum. "My AOE damage abilities that are easier to hit with are weaker against a single target than my SINGLE TARGET damage abilities that are very hard to use REEEEEEEE")
Eldar are Guardsman with elite PPM model cost. "But they get buffs!" - Sure, from 75-100+ point cost models; add in the support costs, and Guardsman still win out.
Also; Guardsman have no lack of orders, between their named units and other HQ choices. Isn't there a 40 point commander that can issue two orders per turn? Sure, that's all he'l do, but that's still good enough.
Eldar are guardsmen with elite PPM stats and capabilities. And buffs, from units that also have elite stats and capabilities, completely unlike the IG buff-givers. Add in the support costs, and you're throwing elite units at chaff and wondering why you're not being points efficient. I, too, often am confused and distraught when my Shadowsword only kills 3 guardsmen for 404 points, and can only conclude that hordes are OP.
koooaei wrote: 5 ppm is really about right for them. They'll still be really good. Cheap 5+ wounds are great. I;m also awaiting a much needed nerf to scion command squads.
5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if Commissars hadn't gotten absolutely shanked months ago and remained absolute garbage.
5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if they had a feature similar to Camo Cloaks where they got to add 2 points to their saves while in Cover or if they had a Cult Ambush styled rule.
As it stands, 5ppm and 4ppm is absolute garbage and anyone who feels it's "appropriate" needs to stop commenting on Guard related threads.
And yet lots of people voted Infantry Squads as one of the most powerful units. Commissars were never really for regular squads anyway.
That didn't stop people from claiming that the Commissar "nerf" made them more helpful for SWS/HWS/Infantry Squads...despite the fact that it clearly didn't.
Perhaps the perspective from IG players is potentially biased? At least you'll have a reason to take conscripts now.
I don't want a "reason to take conscripts". I want my damn army left alone until we actually see full codices out for everyone.
I could have fixed the damn unit months ago by simply making it so that they can never be taken in anything less than a Brigade Detachment. I even submitted it as an idea to GW.
Maybe they are "poor" for that cost, but it still makes them a great flexible unit out front of some very effective vehicles.
Not if they require you to take a fething Brigade Detachment they don't.
I don't really disagree with you, but I think you highlight their greatest ability - filling out slots cheaply while being decent. I'm sure there are other avenues to a fix, but ones where we start over complicating what can and can't be taken in certain detachments will be far too cumbersome.
fe40k wrote: Guardsman are 5ppm models, full stop.
Prove it. I can prove they're not. Neophyte Hybrids are the same statline as a Guardsman but with LD7/8(Guardsmen are 6/7 when their Sergeant is alive). Neophytes are 5ppm.
Punisher Heavy40 tanks are not ok either - in fact, there's a fair number of other Guard things that are also a bit over the top.
Punishers are S5 AP0 D1 with a 24" range.
It's a fricking Boltgun with Heavy 20 that, if staying below a certain Movement Value, gets to fire its turret weapon twice. If a Punisher is OP then christ, what you must think of Tactical Marine spam!
Is Guard the only faction that has overperforming/underpriced units? No. They're also not the only faction going to get nerfed.
Until we see Dark Reapers or Guilliman or Assault Cannon Razorbacks or Mortarion or Magnus get MEANINGFUL nerfs? Yeah. We kinda are.
Guilliman went up 25 points...14.4% of his initial points cost.
A Primaris Psyker went from 28 to 38ppm.
Just because XYZ is nerfed multiple times in a row does NOT mean it's not warrented - sometimes it really is.
By that same vein, sometimes XYZ is nerfed multiple times in a row because someone thinks it's the problem--but it isn't.
Seriously, try to look at this game through a non-imperial/non-biased lens; some things ARE overperforming, or underpriced - faction is irrelevant with these facts. It's not the end of the world if your army gets nerfed - it feels like it sucks, but if it's better for the game's health; so be it. I'd rather have them attempt to make a balanced game than cater to everyone's emotional whims.
Then I expect Dark Reapers to get nerfed into the fething GROUND. They should get nerfed so fething hard they come out of the other side of the planet. They should get nerfed so hard they never show back up in a list until 10th edition.
I mean, if we want to talk about things that are "overperforming and underpriced"...that's where you fething start to look.
Honestly I can see a lot of salt on both sides with this, but I'm going to raise a point here and I fully expect to get yelled at in response. Regardless, here goes:
Points are for competitive play, and since the game is being played competitively they need to be regularly adjusted (regardless of faction) to try and keep the game balanced for tournament play.
Anyone who looks at the way the game is adjusted the Open Play power levels basically never change, but the points values for Matched Play do. Why? Because they're trying to ensure that armies that aren't doing as well in matched play become stronger with more options (see: dropping Primaris points so they'll actually see the table in competitive lists) while combinations that are seeing too much play (due to how strong the combinations are (see: Dark Reapers or Commander Spam)) will see nerfs, be it through points hikes (fully expect one on Dark Reapers) or changes made to the army through the Codex (GW has stated that Commander Spam is going to be addressed in the T'Au codex)).
So yes, it may affect people who don't play competitively but choose to play Matched Play, but in all honesty are we really flipping out over trying to improve game balance? This is the sort of constant tweaking we've been asking for since at least 5th edition (I didn't pay attention back during 3rd and missed 4th but I assume it's the same for those editions as well), and one of the things I've seen people claim that makes Warmachine better than 40k: regular constant tweaking of the game to adjust the meta so the game is more balanced (notice I said "more balanced" and not just "balanced" as no game will ever be perfect) and less exploitable.
Right now one of the things Guard need is to have the basic squads bumped up a little in points because for all they get they're too cheap. 5ppm is still a steal for everything they get (especially Cadia who get baked in re-rolls that Marines have to buy characters for just by being a gunline army that doesn't move) and in all honesty all it's going to do is reduce spamming brigades by a bit since the base cost is going to jump up 30 points per Brigade created (assuming no increase in points on characters). It's not a huge amount, but it might restrict some of the soup spam nonsense that is honestly not healthy for the game.
And while everyone is focused on the Guard, let's be honest, especially after LVO, there are going to be changes to every army. Especially codex armies since those books won't be seeing updates until the rest of the codexes launch. So before we assume Guard are being hosed here, let's wait and see what the whole picture looks like when the dust settles THEN flip out as the internet will do anyways.
Anyways, that's my .02¢ and I fully expect to either be ignored or yelled at for it.
ClockworkZion wrote: Honestly I can see a lot of salt on both sides with this, but I'm going to raise a point here and I fully expect to get yelled at in response. Regardless, here goes:
Points are for competitive play, and since the game is being played competitively they need to be regularly adjusted (regardless of faction) to try and keep the game balanced for tournament play.
Anyone who looks at the way the game is adjusted the Open Play power levels basically never change, but the points values for Matched Play do. Why? Because they're trying to ensure that armies that aren't doing as well in matched play become stronger with more options (see: dropping Primaris points so they'll actually see the table in competitive lists) while combinations that are seeing too much play (due to how strong the combinations are (see: Dark Reapers or Commander Spam)) will see nerfs, be it through points hikes (fully expect one on Dark Reapers) or changes made to the army through the Codex (GW has stated that Commander Spam is going to be addressed in the T'Au codex)).
So yes, it may affect people who don't play competitively but choose to play Matched Play, but in all honesty are we really flipping out over trying to improve game balance? This is the sort of constant tweaking we've been asking for since at least 5th edition (I didn't pay attention back during 3rd and missed 4th but I assume it's the same for those editions as well), and one of the things I've seen people claim that makes Warmachine better than 40k: regular constant tweaking of the game to adjust the meta so the game is more balanced (notice I said "more balanced" and not just "balanced" as no game will ever be perfect) and less exploitable.
Right now one of the things Guard need is to have the basic squads bumped up a little in points because for all they get they're too cheap. 5ppm is still a steal for everything they get (especially Cadia who get baked in re-rolls that Marines have to buy characters for just by being a gunline army that doesn't move) and in all honesty all it's going to do is reduce spamming brigades by a bit since the base cost is going to jump up 30 points per Brigade created (assuming no increase in points on characters). It's not a huge amount, but it might restrict some of the soup spam nonsense that is honestly not healthy for the game.
And while everyone is focused on the Guard, let's be honest, especially after LVO, there are going to be changes to every army. Especially codex armies since those books won't be seeing updates until the rest of the codexes launch. So before we assume Guard are being hosed here, let's wait and see what the whole picture looks like when the dust settles THEN flip out as the internet will do anyways.
Anyways, that's my .02¢ and I fully expect to either be ignored or yelled at for it.
I'm not actually upset that GW is trying to balance the game. I'm a bit upset that they're crowdsourcing the balance to the community, though. I know some ace Warhammer 40k players, and as you can tell by the recent LVO the ace players have moved beyond Guard as other codexes have come out, and the Guard that did show up did splendidly but not dominatingly. This tells me that there's been another meta shift since CA2017 and the recent codexes, and we should wait for it to shake out before making any rash decisions.
Instead, however, people that haven't adapted (for whatever reason, I get that some people simply can't) to the new edition and new books are allowed to dictate policy so long as they scream loud enough. It's easier to nerf guardsmen by 25% (by upping their cost) than it is to discover the unique and interesting ways that the tourney players (who no doubt had to kick some Astra Militarum ass to win LVO) have figured out to cope with the problem.
I wish they would do like AOS and make it so that certain allies cannot ally with others. You can't just ally in Tzeentch Daemons with Maggotkin of Nurgle for example.
Eldar are guardsmen with elite PPM stats and capabilities. And buffs, from units that also have elite stats and capabilities, completely unlike the IG buff-givers. Add in the support costs, and you're throwing elite units at chaff and wondering why you're not being points efficient. I, too, often am confused and distraught when my Shadowsword only kills 3 guardsmen for 404 points, and can only conclude that hordes are OP.
Just because IG infantry don't necessarily get buffed to Eldar levels (but to be frank IG have some damn good buffs) doesn't mean the big picture doesn't equate to something weaker than Eldar.
fe40k wrote: Guardsman are 5ppm models, full stop.
Prove it. I can prove they're not. Neophyte Hybrids are the same statline as a Guardsman but with LD7/8(Guardsmen are 6/7 when their Sergeant is alive). Neophytes are 5ppm.
Punisher Heavy40 tanks are not ok either - in fact, there's a fair number of other Guard things that are also a bit over the top.
Punishers are S5 AP0 D1 with a 24" range.
It's a fricking Boltgun with Heavy 20 that, if staying below a certain Movement Value, gets to fire its turret weapon twice. If a Punisher is OP then christ, what you must think of Tactical Marine spam!
Is Guard the only faction that has overperforming/underpriced units? No. They're also not the only faction going to get nerfed.
Until we see Dark Reapers or Guilliman or Assault Cannon Razorbacks or Mortarion or Magnus get MEANINGFUL nerfs? Yeah. We kinda are.
Guilliman went up 25 points...14.4% of his initial points cost.
A Primaris Psyker went from 28 to 38ppm.
Just because XYZ is nerfed multiple times in a row does NOT mean it's not warrented - sometimes it really is.
By that same vein, sometimes XYZ is nerfed multiple times in a row because someone thinks it's the problem--but it isn't.
Seriously, try to look at this game through a non-imperial/non-biased lens; some things ARE overperforming, or underpriced - faction is irrelevant with these facts. It's not the end of the world if your army gets nerfed - it feels like it sucks, but if it's better for the game's health; so be it. I'd rather have them attempt to make a balanced game than cater to everyone's emotional whims.
Then I expect Dark Reapers to get nerfed into the fething GROUND. They should get nerfed so fething hard they come out of the other side of the planet. They should get nerfed so hard they never show back up in a list until 10th edition.
I mean, if we want to talk about things that are "overperforming and underpriced"...that's where you fething start to look.
No Orders, No Stratagems, No Regimental Tactics, fewer weapon options and practically no sinergies and they still cost 1 point more...rotfl
koooaei wrote: 5 ppm is really about right for them. They'll still be really good. Cheap 5+ wounds are great. I;m also awaiting a much needed nerf to scion command squads.
5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if Commissars hadn't gotten absolutely shanked months ago and remained absolute garbage.
5ppm and 4ppm for Guardsmen and Conscripts would be right...if they had a feature similar to Camo Cloaks where they got to add 2 points to their saves while in Cover or if they had a Cult Ambush styled rule.
As it stands, 5ppm and 4ppm is absolute garbage and anyone who feels it's "appropriate" needs to stop commenting on Guard related threads.
Sounds and looks like somebody got real mad cause he went out and bough the 300 man guard blob, get real man. This guy is just pointing out his opinion. Dont attack people like i jokingly did you.
Prove it. I can prove they're not. Neophyte Hybrids are the same statline as a Guardsman but with LD7/8(Guardsmen are 6/7 when their Sergeant is alive). Neophytes are 5ppm.
They don't have a codex yet. Bad comparison.
Punishers are S5 AP0 D1 with a 24" range.
It's a fricking Boltgun with Heavy 20 that, if staying below a certain Movement Value, gets to fire its turret weapon twice. If a Punisher is OP then christ, what you must think of Tactical Marine spam!
Slow down there.
LRBT with PGC is 150. 40 S5 shots, 20 hits, 13 wounds vs MEQ.
150 points is 12 marines at best. Even if they were in double tap range...they come in way less...24 shots, 16 hits, 8 wounds
Both those units have the same number of wounds. One has T8 though.
One interesting point to me about guardsmen is how they're being used. In IG armies themselves, nobody is really taking more than the minimum necessary to fill out a detachment most of the time, and rarely ever maxing them out, and generally people arent tripping over themselves to find ways to fit in more. Basically, they're not being spammed for their own sake, they're basically taken because they have to be taken and just happen to be good in the process. Nobody is fielding armies of 200 guardsmen.
In this regard, them moving to 5ppm isn't going to change much for most people either way. It's not going to ruin guard armies, and its not going to suddenly make other stuff viable, and its not really going to make them any worse screeners. Most armies arent built around enough guardsmen that they cant just jigger some options and swap a couple weapons and emerge mostly at the same point they were before, the archetypal Brigade usually may go up 60pts at 1850/2k? Within the context of IG armies, I don't think this will have the effect most people either dread or hope for. Mostly, if true, it's likely a reflexive response to a much bemoaned by ultimately minor issue.
The problem appears to be with the Soup lists, where the razor thin margin is much more important to inclusion and people are taking them specifically to cover (largely otherwise intended) capability gaps. This has been an issue with multiple units now for almost six goddamn years and three editions now because armies are still largely designed as self contained forces with inherent weaknesses and strengths, but then the army construction rules allows you to basically toss those out the window.
By the same token, if this change really is coming down, it will make the 4th major nerf to basic IG troops in about 8 months, more major changes of that sort than any army has had in 40k's history ever in such a timespan (or hell even the span of an edition), especially to such core elements. First the Codex changes to Conscripts from the Index (reduced squad size and 50% chance of orders failing), then the Commissar changes, then the Conscript price increase, and now an Infantry Squad price increase. For a game where this army has gone literally 6 years without any updates before (and others over a decade), an army that has traditonally been rather mediocre or outright awful through most of the game's history (especially the units in question here), and where latest event results dont bear out IG being particularly head of the pack, it's not hard to see where players would get frustrated, especially when there are other units in much more immediate dire need of attention in both directions (Id nerf the shadowsword before Infantry Squads, Reapers before either, and redo the entire GK costing lineup before any of those). Basically, having this many changes to such core units this quickly makes it appear that GW is basically just swatting randomly at stuff, without taking time to consider ramifications (especially notable when they made conscripts 4ppm next to 4ppm Infantry Squads and dint make then 5ppm change then) and the fast pace of disruption is irritating in the extreme. Yearly or twice a year changes would be one thing, but having them drib and drab out in a seemingly haphazard manner ever couple months is abysmal execution, which, sadly, is tradition with GW.
No Orders, No Stratagems, No Regimental Tactics, fewer weapon options and practically no sinergies and they still cost 1 point more...rotfl
A Neophyte Hybrids Squad can take:
2 models with options from the Special Weapons List(Grenade Launcher, Flamers, and Webbers)
2 models with options from the Heavy Mining Weapons (Heavy Stubbers, Mining Lasers, and Seismic Cannons)
OR
2 models can form a Heavy Weapons Team (Heavy Bolter, Lascannon, Mortar, Missile Launcher, and Autocannon)
Guard Squads can take
1 model with options from Special Weapons List(Grenade Launchers, Sniper Rifles, Flamers, Plasma Guns, or Meltaguns) and 2 models can form a Heavy Weapons Team(same options as above)
Same number of weapon options actually...although Neophyte Hybrids do also come standard with Pistols as well as Autoguns(that can be swapped for Lasguns or Shotguns). They also get Cult Icons, allowing for rerolling Hit Rolls of 1s during the Fight Phase and "Unquestioning Loyalty" makes it so that any Genestealer Cult Infantry model can protect a Genestealer Cult character from losing a Wound on a 4+...and their 'Sergeant' equivalent is sitting at Space Marine levels of Leadership rather than Guard levels.
You also have 'Cult Ambush' allowing for you to deploy the unit in ambush instead of on the battlefield.
But yeah. You totally don't get anything special for that 1ppm.
I'm not actually upset that GW is trying to balance the game. I'm a bit upset that they're crowdsourcing the balance to the community, though. I know some ace Warhammer 40k players, and as you can tell by the recent LVO the ace players have moved beyond Guard as other codexes have come out, and the Guard that did show up did splendidly but not dominatingly. This tells me that there's been another meta shift since CA2017 and the recent codexes, and we should wait for it to shake out before making any rash decisions.
We've been seeing for years that the competetive scene is better at finding the broken parts of the game than the studio is (RAW vs RAI being a large part of it). Using them as a metric on what needs fixing is valid, and even if the meta has moved towards Eldar, I'm pretty sure that if we see an Eldar nerf but don't see the less balanced parts of Guard brought into line we'll just return to the pre-Eldar codex meta. So yeah, they BOTH need to see some nerfs (and some buffs on other stuff in the book to balance the "never take" vs "always take" lists).
Instead, however, people that haven't adapted (for whatever reason, I get that some people simply can't) to the new edition and new books are allowed to dictate policy so long as they scream loud enough. It's easier to nerf guardsmen by 25% (by upping their cost) than it is to discover the unique and interesting ways that the tourney players (who no doubt had to kick some Astra Militarum ass to win LVO) have figured out to cope with the problem.
As I've said, if we only nerf the current hotness but leave the previous meta leader alone we'll just step back to whatever was best prior to the current best. So when nerfs are handed out, everything that was on the "auto-include if you want to dominate" lists between one major update and the next should all be addressed. Otherwise all the meta does is step back to the previous broken thing and we don't fix anything properly.
No Orders, No Stratagems, No Regimental Tactics, fewer weapon options and practically no sinergies and they still cost 1 point more...rotfl
A Neophyte Hybrids Squad can take:
2 models with options from the Special Weapons List(Grenade Launcher, Flamers, and Webbers)
2 models with options from the Heavy Mining Weapons (Heavy Stubbers, Mining Lasers, and Seismic Cannons)
OR
2 models can form a Heavy Weapons Team (Heavy Bolter, Lascannon, Mortar, Missile Launcher, and Autocannon)
Guard Squads can take
1 model with options from Special Weapons List(Grenade Launchers, Sniper Rifles, Flamers, Plasma Guns, or Meltaguns) and 2 models can form a Heavy Weapons Team(same options as above)
Same number of weapon options actually...although Neophyte Hybrids do also come standard with Pistols as well as Autoguns(that can be swapped for Lasguns or Shotguns). They also get Cult Icons, allowing for rerolling Hit Rolls of 1s during the Fight Phase and "Unquestioning Loyalty" makes it so that any Genestealer Cult Infantry model can protect a Genestealer Cult character from losing a Wound on a 4+...and their 'Sergeant' equivalent is sitting at Space Marine levels of Leadership rather than Guard levels.
You also have 'Cult Ambush' allowing for you to deploy the unit in ambush instead of on the battlefield.
But yeah. You totally don't get anything special for that 1ppm.
Special weapons are useless, I see no Plasma/Melta there.
Aside from the Mining Laser (Lascannon with half the range and D3 damage) all other Mining Weapons are terrible for their points cost.
The HWT is the same as guard but it costs MORE than 2 guards forming a HWT.
The Cult Icon costs 10 points and is useless on shooting models.
Unquestioning Loyalty, unless a Character is fighting in CQC, does not provide anything meaningful with the current character targeting system.
Cult Ambush is random and you still pay for it even if you're using a Vehicle (not even stating the need for 50% of your army to be deployed immediately)
+1 Leadership is not worth 1 point over a guardsman (and don't let me get started on the lack of automorale pass that the Cult lacks expect for 6" bubble near the Patriarch...)
Vaktathi wrote: One interesting point to me about guardsmen is how they're being used. In IG armies themselves, nobody is really taking more than the minimum necessary to fill out a detachment most of the time, and rarely ever maxing them out, and generally people arent tripping over themselves to find ways to fit in more. Basically, they're not being spammed for their own sake, they're basically taken because they have to be taken and just happen to be good in the process. Nobody is fielding armies of 200 guardsmen.
In this regard, them moving to 5ppm isn't going to change much for most people either way. It's not going to ruin guard armies, and its not going to suddenly make other stuff viable, and its not really going to make them any worse screeners. Most armies arent built around enough guardsmen that they cant just jigger some options and swap a couple weapons and emerge mostly at the same point they were before, the archetypal Brigade usually may go up 60pts at 1850/2k? Within the context of IG armies, I don't think this will have the effect most people either dread or hope for. Mostly, if true, it's likely a reflexive response to a much bemoaned by ultimately minor issue.
