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.

HoLy Terra

23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard, for like the 100th Guard thread in a row. The guy is utterly tireless

Literally arguing that 9 scouts are as good as 9 mortars lool why hasn't the tournament scene caught up to this next level display of game comprehension yet

Martel732 wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

Tyel wrote:
So Mortars do about 30% more damage in your scenario which is optimised for the scouts. Outside 12" they do... 160% more damage. Also with a 48" range and ignoring LOS.

Scouts' board control more than makes up for that long range damage gap. It's almost like utility abilities make stupid comparisons like this an exercise in futility.

Scouts dont give board control. They provide expensive, easily killed targets to your opponent.

This type of silly hyperbole serves only to derail this discussion further. For example, in many cases, your opponent focusing on killing a screen that can easily be replaced prior to the second turn, provided you've selected and deployed the right units correctly, is a benefit. But there are so many factors there that need to be considered, it's almost like assessing a unit on its own without accounting for synergies or role is ultimately worthless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:
HoLy Terra

23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard

Literally arguing that 9 scouts are as good as 9 mortars lool why hasn't the tournament scene caught up to this next level display of game comprehension yet

Well, scouts are the rage these days for marine focused armies, so...it has?

Scouts are popular because they are the cheapest way to pay the troop tax for a Battalion.

And yes Mortar HWT's are taken to fill out Brigades but you will still see them picked outside of that.

I still don't get why comparisons are being made to Space Marines.

Who here thinks Space Marines are the ideal balance point? Who here wants everyone to be just as good as Space Marines and no better?

Lemondish wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

Tyel wrote:
So Mortars do about 30% more damage in your scenario which is optimised for the scouts. Outside 12" they do... 160% more damage. Also with a 48" range and ignoring LOS.

Scouts' board control more than makes up for that long range damage gap. It's almost like utility abilities make stupid comparisons like this an exercise in futility.

Scouts dont give board control. They provide expensive, easily killed targets to your opponent.

This type of silly hyperbole serves only to derail this discussion further. For example, in many cases, your opponent focusing on killing a screen that can easily be replaced prior to the second turn, provided you've selected and deployed the right units correctly, is a benefit. But there are so many factors there that need to be considered, it's almost like assessing a unit on its own without accounting for synergies or role is ultimately worthless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:
HoLy Terra

23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard

Literally arguing that 9 scouts are as good as 9 mortars lool why hasn't the tournament scene caught up to this next level display of game comprehension yet

Well, scouts are the rage these days for marine focused armies, so...it has?

Oh yes scouts are dominating the meta right now, definitely seeing as much play and success as mortars

 JNAProductions wrote:
I still don't get why comparisons are being made to Space Marines.

Who here thinks Space Marines are the ideal balance point? Who here wants everyone to be just as good as Space Marines and no better?

I don't think it wise to balance anything by IG either. Do we want nine point tacticals? Thing is, it is easier to balance things when the numbers are bigger, as each point represents a smaller fraction of the overall cost. But let's meet in the middle, five point IG infantry, twelve point tacticals for example.

Lemondish wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

Tyel wrote:
So Mortars do about 30% more damage in your scenario which is optimised for the scouts. Outside 12" they do... 160% more damage. Also with a 48" range and ignoring LOS.

Scouts' board control more than makes up for that long range damage gap. It's almost like utility abilities make stupid comparisons like this an exercise in futility.

Scouts dont give board control. They provide expensive, easily killed targets to your opponent.

This type of silly hyperbole serves only to derail this discussion further. For example, in many cases, your opponent focusing on killing a screen that can easily be replaced prior to the second turn, provided you've selected and deployed the right units correctly, is a benefit. But there are so many factors there that need to be considered, it's almost like assessing a unit on its own without accounting for synergies or role is ultimately worthless.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SHUPPET wrote:
HoLy Terra

23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard

Literally arguing that 9 scouts are as good as 9 mortars lool why hasn't the tournament scene caught up to this next level display of game comprehension yet

Well, scouts are the rage these days for marine focused armies, so...it has?

It's not silly and not hyperbole. Its marines in 8th. 11 ppm is way too much for 4+ armor models with terrible weapons. Theres not as many factors as your pseudo-intellectual post would indicate. Scouts suck and bleed points. Just like most marine units that arent Bobby g or leviathan dread.

 Crimson wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I still don't get why comparisons are being made to Space Marines.

Who here thinks Space Marines are the ideal balance point? Who here wants everyone to be just as good as Space Marines and no better?

