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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 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.

So obviously the trick is to make Infantry actually be a fair cost.

6 points wouldn't be a good cost for Deathwatch to use for objective sitting. Cheaper doesn't mean better, but the cost of Infantry is already too cheap to not use them for the task, if that makes sense.

I don't want to nerf them to uselessness, but the apologists make me really want to argue for it. A flat 5 point hike for their Sergeant (making them 45 points total) is probably the only compromise both parties will take. Mathematically they're still good at 5 points but the apologists are in denial about that so...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.

Yet they outperform several other troop choices for that cost. 4 points isn't correct, sorry.

 Vaktathi wrote:
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.


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.

Of course there is a value in CP generation. This isn't under debate. Welcome to 8th edition list building I guess? The debate is around Guardsmen being more efficient than other troops for their cost and hence contributing to why they are the de facto 'CP generating' troop of choice for Imperial soup players.

Tell me - do you think Space Marine players would take scouts as their CP troop if they had the option to take Guardsmen? How about Chaos players now cultists cost 5 ppm?

Also I must've imagined all those HWTs and other units in Imperial soup lists that have a brigade of Guard?

Be careful, shifting the focus to other, also extremely cost effective Guard units might not be the best idea.

E - Guardsmen need to be 5ppm. Please stop with this 45 pts for a squad nonsense. 5 ppm won't break them as a unit and they'll still perform exceptionally (probably too) well.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yet they outperform several other troop choices for that cost. 4 points isn't correct, sorry.

Do you have a math citation without Orders? I would like to see them compared to Kabalites, plague bearers, and Fire Warriors. And remember, no buffs allowed.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yet they outperform several other troop choices for that cost. 4 points isn't correct, sorry.

Do you have a math citation without Orders? I would like to see them compared to Kabalites, plague bearers, and Fire Warriors. And remember, no buffs allowed.

That math is in a dozen threads. Your head is in the sand.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
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.

For the same cost as two moderately-equipped (plas+HB) Infantry squads and an officer, I can take 20 Skitarii Rangers split into four five-man teams.

The Rangers are more powerful, longer-ranged, harder to kill, and have the same bodycount to hold objectives. They can also spread out more, allowing them to better control the board and screen. The only things the Guardsmen beat them on are situational mobility thanks to MMM, and the ability to more easily fill a battalion.

Which brings us right back to them being taken for CP, so, nerf CP generation, and revert MMM to something more sensible while we're at it. Neither of those is an issue with the pricing of Guardsmen themselves.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
buff the weeny infantry AND provide a cheap HQ for cheap CPs.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Because it fills out detachments for CP's.

This whole thread feels like a motte-and-bailey argument. It starts with 'Guard are taken in soup because they're too powerful for their points', and then when examples are given of other units that are more effective, the argument changes to 'Guard are taken in soup because they give CPs and better choices don't'. Well yes, even Guard apologists agree with that, but then why keep going back to 'Guard OP pls nerf' if it's the CP generation mechanic that's the issue?

I'm still in the camp of 5pts being probably the right cost, but the sheer inconsistency of these arguments is really frustrating. If CP is ignored entirely, are Guardsmen still too good for their cost? If so, explain the comparison with other units that offer better combat ability but aren't considered overpowered. If not, then the problem is the CP mechanic, and nerfing Guardsmen is just putting a band-aid on it while hurting mono-Guard players. Pick one argument and stick with it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yet they outperform several other troop choices for that cost. 4 points isn't correct, sorry.

Do you have a math citation without Orders? I would like to see them compared to Kabalites, plague bearers, and Fire Warriors. And remember, no buffs allowed.

Have you just never seen that done in other threads? Like, at all?

I mean I can present it if you want on my lunch, but I find it hard to believe you've not come across it yet.

 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?

It’s hard to say because of CP generation right now. Imo you reduce the effectiveness of the catachan and you are fine at 4ppm. But it’s truely hard to evaluate as their main strength is CP generation. That’s why I have advocated fix CP sharing let the dust settle then start fine tuning from their

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yet they outperform several other troop choices for that cost. 4 points isn't correct, sorry.

