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.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And when GSC get their equivalent to regiment tactics, should they still be worth the same as a Guardsman?

Exactly my point. Especially considering they will get cult ambush on top of those genestealer regimental traits. I was considering cult ambush their equivalent to a "regimental trait" previous to this, which is why I wasn't mentioning regimental traits for guard.

 SHUPPET wrote:
You don't get it. Regiment buffs are free. Catachan Guardsmen are Neophytes with 4S, but can't risky DS.

You are forgetting that neophytes have +1L and have the ability to take more than 10 men in a unit.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Also,the intellectual dishonesty needed to pretend that a 400 pt LoW is the same cost as a 70 pt HQ "because they both aren't free" is astounding. Some armies don't even have HQ cheaper than 70 points, and Straken gives double orders to make up for it, that's not a real tax lol.

Straken isn't horrible, but he isn't very good either. Melee guard is not the optimal way to play, it's a fun thing to do if you want a thematic army. 70 points for a melee beatstick that gives a +1 attack aura and has two orders sounds about right, considering that a company commander that gives two orders is 30 points and is worthless in assault.

If your army doesn't have an HQ worth less than 70 points, that sounds like a weakness with your army you should bring up with GW.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And when GSC get their equivalent to regiment tactics, should they still be worth the same as a Guardsman?

You have utterly no idea how Neophytes will look or what tactics they will get. It's highly possible and even likely from what we've heard, that cult ambush becomes a chapter tactic. At worst, they become an OP unit too - it won't change whether or Guardsmen are undercosted, so stop circling back to this empty point everytime your argument gets countered just so that you can then circle back to what you said initially and pretend nobody noticed that it was already proven false. You cannot balance against the POTENTIAL case of an unreleased unit coming out and being OP, just that's absurdity and with this you may as well just admit right now that you've been wrong from the start. As it stands Neophytes are balanced at 5 points, and Guardsmen being 4S Neophytes certainly would be too.

 SHUPPET wrote:

You have utterly no idea how Neophytes will look or what tactics they will get. It's highly possible and even likely from what we've heard, that cult ambush becomes a chapter tactic. At worst, they become an OP unit too - it won't change whether or Guardsmen are undercosted, so stop circling back to this empty point everytime your argument gets countered just so that you can then circle back to what you said initially and pretend nobody noticed that it was already proven false. You cannot balance against the POTENTIAL case of an unreleased unit coming out and being OP, just that's absurdity and with this you may as well just admit right now that you've been wrong from the start. As it stands Neophytes are balanced at 5 points, and Guardsmen being 4S Neophytes certainly would be too.

Please.

I've already agreed guardsmen should be 5 points.

My response was "well ok, if guardsmen should be five points, what about these other units that are better than guardsmen at 5 points?".

The response seems to be "well... we aren't talking about those units and guardsmen are OP anyway", which is a massive dodge if I have ever heard one.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

You have utterly no idea how Neophytes will look or what tactics they will get. It's highly possible and even likely from what we've heard, that cult ambush becomes a chapter tactic. At worst, they become an OP unit too - it won't change whether or Guardsmen are undercosted, so stop circling back to this empty point everytime your argument gets countered just so that you can then circle back to what you said initially and pretend nobody noticed that it was already proven false. You cannot balance against the POTENTIAL case of an unreleased unit coming out and being OP, just that's absurdity and with this you may as well just admit right now that you've been wrong from the start. As it stands Neophytes are balanced at 5 points, and Guardsmen being 4S Neophytes certainly would be too.

Please.

I've already agreed guardsmen should be 5 points.

My response was "well ok, if guardsmen should be five points, what about these other units that are better then guardsmen at 5 points?".

The response seems to be "well... we aren't talking about those units and guardsmen are OP anyway", which is a massive dodge if I have ever heard one.

Which other units? So far I've only heard you give Neophytes as an example, who are in fact a weaker unit than Gaurdsmen mathematically at 5 points.

Then everytime you're proven wrong here, you point to a unit that has no rules yet as "also being OP".

I've said yes, if Neophytes come out and are also OP, well then that should be fixed too. I don't think they will be though. Why are we comparing to units that don't exist yet? As it stands, Catachan Gaurdsmen are 4S Neophytes and that should be 5 points minimum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Also,the intellectual dishonesty needed to pretend that a 400 pt LoW is the same cost as a 70 pt HQ "because they both aren't free" is astounding. Some armies don't even have HQ cheaper than 70 points, and Straken gives double orders to make up for it, that's not a real tax lol.

