What are the most broken units right now, say, top five? It used to be conscript spam, and before that it was ravenwing or the storm plane things. I'm having a hard time keeping the 'meta' as it is straight. Where are we at in the game right now?
Not sure I'd put knights too far up there. They're good don't get me wrong. But I don't think they deserve that honor. Also, what the heck is a slamingus?
chimeara wrote: Not sure I'd put knights too far up there. They're good don't get me wrong. But I don't think they deserve that honor. Also, what the heck is a slamingus?
Special Rules Warlord Trait: Artisan of War And They Shall Know No Fear Rites of Battle Chapter Tactics (The Red Thirst) The Black Rage Fly Deep Strike
Montarion and Magnus. 445/470 points of these guys can conceivably destroy 1500 points of the entire opponent's army, or tank them despite getting focused down for 5 turns.
Fastest character in the game, can also load up on tons of weapons to double his effectiveness on being on a bike.
6W, T4, and 4 S6 AP3-, D2 Attacks (Hitting on 2+, Re-Rolling 1's) on the Charge (only S3 when not on the charge) that is immune to Overwatch, has a 3+/4++ (Can be boosted to 2+/3++ if a Warlock Protects them) 16" movement
4 Shuriken shots, and a Meltagun shot
Can even make it so that with warlocks makes those shooting at him have -3 to their dice roll.
Listing somethings stats is only a list of their stats.
You need to illustrate how such a unit remotely compares to the other ones listed in gameplay.
For example, an Autarch is never going to kill something important like Slamguinius, be impossible to kill like a Shield Captain, or kill entire armies like Knights or daemon Primarchs.
Fastest character in the game, can also load up on tons of weapons to double his effectiveness on being on a bike.
6W, T4, and 4 S6 AP3-, D2 Attacks (Hitting on 2+, Re-Rolling 1's) on the Charge (only S3 when not on the charge) that is immune to Overwatch, has a 3+/4++ (Can be boosted to 2+/3++ if a Warlock Protects them) 16" movement
4 Shuriken shots, and a Meltagun shot
Can even make it so that with warlocks makes those shooting at him have -3 to their dice roll.
There aren't that many units that are broken in their own right at the moment; most of the ones people like to bring up are broken because the ally mechanics are badly written (and let you bring the best relics from three or four books in one list) or because some idiot thought move-again psychic powers were cool (and let Shining Spears charge the back of your deployment zone top of turn one).
bibotot wrote: Montarion and Magnus. 445/470 points of these guys can conceivably destroy 1500 points of the entire opponent's army, or tank them despite getting focused down for 5 turns.
Spoken like someone who's never put Magnus on the table in a competitive setting before...
Autarch on Jetbike is barely par for the course compared to some of the nastyness available.
Maybe the poster got demolished by one wielding a relic Laser lance, as he turns into a bit of a wrecking ball with that, but still just a 1 hit wonder who dies easy. And you have to take a Saim-Hann det. to take it so you lose out on more Alaitoc.
-----
Im gonna head in a different direction and say that IG infantry and officers are still among the most broken, and not just because they can be used to CP farm.
Guardsmen should be 5 ppm minimum, and officers should be on the order of 40-60 points. Compare a 30 point Company Commander to a 55 point Warlock for example...
bibotot wrote: Montarion and Magnus. 445/470 points of these guys can conceivably destroy 1500 points of the entire opponent's army, or tank them despite getting focused down for 5 turns.
Spoken like someone who's never put Magnus on the table in a competitive setting before...
A lot of the time when someone says "this unit is broken" what they MEAN is "this unit is capable of doing some stuff that happens to hard counter exactly how I insist on playing and I refuse to adapt to it at all"
Foetid bloat drones with plaguespitters T7 W10 autohit after advancing 10"+D6, 5++, 5+++. Can still shoot after falling back, because of FLY, autohitting 2D6. Only strength and move degrades. 158 pts.
Plague burst crawlers T8 W12, 5++, 5+++. Can shoot D6 shots 48" without LOS S8 AP-2 D3. Two shots 36" S8 AP-4 D6. 146 pts.
Company commander with grand strategist and kurovs aquila for 30 pts. Lets you regain a CP on a 5+ for every CP you spend. The aquila does the same for every stratagem your opponent uses. Usually there are two, one is the strategist, the other has the aquila.
Knight commander pask in an executioner with lascannon and plasma sponsons. Re-rollable 2D6 36" plasma shots with tank order, plus 2D3 sponson plasma shots, hitting on 2s, re-rolling 1s (if you didnt move, or less than half your movement value), which means you can safely overcharge. Even if you roll double 1s its only 1 MW which you can repair at the start of your next turn with a stratagem. 219 pts.
Genestealers, can move, advance and charge. Roll 3 dice for advance, pick highest, or re-roll failed charge rolls, depending on hive fleet choice. 25" average threat range. They get free AP-3 weapons. Any wound roll of 6 is AP-4. 4 attacks per model when 10 or more models, 5++ invsv. All of this for 12 pts. per model. If thats not enough they have a stratagem which lets them gain CP when they kill a character, use these gained CP to fight again...... And they can move 98" per turn.
I'm going to say none. Everything that seems incredibly powerful usually requires a combination of Psychic powers, stratagems and aura abilities to pull off.
I mean you might as well add Slaaneshi Cultists to this list because 40 Cultists with Prescience, a nearby Daemon Prince/Lord, Veterans of the Long War and Endless Kacophany will murderise most things, and Tide of Traitors is a good way to make sure they do it twice. But they're still just Cultists.
In terms of units that actually carry games ON THEIR OWN, ie with minimal support...
1. Custode Bike Captain/SlamGuinius. They do the same thing in the same soup lists so they get one entry, sorry.
2. Grotesques/Talos in Prophets of Flesh. Same deal - very similar stuff, just a way to bypass the rule of 3 and spam more of them. I do not think GW properly anticipated how busted PoF was when they designed it, it should NOT be +1 invuln save. Reroll invuln saves of 1 maybe.
3. Dark Reapers. Note that shining spears are not on here, because outside ynnari theyre no great shakes.
4. Daemon prince, particularly of tzeentch but also the regular kind.
5. Knight Titans with a "?" Absoultely dominated the ATC. because of the list tailoring aspect, or because knights are actually bonkers strong? time will tell. but that's why they're down at 5 with an *, if we knew ATC performance was their regular performance they'd probably be #1.
Imateria wrote: I'm going to say none. Everything that seems incredibly powerful usually requires a combination of Psychic powers, stratagems and aura abilities to pull off.
I actually agree with this overall. A great example is Eldar Shining Spears, which are a great unit on their own, but the things that make them potentially nasty require specific traits/stratagems and MULTIPLE characters successfully casting 2-3 powers on them. That's a pretty big investment and doesn't always pay off. The Runes of Battle powers Warlocks have are far from guaranteed and seem to fail at least 33% of the time, even with their shenanigans.
What you really should be asking is what the most broken COMBOS are in 8th. I, for one, have recently decided that 3 Renegade dakka Knights supported by an Arihman/DP Battalion of Tsons with 30 deep striking/fighting twice Tzaagors is my Kryptonite. I have no answers.
bibotot wrote: Montarion and Magnus. 445/470 points of these guys can conceivably destroy 1500 points of the entire opponent's army, or tank them despite getting focused down for 5 turns.
Spoken like someone who's never put Magnus on the table in a competitive setting before...
Totally agree. The first time I face the new Magnus I simply murdered him with smite, bolters, plague spitters and close combat attacks. He was dead before his player could spend CP on counter-attack.
Magnus is an impressive and powerful psyker and combat monster, but I'd wager a landraider is harder to kill.
My personal list:
- Knight Crusader
- TS Daemon Prince
- Hemlock Wraithfighter
- Commander with Kurov's Aquilla
- TH/JP Captain
For all those units I feel like their respective players are getting highly efficient units without any downsides or counter-play to them outside of bringing hard counters which are useless in most other games.
No golden bikes in my meta, so those might knock one of those off the list.
As a rather casual player, for me it's the Hemlock Wraithfighter.
- The -2 to hit is really strong since you can't waste your lascannons on it when 3 wave serpents are waiting to be shot as well with -1. - The autohits on the weapon is really stupid as well. The only way to deal with it with units from the Chaos Space Marines is charging it with a melee unit. If I'm unlucky, a Daemon Prince dies in overwatch or might get 4-6 dmg on average rolls. If I fail to kill it, I can't charge it again since it's dead then. - The degrading BF on a platform that only has autohitting weapons is like cheating since it isn't even expensive for what it can do. - It can snipe charaters that are not heavily protected by chaff and forces me to use me them super defensively.
Trollbert wrote: As a rather casual player, for me it's the Hemlock Wraithfighter.
- The -2 to hit is really strong since you can't waste your lascannons on it when 3 wave serpents are waiting to be shot as well with -1.
- The autohits on the weapon is really stupid as well. The only way to deal with it with units from the Chaos Space Marines is charging it with a melee unit. If I'm unlucky, a Daemon Prince dies in overwatch or might get 4-6 dmg on average rolls. If I fail to kill it, I can't charge it again since it's dead then.
- The degrading BF on a platform that only has autohitting weapons is like cheating since it isn't even expensive for what it can do.
- It can snipe charaters that are not heavily protected by chaff and forces me to use me them super defensively.
That's mostly an Alaitoc problem, not a Hemlock problem. For those of us who run other Craftworlds (Iyanden for me), 210pts is about right for the platform. Yes, it's weapon autohits, but it only has one weapon. I don't want to see unit prices inflated because of Craftworld trait bonuses.
Trollbert wrote: As a rather casual player, for me it's the Hemlock Wraithfighter.
- The -2 to hit is really strong since you can't waste your lascannons on it when 3 wave serpents are waiting to be shot as well with -1.
- The autohits on the weapon is really stupid as well. The only way to deal with it with units from the Chaos Space Marines is charging it with a melee unit. If I'm unlucky, a Daemon Prince dies in overwatch or might get 4-6 dmg on average rolls. If I fail to kill it, I can't charge it again since it's dead then.
- The degrading BF on a platform that only has autohitting weapons is like cheating since it isn't even expensive for what it can do.
- It can snipe charaters that are not heavily protected by chaff and forces me to use me them super defensively.
I'm not contesting that it's a strong unit and it does seem to show up in tournaments somewhat, but I don't think it ranks in top 5 for me.
When I play them, or have them played against me, the way it almost always goes is - thing flies up, does some damage to a few things, now its within the 16" range of its gun, enemy just moves units within 12" of it, kills it. Usually does decent damage on its turn, but it usually doesn't do ~230 points of damage or whatever it costs.
Charging it definitely does not seem like the strat to kill it. And again, i'm not saying its a good unit, it just seems to be a 200+ point unit that's actually worth the cost, and people are used to land raiders and gak that definitely aren't.
Trollbert wrote: As a rather casual player, for me it's the Hemlock Wraithfighter.
- The -2 to hit is really strong since you can't waste your lascannons on it when 3 wave serpents are waiting to be shot as well with -1.
- The autohits on the weapon is really stupid as well. The only way to deal with it with units from the Chaos Space Marines is charging it with a melee unit. If I'm unlucky, a Daemon Prince dies in overwatch or might get 4-6 dmg on average rolls. If I fail to kill it, I can't charge it again since it's dead then.
- The degrading BF on a platform that only has autohitting weapons is like cheating since it isn't even expensive for what it can do.
- It can snipe charaters that are not heavily protected by chaff and forces me to use me them super defensively.
That's mostly an Alaitoc problem, not a Hemlock problem. For those of us who run other Craftworlds (Iyanden for me), 210pts is about right for the platform. Yes, it's weapon autohits, but it only has one weapon. I don't want to see unit prices inflated because of Craftworld trait bonuses.
I feel bad for Eldar player's not playing Alaitoc (i.e. not being an donkey-cave in friendly games), but that doesn't change that a Hemlock Wraithfighter is far too cheap for what it can do (as Alaitoc).
Arguably, it has 3 weapons since it can has two of those autohit D-scythes, can use Smite and gives -2 Morale in a fuckhuge bubble (12" radius is ~ 1/6th of a normal table).
Trollbert wrote: As a rather casual player, for me it's the Hemlock Wraithfighter.
- The -2 to hit is really strong since you can't waste your lascannons on it when 3 wave serpents are waiting to be shot as well with -1. - The autohits on the weapon is really stupid as well. The only way to deal with it with units from the Chaos Space Marines is charging it with a melee unit. If I'm unlucky, a Daemon Prince dies in overwatch or might get 4-6 dmg on average rolls. If I fail to kill it, I can't charge it again since it's dead then. - The degrading BF on a platform that only has autohitting weapons is like cheating since it isn't even expensive for what it can do. - It can snipe charaters that are not heavily protected by chaff and forces me to use me them super defensively.
That's mostly an Alaitoc problem, not a Hemlock problem. For those of us who run other Craftworlds (Iyanden for me), 210pts is about right for the platform. Yes, it's weapon autohits, but it only has one weapon. I don't want to see unit prices inflated because of Craftworld trait bonuses.
And arguably even with Alaitoc it should only be getting -1 to be hit after the first turn. It's guns are only 16" range and Powers are only 18" range. Meaning that to be effective, it has to get close enough for plenty of enemy units to move within 12" and outright ignore the Alaitoc -1
I play 2 of them and it is not uncommon to lose 1 or both of them before the 3rd turn. Granted, I use them to block movement as well, so I am usually front and center with them. But even using them to go up the flanks there should be other units close by to get within 12"
I feel bad for Eldar player's not playing Alaitoc (i.e. not being an donkey-cave in friendly games), but that doesn't change that a Hemlock Wraithfighter is far too cheap for what it can do (as Alaitoc).
But the real problem is the stupid armywide -1 to hit. That trait should have never existed. I really hope they get rid of those in the next CA, would fix a lot of balance issues at one fell swoop.
Trollbert wrote: As a rather casual player, for me it's the Hemlock Wraithfighter.
- The -2 to hit is really strong since you can't waste your lascannons on it when 3 wave serpents are waiting to be shot as well with -1. - The autohits on the weapon is really stupid as well. The only way to deal with it with units from the Chaos Space Marines is charging it with a melee unit. If I'm unlucky, a Daemon Prince dies in overwatch or might get 4-6 dmg on average rolls. If I fail to kill it, I can't charge it again since it's dead then. - The degrading BF on a platform that only has autohitting weapons is like cheating since it isn't even expensive for what it can do. - It can snipe charaters that are not heavily protected by chaff and forces me to use me them super defensively.
I'm not contesting that it's a strong unit and it does seem to show up in tournaments somewhat, but I don't think it ranks in top 5 for me.
When I play them, or have them played against me, the way it almost always goes is - thing flies up, does some damage to a few things, now its within the 16" range of its gun, enemy just moves units within 12" of it, kills it. Usually does decent damage on its turn, but it usually doesn't do ~230 points of damage or whatever it costs.
Charging it definitely does not seem like the strat to kill it. And again, i'm not saying its a good unit, it just seems to be a 200+ point unit that's actually worth the cost, and people are used to land raiders and gak that definitely aren't.
There are definitely armies that have no trouble killing a Hemlock Wraithfighter, like Dark Eldar. But some codices don't have (non-melee) anti air units. Some codices only have heavy anti tank weapons without rules to negate to hit penalties for moving, so if the Eldar player doesn't feth up its movement, the Hemlock can stay outside of 12", so you either move your units in 12" and take -1 to hit rolls, or you don't move and still take -1.
Against my CSM, a Hemlock Wraithfighter is hit at BS -2 for the majority of my units for at least 2 turns.
Trollbert wrote: As a rather casual player, for me it's the Hemlock Wraithfighter.
- The -2 to hit is really strong since you can't waste your lascannons on it when 3 wave serpents are waiting to be shot as well with -1.
- The autohits on the weapon is really stupid as well. The only way to deal with it with units from the Chaos Space Marines is charging it with a melee unit. If I'm unlucky, a Daemon Prince dies in overwatch or might get 4-6 dmg on average rolls. If I fail to kill it, I can't charge it again since it's dead then.
- The degrading BF on a platform that only has autohitting weapons is like cheating since it isn't even expensive for what it can do.
- It can snipe charaters that are not heavily protected by chaff and forces me to use me them super defensively.
I'm not contesting that it's a strong unit and it does seem to show up in tournaments somewhat, but I don't think it ranks in top 5 for me.
When I play them, or have them played against me, the way it almost always goes is - thing flies up, does some damage to a few things, now its within the 16" range of its gun, enemy just moves units within 12" of it, kills it. Usually does decent damage on its turn, but it usually doesn't do ~230 points of damage or whatever it costs.
Charging it definitely does not seem like the strat to kill it. And again, i'm not saying its a good unit, it just seems to be a 200+ point unit that's actually worth the cost, and people are used to land raiders and gak that definitely aren't.
There are definitely armies that have no trouble killing a Hemlock Wraithfighter, like Dark Eldar. But some codices don't have (non-melee) anti air units. Some codices only have heavy anti tank weapons without rules to negate to hit penalties for moving, so if the Eldar player doesn't feth up its movement, the Hemlock can stay outside of 12", so you either move your units in 12" and take -1 to hit rolls, or you don't move and still take -1.
Against my CSM, a Hemlock Wraithfighter is hit at BS -2 for the majority of my units for at least 2 turns.
Yeah. I've run against them with Thousand Sons, and usually anything tough/heavily armored that flies up to that army just gets hit with 5,768 smites and dies. If that failed I'd just slap Weaver of Fates on a DP and say "AP-4 autohitting overwatch? Cute." For CSM, I'd think it'd be really hard to position one of those things where oblits/combi-plas termies with Prescience can't drop in and smack them at full BS and probably rerolling 1s to hit/+1 to wound, maybe slapping them twice with the slaanesh strat.
Trollbert wrote: As a rather casual player, for me it's the Hemlock Wraithfighter.
- The -2 to hit is really strong since you can't waste your lascannons on it when 3 wave serpents are waiting to be shot as well with -1. - The autohits on the weapon is really stupid as well. The only way to deal with it with units from the Chaos Space Marines is charging it with a melee unit. If I'm unlucky, a Daemon Prince dies in overwatch or might get 4-6 dmg on average rolls. If I fail to kill it, I can't charge it again since it's dead then. - The degrading BF on a platform that only has autohitting weapons is like cheating since it isn't even expensive for what it can do. - It can snipe charaters that are not heavily protected by chaff and forces me to use me them super defensively.
I'm not contesting that it's a strong unit and it does seem to show up in tournaments somewhat, but I don't think it ranks in top 5 for me.
When I play them, or have them played against me, the way it almost always goes is - thing flies up, does some damage to a few things, now its within the 16" range of its gun, enemy just moves units within 12" of it, kills it. Usually does decent damage on its turn, but it usually doesn't do ~230 points of damage or whatever it costs.
Charging it definitely does not seem like the strat to kill it. And again, i'm not saying its a good unit, it just seems to be a 200+ point unit that's actually worth the cost, and people are used to land raiders and gak that definitely aren't.
There are definitely armies that have no trouble killing a Hemlock Wraithfighter, like Dark Eldar. But some codices don't have (non-melee) anti air units. Some codices only have heavy anti tank weapons without rules to negate to hit penalties for moving, so if the Eldar player doesn't feth up its movement, the Hemlock can stay outside of 12", so you either move your units in 12" and take -1 to hit rolls, or you don't move and still take -1.
Against my CSM, a Hemlock Wraithfighter is hit at BS -2 for the majority of my units for at least 2 turns.
Yeah. I've run against them with Thousand Sons, and usually anything tough/heavily armored that flies up to that army just gets hit with 5,768 smites and dies. If that failed I'd just slap Weaver of Fates on a DP and say "AP-4 autohitting overwatch? Cute." For CSM, I'd think it'd be really hard to position one of those things where oblits/combi-plas termies with Prescience can't drop in and smack them at full BS and probably rerolling 1s to hit/+1 to wound, maybe slapping them twice with the slaanesh strat.
That's still a good trade for the eldar player, isn't it?
Of course, you are right, that kills the Wraithfighter quite easily if you don't get D1 on the oblits. But it costs ~330 points, and up to 3 CP to do so. Not sure what smiting 5 - 8 times costs on TS, but it should be even more.
I'd say that still counts as really hard to kill.
Edit: Calculating the expected damage gives the following result: A prescienced unit of Obliterators within 12" scores 8 hits, always wounds on 3+, so 5.3 wounds. On average, the Hemlock still has a 5+ save, so that's 3.5 unsaved wounds with D2 on average. Spirit Stones save 1 wound per 6 total damage received, so the Hemlock loses exactly 50% of it's HP. With the VotlW Stratagem, you get 6.6 wounds for 4.4 unsaved wounds or 8.8 damage.
So for ~330 points, 1 of my best psychic powers and 3 CP spent on two of my best stratagems, I can kill it in one turn, if the sum of the rolls for the random damage is 4 or higher. And i can reroll one of the two dice for that.
Trollbert wrote: As a rather casual player, for me it's the Hemlock Wraithfighter.
- The -2 to hit is really strong since you can't waste your lascannons on it when 3 wave serpents are waiting to be shot as well with -1.
- The autohits on the weapon is really stupid as well. The only way to deal with it with units from the Chaos Space Marines is charging it with a melee unit. If I'm unlucky, a Daemon Prince dies in overwatch or might get 4-6 dmg on average rolls. If I fail to kill it, I can't charge it again since it's dead then.
- The degrading BF on a platform that only has autohitting weapons is like cheating since it isn't even expensive for what it can do.
- It can snipe charaters that are not heavily protected by chaff and forces me to use me them super defensively.
I'm not contesting that it's a strong unit and it does seem to show up in tournaments somewhat, but I don't think it ranks in top 5 for me.
When I play them, or have them played against me, the way it almost always goes is - thing flies up, does some damage to a few things, now its within the 16" range of its gun, enemy just moves units within 12" of it, kills it. Usually does decent damage on its turn, but it usually doesn't do ~230 points of damage or whatever it costs.
Charging it definitely does not seem like the strat to kill it. And again, i'm not saying its a good unit, it just seems to be a 200+ point unit that's actually worth the cost, and people are used to land raiders and gak that definitely aren't.
There are definitely armies that have no trouble killing a Hemlock Wraithfighter, like Dark Eldar. But some codices don't have (non-melee) anti air units. Some codices only have heavy anti tank weapons without rules to negate to hit penalties for moving, so if the Eldar player doesn't feth up its movement, the Hemlock can stay outside of 12", so you either move your units in 12" and take -1 to hit rolls, or you don't move and still take -1.
Against my CSM, a Hemlock Wraithfighter is hit at BS -2 for the majority of my units for at least 2 turns.
Yeah. I've run against them with Thousand Sons, and usually anything tough/heavily armored that flies up to that army just gets hit with 5,768 smites and dies. If that failed I'd just slap Weaver of Fates on a DP and say "AP-4 autohitting overwatch? Cute." For CSM, I'd think it'd be really hard to position one of those things where oblits/combi-plas termies with Prescience can't drop in and smack them at full BS and probably rerolling 1s to hit/+1 to wound, maybe slapping them twice with the slaanesh strat.
That's still a good trade for the eldar player, isn't it?
Of course, you are right, that kills the Wraithfighter quite easily if you don't get D1 on the oblits. But it costs ~330 points, and up to 3 CP to do so.
Not sure what smiting 5 - 8 times costs on TS, but it should be even more.
I'd say that still counts as really hard to kill.
