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.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

KurtAngle2 wrote:
Kill Team points costs are probably indicative of expected changes in CA 2018...I'd check them if I were you

Not very likely. I doubt we're going to see 25 point Lictors or 14 point Plague Marines.

As base costs without weapons? Why not, it's a way to reprice them

Those are their costs including weapons.

Yeah, that's a lie. Plague Marines with bolters are 14. Plague Marines with heavy weapons, plague marines with close combat weapons and the champion are 15 and need to pay for any weapons they take.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Did you really just say Wyches? They are NOT even top 5 units in the DE codex how are they on your list?

Looking just at DE, Grotesques, Talos, Venom, Ravagers are ahead of them for sure, Kabals and Wracks are also better troops IMO.

They are the only unit in the game that can hold an enemy unit in melee combat.

Their damage output and speed is excellent. With certain cult choices they can become somewhat tanky for a DE unit.

They're incredible for their price.

You grossly dont understand them, let me show you my Coven army, or Kabal army and just almost table you turn 1. Wyches are not as strong as the other 2 Factions for DE. hence why DE top lists are always Kabal with Coven.

You should see the 10 venom lists with 3 Ravagers, 3 RWJF's and then cry "Wyches are to strong" luckily IK came out to show players that DE can be beaten

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Did you really just say Wyches? They are NOT even top 5 units in the DE codex how are they on your list?

Looking just at DE, Grotesques, Talos, Venom, Ravagers are ahead of them for sure, Kabals and Wracks are also better troops IMO.

They are the only unit in the game that can hold an enemy unit in melee combat.

Their damage output and speed is excellent. With certain cult choices they can become somewhat tanky for a DE unit.

They're incredible for their price.

You grossly dont understand them, let me show you my Coven army, or Kabal army and just almost table you turn 1. Wyches are not as strong as the other 2 Factions for DE. hence why DE top lists are always Kabal with Coven.

You should see the 10 venom lists with 3 Ravagers, 3 RWJF's and then cry "Wyches are to strong" luckily IK came out to show players that DE can be beaten

Kabal must be taken because they give access to the most broken stratagem in the game.

I fear wych cult armies much more than coven.

Not sure why you're so invested in this if you're not using them? Enjoy your wins with kabals and covens.

For me, the power of a singular unit in a vacuum comes down to a number of factors, one of those factors is 'can this unit literally do something that no other unit can?' Wyches ability to tie up units (including fliers) in combat is game changing and almost on par with agents of vect.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
Did you really just say Wyches? They are NOT even top 5 units in the DE codex how are they on your list?

Looking just at DE, Grotesques, Talos, Venom, Ravagers are ahead of them for sure, Kabals and Wracks are also better troops IMO.

They are the only unit in the game that can hold an enemy unit in melee combat.

Their damage output and speed is excellent. With certain cult choices they can become somewhat tanky for a DE unit.

They're incredible for their price.

You grossly dont understand them, let me show you my Coven army, or Kabal army and just almost table you turn 1. Wyches are not as strong as the other 2 Factions for DE. hence why DE top lists are always Kabal with Coven.

You should see the 10 venom lists with 3 Ravagers, 3 RWJF's and then cry "Wyches are to strong" luckily IK came out to show players that DE can be beaten

Kabal must be taken because they give access to the most broken stratagem in the game.

I fear wych cult armies much more than coven.

Not sure why you're so invested in this if you're not using them? Enjoy your wins with kabals and covens.

For me, the power of a singular unit in a vacuum comes down to a number of factors, one of those factors is 'can this unit literally do something that no other unit can?' Wyches ability to tie up units (including fliers) in combat is game changing and almost on par with agents of vect.

Just b.c Wyches are one of a few units that can stop fallbacks (other units can too, the Succubus and if i remember there is a relic and a stratagem), just b.c something is unique doesnt mean they are good. Hellions can DS, charge, Fallback into MW bomb and then charge again, but this doesnt mean they are worth their points.

And NO they can NOT stop Fliers, they can ONLY stop "INFANTRY" from falling back. and its only on a Roll off, that you MUST re-roll ties, you then need to take the Shardnet to make it a D3 vs a D6 to even have a good chance to keep them there, luckily the Impaler is a good weapon.

