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.

 Xenomancers wrote:
That is crazy talk. A black templars army will be tabled in 2 -3 turns.

But they COULD win! After all, it's a game of dice!

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I said I could make a list - the COULD win any tournament with mono guard. Not that it would be auto win. I wouldn't consider it a disadvantage at all. Manitcores/Russ/Basalisks/infantry/CC are all significantly undercosted.

A soup list probably has a better chance. It doesn't make the undercostings of other AM units less important.

I guess we could keep following the current line of GW logic. Not nerf eldar/ not nerf AM - and keep nerfing space marines.

Ahhhh ok it “could” win... all those trash top ITC players just choose to not take it because it has a terrible chance to win.

You are just ignoring my arguments and misstating everything I am saying. Yeah...soup has a better chance to win. For obvious reasons. It doesn't make AM any less busted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No one read it that way. It was very clear what I was saying.

I could make an AM army that could win any tournament. As in it has a good chance.

Much like I could make a mono DE army that could too.

Id give the edge to my DE list because DE is just a little more broken than guard.

I could make a SM black templars army hat “could win” every tournament.... I could also win the lottery tomorrow

Love the fact that when a top player takes AM pure they are rewarded with a 20th placed finish but the guy taking blightlord terminators and renigade knights finishes first. You just most be so much better then all these other people. You should go out there and prove me wrong. Please post pics of all your first place finishes I’d love to see them

plague crawers are OP too. Have you seen the unit? It's like a vidicator with a 5++ and 5+ FNP. 2 dark lances and an indirect fire battle cannon...yeah...that unit is better than every space marine vheical in both offense and defense. Plus it cost less about 40 points less than a predator.

Here we have another example of OP units winning. It is not a surprise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
That is crazy talk. A black templars army will be tabled in 2 -3 turns.

But they COULD win! After all, it's a game of dice!

Yeah okay - you got me there. Black templars have an equal chance at victory to an optimized AM list.

Not to take anything away from Don's list, but I also don't think he ran into any guard/knights/BA lists. I can't imagine how his list would survive something like Mitch Pelham's soup list.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
That is crazy talk. A black templars army will be tabled in 2 -3 turns.

But they COULD win! After all, it's a game of dice!

Are you really implying that Black Templars can do as well as Mono Guard, Eldar, and Dark Eldar?

Asmodios wrote:


Love the fact that when a top player takes AM pure they are rewarded with a 20th placed finish but the guy taking blightlord terminators and renigade knights finishes first. Please post pics of all your first place finishes I’d love to see them

Ho.

Lee.

gak.



You deserve to be banned for this post lol. At this point you are just deliberately disrupting productive conversation.

You just bitched and bitched and bitched about all lists you count as AM soup being an unfair representation of AM's power as a SOLO dex compared to other SOLO dexes, including disqualifying the AM list in the top 3 that took a single Knight and 1500 points of Guard infantry. And now you are complaining that under these restrictions that weren't even in place at a tournament, Guard only got #20, while complaining that a list that was almost an equal split points wise of different factions, got #1. This logic man.




Pick one, either you are including Soup lists in the discussion, in which case AM got top 3, and more places in the top 10 than any other race.

OR you are comparing pure solo armies at this tournament, in which case AM got top 2.


You can't have it both ways and act like Guard is a weak army because pure, Guard-only lists did not beat a bunch of triple-faction armies, while excluding armies that took 1500+ pts of Guard as their primary as not being Guard enough to qualify. That's beyond illogical.








It's time for you to stop trash posting like this.

I think we are running into definition problems in this discussion. To me a "Mono-Guard" list isn't a "Mono-Guard" list unless it is totally 100% guard. Include 3 BA captains and the rest of the army is guard? Not mono-guard or even "guard" for that matter, it's soup at that point from my point of view.

I don't think anyone sane is claiming guard is weak this edition, however mono-guard (100% guard) is certainly not as insanely broken as people are making it out to be.

5ppm guardsmen aren't going to hurt lists with guard CP batteries. That is what? 30 more points onto their lists?

