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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 gbghg wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The context is Jetbike Captains are too strong on their own without the need for allies. There's no need to consider allies in that discussion whatsoever. So when something is that over the top, why are we going to blame souping or allies?

YEAH Infantry aren't as powerful as a Cawls Wrath Knight, but we still need to have the discussion of the units that are too powerful. If they're auto-include in a mono-army, OF COURSE they're auto-include in soup.

The Infantry squad is one of guard's 3 troop choices, of which we have:
Conscripts: nerfed into the ground so hard that even at 3ppm they'd still be a pretty crappy choice
Scions:awesome stats and capability but at over twice the price of a guardsmen they're too expensive to run in large number's, best taken in small numbers for specific purposes (unless you're running a full army of them of course)
Infantry squads:Good stats and model count for a cheap price, they're the bread and butter of Guard lists

Infantry squads are auto takes because they're the best choice to take in bulk Guard has, a troop choice Guard has to take in order to fill brigades and battalion's, you bump them up to 5ppm and people will still take them, nerf them some other way and people will still take them, hell even if conscripts were better people would still run them just so they had less models to build/paint.move around the board. It's one thing to call out optional units like Basilisk's, manticore's, Russ's as auto includes because the basic detachment system doesn't need them to function, but calling out troop choices for it is just silly.

Everyone already acknowledges that Conscripts going to 4 points was silly and everyone already knows Vets should be troops again.

What's the real point you're making?

That calling out a troop choice as an auto include as if it's some kind of measure of being too strong is pretty silly, armies will always take the best troop and HQ's in their own codex, regardless of how strong they are overall. Which is why you see company commanders and infantry squads in every detachment that isn't armoured company or milatarum tempestus, they're the foundation most guard lists are built on.

By that definition scouts are as OP as infantry squads.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The context is Jetbike Captains are too strong on their own without the need for allies. There's no need to consider allies in that discussion whatsoever. So when something is that over the top, why are we going to blame souping or allies?

Because allies and CP sharing make them even more powerful than they otherwise would be?

I'm not saying they may not individually need a nerf, they probably do, but the single most resounding piece of information we have from tournament results is that Soup wins. Between the cherrypicking of the best units, unintended synergies such as the CP battery, etc, thats whats winning, and doing so consistently, with no single faction dominating across the spectrum, we see it with Xenos as much as with Imperial armies.

YEAH Infantry aren't as powerful as a Cawls Wrath Knight, but we still need to have the discussion of the units that are too powerful. If they're auto-include in a mono-army, OF COURSE they're auto-include in soup.

Infantry Squads are the bedrock Troops unit of the army, that's about the one unit you'd always hope should be an autotake. Stormtroopers make for a very different army, aesthetic and playstyle. Conscripts are just pointless currently have never been a primary troop unit, in fact, in most previous editions you were very limited in the number of Conscript units you could take, and always had to include Infantry Squads before you could take any Conscripts at all, they have always been a supplemental unit. Veterans were only Troops in two codexes and are no longer a Troops option. Thus, the Infantry Squad is the autotake, and in that context at least there's nothing wrong with that, whatever other issues with costing may exist aside.

That said, even if we accept the concept that autotakes in mono armies are autotakes in Soup (in most instances you're probably correct), the Soup can enhance that in ways the mono army may not be able to, and even if we had perfect monofaction balance, being able to mix and match leads to lots many already aforementioned issues.

All units are deployed in tournaments if they are good, no powergamer will bring troops if they are bad and will not spam them just for the CP. If guards go to 5pts than you will see conscripts back on the tables. Even in guard heavy list with 90 models, that is only 90 points, not enough to effect most games, but enough to effect the best tournaments.
Mono guard that mono guard this, i don`t care about mono guard, like you don`t care about mono craftword.

Marin wrote:
All units are deployed in tournaments if they are good, no powergamer will bring troops if they are bad and will not spam them just for the CP. If guards go to 5pts than you will see conscripts back on the tables. Even in guard heavy list with 90 models, that is only 90 points, not enough to effect most games, but enough to effect the best tournaments.
Mono guard that mono guard this, i don`t care about mono guard, like you don`t care about mono craftword.

