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.

 greatbigtree wrote:
@ 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.

But it's easier for others to read, not just you.

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.

If its out of context its because you didn't quote the person who you were responding to...

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.

If you are just playing for fun, then just take a balanced list. I don't think the lack of challenge that you speak of is due to the guard codex being overpowered but other army codex being not as good. Certainly the BIG Faq adjustments made guard better so maybe they do need to adjust something.

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.

Part of the reason people want to address the guardsmen points lately is due to their over representation in soup lists to purely supply 5CP and regen CP. I am saying that the change in price does nothing to change this.

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.

And this is where we disagree. The base squad of guardsmen doesn't have much capability over any other armies troop choices, they are just cheap. Their capability comes from being able to receive orders so you should price their officers accordingly. Are 30pt commanders and 20pt platoon commanders too cheap?

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.

And not everyone wants to take a brigade. There are plenty of other formations people take and some of them may want some CP regeneration. The reason you don't spend all your CP in a game is because guard strategems aren't crazy strong or form an important part of a strategy as it does with other armies. This is a well designed codex IMO.

I do agree that some other armies need more CP but that should be addressed by those individual armies.

People should be able to soup because they like having mixed forces. CP should not be the reason.

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.

Maybe thats to do with your opponents or you are just an amazing player. I would challenge you to take a balanced mono guard list and see how well you go. Outside of the recent catachan/artemia hellhound combos (artemias will probably get a 20pt increase each), I suspect you will end up in the middle somewhere.

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.

Mostly batteries or some combo of lots of hellhounds, catachans and small soup of captains or knights.

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

No singular results but mono armies do appear sporadically here and there.

This channel does monthly reports and lo and behold the guard are at the top:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXthA8TSvxA

Honestly what I think Warhammer needs as a whole is to double everything's points. You can even have 4, 000 point games as the standard then. With that we can have better granularity of points vs value. I mean think about it if five-point Guardsmen are too expensive and four-point Guardsmen are too cheap if you doubled everything's points and did 9 point Guardsman that will be a nice happy medium. This would also work for balancing out the other troops from other factions like Rangers and firewarriors.

I seen a lot of talk before about how a D6 system is to constrictive, and I can see that point. But the D6 system is unlikely to change. So why not make the granularity in points rather than dice. I know this is Semi off topic but it kind of is what we're talking about as well.

 SHUPPET wrote:

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.

The meta ebs and flows as new codex comes in and shakes things up. The guard lists doing well are Catachan hoards with cheap Hellhounds complimented by squaring up the guard weakness of close combat with shield captains or blood angel captains, or reinforcing it with more fire power with knights.

Cherry picking the best units from codex does this.

Can I have Alpha Legion cultists instead of Guardsmen? I'll trade stratagems too, sounds fair to me.

w1zard wrote:

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?

tbh It sounds like the exact same thing

Also worth randomly saying, 10 guardsmen who can shoot like normal people cost 40.

10 guardsmen who can shoot Omg OP Fire Twice costs 55 points.

Well, thanks for breaking my heart there w1zard.

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.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. Mono-ANYTHING lists generally don't compete well at the top level. If you take a mono-guard list, you won't be against another mono-faction like Knights, Eldar and DE. You'll be against a soup army. However, just to put this into perspective for you; the top mono-list (finishing 19th I believe) at the last major tournament was Tau. The 2nd mono-list (finishing 20th I think) was GUARD. The fact that, as a mono-faction, you're able to compete in the top arena at all, is pretty telling of the strength of Guard. Bear in mind that many xeno factions don't have the option to soup at all, while guard do. So the fact that a competitive player was taking a mono-faction build shows that he believes the faction to be able to compete at the top level without even needing to soup. Let that sink in because the same probably wouldn't be said for some of the other strongest performing competitive lists at the moment (Custodes, IK).

w1zard wrote:
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.

So, just to be clear, Guardsmen are 5% more durable, point for point than Rangers (even when increased to 5ppm), their damage output is slightly less against GEQ and even worse against MEQ? This sounds balanced to me. Either way, as I've stated, we're here to talk about Guardsmen. If you want to discuss Neophites or Rangers create another thread.

We are comparing in a vacuum, but since you keep asking a very specific question about a singular element of a unit compared to another I have to answer as best I can. Also, as I've said many times now, perhaps Neophites need an increase? Guard are far better than their equivalent costed units at 4ppm. They aren't much better or worse than 5ppm units, the difference is negligible.

w1zard wrote:

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?

