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.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Which would you rather have:
Specific levels of officers(Senior, Junior, and Sergeants) where each one grants a specific style of buff in the vein of the Protocols on the Kastelan Robots(Perk+Downside)...or the system we have now?

Cause I'd rather have the former than the latter, where each 'level' of Officer(Seniors as HQs, Juniors as Elites, Sergeants only applying to their squads) brings something unique and interesting to the army but once they're dead they lose access to that buff.

I think the basis of the current command system is good (if not all of the commands.) It is way more interesting than the Marine system, where one guy just buffs everything around him. I rather wish marines had a command system too, instead of auras. Also, a system where there is a limit on how many and what sort of units one character can buff is much easier to balance. Guilliman is ludicrously overcosted if he is buffing couple of tactical squads, but park a maniple of Leviathan Dreadnoughts around him and he becomes magnitudes more powerful.

And this is where it's a "grass is greener" situation seems to come into play.

So you'd rather that you have:
a) A numerical limit as to how many buffs you can give out in a turn
b) A unit limitation as to who can receive those buffs in a turn
c) Situational mandates for some of those buffs
d) Ranged limitations for those buffs, coupled with a requirement for a piece of wargear to extend the buffs

I'd rather have a tiered system, where different characters grant different buffs to the army, nearby squads, and their own squad(in that order)
Senior Officers granting an "objective" order(Hold the line, Go on the offensive, or Consolidate forces--etc, etc) that applies to the whole army
Junior Officers granting a "situational" order(Units near objectives get bonuses to morale or fire rates, units that get charged can overwatch better, etc) that applies to squads within a certain range of them.
Sergeants granting an "immediate" order(Ability to single out an enemy character for a single weapon in the squad, ability to bolster indirect fire weapons' effectiveness, bonus for being in cover, etc) to their squads.

Give each of those orders a two-tiered system like the Doctrina Imperatives for Skitarii, where having a Vox-Caster improves it slightly and boom--a more effective system that makes it so that Officers can be upped in points costs.

I'd also heavily rework infantry squads but that won't happen until if or when we see a new box, sadly.

Asmodios wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

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.

No you have still provided 0 data that mono guard is broken in any way. You have provided plenty of data that soup is and issue yet everyone is focused on guard instead of addressing soup. When compared as a solo faction IG are not broken and running around stomping stuff as you claim.

Have you considered that it's just guardsmen that are broken and not mono-guard?
If people take guard infantry and knights instead of guard infantry and baneblades, or marines and knights that tells me that guard infantry is better than marines, and knights are better than baneblades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
[
So you'd rather that you have:
a) A numerical limit as to how many buffs you can give out in a turn
b) A unit limitation as to who can receive those buffs in a turn
c) Situational mandates for some of those buffs
d) Ranged limitations for those buffs, coupled with a requirement for a piece of wargear to extend the buffs

Yes, that's exactly what I want. It quantifies the amount of buffs possible, restricts them to specific units and allows tactical flexibility instead of just "shoot better". We definitely need more of this, not less.

And nothing beats being able to yell "First Rank Fire! Second Rank Fire!" and then rolling all your dice.
(the other ones are nice to yell too)

Dandelion wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:

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.

No you have still provided 0 data that mono guard is broken in any way. You have provided plenty of data that soup is and issue yet everyone is focused on guard instead of addressing soup. When compared as a solo faction IG are not broken and running around stomping stuff as you claim.

Have you considered that it's just guardsmen that are broken and not mono-guard?
If people take guard infantry and knights instead of guard infantry and baneblades, or marines and knights that tells me that guard infantry is better than marines, and knights are better than baneblades.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
[
So you'd rather that you have:
a) A numerical limit as to how many buffs you can give out in a turn
b) A unit limitation as to who can receive those buffs in a turn
c) Situational mandates for some of those buffs
d) Ranged limitations for those buffs, coupled with a requirement for a piece of wargear to extend the buffs

Yes, that's exactly what I want. It quantifies the amount of buffs possible, restricts them to specific units and allows tactical flexibility instead of just "shoot better". We definitely need more of this, not less.

