Switch Theme:

Guardsmen 5 pts per model.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody would bat an eye if Neophytes lost an LD because it's still one of the most useless stats in the game.

That's what people used to say about Bravery in AoS, and then when they rejigged the morale slightly...it all of a sudden became a fairly big deal.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Kanluwen wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody would bat an eye if Neophytes lost an LD because it's still one of the most useless stats in the game.

That's what people used to say about Bravery in AoS, and then when they rejigged the morale slightly...it all of a sudden became a fairly big deal.

Well you know what? This isn't AoS. Morale isn't rejigged. As is, nobody would bat an eye if Neophytes lost a point of LD.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

Marmatag's Tier List
Tiers assume these armies will be played by a good player, in an ITC scenario.

Tier A - Have a strict advantage over the field by design.
Custodes + Imperial Guard Battery
Knights + Imperial Guard Battery
Eldar Soup

Tier B - Very strong armies. May struggle with tier A.
Chaos Soup (Includes Death Guard, Thousand Sons, Renegade Knights, etc)
Tau
Imperial Guard (mono & /w some allies)

Tier C - Mid-tier armies that do okay. Generally won't win events. Cannot compete with Tier A and expect to lose against Tier B.
Space Marines + Allies (includes Ultramarines, RG, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, et al)
Tyranids
Mechanicus Knights + Ad-Mech

Tier D - Can compete with Tier C but that's about it.
Necrons
Orks

Armies with low representation aren't ranked, and many armies are combined under 1 heading. Like it's obvious Grey Knights are god awful so why tier them.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2018/08/20 17:12:18


 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




Tier A is missing Renegade Knights + Choas Soup.

Imperial Knights solo maybe Tier B haven't studied the new secondary missions to understand if that impacts them.
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

Ice_can wrote:
Tier A is missing Renegade Knights + Choas Soup.

Imperial Knights solo maybe Tier B haven't studied the new secondary missions to understand if that impacts them.


Chaos in general has SO many varying and viable builds. I think they're ranked appropriately. As we saw, Death Guard + Renegades won the BAO. In a general sense, i think they're rated appropriately - on the cusp of being automatically dominant by design. But the amount of options, synergies, and overall complexity of chaos make it more difficult to play than people think. Those wins may be lucky but they're also earned.

I'm not really bothering with "mono" rankings since that isn't how the game is played in 8th edition. The only armies that play mono faction are:

Tyranids, Tau, Orks, Necrons - -

for obvious reasons.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/20 17:13:58


 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody would bat an eye if Neophytes lost an LD because it's still one of the most useless stats in the game.

That's what people used to say about Bravery in AoS, and then when they rejigged the morale slightly...it all of a sudden became a fairly big deal.

Well you know what? This isn't AoS. Morale isn't rejigged. As is, nobody would bat an eye if Neophytes lost a point of LD.

And constantly saying that "LD doesn't matter" isn't helping with these kinds of things.

Is Leadership playing the part that it likely was meant to? Absolutely not. But that's because there's easy access to a Stratagem for ignoring Morale and one of the first things people seem to build for in their lists is a way to counteract morale losses.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




How are you going to feel if Neophytes get buffed in the new codex by being reduced to 4 points? Clearly with that +1LD its going to break the meta, and we will never see another guardsman again grace a top table.
   
Made in au
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





 Kanluwen wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nobody would bat an eye if Neophytes lost an LD because it's still one of the most useless stats in the game.

That's what people used to say about Bravery in AoS, and then when they rejigged the morale slightly...it all of a sudden became a fairly big deal.

Well you know what? This isn't AoS. Morale isn't rejigged. As is, nobody would bat an eye if Neophytes lost a point of LD.

And constantly saying that "LD doesn't matter" isn't helping with these kinds of things.

Is Leadership playing the part that it likely was meant to? Absolutely not. But that's because there's easy access to a Stratagem for ignoring Morale and one of the first things people seem to build for in their lists is a way to counteract morale losses.