Edit: Calculating the expected damage gives the following result:
A prescienced unit of Obliterators within 12" scores 8 hits, always wounds on 3+, so 5.3 wounds. On average, the Hemlock still has a 5+ save, so that's 3.5 unsaved wounds with D2 on average. Spirit Stones save 1 wound per 6 total damage received, so the Hemlock loses exactly 50% of it's HP. With the VotlW Stratagem, you get 6.6 wounds for 4.4 unsaved wounds or 8.8 damage.
So for ~330 points, 1 of my best psychic powers and 3 CP spent on two of my best stratagems, I can kill it in one turn, if the sum of the rolls for the random damage is 4 or higher. And i can reroll one of the two dice for that.
Or if you like, 310 points for 6 combi-plas terminators with prescience and in some kind of reroll 1s to hit aura with VOTLW deals 11/12 damage on average to it. a little over 66% points return in a single shooting attack is generally considered pretty great. For reference, one of the best units in the game (A dissie ravager) shooting arguably its most perfect target (a unit of primaris marines) gets under 50% points return. And that is over-the-moon amazing.
And again - I'm not at all arguing that it's not a strong unit. I just don't think it's so powerful even compared to the most direct competition it has - the Crimson Hunter - that it should ever be in the running for top five best unit.
If we gave every army a Dark Reaper equivalent, that would be like fighting fire with oil.
Yeah, but there is also the fact that plenty of armies have a way to counter a big 200+ point flying thing, and after the Stormraven Craze and with the current dark eldar meta, a lot of people are bringing anti flyer stuff.
-Tsons charge it with princes who have 4++ base and don't particularly care about its overwatch
-Admech hose it with +2 to hit rerolling 1s Onager Dunecrawlers
-orks and nurgle just completely ignore it, since its super-shmancy guns only kill a couple boyz/plaguebearers a turn and it can't hold objectives
-imperials smashcap/bananabike it to death either ignoring overwatch or just tanking it on a 3++
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Trollbert wrote: You didn't factor in the 120 points jump pack sorcerer. That makes it a ~50% for the termis.
I'm assuming you're just dropping them into your deployment zone or somewhere in the vicinity of your lines because, again, 16" range on the plane.
If we gave every army a Dark Reaper equivalent, that would be like fighting fire with oil.
Yeah, but there is also the fact that plenty of armies have a way to counter a big 200+ point flying thing, and after the Stormraven Craze and with the current dark eldar meta, a lot of people are bringing anti flyer stuff.
-Tsons charge it with princes who have 4++ base and don't particularly care about its overwatch -Admech hose it with +2 to hit rerolling 1s Onager Dunecrawlers -orks and nurgle just completely ignore it, since its super-shmancy guns only kill a couple boyz/plaguebearers a turn and it can't hold objectives -imperials smashcap/bananabike it to death either ignoring overwatch or just tanking it on a 3++
Like I said, it's good, really hard to counter by some codices and balanced against others.
Slamguinious is strong but it's 1 model. It'll kill what it gets into melee with, probably, but again, one model.
Custode Bikes are the new hotness. They're simply too good.
-Fast, have fly -Good invulnerable saves -High toughness -High wounds -Great stratagems (extra attacks, deep strike, out of phase charge, etc) -Huge dice volumes in shooting -Beast mode melee -Objective Secured
So drop in your 2+/2+ 32 wound, 2+/4++ T6 bike squad, drop about 96 shots into something, and charge something else. Don't worry if you fail, you can charge on your opponents turn, too.
Marmatag wrote: Slamguinious is strong but it's 1 model. It'll kill what it gets into melee with, probably, but again, one model.
You can have three slamguinius in your army. First has angels wings, second has the hammer of baal, third is a regular one with JP and TH. Or as many as you wish, up to the point limit of the game, if you dont play with the rule of 3 same datasheets.
Marmatag wrote: Slamguinious is strong but it's 1 model. It'll kill what it gets into melee with, probably, but again, one model.
You can have three slamguinius in your army. First has angels wings, second has the hammer of baal, third is a regular one with JP and TH. Or as many as you wish, up to the point limit of the game, if you dont play with the rule of 3 same datasheets.
It costs about 8 CP to make slammy work. Half of his killing power is predicated on using the strat that works when he dies.
Either he works for one thing or you are running a guard CP battery. Nerf the battery and Captain Slammy is no where near as powerful.
Also, those ravagers aren't shooting vanilla primaris marines, they are shooting deathwatch, aggressors or incpetors (if you are brave enough to put them on the table) which really improves their cost per kill.
I also agree with the poster that said the individual units really aren't a problem but it's the combos. Dark eldar vs. doomed targets, reapers/spears with ynarri, captain slammy/custode bikers/knights with guard CP farm, cultists + abaddon, powers and strats, oblits with marks and strats and powers. The really powerful combos seem to break the game, not just the powerful units.
I fething hate that name (along with the other one). If I could personally destroy every iteration of that model when people use that name I'd be a much happier man.
I think we're in a pretty good state at the moment. "Broken Units" are few and far between and as someone has stated the really powerful units rely on a combo of stratagems... so they are partly self limiting due to the fact you have a limited pot of CPs, and can only use each stratagem once per phase.
Custodes Shield Captains on Jetbikes are, IMO, 15-20 points undercosted. They are far from broken though - and they are wonderful models to build, paint and use.
I don't think they are any more broken than Admech Stygies Dragoons though. They infiltrate, are fast, are T6 with 3w each, are pretty cheap and can be given a stratagem that means they hit on 2's and any roll of 4+ does 2 extra hits. Plus they have a natural -1 to hit and often are -2 to hit.
Not broken but very scary.
Luckily the models are wildly $ expensive, come in boxes of 1 and are a total PITA to build and paint!!!
I fething hate that name (along with the other one). If I could personally destroy every iteration of that model when people use that name I'd be a much happier man.
Company Commander with Grand Strategist and Kurov's Aquilla. No he doesn't kill anything, but he's something like 30 points and is the backbone of so many Imperial tournament armies.
I fething hate that name (along with the other one). If I could personally destroy every iteration of that model when people use that name I'd be a much happier man.
I just call them smash captains.
I despise the name in some kind of petty way I simply cannot describe. It smacks of internet groupthink and this "nu-GW fan" courtesy of places like Reddit that seems to only know the background of the game via memes and 1D4chan. Anytime I see that name you know exactly what kind of person you're getting.
I actually think this unit sucks, because IK shooting sucks.
The BA smash capt has one big downside: one use only. It's basically a suicide unit. Also, melee invulns make him useless.
As for the knight crusader (with thermal cannon), against my two armies (DG and Orks) it's simply a model that takes away one or two of my units every turn and there is nothing I can do about that because it cannot be locked in combat, cannot be hit with smite because it can hide behind screens and thanks to rotating ion shields it can sit through a ton of dedicated anti-tank shooting as well. The two new knights do that as well, but at a much higher cost and they need to get closer to do so.
The smash captain is an entirely different thing. It's pretty much a delete button for the unit most dangerous to the imperial player's plans. Melee invuls are making the entire thing only slightly more risky. For example, a foetid bloat-drone that usually very hard to shoot down in a single turn and is deadly to assault, but can just be one-shotted by a single BA smash captain with close to no risk. I don't think "remove an enemy unit from the table" is healthy thing for the game, no matter how many CP it costs.
Neither is game-warping or meta-defining like some things that have already gotten the axe from GW this edition, but in game against them they feel notoriously 'unfair' to play against since there is just nothing you can do about them except take the damage.
I'm all for powerful models and units, as long as there is risk and counter-play involved. The stuff from my list provides neither.
Marmatag wrote: Slamguinious is strong but it's 1 model. It'll kill what it gets into melee with, probably, but again, one model.
You can have three slamguinius in your army. First has angels wings, second has the hammer of baal, third is a regular one with JP and TH. Or as many as you wish, up to the point limit of the game, if you dont play with the rule of 3 same datasheets.
But due to how strategems, warlord traits and relics works 2k or 10k oniy 1 is really scary.
tneva82 wrote: But due to how strategems, warlord traits and relics works 2k or 10k oniy 1 is really scary.
The double was fairly common - one deepstrike, one repositioning up the board, with mephiston running third spot in a supreme command.
A lot of the CPs are tied up in the 'on attack' actions such as the double combat phase so if you lose one on the way in you'll still have enough CPs back to fuel the other.
bananathug wrote: It costs about 8 CP to make slammy work. Half of his killing power is predicated on using the strat that works when he dies.
8 ?? Death visions of sanguinius is 1, 3D6 charge is 2, red rampage is 1, only in death does duty end is 2. Thats 6.
Odds are that you’re eating more than one relic, so the wing will cost some amount more.
Also you may need to honor the chapter instead of only in death, costing an extra, or use both.
And considering each hit is a notable good AP 3 (or 4) damage, it’s likely you’ll want to burn a reroll on the inevitable 1-to-wound.
All told he could eat up to 4 pregame CP on top of up to 9 in a stars-aligned situation. That’s an entire brigade worth of CP to get one unit to do his job really well for one turn.
Also if he is taking artisan then he’s dropping warlord point on the enemy doorstep gift-wrapped.
He’s definitely good but doesn’t really belong on the same list as the others that are just super-stout without eating much or any CP.
bibotot wrote: Montarion and Magnus. 445/470 points of these guys can conceivably destroy 1500 points of the entire opponent's army, or tank them despite getting focused down for 5 turns.
I almost spit out my coffee at this one because they are hot garbage. Magnus is complete and total ass in the game and is one of the weakest lords of war because he can be countered so easily. People think the primarchs are good until you remind them they are only 3+ with T7, thats not that impressive things dont becomes scary until T8. Sure if you go first magnus can screw gak up, but you just back up and unload on him.
No here is a list of "broken" units in no particular order
Guliman
Russ( any variant)
Custode jetbikes
Dark reapers
Necron vault specifically powers
Basalisks(Boarder line broken they kinda just sit right on the fence and rock back and forth.)
Im not gonna even put knights because they are so easy to counter, vostoyan shadow sword, enjoy a volcano cannon hitting on 2s rerolling, wounding on 2's rerolling
bananathug wrote: It costs about 8 CP to make slammy work. Half of his killing power is predicated on using the strat that works when he dies.
8 ?? Death visions of sanguinius is 1, 3D6 charge is 2, red rampage is 1, only in death does duty end is 2. Thats 6.
All told he could eat up to 4 pregame CP on top of up to 9 in a stars-aligned situation. That’s an entire brigade worth of CP to get one unit to do his job really well for one turn.
This is one of the reasons why (plug!!) my upcoming tournament has an army composition rule set to limit CPs to soupy armies. Like, you can still take soup but it gets watered down!
The rules are...
Your army can consist of up to three detachments, and may include duplicate detachments, however:
One detachment in your army must be a Battalion, Brigade or Super-Heavy Detachment. It will be marked as your “Primary Detachment” and must contain your warlord.
Your Primary Detachment determines your "Army Keywords" - which will include all Faction and Subfaction Keywords. An example of Army Keywords might be IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM, CADIA
You will only gain Command Points from detachments which exactly match your Army Keywords. You can take as many non-matching detachments as you like, but they will all give you a command benefit of 0 CPs. There are no exceptions to this rule.
If all detachments in your army have the same Army Keywords, you gain +3 CPs for being Battleforged. Otherwise, you do not gain the standard +3 CP for Battleforged.
Looking at the list that won a recent tournament which took 3 smash captains and 3 dawneagle captains, it would start with 12 isntead of 17 cps. It's still playable, but the power is diluted. You don't get to do all the tricks all the time.
edit - sorry just realised this is a bit offtopic.
I fething hate that name (along with the other one). If I could personally destroy every iteration of that model when people use that name I'd be a much happier man.
I just call them smash captains.
I despise the name in some kind of petty way I simply cannot describe. It smacks of internet groupthink and this "nu-GW fan" courtesy of places like Reddit that seems to only know the background of the game via memes and 1D4chan. Anytime I see that name you know exactly what kind of person you're getting.
Absolutely, worse still is people who still use "soup", and even worse is when it's literally one allied detachment. Though I'm not convinced Dakka is a better community than Reddit in 2018, even if the competitive sub mods are absolute TFG morons, Dakka has some less than admirable traits as well.
I fething hate that name (along with the other one). If I could personally destroy every iteration of that model when people use that name I'd be a much happier man.
I just call them smash captains.
I despise the name in some kind of petty way I simply cannot describe. It smacks of internet groupthink and this "nu-GW fan" courtesy of places like Reddit that seems to only know the background of the game via memes and 1D4chan. Anytime I see that name you know exactly what kind of person you're getting.
Absolutely, worse still is people who still use "soup", and even worse is when it's literally one allied detachment. Though I'm not convinced Dakka is a better community than Reddit in 2018, even if the competitive sub mods are absolute TFG morons, Dakka has some less than admirable traits as well.
Wait are people upset that people called him smashf-cker prime? Dude I loved chapter master smashF-cker prime and the smash crew back in 7th it was hilarious.
Also what's wrong with soup? I don't see the issue with a fluffy soup list.
Leviathan dreadnoughts with two stormcannon arrays. Comes at twice the price of a dreadnought, but compared to a dread it has:
2 x wounds
+1 T
2+ save
4+ invul
Far above 2 x firepower (20 str 8, -2 ap, dmg 2 shots - plus two heavy flamers)
So it should be comfortably above twice the price of two dreads, since it is better both offensively and defensively. Only downside it has is 24” range, and CC... if you’re able to get there.
bananathug wrote: It costs about 8 CP to make slammy work. Half of his killing power is predicated on using the strat that works when he dies.
8 ?? Death visions of sanguinius is 1, 3D6 charge is 2, red rampage is 1, only in death does duty end is 2. Thats 6.
All told he could eat up to 4 pregame CP on top of up to 9 in a stars-aligned situation. That’s an entire brigade worth of CP to get one unit to do his job really well for one turn.
This is one of the reasons why (plug!!) my upcoming tournament has an army composition rule set to limit CPs to soupy armies. Like, you can still take soup but it gets watered down!
The rules are...
Your army can consist of up to three detachments, and may include duplicate detachments, however:
One detachment in your army must be a Battalion, Brigade or Super-Heavy Detachment. It will be marked as your “Primary Detachment” and must contain your warlord.
Your Primary Detachment determines your "Army Keywords" - which will include all Faction and Subfaction Keywords. An example of Army Keywords might be IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM, CADIA
You will only gain Command Points from detachments which exactly match your Army Keywords. You can take as many non-matching detachments as you like, but they will all give you a command benefit of 0 CPs. There are no exceptions to this rule.
If all detachments in your army have the same Army Keywords, you gain +3 CPs for being Battleforged. Otherwise, you do not gain the standard +3 CP for Battleforged.
Looking at the list that won a recent tournament which took 3 smash captains and 3 dawneagle captains, it would start with 12 isntead of 17 cps. It's still playable, but the power is diluted. You don't get to do all the tricks all the time.
edit - sorry just realised this is a bit offtopic.
I hope you don't get even more similarity in the lists you do get. For instance with those restrictions you won't get an eldar bike army with an outrider detachment from all 3 elf factions. Which would be cool and have a hell of an alpha strike but wouldn't be OP. You won't get the 6 patrol detachment dark elf raiding party thats in the book but no one ever gets to use. You won't get 9 carnafexes and 2 hive tyarnts. Admittedly ypu probably weren't going to get those any way but now you can't.
I mention this becisse I am wondering if the restrictions they have to make each chapter unique actully reduce the chapters and sub factions we see. Obsidian Rose would be a great kabal to take write of the living muse with but you can't. I would like try a cabal other than prophets of flesh but the way I play I really want the Vex mask.
Any I would like to see more zany combinations instead of stock combos all the time. And the same "best" sub-factions in every list.
"I feel sorry for the non aliatoc Eldar"
Sorry had to laugh at that. #1 because Eldar are still very strong even without Aliatoc even without -1 to hit.
6+FNP does them just fine and is better in a lot of situations.
I feel sorry for you having to play against anyone playing that busted army trait on a regular basis. I assure you - you'd still lose to eldar more often than not even without the trait.
Northern85Star wrote: Leviathan dreadnoughts with two stormcannon arrays. Comes at twice the price of a dreadnought, but compared to a dread it has:
2 x wounds
+1 T
2+ save
4+ invul
Far above 2 x firepower (20 str 8, -2 ap, dmg 2 shots - plus two heavy flamers)
So it should be comfortably above twice the price of two dreads, since it is better both offensively and defensively. Only downside it has is 24” range, and CC... if you’re able to get there.
You might have a point if standard dreadnaughts were actually a competitive choice, but they aren't.
Northern85Star wrote: Leviathan dreadnoughts with two stormcannon arrays. Comes at twice the price of a dreadnought, but compared to a dread it has:
2 x wounds
+1 T
2+ save
4+ invul
Far above 2 x firepower (20 str 8, -2 ap, dmg 2 shots - plus two heavy flamers)
So it should be comfortably above twice the price of two dreads, since it is better both offensively and defensively. Only downside it has is 24” range, and CC... if you’re able to get there.
You might have a point if standard dreadnaughts were actually a competitive choice, but they aren't.
Yeah that whole moving and screwing shooting sucks
Automatically Appended Next Post: Really any vehicle that's not t8 unless it has an invuln is just poop
Northern85Star wrote: Leviathan dreadnoughts with two stormcannon arrays. Comes at twice the price of a dreadnought, but compared to a dread it has:
2 x wounds
+1 T
2+ save
4+ invul
Far above 2 x firepower (20 str 8, -2 ap, dmg 2 shots - plus two heavy flamers)
So it should be comfortably above twice the price of two dreads, since it is better both offensively and defensively. Only downside it has is 24” range, and CC... if you’re able to get there.
You might have a point if standard dreadnaughts were actually a competitive choice, but they aren't.
Yeah that whole moving and screwing shooting sucks
Automatically Appended Next Post: Really any vehicle that's not t8 unless it has an invuln is just poop
Or -2 or more to hit shenanigans to not care as you can't hit it anyway
Northern85Star wrote:Leviathan dreadnoughts with two stormcannon arrays. Comes at twice the price of a dreadnought, but compared to a dread it has:
2 x wounds
+1 T
2+ save
4+ invul
Far above 2 x firepower (20 str 8, -2 ap, dmg 2 shots - plus two heavy flamers)
So it should be comfortably above twice the price of two dreads, since it is better both offensively and defensively. Only downside it has is 24” range, and CC... if you’re able to get there.
Martel732 wrote:Agreed. Leviathan dreads need some points hikes.
First, its only S7, not S8. Important difference. Then it only has 2 attacks in CC with S8 AP0 D1 if it has twin storm cannon arrays. It cant walk over infantry like a knight can. And it needs a price drop, compared to a knight. The knight has 5++, but can get 4++, 3++ with a stratagem, has almost twice the wounds, at least 12 attacks at S8 AP-2 D3, warlord traits, relics, household traditions, etc.
No the liviathen with storm Cannon array is not balanced point wise. The dread itself is pointed fine, but the cannons are not. Why it's broken is if you make it ultramarine, drop guli and it butchers stuff. Also just to clear up its 4 attacks base, even with cannons.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's mis printed In battle scribe
Backspacehacker wrote: No the liviathen with storm Cannon array is not balanced point wise. The dread itself is pointed fine, but the cannons are not. Why it's broken is if you make it ultramarine, drop guli and it butchers stuff. Also just to clear up its 4 attacks base, even with cannons.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's mis printed In battle scribe
No, no, no. The basic gear a leviathan has is two siege claws, meltaguns built into the claws and two heavy flamers. It loses 1 attack for every claw it replaces. Two storm cannon arrays (which are S7, not S8) are -2 attacks.
Backspacehacker wrote: No the liviathen with storm Cannon array is not balanced point wise. The dread itself is pointed fine, but the cannons are not. Why it's broken is if you make it ultramarine, drop guli and it butchers stuff. Also just to clear up its 4 attacks base, even with cannons.
Automatically Appended Next Post: It's mis printed In battle scribe
Becasue hitting on 4's rerolling only 1's after falling back is busted?
Wounding most infantry on 3+ so a LT gets reroll 1's anyway you must roll a serious number of 2's
IMPERIAL ARMOUR ie THE actual rules says its 2A with duel storm cannons 3A with 1 claw or drill and 4A with 2 claws or drills.
Also that thing should never be getting In combat, you screen it with chaf and it obliterates anything. That dread is not overcosted in any way. Play glui is rerolling hits and wounds for that thing, which acts as a guli shield. The thing is busted with the cannons.
It basically has rerolling to hit and wound 20 plasma guns
Also that thing should never be getting In combat, you screen it with chaf and it obliterates anything. That dread is not overcosted in any way. Play glui is rerolling hits and wounds for that thing, which acts as a guli shield. The thing is busted with the cannons.
It basically has rerolling to hit and wound 20 plasma guns
p5freak wrote: Its not fething strong if you compare it to a knight alone, without buffing unit(s).
Eh knights arnt that strong though, they are an all eggs in one basket the other problem I have with them is to random everything is super random with shots.
Now if you wanna see the meme patrol run 3 gallent knights and guliman and yolo into their lines and watch pure chaos
I fething hate that name (along with the other one). If I could personally destroy every iteration of that model when people use that name I'd be a much happier man.
I just call them smash captains.
I despise the name in some kind of petty way I simply cannot describe. It smacks of internet groupthink and this "nu-GW fan" courtesy of places like Reddit that seems to only know the background of the game via memes and 1D4chan. Anytime I see that name you know exactly what kind of person you're getting.
Absolutely, worse still is people who still use "soup", and even worse is when it's literally one allied detachment. Though I'm not convinced Dakka is a better community than Reddit in 2018, even if the competitive sub mods are absolute TFG morons, Dakka has some less than admirable traits as well.
Wait are people upset that people called him smashf-cker prime? Dude I loved chapter master smashF-cker prime and the smash crew back in 7th it was hilarious.
Also what's wrong with soup? I don't see the issue with a fluffy soup list.
I thought we were talking about "Slamguinius" but yeah honestly smash captains is not so bad its a fitting description
"soup" on the other hand, is a buzzword that once had a purpose, but no longer has its meaning at all. Hey guys check out my Eldar SOUP (army is literally CWE + ynarri). It's just mindless buzzwording to sound "in" and make reaches to use the term, and it's new popularity is probably 40ks cringiest achievement, only in this community would that happen.
Stux wrote: Wow, you are reading way too much into this!
Soup just means using stuff in your army from multiple books. It's a useful shorthand for that. No more, no less.
lol the fact that you genuinely think that just shows how much of a buzzword it has become
you don't even know what the term means and you are telling others they are reading too far into it while you misuse it, you're everything we were talking about.
Soup was originally to describe a single detachment with a bunch of ingredients from a bunch of armies mixed together, like Imperium detachments for the FAQ. Now it means nothing. If you are taking an ally, just say you have an ally, using "soup" instead gives me that feeling of embarrassment you get for other people.
Stux wrote: Wow, you are reading way too much into this!
Soup just means using stuff in your army from multiple books. It's a useful shorthand for that. No more, no less.
Soup means cherry-picking the best of your faction (Chaos/Imperium/Eldar) and throwing it all in one list. You now, like making a soup out of the best ingredients.
Using a main force and supporting it with a smaller force from a second codex is not a soup.
Stux wrote: Wow, you are reading way too much into this!