What 5ppm guardsmen WILL do is hurt mono-guard players, especially infantry heavy mono-guard players. My 2000 pt list has 8 infantry squads in it (which is actually only a middling amount for mono-guard) and it would tack on an extra 80 points onto my list, which makes me lose basically 20 guardsmen at current point levels, that is absolutely insane.

Not to mention that nobody here has mentioned the incongruity between 7 point rangers and 7 point fire warriors and 5 point guardsmen.

If rangers, fire warriors, and kabalites go up in price, and the -1 to hit shenanigans are removed from the game then we can talk about 5ppm guardsmen, not before.

w1zard wrote:
If rangers, fire warriors, and kabalites go up in price, and the -1 to hit shenanigans are removed from the game then we can talk about 5ppm guardsmen, not before.

There are also other ways to approach it. Guardsmen (and cultist, etc) problems are CP farming and excessive durability - the latter due to the changes in wound rolls, armour saves, cover, and the cost/effectiveness of anti-horde weapons.

The CP system just needs to be fixed irrespective of the guard and weapons like flamers and other anti-infantry weapons (potentially even bolters) need to be improved against the small fry. At that point it would make no difference that guard are 4pts, against the correct kind of shooting at least.

Why are we complaining, I thought the diversification of winning lists is at a high as there ever was. Sure IG are strong soup/mono faction, but they don't appear to be broken. I can see BAO being used as a reason to bump up points for guardsmen but looking post FAQ in total we've had quite a few armies at the top. Am I missing something?

 Smirrors wrote:
Why are we complaining, I thought the diversification of winning lists is at a high as there ever was. Sure IG are strong soup/mono faction, but they don't appear to be broken. I can see BAO being used as a reason to bump up points for guardsmen but looking post FAQ in total we've had quite a few armies at the top. Am I missing something?

People have to complain no matter what, everything ca be perfect and you will see this type of arguments, sadly when a company like GW fixes problems, and makes a better game all around and continues to fix things, you get more and more complaints.

IG and DE are fine and dont need any nerfs at all. Yes some other armies could use some buffs, but honestly before we fix anything else, i would say mix the soup points limited like how AoS is doing, 25%-33% would be fine.

 Smirrors wrote:
Why are we complaining, I thought the diversification of winning lists is at a high as there ever was. Sure IG are strong soup/mono faction, but they don't appear to be broken. I can see BAO being used as a reason to bump up points for guardsmen but looking post FAQ in total we've had quite a few armies at the top. Am I missing something?

If you're missing it, I am too.

As an alternative - how has no one thought that maybe Reece et al should adjust their ITC Missions Pack to make hordes of chaff infantry less dominant? If you want to see a game balanced based off of fething Tournament results (and that's exactly how this edition has gone, despite that oft-repeated line of "Tournaments don't dictate how you play at home."), maybe ensure the missions played in the Tournament actually don't give a distinct advantage to one faction or type of unit. Mortar teams for Reaper, anyone?

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Smirrors wrote:
Why are we complaining, I thought the diversification of winning lists is at a high as there ever was. Sure IG are strong soup/mono faction, but they don't appear to be broken. I can see BAO being used as a reason to bump up points for guardsmen but looking post FAQ in total we've had quite a few armies at the top. Am I missing something?

People have to complain no matter what, everything ca be perfect and you will see this type of arguments, sadly when a company like GW fixes problems, and makes a better game all around and continues to fix things, you get more and more complaints.

IG and DE are fine and dont need any nerfs at all. Yes some other armies could use some buffs, but honestly before we fix anything else, i would say mix the soup points limited like how AoS is doing, 25%-33% would be fine.

Which wouldn't change most of the lists out there as it qould still be Alitoc plus AoV, as top dog as minus 2 to hit army wide is busted especially when it can be bumped to -3.

Guardsmen at 4ppm are a problem in that they are damn near impossible to remove from play efficently in a 5 turn game.

Now if they where just annoyingly durable that woukd be one thing, but with the flattened wounding chart low strength shooting got a buff. Who needs the right weapon when you can just throw 19 dice plus at a problem.

Board control with deepstike rules etc is valuable, cheaper models can just blanket the board.

In single digit points there is 4ppm or 5ppm. If we were talking 40ppm and 50ppm you could say 46ppm or 43ppm. Scale creep is a thing and buffing marines to 10ppm and so on to balance against Astra Militarum just means everyone plays with even more models.

