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.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

glados wrote:
Mono Guard are not an issue, anyone who thinks they are either haven’t rolled enough dice and are keyboard warriors, or are just subpar players. Nerfing Guard further would just make them a bottom tier book.

A bottom tier book? You're joking right? I refer you to the list above showing primary Guard armies to be outperforming others consistently. Also no one has said it's "mono Guard". The problem is certain units in the Guard book, namely Infantry and Commanders.

Bharring wrote:
If you want Tacs (outside Gman lists) really be a thing, or Silver Tide, or CWE troops holding their own, or some variation on that? Then you want 5ppm Guardsmen. It won't impact tournies, and it's possible that mono-Guard may actually need help after such a change (and/or non-Troops in those other books also need addressing). But it makes Guardsmen more "balanced" compared to other "tier-2"-balanced units.

However, if you rebalance Guardsmen to match other "tier-2" balanced units, you've now made them strictly worse than other "tier-1" units: Kabs, Fire Warriors, etc. Like above, the other units in those relevant dexes might even the battlefield.

I would bet 5ppm Guardsmen mono-IG armies would beat mono-Tau armies on average, but 4ppm Guardsmen mono-IG armies would be beat by mono-DE armies on average. 4ppm Guardsmen are clearly better than Tacs. 5ppm Guardsmen are clearly worse than Kabs.

There shouldn't be any "Tier 1' or 'Tier 2' units. If you consider Fire Warriors at their current points to be "Tier 1", I'll remind you that Infantry at 5ppm still outperform them. I'm not convinced 5ppm Infantry models are strictly worse than Kabs either, but if they are, Kabs also need to have a price change.

God, you sound bitter over guard. Anyone would think they are winning all the tournaments as a mono faction and people use them in soup because they must be super strong! /sarcasm.

Let's be real here, guardsmen aren't the issue. It's meta players using guard to gain silly amounts of CP for elite armies to spam the best meta units currently. An infantry squad isn't better than fire warriors or other infantry. They are a unit that require a 20pts babysitter (at the bare minimum) to give them a free gimmick that are situational and easily countered with careful play.

So that 40pts of guard become 60pts to have a once a turn gimmick. But let's just keep carping on about how guard are the imbalance because hyper competitive players found an exploit. Armies MUST be balanced by their mono faction standings in tournaments. Judging the army on soup effectiveness will unjustly punish the mono faction players.

The issue is infinite CP ability. Fix that, and suddenly you don't get 2+ blood angels captains or jetbike Shiel captains with all the bezels and whistles doing all the work.

I think guard players are confusing the need to fairly priced guardsmen as a desire to nerf their book.

Currently, the guard codex is not that viable competitively as a mono faction due to eldar's ability to stack -1 to -3 to hit. No one should want that. Eldar need nerfs, and/or a lot of shooty guard units need buffs. I think it's important to be aware this is the case.

The issue is that right now the only good thing about guard is that they have very cheap bodies. These bodies take up board space very well, are more durable than most other units for their points. They also have access to buffs that make them very dangerous in melee.

Guard players don't see these as an issue because they are really the only thing keeping their codex afloat. I think it's quite possible that if the only thing that changed was a nerf to guard, then there wouldn't be a competitive imperial list capable of taking in eldar consistantly. I think that's a very valid concern.

So although I do think that the infantry squad being somewhat objectively too good is an issue because of how automatic a choice they are for imperium armies, I think it's only one of many changes that need to take place to help better balance the game.

I guess my question to guard players is: "what other changes would you want to see for guard that would make up for an increase to basic guard being 5ppm?" For me, capping negatives to hit at -1 from an enemy source and -1 from yourself (like moving with a heavy weapon) would be a good change for guard. I'm also sure there are plenty of bad guard units that need points or rule changes.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Also no one has said it's "mono Guard". The problem is certain units in the Guard book, namely Infantry and Commanders.

Because being charged 50 points more for a typical guard army will bring them back into line... Or of course make zero difference.

Let’s just make sure when we raise guardsman ppm, we don’t raise scion ppm, OK?

jcd386 wrote:
I guess my question to guard players is: "what other changes would you want to see for guard that would make up for an increase to basic guard being 5ppm?" For me, capping negatives to hit at -1 from an enemy source and -1 from yourself (like moving with a heavy weapon) would be a good change for guard. I'm also sure there are plenty of bad guard units that need points or rule changes.