Soup just means using stuff in your army from multiple books. It's a useful shorthand for that. No more, no less.
lol the fact that you genuinely think that just shows how much of a buzzword it has become
you don't even know what the term means and you are telling others they are reading too far into it while you misuse it, you're everything we were talking about.
Soup was originally to describe a single detachment with a bunch of ingredients from a bunch of armies mixed together, like Imperium detachments for the FAQ. Now it means nothing. If you are taking an ally, just say you have an ally, using "soup" instead gives me that feeling of embarrassment you get for other people.
No authoritative figure ever clearly defined the term. What you think it means is just what you think it means. The popular definitions are a mixed detachment or a mixed army.
I go with the mixed army meaning since I see that way more often. It’s super rare nowadays to see someone tossing out their subfaction ability when it’s so easy to make a small detachment for the ally units you want.
Stux wrote: Wow, you are reading way too much into this!
Soup just means using stuff in your army from multiple books. It's a useful shorthand for that. No more, no less.
lol the fact that you genuinely think that just shows how much of a buzzword it has become
you don't even know what the term means and you are telling others they are reading too far into it while you misuse it, you're everything we were talking about.
Soup was originally to describe a single detachment with a bunch of ingredients from a bunch of armies mixed together, like Imperium detachments for the FAQ. Now it means nothing. If you are taking an ally, just say you have an ally, using "soup" instead gives me that feeling of embarrassment you get for other people.
No authoritative figure ever clearly defined the term. What you think it means is just what you think it means. The popular definitions are a mixed detachment or a mixed army.
I go with the mixed army meaning since I see that way more often. It’s super rare nowadays to see someone tossing out their subfaction ability when it’s so easy to make a small detachment for the ally units you want.
I think you missed the part where it's meaning was definitely defined before the current set of rules, and no longer has place in an game limited 3 detachments and a single army per detachment
It's use now at BEST, is for someone taking 3 different army detachments, and even that's a reach to call that a soup of races. But this "hurr I took a single allied harlequin detachment for my Ynnari, check out my SOUP list it's so SOUPY" which is how it's commonly used now, is just that "le epic buzzword" levels of corny.
Stux wrote: Wow, you are reading way too much into this!
Soup just means using stuff in your army from multiple books. It's a useful shorthand for that. No more, no less.
lol the fact that you genuinely think that just shows how much of a buzzword it has become
you don't even know what the term means and you are telling others they are reading too far into it while you misuse it, you're everything we were talking about.
Soup was originally to describe a single detachment with a bunch of ingredients from a bunch of armies mixed together, like Imperium detachments for the FAQ. Now it means nothing. If you are taking an ally, just say you have an ally, using "soup" instead gives me that feeling of embarrassment you get for other people.
No authoritative figure ever clearly defined the term. What you think it means is just what you think it means. The popular definitions are a mixed detachment or a mixed army.
I go with the mixed army meaning since I see that way more often. It’s super rare nowadays to see someone tossing out their subfaction ability when it’s so easy to make a small detachment for the ally units you want.
I think you missed the part where it's meaning was definitely defined before the current set of rules, and no longer has place in an game limited 3 detachments and a single army per detachment
It's use at BEST, is for someone taking 3 different army detachments, and even that's a reach. But not this "hurr I took a single allied harlequin detachment for my Ynnari, check out my SOUP list" which is how it's commonly used now.
Defined by who? I don’t remember any holy scriptures being released defining the term.
Stux wrote: Wow, you are reading way too much into this!
Soup just means using stuff in your army from multiple books. It's a useful shorthand for that. No more, no less.
lol the fact that you genuinely think that just shows how much of a buzzword it has become
you don't even know what the term means and you are telling others they are reading too far into it while you misuse it, you're everything we were talking about.
Soup was originally to describe a single detachment with a bunch of ingredients from a bunch of armies mixed together, like Imperium detachments for the FAQ. Now it means nothing. If you are taking an ally, just say you have an ally, using "soup" instead gives me that feeling of embarrassment you get for other people.
No authoritative figure ever clearly defined the term. What you think it means is just what you think it means. The popular definitions are a mixed detachment or a mixed army.
I go with the mixed army meaning since I see that way more often. It’s super rare nowadays to see someone tossing out their subfaction ability when it’s so easy to make a small detachment for the ally units you want.
I think you missed the part where it's meaning was defined before the current set of rules, and no longer has place in an game limited to a single army per detachment
Since you apparently know both the exact definition and when it was defined, can you provide a link showing how this was formally defined and agreed? Because right now you're just relying on saying "I'm right, you're wrong", which isn't exactly a strong argument.
Stux wrote: Wow, you are reading way too much into this!
Soup just means using stuff in your army from multiple books. It's a useful shorthand for that. No more, no less.
lol the fact that you genuinely think that just shows how much of a buzzword it has become
you don't even know what the term means and you are telling others they are reading too far into it while you misuse it, you're everything we were talking about.
Soup was originally to describe a single detachment with a bunch of ingredients from a bunch of armies mixed together, like Imperium detachments for the FAQ. Now it means nothing. If you are taking an ally, just say you have an ally, using "soup" instead gives me that feeling of embarrassment you get for other people.
No authoritative figure ever clearly defined the term. What you think it means is just what you think it means. The popular definitions are a mixed detachment or a mixed army.
I go with the mixed army meaning since I see that way more often. It’s super rare nowadays to see someone tossing out their subfaction ability when it’s so easy to make a small detachment for the ally units you want.
I think you missed the part where it's meaning was definitely defined before the current set of rules, and no longer has place in an game limited 3 detachments and a single army per detachment
It's use at BEST, is for someone taking 3 different army detachments, and even that's a reach. But not this "hurr I took a single allied harlequin detachment for my Ynnari, check out my SOUP list" which is how it's commonly used now.
Defined by who? I don’t remember any holy scriptures being released defining the term.
Aelyn wrote: Since you apparently know both the exact definition and when it was defined, can you provide a link showing how this was formally defined and agreed? Because right now you're just relying on saying "I'm right, you're wrong", which isn't exactly a strong argument.
It's literally a metaphor description meaning a large mix of ingredients, you know, what a soup is, and that term no longer makes sense and it's become a mindless catchphrase for the groupthink online. Don't feign ignorance, it's not like you'll find the terms Dakka or Steel Rain in a dictionary, these things still have meanings in 40k, if I just start calling my Tau Gunline my "Steel Rain" list because it rains volleys of steel bullets or some dumb nu-boy reinterpretation just so I can grip on to the buzzword, it's going to be equally stupid.
I fething hate that name (along with the other one). If I could personally destroy every iteration of that model when people use that name I'd be a much happier man.
I just call them smash captains.
I despise the name in some kind of petty way I simply cannot describe. It smacks of internet groupthink and this "nu-GW fan" courtesy of places like Reddit that seems to only know the background of the game via memes and 1D4chan. Anytime I see that name you know exactly what kind of person you're getting.
Absolutely, worse still is people who still use "soup", and even worse is when it's literally one allied detachment. Though I'm not convinced Dakka is a better community than Reddit in 2018, even if the competitive sub mods are absolute TFG morons, Dakka has some less than admirable traits as well.
Wait are people upset that people called him smashf-cker prime? Dude I loved chapter master smashF-cker prime and the smash crew back in 7th it was hilarious.
Also what's wrong with soup? I don't see the issue with a fluffy soup list.
I thought we were talking about "Slamguinius" but yeah honestly smash captains is not so bad its a fitting description
"soup" on the other hand, is a buzzword that once had a purpose, but no longer has its meaning at all. Hey guys check out my Eldar SOUP (army is literally CWE + ynarri). It's just mindless buzzwording to sound "in" and make reaches to use the term, and it's new popularity is probably 40ks cringiest achievement, only in this community would that happen.
"Slamguinius" and "Captain Smashfether" are the same thing, just the former is the BA unique one.
CynosureEldar wrote: What are the most broken units right now, say, top five? It used to be conscript spam, and before that it was ravenwing or the storm plane things. I'm having a hard time keeping the 'meta' as it is straight. Where are we at in the game right now?
Custodes on jetbikes but armies like that have to have at least one broken unit as the army has such a low model count, kinda like dreadknights.
I fething hate that name (along with the other one). If I could personally destroy every iteration of that model when people use that name I'd be a much happier man.
I just call them smash captains.
I despise the name in some kind of petty way I simply cannot describe. It smacks of internet groupthink and this "nu-GW fan" courtesy of places like Reddit that seems to only know the background of the game via memes and 1D4chan. Anytime I see that name you know exactly what kind of person you're getting.
Absolutely, worse still is people who still use "soup", and even worse is when it's literally one allied detachment. Though I'm not convinced Dakka is a better community than Reddit in 2018, even if the competitive sub mods are absolute TFG morons, Dakka has some less than admirable traits as well.
Wait are people upset that people called him smashf-cker prime? Dude I loved chapter master smashF-cker prime and the smash crew back in 7th it was hilarious.
Also what's wrong with soup? I don't see the issue with a fluffy soup list.
I thought we were talking about "Slamguinius" but yeah honestly smash captains is not so bad its a fitting description
"soup" on the other hand, is a buzzword that once had a purpose, but no longer has its meaning at all. Hey guys check out my Eldar SOUP (army is literally CWE + ynarri). It's just mindless buzzwording to sound "in" and make reaches to use the term, and it's new popularity is probably 40ks cringiest achievement, only in this community would that happen.
"Slamguinius" and "Captain Smashfether" are the same thing, just the former is the BA unique one.
So two different things? Lol. I know what the terms mean, I just didn't think one was as bad as the other.
Skaorn wrote:"It's literally a metaphor description meaning a large mix of ingredients"
So it can basically be used for any army that doesn't rely on the same unit in the same force org slot.
Except that's not what it meant or how it was used, again, don't feign ignorance.
Except SHUPPET that language changes and ranting about it changing from what it used to be is a waste of energy. Where I grew up the stores that sold booze were called package stores. We had a slang term for it that a lot of people don't use anymore because it sounds the same as a racial slur. If I say "I had a gay old time" at an event, someone unfamiliar with the Flinstones theme might take it differently than intended. The definition of soup in this small culture has already changed from what you except. You already lost.
Skaorn wrote: Except SHUPPET that language changes and ranting about it changing from what it used to be is a waste of energy. Where I grew up the stores that sold booze were called package stores. We had a slang term for it that a lot of people don't use anymore because it sounds the same as a racial slur. If I say "I had a gay old time" at an event, someone unfamiliar with the Flinstones theme might take it differently than intended. The definition of soup in this small culture has already changed from what you except. You already lost.
Sigh. MY point is (and that same point is shared by many I first heard it expressed on Chapter Tactics as well) that the term "soup", which DID made sense to define something as (because it was a short way of saying "Imperium / Aeldari / Chaos detachment with options from multiple dexes inside"), now, as you say, is still being used, but NO LONGER makes sense both in definition and in necessity, as the maximum ingredients you can take is 3, and each have their own detachment, and we already have a word for this. And if you're just taking a single ally - just saying you're taking an ally LOL. If you tell me to my face that your army with 2 separate factions in it, is a soup list, I'm going to spend the next 3 hrs of our game subtly poking fun at you, because some things just invite it.
Really, most instances of Soup I see refer to armies that can field detachments from several books without any loss to things like CP or traits. The detachments themselves are usually called allied detachments, but armies that can freely mix and match remain soup because they can do this without penalty.
Technically a Tau player could take an allied detachment of IG as Guevesa but would then loose out on power ups, unless your opponent is like "great conversions, you can absolutely change their keyword to Tau Empire". Tau are one of the factions that get no soup and are left out in the cold.
You also forget that the 3 detachments only exist as a hard rule in tournaments. GW has only suggested 3, and 2 at very low point totals, for tournaments. The DE get bonus CP if they take 5 patrol detachments, I think. So you have an official rule stating it is possible to take more than 3 detachments and a suggestion that tournament runners limit it, unless I'm mistaken.
Now you might be set on what soup means because you had it different back in 6th and 7th. With all the new players for 8th and those of us returning from periods where the only allies were Daemon and Witch Hunters, who seem to accept soup to refer to a faction that can create a wide variety of armies out of multiple codexes without loss, I think you're out of luck.
You also forget that the 3 detachments only exist as a hard rule in tournaments. GW has only suggested 3, and 2 at very low point totals, for tournaments. The DE get bonus CP if they take 5 patrol detachments, I think. So you have an official rule stating it is possible to take more than 3 detachments and a suggestion that tournament runners limit it, unless I'm mistaken.
No, I don't forget that at all. If you are taking 5 different factions in your list because you playing casually, go ahead, call your list imperial soup, or whatever. That's not what I'm talking about.
Skaorn wrote: Now you might be set on what soup means because you had it different back in 6th and 7th. With all the new players for 8th and those of us returning from periods where the only allies were Daemon and Witch Hunters, who seem to accept soup to refer to a faction that can create a wide variety of armies out of multiple codexes without loss, I think you're out of luck.
Nope, I'm quite definitely talking about 8th ed terminology which changed with THE 8TH ED FAQ, and even if I wasn't, the term still would be corny when used to describe an army with 1 or 2 allies.
uh, shuppet, definitions change all the time to match use. If people use "soup" to describe allied detachments then they aren't wrong because their meaning is understood.
Skaorn wrote: Except SHUPPET that language changes and ranting about it changing from what it used to be is a waste of energy. Where I grew up the stores that sold booze were called package stores. We had a slang term for it that a lot of people don't use anymore because it sounds the same as a racial slur. If I say "I had a gay old time" at an event, someone unfamiliar with the Flinstones theme might take it differently than intended. The definition of soup in this small culture has already changed from what you except. You already lost.
Sigh. MY point is (and that same point is shared by many I first heard it expressed on Chapter Tactics as well) that the term "soup", which DID made sense to define something as (because it was a short way of saying "Imperium / Aeldari / Chaos detachment with options from multiple dexes inside"), now, as you say, is still being used, but NO LONGER makes sense both in definition and in necessity, as the maximum ingredients you can take is 3, and each have their own detachment, and we already have a word for this. And if you're just taking a single ally - just saying you're taking an ally LOL. If you tell me to my face that your army with 2 separate factions in it, is a soup list, I'm going to spend the next 3 hrs of our game subtly poking fun at you, because some things just invite it.
Sooo. What is your credentials for defining The Authoritative Definition to the word? What makes your opinion the right over others?
Lol. If you have to ask such flimsy things as an impossible request like an Oxford style definition of what was clearly game slang, while dismissing an actual logical explanation as to why it the term no longer makes sense, then you know you have a pretty flimsy argument. I understand why you are doing this, you use the word, and you feel attacked by my statements that it looks dumb, but it doesn't change how cringy I find it every single time you do it.
HINT: I'm not claiming the word isn't being USED as it is currently, that's my problem to begin with - that it no longer makes the sense that it originally did, and that people just HAD to hold on to the buzzword and completely warp it into something new just to be part of the in-crowd with that nu-slang lmao
Skaorn wrote: Except SHUPPET that language changes and ranting about it changing from what it used to be is a waste of energy. Where I grew up the stores that sold booze were called package stores. We had a slang term for it that a lot of people don't use anymore because it sounds the same as a racial slur. If I say "I had a gay old time" at an event, someone unfamiliar with the Flinstones theme might take it differently than intended. The definition of soup in this small culture has already changed from what you except. You already lost.
Sigh. MY point is (and that same point is shared by many I first heard it expressed on Chapter Tactics as well) that the term "soup", which DID made sense to define something as (because it was a short way of saying "Imperium / Aeldari / Chaos detachment with options from multiple dexes inside"), now, as you say, is still being used, but NO LONGER makes sense both in definition and in necessity, as the maximum ingredients you can take is 3, and each have their own detachment, and we already have a word for this.
Hang on. As far as I'm aware, it wasn't possible to use "soup" in the sense you're using it before 8th came out, but in my local store, the term "soup" has been used for armies that took advantage of cross-codex synergies since Taudar became popular in 7th, if not before. Those armies had separate detachments for each codex but were still called soup armies.
It sounds to me like you only heard it after its meaning had warped slightly to accomodate 8th rules and assumed that was the only true definition, which irronically is exactly the behaviour you're mocking other people for.
And if you're just taking a single ally - just saying you're taking an ally LOL. If you tell me to my face that your army with 2 separate factions in it, is a soup list, I'm going to spend the next 3 hrs of our game subtly poking fun at you, because some things just invite it.
So you freely admit you'll be openly rude because someone uses a imprecisely-defined term in a different, but valid, way to you?
And if you're just taking a single ally - just saying you're taking an ally LOL. If you tell me to my face that your army with 2 separate factions in it, is a soup list, I'm going to spend the next 3 hrs of our game subtly poking fun at you, because some things just invite it.
So you freely admit you'll be openly rude because someone uses a imprecisely-defined term in a different, but valid, way to you?
Making light jokes and having a bit of fun about you being part of the groupthink online , is being openly rude? Okay then I guess, most people would just enjoy themselves and laugh along with it, but whatever. You're deliberately twisting that.
Skaorn wrote: Except SHUPPET that language changes and ranting about it changing from what it used to be is a waste of energy. Where I grew up the stores that sold booze were called package stores. We had a slang term for it that a lot of people don't use anymore because it sounds the same as a racial slur. If I say "I had a gay old time" at an event, someone unfamiliar with the Flinstones theme might take it differently than intended. The definition of soup in this small culture has already changed from what you except. You already lost.
Sigh. MY point is (and that same point is shared by many I first heard it expressed on Chapter Tactics as well) that the term "soup", which DID made sense to define something as (because it was a short way of saying "Imperium / Aeldari / Chaos detachment with options from multiple dexes inside"), now, as you say, is still being used, but NO LONGER makes sense both in definition and in necessity, as the maximum ingredients you can take is 3, and each have their own detachment, and we already have a word for this.
Hang on. As far as I'm aware, it wasn't possible to use "soup" in the sense you're using it before 8th came out, but in my local store, the term "soup" has been used for armies that took advantage of cross-codex synergies since Taudar became popular in 7th, if not before. Those armies had separate detachments for each codex but were still called soup armies.
You are either mistaken, or just plain lying, but we can work out which. Find me a three sources of someone using the word soup online dated before the release of 8th (June 17th, 2017). If you can even find a single one, I'll be incredibly impressed. If the term had any sort of established meaning before 8th as you say, this should be easy right? Calling it now, you won't post in this thread again.
And if you're just taking a single ally - just saying you're taking an ally LOL. If you tell me to my face that your army with 2 separate factions in it, is a soup list, I'm going to spend the next 3 hrs of our game subtly poking fun at you, because some things just invite it.
So you freely admit you'll be openly rude because someone uses a imprecisely-defined term in a different, but valid, way to you?
Making light jokes and having a bit of fun about you being part of the groupthink online , is being openly rude? Okay then I guess, most people would just enjoy themselves and laugh along with it, but whatever. You're deliberately twisting that.
Yes, "poking fun" at someone for repeatedly over three hours just because of how they refer to their army is rude, even if it is intended in jest.
Skaorn wrote: Except SHUPPET that language changes and ranting about it changing from what it used to be is a waste of energy. Where I grew up the stores that sold booze were called package stores. We had a slang term for it that a lot of people don't use anymore because it sounds the same as a racial slur. If I say "I had a gay old time" at an event, someone unfamiliar with the Flinstones theme might take it differently than intended. The definition of soup in this small culture has already changed from what you except. You already lost.
Sigh. MY point is (and that same point is shared by many I first heard it expressed on Chapter Tactics as well) that the term "soup", which DID made sense to define something as (because it was a short way of saying "Imperium / Aeldari / Chaos detachment with options from multiple dexes inside"), now, as you say, is still being used, but NO LONGER makes sense both in definition and in necessity, as the maximum ingredients you can take is 3, and each have their own detachment, and we already have a word for this.
Hang on. As far as I'm aware, it wasn't possible to use "soup" in the sense you're using it before 8th came out, but in my local store, the term "soup" has been used for armies that took advantage of cross-codex synergies since Taudar became popular in 7th, if not before. Those armies had separate detachments for each codex but were still called soup armies.
You are either mistaken, or just plain lying, but we can work out which. Find me a three sources of someone using the word soup online dated before the release of 8th (June 17th, 2017). If you can even find a single one, I'll be incredibly impressed. If the term had any sort of established meaning before 8th as you say, this should be easy right? Calling it now, you won't post in this thread again.
I am neither lying nor mistaken, just telling you how the term was used locally. I can't confirm if it was commonly used online at that point (though I can prove it was at least used a little - see below) but my introduction to the term was a campaign hosted by my FLGS in which my second round opponent used a list which was titled "Taudar soup". And I'm not necessarily saying it had a widely-established meaning - that was you putting words into my mouth - just me pointing out that you first hearing it used one way doesn't mean that was the only way it has ever been used.
By the way, I like the way you're allowed to demand written evidence that our usage is correct without being willing to provide written evidence that yours is correct. Nice double standards there.
Now we are about 2 years into 40k 7th Edition, which saw an even more dynamic approach to list composition. The chart changed in some cases in ways that made sense (such as eliminating Tau as BB for Eldar and SM alike), but opened the door for what TPM has termed as Imperial Soup, where all of the Space Marines, Imperial Guard, and various other forces of humanity can all be battle brothers.
Aelyn wrote: I am neither lying nor mistaken, just telling you how the term was used locally. I can't confirm if it was commonly used online at that point (though I can prove it was at least used a little - see below) but my introduction to the term was a campaign hosted by my FLGS in which my second round opponent used a list which was titled "Taudar soup". And I'm not necessarily saying it had a widely-established meaning - that was you putting words into my mouth - just me pointing out that you first hearing it used one way doesn't mean that was the only way it has ever been used.
By the way, I like the way you're allowed to demand written evidence that our usage is correct without being willing to provide written evidence that yours is correct. Nice double standards there.
Huh? I'm entirely willing to prove that this word gained usage in 8th. That's something I could easily do, and all I asked from you was the same for your claims. When you're literally asking for a holy scripture defining how a term is used, you're deliberately trying to discredit my statements by setting a completely unrealistic task, and I never claimed there was a holy scripture defining it, that is not a statement I have to substantiate lol. And, where is the holy scripture written for a definition of game terms like Steel Rain or Death Stars? We don't need to tread into the terms of absurdity, to understand the meaning of a game term lmao.
I'm impressed. You apparently found the one source from pre 8th, from the guy who started the term. Except... if you actually read that article instead of skimming for keywords, you'd have seen that the article was about armies like TauDar, and specifically excluded that from the term, which was for mixing a BUNCH of Imperial armies together. Aka, EXACTLY what I said it was, and the exact opposite of how you claimed the word was being used pre 8th. Why would a 2 faction army be a soup lol? The word is clearly shorthand for mixing a gang of "ingredients" together, just as they said. So there's your definition too - straight from the guy who coined the term, and it's exactly what I claimed it was.
Aelyn wrote: I am neither lying nor mistaken, just telling you how the term was used locally. I can't confirm if it was commonly used online at that point (though I can prove it was at least used a little - see below) but my introduction to the term was a campaign hosted by my FLGS in which my second round opponent used a list which was titled "Taudar soup". And I'm not necessarily saying it had a widely-established meaning - that was you putting words into my mouth - just me pointing out that you first hearing it used one way doesn't mean that was the only way it has ever been used.
By the way, I like the way you're allowed to demand written evidence that our usage is correct without being willing to provide written evidence that yours is correct. Nice double standards there.
