Switch Theme:

Soup is not the problem - LVO 2019  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Spoletta wrote:
Spoiler:
Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Aelyn wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
We can (and have) prove that 4ppm Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically compared to other units.

It's been proven mathematically?

Does the proof involve non-quantifiable or external elements such as stratagems, orders etc, or does it revolve specifically around the 4ppm Guardsmen against other units (which, to ensure the comparison is accurate, also don't have stratagems or other external elements)?

If it is the latter, can you provide a link to this proof?


Also this.

Even if you manage to create a mathematical model to make direct confrontations between profiles, you still would failt to consider this, which is by all means not secondary.

Look at CP generation for example (assuming no CP sharing, which is the root of all evils). CPs generated by guards are worth less than the CPs generated by Eldar guardians, because the AM faction uses less and has an easy access to them. If you were to give a point value to a CP in a monoAM army it would be worth less than the same CP in a mono CWE army.

When confronting troops this a hugely influencing parameter.

I'm not going to say that guards are fine at 4ppm, i'm of the idea that they are more of a 5ppm model than a 4ppm one, but saying that this is mathematically proven is not correct.
it has been done both with and without buffs, with and without msu battalions with and without faction bonuses and guard won time and again.

Someone claimed they lost 1v1 to intercessors but that was model to model not point for point.
They also over looked that intercessors make an MEQ wound 9 points with -1AP and additional range.
Not to mention once you shoot HBC dissys etc the intercessors loose points stupidly faster than IS.
IS out perform every other 1W model troop but in some cases rediculous margins.

Also all CP is equally as the common strategums are costed the same across all codex's. This idea that Guard CP is worth less than anyone else's is faulse and ignores the current rules.


I know for a fact that what you said is mathematically wrong (yes, now i can use that term), so please provide this math you say. There are many 1W troops to which guards lose in a "direct confrontation" (whatever that means) on a point per point basis, including the tac marines. Intercessors outshoot them point per point by such a huge margin that you would need 50% points more in guards to have an even match.

Can you please give the definition of "Out perform" that you are using? Maybe that we are valuing things differently and our math differs as a consequence.


If you want to go that way with your Ha ha you fell into my trap attitude go start another thread about why 4ppm guardsmen suck instead of derailing this thread. Math hammer has been done time and again and guardsmen win more than they loose. It's all their not deleted.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut




Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Spoiler:
Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Aelyn wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
We can (and have) prove that 4ppm Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically compared to other units.

It's been proven mathematically?

Does the proof involve non-quantifiable or external elements such as stratagems, orders etc, or does it revolve specifically around the 4ppm Guardsmen against other units (which, to ensure the comparison is accurate, also don't have stratagems or other external elements)?

If it is the latter, can you provide a link to this proof?


Also this.

Even if you manage to create a mathematical model to make direct confrontations between profiles, you still would failt to consider this, which is by all means not secondary.

Look at CP generation for example (assuming no CP sharing, which is the root of all evils). CPs generated by guards are worth less than the CPs generated by Eldar guardians, because the AM faction uses less and has an easy access to them. If you were to give a point value to a CP in a monoAM army it would be worth less than the same CP in a mono CWE army.

When confronting troops this a hugely influencing parameter.

I'm not going to say that guards are fine at 4ppm, i'm of the idea that they are more of a 5ppm model than a 4ppm one, but saying that this is mathematically proven is not correct.
it has been done both with and without buffs, with and without msu battalions with and without faction bonuses and guard won time and again.

Someone claimed they lost 1v1 to intercessors but that was model to model not point for point.
They also over looked that intercessors make an MEQ wound 9 points with -1AP and additional range.
Not to mention once you shoot HBC dissys etc the intercessors loose points stupidly faster than IS.
IS out perform every other 1W model troop but in some cases rediculous margins.

Also all CP is equally as the common strategums are costed the same across all codex's. This idea that Guard CP is worth less than anyone else's is faulse and ignores the current rules.


I know for a fact that what you said is mathematically wrong (yes, now i can use that term), so please provide this math you say. There are many 1W troops to which guards lose in a "direct confrontation" (whatever that means) on a point per point basis, including the tac marines. Intercessors outshoot them point per point by such a huge margin that you would need 50% points more in guards to have an even match.

Can you please give the definition of "Out perform" that you are using? Maybe that we are valuing things differently and our math differs as a consequence.


If you want to go that way with your Ha ha you fell into my trap attitude go start another thread about why 4ppm guardsmen suck instead of derailing this thread. Math hammer has been done time and again and guardsmen win more than they loose. It's all their not deleted.


Not trying anything, and guards could easily be 5 ppm, like i said.

I was just correcting people saying that it has been demonstrated mathematically because... well, because it's wrong info.

So please drop that attitude, it's honestly a bit offensive. Thanks.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/02/12 12:35:05


 
   
Made in gb
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle





Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Spoiler:
Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Aelyn wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
We can (and have) prove that 4ppm Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically compared to other units.

It's been proven mathematically?

Does the proof involve non-quantifiable or external elements such as stratagems, orders etc, or does it revolve specifically around the 4ppm Guardsmen against other units (which, to ensure the comparison is accurate, also don't have stratagems or other external elements)?