They can stop flying infantry from falling back. If they aren't dead, that is.

btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms

 SHUPPET wrote:
btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms

Nobody is saying guard is too weak, simply that they aren't broken. Of course, guard have lots of top 10 finishes they are consistently the number 1-3 army played in the entire ITC each weak. The higher percentage of players playing an army raises the frequency at which you will see their lists in top spots. If we are using the BAO as our metric for some reason then shouldn't we by crying that Nurgle with renegade nights is busted and needs to be nuked? The simple answer is no, there always needs to be a winner and that doesn't necessarily mean that that army or any specific unit is broken (unless you want to argue that blighted terminators need a price hike because they went undefeated at the BAO). What people should look at is the frequency at which an army is used compared to the frequency at which an army wins... Kinda like this article
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/08/this-week-in-competitive-40k-july-31.html
Any army winning a much larger percentage of its game then any other army is the best way to measure its strength. Much like card games in hearthstone, each deck is going to have a different win percentage against different decks (just like different 40k armies match up differently to eachother) when you run into a problem is a deck that is pulling above a 60% consistently for an entire cyle on average.

IG are broken as feth, there are just a couple codices even better. The number of models they put out alone is nuts.

Asmodios wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms

Nobody is saying guard is too weak, simply that they aren't broken.

the guy on the last page just said Guard are in a really bad spot right now lol thats what prompted my post

Asmodios wrote:
If we are using the BAO as our metric for some reason then shouldn't we by crying that Nurgle with renegade nights is busted

Why, cause they got first? they took one spot in the top 20. Even TSons took more than that, thats an outlier. Guard took 3 which is tied with Eldar, I'm not saying they are broken, but its clearly a capable army.

Asmodios wrote:
and needs to be nuked?

I quite clearly didn't say anything about needing nerfs. I was saying that if you're losing with Guard, it's not your army's faults. Fine to say that they don't need nerfs, but to say they are bad, while 6 people out of the top 10 of the most recent GT took Guard to that height, its pretty fair to look at this and say that you're not living in reality. Time to recognise that your own play may have some faults.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms

Nobody is saying guard is too weak, simply that they aren't broken.

the guy on the last page just said Guard are in a really bad spot right now lol thats what prompted my post

Asmodios wrote:
If we are using the BAO as our metric for some reason then shouldn't we by crying that Nurgle with renegade nights is busted

Why, cause they got first? they took one spot in the top 20. Even TSons took more than that, thats an outlier. Guard took 3 which is tied with Eldar, I'm not saying they are broken, but its clearly a capable army.

Asmodios wrote:
and needs to be nuked?

I didn't say anything about needing nerfs. I was saying that if you're losing with Guard, it's not your army's faults. Fine to say that they don't need nerfs, but to say they are bad, while 6 people out of the top 10 of the most recent GT took Guard to that height, its pretty fair to look at this and say that you're not living in reality. Time to recognise that your own play may have some faults.

You are missing the entire point..... Of course, you see more guard in the top 10 because they are played more frequently then many other armies actually they are currently the 2nd most played faction in the ITC only behind knights. Let's use some super simple numbers to illustrate my point.
Say there is a tournament with 100 players
25 are imperial knights
25 are guard
50 are an equal distribution of the rest of the armies in the game
Now in the top 10 there are 3 guard players
So 30% of the top 10 are guard and someone might immediately scream "omg that's crazy guard are so broken"
But in reality, 25% of all armies were the guard and they only finished 5% above a completely average finishing based on the frequency of them being played
If 1 DG were to not only finish in the top 10 but win when they took only 10% of top spots someone might say "wow DG suck"
But if DG is only 1/12 (i think there's 14 total unique codexes I'm too lazy to count them) then there should have only been 4.1% top 10 finishes for DG who now punched up more then guards 5%
Obviously, I don't have all the data but and these numbers are hypothetical and simplified to make a point. But people need to stop looking at overall finishes and start looking at finishes compared to the frequency at which a faction is played

Asmodios wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms

Nobody is saying guard is too weak, simply that they aren't broken. Of course, guard have lots of top 10 finishes they are consistently the number 1-3 army played in the entire ITC each weak. The higher percentage of players playing an army raises the frequency at which you will see their lists in top spots.

Yeah, and this is because Imperial Guard have always been soooo popular. Thats why when 8th edition released the number of CWE armies dropped something like 87% in the first 8th edition tournaments. Because players just stopped liking them as their armies.

If one faction is over represented in a tournament is because it is very strong, so the "Theres more players, so higher standings are just expected" doesn't applies here.