And nothing beats being able to yell "First Rank Fire! Second Rank Fire!" and then rolling all your dice.
(the other ones are nice to yell too)

So then you have rolled back around to soup being broken. Increasing the points of guardsmen will then disproportionately hurt the Mono IG players. Not only that it does very little to affect actual soup... If you want to town down soup CP being shared across armies needs to be addressed.

Edit: I also agree that instead of aura abilities, having everyone have something like orders for guard is much better as it would really help balance out units.... but that type of sweeping change won't happen till 8.2 or 9th

Dandelion wrote:

Have you considered that it's just guardsmen that are broken and not mono-guard?
If people take guard infantry and knights instead of guard infantry and baneblades, or marines and knights that tells me that guard infantry is better than marines, and knights are better than baneblades.

This fails to factor in metas and the way the game is actually set up, where batteries of cheap troops to fill out detachments is preferable to some people rather than actually playing their fricking faction.

 Kanluwen wrote:
[
So you'd rather that you have:
a) A numerical limit as to how many buffs you can give out in a turn
b) A unit limitation as to who can receive those buffs in a turn
c) Situational mandates for some of those buffs
d) Ranged limitations for those buffs, coupled with a requirement for a piece of wargear to extend the buffs

Yes, that's exactly what I want. It quantifies the amount of buffs possible, restricts them to specific units and allows tactical flexibility instead of just "shoot better". We definitely need more of this, not less.

And nothing beats being able to yell "First Rank Fire! Second Rank Fire!" and then rolling all your dice.
(the other ones are nice to yell too)

Cool, you can have that--I want my version.

I'm not sure if this was already mentioned, but the DkoK guardsmen are 5ppm and do not get access to FRFSRF or roll 1s to hit. Granted they get a WS4 and Death cult. But the WS barely comes into play.

I dont have a problem playing 5ppm for a guardsmen, seeing how I already do.

 Kanluwen wrote:

And this is where it's a "grass is greener" situation seems to come into play.

I have a small guard force too, I have experience of both systems.

So you'd rather that you have:
a) A numerical limit as to how many buffs you can give out in a turn
b) A unit limitation as to who can receive those buffs in a turn
c) Situational mandates for some of those buffs
d) Ranged limitations for those buffs, coupled with a requirement for a piece of wargear to extend the buffs

Yes! Gameplay choices that matter! Characters that can spread out instead of all them castling together and boringly passively buffing as many squads that can be shoved next to them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:

And nothing beats being able to yell "First Rank Fire! Second Rank Fire!" and then rolling all your dice.
(the other ones are nice to yell too)

Marines being able to "First Rank Fire! Second Rank Fire!" with bolt weapons would go a long way to fix their pathetic offence!

What if your characters could "join" a squad, to give that squad the buff? And couldn't be shot until the squad was wiped out?

I mean, I'm kidding, but wanted to remind people of that.

One of the driving reasons for the character change was so that we wouldn't have all these HQs bunched up buffing what's by them to destroy everything else. But now, instead, we have the HQs bunch up in a castle so the guys there can destroy everything else. I'm not saying it wasn't an improvement, I'm just saying it wasn't completely successful.

FRF, SRF does less for damage output, then adding a Plasmagun.

FRF, SRF does not double a unit's damage output, because a real Guard player knows that Lasguns are a joke. Period.

10 double-shot lasguns can expect to kill one MEQ in the open.

10 QUADRUPLE-shot lasguns can expect to kill one MEQ in cover.

Two double-tapping Plasma guns can expect to kill one or two MEQ, in cover or out.

Two PG are cheaper than one Commander. Therefore, and this is really gonna blow your mind... Guardsmen spam Plasma to deal damage! NOT FRF,SRF.

Because of the 200 lasgun shots to kill 5 MEQ in cover. It doesn't work. You are fishing for MAYBE one extra wound with FRF, SRF.

Try it on a table. Just try it.

FRFSRF is a solid ability in the right context. Lasguns really hurt my Hormagants.

But, let's be real, everyone is issuing take aim and relying on mortars. We cannot pretend Cadian take aim doesn't exist.

 greatbigtree wrote:
FRF, SRF does less for damage output, then adding a Plasmagun.

FRF, SRF does not double a unit's damage output, because a real Guard player knows that Lasguns are a joke. Period.