If it is the latter, can you provide a link to this proof?


Also this.

Even if you manage to create a mathematical model to make direct confrontations between profiles, you still would failt to consider this, which is by all means not secondary.

Look at CP generation for example (assuming no CP sharing, which is the root of all evils). CPs generated by guards are worth less than the CPs generated by Eldar guardians, because the AM faction uses less and has an easy access to them. If you were to give a point value to a CP in a monoAM army it would be worth less than the same CP in a mono CWE army.

When confronting troops this a hugely influencing parameter.

I'm not going to say that guards are fine at 4ppm, i'm of the idea that they are more of a 5ppm model than a 4ppm one, but saying that this is mathematically proven is not correct.
it has been done both with and without buffs, with and without msu battalions with and without faction bonuses and guard won time and again.

Someone claimed they lost 1v1 to intercessors but that was model to model not point for point.
They also over looked that intercessors make an MEQ wound 9 points with -1AP and additional range.
Not to mention once you shoot HBC dissys etc the intercessors loose points stupidly faster than IS.
IS out perform every other 1W model troop but in some cases rediculous margins.

Also all CP is equally as the common strategums are costed the same across all codex's. This idea that Guard CP is worth less than anyone else's is faulse and ignores the current rules.


I know for a fact that what you said is mathematically wrong (yes, now i can use that term), so please provide this math you say. There are many 1W troops to which guards lose in a "direct confrontation" (whatever that means) on a point per point basis, including the tac marines. Intercessors outshoot them point per point by such a huge margin that you would need 50% points more in guards to have an even match.

Can you please give the definition of "Out perform" that you are using? Maybe that we are valuing things differently and our math differs as a consequence.


If you want to go that way with your Ha ha you fell into my trap attitude go start another thread about why 4ppm guardsmen suck instead of derailing this thread. Math hammer has been done time and again and guardsmen win more than they loose. It's all their not deleted.
All I was asking for was a link to the maths, so I can understand the underlying assumptions, "rules of engagement" etc. If you're so confident in the maths and the conclusions, and if it's been done time and time again, it shouldn't be hard to provide evidence of that.

Please note that I'm not saying guardsmen suck, nor am I attempting to lay a trap. I just want to see the maths, because I've seen the claim that guardsmen are mathematically better quite a few times, but I've never actually seen it substantiated.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Reducing debates to semantics is annoying - but in general.

1. Guardsmen have great shooting for their exceptionally low points.
2. This can then be almost doubled with FRFSRF, taking "good" to "comedic".
3. Guardsmen are also less vulnerable to shooting than almost all comparable troop units. Shoot them with S3-5 AP-, shoot them with S7 AP-3, it doesn't matter. Primaris are better against low S AP- single wound guns, but become dramatically inferior against D2 weapons and have a tiny percentage of the offensive output (before FRFSRF).
4. Having a high footprint makes them good for screening/board control. I don't know how to express this as a mathematical equation - its just there.
5. With move^3, they are joining some of the fastest units in the game, which is an incredibly boon for grabbing objectives. Yes they trade away the ability to shoot or charge - so yes, they can't do everything at once - but having abiltiies is better than not having them. Would I like the option for say fireblades to let fire warriors move an additional 10" across the table if thats going to win me the game? Yes.
6. They get the opportunity for very cheap batallions and brigades, which means more CP, and more CP equals more good if you have something like a Castelan to very efficiently make use of them.

This isn't even touching the upsides of being Catachan or Cadian.

All in all its a nexus of guardsmen and order-bots being very cheap, while at the same time orders are very powerful and this combination generates bags of CPs. You don't need to nerf every aspect of this, but something should give.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





It doesn't need to be proven with any math because it has been proven to be true time and time again.

If AM were not part of the problem, the combination of Castellan and AM would not be placing high by multiple players at multiple tournaments over a year, we would see Scouts+Castellan, or ad mech +Castellan, or sisters + Castellan.

However we don't, we always see the common power army is AM + Castellan.

AM are part of the issue.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/12 13:22:29


 
   
Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot






Iowa

Tyel wrote:
Reducing debates to semantics is annoying - but in general.

1. Guardsmen have great shooting for their exceptionally low points.
2. This can then be almost doubled with FRFSRF, taking "good" to "comedic".
3. Guardsmen are also less vulnerable to shooting than almost all comparable troop units. Shoot them with S3-5 AP-, shoot them with S7 AP-3, it doesn't matter. Primaris are better against low S AP- single wound guns, but become dramatically inferior against D2 weapons and have a tiny percentage of the offensive output (before FRFSRF).
4. Having a high footprint makes them good for screening/board control. I don't know how to express this as a mathematical equation - its just there.
5. With move^3, they are joining some of the fastest units in the game, which is an incredibly boon for grabbing objectives. Yes they trade away the ability to shoot or charge - so yes, they can't do everything at once - but having abiltiies is better than not having them. Would I like the option for say fireblades to let fire warriors move an additional 10" across the table if thats going to win me the game? Yes.
6. They get the opportunity for very cheap batallions and brigades, which means more CP, and more CP equals more good if you have something like a Castelan to very efficiently make use of them.