Yeas, soup players will stop taking the best CP regeneration detachment in the game because it costs 30 more points. /s

Never mind that the relics and wargear that detachment brings is what allows the rest of the list to function, they'll definitely stop taking them because of a (relatively small) cost increase /s

Fix for guard and other armies...

Stop trying to fix them and play them as they are in the rules. Find something that works and don't try and fix what doesn't.

Spoletta wrote:
By that definition scouts are as OP as infantry squads.

Yes, by that arbitrary definition.

By a definition where we compare their effectiveness to other units of the same cost though, we can see that infantry squads are OP while scouts are not.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
By that definition scouts are as OP as infantry squads.

Yes, by that arbitrary definition.

By a definition where we compare their effectiveness to other units of the same cost though, we can see that infantry squads are OP while scouts are not.

I think that the word OP here is being overused. Infantry guards are not OP, they are a bit undercosted. They are not ruining anyone's day by being a bit overperforming for the cost.

If tomorrow we bring guards to 5 points, the meta wouldn't change in the slightest.

There are OP things out there right now, some of those in IG, but Infantry sqauds are not one of these. Are you seriously telling me that you would prefer to fix infantry squads before those abominations of the artemis hellhounds get a fix? Are you sure you have seen what they do for 90 points?? THAT is being OP.

Marin wrote:
All units are deployed in tournaments if they are good, no powergamer will bring troops if they are bad and will not spam them just for the CP. If guards go to 5pts than you will see conscripts back on the tables.

I suspect not, especially for what many Soup lists would amount to only about 30pts.

Mono guard that mono guard this, i don`t care about mono guard, like you don`t care about mono craftword.

Wat?

Marin wrote:
All units are deployed in tournaments if they are good, no powergamer will bring troops if they are bad and will not spam them just for the CP. If guards go to 5pts than you will see conscripts back on the tables. Even in guard heavy list with 90 models, that is only 90 points, not enough to effect most games, but enough to effect the best tournaments.
Mono guard that mono guard this, i don`t care about mono guard, like you don`t care about mono craftword.

Not sure about conscripts coming back - the 5's to hit and orders on a 4+ make them only a choice for physical speed bumps. And yes the points increase is nothing - most 'competitive' mixed lists have 3 squads - so you are talking a 1.5% points drop from your 2000 point army. Even if they have gone crazy and have a brigade and battalion that is only 90 points - 4.5%.

What about adding a rule that represents the concept of guard being the endless hoard who die in the service of the emperor.

Imperial Guard detachments require 2 troops choices for each mandatory troop choice in a detachment otherwise the command benifit it changed to 0CP.

Ie a Battalion requires 6 infantry squads

And a brigade would require 12 infantry squads.

Bring the points per CP into line and would make the CP battery a minimum of 300 points instead of 180 it currently is.

 Apple Peel wrote:

Can we talk about how strong Scions are for a moment. I haven’t seen the Mathhammer on them. Are they pointed appropriately in anyone’s opinion or not?

The poor dears really suffer though when it comes to range, with rapid fire range being 9" so they can't double tap charging deep strikers. The shoot again on a 6+ is interesting, giving about an 11%? increase in hits I think.

What about orks, nids, should we do the same for those army armies? Requiring double troops?

It's been argued by many other people nerfing guard isn't the fix. Making it so cps can't be shared between different codex detachments is.

Ice_can wrote:
What about adding a rule that represents the concept of guard being the endless hoard who die in the service of the emperor.

Imperial Guard detachments require 2 troops choices for each mandatory troop choice in a detachment otherwise the command benifit it changed to 0CP.

Ie a Battalion requires 6 infantry squads

And a brigade would require 12 infantry squads.

Bring the points per CP into line and would make the CP battery a minimum of 300 points instead of 180 it currently is.

As described, this would be fairly punitive on Stormtrooper lists. An easier option if going this route would just be to treat Infantry Squads specifically like the old platoon system where you could take 2-6 in each Troops slot, but not just 1.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
What about adding a rule that represents the concept of guard being the endless hoard who die in the service of the emperor.

Imperial Guard detachments require 2 troops choices for each mandatory troop choice in a detachment otherwise the command benifit it changed to 0CP.

Ie a Battalion requires 6 infantry squads

And a brigade would require 12 infantry squads.

