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.

Asmodios wrote:
Now we have come full circle to old threads about guard where they are magically always in RF range at full strength, with orders while simultaneously holding objectives and screening an entire army.

But if you do the math on any other unit being in RF range of the guardsman at full strength you're being unrealistic

How else to you evalute rapid fire weapons? Just divide the damage by 2 and you have your single shot comparison. This is valid with every rapid fire weapon. Please stop trolling.

We also aren't factoring in the voleys of artillery blast that have probably made this game moot anyways...unless the opponent is eldar. So lets try to keep this as simple as possible. IDK about you - but I try to get my rapid fire units into rapid fire range asap.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Now we have come full circle to old threads about guard where they are magically always in RF range at full strength, with orders while simultaneously holding objectives and screening an entire army.

But if you do the math on any other unit being in RF range of the guardsman at full strength you're being unrealistic

How else to you evalute rapid fire weapons? Just divide the damage by 2 and you have your single shot comparison. This is valid with every rapid fire weapon. Please stop trolling.

We also aren't factoring in the voleys of artillery blast that have probably made this game moot anyways...unless the opponent is eldar. So lets try to keep this as simple as possible. IDK about you - but I try to get my rapid fire units into rapid fire range asap.

You take a nuanced look at how much damage it does in rapid fire range, what that range is, and how the unit's mobility and role impact its ability to get into rapid fire range against the targets it desires.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of the goalposts running away.

What movement, they are in the same place as they started

What unit can go up against equal points of Infantry squads and win? What units can go up againy equal points of Infantry squads plus Commanders and win? 

Is or is not charging a landradier a valid tactic? Yes it i.
At this point the landraider doesn't win, unless its wiping out an full squad in overwatch.

meleti wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Now we have come full circle to old threads about guard where they are magically always in RF range at full strength, with orders while simultaneously holding objectives and screening an entire army.

But if you do the math on any other unit being in RF range of the guardsman at full strength you're being unrealistic

How else to you evalute rapid fire weapons? Just divide the damage by 2 and you have your single shot comparison. This is valid with every rapid fire weapon. Please stop trolling.

We also aren't factoring in the voleys of artillery blast that have probably made this game moot anyways...unless the opponent is eldar. So lets try to keep this as simple as possible. IDK about you - but I try to get my rapid fire units into rapid fire range asap.

You take a nuanced look at how much damage it does in rapid fire range, what that range is, and how the unit's mobility and role impact its ability to get into rapid fire range against the targets it desires.

Is there really an army that doesn't want to assault gaurd? Their biggest threats are tanks that can't fall back and shoot. It's basically your only chance to win against gaurd - to assault and tie up their big guns...because they are going to out damage you. This leads to IG squads having rapid rie range more often than not.

Regardless of these facts - the evaluation of the lasgun is usually does with rapid fire. No one is hiding the fact that it's rapid fire. You are fully free to do the math yourself (this is typically mental math) of dividing by 2 to get the answer.

 Xenomancers wrote:

meleti wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Now we have come full circle to old threads about guard where they are magically always in RF range at full strength, with orders while simultaneously holding objectives and screening an entire army.

But if you do the math on any other unit being in RF range of the guardsman at full strength you're being unrealistic

How else to you evalute rapid fire weapons? Just divide the damage by 2 and you have your single shot comparison. This is valid with every rapid fire weapon. Please stop trolling.

We also aren't factoring in the voleys of artillery blast that have probably made this game moot anyways...unless the opponent is eldar. So lets try to keep this as simple as possible. IDK about you - but I try to get my rapid fire units into rapid fire range asap.

You take a nuanced look at how much damage it does in rapid fire range, what that range is, and how the unit's mobility and role impact its ability to get into rapid fire range against the targets it desires.

Is there really an army that doesn't want to assault gaurd? Their biggest threats are tanks that can't fall back and shoot. It's basically your only chance to win against gaurd - to assault and tie up their big guns...because they are going to out damage you. This leads to IG squads having rapid rie range more often than not.

Regardless of these facts - the evaluation of the lasgun is usually does with rapid fire. No one is hiding the fact that it's rapid fire. You are fully free to do the math yourself (this is typically mental math) of dividing by 2 to get the answer.

Tau as firewarriors loose to guardsmen in CC.
Riptides etc tend to muddle through and have fly but their infantry definataly doesn't.

Ice_can wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

meleti wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Now we have come full circle to old threads about guard where they are magically always in RF range at full strength, with orders while simultaneously holding objectives and screening an entire army.

But if you do the math on any other unit being in RF range of the guardsman at full strength you're being unrealistic

How else to you evalute rapid fire weapons? Just divide the damage by 2 and you have your single shot comparison. This is valid with every rapid fire weapon. Please stop trolling.

We also aren't factoring in the voleys of artillery blast that have probably made this game moot anyways...unless the opponent is eldar. So lets try to keep this as simple as possible. IDK about you - but I try to get my rapid fire units into rapid fire range asap.

