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.

 Marmatag wrote:
Only if guard lose all regimental bonuses, stratagems, all but 2 of their vehicles comparable to the GSC vehicles, all soup options except with Militarum Tempestus, lose all access to super heavies, etc. Don't be obtuse, there is more to the quality of a unit than its individual statline. And even if you factor all of the buffs GSC can receive or dole out, Guardsmen are still superior, because they have orders, and regiments, etc.

GSC are going to get all of that when their book releases. It's also wrong to punish guard infantry because we have a wide selection of vehicles, that is not how faction balance is supposed to work

"We are going to make guard infantry statistically worse in every way then GSC infantry, but cost the same because guard have leman russes" sounds pretty silly to me.

This includes City of Traps rules, which simulate the devious Genestealer Cults’ methods of fighting on home turf

Hrmh, what's this now? Some new rules for GSC? In the big box going up for preorder on Saturday?

w1zard wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Only if guard lose all regimental bonuses, stratagems, all but 2 of their vehicles comparable to the GSC vehicles, all soup options except with Militarum Tempestus, lose all access to super heavies, etc. Don't be obtuse, there is more to the quality of a unit than its individual statline. And even if you factor all of the buffs GSC can receive or dole out, Guardsmen are still superior, because they have orders, and regiments, etc.

GSC are going to get all of that when their book releases. It's also wrong to punish guard infantry because we have a wide selection of vehicles, that is not how faction balance is supposed to work. "Hurr durr we are going to make guard infantry statistically worse in every way then GSC infantry because guard have leman russes" sounds pretty silly to me.

Of course it sounds silly to you because you're biased. Only imperial guard players would take such a narrow view of balance such that you should ignore the model range represented in the codex when discussing balance. Assault cannon razorbacks weren't nerfed because GK were overperforming, it had a lot to do with Guilliman.

 Marmatag wrote:
Of course it sounds silly to you because you're biased. Only imperial guard players would take such a narrow view of balance such that you should ignore the model range represented in the codex when discussing balance. Assault cannon razorbacks weren't nerfed because GK were overperforming, it had a lot to do with Guilliman.

A unit or model should be pointed at what it is WORTH, not at what it is worth in relation to other things that just happen to exist in the codex that may or may not be taken in a list. I think YOU are the biased one.

Otherwise we get silly situations in which Space Marines are super weak because they just happen to have a wide selection of datasheets.

The idea that guard infantry should be worse per point then other infantry simply because we have a wide selection of vehicles is utterly ridiculous.

w1zard wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Of course it sounds silly to you because you're biased. Only imperial guard players would take such a narrow view of balance such that you should ignore the model range represented in the codex when discussing balance. Assault cannon razorbacks weren't nerfed because GK were overperforming, it had a lot to do with Guilliman.

A unit or model should be pointed at what it is WORTH, not at what it is worth in relation to other things that just happen to exist in the codex that may or may not be taken in a list. I think YOU are the biased one.

Otherwise we get silly situations in which Space Marines are super weak because they just happen to have a wide selection of datasheets.

The idea that guard infantry should be worse per point then other infantry simply because we have a wide selection of vehicles is utterly ridiculous.

If you don't point a unit based on the contest of the faction in which it is played, you can forget about balance. The same unit can be mediocre/bad in a faction (hellblasters in Blood Angels) but close to broken in another (hellblasters in Alaitoc) or utterly crap in another (hellblasters in Tyranids, bye bye rerolls). If you try to point the hellblasters without looking at what factions has those, you will never point it appropriately, because at the end of the day, the stats of a model only tell half of the story.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DrGiggles wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I have a suggestion: what if we first looked to clamp down on Soup? e.g. restricting CP spending to the faction that generated them; having either bonuses for mono-faction armies or penalties for soup armies etc.

Then, once those changes sink in, we see if IG Infantry Squads are still causing issues. If so, we make them 5pts. If not, we leave them where they are.

Does that sound reasonable?

We already proved they were a problem mathematically. The Guard players here are just pulling mental gymnastics like Eldar defenders for the last two editions.

