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.

This is exactly 7th ed eldar apologist logic and its nauseating.

 Kanluwen wrote:

And yet we had Conscripts changed to only receive Orders on a 4+...

Yeah, and it didn't solve the problem. It wasn't until commissars were nerfed that conscripts were actually nerfed. Thanks for proving my point.

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.

Your honor! This is misinformation!
- Master of Command gives you +1 order, and is available to everyone.
- the 150 pts is just the commanders. You can pay for vox-casters if you want them, perhaps I should have said "potentially up to 18" "

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.

You really should keep track of what is an argument and what is a counter argument. YOU claimed (or at least strongly insinuated) that outside buffs should be considered in the cost of units, such as termagants. I was merely applying that logic to Guard to show it's absurdity.

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.

So an order was exchanged for another better order, and this proves what?. but that's still Cadians, I'm sure Steel Legion would rather FRFSRF.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
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.

My bad, I thought termagaunts were 3 points.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss the fire warrior and skitarii ranger comparisons simply because they are "more expensive".

If guardsmen were 5 points, do you really think a 4+ save, a 6++, an extra 6" on their gun, +1 S on their gun, and 3+ BS are worth 2 points? - Ranger

If guardsmen were 5 points, do you really think a 4+ save, an extra 6" on their gun, +2 S on their gun, and tougher moral is worth -1 WS and 2 points? -Fire Warrior

I don't see anyone claiming fire warriors or rangers are OP. Unless you are, but at that point if every faction's basic infantry is "OP" to you maybe you should consider that what you think is "OP" is wrong. SM and GK are comically, comically bad this edition, and they should not be considered as a fair "balancing point".

Maybe termagaunts should be 3 points instead of 4.

Maybe grots should be 2 points?

Additionally, 5ppm won't hurt guard CP batteries, as they buy the minimum amount of IS squads to achieve the CP points, but it will hurt mono-guard players like me, who are looking at roughly 20 less bodies in my 2,000 pt list and I don't even play an infantry heavy list. Going from 4ppm to 5ppm is a 25% increase in cost.

w1zard wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
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.

My bad, I thought termagaunts were 3 points.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss the fire warrior and skitarii ranger comparisons simply because they are "more expensive".

If guardsmen were 5 points, do you really think a 4+ save, a 6++, an extra 6" on their gun, +1 S on their gun, and 3+ BS are worth 2 points? - Ranger
Rangers should probably be 8ppm as even vrs the other 7ppm firewarriors they have advantages for no points cost.
At 8pp vrs 5ppm Guardsmen yeah that's pretty fair IMHO
If guardsmen were 5 points, do you really think a 4+ save, an extra 6" on their gun, +2 S on their gun, and tougher moral is worth -1 WS and 2 points? -Fire Warrior
Yes as the only thing you've brought up is moral but much like marines even with their lower leadership as they are mainly taken MSU without some other leadership countering HQ so like ATSKNF it never comes into play people over kill the squad or ignore them.

I don't see anyone claiming fire warriors or rangers are OP. Unless you are, but at that point if every faction's basic infantry is "OP" to you maybe you should consider that what you think is "OP" is wrong.

Maybe termagaunts should be 3 points instead of 4.

Maybe grots should be 2 points?

Additionally, 5ppm won't hurt guard CP batteries, as they buy the minimum amount of IS squads to achieve the CP points, but it will hurt mono-guard players like me, who are looking at roughly 20 less bodies in my 2,000 pt list and I don't even play an infantry heavy list.

Why do you keep bringing up CP batteries thats not the point of 5ppm Guardsmen it that with a 5+Sv and no decent any horde weapons they can just camp ovjectives and win games.
Nothing in the game counters them effectively that guard cant just out shoot while outsurving them point for point.
Infantry Squads are better than 4ppm units
Infantry Squads are better than Firewarriors at 4ppm and 7ppm respectively.
Infantry Squads are better than everything that competes with them for obsec objective camping

w1zard wrote:
My bad, I thought termagaunts were 3 points.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss the fire warrior and skitarii ranger comparisons simply because they are "more expensive".

