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.
No, but when a unit bests all other, similarly priced units on paper, then is also the most taken unit in a competitive list bar none and is a feature of all the best lists that can take the model I think were somewhat passed the 'worth taking' point, don't you?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I don't get how anyone could say that stopping the broken units from being broken isn't the correct fix and the REAL fix is to leave those units alone.
The fact is Guard Infantry will be taken even if you limited CP they generate to their Detachment.
At anything near the same rate they are now? I suspect not, without that extra CP, many of those Soup lists don't work, at least not in the way they're intended to now, if they're no longer viable with the reduced CP, then we're going to see a different meta emerge, and I don't think anyone can say exactly what that would look like.
Ultimately, I don't really mind one way or the other if guardsmen go up in price, however, I think people are pinning big hopes of change on what ultimately for many lists will be a minor housekeeping change. My current 2K list drops handful of infantry squad carried BS4+ Heavy Bolters and carries on. An extra 30-60pts in a 2k Soup list isn't going to make a major dent in it's ability to do what it does, nerfing the CP sharing will probably do far more to most of them. Nerfing the CP sharing also does something about many of the hideous Eldar soup lists which have been doing just as well as anything using Guardsmen.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/19 01:58:05
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Guardsmanwaffle wrote: I have looked at all the lists that placed in the top 3 of a Major or GT from January 2018 to July 2018 as listed on Blood of Kittens http://bloodofkittens.com/8th-edition-top-army-list-compendium/ and compiled all the lists containing any amount of Astra Militarum along with making a few notes about any standout units the list contained.
There are 3 mono guard lists that placed in the top 3 of a GT or Major between January and July. That's less top 3s than Tau and Tyranids. Guard is not dominating competitive warhammer, soup is dominating competitive warhammer, and that's any soup Imperial, Eldar, and Chaos are all widely out performing any mono faction lists.
How many Imperium soup lists that placed in the top 3 contained no Guard?
More than 3, you’re welcome to look through the data.
Why would any Guard player not soup when there is absolutely no negative to doing so? Perhaps there are more mono Tau top 3s because they cannot soup in any way shape or form so all Tau players have to run mono or not run at all? Do you really think if Tau had the Imperium keyword you'd see any mono Tau armies? Nids, ironically and ridiculously, can soup with some Guard units via GSC.
Guard is one of the most popular factions, the sample size is large enough that enough people would be playing mono guard that if they were good enough to be placing they would.
You're correct in that soup is dominating. Out of all soup options Imperial is the strongest. The largest part of the Imperial soup is Guard. There are certain units that are always, without fail, taken in a competitive imperial soup list - these units need changes. Those units highly popular in other soup lists also need changing, whether that flavour of soup is Chaos or Aeldari.
Before Knights came out Eldar soup was dominating and before that Chaos soup. Imperial soup with guard has been a thing since the Guard codex came out, it was only after knights came out that it became dominant. Guard plus knights plus smash captains is overpowered, guard plus smash captains is powerful, mono guard is average at best based on their tournament results.
Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
Before Knights came out Eldar soup was dominating and before that Chaos soup. Imperial soup with guard has been a thing since the Guard codex came out, it was only after knights came out that it became dominant. Guard plus knights plus smash captains is overpowered, guard plus smash captains is powerful, mono guard is average at best based on their tournament results.
Patently false given my previous statistics around the success of primary Guard armies prior to the IK codex release.
You have no data on 'mono Guard' because virtually no one plays them. Soup is king. Your data also only tells a tiny part of the full story. A part, obviously, that you want to propagate because it suits your argument.
Its been stated already but the broken elements of.soup need to be addressed or the meta stagnates. Part of the broken elements are Infantry and Commanders. CP, Stratagems and relics do not completely change the unit from middling to OP, they are OP standalone.
Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
Before Knights came out Eldar soup was dominating and before that Chaos soup. Imperial soup with guard has been a thing since the Guard codex came out, it was only after knights came out that it became dominant. Guard plus knights plus smash captains is overpowered, guard plus smash captains is powerful, mono guard is average at best based on their tournament results.
Patently false given my previous statistics around the success of primary Guard armies prior to the IK codex release.
You have no data on 'mono Guard' because virtually no one plays them. Soup is king. Your data also only tells a tiny part of the full story. A part, obviously, that you want to propagate because it suits your argument.
