Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
No 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.
Guardsmen cannot horde 30-40 guys like other chaff units so CP and psychic powers are less efficient on them
They also do not have the ability to bring back 29-39 of them like other codex troop choices
They are not good at close combat (yes catachan S4 all the time is over the top and not fitting with lore it needs to change you won't get any argument from me about this it is far too good)
Guard lore wise are supposed to be the staple of cheap reliable infantry. They fill this and in mono lists seem to be balanced well with lackluster strategems and hard countered by -1 to hit. Once again DE are the single most winning mono army in the game and i believe last time i checked quiet a few armies are ahead of them. Guard as a whole balance out very well and play mostly true to the lore right up until they are dumping CP into another faction and not simply acting as meat shields
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.
Right here though you purposely leave out too major strengths for fire warriors
longer range
higher damage output against tougher targets
Once again all these slight variations in mathhammer are fundamentally flawed because they leave out the entirity of the rest of the game. This is shown by guard infantry not being spammed in game despite them being so amazing at shooting T3 targets 12 inches away from them. If we start balancing using this kind of mathammer the game will become either
A. fundementally unbalance (because your not costing the army correctly based around all of its tools)
B. fundementally unfun (as we start playing the same units simply with different cosmetic skins)
Asmodios wrote: No go back and read my answers several times.
I’ve read them, there aren’t any answers there.
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.
That’s not an ability of Guardsmen though?
Also for their job of CP and holding backfield objectives they offer the most wounds to pass off making them the perfect souped unit.
So Guardsmen are too cheap then? This durability is too cheap for their cost, as we’ve discussed.
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.
Yes they are taken ‘in the vast majority of lists’ which is indicative of their cost being too low, you aren’t defending Guardsmen’s points, you’re helping to explain why it should be higher.
"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 what I said to you, you were the one failing to understand why we don’t see armies of only Guardsmen.
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.
Agreed, unfortunately Guardsmen are better than every other troop which is why they’re a problem. That’s why they’re taken in every Imperial soup list. Competitive soup lists, by definition, take the best units available to them. The best LOW in the Castellan. The best suicide missile in Slamguinius. The best troop in Guardsmen.
Asmodios wrote: No go back and read my answers several times.
I’ve read them, there aren’t any answers there.
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.
That’s not an ability of Guardsmen though?
Also for their job of CP and holding backfield objectives they offer the most wounds to pass off making them the perfect souped unit.
So Guardsmen are too cheap then? This durability is too cheap for their cost, as we’ve discussed.
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.
Yes they are taken ‘in the vast majority of lists’ which is indicative of their cost being too low, you aren’t defending Guardsmen’s points, you’re helping to explain why it should be higher.
"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 what I said to you, you were the one failing to understand why we don’t see armies of only Guardsmen.
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.
Agreed, unfortunately Guardsmen are better than every other troop which is why they’re a problem. That’s why they’re taken in every Imperial soup list. Competitive soup lists, by definition, take the best units available to them. The best LOW in the Castellan. The best suicide missile in Slamguinius. The best troop in Guardsmen.
Its clear at this point you don't want to actually read my posts so I'll just leave you with this
Clearly, GW agrees with me that parking 2 units 12 inches away from each other and yelling fire isn't the pinnacle of balance. I would say they are making the right call considering we have seen a great amount of diversity over the course of this edition and its selling better than ever before. Keep beating your head against a wall for the next 6 months until the next big FAQ or a year till chapter approved for 5 point guardsmen. In the meantime ill be actually playing the game and looking at real tournament results. If guardsmen become an issue in and of themselves (outside soup) I'm sure they will fix them like every other unit that's been smacked down. I wish you the best and don't lose too much sleep over 4 point guardsmen it's going to be ok.
