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.
Asmodios wrote: While some were guard dominate they still included things like smash captains and jet bikes.
Not a single Guard list of the 3 that made top 3, included Custodes. 1 of the 3 included a jump captain.
If you admittedly have no idea what you are talking about, why immediately discount facts, with baseless and incorrect speculation?
Regardless, it's a nonsense argument anyway, as if we discount armies to take allies from the top tables, then NOBODY made top 10, and to the surprise of nobody, the most successful army in the tournament is Tau, all the way down near the bottom of the top 20, as the first army to place without taking an ally - because they cannot.
The statement was made about Guard not kicking ass in tournaments. That's demonstrably false unless you use absurd, arbitrary restrictions to cut the majority of the game, Guard included, out of the discussion.
The only sensible way to do it is looking at primarys.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/04 14:48:51
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
Asmodios wrote: While some were guard dominate they still included things like smash captains and jet bikes.
Not a single Guard list of the 3 that made top 3, included Custodes. 1 of the 3 included a jump captain.
If you admittedly have no idea what you are talking about, why immediately discount facts, with baseless and incorrect speculation?
Regardless, it's a nonsense argument anyway, as if we discount armies to take allies from the top tables, then NOBODY made top 10, and to the surprise of nobody, the most successful army in the tournament is Tau, all the way down near the bottom of the top 20, as the first army to place without taking an ally - because they cannot.
The statement was made about Guard not kicking ass in tournaments. That's demonstrably false unless you use absurd, arbitrary restrictions to cut the majority of the game, Guard included, out of the discussion.
The only sensible way to do it is looking at primarys.
So you are admitting that not a single one of those lists was mono guard..... So if guard infantry squads are the issue why aren't we seeing mono IG lists with 200 guardsmen just dominating. While you're saying I have no clue it sounds like what I heard on signals from the frontline and the long war are true. The top "IG" lists that made the top ten were guard with a knight and one guard with jetbikes. But not a single mono IG army did make the top 10. It seems that being able to take strong faction a + strong faction b is pushing out any list that doesnt do that and any army that cant.
SHUPPET wrote: I think allied detachments should be nerfed. Needing to take a bunch of IG to make your army work solo, is just bad design. That being said, other adjustments need to go hand in hand,
I agree with both of your statements. I was just saying that many people uses the "IG is only used for CP in soup" as a proof that IG isn't good but... they are just wrong.
And if you remove soups from the game, is not like IG hasn't Bullgryns to cover the loss of Jetbike Captains and Smash fester. Of course, they aren't that strong, no way, and IG would probably just take more artillery and infantry. But is an example of how IG can absolutely substitute what Jetbike and BA Captains do with their own units. But Blood Angels and Adeptus Custodes can't change what Imperial Guard provides for them if you remove soup.
" So if guard infantry squads are the issue why aren't we seeing mono IG lists with 200 guardsmen just dominating."
Because that is not how this works. Tau in 7th weren't a problem? Weren't they OP? And they didn't even won tournaments because Demons and Eldar where so busted. IG are in the same place.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/08/04 15:08:42
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Asmodios wrote: While some were guard dominate they still included things like smash captains and jet bikes.
Not a single Guard list of the 3 that made top 3, included Custodes. 1 of the 3 included a jump captain.
If you admittedly have no idea what you are talking about, why immediately discount facts, with baseless and incorrect speculation?
Regardless, it's a nonsense argument anyway, as if we discount armies to take allies from the top tables, then NOBODY made top 10, and to the surprise of nobody, the most successful army in the tournament is Tau, all the way down near the bottom of the top 20, as the first army to place without taking an ally - because they cannot.
The statement was made about Guard not kicking ass in tournaments. That's demonstrably false unless you use absurd, arbitrary restrictions to cut the majority of the game, Guard included, out of the discussion.
The only sensible way to do it is looking at primarys.
So you are admitting that not a single one of those lists was mono guard..... So if guard infantry squads are the issue why aren't we seeing mono IG lists with 200 guardsmen just dominating. While you're saying I have no clue it sounds like what I heard on signals from the frontline and the long war are true. The top "IG" lists that made the top ten were guard with a knight and one guard with jetbikes. But not a single mono IG army did make the top 10.
Perhaps you missed the part where not a single mono-anything army made top 10. I'm not even sure that there was 10 players at that tournament with mono armies.
Unless you are outright saying right now that you think Tau and Tyranids are two most broken armies in the game right now, you need to reconsider your stance. Having the option to take Knights, Custodes, Captains, whatever else as the supporting core of your main army is not a NEGATIVE of your army, its one of their strengths. Primary factions, IG dominated, any other standards are just idiotic and do absolutely nothing to represent which armies are competitive right now. By your logic DE doesn't even exist right now.
