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.

 Galas wrote:
I think the problem with Veterans are Tempestus Scions. Is like having Tactical Marines, Better Tactical Marines, and then Sternguard. They basically occupy the same role.

That and moving to elites, while Scions moved to troops. It means that Scions are also better at holding objectives than Veterans, while Veterans are competing with other, often better, options in their slot. They might be worthwhile in Steel Legion armies, due to having 3 specials jumping out of their metal boxes, rerolling ones, and then having the survivors fire and duck for cover back inside the next turn. Other than that though, they could use some love.

 crimsondave wrote:


The points didn't change. Still 3 point conscripts, 4 point IG unless I'm cross-eyed. I paused during one of the reviews on the points page and saw it.

I guess the bright side is when the WAAC players move on to the next cheese we'll have tons of cheap IG to buy off ebay.

Oh I did the same thing, they did not change from what I can see. What I'm saying is that bumping each of those up to 4 and 5 points respectively will go a long way to making guardsmen more balanced all around. I think/hope this will happen in Chapter Approved, as the dex itself probably went to print before 8th even launched.

 Galas wrote:
I agree with you Gainsay in the part about the perception of the units,but for me Veterans and Leman Russes where pretty disappointing. Many times I have seen that in the internet theres only three states for a unit: OP (This is for a unit that is really, really OP. Like, God-Tier) Usable (This is a euphemism for OP) and Crap (This is for the rest of the units, both for units that are balanced and units that are actually pretty bad).

And personally I find redundant to call tournament players WAAC. Yeah, thats why you go to a competitive tournament, to win. Theres nothing bad about that. Even chasing the meta with the most OP flavour of the month doesn't has nothing bad about it, as long as is used in a competitive tournament.

It's obvious players are stuck on efficiency with every unit in a vacuum. The IG is an army that strives on the role units play and the overall synergy they provide. That said some units are obviously OP and I guess if you want to play one dimensionally you "should" only play those. A lot of units are not as easy to evaluate on paper and the best players are the people who can come up with a list thats playing the things that seem "bad" to everyone else to great effect. Lets be realistic some units are gak like sentinels tho.

Anyway I agree with you but it just seems every release there is more complaining than anything. Just wait till the cheddar and tau get books you know they're going to be really good.

The vast majority of complaining comes from a very vocal minority.... online. As per usual. I don't hear the crying from people in person around stores or clubs. What is even more pathetic is that many of those who complain the loudest don't even play that often (or at all)

 Galas wrote:
No problem guys, they'll make Conscripts 4 points and Infantry Guardsmen 5 points with Chapter Approved.

Weird question, why do people assume this?

These codices clearly have been responding to input for the wider community, they have been responding to balance issues... up till now. They even "responded" to issues with conscripts by fundamentally misunderstanding the problem with them. If they haven't realized what the issue is by now, why would they in the future? It's like they listened to one of those WAAC guard players on dakka who kept trying to deflect from the issue with their durability by bringing up how order efficiency was "the real issue". Which frankly means they just aren't up to the job, if someone fed them that line and they bought it.

People were talking about how they'd be fixed in the codex when people were wanting a FAQ nerfing them. Now people are talking about chapter approved because the codex fell through. At a certain point we just have to accept GW's design team is to stupid to properly do basic unit point efficiency comparisons, and thus we probably aren't getting a lot of issues fixed.

...If only GW's design team were smart like you...

 gainsay wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:


Leman Russ' were crap.
Baneblades were useless.
Infantry Squads were okay.
Veterans were pointless.
Hellhounds were okay.
Sentinels were (as always) crap.
Ogryns were okay.
Scions were powerful.
Conscripts were broken.

Veterans, Leman Russ, Infantry Squads, Hellhounds are all solid units in the index. Played them all in many tournaments and still did very well. The only people saying there crap are the WAAC tournament players. Every god damn unit is rated by these players and only perpetuates the negative douchebaggery of the 40K community.

 Hollow wrote:
...If only GW's design team were smart like you...