Its been stated already but the broken elements of.soup need to be addressed or the meta stagnates. Part of the broken elements are Infantry and Commanders. CP, Stratagems and relics do not completely change the unit from middling to OP, they are OP standalone.
I have sourced my data, anyone is welcome to view it. Everything points to mono guard performing average and soup of all kinds to be over performing. Nerfing guard does nothing to fix the problem that is soup and makes a already average performing faction worse.
Soup in all forms needs a nerf that part is 100% clear. There is nothing stopping GW from nerfing soup as a whole to be on par with mono factions and if Guard is dominating after the nerf to soup then nerf them in the next faq.
Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
Before Knights came out Eldar soup was dominating and before that Chaos soup. Imperial soup with guard has been a thing since the Guard codex came out, it was only after knights came out that it became dominant. Guard plus knights plus smash captains is overpowered, guard plus smash captains is powerful, mono guard is average at best based on their tournament results.
Patently false given my previous statistics around the success of primary Guard armies prior to the IK codex release.
You have no data on 'mono Guard' because virtually no one plays them. Soup is king. Your data also only tells a tiny part of the full story. A part, obviously, that you want to propagate because it suits your argument.
Its been stated already but the broken elements of.soup need to be addressed or the meta stagnates. Part of the broken elements are Infantry and Commanders. CP, Stratagems and relics do not completely change the unit from middling to OP, they are OP standalone.
You don't have any data either to show though. You are talking about "primary guard". In this discussion only "mono guard" matters, beause if not you are talking about a list that takes the wastes of one (guard CPs) and fuels broken stuff on another (smashers, bananas...) and many of those were pre knight.
Pure guard lists and guards lists with 3 bananas or 3 smashers are two different tiers of competition, you can't take data from one for the other.
It's like saying that an SM army is good because they have won events with Gman, and after all the rest of the list is "primarily not Gman" so if the list with Gman is good then the rest of it must be good too, right?
Guardsmanwaffle wrote:
Before Knights came out Eldar soup was dominating and before that Chaos soup. Imperial soup with guard has been a thing since the Guard codex came out, it was only after knights came out that it became dominant. Guard plus knights plus smash captains is overpowered, guard plus smash captains is powerful, mono guard is average at best based on their tournament results.
Patently false given my previous statistics around the success of primary Guard armies prior to the IK codex release.
You have no data on 'mono Guard' because virtually no one plays them. Soup is king. Your data also only tells a tiny part of the full story. A part, obviously, that you want to propagate because it suits your argument.
Its been stated already but the broken elements of.soup need to be addressed or the meta stagnates. Part of the broken elements are Infantry and Commanders. CP, Stratagems and relics do not completely change the unit from middling to OP, they are OP standalone.
I have sourced my data, anyone is welcome to view it. Everything points to mono guard performing average and soup of all kinds to be over performing. Nerfing guard does nothing to fix the problem that is soup and makes a already average performing faction worse.
Soup in all forms needs a nerf that part is 100% clear. There is nothing stopping GW from nerfing soup as a whole to be on par with mono factions and if Guard is dominating after the nerf to soup then nerf them in the next faq.
"Performing average" is a bit pushing it, as a mono codex they are among the top without a doubt and they are in need of a couple of changes (mostly the artemis hellhounds and shadowswords).
Many fractions are made not to faction without soap, so most IG players prepositions are not really viable. If mono guard was winning tournaments than the balance of the game will totally be broken. So no mono guard should never be a thing in this editions and IG players will have to learn to life with that. The soap players alywas have the option to get AM for cheap CP, but they the top players prefer guard, since they are better. Having extra wounds, extra CP, extra shoots give to much tactical flexibility that win tournaments. That is the simple reason many people think guard are to good for their price, the tournament math also confirm it. Guard make lists redundant, increase the allowed margin of mistakes and are good us everything. In environment where you can`t switch your units it`s to strong.
Marin wrote: Many fractions are made not to faction without soap, so most IG players prepositions are not really viable. If mono guard was winning tournaments than the balance of the game will totally be broken. So no mono guard should never be a thing in this editions and IG players will have to learn to life with that.