SHUPPET wrote: I think allied detachments should be nerfed. Needing to take a bunch of IG to make your army work solo, is just bad design. That being said, other adjustments need to go hand in hand,
I agree with both of your statements. I was just saying that many people uses the "IG is only used for CP in soup" as a proof that IG isn't good but... they are just wrong.
I agree with all that you said too, I was mostly just expanding a little, to be clear. I chose not to quote you to try make it clearer that I wasn't directing my words as a counter to anything you said, my bad if it came across that way anyway though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/04 15:06:18
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
Asmodios wrote: While some were guard dominate they still included things like smash captains and jet bikes.
Not a single Guard list of the 3 that made top 3, included Custodes. 1 of the 3 included a jump captain.
If you admittedly have no idea what you are talking about, why immediately discount facts, with baseless and incorrect speculation?
Regardless, it's a nonsense argument anyway, as if we discount armies to take allies from the top tables, then NOBODY made top 10, and to the surprise of nobody, the most successful army in the tournament is Tau, all the way down near the bottom of the top 20, as the first army to place without taking an ally - because they cannot.
The statement was made about Guard not kicking ass in tournaments. That's demonstrably false unless you use absurd, arbitrary restrictions to cut the majority of the game, Guard included, out of the discussion.
The only sensible way to do it is looking at primarys.
So you are admitting that not a single one of those lists was mono guard..... So if guard infantry squads are the issue why aren't we seeing mono IG lists with 200 guardsmen just dominating. While you're saying I have no clue it sounds like what I heard on signals from the frontline and the long war are true. The top "IG" lists that made the top ten were guard with a knight and one guard with jetbikes. But not a single mono IG army did make the top 10.
Perhaps you missed the part where not a single mono-anything army made top 10. I'm not even sure that there was 10 players at that tournament with mono armies.
Unless you are outright saying right now that you think Tau and Tyranids are two most broken armies in the game right now, you need to reconsider your stance. Having the option to take Knights, Custodes, Captains, whatever else as the supporting core of your main army is not a NEGATIVE of your army, its one of their strengths. Primary factions, IG dominated, any other standards are just idiotic and do absolutely nothing to represent which armies are competitive right now. By your logic DE doesn't even exist right now.
SHUPPET wrote: I think allied detachments should be nerfed. Needing to take a bunch of IG to make your army work solo, is just bad design. That being said, other adjustments need to go hand in hand,
I agree with both of your statements. I was just saying that many people uses the "IG is only used for CP in soup" as a proof that IG isn't good but... they are just wrong.
I agree with all that you said too, I was mostly just expanding a little, to be clear. I chose not to quote you to try make it clearer that I wasn't directing my words as a counter to anything you said, my bad if it came across that way anyway though.
You are now actively moving the goalpost. The orignial topic of the thread is that IG is broken because of 5point guard. I have pointed out that while 3 of the top 5 included guard 4 of the top 5 included knights. On top of this not a single IG army was mono. The evidence presented that
>the top 10 at BAO included a lot of guard
>IG must be broken
But if IG were truly broken you would be seeing not only mono IG but a high prevalence of said broken unit. Infantry can still be spammed so why aren't we seeing 200 IG infantry running around the field? On top of this we are seeing that knights are also included in almost all these top lists so why isn't the discussion "Knights are OP"
The only evidence presented seems to once again in 8th be that soup is broken which I fully agree and yes cheep IG contribute heavily to this. But considering the winning like included 0 IG but did need knights, it seems disingenuous to place the blame solely on IG
Asmodios wrote: While some were guard dominate they still included things like smash captains and jet bikes.
Not a single Guard list of the 3 that made top 3, included Custodes. 1 of the 3 included a jump captain.
If you admittedly have no idea what you are talking about, why immediately discount facts, with baseless and incorrect speculation?
Regardless, it's a nonsense argument anyway, as if we discount armies to take allies from the top tables, then NOBODY made top 10, and to the surprise of nobody, the most successful army in the tournament is Tau, all the way down near the bottom of the top 20, as the first army to place without taking an ally - because they cannot.
The statement was made about Guard not kicking ass in tournaments. That's demonstrably false unless you use absurd, arbitrary restrictions to cut the majority of the game, Guard included, out of the discussion.
The only sensible way to do it is looking at primarys.
