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.
So, I’ve just done some quick spreadsheet math pitting 330 points of Cadians (3 commanders, 6 squads) vs 3 5 man tact squads, 1 captain and 1 lieutenant as Raven Guard, about 335 points.
Each round was counting both sides as always being in cover, and the 1st round is outside of rapid fire range as would be expected in a normal game. I’ve ignored combat for now due to using cover. In addition, FRFSRF was used for each round, and the Cadian re-roll ignored for turn 1 and Raven Guard -1 to hit used only for round 1 (implying both sides didn’t need to move after turn 1).
If the marines go first, all 15 tac models die in the Guard turn 4, then the Guard would kill 1 of the 2 characters a turn (most likely).
If the Guard go first, all the 15 tac models die in the Guard turn 4 (so half a turn earlier than if the marines go first).
Now, I think this is a reasonable snap shot of 1 small part of the battlefield, but, it is of course already flawed if we want to scale it up to 2k points.
It also highlights, that based on shooting alone, Guard will win due to numbers, but, over a 6 turn shoot-out game, it isn’t as “unbalanced” as people like to think or expect. Dropping the cost of a standard Marine by 1 point, would basically mean 1 extra model, which would be the sole surviving tac marine in turn 5, dropping them by 2 points means you have 2 extra models, which survive to turn 5 then still die.
Changing the Guardsman to 5 points, would mean a reduction from 60 bodies to 50, but, we would still see the same outcome in turn 5 (potentially turn 6 if they were both 5 points and marines 11 points).
Weight of dice is more of a problem than anything else, but, we can see that even with the “5 point Guardsman solves everything” method, doesn’t actually change the outcome of anything when up against Marines.
But, that said, there is definitely room within those figures for the use of "tactics". For example, it is easier to get 17 Marine models into rapid fire and kill off most of a Guard unit, but, it is harder for the Guard player to get 54 models into rapid fire range to retaliate - especially if the Marine player plays smart and shoots the closest unit whilst hovering on the 12" line.
Math helps us work things out, but, as i've always said, tactics and playing need to actually play a part as well when people start throwing out figures in isolation.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/06 13:10:13
Which is where Flamers and Heavy Bolters actually being effective weapons vs IG would mean tons: sure, the IG are outshooting you at the start, but you don't lose the flamer/HB until they wipe the squad. And it takes a lot of IG to wipe a Tac squad in one round.
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.
I think that's disingenuous and false.
Morale isn't really a thing if you spend additional points on the squad to ameliorate it's effects. If you feel like the effects of Mental Fortitude, the 2cp stratagem and commissars are critical and "standard" then they need to be included in all these cost calculations.
I had a game on Tuesday where I killed 80 guardsmen in the first 2 turns. You only need to kill 5 or 6 in a few squads to make it impossible to save them all.
Morale isn't a thing my ass.
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.
As for CP. Mono Guard having a ton of CP and CP regeneration isn’t a problem. Let’s face it, if I was running mono Guard and had 20 CP to start with, I’d personally take a more useful WL trait than Grand Strategist. I might still take the Aquilla, but it also might not be the number 1 choice.
If my suggestion of limiting regen abilities to only work on stratagems from the same codex is put in place, then, I seriously believe there won’t be a big of a CP problem in regards to soup lists as there is now. If your army can survive well until turn 3, then, you’ll likely be at a CP advantage, due to the soup player having burnt through their CP using a couple of combos to kill off 2 or 3 units.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote: Which is where Flamers and Heavy Bolters actually being effective weapons vs IG would mean tons: sure, the IG are outshooting you at the start, but you don't lose the flamer/HB until they wipe the squad. And it takes a lot of IG to wipe a Tac squad in one round.
My figures show me, in cover, it takes roughly 136 lasgun shots to kill a 5 man tac squad. That equates to 34 Guardsmen, or, just under 4 full squads (when taking into account the sergeants only have laspistols… for some dumb ass reason).
In regards to heavy bolters, they would make a difference, but it isn’t a big enough difference to change the outcome in my scenario. For the price of 3 heavy bolters (netting you an extra 6 shots turn 1, then 4 shots after – admittedly at -1ap) the Guard side would gain an extra squad. At best I think the Marines would reliably make it to turn 5 in my scenario, but, turn 6 would be a push without “playing the game properly”.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/06 13:20:49
Jidmah wrote: Flamers are not a good example for anything, since as far as my experience goes, flamers aren't good at anything.
Yes - that's the whole point.
They _should_ be good at killing light infantry in bulk, but they aren't. Anti-infantry weapons in general dropped off in effectiveness against soft targets and the flamer is just an example of that.
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.
I think that's disingenuous and false.
Morale isn't really a thing if you spend additional points on the squad to ameliorate it's effects. If you feel like the effects of Mental Fortitude, the 2cp stratagem and commissars are critical and "standard" then they need to be included in all these cost calculations.
