Dandelion wrote:

 gbghg wrote:

I've seen plenty of mathhammer of firewarrior's vs guardsmen but I don't think I've ever seen one run with the range starting at 30" or higher, it's always starting at 24" negating the range advantage pulse rifles get over lasguns, on the same vein if you take buffs into account you could also run the numbers on firewarriors with 42" pulse rifles from the bor'khan trait and a pulse accelerator drone.

Do we really need to say that a unit with 30" range will outshoot a unit with 24" when targeting units at 30" range? But if you really want to know, a 10-man Fire warrior team will kill 2 Guardsmen at 30". Which I brought up before, and factored into my scenario. Of course, it was dismissed by someone who said FW and Guardsmen don't have the same role and so are incomparable.

But since you seem more reasonable let's give it a go:
1) No buffs:
- 12 fire warriors (84 pts)
- 20 Guard (80 pts)
Round 1 at 24-30"
- FW kill 2 Guardsmen
- Guard move 6", and get within 24". Kill 2 FW
Round 1 losses: 2 Guardsmen (8pts) 2 FW (14 pts)
I really don't need to continue, since it only gets worse for the tau.

2) Steel Legion guard with commander vs Borkan tau with fireblade and accelerator drone
- 20 Guard + 1 C Commander (110 pts)
- 12 FW + 1 Fireblade + 1 drone (132 pts)
Round 1 at 42"
- FW kill 2 Guard
- Guard move 15" with "Move! Move! Move!" to get within 27" of the FW
Round 2 at 27"
12 FW vs 18 Guard
- FW retreat 6" (33" total away) and fire: 2 kills
- Guard advance and get within 24", use "Forwards for the Emperor": 2 kills
Round 3:
10 FW vs 16 Guard
- FW move up to within 21": 7 kills
- Guard move up to within 18", FRFSRF: 5 kills
Round 4:
5 FW vs 9 Guard
- FW shoot: 3 kills
- Guard FRFSRF: 3 kills
Round 5:
2 FW vs 6 Guard
- FW shoot: 1 kill
- Guard FRFSRF: 2 kills

Guard win.
Of course, depending on terrain and the board, the Guard could have made it into combat by round 4, which still nets a win for them.
Note: commander and fireblade contributions (other than buffs) were ignored since I was focusing on the squad outputs. If you want to know, the fireblade would have killed 5 guard total, and the c commander would have killed 1-2 FW if he gets into combat at round 4, but that would have locked down the FW and fireblade from shooting for the last turn saving 3 Guardsmen. So, maybe 2 more guard die than shown above, but the end result is the same.

Now, you may be wondering why I chose to compare 110pts of guard vs 132 pts of tau, well, because if guard go to 5pts that would be 130pt vs 132pts.

Edit: I'd like to take a moment to appreciate how saying the orders makes the whole scenario more cinematic. Hands down my favorite part of playing guard.

This is untrue. Guardsman > Firewarriors, and all other troopers, pound for pound.

Guardsman - 4ppm
Range 24" Rapid Fire 1, S3, AP-0

Firewarrior - 7ppm
Range 30", Rapid Fire 1, S5, AP-0

17 Guardsman+1 Boltgun (Sergeant) = 68+1pts
10 Firewarriors = 70 points

17 Guardsman shooting at Firewarriors, Range24"
16 Lasgun shots; 16*.5*.5*.5 = 2 unsaved wounds
1 Boltgun shot; 1*.5*.666*.5 = 0.1665 unsaved wounds
TOTAL: 2.1665

10 Firewarriors shooting at Guardsman, Range30"
10 Pulse Rifle shots; 10*.5*.666*.666 = 2.21778 unsaved wounds
TOTAL: 2.21778

Unbuffed; Tau win outside of Rapid Fire range - but, the Guardsman have 17 wounds versus the Firewarriors 10; which is a massive deal in terms of durability, 58.8% more durable. The moment the shooting goes past one rounds worth, Guardsman>Firewarriors.