Huh? I'm entirely willing to prove that this word gained usage in 8th. That's something I could easily do, and all I asked from you was the same for your claims. When you're literally asking for a holy scripture defining how a term is used, you're deliberately trying to discredit my statements by setting a completely unrealistic task, and I never claimed there was a holy scripture defining it, that is not a statement I have to substantiate lol. And, where is the holy scripture written for a definition of game terms like Steel Rain or Death Stars? We don't need to tread into the terms of absurdity, to understand the meaning of a game term lmao.
I never asked for "holy scripture", just evidence that it specifically meant multiple codexes in one detachment as opposed to multiple allied detachments in a single army. You were claiming it had one very specific use, we disagreed, you mocked us for it.
I'm impressed. You apparently found the one source from pre 8th, from the guy who started the term. Except... if you actually read that article instead of skimming for keywords, you'd have seen that the article was about armies like TauDar, and specifically excluded that from the term, which was for mixing a BUNCH of Imperial armies together. Aka, EXACTLY what I said it was, and the exact opposite of how you claimed the word was being used pre 8th. Why would a 2 faction army be a soup lol? The word is clearly shorthand for mixing a gang of "ingredients" together, just as they said. So there's your definition too - straight from the guy who coined the term, and it's exactly what I claimed it was.
That's a wrap folks.
Except it's not what you claimed it was. In this instance, Imperial Soup is being used to described multiple detachments from different Imperial codexes in a single army. In other words, exactly how Stux used it right at the beginning of all this, and exactly what you mocked him for.
Stux wrote: Wow, you are reading way too much into this!
Soup just means using stuff in your army from multiple books. It's a useful shorthand for that. No more, no less.
lol the fact that you genuinely think that just shows how much of a buzzword it has become
you don't even know what the term means and you are telling others they are reading too far into it while you misuse it, you're everything we were talking about.
Soup was originally to describe a single detachment with a bunch of ingredients from a bunch of armies mixed together, like Imperium detachments for the FAQ. Now it means nothing. If you are taking an ally, just say you have an ally, using "soup" instead gives me that feeling of embarrassment you get for other people.
Face it, you made a mistake, it was pointed out, and instead of accepting it you doubled down and tried to shift the goalposts.
Stux wrote: Wow, you are reading way too much into this!
Soup just means using stuff in your army from multiple books. It's a useful shorthand for that. No more, no less.
lol the fact that you genuinely think that just shows how much of a buzzword it has become
you don't even know what the term means and you are telling others they are reading too far into it while you misuse it, you're everything we were talking about.
Soup was originally to describe a single detachment with a bunch of ingredients from a bunch of armies mixed together, like Imperium detachments for the FAQ. Now it means nothing. If you are taking an ally, just say you have an ally, using "soup" instead gives me that feeling of embarrassment you get for other people.
I don't really care what you think it means or what it used to mean. The meaning of words change over time based on usage anyway. The current generally accepted usage of soup this edition is broadly what I stated. If you don't want to use it that way then that's entirely on you.
Uhhh... What? Are you really this obtuse or just putting it on to avoid admitting you were wrong?
Stux's definition INCLUDES an army with a single faction + a single ally, as being soup. Which is what we just established is NOT what that definition was.
Follow that quote you just posted. I had made two statements clearly stated just before that, both of them stating that soup isn't an army + an ally, and very little else about the term. Stux's post disagreed with that, and said "no, it's anything that uses stuff from multiple books."
Here's what else I said about Soup.
SHUPPET wrote: If you are taking 5 different factions in your list because you playing casually, go ahead, call your list imperial soup, or whatever. That's not what I'm talking about.
The definition you just provided, defined the term as, and I quote,
The chart changed in some cases in ways that made sense (such as eliminating Tau as BB for Eldar and SM alike), but opened the door for what TPM has termed as Imperial Soup, where all of the Space Marines, Imperial Guard, and various other forces of humanity can all be battle brothers.
The quote specifically talks about eliminating certain dual faction battle brothers, but opening a door to something with much more options than just 2, hence, the Imperial Soup.
Because you are mixing a BUNCH of ingredients. Like, you know, a SOUP.
Stux wrote: Wow, you are reading way too much into this!
Soup just means using stuff in your army from multiple books. It's a useful shorthand for that. No more, no less.
lol the fact that you genuinely think that just shows how much of a buzzword it has become
you don't even know what the term means and you are telling others they are reading too far into it while you misuse it, you're everything we were talking about.
Soup was originally to describe a single detachment with a bunch of ingredients from a bunch of armies mixed together, like Imperium detachments for the FAQ. Now it means nothing. If you are taking an ally, just say you have an ally, using "soup" instead gives me that feeling of embarrassment you get for other people.
I don't really care what you think it means or what it used to mean. The meaning of words change over time based on usage anyway. The current generally accepted usage of soup this edition is broadly what I stated. If you don't want to use it that way then that's entirely on you.
We've been over this, try to keep up. I am aware that the meaning has now changed, and the dispute has never been that "this is not how people use it currently". My only statement was that the word is now a buzzword regurgitated by the groupthink without having any knowledge of it's actual meaning,or putting any thought into why something might have been described as a "soup" lol, as the armies it describes are no longer a "soup" of factions at all. You guys keep circling back around to this after being proved wrong, but it doesn't actually deflect anything I've said yet. Use it all you want, nobody can stop you, I just said how it looks to me, and every subsequent post has been me having to respond against some nonsense telling me how it doesn't, lol.
SHUPPET wrote: Uhhh... What? Are you really this obtuse or just putting it on to avoid admitting you were wrong?
Stux's definition INCLUDES an army with a single faction + a single ally, as being soup. Which is what we just established is NOT what that definition was.
Follow that quote you just posted. I had made two statements clearly stated just before that, both of them stating that soup isn't an army + an ally, and very little else about the term. Stux's post disagreed with that, and said "no, it's anything that uses stuff from multiple books."
The definition you just provided, defined the term as, and I quote,
all of the Space Marines, Imperial Guard, and various other forces of humanity can all be battle brothers.
It specifically stands ASIDE from 2 faction armies mentioned earlier in the article like TauDar, definitively because you are mixing a BUNCH of ingredients. Like, you know, a SOUP.
I swear to god, this isn't that hard.
Okay, this is a great example of what I mean by moving the goalposts.
Earlier, you said:
SHUPPET wrote: Soup was originally to describe a single detachment with a bunch of ingredients from a bunch of armies mixed together, like Imperium detachments for the FAQ. Now it means nothing. If you are taking an ally, just say you have an ally, using "soup" instead gives me that feeling of embarrassment you get for other people.
You mocked people who used it in other ways.
I have proven that it was NOT originally used for a single detachment with a bunch of choices from other armies, to demonstrate how the definition has changed, how it didn't have just a single way of being used with all other definitons being wrong.
And now you're trying to claim that I'm wrong for saying your prior statement was incorrect, even though in the same post you are also tacitly admitting it was incorrect.
I'm not saying that "soup" necessarily means "two detachments" or "three detachments" or anything else specifically. All I'm saying is that it has been used in different ways over the years and that your specific definition was not the be-all and end-all, as you seemed to believe (but are now backing away from).
If you're now claiming it means an army containing three or more sources / codexes, that's a different position than the one you started from, and that's not a problem. I would tend to say that it's more of a judgement call based on the army composition than a hard-or-fast rule, and that's also not a problem. We just use the term slightly differently, and that's okay because it's not a clearly defined term.
SHUPPET wrote: Uhhh... What? Are you really this obtuse or just putting it on to avoid admitting you were wrong?
Stux's definition INCLUDES an army with a single faction + a single ally, as being soup. Which is what we just established is NOT what that definition was.
Follow that quote you just posted. I had made two statements clearly stated just before that, both of them stating that soup isn't an army + an ally, and very little else about the term. Stux's post disagreed with that, and said "no, it's anything that uses stuff from multiple books."
The definition you just provided, defined the term as, and I quote,
all of the Space Marines, Imperial Guard, and various other forces of humanity can all be battle brothers.
It specifically stands ASIDE from 2 faction armies mentioned earlier in the article like TauDar, definitively because you are mixing a BUNCH of ingredients. Like, you know, a SOUP.
I swear to god, this isn't that hard.
Okay, this is a great example of what I mean by moving the goalposts.
Earlier, you said:
SHUPPET wrote: Soup was originally to describe a single detachment with a bunch of ingredients from a bunch of armies mixed together, like Imperium detachments for the FAQ. Now it means nothing. If you are taking an ally, just say you have an ally, using "soup" instead gives me that feeling of embarrassment you get for other people.
You mocked people who used it in other ways.
I have proven that it was NOT originally used for a single detachment with a bunch of choices from other armies
I ALREADY outright stated, well before you started posting in here and arguing with, that the point of my post wasn't about whether or not it's specifically a detachment or specifically an army, that's not what I'm saying at all, and that my point is here that it's a BUNCH OF ARMIES in one list. Here:
SHUPPET wrote: If you are taking 5 different factions in your list because you playing casually, go ahead, call your list imperial soup, or whatever. That's not what I'm talking about.
Why are you reading selectively? I struggle to believe you missed this considering how many times you've gone back through this thread to source gak?
my point stands exactly the same as it did before you started posting, I'm not backing off it even slightly, it seems that I've simply had to repeat it ad nauseum till you started to acknowledge what I'm actually saying.
You mocked people who used it in other ways.
I "mocked" the person that was specifically arguing that 2 armies count as a soup. Nothing else.
Yeah, my apologies. I hadn't noticed until I re-read just how obvious it was that Shuppet was angling for an argument. I'll bow out to try and stop this going further.
I think everyone is sick of this argument, most of all me from like the 3rd post onwards, I made a single offhand comment and I should have realised how butthurt it would have made a lot of people. Please stop quoting me to argue it, I made a single comment and literally everything else since has been me responding against the neckbeard army who didn't like me laughing at it. Tell yourself that I don't genuinely find it corny, or my reasons for feeling that are misled, if it helps you sleep better at night. But this argument itself has begin to match that same idiocy I was initially talking about, which shouldn't really be a surprise considering the demographic I was discussing I guess and those likely to react to it. Let it lie, and adios.
Yeah, my apologies. I hadn't noticed until I re-read just how obvious it was that Shuppet was angling for an argument. I'll bow out to try and stop this going further.
My man. You literally came in here and quoted me over and over to start arguing with me over an argument you know I wasn't making, and now you act as though you're the bigger guy by bowing out the instant you get proven undeniably wrong.
SHUPPET wrote: I think everyone is sick of this argument, most of all me from like the 3rd post onwards, I made a single offhand comment and I should have realised how butthurt it would have made a lot of people.
Well if you can't see how your original post was pretty insulting out of nowhere, and instead blame others for being insulted, then there really is no point continuing this.
Not to mention that you've just stated you mocked me for saying two armies can make a soup, when that is clearly how many people use the term now.
Elbows wrote: I love coming into threads late to see an argument, and noting one poster who is catastrophically in over their head. What a bizarre hill to die on.
Hilariously, you prove my point with posts like this, while logic escapes you.
Strength in numbers doesn't make an argument any less wrong. Your perspective was proven hopelessly wrong in the argument that you guys INSISTED on having, contributing far more posts combined arguing against me than I did to defending, and largely just re-explaining my argument for those who insisted on rewriting it on my behalf, and now that this has failed, you envision that you see that flimsy arguments will be disproven, both evidence and logic is on my side, and without any other avenue to turn down it results in posts like this and the above. It's transparent, but fully expected too.
No more discussion of the "soup" tangent, or any other definitions. If you want to continue this, take it to PM.
This topic is about "Currently most broken units". Let's return to this. Tangent posts going forward after this warning may be deleted, and suspensions issued if necessary.
JNAProductions wrote: Dark Angels Hellblasters are pretty strong. Not sure if broken (probably not) but they're good.
Dark Angels main here!
They definitely aren't broken. The thing is that one of the big strengths of Hellblasters over devs is their mobility, and if you're moving them you aren't using the chapter tactic. They are still nice in Dark Angels due to Weapons of the Dark Age and stacking auras with Azrael and a Dark Shroud, which is awesome but is still not going to be making waves at tournaments.
JNAProductions wrote: Dark Angels Hellblasters are pretty strong. Not sure if broken (probably not) but they're good.
Even if they are, I think the brokenness would come from the combo and not the unit, unless hellblasters were broken to begin with.
True. It's WFtDA that really makes them strong, in my mind.
Although Hellblasters of any stripe are a solid unit.
I just saw a player using DA inceptors with plasma exterminators and WFtDA. They really looked strong - much better than hellblasters imo due to their deep-strike ability.
JNAProductions wrote: Dark Angels Hellblasters are pretty strong. Not sure if broken (probably not) but they're good.
Even if they are, I think the brokenness would come from the combo and not the unit, unless hellblasters were broken to begin with.
True. It's WFtDA that really makes them strong, in my mind.
Although Hellblasters of any stripe are a solid unit.
I just saw a player using DA inceptors with plasma exterminators and WFtDA. They really looked strong - much better than hellblasters imo due to their deep-strike ability.
They're brilliant! Statistically they kill a Daemon Prince in one turn, from deep strike, if they use the strat. That's a minimum squad, so less points than a kitted Prince too.
But still, not broken. There are stronger combos still!
Well, Hellbalsters definitely are one of the best marine units and DA ones are even better, but they're still far from broken. Marines are poor enough that even their best units are merely OK.
My problem with hellblasters is that there is a lot of negative to hit modifiers which really hurt them and once tied up in combat they are in for a bad time.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: My problem with hellblasters is that there is a lot of negative to hit modifiers which really hurt them and once tied up in combat they are in for a bad time.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: My problem with hellblasters is that there is a lot of negative to hit modifiers which really hurt them and once tied up in combat they are in for a bad time.
They also suffer from poor range.
I wouldn't say their range is bad per say. 30 inches is not awful, but to really get their points worth you want to be in happy hour range which is very dangerous considering all the nasty things that can charge them.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: My problem with hellblasters is that there is a lot of negative to hit modifiers which really hurt them and once tied up in combat they are in for a bad time.
They also suffer from poor range.
I wouldn't say their range is bad per say. 30 inches is not awful, but to really get their points worth you want to be in happy hour range which is very dangerous considering all the nasty things that can charge them.
The best comparison for me is Las devastators. I feel for a lot of lists you are choosing between one of the other. Obviously Devs do better against vehicles and monsters, and Hellblasters do better against elite infantry - but they can also threaten vehicles and monsters especially in DA with the strat.
Other than that, the main difference is range Vs mobility. For me that makes Devs better proactively, and Hellblasters better reactively (unless you are Raven Guard of course, then you can shove them in your opponent's face first turn!).
It's easier to neuter devestators by playing the terrain, but that's much harder to do against Hellblasters.
Which is better will depend a lot on who you are facing and what the wider game plan is for your army.
Martel732 wrote: Hellblasters are far too easy to kill to be considered broken. Even BAFNP hellblasters are super weak defensively.
Like Dark Reapers!
Whether or not a unit is durable or not is a function of many things, including effective range. A 48" range makes a T3 3+ far more durable, because they can more effectively camp in ruins in the corner of the map and do their thing. Also, you need to factor in how difficult it is to close on them. Compared to Hellblasters, Auspex Scan has a 12" range, meanwhile Forewarned is within Line of Sight, up to 48". Finally, those reapers will be 2+ with a minus to hit, while the hellblasters will be out in the open, no minus. Lastly, when you start factoring in the buffs that these units can receive, the advantage goes to the Dark Reapers. If you really think they're going to be shot, even if you aren't aware of Fire and Fade, you have Fortune.
A leviathan dread of either flavor is basically GG for hellblasters. Given how common those things are now, hellblasters are a MASSIVE risk. 4 of my last 7 games had a leviathan. The other 3 were Drukhari.
Martel732 wrote: Hellblasters are far too easy to kill to be considered broken. Even BAFNP hellblasters are super weak defensively.
Like Dark Reapers!
Whether or not a unit is durable or not is a function of many things, including effective range. A 48" range makes a T3 3+ far more durable, because they can more effectively camp in ruins in the corner of the map and do their thing. Also, you need to factor in how difficult it is to close on them. Compared to Hellblasters, Auspex Scan has a 12" range, meanwhile Forewarned is within Line of Sight, up to 48". Finally, those reapers will be 2+ with a minus to hit, while the hellblasters will be out in the open, no minus. Lastly, when you start factoring in the buffs that these units can receive, the advantage goes to the Dark Reapers. If you really think they're going to be shot, even if you aren't aware of Fire and Fade, you have Fortune.
But I assume you knew all of this...
Yes. . . Though I wonder why the Hellblasters are either out in the open, or not being selectively LOS blocked by armor or something if it's going to be an issue. Also, why no minus to hit? If you're gonna call Alaitoc why wouldnt you assume RG on the Hellblasters?
We did determine in the other thread that the contents of a Drop Pod can't be Forewarned against, so there's that. Or a big Jorm Gant drop can just soak all the fire without much trouble. At the end of the day they're still only T3 1W 3+ models. There's a limit to how tough they can be. The low T and single wound in particular makes them much more vulnerable to small arms than Hellblasters.
They're out in the open because in order to get within range they must be exposed. There is not terrain providing cover wherein they can take shelter without massively limiting their scope. I am speaking with the standard tournament terrain setup in mind. If you have a whole city on your gaming table then their value might change, as would the value of assault units in general. But in a competitive setting if the Hellblasters are in range they aren't in cover. Or, they're in cover, and their scope is severely limited. And when you start splitting your army up you find yourself pretty vulnerable. Are you going to really alpha deploy Hellblasters and let them get annihilated? They better make their points back that turn, and then some. I'm assuming you'd land a captain with them at least, increasing their cost and taking that buff away from the rest of the army...
Hellblasters cannot ride in a drop pod. You have very few limited options to deep strike them. Raven Guard, but this is heavily dependent on first turn, Deathwatch, the best way, and Space Wolves, with Outflank. Am I missing anything? These 3 ways to get Hellblasters into range. Dark Reapers can deepstrike for 1 cp. And when they do they hit on 3s. So if you think that squad of 10 reapers is dying turn 1 if they go second, you're wrong.
Dark Reapers are far less vulnerable to small arms because they are never exposed to small arms. And if they are, they are always in cover, because it's not hard to put 48" range models in ruins.
The second we start talking synergy of their relative armies, the Dark Reapers get even better, because they have more easily applied buffs (Guide, Fortune) and have better units supporting them (Kabalite Venoms, Hemlocks, etc).
The way to defeat reapers isn't small arms, it's with indirect fire, ideally ignoring cover. Because outside of the Exarch they're not shooting unless they have line of sight, and while they do see almost the entirety of the board, they can't see through walls.
And I didn't assume Raven Guard because Raven Guard are not the competitive way to run marines. Losing Guilliman for a pathetic boost that only affects infantry and walkers with a -1 isn't worth it. Eldar get -1 on EVERYTHING, which is why Alaitoc is always assumed. The second Raven Guard buff affects all units including flyers, etc, i'll assume Raven Guard.
JNAProductions wrote: Honestly, with how pricey Bobby G. is, I wouldn't call playing Ravenguard handicapping yourself.
And you would be wrong, but that's your prerogative.
Okay, so for 400 points, you get full rerolls to-hit and wound, and 3 CP (if the G-Man is your Warlord).
A Captain is around, what? 100 Points? (I don't own the Space Marine Dex, so correct any of these numbers if I'm wrong.)
A Lieutenant is 60 or so.
Three scout squads are 165.
So, for 75 points less, you get almost the same rerolls (all to-hit and 1s to-wound), 2 CP instead of three, and seventeen times the bodies.
I'm not going to say that adding a Primarch is a BAD move. He's still not bad, even at 400 points. But he's certainly pricey enough that other options are perfectly viable.
Based off the results at BAO, guard cp battery, shooting Knights, then CqC knights, then chaos knights, then guard CP battery, then captain slammy, then custode bikes...
GW really needs to kill that guard CP battery quickly. It's hard to balance anything else while that is giving armies 20+ CP to play with...
JNAProductions wrote: Honestly, with how pricey Bobby G. is, I wouldn't call playing Ravenguard handicapping yourself.
And you would be wrong, but that's your prerogative.
Okay, so for 400 points, you get full rerolls to-hit and wound, and 3 CP (if the G-Man is your Warlord).
A Captain is around, what? 100 Points? (I don't own the Space Marine Dex, so correct any of these numbers if I'm wrong.) A Lieutenant is 60 or so. Three scout squads are 165.
So, for 75 points less, you get almost the same rerolls (all to-hit and 1s to-wound), 2 CP instead of three, and seventeen times the bodies.
I'm not going to say that adding a Primarch is a BAD move. He's still not bad, even at 400 points. But he's certainly pricey enough that other options are perfectly viable.
I understand where you're coming from with this analysis. We discussed it at length in another thread, and essentially Guilliman works out to be a pretty significant boost in overall shooting efficiency. A captain and a lieutenant would provide full hit & 1s to wound if you make the captain a chapter master, for the cost of 3CP. It's worth it, and a no-brainer I agree, but that is a swing of 3cp. The challenge is that rerolling all wounds vs 1s to wound at minimum is a 33% boost in efficiency (wounding on 4s or 3s). As we discussed in the other thread, the true power of this is to stack strength 5& 6 shooting which comes in volumes, Guilliman pulls away significantly in this regard.
If the Raven Guard tactics applied to everything, I would agree. But they don't. They only apply to the stuff that isn't very good. The best way to run RG (IMHO) is with Hellfire + Krakk detachments, as they're not rolling to wound, and rerolling 1s to hit is enough as you have a Signum. It has its place maybe if you're trying to be hyper efficient and implement that one specific build. If you're interested in aggressors just make a kill team and deep strike it.
And as far as Imperial Guard goes, their infantry and HQs have been brokenly inexpensive since the launch of 8th. Nerfing the ability to get CP doesn't change the fact that they have 30 point HQs and 4 point troops with a decent gun and a 5+ save... Guardsmen should be 7 points, and Conscripts should be 5. ITC also needs to wise up and make Guardsmen squads give up reaper points.
Marmatag wrote: They're out in the open because in order to get within range they must be exposed. There is not terrain providing cover wherein they can take shelter without massively limiting their scope. I am speaking with the standard tournament terrain setup in mind. If you have a whole city on your gaming table then their value might change, as would the value of assault units in general. But in a competitive setting if the Hellblasters are in range they aren't in cover. Or, they're in cover, and their scope is severely limited. And when you start splitting your army up you find yourself pretty vulnerable. Are you going to really alpha deploy Hellblasters and let them get annihilated? They better make their points back that turn, and then some. I'm assuming you'd land a captain with them at least, increasing their cost and taking that buff away from the rest of the army...
Hellblasters cannot ride in a drop pod. You have very few limited options to deep strike them. Raven Guard, but this is heavily dependent on first turn, Deathwatch, the best way, and Space Wolves, with Outflank. Am I missing anything? These 3 ways to get Hellblasters into range. Dark Reapers can deepstrike for 1 cp. And when they do they hit on 3s. So if you think that squad of 10 reapers is dying turn 1 if they go second, you're wrong.
Dark Reapers are far less vulnerable to small arms because they are never exposed to small arms. And if they are, they are always in cover, because it's not hard to put 48" range models in ruins.
The second we start talking synergy of their relative armies, the Dark Reapers get even better, because they have more easily applied buffs (Guide, Fortune) and have better units supporting them (Kabalite Venoms, Hemlocks, etc).
The way to defeat reapers isn't small arms, it's with indirect fire, ideally ignoring cover. Because outside of the Exarch they're not shooting unless they have line of sight, and while they do see almost the entirety of the board, they can't see through walls.