What on earth are you talking about lol he's saying it direct response to the guy who's brought it up in here a thousand times, and he saw said it like twice. The person constantly bringing up the thing that isn't helping is w1zard lol but you won't call that out simply because he's on the side of "feth logic, don't balance muh Guard" right next to you.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/20 21:59:32


P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 SHUPPET wrote:
What on earth are you talking about lol he's saying it direct response to the guy who's brought it up in here a thousand times, and he saw said it like twice. The person constantly bringing up the thing that isn't helping is w1zard lol but you won't call that out simply because he's on the side of "feth logic, don't balance muh Guard" right next to you.

I already said I'm fine with guardsmen going to 5 points. I want guard to be balanced.

What I'm concerned about is guard's relation to other factions, and our ability to compete with top tier armies. Guard fixes are pretty easy, mostly undercosted stuff that could just use points adjustments. Other factions, however, have deeper issues (such as -1 to hit on eldar) that can't really be fixed unless the codices are rewritten. What I'm really worried about is guard being "fixed", but none of the other top tier factions being "fixed" alongside of it. As a result, guard is relegated to the shelf for another X editions. I was picking on neophytes because it seemed to be a particularly bad case of cognitive dissonance, where you have an obviously superior unit to 5ppm guardsmen (albeit superior in minor ways, and yes, I still stand by that assertion) and nobody seems to care. It seems that nobody cares about OP units unless they are being spammed in the meta.

As I said I have been playing guard on and off since third edition. Unless I missed something somewhere... outside of a couple narrow windows (vendetta spam in 5th, and leafblower in 6th) Guard have never been that good. Guard are finally good for once, not the best, but good, for the first time in a long time. I guess I'm just wondering where all of the 45 page nerf eldar threads are.

 Marmatag wrote:
Marmatag's Tier List
Tiers assume these armies will be played by a good player, in an ITC scenario.

Tier A - Have a strict advantage over the field by design.
Custodes + Imperial Guard Battery
Knights + Imperial Guard Battery
Eldar Soup

Tier B - Very strong armies. May struggle with tier A.
Chaos Soup (Includes Death Guard, Thousand Sons, Renegade Knights, etc)
Tau
Imperial Guard (mono & /w some allies)

Tier C - Mid-tier armies that do okay. Generally won't win events. Cannot compete with Tier A and expect to lose against Tier B.
Space Marines + Allies (includes Ultramarines, RG, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, et al)
Tyranids
Mechanicus Knights + Ad-Mech

Tier D - Can compete with Tier C but that's about it.
Necrons
Orks

Armies with low representation aren't ranked, and many armies are combined under 1 heading. Like it's obvious Grey Knights are god awful so why tier them.

Is it weird if I say I absolutely agree with all of that, and still see no problem with guard being at tier B? But rather, that other armies need buffs to tier B levels?

Guard CP batteries can be fixed with removal of CP generators (like Kurov's Aquila and Strategic Genius) and a rewrite of the CP system.

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2018/08/20 22:31:38


 
   
Made in au
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





But Neophytes aren't superior. Going from 3-->4 strength is a much more relevant stat than 6-->7 LD. Regardless, the Guardsmen get +1 LD anyway. So the cognitive dissonance is thinking that somehow Neophytes are better. In fact they may still need buffs just to be on par with Guardsmen.

P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Also GSC as an army gains a lot less IMO from cheap chaff units standing between them and their shooting elements like guard + whatever do. So I'm not sure what the argument is here.
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 SHUPPET wrote:
But Neophytes aren't superior. Going from 3-->4 strength is a much more relevant stat than 6-->7 LD. Regardless, the Guardsmen get +1 LD anyway. So the cognitive dissonance is thinking that somehow Neophytes are better. In fact they may still need buffs just to be on par with Guardsmen.

Where are the Guardsmen getting +1LD from?

Oh right. Your hypothetical somehow consistently references the unit being:
a) Catachan
b) Within 6" of a Catachan Officer.

Yet if I were to point out that you could get the same +1 Strength on a unit of Neophytes, rerolls to failed Morale tests, and a FNP vs losing Wounds by being in the same range of an Iconward with the Chapter Approved Relic...I'd be moving the goalposts.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I think if you aren't taking the whole faction and the buffs the unit is going to have 99% of the time into account then you're only going to able to achieve a very basic level of analysis.
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

jcd386 wrote:
Also GSC as an army gains a lot less IMO from cheap chaff units standing between them and their shooting elements like guard + whatever do. So I'm not sure what the argument is here.

