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.
Dandelion wrote: 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.
Yes, I think shield captains are fine and only become an issue when..... you guessed it soup.
My logic on this isn't only consistent it seems to be backed by results. After the rule of 3 was implemented every troubling build comes out of soup while none of these units on their own can purely bust the single codex they belong to. This isn't surprising at all because its obvious that codex 1 + half the codexes in the game is going to be better then codex 1 in its pure form. It also logically follows that any nerf to hurt a specific soup build is going to affect players that do not soup more than those breaking the system. People are taking guard because they can generate a nearly endless stream of CP for armies that should have never had easy access to an endless stream while giving things like knights cheap bodies to sit on objectives.
The simple solution IMO is to only make it where CP can only be used detachments with the same main key work as those that generated them. So catachan generated CP can only be used on catachan. This makes sense balance wise and thematically as a larger force of x type army allows for more tactical use of x armies strategies. I also believe that the automatic +3 CP should only be for mono armies.
Being an ork player, I recognize that guard infantry have very similar statistical outcome with some edge cases. Similar defense (44% IG vs 42% Ork chance to be kill against bolters, with orks being better vs 6/7 str and ig better at str 8 and higher), similar ranged output (16.6r% to wound vs t4 for lasguns and shootas, with the shoota having more shots 13"-18", lasgun at 19"-24".
But Orks have +1S and A, native charge reroll, the ability to get more attacks, and one of the best morale boosting rules in the game.
I simply don't believe that's all worth one point.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: If you really want to see Vets again, you'd make them Troops once more. That was one of the sole reasons they sorta worked last edition.
It's the sticking factor whenever I try and work them into a list, can't fill a battalion with them without also dragging along a bunch of normal guardsmen and at that point why even bother? you're basically duping units. I really think that scion's and vet's should switch places, would make way more sense, Vet's being the BS3+ troop choice with scion's being the elite unit. Not only fluffy it would reign scions in slightly and make vet's more appealing.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: I think all credibility was lost the moment that guy said that Custodes Biker Captains are fine without soup.
Have you ever played against a pure custodian army? Nothing I saw was game breaking or overpowered. While bikes are clearly the best unit the lack of CP and cheap bodies hinders the army as a whole giving them a clear and glaring weakness
Once again I don't see pure custodes armies destroying the meta
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/04 19:58:22
I'm biased since I play guard. But I also want to play a balanced game with my friends. I run a minimum of 60 guardsmen in my standard TAC list and I gotta tell ya, it's gonna hurt if they go up to 5ppm and by the end of my games I usually have only a handful of guys left. But I suppose I could also run more competitive lists to offset the point change.
It's instances like this where I wish the points scale was increased a bit so there was better definition between units. Like a guardsman was 10 points, termagants were 7, etc. I wouldn't have a problem then. But when a single point increase changes a models value by 25% that is quite a change, no?
I'm just trying to compromise yet I know that's not feasible but I do feel like that would help with a lot of things. But hey, 8th edition must be great if our qualms are on guardsmen and single point changes so that's pretty awesome.
Dandelion wrote: 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.
Yes, I think shield captains are fine and only become an issue when..... you guessed it soup.
My logic on this isn't only consistent it seems to be backed by results. After the rule of 3 was implemented every troubling build comes out of soup while none of these units on their own can purely bust the single codex they belong to. This isn't surprising at all because its obvious that codex 1 + half the codexes in the game is going to be better then codex 1 in its pure form. It also logically follows that any nerf to hurt a specific soup build is going to affect players that do not soup more than those breaking the system. People are taking guard because they can generate a nearly endless stream of CP for armies that should have never had easy access to an endless stream while giving things like knights cheap bodies to sit on objectives.
The simple solution IMO is to only make it where CP can only be used detachments with the same main key work as those that generated them. So catachan generated CP can only be used on catachan. This makes sense balance wise and thematically as a larger force of x type army allows for more tactical use of x armies strategies. I also believe that the automatic +3 CP should only be for mono armies.
Why are you assuming that 5pt guard is only to fix soup lists? It's not, it is also aimed at pure guard. And honestly, 5 pt guard won't stop CP farms (+30 pts for most armies) so that can't be the issue. The issue is their actual tabletop performance. IS are also safe from the rule of three so. I'd also be willing to bet that once -1 to hit army traits get binned Guard will see a rise in winnings.
Another point, why do you assume the devs designed each faction to stand on their own? Custodes were blatantly designed with the idea of Imperial allies in mind. Knights are also encouraged to run guard under the guise of house militia.
Dandelion wrote: 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.
Yes, I think shield captains are fine and only become an issue when..... you guessed it soup.
My logic on this isn't only consistent it seems to be backed by results. After the rule of 3 was implemented every troubling build comes out of soup while none of these units on their own can purely bust the single codex they belong to. This isn't surprising at all because its obvious that codex 1 + half the codexes in the game is going to be better then codex 1 in its pure form. It also logically follows that any nerf to hurt a specific soup build is going to affect players that do not soup more than those breaking the system. People are taking guard because they can generate a nearly endless stream of CP for armies that should have never had easy access to an endless stream while giving things like knights cheap bodies to sit on objectives.
The simple solution IMO is to only make it where CP can only be used detachments with the same main key work as those that generated them. So catachan generated CP can only be used on catachan. This makes sense balance wise and thematically as a larger force of x type army allows for more tactical use of x armies strategies. I also believe that the automatic +3 CP should only be for mono armies.
Why are you assuming that 5pt guard is only to fix soup lists? It's not, it is also aimed at pure guard. And honestly, 5 pt guard won't stop CP farms (+30 pts for most armies) so that can't be the issue. The issue is their actual tabletop performance. IS are also safe from the rule of three so. I'd also be willing to bet that once -1 to hit army traits get binned Guard will see a rise in winnings.
Another point, why do you assume the devs designed each faction to stand on their own? Custodes were blatantly designed with the idea of Imperial allies in mind. Knights are also encouraged to run guard under the guise of house militia.
So its also to fix pure guard..... mind pointing me in the direction of the pure guard armies running around the tournament scene killing everything? Most competitive pure guard lists I've seen are three shadowswod lists and clearly, aren't focused around the idea of broken guardsmen. I also think that "x codex is not made to be solo" argument is disingenuous and unfair to players that want to play solo faction armies. There should be strengths and weaknesses to every army and there should be a benefit and a cost to taking soup. Right now, unfortunately, soup has pushed peoples ability to play many forces as solo to zero and has also covered up codexes flaws that will never get adjusted because the easier fix is to say "take you x and just add it in"
Edit:
Also if -1 hit got nerfed that would increase the power level of guard significantly... But lets cross that bridge if and when it comes. No point if talking nerfs that might or might not happen as possible changes for an army now. If -1 to hit leaves the game completely you will see me being the first person to say that this helps guard a lot and that guard will need adjusting
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/04 20:28:19
Colonel Cross wrote: I'm biased since I play guard. But I also want to play a balanced game with my friends. I run a minimum of 60 guardsmen in my standard TAC list and I gotta tell ya, it's gonna hurt if they go up to 5ppm and by the end of my games I usually have only a handful of guys left. But I suppose I could also run more competitive lists to offset the point change.
