Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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.

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.

 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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

 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.

 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.

 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

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.

 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.

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.

 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

 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.

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?

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.

Kinda like how the tau index was weak but tau commanders were (and still are) way too good.

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.

They are also too good at controlling space and are too difficult to shift for their cost.

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.

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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

Them losing heavy weapons.mortar is not a good idea, many infantry units have special/heavy weapon options, guard should not be any different.