A lot of it is just circular bickering at the moment. Neophytes have been brought up as the 'closest parallel to Guardsmen' but for whatever reason people have been ignoring Cult Ambush and the additional point of Leadership present on the models, arguing that it's "no match for Regimental Traits" when others have argued those features are what have driven the points cost up.

I'd also say that while GSC might gain less from cheap chaff units standing between them and their shooting elements...it's not like the GSC characters are lacking protections against both shooting and CC engagement at this point. Not to the level of them being untouchable, but it sure as hell is fairly respectable.
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

w1zard wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Marmatag's Tier List
Tiers assume these armies will be played by a good player, in an ITC scenario.

Tier A - Have a strict advantage over the field by design.
Custodes + Imperial Guard Battery
Knights + Imperial Guard Battery
Eldar Soup

Tier B - Very strong armies. May struggle with tier A.
Chaos Soup (Includes Death Guard, Thousand Sons, Renegade Knights, etc)
Tau
Imperial Guard (mono & /w some allies)

Tier C - Mid-tier armies that do okay. Generally won't win events. Cannot compete with Tier A and expect to lose against Tier B.
Space Marines + Allies (includes Ultramarines, RG, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, et al)
Tyranids
Mechanicus Knights + Ad-Mech

Tier D - Can compete with Tier C but that's about it.
Necrons
Orks

Armies with low representation aren't ranked, and many armies are combined under 1 heading. Like it's obvious Grey Knights are god awful so why tier them.

Is it weird if I say I absolutely agree with all of that, and still see no problem with guard being at tier B? But rather, that other armies need buffs to tier B levels?

Guard CP batteries can be fixed with removal of CP generators (like Kurov's Aquila and Strategic Genius) and a rewrite of the CP system.


I don't see a problem with Guard being tier B.

The problem right now is that there is a massive gap between Tier B & Tier C. Most of the armies in Tier C simply cannot compete with the armies in Tier B. I don't care how we get there - buffs to Nids, marines, etc - or nerfs to the higher ups. As long as we get there.

But GW's changes post adepticon prove to me they don't understand how to balance Nids. Rule of 3, and price increase for Tyrants? Where have Tyranids gone after the nerf?

 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

Rule of 3 wasn't aimed specifically at Tyranids though. It might have seemed like it, but it was aimed at basically anyone that spammed certain things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
jcd386 wrote:
I think if you aren't taking the whole faction and the buffs the unit is going to have 99% of the time into account then you're only going to able to achieve a very basic level of analysis.

This is a big part of where the issue lies.

There are some arguing that Orders should always 100% be factored in when considering Guard but Auras in other armies shouldn't be, since "Orders have longer ranges". It ignores that Orders cannot stack outside of a specific Relic and that you have a fairly limited number of Orders vs Auras being able to move to where needed.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/20 23:04:35


 
   
Made in au
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





 Kanluwen wrote:
 SHUPPET wrote:
But Neophytes aren't superior. Going from 3-->4 strength is a much more relevant stat than 6-->7 LD. Regardless, the Guardsmen get +1 LD anyway. So the cognitive dissonance is thinking that somehow Neophytes are better. In fact they may still need buffs just to be on par with Guardsmen.

Where are the Guardsmen getting +1LD from?

Oh right. Your hypothetical somehow consistently references the unit being:
a) Catachan
b) Within 6" of a Catachan Officer.

Yet if I were to point out that you could get the same +1 Strength on a unit of Neophytes, rerolls to failed Morale tests, and a FNP vs losing Wounds by being in the same range of an Iconward with the Chapter Approved Relic...I'd be moving the goalposts.