10 double-shot lasguns can expect to kill one MEQ in the open.

10 QUADRUPLE-shot lasguns can expect to kill one MEQ in cover.

Two double-tapping Plasma guns can expect to kill one or two MEQ, in cover or out.

Two PG are cheaper than one Commander. Therefore, and this is really gonna blow your mind... Guardsmen spam Plasma to deal damage! NOT FRF,SRF.

Because of the 200 lasgun shots to kill 5 MEQ in cover. It doesn't work. You are fishing for MAYBE one extra wound with FRF, SRF.

Try it on a table. Just try it.

And yet that double firing lasgun guardsman deals just much damage than marine with a bolter. For a tiny fraction of the price. So you don't think FRFSRF lasguns are not worth it. That mayby so. How would you like paying three times as much for that same firepower?

Any damage a guardsmen does is simply icing on the cake of their awesome durability. Lasguns aren't really killing anyone in real games.Neither are bolters, whatever gun rangers have, etc. These units are either there to take up space, or as vehicles for special / heavy weapons that actually do damage.

The issue with guardsmen is that there are no guns that are good at killing guardsman. For example, a guardsmen would have to cost 7.8 points before it would be as durable as a marine is against a heavy bolter out of cover.

Either guardsmen need to go up, or almost everything else in the game needs to go down or gain new abilities that makes them more durable.

I like how this thread has gone precisely nowhere in 24 pages.

At least we didn't have 9 pages of people explaining to a player that he's not allowed to play WYSIWYG because the rules for his models are bad.

Some threads you know are a trainwreck before they even start. Sometimes, they surprise you.

Asmodios wrote:

So then you have rolled back around to soup being broken. Increasing the points of guardsmen will then disproportionately hurt the Mono IG players. Not only that it does very little to affect actual soup... If you want to town down soup CP being shared across armies needs to be addressed.

No, in fact I said nothing of the sort. Guard are appearing in soup because they are too cheap for their value. If Tactical marines were 8 pts a pop, people wouldn't be getting enough of them, you'd see them everywhere. The problem unit is the marine in this case.
Besides, "soup" doesn't mean anything because it means everything. If I put down 1900pts of guard and an Assassin and then win, was it the assassin or the Guard that did the heavy lifting? You keep using it as some boogeyman that is somehow unrelated to its constituent units. The Guard infantry is the soup, just as much as Knights are soup.

Also, don't you dare take my soup away, I'm working on a Deimos skitarii escort for some grey knights and big knights and that's more important to me than some min/max cheese at a tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Marines being able to "First Rank Fire! Second Rank Fire!" with bolt weapons would go a long way to fix their pathetic offence!

Only if they're allowed to take lasguns

But in all seriousness, they can get their own version, or just something more interesting than "reroll 1s"

 greatbigtree wrote:
FRF, SRF does less for damage output, then adding a Plasmagun.

FRF, SRF does not double a unit's damage output, because a real Guard player knows that Lasguns are a joke. Period.

10 double-shot lasguns can expect to kill one MEQ in the open.

10 QUADRUPLE-shot lasguns can expect to kill one MEQ in cover.

Two double-tapping Plasma guns can expect to kill one or two MEQ, in cover or out.

Two PG are cheaper than one Commander. Therefore, and this is really gonna blow your mind... Guardsmen spam Plasma to deal damage! NOT FRF,SRF.

Because of the 200 lasgun shots to kill 5 MEQ in cover. It doesn't work. You are fishing for MAYBE one extra wound with FRF, SRF.

Try it on a table. Just try it.

HOW is this true?

Cite your sources, and consider there are more targets in the game than just T4, Sv3+ targets.

Lasguns are really effective, especially this edition. They equal stat-lines to the weapons wielded by many other rank and file troops, but have 2-4x as much firepower. Additionally, they are backed up by incredible point:wound durability ratios.

Lasguns. are. not. a. joke. ; They're a legitimate weapon, backed up by an extreme amounts of shots, thanks to FRSRF.