The problem appears to be with the Soup lists, where the razor thin margin is much more important to inclusion and people are taking them specifically to cover (largely otherwise intended) capability gaps. This has been an issue with multiple units now for almost six goddamn years and three editions now because armies are still largely designed as self contained forces with inherent weaknesses and strengths, but then the army construction rules allows you to basically toss those out the window.
By the same token, if this change really is coming down, it will make the 4th major nerf to basic IG troops in about 8 months, more major changes of that sort than any army has had in 40k's history ever in such a timespan (or hell even the span of an edition), especially to such core elements. First the Codex changes to Conscripts from the Index (reduced squad size and 50% chance of orders failing), then the Commissar changes, then the Conscript price increase, and now an Infantry Squad price increase. For a game where this army has gone literally 6 years without any updates before (and others over a decade), an army that has traditonally been rather mediocre or outright awful through most of the game's history (especially the units in question here), and where latest event results dont bear out IG being particularly head of the pack, it's not hard to see where players would get frustrated, especially when there are other units in much more immediate dire need of attention in both directions (Id nerf the shadowsword before Infantry Squads, Reapers before either, and redo the entire GK costing lineup before any of those). Basically, having this many changes to such core units this quickly makes it appear that GW is basically just swatting randomly at stuff, without taking time to consider ramifications (especially notable when they made conscripts 4ppm next to 4ppm Infantry Squads and dint make then 5ppm change then) and the fast pace of disruption is irritating in the extreme. Yearly or twice a year changes would be one thing, but having them drib and drab out in a seemingly haphazard manner ever couple months is abysmal execution, which, sadly, is tradition with GW.
I think Commisars should be un-nerfed but not to his previous state. A normal commisar should be 24-26 points and kill a dude to reduce morale loses by 1d6 (And he can affect more than one unit). Make Lord Commisars do the same but with 2d6 and Yarrick with 3d6.
And, now this is in general, one shouldn't use Tactical Marines as a measure of balance. The Tactical Marine or generic space marine statline is unbalanceable. Its horrible from a design standpoint. Its over, finito. Space Marines are dead. Its the statline of a generalist that can't do anything good.
Thats why the only units with the Space Marine statline that are competitive have a ton of special rules on top. But you can't do that for basic infantry. If you wan't to nerf Imperial Guard, ok, thats fine. And I agree, because compared with Hormagaunts, Termagaunts, Fire Warrios ,Necron Warriors, Kabalite Warriors, etc... they are much better for a inferior cost. But don't compare them with Tactical Marines. Because TAC Marines are a failure from a design standpoint. In the other hand, the Primaris statline and weapons solve all of those problems, and thats a statline that you can give a fair cost in the context of the game, and with enough design space.
In this regard, them moving to 5ppm isn't going to change much for most people either way. It's not going to ruin guard armies, and its not going to suddenly make other stuff viable, and its not really going to make them any worse screeners. Most armies arent built around enough guardsmen that they cant just jigger some options and swap a couple weapons and emerge mostly at the same point they were before, the archetypal Brigade usually may go up 60pts at 1850/2k? Within the context of IG armies, I don't think this will have the effect most people either dread or hope for. Mostly, if true, it's likely a reflexive response to a much bemoaned by ultimately minor issue.
In lists where people are packing in as much "good stuff" as they can 30 to 60 points means that a whole other unit needs to be forced out, heavy weapons dropped, CP lost, etc. It does little to hurt pure IG like you say, but the soup lists are going to have a harder time having their cake and eating it, too.
I'm not actually upset that GW is trying to balance the game. I'm a bit upset that they're crowdsourcing the balance to the community, though. I know some ace Warhammer 40k players, and as you can tell by the recent LVO the ace players have moved beyond Guard as other codexes have come out, and the Guard that did show up did splendidly but not dominatingly. This tells me that there's been another meta shift since CA2017 and the recent codexes, and we should wait for it to shake out before making any rash decisions.
We've been seeing for years that the competetive scene is better at finding the broken parts of the game than the studio is (RAW vs RAI being a large part of it). Using them as a metric on what needs fixing is valid, and even if the meta has moved towards Eldar, I'm pretty sure that if we see an Eldar nerf but don't see the less balanced parts of Guard brought into line we'll just return to the pre-Eldar codex meta. So yeah, they BOTH need to see some nerfs (and some buffs on other stuff in the book to balance the "never take" vs "always take" lists).
The problem is they're not using the competitive players. I don't know any competitive player who called for further nerfing to Imperial Guard after Chapter Approved 2017 hit the highlights. I know a bunch of people here on Dakkadakka did, who have probably never competed at NOVA or LVO or the tournament circuit in their lives. And a few people on Facebook made some memes. After CA2017, though, the competitive blogs mostly moved on to other things, job done. There was no major tournament after CA2017 (that I know of) that really tested the guard nerfs from it, except LVO. The Guard got nerfs in CA2017, and LVO would've been the test to see if those nerfs made them more balanced. I actually think they did, with the top mono-guard player coming in something like 21st. That's a good showing, but not a dominating one. Nerfs were handed out in CA2017, and were not tested. Now that IG have been to their first major tournament since CA2017 and got 21st, I'd say they're probably adequate but still a bit good, which is not the situation to start upping the costs of their most basic troops choice, lol.
Instead, however, people that haven't adapted (for whatever reason, I get that some people simply can't) to the new edition and new books are allowed to dictate policy so long as they scream loud enough. It's easier to nerf guardsmen by 25% (by upping their cost) than it is to discover the unique and interesting ways that the tourney players (who no doubt had to kick some Astra Militarum ass to win LVO) have figured out to cope with the problem.
As I've said, if we only nerf the current hotness but leave the previous meta leader alone we'll just step back to whatever was best prior to the current best. So when nerfs are handed out, everything that was on the "auto-include if you want to dominate" lists between one major update and the next should all be addressed. Otherwise all the meta does is step back to the previous broken thing and we don't fix anything properly.
But Guard did see nerfs since they were the previous meta leader in CA2017, and the meta hasn't had time to shake out since then I don't think to reveal the new leader. Maybe it still would have been guard, maybe it would have been nids? Who knows! Better nerf guard again, because waiting for more information after the first round of nerfs is too hard.
Special Characters are breaking things in Soup, not specific factions. There are multiple rage filled threads over that topic.
IG going to 5ppm is ok I guess, I always thought it was odd that orders just "go off" now, in the past it was some kind of stat roll/check.
There are some really nasty combos for lasguns in this edition. Vostroyans with FRSR can throw down 36 shots at 18 inches with 9 infantry. It costs nothing to do so, no CP, no check, it just "goes".
Commissars aren't really busted, they just are not automatic like before, you really shouldn't put them next to a large squad anyway. They are a good Plasma Pistol or Power Weapon carrying support model, personally I like my warlord to be a lord commissar with the master of command ability, much less likely to fail that test with Ld 9 bubble and the reroll. (And is more survibable and punchy then the Company Command unit.)
The problem is they're not using the competitive players. I don't know any competitive player who called for further nerfing to Imperial Guard after Chapter Approved 2017 hit the highlights. I know a bunch of people here on Dakkadakka did, who have probably never competed at NOVA or LVO or the tournament circuit in their lives. And a few people on Facebook made some memes. After CA2017, though, the competitive blogs mostly moved on to other things, job done. There was no major tournament after CA2017 (that I know of) that really tested the guard nerfs from it, except LVO. The Guard got nerfs in CA2017, and LVO would've been the test to see if those nerfs made them more balanced. I actually think they did, with the top mono-guard player coming in something like 21st. That's a good showing, but not a dominating one. Nerfs were handed out in CA2017, and were not tested. Now that IG have been to their first major tournament since CA2017 and got 21st, I'd say they're probably adequate but still a bit good, which is not the situation to start upping the costs of their most basic troops choice, lol.
This entire post is full of faulty assumptions and conjecture. GW did test these things, GW did get feedback from tournies, GW did think about this. Just because YOU did not get this information directly from them does not mean those things did not happen. Additionally, there are more tournies in the world than the ITC circuit in the USA. From a stats/balance perspective, LVO is a fantastic gauge of the performance of a rule set imo.
Marmatag wrote: So, until this becomes a reality, there's no reason to panic.
Imperial Soup, Chaos Soup, and Eldar are simply too strong relative to the field.
There's nothing wrong with toning these factions down slightly so that the rest of us can compete.
Adding 25% to the basic cost of an entire faction's troops choice isn't a slight nerf, lol.
Space Marine players would riot if Tactical Marines went up to 16 points.
Honestly it's slight and has been pointed out (but you ignored) that for a pure-Guard player it basically will change next to nothing in the list (just change some load outs around and you're likely to see no changes to pure Guard armies) but it's going to push Guard soups down.
Marines seeing a points increase takes a mediocre army and makes it bad. Guard seeing a points increase takes a great army and at WORST makes it good instead.
fe40k wrote: Guardsman are 5ppm models, full stop.
Prove it. I can prove they're not. Neophyte Hybrids are the same statline as a Guardsman but with LD7/8(Guardsmen are 6/7 when their Sergeant is alive). Neophytes are 5ppm.
Grots are S2/T2/BS4+/SV6+/LD4, at 3ppm. For 1ppm, you get +1S, +1T, +1SV, +6/7LD, plus 12" Range//+1 shot on the Guardsman Lasgun; that's before access to orders or regiments. Don't underestimate how much stronger having a 5+ makes your units, especially at such a cheap PPM.
But there's something to be said about Grots in general; they're probably overpriced to begin with - I'd probably drop them to 2PPM, and shift the 10/30 point cost onto the Runtherd unit; that leaves them as a cheapo screening unit, that dies in droves (T/LD) to anything that looks it's way as well as morale kills, but allows them to have more staying power if the Ork player takes a Runtherd (at cost).
Look, 4ppm for SV5+, BS4+, Lasgun, orders/regiments; it's a fantastic value. I'll come back with more comparisons later.
Punisher Heavy40 tanks are not ok either - in fact, there's a fair number of other Guard things that are also a bit over the top.
Punishers are S5 AP0 D1 with a 24" range.
It's a fricking Boltgun with Heavy 20 that, if staying below a certain Movement Value, gets to fire its turret weapon twice. If a Punisher is OP then christ, what you must think of Tactical Marine spam!
Heavy 20/40 on a T8 chassis with BS4+, that can be improved/buffed (regiments, tank commander, orders); all for pretty cheap. It murders any infantry squad it comes across, and at no real cost, each turn. Plus, it requires the enemies precious anti-tank resources to really deal with it which diverts fire away from more important units.
What other factions get that amount of firepower, for that amount of points? This is a legitimate question - I'm curious. Maybe Tyranid Termagaunts?
Is Guard the only faction that has overperforming/underpriced units? No. They're also not the only faction going to get nerfed.
Until we see Dark Reapers or Guilliman or Assault Cannon Razorbacks or Mortarion or Magnus get MEANINGFUL nerfs? Yeah. We kinda are.
Guilliman went up 25 points...14.4% of his initial points cost.
A Primaris Psyker went from 28 to 38ppm.
I'll agree with you - Dark Reapers, Gulliman, AC Razorbacks, Mortarion/Magnus DEFINITELY need nerfs//points increases. I'm not happy with how Gulliman got away with no meaningful nerfs despite everything he brings; AC Razorbacks are too insane for their points costs (in a way thats similar to a Punisher Russ), and Dark Reapers needs a hike for how much they do; at so little a cost.
We're in agreement that more meaningful nerfs need to happen to other factions. I don't feel the Commissar nerf was unwarrented, the Psyker nerf can probably be reverted a bit (~5 points?) if the Beta Smite rules (-1 to casting roll per smite attempted in a round) get added to the game.
Just because XYZ is nerfed multiple times in a row does NOT mean it's not warrented - sometimes it really is.
By that same vein, sometimes XYZ is nerfed multiple times in a row because someone thinks it's the problem--but it isn't.
Also agreed; sometimes things are overnerfed. It's part of the balance process. Sometimes they're addressing the wrong portion of a unit or unit combination that is making something unnecessarily strong - GW has a terrible balancing record; but I can't fault them for finally trying this time around.
It's a learning process for them; they clearly haven't been practicing in the X years this game's been around.
Seriously, try to look at this game through a non-imperial/non-biased lens; some things ARE overperforming, or underpriced - faction is irrelevant with these facts. It's not the end of the world if your army gets nerfed - it feels like it sucks, but if it's better for the game's health; so be it. I'd rather have them attempt to make a balanced game than cater to everyone's emotional whims.
Then I expect Dark Reapers to get nerfed into the fething GROUND. They should get nerfed so fething hard they come out of the other side of the planet. They should get nerfed so hard they never show back up in a list until 10th edition.
I mean, if we want to talk about things that are "overperforming and underpriced"...that's where you fething start to look.
Dark Reapers don't deserved to be unusable because they're overperforming now - that's not good balance. They deserved to be balanced, and points appropriate, like any other unit in this game.
Problem is, GW doesn't have a calculation they use - it's all "this feels right"; they admitted this already.
Just be wary not to let your emotions get in the way of being reasonable when talking about units; something does not deserved to be removed just because it's overpowered/underpriced.
Marmatag wrote: So, until this becomes a reality, there's no reason to panic.
Imperial Soup, Chaos Soup, and Eldar are simply too strong relative to the field.
There's nothing wrong with toning these factions down slightly so that the rest of us can compete.
Adding 25% to the basic cost of an entire faction's troops choice isn't a slight nerf, lol.
Space Marine players would riot if Tactical Marines went up to 16 points.
Except the percentage will always be huge when the unit is costed so cheaply. Going from 4ppm to 5ppm Guardsmen is indeed a very slight nerf. It is the smallest nerf possible, actually.
Marmatag wrote: So, until this becomes a reality, there's no reason to panic.
Imperial Soup, Chaos Soup, and Eldar are simply too strong relative to the field.
There's nothing wrong with toning these factions down slightly so that the rest of us can compete.
Adding 25% to the basic cost of an entire faction's troops choice isn't a slight nerf, lol.
Space Marine players would riot if Tactical Marines went up to 16 points.
Honestly it's slight and has been pointed out (but you ignored) that for a pure-Guard player it basically will change next to nothing in the list (just change some load outs around and you're likely to see no changes to pure Guard armies) but it's going to push Guard soups down.
Marines seeing a points increase takes a mediocre army and makes it bad. Guard seeing a points increase takes a great army and at WORST makes it good instead.
I actually was the first one to point out it wouldn't affect mono-guard lists so much, so yeah, not ignoring it.
And it's really not slight. It is in a casual perspective, but for people trying to hit the top tables at tournaments, it's crippling, which is why it affects soup so much in the first place. A "slight" nerf would be making Lasguns Str 2, or something.
Marmatag wrote: So, until this becomes a reality, there's no reason to panic.
Imperial Soup, Chaos Soup, and Eldar are simply too strong relative to the field.
There's nothing wrong with toning these factions down slightly so that the rest of us can compete.
Adding 25% to the basic cost of an entire faction's troops choice isn't a slight nerf, lol.
Space Marine players would riot if Tactical Marines went up to 16 points.
Except the percentage will always be huge when the unit is costed so cheaply. Going from 4ppm to 5ppm Guardsmen is indeed a very slight nerf. It is the smallest nerf possible, actually.
No its not.
You could easily type "4.2" in the "Points Per Model" section of the Codex and have Guardsmen cost 42 points for 10.
Prove it. I can prove they're not. Neophyte Hybrids are the same statline as a Guardsman but with LD7/8(Guardsmen are 6/7 when their Sergeant is alive). Neophytes are 5ppm.
They don't have a codex yet. Bad comparison.
Guardsmen didn't change in points or stats from the Index to Codex; perfectly reasonable comparison.
Punishers are S5 AP0 D1 with a 24" range.
It's a fricking Boltgun with Heavy 20 that, if staying below a certain Movement Value, gets to fire its turret weapon twice. If a Punisher is OP then christ, what you must think of Tactical Marine spam!
Slow down there.
LRBT with PGC is 150. 40 S5 shots, 20 hits, 13 wounds vs MEQ.
150 points is 12 marines at best. Even if they were in double tap range...they come in way less...24 shots, 16 hits, 8 wounds
Both those units have the same number of wounds. One has T8 though.
Marines are BS3+ while a LRBT is 4+ degrading over time.
Also a LRBT with 'just' a PGC isn't 150. It's 122 for a LRBT and 20 for a PGC. That's 142 plus you're required to have a Hull Mounted Weapon, which is a HB, Lascannon, or HF.
To get to that 150, it factors in the 8pts for the HBwhich doesn't benefit from Grinding Advance.
How about we split the difference and compare them to a Strike Team of Fire Warriors equipped with Pulse Carbines(Assault 2 18" with S5 AP0 D1)?
A full 12 model Strike Team Squad costs you 96points before adding in any gubbins and it fires 24 shots at 18" with BS4+. The 18" puts you about equivalent with a LRBT that takes advantage of Grinding Advance at full Wounds(half or less of 10" move being 5 or less; 24-5=19").
fe40k wrote: Guardsman are 5ppm models, full stop.
Prove it. I can prove they're not. Neophyte Hybrids are the same statline as a Guardsman but with LD7/8(Guardsmen are 6/7 when their Sergeant is alive). Neophytes are 5ppm.
Punisher Heavy40 tanks are not ok either - in fact, there's a fair number of other Guard things that are also a bit over the top.
Punishers are S5 AP0 D1 with a 24" range.
It's a fricking Boltgun with Heavy 20 that, if staying below a certain Movement Value, gets to fire its turret weapon twice. If a Punisher is OP then christ, what you must think of Tactical Marine spam!
Is Guard the only faction that has overperforming/underpriced units? No. They're also not the only faction going to get nerfed.
Until we see Dark Reapers or Guilliman or Assault Cannon Razorbacks or Mortarion or Magnus get MEANINGFUL nerfs? Yeah. We kinda are.
Guilliman went up 25 points...14.4% of his initial points cost.
A Primaris Psyker went from 28 to 38ppm.
Just because XYZ is nerfed multiple times in a row does NOT mean it's not warrented - sometimes it really is.
By that same vein, sometimes XYZ is nerfed multiple times in a row because someone thinks it's the problem--but it isn't.
Seriously, try to look at this game through a non-imperial/non-biased lens; some things ARE overperforming, or underpriced - faction is irrelevant with these facts. It's not the end of the world if your army gets nerfed - it feels like it sucks, but if it's better for the game's health; so be it. I'd rather have them attempt to make a balanced game than cater to everyone's emotional whims.
Then I expect Dark Reapers to get nerfed into the fething GROUND. They should get nerfed so fething hard they come out of the other side of the planet. They should get nerfed so hard they never show back up in a list until 10th edition.
I mean, if we want to talk about things that are "overperforming and underpriced"...that's where you fething start to look.
Jesus. I think once we are at the point we are calling for an edition and a half worth of nerfing to make up for the last 3 months of feelbad moments we are beyond the point of rational discussion. Enjoy playing what is arguably the 1st/2nd most powerful faction in the game, despite those horrendously overpriced 5ppm troops though. I hope you can still find enjoyment in the rest of 8th.
The problem isn't guard in guard only armies. It's guard in every imperial army that wants a cheap battalion.
Others have said it but it bears repeating. 30-60 more points in a soup list makes you reconsider bringing those 30-60 guardsmen to make that cheap battalion (MSU guard would be 50 points a pop vs 55 points for scouts) at 40 vs 55 it was a no brainier at 50 vs 55 I'm not so sure it's an auto include (says the guy who has 30 scouts and has held off on the compulsion to buy a guard battalion so my bias may be showing).
I'm also betting they do something about cheap ass mortars as well. I'm guessing units that showed up in every soup list are on the chopping block and those seem like the biggest outliers to me (not a lot of soup lists focus around LRBTs or Shadowswords although can knights please get some love because vs the tanks they are completely over-priced and I really need an excuse to buy one or two)
Galas wrote: Guys, they nerfed Brimstones increasing their price 50%. They survived.
And then they moved their 4++ to a 6++. And Chaos players said "yeah, that's fair".
God, can you imagine the screaming if they gave guardsmen 6+ armor?
Actually I'd be fine with that. I'd rather nerf their offensive output than defensive capabilities (Str 2 lasguns would be fun and fluffy, I think), but it's better than a points increase.
I don't think you understand: brimstones points went up and their invuln got nerfed. And they're still generally considered a good unit to take if you want easy CP and sheer body count.
I'm not actually upset that GW is trying to balance the game. I'm a bit upset that they're crowdsourcing the balance to the community, though.
You're making an assumption here, which allows you to easily wash your hands of any possible problems simply because you disagree with the change.
What assumption am I making? Would you argue that GW is not balancing things based on community input?
We have no way of knowing their decision process, but I can almost guarantee it isn't "Community suggests rule/point change => GW does it".
There might also be some survivorship bias and clearly many in the community disagreed with CA changes.
As it stands this is just a scapegoat.
We have no way of knowing it? I'm fairly certain they've made a huge point about how in 8th edition they're taking "community input" and yadda yadda in several Warhammer Community articles and the Facebook page. If that's untrue, then maybe I fabricated it all in my head, but I swear they mentioned somewheres that they were taking input from the community when making decisions.
Arachnofiend wrote:I don't think you understand: brimstones points went up and their invuln got nerfed. And they're still generally considered a good unit to take if you want easy CP and sheer body count.
That's fine. What if you didn't want easy CP and to up your body count, and instead wanted your army to be good?
In a world where Conscripts are 4ppm, Infantry have to be more expensive.
Conscripts should never have been 3ppm, the same cost as Grots for an infinitely better unit. Particularly at their main function, shielding expensive, killy stuff.
5ppm is fine.
