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.

Asymmetric points works in a world where you have to take some "bad" units as well as the good.

Its not a thing in 8th. If all troops were tactical marine bad maybe, but most are not.

A world where guard had to take overcosted infantry in order to take undercosted tanks might work. Or vice versa. But right now they get both which is why they are a great army, only made better with a CP-sink Knight.

I maintain that I'd be curious to see whether 4pt Infantry still caused issues if CP sharing was stopped.

 vipoid wrote:
I maintain that I'd be curious to see whether 4pt Infantry still caused issues if CP sharing was stopped.

No one doubts you'd be curious

 Marmatag wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I maintain that I'd be curious to see whether 4pt Infantry still caused issues if CP sharing was stopped.

No one doubts you'd be curious

I guess I walked into that one.

I am a little bummed that cultists got nerfed, but it still won't stop me from running them. I basically just used them in my Death Guard to fill up points and fill my battalion.

Dandelion wrote:
I could not disagree more. Points are there to be an objective gauge of relative strength, once you start discounting certain units, you break that objectivity and encourage spam. In the context of guard, giving the standard infantry a discount would disincentive players from running vets, scions, ogryns etc... and that's not what we want. We want diversity of lists. People will just double down on the "strengths" and ignore the "weaknesses". It is also simply unfair to those players that do not want to run the discounted units for whatever reason.

Dandelion wrote:
Lastly, if points are not objective gauges of strength/performance then what's the point in having them at all? Just play open play at that point because you'll never be able to have even matches anyway. Points need to be objective or they're worthless.

Agreed.

w1zard wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
I could not disagree more. Points are there to be an objective gauge of relative strength, once you start discounting certain units, you break that objectivity and encourage spam. In the context of guard, giving the standard infantry a discount would disincentive players from running vets, scions, ogryns etc... and that's not what we want. We want diversity of lists. People will just double down on the "strengths" and ignore the "weaknesses". It is also simply unfair to those players that do not want to run the discounted units for whatever reason.

Dandelion wrote:
Lastly, if points are not objective gauges of strength/performance then what's the point in having them at all? Just play open play at that point because you'll never be able to have even matches anyway. Points need to be objective or they're worthless.

Agreed.

Yep. Agreed as well.

 Crimson wrote:

w1zard wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
I could not disagree more. Points are there to be an objective gauge of relative strength, once you start discounting certain units, you break that objectivity and encourage spam. In the context of guard, giving the standard infantry a discount would disincentive players from running vets, scions, ogryns etc... and that's not what we want. We want diversity of lists. People will just double down on the "strengths" and ignore the "weaknesses". It is also simply unfair to those players that do not want to run the discounted units for whatever reason.

Dandelion wrote:
Lastly, if points are not objective gauges of strength/performance then what's the point in having them at all? Just play open play at that point because you'll never be able to have even matches anyway. Points need to be objective or they're worthless.

Agreed.

Yep. Agreed as well.

Also agree, we have extra minor abilities for point exempt flavor. If cultists and infantry squads had the same statline but different means of being buffed or different inherent bonuses they'd be worth the same points. As it is cultists are more similar to conscripts which are essentially worthless. Or looking at Fire Warrior Strike teams vs Skitarii Rangers, they fill the same role of 5 bodies at T3/4+sv that do good ranged damage for 35pts. Very different weapons and means of buffing but asymmetrically balanced.

I wonder if infantry squads didn't get a pts increase to prevent a cyber 17 replacing loyal 32, but TPD are expensive and TPE don't do anything synergistic so the 32 would still be alright imo. Then again FW and rangers could tolerate being 8ppm if ig go up to 5ppm especially if board control is becoming more important for missions.

I might take exception to Necrons troops to an extent as they don't have allies or chaff and their abilities somewhat favor larger blobs making the tax extra heavy.

w1zard wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
I could not disagree more. Points are there to be an objective gauge of relative strength, once you start discounting certain units, you break that objectivity and encourage spam. In the context of guard, giving the standard infantry a discount would disincentive players from running vets, scions, ogryns etc... and that's not what we want. We want diversity of lists. People will just double down on the "strengths" and ignore the "weaknesses". It is also simply unfair to those players that do not want to run the discounted units for whatever reason.