It's instances like this where I wish the points scale was increased a bit so there was better definition between units. Like a guardsman was 10 points, termagants were 7, etc. I wouldn't have a problem then. But when a single point increase changes a models value by 25% that is quite a change, no?
I'm just trying to compromise yet I know that's not feasible but I do feel like that would help with a lot of things. But hey, 8th edition must be great if our qualms are on guardsmen and single point changes so that's pretty awesome.
60 Guardsmen is not actually a lot for 2000pts. We're only talking 240 pts, that's as much as a single tank (maybe a bit more). If I were so inclined I could easily stuff 200 Guard on the field and still have 1200 pts left over for Russes, artillery and a baneblade. Run the infantry as Steel Legion and rapid fire straight through everything. With max commanders you can even give 90-100 Guardsmen FRFSRF each turn.
That said, Guard have other stuff that could easily be readjusted to keep pure guard good. Sentinels and Chimeras come to mind.
Worst case scenario 5pt guard is too much and we can just revert back.
So its also to fix pure guard..... mind pointing me in the direction of the pure guard armies running around the tournament scene killing everything? Most competitive pure guard lists I've seen are three shadowswod lists and clearly, aren't focused around the idea of broken guardsmen. I also think that "x codex is not made to be solo" argument is disingenuous and unfair to players that want to play solo faction armies. There should be strengths and weaknesses to every army and there should be a benefit and a cost to taking soup. Right now, unfortunately, soup has pushed peoples ability to play many forces as solo to zero and has also covered up codexes flaws that will never get adjusted because the easier fix is to say "take you x and just add it in"
Edit:
Also if -1 hit got nerfed that would increase the power level of guard significantly... But lets cross that bridge if and when it comes. No point if talking nerfs that might or might not happen as possible changes for an army now. If -1 to hit leaves the game completely you will see me being the first person to say that this helps guard a lot and that guard will need adjusting
Custodes have an ability that buffs "IMPERIUM" units. If that doesn't mean they are designed to ally then I don't know what does.
I'm also going to disagree with the "every army needs strengths and weaknesses". A list can have strengths and weaknesses, but factions should not. Why? Because that's how you get skew lists. It also heavily encourages soup in the first place. If all factions could field an answer to any scenario, allies just become a cool thing to do for fluff reasons.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/04 20:45:51
Colonel Cross wrote: I'm biased since I play guard. But I also want to play a balanced game with my friends. I run a minimum of 60 guardsmen in my standard TAC list and I gotta tell ya, it's gonna hurt if they go up to 5ppm and by the end of my games I usually have only a handful of guys left. But I suppose I could also run more competitive lists to offset the point change.
It's instances like this where I wish the points scale was increased a bit so there was better definition between units. Like a guardsman was 10 points, termagants were 7, etc. I wouldn't have a problem then. But when a single point increase changes a models value by 25% that is quite a change, no?
I'm just trying to compromise yet I know that's not feasible but I do feel like that would help with a lot of things. But hey, 8th edition must be great if our qualms are on guardsmen and single point changes so that's pretty awesome.
60 Guardsmen is not actually a lot for 2000pts. We're only talking 240 pts, that's as much as a single tank (maybe a bit more). If I were so inclined I could easily stuff 200 Guard on the field and still have 1200 pts left over for Russes, artillery and a baneblade. Run the infantry as Steel Legion and rapid fire straight through everything. With max commanders you can even give 90-100 Guardsmen FRFSRF each turn.
That said, Guard have other stuff that could easily be readjusted to keep pure guard good. Sentinels and Chimeras come to mind.
Worst case scenario 5pt guard is too much and we can just revert back.
So its also to fix pure guard..... mind pointing me in the direction of the pure guard armies running around the tournament scene killing everything? Most competitive pure guard lists I've seen are three shadowswod lists and clearly, aren't focused around the idea of broken guardsmen. I also think that "x codex is not made to be solo" argument is disingenuous and unfair to players that want to play solo faction armies. There should be strengths and weaknesses to every army and there should be a benefit and a cost to taking soup. Right now, unfortunately, soup has pushed peoples ability to play many forces as solo to zero and has also covered up codexes flaws that will never get adjusted because the easier fix is to say "take you x and just add it in"
Edit:
Also if -1 hit got nerfed that would increase the power level of guard significantly... But lets cross that bridge if and when it comes. No point if talking nerfs that might or might not happen as possible changes for an army now. If -1 to hit leaves the game completely you will see me being the first person to say that this helps guard a lot and that guard will need adjusting
Custodes have an ability that buffs "IMPERIUM" units. If that doesn't mean they are designed to ally then I don't know what does.
I'm also going to disagree with the "every army needs strengths and weaknesses". A list can have strengths and weaknesses, but factions should not. Why? Because that's how you get skew lists. It also heavily encourages soup in the first place. If all factions could field an answer to any scenario, allies just become a cool thing to do for fluff reasons.
I have to disagree. Having defined strengths and weaknesses allows for 2 things
1. Thematic differences in armies that match fluff
2. Counters to exist to allow for a level of balance
I like to use card games for examples like this and Hearthstone is my favorite. You can typically build early mid and late game decks with each hero giving you a strength and weakness to each one. Having weaknesses allows for counter decks to be made if any one deck becomes to prominent in the meta. Take the scourge that was a pirate warrior a rush deck that had 2 cards that were too cheap and thus dominated the meta..... That was until people like me ran obvious counter decks. I ran a board clear warrior and farmed up to legends in an afternoon. My win rate was low against everything else but the large amount of PW allowed me to have an overall amazing win percentage. The same thing happened when quest rogue first dropped, I made a basic zoo lock and got legends in a day. Having a defined weakness allows for the community to self-nerf something by running a hard counter. If you create factions with no weakness not only do they have no flavor whatsoever its also impossible to build a clear counter.
I have to disagree. Having defined strengths and weaknesses allows for 2 things
1. Thematic differences in armies that match fluff
2. Counters to exist to allow for a level of balance
I like to use card games for examples like this and Hearthstone is my favorite. You can typically build early mid and late game decks with each hero giving you a strength and weakness to each one. Having weaknesses allows for counter decks to be made if any one deck becomes to prominent in the meta. Take the scourge that was a pirate warrior a rush deck that had 2 cards that were too cheap and thus dominated the meta..... That was until people like me ran obvious counter decks. I ran a board clear warrior and farmed up to legends in an afternoon. My win rate was low against everything else but the large amount of PW allowed me to have an overall amazing win percentage. The same thing happened when quest rogue first dropped, I made a basic zoo lock and got legends in a day. Having a defined weakness allows for the community to self-nerf something by running a hard counter. If you create factions with no weakness not only do they have no flavor whatsoever its also impossible to build a clear counter.