Do you have a math citation without Orders? I would like to see them compared to Kabalites, plague bearers, and Fire Warriors. And remember, no buffs allowed.

I'm sure it has been done already but keen to see it again also.

Although its kind of a moot point because orders exist and there seem to o be no plans to remove them.

catbarf wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
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.

For the same cost as two moderately-equipped (plas+HB) Infantry squads and an officer, I can take 20 Skitarii Rangers split into four five-man teams.

The Rangers are more powerful, longer-ranged, harder to kill, and have the same bodycount to hold objectives. They can also spread out more, allowing them to better control the board and screen. The only things the Guardsmen beat them on are situational mobility thanks to MMM, and the ability to more easily fill a battalion.

Which brings us right back to them being taken for CP, so, nerf CP generation, and revert MMM to something more sensible while we're at it. Neither of those is an issue with the pricing of Guardsmen themselves.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
buff the weeny infantry AND provide a cheap HQ for cheap CPs.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Because it fills out detachments for CP's.

This whole thread feels like a motte-and-bailey argument. It starts with 'Guard are taken in soup because they're too powerful for their points', and then when examples are given of other units that are more effective, the argument changes to 'Guard are taken in soup because they give CPs and better choices don't'. Well yes, even Guard apologists agree with that, but then why keep going back to 'Guard OP pls nerf' if it's the CP generation mechanic that's the issue?

I'm still in the camp of 5pts being probably the right cost, but the sheer inconsistency of these arguments is really frustrating. If CP is ignored entirely, are Guardsmen still too good for their cost? If so, explain the comparison with other units that offer better combat ability but aren't considered overpowered. If not, then the problem is the CP mechanic, and nerfing Guardsmen is just putting a band-aid on it while hurting mono-Guard players. Pick one argument and stick with it.

I think most people would argue Skitarii Rangers need to go back to 8 points, so I don't know what your point is.

I have seen tons of math done but usually with buffs.

catbarf wrote:
snip

Your comparison is dubious because you included upgraded weapons that no one takes.

The argument is both for clarity. Not only is it cheap CP but its also that they outperform other TROOPS for their cost.

There is no point comparing elites and heavies with them as they 'pay' by not being troop choices and therefore not generating CP. In that it is part of their cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

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.

It’s hard to say because of CP generation right now. Imo you reduce the effectiveness of the catachan and you are fine at 4ppm. But it’s truely hard to evaluate as their main strength is CP generation. That’s why I have advocated fix CP sharing let the dust settle then start fine running from their

Get out.

You realise these comparisons where Guardsmen stuff other units don't even include the Catachan doctrine?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

catbarf wrote:
snip

Your comparison is dubious because you included upgraded weapons that no one takes.

The argument is both for clarity. Not only is it cheap CP but its also that they outperform other TROOPS for their cost.

There is no point comparing elites and heavies with them as they 'pay' by not being troop choices and therefore not generating CP. In that it is part of their cost.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

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.

It’s hard to say because of CP generation right now. Imo you reduce the effectiveness of the catachan and you are fine at 4ppm. But it’s truely hard to evaluate as their main strength is CP generation. That’s why I have advocated fix CP sharing let the dust settle then start fine running from their

Get out.

You realise these comparisons where Guardsmen stuff other units don't even include the Catachan doctrine?

You realize you asked for my opinion and I gave it.... I never said we were analyzing the doctrine I was saying what I feel like should have happened now before a CP change. You have some deep seated anger issues about this clearly as you have to tell people to “get out” of a discussion after asking for an opinion

Asmodios wrote:

You realize you asked for my opinion and I gave it.... I never said we were analyzing the doctrine I was saying what I feel like should have happened now before a CP change. You have some deep seated anger issues about this clearly as you have to tell people to “get out” of a discussion after asking for an opinion

I didn't ask for your opinion, I wanted mmpi's. Because he said and I quote: 'none of us are defending their (Guardsmen's) current points'. Except you it looks like.

So while we're here what's your reasoning for believing 4ppm Guardsmen is fair if Catachan is 'tweaked'? Given all the evidence to the contrary (that I know you've seen).