And I didn't assume Raven Guard because Raven Guard are not the competitive way to run marines. Losing Guilliman for a pathetic boost that only affects infantry and walkers with a -1 isn't worth it. Eldar get -1 on EVERYTHING, which is why Alaitoc is always assumed. The second Raven Guard buff affects all units including flyers, etc, i'll assume Raven Guard.
That is a whole pile of assumptions there. No useful terrain, no other units in drop pods, no possibility of ignoring cover, no RG tactics... etc. There's little point arguing if you're going to make so many assumptions.
A lot of indirect fire weapons are also only 1W, making the Dark Reapers more vulnerable again. T3 1W. Find them with any weapon. Tunnelling Devouerer Gaunts could do it, and are scaleable with buffs. I like Drop Grav with marines, but I'm sure theres a number of ways to approach it.
In other news I'm excited to say that we may have a new eldar soup player in my area, so I'll get to see firsthand what all the whining is about. I saw Reapers, lots of Shining Spears, Cat Lady, Ravagers, Rangers, etc.
And as far as Imperial Guard goes, their infantry and HQs have been brokenly inexpensive since the launch of 8th. Nerfing the ability to get CP doesn't change the fact that they have 30 point HQs and 4 point troops with a decent gun and a 5+ save... Guardsmen should be 7 points, and Conscripts should be 5. ITC also needs to wise up and make Guardsmen squads give up reaper points.
I actually thought you had a good post going here until you claimed that Guardsman should be 7 points and Conscripts 5. Conscripts are almost universally recognized as terrible currently, with only extremely limited uses, and Guardsman at most need to be 5 points. At 7 points per model, I assume we would bump the already-pretty-bad Veterans to 9 points each and make sure they are never seen on a table ever again?
Just because you disagree with one part of the post does not make it a bad post. Guardsmen should be at minimum 5 pts. Although Kabalites coming in at 6 pts presents a lot of problems. I think Kabalites are more like an 8 pt model atm.
I could see guardsmen being 5, but at 6 points they are the same as boyz and I think I would easily rather have a boy over a guardsman at the same points cost, especially if you change orders as well. Point is at 6 points they go from really really good to bad for their cost. I think 5 is the sweet spot
And as far as Imperial Guard goes, their infantry and HQs have been brokenly inexpensive since the launch of 8th. Nerfing the ability to get CP doesn't change the fact that they have 30 point HQs and 4 point troops with a decent gun and a 5+ save... Guardsmen should be 7 points, and Conscripts should be 5. ITC also needs to wise up and make Guardsmen squads give up reaper points.
Guardsmen at 7 points need to have a 4+ save, Lasguns need either range increased or an AP value assigned to them, and Sergeants need to be able to issue Orders.
The "brokenly inexpensive" part of Guard infantry is because the infantry can die in fricking droves provided someone is willing to commit the firepower to it. I'm sorry that people are still having issues with them, really I am--but stop trying to treat them as you did before. Guardsmen get to have saves now.
Martel732 wrote: No 4 pt model should have a 5+ save in 8th ed. Period.
Then give them a 4+ and bump them to 5pts.
Also, lol @ your statement.
Skitarii Rangers(4+ save and 6+ invuln): 7pts
Vanguard(4+ save and 6+ invuln): 8 pts
Now, if you want to argue that Guardsmen should be better and receive an accordingly treated price bump? Totally okay with that.
But that's never your argument. You think they should just fall over and die and be 5-7pts.
Kanluwen, if a unit is OP at X point cost, and the way to balance it is to make them cost X+1, you can't buff them at the same time becaus then you end up in the same place. Unless you redesign it, and change his rules, values and point cost all together.
I agree that Guardsmen should be 5 pt. Kabalites should go to 7ppm, and Tau Firewarriors and Skitari Rangers and Vanguards should cost all 8 ppm. (And my biggest army is my fire warrior heavy Tau army). And now that we are at it, make Tempestus Scions 3 base points cheaper and make them pay for deepstrike with an upgrade like Reivers that cost 4-5 ppm.
Cheap deepstrike-less Scion would just make Vets even more irrelevant, while at the same time preventing your Scions from benefitting from regimental doctrine, thus they would represent Grenadier in a rather poor way
Bobthehero wrote: Cheap deepstrike-less Scion would just make Vets even more irrelevant, while at the same time preventing your Scions from benefitting from regimental doctrine, thus they would represent Grenadier in a rather poor way
Thats the point. Veterans are irrelevant at this point in time. If GW won't give them the options to have 4+ saves they should just delete them and make Scions have the regiment keyword.
The reality is that veterans suck and theres no reason to have your Scions inside Tauroxes Primes.
Galas wrote: Kanluwen, if a unit is OP at X point cost, and the way to balance it is to make them cost X+1, you can't buff them at the same time becaus then you end up in the same place. Unless you redesign it, and change his rules, values and point cost all together.
I agree that Guardsmen should be 5 pt. Kabalites should go to 7ppm, and Tau Firewarriors and Skitari Rangers and Vanguards should cost all 8 ppm. (And my biggest army is my fire warrior heavy Tau army). And now that we are at it, make Tempestus Scions 3 base points cheaper and make them pay for deepstrike with an upgrade like Reivers that cost 4-5 ppm.
Id agree with that for guardsmen and Kalabite points, cant comment on the others sadly.
Marmatag wrote: They're out in the open because in order to get within range they must be exposed. There is not terrain providing cover wherein they can take shelter without massively limiting their scope. I am speaking with the standard tournament terrain setup in mind. If you have a whole city on your gaming table then their value might change, as would the value of assault units in general. But in a competitive setting if the Hellblasters are in range they aren't in cover. Or, they're in cover, and their scope is severely limited. And when you start splitting your army up you find yourself pretty vulnerable. Are you going to really alpha deploy Hellblasters and let them get annihilated? They better make their points back that turn, and then some. I'm assuming you'd land a captain with them at least, increasing their cost and taking that buff away from the rest of the army...
Hellblasters cannot ride in a drop pod. You have very few limited options to deep strike them. Raven Guard, but this is heavily dependent on first turn, Deathwatch, the best way, and Space Wolves, with Outflank. Am I missing anything? These 3 ways to get Hellblasters into range. Dark Reapers can deepstrike for 1 cp. And when they do they hit on 3s. So if you think that squad of 10 reapers is dying turn 1 if they go second, you're wrong.
Dark Reapers are far less vulnerable to small arms because they are never exposed to small arms. And if they are, they are always in cover, because it's not hard to put 48" range models in ruins.
The second we start talking synergy of their relative armies, the Dark Reapers get even better, because they have more easily applied buffs (Guide, Fortune) and have better units supporting them (Kabalite Venoms, Hemlocks, etc).
The way to defeat reapers isn't small arms, it's with indirect fire, ideally ignoring cover. Because outside of the Exarch they're not shooting unless they have line of sight, and while they do see almost the entirety of the board, they can't see through walls.
And I didn't assume Raven Guard because Raven Guard are not the competitive way to run marines. Losing Guilliman for a pathetic boost that only affects infantry and walkers with a -1 isn't worth it. Eldar get -1 on EVERYTHING, which is why Alaitoc is always assumed. The second Raven Guard buff affects all units including flyers, etc, i'll assume Raven Guard.
That is a whole pile of assumptions there. No useful terrain, no other units in drop pods, no possibility of ignoring cover, no RG tactics... etc. There's little point arguing if you're going to make so many assumptions.
A lot of indirect fire weapons are also only 1W, making the Dark Reapers more vulnerable again. T3 1W. Find them with any weapon. Tunnelling Devouerer Gaunts could do it, and are scaleable with buffs. I like Drop Grav with marines, but I'm sure theres a number of ways to approach it.
In other news I'm excited to say that we may have a new eldar soup player in my area, so I'll get to see firsthand what all the whining is about. I saw Reapers, lots of Shining Spears, Cat Lady, Ravagers, Rangers, etc.
I'm making the assumption of a standard tournament table. Since we have to operate on the basis of SOME assumptions regarding terrain, what do you propose? We can't have a discussion about the merits of units without some base agreement on what a standard warhammer table should have on it.
Don't talk about devourer gaunts, I actually play Tyranids. For less points i can bring 6 hive guard and chew them up with indirect fire that ignores cover. Meanwhile those Gaunt bombs are a complete waste post DS update, and if you ever find yourself in a chess clock scenario 30 guants are not worth the time it takes to play them. You'll lose on time, every time.
And when you play the Eldar guy, and you are hitting his Hemlock Wraithfighers on 6s with your heavies, and in turn they're annihilating 6d3 of any base marine per turn (regardless of your tactics) anywhere on the board, tell me how it goes.
Galas wrote: Kanluwen, if a unit is OP at X point cost, and the way to balance it is to make them cost X+1, you can't buff them at the same time becaus then you end up in the same place. Unless you redesign it, and change his rules, values and point cost all together.
You understand that at 5pts, Guardsmen will cease to exist as an option again right?
There's a reason why Conscripts were so dominant prior to their nerf. Guard players aren't the ones abusing this crap and hopping them from one type to the other as the winds blow. It's people running soup. You can try to convince me until you're blue in the face, but putting it bluntly? You'd be wrong.
You need to understand this and understand it well:
Giving a Guardsman a 4+ save is worth 1 pt. He'll still be at BS4+ when he's shooting, he'll still have to be within a certain range of an Officer to receive an Order, he'll still only be able to receive 1 Order per turn, etc.
Literally the only thing that changes is that he gets a 4+ save.
Now that's the reason why the post that I made specifically called out that if he wanted to argue Guardsmen should be better and receive an accordingly treated price bump, I would be okay with his suggestions. But again: This is never the case. It's always that they shouldn't get a save and they should just fall over dead while being 5-7pts.
I agree that Guardsmen should be 5 pt. Kabalites should go to 7ppm
No, they shouldn't. Not until their stuff becomes aura based rather than triggered by specific circumstances.
and Tau Firewarriors and Skitari Rangers and Vanguards should cost all 8 ppm. (And my biggest army is my fire warrior heavy Tau army).
Out of the three things you just named, two are 7 pts while 1 is 8. The 8 pts item has an aura effect that makes them more effective against CC units--which is the range bracket that it usually will be getting into, given its weapon nature.
And now that we are at it, make Tempestus Scions 3 base points cheaper and make them pay for deepstrike with an upgrade like Reivers that cost 4-5 ppm.
Sure, and then Scions get the benefit of the Militarum Tempestus
Bobthehero wrote: Cheap deepstrike-less Scion would just make Vets even more irrelevant, while at the same time preventing your Scions from benefitting from regimental doctrine, thus they would represent Grenadier in a rather poor way
Thats the point. Veterans are irrelevant at this point in time. If GW won't give them the options to have 4+ saves they should just delete them and make Scions have the regiment keyword.
The reality is that veterans suck and theres no reason to have your Scions inside Tauroxes Primes.
That's because the Taurox Prime wasn't really designed as a transport. It's effectively the Razorback of the Guard--a guntruck that can carry some people.
Additionally, Veterans are "irrelevant" because they're in the Elites slot.
They're "irrelevant" because the points cost for their schtick(multiple special weapons) is costed the same as a unit that Deep Strikes.
They're "irrelevant" because, bluntly, they're effectively just Guardsmen with BS3+ instead of 4+.
Thats my point. Veterans and Tempestus Scions are just the same thing. But Veterans are a left over that has lost all of his value and reason to be. Is clear that Tempestus are there to be the elite Imperial Guard.
Tauroxes Primes maybe are designed more as a gunboat but thematically it still works as a transport for Tempestus. And I just want to stop feeling stupid everytime I put a Tempestus squad inside a Taurox instead of deepstriking them
Thats why I hope GW just merges both dathasheets and make Tempestus Elites with "regiment" keyword, and make them troops if they are Tempestus Scions, like Khorne Berzerkers.
And I disagree that a 5ppm model with the amount of sinergy IG has and a 4+ save would be balanced. And no, 3ppm conscripts where used by Imperial Guard lists too, not soup. In the time of conscript+Commisar spam, soup lists wheren't actually that common. The TOP lists where Guilliman+Razorback/Stormraven spam or Conscript spam. But I don't follow this discussion because this his circular and at this point tiresome. GW has decided that Imperial Guardsmen should cost 4ppm. I can live with it. If they decide in the future to make them 5ppm, then the better.
And I know that Vanguard have that aura over Rangers. Now that you have pointed it out, with the new FW transport for Mechanicum, yeah, I believe Vanguard have merits to be 1 point more expensive than Rangers. But before, without transport, in my opinion they wheren't valuable enough to cost more, because it was very hard for them to enter meele in a shooty army.
"Sure, and then Scions get the benefit of the Militarum Tempestus "
I don't understand this. Yes, they get the benefit?
As a guard player. Guardsmen really should be 5ppm if you are comparing to things like space marines or ork boyz.
However, with the release of the new codices and things like rangers, kabalites, and fire warriors being priced how they are, 4ppm guardsmen are right where they should be. Instead of fixing things, GW doubled down on the concept of cheap horde infantry.
Galas wrote: Thats my point. Veterans and Tempestus Scions are just the same thing. But Veterans are a left over that has lost all of his value and reason to be. Is clear that Tempestus are there to be the elite Imperial Guard.
No actually, they aren't. They're there to be a force that exists within the framework of the organization that the Guard is a part of, but is separate to them.
Veterans on the other hand are those Guardsmen who have lived long enough through everything they've seen to get a few dirty tricks and work on their aim.
Only thing is the "dirty tricks" are gone.
Tauroxes Primes maybe are designed more as a gunboat but thematically it still works as a transport for Tempestus. And I just want to stop feeling stupid everytime I put a Tempestus squad inside a Taurox instead of deepstriking them
Then have the transport on the field and deep strike them in first...? I mean, that's what we've had fluff mention of.
Thats why I hope GW just merges both dathasheets and make Tempestus Elites with "regiment" keyword, and make them troops if they are Tempestus Scions, like Khorne Berzerkers.
Yeah...no. The current system is fine, but Veterans need a reason to be taken.
And I disagree that a 5ppm model with the amount of sinergy IG has and a 4+ save would be balanced. And no, 3ppm conscripts where used by Imperial Guard lists too, not soup. In the time of conscript+Commisar spam, soup lists wheren't actually that common. The TOP lists where Guilliman+Razorback/Stormraven spam or Conscript spam. But I don't follow this discussion because this his circular and at this point tiresome. GW has decided that Imperial Guardsmen should cost 4ppm. I can live with it. If they decide in the future to make them 5ppm, then the better.
What synergy? Orders? The thing that they can only accept 1 of per turn?
3ppm Conscripts lasted until the first big FAQ for Guard. As soon as Commissars got nerfed and Conscripts went to 4pts, they ceased to be a Big Deal for Guard--but continued to be a Big Deal for soup.
Also, you're wrong. Soup lists were fairly common from the outset of 8th.
And I know that Vanguard have that aura over Rangers. Now that you have pointed it out, with the new FW transport for Mechanicum, yeah, I believe Vanguard have merits to be 1 point more expensive than Rangers. But before, without transport, in my opinion they wheren't valuable enough to cost more, because it was very hard for them to enter meele in a shooty army.
Most people who played pure Skitarii likely know that Vanguard aren't there to "enter melee". They're there to soak up charges and provide a surprisingly annoying speed bump.
"Sure, and then Scions get the benefit of the Militarum Tempestus "
I don't understand this. Yes, they get the benefit?
Reivers get their benefits with no caveats. Scions don't.
Galas wrote: Yeah. Making Firewarriors, Skitarii, Kabalites, etc... cheaper was a mistake. Kroot on the other hand at 5ppm are in a very nice spot.
Agreed. If they reduce the price of boyz in the codex with no other changes but with the addtion of clan rules/chapter tactics, that would certainly be insane (not that I would complain , but orks have been 6 points and essentially the same statline for like 5 editions now so I dont see that changing...I hope). I think the problem was not necessarily making infantry cheaper, but the combination of cheaper and chapter tactics/equivalents.
Guardsmen on their own with no buffs arnt that amazing even at 4 points, its when you throw in orders (which an arguement should be made for making CCs more expensive, not guardsmen) and chapter tactics/cadians that they become amazing
Lets be honest here: if IG infantry got nerfed to 5pts, everyone using the Guard codex for CP battery and screens will just switch them to conscripts, and this whole stupid cycle will start all over again.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Lets be honest here: if IG infantry got nerfed to 5pts, everyone using the Guard codex for CP battery and screens will just switch them to conscripts, and this whole stupid cycle will start all over again.
Yeah, I think the real issue here is that the ally system really wasn't thought out enough before they implemented it. With the number of changes they've had to make to it, and with how it currently makes armies like Imperial Guard an easy-access command point engine, it really needs to re-done. Even if they find a patch for this, it's clear that more issues will continue to pop up. I was factions to be able to be completely viable solely using their base codex, and not having to rely on other factions to ally in for good chances at victory.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Lets be honest here: if IG infantry got nerfed to 5pts, everyone using the Guard codex for CP battery and screens will just switch them to conscripts, and this whole stupid cycle will start all over again.
Yeah, I think the real issue here is that the ally system really wasn't thought out enough before they implemented it. With the number of changes they've had to make to it, and with how it currently makes armies like Imperial Guard an easy-access command point engine, it really needs to re-done. Even if they find a patch for this, it's clear that more issues will continue to pop up. I was factions to be able to be completely viable solely using their base codex, and not having to rely on other factions to ally in for good chances at victory.
The ally system was thought through--but the issue is that they didn't factor in numbercrunching listwizards.
Think about it:
We have "Allied" Detachments as an option, as in things where you suffer -1 Command Point but get to take just a single unit. That you can take things like Brigades or Battalions is where the issue lies--alongside of the ability to put Relics on Allied characters.
Only thing I don't understand is if this is some sort of satire, or if he genuinely struggles so hard that they believe this garbage. 5pt Guardsmen "cease to be an option"? But Neophytes and Hormagants for example both still see play at that price point?
Kanluwen wrote:if you want to argue that Guardsmen should be better and receive an accordingly treated price bump? Totally okay with that.
I'm sure you would be, because you seem to vastly misunderstand the role of a Guardsmen. Hint, it's not shrugging off half of three quarters of all bullets thrown his way.
Guardsmen at 5 pts would not change any soups. Their cp battery would be 30 pts more expensive wich is nothing in the grand scheme. Also conscripts are minimum 20 dudes/squad yes? They would still be more expensive than infantry squads to get the battallion cp.
ShredderShards wrote: Only thing I don't understand is if this is some sort of satire, or if he genuinely struggles so hard that they believe this garbage. 5pt Guardsmen "cease to be an option"? But Neophytes and Hormagants for example both still see play at that price point?
Show me in the Genestealer Cultist list where there's a unit basically the same as the Neophytes that is the same points cost but gains a better payout from a GSC buff.
That's the difference between Guardsmen and Conscripts. Conscripts are a 50/50 shot to be Ordered but when given FRSRF, they get a significantly higher shot output compared to even a barebones Infantry Squad(which gets 90% effectiveness, thanks to the Sergeant being mandated to not have a Lasgun).
Once Conscripts were put at a higher points cost than basic Guardsmen and given the 50/50 shot on receiving Orders alongside of the Commissar butchering, that's when MSU Guard started to show up as a thing.
Kanluwen wrote:if you want to argue that Guardsmen should be better and receive an accordingly treated price bump? Totally okay with that.
I'm sure you would be, because you seem to vastly misunderstand the role of a Guardsmen. Hint, it's not shrugging off half of three quarters of all bullets thrown his way.
The role of Guardsmen is to be the mainstay infantry unit in the Guard's army list. Guardsmen make up the Special Weapon Squads(that nobody really takes) and Heavy Weapon Squads(ditto).
Conscripts' role is to flood the field with bodies.
Scions' role is to operate upfield from the gunline and go after harder targets.
Veterans' role is to be flexible in what they bring.
Oh sorry, did you think their role was just to sit there and Lasgun things? Maybe to generate Command Points for Marine armies? Meatshields for tanks+artillery?
Nope. They have a role and they're unable to perform it as it stands--without a significant overhaul to the army, them being 4pts is the only way it really works.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Lets be honest here: if IG infantry got nerfed to 5pts, everyone using the Guard codex for CP battery and screens will just switch them to conscripts, and this whole stupid cycle will start all over again.
But they'd also give up a guaranteed 3 points of reaper which they aren't right now, diminished access to orders, and an extra 3 Cadian mortar teams. These are non trivial things.
And conscripts should be 5 points, with guardsmen costing more. Sorry IG folks, your infantry is undercosted and it's ridiculous.
Gitdakka wrote: Guardsmen at 5 pts would not change any soups. Their cp battery would be 30 pts more expensive wich is nothing in the grand scheme. Also conscripts are minimum 20 dudes/squad yes? They would still be more expensive than infantry squads to get the battallion cp.
30 points is something.
The aim is to make the option slightly less attractive, not kill it from space.
I don't think anything is going to change unless GW reworks how CP works. The Kill Team rules for that mechanic are really nice, though a straight port of them into 40k wouldn't work.
I'll say it again even though it's been said in 100 different threads. You don't see solo guard crushing tournaments will 200 guardsmen because they aren't broken. You don't see any solo guard lists really dominating because the codex isn't broken. What you do see is guardsman all over the place generating CP for factions with good expensive stratigems. Don't screw over guard because of soup being good. Simply make it so that CP can only be used by detachments with the same keyword that generated it and you will see 80% of guard melt out of list overnight. So <blood angel> cannot use CP generated by <cadia>. It will also bring up the power level of every single xenos codex instantly and level out the power of imperium, chaos and eldar
I feel bad for Eldar player's not playing Alaitoc (i.e. not being an donkey-cave in friendly games), but that doesn't change that a Hemlock Wraithfighter is far too cheap for what it can do (as Alaitoc).
But the real problem is the stupid armywide -1 to hit. That trait should have never existed. I really hope they get rid of those in the next CA, would fix a lot of balance issues at one fell swoop.
Yes because Raven Guard, Alpha Legion, and Stygies are causing SOOOOOO many problems...
Asmodios wrote: I'll say it again even though it's been said in 100 different threads. You don't see solo guard crushing tournaments will 200 guardsmen because they aren't broken. You don't see any solo guard lists really dominating because the codex isn't broken. What you do see is guardsman all over the place generating CP for factions with good expensive stratigems. Don't screw over guard because of soup being good. Simply make it so that CP can only be used by detachments with the same keyword that generated it and you will see 80% of guard melt out of list overnight. So <blood angel> cannot use CP generated by <cadia>. It will also bring up the power level of every single xenos codex instantly and level out the power of imperium, chaos and eldar
Yes you do, mono guard is quite well and has won GTs recently. In the running for best player in the world is a mono guard player.
The codex is incredibly strong, and is behind only Eldar, Dark Eldar, Custodes (because they can exploit guard), and Imperial Knights (because they can exploit guard).
ShredderShards wrote: Only thing I don't understand is if this is some sort of satire, or if he genuinely struggles so hard that they believe this garbage. 5pt Guardsmen "cease to be an option"? But Neophytes and Hormagants for example both still see play at that price point?
Show me in the Genestealer Cultist list where there's a unit basically the same as the Neophytes that is the same points cost but gains a better payout from a GSC buff.