The nerfs to Guard are getting blown way, waaay out of proportion and I suspect (though I have no evidence to back this up), the only nerf that was probably too far (Commissars) will be corrected in time, just as GW are correcting Infantry now.
1) 5 ppm for Guard infantry is very fair. They are still some of the best troops out there.
2) The commissar was way overnerfed. This will need to be corrected in some way.
3) Guard still has arguably the best tanks in the game and the most points-efficient psyker in the game. Unit for unit Guard will remain at the absolute top.
4) Guard as a whole is not at the absolute top. There are some things that Guard players are really struggling with.
5) Tournament games where objectives can be scored on every round requires movement, and the resulting penalties to shooting hurts guard a lot more than it hurts other armies.
6) The current meta of stacking unit-specific negative hit modifiers on top of army-wide negative hit modifiers is extremely damaging to Guard. You see a LOT of Alaitoc and Alpha Legion at tournaments, and there is very little Guard can do about it. A single -1 to hit pretty much forces non-Tallarn Guard list to remain stationary.
The Changeling has already been nerfed, and now The Alaitoc, Alpha Legion and Ravenguard chapter tactics needs a good nerf too.
Imperial Guard players keep banging the drum like theres some conspirancy agaisnt them, when Chaos has received as many nerfs as Imperial Guard, but they didn't received as many buffs as them from Index to Codex.
Guys, things are gonna get nerf, others are gonna get buff. If we are gonna have forum tantrums like these every FAQ this are gonna get repetitive very fast. This will end like MOBA forums with "OMG THEY KILLED X HERO" whenever they touch it in any patch.
pismakron wrote: 1) 5 ppm for Guard infantry is very fair. They are still some of the best troops out there.
2) The commissar was way overnerfed. This will need to be corrected in some way.
3) Guard still has arguably the best tanks in the game and the most points-efficient psyker in the game. Unit for unit Guard will remain at the absolute top.
4) Guard as a whole is not at the absolute top. There are some things that Guard players are really struggling with.
5) Tournament games where objectives can be scored on every round requires movement, and the resulting penalties to shooting hurts guard a lot more than it hurts other armies.
6) The current meta of stacking unit-specific negative hit modifiers on top of army-wide negative hit modifiers is extremely damaging to Guard. You see a LOT of Alaitoc and Alpha Legion at tournaments, and there is very little Guard can do about it. A single -1 to hit pretty much forces non-Tallarn Guard list to remain stationary.
The Changeling has already been nerfed, and now The Alaitoc, Alpha Legion and Ravenguard chapter tactics needs a good nerf too.
Prove it. I can prove they're not. Neophyte Hybrids are the same statline as a Guardsman but with LD7/8(Guardsmen are 6/7 when their Sergeant is alive). Neophytes are 5ppm.
They don't have a codex yet. Bad comparison.
Guardsmen didn't change in points or stats from the Index to Codex; perfectly reasonable comparison.
That still doesn't necessarily mean that GSC will or will not have changes. It's fully unknown to us currently. And there are other factors to consider.
Marines are BS3+ while a LRBT is 4+ degrading over time.
Also a LRBT with 'just' a PGC isn't 150. It's 122 for a LRBT and 20 for a PGC. That's 142 plus you're required to have a Hull Mounted Weapon, which is a HB, Lascannon, or HF.
To get to that 150, it factors in the 8pts for the HBwhich doesn't benefit from Grinding Advance.
Right and my math didn't even factor in the HB, but accounted for the BS difference. And that was IF they were in RF range.
How about we split the difference and compare them to a Strike Team of Fire Warriors equipped with Pulse Carbines(Assault 2 18" with S5 AP0 D1)?
A full 12 model Strike Team Squad costs you 96points before adding in any gubbins and it fires 24 shots at 18" with BS4+. The 18" puts you about equivalent with a LRBT that takes advantage of Grinding Advance at full Wounds(half or less of 10" move being 5 or less; 24-5=19").
Wut?
PGC becomes a 29.9" gun with grinding advance.
Even a straight 19 of them with 38 shots won't match up.
fe40k wrote: Guardsman are 5ppm models, full stop.
Prove it. I can prove they're not. Neophyte Hybrids are the same statline as a Guardsman but with LD7/8(Guardsmen are 6/7 when their Sergeant is alive). Neophytes are 5ppm.
Grots are S2/T2/BS4+/SV6+/LD4, at 3ppm. For 1ppm, you get +1S, +1T, +1SV, +6/7LD, plus 12" Range//+1 shot on the Guardsman Lasgun; that's before access to orders or regiments. Don't underestimate how much stronger having a 5+ makes your units, especially at such a cheap PPM.
But there's something to be said about Grots in general; they're probably overpriced to begin with - I'd probably drop them to 2PPM, and shift the 10/30 point cost onto the Runtherd unit; that leaves them as a cheapo screening unit, that dies in droves (T/LD) to anything that looks it's way as well as morale kills, but allows them to have more staying power if the Ork player takes a Runtherd (at cost).
Look, 4ppm for SV5+, BS4+, Lasgun, orders/regiments; it's a fantastic value. I'll come back with more comparisons later.
Look, 3ppm for a unit that is strictly intended as a meatshield.
Now if you want to argue that Conscripts should have been built like that to justify their 3ppm? I'm fine with that.
Punisher Heavy40 tanks are not ok either - in fact, there's a fair number of other Guard things that are also a bit over the top.
Punishers are S5 AP0 D1 with a 24" range.
It's a fricking Boltgun with Heavy 20 that, if staying below a certain Movement Value, gets to fire its turret weapon twice. If a Punisher is OP then christ, what you must think of Tactical Marine spam!
Heavy 20/40 on a T8 chassis with BS4+, that can be improved/buffed (regiments, tank commander, orders); all for pretty cheap. It murders any infantry squad it comes across, and at no real cost, each turn. Plus, it requires the enemies precious anti-tank resources to really deal with it which diverts fire away from more important units.
I wouldn't say that 150 points "is no real cost". Additionally, Regimental rules don't always apply the same way. Tank Commanders are a dedicated HQ choice and Orders cannot be given to a LRBTexcept by a Tank Commander which has 3 Tank Orders that it can give, issuing 1 order per turn per Tank Commander to a single tank within 6" of the Tank Commander.
Pask gets to issue 2x Tank Orders per turn, rather than 1.
The only Tank Order that is really applicable is "Gunners, Kill On Sight!" allowing you to reroll Hit Rolls of 1s.
What other factions get that amount of firepower, for that amount of points? This is a legitimate question - I'm curious. Maybe Tyranid Termagaunts?
A 12 man Strike Team is able to output 24 shots a turn for 96 points when equipped with Pulse Carbines at 18".
A 12 man Strike Team is able to output 24 shots a turn at 96 points when equipped with Pulse Rifles at 15" or less.
Put a Fireblade into the mix(39 points) and they get to do an additional shooting attack with their weapon while within 6" of the Fireblade if the target is within half of their weapons' range.
That means that a 12 man Strike Team is outputting 48 shots a turn for 139 points at 9" for Pulse Carbines and 48 shots a turn for Pulse Rifles at 15" or less.
The Fireblade also adds in a Markerlight Counter potentially for whatever the target unit is firing at.
I'm sure there are more possible options that's just one I know for sure since I've been working on a Tau list lately.
Galas wrote: Imperial Guard players keep banging the drum like theres some conspirancy agaisnt them, when Chaos has received as many nerfs as Imperial Guard, but they didn't received as many buffs as them from Index to Codex.
Guys, things are gonna get nerf, others are gonna get buff. If we are gonna have forum tantrums like these every FAQ this are gonna get repetitive very fast. This will end like MOBA forums with "OMG THEY KILLED X HERO" whenever they touch it in any patch.
Haha, I already said I don't have much of a problem with it. But this is a discussion forum, so I am discussing.
And it already feels like a MOBA forum, what with people complaining that single-target one-tick abilities are more powerful than easily-used AOE abilities that are always on.
Galas wrote: Guys, they nerfed Brimstones increasing their price 50%. They survived.
And then they moved their 4++ to a 6++. And Chaos players said "yeah, that's fair".
God, can you imagine the screaming if they gave guardsmen 6+ armor?
Actually I'd be fine with that. I'd rather nerf their offensive output than defensive capabilities (Str 2 lasguns would be fun and fluffy, I think), but it's better than a points increase.
You can stop talking now, thanks. Not everyone wants to run Superheavies.
Galas wrote: Guys, they nerfed Brimstones increasing their price 50%. They survived.
And then they moved their 4++ to a 6++. And Chaos players said "yeah, that's fair".
God, can you imagine the screaming if they gave guardsmen 6+ armor?
Actually I'd be fine with that. I'd rather nerf their offensive output than defensive capabilities (Str 2 lasguns would be fun and fluffy, I think), but it's better than a points increase.
You can stop talking now, thanks. Not everyone wants to run Superheavies.
Why not? They're awesome.
EDIT: Just kidding, of course. I know people's opinions can be different, yadda yadda. Mine's different from yours, that's not a reason to tell me to shut up.
Galas wrote: Guys, they nerfed Brimstones increasing their price 50%. They survived.
And then they moved their 4++ to a 6++. And Chaos players said "yeah, that's fair".
God, can you imagine the screaming if they gave guardsmen 6+ armor?
Actually I'd be fine with that. I'd rather nerf their offensive output than defensive capabilities (Str 2 lasguns would be fun and fluffy, I think), but it's better than a points increase.
You can stop talking now, thanks. Not everyone wants to run Superheavies.
Why not? They're awesome.
EDIT:
Just kidding, of course. I know people's opinions can be different, yadda yadda. Mine's different from yours, that's not a reason to tell me to shut up.
Saying you'd be fine with S2 Lasguns is like me saying I'd be fine with S6 Volcano Cannons.
It's a fething joke that won't affect me in any realistic way. The only acceptable way for Lasguns to get knocked down from their pathetic S3 is for them to get an AP of -1 or a range increase to 30".
Galas wrote: Guys, they nerfed Brimstones increasing their price 50%. They survived.
And then they moved their 4++ to a 6++. And Chaos players said "yeah, that's fair".
God, can you imagine the screaming if they gave guardsmen 6+ armor?
Actually I'd be fine with that. I'd rather nerf their offensive output than defensive capabilities (Str 2 lasguns would be fun and fluffy, I think), but it's better than a points increase.
You can stop talking now, thanks. Not everyone wants to run Superheavies.
Why not? They're awesome.
EDIT:
Just kidding, of course. I know people's opinions can be different, yadda yadda. Mine's different from yours, that's not a reason to tell me to shut up.
Saying you'd be fine with S2 Lasguns is like me saying I'd be fine with S6 Volcano Cannons.
It's a fething joke that won't affect me in any realistic way. The only acceptable way for Lasguns to get knocked down from their pathetic S3 is for them to get an AP of -1 or a range increase to 30".
I mean, strength 6 is a little extreme. Strength 10 is more reasonable, or even strength 8. I don't really like strength 16 as it sits, because it so vastly overshadows the other variants.
S2 would basically be more of a buff for Marines (only getting wounded on 6s) than anything. I mean basic guard shooting would do half as many wounds against T4/T5 and frankly that's just silly.
ClockworkZion wrote: S2 would basically be more of a buff for Marines (only getting wounded on 6s) than anything. I mean basic guard shooting would do half as many wounds against T4/T5 and frankly that's just silly.
That was actually my thought process. Marines need a buff, and guard are too good. You can hit two birds with one stone with strength 2 lasguns, while still allowing them to wound everything in the game (something they've never been able to do before) and actually self-nerf, because a Strength 2 AP0 weapon is still fairly good against other guard (compared to against t4 or above infantry).
Actually S2 lasgun would be a big nerf to guard since it's at one of the sweet spots where its shots are more point efficient at killing base guardsmen (even at 4ppm) then SM at 13 ppm. About 81% as efficient in a vacuum to be precise.
Marines are dead. Don't cry for them. The basic marine statline is unbalanceable.
LONG LIVE OUR NEW PRIMARIS OVERLORDS. They are actually balanceable.
Theres no point in bringing basic marines in balance conversations just like theres no point in talking about grey knights. They are a disaster from a design standpoint. They need a rewrite from the ground up. And they have received one: Primaris.
Unit1126PLL wrote:actually self-nerf, because a Strength 2 AP0 weapon is still fairly good against other guard (compared to against t4 or above infantry).
Earth127 wrote:Actually S2 lasgun would be a big nerf to guard since it's at one of the sweet spots where its shots are more point efficient at killing base guardsmen (even at 4ppm) then SM at 13 ppm. About 81% as efficient in a vacuum to be precise.
BlackLobster wrote: I really don't understand the problem with "soup" armies. Whether it be Imperium, Chaos or Aeldari, they are extremely in keeping with the fluff. If those players want to play them and break elements of the game... well fine, you don't have to play against them.
Plus, it's nothing new. Allies ran rampart in 7th editions.
Galas wrote: Marines are dead. Don't cry for them. The basic marine statline is unbalanceable.
LONG LIVE OUR NEW PRIMARIS OVERLORDS. They are actually balanceable.
Theres no point in bringing basic marines in balance conversations just like theres no point in talking about grey knights. They are a disaster from a design standpoint. They need a rewrite from the ground up. And they have received one: Primaris.
As bait-tastic as this post seems, it's basially not wrong. Primaris DO fix basically everything about Marines. Mainly by giving the units focus. Focusing on shooting OR assault goes a looooong way towards making Marines more playable, especially in the current edition. They need more melee units though.
Since most people are saying that the point increase to guardsmen is really designed to effect soup players rather than guard players why not just say that guardsmen cost +1ppm if the warlord in your army isn't AM and/or if they are in a detachment with non AM models?
That way soup players may be effected but mono AM players aren't.
Instead, however, people that haven't adapted (for whatever reason, I get that some people simply can't) to the new edition and new books are allowed to dictate policy so long as they scream loud enough. It's easier to nerf guardsmen by 25% (by upping their cost) than it is to discover the unique and interesting ways that the tourney players (who no doubt had to kick some Astra Militarum ass to win LVO) have figured out to cope with the problem.
Is that really the case, though? It seems perhaps to be accurate, but how do we know exactly what feedback and in what context GW bases their decisions on? If they directly observe large tournaments like LVO and such, does whining really have anything to do with it, or is it based on what actually plays out on the tabletop?
Since most people are saying that the point increase to guardsmen is really designed to effect soup players rather than guard players why not just say that guardsmen cost +1ppm if the warlord in your army isn't AM and/or if they are in a detachment with non AM models?
That way soup players may be effected but mono AM players aren't.
It's easier to just outright bump their points then force weird stipulations people will just find ways around.
Instead, however, people that haven't adapted (for whatever reason, I get that some people simply can't) to the new edition and new books are allowed to dictate policy so long as they scream loud enough. It's easier to nerf guardsmen by 25% (by upping their cost) than it is to discover the unique and interesting ways that the tourney players (who no doubt had to kick some Astra Militarum ass to win LVO) have figured out to cope with the problem.
Is that really the case, though? It seems perhaps to be accurate, but how do we know exactly what feedback and in what context GW bases their decisions on? If they directly observe large tournaments like LVO and such, does whining really have anything to do with it, or is it based on what actually plays out on the tabletop?
No, you're right. It could be that they're taking it from the tournaments.
My reasons for doubting this are twofold, though:
1) The game was playtested before release by top tournament players, or so I am told by a contact of mine who works on the London GT (I went to graduate school in the UK). This includes the codexes, which were playtested in batches (i.e. the players would be given 3 or 4 at a time to test, and then it would cycle). So either the tournament players played really differently during the playtest, or they didn't give enough feedback, or GW is listening to people other than the top tournament players. I have no reason to suspect it is the 3rd, other than my natural inclination to believe the Top Tournament Players would do a fine job as playtesters. That could also be wrong.
2) Direct observation is actually a bad way to gather data. There's all sorts of numeric manipulation that has to be done to data before its really useable, and just sort of walking around and "eyeballing" how many IG are there is a fairly awful way to do it. I would hope GW knows this.
I believe, when the Indices first came out, there were reports that the play testers played very differently to us. Specifically, that their meta evolved past hordes fairly quickly, while ours has not.
This could be because some nerf or change GW made in the meantime broke our natural progression or it could be because they were in a bubble. Who knows.
Audustum wrote: I believe, when the Indices first came out, there were reports that the play testers played very differently to us. Specifically, that their meta evolved past hordes fairly quickly, while ours has not.
This could be because some nerf or change GW made in the meantime broke our natural progression or it could be because they were in a bubble. Who knows.
Or it could be that they're better players and more willing to adapt to the changing of the meta, while "we" (i.e. everyone that can't beat hordes on this forum) are stuck unable to adapt for some reason.
GW has a ton of data. It's not just "one big tournament," as people would suggest. There is a ton of data being reported to the ITC which shows how factions are actually performing. This is not easy for us to get our hands on. It could be that a faction is not doing so well at large events but still does fairly well at RTTs (like Tyranids) so they probably won't see buffs. Meanwhile there are factions that are overperforming top to bottom, regardless of locale, and those factions will see adjustments.
It's pretty simple statistical analysis that leads to these conclusions.
The analysis would be a lot easier if GW published a list building application, and worked with the ITC to do actual, serious digital-age reporting and analytics based on what units are used, and correlated that to wins. There is no easy way for them to, for instance, answer the question of, "How many RTT winning, or GT placing Imperium lists leveraged Guardsmen as the primary troop choice in December and January, in the United States?" But this question absolutely SHOULD be answerable.
Or maybe they had something internally that didn't make the final cut that affected balance. I read a very plausible theory (tough Ican't remember it exactly) that happened to necrons anf the way they interact with reserves.
Gw might have had more then just balance in mind, after all they had and probably still have a very narrative , beer and pretzels approach to their game. And I will defend zealously that those kind of games are decidedly more fun/blanced in 8th then they were in 7th.
I don't wanna go too deep down the soup-list hole here, because that is a whole different discussion entirely and much more tied to fundamental game design rather the specific IG issues.
Marmatag wrote: GW has a ton of data. It's not just "one big tournament," as people would suggest. There is a ton of data being reported to the ITC which shows how factions are actually performing. This is not easy for us to get our hands on. It could be that a faction is not doing so well at large events but still does fairly well at RTTs (like Tyranids) so they probably won't see buffs. Meanwhile there are factions that are overperforming top to bottom, regardless of locale, and those factions will see adjustments.
It's pretty simple statistical analysis that leads to these conclusions.
The analysis would be a lot easier if GW published a list building application, and worked with the ITC to do actual, serious digital-age reporting and analytics based on what units are used, and correlated that to wins. There is no easy way for them to, for instance, answer the question of, "How many RTT winning, or GT placing Imperium lists leveraged Guardsmen as the primary troop choice in December and January, in the United States?" But this question absolutely SHOULD be answerable.
Do you think GW cooperates with the ITC enough to see this data?
Or do you think they just trust whatever ITC/other people tell(s) them the data says? Because I've seen some pretty funny stuff here on dakkadakka that could easily be titled "Adventures in Mathematics", including some right here in this thread. Math is dangerous and can essentially prove any narrative.
I would be very surprised if they employed any statistical analysis whatsoever beyond fairly broad categories that would be visible by looking at, say, army lists through whatever list-building or tourney apps that are out there.
The guy accidently erased round 2 of the tournament and everyhting had to be reentered manually. Caused about an hour delay. Reece mentioned it on his podcast.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: I would be very surprised if they employed any statistical analysis whatsoever beyond fairly broad categories that would be visible by looking at, say, army lists through whatever list-building or tourney apps that are out there.
This is my supposition as well, which is why I can so easily say they "crowdsource" balancing. I hold the belief that they just sorta look around at the community, nod their heads and doodle in their notebooks, and then read facebook comments to write their FAQs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Earth127 wrote: The guy accidently erased round 2 of the tournament and everyhting had to be reentered manually. Caused about an hour delay. Reece mentioned it on his podcast.
No no, not parings. I mean win/loss rates, numbers of showings, placings, etc.
Literally everything that is used for balance. I thought that data didn't exist, either through malfeasance or mishap, and that's why we as normal players can't see it.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: I would be very surprised if they employed any statistical analysis whatsoever beyond fairly broad categories that would be visible by looking at, say, army lists through whatever list-building or tourney apps that are out there.
Aye, this stuff is not something GW has ever engaged in before, and, at least in the past, has openly talked about how most of their costing is by feel, and there's no evidence they're doing so now given the results of their CA output.
Hopefully they differentiate between fairly mature and straightforward comments that suggest unit x is unbalanced because of whatever factors and the screeching of unhappy nerdlings.
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: Hopefully they differentiate between fairly mature and straightforward comments that suggest unit x is unbalanced because of whatever factors and the screeching of unhappy nerdlings.
The problem is that it's not that easy.
Look at martel - he raises some good points, but also doesn't really try very hard to improve his play experience. I'm sure he's a mature and competent fellow, but IIRC he's not adapted to the progress of the game since 5th. He's fully capable of writing an essay on why the current Imperial Guard Infantry Squad is undercosted, and has some good points here and there, while missing the point entirely that it may be Blood Angels that are overcosted, or that certain anti-horde tools don't exist / aren't available / whathaveyou. I literally saw a thread about a player who couldn't beat his horde army buddy, when his army included 15 devastators with 10 lascannons and 5 multimeltas here on this very forum. I'm sure he could write a very good post on why hordes are too good.
Or look at me - I'm probably guilty of the same things: failure to adapt, getting tunnel vision on an issue rather than looking at the wider picture, etc.
Audustum wrote: I believe, when the Indices first came out, there were reports that the play testers played very differently to us. Specifically, that their meta evolved past hordes fairly quickly, while ours has not.
