As happy as I am to see GW address the CP generation issue by nerfing grand strategist via tactical restraint rule, I don't see it addressing soup in any real tangible way. Armies like knights etc will still be taking bare minimum guard detachments for CP now that the CP cost of many stratagems have increased, increasing the reliance on CP from guard even more. The knee jerk reaction from the community will again be that guard are broken despite not topping any tournaments as a mono-army & only seeing representation from 2 of the 8+ regiments. The proposed solution will be to increase the cost of IG infantry squads/HQ choices despite the following being nerfed already:
Conscript nerf x2
Commissar nerf
Plasma gun nerf
Melta gun nerf
Astropath nerf
Primaris psycher nerf
Valhallan nerf
Manticore nerf
Ratling nerf
Wyvern nerf
Tarantula nerf
Half a dozen other nerfs I cannot be bothered to list
The problem is not IG. It is the way CP is acquired & allowed to be utilized. Until that is addressed, we will continue to repeat history.
I think you're summarizing the collective nerfs into a recent problem is incorrect.
Some of the units were being abused because they're that good. Which was an issue in the beginning of 8th. But now they're in check.
The recent issue of CP farming I think has been handled decently. Soup being what it is, is what the issue is not so much CP farming. Without soup CP farming issue wouldn't exist.
I play an army that struggles to gain CP and I use it really quickly. Guard is one of the biggest culprits for CP farming, or was. If I had a way to get free CP, you bet I'd use it. But I don't because I'm not imperium.
Its simple
I look at my current tournament list (Custodes/IK/IG) and think. Can I get any better battalion in 312 points then:
Company Commander, Primaris Psyker
3x 10 guard
3x 3 Mortar Heavy Weapon teams
now that I don't really care about Grand Stratagist.
And the answer is no. Nothing is as point efficient as Guard..
People have made their mind up about the Guard Boogeyman the same way people continue to revile Tau even an edition later for the sin of being good against Space Marines.
When CA no doubt makes CP in-faction only, people will still complain.
Arbitrator wrote: People have made their mind up about the Guard Boogeyman the same way people continue to revile Tau even an edition later for the sin of being good against Space Marines.
When CA no doubt makes CP in-faction only, people will still complain.
I present to you, or anyone else, the challenge.
Make a more effective battalion with a different codex for objective control and screening with some moderate power then:
Company Commander, Primaris Psyker
3x 10 guard
3x 3 Mortar Heavy Weapon teams
you have 312 points to play with.
Go prove me, and others, wrong that Guard is still the most cost effective way.
Arbitrator wrote: People have made their mind up about the Guard Boogeyman the same way people continue to revile Tau even an edition later for the sin of being good against Space Marines.
When CA no doubt makes CP in-faction only, people will still complain.
I present to you, or anyone else, the challenge.
Make a more effective battalion with a different codex for objective control and screening with some moderate power then:
Company Commander, Primaris Psyker
3x 10 guard
3x 3 Mortar Heavy Weapon teams
you have 312 points to play with.
Go prove me, and others, wrong that Guard is still the most cost effective way.
Not imperium, so it doesn't really matter, but just for the challenge:
Jormungand
Neurotrope
Neurotrope
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
305 points, 4 psy powers, 2 reroll psy auras, 45 T3 5+ fearless deepstriking wounds with objective secure and a profile that makes them extremely easy to put out of LOS.
Can't get any better than that for objective control.
Arbitrator wrote: People have made their mind up about the Guard Boogeyman the same way people continue to revile Tau even an edition later for the sin of being good against Space Marines.
When CA no doubt makes CP in-faction only, people will still complain.
I present to you, or anyone else, the challenge.
Make a more effective battalion with a different codex for objective control and screening with some moderate power then:
Company Commander, Primaris Psyker
3x 10 guard
3x 3 Mortar Heavy Weapon teams
you have 312 points to play with.
Go prove me, and others, wrong that Guard is still the most cost effective way.
I have to second this. Before a recent GT I attended, I was trying to make my Space Wolves as efficient as possible with a small guard detachment. Every time I compared a guard unit to anything in my codex, the guard option was better for the points (barring a couple of HQs and Wulfen). Before long, I realized that the most efficient option was to remove every SW unit in the list and replace it with something from the IG book. It's bananas how good guard are at ITC missions in particular.
It would be nice if GW would do something to address Soup, as it has consistently been shown to be the real problem in 8th.
Reducing CP regeneration will just make Imperium armies even more reliant on the initial CP provided by cheap IG detachments.
What actually needed to happen was to make it that CP could only be spent by the same faction that generated it. So if an IG Battalion brings you 5CP, you have to spend that 5CP on IG Stratagems (or Rulebook Stratagems).
Ordana wrote: I present to you, or anyone else, the challenge.
Make a more effective battalion with a different codex for objective control and screening with some moderate power then:
Company Commander, Primaris Psyker
3x 10 guard
3x 3 Mortar Heavy Weapon teams
you have 312 points to play with.
Go prove me, and others, wrong that Guard is still the most cost effective way.
I'm not sure what point you're making here. No one is denying that IG is efficient.
What they're saying is that, if CPs generated by IG Battalions/Brigades could only be spent on IG Stratagems, then it might actually make them a less attractive (and certainly less necessary) inclusion for Imperium armies.
*Maybe* we'd still see them, but if you removed their ability to generate CP for IK or BA Stratagems, I think they would see a lot less play (outside of IG armies, obviously).
At the very least, it would be nice to see a rule that actually makes allies less-attractive, rather than more and more rules that solidify them as being the only army type worth playing.
I have to second this. Before a recent GT I attended, I was trying to make my Space Wolves as efficient as possible with a small guard detachment. Every time I compared a guard unit to anything in my codex, the guard option was better for the points (barring a couple of HQs and Wulfen). Before long, I realized that the most efficient option was to remove every SW unit in the list and replace it with something from the IG book. It's bananas how good guard are at ITC missions in particular.
I just checked what a cheap battalion would mean to each faction (results below, a few instances of slightly less cheap but way more functional units was taken). And in a way I feel that the FAQ might get things to work as intended. By that I mean it's clear that GW wanted all armies to have troops as a fundamental basis. With absolute CP limitations pure knights would be taken more which means you're up against a pure skew list with 9cp. IMO it's also more fluffy to see imperial allies for custodes and knights. Now I generally think that infantry squad, skitarii rangers (+tiny buff), and fire warriors (pulse rifles/blaster) should be 1 pt higher while space marines/scouts and necrons should be 1 pt lower to even the gap. I'm of the opinion that daemons might want 1-2cp for patrol with a full unit of troops as a special rule.
Astra Militarum 180pts high troop/hq synergy
Tau 189pts high troop/hq synergy
Adeptus Mech 199pts No troop/hq synergy
Drukhari wych 220pts Redundant hq w/ synergy
Tyranids 239pts Low synergy but psy Genestealer c 256pts Redundant hq w/ synergy
Chaos SM 266pts Synergy enough
Daemons Nurg 282pts Redundant hq specific synergy
Craftworlds 290pts Synergy through psy
Imperial SM 299pts Very high synergy, ability wasted
Daemons Kho 322pts Redundant hq w/ synergy
Daemons Slaa 342pts synergy and psy
Daemons Tzee 366pts synergy and psy
Necrons 418pts Synergy is limited by model count
Custodes 712pts Redundant hq, synergy= 1/36 miss
So here we see that guard aren't the only ones that can be a cp boost, previously they were a renewable resource which made them far better at the job than mech. Also, it's worth asking if 30 sv5+ bodies with hq abilities that make them very very good at mass shooting is really worth less than 15 sv4+ bodies with better base shooting and no support what so ever from more expensive hqs.
Horrors and changecasters are pretty good and can fit in that point value. But the problem is that you shouldn't get cp for detachments. Detachments should cost cp. Cheap units get vastly more cp per point, which is silly.
vipoid wrote: It would be nice if GW would do something to address Soup, as it has consistently been shown to be the real problem in 8th.
Reducing CP regeneration will just make Imperium armies even more reliant on the initial CP provided by cheap IG detachments.
What actually needed to happen was to make it that CP could only be spent by the same faction that generated it. So if an IG Battalion brings you 5CP, you have to spend that 5CP on IG Stratagems (or Rulebook Stratagems).
Ordana wrote: I present to you, or anyone else, the challenge.
Make a more effective battalion with a different codex for objective control and screening with some moderate power then:
Company Commander, Primaris Psyker
3x 10 guard
3x 3 Mortar Heavy Weapon teams
you have 312 points to play with.
Go prove me, and others, wrong that Guard is still the most cost effective way.
I'm not sure what point you're making here. No one is denying that IG is efficient.
What they're saying is that, if CPs generated by IG Battalions/Brigades could only be spent on IG Stratagems, then it might actually make them a less attractive (and certainly less necessary) inclusion for Imperium armies.
*Maybe* we'd still see them, but if you removed their ability to generate CP for IK or BA Stratagems, I think they would see a lot less play (outside of IG armies, obviously).
At the very least, it would be nice to see a rule that actually makes allies less-attractive, rather than more and more rules that solidify them as being the only army type worth playing.
Even if the Guard CP's were uneable I cannot get better board control with the Imperium Keyword for that few points.
Tournament armies will always need bodies to put on objectives.
And perhaps GW has done nothing to soup because they are ok with soup as it drives sales.
Arbitrator wrote: People have made their mind up about the Guard Boogeyman the same way people continue to revile Tau even an edition later for the sin of being good against Space Marines.
When CA no doubt makes CP in-faction only, people will still complain.
I present to you, or anyone else, the challenge.
Make a more effective battalion with a different codex for objective control and screening with some moderate power then:
Company Commander, Primaris Psyker
3x 10 guard
3x 3 Mortar Heavy Weapon teams
you have 312 points to play with.
Go prove me, and others, wrong that Guard is still the most cost effective way.
Not imperium, so it doesn't really matter, but just for the challenge:
Jormungand
Neurotrope
Neurotrope
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
305 points, 4 psy powers, 2 reroll psy auras, 45 T3 5+ fearless deepstriking wounds with objective secure and a profile that makes them extremely easy to put out of LOS.
Can't get any better than that for objective control.
Maybe, but that first list is paying most of it's points for the 3x3 Mortar squads, the list you posted has zero offensive output. That Guard Battalion is way better
Shas'O'Ceris wrote: I just checked what a cheap battalion would mean to each faction (results below, a few instances of slightly less cheap but way more functional units was taken). And in a way I feel that the FAQ might get things to work as intended. By that I mean it's clear that GW wanted all armies to have troops as a fundamental basis. With absolute CP limitations pure knights would be taken more which means you're up against a pure skew list with 9cp. IMO it's also more fluffy to see imperial allies for custodes and knights. Now I generally think that infantry squad, skitarii rangers (+tiny buff), and fire warriors (pulse rifles/blaster) should be 1 pt higher while space marines/scouts and necrons should be 1 pt lower to even the gap. I'm of the opinion that daemons might want 1-2cp for patrol with a full unit of troops as a special rule.
Astra Militarum 180pts high troop/hq synergy
Tau 189pts high troop/hq synergy
Adeptus Mech 199pts No troop/hq synergy
Drukhari wych 220pts Redundant hq w/ synergy
Tyranids 239pts Low synergy but psy Genestealer c 256pts Redundant hq w/ synergy
Chaos SM 266pts Synergy enough
Daemons Nurg 282pts Redundant hq specific synergy
Craftworlds 290pts Synergy through psy
Imperial SM 299pts Very high synergy, ability wasted
Daemons Kho 322pts Redundant hq w/ synergy
Daemons Slaa 342pts synergy and psy
Daemons Tzee 366pts synergy and psy
Necrons 418pts Synergy is limited by model count
Custodes 712pts Redundant hq, synergy= 1/36 miss
That list sort of says it all. Tau is a close second, but they can't ally in to Knights. Mechanicus is, too, but has nowhere near the synergy as IG. Tyranids have a save that is half as good and the gun is less than half as useful unless you pay twice the cost of IS. Wyches ain't got guns.
Ordana wrote: Even if the Guard CP's were uneable I cannot get better board control with the Imperium Keyword for that few points.
And this is why, as I've said over and over again, there needs to be an actual cost to taking Allies - so that you can't cherry-pick the best units from different books with no penalty over a mono army.
Ordana wrote: Even if the Guard CP's were uneable I cannot get better board control with the Imperium Keyword for that few points.
And this is why, as I've said over and over again, there needs to be an actual cost to taking Allies - so that you can't cherry-pick the best units from different books with no penalty over a mono army.
I'd also go so far as to say this is why the objective tokens/objectives themselves need to be reworked a bit. This is a great example of why objectives for certain armies need to be stressed vs others.
Marines shouldn't be trying to hold objectives in a building. They should be trying to sabotage those objectives or sever the chain of command of the opposing army. Tyranids should be trying to moving into the enemy territory while destroying units.
Commissar Benny wrote: As happy as I am to see GW address the CP generation issue by nerfing grand strategist via tactical restraint rule, I don't see it addressing soup in any real tangible way. Armies like knights etc will still be taking bare minimum guard detachments for CP now that the CP cost of many stratagems have increased, increasing the reliance on CP from guard even more. The knee jerk reaction from the community will again be that guard are broken despite not topping any tournaments as a mono-army & only seeing representation from 2 of the 8+ regiments. The proposed solution will be to increase the cost of IG infantry squads/HQ choices despite the following being nerfed already:
Conscript nerf x2
Commissar nerf
Plasma gun nerf
Melta gun nerf
Astropath nerf
Primaris psycher nerf
Valhallan nerf
Manticore nerf
Ratling nerf
Wyvern nerf
Tarantula nerf
Half a dozen other nerfs I cannot be bothered to list
The problem is not IG. It is the way CP is acquired & allowed to be utilized. Until that is addressed, we will continue to repeat history.
Exactly.
Though for the cost, the loyal 32 is still the best source of not just CP, but screening, bubble wrap, and board control.
The problem is that soup isn't a problem and nobody likes to hear that. Some armies would not be competitive in any way without the basics.
Guardsmanwaffle wrote: I have looked at all the lists that placed in the top 3 of a Major or GT from January 2018 to July 2018 as listed on Blood of Kittens http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/ and compiled all the lists containing any amount of Astra Militarum along with making a few notes about any standout units the list contained.
There are 3 mono guard lists that placed in the top 3 of a GT or Major between January and July. That's less top 3s than Tau and Tyranids. Guard is not dominating competitive warhammer, soup is dominating competitive warhammer, and that's any soup Imperial, Eldar, and Chaos are all widely out performing any mono faction lists.
Reposting a previous comment of mine. Bear in mind almost all of these lists were using Grand Strategist, Kurov's Aquilla, Veritas Vitae CP farm. With the recent changes to CP regen, these lists will have roughly half the CP they use to have available over the course of a game.
Ordana wrote: Even if the Guard CP's were uneable I cannot get better board control with the Imperium Keyword for that few points.
And this is why, as I've said over and over again, there needs to be an actual cost to taking Allies - so that you can't cherry-pick the best units from different books with no penalty over a mono army.
What a quick way to invalidate large swaths of the imperial factions in the game.
The nerf to Fly has also now made IG even stronger, as conscript bubblewrap can now not only defend against ground units... but also flying assault units.
That's right, a cheap blob of conscripts can prevent Raptors, Warp Talons, assault marines...
Hell, that's not even that bad. Cheap conscripts can block JETBIKES. And Grav Tanks.
Valkyries.
A 200 point Heldrake, flying hundreds of meters above the battlefield, flying at near supersonic speeds, finding it's target and preparing to dive from above the clouds and pounce upon its prey... is blocked by a 30 point line of basic humans with potato guns.
Niiru wrote: The nerf to Fly has also now made IG even stronger, as conscript bubblewrap can now not only defend against ground units... but also flying assault units.
That's right, a cheap blob of conscripts can prevent Raptors, Warp Talons, assault marines...
Hell, that's not even that bad. Cheap conscripts can block JETBIKES. And Grav Tanks.
Valkyries.
A 200 point Heldrake, flying hundreds of meters above the battlefield, flying at near supersonic speeds, finding it's target and preparing to dive from above the clouds and pounce upon its prey... is blocked by a 30 point line of basic humans with potato guns.
Are you really charging anything with grav tanks or valkyries? Fly can still move over units in the movement phase.
Niiru wrote: The nerf to Fly has also now made IG even stronger, as conscript bubblewrap can now not only defend against ground units... but also flying assault units.
That's right, a cheap blob of conscripts can prevent Raptors, Warp Talons, assault marines...
Hell, that's not even that bad. Cheap conscripts can block JETBIKES. And Grav Tanks.
Valkyries.
A 200 point Heldrake, flying hundreds of meters above the battlefield, flying at near supersonic speeds, finding it's target and preparing to dive from above the clouds and pounce upon its prey... is blocked by a 30 point line of basic humans with potato guns.
*Insert big MASSIVE buzzer*
Units with Fly can still move over models during the Movement Phase.
You can't charge across a screen anymore, you can still move over it.
Page 177 – Moving
Change the second paragraph to read:
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during
the Movement phase it can move across models and
terrain as if they were not there.’
Niiru wrote: The nerf to Fly has also now made IG even stronger, as conscript bubblewrap can now not only defend against ground units... but also flying assault units.
That's right, a cheap blob of conscripts can prevent Raptors, Warp Talons, assault marines...
Hell, that's not even that bad. Cheap conscripts can block JETBIKES. And Grav Tanks.
Valkyries.
A 200 point Heldrake, flying hundreds of meters above the battlefield, flying at near supersonic speeds, finding it's target and preparing to dive from above the clouds and pounce upon its prey... is blocked by a 30 point line of basic humans with potato guns.
*Insert big MASSIVE buzzer*
Units with Fly can still move over models during the Movement Phase.
You can't charge across a screen anymore, you can still move over it.
Page 177 – Moving
Change the second paragraph to read:
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during
the Movement phase it can move across models and
terrain as if they were not there.’
Yes, duh, obviously. But the charge range is a massive part of a units movement. You're essentially saying "the rule is fine, it just means that fly units are now up to 12" slower than they once were but are still paying the same points cost, thats fine! (because I don't use fly units)".
Edit: Also, another glitch with this rule now means that units like jetbikes and DPs can no longer assault units that are hiding in ruins. Hide in a ruin and you're totally safe.
Niiru wrote: The nerf to Fly has also now made IG even stronger, as conscript bubblewrap can now not only defend against ground units... but also flying assault units.
That's right, a cheap blob of conscripts can prevent Raptors, Warp Talons, assault marines...
Hell, that's not even that bad. Cheap conscripts can block JETBIKES. And Grav Tanks.
Valkyries.
A 200 point Heldrake, flying hundreds of meters above the battlefield, flying at near supersonic speeds, finding it's target and preparing to dive from above the clouds and pounce upon its prey... is blocked by a 30 point line of basic humans with potato guns.
*Insert big MASSIVE buzzer*
Units with Fly can still move over models during the Movement Phase.
You can't charge across a screen anymore, you can still move over it.
Page 177 – Moving
Change the second paragraph to read:
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during
the Movement phase it can move across models and
terrain as if they were not there.’
Yes, duh, obviously. But the charge range is a massive part of a units movement. You're essentially saying "the rule is fine, it just means that fly units are now up to 12" slower than they once were but are still paying the same points cost, thats fine! (because I don't use fly units)".
Edit: Also, another glitch with this rule now means that units like jetbikes and DPs can no longer assault units that are hiding in ruins. Hide in a ruin and you're totally safe.
Thanks for assuming things but I play with combat jetbikes myself, and I think its fine. Screens should be able to screen.
And units with Fly can still very much charge a unit in a ruin. Why do you think they can no longer do so?
Commissar Benny wrote: The problem is not IG. It is the way CP is acquired & allowed to be utilized. Until that is addressed, we will continue to repeat history.
Correction - the problem is those units that make up the top soup lists and how they interact with each other, both in terms of generating CP and in terms of psychic powers. Until those units and their interactions are addressed, we will continue to repeat history.
4 ppm Infantry shouldn't exist for any reason.
There are other units in the Guard dex as well as others that are far too efficient.
Niiru wrote: The nerf to Fly has also now made IG even stronger, as conscript bubblewrap can now not only defend against ground units... but also flying assault units.
That's right, a cheap blob of conscripts can prevent Raptors, Warp Talons, assault marines...
Hell, that's not even that bad. Cheap conscripts can block JETBIKES. And Grav Tanks.
Valkyries.
A 200 point Heldrake, flying hundreds of meters above the battlefield, flying at near supersonic speeds, finding it's target and preparing to dive from above the clouds and pounce upon its prey... is blocked by a 30 point line of basic humans with potato guns.
*Insert big MASSIVE buzzer*
Units with Fly can still move over models during the Movement Phase.
You can't charge across a screen anymore, you can still move over it.
Page 177 – Moving
Change the second paragraph to read:
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during
the Movement phase it can move across models and
terrain as if they were not there.’
Yes, duh, obviously. But the charge range is a massive part of a units movement. You're essentially saying "the rule is fine, it just means that fly units are now up to 12" slower than they once were but are still paying the same points cost, thats fine! (because I don't use fly units)".
Edit: Also, another glitch with this rule now means that units like jetbikes and DPs can no longer assault units that are hiding in ruins. Hide in a ruin and you're totally safe.
Thanks for assuming things but I play with combat jetbikes myself, and I think its fine. Screens should be able to screen.
And units with Fly can still very much charge a unit in a ruin. Why do you think they can no longer do so?
I mean if you think it's fine that a basic human being is capable of jumping 20 feet in the air and blocking a flying machine / giant winged monster, then that's totally fine. You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how stupid it might be.
Now if they introduced new units, that paid an extra premium for the ability to block flyers (which I believe does exist, thought I think they're forgeworld) then I'd have no problem with conscripts paying a few extra points per model to carry nets or long sticks or something to swat flyers out of the sky. It's still ridiculous, but at least it's not a free buff to the unit.
As far as the ruins thing goes, I may be mistaken, but from what I recall non-infantry couldn't end a movement phase upstairs in a ruin unless it could Fly. And as you can no longer fly in the charge phase, then you can't charge and end your charge inside a ruin. (I don't think it applies to the ground floor... only on upper levels. I'd have to check the rulebook though).
Niiru wrote: The nerf to Fly has also now made IG even stronger, as conscript bubblewrap can now not only defend against ground units... but also flying assault units.
That's right, a cheap blob of conscripts can prevent Raptors, Warp Talons, assault marines...
Hell, that's not even that bad. Cheap conscripts can block JETBIKES. And Grav Tanks.
Valkyries.
A 200 point Heldrake, flying hundreds of meters above the battlefield, flying at near supersonic speeds, finding it's target and preparing to dive from above the clouds and pounce upon its prey... is blocked by a 30 point line of basic humans with potato guns.
*Insert big MASSIVE buzzer*
Units with Fly can still move over models during the Movement Phase.
You can't charge across a screen anymore, you can still move over it.
Page 177 – Moving
Change the second paragraph to read:
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during
the Movement phase it can move across models and
terrain as if they were not there.’
Yes, duh, obviously. But the charge range is a massive part of a units movement. You're essentially saying "the rule is fine, it just means that fly units are now up to 12" slower than they once were but are still paying the same points cost, thats fine! (because I don't use fly units)".
Edit: Also, another glitch with this rule now means that units like jetbikes and DPs can no longer assault units that are hiding in ruins. Hide in a ruin and you're totally safe.
Thanks for assuming things but I play with combat jetbikes myself, and I think its fine. Screens should be able to screen.
And units with Fly can still very much charge a unit in a ruin. Why do you think they can no longer do so?
I mean if you think it's fine that a basic human being is capable of jumping 20 feet in the air and blocking a flying machine / giant winged monster, then that's totally fine. You're entitled to your opinion, no matter how stupid it might be.
Now if they introduced new units, that paid an extra premium for the ability to block flyers (which I believe does exist, thought I think they're forgeworld) then I'd have no problem with conscripts paying a few extra points per model to carry nets or long sticks or something to swat flyers out of the sky. It's still ridiculous, but at least it's not a free buff to the unit.
As far as the ruins thing goes, I may be mistaken, but from what I recall non-infantry couldn't end a movement phase upstairs in a ruin unless it could Fly. And as you can no longer fly in the charge phase, then you can't charge and end your charge inside a ruin. (I don't think it applies to the ground floor... only on upper levels. I'd have to check the rulebook though).
We're playing a game of WW2 tanks, genetically engineered super humans wielding chainsaws and demonic flying robot chicks. Realism isn't something I give a gak about. Is this better for the game yes/no
And you still have the Fly keyword in the charge phase. You just can't ignore terrain and models like everyone else so yes, you can charge into a ruin, you can even go strait up to the top floor and fight someone there. You just need to once again measure for vertical movement.
Niiru wrote: The nerf to Fly has also now made IG even stronger, as conscript bubblewrap can now not only defend against ground units... but also flying assault units.
That's right, a cheap blob of conscripts can prevent Raptors, Warp Talons, assault marines...
Hell, that's not even that bad. Cheap conscripts can block JETBIKES. And Grav Tanks.
Valkyries.
A 200 point Heldrake, flying hundreds of meters above the battlefield, flying at near supersonic speeds, finding it's target and preparing to dive from above the clouds and pounce upon its prey... is blocked by a 30 point line of basic humans with potato guns.
*Insert big MASSIVE buzzer*
Units with Fly can still move over models during the Movement Phase.
You can't charge across a screen anymore, you can still move over it.
Page 177 – Moving
Change the second paragraph to read:
‘If the datasheet for a model says it can Fly, then during
the Movement phase it can move across models and
terrain as if they were not there.’
Yes, duh, obviously. But the charge range is a massive part of a units movement. You're essentially saying "the rule is fine, it just means that fly units are now up to 12" slower than they once were but are still paying the same points cost, thats fine! (because I don't use fly units)".
Edit: Also, another glitch with this rule now means that units like jetbikes and DPs can no longer assault units that are hiding in ruins. Hide in a ruin and you're totally safe.
The new rule doesn't delete the FLY keyword during the Charge Phase.
Arbitrator wrote: People have made their mind up about the Guard Boogeyman the same way people continue to revile Tau even an edition later for the sin of being good against Space Marines.
When CA no doubt makes CP in-faction only, people will still complain.
As someone who came to play Tau during 8th I can attest to this. I've actually gotten sneers from people just for opening my model case.
Problem is that IG is just too points-efficient, It's ridiculous how many shots-per-turn you can cram into a list, and in 8th raw weight of fire is very powerful with the 6+ is a guaranteed wound on anything rule. I think it's pretty much agreed on by most people that IG is the most powerful mono-faction.
I'm not into tournament stuff, but in more casual games IG are very hard to counter. They bring the most firepower to the table point for point, are good at screening, and if you do get in charge distance of a tank Defensive Gunners makes overwatch abolutely lethal (try charging that LR Executioner with plasma sponsons with 6d3 plasma shots and a possible Lascannon as well when it overwatches at 5+). On top of that they are easy to play at a half-decent level (obvious unit synergies, basic gameplay consists of point gun at appropriate target and don't position like an idiot). The most obvious counter to IG would be to outshoot them... which is nearly impossible.
Niiru wrote: The nerf to Fly has also now made IG even stronger, as conscript bubblewrap can now not only defend against ground units... but also flying assault units.
That's right, a cheap blob of conscripts can prevent Raptors, Warp Talons, assault marines...
Hell, that's not even that bad. Cheap conscripts can block JETBIKES. And Grav Tanks.
Valkyries.
A 200 point Heldrake, flying hundreds of meters above the battlefield, flying at near supersonic speeds, finding it's target and preparing to dive from above the clouds and pounce upon its prey... is blocked by a 30 point line of basic humans with potato guns.
Are you really charging anything with grav tanks or valkyries? Fly can still move over units in the movement phase.
Change grav tank and Valkyrie for Bloodthirster and Flyrant and that sentence will make a lot more sense. In a "real" scenario those things would charge straight through those Guardsmen (wings or not, come to think of it) to nom on the shiny tank behind them.
That list sort of says it all. Tau is a close second, but they can't ally in to Knights. Mechanicus is, too, but has nowhere near the synergy as IG. Tyranids have a save that is half as good and the gun is less than half as useful unless you pay twice the cost of IS. Wyches ain't got guns.
Tau is my main force and although it would be nice to have non fire warrior options that are viable for fluffy farsight lists, they do a great job at being the necessary bodies. 5*6 models with their volley fire are amazing at holding a base, fine for screening, and tough to outshoot as infantry. I could pay 1pt more for the pulse rifle over the pulse carbine, but generally they are exactly what troops should be in a ranged focused codex. Now for internal consistency gun drones are better T and more consistent 4 shots at 18" for less than 2x the price, or stealth suits are 1 better save and wound for double again, or piranhas are well too susceptible to anti-vehicle guns to care about at 70+pts.
I'm not sure due to lack of firsthand exp but shouldn't guardsmen in a similar position? How is their internal balance?
The soup issue with these models is imagine that necrons could ally with T'au. Why bother with immortals and crypteks? T'au have the shooty and bodies down, skip straight to c'tan spam. Guardsmen can do that with custodes/knights/SM/assassins etc. I feel like IG should want baneblades as their titan but we aren't seeing that as much as knights.
I also run chaos and am not happy being forced by efficiency to run cultists, i use my kroot models for em. It's not so much that the 15pts to upgrade to a marine unit is too points hungry it's that marines lack quantity of shots or efficacy of CC damage to be worth taking. In that regard a marine buff would help both sides reduce reliance on chaff for casual at least. Until then we're stuck with IG being leagues ahead of their soup role. Ad Mech might catch up if engineseers were useful in any way, like a version that buffs CC and another that buffs T.
Arbitrator wrote: People have made their mind up about the Guard Boogeyman the same way people continue to revile Tau even an edition later for the sin of being good against Space Marines.
When CA no doubt makes CP in-faction only, people will still complain.
As someone who came to play Tau during 8th I can attest to this. I've actually gotten sneers from people just for opening my model case.
That's fine. What matters is wether they were sneering at you at the end of the game.
Pretty sure IG will "still be the problem" because the standard Catachan brigade is probably the best thing in the game right now. Catachans are the best screens, great objective holders, do great shooting and are great in assault too. You also bag mortars which are excellent, some cheap psychic and some more area denial and bags of CP in a world of 3 detachments.
In terms of the meta the only real hit as I see it is to smash captains so they are probably on the chopping block to find something different if anything is. With that said some testing is required, as the raw power is still there and efficiently taking something important off the table will always tend to be valuable.
Its also perhaps an odd thought but I think the scouts are a very nice thing to include in the list. More area denial, if you can get them on objectives straight away your opponent has to deal with them or potentially see the game run away with them. Scouts are by no means tough, but you really don't want to prioritize killing them when facing this list.
In an all Imperial Soup All the Time Imperial Soup meta I could maybe see the Captains getting cut - because you have the body count to screen charges for days - but its hard to see what you would plug in that's remotely as good for the points.
So all in all I expect a fairly unmodified Imperial Soup will endure until CA hopefully shakes things up.
Arbitrator wrote: People have made their mind up about the Guard Boogeyman the same way people continue to revile Tau even an edition later for the sin of being good against Space Marines.
If it helps, I don't revile Tau for being good against Marines during an edition or two.
Ordana wrote: Even if the Guard CP's were uneable I cannot get better board control with the Imperium Keyword for that few points.
And this is why, as I've said over and over again, there needs to be an actual cost to taking Allies - so that you can't cherry-pick the best units from different books with no penalty over a mono army.
Or perhaps (a shocking though!) one army should not have units that are just flat out better than options in other books and are always taken if possible?
Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.
Spoletta wrote: Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.
If Guard units are the yard stick for balanced, a lot of units across multiple codex's and even FW indexes need points drops of 20%.
Spoletta wrote: Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.
If Guard units are the yard stick for balanced, a lot of units across multiple codex's and even FW indexes need points drops of 20%.
Nah, the IG units that need a few points more are:
1) Basilisks, about 10-15 points
2) Infantry squads about 0,6 points, so i could see it going to 5 or staying where they are.
3) Company and platoon commanders both 10 points.
Spoletta wrote: Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.
If Guard units are the yard stick for balanced, a lot of units across multiple codex's and even FW indexes need points drops of 20%.
Nah, the IG units that need a few points more are:
1) Basilisks, about 10-15 points
2) Infantry squads about 0,6 points, so i could see it going to 5 or staying where they are.
3) Company and platoon commanders both 10 points.
The super heavies should all get looked at too.
Mortars 100% need a price increase.
9d6 48" s4 shots that don't need LoS for 100 points is retardedly stupid.
