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.

Comparing in a vacuum doesn't work though. Not when there are Stratagems, regimental/hive fleet/chapter traits, and characters specifically designed to buff units. Right? It certainly makes fair comparison nearly impossible, but comparing in a vacuum, particularly in this edition, doesn't work at all.

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Comparing in a vacuum doesn't work though. Not when there are Stratagems, regimental/hive fleet/chapter traits, and characters specifically designed to buff units. Right? It certainly makes fair comparison nearly impossible, but comparing in a vacuum, particularly in this edition, doesn't work at all.

I believe it's better than the alternative which is aforementioned.

I'm also fairly certain it's the metric by which GW base the cost of things (in a vacuum).

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Comparing in a vacuum doesn't work though. Not when there are Stratagems, regimental/hive fleet/chapter traits, and characters specifically designed to buff units. Right? It certainly makes fair comparison nearly impossible, but comparing in a vacuum, particularly in this edition, doesn't work at all.

I believe it's better than the alternative which is aforementioned.

I'm also fairly certain it's the metric by which GW base the cost of things (in a vacuum).

It's also where you should start.

ESP in regards to base stats.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Comparing in a vacuum doesn't work though. Not when there are Stratagems, regimental/hive fleet/chapter traits, and characters specifically designed to buff units. Right? It certainly makes fair comparison nearly impossible, but comparing in a vacuum, particularly in this edition, doesn't work at all.

I believe it's better than the alternative which is aforementioned.

I'm also fairly certain it's the metric by which GW base the cost of things (in a vacuum).

Not really, given the way synergies are woven into the game in this edition. Vacuum considerations are misleading and unrepresentative when you think of what needs to change in the pursuit of equivalent playing power.

Also, no. A 4 ppm guardsman is strictly better than a 4 ppm cultist in a vacuum, for an example. Better saves and better leadership, even by pure statline.

That same list that came in 20th at BAO also won the Boise cup GT.

And, if you follow the action you'd know that Brandon Grant was an unlucky roll away from winning his first loss, which would have had a ripple effect throughout the tournament. if that guard list got into the top 8 it could win the tournament. He had bad luck.

"Guard players winning tournaments is fake news" - Guard players

 Marmatag wrote:
That same list that came in 20th at BAO also won the Boise cup GT.

And, if you follow the action you'd know that Brandon Grant was an unlucky roll away from winning his first loss, which would have had a ripple effect throughout the tournament. if that guard list got into the top 8 it could win the tournament. He had bad luck.

"Guard players winning tournaments is fake news" - Guard players

By your logic, he got one lucky roll in the Boise Cup GT.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
That same list that came in 20th at BAO also won the Boise cup GT.

And, if you follow the action you'd know that Brandon Grant was an unlucky roll away from winning his first loss, which would have had a ripple effect throughout the tournament. if that guard list got into the top 8 it could win the tournament. He had bad luck.

"Guard players winning tournaments is fake news" - Guard players

By your logic, he got one lucky roll in the Boise Cup GT.

This isn't logic. It's *fact* - there is nothing to deduce here. And i've seen his guard list in action, it is terrifying.

Facts aren't fake news.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
That same list that came in 20th at BAO also won the Boise cup GT.

And, if you follow the action you'd know that Brandon Grant was an unlucky roll away from winning his first loss, which would have had a ripple effect throughout the tournament. if that guard list got into the top 8 it could win the tournament. He had bad luck.

"Guard players winning tournaments is fake news" - Guard players

By your logic, he got one lucky roll in the Boise Cup GT.

This isn't logic. It's *fact* - there is nothing to deduce here. And i've seen his guard list in action, it is terrifying.

Facts aren't fake news.

What is the list - having trouble finding it. I see his Boise list. Huge mega orgyn squad.

Don't forget the Tallarn Shadowsword. And 2++ Bullgryns really help. I'll see if I can find it. I think TastyTaste posted it on Bok.

 Marmatag wrote:
That same list that came in 20th at BAO also won the Boise cup GT.

And, if you follow the action you'd know that Brandon Grant was an unlucky roll away from winning his first loss, which would have had a ripple effect throughout the tournament. if that guard list got into the top 8 it could win the tournament. He had bad luck.

"Guard players winning tournaments is fake news" - Guard players

Guess we just need to toss out every stat we have and add a note next to all of them "theoretically these could be different had people rolled differently in each game"

Yet, funnily enough, we can discuss the merits of how guard would perform "if i had only rolled x" but nobody will discuss the statistics gathered over the entire BAO event where IG as a primary faction didn't make the top list for win % or Points earned per round (including soup builds that are very strong)

You really shouldn't paint all Guard players with the same brush.

