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.

Not Online!!! wrote:
By your logic we might aswell nerf Ork boys since they literally make all ork lists? Especially all Ork competitive lists? /Sarcasm btw.

No, by my logic you would nerf Ork boyz if they were prevalent at the top tables of competitive tournaments.

Not Online!!! wrote:
IG infantry would be fine if it were not for the frankly inherently unbalanced and unbalanceable CP mechanic.

Wrong, they aren't even fine in their own codex. They invalidate Conscripts who are priced correctly.

As I said to Jidmah above, compare them mathematically to other 4ppm units. They are better. There was a massive topic about this in which I believe you were involved. It was proven in theory. Now it's proven in reality because, would you look at that, all the top soup lists take them.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Let me give you another exemple, if marine lists or CSM lists could get away with min 3 spacemarines per troop choice to fill and they'd drop 1ppm a piece all of them would switch off of Guardsmen or cultists since they get to fill their troop tax cheaper, and don't need another HQ tax since they could fill their taxes in their own detachments. Basically we are atm, thanks to GW's poor implementation, in a race to the bottom.
So long troop heavy detachments for all factions give the most CP and so long certain Stratagems are just frankly a must (cough smashcaptains?) so long the cheapest possible way to fill those will be taken, in order to maximize on those units that actually can use the good stratagems in an offensive boardwipe styles esqua manner.

Basically Soup atm stops us from balancing individual units in comparison to each other or even armies, since the "whole" faction behind it can use basically their generated CP for other stuff.
So long soup is a thing, so long we can't see the propper effectiveness of a unit, (except crons and tau since they don't have any soup possibility) . So long we have no idea how those units perform without CP batteries/ allied in stuff, so long we will not be able to balance the game.

2 things now should happen:
A) Either we buff all monofactions, via certain boni, for exemple all detachment of marines gains x ammount of CP, specific fluffy mono detachments gain x ammount of cp.

B) Force either that Cp can only be used by the generator of said CP (limit cp to the detachment) or double the price of CP if you use Cp from another faction detachment in your army.

And C) Units should be priced against their relative power to similarly costed units.

Also Orks can't soup.

Whist I agree that guardsmen definitely should be five points, that is way smaller issue than the CP regen. Both still should be fixed of course. When is the next Chapter Approved or big FAQ anyway?

 Crimson wrote:
Whist I agree that guardsmen definitely should be five points, that is way smaller issue than the CP regen. Both still should be fixed of course. When is the next Chapter Approved or big FAQ anyway?

There should be an FAQ coming by the end of this month, though I wouldn't expect any large changes in that. FAQs are intended to clarify rules, not to change the rules. Expect any larger changes to be in Chapter Approved in December, with hopefully some major balance changes for under-represented factions to start showing up too.

Wrong, they aren't even fine in their own codex. They invalidate Conscripts who are priced correctly.

As I said to Jidmah above, compare them mathematically to other 4ppm units. They are better. There was a massive topic about this in which I believe you were involved. It was proven in theory. Now it's proven in reality because, would you look at that, all the top soup lists take them.

Again, my point still stands, if there would be something cheaper it would be taken instead.
Simply put so long guardsmen are the cheapest possible way for Imperial armies to generate CP so long they will be taken.
You can therefore not judge the effectiveness of a guardsmen, ergo your fix is as pointless as shooting in the dark without tracer bullets and no idea what is in front of you.

First fix soup, then we can talk about effectiveness and the price tag for units.

Secondly: Conscripts are not worth 4 pts, since they got tripple nerfed and are therefore certainly not priced correctly. Thank the race to the bottom that was early 8th and index time for that and you know it.

Thirdly: All non marines got either a great rule (Orkz) or got cheaper overall in the troops department pts wise. If you really want to fix these outliers then you will also need to go back up in pts for: Kabalites, firewarriors, etc. else they will now overperform as you said, and can see by your own method of focusing on comparable units in a vacuum without any back up of other factions to be allied in / respectively the rest of the options of the codex. Newsflash, that would be neither in the interest of GW trying to sell you as much diffrent stuff and the books for that diffrent stuff aswell as also seriously injuring Codices that are fine by your own mono focus logic. (i can't imagine Tau player beeing happy about a price hike in their firewarrior department.)