Straken isn't horrible, but he isn't very good either. Melee guard is not the optimal way to play, it's a fun thing to do if you want a thematic army. 70 points for a melee beatstick that gives a +1 attack aura and has two orders sounds about right, considering that a company commander that gives two orders is 30 points and is worthless in assault.

lol at "Straken isn't very good". If you have no familiarity with competitive 40k, you probably shouldn't weigh in on these discussions. I'd recommend attending more tournaments, or at least reading up on them a bit more online, and build a stronger understanding for what's actually strong and what isn't. A good core of Catachan Guardsmen with Straken support is currently the strongest way to play Guard.

w1zard wrote:
If your army doesn't have an HQ worth less than 70 points, that sounds like a weakness with your army you should bring up with GW.

Actually, it works just fine. 70 points for a solid HQ with multiple buffs, is a great price for such a unit.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Which other units?

Skitarii rangers and kabalites for starters. I did the math on rangers to prove it pages back.

 SHUPPET wrote:
So far I've only heard you give Neophytes as an example, who are in fact a weaker unit than Gaurdsmen mathematically at 5 points.

No. I've already explained that neophytes are guardsmen except with +1L and the ability to take blob squads. Which means they are better than guardsmen. I am assuming cult ambush is replacing the regimental trait.

If you can explain to me why you think guardsmen are better than neophytes without bringing up auras and buffs from other units (which cost points and introduce other factors into the comparison) then I may be inclined to change my mind. Until then I am going to assume you are being willfully ignorant.

 SHUPPET wrote:
lol at "Straken isn't very good". If you have no familiarity with competitive 40k, you probably shouldn't weigh in on these discussions. I'd recommend attending more tournaments, or at least reading up on them a bit more online, and build a stronger understanding for what's actually strong and what isn't. A good core of Catachan Guardsmen with Straken support is currently the strongest way to play Guard.

Did you seriously get beat by melee guard? Wow... I think that it speaks volumes about your skill as opposed to mine.

If you are allowing Straken+catachans to charge you, you are doing it wrong.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
So far I've only heard you give Neophytes as an example, who are in fact a weaker unit than Gaurdsmen mathematically at 5 points.

No. I've already explained that neophytes are guardsmen except with +1L and the ability to take blob squads. Which means they are better than guardsmen. I am assuming cult ambush is replacing the regimental trait.

If you can explain to me why you think guardsmen are better than neophytes without bringing up auras and buffs from other units (which cost points and introduce other factors into the comparison) then I may be inclined to change my mind. Until then I am going to assume you are being willfully ignorant.

They are Neophytes with +1S, before needing any HQ buffs. With Catachan tactics they have the same LD for free, as well as orders on top of that - you have the cheapest HQ's in the game, there is no additional cost there, you literally cannot take an army without taking these units, just as Neophytes can't be played without taking even stronger units. This logic you use here basically states that Tyranids need a leadership buff, and are horrendously underpowered, because they can only ever shoot or charge the closest thing - acting as though Synapse doesn't exist, or you don't literally have to take HQ's just to take these units, is just playing a different game. Guardsmen at 5 points are stronger than the same amount of points in Neophytes. Arbitrarily selecting which rules to count is just nonsense, use the power of critical thinking that you were blessed with and think for a second that maybe access to these buffs that literally don't cost a thing, isn't something you should write off when evaluating the strength of a unit.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
lol at "Straken isn't very good". If you have no familiarity with competitive 40k, you probably shouldn't weigh in on these discussions. I'd recommend attending more tournaments, or at least reading up on them a bit more online, and build a stronger understanding for what's actually strong and what isn't. A good core of Catachan Guardsmen with Straken support is currently the strongest way to play Guard.

Did you seriously get beat by melee guard? Wow... I think that it speaks volumes about your skill as opposed to mine.

Actually, it speaks volumes of your own for apparently being unable to win even against average players at your local, with an army that took 2 spots inside the top 5 of the latest major tournament. inb4 "b-b-but allies!" - nope, still the strongest way to play Guard. Highest solo Guard player was also running Catachan.

w1zard wrote:
Although I suppose shooting and then charging would be pretty effective.

No gak, maybe you should try it.

w1zard wrote:
Still, if you are allowing Straken+catachans to charge you, you are doing it wrong.

If you are forced to avoid charges because they that efficient in CC, that is a massive strength.

Please post the lists, or link to them. I'm tired of all these claims about tournaments without anyone bothering to post them.

I linked to the BAO lists, none of which featured solo or majority Guard in the top 5. Do link me to these tournaments where Guard took the top five.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Please post the lists, or link to them. I'm tired of all these claims about tournaments without anyone bothering to post them.

I word for word claimed, "A good core of Catachan Guardsmen with Straken support is currently the strongest way to play Guard."

