91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Bharring wrote:If "new models" mattered at all, Marines would feel so much pity for Dark Reapers it wouldn't even be funny.
Just being cute man. Space marines got 1 good new model. Repulsors are actually decent because they are functional but still over-costed. I can sympathize with you on all aspect warriors. Still in fine-cast? OMG. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ice_can wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Ice_can wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Does anyone else think it's absurd that equal points of well armed company commanders beat a well armed space marine captain in CC? This is clearly proff that they are OP is it not?
I would say less OP just undercosted like most of codex astra BOGOF.
Undercosted and OP mean the exact same thing to me dude.
I would say Alitoc is OP as they realy need a rewrite to be balanced where as most of the guard stuff doesn't need new rules just to pay a fair points cost for what they get. But neither are fun to play against.
Yeah I've been complaining about -1 to hit army traits since the release of the eldar codex. It's problem number 1.
112753
Post by: Colonel Cross
I'd take no invun on my CCs for an additional wound, like what other T3 armies get a la Cadre Fireblade.
It all comes down to people not taking balanced lists these days if you're truly getting miffed about guard company commanders  . I get it if a Xenos player, which lacks sniper weapons, complains about the lack of capability to remove buffing characters. And please don't say "but but one guard character is so easy to hide out of LoS" because that guard player has to make the decision to hide that character and not play the game the way he wants. It has an impact. Meanwhile the snipers can do what they please. And scout snipers with camo cloaks are really solid units. I play against space marine armies including them all the time and they are always a hassle to remove, just like any 2+ save units are to guard. Would I really waste battle cannon shots on them? I've had to before to score Maelstrom points, which removed that firepower from bigger threats to my force.
At the end of the day, it's still a guard character. It's quite laughable that anyone is complaining about company commanders and their close combat "prowess." And I play Catachans. They die like dogs the instant they make it into CC.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Ice_can wrote: Kanluwen wrote: Xenomancers wrote: Unaware that it was a waste to put decent weapons on units that have 2+ bs 2+ WS....oh yeah...it's not. It's actually a waste NOT to put them there. You guys are just incapable of seeing past your own army. The reality is - that the CC should not even have a 5++ save. That is just more sheer lunacy coming out of the AM codex.
He has a 5++ save or a 5+ save. What, should he have a 3+ and a 5++? Truthfully, you are the one incapable of "seeing past" their own army. You dumped points into a CC weapon that has AP-3 against an army where the best saves are not really going to be too intimidated by that since the stuff is already at a fairly high save.
So scions arn't worried by power weapons?
Scions are a 4+ save. All that Power Weapon did was kill a suicide unit that likely already blew its load. Also power weapons are fairly normal fair for marine HQ's.
They might be normal fare for Marine HQs, but if someone's going to whine about a decked out Marine Captain being more points than a barebones Guard Company Commander, they haven't looked at the Company Commander's options versus role. Kanluwen wrote: Xenomancers wrote: Kanluwen wrote: Xenomancers wrote: Unaware that it was a waste to put decent weapons on units that have 2+ bs 2+ WS....oh yeah...it's not. It's actually a waste NOT to put them there. You guys are just incapable of seeing past your own army. The reality is - that the CC should not even have a 5++ save. That is just more sheer lunacy coming out of the AM codex.
He has a 5++ save or a 5+ save. What, should he have a 3+ and a 5++?
Well hes in flak armor - I assume he should have a 5+ save with no invulnerable. There's probably more CC than there are space marines in the imperium - if refractor feilds are that common I'm wondering why they don't give them to the astartes - they would make better use of them. Come on man - it's a joke that a CC has a 5++ save. You have Iron Halos on your Captains. A 3+ save(or in the case of Terminators, 2+) with a 4++. Kind of like my librarian - hes in power armor so he has a 3+ save - with no invulnerable.
If you want an Invulnerable save, take one in Terminator Armour. Also, cast Null Zone and that Company Commander has no Invulnerable Save. I mean since you're taking a Librarian anyways...
Terminators are 2+, 5++ not sure where your getting your stats from but they are not correct.
A Company Commander is 5+ or 5++. Not sure why you're thinking that's related to Terminators. Xenomancers was complaining about Company Commanders having a 5+ Invulnerable Save. They have a 5+ invulnerable or a 5+ standard. I snarked at him about his expectations. FYI an Iron Halo is 4++ not 3++
Reread the underlined parts. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ice_can wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Ice_can wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Does anyone else think it's absurd that equal points of well armed company commanders beat a well armed space marine captain in CC? This is clearly proff that they are OP is it not?
I would say less OP just undercosted like most of codex astra BOGOF.
Undercosted and OP mean the exact same thing to me dude.
I would say Alitoc is OP as they realy need a rewrite to be balanced where as most of the guard stuff doesn't need new rules just to pay a fair points cost for what they get. But neither are fun to play against.
Alaitoc and its -1 to hit by itself wouldn't be a huge issue if it didn't apply to the Flyers as well. Automatically Appended Next Post: Colonel Cross wrote:I'd take no invun on my CCs for an additional wound, like what other T3 armies get a la Cadre Fireblade.
It all comes down to people not taking balanced lists these days if you're truly getting miffed about guard company commanders  . I get it if a Xenos player, which lacks sniper weapons, complains about the lack of capability to remove buffing characters. And please don't say "but but one guard character is so easy to hide out of LoS" because that guard player has to make the decision to hide that character and not play the game the way he wants. It has an impact. Meanwhile the snipers can do what they please. And scout snipers with camo cloaks are really solid units. I play against space marine armies including them all the time and they are always a hassle to remove, just like any 2+ save units are to guard. Would I really waste battle cannon shots on them? I've had to before to score Maelstrom points, which removed that firepower from bigger threats to my force.
At the end of the day, it's still a guard character. It's quite laughable that anyone is complaining about company commanders and their close combat "prowess." And I play Catachans. They die like dogs the instant they make it into CC.
It's not the fact that they have "prowess", it's that apparently it is "inefficient" to kill them with stuff kitted for killing Marines.
Or at least that's the impression I'm getting.
71534
Post by: Bharring
"Yeah I've been complaining about -1 to hit army traits since the release of the eldar codex."
Odd. Others have been complaining ever since the -1-to-hit traits came out. Why is it only a problem when your most-hated-faction gets it?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Bharring wrote:"Yeah I've been complaining about -1 to hit army traits since the release of the eldar codex."
Odd. Others have been complaining ever since the -1-to-hit traits came out. Why is it only a problem when your most-hated-faction gets it?
To be 100% honest on my part:
I still like the -1 to hit trait. I just think with Aeldari it shouldn't have applied to Flyers.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
This appears to have gone wat of topic from is a basic guardsmen worth 5ppm. IMHO yes they are.
On the Company comander vrs Captains debate the cheapest company comander is 74 pointa without weapons or 2.5 commanders, add gravis armour etc and the points get even more lopsided as he's 104 without weapons which are fixed and take him to 134 or 4.5 CC.
Alitoc Hemlocks, Rangers, Flyers basically an entire army of -2 to hit was bad game design, especially when you add in -1 to hit strategum and +1 sv pshycic powers.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Ice_can wrote:This appears to have gone wat of topic from is a basic guardsmen worth 5ppm. IMHO yes they are.
On the Company comander vrs Captains debate the cheapest company comander is 74 pointa without weapons or 2.5 commanders, add gravis armour etc and the points get even more lopsided as he's 104 without weapons which are fixed and take him to 134 or 4.5 CC.
Alitoc Hemlocks, Rangers, Flyers basically an entire army of -2 to hit was bad game design, especially when you add in -1 to hit strategum and +1 sv pshycic powers.
Someone has to be able survive more than two turns against IG. It ain't standard marines.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Ice_can wrote:This appears to have gone wat of topic from is a basic guardsmen worth 5ppm. IMHO yes they are.
On the Company comander vrs Captains debate the cheapest company comander is 74 pointa without weapons or 2.5 commanders, add gravis armour etc and the points get even more lopsided as he's 104 without weapons which are fixed and take him to 134 or 4.5 CC.
You mean Captain, right?
Company Commanders are 30 pts each.
Alitoc Hemlocks, Rangers, Flyers basically an entire army of -2 to hit was bad game design, especially when you add in -1 to hit strategum and +1 sv pshycic powers.
Literally all that has to happen is Flyers can't benefit from it. Not too fussed by the Rangers getting a benefit, since it's specific to them.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Kanluwen wrote:Ice_can wrote:This appears to have gone wat of topic from is a basic guardsmen worth 5ppm. IMHO yes they are.
On the Company comander vrs Captains debate the cheapest company comander is 74 pointa without weapons or 2.5 commanders, add gravis armour etc and the points get even more lopsided as he's 104 without weapons which are fixed and take him to 134 or 4.5 CC.
You mean Captain, right?
Company Commanders are 30 pts each.
Alitoc Hemlocks, Rangers, Flyers basically an entire army of -2 to hit was bad game design, especially when you add in -1 to hit strategum and +1 sv pshycic powers.
Literally all that has to happen is Flyers can't benefit from it. Not too fussed by the Rangers getting a benefit, since it's specific to them.
Yeah typo on my part I've got lost as to where this is going as I doubt a Captain is going to be fighting 2.5 company comanders simultaneously.
Personally I would have found it much more balanced if Alitoc got the Always in cover if they don't move bonus rather than -1 to hit
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Bharring wrote:"Yeah I've been complaining about -1 to hit army traits since the release of the eldar codex."
Odd. Others have been complaining ever since the -1-to-hit traits came out. Why is it only a problem when your most-hated-faction gets it?
Well to be honest - The admech players were all playing full mars with cawlbots when the eddition started. Until people figured out stiggies with electric shock priest was the bomb diggity. Also - the -1 to hit trait doesn't affect their vehicles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Colonel Cross wrote:I'd take no invun on my CCs for an additional wound, like what other T3 armies get a la Cadre Fireblade.
It all comes down to people not taking balanced lists these days if you're truly getting miffed about guard company commanders  . I get it if a Xenos player, which lacks sniper weapons, complains about the lack of capability to remove buffing characters. And please don't say "but but one guard character is so easy to hide out of LoS" because that guard player has to make the decision to hide that character and not play the game the way he wants. It has an impact. Meanwhile the snipers can do what they please. And scout snipers with camo cloaks are really solid units. I play against space marine armies including them all the time and they are always a hassle to remove, just like any 2+ save units are to guard. Would I really waste battle cannon shots on them? I've had to before to score Maelstrom points, which removed that firepower from bigger threats to my force.
At the end of the day, it's still a guard character. It's quite laughable that anyone is complaining about company commanders and their close combat "prowess." And I play Catachans. They die like dogs the instant they make it into CC.
Nah dude - it took me 1 second to break that. You can just hide CC behind hell hounds or LR if they have a ton snipers (which they wont) Snipers are not viable. If they were - we'd see Gman buffing 30 sniper scouts winning tournaments. NOPE.
112753
Post by: Colonel Cross
That's not a perfect solution. The Hellhound blows up on a 4+. So there's danger being close, probably more danger than snipers. If he's behind a Leman Russ, it means he's in the backfield so would probably be hidden anyway. It's not rock paper scissors.
97136
Post by: Tibs Ironblood
Xenomancers wrote:Bharring wrote:"Yeah I've been complaining about -1 to hit army traits since the release of the eldar codex."
Odd. Others have been complaining ever since the -1-to-hit traits came out. Why is it only a problem when your most-hated-faction gets it?
Well to be honest - The admech players were all playing full mars with cawlbots when the eddition started. Until people figured out stiggies with electric shock priest was the bomb diggity . Also - the -1 to hit trait doesn't affect their vehicles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Colonel Cross wrote:I'd take no invun on my CCs for an additional wound, like what other T3 armies get a la Cadre Fireblade.
It all comes down to people not taking balanced lists these days if you're truly getting miffed about guard company commanders  . I get it if a Xenos player, which lacks sniper weapons, complains about the lack of capability to remove buffing characters. And please don't say "but but one guard character is so easy to hide out of LoS" because that guard player has to make the decision to hide that character and not play the game the way he wants. It has an impact. Meanwhile the snipers can do what they please. And scout snipers with camo cloaks are really solid units. I play against space marine armies including them all the time and they are always a hassle to remove, just like any 2+ save units are to guard. Would I really waste battle cannon shots on them? I've had to before to score Maelstrom points, which removed that firepower from bigger threats to my force.
At the end of the day, it's still a guard character. It's quite laughable that anyone is complaining about company commanders and their close combat "prowess." And I play Catachans. They die like dogs the instant they make it into CC.
Nah dude - it took me 1 second to break that. You can just hide CC behind hell hounds or LR if they have a ton snipers (which they wont) Snipers are not viable. If they were - we'd see Gman buffing 30 sniper scouts winning tournaments. NOPE.
Ad mech dogma traits do effect their vehcles.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Colonel Cross wrote:That's not a perfect solution. The Hellhound blows up on a 4+. So there's danger being close, probably more danger than snipers. If he's behind a Leman Russ, it means he's in the backfield so would probably be hidden anyway. It's not rock paper scissors.
Russ punishers aren't in the backfeild. Could easily hide 3-4 CC behind one. Not a dang thing anyone could do about. Heck - any russ can do this - they are wasting points on 20-30 sniper rifle (which is what it takes to reliable kill characters with 4+ wounds) they probably gonna struggle to kill a LR anyways. It would only take 1 turn for your 9 mortars to wipe out all their snipers. Then they are free to move about. It seems like it should work - it just doesn't that's why you never seen snipers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Tibs Ironblood wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Bharring wrote:"Yeah I've been complaining about -1 to hit army traits since the release of the eldar codex."
Odd. Others have been complaining ever since the -1-to-hit traits came out. Why is it only a problem when your most-hated-faction gets it?
Well to be honest - The admech players were all playing full mars with cawlbots when the eddition started. Until people figured out stiggies with electric shock priest was the bomb diggity . Also - the -1 to hit trait doesn't affect their vehicles.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Colonel Cross wrote:I'd take no invun on my CCs for an additional wound, like what other T3 armies get a la Cadre Fireblade.
It all comes down to people not taking balanced lists these days if you're truly getting miffed about guard company commanders  . I get it if a Xenos player, which lacks sniper weapons, complains about the lack of capability to remove buffing characters. And please don't say "but but one guard character is so easy to hide out of LoS" because that guard player has to make the decision to hide that character and not play the game the way he wants. It has an impact. Meanwhile the snipers can do what they please. And scout snipers with camo cloaks are really solid units. I play against space marine armies including them all the time and they are always a hassle to remove, just like any 2+ save units are to guard. Would I really waste battle cannon shots on them? I've had to before to score Maelstrom points, which removed that firepower from bigger threats to my force.
At the end of the day, it's still a guard character. It's quite laughable that anyone is complaining about company commanders and their close combat "prowess." And I play Catachans. They die like dogs the instant they make it into CC.
Nah dude - it took me 1 second to break that. You can just hide CC behind hell hounds or LR if they have a ton snipers (which they wont) Snipers are not viable. If they were - we'd see Gman buffing 30 sniper scouts winning tournaments. NOPE.
Ad mech dogma traits do effect their vehcles.
 Wow - Well the only admech player I play doesn't take stygies vehicals I guess - he wants the cawl buff for them. He takes just a batallion with 40 electropreist it seems. That is crazy though. Not sure why he doesn't just do all stygies.
112753
Post by: Colonel Cross
Except I do see snipers. Tau sniper drones do serious work. And plenty of Marine players in my store use scout snipers.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Colonel Cross wrote:Except I do see snipers. Tau sniper drones do serious work. And plenty of Marine players in my store use scout snipers.
Well those marines should be nice autowins for you, then.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
Colonel Cross wrote:Except I do see snipers. Tau sniper drones do serious work. And plenty of Marine players in my store use scout snipers.
2 of my local SM players play a 5 or 10 man squad with character to buff them and we suggested to place 1 ML for the stratagem, they actually do a lot of damage when playing semi-comp (we are a semi comp group, we dont net list or take insane soup lists, but we try to take the bests units we can and play the best we can within the limits of what we like, like our BA player will play with Smash Captains and infantry, DC and some Armigers, but not IG, SOB player takes SOB with either Shield capts or a Knight, normally not both, DE player takes Ravagers and Coven but not Venom Spam).
They are actually kinda scary, yeah they die a bit quickly, but hiding them in cover and a good deployment can get them to fire for a couple turns and do some seriously damage for scouts.
11860
Post by: Martel732
18 ppm is soul-crushing.
112753
Post by: Colonel Cross
Amishprn86 wrote: Colonel Cross wrote:Except I do see snipers. Tau sniper drones do serious work. And plenty of Marine players in my store use scout snipers.
2 of my local SM players play a 5 or 10 man squad with character to buff them and we suggested to place 1 ML for the stratagem, they actually do a lot of damage when playing semi-comp (we are a semi comp group, we dont net list or take insane soup lists, but we try to take the bests units we can and play the best we can within the limits of what we like, like our BA player will play with Smash Captains and infantry, DC and some Armigers, but not IG, SOB player takes SOB with either Shield capts or a Knight, normally not both, DE player takes Ravagers and Coven but not Venom Spam).
They are actually kinda scary, yeah they die a bit quickly, but hiding them in cover and a good deployment can get them to fire for a couple turns and do some seriously damage for scouts.
That's mostly what my local store is like. Though there are some guys who run top of the line lists.
Yeah that mortal wounds Stratagem on a scout heavy bolter is tricky.
Martel, I suppose I should disclose we play Maelstrom or those open war cards. So often times it isn't just about killing things and points efficiency, etc. It's about those random OBJs. I've never played ITC but I know enough about it that it plays like an entirely different game. My games are usually very close, so *shoulder shrug*
11860
Post by: Martel732
We stopped using cards because the card draws were too dominant.
112753
Post by: Colonel Cross
Yeah it can be swingy but I think it keeps the game fresh and we seem to have a lot of fun using them.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Colonel Cross wrote:Yeah it can be swingy but I think it keeps the game fresh and we seem to have a lot of fun using them.
For a fun game they are good, but for a competitive setting they can screw one player so bad it's gamebreaking.
ITC does bring in it's own quirks like every giard squad gets a mortor to avoid reaper etc etc, but the new secondary missions should adress that and make it a bit better balanced. But it's hard trying to have a balanced competitive mission pack with codex's dropping and powercreep etc.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Colonel Cross wrote:Except I do see snipers. Tau sniper drones do serious work. And plenty of Marine players in my store use scout snipers.
I played a ravengaurd player with my ultras the other day. I ran 2x repuslsors calgar and a lut plus assorted infantry (agressors/hellblasters/intersessors) and a redemptor dread. It's not the most brutal marines list but it is more of a toned down list I use to play against weaker armies. he went first he did practically nothing - put 6 wounds on a repulsor and 4 on another - and killed a few interesessors - where were my 3 characters? hiding being giant repulsors ofc. Now if his 30 sniper scouts had been dev squads. He would have blow both my repulsors up probably - snipers are the biggest joke in the game. It's so easy to counter them I don't know why anyone would bring them.
I practically tabled him the next turn. Killing meq is a complete joke. 18 point scouts? LOL.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Colonel Cross wrote: Amishprn86 wrote: Colonel Cross wrote:Except I do see snipers. Tau sniper drones do serious work. And plenty of Marine players in my store use scout snipers.
2 of my local SM players play a 5 or 10 man squad with character to buff them and we suggested to place 1 ML for the stratagem, they actually do a lot of damage when playing semi-comp (we are a semi comp group, we dont net list or take insane soup lists, but we try to take the bests units we can and play the best we can within the limits of what we like, like our BA player will play with Smash Captains and infantry, DC and some Armigers, but not IG, SOB player takes SOB with either Shield capts or a Knight, normally not both, DE player takes Ravagers and Coven but not Venom Spam).
They are actually kinda scary, yeah they die a bit quickly, but hiding them in cover and a good deployment can get them to fire for a couple turns and do some seriously damage for scouts.
That's mostly what my local store is like. Though there are some guys who run top of the line lists.
Yeah that mortal wounds Stratagem on a scout heavy bolter is tricky.
Martel, I suppose I should disclose we play Maelstrom or those open war cards. So often times it isn't just about killing things and points efficiency, etc. It's about those random OBJs. I've never played ITC but I know enough about it that it plays like an entirely different game. My games are usually very close, so *shoulder shrug*
My ultras will table any marine army in 3 turns. Objectives do not matter in marines vs marines. It's glass vss glass - whoever has more guns wins. Automatically Appended Next Post: Martel732 wrote:We stopped using cards because the card draws were too dominant.
We stopped using cards because the game is over in 3-4 turns. Unless you are playing armies that have 4 point models being spammed.
117771
Post by: w1zard
For the last time... Stop comparing guard to SM. SM need buffs, period end of story. It's not fair to compare guard units to units from the second weakest codex this edition (and only second weakest because of the joke that is GK).
Stux wrote:Bare bones, the SM Captain does an average of 2.16 wounds to the Company Commanders, or 16pts of damage.
In return, 2 Company Commanders do 0.59 wounds, or 9pts of damage.
This doesn't account for the Company Commanders ordering themselves though, as there's nothing that directly helps the Fight Phase. However in the second turn they could Fix Bayonets themselves and Fight twice, which puts their damage output above the Captain in terms of points worth of damage.
Your math is incorrect.
You are correct when you say that a space marine captain armed with a bolt pistol/chainsword does 2.16 wounds to the commanders.
You are also correct when you say that 2 company commanders do 0.59 wounds to the SM captain.
However the SM captain does 16.2 "points" worth of damage to the commanders and the commanders do 8.73 "points" of damage back. I am going to assume you rounded in your favor to make the numbers look better.
You are also incorrect when you say that "Fix Bayonets" makes the commanders fight better than the SM captain. According to my math, even with "Fix Bayonets" active the commanders are only doing 15.39 "points" of damage to the captain.
Even in a scenario where we are comparing guard commanders to SM captains (which we shouldn't because SM sucks right now) the SM captain still comes out on top. I still stand by my statement that Guard commanders are nothing more than orders on a stick and are only meant to act as mobile buffs for infantry... while characters like SM captains are meant to be counter-chargers in the thick of the fighting as well as act as mobile buff bubbles.
I can see company commanders going up to 35 points if you want to be a stickler about it. But they really aren't worth 40.
23306
Post by: The_Real_Chris
Ice_can wrote:The_Real_Chris wrote:So I am still sensing that all the people with a problem here think they can only have a fair game against guard if they get 60-90 points extra when playing a typical Guard army? That does seem to be well within the margin of error which does seem to suggest that if you are having a problem playing against Guard the problem is probably a bit bigger?
We are just staying on topic which is are Guardsmen worth 5ppm to which the answer is yes.
No one is saying undercosted infantry squads are the only issues with the codex. It's just the one that comes into every game be it vrs guard or imperial soup.
Against pure guard the tanks outperform atleast marine and tau tanks
Against Soup the CP generation is out of control.
But if you try and tackle evrything with a single magic fix, you make the same mistakes GW has for years with the swings being massive and failing to address the underlying issue.
Isn't this the magic fix you are referring to?
If you are talking CP generation that is an issue with increasing the cost of an army by 30 points. That is honestly neither here nor there. It would solve nothing.
If you think th codex has wider problems and getting 60 less points in your army would make no difference to the outcome, again nothing solved.
If it merely makes you feel troops across different armies looked at in various degrees of isolation to synergy with the rest of their rules and units are more balance, but doesn't fix the problems you see, well you would feel better about it but achieve nothing?
118746
Post by: Ice_can
The_Real_Chris wrote:Ice_can wrote:The_Real_Chris wrote:So I am still sensing that all the people with a problem here think they can only have a fair game against guard if they get 60-90 points extra when playing a typical Guard army? That does seem to be well within the margin of error which does seem to suggest that if you are having a problem playing against Guard the problem is probably a bit bigger?
We are just staying on topic which is are Guardsmen worth 5ppm to which the answer is yes.
No one is saying undercosted infantry squads are the only issues with the codex. It's just the one that comes into every game be it vrs guard or imperial soup.
Against pure guard the tanks outperform atleast marine and tau tanks
Against Soup the CP generation is out of control.
But if you try and tackle evrything with a single magic fix, you make the same mistakes GW has for years with the swings being massive and failing to address the underlying issue.
Isn't this the magic fix you are referring to?
If you are talking CP generation that is an issue with increasing the cost of an army by 30 points. That is honestly neither here nor there. It would solve nothing.
If you think th codex has wider problems and getting 60 less points in your army would make no difference to the outcome, again nothing solved.
If it merely makes you feel troops across different armies looked at in various degrees of isolation to synergy with the rest of their rules and units are more balance, but doesn't fix the problems you see, well you would feel better about it but achieve nothing?
I can't decide if your trolling or just blind to how undercosted most of the astra Militarum codex is.
Guard Infantry Squad models at 4ppm both buffed and unbuffed beat firewarriors, Skitari, Marines they only loose to alitoc rangers becuase -2 to hit is busted.
At 5ppm they are balanced against FW at 7ppm Rangers at 8ppm
Marines need to come down in points to be balanced against anything else.
That is the context in which Infantry Squad stat guardsmen are clearly worth 5ppm not their current 4ppm cost.
Guard players have used soup as an excuse that guard arn't undercosted.
The maths and gameplay experience of many players say that's wrong mono faction vrs mono faction guard are still a top tier army.
Those other two points are area's of 8th edition that still need fixed. Fixing the infantry squads cost was the topic of the thread and will help balance the game better. It's not the only issue but it is a problem that does need fixed.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Don't forget that you can give a Guard Company Commander Power Armour, a 4++, +1 attack, +1 WS/+1BS, +1 wound and access to combi-weapons and better CC weapons for the low low price of 15 points, if you replace his orders with an aura. +2 sv, +1 invuln, +1 attack, +1 WS/BS, +1 wound, probably worth 10 pts tops, so yeah, the Guard company commander is probably undercosted by ~5 points. Not a big deal at all, I'd say. In a typical list, that's a difference of 10-20 pts. Guard aren't winning by the margin of the Company Commander alone. (FYI referring to the Sororitas Canoness here, which has the next closest statline in Imperium to the guard Company Commander, and has a re-rolls 1's aura instead of Orders. She's got Power Armour and a 4++ like a Space Marine Captain, WS 2+ / BS 2+, and 4 attacks, with 5 wounds. T3 S3, LD9 I think. 45 points)
11860
Post by: Martel732
" becuase -2 to hit is busted."
Or necessary vs IG.
23306
Post by: The_Real_Chris
Ice_can wrote:I can't decide if your trolling or just blind to how undercosted most of the astra Militarum codex is.
Guard Infantry Squad models at 4ppm both buffed and unbuffed beat firewarriors, Skitari, Marines they only loose to alitoc rangers because -2 to hit is busted.
At 5ppm they are balanced against FW at 7ppm Rangers at 8ppm
Marines need to come down in points to be balanced against anything else.
That is the context in which Infantry Squad stat guardsmen are clearly worth 5ppm not their current 4ppm cost.
Guard players have used soup as an excuse that guard aren’t undercosted.
The maths and gameplay experience of many players say that's wrong mono faction vrs mono faction guard are still a top tier army.
Those other two points are area's of 8th edition that still need fixed. Fixing the infantry squads cost was the topic of the thread and will help balance the game better. It's not the only issue but it is a problem that does need fixed.
Honestly not trolling. Just a point about how it seems a lot of people think this is a critical issue from reading this thread, when in reality it is a minor one if at the end of the day it is a 30-90 point change to most guard armies.
So you say mono guard (leaving soup aside) is a top tier army. I assume by top tier being an issue it is higher than top tier and unbalanced. I think it is a strong army - I am fairly naff at 40k and yet placed 6th at a reasonably large weekend tourney and didn't get higher because versus a knight army I didn't go first and they got the shadowsword before it got them. Anytime I played a good player I didn't do that well, anytime I played a good player with bad dice it was a slaughter. All this with me only vaguely understanding how the objective cards worked and often forgetting about them...
I think having the issue in isolation makes it look odd to me. You deal with things in isolation if they are a key issue or problem and for the number of points under discussion they honestly aren't. If it was presented in the context of other problems - i.e. the Guard codex is overpowered because of x,y,z. taking the troop selection first guardsmen should be a point more because... It would make more sense to me.
Personally, as I floated several dozen pages previously I think the practice of naked squads to meet minimums is wrong. I would want to see the base cost of a squad be 55 points, but the cost of the vox be 1 point, all the special weapon costs dropped by a point and heavy weapon costs dropped by 5. These changes would cascade across the army so base costs everywhere would increase, but the cost of fully tooled up armies wouldn't. That example of 9 squads to max CPs for other toys now costs the army 135 and you are better off giving them gear and making them part of your plan.
It would appear from my experience the problem isn't well equipped guard armies but ones that min max. They would also be more interesting to play with as well as less numerous and have more firepower which normally means easier to balance.
105897
Post by: Tygre
I did some calculating with equal points of IG vs Tau Firewarriors; with winning equals wiping the other out.
With IG at 4pts; 14 IG vs 8 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 3; If Tau go first IG win on round 5.
With IG at 5pts; 14 IG vs 10 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 4; If Tau go first Tau win on round 5.
With IG at 6pts; 14 IG vs 12 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 7; If Tau go first IG win on round 4.
So if Tau Firewarriors are the benchmark. IG should be about 5pts. I also did some calculations like I did in the SM thread; and Tau are 133% more durable than guard vs lasguns and 133% more firepower than guard vs guard. So basically 133% better than guard. 5 x 133% = 6.65, so 5pt IG and 7pt FW seem to work.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
It's a huge issue chris.
an IG battalion is currently around 50 points under-costed. If infantry are worth 5ppm and a CC is worth 40.
In an imperial knights list - that is kinda of like upgrading a warden to a crusader - were talking about a titan super weapon levels of under-costed. If you mutiply that across a whole 2000 point army - it's the equal of 10 titan super weapons.
OFC that is just an analogy. The fact is 50 points off an IG battalion is probably one of the more egregious points imbalances in the game right now because it literally affects every imperial army and in turn makes fixing all the other imbalances seem unnecessary. As you can just spam imperial guard against their undercosted stuff and come out on top 50% of the time.