If you took a 400 model guard horde list to an event with end of game scoring they would stand a good chance of winning most match ups.

Ice_can wrote:


Guardsmen at 4ppm are a problem in that they are damn near impossible to remove from play efficently in a 5 turn game.

I'm a little curious what the definition of "efficiently" is in this context? Do you want to be able to skew against infantry as well as reliably take down T8 3+ models?

This thread has become absurd.

We have people arguing about the strength of a faction due to the ability and prevalence of soup. We have people citing tournament results from a year ago. We even have people throwing out comparisons to other units, that have absolutely nothing in common with an Infantry Squad as a measure of relative strength. Of course we have the standard "I would be happy to accept an increase in points, if unit x, y and z also had an increase".

To decide whether Guardsmen should be 5ppm or 4ppm you need only compare what they are capable of to other, similar costed units. You then need to look at why they are taken in a list and what their function is. If they do these things too well, they are too cheap. If they do them poorly, they are too expensive. If they're about in the middle they're about right.

A few points to consider -
1. It is possible more than one unit in the game is too cheap. Best to compare Guardsmen against a swathe of other units.
2. A soup list is always, always stronger than a mono list. Without question and by definition (assuming the person is actually trying to win).
3. Just because we mostly see a unit in a soup list, it doesn't mean it's broken only because it's taken in a soup list.
4. 'Buffing' what would be considered under-powered units and 'nerfing' what would be considered over-powered units achieve exactly the same thing in terms of a relative comparison. The problem here is it makes a particular type of unit stronger, relative to others (ie cheap, horde units over elite units).

Guardsmen, from my admittedly limited experience, are the most points efficient objective holders in the game. Their 5+ save is a problem for most anti-horde weaponry and their numbers are too vast. They are used to hold objectives which often grant cover so they are generally benefiting from a 4+ save. They can take cover if required (you really need to hold that objective, this turn). Throw in the fact that they want to engage at range and you have a unit that does it's job incredibly well.

Now, can someone more enlightened tell me how they fare compared to Gaunts and any other unit that costs 4ppm or thereabouts?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This thread has become absurd.

No joke. No point even posting anything remotely constructive at this point. Certain people are just spouting utter bollocks.

Cynically I don't think making guardsmen/kabs 1 point more would have a material impact on IG/DE power.

I guess it might screw with the guard infantry spam list.

But in some ways it would be a start.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This thread has become absurd.

We have people arguing about the strength of a faction due to the ability and prevalence of soup. We have people citing tournament results from a year ago. We even have people throwing out comparisons to other units, that have absolutely nothing in common with an Infantry Squad as a measure of relative strength. Of course we have the standard "I would be happy to accept an increase in points, if unit x, y and z also had an increase".

To decide whether Guardsmen should be 5ppm or 4ppm you need only compare what they are capable of to other, similar costed units. You then need to look at why they are taken in a list and what their function is. If they do these things too well, they are too cheap. If they do them poorly, they are too expensive. If they're about in the middle they're about right.

A few points to consider -
1. It is possible more than one unit in the game is too cheap. Best to compare Guardsmen against a swathe of other units.
2. A soup list is always, always stronger than a mono list. Without question and by definition (assuming the person is actually trying to win).
3. Just because we mostly see a unit in a soup list, it doesn't mean it's broken only because it's taken in a soup list.
4. 'Buffing' what would be considered under-powered units and 'nerfing' what would be considered over-powered units achieve exactly the same thing in terms of a relative comparison. The problem here is it makes a particular type of unit stronger, relative to others (ie cheap, horde units over elite units).

Guardsmen, from my admittedly limited experience, are the most points efficient objective holders in the game. Their 5+ save is a problem for most anti-horde weaponry and their numbers are too vast. They are used to hold objectives which often grant cover so they are generally benefiting from a 4+ save. They can take cover if required (you really need to hold that objective, this turn). Throw in the fact that they want to engage at range and you have a unit that does it's job incredibly well.

Now, can someone more enlightened tell me how they fare compared to Gaunts and any other unit that costs 4ppm or thereabouts?

