Why are Guardsmen so awesome in game?

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.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Apple Peel wrote:
Sluggaloo wrote:
5ppm too expensive? GIVE ME A BREAK

There are people on these forums that have called for 7 ppm guardsmen. The point is that you just by raising the points costs on units only, then players will just take the next cheapest thing when it becomes more efficient.

That was one person being hyperbolic. Hardly a point to use for your own cause.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Anyone that thinks stopping CP sharing will stop Infantry from being taken is delusional, pure and simple.

Well...no. They are one of what, three troop choices in a viable faction. You're probably going to see them. Why would you want to stop infantry from being taken?

A faction having good, flexible light infantry is fine, as long as they don't also have access to the most efficient CP-burners in the game. Guard on their own don't have that. Guard with knights do.

I'm saying that Infantry will be taken as allies regardless of what you do with CP, due to the efficiency that they perform. For my Deathwatch? That 5CP is merely the cherry on top of having durable objective keepers (with arguable offensive prowess to boot).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:
Asmodios wrote:

The "smoke settled" because we moved into the dead period of the ITC during the Christmas season. Unless every competitive podcast I listen to is 100% wrong they are predicted to be a top-tier codex and something to be feared going into the LVO. Also, you ever think that the top ork codex player isn't higher cause we are at the very end of the ITC season and they just now got their codex?

Off topic, we're discussing the strengths of GUARDSMEN not Orks but rest assured the strength of the Ork codex is not down to under priced troop options.

Throwing around 'B b b but Orks won a GT!!!11' is not a defence of the cost of Guardsmen. How many GTs have primary Guard lists won? A few more than 1 I suspect.

7ppm Boyz Vs 4ppm Guardsmen explains in a nutshell why Guard are under priced...or conversely why boyz are severely over priced

I am more of the mind that Guardsmen should be 5ppm and Boyz should be 6ppm.

Once again, Boyz are technically the same price as long as you were bringing multiples of 10 and buying the bomb upgrade, due to it being free now.

If you weren't buying it before, well, you're buying it now.

**An Actual Englishman**

Apple Peel wrote:

Yeah, he isn’t defending their current points cost. That y’all read. Then y’all act uppity by skipping over how he believes y’all are being ridiculous for saying everything people say in that you disagree with is a strawman. All this is is argumentum abusi fallacia. Y’all dismiss the points of others that y’all don’t like by arguing it’s a logical fallacy. If it is such a bad point, y’all could prove it, rather than saying it is bad because “I said so.”

Its odd that you apologists say you aren't defending the current points cost of Guardsmen when all through the thread that's exactly what you've been doing and you refuse to acknowledge that 4 ppm is too cheap. If you don't believe 4 ppm is too cheap, you are by definition defending their current points cost. Here's a quotation from like 2 pages back that sounds to me like he's exactly defending their current points cost, I've bolded the relevant bits for you:

Mmmpi wrote:

me, a few pages ago wrote:Almost like there should be a minimum cost per troop wound for Imperial soup and that 4 ppm is too low right?

No, it's almost like people chose more wounds as a trade off over something else.

The arguments put forward aren't all straw man. Many of them are simply dishonest (but we've had straw man too) or misdirectional. We've already seen a comparison of SOB vs Guardsmen where 300 odd points of SOB were compared against 200 odd points of Guard (not mentioned in the comparison) and still performed worse. This has also been proven mathematically earlier in the thread. It's not a matter of 'my opinion is right and yours is wrong'. It's actually 'you are not comparing apples with apples therefore your conclusion is completely incorrect'. Literally its right there. Have you read the thread at all?

Now what you are doing, ironically, is straw manning us, claiming that we are being 'uppity' and we claim that 'everything we disagree with is straw man'. Nice try. No cigar I'm afraid. Regardless of your liberal use of "y'all".

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Once again, Boyz are technically the same price as long as you were bringing multiples of 10 and buying the bomb upgrade, due to it being free now.

If you weren't buying it before, well, you're buying it now.

What fething bomb upgrade are you on about?

**Apple Peel**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
Mmmpi wrote:I'll I got from this is that you're acting like an elitist prick because I don't use your specific app of choice.

Until you decide to remove your head from your butt, we are done.

PS: I win.

First rule 1.

Second its not my 'app of choice' its simply the most comprehensive database we have on competitive 40k.

There is nothing to win. Nothing is at stake here man. Just 2 people trying to have a discussion.