Compair 5ppm Guard vrs Firewarriors at 7ppm and their balanced
Compair 7ppm Rangers vrs Firewarriors and the Rangers are better
, both can't be worth 7ppm so either firewarriors are only worth 6ppm which is just giving infantry less and less ppm to be different or Rangers are 8ppm.
Just making every unit cheap enough to compete with the most OP stuff leads to the current mess we have where frankly a 6x8 table is no longer large enough for a 2k game really.

Guard isn't a mono-faction army, and shouldn't be balanced as though they are. If you are going to balance them as they are, the only comparison is to other armies as a mono-faction as well. By either measure, Guardsmen are not a 4 pt model.

I'm a Krieg player, which means I'm used to playing 5ppm guardsmen, without access to frfsrf. Even then, they're a great unit.

IS have lots of shots, access to the best movement in the troop bracket, are some of the best bubblewrap going (in a faction that uses bubblewrap better than any other), put obsec all over the place, are more killy than most troop choices in the game, and are stupid cheap. 5ppm is a steal.

Ice_can wrote:
Compair 5ppm Guard vrs Firewarriors at 7ppm and their balanced
Compair 7ppm Rangers vrs Firewarriors and the Rangers are better
, both can't be worth 7ppm so either firewarriors are only worth 6ppm which is just giving infantry less and less ppm to be different or Rangers are 8ppm.
Just making every unit cheap enough to compete with the most OP stuff leads to the current mess we have where frankly a 6x8 table is no longer large enough for a 2k game really.

Sure they can.

Are Rangers remotely effecting the meta right now? Are Ad Mech or Ad Mech soups the terror of the lists?
Seemingly no.
So I don't really see what basis is being made for them being too good and needing a nerf.

This idea that the 6++ matters also indicates a lack of experience of playing the game. Okay your ranger holds up a bit better versus plasma guns and thunder hammers. How often does that come up? If said things are going into rangers that's usually a sign everything else is dead.

It's also worth noting that the offensive ability of guardsmen is largely a non factor. Although they are effective damage dealers per point, a single squad does very little damage. Their real value comes into play defensively, especially as allies to armies that would otherwise pay a lot more for a unit to sit back on objectives like Custodes and knights.

So people comparing the offensive ability of guard and rangers are missing the point. Being able to take a 10 wound objective holding squad for 40 points is so much better than a 10 wound objective holding squad for 70 points that does sightly more largely irrelevant damage. Simply existing is the guardsmen greatest strength. Other units can be relied on for damage. I'm calling it now that when ITC fixes reaper you'll start seeing a lot less mortars in your ally squads.

Tyel wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Compair 5ppm Guard vrs Firewarriors at 7ppm and their balanced
Compair 7ppm Rangers vrs Firewarriors and the Rangers are better
, both can't be worth 7ppm so either firewarriors are only worth 6ppm which is just giving infantry less and less ppm to be different or Rangers are 8ppm.
Just making every unit cheap enough to compete with the most OP stuff leads to the current mess we have where frankly a 6x8 table is no longer large enough for a 2k game really.

Sure they can.

Are Rangers remotely effecting the meta right now? Are Ad Mech or Ad Mech soups the terror of the lists?
Seemingly no.
So I don't really see what basis is being made for them being too good and needing a nerf.

This idea that the 6++ matters also indicates a lack of experience of playing the game. Okay your ranger holds up a bit better versus plasma guns and thunder hammers. How often does that come up? If said things are going into rangers that's usually a sign everything else is dead.

Rangers out shoot firewarriors head to head. When Have I said the 6++ mattered, the +1WS and +1BS sure do though

Just about everything in 8th edition has been left with no way to be rebalanced but points increases as post codex nothing can loose more pointa without becoming the next OP unit as theirs no space when stuff hits 2,3, 4ppm and they are everywhere.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. Mono-ANYTHING lists generally don't compete well at the top level. If you take a mono-guard list, you won't be against another mono-faction like Knights, Eldar and DE. You'll be against a soup army.

Mono-eldar and mono-DE does very well... also, wasn't the winning list of the last BAO a mono-knight list?

I expect my faction to be competitive when played mono, you don't? I mean... definitely not bleeding edge competitiveness because as you correctly pointed out soup is always going to be better simply by the virtue of being able to pick the best units from all the codices available, but mono factions should still be able to compete. In fact, I would argue that the ability of a mono-anything codex to compete with soup is the mark of a well designed faction/codex. Guard is where EVERY codex should be in terms of competitiveness, general usability, and cool mechanics.

