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.
They are taking more guard than minimums because they have access to it. If the CP regen artifact was on another faction, like Space Marines, would people automatically bring guardsmen? No. They would be taking the cheapest and most efficient things they could from the Space Marine dex. You would see scout spam...which was a thing earlier in the meta, before the deep strike change.
Besides, mono guard became completely unplayable the second Eldar got haywire weapons that do mortal wounds on a 2+. Guard armor simply doesn't matter - the second tanks got an armour save this edition, the rules have changed to make them irrelevant. If any single army needs a nerf, it is Eldar. As far as entire factions go, yeah, Imperial soup needs to stop being a thing. I think the split CP pools would stop allies from being brought just for the CP battery - Slamguinus wouldn't be a thing for armies outside of a BA battalion. There are Knights out there now, after all. Who actually wants Guardsmen when they could have Captain Slam in a BA battalion and an awesome Knight in a Super Heavy detachment?
Competitive players would not take any more than the minimum units of Infantry unless they were competitive. They would always choose other options if they had them. So, contrary to what people keep claiming here, we can extrapolate that Infantry are competitive and points effipoint;;.
The players we're discussing generally had access to scouts via BA. They still chose to take more infantry and minimum scout units to fulfil the detachment. Hence we can ascertain that infantry are considered more valuable, point for point, than Scouts.
Obviously people want Guardsmen in comparison to other options because they are taking them and I feel I have to reiterate this point; they are taking more than the minimum they require to fulfil a detachment.
How long have Eldar had Haywire? At the BAO the top performing mono list was Tau. The next best mono list was pure Guard. Above pure Craftworld or Dark Eldar. Above pure Space Marines and above pure Knights. Mono Guard are extremely strong. Your haywire issue does not effect the million infantry bodies IG can throw out.
You are ignoring why they are taking Guard in the first place. Yes, guardsmen are points efficient...at being bodies. So are Tyranids, with the ability to revive 10 hormagaunts a turn for every Tervigon they have-and the other 20 bodies in those 30 man swarms can have guns, too. You don't see Tyranids at the top list because they can't ally in a Slamguinus or a Knight. People take infantry squads for their cheap points, but they wouldn't take Guard at all if they couldn't use the CP. Guard need cheap bodies to function on their own. They aren't Custodes or in power armor. Flooding the board with a stationary gunline is their schtick, and other people are taking that because it is cheap.
Fix the ally problems first, THEN propose a change to the points of Guard. If they're still around after the change to CP batteries, then you will be correct. I doubt it though - skitarii has better statlines for troops and are basically cheaper marines.
Guard are tye constant in every imperial list, but people keep saying that they arn't the problem, the constant member of the soup is the problem.
If they removed Grand Strategists and Kurov's for the guard codex tomorrow, I think the amount of IG warlords would flatline, but detachments would still be around in soup lists.
The simple fact is Guard are the cheapest source of CP for these lists at a points spent per CP generated that no other faction can come close to.
But guard are also the strongest point per point Infantry battalion in the imperial faction.
gingerlord wrote: One thing that jumped out to me are all these Knights in Super Heavy Auxiliary Detachments listing households. Are they allowed them given the codex (pg106) says they're excluded
So are they just putting them down because Battlescribe forces you to put one in, or are they actually using the traditions on top of strategems...
They don't get TRAIT. Ie raven's don't advance and shoot at penalty, no 6+++ for Taranis etc...
...however they do get strategems just like any other faction. Say hello raven castellan rerolling 1's.
They ARE raven's. Auxiliary doesn't remove that. They just don't get the faction trait. 2 different things.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/04 09:48:39
4 ppm infantry are a problem for the game. I think people take them because they are the best point for point objective holder in the game bar none.
Since you chose to ignore the points I have made in multiple threads which you have been a part of, let me once again illustrate for you the issue: It is NOT the ppm. It is NOT the Infantry Squads proper that are at fault.
Just saying it doesn't make it true. It just makes you wrong in multiple threads.
Mitch Pelham, a top 10 ranked ITC player, and probably the most iconic Guard player in the world, with multiple AM lists even been named after him (The Pelham Special, for example), and the first person to gain notoriety with this list (this list here already being coined as "Caspelham Guard") said recently on podcast that he is taking the maxed out Guardsmen for almost he exact reasons that An Actual Englishman and others have stated - they are too cheap and control space extremely well.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/04 09:53:05
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
They are taking more guard than minimums because they have access to it. If the CP regen artifact was on another faction, like Space Marines, would people automatically bring guardsmen? No. They would be taking the cheapest and most efficient things they could from the Space Marine dex. You would see scout spam...which was a thing earlier in the meta, before the deep strike change.