I'm personally wholly uninterested in playing that kind of card game. In fact, anything that makes 40k closer to a card game is a no from me. Why should I bother when I can get the same tactical depth with cards?
Besides, what weaknesses to the factions actually have? AFAIK every faction has at least one unit for shooting/melee/anti-infantry/anti-tank.
Also thematic differences don't require the faction as a whole to have weaknesses. Marines have tough infantry that serve a multitude of roles. That's just how they are structured, it's not a weakness of itself. Guard use versatile infantry backed with heavy weapons and numerous vehicles. Again that's a structure not a strength or weakness. Tau have suits designed to fulfill multiple roles and backed by solid light infantry and grav tanks, even kroot cover their melee "weakness".
Guardsman deserve to be 5ppm. Quoting two of my different responses; the first is Guardsman vs Firewarriors (T3), the second is Guardsman/Firewarriors vs MEQ/5EQ (T4/T5).
This is untrue. Guardsman > Firewarriors, and all other troopers, pound for pound.
Guardsman - 4ppm
Range 24" Rapid Fire 1, S3, AP-0
Firewarrior - 7ppm
Range 30", Rapid Fire 1, S5, AP-0
Unbuffed; Tau win outside of Rapid Fire range - but, the Guardsman have 17 wounds versus the Firewarriors 10; which is a massive deal in terms of durability, 58.8% more durable. The moment the shooting goes past one rounds worth, Guardsman>Firewarriors.
Buffed: It's not even close. Guardsman >>> Firewarriors, while having 21 wounds VS 11 wounds. - Speaking of the value of traits, Guardsman can get the same range as Firewarriors, unless the Firewarriors also take the +range trait. Firewarriors can get +1cover save, which brings down 18*4 Lasgun shots expected output to... 5.994, a significant reduction - but still not enough to win them a prolonged shootout; and they lose it if they move. If Guardsman don't have to move either, they could also take the re-roll 1's trait, which adds... 1.4985 unsaved wounds, for 18*4 Lasgun shots.
Guardsman do not deserve to be 4ppm under any circumstances; at least not with their statline, relative to the stats/prices of other factions armies. Adding in a 30PPM Company Commander brings a Guardsman squad up to 5.5PPM/7PPM (2/1 squads buffed by CompanyCommander); which sounds reasonable, but STILL blows out other factions troopers. 4pts = 1W, Sv5+, and 1/2/4 Lasgun shots.
Guardsman win the infantry war point for point, and back that up with an excessive number of Artillery/Tank units (up to 3x as many models as other factions, thanks to squadrons), all of which are competitive in their own right.
20 Guardsman(2 Boltguns)+1 Company Commander (issuing FRSRF x2) shooting at MEQ, Range12"
[I'm leaving the 2 Boltguns and 1 Laspistol out of the equations below; it's a lot more lines/calculations for what ultimately amounts to... a smaller bonus than what it's worth for this comparison.]
VS MEQ R24": (18)*.5*.333*.333 = .998001
Cadia RR1's: (9)*(.333)*.5*.333*.333 = .1661671665
TOTAL: 1.1641681665
R12": (18*4)*.5*.333*.333 = 3.992004
Cadia RR1's: (36)*(.333)*.5*.333*.333 = .664668666
TOTAL: 4.656672666
VS 5EQ R24": (18)*.5*.333*.166 = .497502
Cadia RR1's: (9)*(.333)*.5*.333*.166 = .082834083
TOTAL: .580336083
R12": (18*4)*.5*.333*.166 = 1.990008
Cadia RR1's: (36)*(.333)*.5*.333*.166 = .331336332
TOTAL: 2.321344332
Short version: Don't underestimate sheer volume of fire - Lasguns generally tie or win out against your T5 and down targets; and when they get in Rapid Fire range (12"-15", 4 shots*4ppm > 3shots*7ppm [yes, they're missing the ppm of commanders and fireblades; if you made a brick of Firewarriors, you may be able to get the PPM to even out (since 1 Cadre Fireblade can buff a large number of units, while you need UNITS/2 in Company Commanders), if not get closer together after all calculations...]; and again, don't forget that the Guardsman have 21wounds to the Firewarriors 11wounds - and take up additional board space, which is a huge deal.
Firewarrior's S5 guns start to win out when you start shooting T6-T9 models; add in the +1 to wound rolls stratagem, and they can do real work.
I'll make an Overwatch post some time in the future, maybe; but with Firewarriors having 3shots VS 2//4shots (if IG interweave the 20Guardsman (2 squads), they get an additional set of overwatches), and potentially RR1's (not likely, but maybe they'll get a markerlight on a random target beforehand); it'll be close. I think interlocked IG squads will come out on top (40 shots vs 30 shots) by a little - if you add in other Firewarrior squads nearby, they'll come out ahead - but, that's even more points (albeit ones that the IG couldn't leverage even if they wanted to, unless they mix 3 infantry squads together... Mordian Doctrine ties with T'au Doctrine (hitting on 5+s), so... it's really a wash.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/08/04 21:37:55
I have to disagree. Having defined strengths and weaknesses allows for 2 things
1. Thematic differences in armies that match fluff
2. Counters to exist to allow for a level of balance
I like to use card games for examples like this and Hearthstone is my favorite. You can typically build early mid and late game decks with each hero giving you a strength and weakness to each one. Having weaknesses allows for counter decks to be made if any one deck becomes to prominent in the meta. Take the scourge that was a pirate warrior a rush deck that had 2 cards that were too cheap and thus dominated the meta..... That was until people like me ran obvious counter decks. I ran a board clear warrior and farmed up to legends in an afternoon. My win rate was low against everything else but the large amount of PW allowed me to have an overall amazing win percentage. The same thing happened when quest rogue first dropped, I made a basic zoo lock and got legends in a day. Having a defined weakness allows for the community to self-nerf something by running a hard counter. If you create factions with no weakness not only do they have no flavor whatsoever its also impossible to build a clear counter.
I'm personally wholly uninterested in playing that kind of card game. In fact, anything that makes 40k closer to a card game is a no from me. Why should I bother when I can get the same tactical depth with cards?
Besides, what weaknesses to the factions actually have? AFAIK every faction has at least one unit for shooting/melee/anti-infantry/anti-tank.
Also thematic differences don't require the faction as a whole to have weaknesses. Marines have tough infantry that serve a multitude of roles. That's just how they are structured, it's not a weakness of itself. Guard use versatile infantry backed with heavy weapons and numerous vehicles. Again that's a structure not a strength or weakness. Tau have suits designed to fulfill multiple roles and backed by solid light infantry and grav tanks, even kroot cover their melee "weakness".