Neophytes don't have the option of going Catachan. That is a cost free upgrade to Guardsmen. You can't build a list without HQs. Your list of buffs for Neophytes requires a specific HQ, a specific relic. If you want to compare the buffs they can potentially receive, I already did that, and Guard win out handily and for MUCH cheaper too. W1zard didn't like that, and said you can't count specific unit buffs, which is why we're just down to comparing statlines and army rules - a comparison that still sees Guard ahead. So yes, it would be moving the goalposts, except to a point where a touchdown was already scored some go ahead and do so if you insist.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/20 23:08:11


P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it. 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 SHUPPET wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 SHUPPET wrote:
But Neophytes aren't superior. Going from 3-->4 strength is a much more relevant stat than 6-->7 LD. Regardless, the Guardsmen get +1 LD anyway. So the cognitive dissonance is thinking that somehow Neophytes are better. In fact they may still need buffs just to be on par with Guardsmen.

Where are the Guardsmen getting +1LD from?

Oh right. Your hypothetical somehow consistently references the unit being:
a) Catachan
b) Within 6" of a Catachan Officer.

Yet if I were to point out that you could get the same +1 Strength on a unit of Neophytes, rerolls to failed Morale tests, and a FNP vs losing Wounds by being in the same range of an Iconward with the Chapter Approved Relic...I'd be moving the goalposts.

Neophytes don't have the option of going Catachan. That is a cost free upgrade to the unit. You can't build a list without HQs.

I can build a list without a Catachan Officer, that will remain battleforged. Lord Commissars are HQs and Primaris Psykers are HQs--both of which don't have the "Officer" keyword, and Primaris Psykers were fairly popular for awhile as HQs for Guard allied detachments.

Your list of buffs for Neophytes requires a specific HQ, a specific relic. If you want to compare the buffs they can potentially receive, I already did that, and Guard win out handily and for MUCH cheaper too. W1zard didn't like that, and said you can't count specific unit buffs, which is why we're just down to comparing statlines and army rules - a comparison that still sees Guard ahead. So yes, it would be moving the goalposts, except to a point where a touchdown was already scored some go ahead and do so if you insist.

And your list requires a specific Regiment, specific HQs, and specific placement.

Mine at least isn't wildly unfeasible since there's only one Relic for GSC at the moment, it costs no points to take a Relic, and it doesn't overwrite the already substantial benefit that an Iconward grants.
   
Made in au
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





OK then we'll factor in orders, and double attacks for Guard through literally just Straken, and Neophytes lose every single time. You want to compare with buffs Neophytes lose, you want to compare without Neophytes lose. This is established, stop moving the goalposts on what we can and can't include because the outcome remains identical.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/20 23:25:56


P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Marmatag wrote:
I don't see a problem with Guard being tier B.

The problem right now is that there is a massive gap between Tier B & Tier C. Most of the armies in Tier C simply cannot compete with the armies in Tier B. I don't care how we get there - buffs to Nids, marines, etc - or nerfs to the higher ups. As long as we get there.

But GW's changes post adepticon prove to me they don't understand how to balance Nids. Rule of 3, and price increase for Tyrants? Where have Tyranids gone after the nerf?

I'm not sure about nids, there are no nids players in my area and I have never played the faction myself personally. I can say however, playing against space marines, that they need buffs badly, holy gak. I have always been supportive of marine and GK buffs.

 SHUPPET wrote:
OK then we'll factor in orders, and double attacks for Guard through literally just Straken, and Neophytes lose every single time. You want to compare with buffs Neophytes lose, you want to compare without Neophytes lose. This is established, stop moving the goalposts on what we can and can't include because the outcome remains identical.

If the guardsmen are getting orders, then the neophytes should be getting buffs from whatever their aura unit is then fair? I still think it is stupid to make comparisons assuming buffs from other units that cost POINTS are present.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/08/20 23:28:26


 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 SHUPPET wrote:
OK then we'll factor in orders, and double attacks for Guard through literally just Straken, and Neophytes lose every single time. You want to compare with buffs Neophytes lose, you want to compare without Neophytes lose. This is established, stop moving the goalposts on what we can and can't include because the outcome remains identical.

I'm not the one who's been saying what to include or what not to include. You understand this right?

Also WTF is with your obsession with Catachans? You know that Straken doesn't "double attacks" right? He grants +1A for Catachan units in 6" of him at the start of the Fight phase.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I think we also have to wait until the GSC book comes out to really understand what their codex is really even trying to do, and how it effects the meta, before we can really compare it to guard+imperium. Right now they are in a really weird place and need to be fleshed out some more IMO before we start saying their units are too good or bad.