Dandelion wrote:
Lastly, if points are not objective gauges of strength/performance then what's the point in having them at all? Just play open play at that point because you'll never be able to have even matches anyway. Points need to be objective or they're worthless.

Agreed.

I would be fine with guardsman being discounted if they still had to buy them in platoons for a single troop choice. that way you would have a real choice between conscripts, guardsman and veterans

Dandelion wrote:
could not disagree more. Points are there to be an objective gauge of relative strength

Should 2000pts of Land Raiders have an equal chance of winning against 2000pts of Knights?

Should 2000pts of bare-bones Marines (with some bare-bones Captains thrown in as HQs) have an equal chance of winning against 2000pts of Knights?

 vipoid wrote:

Dandelion wrote:
could not disagree more. Points are there to be an objective gauge of relative strength

Should 2000pts of Land Raiders have an equal chance of winning against 2000pts of Knights?

Should 2000pts of bare-bones Marines (with some bare-bones Captains thrown in as HQs) have an equal chance of winning against 2000pts of Knights?

Absolutely not, in my opinion. All interactions should have an element of rock-paper-scissors to them.

That isn't to say that a whole army is "Rock" and another is "Scissors", and therefore Rock always wins that match up. Not at all, that's terrible.

It's to say that army A might have easier access to Rock and Scissors, but struggle to bring much Paper efficiently.

Except imagine it with dozens of these things instead of 3.

It leads to far more strategy in list building than just "I can bring whatever and have an equal chance of winning".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Addendum:

The main reason this is failing in 40k at the moment is that there is no trade off for soup. At least not meaningfully.

In MtG, you can take 2, 3, 4, or even all 5 colours in your deck. And in that way bring the most efficient draw, removal, creatures, and so on. But the more colours you take the more you have to contend with a difficult to manage mana base to access all these effects.

40k needs an analogue to that, that's all.

 vipoid wrote:
I maintain that I'd be curious to see whether 4pt Infantry still caused issues if CP sharing was stopped.

Well as they’re the most points efficient troop in the game in terms of durability and offensive output I think we can make a pretty safe assumption.

The only likely change is that those Imperial Soup players would switch to pure AM.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I maintain that I'd be curious to see whether 4pt Infantry still caused issues if CP sharing was stopped.

Well as they’re the most points efficient troop in the game in terms of durability and offensive output I think we can make a pretty safe assumption.

The only likely change is that those Imperial Soup players would switch to pure AM.

I'm not convinced pure AM would be tournament winning. Which is part of why I don't think 4pt Guardsmen is an issue outside of soup.

I don't understand point reductions on Russ weapons and Tank Commanders though. That's a head scratcher.

 Stux wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I maintain that I'd be curious to see whether 4pt Infantry still caused issues if CP sharing was stopped.

Well as they’re the most points efficient troop in the game in terms of durability and offensive output I think we can make a pretty safe assumption.

The only likely change is that those Imperial Soup players would switch to pure AM.

I'm not convinced pure AM would be tournament winning. Which is part of why I don't think 4pt Guardsmen is an issue outside of soup.

I don't understand point reductions on Russ weapons and Tank Commanders though. That's a head scratcher.

Meh the russ weapons make sense, as in everything got cheaper instead of the BC variant, because the BC variant was the only really good one.
(let's be honest, nobody would pay 25 pts for an exterminator autocannon when you can pay 22 for a bc.)

Yeah that's true... Still, Commanders? 20pts for Orders and a BS increase is an insane price.

 Stux wrote:
Yeah that's true... Still, Commanders? 20pts for Orders and a BS increase is an insane price.

Case in point, i said i would understand leman russ weapon price drops, why commanders got additionally, i honestly can't understand.

Same though with veterans. They should've just been moved back to the troop slot.

Edit: maybee they want that people not take always pask over the other aces.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yeah that's true... Still, Commanders? 20pts for Orders and a BS increase is an insane price.

Case in point, i said i would understand leman russ weapon price drops, why commanders got additionally, i honestly can't understand.

Same though with veterans. They should've just been moved back to the troop slot.

Edit: maybee they want that people not take always pask over the other aces.