Let's talk buffs:
20 Guardsman(2 Boltguns)+1 Company Commander = 112pts
10 Firewarriors+1 Cadre Fireblade = 112pts

20 Guardsman(2 Boltguns)+1 Company Commander (issuing FRSRF x2) shooting at Firewarriors, Range12"
18*4 Lasgun shots: 72*.5*.5*.5 = 9 unsaved wounds
2 Boltgun shots: 2*.5*.5*.5 = .25 unsaved wouds
TOTAL: 9.25

10 Firewarriors+1 Cadre Fireblade, shooting at Guardsman, Range15"
1 Markerlight shot: 1*.8333 = ~1 hit
10*3 Pulse Rifle shots: 10*.5*.666*.666 = 6.65334 unsaved wounds
Rerolling the 1's adds... 5*(.333)*.5*.666*.666 = .277xxx unsaved wounds
TOTAL: 6.93034

Buffed: It's not even close. Guardsman >>> Firewarriors, while having 21 wounds VS 11 wounds. - Speaking of the value of traits, Guardsman can get the same range as Firewarriors, unless the Firewarriors also take the +range trait. Firewarriors can get +1cover save, which brings down 18*4 Lasgun shots expected output to... 5.994, a significant reduction - but still not enough to win them a prolonged shootout; and they lose it if they move. If Guardsman don't have to move either, they could also take the re-roll 1's trait, which adds... 1.4985 unsaved wounds, for 18*4 Lasgun shots.

Guardsman do not deserve to be 4ppm under any circumstances; at least not with their statline, relative to the stats/prices of other factions armies. Adding in a 30PPM Company Commander brings a Guardsman squad up to 5.5PPM/7PPM (2/1 squads buffed by CompanyCommander); which sounds reasonable, but STILL blows out other factions troopers. 4pts = 1W, Sv5+, and 1/2/4 Lasgun shots.

Guardsman win the infantry war point for point, and back that up with an excessive number of Artillery/Tank units (up to 3x as many models as other factions, thanks to squadrons), all of which are competitive in their own right.

Let's talk buffs:
20 Guardsman(2 Boltguns)+1 Company Commander = 112pts
10 Firewarriors+1 Cadre Fireblade = 112pts
VS
MEQ; T4, Sv3+
5EQ (Custodes); T5, Sv2+

20 Guardsman(2 Boltguns)+1 Company Commander (issuing FRSRF x2) shooting at MEQ, Range12"
[I'm leaving the 2 Boltguns and 1 Laspistol out of the equations below; it's a lot more lines/calculations for what ultimately amounts to... a smaller bonus than what it's worth for this comparison.]
VS MEQ
R24": (18)*.5*.333*.333 = .998001
Cadia RR1's: (9)*(.333)*.5*.333*.333 = .1661671665
TOTAL: 1.1641681665
R12": (18*4)*.5*.333*.333 = 3.992004
Cadia RR1's: (36)*(.333)*.5*.333*.333 = .664668666
TOTAL: 4.656672666
VS 5EQ
R24": (18)*.5*.333*.166 = .497502
Cadia RR1's: (9)*(.333)*.5*.333*.166 = .082834083
TOTAL: .580336083
R12": (18*4)*.5*.333*.166 = 1.990008
Cadia RR1's: (36)*(.333)*.5*.333*.166 = .331336332
TOTAL: 2.321344332

10 Firewarriors+1 Cadre Fireblade, shooting at MEQ, Range15"
VS MEQ
R24": (10)*.5*.666*.333 = 1.10889
Markerlight RR1's: (5).(.333)*.5*.666*.333 = .184630185
TOTAL: 1.293520185
R12": (10*3)*.5*.666*.333 = 3.32667
Markerlight RR1's: (15)*(.333)*.5*.666*.333 = .553890555
TOTAL: 3.88056055
VS 5EQ
R24": (10)*.5*.5*.166 = .415
Markerlight RR1's: (5)*(.333)*.5*.5*.166 = .0690975
TOTAL: .4840975
R12": (10*3)*.5*.5*.166 = 1.245
Markerlight RR1's: (15)*(.333)*.5*.5*.166 = .2072925
TOTAL: 1.4522925

Short version: Don't underestimate sheer volume of fire - Lasguns generally tie or win out against your T5 and down targets; and when they get in Rapid Fire range (12"-15", 4 shots*4ppm > 3shots*7ppm [yes, they're missing the ppm of commanders and fireblades; if you made a brick of Firewarriors, you may be able to get the PPM to even out (since 1 Cadre Fireblade can buff a large number of units, while you need UNITS/2 in Company Commanders), if not get closer together after all calculations...]; and again, don't forget that the Guardsman have 21wounds to the Firewarriors 11wounds - and take up additional board space, which is a huge deal.