Asmodios wrote:

You are missing the entire point..... Of course, you see more guard in the top 10 because they are played more frequently then many other armies actually they are currently the 2nd most played faction in the ITC only behind knights. Let's use some super simple numbers to illustrate my point.
Say there is a tournament with 100 players
25 are imperial knights
25 are guard
50 are an equal distribution of the rest of the armies in the game
Now in the top 10 there are 3 guard players
So 30% of the top 10 are guard and someone might immediately scream "omg that's crazy guard are so broken"
But in reality, 25% of all armies were the guard and they only finished 5% above a completely average finishing based on the frequency of them being played
If 1 DG were to not only finish in the top 10 but win when they took only 10% of top spots someone might say "wow DG suck"
But if DG is only 1/12 (i think there's 14 total unique codexes I'm too lazy to count them) then there should have only been 4.1% top 10 finishes for DG who now punched up more then guards 5%
Obviously, I don't have all the data but and these numbers are hypothetical and simplified to make a point. But people need to stop looking at overall finishes and start looking at finishes compared to the frequency at which a faction is played

Yeeah this is just garbage logic. For starters, excluding CP farms, Guard were not the most popular army there. They matched Tyranids, Spaces Marines, and were below T'au - all of which got zero places in the top 10, compared to Guard's 3, completely dispelling your nonsense theory.


You have no idea what you are talking about. 8% of the meta was Guard Primary's - not 25% - yet 3 of them were in the top 10, more than any other army in the game. To put it into perspective, 1 in every 3 people to bring Guard as their army made top 10 lol.





Secondly, all this is irrelevant - at no point was I screaming anything about "omg that's crazy guard are so broken", you are just gaslighting because you have no real argument. I literally said absolutely zero about the army being OP, and I had JUST clarified it for you but you ignored it - I just said that you can't blame it for your losses when other people are getting such results with the same army, they are clearly very capable. Bolded keywords for you so as not to see you get confused further here, though it's pretty simple stuff.

 Galas wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms

Nobody is saying guard is too weak, simply that they aren't broken. Of course, guard have lots of top 10 finishes they are consistently the number 1-3 army played in the entire ITC each weak. The higher percentage of players playing an army raises the frequency at which you will see their lists in top spots.

Yeah, and this is because Imperial Guard have always been soooo popular. Thats why when 8th edition released the number of CWE armies dropped something like 87% in the first 8th edition tournaments. Because players just stopped liking them as their armies.

If one faction is over represented in a tournament is because it is very strong, so the "Theres more players, so higher standings are just expected" doesn't applies here.

Guard is insanely over represented right now for 1 simple reason. Many tournaments classify your army by your warlord so any imperium army running a CP guard battery often get counted as guard and when they do breakdowns by "numbers of detachments" guard take up an almost guaranteed 1/3 of all imperium ones. Guard CP generation is stupid and broken and needs to be fixed.
I 100% guarantee that if GW released a rule that CP could only be used on the detachment that generated it guard would fall several places in the top played faction. There is 0 reason to not include a battalion of guard in every imperium army right now because it boosts the smount of strategems that army can use by an insane amount


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

You are missing the entire point..... Of course, you see more guard in the top 10 because they are played more frequently then many other armies actually they are currently the 2nd most played faction in the ITC only behind knights. Let's use some super simple numbers to illustrate my point.
Say there is a tournament with 100 players
25 are imperial knights
25 are guard
50 are an equal distribution of the rest of the armies in the game
Now in the top 10 there are 3 guard players
So 30% of the top 10 are guard and someone might immediately scream "omg that's crazy guard are so broken"
But in reality, 25% of all armies were the guard and they only finished 5% above a completely average finishing based on the frequency of them being played
If 1 DG were to not only finish in the top 10 but win when they took only 10% of top spots someone might say "wow DG suck"
But if DG is only 1/12 (i think there's 14 total unique codexes I'm too lazy to count them) then there should have only been 4.1% top 10 finishes for DG who now punched up more then guards 5%
Obviously, I don't have all the data but and these numbers are hypothetical and simplified to make a point. But people need to stop looking at overall finishes and start looking at finishes compared to the frequency at which a faction is played

Yeeah this is just garbage logic. For starters, excluding CP farms, Guard were not the most popular army there. They matched Tyranids, Spaces Marines, and were below T'au - all of which got zero places in the top 10, compared to Guard's 3, completely dispelling your nonsense theory.


