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.

 Kanluwen wrote:
We're supposed to be a NPC race, just like Orks and Tyranids.

I just want to hear them say that they think skitarii rangers, kabalites, and neophytes should all be nerfed and have points increases, and pursue it with the same vigor that they are pursuing the 1ppm increase to guardsmen.

This absurd focus on putting guardsmen "in their place" whilst ignoring superior infantry from other factions even when those other infantry are direct upgrades (neophytes) or are provably mathematically superior (rangers, kabalites) is extremely odd. Especially when they are confronted with the evidence and they shy away from taking a firm stance, or try to defend the imbalance.

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.

Sure they are probably .5 points under costed. Since we can't increase things by 1/2 a point then let's just get rid of the neophyte's +1L until their codex comes out and we see what their kit eventually becomes. If that means that guardsmen go to 5ppm with no more complaints then so be it.

 DrGiggles wrote:
Sure they are probably .5 points under costed. Since we can't increase things by 1/2 a point then let's just get rid of the neophyte's +1L until their codex comes out and we see what their kit eventually becomes. If that means that guardsmen go to 5ppm with no more complaints then so be it.

A rational and sane position, and you indulged my desire for a definite stance on the issue. Thank you.

 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've read almost every post in this thread and i somehow missed all these "field goals"
1. Soup has constantly been shown to be a huge issue in this thread and every person posting has said that guard CP regeneration is an issue so not sure exactly
2. Not sure what field goal was kicked in the tournament section you were able to find 2 tournaments with IG lists...
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Richard-Windau-1st-Overall-Midwest-Conquest-GT-2018.pdf
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Mike-Whittington-1st-Overall-GrotsCon-2018.pdf
here's 2 tau ones I looked up in about 2 mins so are tau broken? I found everything from necrons to SM and the only common thread I see was lots of soup and a lot of mono DE (not saying DE are broken just think it takes a bit of time for the meta to shift)
3. Now i haven't played against gene steller cults so don't really know there stats so i have no clue about the validity of those arguments.

The main point I think you lose people on is kinda what your last post indicates. You claim things are "obvious" knowledge and then back them up with really weak evidence and expect to sway peoples minds. You claim to "kick field goals" by what? finding a guard list that's one a GT but somehow its obvious to everyone that they are brokenly good? Somehow defeating an argument about soup with there being no clear signs you did anything of the sort. I personally have found most if not every argument in this thread relatively poor. I mean the only response I even got when posting statistics about win percentages of factions was that they should somehow be discounted because tournaments have time limits.

Asmodios wrote:

 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've read almost every post in this thread and i somehow missed all these "field goals"
1. Soup has constantly been shown to be a huge issue in this thread and every person posting has said that guard CP regeneration is an issue so not sure exactly
2. Not sure what field goal was kicked in the tournament section you were able to find 2 tournaments with IG lists...
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Richard-Windau-1st-Overall-Midwest-Conquest-GT-2018.pdf
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Mike-Whittington-1st-Overall-GrotsCon-2018.pdf
here's 2 tau ones I looked up in about 2 mins so are tau broken? I found everything from necrons to SM and the only common thread I see was lots of soup and a lot of mono DE (not saying DE are broken just think it takes a bit of time for the meta to shift)
3. Now i haven't played against gene steller cults so don't really know there stats so i have no clue about the validity of those arguments.

The main point I think you lose people on is kinda what your last post indicates. You claim things are "obvious" knowledge and then back them up with really weak evidence and expect to sway peoples minds. You claim to "kick field goals" by what? finding a guard list that's one a GT but somehow its obvious to everyone that they are brokenly good? Somehow defeating an argument about soup with there being no clear signs you did anything of the sort. I personally have found most if not every argument in this thread relatively poor. I mean the only response I even got when posting statistics about win percentages of factions was that they should somehow be discounted because tournaments have time limits.

You didnt post win percentages you posted avarage win percentages.
Avarages without deviations are extremely limited in what they tell you. Outliers dramatically squew avarages, untill you or someone can produce the details behind these avarages they don't tell the story.