I've played Guard since the Eye of Terror codex, and this is definitely the strongest we've been, which by extension means ever.

I think our infantry is under costed compared to other infantry. I'm good with raising Guard Infantry by a point each, lowering Marines by a point or two, and then shifting the remaining infantry in cost once that's settled.

I'd include IG as "a" codex that could, potentially, win a tournament without allies. I'd say that Knights could, potentially, but there's so much more utility in taking a few allies that it would seem foolish not to, so I doubt a tourney player would really be any to. CWE? Maybe, and I have no idea about Drukari, or whatever they're called now. Again, from a competitive perspective, Eldar soup seems easy and powerful, so I don't know if anyone would try.

Whereas Guard players tend to like our main army well enough, and currently is powerful enough, to warrant taking the shot at a tourney, without allies.

I'd be interested in seeing how non-allied results stack against each other. Do IG armies rank highest because they're the majority of non-allied armies being played?

Guard have a powerful codex that can potentially win tournaments going solo. The game currently lacks widespread efficient ways to deal with horde infantry that isn't also really good at wiping out elite infantry. Much like facing a Knight list, horde lists present a gear check for your army, and that can be tough to handle if you don't tailor towards that somewhat.

Please don't refer to Guard players as the problem, even those that disagree with you. The game design and codex are the issue, not the players of the faction. Last edition, my collection of models were crap on the table, and now they're amazing. Same models, same approach to the game, but fortune favours Guard this edition.

I wish it were better balanced. Early in the edition, I was playing my friends with a 10% handicap to help balance the games. The game has shifted since then, and we tend to play multiplayer most of the time, so I'm playing at full points again. Free-for-all games tend to balance out with the "weaker" factions combining forces to tackle the "stronger" factions in that situation.

Ironically, the only codex recently to have won a tournament without allies was SM, with a Guilliman list, if I have my brain correct.

 Sherrypie wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Colonel Cross wrote:
Comparing in a vacuum doesn't work though. Not when there are Stratagems, regimental/hive fleet/chapter traits, and characters specifically designed to buff units. Right? It certainly makes fair comparison nearly impossible, but comparing in a vacuum, particularly in this edition, doesn't work at all.

I believe it's better than the alternative which is aforementioned.

I'm also fairly certain it's the metric by which GW base the cost of things (in a vacuum).

Not really, given the way synergies are woven into the game in this edition. Vacuum considerations are misleading and unrepresentative when you think of what needs to change in the pursuit of equivalent playing power.

Also, no. A 4 ppm guardsman is strictly better than a 4 ppm cultist in a vacuum, for an example. Better saves and better leadership, even by pure statline.

This topic isn't about the game in it's entirety or the way synergies intertwine to make super-powerful units. This topic is about whether the cost of Guardsmen should rise to 5ppm. We've seen what happens when people start adding random stratagems, chapter tactics and other buffs to various units, check out the last 11 or so pages. It's an absolute gak storm.

Also I think Xeno said it best;

 Xenomancers wrote:
It's also where you should start.

ESP in regards to base stats.

Absolutely correct.

Asmodios wrote:

I play 100% mono guard

Only on page 1 of thread but I hope this is repeated I only play a mono list as well.

I may find otherwise but is the core contention that a 2000 point infantry focused IG army with say 9 squads in it 90 points too cheap? 4.5%... That is some careful calibrating you are all going in for

Personally I do think the mass of troops set up is a bit too strong and makes for slow games. But they aren't necessarily too cheap given the odd way 40k games work. Where they are though is as the oft mentioned bare bones CP battery.

I would think the solution is to make base troop squads for many factions more expensive by factoring in equipment into their cost.

So sticking with guard the bare bones squad would be the 10 guys, costing 55 points.
But the cost of upgrades is changed. A vox is 1 point. Special weapons are 2 points cheaper and heavy weapons 5 points cheaper.

So before and after this mod is essentially the same cost. The difference is there is something of a punishment for those fielding guardsmen as bare bodies rather than the conscripts designed for that role. They are meant to have their gear and not taking it is now a far smaller saving.

