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.

Its not that its worst or better, its a different Meta at 500pts.

OFC a Land Raider is bad at 500pts and yes IG Mortars are good, but at 500pts 1 Vehicle can live long enough to move units.

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Its not that its worst or better, its a different Meta at 500pts.

OFC a Land Raider is bad at 500pts and yes IG Mortars are good, but at 500pts 1 Vehicle can live long enough to move units.

Well that be a good example.

i guess the big cheeses might shift too like girlyman morty and magnum pi.

in that rowboat would have less units to buff while morty and magnus might have less las cannons to deal with but then their armies would have less functional support.

would be cool to see some tourny players give list making a shot to see some hypothetical interactions.

edit: additionally ultimately if the entire concept was to increase the speed of the games by reducing the amount of toy soldiers to push around per game then that would probably do it in most lists.

 nintura wrote:
what was the space wolves army list that placed at this tournie?

The one that lost in the semi (under questionable circumstances)?
some wolves, bunch of characters on Thunderwolves, some blood angels and some guard.

Morty and mag would be a hard nut for most armies to crack at 1500 points. They only just barely get blown off the table before they destroy your army at 2k. And they don't need the rest of their army to destroy 1500 points worth of whatever (maybe a buffing sorcerer and some objective scoring units)

1500 really hurts TAC ability of a lot of armies. Either you can deal with superheavies/LOWs or you can deal with orc hordes coming at you, IMHO not enough points to do both (for SM at least).

I feel like it is longer games or a highly modified tournament balanced CA for 1500 point 2.5 hour tourney games (single LOWs or models w/ 15+ wounds, limits on hordes, no supreme command detachments, some other rules I don't have the time to think about right now)

Outside of that you get into the slippery slope of trying to legislate intent and unless you have the same judge at every table that is going to get subjective and messy quickly (ever seen a poker player call time on another one, that stuff gets tense fast)

 Vaktathi wrote:
1500pts was the standard suggested general game size for many editions. It is the standard GW held to as their design paradigm for two decades until they just let everyone take whatever whenever and however they wanted.

Playing at 1500pts lets you build and create an effective and thematic army that plays nicely on a 6x4 table. 2k or 1850 lets you fit in all the toys you want, but the idea that its better balanced has no data behind it as far as I can find. Big scary powerful units will be a bit beefier at 1500, cheese reliant on weight of numbers or things like CP abuse will do a bit worse, but probably not in any earth shattering way.

My preferred level is 2k, just because thats what I like to build to, and it lets me field all my cool toys. That said, 1500 isn't a bad level to play at, and and it is dramatically closer in tabletop look and feel, and tactical capabaility, to a 2k game than it is to a 1k or 500pt game. There is nothing wrong with 1500pts for tournaments. Especially given that current 1500pt armies are often equivalent to 1850-2250pt forces from editions like 4E.

Maybe 1650 then. Some tournaments were experimenting with that the very end of 7th. It's basically 1500 with a little bit extra to squeeze in another unit/HQ. Maybe what is also needed is a percentage limit on LoW choices to stop some douche taking Morty or Magnus at 1500 (or 1650) and dominating; 25% LoW at 1500 is 375 points and at 1650 is approximately 412 points. You'd have to work some things with Knights since they are all LoW but that's easy to add as a sidebar for them as an exception, or even just exclude them completely and say tough, it's for the betterment of the game as a whole.

bananathug wrote:
Morty and mag would be a hard nut for most armies to crack at 1500 points. They only just barely get blown off the table before they destroy your army at 2k. And they don't need the rest of their army to destroy 1500 points worth of whatever (maybe a buffing sorcerer and some objective scoring units)

1500 really hurts TAC ability of a lot of armies. Either you can deal with superheavies/LOWs or you can deal with orc hordes coming at you, IMHO not enough points to do both (for SM at least).