He has a point. 30 years and they still haven't figured it out... Units in one codex can be factually worse than another unit (with mathammer proving it) but cost more points. I play orks so i should know this.

Sure a shadowsword and 3 basilisks sounds very powerful. You know how many people I've ru into playing that? none. Is everyone going to switch over to playing that? No. Just because it's good doesn't mean everyone will play it. Only you Waac players will end up buying into that. I own a shadowsword and I haven't used it in two editions. I only use it when I fight my buddies titans. I don't own any basilisks and don't plan on getting any. I prefer russes over artillery just cuz they are my favorite model.

I don't think a lot of people realize a lot of these crazy op units will only be spammed and taken by Waac players.

 tankboy145 wrote:

Spoiler:

broxus wrote:

 tankboy145 wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:

 tankboy145 wrote:

 argonak wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
B.b.but most balanced edition ever, most playtested edition ever?

So who on the playtest crew plays guard?

Our local guard player is conflicted o the one hand he can curb stomp in the tournaments but he will never get another game outside the tournaments again.

If that's what his supposed friends are like, he's better off not playing. What a bunch of drama queens.

Completely agree. This is a game. Get over it. Played guard since 5th I'm glad they're finally great!
.

Ahhh a leafblower player given the bitterness and 5th edition start.

Look it may be an alien concept to some but the game should be played for "fun" given the current power level of guard and that the codex seemingly only contains buffs often to already good units. Even fluffy lists are going to be very powerful and in a lot of cases not fun to play against, guard are all ready pretty tedious to play against and all the additional rolls are not going to help.

8th Guard are the new space marines in that they have multiple ways of ignoring big chunks of the basic rules and that ultimately was one of the major issue with 7th and we saw how that turned out.

Well to start never played leaf blower or played against it. Like I said russes and infantry squads for me. Only ever got my first artillery piece(manticore) right before 8th edition dropped and I've never run vendettas as I don't care for flyers. So only thing ive tried out is mech vets. But they were pretty bad last edition as were vehicles in general which is when I started trying chimeras. But nice assumption on

And like I said the only crazy stuff that is bothersome is conscript spam, mortars(chick hws got a point hike) and super heavies.
And let's be honest aside from the shadow sword and the transport superheavy none of the other were really that good as for a few more points an imperial knight was far superior in every way. So sure the shadow sword now hits a minimum of 3 times but can hit max 9. It onliterates what it shoots at...BUT THATS WHAT A VOLCANOE CANNON DOES!!!! sure maybe it should get a point increase gw is pretty good with coming out with fast faq's and chapter approved as well. But if your a strait tourney player guess what! If it's that freaking good the tourney will probably limit it to one super heavy baneblade variant per army or just ban it in general like most tournaments have in the past.

And everyone cried how flavor was taken away from guard when the index dropped. Well what did you think was going to happen when regimental doctrine came out, it's free bonuses to allow you to play armies different ways.

Basilisk getting ap3. It was needed to make it different from battle tank as battle tank now if moves half fires twice. I would much rather have a battle tank moving slowly double tapping than a 2d6 pick the highest with 1 point strengths night and same ap and damage. Now with it being ap3 the earthshaker differentiates itself from having too similar a profile.

Scions got their boost in plasma and that was needed and expected.

Conscripts are still great for what they do. I've only ever run 40 conscripts, 2 units of 20 so that won't change how I run them. But I've never had an opponent complain about 40 conscripts. Sure if you play against that douche that brings 80+ then it gets annoying but I've only ever seen that at tournaments. They will probably get limited more at tournements or even get a further nerf from chapter approved or an FAQ.

As each and every codex comes out further I'm sure everyone will cry about each one as well with whatever they get for their armies. It's sad when people have to abuse the best units. Yea it might seem like a casual guard army is rather hard to fight against but that's what will happen with each and every army that gets their codex updated. I know prior to this release I struggled against marines and GK because of all the new things they have.

Let time play out. Let FAQ's and chapter approved come out, let other armies get their codexs with their buffs. I'm sure guard won't be at the top for long.