If guardsmen were 5 points, do you really think a 4+ save, a 6++, an extra 6" on their gun, +1 S on their gun, and 3+ BS are worth 2 points? - Ranger

If guardsmen were 5 points, do you really think a 4+ save, an extra 6" on their gun, +2 S on their gun, and tougher moral is worth -1 WS and 2 points? -Fire Warrior

I don't see anyone claiming fire warriors or rangers are OP. Unless you are, but at that point if every faction's basic infantry is "OP" to you maybe you should consider that what you think is "OP" is wrong.

Maybe termagaunts should be 3 points instead of 4.

Maybe grots should be 2 points?

Additionally, 5ppm won't hurt guard CP batteries, as they buy the minimum amount of IS squads to achieve the CP points, but it will hurt mono-guard players like me, who are looking at roughly 20 less bodies in my 2,000 pt list and I don't even play an infantry heavy list.

I mean, the Fire Warrior and Skit Ranger are almost twice the cost. So for every one of those bodies I have 2 Guardsmen near as damn it. That's a pretty big differential.
To answer your specific questions though - perhaps Rangers are also too cheap but because they still cost 7 pts they aren't spammed as much? I think the 6++ save is a bit of a red herring, it'll very rarely come into play. I wouldn't think of the 4+, extra 6" and STR on their weapon and 3+ BS as "worth 2 points" but instead as a percentage increase, they're 140% of the cost or a 40% increase which sounds a lot more reasonable.
The same goes for the Fire Warrior.

We're not here to discuss whether the Fire Warrior or Rangers are "OP" or not. We're not here to discuss whether Guardsmen are OP or not. We're here to discuss whether Guardsmen are appropriately priced for their stats and whether their price should increase to 5ppm.

5ppm won't hurt mono-guard players too much I don't think. 20% less bodies won't hurt and I'm sure you'll find other efficiencies elsewhere to make up for the shortfall.

Soup and CP batteries is another mess entirely that probably deserves it's own thread. I'm not a fan. But that's not a topic for discussion here.

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

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.

What's Synapse range again? What all grants Synapse?

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

You're right, they changed it as of April 16th. That's my bad.

Doesn't change my point about seeing Commissars though.

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?

It being a buff doesn't change that it's not as impressive as some stuff that existed.

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.

So downplaying, in your mind, is stating a fact? Good to know.

FRFSRF is objectively good. Sergeants should get lasguns so that would solve that.

FRFSRF is objectively good when you're running Conscripts as part of an allied contingent or running bare Infantry Squads as meatshields--or There's also "move, move, move" "get back in the fight" etc... that really really boost Guard options.

w1zard wrote:

My bad, I thought termagaunts were 3 points.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss the fire warrior and skitarii ranger comparisons simply because they are "more expensive".

If guardsmen were 5 points, do you really think a 4+ save, a 6++, an extra 6" on their gun, +1 S on their gun, and 3+ BS are worth two points? - Ranger

If guardsmen were 5 points, do you really think a 4+ save, an extra 6" on their gun, +2 S on their gun, and tougher moral is worth -1 WS and 2 points? -Fire Warrior

I don't see anyone claiming fire warriors or rangers are OP. Unless you are, but at that point if every faction's basic infantry is "OP" to you maybe you should consider that what you think is "OP" is wrong.

Maybe termagaunts should be 3 points instead of 4.

Mathematically and in a vacuum, 5pt guard are about on par when fighting 7pt fire warriors. Those 2 pts represent a 40% increase in cost, which is like the difference between a tactical marine and an intercessor, which accounts for +1 wound, +1 attack and +1 AP.