Besides, mono guard became completely unplayable the second Eldar got haywire weapons that do mortal wounds on a 2+. Guard armor simply doesn't matter - the second tanks got an armour save this edition, the rules have changed to make them irrelevant. If any single army needs a nerf, it is Eldar. As far as entire factions go, yeah, Imperial soup needs to stop being a thing. I think the split CP pools would stop allies from being brought just for the CP battery - Slamguinus wouldn't be a thing for armies outside of a BA battalion. There are Knights out there now, after all. Who actually wants Guardsmen when they could have Captain Slam in a BA battalion and an awesome Knight in a Super Heavy detachment?
Competitive players would not take any more than the minimum units of Infantry unless they were competitive. They would always choose other options if they had them. So, contrary to what people keep claiming here, we can extrapolate that Infantry are competitive and points effipoint;;.
The players we're discussing generally had access to scouts via BA. They still chose to take more infantry and minimum scout units to fulfil the detachment. Hence we can ascertain that infantry are considered more valuable, point for point, than Scouts.
Obviously people want Guardsmen in comparison to other options because they are taking them and I feel I have to reiterate this point; they are taking more than the minimum they require to fulfil a detachment.
How long have Eldar had Haywire? At the BAO the top performing mono list was Tau. The next best mono list was pure Guard. Above pure Craftworld or Dark Eldar. Above pure Space Marines and above pure Knights. Mono Guard are extremely strong. Your haywire issue does not effect the million infantry bodies IG can throw out.
You are ignoring why they are taking Guard in the first place. Yes, guardsmen are points efficient...at being bodies. So are Tyranids, with the ability to revive 10 hormagaunts a turn for every Tervigon they have-and the other 20 bodies in those 30 man swarms can have guns, too. You don't see Tyranids at the top list because they can't ally in a Slamguinus or a Knight. People take infantry squads for their cheap points, but they wouldn't take Guard at all if they couldn't use the CP. Guard need cheap bodies to function on their own. They aren't Custodes or in power armor. Flooding the board with a stationary gunline is their schtick, and other people are taking that because it is cheap.
Fix the ally problems first, THEN propose a change to the points of Guard. If they're still around after the change to CP batteries, then you will be correct. I doubt it though - skitarii has better statlines for troops and are basically cheaper marines.
Guard are tye constant in every imperial list, but people keep saying that they arn't the problem, the constant member of the soup is the problem.
If they removed Grand Strategists and Kurov's for the guard codex tomorrow, I think the amount of IG warlords would flatline, but detachments would still be around in soup lists.
The simple fact is Guard are the cheapest source of CP for these lists at a points spent per CP generated that no other faction can come close to.
But guard are also the strongest point per point Infantry battalion in the imperial faction.
Sounds like Tac Marines should have a cost decrease rather than the Guard Infantry needing an increase. If people can't play the models in their own Codexes, why should Imp Guard players get shafted? The problem is that everyone wants their super-elite named characters with all their buffs, and then they need some other bodies on the board just to stay legal/grab objectives. It's why you saw Mortarion fly around with poxwalker spam at the beginning of this edition, and why you still see Imperial Soup everywhere. You just need to penalize souping, not specific models. If Imperial Guard infantry truly is the problem, then you will see people specifically ally just for the troops - not Kurov's Aquilla, not Basilisks, not Manticores, not Wyverns, not CP batteries...nothing.
The fact of the matter is people are limited to 2 detachments at most tournaments, and they already have the Imp Guard book open, so they take everything they can get. Make them soup with someone else before you start complaining about guard.
A bolter fires and a Necron succumbs. His corpse rises up as a poxwalker much to the horror of his comrades. Then, to everyone's surprise his corpse rises again as a fully functionality necron. The necron and the poxwalker stare at each other, both wondering which of them is the clone.
It's not about TAC marines, who need a discount as well. Guardsmen will still be head and shoulders above every 4pt model in the game no matter where TAC marines sit. Not sure why you're making it about them.
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
Are people still pretending 4 ppm Infantry aren't broken? They are patently better than alternatives at the same points level, the maths on this has been done to death in another topic.
I'll say it again; at the last major tournament they were the second best mono faction. You DO see mono Guard at the top tables. You also see primary Guard at the top tables. Each and every list has a swathe of Infantry but people keep telling me their points are fine? It doesn't add up.
4 ppm infantry are a problem for the game. I think people take them because they are the best point for point objective holder in the game bar none.
Since you chose to ignore the points I have made in multiple threads which you have been a part of, let me once again illustrate for you the issue:
It is NOT the ppm. It is NOT the Infantry Squads proper that are at fault.