This could be because some nerf or change GW made in the meantime broke our natural progression or it could be because they were in a bubble. Who knows.
Or it could be that they're better players and more willing to adapt to the changing of the meta, while "we" (i.e. everyone that can't beat hordes on this forum) are stuck unable to adapt for some reason.
Or it could be GW didn\t make that drastic changes based on their comments. Didn't ITC guys comment that their role in playtesting was lot less than forum users assumed?
Marmatag wrote: GW has a ton of data. It's not just "one big tournament," as people would suggest. There is a ton of data being reported to the ITC which shows how factions are actually performing. This is not easy for us to get our hands on. It could be that a faction is not doing so well at large events but still does fairly well at RTTs (like Tyranids) so they probably won't see buffs. Meanwhile there are factions that are overperforming top to bottom, regardless of locale, and those factions will see adjustments.
It's pretty simple statistical analysis that leads to these conclusions.
The analysis would be a lot easier if GW published a list building application, and worked with the ITC to do actual, serious digital-age reporting and analytics based on what units are used, and correlated that to wins. There is no easy way for them to, for instance, answer the question of, "How many RTT winning, or GT placing Imperium lists leveraged Guardsmen as the primary troop choice in December and January, in the United States?" But this question absolutely SHOULD be answerable.
Do you think GW cooperates with the ITC enough to see this data?
Or do you think they just trust whatever ITC/other people tell(s) them the data says? Because I've seen some pretty funny stuff here on dakkadakka that could easily be titled "Adventures in Mathematics", including some right here in this thread. Math is dangerous and can essentially prove any narrative.
Math is dangerous to people who don't understand how it works. Statistics always begin with assumptions. Results are easily proven, it's assumptions - stated openly, or veiled - that are faulty. For instance, in the "Game Length" thread, one faulty assumption used in the statistical analysis was that games scoring over 30 were a concede. When in reality, scores of 0 indicate a concede. Or, the assumption that points scored are linear across turns, when scoring actually drops sharply after turn 3, and even moreso after turn 4.
To your question, I do think that the ITC shares its data with GW. What GW does with that data? I'll never know.
What i'm suggesting here is this:
1. GW should publish their own app for list building and tournament pairing. 2. They have immediate custody of all lists used, and the results of those lists, relative to the size of the events, and opponents played.
Instantly they would have incredible knowledge of how people are playing the game, and be able to do far more quantitative analysis. (For instance, Tyranids lose to Guard at a 90% rate when the Guard player fields X of unit Y, but if they field 10% less of that unit, the Tyranid loss rate drops to 55%.) This would allow them to create really informed decisions, and run predictive analytics based on unit sizes and outcomes. For instance, they could easily run a scenario where they change the value of Guardsmen from 4ppm to 5ppm, and see that it drops Guard win percentages against Blood Angels from 95% to 70%.
If GW would hire me to undertake this effort i could build a staff and get it done in about a year. But, they haven't embraced the digital age, have they?
Audustum wrote: I believe, when the Indices first came out, there were reports that the play testers played very differently to us. Specifically, that their meta evolved past hordes fairly quickly, while ours has not.
This could be because some nerf or change GW made in the meantime broke our natural progression or it could be because they were in a bubble. Who knows.
Or it could be that they're better players and more willing to adapt to the changing of the meta, while "we" (i.e. everyone that can't beat hordes on this forum) are stuck unable to adapt for some reason.
Or it could be GW didn\t make that drastic changes based on their comments. Didn't ITC guys comment that their role in playtesting was lot less than forum users assumed?
It could be. I heard the opposite from my London GT contact - that GW made changes based on codexes that weren't out yet (like Grinding Advance on the Russ, which when the codex first came out felt like a "WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT" moment, before Eldar and Tyranids got essentially a variation on the same thing). GW balanced all the codexes, but releasing them one at a time has made the meta shift unstable and it's upsetting people, or so the theory goes. His point was that "Guard will seem balanced when the rest of the codexes come out."
Warhammer community has stated an official army building tool is in the works but was pushed back to prioritize the painting app and IMHO the release of every codex.
And yeah unit you've been guilty of wanting to prove your point. I remember all your my 3 superheavies posts. Tough I probably can't speak too loudly without sounding like a hypocrite.
I feel pretty certain the new CEO has begun the embracing of the digital age but that would still ony be 2 years right?
Audustum wrote: I believe, when the Indices first came out, there were reports that the play testers played very differently to us. Specifically, that their meta evolved past hordes fairly quickly, while ours has not.
This could be because some nerf or change GW made in the meantime broke our natural progression or it could be because they were in a bubble. Who knows.
Or it could be that they're better players and more willing to adapt to the changing of the meta, while "we" (i.e. everyone that can't beat hordes on this forum) are stuck unable to adapt for some reason.
Or it could be GW didn\t make that drastic changes based on their comments. Didn't ITC guys comment that their role in playtesting was lot less than forum users assumed?
It could be. I heard the opposite from my London GT contact - that GW made changes based on codexes that weren't out yet (like Grinding Advance on the Russ, which when the codex first came out felt like a "WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT" moment, before Eldar and Tyranids got essentially a variation on the same thing). GW balanced all the codexes, but releasing them one at a time has made the meta shift unstable and it's upsetting people, or so the theory goes. His point was that "Guard will seem balanced when the rest of the codexes come out."
If all the codexes were balanced, especially against eachother, they wouldn't need to release them one at a time - they could get away with releasing all of them at once.
I mean, they're supposed to be balanced and tested, right?
In any case, GW doesn't have perfect balance; and will need continuing adjustment.
Audustum wrote: I believe, when the Indices first came out, there were reports that the play testers played very differently to us. Specifically, that their meta evolved past hordes fairly quickly, while ours has not.
This could be because some nerf or change GW made in the meantime broke our natural progression or it could be because they were in a bubble. Who knows.
Or it could be that they're better players and more willing to adapt to the changing of the meta, while "we" (i.e. everyone that can't beat hordes on this forum) are stuck unable to adapt for some reason.
Or it could be GW didn\t make that drastic changes based on their comments. Didn't ITC guys comment that their role in playtesting was lot less than forum users assumed?
It could be. I heard the opposite from my London GT contact - that GW made changes based on codexes that weren't out yet (like Grinding Advance on the Russ, which when the codex first came out felt like a "WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT" moment, before Eldar and Tyranids got essentially a variation on the same thing). GW balanced all the codexes, but releasing them one at a time has made the meta shift unstable and it's upsetting people, or so the theory goes. His point was that "Guard will seem balanced when the rest of the codexes come out."
If all the codexes were balanced, especially against eachother, they wouldn't need to release them one at a time - they could get away with releasing all of them at once.
I mean, they're supposed to be balanced and tested, right?
In any case, GW doesn't have perfect balance; and will need continuing adjustment.
Balance wise maybe but they wouldn't sell well if they oversaturated the market in one swoop. Also the editing/ artworking/ printing etc needs to happen.
Well, to extrapolate from the way I told it was done (and remember, all of this is "I heard from a dude who heard from a dude" so it's about as trustworthy as a snake in the Tree of Knowledge), the way I see it is that since the playtesting was done in cycles of three or four, it's possible that each batch of 3 or 4 codexes is balanced against the others in its batch, but the human memory of the playtesters failed to easily remember the batch they tested before, meaning that whole batch of 3 or 4 could be significantly over or under powered compared to any other given batch.
Earth127 wrote: Warhammer community has stated an official army building tool is in the works but was pushed back to prioritize the painting app and IMHO the release of every codex.
I feel pretty certain the new CEO has begun the embracing of the digital age but that would still ony be 2 years right?
It could be that they're waiting to complete all of the codexes and rules before they build the app. To me that's silly but i can understand it. Waterfall is alive and well in the hearts and minds of people who wrote code 20 years ago.
I'm not beating a dead horse. This horse still has plenty of life left in him...
There'd be a lot less crying and the math would be way easier if they would just switch to a d10 based system. (Yes, this again) I read the 8th Ed. rules and it would actually be quite easy without disrupting the core mechanics at all. Seriously, you could go play right now with d10's. Add 2 to WS, BS and Sv. Change the "To Wound" mechanic from 2+,3+,4+,5+,6+... to 2+,4+,6+,8+,10+. For "To-Hit" count "0" as "0" and not "10". Push the Invulnerable save all the way up on the scale (5+ would become 9+) but allow both regular save and Invulnerable save (which is just a throwback to previous editions) to compensate for the reduced % chance of Inv. Save working.
Bam. Done. As-is, the game plays out the same. There's just a minor variation of % chance of hitting with more powerful units, which is a good thing. Going forward, future Indexes and Codexes would be easier to tweak for balance. A minor +1 here and there wouldn't have such a devastating impact when amplified across your entire Battalion, but still make a substantial difference. Finally you can make more Unit variations which are actually different from each other.
Me in 1990 "So what's the deal with all the d6's? I thought you Brits were on the metric system."
Rick Priestley in 1990: "Well, I agree, but the decision was made not to disenfranchise new gamers who might not have access to polyhedral dice. Everyone has a Yahtzee game in their closet."
Me: "But you have to have the miniatures to play!. Dice are cheap, miniatures aren't. (Even back in 1990, we cried about GW's prices) You have to buy the miniatures in a game store, and it seems the only game stores on the planet that don't sell polyhedral dice are Games Workshops..."
Rick Priestley: "Believe me, it wasn't my decision..."
Me: "Sigh. Ok, next question..."
Ironically, of course, WH40kRT had something like 3 pages all about Dice and what to do if you didn't have any, as well as in-game uses from almost every polyhedral dice in the set as well as d100 and even d1000 charts. Obviously I'm not suggesting WH40k get all complex and need d12's, d8's, and d20's, but d10's really are the way to go. I'm not holding my breath though. I know a lot of you don't want to give up the d6 system (was an article about it on BoLS)
Increasing the cost on the model by 1 point seems correct for having a better ld and a better save.
Not when you factor in Neophyte Hybrids:
6/4/4/3/3/1/1/7(8)/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Or the initial points cost of Conscripts:
6/5/5/3/3/1/1/4/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Going up above LD6 seems to be valued at 1ppm(not factoring in a Sergeant model) while it requires you to go from a 5+ to a 4+ in Armor or BS, with WS only coming into play if you have a CCWOR if you are S4+ as Infantry, to cost a point.
You want Guardsmen at 5ppm, you're giving me something in exchange. End of goddamned story. Either I'm getting a 4+ armor save, LD7/8, or a Vox-Caster is included in the unit's point cost.
Increasing the cost on the model by 1 point seems correct for having a better ld and a better save.
Not when you factor in Neophyte Hybrids:
6/4/4/3/3/1/1/7(8)/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Or the initial points cost of Conscripts:
6/5/5/3/3/1/1/4/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Going up above LD6 seems to be valued at 1ppm(not factoring in a Sergeant model) while it requires you to go from a 5+ to a 4+ in Armor or BS, with WS only coming into play if you have a CCWOR if you are S4+ as Infantry, to cost a point.
You want Guardsmen at 5ppm, you're giving me something in exchange. End of goddamned story. Either I'm getting a 4+ armor save, LD7/8, or a Vox-Caster is included in the unit's point cost.
You get fuckton of sinergies and Cult doesn't. END OF STORY
Maxim C. Gatling wrote: I'm not beating a dead horse. This horse still has plenty of life left in him...
There'd be a lot less crying and the math would be way easier if they would just switch to a d10 based system. (Yes, this again) I read the 8th Ed. rules and it would actually be quite easy without disrupting the core mechanics at all. Seriously, you could go play right now with d10's. Add 2 to WS, BS and Sv. Change the "To Wound" mechanic from 2+,3+,4+,5+,6+... to 2+,4+,6+,8+,10+. For "To-Hit" count "0" as "0" and not "10". Push the Invulnerable save all the way up on the scale (5+ would become 9+) but allow both regular save and Invulnerable save (which is just a throwback to previous editions) to compensate for the reduced % chance of Inv. Save working.
Bam. Done. As-is, the game plays out the same. There's just a minor variation of % chance of hitting with more powerful units, which is a good thing. Going forward, future Indexes and Codexes would be easier to tweak for balance. A minor +1 here and there wouldn't have such a devastating impact when amplified across your entire Battalion, but still make a substantial difference. Finally you can make more Unit variations which are actually different from each other.
Me in 1990 "So what's the deal with all the d6's? I thought you Brits were on the metric system."
Rick Priestley in 1990: "Well, I agree, but the decision was made not to disenfranchise new gamers who might not have access to polyhedral dice. Everyone has a Yahtzee game in their closet."
Me: "But you have to have the miniatures to play!. Dice are cheap, miniatures aren't. (Even back in 1990, we cried about GW's prices) You have to buy the miniatures in a game store, and it seems the only game stores on the planet that don't sell polyhedral dice are Games Workshops..."
Rick Priestley: "Believe me, it wasn't my decision..."
Me: "Sigh. Ok, next question..."
Ironically, of course, WH40kRT had something like 3 pages all about Dice and what to do if you didn't have any, as well as in-game uses from almost every polyhedral dice in the set as well as d100 and even d1000 charts. Obviously I'm not suggesting WH40k get all complex and need d12's, d8's, and d20's, but d10's really are the way to go. I'm not holding my breath though. I know a lot of you don't want to give up the d6 system (was an article about it on BoLS)
It's a nice thought but then you need to rework all the aura abilities and the costs of those models along with the edge cases that work, because they have layered saves. And then deal with the inevitable griping of how GW is making a cash grab to force you to buy the D10s.
I wouldn't mind such a thing, but I just don't see it happening very easily.
Increasing the cost on the model by 1 point seems correct for having a better ld and a better save.
Not when you factor in Neophyte Hybrids:
6/4/4/3/3/1/1/7(8)/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Or the initial points cost of Conscripts:
6/5/5/3/3/1/1/4/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Going up above LD6 seems to be valued at 1ppm(not factoring in a Sergeant model) while it requires you to go from a 5+ to a 4+ in Armor or BS, with WS only coming into play if you have a CCWOR if you are S4+ as Infantry, to cost a point.
You want Guardsmen at 5ppm, you're giving me something in exchange. End of goddamned story. Either I'm getting a 4+ armor save, LD7/8, or a Vox-Caster is included in the unit's point cost.
You get fuckton of sinergies and Cult doesn't. END OF STORY
Guard has a Codex and Cult doesn't. RE-OPEN STORY.
Increasing the cost on the model by 1 point seems correct for having a better ld and a better save.
Not when you factor in Neophyte Hybrids:
6/4/4/3/3/1/1/7(8)/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Or the initial points cost of Conscripts:
6/5/5/3/3/1/1/4/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Going up above LD6 seems to be valued at 1ppm(not factoring in a Sergeant model) while it requires you to go from a 5+ to a 4+ in Armor or BS, with WS only coming into play if you have a CCWOR if you are S4+ as Infantry, to cost a point.
You want Guardsmen at 5ppm, you're giving me something in exchange. End of goddamned story. Either I'm getting a 4+ armor save, LD7/8, or a Vox-Caster is included in the unit's point cost.
You keep saying that but the reality is that you compare 4ppm guardsmen with any kind of cheap infantry and they are much superior to all of them. Point per point infantry squads are superior to any unit in the game that cost 9 points or less (Maybe Daemon infantry is comparable after their Codex, I can't say for sure). Only Ork Boyz's are comparable, because they are very good in meele, but at the moment you factor how easy is to kill ork boyzs that cost 50% more with their 6+ save, Guardsmen comes ahead.
And you can't give prices to stat increases out of context of the unit. Going from +1 in WS doesn't cost the same for a Terminator than for a Grot.
I'll give you that it would be better to make this kind of changes after everybody has a codex. Then balance can be more fine tuned. But even then you don't need for everybody to have a Codex to know that dark reapers are busted.
Guard has a Codex and Cult doesn't. RE-OPEN STORY.
And they could get point changes, too. It's really not worth considering right now.
And those point changes could be up or down. So we should probably consider the status quo, if we're just talking about model stats.
Also, when it comes to synergy, who pays? The models being synergized or the models that are the locus of the synergy? I thought Psykers paid to be Psychic, not the armies that included Psykers paying because they might get buffed by the psyker...
Increasing the cost on the model by 1 point seems correct for having a better ld and a better save.
Not when you factor in Neophyte Hybrids:
6/4/4/3/3/1/1/7(8)/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Or the initial points cost of Conscripts:
6/5/5/3/3/1/1/4/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Going up above LD6 seems to be valued at 1ppm(not factoring in a Sergeant model) while it requires you to go from a 5+ to a 4+ in Armor or BS, with WS only coming into play if you have a CCWOR if you are S4+ as Infantry, to cost a point.
You want Guardsmen at 5ppm, you're giving me something in exchange. End of goddamned story. Either I'm getting a 4+ armor save, LD7/8, or a Vox-Caster is included in the unit's point cost.
You get fuckton of sinergies and Cult doesn't. END OF STORY
Guard has a Codex and Cult doesn't. RE-OPEN STORY.
No. Cult will NEVER EVER get something like Orders/Regimental Tactics/Imperium sinergy and that does not rely on being in a Index as of now
Guardsmen also come with a rapid fire 24" gun, termagants have a 12" fleshborer. Wargear has to be considered, too. As well as upgrade options... call me when i can put a mortar on termagants.
Increasing the cost on the model by 1 point seems correct for having a better ld and a better save.
Not when you factor in Neophyte Hybrids:
6/4/4/3/3/1/1/7(8)/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Or the initial points cost of Conscripts:
6/5/5/3/3/1/1/4/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Going up above LD6 seems to be valued at 1ppm(not factoring in a Sergeant model) while it requires you to go from a 5+ to a 4+ in Armor or BS, with WS only coming into play if you have a CCWOR if you are S4+ as Infantry, to cost a point.
You want Guardsmen at 5ppm, you're giving me something in exchange. End of goddamned story. Either I'm getting a 4+ armor save, LD7/8, or a Vox-Caster is included in the unit's point cost.
The initial point costs of conscripts doesn't matter. You have the current point costs of conscripts. ALSO, you get a a ld 7. Your sergeant comes with it for the same cost and increases the entire units ld by extension. finally, it's super cool that your sitting on the internet making demands and claiming "End of goddamned story" but your shouting into the wind. It's not the end of the story and your going to get what GW gives you and if you don't like it you can always quit.
Increasing the cost on the model by 1 point seems correct for having a better ld and a better save.
Not when you factor in Neophyte Hybrids:
6/4/4/3/3/1/1/7(8)/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Or the initial points cost of Conscripts:
6/5/5/3/3/1/1/4/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Going up above LD6 seems to be valued at 1ppm(not factoring in a Sergeant model) while it requires you to go from a 5+ to a 4+ in Armor or BS, with WS only coming into play if you have a CCWOR if you are S4+ as Infantry, to cost a point.
You want Guardsmen at 5ppm, you're giving me something in exchange. End of goddamned story. Either I'm getting a 4+ armor save, LD7/8, or a Vox-Caster is included in the unit's point cost.
You get fuckton of sinergies and Cult doesn't. END OF STORY
Acolyte Iconward's Nexus of Devotion--Roll a D6 each time a friendly Genestealer Cults Infantry model within 6" of this model loses a wound; on a 6 the Wound is ignored.
Sacred Cult Banner: Reroll failed Morale Tests in that same 6".
Magus makes it so each friendly GSC unit within 6" of them get to deny one psychic power that targets them during that phase as if they were themselves a Psyker.
Patriarch: Autopass Morale tests within 6".
Primus: Add 1 to all hit rolls in the Fight phase for GSC units within 6".
And the whole time that is happening, any GSC character within 3" of any friendly Genestealer Cult Infantry units get to allocate wounds to them on a 4+(slaying the model present).
So yeah, I can issue Orders to my Guardsmen...while you have passive auras that grant you things instead. I'd also highly suggest you go read Chapter Approved's stuff for GSCs because it seems like they're on track to be a fairly nice army assuming they don't get nerfed to be in line with Guard.
It's a nice thought but then you need to rework all the aura abilities and the costs of those models along with the edge cases that work, because they have layered saves. And then deal with the inevitable griping of how GW is making a cash grab to force you to buy the D10s.
I wouldn't mind such a thing, but I just don't see it happening very easily.
I thought that would be the case, but I don't think so. (with just those changes I suggested). You see, the % comes out roughly the same. Now, if you start doing stuff like saying "I want Movie Marines" and adjusting their stats outside those boundaries I suggested, then yes, you would have to adjust the points values.
My point is, it can be done and done fairly easily. You wouldn't have to change everything to d10. Or at least not right away. Special Abilities could use the exact same mechanics they do now. In fact, I think that if they did this (they won't!) but if they did...they should only change the core mechanics for one edition and then ease the rest into d10's. Or not. There's no reason why you can't mix d6 and d10. Everyone who plays has a bucket of d6's already and almost everyone who games has at least a handful of d10. D10 are cheap (unless you insist on getting GW branded d10's which are out of production, but super-cool with an Inquisition symbol for the '1' pip...)
You know what? I'm going to go so far as to say they shouldn't make it alld10. I don't think one person on this forum would disagree with me when I say I hate it when GW changes the rules just to force you to buy all-new stuff.
Increasing the cost on the model by 1 point seems correct for having a better ld and a better save.
Not when you factor in Neophyte Hybrids:
6/4/4/3/3/1/1/7(8)/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Or the initial points cost of Conscripts:
6/5/5/3/3/1/1/4/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Going up above LD6 seems to be valued at 1ppm(not factoring in a Sergeant model) while it requires you to go from a 5+ to a 4+ in Armor or BS, with WS only coming into play if you have a CCWOR if you are S4+ as Infantry, to cost a point.
