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.
I think part of the disconnect is often how the information is presented (we saw a lot of this in the old conscript threads as well).
It will be stated that Guardsmen have the best defense (often putting them in cover)
Best board control (using MMM)
Best damage output (using FRFSRF)
all while simultaneously being the best back objective holder and best screener
But doing any one of the above renders the other ones inefficient that turn
If you are just sitting in cover holding an objective you most likely aren't effectively screening arent in rapid fire range of any anything
If you are going for board control with MMM then you typically aren't in cover, you aren't shooting, you're not screening
If you are using FRFSRF you first have to get 2 squads and CC into position with 0 casualties. You most likely aren't screening, not holding an objective and not flying around the board using MMM Yet these arguments are almost universally used as if they are all available options at all times. These examples also rarely take into account the cost of the CC, actually only being able to do any one of these things good at one time, Physic power/ strategem force multiplier (much lower on groups of 10 vs 30-40) and most importantly the lack of abilities like TOT and Unstable Green Tide. For example at 4ppm you can bring back a possible 156 points in a game (with repositioning) an ork at 6ppm can bring back 174 points. GW has put a premium on free points this edition making you pay upfront one way or another
This is where your slightly misleading the argument.
All of those orders are available at all time's due to HQ's being mandatory in detachments and Guard ones being cheap.
Being able to decied on a turn by turn unit be unit basis if they are going to run 18+ inches this turn, or fall back and shoot, or become the most rediculous speedshooters. Is actually worth more than just having one permanent buff as you have flexibility to do whatever you need that unit to do.
Removing those heavy weapons doesn't really fix the problem because Mortars are merely a bonus at that point.
Which is it: are Mortars a big draw or a "bonus"?
Also everything is conjecture. You saying removing CP sharing fixes a problem. I'm saying that's not even close to the problem.
And quite frankly, you'd be wrong. What's the consistent issue that we keep seeing and how armies are being setup?
For CP sharing when possible.
AdMech can do easy Batallions for CP. So can Sisters.
Which is the one being consistently used again?
Which is the one that actually synergizes again?
AdMech "can do easy Battalions for CP"...but then their unit that is effectively the IS equivalent doesn't synergize with the HQ choices available. It's astonishing how quickly people seem to forget that Skitarii don't benefit from an HQ choice that is for them and they don't have their benefit that they used to(Doctrina Imperatives) outside of it being a Stratagem now...and the fricking Stratagem requires a Data-Tether to get to where the previous ones put you.
Sisters are seemingly still in flux. I don't care enough about them to really say anything beyond "I'm sure someone has done it".
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Except it won't stop Infantry from being taken for the other tools they bring to the table. It just makes Custodes and Knights weaker (though the latter needs a hit anyway).
That's an assumption. It really is. It's also worth noting that there are mechanisms in place that could have been utilized to make it so that Custodes and Knights could benefit more from the Detachments that they can reliably field.
I'd like to point out, again, that I've also suggested Mortars, Lascannons, and other "two man team" weapon options need to be removed from Infantry Squads or be given a "move OR fire" requirement as part of alleviating one of the sillier reasons to take them. Or that <Regiment> Infantry units need to be entirely reworked, period.
Removing those heavy weapons doesn't really fix the problem because Mortars are merely a bonus at that point.
Also everything is conjecture. You saying removing CP sharing fixes a problem. I'm saying that's not even close to the problem. AdMech can do easy Batallions for CP. So can Sisters.
Which is the one being consistently used again?
The one that gives cheap CP, a bonus 5-6 CP and the most bubble wrap for your soup. Also, CA just dropped with new sisters and Ad mech pricing so that impact hasn't also been seen (but not much will change without CP sharing changing. Think we have what 10 days or something for LVO list submission? it's going to be interesting seeing what the top players are thinking.
I think part of the disconnect is often how the information is presented (we saw a lot of this in the old conscript threads as well).
It will be stated that Guardsmen have the best defense (often putting them in cover)
Best board control (using MMM)
Best damage output (using FRFSRF)
all while simultaneously being the best back objective holder and best screener
But doing any one of the above renders the other ones inefficient that turn
If you are just sitting in cover holding an objective you most likely aren't effectively screening arent in rapid fire range of any anything
If you are going for board control with MMM then you typically aren't in cover, you aren't shooting, you're not screening
If you are using FRFSRF you first have to get 2 squads and CC into position with 0 casualties. You most likely aren't screening, not holding an objective and not flying around the board using MMM Yet these arguments are almost universally used as if they are all available options at all times. These examples also rarely take into account the cost of the CC, actually only being able to do any one of these things good at one time, Physic power/ strategem force multiplier (much lower on groups of 10 vs 30-40) and most importantly the lack of abilities like TOT and Unstable Green Tide. For example at 4ppm you can bring back a possible 156 points in a game (with repositioning) an ork at 6ppm can bring back 174 points. GW has put a premium on free points this edition making you pay upfront one way or another
This is where your slightly misleading the argument.
All of those orders are available at all time's due to HQ's being mandatory in detachments and Guard ones being cheap.
Being able to decied on a turn by turn unit be unit basis if they are going to run 18+ inches this turn, or fall back and shoot, or become the most rediculous speedshooters. Is actually worth more than just having one permanent buff as you have flexibility to do whatever you need that unit to do.
Once again there is a severe limitation on those orders though. and there is a cost to those orders when doing a price comparison. That also doesn't address unit size limitations so less bang for your buck on strategems and psychic powers. Also the free points in the game through TOT and UGW.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/29 18:33:23
I think part of the disconnect is often how the information is presented (we saw a lot of this in the old conscript threads as well).
It will be stated that Guardsmen have the best defense (often putting them in cover)
Best board control (using MMM)
Best damage output (using FRFSRF)
all while simultaneously being the best back objective holder and best screener
But doing any one of the above renders the other ones inefficient that turn
If you are just sitting in cover holding an objective you most likely aren't effectively screening arent in rapid fire range of any anything
If you are going for board control with MMM then you typically aren't in cover, you aren't shooting, you're not screening
If you are using FRFSRF you first have to get 2 squads and CC into position with 0 casualties. You most likely aren't screening, not holding an objective and not flying around the board using MMM Yet these arguments are almost universally used as if they are all available options at all times. These examples also rarely take into account the cost of the CC, actually only being able to do any one of these things good at one time, Physic power/ strategem force multiplier (much lower on groups of 10 vs 30-40) and most importantly the lack of abilities like TOT and Unstable Green Tide. For example at 4ppm you can bring back a possible 156 points in a game (with repositioning) an ork at 6ppm can bring back 174 points. GW has put a premium on free points this edition making you pay upfront one way or another
I think this is very, very misrepresentative. The disconnect is primarily apologists refusing to accept reality.
In a previous post on an earlier page we can see that Guardsmen have better durability than Eldar rangers when the latter are in cover and the Guardsmen are standing in the open. It is obvious their durability is incredible. They are 4ppm with T3 and a 5+ save. That is insane. Grots, for comparison are 3ppm with T2 and a 6+ save.
