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.
Ice_can wrote: So storm talon and storm hawks arn't hard targets? But predators are?
Razorwings and VoidRavens are or arn't hard targets?
Falcons, Crimspn Hunters, Hemlocks, nightwing and Pheonix arnt hard targets? Also those last 4 are -2 to hit FYI
Night Scythe, Doom Scythe and Night shroud arn't hard targets?
Actually no, those are not hard targets, they are airborne targets. I did not include those in the analysis because they have different types of counters. I can give you the math for those, but as long as the penalty isn't -2 or worse, then dark reapers still lag behing specialist units.
So the analysis result is the same, math wise if dark reapers were not showered into CWE goodness, they would hardly be the terrifying thing that we know, they would be decent generalist units, which would lose to specialists.
Unit1126PLL wrote: ITT:
"This army that came in 20th in a tournament and 2nd if we only include mono armies is OP."
This was in response to a post that claimed mono guards are trash tier I believe. 20th out of hundreds of players are far from trash tier IMO.
Mono guards are no longer S-tier after the codex creep, but they are one of the stronger A-tier armies.
Absolutely. Guard are strong, but not the strongest. They are about the level where I'd hope most armies are - flexible, capable, and interesting. The fact that some aren't is a travesty, but not an indictment of Codex: Astra Militarum. Rather, it's an indication that the less fortunate codexes need buffs. 12 or 11-pt tactical marine chassis, for example, would be a good start. Similarly, making overcharging plasma overheat on a natural 1 before re-rolls would do wonders to enhance the durability of elite infantry like Terminators.
So, I don't see how increasing the model costs of guard infantry will matter much to the stated problem. What I don't understand is why people are focusing on this one unit? Surely Guard squads are not the issue? Conscripts are an issue, CCs are an issue, Command/Veteran Squads are slightly overpowered, but Guard squads? Why the focus on a 10 model squad of guard, unmodded?
The only fix I can see, if this REALLY is the biggest issue, is keeping them 4ppm but lowering their LD to 5.
But again, I don't see the major problem with guard squads. And I don't see how mucking around with the ppm makes the slightest difference. There is so much other bloat in the AM Codex to go after, that is raping people. Maybe if you can justify how Guard squads are unfair, we can proceed to fixing them. In 15 pages, you haven't succeeded in making that point, so I guess, no? Guardsquads are good at 4ppm.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, I don't see how increasing the model costs of guard infantry will matter much to the stated problem. What I don't understand is why people are focusing on this one unit? Surely Guard squads are not the issue? Conscripts are an issue, CCs are an issue, Command/Veteran Squads are slightly overpowered, but Guard squads? Why the focus on a 10 model squad of guard, unmodded?
The only fix I can see, if this REALLY is the biggest issue, is keeping them 4ppm but lowering their LD to 5.
But again, I don't see the major problem with guard squads. And I don't see how mucking around with the ppm makes the slightest difference. There is so much other bloat in the AM Codex to go after, that is raping people. Maybe if you can justify how Guard squads are unfair, we can proceed to fixing them. In 15 pages, you haven't succeeded in making that point, so I guess, no? Guardsquads are good at 4ppm.
Guards are extremely good because they are in the right faction to make the best of theyr stat line, not because they are undercosted (probably, i'm not 100% sure yet).
If guards were given to Khorne i'm not sure they would be used. Not really useful when you are the one advancing.
Ice_can wrote: So storm talon and storm hawks arn't hard targets? But predators are?
Razorwings and VoidRavens are or arn't hard targets?
Falcons, Crimspn Hunters, Hemlocks, nightwing and Pheonix arnt hard targets? Also those last 4 are -2 to hit FYI
Night Scythe, Doom Scythe and Night shroud arn't hard targets?
Actually no, those are not hard targets, they are airborne targets. I did not include those in the analysis because they have different types of counters. I can give you the math for those, but as long as the penalty isn't -2 or worse, then dark reapers still lag behing specialist units.
So the analysis result is the same, math wise if dark reapers were not showered into CWE goodness, they would hardly be the terrifying thing that we know, they would be decent generalist units, which would lose to specialists.
Point vs stat is hardly telling the whole story.
So what about just 5 devs moving for LoS vrs Reparrs doing the same? There's an instant source of -1 to hit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, I don't see how increasing the model costs of guard infantry will matter much to the stated problem. What I don't understand is why people are focusing on this one unit? Surely Guard squads are not the issue? Conscripts are an issue, CCs are an issue, Command/Veteran Squads are slightly overpowered, but Guard squads? Why the focus on a 10 model squad of guard, unmodded?