Conclusion: So long CP is relevant for the power, since certain stratagems are just a plain must in competitve, and so long certain armies don't get a codex option for cheap generation for CP so long guard will be abused for that and show up in any "imperial" army there is in order to get the CP for the stratagems, in order to play said armies. Additionally a point increase of 1 for guardsmen would still not solve the CP issue and you would still see Guardsmen left right and center so long the real questionable stuff (Smashcaptain and consorts) neither get looked at in regards to their stratagems or their price in pts.
So your "fix"wont solve jack.

PiñaColada wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:
Well, I mean for it to be phrased in a way where if someone jinxes it it could still be improved to a 4++. Basically you can still have ion bulwark that grants you a 4++ but rotating ion shields then does nothing (since you're already at max), it would however bump you back into a 4++ if you're jinxed.

Hopefully that mess of a sentence makes sense to you.

I get the idea a that would be ok I guess but man would that be a complicated qualifier for a strategum.

Is it really? It's just 2 modifiers negating each other..

Sorry I ment to explain on the littlw strategum cards as it's already a fairly wordy strategum anyway with it's questorus and dominus class rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Wrong, they aren't even fine in their own codex. They invalidate Conscripts who are priced correctly.

As I said to Jidmah above, compare them mathematically to other 4ppm units. They are better. There was a massive topic about this in which I believe you were involved. It was proven in theory. Now it's proven in reality because, would you look at that, all the top soup lists take them.

Again, my point still stands, if there would be something cheaper it would be taken instead.
Simply put so long guardsmen are the cheapest possible way for Imperial armies to generate CP so long they will be taken.
You can therefore not judge the effectiveness of a guardsmen, ergo your fix is as pointless as shooting in the dark without tracer bullets and no idea what is in front of you.

First fix soup, then we can talk about effectiveness and the price tag for units.

Secondly: Conscripts are not worth 4 pts, since they got tripple nerfed and are therefore certainly not priced correctly. Thank the race to the bottom that was early 8th and index time for that and you know it.

Thirdly: All non marines got either a great rule (Orkz) or got cheaper overall in the troops department pts wise. If you really want to fix these outliers then you will also need to go back up in pts for: Kabalites, firewarriors, etc. else they will now overperform as you said, and can see by your own method of focusing on comparable units in a vacuum without any back up of other factions to be allied in / respectively the rest of the options of the codex. Newsflash, that would be neither in the interest of GW trying to sell you as much diffrent stuff and the books for that diffrent stuff aswell as also seriously injuring Codices that are fine by your own mono focus logic. (i can't imagine Tau player beeing happy about a price hike in their firewarrior department.)

Conclusion: So long CP is relevant for the power, since certain stratagems are just a plain must in competitve, and so long certain armies don't get a codex option for cheap generation for CP so long guard will be abused for that and show up in any "imperial" army there is in order to get the CP for the stratagems, in order to play said armies. Additionally a point increase of 1 for guardsmen would still not solve the CP issue and you would still see Guardsmen left right and center so long the real questionable stuff (Smashcaptain and consorts) neither get looked at in regards to their stratagems or their price in pts.
So your "fix"wont solve jack.

Why do guard need Grand Strategists and Kurov's? Want to answer that question? Guard bring not just the cheapest imperial CP the cheapest CP in the entire game by a factor of almost a third.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I fail to see how the IG infantry will be a problem without the busload of CP attached.

Compare their stats to another 4ppm model. Gaunt for example.

That's not a reason though. Some units are better and some are worse, not everyone gets to have guardsmen just like not everyone gets to have ork boyz.

I also don't feel like guardsmen are vastly superior to Cultists, quite the contrary if you mix in the Alpha Legion trait, shoot again and the "I live, I die, I live again!"-stratagem. However, those are not seen in minimal battalions anywhere.

I'd wager that neither you nor me nor GW can tell if IG guardsmen stay top tier once their CP advantage is gone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Thirdly: All non marines got either a great rule (Orkz)

"great rule"

Sorry, while you make a good point otherwise, you've basically shot yourself in the foot with that one.