Let's see the two highest placings that Guard primaries took:

#3, battalion with 6 infantry squads, catachan, Straken HQ

#8, battalion with 6 infantry squads, catachan, Straken HQ


I can't link them because it's on the BCP app, if you have link to the lists feel free to verify for yourself
You're right, wasn't 2 in the top 5, only 1, the other 1 got that terrible low position of top 10. What a fraud, right!


hmmmmmmmmmm seems awfully like a "A good core of Catachan Guardsmen with Straken support is currently the strongest way to play Guard."

 JNAProductions wrote:
Please post the lists, or link to them. I'm tired of all these claims about tournaments without anyone bothering to post them.

I linked to the BAO lists, none of which featured solo or majority Guard in the top 5. Do link me to these tournaments where Guard took the top five.

Well. USA ETC winning team had at significant h2h guard. Of course also BA and knights so only half the army was guard so doesn't count. Plus ETC being ETC also makes it fairly irrelevant as ETC isn't even close to being comparable to normal 40k as the armies don't just worry about winning but doing their part(in normal 40k you don't make list _designed with assumption you are going to lose_ for starters)

So, out of a 2k army, there was about 500 points of Guard?

That's... Certainly a good showing, for Guardsmen, but why focus on the fourth when the other three-fourths are the more significant part of the army?

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, out of a 2k army, there was about 500 points of Guard?

That's... Certainly a good showing, for Guardsmen, but why focus on the fourth when the other three-fourths are the more significant part of the army?

Half the army=1000 pts(well 970 to be exact).

tneva82 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, out of a 2k army, there was about 500 points of Guard?

That's... Certainly a good showing, for Guardsmen, but why focus on the fourth when the other three-fourths are the more significant part of the army?

Half the army=1000 pts(well 970 to be exact).

6 Infantry Squads are 40-60 points apiece. So that's 240-360.
Straken is 75, or 70? I'll say 70-80.
Another HQ is, call it 40.

That's... 480, at max. And I'm just AFB and can't check Straken's point cost. I mean, I GUESS if you loaded up on Vox-casters and stuff, it'd be more, but that's not competitive, usually.

Was part of the list left out?

+ TEAM: USA
+ PLAYER TOURNEYKEEPER PROFILE: Tony Kopach, 5534
+ ARMY FACTION: Astra Militarum
+ +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
== Brigade Detachment== Astra Militarum [65 Power Level] [970 Points] {12 CP]
HQ1: Colonel Iron Hand Straken(75) [4 PL] [75pts]
HQ2: Company Commander (30), Powerfist (8), laspistol (0) [2 PL] [38pts]
HQ3: Company Commander (30), Powerfist (8), laspistol (0)Kurovs Aquilla (RELIC-FREE) [2 PL] [38pts] -WARLORD< Strategic
Genius>
Elite1: Ministorum Priest (35), Chainsword (0), laspistol (0) [2 Pl] [35pts]
Elite2: Platoon Commander (20), Powerfist (8), laspistol (0) [2 PL] [28pts]
Elite3: Platoon Commander (20), Powerfist (8), laspistol (0) [2 PL] [28pts]
TR1: Infantry Squad (4x10=40), Chainsword (0) [3 Pl] [40pts]
TR2: Infantry Squad (4x10=40), Chainsword (0) [3 Pl] [40pts]
TR3: Infantry Squad (4x10=40), Chainsword (0) [3 Pl] [40pts]
TR4: Infantry Squad (4x10=40), Chainsword (0) [3 Pl] [40pts]
TR5: Infantry Squad (4x10=40), Chainsword (0) [3 Pl] [40pts]
TR6: Infantry Squad (4x10=40), Chainsword (0) [3 Pl] [40pts]
TR7: Infantry Squad (4x10=40), Chainsword (0) [3 Pl] [40pts]
TR8: Infantry Squad (4x10=40), Chainsword (0) [3 Pl] [40pts]
FA1: Hellhound (73), Inferno cannon (20), Heavy bolter (8), Storm bolter (2) [6 Pl] [103pts]
FA2: Hellhound (73), Inferno cannon (20), Heavy bolter (8), Storm bolter (2) [6 Pl] [103pts]
FA3: Hellhound (73), Inferno cannon (20), Heavy bolter (8), Storm bolter (2) [6 Pl] [103pts]
HS1: Heavy Weapon Squad (6x3=18), Mortar (3x5=15) [3 Pl] [33pts]
HS2: Heavy Weapon Squad (6x3=18), Mortar (3x5=15) [3 Pl] [33pts]
HS3: Heavy Weapon Squad (6x3=18), Mortar (3x5=15) [3 Pl] [33pts]
==Battalion Detachment== Blood Angels [24 Power Level] [423 Points] [5 CP]
HQ4: Captain with Jump Pack (93), Thunderhammer (21), Storm Shield (15) (6 PL) [129pts]
HQ5: Captain with Jump Pack (93), Thunderhammer (21), Storm Shield (15) (6 PL) [129pts]
TR9: Scout Squad (5x11=55), 4x Bolters (0), Combat knife(0), Chainsword(0) [4 PL] [55pts]
TR10: Scout Squad (5x11=55), 4x Bolters (0), Combat knife(0), Chainsword(0) [4 PL] [55pts]
TR11: Scout Squad (5x11=55), 4x Bolters (0), Combat knife(0), Chainsword(0) [4 PL] [55pts]
== Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachment== Imperial Knights [30 Power Level] {604 Points] [0 CP}
LoW1: Knight Castellan (510), Twin Seigebreaker Cannon (2x35=70), Shield Breaker Missiles (2x12=24) [30 Power Level]
[604pts}

