New AM FAQ

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.

**Breng77**

I'm not sure T3 is the most buffed toughness, but the 5+ save is certainly the save that received the largest buff. Largely because most anti-infantry firepower in the past was AP 4 or 5, which meant they got no save, now they do (either a 6+ or 5+) anything higher than that ignored their saves anyway.

As for T3, I might argue that T4 got the largest buff. Nothing really changed from below (S2 is almost non-existent, but wounds them on 6s) S 3 is the same against them it always has been, while S 6 and 7 are worse than they previously were. For T3 this only applies to S5.

**Unit1126PLL**

Yeah, that's a true thing. The AP system certainly seems to favour 5+ and 6+ saves more than it did.

**malamis**

Bobthehero wrote:
Heard it was the Brits.

Strictly, the Welsh

Which was odd as I understood it was entirely the Argyl and Sutherland. Still; credit where it's due

It does kind of highlight a hidden truth; sometimes the 'best' equipment fails, and the correct choice of action is to stab a guy, doubly so if said guy isn't trained with how to deal with stabbity death.

Consequently I think conscripts should be WS 6; they may have had basic firearm training but close combat training would be for professional and conditioned soldiers; which they're not supposed to be yet.

Arguably basic guardsmen should be WS 5.

**Unit1126PLL**

malamis wrote:
Bobthehero wrote:
Heard it was the Brits.

Strictly, the Welsh

Which was odd as I understood it was entirely the Argyl and Sutherland. Still; credit where it's due

It does kind of highlight a hidden truth; sometimes the 'best' equipment fails, and the correct choice of action is to stab a guy, doubly so if said guy isn't trained with how to deal with stabbity death.

Consequently I think conscripts should be WS 6; they may have had basic firearm training but close combat training would be for professional and conditioned soldiers; which they're not supposed to be yet.

Arguably basic guardsmen should be WS 5.

I'd be okay with this so long as the option for WS4+ was preserved somehow for "assault" armies. I have a friend from the 3.5 IG codex who ran an assault Guard army, and I'd be sad to see his stabby guys go. I think he'd rather have BS5+ WS4+ than the other way around, and I would too.

**malamis**

Unit1126PLL wrote:

I'd be okay with this so long as the option for WS4+ was preserved somehow for "assault" armies. I have a friend from the 3.5 IG codex who ran an assault Guard army, and I'd be sad to see his stabby guys go. I think he'd rather have BS5+ WS4+ than the other way around, and I would too.

Given how weaksauce the s4 on Catachans works out, +1 WS under that regime might be sensible.

**Kanluwen**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, that's a true thing. The AP system certainly seems to favour 5+ and 6+ saves more than it did.

Or maybe the old AP system just was awful?

"I'm a 5+ save!"
"I'm AP5!"
"Aw crap, I don't get to do anything..."

The current system is much nicer and isn't so brutally punishing or having you remove buckets of models because someone just gets to ignore your saves.

**Breng77**

Kanluwen wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, that's a true thing. The AP system certainly seems to favour 5+ and 6+ saves more than it did.

Or maybe the old AP system just was awful?

"I'm a 5+ save!"
"I'm AP5!"
"Aw crap, I don't get to do anything..."

The current system is much nicer and isn't so brutally punishing or having you remove buckets of models because someone just gets to ignore your saves.

yes it is a better system. The issue is when costs aren't adjusted to reflect the change.

**Kanluwen**

Breng77 wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, that's a true thing. The AP system certainly seems to favour 5+ and 6+ saves more than it did.

Or maybe the old AP system just was awful?

"I'm a 5+ save!"
"I'm AP5!"
"Aw crap, I don't get to do anything..."

The current system is much nicer and isn't so brutally punishing or having you remove buckets of models because someone just gets to ignore your saves.

yes it is a better system. The issue is when costs aren't adjusted to reflect the change.

Costs were adjusted.

Most AP5 or 6 weapons cost 0 points

**Breng77**

Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.

**daedalus**

Kanluwen wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, that's a true thing. The AP system certainly seems to favour 5+ and 6+ saves more than it did.

