Guardsmen 5 pts per model.

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.

**The_Real_Chris**

Soup wise simply saying Detachment generated CPs can only be spent on their own strategems would make a big change.

Dandelion wrote:
Since we're talking about soup. If Guard infantry are as prevalent is soup armies as mono IG, doesn't that make Guard their own worst enemy?

I encounter three guard builds typically. Infantry troop heavy (storm troopers or guard), tank heavy (the classic Leman Russ company, often tallarn) or super heavy (3 super heavies plus supporting elements).

Overall though to be perfectly clear on all those who think the infantry cost too little, are you saying that if you were facing my guard army with say 6 squads in it at 2000pts, you think it will only be a fair game if I give you an additional 60 points to spend on your army?

**Bharring**

Wait, so if I take an Alaitoc detatchment with Asurmen, and it were OP, that would be soup, not Alaitoc, that's OP becasue Asurmen doesn't have the Alaitoc keyword?

**Crimson**

Bharring wrote:
Wait, so if I take an Alaitoc detatchment with Asurmen, and it were OP, that would be soup, not Alaitoc, that's OP becasue Asurmen doesn't have the Alaitoc keyword?

This is basically the logic espoused here, yes.

**Asmodios**

Dandelion wrote:
Asmodios wrote:

If you actually want to balance with soup in mind then give units multiple costs. Guardsmen can be 6ppm in soup and 4ppm when taken in a mono list. You might think that soup is the only way people play but i guarantee if GW did a survey many more people own mono faction armies then go out and buy the flavor of the week

I don't think soup is the only way to play. However, you cannot deny that GW intentionally designed 8th to allow all the allies you could ever want.
Everything from the way detachments work to Faction keywords was designed to allow and encourage allies. 8th is already balanced around "soup".

But let's take a step back. You have mentioned time and again how factions need to have weaknesses right? So what happened when GW gave Guard access to:
- Admech Techpriest Enginseers
- Ministorum Priests
AND
- Ministorum Crusaders
?

Are these not soup options added to shore up weaknesses? And on top of that, Guard are the only faction that can take them without breaking regiments!
So while Guard get access to Enginseers, Admech get what? Well, it certainly wasn't a chimera.

Then what happened to Assassins? GW had to patch together a fix to keep them legal because they were designed to mix within other detachments.

Lastly you seem to have this idea that "soup" is only used by people who want to game the system and not good casual/normal/fluffy players. So tell me, is my WIP Deimos Skitarii army supported by Grey Knights and Mechanicus knights "flavor of the week" or is it just another army?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:

I'd, personally, argue that as soon as any allies make it in(and hell--I'll even say other <Regiment/Sept/Chapter> units would count) it becomes a bit watered down. Once you bring another army in for whatever reason, it seems like you should consider that a soup list.

That's my take on it. But I'm looking it from the AoS POV where you can only take a certain percentage of your army as an allied faction--doesn't matter how many models it is, just certain percentage of points total.

If that's your take then "soup" has little to no meaning. You're starting to treat it like it's its own uber-faction. Soup won the last tourney, not DG+RK then?

I'm really confused at what your trying to get at here..... Somehow mixing books isn't soup because IG has units Like engineers in its codex? Like are you saying adding kroot to tau is somehow the same as mixing codexes together? not sure what any of what you posted has to do with any point I've made in this thread?

**Unit1126PLL**

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Overall though to be perfectly clear on all those who think the infantry cost too little, are you saying that if you were facing my guard army with say 6 squads in it at 2000pts, you think it will only be a fair game if I give you an additional 60 points to spend on your army?

A good question which I hope is answered. If the change is as simple as "give opponents extra points equal to the number of Infantry Squad models in your list" to test the theory, that'd be good to gather data with.

**Dandelion**

@asmodios
No, I do believe mixing codexes is "soup" or "allies" or whatever. However, I have many reasons to believe that mixing factions is entirely intentional and that "fixing" soup would just reverse 8th's core design. Soup is the new standard, so you cannot disregard guard infantry's contribution to soup because someone thought an armiger was better than a russ.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
Overall though to be perfectly clear on all those who think the infantry cost too little, are you saying that if you were facing my guard army with say 6 squads in it at 2000pts, you think it will only be a fair game if I give you an additional 60 points to spend on your army?

A good question which I hope is answered. If the change is as simple as "give opponents extra points equal to the number of Infantry Squad models in your list" to test the theory, that'd be good to gather data with.

More fair, yes. But 6 infantry squads is a little light. Players running 10-12+ squads are the ones I'm worried about, 400 pts for 100 individual wounds is a bit much for me.

