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.

Tygre wrote:
I did some calculating with equal points of IG vs Tau Firewarriors; with winning equals wiping the other out.
With IG at 4pts; 14 IG vs 8 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 3; If Tau go first IG win on round 5.
With IG at 5pts; 14 IG vs 10 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 4; If Tau go first Tau win on round 5.
With IG at 6pts; 14 IG vs 12 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 7; If Tau go first IG win on round 4.

So if Tau Firewarriors are the benchmark. IG should be about 5pts. I also did some calculations like I did in the SM thread; and Tau are 133% more durable than guard vs lasguns and 133% more firepower than guard vs guard. So basically 133% better than guard. 5 x 133% = 6.65, so 5pt IG and 7pt FW seem to work.

And this is the problem with doing tests based simply off math.

"14 IG" can actually be done--but only 13 would have Lasguns, since Sergeants literally cannot have Lasguns like their squads. The remaining 4 would be Veterans from a Command Squad, so would be BS3+ rather than 4+.
8 Tau isn't really able to be done, and 12 models in a Strike Team isn't commonly done.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Tygre wrote:
I did some calculating with equal points of IG vs Tau Firewarriors; with winning equals wiping the other out.
With IG at 4pts; 14 IG vs 8 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 3; If Tau go first IG win on round 5.
With IG at 5pts; 14 IG vs 10 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 4; If Tau go first Tau win on round 5.
With IG at 6pts; 14 IG vs 12 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 7; If Tau go first IG win on round 4.

So if Tau Firewarriors are the benchmark. IG should be about 5pts. I also did some calculations like I did in the SM thread; and Tau are 133% more durable than guard vs lasguns and 133% more firepower than guard vs guard. So basically 133% better than guard. 5 x 133% = 6.65, so 5pt IG and 7pt FW seem to work.

And this is the problem with doing tests based simply off math.

"14 IG" can actually be done--but only 13 would have Lasguns, since Sergeants literally cannot have Lasguns like their squads. The remaining 4 would be Veterans from a Command Squad, so would be BS3+ rather than 4+.
8 or 12 Tau isn't really able to be done.

I thought Fire Warriors could be taken in groups of 12.

But yeah, 14 IG is 13 lasguns, 4 at 6PPM and BS 3+.

I'm assuming you took the morale phase into account? Oh wait, I'm sure you didn't.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Tygre wrote:
I did some calculating with equal points of IG vs Tau Firewarriors; with winning equals wiping the other out.
With IG at 4pts; 14 IG vs 8 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 3; If Tau go first IG win on round 5.
With IG at 5pts; 14 IG vs 10 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 4; If Tau go first Tau win on round 5.
With IG at 6pts; 14 IG vs 12 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 7; If Tau go first IG win on round 4.

So if Tau Firewarriors are the benchmark. IG should be about 5pts. I also did some calculations like I did in the SM thread; and Tau are 133% more durable than guard vs lasguns and 133% more firepower than guard vs guard. So basically 133% better than guard. 5 x 133% = 6.65, so 5pt IG and 7pt FW seem to work.

And this is the problem with doing tests based simply off math.

"14 IG" can actually be done--but only 13 would have Lasguns, since Sergeants literally cannot have Lasguns like their squads. The remaining 4 would be Veterans from a Command Squad, so would be BS3+ rather than 4+.
8 or 12 Tau isn't really able to be done.

I thought Fire Warriors could be taken in groups of 12.

Strike Teams can, but it's a legacy option that I don't ever really see anyone take advantage of.

I'll clarify that a bit.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Tygre wrote:
I did some calculating with equal points of IG vs Tau Firewarriors; with winning equals wiping the other out.
With IG at 4pts; 14 IG vs 8 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 3; If Tau go first IG win on round 5.
With IG at 5pts; 14 IG vs 10 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 4; If Tau go first Tau win on round 5.
With IG at 6pts; 14 IG vs 12 Tau. Both starting in rapidfire range; If IG go first IG win on round 7; If Tau go first IG win on round 4.