Just saying it doesn't make it true. It just makes you wrong in multiple threads.
Mitch Pelham, a top 10 ranked ITC player, and probably the most iconic Guard player in the world, with multiple AM lists even been named after him (The Pelham Special, for example), and the first person to gain notoriety with this list (this list here already being coined as "Caspelham Guard") said recently on podcast that he is taking the maxed out Guardsmen for almost he exact reasons that An Actual Englishman and others have stated - they are too cheap and control space extremely well.
So, let me get this straight:
Some guy who is running a KNIGHT/ROWBOAT GIRLYMAN/SLAMGUINUS soup ran out of points/viable options in their own codexes, and decided to soup to shore up the weak spots? So Imperial Guard needs to have the change?
5ppm Guard is not going to solve this problem, and since the next model up in points are Veterans, with 3+ BS, and NO ONE takes them...you can't really increase them further than that without breaking the entire balance and logical coherency of the Guard Codex. At 5ppm, those same guys running the "Flavour of the Week" are still going to take Guard - it's not the fault of the Infantry Squad. Souping simply needs to be nerfed.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SHUPPET wrote: It's not about TAC marines, who need a discount as well. Guardsmen will still be head and shoulders above every 4pt model in the game no matter where TAC marines sit. Not sure why you're making it about them.
What's wrong with Guardsmen being a good 4pt model? The only reason this is a problem is because no one runs space marines. Make Space marine scouts 8 pts, and Space Marines 10pts, and no one will fuss around with bringing Guardsmen. The problem isn't guardsmen, it's all the other options are poop.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/04 10:18:36
A bolter fires and a Necron succumbs. His corpse rises up as a poxwalker much to the horror of his comrades. Then, to everyone's surprise his corpse rises again as a fully functionality necron. The necron and the poxwalker stare at each other, both wondering which of them is the clone.
Yeah, there's only been three or four posts pointing out how that demonstrably isn't true in this thread alone, so I can understand how it's easy to miss.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
tneva82 wrote: So if the 4ppm guardsmen are so bloody awesome why people are taking minimum they need for detachments...
Where's the AM lists maxing out on them? Or even taking more than minimum required for detachment?
Where's the GT dominating 200 IG trooper swarms?
Somehow upping point cost of unit people take minimum doesn't seem like it would fix the soup issue...
The reason they're so awesome is because they're a cheap but still effective way to get a big chink of CPs. Don't get me wrong, 4ppm IG are too good for sure, but upping them to 5ppm won't change much since the value they bring in terms of CPs is so great players will find ways to drop 30 points from their lists to squeeze them in. The problem is the interaction of cheap models with the ally rules. Fixing one doesn't necessarily fix the other.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/04 10:30:50
You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.
Issue is soup. Just because they went for more CP than bat but still taking minimums...They still take minimum. Just min for 12 rather than 5. More CP for the CP hungry guys that do the real work.
There are multiple lists in the OP that prove your theory wrong. Multiple lists where, as I said, more than the minimum Infantry squads for battalion or brigade were taken.
Also as I said; mono Guard is incredibly competitive.
They are taking more guard than minimums because they have access to it. If the CP regen artifact was on another faction, like Space Marines, would people automatically bring guardsmen? No. They would be taking the cheapest and most efficient things they could from the Space Marine dex. You would see scout spam...which was a thing earlier in the meta, before the deep strike change.
Besides, mono guard became completely unplayable the second Eldar got haywire weapons that do mortal wounds on a 2+. Guard armor simply doesn't matter - the second tanks got an armour save this edition, the rules have changed to make them irrelevant. If any single army needs a nerf, it is Eldar. As far as entire factions go, yeah, Imperial soup needs to stop being a thing. I think the split CP pools would stop allies from being brought just for the CP battery - Slamguinus wouldn't be a thing for armies outside of a BA battalion. There are Knights out there now, after all. Who actually wants Guardsmen when they could have Captain Slam in a BA battalion and an awesome Knight in a Super Heavy detachment?
You'd think a Guard apologist would be able to come up with a more convincing argument rather than saying Haywire is a problem, yet here we are.
Are the Guard apologists seriously running that low on defensive arguments? It's like 4th and 6th-7th Eldar players all over again!
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.
You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.
Issue is soup. Just because they went for more CP than bat but still taking minimums...They still take minimum. Just min for 12 rather than 5. More CP for the CP hungry guys that do the real work.
There are multiple lists in the OP that prove your theory wrong. Multiple lists where, as I said, more than the minimum Infantry squads for battalion or brigade were taken.
Also as I said; mono Guard is incredibly competitive.