So your saying that every faction that can soup needs to be inferior just because they have the option to soup? Yeah that's gonna be a no from me dawg.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/19 07:17:38
Marin wrote: Many fractions are made not to faction without soap, so most IG players prepositions are not really viable. If mono guard was winning tournaments than the balance of the game will totally be broken. So no mono guard should never be a thing in this editions and IG players will have to learn to life with that.
So your saying that every faction that can soup needs to be inferior just because they have the option to soup? Yeah that's gonna be a no from me dawg.
ditto from me, not everybody WANTS to soup, I shouldn't have to buy 3 friggen extra armies just because I want to play Space Marines for example.
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two
Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.
It still leaves allies intact and as guard have "unusable" strategums thry won't miss the CP.
Marin wrote: Many fractions are made not to faction without soap, so most IG players prepositions are not really viable. If mono guard was winning tournaments than the balance of the game will totally be broken. So no mono guard should never be a thing in this editions and IG players will have to learn to life with that.
So your saying that every faction that can soup needs to be inferior just because they have the option to soup? Yeah that's gonna be a no from me dawg.
ditto from me, not everybody WANTS to soup, I shouldn't have to buy 3 friggen extra armies just because I want to play Space Marines for example.
So much this.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Ice_can wrote: Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.
It still leaves allies intact and as guard have "unusable" strategums thry won't miss the CP.
Come again? How about we buff some gakky units first before we do something so petty and Single out one army, which we only ever saw perform in soup and arguably even there they were just picked for their cp.
For exemple Necrons and orkz (albeit maybee the codex does some good)
But then again you'd rather nerf solely guard into the ground instead of taming outliers like castellans /knights, and slamguiniusses, etc.
I have the distinct feeling that you are just petty and not really interested in propper balance.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Ice_can wrote: Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.
It still leaves allies intact and as guard have "unusable" strategums thry won't miss the CP.
Come again? How about we buff some gakky units first before we do something so petty and Single out one army, which we only ever saw perform in soup and arguably even there they were just picked for their cp.
For exemple Necrons and orkz (albeit maybee the codex does some good)
But then again you'd rather nerf solely guard into the ground instead of taming outliers like castellans /knights, and slamguiniusses, etc.
I have the distinct feeling that you are just petty and not really interested in propper balance.
If you have no use for the CP how is it a Nerf?
Either Guard are using their cheap CP so have an unfair advantage on the amount of strategums they can play.
Or as guard players keep saying Guard have no use for CP, it's just bringing them into line with other factions CP for a given points level. I.E. it will hurt soup but not mono guard.
Either that or someones being dishonest about guard CP
Bring guard back into line with the level of CP other factions have stops the strategum abuse that only guard can power.
Ice_can wrote: Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.
It still leaves allies intact and as guard have "unusable" strategums thry won't miss the CP.
It's a dumb fix. Screws mono guards while not touching imperial soups. Oh nice they will have 2-3 less CPs, how terrible for them!
No, the only good and simple fix here is keeping CPs in detachment/faction. I can't use more than one CP for my allies? Then maybe if you want to use stratagems on your allies, bring a battalion of them, not a plugged in force.
You word it the way that the new minidexes are wording it, so if you want to reroll something on an assassin, you can use the 3 starting CPs for this.
Ice_can wrote: Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.
It still leaves allies intact and as guard have "unusable" strategums thry won't miss the CP.
It's a dumb fix. Screws mono guards while not touching imperial soups. Oh nice they will have 2-3 less CPs, how terrible for them!
No, the only good and simple fix here is keeping CPs in detachment/faction. I can't use more than one CP for my allies? Then maybe if you want to use stratagems on your allies, bring a battalion of them, not a plugged in force.
You word it the way that the new minidexes are wording it, so if you want to reroll something on an assassin, you can use the 3 starting CPs for this.
This, thank you
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Ice_can wrote: Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.
It still leaves allies intact and as guard have "unusable" strategums thry won't miss the CP.
It's a dumb fix. Screws mono guards while not touching imperial soups. Oh nice they will have 2-3 less CPs, how terrible for them!
No, the only good and simple fix here is keeping CPs in detachment/faction. I can't use more than one CP for my allies? Then maybe if you want to use stratagems on your allies, bring a battalion of them, not a plugged in force.
You word it the way that the new minidexes are wording it, so if you want to reroll something on an assassin, you can use the 3 starting CPs for this.