That's the difference between Guardsmen and Conscripts. Conscripts are a 50/50 shot to be Ordered but when given FRSRF, they get a significantly higher shot output compared to even a barebones Infantry Squad(which gets 90% effectiveness, thanks to the Sergeant being mandated to not have a Lasgun).
Wait so your argument is that they won't see play, because you have another very strong infantry unit in the dex ready to take their place? How's that any different to how it is now? Of the two units, each is going to do a specific role better most the time? And this way they are no longer so ridiculous external from the dex?
And others have pointed out Guardsmen will still have roles anyway, so this is preferable in multiple ways to how it is now.
Kanluwen wrote:
The role of Guardsmen is to be the mainstay infantry unit in the Guard's army list. Guardsmen make up the Special Weapon Squads(that nobody really takes) and Heavy Weapon Squads(ditto).
Conscripts' role is to flood the field with bodies.
Scions' role is to operate upfield from the gunline and go after harder targets.
Veterans' role is to be flexible in what they bring.
Oh sorry, did you think their role was just to sit there and Lasgun things? Maybe to generate Command Points for Marine armies? Meatshields for tanks+artillery?
Nope. They have a role and they're unable to perform it as it stands--without a significant overhaul to the army, them being 4pts is the only way it really works.
You literally said you'd be happy at them being 5 pts with a 4+ save. That means they shrug off las fire like nothing. It takes 4 autogun/las hits, usually at BS4 making it 8 shots, to kill a single guardsmen with those numbers. That is NOT an infantry unit balanced for this game. That's ridiculously durable for a unit the price of a Hormagant, that can be spammed and given buffs.
ShredderShards wrote: Only thing I don't understand is if this is some sort of satire, or if he genuinely struggles so hard that they believe this garbage. 5pt Guardsmen "cease to be an option"? But Neophytes and Hormagants for example both still see play at that price point?
Show me in the Genestealer Cultist list where there's a unit basically the same as the Neophytes that is the same points cost but gains a better payout from a GSC buff.
That's the difference between Guardsmen and Conscripts. Conscripts are a 50/50 shot to be Ordered but when given FRSRF, they get a significantly higher shot output compared to even a barebones Infantry Squad(which gets 90% effectiveness, thanks to the Sergeant being mandated to not have a Lasgun).
Wait so your argument is that they won't see play, because you have another very strong infantry unit in the dex ready to take their place? How's that any different to how it is now? Of the two units, each is going to do a specific role better most the time? And this way they are no longer so ridiculous external from the dex?
And others have pointed out Guardsmen will still have roles anyway, so this is preferable in multiple ways to how it is now.
Kanluwen wrote:
The role of Guardsmen is to be the mainstay infantry unit in the Guard's army list. Guardsmen make up the Special Weapon Squads(that nobody really takes) and Heavy Weapon Squads(ditto).
Conscripts' role is to flood the field with bodies.
Scions' role is to operate upfield from the gunline and go after harder targets.
Veterans' role is to be flexible in what they bring.
Oh sorry, did you think their role was just to sit there and Lasgun things? Maybe to generate Command Points for Marine armies? Meatshields for tanks+artillery?
Nope. They have a role and they're unable to perform it as it stands--without a significant overhaul to the army, them being 4pts is the only way it really works.
You literally said you'd be happy at them being 5 pts with a 4+ save. That means they shrug off las fire like nothing. It takes 4 autogun/las hits, usually at BS4 making it 8 shots, to kill a single guardsmen with those numbers. That is NOT an infantry unit balanced for this game. That's ridiculously durable for a unit the price of a Hormagant, that can be spammed and given buffs.
He's clearly delusional for asking a 4+ save on a FIVE POINT INFANTRY model
Yes because Raven Guard, Alpha Legion, and Stygies are causing SOOOOOO many problems...
They're the best traits in their books. It is just that the armies themselves are mediocre. Get rid of these stupid traits and balance the armies so that they're competitive regardless of which subfaction you want to play.
Asmodios wrote: I'll say it again even though it's been said in 100 different threads. You don't see solo guard crushing tournaments will 200 guardsmen because they aren't broken. You don't see any solo guard lists really dominating because the codex isn't broken. What you do see is guardsman all over the place generating CP for factions with good expensive stratigems. Don't screw over guard because of soup being good. Simply make it so that CP can only be used by detachments with the same keyword that generated it and you will see 80% of guard melt out of list overnight. So <blood angel> cannot use CP generated by <cadia>. It will also bring up the power level of every single xenos codex instantly and level out the power of imperium, chaos and eldar
Yes you do, mono guard is quite well and has won GTs recently. In the running for best player in the world is a mono guard player.
The codex is incredibly strong, and is behind only Eldar, Dark Eldar, Custodes (because they can exploit guard), and Imperial Knights (because they can exploit guard).
That's actually pretty fair top 5 imo.
Sidenote, why do people who don't follow tournament scenes at all, talk about the assumed positioning of their army in them? Solo Guard does well all the time at tournaments.
KurtAngle2 wrote: Kill Team points costs are probably indicative of expected changes in CA 2018...I'd check them if I were you
I haven't checked them yet. Are the rules free? Can anyone give me a rough idea of what changes there is in there?
Yes because Raven Guard, Alpha Legion, and Stygies are causing SOOOOOO many problems...
They're the best traits in their books. It is just that the armies themselves are mediocre. Get rid of these stupid traits and balance the armies so that they're competitive regardless of which subfaction you want to play.
Is it really that those are the best traits in the book, or is it that a majority of the other traits are garbage?
ShredderShards wrote: Only thing I don't understand is if this is some sort of satire, or if he genuinely struggles so hard that they believe this garbage. 5pt Guardsmen "cease to be an option"? But Neophytes and Hormagants for example both still see play at that price point?
Show me in the Genestealer Cultist list where there's a unit basically the same as the Neophytes that is the same points cost but gains a better payout from a GSC buff.
That's the difference between Guardsmen and Conscripts. Conscripts are a 50/50 shot to be Ordered but when given FRSRF, they get a significantly higher shot output compared to even a barebones Infantry Squad(which gets 90% effectiveness, thanks to the Sergeant being mandated to not have a Lasgun).
Wait so your argument is that they won't see play, because you have another very strong infantry unit in the dex ready to take their place? How's that any different to how it is now? Of the two units, each is going to do a specific role better most the time? And this way they are no longer so ridiculous external from the dex?
And others have pointed out Guardsmen will still have roles anyway, so this is preferable in multiple ways to how it is now.
So basically, you have no clue what the heck you're talking about? Good to know.
Kanluwen wrote:
The role of Guardsmen is to be the mainstay infantry unit in the Guard's army list. Guardsmen make up the Special Weapon Squads(that nobody really takes) and Heavy Weapon Squads(ditto).
Conscripts' role is to flood the field with bodies.
Scions' role is to operate upfield from the gunline and go after harder targets.
Veterans' role is to be flexible in what they bring.
Oh sorry, did you think their role was just to sit there and Lasgun things? Maybe to generate Command Points for Marine armies? Meatshields for tanks+artillery?
Nope. They have a role and they're unable to perform it as it stands--without a significant overhaul to the army, them being 4pts is the only way it really works.
You literally said you'd be happy at them being 5 pts with a 4+ save. That means they shrug off las fire like nothing. It takes 4 autogun/las hits, usually at BS4 making it 8 shots, to kill a single guardsmen with those numbers.
And your point is? Genestealer Cultists(the closest GEQ--it's still not 100% as Neophytes are LD7/8 versus Guard Infantry [and Scions!] being 6/7) have Neophyte Hybrids, which are able to go to unit size of 20.
So a single unit of 20 Neophytes, armed with Autoguns(or Lasguns--because they can take those too!) gets to put 20 shots out at 24" versus a Guard Squad of 10 putting out 9 at 24".
Going off of your numbers, that means that there's 5 Guardsmen(half the squad) dead to a unit that has the same proposed points value but the ability to be taken in larger numbers while also taking more weapon options and having a higher leadership value and the ability to be dropped in at shorter range via alternate deployment methods(one of which actually allows for them to immediately make a shooting attack outside of sequence).
And that's not even getting into the Acolyte Iconward, which makes those Neophytes a fair bit more survivable than a Guard Infantry Squad (even factoring in nearby Command Squads with Medics--Medic Kit can only be used once per turn on a squad) or the variability in kit that Neophytes have versus Guard.
That is NOT an infantry unit balanced for this game. That's ridiculously durable for a unit the price of a Hormagant, that can be spammed and given buffs.
They cannot be given BUFFS, plural, outside of a specific Relic(Laurels of Command on a 4+, a second Order can be issued to the unit that just got an Order issued to them). They can be given a SINGLE BUFF , provided they're within a certain range of another model. Being given that single buff locks them out from receiving others outside of the Laurels of Command and that Order can't be used to buff anyone else.
Why the heck is it so difficult for people to understand that while yeah, Orders have a bit of range to them compared to Auras...they only affect one unit and they lock out other things unless you've taken specific Relics/Warlord Traits?!
Asmodios wrote: I'll say it again even though it's been said in 100 different threads. You don't see solo guard crushing tournaments will 200 guardsmen because they aren't broken. You don't see any solo guard lists really dominating because the codex isn't broken. What you do see is guardsman all over the place generating CP for factions with good expensive stratigems. Don't screw over guard because of soup being good. Simply make it so that CP can only be used by detachments with the same keyword that generated it and you will see 80% of guard melt out of list overnight. So <blood angel> cannot use CP generated by <cadia>. It will also bring up the power level of every single xenos codex instantly and level out the power of imperium, chaos and eldar
Yes you do, mono guard is quite well and has won GTs recently. In the running for best player in the world is a mono guard player.
The codex is incredibly strong, and is behind only Eldar, Dark Eldar, Custodes (because they can exploit guard), and Imperial Knights (because they can exploit guard).
1. I said "crushing tournaments" mono guard should be able to win GTs.... as should every list
2. You made my point by bringing up knights and custodes and people often lump these lists as mono guard
Once again mono guard is not running around destroying things. If any mono faction should be complained about its DE that are having way more success. The fact is that guard supporting x is running around crushing things because CP sharing is just a bad idea. Most strategems in elite books were not made with the idea that you would be able to use 20+ CP in a game. You can raise the points of guard until eventually you will just switch what gets souped in and never actually solve the problem
Yeah because Orders only affecting one unit matters when the unit giving the order is how many points again? I'm gonna give you a hint: you're not paying the same price as a Necron Overlord.
Asmodios wrote: I'll say it again even though it's been said in 100 different threads. You don't see solo guard crushing tournaments will 200 guardsmen because they aren't broken. You don't see any solo guard lists really dominating because the codex isn't broken. What you do see is guardsman all over the place generating CP for factions with good expensive stratigems. Don't screw over guard because of soup being good. Simply make it so that CP can only be used by detachments with the same keyword that generated it and you will see 80% of guard melt out of list overnight. So <blood angel> cannot use CP generated by <cadia>. It will also bring up the power level of every single xenos codex instantly and level out the power of imperium, chaos and eldar
Yes you do, mono guard is quite well and has won GTs recently. In the running for best player in the world is a mono guard player.
The codex is incredibly strong, and is behind only Eldar, Dark Eldar, Custodes (because they can exploit guard), and Imperial Knights (because they can exploit guard).
That's actually pretty fair top 5 imo.
Sidenote, why do people who don't follow tournament scenes at all, talk about the assumed positioning of their army in them? Solo Guard does well all the time at tournaments.
Why do people who don't know how Guard work talk about the points values of them?
KurtAngle2 wrote: Kill Team points costs are probably indicative of expected changes in CA 2018...I'd check them if I were you
I haven't checked them yet. Are the rules free? Can anyone give me a rough idea of what changes there is in there?
It's not the same game, so the points differences are pretty much useless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Yeah because Orders only affecting one unit matters when the unit giving the order is how many points again? I'm gonna give you a hint: you're not paying the same price as a Necron Overlord.
6" radius for issuing an Order, with an HQ only getting to issue 2 Orders and only to <Regiment> Infantry units.
So yeah. Officers are cheap. They also have to be right there unless you're seeding the board with Vox-Casters, which brings the range to 18" instead--but keeps it as 1 unit being affected.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MUijmVwpFg&t=568s Here for june this guy breaks down top 10 armies every month by number of top 10 finishes at GT guard finishes 4th overall being beaten out by 2 space elves factions. Now one of those lists doing well is catachan mono guard..... sweet we have one competitive list the other ones are simply majority guard but not mono. The fact is that when he does it every month its typical soup armies and you will see this all through 8th. You have to actually read whats in the list not what it says because very few people run actual mono lists. Even adding a single shield captain makes that list not a mono guard list and that is what is dominating tournaments because yes guard are amazing when you can add in other units that bring something that the codex doesn't have.
But it simply amazes me that i see "nuke guard" in about 10 posts a week on dakka but almost nothing in comparison about DE or eldar in general even though they regularly have more top 10 finishes then any imperium faction each month
ShredderShards wrote: Only thing I don't understand is if this is some sort of satire, or if he genuinely struggles so hard that they believe this garbage. 5pt Guardsmen "cease to be an option"? But Neophytes and Hormagants for example both still see play at that price point?
Show me in the Genestealer Cultist list where there's a unit basically the same as the Neophytes that is the same points cost but gains a better payout from a GSC buff. That's the difference between Guardsmen and Conscripts. Conscripts are a 50/50 shot to be Ordered but when given FRSRF, they get a significantly higher shot output compared to even a barebones Infantry Squad(which gets 90% effectiveness, thanks to the Sergeant being mandated to not have a Lasgun).
Wait so your argument is that they won't see play, because you have another very strong infantry unit in the dex ready to take their place? How's that any different to how it is now? Of the two units, each is going to do a specific role better most the time? And this way they are no longer so ridiculous external from the dex?
And others have pointed out Guardsmen will still have roles anyway, so this is preferable in multiple ways to how it is now.
So basically, you have no clue what the heck you're talking about? Good to know.
Excellent response to all that stronger logic you were faced with! Don't have to think of a counter to logic if you just attack the guy who posted it and move on the the next point! Good to see how irrational this discussion is making you.
Kanluwen wrote: The role of Guardsmen is to be the mainstay infantry unit in the Guard's army list. Guardsmen make up the Special Weapon Squads(that nobody really takes) and Heavy Weapon Squads(ditto). Conscripts' role is to flood the field with bodies. Scions' role is to operate upfield from the gunline and go after harder targets. Veterans' role is to be flexible in what they bring.
Oh sorry, did you think their role was just to sit there and Lasgun things? Maybe to generate Command Points for Marine armies? Meatshields for tanks+artillery? Nope. They have a role and they're unable to perform it as it stands--without a significant overhaul to the army, them being 4pts is the only way it really works.
You literally said you'd be happy at them being 5 pts with a 4+ save. That means they shrug off las fire like nothing. It takes 4 autogun/las hits, usually at BS4 making it 8 shots, to kill a single guardsmen with those numbers.
And your point is? Genestealer Cultists(the closest GEQ--it's still not 100% as Neophytes are LD7/8 versus Guard Infantry [and Scions!] being 6/7) have Neophyte Hybrids, which are able to go to unit size of 20. So a single unit of 20 Neophytes, armed with Autoguns(or Lasguns--because they can take those too!) gets to put 20 shots out at 24" versus a Guard Squad of 10 putting out 9 at 24". Going off of your numbers, that means that there's 5 Guardsmen(half the squad) dead to a unit that has the same proposed points value but the ability to be taken in larger numbers while also taking more weapon options and having a higher leadership value and the ability to be dropped in at shorter range via alternate deployment methods(one of which actually allows for them to immediately make a shooting attack outside of sequence).
And that's not even getting into the Acolyte Iconward, which makes those Neophytes a fair bit more survivable than a Guard Infantry Squad (even factoring in nearby Command Squads with Medics--Medic Kit can only be used once per turn on a squad) or the variability in kit that Neophytes have versus Guard.
Man WHAT? You're comparing literally double the amount points worth of Neophytes, with Guardsmen, simply because of max squad size? DERP. You compare units point for point derp derp derp, not by max squad size, lol.
And even then, going off this terrible logic, your maths is well off. 20 S3 shots at BS4+ vs T3 Guardsmen with a 4+ save, who are being outnumbered by literally DOUBLE as many points of Neophytes, sees literally 2.5 Guardsmen. Those Guardsmen firing would almost match that for half the points, killing slightly under 2 Neophytes themselves.
This is literally what you are saying would be fine. Get a stronger grip of this game, especially before telling others they don't understand it.
That is NOT an infantry unit balanced for this game. That's ridiculously durable for a unit the price of a Hormagant, that can be spammed and given buffs.
They cannot be given BUFFS, plural, outside of a specific Relic(Laurels of Command on a 4+, a second Order can be issued to the unit that just got an Order issued to them). They can be given a SINGLE BUFF , provided they're within a certain range of another model. Being given that single buff locks them out from receiving others outside of the Laurels of Command and that Order can't be used to buff anyone else.
So if I was to take them in Catachan Infantry for +1 S, and put them near Straken for +1 A, +1 LD (oh and he gives two orders himself) would that count as buffing these models from their original statline? You included the Iconward buff in your derp level maths up above, so where's the consistency?
Seems like your argument is basically if Guard have it = bad, if anyone else has it = so strong. This argument is so terrible.
Asmodios wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0MUijmVwpFg&t=568s
Here for june this guy breaks down top 10 armies every month by number of top 10 finishes at GT guard finishes 4th overall being beaten out by 2 space elves factions. Now one of those lists doing well is catachan mono guard..... sweet we have one competitive list the other ones are simply majority guard but not mono. The fact is that when he does it every month its typical soup armies and you will see this all through 8th. You have to actually read whats in the list not what it says because very few people run actual mono lists. Even adding a single shield captain makes that list not a mono guard list and that is what is dominating tournaments because yes guard are amazing when you can add in other units that bring something that the codex doesn't have.
But it simply amazes me that i see "nuke guard" in about 10 posts a week on dakka but almost nothing in comparison about DE or eldar in general even though they regularly have more top 10 finishes then any imperium faction each month
IG and DE are both considerably more obnoxious than CWE, imo. DE have so much gak to nerf, it's almost too overwhelming.
I feel bad for Eldar player's not playing Alaitoc (i.e. not being an donkey-cave in friendly games), but that doesn't change that a Hemlock Wraithfighter is far too cheap for what it can do (as Alaitoc).
But the real problem is the stupid armywide -1 to hit. That trait should have never existed. I really hope they get rid of those in the next CA, would fix a lot of balance issues at one fell swoop.
Yes because Raven Guard, Alpha Legion, and Stygies are causing SOOOOOO many problems...
You know something can be toxic without being competitively OP, don't you? Many videogames have this problem with X options being busted agaisnt noobs that can't counter play it but are useless in high level competitive play. Un-fun mechanics, as they call it. And they are even more problematic than OP stuff because they affect the pool of new players. The blood of the game.
The "-1 to hit" traits are just bad for the game. They should all be removed.
And about mono-Imperial Guard. They are the Tau of 8th. They aren't OP enough to win tournamens left and right (Only because DE and Soup are just better), but they are the gatekeepers. Behind the Imperial (BA+AC+IG, IK+IG, AC+IG) , Chaos (Daemon prince fiesta+Ahriman+Cultists) and Eldar Soup (DE+CW, Ynnari) armies you have Imperial Guard right there. After soups, the two best codex/mono armies of the game are DE and Imperail Guard without a doubt. People that claim otherwise is just wrong. And they are above by a big margin from the rest of mono-faction contenders.
Does this mean they are unbeteable? Nah. But they are undeniablily strong, and not only has a component of soup as many people claim has a red herring. Tallarn, Catachan and Cadian imperial guard armies are very, very good.
Excellent response to all that stronger logic you were faced with! Don't have to think of a counter to logic if you just attack the guy who posted it and move on the the next point! Good to see how irrational this discussion is making you.
What stronger logic? You just whined about Neophytes and Hormagaunts.
Man WHAT? You're comparing literally double the amount points worth of Neophytes, with Guardsmen, simply because of max squad size? DERP. You compare units point for point derp derp derp, not by max squad size, lol.
And anyone taking Neophytes usually is going to be taking them in units of 20, not 10s.
And even then, going off this terrible logic, your maths is well off. 20 S3 shots at BS4+ vs T3 Guardsmen with a 4+ save, who are being outnumbered by literally DOUBLE as many points of Neophytes, sees literally 2.5 Guardsmen. Those Guardsmen firing would almost match that for half the points, killing slightly under 2 Neophytes themselves.
That means they shrug off las fire like nothing. It takes 4 autogun/las hits, usually at BS4 making it 8 shots, to kill a single guardsmen with those numbers.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that I misread your initial numbers and just worked off the 4 bit autogun/las hits--but it still doesn't change the point of those 20 Neophytes giving a hell of a lot more out to the Guardsmen than the Guardsmen give in return.
20 models getting to fire at 24" means that you're looking at as you mentioned 2 and a half Guardsmen slain vs 9(with no upgrades--any HWTs or SWs reduce that number further but you know that don'tcha?) at 24" taking out 1.
That's a 1.5 difference simply by dint of the fact that the guy in charge retains the same weapon as the squad and
This is literally what you are saying would be fine. Get a stronger grip of this game, especially before telling others they don't understand it.
You're talking as though Neophytes are somehow inferior to Guardsmen (despite having a stronger LD and the ability to be forward deployed within rapid fire range) while trying to paint me as the one who seemingly doesn't know WTF I'm talking about.
You might have a firm grasp on the game, but you don't know your left from your right when discussing the way Guard play.
That is NOT an infantry unit balanced for this game. That's ridiculously durable for a unit the price of a Hormagant, that can be spammed and given buffs.
They cannot be given BUFFS, plural, outside of a specific Relic(Laurels of Command on a 4+, a second Order can be issued to the unit that just got an Order issued to them). They can be given a SINGLE BUFF , provided they're within a certain range of another model. Being given that single buff locks them out from receiving others outside of the Laurels of Command and that Order can't be used to buff anyone else.
So if I was to take them in Catachan Infantry for +1 S, and put them near Straken for +1 A, +1 LD (oh and he gives two orders himself) would that count as buffing these models from their original statline?
Oh look! How did I know that Straken would come up... Yes. Straken gives a buff to Catachan Squads.
He gives these squads, that has 1 melee weapon on the Sergeant, +1A and +1LD.
So Straken gives them the "Fix Bayonets!" Order...and then what?
Laurels of Command can't be taken by him. You've just blown Fix Bayonets on a Guard Infantry Squad that's WS4+ and has one melee weapon among those 10 models the ability to fight instead of shoot(assuming the unit was within 1" of an enemy unit to start with) and they have a whopping 21 attacks spread throughout the squad at S4.
What's the plan here? What exactly do you think you're accomplishing? 10.5 of those attacks hit and then you still have to wound on a variable table.
You included the Iconward buff in your derp level maths up above, so where's the consistency?
Yeah, I didn't "include" the Iconward in. I mentioned it as it is a key difference between a Guard army and a GSC army. Having a 6" FNP is a huge deal when we're talking about literally the same unit and return fire.
Seems like your argument is basically if Guard have it = bad, if anyone else has it = so strong. This argument is so terrible.
Yeah, no. My argument is that Guard are in a crummy spot right now because the army is woefully misunderstood on a mechanical level by its main detractors(people like Martel who seem to think a single Officer can give every single model an Order all at once and that FRFSRF means that a Guard Infantry Squad is dumping out 30 Lasgun shots at 12") whilst being constantly misrepresented by tournament fanatics as being some kind of solo unstoppable force.