I really think people are overthinking here. 5+ saves are so strong on 4 point models. Most fire coming their way is AP 0, because the heavier stuff a) can't be spared when trying to shutdown Manticore batteries b) doesn't have the cost effectiveness necessary.

Stopping 33% of successful wounds on models that are 4 ppm and likely number in the 60+ range is soul crushing. And I'm pretending cover isn't a thing. Nor the cover strat.

Ice_can wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 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've read almost every post in this thread and i somehow missed all these "field goals"
1. Soup has constantly been shown to be a huge issue in this thread and every person posting has said that guard CP regeneration is an issue so not sure exactly
2. Not sure what field goal was kicked in the tournament section you were able to find 2 tournaments with IG lists...
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Richard-Windau-1st-Overall-Midwest-Conquest-GT-2018.pdf
http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Mike-Whittington-1st-Overall-GrotsCon-2018.pdf
here's 2 tau ones I looked up in about 2 mins so are tau broken? I found everything from necrons to SM and the only common thread I see was lots of soup and a lot of mono DE (not saying DE are broken just think it takes a bit of time for the meta to shift)
3. Now i haven't played against gene steller cults so don't really know there stats so i have no clue about the validity of those arguments.

The main point I think you lose people on is kinda what your last post indicates. You claim things are "obvious" knowledge and then back them up with really weak evidence and expect to sway peoples minds. You claim to "kick field goals" by what? finding a guard list that's one a GT but somehow its obvious to everyone that they are brokenly good? Somehow defeating an argument about soup with there being no clear signs you did anything of the sort. I personally have found most if not every argument in this thread relatively poor. I mean the only response I even got when posting statistics about win percentages of factions was that they should somehow be discounted because tournaments have time limits.

You didnt post win percentages you posted avarage win percentages.
Avarages without deviations are extremely limited in what they tell you. Outliers dramatically squew avarages, untill you or someone can produce the details behind these avarages they don't tell the story.

I posted the full averages for the entire tournament and while obviously not perfect data I find it far more conclusive then posting 2 GTs out of all the GTs having guard win and claiming this makes it obvious to everyone that they are broken. Id actually say there hasn't been a statistical data point presented in this entire thread that holds more weight than the actual win percentages as an average because its the only thing taking the frequency of armies into account.

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.

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.

Your objection is more academic than it is practical. Unfortunately points are not an exact science, most points are done by "feels right" more than anything. Bumping Neophytes to 6pts puts them at the same cost as veterans, and veterans are superior to neophytes. So what do we do? Bump veterans to 7 pts? But then we would need to bump Skitarii rangers to at least 9 pts. Then what happens to battle sisters? Up to 10 or 11 pts?
Oh, and let's not forget orks. Putting neophytes at 6 pts drops them right next to boyz who are about as durable but also a lot more killy. Both at range and in combat.

And i'm not even considering the abilities of these units: Orks also have strong morale and a charge re-roll. Rangers have Canticles and an invuln. Fire Warriors get bonds and better overwatch etc...

So, again, not an exact science. Neophytes and Guard Infantry are close enough to be the same point cost.

One bonus to the 4 point Guardsmen, is that I always see actual guardsmen on the table. Any time you see Guard on the table, theres always at least a platoons worth of Infantry squads. That's refreshing from a lore standpoint. If Guard were 5, I suspect I'd see a lot more conscripts instead.

 Insectum7 wrote:
One bonus to the 4 point Guardsmen, is that I always see actual guardsmen on the table. Any time you see Guard on the table, theres always at least a platoons worth of Infantry squads. That's refreshing from a lore standpoint. If Guard were 5, I suspect I'd see a lot more conscripts instead.

Everytime I play against a certain army, there's always a particular unit that they take.

:thinking:

Must mean that unit is perfectly balanced.

-

On a more serious note; 4ppm Conscripts and 5ppm Guardsman would solve a lot of their issues (especially in terms of balance to other races), while also giving them each their own identity.

fe40k wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
One bonus to the 4 point Guardsmen, is that I always see actual guardsmen on the table. Any time you see Guard on the table, theres always at least a platoons worth of Infantry squads. That's refreshing from a lore standpoint. If Guard were 5, I suspect I'd see a lot more conscripts instead.

