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.
This topic has devolved into the Olympic games of mental gymnastics. Its really, really sad to see Guard players desperately try and defend their broken toys. The credibility you had, as a community, is rapidly going out the window.
Infantry are under costed at 4ppm, likely at 5ppm too. There is no maths that makes any sense and goes against this. Obviously equal points worth of units must be considered, I can't believe any other comparison is even suggested.
Priests also look, on the face of it, way, way too cheap.
Meh, all codex armies got a boost, guard just Rocks the imperium keyword and the cp Regeneration for castellans, smashcaptains and Co to abuse on their broken stratagems.
Infact cp Regen, even double of the guard, would be fine since guard stratagems themselves are not really to write Home about, let other factions use said cp however though, now there the tune changes drastically.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Galas wrote: 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).
I wasn't aware that a single example from a couple of months ago constituted 'very common', but whatever.
Anyway, it seems I was completely wrong and mono-IG can actually be a viable melee threat.
Galas wrote: Of curse, with soup, because why woun't you take Smashfester or Adeptus Custodes Captains.
Sigh. Nevermind.
Galas wrote: But people from Dakkadakka come and say that guard meele is only good on paper and it is cherrypicked, and not actually good.
What "people" are saying is that guard melee would not be even remotely viable in competitive play if they didn't have access to Knights and Smash Captains to do the meaningful damage.
It's almost as if Soup is causing the issues by allowing armies to freely circumvent their weaknesses by cherry-picking units from other armies with no penalties whatsoever.
"Rubbish! Imperial Guard are completely overpowered on their own. Now let me prove this by showing nothing but Soup armies."
Wow indeed.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
An Actual Englishman wrote: This topic has devolved into the Olympic games of mental gymnastics. Its really, really sad to see Guard players desperately try and defend their broken toys. The credibility you had, as a community, is rapidly going out the window.
Infantry are under costed at 4ppm, likely at 5ppm too. There is no maths that makes any sense and goes against this. Obviously equal points worth of units must be considered, I can't believe any other comparison is even suggested.
Priests also look, on the face of it, way, way too cheap.
Only tournament results that show mono guard isn't top tier. The IG hate community should show some actual facts to back up their hate.
There is even counter-evidence. FLG posted the percentages of armies with keywords (so this means not even mono guard but the much better soup). At the BAO armies with a "primary" detachment of guard did not make the top tier for win % or points earned per round. The more guard at BAO that was included in your army your win % and points per round decreased.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/17 22:50:00
Galas wrote: 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.
People made the point that the interaction between Regiment bonuses, Officers & Orders, Special Character abilities, and Stratagems combined is not a fundamental reflextion on the Infantry Squad as a basic unit. It is a very much cherrypicked combo. It may be a powerful, it may even need a nerf, but its not a good reflection of the basic infantry squad.
Mostly it sounds like the issue is with Catachan doctrines and abilites, which I noted sounded like a bit much when tbe book was released.
Pure meele armies don't exist in this game. All have some amount of shooting.
Sure, but when we are assuming that there is an artillery park and allied Knights, the basic guardsmen are generally not being used in offensive melee really, calling it a melee guard army at that point is no longer accurate.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
An Actual Englishman wrote: This topic has devolved into the Olympic games of mental gymnastics. Its really, really sad to see Guard players desperately try and defend their broken toys. The credibility you had, as a community, is rapidly going out the window.
Infantry are under costed at 4ppm, likely at 5ppm too. There is no maths that makes any sense and goes against this. Obviously equal points worth of units must be considered, I can't believe any other comparison is even suggested.
Priests also look, on the face of it, way, way too cheap.
Only tournament results that show mono guard isn't top tier. The IG hate community should show some actual facts to back up their hate.
There is even counter-evidence. FLG posted the percentages of armies with keywords (so this means not even mono guard but the much better soup). At the BAO armies with a "primary" detachment of guard did not make the top tier for win % or points earned per round. The more guard at BAO that was included in your army your win % and points per round decreased.
This right here is the reason Guard players are so unwilling to agree to nerfs. Despite the claims, and the mathhammer, and the speculation, the raw data is showing guard to be performing solidly average. Maybe that's because the soup lists are so much more overpowered that it's keeping guard from dominating, who knows? It's clear the first step is to nerf soup as its near universally agreed to be a issue in competitive play. If Guard starts to dominate afterwards, then nerf guard.
How hard can it be to understand that soup is made of its ingredients? The core part of every competitive Imperial soup build is the Guard battalion or brigade.
Only tournament results that show mono guard isn't top tier. The IG hate community should show some actual facts to back up their hate.
There is even counter-evidence. FLG posted the percentages of armies with keywords (so this means not even mono guard but the much better soup). At the BAO armies with a "primary" detachment of guard did not make the top tier for win % or points earned per round. The more guard at BAO that was included in your army your win % and points per round decreased.
This right here is the reason Guard players are so unwilling to agree to nerfs. Despite the claims, and the mathhammer, and the speculation, the raw data is showing guard to be performing solidly average. Maybe that's because the soup lists are so much more overpowered that it's keeping guard from dominating, who knows? It's clear the first step is to nerf soup as its near universally agreed to be a issue in competitive play. If Guard starts to dominate afterwards, then nerf guard.
I posted evidence. Various and multiple times in this thread but you Guard players keep moving the goalposts.
First it was stated that 'Guard are only taken as a CP farm min detachment!' So I provided evidence of how well armies that ran primary Guard lists (including mono) have performed over the last 6 months competitively compared to all other factions, including mixed Aeldari and Chaos. Its something like 3 first place finishes, 2 4th place finishes, a second place and a third place. I posted this about 2 pages ago if you'd like to check. The the goalposts moved 'well they aren't doing the heavy lifting' or 'they aren't only mono Guard lists so they don't count'. Its a joke.
The exact same thing has happened with the maths - 'show us the maths that Guardsmen are too strong!' *maths is shown*, 'no that isn't the right maths - do it with this buff and with this taken into account', *maths is done, as requested*, 'maths doesn't represent reality and isn't useful for discussions'.
Basically Guard players are showing themselves to be completely unable to accept that any part of their army is too powerful. The maths backs up the raw data and it all points to Guard having SOME UNITS (not all) that need to be brought in line. As other factions have SOME UNITS that are too strong.
Finally can all you Guard players stop strawmanning a ridiculous anti-Guard agenda you wrongly believe certain posters to have? Its about a very few and select group of units, relics and stratagems that need sorting, not the "nuke" so many of you claim.
Crimson wrote: How hard can it be to understand that soup is made of its ingredients? The core part of every competitive Imperial soup build is the Guard battalion or brigade.
Yeah the few hundred points worth of dudes sitting on objectives providing cp and tossing a few mortar rounds is the problem, not the Castellan that can shoot anything off the board in one turn, or the smash captains that kill 4x worth their points in melee. Nerfing the parts doesn't solve the problem either, it just makes people find new ingredients for the soup. Before the rise of Knights super charged Imperial soup, it was Eldar soup dominating, and before that Chaos soup, and before that Imperial Soup again. The trend is soup and the way allied detachments are able to fill in gaps in each other's strength with no penalty or disadvantage. You can nerf parts all day long, but as long as there is no down side to taking multiple factions soup will always be the best lists.
Only tournament results that show mono guard isn't top tier. The IG hate community should show some actual facts to back up their hate.
There is even counter-evidence. FLG posted the percentages of armies with keywords (so this means not even mono guard but the much better soup). At the BAO armies with a "primary" detachment of guard did not make the top tier for win % or points earned per round. The more guard at BAO that was included in your army your win % and points per round decreased.
This right here is the reason Guard players are so unwilling to agree to nerfs. Despite the claims, and the mathhammer, and the speculation, the raw data is showing guard to be performing solidly average. Maybe that's because the soup lists are so much more overpowered that it's keeping guard from dominating, who knows? It's clear the first step is to nerf soup as its near universally agreed to be a issue in competitive play. If Guard starts to dominate afterwards, then nerf guard.
I posted evidence. Various and multiple times in this thread but you Guard players keep moving the goalposts.
First it was stated that 'Guard are only taken as a CP farm min detachment!' So I provided evidence of how well armies that ran primary Guard lists (including mono) have performed over the last 6 months competitively compared to all other factions, including mixed Aeldari and Chaos. Its something like 3 first place finishes, 2 4th place finishes, a second place and a third place. I posted this about 2 pages ago if you'd like to check. The the goalposts moved 'well they aren't doing the heavy lifting' or 'they aren't only mono Guard lists so they don't count'. Its a joke.
The exact same thing has happened with the maths - 'show us the maths that Guardsmen are too strong!' *maths is shown*, 'no that isn't the right maths - do it with this buff and with this taken into account', *maths is done, as requested*, 'maths doesn't represent reality and isn't useful for discussions'.
Basically Guard players are showing themselves to be completely unable to accept that any part of their army is too powerful. The maths backs up the raw data and it all points to Guard having SOME UNITS (not all) that need to be brought in line. As other factions have SOME UNITS that are too strong.
Finally can all you Guard players stop strawmanning a ridiculous anti-Guard agenda you wrongly believe certain posters to have? Its about a very few and select group of units, relics and stratagems that need sorting, not the "nuke" so many of you claim.
You provided unreliable mathhammer and anecdotal evidence. The only actual stats we have showing Guard performance in competitive events shows them to be average.
Basically Guard haters are showing themselves to be completely unable to accept that any part of their argument is wrong. The raw data doesn't backup their math and it all points to Guard performing average.
Why are you people so unwilling to accept a top to bottom approach to balancing? Why does everything have to be nerfed all at once instead of starting at the top and working down to cover any unforeseen consequences and to avoid overnerfing units?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/18 01:08:27
Guardsmanwaffle wrote: Yeah the few hundred points worth of dudes sitting on objectives providing cp and tossing a few mortar rounds is the problem, not the Castellan that can shoot anything off the board in one turn, or the smash captains that kill 4x worth their points in melee.
Both of those things need to be nerfed too.
Nerfing the parts doesn't solve the problem either, it just makes people find new ingredients for the soup.
Nerfing OP units does actually solve the issue, unless one thinks the soup existing is the issue. For example, if you nerf Castellan to the level of IG superheavy tanks then you can bring either and still compete.
Guardsmanwaffle wrote: You provided unreliable mathhammer and anecdotal evidence. The only actual stats we have showing Guard performance in competitive events shows them to be average.
Basically Guard haters are showing themselves to be completely unable to accept that any part of their argument is wrong. The raw data doesn't backup their math and it all points to Guard performing average.
Hmm I've provided no mathhammer, I speak only for my colleagues though I can see how much attention you pay to a thread by that assertion.
You clearly haven't looked at my evidence. It is anything but anecdotal, as I said it is a record of how well primary Guard armies have done for the past 6 months. Finishing top 3 months out of 6 is not 'average'. Having always finished in the top 5 armies is not 'average'. This record beats every other army - Tyranids, CWE, DE, SM, IK, BA, Ynarri, Nurgle, Demon etc cannot compete with this record.
Literally everything from tournament results (that's more than one result by the way, not just BAO which seems to be the total of your and Asmodias' knowledge) to theory goes against your conclusion but gosh darn it maybe if you believe hard enough it'll make something true. Or not.
Guardsmanwaffle wrote: Yeah the few hundred points worth of dudes sitting on objectives providing cp and tossing a few mortar rounds is the problem, not the Castellan that can shoot anything off the board in one turn, or the smash captains that kill 4x worth their points in melee.
Both of those things need to be nerfed too.
Nerfing the parts doesn't solve the problem either, it just makes people find new ingredients for the soup.
Nerfing OP units does actually solve the issue, unless one thinks the soup existing is the issue. For example, if you nerf Castellan to the level of IG superheavy tanks then you can bring either and still compete.
In theory yes, you could nerf every over performing unit until there are none left in a process that could take years to work out all they ways units interact with each other and eventually the problem of soup being better than mono would be solved. I'm not gonna explain why that's unfeasible.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/18 02:03:06
Isn't the problem that each Infantry squad is a Troops choice? Why not return to platoons? I didn't read the whole thread, so apologies if it's been mooted.
Here's those Guard results again for all of you who missed it first time:
In contrast to your statement, armies that are primarily Guard (ie - those that spend more points on a Guard detachment than any other) have been doing extremely well (read - too well) competitively for some time, here's how they placed in the ITC over the last few months;
August - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
July - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
June - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events
May - 2nd most top 3 results in all ITC events
April - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
March - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events
In contrast to your statement, armies that are primarily Guard (ie - those that spend more points on a Guard detachment than any other) have been doing extremely well (read - too well) competitively for some time, here's how they placed in the ITC over the last few months;
August - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
July - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
June - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events
May - 2nd most top 3 results in all ITC events
April - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
March - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events
But I guess they're actually really weak right?
And most of those guard blobs were backed up by knights and smash captains. Congrats you've proved what everyone else already knows that soup is overpowered.
I'll say it again in case you missed it the first time. Nerf the way a soup army's detachments interact with each other and more specifically their cp. Don't change any units (except maybe the Castellan) and see how things play out over the fall. If Guard, Blood Angel Captians, Kabal of the Black Heart, etc. is still over performing then you nerf them. Doing everything at the same times leads to over nerfs and under nerfs especially with GW. Hell if Guard is still over performing I'll be right beside you championing for a nerf.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/18 01:47:09
In contrast to your statement, armies that are primarily Guard (ie - those that spend more points on a Guard detachment than any other) have been doing extremely well (read - too well) competitively for some time, here's how they placed in the ITC over the last few months;
August - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
July - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
June - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events
May - 2nd most top 3 results in all ITC events
April - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
March - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events
But I guess they're actually really weak right?
All that tells us is that Guard+Soup is really strong and has been placing well over that time frame, what's the stats on pure guard? just mono, no soup elements thrown in?
Soup is more than the sum of it's parts and the synergy Guard brings via it's CP shenanigans is a large part of that, nerf that first, see how things play out then hit units if there's still issues.
Guardsmanwaffle wrote: Yeah the few hundred points worth of dudes sitting on objectives providing cp and tossing a few mortar rounds is the problem, not the Castellan that can shoot anything off the board in one turn, or the smash captains that kill 4x worth their points in melee.
Both of those things need to be nerfed too.
Nerfing the parts doesn't solve the problem either, it just makes people find new ingredients for the soup.
Nerfing OP units does actually solve the issue, unless one thinks the soup existing is the issue. For example, if you nerf Castellan to the level of IG superheavy tanks then you can bring either and still compete.
Actually it does nothing to solve the issue. Because soup will always be greater than any individual dex because of its ability to cover weaknesses. What you will do is end up playing wackamole each time the new soup flavor of the month is found. In the wake of your nerfs what you creat is a bunch of nerfed mono dex armies that are more reliant on soup than ever. Instead if you fix soup you can than properly see which units/ codex is over preforming and adjust accordingly
In contrast to your statement, armies that are primarily Guard (ie - those that spend more points on a Guard detachment than any other) have been doing extremely well (read - too well) competitively for some time, here's how they placed in the ITC over the last few months;
August - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
July - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
June - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events
May - 2nd most top 3 results in all ITC events
April - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction)
March - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events
But I guess they're actually really weak right?
Yeah a a single 1 maybe 2 of all of those is a mono guard list.... thanks for pointing out that soup is the issue yet again
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/18 02:13:10
Thanks for taking the time to run the maths, my only question would be are you taking the fireblade's buff into account? that's an extra shot on everyone of those firewarriors and 2 dead guardsmen seems pretty low output for 24 shots against t3 5+. plugging numbers into a mathhammer site shows that they should net 5 dead guardsmen on each of the first two rounds which leads to the guard squad being wiped round 4 with 5 firewarrior's left standing.
The fireblade's buff only works at half range of the weapon. The FW only get one shot each at 42", they then get 3 at 21".
@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).
Just FYI, sergeant pistols were factored into all my math. In the unbuffed shootout, 2 guard died out of 20 in the first turn, leaving 16 lasguns to shoot. 16*1/2*1/2*1/2=2 killed FW.
But then once you start taking casualties you can always knock off the sergeant if you're not worried about morale. Wait, maybe that's where commissars help in the grander game!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/09/18 03:08:10
In contrast to your statement, armies that are primarily Guard (ie - those that spend more points on a Guard detachment than any other) have been doing extremely well (read - too well) competitively for some time, here's how they placed in the ITC over the last few months;
August - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction) July - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction) June - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events May - 2nd most top 3 results in all ITC events April - most top 3 results in all ITC events (best faction) March - 4th most top 3 results in all ITC events
But I guess they're actually really weak right?
Is it so hard to understand that those stats prove nothing? We have battle reports with a castellan knight keeping the fight for 2 more turns after his whole army was deleted in the first 2 and almost won the game alone, since he had a lot of CP to spare.
1400 guard + castellan is not representaive of what mono guard can do. The same is true with smashers and bananas.
Smashers in particular make the army sooo much better than the equivalent points in guards, because they are the counter to every guard weakness.
I want to see IG nerfed in many ways, but those numbers are not a good basis for an analysis.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/18 03:14:04
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.
I'd like to mention that all those points are considered in my math. 2 10-man guard squads vs 1 12-man FW squad. FW shoot first every time due to range but that's about it. Oh, and sergeant pistols too. It's nice to know you ignore the math and scenario completely and then make things up.
Thanks for taking the time to run the maths, my only question would be are you taking the fireblade's buff into account? that's an extra shot on everyone of those firewarriors and 2 dead guardsmen seems pretty low output for 24 shots against t3 5+. plugging numbers into a mathhammer site shows that they should net 5 dead guardsmen on each of the first two rounds which leads to the guard squad being wiped round 4 with 5 firewarrior's left standing.
The fireblade's buff only works at half range of the weapon. The FW only get one shot each at 42", they then get 3 at 21".
The Fireblade's buff might only work at half range of the weapon, but the Fireblade's buff can also scale with expanding the range of the weapon.
@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).
Just FYI, sergeant pistols were factored into all my math. In the unbuffed shootout, 2 guard died out of 20 in the first turn, leaving 16 lasguns to shoot. 16*1/2*1/2*1/2=2 killed FW.
Maybe you should have showed that in the math then?
But then once you start taking casualties you can always knock off the sergeant if you're not worried about morale. Wait, maybe that's where commissars help in the grander game!
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.
I'd like to mention that all those points are considered in my math. 2 10-man guard squads vs 1 12-man FW squad. FW shoot first every time due to range but that's about it. Oh, and sergeant pistols too. It's nice to know you ignore the math and scenario completely and then make things up.
Oh you mean the "scenario" where nothing is really labeled outside of the two things shooting at each other? Where you used Steel Legion as the Regiment?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/18 05:00:37
And most of those guard blobs were backed up by knights and smash captains. Congrats you've proved what everyone else already knows that soup is overpowered.
I'll say it again in case you missed it the first time. Nerf the way a soup army's detachments interact with each other and more specifically their cp. Don't change any units (except maybe the Castellan) and see how things play out over the fall. If Guard, Blood Angel Captians, Kabal of the Black Heart, etc. is still over performing then you nerf them. Doing everything at the same times leads to over nerfs and under nerfs especially with GW. Hell if Guard is still over performing I'll be right beside you championing for a nerf.
Is it so hard to understand that those stats prove nothing?
We have battle reports with a castellan knight keeping the fight for 2 more turns after his whole army was deleted in the first 2 and almost won the game alone, since he had a lot of CP to spare.
1400 guard + castellan is not representaive of what mono guard can do.
The same is true with smashers and bananas.
Smashers in particular make the army sooo much better than the equivalent points in guards, because they are the counter to every guard weakness.
I want to see IG nerfed in many ways, but those numbers are not a good basis for an analysis.
Lol these excuses are unreal. You realise some of these results are PRE KNIGHT CODEX right? That they have been performing consistently at the top as soon as their codex was released?
There is no discussion to be had here - you apologists will make excuses out of anything. When I'm next at a computer in a week or so I'll go back over all their results since their codex and we can see how strong Guard have been since 8th dropped.
Guard feature in EVERY IMPERIAL SOUP LIST, they are the most common and largest ingredient of the soup list therefore they need the most balancing. Keep dreaming up those excuses though guys, its always entertaining to see how someone will turn away from reality so much when it doesn't suit them.
Crimson wrote: How hard can it be to understand that soup is made of its ingredients?
Soup is made of its ingredients, but it's more than the sum of its parts. That's the real issue.
Nerfing the individual parts does nothing to address the fact that Soup is still going to be outright better because it's all upside and no downside.
Soup needs to be addressed - to the point where they're on equal footing to mono-armies - and this needs to happen *before* you start nerfing individual options.
If anything, you're just going to make mono-armies even worse, because (unlike Soup), when one of their units gets nerfed they can't just swap out for the best replacement unit from all available codices.
I don't like to assume bad intent, but it really seems like a lot of people in these threads just want to see Imperial Guard nerfed out of some sort of personal grudge, whilst their own Soup armies remain dominant.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
Crimson wrote: How hard can it be to understand that soup is made of its ingredients?
Soup is made of its ingredients, but it's more than the sum of its parts. That's the real issue.
Nerfing the individual parts does nothing to address the fact that Soup is still going to be outright better because it's all upside and no downside.
Soup needs to be addressed - to the point where they're on equal footing to mono-armies - and this needs to happen *before* you start nerfing individual options.
If anything, you're just going to make mono-armies even worse, because (unlike Soup), when one of their units gets nerfed they can't just swap out for the best replacement unit from all available codices.
I don't like to assume bad intent, but it really seems like a lot of people in these threads just want to see Imperial Guard nerfed out of some sort of personal grudge, whilst their own Soup armies remain dominant.
Imperial soup relies on Guard CP. Pure Guard army is far less dependant on CP regeneration. If you nerf the Guard's ability to generate CP, it will hurt those CP intensive soup builds more than it will hurt pure Guard.
And most of those guard blobs were backed up by knights and smash captains. Congrats you've proved what everyone else already knows that soup is overpowered.
I'll say it again in case you missed it the first time. Nerf the way a soup army's detachments interact with each other and more specifically their cp. Don't change any units (except maybe the Castellan) and see how things play out over the fall. If Guard, Blood Angel Captians, Kabal of the Black Heart, etc. is still over performing then you nerf them. Doing everything at the same times leads to over nerfs and under nerfs especially with GW. Hell if Guard is still over performing I'll be right beside you championing for a nerf.
Is it so hard to understand that those stats prove nothing?
We have battle reports with a castellan knight keeping the fight for 2 more turns after his whole army was deleted in the first 2 and almost won the game alone, since he had a lot of CP to spare.
1400 guard + castellan is not representaive of what mono guard can do.
The same is true with smashers and bananas.
Smashers in particular make the army sooo much better than the equivalent points in guards, because they are the counter to every guard weakness.
I want to see IG nerfed in many ways, but those numbers are not a good basis for an analysis.
Lol these excuses are unreal. You realise some of these results are PRE KNIGHT CODEX right? That they have been performing consistently at the top as soon as their codex was released?
There is no discussion to be had here - you apologists will make excuses out of anything. When I'm next at a computer in a week or so I'll go back over all their results since their codex and we can see how strong Guard have been since 8th dropped.
You've been repeating yourself for the past 10 pages while backhand insulting anyone that disagrees with you. You refuse to listen to or even consider any feedback that isn't calling for a kneejerk nerf to guard.
Thanks for taking the time to run the maths, my only question would be are you taking the fireblade's buff into account? that's an extra shot on everyone of those firewarriors and 2 dead guardsmen seems pretty low output for 24 shots against t3 5+. plugging numbers into a mathhammer site shows that they should net 5 dead guardsmen on each of the first two rounds which leads to the guard squad being wiped round 4 with 5 firewarrior's left standing.
The fireblade's buff only works at half range of the weapon. The FW only get one shot each at 42", they then get 3 at 21".
The Fireblade's buff might only work at half range of the weapon, but the Fireblade's buff can also scale with expanding the range of the weapon.
@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).
Just FYI, sergeant pistols were factored into all my math. In the unbuffed shootout, 2 guard died out of 20 in the first turn, leaving 16 lasguns to shoot. 16*1/2*1/2*1/2=2 killed FW.
Maybe you should have showed that in the math then?
But then once you start taking casualties you can always knock off the sergeant if you're not worried about morale. Wait, maybe that's where commissars help in the grander game!
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.
I'd like to mention that all those points are considered in my math. 2 10-man guard squads vs 1 12-man FW squad. FW shoot first every time due to range but that's about it. Oh, and sergeant pistols too. It's nice to know you ignore the math and scenario completely and then make things up.
Oh you mean the "scenario" where nothing is really labeled outside of the two things shooting at each other? Where you used Steel Legion as the Regiment?
Read the actual post. The first example had 2 10 man guard squads vs the 12 man FW squad included no buffs. No CC's, no regimental doctrines, etc.
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.
I'd like to mention that all those points are considered in my math. 2 10-man guard squads vs 1 12-man FW squad. FW shoot first every time due to range but that's about it. Oh, and sergeant pistols too. It's nice to know you ignore the math and scenario completely and then make things up.
Oh you mean the "scenario" where nothing is really labeled outside of the two things shooting at each other? Where you used Steel Legion as the Regiment?
Read the actual post. The first example had 2 10 man guard squads vs the 12 man FW squad included no buffs. No CC's, no regimental doctrines, etc.
And it also didn't say how many of each weapon was being fired.
I read the post. But just for posterity's sake, here's the post in question:
Dandelion wrote:
Spoiler:
Do we really need to say that a unit with 30" range will outshoot a unit with 24" when targeting units at 30" range? But if you really want to know, a 10-man Fire warrior team will kill 2 Guardsmen at 30". Which I brought up before, and factored into my scenario. Of course, it was dismissed by someone who said FW and Guardsmen don't have the same role and so are incomparable.
But since you seem more reasonable let's give it a go: 1) No buffs: - 12 fire warriors (84 pts) - 20 Guard (80 pts) Round 1 at 24-30" - FW kill 2 Guardsmen - Guard move 6", and get within 24". Kill 2 FW Round 1 losses: 2 Guardsmen (8pts) 2 FW (14 pts) I really don't need to continue, since it only gets worse for the tau.
2) Steel Legion guard with commander vs Borkan tau with fireblade and accelerator drone - 20 Guard + 1 C Commander (110 pts) - 12 FW + 1 Fireblade + 1 drone (132 pts) Round 1 at 42" - FW kill 2 Guard - Guard move 15" with "Move! Move! Move!" to get within 27" of the FW Round 2 at 27" 12 FW vs 18 Guard - FW retreat 6" (33" total away) and fire: 2 kills - Guard advance and get within 24", use "Forwards for the Emperor": 2 kills Round 3: 10 FW vs 16 Guard - FW move up to within 21": 7 kills - Guard move up to within 18", FRFSRF: 5 kills Round 4: 5 FW vs 9 Guard - FW shoot: 3 kills - Guard FRFSRF: 3 kills Round 5: 2 FW vs 6 Guard - FW shoot: 1 kill - Guard FRFSRF: 2 kills
Guard win. Of course, depending on terrain and the board, the Guard could have made it into combat by round 4, which still nets a win for them. Note: commander and fireblade contributions (other than buffs) were ignored since I was focusing on the squad outputs. If you want to know, the fireblade would have killed 5 guard total, and the c commander would have killed 1-2 FW if he gets into combat at round 4, but that would have locked down the FW and fireblade from shooting for the last turn saving 3 Guardsmen. So, maybe 2 more guard die than shown above, but the end result is the same.
Now, you may be wondering why I chose to compare 110pts of guard vs 132 pts of tau, well, because if guard go to 5pts that would be 130pt vs 132pts.
Edit: I'd like to take a moment to appreciate how saying the orders makes the whole scenario more cinematic. Hands down my favorite part of playing guard.
I'd highly advise that if you're going to tell people to "read the post", that you at least make a minimal effort to understand what is being said. There's no mention of how many Lasguns are being fired. This is an issue that has cropped up time and fricking time again with regards to putting out "the math" where they leave off exactly what they're testing and then surprise surprise, something doesn't actually add up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/09/18 13:24:10
Guardsmanwaffle wrote:You've been repeating yourself for the past 10 pages while backhand insulting anyone that disagrees with you. You refuse to listen to or even consider any feedback that isn't calling for a kneejerk nerf to guard.
Given that you've already proven you can't (or haven't) read previous pages of the thread when you accused me of mathhammering forgive me when I take everything you say a j a hefty chunk of continent sized salt.
I have listened, I have reacted. Unfortunately you and many other Guard posters seem unable to consider basic maths PR indeed tournament results.
A reaction to something that has been dominating for over 6 months is not kneejerk.
Your early posts are riddled with inaccuracies, inconsistencies and poor assumptions. I hope you improve over the course of your dakka career.
And most of those guard blobs were backed up by knights and smash captains. Congrats you've proved what everyone else already knows that soup is overpowered.
I'll say it again in case you missed it the first time. Nerf the way a soup army's detachments interact with each other and more specifically their cp. Don't change any units (except maybe the Castellan) and see how things play out over the fall. If Guard, Blood Angel Captians, Kabal of the Black Heart, etc. is still over performing then you nerf them. Doing everything at the same times leads to over nerfs and under nerfs especially with GW. Hell if Guard is still over performing I'll be right beside you championing for a nerf.
Is it so hard to understand that those stats prove nothing?
We have battle reports with a castellan knight keeping the fight for 2 more turns after his whole army was deleted in the first 2 and almost won the game alone, since he had a lot of CP to spare.
1400 guard + castellan is not representaive of what mono guard can do.
The same is true with smashers and bananas.
Smashers in particular make the army sooo much better than the equivalent points in guards, because they are the counter to every guard weakness.
I want to see IG nerfed in many ways, but those numbers are not a good basis for an analysis.
Lol these excuses are unreal. You realise some of these results are PRE KNIGHT CODEX right? That they have been performing consistently at the top as soon as their codex was released?
There is no discussion to be had here - you apologists will make excuses out of anything. When I'm next at a computer in a week or so I'll go back over all their results since their codex and we can see how strong Guard have been since 8th dropped.
Guard feature in EVERY IMPERIAL SOUP LIST, they are the most common and largest ingredient of the soup list therefore they need the most balancing. Keep dreaming up those excuses though guys, its always entertaining to see how someone will turn away from reality so much when it doesn't suit them.
Do you even follow the meta? I forgot that smash captains were part of the knight codex . Last time mono guard was relevant was pre rule of three with the spam hell hound list..... but even then it was overshadowed by several other lists. I mean over and over you keep throwing out that IG are broken and bringing up examples of soup.... then you wonder why nobody is taking your argument seriously
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
you've proved what everyone else already knows that soup is overpowered.
3500+
3300+
1000
1850
2000