The game needs balance. It needs it now. People are actually starting to play sigmar at my shop...I am one of them.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Tygre wrote:I did some calculating with equal points of IG vs Tau Firewarriors; with winning equals wiping the other out. With IG at 4pts; 14 IG vs 8 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 3; If Tau go first IG win on round 5. With IG at 5pts; 14 IG vs 10 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 4; If Tau go first Tau win on round 5. With IG at 6pts; 14 IG vs 12 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 7; If Tau go first IG win on round 4. So if Tau Firewarriors are the benchmark. IG should be about 5pts. I also did some calculations like I did in the SM thread; and Tau are 133% more durable than guard vs lasguns and 133% more firepower than guard vs guard. So basically 133% better than guard. 5 x 133% = 6.65, so 5pt IG and 7pt FW seem to work.
And this is the problem with doing tests based simply off math. "14 IG" can actually be done--but only 13 would have Lasguns, since Sergeants literally cannot have Lasguns like their squads. The remaining 4 would be Veterans from a Command Squad, so would be BS3+ rather than 4+. 8 Tau isn't really able to be done, and 12 models in a Strike Team isn't commonly done.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Kanluwen wrote:Tygre wrote:I did some calculating with equal points of IG vs Tau Firewarriors; with winning equals wiping the other out.
With IG at 4pts; 14 IG vs 8 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 3; If Tau go first IG win on round 5.
With IG at 5pts; 14 IG vs 10 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 4; If Tau go first Tau win on round 5.
With IG at 6pts; 14 IG vs 12 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 7; If Tau go first IG win on round 4.
So if Tau Firewarriors are the benchmark. IG should be about 5pts. I also did some calculations like I did in the SM thread; and Tau are 133% more durable than guard vs lasguns and 133% more firepower than guard vs guard. So basically 133% better than guard. 5 x 133% = 6.65, so 5pt IG and 7pt FW seem to work.
And this is the problem with doing tests based simply off math.
"14 IG" can actually be done--but only 13 would have Lasguns, since Sergeants literally cannot have Lasguns like their squads. The remaining 4 would be Veterans from a Command Squad, so would be BS3+ rather than 4+.
8 or 12 Tau isn't really able to be done.
I thought Fire Warriors could be taken in groups of 12.
But yeah, 14 IG is 13 lasguns, 4 at 6PPM and BS 3+.
112753
Post by: Colonel Cross
I'm assuming you took the morale phase into account? Oh wait, I'm sure you didn't.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Unit1126PLL wrote: Kanluwen wrote:Tygre wrote:I did some calculating with equal points of IG vs Tau Firewarriors; with winning equals wiping the other out.
With IG at 4pts; 14 IG vs 8 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 3; If Tau go first IG win on round 5.
With IG at 5pts; 14 IG vs 10 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 4; If Tau go first Tau win on round 5.
With IG at 6pts; 14 IG vs 12 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 7; If Tau go first IG win on round 4.
So if Tau Firewarriors are the benchmark. IG should be about 5pts. I also did some calculations like I did in the SM thread; and Tau are 133% more durable than guard vs lasguns and 133% more firepower than guard vs guard. So basically 133% better than guard. 5 x 133% = 6.65, so 5pt IG and 7pt FW seem to work.
And this is the problem with doing tests based simply off math.
"14 IG" can actually be done--but only 13 would have Lasguns, since Sergeants literally cannot have Lasguns like their squads. The remaining 4 would be Veterans from a Command Squad, so would be BS3+ rather than 4+.
8 or 12 Tau isn't really able to be done.
I thought Fire Warriors could be taken in groups of 12.
Strike Teams can, but it's a legacy option that I don't ever really see anyone take advantage of.
I'll clarify that a bit.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Kanluwen wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote: Kanluwen wrote:Tygre wrote:I did some calculating with equal points of IG vs Tau Firewarriors; with winning equals wiping the other out.
With IG at 4pts; 14 IG vs 8 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 3; If Tau go first IG win on round 5.
With IG at 5pts; 14 IG vs 10 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 4; If Tau go first Tau win on round 5.
With IG at 6pts; 14 IG vs 12 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 7; If Tau go first IG win on round 4.
So if Tau Firewarriors are the benchmark. IG should be about 5pts. I also did some calculations like I did in the SM thread; and Tau are 133% more durable than guard vs lasguns and 133% more firepower than guard vs guard. So basically 133% better than guard. 5 x 133% = 6.65, so 5pt IG and 7pt FW seem to work.
And this is the problem with doing tests based simply off math.
"14 IG" can actually be done--but only 13 would have Lasguns, since Sergeants literally cannot have Lasguns like their squads. The remaining 4 would be Veterans from a Command Squad, so would be BS3+ rather than 4+.
8 or 12 Tau isn't really able to be done.
I thought Fire Warriors could be taken in groups of 12.
Strike Teams can, but it's a legacy option that I don't ever really see anyone take advantage of.
I'll clarify that a bit.
Firewarriors can be 5 to 12 in a squad, in the current codex so I'm not sure what your getting at with legacy.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Ice_can wrote:
Firewarriors can be 5 to 12 in a squad, in the current codex so I'm not sure what your getting at with legacy.
Fire Warriors covers Breachers and Strike Teams(Rifles and Carbines).
Only Strike Teams(Rifles and Carbines) can be 12 man squads and that is a "legacy" option because the old box of Fire Warriors(pre-Breacher double build) was 12 models.
I really wish they would have just kept it at 10 man rather than 12, but whatever.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
You can take a bolter for 1 point. Most people do to make lists exactly 2000 points. I get that you wish the sargent could take a lasgun - it's really dumb that he can't but he can take a 1 point bolter. So shut it.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Xenomancers wrote:You can take a bolter for 1 point. Most people do to make lists exactly 2000 points. I get that you wish the sargent could take a lasgun - it's really dumb that he can't but he can take a 1 point bolter. So shut it.
Then you're finally ready to admit that FRFSRF isn't all that you whine that it is?
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Kanluwen wrote: Xenomancers wrote:You can take a bolter for 1 point. Most people do to make lists exactly 2000 points. I get that you wish the sargent could take a lasgun - it's really dumb that he can't but he can take a 1 point bolter. So shut it.
Then you're finally ready to admit that FRFSRF isn't all that you whine that it is?
Weve already gone over FRFSRF - these comparisons were done without out it. So you realize that 5 points infantry (nerfed infantry) are still comparable to firewarriors BEFORE they use FRFSRF. If they use it they are about twice as good. Tau cadre only adds 50% firepower not 100% so we know infantry win the buff game too. Firewarriors and kabalites rangers are the next most OP troops. These comparisons prove infantry are the outlier here.
Also - just in theory. Cheaper units should not beat more expensive units point for point in gun fights. They cover more ground - so they are better at screening - they should not win pitched battles with more powerful more expensive units (which are also more suceptable to heavy firepower). So really AM should be 6 points and lose to firewarriors but be better at holding ground. There is no situation they should be worth less than 5 points though.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Xenomancers wrote: Kanluwen wrote: Xenomancers wrote:You can take a bolter for 1 point. Most people do to make lists exactly 2000 points. I get that you wish the sargent could take a lasgun - it's really dumb that he can't but he can take a 1 point bolter. So shut it.
Then you're finally ready to admit that FRFSRF isn't all that you whine that it is?
Weve already gone over FRFSRF - these comparisons were done without out it. So you realize that 5 points infantry (nerfed infantry) are still comparable to firewarriors BEFORE they use FRFSRF. If they use it they are about twice as good. Tau cadre only adds 50% firepower not 100% so we know infantry. Firewarriors and kabalites rangers are the next most OP troops. These comparisons prove infantry are the outlier here.
Technically, it's an extra 90% efficiency since as you well know the Sergeant has no Lasgun. Also - just in theory. Cheaper units should not beat more expensive units point for point in gun fights. They cover more ground - so they are better at screening - they should not win pitched battles with more powerful units. So really AM should be 6 points and lose to firewarriors but be better at holding ground. There is no situation they should be worth less than 5 points though.
Then don't engage the cheaper unit in situations more favorable to it...? 12" Rapid Fire range vs 15" Rapid Fire range allows a 3" margin for the Strike Teams to become more effective vs anything but Vostroyan Regiments...which can even be mitigated by running Borkan or having Pathfinders with Pulse Accelerator Drones camped out strategically in your lines to buff them up by 6" for a whopping 18" RF range.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Right. I mean, covering more ground and screening better are bonuses that affect the cheaper unit, but the more expensive unit:
Has fewer issues with force concentration.
Can fit more "points" in a transport per unit of capacity.
The fact that "force concentration" doesn't matter because gun ranges are so long and "transports" are useless is a problem with the current rules and the sizes of the table.
I've always said 40k plays better on a 12x8 than a 4x6. On a board that size, just taking up space is less of a boon, and being able to concentrate 2000 points into a much tighter area is of greater utility.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Unit1126PLL wrote:Right. I mean, covering more ground and screening better are bonuses that affect the cheaper unit, but the more expensive unit:
Has fewer issues with force concentration.
Can fit more "points" in a transport per unit of capacity.
The fact that "force concentration" doesn't matter because gun ranges are so long and "transports" are useless is a problem with the current rules and the sizes of the table.
I've always said 40k plays better on a 12x8 than a 4x6. On a board that size, just taking up space is less of a boon, and being able to concentrate 2000 points into a much tighter area is of greater utility.
But that's not how its played. So those "advantages" should be VERY cheap points-wise and covering ground and screening should cost more. Because they are BETTER.
Actually, transports might be useless vs IG, but against Drukhari, they kinda work out. But against the field, the transports are still largely crap, so they are still disfavored, which lets Drukhari curb stomp marines even HARDER.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Martel732 wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Right. I mean, covering more ground and screening better are bonuses that affect the cheaper unit, but the more expensive unit:
Has fewer issues with force concentration.
Can fit more "points" in a transport per unit of capacity.
The fact that "force concentration" doesn't matter because gun ranges are so long and "transports" are useless is a problem with the current rules and the sizes of the table.
I've always said 40k plays better on a 12x8 than a 4x6. On a board that size, just taking up space is less of a boon, and being able to concentrate 2000 points into a much tighter area is of greater utility.
But that's not how its played. So those "advantages" should be VERY cheap points-wise and covering ground and screening should cost more. Because they are BETTER.
Alternatively, board size can be increased, which I think is easier (as an abstract notion, not a practical one. Space is limited) than rebalancing the entire game. Or, play smaller games: That way, the space is "relatively" larger, compared to the models on the board.
Try playing 1000 points on a 6x4. Suddenly, transports and force concentration matter a whole lot more.
11860
Post by: Martel732
No one I play against is going to agree to that. It's frankly easier to rebalance the entire game than go against 20+ years of table dimensions. I think most units could be determined within a pretty low error by carefully observing how they get used in a variety of settings. Guardsmen are amazing in every setting, which is a bit of a red flag. Units that basically never hit the table clearly need point drops.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Martel732 wrote:No one I play against is going to agree to that. It's frankly easier to rebalance the entire game than go against 20+ years of table dimensions. I think most units could be determined within a pretty low error by carefully observing how they get used in a variety of settings. Guardsmen are amazing in every setting, which is a bit of a red flag.
That's a problem in your local play area though. My local play area does all sorts of fun and whacky stuff on different sized (and even shaped) tables. Usually, I wouldn't advocate GW to balance around a specific set of data except that from tournaments, and looking at the tournament data doesn't support mono-guard as being a problem, as we've been through before. Soup guard is a problem, and guard are undeniably very strong. Just to get those to counterclaims out of the way.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Soup is a problem, and Guard are suffering from a symptom of it.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Unit1126PLL wrote:Martel732 wrote:No one I play against is going to agree to that. It's frankly easier to rebalance the entire game than go against 20+ years of table dimensions. I think most units could be determined within a pretty low error by carefully observing how they get used in a variety of settings. Guardsmen are amazing in every setting, which is a bit of a red flag.
That's a problem in your local play area though. My local play area does all sorts of fun and whacky stuff on different sized (and even shaped) tables. Usually, I wouldn't advocate GW to balance around a specific set of data except that from tournaments, and looking at the tournament data doesn't support mono-guard as being a problem, as we've been through before. Soup guard is a problem, and guard are undeniably very strong. Just to get those to counterclaims out of the way.
Monoguard without time limits is soul crushing. Arguably, they are better than Guard soup with no time limit, because all the souped in units are less efficient than IG units. I think GW needs to look at both timed and untimed games at a minimum. Plus, ITC tournies and non-ITC as well.
Let me rephrase: I've never seen, or heard of a play group that's going to agree to that. Maybe yours will, but such attitude is likely too rare for this to be viable. The race to the bottom is real, and people just need to accept this. Cheaper is better. More is better. Quality is gak, until you get to custodes captain.
86074
Post by: Quickjager
Kanluwen wrote:Soup is a problem, and Guard are suffering from a symptom of it.
I wouldn't call being IG suffering.
Acknowledge they're a tall cut above most and enjoy it.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Soup is not the problem. Miscosted units are. Just like formations weren't the problem. Miscosted units were. If you fix miscosted units, you fix soup.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Kanluwen wrote:Soup is a problem, and Guard are suffering from a symptom of it.
Soup IS a problem. Every unit being played in soup is a problem in one way or another. The units aren't chosen because they give each other super powers or make the units around them better. They are literally chosen because they are the best at doing something - which means they are under-costed or some facet of their use is exceptional powerful compared to the rest.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Martel732 wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Martel732 wrote:No one I play against is going to agree to that. It's frankly easier to rebalance the entire game than go against 20+ years of table dimensions. I think most units could be determined within a pretty low error by carefully observing how they get used in a variety of settings. Guardsmen are amazing in every setting, which is a bit of a red flag.
That's a problem in your local play area though. My local play area does all sorts of fun and whacky stuff on different sized (and even shaped) tables. Usually, I wouldn't advocate GW to balance around a specific set of data except that from tournaments, and looking at the tournament data doesn't support mono-guard as being a problem, as we've been through before. Soup guard is a problem, and guard are undeniably very strong. Just to get those to counterclaims out of the way. Monoguard without time limits is soul crushing. Arguably, they are better than Guard soup with no time limit, because all the souped in units are less efficient than IG units. I think GW needs to look at both timed and untimed games at a minimum. Plus, ITC tournies and non-ITC as well. Let me rephrase: I've never seen, or heard of a play group that's going to agree to that. Maybe yours will, but such attitude is likely too rare for this to be viable. The race to the bottom is real, and people just need to accept this. Cheaper is better. More is better. Quality is gak, until you get to custodes captain. Perhaps, then, GW could simply publish an FAQ that says "A 1k game is expected to take 1 hr. 15 mins. A 2k game is expected to take 2hr. 30 mins." etc etc. and that way people play the game "correctly." Because it's beginning to sound like a lot of the problems with Guard are problems that stem from issues unrelated to the rules-set (aside from the rules just not mentioning them i.e. time).
23306
Post by: The_Real_Chris
Martel732 wrote:Let me rephrase: I've never seen, or heard of a play group that's going to agree to that. Maybe yours will, but such attitude is likely too rare for this to be viable. The race to the bottom is real, and people just need to accept this. Cheaper is better. More is better. Quality is gak, until you get to custodes captain.
Of course with 2nd ed troop densities 6 or 8x4 was akin to that big spaced table allowing concentration of force etc
101163
Post by: Tyel
Martel732 wrote:Soup is not the problem. Miscosted units are. Just like formations weren't the problem. Miscosted units were. If you fix miscosted units, you fix soup.
This isn't true though because - much like formations - you have two things at the same price when they are not the same.
I mean take formations. A riptide was worth X.
But if you took 3, you paid 3X, but also got 3 quite valuable buffs on top of it.
So... surely it wasn't worth 3X any more. Your Riptide was better.
This is the same with soup. BA, Custodes, Knights etc on their own are one thing. BA/Custodes able to use 4-6 CP a turn potentially throughout the whole game because guard CP generation is probably more overpowered than basic guardsmen being 4 points is another.
I suspect if soup could be killed IG would be top tier, but lets kill soup first.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Unit1126PLL wrote:Martel732 wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Martel732 wrote:No one I play against is going to agree to that. It's frankly easier to rebalance the entire game than go against 20+ years of table dimensions. I think most units could be determined within a pretty low error by carefully observing how they get used in a variety of settings. Guardsmen are amazing in every setting, which is a bit of a red flag.
That's a problem in your local play area though. My local play area does all sorts of fun and whacky stuff on different sized (and even shaped) tables. Usually, I wouldn't advocate GW to balance around a specific set of data except that from tournaments, and looking at the tournament data doesn't support mono-guard as being a problem, as we've been through before. Soup guard is a problem, and guard are undeniably very strong. Just to get those to counterclaims out of the way.
Monoguard without time limits is soul crushing. Arguably, they are better than Guard soup with no time limit, because all the souped in units are less efficient than IG units. I think GW needs to look at both timed and untimed games at a minimum. Plus, ITC tournies and non-ITC as well.
Let me rephrase: I've never seen, or heard of a play group that's going to agree to that. Maybe yours will, but such attitude is likely too rare for this to be viable. The race to the bottom is real, and people just need to accept this. Cheaper is better. More is better. Quality is gak, until you get to custodes captain.
Perhaps, then, GW could simply publish an FAQ that says "A 1k game is expected to take 1 hr. 15 mins. A 2k game is expected to take 2hr. 30 mins." etc etc. and that way people play the game "correctly." Because it's beginning to sound like a lot of the problems with Guard are problems that stem from issues unrelated to the rules-set (aside from the rules just not mentioning them i.e. time).
I disagree - they should make a matched play rule that games can only be determined a victory within certain conditions - time running out shouldn't be one of them. That is the best place to start IMO.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Hrm, formations very much were a problem. Miscosted units dont matter when the price is irrelevant because you're just being given things without having to pay attention to price or scale.
Not that miscosted units were not huge issues, but Formations were botched through and through.
Likewise, Soup is very much an issue. Not that there arent some issues with the IG codex, but allies is where they see by far the most abuse in synergistic useage with things that werent really meant to operate as a single cohesive army but are effectively allowed to do so. For example, IG having a high number of CP is one thing in theory, a small IG contingent being used to supply another force with a glut of CP it wouldn't otherwise have access to (such as Custodes) is a very different thing in practice.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Xenomancers wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Martel732 wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Martel732 wrote:No one I play against is going to agree to that. It's frankly easier to rebalance the entire game than go against 20+ years of table dimensions. I think most units could be determined within a pretty low error by carefully observing how they get used in a variety of settings. Guardsmen are amazing in every setting, which is a bit of a red flag.
That's a problem in your local play area though. My local play area does all sorts of fun and whacky stuff on different sized (and even shaped) tables. Usually, I wouldn't advocate GW to balance around a specific set of data except that from tournaments, and looking at the tournament data doesn't support mono-guard as being a problem, as we've been through before. Soup guard is a problem, and guard are undeniably very strong. Just to get those to counterclaims out of the way.
Monoguard without time limits is soul crushing. Arguably, they are better than Guard soup with no time limit, because all the souped in units are less efficient than IG units. I think GW needs to look at both timed and untimed games at a minimum. Plus, ITC tournies and non-ITC as well.
Let me rephrase: I've never seen, or heard of a play group that's going to agree to that. Maybe yours will, but such attitude is likely too rare for this to be viable. The race to the bottom is real, and people just need to accept this. Cheaper is better. More is better. Quality is gak, until you get to custodes captain.
Perhaps, then, GW could simply publish an FAQ that says "A 1k game is expected to take 1 hr. 15 mins. A 2k game is expected to take 2hr. 30 mins." etc etc. and that way people play the game "correctly." Because it's beginning to sound like a lot of the problems with Guard are problems that stem from issues unrelated to the rules-set (aside from the rules just not mentioning them i.e. time).
I disagree - they should make a matched play rule that games can only be determined a victory within certain conditions - time running out shouldn't be one of them. That is the best place to start IMO.
But how can you make balance decisions around tournaments if the tournaments are limiting things by time?
Remember, Martel's claim is that the data from tournaments is useless for balance because of the temporal limitations on the gamestate. Either you balance the game around those temporal limitations, or you don't. If you are, then tell people to play with those limitations. If you aren't, then tournaments can't be used by GW for data. Given that there is no other source of reliable data, then GW simply can't balance the game well, in this instance.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Tyel wrote:Martel732 wrote:Soup is not the problem. Miscosted units are. Just like formations weren't the problem. Miscosted units were. If you fix miscosted units, you fix soup.
This isn't true though because - much like formations - you have two things at the same price when they are not the same.
I mean take formations. A riptide was worth X.
But if you took 3, you paid 3X, but also got 3 quite valuable buffs on top of it.
So... surely it wasn't worth 3X any more. Your Riptide was better.
This is the same with soup. BA, Custodes, Knights etc on their own are one thing. BA/Custodes able to use 4-6 CP a turn potentially throughout the whole game because guard CP generation is probably more overpowered than basic guardsmen being 4 points is another.
I suspect if soup could be killed IG would be top tier, but lets kill soup first.
Well he is correct in the sense that if all units were properly costed you would kill soup. At least in the sense that soup wasn't auto include over mono armies.
Really though with AM - soup is a preference - not an auto include because gaurd doesn't need to go out of it's codex to find top tier competitive options in every phase of the game. I assure you - if all the gaurd primary armies just played mono guard the results wouldn't be much different in tournaments.
23306
Post by: The_Real_Chris
Martel732 wrote:Soup is not the problem. Miscosted units are. Just like formations weren't the problem. Miscosted units were. If you fix miscosted units, you fix soup.
I may have missed the force composition of every imperial bowl of soup, but I thought it was the chance to pay minimal points for 5CPs to use on your good stratagems, then 5+ to get some points back and 5+ to get some of the enemies? Costing that is a bit different to costing three squads of guardsmen for the their ability to hold ground...
And of course this particular bowl of soup is fixed easily enough by saying detachments can only spend the CPs they generate on their codex's stratagems, not those of an allied formation, and any warlord CP abilities only apply to the CPs his codex troops generate and any he makes can only be spent again on his own stratagems, not the knight household walking alongside...
11860
Post by: Martel732
The tournament data isn't useless, but then you have to go check the untimed case and factor that in. 5 ppm for guardsmen is probably about right, because in a timed game, 4 ppm is at least feasible, but untimed, they are more like a 6 ppm unit. Also, check the ITC case and the non-ITC case. GW could simply this by publishing unified tournament rules and banning TOs from using their own rules.
85299
Post by: Spoletta
Martel732 wrote:Soup is not the problem. Miscosted units are. Just like formations weren't the problem. Miscosted units were. If you fix miscosted units, you fix soup.
Xenomancers wrote: Kanluwen wrote:Soup is a problem, and Guard are suffering from a symptom of it.
Soup IS a problem. Every unit being played in soup is a problem in one way or another. The units aren't chosen because they give each other super powers or make the units around them better. They are literally chosen because they are the best at doing something - which means they are under-costed or some facet of their use is exceptional powerful compared to the rest.
Err.... no.
Sorry but no, soup is not something that can be solved with points.
If i can take a battalion to infinitely fuel my knights and bananas i will do it even if guards were to cost 7 points.
There are overpowered things.
There are undercosted things.
There are broken things.
They are completely different problems with different fixes.
Guards are not broken, they work as intended. Guards are not overpowered, the effect they have on the game is the one that is expected from that model. Guards are undercosted (probably), they perform better than what the model cost suggests >>>>> You fix it by increasing the point cost
Soup is broken, it is showing non linear interactions with other mechanics of the game, creating unwanted situations. No amount of nerfing will fix it, and no amount of points changes will do it either >>>>> You need to change the way the rule works.
117900
Post by: Dandelion
Vaktathi wrote:Hrm, formations very much were a problem. Miscosted units dont matter when the price is irrelevant because you're just being given things without having to pay attention to price or scale.
Not that miscosted units were not huge issues, but Formations were botched through and through.
Likewise, Soup is very much an issue. Not that there arent some issues with the IG codex, but allies is where they see by far the most abuse in synergistic useage with things that werent really meant to operate as a single cohesive army but are effectively allowed to do so. For example, IG having a high number of CP is one thing in theory, a small IG contingent being used to supply another force with a glut of CP it wouldn't otherwise have access to (such as Custodes) is a very different thing in practice.
If these armies weren't meant to work together then why did GW create a system to specifically allow that? And remember, Custodes have a banner that gives IMPERIUM units a 5++, if that doesn't scream "take IG!" I don't know what does.
Is it badly implemented? Maybe. But it was certainly intended. For all we know GW's designers could be happy that Guard appear in every imperial army.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Maybe. But to fully convince me, I'd have to see a game set largely devoid of miscosted models and then be shown how soup can still break things.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Martel732 wrote:The tournament data isn't useless, but then you have to go check the untimed case and factor that in. 5 ppm for guardsmen is probably about right, because in a timed game, 4 ppm is at least feasible, but untimed, they are more like a 6 ppm unit. Also, check the ITC case and the non-ITC case. GW could simply this by publishing unified tournament rules and banning TOs from using their own rules.
How do you check the unlimited case? A single playtest game? 30 playtest games?
And GW already tests the non-ITC case, for example it uses data from NOVA. But yes, essentially what I am pushing for is GW making sure to publish their own tournament rules, but they already do that (the tournament packet) and ironically, in the setting of those tournaments, the results have been completely different. IIRC I remember a 2nd place ork finish, then later a 1st place Ork finish, though that guy slowplayed (which is a whole 'nother problem in itself).
11860
Post by: Martel732
Dandelion wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Hrm, formations very much were a problem. Miscosted units dont matter when the price is irrelevant because you're just being given things without having to pay attention to price or scale.
Not that miscosted units were not huge issues, but Formations were botched through and through.
Likewise, Soup is very much an issue. Not that there arent some issues with the IG codex, but allies is where they see by far the most abuse in synergistic useage with things that werent really meant to operate as a single cohesive army but are effectively allowed to do so. For example, IG having a high number of CP is one thing in theory, a small IG contingent being used to supply another force with a glut of CP it wouldn't otherwise have access to (such as Custodes) is a very different thing in practice.
If these armies weren't meant to work together then why did GW create a system to specifically allow that? And remember, Custodes have a banner that gives IMPERIUM units a 5++, if that doesn't scream "take IG!" I don't know what does.
Is it badly implemented? Maybe. But it was certainly intended. For all we know GW's designers could be happy that Guard appear in every imperial army.
I'm sure they don't mind, but they DO mind primaris being largely absent. At least, so I've been told off the record.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote:Martel732 wrote:The tournament data isn't useless, but then you have to go check the untimed case and factor that in. 5 ppm for guardsmen is probably about right, because in a timed game, 4 ppm is at least feasible, but untimed, they are more like a 6 ppm unit. Also, check the ITC case and the non-ITC case. GW could simply this by publishing unified tournament rules and banning TOs from using their own rules.
How do you check the unlimited case? A single playtest game? 30 playtest games?
And GW already tests the non-ITC case, for example it uses data from NOVA. But yes, essentially what I am pushing for is GW making sure to publish their own tournament rules, but they already do that (the tournament packet) and ironically, in the setting of those tournaments, the results have been completely different. IIRC I remember a 2nd place ork finish, then later a 1st place Ork finish, though that guy slowplayed (which is a whole 'nother problem in itself).
I'd say 200 games at least given the number factions in 40K. Preferably 1000 games. Blizzard is able to easily collect unit utilization and even build orders from thousands of games. GW needs to at least pretend to be within a couple orders of magnitude.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Xenomancers wrote:Tyel wrote:Martel732 wrote:Soup is not the problem. Miscosted units are. Just like formations weren't the problem. Miscosted units were. If you fix miscosted units, you fix soup.
This isn't true though because - much like formations - you have two things at the same price when they are not the same.
I mean take formations. A riptide was worth X.
But if you took 3, you paid 3X, but also got 3 quite valuable buffs on top of it.
So... surely it wasn't worth 3X any more. Your Riptide was better.
This is the same with soup. BA, Custodes, Knights etc on their own are one thing. BA/Custodes able to use 4-6 CP a turn potentially throughout the whole game because guard CP generation is probably more overpowered than basic guardsmen being 4 points is another.
I suspect if soup could be killed IG would be top tier, but lets kill soup first.
Well he is correct in the sense that if all units were properly costed you would kill soup. At least in the sense that soup wasn't auto include over mono armies.
Really though with AM - soup is a preference - not an auto include because gaurd doesn't need to go out of it's codex to find top tier competitive options in every phase of the game. I assure you - if all the gaurd primary armies just played mono guard the results wouldn't be much different in tournaments.
If it were just a preference thing we'd probably see a whole lot more monoIG armies and a lot less soup at top winning tables. If monoIG are just as good, I would posit that superfriends lists would be less popular simply because people wouldnt need to go out and buy extra stuff from other armies, these competitive soup list arent running multifaction armies because they want to display the full panoply of the Imperium for cool factor.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Remember that IG is a hard counter to super friends because IG fields huge numbers of wounds that are all cheap. Even their vehicles are super cheap. The super friends literally can't chop through the army given a full game. IG don't care about their opponent's turn, and that is the greatest super power in 8th ed.
Every guardsmen killed just puts the IG further and further ahead compared to every other list in the game save a grot army.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Martel732 wrote:I'd say 200 games at least given the number factions in 40K. Preferably 1000 games. Blizzard is able to easily collect unit utilization and even build orders from thousands of games. GW needs to at least pretend to be within a couple orders of magnitude.
Okay. Where/how do you gather this data in house? Assuming you have 4 staff with the time to play once a week, that's 500 weeks, or nearly ten years, before you can get to 1000 playtest games. And, unlike a videogame, you can't canvass the internet, because everyone plays with different rules at home, even if it's just granting line of sight in a situation where another player wouldn't, for example. You have to keep the playtesting consistent and in-house, and to do 1000 games of warhammer 40k, assuming 3 hours per game, is 3000 hours, or 4 months of playing without eating or sleeping. Assuming people spend literally 8 hours a day, 5 days a week playing, that's 18 months of playing warhammer as a full-time job...
11860
Post by: Martel732
Unit1126PLL wrote:Martel732 wrote:I'd say 200 games at least given the number factions in 40K. Preferably 1000 games. Blizzard is able to easily collect unit utilization and even build orders from thousands of games. GW needs to at least pretend to be within a couple orders of magnitude.