Or maybe the old AP system just was awful?

"I'm a 5+ save!"
"I'm AP5!"
"Aw crap, I don't get to do anything..."

The current system is much nicer and isn't so brutally punishing or having you remove buckets of models because someone just gets to ignore your saves.

Not to mention that guard would just find a cover save from somewhere, and the end result would be identical to what it is now, but now it's an issue.

**Unit1126PLL**

That's a true point, Daedalus. The guard did used to get cover far far more often than they do now, meaning that they still had a save, but it was a 4+.

weird.

**Kanluwen**

Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

Actually, we don't know that they "cost 0 points before too". We didn't buy weapons or wargear individually on anything outside of characters.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.

Previously, I'd say that they were overcosted when talking about GEQs.

But since GEQs basically tended to be y'know...Guard only? It wasn't really a "Big Deal". How many people did you see running around with Guardians versus Jetbikes?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
That's a true point, Daedalus. The guard did used to get cover far far more often than they do now, meaning that they still had a save, but it was a 4+.

weird.

They had access to characters/psyker abilities that granted Shrouded or Stealth.

BIG difference between that and actually having cover.

**Unit1126PLL**

Kanluwen wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
That's a true point, Daedalus. The guard did used to get cover far far more often than they do now, meaning that they still had a save, but it was a 4+.

weird.

They had access to characters/psyker abilities that granted Shrouded or Stealth.

BIG difference between that and actually having cover.

Depends what edition you were talking about. I saw plenty of 50 man conscript blobs that had a 4+ save in 5th because 12 guys on one end of the line all had their toes in a ruin, and 13 guys on the other end of the line also had their toes in a different ruin.

No one seemed to bat an eye at 50 T3 models with a 4+ save back then. And they were 3 or 4 PPM while Marines were 15, I think.

**Melissia**

greatbigtree wrote:
Soooo.... how many points should Guardsmen and Conscripts cost? I've explained my reasoning already, what's yours?

I believe they are fine as they are until you have proven that the change you advocate will result in a better game.

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, that's a true thing. The AP system certainly seems to favour 5+ and 6+ saves more than it did.

The current AP system still actually favors a 2+ save over a 5+ or 6+. It's just that, these days, a 5+ and 6+ save aren't completely worthless as much as they used to be. Take a heavy bolter vs various armors:

AP-1 vs Terminator in cover: 2+ save to 2+ save, 0% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-1 vs Terminator, or Tactical in cover, or Scout w/Cloak in cover: 2+ save to 3+ save, 20% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-1 vs Tactical, or Scout in cover: 3+ save to 4+ save, 25% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-1 vs Scout, or Guardsmen in cover: 4+ save to 5+ save, 33% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-1 vs Guardsmen, or Ork in cover: 5+ save to 6+ save, 50% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-1 vs Ork: 6+ save to 7+ save, 100% reduction in armor efficiency.

Better armor is still objectively better and noticeably so. The higher the AP of the weapon, the more dramatic the armor's performance in comparison to worse armor.

AP-2 vs Terminator in Cover: 2+ save to 3+ save, 20% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-2 vs Terminator, or Tactical in Cover, or Scout w/Cloak in cover: 2+ save to 4+ save, 33% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-2 vs Tactical, or Scout in cover: 3+ save to 5+ save, 50% reduction in armor efficiency
AP-2 vs Scout, or Guardsmen in cover: 4+ save to 6+ save, or 66% reduction in armor efficiency
AP-2 vs Guardsmen or Orks (in or out of cover): 5+ to 7+, or 6+ to 8+, a 100% reduction in armor efficiency either way.

To further demonstrate this:

AP-3 vs Terminator in cover: 2+ save to 4+ save, 40% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-3 vs Terminator, or Tactical in cover, or Scout w/Cloak in cover: 2+ save to 5+ save, 60% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-3 vs Tactical, or Scout in cover: 3+ save to 6+ save, 75% reduction in armor efficiency
AP-3 vs everything else: 100% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-4 vs Terminator in cover: 2+ save to 5+ save, 60% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-4 vs Terminator, or tactical in cover, or scout w/cloak in cover: 2+ save to 6+ save, 80% reduction in armor efficiency
AP-4 vs everything else: 100% reduction in armor efficiency.