3 hellhounds(new hotness in IG, 9 mortars. Ministorum priest, 3 HQ's total.

Thank you.

 SHUPPET wrote:
They are Neophytes with +1S, before needing any HQ buffs. With Catachan tactics they have the same LD for free, as well as orders on top of that - you have the cheapest HQ's in the game, there is no additional cost there, you literally cannot take an army without taking these units, just as Neophytes can't be played without taking even stronger units. This logic you use here basically states that Tyranids need a leadership buff, and are horrendously underpowered, because they can only ever shoot or charge the closest thing - acting as though Synapse doesn't exist, or you don't literally have to take HQ's just to take these units, is just playing a different game. Guardsmen at 5 points are stronger than the same amount of points in Neophytes. Arbitrarily selecting which rules to count is just nonsense, use the power of critical thinking that you were blessed with and think for a second that maybe access to these buffs that literally don't cost a thing, isn't something you should write off when evaluating the strength of a unit.

Stop. You are making a number of assumptions that are incorrect.

1. Stop factoring in regimental traits. Guardsmen get them for free, but they don't get cult ambush. Cult Ambush ARE neophytes regimental trait, and is arguably more valuable than +1S which rarely gets used on guardsmen unless you are running a gimmicky melee army.

2. You can absolutely have a guard army without orders or officers. Tank commanders are HQs that do not affect infantry. Primaris psykers are HQs that do not affect infantry (unless you want to blow a spell on an IS which is a waste). Both are good units that regularly see high level play. Stop assuming orders and leadership buffs are always present because they aren't. Even if they are present they are a result of paying points for the buffing units and that invalidates the comparison.

3. It doesn't matter that guard has the cheapest HQs in the game, we are talking about 5ppm guardsmen vs neophytes. Datasheet vs datasheet.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Actually, it speaks volumes of your own for apparently being unable to win even against average players at your local, with an army that took 2 spots inside the top 5 of the latest major tournament. inb4 "b-b-but allies!" - nope, still the strongest way to play Guard. Highest solo Guard player was also running Catachan.

Never said I had a problem winning against anyone, but please, tell me how to play an army I have played since third edition.

w1zard wrote:
3. It doesn't matter that guard has the cheapest HQs in the game, we are talking about 5ppm guardsmen vs neophytes. Datasheet vs datasheet.

Too bad datasheet vs datasheet comparisons aren't relevant. Now army vs army we are talking.

tneva82 wrote:

w1zard wrote:
3. It doesn't matter that guard has the cheapest HQs in the game, we are talking about 5ppm guardsmen vs neophytes. Datasheet vs datasheet.

Too bad datasheet vs datasheet comparisons aren't relevant. Now army vs army we are talking.

It is extremely relevant. Units shouldn't be punished for other units in the army being good. Everything should be pointed on what it is worth on its own datasheet. Anything else is bad balance where units in a codex are intentionally bad on purpose in order to make up for broken crap.

w1zard wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

w1zard wrote:
3. It doesn't matter that guard has the cheapest HQs in the game, we are talking about 5ppm guardsmen vs neophytes. Datasheet vs datasheet.

Too bad datasheet vs datasheet comparisons aren't relevant. Now army vs army we are talking.

It is extremely relevant. Units shouldn't be punished for other units in the army being good. Everything should be pointed on what it is worth on its own datasheet. Anything else is bad balance where units in a codex are intentionally bad on purpose in order to make up for broken crap.

This would only make sense if there are no buffs in the game.
Its never going to happen.

But please, in a world where Guardsmen are 5 points, what should the totally unfair Neophytes with +1 LD cost? 5.1 points?

Tyel wrote:
This would only make sense if there are no buffs in the game.
Its never going to happen.

Or you know, you can point the buffing units appropriately? It's crazy I know...

Tyel wrote:
But please, in a world where Guardsmen are 5 points, what should the totally unfair Neophytes with +1 LD cost? 5.1 points?