So you want a guard army to be as viable in CC as khorne?
Nurgle should be as fast as eldar?
SM should have the body count capabilities of nids?
a game where armies are all identically capable at everything sounds bland and boring. If i wanted that i would go play chess
Luke_Prowler wrote: Being an ork player, I recognize that guard infantry have very similar statistical outcome with some edge cases. Similar defense (44% IG vs 42% Ork chance to be kill against bolters, with orks being better vs 6/7 str and ig better at str 8 and higher), similar ranged output (16.6r% to wound vs t4 for lasguns and shootas, with the shoota having more shots 13"-18", lasgun at 19"-24".
But Orks have +1S and A, native charge reroll, the ability to get more attacks, and one of the best morale boosting rules in the game.
I simply don't believe that's all worth one point.
And the biggest problem with your math? you forgot that you get 3 guardsmen for every 2 orkz.
Basics, 3 guardsmen get 3 shots from 19-24 inches while the Orkz get zero. From 13-18 the Orkz get 4 shots to the guardsmens 3. And from 1-12 the guard get 6 shots to the orkz 4. So in a 24 inch range, orkz do better for 6 inches compared to the guards 18 inches. Ranged wise its heavily in favor of the guard. They also get heavy weapons worth taking and specialist weapons worth taking. Orkz get big shootas and Rokkitz, all of which are useless and over priced. Add to that the fact that the Guard will always have an officer nearby and then you factor in the orders bonus and yeah, shooting goes to Guard. IN CC Orkz are superior, not even going to debate that.
And again, durability wise, it goes to Guard hands down. Yes T4 is better then T3 and that is basically cancelled out by 5+ being better then 6+ but guard have the added bonus of being able to camp in cover and use longer ranged weapons to be useful where as the orkz need to be advancing every turn to get full use out of their CC abilities. So realistically you are seeing Guard with 4+ saves not 5+.
To summarize, Orkz are better overall due to T, S and # of attacks, but since most of their benefits are CC oriented they aren't as powerful as they appear. Guard are significantly better at ranged combat and are better at camping objectives and utilizing that advantage. Overall I think they are 1 point apart, not 2. I would not lower the cost of Ork boyz though because I am sick and tired of cheap boyz hordes, but yeah i could see guard going to 5ppm.
So you want a guard army to be as viable in CC as khorne?
Nurgle should be as fast as eldar?
SM should have the body count capabilities of nids?
a game where armies are all identically capable at everything sounds bland and boring. If i wanted that i would go play chess
Guard can run loads ogryn/bullgryn and they are good. There's also catachan and priests so they probably already are.
Nurgle has several fast units, namely drones. Advancing Death Guard are also pretty spry.
Body count is not a weakness of itself. It's a structural difference.
And many people think chess is fun and interesting because victory hinges much more on tactical ability than deck building.
Basically my point is that every army has an answer to every unit wether it's a tank or infantry. If they weren't then whole factions would get hard countered in matchups against certain other factions. And that's no bueno.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Being an ork player, I recognize that guard infantry have very similar statistical outcome with some edge cases. Similar defense (44% IG vs 42% Ork chance to be kill against bolters, with orks being better vs 6/7 str and ig better at str 8 and higher), similar ranged output (16.6r% to wound vs t4 for lasguns and shootas, with the shoota having more shots 13"-18", lasgun at 19"-24".
But Orks have +1S and A, native charge reroll, the ability to get more attacks, and one of the best morale boosting rules in the game.
I simply don't believe that's all worth one point.
And the biggest problem with your math? you forgot that you get 3 guardsmen for every 2 orkz.
Basics, 3 guardsmen get 3 shots from 19-24 inches while the Orkz get zero. From 13-18 the Orkz get 4 shots to the guardsmens 3. And from 1-12 the guard get 6 shots to the orkz 4. So in a 24 inch range, orkz do better for 6 inches compared to the guards 18 inches. Ranged wise its heavily in favor of the guard. They also get heavy weapons worth taking and specialist weapons worth taking. Orkz get big shootas and Rokkitz, all of which are useless and over priced. Add to that the fact that the Guard will always have an officer nearby and then you factor in the orders bonus and yeah, shooting goes to Guard. IN CC Orkz are superior, not even going to debate that.
And again, durability wise, it goes to Guard hands down. Yes T4 is better then T3 and that is basically cancelled out by 5+ being better then 6+ but guard have the added bonus of being able to camp in cover and use longer ranged weapons to be useful where as the orkz need to be advancing every turn to get full use out of their CC abilities. So realistically you are seeing Guard with 4+ saves not 5+.
To summarize, Orkz are better overall due to T, S and # of attacks, but since most of their benefits are CC oriented they aren't as powerful as they appear. Guard are significantly better at ranged combat and are better at camping objectives and utilizing that advantage. Overall I think they are 1 point apart, not 2. I would not lower the cost of Ork boyz though because I am sick and tired of cheap boyz hordes, but yeah i could see guard going to 5ppm.
This.
Anyone who forgets that cc orks don't get a turn 1 attack should factor this into their equation. For orks, it's a 4-6 turn game, not a 5-7 turn game.
Luke_Prowler wrote: Being an ork player, I recognize that guard infantry have very similar statistical outcome with some edge cases. Similar defense (44% IG vs 42% Ork chance to be kill against bolters, with orks being better vs 6/7 str and ig better at str 8 and higher), similar ranged output (16.6r% to wound vs t4 for lasguns and shootas, with the shoota having more shots 13"-18", lasgun at 19"-24".
But Orks have +1S and A, native charge reroll, the ability to get more attacks, and one of the best morale boosting rules in the game.
I simply don't believe that's all worth one point.
And the biggest problem with your math? you forgot that you get 3 guardsmen for every 2 orkz.
Basics, 3 guardsmen get 3 shots from 19-24 inches while the Orkz get zero. From 13-18 the Orkz get 4 shots to the guardsmens 3. And from 1-12 the guard get 6 shots to the orkz 4. So in a 24 inch range, orkz do better for 6 inches compared to the guards 18 inches. Ranged wise its heavily in favor of the guard. They also get heavy weapons worth taking and specialist weapons worth taking. Orkz get big shootas and Rokkitz, all of which are useless and over priced. Add to that the fact that the Guard will always have an officer nearby and then you factor in the orders bonus and yeah, shooting goes to Guard. IN CC Orkz are superior, not even going to debate that.
And again, durability wise, it goes to Guard hands down. Yes T4 is better then T3 and that is basically cancelled out by 5+ being better then 6+ but guard have the added bonus of being able to camp in cover and use longer ranged weapons to be useful where as the orkz need to be advancing every turn to get full use out of their CC abilities. So realistically you are seeing Guard with 4+ saves not 5+.
