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.

Except that mono guard when taken to tournaments often finishes below tau and Tyranids in ranking. For instance, a top player brought mono guard to BAO and finished below tau. So why is the assumption always made that mono IG is above these other other factions with no real data to back up such a claim?

Asmodios wrote:
Except that mono guard when taken to tournaments often finishes below tau and Tyranids in ranking. For instance, a top player brought mono guard to BAO and finished below tau. So why is the assumption always made that mono IG is above these other other factions with no real data to back up such a claim?

To be fair, mono guard is pretty rare. Brandon Grant was just one of the last top tier players to hold out playing mono guard.

The only things really holding mono guard back right now are:

1. Guard super heavy tanks lose to a Castellan with a 3++, and two lose if they go second since you can only outflank one of them.
2. Most guard shooting is hurt too much by eldar negative to hit stacking.

When you remove those elements, mono guard are very capable of being top teir, the current meta is just against parts of their toolbox.

Also, must people aren't going to play mono guard, or mono anything, in a game that allows allies. If there was something that forced people to use mono armies, I find it hard to believe that guard wouldn't be above anything other than negative to hit eldar, who counter them, and dark eldar's "everything is underpriced" codex. It's hard to tell though if you're only looking at mono guard lists in the wider allies meta.

Asmodios wrote:
Except that mono guard when taken to tournaments often finishes below tau and Tyranids in ranking. For instance, a top player brought mono guard to BAO and finished below tau. So why is the assumption always made that mono IG is above these other other factions with no real data to back up such a claim?

You tell me why everyone allied in support for their Scatterbikes and you have your answer.

jcd386 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Except that mono guard when taken to tournaments often finishes below tau and Tyranids in ranking. For instance, a top player brought mono guard to BAO and finished below tau. So why is the assumption always made that mono IG is above these other other factions with no real data to back up such a claim?

To be fair, mono guard is pretty rare. Brandon Grant was just one of the last top tier players to hold out playing mono guard.

The only things really holding mono guard back right now are:

1. Guard super heavy tanks lose to a Castellan with a 3++, and two lose if they go second since you can only outflank one of them.
2. Most guard shooting is hurt too much by eldar negative to hit stacking.

When you remove those elements, mono guard are very capable of being top teir, the current meta is just against parts of their toolbox.

Also, must people aren't going to play mono guard, or mono anything, in a game that allows allies. If there was something that forced people to use mono armies, I find it hard to believe that guard wouldn't be above anything other than negative to hit eldar, who counter them, and dark eldar's "everything is underpriced" codex. It's hard to tell though if you're only looking at mono guard lists in the wider allies meta.

Except lots of people play mono guard (myself included). All your comment shows is most people taking guard to a tournament include soup because mono guard isn't powerful enough to really push you up the rankings.

Regardless, all this really does is show that there's no actual data that mono guard will be trouncing what was said to be mid-tier codexes. People should stop posting this as undeniable fact until there is some sort of evidence to back it up. from the moment the conscript nerf hit there is no evidence to show that mono IG is anymore powerful then armies like TAU that people consider fair

Asmodios wrote:

jcd386 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Except that mono guard when taken to tournaments often finishes below tau and Tyranids in ranking. For instance, a top player brought mono guard to BAO and finished below tau. So why is the assumption always made that mono IG is above these other other factions with no real data to back up such a claim?

To be fair, mono guard is pretty rare. Brandon Grant was just one of the last top tier players to hold out playing mono guard.

The only things really holding mono guard back right now are:

1. Guard super heavy tanks lose to a Castellan with a 3++, and two lose if they go second since you can only outflank one of them.
2. Most guard shooting is hurt too much by eldar negative to hit stacking.

When you remove those elements, mono guard are very capable of being top teir, the current meta is just against parts of their toolbox.

Also, must people aren't going to play mono guard, or mono anything, in a game that allows allies. If there was something that forced people to use mono armies, I find it hard to believe that guard wouldn't be above anything other than negative to hit eldar, who counter them, and dark eldar's "everything is underpriced" codex. It's hard to tell though if you're only looking at mono guard lists in the wider allies meta.

Except lots of people play mono guard (myself included). All your comment shows is most people taking guard to a tournament include soup because mono guard isn't powerful enough to really push you up the rankings.