Okay. Where/how do you gather this data in house? Assuming you have 4 staff with the time to play once a week, that's 500 weeks, or nearly ten years, before you can get to 1000 playtest games. And, unlike a videogame, you can't canvass the internet, because everyone plays with different rules at home, even if it's just granting line of sight in a situation where another player wouldn't, for example. You have to keep the playtesting consistent and in-house, and to do 1000 games of warhammer 40k, assuming 3 hours per game, is 3000 hours, or 4 months of playing without eating or sleeping. Assuming people spend literally 8 hours a day, 5 days a week playing, that's 18 months of playing warhammer as a full-time job...
I guess GW has some work to do, then. Or they just need to openly admit their game is gak and will always be gak and no one should buy it. Those are their two HONEST choices.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Dandelion wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Hrm, formations very much were a problem. Miscosted units dont matter when the price is irrelevant because you're just being given things without having to pay attention to price or scale.
Not that miscosted units were not huge issues, but Formations were botched through and through.
Likewise, Soup is very much an issue. Not that there arent some issues with the IG codex, but allies is where they see by far the most abuse in synergistic useage with things that werent really meant to operate as a single cohesive army but are effectively allowed to do so. For example, IG having a high number of CP is one thing in theory, a small IG contingent being used to supply another force with a glut of CP it wouldn't otherwise have access to (such as Custodes) is a very different thing in practice.
If these armies weren't meant to work together then why did GW create a system to specifically allow that?
Because they're a model company that uses game rules to push sales of model kits, the balance and competitive suitability of the rules being a distant tertiary concern mostly
Same reason we got insane ridiculous formations in 7E, often tied to things like webstore sales bundles.
And remember, Custodes have a banner that gives IMPERIUM units a 5++, if that doesn't scream "take IG!" I don't know what does.
They do, but its a rare exception that appears much more of an afterthought.
Is it badly implemented? Maybe. But it was certainly intended. For all we know GW's designers could be happy that Guard appear in every imperial army.
Ultimately, the armies are designed and balancd around certain concepts and specializations and lack of accesd to certain abilities, and very few abilities that intentionally interact with other factions.
That said, im sure GW are happy IG are in every Imperial list becausw it means theyre selling more guardsmen, but it doesnt mean theyre balancing the codex books around that.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Quickjager wrote: Kanluwen wrote:Soup is a problem, and Guard are suffering from a symptom of it.
I wouldn't call being IG suffering.
Acknowledge they're a tall cut above most and enjoy it.
The army might be in a fairly good place, but that doesn't mean that they will continue to be as time wears on.
We've already seen Commissars cut off at the knees. We've seen Conscripts change fairly significantly whether you want to admit it or not, Orders being automatic and then getting a requirement for a 4+ on just that unit is a significant change as is their reduction in unit size.
We also saw the, entirely justifiable mind you, shift to having BS specific points costs in response to Scion spam.
Guard are "suffering" from an overrepresentation and overfocus on one specific unit(their core fricking Infantry Squad) by outsiders who only look at the points values and see them getting souped in.
101163
Post by: Tyel
Martel732 wrote:I'd say 200 games at least given the number factions in 40K. Preferably 1000 games. Blizzard is able to easily collect unit utilization and even build orders from thousands of games. GW needs to at least pretend to be within a couple orders of magnitude.
Blizzard has the advantage of games all being played on their servers, so I'd imagine with a bit of data capture they can see what is going on.
With that said, GW just need to decide what the value is. With a budget of say £1-2 million, I am fairly confident they could have 30 people playtest (they might need to build some armies, but that's not impossible either). So say 2 games a day, that's 150 games a week, 600 or so a month.
Would this give useful information? Considering that, at its peak, StarCraft or whatever must have seen thousands of games an hour? What is the active playerbase for say Hearthstone?
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Martel732 wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Martel732 wrote:I'd say 200 games at least given the number factions in 40K. Preferably 1000 games. Blizzard is able to easily collect unit utilization and even build orders from thousands of games. GW needs to at least pretend to be within a couple orders of magnitude.
Okay. Where/how do you gather this data in house? Assuming you have 4 staff with the time to play once a week, that's 500 weeks, or nearly ten years, before you can get to 1000 playtest games. And, unlike a videogame, you can't canvass the internet, because everyone plays with different rules at home, even if it's just granting line of sight in a situation where another player wouldn't, for example. You have to keep the playtesting consistent and in-house, and to do 1000 games of warhammer 40k, assuming 3 hours per game, is 3000 hours, or 4 months of playing without eating or sleeping. Assuming people spend literally 8 hours a day, 5 days a week playing, that's 18 months of playing warhammer as a full-time job...
I guess GW has some work to do, then. Or they just need to openly admit their game is gak and will always be gak and no one should buy it. Those are their two HONEST choices.
I mean, using your critera, no table-top game could ever be playtested sufficiently to satisfy you. May I suggest you're in the wrong hobby?
11860
Post by: Martel732
Maybe. The contrast is just disheartening. It took Blizzard a few weeks in beta to see that 2 armor roaches were too good. GW had doubled down on tacs being gak for decades.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Are you seriously trying to compare Blizzard, where everything is stored serverside and hundreds if not thousands of games are played every day to GW?
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Martel732 wrote:Maybe. The contrast is just disheartening. It took Blizzard a few weeks in beta to see that 2 armor roaches were too good. GW had doubled down on tacs being gak for decades.
I mean, as I showed you before, to play 1000 games, it can take literally a decade, playing two games a week. So I'm sorry you're disheartened, but no real tabletop game is going to be able to rebalance as fast as a video-game, without using tournaments as data points. To do that, then, everyone needs to play the same games as the tournaments are playing, or they need to recognize that when they don't they're introducing imbalance into the game.
GW's greatest flaw is forcing every major tournament to use their rules, instead only releasing a rules packet for their own tournament. And I'd argue this is a difficult flaw to overcome, as a TO should be able to run their event as they see fit, rather than allowing GW to govern their every action.
Therefore, I can conclude that 40k will never be balanced in a reasonable time frame, and expecting it to be so is just going to get you disappointed.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
Unit1126PLL wrote:Martel732 wrote:Maybe. The contrast is just disheartening. It took Blizzard a few weeks in beta to see that 2 armor roaches were too good. GW had doubled down on tacs being gak for decades.
I mean, as I showed you before, to play 1000 games, it can take literally a decade, playing two games a week. So I'm sorry you're disheartened, but no real tabletop game is going to be able to rebalance as fast as a video-game, without using tournaments as data points. To do that, then, everyone needs to play the same games as the tournaments are playing, or they need to recognize that when they don't they're introducing imbalance into the game.
GW's greatest flaw is forcing every major tournament to use their rules, instead only releasing a rules packet for their own tournament. And I'd argue this is a difficult flaw to overcome, as a TO should be able to run their event as they see fit, rather than allowing GW to govern their every action.
Therefore, I can conclude that 40k will never be balanced in a reasonable time frame, and expecting it to be so is just going to get you disappointed.
Cool 2 guys playing 1000 games just twice per week is real playtesting.... or get a team of 100 highly favor members of the community at local GW headquarters for a week to play 20 games each and try to test everything possible while bouncing ideas off each other to get many different view points, and about 2000 games tested. All only costing GW no more than 50k, thats nothing for research that could potential double sales.
117900
Post by: Dandelion
Vaktathi wrote:
Ultimately, the armies are designed and balancd around certain concepts and specializations and lack of accesd to certain abilities, and very few abilities that intentionally interact with other factions.
Citation needed
11860
Post by: Martel732
90% of BA kits are unplayable atm. If they just dropped that to 50%, that would help sales a lot, I'd bet. Automatically Appended Next Post: Dandelion wrote: Vaktathi wrote:
Ultimately, the armies are designed and balancd around certain concepts and specializations and lack of accesd to certain abilities, and very few abilities that intentionally interact with other factions.
Citation needed
Agreed, I have no clue how they design/balance anything.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
To be fair, there is a valid point that GW's playtesting and balance is massively poor. They dont have the tools of someone like Blizzard for data gathering and analysis due to the nature of the game, but there is a lot of stuff that gets published that never should have gotten past the most casual of readings or playtesting, and a lot of stuff thats just been garbage or powerful forever over many editions that they never seem to acknowledge.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Vaktathi wrote:To be fair, there is a valid point that GW's playtesting and balance is massively poor. They dont have the tools of someone like Blizzard for data gathering and analysis due to the nature of the game, but there is a lot of stuff that gets published that never should have gotten past the most casual of readings or playtesting, and a lot of stuff thats just been garbage or powerful forever over many editions that they never seem to acknowledge.
Scatterbikes.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
What GW needs is a list building app designed for use in tournaments. If they were truly on the ball, they'd integrate with BCP, and work out an agreement to track aggregated data.
They could have the level of access to tournament data that's being discussed here.
I don't think they'll do anything like that though, because they are very much a "my IP! No touch!" company.
As it stands their balance team is wonky AF. They played in what was it, Adepticon? Their Tyranids rules writers got matched up with the guys running flyrant spam. The Tyranid rules writers got their rules wrong in the game, the players corrected them, and then smashed them with Flyrants. Guess what happened? The BIG FAQ was delayed a week, and the change that came out of it was the Flyrant nerf.
This is how they balance. No idea how people play, show up to a tournament, get rocked, nerf.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Amishprn86 wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Martel732 wrote:Maybe. The contrast is just disheartening. It took Blizzard a few weeks in beta to see that 2 armor roaches were too good. GW had doubled down on tacs being gak for decades.
I mean, as I showed you before, to play 1000 games, it can take literally a decade, playing two games a week. So I'm sorry you're disheartened, but no real tabletop game is going to be able to rebalance as fast as a video-game, without using tournaments as data points. To do that, then, everyone needs to play the same games as the tournaments are playing, or they need to recognize that when they don't they're introducing imbalance into the game.
GW's greatest flaw is forcing every major tournament to use their rules, instead only releasing a rules packet for their own tournament. And I'd argue this is a difficult flaw to overcome, as a TO should be able to run their event as they see fit, rather than allowing GW to govern their every action.
Therefore, I can conclude that 40k will never be balanced in a reasonable time frame, and expecting it to be so is just going to get you disappointed.
Cool 2 guys playing 1000 games just twice per week is real playtesting.... or get a team of 100 highly favor members of the community at local GW headquarters for a week to play 20 games each and try to test everything possible while bouncing ideas off each other to get many different view points, and about 2000 games tested. All only costing GW no more than 50k, thats nothing for research that could potential double sales.
20 3 hour games in a week is literally playing for 60 hours a week, for 100 people. So they're playing 12 hours a day, with zero breaks for food or rest, and you expect the playtest results to be flawless and without error?
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Vaktathi wrote: Xenomancers wrote:Tyel wrote:Martel732 wrote:Soup is not the problem. Miscosted units are. Just like formations weren't the problem. Miscosted units were. If you fix miscosted units, you fix soup.
This isn't true though because - much like formations - you have two things at the same price when they are not the same.
I mean take formations. A riptide was worth X.
But if you took 3, you paid 3X, but also got 3 quite valuable buffs on top of it.
So... surely it wasn't worth 3X any more. Your Riptide was better.
This is the same with soup. BA, Custodes, Knights etc on their own are one thing. BA/Custodes able to use 4-6 CP a turn potentially throughout the whole game because guard CP generation is probably more overpowered than basic guardsmen being 4 points is another.
I suspect if soup could be killed IG would be top tier, but lets kill soup first.
Well he is correct in the sense that if all units were properly costed you would kill soup. At least in the sense that soup wasn't auto include over mono armies.
Really though with AM - soup is a preference - not an auto include because gaurd doesn't need to go out of it's codex to find top tier competitive options in every phase of the game. I assure you - if all the gaurd primary armies just played mono guard the results wouldn't be much different in tournaments.
If it were just a preference thing we'd probably see a whole lot more monoIG armies and a lot less soup at top winning tables. If monoIG are just as good, I would posit that superfriends lists would be less popular simply because people wouldnt need to go out and buy extra stuff from other armies, these competitive soup list arent running multifaction armies because they want to display the full panoply of the Imperium for cool factor.
Just from playing a lot of online competitive games - I know for a fact that "metas" are mostly in the mind. You will have regional metas. Skill based metas. Sometimes metas shift for no reason. Right now the mind of IG players is that they need to play soup to win. It's just what people are playing. People are sheep basically. There is also the monetary cost. it's cheaper to buy 3 sheild captains for 60 bucks that buying 3 manitcores and 3 basalisks - it's also a lot easier to transport. There are a lot of reasons we don't see as many mono guard lists.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Dandelion wrote: Vaktathi wrote:
Ultimately, the armies are designed and balancd around certain concepts and specializations and lack of accesd to certain abilities, and very few abilities that intentionally interact with other factions.
Citation needed
If you dont see the apparent self evidentness of this, nothing I say is going to change that. The armies of 8E are largely the same as the armies of previous editons going back to before allies and soup. Their strengths and weaknesses and availability of certain capabilities forms their archetypes and playstyles didnt change, and the extremely limited and mostly afterthought/bolt-on nature of cross factional abilities testifies to the fact that they are largely designed as self containted forces. The release schedule, product presentation, packaging, product line releases, etc typically are self contained with very few exceptions.
The fact that allies and soup is also wildly variable in terms of what factions can meaningfully take advantage of it also speaks heavily to the fact that deep integration of cross faction armies isnt taken into particularly deep account.
The actual cross factional integration is suuuuuuper afterthought-ey. It's pretty much all in the detachment rules, with a very small handful of actual cross-factional interaction at the codex level.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Mono guard is basically immune to mortal wounds, regardless of how heavily they are spammed. As soon as they add custodes shield capts, mortal wounds become VERY effective again.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Vaktathi wrote:To be fair, there is a valid point that GW's playtesting and balance is massively poor. They dont have the tools of someone like Blizzard for data gathering and analysis due to the nature of the game, but there is a lot of stuff that gets published that never should have gotten past the most casual of readings or playtesting, and a lot of stuff thats just been garbage or powerful forever over many editions that they never seem to acknowledge.
Putting it bluntly, Corvus Belli has a list builder that is officially integrated into their Infinity Tournament System. And they still suffer glaring imbalances, units that never get taken, etc. They can 'see' lists that people save vs lists that people take in tournaments thanks to the requirement of the ITS Pins when playing.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Xenomancers wrote:
Just from playing a lot of online competitive games - I know for a fact that "metas" are mostly in the mind. You will have regional metas. Skill based metas. Sometimes metas shift for no reason. Right now the mind of IG players is that they need to play soup to win. It's just what people are playing. People are sheep basically. There is also the monetary cost. it's cheaper to buy 3 sheild captains for 60 bucks that buying 3 manitcores and 3 basalisks - it's also a lot easier to transport. There are a lot of reasons we don't see as many mono guard lists.
Unless we're going to make the argument that monoguard armies are particularly underrepresented relative to any other monofactionlist, monoIG lists should still be appearing in events and placing very often if they are that strong, but they dont appear to be. That cant just be shrugged off as "eh nobody anywhere feels like playing monoIG, they all went out and bought Celestine just because she looked cool".
Soup/allies/etc has been a major balance issue since GW reintroduced it in 2012, and ive had problems with it since they did that with 6E.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Vaktathi wrote: Xenomancers wrote:
Just from playing a lot of online competitive games - I know for a fact that "metas" are mostly in the mind. You will have regional metas. Skill based metas. Sometimes metas shift for no reason. Right now the mind of IG players is that they need to play soup to win. It's just what people are playing. People are sheep basically. There is also the monetary cost. it's cheaper to buy 3 sheild captains for 60 bucks that buying 3 manitcores and 3 basalisks - it's also a lot easier to transport. There are a lot of reasons we don't see as many mono guard lists.
Unless we're going to make the argument that monoguard armies are particularly underrepresented relative to any other monofactionlist, monoIG lists should still be appearing in events and placing very often if they are that strong, but they dont appear to be. That cant just be shrugged off as "eh nobody anywhere feels like playing monoIG, they all went out and bought Celestine just because she looked cool".
Soup/allies/etc has been a major balance issue since GW reintroduced it in 2012, and ive had problems with it since they did that with 6E.
If it's easier to just play the soup - and everyone is already playing that soup - that is what most people are going to do. This is common sense. There is also 0 restriction on taking soup. It doesn't hurt you in anyway to do it. It's not that "no one feels like" playing mono IG. It's more like people will pay less money to get the same power level almost every time. People will take 1 box of models to a game if they can over 2 boxes if it doesn't hurt their chances of winning.
I don't like allies ether. I wish mono was the only way to play tournaments.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
It's worth mentioning that there are mono-guard players showing up at these tournaments. They do exist.
They're just not placing well.
The most recent tournament, I think, had the first mono-guard list coming behind a Tau list (which is of course mono itself since tau lack allies).
116801
Post by: bananathug
Amishprn86 wrote:
Cool 2 guys playing 1000 games just twice per week is real playtesting.... or get a team of 100 highly favor members of the community at local GW headquarters for a week to play 20 games each and try to test everything possible while bouncing ideas off each other to get many different view points, and about 2000 games tested. All only costing GW no more than 50k, thats nothing for research that could potential double sales.
Hell stream the games. Record some and put them in the archives. Actually have competitive "official" GW battle reports. Monetize that shtuff.
Problem is probably getting that many people to respect a NDA but even then some leaks are great for publicity.
If GW was really invested they'd do a big tourney at the end of the year. Invite only and use that for input into the yearly CA. Invite every GT tourney top 10, podcaster and youtuber. Do a US and EU version. Would be great advertising and would get together a vocal and diverse group of 40k players. Modest prize support (custom/one of a kind minis would be so cool) maybe a modest per diem for food/lodging, would probably cost closer to 100-150k but the advertising/buzz created by getting 40k "celebs" together reporting on it seems like it would be easily worth it and some should be able to be re-cooped through monetizing the vids of the event. Rules FAQs/adjustments, a season based tight tourney rules (would actually make getting CA worth it for the missions) and a couple new/modified strats. It would make the CA a must buy for tourney players and given the popularity of tournaments should be an easy profit generator.
I guess they can get most of the benefit of this by just showing up to the GTs though...
And if GW couldn't tell that Marines (specifically primaris) were busted from inception it's not surprising they showed up to a tourney and got ROFL stomped. Although the majority of Dakka couldn't see it either based on how much hate the marines are trash tier threads got at the beginning of 8th...
112636
Post by: fe40k
Marmatag wrote:What GW needs is a list building app designed for use in tournaments. If they were truly on the ball, they'd integrate with BCP, and work out an agreement to track aggregated data.
They could have the level of access to tournament data that's being discussed here.
I don't think they'll do anything like that though, because they are very much a "my IP! No touch!" company.
As it stands their balance team is wonky AF. They played in what was it, Adepticon? Their Tyranids rules writers got matched up with the guys running flyrant spam. The Tyranid rules writers got their rules wrong in the game, the players corrected them, and then smashed them with Flyrants. Guess what happened? The BIG FAQ was delayed a week, and the change that came out of it was the Flyrant nerf.
This is how they balance. No idea how people play, show up to a tournament, get rocked, nerf.
Can you point me to what rules they got wrong, or a discussion there-of?
The sad part is - I'm not even surprised that this occured.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Xenomancers wrote: Vaktathi wrote: Xenomancers wrote:
Just from playing a lot of online competitive games - I know for a fact that "metas" are mostly in the mind. You will have regional metas. Skill based metas. Sometimes metas shift for no reason. Right now the mind of IG players is that they need to play soup to win. It's just what people are playing. People are sheep basically. There is also the monetary cost. it's cheaper to buy 3 sheild captains for 60 bucks that buying 3 manitcores and 3 basalisks - it's also a lot easier to transport. There are a lot of reasons we don't see as many mono guard lists.
Unless we're going to make the argument that monoguard armies are particularly underrepresented relative to any other monofactionlist, monoIG lists should still be appearing in events and placing very often if they are that strong, but they dont appear to be. That cant just be shrugged off as "eh nobody anywhere feels like playing monoIG, they all went out and bought Celestine just because she looked cool".
Soup/allies/etc has been a major balance issue since GW reintroduced it in 2012, and ive had problems with it since they did that with 6E.
If it's easier to just play the soup - and everyone is already playing that soup - that is what most people are going to do. This is common sense. There is also 0 restriction on taking soup. It doesn't hurt you in anyway to do it. It's not that "no one feels like" playing mono IG. It's more like people will pay less money to get the same power level almost every time. People will take 1 box of models to a game if they can over 2 boxes if it doesn't hurt their chances of winning.
Oh that I get, the issue is the players that already had full guard armies and didnt need to go buy anything and can play mono IG lists dont appear to consistently be placing anywhere near on par with the soup lists.
I don't like allies ether. I wish mono was the only way to play tournaments.
I'm with ya there, I would love to go back to that and would play such a tournament in a heartbeat. Thats still how I build all my armies, I'm loathe to even mix subfactions generally
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Vaktathi wrote:Oh that I get, the issue is the players that already had full guard armies and didnt need to go buy anything and can play mono IG lists dont appear to consistently be placing anywhere near on par with the soup lists.
This is one of the reasons why I hated them never doing an actual Conscript kit or throwing "Auxilia" on them.
People were saying Conscripts were a huge issue from the outset for 8th. No denying that. Solutions were weird and randomly thrown out there, but one I was personally fond of was:
6+ save, Autorifles or Autopistols+ CCWs or Shotguns.
Something that would require an actual kit for people to purchase. Something that would require an investment rather than just saying "My Guardsmen are Conscripts now!".
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
Unit1126PLL wrote: Amishprn86 wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Martel732 wrote:Maybe. The contrast is just disheartening. It took Blizzard a few weeks in beta to see that 2 armor roaches were too good. GW had doubled down on tacs being gak for decades. I mean, as I showed you before, to play 1000 games, it can take literally a decade, playing two games a week. So I'm sorry you're disheartened, but no real tabletop game is going to be able to rebalance as fast as a video-game, without using tournaments as data points. To do that, then, everyone needs to play the same games as the tournaments are playing, or they need to recognize that when they don't they're introducing imbalance into the game. GW's greatest flaw is forcing every major tournament to use their rules, instead only releasing a rules packet for their own tournament. And I'd argue this is a difficult flaw to overcome, as a TO should be able to run their event as they see fit, rather than allowing GW to govern their every action. Therefore, I can conclude that 40k will never be balanced in a reasonable time frame, and expecting it to be so is just going to get you disappointed. Cool 2 guys playing 1000 games just twice per week is real playtesting.... or get a team of 100 highly favor members of the community at local GW headquarters for a week to play 20 games each and try to test everything possible while bouncing ideas off each other to get many different view points, and about 2000 games tested. All only costing GW no more than 50k, thats nothing for research that could potential double sales. 20 3 hour games in a week is literally playing for 60 hours a week, for 100 people. So they're playing 12 hours a day, with zero breaks for food or rest, and you expect the playtest results to be flawless and without error? Who says you play 2k points? play a good amount at 1k, its just to test game mechanics, and to make sure some units are not insanely broken, do 4 games at 1k for the 1st 3-4 days then do a couple days with 2-3 games at 2k. You dont need to get to 2k games, it was an example.. or do you not understand examples? You can easily do 1k games played without trying with 1k games mixed in and a hand full of people. I think you missed the point tho, the point is, we can test large amounts of games. But none of that matters anyways, this is the 1st type of game 40k has done that is like 8th ed, there will be mistakes, but over all it is a very solid edition, 8.1 will be a much better game just like 6th to 7th was better and very similar.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Amishprn86 wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote: Amishprn86 wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Martel732 wrote:Maybe. The contrast is just disheartening. It took Blizzard a few weeks in beta to see that 2 armor roaches were too good. GW had doubled down on tacs being gak for decades.
I mean, as I showed you before, to play 1000 games, it can take literally a decade, playing two games a week. So I'm sorry you're disheartened, but no real tabletop game is going to be able to rebalance as fast as a video-game, without using tournaments as data points. To do that, then, everyone needs to play the same games as the tournaments are playing, or they need to recognize that when they don't they're introducing imbalance into the game.
GW's greatest flaw is forcing every major tournament to use their rules, instead only releasing a rules packet for their own tournament. And I'd argue this is a difficult flaw to overcome, as a TO should be able to run their event as they see fit, rather than allowing GW to govern their every action.
Therefore, I can conclude that 40k will never be balanced in a reasonable time frame, and expecting it to be so is just going to get you disappointed.
Cool 2 guys playing 1000 games just twice per week is real playtesting.... or get a team of 100 highly favor members of the community at local GW headquarters for a week to play 20 games each and try to test everything possible while bouncing ideas off each other to get many different view points, and about 2000 games tested. All only costing GW no more than 50k, thats nothing for research that could potential double sales.
20 3 hour games in a week is literally playing for 60 hours a week, for 100 people. So they're playing 12 hours a day, with zero breaks for food or rest, and you expect the playtest results to be flawless and without error?
Who says you play 2k points? play a good amount at 1k, its just to test game mechanics, and to make sure some units are not insanely broken, do 4 games at 1k for the 1st 3-4 days then do a couple days with 2-3 games at 2k. You dont need to get to 2k games, it was an example.. or do you not understand examples? You can easily do 1k games played without trying with 1k games mixed in and a hand full of people.
I think you missed the point tho, the point is, we can test large amounts of games.
The efficacy of a unit (and a codex) is affected by what point level it is played at. For example, mono-Imperial Knights armies will have 3 CP at 1k games since you can't run 3 Knights in a detachment.
And yes, we can test large amounts of games - by forcing 100 people to play for 60 hours a week with no breaks...
I think you don't get the staggering logistics here.
107480
Post by: Sleep Spell
Kanluwen wrote: Quickjager wrote: Kanluwen wrote:Soup is a problem, and Guard are suffering from a symptom of it.
I wouldn't call being IG suffering.
Acknowledge they're a tall cut above most and enjoy it.
The army might be in a fairly good place, but that doesn't mean that they will continue to be as time wears on.
We've already seen Commissars cut off at the knees. We've seen Conscripts change fairly significantly whether you want to admit it or not, Orders being automatic and then getting a requirement for a 4+ on just that unit is a significant change as is their reduction in unit size.
We also saw the, entirely justifiable mind you, shift to having BS specific points costs in response to Scion spam.
Guard are "suffering" from an overrepresentation and overfocus on one specific unit(their core fricking Infantry Squad) by outsiders who only look at the points values and see them getting souped in.
And after those nerf's happened the IG second stringers came out to play and still outperform most armies; being part of winning Soup lists and placing well among mono codex armies.
I do believe IG will continue to suffer partly justified because there is a token effort to balance all factions toward a common middle ground and partly unjustified to reduce the power of soup in which they often play a key role. However, at least by looking at the math presented in the thread I believe 5pt Infantry would fall into the former case.
On the bright side, we'll see SW next week who might be lugging some broken stuff in need of fixing and hopefully soon every codex will be released for 8th and we'll have a complete picture to work (gripe and moan about) with
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
Unit1126PLL wrote: Amishprn86 wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote: Amishprn86 wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Martel732 wrote:Maybe. The contrast is just disheartening. It took Blizzard a few weeks in beta to see that 2 armor roaches were too good. GW had doubled down on tacs being gak for decades.
I mean, as I showed you before, to play 1000 games, it can take literally a decade, playing two games a week. So I'm sorry you're disheartened, but no real tabletop game is going to be able to rebalance as fast as a video-game, without using tournaments as data points. To do that, then, everyone needs to play the same games as the tournaments are playing, or they need to recognize that when they don't they're introducing imbalance into the game.
GW's greatest flaw is forcing every major tournament to use their rules, instead only releasing a rules packet for their own tournament. And I'd argue this is a difficult flaw to overcome, as a TO should be able to run their event as they see fit, rather than allowing GW to govern their every action.
Therefore, I can conclude that 40k will never be balanced in a reasonable time frame, and expecting it to be so is just going to get you disappointed.
Cool 2 guys playing 1000 games just twice per week is real playtesting.... or get a team of 100 highly favor members of the community at local GW headquarters for a week to play 20 games each and try to test everything possible while bouncing ideas off each other to get many different view points, and about 2000 games tested. All only costing GW no more than 50k, thats nothing for research that could potential double sales.
20 3 hour games in a week is literally playing for 60 hours a week, for 100 people. So they're playing 12 hours a day, with zero breaks for food or rest, and you expect the playtest results to be flawless and without error?
Who says you play 2k points? play a good amount at 1k, its just to test game mechanics, and to make sure some units are not insanely broken, do 4 games at 1k for the 1st 3-4 days then do a couple days with 2-3 games at 2k. You dont need to get to 2k games, it was an example.. or do you not understand examples? You can easily do 1k games played without trying with 1k games mixed in and a hand full of people.
I think you missed the point tho, the point is, we can test large amounts of games.
The efficacy of a unit (and a codex) is affected by what point level it is played at. For example, mono-Imperial Knights armies will have 3 CP at 1k games since you can't run 3 Knights in a detachment.
And yes, we can test large amounts of games - by forcing 100 people to play for 60 hours a week with no breaks...
I think you don't get the staggering logistics here.
DUDE........ do you understand examples? who said it has to be done in a week? why cant they do it over 3 months? why cant they have a monthly get together and have the few members play test outside of the HQ? why cant they do video conference games? why cant they use PC programs? blah blah blah, you dont need to be at face, you dont actually need the correct models, and you can model CP's for smaller games if needs be..
Why do you even care to argue about this? I gave an example (that you took literally, b.c you cant use your imagination to work out how it can actually be done). take it for what it was, an example so you can have an idea that it could be done.
95818
Post by: Stux
w1zard wrote:For the last time... Stop comparing guard to SM. SM need buffs, period end of story. It's not fair to compare guard units to units from the second weakest codex this edition (and only second weakest because of the joke that is GK).
Stux wrote:Bare bones, the SM Captain does an average of 2.16 wounds to the Company Commanders, or 16pts of damage.
In return, 2 Company Commanders do 0.59 wounds, or 9pts of damage.
This doesn't account for the Company Commanders ordering themselves though, as there's nothing that directly helps the Fight Phase. However in the second turn they could Fix Bayonets themselves and Fight twice, which puts their damage output above the Captain in terms of points worth of damage.
Your math is incorrect.
You are correct when you say that a space marine captain armed with a bolt pistol/chainsword does 2.16 wounds to the commanders.
You are also correct when you say that 2 company commanders do 0.59 wounds to the SM captain.