And, while plasma is the most superior weapon by its nature this edition - the extra firepower additional lasguns instead of plasmas goes a long way versus many other target types; say, tyranid 'gaunts for example. Don't underestimate the advantages you have with sheer amounts of dice. - There's a limit to how many plasma gun shots can kill a target, and it's at best equal, or half, of what a lasguns potential is. I'm not saying that you can expect every shot to hit/wound/get past armor saves, because that's where math comes in; but, you can kill more targets with more lasguns, especially if the target is other T3 or other lesser units (Eldar/Tau/Tyranid/etc).

Also, I love how your argument for 2xshots lasguns = 1 marine, while 4xshots lasguns = ...1 marine, but in-cover. Instead of continuing with 4xshots = 2 marines. Keep a consistent unit of measure, when you're making comparisons, please.

Dandelion wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

So then you have rolled back around to soup being broken. Increasing the points of guardsmen will then disproportionately hurt the Mono IG players. Not only that it does very little to affect actual soup... If you want to town down soup CP being shared across armies needs to be addressed.

No, in fact I said nothing of the sort. Guard are appearing in soup because they are too cheap for their value. If Tactical marines were 8 pts a pop, people wouldn't be getting enough of them, you'd see them everywhere. The problem unit is the marine in this case.
Besides, "soup" doesn't mean anything because it means everything. If I put down 1900pts of guard and an Assassin and then win, was it the assassin or the Guard that did the heavy lifting? You keep using it as some boogeyman that is somehow unrelated to its constituent units. The Guard infantry is the soup, just as much as Knights are soup.

Also, don't you dare take my soup away, I'm working on a Deimos skitarii escort for some grey knights and big knights and that's more important to me than some min/max cheese at a tournament.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

Marines being able to "First Rank Fire! Second Rank Fire!" with bolt weapons would go a long way to fix their pathetic offence!

Only if they're allowed to take lasguns

But in all seriousness, they can get their own version, or just something more interesting than "reroll 1s"

If 1900 points of guard is put on the table and then 100 points of something else then soup is winning that game. There is a reason why mono guard is not running around stomping tournaments and its because on their own they are very strong but not broken. What is broken is the ability to mix and match armies to cover all the built-in weaknesses in any single codex. The simple fact that you don't constantly see mono guard claiming top spots at tournaments shows that they are not strong enough solo to compete at top tables. It's funny how an all knight list can make it to the top tables at BAO though and there isn't a 25-page nuke knights thread.... Nope just nuke guard no other ingredients of the soup need work

meleti wrote:
I like how this thread has gone precisely nowhere in 24 pages.

I think we've reached the conclusion that 4ppm guardsmen are a bit much while 5ppm guardsmen are still among the best basic troops available.

The hangup seems to be whether or not a change weakening mono guard can be justified without also fixing other current meta issues/powerful units.

 Sleep Spell wrote:

meleti wrote:
I like how this thread has gone precisely nowhere in 24 pages.

I think we've reached the conclusion that 4ppm guardsmen are a bit much while 5ppm guardsmen are still among the best basic troops available.

The hangup seems to be whether or not a change weakening mono guard can be justified without also fixing other current meta issues/powerful units.

It's only "weakening" if the unit wasn't over the line anyways.

You absolutely can, and SHOULD, bring units in line with their competition; so what if other units/armies are also out of line? They too CAN be adjusted, even if it comes afterwards. - You need to set where the line is in the first place, and you can't do that if you never to create a standard, and start making the necessary changes to which comparisons can be held against.

 Sleep Spell wrote:

meleti wrote:
I like how this thread has gone precisely nowhere in 24 pages.

I think we've reached the conclusion that 4ppm guardsmen are a bit much while 5ppm guardsmen are still among the best basic troops available.

The hangup seems to be whether or not a change weakening mono guard can be justified without also fixing other current meta issues/powerful units.

Considering mono-guard still needs a fat nerf i'd say it's fine.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Sleep Spell wrote:

meleti wrote:
I like how this thread has gone precisely nowhere in 24 pages.

I think we've reached the conclusion that 4ppm guardsmen are a bit much while 5ppm guardsmen are still among the best basic troops available.

The hangup seems to be whether or not a change weakening mono guard can be justified without also fixing other current meta issues/powerful units.

Considering mono-guard still needs a fat nerf i'd say it's fine.