This, thank you
So uour saying that guard having double the amount of rerolls is fair?
Way to show the hypocrisy.
Ice_can wrote: Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.
It still leaves allies intact and as guard have "unusable" strategums thry won't miss the CP.
It's a dumb fix. Screws mono guards while not touching imperial soups. Oh nice they will have 2-3 less CPs, how terrible for them!
No, the only good and simple fix here is keeping CPs in detachment/faction. I can't use more than one CP for my allies? Then maybe if you want to use stratagems on your allies, bring a battalion of them, not a plugged in force.
You word it the way that the new minidexes are wording it, so if you want to reroll something on an assassin, you can use the 3 starting CPs for this.
This, thank you
So uour saying that guard having double the amount of rerolls is fair?
Way to show the hypocrisy.
How much is a single re-roll worth in a mono Guard army?
Genuine question. I’m curious as to what the impact of having a re-roll in 6 shoot phases is vs armies that will only maybe have 3-4.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.
It still leaves allies intact and as guard have "unusable" strategums thry won't miss the CP.
I’m guessing this is in regards to Battalions and Brigades only, right?
As for mono Guard and stratagems – you can still easily burn through a lot with Guard, it is just that the impact of those stratagems isn’t exactly “high”.
Over the course of a turn, in mono Guard I’d expect to be using Take Cover, Jury Rigging, Consolidate squads, at least 1 CP re-roll and potentially Fight to the Death and Inspired tactics – not to mention any spent on regiment specific ones or pre-game.
Now, looking at those overall, they (even collectively) have a relatively minor impact on any game. Sure, regaining a wound on a tank to up its bracket has a bigger impact than when it’s used to just gain a wound, and combining squads could come up clutch late game to prevent kill points.
By reducing Guard CP by half, you essentially limit the impact of their collectively weak stratagems even more, when, in reality, there is little reason to do so (imo).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/19 10:50:29
I've yet to see a convincing reason why we shouldn't nerf the elements of soup that are always taken (hence OP). Guard players are acting as if it'll only affect their army but there are other units that make up the most common imperial soup list and will also need nerfing. The same goes for Eldar and Chaos.
If every unit was balanced against each other soup would not provide any benefit over mono armies, apart from access to stratagems. Let that sink in. If Guardsmen weren't the objectively best Imperial troop in the game people would instead take Conscripts or another similarly costed unit. The same goes for Hellhounds, Smash Captains, Custard Jet Bikes and the Castellan. The same also goes for those units in Chaos soup that are always taken and Shining Spears, Dark Reapers for Eldar soup.
Any change in how CP is spent or accrued in a soup list will not effect soup lists build, we have already seen a soup list win a major event with only 5 CP.
I'm also struggling to understand why Guard should have the best troop in the game and not expect a nerf to said troop, or why it makes any sense that Conscripts and Infantry are the same points. 3 ppm Conscripts were way too cheap. 4 ppm Infantry are way too cheap.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I've yet to see a convincing reason why we shouldn't nerf the elements of soup that are always taken (hence OP). Guard players are acting as if it'll only affect their army but there are other units that make up the most common imperial soup list and will also need nerfing. The same goes for Eldar and Chaos.
If every unit was balanced against each other soup would not provide any benefit over mono armies, apart from access to stratagems. Let that sink in. If Guardsmen weren't the objectively best Imperial troop in the game people would instead take Conscripts or another similarly costed unit. The same goes for Hellhounds, Smash Captains, Custard Jet Bikes and the Castellan. The same also goes for those units in Chaos soup that are always taken and Shining Spears, Dark Reapers for Eldar soup.
Any change in how CP is spent or accrued in a soup list will not effect soup lists build, we have already seen a soup list win a major event with only 5 CP.
I'm also struggling to understand why Guard should have the best troop in the game and not expect a nerf to said troop, or why it makes any sense that Conscripts and Infantry are the same points. 3 ppm Conscripts were way too cheap. 4 ppm Infantry are way too cheap.
And you again run into scalling problems, a guardsmen at 5 pts compared to a kabalite profile seems off, etc.
Also again by your logic any frequently picked unit would need to be reconsidered. You don't need a sledge hammer to screw in a handle now do you?