The other weapon team options are probably fine so I would increase the cost of Mortars to 10, if not more.
Spoletta wrote: Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.
But if IG works right now, wouldn't it be better to fix all the other armies and not destroy what IG have? When someone has a car with 10+ damaged parts and a good engine, the fixing does not start with breaking he engine.
I have no idea what GW would have to do make IG stop being good though. Even if they buff the cost by 1 they are still great. It would have to be some sort of special rule that they can't block stuff, being just unarmored frail humans and all across points hikes, debuff to Ld and only God knows what else.
Spoletta wrote: Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.
If Guard units are the yard stick for balanced, a lot of units across multiple codex's and even FW indexes need points drops of 20%.
Nah, the IG units that need a few points more are:
1) Basilisks, about 10-15 points
2) Infantry squads about 0,6 points, so i could see it going to 5 or staying where they are.
3) Company and platoon commanders both 10 points.
The super heavies should all get looked at too.
Whirlwinds need to be cheaper, predators need to be cheaper, vindicators need to be a lot cheaper, marines need to be cheaper.
Hammerheads need to be cheaper, Firewarriors need to be cheaper, kroot need to be cheaper.
Heck even Sicarans and other FW stuff need price drops to compete with IG codex.
As they all loose out to units you haven't listed so presumably that implies you think they are ok.
Heck even fellblades and falchions need price drops compaired to their IG equivalents.
As to scions now that they are turn 2 deepstrike only they are probably a lot lower on the list if problem units
Ordana wrote: Even if the Guard CP's were uneable I cannot get better board control with the Imperium Keyword for that few points.
And this is why, as I've said over and over again, there needs to be an actual cost to taking Allies - so that you can't cherry-pick the best units from different books with no penalty over a mono army.
Or perhaps (a shocking though!) one army should not have units that are just flat out better than options in other books and are always taken if possible?
I see you're burning the same strawman you use every time anyone brings up Soup.
I'm surprised it isn't a pile of ash at this point.
Ordana wrote: Even if the Guard CP's were uneable I cannot get better board control with the Imperium Keyword for that few points.
And this is why, as I've said over and over again, there needs to be an actual cost to taking Allies - so that you can't cherry-pick the best units from different books with no penalty over a mono army.
Or perhaps (a shocking though!) one army should not have units that are just flat out better than options in other books and are always taken if possible?
Lets be real here that's not happening and it would not be a good thing even if it did. It would destroy faction identity, some factions like Tau are just made not to have good assault units just like how on the other hand some factions like deamons are not made to have good shooting.
Spoletta wrote: Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.
But if IG works right now, wouldn't it be better to fix all the other armies and not destroy what IG have? When someone has a car with 10+ damaged parts and a good engine, the fixing does not start with breaking he engine.
I have no idea what GW would have to do make IG stop being good though. Even if they buff the cost by 1 they are still great. It would have to be some sort of special rule that they can't block stuff, being just unarmored frail humans and all across points hikes, debuff to Ld and only God knows what else.
If GW tried to make other armies as good as the currently best army, after 3 CA releases, some armies would end up having troops costing 1 ppm.
Spoletta wrote: Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.
But if IG works right now, wouldn't it be better to fix all the other armies and not destroy what IG have? When someone has a car with 10+ damaged parts and a good engine, the fixing does not start with breaking he engine.
I have no idea what GW would have to do make IG stop being good though. Even if they buff the cost by 1 they are still great. It would have to be some sort of special rule that they can't block stuff, being just unarmored frail humans and all across points hikes, debuff to Ld and only God knows what else.
If GW tried to make other armies as good as the currently best army, after 3 CA releases, some armies would end up having troops costing 1 ppm.
Points aren't everything. They could give them extra rules. For example tacticals could get a buff to their fire power, or defense.
I see you're burning the same strawman you use every time anyone brings up Soup.
I'm surprised it isn't a pile of ash at this point.
Not a strawman. Guardsmen are flat out the best troops for their points Imperium has. People are not allying Skitarii or Tactical Marines, it is always guardsmen. If those other Imperial factions would have troops worth taking, then they wouldn't need to bring the guardsmen.
Lets be real here that's not happening and it would not be a good thing even if it did. It would destroy faction identity, some factions like Tau are just made not to have good assault units just like how on the other hand some factions like deamons are not made to have good shooting.
Units being equally good doesn't man they need to be the same, merely that they have appropriate point cost for their capabilities.
Even if guardsmen were not head and shoulders above every other troop choice in the game soup would still be a problem simply because Imperium, Chaos, and Aeldari will always have more options than Orks, Tau, and Necrons (and to a lesser extent Tyranids). It's simply impossible to balance three factions that have real weaknesses and limitations due to their unit pool with factions that have a peg for every possible hole.
Spoletta wrote: Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.
If Guard units are the yard stick for balanced, a lot of units across multiple codex's and even FW indexes need points drops of 20%.
Nah, the IG units that need a few points more are:
1) Basilisks, about 10-15 points 2) Infantry squads about 0,6 points, so i could see it going to 5 or staying where they are. 3) Company and platoon commanders both 10 points.
The super heavies should all get looked at too.
Whirlwinds need to be cheaper, predators need to be cheaper, vindicators need to be a lot cheaper, marines need to be cheaper. Hammerheads need to be cheaper, Firewarriors need to be cheaper, kroot need to be cheaper. Heck even Sicarans and other FW stuff need price drops to compete with IG codex.
As they all loose out to units you haven't listed so presumably that implies you think they are ok.
Heck even fellblades and falchions need price drops compaired to their IG equivalents.
As to scions now that they are turn 2 deepstrike only they are probably a lot lower on the list if problem units
On the subject of whirlwinds, predators, vindicators and marines, i agree. They need some help.
Hammerheads and firewarriors are more than fine. Kroot i don't understand to which IG unit you are comparing it to.
Spoletta wrote: Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.
But if IG works right now, wouldn't it be better to fix all the other armies and not destroy what IG have? When someone has a car with 10+ damaged parts and a good engine, the fixing does not start with breaking he engine.
I have no idea what GW would have to do make IG stop being good though. Even if they buff the cost by 1 they are still great. It would have to be some sort of special rule that they can't block stuff, being just unarmored frail humans and all across points hikes, debuff to Ld and only God knows what else.
If GW tried to make other armies as good as the currently best army, after 3 CA releases, some armies would end up having troops costing 1 ppm.
Points aren't everything. They could give them extra rules. For example tacticals could get a buff to their fire power, or defense.
All I was trying to say is that I prefer downscaling strong units over upscaling bad units.
IMO the longer a game takes and the longer it takes to lose 3/4 of your army, the more fun it is. For both players.
More upscaling bad armies means that reducing the average number of turns it takes for at least one player to lose 3/4 of their army.
Ideally, tabling shouldn't occur until turn 6 or 7 IMO. It should be nearly impossible to table decent infantry-heavy Necrons or Death Guard list.
But what we got and will get even in lower tiers is games that will basically be decided by the end of game turn 3.
Arachnofiend wrote: Even if guardsmen were not head and shoulders above every other troop choice in the game soup would still be a problem simply because Imperium, Chaos, and Aeldari will always have more options than Orks, Tau, and Necrons (and to a lesser extent Tyranids). It's simply impossible to balance three factions that have real weaknesses and limitations due to their unit pool with factions that have a peg for every possible hole.
And Space Marines have way more options that the Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard has more options than Ad Mech. The exact same issue exist without the soup too.
Arachnofiend wrote: Even if guardsmen were not head and shoulders above every other troop choice in the game soup would still be a problem simply because Imperium, Chaos, and Aeldari will always have more options than Orks, Tau, and Necrons (and to a lesser extent Tyranids). It's simply impossible to balance three factions that have real weaknesses and limitations due to their unit pool with factions that have a peg for every possible hole.
Amd Space Marines have way more options that the Dark Eldar, Imperial Guard has more options than Ad Mech. The exact same issue exist without the soup too.
Without soup Space Marines lack chaff, without soup Imperial Guard lack a fast assault component. Even with a lot of models these factions have weaknesses deliberately built into them in order to ensure mechanics match flavor. With soup these weaknesses get erased by simply cherrypicking units from a completely different faction with a completely different flavor.
Without soup Space Marines lack chaff, without soup Imperial Guard lack a fast assault component. Even with a lot of models these factions have weaknesses deliberately built into them in order to ensure mechanics match flavor. With soup these weaknesses get erased by simply cherrypicking units from a completely different faction with a completely different flavor.
But by using point to allies in order to patch your weaknesses you are diluting the strengths of your main force as you have less points to spend on them. At least in theory, if the units had appropriate point costs.
I suppose that if instead of guardsmen getting a 1pt increase, company commanders could get a 10pt increase to bring guard closer in line with Ad Mech (200pts with orders or 190 without) and have less of an effect on mono-codex IG when running larger squads. The thing then would be that conscripts are still useless.
Also, I say no to cheaper Hammerheads or Fire warriors. Tau is my main and the set of 3HH+longstrike is almost too good as is.
Without soup Space Marines lack chaff, without soup Imperial Guard lack a fast assault component. Even with a lot of models these factions have weaknesses deliberately built into them in order to ensure mechanics match flavor. With soup these weaknesses get erased by simply cherrypicking units from a completely different faction with a completely different flavor.
But by using point to allies in order to patch your weaknesses you are diluting the strengths of your main force as you have less points to spend on them. At least in theory, if the units had appropriate point costs.
I actually made this account after lurking for a few years because of how frustrating this is to read.
Mono codex armies don't always HAVE a solution, or an optimized solution, to all problems. BA don't have backline securing chaff, they don't have good long range anti tank shooting.
A mono BA codex will never beat a soup'ed BA list which addresses those inherent weaknesses in the army. Soup breaks internal codex balancing, instead of having X options you now have X+50 options for every situation and decision you make.
Without soup Space Marines lack chaff, without soup Imperial Guard lack a fast assault component. Even with a lot of models these factions have weaknesses deliberately built into them in order to ensure mechanics match flavor. With soup these weaknesses get erased by simply cherrypicking units from a completely different faction with a completely different flavor.
But by using point to allies in order to patch your weaknesses you are diluting the strengths of your main force as you have less points to spend on them. At least in theory, if the units had appropriate point costs.
That's not how it works. That's not how it has ever worked
The problem with soup is that it makes appropriately costing units even harder than it would already be.
The point of soup is to stack buffs and beneficial interactions - to get an army that is more than the sum of its parts. Arguably this is true of any list, but there is a clear difference between picking from a single, sometimes limited codex and picking from about half of them.
I'd say a single Castellan in Imperial Soup is worth considerably more than one in a mono Knights list. Same for a smash captain. Which figure is right?
You could try and remove all these interactions - but I think you would struggle. Even in a world where say 120 points of Marines had the same probability curves on damage output and defence as 120 points of guardsmen.
I actually made this account after lurking for a few years because of how frustrating this is to read.
Mono codex armies don't always HAVE a solution, or an optimized solution, to all problems. BA don't have backline securing chaff, they don't have good long range anti tank shooting.
A mono BA codex will never beat a soup'ed BA list which addresses those inherent weaknesses in the army. Soup breaks internal codex balancing, instead of having X options you now have X+50 options for every situation and decision you make.
They don't have that specific solution, but they can have other solutions. Mono BA won't beat IG+BA simply because BA are bad. (And after the fly nerf, it is likely that pure Guard is just stronger than BA+Guard.) If the codices were properly written, a pure BA jump assault army should have a decent change of overwhelming their souped brethren in melee, as the soup BA would have diluted that strengths by bringing squishy guardsmen. However this doesn't happen because marines are bad and Guardsmen are crazy resilient.
If Marines with cheap chaff would inherently be a brokenly good combination, then certainly we would see the Chaos Marine armies dominating? They have the most tools the regular Marines have and addition have in built cheap chaff in form of the cultists. Why does this not break the game, but loyalist marines taking similar chaff from different codex does? If factions have these carefully built strengths and weakness that balance out each other, what is the weakness of the Chaos Marines compared to the loyalists, as they have that cheap chaff part covered?
I actually made this account after lurking for a few years because of how frustrating this is to read.
Mono codex armies don't always HAVE a solution, or an optimized solution, to all problems. BA don't have backline securing chaff, they don't have good long range anti tank shooting.
A mono BA codex will never beat a soup'ed BA list which addresses those inherent weaknesses in the army. Soup breaks internal codex balancing, instead of having X options you now have X+50 options for every situation and decision you make.
They don't have that specific solution, but they can have other solutions. Mono BA won't beat IG+BA simply because BA are bad. (And after the fly nerf, it is likely that pure Guard is just stronger than BA+Guard.) If the codices were properly written, a pure BA jump assault army should have a decent change of overwhelming their souped brethren in melee, as the soup BA would have diluted that strengths by bringing squishy guardsmen. However this doesn't happen because marines are bad and Guardsmen are crazy resilient.
If Marines with cheap chaff would inherently be a brokenly good combination, then certainly we would see the Chaos Marine armies dominating? They have the most tools the regular Marines have and addition have in built cheap chaff in form of the cultists. Why does this not break the game, but loyalist marines taking similar chaff from different codex does? If factions have these carefully built strengths and weakness that balance out each other, what is the weakness of the Chaos Marines compared to the loyalists, as they have that cheap chaff part covered?
You're missing the forest for the trees. Stop focusing on the individual units and see the bigger balance issue that is being highlighted. I'll use an even simpler example:
Having the ability to alpha strike a multi wound model in T1 and T2 is critical to winning. Currently with the rules the only way of doing that is with multi damage shooting because it is highly unlikely that melee can perform the task. BA have atrocious ranged anti-tank options. A soup'ed BA that takes IG shadowswords, a knight, whatever, is at a MASSIVE advantage to ANY BLOOD ANGELS LIST THAT YOU CAN MAKE.
TLDR:
1. You need ranged anti tank to win.
2. Due to a lack of appropriate chapter tactics and stratagems BA predators/lasdevs/etc, will always be worse than a Castellan.
3. Therefore soup will always win.
4. No amount of internal balance will overcome the fact that this inherent BA weakness can always be overcome with soup.
5. You can do this for other armies. See - World Eaters and psychic attack/defense.
I actually made this account after lurking for a few years because of how frustrating this is to read.
Mono codex armies don't always HAVE a solution, or an optimized solution, to all problems. BA don't have backline securing chaff, they don't have good long range anti tank shooting.
A mono BA codex will never beat a soup'ed BA list which addresses those inherent weaknesses in the army. Soup breaks internal codex balancing, instead of having X options you now have X+50 options for every situation and decision you make.
Don't BA have access to Predators, devastators, scouts, and whirlwinds? Unless your stipulation is that those options are bad therefore they don't exist.
Besides, Crimson's main point is that some factions DO have a solution to every problem. Should Harlequins/Custodes etc... suffer because they can't match the versatility of Guard? Restricting soup will just shift the power balance in favor of the largest and most powerful single-factions. And BA will still suck compared to Guard or Eldar, unless GW nerfs/buffs individual units and abilities.
Also, GW's current design philosophy is to encourage allied detachments. To them "soup" only refers to internal detachment mixing (eg. celestine and assassins). As far as they are concerned soup is now dead, and we are simply left with allies. And allies are not going away. The entirety of 8th was designed to allow allies, between detachments, keywords and cross-faction buffs everything works to allow and encourage allies.
So, no, you cannot declare that "soup" breaks internal balance because the codexes were designed with "soup" in mind. Any bad balance is not the fault of the existence of allies, but rather mistakes on the part of the designers, and quite frankly their naiveté when it comes to competitive mindsets.
You can disagree with GW's current policy, and maybe attempt to persuade them otherwise, but to claim that "soup" interactions were not intended or balanced around is false.
I personally love the ally system and I don't play competitively. It's simple and easy to use and let's me dabble in multiple factions without being too committed. It's the best scenario for the hobbyist, but maybe not the competitive gamer. Maybe ask GW to suggest tournament rules or something to limit soup, but leave casual players out of it.
I actually made this account after lurking for a few years because of how frustrating this is to read.
Mono codex armies don't always HAVE a solution, or an optimized solution, to all problems. BA don't have backline securing chaff, they don't have good long range anti tank shooting.
A mono BA codex will never beat a soup'ed BA list which addresses those inherent weaknesses in the army. Soup breaks internal codex balancing, instead of having X options you now have X+50 options for every situation and decision you make.
Don't BA have access to Predators, devastators, scouts, and whirlwinds? Unless your stipulation is that those options are bad therefore they don't exist.
Besides, Crimson's main point is that some factions DO have a solution to every problem. Should Harlequins/Custodes etc... suffer because they can't match the versatility of Guard? Restricting soup will just shift the power balance in favor of the largest and most powerful single-factions. And BA will still suck compared to Guard or Eldar, unless GW nerfs/buffs individual units and abilities.
Also, GW's current design philosophy is to encourage allied detachments. To them "soup" only refers to internal detachment mixing (eg. celestine and assassins). As far as they are concerned soup is now dead, and we are simply left with allies. And allies are not going away. The entirety of 8th was designed to allow allies, between detachments, keywords and cross-faction buffs everything works to allow and encourage allies.
So, no, you cannot declare that "soup" breaks internal balance because the codexes were designed with "soup" in mind. Any bad balance is not the fault of the existence of allies, but rather mistakes on the part of the designers, and quite frankly their naiveté when it comes to competitive mindsets.
You can disagree with GW's current policy, and maybe attempt to persuade them otherwise, but to claim that "soup" interactions were not intended or balanced around is false.
I personally love the ally system and I don't play competitively. It's simple and easy to use and let's me dabble in multiple factions without being too committed. It's the best scenario for the hobbyist, but maybe not the competitive gamer. Maybe ask GW to suggest tournament rules or something to limit soup, but leave casual players out of it.
What wins in a straight up fight?
A: 1000 points of BA tanks.
B: 1000 points of RG tanks with -1 to being hit.
If we are talking about competitive balance BA loses mathematically every time in ranged shooting. It's why whenever the weakness of ranged anti-tank in BA is highlighted, and someone says 'BUT MUH LAZCANNONS' my eyes roll into the back of my head. It is incredibly simple to look at that scenario and go 'i should just soup in a different army'.
The game cannot be balanced with these soup rules. These soup rules are perfectly fine in narrative play, not matched play.
edit: I deliberately ignored the entire part about the intentions of GW and how they want to keep soup around. I entirely agree, they do intend to keep it around. I'm just making the argument that mono codexes cannot compete with soup with this framework.
2. Due to a lack of appropriate chapter tactics and stratagems BA predators/lasdevs/etc, will always be worse than a Castellan.
Not true: to take an extreme example, a 50 pt predator is vastly better than a castellan. Adjusting tactics and point costs can easily adjust power.
4. No amount of internal balance will overcome the fact that this inherent BA weakness can always be overcome with soup.
But you just said that your ranged options are bad, if they were good then internal balance would be good and you would be able to overcome other good options. it's also not an inherent weakness. It's just a badly balanced unit.
That's sort of like suggesting poor Crisis Suits are an inherent weakness to Tau because they're kinda bad right now.
2. Due to a lack of appropriate chapter tactics and stratagems BA predators/lasdevs/etc, will always be worse than a Castellan.
Not true: to take an extreme example, a 50 pt predator is vastly better than a castellan. Adjusting tactics and point costs can easily adjust power.
4. No amount of internal balance will overcome the fact that this inherent BA weakness can always be overcome with soup.
But you just said that your ranged options are bad, if they were good then internal balance would be good and you would be able to overcome other good options. it's also not an inherent weakness. It's just a badly balanced unit.
That's sort of like suggesting poor Crisis Suits are an inherent weakness to Tau because they're kinda bad right now.
A 50 point predator as BA will be vastly worse than a 50 point RG predator with it's minus 1 to hit. Soup stands.
Crisis suits aren't an inherent weakness to tau, melee is an inherent weakness to tau. Unless GW intends on making tau a strong melee army it will continue to be an inherent weakness for tau.
Having the ability to alpha strike a multi wound model in T1 and T2 is critical to winning. Currently with the rules the only way of doing that is with multi damage shooting because it is highly unlikely that melee can perform the task. BA have atrocious ranged anti-tank options. A soup'ed BA that takes IG shadowswords, a knight, whatever, is at a MASSIVE advantage to ANY BLOOD ANGELS LIST THAT YOU CAN MAKE.
TLDR:
1. You need ranged anti tank to win.
2. Due to a lack of appropriate chapter tactics and stratagems BA predators/lasdevs/etc, will always be worse than a Castellan.
3. Therefore soup will always win.
4. No amount of internal balance will overcome the fact that this inherent BA weakness can always be overcome with soup.
5. You can do this for other armies. See - World Eaters and psychic attack/defense.
Yeah, sorry, you're not making sense. If there is an capability that is critical to winning and the BA do not possess it, then the army is broken. Mind you, they did posses such an capability before the fly nerf in form of the smash captain. And of course they do have access to superheavy tanks from FW, such as Falchion. And if BA tanks are worse than Castellan (for their points) then it just means the points are wrong! Either Castellan is too chap or BA tanks too expensive. It is simple as that.
Furthermore, I concentrate on specific units, because those actually exist in the game, I'd really like you to address the Chaos Marine vs. loyalist Marine comparison.
Having the ability to alpha strike a multi wound model in T1 and T2 is critical to winning. Currently with the rules the only way of doing that is with multi damage shooting because it is highly unlikely that melee can perform the task. BA have atrocious ranged anti-tank options. A soup'ed BA that takes IG shadowswords, a knight, whatever, is at a MASSIVE advantage to ANY BLOOD ANGELS LIST THAT YOU CAN MAKE.
TLDR:
1. You need ranged anti tank to win.
2. Due to a lack of appropriate chapter tactics and stratagems BA predators/lasdevs/etc, will always be worse than a Castellan.
3. Therefore soup will always win.
4. No amount of internal balance will overcome the fact that this inherent BA weakness can always be overcome with soup.
5. You can do this for other armies. See - World Eaters and psychic attack/defense.
Yeah, sorry, you're not making sense. If there is an capability that is critical to winning and the BA do not possess it, then the army is broken. Mind you, they did posses such an capability before the fly nerf in form of the smash captain. And of course they do have access to superheavy tanks from FW, such as Falchion. And if BA tanks are worse than Castellan (for their points) then it just means the points are wrong! Either Castellan is too chap or BA tanks too expensive. It is simple as that.
Furthermore, I concentrate on specific units, because those actually exist in the game, I'd really like you to address the Chaos Marine vs. loyalist Marine comparison.
No you're consistently focusing on units because it sidesteps my argument rather than addressing it.
BA rules such as stratagems and chapter tactics, do not lend to long range shooting. Even if you drop the points of all the tanks to 1, they will be better as ultramarines to benefit from Guilliman's rerolls. Or RG -1 to hit. Or literally anything that isn't a +1 to wound in melee. The tanks will be objectively better if they are in blue rather than red, and this cannot be avoided. Soup is objectively stronger.
THIS IS FINE. BA are not designed to be strong at shooting, it's part of the flavor. However you can sidestep this weakness through soup, and thus soup will always be superior.
You're saying I'm not making sense because it demolishes your argument. This is all very simple.
A: 1000 points of BA tanks.
B: 1000 points of RG tanks with -1 to being hit.
If we are talking about competitive balance BA loses mathematically every time in ranged shooting. It's why whenever the weakness of ranged anti-tank in BA is highlighted, and someone says 'BUT MUH LAZCANNONS' my eyes roll into the back of my head. It is incredibly simple to look at that scenario and go 'i should just soup in a different army'.
RG tanks do not get -1 to being hit...
But even with ignoring your misunderstanding of the rules, and assuming that there are better tanks in one codex than there are in another, then those better tanks should cost more points! That's what the bloody points are for!
The game cannot be balanced with these soup rules. These soup rules are perfectly fine in narrative play, not matched play.
No, the existence of the soup helps in balancing the game, as it makes the disparity between the codices plain to see. It highlights things like the guardsmen just being flat out better than any other troops in any imperial codices.
A: 1000 points of BA tanks.
B: 1000 points of RG tanks with -1 to being hit.
If we are talking about competitive balance BA loses mathematically every time in ranged shooting. It's why whenever the weakness of ranged anti-tank in BA is highlighted, and someone says 'BUT MUH LAZCANNONS' my eyes roll into the back of my head. It is incredibly simple to look at that scenario and go 'i should just soup in a different army'.
RG tanks do not get -1 to being hit...
But even with ignoring your misunderstanding of the rules, and assuming that there are better tanks in one codex than there are in another, then those better tanks should cost more points! That's what the bloody points are for!
The game cannot be balanced with these soup rules. These soup rules are perfectly fine in narrative play, not matched play.
No, the existence of the soup helps in balancing the game, as it makes the disparity between the codices plain to see. It highlights things like the guardsmen just being flat out better than any other troops in any imperial codices.
If you balance all long ranged shooting with BA's long ranged shooting then BA is the best army in the game due to the fact that it does melee better than anyone else in addition to having equal long ranged shooting.
Woops on the RG tanks. Point stands for devs, dreads, etc.
RAVEN GUARD - Shadow Masters: Your opponent must subtract 1 from any hit rolls when shooting at units with this tactic if they are more than 12" away.
And if you balance all long ranged shooting with BA's long ranged shooting then BA is the best army in the game due to the fact that it does melee better than anyone else in addition to having equal long ranged shooting.
Chapter Tactics apply only to Infantry, Biker, and Dreadnought units.
It says so right in the Chapter Tactics rules next to the popout you're quoting from. P195 of the Space Marines Codex.
RAVEN GUARD - Shadow Masters: Your opponent must subtract 1 from any hit rolls when shooting at units with this tactic if they are more than 12" away.
And if you balance all long ranged shooting with BA's long ranged shooting then BA is the best army in the game due to the fact that it does melee better than anyone else in addition to having equal long ranged shooting.
Chapter Tactics apply only to Infantry, Biker, and Dreadnought units.
It says so right in the Chapter Tactics rules next to the popout you're quoting from. P195 of the Space Marines Codex.
A: 1000 points of BA tanks.
B: 1000 points of RG tanks with -1 to being hit.
If we are talking about competitive balance BA loses mathematically every time in ranged shooting. It's why whenever the weakness of ranged anti-tank in BA is highlighted, and someone says 'BUT MUH LAZCANNONS' my eyes roll into the back of my head. It is incredibly simple to look at that scenario and go 'i should just soup in a different army'.
RG tanks do not get -1 to being hit...
But even with ignoring your misunderstanding of the rules, and assuming that there are better tanks in one codex than there are in another, then those better tanks should cost more points! That's what the bloody points are for!
The game cannot be balanced with these soup rules. These soup rules are perfectly fine in narrative play, not matched play.
No, the existence of the soup helps in balancing the game, as it makes the disparity between the codices plain to see. It highlights things like the guardsmen just being flat out better than any other troops in any imperial codices.
RAVEN GUARD - Shadow Masters: Your opponent must subtract 1 from any hit rolls when shooting at units with this tactic if they are more than 12" away.
And if you balance all long ranged shooting with BA's long ranged shooting then BA is the best army in the game due to the fact that it does melee better than anyone else in addition to having equal long ranged shooting.
Edit: Several other people pointed out your foolishness before I could manage it.
RAVEN GUARD - Shadow Masters: Your opponent must subtract 1 from any hit rolls when shooting at units with this tactic if they are more than 12" away.
Tanks are not Infantry, Bikes or Dreadnoughts. How can you not know how chapter tactics work? This is lake absolutely basic thing about space marines.
And if you balance all long ranged shooting with BA's long ranged shooting then BA is the best army in the game due to the fact that it does melee better than anyone else in addition to having equal long ranged shooting.
They have equal long range shooting to most vanilla marines, so I guess they're the best (marine) army in the game then...
Their Infantry, Bikes or Dreadnoughts are better at melee than those of many other chapters, while not receiving some other benefit as a trade-off.
If Marines with cheap chaff would inherently be a brokenly good combination, then certainly we would see the Chaos Marine armies dominating? They have the most tools the regular Marines have and addition have in built cheap chaff in form of the cultists. Why does this not break the game, but loyalist marines taking similar chaff from different codex does? If factions have these carefully built strengths and weakness that balance out each other, what is the weakness of the Chaos Marines compared to the loyalists, as they have that cheap chaff part covered?
If cultists had orders, and immunity to morale, then they would be a strong choice for csm.
As it is, they're the best option that csm have, but they're still not great.
blackmage wrote: when you see cultists and guardsmen cost the same but guardsmen have +2 D and +1 armor save... you understand something is wrong
Yep, that's the real problem. Marines being able to bring cheap chaff is not inherently a problem, Chaos Marines do it without it being broken. It is just that their chaff is appropriately costed, from which book the said chaff is drawn from is ultimately irrelevant.
RAVEN GUARD - Shadow Masters: Your opponent must subtract 1 from any hit rolls when shooting at units with this tactic if they are more than 12" away.
Tanks are not Infantry, Bikes or Dreadnoughts. How can you not know how chapter tactics work? This is lake absolutely basic thing about space marines.
And if you balance all long ranged shooting with BA's long ranged shooting then BA is the best army in the game due to the fact that it does melee better than anyone else in addition to having equal long ranged shooting.
They have equal long range shooting to most vanilla marines, so I guess they're the best (marine) army in the game then...
Their Infantry, Bikes or Dreadnoughts are better at melee than those of many other chapters, while not receiving some other benefit as a trade-off.
Yep I brain farted big time. I'm sorry I hurt you all in this way. Thankfully my point stands, just swap tanks for dreads or devs.
BA long ranged shooting is not equal to ultramarines. We don't have guilliman for example. It's not equal to an RGDEV team (happy?)
BA long ranged shooting is not equal to ultramarines. We don't have guilliman for example.
What if the Ultramarines do not bring Guilliman?
It's not equal to an RG DEVASTATOR team (happy?)
This is really problem with chapter rules being free. Ideally RG devastators should cost more point than BA ones, whils BA assault marines should cost more point than UM ones. But it probably would be very cumbersome for factions with many subfactions.
BA long ranged shooting is not equal to ultramarines. We don't have guilliman for example.
What if the Ultramarines do not bring Guilliman?
It's not equal to an RG DEVASTATOR team (happy?)
This is really problem with chapter rules being free. Ideally RG devastators should cost more point than BA ones, whils BA assault marines should cost more point than UM ones. But it probably would be very cumbersome for factions with many subfactions.
I'd say that if you want a ranged threat and you're not running Gman in UM you're running a suboptimal list.
I still think that RGdevs costing more than BA ones defeats the purpose of the flavor of an army, if my lascannons are cheaper than his, then his assault marines are going to be cheaper than mine. Essentially at that point all the armies are just different colors of paint and everyone has the same flavor and playstyle.
I still think that RGdevs costing more than BA ones defeats the purpose of the flavor of an army, if my lascannons are cheaper than his, then his assault marines are going to be cheaper than mine. Essentially at that point all the armies are just different colors of paint and everyone has the same flavor and playstyle.
Why is this your conclusion? The entire purpose of points is to gauge relative power so that a match is fair. If they don't then why bother having points at all? Factions don't get discounts because they're skewed a certain way, they just have those certain things.
And a properly pointed genestealer is not going to suddenly play like a properly pointed assault marine.
I still think that RGdevs costing more than BA ones defeats the purpose of the flavor of an army, if my lascannons are cheaper than his, then his assault marines are going to be cheaper than mine. Essentially at that point all the armies are just different colors of paint and everyone has the same flavor and playstyle.
Why is this your conclusion? The entire purpose of points is to gauge relative power so that a match is fair. If they don't then why bother having points at all? Factions don't get discounts because they're skewed a certain way, they just have those certain things.
And a properly pointed genestealer is not going to suddenly play like a properly pointed assault marine.
I think the greater point he's trying to make is that if my assault marines are better than your assault marines but are also more expensive than your assault marines(but are fundamentally still assault marines) and your devastators are better than my devastators but also more expensive than my devastators(but are fundamentally still devastators), then there's no actual meaningful difference between the two, outside of specific 'I only have 12pts left' breakpoints.
This, in my opinion, is why having so many space marine armies is boring. The units are fundamentally the same but some are costed in such a way that they're slightly more or less point efficient to push armies in particular directions(plasma and bikes are more cost efficient in DA, Jumppack melee is more cost efficient in BA, Shooting in general is more cost efficient in Ultras, etc). If you pointed the units 100% correctly for their increased or decreased output relative to the exact same unit in other space marine armies, there would be fundamentally no difference outside of the units not shared between codexes, who would themselves have to be more efficient than the next most efficient option available for their battlefield role AND have a desirable battlefield role to see consistent play.