Neophytes should cost 5 points, and lose their +1L and ability to take more than 10 men in a unit. Or the 5ppm guardsmen should be buffed with +1L and the ability to take more than 10 men in a unit. These are non-negligible advantages.

I still don't see why people are defending how neophytes are straight up better than 5ppm guardsmen simply because the difference (arguably) isn't worth a point.

w1zard wrote:

Tyel wrote:
This would only make sense if there are no buffs in the game.
Its never going to happen.

Or you know, you can point the buffing units appropriately? It's crazy I know...

Tyel wrote:
But please, in a world where Guardsmen are 5 points, what should the totally unfair Neophytes with +1 LD cost? 5.1 points?

Neophytes should cost 5 points, and lose their +1L and ability to take more than 10 men in a unit. Or the 5ppm guardsmen should be buffed with +1L and the ability to take more than 10 men in a unit. These are non-negligible advantages.

I still don't see why people are defending how neophytes are straight up better than 5ppm guardsmen simply because the difference (arguably) isn't worth a point.

Because your fixation with Squadsize and LD ship making neophytes better than guardsmen. Doesn't ring true for most player's.

+1LD ship doesn't have a significant game effect. It doesn't have any guaranteed effects and if you play assuminh it will remove that last model from a squad your plan goes SNAFU when the insane bravery strategum is played. Its going to cost you maybe 3-4 dudes in a 2K game before counters. It's just not something a player can build a plan around attacking.

You pay points per model and you get CP for filling out detachments.
Having 3 units of 20 insteadnof 6 units of 10 is already handicapping yourself hence why most people take MSU with maybe 1 or 2 large units.

Ice_can wrote:
Because your fixation with Squadsize and LD ship making neophytes better than guardsmen. Doesn't ring true for most player's.

+1LD ship doesn't have a significant game effect. It doesn't have any guaranteed effects and if you play assuminh it will remove that last model from a squad your plan goes SNAFU when the insane bravery strategum is played. Its going to cost you maybe 3-4 dudes in a 2K game before counters. It's just not something a player can build a plan around attacking.

You pay points per model and you get CP for filling out detachments.
Having 3 units of 20 insteadnof 6 units of 10 is already handicapping yourself hence why most people take MSU with maybe 1 or 2 large units.

+1L may not be a HUGE advantage but it is non-negligible. Guard have to pay 10 points for it as a banner. Consider an infantry squad that takes 5 casualties in a round. +1L is the difference between taking 1-2 casualties on average due to morale and taking none.

As for squad size, taking MSU certainly has it's advantages. It means morale isn't an issue and it generates more CP. But having a large squad size has it's advantages too. Having a large squad allows for better board coverage and better screens, allows more soldiers to be effected by orders/stratagems/auras, and reduces killpoints. Certainly having the option of taking MSU neophytes or blob neophytes depending on circumstance is an advantage and not a disadvantage correct?

You seem to think "yea they are a little better but it doesn't matter that much". I'm saying that guardsmen being directly and totally inferior to another infantry unit AT THE SAME POINTS COST is unacceptable, regardless to the extent of which that inferiority is. It's not just guardsmen, I would say the same thing if there were a hypothetical unit exactly the same as fire warriors except better or equal in every way for the same points cost. I don't play tau.

Nobody seems to have offered an explanation besides "well... they aren't THAT much better..." or "but we aren't talking about those units, guardsmen need nerfed", except for the one gentlemen who said he was fine with the neophytes losing the leadership advantage until the GSC codex dropped.

w1zard wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Because your fixation with Squadsize and LD ship making neophytes better than guardsmen. Doesn't ring true for most player's.

+1LD ship doesn't have a significant game effect. It doesn't have any guaranteed effects and if you play assuminh it will remove that last model from a squad your plan goes SNAFU when the insane bravery strategum is played. Its going to cost you maybe 3-4 dudes in a 2K game before counters. It's just not something a player can build a plan around attacking.

You pay points per model and you get CP for filling out detachments.
Having 3 units of 20 insteadnof 6 units of 10 is already handicapping yourself hence why most people take MSU with maybe 1 or 2 large units.

+1L may not be a HUGE advantage but it is non-negligible. Guard have to pay 10 points for it as a banner. Consider an infantry squad that takes 5 casualties in a round. +1L is the difference between taking 1-2 casualties on average due to morale and taking none.

As for squad size, taking MSU certainly has it's advantages. It means morale isn't an issue and it generates more CP. But having a large squad size has it's advantages too. Having a large squad allows for better board coverage and better screens, allows more soldiers to be effected by orders/stratagems/auras, and reduces killpoints. Certainly having the option of taking MSU neophytes or blob neophytes depending on circumstance is an advantage and not a disadvantage correct?