Been saying that from the start, every data that is being pulled right now is polluted by the broken CP mechanic. We can't say anything for sure before that is fixed.

And no, guards being mathematically better than alternatives has not been demonstrated in this thread. There were some improbable show offs with no actual meaning.
I could easily make one in which termagants are the most broken troop in the game, because math in this game doesn't mean much if you don't analyze extremely specific situations. You can calculate the average wounds of x vs y, but calculating the performance of a model in relation to it's cost is something that requires days of math from a professional. Making mathematical models for this game is a real challenge, don't take it lightly.

I will wait with baited breath for your termagant example. Comparing the performance of one model to another model that is similarly priced does not take days of math from a professional when programs like excel exist.

You are delusional if you really believe that. To compare a model to another one you need to take in consideration all the possible situations and roles that they will be called to cover, assess what they are worth in that situation and then make a weighted average based on the probability of each single situation. In many of those situations a termagant does outshine guardsmen, which is why i said that you can easily show with that math that termagants are better than guards (after all point per point they are more durable and immune to morale). Does this mean that termagants are better? No! Because after you weight the situations where the termagants are better, against the ones where guardsmen are better (which are a lot when you start looking at offensive scenarios), you will see that on average the guardsmen are better. This is something though that i can say as a personal opinion, if i had to demonstrate it mathematically i would have to skip work for at least a couple of days.

Spoletta wrote:
If you don't point a unit based on the contest of the faction in which it is played, you can forget about balance. The same unit can be mediocre/bad in a faction (hellblasters in Blood Angels) but close to broken in another (hellblasters in Alaitoc) or utterly crap in another (hellblasters in Tyranids, bye bye rerolls). If you try to point the hellblasters without looking at what factions has those, you will never point it appropriately, because at the end of the day, the stats of a model only tell half of the story.

I get that things can be fair separately but when working together become broken... But in that case specific synergy rules should be introduced to combat that particular synergy, instead of pointing a unit into uselessness outside of that synergy.

Guard tanks are good. That doesn't mean guard infantry need to be useless to make up for it, NOR useless in relation to other infantry. Guard tanks and infantry can both be costed what they are worth.

Hellblasters are bad in blood angels because they don't synergize well with the rest of the army, and are much better in the ultramarines. But blood angels hellblasters shouldn't be cheaper than ultramarines hellblasters just because of that. Yes this means that some factions naturally rely on some units more then others, but that isn't a bad thing IMO. As long as everything is pointed what it is worth it is all fair.

I find the whole idea of "Lol our infantry are worthless but our tanks are OP to make up for it" both to be bad for balance and extremely boring. You just get people trying to take the most of the OP stuff and trying to minimize taking the UP stuff.

w1zard wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Rangers should be 8ppm I agreed with you on that pages back.

I don't think anyone else has.

um, me too. I even said that Fire warriors and rangers can both be 8 pts.

w1zard wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Only if guard lose all regimental bonuses, stratagems, all but 2 of their vehicles comparable to the GSC vehicles, all soup options except with Militarum Tempestus, lose all access to super heavies, etc. Don't be obtuse, there is more to the quality of a unit than its individual statline. And even if you factor all of the buffs GSC can receive or dole out, Guardsmen are still superior, because they have orders, and regiments, etc.

GSC are going to get all of that when their book releases. It's also wrong to punish guard infantry because we have a wide selection of vehicles, that is not how faction balance is supposed to work

"We are going to make guard infantry statistically worse in every way then GSC infantry, but cost the same because guard have leman russes" sounds pretty silly to me.

So whe point GSC on abilities that noone has seen and say their 6ppm for their codex rules and do nothing when GW give them some broken as heck rules?

You can only point a model based upon the stats and rules it has not what it might have.

I could argue that a guardsman should be 10ppm on that logic as it might have re roll ones for stationary, overwatch on a 5+, move and fire heavy weapons without penalty, S4, +6 inch rapid fire range.