The only fix I can see, if this REALLY is the biggest issue, is keeping them 4ppm but lowering their LD to 5.
But again, I don't see the major problem with guard squads. And I don't see how mucking around with the ppm makes the slightest difference. There is so much other bloat in the AM Codex to go after, that is raping people. Maybe if you can justify how Guard squads are unfair, we can proceed to fixing them. In 15 pages, you haven't succeeded in making that point, so I guess, no? Guardsquads are good at 4ppm.
Seriously Vet squads you think are a problem? Just Wow is the denial strong with you.
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
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.
That shows that guard at 5ppm are actually balanced not as guard players keep complaining broken and unplayable.
At their current 4ppm
40 boltgun hits would only kill 71pts of guard
Shouting at GEU
Guard take 24point to kill a guardsmen to the firewarriors 31.5 pts of firewarriors or inother words they have 2 spare guardsmens worth of points advantage!
It would take a bare lasguns only 72 points to kill a Marine
Add in plasma and heavy bolter and your down to 41 points to kill a MEQ so once again an advantage of 2 Guardsmen spare!
Thats a huge level of undercosted compaired to one of the better troops choices.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/08 13:15:52
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
No, you have continually dodged my actual post then throw out that I should be banned for "disruption" as a further distraction from my other points. Because your reading comprehension is really bad i will lay it out for you one more time.
1. People continue to state that mono guard is broken in this thread with zero evidence other then an illegal list that finished first almost a year ago and a single 20th place finish. If you are going to claim it as a fact that mono guard is an issue the burden of proof is on you and im just not seeing it
2. I agree that soup guard is incredibly strong but when I posted the statistics from the BAO showing the primary detachment statistics they were never addressed. As a primary detachment guard did not finish in the top 5 factions for A. Win percentage B. Points earned per round. You have yet to reply to this actual point and I doubt this fruitless discussion will
This thread is going round in circles because of people stating "facts" without providing any additional data or responding to counter data posted.
Spoletta wrote: Except that most of those targets can't sport a -1?
Any unit in the game can force Space Marine Devastators to have a minus 1 to hit by just forcing them to move.
If you genuinely think los-ignoring is worthless then I don't really know what to say.
Also this "my Devs do better versus predators, my X does better versus hard flyers, my K does better versus Dark Eldar boats, my plasma does better versus MEQ" misses the other point. Reapers are efficient against a whole range of targets, which is another perk in their favour.
Ice_can wrote: So storm talon and storm hawks arn't hard targets? But predators are?
Razorwings and VoidRavens are or arn't hard targets?
Falcons, Crimspn Hunters, Hemlocks, nightwing and Pheonix arnt hard targets? Also those last 4 are -2 to hit FYI
Night Scythe, Doom Scythe and Night shroud arn't hard targets?
Actually no, those are not hard targets, they are airborne targets. I did not include those in the analysis because they have different types of counters. I can give you the math for those, but as long as the penalty isn't -2 or worse, then dark reapers still lag behing specialist units.
So the analysis result is the same, math wise if dark reapers were not showered into CWE goodness, they would hardly be the terrifying thing that we know, they would be decent generalist units, which would lose to specialists.
Point vs stat is hardly telling the whole story.
So what about just 5 devs moving for LoS vrs Reparrs doing the same? There's an instant source of -1 to hit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, I don't see how increasing the model costs of guard infantry will matter much to the stated problem. What I don't understand is why people are focusing on this one unit? Surely Guard squads are not the issue? Conscripts are an issue, CCs are an issue, Command/Veteran Squads are slightly overpowered, but Guard squads? Why the focus on a 10 model squad of guard, unmodded?
The only fix I can see, if this REALLY is the biggest issue, is keeping them 4ppm but lowering their LD to 5.
But again, I don't see the major problem with guard squads. And I don't see how mucking around with the ppm makes the slightest difference. There is so much other bloat in the AM Codex to go after, that is raping people. Maybe if you can justify how Guard squads are unfair, we can proceed to fixing them. In 15 pages, you haven't succeeded in making that point, so I guess, no? Guardsquads are good at 4ppm.
Seriously Vet squads you think are a problem? Just Wow is the denial strong with you.
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
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.