I feel like it is longer games or a highly modified tournament balanced CA for 1500 point 2.5 hour tourney games (single LOWs or models w/ 15+ wounds, limits on hordes, no supreme command detachments, some other rules I don't have the time to think about right now)

Outside of that you get into the slippery slope of trying to legislate intent and unless you have the same judge at every table that is going to get subjective and messy quickly (ever seen a poker player call time on another one, that stuff gets tense fast)

I guess it would depend on the mission. because im envisioning morty or mag running around with most of their army dead trying to deal with flies jumping on objectives all over the place.
Horde probably would be a problem though.

Or only let 1 LoW be taken.

OrSee how the meta works, if players are winning via points why does it matter if Morty/Magnus kill 99% your army if they are not going to even win?

So let me get this straight.

LVO 2016, 3 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2017, 2 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2018 come 8th edition, 5 of the top 8 lists are Eldar.

Am I missing anything here?

 MagicJuggler wrote:
So let me get this straight.

LVO 2016, 3 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2017, 2 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2018 come 8th edition, 5 of the top 8 lists are Eldar.

Am I missing anything here?

I'm not going to crucify GW over this until March. They promise that they're different now, and if that's true then we'll see the Craftworlds receive a hefty nerf. If that doesn't happen... well, it'll be obvious that GW still has a favorite faction.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
So let me get this straight.

LVO 2016, 3 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2017, 2 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2018 come 8th edition, 5 of the top 8 lists are Eldar.

Am I missing anything here?

I'm not going to crucify GW over this until March. They promise that they're different now, and if that's true then we'll see the Craftworlds receive a hefty nerf. If that doesn't happen... well, it'll be obvious that GW still has a favorite faction.

IG?

 nintura wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
So let me get this straight.

LVO 2016, 3 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2017, 2 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2018 come 8th edition, 5 of the top 8 lists are Eldar.

Am I missing anything here?

I'm not going to crucify GW over this until March. They promise that they're different now, and if that's true then we'll see the Craftworlds receive a hefty nerf. If that doesn't happen... well, it'll be obvious that GW still has a favorite faction.

IG?

Remember conscripts, commissars, and earthshaker carriages? Yeah. Maybe GW should have preempted IG players just moving on to infantry squads with little consequence but you can't pretend GW hasn't addressed units that proved a problem in matched play.

 nintura wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
So let me get this straight.

LVO 2016, 3 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2017, 2 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2018 come 8th edition, 5 of the top 8 lists are Eldar.

Am I missing anything here?

I'm not going to crucify GW over this until March. They promise that they're different now, and if that's true then we'll see the Craftworlds receive a hefty nerf. If that doesn't happen... well, it'll be obvious that GW still has a favorite faction.

IG?

I thought 2017 was only 1 Eldar in top 10? lol And i thought chaos had 2, Corsairs had 1?

Or did they do an 8th edition battle as well?

 Marmatag wrote:
Why not drop it to 1000? or 500?

All of your arguments apply.

Certain units are simply not balanced for smaller games.

Have you ever played in smaller point tournaments? It sucks. You see the same meta lists that you see now, except they're more efficient relative to the field. That's the thing about spamming things. It fits in at any point level, and people who can't spam, and need a variety of units to cope with spam, can't hang.

I think the opposite is to some extent true, because you need to make trade offs to get units into your list. If anything is the issue with lower points it is that cheap troops and HQ are much more valuable.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 nintura wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
So let me get this straight.

LVO 2016, 3 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2017, 2 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2018 come 8th edition, 5 of the top 8 lists are Eldar.

Am I missing anything here?

I'm not going to crucify GW over this until March. They promise that they're different now, and if that's true then we'll see the Craftworlds receive a hefty nerf. If that doesn't happen... well, it'll be obvious that GW still has a favorite faction.

IG?

I thought 2017 was only 1 Eldar in top 10? lol And i thought chaos had 2, Corsairs had 1?

Or did they do an 8th edition battle as well?

One of the lists was Corsair Bikes, so mostly similar to Eldar.

Good to see the Eldar conspiracies continue, lol

Just take a deep breath....