Regardless, all this really does is show that there's no actual data that mono guard will be trouncing what was said to be mid-tier codexes. People should stop posting this as undeniable fact until there is some sort of evidence to back it up. from the moment the conscript nerf hit there is no evidence to show that mono IG is anymore powerful then armies like TAU that people consider fair

I will at least agree that I am in the camp of "let's fix soup so as to make it not insanely better than mono codex, then let's balance the mono codexes."

I guess it is a good for people with ok or good codex. The removal of soup, for people with bad books that used other codex as a way to have a minimal chance at winning, is going to be devastating. But I maybe wrong.

Karol wrote:
I guess it is a good for people with ok or good codex. The removal of soup, for people with bad books that used other codex as a way to have a minimal chance at winning, is going to be devastating. But I maybe wrong.

It wouldn't be any more devastating than having a bad book is currently. But then it will also be easier to see where the problems are and how to fix them.

And I don't want soup removed, I just want it to not be the best option 100% of the time. I think this can be done by making soup worse, making mono better than it is now, or a combination.

I haven't tried it, but I think that a minimal army of GKs with some IG and either some BAs or custodes jetbikers would at worse work. And I don't think there is a way to make an army with the GK codex better, without writing a whole new codex and maybe adding some units on top of it, then playing a Soup.

Plus for anyone who had the money and actually bought the units to help their bad army it would imo be much worse then just having a bad army, Just by the virtue of the fact that you spend cash on a second, maybe even third codex, and the models to go with those. If you suddenly can't use them, it is much worse then just having a bad book and a bad army. I doubt there are many GK players around the world buying more GK stuff.

Karol wrote:
I haven't tried it, but I think that a minimal army of GKs with some IG and either some BAs or custodes jetbikers would at worse work. And I don't think there is a way to make an army with the GK codex better, without writing a whole new codex and maybe adding some units on top of it, then playing a Soup.

Plus for anyone who had the money and actually bought the units to help their bad army it would imo be much worse then just having a bad army, Just by the virtue of the fact that you spend cash on a second, maybe even third codex, and the models to go with those. If you suddenly can't use them, it is much worse then just having a bad book and a bad army. I doubt there are many GK players around the world buying more GK stuff.

I don't think anyone is arguing that you shouldn't be able to soup (if people are it's very small). What most people want to see is some sort of drawback to souping and/or a buff to mono. Currently taking soup is the best option 100% of the time. Ideally, that person would be able to still use army x,y and z that they purchased it's just that bringing x,y and z together should be roughly equal to bringing any single army mono.

Karol wrote:
I haven't tried it, but I think that a minimal army of GKs with some IG and either some BAs or custodes jetbikers would at worse work. And I don't think there is a way to make an army with the GK codex better, without writing a whole new codex and maybe adding some units on top of it, then playing a Soup.

Plus for anyone who had the money and actually bought the units to help their bad army it would imo be much worse then just having a bad army, Just by the virtue of the fact that you spend cash on a second, maybe even third codex, and the models to go with those. If you suddenly can't use them, it is much worse then just having a bad book and a bad army. I doubt there are many GK players around the world buying more GK stuff.

If I could snap my fingers and "fix" soup, it would be with the intention of making soup a good option, but not the only one. I see it going something like:

1. Balance CP so that pretty much all factions have similar access to CP, determined by the way they build their army. You shouldn't be picking a faction just because it means you'll have more CP.

There are likely a few ways to do this. I like the reverse CP generation idea where you start with X CP and then have to spend them on detachments, but there are plenty of other ways that this could be accomplished.

2. Give a substantial reward for lists with only one faction in them. Right now there is rarely a reason not to take at least one other book in order to access their strategems to get around the fact that you can only use each of yours once a phase. Having two or three sets of strats also let's you blow a lot of them on the first turn or so, which usually gets you an advantage mono armies can't get.

I'm not sure more CP is enough of a reward for being mono, but it might be. I'd just worry that factions with only a few good stràts would not really need more CP, and some allied lists might be overly starved.

I think the trickle per turn CP system where you get 3 or so CP a turn and they can roll over to the next turn might be a good solution to this problem, because although the allied force had access to more stratagems, they wouldn't be able to use them all at once.

Alternatively, a rule allowing mono armies to use their strats twice per phase instead of once would up their power and also let them double up on unit-stratagem combos like sternguard, etc.

Or, maybe you'd have to pick one list of strategems to use, and any allies you bring are just for what that unit can offer. Again there are plenty of solutions.