I don't think it wise to balance anything by IG either. Do we want nine point tacticals? Thing is, it is easier to balance things when the numbers are bigger, as each point represents a smaller fraction of the overall cost. But let's meet in the middle, five point IG infantry, twelve point tacticals for example.

That's fair.

Honestly, I'd say Marines actually have a desirable trait for balance-more durability than offense. I want stuff to last on the table, for at least a few turns.

But overall, I'd say the Guard Codex (with several viable builds, and most units having a place) is a much better balance spot than Marines.

 JNAProductions wrote:


But overall, I'd say the Guard Codex (with several viable builds, and most units having a place) is a much better balance spot than Marines.

There's very few people who would argue otherwise, but I'm sure you're in the exact right thread to find all 3 of them

 JNAProductions wrote:
I still don't get why comparisons are being made to Space Marines.

Who here thinks Space Marines are the ideal balance point? Who here wants everyone to be just as good as Space Marines and no better?

There are units imbalanced compared to other codices. You ignored that though.

For the last couple pages, the units I've seen compared are Mortars to Scouts, Whirlwinds, and that one Forgeworld Whirlwind.

If I missed any, could you point them out? (It's fully possible I did, I'd just like to know where to look.)

 JNAProductions wrote:
For the last couple pages, the units I've seen compared are Mortars to Scouts, Whirlwinds, and that one Forgeworld Whirlwind.

If I missed any, could you point them out? (It's fully possible I did, I'd just like to know where to look.)

I mean Infantry were directly compared to other troop choices including Fire Warriors which are amazing for the price.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
For the last couple pages, the units I've seen compared are Mortars to Scouts, Whirlwinds, and that one Forgeworld Whirlwind.

If I missed any, could you point them out? (It's fully possible I did, I'd just like to know where to look.)

I mean Infantry were directly compared to other troop choices including Fire Warriors which are amazing for the price.

Ah, I thought you were talking Mortars still.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
For the last couple pages, the units I've seen compared are Mortars to Scouts, Whirlwinds, and that one Forgeworld Whirlwind.

If I missed any, could you point them out? (It's fully possible I did, I'd just like to know where to look.)

I mean Infantry were directly compared to other troop choices including Fire Warriors which are amazing for the price.

Ah, I thought you were talking Mortars still.

Nah I wasn't part of that conversation. I think.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
For the last couple pages, the units I've seen compared are Mortars to Scouts, Whirlwinds, and that one Forgeworld Whirlwind.

If I missed any, could you point them out? (It's fully possible I did, I'd just like to know where to look.)

I mean Infantry were directly compared to other troop choices including Fire Warriors which are amazing for the price.

Yeah, but that was some really silly math. The method used was discutible, at best.

I do agree that the game would probably be better with IS at 5 points (it's only a minor issue in any case), but surely that math was not how you would try to demonstrate it

 JNAProductions wrote:
I still don't get why comparisons are being made to Space Marines.

Who here thinks Space Marines are the ideal balance point? Who here wants everyone to be just as good as Space Marines and no better?

If you want to be literal about it everyone who isn't a d-bag power gamer wants everyone to be "just as good as Space Marines and no better", that would mean that all the factions were balanced against each other. Whether that happens by everyone exept Marines getting nerfed (and poor, poor GKs getting buffed), or by Marines and GK getting significant buffs is irrelevant.

And to be fair, I do think the game would be more fun if the lethality got turned down a notch or three. That would put things closer to Marine teritory than anything else.

 SHUPPET wrote:
HoLy Terra

23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard, for like the 100th Guard thread in a row. The guy is utterly tireless

Literally arguing that 9 scouts are as good as 9 mortars lool why hasn't the tournament scene caught up to this next level display of game comprehension yet

Dude, do you have a personal grudge against me or something because I disagreed with you in previous threads? Read my posts, I never said that scouts were better than mortars, I was making a comparison to the equivalent points in scouts.

I have already said that I think guardsmen need to go to 5 points. Multiple times, and not only in this thread.

What I disagree with is this notion that Guard need to be worse than space marines, or that space marines are the "balancing point" where all factions need to be tuned around.

I get it, guard are on the higher end of the bell curve right now, but where are all the threads calling for Eldar/DE nerfs? My favorite faction is fething USABLE for once since 3rd edition (outside of small windows of vendetta spam in 5th, and leafblower parking lot in 6th). I don't mind measured nerfs to a few outstanding things in the guard arsenal, but I'd really rather not have Guard nerfed down to space marine levels and have them relegated to a shelf for another edition, because that is what people seem to be asking for.

Tyel wrote:
I think you are kidding yourself if you think 9 scouts are as useful as 9 mortars - and I suspect you know this.

I never claimed that scouts were better than mortars... I said they have comparable damage output.

My point was that 3 HWS of mortars has roughly the equivalent damage output to the same points in scouts. (Mortars do have slightly more).

If your 2K list cannot take the rough equivalent of scout squad firing at you from outside of LOS every turn, your list is bad and you are losing because your list is bad, not because IG is good.

Mortars are good, but you will only ever see 9 max in a 2K point game unless they are stuffing IS with them and that is a waste. The equivalent damage output of a 10 man scout squad. If you think this is gamebreaking... I don't know what to tell you because I don't think we will ever agree on a definition of "gamebreaking".

Look, Space Marines are garbage right now. The fact is that IG are better than marines in pretty much every way. That doesn't mean IG is OP, especially when IG isn't even the strongest mono-codex (Eldar) it means that marines need buffs or a codex rework. If you try to look at IG through the lens of a lower tier codex like SM, GK or necrons, IG is going to seem OP. You need to look at IG through the lens of the mid/upper tier codices like Eldar/DE/T'au/Tyranids, the difference in power is much less noticeable.

Why did you respond to BOTH posts saying that you said Scouts were AS GOOD AS mortars, with "I never said they were better!". Yeah, NEITHER of us said you did - that can't be an accident.


Nobody has a grudge against you, the second you stop downplaying Guard is the second people might take you seriously, because as it stands, its impossible.

w1zard wrote:

Mortars are good, but you will only ever see 9 max in a 2K point game unless they are stuffing IS with them and that is a waste. The equivalent damage output of a 10 man scout squad. If you think this is gamebreaking... I don't know what to tell you because I don't think we will ever agree on a definition of "gamebreaking".

Look, Space Marines are garbage right now. The fact is that IG are better than marines in pretty much every way. That doesn't mean IG is OP, especially when IG isn't even the strongest mono-codex (Eldar) it means that marines need buffs or a codex rework. If you try to look at IG through the lens of a lower tier codex like SM, GK or necrons, IG is going to seem OP. You need to look at IG through the lens of the mid/upper tier codices like Eldar/DE/T'au/Tyranids, the difference in power is much less noticeable.

Dude... what? Just... what? I can't even begin to understand the circular logic here. You were given the ENTIRE GAME to select from to pick a unit that matched Mortars - you CHOSE scouts. Don't blame the dex for being too weak, he disproved the comparison YOU chose, you were in no way limited to the SM dex.

Also saying that you'll only see 9 of them is stupid. If a unit is broken, it's broken. It doesn't matter if you can only take 1 or 15 of them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also saying that you'll only see 9 of them is stupid. If a unit is broken, it's broken. It doesn't matter if you can only take 1 or 15 of them.

So you're saying there was a points value that let flying hive tyrants be good, but not so good that you'd want to ever take more than three? Cause I can tell you that such a points value does not exist. Either you price it so high taking a single hive tyrant is a non-competitive option or it's low enough that you can still fit 5+ in a list. Rule of three fixed it because it turns out when you can stop something from being spammed, it changes the way the unit can be leveraged within the context of an army.

In this case, pre ro3, you had 15+ mortars in many IG lists. This was OP because you were able to direct enough volume of shots on targets with defensive buffs to ignore them and absorb losses to the mortars while still maintaining killing power. The fact you're capped at 9 means losses reduce proportional firepower more quickly and that you can't bring enough shots to overwhelm power armor in cover/-1 to hit units in a single turn's shooting, as the math several pages ago showed.

Are mortars still good? Yes. But they're not even close to being the lynchpin of a winning list. You could raise their cost to 10 points and top soup lists would just drop them and not notice the difference.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Why did you respond to BOTH posts saying that you said Scouts were AS GOOD AS mortars, with "I never said they were better!". Yeah, NEITHER of us said you did - that can't be an accident.

I never claimed scouts were "as good as" mortars either, you can reread my post again and practice your reading comprehension... I made a comparison, that is all.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Nobody has a grudge against you...

Ahem...

 SHUPPET wrote:
HoLy Terra

23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard, for like the 100th Guard thread in a row. The guy is utterly tireless...

 SHUPPET wrote:
...the second you stop downplaying Guard is the second people might take you seriously, because as it stands, its impossible.