I had a game on Tuesday where I killed 80 guardsmen in the first 2 turns. You only need to kill 5 or 6 in a few squads to make it impossible to save them all.
Morale isn't a thing my ass.
It becomes more of a thing the more guard squads there are, sure. But there also are ways to mitigate it. Again it's a factor but I don't think you can really use morale as a justification for how durable the basic guardsmen statline is.
jcd386 wrote: It's very likely that fixing the CP issue would be the first step in the right direction, and then we'd be able to better see what units are OP or not.
We can see what units are OP now. They are the ones that feature most often in lists at top tables.
These all need adjustment now. Not in 6 months. Right now.
Nope, sorry you lose credibility when you say things like Scouts are OP. Unless by OP you mean better than tactical marines. They get taken because they are troops, CP are important and people want Smash Captains, and BACP recycling. IG infantry see a similar result, they are troops, CP are important, people want guard CP recycling. As was pointed out you cannot really apply "appears in a bunch of top lists" as a metric of OP for troop choices. Those choices are literally forced by GW making stratgems the power in the game and then making cheap troops the way you unlock them. When Aeldari were on top I don't recall people going "Rangers are OP look at how many top lists have Rangers." or During Flyrant Spam "Rippers are OP." That isn't to say troops cannot be OP, simply that their presence in a bunch of top lists is just as likely to be due to wanting other OP things than actually the troops themselves being OP. No one was taking more marine detachments to get more scouts to win games.
Crimson wrote: Thing is that is an example using small arms without AP. Those are worst possible wapons for killing marines and still the marines lose handily...
From a mathhammer point of view, yes, they lose pretty handily, however, as soon as the physical game is played I expect the marines to do slightly better. But, the result isn’t down to the weapon being 0 ap or anything, it is more down to the fact that there are just so many dice being thrown.
In the same scenario but with the added 3 bolters and 1 guard squad, I’d expect the marines to survive longer, because they could deny both sides rapid fire for a 2nd turn, whilst maintaining their -1 to hit – without scarficing too much firepower on their end (a total of 12 dropped shots, vs the Guard missing out on about 50ish.
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.
I think that's disingenuous and false.
Morale isn't really a thing if you spend additional points on the squad to ameliorate it's effects. If you feel like the effects of Mental Fortitude, the 2cp stratagem and commissars are critical and "standard" then they need to be included in all these cost calculations.
I had a game on Tuesday where I killed 80 guardsmen in the first 2 turns. You only need to kill 5 or 6 in a few squads to make it impossible to save them all.
Morale isn't a thing my ass.
It becomes more of a thing the more guard squads there are, sure. But there also are ways to mitigate it. Again it's a factor but I don't think you can really use morale as a justification for how durable the basic guardsmen statline is.
The moment you add in things to mitigate morale losses on the Guard side, you then have to account for on the opposite side.
Using my example, if you add 30 points for an astropath, that equates to 3 free heavy bolters OR 2 extra bodies, which is essentially another 12 shots over the course of the “game”. It also allows the Marine player to ignore the squad you make immune to morale and just shoot something else.
Likewise, if you add a Commissar in (you’d likely need 2 to ensure full coverage with all squads whilst getting full rapid fire), you’d be looking at another 1-3 marine bodies to keep the points level. At that point, you might ensure you don’t lose 1 model in turn 2 from morale, but, you’d just be losing additional models from the additional shots anyway.
Mathhammer durability and buffs only work if you account for the points cost on BOTH sides of the equation. Far to often people say “but this unit can have x, y, z” but then fail to take into account that it costs an additional 300 points in buffing characters (take Shining Spears with doom, guide, fortune, quicken, protect as an example).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/06 13:33:39
Kdash wrote: So, I’ve just done some quick spreadsheet math pitting 330 points of Cadians (3 commanders, 6 squads) vs 3 5 man tact squads, 1 captain and 1 lieutenant as Raven Guard, about 335 points.
Each round was counting both sides as always being in cover, and the 1st round is outside of rapid fire range as would be expected in a normal game. I’ve ignored combat for now due to using cover. In addition, FRFSRF was used for each round, and the Cadian re-roll ignored for turn 1 and Raven Guard -1 to hit used only for round 1 (implying both sides didn’t need to move after turn 1).
If the marines go first, all 15 tac models die in the Guard turn 4, then the Guard would kill 1 of the 2 characters a turn (most likely).
If the Guard go first, all the 15 tac models die in the Guard turn 4 (so half a turn earlier than if the marines go first).
Now, I think this is a reasonable snap shot of 1 small part of the battlefield, but, it is of course already flawed if we want to scale it up to 2k points.