So if Tau Firewarriors are the benchmark. IG should be about 5pts. I also did some calculations like I did in the SM thread; and Tau are 133% more durable than guard vs lasguns and 133% more firepower than guard vs guard. So basically 133% better than guard. 5 x 133% = 6.65, so 5pt IG and 7pt FW seem to work.

And this is the problem with doing tests based simply off math.

"14 IG" can actually be done--but only 13 would have Lasguns, since Sergeants literally cannot have Lasguns like their squads. The remaining 4 would be Veterans from a Command Squad, so would be BS3+ rather than 4+.
8 or 12 Tau isn't really able to be done.

I thought Fire Warriors could be taken in groups of 12.

Strike Teams can, but it's a legacy option that I don't ever really see anyone take advantage of.

I'll clarify that a bit.

Firewarriors can be 5 to 12 in a squad, in the current codex so I'm not sure what your getting at with legacy.

Ice_can wrote:

Firewarriors can be 5 to 12 in a squad, in the current codex so I'm not sure what your getting at with legacy.

Fire Warriors covers Breachers and Strike Teams(Rifles and Carbines).
Only Strike Teams(Rifles and Carbines) can be 12 man squads and that is a "legacy" option because the old box of Fire Warriors(pre-Breacher double build) was 12 models.

I really wish they would have just kept it at 10 man rather than 12, but whatever.

You can take a bolter for 1 point. Most people do to make lists exactly 2000 points. I get that you wish the sargent could take a lasgun - it's really dumb that he can't but he can take a 1 point bolter. So shut it.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You can take a bolter for 1 point. Most people do to make lists exactly 2000 points. I get that you wish the sargent could take a lasgun - it's really dumb that he can't but he can take a 1 point bolter. So shut it.

Then you're finally ready to admit that FRFSRF isn't all that you whine that it is?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You can take a bolter for 1 point. Most people do to make lists exactly 2000 points. I get that you wish the sargent could take a lasgun - it's really dumb that he can't but he can take a 1 point bolter. So shut it.

Then you're finally ready to admit that FRFSRF isn't all that you whine that it is?

Weve already gone over FRFSRF - these comparisons were done without out it. So you realize that 5 points infantry (nerfed infantry) are still comparable to firewarriors BEFORE they use FRFSRF. If they use it they are about twice as good. Tau cadre only adds 50% firepower not 100% so we know infantry win the buff game too. Firewarriors and kabalites rangers are the next most OP troops. These comparisons prove infantry are the outlier here.

Also - just in theory. Cheaper units should not beat more expensive units point for point in gun fights. They cover more ground - so they are better at screening - they should not win pitched battles with more powerful more expensive units (which are also more suceptable to heavy firepower). So really AM should be 6 points and lose to firewarriors but be better at holding ground. There is no situation they should be worth less than 5 points though.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You can take a bolter for 1 point. Most people do to make lists exactly 2000 points. I get that you wish the sargent could take a lasgun - it's really dumb that he can't but he can take a 1 point bolter. So shut it.

Then you're finally ready to admit that FRFSRF isn't all that you whine that it is?

Weve already gone over FRFSRF - these comparisons were done without out it. So you realize that 5 points infantry (nerfed infantry) are still comparable to firewarriors BEFORE they use FRFSRF. If they use it they are about twice as good. Tau cadre only adds 50% firepower not 100% so we know infantry. Firewarriors and kabalites rangers are the next most OP troops. These comparisons prove infantry are the outlier here.

Technically, it's an extra 90% efficiency since as you well know the Sergeant has no Lasgun.

Also - just in theory. Cheaper units should not beat more expensive units point for point in gun fights. They cover more ground - so they are better at screening - they should not win pitched battles with more powerful units. So really AM should be 6 points and lose to firewarriors but be better at holding ground. There is no situation they should be worth less than 5 points though.