You have no idea what you are talking about. 8% of the meta was Guard Primary's - not 25% - yet 3 of them were in the top 10, more than any other army in the game. To put it into perspective, 1 in every 3 people to bring Guard as their army made top 10 lol.





Secondly, all this is irrelevant - at no point was I screaming anything about "omg that's crazy guard are so broken", you are just gaslighting because you have no real argument. I literally said absolutely zero about the army being OP, and I had JUST clarified it for you but you ignored it - I just said that you can't blame it for your losses when other people are getting such results with the same army, they are clearly very capable. Bolded keywords for you so as not to see you get confused further here, though it's pretty simple stuff.

1. Way to skip the entire part of my post where i said they numbers were hypothetical
2. Refer to my first post when i said you shouldnt be looking at the results of one tournament to draw conclusions
Its hard to have a discussion with someone that doesnt actually read the posts

Asmodios wrote:

Guard is insanely over represented right now for 1 simple reason. Many tournaments classify your army by your warlord so any imperium army running a CP guard battery often get counted as guard and when they do breakdowns by "numbers of detachments" guard take up an almost guaranteed 1/3 of all imperium ones. Guard CP generation is stupid and broken and needs to be fixed.
I 100% guarantee that if GW released a rule that CP could only be used on the detachment that generated it guard would fall several places in the top played faction. There is 0 reason to not include a battalion of guard in every imperium army right now because it boosts the smount of strategems that army can use by an insane amount

If they did that, Guard will still have been the most successful army from within the top 10 of this tournament, and possibly with even more placings, because I specifically excluded the 3 top 10 placing armies that used Guard only as an allied detachment, meaning those 3 Imperium players would be bringing something else - and theres a good chance it would be Guard.

Asmodios wrote:

1. Way to skip the entire part of my post where i said they numbers were hypothetical
2. Refer to my first post when i said you shouldnt be looking at the results of one tournament to draw conclusions
Its hard to have a discussion with someone that doesnt actually read the posts

You put out a bunch of hypothetical numbers to explain why Guard do so well in tournaments, yet your hypothetical numbers aren't even close to reality, so it doesn't explain anything.

They do well in tournaments because they are a viable competitive force.

The fact that you are literally trying to argue otherwise is just exposing yourself as someone not to be listened to concerning anything other than lore or casual play.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:


If one faction is over represented in a tournament is because it is very strong, so the "Theres more players, so higher standings are just expected" doesn't applies here.

Yup, tho it especially doesn't apply when someone just manufactures a bunch of numbers to support their non-existent argument, and in reality Guard wasn't even top 3 in popularity of the armies at the tournament in question. Guard didn't have the higher numbers - just the higher standings. Asmodios's priority here is to downplay his own army of preference, not to any semblance of facts or the truth, he doesn't even have any knowledge of what he's currently speaking on.

Asmodios wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms

Nobody is saying guard is too weak, simply that they aren't broken. Of course, guard have lots of top 10 finishes they are consistently the number 1-3 army played in the entire ITC each weak. The higher percentage of players playing an army raises the frequency at which you will see their lists in top spots.

Yeah, and this is because Imperial Guard have always been soooo popular. Thats why when 8th edition released the number of CWE armies dropped something like 87% in the first 8th edition tournaments. Because players just stopped liking them as their armies.

If one faction is over represented in a tournament is because it is very strong, so the "Theres more players, so higher standings are just expected" doesn't applies here.

Guard is insanely over represented right now for 1 simple reason. Many tournaments classify your army by your warlord so any imperium army running a CP guard battery often get counted as guard and when they do breakdowns by "numbers of detachments" guard take up an almost guaranteed 1/3 of all imperium ones. Guard CP generation is stupid and broken and needs to be fixed.
I 100% guarantee that if GW released a rule that CP could only be used on the detachment that generated it guard would fall several places in the top played faction. There is 0 reason to not include a battalion of guard in every imperium army right now because it boosts the smount of strategems that army can use by an insane amount