Points costing hypotecal codex rules isn't compatible with the idea of balance.
Guard infantry at 5ppm are still stronger than firewarriors, every marine, Guardians they arn't weak.

Also while an aura can potentially affect more units it's also a fixed effect, it can't be changed from a damage buff, a reroll buff, a fight phase buff to a movement buff. Having to stack 6 charictors and huddle up also realy kills your ability to move, use terrain and hold objectives.

I can't flawlessly tier the power level of the armies right now, but threads like this definitely make it easy to tier the skill level of their players

Ice_can wrote:
So whe point GSC on abilities that noone has seen and say their 6ppm for their codex rules and do nothing when GW give them some broken as heck rules?

I never said neophytes should be 6ppm, I said it wasn't fair that neophytes are "guardsmen-plus" for the same price. If they aren't "worth" 6ppm, maybe they should be nerfed to be brought in line with guardmen do you agree? Neophytes aren't going to get worse when the GSC book releases they are going to get better.

Ice_can wrote:
You can only point a model based upon the stats and rules it has not what it might have.

I agree. Which was my entire point against marmatag. See my quote...

w1zard wrote:
A unit or model should be pointed at what it is WORTH, not at what it is worth in relation to other things that just happen to exist in the codex that may or may not be taken in a list. I think YOU are the biased one.

RIGHT NOW, neophytes are BETTER then 5ppm guardsmen. Not better in some ways, no kind of trade off (even if you consider cult ambush their "regimental trait"). Straight. Up. Better. Or. Equal. For the same hypothetical points cost (5ppm). They are only going to get even better when the GSC book releases as they are going to get stratagems and probably something akin to regimental traits. Why is it okay that guardsmen are literally neophytes (same stats, same gun, same cost) except worse?

lol the delusions

You saying something does not make it true.


In fact, your track record would probably suggest that it isn't

 SHUPPET wrote:
lol the delusions

You saying something does not make it true.

I'd like to hear an explanation of how I am wrong then.

Please explain to me how neophytes aren't better to or equal to 5ppm guardsmen in every way. And please don't try to bring up orders, that is not applicable here because:

Ice_can wrote:
You can only point a model based upon the stats and rules it has not what it might have.

and because neophytes have their own auras as well.

In this case the question is not “are they better”, rather iit is “are they 20% better?” That’s how much better they need to be to justify being 6 points compared to a 5 point Guardsmen.

 alextroy wrote:
In this case the question is not “are they better”, rather iit is “are they 20% better?” That’s how much better they need to be to justify being 6 points compared to a 5 point Guardsmen.

That's why I propose a flat cost of 45 points per Infantry squad.

 alextroy wrote:
In this case the question is not “are they better”, rather iit is “are they 20% better?” That’s how much better they need to be to justify being 6 points compared to a 5 point Guardsmen.

Which is why I proposed nerfing them "down" to guardsmen level. Losing their +1L and ability to take more than 10 men would be good enough until the GSC book comes out, at that point we can re-evaluate. Does that sound fair?

It's not about being "better enough" to justify an increased points cost, it's about being "better" period. If there was a unit that was 7 points and was exactly the same as fire warriors, except they could deepstrike (instead of sept), had +1L and the ability to take more than 10 in a unit, would you think that was fair? I certainly don't think that unit would be worth 8ppm but would it be fair?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's why I propose a flat cost of 45 points per Infantry squad.

GW probably won't go for that. They seem to want to assign each model a whole integer point cost. Which sucks because it is often too granular at the lower points levels but that is how GW designed it.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
lol the delusions

You saying something does not make it true.

I'd like to hear an explanation of how I am wrong then.

Please explain to me how neophytes aren't better to or equal to 5ppm guardsmen in every way. And please don't try to bring up orders, that is not applicable here because:

Ice_can wrote:
You can only point a model based upon the stats and rules it has not what it might have.

and because neophytes have their own auras as well.