To summarize, Orkz are better overall due to T, S and # of attacks, but since most of their benefits are CC oriented they aren't as powerful as they appear. Guard are significantly better at ranged combat and are better at camping objectives and utilizing that advantage. Overall I think they are 1 point apart, not 2. I would not lower the cost of Ork boyz though because I am sick and tired of cheap boyz hordes, but yeah i could see guard going to 5ppm.
fe40k wrote: Guardsman deserve to be 5ppm. Quoting two of my different responses; the first is Guardsman vs Firewarriors (T3), the second is Guardsman/Firewarriors vs MEQ/5EQ (T4/T5).
Spoiler:
This is untrue. Guardsman > Firewarriors, and all other troopers, pound for pound.
Guardsman - 4ppm
Range 24" Rapid Fire 1, S3, AP-0
Firewarrior - 7ppm
Range 30", Rapid Fire 1, S5, AP-0
Unbuffed; Tau win outside of Rapid Fire range - but, the Guardsman have 17 wounds versus the Firewarriors 10; which is a massive deal in terms of durability, 58.8% more durable. The moment the shooting goes past one rounds worth, Guardsman>Firewarriors.
Buffed: It's not even close. Guardsman >>> Firewarriors, while having 21 wounds VS 11 wounds. - Speaking of the value of traits, Guardsman can get the same range as Firewarriors, unless the Firewarriors also take the +range trait. Firewarriors can get +1cover save, which brings down 18*4 Lasgun shots expected output to... 5.994, a significant reduction - but still not enough to win them a prolonged shootout; and they lose it if they move. If Guardsman don't have to move either, they could also take the re-roll 1's trait, which adds... 1.4985 unsaved wounds, for 18*4 Lasgun shots.
Guardsman do not deserve to be 4ppm under any circumstances; at least not with their statline, relative to the stats/prices of other factions armies. Adding in a 30PPM Company Commander brings a Guardsman squad up to 5.5PPM/7PPM (2/1 squads buffed by CompanyCommander); which sounds reasonable, but STILL blows out other factions troopers. 4pts = 1W, Sv5+, and 1/2/4 Lasgun shots.
Guardsman win the infantry war point for point, and back that up with an excessive number of Artillery/Tank units (up to 3x as many models as other factions, thanks to squadrons), all of which are competitive in their own right.
20 Guardsman(2 Boltguns)+1 Company Commander (issuing FRSRF x2) shooting at MEQ, Range12"
[I'm leaving the 2 Boltguns and 1 Laspistol out of the equations below; it's a lot more lines/calculations for what ultimately amounts to... a smaller bonus than what it's worth for this comparison.]
VS MEQ R24": (18)*.5*.333*.333 = .998001
Cadia RR1's: (9)*(.333)*.5*.333*.333 = .1661671665
TOTAL: 1.1641681665
R12": (18*4)*.5*.333*.333 = 3.992004
Cadia RR1's: (36)*(.333)*.5*.333*.333 = .664668666
TOTAL: 4.656672666
VS 5EQ R24": (18)*.5*.333*.166 = .497502
Cadia RR1's: (9)*(.333)*.5*.333*.166 = .082834083
TOTAL: .580336083
R12": (18*4)*.5*.333*.166 = 1.990008
Cadia RR1's: (36)*(.333)*.5*.333*.166 = .331336332
TOTAL: 2.321344332
Short version: Don't underestimate sheer volume of fire - Lasguns generally tie or win out against your T5 and down targets; and when they get in Rapid Fire range (12"-15", 4 shots*4ppm > 3shots*7ppm [yes, they're missing the ppm of commanders and fireblades; if you made a brick of Firewarriors, you may be able to get the PPM to even out (since 1 Cadre Fireblade can buff a large number of units, while you need UNITS/2 in Company Commanders), if not get closer together after all calculations...]; and again, don't forget that the Guardsman have 21wounds to the Firewarriors 11wounds - and take up additional board space, which is a huge deal.
Firewarrior's S5 guns start to win out when you start shooting T6-T9 models; add in the +1 to wound rolls stratagem, and they can do real work.
I'll make an Overwatch post some time in the future, maybe; but with Firewarriors having 3shots VS 2//4shots (if IG interweave the 20Guardsman (2 squads), they get an additional set of overwatches), and potentially RR1's (not likely, but maybe they'll get a markerlight on a random target beforehand); it'll be close. I think interlocked IG squads will come out on top (40 shots vs 30 shots) by a little - if you add in other Firewarrior squads nearby, they'll come out ahead - but, that's even more points (albeit ones that the IG couldn't leverage even if they wanted to, unless they mix 3 infantry squads together... Mordian Doctrine ties with T'au Doctrine (hitting on 5+s), so... it's really a wash.
This proves the point Infantry squads shouldn't be wiping the floor with everyone in a shoot out. Especially against the army thats supposed to have over powered shooting to make up for absolutely zero psychic powers and no CC ability.
Right now the main reason that no one take conscripts is why would you? They cost the same as infantry squads but are worse, infantry squads out perform every other 4ppm units in the game model for model and a number of other units point for point.
Conscripts at 4ppm, IS at 5ppm and Vets at 6 ppm gives each unit a purpose.
Take firewarriors they have the same BS get +1pt for a better save plus +2 for a better gun and -1 for worse WS which would make FW 6ppm to compete with guard infantry. At 6ppm firewarriors would be Alitoc broken.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/08/04 22:21:11
Dandelion wrote: Also thematic differences don't require the faction as a whole to have weaknesses. Marines have tough infantry that serve a multitude of roles. That's just how they are structured, it's not a weakness of itself. Guard use versatile infantry backed with heavy weapons and numerous vehicles. Again that's a structure not a strength or weakness. Tau have suits designed to fulfill multiple roles and backed by solid light infantry and grav tanks, even kroot cover their melee "weakness".
If those "thematic differences" don't translate into strengths and weaknesses then they are only aesthetic differences. Sure, you can have a given amount of anti-tank firepower represented by single models on 25mm bases or heavy weapon teams on 60mm bases but if both are equally effective then it's no different from painting your Ultramarines yellow and calling them a whole new faction. Having meaningful gameplay differences requires variation, and if you don't want to have one faction be straight better than the other (you don't) then you need to have different strengths and weaknesses. The 25mm heavy weapons have meatshields in the squad and therefore better durability, the 60mm heavy weapons have more point efficiency on offense because they lack meatshields but lose firepower faster if attacked. Etc. Same thing at the faction level. 8th edition's over-homogenization and soup rules have damaged the concept, but each faction does have an identity in terms of strengths and weaknesses:
Space marines have no weaknesses but aren't top-tier at anything either. Their versatile elite infantry will always be better than the opponent's weakest point and able to attack there, but will always be weaker than the opponent's strongest point and vulnerable to attack. But neither of these differences will be by as large a margin as you might find with other comparisons. Winning depends on tactical flexibility and being able to use the same unit in different roles depending on the opponent.