So you are admitting that not a single one of those lists was mono guard..... So if guard infantry squads are the issue why aren't we seeing mono IG lists with 200 guardsmen just dominating. While you're saying I have no clue it sounds like what I heard on signals from the frontline and the long war are true. The top "IG" lists that made the top ten were guard with a knight and one guard with jetbikes. But not a single mono IG army did make the top 10.
Perhaps you missed the part where not a single mono-anything army made top 10. I'm not even sure that there was 10 players at that tournament with mono armies.
Unless you are outright saying right now that you think Tau and Tyranids are two most broken armies in the game right now, you need to reconsider your stance. Having the option to take Knights, Custodes, Captains, whatever else as the supporting core of your main army is not a NEGATIVE of your army, its one of their strengths. Primary factions, IG dominated, any other standards are just idiotic and do absolutely nothing to represent which armies are competitive right now. By your logic DE doesn't even exist right now.
SHUPPET wrote: I think allied detachments should be nerfed. Needing to take a bunch of IG to make your army work solo, is just bad design. That being said, other adjustments need to go hand in hand,
I agree with both of your statements. I was just saying that many people uses the "IG is only used for CP in soup" as a proof that IG isn't good but... they are just wrong.
I agree with all that you said too, I was mostly just expanding a little, to be clear. I chose not to quote you to try make it clearer that I wasn't directing my words as a counter to anything you said, my bad if it came across that way anyway though.
You are now actively moving the goalpost. The orignial topic of the thread is that IG is broken because of 5point guard. I have pointed out that while 3 of the top 5 included guard 4 of the top 5 included knights. On top of this not a single IG army was mono. The evidence presented that
>the top 10 at BAO included a lot of guard
>IG must be broken
But if IG were truly broken you would be seeing not only mono IG but a high prevalence of said broken unit. Infantry can still be spammed so why aren't we seeing 200 IG infantry running around the field? On top of this we are seeing that knights are also included in almost all these top lists so why isn't the discussion "Knights are OP"
The only evidence presented seems to once again in 8th be that soup is broken which I fully agree and yes cheep IG contribute heavily to this. But considering the winning like included 0 IG but did need knights, it seems disingenuous to place the blame solely on IG
It IS solely their fault as all the armies fall apart the moment you remove Guard.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Pure Guard player. Not a tournament goer. I think 5 ppm Guardsmen would be fine.
It would be a roughly 40 to 50 point increase in my typical list, I could swing that without any real problem. I think it would help balance IG / SM somewhat, which is good for most games I play.
Asmodios wrote: While some were guard dominate they still included things like smash captains and jet bikes.
Not a single Guard list of the 3 that made top 3, included Custodes. 1 of the 3 included a jump captain.
If you admittedly have no idea what you are talking about, why immediately discount facts, with baseless and incorrect speculation?
Regardless, it's a nonsense argument anyway, as if we discount armies to take allies from the top tables, then NOBODY made top 10, and to the surprise of nobody, the most successful army in the tournament is Tau, all the way down near the bottom of the top 20, as the first army to place without taking an ally - because they cannot.
The statement was made about Guard not kicking ass in tournaments. That's demonstrably false unless you use absurd, arbitrary restrictions to cut the majority of the game, Guard included, out of the discussion.
The only sensible way to do it is looking at primarys.
So you are admitting that not a single one of those lists was mono guard..... So if guard infantry squads are the issue why aren't we seeing mono IG lists with 200 guardsmen just dominating. While you're saying I have no clue it sounds like what I heard on signals from the frontline and the long war are true. The top "IG" lists that made the top ten were guard with a knight and one guard with jetbikes. But not a single mono IG army did make the top 10.
Perhaps you missed the part where not a single mono-anything army made top 10. I'm not even sure that there was 10 players at that tournament with mono armies.
Unless you are outright saying right now that you think Tau and Tyranids are two most broken armies in the game right now, you need to reconsider your stance. Having the option to take Knights, Custodes, Captains, whatever else as the supporting core of your main army is not a NEGATIVE of your army, its one of their strengths. Primary factions, IG dominated, any other standards are just idiotic and do absolutely nothing to represent which armies are competitive right now. By your logic DE doesn't even exist right now.
SHUPPET wrote: I think allied detachments should be nerfed. Needing to take a bunch of IG to make your army work solo, is just bad design. That being said, other adjustments need to go hand in hand,
I agree with both of your statements. I was just saying that many people uses the "IG is only used for CP in soup" as a proof that IG isn't good but... they are just wrong.
I agree with all that you said too, I was mostly just expanding a little, to be clear. I chose not to quote you to try make it clearer that I wasn't directing my words as a counter to anything you said, my bad if it came across that way anyway though.