Honestly it isn't much of a nerf, its just an odd obsession behalf of some players, being charged 30-60 points more for the infantry part of a 2000 point force is within the margin of I-forgot-a-few-bits-from-the army-at-home range.

All Guard players though have their hobby horses of units they would love to take but find underperform. Some are merely average compared to others, some sub-par, some don't fit into a logical force structure. My pet hate is Hydra and their lack of utility against fliers (on average 4 str7, -1sv, 2w hits if it doesn't move... I mean why can't they either do some real damage as currently wild weasel missions are silly easy for most fliers against it, or have a special rule giving the flier -1 to hit next turn because it is having to duck and weave...) but I would have to go for chimera - priced as light tanks they don't really perform and thematically having a battle bus that is more valuable than the infantry it is meant to deliver means the troops support it not the other way round. My solution would be to drop the toughness of all Chimera variants bar the hellhound by 1 (hellhounds are structurally reinforced for their close support job) and their BS to 5+, with a +1 to hit for the main weapon (as they aren't offensive units like Leman Russ and the secondary weapons are more close in defense weapons, well bar the Hellhound again) with any turreted weapon not getting -1 to hit for moving. You would then get a points drop to 60 points.

Chimeras are trash. Hydras are trash. Sentinels are beyond trash. Any hellhound variant besides the actual hellhound is trash. Rough riders are trash. Sanctioned psykers are trash. Ratlings are trash. Veterans are trash. Special weapon squads are trash. Company command squads are trash. Commissars are trash. Conscripts are beyond trash. Ogryn (not bullgryn) are trash. Creed is trash. Yarrick is trash. Vendettas are trash.

Basically any guard vehicle that's not a hellhound, a basilisk, or a manticore is pretty bad due to no invuln save.

There's a few gems in the guard codex, but I feel like a mono-guard army can't hold a candle to a lot of other mono armies. That's probably a bit hyperbolic.

But this forum is widely known for its seething hatred of imperial guard. Nothing new there.

ThePorcupine wrote:
Chimeras are trash. Hydras are trash. Sentinels are beyond trash. Any hellhound variant besides the actual hellhound is trash. Rough riders are trash. Sanctioned psykers are trash. Ratlings are trash. Veterans are trash. Special weapon squads are trash. Company command squads are trash. Commissars are trash. Conscripts are beyond trash. Ogryn (not bullgryn) are trash. Creed is trash. Yarrick is trash. Vendettas are trash.

Basically any guard vehicle that's not a hellhound, a basilisk, or a manticore is pretty bad due to no invuln save.

There's a few gems in the guard codex, but I feel like a mono-guard army can't hold a candle to a lot of other mono armies. That's probably a bit hyperbolic.

But this forum is widely known for its seething hatred of imperial guard. Nothing new there.

And along with the point increase to the infantry squads, those under performing units should get point reductions. The codex need better internal balance.

 Crimson wrote:

ThePorcupine wrote:
Chimeras are trash. Hydras are trash. Sentinels are beyond trash. Any hellhound variant besides the actual hellhound is trash. Rough riders are trash. Sanctioned psykers are trash. Ratlings are trash. Veterans are trash. Special weapon squads are trash. Company command squads are trash. Commissars are trash. Conscripts are beyond trash. Ogryn (not bullgryn) are trash. Creed is trash. Yarrick is trash. Vendettas are trash.

Basically any guard vehicle that's not a hellhound, a basilisk, or a manticore is pretty bad due to no invuln save.

There's a few gems in the guard codex, but I feel like a mono-guard army can't hold a candle to a lot of other mono armies. That's probably a bit hyperbolic.

But this forum is widely known for its seething hatred of imperial guard. Nothing new there.

And along with the point increase to the infantry squads, those under performing units should get point reductions. The codex need better internal balance.

I'd just like to temper the enthusiasm for more points reduction, by pointing out that a number of those "Trash" units are still better than the comparable units in a number of other codex's.

ThePorcupine wrote:
Sentinels are beyond trash.

Sentinels are beyond trash.
? Really? Armoured ones bring little I feel but the scout ones are decent heavy weapons platforms for the price (35 points) and toughness (T5, W6, Sv4+) with good mobility (9" and strategems) and a very useful against some armies ability to push forward pre game. And of course are a cheap fast attack option.

Any hellhound variant besides the actual hellhound is trash.
Well -1 to hit when moving doesn't help the poor things.