Asmodios wrote: Right here though you purposely leave out too major strengths for fire warriors
longer range
higher damage output against tougher targets
Once again all these slight variations in mathhammer are fundamentally flawed because they leave out the entirity of the rest of the game. This is shown by guard infantry not being spammed in game despite them being so amazing at shooting T3 targets 12 inches away from them. If we start balancing using this kind of mathammer the game will become either
A. fundementally unbalance (because your not costing the army correctly based around all of its tools)
B. fundementally unfun (as we start playing the same units simply with different cosmetic skins)
Guardsmen ARE THE DEFINITION OF A SPAMMED UNIT. They are by far the most popular troop in the game.
We’ve also seen the maths that show that Guard OUTDAMAGE Fire Warriors against all targets with FRFSRF so your supposed strength of Fire Warriors is yer another thing that Guardsmen best them at.
Your arguments are becoming ludicrous and embarrassing.
Asmodios wrote: No go back and read my answers several times.
I’ve read them, there aren’t any answers there.
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.
That’s not an ability of Guardsmen though?
Also for their job of CP and holding backfield objectives they offer the most wounds to pass off making them the perfect souped unit.
So Guardsmen are too cheap then? This durability is too cheap for their cost, as we’ve discussed.
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.
Yes they are taken ‘in the vast majority of lists’ which is indicative of their cost being too low, you aren’t defending Guardsmen’s points, you’re helping to explain why it should be higher.
"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 what I said to you, you were the one failing to understand why we don’t see armies of only Guardsmen.
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.
Agreed, unfortunately Guardsmen are better than every other troop which is why they’re a problem. That’s why they’re taken in every Imperial soup list. Competitive soup lists, by definition, take the best units available to them. The best LOW in the Castellan. The best suicide missile in Slamguinius. The best troop in Guardsmen.
Its clear at this point you don't want to actually read my posts so I'll just leave you with this
Clearly, GW agrees with me that parking 2 units 12 inches away from each other and yelling fire isn't the pinnacle of balance. I would say they are making the right call considering we have seen a great amount of diversity over the course of this edition and its selling better than ever before. Keep beating your head against a wall for the next 6 months until the next big FAQ or a year till chapter approved for 5 point guardsmen. In the meantime ill be actually playing the game and looking at real tournament results. If guardsmen become an issue in and of themselves (outside soup) I'm sure they will fix them like every other unit that's been smacked down. I wish you the best and don't lose too much sleep over 4 point guardsmen it's going to be ok.
I’m literally responding to your points one by one so obviously reading them, unfortunately for me.
I see you’ve finally resorted to the age old ‘I don’t have an answer to your points so I’m going to go with snark instead’ technique. A solid choice.
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.
Your using some very odd maths here which is also false
9 Guardsmen only kill 1.13 guardsmen in cover outside rapid fire with no buffs or 4.5 points of guardsmen not even close to the 6 points you claim
9 marines only kill 2 guardsmen in cover so 8 points not the 10.6 you claimed
Thats 117 points of marines to kill 8 points of guard in cover GG GW GG
5 rangers 60 points
Kill 1.1 guardsmen in cover plus .56 MW for a combined 1.66 wounds or 6.64 points of guardsmen
So for the cost of 15 guardsmen rangers can do less damage against guardsmen in cover than 15 guardsmen with no buffs.
14 lasguns kikk 1.75 guardsmen in cover for 7 points.
Asmodios wrote: Right here though you purposely leave out too major strengths for fire warriors
longer range
higher damage output against tougher targets
Once again all these slight variations in mathhammer are fundamentally flawed because they leave out the entirity of the rest of the game. This is shown by guard infantry not being spammed in game despite them being so amazing at shooting T3 targets 12 inches away from them. If we start balancing using this kind of mathammer the game will become either
A. fundementally unbalance (because your not costing the army correctly based around all of its tools)
B. fundementally unfun (as we start playing the same units simply with different cosmetic skins)
Guardsmen ARE THE DEFINITION OF A SPAMMED UNIT. They are by far the most popular troop in the game.
We’ve also seen the maths that show that Guard OUTDAMAGE Fire Warriors against all targets with FRFSRF so your supposed strength of Fire Warriors is yer another thing that Guardsmen best them at.
Your arguments are becoming ludicrous and embarrassing.