Without soup Space Marines lack chaff, without soup Imperial Guard lack a fast assault component. Even with a lot of models these factions have weaknesses deliberately built into them in order to ensure mechanics match flavor. With soup these weaknesses get erased by simply cherrypicking units from a completely different faction with a completely different flavor.
But by using point to allies in order to patch your weaknesses you are diluting the strengths of your main force as you have less points to spend on them. At least in theory, if the units had appropriate point costs.
That's fine in theory, except Guard don't actually need to cherry-pick other units. With appropriate use of orders they're toughter per point, better at shooting, better at melee, and substantially faster that SM. I've seen over half of a Guard army go from their deployment zone to swamping a mid-board objective in a single turn by spamming their double-advance order. Guard doesn't have much FA, and you'd never notice for how fast they can actually move up the board.
I live in a pretty casual meta, almost no one is building soup, and the consensus is still that Guard are broken. Even the one guy who plays Guard is talking about retiring them unless CA fixes things because curb-stomping everyone isn't any fun.
That would be fine, except Guard don't actually need to cherry-pick other units. With appropriate use of orders they're toughter per point, better at shooting, better at melee, and substantially faster that SM. I've seen over half of a Guard army go from their deployment zone to swamping a mid-board objective in a single turn by spamming their double-advance order. Guard doesn't have much FA, and you'd never notice for how fast they can actually move up the boatd.
Yeah. But that is the Guard being just too god for their points. Most people know this.
Without soup Space Marines lack chaff, without soup Imperial Guard lack a fast assault component. Even with a lot of models these factions have weaknesses deliberately built into them in order to ensure mechanics match flavor. With soup these weaknesses get erased by simply cherrypicking units from a completely different faction with a completely different flavor.
But by using point to allies in order to patch your weaknesses you are diluting the strengths of your main force as you have less points to spend on them. At least in theory, if the units had appropriate point costs.
That would be fine, except Guard don't actually need to cherry-pick other units. With appropriate use of orders they're toughter per point, better at shooting, better at melee, and substantially faster that SM. I've seen over half of a Guard army go from their deployment zone to swamping a mid-board objective in a single turn by spamming their double-advance order. Guard doesn't have much FA, and you'd never notice for how fast they can actually move up the boatd.
Just so we're really clear here:
You cannot be all of those things at once. If they "spammed" their "Move, Move, Move!" order(again: clarity's sake, it doesn't give you "double-advance". It forces you to Advance during the Shooting phase when issued), they can't be receiving any other Orders until their next turn.
You'll also notice that in most cases people aren't going to do that because unless you're fighting Tau, that's a good way to get your army shut down in melee or just plain shot up hard..
I think the greater point he's trying to make is that if my assault marines are better than your assault marines but are also more expensive than your assault marines(but are fundamentally still assault marines) and your devastators are better than my devastators but also more expensive than my devastators(but are fundamentally still devastators), then there's no actual meaningful difference between the two, outside of specific 'I only have 12pts left' breakpoints.
This, in my opinion, is why having so many space marine armies is boring. The units are fundamentally the same but some are costed in such a way that they're slightly more or less point efficient to push armies in particular directions(plasma and bikes are more cost efficient in DA, Jumppack melee is more cost efficient in BA, Shooting in general is more cost efficient in Ultras, etc). If you pointed the units 100% correctly for their increased or decreased output relative to the exact same unit in other space marine armies, there would be fundamentally no difference outside of the units not shared between codexes, who would themselves have to be more efficient than the next most efficient option available for their battlefield role AND have a desirable battlefield role to see consistent play.
Perhaps the biggest issue I have with that is the tendency for players to over-invest in the better units. This leads to one-dimensional factions, where BA just spam assault marines rather than take a balanced force, or dare to not take assault marines for a change.
IMO, the best rendition of faction traits would be the Guard: each one is useful and buffs your army a specific way, but they actually benefit every unit. So nothing is really left behind, unless it already sucks.
But it is not an over investment. Everything else in the BA codex is bad. If the normal good shoty marine is an ultramarine or RG, then why would you ever buy models for both the way you may not want to play and which are clearly inferior. You will always start with the good stuff. Now sometimes you play something like eldar, and you have multiple units to pick from, maybe you have something like Inari, which is more or less soup+. Then a nerf to this or that unit doesn't hurt much. Eldar were nerfed like 5 times since 8th started yet they are still strong and often using the same units, just in different numbers. The other armies that were good at the start of 8th, that also got nerfed did not have a pool of good units to draw on, so they are just gone.
What you call one dimensional tactics other people call flavour. Not every army can be like eldar, best at everything from shoting to melee and psychic support. All they need to have everything is a good LoW.
I still think that RGdevs costing more than BA ones defeats the purpose of the flavor of an army, if my lascannons are cheaper than his, then his assault marines are going to be cheaper than mine. Essentially at that point all the armies are just different colors of paint and everyone has the same flavor and playstyle.
Why is this your conclusion? The entire purpose of points is to gauge relative power so that a match is fair. If they don't then why bother having points at all? Factions don't get discounts because they're skewed a certain way, they just have those certain things.
And a properly pointed genestealer is not going to suddenly play like a properly pointed assault marine.
The idea is that Raven Guard being better in shooting is fine because Blood Angels is the superior assault army. Obviously results on this ideal have been mixed, but it's still an ideal worth pursuing.
Karol wrote: But it is not an over investment. Everything else in the BA codex is bad. If the normal good shoty marine is an ultramarine or RG, then why would you ever buy models for both the way you may not want to play and which are clearly inferior. You will always start with the good stuff.
That's exactly the problem. That "flavor" leads to people being stuck with the same units over and over again. Why even put devastators in the codex if you don't want people to use them? imo if a unit is in a codex in needs to be worth its points. BA assault units being good should not mean devastators should be bad. At a certain point a BA player should feel rewarded for supporting his assault elements with ranged elements. His ranged units don't have to be as good as a Salamander's ranged units to still be worthwhile.
Without soup Space Marines lack chaff, without soup Imperial Guard lack a fast assault component. Even with a lot of models these factions have weaknesses deliberately built into them in order to ensure mechanics match flavor. With soup these weaknesses get erased by simply cherrypicking units from a completely different faction with a completely different flavor.
But by using point to allies in order to patch your weaknesses you are diluting the strengths of your main force as you have less points to spend on them. At least in theory, if the units had appropriate point costs.
That would be fine, except Guard don't actually need to cherry-pick other units. With appropriate use of orders they're toughter per point, better at shooting, better at melee, and substantially faster that SM. I've seen over half of a Guard army go from their deployment zone to swamping a mid-board objective in a single turn by spamming their double-advance order. Guard doesn't have much FA, and you'd never notice for how fast they can actually move up the boatd.
Just so we're really clear here:
You cannot be all of those things at once. If they "spammed" their "Move, Move, Move!" order(again: clarity's sake, it doesn't give you "double-advance". It forces you to Advance during the Shooting phase when issued), they can't be receiving any other Orders until their next turn.
You'll also notice that in most cases people aren't going to do that because unless you're fighting Tau, that's a good way to get your army shut down in melee or just plain shot up hard..
They're tougher and better at shooting and melee than marines before they get an order. The fact that they can suddenly reposition 13"-18" is just rubbing salt in the wound.
And most of the time that I've seen "Move, Move, Move" come up it was to allow the Guard to maximise their shooting without having to worry about moving up on a critical objective until the turn it mattered.
I still think that RGdevs costing more than BA ones defeats the purpose of the flavor of an army, if my lascannons are cheaper than his, then his assault marines are going to be cheaper than mine. Essentially at that point all the armies are just different colors of paint and everyone has the same flavor and playstyle.
Why is this your conclusion? The entire purpose of points is to gauge relative power so that a match is fair. If they don't then why bother having points at all? Factions don't get discounts because they're skewed a certain way, they just have those certain things.
And a properly pointed genestealer is not going to suddenly play like a properly pointed assault marine.
I think the greater point he's trying to make is that if my assault marines are better than your assault marines but are also more expensive than your assault marines(but are fundamentally still assault marines) and your devastators are better than my devastators but also more expensive than my devastators(but are fundamentally still devastators), then there's no actual meaningful difference between the two, outside of specific 'I only have 12pts left' breakpoints.
This, in my opinion, is why having so many space marine armies is boring. The units are fundamentally the same but some are costed in such a way that they're slightly more or less point efficient to push armies in particular directions(plasma and bikes are more cost efficient in DA, Jumppack melee is more cost efficient in BA, Shooting in general is more cost efficient in Ultras, etc). If you pointed the units 100% correctly for their increased or decreased output relative to the exact same unit in other space marine armies, there would be fundamentally no difference outside of the units not shared between codexes, who would themselves have to be more efficient than the next most efficient option available for their battlefield role AND have a desirable battlefield role to see consistent play.
Hey I'm all for consolidating the Angel codices into the main Vanilla codex.
BA are hilariously bad at assault in practice because they die before they can assault. Trying to punch with marines just exacerbates the problems marines already face. This has little to do with flavor and more with terrible 16 and 18 pt models.
Arbitrator wrote: People have made their mind up about the Guard Boogeyman the same way people continue to revile Tau even an edition later for the sin of being good against Space Marines.
When CA no doubt makes CP in-faction only, people will still complain.
I present to you, or anyone else, the challenge.
Make a more effective battalion with a different codex for objective control and screening with some moderate power then:
Company Commander, Primaris Psyker
3x 10 guard
3x 3 Mortar Heavy Weapon teams
you have 312 points to play with.
Go prove me, and others, wrong that Guard is still the most cost effective way.
Not imperium, so it doesn't really matter, but just for the challenge:
Jormungand
Neurotrope
Neurotrope
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
305 points, 4 psy powers, 2 reroll psy auras, 45 T3 5+ fearless deepstriking wounds with objective secure and a profile that makes them extremely easy to put out of LOS.
Can't get any better than that for objective control.
Against the guard: in 3 turns the mortars alone will kill all but one of the ripper squads (36.6 wounds) with average rolls, regardless of LOS. If they are Cadian, they do 15.8 wounds a turn to the rippers with the "Take Aim!" order.
OnWingsOfFire wrote: I still think that RGdevs costing more than BA ones defeats the purpose of the flavor of an army, if my lascannons are cheaper than his, then his assault marines are going to be cheaper than mine. Essentially at that point all the armies are just different colors of paint and everyone has the same flavor and playstyle.
Shock horror at the idea that BETTER UNITS costs more than WORSE UNIT eh? What a novel concept.
Arbitrator wrote: People have made their mind up about the Guard Boogeyman the same way people continue to revile Tau even an edition later for the sin of being good against Space Marines.
When CA no doubt makes CP in-faction only, people will still complain.
I present to you, or anyone else, the challenge.
Make a more effective battalion with a different codex for objective control and screening with some moderate power then:
Company Commander, Primaris Psyker
3x 10 guard
3x 3 Mortar Heavy Weapon teams
you have 312 points to play with.
Go prove me, and others, wrong that Guard is still the most cost effective way.
Not imperium, so it doesn't really matter, but just for the challenge:
Jormungand
Neurotrope
Neurotrope
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
Ripper x3
305 points, 4 psy powers, 2 reroll psy auras, 45 T3 5+ fearless deepstriking wounds with objective secure and a profile that makes them extremely easy to put out of LOS.
Can't get any better than that for objective control.
Against the guard: in 3 turns the mortars alone will kill all but one of the ripper squads (36.6 wounds) with average rolls, regardless of LOS. If they are Cadian, they do 15.8 wounds a turn to the rippers with the "Take Aim!" order.
And that's why rippers are a superior choice for objective holding, thank you for proving it. All troops will die to that fire, except that rippers are a 33 point deepstriking troop. Enjoy!
BA long ranged shooting is not equal to ultramarines. We don't have guilliman for example.
What if the Ultramarines do not bring Guilliman?
It's not equal to an RG DEVASTATOR team (happy?)
This is really problem with chapter rules being free. Ideally RG devastators should cost more point than BA ones, whils BA assault marines should cost more point than UM ones. But it probably would be very cumbersome for factions with many subfactions.
The cost for souping is there, it's not like it's free.
My blood angels want a devastator team? Okay, i will take an RG one, because they are clearly better!
Oh wait, they will not get buffed by my LTs and captains...
Oh wait if i want to bring them it costs me a CP and they don't have stratagems.
If i want to bring them at full strenght i also need to bring 2 HQs and 3 troops of RG, or 1 HQ and 2 more heavies and they give me close to no CP...
Sure, let's pretend that putting a marine of a different chapter in your army is a plug and play thing.
It isn't, it completely alters your list and if you want it you need to design around it.
There are some factions that can almost plug and play soups, mostly the ones with cheap HQs, but that is a different problem.
ITT, people who just play with their calculators all day and never actually play decent opponents or know how to play the game. I'm willing to bet 75% of the bitching here is coming from people who haven't been to anything larger than a 16 man RTT or even played more than one game outside their FLGS in the past 3 months. Doesn't help the chief whinger amongst you continuously claims scouts are a bad unit because they don't kill their points and didn't even know what ITC Champions format even was six months after it's release.
Seriously, ITC rules BENEFIT guard? You know how easy it is to keep ahead on the killed more primary vs a pure guard list? Hint, those mortar and infantry squads you guys love to whine about are points pinatas. You know those 'points efficient' tank commanders and Pask? They're 3 gift wrapped VP for killing a sngle 12 wound model.
FFS, Reece placed top 16 at NOVA with MONO UM. According to half you self proclaimed 'experts' that shouldn't even be mathematically possible. But hey, keep blaming your losses on the Guard bogeyman rather than seeing what others are doing and applying it.
RogueApiary wrote: ITT, people who just play with their calculators all day and never actually play decent opponents or know how to play the game. I'm willing to bet 75% of the bitching here is coming from people who haven't been to anything larger than a 16 man RTT or even played more than one game outside their FLGS in the past 3 months. Doesn't help the chief whinger amongst you continuously claims scouts are a bad unit because they don't kill their points and didn't even know what ITC Champions format even was six months after it's release.
Seriously, ITC rules BENEFIT guard? You know how easy it is to keep ahead on the killed more primary vs a pure guard list? Hint, those mortar and infantry squads you guys love to whine about are points pinatas. You know those 'points efficient' tank commanders and Pask? They're 3 gift wrapped VP for killing a sngle 12 wound model.
FFS, Reece placed top 16 at NOVA with MONO UM. According to half you self proclaimed 'experts' that shouldn't even be mathematically possible. But hey, keep blaming your losses on the Guard bogeyman rather than seeing what others are doing and applying it.
The guy designing ITC topped at his own tournament? Shocker.
Also everyone knows he didn't do as well as he could because of the inadequacies in his list. It was pointed out multiple times.
RogueApiary wrote: ITT, people who just play with their calculators all day and never actually play decent opponents or know how to play the game. I'm willing to bet 75% of the bitching here is coming from people who haven't been to anything larger than a 16 man RTT or even played more than one game outside their FLGS in the past 3 months. Doesn't help the chief whinger amongst you continuously claims scouts are a bad unit because they don't kill their points and didn't even know what ITC Champions format even was six months after it's release.
Seriously, ITC rules BENEFIT guard? You know how easy it is to keep ahead on the killed more primary vs a pure guard list? Hint, those mortar and infantry squads you guys love to whine about are points pinatas. You know those 'points efficient' tank commanders and Pask? They're 3 gift wrapped VP for killing a sngle 12 wound model.
FFS, Reece placed top 16 at NOVA with MONO UM. According to half you self proclaimed 'experts' that shouldn't even be mathematically possible. But hey, keep blaming your losses on the Guard bogeyman rather than seeing what others are doing and applying it.
The guy designing ITC topped at his own tournament? Shocker.
Also everyone knows he didn't do as well as he could because of the inadequacies in his list. It was pointed out multiple times.
Further proof that the anti-guard side is filled with people who have no business discussing balance and competitive play.
NOVA doesn't use ITC Champions missions. So no, he didn't get top 16 at a 256 player event playing his own format. Could he have done better with a soup list (you know, cause 15/256 is just such a garbage finish)? Probably, but that would just be further proof that a skilled player can make Marines work and you need to git gud rather than put all your failures on the IG Bogeyman.
Cause let's face it, even if Guard got nerfed to Grey Knight levels tomorrow you'd be losing just as many games and just move on to bitching about Eldar/DE/Whatever.
Martel732 wrote: Condescending much? The other podcasters on Reece's own website don't agree with him frequently.
They can disagree with him all they like, he still took an army you guys have written off for dead pretty much all of 8th and got a top 16 finish. And yeah, when the Anti-Guard crowd can't get basic facts about the freaking rulesets being used in the competitive meta right, I'm going to be pretty condescending when you all come into every Guard thread screaming OMG GW GUARD OP PLZ NERF.
Martel732 wrote: Condescending much? The other podcasters on Reece's own website don't agree with him frequently.
They can disagree with him all they like, he still took an army you guys have written off for dead pretty much all of 8th and got a top 16 finish. And yeah, when the Anti-Guard crowd can't get basic facts about the freaking rulesets being used in the competitive meta right, I'm going to be pretty condescending when you all come into every Guard thread screaming OMG GW GUARD OP PLZ NERF.
Remember that time a Thousand Sons lost made it to a Top 8 in 6th and nobody really cared?
Martel732 wrote: Condescending much? The other podcasters on Reece's own website don't agree with him frequently.
They can disagree with him all they like, he still took an army you guys have written off for dead pretty much all of 8th and got a top 16 finish. And yeah, when the Anti-Guard crowd can't get basic facts about the freaking rulesets being used in the competitive meta right, I'm going to be pretty condescending when you all come into every Guard thread screaming OMG GW GUARD OP PLZ NERF.
Remember that time a Thousand Sons lost made it to a Top 8 in 6th and nobody really cared?
Flukes happen.
It's not a fluke when it's someone who consistently does well at tournaments. It's just a good list in the hands of a good player.
Spoletta wrote: Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.
If Guard units are the yard stick for balanced, a lot of units across multiple codex's and even FW indexes need points drops of 20%.
Nah, the IG units that need a few points more are:
1) Basilisks, about 10-15 points
2) Infantry squads about 0,6 points, so i could see it going to 5 or staying where they are.
3) Company and platoon commanders both 10 points.
The super heavies should all get looked at too.
Whirlwinds need to be cheaper, predators need to be cheaper, vindicators need to be a lot cheaper, marines need to be cheaper.
Hammerheads need to be cheaper, Firewarriors need to be cheaper, kroot need to be cheaper.
Heck even Sicarans and other FW stuff need price drops to compete with IG codex.
As they all loose out to units you haven't listed so presumably that implies you think they are ok.
Heck even fellblades and falchions need price drops compaired to their IG equivalents.
As to scions now that they are turn 2 deepstrike only they are probably a lot lower on the list if problem units
On the subject of whirlwinds, predators, vindicators and marines, i agree. They need some help.
Hammerheads and firewarriors are more than fine. Kroot i don't understand to which IG unit you are comparing it to.
Hammerheads loose out is a straight shoot out with Russes a unit that guard players keep claiming is trash.
Firewarriors loose out to Infantry squads shooting it out and even worse against Catachan in CC.
Heck even a pure knights list is hard pushed to beat IG tank spam and Knights are apparently OP as heck according to this board.
I'm not sure hammerheads can take much of a buff without becoming broken around longstrike, but one army shouldn't have the best screens and the best tanks to hide behind said screens per point in the entire game.
Having the best shooting and the best board presence per point (mono codex) makes it very difficult for other armies to compete.
Martel732 wrote: Condescending much? The other podcasters on Reece's own website don't agree with him frequently.
They can disagree with him all they like, he still took an army you guys have written off for dead pretty much all of 8th and got a top 16 finish. And yeah, when the Anti-Guard crowd can't get basic facts about the freaking rulesets being used in the competitive meta right, I'm going to be pretty condescending when you all come into every Guard thread screaming OMG GW GUARD OP PLZ NERF.
Remember that time a Thousand Sons lost made it to a Top 8 in 6th and nobody really cared?
Flukes happen.
It's not a fluke when it's someone who consistently does well at tournaments. It's just a good list in the hands of a good player.
i'll say it wasn't a fluke but it was a gimmick list built to abuse Guilliman's reroll's to counter the expected meta.
He even said at the start it was a sub optimal list that was designed to counter the expected meta.
It's not exactly a good sign that marines as a blanket army only work when you have to build every list to abuse Guilliman's reroll's
Spoletta wrote: Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.
If Guard units are the yard stick for balanced, a lot of units across multiple codex's and even FW indexes need points drops of 20%.
Nah, the IG units that need a few points more are:
1) Basilisks, about 10-15 points
2) Infantry squads about 0,6 points, so i could see it going to 5 or staying where they are.
3) Company and platoon commanders both 10 points.
The super heavies should all get looked at too.
Whirlwinds need to be cheaper, predators need to be cheaper, vindicators need to be a lot cheaper, marines need to be cheaper.
Hammerheads need to be cheaper, Firewarriors need to be cheaper, kroot need to be cheaper.
Heck even Sicarans and other FW stuff need price drops to compete with IG codex.
As they all loose out to units you haven't listed so presumably that implies you think they are ok.
Heck even fellblades and falchions need price drops compaired to their IG equivalents.
As to scions now that they are turn 2 deepstrike only they are probably a lot lower on the list if problem units
On the subject of whirlwinds, predators, vindicators and marines, i agree. They need some help.
Hammerheads and firewarriors are more than fine. Kroot i don't understand to which IG unit you are comparing it to.
Hammerheads loose out is a straight shoot out with Russes a unit that guard players keep claiming is trash.
Firewarriors loose out to Infantry squads shooting it out and even worse against Catachan in CC.
Heck even a pure knights list is hard pushed to beat IG tank spam and Knights are apparently OP as heck according to this board.
I'm not sure hammerheads can take much of a buff without becoming broken around longstrike, but one army shouldn't have the best screens and the best tanks to hide behind said screens per point in the entire game.
Having the best shooting and the best board presence per point (mono codex) makes it very difficult for other armies to compete.
Martel732 wrote: Condescending much? The other podcasters on Reece's own website don't agree with him frequently.
They can disagree with him all they like, he still took an army you guys have written off for dead pretty much all of 8th and got a top 16 finish. And yeah, when the Anti-Guard crowd can't get basic facts about the freaking rulesets being used in the competitive meta right, I'm going to be pretty condescending when you all come into every Guard thread screaming OMG GW GUARD OP PLZ NERF.
Remember that time a Thousand Sons lost made it to a Top 8 in 6th and nobody really cared?
Flukes happen.
It's not a fluke when it's someone who consistently does well at tournaments. It's just a good list in the hands of a good player.
i'll say it wasn't a fluke but it was a gimmick list built to abuse Guilliman's reroll's to counter the expected meta.
He even said at the start it was a sub optimal list that was designed to counter the expected meta.
It's not exactly a good sign that marines as a blanket army only work when you have to build every list to abuse Guilliman's reroll's
And that is why mathhammer is bad for your health.
Yes, the hammerhead loses a direct confrontation to a Russ, and? So a model to be worth more than another model must beat it in a direct confrontation? Your logic is completely flawed.
Do you know what hammerheads have that russes don't have? Fly! Higher BS (less impacted by degradation and debuffs)! 12" move!
Same for firewarriors, you can't say "Firewarriors lose in a direct fight with equal points of guardsmen so they are worst than guardsmen". Please find a real argument.
Trollbert wrote: Mathhammer is still a better argument than "mathhammer is not a real argument".
What he provided cannot even be identified as mathhammer. He threw random numbers about a random scenario.
Even if he did a correct analysis, since there are many factors that mathhammer cannot evaluate in this case (like the Fly keyword), it would be an incomplete analysis.
Yup the most disappointing thing about this nerf is it only increases how reliant everything is on soup. Now you simply take the cheapest brigade of guard to super power whatever units rise to the top. There is still no downside to soup and any faction that can’t souo or any player that doesn’t want to is at a huge disadvantage now.
Spoletta wrote: Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.
If Guard units are the yard stick for balanced, a lot of units across multiple codex's and even FW indexes need points drops of 20%.
Nah, the IG units that need a few points more are:
1) Basilisks, about 10-15 points
2) Infantry squads about 0,6 points, so i could see it going to 5 or staying where they are.
3) Company and platoon commanders both 10 points.
The super heavies should all get looked at too.
Whirlwinds need to be cheaper, predators need to be cheaper, vindicators need to be a lot cheaper, marines need to be cheaper.
Hammerheads need to be cheaper, Firewarriors need to be cheaper, kroot need to be cheaper.
Heck even Sicarans and other FW stuff need price drops to compete with IG codex.
As they all loose out to units you haven't listed so presumably that implies you think they are ok.
Heck even fellblades and falchions need price drops compaired to their IG equivalents.
As to scions now that they are turn 2 deepstrike only they are probably a lot lower on the list if problem units
On the subject of whirlwinds, predators, vindicators and marines, i agree. They need some help.
Hammerheads and firewarriors are more than fine. Kroot i don't understand to which IG unit you are comparing it to.
Hammerheads loose out is a straight shoot out with Russes a unit that guard players keep claiming is trash.
Firewarriors loose out to Infantry squads shooting it out and even worse against Catachan in CC.
Heck even a pure knights list is hard pushed to beat IG tank spam and Knights are apparently OP as heck according to this board.
I'm not sure hammerheads can take much of a buff without becoming broken around longstrike, but one army shouldn't have the best screens and the best tanks to hide behind said screens per point in the entire game.
Having the best shooting and the best board presence per point (mono codex) makes it very difficult for other armies to compete.
Martel732 wrote: Condescending much? The other podcasters on Reece's own website don't agree with him frequently.
They can disagree with him all they like, he still took an army you guys have written off for dead pretty much all of 8th and got a top 16 finish. And yeah, when the Anti-Guard crowd can't get basic facts about the freaking rulesets being used in the competitive meta right, I'm going to be pretty condescending when you all come into every Guard thread screaming OMG GW GUARD OP PLZ NERF.
Remember that time a Thousand Sons lost made it to a Top 8 in 6th and nobody really cared?
Flukes happen.
It's not a fluke when it's someone who consistently does well at tournaments. It's just a good list in the hands of a good player.
i'll say it wasn't a fluke but it was a gimmick list built to abuse Guilliman's reroll's to counter the expected meta.
He even said at the start it was a sub optimal list that was designed to counter the expected meta.
It's not exactly a good sign that marines as a blanket army only work when you have to build every list to abuse Guilliman's reroll's
And that is why mathhammer is bad for your health.
Yes, the hammerhead loses a direct confrontation to a Russ, and? So a model to be worth more than another model must beat it in a direct confrontation? Your logic is completely flawed.
Do you know what hammerheads have that russes don't have? Fly! Higher BS (less impacted by degradation and debuffs)! 12" move!
Same for firewarriors, you can't say "Firewarriors lose in a direct fight with equal points of guardsmen so they are worst than guardsmen". Please find a real argument.
I'm not talking math hammer, hence why I didn't mention it. You interjected that because you don't want to admit that guard are one of the top mono factions.
I was talking in game results, other people have done the mathhammer and at no point do firewarriors win a shoot out with infantry squads.
But way to show your just willing to blindly argue in bad faith to support your view that guard are fine and every other faction is more OP.
Trollbert wrote: Mathhammer is still a better argument than "mathhammer is not a real argument".
The problem is people draw absolutes when it really should be probabilities. A unit can be better but still be sufficiently close that the discrete rolls in a game will largely make the outcome random.
Reece is a good player. He has the movement/objective side of the game down.
With that said his list does rely on Bobby G, the potentially going to be nerfed again crutch/albatross round SM's neck, and if you don't want to be UM you are out of luck.
I really like the hellfire/flakk spam - because weirdly I had an idea to go with something like this when the SM codex first dropped (before it got swept away in a tide of Stormravens and then Razorbacks).
I am hoping Part 2 on Frontline Gaming will run through how he performed in games - because I can see him eating some less optimised lists, but really want to know how he coped with Imperial/Eldar Soup.
Insectum7 wrote: Didn't mono-tau an mono-guard finish effectively as a tie in one of the last few major tournaments?
Shhhhhh don't bring that up or we are going to have another thread with 10 straight pages of guardsmen FRSRF into fire warriors to "disprove" the tournament data
Spoletta wrote: Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.
If Guard units are the yard stick for balanced, a lot of units across multiple codex's and even FW indexes need points drops of 20%.
Nah, the IG units that need a few points more are:
1) Basilisks, about 10-15 points
2) Infantry squads about 0,6 points, so i could see it going to 5 or staying where they are.
3) Company and platoon commanders both 10 points.
The super heavies should all get looked at too.
Whirlwinds need to be cheaper, predators need to be cheaper, vindicators need to be a lot cheaper, marines need to be cheaper.
Hammerheads need to be cheaper, Firewarriors need to be cheaper, kroot need to be cheaper.
Heck even Sicarans and other FW stuff need price drops to compete with IG codex.
As they all loose out to units you haven't listed so presumably that implies you think they are ok.
Heck even fellblades and falchions need price drops compaired to their IG equivalents.
As to scions now that they are turn 2 deepstrike only they are probably a lot lower on the list if problem units
On the subject of whirlwinds, predators, vindicators and marines, i agree. They need some help.
Hammerheads and firewarriors are more than fine. Kroot i don't understand to which IG unit you are comparing it to.
Hammerheads loose out is a straight shoot out with Russes a unit that guard players keep claiming is trash.
Firewarriors loose out to Infantry squads shooting it out and even worse against Catachan in CC.
Heck even a pure knights list is hard pushed to beat IG tank spam and Knights are apparently OP as heck according to this board.
I'm not sure hammerheads can take much of a buff without becoming broken around longstrike, but one army shouldn't have the best screens and the best tanks to hide behind said screens per point in the entire game.
Having the best shooting and the best board presence per point (mono codex) makes it very difficult for other armies to compete.
Martel732 wrote: Condescending much? The other podcasters on Reece's own website don't agree with him frequently.
They can disagree with him all they like, he still took an army you guys have written off for dead pretty much all of 8th and got a top 16 finish. And yeah, when the Anti-Guard crowd can't get basic facts about the freaking rulesets being used in the competitive meta right, I'm going to be pretty condescending when you all come into every Guard thread screaming OMG GW GUARD OP PLZ NERF.
Remember that time a Thousand Sons lost made it to a Top 8 in 6th and nobody really cared?
Flukes happen.
It's not a fluke when it's someone who consistently does well at tournaments. It's just a good list in the hands of a good player.
i'll say it wasn't a fluke but it was a gimmick list built to abuse Guilliman's reroll's to counter the expected meta.
He even said at the start it was a sub optimal list that was designed to counter the expected meta.
It's not exactly a good sign that marines as a blanket army only work when you have to build every list to abuse Guilliman's reroll's
And that is why mathhammer is bad for your health.
Yes, the hammerhead loses a direct confrontation to a Russ, and? So a model to be worth more than another model must beat it in a direct confrontation? Your logic is completely flawed.
Do you know what hammerheads have that russes don't have? Fly! Higher BS (less impacted by degradation and debuffs)! 12" move!
Same for firewarriors, you can't say "Firewarriors lose in a direct fight with equal points of guardsmen so they are worst than guardsmen". Please find a real argument.
I mean, I guess 1 out of 2 ain't bad, but Hammerheads have identical BS to leman russes.
Martel732 wrote: Condescending much? The other podcasters on Reece's own website don't agree with him frequently.
They can disagree with him all they like, he still took an army you guys have written off for dead pretty much all of 8th and got a top 16 finish. And yeah, when the Anti-Guard crowd can't get basic facts about the freaking rulesets being used in the competitive meta right, I'm going to be pretty condescending when you all come into every Guard thread screaming OMG GW GUARD OP PLZ NERF.
I never wrote off bobby g. In fact, it's the only mono marine that has ever performed consistently in 8th. In fact, it's almost like every unit is priced as if Bobby G were on the table. If he had done this without using Bobby G, then there'd be something to crow about.
Acting like that is a great way to get tuned out and ignored.
Spoletta wrote: Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.
If Guard units are the yard stick for balanced, a lot of units across multiple codex's and even FW indexes need points drops of 20%.
Nah, the IG units that need a few points more are:
1) Basilisks, about 10-15 points
2) Infantry squads about 0,6 points, so i could see it going to 5 or staying where they are.
3) Company and platoon commanders both 10 points.
The super heavies should all get looked at too.
Whirlwinds need to be cheaper, predators need to be cheaper, vindicators need to be a lot cheaper, marines need to be cheaper.
Hammerheads need to be cheaper, Firewarriors need to be cheaper, kroot need to be cheaper.