You want Guardsmen at 5ppm, you're giving me something in exchange. End of goddamned story. Either I'm getting a 4+ armor save, LD7/8, or a Vox-Caster is included in the unit's point cost.
You get fuckton of sinergies and Cult doesn't. END OF STORY
Acolyte Iconward's Nexus of Devotion--Roll a D6 each time a friendly Genestealer Cults Infantry model within 6" of this model loses a wound; on a 6 the Wound is ignored.
Sacred Cult Banner: Reroll failed Morale Tests in that same 6".
Magus makes it so each friendly GSC unit within 6" of them get to deny one psychic power that targets them during that phase as if they were themselves a Psyker.
Patriarch: Autopass Morale tests within 6".
Primus: Add 1 to all hit rolls in the Fight phase for GSC units within 6".
And the whole time that is happening, any GSC character within 3" of any friendly Genestealer Cult Infantry units get to allocate wounds to them on a 4+(slaying the model present).
So yeah, I can issue Orders to my Guardsmen...while you have passive auras that grant you things instead. I'd also highly suggest you go read Chapter Approved's stuff for GSCs because it seems like they're on track to be a fairly nice army assuming they don't get nerfed to be in line with Guard.
Are you really comparing the number of buffs GSC gets to Astra Militarum/Imperium ones? AHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA
Increasing the cost on the model by 1 point seems correct for having a better ld and a better save.
Not when you factor in Neophyte Hybrids:
6/4/4/3/3/1/1/7(8)/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Or the initial points cost of Conscripts:
6/5/5/3/3/1/1/4/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Going up above LD6 seems to be valued at 1ppm(not factoring in a Sergeant model) while it requires you to go from a 5+ to a 4+ in Armor or BS, with WS only coming into play if you have a CCWOR if you are S4+ as Infantry, to cost a point.
You want Guardsmen at 5ppm, you're giving me something in exchange. End of goddamned story. Either I'm getting a 4+ armor save, LD7/8, or a Vox-Caster is included in the unit's point cost.
You keep saying that but the reality is that you compare 4ppm guardsmen with any kind of cheap infantry and they are much superior to all of them. Point per point infantry squads are superior to any unit in the game that cost 9 points or less (Maybe Daemon infantry is comparable after their Codex, I can't say for sure). Only Ork Boyz's are comparable, because they are very good in meele, but at the moment you factor how easy is to kill ork boyzs that cost 50% more with their 6+ save, Guardsmen comes ahead.
Sorry, you can't compare Index to Codex ones. That's what people keep telling me.
Also, way to set weirdly specific limitations. How many armies out there have units "that cost 9 points or less"?
And you can't give prices to stat increases out of context of the unit. Going from +1 in WS doesn't cost the same for a Terminator than for a Grot.
I literally did the math earlier in this thread, based around the initial point values given for the Guard stuff. I absolutely can give prices to the stat increases because my math actually added up when I showed it in comparison to Tactical Marines(which have remained unchanged).
Once again, initial point values have no value. Point values are in constant flux now. We can expect changes to them at least 3 times a year at this point.
What a unit cost 8 months ago is meaningless to the balance in costs today.
Actually, Sororitas are 9 points per model, we can use them.
+1 BS, +2 save, Boltgun, Bolt Pistol, Frag Grenades, Krak Grenades, Shield of Faith, Act of Faith, synergize with Celestine, Synergize with Ministorum Priests, Synergize with the rest of the Imperium stuff people are so upset about...
Options for ONE Heavy Stubber or Flamer in 10 instead of TWO heavies in 10 PLUS a PG.
No ML, LC, HB, AC, Mortar, PG, or MG.
No orders.
Limited benefits available via army trait.
A few good stratagems.
Support characters far more expensive.
I'm not overly upset about infantry going to 5ppm. For most IG players, myself included, that's 60 points out of list. I'm not mad about it, although the constant stream of nerfs is a bit demoralizing.
My only hope is that GW looks at the points increases for both Infantry Squads and Conscripts, and brings back summary execution in it's original form.
I'll also point out to anybody listening that pointing out how good IG are with FRF!SRF! is always misleading, because it requires a character to give that order. Assuming you run company commanders (and why wouldn't you, bring the need to fill out cheap brigades) you're paying another 15 points for that order, and an otherwise not very useful character.
Audustum wrote: I believe, when the Indices first came out, there were reports that the play testers played very differently to us. Specifically, that their meta evolved past hordes fairly quickly, while ours has not.
This could be because some nerf or change GW made in the meantime broke our natural progression or it could be because they were in a bubble. Who knows.
Didn't the playtest version have Chapter/Regiment traits work on the army level rather than the detachment level?
That alone would pretty much explain why the "Obligatory Minimal Guard Battalion" wasn't omnipresent in their games.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Actually, Sororitas are 9 points per model, we can use them.
+1 BS, +2 save, Boltgun, Bolt Pistol, Frag Grenades, Krak Grenades, Shield of Faith, Act of Faith, synergize with Celestine, Synergize with Ministorum Priests, Synergize with the rest of the Imperium stuff people are so upset about...
And they are a very good unit. Now compare point per point how they compare with a 4ppm Infantrymen. You can apply all those sinergies if you want. Guardsmen will come ahead because 2W with 5+ in two models is better than one model with 1W and 3+. The same goes for 24" Rapid Fire 1 S4 vs 18" Rapid Fire 1 S3 X2, even with the BS3+ vs BS4+.
From 7th to 8th edition, Guardsmen have become MUCH more resilient. S5 (Heavy bolters, Heavy flamers) no longers wound them in 2+. No longers leave them without a save (They have a 6+ agaisnt those weapons. This is a good thing of course, for models to actually have saves, but thats something that should be masured). And they droped from 5ppm to 4ppm.
At the same time the new wounding mechanics greatly helps their offensive outpot. Their 5+ save in a 4ppm model is something only 3-4 units in the game have.
As others have said, its better to get used to point changes 2-3 times a year. Thats a good thing. I doubt IG will be the only ones nerfed this FAQ, and I doubt they ONLY will be nerfed. Probably some of the weakest IG units will be buffed.
Are you really comparing the number of buffs GSC gets to Astra Militarum/Imperium ones? AHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA
Do you even know how the Guard book works?
Serious question. Because 6" is the same bubble that is required for me to issue an Order. I have a finite number of Orders per Officer(barring a Cadian Officer who can, on a 4+, add a second unit to their Order), and each unit can only benefit once from an Order barring a Relic that allows for two Orders to the same unit on a 4+.
For your GSC, you get to tag as many models/units(the wording varies for GSC abilities) as you can fit in that 6".
I can get a 6+ Invulnerable Save with Celestine and her Geminae in 6" of Astra Militarum units, I can get ignoring Morale from Inquisitors or Custodes Vexilia within 6", I can get rerolls on Hit rolls of 1 and failed Morale tests along with +1 to Advance and Charge rolls for things in 12" of Guilliman...that's about all I can come up with off the top of my head.
But just so we're clear? That requires:
2 HQs, 1 LOW, and 1 Elite.
Are you really comparing the number of buffs GSC gets to Astra Militarum/Imperium ones? AHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA
Do you even know how the Guard book works?
Serious question. Because 6" is the same bubble that is required for me to issue an Order. I have a finite number of Orders per Officer(barring a Cadian Officer who can, on a 4+, add a second unit to their Order), and each unit can only benefit once from an Order barring a Relic that allows for two Orders to the same unit on a 4+.
For your GSC, you get to tag as many models/units(the wording varies for GSC abilities) as you can fit in that 6".
I can get a 6+ Invulnerable Save with Celestine and her Geminae in 6" of Astra Militarum units, I can get ignoring Morale from Inquisitors or Custodes Vexilia within 6", I can get rerolls on Hit rolls of 1 and failed Morale tests along with +1 to Advance and Charge rolls for things in 12" of Guilliman...that's about all I can come up with off the top of my head.
But just so we're clear? That requires:
2 HQs, 1 LOW, and 1 Elite.
Except all your "single target" buffs are much more powerful since they increase the damage output of guard BY ALOT instead of giving really situational buffs (only Patriarch/Primus ones are arguably good but remember that you're paying 73/150 pts for giving THAT BUFF, not fething 30 point)
Unit1126PLL wrote: Actually, Sororitas are 9 points per model, we can use them.
+1 BS, +2 save, Boltgun, Bolt Pistol, Frag Grenades, Krak Grenades, Shield of Faith, Act of Faith, synergize with Celestine, Synergize with Ministorum Priests, Synergize with the rest of the Imperium stuff people are so upset about...
And they are a very good unit. Now compare point per point how they compare with a 4ppm Infantrymen. You can apply all those sinergies if you want. Guardsmen will come ahead because 2W with 5+ in two models is better than one model with 1W and 3+. The same goes for 24" Rapid Fire 1 S4 vs 18" Rapid Fire 1 S3 X2, even with the BS3+ vs BS4+.
From 7th to 8th edition, Guardsmen have become MUCH more resilient. S5 (Heavy bolters, Heavy flamers) no longers wound them in 2+. No longers leave them without a save (They have a 6+ agaisnt those weapons. This is a good thing of course, for models to actually have saves, but thats something that should be masured). And they droped from 5ppm to 4ppm.
At the same time the new wounding mechanics greatly helps their offensive outpot. Their 5+ save in a 4ppm model is something only 3-4 units in the game have.
Well, we can do the math versus a single Tactical Marine or versus eachother.
Tactical Marine shot by two guardsmen in rapid fire:
4 shots, 2 hits, 0.67 wounds, 0.22 past saves
Tactical Marine shot by an SOB in rapid fire:
2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.67 wounds, 0.22 past saves.
Identical.
Tactical marine shooting at two guardsmen in rapid fire:
2 shots, 1.33 hits, .89 wounds, .59 past saves.
Tactical Marine shooting at an SOB in rapid fire:
2 shots, 1.33 hits, .89 wounds, .3 past saves.
Also identical, given that the guard have twice as many models and they suffer twice as much wounds.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
KurtAngle2 wrote:Except all your "single target" buffs are much more powerful since they increase the damage output of guard BY ALOT instead of giving really situational buffs (only Patriarch/Primus ones are arguably good but remember that you're paying 73/150 pts for giving THAT BUFF, not fething 30 point)
Unit1126PLL wrote:And it already feels like a MOBA forum, what with people complaining that single-target one-tick abilities are more powerful than easily-used AOE abilities that are always on.
Ordana wrote: I said it when the index came out.
I said it when the codex came out.
The entire army is(was) basically undercosted.
gakky infantry models like guardsman becomes a lot more durable in 8th edition, both in isolation and when compared to others (like marines)
Weird. Their durability per point (at least against boltguns) is strangely identical to Adepta Sororitas, or at least roughly identical given that guardsmen aren't 4.5 points.
I'm waiting for mortar team nerfs, I see every TOURNAMENT GK list taking a smattering of them and I know I'm not insane in recognizing their point efficiency and range.
Except all your "single target" buffs are much more powerful since they increase the damage output of guard BY ALOT instead of giving really situational buffs (only Patriarch/Primus ones are arguably good but remember that you're paying 73/150 pts for giving THAT BUFF, not fething 30 point)
You pay 73/150 points for those buffs--but you also get a 4+ chance to shunt wounds over onto your GEQ models in 3".
Those "single target buffs" are also caveated. FRFSRF only applies to Lasguns and Hellguns, Take Aim only does reroll hit rolls of 1(unless you're Cadians--in which case if you get Take Aim AND have stayed still that turn, it's reroll all Hits), and Bring It Down is reroll Wound rolls of 1.
How in the feth is that "increasing the damage output of guard BY ALOT instead of giving really situational buffs"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quickjager wrote: I'm waiting for mortar team nerfs, I see every TOURNAMENT GK list taking a smattering of them and I know I'm not insane in recognizing their point efficiency and range.
I'd just like to see Mortars get shuffled into being a Heavy Weapons Team only option. I'd be 100% okay with that. There'd be no ablative Guardsmen for that.
Except all your "single target" buffs are much more powerful since they increase the damage output of guard BY ALOT instead of giving really situational buffs (only Patriarch/Primus ones are arguably good but remember that you're paying 73/150 pts for giving THAT BUFF, not fething 30 point)
You pay 73/150 points for those buffs--but you also get a 4+ chance to shunt wounds over onto your GEQ models in 3".
Those "single target buffs" are also caveated. FRFSRF only applies to Lasguns and Hellguns, Take Aim only does reroll hit rolls of 1(unless you're Cadians--in which case if you get Take Aim AND have stayed still that turn, it's reroll all Hits), and Bring It Down is reroll Wound rolls of 1.
How in the feth is that "increasing the damage output of guard BY ALOT instead of giving really situational buffs"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quickjager wrote: I'm waiting for mortar team nerfs, I see every TOURNAMENT GK list taking a smattering of them and I know I'm not insane in recognizing their point efficiency and range.
I'd just like to see Mortars get shuffled into being a Heavy Weapons Team only option. I'd be 100% okay with that. There'd be no ablative Guardsmen for that.
Do you realise he's untargetable and that rule does not generally apply unless he's in CQC?
Except all your "single target" buffs are much more powerful since they increase the damage output of guard BY ALOT instead of giving really situational buffs (only Patriarch/Primus ones are arguably good but remember that you're paying 73/150 pts for giving THAT BUFF, not fething 30 point)
You pay 73/150 points for those buffs--but you also get a 4+ chance to shunt wounds over onto your GEQ models in 3".
Those "single target buffs" are also caveated. FRFSRF only applies to Lasguns and Hellguns, Take Aim only does reroll hit rolls of 1(unless you're Cadians--in which case if you get Take Aim AND have stayed still that turn, it's reroll all Hits), and Bring It Down is reroll Wound rolls of 1.
How in the feth is that "increasing the damage output of guard BY ALOT instead of giving really situational buffs"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quickjager wrote: I'm waiting for mortar team nerfs, I see every TOURNAMENT GK list taking a smattering of them and I know I'm not insane in recognizing their point efficiency and range.
I'd just like to see Mortars get shuffled into being a Heavy Weapons Team only option. I'd be 100% okay with that. There'd be no ablative Guardsmen for that.
Do you realise he's untargetable and that rule does not generally apply unless he's in CQC?
Today I learned that not only do snipers not exist but also that maneuvering to target enemy characters is also impossible. And that rules which can apply against snipers and clever tactical maneuvering actually only work in CC.
LunarSol wrote: Guard are definitely worth 5 ppm at their current stats. They're just not worth that at BS 5+
I disagree.
GW, with CA, decided that a 6/4/3/3/3/1/1/6/4+ with a 6+ Invulnerable Save and an army-wide Aura is worth 7ppm(Skitarii Rangers) and 8ppm when they get a Mortal Wound aura(Vanguard) and with a sliding scale of 5-10 models while taking 2 Specials at the minimum or 3 at the maxium.
Going from 5+ to 4+ is 'valued' at 1ppm. Going from BS 4 to 3 is 'valued' at 2ppm.
You want Guard at 5ppm, you're giving me something in return. Not when Rangers are spammable at 7ppm and Vanguard at 8ppm.
LunarSol wrote: Guard are definitely worth 5 ppm at their current stats. They're just not worth that at BS 5+
I disagree.
GW, with CA, decided that a 6/4/3/3/3/1/1/6/4+ with a 6+ Invulnerable Save and an army-wide Aura is worth 7ppm(Skitarii Rangers) and 8ppm when they get a Mortal Wound aura(Vanguard) and with a sliding scale of 5-10 models while taking 2 Specials at the minimum or 3 at the maxium.
Going from 5+ to 4+ is 'valued' at 1ppm. Going from BS 4 to 3 is 'valued' at 2ppm.
You want Guard at 5ppm, you're giving me something in return. Not when Rangers are spammable at 7ppm and Vanguard at 8ppm.
You have a functional Codex wheres Adeptus Mechanicus does not. Isn't that enough?
Except all your "single target" buffs are much more powerful since they increase the damage output of guard BY ALOT instead of giving really situational buffs (only Patriarch/Primus ones are arguably good but remember that you're paying 73/150 pts for giving THAT BUFF, not fething 30 point)
You pay 73/150 points for those buffs--but you also get a 4+ chance to shunt wounds over onto your GEQ models in 3".
Those "single target buffs" are also caveated. FRFSRF only applies to Lasguns and Hellguns, Take Aim only does reroll hit rolls of 1(unless you're Cadians--in which case if you get Take Aim AND have stayed still that turn, it's reroll all Hits), and Bring It Down is reroll Wound rolls of 1.
How in the feth is that "increasing the damage output of guard BY ALOT instead of giving really situational buffs"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quickjager wrote: I'm waiting for mortar team nerfs, I see every TOURNAMENT GK list taking a smattering of them and I know I'm not insane in recognizing their point efficiency and range.
I'd just like to see Mortars get shuffled into being a Heavy Weapons Team only option. I'd be 100% okay with that. There'd be no ablative Guardsmen for that.
LunarSol wrote: Guard are definitely worth 5 ppm at their current stats. They're just not worth that at BS 5+
I disagree.
GW, with CA, decided that a 6/4/3/3/3/1/1/6/4+ with a 6+ Invulnerable Save and an army-wide Aura is worth 7ppm(Skitarii Rangers) and 8ppm when they get a Mortal Wound aura(Vanguard) and with a sliding scale of 5-10 models while taking 2 Specials at the minimum or 3 at the maxium.
Going from 5+ to 4+ is 'valued' at 1ppm. Going from BS 4 to 3 is 'valued' at 2ppm.
You want Guard at 5ppm, you're giving me something in return. Not when Rangers are spammable at 7ppm and Vanguard at 8ppm.
You have a functional Codex wheres Adeptus Mechanicus does not. Isn't that enough?
Surely that means the problem is that Adeptus Mechanicus needs fixing, and not Guard, yes? Or would you rather Guard match them in having a non-functional codex?
LunarSol wrote: Guard are definitely worth 5 ppm at their current stats. They're just not worth that at BS 5+
I disagree.
GW, with CA, decided that a 6/4/3/3/3/1/1/6/4+ with a 6+ Invulnerable Save and an army-wide Aura is worth 7ppm(Skitarii Rangers) and 8ppm when they get a Mortal Wound aura(Vanguard) and with a sliding scale of 5-10 models while taking 2 Specials at the minimum or 3 at the maxium.
Going from 5+ to 4+ is 'valued' at 1ppm. Going from BS 4 to 3 is 'valued' at 2ppm.
You want Guard at 5ppm, you're giving me something in return. Not when Rangers are spammable at 7ppm and Vanguard at 8ppm.
You have a functional Codex wheres Adeptus Mechanicus does not. Isn't that enough?
Surely that means the problem is that Adeptus Mechanicus needs fixing, and not Guard, yes? Or would you rather Guard match them in having a non-functional codex?
I'll argue that Vanguards and Skitarii shouldn't cost what they cost. Just like Blodletters are not a 7ppm model when they have access to a DP stratagem. They should be more expensive. For example, Skitarii are just better Tau Firewarriors.
LunarSol wrote: Guard are definitely worth 5 ppm at their current stats. They're just not worth that at BS 5+
I disagree.
GW, with CA, decided that a 6/4/3/3/3/1/1/6/4+ with a 6+ Invulnerable Save and an army-wide Aura is worth 7ppm(Skitarii Rangers) and 8ppm when they get a Mortal Wound aura(Vanguard) and with a sliding scale of 5-10 models while taking 2 Specials at the minimum or 3 at the maxium.
Going from 5+ to 4+ is 'valued' at 1ppm. Going from BS 4 to 3 is 'valued' at 2ppm.
You want Guard at 5ppm, you're giving me something in return. Not when Rangers are spammable at 7ppm and Vanguard at 8ppm.
You have a functional Codex wheres Adeptus Mechanicus does not. Isn't that enough?
Surely that means the problem is that Adeptus Mechanicus needs fixing, and not Guard, yes? Or would you rather Guard match them in having a non-functional codex?
I'll argue that Vanguards and Skitarii shouldn't cost what they cost. Just like Blodletters are not a 7ppm model when they have access to a DP stratagem. They should be more expensive.
So you think that Vanguards and Rangers should be 9 and 8 PPM like they were before?
Do you realise he's untargetable and that rule does not generally apply unless he's in CQC?
Character rules do not make you 'untargetable'.
You know that right?
Page 67
– Matched Play Mission Rules,
Targeting Characters
Change the first sentence to read:
‘An enemy Character with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if it is both visible to the firer and it is the closest enemy model to the firer.’
That's from the Errata/FAQ for Chapter Approved 2017.
Now, it makes you effectively untargetable...unless you have special rules like Sniper Rifles or if you are visible to the firer and the closest enemy model to the firer.
LunarSol wrote: Guard are definitely worth 5 ppm at their current stats. They're just not worth that at BS 5+
I disagree.
GW, with CA, decided that a 6/4/3/3/3/1/1/6/4+ with a 6+ Invulnerable Save and an army-wide Aura is worth 7ppm(Skitarii Rangers) and 8ppm when they get a Mortal Wound aura(Vanguard) and with a sliding scale of 5-10 models while taking 2 Specials at the minimum or 3 at the maxium.
Going from 5+ to 4+ is 'valued' at 1ppm. Going from BS 4 to 3 is 'valued' at 2ppm.
You want Guard at 5ppm, you're giving me something in return. Not when Rangers are spammable at 7ppm and Vanguard at 8ppm.
You have a functional Codex wheres Adeptus Mechanicus does not. Isn't that enough?
Surely that means the problem is that Adeptus Mechanicus needs fixing, and not Guard, yes? Or would you rather Guard match them in having a non-functional codex?