Rough riders are trash.
I think you meant to write 'fun'.

Sanctioned psykers are trash.
And yet are a staple of many lists...

Ratlings are trash.
You really are a kill joy - do you think they should be able to conduct frontal assault? They are mean tto hide, shoot and scurry back to hiding.

Veterans are trash.
Can't comment as haven't used them.

Special weapon squads are trash.
Except when they are my catachan flamer squads, or a special weapon tastic loadout for a valkrie.

Company command squads are trash.
Oh fair enough, they only seem to turn up as a BS3+ anti tank squad or sniper squad.

Commissars are trash.
Don't seem to feel these any more sadly. Need their original rule back.

Conscripts are beyond trash.
Yes.

Ogryn (not bullgryn) are trash.
No they are just not needed as other units do the job as well as others. There is nothing wrong with them per say in isolation.

Yarrick is trash.
Nah - the old man is a solid unit and a nightmare for Ork armies, upping your firepower by 50%

I think a large part of the disagreement here is that we're really looking at multiple different armies. I would think that the vast, vast majority of casual players or even semi-competitive tournament players run mono-armies, or in this case, mono-IG. Then you have armies that are "Primary IG" or "Soup with IG," and those strike me as a whole different beast. Unfortunately with the current ally mechanics, I don't see any way that all three of those can be simultaneously balanced.

It's reasonable for a mono-IG player to look at all of this and be irritated or disgusted, as a lot of the nerfs that people are suggesting would really hammer those casual and semi-competitive mono-G lists. While the most common call for the nerfbat is the Infantry Squad, it's easy to find in this forum (General Discussion) people asking for nerfs to Infantry Squads, Company Commanders, Platoon Comanders, Hellhounds, Leman Russes, Basilisks, Manticores, Veterans, Conscripts, Scions, Heavy Weapons Squads, Bullgryns, Strakken, and Baneblades + variants, along with some warlord traits, Regimental tactics, stratagems, and heirlooms, and probably other things on top of those that I have missed. That is absurd.

Secondly, for the mono-IG players in casual, semi-competitive, or competitive environments, there is a very obvious hard counter to their army, and everyone knows it. The second you put IG up against an army with a good chunk of -1 to hit, the IG player's chances of getting smashed are drastically increased. That's not even to speak of those -1 penalties stacking against certain armies, where it is basically an auto-loss for IG.

So when people come into these forums over and over again and scream and cry for IG nerfs across the board because they just lost to a BA/Custodes/Knight + IG list, I think it's pretty reasonable for the mono-IG players to get defensive and double down. I play Space Marines primarily at the moment (Imperial Fists, specifically), and I understand that playing against IG can be very difficult. I've played against them at various points levels now (500-2000 points), at various levels of play, and I've won more than I've lost. They are not some unbeatable colossus, and the people treating them as such are the reason for so much irritation here. If you're actually interested in fixing some things, that's fine, but if you come in and scream "NERF NERF NERF!" you're going to hit a lot of resistance.

Yeah. I recognize that imperial soup lists are kind of a problem these days. It's knights smash captains and custodes with guard. Are the knights the problem? Maybe. But before knights were even out, smash captains and custodes with guard still dominated pretty hard. The common factor is guard. I recognize that.

But there are ways to remove this super soup without nerfing guard.

1. Make the guard stuff guard-specific. Have the grand strategist warlord trait only trigger when a guard stratagem (or command reroll) are used.

2. Make it a requirement that you can include 1 platoon commander for every 250 points in your list and 1 company commander for every 500 points.

Boom. You nerf CP regen for soup lists. You force soup to invest significantly more into guard if they want to bring guard commanders. And you do it all without nerfing mono-guard in the slightest, or doing really confusing several faction-specific CP pools nonsense. And it still feels very guard.

Missed a few pages.

Here's how you get a 2+ save Shadowsword:
Psychic Barrier, Warp Charge 6. Gives that tank a 2+ for a full turn.

Here's how you get that -1 to hit:
Nightshroud, Warp Charge 6. Gives that tank a full -1 to hit against all shooting.

pretty funny that Kanluwen didn't know about the psychic powers that are available to him.

There's also that forgeworld tank that if parked 6" away from the shadowsword gives it full hit rerolls.

Why am i raising this?

