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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
One might argue that an entire unit effectively being "removed from the game" suggests that it is a fairly large issue.

I don't see why. Conscripts ceased to exist because of their point cost, not because of any vulnerability to morale.

Conscripts effectively ceased to exist before the increased points cost with Chapter Approved, the points cost just cemented it.

pismakron wrote:
So you can legally take 180 conscripts or 240 cultists, but if you bring 70 Guardsmen with your 10 tanks, then you are illegally spamming infantry squads?

That is not a feature. It is just an arbitrary restriction.

Those "arbitrary restrictions" are what makes the strategy of the game interesting. You might as well complain that it's an "arbitrary restriction" that your lasgun can only deal one wound per shot, and demand 20 wounds per shot so you can one-shot tanks. Having a choice between spending a single FOC slot on 30 cannon fodder conscripts or 10 more "elite" guardsmen is an interesting choice. Having unlimited slots so you can just take whatever you want is much less interesting.

PS: you can still bring 70 infantry. Four 10-man squads, one 30-man conscript squad. That still leaves a troops slot free for a unit of your choice. You get your 70 models, you just don't get all of them shooting at the higher BS and (effectively) ignoring morale.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Conscripts effectively ceased to exist before the increased points cost with Chapter Approved, the points cost just cemented it.

But what does that have to do with anything I said? Morale is not an issue for IG because the only IG unit that can ever suffer meaningful penalties from it is so utterly terrible for other reasons that you would never even consider taking it. Morale didn't kill conscripts, making them cost the same per model as normal guardsmen that are better in every way killed conscripts. The exact details of when conscripts were officially declared to be dead don't change the fact that, in the current game, IG do not care about morale.

Sooo....

Making conscripts cost as much as the vastly superior infantry killed the conscripts as everyone took infantry instead...

How does this in any way point that soup is the problem, and not the infantry squad itself?
Because the conscripts who were "killed", are still pretty darn good compared to most troops in the game.


Peregrine, you keep trying to make absurd grand-scheme solution to tiny local issues, failing to grasp how your solutions only cause far more problems than they solve to begin with.

And its in every thread, in every topic.
Its like your solution to a broken shelf is to buy a new closet.

Suddenly picturing Peregrine standing outside the burning wreckage of his house saying "Well, did you want me to kill the spider or not?".

 BoomWolf wrote:
Sooo....

Making conscripts cost as much as the vastly superior infantry killed the conscripts as everyone took infantry instead...

How does this in any way point that soup is the problem, and not the infantry squad itself?
Because the conscripts who were "killed", are still pretty darn good compared to most troops in the game.


Peregrine, you keep trying to make absurd grand-scheme solution to tiny local issues, failing to grasp how your solutions only cause far more problems than they solve to begin with.

And its in every thread, in every topic.
Its like your solution to a broken shelf is to buy a new closet.

The point was about moral, not soup or infantry squads.

 BoomWolf wrote:
How does this in any way point that soup is the problem, and not the infantry squad itself?
Because the conscripts who were "killed", are still pretty darn good compared to most troops in the game.

It doesn't, and it was never intended to. It's a response to a specific poster's claim that IG care about morale. IG don't care about morale because the only unit that could even in theory care about morale would never be taken in a real list.

And infantry squads aren't the problem because having IG be good at something they're supposed to be good at is fine. An IG list with a horde of guardsmen should be effective, and that effectiveness requires having the core units of the strategy be good units. Those guardsmen become a problem when they get cross-faction buffs that they should not have access to, and non-IG units to fill the weaknesses of a pure IG army. If you just nerf guardsmen without fixing the core issue of soup lists then you nerf pure IG lists while doing very little to stop soup lists, as the soup will just find a different combination of ingredients to win with.

Peregrine, you keep trying to make absurd grand-scheme solution to tiny local issues, failing to grasp how your solutions only cause far more problems than they solve to begin with.

No. As I said before, I want a grand-scheme solution to a grand-scheme issue. My desire to go back to the 5th edition FOC and single-faction armies is for fundamental game design reasons and is aimed at improving the core rules. The fact that it would solve specific balance issues is just a nice side effect of improving the core structure of the game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Marines are dead. Don't cry for them. The basic marine statline is unbalanceable.
LONG LIVE OUR NEW PRIMARIS OVERLORDS. They are actually balanceable.