Heck even Sicarans and other FW stuff need price drops to compete with IG codex.
As they all loose out to units you haven't listed so presumably that implies you think they are ok.
Heck even fellblades and falchions need price drops compaired to their IG equivalents.
As to scions now that they are turn 2 deepstrike only they are probably a lot lower on the list if problem units
On the subject of whirlwinds, predators, vindicators and marines, i agree. They need some help.
Hammerheads and firewarriors are more than fine. Kroot i don't understand to which IG unit you are comparing it to.
Hammerheads loose out is a straight shoot out with Russes a unit that guard players keep claiming is trash.
Firewarriors loose out to Infantry squads shooting it out and even worse against Catachan in CC.
Heck even a pure knights list is hard pushed to beat IG tank spam and Knights are apparently OP as heck according to this board.
I'm not sure hammerheads can take much of a buff without becoming broken around longstrike, but one army shouldn't have the best screens and the best tanks to hide behind said screens per point in the entire game.
Having the best shooting and the best board presence per point (mono codex) makes it very difficult for other armies to compete.
Martel732 wrote: Condescending much? The other podcasters on Reece's own website don't agree with him frequently.
They can disagree with him all they like, he still took an army you guys have written off for dead pretty much all of 8th and got a top 16 finish. And yeah, when the Anti-Guard crowd can't get basic facts about the freaking rulesets being used in the competitive meta right, I'm going to be pretty condescending when you all come into every Guard thread screaming OMG GW GUARD OP PLZ NERF.
Remember that time a Thousand Sons lost made it to a Top 8 in 6th and nobody really cared?
Flukes happen.
It's not a fluke when it's someone who consistently does well at tournaments. It's just a good list in the hands of a good player.
i'll say it wasn't a fluke but it was a gimmick list built to abuse Guilliman's reroll's to counter the expected meta.
He even said at the start it was a sub optimal list that was designed to counter the expected meta.
It's not exactly a good sign that marines as a blanket army only work when you have to build every list to abuse Guilliman's reroll's
And that is why mathhammer is bad for your health.
Yes, the hammerhead loses a direct confrontation to a Russ, and? So a model to be worth more than another model must beat it in a direct confrontation? Your logic is completely flawed.
Do you know what hammerheads have that russes don't have? Fly! Higher BS (less impacted by degradation and debuffs)! 12" move!
Same for firewarriors, you can't say "Firewarriors lose in a direct fight with equal points of guardsmen so they are worst than guardsmen". Please find a real argument.
I mean, I guess 1 out of 2 ain't bad, but Hammerheads have identical BS to leman russes.
Shock news, Leman Russes are BS 4+. It's command tanks who are 3+.
Try to be better informed about an argument when talking about it, thank you.
Spoletta wrote: Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.
If Guard units are the yard stick for balanced, a lot of units across multiple codex's and even FW indexes need points drops of 20%.
Nah, the IG units that need a few points more are:
1) Basilisks, about 10-15 points
2) Infantry squads about 0,6 points, so i could see it going to 5 or staying where they are.
3) Company and platoon commanders both 10 points.
The super heavies should all get looked at too.
Whirlwinds need to be cheaper, predators need to be cheaper, vindicators need to be a lot cheaper, marines need to be cheaper.
Hammerheads need to be cheaper, Firewarriors need to be cheaper, kroot need to be cheaper.
Heck even Sicarans and other FW stuff need price drops to compete with IG codex.
As they all loose out to units you haven't listed so presumably that implies you think they are ok.
Heck even fellblades and falchions need price drops compaired to their IG equivalents.
As to scions now that they are turn 2 deepstrike only they are probably a lot lower on the list if problem units
On the subject of whirlwinds, predators, vindicators and marines, i agree. They need some help.
Hammerheads and firewarriors are more than fine. Kroot i don't understand to which IG unit you are comparing it to.
Hammerheads loose out is a straight shoot out with Russes a unit that guard players keep claiming is trash.
Firewarriors loose out to Infantry squads shooting it out and even worse against Catachan in CC.
Heck even a pure knights list is hard pushed to beat IG tank spam and Knights are apparently OP as heck according to this board.
I'm not sure hammerheads can take much of a buff without becoming broken around longstrike, but one army shouldn't have the best screens and the best tanks to hide behind said screens per point in the entire game.
Having the best shooting and the best board presence per point (mono codex) makes it very difficult for other armies to compete.
Martel732 wrote: Condescending much? The other podcasters on Reece's own website don't agree with him frequently.
They can disagree with him all they like, he still took an army you guys have written off for dead pretty much all of 8th and got a top 16 finish. And yeah, when the Anti-Guard crowd can't get basic facts about the freaking rulesets being used in the competitive meta right, I'm going to be pretty condescending when you all come into every Guard thread screaming OMG GW GUARD OP PLZ NERF.
Remember that time a Thousand Sons lost made it to a Top 8 in 6th and nobody really cared?
Flukes happen.
It's not a fluke when it's someone who consistently does well at tournaments. It's just a good list in the hands of a good player.
i'll say it wasn't a fluke but it was a gimmick list built to abuse Guilliman's reroll's to counter the expected meta.
He even said at the start it was a sub optimal list that was designed to counter the expected meta.
It's not exactly a good sign that marines as a blanket army only work when you have to build every list to abuse Guilliman's reroll's
And that is why mathhammer is bad for your health.
Yes, the hammerhead loses a direct confrontation to a Russ, and? So a model to be worth more than another model must beat it in a direct confrontation? Your logic is completely flawed.
Do you know what hammerheads have that russes don't have? Fly! Higher BS (less impacted by degradation and debuffs)! 12" move!
Same for firewarriors, you can't say "Firewarriors lose in a direct fight with equal points of guardsmen so they are worst than guardsmen". Please find a real argument.
I'm not talking math hammer, hence why I didn't mention it. You interjected that because you don't want to admit that guard are one of the top mono factions.
I was talking in game results, other people have done the mathhammer and at no point do firewarriors win a shoot out with infantry squads.
But way to show your just willing to blindly argue in bad faith to support your view that guard are fine and every other faction is more OP.
Mono guard is without a doubt the best mono codex of imperium and maybe of 40K.
Ok, satisfied now? I'm not defending guard, i'm trying to put a little bit of perspective in all the hate that it receives. Guards are one of my worst matchups on the table, i'm only happy if they get nerfed, but i would like to avoid overnerfing things, because i don't like it when it happens to my bugs, so i like to avoid it happening to others.
And again, putting firewarriors against guards in a direct fight is not mathhammer! It's spouting random numbers, because it is a scenario that doesn't give any useful info. I can easily put up a "mathematically correct" scenario where 5 firewarriors kill 10 guards without suffering a single casualty, so i guess that FW are ultra OP, right?
Spoletta wrote: Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.
If Guard units are the yard stick for balanced, a lot of units across multiple codex's and even FW indexes need points drops of 20%.
Nah, the IG units that need a few points more are:
1) Basilisks, about 10-15 points
2) Infantry squads about 0,6 points, so i could see it going to 5 or staying where they are.
3) Company and platoon commanders both 10 points.
The super heavies should all get looked at too.
Whirlwinds need to be cheaper, predators need to be cheaper, vindicators need to be a lot cheaper, marines need to be cheaper.
Hammerheads need to be cheaper, Firewarriors need to be cheaper, kroot need to be cheaper.
Heck even Sicarans and other FW stuff need price drops to compete with IG codex.
As they all loose out to units you haven't listed so presumably that implies you think they are ok.
Heck even fellblades and falchions need price drops compaired to their IG equivalents.
As to scions now that they are turn 2 deepstrike only they are probably a lot lower on the list if problem units
On the subject of whirlwinds, predators, vindicators and marines, i agree. They need some help.
Hammerheads and firewarriors are more than fine. Kroot i don't understand to which IG unit you are comparing it to.
Hammerheads loose out is a straight shoot out with Russes a unit that guard players keep claiming is trash.
Firewarriors loose out to Infantry squads shooting it out and even worse against Catachan in CC.
Heck even a pure knights list is hard pushed to beat IG tank spam and Knights are apparently OP as heck according to this board.
I'm not sure hammerheads can take much of a buff without becoming broken around longstrike, but one army shouldn't have the best screens and the best tanks to hide behind said screens per point in the entire game.
Having the best shooting and the best board presence per point (mono codex) makes it very difficult for other armies to compete.
Martel732 wrote: Condescending much? The other podcasters on Reece's own website don't agree with him frequently.
They can disagree with him all they like, he still took an army you guys have written off for dead pretty much all of 8th and got a top 16 finish. And yeah, when the Anti-Guard crowd can't get basic facts about the freaking rulesets being used in the competitive meta right, I'm going to be pretty condescending when you all come into every Guard thread screaming OMG GW GUARD OP PLZ NERF.
Remember that time a Thousand Sons lost made it to a Top 8 in 6th and nobody really cared?
Flukes happen.
It's not a fluke when it's someone who consistently does well at tournaments. It's just a good list in the hands of a good player.
i'll say it wasn't a fluke but it was a gimmick list built to abuse Guilliman's reroll's to counter the expected meta.
He even said at the start it was a sub optimal list that was designed to counter the expected meta.
It's not exactly a good sign that marines as a blanket army only work when you have to build every list to abuse Guilliman's reroll's
And that is why mathhammer is bad for your health.
Yes, the hammerhead loses a direct confrontation to a Russ, and? So a model to be worth more than another model must beat it in a direct confrontation? Your logic is completely flawed.
Do you know what hammerheads have that russes don't have? Fly! Higher BS (less impacted by degradation and debuffs)! 12" move!
Same for firewarriors, you can't say "Firewarriors lose in a direct fight with equal points of guardsmen so they are worst than guardsmen". Please find a real argument.
I'm not talking math hammer, hence why I didn't mention it. You interjected that because you don't want to admit that guard are one of the top mono factions.
I was talking in game results, other people have done the mathhammer and at no point do firewarriors win a shoot out with infantry squads.
But way to show your just willing to blindly argue in bad faith to support your view that guard are fine and every other faction is more OP.
Mono guard is without a doubt the best mono codex of imperium and maybe of 40K.
Ok, satisfied now? I'm not defending guard, i'm trying to put a little bit of perspective in all the hate that it receives. Guards are one of my worst matchups on the table, i'm only happy if they get nerfed, but i would like to avoid overnerfing things, because i don't like it when it happens to my bugs, so i like to avoid it happening to others.
And again, putting firewarriors against guards in a direct fight is not mathhammer! It's spouting random numbers, because it is a scenario that doesn't give any useful info. I can easily put up a "mathematically correct" scenario where 5 firewarriors kill 10 guards without suffering a single casualty, so i guess that FW are ultra OP, right?
At one point someone did the math where the Fire Warriors get to shoot first to take into account the range advantage and they still lost.
Martel732 wrote: Condescending much? The other podcasters on Reece's own website don't agree with him frequently.
They can disagree with him all they like, he still took an army you guys have written off for dead pretty much all of 8th and got a top 16 finish. And yeah, when the Anti-Guard crowd can't get basic facts about the freaking rulesets being used in the competitive meta right, I'm going to be pretty condescending when you all come into every Guard thread screaming OMG GW GUARD OP PLZ NERF.
Remember that time a Thousand Sons lost made it to a Top 8 in 6th and nobody really cared?
Flukes happen.
It's not a fluke when it's someone who consistently does well at tournaments. It's just a good list in the hands of a good player.
Then it would happen consistently. Why would nobody defend Rubric Marines in their 6th/7th edition incarnation when someone apparently proved they could win with them?
That's where the math comes in. They're lousy, simple as that. You never got any copycats for such a list or anything, and it faded into obscurity whilst the rest of us were making sure we could counter Serpents and Centurionstar.
Spoletta wrote: Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.
If Guard units are the yard stick for balanced, a lot of units across multiple codex's and even FW indexes need points drops of 20%.
Nah, the IG units that need a few points more are:
1) Basilisks, about 10-15 points
2) Infantry squads about 0,6 points, so i could see it going to 5 or staying where they are.
3) Company and platoon commanders both 10 points.
The super heavies should all get looked at too.
Whirlwinds need to be cheaper, predators need to be cheaper, vindicators need to be a lot cheaper, marines need to be cheaper.
Hammerheads need to be cheaper, Firewarriors need to be cheaper, kroot need to be cheaper.
Heck even Sicarans and other FW stuff need price drops to compete with IG codex.
As they all loose out to units you haven't listed so presumably that implies you think they are ok.
Heck even fellblades and falchions need price drops compaired to their IG equivalents.
As to scions now that they are turn 2 deepstrike only they are probably a lot lower on the list if problem units
On the subject of whirlwinds, predators, vindicators and marines, i agree. They need some help.
Hammerheads and firewarriors are more than fine. Kroot i don't understand to which IG unit you are comparing it to.
Hammerheads loose out is a straight shoot out with Russes a unit that guard players keep claiming is trash.
Firewarriors loose out to Infantry squads shooting it out and even worse against Catachan in CC.
Heck even a pure knights list is hard pushed to beat IG tank spam and Knights are apparently OP as heck according to this board.
I'm not sure hammerheads can take much of a buff without becoming broken around longstrike, but one army shouldn't have the best screens and the best tanks to hide behind said screens per point in the entire game.
Having the best shooting and the best board presence per point (mono codex) makes it very difficult for other armies to compete.
Martel732 wrote: Condescending much? The other podcasters on Reece's own website don't agree with him frequently.
They can disagree with him all they like, he still took an army you guys have written off for dead pretty much all of 8th and got a top 16 finish. And yeah, when the Anti-Guard crowd can't get basic facts about the freaking rulesets being used in the competitive meta right, I'm going to be pretty condescending when you all come into every Guard thread screaming OMG GW GUARD OP PLZ NERF.
Remember that time a Thousand Sons lost made it to a Top 8 in 6th and nobody really cared?
Flukes happen.
It's not a fluke when it's someone who consistently does well at tournaments. It's just a good list in the hands of a good player.
i'll say it wasn't a fluke but it was a gimmick list built to abuse Guilliman's reroll's to counter the expected meta.
He even said at the start it was a sub optimal list that was designed to counter the expected meta.
It's not exactly a good sign that marines as a blanket army only work when you have to build every list to abuse Guilliman's reroll's
And that is why mathhammer is bad for your health.
Yes, the hammerhead loses a direct confrontation to a Russ, and? So a model to be worth more than another model must beat it in a direct confrontation? Your logic is completely flawed.
Do you know what hammerheads have that russes don't have? Fly! Higher BS (less impacted by degradation and debuffs)! 12" move!
Same for firewarriors, you can't say "Firewarriors lose in a direct fight with equal points of guardsmen so they are worst than guardsmen". Please find a real argument.
I'm not talking math hammer, hence why I didn't mention it. You interjected that because you don't want to admit that guard are one of the top mono factions.
I was talking in game results, other people have done the mathhammer and at no point do firewarriors win a shoot out with infantry squads.
But way to show your just willing to blindly argue in bad faith to support your view that guard are fine and every other faction is more OP.
Mono guard is without a doubt the best mono codex of imperium and maybe of 40K.
Ok, satisfied now? I'm not defending guard, i'm trying to put a little bit of perspective in all the hate that it receives. Guards are one of my worst matchups on the table, i'm only happy if they get nerfed, but i would like to avoid overnerfing things, because i don't like it when it happens to my bugs, so i like to avoid it happening to others.
And again, putting firewarriors against guards in a direct fight is not mathhammer! It's spouting random numbers, because it is a scenario that doesn't give any useful info. I can easily put up a "mathematically correct" scenario where 5 firewarriors kill 10 guards without suffering a single casualty, so i guess that FW are ultra OP, right?
guard are the best imperium codex solo. overall though dark eldar solo is probably the strongest solo book. now that people ar working out the kinks mono Drew Carey armies are wrecking. add in ynarri some harlies and/or craftworld for flavor and i think we are going to see a shift there, especially with the new nerfed deep strike rules and the rumored CA moving castillans to 700 points (where they should have been to start with)
Spoletta wrote: Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.
If Guard units are the yard stick for balanced, a lot of units across multiple codex's and even FW indexes need points drops of 20%.
Nah, the IG units that need a few points more are:
1) Basilisks, about 10-15 points
2) Infantry squads about 0,6 points, so i could see it going to 5 or staying where they are.
3) Company and platoon commanders both 10 points.
The super heavies should all get looked at too.
Whirlwinds need to be cheaper, predators need to be cheaper, vindicators need to be a lot cheaper, marines need to be cheaper.
Hammerheads need to be cheaper, Firewarriors need to be cheaper, kroot need to be cheaper.
Heck even Sicarans and other FW stuff need price drops to compete with IG codex.
As they all loose out to units you haven't listed so presumably that implies you think they are ok.
Heck even fellblades and falchions need price drops compaired to their IG equivalents.
As to scions now that they are turn 2 deepstrike only they are probably a lot lower on the list if problem units
On the subject of whirlwinds, predators, vindicators and marines, i agree. They need some help.
Hammerheads and firewarriors are more than fine. Kroot i don't understand to which IG unit you are comparing it to.
Hammerheads loose out is a straight shoot out with Russes a unit that guard players keep claiming is trash.
Firewarriors loose out to Infantry squads shooting it out and even worse against Catachan in CC.
Heck even a pure knights list is hard pushed to beat IG tank spam and Knights are apparently OP as heck according to this board.
I'm not sure hammerheads can take much of a buff without becoming broken around longstrike, but one army shouldn't have the best screens and the best tanks to hide behind said screens per point in the entire game.
Having the best shooting and the best board presence per point (mono codex) makes it very difficult for other armies to compete.
Martel732 wrote: Condescending much? The other podcasters on Reece's own website don't agree with him frequently.
They can disagree with him all they like, he still took an army you guys have written off for dead pretty much all of 8th and got a top 16 finish. And yeah, when the Anti-Guard crowd can't get basic facts about the freaking rulesets being used in the competitive meta right, I'm going to be pretty condescending when you all come into every Guard thread screaming OMG GW GUARD OP PLZ NERF.
Remember that time a Thousand Sons lost made it to a Top 8 in 6th and nobody really cared?
Flukes happen.
It's not a fluke when it's someone who consistently does well at tournaments. It's just a good list in the hands of a good player.
i'll say it wasn't a fluke but it was a gimmick list built to abuse Guilliman's reroll's to counter the expected meta.
He even said at the start it was a sub optimal list that was designed to counter the expected meta.
It's not exactly a good sign that marines as a blanket army only work when you have to build every list to abuse Guilliman's reroll's
And that is why mathhammer is bad for your health.
Yes, the hammerhead loses a direct confrontation to a Russ, and? So a model to be worth more than another model must beat it in a direct confrontation? Your logic is completely flawed.
Do you know what hammerheads have that russes don't have? Fly! Higher BS (less impacted by degradation and debuffs)! 12" move!
Same for firewarriors, you can't say "Firewarriors lose in a direct fight with equal points of guardsmen so they are worst than guardsmen". Please find a real argument.
I'm not talking math hammer, hence why I didn't mention it. You interjected that because you don't want to admit that guard are one of the top mono factions.
I was talking in game results, other people have done the mathhammer and at no point do firewarriors win a shoot out with infantry squads.
But way to show your just willing to blindly argue in bad faith to support your view that guard are fine and every other faction is more OP.
Mono guard is without a doubt the best mono codex of imperium and maybe of 40K.
Ok, satisfied now? I'm not defending guard, i'm trying to put a little bit of perspective in all the hate that it receives. Guards are one of my worst matchups on the table, i'm only happy if they get nerfed, but i would like to avoid overnerfing things, because i don't like it when it happens to my bugs, so i like to avoid it happening to others.
And again, putting firewarriors against guards in a direct fight is not mathhammer! It's spouting random numbers, because it is a scenario that doesn't give any useful info. I can easily put up a "mathematically correct" scenario where 5 firewarriors kill 10 guards without suffering a single casualty, so i guess that FW are ultra OP, right?
At one point someone did the math where the Fire Warriors get to shoot first to take into account the range advantage and they still lost.
Doesn't matter. Remember when I showed how flawed the vs. Model was by proving that Tac marines out shoot Dark Reapers in a vs. Match? It's a crap model to use for anything other than the specific scenario given, and has very little "real world" bearing because actual games with whole armies involved don't function like that.
The thing that actually annoys people about the Guard is that they have to pay a lot of points for advantages that don't matter by comparison to the Guard. A Primaris Psyker is a third the cost of a Space Marine Librarian for -1S, -1T, -2Sv, and ML1 rather than 2, but gets a comparable melee profile, better psychic powers, and an invulnerable save (which Librarians haven't had outside Terminator armour since the death of armouries in 5e), which feels tremendously unfair; the endless proliferation of good-AP D2 weapons means 20pt Intercessors die just as fast as 4pt Guardsmen...
Whether or not the Guard are actually broken or problematic is independent of the fact that (depending on your viewpoint) either Guard were written for 40k and Space Marines were written for an imaginary fluffy-cloud version of 40k in which their statline is worth its cost, or Space Marines were written for 40k and Guard were written for an obnoxious min/maxxer's edition of 40k where you shave points off by lowering stats that are fundamentally irrelevant.
The other layer of annoyance is that some of us don't want to buy Guardsmen and are sick of constantly being told "yeah, we know your Codex is s***, but if you buy some Guardsmen as a crutch you could do better!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: ...Doesn't matter. Remember when I showed how flawed the vs. Model was by proving that Tac marines out shoot Dark Reapers in a vs. Match? It's a crap model to use for anything other than the specific scenario given, and has very little "real world" bearing because actual games with whole armies involved don't function like that.
(Model-to-model Tactical Marines and Guardsmen are fairly priced against each other. That is, in practice, a meaningless statement because a real game involves guns other than lasguns.)
AnomanderRake wrote: (Model-to-model Tactical Marines and Guardsmen are fairly priced against each other. That is, in practice, a meaningless statement because a real game involves guns other than lasguns.)
In Guardsmen terms a Marine has the toughness of a 12 point unit but the damage output of a 7 point unit.
AnomanderRake wrote: The thing that actually annoys people about the Guard is that they have to pay a lot of points for advantages that don't matter by comparison to the Guard. A Primaris Psyker is a third the cost of a Space Marine Librarian for -1S, -1T, -2Sv, and ML1 rather than 2, but gets a comparable melee profile, better psychic powers, and an invulnerable save (which Librarians haven't had outside Terminator armour since the death of armouries in 5e), which feels tremendously unfair; the endless proliferation of good-AP D2 weapons means 20pt Intercessors die just as fast as 4pt Guardsmen...
Whether or not the Guard are actually broken or problematic is independent of the fact that (depending on your viewpoint) either Guard were written for 40k and Space Marines were written for an imaginary fluffy-cloud version of 40k in which their statline is worth its cost, or Space Marines were written for 40k and Guard were written for an obnoxious min/maxxer's edition of 40k where you shave points off by lowering stats that are fundamentally irrelevant.
The other layer of annoyance is that some of us don't want to buy Guardsmen and are sick of constantly being told "yeah, we know your Codex is s***, but if you buy some Guardsmen as a crutch you could do better!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: ...Doesn't matter. Remember when I showed how flawed the vs. Model was by proving that Tac marines out shoot Dark Reapers in a vs. Match? It's a crap model to use for anything other than the specific scenario given, and has very little "real world" bearing because actual games with whole armies involved don't function like that.
(Model-to-model Tactical Marines and Guardsmen are fairly priced against each other. That is, in practice, a meaningless statement because a real game involves guns other than lasguns.)
To be honest, I think marines are a bigger outlier. But a lot of ig stuff trumps even xeno equivalents.
AnomanderRake wrote: (Model-to-model Tactical Marines and Guardsmen are fairly priced against each other. That is, in practice, a meaningless statement because a real game involves guns other than lasguns.)
In Guardsmen terms a Marine has the toughness of a 12 point unit but the damage output of a 7 point unit.
Until you start giving the unit it's expected special and heavy weapons, buffs, and shoot at targets other than Guardsmen. I think there was some math a while ago showing that a Tac Squad can outshoot a Riptide.
Marine equipment costs so much that bc what durability they had goes in the toilet. If you are all in on alpha strike, that's an easy way to lose. A lot of marine units look good until your opponent gets a turn.
That's closer to reality than fiction atm. Guardsmen are objectively worth more than 4 pom. Mortars and wyverns seem out of whack with other ap 0 options in the game. They share the ability to easily put 100+ t 5/6+ sounds on the table with the drukhari.
Spoletta wrote: Astra militarum will probably receive some point nerfs in CA. Not many, because it's not like they have any unit really over the top (except artemis hellhounds, but that's FW), but in general probably some little point hikes here and there.
If Guard units are the yard stick for balanced, a lot of units across multiple codex's and even FW indexes need points drops of 20%.
Nah, the IG units that need a few points more are:
1) Basilisks, about 10-15 points
2) Infantry squads about 0,6 points, so i could see it going to 5 or staying where they are.
3) Company and platoon commanders both 10 points.
The super heavies should all get looked at too.
Whirlwinds need to be cheaper, predators need to be cheaper, vindicators need to be a lot cheaper, marines need to be cheaper.
Hammerheads need to be cheaper, Firewarriors need to be cheaper, kroot need to be cheaper.
Heck even Sicarans and other FW stuff need price drops to compete with IG codex.
As they all loose out to units you haven't listed so presumably that implies you think they are ok.
Heck even fellblades and falchions need price drops compaired to their IG equivalents.
As to scions now that they are turn 2 deepstrike only they are probably a lot lower on the list if problem units
On the subject of whirlwinds, predators, vindicators and marines, i agree. They need some help.
Hammerheads and firewarriors are more than fine. Kroot i don't understand to which IG unit you are comparing it to.
Hammerheads loose out is a straight shoot out with Russes a unit that guard players keep claiming is trash.
Firewarriors loose out to Infantry squads shooting it out and even worse against Catachan in CC.
Heck even a pure knights list is hard pushed to beat IG tank spam and Knights are apparently OP as heck according to this board.
I'm not sure hammerheads can take much of a buff without becoming broken around longstrike, but one army shouldn't have the best screens and the best tanks to hide behind said screens per point in the entire game.
Having the best shooting and the best board presence per point (mono codex) makes it very difficult for other armies to compete.
Martel732 wrote: Condescending much? The other podcasters on Reece's own website don't agree with him frequently.
They can disagree with him all they like, he still took an army you guys have written off for dead pretty much all of 8th and got a top 16 finish. And yeah, when the Anti-Guard crowd can't get basic facts about the freaking rulesets being used in the competitive meta right, I'm going to be pretty condescending when you all come into every Guard thread screaming OMG GW GUARD OP PLZ NERF.
Remember that time a Thousand Sons lost made it to a Top 8 in 6th and nobody really cared?
Flukes happen.
It's not a fluke when it's someone who consistently does well at tournaments. It's just a good list in the hands of a good player.
i'll say it wasn't a fluke but it was a gimmick list built to abuse Guilliman's reroll's to counter the expected meta.
He even said at the start it was a sub optimal list that was designed to counter the expected meta.
It's not exactly a good sign that marines as a blanket army only work when you have to build every list to abuse Guilliman's reroll's
And that is why mathhammer is bad for your health.
Yes, the hammerhead loses a direct confrontation to a Russ, and? So a model to be worth more than another model must beat it in a direct confrontation? Your logic is completely flawed.
Do you know what hammerheads have that russes don't have? Fly! Higher BS (less impacted by degradation and debuffs)! 12" move!
Same for firewarriors, you can't say "Firewarriors lose in a direct fight with equal points of guardsmen so they are worst than guardsmen". Please find a real argument.
I'm not talking math hammer, hence why I didn't mention it. You interjected that because you don't want to admit that guard are one of the top mono factions.
I was talking in game results, other people have done the mathhammer and at no point do firewarriors win a shoot out with infantry squads.
But way to show your just willing to blindly argue in bad faith to support your view that guard are fine and every other faction is more OP.
Mono guard is without a doubt the best mono codex of imperium and maybe of 40K.
Ok, satisfied now? I'm not defending guard, i'm trying to put a little bit of perspective in all the hate that it receives. Guards are one of my worst matchups on the table, i'm only happy if they get nerfed, but i would like to avoid overnerfing things, because i don't like it when it happens to my bugs, so i like to avoid it happening to others.
And again, putting firewarriors against guards in a direct fight is not mathhammer! It's spouting random numbers, because it is a scenario that doesn't give any useful info. I can easily put up a "mathematically correct" scenario where 5 firewarriors kill 10 guards without suffering a single casualty, so i guess that FW are ultra OP, right?
At one point someone did the math where the Fire Warriors get to shoot first to take into account the range advantage and they still lost.
Doesn't matter. Remember when I showed how flawed the vs. Model was by proving that Tac marines out shoot Dark Reapers in a vs. Match? It's a crap model to use for anything other than the specific scenario given, and has very little "real world" bearing because actual games with whole armies involved don't function like that.
Dark Reapers aren't durable? Shocker. Dark Reapers excel vs all the heavy targets. If you want anti-infantry you have Swooping Hawks and Dire Avengers.
AnomanderRake wrote: (Model-to-model Tactical Marines and Guardsmen are fairly priced against each other. That is, in practice, a meaningless statement because a real game involves guns other than lasguns.)
In Guardsmen terms a Marine has the toughness of a 12 point unit but the damage output of a 7 point unit.
Until you start giving the unit it's expected special and heavy weapons, buffs, and shoot at targets other than Guardsmen...
And then it gets worse because Guard pay less for their Heavy/Special weapons, and have access to better heavy weapons, better buffs, and better Strategems.
Martel732 wrote: That's closer to reality than fiction atm. Guardsmen are objectively worth more than 4 pom. Mortars and wyverns seem out of whack with other ap 0 options in the game. They share the ability to easily put 100+ t 5/6+ sounds on the table with the drukhari.
Deathstrike missiles surely are not undercosted. Neither are conscripts and veterans. Nor are commissars, ratlings, servants, ogryns.
The number of actual problematic units in the IG codex is low.
Even if you go into the "good but not excellent" choices, like vanilla russes and Manticores, you surely are not going to tell me that a Russ should be a 200 point model, right? Actually if we want to go down the "direct confrontation" route, it has troubles fighting a single Vindicator, which is a 125 points "total crap" model.
Basilisks, hellhounds and company commanders are the only models who would still be decent with a +20% cost, so i can see it coming for them.
Infantry squads are a completely different matter, they are not 4 points models, but they are aren't 5 points either.
Dark Reapers aren't durable? Shocker. Dark Reapers excel vs all the heavy targets. If you want anti-infantry you have Swooping Hawks and Dire Avengers.
Sounds like you agree with me that the vs. model is bad then.
AnomanderRake wrote: (Model-to-model Tactical Marines and Guardsmen are fairly priced against each other. That is, in practice, a meaningless statement because a real game involves guns other than lasguns.)
In Guardsmen terms a Marine has the toughness of a 12 point unit but the damage output of a 7 point unit.
Until you start giving the unit it's expected special and heavy weapons, buffs, and shoot at targets other than Guardsmen...
And then it gets worse because Guard pay less for their Heavy/Special weapons, and have access to better heavy weapons, better buffs, and better Strategems.
No, not better buffs. Definitely not better buffs.
Dark Reapers aren't durable? Shocker. Dark Reapers excel vs all the heavy targets. If you want anti-infantry you have Swooping Hawks and Dire Avengers.
Sounds like you agree with me that the vs. model is bad then.
AnomanderRake wrote: (Model-to-model Tactical Marines and Guardsmen are fairly priced against each other. That is, in practice, a meaningless statement because a real game involves guns other than lasguns.)
In Guardsmen terms a Marine has the toughness of a 12 point unit but the damage output of a 7 point unit.
Until you start giving the unit it's expected special and heavy weapons, buffs, and shoot at targets other than Guardsmen...
And then it gets worse because Guard pay less for their Heavy/Special weapons, and have access to better heavy weapons, better buffs, and better Strategems.
No, not better buffs. Definitely not better buffs.
The model isn't bad though. Reapers are having an advantage until Tactical Marines get into Rapid Fire.
The model isn't bad though. Reapers are having an advantage until Tactical Marines get into Rapid Fire.
5 marines with Grav Cannon face equal points of Dark Reapers at 24"
Marines: Bolters(4x.666x.666x.333)=0.59 + Grav(4×.666x.666x.83)=1.47. =2.06 for 68 points of Reapers dead
Reapers: (6×.666×.666×.666)=1.7 =23 points of marines dead
Point for point Tac marines come out way ahead at 24".
Dark Reapers aren't durable? Shocker. Dark Reapers excel vs all the heavy targets. If you want anti-infantry you have Swooping Hawks and Dire Avengers.