They are taking more guard than minimums because they have access to it. If the CP regen artifact was on another faction, like Space Marines, would people automatically bring guardsmen? No. They would be taking the cheapest and most efficient things they could from the Space Marine dex. You would see scout spam...which was a thing earlier in the meta, before the deep strike change.
Besides, mono guard became completely unplayable the second Eldar got haywire weapons that do mortal wounds on a 2+. Guard armor simply doesn't matter - the second tanks got an armour save this edition, the rules have changed to make them irrelevant. If any single army needs a nerf, it is Eldar. As far as entire factions go, yeah, Imperial soup needs to stop being a thing. I think the split CP pools would stop allies from being brought just for the CP battery - Slamguinus wouldn't be a thing for armies outside of a BA battalion. There are Knights out there now, after all. Who actually wants Guardsmen when they could have Captain Slam in a BA battalion and an awesome Knight in a Super Heavy detachment?
You'd think a Guard apologist would be able to come up with a more convincing argument rather than saying Haywire is a problem, yet here we are.
Are the Guard apologists seriously running that low on defensive arguments? It's like 4th and 6th-7th Eldar players all over again!
Alright, lets change the cost of a guard infantry squad to 5ppm. In a battalion, that is 60pts. In a brigade, that is 120pts. This price increase won't affect the people who bring their super power models, and soup in guard. HOWEVER, it does prevent a mono guard player from bringing a Leman Russ chassis to the game - a chassis that has already been rendered pointless by the new Castellan Knight models and the haywire rules of the new Drukhari codex. This change only hurts regular guard, not the people who spam the flavor of the week. People who are just CP spamming will continue to bring guard, and you will continue to say 'pls nerf', and we'll end up with 8pt Infantry squads - and then the CP spammers will just take Space Marines. Or Inquisitor bs.
A bolter fires and a Necron succumbs. His corpse rises up as a poxwalker much to the horror of his comrades. Then, to everyone's surprise his corpse rises again as a fully functionality necron. The necron and the poxwalker stare at each other, both wondering which of them is the clone.
Galas wrote: Man all those "solutions" to soup... That only kill allies and wont make the meta better because people will find the hole in the new ally sistem.
As one of the 8 players in the world that plays fluffy imperial soup with a ton of different combinations because I have the attention spawn of a 3 years old (Custodes without bikes+Tempestus on Tauroxes and Bullgryns+ Imperial Knight Valiant and Warglaive+Celestine Patrol+Sisters of Silence+Vindicares) Im actually afraid of having all my imperial stuff expect for my Dark Angels, invalidated for matched pkay unless I spent a ton of money in doing all of those into 2000 point armies.
But the most common solution named was limiting CP to the faction that generated them. Wouldn't that keep your army intact?
7 Ork facts people always get wrong: Ragnar did not win against Thrakka, but suffered two crushing defeats within a few days of each other. A lasgun is powerful enough to sever an ork's appendage or head in a single, well aimed shot. Orks meks have a better understanding of electrics and mechanics than most Tech Priests. Orks actually do not think that purple makes them harder to see. The joke was made canon by Alex Stewart's Caphias Cain books. Gharkull Blackfang did not even come close to killing the emperor. Orks can be corrupted by chaos, but few of them have any interest in what chaos offers. Orks do not have the power of believe.
So first of all... there's no particular issue whatsoever with the top 10 lists. They are a snapshot of the current status of the game - no more, no less. What is powerful and durable? What is cheap and spammable? What is mobile and numerous?
As someone said before, nothing about this is new - it's just that in the age of WhatsApp and the internet, someone comes up with the IG/BA/Castellan list and it gets shared around so loads of people take it.
GW have already showed that they can and will make amendments to the game based on what's clearly working a bit too well.
What would I change?
I really don't like the idea of having to track multiple sources of Command Points and strongly hope that doesn't happen. I also think that's not been thought through. Do we really want it so that you cannot usefully take an allied detachment, unless it's a Battalion or Brigade?
Taking a detachment which only has 1CP to use all game is pointless and would completely delete all utility from allied detachments.
I would do a softer limiter to soup by having multi-codex armies generate far less CPs, and cutting back on the use of CP regeneration.
<Braces for the GW triple-nerf>
TO of Death Before Dishonour - A Warhammer 40k Tournament with a focus on great battles between well painted, thematic armies on tables with full terrain.
Silentz wrote: So first of all... there's no particular issue whatsoever with the top 10 lists. They are a snapshot of the current status of the game - no more, no less. What is powerful and durable? What is cheap and spammable? What is mobile and numerous?