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Of course there is a value in CP generation. This isn't under debate. Welcome to 8th edition list building I guess? The debate is around Guardsmen being more efficient than other troops for their cost and hence contributing to why they are the de facto 'CP generating' troop of choice for Imperial soup players.

There was a massive discussion about offensive killing capability a few pages back, and why we didn't see entire armies of Guardsmen if they were so great. The response was that, like Kabalites and Cultists, you needed other stuff that these units couldnt do. The retort was that there were Guardsmen units that could, and they're not super common. The driving force behind the irritation with Guardsmen is the CP generation/regeneration in allied armies that have powerful 2/3CP stratagems for super units, which will be an issue as long as it's allowed. 5ppm isnt going to solve that particular issue. Within the context of a mono-IG list, the CP thing is much less pressing, and yet we don't often see these other guardsmen-composed units nor an excess of infantry squads beyond whats required for the detachment.

Tell me - do you think Space Marine players would take scouts as their CP troop if they had the option to take Guardsmen?

Space Marines have their own set of issues entirely separate from the IG (a basic Tac should be more 10ppm than 13ppm, the scale of the game has really outgrown them in a lot of ways). I suspect you could substitute most troops and get the same answer. As for Chaos, I dont think Cultists should have gone to 5ppm, but that appears to be an effect of GW balancing internally as others have noted. I dont know why they went up and Guardsmen stayed at 4, I was honestly surprised that they did not go up, but nowhere near as surprised as the Tank Commander going *down* 25pts

Also I must've imagined all those HWTs and other units in Imperial soup lists that have a brigade of Guard?

Generally mortar HWS's to fill out the brigade. You almost never see them used competitively aside from that (same thing with multilaser Scout sentinels). You almost never see SWS or Command Squad units either.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

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.

or perhaps people are focusing on the wrong things?

There's lots of stuff that should be toned down with the IG codex. Catachan doctrine is too strong (particularly on tanks and artillery where it has no business being so), Shadowswords are over gunned, Tank Commanders being grossly undercosted, CP regen relics and traits, and others, I'll even grant MMM.

But the thing that gets everyone super hot and bothered is...the basic putz guardsman being a little cheap (when this is about the first time ever in the history of the game that the basic core infantry squad has finally been considered a decent solid unit on its own, particularly when not being overshadowed by Vets) Primarily in the context of use by other factions

So obviously the trick is to make Infantry actually be a fair cost.

The problem is that a "fair cost" is a very different thing when talking about an IG army and a Soup list.

6 points wouldn't be a good cost for Deathwatch to use for objective sitting. Cheaper doesn't mean better, but the cost of Infantry is already too cheap to not use them for the task, if that makes sense.

For DW I can see that, though I suspect for many armies it may still be seen as viable, particularly those heavily reliant on the CP.

I don't want to nerf them to uselessness, but the apologists make me really want to argue for it. A flat 5 point hike for their Sergeant (making them 45 points total) is probably the only compromise both parties will take. Mathematically they're still good at 5 points but the apologists are in denial about that so...

Honestly I expect they'll be 5ppm at some point. I was surprised CA didn't make them so. However, within the context of the IG itself, its ultimately a minor issue and there's a whole lot else that's probably in need of addressing both up and down, its when paired with other armies that the issue is magnified and the Infantry Squad suddenly grabs everyone's attention.

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem is that a "fair cost" is a very different thing when talking about an IG army and a Soup list.

No, it really isn't and this is the problem with your reasoning.

A fair cost is a fair cost.

Imagine that all units and stratagems were equally balanced against each other across all factions - soup wouldn't be an issue at all. It would be a decision based on preference of aesthetics and fluff, rather than performance.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem is that a "fair cost" is a very different thing when talking about an IG army and a Soup list.

No, it really isn't and this is the problem with your reasoning.

A fair cost is a fair cost.

Imagine that all units and stratagems were equally balanced against each other across all factions - soup wouldn't be an issue at all. It would be a decision based on preference of aesthetics and fluff, rather than performance.