Why does any model under 10 points have an armor save any way? Get rid of all of them. Guard infantry, space elfs of both Sith and Jedi flavors, fire warriors, guants, all of it.
Speed the game up and make power armor that much better.
Excellent response to all that stronger logic you were faced with! Don't have to think of a counter to logic if you just attack the guy who posted it and move on the the next point! Good to see how irrational this discussion is making you.
What stronger logic? You just whined about Neophytes and Hormagaunts.
Literally all I said was that both those units were fine. Lol. What did you read?
Man WHAT? You're comparing literally double the amount points worth of Neophytes, with Guardsmen, simply because of max squad size? DERP. You compare units point for point derp derp derp, not by max squad size, lol.
And anyone taking Neophytes usually is going to be taking them in units of 20, not 10s.
Uhhhhhhh....
1.) No. No, they don't. The most successful lists to use them have taken them in 10 man units. And I'm happy to source E.G. this list went undefeated at London GT.
2.) Even if they did, you are still comparing the efficiency of 100 pts of Neophytes to 50 points of Gaurdsmen, for no other reason than it serves your nonsense narrative. Compare it to two units of Guardsmen for the same points, genius.
Now, I'll be the first to admit that I misread your initial numbers and just worked off the 4 bit autogun/las hits--but it still doesn't change the point of those 20 Neophytes giving a hell of a lot more out to the Guardsmen than the Guardsmen give in return.
20 models getting to fire at 24" means that you're looking at as you mentioned 2 and a half Guardsmen slain vs 9(with no upgrades--any HWTs or SWs reduce that number further but you know that don'tcha?) at 24" taking out 1.
That's a 1.5 difference simply by dint of the fact that the guy in charge retains the same weapon as the squad and
I genuinely have no idea what you're saying here, and it seems like you just trailed off mid sentence.
But the fact that you are somehow genuinely trying to argue that a 5pt T3 model with a 4+ save, is less durable than a 5pt T3 model with a 5+ save, just shows how absurdly biased you are being here.
There is no way you can deliver your perspective here that is not just open mockery of reality. Math will not support your perspective, neither will logic.
Oh look! How did I know that Straken would come up...
I suspect the part where you literally just said that Guardsmen could not be buffed outside of a Relic, would probably have played a role in the fact that you "knew" Straken was about to get brought up.
Yeah, I didn't "include" the Iconward in. I mentioned it as it is a key difference between a Guard army and a GSC army. Having a 6" FNP is a huge deal when we're talking about literally the same unit and return fire.
Wait so you're saying Iconward's FNP buff doesn't count as a buff either (because admitting that would destroy your past statements), and you only mentioned the Iconwards FNP bubble, as an inclusion in the maths comparison between 5pt Guardsmen with a 4+ save, and current-state (5pt 5+) Neophytes? So now it's 155 points worth of units vs 50 pts of Guardsmen? But of course, you didn't include buffs from the same amount of points worth of Company Commanders as a factor, right?
Seems like your argument is basically if Guard have it = bad, if anyone else has it = so strong. This argument is so terrible.
Yeah, no. My argument is that Guard are in a crummy spot right now because the army is woefully misunderstood on a mechanical level by its main detractors(people like Martel who seem to think a single Officer can give every single model an Order all at once and that FRFSRF means that a Guard Infantry Squad is dumping out 30 Lasgun shots at 12") whilst being constantly misrepresented by tournament fanatics as being some kind of solo unstoppable force.
I think you're in a terrible spot as a player to genuinely believe this.
Martel732 wrote: I have guard in my lists now, genius. I know exactly how they work. And they are OP as feth. They outclass marines in every phase of the game.
That isn't saying much, everyone except GK outclass marines. It's more of a problem of marines needing buffs then IG needing nerfs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: And conscripts should be 5 points, with guardsmen costing more. Sorry IG folks, your infantry is undercosted and it's ridiculous.
HAHAHAHA!
I can't tell if you are being serious or not. What do you think about 4+, 6++, IG infantry shooting bolters at 30" for 7 points? Because that is what mechanicus rangers are.
Sorry buddy, marines suck this edition... instead of advocating for nerfs to every other army to bring them down to marine levels, why don't you advocate for buffs to marines? Comparing anything to marines is a flawed comparison, because marines are a dumpster fire and should no way indicate what a "good" army looks like. IG and tyranids and examples of armies that are "good" but not "too good" and should be the standard that all codices are balanced around. The only faction I think might need some reigning in are eldar, but it's mostly a few problematic units.
Infantry Guardsmen are 5ppm models all day everyday
They need to pay for the 5+Sv, everyone else is paying the same points for 6+ saves you can't be seriously trying to sell that a +1 to a save isn't worth a point.
Ice_can wrote: Infantry Guardsmen are 5ppm models all day everyday
They need to pay for the 5+Sv, everyone else is paying the same points for 6+ saves you can't be seriously trying to sell that a +1 to a save isn't worth a point.
Guardsmen WERE 5 pt models... until rangers and fire warriors went down to 7 points, among other things like kabalites.
Conscripts at 4ppm is very fair, all things considering.
Marmatag wrote: They're out in the open because in order to get within range they must be exposed. There is not terrain providing cover wherein they can take shelter without massively limiting their scope. I am speaking with the standard tournament terrain setup in mind. If you have a whole city on your gaming table then their value might change, as would the value of assault units in general. But in a competitive setting if the Hellblasters are in range they aren't in cover. Or, they're in cover, and their scope is severely limited. And when you start splitting your army up you find yourself pretty vulnerable. Are you going to really alpha deploy Hellblasters and let them get annihilated? They better make their points back that turn, and then some. I'm assuming you'd land a captain with them at least, increasing their cost and taking that buff away from the rest of the army...
Hellblasters cannot ride in a drop pod. You have very few limited options to deep strike them. Raven Guard, but this is heavily dependent on first turn, Deathwatch, the best way, and Space Wolves, with Outflank. Am I missing anything? These 3 ways to get Hellblasters into range. Dark Reapers can deepstrike for 1 cp. And when they do they hit on 3s. So if you think that squad of 10 reapers is dying turn 1 if they go second, you're wrong.
Dark Reapers are far less vulnerable to small arms because they are never exposed to small arms. And if they are, they are always in cover, because it's not hard to put 48" range models in ruins.
The second we start talking synergy of their relative armies, the Dark Reapers get even better, because they have more easily applied buffs (Guide, Fortune) and have better units supporting them (Kabalite Venoms, Hemlocks, etc).
The way to defeat reapers isn't small arms, it's with indirect fire, ideally ignoring cover. Because outside of the Exarch they're not shooting unless they have line of sight, and while they do see almost the entirety of the board, they can't see through walls.
And I didn't assume Raven Guard because Raven Guard are not the competitive way to run marines. Losing Guilliman for a pathetic boost that only affects infantry and walkers with a -1 isn't worth it. Eldar get -1 on EVERYTHING, which is why Alaitoc is always assumed. The second Raven Guard buff affects all units including flyers, etc, i'll assume Raven Guard.
That is a whole pile of assumptions there. No useful terrain, no other units in drop pods, no possibility of ignoring cover, no RG tactics... etc. There's little point arguing if you're going to make so many assumptions.
A lot of indirect fire weapons are also only 1W, making the Dark Reapers more vulnerable again. T3 1W. Find them with any weapon. Tunnelling Devouerer Gaunts could do it, and are scaleable with buffs. I like Drop Grav with marines, but I'm sure theres a number of ways to approach it.
In other news I'm excited to say that we may have a new eldar soup player in my area, so I'll get to see firsthand what all the whining is about. I saw Reapers, lots of Shining Spears, Cat Lady, Ravagers, Rangers, etc.
I'm making the assumption of a standard tournament table. Since we have to operate on the basis of SOME assumptions regarding terrain, what do you propose? We can't have a discussion about the merits of units without some base agreement on what a standard warhammer table should have on it.
Given its a forum dedicated to the broad swathe of 40k players, I'd say limiting discussion to tournament play is pretty daft. Imo40k functions best with more terrain than what I see in tourney pics, generally. I'd also suggest that more terain is probably more like the designers intended. If something is out of balance on relatively wide open tables, that's not necessarily a problem inherent in the unit. I'd go even further and say that it's a feature, not a bug, that unit-value changes with terrain density.
Don't talk about devourer gaunts, I actually play Tyranids. For less points i can bring 6 hive guard and chew them up with indirect fire that ignores cover. Meanwhile those Gaunt bombs are a complete waste post DS update, and if you ever find yourself in a chess clock scenario 30 guants are not worth the time it takes to play them. You'll lose on time, every time.
There's no monopoly to be had on Tyranids, I have maybe 4K points of the buggers. And I did say there were probably numerous ways to handle Dark Reapers. Hive Guard can obviously be one of them. I just happened to finish building a number of Gants, and they Illustrate the point of Dark Reapers being vulnerable to small arms.
Time limits is another reason why tournament play can be completely irrelevant.
And when you play the Eldar guy, and you are hitting his Hemlock Wraithfighers on 6s with your heavies, and in turn they're annihilating 6d3 of any base marine per turn (regardless of your tactics) anywhere on the board, tell me how it goes.
KurtAngle2 wrote: Kill Team points costs are probably indicative of expected changes in CA 2018...I'd check them if I were you
Not very likely. I doubt we're going to see 25 point Lictors or 14 point Plague Marines.
As base costs without weapons? Why not, it's a way to reprice them
Those are their costs including weapons.
Yeah, that's a lie. Plague Marines with bolters are 14. Plague Marines with heavy weapons, plague marines with close combat weapons and the champion are 15 and need to pay for any weapons they take.
Amishprn86 wrote: Did you really just say Wyches? They are NOT even top 5 units in the DE codex how are they on your list?
Looking just at DE, Grotesques, Talos, Venom, Ravagers are ahead of them for sure, Kabals and Wracks are also better troops IMO.
They are the only unit in the game that can hold an enemy unit in melee combat.
Their damage output and speed is excellent. With certain cult choices they can become somewhat tanky for a DE unit.
They're incredible for their price.
You grossly dont understand them, let me show you my Coven army, or Kabal army and just almost table you turn 1. Wyches are not as strong as the other 2 Factions for DE. hence why DE top lists are always Kabal with Coven.
You should see the 10 venom lists with 3 Ravagers, 3 RWJF's and then cry "Wyches are to strong" luckily IK came out to show players that DE can be beaten
Amishprn86 wrote: Did you really just say Wyches? They are NOT even top 5 units in the DE codex how are they on your list?
Looking just at DE, Grotesques, Talos, Venom, Ravagers are ahead of them for sure, Kabals and Wracks are also better troops IMO.
They are the only unit in the game that can hold an enemy unit in melee combat.
Their damage output and speed is excellent. With certain cult choices they can become somewhat tanky for a DE unit.
They're incredible for their price.
You grossly dont understand them, let me show you my Coven army, or Kabal army and just almost table you turn 1. Wyches are not as strong as the other 2 Factions for DE. hence why DE top lists are always Kabal with Coven.
You should see the 10 venom lists with 3 Ravagers, 3 RWJF's and then cry "Wyches are to strong" luckily IK came out to show players that DE can be beaten
Kabal must be taken because they give access to the most broken stratagem in the game.
I fear wych cult armies much more than coven.
Not sure why you're so invested in this if you're not using them? Enjoy your wins with kabals and covens.
For me, the power of a singular unit in a vacuum comes down to a number of factors, one of those factors is 'can this unit literally do something that no other unit can?' Wyches ability to tie up units (including fliers) in combat is game changing and almost on par with agents of vect.
Amishprn86 wrote: Did you really just say Wyches? They are NOT even top 5 units in the DE codex how are they on your list?
Looking just at DE, Grotesques, Talos, Venom, Ravagers are ahead of them for sure, Kabals and Wracks are also better troops IMO.
They are the only unit in the game that can hold an enemy unit in melee combat.
Their damage output and speed is excellent. With certain cult choices they can become somewhat tanky for a DE unit.
They're incredible for their price.
You grossly dont understand them, let me show you my Coven army, or Kabal army and just almost table you turn 1. Wyches are not as strong as the other 2 Factions for DE. hence why DE top lists are always Kabal with Coven.
You should see the 10 venom lists with 3 Ravagers, 3 RWJF's and then cry "Wyches are to strong" luckily IK came out to show players that DE can be beaten
Kabal must be taken because they give access to the most broken stratagem in the game.
I fear wych cult armies much more than coven.
Not sure why you're so invested in this if you're not using them? Enjoy your wins with kabals and covens.
For me, the power of a singular unit in a vacuum comes down to a number of factors, one of those factors is 'can this unit literally do something that no other unit can?' Wyches ability to tie up units (including fliers) in combat is game changing and almost on par with agents of vect.
Just b.c Wyches are one of a few units that can stop fallbacks (other units can too, the Succubus and if i remember there is a relic and a stratagem), just b.c something is unique doesnt mean they are good. Hellions can DS, charge, Fallback into MW bomb and then charge again, but this doesnt mean they are worth their points.
And NO they can NOT stop Fliers, they can ONLY stop "INFANTRY" from falling back. and its only on a Roll off, that you MUST re-roll ties, you then need to take the Shardnet to make it a D3 vs a D6 to even have a good chance to keep them there, luckily the Impaler is a good weapon.
btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms
SHUPPET wrote: btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms
Nobody is saying guard is too weak, simply that they aren't broken. Of course, guard have lots of top 10 finishes they are consistently the number 1-3 army played in the entire ITC each weak. The higher percentage of players playing an army raises the frequency at which you will see their lists in top spots. If we are using the BAO as our metric for some reason then shouldn't we by crying that Nurgle with renegade nights is busted and needs to be nuked? The simple answer is no, there always needs to be a winner and that doesn't necessarily mean that that army or any specific unit is broken (unless you want to argue that blighted terminators need a price hike because they went undefeated at the BAO). What people should look at is the frequency at which an army is used compared to the frequency at which an army wins... Kinda like this article
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/08/this-week-in-competitive-40k-july-31.html Any army winning a much larger percentage of its game then any other army is the best way to measure its strength. Much like card games in hearthstone, each deck is going to have a different win percentage against different decks (just like different 40k armies match up differently to eachother) when you run into a problem is a deck that is pulling above a 60% consistently for an entire cyle on average.
SHUPPET wrote: btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms
Nobody is saying guard is too weak, simply that they aren't broken.
the guy on the last page just said Guard are in a really bad spot right now lol thats what prompted my post
Asmodios wrote: If we are using the BAO as our metric for some reason then shouldn't we by crying that Nurgle with renegade nights is busted
Why, cause they got first? they took one spot in the top 20. Even TSons took more than that, thats an outlier. Guard took 3 which is tied with Eldar, I'm not saying they are broken, but its clearly a capable army.
I quite clearly didn't say anything about needing nerfs. I was saying that if you're losing with Guard, it's not your army's faults. Fine to say that they don't need nerfs, but to say they are bad, while 6 people out of the top 10 of the most recent GT took Guard to that height, its pretty fair to look at this and say that you're not living in reality. Time to recognise that your own play may have some faults.
SHUPPET wrote: btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms
Nobody is saying guard is too weak, simply that they aren't broken.
the guy on the last page just said Guard are in a really bad spot right now lol thats what prompted my post
Asmodios wrote: If we are using the BAO as our metric for some reason then shouldn't we by crying that Nurgle with renegade nights is busted
Why, cause they got first? they took one spot in the top 20. Even TSons took more than that, thats an outlier. Guard took 3 which is tied with Eldar, I'm not saying they are broken, but its clearly a capable army.
I didn't say anything about needing nerfs. I was saying that if you're losing with Guard, it's not your army's faults. Fine to say that they don't need nerfs, but to say they are bad, while 6 people out of the top 10 of the most recent GT took Guard to that height, its pretty fair to look at this and say that you're not living in reality. Time to recognise that your own play may have some faults.
You are missing the entire point..... Of course, you see more guard in the top 10 because they are played more frequently then many other armies actually they are currently the 2nd most played faction in the ITC only behind knights. Let's use some super simple numbers to illustrate my point.
Say there is a tournament with 100 players
25 are imperial knights
25 are guard
50 are an equal distribution of the rest of the armies in the game
Now in the top 10 there are 3 guard players
So 30% of the top 10 are guard and someone might immediately scream "omg that's crazy guard are so broken"
But in reality, 25% of all armies were the guard and they only finished 5% above a completely average finishing based on the frequency of them being played
If 1 DG were to not only finish in the top 10 but win when they took only 10% of top spots someone might say "wow DG suck"
But if DG is only 1/12 (i think there's 14 total unique codexes I'm too lazy to count them) then there should have only been 4.1% top 10 finishes for DG who now punched up more then guards 5%
Obviously, I don't have all the data but and these numbers are hypothetical and simplified to make a point. But people need to stop looking at overall finishes and start looking at finishes compared to the frequency at which a faction is played
SHUPPET wrote: btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms
Nobody is saying guard is too weak, simply that they aren't broken. Of course, guard have lots of top 10 finishes they are consistently the number 1-3 army played in the entire ITC each weak. The higher percentage of players playing an army raises the frequency at which you will see their lists in top spots.
Yeah, and this is because Imperial Guard have always been soooo popular. Thats why when 8th edition released the number of CWE armies dropped something like 87% in the first 8th edition tournaments. Because players just stopped liking them as their armies.
If one faction is over represented in a tournament is because it is very strong, so the "Theres more players, so higher standings are just expected" doesn't applies here.
You are missing the entire point..... Of course, you see more guard in the top 10 because they are played more frequently then many other armies actually they are currently the 2nd most played faction in the ITC only behind knights. Let's use some super simple numbers to illustrate my point. Say there is a tournament with 100 players 25 are imperial knights 25 are guard 50 are an equal distribution of the rest of the armies in the game Now in the top 10 there are 3 guard players So 30% of the top 10 are guard and someone might immediately scream "omg that's crazy guard are so broken" But in reality, 25% of all armies were the guard and they only finished 5% above a completely average finishing based on the frequency of them being played If 1 DG were to not only finish in the top 10 but win when they took only 10% of top spots someone might say "wow DG suck" But if DG is only 1/12 (i think there's 14 total unique codexes I'm too lazy to count them) then there should have only been 4.1% top 10 finishes for DG who now punched up more then guards 5% Obviously, I don't have all the data but and these numbers are hypothetical and simplified to make a point. But people need to stop looking at overall finishes and start looking at finishes compared to the frequency at which a faction is played
Yeeah this is just garbage logic. For starters, excluding CP farms, Guard were not the most popular army there. They matched Tyranids, Spaces Marines, and were below T'au - all of which got zero places in the top 10, compared to Guard's 3, completely dispelling your nonsense theory.
You have no idea what you are talking about. 8% of the meta was Guard Primary's - not 25% - yet 3 of them were in the top 10, more than any other army in the game. To put it into perspective, 1 in every 3 people to bring Guard as their army made top 10 lol.
Secondly, all this is irrelevant - at no point was I screaming anything about "omg that's crazy guard are so broken", you are just gaslighting because you have no real argument. I literally said absolutely zero about the army being OP, and I had JUST clarified it for you but you ignored it - I just said that you can't blame it for your losses when other people are getting such results with the same army, they are clearly very capable. Bolded keywords for you so as not to see you get confused further here, though it's pretty simple stuff.
SHUPPET wrote: btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms
Nobody is saying guard is too weak, simply that they aren't broken. Of course, guard have lots of top 10 finishes they are consistently the number 1-3 army played in the entire ITC each weak. The higher percentage of players playing an army raises the frequency at which you will see their lists in top spots.
Yeah, and this is because Imperial Guard have always been soooo popular. Thats why when 8th edition released the number of CWE armies dropped something like 87% in the first 8th edition tournaments. Because players just stopped liking them as their armies.
If one faction is over represented in a tournament is because it is very strong, so the "Theres more players, so higher standings are just expected" doesn't applies here.
Guard is insanely over represented right now for 1 simple reason. Many tournaments classify your army by your warlord so any imperium army running a CP guard battery often get counted as guard and when they do breakdowns by "numbers of detachments" guard take up an almost guaranteed 1/3 of all imperium ones. Guard CP generation is stupid and broken and needs to be fixed.
I 100% guarantee that if GW released a rule that CP could only be used on the detachment that generated it guard would fall several places in the top played faction. There is 0 reason to not include a battalion of guard in every imperium army right now because it boosts the smount of strategems that army can use by an insane amount
You are missing the entire point..... Of course, you see more guard in the top 10 because they are played more frequently then many other armies actually they are currently the 2nd most played faction in the ITC only behind knights. Let's use some super simple numbers to illustrate my point.
Say there is a tournament with 100 players
25 are imperial knights
25 are guard
50 are an equal distribution of the rest of the armies in the game
Now in the top 10 there are 3 guard players
So 30% of the top 10 are guard and someone might immediately scream "omg that's crazy guard are so broken"
But in reality, 25% of all armies were the guard and they only finished 5% above a completely average finishing based on the frequency of them being played
If 1 DG were to not only finish in the top 10 but win when they took only 10% of top spots someone might say "wow DG suck"
But if DG is only 1/12 (i think there's 14 total unique codexes I'm too lazy to count them) then there should have only been 4.1% top 10 finishes for DG who now punched up more then guards 5%
Obviously, I don't have all the data but and these numbers are hypothetical and simplified to make a point. But people need to stop looking at overall finishes and start looking at finishes compared to the frequency at which a faction is played
Yeeah this is just garbage logic. For starters, excluding CP farms, Guard were not the most popular army there. They matched Tyranids, Spaces Marines, and were below T'au - all of which got zero places in the top 10, compared to Guard's 3, completely dispelling your nonsense theory.
You have no idea what you are talking about. 8% of the meta was Guard Primary's - not 25% - yet 3 of them were in the top 10, more than any other army in the game. To put it into perspective, 1 in every 3 people to bring Guard as their army made top 10 lol.
Secondly, all this is irrelevant - at no point was I screaming anything about "omg that's crazy guard are so broken", you are just gaslighting because you have no real argument. I literally said absolutely zero about the army being OP, and I had JUST clarified it for you but you ignored it - I just said that you can't blame it for your losses when other people are getting such results with the same army, they are clearly very capable. Bolded keywords for you so as not to see you get confused further here, though it's pretty simple stuff.
1. Way to skip the entire part of my post where i said they numbers were hypothetical
2. Refer to my first post when i said you shouldnt be looking at the results of one tournament to draw conclusions
Its hard to have a discussion with someone that doesnt actually read the posts
Guard is insanely over represented right now for 1 simple reason. Many tournaments classify your army by your warlord so any imperium army running a CP guard battery often get counted as guard and when they do breakdowns by "numbers of detachments" guard take up an almost guaranteed 1/3 of all imperium ones. Guard CP generation is stupid and broken and needs to be fixed. I 100% guarantee that if GW released a rule that CP could only be used on the detachment that generated it guard would fall several places in the top played faction. There is 0 reason to not include a battalion of guard in every imperium army right now because it boosts the smount of strategems that army can use by an insane amount
If they did that, Guard will still have been the most successful army from within the top 10 of this tournament, and possibly with even more placings, because I specifically excluded the 3 top 10 placing armies that used Guard only as an allied detachment, meaning those 3 Imperium players would be bringing something else - and theres a good chance it would be Guard.