It's not fine - we haven't nerfed every other faction as well first.

Therefore, there never needs to be adjustments, unless everything else is ALSO perfectly balanced. We really should have left Dark Reapers alone tbh.

fe40k wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Sleep Spell wrote:

meleti wrote:
I like how this thread has gone precisely nowhere in 24 pages.

I think we've reached the conclusion that 4ppm guardsmen are a bit much while 5ppm guardsmen are still among the best basic troops available.

The hangup seems to be whether or not a change weakening mono guard can be justified without also fixing other current meta issues/powerful units.

Considering mono-guard still needs a fat nerf i'd say it's fine.

It's not fine - we haven't nerfed every other faction as well first.

Therefore, there never needs to be adjustments, unless everything else is ALSO perfectly balanced. We really should have left Dark Reapers alone tbh.

Yeah, dark reapers, hive tyrants, razorbacks, Guilliman, poxwalkers, tau commanders, malefic lords, cultists, brimstone horrors, warp time, hive commander... should i stop?

 Marmatag wrote:

 Sleep Spell wrote:

meleti wrote:
I like how this thread has gone precisely nowhere in 24 pages.

I think we've reached the conclusion that 4ppm guardsmen are a bit much while 5ppm guardsmen are still among the best basic troops available.

The hangup seems to be whether or not a change weakening mono guard can be justified without also fixing other current meta issues/powerful units.

Considering mono-guard still needs a fat nerf i'd say it's fine.

Please provide some data that mono guard needs a "fat nerf" i have seen 0 data showing that mono guard is causing any types of issues.

fe40k wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Sleep Spell wrote:

meleti wrote:
I like how this thread has gone precisely nowhere in 24 pages.

I think we've reached the conclusion that 4ppm guardsmen are a bit much while 5ppm guardsmen are still among the best basic troops available.

The hangup seems to be whether or not a change weakening mono guard can be justified without also fixing other current meta issues/powerful units.

Considering mono-guard still needs a fat nerf i'd say it's fine.

It's not fine - we haven't nerfed every other faction as well first.

Therefore, there never needs to be adjustments, unless everything else is ALSO perfectly balanced. We really should have left Dark Reapers alone tbh.

Was just saying we've gone somewhere in 20+ pages of comparing guardsmen to rangers etc.

I agree that you need to start somewhere and guards unfortunately have a big target on their back due to their prevalence in soup/tournament winning lists. Though I doubt that they will be entirely singled out for adjustments...

 Marmatag wrote:

fe40k wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Sleep Spell wrote:

meleti wrote:
I like how this thread has gone precisely nowhere in 24 pages.

I think we've reached the conclusion that 4ppm guardsmen are a bit much while 5ppm guardsmen are still among the best basic troops available.

The hangup seems to be whether or not a change weakening mono guard can be justified without also fixing other current meta issues/powerful units.

Considering mono-guard still needs a fat nerf i'd say it's fine.

It's not fine - we haven't nerfed every other faction as well first.

Therefore, there never needs to be adjustments, unless everything else is ALSO perfectly balanced. We really should have left Dark Reapers alone tbh.

Yeah, dark reapers, hive tyrants, razorbacks, Guilliman, poxwalkers, tau commanders, malefic lords, cultists, brimstone horrors, warp time, hive commander... should i stop?

Please keep going.

One of the main arguments against 5ppm Guardsman is that they're unfairly singled out, and should be immune to nerfs because no-one else is getting nerfed at the same time.

And yet, no pure IG player has been able to post a list that gets crippled by 5ppm guardsmen...

 skchsan wrote:
And yet, no pure IG player has been able to post a list that gets crippled by 5ppm guardsmen...

And no player has posted a mono guard list that's stomping through the tournament scene.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Bear in mind that many xeno factions don't have the option to soup at all, while guard do.

Guard shouldn't pay for the ability to soup any more than marines should. That is an 8th edition ruleset issue not a guard issue.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Yea, mono Eldar and DE do well. Not as well as mono Tau or Guard if BAO is anything to go by.

Mono-eldar and mono-DE are better than mono-guard.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
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.

I should be able to go against a "competitive" mono-eldar list with a "competitive" mono-guard list and have a decent chance of winning. This is barely happening right now with 4ppm guardsmen.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
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....