I'll argue that Vanguards and Skitarii shouldn't cost what they cost. Just like Blodletters are not a 7ppm model when they have access to a DP stratagem. They should be more expensive.
So you think that Vanguards and Rangers should be 9 and 8 PPM like they were before?
I'll argue that Vanguards and Skitarii shouldn't cost what they cost. Just like Blodletters are not a 7ppm model when they have access to a DP stratagem. They should be more expensive.
Ugg nooooo.
Stratagems cost CP.
Units don't necessarily balance perfectly between codexes, because you need to account for internal balance.
Bloodletters getting deepstrike is a consequence of an army with very little shooting.
I'll argue that Vanguards and Skitarii shouldn't cost what they cost. Just like Blodletters are not a 7ppm model when they have access to a DP stratagem. They should be more expensive.
Ugg nooooo.
Stratagems cost CP.
Units don't necessarily balance perfectly between codexes, because you need to account for internal balance.
Bloodletters getting deepstrike is a consequence of an army with very little shooting.
7ppm for Bloodletters was fine in the context of a index army without any way to transport a meele unit like that. They where a slow foostloging meele horde. Now they have deepstrike, and that changes everything.
Increasing the cost on the model by 1 point seems correct for having a better ld and a better save.
Not when you factor in Neophyte Hybrids:
6/4/4/3/3/1/1/7(8)/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Or the initial points cost of Conscripts:
6/5/5/3/3/1/1/4/5+ vs 6/4/4/3/3/1/1/6(7)/5+
Going up above LD6 seems to be valued at 1ppm(not factoring in a Sergeant model) while it requires you to go from a 5+ to a 4+ in Armor or BS, with WS only coming into play if you have a CCWOR if you are S4+ as Infantry, to cost a point.
You want Guardsmen at 5ppm, you're giving me something in exchange. End of goddamned story. Either I'm getting a 4+ armor save, LD7/8, or a Vox-Caster is included in the unit's point cost.
You get fuckton of sinergies and Cult doesn't. END OF STORY
Guard has a Codex and Cult doesn't. RE-OPEN STORY.
The synergies Guard have that GSC don't existed pre-codex, though? Neophytes are a shooting unit in an army where all HQ buffs are designed to aid melee. They have nothing comparable to Guard orders.
Do you realise he's untargetable and that rule does not generally apply unless he's in CQC?
Character rules do not make you 'untargetable'.
You know that right?
Page 67
– Matched Play Mission Rules,
Targeting Characters
Change the first sentence to read:
‘An enemy Character with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if it is both visible to the firer and it is the closest enemy model to the firer.’
That's from the Errata/FAQ for Chapter Approved 2017.
Now, it makes you effectively untargetable...unless you have special rules like Sniper Rifles or if you are visible to the firer and the closest enemy model to the firer.
This is not a useful tangent. Most people don't pack snipers and even if they did the IG rules would be more useful more of the time.
Do you realise he's untargetable and that rule does not generally apply unless he's in CQC?
Character rules do not make you 'untargetable'.
You know that right?
Page 67
– Matched Play Mission Rules,
Targeting Characters
Change the first sentence to read:
‘An enemy Character with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if it is both visible to the firer and it is the closest enemy model to the firer.’
That's from the Errata/FAQ for Chapter Approved 2017.
Now, it makes you effectively untargetable...unless you have special rules like Sniper Rifles or if you are visible to the firer and the closest enemy model to the firer.
Rotfl Sniper Rifles in 8TH 2018...seems like you have NEVER played remotely competitive if you are really mentioning that 4+ as an additional counter to weapons that are never used due to their poor efficiency
Interesting, you would equate the Ranger's "30 inch Str 4 AP0, AP-1 on a 6+ Rapid Fire 1" gun with the Vanguard's "18 inch Str 3 AP0, 2 damage on a 6 to wound, Assault 3" gun?
And you'd give out the Vanguard's close-combat toughness debuff for free?
Do you realise he's untargetable and that rule does not generally apply unless he's in CQC?
Character rules do not make you 'untargetable'.
You know that right?
Page 67
– Matched Play Mission Rules,
Targeting Characters
Change the first sentence to read:
‘An enemy Character with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if it is both visible to the firer and it is the closest enemy model to the firer.’
That's from the Errata/FAQ for Chapter Approved 2017.
Now, it makes you effectively untargetable...unless you have special rules like Sniper Rifles or if you are visible to the firer and the closest enemy model to the firer.
This is not a useful tangent. Most people don't pack snipers and even if they did the IG rules would be more useful more of the time.
Oh please. I heard nothing but people whining about Alaitoc Rangers being a reason that we need Dark Reapers to exist.
So which is it, are Alaitoc Rangers such a big problem that we need Dark Reapers to exist or do "most people" not pack snipers?
Interesting, you would equate the Ranger's "30 inch Str 4 AP0, AP-1 on a 6+ Rapid Fire 1" gun with the Vanguard's "18 inch Str 3 AP0, 2 damage on a 6 to wound, Assault 3" gun?
And you'd give out the Vanguard's close-combat toughness debuff for free?
In the context of a faction without transports? Yes.
If Adeptus Mechanicus had access to cheap transports I'll make Vanguards 9ppm. Without a way to make Vanguards enter meele in a reliable way that T debuff aura isn't even worth a full point.
Do you realise he's untargetable and that rule does not generally apply unless he's in CQC?
Character rules do not make you 'untargetable'.
You know that right?
Page 67
– Matched Play Mission Rules,
Targeting Characters
Change the first sentence to read:
‘An enemy Character with a Wounds characteristic of less than 10 can only be chosen as a target in the Shooting phase if it is both visible to the firer and it is the closest enemy model to the firer.’
That's from the Errata/FAQ for Chapter Approved 2017.
Now, it makes you effectively untargetable...unless you have special rules like Sniper Rifles or if you are visible to the firer and the closest enemy model to the firer.
This is not a useful tangent. Most people don't pack snipers and even if they did the IG rules would be more useful more of the time.
Oh please. I heard nothing but people whining about Alaitoc Rangers being a reason that we need Dark Reapers to exist.
So which is it, are Alaitoc Rangers such a big problem that we need Dark Reapers to exist or do "most people" not pack snipers?
Alaitoic rangers are there to field a Battalion and therefore are played in minimum 2x5 squads. Even without the arguably "useful" 4+ for GSC leaders they wouldn't do much. I'd like have the model cost reduced to ACCEPTABLE levels (since a 76 points model shouldn't have a company commander profile) without that rule instead of the gak we have now
People don't bring rangers because of their sniper special rule. They bring them because they're a very durable alternate deployment method that can block and screen effectively.
Interesting, you would equate the Ranger's "30 inch Str 4 AP0, AP-1 on a 6+ Rapid Fire 1" gun with the Vanguard's "18 inch Str 3 AP0, 2 damage on a 6 to wound, Assault 3" gun?
And you'd give out the Vanguard's close-combat toughness debuff for free?
In the context of a faction without transports? Yes.
If Adeptus Mechanicus had access to cheap transports I'll make Vanguards 9ppm.
Interesting indeed. I have a different opinion, in that the Vanguard's rifle and the Vanguard's special rules are both better than the Ranger's. I thought that difference was fairly obvious, but I could be wrong.
Rotfl Sniper Rifles in 8TH 2018...seems like you have NEVER played remotely competitive if you are really mentioning that 4+ as an additional counter to weapons that are never used due to their poor efficiency
And it seems like you do nothing but play against people who gunline(or let you do the same) rather than fire & maneuver.
Interesting, you would equate the Ranger's "30 inch Str 4 AP0, AP-1 on a 6+ Rapid Fire 1" gun with the Vanguard's "18 inch Str 3 AP0, 2 damage on a 6 to wound, Assault 3" gun?
And you'd give out the Vanguard's close-combat toughness debuff for free?
In the context of a faction without transports? Yes.
If Adeptus Mechanicus had access to cheap transports I'll make Vanguards 9ppm.
Interesting indeed. I have a different opinion, in that the Vanguard's rifle and the Vanguard's special rules are both better than the Ranger's. I thought that difference was fairly obvious, but I could be wrong.
Mathematically they are. But when you factor the faction where they are: Adeptus Mechanicus, a shooting army without transports, then Vanguards come out as weaker than Rangers.
Interesting, you would equate the Ranger's "30 inch Str 4 AP0, AP-1 on a 6+ Rapid Fire 1" gun with the Vanguard's "18 inch Str 3 AP0, 2 damage on a 6 to wound, Assault 3" gun?
And you'd give out the Vanguard's close-combat toughness debuff for free?
In the context of a faction without transports? Yes.
If Adeptus Mechanicus had access to cheap transports I'll make Vanguards 9ppm.
Interesting indeed. I have a different opinion, in that the Vanguard's rifle and the Vanguard's special rules are both better than the Ranger's. I thought that difference was fairly obvious, but I could be wrong.
Mathematically they are. But when you factor the faction where they are: Adeptus Mechanicus, a shooting army without transports, then Vanguards come out as weaker than Rangers.
I don't actually agree with that, as I think most Mechanicus players would actually prefer to have Vanguard over Rangers all things being equal, even without transports. I could be wrong, but I certainly would if I played Mechanicus (which I do, a bit, but not much. Interestingly enough, I chose Vanguards even over the cheaper rangers, and it wasn't a hard choice for me even with the rangers being 1ppm cheaper).
7ppm for Bloodletters was fine in the context of a index army without any way to transport a meele unit like that. They where a slow foostloging meele horde. Now they have deepstrike, and that changes everything.
I'm not so positive of that, but i'm sure someone has some clever soup to shore up the deficiencies.
Is not like I have won a GT. I'm just a random dude on the internet, don't take what I say as a gospel. For whatever thing I say I have on average a 70% of being wrong.
Galas wrote: Is not like I have won a GT. I'm just a random dude on the internet, don't take what I say as a gospel
Haha. I might try rangers instead of vanguard my next few games and see how they do. Interestingly, it will exactly make up the points that I lost from this Imperial Guard FAQ, so I hope they turn out as badass as the Vanguard have for cheaper.
Galas wrote: Is not like I have won a GT. I'm just a random dude on the internet, don't take what I say as a gospel
Haha. I might try rangers instead of vanguard my next few games and see how they do. Interestingly, it will exactly make up the points that I lost from this Imperial Guard FAQ, so I hope they turn out as badass as the Vanguard have for cheaper.
I do regret having a primarily Ranger army from 7th. I miss the Precision Shots on the Galvanic Rifles and the extra dice when rolling for Armour Pen on vehicles with the Arquebi.
Of course it's not, it doesn't change that people were whining so heavily that Dark Reapers are "needed" to deal with the Rangers.
That's the tournament mindset. That because X is so widely prevalent(whether or not it actually does gak), Y is "needed".
I don't know where you're seeing that. Are you sure you're not just extrapolating from something else?
Dark Reaper DO serve a roll in the meta to keep people from dragging out things like Alaitoc too often, but rangers have very little to do with that. That doesn't mean they don't deserve a point increase.
Of course it's not, it doesn't change that people were whining so heavily that Dark Reapers are "needed" to deal with the Rangers.
That's the tournament mindset. That because X is so widely prevalent(whether or not it actually does gak), Y is "needed".
I don't know where you're seeing that. Are you sure you're not just extrapolating from something else?
Dark Reaper DO serve a roll in the meta to keep people from dragging out things like Alaitoc too often, but rangers have very little to do with that. That doesn't mean they don't deserve a point increase.
Did you not read the Dark Reaper nerf thread that Galef had running?
Someone literally brought up Alaitoc Rangers as an example and then further went to compare Marine Scouts with them, assuming that Marine Scouts also get -1 to Hits when they have Camo Cloaks because of the fact that Alaitoc Rangers do.
Dark Reapers can serve that same role with a flat +1 to Hit rolls, they don't need to be neutering Raven Guard or Mechanicus or <Insert Army Here>.
If dark reapers were just great at countering - to hit shenanigans and average heavy fire otherwise things would be kind of fine they would be good but not as OP as right now, they probably need a points hike.
I do find it ironic that Guard players were eager to tell Space Marine players that they should be souping to be effective. I have seen numerous replies to Grey Knights from Guard players on this forum telling them that GK are not designed as a standalone army, and therefore it is OK for Guard to be WAY stronger than GK. But, when Guard are nerfed partly as a byproduct of souping, it suddenly becomes an existential crisis.
Marmatag wrote: I do find it ironic that Guard players were eager to tell Space Marine players that they should be souping to be effective. I have seen numerous replies to Grey Knights from Guard players on this forum telling them that GK are not designed as a standalone army, and therefore it is OK for Guard to be WAY stronger than GK. But, when Guard are nerfed partly as a byproduct of souping, it suddenly becomes an existential crisis.
"Partly"?
It's solely because of souping. I'd rather they fix the frigging problems with souping than nerf the army I play...but hey, apparently I'm not a supercompetitive player.
IG still need a lot more nerfs, too, unfortunately.
Baneblade chassis needs to be brought in line with other LoW Mortars too good
Primaris psyker still too good
Basilisk still too good
Manticore still too good
Officers too cheap
And some FW stuff, too
Much of that is indirect fire being super obnoxious this edition. Quit literally an "I win, you lose" button.
Marmatag wrote: I do find it ironic that Guard players were eager to tell Space Marine players that they should be souping to be effective. I have seen numerous replies to Grey Knights from Guard players on this forum telling them that GK are not designed as a standalone army, and therefore it is OK for Guard to be WAY stronger than GK. But, when Guard are nerfed partly as a byproduct of souping, it suddenly becomes an existential crisis.
"Partly"?
It's solely because of souping. I'd rather they fix the frigging problems with souping than nerf the army I play...but hey, apparently I'm not a supercompetitive player.
One side of mouth: "Let's fix the problems with souping."
Other side of mouth: "Space Marines are weak but that's intended & because they can soup in Guard."
Marmatag wrote: I do find it ironic that Guard players were eager to tell Space Marine players that they should be souping to be effective. I have seen numerous replies to Grey Knights from Guard players on this forum telling them that GK are not designed as a standalone army, and therefore it is OK for Guard to be WAY stronger than GK. But, when Guard are nerfed partly as a byproduct of souping, it suddenly becomes an existential crisis.
"Partly"?
It's solely because of souping. I'd rather they fix the frigging problems with souping than nerf the army I play...but hey, apparently I'm not a supercompetitive player.
One side of mouth: "Let's fix the problems with souping."
Other side of mouth: "Space Marines are weak but that's intended & because they can soup in Guard."
Find anywhere in my posting history where I've suggested that.
Marmatag wrote: I do find it ironic that Guard players were eager to tell Space Marine players that they should be souping to be effective. I have seen numerous replies to Grey Knights from Guard players on this forum telling them that GK are not designed as a standalone army, and therefore it is OK for Guard to be WAY stronger than GK. But, when Guard are nerfed partly as a byproduct of souping, it suddenly becomes an existential crisis.
My ears started burning.
I suggested that GK shouldn't be considered a standalone army because they had the stuff they need to be functional (screening units, antitank) basically ripped out of the codex. You're playing with half the codex that they had in 3rd-6th and wondering why you're getting poor results. Whether it was intentionally done or how it should be have never been things I've bothered myself with. My arguments on the matter have always been from a "how it's going to have to be to get by" perspective.
IG need nerfed even without souping. Cheaper is always better in 8th, and they take it to extremes. They get too much of a general discount for BS 4+. What the GW don't realize is that marines are also BS 4+ on heavies when they move, and IG aren't moving so they keep their BS 4+, but have double the shots.
LVO is tainted data because of how absurdly crazy altioc dark reapers are vs IG. After march, we'll see the IG bounce back a lot unless they get meaningful nerfs.
The only internal balance that really matters these days is the internal balance of whatever faction you're playing. AM armies with assault elements like BA Death Company and Captains is something GW has to think about when balancing. Thanks to how permissive Soup detachment rules are. I don't know the best way to balance this sort of thing because obviously a solid majority of players aren't running those Soup lists, but for competitive games, there's a whole lot of obvious benefits for picking the best units from each codex and just running those.
IG are better off not using anything from BA because their shooting is already better than any assault army in the game. Other Imperials are souping FROM IG because IG have more undercosted units than the other Imperial factions. If you made BA Death Company 10ppm, you'd see a lot of BA soup lists. But they're not. They're 20 ppm and die easily. So they don't get souped in. Even with the point bump, GW is saying that one BADC is worth 4 guardsmen, which is absurd in 8th ed.
Martel732 wrote: IG need nerfed even without souping. Cheaper is always better in 8th, and they take it to extremes. They get too much of a general discount for BS 4+. What the GW don't realize is that marines are also BS 4+ on heavies when they move, and IG aren't moving so they keep their BS 4+, but have double the shots.
Martel732 wrote: IG need nerfed even without souping. Cheaper is always better in 8th, and they take it to extremes. They get too much of a general discount for BS 4+.
BS4+ is costed at 1ppm on Infantry.
What the GW don't realize is that marines are also BS 4+ on heavies when they move, and IG aren't moving so they keep their BS 4+, but have double the shots.
So...don't move the Marine stuff when you want to be reliably firing it?
You have basically the same heavy weapon options we do for Infantry. Our tanks are BS4+ natively, including the Baneblade hulls, with only Baneblades and Leman Russes able to move & fire with no penalties(with LRBTs only being able to do that with the turret weapons).
Martel732 wrote: IG are better off not using anything from BA because their shooting is already better than any assault army in the game. Other Imperials are souping FROM IG because IG have more undercosted units than the other Imperial factions. If you made BA Death Company 10ppm, you'd see a lot of BA soup lists. But they're not. They're 20 ppm and die easily. So they don't get souped in. Even with the point bump, GW is saying that one BADC is worth 4 guardsmen, which is absurd in 8th ed.
Oh yeah, there definitely weren't any BA soup lists thriving in the Dark Reaper Hellscape that was LVO.
Take away Dark Reapers and BA assault still isn't that great, but it gets better for sure. But it puts IG right back in business. Because then Eldar are back to not being able to hit IG back hard enough to matter. 36" lances struggle against all the cheap T8 targets.
Galas wrote: Marines are dead. Don't cry for them. The basic marine statline is unbalanceable.
LONG LIVE OUR NEW PRIMARIS OVERLORDS. They are actually balanceable.
Theres no point in bringing basic marines in balance conversations just like theres no point in talking about grey knights. They are a disaster from a design standpoint. They need a rewrite from the ground up. And they have received one: Primaris.
As bait-tastic as this post seems, it's basially not wrong. Primaris DO fix basically everything about Marines. Mainly by giving the units focus. Focusing on shooting OR assault goes a looooong way towards making Marines more playable, especially in the current edition. They need more melee units though.
I find this "generalists can't exist from a design perspective" really weird.
Martel732 wrote: Take away Dark Reapers and BA assault still isn't that great, but it gets better for sure. But it puts IG right back in business. Because then Eldar are back to not being able to hit IG back hard enough to matter.
Which just circles back to the idea of "People still aren't actually trying to adapt to the new mechanics of the game".
Guard don't possess native negative hit modifiers. If you're shooting at us, you're probably going to be hitting us. The only negative hit modifiers we have are cast by a Psyker.
Galas wrote: Marines are dead. Don't cry for them. The basic marine statline is unbalanceable.
LONG LIVE OUR NEW PRIMARIS OVERLORDS. They are actually balanceable.
Theres no point in bringing basic marines in balance conversations just like theres no point in talking about grey knights. They are a disaster from a design standpoint. They need a rewrite from the ground up. And they have received one: Primaris.
As bait-tastic as this post seems, it's basially not wrong. Primaris DO fix basically everything about Marines. Mainly by giving the units focus. Focusing on shooting OR assault goes a looooong way towards making Marines more playable, especially in the current edition. They need more melee units though.
I find this "generalists can't exist from a design perspective" really weird.
No no. Generalists can totally exist from a design perspective. Primaris Marines are a good generalist. Capable of doing things in shooting, capable of doing things in meele, good resistance vs low quality shooting, etc...
In the other hand, the basic space marine statline is how to do a bad generalist. They are bad at shooting, they are bad at meele, and they aren't all that resilient agaisn't any kind of shooting in the game.
Thats the problem with Assault Squads, Devastator Squads, Tactical Marines, Chaos Space Marines, etc... they don't have design space to be fixed. They can't become cheaper because they have a ton of stats that they need to pay for, because otherwise they enter the design space of cheaper infantry (Even if those stats are useless like WS3+ and S4 with 1A and no meele weapons), and you can't give them better rules because then they stop being basic troops. Thats why the only units that are good with a space marine statline are space marines with a ton of extra rules, or a different stat line like veterans with 2A, or Sternguard with special weapon saturation and better bolters.
The Primaris Statline fixes that problem with the basic space marine infantry.
Martel732 wrote: Take away Dark Reapers and BA assault still isn't that great, but it gets better for sure. But it puts IG right back in business. Because then Eldar are back to not being able to hit IG back hard enough to matter.
Which just circles back to the idea of "People still aren't actually trying to adapt to the new mechanics of the game".
The chief mechanic of which, imo, is that you aren't playing Guard/AM/BA. You're playing Imperial Soup.
Generalists can exist, but they need significant discounts on their stats, as they almost never leverage them all at the same time. Eldar, with their specialists, have dominated edition after edition by not paying for capabilities they don't need.
Scatbikes were miserable in melee; didn't matter
Warp spiders, also miserable in melee; didn't matter
Did you not read the Dark Reaper nerf thread that Galef had running?
Someone literally brought up Alaitoc Rangers as an example and then further went to compare Marine Scouts with them, assuming that Marine Scouts also get -1 to Hits when they have Camo Cloaks because of the fact that Alaitoc Rangers do.