You know that most of those factions NEED the guard CP battery to work, don't you? What do you think will happen if GW eliminates the Guard CP battery, or all CP batteries all together? Will we see a big number of pure Adeptus Custodes, Pure Imperial Knights, Pure Blood Angels armies? Let me doubt it. The best Imperail Army without soup is Imperial Guard, so if you eliminate imperial soup from the meta, you'll end up with more Imperial Guard armies.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Guard is insanely over represented right now for 1 simple reason. Many tournaments classify your army by your warlord so any imperium army running a CP guard battery often get counted as guard and when they do breakdowns by "numbers of detachments" guard take up an almost guaranteed 1/3 of all imperium ones. Guard CP generation is stupid and broken and needs to be fixed.
I 100% guarantee that if GW released a rule that CP could only be used on the detachment that generated it guard would fall several places in the top played faction. There is 0 reason to not include a battalion of guard in every imperium army right now because it boosts the smount of strategems that army can use by an insane amount

If they did that, Guard will still have been the most successful army from within the top 10 of this tournament, and possibly with even more placings, because I specifically excluded the 3 top 10 placing armies that used Guard only as an allied detachment, meaning those 3 Imperium players would be bringing something else - and theres a good chance it would be Guard.

Asmodios wrote:

1. Way to skip the entire part of my post where i said they numbers were hypothetical
2. Refer to my first post when i said you shouldnt be looking at the results of one tournament to draw conclusions
Its hard to have a discussion with someone that doesnt actually read the posts

You put out a bunch of hypothetical numbers to explain why Guard do so well in tournaments, yet your hypothetical numbers aren't even close to reality, so it doesn't explain anything.

They do well in tournaments because they are a viable competitive force.

The fact that you are literally trying to argue otherwise is just exposing yourself as someone not to be listened to concerning anything other than lore or casual play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:


If one faction is over represented in a tournament is because it is very strong, so the "Theres more players, so higher standings are just expected" doesn't applies here.

Yup, tho it especially doesn't apply when someone just manufactures a bunch of numbers to support their non-existent argument, and in reality Guard wasn't even top 3 in popularity of the armies at the tournament in question. Guard didn't have the higher numbers - just the higher standings. Asmodios's priority here is to downplay his own army of preference, not to any semblance of facts or the truth, he doesn't even have any knowledge of what he's currently speaking on.

Or once again read my posts
Im referancing http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2018/08/this-week-in-competitive-40k-july-31.html that i have already linked buy you completely ignored.
The reson i responded to you was your use of BAO results as a fact which i pointed out using a single tournament to draw power ranking conclusions is just dumb

Because you have comprehension problems i put my point very obviously for you
POINT: People need to stop screaming OP this or OP that after 1-3 tournament results. There are dozens of ITC events every weekend and people need to look at the total agrigate results of them over a period of time before drawing conclusions of the power level of armies. People need to also cross referance this with the prevelance of "pure" armies and "soup" armies in order to see where the real problems lie. If people use bad data "omg look at the results of BAO lets make a game wide change" you will get poor rules that will hurt not only the competitive scene but also the casual enviroment where pure armies are more common.

If you want to push for a nerf to whatever that fine. Present actual data and statistics for it instead of pointing at single GT results as gosple


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms

Nobody is saying guard is too weak, simply that they aren't broken. Of course, guard have lots of top 10 finishes they are consistently the number 1-3 army played in the entire ITC each weak. The higher percentage of players playing an army raises the frequency at which you will see their lists in top spots.

Yeah, and this is because Imperial Guard have always been soooo popular. Thats why when 8th edition released the number of CWE armies dropped something like 87% in the first 8th edition tournaments. Because players just stopped liking them as their armies.

If one faction is over represented in a tournament is because it is very strong, so the "Theres more players, so higher standings are just expected" doesn't applies here.

Guard is insanely over represented right now for 1 simple reason. Many tournaments classify your army by your warlord so any imperium army running a CP guard battery often get counted as guard and when they do breakdowns by "numbers of detachments" guard take up an almost guaranteed 1/3 of all imperium ones. Guard CP generation is stupid and broken and needs to be fixed.
I 100% guarantee that if GW released a rule that CP could only be used on the detachment that generated it guard would fall several places in the top played faction. There is 0 reason to not include a battalion of guard in every imperium army right now because it boosts the smount of strategems that army can use by an insane amount

You know that most of those factions NEED the guard CP battery to work, don't you? What do you think will happen if GW eliminates the Guard CP battery, or all CP batteries all together? Will we see a big number of pure Adeptus Custodes, Pure Imperial Knights, Pure Blood Angels armies? Let me doubt it. The best Imperail Army without soup is Imperial Guard, so if you eliminate imperial soup from the meta, you'll end up with more Imperial Guard armies.