It also highlights, that based on shooting alone, Guard will win due to numbers, but, over a 6 turn shoot-out game, it isn’t as “unbalanced” as people like to think or expect. Dropping the cost of a standard Marine by 1 point, would basically mean 1 extra model, which would be the sole surviving tac marine in turn 5, dropping them by 2 points means you have 2 extra models, which survive to turn 5 then still die.
Changing the Guardsman to 5 points, would mean a reduction from 60 bodies to 50, but, we would still see the same outcome in turn 5 (potentially turn 6 if they were both 5 points and marines 11 points).
Weight of dice is more of a problem than anything else, but, we can see that even with the “5 point Guardsman solves everything” method, doesn’t actually change the outcome of anything when up against Marines.
But, that said, there is definitely room within those figures for the use of "tactics". For example, it is easier to get 17 Marine models into rapid fire and kill off most of a Guard unit, but, it is harder for the Guard player to get 54 models into rapid fire range to retaliate - especially if the Marine player plays smart and shoots the closest unit whilst hovering on the 12" line.
Math helps us work things out, but, as i've always said, tactics and playing need to actually play a part as well when people start throwing out figures in isolation.
Comparing guardsmen against Marines in a vacuum shows very little, because those aren't actual armies or units you'd use to kill those units.
A much better comparison is to compare weapon damage against guardsmen and Marines to see what kills more points worth, or to compare a target being attacked by both guard and Marines and see what does more damage. The more weapons and targets you consider the better. What you're basically asking is, "in what situations would I rather be Marines?" And the answer is very rarely.
You can then average the number of targets and weapons you're likely to face in a real game and get a feel for general durability and damage output. It's somewhat abstract, but it's always going to be more useful than vacuum comparisons.
jcd386 wrote: It's very likely that fixing the CP issue would be the first step in the right direction, and then we'd be able to better see what units are OP or not.
We can see what units are OP now. They are the ones that feature most often in lists at top tables.
These all need adjustment now. Not in 6 months. Right now.
Nope, sorry you lose credibility when you say things like Scouts are OP. Unless by OP you mean better than tactical marines. They get taken because they are troops, CP are important and people want Smash Captains, and BACP recycling. IG infantry see a similar result, they are troops, CP are important, people want guard CP recycling. As was pointed out you cannot really apply "appears in a bunch of top lists" as a metric of OP for troop choices. Those choices are literally forced by GW making stratgems the power in the game and then making cheap troops the way you unlock them. When Aeldari were on top I don't recall people going "Rangers are OP look at how many top lists have Rangers." or During Flyrant Spam "Rippers are OP." That isn't to say troops cannot be OP, simply that their presence in a bunch of top lists is just as likely to be due to wanting other OP things than actually the troops themselves being OP. No one was taking more marine detachments to get more scouts to win games.
I agree. Scouts aren’t used because they are a “broken” or “overpowered” unit. They as used because they are the cheapest troop choice, in a detachment that wants to put all their spare points into more Smash Captains.
Scouts also aren’t used because “they make their points back in 1 turn” or anything like that, they are used because in things like ITC missions, having a unit sat on an objective turn 1 scores you points. They have an ability that makes it easier to accomplish, but, they still die quickly if focused.
Castellans on their own aren’t overpowered or broken imo. Give them 2 CP at the start of the game then 5-8 CP every turn, then they can become an issue. But again, that is a problem with having access to 25-40 CP a game, rather than the unit itself.
Custodes Shield Captains on Bikes are pretty nice. But, in my game vs Mike Porter, 1 Crusader Knight happily killed off all 3 of his over the course of 4 turns. It would have been quicker, if he didn’t have access to 6CP for 3 lots of VotBGs and another 3 CP for 2 3++ relics, and the odd CP re-roll here and there.
Etc etc.
The current state of CP and the game is what is pushing units into the “over powered” and “over used” categories, not the units abilities and stats.
Kdash wrote: So, I’ve just done some quick spreadsheet math pitting 330 points of Cadians (3 commanders, 6 squads) vs 3 5 man tact squads, 1 captain and 1 lieutenant as Raven Guard, about 335 points.
Each round was counting both sides as always being in cover, and the 1st round is outside of rapid fire range as would be expected in a normal game. I’ve ignored combat for now due to using cover. In addition, FRFSRF was used for each round, and the Cadian re-roll ignored for turn 1 and Raven Guard -1 to hit used only for round 1 (implying both sides didn’t need to move after turn 1).
If the marines go first, all 15 tac models die in the Guard turn 4, then the Guard would kill 1 of the 2 characters a turn (most likely).
If the Guard go first, all the 15 tac models die in the Guard turn 4 (so half a turn earlier than if the marines go first).
Now, I think this is a reasonable snap shot of 1 small part of the battlefield, but, it is of course already flawed if we want to scale it up to 2k points.