This is going back to the idea where a CC is just cheap detachment filler for CP in a soup list and just a regular take in a mono guard list. That is why it is different for balancing and determining a fair cost, and the same goes for guardsmen as well, so don’t go with the whole CC are the problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, good luck with that lofty balance goal of yours.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

You realize you asked for my opinion and I gave it.... I never said we were analyzing the doctrine I was saying what I feel like should have happened now before a CP change. You have some deep seated anger issues about this clearly as you have to tell people to “get out” of a discussion after asking for an opinion

I didn't ask for your opinion, I wanted mmpi's. Because he said and I quote: 'none of us are defending their (Guardsmen's) current points'. Except you it looks like.

So while we're here what's your reasoning for believing 4ppm Guardsmen is fair if Catachan is 'tweaked'? Given all the evidence to the contrary (that I know you've seen).

Because (as I stated earlier in the thread) they do not have access to
Unit strength 40
-1 to hit
Moral immunity
VOTLW
Slannesh double tap
And last but most importantly a 40 man tide of trators which if used once more then pays for the 1 point increase. Now I do believe you could have left cultists at 4ppm even with all of the above had they needed to pay points for TOT like guard have to for SITNW. But because they don’t the bump to five seems fine. These rules is once again why cultist spam lists were popular up until now while guard spam infantry list aren’t taken (no I don’t consider filling out a min 6 squads for a cheap brigade spam) unless I’m a fluffy list

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The problem is that a "fair cost" is a very different thing when talking about an IG army and a Soup list.

No, it really isn't and this is the problem with your reasoning.

Sorry, context matters.

A fair cost is a fair cost

Ceteris paribus sure. That is not what we are dealing with here however. Basic econ 101 concept here.

Imagine that all units and stratagems were equally balanced against each other across all factions - soup wouldn't be an issue at all. It would be a decision based on preference of aesthetics and fluff, rather than performance.

Except different armies function in different ways and stuff has different values in different contexts and thats why we have often similar or identical stuff with different costs in different armies.

Different armies have different strenghts and weaknesses. They have access to different things. Relatively little of this game is balanced with mixing everything in mind and the track record we have is that GW's primary balance focus is on internal codex balance.

When the allies systems allows armies to partake of units, capabilities, and other things they werent designed around having, we get absurdly powerful stuff that mixes elements of many different factions. Diversification has real power.

The overwhelming dominance of Soup lists, and the near total absence of mono lists at the competitivr level illustrates that better than any words I can write here.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Guardsmen without orders or support are 4ppm models.

Pleas Sir? Can my Grots pay +1pt per model, and get extra shots, movement, str, tough, Sv, range, ws and ld?

Moriarty wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Guardsmen without orders or support are 4ppm models.

Pleas Sir? Can my Grots pay +1pt per model, and get extra shots, movement, str, tough, Sv, range, ws and ld?

Sure! Grots probably should be 2ppm anyways.

Moriarty wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Guardsmen without orders or support are 4ppm models.

Pleas Sir? Can my Grots pay +1pt per model, and get extra shots, movement, str, tough, Sv, range, ws and ld?

Can we make it so guardsmen can start taking shots for tanks or HWTs? ill take a reduced stat line for that ability any day

Anyone arguing that allies is the issue seems to have forgotten the last two editions where theoretically your Tyranid army could've ran Scatterbikes if it wanted. In my Necron army, I could run a Tyranid detachment with 3 Flyrants with little recourse.

Armies being able to ally in Scatterbikes and Flyrants didn't lead to them being broken. They were already broken by themselves due to how they were designed. CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

Moriarty wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Guardsmen without orders or support are 4ppm models.

Pleas Sir? Can my Grots pay +1pt per model, and get extra shots, movement, str, tough, Sv, range, ws and ld?

Can we make it so guardsmen can start taking shots for tanks or HWTs? ill take a reduced stat line for that ability any day

It's a Strategem. And no, you wouldn't actually take it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Anyone arguing that allies is the issue seems to have forgotten the last two editions where theoretically your Tyranid army could've ran Scatterbikes if it wanted. In my Necron army, I could run a Tyranid detachment with 3 Flyrants with little recourse.