As someone said before, nothing about this is new - it's just that in the age of WhatsApp and the internet, someone comes up with the IG/BA/Castellan list and it gets shared around so loads of people take it.
GW have already showed that they can and will make amendments to the game based on what's clearly working a bit too well.
What would I change?
I really don't like the idea of having to track multiple sources of Command Points and strongly hope that doesn't happen. I also think that's not been thought through. Do we really want it so that you cannot usefully take an allied detachment, unless it's a Battalion or Brigade?
Taking a detachment which only has 1CP to use all game is pointless and would completely delete all utility from allied detachments.
I would do a softer limiter to soup by having multi-codex armies generate far less CPs, and cutting back on the use of CP regeneration.
<Braces for the GW triple-nerf>
Makes more sense than a guard nerf, and does keep guys like Grey Knights and Custodes in mind. Multi-codex armies essentially go back to the old CP numbers? Because that could work, just about.
A bolter fires and a Necron succumbs. His corpse rises up as a poxwalker much to the horror of his comrades. Then, to everyone's surprise his corpse rises again as a fully functionality necron. The necron and the poxwalker stare at each other, both wondering which of them is the clone.
tneva82 wrote: So if the 4ppm guardsmen are so bloody awesome why people are taking minimum they need for detachments...
Where's the AM lists maxing out on them? Or even taking more than minimum required for detachment?
Where's the GT dominating 200 IG trooper swarms?
Somehow upping point cost of unit people take minimum doesn't seem like it would fix the soup issue...
Of the 7 imperial armies 1 is running 7 infantry squad so 1 extra and 1 list is running 8 so 2 extra also no other army can even contemplate running a battalion for sub 1000 points says that guard are the enabling faction for the broken mess that is the current ally mechanics.
So far all these individual detachment CP idea etc don't fix the fundamental imbalance between factions. It just gives IG another year of undercosted infantry.
Grand Strategists and Kurov's for the same faction is indefensible, it makes Guard CP less than 20 points per CP.
Slamguinius is a problem in an otherwise lacklustre codex.
Solo Castellan's are easily fixed by stopping supper heavy auxiliary detachment of knights unlock strategums.
I think it's very clear that the allies system is the crutch of the current meta in competitive. Of the top 10 lists, all 10 use allies in their lists. This should be the primary focus of any changes proposed for sure, and I think waiting until December to make any changes through Chapter Approved would be waiting until too late. The September FAQ might be the best option to hotfix the issue, but I don't think the FAQ is intended for major balance changes to be made.
I have an idea... lets not nerf anything, lets provide an incentive to playing 'pure'. If your armies key word is not imperium, chaos, or aeldari (and come up with a similar one for nids), then you gain 4CP.
IMO more cp in the game is better than less and makes the game more enjoyable (having some options is fun). This way those that want to soup, can do so, and gain the benefits of a wider selection of units, while those that dont, gain the benefits of some riskless CP.
Galas wrote: Man all those "solutions" to soup... That only kill allies and wont make the meta better because people will find the hole in the new ally sistem.
As one of the 8 players in the world that plays fluffy imperial soup with a ton of different combinations because I have the attention spawn of a 3 years old (Custodes without bikes+Tempestus on Tauroxes and Bullgryns+ Imperial Knight Valiant and Warglaive+Celestine Patrol+Sisters of Silence+Vindicares) Im actually afraid of having all my imperial stuff expect for my Dark Angels, invalidated for matched pkay unless I spent a ton of money in doing all of those into 2000 point armies.
But the most common solution named was limiting CP to the faction that generated them. Woulidn't that keep your army intact?
Yeah, it would, but it would be a little confusing to keep track of the diferent cp pools, but is a change I like. Other change that i like is only relics for the warlord faction. You want your kurovs aquila and grand strategist? Ok, no relics for your ba or ac captain or knight.
I was talking about the changes more like 50% of your army from one keyword, or only patrol detachments as allies.
Previously I used a vanguard detachment with Celestine, 3 SoS squads and 1 null maiden rhino. I cant anymore. I still run Celestine in - 1cp detachment but as I play always with 3 detachments max, I cant run anymore my Tempestus/Custodes+Celestine and SoS and Assassins +Imperial Knights.
Now SoS, Assassins and Celestibe need 3 detachments, no 1. I say this because I understood why the change and I believe is better for the healt of the game, even if it goes agaisnt my mediocre list. But I use it as an example of the collateral damage. I understand making lists from previous editions illegal, like full deepstrike terminatyor lists, but making lists from this edition illegal, that many people started, myself included, because they where possible now, always sucks.
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
4 ppm infantry are a problem for the game. I think people take them because they are the best point for point objective holder in the game bar none.