1. Way to skip the entire part of my post where i said they numbers were hypothetical 2. Refer to my first post when i said you shouldnt be looking at the results of one tournament to draw conclusions Its hard to have a discussion with someone that doesnt actually read the posts
You put out a bunch of hypothetical numbers to explain why Guard do so well in tournaments, yet your hypothetical numbers aren't even close to reality, so it doesn't explain anything.
They do well in tournaments because they are a viable competitive force.
The fact that you are literally trying to argue otherwise is just exposing yourself as someone not to be listened to concerning anything other than lore or casual play.
If one faction is over represented in a tournament is because it is very strong, so the "Theres more players, so higher standings are just expected" doesn't applies here.
Yup, tho it especially doesn't apply when someone just manufactures a bunch of numbers to support their non-existent argument, and in reality Guard wasn't even top 3 in popularity of the armies at the tournament in question. Guard didn't have the higher numbers - just the higher standings. Asmodios's priority here is to downplay his own army of preference, not to any semblance of facts or the truth, he doesn't even have any knowledge of what he's currently speaking on.
SHUPPET wrote: btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms
Nobody is saying guard is too weak, simply that they aren't broken. Of course, guard have lots of top 10 finishes they are consistently the number 1-3 army played in the entire ITC each weak. The higher percentage of players playing an army raises the frequency at which you will see their lists in top spots.
Yeah, and this is because Imperial Guard have always been soooo popular. Thats why when 8th edition released the number of CWE armies dropped something like 87% in the first 8th edition tournaments. Because players just stopped liking them as their armies.
If one faction is over represented in a tournament is because it is very strong, so the "Theres more players, so higher standings are just expected" doesn't applies here.
Guard is insanely over represented right now for 1 simple reason. Many tournaments classify your army by your warlord so any imperium army running a CP guard battery often get counted as guard and when they do breakdowns by "numbers of detachments" guard take up an almost guaranteed 1/3 of all imperium ones. Guard CP generation is stupid and broken and needs to be fixed.
I 100% guarantee that if GW released a rule that CP could only be used on the detachment that generated it guard would fall several places in the top played faction. There is 0 reason to not include a battalion of guard in every imperium army right now because it boosts the smount of strategems that army can use by an insane amount
You know that most of those factions NEED the guard CP battery to work, don't you? What do you think will happen if GW eliminates the Guard CP battery, or all CP batteries all together? Will we see a big number of pure Adeptus Custodes, Pure Imperial Knights, Pure Blood Angels armies? Let me doubt it. The best Imperail Army without soup is Imperial Guard, so if you eliminate imperial soup from the meta, you'll end up with more Imperial Guard armies.
Guard is insanely over represented right now for 1 simple reason. Many tournaments classify your army by your warlord so any imperium army running a CP guard battery often get counted as guard and when they do breakdowns by "numbers of detachments" guard take up an almost guaranteed 1/3 of all imperium ones. Guard CP generation is stupid and broken and needs to be fixed.
I 100% guarantee that if GW released a rule that CP could only be used on the detachment that generated it guard would fall several places in the top played faction. There is 0 reason to not include a battalion of guard in every imperium army right now because it boosts the smount of strategems that army can use by an insane amount
If they did that, Guard will still have been the most successful army from within the top 10 of this tournament, and possibly with even more placings, because I specifically excluded the 3 top 10 placing armies that used Guard only as an allied detachment, meaning those 3 Imperium players would be bringing something else - and theres a good chance it would be Guard.
1. Way to skip the entire part of my post where i said they numbers were hypothetical
2. Refer to my first post when i said you shouldnt be looking at the results of one tournament to draw conclusions
Its hard to have a discussion with someone that doesnt actually read the posts
You put out a bunch of hypothetical numbers to explain why Guard do so well in tournaments, yet your hypothetical numbers aren't even close to reality, so it doesn't explain anything.
They do well in tournaments because they are a viable competitive force.
The fact that you are literally trying to argue otherwise is just exposing yourself as someone not to be listened to concerning anything other than lore or casual play.
If one faction is over represented in a tournament is because it is very strong, so the "Theres more players, so higher standings are just expected" doesn't applies here.
Yup, tho it especially doesn't apply when someone just manufactures a bunch of numbers to support their non-existent argument, and in reality Guard wasn't even top 3 in popularity of the armies at the tournament in question. Guard didn't have the higher numbers - just the higher standings. Asmodios's priority here is to downplay his own army of preference, not to any semblance of facts or the truth, he doesn't even have any knowledge of what he's currently speaking on.
Or once again read my posts
Im referancing http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/08/this-week-in-competitive-40k-july-31.html that i have already linked buy you completely ignored.
The reson i responded to you was your use of BAO results as a fact which i pointed out using a single tournament to draw power ranking conclusions is just dumb
Because you have comprehension problems i put my point very obviously for you
POINT: People need to stop screaming OP this or OP that after 1-3 tournament results. There are dozens of ITC events every weekend and people need to look at the total agrigate results of them over a period of time before drawing conclusions of the power level of armies. People need to also cross referance this with the prevelance of "pure" armies and "soup" armies in order to see where the real problems lie. If people use bad data "omg look at the results of BAO lets make a game wide change" you will get poor rules that will hurt not only the competitive scene but also the casual enviroment where pure armies are more common.
If you want to push for a nerf to whatever that fine. Present actual data and statistics for it instead of pointing at single GT results as gosple
SHUPPET wrote: btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms
Nobody is saying guard is too weak, simply that they aren't broken. Of course, guard have lots of top 10 finishes they are consistently the number 1-3 army played in the entire ITC each weak. The higher percentage of players playing an army raises the frequency at which you will see their lists in top spots.
Yeah, and this is because Imperial Guard have always been soooo popular. Thats why when 8th edition released the number of CWE armies dropped something like 87% in the first 8th edition tournaments. Because players just stopped liking them as their armies.
If one faction is over represented in a tournament is because it is very strong, so the "Theres more players, so higher standings are just expected" doesn't applies here.
Guard is insanely over represented right now for 1 simple reason. Many tournaments classify your army by your warlord so any imperium army running a CP guard battery often get counted as guard and when they do breakdowns by "numbers of detachments" guard take up an almost guaranteed 1/3 of all imperium ones. Guard CP generation is stupid and broken and needs to be fixed.
I 100% guarantee that if GW released a rule that CP could only be used on the detachment that generated it guard would fall several places in the top played faction. There is 0 reason to not include a battalion of guard in every imperium army right now because it boosts the smount of strategems that army can use by an insane amount
You know that most of those factions NEED the guard CP battery to work, don't you? What do you think will happen if GW eliminates the Guard CP battery, or all CP batteries all together? Will we see a big number of pure Adeptus Custodes, Pure Imperial Knights, Pure Blood Angels armies? Let me doubt it. The best Imperail Army without soup is Imperial Guard, so if you eliminate imperial soup from the meta, you'll end up with more Imperial Guard armies.
I understand that and I personally would like to see all these armies become better as solo factions. I think every army being able to compete as standalone is better for game health than making them only viable as a souped in option. I believe the entire game is harder to balance with shared CP pools as well. That is a completely different discussion about soup that has various threads dedicated to it though
Because you have comprehension problems i put my point very obviously for you POINT: People need to stop screaming OP this or OP that after 1-3 tournament results. There are dozens of ITC events every weekend and people need to look at the total agrigate results of them over a period of time before drawing conclusions of the power level of armies. People need to also cross referance this with the prevelance of "pure" armies and "soup" armies in order to see where the real problems lie. If people use bad data "omg look at the results of BAO lets make a game wide change" you will get poor rules that will hurt not only the competitive scene but also the casual enviroment where pure armies are more common.
If you want to push for a nerf to whatever that fine. Present actual data and statistics for it instead of pointing at single GT results as gosple
Ok being that you responded to my posts to argue some gak, let me respond to your UNMISTAKEABLY CLEAR point with some quotes from myself so far in this thread:
SHUPPET wrote: Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up
I quite clearly didn't say anything about needing nerfs. I was saying that if you're losing with Guard, it's not your army's faults. Fine to say that they don't need nerfs, but to say they are bad, while 6 people out of the top 10 of the most recent GT took Guard to that height, its pretty fair to look at this and say that you're not living in reality. Time to recognise that your own play may have some faults.
SHUPPET wrote: I literally said absolutely zero about the army being OP[...]I just said that you can't blame it for your losses when other people are getting such results with the same army, they are clearly very capable
Can you please specify exactly what of this triggered you so badly, and why you're strawmanning some nonsense about me saying Guard is OP or needs nerf? Because it seems pretty transparent that you don't really have an argument here, and just want to downplay your army. The statements I made were pretty fair lol...
Because you have comprehension problems i put my point very obviously for you
POINT: People need to stop screaming OP this or OP that after 1-3 tournament results. There are dozens of ITC events every weekend and people need to look at the total agrigate results of them over a period of time before drawing conclusions of the power level of armies. People need to also cross referance this with the prevelance of "pure" armies and "soup" armies in order to see where the real problems lie. If people use bad data "omg look at the results of BAO lets make a game wide change" you will get poor rules that will hurt not only the competitive scene but also the casual enviroment where pure armies are more common.
If you want to push for a nerf to whatever that fine. Present actual data and statistics for it instead of pointing at single GT results as gosple
Ok being that you responded to my posts to argue some gak, let me respond to your UNMISTAKEABLY CLEAR point with some quotes from myself so far in this thread:
SHUPPET wrote: Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up
I quite clearly didn't say anything about needing nerfs. I was saying that if you're losing with Guard, it's not your army's faults. Fine to say that they don't need nerfs, but to say they are bad, while 6 people out of the top 10 of the most recent GT took Guard to that height, its pretty fair to look at this and say that you're not living in reality. Time to recognise that your own play may have some faults.
SHUPPET wrote: I literally said absolutely zero about the army being OP[...]I just said that you can't blame it for your losses when other people are getting such results with the same army, they are clearly very capable
Can you please specify exactly what of this triggered you so badly, and why you're strawmanning some nonsense about me saying Guard is OP or needs nerf? Because it seems pretty transparent that you don't really have an argument here, and just want to downplay your army. The statements I made were pretty fair lol...
Your first post I responded to
"btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms"
It's you using a single tournament to draw conclusions about balance which was my entire point.... that you missed
Because you have comprehension problems i put my point very obviously for you POINT: People need to stop screaming OP this or OP that after 1-3 tournament results. There are dozens of ITC events every weekend and people need to look at the total agrigate results of them over a period of time before drawing conclusions of the power level of armies. People need to also cross referance this with the prevelance of "pure" armies and "soup" armies in order to see where the real problems lie. If people use bad data "omg look at the results of BAO lets make a game wide change" you will get poor rules that will hurt not only the competitive scene but also the casual enviroment where pure armies are more common.
If you want to push for a nerf to whatever that fine. Present actual data and statistics for it instead of pointing at single GT results as gosple
Ok being that you responded to my posts to argue some gak, let me respond to your UNMISTAKEABLY CLEAR point with some quotes from myself so far in this thread:
SHUPPET wrote: Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up
I quite clearly didn't say anything about needing nerfs. I was saying that if you're losing with Guard, it's not your army's faults. Fine to say that they don't need nerfs, but to say they are bad, while 6 people out of the top 10 of the most recent GT took Guard to that height, its pretty fair to look at this and say that you're not living in reality. Time to recognise that your own play may have some faults.
SHUPPET wrote: I literally said absolutely zero about the army being OP[...]I just said that you can't blame it for your losses when other people are getting such results with the same army, they are clearly very capable
Can you please specify exactly what of this triggered you so badly, and why you're strawmanning some nonsense about me saying Guard is OP or needs nerf? Because it seems pretty transparent that you don't really have an argument here, and just want to downplay your army. The statements I made were pretty fair lol...
Your first post I responded to "btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms" It's you using a single tournament to draw conclusions about balance which was my entire point.... that you missed
You literally just said explicitly that your entire point in arguing with me, was that people need to stop screaming about Guard being OP and asking them to be nerfed, something I never said, so thats what I just responded to. It's right there at the top of this quote chain.
You keep flip flopping on this because you have no real argument.
And I can cite a crapton of tournaments with Guard making top 10 if the need be. I used BAO because it's the most recent look at what's performing well in the meta. I never at any point said 1 tournament proves they are OP, just that Guard is a capable army and not a weak one, plus it's a string of tournaments that support this. I said that to say nothing other than the fact that whining about Guard being a crummy army, is just making a joke out of yourself.
There's only one reason you'd take such offense to this sentiment and respond the way you did, lol.
Well, the guardsmen are simply just too cheap. They can overcome most obstacles by sheer numbers.
Astra Militarum desperately need two fixes 1) make the guardsmen five points 2) ban stacking CP recovery abilities.
There are other things, but these two would help a lot, and decrease their attractiveness as a CP battery.
Because you have comprehension problems i put my point very obviously for you
POINT: People need to stop screaming OP this or OP that after 1-3 tournament results. There are dozens of ITC events every weekend and people need to look at the total agrigate results of them over a period of time before drawing conclusions of the power level of armies. People need to also cross referance this with the prevelance of "pure" armies and "soup" armies in order to see where the real problems lie. If people use bad data "omg look at the results of BAO lets make a game wide change" you will get poor rules that will hurt not only the competitive scene but also the casual enviroment where pure armies are more common.
If you want to push for a nerf to whatever that fine. Present actual data and statistics for it instead of pointing at single GT results as gosple
Ok being that you responded to my posts to argue some gak, let me respond to your UNMISTAKEABLY CLEAR point with some quotes from myself so far in this thread:
SHUPPET wrote: Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up
I quite clearly didn't say anything about needing nerfs. I was saying that if you're losing with Guard, it's not your army's faults. Fine to say that they don't need nerfs, but to say they are bad, while 6 people out of the top 10 of the most recent GT took Guard to that height, its pretty fair to look at this and say that you're not living in reality. Time to recognise that your own play may have some faults.
SHUPPET wrote: I literally said absolutely zero about the army being OP[...]I just said that you can't blame it for your losses when other people are getting such results with the same army, they are clearly very capable
Can you please specify exactly what of this triggered you so badly, and why you're strawmanning some nonsense about me saying Guard is OP or needs nerf? Because it seems pretty transparent that you don't really have an argument here, and just want to downplay your army. The statements I made were pretty fair lol...
Your first post I responded to
"btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms"
It's you using a single tournament to draw conclusions about balance which was my entire point.... that you missed
You literally just said explicitly that your entire point in arguing with me, was that people need to stop screaming about Guard being OP and asking them to be nerfed, something I never said, so thats what I just responded to. It's right there at the top of this quote chain.
You keep flip flopping on this because you have no real argument.
And I can cite a crapton of tournaments with Guard making top 10 if the need be. I used BAO because it's the most recent look at what's performing well in the meta. I never at any point said 1 tournament proves they are OP, just that Guard is a capable army and not a weak one, plus it's a string of tournaments that support this. I said that to say nothing other than the fact that whining about Guard being a crummy army, is just making a joke out of yourself.
There's only one reason you'd take such offense to this sentiment and respond the way you did, lol.
Can you seriously no read
"POINT: People need to stop screaming OP this or OP that after 1-3 tournament results. There are dozens of ITC events every weekend and people need to look at the total agrigate results of them over a period of time before drawing conclusions of the power level of armies. People need to also cross referance this with the prevelance of "pure" armies and "soup" armies in order to see where the real problems lie. If people use bad data "omg look at the results of BAO lets make a game wide change" you will get poor rules that will hurt not only the competitive scene but also the casual enviroment where pure armies are more common."
I literally put "POINT" in bold for you where i talk about people hoping down a factions throat over a couple tournament results. Guard are not mentioned in the quote because they arent the overal point. The were only brought up in response to yours because guard was your target and you were using a single tournament as your evidence.
And yes i dont have the time but i would love someone to gather the entire ITC data from the last beta rule introduction and show us
1. What percentage of armies being played are soup as well as their overall with percentage
2. What percentage of armies being played are pure as well as their overall win percentage
If you did these two things it would be fairly safe to draw conclusions on power levels of factions. Of course, drop any pre codex numbers and extend the range for data for them
Bharring wrote: So I was running some numbers:
If equal points of Spears and Guardsmen shoot eachother, Guardsmen win on points.
If equal points of Spears charge equal points of Guardsmen, both sides lose about the same number of points.
If equal points of Guardsmen charge equal points of Spears, Guardsmen win on points.
Even when Spears fight first on turns they didn't charge, Guardsmen still win on points.
Now, I still think Spears are the better unit, but the math didn't work out how I expected.
Equal points of gaurdsmen for a 9 man SS is 72 gaurdsmen. OFC they are going to lose that on paper. The actual value of this unit compared to elite infantry is like 7 points. Obviously they can't go up in price that much. They need to cost 5 points though - no question. Plus a lot of other elite infantry need to come down in price too. Spears don't need an increase if everything else gets fixed. I'm fine with them losing on paper to 70 cheap bodies. They can make their points back in 1 turn fighting elites.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ordana wrote: And that's also why we see Knights rampage around so much. Everyone was tooling for volume of fire to get through hordes and invul saves.
Well at least in the case with DE. Their best gun for T8 is the Dessie - and it's still really good anti infantry too. There is nothing in this game that dessie doesn't love to shot - unless it's calgar or a wave serpent or something t10 (that is almost non existent.)
Galas wrote: Yeah, when people say "Hordes are too durable" they aren't talking about hordes. Ork Boyz and Hormagaunts die just fine.
The problem is with Imperial Guard infantry. Theres just no weapon that is efficient at killing them.
Boyz are still relatively strong considering that the Orks only have an Index - if they get even moderate buffs from the Codex they could very easily get out of control.
8th edition just hasn't provided an easy way to handle hordes full stop so far. It was an issue right at the start with Razorwing Flocks and it's still an issue now.
Guardsmen definitely need to go up to 5 points, I think thats a good spot for them (im saying this as someone who plays a lot of guard). Id argue other infantry need to go up in points too, most namely kalabites
If guardsmen go up to 5 points, then rangers, fire warriors, and kabalites need to go up as well. If that happens, then I'm fine with guardsmen going up to 5 ppm.
Bharring wrote: So I was running some numbers:
If equal points of Spears and Guardsmen shoot eachother, Guardsmen win on points.
If equal points of Spears charge equal points of Guardsmen, both sides lose about the same number of points.
If equal points of Guardsmen charge equal points of Spears, Guardsmen win on points.
Even when Spears fight first on turns they didn't charge, Guardsmen still win on points.
Now, I still think Spears are the better unit, but the math didn't work out how I expected.
Equal points of gaurdsmen for a 9 man SS is 72 gaurdsmen. OFC they are going to lose that on paper. The actual value of this unit compared to elite infantry is like 7 points. Obviously they can't go up in price that much. They need to cost 5 points though - no question. Plus a lot of other elite infantry need to come down in price too. Spears don't need an increase if everything else gets fixed. I'm fine with them losing on paper to 70 cheap bodies. They can make their points back in 1 turn fighting elites.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ordana wrote: And that's also why we see Knights rampage around so much. Everyone was tooling for volume of fire to get through hordes and invul saves.
Well at least in the case with DE. Their best gun for T8 is the Dessie - and it's still really good anti infantry too. There is nothing in this game that dessie doesn't love to shot - unless it's calgar or a wave serpent or something t10 (that is almost non existent.)
Dessie do not particularly like T6+ 4++ targets. It takes 2 full turns of fire from 3 dessie ravagers to maybe down a single tyrant, 3 if it is a leviathan warlord.
Spoletta wrote: Dessie do not particularly like T6+ 4++ targets. It takes 2 full turns of fire from 3 dessie ravagers to maybe down a single tyrant, 3 if it is a leviathan warlord.
Isn't this around a 25% return? Not optimal perhaps - but hardly bad.
Also on the whole hypothetical "if 50% of people in a tournament played guard, but only 1/3 in the top 10 were Guard it would show the codex was fine".
People going to a major tournament probably want to win. Or at least not lose 5 games in a row. We often talk about how 40k is expensive - but frankly, going to a major tournament isn't free. If you are in the tournament scene (travel, hotels etc) you have the money to buy a decent army.
So if 50% people turned up with Guard that would indicate people reckoned they were the best codex.
Martel732 wrote: 6 pts is totally fair for a bs 3 model with a gun that ignores T!
The price drop kabalites have received with the transition to 8TH is idiot at best...from 8 pts to 7 pts during the Index era and now 6 points...having the same price as an Ork Boy (which is the mainstay unit for a HORDE army) is definitely a shame for all balancing purposes
Automatically Appended Next Post:
w1zard wrote: If guardsmen go up to 5 points, then rangers, fire warriors, and kabalites need to go up as well. If that happens, then I'm fine with guardsmen going up to 5 ppm.
They all need a +1 pt increase too, no question there
Honestly I think balancing wise we all have a bad habit of wanting bad units lowered rather than good units raised in price. That's how you end up in weird ppm flattening positions and lose granularity as values start gravitating too close together.
Bharring wrote: Now, I still think Spears are the better unit, but the math didn't work out how I expected.
Expectations from experience of the game perhaps. You are never going to get a unit of spears charged / charging 70 guardsmen all at once, similarly with shooting the guardsmen will only every be able to bring a proportion of models to bear.
While not specifically a guard thing, if you have a few powerful units that are the exact equal of many weak units then the many weak units have the benefit of battlefield control but the few strong units will beat them over time, all other things equal.
Hatachi wrote: Honestly I think balancing wise we all have a bad habit of wanting bad units lowered rather than good units raised in price. That's how you end up in weird ppm flattening positions and lose granularity as values start gravitating too close together.
That is a very good observation, and I agree wholeheartedly.
Colonel Cross wrote: Why are people still math hammering guardsmen against elite units and failing to take morale into the equation?
Because morale is always avoided in some manner. Just like last edition, morale-based shenanigans are super weak in terms of crunch.
Well when comparing some shining spears against 70 guardsmen, if split fire and multi charging is done properly, there would be morale casualties on the guard side. They've got 1 psychic power nobody uses and 2 different morale Stratagems. I'd say morale ALWAYS being avoided is not very accurate. IG only has leadership 7.
SHUPPET wrote:
Colonel Cross wrote: Why are people still math hammering guardsmen against elite units and failing to take morale into the equation?
Where was your input when they were mathhammering Guardsmen vs almost identical units, and rewarded by absurdist responses for it?
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Guard players answer me this
Why should your guardsmen cost the Sam points as my cultists she they have access to better saves among other things
Better rules, better options available, better starting equipment, and also 6+
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Guard players answer me this
Why should your guardsmen cost the Sam points as my cultists she they have access to better saves among other things
Wrong example man, cultists are definitely on par with guardmen on the table if not better.
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Guard players answer me this
Why should your guardsmen cost the Sam points as my cultists she they have access to better saves among other things
Wrong example man, cultists are definitely on par with guardmen on the table if not better.
Only when you add Abaddon's reroll & morale immunity, Slaanesh double shooting stratagem and Veterans of the Long War...
No, they are not on part with Guardsmen
Champion of Slaanesh wrote: Guard players answer me this
Why should your guardsmen cost the Sam points as my cultists she they have access to better saves among other things
Cultists can
>be taken in large groups
>easily infiltrated
>can go alpha legion for -1 to hit
>can use veterans of the long war
>tide of traitors
The units are different both have strengths and weaknesses. But acting like cultists aren’t good is laughable
, but orks have been 6 points and essentially the same statline for like 5 editions now so I dont see that changing...I hope). I think the problem was not necessarily making infantry cheaper, but the combination of cheaper and chapter tactics/equivalents. 