Did Dark Reapers get a brand new plastic kit? Are they really easy to find right now?

So, GW wants to make a unit that is almost impossible to find the best in the game, because....???. Riiiiight.

Jetbikes are a new kit for Eldar.....and they got nerfed hard in 8th.

It's simply GW not really playtesting as thoroughly as they claim with certain combos compared to the massive gaming community. If reapers were not a thing, would Eldar still be busted? (of course there will always be someone here that thinks that because their shiny marines aren't wiping the floor with everyone they play)

 MagicJuggler wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 nintura wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
So let me get this straight.

LVO 2016, 3 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2017, 2 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2018 come 8th edition, 5 of the top 8 lists are Eldar.

Am I missing anything here?

I'm not going to crucify GW over this until March. They promise that they're different now, and if that's true then we'll see the Craftworlds receive a hefty nerf. If that doesn't happen... well, it'll be obvious that GW still has a favorite faction.

IG?

I thought 2017 was only 1 Eldar in top 10? lol And i thought chaos had 2, Corsairs had 1?

Or did they do an 8th edition battle as well?

One of the lists was Corsair Bikes, so mostly similar to Eldar.

Yeah but Corsair bikers are mostly Melee, 3-5man units (2 for more wounds bascially) with +1S rending Power swords. They didnt work like Eldar at all. Even tho they are Eldar, they are completely different like how DE is compare to Eldar also.

Then they had Hornets for AT (A Corsair unit that is like a mix of Vyper and Ravager). You saying Corsairs is Eldar is me Saying SW are the same as Ultramarine.

 nintura wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
So let me get this straight.

LVO 2016, 3 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2017, 2 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2018 come 8th edition, 5 of the top 8 lists are Eldar.

Am I missing anything here?

I'm not going to crucify GW over this until March. They promise that they're different now, and if that's true then we'll see the Craftworlds receive a hefty nerf. If that doesn't happen... well, it'll be obvious that GW still has a favorite faction.

IG?

Conscript nerf, commissar nerf, earthshaker carriage nerf, plasma nerf on 3+ models, manticore nerf, astropath nerf etc as well as half of our model range languishing in 3rd edition. Believe me, IG players are feeling the love. To top it off, the only time we perform well is when used as fodder for elite armies & then when those armies perform well IG gets nerfed further while those elite armies get ignored.

Until GW enforces the following:

Matched play - No allies. No imperial soup lists. Only pure army lists.

Narrative play - Allies, do whatever you want.

IG is going to continue to get screwed over.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
So let me get this straight.

LVO 2016, 3 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2017, 2 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2018 come 8th edition, 5 of the top 8 lists are Eldar.

Am I missing anything here?

Small sample size. LVO is not representative of all tournaments. Chaos Daemons took the top spot at NOVA or Adepticon at least one of those years.

While I realize international players attend tournaments everywhere these days, there's still a regional element to each one. My bet is that Eldar are well represented by competitive players from SoCal and that's why we see this trend.

Guardsmen, mortars, and other indirect fire are still way too strong. Plasma scions are still too cheap.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'd just like to see 8th not be the third edition in a row where the rest of us have to kneel to our Eldar overlords, but it's not looking too good.

Heh, after the codex dropped I got massively flamed (even got some angry PM's sent my way) when I said that this would probably be the third edition in a row where I'll end up shelving my Eldar because they're so good I won't enjoy playing with them. The fact that I've played them as Alaitoc ever since 3d Edition certainly doesn't help...

I should just sell my Eldar at this point, I haven't really played them actively since 5th Ed...

Martel732 wrote:
Guardsmen, mortars, and other indirect fire are still way too strong. Plasma scions are still too cheap.

So essentially what you're asking for is a blanket nerf to nearly the entire IG codex (we are almost there). You're fine with Eldar dominating every tournament but IG who barely have any presence at all at the top, they are the issue? We've been going over this for months Martel. The results of this tournament back my previous claims that the commissar nerf went to far, that IG as a standalone gets stomped, yet you continue to ask for nerfs to IG in nearly every one of your posts. I don't get it.