You are now actively moving the goalpost. The orignial topic of the thread is that IG is broken because of 5point guard. I have pointed out that while 3 of the top 5 included guard 4 of the top 5 included knights. On top of this not a single IG army was mono. The evidence presented that
>the top 10 at BAO included a lot of guard
>IG must be broken
But if IG were truly broken you would be seeing not only mono IG but a high prevalence of said broken unit. Infantry can still be spammed so why aren't we seeing 200 IG infantry running around the field? On top of this we are seeing that knights are also included in almost all these top lists so why isn't the discussion "Knights are OP"
The only evidence presented seems to once again in 8th be that soup is broken which I fully agree and yes cheep IG contribute heavily to this. But considering the winning like included 0 IG but did need knights, it seems disingenuous to place the blame solely on IG
It IS solely their fault as all the armies fall apart the moment you remove Guard.
[/spoiler]
But the armies equally "fall apart" as soon as you remove knights..... 4 of the top 5 lists wouldnt be their without knights
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/04 15:41:26
You are now actively moving the goalpost. The orignial topic of the thread is that IG is broken because of 5point guard. I have pointed out that while 3 of the top 5 included guard 4 of the top 5 included knights. On top of this not a single IG army was mono. The evidence presented that >the top 10 at BAO included a lot of guard >IG must be broken But if IG were truly broken you would be seeing not only mono IG but a high prevalence of said broken unit. Infantry can still be spammed so why aren't we seeing 200 IG infantry running around the field? On top of this we are seeing that knights are also included in almost all these top lists so why isn't the discussion "Knights are OP" The only evidence presented seems to once again in 8th be that soup is broken which I fully agree and yes cheep IG contribute heavily to this. But considering the winning like included 0 IG but did need knights, it seems disingenuous to place the blame solely on IG
Wait, so you want to exclude Guard allied detachments as not counting towards the strength of Guard, but will include allied single-Knight detachments as contributing to the strength of Knights?
Wait, you think that that pointing out that Guard are doing really well in tournament, in direct response to someone claiming they are not, is somehow moving the goalposts, while you've come in here and made a bunch of arbitrary restrictions to suit your agenda, restrictions not at all present at tournaments, and restrictions that excludes 95% of the game, from this same discussion of what's doing well at tournaments?
Wait, you didn't see that the winning list won based off opponent resistance, and the Guard primary army also went undefeated?
Wait, you are claiming that I said Knights are fine based off absolutely nothing, even though I've spoken out about them in the past in topics relevant to them, just like I'm doing here in topics relevant to IG?
Stop posting for a couple of days, and spend the time thinking about what is motivating you to post like this. You are the walking definition of "moving the goalposts", and even when it comes to those moving nets you aren't being even remotely objective, you came in here downplaying Guard before you even knew what the lists were.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/04 15:45:28
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
You are now actively moving the goalpost. The orignial topic of the thread is that IG is broken because of 5point guard. I have pointed out that while 3 of the top 5 included guard 4 of the top 5 included knights. On top of this not a single IG army was mono. The evidence presented that
>the top 10 at BAO included a lot of guard
>IG must be broken
But if IG were truly broken you would be seeing not only mono IG but a high prevalence of said broken unit. Infantry can still be spammed so why aren't we seeing 200 IG infantry running around the field? On top of this we are seeing that knights are also included in almost all these top lists so why isn't the discussion "Knights are OP"
The only evidence presented seems to once again in 8th be that soup is broken which I fully agree and yes cheep IG contribute heavily to this. But considering the winning like included 0 IG but did need knights, it seems disingenuous to place the blame solely on IG
Wait, so you want to exclude Guard allied detachments as not counting towards the strength of Guard, but will include allied single-Knight detachments as contributing to the strength of Knights?
Wait, you think that that pointing out that Guard are doing really well in tournament, in direct response to someone claiming they are not, is somehow moving the goalposts, while you've come in here and made a bunch of arbitrary restrictions to suit your agenda, restrictions not at all present at tournaments, and restrictions that excludes 95% of the game, from this same discussion of what's doing well at tournaments?
Wait, you didn't see that the winning list won based off opponent resistance, and the Guard primary army also went undefeated?
Wait, you are claiming that I said Knights are fine based off absolutely nothing, even though I've spoken out about them in the past in topics relevant to them, just like I'm doing here in topics relevant to IG?
Stop posting for a couple of days, and spend the time thinking about what is motivating you to post like this. You are the walking definition of "moving the goalposts", and even when it comes to those moving nets you aren't being even remotely objective, you came in here downplaying Guard before you even knew what the lists were.
