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.

 daedalus wrote:

 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.

You know thats not true. And to make this like only SM players complaint about imperial guard is like the eldar players in the "How to balance Dark Reapers" saying that Imperial players need to git gud because dark reapers are fine, when even other eldar players said Dark Reapers are NOT fine.

 Galas wrote:

 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.

I'm okay with morale as a replacement for all the leadership based nonsense in 7e. I would remove the random component though and just say it's flat "(kill count +3) - leadership" to determine additional casualties, with ATSKNF being revised to simply give +3 leadership. I would also make falling back from combat - unless you have an ability that enables you to do so automatically (like Synapse, or a chapter/regiment/craftworld trait) - require a leadership check.

What if armies only got to chose one set of strats and bonuses instead of giving them out with detachments?

That way soup armies could still use the units of other armies to fill in voids but they wouldn't be as powerful. You wouldn't restrict what people could have in their armies but you would reduce the effectiveness of those soup elements in that soup army and it would become MAIN ARMY plus SUPPORT ELEMENTS.

Tie access to orders to strats and then that 40 man guard blob is really only good for screens (without FRSSRF).

Limit CP generation to detachments from the main army. Would also help ITC "best army" shenanigans.

I could see restricting things to only from the Main Army selection (special characters, pychic powers?, LOWs). Your army may only include this unit if your Main Army is xxx?

Vanilla marines could use all chapters in the dex (no BA or DA). Same with guard. Eldar have to chose between CWE and ynarri but CWE could mix and match?

I'm fine with the current souping rules, and most of 8th ed rules. Let's solve the problem of appropriately costed units before we start making sweeping changes. That's my opinion.

Tyranids aren't crushing big events, but my army is fun to play in the context of 8th, and while the changes you're proposing wouldn't impact me - as my army is monofaction - i can understand how it would be significant to a lot of people out there.

I would much prefer to see Guard nerfed, and Eldar nerfed, before we started rewriting the core rules to work around the basic fact that these factions are just plain undercosted.

Eldar aren't. Dark reapers are. And maybe serpents. And maybe spears. But spears are at least melee, so more can go wrong. Like space furries.

 Galas wrote:
You know thats not true. And to make this like only SM players complaint about imperial guard is like the eldar players in the "How to balance Dark Reapers" saying that Imperial players need to git gud because dark reapers are fine.

Which part's not true? Because people in this very thread have made the argument that the game is imbalanced because they can't get their space marines through a screen in a turn of shooting and assault.

And I never said it was the ONLY argument, just the one that I hear most frequently.

 Galas wrote:

 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.

I would love to see that, but we have no indication that such will happen or that GW sees any issues, and GW has largely gone out of their way to ensure the Chimera has never been a particularly good unit, aside from 5th edition

And people please stop with the slippery sloppe victimism.

where was I engaging in such? All I did was point out the existing issues with these units, and that none of those issues would really change with a price bump on infantry squads.

 generalchaos34 wrote:


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 problem is that this compares them in a vacuum without respect to those other important factors. Base points cost is only one factor, and with units that cost 3/4/5/6 pts, jiggling that with any finesse is difficult because the range and granularity is so limited.

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.

Sure, but I dont think changing Infantry Squads to 5ppm is going to change anything in that regard. Unless GW makes major substantive changes to the core infantry units and some transports, all its going to do is just make guard armies more expensive without changing any of the internal balance.

 Marmatag wrote:
I'm fine with the current souping rules, and most of 8th ed rules. Let's solve the problem of appropriately costed units before we start making sweeping changes. That's my opinion.

The problem is that lots of these things are only issues in soup armies, or are dramatically exacerbated by such. Armies are still designed and built largesly as self contained forces with inherent weaknesses and strengths, and allies soup basically lets you cherrypick all the best stuff, minimizing weaknesses, and syngergizing stuff in ways that often arent intended.

Guardsmen being cheap in a Guard army is one thing. Guardsmen being cheap and widely available to a Space Marine or Custodes army is an altogether different thing, and one that is drivinf lots of the angst over infantry squads.

Or their genestealers. Or their dunestriders. Or acolytes. Or ANYTHING. Most armies have to fire huge amounts of points of models to clear guardmen. It takes 39 points of marines to kill one guardsmen outside rapid fire range. That's insane. 5+ armor alone is worth more than 4 ppm.

"Guardsmen being cheap in a Guard army is one thing. "

Yes, a broken thing. Because the stuff they are screening for is more efficient than anything in a marine army anyway.

Also, I didn't make this a Marine vs Guard argument. I made this a "taking infantry vs taking scouts for screening" argument.

Scouts are still crap compared to 5 ppm guardsmen. Don't fear.

Martel, how many points should infantry be? What do you think is reasonable?

 daedalus wrote:

 Galas wrote:
You know thats not true. And to make this like only SM players complaint about imperial guard is like the eldar players in the "How to balance Dark Reapers" saying that Imperial players need to git gud because dark reapers are fine.

Which part's not true? Because people in this very thread have made the argument that the game is imbalanced because they can't get their space marines through a screen in a turn of shooting and assault.

And I never said it was the ONLY argument, just the one that I hear most frequently.

Well i mean i'm Tyranids and i have problems with Guard. Don't get close, artillery wins. Get close, you're in the killbox eating insane volumes of fire. I'm still kind of on the "high" of being generally viable and not a total doormat with this army, which is such a huge departure from the norm.

 daedalus wrote:
Martel, how many points should infantry be? What do you think is reasonable?

Sounds like we are going to playtest 5ppm soon. That might do it. I don't know; but 4ppm is undercosted for sure. And 5 ppm is still an improvement even if they are still hands down the best troop. Which they are.

Personally i hope basic guardsmen get a points bump
They cost 1 point more than chaos cultists and are so much better

5ppm is probably too cheap, still, but i'm certainly happy to see how it goes at 5. Assuming this is a real change.

Martel732 wrote:
Or their genestealers. Or their dunestriders. Or acolytes. Or ANYTHING. Most armies have to fire huge amounts of points of models to clear guardmen. It takes 39 points of marines to kill one guardsmen outside rapid fire range. That's insane. 5+ armor alone is worth more than 4 ppm.

"Guardsmen being cheap in a Guard army is one thing. "

Yes, a broken thing. Because the stuff they are screening for is more efficient than anything in a marine army anyway.

My point wasnt about their specific cost but their role, read cheap as "low cost" not "undercosted". Even if they're perfectly costed within the context of an IG army, when used alongside other forces built around different strengths and weaknesses, their value can change quite dramatically.

 Marmatag wrote:
I'm fine with the current souping rules, and most of 8th ed rules. Let's solve the problem of appropriately costed units before we start making sweeping changes. That's my opinion.

Tyranids aren't crushing big events, but my army is fun to play in the context of 8th, and while the changes you're proposing wouldn't impact me - as my army is monofaction - i can understand how it would be significant to a lot of people out there.

I would much prefer to see Guard nerfed, and Eldar nerfed, before we started rewriting the core rules to work around the basic fact that these factions are just plain undercosted.

I agree with this. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The Tyranid dex should be the example all dexes follow. It's got fantastic internal and external balance, with very little duds. I even run maleceptors now. Flyrants may be a little too good, but at this moment they are not anywhere near Dark Reaper level.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Or their genestealers. Or their dunestriders. Or acolytes. Or ANYTHING. Most armies have to fire huge amounts of points of models to clear guardmen. It takes 39 points of marines to kill one guardsmen outside rapid fire range. That's insane. 5+ armor alone is worth more than 4 ppm.

"Guardsmen being cheap in a Guard army is one thing. "

Yes, a broken thing. Because the stuff they are screening for is more efficient than anything in a marine army anyway.

My point wasnt about their specific cost but their role, read cheap as "low cost" not "undercosted". Even if they're perfectly costed within the context of an IG army, when used alongside other forces built around different strengths and weaknesses, their value can change quite dramatically.

Their best value is standing in front of a manticore.

 Sasori wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I'm fine with the current souping rules, and most of 8th ed rules. Let's solve the problem of appropriately costed units before we start making sweeping changes. That's my opinion.

Tyranids aren't crushing big events, but my army is fun to play in the context of 8th, and while the changes you're proposing wouldn't impact me - as my army is monofaction - i can understand how it would be significant to a lot of people out there.

I would much prefer to see Guard nerfed, and Eldar nerfed, before we started rewriting the core rules to work around the basic fact that these factions are just plain undercosted.

I agree with this. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The Tyranid dex should be the example all dexes follow. It's got fantastic internal and external balance, with very little duds. I even run maleceptors now. Flyrants may be a little too good, but at this moment they are not anywhere near Dark Reaper level.

Yeah at this point Nids are the benchmark all dexes should be aiming for. There are a few tweaks needed here or there. Apparently some of our big bugs will be getting a few extra wounds at some point. But otherwise the sheer amount of viable lists is what everyone should want.

 Commissar Benny wrote:
...Manticore nerf...

What, the one that bumped it from 125 to 145pts (or whatever it was)?

I'd like to state for the record that my Warp Hunter is 245pts for a quarter of the Manticore's main gun and it is good. Calling a 20pt bump a "nerf" on a unit that's still at least 50pts too cheap is kind of silly.

At 5ppm my cultists won't feel as much of a let down, and my skitarii infantry will actually feel like a respectable choice. It's probably where they should be compared to most other similar units.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Commissar Benny wrote:
...Manticore nerf...

What, the one that bumped it from 125 to 145pts (or whatever it was)?

I'd like to state for the record that my Warp Hunter is 245pts for a quarter of the Manticore's main gun and it is good. Calling a 20pt bump a "nerf" on a unit that's still at least 50pts too cheap is kind of silly.

Perhaps the Warp Hunter is absurdly overcosted instead? A Manticore is basically a barebones LRBT that trades potentially up to 3 turns of main weapon fire, a point lower of Toughness, an extra wound, extra weapons upgrades options, and Lumbering Behemoth...for the ability to shoot without LoS and a 9pt cost decrease. The ability to shoot without LoS is extremely variable in utility depending on an array of factors (sometimes it can be amazing, other times you're playing on planet bowling ball and it is utterly irrelevant), but ultimately the idea that a Manticore should be a 200pt tank is absurd.

There is a lot of space between 145 and 200, though. I personally think russes are bit too cheap after all the codex buffs.

You don't need to "basically explain" about a manticore. We all know exactly what it is at this point. We've all had 4+ of them crushing us from across the table for turns.

The Deathstrike missile and the Manticore are the two extremes of GW inability to balance turn-based weapons.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Commissar Benny wrote:
...Manticore nerf...

What, the one that bumped it from 125 to 145pts (or whatever it was)?

I'd like to state for the record that my Warp Hunter is 245pts for a quarter of the Manticore's main gun and it is good. Calling a 20pt bump a "nerf" on a unit that's still at least 50pts too cheap is kind of silly.

Perhaps the Warp Hunter is absurdly overcosted instead? A Manticore is basically a barebones LRBT that trades potentially up to 3 turns of main weapon fire, a point lower of Toughness, an extra wound, extra weapons upgrades options, and Lumbering Behemoth...for the ability to shoot without LoS and a 9pt cost decrease. The ability to shoot without LoS is extremely variable in utility depending on an array of factors (sometimes it can be amazing, other times you're playing on planet bowling ball and it is utterly irrelevant), but ultimately the idea that a Manticore should be a 200pt tank is absurd.

Basically everything FW saw a significant price hike thanks to Chapter Approved. Someone, for example, decided that a Tarantula Sentry Gun needed to be bumped up from 24ppm when equipped with a twin Heavy Bolter up to 34ppm for the same Tarantula.

 Marmatag wrote:
You don't need to "basically explain" about a manticore. We all know exactly what it is at this point. We've all had 4+ of them crushing us from across the table for turns.

That's funny.

I seem to be able to weather their fire fairly easily. And not with my Superheavies, no, with my foot Sororitas who have no hope of killing them and who just waltz across the board.

Let's do some math:
Manticore vs Sororitas:
7 shots, 3.5 hits, 2.91 wounds, .972 past saves. Each Manticore kills one Sister past saves, ish, per missile.

So 9 manticores (1287 points) will kill 36 Sisters of Battle (324 points) who are not in cover, and then run out of missiles.

What a terrifying, indescribably powerful weapon system. How could it possibly be balanced at 143 points. It clearly should cost 200 points, so that 1800 points of manticores can kill 324 points of sororitas. That is true balance.

Your manitcores should be doing 1.93 wounds past armor saves (SV3+, AP-2 (*.666)).

It's a 2d6 Rocket Launcher (re-rolling a low 1d6 because of Catachan) with more STR, 1d3 instead of 1d6 damage; but significantly more shots. Manticores can highroll really well, especially if they're Catachan. They can do it out of LOS, behind screening, with no way to punish them.

"They can only fire 4 shots"; as if the game isn't over by that point anyways. If anything, that limitation needs to be removed, so they can rebalance the gun to a more reasonable level, instead of front loading damage.

Also, shooting a 1d3 damage weapon at 1W models; that's a sound tactical decision. Not like there are more high priority, multi-wound targets that you'd much rather be aiming a Rocket Launcher at instead.

Oh, man, 2 sisters per shot.

Now it's 1287 points of manticores killing 684 points of sisters with its entire payload in an infinite turn game where they're not even so much as bothered.

I have no idea how that's possibly balanced unit. Absolutely, it must be nerfed now.

I'm terrified. And I've definitely never beaten this army by walking across the board and murdering the guardsmen because Sisters with stormbolters outclass them by-

-oh wait guard infantry are OP too. Guess I lost that game after all.

See edit: You're aiming a 1d3 weapon at 1W models. It's overkill - find a better target (big monster) to shoot at, and you'll get more accurate results.