That shows that guard at 5ppm are actually balanced not as guard players keep complaining broken and unplayable.
At their current 4ppm
40 boltgun hits would only kill 71pts of guard
Shouting at GEU
Guard take 24point to kill a guardsmen to the firewarriors 31.5 pts of firewarriors or inother words they have 2 spare guardsmens worth of points advantage!
It would take a bare lasguns only 72 points to kill a Marine
Add in plasma and heavy bolter and your down to 41 points to kill a MEQ so once again an advantage of 2 Guardsmen spare!
Thats a huge level of undercosted compaired to one of the better troops choices.
Ok, I don't think they are OP, I just mentioned them as one area that can be toned down. Anything that can give you 4 Plasma guns for under 200pts, with good BS, maybe can be looked at. Thats all I'm saying. I don't understand what you mean by "Denial is strong". Can you illustrate what I am denying? Also, I am just saying you are metagamming this, or mathhammering this, way out of proportion. You could make guard 6ppm and it wouldn't make a difference. Guard squads then go from 41ppm (No additions, which no one plays) to 58ppm. That still wouldn't stop me from loading up on guard squads.
I guess my question STILL remains. What tangible affect are you looking to accomplish by increasing cost of ppm? Because changing the guard squad costs wouldn't affect anything. They will still be extremely cost effective meat shields and point defense.
FrozenDwarf wrote: Do not balance for soup!
5ppm whitout stat buff would hurt mono IG just as the stupid 3 unit rule does.
Really did you even read the thread?
You already know the answer to that question. Lol.
Honestly - this is a tiny change for Guard - maybe 100 points in a 2000 point list. Are you saying Guard are 5% overpowered? That is a very fine judgement to make on limited data. If they consistently clean up I would suggest the problem is bigger than that?
My biggest guard beef is my squad transport is more effective and expensive than the troops it transports - a very strange approach to mechanised infantry!
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Actually my major beef is how rubbish my Hydra is because I keep finding it in my model case and end up using it on the table...)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/08 14:36:13
Ice_can wrote: So storm talon and storm hawks arn't hard targets? But predators are?
Razorwings and VoidRavens are or arn't hard targets?
Falcons, Crimspn Hunters, Hemlocks, nightwing and Pheonix arnt hard targets? Also those last 4 are -2 to hit FYI
Night Scythe, Doom Scythe and Night shroud arn't hard targets?
Actually no, those are not hard targets, they are airborne targets. I did not include those in the analysis because they have different types of counters. I can give you the math for those, but as long as the penalty isn't -2 or worse, then dark reapers still lag behing specialist units.
So the analysis result is the same, math wise if dark reapers were not showered into CWE goodness, they would hardly be the terrifying thing that we know, they would be decent generalist units, which would lose to specialists.
Point vs stat is hardly telling the whole story.
So what about just 5 devs moving for LoS vrs Reparrs doing the same? There's an instant source of -1 to hit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, I don't see how increasing the model costs of guard infantry will matter much to the stated problem. What I don't understand is why people are focusing on this one unit? Surely Guard squads are not the issue? Conscripts are an issue, CCs are an issue, Command/Veteran Squads are slightly overpowered, but Guard squads? Why the focus on a 10 model squad of guard, unmodded?
The only fix I can see, if this REALLY is the biggest issue, is keeping them 4ppm but lowering their LD to 5.
But again, I don't see the major problem with guard squads. And I don't see how mucking around with the ppm makes the slightest difference. There is so much other bloat in the AM Codex to go after, that is raping people. Maybe if you can justify how Guard squads are unfair, we can proceed to fixing them. In 15 pages, you haven't succeeded in making that point, so I guess, no? Guardsquads are good at 4ppm.
Seriously Vet squads you think are a problem? Just Wow is the denial strong with you.
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
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.
That shows that guard at 5ppm are actually balanced not as guard players keep complaining broken and unplayable.
At their current 4ppm
40 boltgun hits would only kill 71pts of guard
Shouting at GEU
Guard take 24point to kill a guardsmen to the firewarriors 31.5 pts of firewarriors or inother words they have 2 spare guardsmens worth of points advantage!
It would take a bare lasguns only 72 points to kill a Marine
Add in plasma and heavy bolter and your down to 41 points to kill a MEQ so once again an advantage of 2 Guardsmen spare!
Thats a huge level of undercosted compaired to one of the better troops choices.