Right now the fact is that the only two relevant troop choices in the game are dirt cheap chaff and units with scout deployment. Guardsmen and cultists are the most obvious offenders, because eldar and necrons don't quite have chaff units (thank god), and nids/orks/GSC usually aren't using chaff as defensively (since their chaff units actually do a lot of their damage).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 SHUPPET wrote:
OK then we'll factor in orders, and double attacks for Guard through literally just Straken, and Neophytes lose every single time. You want to compare with buffs Neophytes lose, you want to compare without Neophytes lose. This is established, stop moving the goalposts on what we can and can't include because the outcome remains identical.

I'm not the one who's been saying what to include or what not to include. You understand this right?

Also WTF is with your obsession with Catachans? You know that Straken doesn't "double attacks" right? He grants +1A for Catachan units in 6" of him at the start of the Fight phase.


To be fair that does effectively double the attacks if the average guardsmen blob.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/20 23:49:09


 
   
Made in au
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





 Kanluwen wrote:
 SHUPPET wrote:
OK then we'll factor in orders, and double attacks for Guard through literally just Straken, and Neophytes lose every single time. You want to compare with buffs Neophytes lose, you want to compare without Neophytes lose. This is established, stop moving the goalposts on what we can and can't include because the outcome remains identical.

I'm not the one who's been saying what to include or what not to include. You understand this right?

Also WTF is with your obsession with Catachans? You know that Straken doesn't "double attacks" right? He grants +1A for Catachan units in 6" of him at the start of the Fight phase.

You jumped into and quoted a post that was written in response to the person who DID put those qualifiers as to what we can and can't include. That's the ONLY reason I also included them - if you disagree with them, then go argue with HIM about it, trust me we all think they're stupid too. The FACT is that you won't, simply because he's also defending Guard. Prove me wrong - you won't. But until then, at the very least don't try to berate other people for proving him wrong on both accounts.


Hey mathswhiz - Ask yourself, how many attacks do Guardsmen have? Then ask yourself if giving them +1 attacks is the same as double that number. It was a shorter way of saying the exact same thing in 99% of all relevant situations.

I'm comparing them to Catachan because it's the strongest regiment right now, especially for Guardsmen. If you want to play them weaker go for it, for balancing we compare to high level play though.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/08/20 23:57:10


P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 SHUPPET wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 SHUPPET wrote:
OK then we'll factor in orders, and double attacks for Guard through literally just Straken, and Neophytes lose every single time. You want to compare with buffs Neophytes lose, you want to compare without Neophytes lose. This is established, stop moving the goalposts on what we can and can't include because the outcome remains identical.

I'm not the one who's been saying what to include or what not to include. You understand this right?

Also WTF is with your obsession with Catachans? You know that Straken doesn't "double attacks" right? He grants +1A for Catachan units in 6" of him at the start of the Fight phase.

You jumped into and quoted a post that was written in response to the person who DID put those qualifiers as to what we can and can't include. That's the ONLY reason I also included them - if you disagree with them, then go argue with HIM about it, trust me we all think they're stupid too. The FACT is that you won't, simply because he's also defending Guard. Prove me wrong - you won't. But until then, at the very least don't try to berate other people for proving him wrong on both accounts.


Hey mathswhiz - Ask yourself, how many attacks do Guardsmen have? Then ask yourself if giving them +1 attacks is the same as double that number. It was a shorter way of saying the exact same thing in 99% of all relevant situations.

I'm comparing them to Catachan because it's the strongest regiment right now, especially for Guardsmen. If you want to play them weaker go for it, for balancing we compare to high level play though.


I think they are nitpicking in the same way they say that FRFSRF doesn't double their ranged damage because of the sarg...+1 attack is only a 90.9% increase for the average guard squad. Less if they have a heavy weapon squad. It's hard to not look at this as an obvious distraction, though.
   