Compared to the other 4 ppm models?

They are about on par with termagants, which have less offensive capabilties but are much better screens with the leviathan trait, higher squad numbers and immunity to morale. IG wins in cover though.

Cultists are worse in offence and defence, but have access to extremely good buffs and stratagems which makes them real threaths.

Out of the 3 i wouldn't say that stat wise one is better than the other, it's just that guards covers a role that comboes really well with the general playstyle of AM.

Spoletta wrote:
Compared to the other 4 ppm models?

They are about on par with termagants, which have less offensive capabilties but are much better screens with the leviathan trait, higher squad numbers and immunity to morale. IG wins in cover though.

Is Leviathan the trait that gives a 6+++? That puts them still less durable than Guardsmen (though it's a lot closer, admittedly). I wouldn't say they're much better screens because offensive power can be a big part of screening. We've also assumed traits which we haven't done for the Guardsmen.

Spoletta wrote:
Cultists are worse in offence and defence, but have access to extremely good buffs and stratagems which makes them real threaths.

I thought Cultists were better in terms of offense generally but worse in defence? We can't assume stratagems and buffs are always present, otherwise we end up bringing in an army's worth of things that exist only to buff a meagre unit to god-levels of durability and attack power and the comparison is lost. Base stats Cultists are plain worse than Guardsmen?

Spoletta wrote:
Out of the 3 i wouldn't say that stat wise one is better than the other, it's just that guards covers a role that comboes really well with the general playstyle of AM.

Well really we need the stats of all to compare them against each other. It looks from what you've said above, that Guardsmen are better than both Gaunts and Cultists base without buffs/stratagems etc?

I'd argue that no single model should be less than 5 points. A single wound is the most valuable defensive stat you can have, and anything else you add to it starts losing efficiency.

I think it's also much better to look at the overall usefulness of a unit at filling it's role within a faction than to compare it model to model against other units in other factions. Right now both cultists and guardsmen are excellent at what they do. You could move both of them to 5ppm and everyone would still take them without a second thought.

This reminds me a lot of when I used to play WoW, and I played a paladin. Everyone who wasn't claimed they needed to be nerfed. Everyone who did play them claimed that other's needed to be brought up to their level. But this argument is always ignoring the basic truth, a rookie with a bad army will always loose constantly. A Rookie with a great army will win a small amount of the time. But if you raise the skill level of the player, everything will "seem" overpowered.

It's player skill that dictates the largest portion of an army's effectiveness. And in this arena, most games are decided before the first turn, because one player is not as skilled, and will make mistakes that cause the game to be lost. Are AM better than other armies statistically? Yes. But that doesn't mean a good BA player didn't wipe the floor with me for weeks.

To say that hormagants are comparable with IG infantry... If you are gonna use their hive fleet trait and morale inmunity use the same for ig.

 Galas wrote:
To say that hormagants are comparable with IG infantry... If you are gonna use their hive fleet trait and morale inmunity use the same for ig.

You have to really. Comparing units in isolation means nothing.

 Galas wrote:
To say that hormagants are comparable with IG infantry... If you are gonna use their hive fleet trait and morale inmunity use the same for ig.

And what morale immunity does IG have now?

The answer, in case you didn't know, is "Mental Fortitude"--a Psyker power from their book. Commissars don't give you immunity nor does the Stratagem.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
And in this arena, most games are decided before the first turn, because one player is not as skilled, and will make mistakes that cause the game to be lost..

No the game is won at list building level in this edition. Bad rolls lose you the game for a tourney winning lists. There's almost no strategy left in the game currently.

 skchsan wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
And in this arena, most games are decided before the first turn, because one player is not as skilled, and will make mistakes that cause the game to be lost..

No the game is won at list building level in this edition. Bad rolls lose you the game for a tourney winning lists. There's almost no strategy left in the game currently.

There is to hide or not hide behind LOS blocking blocks of polystyrene.
There is where to deep strike.
There is target priority.
There is how to abuse the assault rules optimally.
There is remembering the objectives and whether you push them, or don't.

People who consistently place highly in tournaments tend to be better at this than the guy who just googled Imperial soup.