I don't think the cost of average guardsmen is our big flaw, or if it's likely to make a large difference. I think we should be looking at balance in other areas. Maybe upping the cost of gear for AM specific units? Plasma spam is a major issue, as is mortar spam. Lets raise the costs of mortars, plasma, launchers, bullgryn shields, bullgryn mauls, anything on HQ or SGTs, etc. I think our vehicle sponson costs and extra gear costs are fine. But infantry gear needs a touch up in cost. I don't think altering model cost would affect me greatly, it's the 20 or so plasma rifles I'm ramming down your throat each turn.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This topic isn't about the game in it's entirety or the way synergies intertwine to make super-powerful units. This topic is about whether the cost of Guardsmen should rise to 5ppm. We've seen what happens when people start adding random stratagems, chapter tactics and other buffs to various units, check out the last 11 or so pages. It's an absolute gak storm.

Ok, so you want to do comparisons?

Guardsman - WS 4+, BS 4+, S3, T3, W1, A1, 5+, LD6 with a 24" rapidfire1 STR3 AP- lasgun. For 4 points.

Skitarii ranger - Is a guardsmen with a 4+, 6++ and a 30" bolter for 7 points.
Fire warrior - Is a guardsmen with a 4+ and a 30" str5 bolter for 7 points and is slightly crappier in melee.

Termagant - Is a guardsmen with a 6+, 1 less leadership, and a 12" bolter (1 shot) for 3 points.

GSC - is a guardsman with +1 leadership for 5 points.

Compared totally in a vacuum. 4 point guardsmen sound about right.

Most people don't even take gear on infantry squads. There is no reason to. You get to shoot twice with a lasgun for 4 points. It is super efficient. God forbid you have t3 and get shot by these things.

Mortars for sure are too cheap. It's a 10 point weapon at minimum.

w1zard wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This topic isn't about the game in it's entirety or the way synergies intertwine to make super-powerful units. This topic is about whether the cost of Guardsmen should rise to 5ppm. We've seen what happens when people start adding random stratagems, chapter tactics and other buffs to various units, check out the last 11 or so pages. It's an absolute gak storm.

Ok, so you want to do comparisons?

Guardsman - WS 4+, BS 4+, S3, T3, W1, A1, 5+, LD6 with a 24" rapidfire1 STR3 AP- lasgun.

Skitarii ranger - Is a guardsmen with a 4+, 6++ and a 30" bolter for 7 points.
Fire warrior - Is a guardsmen with a 4+ and a 30" str5 bolter for 7 points and is slightly shittier in melee.

Termagant - Is a guardsmen with a 6+, 1 less leadership, and a 12" bolter (1 shot) for 3 points.

GSC - is a guardsman with +1 leadership for 5 points.

Compared totally in a vacuum. 4 point guardsmen sound about right.

Don't forget the Skitarii Ranger also gets BS3+ as part of his 7 points.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ironically, the only codex recently to have won a tournament without allies was SM, with a Guilliman list, if I have my brain correct.

As has been said, Brandon Grandt won the boise cup super recently with the same list that did well at BAO. It is pure guard.

And, the lists topping bao have splashes of other things. They are listed as AM and are primarily AM.

"Guard is bad. Anything else is fake news." - Guard players.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Mortars for sure are too cheap. It's a 10 point weapon at minimum.

*Rolls eyes* Please...

Heavy bolters are 8 points and are STR 5 AP -1. I can see a mortar going up to 8 pts because 12" more of range and the ability to ignore LOS is pretty good, but not 10 pts.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ironically, the only codex recently to have won a tournament without allies was SM, with a Guilliman list, if I have my brain correct.

As has been said, Brandon Grandt won the boise cup super recently with the same list that did well at BAO. It is pure guard.

And, the lists topping bao have splashes of other things. They are listed as AM and are primarily AM.

"Guard is bad. Anything else is fake news." - Guard players.

Care to actually find someone who plays Guard saying they're bad?

You can find people saying they don't need nerfs, but that's not the same as saying they're bad.

w1zard wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This topic isn't about the game in it's entirety or the way synergies intertwine to make super-powerful units. This topic is about whether the cost of Guardsmen should rise to 5ppm. We've seen what happens when people start adding random stratagems, chapter tactics and other buffs to various units, check out the last 11 or so pages. It's an absolute gak storm.

Ok, so you want to do comparisons?

Guardsman - WS 4+, BS 4+, S3, T3, W1, A1, 5+, LD6 with a 24" rapidfire1 STR3 AP- lasgun. For 4 points.

Skitarii ranger - Is a guardsmen with a 4+, 6++ and a 30" bolter for 7 points.
Fire warrior - Is a guardsmen with a 4+ and a 30" str5 bolter for 7 points and is slightly crappier in melee.

Termagant - Is a guardsmen with a 6+, 1 less leadership, and a 12" bolter (1 shot) for 3 points.

GSC - is a guardsman with +1 leadership for 5 points.

Compared totally in a vacuum. 4 point guardsmen sound about right.

Compaired to 3 point Grots?

w1zard wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This topic isn't about the game in it's entirety or the way synergies intertwine to make super-powerful units. This topic is about whether the cost of Guardsmen should rise to 5ppm. We've seen what happens when people start adding random stratagems, chapter tactics and other buffs to various units, check out the last 11 or so pages. It's an absolute gak storm.

Ok, so you want to do comparisons?

Guardsman - WS 4+, BS 4+, S3, T3, W1, A1, 5+, LD6 with a 24" rapidfire1 STR3 AP- lasgun. For 4 points.

Skitarii ranger - Is a guardsmen with a 4+, 6++ and a 30" bolter for 7 points.
Fire warrior - Is a guardsmen with a 4+ and a 30" str5 bolter for 7 points and is slightly shittier in melee.

Termagant - Is a guardsmen with a 6+, 1 less leadership, and a 12" bolter (1 shot) for 3 points.

GSC - is a guardsman with +1 leadership for 5 points.

Compared totally in a vacuum. 4 point guardsmen sound about right.

Stop with those misleading stats
A firewarior doesn have a strength 5 bolter

A fire warrior is
WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 W1 A1 LD6 Sv4+

Guardsmen
WS 4+, BS 4+, S3, T3, W1, A1, 5+, LD6
Catachans are
WS 4+, BS 4+, S4, T3, W1, A1, 5+, LD6

So a fire warrior has -1WS +1Save so base worth the same as a normal guardsmen and actually worth less than a catachan due to the -1 Strength

Ok the get a S5 gun vrs a S3 gun so +2 points
So 7 -2 =5 Guardsmen

w1zard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Mortars for sure are too cheap. It's a 10 point weapon at minimum.

*Rolls eyes* Please...

Heavy bolters are 8 points and are STR 5 AP -1. I can see a mortar going up to 8 pts because 12" more of range and the ability to ignore LOS is pretty good, but not 10 pts.

Ignore LOS is strong dude. It should double the value of a weapon IMO.

Except is -1 WS on a shooty model really worth losing a point?

And if we're comparing to Catachans, they're Borkan, for a 36" range S5 Rapid Fire weapon. They can, in Dawn of War deployment, literally sit at their table edge and still hit the edge of the opponent's DZ.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Ironically, the only codex recently to have won a tournament without allies was SM, with a Guilliman list, if I have my brain correct.

As has been said, Brandon Grandt won the boise cup super recently with the same list that did well at BAO. It is pure guard.

And, the lists topping bao have splashes of other things. They are listed as AM and are primarily AM.

"Guard is bad. Anything else is fake news." - Guard players.

Care to actually find someone who plays Guard saying they're bad?

You can find people saying they don't need nerfs, but that's not the same as saying they're bad.

Saying they don't need nerfs is the same as saying they are average. Which is downright wrong. They are top teir lol.

Ice_can wrote:

Stop with those misleading stats
A firewarior doesn have a strength 5 bolter

A fire warrior is
WS5+ BS4+ S3 T3 W1 A1 LD6 Sv4+

Guardsmen
WS 4+, BS 4+, S3, T3, W1, A1, 5+, LD6
Catachans are
WS 4+, BS 4+, S4, T3, W1, A1, 5+, LD6

So a fire warrior has -1WS +1Save so base worth the same as a normal guardsmen and actually worth less than a catachan due to the -1 Strength

Catachans are taking a specific doctrine, which costs 0 points. Don't want to be misleading, right?

Ok the get a S5 gun vrs a S3 gun so +2 points
So 7 -2 =5 Guardsmen

You get a S5 gun and a 4+ save, along with an extra 6" of range and rolls of 6s for Morale Tests becoming autopasses thanks to the Bonding Knife Ritual.

w1zard wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This topic isn't about the game in it's entirety or the way synergies intertwine to make super-powerful units. This topic is about whether the cost of Guardsmen should rise to 5ppm. We've seen what happens when people start adding random stratagems, chapter tactics and other buffs to various units, check out the last 11 or so pages. It's an absolute gak storm.

Ok, so you want to do comparisons?

Guardsman - WS 4+, BS 4+, S3, T3, W1, A1, 5+, LD6 with a 24" rapidfire1 STR3 AP- lasgun. For 4 points.

Skitarii ranger - Is a guardsmen with a 4+, 6++ and a 30" bolter for 7 points.
Fire warrior - Is a guardsmen with a 4+ and a 30" str5 bolter for 7 points and is slightly crappier in melee.

Termagant - Is a guardsmen with a 6+, 1 less leadership, and a 12" bolter (1 shot) for 3 points.

GSC - is a guardsman with +1 leadership for 5 points.

Compared totally in a vacuum. 4 point guardsmen sound about right.

There we go! Someone willing to post comparisons.

Strange though, I read everything you wrote and we came to a different conclusion.

GSC = more expensive.
Termagant = worse save, worse range and worse LD for 1 pt less.
Fire Warrior = more expensive.
Skitarii Ranger = more expensive.

The Fire Warrior and Skit Ranger are particularly telling because they're almost twice the cost. Guardians are exactly twice the cost aren't they? For WS and BS 3+, 12" range gun, LD7 and greater movement.

From your comparisons I get the feeling Guardsmen are a little too tanky for their points cost but their damage output (in a vacuum at least) is about right. This is also how I feel about them generally to be honest so perhaps it's just my natural bias. 5ppm to me is on the money. I certainly don't think it would drastically hurt Guard players.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except is -1 WS on a shooty model really worth losing a point?

And if we're comparing to Catachans, they're Borkan, for a 36" range S5 Rapid Fire weapon. They can, in Dawn of War deployment, literally sit at their table edge and still hit the edge of the opponent's DZ.

Firewarriors are probably the next best troop next to gaurdsmen. Super cheap for what you get - buffed by cheap HQ's too. Gaurdsmen still compare favorable to firewarriors at 5 points. All the math has already been done. Including buffs and all that. 5 point guardsmen actually beat fire-warriors in most scenarios.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This topic isn't about the game in it's entirety or the way synergies intertwine to make super-powerful units. This topic is about whether the cost of Guardsmen should rise to 5ppm. We've seen what happens when people start adding random stratagems, chapter tactics and other buffs to various units, check out the last 11 or so pages. It's an absolute gak storm.

Ok, so you want to do comparisons?

Guardsman - WS 4+, BS 4+, S3, T3, W1, A1, 5+, LD6 with a 24" rapidfire1 STR3 AP- lasgun. For 4 points.

Skitarii ranger - Is a guardsmen with a 4+, 6++ and a 30" bolter for 7 points.
Fire warrior - Is a guardsmen with a 4+ and a 30" str5 bolter for 7 points and is slightly crappier in melee.

Termagant - Is a guardsmen with a 6+, 1 less leadership, and a 12" bolter (1 shot) for 3 points.

GSC - is a guardsman with +1 leadership for 5 points.

Compared totally in a vacuum. 4 point guardsmen sound about right.

There we go! Someone willing to post comparisons.

Strange though, I read everything you wrote and we came to a different conclusion.

GSC = more expensive.
Termagant = worse save, worse range and worse LD for 1 pt less.
Fire Warrior = more expensive.
Skitarii Ranger = more expensive.

The Fire Warrior and Skit Ranger are particularly telling because they're almost twice the cost. Guardians are exactly twice the cost aren't they? For WS and BS 3+, 12" range gun, LD7 and greater movement.

From your comparisons I get the feeling Guardsmen are a little too tanky for their points cost but their damage output (in a vacuum at least) is about right. This is also how I feel about them generally to be honest so perhaps it's just my natural bias. 5ppm to me is on the money. I certainly don't think it would drastically hurt Guard players.

Termagants are actually 4 points -not 3. It's one of the main gross comparisons you can make. How can these 2 units have the same point cost?

 JNAProductions wrote:
Except is -1 WS on a shooty model really worth losing a point?

And if we're comparing to Catachans, they're Borkan, for a 36" range S5 Rapid Fire weapon. They can, in Dawn of War deployment, literally sit at their table edge and still hit the edge of the opponent's DZ.

You pay for stats using them or not was the argument used against marine players so yes it's worth a point as guard can charge some other units for another round of S3/S4 attacks that hit on 4's thats not an option for firewarriors.
Sounds like skitarii at 7 are probably 8ppm if they are getting +1BS +1Sv and +1S shooting. I genuinely don't believe that the 6+inv is worth much as how often will it even come into play really?