Armies being able to ally in Scatterbikes and Flyrants didn't lead to them being broken. They were already broken by themselves due to how they were designed. CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

Moriarty wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Guardsmen without orders or support are 4ppm models.

Pleas Sir? Can my Grots pay +1pt per model, and get extra shots, movement, str, tough, Sv, range, ws and ld?

Can we make it so guardsmen can start taking shots for tanks or HWTs? ill take a reduced stat line for that ability any day

It's a Strategem. And no, you wouldn't actually take it.

yeah, I would in a second..... do you know how good tank commanders would be if i could spend a cp and transfer wounds to conscripts

Also, Id argue that what you can do with your CP and your ability to generate it is the single most important factor in an army this edition and I think the splash that vect caused before its cost adjustment is good evidence that it's a true statement. The dominance of soup points to this as well because as once again a recurring issue has been dumping CP into units that don't have access to enough CP to spam those useful strategems. For instance, knights have never been an issue outside the ability to spam cp from guard. Thats why "CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past" doesn't hold up. Those "few moments" are making and breaking whole armies

Knights were an issue the moment they got their codex and you know that. That's part of their poor design and the universal "hey all the relics cost the same". They can get CP all on their own using the mini-knights and actually have a functional army.

What Guard bring is simply a few more CP and better objective coverage. For the price of an Armiger, why wouldn't you take it?

You also have yet to prove Flyrants and Scatterbikes were broken in 7th because everyone could take them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Knights were an issue the moment they got their codex and you know that. That's part of their poor design and the universal "hey all the relics cost the same". They can get CP all on their own using the mini-knights and actually have a functional army.

What Guard bring is simply a few more CP and better objective coverage. For the price of an Armiger, why wouldn't you take it?

You also have yet to prove Flyrants and Scatterbikes were broken in 7th because everyone could take them.

“Few more CP”

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Knights were an issue the moment they got their codex and you know that. That's part of their poor design and the universal "hey all the relics cost the same". They can get CP all on their own using the mini-knights and actually have a functional army.

What Guard bring is simply a few more CP and better objective coverage. For the price of an Armiger, why wouldn't you take it?

You also have yet to prove Flyrants and Scatterbikes were broken in 7th because everyone could take them.

First off don't you want them to have a functioning army?
Secondly, they had a day 1 FAQ so they could get CP
Thirdly, I don't remember knights "being an issue the moment they got their codex" outside of soup. Mono knights were more a gatekeeper list then anything meta dominating

 Apple Peel wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Knights were an issue the moment they got their codex and you know that. That's part of their poor design and the universal "hey all the relics cost the same". They can get CP all on their own using the mini-knights and actually have a functional army.

What Guard bring is simply a few more CP and better objective coverage. For the price of an Armiger, why wouldn't you take it?

You also have yet to prove Flyrants and Scatterbikes were broken in 7th because everyone could take them.

“Few more CP”

Yeah, it IS only a few more. Are you gonna argue otherwise or make more emoticon gestures.

Right back to the maths to answer the question

1 basic infantry squad 40 points 5+ Sv

At 24 inches
9 lasgun shots
Hit on 4+ wound T3 on 4+ Ap0
2.25 wounds before armour

Within 12
18 lasgun shots and a laspistol
4.75 wounds before armour

Firewarriors
6 with just rifles is 42 points 4+ Sv
Hit on 4+ wound T3 on 3+ Ap0
2 wounds before armour

In 15
4 wounds before armour.

Add orders and the guard get further ahead.

Cultists at post CA2018
10 cultist at 50 points 6+Sv
10 autoguns
Hit on 4+ wound T3 on 4+ Ap0
2.5 wounds before armour

5 wounds before armour

Asmodios wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Knights were an issue the moment they got their codex and you know that. That's part of their poor design and the universal "hey all the relics cost the same". They can get CP all on their own using the mini-knights and actually have a functional army.

What Guard bring is simply a few more CP and better objective coverage. For the price of an Armiger, why wouldn't you take it?

You also have yet to prove Flyrants and Scatterbikes were broken in 7th because everyone could take them.