Edit: i also like how you accuse everyone that "defends " guard as beeing an implied egotistical guard player.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/19 11:34:47
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Ice_can wrote: Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.
It still leaves allies intact and as guard have "unusable" strategums thry won't miss the CP.
It's a dumb fix. Screws mono guards while not touching imperial soups. Oh nice they will have 2-3 less CPs, how terrible for them!
No, the only good and simple fix here is keeping CPs in detachment/faction. I can't use more than one CP for my allies? Then maybe if you want to use stratagems on your allies, bring a battalion of them, not a plugged in force.
You word it the way that the new minidexes are wording it, so if you want to reroll something on an assassin, you can use the 3 starting CPs for this.
This, thank you
So uour saying that guard having double the amount of rerolls is fair?
Way to show the hypocrisy.
How much is a single re-roll worth in a mono Guard army?
Genuine question. I’m curious as to what the impact of having a re-roll in 6 shoot phases is vs armies that will only maybe have 3-4.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ice_can wrote: Still not really seen a convincing reason why everyone else gets hit with a nerf bat on CP sharing when a much simpler option is just to half the CP given by guard detachments rounding down.
It still leaves allies intact and as guard have "unusable" strategums thry won't miss the CP.
I’m guessing this is in regards to Battalions and Brigades only, right?
As for mono Guard and stratagems – you can still easily burn through a lot with Guard, it is just that the impact of those stratagems isn’t exactly “high”.
Over the course of a turn, in mono Guard I’d expect to be using Take Cover, Jury Rigging, Consolidate squads, at least 1 CP re-roll and potentially Fight to the Death and Inspired tactics – not to mention any spent on regiment specific ones or pre-game.
Now, looking at those overall, they (even collectively) have a relatively minor impact on any game. Sure, regaining a wound on a tank to up its bracket has a bigger impact than when it’s used to just gain a wound, and combining squads could come up clutch late game to prevent kill points.
By reducing Guard CP by half, you essentially limit the impact of their collectively weak stratagems even more, when, in reality, there is little reason to do so (imo).
I rarely see Guard taken in anything other than battalions or brigades as the 150 points to make any 1CP detachment into a battalion is trivial, but Yes.
A command reroll is worth the same as it is to any army really it is just guard can throw more of them as they have plentiful CP.
Roll a 1 for the damage on that lascannon shot, reroll not even a question. If that reroll prevented you say fighting again later its a bigger decision.
I'm definitely not able to be so carefree with my knights or Tau or Marines as they just can't be used so freely when your 2k army has 9CP, 14 CP and 11CP respectively. I've played against Guard lists at 2k that start with 18CP then dump Grand Strategists and Kurov's ontop of that. They can throw rerolls for anything as the cost is trivial.
I've never seen a guard player not play a strategum when they could I see every other army having to make a choice. While a number of their strategums might be weak, a number are the same CP cost and do the same as other codex's strategums.
Just to show the difference, necron player vrs a guard player's comment after a game. "I wasn't sure if we where playing 40K or Magic the amount of Cards(strategums) he kept pulling out. Like seriously they have to run out of CP sometime don't they?"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/19 11:50:26
An Actual Englishman wrote: I've yet to see a convincing reason why we shouldn't nerf the elements of soup that are always taken (hence OP). Guard players are acting as if it'll only affect their army but there are other units that make up the most common imperial soup list and will also need nerfing. The same goes for Eldar and Chaos.
If every unit was balanced against each other soup would not provide any benefit over mono armies, apart from access to stratagems. Let that sink in. If Guardsmen weren't the objectively best Imperial troop in the game people would instead take Conscripts or another similarly costed unit. The same goes for Hellhounds, Smash Captains, Custard Jet Bikes and the Castellan. The same also goes for those units in Chaos soup that are always taken and Shining Spears, Dark Reapers for Eldar soup.
Any change in how CP is spent or accrued in a soup list will not effect soup lists build, we have already seen a soup list win a major event with only 5 CP.
I'm also struggling to understand why Guard should have the best troop in the game and not expect a nerf to said troop, or why it makes any sense that Conscripts and Infantry are the same points. 3 ppm Conscripts were way too cheap. 4 ppm Infantry are way too cheap.
And you again run into scalling problems, a guardsmen at 5 pts compared to a kabalite profile seems off, etc.