Eldar are the opposite. Their specialists are each top-tier in their specific role, but weak at any other role. They will always have the best option for attacking each point in an opposing army, but if they are out-played and their specialists have to go up against the wrong target they get wiped off the table. Winning depends on superior execution of the Eldar plan, getting the specialists to their correct targets and staying one step ahead of the enemy to keep their massive weak points away from danger.
Imperial Guard are great as a defensive gunline but have poor force projection. A layered defensive force of heavy armor screened by cheap and super-efficient infantry is very hard to break, but their options for pushing up the table and claiming objectives are much more limited and mostly glass cannons that struggle to hold an objective for multiple turns. Winning depends on balancing point allocations between locking down the "home" objectives and contesting the rest of the table, and identifying the correct timing to send the storm troopers/rough riders/etc into battle for their one shot at victory.
Tau have great mid-range mobile shooting but limited long-range firepower and nonexistent melee ability. Anything getting into melee with them wins and their ability to make an IG-style gunline is limited to a handful of railguns, but JSJ and fast tanks let them stay mobile without sacrificing firepower. Winning depends on managing the delicate balance between getting close enough to deliver effective offense and staying away from charges.
Orks are great at overwhelming the enemy in a horde of bodies but helpless at long range. They won't do much in the opening besides move forward, but once they get into combat sheer weight of numbers will beat almost anything. Winning depends on coordinating the attack, making sure that the whole green tide makes its charges simultaneously without getting too many models lost as casualties or stalled outside threat range.
Etc.
See how each army has a plan for winning, but also has a vulnerability that can be attacked? And each of those pairings is meaningfully different from the others? That's how you make interesting faction diversity.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I have said it in other threads. I would be fine with guardsmen going up to 5ppm if it means skitarii rangers, fire warriors, and kabalites all went up in price as well. Until that happens, it's a hard no from me.
Cheap infantry meatshields is something that guard is supposed to do well as a faction.
Dandelion wrote: A lot of people are for 5pt guardsmen, including guard players. However, as is expected, there are many who think 4pt guard is fine.
Kanluwen should be along shortly to tell you why 5pt guard is bad.
I was in the 5ppm camp until the commissars lost their seriously crazy ld abilities. Nowadays with the amount of anti horde weapons out there 4ppm doesn't seem as ridiculous as it did. Used to be we had the best morale in the game. Nowadays we're actually vulnerable to leadership shock again and more tricks are being used to actually remove or get around the screens guardsmen provide. Captain smash is a great example, guardsmen screens are almost entirely incapable of stopping him.
The big issue is that guardsmen can be allied to half the armies in the game and you'd be stupid not to for the cp they provide. Allies drastically need to be reworked because as it sits you could make guardsmen 6ppm and they would still be abused by soup lists for the regenerating cp and being the cheapest decent troop tax around.
Ironically guardsmen are an issue in almost every list except a pure IG army. Make it where knights, space marines, and other imperium armies can't use us as a crutch/cheaper troop tax and guardsmen would be fine where they are. You don't do that by upping their price, but by reworking how ally detachments work so 3 squads of infantry and a couple officers aren't leading your whole army and providing half it's command points. Locking CP to the detachment or <keyword> that generates it is the only way you're going to end that. If you try to fix it with a points change to guardsmen all you'll do is Nerf IG's most iconic unit and the tournament crowd will just sub in scions, nothing serious will change.
'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader
"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell
So you want a guard army to be as viable in CC as khorne?
Nurgle should be as fast as eldar?
SM should have the body count capabilities of nids?
a game where armies are all identically capable at everything sounds bland and boring. If i wanted that i would go play chess
Guard can run loads ogryn/bullgryn and they are good. There's also catachan and priests so they probably already are.
Nurgle has several fast units, namely drones. Advancing Death Guard are also pretty spry.
Body count is not a weakness of itself. It's a structural difference.
And many people think chess is fun and interesting because victory hinges much more on tactical ability than deck building.
Basically my point is that every army has an answer to every unit wether it's a tank or infantry. If they weren't then whole factions would get hard countered in matchups against certain other factions. And that's no bueno.
No, every army has an option but not a clone that can fill in.
If guard had a knight they wouldn't need to soup it in
If guard had jet bike captains they wouldn't need to soup it in
Yes, chess is popular but I assume there is a reason we are all on a WH board discussing WH and not chess. I could buy WH figures and play chess with them.... The fact is that's not what I'm looking for. I don't want the only thing differentiating my IG army from my brothers thousand suns to be the physical models and paint.
Dandelion wrote: Also thematic differences don't require the faction as a whole to have weaknesses. Marines have tough infantry that serve a multitude of roles. That's just how they are structured, it's not a weakness of itself. Guard use versatile infantry backed with heavy weapons and numerous vehicles. Again that's a structure not a strength or weakness. Tau have suits designed to fulfill multiple roles and backed by solid light infantry and grav tanks, even kroot cover their melee "weakness".
If those "thematic differences" don't translate into strengths and weaknesses then they are only aesthetic differences. Sure, you can have a given amount of anti-tank firepower represented by single models on 25mm bases or heavy weapon teams on 60mm bases but if both are equally effective then it's no different from painting your Ultramarines yellow and calling them a whole new faction. Having meaningful gameplay differences requires variation, and if you don't want to have one faction be straight better than the other (you don't) then you need to have different strengths and weaknesses. The 25mm heavy weapons have meatshields in the squad and therefore better durability, the 60mm heavy weapons have more point efficiency on offense because they lack meatshields but lose firepower faster if attacked. Etc. Same thing at the faction level. 8th edition's over-homogenization and soup rules have damaged the concept, but each faction does have an identity in terms of strengths and weaknesses:
Space marines have no weaknesses but aren't top-tier at anything either. Their versatile elite infantry will always be better than the opponent's weakest point and able to attack there, but will always be weaker than the opponent's strongest point and vulnerable to attack. But neither of these differences will be by as large a margin as you might find with other comparisons. Winning depends on tactical flexibility and being able to use the same unit in different roles depending on the opponent.
Eldar are the opposite. Their specialists are each top-tier in their specific role, but weak at any other role. They will always have the best option for attacking each point in an opposing army, but if they are out-played and their specialists have to go up against the wrong target they get wiped off the table. Winning depends on superior execution of the Eldar plan, getting the specialists to their correct targets and staying one step ahead of the enemy to keep their massive weak points away from danger.
Imperial Guard are great as a defensive gunline but have poor force projection. A layered defensive force of heavy armor screened by cheap and super-efficient infantry is very hard to break, but their options for pushing up the table and claiming objectives are much more limited and mostly glass cannons that struggle to hold an objective for multiple turns. Winning depends on balancing point allocations between locking down the "home" objectives and contesting the rest of the table, and identifying the correct timing to send the storm troopers/rough riders/etc into battle for their one shot at victory.