You take a nuanced look at how much damage it does in rapid fire range, what that range is, and how the unit's mobility and role impact its ability to get into rapid fire range against the targets it desires.

Is there really an army that doesn't want to assault gaurd? Their biggest threats are tanks that can't fall back and shoot. It's basically your only chance to win against gaurd - to assault and tie up their big guns...because they are going to out damage you. This leads to IG squads having rapid rie range more often than not.

Regardless of these facts - the evaluation of the lasgun is usually does with rapid fire. No one is hiding the fact that it's rapid fire. You are fully free to do the math yourself (this is typically mental math) of dividing by 2 to get the answer.

Tau as firewarriors loose to guardsmen in CC.
Riptides etc tend to muddle through and have fly but their infantry definataly doesn't.

Riptides - ghostkeels - even stealthsuits want to charge IG.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Now we have come full circle to old threads about guard where they are magically always in RF range at full strength, with orders while simultaneously holding objectives and screening an entire army.

But if you do the math on any other unit being in RF range of the guardsman at full strength you're being unrealistic

How else to you evalute rapid fire weapons? Just divide the damage by 2 and you have your single shot comparison. This is valid with every rapid fire weapon. Please stop trolling.

We also aren't factoring in the voleys of artillery blast that have probably made this game moot anyways...unless the opponent is eldar. So lets try to keep this as simple as possible. IDK about you - but I try to get my rapid fire units into rapid fire range asap.

I was responding specifically to this "so Stationary unhurt aggressors which have an 18inch range get to shoot first against a unit with a 24 inch range? Way to stack that example so blatantly
If the agressors move or the guard shoot first?"

 Xenomancers wrote:

meleti wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Now we have come full circle to old threads about guard where they are magically always in RF range at full strength, with orders while simultaneously holding objectives and screening an entire army.

But if you do the math on any other unit being in RF range of the guardsman at full strength you're being unrealistic

How else to you evalute rapid fire weapons? Just divide the damage by 2 and you have your single shot comparison. This is valid with every rapid fire weapon. Please stop trolling.

We also aren't factoring in the voleys of artillery blast that have probably made this game moot anyways...unless the opponent is eldar. So lets try to keep this as simple as possible. IDK about you - but I try to get my rapid fire units into rapid fire range asap.

You take a nuanced look at how much damage it does in rapid fire range, what that range is, and how the unit's mobility and role impact its ability to get into rapid fire range against the targets it desires.

Is there really an army that doesn't want to assault gaurd? Their biggest threats are tanks that can't fall back and shoot. It's basically your only chance to win against gaurd - to assault and tie up their big guns...because they are going to out damage you. This leads to IG squads having rapid rie range more often than not.

Regardless of these facts - the evaluation of the lasgun is usually does with rapid fire. No one is hiding the fact that it's rapid fire. You are fully free to do the math yourself (this is typically mental math) of dividing by 2 to get the answer.

Yeah, a lot of armies will just shoot the Guardsmen, both of the objective holding and unit screening variety. And if you're using Guardsmen to hold backline objectives (like Custodes, Knights, and Space Marines lists will often do) the Guardsmen will be fairly static and not getting to rapid fire a lot.

Asmodios wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Now we have come full circle to old threads about guard where they are magically always in RF range at full strength, with orders while simultaneously holding objectives and screening an entire army.

But if you do the math on any other unit being in RF range of the guardsman at full strength you're being unrealistic

How else to you evalute rapid fire weapons? Just divide the damage by 2 and you have your single shot comparison. This is valid with every rapid fire weapon. Please stop trolling.

We also aren't factoring in the voleys of artillery blast that have probably made this game moot anyways...unless the opponent is eldar. So lets try to keep this as simple as possible. IDK about you - but I try to get my rapid fire units into rapid fire range asap.

I was responding specifically to this "so Stationary unhurt aggressors which have an 18inch range get to shoot first against a unit with a 24 inch range? Way to stack that example so blatantly
If the agressors move or the guard shoot first?"

Well unless they are ravengaurd - agressors are always going to have to move to get into range of IG infantry. Totally agree with that. Ravengaurd agressors though - if they don't have first turn - are going to be deploying within rapid fire range of the gaurdsmen - or risk not shooting all game. So really - it should be evaluated both ways because it's basically a coin flip.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

meleti wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

meleti wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Now we have come full circle to old threads about guard where they are magically always in RF range at full strength, with orders while simultaneously holding objectives and screening an entire army.

But if you do the math on any other unit being in RF range of the guardsman at full strength you're being unrealistic

How else to you evalute rapid fire weapons? Just divide the damage by 2 and you have your single shot comparison. This is valid with every rapid fire weapon. Please stop trolling.

We also aren't factoring in the voleys of artillery blast that have probably made this game moot anyways...unless the opponent is eldar. So lets try to keep this as simple as possible. IDK about you - but I try to get my rapid fire units into rapid fire range asap.