Sure Volcano cannons should kill stufff. The previous points D6 shots at 444 points already did it exceedingly well. I had used it since the index release and I already felt dirty due to its power. It was an insanely good option before. However, now with 3D3 shots, only costing 398 points, and capable of moving and shooting without penalty, psychic ability buffs, and regiment traits/ strategems buffing it, I mean WTF. No other armies “center piece” unit survives a single round of shooting against this. Before the cost and move and shoot penalty helped balance it out. In the new codex the Shadowsword has zero weaknesses.

Basilisk getting AP3. I mean did anyone not think they were exceptionally good for only 108pts? now add in the fact that regiment traits/ strategems buff it again makes a very good unit broken. On average this thing gets 5 mini lascannon shots a turn that doesn’t need LOS. 3 units of these means goodbye all heavy infantry and vehicles.

Three basilisks is in conjunction with the Shadowsword is very powerful against monsters, infantry and tanks. After you figure out how to deal with that you only need to develop plan to beat the other 1278 points in the AM list. Good luck.

Sure a shadowsword and 3 basilisks sounds very powerful. You know how many people I've ru into playing that? none. Is everyone going to switch over to playing that? No. Just because it's good doesn't mean everyone will play it. Only you Waac players will end up buying into that. I own a shadowsword and I haven't used it in two editions. I only use it when I fight my buddies titans. I don't own any basilisks and don't plan on getting any. I prefer russes over artillery just cuz they are my favorite model.

I don't think a lot of people realize a lot of these crazy op units will only be spammed and taken by Waac players.

Very true, that and who will actually buy and paint 150 conscripts just because of a power shift? I haven't got 150 painted models in my army after working on it for 2 years.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Galas wrote:
No problem guys, they'll make Conscripts 4 points and Infantry Guardsmen 5 points with Chapter Approved.

Weird question, why do people assume this?

These codices clearly have been responding to input for the wider community, they have been responding to balance issues... up till now. They even "responded" to issues with conscripts by fundamentally misunderstanding the problem with them. If they haven't realized what the issue is by now, why would they in the future? It's like they listened to one of those WAAC guard players on dakka who kept trying to deflect from the issue with their durability by bringing up how order efficiency was "the real issue". Which frankly means they just aren't up to the job, if someone fed them that line and they bought it.

People were talking about how they'd be fixed in the codex when people were wanting a FAQ nerfing them. Now people are talking about chapter approved because the codex fell through. At a certain point we just have to accept GW's design team is to stupid to properly do basic unit point efficiency comparisons, and thus we probably aren't getting a lot of issues fixed.

Why I assume and expect for them to improve? Because thats at least for me the option that I prefer.
The other options are:
-Stop playing W40K alltogether and go to play other games. (I already play other non-GW games, and I like W40K still.)
-Start saying how W40K is unbalanced gak and totally unfixable in the internet with the objetive of ... of what? Free my frustration? I dont take all of this that seriously.
-Give GW feedback in social media. (I already do this)
-Use the flavour o the month OP hotness. Personally I don't chase the meta, for me is a job of futility.

We can say all day that GW rule writers are bad, and to be honest, personally even if I believe that they have some cool and fun ideas they are mediocre at best when they need to implement them. But what after that? What do you expect is gonna happen, SilverAlien, after 5 months of repeating 5-10 times a day that Conscripts are OP on the internet? Give GW constructive feedback, and wait for the better. Or don't, and play other games, but theres a point where just assuming that GW games are gonna be always unfixable isn't good enough for a sane person. Is a toxic relationship with something that should be a hobby.

You gents are both very true. I only have 1 Basilisk. Ask me how old it is? It's 15 years old. Lol. The first tank I ever painted. Pretty sure when I put it on a table at my local shop people immediately recognize that when it is in immediate contrast to my nicely painted miniatures of my adult years.