Tau have great mid-range mobile shooting but limited long-range firepower and nonexistent melee ability. Anything getting into melee with them wins and their ability to make an IG-style gunline is limited to a handful of railguns, but JSJ and fast tanks let them stay mobile without sacrificing firepower. Winning depends on managing the delicate balance between getting close enough to deliver effective offense and staying away from charges.
Orks are great at overwhelming the enemy in a horde of bodies but helpless at long range. They won't do much in the opening besides move forward, but once they get into combat sheer weight of numbers will beat almost anything. Winning depends on coordinating the attack, making sure that the whole green tide makes its charges simultaneously without getting too many models lost as casualties or stalled outside threat range.
Etc.
See how each army has a plan for winning, but also has a vulnerability that can be attacked? And each of those pairings is meaningfully different from the others? That's how you make interesting faction diversity.
^
Very well put
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/04 22:48:54
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).
Errr that comes at the cost of their Fleet buff, as well as needing a buff unit within 6 inches at all times. Guardsmen already have it built in. Giving Guard this same treatment and factoring in army bonuses, they become S4 with 2A, as well as a unit near a that gives out 2 orders, making them again the much stronger choice by far. As you already mentioned they have much better shooting, this comparison does more to highlight how much better they are than similarly priced options.
Imperial Guard are great as a defensive gunline but have poor force projection. A layered defensive force of heavy armor screened by cheap and super-efficient infantry is very hard to break, but their options for pushing up the table and claiming objectives are much more limited and mostly glass cannons that struggle to hold an objective for multiple turns. Winning depends on balancing point allocations between locking down the "home" objectives and contesting the rest of the table, and identifying the correct timing to send the storm troopers/rough riders/etc into battle for their one shot at victory.
Why do you weigh in on competitive play, when you admit you don't care or understand this game competitively, or follow the competitive scene at all?
Do you know what the top Guard armies that won were using?
Maxed out squads of obsec Catachan infantry that push up the board. At 4 points with a 5+, Guardsmen are almost definitely the tankiest infantry in the game point for point. So you are factually and objectively incorrect.
See how each army has a plan for winning, but also has a vulnerability that can be attacked? And each of those pairings is meaningfully different from the others? That's how you make interesting faction diversity.
See how you just invented a weakness that they don't currently have, and used this to push some narrative that they are this balanced army? Saying something doesn't make it so. The fact that Guard are 4pts right now is exactly why your logic for argument against this change is actually supporting the change, you just don't have the grip on the game necessary to understand, and that's by your own self-admittance.
There wasn't a single pure guard army that placed...... go back and read
There wasn't a single pure anything list that placed, showing how utterly absurd your criteria is for judging what is doing well at a competitive level. A fact you haven't acknowledged once, while having the hide to accusing others of ignoring points, because you're really bad at this.
SHUPPET wrote: 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.
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.
No. This is what you said the top Guard lists were:
Asmodios wrote: none of those top guard lists were mono guard. While some were guard dominate they still included things like smash captains and jet bikes.
Out of the 3 lists in question, not a single one ran Custodes, and only 1 ran Jump Captains. So the reality was you were 16% accurate in what claimed it was. And you got that 16% by chance, not by knowing anything. So yeah, you definitely came in here downplaying before you even knew what the lists in question were. Lol.
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
Perhaps you could pay more attention to the context, and notice that the post you're quoting is a reply to a discussion of game design principles about faction identity and strengths and weaknesses, not the state of competitive 40k right now? Those faction descriptions are an example of how it should be done, not an analysis of the current metagame in the over-homogenized mess of 8th.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
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).
Errr that comes at the cost of their Fleet buff, as well as needing a buff unit within 6 inches at all times. Guardsmen already have it built in. Giving Guard this same treatment and factoring in army bonuses, they become S4 with 2A, as well as a unit near a that gives out 2 orders, making them again the much stronger choice by far. As you already mentioned they have much better shooting, this comparison does more to highlight how much better they are than similarly priced options.
Imperial Guard are great as a defensive gunline but have poor force projection. A layered defensive force of heavy armor screened by cheap and super-efficient infantry is very hard to break, but their options for pushing up the table and claiming objectives are much more limited and mostly glass cannons that struggle to hold an objective for multiple turns. Winning depends on balancing point allocations between locking down the "home" objectives and contesting the rest of the table, and identifying the correct timing to send the storm troopers/rough riders/etc into battle for their one shot at victory.
Why do you weigh in on competitive play, when you admit you don't care or understand this game competitively, or follow the competitive scene at all?
Do you know what the top Guard armies that won were using?
Maxed out squads of obsec Catachan infantry that push up the board. At 4 points with a 5+, Guardsmen are almost definitely the tankiest infantry in the game point for point. So you are factually and objectively incorrect.
See how each army has a plan for winning, but also has a vulnerability that can be attacked? And each of those pairings is meaningfully different from the others? That's how you make interesting faction diversity.
See how you just invented a weakness that they don't currently have, and used this to push some narrative that they are this balanced army? Saying something doesn't make it so. The fact that Guard are 4pts right now is exactly why your logic for argument against this change is actually supporting the change, you just don't have the grip on the game necessary to understand, and that's by your own self-admittance.
There wasn't a single pure guard army that placed...... go back and read
There wasn't a single pure anything list that placed, showing how utterly absurd your criteria is for judging what is doing well at a competitive level. A fact you haven't acknowledged once, while having the hide to accusing others of ignoring points, because you're really bad at this.
SHUPPET wrote: 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.
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.
No. This is what you said the top Guard lists were:
Asmodios wrote: none of those top guard lists were mono guard. While some were guard dominate they still included things like smash captains and jet bikes.
Out of the 3 lists in question, not a single one ran Custodes, and only 1 ran Jump Captains. So the reality was you were 16% accurate in what claimed it was. And you got that 16% by chance, not by knowing anything. So yeah, you definitely came in here downplaying before you even knew what the lists in question were. Lol.
So you are making my point once again..... There wasn't anything but soup that placed..... so soup is the real issue pushing out any army that cant soup.
Also, way to selectively cut out my part of the post where i mentioned knights. You have continued to do this regardless of how many time I mention not just the knights but also the issue being soup in general.
Yes, only allies placed, and this is how the tournament scene looks, because why would you not take allies? Of those allied armies, Guard primarys were head and shoulders above the rest. This is what people are trying to change with the nerf. If you are asking for nerfs to allies, I already said I agree with that. The problem is, that nerfs every other IoM the hardest and again leaves Guard by far the strongest solo army, as the primaries, and common sense will prove.
Also, way to selectively cut out my part of the post where i mentioned knights. You have continued to do this regardless of how many time I mention not just the knights but also the issue being soup in general.
I can't respond to every single statement you made since I went to sleep last night, because it would be a 3 page wall, and mostly of stuff that I have already addressed and that others have addressed after me, such as Knights, who as I said, I also think are too much right now.
This thread is about IG, hence why I'm not letting you play misdirection tactics like this.