So a 5% defensive increase is worth 27% and 42% less offense against GEQ and marines respectively? Please...

If this doesn't convince you that rangers are better than 5ppm guardsmen point for point...

w1zard wrote:
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

Guardsmen have a 5% edge on defense.

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.

...Then I don't think we can have any kind of reasonable discussion, because not acknowledging that is completely irrational.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
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.

Then you are contradicting yourself. How can it be "not okay" that guardsmen are better then termagaunts at 4ppm... but you "wouldn't cry" if neophytes are better than guardsmen at 5ppm.

Asmodios wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
And yet, no pure IG player has been able to post a list that gets crippled by 5ppm guardsmen...

And no player has posted a mono guard list that's stomping through the tournament scene.

Because your definition of soup is anything less than 2000points of pure guard is soup and doesn't show guard as strong only soup.

Guard beat every other troop choice they have been compaired to in both damage resistance and output at 4ppm and start to become balance against some of the best at 5ppm.

The fact that people are taking guard battalions even without Grand Strategists and Kurov's Admittedly not doing as well, but are taking them says the are bringing more than the CP regeneration over evey other imperial troop unit.

They don't have to to prove you wrong as your criteria for restriction isn't based off a tournament setting at all. There is no data based on mono faction tournaments because nobody plays the game that way, so there will be no tournament data to reference what you're saying. The way it is played, Guard is dominant, so the game mode that is played competitively is the one that we balance around - not the one that doesn't exist. This is how GW has been balancing the game so far in this edition so you are lying to yourself if you think this won't continue going forward. An easy comparison that has direct parallels with this topic, would be the Nerf that Cultists got even though solo CSM was nowhere near as dominant as Chaos "soup". So your entire argument is based on a fallacious and low level understanding of how balance works.
Additionally, there's zero reason to believe that all the reasons for Guard being a 5 pt model would suddenly stop being true in a mono faction setting. YOU are the one claiming how this would change the army if it is restricted to mono-faction, so the onus is on YOU to provide some data for that. The rest of us are unmistakably discussing Guards overpowered nature as a primary in the tournament scene.

Ice_can wrote:
...and start to become balance against some of the best at 5ppm.

Except rangers... and neophytes... anyone have the stats for kabalites? I'd love to do the math to compare kabalites to 5ppm guardsmen. Can we have the stats for skitarii vanguard while we are at it? PM me if you think it's going to be an issue posting on the forum.

EDIT:
The math on 5 pt guardsmen vs 8 point vanguards:

VS 40 boltgun shots:
Guard - (80/3) wounds -> (160/9) unsaved wounds -> 88.88 points of dead guardsmen
Vanguard - (80/3) wounds -> (80/6) unsaved wounds -> 106.66 points of dead vanguard

Guardsmen have a 20% edge on defense.

40 points of X shooting at GEQ assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 16 shots -> 8 hits -> 4 wounds -> (8/3) unsaved wounds -> 2.66 dead GEQ
Vanguards 15 shots -> 10 hits -> 5 wounds -> (10/3) unsaved wounds -> 3.33 dead GEQ

Point for point, vanguard are approximately 25% better at killing GEQ than 5 pt guardsmen.

40 points of X shooting at marines assuming rapidfire range:
Guard - 16 shots -> 8 hits -> (8/3) wounds -> (8/9) unsaved wounds -> 0.88 dead marines
Vanguards 15 shots -> 10 hits -> (10/3) wounds -> (10/9) unsaved wounds -> 1.11 dead marines

Point for point, vanguard are approximately 26% better at killing marines than 5 pt guardsmen.

This is a more interesting comparison than rangers. I could accept the argument that a 20% increase in durability is worth a 25% decrease in firepower. However, this also doesn't factor in that vanguard have a 6++, better base movement than guardsmen, better leadership, the -1T aura in melee, and exploding 6s on their guns. Conclusuion: Vanguards are better then 5ppm guardsmen.

Guardsmen have 6" more range to do ONE shot, but vanguard have 6" further range to do their full damage and they can advance and shoot because of their assault weapons. -I think this is a wash in terms of tradeoff.