I understand that and I personally would like to see all these armies become better as solo factions. I think every army being able to compete as standalone is better for game health than making them only viable as a souped in option. I believe the entire game is harder to balance with shared CP pools as well. That is a completely different discussion about soup that has various threads dedicated to it though

Asmodios wrote:


Because you have comprehension problems i put my point very obviously for you
POINT: People need to stop screaming OP this or OP that after 1-3 tournament results. There are dozens of ITC events every weekend and people need to look at the total agrigate results of them over a period of time before drawing conclusions of the power level of armies. People need to also cross referance this with the prevelance of "pure" armies and "soup" armies in order to see where the real problems lie. If people use bad data "omg look at the results of BAO lets make a game wide change" you will get poor rules that will hurt not only the competitive scene but also the casual enviroment where pure armies are more common.

If you want to push for a nerf to whatever that fine. Present actual data and statistics for it instead of pointing at single GT results as gosple

Ok being that you responded to my posts to argue some gak, let me respond to your UNMISTAKEABLY CLEAR point with some quotes from myself so far in this thread:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up

 SHUPPET wrote:

I quite clearly didn't say anything about needing nerfs. I was saying that if you're losing with Guard, it's not your army's faults. Fine to say that they don't need nerfs, but to say they are bad, while 6 people out of the top 10 of the most recent GT took Guard to that height, its pretty fair to look at this and say that you're not living in reality. Time to recognise that your own play may have some faults.

 SHUPPET wrote:
I literally said absolutely zero about the army being OP[...]I just said that you can't blame it for your losses when other people are getting such results with the same army, they are clearly very capable

Can you please specify exactly what of this triggered you so badly, and why you're strawmanning some nonsense about me saying Guard is OP or needs nerf? Because it seems pretty transparent that you don't really have an argument here, and just want to downplay your army. The statements I made were pretty fair lol...

 SHUPPET wrote:

Asmodios wrote:


Because you have comprehension problems i put my point very obviously for you
POINT: People need to stop screaming OP this or OP that after 1-3 tournament results. There are dozens of ITC events every weekend and people need to look at the total agrigate results of them over a period of time before drawing conclusions of the power level of armies. People need to also cross referance this with the prevelance of "pure" armies and "soup" armies in order to see where the real problems lie. If people use bad data "omg look at the results of BAO lets make a game wide change" you will get poor rules that will hurt not only the competitive scene but also the casual enviroment where pure armies are more common.

If you want to push for a nerf to whatever that fine. Present actual data and statistics for it instead of pointing at single GT results as gosple

Ok being that you responded to my posts to argue some gak, let me respond to your UNMISTAKEABLY CLEAR point with some quotes from myself so far in this thread:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up

 SHUPPET wrote:

I quite clearly didn't say anything about needing nerfs. I was saying that if you're losing with Guard, it's not your army's faults. Fine to say that they don't need nerfs, but to say they are bad, while 6 people out of the top 10 of the most recent GT took Guard to that height, its pretty fair to look at this and say that you're not living in reality. Time to recognise that your own play may have some faults.

 SHUPPET wrote:
I literally said absolutely zero about the army being OP[...]I just said that you can't blame it for your losses when other people are getting such results with the same army, they are clearly very capable

Can you please specify exactly what of this triggered you so badly, and why you're strawmanning some nonsense about me saying Guard is OP or needs nerf? Because it seems pretty transparent that you don't really have an argument here, and just want to downplay your army. The statements I made were pretty fair lol...

Your first post I responded to
"btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms"
It's you using a single tournament to draw conclusions about balance which was my entire point.... that you missed

Asmodios wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Asmodios wrote:


Because you have comprehension problems i put my point very obviously for you
POINT: People need to stop screaming OP this or OP that after 1-3 tournament results. There are dozens of ITC events every weekend and people need to look at the total agrigate results of them over a period of time before drawing conclusions of the power level of armies. People need to also cross referance this with the prevelance of "pure" armies and "soup" armies in order to see where the real problems lie. If people use bad data "omg look at the results of BAO lets make a game wide change" you will get poor rules that will hurt not only the competitive scene but also the casual enviroment where pure armies are more common.

If you want to push for a nerf to whatever that fine. Present actual data and statistics for it instead of pointing at single GT results as gosple

Ok being that you responded to my posts to argue some gak, let me respond to your UNMISTAKEABLY CLEAR point with some quotes from myself so far in this thread:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up

 SHUPPET wrote:

I quite clearly didn't say anything about needing nerfs. I was saying that if you're losing with Guard, it's not your army's faults. Fine to say that they don't need nerfs, but to say they are bad, while 6 people out of the top 10 of the most recent GT took Guard to that height, its pretty fair to look at this and say that you're not living in reality. Time to recognise that your own play may have some faults.