Better armor means you still actually get to use your armor save more often than before. But the current system means a 5+ or 6+ actually means something, where before it was nothing more than a joke about tee-shirts.

**Vaktathi**

Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.

Given how sparingly such guard infantry units were generally actually taken by players, and how poorly they generally performed, Id probably go with the former.

Infantry guard armies tended to be a platoon blob stuffed with Characters and backed up by stationary artillery platforms and heavy tanks. Conscripts were not something anyone typically really used, nor were units like heavy or special weapons squads. Non mechanized Veterans likewise were effectively nonexistent.

**Breng77**

Vaktathi wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.
Given how sparingly such guard infantry units were generally actually taken by players, and how poorly they generally performed, Id probably go with the former.

Infantry guard armies tended to be a platoon blob stuffed with Characters and backed up by stationary artillery platforms and heavy tanks. Conscripts were not something anyone typically really used, nor were units like heavy or special weapons squads. Non mechanized Veterans likewise were effectively nonexistent.

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

**Unit1126PLL**

Breng77 wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.
Given how sparingly such guard infantry units were generally actually taken by players, and how poorly they generally performed, Id probably go with the former.

Infantry guard armies tended to be a platoon blob stuffed with Characters and backed up by stationary artillery platforms and heavy tanks. Conscripts were not something anyone typically really used, nor were units like heavy or special weapons squads. Non mechanized Veterans likewise were effectively nonexistent.

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

Morale hasn't changed. With a Commissar around, IG fundamentally never broke anyways (it was a very rare thing).

Blasts do more damage to well-managed IG infantry squads than they used to, considering you could get max 3 hits with large blast if it didn't scatter, and max 1 hit with small blasts barring scatter. Now and again you could get ~8 hits to a squad that fell out of a transport, but a d6 averaged across the game probably had a similar total output to the 1 lucky hit than 3 gakky hits with 2 misses blasts got before.

**Breng77**

Melissia wrote:
greatbigtree wrote:
Soooo.... how many points should Guardsmen and Conscripts cost? I've explained my reasoning already, what's yours?
I believe they are fine as they are until you have proven that the change you advocate will result in a better game.

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, that's a true thing. The AP system certainly seems to favour 5+ and 6+ saves more than it did.

The current AP system still actually favors a 2+ save over a 5+ or 6+. It's just that, these days, a 5+ and 6+ save aren't completely worthless as much as they used to be. Take a heavy bolter vs various armors:

AP-1 vs Terminator in cover: 2+ save to 2+ save, 0% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-1 vs Terminator, or Tactical in cover, or Scout w/Cloak in cover: 2+ save to 3+ save, 20% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-1 vs Tactical, or Scout in cover: 3+ save to 4+ save, 25% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-1 vs Scout, or Guardsmen in cover: 4+ save to 5+ save, 33% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-1 vs Guardsmen, or Ork in cover: 5+ save to 6+ save, 50% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-1 vs Ork: 6+ save to 7+ save, 100% reduction in armor efficiency.

Better armor is still objectively better and noticeably so. The higher the AP of the weapon, the more dramatic the armor's performance in comparison to worse armor.

AP-2 vs Terminator in Cover: 2+ save to 3+ save, 20% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-2 vs Terminator, or Tactical in Cover, or Scout w/Cloak in cover: 2+ save to 4+ save, 33% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-2 vs Tactical, or Scout in cover: 3+ save to 5+ save, 50% reduction in armor efficiency
AP-2 vs Scout, or Guardsmen in cover: 4+ save to 6+ save, or 66% reduction in armor efficiency
AP-2 vs Guardsmen or Orks (in or out of cover): 5+ to 7+, or 6+ to 8+, a 100% reduction in armor efficiency either way.