You take a nuanced look at how much damage it does in rapid fire range, what that range is, and how the unit's mobility and role impact its ability to get into rapid fire range against the targets it desires.

Is there really an army that doesn't want to assault gaurd? Their biggest threats are tanks that can't fall back and shoot. It's basically your only chance to win against gaurd - to assault and tie up their big guns...because they are going to out damage you. This leads to IG squads having rapid rie range more often than not.

Regardless of these facts - the evaluation of the lasgun is usually does with rapid fire. No one is hiding the fact that it's rapid fire. You are fully free to do the math yourself (this is typically mental math) of dividing by 2 to get the answer.

Yeah, a lot of armies will just shoot the Guardsmen, both of the objective holding and unit screening variety. And if you're using Guardsmen to hold backline objectives (like Custodes, Knights, and Space Marines lists will often do) the Guardsmen will be fairly static and not getting to rapid fire a lot.

Depends on the situation - I can think of a lot better units to hold backline objectives than infantry...like...manticores - basalisks - battletanks - mortar teams.

Infantry are for taking midfeild objectives. Unless you are playing a knight list/ or custodian list with CP battery or something - but knights don't win on objectives - they table you.

Infantry definitely hold a lot of backline objectives. Probably the most common backline units these days are Guardsmen with a mortar.

Tabling isn't an automatic win in ITC so you always need to consider scoring objectives with your army. Even the pure Knights lists are going to be paying attention to scoring objectives. Most of the Custodes and Knights lists have Guard detachments in part to score objectives (CP generation is another very important consideration).

You don't see threads for pages on the front page about other broken things because the people that play those things have the sense to realize they are broken.

The aggressors vs guardsmen. Sure they kill a squad of guardsmen then die in a fire to whatever else wants to shoot at them not getting close to their points back. Great use of 110ish points. With all the 2d weapons available to guard (and every other army out there at this point) they aren't really a threat because if anyone plays DE/eldar in your meta the marine player hopefully has realized that you cannot put any primaris on the table if the opponent has dissie cannons or reapers...

But who cares.

Just boosting guardsmen up to 5 points does not fix IG nor does it even address the larger issue of balance in the game. Guardsmen at 4 are not more broken than mortars, no los artillery, shining spears, knights, ravagers, soul burst in general, dissie cannons, stacking negs to hit, doom, jinx, PBCs, tzeench princes, guard CP batteries, tessseract vaults, eldar flyers, 2++ bulgryn, flyrants, commanders, hive guard and those are just the most egregious units I can think of off the top of my head.

I can see how IG players feel persecuted because they are just part of the gak balancing that plagues the most play tested version of 40k ever. Guardsmen to 5 would have to be part of a huge balance overhaul to fight against the power creep that was obvious in the game since the guard codex dropped.

The poster who mentioned you can't just take the units in a vacuum was right. Guard at 4 fit in with the other currently broken gak. To just take that away without addressing the loads of other broken units seems arbitrary (although NOT WRONG).

Lol I disappear from this thread for a day to attend a wedding and what a treat I return to! What's this, like 6 or 7 extra pages?! Hooo that was a lot of reading and I see we've mostly digressed from a discussion around Guardsmen and have instead resorted to generally throwing gak at each other again.

Still, I did spot one gem, one nugget of hope that helped me believe this thread is on the right track;

w1zard wrote:
So, termagaunts and guardsmen both being 4 points is wrong because guardsmen are obviously better... Fair.

Then imagine my ecstasy, my unfettered joy when I saw this;

w1zard wrote:
I'm satisfied now that 5 ppm guardsmen are where they should be. The math against fire warriors really impressed me and as a guard player I am convinced now.

Hallelujah! We've convinced one Guard player! The miracle has happened! Can everyone stand and raise their glasses to w1zard, who fought through his bias, looked at undeniable logic and accepted it might be good for the game. What a man. What a legend. I might have to screenshot this moment and frame it.

As a reward for this unexpected turnaround I'll try and answer the following as requested;

w1zard wrote:
However, I still stand by my assertion that 5ppm guardsmen would hurt guard a LOT, unless a lot of other changes are made to the game first. Namely price increases for kabalites, rangers and other units that would be flat out superior to 5ppm guardsmen, and nerfs for neophytes, which are guardsmen +1L for the same price point. To all of the people saying a 1ppm increase isn't much, it absolutely is, it is a 25% increase in infantry price. It would increase my 2000 pt army almost 100 pts and I don't even play infantry-heavy guard, Infantry-heavy guard lists are looking at possibly as high as 250 pt increases.

If someone on the opposite side could make a reasoned response to my second paragraph instead of snarking at me I would appreciate it.

I'm not sure why you believe rangers and kabalites would be flat out superior to 5ppm guardsmen? I'm not sure the maths on this stacks up? Summon our resident maths wiz to sort it, I believe it was Dandelion, the people's champion. Don't worry about neophites until their codex is released, +1 LD may simply be to make them equal with IS who are able to better deal with morale. If you're taking 100-250 models of Infantry, I'd say that was pretty heavy on the infantry front.

I agree that this isn't a small change. I don't think it's designed to be. A 25% increase seems about right for what they currently do. I'm sure Guard players would come up with other creative ways to make their lists work. This is part of the fun of building lists, no?

I wouldn't say this is a miracle fix either. There's plenty of other things GW needs to solve, both with regards IG/AM and other factions. This would be a good start though and it wouldn't be too drastic as to potentially break Guard for 6 months while they wait for Chapter Approved/a big FAQ.

Plenty of Guard players are fine with 5 ppm Infantry.

Plenty of Guard players readily acknowledge we have a top teir codex.

Plenty of Guard players have pointed out our Soup contribution is going to change by 30 points. At tournaments of 2000 points, that's 1.5% difference. So that's not going to change much.

I don't *understand* why Guard were given the ability to recoup CP. We can already generate more than we need, without recouping. I don't attribute to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence, so I just assume GW thought Guard was going to make greater use of the somewhat mediocre strategems we have?

I believe the key tournament issue is that Guard generate cheap, renewable CP. In several other threads, I've explained how detachment-based cp generation is flawed, and here is the prime example. I'd happily get rid of the CP regen abilities, they aren't helping mono-Guard much, and we can all have equal CP so that allying Guard becomes pointless.

Guardsmen are efficient, but Lasguns are still just flashlights. Still take 20 shots to wound an MEQ in the open, 40 if they're in cover. You need to coordinate 200 flashlights to wipe out a 5-man marine unit, in cover. That would be roughly 10 units, each getting a FRF, SRF order, somehow, with the rule of three, but for the giggles, 550 points of infantry all with LoS (100 models) to take out one Squad.

Mono-Guard players don't do that, by the way. We take upgrades like a Plasmagun, and usually a heavy (Lascannon these days, pop them hard targets!) so that we don't have to roll 200 attacks, 100 wound rolls, to then watch 33 saves *usually* eliminate a combat squad. Seriously, FRF SRF is a joke when you actually use it. Try it out, use proxies if you have to. Put 100 duders on a proper battlefield, with terrain; and make it so they all have LoS to a 5 man Tac squad. Now put 10 more commanders, so that they're able to issue orders to those units, and roll those 200 dice! It's impractical, in a real game.

Anyhow, the myth that Guard players don't accept / appreciate their powerful codex is a myth. Get over it.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This would be a good start though and it wouldn't be too drastic as to potentially break Guard for 6 months while they wait for Chapter Approved/a big FAQ.

See that is the thing. I think it will nerf guard so badly that mono-guard won't be able to compete with the top tier factions like knights, eldar, and DE. I mean, even with 4ppm guardsmen we barely hold our own against the top lists.

Fixing guardsmen to where they should be and not touching anything else just hurts guard. Either everything should get fixed at once, or guardsmen should be left how they are. I agree 5 pt guardsmen are an easy fix, but I'm worried it's so easy that they'll do it and never fix any of the other factions because the other factions have issues that are more fundamental than some undercosted infantry.

As for the math on 5 pt guardsmen vs 7 point rangers:

VS 40 boltgun shots:
Guard - (80/3) wounds -> (160/9) unsaved wounds -> 88.88 points of dead guardsmen
Rangers - (80/3) wounds -> (80/6) unsaved wounds -> 93.33 points of dead rangers

This is close enough to be fine

35 points of X shooting at GEQ assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 14 shots -> 7 hits -> (7/2) wounds -> (7/3) unsaved wounds -> 2.33 dead GEQ
Rangers 10 shots -> (20/3) hits -> (40/9) wounds -> (80/27) unsaved wounds -> 2.96 dead GEQ

Point for point, rangers are approximately 27% better at killing GEQ than 5 pt guardsmen.

35 points of X shooting at marines assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 14 shots -> 7 hits -> (7/3) wounds -> (7/9) unsaved wounds -> 0.78 dead marines
Rangers 10 shots -> (20/3) hits -> (10/3) wounds -> (10/9) unsaved wounds -> 1.11 dead marines

Point for point, rangers are approximately 42% better at killing marines than 5 pt guardsmen.

This also doesn't factor in that rangers have a 6++, better base movement than guardsmen, and have a 6" longer range on their gun.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
...+1 LD may simply be to make them equal with IS who are able to better deal with morale....

I thought we were comparing in a vacuum and not considering buff from other units? IS aren't able to deal with morale at all outside of comissars or banners and those cost points.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well - I do think there is a reason why there is less complaining about non AM stuff.

Getting beat by a giant robot of destruction kind of has this..."well that figures" feeling goes along with it. getting beat by hordes of human just doesn't have any good feeling that comes with it...

It's kind of like...why are these pathetic humans are strong as a space marine? (catachans) Why do they do more damage than my space marine (all gaurd) These are the thoughts that consume lot of players minds.

You hit the nail on the head.