Way to miss represent what I'm saying (i notice this as a trend in your posts instead of actively answering any questions that differ from your view)
What you seem to be ignoring is that
1. No list your pointing at is mono guard (showing that guard need something added from another army to compete at the top tables)
2. More of the top lists had "Knights" in common then "IG" in common
If you are going to point to a tournaments outcome as a reason to nerf x because of how much it appeared then you cannot ignore the inclusion of y which appeared more frequently (and won the entire event)
You are asking to nerf a single unit x to address an issue with soup in general. Not only will this not change the prevalence of soup it will just decrease the appearence of x to the portion of y. You can keep increasing the cost of x over and over until you not see slightly less optimized soup including second cheap z unit. You will have then severely hurt mono army player that has access to unit x and only slightly reduced the effectiveness of the soup army that can pick the next best unit from a-z. What they should focus on is addressing issues that each faction has so they are not reliant on soup as some factions will never have this option and thus can never be balanced on a level playing field
Edit:
I also aparently knew exactly what the lists were by listening to podcasts just wanted to be safe and not present it as fact as i did not have them infront of me..... but it iss 100% what i listened to and now you confirmed it.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/04 16:02:43
Trollbert wrote: If 5 ppm Guardsmen removed mono guard from tournaments, then they'd be in line with most other mono armies, so what's the problem?
Why should IG be one of the only armies that are competitve as a mono army?
I would like to see all mono armies competitive but my guess is they are not the top mono army (while unarguably one of the better mono armies).... My reasoning
While a low frequency you do see
DE, E, Tau, Nids, Necrons (although only vault lists) Orks occasionally finish top 3 or at least in top 10 spots. I have yet to see a single 100% mono guard list (since the rule of 3 and removal of the 16 hellhound list) place in the top 10 of a tournament. This is obviously not a great metric as so few players are taking mono guard as you can make them hyper-competitive by adding in soup option (x) while factions like tau cannot soup so obviously all included are "pure" armies. But addressing a single unit from IG is failing to do anything significant to address that imperium chaos and eldar can pick from a multitude of books while tau and Necrons cant. Id like to see a game where each codex could stand on its own instead of being forced to take multiple books. Nuking single units to hurt soup also disproportionally hurts players that do not soup.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/04 16:19:39
Hmm, i could receive some flak from this, but after thinking about it for a while, i'm not sure that IS should be 5 points. Mind, i'm not saying that they are fine, but just that we shouldn't rush this.
AM lists right now are extremely strong because the soup system is allowing them to cover the greatest flaw of the faction, which is not CC, is command points. IG can generate unlimited amount of command points, but don't really now what to do with those. That's also the reason why they have stuff like Grand Stragetist and Kurov's Aquila, because CP have little value for them, so a trait or a relic that gives CP must be really good to be considered.
Souping is allowing them to take all those unspent resources and funnelling them into high yeld units like bananas, smashers and knights.
After a nerf to CP sharing mechanics that i'm fairly sure that will come in the next round of FAQs, i would like to reassess the true strenght of IS before claiming that something is OP.
After all, it's not like a 5+ save for 4 points is something that only IS have, it that were truly OP then leviathan termagants would be as well (6+/6+++ is roughly equivalent). Sure they don't have the same lasgun firepower, but they have squads up to 40, immunity to morale and anything charging into them is covered in acid blood mortal wounds, not to mention that they can wound T7 on 4+ with a stratagem and can hide devourers. Oh and they pretty much always have a -1 to shooting. Yet, termagants are not seen around as much as IG, so i'm not sure that IS is what makes the militarum such a top competitive choice.
I would wait for the inevitable nerf to CP sharing and for a buff to marine factions before passing judgement on IS.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/04 16:21:06
Spoletta wrote: Hmm, i could receive some flak from this, but after thinking about it for a while, i'm not sure that IS should be 5 points. Mind, i'm not saying that they are fine, but just that we shouldn't rush this.
AM lists right now are extremely strong because the soup system is allowing them to cover the greatest flaw of the faction, which is not CC, is command points. IG can generate unlimited amount of command points, but don't really now what to do with those. That's also the reason why they have stuff like Grand Stragetist and Kurov's Aquila, because CP have little value for them, so a trait or a relic that gives CP must be really good to be considered.
Souping is allowing them to take all those unspent resources and funnelling them into high yeld units like bananas, smashers and knights.