Again, just because you say something doesn't count, doesn't make it so. Orders is a rule available to Guardsmen. The invented stratagems and army rules for Neophytes that you have absolutely zero knowledge of right now, are not. For all you know their cost will be raised to reflect it, or they will not have gak all impact on Neophytes.

Army rules are the most important qualifier of all, and as such, Guardsmen are probably better than Neophytes even at 5 points, let alone 4. When you see what rules GSC get, if Neophytes get a bunch of significant buffs and remain 5 points, you then have an argument that should also be costed higher - none of what you say is an argument for why Guardsmen should be 4 points, even if your theoretical scenario concerning Neophytes did turn out to be true.


But you won't comprehend any of that, you'll just circleback to one of your earlier points that has been proven utterly incorrect as you have done for 45 pages running now, as you are not in this for a rational outcome, you're in this because you don't want your undercosted unit to be balanced.

w1zard wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
In this case the question is not “are they better”, rather iit is “are they 20% better?” That’s how much better they need to be to justify being 6 points compared to a 5 point Guardsmen.

Which is why I proposed nerfing them "down" to guardsmen level. Losing their +1L and ability to take more than 10 men would be good enough until the GSC book comes out, at that point we can re-evaluate. Does that sound fair?

Are you dropping them to 4 points as well?

 SHUPPET wrote:
Are you dropping them to 4 points as well?

No, because in this hypothetical scenario guardsmen are 5ppm remember? The whole thing I was trying to point out was that if guardsmen were 5ppm then neophytes would be straight up superior and they are.

 SHUPPET wrote:
But you won't comprehend any of that, you'll just circleback to one of your earlier points that has been proven utterly incorrect as you have done for 45 pages running now, as you are not in this for a rational outcome, you're in this because you don't want your undercosted unit to be balanced.

I already said I'm fine with having guardsmen at 5 points. My umbrage is with units that are mathematically superior (rangers, kabalites) or obviously superior (neophytes) to 5ppm guardsmen. Where is the outrage to fix them? I don't see any 45 page threads about rangers being OP, or kabalites needing nerfs.

 SHUPPET wrote:
For all you know their cost will be raised to reflect it...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Sorry that was a good one. Neophytes aren't getting nerfed at all in the GSC codex. I'd be willing to bet almost anything that they get better or stay at the same, with the addition of stratagems and cult traits.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Are you dropping them to 4 points as well?

No, because in this hypothetical scenario guardsmen are 5ppm remember? The whole thing I was trying to point out was that if guardsmen were 5ppm then neophytes would be straight up superior and they are.

You seem to think that you saying this makes it a fact, but it does not. Neophyte have great army rules, so do Guard. They would be as close to equally balanced for the same points cost as I could imagine any two different units, and if I had to give it one way it would still be Guard's way. At any rate, it's much better than than having Guardsmen a whole point ahead of them. And other 4-5 point units like Termagants/Hormagants compared to Guardsmen, or are you arguing that Termagants should be 3 points? lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
But you won't comprehend any of that, you'll just circleback to one of your earlier points that has been proven utterly incorrect as you have done for 45 pages running now, as you are not in this for a rational outcome, you're in this because you don't want your undercosted unit to be balanced.

I already said I'm fine with having guardsmen at 5 points. My umbrage is with units that are mathematically superior (rangers, kabalites) or obviously superior (neophytes) to 5ppm guardsmen. Where is the outrage to fix them? I don't see any 45 page threads about rangers being OP, or kabalites needing nerfs.

My bad. I hadn't seen you say this. It sounds like we're on the same page then in essence, though I don't think Neophytes are a unit that are unbalanced at 5 points. There is not a 20% difference in power level between these units. I actually think they are about as close to even as you can get.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
For all you know their cost will be raised to reflect it...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Sorry that was a good one. Neophytes aren't getting nerfed at all in the GSC codex. I'd be willing to bet almost anything that they get better or stay at the same, with the addition of stratagems and cult traits.

But according to you it wouldn't be a nerf if they are getting buffed at the same time? Regardless, we can't balance against your hypothetical speculation of what Neophytes will be, and if they are significantly stronger, it sounds like they may just become one of the best infantry in the game themselves, potentially also too much for the points.