We know the damage output of Guardsmen without orders is higher than almost every other troop (against their preferred targets. With orders this damage output goes from 'slightly above' to 'omfg why would I not take this troop?! above'.
Not only are they one of the most durable and one of the most damaging troops in the game base but they also have huge flexibility afforded by orders. Flexibility that makes no sense on the tabletop or in the fluff. Guardsmen should never, ever, ever under any circumstances be able to move faster than a plane or than a Harlequin half demon thing.
I'm genuinely amazed that GW haven't increased their points cost, I hope you IG players understand what a bullet you've somehow dodged. I seriously hope it's corrected soon though, the meta is becoming really stagnant.
Its not just Infantry that need adjusting by the way. Castellans not going up in CA was incredible. As was Skit Rangers going down. Obviously soup brings its own set of problems that need to be addressed too. But they are all different discussions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/29 18:46:51
I think part of the disconnect is often how the information is presented (we saw a lot of this in the old conscript threads as well).
It will be stated that Guardsmen have the best defense (often putting them in cover)
Best board control (using MMM)
Best damage output (using FRFSRF)
all while simultaneously being the best back objective holder and best screener
But doing any one of the above renders the other ones inefficient that turn
If you are just sitting in cover holding an objective you most likely aren't effectively screening arent in rapid fire range of any anything
If you are going for board control with MMM then you typically aren't in cover, you aren't shooting, you're not screening
If you are using FRFSRF you first have to get 2 squads and CC into position with 0 casualties. You most likely aren't screening, not holding an objective and not flying around the board using MMM Yet these arguments are almost universally used as if they are all available options at all times. These examples also rarely take into account the cost of the CC, actually only being able to do any one of these things good at one time, Physic power/ strategem force multiplier (much lower on groups of 10 vs 30-40) and most importantly the lack of abilities like TOT and Unstable Green Tide. For example at 4ppm you can bring back a possible 156 points in a game (with repositioning) an ork at 6ppm can bring back 174 points. GW has put a premium on free points this edition making you pay upfront one way or another
I think this is very, very misrepresentative. The disconnect is primarily apologists refusing to accept reality.
In a previous post on an earlier page we can see that Guardsmen have better durability than Eldar rangers when the latter are in cover and the Guardsmen are standing in the open. It is obvious their durability is incredible. They are 4ppm with T3 and a 5+ save. That is insane. Grots, for comparison are 3ppm with T2 and a 6+ save.
We know the damage output of Guardsmen without orders is higher than almost every other troop (against their preferred targets. With orders this damage output goes from 'slightly above' to 'omfg why would I not take this troop?! above'.
Not only are they one of the most durable and one of the most damaging troops in the game base but they also have huge flexibility afforded by orders. Flexibility that makes no sense on the tabletop or in the fluff. Guardsmen should never, ever, ever under any circumstances be able to move faster than a plane or than a Harlequin half demon thing.
I'm genuinely amazed that GW haven't increased their points cost, I hope you IG players understand what a bullet you've somehow dodged. I seriously hope it's corrected soon though, the meta is becoming really stagnant.
Its not just Infantry that need adjusting by the way. Castellans not going up in CA was incredible. As was Skit Rangers going down. Obviously soup brings its own set of problems that need to be addressed too. But they are all different discussions.
GW is only balancing codices internally, not externally.
I think part of the disconnect is often how the information is presented (we saw a lot of this in the old conscript threads as well).
It will be stated that Guardsmen have the best defense (often putting them in cover)
Best board control (using MMM)
Best damage output (using FRFSRF)
all while simultaneously being the best back objective holder and best screener
But doing any one of the above renders the other ones inefficient that turn
If you are just sitting in cover holding an objective you most likely aren't effectively screening arent in rapid fire range of any anything
If you are going for board control with MMM then you typically aren't in cover, you aren't shooting, you're not screening
If you are using FRFSRF you first have to get 2 squads and CC into position with 0 casualties. You most likely aren't screening, not holding an objective and not flying around the board using MMM Yet these arguments are almost universally used as if they are all available options at all times. These examples also rarely take into account the cost of the CC, actually only being able to do any one of these things good at one time, Physic power/ strategem force multiplier (much lower on groups of 10 vs 30-40) and most importantly the lack of abilities like TOT and Unstable Green Tide. For example at 4ppm you can bring back a possible 156 points in a game (with repositioning) an ork at 6ppm can bring back 174 points. GW has put a premium on free points this edition making you pay upfront one way or another
I think this is very, very misrepresentative. The disconnect is primarily apologists refusing to accept reality.
In a previous post on an earlier page we can see that Guardsmen have better durability than Eldar rangers when the latter are in cover and the Guardsmen are standing in the open. It is obvious their durability is incredible. They are 4ppm with T3 and a 5+ save. That is insane. Grots, for comparison are 3ppm with T2 and a 6+ save.
We know the damage output of Guardsmen without orders is higher than almost every other troop (against their preferred targets. With orders this damage output goes from 'slightly above' to 'omfg why would I not take this troop?! above'.
Not only are they one of the most durable and one of the most damaging troops in the game base but they also have huge flexibility afforded by orders. Flexibility that makes no sense on the tabletop or in the fluff. Guardsmen should never, ever, ever under any circumstances be able to move faster than a plane or than a Harlequin half demon thing.
I'm genuinely amazed that GW haven't increased their points cost, I hope you IG players understand what a bullet you've somehow dodged. I seriously hope it's corrected soon though, the meta is becoming really stagnant.
Its not just Infantry that need adjusting by the way. Castellans not going up in CA was incredible. As was Skit Rangers going down. Obviously soup brings its own set of problems that need to be addressed too. But they are all different discussions.
Once again though you are looking at the game in far too narrow of a vacuum. For instance on grots not recognizing the sheer utility of a strategem like grot shields paired with lootas. The disconnect seems to be people who think "unit a standing x inches away from unit b will do y more damage per turn" is the end all be all of unit balance and those saying that there is far more to the game than that. It's my point from pages back that if "guard in FRFSRF" was the sole metric deriving balance then we should be seeing armies of nothing but guardsmen and CC dominating the game. But the simple fact is mono guard can barely ever place along with soup and the best performing mono dex in the game is DE. Clearly, there is more to balance than "guardsmen FRFSRF" statistics. Clearly GW who now has groups of testers all over the place working on balance agrees that there is more to this games balance then placing guardsmen within rapid fire range on sub T6 targets
This is where your slightly misleading the argument.
He really isn't. It boggles the mind that people think that he is "misleading the argument" while pointing out that there are three definitives with regards to Orders:
1) Officers have a limited number of them that can be issued. This can be modified via Warlord Traits(specifically #6 on the basic Guard table, which grants VoC to a model or an additional Order if they already are able to or the Cadian WT which on a 4+ lets you apply the same Order to a unit of the same type[Infantry or Tank]), a Relic(roll a 4+ with Laurels of Command and you get to issue an additional[can't be the same!] Order to the unit you just issued an Order to), a Stratagem(Inspired Tactics--1CP, immediately after issuing an Order you can do another one) or as another potential bit for Cadians--a specific character(Jarran Kell).
2) Once you've been issued an Order? You're done. The only exception is Laurels of Command granting an additional Order.
3) Like begets like. Tank Commanders can't Order Infantry units and vice versa.
All of those orders are available at all time's due to HQ's being mandatory in detachments and Guard ones being cheap.
Guard ones being cheap means nothing when you literally cannot provide more than one buff on a unit at a time.
Being able to decied on a turn by turn unit be unit basis if they are going to run 18+ inches this turn, or fall back and shoot, or become the most rediculous speedshooters. Is actually worth more than just having one permanent buff as you have flexibility to do whatever you need that unit to do.
That's not what GW's designers feel apparently. They have apparently decided that auras are priced higher given that they can be layered(X gives rerolls to Hit rolls, Y gives rerolls to Wound rolls, Z gives the ability to Pile In or Shoot before models are removed, etc) while Guard Orders need a Relic to be 'layered' and that can only happen one time.
I think this is very, very misrepresentative. The disconnect is primarily apologists refusing to accept reality.
In a previous post on an earlier page we can see that Guardsmen have better durability than Eldar rangers when the latter are in cover and the Guardsmen are standing in the open. It is obvious their durability is incredible. They are 4ppm with T3 and a 5+ save. That is insane. Grots, for comparison are 3ppm with T2 and a 6+ save.
And that math doesn't add up.
You have a -1 to be hit and a 3+ save, yet somehow the Guardsmen in the open "have better durability than Eldar Rangers"?
We know the damage output of Guardsmen without orders is higher than almost every other troop (against their preferred targets. With orders this damage output goes from 'slightly above' to 'omfg why would I not take this troop?! above'.
Again, wonderful qualifiers! Why is it that you always have qualifiers? You stress the "without Orders" part and then immediately try to downplay the "against their preferred targets" bit.
Not only are they one of the most durable and one of the most damaging troops in the game base but they also have huge flexibility afforded by orders. Flexibility that makes no sense on the tabletop or in the fluff. Guardsmen should never, ever, ever under any circumstances be able to move faster than a plane or than a Harlequin half demon thing.
Flexibility that is afforded to them because it literally does not get bolstered by anything outside of situationals.
Also, if you have a problem with Move, Move, Move?
I'm genuinely amazed that GW haven't increased their points cost, I hope you IG players understand what a bullet you've somehow dodged. I seriously hope it's corrected soon though, the meta is becoming really stagnant.
I'm not. You lot don't seem to understand that the Infantry Squad, outside of soup, either needs a complete overhaul as part of a Guard book rewrite by someone competent or needs to be left as is.
Its not just Infantry that need adjusting by the way. Castellans not going up in CA was incredible. As was Skit Rangers going down. Obviously soup brings its own set of problems that need to be addressed too. But they are all different discussions.
No they really aren't. For whatever reason you are ALWAYS in these threads whining and whining and whining about Guard. You were in the Conscript threads, the Commissar threads, and now these.
Soup is the issue. Guard needed a complete overhaul from the ground up for this new edition, not to be one of the early books. Don't like what happened? Tell GW you want someone competent put in charge of the Guard rewrite and stress you want an overhaul, not just a slight shift.
I think part of the disconnect is often how the information is presented (we saw a lot of this in the old conscript threads as well).
It will be stated that Guardsmen have the best defense (often putting them in cover)
Best board control (using MMM)
Best damage output (using FRFSRF)
all while simultaneously being the best back objective holder and best screener
But doing any one of the above renders the other ones inefficient that turn
If you are just sitting in cover holding an objective you most likely aren't effectively screening arent in rapid fire range of any anything
If you are going for board control with MMM then you typically aren't in cover, you aren't shooting, you're not screening
If you are using FRFSRF you first have to get 2 squads and CC into position with 0 casualties. You most likely aren't screening, not holding an objective and not flying around the board using MMM Yet these arguments are almost universally used as if they are all available options at all times. These examples also rarely take into account the cost of the CC, actually only being able to do any one of these things good at one time, Physic power/ strategem force multiplier (much lower on groups of 10 vs 30-40) and most importantly the lack of abilities like TOT and Unstable Green Tide. For example at 4ppm you can bring back a possible 156 points in a game (with repositioning) an ork at 6ppm can bring back 174 points. GW has put a premium on free points this edition making you pay upfront one way or another
I think this is very, very misrepresentative. The disconnect is primarily apologists refusing to accept reality.
In a previous post on an earlier page we can see that Guardsmen have better durability than Eldar rangers when the latter are in cover and the Guardsmen are standing in the open. It is obvious their durability is incredible. They are 4ppm with T3 and a 5+ save. That is insane. Grots, for comparison are 3ppm with T2 and a 6+ save.
We know the damage output of Guardsmen without orders is higher than almost every other troop (against their preferred targets. With orders this damage output goes from 'slightly above' to 'omfg why would I not take this troop?! above'.
Not only are they one of the most durable and one of the most damaging troops in the game base but they also have huge flexibility afforded by orders. Flexibility that makes no sense on the tabletop or in the fluff. Guardsmen should never, ever, ever under any circumstances be able to move faster than a plane or than a Harlequin half demon thing.
I'm genuinely amazed that GW haven't increased their points cost, I hope you IG players understand what a bullet you've somehow dodged. I seriously hope it's corrected soon though, the meta is becoming really stagnant.
Its not just Infantry that need adjusting by the way. Castellans not going up in CA was incredible. As was Skit Rangers going down. Obviously soup brings its own set of problems that need to be addressed too. But they are all different discussions.
Castellans are not a proble,.
A trait making them 4++ (and then 3++) is a problem.
Once again though you are looking at the game in far too narrow of a vacuum. For instance on grots not recognizing the sheer utility of a strategem like grot shields paired with lootas. The disconnect seems to be people who think "unit a standing x inches away from unit b will do y more damage per turn" is the end all be all of unit balance and those saying that there is far more to the game than that. It's my point from pages back that if "guard in FRFSRF" was the sole metric deriving balance then we should be seeing armies of nothing but guardsmen and CC dominating the game. But the simple fact is mono guard can barely ever place along with soup and the best performing mono dex in the game is DE. Clearly, there is more to balance than "guardsmen FRFSRF" statistics. Clearly GW who now has groups of testers all over the place working on balance agrees that there is more to this games balance then placing guardsmen within rapid fire range on sub T6 targets
So Grots are ONLY taken for the Grot shield stratagem and to provide cheap CP to Ork lists. They are also a requirement of Lootas to function so Lootas are effectively 20 pt models.
My view is not narrow. Quite the opposite. I'm comparing the durability, damage output and versatility of Guardsmen to every other troop in the game and they come out on top in almost every situation. This isn't just a comparison of 'unit a standing x inches away from unit b dealing y damage' as you wrongly state above. In very simple terms Guard to almost everything better than their competitors, whether it is dealing damage, soaking damage (at any distance), holding objectives, screening, board control and contesting objectives - they do it better. This is a problem for the game because it means they are the most attractive troop bar none. We can see this with a number of high placing chaos lists taking renegade Guardsmen instead of Cultists back when they were 4ppm.
Please stop misrepresenting my argument. I have never said the game and balance boils down to FRFSRF statistics. This is just a useful indicator as to why Guardsmen are so popular. And make no mistake - they are the most popular troop in the entire game at the moment. This should be enough to tell you something is wrong.
I have to be honest - I don't trust GW's testers or their ability to balance one bit while the Stompa costs over 900 pts and while they think there is any value to the Mek shop.
Finally - mono Guard are incredibly competitive and have placed top more than once, beating the dreaded soup list. Regardless PRIMARY Guard (which is the measure we should use for competitive discussions) is the second best performing faction after Ynarri (for obvious reasons). Stop pretending that the lack of mono Guard lists has any bearing on the strength of Guardsmen or that you 'should see lists of nothing but Guardsmen'. That is extremely misrepresentative of the argument put forward which is, for the hundredth time and for clarity: that Guardsmen are the best troop unit in the game and are too cheap for all they offer a player.
No they really aren't. For whatever reason you are ALWAYS in these threads whining and whining and whining about Guard. You were in the Conscript threads, the Commissar threads, and now these.
Soup is the issue. Guard needed a complete overhaul from the ground up for this new edition, not to be one of the early books. Don't like what happened? Tell GW you want someone competent put in charge of the Guard rewrite and stress you want an overhaul, not just a slight shift.
Kanluwen your arguments are so poorly constructed that you have become a meme on these boards for what a 'Guard apologist' looks like. Its like you were patient zero of the apologists that spawned all the others somehow. Unhappy at the Guard book despite it containing evidently some of the strongest units in the game. You are a joke and I can't take what you say seriously.
Take note of the maths above that is correct and try to integrate it into your discussion around this topic. Your beliefs are wrong. You are wrong. It can be evidenced and you make yourself look stupid when you are proven wrong so quickly and easily.
Once again though you are looking at the game in far too narrow of a vacuum. For instance on grots not recognizing the sheer utility of a strategem like grot shields paired with lootas. The disconnect seems to be people who think "unit a standing x inches away from unit b will do y more damage per turn" is the end all be all of unit balance and those saying that there is far more to the game than that. It's my point from pages back that if "guard in FRFSRF" was the sole metric deriving balance then we should be seeing armies of nothing but guardsmen and CC dominating the game. But the simple fact is mono guard can barely ever place along with soup and the best performing mono dex in the game is DE. Clearly, there is more to balance than "guardsmen FRFSRF" statistics. Clearly GW who now has groups of testers all over the place working on balance agrees that there is more to this games balance then placing guardsmen within rapid fire range on sub T6 targets
So Grots are ONLY taken for the Grot shield stratagem and to provide cheap CP to Ork lists. They are also a requirement of Lootas to function so Lootas are effectively 20 pt models.
My view is not narrow. Quite the opposite. I'm comparing the durability, damage output and versatility of Guardsmen to every other troop in the game and they come out on top in almost every situation. This isn't just a comparison of 'unit a standing x inches away from unit b dealing y damage' as you wrongly state above. In very simple terms Guard to almost everything better than their competitors, whether it is dealing damage, soaking damage (at any distance), holding objectives, screening, board control and contesting objectives - they do it better. This is a problem for the game because it means they are the most attractive troop bar none. We can see this with a number of high placing chaos lists taking renegade Guardsmen instead of Cultists back when they were 4ppm.
Please stop misrepresenting my argument. I have never said the game and balance boils down to FRFSRF statistics. This is just a useful indicator as to why Guardsmen are so popular. And make no mistake - they are the most popular troop in the entire game at the moment. This should be enough to tell you something is wrong.
I have to be honest - I don't trust GW's testers or their ability to balance one bit while the Stompa costs over 900 pts and while they think there is any value to the Mek shop.
Finally - mono Guard are incredibly competitive and have placed top more than once, beating the dreaded soup list. Regardless PRIMARY Guard (which is the measure we should use for competitive discussions) is the second best performing faction after Ynarri (for obvious reasons). Stop pretending that the lack of mono Guard lists has any bearing on the strength of Guardsmen or that you 'should see lists of nothing but Guardsmen'. That is extremely misrepresentative of the argument put forward which is, for the hundredth time and for clarity: that Guardsmen are the best troop unit in the game and are too cheap for all they offer a player.
No they really aren't. For whatever reason you are ALWAYS in these threads whining and whining and whining about Guard. You were in the Conscript threads, the Commissar threads, and now these.
Soup is the issue. Guard needed a complete overhaul from the ground up for this new edition, not to be one of the early books. Don't like what happened? Tell GW you want someone competent put in charge of the Guard rewrite and stress you want an overhaul, not just a slight shift.
Kanluwen your arguments are so poorly constructed that you have become a meme on these boards for what a 'Guard apologist' looks like. Its like you were patient zero of the apologists that spawned all the others somehow. Unhappy at the Guard book despite it containing evidently some of the strongest units in the game. You are a joke and I can't take what you say seriously.
Take note of the maths above that is correct and try to integrate it into your discussion around this topic. Your beliefs are wrong. You are wrong. It can be evidenced and you make yourself look stupid when you are proven wrong so quickly and easily.
A trait making them 4++ (and then 3++) is a problem.
Cawl's wrath is a problem.
Fix those two and the castellan is fine.
I disagree but that discussion is not for this thread.
See the way you brush off grots and loota combo is part of the issue here. Mono orks (obviously) went to a GT immediately after their book dropped running that list and absolutely spanked the competition for a first place win. Obviously a very imposing combination both mathematically and in practice. Your test for guards survivability and damage output is obviously far to narrow for real game application. You are holding far to many variables constant and that's why your math doesn't line up with reality usage by top players in the game. infantry guard mono cannot walk out and destroy a GT because the game is not (20 guardsmen sitting 12 inches from unit x using FRFSRF). In fact, top players consistently use guard to fill out a minimum battalion or brigade (much more common after CP regen nerf) suggesting that their main strength is, in fact, cheap bodies for CP. All this complaining is also directly on the backend of CA when we have yet to acquire any data on the effect of game wide point changes. You can continue to throw out incredibly narrow focused math hammer but until real-world gaming results match up with it you probably arent going to get far with your arguments.
Edit: was just reading this and it puts into perspective what i wrote above http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/12/40k-top-list-of-the-week-december-29th-imperial-knights-dethroned.html this week alone IG has dropped 5 places in the most winning category and 4 in most played (looks like CA is having an effect). This is also including them as a primary, not a mono which would drop their power even more. CSM actually beat them out this week for most winning faction after the cultist nerfs and they are sitting one spot ahead of necrons for the week which the general consensious is they are pretty bad.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/29 19:55:17
See the way you brush off grots and loota combo is part of the issue here. Mono orks (obviously) went to a GT immediately after their book dropped running that list and absolutely spanked the competition for a first place win.
Why is it when Orks win a GT they ‘absolutely spanked the competition’ but when primary Guard win it’s because of soup?
How many GTs have primary Guard won?