Bring the points per CP into line and would make the CP battery a minimum of 300 points instead of 180 it currently is.

As described, this would be fairly punitive on Stormtrooper lists. An easier option if going this route would just be to treat Infantry Squads specifically like the old platoon system where you could take 2-6 in each Troops slot, but not just 1.

Agree, my Scions did nothing to deserve this.

Spoletta wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
By that definition scouts are as OP as infantry squads.

Yes, by that arbitrary definition.

By a definition where we compare their effectiveness to other units of the same cost though, we can see that infantry squads are OP while scouts are not.

I think that the word OP here is being overused. Infantry guards are not OP, they are a bit undercosted. They are not ruining anyone's day by being a bit overperforming for the cost.

If tomorrow we bring guards to 5 points, the meta wouldn't change in the slightest.

There are OP things out there right now, some of those in IG, but Infantry sqauds are not one of these. Are you seriously telling me that you would prefer to fix infantry squads before those abominations of the artemis hellhounds get a fix? Are you sure you have seen what they do for 90 points?? THAT is being OP.

Well undercosted and OP are kinda one and the same as far as matched play is concerned. They're too efficient for their points.

I agree that other units are more obviously OP and that the meta wouldn't change even with 5ppm Infantry however I think these changes can be done at the same time - fixing soup requires units to be changed, the interactions with CP and stratagems to be fixed and a buff to mono armies. One of these is not enough by itself.

The_Real_Chris wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

Can we talk about how strong Scions are for a moment. I haven’t seen the Mathhammer on them. Are they pointed appropriately in anyone’s opinion or not?

The poor dears really suffer though when it comes to range, with rapid fire range being 9" so they can't double tap charging deep strikers. The shoot again on a 6+ is interesting, giving about an 11%? increase in hits I think.

You can always use Valkyries to get into double tap range, but that gets pricy fast. You could do it with Volley guns, but the -1 to hit means their trait wont work on the turn you deep strike, however, if you can keep them from dying on the turn they land (since you got 24'' range) then there's a chance something will be within half range of the Volley guns.

 greatbigtree wrote:
Give everyone equal CP - eliminate use for IG CP battery.

Repoint Strats to account for everyone having the same CP. Make good strats for Knights cost 5 CP, or something like that.

Get rid of recovering CP - eliminate use for IG Commanders.


If we got rid of those things, people would not spend points on IG for the CP, and instead buy things to smash with.

Huzzah!

This is not a good idea. CP gain from detachments is how players are rewarded for taking basic troops as opposed to armies of pure specialist units like Riptide Wings. The game is already very deadly with ITC even struggling to make going second not a heavy disadvantage. If you remove troops from the equation armies become even deadlier and you'll see more T2 tablings like Fireraptor lists in early 8th.

 Perth wrote:
This is not a good idea. CP gain from detachments is how players are rewarded for taking basic troops as opposed to armies of pure specialist units like Riptide Wings.

Give everyone the same starting CP and add a CP cost to the specialist detachments.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

The context is Jetbike Captains are too strong on their own without the need for allies. There's no need to consider allies in that discussion whatsoever. So when something is that over the top, why are we going to blame souping or allies?

Because allies and CP sharing make them even more powerful than they otherwise would be?

I'm not saying they may not individually need a nerf, they probably do, but the single most resounding piece of information we have from tournament results is that Soup wins. Between the cherrypicking of the best units, unintended synergies such as the CP battery, etc, thats whats winning, and doing so consistently, with no single faction dominating across the spectrum, we see it with Xenos as much as with Imperial armies.

YEAH Infantry aren't as powerful as a Cawls Wrath Knight, but we still need to have the discussion of the units that are too powerful. If they're auto-include in a mono-army, OF COURSE they're auto-include in soup.

Infantry Squads are the bedrock Troops unit of the army, that's about the one unit you'd always hope should be an autotake. Stormtroopers make for a very different army, aesthetic and playstyle. Conscripts are just pointless currently have never been a primary troop unit, in fact, in most previous editions you were very limited in the number of Conscript units you could take, and always had to include Infantry Squads before you could take any Conscripts at all, they have always been a supplemental unit. Veterans were only Troops in two codexes and are no longer a Troops option. Thus, the Infantry Squad is the autotake, and in that context at least there's nothing wrong with that, whatever other issues with costing may exist aside.