However the SM captain does 16.2 "points" worth of damage to the commanders and the commanders do 8.73 "points" of damage back. I am going to assume you rounded in your favor to make the numbers look better.
You are also incorrect when you say that "Fix Bayonets" makes the commanders fight better than the SM captain. According to my math, even with "Fix Bayonets" active the commanders are only doing 15.39 "points" of damage to the captain.
Even in a scenario where we are comparing guard commanders to SM captains (which we shouldn't because SM sucks right now) the SM captain still comes out on top. I still stand by my statement that Guard commanders are nothing more than orders on a stick and are only meant to act as mobile buffs for infantry... while characters like SM captains are meant to be counter-chargers in the thick of the fighting as well as act as mobile buff bubbles.
I can see company commanders going up to 35 points if you want to be a stickler about it. But they really aren't worth 40.
Dude. I don't have a horse in this race. I don't really care which is better, I was just supplying numbers. You're seriously complaining about rounding 16.2 to 16 to get a whole number of points? That is ridiculous and shows your own bias quite frankly.
How is a group of units that does 8.73pts of damage in a fight phase only doing 15.39pts if they fight twice exactly anyway?
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Amishprn86 wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote: Amishprn86 wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote: Amishprn86 wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Martel732 wrote:Maybe. The contrast is just disheartening. It took Blizzard a few weeks in beta to see that 2 armor roaches were too good. GW had doubled down on tacs being gak for decades.
I mean, as I showed you before, to play 1000 games, it can take literally a decade, playing two games a week. So I'm sorry you're disheartened, but no real tabletop game is going to be able to rebalance as fast as a video-game, without using tournaments as data points. To do that, then, everyone needs to play the same games as the tournaments are playing, or they need to recognize that when they don't they're introducing imbalance into the game.
GW's greatest flaw is forcing every major tournament to use their rules, instead only releasing a rules packet for their own tournament. And I'd argue this is a difficult flaw to overcome, as a TO should be able to run their event as they see fit, rather than allowing GW to govern their every action.
Therefore, I can conclude that 40k will never be balanced in a reasonable time frame, and expecting it to be so is just going to get you disappointed.
Cool 2 guys playing 1000 games just twice per week is real playtesting.... or get a team of 100 highly favor members of the community at local GW headquarters for a week to play 20 games each and try to test everything possible while bouncing ideas off each other to get many different view points, and about 2000 games tested. All only costing GW no more than 50k, thats nothing for research that could potential double sales.
20 3 hour games in a week is literally playing for 60 hours a week, for 100 people. So they're playing 12 hours a day, with zero breaks for food or rest, and you expect the playtest results to be flawless and without error?
Who says you play 2k points? play a good amount at 1k, its just to test game mechanics, and to make sure some units are not insanely broken, do 4 games at 1k for the 1st 3-4 days then do a couple days with 2-3 games at 2k. You dont need to get to 2k games, it was an example.. or do you not understand examples? You can easily do 1k games played without trying with 1k games mixed in and a hand full of people.
I think you missed the point tho, the point is, we can test large amounts of games.
The efficacy of a unit (and a codex) is affected by what point level it is played at. For example, mono-Imperial Knights armies will have 3 CP at 1k games since you can't run 3 Knights in a detachment.
And yes, we can test large amounts of games - by forcing 100 people to play for 60 hours a week with no breaks...
I think you don't get the staggering logistics here.
DUDE........ do you understand examples? who said it has to be done in a week? why cant they do it over 3 months? why cant they have a monthly get together and have the few members play test outside of the HQ? why cant they do video conference games? why cant they use PC programs? blah blah blah, you dont need to be at face, you dont actually need the correct models, and you can model CP's for smaller games if needs be..
Why do you even care to argue about this? I gave an example (that you took literally, b.c you cant use your imagination to work out how it can actually be done). take it for what it was, an example so you can have an idea that it could be done.
Let me go point by point:
1) If it isn't done in a week, then the gamestate will have changed in 3 months, with new codexes being released, for example. 40k is never "finished".
2) Because this would take ages to get the 1000 games Martel wants to have the game count as "playtested". If you have 16 people meeting once a month, you will have played 1000 playtest games after a DECADE of testing.
3) What is a "video conference game"? How does that even work? You mean can random people stream casual games to them? Sure, probably. But they'd have to be able to step in and tell the casual players how to play the game the correct way, to ensure consistency.
4) If you can build a computer program that properly models every single possible interaction in the entire gamespace in which 40k exists at quicker than real-time, then you probably deserve a Nobel Prize for advancing the state of the art in computing.
And you absolutely need to be at face so the rules writers can record the data they need to balance the game, as well as ensure the games are always played to the same exacting standards. You also need the correct models, because a real, effective playtest will test things like the Line-of-Sight rules. I don't know what you mean by modeling CPs...
At any rate, you gave me an example, and I blew it up precisely because it was a silly example. It didn't solve Martel's fundamental problem with playtesting the game at all.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
Unit1126PLL wrote: Amishprn86 wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote: Amishprn86 wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote: Amishprn86 wrote: Unit1126PLL wrote:Martel732 wrote:Maybe. The contrast is just disheartening. It took Blizzard a few weeks in beta to see that 2 armor roaches were too good. GW had doubled down on tacs being gak for decades.
I mean, as I showed you before, to play 1000 games, it can take literally a decade, playing two games a week. So I'm sorry you're disheartened, but no real tabletop game is going to be able to rebalance as fast as a video-game, without using tournaments as data points. To do that, then, everyone needs to play the same games as the tournaments are playing, or they need to recognize that when they don't they're introducing imbalance into the game.
GW's greatest flaw is forcing every major tournament to use their rules, instead only releasing a rules packet for their own tournament. And I'd argue this is a difficult flaw to overcome, as a TO should be able to run their event as they see fit, rather than allowing GW to govern their every action.
Therefore, I can conclude that 40k will never be balanced in a reasonable time frame, and expecting it to be so is just going to get you disappointed.
Cool 2 guys playing 1000 games just twice per week is real playtesting.... or get a team of 100 highly favor members of the community at local GW headquarters for a week to play 20 games each and try to test everything possible while bouncing ideas off each other to get many different view points, and about 2000 games tested. All only costing GW no more than 50k, thats nothing for research that could potential double sales.
20 3 hour games in a week is literally playing for 60 hours a week, for 100 people. So they're playing 12 hours a day, with zero breaks for food or rest, and you expect the playtest results to be flawless and without error?
Who says you play 2k points? play a good amount at 1k, its just to test game mechanics, and to make sure some units are not insanely broken, do 4 games at 1k for the 1st 3-4 days then do a couple days with 2-3 games at 2k. You dont need to get to 2k games, it was an example.. or do you not understand examples? You can easily do 1k games played without trying with 1k games mixed in and a hand full of people.
I think you missed the point tho, the point is, we can test large amounts of games.
The efficacy of a unit (and a codex) is affected by what point level it is played at. For example, mono-Imperial Knights armies will have 3 CP at 1k games since you can't run 3 Knights in a detachment.
And yes, we can test large amounts of games - by forcing 100 people to play for 60 hours a week with no breaks...
I think you don't get the staggering logistics here.
DUDE........ do you understand examples? who said it has to be done in a week? why cant they do it over 3 months? why cant they have a monthly get together and have the few members play test outside of the HQ? why cant they do video conference games? why cant they use PC programs? blah blah blah, you dont need to be at face, you dont actually need the correct models, and you can model CP's for smaller games if needs be..
Why do you even care to argue about this? I gave an example (that you took literally, b.c you cant use your imagination to work out how it can actually be done). take it for what it was, an example so you can have an idea that it could be done.
Let me go point by point:
1) If it isn't done in a week, then the gamestate will have changed in 3 months, with new codexes being released, for example. 40k is never "finished".
2) Because this would take ages to get the 1000 games Martel wants to have the game count as "playtested". If you have 16 people meeting once a month, you will have played 1000 playtest games after a DECADE of testing.
3) What is a "video conference game"? How does that even work? You mean can random people stream casual games to them? Sure, probably. But they'd have to be able to step in and tell the casual players how to play the game the correct way, to ensure consistency.
4) If you can build a computer program that properly models every single possible interaction in the entire gamespace in which 40k exists at quicker than real-time, then you probably deserve a Nobel Prize for advancing the state of the art in computing.
And you absolutely need to be at face so the rules writers can record the data they need to balance the game, as well as ensure the games are always played to the same exacting standards. You also need the correct models, because a real, effective playtest will test things like the Line-of-Sight rules. I don't know what you mean by modeling CPs...
At any rate, you gave me an example, and I blew it up precisely because it was a silly example. It didn't solve Martel's fundamental problem with playtesting the game at all.
Im talking about a program like Vassal...... one were the players still moves the sprites and rolls dice.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Vaktathi wrote: Xenomancers wrote: Vaktathi wrote: Xenomancers wrote:
Just from playing a lot of online competitive games - I know for a fact that "metas" are mostly in the mind. You will have regional metas. Skill based metas. Sometimes metas shift for no reason. Right now the mind of IG players is that they need to play soup to win. It's just what people are playing. People are sheep basically. There is also the monetary cost. it's cheaper to buy 3 sheild captains for 60 bucks that buying 3 manitcores and 3 basalisks - it's also a lot easier to transport. There are a lot of reasons we don't see as many mono guard lists.
Unless we're going to make the argument that monoguard armies are particularly underrepresented relative to any other monofactionlist, monoIG lists should still be appearing in events and placing very often if they are that strong, but they dont appear to be. That cant just be shrugged off as "eh nobody anywhere feels like playing monoIG, they all went out and bought Celestine just because she looked cool".
Soup/allies/etc has been a major balance issue since GW reintroduced it in 2012, and ive had problems with it since they did that with 6E.
If it's easier to just play the soup - and everyone is already playing that soup - that is what most people are going to do. This is common sense. There is also 0 restriction on taking soup. It doesn't hurt you in anyway to do it. It's not that "no one feels like" playing mono IG. It's more like people will pay less money to get the same power level almost every time. People will take 1 box of models to a game if they can over 2 boxes if it doesn't hurt their chances of winning.
Oh that I get, the issue is the players that already had full guard armies and didnt need to go buy anything and can play mono IG lists dont appear to consistently be placing anywhere near on par with the soup lists.
I don't like allies ether. I wish mono was the only way to play tournaments.
I'm with ya there, I would love to go back to that and would play such a tournament in a heartbeat. Thats still how I build all my armies, I'm loathe to even mix subfactions generally 
Part of the issue is the top tournament players aren't pure guard players and at the very top level luck and skill are what makes the last difference. Also Guard placed as the second mono faction list just behind Tau who are enforced mono faction.
Thats not exactly bad.
Also a lot of the soup ingredients will drop a lot of power when GW fix the CP mechanics specifically the guard 5+, 5+ and 5 for 195 points. A raven Castellen without 5CP a turn isn't rocking a 3++, rerolling every one. Slamguinius isn't going to be destroying everything without eating all those pregame and fight twice CP.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Ice, you're saying the CP battery is an issue. To which I agree 100%, and I think most Guard players do too.
But that's not a Guard issue-Guard with unlimited CP are stronger than Guard with limited CP by a decent, but not overwhelming margin. It's others that need the CP that's real bad.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
JNAProductions wrote:Ice, you're saying the CP battery is an issue. To which I agree 100%, and I think most Guard players do too.
But that's not a Guard issue-Guard with unlimited CP are stronger than Guard with limited CP by a decent, but not overwhelming margin. It's others that need the CP that's real bad.
However Mono Knights, Mono Blood Angles and Mono Custodes arn't making the top 20/25 of the BAO like Astra Militarum. Remove that CP and their power drops a lot.
Guard don't see remotely the same drop in power when you swap Shield captains and knights for guard units.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Ice_can wrote: JNAProductions wrote:Ice, you're saying the CP battery is an issue. To which I agree 100%, and I think most Guard players do too.
But that's not a Guard issue-Guard with unlimited CP are stronger than Guard with limited CP by a decent, but not overwhelming margin. It's others that need the CP that's real bad.
However Mono Knights, Mono Blood Angles and Mono Custodes arn't making the top 20/25 of the BAO like Astra Militarum. Remove that CP and their power drops a lot.
Guard don't see remotely the same drop in power when you swap Shield captains and knights for guard units.
That's fair. But, with the exception of Blood Angels, the three non-Guard armies you listed are DESIGNED to be allied into other forces.
Blood Angels, on their own, have issues similar to all Space Marines, though they have some standouts that rock in soup.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Standout. Singular. Scouts are just life support and 4 more cp.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
JNAProductions wrote:Ice_can wrote: JNAProductions wrote:Ice, you're saying the CP battery is an issue. To which I agree 100%, and I think most Guard players do too.
But that's not a Guard issue-Guard with unlimited CP are stronger than Guard with limited CP by a decent, but not overwhelming margin. It's others that need the CP that's real bad.
However Mono Knights, Mono Blood Angles and Mono Custodes arn't making the top 20/25 of the BAO like Astra Militarum. Remove that CP and their power drops a lot.
Guard don't see remotely the same drop in power when you swap Shield captains and knights for guard units.
That's fair. But, with the exception of Blood Angels, the three non-Guard armies you listed are DESIGNED to be allied into other forces.
Blood Angels, on their own, have issues similar to all Space Marines, though they have some standouts that rock in soup.
You got a primary source for that statement that Knights and Custodes are "Designed to be allied" statement as the knight codex doesn't say it's designed to not be used solo.
Fairly sure custodes don't have said "Designed to be allied" statement in their codex.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
No, but the Custodes have Wargear and Relics specifically designed to be used in Imperium soup. (In fact, the Vexila Defensor gives a 5++, which all Custodes already have. But since it applies to all Imperium models, it's actually not bad, in soup.)
IK have at least one Strat specifically designed to be used with soup as well. I'm AFB at the moment, but it's basically have a Knight stand still to give a 5++ to nearby allied units.
Now, knowing GW, they probably expected you to be running Custodes with Marines or Knights with Ad Mech, and not just pop on a Guard Battery for the insane CP regen. But GW is not known for making the rules work well.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
JNAProductions wrote:No, but the Custodes have Wargear and Relics specifically designed to be used in Imperium soup. (In fact, the Vexila Defensor gives a 5++, which all Custodes already have. But since it applies to all Imperium models, it's actually not bad, in soup.)
IK have at least one Strat specifically designed to be used with soup as well. I'm AFB at the moment, but it's basically have a Knight stand still to give a 5++ to nearby allied units.
Now, knowing GW, they probably expected you to be running Custodes with Marines or Knights with Ad Mech, and not just pop on a Guard Battery for the insane CP regen. But GW is not known for making the rules work well.
Ok it's so bad I moved it to the unusable strategums pile (my bad) But on that note admech already have a 6++ that can be boosted with a +1Sv for 1CP anyway dont they? So maybe its just GW'S rules team not having a clue. But give up moving and spend 2 CP for a 5++  weak sauce.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Well yeah, it sucks. That doesn't change that IK are intended to be used with other Imperium factions.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Ice_can wrote: JNAProductions wrote:No, but the Custodes have Wargear and Relics specifically designed to be used in Imperium soup. (In fact, the Vexila Defensor gives a 5++, which all Custodes already have. But since it applies to all Imperium models, it's actually not bad, in soup.)
IK have at least one Strat specifically designed to be used with soup as well. I'm AFB at the moment, but it's basically have a Knight stand still to give a 5++ to nearby allied units.
Now, knowing GW, they probably expected you to be running Custodes with Marines or Knights with Ad Mech, and not just pop on a Guard Battery for the insane CP regen. But GW is not known for making the rules work well.
Ok it's so bad I moved it to the unusable strategums pile (my bad) But on that note admech already have a 6++ that can be boosted with a +1Sv for 1CP anyway dont they? So maybe its just GW'S rules team not having a clue. But give up moving and spend 2 CP for a 5++  weak sauce.
No, Admech cannot boost their 6++ with any stratagems.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Ice_can wrote: JNAProductions wrote:No, but the Custodes have Wargear and Relics specifically designed to be used in Imperium soup. (In fact, the Vexila Defensor gives a 5++, which all Custodes already have. But since it applies to all Imperium models, it's actually not bad, in soup.)
IK have at least one Strat specifically designed to be used with soup as well. I'm AFB at the moment, but it's basically have a Knight stand still to give a 5++ to nearby allied units.
Now, knowing GW, they probably expected you to be running Custodes with Marines or Knights with Ad Mech, and not just pop on a Guard Battery for the insane CP regen. But GW is not known for making the rules work well.
Ok it's so bad I moved it to the unusable strategums pile (my bad) But on that note admech already have a 6++ that can be boosted with a +1Sv for 1CP anyway dont they?
Rotate Ion Shields is Questor Mechanicus and only applies to things from Questor Mechanicus that have an Invulnerable Save. That unit gets to add 1 to their Invulnerable Save until the end of the enemy shooting phase.
So maybe its just GW'S rules team not having a clue. But give up moving and spend 2 CP for a 5++  weak sauce.
I mean, 2 CP for a 5++ aura on something that can't normally get it when you're a unit that isn't going to move anyways?
That doesn't sound too shabby to me.
But this is where these kinds of issues lie...you see something you've "moved to the unusable stratagems pile" while someone else might see a cool, fluffy way to get some extra utility out of a big allied piece.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Kanluwen wrote:Ice_can wrote: JNAProductions wrote:No, but the Custodes have Wargear and Relics specifically designed to be used in Imperium soup. (In fact, the Vexila Defensor gives a 5++, which all Custodes already have. But since it applies to all Imperium models, it's actually not bad, in soup.)
IK have at least one Strat specifically designed to be used with soup as well. I'm AFB at the moment, but it's basically have a Knight stand still to give a 5++ to nearby allied units.
Now, knowing GW, they probably expected you to be running Custodes with Marines or Knights with Ad Mech, and not just pop on a Guard Battery for the insane CP regen. But GW is not known for making the rules work well.
Ok it's so bad I moved it to the unusable strategums pile (my bad) But on that note admech already have a 6++ that can be boosted with a +1Sv for 1CP anyway dont they?
Rotate Ion Shields is Questor Mechanicus and only applies to things from Questor Mechanicus that have an Invulnerable Save. That unit gets to add 1 to their Invulnerable Save until the end of the enemy shooting phase.
So maybe its just GW'S rules team not having a clue. But give up moving and spend 2 CP for a 5++  weak sauce.
I mean, 2 CP for a 5++ aura on something that can't normally get it when you're a unit that isn't going to move anyways?
That doesn't sound too shabby to me.
But this is where these kinds of issues lie...you see something you've "moved to the unusable stratagems pile" while someone else might see a cool, fluffy way to get some extra utility out of a big allied piece.
Spending CP to give stuff with a 5++ or better a 5++ is useless. Not to mention my Marines can already do this while moving and without spending CP.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Ice_can wrote:Spending CP to give stuff with a 5++ or better a 5++ is useless. Not to mention my Marines can already do this while moving and without spending CP.
You understand that my statement was predicated upon:
I have a unit that does not already have an Invulnerable Save (at all) or better than a 5++ Invulnerable Save
I have a type of Knight that wants to stay still and fire or has some special rules relating to staying still and getting benefits
I have Command Points in abundance.
It isn't "useless" to do that. It means I've given myself something I didn't already have by virtue of a Stratagem that's intended to give me something I might not have already had.
42382
Post by: Unit1126PLL
Yep. I can fairly trivially give a Baneblade a 5++ thanks to the Knight, and make it a 4++ with psychic powers to boot.
Heck, in a big enough game, I could do it to 3 Baneblades.
That's why it's two CP.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
Unit1126PLL wrote:Yep. I can fairly trivially give a Baneblade a 5++ thanks to the Knight, and make it a 4++ with psychic powers to boot.
Heck, in a big enough game, I could do it to 3 Baneblades.
That's why it's two CP.
Hmm i didnt read the wording on it, that sounds fun honestly in larger games.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Unit1126PLL wrote:Yep. I can fairly trivially give a Baneblade a 5++ thanks to the Knight, and make it a 4++ with psychic powers to boot.
Heck, in a big enough game, I could do it to 3 Baneblades.
That's why it's two CP.
if you can get one wholely withing 6inches of the base your doing well
108023
Post by: Marmatag
fe40k wrote: Marmatag wrote:What GW needs is a list building app designed for use in tournaments. If they were truly on the ball, they'd integrate with BCP, and work out an agreement to track aggregated data.
They could have the level of access to tournament data that's being discussed here.
I don't think they'll do anything like that though, because they are very much a "my IP! No touch!" company.
As it stands their balance team is wonky AF. They played in what was it, Adepticon? Their Tyranids rules writers got matched up with the guys running flyrant spam. The Tyranid rules writers got their rules wrong in the game, the players corrected them, and then smashed them with Flyrants. Guess what happened? The BIG FAQ was delayed a week, and the change that came out of it was the Flyrant nerf.
This is how they balance. No idea how people play, show up to a tournament, get rocked, nerf.
Can you point me to what rules they got wrong, or a discussion there-of?
The sad part is - I'm not even surprised that this occured.
No, these are from eye-witness accounts from some folks I know who were there.
117900
Post by: Dandelion
Vaktathi wrote:Dandelion wrote: Vaktathi wrote:
Ultimately, the armies are designed and balancd around certain concepts and specializations and lack of accesd to certain abilities, and very few abilities that intentionally interact with other factions.
Citation needed
If you dont see the apparent self evidentness of this, nothing I say is going to change that. The armies of 8E are largely the same as the armies of previous editons going back to before allies and soup. Their strengths and weaknesses and availability of certain capabilities forms their archetypes and playstyles didnt change, and the extremely limited and mostly afterthought/bolt-on nature of cross factional abilities testifies to the fact that they are largely designed as self containted forces. The release schedule, product presentation, packaging, product line releases, etc typically are self contained with very few exceptions.
The fact that allies and soup is also wildly variable in terms of what factions can meaningfully take advantage of it also speaks heavily to the fact that deep integration of cross faction armies isnt taken into particularly deep account.
The actual cross factional integration is suuuuuuper afterthought-ey. It's pretty much all in the detachment rules, with a very small handful of actual cross-factional interaction at the codex level.
Self evidence is not a good argument for someone else's motive.
But a citation is.
BATTLE BROTHERS The beta version of Battle Brothers is a brand new matched play rule we’d like to test. When we originally wrote this edition of Warhammer 40,000 we wanted to make sure that your army could include appropriate allies. For example, in an Imperium army, Imperial Guardsmen and Space Marines should be able to fight side-by-side, and in a Chaos army Chaos Space Marines should be able to burn the galaxy alongside their daemonic minions. The rules for what units could be included in each Detachment were therefore very relaxed, but this has since led to some very ‘mixed’ Detachments that include units from far more Factions than we originally envisioned. We feel that these esoteric mixed Detachments are far better suited to narrative or open play, and so we have decided to trial this rule for matched play games. This means that you can still include appropriate allies, but now they might need to be included in a different Detachment.
Now they do expound on the notion of "appropriate allies" but my take away is that allies and "soup" were certainly one of the main considerations of 8th, not an "afterthought".
119427
Post by: gbghg
So Field of Fire gaming just put out a blog post about the best armies at BAO, listing them via the average score. Of note to this discussion is the fact that Guard came in below the average score, behind Tau, Eldar, and Tyranid's. make of it what you will but it's a solidly mid tier result. https://fieldoffiregaming.com/best-armies-of-bao-2018/
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
gbghg wrote:So Field of Fire gaming just put out a blog post about the best armies at BAO, listing them via the average score. Of note to this discussion is the fact that Guard came in below the average score, behind Tau, Eldar, and Tyranid's. make of it what you will but it's a solidly mid tier result. https://fieldoffiregaming.com/best-armies-of-bao-2018/
This is for "main" armies correct? How main IG players had IG lists competitive and not fun tank spam lists? How many of them had allies with Knights, BA or custodes, etc..?
We just need all the information before saying its good or not.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
gbghg wrote:So Field of Fire gaming just put out a blog post about the best armies at BAO, listing them via the average score. Of note to this discussion is the fact that Guard came in below the average score, behind Tau, Eldar, and Tyranid's. make of it what you will but it's a solidly mid tier result. https://fieldoffiregaming.com/best-armies-of-bao-2018/
I linked these stats from FLG like 20 pages back and they were never replied to.
The fact is as a primary army (this includes soup that increases its competitiveness) IG did not make the top list in points earned per round or win percentage.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
Asmodios wrote: gbghg wrote:So Field of Fire gaming just put out a blog post about the best armies at BAO, listing them via the average score. Of note to this discussion is the fact that Guard came in below the average score, behind Tau, Eldar, and Tyranid's. make of it what you will but it's a solidly mid tier result. https://fieldoffiregaming.com/best-armies-of-bao-2018/
I linked these stats from FLG like 20 pages back and they were never replied to.
The fact is as a primary army (this includes soup that increases its competitiveness) IG did not make the top list in points earned per round or win percentage.
But no mono army does, thats why i asked if they are mono, or fluff, or if they are soup but with the main army as IG. ?
11860
Post by: Martel732
Again, time limits hurt IG a lot, imo.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
But if those lists were mono faction then its not fair to compare against soup b.c almost no mono faction gets to top of tournaments.
List like these really needs to say how many points they are taking, those DA might be 700pts, but we dont know without looking many lists.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
The BAO has chess clocks for all tables with a winning record on day 2 and only one single game had a player run out of time and not make it to the natural conclusion.... did you even bother to watch the FLG video on the event? Automatically Appended Next Post: Amishprn86 wrote:
But if those lists were mono faction then its not fair to compare against soup b.c almost no mono faction gets to top of tournaments.
List like these really needs to say how many points they are taking, those DA might be 700pts, but we dont know without looking many lists.
Primary faction means the majority of points went into that faction. This means statistically the more IG you brought compared to things like DA your win percentage actually went down. The only pure army in the top 10 was a knight player next closest was 19th with Tau
11860
Post by: Martel732
No, I didn't watch the video. Chess clocks are still time limits.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
Asmodios wrote:
The BAO has chess clocks for all tables with a winning record on day 2 and only one single game had a player run out of time and not make it to the natural conclusion.... did you even bother to watch the FLG video on the event?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amishprn86 wrote:
But if those lists were mono faction then its not fair to compare against soup b.c almost no mono faction gets to top of tournaments.
List like these really needs to say how many points they are taking, those DA might be 700pts, but we dont know without looking many lists.
Primary faction means the majority of points went into that faction. This means statistically the more IG you brought compared to things like DA your win percentage actually went down. The only pure army in the top 10 was a knight player next closest was 19th with Tau
Well according to ITC its what is the most points in 1 detachment, so you could have 2 detachments of IG and 1 Detachments of DA, the DA could be 700 points and the 2 IG detachments could be 650pts each., over all its more IG but its army type of DA.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
If you remember the top five lists I linked, they all just used Guardsmen as a CP battery.
It's why I asked earlier-is this change intended for competitive play, or casual play?
85299
Post by: Spoletta
That's why i say that guardsmen could probably go to 5 points but i suggest to wait for it. It's not ruining any one's game (it's only a small point difference in the majority of lists), and i want to wait for the soup CP fix before wielding the nerf bat. After guards are no longer used as CP batteries, we can have some clear and useful data. Before that, we only get some muddy informations that we don't know if they come truly from the IG codex or from some strange interaction.
117771
Post by: w1zard
Stux wrote:Dude. I don't have a horse in this race. I don't really care which is better, I was just supplying numbers. You're seriously complaining about rounding 16.2 to 16 to get a whole number of points? That is ridiculous and shows your own bias quite frankly.
Bullgak. Your rounding totaled about half a point (both ways) which is actually a pretty significant margin considering that a wound for a commander is worth 7.5 "points". You spent the effort to get the original math right but then were dishonest about the numbers and got called on it.
Stux wrote:How is a group of units that does 8.73pts of damage in a fight phase only doing 15.39pts if they fight twice exactly anyway?
Because fighting twice doesn't mean they get to shoot their pistols twice. You factored in the pistol shots for both the SM captain and the company commanders in the original calculation.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Guard were present in quite a few of the top 10 lists. More than any other faction.
It is not fair at all to have Knight stratagems fueled by Guard. Knights have *amazing* stratagems, but they're costed and designed around Knights having a much smaller CP pool, due to their cost. They are not supposed to be spamming stratagems the entire game with complete disregard for resource management.
Speaking purely from a tournament standpoint, this balance aspect is absurd. Regenerating CP should be very restricted.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Marmatag wrote:Guard were present in quite a few of the top 10 lists. More than any other faction.
It is not fair at all to have Knight stratagems fueled by Guard. Knights have *amazing* stratagems, but they're costed and designed around Knights having a much smaller CP pool, due to their cost. They are not supposed to be spamming stratagems the entire game with complete disregard for resource management.
Speaking purely from a tournament standpoint, this balance aspect is absurd. Regenerating CP should be very restricted.
I don't think anyone is arguing against that. IMO CP regeneration all together should be taken out of the game. It gives such an insane advantage to any faction that has access to it and is always the "obvious" choice while list building. Automatically Appended Next Post: Martel732 wrote:No, I didn't watch the video. Chess clocks are still time limits.
Just to get the logic down.... All but 1 game not coming to its natural conclusion somehow hurt guard because there is a limit... even though only one guy managed to hit the limit in one game?
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Marmatag wrote:Guard were present in quite a few of the top 10 lists. More than any other faction.
It is not fair at all to have Knight stratagems fueled by Guard. Knights have *amazing* stratagems, but they're costed and designed around Knights having a much smaller CP pool, due to their cost. They are not supposed to be spamming stratagems the entire game with complete disregard for resource management.
Speaking purely from a tournament standpoint, this balance aspect is absurd. Regenerating CP should be very restricted.
Yes, in very small amounts, primarily as a CP Battery.
And I'd be down for removing Kurov's entirely and nerfing Grand Strategist to a 5+ per strat you spend, or even replacing it with something different entirely.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
JNAProductions wrote: Marmatag wrote:Guard were present in quite a few of the top 10 lists. More than any other faction.
It is not fair at all to have Knight stratagems fueled by Guard. Knights have *amazing* stratagems, but they're costed and designed around Knights having a much smaller CP pool, due to their cost. They are not supposed to be spamming stratagems the entire game with complete disregard for resource management.