DakkaDakkaDakka does zilch for ork boyz and gretchin. It didin't even close the gap between shoota boyz and slugga boyz.

 Jidmah wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I fail to see how the IG infantry will be a problem without the busload of CP attached.

Compare their stats to another 4ppm model. Gaunt for example.

That's not a reason though. Some units are better and some are worse, not everyone gets to have guardsmen just like not everyone gets to have ork boyz.

I also don't feel like guardsmen are vastly superior to Cultists, quite the contrary if you mix in the Alpha Legion trait, shoot again and the "I live, I die, I live again!"-stratagem. However, those are not seen in minimal battalions anywhere.

I'd wager that neither you nor me nor GW can tell if IG guardsmen stay top tier once their CP advantage is gone.

They would still be very good at being a cheap objective holder thats a pain to shift and can contribute while camping via a mortor.

Why do guard need Grand Strategists and Kurov's? Want to answer that question? Guard bring not just the cheapest imperial CP the cheapest CP in the entire game by a factor of almost a third.

In one of my posts i highlited that kurovs is an offender that should get nerfed. Additionally Guard is not the only faction that can regen CP, a ability which i dislike personally, as it allows you to remove some of the risk of overspending CP since you can now potentially gain it back.
Frankly that guard get's double with grand strategist and Kurovs, allowing it "steal" CP aswell as Regain spent CP makes them just even more attractive for CP shenanigans, since i don't see those regained CP or stolen CP spent on any IG stratagems. Basically without stratagems of other detachments those things would probably be fine, albeit imho either kurovs or grand strategist should not be able to be combined or changed to 6+ or better completly removed and just give a flat +x CP bost in regards to Grand strategist but those are only useable for his detachment.

Also both of those are things that profit soup more then mono guard. Except of course movex3.

Depends how deep the CP change will go. If it is just the regeneration, IG are still going to be played, they are just too good to not use, when you want to fuel a slamy or a ravellan.
But if something like a no CP sharing rules becomes real, then the whole Imperium as a faction may collapse at worse, and at best we are going to see very different armies. I mean without the CP to fuel the cpts, no one is going to play BAs. Maybe some like plasma DA with a ton of speeder HQs and flyers will become the go to list for humans. Who knows?

 Jidmah wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I fail to see how the IG infantry will be a problem without the busload of CP attached.

Compare their stats to another 4ppm model. Gaunt for example.

That's not a reason though. Some units are better and some are worse, not everyone gets to have guardsmen just like not everyone gets to have ork boyz.

I also don't feel like guardsmen are vastly superior to Cultists, quite the contrary if you mix in the Alpha Legion trait, shoot again and the "I live, I die, I live again!"-stratagem. However, those are not seen in minimal battalions anywhere.

I'd wager that neither you nor me nor GW can tell if IG guardsmen stay top tier once their CP advantage is gone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Thirdly: All non marines got either a great rule (Orkz)

"great rule"

Sorry, while you make a good point otherwise, you've basically shot yourself in the foot with that one.

DakkaDakkaDakka does zilch for ork boyz and gretchin. It didin't even close the gap between shoota boyz and slugga boyz.

I meant the morale shenanigans that allows for fearless ork blobs. If DAKKAx3 solves anything for ork shooting we will see, i am of the opinion that -1 bs is still extremly strong against orkz since half their shooting phase output gets literally taken out of the equation.

 Jidmah wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I fail to see how the IG infantry will be a problem without the busload of CP attached.

Compare their stats to another 4ppm model. Gaunt for example.

That's not a reason though. Some units are better and some are worse, not everyone gets to have guardsmen just like not everyone gets to have ork boyz.

I also don't feel like guardsmen are vastly superior to Cultists, quite the contrary if you mix in the Alpha Legion trait, shoot again and the "I live, I die, I live again!"-stratagem. However, those are not seen in minimal battalions anywhere.