This isn't even touching the upsides of being Catachan or Cadian.

All in all its a nexus of guardsmen and order-bots being very cheap, while at the same time orders are very powerful and this combination generates bags of CPs. You don't need to nerf every aspect of this, but something should give.

I always see how people say that guardsmen are faster than super sonic vehicles after sacrificing a phase. Why don’t we make super sonic vehicles faster?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
blaktoof wrote:
It doesn't need to be proven with any math because it has been proven to be true time and time again.

If AM were not part of the problem, the combination of Castellan and AM would not be placing high by multiple players at multiple tournaments over a year, we would see Scouts+Castellan, or ad mech +Castellan, or sisters + Castellan.

However we don't, we always see the common power army is AM + Castellan.

AM are part of the issue.

If you nerf guard, then people will just take AdMech for CP. If you nerf Castellan, then people will take the next Knight or two comparable. Nerfing these units will just shift the mantle of OP to the next runner up.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/12 13:25:33


If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed. 
   
Made in us
Locked in the Tower of Amareo




They're also faster than jump troops. And tanks. And DRAGSTERS.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Just how quick to you propose making flyers on a 48" by 72" 4ft by 6ft table or a 60" by 96" 5ft by 8ft board?
At a certain point the board limits the scale that things can grow too.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





If you nerf guard, then people will just take AdMech for CP. If you nerf Castellan, then people will take the next Knight or two comparable. Nerfing these units will just shift the mantle of OP to the next runner up.


1. That's a cop out to avoid the obvious that AM are part of the problem.

2. The point is not to over adjust so that no one plays that combination again, rather to slightly adjust so it is not the prevailent choice for competitive play based on points/effectiveness.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/12 13:49:17


 
   
Made in us
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot






Iowa

Ice_can wrote:
Just how quick to you propose making flyers on a 48" by 72" 4ft by 6ft table or a 60" by 96" 5ft by 8ft board?
At a certain point the board limits the scale that things can grow too.

I believe Valkyries can go 60” in a turn as long as they pivot to turn. Maybe something like that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
blaktoof wrote:
If you nerf guard, then people will just take AdMech for CP. If you nerf Castellan, then people will take the next Knight or two comparable. Nerfing these units will just shift the mantle of OP to the next runner up.


1. That's a cop out to avoid the obvious that AM are part of the problem.

2. The point is not to over adjust so that no one plays that combination again, rather to slightly adjust so it is not the prevailent choice for competitive play based on points/effectiveness.

You think GW can find a sweet spot?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/12 13:50:19


If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed. 
   
Made in no
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon




Guardsmen having the ability to move 24" in a turn is just ridiculous from any point of view, movemovemove should probably just let you advance 2d6 instead of 1d6. They would still be super fast potentially but the average is far less.

And yes, technically the ability would be for them to advance normally and the order lets them move an additional d6. So not doubling your advance move, adding another d6 instead.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Apple Peel wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Just how quick to you propose making flyers on a 48" by 72" 4ft by 6ft table or a 60" by 96" 5ft by 8ft board?
At a certain point the board limits the scale that things can grow too.

I believe Valkyries can go 60” in a turn as long as they pivot to turn. Maybe something like that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
blaktoof wrote:
If you nerf guard, then people will just take AdMech for CP. If you nerf Castellan, then people will take the next Knight or two comparable. Nerfing these units will just shift the mantle of OP to the next runner up.


1. That's a cop out to avoid the obvious that AM are part of the problem.

2. The point is not to over adjust so that no one plays that combination again, rather to slightly adjust so it is not the prevailent choice for competitive play based on points/effectiveness.

You think GW can find a sweet spot?


No, I think they can find a slightly better spot. It is hard to find a sweet spot as there are too many rules in play between deployment options, moving, shooting, assaulting, and comparing different armies abilities. I don't think they can find a sweet spot where everything is balanced against each other, they can improve the game by finding a slightly better spot where one combination of at least two things (Castellan +AM) shows up as the majority faction at the top tables of most tournaments over a year.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I'd settle for dropping CP completely from the game.

The change is that you can use Any stratagem when you want.

The difficulty is that can't use it again till a number of rounds equal to its CP cost have passed.

Command Reroll? Use it every round. Agents of Vect? Wait 4 rounds before you can use it again.
   
Made in us
Blood-Raging Khorne Berserker





If allies or even CP are dropped from the game, there will still be some min-maxed overpowered faction/list for people to rage about.

Competitive 40k is trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. I don't begrudge people who enjoy it, more power to them. I'm just glad GW makes the changes, and not players. Far from perfect, of course, but they seem to keep the intended spirit of the game in mind and I appreciate that. I realize many will disagree and have other preferences, fair enough. We get what we get, though.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Spoletta wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Spoiler:
Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Aelyn wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
We can (and have) prove that 4ppm Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically compared to other units.

It's been proven mathematically?

Does the proof involve non-quantifiable or external elements such as stratagems, orders etc, or does it revolve specifically around the 4ppm Guardsmen against other units (which, to ensure the comparison is accurate, also don't have stratagems or other external elements)?