You seem to think "yea they are a little better but it doesn't matter that much". I'm saying that guardsmen being directly and totally inferior to another infantry unit AT THE SAME POINTS COST is unacceptable, regardless to the extent of which that inferiority is. It's not just guardsmen, I would say the same thing if there were a hypothetical unit exactly the same as fire warriors except better or equal in every way for the same points cost. I don't play tau.

Nobody seems to have offered an explanation besides "well... they aren't THAT much better..." or "but we aren't talking about those units, guardsmen need nerfed", except for the one gentlemen who said he was fine with the neophytes losing the leadership advantage until the GSC codex dropped.

Except +1LD is not 0 vrs 1-2 its literally 1 dude of a difference if and this is the point your not accounting for if someone does enough casualties to the unit to firce a moral check with a significant chance of failing without killing the unit outright and that unit also not being important enough to the game state to be worth bypassing the moral check completely. It also requires that the unit not be in range of any additional LD improving effects.
Thats a lot of qualifiers that need to be met for that LD difference to effect the game.

As for unit size I dont thinknthe number of models one can take in a unit inherently makes a model worth more points than a similar model in a smaller squad its still the same datasheet with the same rules.
Also large squads for maximum buffing suffer more to moral hence will be more likely to be a target hence die faster and can actually be worth less than a smaller unit as they are often a low priority target.

If we multiplied points by 10 and set guardsmen at a baseline of 50points I would say yeah a neophyte is worth 52points but GW keeps reducing points and doesn't think people can cope with such large numbers despite this being the era where everyone and their gran has a smart phone. So you devide 50 points by 10 and 52 point by 10 and to the nearest whole number they both give 5points per model.

Firewarriors have that unit its called skitari rangers and quite frankly it's annoying in mirror matches but they also have diffrent traits and strategums. The issue is again granularity a fire warrior is probably a 67point model to the rangers 74 but with the point scale GW wants they both end up at 7ppm currently Rangers probably should be 8ppm but they would then be the 78point model being rounded up while Vanguard would be the 83 poitn model being rounded down.

w1zard wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Because your fixation with Squadsize and LD ship making neophytes better than guardsmen. Doesn't ring true for most player's.

+1LD ship doesn't have a significant game effect. It doesn't have any guaranteed effects and if you play assuminh it will remove that last model from a squad your plan goes SNAFU when the insane bravery strategum is played. Its going to cost you maybe 3-4 dudes in a 2K game before counters. It's just not something a player can build a plan around attacking.

You pay points per model and you get CP for filling out detachments.
Having 3 units of 20 insteadnof 6 units of 10 is already handicapping yourself hence why most people take MSU with maybe 1 or 2 large units.

+1L may not be a HUGE advantage but it is non-negligible. Guard have to pay 10 points for it as a banner. Consider an infantry squad that takes 5 casualties in a round. +1L is the difference between taking 1-2 casualties on average due to morale and taking none.

As for squad size, taking MSU certainly has it's advantages. It means morale isn't an issue and it generates more CP. But having a large squad size has it's advantages too. Having a large squad allows for better board coverage and better screens, allows more soldiers to be effected by orders/stratagems/auras, and reduces killpoints. Certainly having the option of taking MSU neophytes or blob neophytes depending on circumstance is an advantage and not a disadvantage correct?

You seem to think "yea they are a little better but it doesn't matter that much". I'm saying that guardsmen being directly and totally inferior to another infantry unit AT THE SAME POINTS COST is unacceptable, regardless to the extent of which that inferiority is. It's not just guardsmen, I would say the same thing if there were a hypothetical unit exactly the same as fire warriors except better or equal in every way for the same points cost. I don't play tau.

Nobody seems to have offered an explanation besides "well... they aren't THAT much better..." or "but we aren't talking about those units, guardsmen need nerfed", except for the one gentlemen who said he was fine with the neophytes losing the leadership advantage until the GSC codex dropped.

Ohh boy by this logic you would be in favour of a buff to cultists?
They pay atm 4 pts aswell for 1 dude with the same equipment, oh wait, not even the same equipment but inferior armor by 50%!
Infact it get's even worse when we compare to R&H militia and Mutants, with less stats and armor !
Would you be in favour of 3ppm Cultists then aswell?
or 2 PPM Militia and Mutant rabble squads?
Don't forget that orders double the effectivness of guardsmen, without even considering faction traits, which btw IG has some of the better ones.