That said, even if we accept the concept that autotakes in mono armies are autotakes in Soup (in most instances you're probably correct), the Soup can enhance that in ways the mono army may not be able to, and even if we had perfect monofaction balance, being able to mix and match leads to lots many already aforementioned issues.

1. People already cherry pick the best units from their codices, soup or not. Allies and soup NEVER had any impact on any of that. The only difference is across multiple codices. Buying multiple codices for multiple broke units is basically the same outside slightly more spent money.
The main consistency from all editions though is poor internal balance though, and of course poor external balance. If those gaps are further closed, this becomes less an issue.
2. You're also forgetting that some armies were basically meant to be glorified allies, like Imperial Knights and Inquisition and Assassins and so on. Then you have the armies that are entirely more reliant on needing those CP and allies like Deathwatch and Grey Knights.
Assuming we just tossed allies out the window, what would you do to fix those situations? If you haven't a good idea, that means you're just reactionary like the people that refuse any change to the game for the past decade or more. Hell we still have people that think the game died after 3rd Edition so...
3. Just because Conscripts got nerfed to the ground doesn't mean Infantry squads being where they're at is okay. I'd think you'd be the last person with that line of reasoning.

Food for thought:

Average 2,000 pt SM army typically consists of 25~40 models with average 90 wounds.
Average 2,000 pt Necron army typically consists of 30~45 models with average 100 wounds.
Average 2,000 pt T'au army typically consists of 40~55 models with average 100 wounds.

Average 2,000 pt AM army varies much and can consists of 45~120 models with average 170 wounds.

 skchsan wrote:
Food for thought:

Average 2,000 pt SM army typically consists of 25~40 models with average 90 wounds.
Average 2,000 pt Necron army typically consists of 30~45 models with average 100 wounds.
Average 2,000 pt T'au army typically consists of 40~55 models with average 100 wounds.

Average 2,000 pt AM army varies much and can consists of 45~120 models with average 170 wounds.

What space marine army at 2000 only has 25-40 models? Assuming a captain lieutenant and 3 squads your looking at 17-32 units for under a 750 pts. What are you spending the other 1200+ pts on predators and dreads? Using black templars I easily have 40+ space marines in a list. And that's with a 1000 pts to spare.

You can't compare wounds since the saves and toughness both factor in.

 skchsan wrote:
Food for thought:

Average 2,000 pt SM army typically consists of 25~40 models with average 90 wounds.
Average 2,000 pt Necron army typically consists of 30~45 models with average 100 wounds.
Average 2,000 pt T'au army typically consists of 40~55 models with average 100 wounds.

Average 2,000 pt AM army varies much and can consists of 45~120 models with average 170 wounds.

Could you show your math on this? A lot of those model counts seem incredibly low.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

1. People already cherry pick the best units from their codices, soup or not. Allies and soup NEVER had any impact on any of that. The only difference is across multiple codices. Buying multiple codices for multiple broke units is basically the same outside slightly more spent money.

Well, no, in that it opens up possibilities that were far more broken than if they were confined to a single book, hence why we see allies dominating tournaments. It opens a wider array of broken units able to be taken in a wider array of configuration and interacting in potentially much more powerful manners.

It's one thing to build an army around your codex's one or two OP units, it's another to build an army entirely out of OP things because you can pick the best things from every book for every slot, and even worse when they then interact to make elements more powerful than they would be otherwise by doing things like providing a glut of CP (or things like the 7E Drop Pod Skitarii ).

Again, there's a reason we see Soup overwhelmingly dominating literally every tournament, Imperial, Chaos, and Xenos.

The main consistency from all editions though is poor internal balance though, and of course poor external balance. If those gaps are further closed, this becomes less an issue.

Less of one yes, but even then, what's balanced in one army may not be in conjunction with another, especially when things that Points have no control over come into play like Stratagems & CP, Warlord Traits, Relics, etc.

2. You're also forgetting that some armies were basically meant to be glorified allies, like Imperial Knights and Inquisition and Assassins and so on. Then you have the armies that are entirely more reliant on needing those CP and allies like Deathwatch and Grey Knights.