Speaking purely from a tournament standpoint, this balance aspect is absurd. Regenerating CP should be very restricted.
Yes, in very small amounts, primarily as a CP Battery.
And I'd be down for removing Kurov's entirely and nerfing Grand Strategist to a 5+ per strat you spend, or even replacing it with something different entirely.
It's too strong you either have to give every army an equivalent (which is boring and stifles creativity in builds) or just remove it completely. Removing CP regeneration also makes balance as a whole much easier
71534
Post by: Bharring
While I agree that a Guard player should be able to fit in their entire game in the time limit allowed, evidence that few, if any, were stopped by the clock does not necessarily negate the argument.
Players knew when selecting/building their list/army for this even that they would be timed. *If* the clock would hurt a way of building an IG army - or even IG as a whole - *then* players would not typically bring that build/army to the event.
I still think it's enough time to do everything the IG player needs to do, but the lack of scads of IG players failing to the chess clock doesn't necessarily mean IG players wouldn't be better off without it.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
JNAProductions wrote: Marmatag wrote:Guard were present in quite a few of the top 10 lists. More than any other faction.
It is not fair at all to have Knight stratagems fueled by Guard. Knights have *amazing* stratagems, but they're costed and designed around Knights having a much smaller CP pool, due to their cost. They are not supposed to be spamming stratagems the entire game with complete disregard for resource management.
Speaking purely from a tournament standpoint, this balance aspect is absurd. Regenerating CP should be very restricted.
Yes, in very small amounts, primarily as a CP Battery.
And I'd be down for removing Kurov's entirely and nerfing Grand Strategist to a 5+ per strat you spend, or even replacing it with something different entirely.
This is factually untrue, people bring more than the minimum of guard. They provide far more value than just CP.
71534
Post by: Bharring
What I've gleaned from this thread:
1) 5ppm Guardsmen *might* be an improvement, but its the CP combo that's really OP in the IG book. Fixing that would have more general agreement and impact on the game.
2) [Some negative things just shouldn't be said. So I'll filter myself before posting.]
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Bharring wrote:While I agree that a Guard player should be able to fit in their entire game in the time limit allowed, evidence that few, if any, were stopped by the clock does not necessarily negate the argument.
Players knew when selecting/building their list/army for this even that they would be timed. *If* the clock would hurt a way of building an IG army - or even IG as a whole - *then* players would not typically bring that build/army to the event.
I still think it's enough time to do everything the IG player needs to do, but the lack of scads of IG players failing to the chess clock doesn't necessarily mean IG players wouldn't be better off without it.
So if you follow this thread the BAO is being used as evidence that IG is broken
Then when presented with the fact that IG as a primary faction did not make the top of win percentage or points earned per round its now morphed into "you cant use this event because clocks hurt guard"
I mean seriously its got to be one or the other. Automatically Appended Next Post: Marmatag wrote: JNAProductions wrote: Marmatag wrote:Guard were present in quite a few of the top 10 lists. More than any other faction.
It is not fair at all to have Knight stratagems fueled by Guard. Knights have *amazing* stratagems, but they're costed and designed around Knights having a much smaller CP pool, due to their cost. They are not supposed to be spamming stratagems the entire game with complete disregard for resource management.
Speaking purely from a tournament standpoint, this balance aspect is absurd. Regenerating CP should be very restricted.
Yes, in very small amounts, primarily as a CP Battery.
And I'd be down for removing Kurov's entirely and nerfing Grand Strategist to a 5+ per strat you spend, or even replacing it with something different entirely.
This is factually untrue, people bring more than the minimum of guard. They provide far more value than just CP.
People that brought more then minimum guard saw their win percentage and points per round fall on average
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Asmodios wrote:Bharring wrote:While I agree that a Guard player should be able to fit in their entire game in the time limit allowed, evidence that few, if any, were stopped by the clock does not necessarily negate the argument. Players knew when selecting/building their list/army for this even that they would be timed. *If* the clock would hurt a way of building an IG army - or even IG as a whole - *then* players would not typically bring that build/army to the event. I still think it's enough time to do everything the IG player needs to do, but the lack of scads of IG players failing to the chess clock doesn't necessarily mean IG players wouldn't be better off without it.
So if you follow this thread the BAO is being used as evidence that IG is broken Then when presented with the fact that IG as a primary faction did not make the top of win percentage or points earned per round its now morphed into "you cant use this event because clocks hurt guard" I mean seriously its got to be one or the other. I mean you're looking at a snippet of data and making an argument with 0 knowledge of how those games went though. Saying Guard had a bad showing at BAO because you read names and factions on BCP doesn't really mean anything, and it's also false.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Forcing them to play quicker hurts them too. Time limits hurt them, not just turn. My opponents have been known to make 30+ measurements per turn just to make sure my charges are all foiled perfectly.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Marmatag wrote:Asmodios wrote:Bharring wrote:While I agree that a Guard player should be able to fit in their entire game in the time limit allowed, evidence that few, if any, were stopped by the clock does not necessarily negate the argument.
Players knew when selecting/building their list/army for this even that they would be timed. *If* the clock would hurt a way of building an IG army - or even IG as a whole - *then* players would not typically bring that build/army to the event.
I still think it's enough time to do everything the IG player needs to do, but the lack of scads of IG players failing to the chess clock doesn't necessarily mean IG players wouldn't be better off without it.
So if you follow this thread the BAO is being used as evidence that IG is broken
Then when presented with the fact that IG as a primary faction did not make the top of win percentage or points earned per round its now morphed into "you cant use this event because clocks hurt guard"
I mean seriously its got to be one or the other.
I mean you're looking at a snippet of data and making an argument with 0 knowledge of how those games went though. Saying Guard had a bad showing at BAO because you read names and factions on BCP doesn't really mean anything, and it's also false.
No what im doing is actually presenting Data while you don't have any to counter argue with. Guard had a great showing..... when taken in minimal amounts as CP regeneration for other armies Automatically Appended Next Post: Martel732 wrote:Forcing them to play quicker hurts them too. Time limits hurt them, not just turn. My opponents have been known to make 30+ measurements per turn just to make sure my charges are all foiled perfectly.
>presented with actual data
>ummmmm chess clocks crushed guard
Do you have any relevant sources or data to back up that the reason guard had a lower win percentage and points per round then other factions was because of chess clocks? Is the necessary time to play any army not subjective?
108023
Post by: Marmatag
It's not really data. It's the same stuff we all see at the very top level. And you're the one saying a faction declared as "Astra Militarum" is taking minimal guard? Get out, this is (a) factually incorrect and (b) based on nothing other than you wanting it to be true for some weird reason.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Marmatag, I posted the top five lists. All of them that had Guard had Guard as a battery.
Was my source wrong? Are there, perhaps, a bunch of primary-Guard lists in the 6-20 area? If so, can you provide evidence?
108023
Post by: Marmatag
JNAProductions wrote:Marmatag, I posted the top five lists. All of them that had Guard had Guard as a battery. Was my source wrong? Are there, perhaps, a bunch of primary-Guard lists in the 6-20 area? If so, can you provide evidence? None other than i've stood next to the list in bits form lol. It's also worth pointing out that Geoff Robinsons list is beyond the minimum for a CP battery. He was at the final table.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Marmatag wrote:It's not really data. It's the same stuff we all see at the very top level. And you're the one saying a faction declared as "Astra Militarum" is taking minimal guard? Get out, this is (a) factually incorrect and (b) based on nothing other than you wanting it to be true for some weird reason.
It's not weird really. You should expect it. Deep down they know - AM is going to get the nerf bat. Eldar players know it too.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Marmatag wrote:It's not really data. It's the same stuff we all see at the very top level. And you're the one saying a faction declared as "Astra Militarum" is taking minimal guard? Get out, this is (a) factually incorrect and (b) based on nothing other than you wanting it to be true for some weird reason.
That's not what I'm saying..... factions marked primary IG (more IG then any other faction) did not make the top list for win percentage or points earned per round
71534
Post by: Bharring
Of the top 10 lists, what % of their points were IG? Automatically Appended Next Post: (of each list, not overall)
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
Asmodios wrote: Marmatag wrote:It's not really data. It's the same stuff we all see at the very top level. And you're the one saying a faction declared as "Astra Militarum" is taking minimal guard? Get out, this is (a) factually incorrect and (b) based on nothing other than you wanting it to be true for some weird reason.
That's not what I'm saying..... factions marked primary IG (more IG then any other faction) did not make the top list for win percentage or points earned per round
The problem is, its the most points in a SINGLE detachment, if you have 700pts IG in 1 detachment and 650pts of Knights in 2nd detachments and the another 650pts in the 3rd detachment, that means you are still IG army, even tho you have 1300pts in Knights.
All these stupid lists should show how many points the "Main" faction has (or on average at least)
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Asmodios wrote: Marmatag wrote:It's not really data. It's the same stuff we all see at the very top level. And you're the one saying a faction declared as "Astra Militarum" is taking minimal guard? Get out, this is (a) factually incorrect and (b) based on nothing other than you wanting it to be true for some weird reason.
That's not what I'm saying..... factions marked primary IG (more IG then any other faction) did not make the top list for win percentage or points earned per round
Your also looking at avarage values which make the data (as its just data not information) a little more squeewed. All it takes is one or two players who go 0 and 5 and the 20 players achieve 4and 1 and 5 and 0 don't look so good.
While 4 tau players going 3 and 2 and 4 and 1 look better.
Avarages without context are nice but still don't tell the story.
71534
Post by: Bharring
I think the top 5 or top 10 or top 20 would be much more meaningful to analyse.
And it's more effective if you make the prediction before crunching the numbers.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Ice_can wrote:Asmodios wrote: Marmatag wrote:It's not really data. It's the same stuff we all see at the very top level. And you're the one saying a faction declared as "Astra Militarum" is taking minimal guard? Get out, this is (a) factually incorrect and (b) based on nothing other than you wanting it to be true for some weird reason.
That's not what I'm saying..... factions marked primary IG (more IG then any other faction) did not make the top list for win percentage or points earned per round
Your also looking at avarage values which make the data (as its just data not information) a little more squeewed. All it takes is one or two players who go 0 and 5 and the 20 players achieve 4and 1 and 5 and 0 don't look so good.
While 4 tau players going 3 and 2 and 4 and 1 look better.
Avarages without context are nice but still don't tell the story.
So I'm not allowed to point to this data but somehow people in this thread can definitively draw that IG is broken because they were included in the soup that did well at tournaments..... I smell a double standard
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
ALso if these are for full tournaments results, you ALSO need to look at, is there a best painting reward? or best conversion rewards? B.c some players will dont take tournament lists but just general list to win best painting. And how many of them its there 1's or are newer to tournaments and just not a very good player in general. You should only look at the top 10 results due to these, plus other reasons. Automatically Appended Next Post: Asmodios wrote:Ice_can wrote:Asmodios wrote: Marmatag wrote:It's not really data. It's the same stuff we all see at the very top level. And you're the one saying a faction declared as "Astra Militarum" is taking minimal guard? Get out, this is (a) factually incorrect and (b) based on nothing other than you wanting it to be true for some weird reason.
That's not what I'm saying..... factions marked primary IG (more IG then any other faction) did not make the top list for win percentage or points earned per round Your also looking at avarage values which make the data (as its just data not information) a little more squeewed. All it takes is one or two players who go 0 and 5 and the 20 players achieve 4and 1 and 5 and 0 don't look so good. While 4 tau players going 3 and 2 and 4 and 1 look better. Avarages without context are nice but still don't tell the story.
So I'm not allowed to point to this data but somehow people in this thread can definitively draw that IG is broken because they were included in the soup that did well at tournaments..... I smell a double standard Im just saying we need less variables in data to use it. If you have a 100man tournament and use all 100 results thats not good data, what if a person wanted best painting and didnt even try to win his games? w/e army he is playing just skewed the results, if you have 5 people doing that, well, your data is pointless now. I like to add, its only b.c there is so little data with 100 people that when you spread out that list into 10+ different armies you might only have 5 players in 1 faction, and if that faction had 1 of the players not in it to win it, that really is a huge %, 20% skewed data is really bad.
71534
Post by: Bharring
Asmodios,
I think that data has value. I think the concerns you're responding to detract, but do not invalidate, the data.
My point is that certain other data may be of more use. That doesn't mean there's no use in the data.
There is good reason to believe the top, say, 10% of participants are more serious about competing than the bottom 10% of participants. I would expect the primary army of the list that got dead last at each tournament to *not* be more biased towards what is OP than the general distribution of armies taken - some people who play either aren't that smart or aren't playing competitively.
As such, a reasonable cutoff on placement to consider relative faction strengths would be ideal - provided the cutoff were selected before the results of the tourny were known. Hence why I threw out "top 10" - I don't actually know who/what placed where.
As for a specific claim, I think that what all this data points to is that IG are more broken as an ally than as a monofaction. Not necessarily conclusive, but certainly suggestive. That doesn't mean Guardsmen would be less balanced at 5ppm. But it does suggest moving Guardsmen to 5ppm won't fix the biggest imbalances relating to the IG codex.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Amishprn86 wrote:ALso if these are for full tournaments results, you ALSO need to look at, is there a best painting reward? or best conversion rewards? B.c some players will dont take tournament lists but just general list to win best painting.
And how many of them its there 1's or are newer to tournaments and just not a very good player in general.
You should only look at the top 10 results due to these, plus other reasons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote:Ice_can wrote:Asmodios wrote: Marmatag wrote:It's not really data. It's the same stuff we all see at the very top level. And you're the one saying a faction declared as "Astra Militarum" is taking minimal guard? Get out, this is (a) factually incorrect and (b) based on nothing other than you wanting it to be true for some weird reason.
That's not what I'm saying..... factions marked primary IG (more IG then any other faction) did not make the top list for win percentage or points earned per round
Your also looking at avarage values which make the data (as its just data not information) a little more squeewed. All it takes is one or two players who go 0 and 5 and the 20 players achieve 4and 1 and 5 and 0 don't look so good.
While 4 tau players going 3 and 2 and 4 and 1 look better.
Avarages without context are nice but still don't tell the story.
So I'm not allowed to point to this data but somehow people in this thread can definitively draw that IG is broken because they were included in the soup that did well at tournaments..... I smell a double standard
Im just saying we need less variables in data to use it. If you have a 100man tournament and use all 100 results thats not good data, what if a person wanted best painting and didnt even try to win his games? w/e army he is playing just skewed the results, if you have 5 people doing that, well, your data is pointless now.
Firstly it was an FLG ITC event so painting is only used as a tiebreaker in very rare instances and the "hobby track" is separate from things like win % and points earned per round.
Secondly, I said way back in this post that people need to look at the results of an army over time before yelling for changes but people wanted to point at the BAO as a reason to nuke guard (even though knight soup dominated the event). But I find it amusing that when the actual tournament data does not support the hypothesis that guard is busted we now can't look at the tournament data because its not conclusive.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Also some people lose one game and drop out. At the *very least* you should look at people who played all of their games. This should be an absolute minimum.
I would personally restrict it to the top 20 or so. Because you're still seeing really good lists, with really good players. One bad matchup or dice roll can drop you from top 5 to 18th.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
Marmatag wrote:Also some people lose one game and drop out. At the *very least* you should look at people who played all of their games. This should be an absolute minimum.
I would personally restrict it to the top 20 or so. Because you're still seeing really good lists, with really good players. One bad matchup or dice roll can drop you from top 5 to 18th.
Then please, post the top 20. I posted the top 5, and the Guard were batteries, excepting the number one player, who didn't take Guard at all.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Bharring wrote:Asmodios,
I think that data has value. I think the concerns you're responding to detract, but do not invalidate, the data.
My point is that certain other data may be of more use. That doesn't mean there's no use in the data.
There is good reason to believe the top, say, 10% of participants are more serious about competing than the bottom 10% of participants. I would expect the primary army of the list that got dead last at each tournament to *not* be more biased towards what is OP than the general distribution of armies taken - some people who play either aren't that smart or aren't playing competitively.
As such, a reasonable cutoff on placement to consider relative faction strengths would be ideal - provided the cutoff were selected before the results of the tourny were known. Hence why I threw out "top 10" - I don't actually know who/what placed where.
As for a specific claim, I think that what all this data points to is that IG are more broken as an ally than as a monofaction. Not necessarily conclusive, but certainly suggestive. That doesn't mean Guardsmen would be less balanced at 5ppm. But it does suggest moving Guardsmen to 5ppm won't fix the biggest imbalances relating to the IG codex.
Oh yes it 100% shows that guard is OP when being taken in soup. I haven't argued against this at all. The issue is 5ppm guardsmen does next to nothing to change this issue but does hurt mono guard that is not an issue. The faction that was most prevalent in the top 10 was knights (renegade and imperial). Now I personally don't think knights are broken either but I do believe that knights were never balanced around having infinite CP. The funny thing is the only mono faction to place in the event was a mono knight list that lost on the second table in the final round to a knight soup player. Yet somehow mono guard has been bashed repeatedly in this thread and not mono knights
71534
Post by: Bharring
Hilariously, wouldn't fixing IG CP shenanigans address both IG and IK?
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Bharring wrote:Hilariously, wouldn't fixing IG CP shenanigans address both IG and IK?
Yes and its what should happen
110308
Post by: Earth127
It would fix one of the biggest issues with imperial soups in general.
Still think soup should be banned in matched.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Earth127 wrote:It would fix one of the biggest issues with imperial soups in general.
Still think soup should be banned in matched.
Even though I don't like soup I wouldn't want to limit the way people play, but there needs to be a downside of taking soup. Soup is also just way to good of an idea from a selling point so its not going anywhere
108023
Post by: Marmatag
There is no reasonable way to restrict soup. You're barking up the wrong tree. Doing so would invalidate quite a few models.
The best solution is just to nerf the *obvious* problem.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
Marmatag wrote:There is no reasonable way to restrict soup. You're barking up the wrong tree. Doing so would invalidate quite a few models.
The best solution is just to nerf the *obvious* problem.
Limiting to 2 books is a way, this lets you still have 3 subfactions for things like Aeldari and SM, but you can have something like IG, IK, BA
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Amishprn86 wrote: Marmatag wrote:There is no reasonable way to restrict soup. You're barking up the wrong tree. Doing so would invalidate quite a few models. The best solution is just to nerf the *obvious* problem. Limiting to 2 books is a way, this lets you still have 3 subfactions for things like Aeldari and SM, but you can have something like IG, IK, BA Still solves nothing. IG get command points too easily. This is a core problem. Whether you guys want to see it or not.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Marmatag wrote:There is no reasonable way to restrict soup. You're barking up the wrong tree. Doing so would invalidate quite a few models.
The best solution is just to nerf the *obvious* problem.
CP can only be utilized by the detachments that have the same keyword as the detachment that generated it. <imperial guard> CP cannot be used by <imperial knights> ect.
Simple fix that still gives people the tactical flexibility to use soup to plug gaps in their army but does not allow them to share CP around.
106383
Post by: JNAProductions
So you agree that the CP battery is the problem, and not Guardsmen themselves? Because I'll agree to that.
71534
Post by: Bharring
I'm not sure there's wide agreement that 4ppm Guardsmen *aren't* a problem. But I think we are seeing just how widespread the agreement is that the CP battery is the bigger problem.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
JNAProductions wrote:So you agree that the CP battery is the problem, and not Guardsmen themselves? Because I'll agree to that.
I'll agree that *a* problem is the CP battery.
I would also go further, and say that Guard is a top-tier faction and should be adjusted, relative to the mid-tier.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Asmodios wrote: Marmatag wrote:There is no reasonable way to restrict soup. You're barking up the wrong tree. Doing so would invalidate quite a few models.
The best solution is just to nerf the *obvious* problem.
CP can only be utilized by the detachments that have the same keyword as the detachment that generated it. <imperial guard> CP cannot be used by <imperial knights> ect.
Simple fix that still gives people the tactical flexibility to use soup to plug gaps in their army but does not allow them to share CP around.
I'm in the camp of "when there is an obvious problem with 1 faction, adjust that faction, rather than fundamentally changing the entirety of the rest of the game." Your suggestion hoses a few smaller armies pretty hard.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Marmatag wrote: JNAProductions wrote:So you agree that the CP battery is the problem, and not Guardsmen themselves? Because I'll agree to that.
I'll agree that *a* problem is the CP battery.
I would also go further, and say that Guard is a top-tier faction and should be adjusted, relative to the mid-tier.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asmodios wrote: Marmatag wrote:There is no reasonable way to restrict soup. You're barking up the wrong tree. Doing so would invalidate quite a few models.
The best solution is just to nerf the *obvious* problem.
CP can only be utilized by the detachments that have the same keyword as the detachment that generated it. <imperial guard> CP cannot be used by <imperial knights> ect.
Simple fix that still gives people the tactical flexibility to use soup to plug gaps in their army but does not allow them to share CP around.
I'm in the camp of "when there is an obvious problem with 1 faction, adjust that faction, rather than fundamentally changing the entirety of the rest of the game." Your suggestion hoses a few smaller armies pretty hard.
The problem is you have failed to provide any evidence that there is "an obvious problem with faction 1" (I'm assuming you mean IG). Mono IG does not only not place high but even taking it as your primary faction statistically lowers your average win % and points per round compared to other imperial primary factions (when looking at recent ITC data). Actually, the most consistent thing across all recent tournaments is the prevalence of soup in all factions that can take it. Thus there is more data to suggest the issue is soup and CP vs any one specific faction.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
For the purpose of CP battery mono or soup IG doesn't matter. Mono IG are still winning GTs, and some of the best players in the world run Mono-Guard. But it doesn't matter for the purpose of this specific discussion. Regardless, you can't look at one tournament and try and draw sweeping conclusions, which is exactly what you're doing. Also, you're discounting Guard as being just soup when in reality they are a big contributor because you can get a lot done with lesser points. For instance, your answer to IG generating way too many CP is to nerf ynnari, harlequins, assassins, knights, and any faction that depends on allies to function. Enough already.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Marmatag wrote:For the purpose of CP battery mono or soup IG doesn't matter. Mono IG are still winning GTs, and some of the best players in the world run Mono-Guard. But it doesn't matter for the purpose of this specific discussion.
Regardless, you can't look at one tournament and try and draw sweeping conclusions, which is exactly what you're doing. Also, you're discounting Guard as being just soup when in reality they are a big contributor because you can get a lot done with lesser points.
For instance, your answer to IG generating way too many CP is to nerf ynnari, harlequins, assassins, knights, and any faction that depends on allies to function. Enough already.
Please post the GT and full list for mono IG guard that won
71534
Post by: Bharring
Marmatag,
What do you mean by "CP Battery mono or soup"?
Do you consider IG armies with nothing but IG that use those strats CP Battery IG? I had assumed that term was used to reference IG used to generate CP for another faction. Which, obviously, mono-anything can't do.
117771
Post by: w1zard
To my knowledge, mono-IG have never won a single GT. Mono-IG is 100% guard with no datasheets from any other faction. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
w1zard wrote:To my knowledge, mono- IG have never won a single GT. Mono- IG is 100% guard with no datasheets from any other faction. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.
There are more GTs then ever but other than the pre-rule of 3 16 hellhound list I haven't seen a mono guard list win anything. Or you have to go all the way back to before the conscript and earthshaker nuke
108023
Post by: Marmatag
w1zard wrote:To my knowledge, mono- IG have never won a single GT. Mono- IG is 100% guard with no datasheets from any other faction. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.
It is well documented that mono-Guard won the Boise GT recently. The same one that was won by ravenspam in early 8th, if memory serves.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Bharring wrote:Marmatag,
What do you mean by " CP Battery mono or soup"?
Do you consider IG armies with nothing but IG that use those strats CP Battery IG? I had assumed that term was used to reference IG used to generate CP for another faction. Which, obviously, mono-anything can't do.
My point is the ability to generate volumes of CP is a problem whether it's present in soup or not.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Marmatag wrote:w1zard wrote:To my knowledge, mono- IG have never won a single GT. Mono- IG is 100% guard with no datasheets from any other faction. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.
It is well documented that mono-Guard won the Boise GT recently. The same one that was won by ravenspam in early 8th, if memory serves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote:Marmatag,
What do you mean by " CP Battery mono or soup"?
Do you consider IG armies with nothing but IG that use those strats CP Battery IG? I had assumed that term was used to reference IG used to generate CP for another faction. Which, obviously, mono-anything can't do.
My point is the ability to generate volumes of CP is a problem whether it's present in soup or not.
Can you please post the full list from this GT. Also, it would help to have more than a single example to call an entire faction "broken". If we use that as an indicator for OP then we need to nuke blightlord terminators as they are obviously running rampant
71534
Post by: Bharring
In this *particular* case, he's countering that it's *never* happened (which will be countered by sharing the list, if it's pure).
As to the 'is mono-IG OP' question, a single win by a single list over a wide period of time is not very supportive of mono-IG being OP.
117771
Post by: w1zard
Marmatag wrote:w1zard wrote:To my knowledge, mono- IG have never won a single GT. Mono- IG is 100% guard with no datasheets from any other faction. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.
It is well documented that mono-Guard won the Boise GT recently. The same one that was won by ravenspam in early 8th, if memory serves.
I tried googling Boise GT 2018 and only got the flyer for the event saying it took place in June of this year. I couldn't find any lists of the winners, so can you please post a link so we can all see it?
71534
Post by: Bharring
Wizard's claim could be adjusted to "Mono-IG rarely ever win GTs", and it would certainly be true. (His original was specificly to his knowledge, so is technically true anyways.)
Would the stronger point of evidence be:
-Out of the past 10 GTs, how many mono-IG lists were top 10?
-Out of the past 10 GTs, how many monofaction lists were top 10 - and of which factions? Automatically Appended Next Post: I could find rankings, and top was listed as IG. But it did not have their lists or an indicator of pure/not (that I saw).
117771
Post by: w1zard
I found this... https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/9eb9prk3
Which only seems to say that the winning list was "Asta Militarum" but doesn't specify what the criteria for that is. It could be primary detachment only... We need the actual list to see if it is mono- IG.
1,800 points of guard and 200 points of something else is still not mono- IG.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
I found the list or at least I think I did (its a blurry snapshot of the paper list) and it is indeed pure IG. I also read a little about the tournament and it was a total of 58 players over 5 rounds making it a major. I still believe that one mono guard list winning one tournament is a far cry from an "obviously broken" faction
108023
Post by: Marmatag
https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/9eb9prk3 Brandon runs a pure IG list, with a Shadowsword. This was also discussed and shared on facebook. Here's another one from June: http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Brenden-Chrustie-1st-Overall-Plains-of-War-GT-2018.pdf Can we pause for a moment and discuss how it's perfectly acceptable for guard players to say "mono IG aren't winning GTs" and they provide no evidence for this ridiculous claim, yet the burden of proof falls on me to counter what is obviously false? And these are just first place finishings. Coming in 2nd or third in a 50+ person GT is actually really damn good, too.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
w1zard wrote:I found this... https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/9eb9prk3
Which only seems to say that the winning list was "Asta Militarum" but doesn't specify what the criteria for that is. It could be primary detachment only... We need the actual list to see if it is mono- IG.
1,800 points of guard and 200 points of something else is still not mono- IG.
1800 points of a list from one faction is probably not an underperforming faction though.
Also by that metric only 2 Codex's are mono Tau and Necrons. As almost every other codex is going to want something else allied in but that doesn't mean that codex is weak.
Also the maths was done time and again 4ppm guardsmen out shoot and out CC evryone elses troops except Drukari or Codex Emo Cheese.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Marmatag wrote:https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/9eb9prk3
Brandon runs a pure IG list, with a Shadowsword. This was also discussed and shared on facebook.
Here's another one from June:
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Brenden-Chrustie-1st-Overall-Plains-of-War-GT-2018.pdf
Can we pause for a moment and discuss how it's perfectly acceptable for guard players to say "mono IG aren't winning GTs" and they provide no evidence for this ridiculous claim, yet the burden of proof falls on me to counter what is obviously false?
And these are just first place finishings. Coming in 2nd or third in a 50+ person GT is actually really damn good, too.
When you continually talk about one event, it shouldn't be exceedingly difficult for you to provide the list.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Ice_can wrote:w1zard wrote:I found this... https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/9eb9prk3 Which only seems to say that the winning list was "Asta Militarum" but doesn't specify what the criteria for that is. It could be primary detachment only... We need the actual list to see if it is mono- IG. 1,800 points of guard and 200 points of something else is still not mono- IG.
1800 points of a list from one faction is probably not an underperforming faction though. Also by that metric only 2 Codex's are mono Tau and Necrons. As almost every other codex is going to want something else allied in but that doesn't mean that codex is weak. Also the maths was done time and again 4ppm guardsmen out shoot and out CC evryone elses troops except Drukari or Codex Emo Cheese. His list is pure Astra Militarum. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kanluwen wrote: Marmatag wrote:https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/9eb9prk3
Brandon runs a pure IG list, with a Shadowsword. This was also discussed and shared on facebook.
Here's another one from June:
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Brenden-Chrustie-1st-Overall-Plains-of-War-GT-2018.pdf
Can we pause for a moment and discuss how it's perfectly acceptable for guard players to say "mono IG aren't winning GTs" and they provide no evidence for this ridiculous claim, yet the burden of proof falls on me to counter what is obviously false?
And these are just first place finishings. Coming in 2nd or third in a 50+ person GT is actually really damn good, too.
When you continually talk about one event, it shouldn't be exceedingly difficult for you to provide the list.
Considering i just gave you two examples, it shouldn't be hard for you to immediately change your tune and stop spewing false claims.
71534
Post by: Bharring
1) On a technical level, to his knowledge they weren't. That was true. Now, he knows better.
2) On a practical level, 2 wins in June out of how many GTs have there been shows IG being reasonable, but not necessarily OP. How many other factions have been in the top 2?
That's why I wish we could just pull up a list of the top 10 for the last 10 GTs. That'd give us a more even playing field. What we have now is selection bias - there could be 2 top-10 IG lists in the last 3 months, and we found them - or there could be 200. We need more reliable data sources than hunting for tournies.
On that note, when looking at the most recent top 5, none of them were even majorly IG. Much less mono.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
w1zard wrote:I found this... https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/9eb9prk3
Which only seems to say that the winning list was "Asta Militarum" but doesn't specify what the criteria for that is. It could be primary detachment only... We need the actual list to see if it is mono- IG.