 SHUPPET wrote:
I literally said absolutely zero about the army being OP[...]I just said that you can't blame it for your losses when other people are getting such results with the same army, they are clearly very capable

Can you please specify exactly what of this triggered you so badly, and why you're strawmanning some nonsense about me saying Guard is OP or needs nerf? Because it seems pretty transparent that you don't really have an argument here, and just want to downplay your army. The statements I made were pretty fair lol...

Your first post I responded to
"btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms"
It's you using a single tournament to draw conclusions about balance which was my entire point.... that you missed

You literally just said explicitly that your entire point in arguing with me, was that people need to stop screaming about Guard being OP and asking them to be nerfed, something I never said, so thats what I just responded to. It's right there at the top of this quote chain.

You keep flip flopping on this because you have no real argument.




And I can cite a crapton of tournaments with Guard making top 10 if the need be. I used BAO because it's the most recent look at what's performing well in the meta. I never at any point said 1 tournament proves they are OP, just that Guard is a capable army and not a weak one, plus it's a string of tournaments that support this. I said that to say nothing other than the fact that whining about Guard being a crummy army, is just making a joke out of yourself.

There's only one reason you'd take such offense to this sentiment and respond the way you did, lol.

So I was running some numbers:
If equal points of Spears and Guardsmen shoot eachother, Guardsmen win on points.

If equal points of Spears charge equal points of Guardsmen, both sides lose about the same number of points.

If equal points of Guardsmen charge equal points of Spears, Guardsmen win on points.

Even when Spears fight first on turns they didn't charge, Guardsmen still win on points.

Now, I still think Spears are the better unit, but the math didn't work out how I expected.

Well, the guardsmen are simply just too cheap. They can overcome most obstacles by sheer numbers.

Astra Militarum desperately need two fixes 1) make the guardsmen five points 2) ban stacking CP recovery abilities.
There are other things, but these two would help a lot, and decrease their attractiveness as a CP battery.

Bharring wrote:
So I was running some numbers:
If equal points of Spears and Guardsmen shoot eachother, Guardsmen win on points.

If equal points of Spears charge equal points of Guardsmen, both sides lose about the same number of points.

If equal points of Guardsmen charge equal points of Spears, Guardsmen win on points.

Even when Spears fight first on turns they didn't charge, Guardsmen still win on points.

Now, I still think Spears are the better unit, but the math didn't work out how I expected.

Why does it surprise you? Guardsmen are ridiculously under costed, this is only a secret to imperial guard players.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

Asmodios wrote:


Because you have comprehension problems i put my point very obviously for you
POINT: People need to stop screaming OP this or OP that after 1-3 tournament results. There are dozens of ITC events every weekend and people need to look at the total agrigate results of them over a period of time before drawing conclusions of the power level of armies. People need to also cross referance this with the prevelance of "pure" armies and "soup" armies in order to see where the real problems lie. If people use bad data "omg look at the results of BAO lets make a game wide change" you will get poor rules that will hurt not only the competitive scene but also the casual enviroment where pure armies are more common.

If you want to push for a nerf to whatever that fine. Present actual data and statistics for it instead of pointing at single GT results as gosple

Ok being that you responded to my posts to argue some gak, let me respond to your UNMISTAKEABLY CLEAR point with some quotes from myself so far in this thread:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up

 SHUPPET wrote:

I quite clearly didn't say anything about needing nerfs. I was saying that if you're losing with Guard, it's not your army's faults. Fine to say that they don't need nerfs, but to say they are bad, while 6 people out of the top 10 of the most recent GT took Guard to that height, its pretty fair to look at this and say that you're not living in reality. Time to recognise that your own play may have some faults.

 SHUPPET wrote:
I literally said absolutely zero about the army being OP[...]I just said that you can't blame it for your losses when other people are getting such results with the same army, they are clearly very capable

Can you please specify exactly what of this triggered you so badly, and why you're strawmanning some nonsense about me saying Guard is OP or needs nerf? Because it seems pretty transparent that you don't really have an argument here, and just want to downplay your army. The statements I made were pretty fair lol...