I'm not, however the way these factions are handled currently is really poor. Some of them are still Index factions, most never really should have been distinct separate factions in the first place. If armies like Grey Knights are to stand on their own, they need to be fixed within their own book, not rely on Guard allies to feed them CP as a makeshift crutch for GW's poor release (I've got about 2500pts of GK's waiting for such a day...).

For the others that may not be intended to ever stand on their own, they really should be collected into an "Imperial Agents" book with more detailed rules on use in other forces or acting together. As is, their rules for interacting with other factions are generally minimal in the extreme, usually just an ability or two that affect other Imperial units and not just their own subfaction, leaving everything else up to the Detachment system, with demonstrable balance results.

3. Just because Conscripts got nerfed to the ground doesn't mean Infantry squads being where they're at is okay. I'd think you'd be the last person with that line of reasoning.

I didn't make any such argument, my point was that the argument that Infantry Squads being autotakes even in Monoguard armies wasn't really a reflection on their power level given the nature of the army and the other troops available.

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
What about adding a rule that represents the concept of guard being the endless hoard who die in the service of the emperor.

Imperial Guard detachments require 2 troops choices for each mandatory troop choice in a detachment otherwise the command benifit it changed to 0CP.

Ie a Battalion requires 6 infantry squads

And a brigade would require 12 infantry squads.

Bring the points per CP into line and would make the CP battery a minimum of 300 points instead of 180 it currently is.

As described, this would be fairly punitive on Stormtrooper lists. An easier option if going this route would just be to treat Infantry Squads specifically like the old platoon system where you could take 2-6 in each Troops slot, but not just 1.

Agree, my Scions did nothing to deserve this.

Changing Infantry to being an 80 point choice for 2 squads I could live with but my concern would be that people would just use MSU scions instead.

Originally I just suggested removing Grand Strategists and Kurov's from matched play but apparently thats not fair for guard players.
But leaving guard paying half the avarage points per CP of the other factions isn't fair to any other factions. I'm trying to see how you increase the cost of a guard detachments to stop them being so unbalanced with CP.

To make the common rulebook strategums vaguely balanced guard would need to double their CP costs to make using them the same level of commitment of CP resources that other armies have to comit.
1CP from a pool of 10 CP is 10%
1CP from a pool of 20 CP is 5% thats not the same opportunity cost, it actually half.
Strategums would need to cost guard twice the CP to represent the same commitment of CP resources.

Ice_can wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
What about adding a rule that represents the concept of guard being the endless hoard who die in the service of the emperor.

Imperial Guard detachments require 2 troops choices for each mandatory troop choice in a detachment otherwise the command benifit it changed to 0CP.

Ie a Battalion requires 6 infantry squads

And a brigade would require 12 infantry squads.

Bring the points per CP into line and would make the CP battery a minimum of 300 points instead of 180 it currently is.

As described, this would be fairly punitive on Stormtrooper lists. An easier option if going this route would just be to treat Infantry Squads specifically like the old platoon system where you could take 2-6 in each Troops slot, but not just 1.

Agree, my Scions did nothing to deserve this.

Changing Infantry to being an 80 point choice for 2 squads I could live with but my concern would be that people would just use MSU scions instead.

Originally I just suggested removing Grand Strategists and Kurov's from matched play but apparently thats not fair for guard players.
But leaving guard paying half the avarage points per CP of the other factions isn't fair to any other factions. I'm trying to see how you increase the cost of a guard detachments to stop them being so unbalanced with CP.

To make the common rulebook strategums vaguely balanced guard would need to double their CP costs to make using them the same level of commitment of CP resources that other armies have to comit.
1CP from a pool of 10 CP is 10%
1CP from a pool of 20 CP is 5% thats not the same opportunity cost, it actually half.
Strategums would need to cost guard twice the CP to represent the same commitment of CP resources.

Most guard players ive seen post in this thread are all for the removal of grand strategist and kurovs from the game.... I like most just think all CP regeneration should go away. It's much easier to balance CP as fixed pools.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

1. People already cherry pick the best units from their codices, soup or not. Allies and soup NEVER had any impact on any of that. The only difference is across multiple codices. Buying multiple codices for multiple broke units is basically the same outside slightly more spent money.