Since you chose to ignore the points I have made in multiple threads which you have been a part of, let me once again illustrate for you the issue:
It is NOT the ppm. It is NOT the Infantry Squads proper that are at fault.
Just saying it doesn't make it true. It just makes you wrong in multiple threads.
Mitch Pelham, a top 10 ranked ITC player, and probably the most iconic Guard player in the world, with multiple AM lists even been named after him (The Pelham Special, for example), and the first person to gain notoriety with this list (this list here already being coined as "Caspelham Guard") said recently on podcast that he is taking the maxed out Guardsmen for almost he exact reasons that An Actual Englishman and others have stated - they are too cheap and control space extremely well.
So, let me get this straight:
Some guy who is running a KNIGHT/ROWBOAT GIRLYMAN/SLAMGUINUS soup ran out of points/viable options in their own codexes, and decided to soup to shore up the weak spots? So Imperial Guard needs to have the change?
lulwut
The guy has a track record of killing events with solo IG, before the Knights. He understands the unit at a competitive level better than both you or I, he's taking IG with a Knight ally now because why wouldn't you, it's ridiculously strong? The removal of it does not make Guardsmen suddenly a balanced model at 4 pts. You may not recognize Pelham's name, but perhaps you've heard of Nick Nanavati, 40k's best player right? It was a chat between the two of them. They ALSO stressed that soup needs to be heavily nerfed.
Unlike you, they are capable of recognizing that the argument "but something is making the game even worse!" is not a logical rationality for leaving broken things in the game. 4 pt Guardsmen is something that goes hand in hand with nerfing allies. No army should have a 4pt 5+ GEQ with the options that Guardsmen get, it's just absurd.
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
SM Scouts and AM guardsmen are not the issue. Nerfing them would be madness.
They are just the cheapest way to achieve the desired result, which is dudes on the board and a hatful of command points to spend on the important models.
TO of Death Before Dishonour - A Warhammer 40k Tournament with a focus on great battles between well painted, thematic armies on tables with full terrain.
secretForge wrote: I have an idea... lets not nerf anything, lets provide an incentive to playing 'pure'. If your armies key word is not imperium, chaos, or aeldari (and come up with a similar one for nids), then you gain 4CP.
IMO more cp in the game is better than less and makes the game more enjoyable (having some options is fun). This way those that want to soup, can do so, and gain the benefits of a wider selection of units, while those that dont, gain the benefits of some riskless CP.
This is where I am, more or less. Buffing solo faction armies instead of nerfing soup or allied armies is probably a better approach. Still not sure on what would be the best approach, but considering the recent popularity of CP batteries, then granting additional CPs could be a good compromise. It might also make factions who struggle solo (GK, Custodes solo, Necrons) to be more enjoyable to play if not more powerful.
tneva82 wrote: So if the 4ppm guardsmen are so bloody awesome why people are taking minimum they need for detachments...
Where's the AM lists maxing out on them? Or even taking more than minimum required for detachment?
Where's the GT dominating 200 IG trooper swarms?
Somehow upping point cost of unit people take minimum doesn't seem like it would fix the soup issue...
Of the 7 imperial armies 1 is running 7 infantry squad so 1 extra and 1 list is running 8 so 2 extra also no other army can even contemplate running a battalion for sub 1000 points says that guard are the enabling faction for the broken mess that is the current ally mechanics.
So far all these individual detachment CP idea etc don't fix the fundamental imbalance between factions. It just gives IG another year of undercosted infantry.
Grand Strategists and Kurov's for the same faction is indefensible, it makes Guard CP less than 20 points per CP.
Slamguinius is a problem in an otherwise lacklustre codex.
Solo Castellan's are easily fixed by stopping supper heavy auxiliary detachment of knights unlock strategums.
I understand the Grand Strategist and Kurov gripes, I just don't get how someone filling their points up with 40 or 80 points of guard is breaking the game. So they used 80 points for 20 lasguns at BS4. Would they have changed tactics if they had to use 100pts, or would they continue to use guard? At what point to do you stop the point increase, because if you keep moving up conscripts, then infantry, then the options no one even plays (Veterans)...then what? The power gamers will just switch codexes to whatever they can spam in the troop slot. Hell, they might go back to conscripts if you push it up enough, and then you will complain about them. Again. At BS5!
Once you guys start complaining about Orks being too powerful...you're just being gits.
A bolter fires and a Necron succumbs. His corpse rises up as a poxwalker much to the horror of his comrades. Then, to everyone's surprise his corpse rises again as a fully functionality necron. The necron and the poxwalker stare at each other, both wondering which of them is the clone.