The game is about stacking the odds in your favour. You can't escape this - no army can do well if you screw up every single dice roll and if you play enough this will happen some times. The hope is however it won't happen in a tournament game. List building is the first step to stacking the odds in your favour. This is why you take a lot of IG/Knights/DE/CWE etc rather than (if it were allowed) some soup of Grey Knights & Necrons.

 Galas wrote:
To say that hormagants are comparable with IG infantry... If you are gonna use their hive fleet trait and morale inmunity use the same for ig.

They also don't get synapse for free ether. As the game goes on - it's totally possible to kill the synapse creature and then murderize the gants - which I think have base LD of 4.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galas wrote:
To say that hormagants are comparable with IG infantry... If you are gonna use their hive fleet trait and morale inmunity use the same for ig.

They also don't get synapse for free ether. As the game goes on - it's totally possible to kill the synapse creature and then murderize the gants - which I think have base LD of 4.

Synapse absolutely is free. If you buy a unit that has Synapse, it's an "always on" ability.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Asmodios wrote:


Love the fact that when a top player takes AM pure they are rewarded with a 20th placed finish but the guy taking blightlord terminators and renigade knights finishes first. Please post pics of all your first place finishes I’d love to see them

Ho.

Lee.

gak.



You deserve to be banned for this post lol. At this point you are just deliberately disrupting productive conversation.

You just bitched and bitched and bitched about all lists you count as AM soup being an unfair representation of AM's power as a SOLO dex compared to other SOLO dexes, including disqualifying the AM list in the top 3 that took a single Knight and 1500 points of Guard infantry. And now you are complaining that under these restrictions that weren't even in place at a tournament, Guard only got #20, while complaining that a list that was almost an equal split points wise of different factions, got #1. This logic man.




Pick one, either you are including Soup lists in the discussion, in which case AM got top 3, and more places in the top 10 than any other race.

OR you are comparing pure solo armies at this tournament, in which case AM got top 2.


You can't have it both ways and act like Guard is a weak army because pure, Guard-only lists did not beat a bunch of triple-faction armies, while excluding armies that took 1500+ pts of Guard as their primary as not being Guard enough to qualify. That's beyond illogical.








It's time for you to stop trash posting like this.

Yeah, when I don't have good points I just start telling people they should be banned for disagreeing with me. You can't have it both ways you are in this thread claiming that pure IG is a broken top tier faction but the only examples you guys can come up with is a tournament from almost a year ago with an invalid list and 20 place finishes. If finishing 20th at a GT makes your army broken every army in the game is. Meanwhile, you still haven't addressed any of the actual statistics I've posted (that you have decided to ignore) on the actual win percentage and points earned per round at BAO. I absolutely can ignore armies that are nothing but guard dumping CP into 500 points that fill a massive gap in IG power level as well as the biggest one (guard don't have very good strategems to spend CP on). Continue to state over and over that IG are broken outside of soup.... but unless you start providing some real statistics and examples that aren't trash your not going to convince anyone. Pointing to soup builds does nothing but prove my point that soup is the true issue that that needs to be addressed not guardsman

But those Synapse creatues themselves are free. It's as free as those reroll-1s auras, or the reroll-misses/fails auras SM love so much. Those HQs still cost.

Bharring wrote:
But those Synapse creatues themselves are free. It's as free as those reroll-1s auras, or the reroll-misses/fails auras SM love so much. Those HQs still cost.

Yes, those Synapse creatures are not free. But Synapse is effectively free. You don't need to buy a Synapse Caster to improve the range or take a specific Hive Fleet to make it so that multiple units get Synapse or two types of Synapse perks happen.

Synapse is there. And not just on characters.

I'm not saying it's the best way to do things but on here I think there's a habit of going wildly off topic and talking about Tyranid synapse or IG psychic powers and before long we are discussing something totally unrelated. Or, like I said earlier, the discussion devolves into who can bring the most brokenly buffed unit to the table for the lowest cost, ignoring the price of the buffing units/stratagems.

In a vacuum, which seems to be to be the fairest and most objective way to do things, for now at least, how to Guardsmen compare against their counterparts in the 3ppm, 4ppm, 5ppm etc space?

They seem pretty damn good to me.