**Unit1126PLL**

Dandelion wrote:
@asmodios
No, I do believe mixing codexes is "soup" or "allies" or whatever. However, I have many reasons to believe that mixing factions is entirely intentional and that "fixing" soup would just reverse 8th's core design. Soup is the new standard, so you cannot disregard guard infantry's contribution to soup because someone thought an armiger was better than a russ.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
Overall though to be perfectly clear on all those who think the infantry cost too little, are you saying that if you were facing my guard army with say 6 squads in it at 2000pts, you think it will only be a fair game if I give you an additional 60 points to spend on your army?

A good question which I hope is answered. If the change is as simple as "give opponents extra points equal to the number of Infantry Squad models in your list" to test the theory, that'd be good to gather data with.

More fair, yes. But 6 infantry squads is a little light. Players running 10-12+ squads are the ones I'm worried about, 400 pts for 100 individual wounds is a bit much for me.

Well, you'd get an extra 100-120 points from those players, yes? I play with 3 squads of infantry and 3 squads of Skitarii in my superheavy list, for example, so only 30 extra points.

**Dandelion**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Dandelion wrote:
@asmodios
No, I do believe mixing codexes is "soup" or "allies" or whatever. However, I have many reasons to believe that mixing factions is entirely intentional and that "fixing" soup would just reverse 8th's core design. Soup is the new standard, so you cannot disregard guard infantry's contribution to soup because someone thought an armiger was better than a russ.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
Overall though to be perfectly clear on all those who think the infantry cost too little, are you saying that if you were facing my guard army with say 6 squads in it at 2000pts, you think it will only be a fair game if I give you an additional 60 points to spend on your army?

A good question which I hope is answered. If the change is as simple as "give opponents extra points equal to the number of Infantry Squad models in your list" to test the theory, that'd be good to gather data with.

More fair, yes. But 6 infantry squads is a little light. Players running 10-12+ squads are the ones I'm worried about, 400 pts for 100 individual wounds is a bit much for me.

Well, you'd get an extra 100-120 points from those players, yes? I play with 3 squads of infantry and 3 squads of Skitarii in my superheavy list, for example, so only 30 extra points.

Pretty much.

**Marmatag**

Adding 60 is not nearly as meaningful as taking 60 away.

And it wouldn't be just 60, because Guard artillery, mortar teams, HQs, etc, should all go up in price.

In reality it would be more fair to see 1800 or so points of Guard versus 2000 of your average mid-tier army.

**Unit1126PLL**

Marmatag wrote:
Adding 60 is not nearly as meaningful as taking 60 away.

And it wouldn't be just 60, because Guard artillery, mortar teams, HQs, etc, should all go up in price.

In reality it would be more fair to see 1800 or so points of Guard versus 2000 of your average mid-tier army.

So you're advocating that everything with the Astra Militarum keyword should go up by about 10%, or ?

**Dandelion**

I'd say that certain things could use tweaking up in price (HWT are also a bit cheap), but things like sentinels and chimera really should go down (or just get better).

**Crimson**

Unit1126PLL wrote:

So you're advocating that everything with the Astra Militarum keyword should go up by about 10%, or ?

Sounds about right to me.

**Unit1126PLL**

Crimson wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:

So you're advocating that everything with the Astra Militarum keyword should go up by about 10%, or ?

Sounds about right to me.

Can I quote you in the future when I make a post claiming that Malcadors, Rough Riders, and Chimeras need to go up 10%?

**Crimson**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Crimson wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:

So you're advocating that everything with the Astra Militarum keyword should go up by about 10%, or ?

Sounds about right to me.

Can I quote you in the future when I make a post claiming that Malcadors, Rough Riders, and Chimeras need to go up 10%?

No. It is 10% on average. Some units do not need point increase at all while some need greater one.

**Asmodios**

Dandelion wrote:
@asmodios
No, I do believe mixing codexes is "soup" or "allies" or whatever. However, I have many reasons to believe that mixing factions is entirely intentional and that "fixing" soup would just reverse 8th's core design. Soup is the new standard, so you cannot disregard guard infantry's contribution to soup because someone thought an armiger was better than a russ.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
The_Real_Chris wrote:
Overall though to be perfectly clear on all those who think the infantry cost too little, are you saying that if you were facing my guard army with say 6 squads in it at 2000pts, you think it will only be a fair game if I give you an additional 60 points to spend on your army?

A good question which I hope is answered. If the change is as simple as "give opponents extra points equal to the number of Infantry Squad models in your list" to test the theory, that'd be good to gather data with.

More fair, yes. But 6 infantry squads is a little light. Players running 10-12+ squads are the ones I'm worried about, 400 pts for 100 individual wounds is a bit much for me.