There is an inherent bias against guard "doing well" because a lot of players think they are the "NPC faction". Nobody likes seeing their superbugs or supersoldiers gunned down by bog standard army men. I think there's a very small and loud group of players that want guard to be bad because they think they should bad and feth balance or people who like playing IG.

 SHUPPET wrote:

 Larks wrote:

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

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

If this is the level of misrepresentation you bring to the table, you should be surprised anyone is agreeing with you at all.

That "shooting twice" with a lasgun ability you've frequently mis-labelled (it does not let the squad shoot twice), will cost the Guard player 70 points for 9 "double-shooting" lasguns.

It's not 4pts/model for that ability. If you're going to decry the cost, include the entire cost that makes the mechanic you're complaining so loudly about actually possible.

What on earth are you talking about? Nobody wastes points upgrading Guardsmen, and by shooting twice, he means every model having 2 shots in rapid fire range.

No.

Xenomancers has repeatedly decried a 4pt Guardsman's ability to "shoot twice" - and yes, he was talking about FRFSRF, not just their standard lasguns - to call-out "shooting twice at 4pts/model" is to be disingenuous. 40 points will not get you that.

That's not surprising though, given that the theme of this thread is that somehow Guard being good this edition means they need to be "brought in line" - regardless that they haven't won on the back of their Codex alone. Using cherry picked "mathhammer" scenarios to prove a point, and constantly mis-representing what an Imperial Guard player gets for 40 points is the "in" thing to do around here.

5 point Guardsmen won't break the codex, but it's still an unnecessary change.

w1zard wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This would be a good start though and it wouldn't be too drastic as to potentially break Guard for 6 months while they wait for Chapter Approved/a big FAQ.

See that is the thing. I think it will nerf guard so badly that mono-guard won't be able to compete with the top tier factions like knights, eldar, and DE. I mean, even with 4ppm guardsmen we barely hold our own against the top lists.

Fixing guardsmen to where they should be and not touching anything else just hurts guard. Either everything should get fixed at once, or guardsmen should be left how they are. I agree 5 pt guardsmen are an easy fix, but I'm worried it's so easy that they'll do it and never fix any of the other factions because the other factions have issues that are more fundamental than some undercosted infantry.

As for the math on 5 pt guardsmen vs 7 point rangers:

VS 40 boltgun shots:
Guard - (80/3) wounds -> (160/9) unsaved wounds -> 88.88 points of dead guardsmen
Rangers - (80/3) wounds -> (80/6) unsaved wounds -> 93.33 points of dead rangers

This is close enough to be fine

35 points of X shooting at GEQ assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 14 shots -> 7 hits -> (7/2) wounds -> (7/3) unsaved wounds -> 2.33 dead GEQ
Rangers 10 shots -> (20/3) hits -> (40/9) wounds -> (80/27) unsaved wounds -> 2.96 dead GEQ

Point for point, rangers are approximately 27% better at killing GEQ than 5 pt guardsmen.

35 points of X shooting at marines assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 14 shots -> 7 hits -> (7/3) wounds -> (7/9) unsaved wounds -> 0.78 dead marines
Rangers 10 shots -> (20/3) hits -> (10/3) wounds -> (10/9) unsaved wounds -> 1.11 dead marines

Point for point, rangers are approximately 42% better at killing marines than 5 pt guardsmen.

This also doesn't factor in that rangers have a 6++, better base movement than guardsmen, and have a 6" longer range on their gun.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
...+1 LD may simply be to make them equal with IS who are able to better deal with morale....

I thought we were comparing in a vacuum and not considering buff from other units? IS aren't able to deal with morale at all outside of comissars or banners and those cost points.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well - I do think there is a reason why there is less complaining about non AM stuff.

Getting beat by a giant robot of destruction kind of has this..."well that figures" feeling goes along with it. getting beat by hordes of human just doesn't have any good feeling that comes with it...

It's kind of like...why are these pathetic humans are strong as a space marine? (catachans) Why do they do more damage than my space marine (all gaurd) These are the thoughts that consume lot of players minds.

You hit the nail on the head.

There is an inherent bias against guard "doing well" because a lot of players think they are the "NPC faction". Nobody likes seeing their superbugs or supersoldiers gunned down by bog standard army men. I think there's a very small and loud group of players that want guard to be bad because they think they should bad and feth balance or people who like playing IG.

I already agreed Rangers are 8ppm models as they have better BS skill than firewarrios who are also 7ppm they arn't both 7ppm models.

You see much less Rangers to have thier undercosting by 1ppm be as noticeable. Also 1 point out of 8 is 12.5% Better than they should be
1ppm less than 5ppm is a 20% undercosting for guard, and there are alot more guardsmens in the game than rangers.

Observation of guard constantly being a pita to remove from objectives by your own obsec troops highlights them as a problem unit.

w1zard wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This would be a good start though and it wouldn't be too drastic as to potentially break Guard for 6 months while they wait for Chapter Approved/a big FAQ.

See that is the thing. I think it will nerf guard so badly that mono-guard won't be able to compete with the top tier factions like knights, eldar, and DE. I mean, even with 4ppm guardsmen we barely hold our own against the top lists.

Fixing guardsmen to where they should be and not touching anything else just hurts guard. Either everything should get fixed at once, or guardsmen should be left how they are. I agree 5 pt guardsmen are an easy fix, but I'm worried it's so easy that they'll do it and never fix any of the other factions because the other factions have issues that are more fundamental than some undercosted infantry.

As for the math on 5 pt guardsmen vs 7 point rangers:

VS 40 boltgun shots:
Guard - (80/3) wounds -> (160/9) unsaved wounds -> 88.88 points of dead guardsmen
Rangers - (80/3) wounds -> (80/6) unsaved wounds -> 93.33 points of dead rangers

This is close enough to be fine

35 points of X shooting at GEQ assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 14 shots -> 7 hits -> (7/2) wounds -> (7/3) unsaved wounds -> 2.33 dead GEQ
Rangers 10 shots -> (20/3) hits -> (40/9) wounds -> (80/27) unsaved wounds -> 2.96 dead GEQ

Point for point, rangers are approximately 27% better at killing GEQ than 5 pt guardsmen.

35 points of X shooting at marines assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 14 shots -> 7 hits -> (7/3) wounds -> (7/9) unsaved wounds -> 0.78 dead marines
Rangers 10 shots -> (20/3) hits -> (10/3) wounds -> (10/9) unsaved wounds -> 1.11 dead marines

Point for point, rangers are approximately 42% better at killing marines than 5 pt guardsmen.

This also doesn't factor in that rangers have a 6++, better base movement than guardsmen, and have a 6" longer range on their gun.

TBH I was surpised when Rangers dropped from 10 pts to 7. They are easily worth 8pts, and are IMO in the top 3 for basic infantry.

Ultimately though, the main reason I would like to see 5 pt Guard is to increase point differences between cheap units. Push Guard up to 5 pts, then adjust problem units upward while giving things like termagants breathing room.

 greatbigtree wrote:

Plenty of Guard players readily acknowledge we have a top teir codex.

There is nothing wrong with having a top tier codex, but fix some of the lower tier ones intead

Plenty of Guard players have pointed out our Soup contribution is going to change by 30 points. At tournaments of 2000 points, that's 1.5% difference. So that's not going to change much.

For soup armies, it will make no change to their decision to take the the guard battery.

For mono guard it punishes them and even more so as many will take 60 or 90 infantry. Then combined with peoples complaints about cheap commanders, hellhounds, artillery, and they are just as likely to be punished further.

I don't *understand* why Guard were given the ability to recoup CP. We can already generate more than we need, without recouping. I don't attribute to malice, that which can be explained by incompetence, so I just assume GW thought Guard was going to make greater use of the somewhat mediocre strategems we have?

Well there are some combos of guard that can make good use of the extra CP, a battalion with a spearhead (9CP) is not uncommon at lower points, so extra CP is nice. Not everyone takes a brigade.

I believe the key tournament issue is that Guard generate cheap, renewable CP. In several other threads, I've explained how detachment-based cp generation is flawed, and here is the prime example. I'd happily get rid of the CP regen abilities, they aren't helping mono-Guard much, and we can all have equal CP so that allying Guard becomes pointless.

Yes and as mentioned a 30 point increase wont deter armies like custodes and knights which have no choice.

And also as mentioned you should not punish mono guard who want to be able to generate extra CP, just dont allow soup armies to do it will solve most of the issues.

Anyhow, the myth that Guard players don't accept / appreciate their powerful codex is a myth. Get over it.

I am a guard player, I know the guard codex is a good one. Do i still have a challenge when I take on other armies. You bet i do.

As a top tier codex it only makes sense that you see guard in the top placings, they are good as an all comers army. Will they win all the tournaments, absolutely not and the results show it.

w1zard wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
This would be a good start though and it wouldn't be too drastic as to potentially break Guard for 6 months while they wait for Chapter Approved/a big FAQ.

See that is the thing. I think it will nerf guard so badly that mono-guard won't be able to compete with the top tier factions like knights, eldar, and DE. I mean, even with 4ppm guardsmen we barely hold our own against the top lists.

Fixing guardsmen to where they should be and not touching anything else just hurts guard. Either everything should get fixed at once, or guardsmen should be left how they are. I agree 5 pt guardsmen are an easy fix, but I'm worried it's so easy that they'll do it and never fix any of the other factions because the other factions have issues that are more fundamental than some undercosted infantry.

As for the math on 5 pt guardsmen vs 7 point rangers:

VS 40 boltgun shots:
Guard - (80/3) wounds -> (160/9) unsaved wounds -> 88.88 points of dead guardsmen
Rangers - (80/3) wounds -> (80/6) unsaved wounds -> 93.33 points of dead rangers

This is close enough to be fine

35 points of X shooting at GEQ assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 14 shots -> 7 hits -> (7/2) wounds -> (7/3) unsaved wounds -> 2.33 dead GEQ
Rangers 10 shots -> (20/3) hits -> (40/9) wounds -> (80/27) unsaved wounds -> 2.96 dead GEQ

Point for point, rangers are approximately 27% better at killing GEQ than 5 pt guardsmen.

35 points of X shooting at marines assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 14 shots -> 7 hits -> (7/3) wounds -> (7/9) unsaved wounds -> 0.78 dead marines
Rangers 10 shots -> (20/3) hits -> (10/3) wounds -> (10/9) unsaved wounds -> 1.11 dead marines

Point for point, rangers are approximately 42% better at killing marines than 5 pt guardsmen.

This also doesn't factor in that rangers have a 6++, better base movement than guardsmen, and have a 6" longer range on their gun.

How does the math change when you factor in the fact that Rangers have fewer wounds total than Guardsman? Is the 6++ enough to turn the tide? Also, there's the fact that Guardsman can get an extra 6" on their gun, making them equal there. Alternatively, they could have RR1, which changes the math a little too.

Once you factor in 40 points of support, per 2 Guardsman squads... the math goes significantly askew. "Eldar Farseers have comparable psychic powers too!" - sure, but price point, reliability, and final factor of effect; Guardsman with a 40pt Commander, things begin to change REAL quick. To show it simply: 80pts Guardsman+40points Commander (120pts) has the same output as 160pts of Guardsman (4xGuardsman squad). Sure, the second option also has double the wounds, but...

Lastly, I hope your argument isn't, "I admit my army could use a nerf, but unless they also nerf everyone else at the same time, you shouldn't nerf us!". - I mean, come on.

I'm a Tau player and I think Firewarriors should go back to 8ppm.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well - I do think there is a reason why there is less complaining about non AM stuff.

Getting beat by a giant robot of destruction kind of has this..."well that figures" feeling goes along with it. getting beat by hordes of human just doesn't have any good feeling that comes with it...

It's kind of like...why are these pathetic humans are strong as a space marine? (catachans) Why do they do more damage than my space marine (all gaurd) These are the thoughts that consume lot of players minds.

Ah, there it is.

It's a game, not a Black Library novel.

fe40k wrote:

Once you factor in 40 points of support, per 2 Guardsman squads... the math goes significantly askew. "Eldar Farseers have comparable psychic powers too!" - sure, but price point, reliability, and final factor of effect; Guardsman with a 40pt Commander, things begin to change REAL quick. To show it simply: 80pts Guardsman+40points Commander (120pts) has the same output as 160pts of Guardsman (4xGuardsman squad). Sure, the second option also has double the wounds, but...

Lastly, I hope your argument isn't, "I admit my army could use a nerf, but unless they also nerf everyone else at the same time, you shouldn't nerf us!". - I mean, come on.

Sorry to disappoint you further but a commander is only 30pts!

That said I dont believe all troops choices need to be comparable output and survivability. Yes the humble guard squad can get buffed to increase its utility and output but that's what makes them unique and they should not pay the price for having the ability to receive orders. If anything the commander could have a slight price increase, say 10pts, making the cheapest battalion 200pts. Unlike other HQ's he only there to do orders, he has very little utility outside of that (no auras, neither useful in shooting or close combat).

 Galas wrote:
I'm a Tau player and I think Firewarriors should go back to 8ppm.

Skitarii Rangers and Fire Warriors can both go to 8 pts, and I'm honestly not worried about the differences between them, (which are also greater than the differences between guardsmen and GSC).
Of course, if guard don't budge then it becomes harder to justify this, hence my insistence on the issue.

 Larks wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Well - I do think there is a reason why there is less complaining about non AM stuff.

Getting beat by a giant robot of destruction kind of has this..."well that figures" feeling goes along with it. getting beat by hordes of human just doesn't have any good feeling that comes with it...

It's kind of like...why are these pathetic humans are strong as a space marine? (catachans) Why do they do more damage than my space marine (all gaurd) These are the thoughts that consume lot of players minds.

Ah, there it is.

It's a game, not a Black Library novel.

Might be an IG book

@ Smirrors:

I loathe the quote and reply, line by line format. I remember what I wrote... you can just reply to that as a whole.

Like this!

You seem to be attempting to disagree with me. And that's fine, but you're taking my reply, to someone else, out of context. There seems to be an overall perception that Guard players are unaware of our power levels, or denying that they are what they are, which for the most part is inaccurate.

I have no innate issue with playing a high-powered codex, though I do prefer the challenge of taking on high-powered codices with a mid-range dex. Part of my enjoyment of this game, which I admit is on the wane, is meeting my opponent's challenge.

I'm quite aware that the price change won't impact soup. Which is why I pointed out the measly 1.5% price impact. I presented this in a way that agrees with your statement. Based on my experience, a Guardsman is worth 5 ppm, though. Both my in-game and out-game analysis points to this. Such an adjustment isn't a punishment, it is simply adjusting the points to accurately reflect my opinion of their battlefield capability. When Guard were weak, I argued for improvements. When they are (by definition) overpowered, I wish to see their value corrected. I'm interested in the balance of the game, and playing on an even field. I feel this would help that goal.

I can easily fit a Brigade into 1500 points, using my (nearly) decades old collection of models. I don't have a lot, but I have a little of everything. It is really easy to do. I have never spent all my CP in a game, when I play this way. Again, I'd rather *everyone* just get more CP, then to have this battery be a part of the competitive game. CP tied to detachments and all that.

As above, I am not seeking to *punish* Guard. I honestly believe the value of a squad of Guardsmen should be 50 points base. Their abilities in this game are suited to that level. More than any mathammer regarding lethality or survivability, their board presence / control is more valuable than they're charged for. In previous editions, board control and screening more valuable (tanks) units was more difficult, and risky. Guard were worth less then, as they couldn't control the board nearly as well as they can now. Not even remotely close. Apples and... Bowling Balls. Not even two different fruits but two different classes of object. They're more valuable than 40 points, for the space they take, and the space they *prevent* others from occupying.

I also play Guard. I know this is the most powerful Codex Guard has had since 3rd edition. (I didn't play them in 2nd). Frankly, I don't experience a challenge in my one-on-one games, though with the new Knight codex I'm thinking that will be changing.

I don't follow tournaments. It sounds like Guard's contribution to the top 10 recently was *mostly* as a Battery for other codices that have a hard time generating CP. I think that of all the codices I've encountered, Guard is the codex most *capable* of running mono-faction in a competitive environment.



Does anyone have results for Mono-Faction builds in large tournaments? I'm curious how Mono-Faction lists do in comparison to one another.

It's pretty rare for any imperium faction other than guard to show up without soup, since for the most part the guard CP battery and/or BA captain battery are all that's keeping the knights and custodes competitive. Other space Marines, AdMech, and sisters are all a teir (or two) below them.

Eldar and DE are also run pure, but it's sort of foolish not to combine them, since the eldar powers are great for DE, and agents of vect is the best strategem in the game.

Nids are probablu the only faction that can ally but doesn't feel like it has to, but that's because GSC are an index army.

There was a pure Knights list at the top of BAO.

But yeah, most armies are going to be soup/have allies when the rule set explicitly encourages you to combine various detachments and take the best elements of multiple codexes.

 greatbigtree wrote:


I don't follow tournaments. It sounds like Guard's contribution to the top 10 recently was *mostly* as a Battery for other codices that have a hard time generating CP. I think that of all the codices I've encountered, Guard is the codex most *capable* of running mono-faction in a competitive environment.



Does anyone have results for Mono-Faction builds in large tournaments? I'm curious how Mono-Faction lists do in comparison to one another.

It should probably be edited into the OP at this point, but Guard Primary armies (not the batteries) are extremely dominant in tournament atm, being the top army in multiple aspects.



As for Mono-faction lists, nobody really records that, because it's not how the game is played, and when we balance armies, we balance them on what they CAN take, not what they CHOOSE NOT TO. However, we know Guard got like 20th at BAO, I think it was a Tau list with a tied record at like 4132 resistance points compared to 4131 or something, and a Knight list apparently, above it.

jcd386 wrote:
It's pretty rare for any imperium faction other than guard to show up without soup, since for the most part the guard CP battery and/or BA captain battery are all that's keeping the knights and custodes competitive. Other space Marines, AdMech, and sisters are all a teir (or two) below them.

Eldar and DE are also run pure, but it's sort of foolish not to combine them, since the eldar powers are great for DE, and agents of vect is the best strategem in the game.

Nids are probablu the only faction that can ally but doesn't feel like it has to, but that's because GSC are an index army.

Most top Tyranids actually has 500 ish points of GSC and some DE has CWE for the anti shield cap/celestine powers so you can deal with them in 1 turn and not get tided up by them.

fe40k wrote:
How does the math change when you factor in the fact that Rangers have fewer wounds total than Guardsman?

Already factored in. A +4 save at 7 points means less wounds total, but those wounds are harder to remove. The per-point durability is basically the same vs bolter fire or lasgun fire for that matter. You can check my math if you wish.

fe40k wrote:
Also, there's the fact that Guardsman can get an extra 6" on their gun, making them equal there. Alternatively, they could have RR1, which changes the math a little too.

I wasn't factoring in regimental traits. If we want to go up that route then rangers can make everyone get -1 to hit on them outside 12" and all other sorts of shenanigans. Rangers get that extra 6" baseline and guardsmen don't.

fe40k wrote:
Lastly, I hope your argument isn't, "I admit my army could use a nerf, but unless they also nerf everyone else at the same time, you shouldn't nerf us!". - I mean, come on.

No... my argument is "Nerfing guard without touching any of the other factions just makes guard weak and then nobody wins. If we are going to nerf guard it has to be a part of a bigger, sweeping balance change." Sounds better doesn't it?