Dark Reapers can serve that same role with a flat +1 to Hit rolls, they don't need to be neutering Raven Guard or Mechanicus or <Insert Army Here>.
Martel732 wrote: Take away Dark Reapers and BA assault still isn't that great, but it gets better for sure. But it puts IG right back in business. Because then Eldar are back to not being able to hit IG back hard enough to matter.
Which just circles back to the idea of "People still aren't actually trying to adapt to the new mechanics of the game".
The chief mechanic of which, imo, is that you aren't playing Guard/AM/BA. You're playing Imperial Soup.
Some codices have to the tools to adapt. Some do not. Generally, the codices with cheaper units adapt more easily, because even when things go wrong, they have little investment at risk. They can also spam the meta counters better, too.
Galas wrote: Marines are dead. Don't cry for them. The basic marine statline is unbalanceable.
LONG LIVE OUR NEW PRIMARIS OVERLORDS. They are actually balanceable.
Theres no point in bringing basic marines in balance conversations just like theres no point in talking about grey knights. They are a disaster from a design standpoint. They need a rewrite from the ground up. And they have received one: Primaris.
As bait-tastic as this post seems, it's basially not wrong. Primaris DO fix basically everything about Marines. Mainly by giving the units focus. Focusing on shooting OR assault goes a looooong way towards making Marines more playable, especially in the current edition. They need more melee units though.
I find this "generalists can't exist from a design perspective" really weird.
No no. Generalists can totally exist from a design perspective. Primaris Marines are a good generalist. Capable of doing things in shooting, capable of doing things in meele, good resistance vs low quality shooting, etc...
In the other hand, the basic space marine statline is how to do a bad generalist. They are bad at shooting, they are bad at meele, and they aren't all that resilient agaisn't any kind of shooting in the game.
Thats the problem with Assault Squads, Devastator Squads, Tactical Marines, Chaos Space Marines, etc... they don't have design space to be fixed. They can't become cheaper because they have a ton of stats that they need to pay for, because otherwise they enter the design space of cheaper infantry (Even if those stats are useless like WS3+ and S4 with 1A and no meele weapons), and you can't give them better rules because then they stop being basic troops. Thats why the only units that are good with a space marine statline are space marines with a ton of extra rules, or a different stat line like veterans with 2A, or Sternguard with special weapon saturation and better bolters.
The Primaris Statline fixes that problem with the basic space marine infantry.
Tacticals outshoot Primaris because Tacticals can buy specials and heavies. As a result, Tacticals have better damage output than the other troop choices in the dex. Each option has it's niche of "generalist". Primaris are more tanky, Scout's have their deployment options, and Tacticals outshoot the other two.
You could easily improve generalists by giving them selective bonuses before the game. Suddenly your TAC squads are a bit less general in any given game, but in the scope of your list are a solid generalist unit.
Galas wrote: Marines are dead. Don't cry for them. The basic marine statline is unbalanceable.
LONG LIVE OUR NEW PRIMARIS OVERLORDS. They are actually balanceable.
Theres no point in bringing basic marines in balance conversations just like theres no point in talking about grey knights. They are a disaster from a design standpoint. They need a rewrite from the ground up. And they have received one: Primaris.
As bait-tastic as this post seems, it's basially not wrong. Primaris DO fix basically everything about Marines. Mainly by giving the units focus. Focusing on shooting OR assault goes a looooong way towards making Marines more playable, especially in the current edition. They need more melee units though.
I find this "generalists can't exist from a design perspective" really weird.
No no. Generalists can totally exist from a design perspective. Primaris Marines are a good generalist. Capable of doing things in shooting, capable of doing things in meele, good resistance vs low quality shooting, etc...
In the other hand, the basic space marine statline is how to do a bad generalist. They are bad at shooting, they are bad at meele, and they aren't all that resilient agaisn't any kind of shooting in the game.
Thats the problem with Assault Squads, Devastator Squads, Tactical Marines, Chaos Space Marines, etc... they don't have design space to be fixed. They can't become cheaper because they have a ton of stats that they need to pay for, because otherwise they enter the design space of cheaper infantry (Even if those stats are useless like WS3+ and S4 with 1A and no meele weapons), and you can't give them better rules because then they stop being basic troops. Thats why the only units that are good with a space marine statline are space marines with a ton of extra rules, or a different stat line like veterans with 2A, or Sternguard with special weapon saturation and better bolters.
The Primaris Statline fixes that problem with the basic space marine infantry.
Tacticals outshoot Primaris because Tacticals can buy specials and heavies. As a result, Tacticals have better damage output than the other troop choices in the dex. Each option has it's niche of "generalist". Primaris are more tanky, Scout's have their deployment options, and Tacticals outshoot the other two.
The 1heavy 5 man tactical squad is less a generalist troop that can do a good job in the table for what you need it and enters more the "Cheap heavy weapon" territory. A lasscanon squad with +4 ablative wounds is not a generalistic unit. You aren't gonna move it or use it for anything in all of the game, just to shoot things in the distance.
5 man tactical squads with special weapons are only competent in the context of Plasma and rerrolls. And then you need to factor that captain in the cost.
A 5-man Intercessor squad with Auxiliary Grenade Launcher is a competent unit that can have a flexible role on the battlefield and not just in your list-building.
But sorry I don't want to derrail the thread. I won't coment more in the space marine basic troops.
That's one way to do it. But it still leaves undercosted and overcosted units out there. Souping just lets players vacuum up the undercosted units from multiple codices. If we eliminate undercosted units, souping will lose most its power. People are grabbing guardsmen with mortars because the are undercosted, not just because they can.
Backspacehacker wrote: Unpopular opinion, it should go back to, you get your codex and nothing else.
I like that other than the mini-factions that have to have some hard exception made about them. Inquisition and Assassins immediately come to mind. Traditionally, both were awkwardly reprinted between two books, along with stormtroopers. And both of those books could take IG or (IIRC) SM as allies anyway waaay back before it a rulebook thing, but it was much more limited.
I think "one codex" would make me a lot happier personally, but I'm not sure how to salvage those exceptions in a satisfactory way.
Martel732 wrote: Take away Dark Reapers and BA assault still isn't that great, but it gets better for sure. But it puts IG right back in business. Because then Eldar are back to not being able to hit IG back hard enough to matter.
Which just circles back to the idea of "People still aren't actually trying to adapt to the new mechanics of the game".
The chief mechanic of which, imo, is that you aren't playing Guard/AM/BA. You're playing Imperial Soup.
Yeah but by that same vein when I play against an Alaitoc Spearhead of a Farseer and 3x units of Dark Reapers and a few other FOCs worth of Eldar...I'm playing against monobook soup.
"Soup" is a term that gets thrown around a lot and not everyone seems to grasp that it can come from a single book as well as multiples.
Galas wrote: Marines are dead. Don't cry for them. The basic marine statline is unbalanceable.
LONG LIVE OUR NEW PRIMARIS OVERLORDS. They are actually balanceable.
Theres no point in bringing basic marines in balance conversations just like theres no point in talking about grey knights. They are a disaster from a design standpoint. They need a rewrite from the ground up. And they have received one: Primaris.
As bait-tastic as this post seems, it's basially not wrong. Primaris DO fix basically everything about Marines. Mainly by giving the units focus. Focusing on shooting OR assault goes a looooong way towards making Marines more playable, especially in the current edition. They need more melee units though.
I find this "generalists can't exist from a design perspective" really weird.
No no. Generalists can totally exist from a design perspective. Primaris Marines are a good generalist. Capable of doing things in shooting, capable of doing things in meele, good resistance vs low quality shooting, etc...
In the other hand, the basic space marine statline is how to do a bad generalist. They are bad at shooting, they are bad at meele, and they aren't all that resilient agaisn't any kind of shooting in the game.
Thats the problem with Assault Squads, Devastator Squads, Tactical Marines, Chaos Space Marines, etc... they don't have design space to be fixed. They can't become cheaper because they have a ton of stats that they need to pay for, because otherwise they enter the design space of cheaper infantry (Even if those stats are useless like WS3+ and S4 with 1A and no meele weapons), and you can't give them better rules because then they stop being basic troops. Thats why the only units that are good with a space marine statline are space marines with a ton of extra rules, or a different stat line like veterans with 2A, or Sternguard with special weapon saturation and better bolters.
The Primaris Statline fixes that problem with the basic space marine infantry.
Tacticals outshoot Primaris because Tacticals can buy specials and heavies. As a result, Tacticals have better damage output than the other troop choices in the dex. Each option has it's niche of "generalist". Primaris are more tanky, Scout's have their deployment options, and Tacticals outshoot the other two.
The 1heavy 5 man tactical squad is less a generalist troop that can do a good job in the table for what you need it and enters more the "Cheap heavy weapon" territory. A lasscanon squad with +4 ablative wounds is not a generalistic unit. You aren't gonna move it or use it for anything in all of the game, just to shoot things in the distance.
5 man tactical squads with special weapons are only competent in the context of Plasma and rerrolls. And then you need to factor that captain in the cost.
A 5-man Intercessor squad with Auxiliary Grenade Launcher is a competent unit that can have a flexible role on the battlefield and not just in your list-building.
But sorry I don't want to derrail the thread. I won't coment more in the space marine basic troops.
Well equipped Tacticals fare well vs. Primaris/Elites because they have access to rapid-fire, multi-wound specials and heavies. The Primaris don't get access to weapons that adequately threaten heavier, more expensive targets until you start bringing Hellblasters, which are ok but crazy expensive. Tacticals with Grav Cannon, Plasma Gun, Combi-Plasma out damage a Quad Las Predator vs. T7 3+ save targets.
Backspacehacker wrote: Unpopular opinion, it should go back to, you get your codex and nothing else.
I'd be perfectly fine with 1 codex only armies. But that wouldn't make some nerfs to IG any less needed.
If anything it would only widen the gap between the top and bottom armies.
The problem with a lot of the game's current balance problems do seem to root from allies and soup lists. I think that there should be a requirement that in matched play, all models in a detachment need to be from the same codex, and all models in an army from the same codex must follow the same army trait.
The problem with this, however, is that Games Workshop have made a lot of design decisions (especially lately) that this idea would cause serious issues, with many armies or units being garbage, or nearly unusable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: I actually agree with Martel that if you want to nerf soup you just need to make the game more balanced.
If Codexes are balanced, then Souping is not a power-based decision but a tactical-based decision.
A slight issue with this way of thinking. Some factions could be balanced around lacking certain elements, which would allow them to instead be strong in other areas to be much more fair. Take T'au, who really lack in dedicated close combat units, or Imperial Guard, who don't have access to good elite infantry. In theory, this would make the faction stand out more from the others, and allow their strengths to really be played to on the tabletop.
I agree Darsath with that way of thinking but at the end of the day, if all Codex are balanced, does it matter that I have a "xenos soup" (Imagine just for sake of argument that it is possible) of 50% shooting tau and 50% meele ork? If they are both balanced, I have solved the weakness of Tau in meele, yeah, but at the cost of having half the firepower I would have had otherwise.
The same goes for Imperial Guard.
If Codex's are balanced, Soup is just another tactical option. Codex without access to soup would have less tactical options but that shouldn't mean that they are at a power disadvantage.
Farseer_V2 wrote: Of course a guard player doesn't seen an issue with filling out your primary detachment before moving on.
Notice how I don't say that you need to field a Brigade as your primary detachment or anything of that nature...
Filling out a Patrol Detachment isn't unreasonable. 1-2 HQs, 1-3 Troops, 0-2 Elites, Fast Attacks, Heavy Supports, and Flyers.
One can argue that you shouldn't be forced to have the Flyer and I'll agree with that wholeheartedly. Some armies(AdMech) don't even have Flyers to bring so that criteria would be impossible to meet.
Farseer_V2 wrote: Of course a guard player doesn't seen an issue with filling out your primary detachment before moving on.
Notice how I don't say that you need to field a Brigade as your primary detachment or anything of that nature...
Filling out a Patrol Detachment isn't unreasonable. 1-2 HQs, 1-3 Troops, 0-2 Elites, Fast Attacks, Heavy Supports, and Flyers.
One can argue that you shouldn't be forced to have the Flyer and I'll agree with that wholeheartedly.
This is bad comedy. Try opening a different codex, see how easy it is to fill out a detachment when you don't have a spate of undercosted stuff to pick from.
Farseer_V2 wrote: Of course a guard player doesn't seen an issue with filling out your primary detachment before moving on.
Notice how I don't say that you need to field a Brigade as your primary detachment or anything of that nature...
Filling out a Patrol Detachment isn't unreasonable. 1-2 HQs, 1-3 Troops, 0-2 Elites, Fast Attacks, Heavy Supports, and Flyers.
One can argue that you shouldn't be forced to have the Flyer and I'll agree with that wholeheartedly.
This is bad comedy. Try opening a different codex, see how easy it is to fill out a detachment when you don't have a spate of undercosted stuff to pick from.
Do you want one with or without a Flyer?
And for the record, the only two codices I have to work with outside of my Guard are AdMech and Vanilla Marines. I can get my hands on Death Guard pretty easy, probably.
I don't like rules that force you to use units that you don't want. Thats marketing and we know how that ends.
What if I don't want to play with Heavy Support? Or Elites? But have still a small allied force?
Galas wrote: I don't like rules that force you to use units that you don't want. Thats marketing and we know how that ends.
What if I don't want to play with Heavy Support? Or Elites?
Then don't play Matched Play, where such a rule would be enforced?
Galas wrote: I don't like rules that force you to use units that you don't want. Thats marketing and we know how that ends.
What if I don't want to play with Heavy Support? Or Elites?
Then don't play Matched Play, where such a rule would be enforced?
Thats disingenuous. We all know in 90% of the cases "Don't play matched play" is the same as "Just don't play". And as someone that did prefer AoS without points you should know it.
Galas wrote: I don't like rules that force you to use units that you don't want. Thats marketing and we know how that ends.
What if I don't want to play with Heavy Support? Or Elites?
Then don't play Matched Play, where such a rule would be enforced?
Thats disingenuous. We all know in 90% of the cases "Don't play matched play" is the same as "Just don't play". And as someone that did prefer AoS without points you should know it.
You'd be surprised how many people are playing Open Play for 40k with Power instead of Points.
Galas wrote: I don't like rules that force you to use units that you don't want. Thats marketing and we know how that ends.
What if I don't want to play with Heavy Support? Or Elites?
Then don't play Matched Play, where such a rule would be enforced?
Thats disingenuous. We all know in 90% of the cases "Don't play matched play" is the same as "Just don't play". And as someone that did prefer AoS without points you should know it.
You'd be surprised how many people are playing Open Play for 40k with Power instead of Points.
Lol, yeah, I mean as the formal authority on all 40k in the entire world, i trust you completely on this.
Galas wrote: I don't like rules that force you to use units that you don't want. Thats marketing and we know how that ends.
What if I don't want to play with Heavy Support? Or Elites?
Then don't play Matched Play, where such a rule would be enforced?
Thats disingenuous. We all know in 90% of the cases "Don't play matched play" is the same as "Just don't play". And as someone that did prefer AoS without points you should know it.
You'd be surprised how many people are playing Open Play for 40k with Power instead of Points.
Why though? Why would people opt for a intentionally less balanced system?
Farseer_V2 wrote: Of course a guard player doesn't seen an issue with filling out your primary detachment before moving on.
Notice how I don't say that you need to field a Brigade as your primary detachment or anything of that nature...
Filling out a Patrol Detachment isn't unreasonable. 1-2 HQs, 1-3 Troops, 0-2 Elites, Fast Attacks, Heavy Supports, and Flyers.
One can argue that you shouldn't be forced to have the Flyer and I'll agree with that wholeheartedly.
This is bad comedy. Try opening a different codex, see how easy it is to fill out a detachment when you don't have a spate of undercosted stuff to pick from.
Do you want one with or without a Flyer?
And for the record, the only two codices I have to work with outside of my Guard are AdMech and Vanilla Marines. I can get my hands on Death Guard pretty easy, probably.
lol.
This is a silly topic, so don't take any of this seriously, but here's a basic "filled-out" battalion detachment of Tau (since battalions are GW's vanilla detachment). Trying to take units that are at least... mildly reasonable. I gave up near the end though and just added in some really cheap units I'd never take otherwise. 1516 points.
Galas wrote: I don't like rules that force you to use units that you don't want. Thats marketing and we know how that ends.
What if I don't want to play with Heavy Support? Or Elites?
Then don't play Matched Play, where such a rule would be enforced?
Thats disingenuous. We all know in 90% of the cases "Don't play matched play" is the same as "Just don't play". And as someone that did prefer AoS without points you should know it.
You'd be surprised how many people are playing Open Play for 40k with Power instead of Points.
Why though? Why would people opt for a intentionally less balanced system?
To an effect, it's because it's "less balanced but still balanced". There's a lot of people, at least locally for me, who dislike the points system saying that it's "clunky and hard to work with" for writing up lists instead opting for Power.
Now for some people, that might very well be the case(who likes consulting reference tables to see if X weapon on the unit costs you a point when you're writing a list on the fly) and for others it's been a sneaky way of gaming the system(one of our WAAC players disliked points because he felt he was 'punished' for using Wraithknights and other LoWs with tiny pinpricks of points compared to Power).
This is a silly topic, so don't take any of this seriously, but here's a basic "filled-out" battalion detachment of Tau (since battalions are GW's vanilla detachment). Trying to take units that are at least... mildly reasonable. I gave up near the end though and just added in some really cheap units I'd never take otherwise. 1516 points.
The 'basic' Detachment would more likely be a Patrol in their minds, since the 'basic' Detachment in previous editions was 1 HQ and 2 Troops Minimum and a Patrol is 1 HQ and 1 Troop.
Interestingly enough, the 'Patrol' Detachment also matches up with the old Allied Detachment requires of 1 HQ and 1 Troop.
Also worth mentioning that you could have swapped the Ethereal out for Darkstrider instead and actually get some usage from him with regards to the Strike Teams. He's the same points as an Ethereal.
I think "one codex" would make me a lot happier personally, but I'm not sure how to salvage those exceptions in a satisfactory way.
I've said it before, but if one restricted "Allies" to a Patrol Detachment or an Allied bit it would go a long way towards fixing things.
There's a particular elegance to having an "Allied" detachment that's much more limited, like Patrol (but preferably with no troop requirement so as to fix Inq/Assassins). Didn't they do that in 6th? I like it though.
Hell, one could even require that you have your selected primary Detachment filled out 100% before allowing secondary faction Detachments.
I like this less. You might be able to do something useful down this train of thought, but even the cheapest GK (which is one of the armies this would need to work with for Inq/Assassins) patrol detachment is 1117 pts WITHOUT a flyer. And that's scraping the bottom of the barrel pretty hard:
2x Bro Champ
3x Strike Squad
2x Servitors with servo arm (I still can't believe this is the cheapest elite they have)
2x Interceptor Squad
2x Purgation Squad
(no upgrades)
It'd be basically impossible to include inquisition at 1500 points with a serious list, and tough even with this one.
I think "one codex" would make me a lot happier personally, but I'm not sure how to salvage those exceptions in a satisfactory way.
I've said it before, but if one restricted "Allies" to a Patrol Detachment or an Allied bit it would go a long way towards fixing things.
There's a particular elegance to having an "Allied" detachment that's much more limited, like Patrol (but preferably with no troop requirement so as to fix Inq/Assassins). Didn't they do that in 6th? I like it though.
Hell, one could even require that you have your selected primary Detachment filled out 100% before allowing secondary faction Detachments.
I like this less. You might be able to do something useful down this train of thought, but even the cheapest GK (which is one of the armies this would need to work with for Inq/Assassins) patrol detachment is 1117 pts WITHOUT a flyer. And that's scraping the bottom of the barrel pretty hard:
2x Bro Champ 3x Strike Squad 2x Servitors with servo arm (I still can't believe this is the cheapest elite they have) 2x Interceptor Squad 2x Purgation Squad (no upgrades)
It'd be basically impossible to include inquisition at 1500 points with a serious list, and tough even with this one.
The fun part about this is that it makes it so that the "Auxiliary Support Detachments" could be made actually a viable solution here--allow for them to be taken without fulfilling the criteria of your Primary Detachment.
But since ASDs subtract a Command Point for every ASD you take in your army, you can control a bit of the Stratagem/Command Point farming as well.
It could also be a way for things like Assassins and Inquisitors to make an appearance with an "Auxiliary Support" bonus where they don't remove Command Points but can't use them either?
There's a lot of room rather than just "NERF THE GUARD!".
This is a silly topic, so don't take any of this seriously, but here's a basic "filled-out" battalion detachment of Tau (since battalions are GW's vanilla detachment). Trying to take units that are at least... mildly reasonable. I gave up near the end though and just added in some really cheap units I'd never take otherwise. 1516 points.
The 'basic' Detachment would more likely be a Patrol in their minds
You think the basic detachment an 8th edition army should run as their primary force is a patrol detachment? Uh, ok.
Also worth mentioning that you could have swapped the Ethereal out for Darkstrider instead and actually get some usage from him with regards to the Strike Teams. He's the same points as an Ethereal.
Yeah you're taking this example too seriously if you think I'd ever run an Ethereal. Or a Darkstrider, honestly. I'd run stuff that costs way more points than these 1500 if I were filling out that many slots with what I'd actually bring.
Darsath wrote: The problem with a lot of the game's current balance problems do seem to root from allies and soup lists. I think that there should be a requirement that in matched play, all models in a detachment need to be from the same codex, and all models in an army from the same codex must follow the same army trait.
The problem with this, however, is that Games Workshop have made a lot of design decisions (especially lately) that this idea would cause serious issues, with many armies or units being garbage, or nearly unusable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: I actually agree with Martel that if you want to nerf soup you just need to make the game more balanced.