If it is the latter, can you provide a link to this proof?


Also this.

Even if you manage to create a mathematical model to make direct confrontations between profiles, you still would failt to consider this, which is by all means not secondary.

Look at CP generation for example (assuming no CP sharing, which is the root of all evils). CPs generated by guards are worth less than the CPs generated by Eldar guardians, because the AM faction uses less and has an easy access to them. If you were to give a point value to a CP in a monoAM army it would be worth less than the same CP in a mono CWE army.

When confronting troops this a hugely influencing parameter.

I'm not going to say that guards are fine at 4ppm, i'm of the idea that they are more of a 5ppm model than a 4ppm one, but saying that this is mathematically proven is not correct.
it has been done both with and without buffs, with and without msu battalions with and without faction bonuses and guard won time and again.

Someone claimed they lost 1v1 to intercessors but that was model to model not point for point.
They also over looked that intercessors make an MEQ wound 9 points with -1AP and additional range.
Not to mention once you shoot HBC dissys etc the intercessors loose points stupidly faster than IS.
IS out perform every other 1W model troop but in some cases rediculous margins.

Also all CP is equally as the common strategums are costed the same across all codex's. This idea that Guard CP is worth less than anyone else's is faulse and ignores the current rules.


I know for a fact that what you said is mathematically wrong (yes, now i can use that term), so please provide this math you say. There are many 1W troops to which guards lose in a "direct confrontation" (whatever that means) on a point per point basis, including the tac marines. Intercessors outshoot them point per point by such a huge margin that you would need 50% points more in guards to have an even match.

Can you please give the definition of "Out perform" that you are using? Maybe that we are valuing things differently and our math differs as a consequence.


If you want to go that way with your Ha ha you fell into my trap attitude go start another thread about why 4ppm guardsmen suck instead of derailing this thread. Math hammer has been done time and again and guardsmen win more than they loose. It's all their not deleted.


Not trying anything, and guards could easily be 5 ppm, like i said.

I was just correcting people saying that it has been demonstrated mathematically because... well, because it's wrong info.

So please drop that attitude, it's honestly a bit offensive. Thanks.

When has the presented math been wrong information?

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Shrieking Traitor Sentinel Pilot




USA

I've seen some things say to limit soup to 2 factions, it should have limits but not by number of factions imo.

I mean... unless running Traitor Guard with Iron Warriors and some Daemons shouldn't be allowed. (And no, narrative play is not the answer here, if I want to run this as my army at basically any game at an FLGS I'll have to play it matched play.)

"For the dark gods!" - A traitor guardsmen, probably before being killed. 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Seems like Guard players up in arms any Imperial army can take their broken unit and they just wanna keep it to themselves.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in gb
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Spoiler:
Spoletta wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Aelyn wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
We can (and have) prove that 4ppm Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically compared to other units.

It's been proven mathematically?

Does the proof involve non-quantifiable or external elements such as stratagems, orders etc, or does it revolve specifically around the 4ppm Guardsmen against other units (which, to ensure the comparison is accurate, also don't have stratagems or other external elements)?

If it is the latter, can you provide a link to this proof?


Also this.

Even if you manage to create a mathematical model to make direct confrontations between profiles, you still would failt to consider this, which is by all means not secondary.

Look at CP generation for example (assuming no CP sharing, which is the root of all evils). CPs generated by guards are worth less than the CPs generated by Eldar guardians, because the AM faction uses less and has an easy access to them. If you were to give a point value to a CP in a monoAM army it would be worth less than the same CP in a mono CWE army.

When confronting troops this a hugely influencing parameter.

I'm not going to say that guards are fine at 4ppm, i'm of the idea that they are more of a 5ppm model than a 4ppm one, but saying that this is mathematically proven is not correct.
it has been done both with and without buffs, with and without msu battalions with and without faction bonuses and guard won time and again.

Someone claimed they lost 1v1 to intercessors but that was model to model not point for point.
They also over looked that intercessors make an MEQ wound 9 points with -1AP and additional range.
Not to mention once you shoot HBC dissys etc the intercessors loose points stupidly faster than IS.
IS out perform every other 1W model troop but in some cases rediculous margins.

Also all CP is equally as the common strategums are costed the same across all codex's. This idea that Guard CP is worth less than anyone else's is faulse and ignores the current rules.


I know for a fact that what you said is mathematically wrong (yes, now i can use that term), so please provide this math you say. There are many 1W troops to which guards lose in a "direct confrontation" (whatever that means) on a point per point basis, including the tac marines. Intercessors outshoot them point per point by such a huge margin that you would need 50% points more in guards to have an even match.

Can you please give the definition of "Out perform" that you are using? Maybe that we are valuing things differently and our math differs as a consequence.


If you want to go that way with your Ha ha you fell into my trap attitude go start another thread about why 4ppm guardsmen suck instead of derailing this thread. Math hammer has been done time and again and guardsmen win more than they loose. It's all their not deleted.


Not trying anything, and guards could easily be 5 ppm, like i said.

I was just correcting people saying that it has been demonstrated mathematically because... well, because it's wrong info.

So please drop that attitude, it's honestly a bit offensive. Thanks.