After a nerf to CP sharing mechanics that i'm fairly sure that will come in the next round of FAQs, i would like to reassess the true strenght of IS before claiming that something is OP.
After all, it's not like a 5+ save for 4 points is something that only IS have, it that were truly OP then leviathan termagants would be as well (6+/6+++ is roughly equivalent). Sure they don't have the same lasgun firepower, but they have squads up to 40, immunity to morale and anything charging into them is covered in acid blood mortal wounds, not to mention that they can wound T7 on 4+ with a stratagem and can hide devourers. Oh and they pretty much always have a -1 to shooting.
Yet, termagants are not seen around as much as IG, so i'm not sure that IS is what makes the militarum such a top competitive choice.
I would wait for the inevitable nerf to CP sharing and for a buff to marine factions before passing judgement on IS.
^
Thank you this is all that im saying. Guard could very well need a nerf in the future but right now its their ability to funnel their CP into another books strategems that seems to be the real strength of the faction
And stop playing the more knights in the top 10 than guard as technicaly your wrong in that regard as Renegade Knights and Imperial Knights are separate codex's.
Knights are strong but loose the soup and Knights stuggle to score so fall into table or win.
Astra Millicheese have cheap tanks, cheap infantry.
You say guard don't have CC options bullgryns would disagree especially backed up with the appropriate charictors.
Infantry squads shoukd be 5ppm as if they stay at 4ppm next we get calls for 3ppm conscripts again and they are OP at 3ppm
Ice_can wrote: Except that's nothing like what you said.
And stop playing the more knights in the top 10 than guard as technicaly your wrong in that regard as Renegade Knights and Imperial Knights are separate codex's.
Knights are strong but loose the soup and Knights stuggle to score so fall into table or win.
Astra Millicheese have cheap tanks, cheap infantry.
You say guard don't have CC options bullgryns would disagree especially backed up with the appropriate charictors.
Infantry squads shoukd be 5ppm as if they stay at 4ppm next we get calls for 3ppm conscripts again and they are OP at 3ppm
4 out of 5 of the top armies included knights, as well as, the winning list that included a knight but no IG. Why is the prevalence of the knight not considered but the prevalence of the guard is?
Guard have cheap tanks...... I don't see guard tank spam winning tournaments
Guard have cheap infantry...... I don't see infantry spam guard winning tournaments
Once again the common thread between each list is guard + x are winning tournaments. What this shows me is that taking guard and plugging up weakness x while allowing them to funnel cheap CP into another army is a problem. Why hurt mono guard lists which are not winning while we could just address the actual lists that are winning?
Also its quiet funny when i state this over and over but am told that's not what I'm saying
Ork has a better gun to offset the bs5+. They do about the same damage when they shoot targets. The ork also has T4 to ofset the 6+ save - the main difference it has to pay for is more attacks. Honestly +1 attack is worth more than a 1 point difference. They also come in 30 man squads - which allows the unit to make most out of buffs.
IG also have options to increase the usefulness of their basic infantries shooting abilities, they are also faster, can take heavy/special weapons worth using, ohh and they can easily take cover to increase their armor save, something orkz can't really do.
So what you are saying is that Orkz pay 2 more pts then guardsmen because it has 1 more attack then they do, and can come in bigger squads....which actually doesn't help them with buffs, because the only buff I can think of that isn't AoE is "Warpath". yeah I am not buying it, keep in mind I am not saying nerf guardsmen or buff Boyz, because there are a lot of other aspects of the game and armies that effect those units, I am just pointing out that in a vacuum Ork Boyz are WORSE then Guardsmen by a significant margin.
Ice_can wrote: Except that's nothing like what you said.
And stop playing the more knights in the top 10 than guard as technicaly your wrong in that regard as Renegade Knights and Imperial Knights are separate codex's.
Knights are strong but loose the soup and Knights stuggle to score so fall into table or win.
Astra Millicheese have cheap tanks, cheap infantry.
You say guard don't have CC options bullgryns would disagree especially backed up with the appropriate charictors.
Infantry squads shoukd be 5ppm as if they stay at 4ppm next we get calls for 3ppm conscripts again and they are OP at 3ppm
4 out of 5 of the top armies included knights, as well as, the winning list that included a knight but no IG. Why is the prevalence of the knight not considered but the prevalence of the guard is?
Guard have cheap tanks...... I don't see guard tank spam winning tournaments
Guard have cheap infantry...... I don't see infantry spam guard winning tournaments
Once again the common thread between each list is guard + x are winning tournaments. What this shows me is that taking guard and plugging up weakness x while allowing them to funnel cheap CP into another army is a problem. Why hurt mono guard lists which are not winning while we could just address the actual lists that are winning?