Durability-wise (with 5pt guard):
With 40 botlgun hits
- Kills 13.33 FW = 93 pts
- Kills 17.77 Guard= 89 pts
So per point they are equivalent

Shooting wise:
-It takes 4.5 (31.5 pts) FW to kill 1 GEQ
-It takes 6 (30pts) Guard to kill 1 GEQ
Again, equivalent

However, against marines:
- It takes 9 FW (63 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
- It takes 18 Guard ( 90 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
Guard lose out. They still have access to special weapons and FW have a turret.
- 5 FW+1 SMS (50 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
- 7 guard+1plasma+1HB (50 pts) to kill 1 MEQ

I'm fine with this.

Martel732 wrote:
This is exactly 7th ed eldar apologist logic and its nauseating.

No you see the scat-bike might be double the points of a tactical marine, but with jink, and a 4 shot S6 gun, and that free move, and really fast movement generally, you know, its the same.

Look Eldar might have made up 30% of all tournament lists.
But they didn't win every single tournament ever.
So its fine.

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And yet we had Conscripts changed to only receive Orders on a 4+...

Yeah, and it didn't solve the problem. It wasn't until commissars were nerfed that conscripts were actually nerfed. Thanks for proving my point.

Except remember that the solutions came at the same time. Commissars got nerfed not long after the book dropped, and the book dropping is what added the Orders on a 4+.

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.

Your honor! This is misinformation!
- Master of Command gives you +1 order, and is available to everyone.
- the 150 pts is just the commanders. You can pay for vox-casters if you want them, perhaps I should have said "potentially up to 18" "

My bad, I was assuming that you'd go for more Order synergy via Cadians and their "4+ gives two units the same Order instead of 1 unit getting 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.

You really should keep track of what is an argument and what is a counter argument. YOU claimed (or at least strongly insinuated) that outside buffs should be considered in the cost of units, such as termagants. I was merely applying that logic to Guard to show it's absurdity.

I think you're misunderstanding my argument in this case.

I'm trying to say that you shouldn't factor out Auras when it comes to pointing things. You can always rely on an aura being active, as long as you're in range. You cannot always rely on a specific Order's effectiveness being present since Infantry Squads are effectively in the same boat as a Tactical Squad when it comes to loadouts.

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.

So an order was exchanged for another better order, and this proves what?. but that's still Cadians, I'm sure Steel Legion would rather FRFSRF.

"Take Aim" is reroll 1s to Hits.
Cadians get a Regimental bonus where if the unit remains stationary, it gets to reroll all to Hits instead.

Steel Legion would more likely use their own Order("Mount Up!"--fire and then embark), assuming they didn't Disembark that turn.
Mordians are more likely to use their own Order, "Form Firing Squad!"(can target characters with Rapid Fire weapons even if not the closest unit)

There's quite a few Regimental specific Orders that give a bit more benefit in certain circumstances than FRFSRF.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Steel Legion would more likely use their own Order("Mount Up!"--fire and then embark), assuming they didn't Disembark that turn.
Mordians are more likely to use their own Order, "Form Firing Squad!"(can target characters with Rapid Fire weapons even if not the closest unit)

There's quite a few Regimental specific Orders that give a bit more benefit in certain circumstances than FRFSRF.

i've got things to do so I'll just reply to this:
Steel Legion in all likelihood will use FRFSRF more than mount up because you cannot disembark and use the order. So they will disembark, FRFSRF, try to survive then mount up. And if they die then no mount up at all.
In case you couldn't tell I love playing Steel Legion, 18" rapid fire is just sooo good. Now, maybe this has skewed my perception of FRFSRF, but it's hard to tell.

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Steel Legion would more likely use their own Order("Mount Up!"--fire and then embark), assuming they didn't Disembark that turn.
Mordians are more likely to use their own Order, "Form Firing Squad!"(can target characters with Rapid Fire weapons even if not the closest unit)

There's quite a few Regimental specific Orders that give a bit more benefit in certain circumstances than FRFSRF.

i've got things to do so I'll just reply to this:
Steel Legion in all likelihood will use FRFSRF more than mount up because you cannot disembark and use the order. So they will disembark, FRFSRF, try to survive then mount up. And if they die then no mount up at all.
In case you couldn't tell I love playing Steel Legion, 18" rapid fire is just sooo good. Now, maybe this has skewed my perception of FRFSRF, but it's hard to tell.

There's a reason why I put the caveat of "Assuming they didn't Disembark that turn".

I think it's important to remember that I'm not arguing that FRFSRF isn't good--but it isn't the end all, be all it used to be.

Asmodios wrote:

Yeah, when I don't have good points I just start telling people they should be banned for disagreeing with me.

You've been disagreeing with me for days, and I've been disagreeing with others on here for years. I said you should be banned for disrupting discussion, something entirely different and something you are purposefully doing now.

Asmodios wrote:
If finishing 20th at a GT makes your army broken every army in the game is.

Guard didn't finish 20th tho. They finished 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and three other places in the top 10.

You said armies taking an allied detachment don't count - that's the only reason we are looking at this 20th placing to begin with. 20 armies did not beat them without the use of allies, so by your own measure, that makes IG a top 2 placing by your own ridiculous arbitrary restrictions, that have zero basis in how this game is actually played, and TBH reflect nothing competitively.

Without your restrictions Guard were even more dominant. You have talked yourself into this hole, don't try and argue out of it by acting as though it makes any sense to argue that Guard is weak, just because mixing 3 other dexes together in one army placed higher than SOLO Guard, while excluding all allied detachment of Guard or even Guard primary's from the discussion if they included even a single ally. You keep whining about Nurgle, so apply the same standards, and compare how high the solo Nurgle did to Guard. There is nothing even remotely resembling objectivity here.

As others have said, you are just being absurd. You know you're wrong, we know you're wrong, even other Guard players have agreed you're wrong. Nothing you are saying is even making sense anymore. Your low level understanding of this game has collapsed beneath stronger logic. So now you're relying on gak like this:

Asmodios wrote:
Please post pics of all your first place finishes I’d love to see them

Really? this is the prerequisite for him having an opinion now? You mind matching that same requirement first, before continuing to talk on the exact same topic he is? Sounds like you just don't like what he's saying, I don't blame you because your second grader logic is not withstanding any sort of scrutiny here

Dandelion wrote:
Mathematically and in a vacuum, 5pt guard are about on par when fighting 7pt fire warriors. Those 2 pts represent a 40% increase in cost, which is like the difference between a tactical marine and an intercessor, which accounts for +1 wound, +1 attack and +1 AP.

Durability-wise (with 5pt guard):
With 40 botlgun hits
- Kills 13.33 FW = 93 pts
- Kills 17.77 Guard= 89 pts
So per point they are equivalent

Shooting wise:
-It takes 4.5 (31.5 pts) FW to kill 1 GEQ
-It takes 6 (30pts) Guard to kill 1 GEQ
Again, equivalent

However, against marines:
- It takes 9 FW (63 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
- It takes 18 Guard ( 90 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
Guard lose out. They still have access to special weapons and FW have a turret.
- 5 FW+1 SMS (50 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
- 7 guard+1plasma+1HB (50 pts) to kill 1 MEQ

I'm fine with this.

Math checks out, fair enough.

But, you are forgetting that fire warriors have better morale then guardsmen due to bonding knife ritual.

Also, if guardsmen go up to 5 pts, then GSC will have to be nerfed as they will be pretty much guardsmen +1L and with better deployment options for the same price.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I mean, the Fire Warrior and Skit Ranger are almost twice the cost. So for every one of those bodies I have 2 Guardsmen near as damn it. That's a pretty big differential.
To answer your specific questions though - perhaps Rangers are also too cheap but because they still cost 7 pts they aren't spammed as much? I think the 6++ save is a bit of a red herring, it'll very rarely come into play. I wouldn't think of the 4+, extra 6" and STR on their weapon and 3+ BS as "worth 2 points" but instead as a percentage increase, they're 140% of the cost or a 40% increase which sounds a lot more reasonable.
The same goes for the Fire Warrior.

We're not here to discuss whether the Fire Warrior or Rangers are "OP" or not. We're not here to discuss whether Guardsmen are OP or not. We're here to discuss whether Guardsmen are appropriately priced for their stats and whether their price should increase to 5ppm.

5ppm won't hurt mono-guard players too much I don't think. 20% less bodies won't hurt and I'm sure you'll find other efficiencies elsewhere to make up for the shortfall.

Soup and CP batteries is another mess entirely that probably deserves it's own thread. I'm not a fan. But that's not a topic for discussion here.

See my post above.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Steel Legion would more likely use their own Order("Mount Up!"--fire and then embark), assuming they didn't Disembark that turn.
Mordians are more likely to use their own Order, "Form Firing Squad!"(can target characters with Rapid Fire weapons even if not the closest unit)

There's quite a few Regimental specific Orders that give a bit more benefit in certain circumstances than FRFSRF.

i've got things to do so I'll just reply to this:
Steel Legion in all likelihood will use FRFSRF more than mount up because you cannot disembark and use the order. So they will disembark, FRFSRF, try to survive then mount up. And if they die then no mount up at all.
In case you couldn't tell I love playing Steel Legion, 18" rapid fire is just sooo good. Now, maybe this has skewed my perception of FRFSRF, but it's hard to tell.

There's a reason why I put the caveat of "Assuming they didn't Disembark that turn".

I think it's important to remember that I'm not arguing that FRFSRF isn't good--but it isn't the end all, be all it used to be.

When Lasguns are better than ever, I'd say yes it's the be-all-end-all.

 skchsan wrote:

Tyel wrote:
There is to hide or not hide behind LOS blocking blocks of polystyrene.

Bring LOS-ignoring weapons. [LIST BUILDING]

Tyel wrote:
There is where to deep strike.

Bring screens to deter deepstrike. [LIST BUILDING]

Tyel wrote:
There is target priority.

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.

It's 60% list building 35% dice 5% decision making.

You play with many lasguns, Slayer? Ever roll 100 lasgun attacks? Guess how many wounds you get, vs MEQ?

 greatbigtree wrote:
You play with many lasguns, Slayer? Ever roll 100 lasgun attacks? Guess how many wounds you get, vs MEQ?

Spoiler:

100/2/3/3 = 5.55. Usually, between 4 and 7 wounds. I usually take a Plasmagun, and a Heavy in my squads, so that leaves 6 guys with Lasguns to fire. Optimally, with everyone SOMEHOW within 12", that would require 5 squads, each with FRF, SRF active to accomplish that volume of firepower.

Assuming you had 2 squads in Rapid Fire range, and didn't take any upgrades, and you had 2 squads outside of Rapid Fire range, without upgrades, and issue FRF, SRF to all 4 squads, you'd have 108 shots.

Seriously, FRF SRF seems scary until you try to apply it in a game. I need to get 2 FULL units of Guardsmen within 12" of something, somehow, without them suffering casualties, and then another 2 FULL units of Guardsmen within 13 to 24 of the same target, somehow, without them suffering casualties, to reliably kill 5 MEQ, most of the time. 108 attacks to reliably kill 5 MEQ, in the open, no less.

Let's say Guardsmen are 5 points per model. That's 200 points of Dudes, plus another 60 points of non-upgraded commanders. 260 points. Going full optimization towards this endeavor. Drop them back to 4 points each, you're looking at 220 points, to reliably delete those 5 Marines, in the open, most of the time.

FRF, SRF makes lasguns NOT entirely, absolutely worthless. Without FRF, SRF, You'd need 70 Guardsmen, half in Rapid Fire range, to reliably inflict 5 wounds, most of the time, against MEQ in the open. 280 points of pure Guardsmen, no upgrades, to wipe a combat squad... standing in the open... having taken no casualties... and somehow getting 35 Guardsmen within 12" and LOS...

Guard are strong, but the belief they're somehow a magical army that winds up in these make-believe scenarios where they are at full strength in ideal circumstances, I think if you haven't tried it, you don't know what you're talking about.

You do understand how strong the Lasgun got straight from 7th to 8th, right? It wounds T5 on a 5+ now and, while talks of them killing tanks was greatly overstated, it allows them to actually put wounds on units they couldn't ever hurt before.

Tyel wrote:

 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.

Exactly.

Here's someone who understands who this game works, and of course Dakka comes in to tell him how wrong he is.

>YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY PLAY YOUR ARMIES JUST COPY PASTE LISTS

>WHY DO I KEEP LOSING


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
This is exactly 7th ed eldar apologist logic and its nauseating.

^^ this

Ok, so it now takes 100 shots to put 5 wounds on T5, instead of 200 shots... I wasn't actively attacking T5 with Lasguns anyhow. It was, and is, Hail Mary for the last wound on a squad.

It takes roughly 20 shots to put a wound on MEQ. So double tap range for a full squad, or FRF, SRF on a full squad at long range. If you have a pair of squads, without upgrades (which I don't use), otherwise, you're throwing all the lasgun shot from 3 squads, in hopes of getting one or two wounds to finish off a unit.

They're really not that amazing, unless you have 100 shots. At which point, you've amassed the incredible killing power of 4 Plasmaguns that hit on 3+ in double-tap range. Whoopee!

Ice_can wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 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

I'm sorry, I was wrong. I was thinking HBs, because I caught the dumb. But lore wise, and logic wise, it's still laughable. It's a great upgrade for the SGTs, but unless you gimp a spacemarine spru, they don't even make the parts for guardsmen to carry. Why do they list things that aren't technically possible? WHOS WRITING THIS CRAP?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY PLAY YOUR ARMIES JUST COPY PASTE LISTS

WHY DO I KEEP LOSING


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
This is exactly 7th ed eldar apologist logic and its nauseating.

^^ this

It's the same people that think they can play chess because they have the awesome queen, rooks, and bishops, but they forget about the pawns and the knights, and then loose. You have the play the game strategically. If you enter the match without 3 plans, your already loosing.

1. Plan overall - This will likely crash and fail after the first turn, but adapt!
2. Back up plan - this is your fall back option that you can throw out to upset the enemy strat. Flankers, DS, hell, have Creed and this plan basically writes itself. He's a walking backup plan.
3. End Game - What are you doing to win? Is this a points match, a mission, what? What is your purpose? Granted this is what most players start with, and go from. Which is why most people suck at this game.

In summation, I have seen GK players wipe the floor with Tau players who didn't prepare their backfield, I have seen AM players BARELY hold onto a victory point mission because they went off hunting instead of holding the victory point.

If you say this game has no strategy, I declare you are likely loosing most of your serious matches.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

It's the same people that think they can play chess because they have the awesome queen, rooks, and bishops, but they forget about the pawns and the knights, and then loose. You have the play the game strategically. If you enter the match without 3 plans, your already loosing.

1. Plan overall - This will likely crash and fail after the first turn, but adapt!
2. Back up plan - this is your fall back option that you can throw out to upset the enemy strat. Flankers, DS, hell, have Creed and this plan basically writes itself. He's a walking backup plan.
3. End Game - What are you doing to win? Is this a points match, a mission, what? What is your purpose? Granted this is what most players start with, and go from. Which is why most people suck at this game.

In summation, I have seen GK players wipe the floor with Tau players who didn't prepare their backfield, I have seen AM players BARELY hold onto a victory point mission because they went off hunting instead of holding the victory point.

If you say this game has no strategy, I declare you are likely loosing most of your serious matches.

Of course there's Strategy, every game has Strategy (from Tabletop to Monopoly).
Strategy is often decided at list building. In your case "Take ranged Tau units while covering our ass"

What the game doesn't have though, are Tactics; and the game sure does need more of them.
I personally think this lack of tactics on the tabletop is because of how homogenous every unit is aside from Strategems. Basically, for Tactical decisions Marines are the same as Imperial Guard aside from 'just shoot them with high shots vs shoot them with high ap'.

Aside from putting in a bunch of smaller, complex rulesets (ie, terrain rules and gun vs tag interactions) I don't think there can be room for actual Tactics.
All of this is compounded by the problem that your general player isn't willing to put effort in and learn rulesets. Heck, there were people complaining that the current ruleset is too hard and confusing!

 Eonfuzz wrote:

What the game doesn't have though, are Tactics; and the game sure does need more of them.
I personally think this lack of tactics on the tabletop is because of how homogenous every unit is aside from Strategems. Basically, for Tactical decisions Marines are the same as Imperial Guard aside from 'just shoot them with high shots vs shoot them with high ap'.

I somewhat disagree with your conclusion on homogenous units. The closer 2 units are to being the same, the more your decisions matter.

As an example:
I have Ork slugga boyz and my opponent has Fire Warriors. What are my options to engage? Do I sit back and shoot? No. I have to rush in and start chopping. My opponent on the other hand will only really have the option to run away.
This really illustrates my distaste for "hard counters". The more something counters another something, the less my decisions actually matter.

Compare this with 2 guard gunlines. If I go second and just sit back, I will lose. It's at this point that I will start maneuvering to increase my chances of winning while decreasing my opponent's chances. That said, more terrain interaction is a must for this to actually play out.

If you are familiar with "Wargame: Red Dragon", you would see that each faction has different flavors of essentially the same units. However, the interaction with LOS, cover, hiding etc... give the game huge tactical depth, and the minute differences between units can be exploited by clever deployment to gain an advantage over otherwise similar units.

Dandelion wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:

What the game doesn't have though, are Tactics; and the game sure does need more of them.
I personally think this lack of tactics on the tabletop is because of how homogenous every unit is aside from Strategems. Basically, for Tactical decisions Marines are the same as Imperial Guard aside from 'just shoot them with high shots vs shoot them with high ap'.

I somewhat disagree with your conclusion on homogenous units. The closer 2 units are to being the same, the more your decisions matter.

As an example:
I have Ork slugga boyz and my opponent has Fire Warriors. What are my options to engage? Do I sit back and shoot? No. I have to rush in and start chopping. My opponent on the other hand will only really have the option to run away.
This really illustrates my distaste for "hard counters". The more something counters another something, the less my decisions actually matter.

Compare this with 2 guard gunlines. If I go second and just sit back, I will lose. It's at this point that I will start maneuvering to increase my chances of winning while decreasing my opponent's chances. That said, more terrain interaction is a must for this to actually play out.

If you are familiar with "Wargame: Red Dragon", you would see that each faction has different flavors of essentially the same units. However, the interaction with LOS, cover, hiding etc... give the game huge tactical depth, and the minute differences between units can be exploited by clever deployment to gain an
advantage over otherwise similar units.

Perhaps I should rephrase myself, "Homogenous and Flat" units.
My issue is that every unit basically acts the same and has the same options as the other. Only varying by degrees of success.

Because of this, and the rather shallow ruleset, there is usually only a single Tactic in every situation that is just optimal. I would love to see more side tactics that have a 'ripple effect' on the way the game plays out, that may not be optimal at the time.
I'll have to take a look at "Wargame: Red Dragon", I haven't heard of it and I'd love to see how their system works.

FYI, it's a video game based on the Cold War so don't expect a rule set.

Guys math in a vacuum is 100% useless.

You must always take into consideration how that model interacts with it's faction, or you will never get usefull results.

I mean, if we look at them without army traits, stratagems and powers, then i guess that Dark Reapers and shining spears coild really use a buff, they are so UP on paper. Lol, silly GW how could they ever think that a 34 pt model with a single wound (at T3 nonetheless!!) could be ever worth taking, when tactical marines already show us that at 13 points you already need more than one wound?

Please GW buff Dark Reapers.

Since when were Shining Spears and Dark Reapers underpowered via MATH?

w1zard wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
Mathematically and in a vacuum, 5pt guard are about on par when fighting 7pt fire warriors. Those 2 pts represent a 40% increase in cost, which is like the difference between a tactical marine and an intercessor, which accounts for +1 wound, +1 attack and +1 AP.

Durability-wise (with 5pt guard):
With 40 botlgun hits
- Kills 13.33 FW = 93 pts
- Kills 17.77 Guard= 89 pts
So per point they are equivalent

Shooting wise:
-It takes 4.5 (31.5 pts) FW to kill 1 GEQ
-It takes 6 (30pts) Guard to kill 1 GEQ
Again, equivalent

However, against marines:
- It takes 9 FW (63 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
- It takes 18 Guard ( 90 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
Guard lose out. They still have access to special weapons and FW have a turret.
- 5 FW+1 SMS (50 pts) to kill 1 MEQ.
- 7 guard+1plasma+1HB (50 pts) to kill 1 MEQ

I'm fine with this.

Math checks out, fair enough.

But, you are forgetting that fire warriors have better morale then guardsmen due to bonding knife ritual.

Also, if guardsmen go up to 5 pts, then GSC will have to be nerfed as they will be pretty much guardsmen +1L and with better deployment options for the same price.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
I mean, the Fire Warrior and Skit Ranger are almost twice the cost. So for every one of those bodies I have 2 Guardsmen near as damn it. That's a pretty big differential.
To answer your specific questions though - perhaps Rangers are also too cheap but because they still cost 7 pts they aren't spammed as much? I think the 6++ save is a bit of a red herring, it'll very rarely come into play. I wouldn't think of the 4+, extra 6" and STR on their weapon and 3+ BS as "worth 2 points" but instead as a percentage increase, they're 140% of the cost or a 40% increase which sounds a lot more reasonable.
The same goes for the Fire Warrior.

We're not here to discuss whether the Fire Warrior or Rangers are "OP" or not. We're not here to discuss whether Guardsmen are OP or not. We're here to discuss whether Guardsmen are appropriately priced for their stats and whether their price should increase to 5ppm.

5ppm won't hurt mono-guard players too much I don't think. 20% less bodies won't hurt and I'm sure you'll find other efficiencies elsewhere to make up for the shortfall.

Soup and CP batteries is another mess entirely that probably deserves it's own thread. I'm not a fan. But that's not a topic for discussion here.

See my post above.

I'm not worried about the slightly better leadership for FW.

GSC don't "have to go up" and we're not here to discuss them.

So Cult Ambush and +1 Ld are worth nothing, but +1 WS is worth a point?

Spoletta wrote:
Guys math in a vacuum is 100% useless.

You must always take into consideration how that model interacts with it's faction, or you will never get usefull results.

I mean, if we look at them without army traits, stratagems and powers, then i guess that Dark Reapers and shining spears coild really use a buff, they are so UP on paper. Lol, silly GW how could they ever think that a 34 pt model with a single wound (at T3 nonetheless!!) could be ever worth taking, when tactical marines already show us that at 13 points you already need more than one wound?

Please GW buff Dark Reapers.

That was not a good example of a unit that has bad maths

 JNAProductions wrote:
So Cult Ambush and +1 Ld are worth nothing, but +1 WS is worth a point?

I don't think I could've made it clearer when I joined this thread and said "other units might be too cheap so we need to compare to a swathe of units".

The question isn't what Cult Ambush and +1LD are worth. It's 'what are Guardsmen worth?'