Firewarrior's S5 guns start to win out when you start shooting T6-T9 models; add in the +1 to wound rolls stratagem, and they can do real work.

I'll make an Overwatch post some time in the future, maybe; but with Firewarriors having 3shots VS 2//4shots (if IG interweave the 20Guardsman (2 squads), they get an additional set of overwatches), and potentially RR1's (not likely, but maybe they'll get a markerlight on a random target beforehand); it'll be close. I think interlocked IG squads will come out on top (40 shots vs 30 shots) by a little - if you add in other Firewarrior squads nearby, they'll come out ahead - but, that's even more points (albeit ones that the IG couldn't leverage even if they wanted to, unless they mix 3 infantry squads together... Mordian Doctrine ties with T'au Doctrine (hitting on 5+s), so... it's really a wash.

 vipoid wrote:


This just in: If you enter a tournament, you are not allowed to play something just because you enjoy it. You must use the most competitive army possible, even it it means including units you have no interest in using or armies you have no interest in playing. Do that or GTFO.

Spoletta wrote:

Spoiler:

fe40k wrote:
Quoting two of my different responses; the first is Guardsman vs Firewarriors (T3), the second is Guardsman/Firewarriors vs MEQ/5EQ (T4/T5).

This is untrue. Guardsman > Firewarriors, and all other troopers, pound for pound.

Guardsman - 4ppm
Range 24" Rapid Fire 1, S3, AP-0

Firewarrior - 7ppm
Range 30", Rapid Fire 1, S5, AP-0

17 Guardsman+1 Boltgun (Sergeant) = 68+1pts
10 Firewarriors = 70 points

17 Guardsman shooting at Firewarriors, Range24"
16 Lasgun shots; 16*.5*.5*.5 = 2 unsaved wounds
1 Boltgun shot; 1*.5*.666*.5 = 0.1665 unsaved wounds
TOTAL: 2.1665

10 Firewarriors shooting at Guardsman, Range30"
10 Pulse Rifle shots; 10*.5*.666*.666 = 2.21778 unsaved wounds
TOTAL: 2.21778

Unbuffed; Tau win outside of Rapid Fire range - but, the Guardsman have 17 wounds versus the Firewarriors 10; which is a massive deal in terms of durability, 58.8% more durable. The moment the shooting goes past one rounds worth, Guardsman>Firewarriors.

Let's talk buffs:
20 Guardsman(2 Boltguns)+1 Company Commander = 112pts
10 Firewarriors+1 Cadre Fireblade = 112pts

20 Guardsman(2 Boltguns)+1 Company Commander (issuing FRSRF x2) shooting at Firewarriors, Range12"
18*4 Lasgun shots: 72*.5*.5*.5 = 9 unsaved wounds
2 Boltgun shots: 2*.5*.5*.5 = .25 unsaved wouds
TOTAL: 9.25

10 Firewarriors+1 Cadre Fireblade, shooting at Guardsman, Range15"
1 Markerlight shot: 1*.8333 = ~1 hit
10*3 Pulse Rifle shots: 10*.5*.666*.666 = 6.65334 unsaved wounds
Rerolling the 1's adds... 5*(.333)*.5*.666*.666 = .277xxx unsaved wounds
TOTAL: 6.93034

Buffed: It's not even close. Guardsman >>> Firewarriors, while having 21 wounds VS 11 wounds. - Speaking of the value of traits, Guardsman can get the same range as Firewarriors, unless the Firewarriors also take the +range trait. Firewarriors can get +1cover save, which brings down 18*4 Lasgun shots expected output to... 5.994, a significant reduction - but still not enough to win them a prolonged shootout; and they lose it if they move. If Guardsman don't have to move either, they could also take the re-roll 1's trait, which adds... 1.4985 unsaved wounds, for 18*4 Lasgun shots.

Guardsman do not deserve to be 4ppm under any circumstances; at least not with their statline, relative to the stats/prices of other factions armies. Adding in a 30PPM Company Commander brings a Guardsman squad up to 5.5PPM/7PPM (2/1 squads buffed by CompanyCommander); which sounds reasonable, but STILL blows out other factions troopers. 4pts = 1W, Sv5+, and 1/2/4 Lasgun shots.