Theres no point in bringing basic marines in balance conversations just like theres no point in talking about grey knights. They are a disaster from a design standpoint. They need a rewrite from the ground up. And they have received one: Primaris.

As bait-tastic as this post seems, it's basially not wrong. Primaris DO fix basically everything about Marines. Mainly by giving the units focus. Focusing on shooting OR assault goes a looooong way towards making Marines more playable, especially in the current edition. They need more melee units though.

I find this "generalists can't exist from a design perspective" really weird.

It's not an opinion I just thought up overnight, but rather one that's formed largely out of how 8th edition works. Vanilla Tacticals are basically broken right now, and not in a good way. They pay to be a melee unit but lack the quantity or quality of attacks to be effective at it, while also paying to be a shooting unit that can be easily outgunned by equivalent points from other armies. And then there is how fragile Marines as a whole are in an edition where being outnumbered often means a quick trip to tabled town.

I'm not saying that they're useless, but when the core of an army is being pushed off for cheaper units (bolter scouts) or units that do the job better (Primaris) then there is something horribly wrong with that unit that needs to be addressed.

It's not a discussion for this thread buuutt...

It all depends on how you're trying to use them. If you're buying units for specific roles in your army, and using them that way in every battle, then you'd be pushed to use specialists. But if you're deploying your army in response to the opponent army's disposition, generalists can be valuable. Aka, shoot the CC guys, CC the shooty guys. Tacticals exist in that space, and can change their role throughout the game as necessary. It's a different style of play.

If you're looking at competing Troops choices in the marine dex, Tacticals can have better damage output than the other two because of their speacial/heavy access, and can successfully engage a wider array of targets.

5th ed still had broken units. A lot of them.

As someone who plays an infantry-IG army... sigh.

No, please, I can't wait to pay an extra 120-160pts for every army I make. More if they also increase the price of Heavy Weapon Squads (they're guardsmen, too, right?).

Also, is there any guarantee that this will even end with Guardsmen?

As above, won't Heavy Weapon squads also go up in points (again)?

And then you have Veterans. If they're supposed to cost 2pts more than regular guardsmen, surely they'll need to go up to 7pts? But I guess that's fine, because every IG unit is overpowered, even the ones no one uses.

As a long time Guard player who just finished his 3rd full guard army (Long live Valhalla! and also Steel Legion...and also Cadia) I welcome the increase to 5ppm. As it currently stands there is no reason to really take conscripts or veterans over your standard IS. They do it all better and fill in your detachments for more command points.

Now if this is true, it means that choosing between conscripts, IS, and veterans is a meaningful choice.

By this I mean if I were to have a specific need to fill, IE, special weapons, heavy weapons, screening, objective taking, etc, I would pick a unit that would do this best. As it currently stands there is no reason to choose anything else but an IS for the job, since it can do all of things for cheap. At 5ppm now I can consider taking an inferior model in conscripts to fulfill the screening because they are cheaper, and I do not feel like im wasting "potential" because an IS at 4ppm is a million times better. Additionally at 6ppm the classic veteran squad, while still not a troop choice, becomes a far more viable option. By this I mean if I am getting bodies for the purpose of toting special weapons I can easily consider an extra 10 points for BS 3+ over the current 20 points. Granted their special weapons are a bit pricier but a BS 3+ plasma gun is much more efficient on a BS 4+ model and for a measly 1ppm difference.

So I welcome our new 5ppm IS overlords, its good for balance and its good for the game.

 generalchaos34 wrote:
As it currently stands there is no reason to really take conscripts or veterans over your standard IS. They do it all better and fill in your detachments for more command points.

You're assuming that Veterans won't also get a cost increase.

Also, the problem was never that guardsmen were 4pts. The problem was that Veterans got shoved into the Elites slot, and then replaced by Scions as troops.

I take it increasing the price of guardsmen will also magically teleport Veterans back to the troop slot?

Ok, here is a dumb idea.

The return of the Infantry Platoon.

A problem is that other armies can buy a few cheap guard units for CP (helped by the fact that Guard is the single most cost efficient thing there is). By removing infantry squads as a unit and instead having a platoon of 2-5 infantry squads that occupy a single slot you raise the minimal investment for Guard soup without overly effecting Guard lists themselves.