I'd wager that neither you nor me nor GW can tell if IG guardsmen stay top tier once their CP advantage is gone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Thirdly: All non marines got either a great rule (Orkz)

"great rule"

Sorry, while you make a good point otherwise, you've basically shot yourself in the foot with that one.

DakkaDakkaDakka does zilch for ork boyz and gretchin. It didin't even close the gap between shoota boyz and slugga boyz.

Compare them to Neophyte Hybrids then who see MASS amount of play in Tyranid lists...they are Guardsmen with +1 LD and an added Laspistol for 5 points and the price is just PERFECT for what they offer.

Guardsmen are not a 4 points model, quit apologizing

Not Online!!! wrote:

Why do guard need Grand Strategists and Kurov's? Want to answer that question? Guard bring not just the cheapest imperial CP the cheapest CP in the entire game by a factor of almost a third.

In one of my posts i highlited that kurovs is an offender that should get nerfed. Additionally Guard is not the only faction that can regen CP, a ability which i dislike personally, as it allows you to remove some of the risk of overspending CP since you can now potentially gain it back.
Frankly that guard get's double with grand strategist and Kurovs, allowing it "steal" CP aswell as Regain spent CP makes them just even more attractive for CP shenanigans, since i don't see those regained CP or stolen CP spent on any IG stratagems. Basically without stratagems of other detachments those things would probably be fine, albeit imho either kurovs or grand strategist should not be able to be combined or changed to 6+ or better completly removed and just give a flat +x CP bost in regards to Grand strategist but those are only useable for his detachment.

Also both of those are things that profit soup more then mono guard. Except of course movex3.

Why should the only faction that can take 22 CP to a 1500 point game get any regenerate or bonus CP abilities. They have the cheapest CP in the game already. Other factions having CP regen is oh wait not exactly breaking the game mono faction.
3 outflanking shadowswords is brokenness especially when they obly pay CP for 2 of them.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Why do guard need Grand Strategists and Kurov's? Want to answer that question? Guard bring not just the cheapest imperial CP the cheapest CP in the entire game by a factor of almost a third.

In one of my posts i highlited that kurovs is an offender that should get nerfed. Additionally Guard is not the only faction that can regen CP, a ability which i dislike personally, as it allows you to remove some of the risk of overspending CP since you can now potentially gain it back.
Frankly that guard get's double with grand strategist and Kurovs, allowing it "steal" CP aswell as Regain spent CP makes them just even more attractive for CP shenanigans, since i don't see those regained CP or stolen CP spent on any IG stratagems. Basically without stratagems of other detachments those things would probably be fine, albeit imho either kurovs or grand strategist should not be able to be combined or changed to 6+ or better completly removed and just give a flat +x CP bost in regards to Grand strategist but those are only useable for his detachment.

Also both of those are things that profit soup more then mono guard. Except of course movex3.

Nope the cheapest possible (albeit non regainable CP) that is fieldable is basically a R&H detachment.
50 pts max in HQ and 120 in troops for a battalion. 10 pts cheaper then IG, however Chaos has cultists and their HQ are more relevant for them (daemonprinces cough cough) so they generally don't bother with them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Why do guard need Grand Strategists and Kurov's? Want to answer that question? Guard bring not just the cheapest imperial CP the cheapest CP in the entire game by a factor of almost a third.

In one of my posts i highlited that kurovs is an offender that should get nerfed. Additionally Guard is not the only faction that can regen CP, a ability which i dislike personally, as it allows you to remove some of the risk of overspending CP since you can now potentially gain it back.
Frankly that guard get's double with grand strategist and Kurovs, allowing it "steal" CP aswell as Regain spent CP makes them just even more attractive for CP shenanigans, since i don't see those regained CP or stolen CP spent on any IG stratagems. Basically without stratagems of other detachments those things would probably be fine, albeit imho either kurovs or grand strategist should not be able to be combined or changed to 6+ or better completly removed and just give a flat +x CP bost in regards to Grand strategist but those are only useable for his detachment.

Also both of those are things that profit soup more then mono guard. Except of course movex3.

Why should the only faction that can take 22 CP to a 1500 point game get any regenerate or bonus CP abilities. They have the cheapest CP in the game already. Other factions having CP regen is oh wait not exactly breaking the game mono faction.
3 outflanking shadowswords is brokenness especially when they obly pay CP for 2 of them.