Well, no, in that it opens up possibilities that were far more broken than if they were confined to a single book, hence why we see allies dominating tournaments. It opens a wider array of broken units able to be taken in a wider array of configuration and interacting in potentially much more powerful manners.

It's one thing to build an army around your codex's one or two OP units, it's another to build an army entirely out of OP things because you can pick the best things from every book for every slot, and even worse when they then interact to make elements more powerful than they would be otherwise by doing things like providing a glut of CP (or things like the 7E Drop Pod Skitarii ).

Again, there's a reason we see Soup overwhelmingly dominating literally every tournament, Imperial, Chaos, and Xenos.

The main consistency from all editions though is poor internal balance though, and of course poor external balance. If those gaps are further closed, this becomes less an issue.

Less of one yes, but even then, what's balanced in one army may not be in conjunction with another, especially when things that Points have no control over come into play like Stratagems & CP, Warlord Traits, Relics, etc.

2. You're also forgetting that some armies were basically meant to be glorified allies, like Imperial Knights and Inquisition and Assassins and so on. Then you have the armies that are entirely more reliant on needing those CP and allies like Deathwatch and Grey Knights.

I'm not, however the way these factions are handled currently is really poor. Some of them are still Index factions, most never really should have been distinct separate factions in the first place. If armies like Grey Knights are to stand on their own, they need to be fixed within their own book, not rely on Guard allies to feed them CP as a makeshift crutch for GW's poor release (I've got about 2500pts of GK's waiting for such a day...).

For the others that may not be intended to ever stand on their own, they really should be collected into an "Imperial Agents" book with more detailed rules on use in other forces or acting together. As is, their rules for interacting with other factions are generally minimal in the extreme, usually just an ability or two that affect other Imperial units and not just their own subfaction, leaving everything else up to the Detachment system, with demonstrable balance results.

3. Just because Conscripts got nerfed to the ground doesn't mean Infantry squads being where they're at is okay. I'd think you'd be the last person with that line of reasoning.

I didn't make any such argument, my point was that the argument that Infantry Squads being autotakes even in Monoguard armies wasn't really a reflection on their power level given the nature of the army and the other troops available.

1. That doesn't make any sense though. If a unit is broken in any sense, it needs to be hit. You aren't pricing units based on what COULD happen. That leads to things like Marine units being priced like you're running Roboute every game.
If the unit is broken with a Stratagem but poor without it, how are you going to price it?
Also Skitarii weren't broken with Drop Pods. They merely helped because they were a army based on Mechanicus stuff but didn't have any transports. Kinda silly, huh? The new drill fixes that of course but only by enough so that you aren't stuck with the same Forge Worlds as usual.
2. Except those Factions like Inquisition and Grey Knights could basically be run independently. Remember how we had Inquisition Storm Troopers as a Troop choice? The elite choices didn't have to be Grey Knights?
So if your suggestion is to toss them in the same book, that doesn't make sense seeing as they had a prototype to be ran as allies or have allies ran with them anyway. Didn't seem to cause a fuss, did it? So what's your other suggestion to help an army like Grey Knights if you want them to be strictly solo?
3. Once again, if a unit is priced like you have them rerolling to hit all the time, then there's a fundamental issue with the unit at the base, not its support. Should Predators be priced like you're using Killshot every turn?
4. The thing is that Infantry were already mathematically good. The issue is that Conscripts were super poorly designed. Nobody is denying the current pricing is silly, but Infantry were already stupid excellent.

If a unit is broken with the stratagem but not without it you don't hit the unit you hit the strat that breaks the unit. Not every thing needs to be fixed by hitting units, to pull an example from the guard codex, Take Cover! was getting used on tanks bumping them to a 2+ save, this was considered too strong so it got nerfed to only work with infantry.

Once the strat is curtailed you can then buff the unit itself.

Ice_can wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
What about adding a rule that represents the concept of guard being the endless hoard who die in the service of the emperor.

Imperial Guard detachments require 2 troops choices for each mandatory troop choice in a detachment otherwise the command benifit it changed to 0CP.

Ie a Battalion requires 6 infantry squads

And a brigade would require 12 infantry squads.