 SHUPPET wrote:
You seem to think that you saying this makes it a fact, but it does not. Neophyte have great army rules, so do Guard. They would be as close to equally balanced for the same points cost as I could imagine any two different units, and if I had to give it one way it would still be Guard's way.

Please go look up the stats for neophytes and guardsmen. I'll give you a breakdown. Neophytes are guardsmen (same weapons, same statline) except they have +1L, and the ability to take more than 10 men in a unit. They also have cult ambush (which in my mind is fair compensation for lack of a regimental trait). Please tell me how having both of these at 5ppm is fair again? Straight up superior, or equal in every way. And, like I said, I'd be willing to bet anything they are just going to get better when the GSC book drops. You can quote me on that.

 SHUPPET wrote:
...or are you arguing that Termagants should be 3 points? lol

I'd have to do the math on it, but possibly, yes.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
You seem to think that you saying this makes it a fact, but it does not. Neophyte have great army rules, so do Guard. They would be as close to equally balanced for the same points cost as I could imagine any two different units, and if I had to give it one way it would still be Guard's way.

Please go look up the stats for neophytes and guardsmen. I'll give you a breakdown. Neophytes are guardsmen (same weapons, same statline) except they have +1L, and the ability to take more than 10 men in a unit. They also have cult ambush (which in my mind is fair compensation for lack of a regimental trait). Please tell me how having both of these at 5ppm is fair again? Straight up superior, or equal in every way.

Because they don't have orders. They don't have a choice of 9 different army tactics (let's just call it Catachan for a free army wide +1S, and that +1L back, shall we?). They don't have access to Straken for a second attack.

They have access to their own buffs of course. But since you want to maths it, do the maths of 2x 10 units of Guardsmen vs 20 Neophytes and see how much of an advantage they get from the ability to take more than 10 men in a unit. Neophytes don't get orders to begin with, duh.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Because they don't have orders. They don't have a choice of 9 different army tactics (let's just call it Catachan for a free army wide +1S, and that +1L back, shall we?). They don't have access to Straken for a second attack.

We aren't talking about Straken. We aren't talking about orders. You cannot balance units around what happens to exist in the codex and may or may not be in any list. Otherwise you get units that are pointed into uselessness outside of the broken combos. You can only point on what is on the datasheet, period. The idea that my unit should be mathematically inferior to others, on purpose, simply because I have access to other "good" units in my codex (who may themselves need price increases) is ludicrous. GSC are going to get regimental traits when their codex drops.

I run valhallan guard. I will never have access to Straken. Why is it fair to point infantry squads on the assumption that he is there?

 SHUPPET wrote:
They have access to their own buffs of course. But since you want to maths it, do the maths of 2x 10 units of Guardsmen vs 20 Neophytes and see how much of an advantage they get from the ability to take more than 10 men in a unit.

The ability to take more than ten men in a unit allows for better tarpitting, and allows stratagems and auras to effect more models at once, along with reducing killpoints. It is an extremely valuable ability to have. It's only downside is increasing the unit's vulnerability to morale losses (this can be mitigated in many ways).

I would absolutely run all of my guardsmen in giant blob squads if I could, but it costs guard CP to do that and it can only be done under very specific circumstances.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Because they don't have orders. They don't have a choice of 9 different army tactics (let's just call it Catachan for a free army wide +1S, and that +1L back, shall we?). They don't have access to Straken for a second attack.

We aren't talking about Straken. We aren't talking about orders. You cannot balance units around what happens to exist in the codex and may or may not be in any list. Otherwise you get units that are pointed into uselessness outside of the broken combos. You can only point on what is on the datasheet, period. The idea that my unit should be mathematically inferior to others on purpose simply because I have access to "good" units in my codex is ludicrous.

Utter garbage. You can, in fact you have to, balance around the strongest way to play an army or unit - not the subpar ways. Yes, it nerfs the worse ways of running it, that's how nerfs work. That's how they worked when we nerfed cultists for example. There's zero reason to evaluate a unit on how it performs in a statline as opposed to how it performs in play. You are also including Ambush, their army rule, but not your own, even though your own are far more reliable, or in some case guaranteed. Here's that inescapable bias you haven't been able to drop for 43 pages.

w1zard wrote:
GSC are going to get regimental traits when their codex drops.

And when that comes out, maybe they'll be too strong, or maybe they'll get other changes that make them worse. Here's that circular logic. Stick to what is actually playable in 40k, not your headcanon, thanks.

w1zard wrote:
The ability to take more than ten men in a unit allows for better tarpitting

How? Genuine question I haven't considered this.

w1zard wrote:
and allows stratagems and auras to effect more models at once

Which stratagems for Neophytes lol? And god forbid having to include a single nother model within 6" radius?

w1zard wrote:
along with reducing killpoints

Also reducing qualifiers for battalion making CP much easier.

w1zard wrote:
It is an extremely valuable ability to have.

I thought we were comparing maths? Because this has feth all effect on the maths here. If we are talking about "extremely valuable abilities to have", +1 attack is definitely one of them, from the math's stand point you insisted on having this comparison by.






There's so many arbitrary qualifiers on what you will and won't count for these comparisons that it's hard to keep up with. You won't even count Orders, but you will willfully compare it against a unit that you don't even know the rules for. I fear this debate is beyond the reach of logic, you're far too emotionally invested, and it seems almost everyone over the span of this VERY long thread has recognised that.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Utter garbage. You can, in fact you have to, balance around the strongest way to play an army or unit - not the subpar ways.

I don't think we will ever agree on this point. Infantry squads should not be pointed on the assumption they are going to receive buffs from anything. The units GIVING the buffs should be pointed appropriately for that. If you start pointing infantry squads on the assumption they will be receiving orders (you know you can run an army without company commanders right?) and on the assumption that hero characters like Straken are present they become absolutely useless outside of having those conditions met. Just like tac marines should not be pointed on the assumption that both a captain and lieutenant are present.

If we are going to start penalizing armies for having a wide selection of datasheets and abilties, then marines are right where they should be and people should stop complaining.

If your army doesn't have a wide selection of units, tough... petition GW for new ones. But don't punish the armies that do.

 SHUPPET wrote:
I thought we were comparing maths? Because this has feth all effect on the maths here. If we are talking about "extremely valuable abilities to have", +1 attack is definitely one of them, from the math's stand point you insisted on having this comparison by.

Guardsmen don't have +1 attack. A certain faction of guard has the ability to receive +1 attack from another unit that COSTS POINTS. There is a difference.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Utter garbage. You can, in fact you have to, balance around the strongest way to play an army or unit - not the subpar ways.

I don't think we will ever agree on this point. Infantry squads should not be pointed on the assumption they are going to receive buffs from anything. The units GIVING the buffs should be pointed appropriately for that. If you start pointing infantry squads on the assumption they will be receiving orders (you know you can run an army without company commanders right?) and on the assumption that hero characters like Straken are present they become absolutely useless outside of having those conditions met. Just like tac marines should not be pointed on the assumption that both a captain and lieutenant are present.

Overpowered units cannot be allowed to run rampant in the meta, just because it may disrupt subpar strategies. That is not how balance works, not for this game, not for any game.

w1zard wrote:
If your army doesn't have a wide selection of units, tough... petition GW for new ones. But don't punish the armies that do.

No idea how you got that from this.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
I thought we were comparing maths? Because this has feth all effect on the maths here. If we are talking about "extremely valuable abilities to have", +1 attack is definitely one of them, from the math's stand point you insisted on having this comparison by.

Guardsmen don't have +1 attack. A certain faction of guard has the ability to receive +1 attack from another unit that COSTS POINTS. There is a difference.

Then they have +1S and +1 LD from the HQ you are forced to take to play a game, at the cost of zero additional points. You can't include the army rules for one unit and ignore it for another. You can't ignore them for any army - THESE ARE RULES THEY CAN AND WILL TAKE lol.