People who are upset over this codex must be playing against far more competitive gamers. My local shop definitely has a very fun and hobby focused atmosphere. I'll continue to run my lists my way. To include rough riders. And you know what? If it's truly OP, I'll just tell my opponent to take an extra however many points more than me. Simple fix without me having to play without a brain

SilverAlien wrote:A guard squad costs 40 points though. They are so cheap that they are actually tougher for their points than space marines. A twin assault cannon can kill a little less than 6 guardsman or a little less than 3 marines. 6 guardsman cost less than even just two marines. So the idea guard is squishy needs to die in a fire, normal guard infantry are some of the toughest infantry in the game for their cost. Unless you do something stupid like start outfitting normal guardsman with weapons that cost almost as much as the squad itself, it's not a squishy unit in the slightest.

Dionysodorus wrote:Guard Infantry squads were already among the best Troops choices in the game. You talk a lot about how vulnerable they are and how little damage they do per model but you don't bring up points at all, and those are kind of important. They certainly out-shoot and out-tank tactical Marines in large numbers, where you can't assume the Marines are always in cover. I mean, a twin assault cannon firing at BS3+ expects to kill only 22.2 points of Guardsmen (I'm not sure why you think it's enough to take out a whole squad), but 34.7 points of Marines. Typical combat characters are far worse against Guardsmen than against almost any other kind of infantry -- basically all of them are at least S5 AP-1, sometimes with multiple damage. Ultimately, you get a little over 3 Guardsmen per Marine, and quality just doesn't make up for quantity. Offensively, they put out 3 S3 shots at BS4+, which is a lot better than 1 S4 shot at BS3+. They even do better against T6 and T7! Likewise Guardsmen are much better in CC than Marines. Of course, Marines aren't very good and nobody's taking them in large numbers, but this is pretty striking. I'm not sure what real competition a basic Infantry squad has other than Conscripts and Horrors. Battle Sisters come close when fighting with AP0 weapons I guess, though of course they're far more vulnerable to anything that ignores their armor.

- Because points aren't everything. Or to put it another way, it's a bit more complicated than that. You also have to look at which units in the army are actually inflicting damage on the enemy. Yeah, the basic guard infantry unit is cheap and cost-efficient, but by itself it isn't going to do that much. You may if you invest more points in it like a 20pt-lascannon at least ; except if you do that the cost of the unit goes up, meaning you have to review your maths.
- But even then, that infantry squad is still not really there to inflict much damage ; for most guard players anything it manages to do is more of a bonus. It's mostly there to hold objectives. Most of the damage will come from other sources: tanks (wyverns, manticores... ), HWTs, scions... etc. And if the enemy manages to kill enough of the stuff that's actually dangerous, the infantry squads will only be there to die a quick death.
- Then there's the fact that you're comparing guards to tactical marines (I guess?). But tactical marines are crap ; I barely see any these days. So you're comparing two mediocre units (as far as damage goes I mean) and saying that out of these two, marines come out worse as far as cost-efficiency goes. Which is true. But if we start comparing unit to unit, look at 4 guards vs 1 berzerker. The point cost is the same ; but the basic 'zerker does considerably more damage. Because the 'zerkers are one of these units that are good enough to do much more than hold objectives ; they need fire support in a balanced army but in their own role they're autonomous. The basic guard infantry unit is not autonomous: it needs different buffs to even remain on the board, and actually relies on other units for impact.
- Why did I say that a tl assault cannon could wipe out a squad of guards? Because I was careful to say "a squad without buffs." Without buffs, assuming you lose 6 guards, the squad takes additional casualties through morale on 2+ and the squad disappears on a 4+.