Sounds like you agree with me that the vs. model is bad then.
AnomanderRake wrote: (Model-to-model Tactical Marines and Guardsmen are fairly priced against each other. That is, in practice, a meaningless statement because a real game involves guns other than lasguns.)
In Guardsmen terms a Marine has the toughness of a 12 point unit but the damage output of a 7 point unit.
Until you start giving the unit it's expected special and heavy weapons, buffs, and shoot at targets other than Guardsmen...
And then it gets worse because Guard pay less for their Heavy/Special weapons, and have access to better heavy weapons, better buffs, and better Strategems.
No, not better buffs. Definitely not better buffs.
Maybe not comparing them 1-to-1 (and even then I think it's debatable) but SMs pay 2 to 3 times as much to put each buff in the list.
NVM. I looked it up. It appears snipers are useful if they are next to bobby G. Go figure.
Nah - that list is trash. Even the podcasters are like...wuuut? But it's true - anything standing next to bobby G becomes a pretty good unit. They still die just the same though.
Tyel wrote: What buffs are Marines getting that are remotely comparable being S4 with 2 attacks in melee and getting orders (shooting twice, double moving etc)?
Stacked rerolls put up some mean numbers, man. Shooting twice with lasguns is nice, but stacked re-rolls can increase the damage output of ALL weapons (often from +80 to +100%), and it works in both the shooting and close combat phase. I just did this in another thread, but it's something like a marine max re-rolling Lascannon is worth 236% times that of a Guard 4+ Lascannon against standard vehicle type targets.
Tyel wrote: What buffs are Marines getting that are remotely comparable being S4 with 2 attacks in melee and getting orders (shooting twice, double moving etc)?
Stacked rerolls put up some mean numbers, man. Shooting twice with lasguns is nice, but stacked re-rolls can increase the damage output of ALL weapons (often from +80 to +100%), and it works in both the shooting and close combat phase. I just did this in another thread, but it's something like a marine max re-rolling Lascannon is worth 236% times that of a Guard 4+ Lascannon against standard vehicle type targets.
Okay another question then, why do you think we are not seeing Salamanders at all competitively?
If you could insert Gman into any army other than marines and have him function like he does for ultra marines - that army would instantly become an unbeatable force.
When space marines get it...it's like...yeah that hurts but our firepower is basically equal because of how easy it is to remove marines and marine vehicals.
Martel732 wrote: That's closer to reality than fiction atm. Guardsmen are objectively worth more than 4 pom. Mortars and wyverns seem out of whack with other ap 0 options in the game. They share the ability to easily put 100+ t 5/6+ sounds on the table with the drukhari.
Deathstrike missiles surely are not undercosted. Neither are conscripts and veterans. Nor are commissars, ratlings, servants, ogryns.
The number of actual problematic units in the IG codex is low.
Even if you go into the "good but not excellent" choices, like vanilla russes and Manticores, you surely are not going to tell me that a Russ should be a 200 point model, right? Actually if we want to go down the "direct confrontation" route, it has troubles fighting a single Vindicator, which is a 125 points "total crap" model.
Basilisks, hellhounds and company commanders are the only models who would still be decent with a +20% cost, so i can see it coming for them.
Infantry squads are a completely different matter, they are not 4 points models, but they are aren't 5 points either.
By closer, I mean 11% might be a better number. Not in problematic unit count. I think guardsmen are easily 5 pts both mathematically and in-game practicality.
Tyel wrote: What buffs are Marines getting that are remotely comparable being S4 with 2 attacks in melee and getting orders (shooting twice, double moving etc)?
Stacked rerolls put up some mean numbers, man. Shooting twice with lasguns is nice, but stacked re-rolls can increase the damage output of ALL weapons (often from +80 to +100%), and it works in both the shooting and close combat phase. I just did this in another thread, but it's something like a marine max re-rolling Lascannon is worth 236% times that of a Guard 4+ Lascannon against standard vehicle type targets.
Mean for the cost of the source of the rerolls? And the mobility you are giving up to do it?
Spoletta wrote: Marines need something and no one here is arguing about that.
It's just broad stataments like "Everything guard is 20% undercosted" that really highlights how skewed people's perception is.
See if you would actually read what people type instead of reacting to what you think people say it would help a lot.
I never said guard was 20% undercosted, I said a number of units are 20% overcosted if you use guard as a yard stick.
That means something totally different. If guard is 5% undercosted to Tau, nids etc and Tau are 10 % undercosted to marine's marines are 10% overcosted to a Tau, Nid base line but 20% to a guard baseline.
Drukari still have some broken stuff even compaired to a guard baseline but that still doesn't mean units Don't need 20% plus points cuts to compete with IG codex.
Still not convinced this works btw, although it may change with special weapons.
Catachan guardsmen, rapid fire, FRSRF, assault on marines=
4*1/2*1/3*1/3=0.2222
2*1/2*1/2*1/3=0.1666
Equals 0.388888 dead marines, equals 5.05 points, equals a 125% return on 4 point guardsmen.
Marine, with RG rerolls shooting and assault on marines:
2*8/9*3/4*1/3=0.4444
1*8/9*3/4*1/3=0.2222
Equals 0.666 dead marines, equals 8.666 points, equals a 66% return on your 13 point tactical marine.
Marine, with RG rerolls, shooting and assault on guardsmen:
2*8/9*8/9*2/3=1.054
1*8/9*8/9*2/3=0.527
Equals 1.58 dead guardsmen, equals 6.32 points, equals a 48% return on your points.
And thats just Straken without the ever present priest.
Straken obviously doesn't have as much raw power as Bobby G by himself - but he also isn't nearly as expensive.
Tyel wrote: What buffs are Marines getting that are remotely comparable being S4 with 2 attacks in melee and getting orders (shooting twice, double moving etc)?
Stacked rerolls put up some mean numbers, man. Shooting twice with lasguns is nice, but stacked re-rolls can increase the damage output of ALL weapons (often from +80 to +100%), and it works in both the shooting and close combat phase. I just did this in another thread, but it's something like a marine max re-rolling Lascannon is worth 236% times that of a Guard 4+ Lascannon against standard vehicle type targets.
Okay another question then, why do you think we are not seeing Salamanders at all competitively?
Because the Salamanders tactic caps out at one re-roll per squad. Duh.
Guilliman is every model within every squad within range of his bubble, that's why he costs 400 points. Because full re-rolls for everybody is crazy valuable. Waaay more valuable than firing twice with Lasguns.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tyel wrote: Still not convinced this works btw, although it may change with special weapons.
Catachan guardsmen, rapid fire, FRSRF, assault on marines=
4*1/2*1/3*1/3=0.2222
2*1/2*1/2*1/3=0.1666
Equals 0.388888 dead marines, equals 5.05 points, equals a 125% return on 4 point guardsmen.
Marine, with RG rerolls shooting and assault on marines:
2*8/9*3/4*1/3=0.4444
1*8/9*3/4*1/3=0.2222
Equals 0.666 dead marines, equals 8.666 points, equals a 66% return on your 13 point tactical marine.
Marine, with RG rerolls, shooting and assault on guardsmen:
2*8/9*8/9*2/3=1.054
1*8/9*8/9*2/3=0.527
Equals 1.58 dead guardsmen, equals 6.32 points, equals a 48% return on your points.
And thats just Straken without the ever present priest.
Straken obviously doesn't have as much raw power as Bobby G by himself - but he also isn't nearly as expensive.
The "Vs. model" of math hammer is a bad model. Marines don't have to beat Guardsmen as long as there is some other unit in their codex (of like 90 units) that can beat Guardsmen.
Hes just showing the raw power. Space marines pay a huge tax to get reroll hits and wounds. Straken is cheaper than most space marine HQ options and he buffs infantry hard than Gman buffs anything.
Xenomancers wrote: Hes just showing the raw power. Space marines pay a huge tax to get reroll hits and wounds. Straken is cheaper than most space marine HQ options and he buffs infantry hard than Gman buffs anything.
I'm actually not familiar with Strakens buffs, can I get a breakdown?
Edit: Plus the "ever present Priest", whatever he does.
Well, +1 attack boosts those units combat ability by 100% (going from 1 to 2) before potentially adding orders. I don't play catachan so I can't comment on how good it is.
Xenomancers wrote: Hes just showing the raw power. Space marines pay a huge tax to get reroll hits and wounds. Straken is cheaper than most space marine HQ options and he buffs infantry hard than Gman buffs anything.
I'm actually not familiar with Strakens buffs, can I get a breakdown?
Edit: Plus the "ever present Priest", whatever he does.
Strakens cost is roughly 75 points I don't remmeber exactly. Hes basically a space marine chaplain (I think invo might be 5++ though) plus he gives 2 orders like a company commander.
Instead of a reroll hits in CC bubble. He gives each catachen unit +1 attack each time it fights. Keep in mind catachans all have str 4 because that is their army trait.
+1 attack for 4 point models is already pretty insane. The combo hasn't even started though. A preist basically has the same +1 attack buff and hes 35 points. Also has a 4++ save but basically sucks otherwise...doesn't matter he costs 35 points.
110 points to get 300% damage in CC out of 4 point units...holy crap. Plus they can fight twice with an order so thats 600% damage increase buff in CC. Throw in harker and they are all rerolling 1's too (most just skip this).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dandelion wrote: Well, +1 attack boosts those units combat ability by 100% (going from 1 to 2) before potentially adding orders. I don't play catachan so I can't comment on how good it is.
humm - how good are geensteelers? They cost 13 and have 4 str 4 ap-1 attacks (if they are over 10 man squads). IG catachans cost 4 points and have 6 str 4 attacks under these buffs. Or in other words they have 50% more attacks than geenstellers which costs 300% more.
It doesn't take a lot to figure out these guys have insane damage potential. Not trying to be rude but this kind of stuff sickens me. A catachans but spank space marines in CC...why the heck don't they turn these guys into Astartes? The would be primarchs after the augments.
You fail to include the price of the Straken and the priest when you compare the Guardsmen to Genestealers. You'll spend about the same PPM, Genes get faster mvt speed and -1 AP. Wether than's worth 2 atks is up for debate.
Catachans don't need to be mutants in power armor to be competent, suck it.
Xenomancers wrote: Hes just showing the raw power. Space marines pay a huge tax to get reroll hits and wounds. Straken is cheaper than most space marine HQ options and he buffs infantry hard than Gman buffs anything.
I'm actually not familiar with Strakens buffs, can I get a breakdown?
Edit: Plus the "ever present Priest", whatever he does.
Strakens cost is roughly 75 points I don't remmeber exactly. Hes basically a space marine chaplain (I think invo might be 5++ though) plus he gives 2 orders like a company commander.
Instead of a reroll hits in CC bubble. He gives each catachen unit +1 attack each time it fights. Keep in mind catachans all have str 4 because that is their army trait.
+1 attack for 4 point models is already pretty insane. The combo hasn't even started though. A preist basically has the same +1 attack buff and hes 35 points. Also has a 4++ save but basically sucks otherwise...doesn't matter he costs 35 points.
110 points to get 300% damage in CC out of 4 point units...holy crap. Plus they can fight twice with an order so thats 600% damage increase buff in CC. Throw in harker and they are all rerolling 1's too (most just skip this).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dandelion wrote: Well, +1 attack boosts those units combat ability by 100% (going from 1 to 2) before potentially adding orders. I don't play catachan so I can't comment on how good it is.
humm - how good are geensteelers? They cost 13 and have 4 str 4 ap-1 attacks (if they are over 10 man squads). IG catachans cost 4 points and have 6 str 4 attacks under these buffs. Or in other words they have 50% more attacks than geenstellers which costs 300% more.
It doesn't take a lot to figure out these guys have insane damage potential. Not trying to be rude but this kind of stuff sickens me. A catachans but spank space marines in CC...why the heck don't they turn these guys into Astartes? The would be primarchs after the augments.
The double fight order does not work due to it's timing.
How many times do you get to shoot in melee with pistols? That's the same number of times that a guard can use the double fight order.
RogueApiary wrote: ITT again, the anti-guard crowd can't get basic facts right. Prinaris Psykers don't get an invuln save. But keep making stuff up while screaming imba!
I like them better b/c I can get twice as many smites out of the primaris psykers. Also, their spell list is better than marines or BA.
Bobthehero wrote: Priest and Straken each give the Guardsmen +1 atk.
Then in the shooting phase they get the order to attack twice during the next fight phase.
Again another one that doesn't know how guard works.
Ok so what's the real story?
This one:
Fix Bayonets: "This order can only be issued to units that are within 1" of an enemy unit. The ordered unit immediately fights as if it were the Fight phase."
Insectum7 wrote: It sure sounds unwieldy and difficult to deliver effectively, if you ask me.
I'm not saying it's bad, mind you, just not impressive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: IG catachans cost 4 points and have 6 str 4 attacks under these buffs.
Sorry, how do they get 6 attacks each?
Edit: Sorry, fight-twice order.
Fix bayonets is in the shooting phase. So this takes place after they have been locked in for a turn. They don't just charge and immediately fight twice.
You FRFSRF then charge. 4 lasgun shots and 2/3 (one is nice enough tbh) S4 fist attacks is incredible for a 4 point unit.
Most things that want to charge guardsmen are going to kill them - but there are niche case scenarios where they may charge one thing and then consolidate into you for example to contest/claim an objective. In that situation you can proceed to punch them in the face. (And in turn it may be preferable for them to take the punches or force a fall back rather than be shot off the table next turn).
Really though Straken is cheap and you have to take some HQs. RG is a massive investment. If you can get your entire army into his bubble its probably still worth it - but there are tactical limitations to a Bobby G castle.
Really Catachans are probably the best thing in the game right now. They are critical to Imperial Soup's success, just as much as the Castellan and Smash Captains. If they don't impress you much I am suspect you are not playing the same game.
The model isn't bad though. Reapers are having an advantage until Tactical Marines get into Rapid Fire.
5 marines with Grav Cannon face equal points of Dark Reapers at 24"
Marines: Bolters(4x.666x.666x.333)=0.59 + Grav(4×.666x.666x.83)=1.47. =2.06 for 68 points of Reapers dead
Reapers: (6×.666×.666×.666)=1.7 =23 points of marines dead
Point for point Tac marines come out way ahead at 24".
You failed to factor in the -1 to Hit of course. Dark Reapers wouldn't suffer from that anyway.
I think that at least part of the problem with Imperial Guard isn't actually that their troops are so cheap.
I mean yes, they are amazing, powerful, and cheap. Fine. But in a pure IG list that's not so terrible.
The problem is how easy it is to add a battallion of IG troops with all their strengths and buffs to any imperial list.
Can this be done with Chaos? Not really. Adding daemon troops to a list is doable, but to do so you have to pay a heavy tax in HQ's. The good HQ's are expensive, and the cheap HQ's are terrible and not even that cheap.
Eldar are in much the same situation, though DE might have a cheap HQ (I only know Eldar and Harlequins, and their HQ's are not cheap).
IG? HQ's are good, and cheap, and make the troops you get significantly better so they're always worth their points.
If IG troops stayed the same price, but the HQ's were raised in points to be more in line with other armies so that the battallion ends up more in line with the cost of battallions from other armies, things might be a bit more balanced.
Basically it ends up coming to the same line of thought that there should be more of a tax or price for taking detachments from other armies. The problem though is that other armies already have to pay this cost, but IG doesn't (or pays much less at least).
Problem is, the way GW fixes things is shown in this new FAQ. They'll make a blanket change that taxes everyone the same, which will still mean that IG will be relatively the cheapest option, and so nothing will change.
Tyel wrote: You FRFSRF then charge. 4 lasgun shots and 2/3 (one is nice enough tbh) S4 fist attacks is incredible for a 4 point unit.
Most things that want to charge guardsmen are going to kill them - but there are niche case scenarios where they may charge one thing and then consolidate into you for example to contest/claim an objective. In that situation you can proceed to punch them in the face. (And in turn it may be preferable for them to take the punches or force a fall back rather than be shot off the table next turn).
Really though Straken is cheap and you have to take some HQs. RG is a massive investment. If you can get your entire army into his bubble its probably still worth it - but there are tactical limitations to a Bobby G castle.
Really Catachans are probably the best thing in the game right now. They are critical to Imperial Soup's success, just as much as the Castellan and Smash Captains. If they don't impress you much I am suspect you are not playing the same game.
The Catachan regimental trait should be nerfed in some way, maybe +1 attack on the charge instead. However, the FAQ has come and gone. So it will likely remain the same until next Spring.
The model isn't bad though. Reapers are having an advantage until Tactical Marines get into Rapid Fire.
5 marines with Grav Cannon face equal points of Dark Reapers at 24"
Marines: Bolters(4x.666x.666x.333)=0.59 + Grav(4×.666x.666x.83)=1.47. =2.06 for 68 points of Reapers dead
Reapers: (6×.666×.666×.666)=1.7 =23 points of marines dead
Point for point Tac marines come out way ahead at 24".
You failed to factor in the -1 to Hit of course. Dark Reapers wouldn't suffer from that anyway.
Doesn't change the math enough to correct your statement, and that's what matters in an internet argument. The Tacs still come out well ahead.
The model isn't bad though. Reapers are having an advantage until Tactical Marines get into Rapid Fire.
5 marines with Grav Cannon face equal points of Dark Reapers at 24"
Marines: Bolters(4x.666x.666x.333)=0.59 + Grav(4×.666x.666x.83)=1.47. =2.06 for 68 points of Reapers dead
Reapers: (6×.666×.666×.666)=1.7 =23 points of marines dead
Point for point Tac marines come out way ahead at 24".
You failed to factor in the -1 to Hit of course. Dark Reapers wouldn't suffer from that anyway.
Doesn't change the math enough to correct your statement, and that's what matters in an internet argument. The Tacs still come out well ahead.
So they do that in a single situation. And then what?
The model isn't bad though. Reapers are having an advantage until Tactical Marines get into Rapid Fire.
5 marines with Grav Cannon face equal points of Dark Reapers at 24"
Marines: Bolters(4x.666x.666x.333)=0.59 + Grav(4×.666x.666x.83)=1.47. =2.06 for 68 points of Reapers dead
Reapers: (6×.666×.666×.666)=1.7 =23 points of marines dead
Point for point Tac marines come out way ahead at 24".
You failed to factor in the -1 to Hit of course. Dark Reapers wouldn't suffer from that anyway.
Doesn't change the math enough to correct your statement, and that's what matters in an internet argument. The Tacs still come out well ahead.
So they do that in a single situation. And then what?
Infantry were compared to all the troop choices.
^The entire point is that the method for comparison is bad to begin with. So you can go ahead and do a bunch of math based on the same model and I still won't pay attention to it because the game doesn't function that way.
The model isn't bad though. Reapers are having an advantage until Tactical Marines get into Rapid Fire.
5 marines with Grav Cannon face equal points of Dark Reapers at 24"
Marines: Bolters(4x.666x.666x.333)=0.59 + Grav(4×.666x.666x.83)=1.47. =2.06 for 68 points of Reapers dead
Reapers: (6×.666×.666×.666)=1.7 =23 points of marines dead
Point for point Tac marines come out way ahead at 24".
You failed to factor in the -1 to Hit of course. Dark Reapers wouldn't suffer from that anyway.
Doesn't change the math enough to correct your statement, and that's what matters in an internet argument. The Tacs still come out well ahead.
So they do that in a single situation. And then what?
Infantry were compared to all the troop choices.
^The entire point is that the method for comparison is bad to begin with. So you can go ahead and do a bunch of math based on the same model and I still won't pay attention to it because the game doesn't function that way.
You can't just NOT believe the math. The universe doesn't function like that.
The point is Dark Reapers were compared to similar choices for their role (killing elite infantry and lighter vehicles) and they are simply the top of their class because of special rules and Exarchs being silly still (which you didn't calculate the BS2+ for them), and then they still have the ability to tackle heavier targets too.
Martel732 wrote: Condescending much? The other podcasters on Reece's own website don't agree with him frequently.
They can disagree with him all they like, he still took an army you guys have written off for dead pretty much all of 8th and got a top 16 finish. And yeah, when the Anti-Guard crowd can't get basic facts about the freaking rulesets being used in the competitive meta right, I'm going to be pretty condescending when you all come into every Guard thread screaming OMG GW GUARD OP PLZ NERF.
Remember that time a Thousand Sons lost made it to a Top 8 in 6th and nobody really cared?
Flukes happen.
It's not a fluke when it's someone who consistently does well at tournaments. It's just a good list in the hands of a good player.
Then it would happen consistently. Why would nobody defend Rubric Marines in their 6th/7th edition incarnation when someone apparently proved they could win with them?
That's where the math comes in. They're lousy, simple as that. You never got any copycats for such a list or anything, and it faded into obscurity whilst the rest of us were making sure we could counter Serpents and Centurionstar.
When someone gets high results most time they played, and gets high results the FIRST time they use that list, chances are against it being a fluke. Until he plays it again a few times and fails, there's no grounds at all to call it a fluke, just because bads are doing bad.
The model isn't bad though. Reapers are having an advantage until Tactical Marines get into Rapid Fire.
5 marines with Grav Cannon face equal points of Dark Reapers at 24"
Marines: Bolters(4x.666x.666x.333)=0.59 + Grav(4×.666x.666x.83)=1.47. =2.06 for 68 points of Reapers dead
Reapers: (6×.666×.666×.666)=1.7 =23 points of marines dead
Point for point Tac marines come out way ahead at 24".
You failed to factor in the -1 to Hit of course. Dark Reapers wouldn't suffer from that anyway.
Doesn't change the math enough to correct your statement, and that's what matters in an internet argument. The Tacs still come out well ahead.
So they do that in a single situation. And then what?
Infantry were compared to all the troop choices.
^The entire point is that the method for comparison is bad to begin with. So you can go ahead and do a bunch of math based on the same model and I still won't pay attention to it because the game doesn't function that way.
You can't just NOT believe the math. The universe doesn't function like that.
The point is Dark Reapers were compared to similar choices for their role (killing elite infantry and lighter vehicles) and they are simply the top of their class because of special rules and Exarchs being silly still (which you didn't calculate the BS2+ for them), and then they still have the ability to tackle heavier targets too.
If your mathematical model is bad, you can absolutely disbelieve the math.
The model isn't bad though. Reapers are having an advantage until Tactical Marines get into Rapid Fire.
5 marines with Grav Cannon face equal points of Dark Reapers at 24"
Marines: Bolters(4x.666x.666x.333)=0.59 + Grav(4×.666x.666x.83)=1.47. =2.06 for 68 points of Reapers dead
Reapers: (6×.666×.666×.666)=1.7 =23 points of marines dead
Point for point Tac marines come out way ahead at 24".
You failed to factor in the -1 to Hit of course. Dark Reapers wouldn't suffer from that anyway.
Doesn't change the math enough to correct your statement, and that's what matters in an internet argument. The Tacs still come out well ahead.
So they do that in a single situation. And then what?
Infantry were compared to all the troop choices.
^The entire point is that the method for comparison is bad to begin with. So you can go ahead and do a bunch of math based on the same model and I still won't pay attention to it because the game doesn't function that way.
You can't just NOT believe the math. The universe doesn't function like that.
The point is Dark Reapers were compared to similar choices for their role (killing elite infantry and lighter vehicles) and they are simply the top of their class because of special rules and Exarchs being silly still (which you didn't calculate the BS2+ for them), and then they still have the ability to tackle heavier targets too.
If your mathematical model is bad, you can absolutely disbelieve the math.
The rest of the game, the rest of the army, the rest of the potential units available to an army, upgrades, buffs, deployability, positioning, morale. . . etc.
Like my statement further up the thread, Tac marines don't have to beat Guardsmen in a stand up fight to achieve balance. As long as some unit in the codex can be effective against guardsmen in a reasonably attainable situation, then you're good to go.
The model isn't bad though. Reapers are having an advantage until Tactical Marines get into Rapid Fire.
5 marines with Grav Cannon face equal points of Dark Reapers at 24"
Marines: Bolters(4x.666x.666x.333)=0.59 + Grav(4×.666x.666x.83)=1.47. =2.06 for 68 points of Reapers dead
Reapers: (6×.666×.666×.666)=1.7 =23 points of marines dead
Point for point Tac marines come out way ahead at 24".
You failed to factor in the -1 to Hit of course. Dark Reapers wouldn't suffer from that anyway.
Doesn't change the math enough to correct your statement, and that's what matters in an internet argument. The Tacs still come out well ahead.
So they do that in a single situation. And then what?
Infantry were compared to all the troop choices.
^The entire point is that the method for comparison is bad to begin with. So you can go ahead and do a bunch of math based on the same model and I still won't pay attention to it because the game doesn't function that way.
You can't just NOT believe the math. The universe doesn't function like that.
The point is Dark Reapers were compared to similar choices for their role (killing elite infantry and lighter vehicles) and they are simply the top of their class because of special rules and Exarchs being silly still (which you didn't calculate the BS2+ for them), and then they still have the ability to tackle heavier targets too.
If your mathematical model is bad, you can absolutely disbelieve the math.
Then what did the model miss?
You are looking at numbers in a complete vacuum in a single very specific way.... that's what the example with the tac marines is.... it's pointing out just how silly it is to analyze the data that way. Your mathematical model is leaving out everything else in the entire game. It's like looking at a baseball player seeing he has the best on-base stat for bunting and then claiming this makes his team a lock for winning the world series
The rest of the game, the rest of the army, the rest of the potential units available to an army, upgrades, buffs, deployability, positioning, morale. . . etc.
Like my statement further up the thread, Tac marines don't have to beat Guardsmen in a stand up fight to achieve balance. As long as some unit in the codex can be effective against guardsmen in a reasonably attainable situation, then you're good to go.
If you wanna include the points for those things you can. You just have to include the equal amount of points for Guard, and those things HAVE been done. Yeah go ahead and include any of the Chapter Tactics and Captain if you want, just do the same for the Guard for an equal amount of points.
So what IS this reasonable unit if nobody else is smart enough to get it besides you?
I love how Catachan meele infantry hordes, a competitive staple at this point in top level soup lists, used by many top players for great results, come under scrutiny by the dakkadakka crowd and are dismissed as "Bah, they aren't that powerfull"
Astra Militarum needs a change to Infantry Squad. Make them 5 pts per model and give them some special rule like Overwatch on 5+ if not moving in previous turn or something.
Other things also need to be nerfed:
Plague Drones. Remove either 5++ or 5+++.
Ravagers. Increase cost or reduce Wounds.
Cultists. Just make them Conscripts with 3 pts per model, WS and BS 5+.
bibotot wrote: Astra Militarum needs a change to Infantry Squad. Make them 5 pts per model and give them some special rule like Overwatch on 5+ if not moving in previous turn or something.
Other things also need to be nerfed:
Plague Drones. Remove either 5++ or 5+++.
Ravagers. Increase cost or reduce Wounds.
Cultists. Just make them Conscripts with 3 pts per model, WS and BS 5+.
So you want to nerf Cultists, who are already only mediocre?
And you want to do it by making them into Conscripts, except worse?
Wow.
Also I don't know the problem with ravagers, but plague drones are already pretty expensive bullet sponges. They do soak up a lot of bullets, but then thats what they're designed to do, they don't do anything else. Remove one of their saves and they'd just be ... expensive nothings.
bibotot wrote: Astra Militarum needs a change to Infantry Squad. Make them 5 pts per model and give them some special rule like Overwatch on 5+ if not moving in previous turn or something.
Other things also need to be nerfed:
Plague Drones. Remove either 5++ or 5+++.
Ravagers. Increase cost or reduce Wounds.
Cultists. Just make them Conscripts with 3 pts per model, WS and BS 5+.
So you want to nerf Cultists, who are already only mediocre?
And you want to do it by making them into Conscripts, except worse?
They'd still see a lot of use with their only thing worse than conscripts being a 6+ save and no grenades while they would be cheaper, have access to special weapons, have a higher leadership and have melee weapons.
Galas wrote: I love how Catachan meele infantry hordes, a competitive staple at this point in top level soup lists, used by many top players for great results, come under scrutiny by the dakkadakka crowd and are dismissed as "Bah, they aren't that powerfull"
Imo, the dangerous things in an Imperial soup army are not the Guardsmen. It's all the other stuff that one has to deal with. As beefed up the Catachans are, they still suffer from being just Guardsmen. You can see the blob from a mile away, they need to get close to be dangerous, they're slow and unwieldy, and if you put the effort into killing them, they die pretty fast.
They're a fine objective holding anchor to an army that concentrates it's offensive output in other units. I've just never found guardsmen that difficult to deal with when the time comes to deal with them.
bibotot wrote: Astra Militarum needs a change to Infantry Squad. Make them 5 pts per model and give them some special rule like Overwatch on 5+ if not moving in previous turn or something.
Other things also need to be nerfed:
Plague Drones. Remove either 5++ or 5+++.
Ravagers. Increase cost or reduce Wounds.
Cultists. Just make them Conscripts with 3 pts per model, WS and BS 5+.
So you want to nerf Cultists, who are already only mediocre?
And you want to do it by making them into Conscripts, except worse?
Wow.
Also I don't know the problem with ravagers, but plague drones are already pretty expensive bullet sponges. They do soak up a lot of bullets, but then thats what they're designed to do, they don't do anything else. Remove one of their saves and they'd just be ... expensive nothings.
How is Cultist mediocre? Many Chaos tournament-wining lists are Alpha Legion with Cultist swarm. Overall, their 4 pts per model is as unjustified as Conscripts because the Guardsmen are way better than both for the same cost.
Galas wrote: I love how Catachan meele infantry hordes, a competitive staple at this point in top level soup lists, used by many top players for great results, come under scrutiny by the dakkadakka crowd and are dismissed as "Bah, they aren't that powerfull"
Imo, the dangerous things in an Imperial soup army are not the Guardsmen. It's all the other stuff that one has to deal with. As beefed up the Catachans are, they still suffer from being just Guardsmen. You can see the blob from a mile away, they need to get close to be dangerous, they're slow and unwieldy, and if you put the effort into killing them, they die pretty fast.
They're a fine objective holding anchor to an army that concentrates it's offensive output in other units. I've just never found guardsmen that difficult to deal with when the time comes to deal with them.
The dangerous things in an Imperial Soup army are ALL the units. Thats why they are topping tournaments left and right. Theres not a single unit in those lists that are not extremely good. One could argue about BA Scouts to bring Smashfester, but the rest of the units? Imperial Guard are Catachan for a reason. If people just wanted them to be objetive holders they would be Vostroyan for the +6" or Cadian for rerrolling. But the most competitive lists take them as a meele catachan horde.
What even means to be "just" Guardsmen? How are they slow and unwieldy with "Move! Move! Move!"?
I didn't say they weren't good. But Imo they remain the least dangerous. I think I'd prefer them coming over to get me rather than me having to go over there and dig them out. But It's ITC, so I get the board pressure thing. It's clear why they're desireable.
The rest of the game, the rest of the army, the rest of the potential units available to an army, upgrades, buffs, deployability, positioning, morale. . . etc.
Like my statement further up the thread, Tac marines don't have to beat Guardsmen in a stand up fight to achieve balance. As long as some unit in the codex can be effective against guardsmen in a reasonably attainable situation, then you're good to go.
If you wanna include the points for those things you can. You just have to include the equal amount of points for Guard, and those things HAVE been done. Yeah go ahead and include any of the Chapter Tactics and Captain if you want, just do the same for the Guard for an equal amount of points.
So what IS this reasonable unit if nobody else is smart enough to get it besides you?
Storm Ravens, since the poor bastard Catachans will never catch them and can't charge them anyways, lol.
Insectum7 wrote: Didn't mono-tau an mono-guard finish effectively as a tie in one of the last few major tournaments?
The absolute best Tau players are playing Tau exclusively. The absolute best Guard players are bringing soup lists.
And this is why you can't balance Imperium, Chaos, and Aeldari against everyone else.
So what you're saying is that when the dexes were played solo, even the worser Guard players were able to get the same results of the absolute best Tau players?
Insectum7 wrote: Didn't mono-tau an mono-guard finish effectively as a tie in one of the last few major tournaments?
The absolute best Tau players are playing Tau exclusively. The absolute best Guard players are bringing soup lists.
And this is why you can't balance Imperium, Chaos, and Aeldari against everyone else.
So what you're saying is that when the dexes were played solo, even the worser Guard players were able to get the same results of the absolute best Tau players?
It's probably a bit more complicated than that (given that the best players period are the guys like Nick Nanavati who are willing and able to switch to whatever army they think is the best right now) but essentially, yes. The Tau codex is far from terrible but... Guard is definitely better.