Made in au
Towering Hierophant Bio-Titan





Also, since you guys feel so strongly about having perfect harmony between your own Dex and GSC's, I'll take it you'll be happy with tanks no longer receiving regiment tactics, because as it stands LRBT are identical between these two dexes except AM ones get regiment tactics, and GSC can't take as many models per unit, and cost 10 more points. That's a much better example of "straight up equivalent or better" than Neophytes to Guardsmen since it LITERALLY is this, instead of "better in ways I decide counts but worse in ways that I decide aren't relevant". So we can easily agree what the issue is there, so I'm taking it you guys are pushing for this to be changed as well?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
jcd386 wrote:
 SHUPPET wrote:
 Kanluwen wrote:
 SHUPPET wrote:
OK then we'll factor in orders, and double attacks for Guard through literally just Straken, and Neophytes lose every single time. You want to compare with buffs Neophytes lose, you want to compare without Neophytes lose. This is established, stop moving the goalposts on what we can and can't include because the outcome remains identical.

I'm not the one who's been saying what to include or what not to include. You understand this right?

Also WTF is with your obsession with Catachans? You know that Straken doesn't "double attacks" right? He grants +1A for Catachan units in 6" of him at the start of the Fight phase.

You jumped into and quoted a post that was written in response to the person who DID put those qualifiers as to what we can and can't include. That's the ONLY reason I also included them - if you disagree with them, then go argue with HIM about it, trust me we all think they're stupid too. The FACT is that you won't, simply because he's also defending Guard. Prove me wrong - you won't. But until then, at the very least don't try to berate other people for proving him wrong on both accounts.


Hey mathswhiz - Ask yourself, how many attacks do Guardsmen have? Then ask yourself if giving them +1 attacks is the same as double that number. It was a shorter way of saying the exact same thing in 99% of all relevant situations.

I'm comparing them to Catachan because it's the strongest regiment right now, especially for Guardsmen. If you want to play them weaker go for it, for balancing we compare to high level play though.


I think they are nitpicking in the same way they say that FRFSRF doesn't double their ranged damage because of the sarg...+1 attack is only a 90.9% increase for the average guard squad. Less if they have a heavy weapon squad. It's hard to not look at this as an obvious distraction, though.

Ah of course. I think you're right, just more misdirection, knowing that it has absolutely no bearing on the point being made that proved him wrong - he had to respond to something but had no response for that, so instead responds to irrelevant technicalities that don't even remotely disprove the conclusion.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/08/21 00:13:40


P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 SHUPPET wrote:
Also, since you guys feel so strongly about having perfect harmony between your own Dex and GSC's, I'll take it you'll be happy with tanks no longer receiving regiment tactics, because as it stands LRBT are identical between these two dexes except AM ones get regiment tactics. That's a much better example of "straight up equivalent or better" than Neophytes to Guardsmen since it LITERALLY is this, instead of "better in ways I decide counts but worse in ways that I decide aren't relevant". So we can easily agree what the issue is there, so I'm taking it you guys are pushing for this to be changed as well?

No, because when the GSC book drops they are going to get the equivalent of regimental traits for their vehicles as well.

How many times do I have to say it? Neophytes and GSC in general are going to get better when their codex drops, not worse... if prior codex releases are anything to go by.

I mean, I suppose you can argue that GSC in general and neophytes in particular are going to see price increases for the "privilege" of having stratagems and regimental traits but then I would just laugh at you.

BTW, you haven't answered my question.

w1zard wrote:
If the guardsmen are getting orders, then the neophytes should be getting buffs from whatever their aura unit is then fair? I still think it is stupid to make comparisons assuming buffs from other units that cost POINTS are present.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2018/08/21 00:20:24


 
   
Made in us
Ollanius Pius - Savior of the Emperor






Gathering the Informations.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Also, since you guys feel so strongly about having perfect harmony between your own Dex and GSC's, I'll take it you'll be happy with tanks no longer receiving regiment tactics, because as it stands LRBT are identical between these two dexes except AM ones get regiment tactics. That's a much better example of "straight up equivalent or better" than Neophytes to Guardsmen since it LITERALLY is this, instead of "better in ways I decide counts but worse in ways that I decide aren't relevant". So we can easily agree what the issue is there, so I'm taking it you guys are pushing for this to be changed as well?

We're not the schmucks who keep trying to pretend that GSC are literally just Guardsmen that are pointed differently. There's different rules, different unit sizes, different weapon availability, different buffs available, and even the listed Leadership value is different.