Because Knights don't have this synergy. Saying that Knights are OP? Yeah, okay, they are, but so are these baneblade variants. A T8, 2+, -1 to hit is unkillable by quite a few armies. You park it on the table and your opponent literally has no choice but to play around it to win. Without the ITC format, you could flop this plastic schlong on the table and declare a win condition against Tyranids, Necrons, Genestealer Cults, Tau, Pure Dark Eldar, Pure Space Marines, etc.

It's also worth pointing out that Baneblade variants aren't turned off by assault in the same way knights must fall back to shoot.

Knights are probably THE vehicle that should be allowed to fire in combat.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Knights are probably THE vehicle that should be allowed to fire in combat.

Nothing should be able to fire like 30 heavy bolter shots into things that are base to base with it. That makes me sick to my stomach.

Sorry that's on top of its insane Knight level melee.

 Marmatag wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Knights are probably THE vehicle that should be allowed to fire in combat.

Nothing should be able to fire like 30 heavy bolter shots into things that are base to base with it. That makes me sick to my stomach.

Sorry that's on top of its insane Knight level melee.

Thematically it makes more sense to fire at little dudes next to your feet than to imagine the Baneblade firing its weapons at a target that close though, yes?

I was talking strictly on that end. Knights obviously don't need help with melee haha

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Knights are probably THE vehicle that should be allowed to fire in combat.

Nothing should be able to fire like 30 heavy bolter shots into things that are base to base with it. That makes me sick to my stomach.

Sorry that's on top of its insane Knight level melee.

Thematically it makes more sense to fire at little dudes next to your feet than to imagine the Baneblade firing its weapons at a target that close though, yes?

I was talking strictly on that end. Knights obviously don't need help with melee haha

Yeah, agree.

ThePorcupine wrote:
Chimeras are trash. Hydras are trash. Sentinels are beyond trash. Any hellhound variant besides the actual hellhound is trash. Rough riders are trash. Sanctioned psykers are trash. Ratlings are trash. Veterans are trash. Special weapon squads are trash. Company command squads are trash. Commissars are trash. Conscripts are beyond trash. Ogryn (not bullgryn) are trash. Creed is trash. Yarrick is trash. Vendettas are trash.

Basically any guard vehicle that's not a hellhound, a basilisk, or a manticore is pretty bad due to no invuln save.

There's a few gems in the guard codex, but I feel like a mono-guard army can't hold a candle to a lot of other mono armies. That's probably a bit hyperbolic.

But this forum is widely known for its seething hatred of imperial guard. Nothing new there.

I'm not sure there is a wide seething hatred for the Guard on here, largely thats confined to a couple of posters. That said, yeah the interal balance of the Guard book is, as is tradition, awful, and half the army never sees the tabletop.

I really want to use my Chimeras. Unfortunately they've been absolute garbage for literally every single edition of this game except one (5th). 93pts for a typical ML/HB Chimera with a 4+BS is absurd, especially for transporting squads of T3 5+sv dudes who cost half what their ride does. If they were 70pts after kit, great, but at almost a hundred they sit on the shelf.

Maybe trash relative to the Hellhound, which is balls-out awesomesauce.

It's like saying, "I have in my left hand this million dollars. In my other hand, i only have 200k :( My right hand needs money, buff right hand."

 Marmatag wrote:
Maybe trash relative to the Hellhound, which is balls-out awesomesauce.

It's like saying, "I have in my left hand this million dollars. In my other hand, i only have 200k :( My right hand needs money, buff right hand."

Have any recent tournament-winners, or even successful mono-Guard armies, used Chimeras? I've only seen them universally panned this edition, as they pay a premium to carry a squad of cheap cannon fodder while supplying a middling amount of firepower. Even regular Hellhounds aren't as popular/good as the Artemia-pattern.

I could see the Hellhound made a bit more expensive and the Chimera made a bit cheaper, but mostly I'm with Vaktathi here- nerfing Guard altogether is kind of overreaction to bad internal balance.

Edit: And to be clear, I would like to see soup heavily nerfed as a mechanic. Some games, like Warmachine, run on mixing and matching subfactions, but in 40K you have Imperial armies that can mix-and-match while xenos factions have no choice but to run a pure faction. It's just not possible to balance the game without making soup armies sufficiently disadvantageous that they're not the go-to.