I don't deny that soup is perfectly legal to take and valid.... I have nothing against people that soup for fluff or to make super strong builds. What I am against is nerfing an individual faction that is not an issue because of soup. There are plenty of ways to tone down soup without hurting mono faction players. I for starters would
1. remove CP regeneration from the game completely. There is no need for it and unless everyone has access to it, its going to be impossible to balance
2. Change the way CP works between various armies. Make it so that any codex generated by army x has to be used on army x
My comment about multiple points for soup was to point out that everyone pointing to "OP IG" keeps holding up soup for the example yet everyone wants to nuke IG instead of the actual beast going around stomping tournaments that is soup. There are lots of different and creative ways to make it so that soup isn't the obvious go-to stronger pick. There should be pros and cons to mixing books because without a con the factions that cannot soup will always be at a disadvantage

**Unit1126PLL**

Crimson wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Crimson wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:

So you're advocating that everything with the Astra Militarum keyword should go up by about 10%, or ?

Sounds about right to me.

Can I quote you in the future when I make a post claiming that Malcadors, Rough Riders, and Chimeras need to go up 10%?

No. It is 10% on average. Some units do not need point increase at all while some need greater one.

Oh!
This I agree with. Now if only we could agree on what units those are. I'm inclined to think things like Basilisks should probably go up. Probably Scions, too, by 1 or 2 points. Infantry squads are fine, though, in my experience (hence my reaction to this thread). Cheaper things probably include the Chimera, and perhaps Special Weapon Squads (since they're never ever taken ever because scions).

**Amishprn86**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Crimson wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Crimson wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:

So you're advocating that everything with the Astra Militarum keyword should go up by about 10%, or ?

Sounds about right to me.

Can I quote you in the future when I make a post claiming that Malcadors, Rough Riders, and Chimeras need to go up 10%?

No. It is 10% on average. Some units do not need point increase at all while some need greater one.

Oh!
This I agree with. Now if only we could agree on what units those are. I'm inclined to think things like Basilisks should probably go up. Probably Scions, too, by 1 or 2 points. Infantry squads are fine, though, in my experience (hence my reaction to this thread). Cheaper things probably include the Chimera, and perhaps Special Weapon Squads (since they're never ever taken ever because scions).

When was the last time you saw more than 1-2 Chimeras on the table? Or any for that matter.

**Unit1126PLL**

Right. Chimeras should be cheaper

**Amishprn86**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right. Chimeras should be cheaper

Miss read, thought you meant them by 1-2pts, i was thinking "1-2pts? do you mean 20-30pts?"

**Unit1126PLL**

Amishprn86 wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right. Chimeras should be cheaper

Miss read, thought you meant them by 1-2pts, i was thinking "1-2pts? do you mean 20-30pts?"

Oh no.
Personally, WRT Scions, I would split them into 2 units: 9ppm one with basic Lasguns, same special weapon options and statline, but no Deep Strike. Maybe give them the regiment keyword instead of MT and call them Grenadiers. Then, the existing Scions would be 11ppm, 12 with the Hotshot.

This would allow for "heavy infantry Regiments" with 9ppm Grenadiers as troops, while still also allowing MT a unique niche for Guard in the form of deep-striking specialists for targeting exposed enemy units but are too expensive to suicide superplasma drop.

**Crimson**

The deep strike capability for Scions should definitely be an option for extra point instead of always on ability. It is crazy they they have these dedicated transports that only they can use, but they never actually ride in them.

**Dandelion**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Amishprn86 wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right. Chimeras should be cheaper

Miss read, thought you meant them by 1-2pts, i was thinking "1-2pts? do you mean 20-30pts?"

Oh no.
Personally, WRT Scions, I would split them into 2 units: 9ppm one with basic Lasguns, same special weapon options and statline, but no Deep Strike. Maybe give them the regiment keyword instead of MT and call them Grenadiers. Then, the existing Scions would be 11ppm, 12 with the Hotshot.

This would allow for "heavy infantry Regiments" with 9ppm Grenadiers as troops, while still also allowing MT a unique niche for Guard in the form of deep-striking specialists for targeting exposed enemy units but are too expensive to suicide superplasma drop.

Wait, how do you justify 9pt no deepstrike scions with 4pt infantry? It's more than double the price for +1sv, and +1 BS.

But I like the grenadier idea regardless. You could even just replace veterans with them.

**Karol**

Dandelion wrote:
@asmodios]
No, I do believe mixing codexes is "soup" or "allies" or whatever. However, I have many reasons to believe that mixing factions is entirely intentional and that "fixing" soup would just reverse 8th's core design. Soup is the new standard, so you cannot disregard guard infantry's contribution to soup because someone thought an armiger was better than a russ.

And that would be bad, because ..? 8th has horrible rules, and the soup mechanics on one side gives GW the excuse to not fix bad armies, and at the same time eliminates units, or even whole codex from use.