Everytime I play against a certain army, there's always a particular unit that they take.

:thinking:

Must mean that unit is perfectly balanced.

Remember that at the start of 8th (ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE INCOMING) it seemed like everyone and their mother suddenly had a 'Conscript' army that they insisted they had always wanted to play.

I think that's what he's getting at. There's a tight line between Infantry Squads and Conscript Squads, with most of it coming down to Infantry Squads can take Orders more reliably and at longer ranges while also taking a Special and a HWT.

Conscripts just bring more bodies.

On a more serious note; 4ppm Conscripts and 5ppm Guardsman would solve a lot of their issues (especially in terms of balance to other races), while also giving them each their own identity.

So would just making Guardsmen closer to other armies in terms of their stats and downgrading Conscripts to be something more equivalent to Grots.
Ditch the Lasguns from Conscripts, give them Autorifles and/or Autopistols/CCWs instead(remember: Munitorum issues the Lasguns. Autoguns and that stuff can be locally sourced!).
Remove the <Regiment> tag and give them Auxilia instead so they can't receive Orders or benefit from <Regiment> traits then--but they also won't ruin the <Regiment> for Detachment.

 Insectum7 wrote:
One bonus to the 4 point Guardsmen, is that I always see actual guardsmen on the table. Any time you see Guard on the table, theres always at least a platoons worth of Infantry squads. That's refreshing from a lore standpoint. If Guard were 5, I suspect I'd see a lot more conscripts instead.

Typically - when 2 models have the exact same points but one is clearly inferior in every way (like a conscript) you never see that unit.

I'd rather see Infantry than Conscripts, so that's fine with me. Conscripts bring the 30? man unit, so they have that. Imo you might see more of them if Comissars hadn't been hit so hard.

Conscripts are more of a "flavor" unit anyways.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
One bonus to the 4 point Guardsmen, is that I always see actual guardsmen on the table. Any time you see Guard on the table, theres always at least a platoons worth of Infantry squads. That's refreshing from a lore standpoint. If Guard were 5, I suspect I'd see a lot more conscripts instead.

Typically - when 2 models have the exact same points but one is clearly inferior in every way (like a conscript) you never see that unit.

Until the Commissar nerf and the 4+ requirement for Orders, people preferred Conscripts if they didn't need specials/heavies(for things like, say, soup...)

"Might see more" is a bit of a stretch when they are completely inferior to Infantry squads for the same price. Less killy and more susceptible to morale. Also no special weapons/gear. So outside of die-hard fluff-players, people are just going to take infantry squads to do the exact same job. Even regular casual players won't use them.

Dandelion wrote:
"Might see more" is a bit of a stretch when they are completely inferior to Infantry squads for the same price. Less killy and more susceptible to morale. Also no special weapons/gear. So outside of die-hard fluff-players, people are just going to take infantry squads to do the exact same job. Even regular casual players won't use them.

And yet, people wouldn't shut up about them at the launch of 8th.

Gee, I wonder why that was?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
One bonus to the 4 point Guardsmen, is that I always see actual guardsmen on the table. Any time you see Guard on the table, theres always at least a platoons worth of Infantry squads. That's refreshing from a lore standpoint. If Guard were 5, I suspect I'd see a lot more conscripts instead.

Typically - when 2 models have the exact same points but one is clearly inferior in every way (like a conscript) you never see that unit.

Until the Commissar nerf and the 4+ requirement for Orders, people preferred Conscripts if they didn't need specials/heavies(for things like, say, soup...)

If your timeline is correct, then people preferred conscripts while they were still 3pts... and even then, people still found them useful later despite the bad commissars. It's the 4 pts that killed them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
"Might see more" is a bit of a stretch when they are completely inferior to Infantry squads for the same price. Less killy and more susceptible to morale. Also no special weapons/gear. So outside of die-hard fluff-players, people are just going to take infantry squads to do the exact same job. Even regular casual players won't use them.