First off don't you want them to have a functioning army?
Secondly, they had a day 1 FAQ so they could get CP
Thirdly, I don't remember knights "being an issue the moment they got their codex" outside of soup. Mono knights were more a gatekeeper list then anything meta dominating

1. Should Imperial Knights be a functioning army on their own? Absolutely, sure. I was one of the people defending them when they were first released, after all. Heck, I used to own a Styrix that I used as a Magaera (already not a great choice too) and I loved it.
The issue is how universal principles are applied (all the relics are free, as obviously even their Reaper Chainsword weapon is worth the same as the dinky Chainsword that Loyalists and Alpha Legion get) or ignored (give everyone a Warlord Trait and relic for only a few more CP).
The codex needs a full rewrite.
2. That day 1 FAQ kinda proves they didn't put much thought into Knights, doesn't it?
3. A single codex shouldn't be a "gatekeeper". That's not how the game should work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:
Right back to the maths to answer the question

1 basic infantry squad 40 points

At 24 inches
9 lasgun shots
Hit on 4+ wound T3 on 4+ Ap0
2.25 wounds before armour

Within 12
18 lasgun shots and a laspistol
4.75 wounds before armour

Firewarriors
6 with just rifles is 42 points
Hit on 4+ wound T3 on 3+ Ap0
2 wounds before armour

In 15
4 wounds before armour.

Add orders and the guard get further ahead.

Technically with the Fire Warriors being 42 to the Infantry's 40, you can add a Bolter to the Sergeant and let him contribute!

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Anyone arguing that allies is the issue seems to have forgotten the last two editions where theoretically your Tyranid army could've ran Scatterbikes if it wanted. In my Necron army, I could run a Tyranid detachment with 3 Flyrants with little recourse.

Armies being able to ally in Scatterbikes and Flyrants didn't lead to them being broken. They were already broken by themselves due to how they were designed. CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

Moriarty wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Guardsmen without orders or support are 4ppm models.

Pleas Sir? Can my Grots pay +1pt per model, and get extra shots, movement, str, tough, Sv, range, ws and ld?

Can we make it so guardsmen can start taking shots for tanks or HWTs? ill take a reduced stat line for that ability any day

It's a Strategem. And no, you wouldn't actually take it.

yeah, I would in a second..... do you know how good tank commanders would be if i could spend a cp and transfer wounds to conscripts

Also, Id argue that what you can do with your CP and your ability to generate it is the single most important factor in an army this edition and I think the splash that vect caused before its cost adjustment is good evidence that it's a true statement. The dominance of soup points to this as well because as once again a recurring issue has been dumping CP into units that don't have access to enough CP to spam those useful strategems. For instance, knights have never been an issue outside the ability to spam cp from guard. Thats why "CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past" doesn't hold up. Those "few moments" are making and breaking whole armies

Shame it only works on INFANTRY then isn't it? Do you have a clue about half of what you write?

And can you stop desperately trying to take the discussion away from Guardsmen (that are the topic).

Your reasoning for wanting the most powerful point for point troop unit is because they don't get the same access to stratagems and powers that cultists have? Pathetic.

Guardsmen are better than Cultists point for point when they're both the same cost, they trade the damage output of Cultists for a massive boost in durability. Now that cultists are a point more the difference is even more vast.

We're discussing Guardsmen, I'm getting sick of the apologists desperately trying to take the thread into a discussion around soup by means of a pitiful defence. Guardsmen are point for point too efficient. It has been evidenced time and time and time again. Regardless of any changes to soup and CP, their cost needs to increase.

I can't wait until this topic comes up again and all you apologists ask for the maths on Guardsmen over performing, again. It truly never gets old.

wow you are just angry today... settle down buddy its supposed to be a friendly discussion. I know it works only on infantry I was simply musing on how it would be amazing IF i could take wounds for a tank commander because I've found that most of my friends immediately kill them each game. Also, why is it that i'm "desperately trying to take the discussion away from Guardsmen" when i was responding to someones else's post about grots? I think you might wanna take a break and a few deep breaths.