Asmodios wrote: No go back and read my answers several times.
I’ve read them, there aren’t any answers there.
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.
That’s not an ability of Guardsmen though?
Also for their job of CP and holding backfield objectives they offer the most wounds to pass off making them the perfect souped unit.
So Guardsmen are too cheap then? This durability is too cheap for their cost, as we’ve discussed.
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.
Yes they are taken ‘in the vast majority of lists’ which is indicative of their cost being too low, you aren’t defending Guardsmen’s points, you’re helping to explain why it should be higher.
"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 what I said to you, you were the one failing to understand why we don’t see armies of only Guardsmen.
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.
Agreed, unfortunately Guardsmen are better than every other troop which is why they’re a problem. That’s why they’re taken in every Imperial soup list. Competitive soup lists, by definition, take the best units available to them. The best LOW in the Castellan. The best suicide missile in Slamguinius. The best troop in Guardsmen.
Its clear at this point you don't want to actually read my posts so I'll just leave you with this
Clearly, GW agrees with me that parking 2 units 12 inches away from each other and yelling fire isn't the pinnacle of balance. I would say they are making the right call considering we have seen a great amount of diversity over the course of this edition and its selling better than ever before. Keep beating your head against a wall for the next 6 months until the next big FAQ or a year till chapter approved for 5 point guardsmen. In the meantime ill be actually playing the game and looking at real tournament results. If guardsmen become an issue in and of themselves (outside soup) I'm sure they will fix them like every other unit that's been smacked down. I wish you the best and don't lose too much sleep over 4 point guardsmen it's going to be ok.
I’m literally responding to your points one by one so obviously reading them, unfortunately for me.
I see you’ve finally resorted to the age old ‘I don’t have an answer to your points so I’m going to go with snark instead’ technique. A solid choice.
Can’t wait for GW to fix Guardsmen.
Nah I've been responding but you clearly either aren't reading or have terrible comprehension
For example, multiple posters in this thread pointing out over and over and over that filling out the troop choice to the minimum to get a brigade or battalion 90% of the time is not spamming a unit
or the fact that me and other posters keep pointing out the evidence of guardsmen only being an issue in soup and you pointing to examples of soup then claiming its guardsmen and not soup that's the issue
I have no interest in spending my time I could be working on my new army talking with someone that has no interest in an actual conversation. Think you "won" if you like but your clearly so dug in your unable to have an actual conversation. At least posters like Ice are making points and counter points instead of just spinning in curcles
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.
Right here though you purposely leave out too major strengths for fire warriors
longer range
higher damage output against tougher targets Once again all these slight variations in mathhammer are fundamentally flawed because they leave out the entirity of the rest of the game. This is shown by guard infantry not being spammed in game despite them being so amazing at shooting T3 targets 12 inches away from them. If we start balancing using this kind of mathammer the game will become either
A. fundementally unbalance (because your not costing the army correctly based around all of its tools)
B. fundementally unfun (as we start playing the same units simply with different cosmetic skins)
Firewarriors only outdamage against T7,T8 tanks untill orders are applied the moment FRFSRF is applied guard laserpointers are more efficent.
Also firewarriors can't add heavy weapons or assualt weapons they have 1 weapon period.
They also loose in CC to guard, loose direct shoot outs with guard, loose objectives and most insulting even a Y'varha can't keep up with Move move move guardsmen.
Your using some very odd maths here which is also false
9 Guardsmen only kill 1.13 guardsmen in cover outside rapid fire with no buffs or 4.5 points of guardsmen not even close to the 6 points you claim
9 marines only kill 2 guardsmen in cover so 8 points not the 10.6 you claimed
Thats 117 points of marines to kill 8 points of guard in cover GG GW GG
5 rangers 60 points
Kill 1.1 guardsmen in cover plus .56 MW for a combined 1.66 wounds or 6.64 points of guardsmen
So for the cost of 15 guardsmen rangers can do less damage against guardsmen in cover than 15 guardsmen with no buffs.
14 lasguns kikk 1.75 guardsmen in cover for 7 points.