Fixing the problem of soup isn't going to fix bad armies. That has to be done in other ways. Marines of all kinds need a redesign. Points, strategems, abilities, and statlines all over the game need some tweaking. Soup is it's own problem, and each problem should be handled one at a time.

There are definitely some Stratagems where it makes sense for balance for it to be once per turn. However, certain ones not being able to be used multiple times is silly.

The best example? True Grit in the Space Wolves codex. If you use it on one squad, all the sudden everyone else can't do it. Granted if you used all the CP you had in one turn, suddenly EVERYONE forgets I guess. I dunno.

I'm sure there would be some that would be over powered.

One idea I had that would require a real revamp, is to have different levels of strategems.

Something like:

Level 1: use these as many times a turn as you want
Level 2: once per game turn
Level 3: once per game

I've also thought it would be cool if you had limited "slots" for stratagems, and could only use the ones you picked for those slots during the list building phase. Something like two level 3 strats, three level two, and four level 1. Then allies would be a way to build your deck, but you'd still be limited to a certain number of abilities.

Anyway, I can dream lol.

Asmodios wrote:

Karol wrote:
I haven't tried it, but I think that a minimal army of GKs with some IG and either some BAs or custodes jetbikers would at worse work. And I don't think there is a way to make an army with the GK codex better, without writing a whole new codex and maybe adding some units on top of it, then playing a Soup.

Plus for anyone who had the money and actually bought the units to help their bad army it would imo be much worse then just having a bad army, Just by the virtue of the fact that you spend cash on a second, maybe even third codex, and the models to go with those. If you suddenly can't use them, it is much worse then just having a bad book and a bad army. I doubt there are many GK players around the world buying more GK stuff.

I don't think anyone is arguing that you shouldn't be able to soup (if people are it's very small). What most people want to see is some sort of drawback to souping and/or a buff to mono. Currently taking soup is the best option 100% of the time. Ideally, that person would be able to still use army x,y and z that they purchased it's just that bringing x,y and z together should be roughly equal to bringing any single army mono.

You probablly right. Sometimes I wish GW just FAQ all armies to be bad, and then there would be no problems playing with it. Because it sure looks as if they aren't able to write good rules for most of their armies.

Probablly going to be some point hikes, CP spent only on detachments that generated the CP and some back door rules change for eldar to not be hurt too much, or soup without actually souping.

 Crimson wrote:
But certainly the proper response is to nerf the Guard and Eldar and buff the Marines, so that everybody ends up roughly on the mid tier?

Sure, you can go that route, but it means also nerfing mono-eldar, mono-DE and basically rebalancing all of the codices.

There is a difference between a "strong" codex and an "overpowered" one. I'm not sure the guard codex fits into the latter category.

Why don't we fix soup first (which is a much worse offender than mono-guard I think we agree), and then revisit mono-codices later when we can get a better picture. If guard need nerfs then I would be happy to listen to ideas.

Right now I think a good first step is to remove CP regenerators from the game and replace them with something decent. Maybe the next step is to look at how CP are distributed during the list-building stage.

Like craftwords player i can`t sympathize with the guard, when the reapers and warlock were nerfer to the ground, GM did`t give anything in return to the craftwords.
The min that have to be done is:
1. Guard min 20 per squad 45 points per 10 units.
2. All fractions to regain CP only on +6.

That is the starting point if guard spam don`t stop increase point to 5.

I feel like a lot of the proposed guard nerfs would just replace guard element with minimum skitari units alongside engineers repairing imperial knights at this point. all minimum 20 man squads does is ensure this happens. the elimination or extreme limiting of regen CP suggestions though are something that should 100% happen.

As for mono guard.. I am hoping it changes with my codex in orktober, but as an ork player it feel like even mono guard is something I cannot deal with, and then add soup to turn it to 11 and... yea. additionally if I bring any non tournament level list vs mono guard its an uphill battle, but then again it could be that my meta had guard players bringing shadow swords and a lot of leman russes which are both units in need of small adjustments. though Ironically my blue tide of nearly 100 tac marines beats them as they cannot put out that many wounds on 3+ armor, but tha tis more counter meta than anythign else.

I do think some guard stuff could use rebalancing though, some stronger, and some weaker. I do think guardsman due to orders and rules are worth 5 ppm. in the grand scheme of things it is not going to hurt mono guard that much, it would just make the other cheaper imperium factions seem like options IE mechanicum, guard, and evebn other guard options. on the buff side a tempestus scion should go down in points to closer to 8 ppm. Scions are just not worth 2.5 guardsman, but worth 1.6 guardsman if guard are 5ppm at that point both seem like viable options.