Why use a shortrange melee/shoting hybrid army like GK, when Custodes do everything better? Why fix GK, when you can just spend more money on other armies trying to fix them, and if in the end your IG+GK army turns in to Custodes+IG+no GK, it is even better for GW.

**Unit1126PLL**

Dandelion wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Amishprn86 wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right. Chimeras should be cheaper

Miss read, thought you meant them by 1-2pts, i was thinking "1-2pts? do you mean 20-30pts?"

Oh no.
Personally, WRT Scions, I would split them into 2 units: 9ppm one with basic Lasguns, same special weapon options and statline, but no Deep Strike. Maybe give them the regiment keyword instead of MT and call them Grenadiers. Then, the existing Scions would be 11ppm, 12 with the Hotshot.

This would allow for "heavy infantry Regiments" with 9ppm Grenadiers as troops, while still also allowing MT a unique niche for Guard in the form of deep-striking specialists for targeting exposed enemy units but are too expensive to suicide superplasma drop.

Wait, how do you justify 9pt no deepstrike scions with 4pt infantry? It's more than double the price for +1sv, and +1 BS.

But I like the grenadier idea regardless. You could even just replace veterans with them.

Oh right. I discounted the Hotshot price but perhaps they could be 8ppm, so +1 point for better weapon options and more size flexibility (5-10), +2 pts for BS (following the Veteran model) and +1 pt for save?

**Slayer-Fan123**

If you guys don't want a hefty price increase, remember that it isn't like they can increase squad size or anything.

Make them 45 points per squad. That's 4.5 per model.

**Marmatag**

Too bad marines can't take hot-shot lasguns.

**Unit1126PLL**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If you guys don't want a hefty price increase, remember that it isn't like they can increase squad size or anything.

Make them 45 points per squad. That's 4.5 per model.

This also is good - a 12.5%

**Slayer-Fan123**

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Amishprn86 wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right. Chimeras should be cheaper

Miss read, thought you meant them by 1-2pts, i was thinking "1-2pts? do you mean 20-30pts?"

Oh no.
Personally, WRT Scions, I would split them into 2 units: 9ppm one with basic Lasguns, same special weapon options and statline, but no Deep Strike. Maybe give them the regiment keyword instead of MT and call them Grenadiers. Then, the existing Scions would be 11ppm, 12 with the Hotshot.

This would allow for "heavy infantry Regiments" with 9ppm Grenadiers as troops, while still also allowing MT a unique niche for Guard in the form of deep-striking specialists for targeting exposed enemy units but are too expensive to suicide superplasma drop.

Vets need to be Troops again. That would literally fix all their issues without having touched the transport options. The fact they're not troops but Scions are is kinda silly.

Scions should stay troops in their own detachments of course.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If you guys don't want a hefty price increase, remember that it isn't like they can increase squad size or anything.

Make them 45 points per squad. That's 4.5 per model.

This also is good - a 12.5%

Then you make Vets into Troops and fix their transports. Bam done.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Marmatag wrote:
Too bad marines can't take hot-shot lasguns.

Well if Bolt weapons weren't junk it wouldn't be an issue. That's said, the Volley Hotshot would be cool as an option I guess.

**Unit1126PLL**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Amishprn86 wrote:
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right. Chimeras should be cheaper

Miss read, thought you meant them by 1-2pts, i was thinking "1-2pts? do you mean 20-30pts?"

Oh no.
Personally, WRT Scions, I would split them into 2 units: 9ppm one with basic Lasguns, same special weapon options and statline, but no Deep Strike. Maybe give them the regiment keyword instead of MT and call them Grenadiers. Then, the existing Scions would be 11ppm, 12 with the Hotshot.

This would allow for "heavy infantry Regiments" with 9ppm Grenadiers as troops, while still also allowing MT a unique niche for Guard in the form of deep-striking specialists for targeting exposed enemy units but are too expensive to suicide superplasma drop.

Vets need to be Troops again. That would literally fix all their issues without having touched the transport options. The fact they're not troops but Scions are is kinda silly.

Scions should stay troops in their own detachments of course.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
If you guys don't want a hefty price increase, remember that it isn't like they can increase squad size or anything.

Make them 45 points per squad. That's 4.5 per model.

This also is good - a 12.5%

Then you make Vets into Troops and fix their transports. Bam done.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Marmatag wrote:
Too bad marines can't take hot-shot lasguns.

Well if Bolt weapons weren't junk it wouldn't be an issue. That's said, the Volley Hotshot would be cool as an option I guess.

Agreed, though I'd like to see vets get an option for a 4+ save just for fluff reasons; on the whole, I think these changes would be a good mix to really see diverse IG troops in the future (esp. in mono-IG lists) rather than "Infantry Squad x6, Scion Squad x3" which is roughly what I tend to see these days.

**Bobthehero**

The HVG should remain a Scion only weapon, like grav stuff for Marines