Also again by your logic any frequently picked unit would need to be reconsidered. You don't need a sledge hammer to screw in a handle now do you?
Edit: i also like how you accuse everyone that "defends " guard as beeing an implied egotistical guard player.
Strawmanning aside I've yet to see a convincing mathematical argument that shows 5ppm Guardsmen to be 'off' the profile of a Kabalite warrior. If that is the case though, there are far less Kabalite warrior examples as there are units that come nowhere near a Guardsman. Including the oft cited Fire Warrior.
I’m just hoping that everyone is thinking reasonably and my pure Militarum Tempestus and Airwing Valkyrie list doesn’t lose out over trigger happy nerfs to the guard codex.
If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I've yet to see a convincing reason why we shouldn't nerf the elements of soup that are always taken (hence OP).
Because Soup is often the main reason that these units are overpowered in the first place, as it gives them access to stuff (particularly excess CP) that they would otherwise have no or limited access to.
Why is it so hard to grasp that Soup armies are not merely equal to the sum of their parts but are greater than the sum of their parts?
If a unit is fine in the context of its own army, but overpowered in a Soup army, then it is Soup that needs to change - not that unit.
This is why I've said repeatedly that we need to fix Soup *first*. I am not saying that potentially-overpowered units in IG and other armies should never be fixed, merely that they need to be looked at purely in the context of their own army. And this simply cannot be done whilst Soup is dominant, because everything is being examined in that context.
So I say once again, bring Soup into line *first* and then see what the meta looks like. If Smashcaptains are still running wild even without allied CP-batteries, by all means nerf them. If Guardsmen melee armies are slicing their way through enemy armies, by all means nerf them.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I've yet to see a convincing reason why we shouldn't nerf the elements of soup that are always taken (hence OP).
Because Soup is often the main reason that these units are overpowered in the first place, as it gives them access to stuff (particularly excess CP) that they would otherwise have no or limited access to.
Why is it so hard to grasp that Soup armies are not merely equal to the sum of their parts but are greater than the sum of their parts?
If a unit is fine in the context of its own army, but overpowered in a Soup army, then it is Soup that needs to change - not that unit.
This is why I've said repeatedly that we need to fix Soup *first*. I am not saying that potentially-overpowered units in IG and other armies should never be fixed, merely that they need to be looked at purely in the context of their own army. And this simply cannot be done whilst Soup is dominant, because everything is being examined in that context.
So I say once again, bring Soup into line *first* and then see what the meta looks like. If Smashcaptains are still running wild even without allied CP-batteries, by all means nerf them. If Guardsmen melee armies are slicing their way through enemy armies, by all means nerf them.
The most balanced method IMHO to balance Allies is via the battleforged CP. As its the only thing common to every army in 8th edition. However as a fix that doesn't work aslong as Guard can break the CP balance. That issue needs to be addressed to allow anything to address competitive soup without destroying allies as GW hasn't shown any hint of fixing the smaller factions that got hammered by the battlebrothers rule in the april FAQ.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I've yet to see a convincing reason why we shouldn't nerf the elements of soup that are always taken (hence OP). Guard players are acting as if it'll only affect their army but there are other units that make up the most common imperial soup list and will also need nerfing. The same goes for Eldar and Chaos.
If every unit was balanced against each other soup would not provide any benefit over mono armies, apart from access to stratagems. Let that sink in. If Guardsmen weren't the objectively best Imperial troop in the game people would instead take Conscripts or another similarly costed unit. The same goes for Hellhounds, Smash Captains, Custard Jet Bikes and the Castellan. The same also goes for those units in Chaos soup that are always taken and Shining Spears, Dark Reapers for Eldar soup.
Any change in how CP is spent or accrued in a soup list will not effect soup lists build, we have already seen a soup list win a major event with only 5 CP.
I'm also struggling to understand why Guard should have the best troop in the game and not expect a nerf to said troop, or why it makes any sense that Conscripts and Infantry are the same points. 3 ppm Conscripts were way too cheap. 4 ppm Infantry are way too cheap.
And you again run into scalling problems, a guardsmen at 5 pts compared to a kabalite profile seems off, etc.
Also again by your logic any frequently picked unit would need to be reconsidered. You don't need a sledge hammer to screw in a handle now do you?