Then don't engage the cheaper unit in situations more favorable to it...?
12" Rapid Fire range vs 15" Rapid Fire range allows a 3" margin for the Strike Teams to become more effective vs anything but Vostroyan Regiments...which can even be mitigated by running Borkan or having Pathfinders with Pulse Accelerator Drones camped out strategically in your lines to buff them up by 6" for a whopping 18" RF range.

Right. I mean, covering more ground and screening better are bonuses that affect the cheaper unit, but the more expensive unit:
Has fewer issues with force concentration.
Can fit more "points" in a transport per unit of capacity.

The fact that "force concentration" doesn't matter because gun ranges are so long and "transports" are useless is a problem with the current rules and the sizes of the table.

I've always said 40k plays better on a 12x8 than a 4x6. On a board that size, just taking up space is less of a boon, and being able to concentrate 2000 points into a much tighter area is of greater utility.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right. I mean, covering more ground and screening better are bonuses that affect the cheaper unit, but the more expensive unit:
Has fewer issues with force concentration.
Can fit more "points" in a transport per unit of capacity.

The fact that "force concentration" doesn't matter because gun ranges are so long and "transports" are useless is a problem with the current rules and the sizes of the table.

I've always said 40k plays better on a 12x8 than a 4x6. On a board that size, just taking up space is less of a boon, and being able to concentrate 2000 points into a much tighter area is of greater utility.

But that's not how its played. So those "advantages" should be VERY cheap points-wise and covering ground and screening should cost more. Because they are BETTER.

Actually, transports might be useless vs IG, but against Drukhari, they kinda work out. But against the field, the transports are still largely crap, so they are still disfavored, which lets Drukhari curb stomp marines even HARDER.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Right. I mean, covering more ground and screening better are bonuses that affect the cheaper unit, but the more expensive unit:
Has fewer issues with force concentration.
Can fit more "points" in a transport per unit of capacity.

The fact that "force concentration" doesn't matter because gun ranges are so long and "transports" are useless is a problem with the current rules and the sizes of the table.

I've always said 40k plays better on a 12x8 than a 4x6. On a board that size, just taking up space is less of a boon, and being able to concentrate 2000 points into a much tighter area is of greater utility.

But that's not how its played. So those "advantages" should be VERY cheap points-wise and covering ground and screening should cost more. Because they are BETTER.

Alternatively, board size can be increased, which I think is easier (as an abstract notion, not a practical one. Space is limited) than rebalancing the entire game. Or, play smaller games: That way, the space is "relatively" larger, compared to the models on the board.

Try playing 1000 points on a 6x4. Suddenly, transports and force concentration matter a whole lot more.

No one I play against is going to agree to that. It's frankly easier to rebalance the entire game than go against 20+ years of table dimensions. I think most units could be determined within a pretty low error by carefully observing how they get used in a variety of settings. Guardsmen are amazing in every setting, which is a bit of a red flag. Units that basically never hit the table clearly need point drops.

Martel732 wrote:
No one I play against is going to agree to that. It's frankly easier to rebalance the entire game than go against 20+ years of table dimensions. I think most units could be determined within a pretty low error by carefully observing how they get used in a variety of settings. Guardsmen are amazing in every setting, which is a bit of a red flag.

That's a problem in your local play area though. My local play area does all sorts of fun and whacky stuff on different sized (and even shaped) tables. Usually, I wouldn't advocate GW to balance around a specific set of data except that from tournaments, and looking at the tournament data doesn't support mono-guard as being a problem, as we've been through before. Soup guard is a problem, and guard are undeniably very strong. Just to get those to counterclaims out of the way.

Soup is a problem, and Guard are suffering from a symptom of it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No one I play against is going to agree to that. It's frankly easier to rebalance the entire game than go against 20+ years of table dimensions. I think most units could be determined within a pretty low error by carefully observing how they get used in a variety of settings. Guardsmen are amazing in every setting, which is a bit of a red flag.