And yet, people wouldn't shut up about them at the launch of 8th.

Gee, I wonder why that was?

cuz they were 3 pts, and hands down the best infantry per point if you ignored morale, which is what commissars did. The only reason you don't see them now is because infantry squads stole their thunder.

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
One bonus to the 4 point Guardsmen, is that I always see actual guardsmen on the table. Any time you see Guard on the table, theres always at least a platoons worth of Infantry squads. That's refreshing from a lore standpoint. If Guard were 5, I suspect I'd see a lot more conscripts instead.

Typically - when 2 models have the exact same points but one is clearly inferior in every way (like a conscript) you never see that unit.

Until the Commissar nerf and the 4+ requirement for Orders, people preferred Conscripts if they didn't need specials/heavies(for things like, say, soup...)

If your timeline is correct, then people preferred conscripts while they were still 3pts... and even then, people still found them useful later despite the bad commissars. It's the 4 pts that killed them.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
"Might see more" is a bit of a stretch when they are completely inferior to Infantry squads for the same price. Less killy and more susceptible to morale. Also no special weapons/gear. So outside of die-hard fluff-players, people are just going to take infantry squads to do the exact same job. Even regular casual players won't use them.

And yet, people wouldn't shut up about them at the launch of 8th.

Gee, I wonder why that was?

cuz they were 3 pts, and hands down the best infantry per point if you ignored morale, which is what commissars did. The only reason you don't see them now is because infantry squads stole their thunder.

Which was my point.

They were 3 pts, could ignore morale and filled the role that people wanted for them:
Cheap models in a soup.

I suspect a miscommunication. The "might see more" comment was directed at insectum, if that clears anything up.

Dandelion wrote:
I suspect a miscommunication. The "might see more" comment was directed at insectum, if that clears anything up.

Possibly. I just think it's important to remember that Conscripts were favored over Infantry Squads at launch, not by Guard players proper but for the soups.

Dandelion wrote:
"Might see more" is a bit of a stretch when they are completely inferior to Infantry squads for the same price. Less killy and more susceptible to morale. Also no special weapons/gear. So outside of die-hard fluff-players, people are just going to take infantry squads to do the exact same job. Even regular casual players won't use them.

Better in every way except squad size. Players might have a good reason to take big single squads of meat shields, since that's what they're for. A 30 man squad covers a lot of ground, and if Comissars still had their original rules or something closer, that could be an asset. Certainly if they could still be in squads of 50, too. There's a lot that changed along with their point value changing.

So conscripts would need a now non-existant ability to make them worth their points? An ability that in all likelihood is never coming back in any shape or form?
But even so, conscripts were still plenty competitive post-codex and post the commissar nerf. And tbh, if commissars still had their old rules, people would have still switched to Infantry because why spend extra on a babysitter? Each model costs the same, and guard can spam squads so why bother?
If guard infantry goes to 5 pts, people will actually start to reconsider conscripts and potentially make them work. But for now there's no real point.

^well the post you originally responded to mentioned less-nerfed Comissars, so I'm not sure why that idea is so shocking. Imo giant fearless squds would still have a niche value, even at the same points cost.

I doubt it since 3 10-man squads work just as well as 1 30-man squad. That and no babysitter required.

Dandelion wrote:
Neophytes and Guard Infantry are close enough to be the same point cost.

I disagree. When one unit is literally exactly the same as another unit except superior, that is entirely unfair that they cost the same.

Maybe the solution isn't increasing neophytes point costs, but instead nerfing their stats in some way.

I find it entirely hypocritical to say that guardsmen need to be nerfed to 5ppm because they are mathematically superior to most other options, and in the same breath say that 5ppm neophytes (which are literally guardsmen except superior in multiple ways) are perfectly fine.

Unless you are arguing that guardsmen should go to 5 points AND be buffed +1L, gain the ability to deepstrike, and have the ability to take more than 10 men in a squad. Because I am perfectly fine with that.

