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.
Saying something doesn't need to be nerfed is saying that it's at a good balance point-meaning that more things should be in line with Guard (able to field many different builds and still do well, and an actual choice between various chapter tactics, for instance).
Is that incorrect? Should we balance at where Grey Knights are, instead? Or should we balance to where soup is?
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?
But hey, you pay for stats using them or not. So you gotta pay for that 6+ Invuln.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/07 19:03:07
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
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.
GSC also is able to 'tank' wounds for nearby characters or become immune to Morale. Not to mention they arguably get more weapon options and they have an alternative deployment method.
Termagant = worse save, worse range and worse LD for 1 pt less.
Also able to be immune to morale simply by virtue of placement.
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.
Rangers and Fire Warriors are also a point higher of save with 6" longer range on their weapons.
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.
And you'd be wrong.
If people are so hellbent on Mortars and the like being OP, then start petitioning GW to restrict them to Heavy Weapon Squads instead of allowing for them to be in basic Guard squads. Push for Guard Squads to be more like Neophyte Hybrids and their weapon/squad options.
Saying something doesn't need to be nerfed is saying that it's at a good balance point-meaning that more things should be in line with Guard (able to field many different builds and still do well, and an actual choice between various chapter tactics, for instance).
Is that incorrect? Should we balance at where Grey Knights are, instead? Or should we balance to where soup is?
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?
But hey, you pay for stats using them or not. So you gotta pay for that 6+ Invuln.
But having a save and and invulnerable is redundancy of stats, slightly diffrent from a straight stat. As the 6++ only comes into play against -3AP weapons, who is shooting -3AP at infantry consistently?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/07 19:10:37
JNAProductions wrote: Saying something doesn't need to be nerfed is saying that it's at a good balance point-meaning that more things should be in line with Guard (able to field many different builds and still do well, and an actual choice between various chapter tactics, for instance).
Is that incorrect? Should we balance at where Grey Knights are, instead? Or should we balance to where soup is?
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?
But hey, you pay for stats using them or not. So you gotta pay for that 6+ Invuln.
But having a save and and invulnerable is redundancy of stats, slightly diffrent from a straight stat. As the 6++ only comes into play against -3AP weapons, who is shooting -3AP at infantry consistently?
And a 3+ WS only comes into play when you get charged or charge, which Devastators pretty much should never be doing.
Either you pay for stats no matter how useful they are, or you don't. You can't have it both ways.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Can you shoot and charge a target in the same turn? Yes
Is WS stat redudent no.
Can you take an armour save and an invulnerable save against the same attack no
You can use either not both you can use both BS and WS.
Though quite frankly the game could do with loosing some invulnerable saves as they have got out of hand.
Ice_can wrote: Can you shoot and charge a target in the same turn? Yes
Is WS stat redudent no.
Can you take an armour save and an invulnerable save against the same attack no
You can use either not both you can use both BS and WS.
Though quite frankly the game could do with loosing some invulnerable saves as they have got out of hand.
I look forward to seeing all those battle reports where Devastators charge into the enemy lines and their WS 3+ serves them well. Or they get charged and, only due to the ability to hit on a 3+ do they vanquish their foes and live to shoot again.
No, pointing something based on stats they don't use is dumb. Most people agree, Marines are either overcosted or underpowered, depending on whether they feel they should stay the same and get cheaper or stay the same points and get stronger.
Now, obviously Tau with WS 2+ are better than Tau with WS 5+, but not by much, since they're still one attack, S3, and no melee weapons.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
Colonel Cross wrote: We're all off track here, why aren't we petitioning GW to bring back lasguns for SGTs?!
It's kinda hilarious that you can give them a FRICKIN BOLTER, but not a lasgun. A Bolter would throw a normal human on his butt after each shot, and forget about repeated rapid fire use. But no, a Lasgun is TOO MUCH GUN FOR A SGT! He'd BE OVERPOWERED! What about a str 5 ap1 weapon with rapid fire, for 1 POINT. Sure.
Colonel Cross wrote: We're all off track here, why aren't we petitioning GW to bring back lasguns for SGTs?!
All the YES. (and for the other officers too, so I can have a real rifle company!)
Anyway, back to the OP. Is the problem with Guard, the Guardsman; do they really do that much in any game? Mostly they just seem to die and maybe hold and objective while the rest of the army actually kills stuff.
Kanluwen wrote: GSC also is able to 'tank' wounds for nearby characters
Only used in combat because a meat shield surrounding a character is all the tanking they tend to need from shooting.
Kanluwen wrote: or become immune to Morale. Not to mention they arguably get more weapon options and they have an alternative deployment method.
You're bringing in other factors again. Something that is both unhelpful and spins an untrue narrative.
Kanluwen wrote: Also able to be immune to morale simply by virtue of placement.
No, not by placement but by having another model that grants this. Again, we're supposed to be ignoring outside factors because it massively skews things.
Kanluwen wrote: Rangers and Fire Warriors are also a point higher of save with 6" longer range on their weapons.
You see, it's throwaway, stupid comments like this that really don't encourage a discussion. WHY am I wrong? Provide some evidence to back up your flat statement. Don't just throw out a ton of evidence and make a statement with no evidence to back up your reasoning.
As Xeno said earlier, the comparison to Gaunts, if they are 4ppm also, is a massive tell that Guardsmen are too cheap. They are objectively better in almost every way.
Colonel Cross wrote: We're all off track here, why aren't we petitioning GW to bring back lasguns for SGTs?!
It's kinda hilarious that you can give them a FRICKIN BOLTER, but not a lasgun. A Bolter would throw a normal human on his butt after each shot, and forget about repeated rapid fire use. But no, a Lasgun is TOO MUCH GUN FOR A SGT! He'd BE OVERPOWERED! What about a str 5 ap1 weapon with rapid fire, for 1 POINT. Sure.
Eh what boltgun are you using thats S5 AP-1 as my marines need to have words with the mechanics as they only got S4 AP0 bolters
JNAProductions wrote: Saying something doesn't need to be nerfed is saying that it's at a good balance point-meaning that more things should be in line with Guard (able to field many different builds and still do well, and an actual choice between various chapter tactics, for instance).
Is that incorrect? Should we balance at where Grey Knights are, instead? Or should we balance to where soup is?
No-one is suggesting that Guard receive the Grey Knight treatment or that Grey Knights are in a good place.
I don't think increasing the cost of Guardsmen to 5ppm would do much to hurt Guard players. I don't think their codex is amazingly well balanced internally either. What place to Conscripts have when they cost the same amount of points as a Guardsman who is objectively better? They literally serve no purpose.
Kanluwen wrote: GSC also is able to 'tank' wounds for nearby characters
Only used in combat because a meat shield surrounding a character is all the tanking they tend to need from shooting.
Kanluwen wrote: or become immune to Morale. Not to mention they arguably get more weapon options and they have an alternative deployment method.
You're bringing in other factors again. Something that is both unhelpful and spins an untrue narrative.
Kanluwen wrote: Also able to be immune to morale simply by virtue of placement.
No, not by placement but by having another model that grants this. Again, we're supposed to be ignoring outside factors because it massively skews things.
Kanluwen wrote: Rangers and Fire Warriors are also a point higher of save with 6" longer range on their weapons.
You see, it's throwaway, stupid comments like this that really don't encourage a discussion. WHY am I wrong? Provide some evidence to back up your flat statement. Don't just throw out a ton of evidence and make a statement with no evidence to back up your reasoning.
As Xeno said earlier, the comparison to Gaunts, if they are 4ppm also, is a massive tell that Guardsmen are too cheap. They are objectively better in almost every way.
He's a guard apologist.
It's becoming all those facts do fit my narative time to break out the fake news excuses.
Next he'll be blaming guard going to 5ppm on the lizard people at GW spreading Xeno loving Guard hating propaganda due to incompetent marine player whinging.
It's becoming all those facts do fit my narative time to break out the fake news excuses.
Next he'll be blaming guard going to 5ppm on the lizard people at GW spreading Xeno loving Guard hating propaganda due to incompetent marine player whinging.
I lol'd.
The lizard people aren't pleasant though, to be fair.
Kanluwen wrote: GSC also is able to 'tank' wounds for nearby characters
Only used in combat because a meat shield surrounding a character is all the tanking they tend to need from shooting.
Kanluwen wrote: or become immune to Morale. Not to mention they arguably get more weapon options and they have an alternative deployment method.
You're bringing in other factors again. Something that is both unhelpful and spins an untrue narrative.
Kanluwen wrote: Also able to be immune to morale simply by virtue of placement.
No, not by placement but by having another model that grants this. Again, we're supposed to be ignoring outside factors because it massively skews things.
Kanluwen wrote: Rangers and Fire Warriors are also a point higher of save with 6" longer range on their weapons.
You see, it's throwaway, stupid comments like this that really don't encourage a discussion. WHY am I wrong? Provide some evidence to back up your flat statement. Don't just throw out a ton of evidence and make a statement with no evidence to back up your reasoning.
As Xeno said earlier, the comparison to Gaunts, if they are 4ppm also, is a massive tell that Guardsmen are too cheap. They are objectively better in almost every way.
To add to this, Guard have plenty of ways to buff their infantry,
- They can take Vox-casters
- They can get better morale (previously morale immunity but that was nerfed, which might indicate the future of GSC)
- Psychic morale immunity
- A stratagem to reduce morale loss (and not the BRB one)
- Orders (FRFSRF is the Guard's bread and butter)
- A stratagem to merge squads together
-etc..
which kanluwen always downplays while simultaneously arguing that being able to pay for a cult icon is worth a full point, but being able to take a vox caster is not.
And if you bring any of these up he says they're not worth it and then accuses you of not playing Guard, before finally saying you're just wrong with no further explanation.
Kanluwen wrote: GSC also is able to 'tank' wounds for nearby characters
Only used in combat because a meat shield surrounding a character is all the tanking they tend to need from shooting.
Sniper weapons exist. As does positioning and alternate deployment methods.
It's amazing how you're trying to just downplay what is a huge benefit for an army that relies on its characters for auras.
Kanluwen wrote: or become immune to Morale. Not to mention they arguably get more weapon options and they have an alternative deployment method.
You're bringing in other factors again. Something that is both unhelpful and spins an untrue narrative.
Do they or do they not get these things? Alternate deployment methods ARE factored into points costs when they're just baked in.
Kanluwen wrote: Also able to be immune to morale simply by virtue of placement.
No, not by placement but by having another model that grants this. Again, we're supposed to be ignoring outside factors because it massively skews things.
It really doesn't. When people try to argue crap about Orders, that's another model granting a onetime buff.
Auras are a different kettle of fish entirely. They're on until the character granting them is dead.
Kanluwen wrote: Rangers and Fire Warriors are also a point higher of save with 6" longer range on their weapons.
I read, again, they're almost twice the cost.
With notable improvements over the basic Guardsman and some fairly impressive options that affect them(Markerlights for Fire Warriors and Omnispex for Rangers...unless you want to claim that a 0 Rend weapon getting to ignore the effects of Cover isn't a big deal?).
They also start out at half the unit size and can be bolstered up, while still having effectively the same amount of specialty items as the Guard Squad can.
But you'll probably just play that off as "outside factors".
You see, it's throwaway, stupid comments like this that really don't encourage a discussion. WHY am I wrong? Provide some evidence to back up your flat statement. Don't just throw out a ton of evidence and make a statement with no evidence to back up your reasoning.
You know what else doesn't encourage a discussion? The same people continually trying to justify their reasonings while not actually knowing what they're talking about. People who want to claim that you have to "ignore outside factors" while wanting to talk about them when it suits their argument.
You want to have a productive discussion with me? Show me what you think a Guard army is supposed to be like on the tabletop. Write up an army list. Then come back and we'll talk.
As Xeno said earlier, the comparison to Gaunts, if they are 4ppm also, is a massive tell that Guardsmen are too cheap. They are objectively better in almost every way.
They're also wildly different in terms of how they function thanks to those wonderful "outside factors" you're trying to tell people they need to ignore.
Guard need a Psyker to make them immune to Morale, Tyranids just need a Synapse critter in range. Guard can't ever benefit from FRFSRF at 100% efficiency thanks to their Sergeants having no option for the same weapon as their squad...do Gaunts have that same issue?(no) Guard can't benefit from more than one Order except with two specific circumstances: a Relic and Warlord trait--one provides an additional Order to the Ordered unit on a 4+ and one allows for the Order to affect a second unit of the same type[Infantry or Tank] on a 4+.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/07 21:08:25
Guard need a Psyker to make them immune to Morale, Tyranids just need a Synapse critter in range.
Guard can't ever benefit from FRFSRF at 100% efficiency thanks to their Sergeants having no option for the same weapon as their squad...do Gaunts have that same issue?(no)
Guard can't benefit from more than one Order except with two specific circumstances: a Relic and Warlord trait--one provides an additional Order to the Ordered unit on a 4+ and one allows for the Order to affect a second unit of the same type[Infantry or Tank] on a 4+.
The synapse creature pays for the synapse. If it's unbalanced then you adjust the synapse creature, not the receivers of the synapse.
So we give sergeants lasguns. yay.
It's a good thing Guard commanders are cheap. For 150 pts (3 CC and 3 PC) and a trait, Guard can buff 10 squads up to 18" away, one of which can be a merged squad.
To add to this, Guard have plenty of ways to buff their infantry, - They can take Vox-casters
Only work if the Officer issuing Orders is also within range of one, additionally Vox-Casters are limited to certain units out of the roster and their effect is not an aura.
- They can get better morale (previously morale immunity but that was nerfed, which might indicate the future of GSC)
We would have seen it in Chapter Approved last year.
Also, it still is a mandatory reroll for the morale test. Seen many Commissars lately?
- Psychic morale immunity
So, something that can be Denied. Cool.
- A stratagem to reduce morale loss (and not the BRB one)
You roll a D3 instead of a D6. Yeah, it's nice--but it's no immunity.
- Orders (FRFSRF is the Guard's bread and butter)
12" range without extending Warlord Trait or a Vox-Caster and only applies one Order to one unit at a time, automatically at a 90% effectiveness since Sergeants/Tempestors have no Lasgun or Hotshot Lasguns. Degrades by 10% every time you add a Special or Heavy Weapon in the squad.
- A stratagem to merge squads together
Incorrect. It is a Stratagem to put two Infantry Squads(it's specific to that datasheet, you can't merge Scions, Heavy Weapon Squads, Special Weapon Squads, Ratling Squads, or Veterans or anything else).
This is what I'm talking about when I mention the whole "people who misrepresent information", I might add.
-etc..
Super helpful.
which kanluwen always downplays while simultaneously arguing that being able to pay for a cult icon is worth a full point, but being able to take a vox caster is not. And if you bring any of these up he says they're not worth it and then accuses you of not playing Guard, before finally saying you're just wrong with no further explanation.
Yeah, no. Vox-Casters are worth it and have been since the removal of the nonsensical requirement to "roll to cast your Order!".
And to be brutally honest, when you're repeating the same argument repeatedly to certain people? There's no reason to give "further explanation". They know they're wrong, they know they've been proven wrong in the past but they'll just keep repeating it and there's no reason to clog up the thread with anything but "you're wrong".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/07 21:24:53
Kanluwen wrote: People who want to claim that you have to "ignore outside factors" while wanting to talk about them when it suits their argument.
You just described yourself. You consistently bring up outside factors for termagants, GSC or whatever while ignoring FRFSRF because sergeants and order numbers. Orders exist so if you bring in synapse and whatnot you need to prove that synapse is sooo superior to orders that the receiving unit must pay for it but Guard infantry should not also pay for orders.
Guard need a Psyker to make them immune to Morale, Tyranids just need a Synapse critter in range.
Guard can't ever benefit from FRFSRF at 100% efficiency thanks to their Sergeants having no option for the same weapon as their squad...do Gaunts have that same issue?(no)
Guard can't benefit from more than one Order except with two specific circumstances: a Relic and Warlord trait--one provides an additional Order to the Ordered unit on a 4+ and one allows for the Order to affect a second unit of the same type[Infantry or Tank] on a 4+.
The synapse creature pays for the synapse. If it's unbalanced then you adjust the synapse creature, not the receivers of the synapse.
And yet we had Conscripts changed to only receive Orders on a 4+...
So we give sergeants lasguns. yay.
It's a good thing Guard commanders are cheap. For 150 pts (3 CC and 3 PC) and a trait, Guard can buff 10 squads up to 18" away, one of which can be a merged squad.
So in order for your thing to work:
You need to be playing Cadians and you need to have Vox-Casters on every squad.
So your 150 pts just morphed to 200pts.
Kanluwen wrote: People who want to claim that you have to "ignore outside factors" while wanting to talk about them when it suits their argument.
You just described yourself. You consistently bring up outside factors for termagants, GSC or whatever while ignoring FRFSRF because sergeants and order numbers. Orders exist so if you bring in synapse and whatnot you need to prove that synapse is sooo superior to orders that the receiving unit must pay for it but Guard infantry should not also pay for orders.
You've claimed that I "downplay it" but realistically if you're going to argue that FRFSRF is such a huge factor for Infantry Squads that we need to see a point increase on them, you can bet that I'll point out that Sergeants are immediately contributing to a degradation of the Order's effectiveness and that Orders have a finite number in the army.
A Cadian army is more likely to be issuing "Take Aim!" to its Infantry Squads that remain stationary, since that affects all weapons in the squad and allows them to reroll all failed to hit rolls.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/07 21:32:42
Bring enough guns so you don't have to choose between the 1st knight and the 2nd knight. [LIST BUILDING]
Tyel wrote: There is how to abuse the assault rules optimally.
Need to bring units that can effectively "abuse" assault rule (not sure why you're saying it's abuse when it's RAW and not any form of exploitation of rules..) [LIST BUILDING]
Tyel wrote: There is remembering the objectives and whether you push them, or don't.
One of the few existing tactics left in the game. Usually irrelevant because table wipe happens before VP from objectives matter.
Tyel wrote: The game is about stacking the odds in your favour.
As you've agreed, [LIST BUILDING]
Don't get me wrong. There are plenty decisions that needs to be made in game. But win/loss largely (by a near 99% margin) depends on list building.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/07 21:43:19
Kanluwen wrote: Sniper weapons exist. As does positioning and alternate deployment methods.
It's amazing how you're trying to just downplay what is a huge benefit for an army that relies on its characters for auras.
Sniper weapons don't exist across every faction, I don't see them in mine for example. Most of my friends' snipers don't seem to achieve much. Positioning? It's not hard to block a character from shooting. What exactly do you mean by 'alternate deployment methods'? Turn 2 DS and the like? It's really not difficult to screen it out.
I think you're really, really overplaying this, personally.
Kanluwen wrote: Do they or do they not get these things? Alternate deployment methods ARE factored into points costs when they're just baked in.
They don't get all the things you mentioned for free, no. "More weapon options" isn't necessarily a benefit.
Kanluwen wrote: It really doesn't. When people try to argue crap about Orders, that's another model granting a onetime buff.
Auras are a different kettle of fish entirely. They're on until the character granting them is dead.
It absolutely does skew things. You're purposefully doing it here to try and justify your position.
Kanluwen wrote: With notable improvements over the basic Guardsman and some fairly impressive options that affect them(Markerlights for Fire Warriors and Omnispex for Rangers...unless you want to claim that a 0 Rend weapon getting to ignore the effects of Cover isn't a big deal?).
They also start out at half the unit size and can be bolstered up, while still having effectively the same amount of specialty items as the Guard Squad can.
"Notable improvements" meaning 4+ save and worse WS? A better gun? Anything else that's actually built into the unit and not an outside factor? Not sure on the relevance of the unit size for this comparison?
Kanluwen wrote: But you'll probably just play that off as "outside factors".
Nope, just irrelevant and/or false.
Kanluwen wrote: You know what else doesn't encourage a discussion? The same people continually trying to justify their reasonings while not actually knowing what they're talking about. People who want to claim that you have to "ignore outside factors" while wanting to talk about them when it suits their argument.
I have done neither, I've followed this thread for a while, watched it devolve into a mess and decided to offer a solution to help shed light rather than have people just throw gak at each other. I have ignored outside factors for every comparison because that is objective and I believe it is far more clear.
Kanluwen wrote: You want to have a productive discussion with me? Show me what you think a Guard army is supposed to be like on the tabletop. Write up an army list. Then come back and we'll talk.
What on Earth has this got to do with whether Guardsmen should be 5ppm or not? We're talking about a specific unit, not an army list or build. Frankly I couldn't care less how a Guard army "looks" or is "supposed to be", that's up to the player.
Kanluwen wrote: They're also wildly different in terms of how they function thanks to those wonderful "outside factors" you're trying to tell people they need to ignore.
We can include function if you wish but I don't think it will go well for anyone claiming that Guardsmen are at the right points level. As I said in my first post, my belief is that they are, point for point, the most efficient and effective objective holder in the game right now bar none. Holding objectives literally wins games.
Kanluwen wrote: Guard need a Psyker to make them immune to Morale, Tyranids just need a Synapse critter in range.
Guard can't ever benefit from FRFSRF at 100% efficiency thanks to their Sergeants having no option for the same weapon as their squad...do Gaunts have that same issue?(no)
Guard can't benefit from more than one Order except with two specific circumstances: a Relic and Warlord trait--one provides an additional Order to the Ordered unit on a 4+ and one allows for the Order to affect a second unit of the same type[Infantry or Tank] on a 4+.
I'm not sure why you're talking about orders and synapse when I've repeatedly asked you to discuss only the units and their stats in a vacuum? I know you might not be used to it. You might not even think it's useful. But why not humour me?
Only work if the Officer issuing Orders is also within range of one, additionally Vox-Casters are limited to certain units out of the roster and their effect is not an aura.
So? They can take them and they do buff guard. I never claimed otherwise.
Watch this: Synapse isn't good because if you leave synapse range your units just suck.
We would have seen it in Chapter Approved last year.
Also, it still is a mandatory reroll for the morale test. Seen many Commissars lately?
Or in their shiny new codex right?
It's an optional roll now. Talk about misinformation
So, something that can be Denied. Cool.
Remember that thing I said about you downplaying things?
You roll a D3 instead of a D6. Yeah, it's nice--but it's no immunity.
Never said immunity. But again, you downplay it despite it being a legit buff. For this list you should consider a yes/no question. is it a buff or not?
12" range without extending Warlord Trait or a Vox-Caster and only applies one Order to one unit at a time, automatically at a 90% effectiveness since Sergeants/Tempestors have no Lasgun or Hotshot Lasguns. Degrades by 10% every time you add a Special or Heavy Weapon in the squad.
More downplaying. FRFSRF is objectively good. Sergeants should get lasguns so that would solve that. There's also "move, move, move" "get back in the fight" etc... that really really boost Guard options.
Incorrect. It is a Stratagem to put two Infantry Squads(it's specific to that datasheet, you can't merge Scions, Heavy Weapon Squads, Special Weapon Squads, Ratling Squads, or Veterans or anything else).
What are you? A lawyer? In the context of the discussion I assumed you would understand it as "Infantry Squad". I guess I should run my posts by an editor first.
This is what I'm talking about when I mention the whole "people who misrepresent information", I might add.
*looks at point 2* hmmm...
-etc..
Super helpful.
ditto
Yeah, no. Vox-Casters are worth it and have been since the removal of the nonsensical requirement to "roll to cast your Order!".
Hmm, I seem to remember you downplaying the worth of vox-casters. Maybe I interpolated your stance a tad too far.
And to be brutally honest, when you're repeating the same argument repeatedly to certain people? There's no reason to give "further explanation". They know they're wrong, they know they've been proven wrong in the past but they'll just keep repeating it and there's no reason to clog up the thread with anything but "you're wrong".
Then maybe you should consider a new argument? Or maybe consider that your argument is at least partly wrong?