 Marmatag wrote:
Because Knights don't have this synergy. Saying that Knights are OP? Yeah, okay, they are, but so are these baneblade variants. A T8, 2+, -1 to hit is unkillable by quite a few armies. You park it on the table and your opponent literally has no choice but to play around it to win. Without the ITC format, you could flop this plastic schlong on the table and declare a win condition against Tyranids, Necrons, Genestealer Cults, Tau, Pure Dark Eldar, Pure Space Marines, etc.

It's also worth pointing out that Baneblade variants aren't turned off by assault in the same way knights must fall back to shoot.

For real, dawg? Lets compare point costs and the firepower here.
Your stock baneblade (baneblade cannon, demolisher cannon, twin HB) with the two astropaths you'll need to give it 2+ armor and -1 to hit is = 504 points

Knight castellan w/2 twin siegebreakers, plasma decimator, volcano lance, 2 twin meltaguns, and 2 shieldbreaker missiles (the most popular variant, it seems), if my math is correct = 604 points

The baneblade, on average, hits 5.25 times with its main cannon that's S9 -3ap 3D, and once with the demolisher that's S10 -3ap d6D, and 3 times with its heavy bolter S5 -1ap 1D
The castellan, on average, hits 5.33 times with its siegebreakers that are S7 -1ap d3D, 4.67 hits with plasma decimator that's S8 -3ap 2D, 2.33 hits with volcano lance that's S14 -5ap 3d3D, 1.33 hits with shieldbreaker missile S10 -4ap d6D, and 2.67 hits with meltas S8 -4ap d6D

The firepower is in a different league entirely. It's about twice that of the baneblade. Just for funsies I'm gonna mathhammer these two things shooting at each other. And I'll even assume the guard got first turn and didn't fail their psychic tests to put on the 2+ armor and -1 to hit on the baneblade.

Baneblade shoots castellan (who immediately rotates shields for 3+ invuln). Baneblade cannon wounds 3.5 times, 1.17 shots get through invuln = 3.5 damage. If they started at long range, that would be it. If they're up close then demolisher wounds 0.66 times 0.22 get through invuln = 0.77 damage. heavy bolters = 0.33 damage. Total 4.6 damage.

Now the knight shoots back. It's still firing at full strength. 4 hits with siegebreakers = 0.89 damage. 3.5 hits with decimator = 1.75 wounds = 1.17 damage. 1.75 hits with lance = 9.36 damage. shieldbreaker = 1.94 damage. meltas = 2.91 damage. For a grand total of 16.27 wounds. About 3.5 times what the baneblade did to the knight.
And if the baneblade didn't get turn 1, may the emperor have mercy. Siegebreakers = 1.78 damage. Decimator = 3.89 damage. Lance = 12.42 damage. Shieldbreaker = 3.11 damage. Meltas = 4.67 damage. Total 25.87 damage (or about 5.6 times what a baneblade can do to a knight). In fact, on average rolls, a castellan can ONE SHOT a baneblade.

Lets go wild. Lets go shadowsword, the titan killer! 3 hits with volcano. 2.92 wounds. 0.97 get through invuln save. 6.81 damage.. Plus heavy bolters 0.33 damage for a total of 7.14 damage. Not even enough to bracket a knight.

Like... why would you bother if for 100 points more you can have firepower and survivability that utterly dwarfs the baneblade or any of its variants.

People don't need to bring Chimeras when they can bring Hellhounds. You can't make the case that a unit isn't used, so therefore it is bad, when there is an undercosted unit fulfilling the same general role.

catbarf wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Maybe trash relative to the Hellhound, which is balls-out awesomesauce.

It's like saying, "I have in my left hand this million dollars. In my other hand, i only have 200k :( My right hand needs money, buff right hand."

Have any recent tournament-winners, or even successful mono-Guard armies, used Chimeras? I've only seen them universally panned this edition, as they pay a premium to carry a squad of cheap cannon fodder while supplying a middling amount of firepower. Even regular Hellhounds aren't as popular/good as the Artemia-pattern.

I could see the Hellhound made a bit more expensive and the Chimera made a bit cheaper, but mostly I'm with Vaktathi here- nerfing Guard altogether is kind of overreaction to bad internal balance.

Edit: And to be clear, I would like to see soup heavily nerfed as a mechanic. Some games, like Warmachine, run on mixing and matching subfactions, but in 40K you have Imperial armies that can mix-and-match while xenos factions have no choice but to run a pure faction. It's just not possible to balance the game without making soup armies sufficiently disadvantageous that they're not the go-to.

Chimeras are bad because GW overpriced all transports look at rhinos, devilfish, landraider even repulsives and its more tank than transport.