A) do you see shadowswords? in these lists? no? i do neither.
B) the cheapest are still R&H so start complaining, o wait nvm since the malefic chaos cheese got removed that was probably the last time you heard from them.

Ice_can wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I fail to see how the IG infantry will be a problem without the busload of CP attached.

Compare their stats to another 4ppm model. Gaunt for example.

That's not a reason though. Some units are better and some are worse, not everyone gets to have guardsmen just like not everyone gets to have ork boyz.

I also don't feel like guardsmen are vastly superior to Cultists, quite the contrary if you mix in the Alpha Legion trait, shoot again and the "I live, I die, I live again!"-stratagem. However, those are not seen in minimal battalions anywhere.

I'd wager that neither you nor me nor GW can tell if IG guardsmen stay top tier once their CP advantage is gone.

They would still be very good at being a cheap objective holder thats a pain to shift and can contribute while camping via a mortor.

What's the issue with a unit being good? I also heavily disagree with guardsmen being a pain to shift, they die to a stiff breeze if you point weapons their way.

 Jidmah wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I fail to see how the IG infantry will be a problem without the busload of CP attached.

Compare their stats to another 4ppm model. Gaunt for example.

That's not a reason though. Some units are better and some are worse, not everyone gets to have guardsmen just like not everyone gets to have ork boyz.

I also don't feel like guardsmen are vastly superior to Cultists, quite the contrary if you mix in the Alpha Legion trait, shoot again and the "I live, I die, I live again!"-stratagem. However, those are not seen in minimal battalions anywhere.

I'd wager that neither you nor me nor GW can tell if IG guardsmen stay top tier once their CP advantage is gone.

They would still be very good at being a cheap objective holder thats a pain to shift and can contribute while camping via a mortor.

What's the issue with a unit being good? I also heavily disagree with guardsmen being a pain to shift, they die to a stiff breeze if you point weapons their way.

They are point for point one of the most durable units in the game.

jcd386 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I fail to see how the IG infantry will be a problem without the busload of CP attached.

Compare their stats to another 4ppm model. Gaunt for example.

That's not a reason though. Some units are better and some are worse, not everyone gets to have guardsmen just like not everyone gets to have ork boyz.

I also don't feel like guardsmen are vastly superior to Cultists, quite the contrary if you mix in the Alpha Legion trait, shoot again and the "I live, I die, I live again!"-stratagem. However, those are not seen in minimal battalions anywhere.

I'd wager that neither you nor me nor GW can tell if IG guardsmen stay top tier once their CP advantage is gone.

They would still be very good at being a cheap objective holder thats a pain to shift and can contribute while camping via a mortor.

What's the issue with a unit being good? I also heavily disagree with guardsmen being a pain to shift, they die to a stiff breeze if you point weapons their way.

They are point for point one of the most durable units in the game.

Morale factored in? Because i sincerly doubt that.

 Jidmah wrote:
I also heavily disagree with guardsmen being a pain to shift, they die to a stiff breeze if you point weapons their way.

They (and all hordes) are considerably tougher in 8th than previous editions - a combination of armour save changes, weaker anti-horde weapons, and loss of blasts/templates.

An example would be huddling a squad of guardsmen in ruins around an objective point. In previous editions a flamer hit would have wiped more than half the unit, out while in 8th you'll lose one guy.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I meant the morale shenanigans that allows for fearless ork blobs.

Orks aren't fearless at all. A mob of 30 will start taking moral casualties once you have killed 13 or more boyz. From experience, a decent gunline army can kill 2-3 mobs of 30 per turn if they focus on that, with a good deal of casualties coming from moral.
Mob rule just counter-balances orks being so easy to kill (easier than guardsmen, by the way).

The only thing that even remotely resembles fearless would be the warboss aura, and it still kills 1-3 models.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Why do guard need Grand Strategists and Kurov's? Want to answer that question? Guard bring not just the cheapest imperial CP the cheapest CP in the entire game by a factor of almost a third.