I'd still always take Pask. BS 2+ is just too good.

 Stux wrote:
I'd still always take Pask. BS 2+ is just too good.

Pask is good but now is 35 points more than a tank commander, which is a fair few points. Also, Pask can't get the awesome new relic battle cannon. So whilst Pask is still a great choice, he is nowhere near as much of a must-take as he used to be.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I'd still always take Pask. BS 2+ is just too good.

Pask is good but now is 35 points more than a tank commander, which is a fair few points. Also, Pask can't get the awesome new relic battle cannon. So whilst Pask is still a great choice, he is nowhere near as much of a must-take as he used to be.

Technically the new Battlecannon doesn't work with Grinding Advance, so is actually worse. But hopefully that will get FAQ'd.

Thing is though, Pask was awesome. Tank Commanders getting cheaper doesn't change that, it just makes Tank Commanders awesome too.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I'd still always take Pask. BS 2+ is just too good.

Pask is good but now is 35 points more than a tank commander, which is a fair few points. Also, Pask can't get the awesome new relic battle cannon. So whilst Pask is still a great choice, he is nowhere near as much of a must-take as he used to be.

Does he need the new Battlecannon when he spits out 40 shots at BS2+? Not really.

Those 35 points are basically for the BS2+ and avoiding Rule Of 3 like the rest of the Russes do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
I maintain that I'd be curious to see whether 4pt Infantry still caused issues if CP sharing was stopped.

Everyone would still take them for the bodies. The super cheap 5+ is invaluable for holding objectives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stux wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I'd still always take Pask. BS 2+ is just too good.

Pask is good but now is 35 points more than a tank commander, which is a fair few points. Also, Pask can't get the awesome new relic battle cannon. So whilst Pask is still a great choice, he is nowhere near as much of a must-take as he used to be.

Technically the new Battlecannon doesn't work with Grinding Advance, so is actually worse. But hopefully that will get FAQ'd.

Thing is though, Pask was awesome. Tank Commanders getting cheaper doesn't change that, it just makes Tank Commanders awesome too.

I'm curious why the relic doesn't work. Grinding Advance is a rule for the Russ, and it's a Turret weapon.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Stux wrote:
I'd still always take Pask. BS 2+ is just too good.

Pask is good but now is 35 points more than a tank commander, which is a fair few points. Also, Pask can't get the awesome new relic battle cannon. So whilst Pask is still a great choice, he is nowhere near as much of a must-take as he used to be.

The point drop makes a little more sense in that context.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'm curious why the relic doesn't work. Grinding Advance is a rule for the Russ, and it's a Turret weapon.

Not really the thread for it, it isn't exactly about cultists! But as a quick summary, and hopefully not annoy the hordes of Chaos too much, Grinding Advance has a list of guns it defines as turret weapons, and Hammer of Sunderance is not on it.

Not Online!!! wrote:

(let's be honest, nobody would pay 25 pts for an exterminator autocannon when you can pay 22 for a bc.)

Guaranteed 4 shots and upto 8 damage vs random shot and random damage...
I'll take Exterminators thanks.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I maintain that I'd be curious to see whether 4pt Infantry still caused issues if CP sharing was stopped.

Well as they’re the most points efficient troop in the game in terms of durability and offensive output I think we can make a pretty safe assumption.

The only likely change is that those Imperial Soup players would switch to pure AM.

Except this doesn't hold up in reality. Guardsmen have not changed price the entire edition yet neither mono guard or massed guardsmen have been a top tier list at any point in 8th. The only mono guard lists that were ever consistently placing in 8th were

1. conscript spam with earthshakers (both adjusted very quickly)
2. Hellhound spam (points just went up and even when this was an issue other spam lists were better. Also, the rule of 3 knocked this one out)

Dakka always loves to claim that mono guard is some competitive top dog army while it's simply not. Guard have needed at least one CP super unit in their army in order to contend at every point this edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Stux wrote:
Yeah that's true... Still, Commanders? 20pts for Orders and a BS increase is an insane price.

Case in point, i said i would understand leman russ weapon price drops, why commanders got additionally, i honestly can't understand.

Same though with veterans. They should've just been moved back to the troop slot.