It also highlights, that based on shooting alone, Guard will win due to numbers, but, over a 6 turn shoot-out game, it isn’t as “unbalanced” as people like to think or expect. Dropping the cost of a standard Marine by 1 point, would basically mean 1 extra model, which would be the sole surviving tac marine in turn 5, dropping them by 2 points means you have 2 extra models, which survive to turn 5 then still die.
Changing the Guardsman to 5 points, would mean a reduction from 60 bodies to 50, but, we would still see the same outcome in turn 5 (potentially turn 6 if they were both 5 points and marines 11 points).
Weight of dice is more of a problem than anything else, but, we can see that even with the “5 point Guardsman solves everything” method, doesn’t actually change the outcome of anything when up against Marines.
But, that said, there is definitely room within those figures for the use of "tactics". For example, it is easier to get 17 Marine models into rapid fire and kill off most of a Guard unit, but, it is harder for the Guard player to get 54 models into rapid fire range to retaliate - especially if the Marine player plays smart and shoots the closest unit whilst hovering on the 12" line.
Math helps us work things out, but, as i've always said, tactics and playing need to actually play a part as well when people start throwing out figures in isolation.
Comparing guardsmen against Marines in a vacuum shows very little, because those aren't actual armies or units you'd use to kill those units.
A much better comparison is to compare weapon damage against guardsmen and Marines to see what kills more points worth, or to compare a target being attacked by both guard and Marines and see what does more damage. The more weapons and targets you consider the better. What you're basically asking is, "in what situations would I rather be Marines?" And the answer is very rarely.
You can then average the number of targets and weapons you're likely to face in a real game and get a feel for general durability and damage output. It's somewhat abstract, but it's always going to be more useful than vacuum comparisons.
People have done exactly what you said (Wich is much more usefull than putting Unit X vs Unit Y), and surprise surprise, Imperial Guard Infantry are the most resistent infantry unit in the game. Against anti infantry fire, even compared with undercosted units like Kabalite Warriors and Tau Firewarriors, or units like Poxwalkers that their only quirck is being very durable and that have literally no armor, so the AP of those infantry guns is wasted unlike with Infantry Squads.
That could be good, if the offensive outpoot of Infantry Squads was non-existant, but it isn't, Infantry Squads have the best anti-infantry firepower of the game per points.
Surprisingly, when you up Infantry Squads to 5ppm, they become balanced with most of the rest of the infantry units of the game (Like Ork Boyz, Skitarii and FW at 8ppm as before, but even agaisnt 7ppm FW and Skitarii they become balanced, not worse) barring some that are very bad like Tactical Marines.
When presented with this, the usual response is "But Imperial Guard is all about infantry, their Infantry should be very powerfull and OP!". No. Theres a difference between being good and usable from a tactical point of view, and being mathematically unbalanced. As I said, you can't justify for Imperial Guardsmen to be more durable per points than Poxwalkers.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2018/09/06 13:47:29
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.
Crimson wrote: Thing is that is an example using small arms without AP. Those are worst possible wapons for killing marines and still the marines lose handily...
From a mathhammer point of view, yes, they lose pretty handily, however, as soon as the physical game is played I expect the marines to do slightly better. But, the result isn’t down to the weapon being 0 ap or anything, it is more down to the fact that there are just so many dice being thrown.
In the same scenario but with the added 3 bolters and 1 guard squad, I’d expect the marines to survive longer, because they could deny both sides rapid fire for a 2nd turn, whilst maintaining their -1 to hit – without scarficing too much firepower on their end (a total of 12 dropped shots, vs the Guard missing out on about 50ish.
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.
I think that's disingenuous and false.
Morale isn't really a thing if you spend additional points on the squad to ameliorate it's effects. If you feel like the effects of Mental Fortitude, the 2cp stratagem and commissars are critical and "standard" then they need to be included in all these cost calculations.
I had a game on Tuesday where I killed 80 guardsmen in the first 2 turns. You only need to kill 5 or 6 in a few squads to make it impossible to save them all.
Morale isn't a thing my ass.
It becomes more of a thing the more guard squads there are, sure. But there also are ways to mitigate it. Again it's a factor but I don't think you can really use morale as a justification for how durable the basic guardsmen statline is.
The moment you add in things to mitigate morale losses on the Guard side, you then have to account for on the opposite side.
Using my example, if you add 30 points for an astropath, that equates to 3 free heavy bolters OR 2 extra bodies, which is essentially another 12 shots over the course of the “game”. It also allows the Marine player to ignore the squad you make immune to morale and just shoot something else.
Likewise, if you add a Commissar in (you’d likely need 2 to ensure full coverage with all squads whilst getting full rapid fire), you’d be looking at another 1-3 marine bodies to keep the points level. At that point, you might ensure you don’t lose 1 model in turn 2 from morale, but, you’d just be losing additional models from the additional shots anyway.