Look, I'm not saying the infantry squad is bad at what it does or anything. My point is that however cheap it is, it still needs those buffs to be worth putting on the table. In fact, many competitive lists I've seen so far do not take a single infantry squad ; because while the infantry squad is decent, the conscripts are the ones who are truly broken. And the other thing I'm saying is that infantry squads have been cost-efficient for some time now anyway (IIRC, ever since they dropped from 60 to 50), but because they've also never been the ones inflicting most of the damage in an IG army you need to look at the rest to know how powerful the army is, because the infantry is close to cannon fodder anyway.
And that's where army comp matters. While I'm sure that some armies will be ridiculously OP, I'm reserving judgment on the "standard" IG army that has not been built for competitive play. And I'm also keeping in mind that this is stillone of the first codices released. Even if IG is the strongest faction now, I don't believe it is so strong that other factions can't catch up once they get their codices. Or even that some existing armies can't win against them.
Or does anyone seriously believe that the eldar will not have ridiculously OP rules for the first time ever?

crimsondave wrote:Just stop. We are ridiculously OP. We were blowing people off the board with the INDEX. If you watch the mini war gaming review, what's his name is 28-1 with the index. If you want to troll all the tournaments congrats. If your like me, though, your left wondering how anybody is going to have fun playing the army I just spent the last two years building and painting. Who could have guessed infantry horde with scions would be ultra cheese during 7th? Seriously, my army looks like a power gamer built it.

- If you don't have something like 6+ HWTs, I'm not sure what's so goof about your infantry horde. As I'm trying to explain, spam of basic infantry units should not by itself be a problem for any decent opponent. And scions in the index were strong with the plasma-MSU, which is a specific build after all.
- As for tournaments, the reason I'm taking this -perhaps surprising- position is because I haven't seen IG perform extraordinarily well in tournaments so far. Oh sure, they perform very well, and good players will easily reach top 5 with an IG army. But they haven't been performing so well that it has had people worrying. And I'm talking about power armies with tons of conscripts, Celestine and sometimes assassins on top of that.
It's just not that easy to play, and it's way more vulnerable than people assume. Even with the codex, I think many people will realize in a few weeks that playing IG is actually quite far from getting auto-wins.
- The faction that has had people worried in my area is Ynnaris. In the latest tournament, the three 3 winners were all playing ynnari. Not that they're easy to play either, but good ynnari builds are truly terrifying.

The mini war gaming IG player actually said that everything that was amazing got better and they're the strongest army in the game. Even said it was easy tournament prize money with index and "good luck" to anyone who goes again ig.

Here's the huge problem. Play IG against most factions won't be a problem. Grey knights will probably beat them for example. But play IG against Orks and you have a major problem. We don't have any assassins to snipe your characters and stop orders and moral, we don't have the accuracy and output to deal with the hordes, even with cc you now have ways to counter tgat making it less likely we can do anything! I played a game vs IG without the codex and turn 1 (no joke) 90% of my army was taken off the table... even with my 5+ Invulnerable and 6+ fnp! And it's not like I can use gretchin to screen my units against conscripts when conscripts cost the same points as my screen unit!

But what he didn't say was his army list for tournaments. Go watch Owen's battle reports. He does not have the standard conscripts + Earthshaker Platforms + Scions list. His list is also a bit of imperial soup. He definitely has a unique style and list.

Wow, it only took five codexes before we were given a 6e/7e Eldar-level Broken Tier codex. That has to be some kind of record.

 lolman1c wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
...If only GW's design team were smart like you...

He has a point. 30 years and they still haven't figured it out... Units in one codex can be factually worse than another unit (with mathammer proving it) but cost more points. I play orks so i should know this.

Yeah, that's the thing this isn't even hard to spot for most people who are actively looking, I don't think it takes much to realize such issues exist. Which is what frustrates me. This should be obvious to someone who has actually gone through and done a point comparison on different units. Or had a generic milestone which other units are measured against. I can see issues like orders being more effective on conscripts slipping past a designer, that's the sort of thing you might not notice without playtesting. But basic ppm efficiency is literally just math, and not even hard math. It's high school statistics at absolute worst. I don't see how they keep making really basic mistakes, unless they aren't bothering to actually do any real work and are just eyeballing unit efficiency and adjusting based on feedback from playtesters/the community.

Also, if they are just eyeballing unit efficiency and adjusting based on feedback from playtesters/the community, they need to be fired because of laziness and incompetence.

This codex is a trash fire. So glad none of my regular opponents play Guard.

SilverAlien wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
...If only GW's design team were smart like you...