To further demonstrate this:

AP-3 vs Terminator in cover: 2+ save to 4+ save, 40% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-3 vs Terminator, or Tactical in cover, or Scout w/Cloak in cover: 2+ save to 5+ save, 60% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-3 vs Tactical, or Scout in cover: 3+ save to 6+ save, 75% reduction in armor efficiency
AP-3 vs everything else: 100% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-4 vs Terminator in cover: 2+ save to 5+ save, 60% reduction in armor efficiency.
AP-4 vs Terminator, or tactical in cover, or scout w/cloak in cover: 2+ save to 6+ save, 80% reduction in armor efficiency
AP-4 vs everything else: 100% reduction in armor efficiency.

Better armor means you still actually get to use your armor save more often than before. But the current system means a 5+ or 6+ actually means something, where before it was nothing more than a joke about tee-shirts.

Cover does indeed matter more for better armor save units compared to last edition. Taking this part out. 5+ and 6+ have had the largest gain in this edition. It is not that a 5+ save is better than a 2+ save. It is that it had a larger gain with the AP changes because previously a 5+ save basically meant no save, so having a save more often than not is a large boost. Whereas a 2+ save really only got a buff against old AP 2(-3 in general) as they get a save where they would not have before (assuming no invul, in which case they are generally equal.). Against AP 3 and 4 (-1 and -2) a 2+ save is worse this edition than it was last edition, where as a 5+ save is better against -1 than it was vs AP 4. Against old AP 5 (usually now no AP) a 5+ is better and a 2+ is unchanged. Thus the 5+ and 6+ save gained the most from the change. That doesn't mean they are some how better than a superior save, just that if points did not change for anything they gained the largest benefit as they generally lost nothing and gained a bunch, where as a 2+ save generally gained nothing and lost a bunch. Cover is the only exception to this as 5+ and 6+ save units typically benefitted a lot from cover in previous editions and it is less so now, whereas 2+ save units rarely did before and do now.

**daedalus**

Breng77 wrote:

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

But, it didn't make a big difference because of the previous edition cover save. Now, Blast/template might be a factor. Point decrease is a factor. Needing a screen is probably the single largest factor. But going from always getting a 4+ to almost always getting a 5+ and sometimes getting a 4+ to always getting a 5+ and very very rarely getting a 4+ is not that big of a jump.

I can think of maybe 2 times I played against guard and they didn't get a cover save from something.

**Unit1126PLL**

So yes, if you take out the part that means armoured units are better, then armoured units aren't better.

Neat. Did you know if you took NFL players out of the NFL there would be no NFL players in the NFL?

**Kanluwen**

Breng77 wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.
Given how sparingly such guard infantry units were generally actually taken by players, and how poorly they generally performed, Id probably go with the former.

Infantry guard armies tended to be a platoon blob stuffed with Characters and backed up by stationary artillery platforms and heavy tanks. Conscripts were not something anyone typically really used, nor were units like heavy or special weapons squads. Non mechanized Veterans likewise were effectively nonexistent.

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

Or maybe--just maybe...

It's because Platoons don't exist anymore?
And Combined Squads are now a Stratagem, limited to combining just two squads rather than five?

**Breng77**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.
Given how sparingly such guard infantry units were generally actually taken by players, and how poorly they generally performed, Id probably go with the former.

Infantry guard armies tended to be a platoon blob stuffed with Characters and backed up by stationary artillery platforms and heavy tanks. Conscripts were not something anyone typically really used, nor were units like heavy or special weapons squads. Non mechanized Veterans likewise were effectively nonexistent.

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

Morale hasn't changed. With a Commissar around, IG fundamentally never broke anyways (it was a very rare thing).

Blasts do more damage to well-managed IG infantry squads than they used to, considering you could get max 3 hits with large blast if it didn't scatter, and max 1 hit with small blasts barring scatter. Now and again you could get ~8 hits to a squad that fell out of a transport, but a d6 averaged across the game probably had a similar total output to the 1 lucky hit than 3 gakky hits with 2 misses blasts got before.

Morale in combat used to have a risk of losing entire squads which it doesn't now. While rare with the commissar, pre-nerf it was worse than it was in early 8th. This was noticeable in 6th when every IG blob had a SM character to avoid getting swept.