Mathhammer durability and buffs only work if you account for the points cost on BOTH sides of the equation. Far to often people say “but this unit can have x, y, z” but then fail to take into account that it costs an additional 300 points in buffing characters (take Shining Spears with doom, guide, fortune, quicken, protect as an example).
I agree that morale is something that should be considered when you compare units. However, I think it's a much harder thing to quantify than durability. It also doesn't always come into play, because a lot of the time you actually need to kill a while squad. Killing a few guys from each squad of guardsmen won't always be the tactically best choice if you have to do things like clear them off objectives. A lot of the time if you don't wipe out the important squad, it will auto pass. Other times the difference between the other guy losing 4 guys and losing 5 guys to morale be the difference between winning and losing the game. I feel like this is especially true in ITC missions, where hold more and kill more are things you want to be able to know you're getting, not hoping you do in their morale phase.
I'd much rather have the points be based more on durability first, as that always comes into play, and then buff guard morale issues if that really becomes a problem for them (like buff the commissars back to auto pass or something) Hopefully that makes sense.
Kdash wrote: So, I’ve just done some quick spreadsheet math pitting 330 points of Cadians (3 commanders, 6 squads) vs 3 5 man tact squads, 1 captain and 1 lieutenant as Raven Guard, about 335 points.
Each round was counting both sides as always being in cover, and the 1st round is outside of rapid fire range as would be expected in a normal game. I’ve ignored combat for now due to using cover. In addition, FRFSRF was used for each round, and the Cadian re-roll ignored for turn 1 and Raven Guard -1 to hit used only for round 1 (implying both sides didn’t need to move after turn 1).
If the marines go first, all 15 tac models die in the Guard turn 4, then the Guard would kill 1 of the 2 characters a turn (most likely).
If the Guard go first, all the 15 tac models die in the Guard turn 4 (so half a turn earlier than if the marines go first).
Now, I think this is a reasonable snap shot of 1 small part of the battlefield, but, it is of course already flawed if we want to scale it up to 2k points.
It also highlights, that based on shooting alone, Guard will win due to numbers, but, over a 6 turn shoot-out game, it isn’t as “unbalanced” as people like to think or expect. Dropping the cost of a standard Marine by 1 point, would basically mean 1 extra model, which would be the sole surviving tac marine in turn 5, dropping them by 2 points means you have 2 extra models, which survive to turn 5 then still die.
Changing the Guardsman to 5 points, would mean a reduction from 60 bodies to 50, but, we would still see the same outcome in turn 5 (potentially turn 6 if they were both 5 points and marines 11 points).
Weight of dice is more of a problem than anything else, but, we can see that even with the “5 point Guardsman solves everything” method, doesn’t actually change the outcome of anything when up against Marines.
But, that said, there is definitely room within those figures for the use of "tactics". For example, it is easier to get 17 Marine models into rapid fire and kill off most of a Guard unit, but, it is harder for the Guard player to get 54 models into rapid fire range to retaliate - especially if the Marine player plays smart and shoots the closest unit whilst hovering on the 12" line.
Math helps us work things out, but, as i've always said, tactics and playing need to actually play a part as well when people start throwing out figures in isolation.
Comparing guardsmen against Marines in a vacuum shows very little, because those aren't actual armies or units you'd use to kill those units.
A much better comparison is to compare weapon damage against guardsmen and Marines to see what kills more points worth, or to compare a target being attacked by both guard and Marines and see what does more damage. The more weapons and targets you consider the better. What you're basically asking is, "in what situations would I rather be Marines?" And the answer is very rarely.
You can then average the number of targets and weapons you're likely to face in a real game and get a feel for general durability and damage output. It's somewhat abstract, but it's always going to be more useful than vacuum comparisons.
People have done exactly what you said (Wich is much more usefull than putting Unit X vs Unit Y), and surprise surprise, Imperial Guard Infantry are the most resistent infantry unit in the game. Against anti infantry fire, even compared with undercosted units like Kabalite Warriors and Tau Firewarriors, or units like Poxwalkers that their only quirck is being very durable and that have literally no armor, so the AP of those infantry guns is wasted unlike with Infantry Squads.
That could be good, if the offensive outpoot of Infantry Squads was non-existant, but it isn't, Infantry Squads have the best anti-infantry firepower of the game per points.
Surprisingly, when you up Infantry Squads to 5ppm, they become balanced with most of the rest of the infantry units of the game (Like Ork Boyz, Skitarii and FW at 8ppm as before, but even agaisnt 7ppm FW and Skitarii they become balanced, not worse) barring some that are very bad like Tactical Marines.
When presented with this, the usual response is "But Imperial Guard is all about infantry, their Infantry should be very powerfull and OP!". No. Theres a difference between being good and usable from a tactical point of view, and being mathematically unbalanced. As I said, you can't justify for Imperial Guardsmen to be more durable per points than Poxwalkers.