Yes i am normaly in favour of balancing a unit without faction buffs and without auras. Does need to be costed in the buff provider, but since GW in their wisdom decided to make faction buffs free and vary the power of those massively, cough -1 to hit vs an ATSKNF wannabee alone in the CSM codex, and if that is even a contest in pick and effect on the map in your eyes you allready are a lost cause. They won't ever be capable of balancing their lists properly because of that. Same with Eldar, why play anything but alaitoc -bs shenanigans?
Heck go to the CSM tactics thread, there are a shitton of people playing their WB as Alpha Legion simply because WB suck compared to the free Alpha Legion buff. Same with World Eaters, why even bother with the World Eaters buff which is negliable when you can guarantee a first turn charge with alpha legion and give berzerkers actual survivability? Infact, why even bother fielding any cultmarine in their respective Legion / Book when playing them as Alpha Legion elites makes them instantly superior?
Take regular plague marines vs Alpha Legion Plague marines, let's see who wins a long range firefight or has more flexibility in their deployment.

IN the end you should realise that certain factions have to pay more for the same units in essence because certain faction buffs and or certain unit combinations can lead to problems else.
Is this a good solution? No. How could that be fixed? by making faction buffs affect pts paid and further diversfiyng the subfactions.
Will that happen? no.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Ohh boy by this logic you would be in favour of a buff to cultists?
They pay atm 4 pts aswell for 1 dude with the same equipment, oh wait, not even the same equipment but inferior armor by 50%!
Infact it get's even worse when we compare to R&H militia and Mutants, with less stats and armor !
Would you be in favour of 3ppm Cultists then aswell?
or 2 PPM Militia and Mutant rabble squads?
Don't forget that orders double the effectivness of guardsmen, without even considering faction traits, which btw IG has some of the better ones.

Or maybe guardsmen should be 5pts per model, because at the moment they are the same points cost as conscripts but with better WS and BS!

Not Online!!! wrote:
Ohh boy by this logic you would be in favour of a buff to cultists?
They pay atm 4 pts aswell for 1 dude with the same equipment, oh wait, not even the same equipment but inferior armor by 50%!
Infact it get's even worse when we compare to R&H militia and Mutants, with less stats and armor !
Would you be in favour of 3ppm Cultists then aswell?
or 2 PPM Militia and Mutant rabble squads?

In our example, we are assuming 5ppm guardsmen. So 4ppm cultists sounds about right, but I'd have to do some math to be sure. Maybe cultists should go down to 3ppm.

Ice_can wrote:
Except +1LD is not 0 vrs 1-2 its literally 1 dude of a difference if and this is the point your not accounting for if someone does enough casualties to the unit to firce a moral check with a significant chance of failing without killing the unit outright and that unit also not being important enough to the game state to be worth bypassing the moral check completely. It also requires that the unit not be in range of any additional LD improving effects.
Thats a lot of qualifiers that need to be met for that LD difference to effect the game.

As for unit size I dont thinknthe number of models one can take in a unit inherently makes a model worth more points than a similar model in a smaller squad its still the same datasheet with the same rules.
Also large squads for maximum buffing suffer more to moral hence will be more likely to be a target hence die faster and can actually be worth less than a smaller unit as they are often a low priority target.

If we multiplied points by 10 and set guardsmen at a baseline of 50points I would say yeah a neophyte is worth 52points but GW keeps reducing points and doesn't think people can cope with such large numbers despite this being the era where everyone and their gran has a smart phone. So you devide 50 points by 10 and 52 point by 10 and to the nearest whole number they both give 5points per model.

Firewarriors have that unit its called skitari rangers and quite frankly it's annoying in mirror matches but they also have different traits and stratagems. The issue is again granularity a fire warrior is probably a 67point model to the rangers 74 but with the point scale GW wants they both end up at 7ppm currently Rangers probably should be 8ppm but they would then be the 78point model being rounded up while Vanguard would be the 83 poitn model being rounded down.

The difference is though that rangers and fire warriors do different things. They have different stats and different guns. The ranger is much better statistically than the fire warrior in most situations but there are still things that a fire warrior does better than a ranger.

There is nothing that 5ppm guardsmen do better than neophytes. Neophytes are 5ppm guardsmen (same guns, same stats, same armor, same everything) except better or equal in every way. It makes guardsmen redundant.

w1zard wrote:


Nobody seems to have offered an explanation besides "well... they aren't THAT much better..." or "but we aren't talking about those units, guardsmen need nerfed", except for the one gentlemen who said he was fine with the neophytes losing the leadership advantage until the GSC codex dropped.

People have given you the explanation, that even by the exact same arbitrary qualifications of what does and doesnt count, that you have shaped to spin your narrative in which Neophytes are better than Gaurdsmen, you are STILL left +1S on the Guardsmen, a stat most people hold as much more relevant, and a tied LD anyway, thanks to Chapter tactics.

Or are you somehow not taking HQ's?


The most competitive use for the army has shown to be in a manner that takes the cheapest HQ's possible, cutting costs for HQ other armies would have, and these cheap HQ's provide excellent buffs.