That's a problem in your local play area though. My local play area does all sorts of fun and whacky stuff on different sized (and even shaped) tables. Usually, I wouldn't advocate GW to balance around a specific set of data except that from tournaments, and looking at the tournament data doesn't support mono-guard as being a problem, as we've been through before. Soup guard is a problem, and guard are undeniably very strong. Just to get those to counterclaims out of the way.

Monoguard without time limits is soul crushing. Arguably, they are better than Guard soup with no time limit, because all the souped in units are less efficient than IG units. I think GW needs to look at both timed and untimed games at a minimum. Plus, ITC tournies and non-ITC as well.

Let me rephrase: I've never seen, or heard of a play group that's going to agree to that. Maybe yours will, but such attitude is likely too rare for this to be viable. The race to the bottom is real, and people just need to accept this. Cheaper is better. More is better. Quality is gak, until you get to custodes captain.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Soup is a problem, and Guard are suffering from a symptom of it.

I wouldn't call being IG suffering.

Acknowledge they're a tall cut above most and enjoy it.

Soup is not the problem. Miscosted units are. Just like formations weren't the problem. Miscosted units were. If you fix miscosted units, you fix soup.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Soup is a problem, and Guard are suffering from a symptom of it.

Soup IS a problem. Every unit being played in soup is a problem in one way or another. The units aren't chosen because they give each other super powers or make the units around them better. They are literally chosen because they are the best at doing something - which means they are under-costed or some facet of their use is exceptional powerful compared to the rest.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No one I play against is going to agree to that. It's frankly easier to rebalance the entire game than go against 20+ years of table dimensions. I think most units could be determined within a pretty low error by carefully observing how they get used in a variety of settings. Guardsmen are amazing in every setting, which is a bit of a red flag.

That's a problem in your local play area though. My local play area does all sorts of fun and whacky stuff on different sized (and even shaped) tables. Usually, I wouldn't advocate GW to balance around a specific set of data except that from tournaments, and looking at the tournament data doesn't support mono-guard as being a problem, as we've been through before. Soup guard is a problem, and guard are undeniably very strong. Just to get those to counterclaims out of the way.

Monoguard without time limits is soul crushing. Arguably, they are better than Guard soup with no time limit, because all the souped in units are less efficient than IG units. I think GW needs to look at both timed and untimed games at a minimum. Plus, ITC tournies and non-ITC as well.

Let me rephrase: I've never seen, or heard of a play group that's going to agree to that. Maybe yours will, but such attitude is likely too rare for this to be viable. The race to the bottom is real, and people just need to accept this. Cheaper is better. More is better. Quality is gak, until you get to custodes captain.

Perhaps, then, GW could simply publish an FAQ that says "A 1k game is expected to take 1 hr. 15 mins. A 2k game is expected to take 2hr. 30 mins." etc etc. and that way people play the game "correctly." Because it's beginning to sound like a lot of the problems with Guard are problems that stem from issues unrelated to the rules-set (aside from the rules just not mentioning them i.e. time).

Martel732 wrote:
Let me rephrase: I've never seen, or heard of a play group that's going to agree to that. Maybe yours will, but such attitude is likely too rare for this to be viable. The race to the bottom is real, and people just need to accept this. Cheaper is better. More is better. Quality is gak, until you get to custodes captain.

Of course with 2nd ed troop densities 6 or 8x4 was akin to that big spaced table allowing concentration of force etc

Martel732 wrote:
Soup is not the problem. Miscosted units are. Just like formations weren't the problem. Miscosted units were. If you fix miscosted units, you fix soup.

This isn't true though because - much like formations - you have two things at the same price when they are not the same.

I mean take formations. A riptide was worth X.
But if you took 3, you paid 3X, but also got 3 quite valuable buffs on top of it.
So... surely it wasn't worth 3X any more. Your Riptide was better.