Lets by honest here. What drives change in the corporate world? Money. What drives money? People buying armies. GW makes WAAAAAAY too much money off guard players as opposed to other armies, to go messing with it, and making it so people DON'T buy guard armies. Just off models alone people spend 2-4x what they do on say, a Knight army, or a SM army. Guard makes GW money. They will never change how guard squads are made up, because they would need to radically alter how the boxed units are set up, thus increasing price, and driving down customers.

The only changes that will occur are rule/point changes. How much a guardsman costs, or how many CP a relic can regenerate before it pops.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Lets by honest here. What drives change in the corporate world? Money. What drives money? People buying armies.

What drives people to buy armies? Meta change. The Knights codex, probably sold a tonne of knights to people as the meta shifted, and all the top players (and the wannabe top players, and the netlisters) all ran out to grab their new shiny knight to compete. And after the coming codex's, and CA, it'll shift again, and they'll all be out buying more stuff once someone figures out if what the latest and greatest flavor of cheese is.

But anyway, a fix to tone down the advantages of soup probably should come first, then worry about how well the guard is competing after it has to stand on its own a bit more.

 Kcalehc wrote:
What drives people to buy armies? Meta change. The Knights codex, probably sold a tonne of knights to people as the meta shifted, and all the top players (and the wannabe top players, and the netlisters) all ran out to grab their new shiny knight to compete. And after the coming codex's, and CA, it'll shift again, and they'll all be out buying more stuff once someone figures out if what the latest and greatest flavor of cheese is.

But anyway, a fix to tone down the advantages of soup probably should come first, then worry about how well the guard is competing after it has to stand on its own a bit more.

Agreed.

Guardsmen need to be 5 ppm. The maths has been done to death on this and we can see clearly that at 5 ppm Infantry are one of the most durable and damaging units in the game (still better than Fire Warriors). At 4 ppm Infantry are a joke. There isn't going to be any 4.5 ppm units, they will go up a point each, as they should.

In addition GW needs to fix soup so it isn't always the most attractive way to play.

Stop pretending we can't properly assess if an individual unit is too strong because of soup. We absolutely can and have. These units need nerfs to be brought in line with every other unit in the game.

Marin wrote:Like craftwords player i can`t sympathize with the guard, when the reapers and warlock were nerfer to the ground, GM did`t give anything in return to the craftwords.
The min that have to be done is:
1. Guard min 20 per squad 45 points per 10 units.
2. All fractions to regain CP only on +6.

That is the starting point if guard spam don`t stop increase point to 5.

All that will do is invalidate conscripts even more. Agree on the 6+ as a start however. Oh, and cry me a river your toys got nerfed. It's not like you have other viable options in your codex going on 4 editions now is it?

An Actual Englishman wrote:Guardsmen need to be 5 ppm. The maths has been done to death on this and we can see clearly that at 5 ppm Infantry are one of the most durable and damaging units in the game (still better than Fire Warriors). At 4 ppm Infantry are a joke. There isn't going to be any 4.5 ppm units, they will go up a point each, as they should.

In addition GW needs to fix soup so it isn't always the most attractive way to play.

Stop pretending we can't properly assess if an individual unit is too strong because of soup. We absolutely can and have. These units need nerfs to be brought in line with every other unit in the game.

You cannot judge a units effectiveness when it is mixed with allies - it needs to be in a mono faction to determine if it is or isn't requiring an adjustment. Soup can and will create synergy combos that make a unit such as guard infantry amazing, either as a support to the damage dealers or as a screen to the expensive stuff.

But, run them by themselves and suddenly they aren't all that great. I can't take anyone seriously that 10 infantry models are the most durable and damaging unit in the game. Unless people enjoy being 12" away to be FRFSRF constantly by multiple units. Hell, even the big tournaments show it - constant guard batteries in soup but nearly nothing of a mono guard getting into the high ranks.

You cannot nerf the guard as well as nerf soup. You stop them being the auto take in soup lists is enough. Nerfing infantry as well is just sour grapes IMHO.

 Dr. Mills wrote:

An Actual Englishman wrote:Guardsmen need to be 5 ppm. The maths has been done to death on this and we can see clearly that at 5 ppm Infantry are one of the most durable and damaging units in the game (still better than Fire Warriors). At 4 ppm Infantry are a joke. There isn't going to be any 4.5 ppm units, they will go up a point each, as they should.