Guardsman win the infantry war point for point, and back that up with an excessive number of Artillery/Tank units (up to 3x as many models as other factions, thanks to squadrons), all of which are competitive in their own right.

Let's talk buffs:
20 Guardsman(2 Boltguns)+1 Company Commander = 112pts
10 Firewarriors+1 Cadre Fireblade = 112pts
VS
MEQ; T4, Sv3+
5EQ (Custodes); T5, Sv2+

20 Guardsman(2 Boltguns)+1 Company Commander (issuing FRSRF x2) shooting at MEQ, Range12"
[I'm leaving the 2 Boltguns and 1 Laspistol out of the equations below; it's a lot more lines/calculations for what ultimately amounts to... a smaller bonus than what it's worth for this comparison.]
VS MEQ
R24": (18)*.5*.333*.333 = .998001
Cadia RR1's: (9)*(.333)*.5*.333*.333 = .1661671665
TOTAL: 1.1641681665
R12": (18*4)*.5*.333*.333 = 3.992004
Cadia RR1's: (36)*(.333)*.5*.333*.333 = .664668666
TOTAL: 4.656672666
VS 5EQ
R24": (18)*.5*.333*.166 = .497502
Cadia RR1's: (9)*(.333)*.5*.333*.166 = .082834083
TOTAL: .580336083
R12": (18*4)*.5*.333*.166 = 1.990008
Cadia RR1's: (36)*(.333)*.5*.333*.166 = .331336332
TOTAL: 2.321344332

10 Firewarriors+1 Cadre Fireblade, shooting at MEQ, Range15"
VS MEQ
R24": (10)*.5*.666*.333 = 1.10889
Markerlight RR1's: (5).(.333)*.5*.666*.333 = .184630185
TOTAL: 1.293520185
R12": (10*3)*.5*.666*.333 = 3.32667
Markerlight RR1's: (15)*(.333)*.5*.666*.333 = .553890555
TOTAL: 3.88056055
VS 5EQ
R24": (10)*.5*.5*.166 = .415
Markerlight RR1's: (5)*(.333)*.5*.5*.166 = .0690975
TOTAL: .4840975
R12": (10*3)*.5*.5*.166 = 1.245
Markerlight RR1's: (15)*(.333)*.5*.5*.166 = .2072925
TOTAL: 1.4522925

Short version: Don't underestimate sheer volume of fire - Lasguns generally tie or win out against your T5 and down targets; and when they get in Rapid Fire range (12"-15", 4 shots*4ppm > 3shots*7ppm [yes, they're missing the ppm of commanders and fireblades; if you made a brick of Firewarriors, you may be able to get the PPM to even out (since 1 Cadre Fireblade can buff a large number of units, while you need UNITS/2 in Company Commanders), if not get closer together after all calculations...]; and again, don't forget that the Guardsman have 21wounds to the Firewarriors 11wounds - and take up additional board space, which is a huge deal.

Firewarrior's S5 guns start to win out when you start shooting T6-T9 models; add in the +1 to wound rolls stratagem, and they can do real work.

I'll make an Overwatch post some time in the future, maybe; but with Firewarriors having 3shots VS 2//4shots (if IG interweave the 20Guardsman (2 squads), they get an additional set of overwatches), and potentially RR1's (not likely, but maybe they'll get a markerlight on a random target beforehand); it'll be close. I think interlocked IG squads will come out on top (40 shots vs 30 shots) by a little - if you add in other Firewarrior squads nearby, they'll come out ahead - but, that's even more points (albeit ones that the IG couldn't leverage even if they wanted to, unless they mix 3 infantry squads together... Mordian Doctrine ties with T'au Doctrine (hitting on 5+s), so... it's really a wash.

Sorry but this way of doing math is IMHO misleading. Troops having a shoot out between each other is an absurd scenario that is never going to matter in the game. What you should calculate, as i did, is how much wounds per point those troops inflict on typical targets, and at what range.
Or how durable they are against the typical shooting profiles.