I still agree with you that guardsmen should be 5 pts BTW.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
So, just to be clear, Guardsmen are 5% more durable, point for point than Rangers (even when increased to 5ppm), their damage output is slightly less against GEQ and even worse against MEQ? This sounds balanced to me.

You are being disingenuous. A 27% damage advantage over guardsmen against GEQ is not "slightly" less... and why is it ok that rangers are 42% better against marines than guardsmen (even after factoring points cost in) when they are pretty much equal defensively?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
We are comparing in a vacuum, but since you keep asking a very specific question about a singular element of a unit compared to another I have to answer as best I can. Also, as I've said many times now, perhaps Neophites need an increase? Guard are far better than their equivalent costed units at 4ppm. They aren't much better or worse than 5ppm units, the difference is negligible.

+1L is actually useful on 10 man squads, it is not "negligible". Even if it was "negligible" neophytes are guardsmen+ for the same points cost and that is not fair by your own standards. So let me be clear on this. Do you support points increases OR nerfs to units like rangers and neophytes that are pretty much directly superior to 5 pt guardsmen? You have been implying it, I want to hear you say it.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Guard isn't a mono-faction army, and shouldn't be balanced as though they are....

I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry.

There are factions that are not designed to function outside of soup such as knights, assassins, inquisition, SOS etc. IG is not one of them.

w1zard wrote:

I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry.

You've been in here crying so far, so I'd say you already made that decision

 SHUPPET wrote:
You've been in here crying so far, so I'd say you already made this decision

Contribute something to the discussion or leave. All you are doing is sitting on the sidelines and throwing out personal attacks and snark and it's getting really old.

LMAO I literally just contributed a logic based opinion, that YOU responded to with "I don't know whether to laugh or cry".

Don't get upset that that you got snark in return for your own, you were the one who quoted me first to do so.

I've contributed more sanity than most people to this thread already, yourself included, so have the tiniest bit of self awareness and take a measure of your own advice on this one.

Ice_can wrote:
Rangers out shoot firewarriors head to head. When Have I said the 6++ mattered, the +1WS and +1BS sure do though

Just about everything in 8th edition has been left with no way to be rebalanced but points increases as post codex nothing can loose more pointa without becoming the next OP unit as theirs no space when stuff hits 2,3, 4ppm and they are everywhere.

Whether rangers outshoot fire warriors head to head doesn't matter.

The guard defenders are right that units have to be considered in context of the army and available buffs.
Rangers are an okay unit in a pretty weak, one dimensional codex, with limited soup upside.
Rangers are therefore an issue for no one.

Guardsmen by contrast are a staple of the most meta relevant soup, and what is probably the best single codex in the game.

We are trying to make IG worse because they are currently too good. Making guard a bit worse, and then nerfing a swathe of other factions, doesn't get you that result.

w1zard wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. Mono-ANYTHING lists generally don't compete well at the top level. If you take a mono-guard list, you won't be against another mono-faction like Knights, Eldar and DE. You'll be against a soup army.

Mono-eldar and mono-DE does very well... also, wasn't the winning list of the last BAO a mono-knight list?

If you mean the BAO that just past the other week, then no. The winning list was DG and a small allied detachment of Renegade Knights.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. Mono-ANYTHING lists generally don't compete well at the top level. If you take a mono-guard list, you won't be against another mono-faction like Knights, Eldar and DE. You'll be against a soup army.

Mono-eldar and mono-DE does very well... also, wasn't the winning list of the last BAO a mono-knight list?

If you mean the BAO that just past the other week, then no. The winning list was DG and a small allied detachment of Renegade Knights.

Wait... wasnt it 3 Knights? Might have been another list i saw.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here. Mono-ANYTHING lists generally don't compete well at the top level. If you take a mono-guard list, you won't be against another mono-faction like Knights, Eldar and DE. You'll be against a soup army.

Mono-eldar and mono-DE does very well... also, wasn't the winning list of the last BAO a mono-knight list?

If you mean the BAO that just past the other week, then no. The winning list was DG and a small allied detachment of Renegade Knights.

Wait... wasnt it 3 Knights? Might have been another list i saw.

It was one big knight, two armigers, PBCs and Blightlord terminators.

Guard is also problematic in terms of balance because there is little counter play.

Commander Spam was nerfed because it was too strong, and there was no real documented counter play. People knew what the list was for about a year, and it was still doing very well overall as an index based army. Like you knew *exactly* what list you'd face against Index Tau but that wouldn't help you. That's how it is with Guard. You essentially know what you're going to get. And, there's little that can be done for it. None of us have efficient tools to remove the chaff, which is required to kill the artillery that's pounding you without LOS. If Guard want to be great at melee they can do that too.

At the end of the day this one faction has way too much and it's too cheap. They present a distinct balance problem in 40k.

 Marmatag wrote:
Guard is also problematic in terms of balance because there is little counter play.

Commander Spam was nerfed because it was too strong, and there was no real documented counter play. People knew what the list was for about a year, and it was still doing very well overall as an index based army. Like you knew *exactly* what list you'd face against Index Tau but that wouldn't help you. That's how it is with Guard. You essentially know what you're going to get. And, there's little that can be done for it. None of us have efficient tools to remove the chaff, which is required to kill the artillery that's pounding you without LOS. If Guard want to be great at melee they can do that too.

At the end of the day this one faction has way too much and it's too cheap. They present a distinct balance problem in 40k.

This!

I don't think Tau Commanders got limited because they were too good. I don't seem to remember them winning tournaments left and right, or even being that upsetting compared to certain other things.

They got nerfed because GW decided they didn't want people building Tau armies around commander spam. They would eventually try and stop spam more generally with the rule of 3.

 Marmatag wrote:
Guard is also problematic in terms of balance because there is little counter play.

Commander Spam was nerfed because it was too strong, and there was no real documented counter play. People knew what the list was for about a year, and it was still doing very well overall as an index based army. Like you knew *exactly* what list you'd face against Index Tau but that wouldn't help you.

Commander spam was nerfed because it was strong and because people were foregoing actual Crisis Suits in favor of just bringing HQs.

It's like if Tactical Marines were replaced by Captains and Lieutenants.

That's how it is with Guard. You essentially know what you're going to get. And, there's little that can be done for it. None of us have efficient tools to remove the chaff, which is required to kill the artillery that's pounding you without LOS. If Guard want to be great at melee they can do that too.

At the end of the day this one faction has way too much and it's too cheap. They present a distinct balance problem in 40k.

They really don't. They're the epitome of how the shooting factions should work. Tau should be similar to Guard. AdMech should be similar to Guard.

Also, "Guard great at melee" is lols. Just lols.

And now we have come to the "Guard isn't a mono-faction army, and shouldn't be balanced as though they are" So after all the arguing that guard themselves are broken when there is no Data to actually back up the claim you simply pick up the goalpost and move it to guard aren't supposed to be played as a mono faction. Seems like someone is coming round to the fact that soup is the issue and that we need to do something about it instead of nerfing one army in the soup.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Plenty of Guard players are fine with 5 ppm Infantry.
Anyhow, the myth that Guard players don't accept / appreciate their powerful codex is a myth. Get over it.

It looks like all the guard player posts after this one are complaints that Guard aren't OP and their dex isn't a problem...

bananathug wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
Plenty of Guard players are fine with 5 ppm Infantry.
Anyhow, the myth that Guard players don't accept / appreciate their powerful codex is a myth. Get over it.

It looks like all the guard player posts after this one are complaints that Guard aren't OP and their dex isn't a problem...

And it looks like most of the complaints about Guard Infantry are based upon soup, while claiming that the dex itself is the problem not soup.

Funny how that works...

w1zard wrote:
Mono-eldar and mono-DE does very well... also, wasn't the winning list of the last BAO a mono-knight list?

See below. I've told you what the top mono faction and next top mono faction was at the BAO. For some reason you missed it out of your quotation response. Here it is again; "However, just to put this into perspective for you; the top mono-list (finishing 19th I believe) at the last major tournament was Tau. The 2nd mono-list (finishing 20th I think) was GUARD. The fact that, as a mono-faction, you're able to compete in the top arena at all, is pretty telling of the strength of Guard. Bear in mind that many xeno factions don't have the option to soup at all, while guard do. So the fact that a competitive player was taking a mono-faction build shows that he believes the faction to be able to compete at the top level without even needing to soup. Let that sink in because the same probably wouldn't be said for some of the other strongest performing competitive lists at the moment (Custodes, IK)." Yea, mono Eldar and DE do well. Not as well as mono Tau or Guard if BAO is anything to go by.

w1zard wrote:
I expect my faction to be competitive when played mono, you don't? I mean... definitely not bleeding edge competitiveness because as you correctly pointed out soup is always going to be better simply by the virtue of being able to pick the best units from all the codices available, but mono factions should still be able to compete. In fact, I would argue that the ability of a mono-anything codex to compete with soup is the mark of a well designed faction/codex. Guard is where EVERY codex should be in terms of competitiveness, general usability, and cool mechanics.

Since my faction can only be played mono yea I fething hope it's competitive. When you're talking about the top 10 or 20 placings at a tournament as big as BAO you're talking about bleeding edge competitiveness so there'll always be soup. As I said earlier, a player is (in most cases) hamstringing himself if he picks a mono faction and attends a tournament. Guard as a whole might be "where every codex should be", but Guardsmen aren't. This discussion is regarding Guardsmen.

w1zard wrote:
I still agree with you that guardsmen should be 5 pts BTW.

Thank feth for that.

w1zard wrote:
You are being disingenuous. A 27% damage advantage over guardsmen against GEQ is not "slightly" less... and why is it ok that rangers are 42% better against marines than guardsmen (even after factoring points cost in) when they are pretty much equal defensively?

I don't think I am being disingenuous, actually. The role of Guardsmen is not to kill a ton of things with their flashlights. It's to sit on objectives. They are point for point better at that than Rangers even at 5ppm. Objectives literally win you games. You are being disingenuous when you say they are "pretty much equal defensively". This is false now and it'll be false if their points is increased. Guardsmen are better. Without stratagems and orders....

w1zard wrote:
+1L is actually useful on 10 man squads, it is not "negligible". Even if it was "negligible" neophytes are guardsmen+ for the same points cost and that is not fair by your own standards. So let me be clear on this. Do you support points increases OR nerfs to units like rangers and neophytes that are pretty much directly superior to 5 pt guardsmen? You have been implying it, I want to hear you say it.

I don't think +1 LD is worth a point and I wouldn't cry if Neophites lost it. Nor would I cry if they kept it and retained their points cost. I think, in comparison to the difference between Guardsmen and Hormagaunts or Termagaunts for example, the difference of +1 LD is pretty damn negligible. You've yet to convince me that Rangers are directly superior to 5ppm Guardsmen, in a vacuum or otherwise. Since you're so desperate for my personal stance on this though, here it is - I support both; if Guardsmen went up to 5ppm, I'd see no reason (in a vacuum) that Neophites should keep their +1 LD. This discussion isn't about Neophites or Rangers though. It's about Guardsmen.

This is what really annoys me about these sorts of topics. Inevitably the defenders of their faction/unit automatically try and bring in another unit that's over/under costed and shift the focus on to that. Yes other units might also need a tweak. Make a thread and we'll discuss it in there. Don't bring in these other units because you don't like the spotlight on your own.

E -

 Kanluwen wrote:
And it looks like most of the complaints about Guard Infantry are based upon soup, while claiming that the dex itself is the problem not soup.

Funny how that works...

People are complaining both from a soup perspective and from a mono one. BOTH the dex AND soup are problems. The problem with Guard obviously lies in it's own dex. The problem with Guard Infantry is that they are evidently too good for their cost, whether souped or mono is not massively relevant.

Asmodios wrote:
And now we have come to the "Guard isn't a mono-faction army, and shouldn't be balanced as though they are" So after all the arguing that guard themselves are broken when there is no Data to actually back up the claim you simply pick up the goalpost and move it to guard aren't supposed to be played as a mono faction. Seems like someone is coming round to the fact that soup is the issue and that we need to do something about it instead of nerfing one army in the soup.

There is data to back it up, you just ignored all of it because it destroyed your argument. That doesn't mean it stopped existing lol, the rest of us all still remember it. And refusing to fix a balance problem in the competitive scene simply because the army in question COULD be run in a weaker way, is not how this game works, for anybody. You are the one choosing to hamper yourself, and overpowered stuff cannot be allowed to run a muck just so that weaker lists from lower caliber players are not impacted.

And taking the first fraction of a post out of context doesn't make for a very compelling argument. I said they shouldn't be balanced as a solo army as in, you comparing SOLO Guard to soup lists makes no sense. I also said immediately after that we can compare them as a solo faction - in which case you would compare them to other solo factions... You know, the logical thing to do. Super simple stuff.

But I guess you and w1zard saw that first half a sentence and started frothing at the mouth too much to read the rest of it.