Infantry at 4ppm are mathematically superior to everything else, even against anti infantry fire, and even compared with undercosted infantry like kabalites, firewarriors and skitari rangers.
I play regularly with 60 firewarriors. You dpnt see them in top tables, but at 7ppm they are too good. Compared witj a 9ppm SoB at 8ppm (the fw,) they where balanced. Now they are just too good. And they are worse than infantry squads
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/04 12:11:44
Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.
ERJAK wrote: Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.
I'm running a UK tournament in February and have put in some army composition rules to address soup... I am not saying these are perfect and they are liable to be refined or change (particularly if GW make some changes) but here they are:
----------------------
Your army can consist of up to three detachments, and may include duplicate detachments, however:
One detachment in your army must be a Battalion, Brigade or Super-Heavy Detachment and will be marked as your “Primary Detachment”.
Your warlord must be in your Primary Detachment
Your Primary Detachment determines your "Army Keywords" - which will include all Faction and Subfaction Keywords. Some examples of Army Keywords might be: IMPERIUM, ASTRA MILITARUM, CADIA or CHAOS, HERETIC ASTARTES, DEATH GUARD
You will only gain Command Points from detachments which exactly match your Army Keywords. You can take as many non-matching detachments as you like, but they will all give you a command benefit of 0 CPs. There are no exceptions to this rule.
If all detachments in your army have the same Army Keywords, you gain +3 CPs for being Battleforged. Otherwise, you do not gain the standard +3 CP for Battleforged. Note that your army must still be Battleforged (i.e. all detachments must share one keyword)
There are a few exceptions to this rule - e.g. to allow Death Guard and Nurgle to fight together, or to allow Drukhari armies to take Cults and Kabals together, or to allow AdMech to take a Questor Mechanicus Knight.
--------------
I'm also considering something like "you can only each CP regeneration relic/ability/trait once per player turn" to nerf GrandStrat/Kurov's/Veritas
The common cry when people read this is "but you can still take a guard brigade" plus 2 allied detachments...
Yes, but you drop from 18 command points to 12, which is a good start... and if you're taking a battalion then half your army is one faction already. It's not as bad as slotting in a cheapo battalion.
-----------
Another option I just thought of might be to move AM Heavy Weapons Teams from the Heavy Support slot into, say, Elites.
Having to take 3 "proper" heavy support options (rather than 33 pt ones) would make Brigades even more of a commitment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/04 12:16:23
TO of Death Before Dishonour - A Warhammer 40k Tournament with a focus on great battles between well painted, thematic armies on tables with full terrain.
tneva82 wrote: So if the 4ppm guardsmen are so bloody awesome why people are taking minimum they need for detachments...
Where's the AM lists maxing out on them? Or even taking more than minimum required for detachment?
Where's the GT dominating 200 IG trooper swarms?
Somehow upping point cost of unit people take minimum doesn't seem like it would fix the soup issue...
Of the 7 imperial armies 1 is running 7 infantry squad so 1 extra and 1 list is running 8 so 2 extra also no other army can even contemplate running a battalion for sub 1000 points says that guard are the enabling faction for the broken mess that is the current ally mechanics.
So far all these individual detachment CP idea etc don't fix the fundamental imbalance between factions. It just gives IG another year of undercosted infantry.
Grand Strategists and Kurov's for the same faction is indefensible, it makes Guard CP less than 20 points per CP.
Slamguinius is a problem in an otherwise lacklustre codex.
Solo Castellan's are easily fixed by stopping supper heavy auxiliary detachment of knights unlock strategums.
I understand the Grand Strategist and Kurov gripes, I just don't get how someone filling their points up with 40 or 80 points of guard is breaking the game. So they used 80 points for 20 lasguns at BS4. Would they have changed tactics if they had to use 100pts, or would they continue to use guard? At what point to do you stop the point increase, because if you keep moving up conscripts, then infantry, then the options no one even plays (Veterans)...then what? The power gamers will just switch codexes to whatever they can spam in the troop slot. Hell, they might go back to conscripts if you push it up enough, and then you will complain about them. Again. At BS5!
Once you guys start complaining about Orks being too powerful...you're just being gits.
As has been proven time and again 4ppm guardsmen are the best chaff in the game. They should be 5ppm for internal guard codex balance and external codex balance.
Leaving them as they are would not change the meta, guard CP even without Grand Strategists and Kurov's is still the cheapest at 36p per CP and when those are some of if not the best infantry in the game that's a problem.
So far the unit that have been suggested that kill 4ppm guard reasonably efficently (stand a chance of making their points back over a game) are 400 point models and will be wipped from the board turn 1/2 never actually doing enough. Making them 5ppm makes that list far more reasonable.