If you do this, you will discover that when no buffs are applied, guards are the most durable troops in the game, but they are FAR from being the most powerful. Many factions have troops that easily outshoot them. What is unique to guards is their durability, but please let's not say that guardsmen are OP due to their firepower, because that would 100% false.

Now, the combination of an OK firepower and high durability can be worth 5 points, i agree. But if you claim that you have "mathematically shown" something, do it in a reasonable
way.

That said, fixing guardmen is not even in the top 5 of changes that are most urgent for guards, so i don't see why it is getting all the hate.
Before that you should:

1) Fix grand strategist
2) Nerf Artemis Hellhounds
3) Nerf vanilla Hellhounds
4) Nerf shadowswords (the fact that the Castellan is even more OP doesn't mean that the shadowsword is now fair)
5) Take Cover doen not influence invul saves.

All of those are more important that increasing by 1 point the guardsmen.

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Take a basic squad of each thing, no buffs, and go from there.

???
But I did. Multiple times, and they come out ahead in every scenario against other unbuffed infantry. And when I do that people are all like "but you have to consider the faction as a whole" so I do the math again but with buffs affecting both sides, and guard still win handily. And then people go "orders are different from auras so it's not the same" and then just declare all the math unrepresentative. Or even better, that the comparison involves units that don't have the same role and so is wrong.

And it really baffles me when people downplay the effects of FRFSRF, saying it doesn't do much because it's S3. I mean, 3 guard infantry squads can use FRFSRF to keep up with a double tapping Russ Punisher's firepower, and that's at long range. At half range, the punisher is completely outdone. And most Guard players seem to think that the punisher needs a point increase, so...

Kdash wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Take a basic squad of each thing, no buffs, and go from there.

???
But I did. Multiple times, and they come out ahead in every scenario against other unbuffed infantry. And when I do that people are all like "but you have to consider the faction as a whole" so I do the math again but with buffs affecting both sides, and guard still win handily. And then people go "orders are different from auras so it's not the same" and then just declare all the math unrepresentative. Or even better, that the comparison involves units that don't have the same role and so is wrong.

And it really baffles me when people downplay the effects of FRFSRF, saying it doesn't do much because it's S3. I mean, 3 guard infantry squads can use FRFSRF to keep up with a double tapping Russ Punisher's firepower, and that's at long range. At half range, the punisher is completely outdone. And most Guard players seem to think that the punisher needs a point increase, so...

Ok, so I’ve just done a bit more math myself in regards to “who comes out on top unbuffed”. That even means not rapid firing – but being able to shoot from turn 1. This is also not taking into account morale losses. (As a morale trade off, I’ve not taken the decision of presuming you’d remove Guard sergeants first – otherwise morale would play a bigger factor).

Vs Marines.
2 squads of Guard vs 1 squad of 6 Marines (80 points v 78)
If Guard go first, the Marines are dead at the end of turn 4 with only 17.26% Casualties.
If Marines go first, the Marines are dead at the end of turn 6. 29.23% Casualties.
Guard win.

Vs T’au
2 squads of Guard vs 11 Fire warriors (80 points v 77)
If Guard go first, Guard win. 37.55% Casualties vs 91.83%
If T’au go first, Guard win. 65.55% Casulaties vs 62.72%.
Advantage to Guard. Neither side is “tabled”.

Vs Nids
2 squads of Guard vs 3 Warriors with Deathspitters (not even going to bother with it being vs 10 Termagants with devourers) (80 points v 75)
If Guard go first, Guard win. 55.56% Casualties vs 66.67%.
If Nids go first, Nids win. 33.33% Casualties vs 77.78%.
Draw over 6 turns, with slight advantage to Nids. Neither side is “tabled”.

Vs Thousand Sons
6 squads of Guard vs 11 Rubrics (one with Soulreaper and killing off Sorcerer first) (240 points v 240)
If Guard go first, Guard win. 35.5% Casualties vs 59.92%
If Sons go first, Guard win. 44.34% Casualties vs 47.1%.
Guard win, though, it is pretty close if Sons go first. Neither side is “tabled”.

Vs Orks
3 squads of Guard vs 20 Boyz (120 points vs 120)
If Guard go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 5. 16.54% Casualties.
If Orks go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 6. 29.71% Casualties.
Easy Guard win.