He has a point. 30 years and they still haven't figured it out... Units in one codex can be factually worse than another unit (with mathammer proving it) but cost more points. I play orks so i should know this.

Yeah, that's the thing this isn't even hard to spot for most people who are actively looking, I don't think it takes much to realize such issues exist. Which is what frustrates me. This should be obvious to someone who has actually gone through and done a point comparison on different units. Or had a generic milestone which other units are measured against. I can see issues like orders being more effective on conscripts slipping past a designer, that's the sort of thing you might not notice without playtesting. But basic ppm efficiency is literally just math, and not even hard math. It's high school statistics at absolute worst. I don't see how they keep making really basic mistakes, unless they aren't bothering to actually do any real work and are just eyeballing unit efficiency and adjusting based on feedback from playtesters/the community.

Also, if they are just eyeballing unit efficiency and adjusting based on feedback from playtesters/the community, they need to be fired because of laziness and incompetence.

Do you think we could create a basic algorithm that woukd determine points based on T, S, BS, WS, ect... of a unit?

 Mymearan wrote:
This codex is a trash fire. So glad none of my regular opponents play Guard.

Same for me. I worry it is the 7e Necrons starting point of broken codexes.

 lolman1c wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
...If only GW's design team were smart like you...

He has a point. 30 years and they still haven't figured it out...

Figured out what? How to create and maintain the most popular, prolific and profitable tabletop miniatures game on the planet? Seems to me like they got that ALL figured out.

 rippounet wrote:

- Because points aren't everything. Or to put it another way, it's a bit more complicated than that. You also have to look at which units in the army are actually inflicting damage on the enemy. Yeah, the basic guard infantry unit is cheap and cost-efficient, but by itself it isn't going to do that much. You may if you invest more points in it like a 20pt-lascannon at least ; except if you do that the cost of the unit goes up, meaning you have to review your maths.
- But even then, that infantry squad is still not really there to inflict much damage ; for most guard players anything it manages to do is more of a bonus. It's mostly there to hold objectives. Most of the damage will come from other sources: tanks (wyverns, manticores... ), HWTs, scions... etc. And if the enemy manages to kill enough of the stuff that's actually dangerous, the infantry squads will only be there to die a quick death.
- Then there's the fact that you're comparing guards to tactical marines (I guess?). But tactical marines are crap ; I barely see any these days. So you're comparing two mediocre units (as far as damage goes I mean) and saying that out of these two, marines come out worse as far as cost-efficiency goes. Which is true. But if we start comparing unit to unit, look at 4 guards vs 1 berzerker. The point cost is the same ; but the basic 'zerker does considerably more damage. Because the 'zerkers are one of these units that are good enough to do much more than hold objectives ; they need fire support in a balanced army but in their own role they're autonomous. The basic guard infantry unit is not autonomous: it needs different buffs to even remain on the board, and actually relies on other units for impact.
- Why did I say that a tl assault cannon could wipe out a squad of guards? Because I was careful to say "a squad without buffs." Without buffs, assuming you lose 6 guards, the squad takes additional casualties through morale on 2+ and the squad disappears on a 4+.

Look, I'm not saying the infantry squad is bad at what it does or anything. My point is that however cheap it is, it still needs those buffs to be worth putting on the table. In fact, many competitive lists I've seen so far do not take a single infantry squad ; because while the infantry squad is decent, the conscripts are the ones who are truly broken. And the other thing I'm saying is that infantry squads have been cost-efficient for some time now anyway (IIRC, ever since they dropped from 60 to 50), but because they've also never been the ones inflicting most of the damage in an IG army you need to look at the rest to know how powerful the army is, because the infantry is close to cannon fodder anyway.
And that's where army comp matters. While I'm sure that some armies will be ridiculously OP, I'm reserving judgment on the "standard" IG army that has not been built for competitive play. And I'm also keeping in mind that this is stillone of the first codices released. Even if IG is the strongest faction now, I don't believe it is so strong that other factions can't catch up once they get their codices. Or even that some existing armies can't win against them.
Or does anyone seriously believe that the eldar will not have ridiculously OP rules for the first time ever?