Bobthehero wrote: Priest and Straken each give the Guardsmen +1 atk.
Then in the shooting phase they get the order to attack twice during the next fight phase.
Again another one that doesn't know how guard works.
Ok so what's the real story?
This one:
Fix Bayonets: "This order can only be issued to units that are within 1" of an enemy unit. The ordered unit immediately fights as if it were the Fight phase."
You are never going to use it.
This is the way my Space Wolves biker Rune Priest got killed a few days ago. I charged into a squad of Guardsmen and he intervention with one of his three company commander in, put 5(!!!!!!) powerfist attacks to the RP. dealting 2 wounds. Then come to his turn, it is another 5 PF attacks in his shooting phase followed by another 5 PF attacks in combat phase.
Sooooo, you Space Wolves hero charge into IG gunline and think you can win the game? You are wrong, eat 15 Powerfist Attacks!!!!!
The model isn't bad though. Reapers are having an advantage until Tactical Marines get into Rapid Fire.
5 marines with Grav Cannon face equal points of Dark Reapers at 24" Marines: Bolters(4x.666x.666x.333)=0.59 + Grav(4×.666x.666x.83)=1.47. =2.06 for 68 points of Reapers dead
Reapers: (6×.666×.666×.666)=1.7 =23 points of marines dead
Point for point Tac marines come out way ahead at 24".
You failed to factor in the -1 to Hit of course. Dark Reapers wouldn't suffer from that anyway.
Doesn't change the math enough to correct your statement, and that's what matters in an internet argument. The Tacs still come out well ahead.
So they do that in a single situation. And then what?
Infantry were compared to all the troop choices.
^The entire point is that the method for comparison is bad to begin with. So you can go ahead and do a bunch of math based on the same model and I still won't pay attention to it because the game doesn't function that way.
You can't just NOT believe the math. The universe doesn't function like that.
The point is Dark Reapers were compared to similar choices for their role (killing elite infantry and lighter vehicles) and they are simply the top of their class because of special rules and Exarchs being silly still (which you didn't calculate the BS2+ for them), and then they still have the ability to tackle heavier targets too.
If your mathematical model is bad, you can absolutely disbelieve the math.
Then what did the model miss?
I can provide you a mathematically correct scenario where 5 firewarriors kill 10 guards without suffering a single loss, and i can do this only because this way of comparing stuff is silly. Not only that, but it fails to consider all the ways that the said models interact with other models. In the specific case of guards vs firewarriors, let me ask you:
Who is better at taking out T4 models? (Spoiler: FW) Who is better at taking out T6,7,8,9 models? (Spoiler: FW) Who is better at overwatch? (Spoiler: FW)
All of these advantages should not have a cost for the FW?
I use math as an argument and accept it as an argument used against me, but it must be real math with a rationale, not random numbers.
Bobthehero wrote: Priest and Straken each give the Guardsmen +1 atk.
Then in the shooting phase they get the order to attack twice during the next fight phase.
Again another one that doesn't know how guard works.
Ok so what's the real story?
This one:
Fix Bayonets: "This order can only be issued to units that are within 1" of an enemy unit. The ordered unit immediately fights as if it were the Fight phase."
You are never going to use it.
This is the way my Space Wolves biker Rune Priest got killed a few days ago. I charged into a squad of Guardsmen and he intervention with one of his three company commander in, put 5(!!!!!!) powerfist attacks to the RP. dealting 2 wounds. Then come to his turn, it is another 5 PF attacks in his shooting phase followed by another 5 PF attacks in combat phase.
Sooooo, you Space Wolves hero charge into IG gunline and think you can win the game? You are wrong, eat 15 Powerfist Attacks!!!!!
Let me get this straight, you charged into a 10 man infantry squad unit, and placed your rune priest at the end of it's charge move within 3" of a enemy hero but didn't declare that company commander as a charge target so that you could swing at him if he decided to heroically intervene? That sounds way more like you being terrible at the assault phase than Guard being OP.
This is yet another example of why I can't take you guys seriously. Time and time again the anti guard crowd demonstrate their failure to grasp basic aspects of the rules.
This is the way my Space Wolves biker Rune Priest got killed a few days ago. I charged into a squad of Guardsmen and he intervention with one of his three company commander in, put 5(!!!!!!) powerfist attacks to the RP. dealting 2 wounds. Then come to his turn, it is another 5 PF attacks in his shooting phase followed by another 5 PF attacks in combat phase.
Sooooo, you Space Wolves hero charge into IG gunline and think you can win the game? You are wrong, eat 15 Powerfist Attacks!!!!!
Runepriest is so wimply he couldn't simply splatter that company commander into pieces? We are talking about T3 5++ 4 wounds. Albeit I haven't read space wolf codex but last time I played space wolves in 8th ed their characters were more than competent enough to hack&slice that commander into pieces barring some serious sick luck with invulnerable saves. Now if there was 2 or 3 of those then that would be different but also costing 78-114 pts, concentrated in one place so orders diluted and you could have avoided that one as well often enough.
This is the way my Space Wolves biker Rune Priest got killed a few days ago. I charged into a squad of Guardsmen and he intervention with one of his three company commander in, put 5(!!!!!!) powerfist attacks to the RP. dealting 2 wounds. Then come to his turn, it is another 5 PF attacks in his shooting phase followed by another 5 PF attacks in combat phase.
Sooooo, you Space Wolves hero charge into IG gunline and think you can win the game? You are wrong, eat 15 Powerfist Attacks!!!!!
Runepriest is so wimply he couldn't simply splatter that company commander into pieces? We are talking about T3 5++ 4 wounds. Albeit I haven't read space wolf codex but last time I played space wolves in 8th ed their characters were more than competent enough to hack&slice that commander into pieces barring some serious sick luck with invulnerable saves. Now if there was 2 or 3 of those then that would be different but also costing 78-114 pts, concentrated in one place so orders diluted and you could have avoided that one as well often enough.
The RP could potentially one-shot the commaander but it would come down to the damage rolls and if the cc rolled hot or cold on invulns. It's definitely not guaranteed though.
The point is he shouldn't have had to worry about heroic intervention in the first place because he should have either a) declared the cc as a charge target so he could at least try to kill the cc first or b) finished his charge move 4" away from the company commander.
What's also stupid is charging a lone RP into a 10 man infantry squad. Baseline, he only gets 3 attacks so it would take at least two turns to wipe the squad. More importantly, why is he charging at what has to be the strongest part of the line because there's apparently straken, two CC's and a priest all camping out within 6" of this infantry squad.
Bobthehero wrote: Priest and Straken each give the Guardsmen +1 atk.
Then in the shooting phase they get the order to attack twice during the next fight phase.
Again another one that doesn't know how guard works.
Ok so what's the real story?
This one:
Fix Bayonets: "This order can only be issued to units that are within 1" of an enemy unit. The ordered unit immediately fights as if it were the Fight phase."
You are never going to use it.
This is the way my Space Wolves biker Rune Priest got killed a few days ago. I charged into a squad of Guardsmen and he intervention with one of his three company commander in, put 5(!!!!!!) powerfist attacks to the RP. dealting 2 wounds. Then come to his turn, it is another 5 PF attacks in his shooting phase followed by another 5 PF attacks in combat phase.
Sooooo, you Space Wolves hero charge into IG gunline and think you can win the game? You are wrong, eat 15 Powerfist Attacks!!!!!
I bet you'll do a better job at setting up your charges in the future won't you?
bibotot wrote: Astra Militarum needs a change to Infantry Squad. Make them 5 pts per model and give them some special rule like Overwatch on 5+ if not moving in previous turn or something.
Other things also need to be nerfed:
Plague Drones. Remove either 5++ or 5+++.
Ravagers. Increase cost or reduce Wounds.
Cultists. Just make them Conscripts with 3 pts per model, WS and BS 5+.
So you want to nerf Cultists, who are already only mediocre?
And you want to do it by making them into Conscripts, except worse?
Wow.
Also I don't know the problem with ravagers, but plague drones are already pretty expensive bullet sponges. They do soak up a lot of bullets, but then thats what they're designed to do, they don't do anything else. Remove one of their saves and they'd just be ... expensive nothings.
How is Cultist mediocre? Many Chaos tournament-wining lists are Alpha Legion with Cultist swarm. Overall, their 4 pts per model is as unjustified as Conscripts because the Guardsmen are way better than both for the same cost.
Infiltrating cultists no longer exist. That list has lost the majority of its power.
The model isn't bad though. Reapers are having an advantage until Tactical Marines get into Rapid Fire.
5 marines with Grav Cannon face equal points of Dark Reapers at 24"
Marines: Bolters(4x.666x.666x.333)=0.59 + Grav(4×.666x.666x.83)=1.47. =2.06 for 68 points of Reapers dead
Reapers: (6×.666×.666×.666)=1.7 =23 points of marines dead
Point for point Tac marines come out way ahead at 24".
You failed to factor in the -1 to Hit of course. Dark Reapers wouldn't suffer from that anyway.
Doesn't change the math enough to correct your statement, and that's what matters in an internet argument. The Tacs still come out well ahead.
So they do that in a single situation. And then what?
Infantry were compared to all the troop choices.
^The entire point is that the method for comparison is bad to begin with. So you can go ahead and do a bunch of math based on the same model and I still won't pay attention to it because the game doesn't function that way.
You can't just NOT believe the math. The universe doesn't function like that.
The point is Dark Reapers were compared to similar choices for their role (killing elite infantry and lighter vehicles) and they are simply the top of their class because of special rules and Exarchs being silly still (which you didn't calculate the BS2+ for them), and then they still have the ability to tackle heavier targets too.
Dark reapers were amassing because world of the phoenix was 5 and they always shoot 2 times. Now the Word have cast value of 8 and DR point increase removed them from the top players lists. It is still good shooting unit, but 34 pts for +3 save 1 wound unit is to unreliable.
Too many replies to cite if I do so, so just telling what happened in last game. Telling you the whole story.
The RP is warlord. have the Saga of the Hunt, which gives himself advance and charge, and if he made a charge, immediately everyone within 6" of him can also charge after advancing. So I attempted the advance and charge with him and two squad of GH disembarked from the Rhino. His company comander is hiding behind the squad of course and I noticed his Company Comander can interven, but of course I didn't read this post AND of course didn't investigate in IG close combat buffing ability carefully, thus what I don't know is how powerful his company comander can be in combat. So I think: yea he might intervene and shove Three Powerfist attack on the Runepriest, hitting on 4s wounding on 3s, and I have runic armor for 5++, 2 rounds of attacks shouldn't kill me unless the dice rolls are extreme, and I decided to advance and charge in, because I need that Warlord Trait bonus for everyone, and I need to silence his Self Propelled Artilery behind his infantry line asap, at Turn 2 latest!! But after he interven and show me how he gets as many attacks as Arjac, Bjorn, Logan Grimnar, Dante and Marnus Calgar each time he fight, I was truely shocked. But the trap had already sprang.
Yes, that RP complete his deed of legend and let the other Wolves brothers charge after advance. Yes together they killed around 20 guardsmen in the 1st turn charge to bteak his bubblewarp. But the RP is fisted dead dead dead, and crafted his own unique Saga which is being defeated by a mere Imperial Guard Company Comander.
You guys might had questioned my gaming technique. Yes I admit I am not a good enough player of 40k because I did not investigate IG well enough and did not visit Dakkadakka frequent enough and not read this thread deep enough before the game. So what I know is: their infantry are cheap, their infantry, tanks and field guns are more than powerful in shooting for their cost, but those infantry are paper thin compare to SM. Hence I was thinking that "Oh, IG is an OP gunline shooting army with powerful tanks and artilery, when you charge in and slash their bubblewarp infantry, their heavy firepower will be vunerable of being smacked or at minimum tied up." which led to my rather reckless strategy. However I really don't think that letting IG non-named Characters to have 5 powerfist attacks is not givng them OP close combat ability , given the fact that IG shooting is way more than enough to make up their (if) lacking of combat ability.
You asked if I would do a better job setting up my chargers in the future? Yes, of course!!! AND I will ask my opponent if the model in his/her army had any special ability for every model that I first encounter, and think twice about my strategy before deploying any units.
Comparing cultists to infantry is probably the best argument for infantry being under costed, since they are nominally both considered to be 'normal' people. The differences between them make sense, they are better trained and better equipped than cultists, generally, but there is the notable difference that the guard have a relatively efficient logistics system getting them from place to place while cultists are, barring exceptional cases, raised locally.
That roughly accounts for the lore I've read, where guard can overcome uprisings by virtue of that superior equipment, hold better than pdf due to superior training, and match numbers for numbers by taking cargo ships full of people from place to place.
So. If you up them to 5ppm. What changes? What exactly is a 5ppm infantry model? What's the benchmark we measure against then?
Xenomancers wrote: Hes just showing the raw power. Space marines pay a huge tax to get reroll hits and wounds. Straken is cheaper than most space marine HQ options and he buffs infantry hard than Gman buffs anything.
I'm actually not familiar with Strakens buffs, can I get a breakdown?
Edit: Plus the "ever present Priest", whatever he does.
Strakens cost is roughly 75 points I don't remmeber exactly. Hes basically a space marine chaplain (I think invo might be 5++ though) plus he gives 2 orders like a company commander.
Instead of a reroll hits in CC bubble. He gives each catachen unit +1 attack each time it fights. Keep in mind catachans all have str 4 because that is their army trait.
+1 attack for 4 point models is already pretty insane. The combo hasn't even started though. A preist basically has the same +1 attack buff and hes 35 points. Also has a 4++ save but basically sucks otherwise...doesn't matter he costs 35 points.
110 points to get 300% damage in CC out of 4 point units...holy crap. Plus they can fight twice with an order so thats 600% damage increase buff in CC. Throw in harker and they are all rerolling 1's too (most just skip this).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dandelion wrote: Well, +1 attack boosts those units combat ability by 100% (going from 1 to 2) before potentially adding orders. I don't play catachan so I can't comment on how good it is.
humm - how good are geensteelers? They cost 13 and have 4 str 4 ap-1 attacks (if they are over 10 man squads). IG catachans cost 4 points and have 6 str 4 attacks under these buffs. Or in other words they have 50% more attacks than geenstellers which costs 300% more.
It doesn't take a lot to figure out these guys have insane damage potential. Not trying to be rude but this kind of stuff sickens me. A catachans but spank space marines in CC...why the heck don't they turn these guys into Astartes? The would be primarchs after the augments.
The double fight order does not work due to it's timing.
How many times do you get to shoot in melee with pistols? That's the same number of times that a guard can use the double fight order.
Wth hordes of dudes? Literally every game, You just shoot twice otherwise. It's tomatoes tomatoes.
How can you possibly defend this BS? The ability for a 4 point model to attack 6 times with str 4. Should not exist.
Xenomancers wrote: Hes just showing the raw power. Space marines pay a huge tax to get reroll hits and wounds. Straken is cheaper than most space marine HQ options and he buffs infantry hard than Gman buffs anything.
I'm actually not familiar with Strakens buffs, can I get a breakdown?
Edit: Plus the "ever present Priest", whatever he does.
Strakens cost is roughly 75 points I don't remmeber exactly. Hes basically a space marine chaplain (I think invo might be 5++ though) plus he gives 2 orders like a company commander.
Instead of a reroll hits in CC bubble. He gives each catachen unit +1 attack each time it fights. Keep in mind catachans all have str 4 because that is their army trait.
+1 attack for 4 point models is already pretty insane. The combo hasn't even started though. A preist basically has the same +1 attack buff and hes 35 points. Also has a 4++ save but basically sucks otherwise...doesn't matter he costs 35 points.
110 points to get 300% damage in CC out of 4 point units...holy crap. Plus they can fight twice with an order so thats 600% damage increase buff in CC. Throw in harker and they are all rerolling 1's too (most just skip this).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dandelion wrote: Well, +1 attack boosts those units combat ability by 100% (going from 1 to 2) before potentially adding orders. I don't play catachan so I can't comment on how good it is.
humm - how good are geensteelers? They cost 13 and have 4 str 4 ap-1 attacks (if they are over 10 man squads). IG catachans cost 4 points and have 6 str 4 attacks under these buffs. Or in other words they have 50% more attacks than geenstellers which costs 300% more.
It doesn't take a lot to figure out these guys have insane damage potential. Not trying to be rude but this kind of stuff sickens me. A catachans but spank space marines in CC...why the heck don't they turn these guys into Astartes? The would be primarchs after the augments.
The double fight order does not work due to it's timing.
How many times do you get to shoot in melee with pistols? That's the same number of times that a guard can use the double fight order.
Wth hordes of dudes? Literally every game, You just shoot twice otherwise. It's tomatoes tomatoes.
How can you possibly defend this BS? The ability for a 4 point model to attack 6 times with str 4. Should not exist.
And yet, it does!
The hilarious part is that Knights and Custode Bikes are so egregious that people aren't even talking about this.
We've kind of fallen into 7th edition where there's essentially 4 viable builds.
1. Death Guard. You can take Magnus if you want but he's not required for a godly force. Mortarian is ridiculous.
2. Knights + Guard. People are typically taking the ~300 point variation where they get some extra juice with artillery. I've also seen this work well with Basilisks.
3. Custodes + Guard. Same deal. Can't beat cheap!
4. Ynnari Craftworlds. Ynnari is the crutch that keeps Eldar alive, and this wasn't nerfed (again) so they're still hanging on. The Vect nerf is impactful but people were bringing minimum DE to fuel their Shining Spear + Reaper Ynnari engine anyway.
That's it. If you don't play one of these 4 things, you're on the outside, looking in.
Other armies are all tier 2 or worse compared to this stuff.
The model isn't bad though. Reapers are having an advantage until Tactical Marines get into Rapid Fire.
5 marines with Grav Cannon face equal points of Dark Reapers at 24"
Marines: Bolters(4x.666x.666x.333)=0.59 + Grav(4×.666x.666x.83)=1.47. =2.06 for 68 points of Reapers dead
Reapers: (6×.666×.666×.666)=1.7 =23 points of marines dead
Point for point Tac marines come out way ahead at 24".
You failed to factor in the -1 to Hit of course. Dark Reapers wouldn't suffer from that anyway.
Doesn't change the math enough to correct your statement, and that's what matters in an internet argument. The Tacs still come out well ahead.
So they do that in a single situation. And then what?
Infantry were compared to all the troop choices.
^The entire point is that the method for comparison is bad to begin with. So you can go ahead and do a bunch of math based on the same model and I still won't pay attention to it because the game doesn't function that way.
You can't just NOT believe the math. The universe doesn't function like that.
The point is Dark Reapers were compared to similar choices for their role (killing elite infantry and lighter vehicles) and they are simply the top of their class because of special rules and Exarchs being silly still (which you didn't calculate the BS2+ for them), and then they still have the ability to tackle heavier targets too.
If your mathematical model is bad, you can absolutely disbelieve the math.
Then what did the model miss?
I can provide you a mathematically correct scenario where 5 firewarriors kill 10 guards without suffering a single loss, and i can do this only because this way of comparing stuff is silly. Not only that, but it fails to consider all the ways that the said models interact with other models.
In the specific case of guards vs firewarriors, let me ask you:
Who is better at taking out T4 models? (Spoiler: FW)
Who is better at taking out T6,7,8,9 models? (Spoiler: FW)
Who is better at overwatch? (Spoiler: FW)
All of these advantages should not have a cost for the FW?
I use math as an argument and accept it as an argument used against me, but it must be real math with a rationale, not random numbers.
You're probably using the method where the Fire Warriors have an extra 6" of range from the one Sept?
Also I have it as they kill an equal amount of MEQ (0.56) and anything above T6 with a 2-3+. It's almost as though when you have twice the shots it doesn't matter how much better the Tau gun is. Remember how most things are killed via weight of fire?
Xenomancers wrote: Yeah - DE is good to but all eldar soup is good. Harlie bikes are nutts.
There are quite a few "good" armies that fall under the top tier lists, that can compete with each other.
Due to the nature of Knights and how you can bolt them on to any force, even previously mono-guard armies are running Castellans now. And, with the FAQ not limiting this, you're going to see it more. Especially now, since screening units like Guardsmen just got a huge buff with the nerf to FLY.
Dark Eldar as an army rely on Eldar to function. If you think you're killing Knights with Poison Weapons and Strength 8 guns you're sadly mistaken. And you won't stand up to Chaos without psychic denial.
The model isn't bad though. Reapers are having an advantage until Tactical Marines get into Rapid Fire.
5 marines with Grav Cannon face equal points of Dark Reapers at 24" Marines: Bolters(4x.666x.666x.333)=0.59 + Grav(4×.666x.666x.83)=1.47. =2.06 for 68 points of Reapers dead
Reapers: (6×.666×.666×.666)=1.7 =23 points of marines dead
Point for point Tac marines come out way ahead at 24".
You failed to factor in the -1 to Hit of course. Dark Reapers wouldn't suffer from that anyway.
Doesn't change the math enough to correct your statement, and that's what matters in an internet argument. The Tacs still come out well ahead.
So they do that in a single situation. And then what?
Infantry were compared to all the troop choices.
^The entire point is that the method for comparison is bad to begin with. So you can go ahead and do a bunch of math based on the same model and I still won't pay attention to it because the game doesn't function that way.
You can't just NOT believe the math. The universe doesn't function like that.
The point is Dark Reapers were compared to similar choices for their role (killing elite infantry and lighter vehicles) and they are simply the top of their class because of special rules and Exarchs being silly still (which you didn't calculate the BS2+ for them), and then they still have the ability to tackle heavier targets too.
If your mathematical model is bad, you can absolutely disbelieve the math.
Then what did the model miss?
I can provide you a mathematically correct scenario where 5 firewarriors kill 10 guards without suffering a single loss, and i can do this only because this way of comparing stuff is silly. Not only that, but it fails to consider all the ways that the said models interact with other models. In the specific case of guards vs firewarriors, let me ask you:
Who is better at taking out T4 models? (Spoiler: FW) Who is better at taking out T6,7,8,9 models? (Spoiler: FW) Who is better at overwatch? (Spoiler: FW)
All of these advantages should not have a cost for the FW?
I use math as an argument and accept it as an argument used against me, but it must be real math with a rationale, not random numbers.
You're probably using the method where the Fire Warriors have an extra 6" of range from the one Sept?
Also I have it as they kill an equal amount of MEQ (0.56) and anything above T6 with a 2-3+. It's almost as though when you have twice the shots it doesn't matter how much better the Tau gun is. Remember how most things are killed via weight of fire?
Also what makes them better at Overwatch?
Wrong on many points.
1) Guards inflict less wounds on MEQ, slightly less, but less. Remember the las pistol. 2) They do so at a greater range, so even if they were the same wounds, FW would be the best at this. 3) "Also what makes them better at Overwatch?"????? Now you are trolling.
The model isn't bad though. Reapers are having an advantage until Tactical Marines get into Rapid Fire.
5 marines with Grav Cannon face equal points of Dark Reapers at 24"
Marines: Bolters(4x.666x.666x.333)=0.59 + Grav(4×.666x.666x.83)=1.47. =2.06 for 68 points of Reapers dead
Reapers: (6×.666×.666×.666)=1.7 =23 points of marines dead
Point for point Tac marines come out way ahead at 24".
You failed to factor in the -1 to Hit of course. Dark Reapers wouldn't suffer from that anyway.
Doesn't change the math enough to correct your statement, and that's what matters in an internet argument. The Tacs still come out well ahead.
So they do that in a single situation. And then what?
Infantry were compared to all the troop choices.
^The entire point is that the method for comparison is bad to begin with. So you can go ahead and do a bunch of math based on the same model and I still won't pay attention to it because the game doesn't function that way.
You can't just NOT believe the math. The universe doesn't function like that.
The point is Dark Reapers were compared to similar choices for their role (killing elite infantry and lighter vehicles) and they are simply the top of their class because of special rules and Exarchs being silly still (which you didn't calculate the BS2+ for them), and then they still have the ability to tackle heavier targets too.
If your mathematical model is bad, you can absolutely disbelieve the math.
Then what did the model miss?
I can provide you a mathematically correct scenario where 5 firewarriors kill 10 guards without suffering a single loss, and i can do this only because this way of comparing stuff is silly. Not only that, but it fails to consider all the ways that the said models interact with other models.
In the specific case of guards vs firewarriors, let me ask you:
Who is better at taking out T4 models? (Spoiler: FW)
Who is better at taking out T6,7,8,9 models? (Spoiler: FW)
Who is better at overwatch? (Spoiler: FW)
All of these advantages should not have a cost for the FW?
I use math as an argument and accept it as an argument used against me, but it must be real math with a rationale, not random numbers.
You're probably using the method where the Fire Warriors have an extra 6" of range from the one Sept?
Also I have it as they kill an equal amount of MEQ (0.56) and anything above T6 with a 2-3+. It's almost as though when you have twice the shots it doesn't matter how much better the Tau gun is. Remember how most things are killed via weight of fire?
Also what makes them better at Overwatch?
Wrong on many points.
1) Guards inflict less wounds on MEQ, slightly less, but less. Remember the las pistol.
2) They do so at a greater range, so even if they were the same wounds, FW would be the best at this.
3) "Also what makes them better at Overwatch?"????? Now you are trolling.
We've kind of fallen into 7th edition where there's essentially 4 viable builds.
To be fair, every edition has had this issue. You get 2-4 top armies each with a couple variations of builds that dominate, and everything else is starkly below that, with 2-4 armies being hopelessly outclassed and outdated below everything else. 6E/7E was the worst by far, but the current state of affairs is pretty close to where we were in 3E/4E/5E.
Xenomancers wrote: Hes just showing the raw power. Space marines pay a huge tax to get reroll hits and wounds. Straken is cheaper than most space marine HQ options and he buffs infantry hard than Gman buffs anything.
I'm actually not familiar with Strakens buffs, can I get a breakdown?
Edit: Plus the "ever present Priest", whatever he does.
Strakens cost is roughly 75 points I don't remmeber exactly. Hes basically a space marine chaplain (I think invo might be 5++ though) plus he gives 2 orders like a company commander.
Instead of a reroll hits in CC bubble. He gives each catachen unit +1 attack each time it fights. Keep in mind catachans all have str 4 because that is their army trait.
+1 attack for 4 point models is already pretty insane. The combo hasn't even started though. A preist basically has the same +1 attack buff and hes 35 points. Also has a 4++ save but basically sucks otherwise...doesn't matter he costs 35 points.
110 points to get 300% damage in CC out of 4 point units...holy crap. Plus they can fight twice with an order so thats 600% damage increase buff in CC. Throw in harker and they are all rerolling 1's too (most just skip this).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dandelion wrote: Well, +1 attack boosts those units combat ability by 100% (going from 1 to 2) before potentially adding orders. I don't play catachan so I can't comment on how good it is.
humm - how good are geensteelers? They cost 13 and have 4 str 4 ap-1 attacks (if they are over 10 man squads). IG catachans cost 4 points and have 6 str 4 attacks under these buffs. Or in other words they have 50% more attacks than geenstellers which costs 300% more.
It doesn't take a lot to figure out these guys have insane damage potential. Not trying to be rude but this kind of stuff sickens me. A catachans but spank space marines in CC...why the heck don't they turn these guys into Astartes? The would be primarchs after the augments.
The double fight order does not work due to it's timing.
How many times do you get to shoot in melee with pistols? That's the same number of times that a guard can use the double fight order.
Wth hordes of dudes? Literally every game, You just shoot twice otherwise. It's tomatoes tomatoes.
How can you possibly defend this BS? The ability for a 4 point model to attack 6 times with str 4. Should not exist.
And yet, it does!
The hilarious part is that Knights and Custode Bikes are so egregious that people aren't even talking about this.
We've kind of fallen into 7th edition where there's essentially 4 viable builds.
1. Death Guard. You can take Magnus if you want but he's not required for a godly force. Mortarian is ridiculous.
2. Knights + Guard. People are typically taking the ~300 point variation where they get some extra juice with artillery. I've also seen this work well with Basilisks.
3. Custodes + Guard. Same deal. Can't beat cheap!
4. Ynnari Craftworlds. Ynnari is the crutch that keeps Eldar alive, and this wasn't nerfed (again) so they're still hanging on. The Vect nerf is impactful but people were bringing minimum DE to fuel their Shining Spear + Reaper Ynnari engine anyway.
That's it. If you don't play one of these 4 things, you're on the outside, looking in.
Other armies are all tier 2 or worse compared to this stuff.
Genuinely curious how mono-DG with Morty is so awesome... that way you have no Warptime so he can't make a T1 charge. And even Mortarion will not survive every anti-tank weapon of your opponent being pointed at him. How do you keep him alive? Again, genuinely curious because I've had massive trouble with that.
The model isn't bad though. Reapers are having an advantage until Tactical Marines get into Rapid Fire.
5 marines with Grav Cannon face equal points of Dark Reapers at 24"
Marines: Bolters(4x.666x.666x.333)=0.59 + Grav(4×.666x.666x.83)=1.47. =2.06 for 68 points of Reapers dead
Reapers: (6×.666×.666×.666)=1.7 =23 points of marines dead
Point for point Tac marines come out way ahead at 24".
You failed to factor in the -1 to Hit of course. Dark Reapers wouldn't suffer from that anyway.
Doesn't change the math enough to correct your statement, and that's what matters in an internet argument. The Tacs still come out well ahead.
So they do that in a single situation. And then what?
Infantry were compared to all the troop choices.
^The entire point is that the method for comparison is bad to begin with. So you can go ahead and do a bunch of math based on the same model and I still won't pay attention to it because the game doesn't function that way.
You can't just NOT believe the math. The universe doesn't function like that.
The point is Dark Reapers were compared to similar choices for their role (killing elite infantry and lighter vehicles) and they are simply the top of their class because of special rules and Exarchs being silly still (which you didn't calculate the BS2+ for them), and then they still have the ability to tackle heavier targets too.
If your mathematical model is bad, you can absolutely disbelieve the math.
Then what did the model miss?
I can provide you a mathematically correct scenario where 5 firewarriors kill 10 guards without suffering a single loss, and i can do this only because this way of comparing stuff is silly. Not only that, but it fails to consider all the ways that the said models interact with other models.
In the specific case of guards vs firewarriors, let me ask you:
Who is better at taking out T4 models? (Spoiler: FW)
Who is better at taking out T6,7,8,9 models? (Spoiler: FW)
Who is better at overwatch? (Spoiler: FW)
All of these advantages should not have a cost for the FW?
I use math as an argument and accept it as an argument used against me, but it must be real math with a rationale, not random numbers.
You're probably using the method where the Fire Warriors have an extra 6" of range from the one Sept?
Also I have it as they kill an equal amount of MEQ (0.56) and anything above T6 with a 2-3+. It's almost as though when you have twice the shots it doesn't matter how much better the Tau gun is. Remember how most things are killed via weight of fire?
Also what makes them better at Overwatch?
Wrong on many points.
1) Guards inflict less wounds on MEQ, slightly less, but less. Remember the las pistol.
2) They do so at a greater range, so even if they were the same wounds, FW would be the best at this.
3) "Also what makes them better at Overwatch?"????? Now you are trolling.
1. Then add a Bolter for a point for all I care.
2. With Fire Warriors you're basically just paying for the range. That's all they got going for them compared to Infantry, and we already have people thinking Fire Warriors and Skitarii Rangers need a price bump!
3. You mean when you have someone next to them? Otherwise no squad is getting a 5+ Overwatch directly. Guard can do that though, go figure.
2. With Fire Warriors you're basically just paying for the range. That's all they got going for them compared to Infantry, and we already have people thinking Fire Warriors and Skitarii Rangers need a price bump!
Fire Warriors and Skitarii Rangers both have a 4+ save instead of a 5+ save...which GW seems to value at a point each. Fire Warriors additionally get Bonding Ritual, which is a fairly helpful leadership related ability(even if many argue "morale doesn't mean much").
3. You mean when you have someone next to them? Otherwise no squad is getting a 5+ Overwatch directly. Guard can do that though, go figure.
6" might not be a whole lot of range for them to get the benefits from , but it is important to note that the Tau one specifically is called out as being done without concern to your Ballistic Skill or any modifiers(so any negatives to hit aren't able to come into play here). The Mordian version is a flat +1 to hit rolls which can be offset by those negative to hit mods.
bibotot wrote: Astra Militarum needs a change to Infantry Squad. Make them 5 pts per model and give them some special rule like Overwatch on 5+ if not moving in previous turn or something.
Other things also need to be nerfed:
Plague Drones. Remove either 5++ or 5+++.
Ravagers. Increase cost or reduce Wounds.