Vs Necrons
3 squads of Guard vs 1 unit of Warriors
If Guard go first, Necrons win. 33.61% Casualties to 50.5%.
If Necrons go first, then Necrons win. 41.09% Casualties vs 57.28%.
Necrons win over 6 turns. Neither side is “tabled”.

Vs Admech (Rangers)
1 squad v 1 squad (40 points each)
If Guard go first, Guard win. Admech tabled turn 6. 27.8% Guard Casualties.
If Admech go first, Guard win. 51.9% Casualties vs 80.06%.
Guard win.


So - from a DURABILITY point alone (one of the points that seems to get mentioned over and over again, Guardsmen aren't the "best" across the board troop for troop.

Of course, this changes when you start having other squads shoot at the Guardsmen etc, but, in the troop v troop situation it is slightly different.

Ice_can wrote:

Spoiler:

Kdash wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Take a basic squad of each thing, no buffs, and go from there.

???
But I did. Multiple times, and they come out ahead in every scenario against other unbuffed infantry. And when I do that people are all like "but you have to consider the faction as a whole" so I do the math again but with buffs affecting both sides, and guard still win handily. And then people go "orders are different from auras so it's not the same" and then just declare all the math unrepresentative. Or even better, that the comparison involves units that don't have the same role and so is wrong.

And it really baffles me when people downplay the effects of FRFSRF, saying it doesn't do much because it's S3. I mean, 3 guard infantry squads can use FRFSRF to keep up with a double tapping Russ Punisher's firepower, and that's at long range. At half range, the punisher is completely outdone. And most Guard players seem to think that the punisher needs a point increase, so...

Ok, so I’ve just done a bit more math myself in regards to “who comes out on top unbuffed”. That even means not rapid firing – but being able to shoot from turn 1. This is also not taking into account morale losses. (As a morale trade off, I’ve not taken the decision of presuming you’d remove Guard sergeants first – otherwise morale would play a bigger factor).

Vs Marines.
2 squads of Guard vs 1 squad of 6 Marines (80 points v 78)
If Guard go first, the Marines are dead at the end of turn 4 with only 17.26% Casualties.
If Marines go first, the Marines are dead at the end of turn 6. 29.23% Casualties.
Guard win.

Vs T’au
2 squads of Guard vs 11 Fire warriors (80 points v 77)
If Guard go first, Guard win. 37.55% Casualties vs 91.83%
If T’au go first, Guard win. 65.55% Casulaties vs 62.72%.
Advantage to Guard. Neither side is “tabled”.

Vs Nids
2 squads of Guard vs 3 Warriors with Deathspitters (not even going to bother with it being vs 10 Termagants with devourers) (80 points v 75)
If Guard go first, Guard win. 55.56% Casualties vs 66.67%.
If Nids go first, Nids win. 33.33% Casualties vs 77.78%.
Draw over 6 turns, with slight advantage to Nids. Neither side is “tabled”.

Vs Thousand Sons
6 squads of Guard vs 11 Rubrics (one with Soulreaper and killing off Sorcerer first) (240 points v 240)
If Guard go first, Guard win. 35.5% Casualties vs 59.92%
If Sons go first, Guard win. 44.34% Casualties vs 47.1%.
Guard win, though, it is pretty close if Sons go first. Neither side is “tabled”.

Vs Orks
3 squads of Guard vs 20 Boyz (120 points vs 120)
If Guard go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 5. 16.54% Casualties.
If Orks go first, Guard win. Orks tabled turn 6. 29.71% Casualties.
Easy Guard win.

Vs Necrons
3 squads of Guard vs 1 unit of Warriors
If Guard go first, Necrons win. 33.61% Casualties to 50.5%.
If Necrons go first, then Necrons win. 41.09% Casualties vs 57.28%.
Necrons win over 6 turns. Neither side is “tabled”.

Vs Admech (Rangers)
1 squad v 1 squad (40 points each)
If Guard go first, Guard win. Admech tabled turn 6. 27.8% Guard Casualties.
If Admech go first, Guard win. 51.9% Casualties vs 80.06%.
Guard win.


So - from a DURABILITY point alone (one of the points that seems to get mentioned over and over again, Guardsmen aren't the "best" across the board troop for troop.

Of course, this changes when you start having other squads shoot at the Guardsmen etc, but, in the troop v troop situation it is slightly different.