This seems like a pretty different sort of position than what I took you to be staking out earlier. So, to be clear, I do not think that Guard players should just try to maximize the number of Infantry models they have on the table. I do think they should make use of the buffs they've got access to, etc. I'm a little confused at your post here because you start off by saying "points aren't everything" and then you proceed to engage in highly artificial mathhammer about incomparable situations that rarely actually arise. Certainly nothing here looks like an argument against the position that Infantry are one of the best Troops choices in the game. Like, you're comparing the damage output of a Berzerker that magically finds itself in CC to the same points in Guardsmen and remarking on how it does more damage (although actually the Guardsmen do okay). Why do we care about this at all? I don't understand why you think this shows that Berzerkers, as opposed to Guardsmen, are "good enough to do much more than hold objectives". I don't understand why this means Guardsmen aren't really, really good.

 lolman1c wrote:
Do you think we could create a basic algorithm that woukd determine points based on T, S, BS, WS, ect... of a unit?

To many moving parts for a single accurate algorithm I think. At least, that I could do. A simpler, and arguably more accurate, method is just to have a set of of equations calculating offensive/defensive efficiency against some of the most common targets.

Of course, one of the big issues is this ignores synergy. So a conscript unit might look balanced till you run one being buffed by a commissar through and realize it's defensive power has basically doubled at a trivial external cost, making the unit's poor leadership and large minimum size totally irrelevant.

For conscripts I feel the issue should be obvious because well... has anyone ever even considered running conscripts without a commissar? You should be operating from that as a baseline tbh.

 Hollow wrote:

 lolman1c wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
...If only GW's design team were smart like you...

He has a point. 30 years and they still haven't figured it out...

Figured out what? How to create and maintain the most popular, prolific and profitable tabletop miniatures game on the planet? Seems to me like they got that ALL figured out.

Then they obviously haven't figured out balance because they figured out balance doesn't sell....

So they have figured it out...

I understand the fristeatiin with balance and powercreep etc. But as a modeler and painter if all tbis means we get not-marine modelnreleases I'll be pretty damn happy.

Anyone thinking this codex is OP needs to watch the newest Tabletop Tactics video. Pretty solid guard list against a Death Guard army.

This codex is broken beyond belief OP. The newest table top tactics does not use the codex which was buffed across the board and uses a sub optimal list.

However all is not lost. Unless you are a turd monkey to all your opponents you should need to play Super fluffy lists.
By this I mean using things you have never used before but have sat on your shelf for 5 editions. In example making company command squads have a medic, regimental banner, and vox casters. Ffs add vox casters to all your infantry units.
Use grenade launchers again and auto cannons/heavy bolters instead of spamming plasmaguns and lascannons....

If you don't you are pretty much a huge asshat. Use fluffy command tanks like vanquishers, instead of spamming punishers and executioners. Use veterans with melta again instead of spamming plasmagun scions which NO one ever used till 8th. A 30 man conscript squad with a single commissar is fluffy and cool 4x 30 man conscript squads means you are TFG.

All those cool models that guard had like platoon banner bearers should be used. Basic ogryn are cool; Celestine or guilliman are not....

Don't be the turd monkey in your flgs play fluffy not douchey

All I can say is that I am really happy my gaming group discourages power gaming, but also that there is only one Guard player.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Anyone thinking this codex is OP needs to watch the newest Tabletop Tactics video. Pretty solid guard list against a Death Guard army.

Don't have the attention span for 4 hours, the army list was kinda well... look I wasn't saying the codex was so OP you could literally just take anything from it and do well. None of us thought the codex would somehow make the death strike a good idea.

Do they talk enough I could glean relevant information with it in the background? I might try that.

Yeah they discuss a bunch of stuff, mostly at the beginning and end.

Other than the deathstrike, the colonel created quite a solid list, which isn't WAAC and yet wasn't low tier either, and played it exceptionally well. And it still was incredibly close. Death Guard are just THAT tough to kill.