Blasts depending on the type were better against massed infantry than they are now simply because not every player had exact spacing and when they did scatter they often hit more than 3 models, throw in barrage weapons and you could get quite a few hits compared to now. Lets not even talk about super heavies and their blast weapons. Tank shock + flamers also worked well against hordes.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.
Given how sparingly such guard infantry units were generally actually taken by players, and how poorly they generally performed, Id probably go with the former.

Infantry guard armies tended to be a platoon blob stuffed with Characters and backed up by stationary artillery platforms and heavy tanks. Conscripts were not something anyone typically really used, nor were units like heavy or special weapons squads. Non mechanized Veterans likewise were effectively nonexistent.

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

Or maybe--just maybe...

It's because Platoons don't exist anymore?
And Combined Squads are now a Stratagem, limited to combining just two squads rather than five?

That is likely true for why not as many infantry squads, but if conscripts were bad previously changes to infantry squads don't make them good. So either, both got buffed, but no blob = more conscripts, or conscripts were good before but platoons were better.

**Vaktathi**

Breng77 wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.
Given how sparingly such guard infantry units were generally actually taken by players, and how poorly they generally performed, Id probably go with the former.

Infantry guard armies tended to be a platoon blob stuffed with Characters and backed up by stationary artillery platforms and heavy tanks. Conscripts were not something anyone typically really used, nor were units like heavy or special weapons squads. Non mechanized Veterans likewise were effectively nonexistent.

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

even now we're not really seeing people take lots of 5+sv units on their own merits. They buy them as slot fillers, which can also happen to serve as body blocks, not really because they're really good. Looking at army lists, basically once the minimum detachment slots are filled, people dont tend to be investing more in 5+sv infantry beyond that. We're just seeing more variety than we were.

By the same token, on durability, while GEQ's get to take their save more often, so do other units. With the proliferation ap AP2 weapons in previous editions, many complained that armor saves of any kind werent worth squat, whereas now a Space Marine gets a save against a Battlecannon.

The biggest issue with IG infantry isnt their performance, its their ability to fill slots and rack up CP's. GW did two things in this regard. First, they broke off officers from their command squads. This means that they now both cant be targeted and can be taken much more cheaply. Second, they broke up the Platoon structure which had previously constrained FoC slot usage. With the way army construction changed, and the introduction of CP's, this has made IG able to make armies that have lots of CP's very easy. Not quite the "20+" that some complain about, but 9-14 when most opponents will have 6-8 is not uncommon. That's probably where the real issue is.

**Breng77**

daedalus wrote:
Breng77 wrote:

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

But, it didn't make a big difference because of the previous edition cover save. Now, Blast/template might be a factor. Point decrease is a factor. Needing a screen is probably the single largest factor. But going from always getting a 4+ to almost always getting a 5+ and sometimes getting a 4+ to always getting a 5+ and very very rarely getting a 4+ is not that big of a jump.

I can think of maybe 2 times I played against guard and they didn't get a cover save from something.

I highly doubt large squads were simultaneously spread out to avoid blasts, and always in cover. Small squads did indeed gain benefit from cover, but it is of note that 7th edition cover was 5+ not 4+ unless you were always in ruins.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
So yes, if you take out the part that means armoured units are better, then armoured units aren't better.

Neat. Did you know if you took NFL players out of the NFL there would be no NFL players in the NFL?

Comparing those units is a matter of cost, and I don't find that units always have cover. If we are simply talking about the AP system, then the 5+ save gained the most.

**Unit1126PLL**

Breng77 wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.
Given how sparingly such guard infantry units were generally actually taken by players, and how poorly they generally performed, Id probably go with the former.

Infantry guard armies tended to be a platoon blob stuffed with Characters and backed up by stationary artillery platforms and heavy tanks. Conscripts were not something anyone typically really used, nor were units like heavy or special weapons squads. Non mechanized Veterans likewise were effectively nonexistent.

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

Morale hasn't changed. With a Commissar around, IG fundamentally never broke anyways (it was a very rare thing).