This is the same with soup. BA, Custodes, Knights etc on their own are one thing. BA/Custodes able to use 4-6 CP a turn potentially throughout the whole game because guard CP generation is probably more overpowered than basic guardsmen being 4 points is another.

I suspect if soup could be killed IG would be top tier, but lets kill soup first.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No one I play against is going to agree to that. It's frankly easier to rebalance the entire game than go against 20+ years of table dimensions. I think most units could be determined within a pretty low error by carefully observing how they get used in a variety of settings. Guardsmen are amazing in every setting, which is a bit of a red flag.

That's a problem in your local play area though. My local play area does all sorts of fun and whacky stuff on different sized (and even shaped) tables. Usually, I wouldn't advocate GW to balance around a specific set of data except that from tournaments, and looking at the tournament data doesn't support mono-guard as being a problem, as we've been through before. Soup guard is a problem, and guard are undeniably very strong. Just to get those to counterclaims out of the way.

Monoguard without time limits is soul crushing. Arguably, they are better than Guard soup with no time limit, because all the souped in units are less efficient than IG units. I think GW needs to look at both timed and untimed games at a minimum. Plus, ITC tournies and non-ITC as well.

Let me rephrase: I've never seen, or heard of a play group that's going to agree to that. Maybe yours will, but such attitude is likely too rare for this to be viable. The race to the bottom is real, and people just need to accept this. Cheaper is better. More is better. Quality is gak, until you get to custodes captain.

Perhaps, then, GW could simply publish an FAQ that says "A 1k game is expected to take 1 hr. 15 mins. A 2k game is expected to take 2hr. 30 mins." etc etc. and that way people play the game "correctly." Because it's beginning to sound like a lot of the problems with Guard are problems that stem from issues unrelated to the rules-set (aside from the rules just not mentioning them i.e. time).

I disagree - they should make a matched play rule that games can only be determined a victory within certain conditions - time running out shouldn't be one of them. That is the best place to start IMO.

Hrm, formations very much were a problem. Miscosted units dont matter when the price is irrelevant because you're just being given things without having to pay attention to price or scale.

Not that miscosted units were not huge issues, but Formations were botched through and through.

Likewise, Soup is very much an issue. Not that there arent some issues with the IG codex, but allies is where they see by far the most abuse in synergistic useage with things that werent really meant to operate as a single cohesive army but are effectively allowed to do so. For example, IG having a high number of CP is one thing in theory, a small IG contingent being used to supply another force with a glut of CP it wouldn't otherwise have access to (such as Custodes) is a very different thing in practice.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
No one I play against is going to agree to that. It's frankly easier to rebalance the entire game than go against 20+ years of table dimensions. I think most units could be determined within a pretty low error by carefully observing how they get used in a variety of settings. Guardsmen are amazing in every setting, which is a bit of a red flag.

That's a problem in your local play area though. My local play area does all sorts of fun and whacky stuff on different sized (and even shaped) tables. Usually, I wouldn't advocate GW to balance around a specific set of data except that from tournaments, and looking at the tournament data doesn't support mono-guard as being a problem, as we've been through before. Soup guard is a problem, and guard are undeniably very strong. Just to get those to counterclaims out of the way.

Monoguard without time limits is soul crushing. Arguably, they are better than Guard soup with no time limit, because all the souped in units are less efficient than IG units. I think GW needs to look at both timed and untimed games at a minimum. Plus, ITC tournies and non-ITC as well.

Let me rephrase: I've never seen, or heard of a play group that's going to agree to that. Maybe yours will, but such attitude is likely too rare for this to be viable. The race to the bottom is real, and people just need to accept this. Cheaper is better. More is better. Quality is gak, until you get to custodes captain.

Perhaps, then, GW could simply publish an FAQ that says "A 1k game is expected to take 1 hr. 15 mins. A 2k game is expected to take 2hr. 30 mins." etc etc. and that way people play the game "correctly." Because it's beginning to sound like a lot of the problems with Guard are problems that stem from issues unrelated to the rules-set (aside from the rules just not mentioning them i.e. time).