1,800 points of guard and 200 points of something else is still not mono- IG.
They aren't
This was a team tournament I believe. In the discussion about the event the top 3 gaurd armies all took
Castellans
Multiple artimis hell hounds with CP farm
and double slamquinious with scouts
How much worse is this army with a shadow sword and 3 manticores or LR commanders instead of the blood angels batallion.
The answer is - it's really not any worse - it will just struggle more against eldar.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Bharring wrote:1) On a technical level, to his knowledge they weren't. That was true. Now, he knows better.
2) On a practical level, 2 wins in June out of how many GTs have there been shows IG being reasonable, but not necessarily OP. How many other factions have been in the top 2?
That's why I wish we could just pull up a list of the top 10 for the last 10 GTs. That'd give us a more even playing field. What we have now is selection bias - there could be 2 top-10 IG lists in the last 3 months, and we found them - or there could be 200. We need more reliable data sources than hunting for tournies.
On that note, when looking at the most recent top 5, none of them were even majorly IG. Much less mono.
Why is that relevant as to are guardsmen 4ppm or 5ppm.
It's the fake news strategy of facts not aligned with your narative are hand waived away with "fake news anti guard bias claims"
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Marmatag wrote:Ice_can wrote:w1zard wrote:I found this... https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/9eb9prk3
Which only seems to say that the winning list was "Asta Militarum" but doesn't specify what the criteria for that is. It could be primary detachment only... We need the actual list to see if it is mono- IG.
1,800 points of guard and 200 points of something else is still not mono- IG.
1800 points of a list from one faction is probably not an underperforming faction though.
Also by that metric only 2 Codex's are mono Tau and Necrons. As almost every other codex is going to want something else allied in but that doesn't mean that codex is weak.
Also the maths was done time and again 4ppm guardsmen out shoot and out CC evryone elses troops except Drukari or Codex Emo Cheese.
His list is pure Astra Militarum.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: Marmatag wrote:https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/9eb9prk3
Brandon runs a pure IG list, with a Shadowsword. This was also discussed and shared on facebook.
Here's another one from June:
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Brenden-Chrustie-1st-Overall-Plains-of-War-GT-2018.pdf
Can we pause for a moment and discuss how it's perfectly acceptable for guard players to say "mono IG aren't winning GTs" and they provide no evidence for this ridiculous claim, yet the burden of proof falls on me to counter what is obviously false?
And these are just first place finishings. Coming in 2nd or third in a 50+ person GT is actually really damn good, too.
When you continually talk about one event, it shouldn't be exceedingly difficult for you to provide the list.
Considering i just gave you two examples, it shouldn't be hard for you to immediately change your tune and stop spewing false claims.
I mean I'm not sure why anyone would "change there tune" after posting 2 relatively small events. I mean I can go find tournaments in the last couple months won by almost all factions including some obviously underpowered ones like orks and crons. When you call a faction "obviously OP"I expect to see them winning large events regularly. Once again i haven't seen a single person in here claiming guard are "bad" just that they are not a OP powerhouse that is stomping everyone in sight. You have a gun trying to win best IG faction for the ITC winning a 58 person GT. Also, I find it funny that your upset for people asking you to show a list you kept refering to. I linked the ITC stats i refered to when i brought them up. Typically its on the person using an example for evidence that is supposed to link the source.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Marmatag wrote:Ice_can wrote:w1zard wrote:I found this... https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/9eb9prk3
Which only seems to say that the winning list was "Asta Militarum" but doesn't specify what the criteria for that is. It could be primary detachment only... We need the actual list to see if it is mono- IG.
1,800 points of guard and 200 points of something else is still not mono- IG.
1800 points of a list from one faction is probably not an underperforming faction though.
Also by that metric only 2 Codex's are mono Tau and Necrons. As almost every other codex is going to want something else allied in but that doesn't mean that codex is weak.
Also the maths was done time and again 4ppm guardsmen out shoot and out CC evryone elses troops except Drukari or Codex Emo Cheese.
His list is pure Astra Militarum.
That's fine. It doesn't change that his list is seemingly an outlier rather than the standard.
Kanluwen wrote: Marmatag wrote:https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/9eb9prk3
Brandon runs a pure IG list, with a Shadowsword. This was also discussed and shared on facebook.
Here's another one from June:
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Brenden-Chrustie-1st-Overall-Plains-of-War-GT-2018.pdf
Can we pause for a moment and discuss how it's perfectly acceptable for guard players to say "mono IG aren't winning GTs" and they provide no evidence for this ridiculous claim, yet the burden of proof falls on me to counter what is obviously false?
And these are just first place finishings. Coming in 2nd or third in a 50+ person GT is actually really damn good, too.
When you continually talk about one event, it shouldn't be exceedingly difficult for you to provide the list.
Considering i just gave you two examples, it shouldn't be hard for you to immediately change your tune and stop spewing false claims.
Right, "spewing false claims".
I'm not the one arguing tournament representation matters more than actual lists. Crap showing up in tournaments where lists are written months in advance and have to be turned in by a certain deadline, where some tournaments disregard/ignore FAQs because of their timing and basically exist using nothing but house rules means nothing for the actual game.
I'm the one arguing that making a change to a core unit based upon its interaction with the blight that is soup lists is ridiculous when we've literally already seen that soup will just hop from one thing to the next.
Conscripts got nerfed, Infantry Squads became the new hotness.
Commissars got nerfed, Primaris Psykers and Inquisitors started coming up.
Custodes dropped with their banner--oh gee, I wonder what happened...
TLDR:
I don't care about tournament numbers. I really don't. Tournaments are their own thing at this point. Until GW has their own tournament system in place, I think discussing it in relation to what are effectively 'house rules' that just get shared and adopted is patently ridiculous.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Marmatag wrote:Ice_can wrote:w1zard wrote:I found this... https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/9eb9prk3
Which only seems to say that the winning list was "Asta Militarum" but doesn't specify what the criteria for that is. It could be primary detachment only... We need the actual list to see if it is mono- IG.
1,800 points of guard and 200 points of something else is still not mono- IG.
1800 points of a list from one faction is probably not an underperforming faction though.
Also by that metric only 2 Codex's are mono Tau and Necrons. As almost every other codex is going to want something else allied in but that doesn't mean that codex is weak.
Also the maths was done time and again 4ppm guardsmen out shoot and out CC evryone elses troops except Drukari or Codex Emo Cheese.
His list is pure Astra Militarum.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote: Marmatag wrote:https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/9eb9prk3
Brandon runs a pure IG list, with a Shadowsword. This was also discussed and shared on facebook.
Here's another one from June:
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Brenden-Chrustie-1st-Overall-Plains-of-War-GT-2018.pdf
Can we pause for a moment and discuss how it's perfectly acceptable for guard players to say "mono IG aren't winning GTs" and they provide no evidence for this ridiculous claim, yet the burden of proof falls on me to counter what is obviously false?
And these are just first place finishings. Coming in 2nd or third in a 50+ person GT is actually really damn good, too.
When you continually talk about one event, it shouldn't be exceedingly difficult for you to provide the list.
Considering i just gave you two examples, it shouldn't be hard for you to immediately change your tune and stop spewing false claims.
Whats interesting about AM armies is - they all look a little different. It's almost like they have a lot of really good options or something.....
Sometimes hellhounds
Sometimes Manitcores
Sometimes russ commanders.
Lots of infantry is pretty standard though. As well as endless command points and mortars.
Sometimes Cadian
Sometimes Catachan
Sometimes Tally
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Bharring wrote:1) On a technical level, to his knowledge they weren't. That was true. Now, he knows better.
2) On a practical level, 2 wins in June out of how many GTs have there been shows IG being reasonable, but not necessarily OP. How many other factions have been in the top 2?
That's why I wish we could just pull up a list of the top 10 for the last 10 GTs. That'd give us a more even playing field. What we have now is selection bias - there could be 2 top-10 IG lists in the last 3 months, and we found them - or there could be 200. We need more reliable data sources than hunting for tournies.
On that note, when looking at the most recent top 5, none of them were even majorly IG. Much less mono.
The most recent top 5, include IG. And if you look at how the argument is immediately being shifted now to "the GTs are too small," or "tournament data actually doesn't matter" and the like, you can see how this is never going anywhere. These guys just redefine the parameters of the discussion when it takes a turn they can't handle.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Xenomancers wrote:
Whats interesting about AM armies is - they all look a little different. It's almost like they have a lot of really good options or something.....
Sometimes hellhounds
Sometimes Manitcores
Sometimes russ commanders.
Lots of infantry is pretty standard though. As well as endless command points and mortars.
Sometimes Cadian
Sometimes Catachan
Sometimes Tally
You see Cadians with Russes because they have a special Order.
You see Catachans with Hellhounds and Manticores because of their specialness.
Tallarn see a lot of both because they have an outflank stratagem. Automatically Appended Next Post: Marmatag wrote:Bharring wrote:1) On a technical level, to his knowledge they weren't. That was true. Now, he knows better.
2) On a practical level, 2 wins in June out of how many GTs have there been shows IG being reasonable, but not necessarily OP. How many other factions have been in the top 2?
That's why I wish we could just pull up a list of the top 10 for the last 10 GTs. That'd give us a more even playing field. What we have now is selection bias - there could be 2 top-10 IG lists in the last 3 months, and we found them - or there could be 200. We need more reliable data sources than hunting for tournies.
On that note, when looking at the most recent top 5, none of them were even majorly IG. Much less mono.
The most recent top 5, include IG. And if you look at how the argument is immediately being shifted now to "the GTs are too small," or "tournament data actually doesn't matter" and the like, you can see how this is never going anywhere. These guys just redefine the parameters of the discussion when it takes a turn they can't handle.
I'm pretty sure my argument has always been predicated upon the idea that "tournament data actually doesn't matter".
But we've been over this topic so many times that maybe I figured people knew that as a fact. So let me reiterate and make things clear:
I DO NOT THINK TOURNAMENT DATA REALLY MATTERS. ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE HAD TWO NOTABLE EXAMPLES, AT LEAST, OF PEOPLE NOT BEING ABLE TO PLAY THEIR ARMY IN FAIRLY MAJOR TOURNAMENTS OR WRITE A LIST WITHOUT MAJOR SCREWUPS TO THE POINT WHERE THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD BE BARRED FROM FURTHER TOURNAMENTS.
71534
Post by: Bharring
Marmatag,
"The most recent top 5, include IG"
From upthread, in the recent top 5, here's the ones that were mono-IG:
The two examples you got, weren't they both from June? How many tournaments have there been between June and now?
Look at it this way. Take 2048 coins. Flip them each 10 times. Odds are, two of them showed Heads every time. This doesn't mean Heads is more likely to show. Similarly, it doesn't mean Tails is more like to show - despite two showing that as well (on average). Now, that's an extreme number (I'm fairly sure there haven't been 2048 large tournaments in the past 3 months). But the point is, if you make a theory, then search for the data, your data will likely fit your theory - as you're only taking the data that does.
101179
Post by: Asmodios
Marmatag wrote:Bharring wrote:1) On a technical level, to his knowledge they weren't. That was true. Now, he knows better.
2) On a practical level, 2 wins in June out of how many GTs have there been shows IG being reasonable, but not necessarily OP. How many other factions have been in the top 2?
That's why I wish we could just pull up a list of the top 10 for the last 10 GTs. That'd give us a more even playing field. What we have now is selection bias - there could be 2 top-10 IG lists in the last 3 months, and we found them - or there could be 200. We need more reliable data sources than hunting for tournies.
On that note, when looking at the most recent top 5, none of them were even majorly IG. Much less mono.
The most recent top 5, include IG. And if you look at how the argument is immediately being shifted now to "the GTs are too small," or "tournament data actually doesn't matter" and the like, you can see how this is never going anywhere. These guys just redefine the parameters of the discussion when it takes a turn they can't handle.
Go back and reread the 30 pages over and over again I've said that guard arent running rampant.... you finding only 2 GTs over the last couple months is just making my point. I haven't moved the goal post an inch
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Kanluwen wrote: Xenomancers wrote:
Whats interesting about AM armies is - they all look a little different. It's almost like they have a lot of really good options or something.....
Sometimes hellhounds
Sometimes Manitcores
Sometimes russ commanders.
Lots of infantry is pretty standard though. As well as endless command points and mortars.
Sometimes Cadian
Sometimes Catachan
Sometimes Tally
You see Cadians with Russes because they have a special Order.
You see Catachans with Hellhounds and Manticores because of their specialness.
Tallarn see a lot of both because they have an outflank stratagem.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote:Bharring wrote:1) On a technical level, to his knowledge they weren't. That was true. Now, he knows better.
2) On a practical level, 2 wins in June out of how many GTs have there been shows IG being reasonable, but not necessarily OP. How many other factions have been in the top 2?
That's why I wish we could just pull up a list of the top 10 for the last 10 GTs. That'd give us a more even playing field. What we have now is selection bias - there could be 2 top-10 IG lists in the last 3 months, and we found them - or there could be 200. We need more reliable data sources than hunting for tournies.
On that note, when looking at the most recent top 5, none of them were even majorly IG. Much less mono.
The most recent top 5, include IG. And if you look at how the argument is immediately being shifted now to "the GTs are too small," or "tournament data actually doesn't matter" and the like, you can see how this is never going anywhere. These guys just redefine the parameters of the discussion when it takes a turn they can't handle.
I'm pretty sure my argument has always been predicated upon the idea that "tournament data actually doesn't matter".
But we've been over this topic so many times that maybe I figured people knew that as a fact. So let me reiterate and make things clear:
I DO NOT THINK TOURNAMENT DATA REALLY MATTERS. ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE HAD TWO NOTABLE EXAMPLES, AT LEAST, OF PEOPLE NOT BEING ABLE TO PLAY THEIR ARMY IN FAIRLY MAJOR TOURNAMENTS OR WRITE A LIST WITHOUT MAJOR SCREWUPS TO THE POINT WHERE THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD BE BARRED FROM FURTHER TOURNAMENTS.
The tournament data doesn't actually matter without the proper methods to annalsis it. We don't really get matchup data. We don't really know how the games were determined or if they went full length. We don't know if someone gave up (this actaully happens a lot). We don't even know who went first. There is literally so much we don't know that that data is just a glimpse of what tournament metas actually look like.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Asmodios wrote: Marmatag wrote:Bharring wrote:1) On a technical level, to his knowledge they weren't. That was true. Now, he knows better.
2) On a practical level, 2 wins in June out of how many GTs have there been shows IG being reasonable, but not necessarily OP. How many other factions have been in the top 2?
That's why I wish we could just pull up a list of the top 10 for the last 10 GTs. That'd give us a more even playing field. What we have now is selection bias - there could be 2 top-10 IG lists in the last 3 months, and we found them - or there could be 200. We need more reliable data sources than hunting for tournies.
On that note, when looking at the most recent top 5, none of them were even majorly IG. Much less mono.
The most recent top 5, include IG. And if you look at how the argument is immediately being shifted now to "the GTs are too small," or "tournament data actually doesn't matter" and the like, you can see how this is never going anywhere. These guys just redefine the parameters of the discussion when it takes a turn they can't handle.
Go back and reread the 30 pages over and over again I've said that guard arent running rampant.... you finding only 2 GTs over the last couple months is just making my point. I haven't moved the goal post an inch
Why do they need to be winning GT's for a guardsmen at 4ppm to be undercosted?
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
But the question wasnt "Is guard to op?" Or was it "SHould Guardsman be 5ppm?"
Looking at the Guard codex, all the others, are Guardsman worth 4ppm or 5ppm? Tournament balance shouldnt even be looked at just b.c the codex could be weak in general but that doesnt mean 1 unit is under priced and it ruining the game for everyone due to how soups are.
117900
Post by: Dandelion
Kinda like how the tau index was weak but tau commanders were (and still are) way too good.
71534
Post by: Bharring
But 'Should Guardsmen be 5ppm' seems to depend heavily on 'How are IG doing right now?'.
If IG were trash-tier, then clearly 5ppm would be stupid. If IG were walking over everyone everywhere with as many Guardsmen as possible, clearly staying 4ppm would be stupid.
That's why 'Is guard OP' is inherently asked when you ask 'Should Guarsmen be 5ppm'.
I think they should be. I'm not 100% convinced. But I am much more convinced that CP shenanigans they have - aside from just a cheap CAD - are the bigger issue.
11860
Post by: Martel732
They are also too good at controlling space and are too difficult to shift for their cost.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
Bharring wrote:But 'Should Guardsmen be 5ppm' seems to depend heavily on 'How are IG doing right now?'. If IG were trash-tier, then clearly 5ppm would be stupid. If IG were walking over everyone everywhere with as many Guardsmen as possible, clearly staying 4ppm would be stupid. That's why 'Is guard OP' is inherently asked when you ask 'Should Guarsmen be 5ppm'. I think they should be. I'm not 100% convinced. But I am much more convinced that CP shenanigans they have - aside from just a cheap CAD - are the bigger issue. But.. think about... what if guardsman being 5ppm allowed other things in the codex to be buffed? I'd rather see other units from guard and guard armies than 60 guardsman with mortars.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Bharring wrote:But 'Should Guardsmen be 5ppm' seems to depend heavily on 'How are IG doing right now?'.
If IG were trash-tier, then clearly 5ppm would be stupid. If IG were walking over everyone everywhere with as many Guardsmen as possible, clearly staying 4ppm would be stupid.
That's why 'Is guard OP' is inherently asked when you ask 'Should Guarsmen be 5ppm'.
I think they should be. I'm not 100% convinced. But I am much more convinced that CP shenanigans they have - aside from just a cheap CAD - are the bigger issue.
I don't disagree with this. If i could pick one aspect of guard to tone down it would be the CP generation. Although i think the best way to do this is to increase the cost of their HQs and troops, and to remove rolling dice to get CP entirely.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Bharring wrote:But 'Should Guardsmen be 5ppm' seems to depend heavily on 'How are IG doing right now?'.
If IG were trash-tier, then clearly 5ppm would be stupid. If IG were walking over everyone everywhere with as many Guardsmen as possible, clearly staying 4ppm would be stupid.
That's why 'Is guard OP' is inherently asked when you ask 'Should Guarsmen be 5ppm'.
I think they should be. I'm not 100% convinced. But I am much more convinced that CP shenanigans they have - aside from just a cheap CAD - are the bigger issue.
The CP system GW has chosen for 8th edition has all sorts of issues, as does a number of 8th edition mechanics.
But CP farming helps Imperial Soup way more than Guard.
A basic guardsmen stats at 4ppm are impossible to remove in a reasonable timeframe without applying 300 plus point models to the problem that says to me there is a huge issue of them being a problem unit. My infantry loose every fight they try even with point and numerical advantage.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Amishprn86 wrote:Bharring wrote:But 'Should Guardsmen be 5ppm' seems to depend heavily on 'How are IG doing right now?'.
If IG were trash-tier, then clearly 5ppm would be stupid. If IG were walking over everyone everywhere with as many Guardsmen as possible, clearly staying 4ppm would be stupid.
That's why 'Is guard OP' is inherently asked when you ask 'Should Guarsmen be 5ppm'.
I think they should be. I'm not 100% convinced. But I am much more convinced that CP shenanigans they have - aside from just a cheap CAD - are the bigger issue.
But.. think about... what if guardsman being 5ppm allowed other things in the codex to be buffed? I'd rather see other units from guard and guard armies than 60 guardsman with mortars.
I'd rather they redo the book.
Guard losing Heavy Weapon Teams from Infantry Squads shuts people up about "mortar spam"(until they see Heavy Weapon Squads with them of course...)
Conscripts getting a 6+ save, the Auxilia keyword, and Autoguns cuts down the whining from people about "5+ save spam armies"(because really, that's what most people are really griping about when they talk about GEQs, whether they'll admit it or not) and FRFSRF spam.
Guard Infantry Squads getting reworked to be brought in line with Rangers and Strike Teams in terms of both points and stats, where the Sergeant has the same weapon as the squad and the unit has minimal upgrades but a clearly defined role is nothing but a Good Thing.
Veterans being brought back into Troops, with a more flexible loadout than the Infantry Squads but the same basic upgrades brings the option for a more expensive <Regiment> option.
Special Weapon Squads and Heavy Weapon Squads getting turned into something more akin to vehicle squads, where they're multiple 'teams' purchased as one slot that is then parceled out on the field leads to again nothing but good.
Orders system being entirely reworked to being an army-wide Order from a Senior Officer, a detachment-wide Order from a Junior Officer, and a squad specific Order from the Sergeants leads to a more flexible system that doesn't rely on gimmicks like FRFSRF would be a dream.
119427
Post by: gbghg
Kanluwen wrote: Amishprn86 wrote:Bharring wrote:But 'Should Guardsmen be 5ppm' seems to depend heavily on 'How are IG doing right now?'.
If IG were trash-tier, then clearly 5ppm would be stupid. If IG were walking over everyone everywhere with as many Guardsmen as possible, clearly staying 4ppm would be stupid.
That's why 'Is guard OP' is inherently asked when you ask 'Should Guarsmen be 5ppm'.
I think they should be. I'm not 100% convinced. But I am much more convinced that CP shenanigans they have - aside from just a cheap CAD - are the bigger issue.
But.. think about... what if guardsman being 5ppm allowed other things in the codex to be buffed? I'd rather see other units from guard and guard armies than 60 guardsman with mortars.
I'd rather they redo the book.
Guard losing Heavy Weapon Teams from Infantry Squads shuts people up about "mortar spam"(until they see Heavy Weapon Squads with them of course...)
Conscripts getting a 6+ save, the Auxilia keyword, and Autoguns cuts down the whining from people about "5+ save spam armies"(because really, that's what most people are really griping about when they talk about GEQs, whether they'll admit it or not) and FRFSRF spam.
Guard Infantry Squads getting reworked to be brought in line with Rangers and Strike Teams in terms of both points and stats, where the Sergeant has the same weapon as the squad and the unit has minimal upgrades but a clearly defined role is nothing but a Good Thing.
Veterans being brought back into Troops, with a more flexible loadout than the Infantry Squads but the same basic upgrades brings the option for a more expensive <Regiment> option.
Special Weapon Squads and Heavy Weapon Squads getting turned into something more akin to vehicle squads, where they're multiple 'teams' purchased as one slot that is then parceled out on the field leads to again nothing but good.
Orders system being entirely reworked to being an army-wide Order from a Senior Officer, a detachment-wide Order from a Junior Officer, and a squad specific Order from the Sergeants leads to a more flexible system that doesn't rely on gimmicks like FRFSRF would be a dream.
I'd rather Infantry squads retain the ability to take heavy weapons, given that the rule of 3 exists. Moving them out of Infantry squads basically cripples foot guard's ability to bring heavy weapons, if it's really an issue maybe add an extra tax to taking them like that if it's really an issue but retain the capability at least.
Conscripts are already trash, there's really no need to make them worse.
Sergeants getting lasgun's is only a good thing, plenty of evidence that a bump to 5ppm is probably a good thing but I don't see a need for a stat change, Infantry squads already have their place and their role.
Vet's being troops is basically my biggest want and probably the best way to make them useful again.
Interesting idea
Revamped order system like you describe could get really broken depending on the specifics and synergies between orders at different levels, personally I'd advocate an if it ain't broke don't fix it approach to orders, they work well enough as they are now.
107700
Post by: alextroy
And as we sit here 37 pages after the question was asked, we know:
1. Guardsman at 4 Points per Model are Point-for-Point equal/better than any other basic infantry unit before we even start talking about enhancers like buffing units and sub-facation traits. This is because the extra bodies make up for worst stats through volume of attacks & wounds. To call upon that old saying, "Quantity has a quality all its own".
2. Upgrading Guardsman to 5 Points per Model seems to pull them more in line with mid-costed line infantry, but are still Point-for-Point better than more elite infantry like Space Marines.
3. CP Battery is a problem. There is lots of talk about Soup being the problem, but I'm not convinced. No one complains about about cheapish battalions of AdMech, Sisters of Battle, or even IG unless it's happens to be 2 Company Commanders with Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist Warlord Trait along with 3 Infantry Squads (with Mortars if ITC missions) for 180 Points (195 ITC variant). While driving this up 30 points to 210 (225) would be nice, I would expect 0 players to decide those 30 points are too big a cost to pay for 5 CP and two different opportunities to gain additional CP.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Marmatag wrote:Bharring wrote:But 'Should Guardsmen be 5ppm' seems to depend heavily on 'How are IG doing right now?'.
If IG were trash-tier, then clearly 5ppm would be stupid. If IG were walking over everyone everywhere with as many Guardsmen as possible, clearly staying 4ppm would be stupid.
That's why 'Is guard OP' is inherently asked when you ask 'Should Guarsmen be 5ppm'.
I think they should be. I'm not 100% convinced. But I am much more convinced that CP shenanigans they have - aside from just a cheap CAD - are the bigger issue.
I don't disagree with this. If i could pick one aspect of guard to tone down it would be the CP generation. Although i think the best way to do this is to increase the cost of their HQs and troops, and to remove rolling dice to get CP entirely.
The command reroll is so powerful. It's not as good as bringing a knight back to life for 2-3 CP but to reliably and always be able to reroll a a dice every phase is incredibly powerful on it's own. Yeah they regen is powerful and one of the reasons why my Ultras outpace other marines armies. I essentially run with 0 chapter tactic but more CP is just better than that most of the time. Reroll a lascannon damage roll of a 1 to a 6 and that has the same affect of doing a direct 5 mortal wounds to a target. If you put it like that. That would probably be the most powerful stratagem in the game. Automatically Appended Next Post: alextroy wrote:And as we sit here 37 pages after the question was asked, we know:
1. Guardsman at 4 Points per Model are Point-for-Point equal/better than any other basic infantry unit before we even start talking about enhancers like buffing units and sub-facation traits. This is because the extra bodies make up for worst stats through volume of attacks & wounds. To call upon that old saying, " Quantity has a quality all its own".
2. Upgrading Guardsman to 5 Points per Model seems to pull them more in line with mid-costed line infantry, but are still Point-for-Point better than more elite infantry like Space Marines.
3. CP Battery is a problem. There is lots of talk about Soup being the problem, but I'm not convinced. No one complains about about cheapish battalions of AdMech, Sisters of Battle, or even IG unless it's happens to be 2 Company Commanders with Kurov's Aquila and Grand Strategist Warlord Trait along with 3 Infantry Squads (with Mortars if ITC missions) for 180 Points (195 ITC variant). While driving this up 30 points to 210 (225) would be nice, I would expect 0 players to decide those 30 points are too big a cost to pay for 5 CP and two different opportunities to gain additional CP.
Excellent points.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
gbghg wrote: I'd rather Infantry squads retain the ability to take heavy weapons, given that the rule of 3 exists. Moving them out of Infantry squads basically cripples foot guard's ability to bring heavy weapons, if it's really an issue maybe add an extra tax to taking them like that if it's really an issue but retain the capability at least.
Ah, but there's the thing you're missing: Guard losing heavy weapon teams. Not access to heavy weapons period. We'd need some new heavy weapons to be added in though. Multilasers with a backpack ammo feed, heavy stubbers, stuff that could feasibly be put on one guy. Conscripts are already trash, there's really no need to make them worse. Sergeants getting lasgun's is only a good thing, plenty of evidence that a bump to 5ppm is probably a good thing but I don't see a need for a stat change, Infantry squads already have their place and their role. Vet's being troops is basically my biggest want and probably the best way to make them useful again. Interesting idea
The stat change for Conscripts and Infantry Squads is predicated upon the idea of revamping the army as a whole. I'm for Conscripts getting bumped up and returning to their initial costs/unit sizes--they become a fodder unit that can maybe/sorta do something. Since they would have no access to Orders or <Regiment> doctrines, they end up being exactly what people like myself think they should be: Conscripted individuals. They might have some special skills, but they likely wouldn't apply on the battlefield. Revamped order system like you describe could get really broken depending on the specifics and synergies between orders at different levels, personally I'd advocate an if it ain't broke don't fix it approach to orders, they work well enough as they are now.
Sampling of what I've got in my mind: Senior Officer( HQ choice) with <Cadian> can give a <Cadian> specific Order. If he does, any friendly <Cadian> models in your army get the "Last Step Backwards" <Cadian> Order. Cadian models get an extra attack with their ranged weapons(as in: you shoot with your Lasguns, resolve, then get to shoot again--). Junior Officer(Elite choice) with <Cadian> gives a generic Order. When he does, friendly <Cadian> Infantry models in your Detachment get the "Dig In!" Order. Models in your Detachment count as being in Cover, whether they are or not. If they're already in Cover, they get +1 to their LD instead. Sergeant in a Veteran Squad gives the "Suppressing Fire!" Order making it so that until your next turn if his squad causes an unsaved wound on an enemy unit, they don't get any bonuses to their Advance or Charge rolls. Each 'tier' would have a specific kind of thing they can do, with Vox-Casters allowing you to get a slightly better benefit to the Regimental Stratagems, like Skitarii get now. We'd have to add a Junior Officer and Sergeant equivalent for vehicles, but I don't think it could be too crazy to also just make it so Tank Commanders get to have their own 'auras' instead of Orders.
56409
Post by: Amishprn86
Them losing heavy weapons.mortar is not a good idea, many infantry units have special/heavy weapon options, guard should not be any different.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Amishprn86 wrote:Them losing heavy weapons.mortar is not a good idea, many infantry units have special/heavy weapon options, guard should not be any different.
Teams, not just losing them period.
Of course I'm also a huge stickler for Guard and AdMech getting access to Rapier and Tarantulas as part of their armies somehow.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Kanluwen wrote: Amishprn86 wrote:Them losing heavy weapons.mortar is not a good idea, many infantry units have special/heavy weapon options, guard should not be any different.
Teams, not just losing them period.
Of course I'm also a huge stickler for Guard and AdMech getting access to Rapier and Tarantulas as part of their armies somehow.
Guard get Tarantulas I thought?
Honestly just make Infantry squads 45 points total, move Vets to the Troop slot again, and Conscripts can start at 3.5 points for the starting squad and adding more is 3 points a model.