Also its quiet funny when i state this over and over but am told that's not what I'm saying
Probably because everyone already knows and admits that Knights are OP and the "New Cheese" just like conscripts were at the start of 8th.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/04 17:36:36
Ork has a better gun to offset the bs5+. They do about the same damage when they shoot targets. The ork also has T4 to ofset the 6+ save - the main difference it has to pay for is more attacks. Honestly +1 attack is worth more than a 1 point difference. They also come in 30 man squads - which allows the unit to make most out of buffs.
IG also have options to increase the usefulness of their basic infantries shooting abilities, they are also faster, can take heavy/special weapons worth using, ohh and they can easily take cover to increase their armor save, something orkz can't really do.
So what you are saying is that Orkz pay 2 more pts then guardsmen because it has 1 more attack then they do, and can come in bigger squads....which actually doesn't help them with buffs, because the only buff I can think of that isn't AoE is "Warpath". yeah I am not buying it, keep in mind I am not saying nerf guardsmen or buff Boyz, because there are a lot of other aspects of the game and armies that effect those units, I am just pointing out that in a vacuum Ork Boyz are WORSE then Guardsmen by a significant margin.
Ice_can wrote: Except that's nothing like what you said.
And stop playing the more knights in the top 10 than guard as technicaly your wrong in that regard as Renegade Knights and Imperial Knights are separate codex's.
Knights are strong but loose the soup and Knights stuggle to score so fall into table or win.
Astra Millicheese have cheap tanks, cheap infantry.
You say guard don't have CC options bullgryns would disagree especially backed up with the appropriate charictors.
Infantry squads shoukd be 5ppm as if they stay at 4ppm next we get calls for 3ppm conscripts again and they are OP at 3ppm
4 out of 5 of the top armies included knights, as well as, the winning list that included a knight but no IG. Why is the prevalence of the knight not considered but the prevalence of the guard is?
Guard have cheap tanks...... I don't see guard tank spam winning tournaments
Guard have cheap infantry...... I don't see infantry spam guard winning tournaments
Once again the common thread between each list is guard + x are winning tournaments. What this shows me is that taking guard and plugging up weakness x while allowing them to funnel cheap CP into another army is a problem. Why hurt mono guard lists which are not winning while we could just address the actual lists that are winning?
Also its quiet funny when i state this over and over but am told that's not what I'm saying
Probably because everyone already knows and admits that Knights are OP and the "New Cheese" just like conscripts were at the start of 8th.
But are knights broken? I really don't think so.... are knights + x broken most likely yes. I know plenty of mono knight players and while the codex is good it suffers from low CP and the fact its a skew list (yes I know this is a double-edged sword). Once again why nuke knights so we only see them on shelves. I love the fact that they are good and being taken as they are beautiful centerpiece models. The issue on Dakka is the revolving door of x is broken just to see it nerfed and soup move on to the next busted combo. We should be focusing on addressing soup so that we can actually start to work on underpowered and overpowered books
Don't get me wrong some people enjoy soup and I don't want to see it out of the game I would like to see soup and non-soup armies be equally viable as this helps narrow the gap between mono faction players and soup players as well as make the game easier to balance IMO.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Knights were broken the moment a 2+ and 4++ option was present.
But to the same point I've made about IG.... Then why are we not seeing pure knights lists dominate things like the BAO.... Why is it always Knights + unit x? If Knights need another faction to win these tournaments then are they truly broken as its easy to take a list that just includes more knights?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Knights were broken the moment a 2+ and 4++ option was present.
But to the same point I've made about IG.... Then why are we not seeing pure knights lists dominate things like the BAO.... Why is it always Knights + unit x? If Knights need another faction to win these tournaments then are they truly broken as its easy to take a list that just includes more knights?
Pure Knights CAN work, but forking up 180 points for 5CP and objective capturing makes them that much better.
Guard are the problem again in this scenario.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Knights were broken the moment a 2+ and 4++ option was present.
But to the same point I've made about IG.... Then why are we not seeing pure knights lists dominate things like the BAO.... Why is it always Knights + unit x? If Knights need another faction to win these tournaments then are they truly broken as its easy to take a list that just includes more knights?
Pure Knights CAN work, but forking up 180 points for 5CP and objective capturing makes them that much better.
Guard are the problem again in this scenario.
No, the problem again.... like always is soup. Soup is taking the strength of army x and adding army y to completely negate its weakness. Remove soup always being a clear and obvious advantage and you will see this change
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Knights were broken the moment a 2+ and 4++ option was present.