Again, I'm convinced guardsmen should be costed 5 points... But I'm starting to think that the reason people want guardsmen nerfed to 5ppm isn't because they want a more balanced game. I think that guardsmen are a VERY visible boogeyman unit that people are tired of losing against and are scapegoating. It's the only reason I can think of for the logic dissonance behind the whole "Guardsmen need to be 5ppm" and simultaneous "5ppm neophytes and 7ppm rangers are perfectly fine".

 Xenomancers wrote:
Typically - when 2 models have the exact same points but one is clearly inferior in every way (like a conscript) you never see that unit.

Wow! What a thought!

Dandelion wrote:
I doubt it since 3 10-man squads work just as well as 1 30-man squad. That and no babysitter required.

Are you one of those "morale doesn't exist" guys, too?

w1zard wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Neophytes and Guard Infantry are close enough to be the same point cost.

I disagree. When one unit is literally exactly the same as another unit except superior, that is entirely unfair that they cost the same.

Maybe the solution isn't increasing neophytes point costs, but instead nerfing their stats in some way.

I find it entirely hypocritical to say that guardsmen need to be nerfed to 5ppm because they are mathematically superior to most other options, and in the same breath say that 5ppm neophytes (which are literally guardsmen except superior in multiple ways) are perfectly fine.

Unless you are arguing that guardsmen should go to 5 points AND be buffed +1L, gain the ability to deepstrike, and have the ability to take more than 10 men in a squad. Because I am perfectly fine with that.

Again, I'm convinced guardsmen should be costed 5 points... But I'm starting to think that the reason people want guardsmen nerfed to 5ppm isn't because they want a more balanced game. I think that guardsmen are a VERY visible boogeyman unit that people are tired of losing against and are scapegoating. It's the only reason I can think of for the logic dissonance behind the whole "Guardsmen need to be 5ppm" and simultaneous "5ppm neophytes and 7ppm rangers are perfectly fine".

Rangers should be 8ppm I agreed with you on that pages back.

The reason no-one is complaining about neophytes being +1LD is it isn't worth a full point to most player's.

Your picking on the things neophytes have while ignoring what they loose for those things. I'll break it down for you

gain the ability to deepstrike in exchange for no regiment traits

and have the ability to take more than 10 men in a squadas points are payed per model why does the number you can take count towards the value of the individual model

Their charictors have aura buffsthey get fixed aura's not orders

Things dont have to be the same to be equals.

Also in the response to rely on leadersgip casualties crowd, why should a tac list have LD casualties as part of its plan.

Many armies have moral mitigating units or strategums, or are forced into MSU for CP.
People aren't building to rely on LD as its to unreliable. Rely on it and you loose out on scoring an objective etc because if its a game winner you can be sure that auto pass strategum etc will be in play.

Until GW starts putting base costs on units with additional cost per model added, there is not enough difference between Infranty Squad Guardsman and Neophyte Hybrids.

Better leadership is good and so is Cult Ambush, but not 1 point per model good, especially when only half the units in your army get to use Cult Ambush anyway.

I thank a lot of the points issue like guardsman vs conscripts could be solved by buying models by the squad and not the individual.

think conscripts which are probably worth around the high end of 3 points per model vs a guardsman who is on the high end of 4 points per model.

just say we come to the conclusion that conscripts should be 3.8 points per model and a guardsman should be worth 4.6 points per model because of the differences... well instead of saying they are both 4 points per model make them 19 points per 5 extra. after the initial 20 man squad costing 76 points. in the case of a guardsman the 10 man squad would be 46 points.

same rules could be applied to other units/armies. take my fav army Orks. an ork boy is pretty good for 6 points. but not a 7 point model. probably close to the 6 thasn the 7 so say it come out to 6.4 points per model. suddenly boyz are bought at 64 points per 10 rather than 6 points each.

I have a suggestion: what if we first looked to clamp down on Soup? e.g. restricting CP spending to the faction that generated them; having either bonuses for mono-faction armies or penalties for soup armies etc.

Then, once those changes sink in, we see if IG Infantry Squads are still causing issues. If so, we make them 5pts. If not, we leave them where they are.

Does that sound reasonable?