Edit: maybee they want that people not take always pask over the other aces.

Either of you ever run tank commanders pre CA? let me tell you that anything that killed a knight killed them 10x faster and they can't be hidden like other commanders/ are too large to sit out of LOS on many boards. What you ended up with was 1-2 dead and 1-2 last profile tank commanders turn 1 that did nothing till they died on the next turn. Its why you never saw them previously. Hopefully, with this change, they see the board a bit more. This is the one change I'm surprised people are really worried about. I still don't think tank commanders will be a widely taken unit post-CA. If they are though just bump the points in the next FAQ

ValentineGames wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

(let's be honest, nobody would pay 25 pts for an exterminator autocannon when you can pay 22 for a bc.)

Guaranteed 4 shots and upto 8 damage vs random shot and random damage...
I'll take Exterminators thanks.

While you get a guaranteed number of shots with the autocannon, each shot is dramatically inferior and the average for the Russ is around the same number of shots. The Battlecannon is averaging about 50% more damage against targets like MEQ infantry and Monsters/Vehicles, while matching the Exterminator Autocannon against weeny infantry like Orks and Guardsmen, with better range to boot. Yeah, it's more variable, but that variance is weighted higher than the average is for the autocannon, and the potential maximum damage output is dramatically higher as well.

 Stux wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I maintain that I'd be curious to see whether 4pt Infantry still caused issues if CP sharing was stopped.

Well as they’re the most points efficient troop in the game in terms of durability and offensive output I think we can make a pretty safe assumption.

The only likely change is that those Imperial Soup players would switch to pure AM.

I'm not convinced pure AM would be tournament winning. Which is part of why I don't think 4pt Guardsmen is an issue outside of soup.

I don't understand point reductions on Russ weapons and Tank Commanders though. That's a head scratcher.

Well mono Guard has already won man, they’ve won major tournaments (against soup lists). To me if a unit is mathematically better than all others and is taken in abundance it should highlight that the unit needs to be changed.

Asmodios wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I maintain that I'd be curious to see whether 4pt Infantry still caused issues if CP sharing was stopped.

Well as they’re the most points efficient troop in the game in terms of durability and offensive output I think we can make a pretty safe assumption.

The only likely change is that those Imperial Soup players would switch to pure AM.

Except this doesn't hold up in reality. Guardsmen have not changed price the entire edition yet neither mono guard or massed guardsmen have been a top tier list at any point in 8th. The only mono guard lists that were ever consistently placing in 8th were

1. conscript spam with earthshakers (both adjusted very quickly)
2. Hellhound spam (points just went up and even when this was an issue other spam lists were better. Also, the rule of 3 knocked this one out)

Dakka always loves to claim that mono guard is some competitive top dog army while it's simply not. Guard have needed at least one CP super unit in their army in order to contend at every point this edition.

Except we know this is false. AM have been competing on the top tables the entirety of 8th since their codex dropped. Not only with soup lists either. Pure AM have won a number of major tournaments. You know this, I’ve discussed it with you in another topic. In addition you’ll notice that Infantry feature in abundance in every single competitive AM or Imperium list.

Mathematically Infantry are more efficient than any other troop point for point, which might explain why they are so popular in lists. They outshoot Fire Warriors, Skitari rangers, Cultists. They are more durable than any other troop point for point, a problem compounded by cover, orders and their flexibility with heavy weapons (to hide out of site but still damage the enemy).

I disagree that Guard require a super CP unit to compete too. The primary reason people take Knights or Smash Captains is because they serve a very specific purpose and provide your opponent with a big problem. Imagine soup was banned from tournaments, do you think Knights would be taken over AM? I don’t.

Either way you’re a Guard apologist, I’ve seen that from previous posts. Your bias is unreal. If Cultists are 5ppm, so are Infantry. No question.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Stux wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I maintain that I'd be curious to see whether 4pt Infantry still caused issues if CP sharing was stopped.

Well as they’re the most points efficient troop in the game in terms of durability and offensive output I think we can make a pretty safe assumption.

The only likely change is that those Imperial Soup players would switch to pure AM.

I'm not convinced pure AM would be tournament winning. Which is part of why I don't think 4pt Guardsmen is an issue outside of soup.