In one of my posts i highlited that kurovs is an offender that should get nerfed. Additionally Guard is not the only faction that can regen CP, a ability which i dislike personally, as it allows you to remove some of the risk of overspending CP since you can now potentially gain it back.
Frankly that guard get's double with grand strategist and Kurovs, allowing it "steal" CP aswell as Regain spent CP makes them just even more attractive for CP shenanigans, since i don't see those regained CP or stolen CP spent on any IG stratagems. Basically without stratagems of other detachments those things would probably be fine, albeit imho either kurovs or grand strategist should not be able to be combined or changed to 6+ or better completly removed and just give a flat +x CP bost in regards to Grand strategist but those are only useable for his detachment.

Also both of those are things that profit soup more then mono guard. Except of course movex3.

Nope the cheapest possible (albeit non regainable CP) that is fieldable is basically a R&H detachment.
50 pts max in HQ and 120 in troops for a battalion. 10 pts cheaper then IG, however Chaos has cultists and their HQ are more relevant for them (daemonprinces cough cough) so they generally don't bother with them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Why do guard need Grand Strategists and Kurov's? Want to answer that question? Guard bring not just the cheapest imperial CP the cheapest CP in the entire game by a factor of almost a third.

In one of my posts i highlited that kurovs is an offender that should get nerfed. Additionally Guard is not the only faction that can regen CP, a ability which i dislike personally, as it allows you to remove some of the risk of overspending CP since you can now potentially gain it back.
Frankly that guard get's double with grand strategist and Kurovs, allowing it "steal" CP aswell as Regain spent CP makes them just even more attractive for CP shenanigans, since i don't see those regained CP or stolen CP spent on any IG stratagems. Basically without stratagems of other detachments those things would probably be fine, albeit imho either kurovs or grand strategist should not be able to be combined or changed to 6+ or better completly removed and just give a flat +x CP bost in regards to Grand strategist but those are only useable for his detachment.

Also both of those are things that profit soup more then mono guard. Except of course movex3.

Why should the only faction that can take 22 CP to a 1500 point game get any regenerate or bonus CP abilities. They have the cheapest CP in the game already. Other factions having CP regen is oh wait not exactly breaking the game mono faction.
3 outflanking shadowswords is brokenness especially when they obly pay CP for 2 of them.

A) do you see shadowswords? in these lists? no? i do neither.
B) the cheapest are still R&H so start complaining, o wait nvm since the malefic chaos cheese got removed that was probably the last time you heard from them.

Way to miss the point in your guard arnt the problem Fake news mentality.
The issue wasn't shadowswords its paying 6 CP to do so instead of the paper CP cost of 9CP
You still wont adress why guard should play the least amount per CP and get regenerate CP abilities?

A.T. wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I also heavily disagree with guardsmen being a pain to shift, they die to a stiff breeze if you point weapons their way.

They (and all hordes) are considerably tougher in 8th than previous editions - a combination of armour save changes, weaker anti-horde weapons, and loss of blasts/templates.

An example would be huddling a squad of guardsmen in ruins around an objective point. In previous editions a flamer hit would have wiped more than half the unit, out while in 8th you'll lose one guy.

( When was the last time in the 7th edition where you saw a competitve army with a flamer?)

But it is true, general anti horde weaponry got basically teethless with the removal of templates. Now it's all about voluem of "cheap enough" fire, hence why certain elite armies struggle.

So, outflanking 3 Shadowswords requires 9 CP, and will cost 1392 (inc battalion) for minimum on everything. Beyond that, you then need to find 78 power levels worth of units to start on the table (inc battalion) with the remaining 608 points – in order words you need to make 608 points = 65 power level. Good luck doing that with any army, when you only have 1 detachment left.

If the crazy possibility exists where it is possible to do the above, the Guard player would still only be starting on 5+3rd detachment CP.

3 basic Shadowswords doesn’t really worry me too much, especially if I don’t have any/many big targets for them.