Cultists. Just make them Conscripts with 3 pts per model, WS and BS 5+.
So you want to nerf Cultists, who are already only mediocre?
And you want to do it by making them into Conscripts, except worse?
They'd still see a lot of use with their only thing worse than conscripts being a 6+ save and no grenades while they would be cheaper, have access to special weapons, have a higher leadership and have melee weapons.
Assuming all you were doing was making Cultists into 3pt models, but dropping their WS and BS to 5+...
- Conscripts have a better save
- Conscripts have Grenades
- Conscripts get Orders, so can move twice as fast / shoot twice as much.
- Cultists get 1 'special' weapon per 10 (it's not a good weapon though so barely worth mentioning)
- Slightly better leadership
- Can have melee weapons, but only if you remove their rifles, so again not really worth it the rifles are always a better option.
So basically it's slightly better leadership (which conscripts don't need anyway), vs a better save, grenades, and orders. Landslide victory for the conscripts.
Edit: cultists were briefly decent if used as alpha legion with the infiltration stratagem, but that has been nerfed into oblivion now so yeh, cultists are mediocre. All chaos lists will still take them, because they're the best/only option they have, but that doesn't make them good it just makes them a better option than space marines (which is a pretty low bar to set these days).
bibotot wrote: Astra Militarum needs a change to Infantry Squad. Make them 5 pts per model and give them some special rule like Overwatch on 5+ if not moving in previous turn or something.
Other things also need to be nerfed:
Plague Drones. Remove either 5++ or 5+++.
Ravagers. Increase cost or reduce Wounds.
Cultists. Just make them Conscripts with 3 pts per model, WS and BS 5+.
So you want to nerf Cultists, who are already only mediocre?
And you want to do it by making them into Conscripts, except worse?
They'd still see a lot of use with their only thing worse than conscripts being a 6+ save and no grenades while they would be cheaper, have access to special weapons, have a higher leadership and have melee weapons.
Assuming all you were doing was making Cultists into 3pt models, but dropping their WS and BS to 5+...
- Conscripts have a better save
- Conscripts have Grenades
- Conscripts get Orders, so can move twice as fast / shoot twice as much.
Conscripts can get Orders only on a 4+. They literally were given an ability to prevent them from getting them 100% of the time.
Also worth mentioning that quite a few Guard players have suggested they get a 6+ save and the Auxilia faction meaning they just plain old can't get Orders.
- Cultists get 1 'special' weapon per 10 (it's not a good weapon though so barely worth mentioning)
- Slightly better leadership
- Can have melee weapons, but only if you remove their rifles, so again not really worth it the rifles are always a better option.
Cultists have options for Flamers, people seem to like Flamers.
So basically it's slightly better leadership (which conscripts don't need anyway), vs a better save, grenades, and orders. Landslide victory for the conscripts.
Conscripts absolutely do need leadership since Commissars don't give them inherent immunity at the cost of a model. Orders aren't reliable.
Niiru wrote: Assuming all you were doing was making Cultists into 3pt models, but dropping their WS and BS to 5+...
- Conscripts have a better save
- Conscripts have Grenades
- Conscripts get Orders, so can move twice as fast / shoot twice as much.
- Cultists get 1 'special' weapon per 10 (it's not a good weapon though so barely worth mentioning)
- Slightly better leadership
- Can have melee weapons, but only if you remove their rifles, so again not really worth it the rifles are always a better option.
So basically it's slightly better leadership (which conscripts don't need anyway), vs a better save, grenades, and orders. Landslide victory for the conscripts.
To be fair its an order on a 4+, so only a 50/50 chance of moving OR shooting extra. and a min squad size of 20 for conscripts.
They probably should get a 6+ save though, the 5+ seems a bit much for a conscript.
bibotot wrote: Astra Militarum needs a change to Infantry Squad. Make them 5 pts per model and give them some special rule like Overwatch on 5+ if not moving in previous turn or something.
Other things also need to be nerfed:
Plague Drones. Remove either 5++ or 5+++.
Ravagers. Increase cost or reduce Wounds.
Cultists. Just make them Conscripts with 3 pts per model, WS and BS 5+.
So you want to nerf Cultists, who are already only mediocre?
And you want to do it by making them into Conscripts, except worse?
They'd still see a lot of use with their only thing worse than conscripts being a 6+ save and no grenades while they would be cheaper, have access to special weapons, have a higher leadership and have melee weapons.
Assuming all you were doing was making Cultists into 3pt models, but dropping their WS and BS to 5+...
- Conscripts have a better save
- Conscripts have Grenades
- Conscripts get Orders, so can move twice as fast / shoot twice as much.
Conscripts can get Orders only on a 4+. They literally were given an ability to prevent them from getting them 100% of the time.
Also worth mentioning that quite a few Guard players have suggested they get a 6+ save and the Auxilia faction meaning they just plain old can't get Orders.
- Cultists get 1 'special' weapon per 10 (it's not a good weapon though so barely worth mentioning)
- Slightly better leadership
- Can have melee weapons, but only if you remove their rifles, so again not really worth it the rifles are always a better option.
Cultists have options for Flamers, people seem to like Flamers.
So basically it's slightly better leadership (which conscripts don't need anyway), vs a better save, grenades, and orders. Landslide victory for the conscripts.
Conscripts absolutely do need leadership since Commissars don't give them inherent immunity at the cost of a model. Orders aren't reliable.
bibotot wrote: Astra Militarum needs a change to Infantry Squad. Make them 5 pts per model and give them some special rule like Overwatch on 5+ if not moving in previous turn or something.
Other things also need to be nerfed:
Plague Drones. Remove either 5++ or 5+++.
Ravagers. Increase cost or reduce Wounds.
Cultists. Just make them Conscripts with 3 pts per model, WS and BS 5+.
So you want to nerf Cultists, who are already only mediocre?
And you want to do it by making them into Conscripts, except worse?
They'd still see a lot of use with their only thing worse than conscripts being a 6+ save and no grenades while they would be cheaper, have access to special weapons, have a higher leadership and have melee weapons.
Assuming all you were doing was making Cultists into 3pt models, but dropping their WS and BS to 5+...
- Conscripts have a better save
- Conscripts have Grenades
- Conscripts get Orders, so can move twice as fast / shoot twice as much.
Conscripts can get Orders only on a 4+. They literally were given an ability to prevent them from getting them 100% of the time.
Also worth mentioning that quite a few Guard players have suggested they get a 6+ save and the Auxilia faction meaning they just plain old can't get Orders.
- Cultists get 1 'special' weapon per 10 (it's not a good weapon though so barely worth mentioning)
- Slightly better leadership
- Can have melee weapons, but only if you remove their rifles, so again not really worth it the rifles are always a better option.
Cultists have options for Flamers, people seem to like Flamers.
So basically it's slightly better leadership (which conscripts don't need anyway), vs a better save, grenades, and orders. Landslide victory for the conscripts.
Conscripts absolutely do need leadership since Commissars don't give them inherent immunity at the cost of a model. Orders aren't reliable.
This isn't the Index anymore.
50/50 orders are still better than no orders, especially as both units would be the same cost in points so those orders are completely free buffs.
You also get grenades for free, and +1 armour for free. That's quite a lot of free stuff.
Yeh you lose leadership a bit, so you'll lose 2 extra men to morale on average, but then you'll have less people dying because of your better save sometimes so I'm not sure how it'll average out. I'd still say conscripts were a stronger option.
50/50 orders are still better than no orders, especially as both units would be the same cost in points so those orders are completely free buffs.
They're not free. This garbage has to stop being repeated. It costs you the price of an Officer and them being in range to issue Orders. There's no Vox-Caster option for Conscripts so you do have to have an Officer sitting right on top of them.
You also get grenades for free, and +1 armour for free. That's quite a lot of free stuff.
Whoopity freaking doo. Everyone gets grenades effectively for free. Same with going from a 6+ to a 5+.
Yeh you lose leadership a bit, so you'll lose 2 extra men to morale on average, but then you'll have less people dying because of your better save sometimes so I'm not sure how it'll average out. I'd still say conscripts were a stronger option.
It's a 5+ save, not a 3+. Most people aren't going to waste the "Take Cover!" stratagem on Conscripts.
Correct me if I'm wrong as I don't have a CSM handy, but don't Cultists get the same Legion perk as their power armored masters? Can't you have -1 to be hit at 12+ inches Cultists?
Being able to fudge rolls for being hit is a bit better than being able to tank hits when we're talking 5+/6+ saves.
Xenomancers wrote: humm - how good are geensteelers? They cost 13 and have 4 str 4 ap-1 attacks (if they are over 10 man squads). IG catachans cost 4 points and have 6 str 4 attacks under these buffs. Or in other words they have 50% more attacks than geenstellers which costs 300% more.
This argument doesn't make sense. For starters, the Fix Bayonets order is rarely usable, since it can only be used in the turn after engaging in melee, a situation in which Guardsmen rarely find themselves both still alive and still in melee.
And in any case, the Genestealers don't cost 300% more if you have to keep 110pts of characters within 6" of the Guardsmen to get the buff. This is like complaining that Basilisks are just 108pts for 3D6-pick-highest shots hitting on 3+ re-rolling misses (because you're Catachan and stuck it next to a Trojan and Harker), or that those Genestealers are just 13pts for a scary melee unit that can literally cross the board in one turn (with an expensive stratagem and specific Hive Fleet), or that Tactical Marines are 13pts for a unit that can re-roll all hits and wounds (because Robot Gundam is sitting next to them). All of those buffs involve faction bonuses, CP, or paying through the nose in points for auras, and are beyond the scope of the base statline. If you're going to assess cost-to-capabilities, you can't ignore the cost of those buffs.
I can understand a realism argument that Guard infantry shouldn't be buffable into serious combatants, and a balance argument if the total package with those characters included overperforms for its cost, but every faction in 8th Ed relies on synergy and buffs, and the Guard take it to an extreme as a matter of design principle.
FWIW I'm okay with Infantry being raised to 5pts, and Straken getting a cost increase or a change to how his buff works, but this '4pts for 3 S4 attacks!' thing is bad analysis. They should perform out of proportion to their base cost when the logistical tail needed to provide that level of performance costs more than the troops themselves, especially when it provides no benefit whatsoever to their durability or firepower.
The rest of the game, the rest of the army, the rest of the potential units available to an army, upgrades, buffs, deployability, positioning, morale. . . etc.
Like my statement further up the thread, Tac marines don't have to beat Guardsmen in a stand up fight to achieve balance. As long as some unit in the codex can be effective against guardsmen in a reasonably attainable situation, then you're good to go.
Well, thankfully for those of us complaining about Guard rofl-stomping everyone in our mostly-mono-build FLGS metas no such unit exists in the Marine codex. ...or anywhere else outside of the DE codex, depending on who you listen to.
Xenomancers wrote: Hes just showing the raw power. Space marines pay a huge tax to get reroll hits and wounds. Straken is cheaper than most space marine HQ options and he buffs infantry hard than Gman buffs anything.
I'm actually not familiar with Strakens buffs, can I get a breakdown?
Edit: Plus the "ever present Priest", whatever he does.
Strakens cost is roughly 75 points I don't remmeber exactly. Hes basically a space marine chaplain (I think invo might be 5++ though) plus he gives 2 orders like a company commander.
Instead of a reroll hits in CC bubble. He gives each catachen unit +1 attack each time it fights. Keep in mind catachans all have str 4 because that is their army trait.
+1 attack for 4 point models is already pretty insane. The combo hasn't even started though. A preist basically has the same +1 attack buff and hes 35 points. Also has a 4++ save but basically sucks otherwise...doesn't matter he costs 35 points.
110 points to get 300% damage in CC out of 4 point units...holy crap. Plus they can fight twice with an order so thats 600% damage increase buff in CC. Throw in harker and they are all rerolling 1's too (most just skip this).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dandelion wrote: Well, +1 attack boosts those units combat ability by 100% (going from 1 to 2) before potentially adding orders. I don't play catachan so I can't comment on how good it is.
humm - how good are geensteelers? They cost 13 and have 4 str 4 ap-1 attacks (if they are over 10 man squads). IG catachans cost 4 points and have 6 str 4 attacks under these buffs. Or in other words they have 50% more attacks than geenstellers which costs 300% more.
It doesn't take a lot to figure out these guys have insane damage potential. Not trying to be rude but this kind of stuff sickens me. A catachans but spank space marines in CC...why the heck don't they turn these guys into Astartes? The would be primarchs after the augments.
The double fight order does not work due to it's timing.
How many times do you get to shoot in melee with pistols? That's the same number of times that a guard can use the double fight order.
Wth hordes of dudes? Literally every game, You just shoot twice otherwise. It's tomatoes tomatoes.
How can you possibly defend this BS? The ability for a 4 point model to attack 6 times with str 4. Should not exist.
And yet, it does!
The hilarious part is that Knights and Custode Bikes are so egregious that people aren't even talking about this.
We've kind of fallen into 7th edition where there's essentially 4 viable builds.
1. Death Guard. You can take Magnus if you want but he's not required for a godly force. Mortarian is ridiculous.
2. Knights + Guard. People are typically taking the ~300 point variation where they get some extra juice with artillery. I've also seen this work well with Basilisks.
3. Custodes + Guard. Same deal. Can't beat cheap!
4. Ynnari Craftworlds. Ynnari is the crutch that keeps Eldar alive, and this wasn't nerfed (again) so they're still hanging on. The Vect nerf is impactful but people were bringing minimum DE to fuel their Shining Spear + Reaper Ynnari engine anyway.
That's it. If you don't play one of these 4 things, you're on the outside, looking in.
Other armies are all tier 2 or worse compared to this stuff.
Genuinely curious how mono-DG with Morty is so awesome... that way you have no Warptime so he can't make a T1 charge. And even Mortarion will not survive every anti-tank weapon of your opponent being pointed at him. How do you keep him alive? Again, genuinely curious because I've had massive trouble with that.
Effortlessly. You can pass hits off to his bodyguards on 2+ and they come back to life. They're also titan-killers on their own, for the low price of virtually nothing. Additionally after the first turn Mortarian will be -1 to hit, which helps.
Lastly, "mono" lists don't exist unless you don't have the option for soup. There are plenty of other ways to get warp time, although it doesn't hurt to bring Magnus, and it doesn't exactly disrupt your list as Magnus functions on his own very well.
Death Guard are super top tier. They won the BAO for good reason. If you find yourself struggling with them, i would take a long look at some tactics pages and look at what some of the top DG players are doing.
On top of all the defenses he has the biggest boon with Mortarion in the DG list is that losing him isn't the end of the world - if your enemy pumps all of their anti-tank into killing him as fast as possible then you've still got three plagueburst crawlers sitting in the back completely untouched and ready to unleash hell.
Niiru wrote: I think that at least part of the problem with Imperial Guard isn't actually that their troops are so cheap.
I mean yes, they are amazing, powerful, and cheap. Fine. But in a pure IG list that's not so terrible.
The problem is how easy it is to add a battallion of IG troops with all their strengths and buffs to any imperial list.
Can this be done with Chaos? Not really. Adding daemon troops to a list is doable, but to do so you have to pay a heavy tax in HQ's. The good HQ's are expensive, and the cheap HQ's are terrible and not even that cheap.
Eldar are in much the same situation, though DE might have a cheap HQ (I only know Eldar and Harlequins, and their HQ's are not cheap).
IG? HQ's are good, and cheap, and make the troops you get significantly better so they're always worth their points.
If IG troops stayed the same price, but the HQ's were raised in points to be more in line with other armies so that the battallion ends up more in line with the cost of battallions from other armies, things might be a bit more balanced.
Basically it ends up coming to the same line of thought that there should be more of a tax or price for taking detachments from other armies. The problem though is that other armies already have to pay this cost, but IG doesn't (or pays much less at least).
Problem is, the way GW fixes things is shown in this new FAQ. They'll make a blanket change that taxes everyone the same, which will still mean that IG will be relatively the cheapest option, and so nothing will change.
And you are wrong, CHAOS can do that, infact chaos can get a cheaper Battalion.
R&H still exist and for 170 pts you can get 2 commanders and 30 cultists. Infact you even can out mortar IG since R&H HWT's with mortars cost less and are 6 per HWT squad.
Also the problem is hardly with HQ but more along the line of the traits. Cadia is basically a free reroll aura, Catachan is general utility and offensive capability, with no drawback.
It's the same reason you only ever see 2-3 traits in a army. Why would you play WE in the csm Codex when you can field Alpha Legionaires?
Neophyte2012 wrote: Too many replies to cite if I do so, so just telling what happened in last game. Telling you the whole story.
The RP is warlord. have the Saga of the Hunt, which gives himself advance and charge, and if he made a charge, immediately everyone within 6" of him can also charge after advancing. So I attempted the advance and charge with him and two squad of GH disembarked from the Rhino. His company comander is hiding behind the squad of course and I noticed his Company Comander can interven, but of course I didn't read this post AND of course didn't investigate in IG close combat buffing ability carefully, thus what I don't know is how powerful his company comander can be in combat. So I think: yea he might intervene and shove Three Powerfist attack on the Runepriest, hitting on 4s wounding on 3s, and I have runic armor for 5++, 2 rounds of attacks shouldn't kill me unless the dice rolls are extreme, and I decided to advance and charge in, because I need that Warlord Trait bonus for everyone, and I need to silence his Self Propelled Artilery behind his infantry line asap, at Turn 2 latest!! But after he interven and show me how he gets as many attacks as Arjac, Bjorn, Logan Grimnar, Dante and Marnus Calgar each time he fight, I was truely shocked. But the trap had already sprang.
Were you so scared of his laspistol overwatch that you didn't bother to put him as charge target as well in case he intervenes? After all you don't lose anything except you take that 1 S3 AP0 D1 shot that hits on 6+. Weee!
Generally if overwatch isn't worry it's often good idea to charge multiple anyway. That way if you fail charge range against longer one you might at least get to closer target. Or try primary safe one and try longshot long one in case you get lucky.
Why you would let anybody give at you free power fist attacks when you could just aim to kill it before it strikes...You charge, he intervenes, you attack and likely kill the company commander. The mere fact he's sporting power fist means he could kill you with some lucky dice rolling. Why give him chance? Kill him before striking at you. If he's close enough to attack you so are you to kill him.
Xenomancers wrote: humm - how good are geensteelers? They cost 13 and have 4 str 4 ap-1 attacks (if they are over 10 man squads). IG catachans cost 4 points and have 6 str 4 attacks under these buffs. Or in other words they have 50% more attacks than geenstellers which costs 300% more.
This argument doesn't make sense. For starters, the Fix Bayonets order is rarely usable, since it can only be used in the turn after engaging in melee, a situation in which Guardsmen rarely find themselves both still alive and still in melee.
And in any case, the Genestealers don't cost 300% more if you have to keep 110pts of characters within 6" of the Guardsmen to get the buff. This is like complaining that Basilisks are just 108pts for 3D6-pick-highest shots hitting on 3+ re-rolling misses (because you're Catachan and stuck it next to a Trojan and Harker), or that those Genestealers are just 13pts for a scary melee unit that can literally cross the board in one turn (with an expensive stratagem and specific Hive Fleet), or that Tactical Marines are 13pts for a unit that can re-roll all hits and wounds (because Robot Gundam is sitting next to them). All of those buffs involve faction bonuses, CP, or paying through the nose in points for auras, and are beyond the scope of the base statline. If you're going to assess cost-to-capabilities, you can't ignore the cost of those buffs.
I can understand a realism argument that Guard infantry shouldn't be buffable into serious combatants, and a balance argument if the total package with those characters included overperforms for its cost, but every faction in 8th Ed relies on synergy and buffs, and the Guard take it to an extreme as a matter of design principle.
FWIW I'm okay with Infantry being raised to 5pts, and Straken getting a cost increase or a change to how his buff works, but this '4pts for 3 S4 attacks!' thing is bad analysis. They should perform out of proportion to their base cost when the logistical tail needed to provide that level of performance costs more than the troops themselves, especially when it provides no benefit whatsoever to their durability or firepower.
And last time I checked guardsmen don't sport inv save, hit on 3+, have -1 save(some at -4), advance and charge and generally cannot do T1 charges by sprinting faster than jet.
tneva82 wrote: And last time I checked guardsmen don't sport inv save, hit on 3+, have -1 save(some at -4), advance and charge and generally cannot do T1 charges by sprinting faster than jet.
They are also only 4 points. Saying the tail is fine - but its not as if unsupported Genestealers are all that great. Armies depend on synergy to work.
Okay, you have to factor it in. You can get stupid scenarios where people will say "my 100 points beats that 100 points, because it gets this buff, and that buff, and this psychic power and and and". Clearly at this stage you are not comparing apples with oranges.
Although if - in game - those buffs and interactions typically occur they are a valid consideration for how that unit would function in game. No one to my knowledge for instance runs unsupported Beil-Tan Shining Spears, and if you do, I admire your dedication to your ex-Craftworld. If unit X is too good with unit/ability Y and nothing stops you taking them together one or both needs to change.
As it is guardsmen start off as an excellent unit without external buffs. The guard tail is also - contrary to some claims - relatively cheap. You don't have to take a priest - but he isn't that expensive, and he fills out your brigade. You don't have to take Straken, but you do have to take some HQ choices. You could cut them out and put the points to use elsewhere - but what would that be?
Also the problem is hardly with HQ but more along the line of the traits. Cadia is basically a free reroll aura
Correcting a misconception. No, this is not the case.
Yeah you can get rerolling hit rolls of 1 with no penalty, but anything else requires you to issue the "Take Aim!" Order to a unit, which means no FRFSRF or M^3, or whatever else. Not unless you give your Warlord a specific Relic and Warlord Trait(none of which are the CP regeneration ones mind you) where on a 4+ you can chain a second Order to the same unit(Relic) and on a 4+ you can chain the Order issued to a second unit of the same type(Infantry or Tank).
Also the problem is hardly with HQ but more along the line of the traits. Cadia is basically a free reroll aura
Correcting a misconception. No, this is not the case.
Yeah you can get rerolling hit rolls of 1 with no penalty, but anything else requires you to issue the "Take Aim!" Order to a unit, which means no FRFSRF or M^3, or whatever else. Not unless you give your Warlord a specific Relic and Warlord Trait(none of which are the CP regeneration ones mind you) where on a 4+ you can chain a second Order to the same unit(Relic) and on a 4+ you can chain the Order issued to a second unit of the same type(Infantry or Tank).
There is no longer a real use to bring Kurov's Aquilla, on its own its to unreliable and Grand Strategist is plenty on its own now.
Laurels of Command will show up a lot more from now on.
We've kind of fallen into 7th edition where there's essentially 4 viable builds.
To be fair, every edition has had this issue. You get 2-4 top armies each with a couple variations of builds that dominate, and everything else is starkly below that, with 2-4 armies being hopelessly outclassed and outdated below everything else. 6E/7E was the worst by far, but the current state of affairs is pretty close to where we were in 3E/4E/5E.
GW can never manage to balance stuff very well
To be fair, pretty much every game has this issue.
Also the problem is hardly with HQ but more along the line of the traits. Cadia is basically a free reroll aura, Catachan is general utility and offensive capability, with no drawback.
It's the same reason you only ever see 2-3 traits in a army. Why would you play WE in the csm Codex when you can field Alpha Legionaires?
The Catachan traits are definitely a bit overboard, and I thought as much when the codex was released, especially with regards to things like artillery units.
That said, with regards to the Cadian doctrine, the reroll is not new for them, they did have the same reroll ability in the 3.5E codex.
It is interesting to note that we basically never see Steel Legion, Mordians, etc these days.
We've kind of fallen into 7th edition where there's essentially 4 viable builds.
To be fair, every edition has had this issue. You get 2-4 top armies each with a couple variations of builds that dominate, and everything else is starkly below that, with 2-4 armies being hopelessly outclassed and outdated below everything else. 6E/7E was the worst by far, but the current state of affairs is pretty close to where we were in 3E/4E/5E.
GW can never manage to balance stuff very well
To be fair, pretty much every game has this issue.
We've kind of fallen into 7th edition where there's essentially 4 viable builds.
To be fair, every edition has had this issue. You get 2-4 top armies each with a couple variations of builds that dominate, and everything else is starkly below that, with 2-4 armies being hopelessly outclassed and outdated below everything else. 6E/7E was the worst by far, but the current state of affairs is pretty close to where we were in 3E/4E/5E.
GW can never manage to balance stuff very well
To be fair, pretty much every game has this issue.
We've kind of fallen into 7th edition where there's essentially 4 viable builds.
To be fair, every edition has had this issue. You get 2-4 top armies each with a couple variations of builds that dominate, and everything else is starkly below that, with 2-4 armies being hopelessly outclassed and outdated below everything else. 6E/7E was the worst by far, but the current state of affairs is pretty close to where we were in 3E/4E/5E.
GW can never manage to balance stuff very well
To be fair, pretty much every game has this issue.
Warmachine doesn't. There's still a gradient but there's at least two or three wildly different tournament-level competitive builds per faction in that game.
Also the problem is hardly with HQ but more along the line of the traits. Cadia is basically a free reroll aura
Correcting a misconception. No, this is not the case.
Yeah you can get rerolling hit rolls of 1 with no penalty, but anything else requires you to issue the "Take Aim!" Order to a unit, which means no FRFSRF or M^3, or whatever else. Not unless you give your Warlord a specific Relic and Warlord Trait(none of which are the CP regeneration ones mind you) where on a 4+ you can chain a second Order to the same unit(Relic) and on a 4+ you can chain the Order issued to a second unit of the same type(Infantry or Tank).
Mate, i can read, thank you very much and yes the base trait allready is as powerfull as certain reroll auras, if i want to field something the likes with CSM i need to bring a chaos lord, whilest these dudes "just get it" for standing still, something guard units do fairly well, especially when they get additional mortars in their squad, mind you there is also no problem of squezing them under a aura, etc. So no this is far from beeing a missconception and also the reason why there stood a "basically".
As for why Mordian or the Steel legion aren't picked, they either come with severe restrictions for exemple mordia needs to be specifically deployed, something that is easily broken up if one is not carefull through terrain. Then there is the whole problem of needing to be within 3 " for tanks to gain the bonus on Overwatch, which can and will be abused with assult rules and piling in, ergo the rule is kinda meh. Steel legion has the DG trait of 18" rapidfire range, i mean, yes that is nice , especially if you field bigger squads like conscripts so that all units within it are in rapid fire range but then again Lasguns remain lasguns. Their vehicle trait is also somewhat obsolete, since the only real AP-1 weaponry fielded are Heavy bolters and autocannons and those are allready not particulary efficent to deal with vehicles, granted chimeras etc, the lighter tanks would probably profit decently from it, but as long as you pay 93 pts for a basic chimera so long it seems the trait is more or less useless. Sentinels would probably get the most out of said trait, but compared to more reliability through catachan for random shot weaponry or compared to a boost in accuracy through Cadia it seems a bit underwhelming overall.
Vostroya is also in the same situation, since most matches are on such small tables that their additional 6" range is quite useless, except again better rapidfire range, punisher turn out to be fun though but again, is that worth it compared to the other options?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Laurels of Command will show up a lot more from now on.
Probably, i would imagine since you can only gain one CP per turn now.
Tyel wrote: As it is guardsmen start off as an excellent unit without external buffs. The guard tail is also - contrary to some claims - relatively cheap. You don't have to take a priest - but he isn't that expensive, and he fills out your brigade. You don't have to take Straken, but you do have to take some HQ choices. You could cut them out and put the points to use elsewhere - but what would that be?
Swapping out Straken and a Priest for a CC saves you 80pts. That's nothing to sneeze at.
For the sake of example: four infantry squads, a CC, Straken, and a Priest comes to 300pts. Even if you can keep all the squads in that 6" buff bubble (something that I find is tough, because it significantly restricts your maneuverability), you average 8.89 MEQs dead with a round of FRFSRF, and then if you charge you average another 10 MEQs dead in melee. Total: 18.89 kills.
Consider six infantry squads and two CCs instead, for the same 300pts. Even with two of the squads not benefitting from orders, you average 11.11 MEQs from shooting, then another 5 in melee. Total: 16.11 kills. That's 85% the damage output, but you have 50% more wounds, aren't reliant on getting into melee, can spread out more, and degrade in performance more gracefully as you take damage (since you have more units than orders).
I think people focusing on the Catachan/Straken/Priest combo are missing the forest for the trees. It's surprising to players who aren't expecting it, but keeping Infantry clumped up and then getting them all into melee is tough, and if they get charged first (which tends to happen) they get mulched before they can hit back. Gunline-oriented Guardsmen deliver comparable levels of damage more reliably and more flexibly, and can use the points saved for more guns and bodies. The problem is really Guardsmen and their core buff (orders) being so cheap.
IMO, bump Guardsmen up to 5ppm, Priest up to 40, Straken up to 90, and CCs up to 35, and call it a day. Maybe change the Catachan doctrine to WS3+ rather than S4 while we're at it.
Also the problem is hardly with HQ but more along the line of the traits. Cadia is basically a free reroll aura
Correcting a misconception. No, this is not the case.
Yeah you can get rerolling hit rolls of 1 with no penalty, but anything else requires you to issue the "Take Aim!" Order to a unit, which means no FRFSRF or M^3, or whatever else. Not unless you give your Warlord a specific Relic and Warlord Trait(none of which are the CP regeneration ones mind you) where on a 4+ you can chain a second Order to the same unit(Relic) and on a 4+ you can chain the Order issued to a second unit of the same type(Infantry or Tank).
Mate, i can read, thank you very much and yes the base trait allready is as powerfull as certain reroll auras, if i want to field something the likes with CSM i need to bring a chaos lord, whilest these dudes "just get it" for standing still, something guard units do fairly well, especially when they get additional mortars in their squad, mind you there is also no problem of squezing them under a aura, etc. So no this is far from beeing a missconception and also the reason why there stood a "basically".
There's no "additional mortars". You can take one Mortar in an Infantry Squad.
I feel no sympathy for people wanting to equate a fricking Regimental Trait to an HQ choice's aura.
Marmatag wrote:And also does nothing to change the current state of things.
Guardsmen with the same strength as space marines is absurd.
Come back to me when those Guardsmen have the same Toughness, Save, Leadership, and access to CCWs alongside of Weapon Skill.
Now you have 4.5 point Guardsmen, for a pretty negligible boost in power.
And also does nothing to change the current state of things.
Guardsmen with the same strength as space marines is absurd.
That's GW not allowing more space. I've made suggestions on the Proposed Rules forums to make Marines S/T 6, Guardsmen S/T 4, and so on, to make it possible for Sisters of Battle, for instance, or Catachans to be stronger than average humans but weaker than Marines.
Niiru wrote: I think that at least part of the problem with Imperial Guard isn't actually that their troops are so cheap.
I mean yes, they are amazing, powerful, and cheap. Fine. But in a pure IG list that's not so terrible.
The problem is how easy it is to add a battallion of IG troops with all their strengths and buffs to any imperial list.
Can this be done with Chaos? Not really. Adding daemon troops to a list is doable, but to do so you have to pay a heavy tax in HQ's. The good HQ's are expensive, and the cheap HQ's are terrible and not even that cheap.
Eldar are in much the same situation, though DE might have a cheap HQ (I only know Eldar and Harlequins, and their HQ's are not cheap).
IG? HQ's are good, and cheap, and make the troops you get significantly better so they're always worth their points.
If IG troops stayed the same price, but the HQ's were raised in points to be more in line with other armies so that the battallion ends up more in line with the cost of battallions from other armies, things might be a bit more balanced.
Basically it ends up coming to the same line of thought that there should be more of a tax or price for taking detachments from other armies. The problem though is that other armies already have to pay this cost, but IG doesn't (or pays much less at least).
Problem is, the way GW fixes things is shown in this new FAQ. They'll make a blanket change that taxes everyone the same, which will still mean that IG will be relatively the cheapest option, and so nothing will change.
And you are wrong, CHAOS can do that, infact chaos can get a cheaper Battalion.
R&H still exist and for 170 pts you can get 2 commanders and 30 cultists. Infact you even can out mortar IG since R&H HWT's with mortars cost less and are 6 per HWT squad.
Also the problem is hardly with HQ but more along the line of the traits. Cadia is basically a free reroll aura, Catachan is general utility and offensive capability, with no drawback.
It's the same reason you only ever see 2-3 traits in a army. Why would you play WE in the csm Codex when you can field Alpha Legionaires?
R&H can do it slightly cheaper, but are just plain worse in every respect. HWT mortars and Marauders are the only units really worth taking, so going with vanguard or outriders are far more common.