I don't understand point reductions on Russ weapons and Tank Commanders though. That's a head scratcher.

Well mono Guard has already won man, they’ve won major tournaments (against soup lists). To me if a unit is mathematically better than all others and is taken in abundance it should highlight that the unit needs to be changed.

Asmodios wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
I maintain that I'd be curious to see whether 4pt Infantry still caused issues if CP sharing was stopped.

Well as they’re the most points efficient troop in the game in terms of durability and offensive output I think we can make a pretty safe assumption.

The only likely change is that those Imperial Soup players would switch to pure AM.

Except this doesn't hold up in reality. Guardsmen have not changed price the entire edition yet neither mono guard or massed guardsmen have been a top tier list at any point in 8th. The only mono guard lists that were ever consistently placing in 8th were

1. conscript spam with earthshakers (both adjusted very quickly)
2. Hellhound spam (points just went up and even when this was an issue other spam lists were better. Also, the rule of 3 knocked this one out)

Dakka always loves to claim that mono guard is some competitive top dog army while it's simply not. Guard have needed at least one CP super unit in their army in order to contend at every point this edition.

Except we know this is false. AM have been competing on the top tables the entirety of 8th since their codex dropped. Not only with soup lists either. Pure AM have won a number of major tournaments. You know this, I’ve discussed it with you in another topic. In addition you’ll notice that Infantry feature in abundance in every single competitive AM or Imperium list.

Mathematically Infantry are more efficient than any other troop point for point, which might explain why they are so popular in lists. They outshoot Fire Warriors, Skitari rangers, Cultists. They are more durable than any other troop point for point, a problem compounded by cover, orders and their flexibility with heavy weapons (to hide out of site but still damage the enemy).

I disagree that Guard require a super CP unit to compete too. The primary reason people take Knights or Smash Captains is because they serve a very specific purpose and provide your opponent with a big problem. Imagine soup was banned from tournaments, do you think Knights would be taken over AM? I don’t.

Either way you’re a Guard apologist, I’ve seen that from previous posts. Your bias is unreal. If Cultists are 5ppm, so are Infantry. No question.

No IG + (insert random soup here) have won top events. The fact is SM, Orks, Tau, Eldar, DE have all won more events then mono guard. Other then early in the edition before conscript fix mono guard have not consistantly won anything. Sorry but taking a knight and dumping all your CP into it doesnt show how broken guard is.... it simply highlights the issue with soup

Cultist spam was (is?) a viable competitive list.
Infantry squad spam never won anything.

That already tells you that there was a problem with cultists and not with guards, so GW correctly nerfed the cultists. We can disagree on the way chosen to nerf them, maybe there was a better way, but a nerf was needed.

Guards are not a problem right now, people hate them because "mathematically" they are too good. Actual results though show that the game is not suffering due to guards being 4 ppm. Maybe that they should be 5 ppm? Yeah maybe, but in actual game priority this is as important as making kroots viable, nothing would change in the meta.

That is because in a logic of asymmetrical balance, they work correctly at 4 points. Remember that asymmetrical balance is the same one that was used by warmahordes MK2, which was considered the example of a balanced wargame.

Regarding the Tank commanders receiving a cost buff, the only thing i can think is that they are going to be BS 4+, so that there is no longer the problem of weapons costing the same for BS3+ and 4+ tanks.

Spoletta wrote:
Cultist spam was (is?) a viable competitive list.
Infantry squad spam never won anything.

this is quite possibly the least accurate summary of the pre-CA meta I've ever seen.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Mathematically Infantry are more efficient than any other troop point for point, which might explain why they are so popular in lists. They outshoot Fire Warriors, Skitari rangers, Cultists. They are more durable than any other troop point for point, a problem compounded by cover, orders and their flexibility with heavy weapons (to hide out of site but still damage the enemy).

... If Cultists are 5ppm, so are Infantry. No question.

I've done the math myself, so I have to actually agree with this. But, I was also merely stating that I think points should be an objective measurement of battlefield strength, and that if guardsmen are 4ppm, it makes no sense why cultists are 5 ppm. Therefore the obvious solution becomes raise guardsmen to 5 ppm .