Put yourself in my shoes. Imagine you knew something for a fact but I kept denying it, asking for a source and then didn't know the source when it was provided. You'd get frustrated too I suspect.

Apple Peel wrote:
A big problem with balancing guard troops is that guard is supposed to have the cheapest troops in the game. And in a game where units are all individually supposed to match to each other

I don't understand what you mean here. Where has anyone said that Guard are supposed to have the cheapest troops in the game? Did GW say this?

catbarf wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:
Finally real life backs all of this up. Which is why they are taken en masse in the vast majority of Imperial lists.

I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.

Do you think they'd be showing up in every soup list if CP generation were nerfed? If so, why, if currently nobody is taking any more than they are required to for CP purposes?

I've already said like a hundred times in this thread that they aren't only taken in minimum sizes to fulfil CP requirements. Are you sure you read the last few pages?

Scotsman also mentioned a cheaper Imperial Battalion in Ad Mech. If cost was the only factor that would be taken instead but it isn't.

Spoletta wrote:

Not to mention that they are using the same source.

BCP = Blood of Kittens

And both those sources are highly flawed since they get only ITC results.

What? BCP is not the same as Blood of Kittens. Blood of kittens uses BCP and that's it. Also if they were the same how did our friend above fail to find those lists that have more than 6 units of Guardsmen?

ITC is the standard for competitive 40k. It's also the most common. It suits our needs for a discussion around balance unless you know a more commonly used format?

Mmmpi wrote:
My guess is that it's the body count over all. The guard however to have access to longer ranged weapons, meaning they can camp backfield objectives better.

Both sisters and Admech are only fielding 17 models, as opposed to 32. Officers are more combat oriented then Techpriests, and techpriests can't fix stuff outside of IG or AdMech. Officers are cheaper than a canoness, and have options, unlike the current Missionary.

Almost like there should be a minimum cost per troop wound for Imperial soup and that 4 ppm is too low right? priced

E - so I read the responses that happened as I was writing this post and it is clear to me that the Guard apologists aren't going to change their tack on this, regardless of all the logical arguments presented their way. They literally have an excuse for everything. This discussion is pointless and really, really sad. In my experience Guard players are a lot more open to change of their units, that they admit are under priced, in real life. Its a shame some of you can't be so open and honest on here.

**An Actual Englishman**

Vaktathi wrote:
If there's an officer nearby giving orders and the target is within 12", then yes thats what the math shows. But then, it's not just a base 57pt infantry unit at that point either because it requires a nearby character that does nothing but buff the weeny infantry.

buff the weeny infantry AND provide a cheap HQ for cheap CPs.

Vaktathi wrote:
The big point however, magnificently illustrated here, was that similar units that are doing even more for even less, but everyone focuses on the Infantry Squad. In fact, the Infantry Squad drops down to inflicting only 2.08 wounds (27pts) without the officer, the plasma SWS still does 2.42 (31.46pts) and is only 45pts. Yet we hear nothing about this unit and nobody takes it

Why this focus on the Infantry Squad over everything else?

Because it fills out detachments for CP's. Because it's incredibly durable for its cost. Because its one of the cheapest sources of CP. Because they are prolific in Imperial soup lists. Because they are one of (if not the) most flexible units in the game.

Vaktathi wrote:
It's not basic infantry like guardsmen that are doing the bulk of the killing in armies, often the "loyal 32" are all dead before they ever have a chance to fire a shot. The value that we see so widespread is from the CP battery and secondarily the board control offered by bodies, not their killing power.

The correct and more true account is that it's 'not JUST their killing power that makes them an attractive proposition to competitive Imperial soup players' because that is certainly above average for their cost. It's also their durability, ability to hold objectives, control the board, move to where they need to be to contest objectives, screen more valuable other units as a few, quick reasons. They don't cost enough for all they offer a player.

**Apple Peel**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
Apple Peel wrote:

Yeah, he isn’t defending their current points cost. That y’all read. Then y’all act uppity by skipping over how he believes y’all are being ridiculous for saying everything people say in that you disagree with is a strawman. All this is is argumentum abusi fallacia. Y’all dismiss the points of others that y’all don’t like by arguing it’s a logical fallacy. If it is such a bad point, y’all could prove it, rather than saying it is bad because “I said so.”

Its odd that you apologists say you aren't defending the current points cost of Guardsmen when all through the thread that's exactly what you've been doing and you refuse to acknowledge that 4 ppm is too cheap. If you don't believe 4 ppm is too cheap, you are by definition defending their current points cost. Here's a quotation from like 2 pages back that sounds to me like he's exactly defending their current points cost, I've bolded the relevant bits for you:

Mmmpi wrote:

me, a few pages ago wrote:Almost like there should be a minimum cost per troop wound for Imperial soup and that 4 ppm is too low right?

No, it's almost like people chose more wounds as a trade off over something else.

The arguments put forward aren't all straw man. Many of them are simply dishonest (but we've had straw man too) or misdirectional. We've already seen a comparison of SOB vs Guardsmen where 300 odd points of SOB were compared against 200 odd points of Guard (not mentioned in the comparison) and still performed worse. This has also been proven mathematically earlier in the thread. It's not a matter of 'my opinion is right and yours is wrong'. It's actually 'you are not comparing apples with apples therefore your conclusion is completely incorrect'. Literally its right there. Have you read the thread at all?

Now what you are doing, ironically, is straw manning us, claiming that we are being 'uppity' and we claim that 'everything we disagree with is straw man'. Nice try. No cigar I'm afraid. Regardless of your liberal use of "y'all".

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Once again, Boyz are technically the same price as long as you were bringing multiples of 10 and buying the bomb upgrade, due to it being free now.

If you weren't buying it before, well, you're buying it now.

What fething bomb upgrade are you on about?

No, It rather looks like he is disagreeing that there should be a minimum troops cost per wound for Imperial soup. It seems nuance is lost on you. Just like claiming believing something is too cheap is not equal to defending that position. That is changing things up a bit.

**Martel732**

This might be worse than 7th ed eldar. 1.5 yrs in and I'm really sick of ig apologists.

**Sluggaloo**

Apple Peel wrote:
Sluggaloo wrote:
5ppm too expensive? GIVE ME A BREAK

There are people on these forums that have called for 7 ppm guardsmen. The point is that you just by raising the points costs on units only, then players will just take the next cheapest thing when it becomes more efficient.

STOP. The only people I've read that are calling for anything more than 5 pt guardsmen in this thread are wanting to completely double the points on every unit to allow for more granularity in unit costing.

**An Actual Englishman**

Apple Peel wrote:

No, It rather looks like he is disagreeing that there should be a minimum troops cost per wound for Imperial soup. It seems nuance is lost on you. Just like claiming believing something is too cheap is not equal to defending that position. That is changing things up a bit.

Oh I disagree given the context of the discussion and the thread. But it doesn't matter. There's a real simple way for you to prove me wrong - all he has to do is say what he believes Guardsmen should cost if not 4 ppm. As requested earlier.

Its odd, the normal response to 'Guardsmen at 4ppm are mathematically better than most other troops in the game' if you weren't defending their cost probably wouldn't be to spout out a load of reasons as to why Guardsmen aren't undercosted?

**Apple Peel**

Sluggaloo wrote:
Apple Peel wrote:
Sluggaloo wrote:
5ppm too expensive? GIVE ME A BREAK

There are people on these forums that have called for 7 ppm guardsmen. The point is that you just by raising the points costs on units only, then players will just take the next cheapest thing when it becomes more efficient.

STOP. The only people I've read that are calling for anything more than 5 pt guardsmen in this thread are wanting to completely double the points on every unit to allow for more granularity in unit costing.

I recall seeing people call for 6 ppm on other threads. That's why I pointed out forums, not this thread.

**Bobthehero**

Sluggaloo wrote:
Apple Peel wrote:
Sluggaloo wrote:
5ppm too expensive? GIVE ME A BREAK

There are people on these forums that have called for 7 ppm guardsmen. The point is that you just by raising the points costs on units only, then players will just take the next cheapest thing when it becomes more efficient.

STOP. The only people I've read that are calling for anything more than 5 pt guardsmen in this thread are wanting to completely double the points on every unit to allow for more granularity in unit costing.

Marmatag did not.

**the_scotsman**

Slayer, I would challenge that your Deathwatch army would really be better off taking Guardsmen over more DW vets/HQs if the guardsmen didn't provide Cps to the rest of the army and the vets did.

SB/SS vets are only 25% less efficient for the points at shooting GEQ than Infantry squads with the distributed cost of 1/2 of a company commander. And they're hugely more efficient at shooting higher toughness targets because they are poison 2+. embedded naked termies in the unit are nearly as good at soaking no ap fire while the vets are better against most weapons with good ap (the exception being low strength ap-1 stuff that is also not S6, like Heavy Bolters I guess?)

If the guard can only use their 5cp on themselves you'll be throwing extremely inefficient CPs onto them...or just losing them entirely if the guardsmen get toasted turn 1.

If you take away CP transference entirely, the loyal 32 go away. Simple as that. Guard solo would most likely remain a viable faction, post CA2018 Deathwatch miiiiiiiiiight give pure marines a presence on par with like nids, Knights and Custodes would likely go poof, and the tourney scene would be largely Ynnari/Drukhari until those got nerfed.

**Martel732**

Apple Peel wrote:
Sluggaloo wrote:
Apple Peel wrote:
Sluggaloo wrote:
5ppm too expensive? GIVE ME A BREAK

There are people on these forums that have called for 7 ppm guardsmen. The point is that you just by raising the points costs on units only, then players will just take the next cheapest thing when it becomes more efficient.

STOP. The only people I've read that are calling for anything more than 5 pt guardsmen in this thread are wanting to completely double the points on every unit to allow for more granularity in unit costing.

I recall seeing people call for 6 ppm on other threads. That's why I pointed out forums, not this thread.

I said it was arguable. But gw does not appear to be balancing between codices, only within a codex.

**Apple Peel**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
Apple Peel wrote:

No, It rather looks like he is disagreeing that there should be a minimum troops cost per wound for Imperial soup. It seems nuance is lost on you. Just like claiming believing something is too cheap is not equal to defending that position. That is changing things up a bit.

Oh I disagree given the context of the discussion and the thread. But it doesn't matter. There's a real simple way for you to prove me wrong - all he has to do is say what he believes Guardsmen should cost if not 4 ppm. As requested earlier.

Its odd, the normal response to 'Guardsmen at 4ppm are mathematically better than most other troops in the game' if you weren't defending their cost probably wouldn't be to spout out a load of reasons as to why Guardsmen aren't undercosted?

There is a lot more going on here than just the cost of guardsmen. There are people wanting to scrap the orders system entirely, or those that are exaggerating the orders system. There is more than just points here.
"Hah, guardsmen are running faster than supersonic jets." At the cost of not shooting, taking up two phases to run instead of one. Just for example.

**Ghorgul**

Mmmpi wrote:
My source is BCP mate.
Could you clarify please? I couldn't find anything but banks in a quick five minute google search for BCP. Seriously, please clarify.

This has to be one of the most obvious trolling attempts I have seen this year.

I went and googled "warhammer BCP" and whole 1st page was links (except for one) which allowed identification of what is BCP.

**Martel732**

The fact they can do it at all is nuts, imo. They are legit faster than my jump troops.

**the_scotsman**

Apple Peel wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:
Apple Peel wrote:

No, It rather looks like he is disagreeing that there should be a minimum troops cost per wound for Imperial soup. It seems nuance is lost on you. Just like claiming believing something is too cheap is not equal to defending that position. That is changing things up a bit.

Oh I disagree given the context of the discussion and the thread. But it doesn't matter. There's a real simple way for you to prove me wrong - all he has to do is say what he believes Guardsmen should cost if not 4 ppm. As requested earlier.

Its odd, the normal response to 'Guardsmen at 4ppm are mathematically better than most other troops in the game' if you weren't defending their cost probably wouldn't be to spout out a load of reasons as to why Guardsmen aren't undercosted?

There is a lot more going on here than just the cost of guardsmen. There are people wanting to scrap the orders system entirely, or those that are exaggerating the orders system. There is more than just points here.
"Hah, guardsmen are running faster than supersonic jets." At the cost of not shooting, taking up two phases to run instead of one. Just for example.

Sorry, can I get my Harlequins to run faster than supersonic jets if they don't shoot and "take up two phases to run" please? I didn't realize that was an option - it'd be nice for them to be able to run faster than guardsmen.

**Apple Peel**

Martel732 wrote:
The fact they can do it at all is nuts, imo. They are legit faster than my jump troops.

But are they shooting and charging after they run for two phases? No. They just double-timed it somewhere.

**Martel732**

I don't even have the option. Why cant my marines double time? BA are supposed to be about speed. Ig outmaneuver jump lists consistently. crazy.

**the_scotsman**

Martel732 wrote:
I don't even have the option. Why cant my marines double time? BA are supposed to be about speed.

yeah, it's weird, it seems like for every other faction in the game there's this other option for your models "double timing" where you add a D6 to their movement stat and they go a bit farther while giving up the ability to shoot most weapons.

**Apple Peel**

the_scotsman wrote:
Apple Peel wrote:
An Actual Englishman wrote:
Apple Peel wrote:

No, It rather looks like he is disagreeing that there should be a minimum troops cost per wound for Imperial soup. It seems nuance is lost on you. Just like claiming believing something is too cheap is not equal to defending that position. That is changing things up a bit.

Oh I disagree given the context of the discussion and the thread. But it doesn't matter. There's a real simple way for you to prove me wrong - all he has to do is say what he believes Guardsmen should cost if not 4 ppm. As requested earlier.

Its odd, the normal response to 'Guardsmen at 4ppm are mathematically better than most other troops in the game' if you weren't defending their cost probably wouldn't be to spout out a load of reasons as to why Guardsmen aren't undercosted?

There is a lot more going on here than just the cost of guardsmen. There are people wanting to scrap the orders system entirely, or those that are exaggerating the orders system. There is more than just points here.
"Hah, guardsmen are running faster than supersonic jets." At the cost of not shooting, taking up two phases to run instead of one. Just for example.

Sorry, can I get my Harlequins to run faster than supersonic jets if they don't shoot and "take up two phases to run" please? I didn't realize that was an option - it'd be nice for them to be able to run faster than guardsmen.

Maybe if your Harlequins weren't a bunch of panzy actors and actresses they could

**Martel732**

Bottom line is that you have to build around removing guardsmen when list building. Most codices dont have access to a good way to do that, though.

**Apple Peel**

the_scotsman wrote:
Martel732 wrote:
I don't even have the option. Why cant my marines double time? BA are supposed to be about speed.

yeah, it's weird, it seems like for every other faction in the game there's this other option for your models "double timing" where you add a D6 to their movement stat and they go a bit farther while giving up the ability to shoot most weapons.

But, can't they still fire assault weapons? I'm pretty sure guardsmen can't fire any weapons at all after Move Move Moving.

**Martel732**

They can, but usually I'd rather have the speed.

**Unit1126PLL**

Any unit that can charge can go as fast as Guardsmen, so long as it can either advance and charge or has a 12" base move.

The problem with MMM isn't the speed (my Slaanesh are faster), but the flexibility in order to achieve that speed, the enemy has to have someone I can charge at the end.

I honestly wouldn't have a problem with MMM simply giving an extra d6" or something. If MMM is the problem, it can be nerfed fairly easily without changing points one lick.

Guardsmen without orders or support are 4ppm models.

**Slayer-Fan123**

the_scotsman wrote:
Slayer, I would challenge that your Deathwatch army would really be better off taking Guardsmen over more DW vets/HQs if the guardsmen didn't provide Cps to the rest of the army and the vets did.

SB/SS vets are only 25% less efficient for the points at shooting GEQ than Infantry squads with the distributed cost of 1/2 of a company commander. And they're hugely more efficient at shooting higher toughness targets because they are poison 2+. embedded naked termies in the unit are nearly as good at soaking no ap fire while the vets are better against most weapons with good ap (the exception being low strength ap-1 stuff that is also not S6, like Heavy Bolters I guess?)

If the guard can only use their 5cp on themselves you'll be throwing extremely inefficient CPs onto them...or just losing them entirely if the guardsmen get toasted turn 1.

If you take away CP transference entirely, the loyal 32 go away. Simple as that. Guard solo would most likely remain a viable faction, post CA2018 Deathwatch miiiiiiiiiight give pure marines a presence on par with like nids, Knights and Custodes would likely go poof, and the tourney scene would be largely Ynnari/Drukhari until those got nerfed.

My cheapest backfield camping unit for Deathwatch is pure (and nothing else) 5 Vets with nothing at 75 points. If I want some offensive bite, I might give them the Stalker upgrade (S4 Heavy 2 30") and that's now a 90 point unit.

For 180 points, I get to camp three objectives with superb durability.

Also you have NO idea how prohibitive the cost of Marine HQ units is. I mean, I WANT to run more Deathwatch troops, but in order to do that I gotta spend a lot of points to do it, to the point my one potential list with NINE troop choices can't be used effectively. I can go around this via using a specialist detachment (for example, I went with an Outrider and used 3 Tarantula Guns, which are useful on their own to be fair) but that only grants a single CP.

Honestly that's part of why I think the Marine issue is down to their HQ costs on top of costlier than other troops.

**Apple Peel**

Martel732 wrote:
Bottom line is that you have to build around removing guardsmen when list building. Most codices dont have access to a good way to do that, though.

Don't most people build their lists with the idea of taking out certain units in mind? Like taking anti-tank weapons for tanks, and taking anti-infantry weapons for infantry. Some faction may not excel at one or the other of those, but that is what you get when we have different factions with different flavors of playstyle.

**An Actual Englishman**

Apple Peel wrote:

There is a lot more going on here than just the cost of guardsmen. There are people wanting to scrap the orders system entirely, or those that are exaggerating the orders system. There is more than just points here.
"Hah, guardsmen are running faster than supersonic jets." At the cost of not shooting, taking up two phases to run instead of one. Just for example.

If orders are removed then obviously there would be a costing implication of that.

Regardless assuming everything stays as is in terms of orders and stats - what cost is appropriate to a Guardsmen?

Let's be honest. Orders aren't going anywhere. Guardsmen should not, in my opinion, ever be able to run faster than a supersonic jet. Missing out on the shooting phase is a tiny, inconsequential cost to pay for such an ability. As an example my Evil Sunz bikes can do a very similar thing. It costs 2CP, must be used on 'Speed Freeks' units only, is locked to Evil Sunz and stops the unit charging.

**Vaktathi**

An Actual Englishman wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
If there's an officer nearby giving orders and the target is within 12", then yes thats what the math shows. But then, it's not just a base 57pt infantry unit at that point either because it requires a nearby character that does nothing but buff the weeny infantry.
buff the weeny infantry AND provide a cheap HQ for cheap CPs.

Indeed, however within a self contained IG army, that doesn't really do much. For an allied army looking for a CP battery, it's huge. Cut the CP sharing, and that goes out the window.

Because it fills out detachments for CP's. Because it's incredibly durable for its cost. Because its one of the cheapest sources of CP. Because they are prolific in Imperial soup lists. Because they are one of (if not the) most flexible units in the game.

And yet the same could be said of that special weapons squad that nobody ever takes. Its slightly less resilient point for point but dramatically punchier point for point at the same time. Aside from that, it does everything an IS does, and they never appear in army lists.

What's the difference?

CP generation.

The correct and more true account is that it's 'not JUST their killing power that makes them an attractive proposition to competitive Imperial soup players' because that is certainly above average for their cost. It's also their durability, ability to hold objectives, control the board, move to where they need to be to contest objectives, screen more valuable other units as a few, quick reasons. They don't cost enough for all they offer a player.

Except I pointed out other units that do all of these things, some things dramatically better, and nobody cares or takes them.

The unit that we see everywhere is the one that unlocks CP's.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

I'm saying that Infantry will be taken as allies regardless of what you do with CP, due to the efficiency that they perform. For my Deathwatch? That 5CP is merely the cherry on top of having durable objective keepers (with arguable offensive prowess to boot).

Thought exercise here: at what point do you stop taking them? What would it take to drop them?

More to the point, when do you stop looking to other armies and just use those points on actual Deathwatch units?

If all you need are objective holding bodies, do you still take them without any CP's, no orders, and at 6ppm? That should still be far more cost effective for simple objective babysitting than having DW units do it, but would make them awful for the core of IG armies.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Martel732 wrote:
This might be worse than 7th ed eldar. 1.5 yrs in and I'm really sick of ig apologists.

At least Eldar apologists have years of experience. The Guard apologists are too new to learn the subtle nuances of defending poor balance.

**Martel732**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Any unit that can charge can go as fast as Guardsmen, so long as it can either advance and charge or has a 12" base move.

The problem with MMM isn't the speed (my Slaanesh are faster), but the flexibility in order to achieve that speed, the enemy has to have someone I can charge at the end.

I honestly wouldn't have a problem with MMM simply giving an extra d6" or something. If MMM is the problem, it can be nerfed fairly easily without changing points one lick.

Guardsmen without orders or support are 4ppm models.

Not even close, really. But keep telling yourself you earned those wins.

That's basically what this comes down to. Just eldar didnt earn their wins in 7th, ig and eldar soup dont earn theirs. They autowin so many matchups by existing. Through superior math.