And I love how you keep trying to compare Cult Ambush to Regimental Tactics. But hey, let's add Cult Ambush and Unquestioning Loyalty to Leman Russes--hell, to all the GSC vehicles. I'm fine with that.


Ah of course. I think you're right, just more misdirection, knowing that it has absolutely no bearing on the point being made that proved him wrong - he had to respond to something but had no response for that, so instead responds to irrelevant technicalities that don't even remotely disprove the conclusion.

You've been part of the crowd jumping down everyone's throats with mathematics.

You said "doubling". You were wrong. It adds a single attack. FRFSRF adds 1 to the Rapid Fire characteristic, which can result in drastically different numbers predicated upon range--but "doubling" means something specific. "Doubling" someone like Harker's stats would mean he gets 8 attacks. He doesn't. He gets 5, thanks to the +1. An Officer won't "double" the number of his attacks--he adds 1.

You want to try to paint me as moving goalposts, then I'll damn well call you out every time you try to handwave garbage like this away.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Kanluwen wrote:

We're not the schmucks who keep trying to pretend that GSC are literally just Guardsmen that are pointed differently. There's different rules, different unit sizes, different weapon availability, different buffs available, and even the listed Leadership value is different.

And I love how you keep trying to compare Cult Ambush to Regimental Tactics. But hey, let's add Cult Ambush and Unquestioning Loyalty to Leman Russes--hell, to all the GSC vehicles. I'm fine with that.

I all fairness, I AM arguing that neophytes are literally guardsmen except better. I am also attributing cult ambush to the the neophytes version of a regimental trait. I still think neophytes are better than 5ppm guardsmen when compared directly.

The only argument I've heard is "b-but guardsmen get better buffs through other units that cost points". I'm saying it's irrelevant. If the buffs are too much that they need to be toned down, then nerf the BUFFING UNITS. However, two units from different codices being literally exactly the same and costing the same, except one unit is better than another simply to make up for strengths of something else that just happen to exist in one codex is an absolutely intolerable state of affairs IMO.

I would say this if guard was on the benefiting end, even if it meant nerfs to guard.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/08/21 00:56:18


 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins





Tacoma, WA, USA

Tyel wrote:
How are you going to feel if Neophytes get buffed in the new codex by being reduced to 4 points? Clearly with that +1LD its going to break the meta, and we will never see another guardsman again grace a top table.
Really? All those Imperium armies are going to start taking Neophytes instead?

Let's get real here. There is definitely a difference between Infantry Squads and Neophyte Hybrids. You can easily argue that Neophytes are better, because in a vacuum they are. Compared to IS, they have Autopistols, an additional point of Leadership, and Cult Ambush. They can even purchase blob squads of over 10 models if they want. We can ignore faction traits because, barring a radical revision by GW, they will get one of those on top of their current abilities, whether it has choices or is just one trait like Death Guard and Thousand Sons.

The question is, how much is that worth at the low points that IS and NH are at? Is it enough to make IS 4 and NH 5? Or IS 5 and NH 6? Or is it still close enough for both to be 5 points?

I'm inclined to think it is not worth much, when you consider the various 7 and 8 point infantry models out there.

That being said, I really hope that GW takes the opportunity of Chapter Approved 2018 to do a in-depth look at the Matched Play point values of units and published complete, new points cost for all Codexes. Then we can have 5 point IS, 6 point NH, 8 Point Fire Warriors and Skitarii Rangers, and 11 point Tactical Marines. I dream, I'm sure, but we have a right to dream.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 alextroy wrote:
Let's get real here. There is definitely a difference between Infantry Squads and Neophyte Hybrids. You can easily argue that Neophytes are better, because in a vacuum they are. Compared to IS, they have Autopistols, an additional point of Leadership, and Cult Ambush. They can even purchase blob squads of over 10 models if they want. We can ignore faction traits because, barring a radical revision by GW, they will get one of those on top of their current abilities, whether it has choices or is just one trait like Death Guard and Thousand Sons.

Thank you for at least acknowledging that. That is the ONLY point I was trying to make.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/08/21 03:47:01


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: