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.

 Marmatag wrote:
My favorite example of Infantry squads being broken is when you use the synergy with Guard HQs.

Isn't it great when Infantry have 3 attacks per guy at strength 4 with rerolls? And you can order them to fight twice? Just combine a couple squads, charge in, and you will throw out 60 attacks with rerolls on an 80 point unit. Maybe order them, so it's 120? Seems fair right?

This faction has been busted wall to wall for some time. The fact that Guard can lose to things that stack -1 to hit penalties, or Guard Soup which includes Custodes and Knights, doesn't take away from the faction's power. .

Part of the problem with threads like this are posts exactly like this. This post is grossly misleading. For one, there is no way that infantry squads can gain rerolls to hit in close combat. I assume you are talking about the Ministorum Priest who has the Zealot special rule, which allows HIM to reroll close combat attacks on the turn he charges, was charged, or makes a heroic intervention; this does not effect any other units. 60 attacks with an 80 point unit? I can only assume you're referring to two Infantry Squads, which would bring the attacks up to 64 due to the sergeants with chainswords. However, this fails to take into account the points for both Strakken (75 points, and very possibly undercosted for what he can do), as well as the Ministorum Priest (35 points). So now we're looking at 190 points to make this happen. Is that undercosted? Maybe, but I would definitely point at Strakken as being the biggest problem, along with the Catachan Regimental traits.

This is certainly not IG being busted "wall to wall". This is a potential problem with one character (Strakken), one Regimental trait (Catachan), and possibly, possibly Infantry Squads, and I'll even go out and throw in Hellhounds (again, really only seem to be too powerful with the Catachan trait). Saying that the faction is "busted wall to wall" is the reason that people get so defensive about this topic, especially when there are so many bad units and mediocre units in the codex already.

jaxor1983 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Bullgryns are what terminators should have been.

It's always funny when you see Bullgryns with a 1+/2++ spitting out 5x Strength 7, AP-1, 2 damage attacks, hitting on 3s, with some reroll synergy.

If terminators had this the guard community would be crying "broken." In fact if any faction had this they'd be crying broken... except guard obviously, because guard should have the best melee in the game.

The only rerolls available to Bullgryns are from Yarrick (1's to hit) and Old Grudges (all wounds vs a single unit selected at the beginning of the game), if they are within 6" of the warlord (who can't also be Yarrick, mind you).

They are capable of getting a 3++, for 52 points per model.

Don't forget your psychic powers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CommunistNapkin wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
My favorite example of Infantry squads being broken is when you use the synergy with Guard HQs.

Isn't it great when Infantry have 3 attacks per guy at strength 4 with rerolls? And you can order them to fight twice? Just combine a couple squads, charge in, and you will throw out 60 attacks with rerolls on an 80 point unit. Maybe order them, so it's 120? Seems fair right?

This faction has been busted wall to wall for some time. The fact that Guard can lose to things that stack -1 to hit penalties, or Guard Soup which includes Custodes and Knights, doesn't take away from the faction's power. .

Part of the problem with threads like this are posts exactly like this. This post is grossly misleading. For one, there is no way that infantry squads can gain rerolls to hit in close combat. I assume you are talking about the Ministorum Priest who has the Zealot special rule, which allows HIM to reroll close combat attacks on the turn he charges, was charged, or makes a heroic intervention; this does not effect any other units. 60 attacks with an 80 point unit? I can only assume you're referring to two Infantry Squads, which would bring the attacks up to 64 due to the sergeants with chainswords. However, this fails to take into account the points for both Strakken (75 points, and very possibly undercosted for what he can do), as well as the Ministorum Priest (35 points). So now we're looking at 190 points to make this happen. Is that undercosted? Maybe, but I would definitely point at Strakken as being the biggest problem, along with the Catachan Regimental traits.

This is certainly not IG being busted "wall to wall". This is a potential problem with one character (Strakken), one Regimental trait (Catachan), and possibly, possibly Infantry Squads, and I'll even go out and throw in Hellhounds (again, really only seem to be too powerful with the Catachan trait). Saying that the faction is "busted wall to wall" is the reason that people get so defensive about this topic, especially when there are so many bad units and mediocre units in the codex already.

I love the TLDR is essentially:

1. This is made up of infantry squads, Straken, and a Priest. It also requires orders, and command points.
2. Admits that Straken might be broken
3. Admits that priest might be broken
4. Admits that infantry squads might be broken
5. Admits that the trait might be broken

Get over it! Guard get better melee than almost every army without even having to commit to it. This pittance of points gets you a ridiculous counter-melee force, that you can COMFORTABLY fit in, on top of all the artillery in the world + a Castellan or a Shadowsword.


I mean it does make sense that Infantry squads would be cheaper than Orks and have more attacks per battle round. It's fluffy. Oh wait.

 Marmatag wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CommunistNapkin wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
My favorite example of Infantry squads being broken is when you use the synergy with Guard HQs.

Isn't it great when Infantry have 3 attacks per guy at strength 4 with rerolls? And you can order them to fight twice? Just combine a couple squads, charge in, and you will throw out 60 attacks with rerolls on an 80 point unit. Maybe order them, so it's 120? Seems fair right?

This faction has been busted wall to wall for some time. The fact that Guard can lose to things that stack -1 to hit penalties, or Guard Soup which includes Custodes and Knights, doesn't take away from the faction's power. .

Part of the problem with threads like this are posts exactly like this. This post is grossly misleading. For one, there is no way that infantry squads can gain rerolls to hit in close combat. I assume you are talking about the Ministorum Priest who has the Zealot special rule, which allows HIM to reroll close combat attacks on the turn he charges, was charged, or makes a heroic intervention; this does not effect any other units. 60 attacks with an 80 point unit? I can only assume you're referring to two Infantry Squads, which would bring the attacks up to 64 due to the sergeants with chainswords. However, this fails to take into account the points for both Strakken (75 points, and very possibly undercosted for what he can do), as well as the Ministorum Priest (35 points). So now we're looking at 190 points to make this happen. Is that undercosted? Maybe, but I would definitely point at Strakken as being the biggest problem, along with the Catachan Regimental traits.

This is certainly not IG being busted "wall to wall". This is a potential problem with one character (Strakken), one Regimental trait (Catachan), and possibly, possibly Infantry Squads, and I'll even go out and throw in Hellhounds (again, really only seem to be too powerful with the Catachan trait). Saying that the faction is "busted wall to wall" is the reason that people get so defensive about this topic, especially when there are so many bad units and mediocre units in the codex already.

I love the TLDR is essentially:

1. This is made up of infantry squads, Straken, and a Priest. It also requires orders, and command points.
2. Admits that Straken might be broken
3. Admits that priest might be broken
4. Admits that infantry squads might be broken
5. Admits that the trait might be broken

Get over it! Guard get better melee than almost every army without even having to commit to it. This pittance of points gets you a ridiculous counter-melee force, that you can COMFORTABLY fit in, on top of all the artillery in the world + a Castellan or a Shadowsword.

Let's try not to misrepresent my points too much, eh? For one, I never said that Ministorum Priests are anything remotely resembling broken. My greater point is that you seem to have a lot of issues with one specific Regiment and that Regiment's special characters, yet are calling the entire codex "busted wall to wall." If the problem is that the Catachan Regimental trait is too good (possibly for both Infantry and Vehicles), or that Strakken is undercosted for what he can do, why not change those things? Why nerf units that other Regiments use that are clearly not as powerful for those other Regiments? Nobody complains about Valhallan Hellhounds or Vostroyan Ministorum Priests.

 Marmatag wrote:

jaxor1983 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Bullgryns are what terminators should have been.

It's always funny when you see Bullgryns with a 1+/2++ spitting out 5x Strength 7, AP-1, 2 damage attacks, hitting on 3s, with some reroll synergy.

If terminators had this the guard community would be crying "broken." In fact if any faction had this they'd be crying broken... except guard obviously, because guard should have the best melee in the game.

The only rerolls available to Bullgryns are from Yarrick (1's to hit) and Old Grudges (all wounds vs a single unit selected at the beginning of the game), if they are within 6" of the warlord (who can't also be Yarrick, mind you).

They are capable of getting a 3++, for 52 points per model.

Don't forget your psychic powers.

Which one, specifically, is giving your 1+/2++?
Bullgryn are 4+, with Slabshields granting +2 to the save rolls of the model carrying it. Brute Shields grant a 4+ Invulnerable Save to the models carrying them.
Psychic Barrier grants +1 to the save rolls of a unit, not +1 to their actual armor save.
Nightshroud grants a -1 to be hit.
The "Take Cover!" Stratagem grants +1 to, again, the save rolls.

So Bullgryn will be 2+ with no Invulnerable Save with Slabshields and 4+/4++ with Brute Shields.

Also again:
Bullgryn cannot be Ordered or benefit from Straken's buffs.

I love the TLDR is essentially:

1. This is made up of infantry squads, Straken, and a Priest. It also requires orders, and command points.
2. Admits that Straken might be broken
3. Admits that priest might be broken
4. Admits that infantry squads might be broken
5. Admits that the trait might be broken

Get over it! Guard get better melee than almost every army without even having to commit to it. This pittance of points gets you a ridiculous counter-melee force, that you can COMFORTABLY fit in, on top of all the artillery in the world + a Castellan or a Shadowsword.

Do we have an FAQ right now as to whether or not "Fix Bayonets!" actually benefits from Straken's "Cold Steel and Courage" trait?

Because that's actually an important distinction, since he grants +1A at the start of the Fight phase and Orders happen during the Shooting phase.

But hey, you keep complaining about your bizarre Catachan fetish scenarios.

 CommunistNapkin wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 CommunistNapkin wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
My favorite example of Infantry squads being broken is when you use the synergy with Guard HQs.

Isn't it great when Infantry have 3 attacks per guy at strength 4 with rerolls? And you can order them to fight twice? Just combine a couple squads, charge in, and you will throw out 60 attacks with rerolls on an 80 point unit. Maybe order them, so it's 120? Seems fair right?

This faction has been busted wall to wall for some time. The fact that Guard can lose to things that stack -1 to hit penalties, or Guard Soup which includes Custodes and Knights, doesn't take away from the faction's power. .

Part of the problem with threads like this are posts exactly like this. This post is grossly misleading. For one, there is no way that infantry squads can gain rerolls to hit in close combat. I assume you are talking about the Ministorum Priest who has the Zealot special rule, which allows HIM to reroll close combat attacks on the turn he charges, was charged, or makes a heroic intervention; this does not effect any other units. 60 attacks with an 80 point unit? I can only assume you're referring to two Infantry Squads, which would bring the attacks up to 64 due to the sergeants with chainswords. However, this fails to take into account the points for both Strakken (75 points, and very possibly undercosted for what he can do), as well as the Ministorum Priest (35 points). So now we're looking at 190 points to make this happen. Is that undercosted? Maybe, but I would definitely point at Strakken as being the biggest problem, along with the Catachan Regimental traits.

This is certainly not IG being busted "wall to wall". This is a potential problem with one character (Strakken), one Regimental trait (Catachan), and possibly, possibly Infantry Squads, and I'll even go out and throw in Hellhounds (again, really only seem to be too powerful with the Catachan trait). Saying that the faction is "busted wall to wall" is the reason that people get so defensive about this topic, especially when there are so many bad units and mediocre units in the codex already.

I love the TLDR is essentially:

1. This is made up of infantry squads, Straken, and a Priest. It also requires orders, and command points.
2. Admits that Straken might be broken
3. Admits that priest might be broken
4. Admits that infantry squads might be broken
5. Admits that the trait might be broken

Get over it! Guard get better melee than almost every army without even having to commit to it. This pittance of points gets you a ridiculous counter-melee force, that you can COMFORTABLY fit in, on top of all the artillery in the world + a Castellan or a Shadowsword.

Let's try not to misrepresent my points too much, eh? For one, I never said that Ministorum Priests are anything remotely resembling broken. My greater point is that you seem to have a lot of issues with one specific Regiment and that Regiment's special characters, yet are calling the entire codex "busted wall to wall." If the problem is that the Catachan Regimental trait is too good (possibly for both Infantry and Vehicles), or that Strakken is undercosted for what he can do, why not change those things? Why nerf units that other Regiments use that are clearly not as powerful for those other Regiments? Nobody complains about Valhallan Hellhounds or Vostroyan Ministorum Priests.

This might be taken out of context because I am a well known space marine fanboy. Really though. Guardsmen should not be able to compete with space marines in close combat under any circumstance. Much less - do almost 9 times the damage per point. Point is that cheap units benefit from buffs the most. Cheap units should really not have buffs like this available.

Straken and a priest is cheap as heck - calgar is 200 points (not saying he is not worth that) this is what other armys pay for their buff units though.

You know what? Chaplains giving 1 more attack in the bubble would do a lot of good to the marine factions.

 Xenomancers wrote:

This might be taken out of context because I am a well known space marine fanboy. Really though. Guardsmen should not be able to compete with space marines in close combat under any circumstance. Much less - do almost 9 times the damage per point. Point is that cheap units benefit from buffs the most. Cheap units should really not have buffs like this available.

Straken and a priest is cheap as heck - calgar is 200 points (not saying he is not worth that) this is what other armys pay for their buff units though.

Straken's a 5+/5++ T4 5W model, whose primary benefit(Orders) can only affect 2 units per turn. His +1A also only applies to friendly Catachan units within 6" of him at the start of the Fight phase.
A Priest is a 6+/4++ T3 4W model, whose benefit only applies to CC characteristics in a primarily shooting dominated army.

Straken is 75pts(includes wargear) and a Priest is 35(not including wargear...but effectively everything he has access to is 0 pts so it does).
So it's 110pts for the two of them vs 200 pts for a 2+/4++(with all damage suffered halved[rounding up]) T4 5W model whose toting a pair of Powerfists that don't make him subtract from his rolls and a ranged weapon and a Relic Blade...and if he's your Warlord, you receive an immediate additional 2 CPs and friendly Ultramarines units within 6" of him can reroll failed hit rolls(whether or not he's your Warlord for the Chapter Master perk)...

Did I mention that those items are sitting on a WS/BS 2+ that has 5A?

Also it's weirdly specific to have picked Calgar for the comparison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
You know what? Chaplains giving 1 more attack in the bubble would do a lot of good to the marine factions.

Honestly, I'd just make it so "Astartes Combat Knives" had the same effects as a Chainsword(each time the bearer fights, it can make 1 additional attack with this weapon) and become part of the standard kit across all non-Terminator Armor/vehicle models.

Make it so that Chaplains have an ability allowing them to have a "Deny the Witch" bubble around them or grant a "Disgustingly Resilient" style perk.

If you guys are going to end up pulling buffs, strategems and units over the entire codex to show how to power up a single unit, don't you end up just comparing one codex to another? Which at that point we end up at the same point of that you don't see mono guard lists running around topping tournaments. I mean if cc guard is so absolutely busted why don't we see lists with 150+ catachan guardsman just running around stomping everything in sight?

 Marmatag wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
My favorite example of Infantry squads being broken is when you use the synergy with Guard HQs.

Isn't it great when Infantry have 3 attacks per guy at strength 4 with rerolls? And you can order them to fight twice? Just combine a couple squads, charge in, and you will throw out 60 attacks with rerolls on an 80 point unit. Maybe order them, so it's 120? Seems fair right?

I mean, if we're combining the base unit and cherrypicked Stratagems, Officers & Orders, Regiment Bonuses, and appropriate maneuver of all elements in acting in coordination at full strength, sure, but then how much of that is the Infantry Squad, and how much of that is the successful convergence all those things at the time and place of the commanders choosing?

Why on God's green earth shouldn't we assume this?

Because the opponent has a say in things, those units may have other things to do, the Infantry Squads may not be Catachan, etc

Ultimately, none of these are directly an inherent issue with the fundamental Infantry Squad (this isn't going to happen with a Steel Legion Infantry Squad for example), but a combination of multiple specific factors, units, and abilities that have to not only be inherently built around in the list but also be executed by the commander on the table with the enemy obliging by providing a target theyll be effective against in melee and able to reach.

You're taking a highly conjured scenario where everything is present and fully functional and assuming the opponent is putting something worthwhile in the way. In that particular scenario, is it super powerful relative to what the base Infantry squad is capable of? Yes. Is this something that is terribly difficult for an opponent to deal with through other means? No. Is it something inherent to the basic Infantry Squad to be able to pull off at any time in any list? No.

You guys talk about how guard aren't winning tournaments. That's because Imperium soup is insane. Castellans ARE that good. Custode Dawneagles ARE that good. Guard are super strong wall to wall.

Still wondering about those Chimeras...

Still wondering why you have the best army in the game and require more...

Woo, an evasive goal-post moving response to the challenge of a overly-broad hyperbolic statement about everything Guard being super strong, who would have guessed?

Did you really need to ask this question? Or was it just a weak evasion?

Perhaps I own a bunch of Chimeras, like the concept of the unit, and would like to run them in an army and have them be productive and functional? Is that wrong? Should the classic IG dedicated transport just not be a functional unit? Maybe I own no Custodes bikes or Bullgryns or Shadowswords or Castellans or trios of every artillery platform?

As is, they are not functional, and not because of the Hellhound as you evasively tried to claim earlier. The Guard codex is not super strong wall to wall, there's a ton of thoroughly mediocre to totally garbage stuff in there.

That doesn't change the fact that guard are better than most armies in melee

In cherrypicked webforum thought experiments involving extremely specific contexts? Maybe. Let me know when a melee guard amy beats another army inherently built around melee combat, I've never seen one.

It happens frequently. Bullgryns with 1+/2++ and 5 attacks per guy? 120 attacks out of infantry squads? On top of all the artillery and a Castellan? Guard can do melee better without fully committing to it. Only guard players don't see this as a problem. You are spoiled.

Wooo, now we're onto personal attacks.

An army of artillery and Castellans with a single heavily invesed melee hammer unit is not a melee guard army. Where are you getting 120 attacks from an Infantry squad from?

Methinks your broad proclamations are a wee bit exaggerated.

and better than most armies in shooting. Do i want guard nerfed into the floor? No, but this faction has had it all for far too long. Their literal only weakness is BS4+ and that is something that these forum users whine about constantly. It is the literal only weakness guard has. And it's only 1 side of a dice worse than marine shooting (read: most accurate shooting in game).

And only 1pt better than Orks, the worst shooting in the game

Yeah, and that's a good point, because Orks can also take a Castellan (hits on 3s) or a Shadow Sword (hits on 2s), and Hellhound tanks (auto hit), and mortar squads (full rerolls).

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

This is completely pants on head crazy, even from you. Of fething course we need to compare equal points! But hey, if the points don't matter, we can make the guardsmen 15 ppm, and their effectiveness is not diminished as long as the squad size remains the same!

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

This might be taken out of context because I am a well known space marine fanboy. Really though. Guardsmen should not be able to compete with space marines in close combat under any circumstance. Much less - do almost 9 times the damage per point. Point is that cheap units benefit from buffs the most. Cheap units should really not have buffs like this available.

Straken and a priest is cheap as heck - calgar is 200 points (not saying he is not worth that) this is what other armys pay for their buff units though.

Straken's a 5+/5++ T4 5W model, whose primary benefit(Orders) can only affect 2 units per turn. His +1A also only applies to friendly Catachan units within 6" of him at the start of the Fight phase.
A Priest is a 6+/4++ T3 4W model, whose benefit only applies to CC characteristics in a primarily shooting dominated army.

Straken is 75pts(includes wargear) and a Priest is 35(not including wargear...but effectively everything he has access to is 0 pts so it does).
So it's 110pts for the two of them vs 200 pts for a 2+/4++(with all damage suffered halved[rounding up]) T4 5W model whose toting a pair of Powerfists that don't make him subtract from his rolls and a ranged weapon and a Relic Blade...and if he's your Warlord, you receive an immediate additional 2 CPs and friendly Ultramarines units within 6" of him can reroll failed hit rolls(whether or not he's your Warlord for the Chapter Master perk)...

Did I mention that those items are sitting on a WS/BS 2+ that has 5A?

Also it's weirdly specific to have picked Calgar for the comparison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
You know what? Chaplains giving 1 more attack in the bubble would do a lot of good to the marine factions.

Honestly, I'd just make it so "Astartes Combat Knives" had the same effects as a Chainsword(each time the bearer fights, it can make 1 additional attack with this weapon) and become part of the standard kit across all non-Terminator Armor/vehicle models.

Make it so that Chaplains have an ability allowing them to have a "Deny the Witch" bubble around them or grant a "Disgustingly Resilient" style perk.

"the unit can immiediately fight as if it were the fight phase" or in other words. When they fight. It's the Gakking fight phase.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

This is completely pants on head crazy, even from you. Of fething course we need to compare equal points! But hey, if the points don't matter, we can make the guardsmen 15 ppm, and their effectiveness is not diminished as long as the squad size remains the same!

So when comparing oranges to watermelons in terms of their flavor and taste, we should just bring as many oranges as it takes to match the watermelon?

That's what these nonsense comparisons are. When we have units being taken effectively understrength just so you can "make the points match", it should be showing you that simply mathhammering things is an exercise in futility.

Xenomancers wrote:"the unit can immiediately fight as if it were the fight phase" or in other words. When they fight. It's the Gakking fight phase.

So when I'm firing Overwatch, I can also issue Orders?

Cool deal!

The closest comparison would be Pedro Kantor.

But then marines don't get orders, and don't have stratagems on par with Guard, and cost more than double per model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

This is completely pants on head crazy, even from you. Of fething course we need to compare equal points! But hey, if the points don't matter, we can make the guardsmen 15 ppm, and their effectiveness is not diminished as long as the squad size remains the same!

This entire thread is pants on head crazy. Guard apologists have nothing to stand on, except "it takes some of our amazing near-free synergy to make things even more amazing than they already are."

 Marmatag wrote:
The closest comparison would be Pedro Kantor.

Or Cato Sicarius or Shrike or any of the other 'basic' HQs. Calgar is rocking Terminator Armour and still considered what would basically be the 'Creed' of the Marine book.

But you know this.

But then marines don't get orders, and don't have stratagems on par with Guard, and cost more than double per model.

Gee, I wonder why Marine characters "cost more than double per model"...

Could it be the 3+ saves? The T4? The WS/BS 2+? The LD9?

Why they don't get Orders...could it be the Auras that come standard on their HQs?

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

This is completely pants on head crazy, even from you. Of fething course we need to compare equal points! But hey, if the points don't matter, we can make the guardsmen 15 ppm, and their effectiveness is not diminished as long as the squad size remains the same!

This entire thread is pants on head crazy. Guard apologists have nothing to stand on, except "it takes some of our amazing near-free synergy to make things even more amazing than they already are."

What's "pants on head crazy" is you keep coming in here like you have something valuable to contribute when you don't know what the heck you're talking about.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

This is completely pants on head crazy, even from you. Of fething course we need to compare equal points! But hey, if the points don't matter, we can make the guardsmen 15 ppm, and their effectiveness is not diminished as long as the squad size remains the same!

So when comparing oranges to watermelons in terms of their flavor and taste, we should just bring as many oranges as it takes to match the watermelon?

That's what these nonsense comparisons are. When we have units being taken effectively understrength just so you can "make the points match", it should be showing you that simply mathhammering things is an exercise in futility.

That is a false analogy if I have ever seen one.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

This is completely pants on head crazy, even from you. Of fething course we need to compare equal points! But hey, if the points don't matter, we can make the guardsmen 15 ppm, and their effectiveness is not diminished as long as the squad size remains the same!

So when comparing oranges to watermelons in terms of their flavor and taste, we should just bring as many oranges as it takes to match the watermelon?

That's what these nonsense comparisons are. When we have units being taken effectively understrength just so you can "make the points match", it should be showing you that simply mathhammering things is an exercise in futility.

Xenomancers wrote:"the unit can immiediately fight as if it were the fight phase" or in other words. When they fight. It's the Gakking fight phase.

So when I'm firing Overwatch, I can also issue Orders?

Cool deal!

Orders have to be given in the shooting phase per voice of command.

 DrGiggles wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

This is completely pants on head crazy, even from you. Of fething course we need to compare equal points! But hey, if the points don't matter, we can make the guardsmen 15 ppm, and their effectiveness is not diminished as long as the squad size remains the same!

So when comparing oranges to watermelons in terms of their flavor and taste, we should just bring as many oranges as it takes to match the watermelon?

That's what these nonsense comparisons are. When we have units being taken effectively understrength just so you can "make the points match", it should be showing you that simply mathhammering things is an exercise in futility.

That is a false analogy if I have ever seen one.

You understand the concept of "round peg, square hole" yeah?

Because that is a common trend with the "points vs points" comparisons. People throwing understrength units or just randomly tossing point values out there does nothing to showcase anything. And people ignoring that starting at the point when both sides can engage is a bit misrepresentative, since there's still potentially actions going on before then.

Someone brought it up already with regards to Tau Fire Warriors and the 6" difference between their guns and a Lasgun, but that's a whole potential Shooting Phase being ignored when talking about the math.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

This is completely pants on head crazy, even from you. Of fething course we need to compare equal points! But hey, if the points don't matter, we can make the guardsmen 15 ppm, and their effectiveness is not diminished as long as the squad size remains the same!

So when comparing oranges to watermelons in terms of their flavor and taste, we should just bring as many oranges as it takes to match the watermelon?

That's what these nonsense comparisons are. When we have units being taken effectively understrength just so you can "make the points match", it should be showing you that simply mathhammering things is an exercise in futility.

Xenomancers wrote:"the unit can immiediately fight as if it were the fight phase" or in other words. When they fight. It's the Gakking fight phase.

So when I'm firing Overwatch, I can also issue Orders?

Cool deal!

Orders have to be given in the shooting phase per voice of command.

And per Straken's rule, the extra attack is given at the start of the Fight phase.

So if your argument is that Fix Bayonet makes it count as the Fight Phase, then Overwatch makes it count as the Shooting Phase.

 Marmatag wrote:
The closest comparison would be Pedro Kantor.

But then marines don't get orders, and don't have stratagems on par with Guard, and cost more than double per model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

This is completely pants on head crazy, even from you. Of fething course we need to compare equal points! But hey, if the points don't matter, we can make the guardsmen 15 ppm, and their effectiveness is not diminished as long as the squad size remains the same!

This entire thread is pants on head crazy. Guard apologists have nothing to stand on, except "it takes some of our amazing near-free synergy to make things even more amazing than they already are."

The crazy part of the thread could be the people calling guard "obviously broken" while pointing to their greatest example a mono guard list finishing 20th at a GT.

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The closest comparison would be Pedro Kantor.

But then marines don't get orders, and don't have stratagems on par with Guard, and cost more than double per model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

This is completely pants on head crazy, even from you. Of fething course we need to compare equal points! But hey, if the points don't matter, we can make the guardsmen 15 ppm, and their effectiveness is not diminished as long as the squad size remains the same!

This entire thread is pants on head crazy. Guard apologists have nothing to stand on, except "it takes some of our amazing near-free synergy to make things even more amazing than they already are."

The crazy part of the thread could be the people calling guard "obviously broken" while pointing to their greatest example a mono guard list finishing 20th at a GT.

He also won first place at another not that long before it.

Fun fact for those of you who don't attend tournaments: When everyone has a stellar list & they know how to play it, a few bad rolls can drop you from 1st to 20th. Additionally, matchups are important. That said, not many lists can stand up to the standard knights + guard list right now. But that is obviously getting adjusted, starting with the Castellan. It will be a blip on the radar, whereas Guard have been broken for the duration of 8th.

 Marmatag wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
The closest comparison would be Pedro Kantor.

But then marines don't get orders, and don't have stratagems on par with Guard, and cost more than double per model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

That's one of the "big issues" with people presenting the math. They ignore that a "basic squad" for Guard is also the "maximum squad size". They continually try to paint it as needing to compare X points to Y points rather than a 1:1 unit comparison.

This is completely pants on head crazy, even from you. Of fething course we need to compare equal points! But hey, if the points don't matter, we can make the guardsmen 15 ppm, and their effectiveness is not diminished as long as the squad size remains the same!

This entire thread is pants on head crazy. Guard apologists have nothing to stand on, except "it takes some of our amazing near-free synergy to make things even more amazing than they already are."

The crazy part of the thread could be the people calling guard "obviously broken" while pointing to their greatest example a mono guard list finishing 20th at a GT.

He also won first place at another not that long before it.

Fun fact for those of you who don't attend tournaments: When everyone has a stellar list & they know how to play it, a few bad rolls can drop you from 1st to 20th. Additionally, matchups are important. That said, not many lists can stand up to the standard knights + guard list right now. But that is obviously getting adjusted, starting with the Castellan. It will be a blip on the radar, whereas Guard have been broken for the duration of 8th.

>guard has been broken the majority of 8th
>guard have done nothing significant without soup sense the conscript nerf
I just took 2 min to look up a SM list that finished first http://bloodofkittens.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Jason-Sniegowski-1st-Overall-Buckeye-Battles-2018.pdf we now have the same amount of evidence that SM is broken as we do mono guard.

 Kanluwen wrote:

You understand the concept of "round peg, square hole" yeah?

Because that is a common trend with the "points vs points" comparisons. People throwing understrength units or just randomly tossing point values out there does nothing to showcase anything. And people ignoring that starting at the point when both sides can engage is a bit misrepresentative, since there's still potentially actions going on before then.

Someone brought it up already with regards to Tau Fire Warriors and the 6" difference between their guns and a Lasgun, but that's a whole potential Shooting Phase being ignored when talking about the math.

@Dandelion already did a comparision with Fire Warriors @ 30" with FW going first and guardsmen still won that shootout.

Going past that though, how is this a round peg and square hole? The reason people do "point vs point" comparisons is because that is the best way to see if a unit is over or under performing compared to other similar units. How would you propose comparing units then if you aren't going to use "point vs point"?

 DrGiggles wrote:

Going past that though, how is this a round peg and square hole? The reason people do "point vs point" comparisons is because that is the best way to see if a unit is over or under performing compared to other similar units. How would you propose comparing units then if you aren't going to use "point vs point"?

He wants to compare ten Guardsmen to ten Firewarriors, and because the Firewarriors will win it proves the Guard is not OP. Yes, that is literally the logic here.

 DrGiggles wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

You understand the concept of "round peg, square hole" yeah?

Because that is a common trend with the "points vs points" comparisons. People throwing understrength units or just randomly tossing point values out there does nothing to showcase anything. And people ignoring that starting at the point when both sides can engage is a bit misrepresentative, since there's still potentially actions going on before then.

Someone brought it up already with regards to Tau Fire Warriors and the 6" difference between their guns and a Lasgun, but that's a whole potential Shooting Phase being ignored when talking about the math.

@Dandelion already did a comparision with Fire Warriors @ 30" with FW going first and guardsmen still won that shootout.

Because he was basically called out for ignoring it with his examples. Also worth mentioning that he didn't actually show the maths, just threw out the casualties. For all you know he was using 20 Guardsmen with Lasguns(not an uncommon thing with these examples that get thrown out) rather than the 18 that actually would be the case(reiterating once again for those in the back:SERGEANTS DON'T GET LASGUNS).

Going past that though, how is this a round peg and square hole? The reason people do "point vs point" comparisons is because that is the best way to see if a unit is over or under performing compared to other similar units. How would you propose comparing units then if you aren't going to use "point vs point"?

By actually comparing a unit as would commonly be fielded to another unit?

I'm not going to compare "500 points of Crisis Suits" to "500 points of Y". I'm going to compare a reasonable build of Crisis Suits to a reasonable build of whatever Y is.

This isn't rocket science here.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

You understand the concept of "round peg, square hole" yeah?

Because that is a common trend with the "points vs points" comparisons. People throwing understrength units or just randomly tossing point values out there does nothing to showcase anything. And people ignoring that starting at the point when both sides can engage is a bit misrepresentative, since there's still potentially actions going on before then.

Someone brought it up already with regards to Tau Fire Warriors and the 6" difference between their guns and a Lasgun, but that's a whole potential Shooting Phase being ignored when talking about the math.

@Dandelion already did a comparision with Fire Warriors @ 30" with FW going first and guardsmen still won that shootout.

Because he was basically called out for ignoring it with his examples. Also worth mentioning that he didn't actually show the maths, just threw out the casualties. For all you know he was using 20 Guardsmen with Lasguns(not an uncommon thing with these examples that get thrown out) rather than the 18 that actually would be the case(reiterating once again for those in the back:SERGEANTS DON'T GET LASGUNS).

Going past that though, how is this a round peg and square hole? The reason people do "point vs point" comparisons is because that is the best way to see if a unit is over or under performing compared to other similar units. How would you propose comparing units then if you aren't going to use "point vs point"?

By actually comparing a unit as would commonly be fielded to another unit?

I'm not going to compare "500 points of Crisis Suits" to "500 points of Y". I'm going to compare a reasonable build of Crisis Suits to a reasonable build of whatever Y is.

This isn't rocket science here.

Let's hear it then, what "reasonable" unit would you compare guardsmen with?

 DrGiggles wrote:

Let's hear it then, what "reasonable" unit would you compare guardsmen with?

Whatever the unit in question is commonly fielded/potentially fielded as...?

10 Guard vs 12 Strike Team Fire Warriors with Pulse Rifles(the unit number here is a legacy item and really should have been normalized to 10), whatever unit sizes Rangers(both Aeldari and AdMech), Vanguard, etc are being fielded at.
Going from there, you then start to look at the actual traits that are being used and common buffs. And then from there? You start looking at the actual corner case stuff like Pulse Accelerator Drones or things of that nature.

Additionally? I want to actually see Morale being discussed when it comes to these comparisons. Guard don't auto-immune. They can reduce casualties or they blow CPs or a Psyker/Custodes Banner to do auto-immune now.

This is the point I've been trying to iterate for god knows how long at this point but constantly get garbage like Crimson's little personal attack about. If people want some kind of in-depth dive, they need to actually do it properly. They need to make sure they know what the hell they're talking about.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:

Let's hear it then, what "reasonable" unit would you compare guardsmen with?

Whatever the unit in question is commonly fielded/potentially fielded as...?

10 Guard vs 12 Strike Team Fire Warriors with Pulse Rifles(the unit number here is a legacy item and really should have been normalized to 10), whatever unit sizes Rangers(both Aeldari and AdMech), Vanguard, etc are being fielded at.

This is the point I've been trying to iterate for god knows how long at this point but constantly get garbage like Crimson's little personal attack about. Is it so frigging wrong to want to see a squad vs squad comparison?

Most people arn't fielding 12 man strike teams of fire warriors it's mostly start with 6 5 man units then maybe add a few models if there's points left in your list or if you know you're going to need a unit to take a charge 8th edition is MSU centric.

Ice_can wrote:

Most people arn't fielding 12 man strike teams of fire warriors it's mostly start with 6 5 man units then maybe add a few models if there's points left in your list or if you know you're going to need a unit to take a charge 8th edition is MSU centric.

I figured most people aren't fielding 12 mans, but it's good to have that confirmed.

 Kanluwen wrote:

10 Guard vs 12 Strike Team Fire Warriors with Pulse Rifles(the unit number here is a legacy item and really should have been normalized to 10), whatever unit sizes Rangers(both Aeldari and AdMech), Vanguard, etc are being fielded at.

Yeah, fething bonkers. How the hell are you going to figure out if point costs are right if you ignore the points? But by this logic it doesn't matter if the guardsmen point cost is increased, they remain just as effective because their squad size stays the same!

So Catachan brigades with 60-120 Infantry Squads, Straken, priest, and basically a meele horde are very common in tournaments (Reecius ran one a couple of months ago). Of curse, with soup, because why woun't you take Smashfester or Adeptus Custodes Captains.

But people from Dakkadakka come and say that guard meele is only good on paper and it is cherrypicked, and not actually good.
Wow.

Pure meele armies don't exist in this game. All have some amount of shooting. In the context of pure meele armies, as if, one army with literally no shoting and only meele (We'll ignore secondary shooting like Berzerker's pistols), a pure Imperial Guard Catachan army is probably one of the top ones if not the top. Both mono (Pure meele catachan guard would win vs pure Adeptus Custodes Meele) and soup because imperial soup is OP we all know that.



Also, I genuinely LOL'ed about the comment of comparing unit at their "reasonable size" (The feth is reasonable size?) for mathhammering their efficience instead of models (Respecting the models per unit, of course, you can't mathhammer a squad of 5 imperial guardsmen) per point invested.

 Crimson wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

10 Guard vs 12 Strike Team Fire Warriors with Pulse Rifles(the unit number here is a legacy item and really should have been normalized to 10), whatever unit sizes Rangers(both Aeldari and AdMech), Vanguard, etc are being fielded at.

Yeah, fething bonkers. How the hell are you going to figure out if point costs are right if you ignore the points? But by this logic it doesn't matter if the guardsmen point cost is increased, they remain just as effective because their squad size stays the same!

Hey it it gets Bobby G down to 200 points because he's just one LoW who dies to all Guard LoW starting at maximum shooting range I'm OK with that