Edit: i also like how you accuse everyone that "defends " guard as beeing an implied egotistical guard player.
Strawmanning aside I've yet to see a convincing mathematical argument that shows 5ppm Guardsmen to be 'off' the profile of a Kabalite warrior. If that is the case though, there are far less Kabalite warrior examples as there are units that come nowhere near a Guardsman. Including the oft cited Fire Warrior.
So the change makes sense.
So, for 60 points, you can get 10 Kabalites – 10 points more than your proposed 5ppm Guard squad.
For those 10 points you get
+1 movement
+1 ws +1 bs +1 ld A weapon that always wounds infantry on 4s
Turn 1 onwards 6+++ (it is a free buff so must be included, unlike including orders)
Now – I think we can all agree that the 10 points is well worth it when comparing it vs the “new” Guard.
Are 10 Fire Warriors, worth only 20 points more than 10 Guardsmen? Given that they wound everything far more reliably than Guardsmen can?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Before anyone says – I do not, nor do I have any plans to, run mono Guard ever in my life (at least infantry heavy anyway) due to me not having the desire to paint hundreds of models.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/19 12:31:20
If a unit is fine in the context of its own army, but overpowered in a Soup army, then it is Soup that needs to change - not that unit.
When a unit is fine in the context of his own army but is a problem in Soup, that means the unit is overpowered but the rest of the codex is underpowered. In the context of a mono army, the weakness of one part balances with the OP'ness of the other part. Examples: Guillimand and Space Marines, Blood Angel Captain and Blood Angels, Custodes Jetbikes+Telemon Dreadnoughts vs the rest of the Custodes Army.
But they become very obvious in Soup because you can basically cherrypick the most OP unit in every codex and mix them to have a uber army. But those units, even without soup, would be still a problem, at least from a context of internal balance of their factions.
Saying that AC Captains on Jetbikes are fine because when played as Mono-Custodes the army is middle of the road, is like saying Flyrants in 7th where fine because when played with the rest of the Tyranid Codex they aren't that powerfull. No, that means Flyrants are OP, the Tyranid Codex sucks, and playing that army is a miserable experience because if you want to compete you need to spam the 1-2 units that are actually good.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I've yet to see a convincing reason why we shouldn't nerf the elements of soup that are always taken (hence OP). Guard players are acting as if it'll only affect their army but there are other units that make up the most common imperial soup list and will also need nerfing. The same goes for Eldar and Chaos.
If every unit was balanced against each other soup would not provide any benefit over mono armies, apart from access to stratagems. Let that sink in. If Guardsmen weren't the objectively best Imperial troop in the game people would instead take Conscripts or another similarly costed unit. The same goes for Hellhounds, Smash Captains, Custard Jet Bikes and the Castellan. The same also goes for those units in Chaos soup that are always taken and Shining Spears, Dark Reapers for Eldar soup.
Any change in how CP is spent or accrued in a soup list will not effect soup lists build, we have already seen a soup list win a major event with only 5 CP.
I'm also struggling to understand why Guard should have the best troop in the game and not expect a nerf to said troop, or why it makes any sense that Conscripts and Infantry are the same points. 3 ppm Conscripts were way too cheap. 4 ppm Infantry are way too cheap.
And you again run into scalling problems, a guardsmen at 5 pts compared to a kabalite profile seems off, etc.
Also again by your logic any frequently picked unit would need to be reconsidered. You don't need a sledge hammer to screw in a handle now do you?
Edit: i also like how you accuse everyone that "defends " guard as beeing an implied egotistical guard player.
Strawmanning aside I've yet to see a convincing mathematical argument that shows 5ppm Guardsmen to be 'off' the profile of a Kabalite warrior. If that is the case though, there are far less Kabalite warrior examples as there are units that come nowhere near a Guardsman. Including the oft cited Fire Warrior.
So the change makes sense.
So, for 60 points, you can get 10 Kabalites – 10 points more than your proposed 5ppm Guard squad.
For those 10 points you get
+1 movement
+1 ws +1 bs +1 ld A weapon that always wounds infantry on 4s
Turn 1 onwards 6+++ (it is a free buff so must be included, unlike including orders)
Now – I think we can all agree that the 10 points is well worth it when comparing it vs the “new” Guard.