Got it. So cost marines as if they have full rerolls to hit and wound

 JNAProductions wrote:
Got it. So cost marines as if they have full rerolls to hit and wound

Yeah Because Guilliman is fair comparison to a Chapter Tactic lol

w1zard wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
In this case the question is not “are they better”, rather iit is “are they 20% better?” That’s how much better they need to be to justify being 6 points compared to a 5 point Guardsmen.

Which is why I proposed nerfing them "down" to guardsmen level. Losing their +1L and ability to take more than 10 men would be good enough until the GSC book comes out, at that point we can re-evaluate. Does that sound fair?

I don't think the best way to fix the game is to make it so generic that Infantry Squads and Neophyte Hybrids need to have exactly the same stats just because the cost the same points. +1 Leadership is helpful, until you take more then 10 models and start needing to take some serious Leadership checks when you lose half a 20-model squad in one turn.

It's not about being "better enough" to justify an increased points cost, it's about being "better" period. If there was a unit that was 7 points and was exactly the same as fire warriors, except they could deepstrike (instead of sept), had +1L and the ability to take more than 10 in a unit, would you think that was fair? I certainly don't think that unit would be worth 8ppm but would it be fair?

If it was full on deep strike abillity, the would be a worth a point. Cult Ambush has a 50% chance of being less than that. Not having full control over where you can place your unit out of reserves is s serious downgrade that can cost you the game.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
That's why I propose a flat cost of 45 points per Infantry squad.

GW probably won't go for that. They seem to want to assign each model a whole integer point cost. Which sucks because it is often too granular at the lower points levels but that is how GW designed it.

I'll leap for joy the day GW decides to move to a base unit cost + per additional model cost for Match Play. Not holding my breath for it to happen.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Overpowered units cannot be allowed to run rampant in the meta, just because it may disrupt subpar strategies. That is not how balance works, not for this game, not for any game.

Then you nerf the synergy between the two units that is causing the overpoweredness, you don't nerf the units themselves so they are underpowered outside of that synergy.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Then they have +1S and +1 LD from the HQ you are forced to take to play a game, at the cost of zero additional points. You can't include the army rules for one unit and ignore it for another. You can't ignore them for any army - THESE ARE RULES THEY CAN AND WILL TAKE lol.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here, guard aren't forced to take any particular HQ. Some of our HQs give no bonuses to infantry.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Yeah Because Guilliman is fair comparison to a Chapter Tactic lol

Not sure what you are saying here. Pricing marines on the assumption that guilliman is present is pretty comparable to pricing guardsmen on the assumption that straken is present.

 alextroy wrote:
I don't think the best way to fix the game is to make it so generic that Infantry Squads and Neophyte Hybrids need to have exactly the same stats just because the cost the same points. +1 Leadership is helpful, until you take more then 10 models and start needing to take some serious Leadership checks when you lose half a 20-model squad in one turn.

You aren't getting it. I realize that neophytes aren't worth 6ppm. But how is it fair that neophytes are everything that guardsmen are at 5ppm except better?

Do you support buffing guardsmen so that they have +1L and the ability to take more than 10 men in a squad? Do you support nerfing neophytes so that they can only take 10 men in a squad and losing their +1L. Or do you support the imbalance between two units that cost exactly the same, but one unit is simply better than another? Pick one...

You don't get it. Regiment buffs are free. Catachan Guardsmen are Neophytes with 4S, but can't risky DS. That's alone unit that is at least worth the same cost. And that's pretending gak like Straken doesn't exist for the sake of your argument. But at the end of the day he still does lol.

Also,the intellectual dishonesty needed to pretend that a 400 pt LoW is the same cost as a 70 pt HQ "because they both aren't free" is astounding. Some armies don't even have HQ cheaper than 70 points, and Straken gives double orders to make up for it, that's not a real tax lol.

And when GSC get their equivalent to regiment tactics, should they still be worth the same as a Guardsman?