 Commissar Benny wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Guardsmen, mortars, and other indirect fire are still way too strong. Plasma scions are still too cheap.

So essentially what you're asking for is a blanket nerf to nearly the entire IG codex (we are almost there). You're fine with Eldar dominating every tournament but IG who barely have any presence at all at the top, they are the issue? We've been going over this for months Martel. The results of this tournament back my previous claims that the commissar nerf went to far, that IG as a standalone gets stomped, yet you continue to ask for nerfs to IG in nearly every one of your posts. I don't get it.

Nobody is fine with Eldar dominating, it has been stated repeatedly that dark reapers need to and certainly will be nerfed. You're ignoring facts in order to fit your worldview of IG being this poor, persecuted faction.

 Commissar Benny wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Guardsmen, mortars, and other indirect fire are still way too strong. Plasma scions are still too cheap.

So essentially what you're asking for is a blanket nerf to nearly the entire IG codex (we are almost there). You're fine with Eldar dominating every tournament but IG who barely have any presence at all at the top, they are the issue? We've been going over this for months Martel. The results of this tournament back my previous claims that the commissar nerf went to far, that IG as a standalone gets stomped, yet you continue to ask for nerfs to IG in nearly every one of your posts. I don't get it.

Eldar are propped up by the Dark Reapers for sure. Take them away, and we'll be back to IG stomping face. IG's dominance comes from many small factors adding up, not one grossly miscosted unit. IG as a standalone is still incredibly potent; unfairly so, I think. They also show up WAY to much in Imperial lists in general. IG units still too efficient.

 Marmatag wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Slow play is one reason why I think tournaments fail (that and the bad balance in the game).

I prefer leagues. Where you play a series of games over a certain time frame in days or weeks. That way slow play is never a factor.

People are just used to tournament events being what they are though to change that.

Leagues don't work for competitive ranked play, though.

Both can be competive if they want. Of course 8th ed doesn't work for competive ranked play to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
It really doesn't. Flipping the clock is not hard.

Nobody said the physical act of doing so was hard. The issue is that 40k has more units, more models, more actions, more interrupt events, more exceptions, more rolling and dice, more range, more variance in army style and size, etc than games like Warmahordes, and that makes it much more prone to error, drama, gamesmanship and simply losing ones place, in addition to imposing an additonal cost for play/event organizing to tackle a problem that, while present, is limited in scale and has other alternatives that are less disruptive.

Clocks work in some games. I would have no issues with a clock in a game like Dropzone Commander for example where force sizes are generally very similar, games can be won without killing a single enemy model, boards are 4x4 may have no more than a dozen ground units in total between both sides, LoS is extremely limited and weapons ranges are restricted, you're almost never rolling double digits worth of dice, saves are rare and interrupts quick actions from a hand of card abilities, and models with more than 1 or 2 wounds are very uncommon even among things like heavy battletanks. For DzC, clocks can work just fine.

But in 40k? 40k is a comparative mess, built inherently around attritional battle, and clocks are just going to add to that mess

BTW where generally clock is positioned? I can't reach generally on both sides of table so what? I need to rush between wide sides to keep smashing the button? Back and forth? That actually means lots of precious time is spent chasing the clock.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:


I just don't see any reason to oppose the chess clock proposal unless you are:
- A slow player because it's hard for you to play fast (you need to get good)
- You play slow on purpose to give yourself an advantage (you won't be able to do this anymore with chess clocks) or subconsciously you do it (your subconscious bias will change when you are hurting yourself by slow playing).
- You trust in the good nature of human beings (you are a naive person.)
- You just don't want to be bothered with it (your laziness is interfering with progress - please step aside and redirect your efforts to something else)

Or you have seen plenty where horde vs less horde gets to play in time but know that horde army takes more time so thus with clock would lose and doesn't want to effectively ban entire armies from tournaments while still having to pay for experience of being banned from it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
Are these games all recorded and aired somewhere? I think a few were, but why wouldn't GW want to help out (camera set ups, recording, etc.)-- it would be good relatively cheap advertising and I think could possibly alleviate a bit of the TFG syndrome if players know they will have to face public scrutiny.

Maybe because these rule lawyering slow playing games aren't all that good advertisement?

Good advertisement would be more likely to be found on middle tables but non-fans would wonder why not show top tables. It's like TV's not showing premium league matches but instead div III. And advertisement is generally aimed at those not already fans...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
Good to see the Eldar conspiracies continue, lol

Just take a deep breath....

Did Dark Reapers get a brand new plastic kit? Are they really easy to find right now?

So, GW wants to make a unit that is almost impossible to find the best in the game, because....???. Riiiiight.

Jetbikes are a new kit for Eldar.....and they got nerfed hard in 8th.

It's simply GW not really playtesting as thoroughly as they claim with certain combos compared to the massive gaming community. If reapers were not a thing, would Eldar still be busted? (of course there will always be someone here that thinks that because their shiny marines aren't wiping the floor with everyone they play)

They don't make new models automatically broken. What they do though is randomly shuffle balance to ensure players have to keep buying models. Bikes were broken in 7th ed so no surprise they nerfed them hard. Got to give incent for eldar players to buy new models.

Putting in some words to competive play section is one thing. Having actual rules that work for that is another.

There is no 40k rule set for competitive play.
GW has never made such a set and I guess they are not intending to make one.

Nobody is fine with Eldar dominating, it has been stated repeatedly that dark reapers need to and certainly will be nerfed. You're ignoring facts in order to fit your worldview of IG being this poor, persecuted faction.

The same should hold for the Primarchs.
They are undercosted for what they can achieve at the battlefield.
But GW does not intend to make a fully balanced game and so you gonna live with it.

 wuestenfux wrote:

Putting in some words to competive play section is one thing. Having actual rules that work for that is another.

There is no 40k rule set for competitive play.
GW has never made such a set and I guess they are not intending to make one.

Nobody is fine with Eldar dominating, it has been stated repeatedly that dark reapers need to and certainly will be nerfed. You're ignoring facts in order to fit your worldview of IG being this poor, persecuted faction.

The same should hold for the Primarchs.
They are undercosted for what they can achieve at the battlefield.
But GW does not intend to make a fully balanced game and so you gonna live with it.

A) The primarchs were nowhere to be seen on the top tables and B) they nerfed Magnus in the Thousand Sons codex, increasing his points cost by 30 and removing his reroll-invuln-saves aura.

You're ignoring facts in order to fit your worldview

A) The primarchs were nowhere to be seen on the top tables and
B) they nerfed Magnus in the Thousand Sons codex, increasing his points cost by 30 and removing his reroll-invuln-saves aura.

ad A) This is good to know.
Primarchs used to be nobrainers when they came out.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


I'd rather slowplay rules be enforced than a points drop or a clock.

You go on and on and on in this thread about rules being enforced and I don't think you've thought it through.

In the Tony Grippando live streamed 40k top table style matches then YES, you're right, surely there was some oversight to say after 20 minutes of someone's turn "Tony you need to step it up - you've taken almost 20 minute and not finished moving yet" or whatever.

BUT

What percentage of tournament games played worldwide are livestreamed on twitch with a dedicated TO hovering over the board?
vs
What percentage of tournament games played worldwide have one guy or two guys as the TO - with their attention spread across 30 or 50 or 100 or 250 tables... trying to manage the pairings, rankings, missions, rules questions, maybe judge best painted shortlist, maybe deal with the venue problems like "the room is too hot/cold" or "there's no free water" or "i've lost my army" etc.

What you're suggesting (enforcement of rules by the organiser) would require a ton of people to volunteer to go to 40k tournaments on their weekends - not to play, but to be judges and TOs. It's not gonna happen!

ALSO

Being a judge in a professional setting is hard enough - when refs make decusions in professional sport they get judged back, screamed at, abused, told to F off and so on.

In a social setting like the competitve 40k scene where the judge is likely to be at least an acquaintance if not a friend of the player... saying "Tony I think you are deliberately slowplaying" is very difficult and confrontational.

The reason I think clocks are a sensible option is that it completely depersonalizes the time issues. The clock isn't "on your side" or "unfair". It's just a machine. You also can't argue with it - taking up even MORE time.

--

Finally (phew long post) the "gaming the clock" stuff. I just do not believe that is a problem. People are inventing reasons why something might be bad vs something that's clearly worse.

Even if you do game the clock by pinging it over to your opponent every time they need to make a roll, what happens? You waste an extra 5 or 10 or 15 minutes of time over a game and force your opponent to pay very close attention to the game. It's still better than having an hour long first turn which the opponent can't do anything about and then saying "oh sorry dude I guess you only have a short time to play sucks to be you right by the way you can't move anything else and now its my turn again".

 MagicJuggler wrote:
So let me get this straight.

LVO 2016, 3 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2017, 2 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2018 come 8th edition, 5 of the top 8 lists are Eldar.

Am I missing anything here?

I think you're missing that the ITC Missions are different from the Rulebook missions and encourage a different play-style / meta. The Secondaries alone dis-encourage players to take the Daemon Primarchs for example because of objectives like Kingslayer, where you'd gain a boat load of secondary points (up to 10) for downing Magnus / Mortarion alone.

Its a different meta to the one that GW uses and balances for where you can just take the biggest guns available, form line and try to table your opponent as quickly as possible - tabling / getting a concede in ITC does not automatically nett you the maximum points available.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
So let me get this straight.

LVO 2016, 3 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2017, 2 of the top 8 lists were Eldar.
LVO 2018 come 8th edition, 5 of the top 8 lists are Eldar.

Am I missing anything here?

Small sample size. LVO is not representative of all tournaments. Chaos Daemons took the top spot at NOVA or Adepticon at least one of those years.

While I realize international players attend tournaments everywhere these days, there's still a regional element to each one. My bet is that Eldar are well represented by competitive players from SoCal and that's why we see this trend.

To be fair 2 of those 5 Eldar players are from the North East I believe, so I'm not sure there is a SoCal eldar bias.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Commissar Benny wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Guardsmen, mortars, and other indirect fire are still way too strong. Plasma scions are still too cheap.

So essentially what you're asking for is a blanket nerf to nearly the entire IG codex (we are almost there). You're fine with Eldar dominating every tournament but IG who barely have any presence at all at the top, they are the issue? We've been going over this for months Martel. The results of this tournament back my previous claims that the commissar nerf went to far, that IG as a standalone gets stomped, yet you continue to ask for nerfs to IG in nearly every one of your posts. I don't get it.

Eldar are propped up by the Dark Reapers for sure. Take them away, and we'll be back to IG stomping face. IG's dominance comes from many small factors adding up, not one grossly miscosted unit. IG as a standalone is still incredibly potent; unfairly so, I think. They also show up WAY to much in Imperial lists in general. IG units still too efficient.

IT is important to note that I think Guard is heavily punished in ITC missions especially with the conscript nerf. Guard lists that were doing well in other events get killed for secondary points in the ITC missions. Lets look at what gets played

1.) Lots of weak characters (primaris psykers, officers etc) - give up 1 point each for head hunter
2.) Screens - with conscript nerf these are not smaller squads (10 max) meaning they give up points for reaper, and 1000 cuts pretty easily. Reaper is likely the reason we saw a lot of heavy weapon teams in those units to drop model count below 10.
3.) tanks - give up big game hunter points (pask would also give up kingslayer)
4.) Stormswords - give up points for titan slayer
5.) Bullgryn give up points for gang busters

That may explain to some extent why there were less guard at the top in these missions. Personally I don't think guard is any stronger than eldar overall, at this point. I think they are a very strong addition to soup lists, but as a stand alone they lack a lot of punch if you get in their face.