Your first post I responded to
"btw Anyone who said IG is too weak needs to level up, they had 3 places in BAO top 10 and thats not including the 3 other armies in the top 10 who just took guard CP farms"
It's you using a single tournament to draw conclusions about balance which was my entire point.... that you missed

You literally just said explicitly that your entire point in arguing with me, was that people need to stop screaming about Guard being OP and asking them to be nerfed, something I never said, so thats what I just responded to. It's right there at the top of this quote chain.

You keep flip flopping on this because you have no real argument.




And I can cite a crapton of tournaments with Guard making top 10 if the need be. I used BAO because it's the most recent look at what's performing well in the meta. I never at any point said 1 tournament proves they are OP, just that Guard is a capable army and not a weak one, plus it's a string of tournaments that support this. I said that to say nothing other than the fact that whining about Guard being a crummy army, is just making a joke out of yourself.

There's only one reason you'd take such offense to this sentiment and respond the way you did, lol.

Can you seriously no read
"POINT: People need to stop screaming OP this or OP that after 1-3 tournament results. There are dozens of ITC events every weekend and people need to look at the total agrigate results of them over a period of time before drawing conclusions of the power level of armies. People need to also cross referance this with the prevelance of "pure" armies and "soup" armies in order to see where the real problems lie. If people use bad data "omg look at the results of BAO lets make a game wide change" you will get poor rules that will hurt not only the competitive scene but also the casual enviroment where pure armies are more common."
I literally put "POINT" in bold for you where i talk about people hoping down a factions throat over a couple tournament results. Guard are not mentioned in the quote because they arent the overal point. The were only brought up in response to yours because guard was your target and you were using a single tournament as your evidence.

And yes i dont have the time but i would love someone to gather the entire ITC data from the last beta rule introduction and show us
1. What percentage of armies being played are soup as well as their overall with percentage
2. What percentage of armies being played are pure as well as their overall win percentage
If you did these two things it would be fairly safe to draw conclusions on power levels of factions. Of course, drop any pre codex numbers and extend the range for data for them

Yeah, when people say "Hordes are too durable" they aren't talking about hordes. Ork Boyz and Hormagaunts die just fine.

The problem is with Imperial Guard infantry. Theres just no weapon that is efficient at killing them.

TIL Guard players genuinely think their army is crummy, I can only be envious of the innocence

And that's also why we see Knights rampage around so much. Everyone was tooling for volume of fire to get through hordes and invul saves.

Bharring wrote:
So I was running some numbers:
If equal points of Spears and Guardsmen shoot eachother, Guardsmen win on points.

If equal points of Spears charge equal points of Guardsmen, both sides lose about the same number of points.

If equal points of Guardsmen charge equal points of Spears, Guardsmen win on points.

Even when Spears fight first on turns they didn't charge, Guardsmen still win on points.

Now, I still think Spears are the better unit, but the math didn't work out how I expected.

Equal points of gaurdsmen for a 9 man SS is 72 gaurdsmen. OFC they are going to lose that on paper. The actual value of this unit compared to elite infantry is like 7 points. Obviously they can't go up in price that much. They need to cost 5 points though - no question. Plus a lot of other elite infantry need to come down in price too. Spears don't need an increase if everything else gets fixed. I'm fine with them losing on paper to 70 cheap bodies. They can make their points back in 1 turn fighting elites.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:
And that's also why we see Knights rampage around so much. Everyone was tooling for volume of fire to get through hordes and invul saves.

Well at least in the case with DE. Their best gun for T8 is the Dessie - and it's still really good anti infantry too. There is nothing in this game that dessie doesn't love to shot - unless it's calgar or a wave serpent or something t10 (that is almost non existent.)

 Galas wrote:
Yeah, when people say "Hordes are too durable" they aren't talking about hordes. Ork Boyz and Hormagaunts die just fine.

The problem is with Imperial Guard infantry. Theres just no weapon that is efficient at killing them.

Boyz are still relatively strong considering that the Orks only have an Index - if they get even moderate buffs from the Codex they could very easily get out of control.

8th edition just hasn't provided an easy way to handle hordes full stop so far. It was an issue right at the start with Razorwing Flocks and it's still an issue now.

Guardsmen definitely need to go up to 5 points, I think thats a good spot for them (im saying this as someone who plays a lot of guard). Id argue other infantry need to go up in points too, most namely kalabites

6 pts is totally fair for a bs 3 model with a gun that ignores T!