When has the presented math been wrong information?

Can you please at least link to the maths you're referring to? It's hard to have a useful discussion about how accurate, relevant, and valid the maths is without being given an opportunity to at least view it.
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Right behind you.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Seems like Guard players up in arms any Imperial army can take their broken unit and they just wanna keep it to themselves.

Or maybe it's because they don't like the fact that any competent observer should see that their "broken unit"(read: the only one out of three worth taking as 'line troops') would just be replaced by the next most effective thing ad infinitum.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Kanluwen wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Seems like Guard players up in arms any Imperial army can take their broken unit and they just wanna keep it to themselves.

Or maybe it's because they don't like the fact that any competent observer should see that their "broken unit"(read: the only one out of three worth taking as 'line troops') would just be replaced by the next most effective thing ad infinitum.


The less next effective thing makes the combination more balanced.
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Right behind you.

blaktoof wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Seems like Guard players up in arms any Imperial army can take their broken unit and they just wanna keep it to themselves.

Or maybe it's because they don't like the fact that any competent observer should see that their "broken unit"(read: the only one out of three worth taking as 'line troops') would just be replaced by the next most effective thing ad infinitum.


The less next effective thing makes the combination more balanced.

No, it really doesn't.

This is what you lot don't seem to understand:
It really is soup that is the problem.

You keep focusing on Infantry Squads, Infantry Squads, and Infantry Squads--but quite a few Guard players flatout told people after the Index that any Conscript nerf revolving around JUST points was going to eliminate them as an option for Guard players but do nothing to address the issue of soup.

Until CP generation is addressed, this will continue to be an issue and you nerfing Guard will do nothing but hurt monofaction players. Until Infantry Squads have their composition altered to prevent some of the things that make them so appealing as soup? Continue to be an issue.

But yeah. Keep whining about Guard being the one and only problem.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/12 16:00:22


 
   
Made in gb
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel






Aelyn wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Spoiler:
Spoletta wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Aelyn wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
We can (and have) prove that 4ppm Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically compared to other units.

It's been proven mathematically?

Does the proof involve non-quantifiable or external elements such as stratagems, orders etc, or does it revolve specifically around the 4ppm Guardsmen against other units (which, to ensure the comparison is accurate, also don't have stratagems or other external elements)?

If it is the latter, can you provide a link to this proof?


Also this.

Even if you manage to create a mathematical model to make direct confrontations between profiles, you still would failt to consider this, which is by all means not secondary.

Look at CP generation for example (assuming no CP sharing, which is the root of all evils). CPs generated by guards are worth less than the CPs generated by Eldar guardians, because the AM faction uses less and has an easy access to them. If you were to give a point value to a CP in a monoAM army it would be worth less than the same CP in a mono CWE army.

When confronting troops this a hugely influencing parameter.

I'm not going to say that guards are fine at 4ppm, i'm of the idea that they are more of a 5ppm model than a 4ppm one, but saying that this is mathematically proven is not correct.
it has been done both with and without buffs, with and without msu battalions with and without faction bonuses and guard won time and again.

Someone claimed they lost 1v1 to intercessors but that was model to model not point for point.
They also over looked that intercessors make an MEQ wound 9 points with -1AP and additional range.
Not to mention once you shoot HBC dissys etc the intercessors loose points stupidly faster than IS.
IS out perform every other 1W model troop but in some cases rediculous margins.

Also all CP is equally as the common strategums are costed the same across all codex's. This idea that Guard CP is worth less than anyone else's is faulse and ignores the current rules.


I know for a fact that what you said is mathematically wrong (yes, now i can use that term), so please provide this math you say. There are many 1W troops to which guards lose in a "direct confrontation" (whatever that means) on a point per point basis, including the tac marines. Intercessors outshoot them point per point by such a huge margin that you would need 50% points more in guards to have an even match.

Can you please give the definition of "Out perform" that you are using? Maybe that we are valuing things differently and our math differs as a consequence.


If you want to go that way with your Ha ha you fell into my trap attitude go start another thread about why 4ppm guardsmen suck instead of derailing this thread. Math hammer has been done time and again and guardsmen win more than they loose. It's all their not deleted.


Not trying anything, and guards could easily be 5 ppm, like i said.

I was just correcting people saying that it has been demonstrated mathematically because... well, because it's wrong info.

So please drop that attitude, it's honestly a bit offensive. Thanks.

When has the presented math been wrong information?

Can you please at least link to the maths you're referring to? It's hard to have a useful discussion about how accurate, relevant, and valid the maths is without being given an opportunity to at least view it.

It shouldn't take you long to find yourself.

I've seen the maths, as have others on here so obviously it exists and obviously it is very convincing.