In addition GW needs to fix soup so it isn't always the most attractive way to play.

Stop pretending we can't properly assess if an individual unit is too strong because of soup. We absolutely can and have. These units need nerfs to be brought in line with every other unit in the game.

You cannot judge a units effectiveness when it is mixed with allies - it needs to be in a mono faction to determine if it is or isn't requiring an adjustment. Soup can and will create synergy combos that make a unit such as guard infantry amazing, either as a support to the damage dealers or as a screen to the expensive stuff.

But, run them by themselves and suddenly they aren't all that great. I can't take anyone seriously that 10 infantry models are the most durable and damaging unit in the game. Unless people enjoy being 12" away to be FRFSRF constantly by multiple units. Hell, even the big tournaments show it - constant guard batteries in soup but nearly nothing of a mono guard getting into the high ranks.

You cannot nerf the guard as well as nerf soup. You stop them being the auto take in soup lists is enough. Nerfing infantry as well is just sour grapes IMHO.

Judging IG Infantry against other similarly costed units they outperform all but GSCultists significantly. Not by a small amount. Significantly. As I said in my post above, they are mathematically better than Fire Warriors even when they are increased to 5ppm.

The synergies you've described exist both in a soup list and in a pure IG list. They can act as a support to damage dealers in IG lists, they can and do screen expensive stuff in IG lists. In those lists that are primarily guard or mono guard the synergies are, I would argue, even greater because they can then benefit from specific psychic powers and other defensive techniques that make them far superior than their cost would suggest.

No one runs them by themselves, not a pure IG player nor a soup player so that point is entirely moot. Also don't strawman, no one has ever said that 10 infantry models are the most durable and damaging unit in the game. They are simply the most points efficient unit in the game by a huge margin when compared to other units. You're also wrong re mono guard making the high ranks of tournaments, it has been stated already but at the BAO a Guard player was the second highest ranked mono list, the first list was Tau. Also as far as any Imperium lists are concerned in the competitive meta, "pure" anything lists don't really exist, particularly when we consider that there is absolutely no downside to souping.

In contrast to your statement, armies that are primarily Guard (ie - those that spend more points on a Guard detachment than any other) have been doing extremely well (read - too well) competitively for some time, here's how they placed in the ITC over the last few months;

August - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
July - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
June - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events
May - 2nd most top 3 results in all ITC events
April - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
March - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events

They also feature in almost every Imperium soup list, even when they aren't the primary faction.

So I think it's pretty justified to nerf those units in the guard dex that are clearly outperforming their peers. The biggest culprit of this is, without question, Infantry squads. There are others that also need to be brought in line with everything else in the game.

I really wish people would stop defending something that is clearly too good. It's obvious through mathematics in a vacuum. It's obvious from real life experience. It's obvious from tournament results backing up all the theory. At this point it's blindingly obvious that certain units are not priced properly, yet whenever this is raised I see far more IG players defending their units rather than accepting the facts.

Mono Guard are not an issue, anyone who thinks they are either haven’t rolled enough dice and are keyboard warriors, or are just subpar players. Nerfing Guard further would just make them a bottom tier book.

The issue is Knights/Custodes/some SM builds spamming IG battalion detachments to purchase CP’s to use on their Knights/Shield Captains etc.

Cut out the middle man. Increase the points of a Shield Captain moderately and ad a rule which says “if this model is your Warlord and your entire army contains the Custodies keyword gain +5 CP”

Knights are trickier because I feel they’re meant to be run alongside other Imperium forces. I think increasing the CP cost of their juiciest stratagems is the answer. An army composed of towering Knights with IG platoons at its feet is fluffy enough to want to keep in the game, the power just needs to be turned down a notch.

It depends on what your target is.

If you want to shake up the top 10, a change to Guard CP abilities would do that. But other nerfs - even 5 or 6 ppm guardsmen - wouldn't have much of an impact.

If you want Tacs (outside Gman lists) really be a thing, or Silver Tide, or CWE troops holding their own, or some variation on that? Then you want 5ppm Guardsmen. It won't impact tournies, and it's possible that mono-Guard may actually need help after such a change (and/or non-Troops in those other books also need addressing). But it makes Guardsmen more "balanced" compared to other "tier-2"-balanced units.