Are 10 Fire Warriors, worth only 20 points more than 10 Guardsmen? Given that they wound everything far more reliably than Guardsmen can?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Before anyone says – I do not, nor do I have any plans to, run mono Guard ever in my life (at least infantry heavy anyway) due to me not having the desire to paint hundreds of models.
Kabalites are a 7ppm model. Firewarriors and Skitarii Rangers are a 8ppm model. But the math has been run many times. 5ppm Infantry Squads are balanced vs 7ppm Firewarriors.
Also, 10 firewarriors for 70 points vs 10 Guardsmen for 50 points is an increase in price of 45%.
The other option would be to make all the other infantry of the game cheaper. But personally I don't like that. When the problem are 3-4 units, fix those units, not the rest in a way that will make armies even more expensive mone-wise and with even more models on the table.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/19 12:37:50
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
An Actual Englishman wrote: I've yet to see a convincing reason why we shouldn't nerf the elements of soup that are always taken (hence OP). Guard players are acting as if it'll only affect their army but there are other units that make up the most common imperial soup list and will also need nerfing. The same goes for Eldar and Chaos.
If every unit was balanced against each other soup would not provide any benefit over mono armies, apart from access to stratagems. Let that sink in. If Guardsmen weren't the objectively best Imperial troop in the game people would instead take Conscripts or another similarly costed unit. The same goes for Hellhounds, Smash Captains, Custard Jet Bikes and the Castellan. The same also goes for those units in Chaos soup that are always taken and Shining Spears, Dark Reapers for Eldar soup.
Any change in how CP is spent or accrued in a soup list will not effect soup lists build, we have already seen a soup list win a major event with only 5 CP.
I'm also struggling to understand why Guard should have the best troop in the game and not expect a nerf to said troop, or why it makes any sense that Conscripts and Infantry are the same points. 3 ppm Conscripts were way too cheap. 4 ppm Infantry are way too cheap.
And you again run into scalling problems, a guardsmen at 5 pts compared to a kabalite profile seems off, etc.
Also again by your logic any frequently picked unit would need to be reconsidered. You don't need a sledge hammer to screw in a handle now do you?
Edit: i also like how you accuse everyone that "defends " guard as beeing an implied egotistical guard player.
Strawmanning aside I've yet to see a convincing mathematical argument that shows 5ppm Guardsmen to be 'off' the profile of a Kabalite warrior. If that is the case though, there are far less Kabalite warrior examples as there are units that come nowhere near a Guardsman. Including the oft cited Fire Warrior.
So the change makes sense.
So, for 60 points, you can get 10 Kabalites – 10 points more than your proposed 5ppm Guard squad.
For those 10 points you get
+1 movement
+1 ws +1 bs +1 ld A weapon that always wounds infantry on 4s
Turn 1 onwards 6+++ (it is a free buff so must be included, unlike including orders)
Now – I think we can all agree that the 10 points is well worth it when comparing it vs the “new” Guard.
Are 10 Fire Warriors, worth only 20 points more than 10 Guardsmen? Given that they wound everything far more reliably than Guardsmen can?
All of these troops are the "haves" of the game. As currently priced, they make sense with respect to each other. However, when you then factor in marines, eldar troops, and necron warriors, all of them look VERY broken. It's not fair to just raise the price on guardsmen. All of the "haves" need to get more expensive, or the "have nots" need to get cheaper. A lot cheaper.
@Galas
Wait, what?
So, if a unit is balanced within their own codex, but falls out of balance in a soup army, then the unit is naturally (within its own codex) overpowered??
I’d rather look at what makes it overpowered in a soup list and address that, rather than unbalance a unit in its own codex that was previously considered balanced.
Imperial soup (in some of its forms) is unbalanced currently. It is primarily down to having access to large amounts of very reliable CP regeneration, and a couple of outlying unit combinations. (I.E Straken, a Priest and 30 Infantry).
Those issues can easily be solved by addressing the primary causes. Nerf CP regen, adjust the points of Straken and/or Priests.
Just upping the points of Infantry squads by 10 points isn’t going to change a great deal. At most it’ll mean the Nova list will have to find 70 points. For the winning list, that is a drop from 18 Crusaders down to 14 Crusaders, and removing the heavy flamer on the Scout Sentinel for a 3rd multi laser.