Bring the points per CP into line and would make the CP battery a minimum of 300 points instead of 180 it currently is.

As described, this would be fairly punitive on Stormtrooper lists. An easier option if going this route would just be to treat Infantry Squads specifically like the old platoon system where you could take 2-6 in each Troops slot, but not just 1.

Agree, my Scions did nothing to deserve this.

Changing Infantry to being an 80 point choice for 2 squads I could live with but my concern would be that people would just use MSU scions instead.

Originally I just suggested removing Grand Strategists and Kurov's from matched play but apparently thats not fair for guard players.
But leaving guard paying half the avarage points per CP of the other factions isn't fair to any other factions. I'm trying to see how you increase the cost of a guard detachments to stop them being so unbalanced with CP.

To make the common rulebook strategums vaguely balanced guard would need to double their CP costs to make using them the same level of commitment of CP resources that other armies have to comit.
1CP from a pool of 10 CP is 10%
1CP from a pool of 20 CP is 5% thats not the same opportunity cost, it actually half.
Strategums would need to cost guard twice the CP to represent the same commitment of CP resources.

Why are people so fixed on the idea that the guard is full of CP because they have cheap troops? That is false. They actually pay more than other factions for troops. What really sets them apart are the really cheap HQs, but even like this they are not much better than other factions at getting cheap battalions.

Keep guard CP as it is. Sure they will have 20 per game, and then? That's 5 more than a simple brigade, which almost every faction can easily run. Is having 5 CPs more in a factions that desn't have any really good stratagem this much of a problem? I don't see any necessary fix here.

Spoletta wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 Apple Peel wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
What about adding a rule that represents the concept of guard being the endless hoard who die in the service of the emperor.

Imperial Guard detachments require 2 troops choices for each mandatory troop choice in a detachment otherwise the command benifit it changed to 0CP.

Ie a Battalion requires 6 infantry squads

And a brigade would require 12 infantry squads.

Bring the points per CP into line and would make the CP battery a minimum of 300 points instead of 180 it currently is.

As described, this would be fairly punitive on Stormtrooper lists. An easier option if going this route would just be to treat Infantry Squads specifically like the old platoon system where you could take 2-6 in each Troops slot, but not just 1.

Agree, my Scions did nothing to deserve this.

Changing Infantry to being an 80 point choice for 2 squads I could live with but my concern would be that people would just use MSU scions instead.

Originally I just suggested removing Grand Strategists and Kurov's from matched play but apparently thats not fair for guard players.
But leaving guard paying half the avarage points per CP of the other factions isn't fair to any other factions. I'm trying to see how you increase the cost of a guard detachments to stop them being so unbalanced with CP.

To make the common rulebook strategums vaguely balanced guard would need to double their CP costs to make using them the same level of commitment of CP resources that other armies have to comit.
1CP from a pool of 10 CP is 10%
1CP from a pool of 20 CP is 5% thats not the same opportunity cost, it actually half.
Strategums would need to cost guard twice the CP to represent the same commitment of CP resources.

Why are people so fixed on the idea that the guard is full of CP because they have cheap troops? That is false. They actually pay more than other factions for troops. What really sets them apart are the really cheap HQs, but even like this they are not much better than other factions at getting cheap battalions.

Keep guard CP as it is. Sure they will have 20 per game, and then? That's 5 more than a simple brigade, which almost every faction can easily run. Is having 5 CPs more in a factions that desn't have any really good stratagem this much of a problem? I don't see any necessary fix here.

You get the same generic strategums as everyone else, aswell as a numberof strategums being shared across codex's.

It's not 5 CP more its bringing 18CP or more in a pure guard list plus Grand Strategists and Kurov's pushes that to nearly 30 CP and you still have 1400points to bring the killing units.

No one else in the imperium factions is even remotely close to that amount of CP. That males the opportunity cost for out flanking 10% for guard but same strategum for knights at 12CP is a 25% opportunity cost. Knights pay 2and a half times what guard do for the same benifit.

UltraMarines are going to top out at 16 CP starting CP which goes to 22CP but the only have 800 point left for killing units.

The Comand reroll has a opportunity cost of 3% for guard and 4% for marines thats 25% cheaper for the same strategum.