All you have shown is they are better than Tau, Marines, Thousand sons, orks and Admech.
While in your example the warriors win, I don't think that would hold up inna game as reanimation protocols are easy to play arround by focusing unit afyer unit off the table.

So they only one it was even close with was nids and you have a huge board control advantage over them.

 Earth127 wrote:
Ice_can I am afraid your math is wrong.


You cannot use the basic chance formula ove rmultiple turns. All chances have to be independent of each other. Losses aren't.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 vipoid wrote:


This just in: If you enter a tournament, you are not allowed to play something just because you enjoy it. You must use the most competitive army possible, even it it means including units you have no interest in using or armies you have no interest in playing. Do that or GTFO.

This just in: people take what they believe to be the most competitive list they have to a tournament. People are taking mono Guard armies and performing better than other armies that are forced to do mono. Also players can still play something they enjoy if they play Guard because they can take a Guard army AND ally in other armies to suit.

Marin wrote:
That topic really become pointless. Calculating damage infantry vs infantry have little value. 5 points per guard are 10 more per squad and 60 more for 6 and that is not really game breaking in most lists. If really really the price is the problem guard can deploy conscripts for 4 points. That seam to little to be even worth a argument. Force 20 per unit for conscript and 15 per guard and than we are talking of doing something.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Marin wrote:
That topic really become pointless. Calculating damage infantry vs infantry have little value. 5 points per guard are 10 more per squad and 60 more for 6 and that is not really game breaking in most lists. If really really the price is the problem guard can deploy conscripts for 4 points. That seam to little to be even worth a argument. Force 20 per unit for conscript and 15 per guard and than we are talking of doing something.

Conscript units start at 20 models and can add 10 more(down from the Index letting you add 30 more) to cap the unit out at 30.
Infantry and Veteran Squads themselves are 10 models to start and cannot have their numbers bolstered. Infantry Squads(as in: the unit called Infantry Squad) can be merged via the "Combined Squads" stratagem during the course of the game.

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

 JNAProductions wrote:
They've been FAQed to have Slab Shields only work on armor saves, if I recall correctly.

And where are the rerolls coming from?

 Marmatag wrote:
My favorite example of Infantry squads being broken is when you use the synergy with Guard HQs.

Isn't it great when Infantry have 3 attacks per guy at strength 4 with rerolls? And you can order them to fight twice? Just combine a couple squads, charge in, and you will throw out 60 attacks with rerolls on an 80 point unit. Maybe order them, so it's 120? Seems fair right?

You guys talk about how guard aren't winning tournaments. That's because Imperium soup is insane. Castellans ARE that good. Custode Dawneagles ARE that good. Guard are super strong wall to wall.

That doesn't change the fact that guard are better than most armies in melee

and better than most armies in shooting. Do i want guard nerfed into the floor? No, but this faction has had it all for far too long. Their literal only weakness is BS4+ and that is something that these forum users whine about constantly. It is the literal only weakness guard has. And it's only 1 side of a dice worse than marine shooting (read: most accurate shooting in game).

 Marmatag wrote:

Isn't it great when Infantry have 3 attacks per guy at strength 4 with rerolls? And you can order them to fight twice? Just combine a couple squads, charge in, and you will throw out 60 attacks with rerolls on an 80 point unit. Maybe order them, so it's 120? Seems fair right?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Marin wrote:
That topic really become pointless. Calculating damage infantry vs infantry have little value. 5 points per guard are 10 more per squad and 60 more for 6 and that is not really game breaking in most lists. If really really the price is the problem guard can deploy conscripts for 4 points. That seam to little to be even worth a argument. Force 20 per unit for conscript and 15 per guard and than we are talking of doing something.

Conscript units start at 20 models and can add 10 more(down from the Index letting you add 30 more) to cap the unit out at 30.
Infantry and Veteran Squads themselves are 10 models to start and cannot have their numbers bolstered. Infantry Squads(as in: the unit called Infantry Squad) can be merged via the "Combined Squads" stratagem during the course of the game.

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

So now you want us to start comparing 10 models vs 10 models? You'll be proud of how Terminators hold up!

 vipoid wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Isn't it great when Infantry have 3 attacks per guy at strength 4 with rerolls? And you can order them to fight twice? Just combine a couple squads, charge in, and you will throw out 60 attacks with rerolls on an 80 point unit. Maybe order them, so it's 120? Seems fair right?