11860
Post by: Martel732
And up the costs on their tanks. IG equipment is way too cheap per wound fielded on the table. Very difficult to engage even with the right weapons, because you just don't have enough shots. BS4 isn't a good enough excuse to have their stuff be so damn cheap.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Kanluwen wrote: Amishprn86 wrote:Them losing heavy weapons.mortar is not a good idea, many infantry units have special/heavy weapon options, guard should not be any different. Teams, not just losing them period. Of course I'm also a huge stickler for Guard and AdMech getting access to Rapier and Tarantulas as part of their armies somehow.
Guard get Tarantulas I thought? Honestly just make Infantry squads 45 points total, move Vets to the Troop slot again, and Conscripts can start at 3.5 points for the starting squad and adding more is 3 points a model.
They do, but they're a FW piece--I'd rather see a kit from GW proper with a bit more flexibility in weapon options. Autocannons, Multilasers, Heavy Bolters, Meltaguns, hell even Plasma Guns. Make them a kinda/sorta cheapish unit with the Auxilia keyword that gets placed but then has to prioritize certain enemy types over others and can't fight in CC--I could see that adding a bit of an interesting dynamic to Guard lists.
11860
Post by: Martel732
I've souped in Russes and I'm never using a marine tank ever again. It's just stupid. Marines don't have a weapon that can hold the jock strap of the battle cannon. Especially for the absurdly low price. Marines pay more for a single shot multimelta.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Kanluwen wrote:Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Kanluwen wrote: Amishprn86 wrote:Them losing heavy weapons.mortar is not a good idea, many infantry units have special/heavy weapon options, guard should not be any different.
Teams, not just losing them period.
Of course I'm also a huge stickler for Guard and AdMech getting access to Rapier and Tarantulas as part of their armies somehow.
Guard get Tarantulas I thought?
Honestly just make Infantry squads 45 points total, move Vets to the Troop slot again, and Conscripts can start at 3.5 points for the starting squad and adding more is 3 points a model.
They do, but they're a FW piece--I'd rather see a kit from GW proper with a bit more flexibility in weapon options.
Autocannons, Multilasers, Heavy Bolters, Meltaguns, hell even Plasma Guns.
Make them a kinda/sorta cheapish unit with the Auxilia keyword that gets placed but then has to prioritize certain enemy types over others and can't fight in CC--I could see that adding a bit of an interesting dynamic to Guard lists.
I'd be down for Multilasers and Autocannons as options.
117771
Post by: w1zard
I think from a purely mathematical perspective guardsmen make more sense at 5ppm than 4 ppm. Compare them to fire warriors at 7ppm and they are pretty damn near even, with fire warriors pulling ahead vs high T targets and having better range, and guardsmen being better in melee and being more flexible in general.
However, putting guardsmen at 5ppm makes them purely worse from a mathematical standpoint than skitarii rangers, kabalites, neophytes etc... and would be bad for guard unless those other factions were changed at the same time. Not only this, the change would be bad for mono- IG who are barely managing to hold their own against soup lists and mono-eldar/mono- DE lists with 4ppm chaff infantry acting as a crutch.
In addition to that, 5ppm guardsmen would not change the fact that they are taken so prevelantly in soup. It would increase the cost of a guard battalion by a measly 30 points and do nothing about the reason why guard are really taken in soup ( CP regen).
That is pretty much what I have gotten from this thread.
Marmatag wrote:https://www.bestcoastpairings.com/r/9eb9prk3
Brandon runs a pure IG list, with a Shadowsword. This was also discussed and shared on facebook.
Here's another one from June:
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Brenden-Chrustie-1st-Overall-Plains-of-War-GT-2018.pdf
Can we pause for a moment and discuss how it's perfectly acceptable for guard players to say "mono IG aren't winning GTs" and they provide no evidence for this ridiculous claim, yet the burden of proof falls on me to counter what is obviously false?
And these are just first place finishings. Coming in 2nd or third in a 50+ person GT is actually really damn good, too.
Can you post a link to the list or a picture of the list for the Boise GT winner? I believe you, I just want to see the list.
WOW Brenden Chrustie's list has pretty much no anti-tank guns outside of his 3 battle cannons... he skewed hard anti-infantry and probably went up against horde lists. No wonder he won.
105713
Post by: Insectum7
^Looks like Pask is in there with a Plasma Las kitted LR as well.
117900
Post by: Dandelion
w1zard wrote:
However, putting guardsmen at 5ppm makes them purely worse from a mathematical standpoint than skitarii rangers, kabalites, neophytes etc... and would be bad for guard unless those other factions were changed at the same time.
Guardsmen, rangers and kabalites can all go up one point. Fire warriors are imo stuck between 7 and 8 pts, but I would not mind 8pt for them.
I disagree with your stance on guard vs neophytes. The only real tangible difference is a deployment option, which is the army special rule (like orders) and even that is variable and not guaranteed to work. Guard and neophytes can and should be the same price provided sarges get lasguns.
Consider for a second the relationship between Fire Warriors and Skitarii Rangers and see that they are the same price despite having much greater differences than the former 2 units.
Lastly, get rid of army wide -1 to hit, that should boost Guard's (and others") chances at winning a tournament.
117771
Post by: w1zard
Insectum7 wrote:^Looks like Pask is in there with a Plasma Las kitted LR as well.
There are 4 russes.
One is pask with a lascannon and plasma sponsons.
Two are battlecannon russes.
One is a punisher russ.
His only anti-tank are three battlecannon russes, only one of which has a lascannon on it. That is entirely insufficient anti-tank for a 1,750 point TAC list. Like I said it has a heavy anti-infantry skew and probably got matched against horde lists the entire tournament because a knight list, or a list with even a single baneblade would crap all over it.
Dandelion wrote:I disagree with your stance on guard vs neophytes. The only real tangible difference is a deployment option, which is the army special rule (like orders) and even that is variable and not guaranteed to work. Guard and neophytes can and should be the same price provided sarges get lasguns.
Neophytes have superior leadership to guardsmen. If guardsmen were 5 points neophytes would be guardsmen with +1L and better deployment options for the same price.
Dandelion wrote:Guardsmen, rangers and kabalites can all go up one point. Fire warriors are imo stuck between 7 and 8 pts, but I would not mind 8pt for them.
Great, then we agree. Guardsmen can be 5 points when rangers, kabalites, and neophytes get nerfed or have price increases. Until that happens, all you are doing is hurting guard without really fixing anything. I think fire warriors can stay at 7 points, that seems fair for them.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Just make Infantry squads 45 points. Seriously. That's the only compromise you're gonna get without having to mess with Guard a lot and not have to adjust every other army.
117900
Post by: Dandelion
w1zard wrote:
Neophytes have superior leadership to guardsmen. If guardsmen were 5 points neophytes would be guardsmen with +1L and better deployment options for the same price.
I think you're really overvaluing those two things. Primarily because Cult Ambush is to GSC as Orders are to Guard, and orders are guaranteed, but ou have to roll for the ambush type, which might suck. And cult ambush is only once a game while orders can be received each turn. And imo +1L is not worth a 20% increase in price especially when it puts neophytes at the same price as veterans who are 33% more killy.
In the grand scheme of things, guardsmen and neophytes are close enough to be the same point cost. Automatically Appended Next Post: Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Just make Infantry squads 45 points. Seriously. That's the only compromise you're gonna get without having to mess with Guard a lot and not have to adjust every other army.
Mandatory voxes then?
77474
Post by: SHUPPET
Glad I stopped following this dumpster of a thread when I did. 10 pages later and still the same garbage flowing from the exact same people who don't even have yet a cursory understanding of competitive 40k. Carry on though, the good players will keep winning with this dex in your stead
23306
Post by: The_Real_Chris
Kanluwen wrote:Ah, but there's the thing you're missing:
Guard losing heavy weapon teams. Not access to heavy weapons period. We'd need some new heavy weapons to be added in though. Multilasers with a backpack ammo feed, heavy stubbers, stuff that could feasibly be put on one guy.
Perhaps we should have a specific guard wishlisting thread and leave this one to die a quiet, unmourned death...
(I would have many things to wish in - starting with having a cheap transport that wasn't worth more than its occupants!)
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Dandelion wrote:w1zard wrote:
Neophytes have superior leadership to guardsmen. If guardsmen were 5 points neophytes would be guardsmen with +1L and better deployment options for the same price.
I think you're really overvaluing those two things. Primarily because Cult Ambush is to GSC as Orders are to Guard, and orders are guaranteed, but ou have to roll for the ambush type, which might suck. And cult ambush is only once a game while orders can be received each turn. And imo +1L is not worth a 20% increase in price especially when it puts neophytes at the same price as veterans who are 33% more killy.
In the grand scheme of things, guardsmen and neophytes are close enough to be the same point cost.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Just make Infantry squads 45 points. Seriously. That's the only compromise you're gonna get without having to mess with Guard a lot and not have to adjust every other army.
Mandatory voxes then?
Mandatory voxes just extend guard order ranges without actually having any impact on the fact that it takes an inordinate amount of points to remove guardsmen, while they still have good for tgeir points damage output.
They take longer to kill and kill more than most comparible units making voxes mandatory won't change that.
Also on the topic of moral you need to kill 7 Guardsmen to guarantee moral ignoring that you can just using that unlimited CP to be able to auto pass.
Killing 7 and relying on moral still requires lot of shots of avarage rolling to remove a infanty squad in the open. It also can't be relied upon if you need that objective or scoring unit removed.
4.97 times their points cost in FW standing in the open, or 3.32 times in infantry squads
Put them in cover and its worse at 7 times thier points cost in FW to remove, or 4.43 in infantry squads.
That more durable than other infantry with better board control and better offence.
Additionally orders can improve thier durability, mobility, or offence making them even more rediculous.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
w1zard wrote: Insectum7 wrote:^Looks like Pask is in there with a Plasma Las kitted LR as well.
There are 4 russes.
One is pask with a lascannon and plasma sponsons.
Two are battlecannon russes.
One is a punisher russ.
His only anti-tank are three battlecannon russes, only one of which has a lascannon on it. That is entirely insufficient anti-tank for a 1,750 point TAC list. Like I said it has a heavy anti-infantry skew and probably got matched against horde lists the entire tournament because a knight list, or a list with even a single baneblade would crap all over it.
Dandelion wrote:I disagree with your stance on guard vs neophytes. The only real tangible difference is a deployment option, which is the army special rule (like orders) and even that is variable and not guaranteed to work. Guard and neophytes can and should be the same price provided sarges get lasguns.
Neophytes have superior leadership to guardsmen. If guardsmen were 5 points neophytes would be guardsmen with +1L and better deployment options for the same price.
Dandelion wrote:Guardsmen, rangers and kabalites can all go up one point. Fire warriors are imo stuck between 7 and 8 pts, but I would not mind 8pt for them.
Great, then we agree. Guardsmen can be 5 points when rangers, kabalites, and neophytes get nerfed or have price increases. Until that happens, all you are doing is hurting guard without really fixing anything. I think fire warriors can stay at 7 points, that seems fair for them.
A battle cannon (on a russ) is equivalent to like 3 lascannons at single targets - it about as good as 7 lascannons vs heavy infantry.
23306
Post by: The_Real_Chris
The_Real_Chris wrote: Kanluwen wrote:Ah, but there's the thing you're missing:
Guard losing heavy weapon teams. Not access to heavy weapons period. We'd need some new heavy weapons to be added in though. Multilasers with a backpack ammo feed, heavy stubbers, stuff that could feasibly be put on one guy.
Perhaps we should have a specific guard wishlisting thread and leave this one to die a quiet, unmourned death...
(I would have many things to wish in - starting with having a cheap transport that wasn't worth more than its occupants!)
Oh and Flak should be a 6+ save...
Power Armour 3+
Carapace Armour 4+
Mesh Armour 5+
Flak 'armour?' 6+
722
Post by: Kanluwen
The_Real_Chris wrote:The_Real_Chris wrote: Kanluwen wrote:Ah, but there's the thing you're missing:
Guard losing heavy weapon teams. Not access to heavy weapons period. We'd need some new heavy weapons to be added in though. Multilasers with a backpack ammo feed, heavy stubbers, stuff that could feasibly be put on one guy.
Perhaps we should have a specific guard wishlisting thread and leave this one to die a quiet, unmourned death...
(I would have many things to wish in - starting with having a cheap transport that wasn't worth more than its occupants!)
Oh and Flak should be a 6+ save...
Power Armour 3+
Carapace Armour 4+
Mesh Armour 5+
Flak 'armour?' 6+
Then Mesh Armour should be a 6+.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Eldar mesh armor is like mithril armor in LOTR - it should honestly be as good as carapace. It should be flak/though hides 6+/ carapace and mesh 5+/ stuff like scout armor (light power armor) light aspect warrior armor (enchanced mesh) should be 4+. Power armor 3+.
Orks are actually getting a 6+ because their hide is tough.
Just speaking strictly from a fluff prospective here -
Tyranids are a perfectly evolved race breed for killing. They have chitnin armor plates over their face/chest/back. It is somewhat silly to me that chitnin armor is weaker than mass produced flak armor that a human can carry.
Mass produced flak armor > Perfectly evolved chitnin? That seems odd to me.
Mass produced flak armor > Eldar hand woven super fabric/ wraithbone? That is odd too.
Really IMO not having to do with rules here - the human is not pathetic enough. Automatically Appended Next Post: Kanluwen wrote:The_Real_Chris wrote:The_Real_Chris wrote: Kanluwen wrote:Ah, but there's the thing you're missing:
Guard losing heavy weapon teams. Not access to heavy weapons period. We'd need some new heavy weapons to be added in though. Multilasers with a backpack ammo feed, heavy stubbers, stuff that could feasibly be put on one guy.
Perhaps we should have a specific guard wishlisting thread and leave this one to die a quiet, unmourned death...
(I would have many things to wish in - starting with having a cheap transport that wasn't worth more than its occupants!)
Oh and Flak should be a 6+ save...
Power Armour 3+
Carapace Armour 4+
Mesh Armour 5+
Flak 'armour?' 6+
Then Mesh Armour should be a 6+.
Just to be fair here - don't you think eldar quality things should be better than human mass produced things?
108023
Post by: Marmatag
SHUPPET wrote:Glad I stopped following this dumpster of a thread when I did. 10 pages later and still the same garbage flowing from the exact same people who don't even have yet a cursory understanding of competitive 40k. Carry on though, the good players will keep winning with this dex in your stead
I'm going to take a page out of your book. This thread is nonsense.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Xenomancers wrote:
Just to be fair here - don't you think eldar quality things should be better than human mass produced things?
Nope. Guardians aren't wearing the top tier, end all be all gear. They're wearing the most basic of stuff that is effectively an undersuit. If Flak is going to a 6+, so is Mesh--they've been linked for quite some time.
Flak armour covers everything from Cadians to Tanith. The only way to differentiate them will be actual different squads and rules for "Light" Infantry versus "Shock" Infantry, or giving Cadians Carapace instead of Flak.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Dandelion wrote:w1zard wrote:
Neophytes have superior leadership to guardsmen. If guardsmen were 5 points neophytes would be guardsmen with +1L and better deployment options for the same price.
I think you're really overvaluing those two things. Primarily because Cult Ambush is to GSC as Orders are to Guard, and orders are guaranteed, but ou have to roll for the ambush type, which might suck. And cult ambush is only once a game while orders can be received each turn. And imo +1L is not worth a 20% increase in price especially when it puts neophytes at the same price as veterans who are 33% more killy.
In the grand scheme of things, guardsmen and neophytes are close enough to be the same point cost.
Disagree. The Cult Ambush rule is also able to be backed up by the stratagem from CA2017 allowing you to 'reset' the units into Cult Ambush.
Orders also are a very different beast to Cult Ambush IMO. The Auras that the individual characters give is that equivalent, Cult Ambush is a bit of an oddity at this point in time since most Troops choices don't have something like this anymore.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Xenomancers wrote:Eldar mesh armor is like mithril armor in LOTR - it should honestly be as good as carapace. It should be flak/though hides 6+/ carapace and mesh 5+/ stuff like scout armor (light power armor) light aspect warrior armor (enchanced mesh) should be 4+. Power armor 3+.
Orks are actually getting a 6+ because their hide is tough.
Just speaking strictly from a fluff prospective here -
Tyranids are a perfectly evolved race breed for killing. They have chitnin armor plates over their face/chest/back. It is somewhat silly to me that chitnin armor is weaker than mass produced flak armor that a human can carry.
Mass produced flak armor > Perfectly evolved chitnin? That seems odd to me.
Mass produced flak armor > Eldar hand woven super fabric/ wraithbone? That is odd too.
Really IMO not having to do with rules here - the human is not pathetic enough.
This mindset is why we get absurdly ovepowered Eldar books literally every edition
Eldar mesh armor has never been portrayed as particularly fantastically protective armor, rather it's thing has always been that it is light weight and flexible relative to its level of protection.
Chitin armor plates may be perfectly evolved, but that evolution depends on what its needed for, and on Gaunts it's not much given their disposable nature to the Hive Mind. With respect to the real world, despite billions of years of evolution, there's not much in the way of natural armor that will protect against a rifle bullet, mass produced level 3 body armor certainly will however.
71534
Post by: Bharring
Vak,
Would you find this statement accurate:
"Eldar mesh armor has been portrayed as particularly fantastically protective armor *for* its light weight and flexible. Not in absolute terms."
?
I think its the same concept, but more technically correct.
According to a lot of fluff, IG are actually well-provisioned, normally. Their weapons and kit are top-notch for human-grade kit. It's just that every faction on the tabletop is super-something. IG training and gear are a level above most PDFs or independent factions.
So Flakk armor is good armor. But Boltguns are amazing guns. Gauss is absurdly powerful. Shuriken and Splinter are unimaginable terrors. And soforth. So it's natural for Mesh to be in the same class protection-wise.
11860
Post by: Martel732
If I were physically with you in a room, I'd faux-slap you for putting boltgun and amazing in the same sentence.
119704
Post by: Kcalehc
Once upon a time, flak was 6+ ordinarily, but 5+ against blast templates. Now we don't have those anymore, you can't really go back, but that would have made more sense. Flak being better against, well, Flak, than against small arms fire kinda makes sense. But at a flat 5+ it does seem a bit too good for the standard human infantryman honestly; maybe 5+ only against random shot weapons (which are mostly all formerly blast weapons), and 6+ normally would be a compromise.
I agree with some of the suggestions earlier about conscripts, making them Auxilia and not regiment, so they cannot get orders at all, and having a 6+ flat save is fair for their old price.
The Orders things I'd also completely redo, with a proper command hierarchy, including even making it so infantry squads are much less effective if there's no Officer nearby to command them (making Paltoon Commanders actually useful, and bring back Platoons!)
Troopers could go up to 5ppm, but transports would have to come down, as would some things like vox casters.
But that's just me I suppose.
71534
Post by: Bharring
Martel,
What's not amazing about a fully-auto weapon where each bullet is a *rocket*? That hits unarmored targets as hard as disintigrating robot-space-alien rayguns? That hits unarmored targets as hard as a full spray of super-space-elf needle-guns?
Now, it doesn't pay off in-game. But it is amazing.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Bharring wrote:Martel,
What's not amazing about a fully-auto weapon where each bullet is a *rocket*? That hits unarmored targets as hard as disintigrating robot-space-alien rayguns? That hits unarmored targets as hard as a full spray of super-space-elf needle-guns?
Now, it doesn't pay off in-game. But it is amazing.
S4 AP0. That's what is not amazing. Crunch trump fluff, always. Because that's what I have to play with. I didn't even read the text of my 7th ed codex, because it doesn't matter.
71534
Post by: Bharring
Well, it's not amazing compared to super space-elf ninja-samurais. Or lovecraftian horrors in space. Or damn robot space aliens. Or soccor hooligans on steroids in space. ...
But when shooting at a super-soldier or indestructable robot alien, it's 50% more likely to actually do damage than a top-of-the-line well-maintained human military rifle (Lasgun).
I suppose "Amazing" in crunch terms means "OP" or "auto-include" - neither of which inspire me. I don't consider Alaitoc Hemlocks "amazing" just because they're OP.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Well, they are.
Again, I don't care about the fluff at all. It doesn't get the job done on a 13 point model, and so it sucks to me.
71534
Post by: Bharring
The change to the wound table really hurt the Marine value of "Human +1" in a lot of ways. It makes being +1 super-awesome-shooting have much less impact on shooting +X super-durable stuff.
11860
Post by: Martel732
That would be fine if points reflected those changes. They don't.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Boltguns should be AP-2 against targets with 5+ armor or worse. That would be a fluffy change.
71534
Post by: Bharring
Martel,
Isn't that the purpose of threads liek this? To make the points more accurately reflect the relative ability?
Marm,
Wouldn't bringing back 7e AP atop current-edition AP be a lot of rules overhead?
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Bharring wrote:Marm, Wouldn't bringing back 7e AP atop current-edition AP be a lot of rules overhead? Not if it's specific to space marines. Just a general "astartes built" rule: "Boltguns equipped by models with the <ADEPTUS ASTARTES> keyword gain AP-2 against targets with a save characteristic 5 or greater." It would also help to justify the obscene cost difference between Sisters of Battle and Space Marines.
11860
Post by: Martel732
It is. But, as usual, there is very little agreement. I've been very upset about this in the past, but I must admit the best price points are not 100% obvious.
The best description is your two-tier description for infantry. I don't know why GW can't see this as a problem. Maybe they do now after a full year. Who knows?
From what I can tell, a large chunk of the frontline gaming people are reporting marines as trash (not Reecius), and this "fact" is talked about as a given in their podcasts. To some, this might be more damning than the actual math.
71534
Post by: Bharring
I'd love for the model costs in Kill Team to mostly make it to 40k. I think that might bring things more in line (although CWE might need to find a middleground).
11860
Post by: Martel732
I don't play kill team, so I wouldn't know.
I did message the frontline gaming guys and mention how GW has managed to reduce my entire codex to scouts and captains in about one year. They said they couldn't disagree. Someone outside the Dakka-sphere agrees.
Guardsmen aren't the whole reason, but they are a piece of the puzzle. 180 pts for 5 CP is pretty good.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Bharring wrote:I'd love for the model costs in Kill Team to mostly make it to 40k. I think that might bring things more in line (although CWE might need to find a middleground).
Grey Knights are chodeville in Kill Team.
117900
Post by: Dandelion
Kanluwen wrote:[
Dandelion wrote:w1zard wrote:
Neophytes have superior leadership to guardsmen. If guardsmen were 5 points neophytes would be guardsmen with +1L and better deployment options for the same price.
I think you're really overvaluing those two things. Primarily because Cult Ambush is to GSC as Orders are to Guard, and orders are guaranteed, but ou have to roll for the ambush type, which might suck. And cult ambush is only once a game while orders can be received each turn. And imo +1L is not worth a 20% increase in price especially when it puts neophytes at the same price as veterans who are 33% more killy.
In the grand scheme of things, guardsmen and neophytes are close enough to be the same point cost.
Disagree. The Cult Ambush rule is also able to be backed up by the stratagem from CA2017 allowing you to 'reset' the units into Cult Ambush.
Orders also are a very different beast to Cult Ambush IMO. The Auras that the individual characters give is that equivalent, Cult Ambush is a bit of an oddity at this point in time since most Troops choices don't have something like this anymore.
But do you think that those two differences put neophytes on the same level as veterans? Cuz that's what wizard is saying.
Also, orders are the Guard's special ability, like how cult ambush is the GSC's ability. So from that point of view they are roughly equivalent.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Martel732 wrote:I don't play kill team, so I wouldn't know. I did message the frontline gaming guys and mention how GW has managed to reduce my entire codex to scouts and captains in about one year. They said they couldn't disagree. Someone outside the Dakka-sphere agrees. Guardsmen aren't the whole reason, but they are a piece of the puzzle. 180 pts for 5 CP is pretty good. I mean that's the fate of any codex that's teetering on the low to mid tier area. Tyranids could be really boiled down to codex Tyrant, Hive Guard, and Carnifex. Space marines have Captains, Scouts, and Devastators. Yes, devastator squads are viable thanks to cherub + signum + heavy / krakk. In the right context some vehicles can be viable, but that's usually revolving around Guilliman. Aggressors are a good unit in a bad dex too. In the last few months, more GTs have been won by Marines than Tyranids. If that matters to you.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Oh yeah, the FAQ trick that would have been LAUGHED AT if I had posted it here in Dakka the week before.
117900
Post by: Dandelion
Marmatag wrote:Boltguns should be AP-2 against targets with 5+ armor or worse. That would be a fluffy change.
Or just let marines shoot more with their boltguns. No need for fancy rules that target very specific units.
If for example marines could shoot 3 times in rapid fire vs your idea:
Shooting 3 times (rapid fire)
- 1 marine kills 8/9 GEQ
AP -2 (rapid fire)
- 1 marine kills 8/9 GEQ
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Dandelion wrote: Kanluwen wrote: Dandelion wrote:w1zard wrote: Neophytes have superior leadership to guardsmen. If guardsmen were 5 points neophytes would be guardsmen with +1L and better deployment options for the same price. I think you're really overvaluing those two things. Primarily because Cult Ambush is to GSC as Orders are to Guard, and orders are guaranteed, but ou have to roll for the ambush type, which might suck. And cult ambush is only once a game while orders can be received each turn. And imo +1L is not worth a 20% increase in price especially when it puts neophytes at the same price as veterans who are 33% more killy. In the grand scheme of things, guardsmen and neophytes are close enough to be the same point cost.
Disagree. The Cult Ambush rule is also able to be backed up by the stratagem from CA2017 allowing you to 'reset' the units into Cult Ambush. Orders also are a very different beast to Cult Ambush IMO. The Auras that the individual characters give is that equivalent, Cult Ambush is a bit of an oddity at this point in time since most Troops choices don't have something like this anymore. But do you think that those two differences put neophytes on the same level as veterans? Cuz that's what wizard is saying.
I think that GW seems to feel that +1LD is worth a point. I'd done a bit of a deconstruction awhile back and it seems like there's a threshold where stuff actually costs points-- LD over 6, 4+ or better saves, weapons with certain values, etc. Also, orders are the Guard's special ability, like how cult ambush is the GSC's ability. So from that point of view they are roughly equivalent.
We might have to agree to disagree on this point, but I really don't see those as the same. I see Cult Ambush as a slightly downgraded version of the various alternate deployment methods. It kinda has to be given that most other armies are getting such a wide variety of infiltration via Command Points and Stratagems. Orders, I maintain, are related to the auras.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Martel732 wrote:Oh yeah, the FAQ trick that would have been LAUGHED AT if I had posted it here in Dakka the week before.
Doesn't change the fact that marines are consistently performing better than Tyranids.
6772
Post by: Vaktathi
Bharring wrote:Vak,
Would you find this statement accurate:
"Eldar mesh armor has been portrayed as particularly fantastically protective armor *for* its light weight and flexible. Not in absolute terms."
?
I think its the same concept, but more technically correct.
According to a lot of fluff, IG are actually well-provisioned, normally. Their weapons and kit are top-notch for human-grade kit. It's just that every faction on the tabletop is super-something. IG training and gear are a level above most PDFs or independent factions.
So Flakk armor is good armor. But Boltguns are amazing guns. Gauss is absurdly powerful. Shuriken and Splinter are unimaginable terrors. And soforth. So it's natural for Mesh to be in the same class protection-wise.
yeah id go with that. I think tabletop 40k just doesnt have the space to really portray that particular facet, advanced lightweight armor doesnt have really any place to express itself in a meaningful way at the scale the game plays.
97198
Post by: Nazrak
Dandelion wrote: Marmatag wrote:Boltguns should be AP-2 against targets with 5+ armor or worse. That would be a fluffy change.
Or just let marines shoot more with their boltguns. No need for fancy rules that target very specific units.
If for example marines could shoot 3 times in rapid fire vs your idea:
Shooting 3 times (rapid fire)
- 1 marine kills 8/9 GEQ
AP -2 (rapid fire)
- 1 marine kills 8/9 GEQ
Yeah, I think faster-firing Bolters is the way to go with Marines, to improve their anti-Infantry damage output.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Marmatag wrote:Martel732 wrote:Oh yeah, the FAQ trick that would have been LAUGHED AT if I had posted it here in Dakka the week before.
Doesn't change the fact that marines are consistently performing better than Tyranids.
I assume we are talking soups that have marines in it? Automatically Appended Next Post: Dandelion wrote: Marmatag wrote:Boltguns should be AP-2 against targets with 5+ armor or worse. That would be a fluffy change.
Or just let marines shoot more with their boltguns. No need for fancy rules that target very specific units.
If for example marines could shoot 3 times in rapid fire vs your idea:
Shooting 3 times (rapid fire)
- 1 marine kills 8/9 GEQ
AP -2 (rapid fire)
- 1 marine kills 8/9 GEQ
Lets just drop them to 10 points so I can bring 10 marines for every 20 guardsmen.
117900
Post by: Dandelion
Kanluwen wrote:
I think that GW seems to feel that +1LD is worth a point. I'd done a bit of a deconstruction awhile back and it seems like there's a threshold where stuff actually costs points-- LD over 6, 4+ or better saves, weapons with certain values, etc.
Since you seem to believe +1Ld is worth a point, compare 6 pt neophytes to 7pt fire warriors and 7 pt skitarii rangers.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Xenomancers wrote: Marmatag wrote:Martel732 wrote:Oh yeah, the FAQ trick that would have been LAUGHED AT if I had posted it here in Dakka the week before.
Doesn't change the fact that marines are consistently performing better than Tyranids.
I assume we are talking soups that have marines in it? I mean, everyone Imperium is going to soup a little bit. The only - ONLY - Imperial faction that can consistently stand on its own right now is Guard. Primary ITC faction of Marines.
23306
Post by: The_Real_Chris
Kanluwen wrote:Flak armour covers everything from Cadians to Tanith. The only way to differentiate them will be actual different squads and rules for "Light" Infantry versus "Shock" Infantry, or giving Cadians Carapace instead of Flak.
Yes, it would be a nice addition to the regiment rules! Automatically Appended Next Post: Nazrak wrote:Dandelion wrote: Marmatag wrote:Boltguns should be AP-2 against targets with 5+ armor or worse. That would be a fluffy change.
Or just let marines shoot more with their boltguns. No need for fancy rules that target very specific units.