Mono nothing is winning GT's at this point, yet as has been pointed out time and again that guard have been a constant of all top imperial soup armies aince the codex dropped.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ThePorcupine wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Because Knights don't have this synergy. Saying that Knights are OP? Yeah, okay, they are, but so are these baneblade variants. A T8, 2+, -1 to hit is unkillable by quite a few armies. You park it on the table and your opponent literally has no choice but to play around it to win. Without the ITC format, you could flop this plastic schlong on the table and declare a win condition against Tyranids, Necrons, Genestealer Cults, Tau, Pure Dark Eldar, Pure Space Marines, etc.

It's also worth pointing out that Baneblade variants aren't turned off by assault in the same way knights must fall back to shoot.

For real, dawg? Lets compare point costs and the firepower here.
Your stock baneblade (baneblade cannon, demolisher cannon, twin HB) with the two astropaths you'll need to give it 2+ armor and -1 to hit is = 504 points

Knight castellan w/2 twin siegebreakers, plasma decimator, volcano lance, 2 twin meltaguns, and 2 shieldbreaker missiles (the most popular variant, it seems), if my math is correct = 604 points

The baneblade, on average, hits 5.25 times with its main cannon that's S9 -3ap 3D, and once with the demolisher that's S10 -3ap d6D, and 3 times with its heavy bolter S5 -1ap 1D
The castellan, on average, hits 5.33 times with its siegebreakers that are S7 -1ap d3D, 4.67 hits with plasma decimator that's S8 -3ap 2D, 2.33 hits with volcano lance that's S14 -5ap 3d3D, 1.33 hits with shieldbreaker missile S10 -4ap d6D, and 2.67 hits with meltas S8 -4ap d6D

The firepower is in a different league entirely. It's about twice that of the baneblade. Just for funsies I'm gonna mathhammer these two things shooting at each other. And I'll even assume the guard got first turn and didn't fail their psychic tests to put on the 2+ armor and -1 to hit on the baneblade.

Baneblade shoots castellan (who immediately rotates shields for 3+ invuln). Baneblade cannon wounds 3.5 times, 1.17 shots get through invuln = 3.5 damage. If they started at long range, that would be it. If they're up close then demolisher wounds 0.66 times 0.22 get through invuln = 0.77 damage. heavy bolters = 0.33 damage. Total 4.6 damage.

Now the knight shoots back. It's still firing at full strength. 4 hits with siegebreakers = 0.89 damage. 3.5 hits with decimator = 1.75 wounds = 1.17 damage. 1.75 hits with lance = 9.36 damage. shieldbreaker = 1.94 damage. meltas = 2.91 damage. For a grand total of 16.27 wounds. About 3.5 times what the baneblade did to the knight.
And if the baneblade didn't get turn 1, may the emperor have mercy. Siegebreakers = 1.78 damage. Decimator = 3.89 damage. Lance = 12.42 damage. Shieldbreaker = 3.11 damage. Meltas = 4.67 damage. Total 25.87 damage (or about 5.6 times what a baneblade can do to a knight). In fact, on average rolls, a castellan can ONE SHOT a baneblade.

Lets go wild. Lets go shadowsword, the titan killer! 3 hits with volcano. 2.92 wounds. 0.97 get through invuln save. 6.81 damage.. Plus heavy bolters 0.33 damage for a total of 7.14 damage. Not even enough to bracket a knight.

Like... why would you bother if for 100 points more you can have firepower and survivability that utterly dwarfs the baneblade or any of its variants.

How are you magically getting a 3++ rotate Ion is only +1 invulnerable save which is 5++ base.
You also left out the baneblades autocannon or sponsons.
I've lost knights to single shooting rounds from a baneblade or massed russes more than enough times to be able to say IG LoW are a threat to knights. Also the baneblade always gets to shoot first due to apple CP to send on outflanking etc.

*checks codex* Ah. Shoot. Baneblades do come with one autocannon. Sorry. Missed that.

As for how I get 3++, it's the wardlord trait Ion Bulwark to give em 4++ base. And you can have two warlords for only 1 CP using Exalted Court.

The_Real_Chris wrote:


Sentinels are beyond trash.
? Really? Armoured ones bring little I feel but the scout ones are decent heavy weapons platforms for the price (35 points) and toughness (T5, W6, Sv4+) with good mobility (9" and strategems) and a very useful against some armies ability to push forward pre game. And of course are a cheap fast attack option.

Any hellhound variant besides the actual hellhound is trash.
Well -1 to hit when moving doesn't help the poor things.

Rough riders are trash.
I think you meant to write 'fun'.

Sanctioned psykers are trash.
And yet are a staple of many lists...

Ratlings are trash.
You really are a kill joy - do you think they should be able to conduct frontal assault? They are mean tto hide, shoot and scurry back to hiding.

Veterans are trash.
Can't comment as haven't used them.

Special weapon squads are trash.
Except when they are my catachan flamer squads, or a special weapon tastic loadout for a valkrie.

Company command squads are trash.
Oh fair enough, they only seem to turn up as a BS3+ anti tank squad or sniper squad.

Commissars are trash.
Don't seem to feel these any more sadly. Need their original rule back.

Conscripts are beyond trash.
Yes.

Ogryn (not bullgryn) are trash.
No they are just not needed as other units do the job as well as others. There is nothing wrong with them per say in isolation.

Yarrick is trash.
Nah - the old man is a solid unit and a nightmare for Ork armies, upping your firepower by 50%

Sentinels are bad because they're a fast scouting unit that still hits on 5's while moving. Heavy Flamer Catachan ones are ok.

Hellhounds - Basically, the base hellhound is pretty solid, esp as catachans.

Psykers - If he meant the squad of psykers then yeh they're bad. The Primaris and Astropath are both quite good if you have any individual unit you care about. Pask, A baneblade variant, etc. Toss -1 to hit on them. Even a regular tank commander can be worth it.

Rough Riders - they're kind of neat and can fill a role as a distraction unit. Definitely not competitive.

Ratlings - Haven't used them

Vets - Pretty bad now that they aren't troops. I wouldn't say "trash" but not good. You can take scions as troops instead.

Special Weapons Squads - bad in general but have some niche applications. Too many eggs in one basket, and it's a super fragile basket. Transports to protect them are way too expensive. After a Chimera and the SWS itself you could just take a leman russ. Where they have some value is in reserve. Take the relic dagger on a platoon officer and outflank a melta SWS and pop up turn 2 or 3 near a target and reroll 1's to hit. If you're running Tallarns send 2 SWSs and a squad of hellhounds outflanking.

Conscripts - *sigh* All GW had to do was make it so that orders and commissars didn't work on them and then leave them at 3ppm. The old Commissar rule was perfectly fine for every unit in the army except conscripts. If they had just nerfed conscripts like that then they would still serve a purpose as a blob to swarm objectives and be good at it.


Edit: I've actually had a little success with SWSs with grenades. They're low profile enough to not draw lots of fire, they're cheap, and they add in some decent anti infantry.

ThePorcupine wrote:
*checks codex* Ah. Shoot. Baneblades do come with one autocannon. Sorry. Missed that.

As for how I get 3++, it's the wardlord trait Ion Bulwark to give em 4++ base. And you can have two warlords for only 1 CP using Exalted Court.

While you can use the warlord trait you didn't state that you where including that.
Also banblades take sponsons and regiment traits.

Castellans are undercosted by probably 50 points but in a pure knights list they get 1 turn of rotating ions maybe 2.

 Dr. Mills wrote:
God, you sound bitter over guard. Anyone would think they are winning all the tournaments as a mono faction and people use them in soup because they must be super strong! /sarcasm.

Let's be real here, guardsmen aren't the issue. It's meta players using guard to gain silly amounts of CP for elite armies to spam the best meta units currently. An infantry squad isn't better than fire warriors or other infantry. They are a unit that require a 20pts babysitter (at the bare minimum) to give them a free gimmick that are situational and easily countered with careful play.

So that 40pts of guard become 60pts to have a once a turn gimmick. But let's just keep carping on about how guard are the imbalance because hyper competitive players found an exploit. Armies MUST be balanced by their mono faction standings in tournaments. Judging the army on soup effectiveness will unjustly punish the mono faction players.

The issue is infinite CP ability. Fix that, and suddenly you don't get 2+ blood angels captains or jetbike Shiel captains with all the bezels and whistles doing all the work.

I'm not sure you understand the meaning of sarcasm.

20 - 60 pts extra might not sound like much to you. But in the context of "suddenly I can't take x" it can have a massive impact. Infantry outperform other, similarly priced units. Either those units they outperform are buffed, or Infantry are nerfed. Since most units are in the same ball park, it makes sense to nerf Infantry rather than buff a ton of other units.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Also no one has said it's "mono Guard". The problem is certain units in the Guard book, namely Infantry and Commanders.

Because being charged 50 points more for a typical guard army will bring them back into line... Or of course make zero difference.

That's a nice story. Perhaps it will make a difference though? Perhaps you can't take a battalion as easily because you can't take all those mortars? Perhaps you have to drop another key piece of wargear.

Regardless, perhaps it just makes sense that Infantry are priced properly? Of course if 5ppm is too little, they could be increased to 6, if you feel that would be better for the game.

Ice_can wrote:

ThePorcupine wrote:
*checks codex* Ah. Shoot. Baneblades do come with one autocannon. Sorry. Missed that.

As for how I get 3++, it's the wardlord trait Ion Bulwark to give em 4++ base. And you can have two warlords for only 1 CP using Exalted Court.

While you can use the warlord trait you didn't state that you where including that.
Also banblades take sponsons and regiment traits.

Castellans are undercosted by probably 50 points but in a pure knights list they get 1 turn of rotating ions maybe 2.

Giving your knight a 4++ base for 1CP for the rest of the battle is a no brainer. It will always be on there. As for regimental traits and sponsons, do you really want sponsons on that thing? If you do, your regiment would probably be tallarn to outflank it and keep it safe for 1 turn.
If you want to take 4 lascannon sponsons on your tank, you can add 1.56 to the average damage output vs a knight. I don't think it makes a big difference.

Your math on the Shadowsword seems to forget that they get +1 to hit against Titanic units. And if it's cadian it gets reroll ones to hit and potentially another +1 to hit for 2CP with the stratagem. If it's vostroyan it can get a +1 to hit for just 1 CP. And since the knight is assumed to use CPs...

We'll say vostroyan w/ stratagem, hunter killer missile and max sponsons for this:
- Volcano Cannon: 5 hits -> 4.86 wounds -> 1.62 failed saves -> 11.34 damage
- 4 Lascannons: 3.33 hits -> 2.22 -> .74 failed saves -> 2.59 damage
- 1 HK missile: .83 hits -> ..415 wounds -> .14 failed saves -> .49 damage
- 10 HB: 25 hits -> 8.33 wounds -> 2.77 failed saves -> 2.77 damage

Total: 17.19 damage

 Marmatag wrote:
People don't need to bring Chimeras when they can bring Hellhounds. You can't make the case that a unit isn't used, so therefore it is bad, when there is an undercosted unit fulfilling the same general role.

So, Hellhound aside, whats particularly functional about a Chimera at its current pricepoint?

It's rolling in at almost a hundred points to carry a squad that costs almost half as much, while putting out a pathetic amount of firepower, which is not terribly confidence inspirng. A classic ML/HB Chimera at 93pts is killing a whopping 0.55 MEQ's or 1 GEQ on the move. A Rhino, which I also think is slightly overcosted, sporting double stormbolters at 74pts, is killing 0.66 MEQ's a turn (albeit with a bit less range) on the move. That gives us 169pts per wound for the Chimera and 109pts per wound for the Rhino.

The Chimera is objectively overcosted for its role and firepower output, Hellhounds have no bearing on that.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
People don't need to bring Chimeras when they can bring Hellhounds. You can't make the case that a unit isn't used, so therefore it is bad, when there is an undercosted unit fulfilling the same general role.

So, Hellhound aside, whats particularly functional about a Chimera at its current pricepoint?

It's rolling in at almost a hundred points to carry a squad that costs almost half as much, while putting out a pathetic amount of firepower, which is not terribly confidence inspirng. A classic ML/HB Chimera at 93pts is killing a whopping 0.55 MEQ's or 1 GEQ on the move. A Rhino, which I also think is slightly overcosted, sporting double stormbolters at 74pts, is killing 0.66 MEQ's a turn (albeit with a bit less range) on the move. That gives us 169pts per wound for the Chimera and 109pts per wound for the Rhino.

The Chimera is objectively overcosted for its role and firepower output, Hellhounds have no bearing on that.

The heavy weapon penalty really hurts guard vehicles. Russes, hellhounds and baneblades ignore it and are unsurprisingly the most popular choices. Well, artillery doesn't need to move so add them as well.
RIP sentinels and chimera. Especially plasma sentinels. Which is a shame since they look pretty cool.