Kdash wrote:
So, outflanking 3 Shadowswords requires 9 CP, and will cost 1392 (inc battalion) for minimum on everything. Beyond that, you then need to find 78 power levels worth of units to start on the table (inc battalion) with the remaining 608 points – in order words you need to make 608 points = 65 power level. Good luck doing that with any army, when you only have 1 detachment left.

If the crazy possibility exists where it is possible to do the above, the Guard player would still only be starting on 5+3rd detachment CP.

3 basic Shadowswords doesn’t really worry me too much, especially if I don’t have any/many big targets for them.

I was using the strategum as an example of why should the codex that pays the least points per CP have acess to an ability that reduces the cost of strategums by 1/3?

Way to miss the point in your guard arnt the problem Fake news mentality.
The issue wasn't shadowswords its paying 6 CP to do so instead of the paper CP cost of 9CP
You still wont adress why guard should play the least amount per CP and get regenerate CP abilities?

I gave you my answer and opinion on it, i said i'd rather see kurovs removed and grand strategist reworked but since you are more concerned with touting your own horn and passiv aggressiv insulting me via attempting to bring my mentality in question.

But here for you specially since you seem to confused by what i am saiyng:

IG guardsmen: not to 5 pts since we don't see them perform without soup, ergo we can't propperly see their effectiveness, especially since all mathematical equations are done in a vacume.
CP: Guard is cheap, that they thanks to GW's questionable CP design will get more CP then other factions is the logical conclusion and is based on the bad CP and detachment balance, favoring the cheapest possible way of generating CP for stratagems.
Kurovs need to either be nerfed or go.
Grand strategist needs a rework in regards to it's CP capability.
Soup needs to be penalized by either: A) only detachments with the same faction (astra militarum to astra militarum) that have generated the CP can spend the CP. B) CP lending from a IG detachment torwards a Space marine detachment for a slamguinius should automatically double the CP cost for stratagems.

Ice_can wrote:

Kdash wrote:
So, outflanking 3 Shadowswords requires 9 CP, and will cost 1392 (inc battalion) for minimum on everything. Beyond that, you then need to find 78 power levels worth of units to start on the table (inc battalion) with the remaining 608 points – in order words you need to make 608 points = 65 power level. Good luck doing that with any army, when you only have 1 detachment left.

If the crazy possibility exists where it is possible to do the above, the Guard player would still only be starting on 5+3rd detachment CP.

3 basic Shadowswords doesn’t really worry me too much, especially if I don’t have any/many big targets for them.

I was using the strategum as an example of why should the codex that pays the least points per CP have acess to an ability that reduces the cost of strategums by 1/3?

I accept that, but, I think both sides of this argument need to start being a bit more realistic with their examples. There is (as usual) far to much hyperbole and “but this extreme example shows us” going on, and it isn’t going to help anyone convince the other side who is right or wrong.

For example, we know within reason that on a 1 to 1 basis, Guardsmen are mathematically the most durable unit in the game (or at least in terms of troops etc I doubt anyone has done the maths on -every- unit.) But, how does that stand up to a 2v2, or 3v3 WITHOUT additional buffing points added in?

I think one of the things that might help mitigate the CP shenanigans is what someone mentioned before- limit units to being targeted by one friendly stratagem per phase. This would stop some of the slamguinis stunts as well as just ridiculous levels of stacking on other models. A player would have to make choices about which stratagem to use. Considering if he puts a stratagem on a unit then he can't use a CP for a reroll for that unit that phase.

This doesn't directly address the CP regeneration problem but it does limit the spending side a bit.

A.T. wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I also heavily disagree with guardsmen being a pain to shift, they die to a stiff breeze if you point weapons their way.

They (and all hordes) are considerably tougher in 8th than previous editions - a combination of armour save changes, weaker anti-horde weapons, and loss of blasts/templates.

An example would be huddling a squad of guardsmen in ruins around an objective point. In previous editions a flamer hit would have wiped more than half the unit, out while in 8th you'll lose one guy.

3x 10 models are not a horde. Period.

Flamers are not a good example for anything, since as far as my experience goes, flamers aren't good at anything. They are also really bad examples to bring from 7th because all of their rules have changed between editions. They get less hits, don't ignore cover, don't ignore armor. The guardmen hit by the flamer are the only thing in the equation that hasn't changed.