Tyel wrote:
Reducing debates to semantics is annoying - but in general.
Spoiler:

1. Guardsmen have great shooting for their exceptionally low points.
2. This can then be almost doubled with FRFSRF, taking "good" to "comedic".
3. Guardsmen are also less vulnerable to shooting than almost all comparable troop units. Shoot them with S3-5 AP-, shoot them with S7 AP-3, it doesn't matter. Primaris are better against low S AP- single wound guns, but become dramatically inferior against D2 weapons and have a tiny percentage of the offensive output (before FRFSRF).
4. Having a high footprint makes them good for screening/board control. I don't know how to express this as a mathematical equation - its just there.
5. With move^3, they are joining some of the fastest units in the game, which is an incredibly boon for grabbing objectives. Yes they trade away the ability to shoot or charge - so yes, they can't do everything at once - but having abiltiies is better than not having them. Would I like the option for say fireblades to let fire warriors move an additional 10" across the table if thats going to win me the game? Yes.
6. They get the opportunity for very cheap batallions and brigades, which means more CP, and more CP equals more good if you have something like a Castelan to very efficiently make use of them.

This isn't even touching the upsides of being Catachan or Cadian.


All in all its a nexus of guardsmen and order-bots being very cheap, while at the same time orders are very powerful and this combination generates bags of CPs. You don't need to nerf every aspect of this, but something should give.

Couldn't agree more. Often its the same defenders of certain units who want to go through the semantics ad infinitum while refusing to accept the hard, real life evidence presented such as tournament results.

 Kanluwen wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Seems like Guard players up in arms any Imperial army can take their broken unit and they just wanna keep it to themselves.

Or maybe it's because they don't like the fact that any competent observer should see that their "broken unit"(read: the only one out of three worth taking as 'line troops') would just be replaced by the next most effective thing ad infinitum.


The less next effective thing makes the combination more balanced.

No, it really doesn't.

This is what you lot don't seem to understand:
It really is soup that is the problem.

You keep focusing on Infantry Squads, Infantry Squads, and Infantry Squads--but quite a few Guard players flatout told people after the Index that any Conscript nerf revolving around JUST points was going to eliminate them as an option for Guard players but do nothing to address the issue of soup.

Until CP generation is addressed, this will continue to be an issue and you nerfing Guard will do nothing but hurt monofaction players. Until Infantry Squads have their composition altered to prevent some of the things that make them so appealing as soup? Continue to be an issue.

But yeah. Keep whining about Guard being the one and only problem.

Lol. How can you not see that if an army has to replace something with a less effective element it becomes weaker therefore if it was previously over performing it becomes more balanced?

This is obvious.

Also people are not just talking about Guardsmen. Read the thread.

E - sp

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/12 16:12:26


 
   
Made in gb
Jovial Plaguebearer of Nurgle





 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Aelyn wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Spoiler:
Spoletta wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Aelyn wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
We can (and have) prove that 4ppm Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically compared to other units.

It's been proven mathematically?

Does the proof involve non-quantifiable or external elements such as stratagems, orders etc, or does it revolve specifically around the 4ppm Guardsmen against other units (which, to ensure the comparison is accurate, also don't have stratagems or other external elements)?

If it is the latter, can you provide a link to this proof?


Also this.

Even if you manage to create a mathematical model to make direct confrontations between profiles, you still would failt to consider this, which is by all means not secondary.

Look at CP generation for example (assuming no CP sharing, which is the root of all evils). CPs generated by guards are worth less than the CPs generated by Eldar guardians, because the AM faction uses less and has an easy access to them. If you were to give a point value to a CP in a monoAM army it would be worth less than the same CP in a mono CWE army.

When confronting troops this a hugely influencing parameter.

I'm not going to say that guards are fine at 4ppm, i'm of the idea that they are more of a 5ppm model than a 4ppm one, but saying that this is mathematically proven is not correct.
it has been done both with and without buffs, with and without msu battalions with and without faction bonuses and guard won time and again.

Someone claimed they lost 1v1 to intercessors but that was model to model not point for point.
They also over looked that intercessors make an MEQ wound 9 points with -1AP and additional range.
Not to mention once you shoot HBC dissys etc the intercessors loose points stupidly faster than IS.
IS out perform every other 1W model troop but in some cases rediculous margins.

Also all CP is equally as the common strategums are costed the same across all codex's. This idea that Guard CP is worth less than anyone else's is faulse and ignores the current rules.


I know for a fact that what you said is mathematically wrong (yes, now i can use that term), so please provide this math you say. There are many 1W troops to which guards lose in a "direct confrontation" (whatever that means) on a point per point basis, including the tac marines. Intercessors outshoot them point per point by such a huge margin that you would need 50% points more in guards to have an even match.

Can you please give the definition of "Out perform" that you are using? Maybe that we are valuing things differently and our math differs as a consequence.


If you want to go that way with your Ha ha you fell into my trap attitude go start another thread about why 4ppm guardsmen suck instead of derailing this thread. Math hammer has been done time and again and guardsmen win more than they loose. It's all their not deleted.


Not trying anything, and guards could easily be 5 ppm, like i said.

I was just correcting people saying that it has been demonstrated mathematically because... well, because it's wrong info.

So please drop that attitude, it's honestly a bit offensive. Thanks.

When has the presented math been wrong information?

Can you please at least link to the maths you're referring to? It's hard to have a useful discussion about how accurate, relevant, and valid the maths is without being given an opportunity to at least view it.

It shouldn't take you long to find yourself.

I've seen the maths, as have others on here so obviously it exists and obviously it is very convincing.

You're the one stating that Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the existence and validity of the supporting maths.

Despite repeated requests, no-one has been able to point me to any actual raw data, calculations, assumptions, or anything else that can help me determine whether or not it's valid. The logical conclusion is that the maths either doesn't actually exist (i.e. it's effectively a rumour), that it doesn't say what people profess it to say, or that it relies on sufficiently restrictive assumptions and caveats that it's effectively meaningless.

Why else would the people relying on this evidence to argue their point refuse to offer it up for anyone else to see?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/12 16:37:12


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





If you have an army that slightly over performs and another that slightly overperforms, and you can combine the best elements of those two to make a very effecient for it's points army then you could say soup is the problem, but it is really that you can soup two things that are over performing into slots specifically to extra over perform.

The problem is IK and AM overperforms for their points cost, and then if you soup them you get a very powerful combo.

That doesn't mean soup is the problem, certainly if you remove allies all together AM on its own and IK on their own in the world of soup lists are not as great, the issue is they will be the meta armies if soup is removed because they are already invisibly over performing relative to other mono codex lists.
   
Made in us
Stabbin' Skarboy






Spoletta wrote:
 FrozenDwarf wrote:
i dont care how you twist it, soup IS the problem, forced mono codex in matched play is the only solution.
the "cheap and undercosted units" are just fine when you start playing mono codex, plus some proper balancing can then begin.
if you nerf a unit due to soup, you make it usless in a mono codex situation.


but as beeing said other places, by other humans so, many times, GW is not about selling a game, it is about selling models.


That's kind of an overkill, we would go back 6 editions. No good.
Limit CP by detachments, that's enough to add an hefty cost to souping and make people actually consider it as an option compared to a no brainer.
5th edition didn't have allies.

Friendship is like peeing on yourself: everyone can see it, but only you get the warm feeling that it brings. 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Aelyn wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Aelyn wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Spoiler:
Spoletta wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Ice_can wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
Aelyn wrote:
 An Actual Englishman wrote:
We can (and have) prove that 4ppm Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically compared to other units.

It's been proven mathematically?

Does the proof involve non-quantifiable or external elements such as stratagems, orders etc, or does it revolve specifically around the 4ppm Guardsmen against other units (which, to ensure the comparison is accurate, also don't have stratagems or other external elements)?

If it is the latter, can you provide a link to this proof?


Also this.

Even if you manage to create a mathematical model to make direct confrontations between profiles, you still would failt to consider this, which is by all means not secondary.

Look at CP generation for example (assuming no CP sharing, which is the root of all evils). CPs generated by guards are worth less than the CPs generated by Eldar guardians, because the AM faction uses less and has an easy access to them. If you were to give a point value to a CP in a monoAM army it would be worth less than the same CP in a mono CWE army.

When confronting troops this a hugely influencing parameter.

I'm not going to say that guards are fine at 4ppm, i'm of the idea that they are more of a 5ppm model than a 4ppm one, but saying that this is mathematically proven is not correct.
it has been done both with and without buffs, with and without msu battalions with and without faction bonuses and guard won time and again.

Someone claimed they lost 1v1 to intercessors but that was model to model not point for point.
They also over looked that intercessors make an MEQ wound 9 points with -1AP and additional range.
Not to mention once you shoot HBC dissys etc the intercessors loose points stupidly faster than IS.
IS out perform every other 1W model troop but in some cases rediculous margins.

Also all CP is equally as the common strategums are costed the same across all codex's. This idea that Guard CP is worth less than anyone else's is faulse and ignores the current rules.


I know for a fact that what you said is mathematically wrong (yes, now i can use that term), so please provide this math you say. There are many 1W troops to which guards lose in a "direct confrontation" (whatever that means) on a point per point basis, including the tac marines. Intercessors outshoot them point per point by such a huge margin that you would need 50% points more in guards to have an even match.

Can you please give the definition of "Out perform" that you are using? Maybe that we are valuing things differently and our math differs as a consequence.


If you want to go that way with your Ha ha you fell into my trap attitude go start another thread about why 4ppm guardsmen suck instead of derailing this thread. Math hammer has been done time and again and guardsmen win more than they loose. It's all their not deleted.


Not trying anything, and guards could easily be 5 ppm, like i said.

I was just correcting people saying that it has been demonstrated mathematically because... well, because it's wrong info.

So please drop that attitude, it's honestly a bit offensive. Thanks.

When has the presented math been wrong information?

Can you please at least link to the maths you're referring to? It's hard to have a useful discussion about how accurate, relevant, and valid the maths is without being given an opportunity to at least view it.

It shouldn't take you long to find yourself.

I've seen the maths, as have others on here so obviously it exists and obviously it is very convincing.

You're the one stating that Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the existence and validity of the supporting maths.

Despite repeated requests, no-one has been able to point me to any actual raw data, calculations, assumptions, or anything else that can help me determine whether or not it's valid. The logical conclusion is that the maths either doesn't actually exist (i.e. it's effectively a rumour), that it doesn't say what people profess it to say, or that it relies on sufficiently restrictive assumptions and caveats that it's effectively meaningless.

Why else would the people relying on this evidence to argue their point refuse to offer it up for anyone else to see?