More damage and more durable YES they are.
I think you've misunderstood. I was arguing the Guardsmen are superior. They give up the same amount of points to shooting from BS4+ AP- weapons in the open to Eldar rangers in cover. Kanluwen seemed to believe otherwise and said the maths was wrong. It isn't.
Guardsmen combine the best shooting, assault, defensive stats, footprint, movement and close to the cheapest CPs in the troops slot. Do you want them to take out Knights or cheap mech walls? No. Thats however the only meaningful weakness and to my knowledge no troops unit is good at that task.
Your using some very odd maths here which is also false
9 Guardsmen only kill 1.13 guardsmen in cover outside rapid fire with no buffs or 4.5 points of guardsmen not even close to the 6 points you claim
9 marines only kill 2 guardsmen in cover so 8 points not the 10.6 you claimed
Thats 117 points of marines to kill 8 points of guard in cover GG GW GG
5 rangers 60 points
Kill 1.1 guardsmen in cover plus .56 MW for a combined 1.66 wounds or 6.64 points of guardsmen
So for the cost of 15 guardsmen rangers can do less damage against guardsmen in cover than 15 guardsmen with no buffs.
14 lasguns kikk 1.75 guardsmen in cover for 7 points.
More damage and more durable YES they are.
I think you've misunderstood. I was arguing the Guardsmen are superior. They give up the same amount of points to shooting from BS4+ AP- weapons in the open to Eldar rangers in cover. Kanluwen seemed to believe otherwise and said the maths was wrong. It isn't.
Guardsmen combine the best shooting, assault, defensive stats, footprint, movement and close to the cheapest CPs in the troops slot. Do you want them to take out Knights or cheap mech walls? No. Thats however the only meaningful weakness and to my knowledge no troops unit is good at that task.
Ah ok
Yeah guardsmen are super busted.
Firewarriors are quite good at shooting knights, just not as good at as guard with orders.
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.
Right here though you purposely leave out too major strengths for fire warriors
longer range
higher damage output against tougher targets Once again all these slight variations in mathhammer are fundamentally flawed because they leave out the entirity of the rest of the game. This is shown by guard infantry not being spammed in game despite them being so amazing at shooting T3 targets 12 inches away from them. If we start balancing using this kind of mathammer the game will become either
A. fundementally unbalance (because your not costing the army correctly based around all of its tools)
B. fundementally unfun (as we start playing the same units simply with different cosmetic skins)
Firewarriors only outdamage against T7,T8 tanks untill orders are applied the moment FRFSRF is applied guard laserpointers are more efficent.
Also firewarriors can't add heavy weapons or assualt weapons they have 1 weapon period.
They also loose in CC to guard, loose direct shoot outs with guard, loose objectives and most insulting even a Y'varha can't keep up with Move move move guardsmen.
See this jumps the shark though. See how its "just T7 T8 until order" thats the point im trying to get across. You can all of a sudden add an outside source (which is legitimate and should be what we do) the next logical step is to add marker lights... then strategems.... then support units and on and on and on. The game cannot and should not be balanced by sitting 2 units 12 inches away from each other and measuring out the average amount of wounds there are tens of thousands of different permutations that come into play. I'm not saying math hammer is useless btw I think its a good starting point to get you in the ballpark of what you are looking for. But it alone will not properly measure an army. My arguments about limiting CP are because i feel it makes balance beyond hard to find as units like guardsmen gain an almost intangible advantage. Their ability to generate and give CP/ wounds to other armies is just too great and cannot be fixed by points alone. You continue to hurt mono guard by not really hurting soup right up until they switch to the next best thing. This type of balancing would also make soup more necessary to stay competitive. So soup needs a rework and then we need to go look at armies/ combos over preforming. I also think we need to wait just a little while for the effects of CA to come to light before we immediatly start whacking stuff.