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
fe40k wrote: Guardsman deserve to be 5ppm. Quoting two of my different responses; the first is Guardsman vs Firewarriors (T3), the second is Guardsman/Firewarriors vs MEQ/5EQ (T4/T5).
Spoiler:
This is untrue. Guardsman > Firewarriors, and all other troopers, pound for pound.
Guardsman - 4ppm
Range 24" Rapid Fire 1, S3, AP-0
Firewarrior - 7ppm
Range 30", Rapid Fire 1, S5, AP-0
Unbuffed; Tau win outside of Rapid Fire range - but, the Guardsman have 17 wounds versus the Firewarriors 10; which is a massive deal in terms of durability, 58.8% more durable. The moment the shooting goes past one rounds worth, Guardsman>Firewarriors.
Buffed: It's not even close. Guardsman >>> Firewarriors, while having 21 wounds VS 11 wounds. - Speaking of the value of traits, Guardsman can get the same range as Firewarriors, unless the Firewarriors also take the +range trait. Firewarriors can get +1cover save, which brings down 18*4 Lasgun shots expected output to... 5.994, a significant reduction - but still not enough to win them a prolonged shootout; and they lose it if they move. If Guardsman don't have to move either, they could also take the re-roll 1's trait, which adds... 1.4985 unsaved wounds, for 18*4 Lasgun shots.
Guardsman do not deserve to be 4ppm under any circumstances; at least not with their statline, relative to the stats/prices of other factions armies. Adding in a 30PPM Company Commander brings a Guardsman squad up to 5.5PPM/7PPM (2/1 squads buffed by CompanyCommander); which sounds reasonable, but STILL blows out other factions troopers. 4pts = 1W, Sv5+, and 1/2/4 Lasgun shots.
Guardsman win the infantry war point for point, and back that up with an excessive number of Artillery/Tank units (up to 3x as many models as other factions, thanks to squadrons), all of which are competitive in their own right.
20 Guardsman(2 Boltguns)+1 Company Commander (issuing FRSRF x2) shooting at MEQ, Range12"
[I'm leaving the 2 Boltguns and 1 Laspistol out of the equations below; it's a lot more lines/calculations for what ultimately amounts to... a smaller bonus than what it's worth for this comparison.]
VS MEQ R24": (18)*.5*.333*.333 = .998001
Cadia RR1's: (9)*(.333)*.5*.333*.333 = .1661671665
TOTAL: 1.1641681665
R12": (18*4)*.5*.333*.333 = 3.992004
Cadia RR1's: (36)*(.333)*.5*.333*.333 = .664668666
TOTAL: 4.656672666
VS 5EQ R24": (18)*.5*.333*.166 = .497502
Cadia RR1's: (9)*(.333)*.5*.333*.166 = .082834083
TOTAL: .580336083
R12": (18*4)*.5*.333*.166 = 1.990008
Cadia RR1's: (36)*(.333)*.5*.333*.166 = .331336332
TOTAL: 2.321344332
Short version: Don't underestimate sheer volume of fire - Lasguns generally tie or win out against your T5 and down targets; and when they get in Rapid Fire range (12"-15", 4 shots*4ppm > 3shots*7ppm [yes, they're missing the ppm of commanders and fireblades; if you made a brick of Firewarriors, you may be able to get the PPM to even out (since 1 Cadre Fireblade can buff a large number of units, while you need UNITS/2 in Company Commanders), if not get closer together after all calculations...]; and again, don't forget that the Guardsman have 21wounds to the Firewarriors 11wounds - and take up additional board space, which is a huge deal.
Firewarrior's S5 guns start to win out when you start shooting T6-T9 models; add in the +1 to wound rolls stratagem, and they can do real work.
I'll make an Overwatch post some time in the future, maybe; but with Firewarriors having 3shots VS 2//4shots (if IG interweave the 20Guardsman (2 squads), they get an additional set of overwatches), and potentially RR1's (not likely, but maybe they'll get a markerlight on a random target beforehand); it'll be close. I think interlocked IG squads will come out on top (40 shots vs 30 shots) by a little - if you add in other Firewarrior squads nearby, they'll come out ahead - but, that's even more points (albeit ones that the IG couldn't leverage even if they wanted to, unless they mix 3 infantry squads together... Mordian Doctrine ties with T'au Doctrine (hitting on 5+s), so... it's really a wash.
This proves the point Infantry squads shouldn't be wiping the floor with everyone in a shoot out. Especially against the army thats supposed to have over powered shooting to make up for absolutely zero psychic powers and no CC ability.
Right now the main reason that no one take conscripts is why would you? They cost the same as infantry squads but are worse, infantry squads out perform every other 4ppm units in the game model for model and a number of other units point for point.
Conscripts at 4ppm, IS at 5ppm and Vets at 6 ppm gives each unit a purpose.
Take firewarriors they have the same BS get +1pt for a better save plus +2 for a better gun and -1 for worse WS which would make FW 6ppm to compete with guard infantry. At 6ppm firewarriors would be Alitoc broken.
I play Catachans against Tau all the time. You know how many times I've gotten full squads into rapid fire range and butchered them? Maybe once haha. And I actually freaking use Chimeras! My infantry also can barely survive a charge because the transports rarely survive getting that close. Think of how good the Tau hammerhead is now with Longstrike buffing them? They all have decent anti infantry secondary weapons. When you combine the army's traits, things become infinitely less cut and dry.
In a game this dynamic it's often silly to just compare 1 unit against another. It just doesn't work that way. Fire warriors are smaller units, typically, with 30" range weapons. If they're not in cover something is wrong. They are naturally resilient to morale due to small unit number and bonding knife ritual. Add in an Ethereal for 6+FNP and a leadership bubble, now they're cooking.
The comparison of firewarriors shooting vs guardsmen shooting at each other is also disingenuous due to the prevalence of T4 basic infantry to many factions. Pulse Rifles are kind of over kill on T3 infantry. But I did enjoy your horrible math of the magically teleported into rapid fire range guardsmen against the Tau.
The Tau abilities and Stratagems can allow 30 firewarriors to seriously maim or kill a knight, because I just watched it happen and it was hilarious. I don't even want to do the math for how many guardsmen it would take to accomplish the same thing.
The truth is, it's going to take way more calculations than "this #of points of Guardsman here shooting at this #of points of this unit here annihilate them within the magic confines of my calculator" to prove to me that points need to be adjusted, not just for guardsmen but for any unit. I'm not trying to be an ass, but the Guardsman have been under attack for a year now, and the only time it was justified was with conscript spam and then they got overly nerfed. I just need better evidence that in a mono guard force, the Guardsman are "OP" at their current points cost. I knew this was going to come when the knight codex came out as everyone shifted back to an AT skew in the meta and the guard CP batteries which were going to drive the other elite codexes.
Bonespitta's Badmoons 1441 pts. 