Ok, I don't think they are OP, I just mentioned them as one area that can be toned down. Anything that can give you 4 Plasma guns for under 200pts, with good BS, maybe can be looked at. Thats all I'm saying. I don't understand what you mean by "Denial is strong". Can you illustrate what I am denying? Also, I am just saying you are metagamming this, or mathhammering this, way out of proportion. You could make guard 6ppm and it wouldn't make a difference. Guard squads then go from 41ppm (No additions, which no one plays) to 58ppm. That still wouldn't stop me from loading up on guard squads.
I guess my question STILL remains. What tangible affect are you looking to accomplish by increasing cost of ppm? Because changing the guard squad costs wouldn't affect anything. They will still be extremely cost effective meat shields and point defense.
Making them 5ppm is about balance, not trying to make guard unplayable.
Just not making every other troop choice an auto loose in when fighting guardsmen for objectives.
I've never seen anyone play vets its all scions for plasma as it needs to be in rapid fire range for overcharge and deepstirke for free with a 4+ Sv does that way better.
People state that at 5ppm or 50 points for the squad they are unplayable, plenty of people are playing units that perform at the 5ppm Guardsmen level or worse.
Unit1126PLL wrote:ITT:
"This army that came in 20th in a tournament and 2nd if we only include mono armies is OP."
Uhhhhhhhh.... they were in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 3 other spots in the top 10 at that tournament. As a Primary army, they had more spots than any other army with 3 primary Guard placings in that same top 10, and as a primary army, were the #1 army in top 3 placings in tournament this month. The only reason that the #20 placing is placing is referenced at all, is because a certain person said "literally none of that matters at all, it only matters what position they were able to take without a single ally", which everyone agreed is stupid as hell, but was soon pointed out that even by this ridiculous standard they were still extremely successful.
Did you read this thread, or just what you wantsd to see?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/08/08 14:47:46
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
Unit1126PLL wrote:ITT:
"This army that came in 20th in a tournament and 2nd if we only include mono armies is OP."
Uhhhhhhhh.... they were in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 3 other spots in the top 10 at that tournament. As a Primary army, they had more spots than any other army with 3 primary Guard placings in that same top 10, and as a primary army, were the #1 army in top 3 placings in tournament this month. The only reason that the #20 placing is placing is referenced at all, is because a certain person said "literally none of that matters at all, it only matters what position they were able to take without a single ally", which everyone agreed is stupid as hell, but was soon pointed out that even by this ridiculous standard they were still extremely successful.
Did you read this thread, or just what you wantsd to see?
As no one else here seems to be able to understand my question, or answer it with any intelligence, I will try you. You seem to at least have played the game.
You seem to be advocating the stance that in their current state AM is unbalanced at best, and op at worst. Please correct me if this is wrong. I can't read every response in 15 pages of back and forth. If that accurately summs up your stance, then please help me to understand your next point. How will altering the cost of the models in a single infantry unit have the desire re-balancing effect? If the army is unbalanced, what good does model points have? Shouldn't we be taking a wider approach to the issue? Shouldn't the cost of more seemingly broken units which get abused be altered? CC Spam is an issue, as is Lehman Russ Spam. Why target the weakest model in the whole codex?
While I agree that punishing one codex because rest of the others are underperforming is in poor form, but it's not really the case.
Guardsmen are undercosted for what they bring to the table, and if you refuse to believe that, then obviously the discussion can't go on as it'll just go in circles.
+1 point to guardsmen is not going to make IG obsolete/end the world/make them unplayable etc.
If you truly believe 5ppm guardsmen is going to ruin the faction, please post us before and after army list so we can actually see the impact it has on the list.
Unit1126PLL wrote:ITT:
"This army that came in 20th in a tournament and 2nd if we only include mono armies is OP."
Uhhhhhhhh.... they were in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 3 other spots in the top 10 at that tournament. As a Primary army, they had more spots than any other army with 3 primary Guard placings in that same top 10, and as a primary army, were the #1 army in top 3 placings in tournament this month. The only reason that the #20 placing is placing is referenced at all, is because a certain person said "literally none of that matters at all, it only matters what position they were able to take without a single ally", which everyone agreed is stupid as hell, but was soon pointed out that even by this ridiculous standard they were still extremely successful.
Did you read this thread, or just what you wantsd to see?
All I read is: "Imperial Guard, when taken with units that shore up their weaknesses, can take the top spot at tournaments."
Well no gak, sherlock. Perhaps the problem is that their weaknesses are so obvious that they're easy to shore up? Maybe they have the weaknesses that the rest of the Imperium armory easily addresses? That doesn't mean the army is over-powered as a mono-codex.
Being the primary detachment means that the codex is good, for sure, but it doesn't mean overpowered until that primary detachment, alone without friends to prop it up, starts to actually score points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: While I agree that punishing one codex because rest of the others are underperforming is in poor form, but it's not really the case.
Guardsmen are undercosted for what they bring to the table, and if you refuse to believe that, then obviously the discussion can't go on as it'll just go in circles.
+1 point to guardsmen is not going to make IG obsolete/end the world/make them unplayable etc.
If you truly believe 5ppm guardsmen is going to ruin the faction, please post us before and after army list so we can actually see the impact it has on the list.
This is what people said about 4ppm conscripts, and now conscripts are unplayable.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/08 15:21:41
This is what people said about 4ppm conscripts, and now conscripts are unplayable.
Only because the guardsmen cost the same. Of course no one is gonna take the worse unit when better one is available for the same price. (Which is idiotic, It's like if Tacticals and Intercessors costed the same.)
Unit1126PLL wrote:ITT: "This army that came in 20th in a tournament and 2nd if we only include mono armies is OP."
Uhhhhhhhh.... they were in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 3 other spots in the top 10 at that tournament. As a Primary army, they had more spots than any other army with 3 primary Guard placings in that same top 10, and as a primary army, were the #1 army in top 3 placings in tournament this month. The only reason that the #20 placing is placing is referenced at all, is because a certain person said "literally none of that matters at all, it only matters what position they were able to take without a single ally", which everyone agreed is stupid as hell, but was soon pointed out that even by this ridiculous standard they were still extremely successful.
Did you read this thread, or just what you wantsd to see?
As no one else here seems to be able to understand my question, or answer it with any intelligence, I will try you. You seem to at least have played the game.
You seem to be advocating the stance that in their current state AM is unbalanced at best, and op at worst. Please correct me if this is wrong. I can't read every response in 15 pages of back and forth. If that accurately summs up your stance, then please help me to understand your next point. How will altering the cost of the models in a single infantry unit have the desire re-balancing effect? If the army is unbalanced, what good does model points have? Shouldn't we be taking a wider approach to the issue? Shouldn't the cost of more seemingly broken units which get abused be altered? CC Spam is an issue, as is Lehman Russ Spam. Why target the weakest model in the whole codex?
forgetting CP farm allies for a second and talking on guard as a solo faction: I honestly think Guard are fairly balanced. Very strong, but not breaking the game strong (nobody is), and a good example of an army with good and bad match ups. However, as it stands I think they need to be tweaked down a little to be on par with the general power level of the rest of the game, and there is one stand out instance of poor balance in that dex, and that's the Guardsmen - 4 points for what is in every other army a 5 point model. If for some reason they were a static unit at that level it might be a bit understandable while units like Neophytes are a point higher, but Guardsmen in fact get some of the best army rules, and between regiment, units like Straken, and orders; their cost just lends this unnecessary weight towards Guard that they simply don't deserve or need, and I think just fixing them to 5 pts is one of the easiest and most obvious changes GW could make, that has no chance of killing an army but a strong chance of normalising them to the level of every other.
That's my serious take on this topic.
Now if you don't mind I'd like to get back to eating popcorn and watching how a hole deep Asmodios can dig himself
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/08 15:39:16
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
greatbigtree wrote: 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!
The things you are saying to have a lot of value without scale or comparison.
PPD is about all the matters. When talking about weapons. 3 guardsmen have roughly the same cost as a bolter marine
What does more damage?
6 shots hitting on 4's or 2 shots hitting on 3?
3 hits to 1.33
1 wound to .666 against t4.
It's pretty easy to see the las guns are winning here. Plus the las guns can shoot twice. All the bolters can do is hit better with a max hits of 2. So max wounds of 2.
A 10 man infantry unit can easily have a fantastic roll and force 25 saves on something with FRFSRF. This is something a squad with 5 bolters could never do (and they cost more). More shots is always better than an equal average value of damage from less shots.
Unit1126PLL wrote:ITT:
"This army that came in 20th in a tournament and 2nd if we only include mono armies is OP."
Uhhhhhhhh.... they were in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 3 other spots in the top 10 at that tournament. As a Primary army, they had more spots than any other army with 3 primary Guard placings in that same top 10, and as a primary army, were the #1 army in top 3 placings in tournament this month. The only reason that the #20 placing is placing is referenced at all, is because a certain person said "literally none of that matters at all, it only matters what position they were able to take without a single ally", which everyone agreed is stupid as hell, but was soon pointed out that even by this ridiculous standard they were still extremely successful.
Did you read this thread, or just what you wantsd to see?
As no one else here seems to be able to understand my question, or answer it with any intelligence, I will try you. You seem to at least have played the game.
You seem to be advocating the stance that in their current state AM is unbalanced at best, and op at worst. Please correct me if this is wrong. I can't read every response in 15 pages of back and forth. If that accurately summs up your stance, then please help me to understand your next point. How will altering the cost of the models in a single infantry unit have the desire re-balancing effect? If the army is unbalanced, what good does model points have? Shouldn't we be taking a wider approach to the issue? Shouldn't the cost of more seemingly broken units which get abused be altered? CC Spam is an issue, as is Lehman Russ Spam. Why target the weakest model in the whole codex?
forgetting CP farm allies for a second and talking on guard as a solo faction: I honestly think Guard are fairly balanced. Very strong, but not breaking the game strong (nobody is), and a good example of an army with good and bad match ups. However, as it stands I think they need to be tweaked down a little to be on par with the general power level of the rest of the game, and there is one stand out instance of poor balance in that dex, and that's the Guardsmen - 4 points for what is in every other army a 5 point model. If for some reason they were a static unit at that level it might be a bit understandable while units like Neophytes are a point higher, but Guardsmen in fact get some of the best army rules, and between regiment, units like Straken, and orders; their cost just lends this unnecessary weight towards Guard that they simply don't deserve or need, and I think just fixing them to 5 pts is one of the easiest and most obvious changes GW could make, that has no chance of killing an army but a strong chance of normalising them to the level of every other.
That's my serious take on this topic.
Now if you don't mind I'd like to get back to eating popcorn and watching how a hole deep Asmodios can dig himself
Completely agree.
I think I have even stated it exactly like that "It is the easiest and most obvious change GW could make to bring guard in line".
Unit1126PLL wrote:ITT:
"This army that came in 20th in a tournament and 2nd if we only include mono armies is OP."
Uhhhhhhhh.... they were in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 3 other spots in the top 10 at that tournament. As a Primary army, they had more spots than any other army with 3 primary Guard placings in that same top 10, and as a primary army, were the #1 army in top 3 placings in tournament this month. The only reason that the #20 placing is placing is referenced at all, is because a certain person said "literally none of that matters at all, it only matters what position they were able to take without a single ally", which everyone agreed is stupid as hell, but was soon pointed out that even by this ridiculous standard they were still extremely successful.
Did you read this thread, or just what you wantsd to see?
All I read is: "Imperial Guard, when taken with units that shore up their weaknesses, can take the top spot at tournaments."
Well no gak, sherlock. Perhaps the problem is that their weaknesses are so obvious that they're easy to shore up? Maybe they have the weaknesses that the rest of the Imperium armory easily addresses? That doesn't mean the army is over-powered as a mono-codex.
Being the primary detachment means that the codex is good, for sure, but it doesn't mean overpowered until that primary detachment, alone without friends to prop it up, starts to actually score points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skchsan wrote: While I agree that punishing one codex because rest of the others are underperforming is in poor form, but it's not really the case.
Guardsmen are undercosted for what they bring to the table, and if you refuse to believe that, then obviously the discussion can't go on as it'll just go in circles.
+1 point to guardsmen is not going to make IG obsolete/end the world/make them unplayable etc.
If you truly believe 5ppm guardsmen is going to ruin the faction, please post us before and after army list so we can actually see the impact it has on the list.
This is what people said about 4ppm conscripts, and now conscripts are unplayable.
Conscripts are unplayable because there is a unit that has the exact same cost that has better stats. This is utterly asinine to even mention. It is utterly asinine that GW could consider that change a fix to anything.
If GW listened to the intelligent people on the topic. Here is what they would have done a freaking year ago (yet we will wait for GW to make competent rules).
They would have made conscript unable to receive orders. Plus raise the cost to 4 PPM.
They would have raised the cost of an infantry to 5 PPM.
They would have made orders go off on a 4+. (doubling 2 units firepower for 30 points automatically is absolutely slowed)
They would have made the commissar change but written it in such a way that it didn't force you to reroll and acceptable dice roll and risk rolling a worse one.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/08 16:03:41
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Xenomancers wrote: Conscripts are unplayable because there is a unit that has the exact same cost that has better stats. This is utterly asinine to even mention. It is utterly asinine that GW could consider that change a fix to anything.
If GW listened to the intelligent people on the topic. Here is what they would have done a freaking year ago (yet we will wait for GW to make competent rules). They would have made conscript unable to receive orders. Plus raise the cost to 4 PPM. They would have raised the cost of an infantry to 5 PPM. They would have made orders go off on a 4+. (doubling 2 units firepower for 30 points automatically is absolutely slowed) They would have made the commissar change but written it in such a way that it didn't force you to reroll and acceptable dice roll and risk rolling a worse one.
Conscripts are unplayable because they die horribly and aren't immune to leadership. No one is taking unupgraded Imperial Guard squads for their offensive power. People are taking unupgraded Guard squads because they're at less risk of dying to leadership than Conscripts are, since not dying is literally their only function. The "better stats" are better, sure, but not really, not unupgraded with a lasgun. Equal points shooting at Marines, it's less than a single wound of difference, i.e. disappears into the noise. That's how bad lasguns are. 4ppm conscripts die too easily to be useful, telling me that they'd've been fine at 3ppm, all other things being the way they are now.
If GW listened to actually intelligent people and not your warped perception of what is intelligent (which funnily enough matches up with what you think of yourself; Dunning-Kruger perhaps?), here's what would have happened if they implemented your changes: - Conscripts would be, and still are, unplayable. - This is probably fine, but I don't actually think fixes any problems, since Guard being OP is a spurious claim. It just hurts guard because you emotionally dislike them and want to hurt them. - Only as soon as you have to roll a 4+ to turn your Auras on for a turn. Remember, Guard get Orders instead of Auras. - Yes, we agree on this, and this actually has been done.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/08 16:31:55
Unit1126PLL wrote:ITT:
"This army that came in 20th in a tournament and 2nd if we only include mono armies is OP."
Uhhhhhhhh.... they were in 2nd, 3rd, 5th, and 3 other spots in the top 10 at that tournament. As a Primary army, they had more spots than any other army with 3 primary Guard placings in that same top 10, and as a primary army, were the #1 army in top 3 placings in tournament this month. The only reason that the #20 placing is placing is referenced at all, is because a certain person said "literally none of that matters at all, it only matters what position they were able to take without a single ally", which everyone agreed is stupid as hell, but was soon pointed out that even by this ridiculous standard they were still extremely successful.
Did you read this thread, or just what you wantsd to see?
As no one else here seems to be able to understand my question, or answer it with any intelligence, I will try you. You seem to at least have played the game.
You seem to be advocating the stance that in their current state AM is unbalanced at best, and op at worst. Please correct me if this is wrong. I can't read every response in 15 pages of back and forth. If that accurately summs up your stance, then please help me to understand your next point. How will altering the cost of the models in a single infantry unit have the desire re-balancing effect? If the army is unbalanced, what good does model points have? Shouldn't we be taking a wider approach to the issue? Shouldn't the cost of more seemingly broken units which get abused be altered? CC Spam is an issue, as is Lehman Russ Spam. Why target the weakest model in the whole codex?
forgetting CP farm allies for a second and talking on guard as a solo faction: I honestly think Guard are fairly balanced. Very strong, but not breaking the game strong (nobody is), and a good example of an army with good and bad match ups. However, as it stands I think they need to be tweaked down a little to be on par with the general power level of the rest of the game, and there is one stand out instance of poor balance in that dex, and that's the Guardsmen - 4 points for what is in every other army a 5 point model. If for some reason they were a static unit at that level it might be a bit understandable while units like Neophytes are a point higher, but Guardsmen in fact get some of the best army rules, and between regiment, units like Straken, and orders; their cost just lends this unnecessary weight towards Guard that they simply don't deserve or need, and I think just fixing them to 5 pts is one of the easiest and most obvious changes GW could make, that has no chance of killing an army but a strong chance of normalising them to the level of every other.
That's my serious take on this topic.
Now if you don't mind I'd like to get back to eating popcorn and watching how a hole deep Asmodios can dig himself
Ah another jab at me with no actual response to any Data i presented.... Not to mention the top of your post is you agreeing with me that "Guard are fairly balanced. Very strong, but not game breaking".
I guess having you agree with my overal point is somehow me digging myself a hole? whatever you need to tell yourself to sleep at night
If guardsmen are only going up to 5 points, and not the 6 or 7 they deserve, Lasguns should be strength 2, and their save should be 6+. Conscripts should be 7+.
I bring Termagants, which have T3, 1 shot at 12". I can't take them in squads of 9 like IG can to avoid reaper. They have a 6+ save. They cost me 4ppm.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/08 16:41:39
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
IG puts too many wounds on the table in general. Their artillery tanks are not fragile enough given their costs, and 4 pts is too cheap for anything with a 5+ base save.
Marmatag wrote: If guardsmen are only going up to 5 points, and not the 6 or 7 they deserve, Lasguns should be strength 2, and their save should be 6+. Conscripts should be 7+.
Why should guardsmen be 7 points when Skitarii Rangers are also 7 points and much much much much better?
Marmatag wrote: If guardsmen are only going up to 5 points, and not the 6 or 7 they deserve, Lasguns should be strength 2, and their save should be 6+. Conscripts should be 7+.
Why should guardsmen be 7 points when Skitarii Rangers are also 7 points and much much much much better?
Because Guardsmen have more synergy and serve a more valuable purpose in the context of Astra Militarum & Imperium.
Hormagants have 0 ranged weapons, a 6+ save, cannot receive orders, don't have kickass cheap tanks to back them up, and cost 5ppm. Explain why Guardsmen should be either cheaper (the reality) or the same cost (what people are advocating and Fake News Guard players are whinging about), when in reality they should at least be 1 point more.
Do you know how much better Tyranids would be if they could take Guardsmen as troops in a <HIVE FLEET> detachment?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/08 16:48:16
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Xenomancers wrote: Conscripts are unplayable because there is a unit that has the exact same cost that has better stats. This is utterly asinine to even mention. It is utterly asinine that GW could consider that change a fix to anything.
If GW listened to the intelligent people on the topic. Here is what they would have done a freaking year ago (yet we will wait for GW to make competent rules).
They would have made conscript unable to receive orders. Plus raise the cost to 4 PPM.
They would have raised the cost of an infantry to 5 PPM.
They would have made orders go off on a 4+. (doubling 2 units firepower for 30 points automatically is absolutely slowed)
They would have made the commissar change but written it in such a way that it didn't force you to reroll and acceptable dice roll and risk rolling a worse one.
Conscripts are unplayable because they die horribly and aren't immune to leadership. No one is taking unupgraded Imperial Guard squads for their offensive power. People are taking unupgraded Guard squads because they're at less risk of dying to leadership than Conscripts are, since not dying is literally their only function. The "better stats" are better, sure, but not really, not unupgraded with a lasgun. Equal points shooting at Marines, it's less than a single wound of difference, i.e. disappears into the noise. That's how bad lasguns are. 4ppm conscripts die too easily to be useful, telling me that they'd've been fine at 3ppm, all other things being the way they are now.
If GW listened to actually intelligent people and not your warped perception of what is intelligent (which funnily enough matches up with what you think of yourself; Dunning-Kruger perhaps?), here's what would have happened if they implemented your changes:
- Conscripts would be, and still are, unplayable.
- This is probably fine, but I don't actually think fixes any problems, since Guard being OP is a spurious claim. It just hurts guard because you emotionally dislike them and want to hurt them.
- Only as soon as you have to roll a 4+ to turn your Auras on for a turn. Remember, Guard get Orders instead of Auras.
- Yes, we agree on this, and this actually has been done.
You claim to be intelligent yet make this idiotic statement. "no one is taking upgraded infantry for their firepower?"
Pretty sure everyone who takes infantry squads intends to shoot with them during the game. And mathematically they will get more out of it per point than practically any troop unit. Plus my solutions are good solutions.
When they made this conscript nerf I said - "great - now people will just spam OP infantry squads" - then looked what happened.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Because they didn't increase the cost of Guardsmen, which we all knew they should. 6-7 PPM is the right spot for Guardsmen given 8th edition as a whole.
You can bring an infantry squad + a mortar and deny reaper, for cheaper than i can bring 10 Hormagants. i will have no ranged weapons, meanwhile you'll be taking aim & rerolling all hits for free.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/08 16:50:42
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