If for example marines could shoot 3 times in rapid fire vs your idea:
Shooting 3 times (rapid fire)
- 1 marine kills 8/9 GEQ
AP -2 (rapid fire)
- 1 marine kills 8/9 GEQ
Yeah, I think faster-firing Bolters is the way to go with Marines, to improve their anti-Infantry damage output.
Yes, saying either 'Astartes bolters fire larger calibers than human scale guns, increase all Astartes bolter APs by 1 (basic to -1, Hve Bolter to -2, etc.)', or 'Astartes can fire Bolt weapons with unerring accuracy, getting more of the rocket projectiles on target, increase the number of shots fired by one for any Bolt weapon used by a marine' would be a needed boost.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Dandelion wrote: Kanluwen wrote:
I think that GW seems to feel that +1LD is worth a point. I'd done a bit of a deconstruction awhile back and it seems like there's a threshold where stuff actually costs points-- LD over 6, 4+ or better saves, weapons with certain values, etc.
Since you seem to believe +1Ld is worth a point, compare 6 pt neophytes to 7pt fire warriors and 7 pt skitarii rangers.
There's more at play than simply +1LD in that comparison though.
There's a 4+ armor save on FW and Rangers.
There's a difference in weapon Strength in favor of FW and Rangers.
Like I said though, I think that GW seems to feel that +1LD is worth a point. This is, IMO, one of the big issues with the " GEQ" idea--there's really only a handful of units that have that moniker apply to them, and a big chunk of them are frankly in the Guard army. Then you have cases like " GEQ-ish". Neophytes fall under this, they're GEQ statlines with Marine Leadership and Guard weapon options and Conscript unit size options, with an elite unit's alternate deployment options.
The fact that Neophytes are 5 points at all is extremely surprising to me.
23306
Post by: The_Real_Chris
Kcalehc wrote:... including even making it so infantry squads are much less effective if there's no Officer nearby to command them (making Paltoon Commanders actually useful, and bring back Platoons!)
Making infantry LD 5 and 6 and giving officers a LD 7 aura could do that.
117900
Post by: Dandelion
Kanluwen wrote:Dandelion wrote: Kanluwen wrote:
I think that GW seems to feel that +1LD is worth a point. I'd done a bit of a deconstruction awhile back and it seems like there's a threshold where stuff actually costs points-- LD over 6, 4+ or better saves, weapons with certain values, etc.
Since you seem to believe +1Ld is worth a point, compare 6 pt neophytes to 7pt fire warriors and 7 pt skitarii rangers.
There's more at play than simply +1LD in that comparison though.
There's a 4+ armor save on FW and Rangers.
There's a difference in weapon Strength in favor of FW and Rangers.
Like I said though, I think that GW seems to feel that +1LD is worth a point. This is, IMO, one of the big issues with the " GEQ" idea--there's really only a handful of units that have that moniker apply to them, and a big chunk of them are frankly in the Guard army. Then you have cases like " GEQ-ish". Neophytes fall under this, they're GEQ statlines with Marine Leadership and Guard weapon options and Conscript unit size options, with an elite unit's alternate deployment options.
The fact that Neophytes are 5 points at all is extremely surprising to me.
GW points things based off of feel AFAIK, there's no x stat is worth x points. And going back to the rangers comparison, I'm trying to show that 1 point encompasses considerably more than just one stat, which is why neophytes can't really be bumped to 6 pts.
Perhaps a more granular approach would be to make squad leaders cost extra points like before though.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Marmatag wrote:Bharring wrote:I'd love for the model costs in Kill Team to mostly make it to 40k. I think that might bring things more in line (although CWE might need to find a middleground).
Grey Knights are chodeville in Kill Team.
Not surprising. Automatically Appended Next Post: Dandelion wrote:w1zard wrote:
Neophytes have superior leadership to guardsmen. If guardsmen were 5 points neophytes would be guardsmen with +1L and better deployment options for the same price.
I think you're really overvaluing those two things. Primarily because Cult Ambush is to GSC as Orders are to Guard, and orders are guaranteed, but ou have to roll for the ambush type, which might suck. And cult ambush is only once a game while orders can be received each turn. And imo +1L is not worth a 20% increase in price especially when it puts neophytes at the same price as veterans who are 33% more killy.
In the grand scheme of things, guardsmen and neophytes are close enough to be the same point cost.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Just make Infantry squads 45 points. Seriously. That's the only compromise you're gonna get without having to mess with Guard a lot and not have to adjust every other army.
Mandatory voxes then?
Um no? You want it you pay for it.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Dandelion wrote:
GW points things based off of feel AFAIK, there's no x stat is worth x points.
There's a bit of method to the madness there, but I don't think they'll ever reveal it.
And going back to the rangers comparison, I'm trying to show that 1 point encompasses considerably more than just one stat, which is why neophytes can't really be bumped to 6 pts.
You'll notice that I have not suggested Neophytes should be bumped up. From what I was reading(and I might be attributing intent that he didn't have) in his post, it seemed like he was saying that if Guard got brought up to Neophytes' points then Neophytes become Infantry Squads +1.
I also feel like it's worth mentioning that Tau stuff has always been strangely pointed.
Perhaps a more granular approach would be to make squad leaders cost extra points like before though.
Maybe, but it would have to be pointed for base model+whatever stat upgrades or benefits they bring IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I might be reading into intent, but I think he was suggesting that voxes become a permanent part of the squad and the points gets rolled into the squad's cost to bring them up to 45pts.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Kanluwen wrote:Dandelion wrote:
GW points things based off of feel AFAIK, there's no x stat is worth x points.
There's a bit of method to the madness there, but I don't think they'll ever reveal it.
And going back to the rangers comparison, I'm trying to show that 1 point encompasses considerably more than just one stat, which is why neophytes can't really be bumped to 6 pts.
You'll notice that I have not suggested Neophytes should be bumped up. From what I was reading(and I might be attributing intent that he didn't have) in his post, it seemed like he was saying that if Guard got brought up to Neophytes' points then Neophytes become Infantry Squads +1.
I also feel like it's worth mentioning that Tau stuff has always been strangely pointed.
Perhaps a more granular approach would be to make squad leaders cost extra points like before though.
Maybe, but it would have to be pointed for base model+whatever stat upgrades or benefits they bring IMO.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I might be reading into intent, but I think he was suggesting that voxes become a permanent part of the squad and the points gets rolled into the squad's cost to bring them up to 45pts.
While that might be more simplistic, I was looking for more of a compromise for people saying they're mathematically strong even at 5 points (which they are), while not having to bump tons of other troop choices up a point just because you want them to more match (Rangers and Fire Warriors are fine as is to be honest).
Seeing you can't change the squad size, the flat cost made sense. However I don't know how the AM codex is laid out.
I'm also a fan of a 30k fix for Conscripts where the first 20 or so are costed at 3.5 or 4 points, and anything after that is 3 points. Probably too convoluted but still.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
While that might be more simplistic, I was looking for more of a compromise for people saying they're mathematically strong even at 5 points (which they are), while not having to bump tons of other troop choices up a point just because you want them to more match (Rangers and Fire Warriors are fine as is to be honest).
I'm in agreement with you that Rangers+Fire Warriors are fine as is. My big thing keeps coming to bringing Infantry Squads up to their level in terms of loadouts, equipment, etc--I think " GEQ" at this point is dead as a concept. We seem to be more into FWEQ territory these days.
Seeing you can't change the squad size, the flat cost made sense. However I don't know how the AM codex is laid out.
Infantry Squads have the following notes to be aware of:
9 Guardsmen and 1 Sergeant(you cannot add models to this unit, outside of the "Consolidate Squads" stratagem)
1 model can carry a Vox-Caster
1 model can carry a Special Weapon
Two models can be organized into a Heavy Weapons Team
The 9 Guardsmen have Lasgun and Frag Grenades
The Sergeant has a Laspistol and Frag Grenades
Sergeant can replace their laspistol with an item from the Ranged Weapons list(Boltgun, Plasma Pistol, Bolt Pistol)
Sergeant may take a Chainsword or Power Sword
I'm also a fan of a 30k fix for Conscripts where the first 20 or so are costed at 3.5 or 4 points, and anything after that is 3 points. Probably too convoluted but still.
Honestly, I think they did the best thing by making them cap out at 30 models.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
So it sounds like it wouldn't be terribly hard to just have a single entry that says Infantry squads are 45 flat. I'd encourage people to try that.
71534
Post by: Bharring
If Guardsmen are strong at 5ppm, and there are 5ppm units that are stronger than Guardsmen, then wouldn't those units need to go up?
Alternately, if there are 5ppm units that are better than guardsmen, and they're not strong enough to go up in points, then how can Guardsmen be worth 5ppm?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:So it sounds like it wouldn't be terribly hard to just have a single entry that says Infantry squads are 45 flat. I'd encourage people to try that.
Bear in mind that Vox-Casters do cost points. They don't really cost anything in the normal entry since it relies on Power and the Power level seems to be a bit higher than the points level was.
Infantry Squads were 3 Power, Conscript Squads were 3 Power, and 5 man Scion Squads were 3 Power.
+1 Power for another 10 Conscripts, +2 for another 5 Scions
Translated over to points:
4 points per Infantry Squad member, 3 points per Conscript, 10 points per Scion(technically 9 but Hellguns and Hellpistols were 1 point each as well and part of the base profile).
40 points for Infantry Squad
60 points for Conscripts
50 points for Scions
So 3 Power apparently covers 40 points minimum in the Guard book. Automatically Appended Next Post: Bharring wrote:If Guardsmen are strong at 5ppm, and there are 5ppm units that are stronger than Guardsmen, then wouldn't those units need to go up?
Alternately, if there are 5ppm units that are better than guardsmen, and they're not strong enough to go up in points, then how can Guardsmen be worth 5ppm?
One big issue with the Neophyte entry, at least IMO, is that it's supposed to encompass a PDF squad or generic cultists rising up...yet somehow the PDF squad has the ability to take a bit more 'oomph' at times than the Guard do.
I'd like to see Hybrid Neophytes split into two units.
Brood Brothers(the PDF Squad), set at static unit size that can't be changed
Hybrid Neophytes(the generic cultists)
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Bharring wrote:If Guardsmen are strong at 5ppm, and there are 5ppm units that are stronger than Guardsmen, then wouldn't those units need to go up?
Alternately, if there are 5ppm units that are better than guardsmen, and they're not strong enough to go up in points, then how can Guardsmen be worth 5ppm?
What 5ppm unit is stronger than infantry squads in real terms?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Ice_can wrote:Bharring wrote:If Guardsmen are strong at 5ppm, and there are 5ppm units that are stronger than Guardsmen, then wouldn't those units need to go up?
Alternately, if there are 5ppm units that are better than guardsmen, and they're not strong enough to go up in points, then how can Guardsmen be worth 5ppm?
What 5ppm unit is stronger than infantry squads in real terms?
What are we defining as "real terms"?
His post is in response to the conversation going on about Neophyte Hybrids--a unit with mostly the same statline. They're Marine leadership(7 and 8) with a watered down Deep Strike.
Neophytes have the same weapon options as Infantry Squads--right down to being able to take Mortars--but can double the squad size to provide a bit more protection for the Heavy Weapons Team.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Kanluwen wrote:Ice_can wrote:Bharring wrote:If Guardsmen are strong at 5ppm, and there are 5ppm units that are stronger than Guardsmen, then wouldn't those units need to go up?
Alternately, if there are 5ppm units that are better than guardsmen, and they're not strong enough to go up in points, then how can Guardsmen be worth 5ppm?
What 5ppm unit is stronger than infantry squads in real terms?
What are we defining as "real terms"?
His post is in response to the conversation going on about Neophyte Hybrids--a unit with mostly the same statline. They're Marine leadership(7 and 8) with a watered down Deep Strike.
Neophytes have the same weapon options as Infantry Squads--right down to being able to take Mortars--but can double the squad size to provide a bit more protection for the Heavy Weapons Team.
Real terms a game advantage worth points
Being able to bring extra dudes they pay points for doesn't make them worth more points per model.
So they loose regiment traits for their own faction rules not really seeing the issue there.
Leadership of +1 isn't worth a point people either need the squad dead and will kill it as they arn't going to be chaning it surviving moral losses.
Or they are just splashing damage output onto a random target for lack of another and might get 1 more dude of and infantry squad compaired to neophytes who in 20 man units will take more casualties to moral anyway. The joys of smaller unit's means moral has a maximum kill potential.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Ice_can wrote: Kanluwen wrote:Ice_can wrote:Bharring wrote:If Guardsmen are strong at 5ppm, and there are 5ppm units that are stronger than Guardsmen, then wouldn't those units need to go up? Alternately, if there are 5ppm units that are better than guardsmen, and they're not strong enough to go up in points, then how can Guardsmen be worth 5ppm?
What 5ppm unit is stronger than infantry squads in real terms?
What are we defining as "real terms"? His post is in response to the conversation going on about Neophyte Hybrids--a unit with mostly the same statline. They're Marine leadership(7 and 8) with a watered down Deep Strike. Neophytes have the same weapon options as Infantry Squads--right down to being able to take Mortars--but can double the squad size to provide a bit more protection for the Heavy Weapons Team.
Real terms a game advantage worth points Being able to bring extra dudes they pay points for doesn't make them worth more points per model.
To be blunt, it really can be a part of the reason for the formula. 80 point 20 man squads with Autoguns or Lasguns that can potentially come into your back field and unload with 2 Special Weapons and 2 Heavy Mining Weapons or a Heavy Weapons Team can be a Not Good Thing. So they loose regiment traits for their own faction rules not really seeing the issue there.
I really wish people would stop conflating the Cult Ambush rules with regimental traits or orders. It's a watered down alternate deployment method. Leadership of +1 isn't worth a point people either need the squad dead and will kill it as they arn't going to be chaning it surviving moral losses. Or they are just splashing damage output onto a random target for lack of another and might get 1 more dude of and infantry squad compaired to neophytes who in 20 man units will take more casualties to moral anyway. The joys of smaller unit's means moral has a maximum kill potential.
I kill 7 models from a LD6(7) unit--they're almost guaranteed to be failing. An Infantry Squad can burn some Command Points to reduce the casualties however. I kill 7 models from a LD7(8) unit--they're not going to be failing as hard as the LD6(7) and the LD7(8) unit has access to morale modifying auras. Having larger numbers was why people hated Conscripts early on, an "auto-pass Morale" aura is also what they disliked-- GSC have access to both of those.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Auto-pass morale means more when you have the best shooting in the entire game backing you up. Auto pass morale for a close range/assault army is an entirely different story.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Marmatag wrote:Auto-pass morale means more when you have the best shooting in the entire game backing you up. Auto pass morale for a close range/assault army is an entirely different story.
You know that GSC can bring in a Guard Detachment as Brood Brothers, yeah? And that they have access to a large portion of the Guard's shooting within their actual army?
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Kanluwen wrote: Marmatag wrote:Auto-pass morale means more when you have the best shooting in the entire game backing you up. Auto pass morale for a close range/assault army is an entirely different story.
You know that GSC can bring in a Guard Detachment as Brood Brothers, yeah? And that they have access to a large portion of the Guard's shooting within their actual army?
Then you should support full deletion of all regiment specific abilities, stratagems, tactics, etc from the guard codex right? Since they're so pointless you can just hand wave through them.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Marmatag wrote: Kanluwen wrote: Marmatag wrote:Auto-pass morale means more when you have the best shooting in the entire game backing you up. Auto pass morale for a close range/assault army is an entirely different story.
You know that GSC can bring in a Guard Detachment as Brood Brothers, yeah? And that they have access to a large portion of the Guard's shooting within their actual army? Then you should support full deletion of all regiment specific abilities, stratagems, tactics, etc from the guard codex right? Since they're so pointless you can just hand wave through them.
Fwoosh. That's you missing the point. Brood Brothers lets you take a faction that has no shared keywords/faction as an Ally. That is huge. We also don't know if Brood Brothers will actually do the same thing come the GSC codex or if it will do something more significant for a Guard Detachment taken as Allies. Also, Brood Brothers locks you out of <Regiment> restricted stuff... but not anything AM specific. So while you lose access to Regiment specific stuff, that's still a pretty damn big deal.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Kanluwen wrote:Ice_can wrote: Kanluwen wrote:Ice_can wrote:Bharring wrote:If Guardsmen are strong at 5ppm, and there are 5ppm units that are stronger than Guardsmen, then wouldn't those units need to go up?
Alternately, if there are 5ppm units that are better than guardsmen, and they're not strong enough to go up in points, then how can Guardsmen be worth 5ppm?
What 5ppm unit is stronger than infantry squads in real terms?
What are we defining as "real terms"?
His post is in response to the conversation going on about Neophyte Hybrids--a unit with mostly the same statline. They're Marine leadership(7 and 8) with a watered down Deep Strike.
Neophytes have the same weapon options as Infantry Squads--right down to being able to take Mortars--but can double the squad size to provide a bit more protection for the Heavy Weapons Team.
Real terms a game advantage worth points
Being able to bring extra dudes they pay points for doesn't make them worth more points per model.
To be blunt, it really can be a part of the reason for the formula. 80 point 20 man squads with Autoguns or Lasguns that can potentially come into your back field and unload with 2 Special Weapons and 2 Heavy Mining Weapons or a Heavy Weapons Team can be a Not Good Thing.
So they loose regiment traits for their own faction rules not really seeing the issue there.
I really wish people would stop conflating the Cult Ambush rules with regimental traits or orders. It's a watered down alternate deployment method.
Leadership of +1 isn't worth a point people either need the squad dead and will kill it as they arn't going to be chaning it surviving moral losses.
Or they are just splashing damage output onto a random target for lack of another and might get 1 more dude of and infantry squad compaired to neophytes who in 20 man units will take more casualties to moral anyway. The joys of smaller unit's means moral has a maximum kill potential.
I kill 7 models from a LD6(7) unit--they're almost guaranteed to be failing. An Infantry Squad can burn some Command Points to reduce the casualties however.
I kill 7 models from a LD7(8) unit--they're not going to be failing as hard as the LD6(7) and the LD7(8) unit has access to morale modifying auras.
Having larger numbers was why people hated Conscripts early on, an "auto-pass Morale" aura is also what they disliked-- GSC have access to both of those.
How have neophytes suddenly taken a 20% point cut in you example? You want to explain that one or is this just more false narative manufacturing to deny 4ppm guardsmen are undercosted?
11860
Post by: Martel732
I can't believe this didn't end with a BS 4+ model with 5+ armor with a 24" gun being worth more than 4 pts.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Martel732 wrote:I can't believe this didn't end with a BS 4+ model with 5+ armor with a 24" gun being worth more than 4 pts.
That's Because they are 100% worth 5 points a model minimum.
90435
Post by: Slayer-Fan123
Martel732 wrote:I can't believe this didn't end with a BS 4+ model with 5+ armor with a 24" gun being worth more than 4 pts.
And last edition we laughed at the profile for being 5 points!
11860
Post by: Martel732
I mean I can't believe the argument didn't end there is what I meant. These guys are 1 pt more than grots. Go look at a grot. They are the same as stock termangants. Really?
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Martel732 wrote:I can't believe this didn't end with a BS 4+ model with 5+ armor with a 24" gun being worth more than 4 pts.
And last edition we laughed at the profile for being 5 points!
How does 7th edition rules have to do with how much a model is worth in 8th?
This is the same logic GW has used that kept many units unplayable overcosted.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Ice_can wrote:
How have neophytes suddenly taken a 20% point cut in you example? You want to explain that one or is this just more false narative manufacturing to deny 4ppm guardsmen are undercosted?
It was based upon the idea that Neophytes are somehow exactly the same as Guardsmen and that you shouldn't have to pay points for having more models in a unit.
Since we seem to be playing fast and loose with theoreticals, I'd assume you would have caught that it was theoretical from the outset. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ice_can wrote:Martel732 wrote:I can't believe this didn't end with a BS 4+ model with 5+ armor with a 24" gun being worth more than 4 pts.
That's Because they are 100% worth 5 points a model minimum.
Only if they're LD7(8) and forward deploying, apparently.
108023
Post by: Marmatag
Martel732 wrote:I can't believe this didn't end with a BS 4+ model with 5+ armor with a 24" gun being worth more than 4 pts.
Because the goalposts are constantly shifted. We kicked a field goal from the SOUP yardline, and the goalposts moved. Then we kicked another one from the TOURNAMENT yardline, and the goalposts jumped again. Now we're setting up a field goal from GENESTEALER CULTS yards away, and the goalposts are starting to quiver.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Marmatag wrote:Martel732 wrote:I can't believe this didn't end with a BS 4+ model with 5+ armor with a 24" gun being worth more than 4 pts.
Because the goalposts are constantly shifted. We kicked a field goal from the SOUP yardline, and the goalposts moved. Then we kicked another one from the TOURNAMENT yardline, and the goalposts jumped again. Now we're setting up a field goal from GENESTEALER CULTS yards away, and the goalposts are starting to quiver.
Except you still haven't proven definitively that the unit is worth 5 points per model. You've argued that it is, but for someone who keeps trying to point to tournament representation and then being told time and time again that the stats don't support your argument it's quite interesting to see you discussing "goalposts shifting".
118746
Post by: Ice_can
Kanluwen wrote:Ice_can wrote:
How have neophytes suddenly taken a 20% point cut in you example? You want to explain that one or is this just more false narative manufacturing to deny 4ppm guardsmen are undercosted?
It was based upon the idea that Neophytes are somehow exactly the same as Guardsmen and that you shouldn't have to pay points for having more models in a unit.
Since we seem to be playing fast and loose with theoreticals, I'd assume you would have caught that it was theoretical from the outset.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote:Martel732 wrote:I can't believe this didn't end with a BS 4+ model with 5+ armor with a 24" gun being worth more than 4 pts.
That's Because they are 100% worth 5 points a model minimum.
Only if they're LD7(8) and forward deploying, apparently. 
BULL you got caught lying and are downplaying so you can keep up an unsupportable position.
Well at this point I can only say you deserve all the CA nerfing you get roll on 6ppm guardsmen.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Marmatag wrote:Martel732 wrote:I can't believe this didn't end with a BS 4+ model with 5+ armor with a 24" gun being worth more than 4 pts.
Because the goalposts are constantly shifted. We kicked a field goal from the SOUP yardline, and the goalposts moved. Then we kicked another one from the TOURNAMENT yardline, and the goalposts jumped again. Now we're setting up a field goal from GENESTEALER CULTS yards away, and the goalposts are starting to quiver.
I don't think any of that is necessary, but I guess some do.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Ice_can wrote: Kanluwen wrote:Ice_can wrote:
How have neophytes suddenly taken a 20% point cut in you example? You want to explain that one or is this just more false narative manufacturing to deny 4ppm guardsmen are undercosted?
It was based upon the idea that Neophytes are somehow exactly the same as Guardsmen and that you shouldn't have to pay points for having more models in a unit.
Since we seem to be playing fast and loose with theoreticals, I'd assume you would have caught that it was theoretical from the outset.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote:Martel732 wrote:I can't believe this didn't end with a BS 4+ model with 5+ armor with a 24" gun being worth more than 4 pts.
That's Because they are 100% worth 5 points a model minimum.
Only if they're LD7(8) and forward deploying, apparently. 
BULL you got caught lying and are downplaying so you can keep up an unsupportable position.
So this is really all you have?
I've been fairly polite with you. I've admitted when I've made mistakes in mathing or rules. Given that this whole fricking thread has constantly had people moving goalposts or positing hypotheticals and never calling them out, I'd assumed you would have been able to figure that out from the start.
Well at this point I can only say you deserve all the CA nerfing you get roll on 6ppm guardsmen.
And as soon as 6ppm Guardsmen happen, I expect to see Conscripts back in the mix and you lot back in here whining about that.
117771
Post by: w1zard
Dandelion wrote:I think you're really overvaluing those two things. Primarily because Cult Ambush is to GSC as Orders are to Guard, and orders are guaranteed, but ou have to roll for the ambush type, which might suck. And cult ambush is only once a game while orders can be received each turn. And imo +1L is not worth a 20% increase in price especially when it puts neophytes at the same price as veterans who are 33% more killy.
Oh I agree that +1L and slightly better deployment options aren't worth a 20% increase in price (shifting neophytes to 6ppm). However, the fact that neophytes would be a direct upgrade to guardsmen for the same points costs would mean they need nerfs no? Otherwise you are just contradicting yourself.
I'm just trying to get this straight. I'm already convinced that guardsmen should be 5ppm, I'm just seriously baffled why everyone is not also supporting nerfs to infantry that are provably and mathematically superior in every respect to 5ppm guardsmen.
I don't get how you guys can be saying guardsmen are "worth" 5ppm and in the same breath say that neophytes who have the exact same stats as guardsmen, and the exact same weapons, with +1L, better deployment options, and a larger squad size should be the exact same price. That reeks of anti-guard bias.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
w1zard wrote:Dandelion wrote:I think you're really overvaluing those two things. Primarily because Cult Ambush is to GSC as Orders are to Guard, and orders are guaranteed, but ou have to roll for the ambush type, which might suck. And cult ambush is only once a game while orders can be received each turn. And imo +1L is not worth a 20% increase in price especially when it puts neophytes at the same price as veterans who are 33% more killy.
Oh I agree that +1L and slightly better deployment options aren't worth a 20% increase in price (shifting neophytes to 6ppm). However, the fact that neophytes would be a direct upgrade to guardsmen for the same points costs would mean they need nerfs no? Otherwise you are just contradicting yourself.
I'm just trying to get this straight. I'm already convinced that guardsmen should be 5ppm, I'm just seriously baffled why everyone is not also supporting nerfs to infantry that are provably and mathematically superior in every respect to 5ppm guardsmen.
Because they loose cadian, Catachan or other regiment traits for those deployment options.
Meaning its realy just +1 Ld which isn't worth +point.
117771
Post by: w1zard
Again, +1L isn't worth a point but it means they are flat out better than guardsmen for the same price... like a direct upgrade (same stats, same weapons, just better). That doesn't seem wrong at all to you?
You are also forgetting that the GSC book hasn't come out yet. We may very well see neophytes with regimental traits or something similar.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Ice_can wrote:w1zard wrote:Dandelion wrote:I think you're really overvaluing those two things. Primarily because Cult Ambush is to GSC as Orders are to Guard, and orders are guaranteed, but ou have to roll for the ambush type, which might suck. And cult ambush is only once a game while orders can be received each turn. And imo +1L is not worth a 20% increase in price especially when it puts neophytes at the same price as veterans who are 33% more killy.
Oh I agree that +1L and slightly better deployment options aren't worth a 20% increase in price (shifting neophytes to 6ppm). However, the fact that neophytes would be a direct upgrade to guardsmen for the same points costs would mean they need nerfs no? Otherwise you are just contradicting yourself.
I'm just trying to get this straight. I'm already convinced that guardsmen should be 5ppm, I'm just seriously baffled why everyone is not also supporting nerfs to infantry that are provably and mathematically superior in every respect to 5ppm guardsmen.
Because they loose cadian, Catachan or other regiment traits for those deployment options.
It's almost like they aren't Astra Militarum!
Meaning its realy just +1 Ld which isn't worth +point.
It's MEQ Ld values. If you want worse values, I'm sure they'll oblige to bring you in line with Infantry Squads at 5ppm.
113192
Post by: DrGiggles
w1zard wrote:
Again, +1L isn't worth a point but it means they are flat out better than guardsmen for the same price... like a direct upgrade (same stats, same weapons, just better). That doesn't seem wrong at all to you?
You are also forgetting that the GSC book hasn't come out yet. We may very well see neophytes with regimental traits or something similar.
We also might see them go up 2 points, but since we haven't seen their codex yet it's best to leave them be for now. If they do end up with new traits and the same price point then we can talk about needing a points increase.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
DrGiggles wrote:w1zard wrote:
Again, +1L isn't worth a point but it means they are flat out better than guardsmen for the same price... like a direct upgrade (same stats, same weapons, just better). That doesn't seem wrong at all to you?
You are also forgetting that the GSC book hasn't come out yet. We may very well see neophytes with regimental traits or something similar.
We also might see them go up 2 points, but since we haven't seen their codex yet it's best to leave them be for now. If they do end up with new traits and the same price point then we can talk about needing a points increase.
We'll get an idea with the boxed set coming out this weekend, if Aberrants and Hybrids have seen some differences it might be a good 'snapshot' of where they're thinking with the Codex.
I doubt we'll see a <Cult> because they seem to get a benefit instead for the ability to take a Guard Detachment with Brood Brother replacing <Regiment>.
117771
Post by: w1zard
DrGiggles wrote:We also might see them go up 2 points, but since we haven't seen their codex yet it's best to leave them be for now. If they do end up with new traits and the same price point then we can talk about needing a points increase.
But in their current iteration they are too powerful correct? Again... straight up superior to 5ppm guardsmen.
I really wish people would stop dodging this.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
w1zard wrote:
Again, +1L isn't worth a point but it means they are flat out better than guardsmen for the same price... like a direct upgrade (same stats, same weapons, just better). That doesn't seem wrong at all to you?
You are also forgetting that the GSC book hasn't come out yet. We may very well see neophytes with regimental traits or something similar.
At which point they might be worth 6ppm, we can only deal with the facts as they are not how they might be in 4 months. They could also get some horrible codex and be even weaker.
As for the issue of it not being worth a point but being better, that is the issue of continuous reducing points the scale gets too compressed to allow for granularity.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
w1zard wrote: DrGiggles wrote:We also might see them go up 2 points, but since we haven't seen their codex yet it's best to leave them be for now. If they do end up with new traits and the same price point then we can talk about needing a points increase.
But in their current iteration they are too powerful correct? Again... straight up superior to 5ppm guardsmen.
I really wish people would stop dodging this.
They'll continue dodging it because they'd rather have a narrative that Guard players are willfully deceptive or don't "appreciate" their book.
We're supposed to be a NPC race, just like Orks and Tyranids.
118746
Post by: Ice_can
w1zard wrote: DrGiggles wrote:We also might see them go up 2 points, but since we haven't seen their codex yet it's best to leave them be for now. If they do end up with new traits and the same price point then we can talk about needing a points increase.
But in their current iteration they are too powerful correct? Again... straight up superior to 5ppm guardsmen.
I really wish people would stop dodging this.
Not dodging it but the answer to it is definitely not forcing every other model in the game to come down in points to be competitive as every point dropped just increases the amount of things that will be different but not worth a point differences.
|
|