I disagree - they should make a matched play rule that games can only be determined a victory within certain conditions - time running out shouldn't be one of them. That is the best place to start IMO.

But how can you make balance decisions around tournaments if the tournaments are limiting things by time?
Remember, Martel's claim is that the data from tournaments is useless for balance because of the temporal limitations on the gamestate. Either you balance the game around those temporal limitations, or you don't. If you are, then tell people to play with those limitations. If you aren't, then tournaments can't be used by GW for data. Given that there is no other source of reliable data, then GW simply can't balance the game well, in this instance.

Tyel wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Soup is not the problem. Miscosted units are. Just like formations weren't the problem. Miscosted units were. If you fix miscosted units, you fix soup.

This isn't true though because - much like formations - you have two things at the same price when they are not the same.

I mean take formations. A riptide was worth X.
But if you took 3, you paid 3X, but also got 3 quite valuable buffs on top of it.
So... surely it wasn't worth 3X any more. Your Riptide was better.

This is the same with soup. BA, Custodes, Knights etc on their own are one thing. BA/Custodes able to use 4-6 CP a turn potentially throughout the whole game because guard CP generation is probably more overpowered than basic guardsmen being 4 points is another.

I suspect if soup could be killed IG would be top tier, but lets kill soup first.

Well he is correct in the sense that if all units were properly costed you would kill soup. At least in the sense that soup wasn't auto include over mono armies.

Really though with AM - soup is a preference - not an auto include because gaurd doesn't need to go out of it's codex to find top tier competitive options in every phase of the game. I assure you - if all the gaurd primary armies just played mono guard the results wouldn't be much different in tournaments.

Martel732 wrote:
Soup is not the problem. Miscosted units are. Just like formations weren't the problem. Miscosted units were. If you fix miscosted units, you fix soup.

I may have missed the force composition of every imperial bowl of soup, but I thought it was the chance to pay minimal points for 5CPs to use on your good stratagems, then 5+ to get some points back and 5+ to get some of the enemies? Costing that is a bit different to costing three squads of guardsmen for the their ability to hold ground...

And of course this particular bowl of soup is fixed easily enough by saying detachments can only spend the CPs they generate on their codex's stratagems, not those of an allied formation, and any warlord CP abilities only apply to the CPs his codex troops generate and any he makes can only be spent again on his own stratagems, not the knight household walking alongside...

The tournament data isn't useless, but then you have to go check the untimed case and factor that in. 5 ppm for guardsmen is probably about right, because in a timed game, 4 ppm is at least feasible, but untimed, they are more like a 6 ppm unit. Also, check the ITC case and the non-ITC case. GW could simply this by publishing unified tournament rules and banning TOs from using their own rules.

Martel732 wrote:Soup is not the problem. Miscosted units are. Just like formations weren't the problem. Miscosted units were. If you fix miscosted units, you fix soup.

Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Soup is a problem, and Guard are suffering from a symptom of it.

Soup IS a problem. Every unit being played in soup is a problem in one way or another. The units aren't chosen because they give each other super powers or make the units around them better. They are literally chosen because they are the best at doing something - which means they are under-costed or some facet of their use is exceptional powerful compared to the rest.

Err.... no.

Sorry but no, soup is not something that can be solved with points.

If i can take a battalion to infinitely fuel my knights and bananas i will do it even if guards were to cost 7 points.

There are overpowered things.
There are undercosted things.
There are broken things.

They are completely different problems with different fixes.

Guards are not broken, they work as intended. Guards are not overpowered, the effect they have on the game is the one that is expected from that model. Guards are undercosted (probably), they perform better than what the model cost suggests >>>>> You fix it by increasing the point cost

Soup is broken, it is showing non linear interactions with other mechanics of the game, creating unwanted situations. No amount of nerfing will fix it, and no amount of points changes will do it either >>>>> You need to change the way the rule works.