Asmodios, people are frustrated with you because you keep saying things that provably are not true. You claim guardsmen have weaknesses in areas where in reality they don't, and there's math to prove it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/29 23:39:26
I think you've misunderstood. I was arguing the Guardsmen are superior. They give up the same amount of points to shooting from BS4+ AP- weapons in the open to Eldar rangers in cover. Kanluwen seemed to believe otherwise and said the maths was wrong. It isn't.
I said the math is wrong because you're undervaluing the ability to modify a hit roll. But since you want to keep pretending that the cover save is the only benefit Rangers have over Guardsmen? Cool deal.
Crimson wrote: Asmodios, people are frustrated with you because you keep saying things that provably are not true. You claim guardsmen have weaknesses in areas where in reality they don't, and there's math to prove it.
You at the same time are claiming that guard have no weaknesses. Logically if this is true we should see spammed army of guardsmen as they have no weaknesses and are mathematically superior to everything.
Once again you are also looking at all these units is far to small of a bubble that leaves out the vast majority of how the game plays. If you believe that that simple math is enough to balance units around then multiple game systems would be producing games with as many factions and near perfect balance. People getting frustrated is fine and if you honestly believe that that math fully encompasses game and unit balance I can understand.
Also when saying that im saying things that aren't "provable" I assume you're saying that what im discussing is too complicated to quantify and to that, I agree on that's why more emphasis needs to be put into tournament results (like gw is doing). It allows you to see not only which units are over performing but if they are doing it on their own (16 hellhound lists) or if they are part of a larger problem (guardsmen overperforming entirely in soup)
Crimson wrote: Asmodios, people are frustrated with you because you keep saying things that provably are not true. You claim guardsmen have weaknesses in areas where in reality they don't, and there's math to prove it.
Lasguns have 24” range. Firewarrior rifles have 30” range. Fact. Guardsmen are weaker in regards to range.
He is talking about tangible bits like this. You are a frustration for others as you can not seem to comprehend and add this to the balancing pool.
If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed.
An Actual Englishman wrote: 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.
Not if the timeline that has been mentioned is accurate - if they started work on CA before the release of the IK book, then presumably it wasn't in scope for balance changes, outside of universal repricing of some weapons. This would also apply to the Space Wolves and Orks, at a minimum (as well as the factions from Rogue Trader and characters from Blackstone Fortress, I guess).
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Crimson wrote: Asmodios, people are frustrated with you because you keep saying things that provably are not true. You claim guardsmen have weaknesses in areas where in reality they don't, and there's math to prove it.
Lasguns have 24” range. Firewarrior rifles have 30” range. Fact. Guardsmen are weaker in regards to range.
He is talking about tangible bits like this. You are a frustration for others as you can not seem to comprehend and add this to the balancing pool.
Yeah and do you know what the movement of a guardsmen is?
Oh It's 6 inches so while the firewarriors might get first shot, LoS permitting, the guardsmen can walk forward and FRFSRF the firewarriors in return.
They firewarriors can't make it to with 15 inches to actually reply with rapid fire shooting so they either trade at 24 to 30 inches repeatedly or try and move closer and loose when the guardsmen make it to 12 inches.
That 6 inches gets one round of long range shooting, which doesn't reduce the guard fire power enough to tip the scales
And GW head people's pleas and sayd " Here take this new chapter tactic for your horde problems! Merry Christmas Hohoho!"
A crimson fist veteran squad for 80 points (and 1 CP) shreds 40 points of guards, a 50% return! At the same time it kills only 33 points in MEQ, the first true anti horde solution!
This is at range 12" you say? This is not good you say? But GW also covered this! Take your aggressors and have the same returns from 27,5" away! 5 Crimson fist aggressors, WHILE ADVANCING, kill 23 guards per turn, not bad for a 185 point unit! Spread the casualties carefully and you get the chance to almost blow away a loyal 32 in a single shooting action from them!
But there is more, did you fear that taking aggressors only to tackle hordes wasn't good enough in a list? No problem! They were also given a stratagem to allow them to shred a demon primarch or a Flyrant coming at you! Those 5 aggressors at 18" range outright kill a flyrant, or put 12 wounds on a magnus.