It seems very disingenuous to not include the cost of the support units in this.

Straken costs almost as much as those two squads (75pts), and a Ministrum Priest is another 35pts. So you're paying about 40% more for support units than for the squads you're actually buffing. Worth noting also that, whilst you can include multiple Priests, Straken is a special character and thus you're already limited in the number of squads you can realistically pull this trick with.

Also, the Fix Bayonets Order requires the squad to already be in melee when you use it. So, no, you can't just charge in with double attacks.


What's more, I think you're vastly overestimating the threat posed by melee guardsmen. Those 60 attacks amount to, what, a dead 5-man marine squad? So you're spending 190pts to kill 65pts of a squad that pretty much everyone agrees isn't good to begin with. And this is assuming absolutely perfect conditions - with the guardsmen advancing completely unscathed up the field (perfectly reasonable for T3 5+ models), their target obligingly coming to them or not backing away from the cumbersome melee blob, the support characters never being sniped out, the opponent not taking the opportunity to charge himself with actual assault units, the squad taking no damage from overwatch etc.

I don't deny that IG are strong but is anyone seriously dominating with melee-IG?

 Marmatag wrote:
My favorite example of Infantry squads being broken is when you use the synergy with Guard HQs.

Isn't it great when Infantry have 3 attacks per guy at strength 4 with rerolls? And you can order them to fight twice? Just combine a couple squads, charge in, and you will throw out 60 attacks with rerolls on an 80 point unit. Maybe order them, so it's 120? Seems fair right?

This faction has been busted wall to wall for some time. The fact that Guard can lose to things that stack -1 to hit penalties, or Guard Soup which includes Custodes and Knights, doesn't take away from the faction's power.

You guys talk about how guard aren't winning tournaments. That's because Imperium soup is insane. Castellans ARE that good. Custode Dawneagles ARE that good. Guard are super strong wall to wall.

That doesn't change the fact that guard are better than most armies in melee, and better than most armies in shooting. Do i want guard nerfed into the floor? No, but this faction has had it all for far too long. Their literal only weakness is BS4+ and that is something that these forum users whine about constantly. It is the literal only weakness guard has. And it's only 1 side of a dice worse than marine shooting (read: most accurate shooting in game).

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
My favorite example of Infantry squads being broken is when you use the synergy with Guard HQs.

Isn't it great when Infantry have 3 attacks per guy at strength 4 with rerolls? And you can order them to fight twice? Just combine a couple squads, charge in, and you will throw out 60 attacks with rerolls on an 80 point unit. Maybe order them, so it's 120? Seems fair right?

I mean, if we're combining the base unit and cherrypicked Stratagems, Officers & Orders, Regiment Bonuses, and appropriate maneuver of all elements in acting in coordination at full strength, sure, but then how much of that is the Infantry Squad, and how much of that is the successful convergence all those things at the time and place of the commanders choosing?

 Vaktathi wrote:

You guys talk about how guard aren't winning tournaments. That's because Imperium soup is insane. Castellans ARE that good. Custode Dawneagles ARE that good. Guard are super strong wall to wall.

Still wondering about those Chimeras...

 Vaktathi wrote:

That doesn't change the fact that guard are better than most armies in melee

In cherrypicked webforum thought experiments involving extremely specific contexts? Maybe. Let me know when a melee guard amy beats another army inherently built around melee combat, I've never seen one.

 Vaktathi wrote:

and better than most armies in shooting. Do i want guard nerfed into the floor? No, but this faction has had it all for far too long. Their literal only weakness is BS4+ and that is something that these forum users whine about constantly. It is the literal only weakness guard has. And it's only 1 side of a dice worse than marine shooting (read: most accurate shooting in game).

And only 1pt better than Orks, the worst shooting in the game

 Marmatag wrote:
Bullgryns are what terminators should have been.

It's always funny when you see Bullgryns with a 1+/2++ spitting out 5x Strength 7, AP-1, 2 damage attacks, hitting on 3s, with some reroll synergy.

If terminators had this the guard community would be crying "broken." In fact if any faction had this they'd be crying broken... except guard obviously, because guard should have the best melee in the game.