However, if you rebalance Guardsmen to match other "tier-2" balanced units, you've now made them strictly worse than other "tier-1" units: Kabs, Fire Warriors, etc. Like above, the other units in those relevant dexes might even the battlefield.

I would bet 5ppm Guardsmen mono-IG armies would beat mono-Tau armies on average, but 4ppm Guardsmen mono-IG armies would be beat by mono-DE armies on average. 4ppm Guardsmen are clearly better than Tacs. 5ppm Guardsmen are clearly worse than Kabs.

People are looking for different things. A CP change is what's needed to fix what we saw at NOVA. But fixing NOVA and other GTs isn't the same as fixing the local FLGs.

Bharring wrote:

People are looking for different things. A CP change is what's needed to fix what we saw at NOVA. But fixing NOVA and other GTs isn't the same as fixing the local FLGs.

In my experience, any "fixing the local FLGs" tends to be done more on a personal level than a technical level. Eventually the people bringing tournament lists either just can't find opponents and move out of that FLGs or get crushed in an event and cease playing or come back to the FLGs with much more toned down stuff, starting the cycle again.
Tournaments like Nova and the like? Whole different ballgame. They have their own missions, rules, etc--it makes balancing for them pointless.

That said, Command Point changes need to be done and hard. Drukhari and Imperial Knights have had things where they get bonuses for their 'signature' Detachments--that's a good way to look at this. But then the 3 limit for Detachments becomes an issue that again has to be addressed for tournaments that make up their own rules. I'm still a big fan of the idea of just not letting Guard characters be your Warlord. Between Kurov's and Grand Strategist it means you're getting CPs back when you OR your opponent do Stratagems which is where the issue comes up alongside the simple fact of Brigades/Battalions providing a good chunk.

They just need to make CP faction specific.

3 CP for the generic strats from being battleforged
5 CP for a guard battalion only for guard strats and the generics

Guard are supposed to have a lot of CP, that's one of the niches in 8th. Lots of basic line infantry and officers, organized command, ect. If you restrict CP to factions then you fix the guard CP farm issue.

CA needs to also change all cp generation abilities to only work on a 6.

Oh and that vengeance for Cadia? Really should be 2 CPs. Can absolutely cripple a CSM army.

Saying that few things beat V for Cadia and defensive gunners on a superheavy being charged for sheer trolling firepower...

glados wrote:
Mono Guard are not an issue, anyone who thinks they are either haven’t rolled enough dice and are keyboard warriors, or are just subpar players. Nerfing Guard further would just make them a bottom tier book.

A bottom tier book? You're joking right? I refer you to the list above showing primary Guard armies to be outperforming others consistently. Also no one has said it's "mono Guard". The problem is certain units in the Guard book, namely Infantry and Commanders.

Bharring wrote:
If you want Tacs (outside Gman lists) really be a thing, or Silver Tide, or CWE troops holding their own, or some variation on that? Then you want 5ppm Guardsmen. It won't impact tournies, and it's possible that mono-Guard may actually need help after such a change (and/or non-Troops in those other books also need addressing). But it makes Guardsmen more "balanced" compared to other "tier-2"-balanced units.

However, if you rebalance Guardsmen to match other "tier-2" balanced units, you've now made them strictly worse than other "tier-1" units: Kabs, Fire Warriors, etc. Like above, the other units in those relevant dexes might even the battlefield.

I would bet 5ppm Guardsmen mono-IG armies would beat mono-Tau armies on average, but 4ppm Guardsmen mono-IG armies would be beat by mono-DE armies on average. 4ppm Guardsmen are clearly better than Tacs. 5ppm Guardsmen are clearly worse than Kabs.

There shouldn't be any "Tier 1' or 'Tier 2' units. If you consider Fire Warriors at their current points to be "Tier 1", I'll remind you that Infantry at 5ppm still outperform them. I'm not convinced 5ppm Infantry models are strictly worse than Kabs either, but if they are, Kabs also need to have a price change.

But do people don't see mono guard being played because it is bad, IMO it is not the case ? Or mono guard is not seen, because adding something like a ravellan or some custodes or slam cpts is just so vastly superior, that if you do own IG models you will just always go for soup?

I've said it before and I'll say it again utill proven otherwise. Meta chasers are not GW's core audience nor their biggest scource of income.

Pretty much all meta chasers I know use secondhand.

if you're gna rank mono lists, take only mono lists for your sample. Soup is inherently more powerfull unless counterbalanced. CWE are probably n°1 if you do but being ranked n°4 isn't bad either.