But because they have an incomplete and heavily broken (in a bad way) index release, which seems to be in the process of being squatted, there's not really anyone who would recommend taking/buying/building an R&H detachment. Anyone who knows what they're talking about, if asked how best to run a Renegades list, will say to use the IG codex and just call it a counts-as.
And you'd take WE in the csm codex for berzerker troops obviously, as well as all those extra attacks and strength on the charge. Something AL cultists don't get. You only ever took AL cultists for the infiltration stratagem, but that no longer exists.
Iron Warriors (Warlord) or Black Legion (Abbadabaddon) are probably the best cultists now, or maybe Death Guard.
Now you have 4.5 point Guardsmen, for a pretty negligible boost in power.
And also does nothing to change the current state of things.
Guardsmen with the same strength as space marines is absurd.
That's GW not allowing more space. I've made suggestions on the Proposed Rules forums to make Marines S/T 6, Guardsmen S/T 4, and so on, to make it possible for Sisters of Battle, for instance, or Catachans to be stronger than average humans but weaker than Marines.
Having the same Strength as Marines doesn't mean jack when you don't have the gear to make use of it.
Guard will continue to get some negative attention, but at least a bit less than before. It's just coincidence that the generally accepted large issue at hand is command point based, and you had a simple "perfect storm" in the IG codex.
1) Cheap battalion to generate CP.
2) Free: Warlord trait to help with CP regeneration.
3) Free: Relice to help with CP stealing/regeneration
Other codices have some of these elements, but none had all of them at once. No one's blaming Guard when they play against someone with a normal fully Guard army, but they are the motor behind the crack in the game which people have identified as soup+CP+regeneration etc. The recent FAQ addressed points 2 and 3 (more or less). So, yes, now guard will be compared to other armies which can provide cheap battalions.
Also the problem is hardly with HQ but more along the line of the traits. Cadia is basically a free reroll aura
Correcting a misconception. No, this is not the case.
Yeah you can get rerolling hit rolls of 1 with no penalty, but anything else requires you to issue the "Take Aim!" Order to a unit, which means no FRFSRF or M^3, or whatever else. Not unless you give your Warlord a specific Relic and Warlord Trait(none of which are the CP regeneration ones mind you) where on a 4+ you can chain a second Order to the same unit(Relic) and on a 4+ you can chain the Order issued to a second unit of the same type(Infantry or Tank).
Mate, i can read, thank you very much and yes the base trait allready is as powerfull as certain reroll auras, if i want to field something the likes with CSM i need to bring a chaos lord, whilest these dudes "just get it" for standing still, something guard units do fairly well, especially when they get additional mortars in their squad, mind you there is also no problem of squezing them under a aura, etc. So no this is far from beeing a missconception and also the reason why there stood a "basically".
There's no "additional mortars". You can take one Mortar in an Infantry Squad.
I feel no sympathy for people wanting to equate a fricking Regimental Trait to an HQ choice's aura.
Marmatag wrote:And also does nothing to change the current state of things.
Guardsmen with the same strength as space marines is absurd.
Come back to me when those Guardsmen have the same Toughness, Save, Leadership, and access to CCWs alongside of Weapon Skill.
4 attacks at S3 on a 4+ is always going to be better than 2 S4 attacks on a 3+, which is the Assault Marine, otherwise known as garbage. You can get 3 total S4 attacks with the Command Squad, but boy do both those models die quick.
You have to take HQs anyway. It isn't some great burden to pay for Straken, he's very cheap.
And what happens when he dies?
There goes your Orders from him and your +1A.
Marmatag wrote:Can i come back since they have triple the attacks & can fight twice for free with orders?
Nope.
A)"Fight twice for free with Orders" requires you to have already been in Combat(you have to be within 1" of an enemy unit for "Fix Bayonets")
B) You have to have all of the spacing appropriately done to get your triple attacks effect.
How about when you have a unit of Bullgryns as functionally more durable dreadnoughts?
We've kind of fallen into 7th edition where there's essentially 4 viable builds.
To be fair, every edition has had this issue. You get 2-4 top armies each with a couple variations of builds that dominate, and everything else is starkly below that, with 2-4 armies being hopelessly outclassed and outdated below everything else. 6E/7E was the worst by far, but the current state of affairs is pretty close to where we were in 3E/4E/5E.
GW can never manage to balance stuff very well
To be fair, pretty much every game has this issue.
Not true, Age of Sigmar has a much more dyanamic meta, with no one faction (and definately no one list) pulling ahead. Even more obscure lists can pull ahead ahead of the common factions/lists if a new synergy is discovered.
The problem with 40k is that they dont think their new rules through and are unwilling to fix the problems that result in any meaningful way.
Niiru wrote: I think that at least part of the problem with Imperial Guard isn't actually that their troops are so cheap.
I mean yes, they are amazing, powerful, and cheap. Fine. But in a pure IG list that's not so terrible.
The problem is how easy it is to add a battallion of IG troops with all their strengths and buffs to any imperial list.
Can this be done with Chaos? Not really. Adding daemon troops to a list is doable, but to do so you have to pay a heavy tax in HQ's. The good HQ's are expensive, and the cheap HQ's are terrible and not even that cheap.
Eldar are in much the same situation, though DE might have a cheap HQ (I only know Eldar and Harlequins, and their HQ's are not cheap).
IG? HQ's are good, and cheap, and make the troops you get significantly better so they're always worth their points.
If IG troops stayed the same price, but the HQ's were raised in points to be more in line with other armies so that the battallion ends up more in line with the cost of battallions from other armies, things might be a bit more balanced.
Basically it ends up coming to the same line of thought that there should be more of a tax or price for taking detachments from other armies. The problem though is that other armies already have to pay this cost, but IG doesn't (or pays much less at least).
Problem is, the way GW fixes things is shown in this new FAQ. They'll make a blanket change that taxes everyone the same, which will still mean that IG will be relatively the cheapest option, and so nothing will change.
And you are wrong, CHAOS can do that, infact chaos can get a cheaper Battalion.
R&H still exist and for 170 pts you can get 2 commanders and 30 cultists. Infact you even can out mortar IG since R&H HWT's with mortars cost less and are 6 per HWT squad.
Also the problem is hardly with HQ but more along the line of the traits. Cadia is basically a free reroll aura, Catachan is general utility and offensive capability, with no drawback.
It's the same reason you only ever see 2-3 traits in a army. Why would you play WE in the csm Codex when you can field Alpha Legionaires?
R&H can do it slightly cheaper, but are just plain worse in every respect. HWT mortars and Marauders are the only units really worth taking, so going with vanguard or outriders are far more common.
But because they have an incomplete and heavily broken (in a bad way) index release, which seems to be in the process of being squatted, there's not really anyone who would recommend taking/buying/building an R&H detachment. Anyone who knows what they're talking about, if asked how best to run a Renegades list, will say to use the IG codex and just call it a counts-as.
And you'd take WE in the csm codex for berzerker troops obviously, as well as all those extra attacks and strength on the charge. Something AL cultists don't get. You only ever took AL cultists for the infiltration stratagem, but that no longer exists.
Iron Warriors (Warlord) or Black Legion (Abbadabaddon) are probably the best cultists now, or maybe Death Guard.
So 10 man Cultist squads are not worth the cp they generate?
Come again?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
There's no "additional mortars". You can take one Mortar in an Infantry Squad.
I feel no sympathy for people wanting to equate a fricking Regimental Trait to an HQ choice's aura.
You agree that what normaly is paid for via a Hq in form of a concrete and finite aura effect should be basically given out for free? Or that this trait is equally worth it in comparison with other IG traits? (vostroya f.e.?) Mind other factions traits?
Excuse me but that is about the most ridicoulus thing i heard.
Kanluwen wrote:There's no "additional mortars". You can take one Mortar in an Infantry Squad.
I feel no sympathy for people wanting to equate a fricking Regimental Trait to an HQ choice's aura.
You agree that what normaly is paid for via a Hq in form of a concrete and finite aura effect should be basically given out for free? Or that this trait is equally worth it in comparison with other IG traits? (vostroya f.e.?) Mind other factions traits?
How many other factions have access to auras with rerolls of 1s to hit?
Also, are you really trying to say Vostroya has a bad Regimental Trait?
Excuse me but that is about the most ridicoulus thing i heard.
The ridiculous thing is you trying to downplay the fact that in order to make full use of the trait, you're required to go Infantry heavy and ignore the stronger FRFSRF Order.
Insectum7 wrote: Orks have the same Toughness as a Space Marine, which is imo a more relevant stat, and nobody bats an eye.
Because being supernaturally tough is one of the defining traits of the Orks and has always been.
Prior to 3rd. Orks had T3. In fact I think they had human stats with the exception of Ld, which was lower.
But also now subfactions (and not just Space Marines) get traits, so in many cases they're going to get something they didn't really have before. Back in the day, Catachans used to have bonuses for being in a forest, but GW sells very little forest terrain, and rarely do I see forests on the table anymore. . . However, them Catachan models sure are muscle-y. So S 4. I mean, factions getting a -1 to hit is pretty out of thin air too. They're just filling out a new design space.
They also cost 50% more, have a worse save and are slower.....
And 2 attacks base, higher toughness and a better gun. If you're going to do an honest unit comparison you gotta be a little more thorough than just listing the negatives.
Kanluwen wrote:There's no "additional mortars". You can take one Mortar in an Infantry Squad.
I feel no sympathy for people wanting to equate a fricking Regimental Trait to an HQ choice's aura.
You agree that what normaly is paid for via a Hq in form of a concrete and finite aura effect should be basically given out for free? Or that this trait is equally worth it in comparison with other IG traits? (vostroya f.e.?) Mind other factions traits?
How many other factions have access to auras with rerolls of 1s to hit?
Also, are you really trying to say Vostroya has a bad Regimental Trait?
Excuse me but that is about the most ridicoulus thing i heard.
The ridiculous thing is you trying to downplay the fact that in order to make full use of the trait, you're required to go Infantry heavy and ignore the stronger FRFSRF Order.
You DON'T NEED THE FULL REROLL you therefore still can use FRFSRF and rerolls on the 1's which, surprise, is what other factions need to buy expensive Hq's for. And this trait is not even an HQ aura, all units of infantry profit from it and you don't have a Hq tax to fill for it or need to concern yourself with positioning everything in range of a Hq.
And yes even internally vostroya does not come close to cadia or catachan. Internal trait balance is anyways off regardless what codex faction you look at.
You DON'T NEED THE FULL REROLL you therefore still can use FRFSRF and rerolls on the 1's which, surprise, is what other factions need to buy expensive Hq's for. And this trait is not even an HQ aura, all units of infantry profit from it and you don't have a Hq tax to fill for it or need to concern yourself with positioning everything in range of a Hq.
So which is it: is it a tax or not? Why should I have my Regimental bonus being something other factions get by simply bringing an HQ?
The argument works both ways. A Regimental bonus should be something worthwhile, in the case of Cadia it's an across the board rerolling hit rolls of 1 when stationary with Infantry units being able to get an Order to grant rerolls to all Hit rolls.
And yes even internally vostroya does not come close to cadia or catachan. Internal trait balance is anyways off regardless what codex faction you look at.
Er no. Vostroya has made appearances in tournament lists. It just isn't in soup lists.
Shock! Gasp!
And seriously, downplaying that extra range is hysterical considering it's one of the reasons a certain Tau Sept gets chosen.
You DON'T NEED THE FULL REROLL you therefore still can use FRFSRF and rerolls on the 1's which, surprise, is what other factions need to buy expensive Hq's for. And this trait is not even an HQ aura, all units of infantry profit from it and you don't have a Hq tax to fill for it or need to concern yourself with positioning everything in range of a Hq.
So which is it: is it a tax or not? Why should I have my Regimental bonus being something other factions get by simply bringing an HQ?
The argument works both ways. A Regimental bonus should be something worthwhile, in the case of Cadia it's an across the board rerolling hit rolls of 1 when stationary with Infantry units being able to get an Order to grant rerolls to all Hit rolls.
And yes even internally vostroya does not come close to cadia or catachan. Internal trait balance is anyways off regardless what codex faction you look at.
Er no. Vostroya has made appearances in tournament lists. It just isn't in soup lists.
Shock! Gasp!
And seriously, downplaying that extra range is hysterical considering it's one of the reasons a certain Tau Sept gets chosen.
Scuse me but toptables are soup and what trait is not in soup? Vostroya, and Co KG.
One is a bubble, the other is army wide, which one is more flexible? cheaper?
Insectum7 wrote:
Prior to 3rd. Orks had T3. In fact I think they had human stats with the exception of Ld, which was lower.
For the record Orks have always had T4. Even in 2nd and Rogue Trader. They had M4 WS3 BS3 S3 T4 W1 I2 A1 Ld7, Which was one higher Toughness and 1 lower Initiative than a human. For the Zulu movie inspired scenario at the tale end of 2nd they made them WS4 and BS2, and they kept it that way for 3rd ed onwards.
I think one of the major reason why only Cadian and Catachan regiments are seen, is because models for the other regiments are not easily available. With the default models being Cadian or Catachan, people will default there regiment to Cadian or Catachan.
Insectum7 wrote:
Prior to 3rd. Orks had T3. In fact I think they had human stats with the exception of Ld, which was lower.
For the record Orks have always had T4. Even in 2nd and Rogue Trader. They had M4 WS3 BS3 S3 T4 W1 I2 A1 Ld7, Which was one higher Toughness and 1 lower Initiative than a human. For the Zulu movie inspired scenario at the tale end of 2nd they made them WS4 and BS2, and they kept it that way for 3rd ed onwards..
Hup! You're right. I was thinking the shift in statline from 2nd to 3rd was more dramatic than it was.
Actually Stormboyz had T3, since they were young "rebellious" orks.
You DON'T NEED THE FULL REROLL you therefore still can use FRFSRF and rerolls on the 1's which, surprise, is what other factions need to buy expensive Hq's for. And this trait is not even an HQ aura, all units of infantry profit from it and you don't have a Hq tax to fill for it or need to concern yourself with positioning everything in range of a Hq.
So which is it: is it a tax or not? Why should I have my Regimental bonus being something other factions get by simply bringing an HQ?
The argument works both ways. A Regimental bonus should be something worthwhile, in the case of Cadia it's an across the board rerolling hit rolls of 1 when stationary with Infantry units being able to get an Order to grant rerolls to all Hit rolls.
And yes even internally vostroya does not come close to cadia or catachan. Internal trait balance is anyways off regardless what codex faction you look at.
Er no. Vostroya has made appearances in tournament lists. It just isn't in soup lists.
Shock! Gasp!
And seriously, downplaying that extra range is hysterical considering it's one of the reasons a certain Tau Sept gets chosen.
Yeah I'm curious who said Vostroya wasn't a good choice. Much better than Armageddon (which has less practical use than Vostroya) and Tallarn (which is a bit too specific for Infantry which are typically camping, but the Vehicle trait is okay I guess).
Is this the first instance in the history of the game that a SM unit is getting nerfed because a BA unit is too strong? My Iron Hands Smash Captain is playing some sad trombone right now.
Median Trace wrote: Is this the first instance in the history of the game that a SM unit is getting nerfed because a BA unit is too strong? My Iron Hands Smash Captain is playing some sad trombone right now.
It isn't the first time people get mad at the wrong thing. This is the forum with people opposed to Relics because of only one that was complained about in 7th (The Shield Eternal). If one thing is broken, then something else is to blame instead for...reasons.
Which is kinda the point of this thread, really. People are blaming allies instead of the gak internal balance that still exists with every codex written.
Smirrors wrote: Guard are not broken, dont drag a good codex down because your own codex suck.
"We're not overpowered, it's just that every other book in the game is too weak!"
That argument might hold water if guard were unarguably the strongest mono-codex. Eldar, DE, some tyranid and tau builds are on par with mono-guard, and both eldar and DE are arguably even stronger than mono-guard. Mono-Guard are even worse when you start considering soup lists... and guard's presence in soup is limited to being CP batteries and meatshields for stronger units, not because they are good at killing things.
Guard is one of the better codices this edition, I don't think anyone is debating that. To the extent that they need to be nerfed down to SM level? No. Sorry, SM are a dumpster fire this edition because they translated poorly with the new AP and wound system. They are not a good measuring stick for a "balanced" faction.
Prior to 3rd. Orks had T3. In fact I think they had human stats with the exception of Ld, which was lower.
But also now subfactions (and not just Space Marines) get traits, so in many cases they're going to get something they didn't really have before. Back in the day, Catachans used to have bonuses for being in a forest, but GW sells very little forest terrain, and rarely do I see forests on the table anymore. . . However, them Catachan models sure are muscle-y. So S 4. I mean, factions getting a -1 to hit is pretty out of thin air too. They're just filling out a new design space.
They also cost 50% more, have a worse save and are slower.....
And 2 attacks base, higher toughness and a better gun. If you're going to do an honest unit comparison you gotta be a little more thorough than just listing the negatives.
Lol, so many wrong statements in one post. Orks had Space Marine stats prior to 3rd. The same BS even. They've always had T4. They had a worse save and LD.
I didn't list 'just the negatives' mate. They have worse BS (which means that "better" gun performs worse). They have less range. They do not have rapid fire.
Did I mention they are 50% more expensive? So for every 2 Boyz there are 3 Infantry? Which means for every 2 Boyz Infantry have +1 wound.
Spoletta wrote: Astra Militarum is the top mono dex of imperium, not of the game. Let's not mix these 2 things.
I would say you are correct, with the caveat that there are some codices like IK that are stronger but that cannot exist outside of soup.
IK worked just fine outside of soup untill the FAQ.
Now Guard Cp farms are mandatory as the CP costs of Knights strategums are way to high when your paying knight points per CP.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Lol, so many wrong statements in one post. Orks had Space Marine stats prior to 3rd. The same BS even. They've always had T4. They had a worse save and LD.
Let's look into this, shall we?
Stat line format: M / WS / BS / S / T / W / I / A / Ld [Int / Cl / WP]
Original SM Stats (Source: Rogue Trader) 4/4/4/4/3/1/4/1/8 [8/8/8]
Updated SM Stats (Source: Warhammer 40,000 Compilation) 4/4/4/4/4/1/4/1/8 [8/8/8]
2nd edition SM Stats (Source: Codex Ultramarines) 4/4/4/4/4/1/4/1/8
3rd edition SM Stats (Source: Codex Space Marines) -/4/4/4/4/1/4/1/8
Original Ork Boy Stats (Source: 'Ere We Go!) 4/3/3/3/4/1/2/1/7 [6/7/7]
2nd edition Ork Boy Stats (Source: Codex Orks) 4/3/3/3/4/1/2/1/7
3rd edition Ork Boy Stats (Source: Codex Orks) -/4/2/3/4/1/2/2/7
...some of these books are a little dusty.
So, both of you are wrong. It is interesting to note that the original Space Marine statline had them with a lower Toughness than your basic Ork, though this changed during Rogue Trader and well before 2nd edition. Prior to 3rd edition, they were rocking the same WS/BS as Imperial Guard, before this got altered to give them more of a CC focus.
I do find the missing mental stats interesting - Orks had 2 points less Intelligence than Space Marines, while only 1 point lower than them for Cool and Willpower - I wonder where modern Orks would rank?
Smirrors wrote: Guard are not broken, dont drag a good codex down because your own codex suck.
"We're not overpowered, it's just that every other book in the game is too weak!"
That argument might hold water if guard were unarguably the strongest mono-codex. Eldar, DE, some tyranid and tau builds are on par with mono-guard, and both eldar and DE are arguably even stronger than mono-guard. Mono-Guard are even worse when you start considering soup lists... and guard's presence in soup is limited to being CP batteries and meatshields for stronger units, not because they are good at killing things.
Guard is one of the better codices this edition, I don't think anyone is debating that. To the extent that they need to be nerfed down to SM level? No. Sorry, SM are a dumpster fire this edition because they translated poorly with the new AP and wound system. They are not a good measuring stick for a "balanced" faction.
That is really untrue. Mono gaurd is basically the best vs mono armies.
You can basically run a version of the uber castellan list just by subbing a few options. Castellan becomes some sort of baneblade varient (or multiple russ commanders) and instead of smash captains you take artillery or scions...It's not even an unquestionably worse list. LOL. I face lists like this all the time - they are practically unstoppable.
Smirrors wrote: Guard are not broken, dont drag a good codex down because your own codex suck.
"We're not overpowered, it's just that every other book in the game is too weak!"
That argument might hold water if guard were unarguably the strongest mono-codex. Eldar, DE, some tyranid and tau builds are on par with mono-guard, and both eldar and DE are arguably even stronger than mono-guard. Mono-Guard are even worse when you start considering soup lists... and guard's presence in soup is limited to being CP batteries and meatshields for stronger units, not because they are good at killing things.
Guard is one of the better codices this edition, I don't think anyone is debating that. To the extent that they need to be nerfed down to SM level? No. Sorry, SM are a dumpster fire this edition because they translated poorly with the new AP and wound system. They are not a good measuring stick for a "balanced" faction.
That is really untrue. Mono gaurd is basically the best vs mono armies.
You can basically run a version of the uber castellan list just by subbing a few options. Castellan becomes some sort of baneblade varient (or multiple russ commanders) and instead of smash captains you take artillery or scions...It's not even an unquestionably worse list. LOL. I face lists like this all the time - they are practically unstoppable.
Why is it that we have not seen mono guard reguarly toping tournaments then but have seen an equal if not greater amount of top 10s with mono DE and knights? Mono guard is undeniably one of the top mono codexes but actual data would push me to believe its on equal footing as several other options. Heck, we have even seen more mono blue SM lists top tournaments as of late then mono guard.
How can you, with authority, give a statement about all of the monofaction armies in this game? What a silly thread this has become. What we do know is that *essentially* mono guard and straight up mono-guard can compete with soup armies. No other codex does this.
Marmatag wrote: How can you, with authority, give a statement about all of the monofaction armies in this game? What a silly thread this has become. What we do know is that *essentially* mono guard and straight up mono-guard can compete with soup armies. No other codex does this.
Haven't Tau been placing higher than Guard in tournaments, without soup?
Marmatag wrote: How can you, with authority, give a statement about all of the monofaction armies in this game? What a silly thread this has become. What we do know is that *essentially* mono guard and straight up mono-guard can compete with soup armies. No other codex does this.
Tournament data shows that you are wrong. You can go pull up more mono SM armies that have finished top spots (UM/Gilliman build) more Mono knight builds and more mono DE builds. there have been either 2-3 mono guard top spot finishes since the rule of 3 at all major GTs. You can look up more or equal mono finishes for several different armies.
To me it's ridiculous that mono guard is always made to be this unstoppable monster but the data simply doesn't show that. It is incredibly easy to counter as the second you run into a -1 to hit army (there are a ton) your win percentage falls through the floor
Marmatag wrote: How can you, with authority, give a statement about all of the monofaction armies in this game? What a silly thread this has become. What we do know is that *essentially* mono guard and straight up mono-guard can compete with soup armies. No other codex does this.
Haven't Tau been placing higher than Guard in tournaments, without soup?
Yes but we are supposed to ignore that because soup IG kills tau
Spoletta wrote: Astra Militarum is the top mono dex of imperium, not of the game. Let's not mix these 2 things.
I would say you are correct, with the caveat that there are some codices like IK that are stronger but that cannot exist outside of soup.
IK worked just fine outside of soup untill the FAQ.
Now Guard Cp farms are mandatory as the CP costs of Knights strategums are way to high when your paying knight points per CP.
Well - it's really not that bad. You just gotta count the Castellan out - too expensive to run (it was before anyways)
Think the list I've been fooling with is
Crusader
Gallant
Gallant
Perceptor
2x Armiger
12 CP is more than enough to run that list. It is reasonably strong too - 1 problem - smash capatains are still OP as feth.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Lol, so many wrong statements in one post. Orks had Space Marine stats prior to 3rd. The same BS even. They've always had T4. They had a worse save and LD.
Let's look into this, shall we?
Stat line format: M / WS / BS / S / T / W / I / A / Ld [Int / Cl / WP]
Original SM Stats (Source: Rogue Trader) 4/4/4/4/3/1/4/1/8 [8/8/8]
Updated SM Stats (Source: Warhammer 40,000 Compilation) 4/4/4/4/4/1/4/1/8 [8/8/8]
2nd edition SM Stats (Source: Codex Ultramarines) 4/4/4/4/4/1/4/1/8
3rd edition SM Stats (Source: Codex Space Marines) -/4/4/4/4/1/4/1/8
Original Ork Boy Stats (Source: 'Ere We Go!) 4/3/3/3/4/1/2/1/7 [6/7/7]
2nd edition Ork Boy Stats (Source: Codex Orks) 4/3/3/3/4/1/2/1/7
3rd edition Ork Boy Stats (Source: Codex Orks) -/4/2/3/4/1/2/2/7
...some of these books are a little dusty.
So, both of you are wrong. It is interesting to note that the original Space Marine statline had them with a lower Toughness than your basic Ork, though this changed during Rogue Trader and well before 2nd edition. Prior to 3rd edition, they were rocking the same WS/BS as Imperial Guard, before this got altered to give them more of a CC focus.
I do find the missing mental stats interesting - Orks had 2 points less Intelligence than Space Marines, while only 1 point lower than them for Cool and Willpower - I wonder where modern Orks would rank?
TIL that original 40k had a 'cool' stat.
I can only assume it's meant to be like "keeping your cool under pressure", but I prefer to believe that it's actually a hidden Fonz stat.
Tau has not been finishing ahead of Guard, though? That may change post FAQ. Tau are very solid though, despite the fact that their fanbase is generally just horrible.
And I've seen the data mines, as well as follow BoK. Additionally, I know people going to these tournaments. I've seen the lists both on the table top as well as in text form.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Lol, so many wrong statements in one post. Orks had Space Marine stats prior to 3rd. The same BS even. They've always had T4. They had a worse save and LD.
Let's look into this, shall we?
Stat line format: M / WS / BS / S / T / W / I / A / Ld [Int / Cl / WP]
Original SM Stats (Source: Rogue Trader) 4/4/4/4/3/1/4/1/8 [8/8/8]
Updated SM Stats (Source: Warhammer 40,000 Compilation) 4/4/4/4/4/1/4/1/8 [8/8/8]
2nd edition SM Stats (Source: Codex Ultramarines) 4/4/4/4/4/1/4/1/8
3rd edition SM Stats (Source: Codex Space Marines) -/4/4/4/4/1/4/1/8
Original Ork Boy Stats (Source: 'Ere We Go!) 4/3/3/3/4/1/2/1/7 [6/7/7]
2nd edition Ork Boy Stats (Source: Codex Orks) 4/3/3/3/4/1/2/1/7
3rd edition Ork Boy Stats (Source: Codex Orks) -/4/2/3/4/1/2/2/7
...some of these books are a little dusty.
So, both of you are wrong. It is interesting to note that the original Space Marine statline had them with a lower Toughness than your basic Ork, though this changed during Rogue Trader and well before 2nd edition. Prior to 3rd edition, they were rocking the same WS/BS as Imperial Guard, before this got altered to give them more of a CC focus.
I do find the missing mental stats interesting - Orks had 2 points less Intelligence than Space Marines, while only 1 point lower than them for Cool and Willpower - I wonder where modern Orks would rank?
TIL that original 40k had a 'cool' stat.
I can only assume it's meant to be like "keeping your cool under pressure", but I prefer to believe that it's actually a hidden Fonz stat.
Yeah, GW rolled Intelligence, Cool (calm under fire), and Leadership (ability to lead), into just the one Ld stat.
Hence why we ended up with Stubborn Ogryn supposedly nearly fearless in the face of danger sporting...Ld6 for two editions
Marmatag wrote: Tau has not been finishing ahead of Guard, though? That may change post FAQ. Tau are very solid though, despite the fact that their fanbase is generally just horrible.
And I've seen the data mines, as well as follow BoK. Additionally, I know people going to these tournaments. I've seen the lists both on the table top as well as in text form.
Mono tau has finished ahead of mono guard in lots of major GTs. Guard soup finishes ahead of tau in almost every instance
Prior to 3rd. Orks had T3. In fact I think they had human stats with the exception of Ld, which was lower.
But also now subfactions (and not just Space Marines) get traits, so in many cases they're going to get something they didn't really have before. Back in the day, Catachans used to have bonuses for being in a forest, but GW sells very little forest terrain, and rarely do I see forests on the table anymore. . . However, them Catachan models sure are muscle-y. So S 4. I mean, factions getting a -1 to hit is pretty out of thin air too. They're just filling out a new design space.
They also cost 50% more, have a worse save and are slower.....
And 2 attacks base, higher toughness and a better gun. If you're going to do an honest unit comparison you gotta be a little more thorough than just listing the negatives.
Lol, so many wrong statements in one post. Orks had Space Marine stats prior to 3rd. The same BS even. They've always had T4. They had a worse save and LD.
As shown above, yes I was off, which I acknowledged, but Space Marine stats? That's even further off. Nobs had WS4 BS4 S3, which was closer, but boys were still WS3 BS3 S3 etc.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I didn't list 'just the negatives' mate. They have worse BS (which means that "better" gun performs worse). They have less range. They do not have rapid fire.
They don't have Raid Fire, they have Assault 2, which is better. I'd also argue that S 4 wins out even with lower BS in most circumstances. No acknowledgement of T4 and 2 Attacks I suppose, not listing the positives is about the same as listing only negatives. At any rate, the whole picture wasn't given.
An Actual Englishman wrote: Did I mention they are 50% more expensive? So for every 2 Boyz there are 3 Infantry? Which means for every 2 Boyz Infantry have +1 wound.
Very different units. We don't even know if boyz will stay at 6. I'm looking forward to seeing how Orks get adjusted in their book.
Tau are very competitive. The list that are very competitive are a little ugly (3 Coldstar commanders, Riptides+gakton of drones, etc...), but all top-tier competitive lists are.
They can't win, because they can't win agaisnt Soup reliably enough to win tournaments. How good is ultra-competitive tau lists vs ultra-competitive mono guard/mono DE lists? Nobody knows because nobody plays them where you see those Tau lists.
Galas wrote: Tau are very competitive. The list that are very competitive are a little ugly (3 Coldstar commanders, Riptides+gakton of drones, etc...), but all top-tier competitive lists are.
They can't win, because they can't win agaisnt Soup reliably enough to win tournaments. How good is ultra-competitive tau lists vs ultra-competitive mono guard/mono DE lists? Nobody knows because nobody plays them where you see those Tau lists.
Not surprsied that a resident Tau player doesn't understand all of the builds available to him, and tries to underplay his very strong codex. Check the list of the guy who won best Tau player at BAO. His name is Izrael and he runs something completely different.
Galas wrote: Tau are very competitive. The list that are very competitive are a little ugly (3 Coldstar commanders, Riptides+gakton of drones, etc...), but all top-tier competitive lists are.
They can't win, because they can't win agaisnt Soup reliably enough to win tournaments. How good is ultra-competitive tau lists vs ultra-competitive mono guard/mono DE lists? Nobody knows because nobody plays them where you see those Tau lists.
Not surprsied that a resident Tau player doesn't understand all of the builds available to him, and tries to underplay his very strong codex. Check the list of the guy who won best Tau player at BAO. His name is Izrael and he runs something completely different.
I wasn't trying to underplay anything. I also know about Firewarrior spam and Longstrike+Ion Cannon Hammerheads (Of course, you can combine all of those in different ways), but I thought the most competitive lists where the ones spamming suits and drones. I wasn't tryng to say that our codex is not good, it was honest ignorance about all the succesfull Tau lists that are ran, as I have said many times, we don't play ITC here, so our meta and most common competitive lists are quite different even if theres some general trends that are shared
. I like the Tau codex, and I find that most of it is strong, usable and competitive. But in the most competitive scene, TOP 10's, etc... the list of options is narrowed for everybody.
Do you have a link to that list, or the list?
But I'll point out that you have come as very pedantic and combative for no real reason.
Coldstars with fusions are cute - but they aren't that great. I include 1 with 3 fusions and a supernova launcher just in case I just have to make a trade or cap an objective.
The best commander is actually a 3 rocket ATS or 4 rocket commander IMO. The range is essential. (basically a chaplain dread that can move and shoot and still hit on 2's with 4x autocannons (chaplain dreads can only take 2x auto cannons) plus he still provides supporting overwatch fire.
Mainly hes better than even CIB commanders because he can shoot turn 1 and still call Kayoun for your army. Turn 1 if you need it. So - compare 16 shots in 2 turns from rocket commander to 12 shots in 1 turn from CIB commander (yeah CIB commander shoots turn 1 it's dead AF (something you learn from actually playing the game).
well guard still are really good anyways