..because it sure as feth sounds like you do. Apparently thinking that guardsmen need to go to 5 points, but not wanting to see guard be neutered or reduced to space marine levels of garbage tier makes me some sort of "guard apologist"? Sorry, I want my faction to be playable... hearing crap like "7ppm guardsmen" or "10 point mortars" and knowing that people actually, GENUINELY believe that those adjustments are fair makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also saying that you'll only see 9 of them is stupid. If a unit is broken, it's broken. It doesn't matter if you can only take 1 or 15 of them.

By that logic the rule of 3 is pointless, and should be rescinded.

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Why did you respond to BOTH posts saying that you said Scouts were AS GOOD AS mortars, with "I never said they were better!". Yeah, NEITHER of us said you did - that can't be an accident.

I never claimed scouts were "as good as" mortars either, you can reread my post again and practice your reading comprehension... I made a comparison, that is all.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Nobody has a grudge against you...

Ahem...

 SHUPPET wrote:
HoLy Terra

23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard, for like the 100th Guard thread in a row. The guy is utterly tireless...

 SHUPPET wrote:
...the second you stop downplaying Guard is the second people might take you seriously, because as it stands, its impossible.

..because it sure as feth sounds like you do.

Forming an opinion is a response to the posts you make. It's literally the only thing that can and should color my opinion of you. A grudge would be if I continued to feel this way even after the terrible, illogical posts stopped, which I just told you I wouldn't - you're fully capable of changing how people view you at any point, but you just have more interest in irrationally defending your army than doing so, so I doubt you ever will.

w1zard wrote:
Apparently thinking that guardsmen need to go to 5 points, but not wanting to see guard be neutered or reduced to space marine levels of garbage tier makes me some sort of "guard apologist"? Sorry, I want my faction to be playable... hearing crap like "7ppm guardsmen" or "10 point mortars" and knowing that people actually, GENUINELY believe that those adjustments are fair makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

What a strawman. You've argued for ages that Guardsmen should not be 5 points, or that if they do get nerfed to 5 points everyone elses infantry have to be nerfed too, completely invalidating it. At no point did I say 7ppm Guardsmen, nor did I see anyone else say it, nor did I agree with that, so why you are attributing that to my statements, isn't actually a surprise to me, because you care naught for logic or facts when going on one of your overly biased rants. Why would this time be any different I guess.

w1zard wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also saying that you'll only see 9 of them is stupid. If a unit is broken, it's broken. It doesn't matter if you can only take 1 or 15 of them.

By that logic the rule of 3 is pointless, and should be rescinded.

Actually rule of 3 is both beneficial whether this logic holds true or not. If he's wrong, that means by definition some units are broken if spammed, but if he's right, then rule of 3 stops the broken things currently in the gamebeing spammed. Unless you think this game is perfectly balanced of course.

The mortar is not a 5 point weapon. It's an 8 point weapon and the base cost of a HWT should be 10 because 2 guardsmen should be 5 points each.

That would pretty much fix them and yes - they will still be spammed because they are still only 18 points for an indirect fire weapon with 48" range. Can you believe that is what I pay for an intercessor right now?

Intercessor-S4, T4, 3+ BS, 3+ save, AP-1 on their gun, Objective Secured (usually), with many different beneficial Chapter Tactics (notably Raven Guard and Ultras, if using Bobby G)

Mortar HWT-12" of range, +2.5 shots at max range and +1.5 shots at 15" or less.

Also, by that logic, an Intercessor should cost twice what a Marine costs-double the wounds clearly must equal double the points.

I'm using the simple logic that a base HWT costs 8 because 2 guardsmen are 8 points. How many indirect shots can the marine take? Also - the guard units have great chapter tactics (reroll all hits for cadian orders)

 Xenomancers wrote:
I'm using the simple logic that a base HWT costs 8 because 2 guardsmen are 8 points. How many indirect shots can the marine take? Also - the guard units have great chapter tactics (reroll all hits for cadian orders)

If standing still. And getting an order. As opposed to Marines, who can apply that to every single unit who has a single model within 6" of a Chapter Master.

And again-a HWT is basically two Guardsmen, except they're extra vulnerable to multi-damage weapons. If they should cost twice what a regular Guardsmen costs, then an Intercessor (which is basically two Marines smooshed together) should be twice what a normal Marine is. Do you agree with that?

w1zard wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Why did you respond to BOTH posts saying that you said Scouts were AS GOOD AS mortars, with "I never said they were better!". Yeah, NEITHER of us said you did - that can't be an accident.

I never claimed scouts were "as good as" mortars either, you can reread my post again and practice your reading comprehension... I made a comparison, that is all.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Nobody has a grudge against you...