If Codexes are balanced, then Souping is not a power-based decision but a tactical-based decision.
A slight issue with this way of thinking. Some factions could be balanced around lacking certain elements, which would allow them to instead be strong in other areas to be much more fair. Take T'au, who really lack in dedicated close combat units, or Imperial Guard, who don't have access to good elite infantry. In theory, this would make the faction stand out more from the others, and allow their strengths to really be played to on the tabletop.
Still not an issue if units are fairly costed. Tau units don't get better if you include melee elements.
I think "one codex" would make me a lot happier personally, but I'm not sure how to salvage those exceptions in a satisfactory way.
I've said it before, but if one restricted "Allies" to a Patrol Detachment or an Allied bit it would go a long way towards fixing things.
There's a particular elegance to having an "Allied" detachment that's much more limited, like Patrol (but preferably with no troop requirement so as to fix Inq/Assassins). Didn't they do that in 6th? I like it though.
Hell, one could even require that you have your selected primary Detachment filled out 100% before allowing secondary faction Detachments.
I like this less. You might be able to do something useful down this train of thought, but even the cheapest GK (which is one of the armies this would need to work with for Inq/Assassins) patrol detachment is 1117 pts WITHOUT a flyer. And that's scraping the bottom of the barrel pretty hard:
2x Bro Champ
3x Strike Squad
2x Servitors with servo arm (I still can't believe this is the cheapest elite they have)
2x Interceptor Squad
2x Purgation Squad
(no upgrades)
It'd be basically impossible to include inquisition at 1500 points with a serious list, and tough even with this one.
The fun part about this is that it makes it so that the "Auxiliary Support Detachments" could be made actually a viable solution here--allow for them to be taken without fulfilling the criteria of your Primary Detachment.
But since ASDs subtract a Command Point for every ASD you take in your army, you can control a bit of the Stratagem/Command Point farming as well.
It could also be a way for things like Assassins and Inquisitors to make an appearance with an "Auxiliary Support" bonus where they don't remove Command Points but can't use them either?
There's a lot of room rather than just "NERF THE GUARD!".
Right, because this doesn't limit elite CP light armies to having even less CP while guard still gets a lot and is basically not effected in any real way...
This is a silly topic, so don't take any of this seriously, but here's a basic "filled-out" battalion detachment of Tau (since battalions are GW's vanilla detachment). Trying to take units that are at least... mildly reasonable. I gave up near the end though and just added in some really cheap units I'd never take otherwise. 1516 points.
The 'basic' Detachment would more likely be a Patrol in their minds
You think the basic detachment an 8th edition army should run as their primary force is a patrol detachment? Uh, ok.
See what I bolded in your post. I'm just proposing possible solutions that aren't just "NERF THE GUARD!" or that will indirectly harm other armies.
Also worth mentioning that you could have swapped the Ethereal out for Darkstrider instead and actually get some usage from him with regards to the Strike Teams. He's the same points as an Ethereal.
Yeah you're taking this example too seriously if you think I'd ever run an Ethereal. Or a Darkstrider, honestly. I'd run stuff that costs way more points than these 1500 if I were filling out that many slots with what I'd actually bring.
And if you wanted to do anything other than set up disingenuous arguments, you probably wouldn't have set up a Battalion as the 'example'.
That would be like me claiming that "I can fill out a Guard Brigade with no problem, why can't the Custodes?".
The fun part about this is that it makes it so that the "Auxiliary Support Detachments" could be made actually a viable solution here--allow for them to be taken without fulfilling the criteria of your Primary Detachment.
But since ASDs subtract a Command Point for every ASD you take in your army, you can control a bit of the Stratagem/Command Point farming as well.
It could also be a way for things like Assassins and Inquisitors to make an appearance with an "Auxiliary Support" bonus where they don't remove Command Points but can't use them either?
There's a lot of room rather than just "NERF THE GUARD!".
Yeah, okay, I think now you're hitting pay dirt. I'd need to stare at a list of factions and think about it a while, but I like this a lot.
Honestly, I think you should hand out a CP either just for having a patrol, or for a full patrol, but I've thought that regardless of this.
Right, because this doesn't limit elite CP light armies to having even less CP while guard still gets a lot and is basically not effected in any real way...
This is a silly topic, so don't take any of this seriously, but here's a basic "filled-out" battalion detachment of Tau (since battalions are GW's vanilla detachment). Trying to take units that are at least... mildly reasonable. I gave up near the end though and just added in some really cheap units I'd never take otherwise. 1516 points.
The 'basic' Detachment would more likely be a Patrol in their minds
You think the basic detachment an 8th edition army should run as their primary force is a patrol detachment? Uh, ok.
See what I bolded in your post. I'm just proposing possible solutions that aren't just "NERF THE GUARD!" or that will indirectly harm other armies.
Also worth mentioning that you could have swapped the Ethereal out for Darkstrider instead and actually get some usage from him with regards to the Strike Teams. He's the same points as an Ethereal.
Yeah you're taking this example too seriously if you think I'd ever run an Ethereal. Or a Darkstrider, honestly. I'd run stuff that costs way more points than these 1500 if I were filling out that many slots with what I'd actually bring.
And if you wanted to do anything other than set up disingenuous arguments, you probably wouldn't have set up a Battalion as the 'example'.
That would be like me claiming that "I can fill out a Guard Brigade with no problem, why can't the Custodes?".
"Guard can get fun toys when they fill out their mandatory detachment. But Custodes can't. GW needs to nerf Guard soup.
Sorry but this solution just makes everything worse, Who knew game design could be so hard.
Your suggestion of maxing out a detachment wasn't a good one. Just let the idea die.
Many codexes simply can't do this and be even remotely viable. You are spoiled by 8th edition imperial guard, where everything is pretty cheap and good.
And if you wanted to do anything other than set up disingenuous arguments, you probably wouldn't have set up a Battalion as the 'example'.
That would be like me claiming that "I can fill out a Guard Brigade with no problem, why can't the Custodes?".
Suggesting people run filled out detachments, even patrol detachments, as a solution is no less ridiculous than that.
I'm not the one who has been whining about soup breaking the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: Your suggestion of maxing out a detachment wasn't a good one. Just let the idea die.
Many codexes simply can't do this and be even remotely viable. You are spoiled by 8th edition imperial guard, where everything is pretty cheap and good.
I'm still waiting for you to find a single post where I say that Marines need to run soup to be good.
Limiting armies to 1 codex in the current state of the game does nothing to stop the topic of 'Guard keeps getting nerfed'.
Every Imperial army is running Something + Guard because guard is simply the most cost effective codex even at low point investments.
If you limit armies to 1 codex this simply changes to everyone running guard, because they are the most cost effective codex.
Single codex armies start working at the same time as soup armies stop always taking IG.
Namely when there is better balance and Guard are not always the defacto answer for everything except melee combat.
Ordana wrote: Limiting armies to 1 codex in the current state of the game does nothing to stop the topic of 'Guard keeps getting nerfed'.
Every Imperial army is running Something + Guard because guard is simply the most cost effective codex even at low point investments.
If you limit armies to 1 codex this simply changes to everyone running guard, because they are the most cost effective codex.
Single codex armies start working at the same time as soup armies stop always taking IG.
Namely when there is better balance and Guard are not always the defacto answer for everything except melee combat.
Yeah, that's true. My take is that it's easier to balance every army against every other army than it is to balance every individual unit than every other unit. And because of the way GW built the detachment/army rules in this edition, they have to do the latter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I guess. Melee in 8th is not good. I don't know why you'd give up any shooting for melee.
I'm becoming less and less certain you actually play this game regularly.
Martel732 wrote: I guess. Melee in 8th is not good. I don't know why you'd give up any shooting for melee.
Assault armies are getting better and better at getting past your screen and lots of stuff charges the turn it comes into play so you don't get to soften it up.
Having some form of unit capable of tying up a unit while you shoot the rest is valuable.
Martel732 wrote: I guess. Melee in 8th is not good. I don't know why you'd give up any shooting for melee.
Assault armies are getting better and better at getting past your screen and lots of stuff charges the turn it comes into play so you don't get to soften it up.
Having some form of unit capable of tying up a unit while you shoot the rest is valuable.
Yow, lots of people getting well eggy in here. 5ppm for a Guardsman doesn’t seem unreasonable to me at all. But then i’m a filthy non-competitive player so i’d be more interested in their PL taking a bump. Seems to me that a lot of changes to the mechanics between 7th and 8th, combined with stats remaining mostly the same as they were, has benefitted Guardsmen fairly significantly.
Absolutely on my arse laughing at the guy earlier on in the thread claiming that the LR Punisher is basically the same as a handful of Tactical Marines, mind.
Daedalus81 wrote: "You gain no CP for Detachments that are not of the same faction as your warlord."
e.g. Alaitoc warlord gets no CP from ynarri detachment. Or something to deincentivize soup without removing choice.
oh no, You lose out of the 1 CP from a Vanguard/Outrider/Spearhead detachment...
It doesn't change anything.
Imperial armies wouldn't be effected either. Guard warlord, 2 batallions + Soup, missing out on 1 CP.
To be fair I don't see IG soup being as big a problem as some others, but that could change when Custodes are explored more. You could knock it up to -1CP so 2CP deficit.
I'm not trying to solve the problem right this moment, but instead propose a less hard line view.
I'm still waiting for you to find a single post where I say that Marines need to run soup to be good.
I'm still hunting for a reason to dig through your posting history when a bunch of people have said that already, and you're making this entirely about you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ordana wrote: Limiting armies to 1 codex in the current state of the game does nothing to stop the topic of 'Guard keeps getting nerfed'.
Every Imperial army is running Something + Guard because guard is simply the most cost effective codex even at low point investments.
If you limit armies to 1 codex this simply changes to everyone running guard, because they are the most cost effective codex.
Single codex armies start working at the same time as soup armies stop always taking IG.
Namely when there is better balance and Guard are not always the defacto answer for everything except melee combat.
Here is your thread winner, right here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I guess. Melee in 8th is not good. I don't know why you'd give up any shooting for melee.
Melee is good, it just can't be your only thing.
You can have an army that is purely focused on shooting.
You cannot have an army that is purely focused on melee.
Marmatag wrote: I do find it ironic that Guard players were eager to tell Space Marine players that they should be souping to be effective. I have seen numerous replies to Grey Knights from Guard players on this forum telling them that GK are not designed as a standalone army, and therefore it is OK for Guard to be WAY stronger than GK. But, when Guard are nerfed partly as a byproduct of souping, it suddenly becomes an existential crisis.
"Partly"?
It's solely because of souping. I'd rather they fix the frigging problems with souping than nerf the army I play...but hey, apparently I'm not a supercompetitive player.
One side of mouth: "Let's fix the problems with souping."
Other side of mouth: "Space Marines are weak but that's intended & because they can soup in Guard."
You specifically tried to call me out as being hypocritical.
So yeah, I am "making this about me".
Not totally disagreeing with 5ppm as guardsmen are very points efficient, but at that price point guardsmen are getting awfully close to heavy chaff troops like skitarii rangers. An extra 2ppm would bag you a better gun, better BS, better armour (and invul), optional smaller unit size, swapping orders for canticles and getting access to op traits like stygies VIII.
Is imperial soup the only brand that people have a problem with? chaos still has multiple options for cheaper screens, with easy access to fearless, and no signs of being inflated any time soon.
Honestly I see the problem as two fold (Mind you I don't have much XP in the IG matchup).
- Infantry are really good in codexes that don't have reliable bubblewrap and / or cheap troops.
- Imperial Guard lists are buff centric, and by nerfing the core unit in their lists you are also *essentially* reducing the power of commissars and the like.
Be aware that Guard players are viewing this as a penalty for being used * Outside * their codex, this penalty means nothing to the non-guard lists, but a lot to their own.
Once these 'problematic' units have been reduced in strength, power gamers will just move on to the next cheapest chaff unit (ie, MSU Scout units) - leaving the original codex feeling like its being punished for a neighbour stealing their toys.
For example if Imperial armies could take Ork Boyz instead of infantry I'm sure that they'd be taken. Does that mean Boyz are strong? Or does that mean Boyz are strong when taken out of the context of a Codex.
That leads us onto the step of fixing the problem. How do we reduce the strength of a unit outside of their own codex aside from removing their use (Which I see as bad game design)?
I feel like Daedalus81's suggestion of removing CP received from mixed detachments is on the right path, but as pointed out there are ways to game around it.
What if soup users were penalised -1 CP per 'unit' that does not match the faction your Warlord was in?
Or instead received a fairly substantial leadership reduction?
The game doesn't have enough granularity down at the low cost price point. The unfortunate fact is that we don't have fractional costs and it's much better for the game for something to be slightly too expensive than too cheap.
Martel732 wrote: I guess. Melee in 8th is not good. I don't know why you'd give up any shooting for melee.
I play a 80% melee Khorne CSM/Daemons list. I haven't lost a game in a few months now. Against a variety of play styles, and opponents. It's not even the same list every time, either. I usually switch things up.
Except all your "single target" buffs are much more powerful since they increase the damage output of guard BY ALOT instead of giving really situational buffs (only Patriarch/Primus ones are arguably good but remember that you're paying 73/150 pts for giving THAT BUFF, not fething 30 point)
You pay 73/150 points for those buffs--but you also get a 4+ chance to shunt wounds over onto your GEQ models in 3".
Those "single target buffs" are also caveated. FRFSRF only applies to Lasguns and Hellguns, Take Aim only does reroll hit rolls of 1(unless you're Cadians--in which case if you get Take Aim AND have stayed still that turn, it's reroll all Hits), and Bring It Down is reroll Wound rolls of 1.
How in the feth is that "increasing the damage output of guard BY ALOT instead of giving really situational buffs"?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Quickjager wrote: I'm waiting for mortar team nerfs, I see every TOURNAMENT GK list taking a smattering of them and I know I'm not insane in recognizing their point efficiency and range.
I'd just like to see Mortars get shuffled into being a Heavy Weapons Team only option. I'd be 100% okay with that. There'd be no ablative Guardsmen for that.
Do you realise he's untargetable and that rule does not generally apply unless he's in CQC?
Today I learned that not only do snipers not exist but also that maneuvering to target enemy characters is also impossible. And that rules which can apply against snipers and clever tactical maneuvering actually only work in CC.
I dunno, the longer this thread goes on, the happier I am that GW is writing the rules and not the players on this forum. Many to most of the suggested changes just don’t appeal to me at all.
Perhaps competitive players should just design their own rule set. Or before we resort to that, how happy are competitive players with the state of the game? I know it’s continually mentioned that forums don’t represent the casual gaming populace at large, but I have no connection with the competitive scene. Is that the same case? Were players at LVO whining the entire time, or were they trying to make the best of their own as broken/powerful as possible (or whatever) lists?
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: I dunno, the longer this thread goes on, the happier I am that GW is writing the rules and not the players on this forum. Many to most of the suggested changes just don’t appeal to me at all.
Perhaps competitive players should just design their own rule set. Or before we resort to that, how happy are competitive players with the state of the game? I know it’s continually mentioned that forums don’t represent the casual gaming populace at large, but I have no connection with the competitive scene. Is that the same case? Were players at LVO whining the entire time, or were they trying to make the best of their own as broken/powerful as possible (or whatever) lists?
It'd never get off the ground out of fear and mistrust all of the players would have for each of the almost but-not-quite identical rulesets they'd all create for each other.
What I find kind of frustrating about this thread is that a lot of the arguments around the idea that soup needs to be removed for some reason come from this need for codex purity that I really don't understand. I don't see why pure demons and pure chaos marines makes any sense compared to a mix of the two. I don't get why genestealers opening rebellion as their 4 armed gods appear above is someone less "pure". The same holds true for me for guard and eldar.
I get that people see "soup" performing well and view it as a balance problem, but that really doesn't appear to be the case. Right now there's 3-4 strong core codexes that support a wide variety of of variants, but if you fragment them out in the name of purity you don't get more options; you get 3-4 viable codexes and a huge swath of armies that are more or less unplayable at a competitive level.
The game has had way too many codexes to make them all viable for.... probably half of its editions now; and there's never been more than a handful of them viable at any given time; generally something like 1-3. 8th has given us a means to make so many more things playable in armies that at least from my perspective, feel way more fluffy than they've ever been. I don't get the hate and this need for purity just feels like a backwards step towards something never really worked in the first place.
Insularum wrote: Is imperial soup the only brand that people have a problem with? chaos still has multiple options for cheaper screens, with easy access to fearless, and no signs of being inflated any time soon.
This is an interesting question and I've been thinking about it today. Some Chaos soups, like World Eaters with Khorne daemons' make perfect sense to me. I don't particularly mind them. But other soups, like Mortarion joining Alpha Legion, seem quite strange. The most powerful Chaos soup lists got nerfhammered already (Malefic Lords).
I think Chaos soup is inherently less problematic than Imperial soup just because there are fewer Chaos armies to balance with regards to how they mix together, but it's interesting to think about.
Tyranid soup - which is to say Tyranids with Brood Bros - is also interesting to think about. Although tournament results for that haven't been overwhelming so far.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wolf_in_Human_Shape wrote: I dunno, the longer this thread goes on, the happier I am that GW is writing the rules and not the players on this forum. Many to most of the suggested changes just don’t appeal to me at all
Yeah, that's why I just play and observe how the rules influence design choices, more than try to design the game myself. I'm quite happy not being a game designer.
Can people who don't play Guard stop handwaving this like it's a small change for mono guard armies? I ran EIGHTY Guardsmen at LVO. In only one of those games did I have more than thirty by turn three, and that was against a guy who had his army stolen before LVO and just brought a random mix of bad knight variants and nurgle demon models.
It's not a simple matter of just dropping two squads and you're back to where you were. I clearly needed those eighty models to survive the initial charges/alpha and to even think about contesting objectives past turn three. Which means those points have to come out of the offensive side of the list. Eighty points is pretty much cutting a whole Basilisk from my list, which is an unacceptable drop in firepower for a list that was struggling to focus fire a single -1/-2 to hit vehicle/unit off the board per turn.
Against that shitshow Alaitoc/Ynnari nonsense, I had ten Guardsmen left at turn three, and only because he was leaving them alive to reduce the points gap/stop getting points so he could get paired with a weaker opponent the next round.
Fielding 80 of anything should be expensive. The field coverage is insane. It doesn't matter what the models actually DO. They just have to BE. Realize your 80 dudes autowins vs BA or most any other assault army by turning their assaults off. If I can't get to your guns in 2 turns, my army is dead/crippled. Get real here.
Guard indirect fire weapons are way too cheap as it is. Maybe the infantry increase balances that out a bit.
Guard have the dice to power through -1/-2. I've seen it happen over and over. Especially when your foe can't effectively cut into your own firepower.
Your army will continue to be nerfed until you give up on it and switch to marines. After all, that is what you were supposed to play in the first place!
Martel732 wrote: Fielding 80 of anything should be expensive. Realize your 80 dudes autowins vs BA or most any other assault army by turning their assaults off. If I can't get to your guns in 2 turns, my army is dead/crippled. Get real here.
Guard indirect fire weapons are way too cheap as it is. Maybe the infantry increase balances that out a bit.
Here is a summary of my six LVO games
Game one
Orks. I won by two points, 2/3 of the Basilisks were tied up in CC, 5/8 infantry squads were dead.
Game two
Alaitoc/Ynnari. Basically tabled on three, but he let a squad live so I could get some points and he moved off of his objectives to get 0 points for the last three rounds. Literally killed zero units.
Game three
Ravenguard. Lost by 15 points. Aggressors infiltrated in the pocket made by his scouts and murdered my entire frontline. Three squads left at round 3/4. By the time I shot the Aggressors off the center of the board, I couldn't get to any objectives in time to get
Game four
Dark Mechanicum. Won pretty handily, but the dude basically had a mishmash of models since his actual army got stolen. I think I might have lost like two squads?
Game five
Dark Angels. Lost by two points. -1 to hit bubble on most of his mainline absorbed a lot of firepower. Return shooting mulched my infantry that moved onto objectives. Had three squads left at the end.
Game six
Alpha Legion/Iron Warriors. Won by four or five points, but the guy was playing AL berserkers without nurglings, so I basically pushed him into his deployment zone with Ratlings/Sentinels. Even still, he mulched five or six squads and had tagged two of the tanks in CC. If he had actually brought Nurglings, my backline would have been easily tied up.
I don't care that eighty dudes 'auto win' against a assault based list. I care that my eighty dudes are barely enough, or as in 3 out of my 6 games at LVO, not enough against people that bring balanced or shooting resistant lists and having 60 dudes will mean I may as well not even bother showing up without soup.
What are you going to soup in that's better than IG? Not a marine unit, that's for sure. Maybe Skitarri at 7ppm?
"Shooting resistant". Haven't seen that yet vs IG.
You could try more. I've played against 100+ several times. That's still only 500 pts base, even after the rumored nerf. It's actually quite hard to kill guardsmen with bolters and the like in a reasonable time frame. WIth 10 man squads, you can even get cover and blow a CP to get 3+.
I also play Guard, and I think the infantry squads should be 5ppm. It has nothing to do with soup or tournaments. It's just an observation I've made over several games as well as tests comparing basic infantry options in other codexes.
But this is just one of many issues that needs to be looked at. It would be lame to nerf Guard again without helping Commissars, or fixing Vanquishers. Not to mention looking at other factions' OP units. If we really want balance we have to accept small incremental nerfs and buffs to zero in on it.
Vanquishers need fixed, as do Hammerheads. For sure. And dark reapers should die in a fire. IG really shouldn't be losing to marines very frequently the way 8th ed is set up. Marines are paying for a lot of wasted stats.