Because your taking the same tired old refusal to accept facts logic about well x and y and z when the question was is a before c in the alphabet logic that has denominated the numerous previous threads on the topic that has repeatedly caused people to become frustrated and nolonger willing to entertain guard apologists desire for arguments.
You obviously have the internet as your posting here, google search dakka and I'm sure you'll find the many many threads that have been derailed by the points cost of infantry squads.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Chaplain with Hate to Spare






 Kanluwen wrote:
blaktoof wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Seems like Guard players up in arms any Imperial army can take their broken unit and they just wanna keep it to themselves.

Or maybe it's because they don't like the fact that any competent observer should see that their "broken unit"(read: the only one out of three worth taking as 'line troops') would just be replaced by the next most effective thing ad infinitum.


The less next effective thing makes the combination more balanced.

No, it really doesn't.

This is what you lot don't seem to understand:
It really is soup that is the problem.

You keep focusing on Infantry Squads, Infantry Squads, and Infantry Squads--but quite a few Guard players flatout told people after the Index that any Conscript nerf revolving around JUST points was going to eliminate them as an option for Guard players but do nothing to address the issue of soup.

Until CP generation is addressed, this will continue to be an issue and you nerfing Guard will do nothing but hurt monofaction players. Until Infantry Squads have their composition altered to prevent some of the things that make them so appealing as soup? Continue to be an issue.

But yeah. Keep whining about Guard being the one and only problem.
In truth - fixing the way CP are generated should be the highest priority. Everyone should be starting with roughly the same CP for a battle forged army. Allies should cost you CP to include in your force. Plus some stratagems should be flat out nerfed. Shooting twice? GTFO. Remove them all from the game. Stratagems should do things like give you +1 save or +1 to hit or allow you to advance after you shoot. Small gimicks. Not additional turns. No more double moves. This game feels a lot more like Pokemon or magic than 40k right now. Also - GW needs to step it up on terrain rules and actually enforce them. The game is so drastically different in ITC with magic boxes...using ITC as a balance mechanic is exceptionally foolhardy.

If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




My issue is...
The guard cost is overshadowed by the endless CP through the most effective units problems.

And there is no guarantee that fixing the CP issue, might fix the Guard.

I'd argue the Helverin Armiger is a example of this. Its amazing for 172 points. But it isn't a problem in the game due to the circumstances you need to take it make abusing it very hard to do.
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut




 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Tyel wrote:
Reducing debates to semantics is annoying - but in general.
Spoiler:

1. Guardsmen have great shooting for their exceptionally low points.
2. This can then be almost doubled with FRFSRF, taking "good" to "comedic".
3. Guardsmen are also less vulnerable to shooting than almost all comparable troop units. Shoot them with S3-5 AP-, shoot them with S7 AP-3, it doesn't matter. Primaris are better against low S AP- single wound guns, but become dramatically inferior against D2 weapons and have a tiny percentage of the offensive output (before FRFSRF).
4. Having a high footprint makes them good for screening/board control. I don't know how to express this as a mathematical equation - its just there.
5. With move^3, they are joining some of the fastest units in the game, which is an incredibly boon for grabbing objectives. Yes they trade away the ability to shoot or charge - so yes, they can't do everything at once - but having abiltiies is better than not having them. Would I like the option for say fireblades to let fire warriors move an additional 10" across the table if thats going to win me the game? Yes.
6. They get the opportunity for very cheap batallions and brigades, which means more CP, and more CP equals more good if you have something like a Castelan to very efficiently make use of them.

This isn't even touching the upsides of being Catachan or Cadian.


All in all its a nexus of guardsmen and order-bots being very cheap, while at the same time orders are very powerful and this combination generates bags of CPs. You don't need to nerf every aspect of this, but something should give.

Couldn't agree more. Often its the same defenders of certain units who want to go through the semantics ad infinitum while refusing to accept the hard, real life evidence presented such as tournament results.




Agree.
But the smart move here is nerfing the orders, not the guards. Guards are slightly overperforming, but nothing that really requires intervention.
Orders instead create some truly silly situations.
Increase the cost of order giving models. This increases the cost of the loyal 32 without screwing mono AM, making guards in general less easy to soup in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But enough derailing, let's get back on topic.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/02/12 16:53:05


 
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle






 flaming tadpole wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
 FrozenDwarf wrote:
i dont care how you twist it, soup IS the problem, forced mono codex in matched play is the only solution.
the "cheap and undercosted units" are just fine when you start playing mono codex, plus some proper balancing can then begin.
if you nerf a unit due to soup, you make it usless in a mono codex situation.


but as beeing said other places, by other humans so, many times, GW is not about selling a game, it is about selling models.


That's kind of an overkill, we would go back 6 editions. No good.
Limit CP by detachments, that's enough to add an hefty cost to souping and make people actually consider it as an option compared to a no brainer.
5th edition didn't have allies.


Funny, must've missed those =][= codexes that were still legal in 5th...

Still doesn't make it comparable to what we have today, no sireebob.



A GW fan walks into a bar, buys the same drink as yesterday but pays more.

""Unite" is a human word, ... join me or die."

If you break apart my posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: