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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Do that twice and grab your brigade with a bunch of Scions. Profit.

The most obnoxious thing to me is IG coming to the table with 12-16 CP with that stupid trait in tow. It's just obscene.

And to make it more annoying none of the IG players here ever end up using their whole pool.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Hey that's the way I wanna run Rangers and Vanguard. I'm fine with their price point but not their mobility options. The difference is Infantry don't really need to move as they're a cheaper screen anyway and punish you for getting close. Killing 10 Guys at their price mark is harder than the 5 at their price mark, but heaven forbid the latter can get into a range to use their weapons.

Yeah, well not everyone plays Infantry Squads just to be screens. Some people actually run (shock! gasp!) Infantry heavy armies.

If you want to increase the price on my Cadian Infantry Squads, I want more perks for running pure Guard. I want things in my Guard army that feth over the twits who just see my Codex as an easy way to bulk out their Command Points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Do that twice and grab your brigade with a bunch of Scions. Profit.

The most obnoxious thing to me is IG coming to the table with 12-16 CP with that stupid trait in tow. It's just obscene.

And to make it more annoying none of the IG players here ever end up using their whole pool.

The most obnoxious thing to me is people who want to change my army without any consideration as to what it would do to the actual army in their quest to screw over soup.

 Kanluwen wrote:

The most obnoxious thing to me is people who want to change my army without any consideration as to what it would do to the actual army in their quest to screw over soup.

I think it extends beyond just soup.

Far beyond soup. They are souping your units in because they are too good for their price.

 Kanluwen wrote:
...The most obnoxious thing to me is people who want to change my army without any consideration as to what it would do to the actual army in their quest to screw over soup.

Yup. Allies basically exist so GW doesn't have to make every "army" playable in a vacuum (I still maintain that the introduction of universally-accessible Allies in 6th was there so armies that didn't have their 6e Codex could keep playing during the Flyer unit type rollout without getting utterly screwed); because of Allies pure Guard get punished for being overly-efficient allies even when they're not being used as Allies, but if you took away Allies there's a chunk of books that you'd have to burn down and start over because they'd go from mostly unplayable to completely unplayable.

Saying that Guard are fine out of Imperial Soup is like saying that Riptides where fine out of Taudar.

"Oh dam why should GW nerf my Riptides for those Eldar players that only want to rum three in a Riptide wing?!"

The truth is: If other factions are spamming your units in a high end competitive scene, is because those unis are very good. Both in the context of allies or a pure list.

It does not matter that Infantry Squads are just used for CP or screen in Imperail Soups if they are fairly priced. I still agree that chapter/regiment/etc... tactics should be lost for mixing units in an army, not detachment. But thats here to stay, it appears, so whatever.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Hey that's the way I wanna run Rangers and Vanguard. I'm fine with their price point but not their mobility options. The difference is Infantry don't really need to move as they're a cheaper screen anyway and punish you for getting close. Killing 10 Guys at their price mark is harder than the 5 at their price mark, but heaven forbid the latter can get into a range to use their weapons.

Yeah, well not everyone plays Infantry Squads just to be screens. Some people actually run (shock! gasp!) Infantry heavy armies.

If you want to increase the price on my Cadian Infantry Squads, I want more perks for running pure Guard. I want things in my Guard army that feth over the twits who just see my Codex as an easy way to bulk out their Command Points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Do that twice and grab your brigade with a bunch of Scions. Profit.

The most obnoxious thing to me is IG coming to the table with 12-16 CP with that stupid trait in tow. It's just obscene.

And to make it more annoying none of the IG players here ever end up using their whole pool.

The most obnoxious thing to me is people who want to change my army without any consideration as to what it would do to the actual army in their quest to screw over soup.

I really hope you do realize I know how badly Guard were treated in 6th/7th and of course I hadn't gone around to looking at how I would house fix them, but you would see from my 7th edition fixes I did care about each army individually.

Ultimately, there were three issues:
1. The non-existent 5+ as Ignores Cover was prevalent
2. Too expensive at the time based off that
3. Non-automatic orders
4. Mobility being a potential issue if you want Heavy Weapons (and who wouldn't? Heavy Weapon teams reek Coooool)

Literally all these things went away at the same time AND they got Chapter Tactics equivalents on top (which is something everyone wanted for everyone to be fair).

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Leman Russ is affordable T8, so it can be spammed in a T8 wall. Marine T8 is all crazy overcosted. Granted, lots of weapons don't care about T8, but many do, especially S4.

Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat, Guard stuff is cheaper than Marines?

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS TRAVESTY!?!

Sarcasm out of the way, when you try to paint it as though you 'only' have S4 to deal with T8...it makes your point even more laughable.

It's not about being cheaper, but well costed. Marine T8 is generally poorly costed.

And?
Chimeras are poorly costed.
Sentinels(both flavors) are poorly costed.
Ogryn are poorly costed.

"Marine T8" consists of Land Raiders, Vindicators, Ironclad Dreadnoughts, and Repulsors...
If you really wanted to make a point you could have just said that "The Marine book has several items that are poorly costed"--and I likely would have agreed with you. Instead you chose to cherrypick the highest Toughness items in the Marine armory to make a statement.

Realistically, one has to factor in that BS4+ for Guard tanks. It does hurt when it basically is always going to be BS5+ in any kind of competitive environment(who's going to take anything other than a -1 to hit racial rule?).

Martel732 wrote:I'd disagree with this. Strongly. Ademch, GK, marines lack these things.

AdMech absolutely has those things.

They just won't generally see the table thanks to the fact that other options are much stronger and things that previously made a big difference(Onagers being able to go from a 6+ Invulnerable to a 4+ when in groups of 3 for example) are capped out.

But we weren't talking about the entire marine book, we were talking about Guard's T8 vs Marine's. And I don't see your point in bringing up other poorly costed stuff, every codex has that issue, which was beside the point at the time. I mean, talk about moving the goal posts from "Guard T8 vs Marine T8" to "Guard also has poorly priced stuff" in order to try and maintain some sort of point.

When I see results like this:

http://fieldoffiregaming.com/best-armies-at-the-las-vegas-open/

It makes me wonder why people are still after guard like this. They have been nerfed several times since they were dominating everything last summer.

coffee321 wrote:
When I see results like this:

http://fieldoffiregaming.com/best-armies-at-the-las-vegas-open/

It makes me wonder why people are still after guard like this. They have been nerfed several times since they were dominating everything last summer.

Clearly because guard should be nothing more than NPCs.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

gendoikari87 wrote:
you do realize a spear head of 4 leman russes comes in at under 700 points right? Hell you can fit a spearhead with a CC and three in at under 500

K.

Now, what benefit does that Company Commander give to your tanks?

It's called HQ tax, and warlord traits and relics

how many leman russes do you see at the top tables in tournaments ?
zero, so no it's definitely not OP

Yeah, okay, whatever. Keep your head in the sand you’ll end up with 6 point guardsmen, 180 point manticores, 200 point leman russes without double shots, and 40 point mortars

Yeah. First they're complaining about guardsmen. Okay, you actually see those in soup everywhere. I don't think they need nerfing at all, I think if there is a problem it's with soup, but whatever. I can see where you're coming from.

Then they're complaining about manticores. This is where I start to get skeptical. You rarely see guard vehicles in competitive lists, and when you do it's usually the statistically better basilisks or artemia hellhounds. This is the first sign that these people don't know what they're talking about.

Now they're complaining about Russes? The unit you practically never see in competitive lists, if ever? Yeah. You can completely write them off. These people have completely gone off the rails.

ThePorcupine wrote:
Yeah. First they're complaining about guardsmen. Okay, you actually see those in soup everywhere. I don't think they need nerfing at all, I think if there is a problem it's with soup, but whatever. I can see where you're coming from.

Then they're complaining about manticores. This is where I start to get skeptical. You rarely see guard vehicles in competitive lists, and when you do it's usually the statistically better basilisks or artemia hellhounds. This is the first sign that these people don't know what they're talking about.

Now they're complaining about Russes? The unit you practically never see in competitive lists, if ever? Yeah. You can completely write them off. These people have completely gone off the rails.

i am a newb with a 12-0 record and I don’t use infantry hellhounds or basilisk. The problem is deeper

Here’s my list


++ Vanguard Detachment +1CP (Imperium - Astra Militarum) [23 PL, 451pts] ++

+ No Force Org Slot +

Regiment: Tallarn

+ HQ +

Commissar Yarrick [7 PL, 130pts]

+ Elites +

Crusaders [6 PL, 150pts]
. 10x Crusader: 10x Power Sword

Ministorum Priest [2 PL, 35pts]

Ratlings [2 PL, 45pts]
. 5x Ratling: 5x Sniper Rifle

+ Dedicated Transport +

Chimera [6 PL, 91pts]: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter

++ Spearhead Detachment +1CP (Imperium - Astra Militarum) [59 PL, 971pts] ++

+ No Force Org Slot +

Regiment: Cadian

+ HQ +

Knight Commander Pask [13 PL, 219pts]: Lascannon
. Command Battle Tank: Battle Cannon

+ Heavy Support +

Leman Russ Battle Tanks [30 PL, 466pts]
. Leman Russ Battle Tank: Battle Cannon, Heavy Bolter
. Leman Russ Battle Tank: Battle Cannon, Heavy Bolter
. Leman Russ Punisher: Lascannon, Turret-mounted Punisher Gatling Cannon

Manticore [8 PL, 143pts]: Heavy Bolter

Manticore [8 PL, 143pts]: Heavy Bolter

++ Supreme Command Detachment +1CP (Imperium - Astra Militarum) [34 PL, 578pts] ++

+ No Force Org Slot +

Regiment: Valhallan

+ HQ +

Company Commander [2 PL, 30pts]: Chainsword, Grand Strategist, Kurov's Aquila, Laspistol, Warlord

Primaris Psyker [2 PL, 46pts]: Force Stave, Psychic Barrier, Psychic Maelstrom

Primaris Psyker [2 PL, 46pts]: Force Stave, Gaze of the Emperor, Nightshroud

+ Lord of War +

Baneblade [28 PL, 456pts]: Autocannon, Demolisher cannon, Twin heavy bolter

++ Total: [116 PL, 2000pts] ++


Automatically Appended Next Post:
These games are not close, chaos I have yet to fail to table my opponent. A much more experienced ba is the closest I’ve gotten and it wasn’t close, his list was basically codex: lascannon

Ok the summation of Guard being too powerful is either Imperial Soup and Pure Guard Min/Max with 3 detachments @ 2000.

Wouldn't the better fix be the detachment system and ally/keyword system?

Imperial Soup or Super Friends as I call it: Celestine, Papa Smurf or another 1-2 named characters and all the best units they can maximize. Then add filler with Guard

Or

Min/Max Guard regiments.


If your playing these forms of lists it's not the Guard/Astra that are the problem. Price hikes are not the answer.

 Naix wrote:

coffee321 wrote:
When I see results like this:

http://fieldoffiregaming.com/best-armies-at-the-las-vegas-open/

It makes me wonder why people are still after guard like this. They have been nerfed several times since they were dominating everything last summer.

Clearly because guard should be nothing more than NPCs.

Not quite sure what the data is based on, but Tau - that shows 17 players. There are 7 listed in champs at the following placings:

17, 112, 151, 201, 262, 287, 298

There are 32 under AM:

12, 18, 24, 45, 79, 97, 102, 103

And four under Catachan:

21, 25, 83, 345

So I really question the value of that page.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
Ok the summation of Guard being too powerful is either Imperial Soup and Pure Guard Min/Max with 3 detachments @ 2000.

Wouldn't the better fix be the detachment system and ally/keyword system?

Imperial Soup or Super Friends as I call it: Celestine, Papa Smurf, +another 1-2 named characters and all the best units they can maximize. Then add filler with Guard

Or

Min/Max Guard regiments.


If your playing these forms of lists it's not the Guard/Astra that are the problem. Price hikes are not the answer.

The list above you does not fall into these designations.

That's your experience, genko. Mine is different. I've had my vehicle-heavy ass handed to me by death guard/nurgle demons sporting feel-no-pain plague bursters practically one-shotting my shadowsword and iron hands/red scorpion marines sporting T9 double feel no pain leviathan dreads and hellblasters under ancients. Deep striking scions don't do much when marines shoot them out of the sky with auspex scan. Battle cannons don't do much when devastators are in cover for that 2+ save and when I kill one, he shoots back and brackets my tank.

But I'm not about to call those things OP because I've had trouble against them in my personal games. It sounds like your local meta needs to step it up.

coffee321 wrote:
When I see results like this:

http://fieldoffiregaming.com/best-armies-at-the-las-vegas-open/

It makes me wonder why people are still after guard like this. They have been nerfed several times since they were dominating everything last summer.

When I see results like that, I remember that ITC rules are not the same as actual 40k rules. Players can score points in a lot of different ways, and the way those points are accumulated favors certain armies over others.

Like Deathwatch. Notice that 4 players averaged more battlepoints than AM despite a lack of tanks. They earn those points with extra-killy bolters and a flyer, each of which are optimized to kill a lot of infantry.

And they are an Index army. The fact Tourament outcomes reflect better efficiency for Index armies should be a huge red flag that battlepoints are not very well aligned with actual 40k rules.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The list above you does not fall into these designations.

Its 3 detachments of guard made to min/max regimental doctrines, so yeah it does.

In my meta itc=meta it’s all we play


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The list above you does not fall into these designations.

Its 3 detachments of guard made to min/max regimental doctrines, so yeah it does.

i mean you kinda have to take 2-3 detachments to fit in all the gak you can bring with guard

gendoikari87 wrote:
In my meta itc=meta it’s all we play

neat

I don't think Leman Russes are a problem. Some are more powerfull, others are less powerfull, one or two are useless.

I think the problem, like with Tau Commanders, are Tank Commanders, just like Daemon Princes, etc... is too easy to spam those ultra efficient HQ's.

 Galas wrote:
I don't think Leman Russes are a problem. Some are more powerfull, others are less powerfull, one or two are useless.

I think the problem, like with Tau Commanders, are Tank Commanders, just like Daemon Princes, etc... is too easy to spam those ultra efficient HQ's.

The difference being that Tank Commanders don't just have an 'aura' they grant to everything around them like Tau Commanders or Daemon Princes can be configured to do.

Spamming tank commanders has never been competitive.

They are not characters with <10 wounds
They do not have an invulnerable save or a FNP save
They go down to anti-tank like chumps

To pretend otherwise is silly and people doing so should feel bad

coffee321 wrote:
When I see results like this:

http://fieldoffiregaming.com/best-armies-at-the-las-vegas-open/

It makes me wonder why people are still after guard like this. They have been nerfed several times since they were dominating everything last summer.

Guard are a gatekeeper. A hard wall that some players/armies can't get past. The T'au were in the same position last edition. The army difficult to beat, but not the one going to win.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I don't think Leman Russes are a problem. Some are more powerfull, others are less powerfull, one or two are useless.

I think the problem, like with Tau Commanders, are Tank Commanders, just like Daemon Princes, etc... is too easy to spam those ultra efficient HQ's.

The difference being that Tank Commanders don't just have an 'aura' they grant to everything around them like Tau Commanders or Daemon Princes can be configured to do.

Have you ever seen a Tau Commander give an aura to something that wasnt 3 more Tau Commanders deepstriking alongside him?

ThePorcupine wrote:
Spamming tank commanders has never been competitive.

They are not characters with <10 wounds
They do not have an invulnerable save or a FNP save
They go down to anti-tank like chumps

To pretend otherwise is silly and people doing so should feel bad

If for competitive do you mean "Can it resist Dark Reaper+Brigh Lance Ynnari Spam"? Then yeah they arent.

Catachans were top 7 still. Tallarn were top 5.

 Crimson Devil wrote:

coffee321 wrote:
When I see results like this:

http://fieldoffiregaming.com/best-armies-at-the-las-vegas-open/

It makes me wonder why people are still after guard like this. They have been nerfed several times since they were dominating everything last summer.

Guard are a gatekeeper. A hard wall that some players/armies can't get past. The T'au were in the same position last edition. The army difficult to beat, but not the one going to win.

Tau didnt won tournaments in 7th! The only Tau you saw were 3 riptides in a riptide wing in Eldar list! The problem was with allies! Tau where NOT competitive, obviously!

(I totally agree that a faction can be a bully, like Tau in 7th, but don't be able to win tournaments. That doesnt mean the faction is fine. You see it in many videogames, where one character capitalizes in mechanics that are hard to grasp to new players or specific range of the options of the game, so they totally dominate in those ranges, but in really competitive enviroments everyone knows what to use to counter them [And as we know is more easy to change a Figther in Street Figther than to make a wholle new army in 40k], so they aren't competitive)

gendoikari87 wrote:
In my meta itc=meta it’s all we play


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

The list above you does not fall into these designations.

Its 3 detachments of guard made to min/max regimental doctrines, so yeah it does.

i mean you kinda have to take 2-3 detachments to fit in all the gak you can bring with guard

I'm not blaming you or chastising you just pointing out its a symptom of the problem. Basically those who are not going to do this and end up play a single regiment are getting screwed by the points hike. When the simple solution is fix detachments, CP usage between detachments, and keyword rules. This would fix Soup it would even fix Eldar/Yannari.