The change also has finge benifita of adding 6 points to HW squads etc though they are another unit that needs looked at but that's probably more an ILOS mechanic issue.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/04 12:26:26
Silentz wrote: I'm running a UK tournament in February and have put in some army composition rules to address soup... I am not saying these are perfect and they are liable to be refined or change (particularly if GW make some changes) but here they are:
Another option I just thought of might be to move AM Heavy Weapons Teams from the Heavy Support slot into, say, Elites.
Having to take 3 "proper" heavy support options (rather than 33 pt ones) would make Brigades even more of a commitment.
That could work, but that elites slot would be crowded...it would essentially force a Guard player to have a Brigade and a Battalion at all times, which isn't too bad since the minimum list is probably going to be 2 battalions anyway.
tneva82 wrote: So if the 4ppm guardsmen are so bloody awesome why people are taking minimum they need for detachments...
Where's the AM lists maxing out on them? Or even taking more than minimum required for detachment?
Where's the GT dominating 200 IG trooper swarms?
Somehow upping point cost of unit people take minimum doesn't seem like it would fix the soup issue...
Of the 7 imperial armies 1 is running 7 infantry squad so 1 extra and 1 list is running 8 so 2 extra also no other army can even contemplate running a battalion for sub 1000 points says that guard are the enabling faction for the broken mess that is the current ally mechanics.
So far all these individual detachment CP idea etc don't fix the fundamental imbalance between factions. It just gives IG another year of undercosted infantry.
Grand Strategists and Kurov's for the same faction is indefensible, it makes Guard CP less than 20 points per CP.
Slamguinius is a problem in an otherwise lacklustre codex.
Solo Castellan's are easily fixed by stopping supper heavy auxiliary detachment of knights unlock strategums.
I understand the Grand Strategist and Kurov gripes, I just don't get how someone filling their points up with 40 or 80 points of guard is breaking the game. So they used 80 points for 20 lasguns at BS4. Would they have changed tactics if they had to use 100pts, or would they continue to use guard? At what point to do you stop the point increase, because if you keep moving up conscripts, then infantry, then the options no one even plays (Veterans)...then what? The power gamers will just switch codexes to whatever they can spam in the troop slot. Hell, they might go back to conscripts if you push it up enough, and then you will complain about them. Again. At BS5!
Once you guys start complaining about Orks being too powerful...you're just being gits.
As has been proven time and again 4ppm guardsmen are the best chaff in the game. They should be 5ppm for internal guard codex balance and external codex balance.
Leaving them as they are would not change the meta, guard CP even without Grand Strategists and Kurov's is still the cheapest at 36p per CP and when those are some of if not the best infantry in the game that's a problem.
So far the unit that have been suggested that kill 4ppm guard reasonably efficently (stand a chance of making their points back over a game) are 400 point models and will be wipped from the board turn 1/2 never actually doing enough. Making them 5ppm makes that list far more reasonable.
The change also has finge benifita of adding 6 points to HW squads etc though they are another unit that needs looked at but that's probably more an ILOS mechanic issue.
Have you taken into account morale? You only have to kill 7 guardsmen to kill the squad. After that, on a 3+ the rest of the squad is completely gone. Lower than that, and the guard player is left with, drumroll, 1 or 2 guardsmen. If that scares you, you need to be moving up the board into melee range so you can essentially get two rounds of attacks into a turn. That's all it takes to kill guard - any and all infantry can kill them with a round of shooting and a pile-in, and there are plenty of other codexes that can run up a field better than Guard (which is why they souped Celestine, then Slam, and now Knights).
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/09/04 12:34:53
A bolter fires and a Necron succumbs. His corpse rises up as a poxwalker much to the horror of his comrades. Then, to everyone's surprise his corpse rises again as a fully functionality necron. The necron and the poxwalker stare at each other, both wondering which of them is the clone.
You always pin the blame on allies, often claiming that Imperium players only take the bare minimum IG battalion for CP and CP regen. Here we have repeated and many examples of primary IG armies with players taking more infantry squads than the minimum at the top tables of a massive tournament and you're still trying to claim the issue is soup.
Issue is soup. Just because they went for more CP than bat but still taking minimums...They still take minimum. Just min for 12 rather than 5. More CP for the CP hungry guys that do the real work.
There are multiple lists in the OP that prove your theory wrong. Multiple lists where, as I said, more than the minimum Infantry squads for battalion or brigade were taken.
Also as I said; mono Guard is incredibly competitive.
When we're talking about a Brigade that has 7 or 8 Infantry Squads instead of 6, I don't think your point is as solid as you might think.