Really, Crimsons fists is now where competitve marines should look, the bolter drill stratagem combined with hit bonuses against characters and hordes gives them so many scary combinations...
Spoletta wrote: And GW head people's pleas and sayd " Here take this new chapter tactic for your horde problems! Merry Christmas Hohoho!"
A crimson fist veteran squad for 80 points (and 1 CP) shreds 40 points of guards, a 50% return! At the same time it kills only 33 points in MEQ, the first true anti horde solution!
This is at range 12" you say? This is not good you say? But GW also covered this! Take your aggressors and have the same returns from 27,5" away! 5 Crimson fist aggressors, WHILE ADVANCING, kill 23 guards per turn, not bad for a 185 point unit! Spread the casualties carefully and you get the chance to almost blow away a loyal 32 in a single shooting action from them!
But there is more, did you fear that taking aggressors only to tackle hordes wasn't good enough in a list? No problem! They were also given a stratagem to allow them to shred a demon primarch or a Flyrant coming at you! Those 5 aggressors at 18" range outright kill a flyrant, or put 12 wounds on a magnus.
Really, Crimsons fists is now where competitve marines should look, the bolter drill stratagem combined with hit bonuses against characters and hordes gives them so many scary combinations...
Well, bottom line still is marine codex has mostly joke chapter rules, which GW refuses to fix and instead they make one pay more for the new and improved one.
Spoletta wrote: And GW head people's pleas and sayd " Here take this new chapter tactic for your horde problems! Merry Christmas Hohoho!"
A crimson fist veteran squad for 80 points (and 1 CP) shreds 40 points of guards, a 50% return! At the same time it kills only 33 points in MEQ, the first true anti horde solution!
This is at range 12" you say? This is not good you say? But GW also covered this! Take your aggressors and have the same returns from 27,5" away! 5 Crimson fist aggressors, WHILE ADVANCING, kill 23 guards per turn, not bad for a 185 point unit! Spread the casualties carefully and you get the chance to almost blow away a loyal 32 in a single shooting action from them!
But there is more, did you fear that taking aggressors only to tackle hordes wasn't good enough in a list? No problem! They were also given a stratagem to allow them to shred a demon primarch or a Flyrant coming at you! Those 5 aggressors at 18" range outright kill a flyrant, or put 12 wounds on a magnus.
Really, Crimsons fists is now where competitve marines should look, the bolter drill stratagem combined with hit bonuses against characters and hordes gives them so many scary combinations...
Well, bottom line still is marine codex has mostly joke chapter rules, which GW refuses to fix and instead they make one pay more for the new and improved one.
Those rules are on the white dwarf, and i wouldn't say that the rule itself is better. +1 to hit against units with double your models is not more powerful than ravenguard or salamander, but it covers a big hole of the marine lists.
Spoletta wrote: And GW head people's pleas and sayd " Here take this new chapter tactic for your horde problems! Merry Christmas Hohoho!"
A crimson fist veteran squad for 80 points (and 1 CP) shreds 40 points of guards, a 50% return! At the same time it kills only 33 points in MEQ, the first true anti horde solution!
This is at range 12" you say? This is not good you say? But GW also covered this! Take your aggressors and have the same returns from 27,5" away! 5 Crimson fist aggressors, WHILE ADVANCING, kill 23 guards per turn, not bad for a 185 point unit! Spread the casualties carefully and you get the chance to almost blow away a loyal 32 in a single shooting action from them!
But there is more, did you fear that taking aggressors only to tackle hordes wasn't good enough in a list? No problem! They were also given a stratagem to allow them to shred a demon primarch or a Flyrant coming at you! Those 5 aggressors at 18" range outright kill a flyrant, or put 12 wounds on a magnus.
Really, Crimsons fists is now where competitve marines should look, the bolter drill stratagem combined with hit bonuses against characters and hordes gives them so many scary combinations...
I think its good GW are trying to make Marines better - although putting key faction abilities in specific chapter tactics (whether the tactic itself or stratagems etc) feels bad to me.
With that said - your 80 point veteran squad using a CP generates a 50% return in 12 inches.
A basic 40 point guard squad with FRFSRF gets (37*1/2*1/3*1/3=2.0555. *16=32.888 points, = 82.22% return against your veterans in 12 inches. Even if we include 15 points per order (because apparently guard alone should pay no HQ stat tax) you get 59.8% return. This isn't meant to be sarcastic or cutting, but just to show again the lethal ability of guardsmen. (Running the numbers versus Aggressors is pretty ugly too, even if a guard squad only kills a single aggressor on average.)
Aggressors were good on paper before - and even better with these abilities. There remains however the meta problem that a lot of competitive stuff in game unintentionally hard-counters aggressors, and CA hasn't obviously changed this. (Thinking Riptides, Ravagers etc).
Spoletta wrote: Those rules are on the white dwarf, and i wouldn't say that the rule itself is better. +1 to hit against units with double your models is not more powerful than ravenguard or salamander, but it covers a big hole of the marine lists.
Sorry, sarcasm is difficult to account for in written text, although admittedly you were pretty clear with that.
I'm still inherently opposed and alienated by GW approach of fixing problems, which in this case is the introduction of new chapter rules instead of fixing and extending the older ones. The Crimsom fists are provided far more flexibility than codex chapters.
Vaktathi wrote: The SWS's should benefit from Orders as they're Infantry units with the <Regiment> Keyword, unless I've been missing something
Fewer models to benefit. Fewer weapons that benefit. Less chance to be alive.
SWS would be more attractive if they were a full 10 man squad that allowed you to take 3 specials, and no heavy weapons IMO. I know that clashes with the veteran squad, but we all know vets should be troops anyway.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/30 16:49:36
SWS would be more attractive if they were a full 10 man squad that allowed you to take 3 specials, and no heavy weapons IMO. I know that clashes with the veteran squad, but we all know vets should be troops anyway.
You could just combine SWSs and Veterans into one unit. It is actually a bit weird how the Veterans have better BS, that's not how other armies work. IG Conscript: BS 5+ IG Grunt: BS 4+ IG Veteran: BS3+; Marine Scout: BS 3+, Standard Marine: BS 3+, Marine Veteran: BS 3+...
Crimson wrote: Asmodios, people are frustrated with you because you keep saying things that provably are not true. You claim guardsmen have weaknesses in areas where in reality they don't, and there's math to prove it.
Lasguns have 24” range. Firewarrior rifles have 30” range. Fact. Guardsmen are weaker in regards to range.
He is talking about tangible bits like this. You are a frustration for others as you can not seem to comprehend and add this to the balancing pool.
And guard get nearly twice the wounds and shots for the same cost.
Any advantage one unit can have over another can easily be washed away by cost.
30" range? Awesome. S5? Awesome. Double tap at 15"? Awesome. Those are benefits for Tau commensurate with their cost. 39 points for an extra shot with Fireblades, that's good, too, right?
The thing is I could take Vostroyans and have 30" range. And the "Fireblade" doubles the shots at long AND short range. Or I could double tap at 18" with Armageddon. Hell, I could mob up two Vostroyan unts and get them +1 to hit pretty easily.
Ok, but no one takes those, which has a lot to do with how good the Catachan synergies are and the availability of models. In any case Cadians are getting reroll 1s without the need for markerlights. The range benefit of Tau is mitigated by simply moving, which can be done much faster with MMM...and with much less concern, because Catachans fight far better.
And again, all with nearly twice the wounds and shots.
Now I can't say with 100% certainty what IS should cost, but I'm relatively confident that they're under cost at least a bit.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/30 17:35:21
SWS would be more attractive if they were a full 10 man squad that allowed you to take 3 specials, and no heavy weapons IMO. I know that clashes with the veteran squad, but we all know vets should be troops anyway.
You could just combine SWSs and Veterans into one unit. It is actually a bit weird how the Veterans have better BS, that's not how other armies work. IG Conscript: BS 5+ IG Grunt: BS 4+ IG Veteran: BS3+; Marine Scout: BS 3+, Standard Marine: BS 3+, Marine Veteran: BS 3+...
Honestly? If it were me...SWS would be dropped entirely and replaced by:
-Sniper Squad: a 6 model unit, breaks into 3 'teams' of a sniper with sniper rifle and spotter with lasgun that have to deploy within 1" of each other then get to operate independently. Snipers get to reroll failed hit and wound rolls when shooting with their sniper rifles if the target is also visible to their 'spotter'. I'd make them get Camo Cloaks or the same "Naturally Stealthy" rule as Rein and Raus(=2 to saving throws instead of 1 in cover).
-Arcaeotech Squad: 6 model unit breaking into 3 teams of a Meltagunner/Plasma Gunner and a model carrying a Demo Charge/Krak Grenades+Lasgun. No independent operation for the constituting models, just acting normal beyond splitting into 3 teams.
-Suppression Squad: 6 model unit breaking into 3 teams of a Flamer/Grenade Launcher/Heavy Stubber and a model carrying a Lasgun and Stun Grenades(lower enemy Movement value, -1 to hit). Act normal otherwise.
Give all of the lasgunners the ability to take a Vox as well and it creates an interesting little setup without being too crazy.
And guard get nearly twice the wounds and shots for the same cost.
And Tau get Drones that can eat wounds or Ethereals can pop Sense of Stone to grant a 6" bubble of 6+ Invuln.
Any advantage one unit can have over another can easily be washed away by cost.
30" range? Awesome. S5? Awesome. Double tap at 15"? Awesome. Those are benefits for Tau commensurate with their cost. 39 points for an extra shot with Fireblades, that's good, too, right?
The thing is I could take Vostroyans and have 30" range. And the "Fireblade" doubles the shots at long AND short range. Or I could double tap at 18" with Armageddon. Those Vostroyans. Hell, I could mob up two Vostroyan unts and get them +1 to hit pretty easily.
And I can take Bor'kan Sept for an extra 6" range on Rapid Fire and Heavy weapons to make Fire Warriors double tap at 18", with an additional shot via the Fireblade at that point.
Or for real hilarity? Take a Pathfinder Squad with a Pulse Accelerator Drone for a 42" range Pulse Rifle, double-tapping at 21".
Ok, but no one takes those, which has a lot to do with how good the Catachan synergies are and the availability of models. In any case Cadians are getting reroll 1s without the need for markerlights. The range benefit of Tau is mitigated by simply moving, which can be done much faster with MMM...and with much less concern, because Catachans fight far better.
Cadians are getting reroll 1s for remaining stationary.
Ethereals grant it via "Storm of Fire" and that extends to all Infantry and Battlesuit units within 6" of them, no matter the Sept.
Also, if you MMM you can't Charge so Catachans "fighting far better" doesn't mean a whole lot unless you're trying to say they'll absorb a Charge from a dedicated CC unit better.
And again, all with nearly twice the wounds and shots.
Is this factoring in drone screens or naaaaaaaaaah?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/30 17:47:58
Oh the idea that someone is going to use a 10 point drone to improve the survivability of a 7 point firewarrior?
We have a new level of strawman logic there.
Kanluwen I have to as are you just violently opposed to fairly costed guardsmen or are you actually believing the insanity your posting?
Ice_can wrote: Oh the idea that someone is going to use a 10 point drone to improve the survivability of a 7 point firewarrior?
We have a new level of strawman logic there.
Kanluwen I have to as are you just violently opposed to fairly costed guardsmen or are you actually believing the insanity your posting?
More just calling everything a strawman. We are bringing up potential modifiers that people are not accounting for. Only bring up the drones. Good grief. What about the sept that adds range. I do so recall someone bringing up Vostroyans. Why can't we bring up all the potential modifiers on each side and stop pretending that every fight happens in the most optimal conditions?
An infantry squad might move up into a Fire Warrior squad's range and not move move move, as they are doing something else. They get shot for a turn. That is going to impact a scenario incredibly.
If the truth can destroy it, then it deserves to be destroyed.
GG 