Ahem...

 SHUPPET wrote:
HoLy Terra

23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard, for like the 100th Guard thread in a row. The guy is utterly tireless...

 SHUPPET wrote:
...the second you stop downplaying Guard is the second people might take you seriously, because as it stands, its impossible.

..because it sure as feth sounds like you do. Apparently thinking that guardsmen need to go to 5 points, but not wanting to see guard be neutered or reduced to space marine levels of garbage tier makes me some sort of "guard apologist"? Sorry, I want my faction to be playable... hearing crap like "7ppm guardsmen" or "10 point mortars" and knowing that people actually, GENUINELY believe that those adjustments are fair makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also saying that you'll only see 9 of them is stupid. If a unit is broken, it's broken. It doesn't matter if you can only take 1 or 15 of them.

By that logic the rule of 3 is pointless, and should be rescinded.

Actually YEAH the Rule Of Three is pointless as long as models are imbalanced as they are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RogueApiary wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Also saying that you'll only see 9 of them is stupid. If a unit is broken, it's broken. It doesn't matter if you can only take 1 or 15 of them.

So you're saying there was a points value that let flying hive tyrants be good, but not so good that you'd want to ever take more than three? Cause I can tell you that such a points value does not exist. Either you price it so high taking a single hive tyrant is a non-competitive option or it's low enough that you can still fit 5+ in a list. Rule of three fixed it because it turns out when you can stop something from being spammed, it changes the way the unit can be leveraged within the context of an army.

In this case, pre ro3, you had 15+ mortars in many IG lists. This was OP because you were able to direct enough volume of shots on targets with defensive buffs to ignore them and absorb losses to the mortars while still maintaining killing power. The fact you're capped at 9 means losses reduce proportional firepower more quickly and that you can't bring enough shots to overwhelm power armor in cover/-1 to hit units in a single turn's shooting, as the math several pages ago showed.

Are mortars still good? Yes. But they're not even close to being the lynchpin of a winning list. You could raise their cost to 10 points and top soup lists would just drop them and not notice the difference.

Yeah the point value DOES exist. It's up to GW to find it. Personally I would've done maybe a 15-20 point increase for wings for starters. The wings were the cause of the whole problem after all.

So let's just say, for example, Terminators now all the sudden came with Assault Cannons for free, an extra attack, an extra wound, and had rerolling all hits and wounds on their Assault Cannons and Power Fists and all the sudden they're just 20 points total for everything.

What, exactly, is Rule Of Three going to fix? Yeah you only get three squads, but the squads are broken yes? In the same manner, we had just a few Special Characters last Edition and this Edition that needed an obvious fix, but did it matter you could only take one of them?

Of course the former example is an exaggeration, but it proves the point that if a unit is broken, then Rule Of Three does jack gak. GW needs to attempt to find that point value for Flying Tyrants.

 SHUPPET wrote:
HoLy Terra

23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard, for like the 100th Guard thread in a row. The guy is utterly tireless

Literally arguing that 9 scouts are as good as 9 mortars lool why hasn't the tournament scene caught up to this next level display of game comprehension yet

>Talks about the tournament scene
>Zomg haha scouts aren't dominating
>Forgets that mono guard isn't dominating the tournament scene and you can pull up just as many mono SM armies winning with G-man as mono guard armies winning

 Xenomancers wrote:
The mortar is not a 5 point weapon. It's an 8 point weapon and the base cost of a HWT should be 10 because 2 guardsmen should be 5 points each.

A heavy weapons team is not 2 guardsmen, it's a W2 guardsman. This is an important distinction.

That would pretty much fix them and yes - they will still be spammed because they are still only 18 points for an indirect fire weapon with 48" range. Can you believe that is what I pay for an intercessor right now?

You know, that's only a hair under what they were in previous editions (18ppm vs 20ppm)...where nobody ever took them and they were universally regarded as garbage despite being an indirect fire weapon with a 48" range. A two-thirds price increase is no joke.

Asmodios wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
HoLy Terra

23 pages deep and w1zard is still in here downplaying Guard, for like the 100th Guard thread in a row. The guy is utterly tireless

Literally arguing that 9 scouts are as good as 9 mortars lool why hasn't the tournament scene caught up to this next level display of game comprehension yet

>Talks about the tournament scene
>Zomg haha scouts aren't dominating
>Forgets that mono guard isn't dominating the tournament scene and you can pull up just as many mono SM armies winning with G-man as mono guard armies winning

>thinks allies are banned in tournament

lel