Infantry Platoon was done to allow a horde army like Imperial Guard to fit into the old FOC sistem. They aren't needed anymore.

 vipoid wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:
As it currently stands there is no reason to really take conscripts or veterans over your standard IS. They do it all better and fill in your detachments for more command points.

You're assuming that Veterans won't also get a cost increase.

Also, the problem was never that guardsmen were 4pts. The problem was that Veterans got shoved into the Elites slot, and then replaced by Scions as troops.

I take it increasing the price of guardsmen will also magically teleport Veterans back to the troop slot?

Ehm, guardsman being 4 pts is a problem.
Guard are the single most cost efficient codex in the game. That's why everyone who can take them does so. Its just to much bang for your buck.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
Infantry Platoon was done to allow a horde army like Imperial Guard to fit into the old FOC sistem. They aren't needed anymore.

Yes, I know that. Any response to me actual point? Increasing the opportunity cost of souping in Guard without overly punishing Guard players themselves. (since they bring plenty of Infantry squads beyond the bare minimum anyway)

 vipoid wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:
As it currently stands there is no reason to really take conscripts or veterans over your standard IS. They do it all better and fill in your detachments for more command points.

You're assuming that Veterans won't also get a cost increase.

Also, the problem was never that guardsmen were 4pts. The problem was that Veterans got shoved into the Elites slot, and then replaced by Scions as troops.

I take it increasing the price of guardsmen will also magically teleport Veterans back to the troop slot?

No, but im looking at this by the role that must be filled over the slot involved. You need to fill elite slots anyways in a brigade detachment and now I have a reason to do so when I can fill those slots with "cheaper by comparison" conscripts. Im looking at this by what a guardsman's function is to the whole army in addition to points. when you are needing someone to reliably tote around some plasma guns that can also take a few more wounds than a scion squad (and not be a huge fire magnet) for a mere 10 more points over the standard IS it seems a like a killer deal to get some BS 3+ models. Especially when you compare it to the other BS 3+ infantry out there.


Also I just had an Idea! If we are looking at limiting IS without hurting real guard players, why not have them limited by how many officers you have? So X standard IS can only be fielding for every X officers. Lets say 2 per Platoon Commander and 4 per company commander (or maybe 1 and 3?) This would put an artificial cap on IS for soupers without punishing us guardsman, who take a lot of those guys for orders anyways

 generalchaos34 wrote:
Now if this is true, it means that choosing between conscripts, IS, and veterans is a meaningful choice.

Nope. Can't fill out most detachments with an elite choice. Veterans aren't viable because they're not viable. Making other units worse doesn't make them more viable.

It will make Scions more appealing of a choice to anyone who's not just looking for a pile of bodies, which will drive them to be the popular spammable option, which will drive for more nerfs, and the cycle continues until we have the 7th ed guard codex.

And really, if you follow out the soup problem to it's logical end, every unit in the guard codex will have to be adjusted to the point cost of scouts, because until that happens, you're going to have people taking guard units instead of scouts in the name of having the cheapest unit available to screen with.

Ordana wrote:

Ehm, guardsman being 4 pts is a problem.

Saying it does not make it true.

Ordana wrote:

Guard are the single most cost efficient codex in the game. That's why everyone who can take them does so. Its just to much bang for your buck.

Except that it isn't actually done for 'bang for buck' - it's just done to bring a cheap screening unit for Soup armies. Those armies used to take conscripts, but then those were nerfed to hell, so they're taking the next best thing.

Are we really going to just keep nerfing whatever infantry units Soup armies are taking?

 generalchaos34 wrote:

No, but im looking at this by the role that must be filled over the slot involved. You need to fill elite slots anyways in a brigade detachment and now I have a reason to do so when I can fill those slots with "cheaper by comparison" conscripts.

Sorry, I'm struggling to understand what you mean here. You need to fill Elite slots but you fill them with Conscripts?

 generalchaos34 wrote:
Im looking at this by what a guardsman's function is to the whole army in addition to points. when you are needing someone to reliably tote around some plasma guns that can also take a few more wounds than a scion squad (and not be a huge fire magnet) for a mere 10 more points over the standard IS it seems a like a killer deal to get some BS 3+ models. Especially when you compare it to the other BS 3+ infantry out there.

Except that Veterans are paying inflated prices for those plasmaguns, which makes them really inefficient compared to Infantry Squads (which pay less) or Scions (which pay the same but can deep strike).

Ordana wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Infantry Platoon was done to allow a horde army like Imperial Guard to fit into the old FOC sistem. They aren't needed anymore.

Yes, I know that. Any response to me actual point? Increasing the opportunity cost of souping in Guard without overly punishing Guard players themselves. (since they bring plenty of Infantry squads beyond the bare minimum anyway)

It punish people that want to play imperial guard without spamming Infantry Squads. I don't like "special exceptions" to fix a balance problem. Fix the unit. Easy peasy. If we start adding special exceptions to band-aid balance problems we won't end with a good system.

 Galas wrote:

Ordana wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Infantry Platoon was done to allow a horde army like Imperial Guard to fit into the old FOC sistem. They aren't needed anymore.

Yes, I know that. Any response to me actual point? Increasing the opportunity cost of souping in Guard without overly punishing Guard players themselves. (since they bring plenty of Infantry squads beyond the bare minimum anyway)

It punish people that want to play imperial guard without spamming Infantry Squads. I don't like "special exceptions" to fix a balance problem. Fix the unit. Easy peasy. If we start adding special exceptions to band-aid balance problems we won't end with a good system.

Not needed? Probably.
Still a defining mechanic of the Imperial Guard though. I miss the Platoon system. To me, that's IG. Without it they just don't look the same.
That would be like if they took away WBB / RP from necrons and gave them FnP...like in 7th ed. Which was bs.

In 3rd ed they also had Armored Fist squads (I think that's what it was called) and vet squads (or was that 5th?), it wasn't as if you HAD to use platoons to fill out the troop choices. In 8th ed there are even Detachments that don't require troops, so even if the platoon system came back, a guard player isn't going to get punished for not wanting to field Infantry.

 generalchaos34 wrote:
As a long time Guard player who just finished his 3rd full guard army (Long live Valhalla! and also Steel Legion...and also Cadia) I welcome the increase to 5ppm. As it currently stands there is no reason to really take conscripts or veterans over your standard IS. They do it all better and fill in your detachments for more command points.

Now if this is true, it means that choosing between conscripts, IS, and veterans is a meaningful choice.

I dont see where it would be.

Conscripts still wont be a meaningful choice (just as they werent in any previous edition) when the relative difference in investment in Infantry squads is so paltry for the huge array of benefits (better stats, more upgrades and weapons options, orders automatically work, etc) .

Vets likewise have several issues. First, they are not Troops. Veterans are not filling the same list building role. Second, they lack any of the interesting options from previous editions like Carapace or Meltabombs and the like. Third, their value comes primarily from the triple relatively short ranged special weapons, in an edition where the necessary transport options available to them largely arent worth taking for what the total package offers in mosr instances. Vets were largely nonexistent outside of mechanized roles in previous editions, and nothing about them has changed much in that regard, and Stormtroopers offer pretty much all of the above

 generalchaos34 wrote:
Also I just had an Idea! If we are looking at limiting IS without hurting real guard players, why not have them limited by how many officers you have? So X standard IS can only be fielding for every X officers. Lets say 2 per Platoon Commander and 4 per company commander (or maybe 1 and 3?) This would put an artificial cap on IS for soupers without punishing us guardsman, who take a lot of those guys for orders anyways

Most soup lists I've seen take entire detachments of guard for the CP as well. You just changed little for soup players and COMPLETELY killed off any reason to that a Lord Commissar or any other non-commander HQ choice.

Really, vets aren't troops? Huh, I thought they were in 8th. Pretty sure they were troops in some edition, anyway.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:
As a long time Guard player who just finished his 3rd full guard army (Long live Valhalla! and also Steel Legion...and also Cadia) I welcome the increase to 5ppm. As it currently stands there is no reason to really take conscripts or veterans over your standard IS. They do it all better and fill in your detachments for more command points.

Now if this is true, it means that choosing between conscripts, IS, and veterans is a meaningful choice.

I dont see where it would be. Conscripts still wont be a meaningful choice (just as they werent in any previous edition) when the relative difference in investment in Infantry squads is so paltry for the huge array of benefits (better stats, more upgrades and weapons options, orders automatically work, etc) . Vets likewise have several issues. First, they are not Troops. Veterans are not filling the same list building role. Second, they lack any of the interesting options from previous editions like Carapace or Meltabombs and the like. Third, their value comes primarily from the triple relatively short ranged special weapons, in an edition where the necessary transport options available to them largely arent worth taking for what the total package offers in mosr instances. Vets were largely nonexistent outside of mechanized roles in previous editions, and nothing about them has changed much in that regard.

And thas why Chimeras should be buffed/balanced/fixed.
And people please stop with the slippery sloppe victimism.

 daedalus wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:
Now if this is true, it means that choosing between conscripts, IS, and veterans is a meaningful choice.

Nope. Can't fill out most detachments with an elite choice. Veterans aren't viable because they're not viable. Making other units worse doesn't make them more viable.

It will make Scions more appealing of a choice to anyone who's not just looking for a pile of bodies, which will drive them to be the popular spammable option, which will drive for more nerfs, and the cycle continues until we have the 7th ed guard codex.

And really, if you follow out the soup problem to it's logical end, every unit in the guard codex will have to be adjusted to the point cost of scouts, because until that happens, you're going to have people taking guard units instead of scouts in the name of having the cheapest unit available to screen with.

The screen can be cheap and balanced. If its both of those it doesn't matter that marines are using Conscripts or Imperial Guard Infantry instead of scouts because its not a choice based in power level but in tactical use. If you want just cheap screen you use IG infantry. If they are balanced point wise thats totally fine.
If you want forward units to negate deep strike for your opponent or other tactical jobs, you use SM Scouts (Talking here about a SM army)

 generalchaos34 wrote:

No, but im looking at this by the role that must be filled over the slot involved. You need to fill elite slots anyways in a brigade detachment and now I have a reason to do so when I can fill those slots with "cheaper by comparison" conscripts. Im looking at this by what a guardsman's function is to the whole army in addition to points. when you are needing someone to reliably tote around some plasma guns that can also take a few more wounds than a scion squad (and not be a huge fire magnet) for a mere 10 more points over the standard IS it seems a like a killer deal to get some BS 3+ models. Especially when you compare it to the other BS 3+ infantry out there.

Infantry can fill the same role as conscripts, but conscripts can't fill the same role as infantry. Likewise, Scions can fill the same role as Veterans, but the reverse is not true.

More importantly, conscripts aren't worth it even at 4 points compared to infantry at 5 after all the other nerfs are taken into account.

RogueApiary wrote:


Here is a summary of my six LVO games

Game one
Orks. I won by two points, 2/3 of the Basilisks were tied up in CC, 5/8 infantry squads were dead.

Well done. If you had 7 infantry squads you still win.

Game two
Alaitoc/Ynnari. Basically tabled on three, but he let a squad live so I could get some points and he moved off of his objectives to get 0 points for the last three rounds. Literally killed zero units.

Eldar is incredibly overpowered, just like Guard was before the first nerfs. This is what it felt like to play against Guard for most of 8th so far, just so you know.

Game three
Ravenguard. Lost by 15 points. Aggressors infiltrated in the pocket made by his scouts and murdered my entire frontline. Three squads left at round 3/4. By the time I shot the Aggressors off the center of the board, I couldn't get to any objectives in time

I mean raven guard has 1 trick - and you got bitten by it. Lesson learned. This shouldn't happen to you next time you play them. Raven Guard + Aggressors. They have pretty much nothing else. Also, this was dependent on him going first, which doesn't happen every time.

Game four
Dark Mechanicum. Won pretty handily, but the dude basically had a mishmash of models since his actual army got stolen. I think I might have lost like two squads?

Poor guy. Not indicative of a list you would actually face, but a win's a win.

Game five
Dark Angels. Lost by two points. -1 to hit bubble on most of his mainline absorbed a lot of firepower. Return shooting mulched my infantry that moved onto objectives. Had three squads left at the end.

I mean this is on you. Either shoot the dark shroud first or don't shoot at the -1 bubbled units. I played a game against DA recently and they pack a TON of dakka into that bubble, but it's mostly low strength shooting aside from plasma, and it strictly needs LOS and is short range. Your Russ tanks should handily win this fight for you, especially if you've got the 55xheavy bolter combo.

Game six
Alpha Legion/Iron Warriors. Won by four or five points, but the guy was playing AL berserkers without nurglings, so I basically pushed him into his deployment zone with Ratlings/Sentinels. Even still, he mulched five or six squads and had tagged two of the tanks in CC. If he had actually brought Nurglings, my backline would have been easily tied up.

Was he running oblits?

 daedalus wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:

No, but im looking at this by the role that must be filled over the slot involved. You need to fill elite slots anyways in a brigade detachment and now I have a reason to do so when I can fill those slots with "cheaper by comparison" conscripts. Im looking at this by what a guardsman's function is to the whole army in addition to points. when you are needing someone to reliably tote around some plasma guns that can also take a few more wounds than a scion squad (and not be a huge fire magnet) for a mere 10 more points over the standard IS it seems a like a killer deal to get some BS 3+ models. Especially when you compare it to the other BS 3+ infantry out there.

Infantry can fill the same role as conscripts, but conscripts can't fill the same role as infantry. Likewise, Scions can fill the same role as Veterans, but the reverse is not true.

More importantly, conscripts aren't worth it even at 4 points compared to infantry at 5 after all the other nerfs are taken into account.

Commisars were overnerfed. They need to become a little cheaper and have a usefull morale mitigation hability, but not just straight out ignoring it. Thats fine for a reliq.
But at this point I always defend that Morale in warhammer 40k is a unfluffy mechanic that has never been any good, and should be striped out.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 generalchaos34 wrote:
As a long time Guard player who just finished his 3rd full guard army (Long live Valhalla! and also Steel Legion...and also Cadia) I welcome the increase to 5ppm. As it currently stands there is no reason to really take conscripts or veterans over your standard IS. They do it all better and fill in your detachments for more command points.

Now if this is true, it means that choosing between conscripts, IS, and veterans is a meaningful choice.

I dont see where it would be.

Conscripts still wont be a meaningful choice (just as they werent in any previous edition) when the relative difference in investment in Infantry squads is so paltry for the huge array of benefits (better stats, more upgrades and weapons options, orders automatically work, etc) .

Vets likewise have several issues. First, they are not Troops. Veterans are not filling the same list building role. Second, they lack any of the interesting options from previous editions like Carapace or Meltabombs and the like. Third, their value comes primarily from the triple relatively short ranged special weapons, in an edition where the necessary transport options available to them largely arent worth taking for what the total package offers in mosr instances. Vets were largely nonexistent outside of mechanized roles in previous editions, and nothing about them has changed much in that regard, and Stormtroopers offer pretty much all of the above

I know they are not troops, I do wish they were because it would set the array of guard choices better (and put scions back into the elite slot where they belong) Im merely pointing out that from a point of balance that the costs are coming more in line to where they should be in their ability to stay effective on the battlefield when compared to other units. The IS should be the bread and butter of any guard list, period, but its nice to have a specific role in mind and be able to find a unit that fits that bill and that should be something that conscripts and veterans should be able to fill.

 Galas wrote:

The screen can be cheap and balanced. If its both of those it doesn't matter that marines are using Conscripts or Imperial Guard Infantry instead of scouts because its not a choice based in power level but in tactical use. If you want just cheap screen you use IG infantry. If they are balanced point wise thats totally fine.
If you want forward units to negate deep strike for your opponent or other tactical jobs, you use SM Scouts (Talking here about a SM army)

The argument I normally hear is that they have more bodies than can be killed in a turn.

As far as I can tell, that means that IG units will have be raised to Scout point cost, otherwise anyone can take more guardsmen than space marines so it will continue to be a problem. This is the inevitability of the argument.

 vipoid wrote:


Except that Veterans are paying inflated prices for those plasmaguns, which makes them really inefficient compared to Infantry Squads (which pay less) or Scions (which pay the same but can deep strike).

One of these things is true:

A) Veterans overpay for PGs
B) IS underpay for PGs

1 * .666 / 19 = 0.035 // Vet

1 * .5 / 11 = 0.045 // IS @ 4ppm
1 * .5 / 12 = 0.042 // IS @ 5ppm

In fact PG for BS4 should go to 8 points. I'll go let GW know. No need to thank me!

I don't think so. At 5 ppm, now there might be a legit debate between guardsmen and skitarri. 4 ppm guardmen was a no brainers. No brainers need to go.