Obviously a very imposing combination both mathematically and in practice.
Just like Guardsmen. Except Guardsmen have a lot more data (more than a single GT) proving their value in reality. Data you repeatedly ignore for some reason.
Your test for guards survivability and damage output is obviously far to narrow for real game application.
Why?
You are holding far to many variables constant and that's why your math doesn't line up with reality usage by top players in the game.
What? My maths absolutely lines up with reality usage by top players. Guardsmen are by far the most popular troop choice, which makes sense because they are also the best mathematically.
infantry guard mono cannot walk out and destroy a GT because the game is not (20 guardsmen sitting 12 inches from unit x using FRFSRF).
Mono Guard can and have walked out and destroyed a GT. This has literally happened.
In fact, top players consistently use guard to fill out a minimum battalion or brigade (much more common after CP regen nerf) suggesting that their main strength is, in fact, cheap bodies for CP.
No, this is where you keep twisting the facts and getting confused. Imperial soup players have the option of taking almost any troop in the game. They actively choose to take Guardsmen to fill their detachments. It is not *just* because they are cheap CP, this can be evidenced because other factions that Imperial soup players have access to provide cheaper CP gains. I believe that the cheap CP provision is one reason, as well as the myriad of others that have been discussed in this thread already including (but not limited to); excellent durability, excellent damage output, incredible versatility and excellent board control.
All this complaining is also directly on the backend of CA when we have yet to acquire any data on the effect of game wide point changes. You can continue to throw out incredibly narrow focused math hammer but until real-world gaming results match up with it you probably arent going to get far with your arguments.
This is hilarious for a few reasons, the primary one is that REAL-WORLD GAMING RESULTS ALREADY MATCH UP WITH MY (and others) MATHS. As previously stated, the maths is neither narrow nor false.
Edit: was just reading this and it puts into perspective what i wrote above http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/12/40k-top-list-of-the-week-december-29th-imperial-knights-dethroned.html this week alone IG has dropped 5 places in the most winning category and 4 in most played (looks like CA is having an effect). This is also including them as a primary, not a mono which would drop their power even more. CSM actually beat them out this week for most winning faction after the cultist nerfs and they are sitting one spot ahead of necrons for the week which the general consensious is they are pretty bad.
Lol this proves nothing. December is notorious (as I believe you already stated) as having very few events. We’ll see how the meta shakes out in the months to come but I wonder what you’ll say when the results back up the maths that Guardsmen are undercosted (again)?
That BoLS article is what really annoys me about their supposed
Stats is they don't break down imperial knights vrs renegade knights.
They also don't ever break down soup lists properly, they seem to take what player's report at face value, not actually the largest single points from a codex in a list.
It's one area where I do hope the new ITC/frontline list format will help.
See the way you brush off grots and loota combo is part of the issue here. Mono orks (obviously) went to a GT immediately after their book dropped running that list and absolutely spanked the competition for a first place win.
Why is it when Orks win a GT they ‘absolutely spanked the competition’ but when primary Guard win it’s because of soup?
How many GTs have primary Guard won?
Obviously a very imposing combination both mathematically and in practice.
Just like Guardsmen. Except Guardsmen have a lot more data (more than a single GT) proving their value in reality. Data you repeatedly ignore for some reason.
Your test for guards survivability and damage output is obviously far to narrow for real game application.
Why?
You are holding far to many variables constant and that's why your math doesn't line up with reality usage by top players in the game.
What? My maths absolutely lines up with reality usage by top players. Guardsmen are by far the most popular troop choice, which makes sense because they are also the best mathematically.
infantry guard mono cannot walk out and destroy a GT because the game is not (20 guardsmen sitting 12 inches from unit x using FRFSRF).
Mono Guard can and have walked out and destroyed a GT. This has literally happened.
In fact, top players consistently use guard to fill out a minimum battalion or brigade (much more common after CP regen nerf) suggesting that their main strength is, in fact, cheap bodies for CP.
No, this is where you keep twisting the facts and getting confused. Imperial soup players have the option of taking almost any troop in the game. They actively choose to take Guardsmen to fill their detachments. It is not *just* because they are cheap CP, this can be evidenced because other factions that Imperial soup players have access to provide cheaper CP gains. I believe that the cheap CP provision is one reason, as well as the myriad of others that have been discussed in this thread already including (but not limited to); excellent durability, excellent damage output, incredible versatility and excellent board control.
All this complaining is also directly on the backend of CA when we have yet to acquire any data on the effect of game wide point changes. You can continue to throw out incredibly narrow focused math hammer but until real-world gaming results match up with it you probably arent going to get far with your arguments.
This is hilarious for a few reasons, the primary one is that REAL-WORLD GAMING RESULTS ALREADY MATCH UP WITH MY (and others) MATHS. As previously stated, the maths is neither narrow nor false.
Edit: was just reading this and it puts into perspective what i wrote above http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/12/40k-top-list-of-the-week-december-29th-imperial-knights-dethroned.html this week alone IG has dropped 5 places in the most winning category and 4 in most played (looks like CA is having an effect). This is also including them as a primary, not a mono which would drop their power even more. CSM actually beat them out this week for most winning faction after the cultist nerfs and they are sitting one spot ahead of necrons for the week which the general consensious is they are pretty bad.
Lol this proves nothing. December is notorious (as I believe you already stated) as having very few events. We’ll see how the meta shakes out in the months to come but I wonder what you’ll say when the results back up the maths that Guardsmen are undercosted (again)?
1. Because there codex just dropped guard has been out the entire edition and after the conscript nerf its been few and far between
2. Guardsmen "more data" shows they are taken to fill detachments 90% of the time
3. Yes battalions are the new hotness after the CP regen change this doesn't change the fact they are taken to fill detachments
4. nobody is arguing that soup players choose soup for guard.... they fill the roll of soup better then anyone else. nobody is doubting this
also the math is clearly narrow because we arent playing a nepolion war recreation where we line up 12 inches from eachother and just shoot. The real world aplication is off as well evidenced by such data as the article with most recent standings that i just linked
edit: so because we dont have much data post FAQ we should ignore said data to use old data pre faq?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/29 20:48:44
9 marines shoot at guardsmen.
9 shots. 6 hits. 4 wounds. 2.666 dead guardsmen. 10.666 points.
9 marines shoot at rangers.
9 shots. 4.5 hits. 3 wounds. 1 dead ranger. 12 points.
As said - same durability versus BS4+ Ap- weapons. Worse against anything better.
Best durability *for the points* I think people are missing that last part too often and attacking the first part. T3 5+ is terrible durability in concept.
So just to be clear your 57pt infantry squad kills 34.58 poiny of marine's or 61% in a single round of shooting.
Thats rediculous returns for a base infanty unit.
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.
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. 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.
What you haven't taken into consideration in that maths is how many casualties dies it take to half the units fire power?
Mainly because for most of the units compared, it'd be about the same, the only difference was directly with the Infantry Squad, and even there we're just talking about a couple dead guardsmen, none of these are stunningly resilient units.
Also, defining halved firepower can be rather hard
This SWS argument is very misleading.
- SWS do not have obsec.
- SWS lose more points of models faster and become a bigger target.
- SWS don't benefit from orders as well.
- You're mostly forced Cadian so you're not dropping your own squad.
So 18 models for 135 points or 31 models for 150 points. A round of shooting that eliminates SWS still has IS in the fight.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/29 21:10:58
Best durability *for the points* I think people are missing that last part too often and attacking the first part. T3 5+ is terrible durability in concept.
Of course. T3 5+ 1W doesn’t sound great until you realise it costs only 4 points.
See the way you brush off grots and loota combo is part of the issue here. Mono orks (obviously) went to a GT immediately after their book dropped running that list and absolutely spanked the competition for a first place win.
Why is it when Orks win a GT they ‘absolutely spanked the competition’ but when primary Guard win it’s because of soup?
How many GTs have primary Guard won?
Obviously a very imposing combination both mathematically and in practice.
Just like Guardsmen. Except Guardsmen have a lot more data (more than a single GT) proving their value in reality. Data you repeatedly ignore for some reason.
Your test for guards survivability and damage output is obviously far to narrow for real game application.
Why?
You are holding far to many variables constant and that's why your math doesn't line up with reality usage by top players in the game.
What? My maths absolutely lines up with reality usage by top players. Guardsmen are by far the most popular troop choice, which makes sense because they are also the best mathematically.
infantry guard mono cannot walk out and destroy a GT because the game is not (20 guardsmen sitting 12 inches from unit x using FRFSRF).
Mono Guard can and have walked out and destroyed a GT. This has literally happened.
In fact, top players consistently use guard to fill out a minimum battalion or brigade (much more common after CP regen nerf) suggesting that their main strength is, in fact, cheap bodies for CP.
No, this is where you keep twisting the facts and getting confused. Imperial soup players have the option of taking almost any troop in the game. They actively choose to take Guardsmen to fill their detachments. It is not *just* because they are cheap CP, this can be evidenced because other factions that Imperial soup players have access to provide cheaper CP gains. I believe that the cheap CP provision is one reason, as well as the myriad of others that have been discussed in this thread already including (but not limited to); excellent durability, excellent damage output, incredible versatility and excellent board control.
All this complaining is also directly on the backend of CA when we have yet to acquire any data on the effect of game wide point changes. You can continue to throw out incredibly narrow focused math hammer but until real-world gaming results match up with it you probably arent going to get far with your arguments.
This is hilarious for a few reasons, the primary one is that REAL-WORLD GAMING RESULTS ALREADY MATCH UP WITH MY (and others) MATHS. As previously stated, the maths is neither narrow nor false.
Edit: was just reading this and it puts into perspective what i wrote above http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/12/40k-top-list-of-the-week-december-29th-imperial-knights-dethroned.html this week alone IG has dropped 5 places in the most winning category and 4 in most played (looks like CA is having an effect). This is also including them as a primary, not a mono which would drop their power even more. CSM actually beat them out this week for most winning faction after the cultist nerfs and they are sitting one spot ahead of necrons for the week which the general consensious is they are pretty bad.
Lol this proves nothing. December is notorious (as I believe you already stated) as having very few events. We’ll see how the meta shakes out in the months to come but I wonder what you’ll say when the results back up the maths that Guardsmen are undercosted (again)?
1. Because there codex just dropped guard has been out the entire edition and after the conscript nerf its been few and far between
2. Guardsmen "more data" shows they are taken to fill detachments 90% of the time
3. Yes battalions are the new hotness after the CP regen change this doesn't change the fact they are taken to fill detachments
4. nobody is arguing that soup players choose soup for guard.... they fill the roll of soup better then anyone else. nobody is doubting this
also the math is clearly narrow because we arent playing a nepolion war recreation where we line up 12 inches from eachother and just shoot. The real world aplication is off as well evidenced by such data as the article with most recent standings that i just linked
edit: so because we dont have much data post FAQ we should ignore said data to use old data pre faq?
I literally have no idea what you’re talking about but it seems to me you’re just ignoring facts now.
Please answer my points as I’ve raised them, this 1. 2. 3. Etc business makes no sense to me.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/29 21:13:58
Best durability *for the points* I think people are missing that last part too often and attacking the first part. T3 5+ is terrible durability in concept.
Of course. T3 5+ 1W doesn’t sound great until you realise it costs only 4 points.
See the way you brush off grots and loota combo is part of the issue here. Mono orks (obviously) went to a GT immediately after their book dropped running that list and absolutely spanked the competition for a first place win.
Why is it when Orks win a GT they ‘absolutely spanked the competition’ but when primary Guard win it’s because of soup?
How many GTs have primary Guard won?
Obviously a very imposing combination both mathematically and in practice.
Just like Guardsmen. Except Guardsmen have a lot more data (more than a single GT) proving their value in reality. Data you repeatedly ignore for some reason.
Your test for guards survivability and damage output is obviously far to narrow for real game application.
Why?
You are holding far to many variables constant and that's why your math doesn't line up with reality usage by top players in the game.
What? My maths absolutely lines up with reality usage by top players. Guardsmen are by far the most popular troop choice, which makes sense because they are also the best mathematically.
infantry guard mono cannot walk out and destroy a GT because the game is not (20 guardsmen sitting 12 inches from unit x using FRFSRF).
Mono Guard can and have walked out and destroyed a GT. This has literally happened.
In fact, top players consistently use guard to fill out a minimum battalion or brigade (much more common after CP regen nerf) suggesting that their main strength is, in fact, cheap bodies for CP.
No, this is where you keep twisting the facts and getting confused. Imperial soup players have the option of taking almost any troop in the game. They actively choose to take Guardsmen to fill their detachments. It is not *just* because they are cheap CP, this can be evidenced because other factions that Imperial soup players have access to provide cheaper CP gains. I believe that the cheap CP provision is one reason, as well as the myriad of others that have been discussed in this thread already including (but not limited to); excellent durability, excellent damage output, incredible versatility and excellent board control.
All this complaining is also directly on the backend of CA when we have yet to acquire any data on the effect of game wide point changes. You can continue to throw out incredibly narrow focused math hammer but until real-world gaming results match up with it you probably arent going to get far with your arguments.
This is hilarious for a few reasons, the primary one is that REAL-WORLD GAMING RESULTS ALREADY MATCH UP WITH MY (and others) MATHS. As previously stated, the maths is neither narrow nor false.
Edit: was just reading this and it puts into perspective what i wrote above http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/12/40k-top-list-of-the-week-december-29th-imperial-knights-dethroned.html this week alone IG has dropped 5 places in the most winning category and 4 in most played (looks like CA is having an effect). This is also including them as a primary, not a mono which would drop their power even more. CSM actually beat them out this week for most winning faction after the cultist nerfs and they are sitting one spot ahead of necrons for the week which the general consensious is they are pretty bad.
Lol this proves nothing. December is notorious (as I believe you already stated) as having very few events. We’ll see how the meta shakes out in the months to come but I wonder what you’ll say when the results back up the maths that Guardsmen are undercosted (again)?
1. Because there codex just dropped guard has been out the entire edition and after the conscript nerf its been few and far between
2. Guardsmen "more data" shows they are taken to fill detachments 90% of the time
3. Yes battalions are the new hotness after the CP regen change this doesn't change the fact they are taken to fill detachments
4. nobody is arguing that soup players choose soup for guard.... they fill the roll of soup better then anyone else. nobody is doubting this
also the math is clearly narrow because we arent playing a nepolion war recreation where we line up 12 inches from eachother and just shoot. The real world aplication is off as well evidenced by such data as the article with most recent standings that i just linked
edit: so because we dont have much data post FAQ we should ignore said data to use old data pre faq?
I literally have no idea what you’re talking about but it seems to me you’re just ignoring facts now.
Please answer my points as I’ve raised them, this 1. 2. 3. Etc business makes no sense to me.
I've answered your question 1,2,3 several times now and explained why you are looking at this in far to narrow of a vacuum and have now posted evidence of the first post FAQ data we have where CSM have outperformed IG as a whole yet its ignored. Tau also outperformed IG and was number one but according to you this shouldn't be possible because if we put fire warriors 12 inches away from guardsmen they aren't as points efficient. Real game results and the way we see IG infantry simply don't match up with your very poorly implemented math hammer. Its the equivalent at looking only at a cars quarter mile times when it's about to race in the indie 500
I've answered your question 1,2,3 several times now and explained why you are looking at this in far to narrow of a vacuum and have now posted evidence of the first post FAQ data we have where CSM have outperformed IG as a whole yet its ignored. Tau also outperformed IG and was number one but according to you this shouldn't be possible because if we put fire warriors 12 inches away from guardsmen they aren't as points efficient. Real game results and the way we see IG infantry simply don't match up with your very poorly implemented math hammer. Its the equivalent at looking only at a cars quarter mile times when it's about to race in the indie 500
You’ve answered nothing though?
You say Guard are taken because they are cheap CP. My response is that there are cheaper detachments for Imperial soup lists that aren’t taken and Guardsmen are taken above minimum quantities for CP. Your response seems to be ‘no that’s wrong because I say so’. Do you have any counterpoints to that or any of my other points because I can’t see them.
BOLS data on December listings is not as credible as the entire of data we have since the IG codex dropped showing them as persistently one of the better armies. For your one month of ‘counter evidence’ there are countless months showing that you’re completely wrong. It also doesn’t do anything to counter the argument that Guardsmen are too cheap, despite your (yet again) misquoted/attempted straw man argument around Fire Warriors.
Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though.
E - wait, in your first point are you seriously trying to claim that post Conscript fix Primary Guard haven’t won many GTs?! Really?! This is just plain wrong. It couldn’t be more wrong.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/29 21:45:25
- SWS do not have obsec.
- SWS lose more points of models faster and become a bigger target.
- SWS don't benefit from orders as well.
-You're mostly forced Cadian so you're not dropping your own squad.
So 18 models for 135 points or 31 models for 150 points. A round of shooting that eliminates SWS still has IS in the fight.
You're right, they're not identical and they serve different purposes. That said, there should be a case for taking them at least sometimes (they're less reliant on orders for damage output, they have a substantially higher damage output, etc), but nobody seems eager to take 'em if they don't unlock CP's.
The SWS's should benefit from Orders as they're Infantry units with the <Regiment> Keyword, unless I've been missing something
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.
I've answered your question 1,2,3 several times now and explained why you are looking at this in far to narrow of a vacuum and have now posted evidence of the first post FAQ data we have where CSM have outperformed IG as a whole yet its ignored. Tau also outperformed IG and was number one but according to you this shouldn't be possible because if we put fire warriors 12 inches away from guardsmen they aren't as points efficient. Real game results and the way we see IG infantry simply don't match up with your very poorly implemented math hammer. Its the equivalent at looking only at a cars quarter mile times when it's about to race in the indie 500
You’ve answered nothing though?
You say Guard are taken because they are cheap CP. My response is that there are cheaper detachments for Imperial soup lists that aren’t taken and Guardsmen are taken above minimum quantities for CP. Your response seems to be ‘no that’s wrong because I say so’. Do you have any counterpoints to that or any of my other points because I can’t see them.
BOLS data on December listings is not as credible as the entire of data we have since the IG codex dropped showing them as persistently one of the better armies. For your one month of ‘counter evidence’ there are countless months showing that you’re completely wrong. It also doesn’t do anything to counter the argument that Guardsmen are too cheap, despite your (yet again) misquoted/attempted straw man argument around Fire Warriors.
Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though.
No go back and read my answers several times. Guard not only provide cheap CP they provide an additional 5-6 per game depending on the game length making the most efficient CP generation. Also for their job of CP and holding backfield objectives they offer the most wounds to pass off making them the perfect souped unit. Also in the vast majority of lists, we see either 3 for battalion or 6 for the brigade that is more popular post big FAQ.
"Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though" look you got it armies are balanced more than unit A v unit B. This is complicated even more over soup. You cannot simply give every unit in the game matching stats and points or soon we will be playing chess. Armies are supposed to be different and have different strengths and weaknesses and balance out as a whole where any army can be competitive.
I've answered your question 1,2,3 several times now and explained why you are looking at this in far to narrow of a vacuum and have now posted evidence of the first post FAQ data we have where CSM have outperformed IG as a whole yet its ignored. Tau also outperformed IG and was number one but according to you this shouldn't be possible because if we put fire warriors 12 inches away from guardsmen they aren't as points efficient. Real game results and the way we see IG infantry simply don't match up with your very poorly implemented math hammer. Its the equivalent at looking only at a cars quarter mile times when it's about to race in the indie 500
You’ve answered nothing though?
You say Guard are taken because they are cheap CP. My response is that there are cheaper detachments for Imperial soup lists that aren’t taken and Guardsmen are taken above minimum quantities for CP. Your response seems to be ‘no that’s wrong because I say so’. Do you have any counterpoints to that or any of my other points because I can’t see them.
BOLS data on December listings is not as credible as the entire of data we have since the IG codex dropped showing them as persistently one of the better armies. For your one month of ‘counter evidence’ there are countless months showing that you’re completely wrong. It also doesn’t do anything to counter the argument that Guardsmen are too cheap, despite your (yet again) misquoted/attempted straw man argument around Fire Warriors.
Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though.
No go back and read my answers several times. Guard not only provide cheap CP they provide an additional 5-6 per game depending on the game length making the most efficient CP generation. Also for their job of CP and holding backfield objectives they offer the most wounds to pass off making them the perfect souped unit. Also in the vast majority of lists, we see either 3 for battalion or 6 for the brigade that is more popular post big FAQ.
"Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though" look you got it armies are balanced more than unit A v unit B. This is complicated even more over soup. You cannot simply give every unit in the game matching stats and points or soon we will be playing chess. Armies are supposed to be different and have different strengths and weaknesses and balance out as a whole where any army can be competitive.
Except that is the whole point of points, they should be the measure of effectiveness.
The idea that codex's can have better troops or worse troops for the points is a logical fallacy.
Point for points units need to balance out or a faction will always have an advantage.
This idea you have that infantry squads can be undercosted, because it's balanced out by overcosted guard elites or such falls appart because elites arn't mandatory.
Troopa unfortunately with the current CP rules are effectively mandatory.
An Actual Englishman wrote: BOLS data on December listings is not as credible as the entire of data we have since the IG codex dropped showing them as persistently one of the better armies. For your one month of ‘counter evidence’ there are countless months showing that you’re completely wrong. It also doesn’t do anything to counter the argument that Guardsmen are too cheap, despite your (yet again) misquoted/attempted straw man argument around Fire Warriors.
Not sure why you are still bothering - and this will be taken as special pleading - but to add to this, not all tournaments are created equally.
There is a significant difference between Guard placing (and winning) tournaments with 5 rounds and 80~ people, and Tau winning some 3 round tournaments with 12-14 players where no one seems to have brought ynnari despite it being generally consisted the toppest of top tier.
In fact Tau experience at tournaments increases rapidly when flavours of Eldar are not present in significant numbers. This has not however been the case at majors to date.
I've answered your question 1,2,3 several times now and explained why you are looking at this in far to narrow of a vacuum and have now posted evidence of the first post FAQ data we have where CSM have outperformed IG as a whole yet its ignored. Tau also outperformed IG and was number one but according to you this shouldn't be possible because if we put fire warriors 12 inches away from guardsmen they aren't as points efficient. Real game results and the way we see IG infantry simply don't match up with your very poorly implemented math hammer. Its the equivalent at looking only at a cars quarter mile times when it's about to race in the indie 500
You’ve answered nothing though?
You say Guard are taken because they are cheap CP. My response is that there are cheaper detachments for Imperial soup lists that aren’t taken and Guardsmen are taken above minimum quantities for CP. Your response seems to be ‘no that’s wrong because I say so’. Do you have any counterpoints to that or any of my other points because I can’t see them.
BOLS data on December listings is not as credible as the entire of data we have since the IG codex dropped showing them as persistently one of the better armies. For your one month of ‘counter evidence’ there are countless months showing that you’re completely wrong. It also doesn’t do anything to counter the argument that Guardsmen are too cheap, despite your (yet again) misquoted/attempted straw man argument around Fire Warriors.
Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though.
No go back and read my answers several times. Guard not only provide cheap CP they provide an additional 5-6 per game depending on the game length making the most efficient CP generation. Also for their job of CP and holding backfield objectives they offer the most wounds to pass off making them the perfect souped unit. Also in the vast majority of lists, we see either 3 for battalion or 6 for the brigade that is more popular post big FAQ.
"Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though" look you got it armies are balanced more than unit A v unit B. This is complicated even more over soup. You cannot simply give every unit in the game matching stats and points or soon we will be playing chess. Armies are supposed to be different and have different strengths and weaknesses and balance out as a whole where any army can be competitive.
Except that is the whole point of points, they should be the measure of effectiveness.
The idea that codex's can have better troops or worse troops for the points is a logical fallacy.
Point for points units need to balance out or a faction will always have an advantage.
This idea you have that infantry squads can be undercosted, because it's balanced out by overcosted guard elites or such falls appart because elites arn't mandatory.
Troopa unfortunately with the current CP rules are effectively mandatory.
No if points for points every unit is equal at everything we are playing one boring game that im not interested with and it will be completely void of lore
Tau should not be as point efficient as Khorne demons ate melle
DE should not be point for point as resilient DG all these armies should be able to have a close fair game against one another leveraging their strength against each other though
No if points for points every unit is equal at everything we are playing one boring game that im not interested with and it will be completely void of lore
Tau should not be as point efficient as Khorne demons ate melle
DE should not be point for point as resilient DG all these armies should be able to have a close fair game against one another leveraging their strength against each other though
So at what are the guardsmen are bad for their points then? What you say is indeed how it should be, but currently the guardsmen are good at everything.
I've answered your question 1,2,3 several times now and explained why you are looking at this in far to narrow of a vacuum and have now posted evidence of the first post FAQ data we have where CSM have outperformed IG as a whole yet its ignored. Tau also outperformed IG and was number one but according to you this shouldn't be possible because if we put fire warriors 12 inches away from guardsmen they aren't as points efficient. Real game results and the way we see IG infantry simply don't match up with your very poorly implemented math hammer. Its the equivalent at looking only at a cars quarter mile times when it's about to race in the indie 500
You’ve answered nothing though?
You say Guard are taken because they are cheap CP. My response is that there are cheaper detachments for Imperial soup lists that aren’t taken and Guardsmen are taken above minimum quantities for CP. Your response seems to be ‘no that’s wrong because I say so’. Do you have any counterpoints to that or any of my other points because I can’t see them.
BOLS data on December listings is not as credible as the entire of data we have since the IG codex dropped showing them as persistently one of the better armies. For your one month of ‘counter evidence’ there are countless months showing that you’re completely wrong. It also doesn’t do anything to counter the argument that Guardsmen are too cheap, despite your (yet again) misquoted/attempted straw man argument around Fire Warriors.
Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though.
No go back and read my answers several times. Guard not only provide cheap CP they provide an additional 5-6 per game depending on the game length making the most efficient CP generation. Also for their job of CP and holding backfield objectives they offer the most wounds to pass off making them the perfect souped unit. Also in the vast majority of lists, we see either 3 for battalion or 6 for the brigade that is more popular post big FAQ.
"Guardsmen do best Fitewarriors point for point, this is a fact. Of these two TROOPS, Guardsmen are better. Armies aren’t made of only Fire Warriors and Guardsmen though" look you got it armies are balanced more than unit A v unit B. This is complicated even more over soup. You cannot simply give every unit in the game matching stats and points or soon we will be playing chess. Armies are supposed to be different and have different strengths and weaknesses and balance out as a whole where any army can be competitive.
Except that is the whole point of points, they should be the measure of effectiveness.
The idea that codex's can have better troops or worse troops for the points is a logical fallacy.
Point for points units need to balance out or a faction will always have an advantage.
This idea you have that infantry squads can be undercosted, because it's balanced out by overcosted guard elites or such falls appart because elites arn't mandatory.
Troopa unfortunately with the current CP rules are effectively mandatory.
No if points for points every unit is equal at everything we are playing one boring game that im not interested with and it will be completely void of lore
Tau should not be as point efficient as Khorne demons ate melle
DE should not be point for point as resilient DG all these armies should be able to have a close fair game against one another leveraging their strength against each other though
Once again your missing the point, and using misdirection to avoid admitting that Guard are a problem.
Just becuase a unit has strengths and weaknesses that are different. That doesn't mean their performance per point can't be the same.
As you say Tau shouldn't out perform Bloodletters in CC, but what they shoulde be able to do is shoot them enough that they don't just get close combated into chunks.
The issue is guardsmen not only outshoot firewarriors, they also out CC firewarriors and give up less points to attacks.
Units need to have a balance of strengths and weaknesses that are appropriately costed, guardsmen break this balance.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/29 22:25:35