You're preaching to the chior here, buddy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/06 13:51:56
I know, Jcd386. But this is a general discussion, so I'm not only talking to you, but to other people engagin in the thread.
Or most imporrantly, to 3rd readers that are reading the thread but not engaging and writting on it.
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.
Spoletta wrote: 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.
I would argue your first point is totally flawed when GW stated at the launch of 8th edition allies were a core part of the design for the detachment system.
If it's not worth taking in mono guard why put it in the codex (It is bad game design) and why are Guard players so opposed to it be removed?
Also that you think Kurov's is worse because its a Guard relic its the same as other factions steeling CP relic.
I haven't heard a clear reason why removing both of these from The Guard Codex is a problem, stop trying to blame everything but the guard CP spam.
Imperial soup power advantage is based solely on the guard game breaking CP.
Soup vrs mono codex can be rebalanced via CP for Choas and Eldar and the non imperium factions. But aslong as Guards tripple dip CP farming exsist the game will still be imbalanced.
Common Strategums cost the same CP but what that CO is worth isn't the same so the cost isn't the same across codex's.
Untill Guard and the excessive CP habit is removed from the game nothing short of totally removing allies from the game would change Soup being better than any other option.
CP's is the obvious and least game breaking way to fix allies.
The +3CP for battle forged armies is not awarded for armies using the Imperium, Choas, Aledari keyword. If thats not enough it coul be doubled to +6CP.
However Guard with Grand Strategists and Kurov's lauch at the above as they provide more CP and wouldn't car about loosing any either.
Kdash wrote: So, I’ve just done some quick spreadsheet math pitting 330 points of Cadians (3 commanders, 6 squads) vs 3 5 man tact squads, 1 captain and 1 lieutenant as Raven Guard, about 335 points.
Each round was counting both sides as always being in cover, and the 1st round is outside of rapid fire range as would be expected in a normal game. I’ve ignored combat for now due to using cover. In addition, FRFSRF was used for each round, and the Cadian re-roll ignored for turn 1 and Raven Guard -1 to hit used only for round 1 (implying both sides didn’t need to move after turn 1).
If the marines go first, all 15 tac models die in the Guard turn 4, then the Guard would kill 1 of the 2 characters a turn (most likely).
If the Guard go first, all the 15 tac models die in the Guard turn 4 (so half a turn earlier than if the marines go first).
Now, I think this is a reasonable snap shot of 1 small part of the battlefield, but, it is of course already flawed if we want to scale it up to 2k points.
It also highlights, that based on shooting alone, Guard will win due to numbers, but, over a 6 turn shoot-out game, it isn’t as “unbalanced” as people like to think or expect. Dropping the cost of a standard Marine by 1 point, would basically mean 1 extra model, which would be the sole surviving tac marine in turn 5, dropping them by 2 points means you have 2 extra models, which survive to turn 5 then still die.
Changing the Guardsman to 5 points, would mean a reduction from 60 bodies to 50, but, we would still see the same outcome in turn 5 (potentially turn 6 if they were both 5 points and marines 11 points).
Weight of dice is more of a problem than anything else, but, we can see that even with the “5 point Guardsman solves everything” method, doesn’t actually change the outcome of anything when up against Marines.
But, that said, there is definitely room within those figures for the use of "tactics". For example, it is easier to get 17 Marine models into rapid fire and kill off most of a Guard unit, but, it is harder for the Guard player to get 54 models into rapid fire range to retaliate - especially if the Marine player plays smart and shoots the closest unit whilst hovering on the 12" line.
Math helps us work things out, but, as i've always said, tactics and playing need to actually play a part as well when people start throwing out figures in isolation.
Comparing guardsmen against Marines in a vacuum shows very little, because those aren't actual armies or units you'd use to kill those units.
A much better comparison is to compare weapon damage against guardsmen and Marines to see what kills more points worth, or to compare a target being attacked by both guard and Marines and see what does more damage. The more weapons and targets you consider the better. What you're basically asking is, "in what situations would I rather be Marines?" And the answer is very rarely.
You can then average the number of targets and weapons you're likely to face in a real game and get a feel for general durability and damage output. It's somewhat abstract, but it's always going to be more useful than vacuum comparisons.
While I agree from a mathhammer point of view, from an actual game play point of view it is very different.
You are not going to be playing against the perfect counter or worst counter every game across the board. Sometimes, your opponent might have the perfect counter weapon for a given squad, but is unable to use it against the perfect target etc.
By using a simulated “game” scenario you get the understanding of “what happens if”, rather than, “in a perfect situation this happens”. If I spend 1000 points of my shooting to remove 200 points of Guardsmen it might suck from a math point of view, but, it might make all the difference from a game play point of view.
People always get hung up on how many points each unit or weapon kills, and whether or not it then makes it a good or bad unit/weapon in a codex. I might spend 2000 points of shooting killing Magnus turn 1, only making back 450 points, but, overall, that then saves me from taking up to 2700 points worth of psychic and combat damage over the course of a game. If I use everything to kill 5 squads of Guardsmen on turn 1, then, I’ve just saved myself from having to deal with their damage output and objective securing for the rest of the game. It might suck mathematically on turn 1, but, I’ve then just saved x amount of my points being killed in return from those 50 models and opened up options for my own obsec to move more freely.
If I have 15 units on the table, a Castallan will possibly kill 2 of them a turn, or 12 in total over the course of the game. So, all I need to do is make sure 3 units survive to the end of turn 6. It If it is the only thing seriously threatening my units I know that I have the time and ability to just ignore it. If I am spending 2000 points turn 1, to put myself in a position to make that possible, then all “durability” would do is provide me with a bit of target priority decisions and help.
Reece didn’t get 15th at Nova with Ultramarines because his units where the most durable, or point efficient etc, he got 15th because he had the ability to put himself in positions that gave him an advantage over the course of the game. He was using sniper Scouts, Scout bikes, heavy bolter Devestators and Sternguard – by all accounts here, some of the worst possible options ever in the marine codex. But, he still managed to win games well, which from a mathhammer point of view, is technically impossible.
Just because mathhammer says something is worse than something else, doesn’t mean it is the case in game.
I could put together my Thousand Sons list and expect to do reasonable well vs the winning Nova lists (and that is without Cultist or Tzaangor spam). By all accounts, it’d be classed as an un-optimised list, but, when it clears the 3 units of scouts and half the screening units turn 1 I’m not going to be too bothered when I lose a screening unit or 2 and maybe a Daemon Prince in return. Because, the following turn the rest of the screen dies and I likely kill the Smash Captains due to forcing them to have to react, and maybe a blow up a hellhound or 2.
Spoletta wrote: CP sharing is the root of evil here, not grand strategist. GS is only resonating with it.
Grand Strategist is sharing 8-9 CP though. If you limit it to guard stratagems only (like the DG Tallyman can't refund daemon or CSM stratagems). Fix that and CP is sharing a lot less.
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.
Bharring wrote: 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.
We were talking about actual game play. Spears 1 shot castellans in game with the right buffs if they can get to them.
What illegal list also? The Ynnari one I made - if so - how is it illegal? Or the list that won warzone atlanta but had a small error with the wrong character holding his reroll wounds relic?
Your math is wrong. Knight gets 0 save in CC vs spears. They are AP -4 and knights don't have a CC invo. Thats how you get 16 wounds.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/06 14:38:03
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
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.
I think that's disingenuous and false.
Morale isn't really a thing if you spend additional points on the squad to ameliorate it's effects. If you feel like the effects of Mental Fortitude, the 2cp stratagem and commissars are critical and "standard" then they need to be included in all these cost calculations.
I had a game on Tuesday where I killed 80 guardsmen in the first 2 turns. You only need to kill 5 or 6 in a few squads to make it impossible to save them all.
Morale isn't a thing my ass.
Anyone who tells you that Commissars are critical is a liar. Commissars are trash. They're an absolute dumpsterfire compared to Mental Fortitude or bringing in a Custodes with the banner.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/06 14:40:55
Bharring wrote: 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.
We were talking about actual game play. Spears 1 shot castellans in game with the right buffs if they can get to them.
What illegal list also? The Ynnari one I made - if so - how is it illegal? Or the list that won warzone atlanta but had a small error with the wrong character holding his reroll wounds relic?
Your list missed of Yvraine (though you mentioned her in the write up).
Spears can do a lot of damage if they are buffed up with everything, but that comes at a massive cost in support points and they still need to be able to get within 6” of the Knight to get close to maximising everything.
As it stands, Spears hitting on 2’s re-rolling hits and wounds will still only do 10ish wounds to a Castellan in combat. You need the soulburst or a 2nd unit to 1 shot a Castellan.
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.
Nice thesis. A thesis can be proven wrong by a single counter-example:
The dakkajet kills 6 ork boyz in cover, so 36 points. Obviously ork boyz are not survivable enough and space marines are way too efficient for their points. Guardsmen should be 7 PPM.
Not.
You can't compare units across factions. You never could.
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.
But you don't need to wipe those units because they don't do jack besides sitting on their asses and shooting their mortars. Spending 2CP or a psychic power on 4 guardsmen is a net win for me. Of course, if I need to kill them, there is no issue gunning down the other four with random guns nearby.
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.
What illegal list also? The Ynnari one I made - if so - how is it illegal? Or the list that won warzone atlanta but had a small error with the wrong character holding his reroll wounds relic?
Let's be super frigging clear here, because you're painting this as a "small error" rather than a massive statement as to the fact that these tournament twerps don't read their own damn Codices. They just Battlescribe it.
The list that won Warzone Atlanta was not the first nor the last time we saw that garbage happening. People were giving Primaris Psykers the Relic of Lost Cadia, which requires you to have the <Regiment> being replaced by Cadia.
Primaris Psykers do not have <Regiment>. They're instead fixed with Astra Telepathica and Scholastica Psykana. Battlescribe, being the shoddy program that it is, allowed for that combination. So rather than actually doing the hard work of list building and reading the damn book they just threw the list together there. And given that they likely only practiced with others who take them at face value NOBODY caught it.
Math'ing aside (honestly I skipped 10 pages and seemed to have missed nothing), if you could only spend your guard CP on guard stratagems and your guard warlord only generated guard CPs -
would you still take them because the infantry is game breakingly brilliant? Or would you get a cheap battalion from your own codex?
The main reason you don't see armies of 27 SS is because people don't have the models. They have been out of stock most of the edition.
They are still the most OP unit in the game.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
Jidmah wrote: Flamers are not a good example for anything, since as far as my experience goes, flamers aren't good at anything.
Yes - that's the whole point.
They _should_ be good at killing light infantry in bulk, but they aren't. Anti-infantry weapons in general dropped off in effectiveness against soft targets and the flamer is just an example of that.
Maybe just take something that wasn't an S4 AP5 template in 7th? Heavy flamers of all variants kill guardsmen just fine. As do hurricane bolters, assault cannons, heavy bolters, heavy stubbers, avenger gatling cannons... and pretty much everything else that's has a decent amount of shots and at least AP-1. C'mon orks can do 9 hits S6 AP-1 for ~150 points, I bet any army that's not collecting skulls and blood for a living can do better.
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.
What illegal list also? The Ynnari one I made - if so - how is it illegal? Or the list that won warzone atlanta but had a small error with the wrong character holding his reroll wounds relic?
Let's be super frigging clear here, because you're painting this as a "small error" rather than a massive statement as to the fact that these tournament twerps don't read their own damn Codices. They just Battlescribe it.
The list that won Warzone Atlanta was not the first nor the last time we saw that garbage happening. People were giving Primaris Psykers the Relic of Lost Cadia, which requires you to have the <Regiment> being replaced by Cadia.
Primaris Psykers do not have <Regiment>. They're instead fixed with Astra Telepathica and Scholastica Psykana. Battlescribe, being the shoddy program that it is, allowed for that combination. So rather than actually doing the hard work of list building and reading the damn book they just threw the list together there. And given that they likely only practiced with others who take them at face value NOBODY caught it.
It's an extremely small error. An honest mistake. It could have been fixed by making the list better. Just drop a grenade launcher (which is worse than a lasgun) take a CC and a Master of ordnance and give him the relic. Army is better now and more legal.
Yeah - it's obviously illegal to take relics on characters that can't take them. It did not affect the armies performance at all.
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder
It absolutely did affect it. It allowed for him to have a Psyker when he wouldn't have had one otherwise and it allowed for his Spearhead Detachment to have the Relic of Lost Cadia, arguably one of the best Relics for Cadian Manticores(which is what the Primaris was with).
So you're thinking people will build 120 Guardsmen when it's the top list, no problem. But not 27 Spears?
Most of the Shining Spears I've seen have been kitbashes. Not because the official upgrade kit is out of stock - because it's darn easy to do, and looks a ton better.
You don't see 27 Spears often, because it's bad. You can only Soulburst one unit. You can only Warptime one unit. You can only Doom one target. And soforth. They arent' bad, unbuffed, for the right target. But 27 Spears is half your list right there. You need other threats, too. And board presence. And the psykers.
When you're presenting yourself as an expert on Ynnari, not knowing the basics about how they build their army isn't a 'minor mistake'. Anyone not claiming to be such an expert, sure, it's an honest mistake that shows a lack of understanding.
Xenomancers wrote: The main reason you don't see armies of 27 SS is because people don't have the models. They have been out of stock most of the edition.
They are still the most OP unit in the game.
I know, anecdotal evidence, but...
I have had two games against 27 shining spears (all of them legit plastic models) in the last few month and both times I tabled him turn 3.
They really can't take the heat from something like a PBC or a blight drone, and once they get close you usually can get some plasma within 12" and just fry half a unit. And they really don't like daemon princes charging them.
At least against my casual DG list, 27 shining spears didn't stand a chance. I was not impressed at all.
They might be a powerful tool in the right army, but nowhere in the ballpark of smash captains, castellan knights or ravagers. More like Magnus or a Knight Galant - powerful, but not game breaking.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/06 15:13:42
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.
) 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.