But to the same point I've made about IG.... Then why are we not seeing pure knights lists dominate things like the BAO.... Why is it always Knights + unit x? If Knights need another faction to win these tournaments then are they truly broken as its easy to take a list that just includes more knights?
Pure Knights CAN work, but forking up 180 points for 5CP and objective capturing makes them that much better.
Guard are the problem again in this scenario.
No, the problem again.... like always is soup. Soup is taking the strength of army x and adding army y to completely negate its weakness. Remove soup always being a clear and obvious advantage and you will see this change
Someone already pointed out that pure Guard were already doing the best of the pure factions in tournaments. So NO there isn't a change.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Knights were broken the moment a 2+ and 4++ option was present.
But to the same point I've made about IG.... Then why are we not seeing pure knights lists dominate things like the BAO.... Why is it always Knights + unit x? If Knights need another faction to win these tournaments then are they truly broken as its easy to take a list that just includes more knights?
Pure Knights CAN work, but forking up 180 points for 5CP and objective capturing makes them that much better.
Guard are the problem again in this scenario.
No, the problem again.... like always is soup. Soup is taking the strength of army x and adding army y to completely negate its weakness. Remove soup always being a clear and obvious advantage and you will see this change
Someone already pointed out that pure Guard were already doing the best of the pure factions in tournaments. So NO there isn't a change.
I have not seen a single statistic showing pure guard doing the best. People have shown "primary" guard but I have seen no evidence or posts showing pure guard as commonly placing well. Please link the data so i can read it
That what I expected and its what we see day after day thread after thread on dakka.... army x gets blamed for the sins of soup. The best way to increase the power of xeno armies that cannot soup is to reduce the benefits of factions that can soup. once soup has been removed as the always obvious answer to anything it will be much easier to identify actual problem units and codexes and change them accordingly
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Knights were broken the moment a 2+ and 4++ option was present.
But to the same point I've made about IG.... Then why are we not seeing pure knights lists dominate things like the BAO.... Why is it always Knights + unit x? If Knights need another faction to win these tournaments then are they truly broken as its easy to take a list that just includes more knights?
Pure Knights CAN work, but forking up 180 points for 5CP and objective capturing makes them that much better.
Guard are the problem again in this scenario.
No, the problem again.... like always is soup. Soup is taking the strength of army x and adding army y to completely negate its weakness. Remove soup always being a clear and obvious advantage and you will see this change
Someone already pointed out that pure Guard were already doing the best of the pure factions in tournaments. So NO there isn't a change.
I have not seen a single statistic showing pure guard doing the best. People have shown "primary" guard but I have seen no evidence or posts showing pure guard as commonly placing well. Please link the data so i can read it
Someone already told you about the BAO earlier. Not sure what more you want.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/04 18:38:49
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Knights were broken the moment a 2+ and 4++ option was present.
But to the same point I've made about IG.... Then why are we not seeing pure knights lists dominate things like the BAO.... Why is it always Knights + unit x? If Knights need another faction to win these tournaments then are they truly broken as its easy to take a list that just includes more knights?
Pure Knights CAN work, but forking up 180 points for 5CP and objective capturing makes them that much better.
Guard are the problem again in this scenario.
No, the problem again.... like always is soup. Soup is taking the strength of army x and adding army y to completely negate its weakness. Remove soup always being a clear and obvious advantage and you will see this change
Someone already pointed out that pure Guard were already doing the best of the pure factions in tournaments. So NO there isn't a change.
I have not seen a single statistic showing pure guard doing the best. People have shown "primary" guard but I have seen no evidence or posts showing pure guard as commonly placing well. Please link the data so i can read it
Someone already told you about the BAO earlier. Not sure what more you want.
There wasn't a single pure guard army that placed...... go back and read
So I guess Custodes Shield-Captains on bikes are fine because we never see pure Custodes winning anything.
See the problem with your logic is that in these settings people will take the best of the best and that means allies. Guard Infantry is seen in most Imperium armies because they are really good at what they do (cheap, take up space and are resilient for their points). Why aren't people taking Admech CP batteries? I can get a battalion for 201 pts, vs the Guard battalion of 200 pts. So what gives?
Pure Guard armies have some less than stellar units that can hold them back. Anyone allying Sentinels? Infantry on the other hand is superior to every other comparable option, which is why they need a price bump. There's also the fact that Conscripts have lost their place and that's mostly because they cost the same as Infantry. Ideally imo we would have 4 pt conscripts, 5 pt infantry and 6 pt veterans.
My fault!