Blasts do more damage to well-managed IG infantry squads than they used to, considering you could get max 3 hits with large blast if it didn't scatter, and max 1 hit with small blasts barring scatter. Now and again you could get ~8 hits to a squad that fell out of a transport, but a d6 averaged across the game probably had a similar total output to the 1 lucky hit than 3 gakky hits with 2 misses blasts got before.

Morale in combat used to have a risk of losing entire squads which it doesn't now. While rare with the commissar, pre-nerf it was worse than it was in early 8th. This was noticeable in 6th when every IG blob had a SM character to avoid getting swept.

Blasts depending on the type were better against massed infantry than they are now simply because not every player had exact spacing and when they did scatter they often hit more than 3 models, throw in barrage weapons and you could get quite a few hits compared to now. Lets not even talk about super heavies and their blast weapons. Tank shock + flamers also worked well against hordes.

Priests have made IG fearless since 3rd. IG blobs could stay in assault all day for like 5 editions without taking morale casualties. It was a common thing called tarpitting, and it wasn't even with an SM character.

Blasts were only better against massed infantry against a bad opponent (and we're assuming opponents of equal skill here, yes? Otherwise why are we adjusting balance based on an unequal matchup?) and if it scattered and the enemy was appropriately spaced, more often than not it cleanly missed, because the enemy is deployed in a straight line. Barrage weapons did not make the blast bigger somehow.

Superheavy blast weapons are now about where they were if not better - 3d6 has an average of 10-11 hits, which is identical to what it got on a 10 man squad clumped into a ball when it was blast. But now it can do more, while also having the potential to do much worse. Back in the day, it could only do worse (miss), and not better. So in this case, blasts have been buffed.

Tank Shock was an option that was removed for the sake of balance/playability, so I am on board with you, Tank Shock being gone is silly.

But yes, you could tank shock people into flamer formations. I concede that the inability to do this very specific thing is a tiny tiny buff to guard infantry.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Breng77 wrote:

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

But, it didn't make a big difference because of the previous edition cover save. Now, Blast/template might be a factor. Point decrease is a factor. Needing a screen is probably the single largest factor. But going from always getting a 4+ to almost always getting a 5+ and sometimes getting a 4+ to always getting a 5+ and very very rarely getting a 4+ is not that big of a jump.

I can think of maybe 2 times I played against guard and they didn't get a cover save from something.

I highly doubt large squads were simultaneously spread out to avoid blasts, and always in cover. Small squads did indeed gain benefit from cover, but it is of note that 7th edition cover was 5+ not 4+ unless you were always in ruins.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
So yes, if you take out the part that means armoured units are better, then armoured units aren't better.

Neat. Did you know if you took NFL players out of the NFL there would be no NFL players in the NFL?

Comparing those units is a matter of cost, and I don't find that units always have cover. If we are simply talking about the AP system, then the 5+ save gained the most.

To address this post:

The first is a symptom of you not having cover on your tables in sufficient quantity, and the later is ... a symptom of you not having cover on your tables in sufficient quantity.
Maybe that's the problem?

**Breng77**

Vaktathi wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.
Given how sparingly such guard infantry units were generally actually taken by players, and how poorly they generally performed, Id probably go with the former.

Infantry guard armies tended to be a platoon blob stuffed with Characters and backed up by stationary artillery platforms and heavy tanks. Conscripts were not something anyone typically really used, nor were units like heavy or special weapons squads. Non mechanized Veterans likewise were effectively nonexistent.

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

even now we're not really seeing people take lots of 5+sv units on their own merits. They buy them as slot fillers, which can also happen to serve as body blocks, not really because they're really good. Looking at army lists, basically once the minimum detachment slots are filled, people dont tend to be investing more in 5+sv infantry beyond that. We're just seeing more variety than we were.

By the same token, on durability, while GEQ's get to take their save more often, so do other units. With the proliferation ap AP2 weapons in previous editions, many complained that armor saves of any kind werent worth squat, whereas now a Space Marine gets a save against a Battlecannon.

The biggest issue with IG infantry isnt their performance, its their ability to fill slots and rack up CP's. GW did two things in this regard. First, they broke off officers from their command squads. This means that they now both cant be targeted and can be taken much more cheaply. Second, they broke up the Platoon structure which had previously constrained FoC slot usage. With the way army construction changed, and the introduction of CP's, this has made IG able to make armies that have lots of CP's very easy. Not quite the "20+" that some complain about, but 9-14 when most opponents will have 6-8 is not uncommon. That's probably where the real issue is.

Not sure I agree that 5+ save units are never taken for their won merits. They are taken due to that all the time. Not because a 5+ save is great, but because they typically have good damage output on a cheap body, because of their poor save.

As for AP2, that is true, but anti-horde weapons in old editions were never AP2. So while prevalent they were not the huge threat to cheap infantry. So while that is a buff to high save units as well (getting at least a token save), having a save against standard guns is a large buff.

I agree that guard getting a lot of cp easily is a big bonus compared to many other armies.

**malamis**

Breng77 wrote:

I highly doubt large squads were simultaneously spread out to avoid blasts, and always in cover. Small squads did indeed gain benefit from cover, but it is of note that 7th edition cover was 5+ not 4+ unless you were always in ruins.

That ignores the existence of the old fashioned Aegis Defence Line, which granted 2~ feet of models a 4+ cover save and cost as much as a single squad of guardsmen before upgrades.

I don't think I ever played a serious infantry (and even a few of the tankers) guard commander who didn't use at least one.

**Kanluwen**

Breng77 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Or maybe--just maybe...

It's because Platoons don't exist anymore?
And Combined Squads are now a Stratagem, limited to combining just two squads rather than five?

That is likely true for why not as many infantry squads, but if conscripts were bad previously changes to infantry squads don't make them good. So either, both got buffed, but no blob = more conscripts, or conscripts were good before but platoons were better.

Well considering you needed to have a Platoon in order to purchase Conscripts...

There was literally no way to field Conscripts without Platoons. Conscripts were part of the Platoon.
A Platoon was already requiring you to field, before adding anything else, a minimum of:
1 Platoon Command Squad
2 Infantry Squads

So...Conscripts weren't taken before because there was zero reason to when you had to buy more stuff anyways.

**Breng77**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
Most of them cost 0 points before too. I'm referring to model costs.

If a conscript was worth 3 points last edition, when it never got a save, how is it worth the same when it frequently gets one? Either all 5+ save models have been overcosted previously or they need to be adjusted accordingly. Seeing as how cheap hordes are quite powerful right now the latter seems to be more the case.
Given how sparingly such guard infantry units were generally actually taken by players, and how poorly they generally performed, Id probably go with the former.

Infantry guard armies tended to be a platoon blob stuffed with Characters and backed up by stationary artillery platforms and heavy tanks. Conscripts were not something anyone typically really used, nor were units like heavy or special weapons squads. Non mechanized Veterans likewise were effectively nonexistent.

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

Morale hasn't changed. With a Commissar around, IG fundamentally never broke anyways (it was a very rare thing).

Blasts do more damage to well-managed IG infantry squads than they used to, considering you could get max 3 hits with large blast if it didn't scatter, and max 1 hit with small blasts barring scatter. Now and again you could get ~8 hits to a squad that fell out of a transport, but a d6 averaged across the game probably had a similar total output to the 1 lucky hit than 3 gakky hits with 2 misses blasts got before.

Morale in combat used to have a risk of losing entire squads which it doesn't now. While rare with the commissar, pre-nerf it was worse than it was in early 8th. This was noticeable in 6th when every IG blob had a SM character to avoid getting swept.

Blasts depending on the type were better against massed infantry than they are now simply because not every player had exact spacing and when they did scatter they often hit more than 3 models, throw in barrage weapons and you could get quite a few hits compared to now. Lets not even talk about super heavies and their blast weapons. Tank shock + flamers also worked well against hordes.

Priests have made IG fearless since 3rd. IG blobs could stay in assault all day for like 5 editions without taking morale casualties. It was a common thing called tarpitting, and it wasn't even with an SM character.

Blasts were only better against massed infantry against a bad opponent (and we're assuming opponents of equal skill here, yes? Otherwise why are we adjusting balance based on an unequal matchup?) and if it scattered and the enemy was appropriately spaced, more often than not it cleanly missed, because the enemy is deployed in a straight line. Barrage weapons did not make the blast bigger somehow.

Superheavy blast weapons are now about where they were if not better - 3d6 has an average of 10-11 hits, which is identical to what it got on a 10 man squad clumped into a ball when it was blast. But now it can do more, while also having the potential to do much worse. Back in the day, it could only do worse (miss), and not better. So in this case, blasts have been buffed.

Tank Shock was an option that was removed for the sake of balance/playability, so I am on board with you, Tank Shock being gone is silly.

But yes, you could tank shock people into flamer formations. I concede that the inability to do this very specific thing is a tiny tiny buff to guard infantry.

You are failing to account for those 3D6 "hits" not being auto hits. So 10-11 SHOTS is more like 5-6 hits, not 10. Same with your other blast D6 shots averages like 2 hits at best for BS 4+. I guess we saw very different players I rarely saw giant hordes in a single straight line, more often than not they were in blocks of 2" spacing because terrain and space would not allow straight lines. Also remember fearless in some editions made models die in combat. The Space marine characters allowed you to fall out of combat with no penalty (if you failed morale).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Breng77 wrote:

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

But, it didn't make a big difference because of the previous edition cover save. Now, Blast/template might be a factor. Point decrease is a factor. Needing a screen is probably the single largest factor. But going from always getting a 4+ to almost always getting a 5+ and sometimes getting a 4+ to always getting a 5+ and very very rarely getting a 4+ is not that big of a jump.

I can think of maybe 2 times I played against guard and they didn't get a cover save from something.

I highly doubt large squads were simultaneously spread out to avoid blasts, and always in cover. Small squads did indeed gain benefit from cover, but it is of note that 7th edition cover was 5+ not 4+ unless you were always in ruins.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
So yes, if you take out the part that means armoured units are better, then armoured units aren't better.

Neat. Did you know if you took NFL players out of the NFL there would be no NFL players in the NFL?

Comparing those units is a matter of cost, and I don't find that units always have cover. If we are simply talking about the AP system, then the 5+ save gained the most.

To address this post:

The first is a symptom of you not having cover on your tables in sufficient quantity, and the later is ... a symptom of you not having cover on your tables in sufficient quantity.
Maybe that's the problem?

Sorry but no this involved large GTs like the NOVA. plenty of terrain, but you were not deploying in a straight line spread out 2" with 50 models and also being in cover. SO unless you have 100% cover on your table I highly doubt that you can be fully spread out to avoid blasts and fully in cover with large squads. In this edition I find small units have cover, but blobs do not because of needing to be 100% on the terrain to get cover.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:
Breng77 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Or maybe--just maybe...

It's because Platoons don't exist anymore?
And Combined Squads are now a Stratagem, limited to combining just two squads rather than five?

That is likely true for why not as many infantry squads, but if conscripts were bad previously changes to infantry squads don't make them good. So either, both got buffed, but no blob = more conscripts, or conscripts were good before but platoons were better.

Well considering you needed to have a Platoon in order to purchase Conscripts...

There was literally no way to field Conscripts without Platoons. Conscripts were part of the Platoon.
A Platoon was already requiring you to field, before adding anything else, a minimum of:
1 Platoon Command Squad
2 Infantry Squads

So...Conscripts weren't taken before because there was zero reason to when you had to buy more stuff anyways.

also true so that was a built in cost they no longer have.

**Unit1126PLL**

You could if you brought an Aegis Defense Line, as someone already mentioned.

I never saw a footguard player without an Aegis.

EDIT: Oh yeah, you're right about blasts not autohitting.

Maybe they should! Surely that would make them better against hordes... and everyone else... so we're back to square 1. But yeah, you've convinced me that to achieve the same level of utility as they had blasts should autohit. Whether shooting at Marines or IG or anyone else.