You say you've played the army since 3rd yet you have absolutely no concept of what it's strengths are in this edition. I'd personally be hesitant about sneering at people for stating the strengths of Straken and Catachan infantry as though it means they have lost to some kind of low level build (and not something consistently taking top tables at high level tournaments), while at the same time stating that you've played the game since 3rd edition. It shows a stubbornness in learning and your progression as a player to still be at such a level after such a long period of time.

w1zard wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Ohh boy by this logic you would be in favour of a buff to cultists?
They pay atm 4 pts aswell for 1 dude with the same equipment, oh wait, not even the same equipment but inferior armor by 50%!
Infact it get's even worse when we compare to R&H militia and Mutants, with less stats and armor !
Would you be in favour of 3ppm Cultists then aswell?
or 2 PPM Militia and Mutant rabble squads?

In our example, we are assuming 5ppm guardsmen. So 4ppm cultists sounds about right, but I'd have to do some math to be sure. Maybe cultists should go down to 3ppm.

Ice_can wrote:
Except +1LD is not 0 vrs 1-2 its literally 1 dude of a difference if and this is the point your not accounting for if someone does enough casualties to the unit to firce a moral check with a significant chance of failing without killing the unit outright and that unit also not being important enough to the game state to be worth bypassing the moral check completely. It also requires that the unit not be in range of any additional LD improving effects.
Thats a lot of qualifiers that need to be met for that LD difference to effect the game.

As for unit size I dont thinknthe number of models one can take in a unit inherently makes a model worth more points than a similar model in a smaller squad its still the same datasheet with the same rules.
Also large squads for maximum buffing suffer more to moral hence will be more likely to be a target hence die faster and can actually be worth less than a smaller unit as they are often a low priority target.

If we multiplied points by 10 and set guardsmen at a baseline of 50points I would say yeah a neophyte is worth 52points but GW keeps reducing points and doesn't think people can cope with such large numbers despite this being the era where everyone and their gran has a smart phone. So you devide 50 points by 10 and 52 point by 10 and to the nearest whole number they both give 5points per model.

Firewarriors have that unit its called skitari rangers and quite frankly it's annoying in mirror matches but they also have different traits and stratagems. The issue is again granularity a fire warrior is probably a 67point model to the rangers 74 but with the point scale GW wants they both end up at 7ppm currently Rangers probably should be 8ppm but they would then be the 78point model being rounded up while Vanguard would be the 83 poitn model being rounded down.

The difference is though that rangers and fire warriors do different things. They have different stats and different guns. The ranger is much better statistically than the fire warrior in most situations but there are still things that a fire warrior does better than a ranger. There is nothing that 5ppm guardsmen do better than neophytes. Neophytes are 5ppm guardsmen (same guns, same stats, same armor, same everything) except better or equal in every way. It makes guardsmen redundant.

Ehm yes there is actually quite alot that guardsmen do better then Neophytes.
Chief ammong that Shooting lasguns/autoguns through FRFSRF. Or by just having doctrinal buffs like i mentioned above.
Additionally i know what the thought experiment was, but i wanted to see if you would go through with your logic, which you showed you were sceptic, even tough we all clearly can see which is the superior unit just by looking at the stats alone and not even include buffs or special rules or god forbid orders.

What i will give you though is that conscripts at equal price to guardsmen is just ridicoulos. Infact for that alone i would be in favour of 5ppm guardsmen which still would be effective and 4 ppm conscripts just to get the internal codex scale right again. The main problem then is what do you do with cultists. Is the additional armor of conscripts worth the worse BS/WS?Or would you just buff cultists armor and make them basically traitor guardsmen in combination with a 5ppm cost, even tough they can't have orders, which again would skew balance massively torwards the guardsmen?
Anyways the scale allready got broken thanks to subfaction buffs, orders,etc.

Just remove conscripts from the game.

Why the heck are we talking about leadership? It is mostly irrelevant. I can count the number of times I've lost significant points to leadership in 8th on 1 hand.

Large units will just use the 2 CP auto rally. Small units can use a command reroll if they have reasonable roll to suffer no or little losses. Plus most units have some ignore leadership gimmick.

It is an issue when you are running 10 man elite units with multiple wounds. It is not an issue with 5 point chaff units.

There are 4 attributes that matter in this game in this order. Damage > defense > mobility > range. (the order of value can change depending on the unit)

If it is not on this list - it really doesn't matter. Infantry squads crush all comparable units in these categories at least 3-1. There are several units they beat in every category and they always cost less - always take up more space too. It is an absolute joke to even continue discussing this.

Nobody would bat an eye if Neophytes lost an LD because it's still one of the most useless stats in the game.