A dakkajet, one of the most OP planes out there ( ) kills five to six guardsmen in cover plus moral casualties in one round of shooting. I'm confident every army has something more efficient than a dakkajet from the ork index.

You can't outflank 3 shadowswords.

Only 1 unit can be a VEHICLE

You can outflank 3 Leman Russes. Or 1 Shadowsword and a couple of other things.

There are many things right now that require a fix, but Grand strategist being better than similar traits is not one of these.

The answer to the question "Why guards have the best CP generating stuff when they already are the best at generating CPs?" is "Guards have the best CP generating stuff BECAUSE they are already the best at generating CPs". It's called good game design, proof that GW sometimes thinks about this stuff.

If my faction already swims in CPs and doesn't really have many useful ways to spend it, why would i take a trait that gimes me even MORE CPs? Grand Strategist doubles up on a resource that guards do not need, is a niche trait that is intended for low CP lists.
If anything Kurov's aquila is underpowered because of that.

It's like the DA trait that makes everyone fearless in 12", while the identical SM trait only makes them fearless in 6". Is that power creep? No! Because DA are already almost fearless on their own! That same DA trait would be bonkers if given to guards, context is everything!

Grand Strategist and Kurov's aquila are not really that good in a typical mono guard list brigade+battalion, you already have 20 CPs to use. Sure, it doesn't help that most of guards relics are useless...

Problems come when you can CP share. Grand Strategist becomes more powerful the more uses you have for your CPs, if you only had guards stratagems, things would be fine.

CP sharing is the root of evil here, not grand strategist. GS is only resonating with it.

Anyone else find it funny that for all of Xeno's bravado about being a better list writer and knowing the rules such that he'd never do something illegal, his "Super awesome list" was illegal? I thought that was priceless.

Further:
"They do about 9 wounds in CC for 18 damage - plus their shooting 3.5 damage from cats and about 4 from lances. It nearly 1 shots it. "
Spears vs Knights? Not so sure. Assuming Guide/Doom/RIS, and of course Spears charging:
AWs: 9x2x(2/3)(5/9)(1/2) = 10/3, or 6.67 damage
Exarch: 3x(2/3)(3/4)(1/2) = 3/4, or 1.5 damage
That's 8 wounds in CC with 2 HQs, getting the charge without losing any bodies.

You'd need two squads to one-round a Knight. And there are many reasons why you typically don't see 2 Shining Spear units in a CWE army.

 Jidmah wrote:

A.T. wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I also heavily disagree with guardsmen being a pain to shift, they die to a stiff breeze if you point weapons their way.

They (and all hordes) are considerably tougher in 8th than previous editions - a combination of armour save changes, weaker anti-horde weapons, and loss of blasts/templates.

An example would be huddling a squad of guardsmen in ruins around an objective point. In previous editions a flamer hit would have wiped more than half the unit, out while in 8th you'll lose one guy.

3x 10 models are not a horde. Period.

Flamers are not a good example for anything, since as far as my experience goes, flamers aren't good at anything. They are also really bad examples to bring from 7th because all of their rules have changed between editions. They get less hits, don't ignore cover, don't ignore armor. The guardmen hit by the flamer are the only thing in the equation that hasn't changed.

A dakkajet, one of the most OP planes out there ( ) kills five to six guardsmen in cover plus moral casualties in one round of shooting. I'm confident every army has something more efficient than a dakkajet from the ork index.

When all the rules changed in 7th, durability took a massive hit. Armor is not worth nearly as much with the new AP system, and a cheap durable wound is one of the most valuable defensive stats.

Using your dakkajet example, it kills an average of 5 guardsmen in cover, which is 20 points worth. It would also kill 2 Marines, which is 26 points. Or 6.25 cultists which is 25 points.

If guard were 5ppm, that would be 25 points worth. It almost seems like that's a good points point for them lol.

Morale isn't really a thing if you don't want it to be, since there are multiple ways around it between strats and psychic powers. Plus competitively it's usually better to just wipe a unit out rather than rely on morale rolls. It's a factor, but a very small one.