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.
I think it's not that there's a 0% win-rate, it's that they've never placed highest out of all the mono lists at any tournament.
Asmodios has the data (as I've seen him make this argument probably eighty times without it being refuted), but the general theme is:
- Mono lists don't usually show up in the top 10, but are present in the top 25 of most tournaments. - Of those high-placing mono lists, guard are present, but have never actually done the best - The ones Asmodios has listed have actually been the armies that place on the top, if soup lists are disregarded.
So essentially, if you take tournament data and strip out every list that takes its army from more than one Codex, Guard are absolutely top tier, but they're top tier with other people (DE, Tau, etc), rather than just being ridiculously OP and everyone else having to kneel at their feet.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/19 16:22:44
but let's look at the scenario that advantages the fire warrior the most, shooting at GEQ:
Kabalite (6ppm) - 2 shots -> (4/3) hits -> (2/3) wounds -> (4/9) unsaved wounds -> (2/27) unsaved wounds per point during one shooting phase ~ 0.074
Fire warrior (8ppm) - 2 shots -> 1 hit -> (5/6) wounds -> (5/9) unsaved wounds -> (5/72) unsaved wounds per point during one shooting phase ~0.069
Kabalite still has better damage output per point than a fire warrior does, even against the fire warrior's "best" target.
If you want to look at the scenario that advantages Fire Warriors the most, then surely you should be looking at vehicles (which Kabalites can only ever wound on 6s)?
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.
Sluggaloo wrote: The fact that you can bring almost twice the amount of guard infantry as ork boyz feels just wrong. I think the +1 pt to ork boyz and cultists was fair, but I am dumbfounded at people defending 4 pt guardsmen... How is this even a discussion.
Because they have a case of don't nerf me guard itis.
Symptoms include passionate pleading that soup is the issue, it's all soups fault, guard are weak.
If left untreated "don't nerf me guard itis" maye result in vomiting falsehoods as facts.
Be on the lookout for "don't nerf me gaurd itis", do your civic duty and report them to the inquisition for treatment.
Its so ironic seeing "pleading that soup is the issue" as "vomiting falsehoods" yet can you provide any data that suggests otherwise? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that every winning "guard" list since the conscript nerf has been soup? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that SM, Orks, DE, Eldar, Tau all have more mono GT wins then guard? Do you have any evidence that suggests the issue is guardsmen in and of themselves and not simply there ability to provide CP to elite armies like knights? I'd be all for a guard increase in points if I believed they were the issue and not simply soup (like all data suggests). Why not address the issue of shared CP pools and then fine tweak points instead of increasing guard by a point which won't change any of those loyal 32 lists? I think it would actually be nice to see some mono imperial lists from time to time at the top tables but as long as CP is shared with no drawback your going to simply see buffs/nerfs that only make sense in the context of uninhibited souping and ruin the chances of any mono faction to truly compete.
Congratulations on making the point perfectly
1 you didn't actually read what was writen
2 You haven't actually addressed anything said
3 you've gone all out on trying to change the narrative (futher reinforcing the stero type)
4 You have history of arguing that 1400 points of guard plus a knight is soup and doesn't show guard as anything but weak, that 1600 points of guard plus 3 dawn eagles is soup and hence shows nothing but that guard are weak.
You refuse to admit that players dont take 1400 to 1600 points of weakness and go win tournaments.
But you do you, arguing with guard apologists is kinda like arguing with a religious zealot, no matter what evidence or facts you present they have their beliefs and they'll die for them.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think it's not that there's a 0% win-rate, it's that they've never placed highest out of all the mono lists at any tournament.
Asmodios has the data (as I've seen him make this argument probably eighty times without it being refuted), but the general theme is:
- Mono lists don't usually show up in the top 10, but are present in the top 25 of most tournaments.
- Of those high-placing mono lists, guard are present, but have never actually done the best
- The ones Asmodios has listed have actually been the armies that place on the top, if soup lists are disregarded.
So essentially, if you take tournament data and strip out every list that takes its army from more than one Codex, Guard are absolutely top tier, but they're top tier with other people (DE, Tau, etc), rather than just being ridiculously OP and everyone else having to kneel at their feet.
So according to his data.. imperial players can choose between bullgryns or smash captains. No wonder you have most guard players opting for a non-mono guard army. Actual relevant data for guard's standings versus other mono-faction armies would be from results of MONO-FACTION ONLY TOURNAMENTS. Where guard would still do well. Instead of relying on smash captains for melee threat, or custodes, they will rely on bullgryns instead. Just because you have a bazillion options to choose from, some of which are better than your codex equivalent, does not mean your codex would suffer in a mono-faction environment.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think it's not that there's a 0% win-rate, it's that they've never placed highest out of all the mono lists at any tournament.
Asmodios has the data (as I've seen him make this argument probably eighty times without it being refuted), but the general theme is:
- Mono lists don't usually show up in the top 10, but are present in the top 25 of most tournaments.
- Of those high-placing mono lists, guard are present, but have never actually done the best
- The ones Asmodios has listed have actually been the armies that place on the top, if soup lists are disregarded.
So essentially, if you take tournament data and strip out every list that takes its army from more than one Codex, Guard are absolutely top tier, but they're top tier with other people (DE, Tau, etc), rather than just being ridiculously OP and everyone else having to kneel at their feet.
He yet again every time he's been asked for player names or win history, goes quite, because the top competitive player's arn't going to play moni when their is no downside to playing soup, the fact that relatively unknowns are taking mono guard to the same level as the top players of the forced mono factions shows just how OP they are mono codex to mono codex.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think it's not that there's a 0% win-rate, it's that they've never placed highest out of all the mono lists at any tournament.
Asmodios has the data (as I've seen him make this argument probably eighty times without it being refuted), but the general theme is:
- Mono lists don't usually show up in the top 10, but are present in the top 25 of most tournaments. - Of those high-placing mono lists, guard are present, but have never actually done the best - The ones Asmodios has listed have actually been the armies that place on the top, if soup lists are disregarded.
So essentially, if you take tournament data and strip out every list that takes its army from more than one Codex, Guard are absolutely top tier, but they're top tier with other people (DE, Tau, etc), rather than just being ridiculously OP and everyone else having to kneel at their feet.
So according to his data.. imperial players can choose between bullgryns or smash captains. No wonder you have most guard players opting for a non-mono guard army. Actual relevant data for guard's standings versus other mono-faction armies would be from results of MONO-FACTION ONLY TOURNAMENTS. Where guard would still do well. Instead of relying on smash captains for melee threat, or custodes, they will rely on bullgryns instead. Just because you have a bazillion options to choose from, some of which are better than your codex equivalent, does not mean your codex would suffer in a mono-faction environment.
Right, that's the point.
Guard would absolutely do well and no one is denying that. What people are saying, is they aren't the best ever or head and shoulders above everyone else. They'd be among the top tier (as I mentioned in the very post you quoted) but so would a variety of other mono-codexes (such as the examples given), which is a Good Thing™, and should be the position everyone is in.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think it's not that there's a 0% win-rate, it's that they've never placed highest out of all the mono lists at any tournament.
Asmodios has the data (as I've seen him make this argument probably eighty times without it being refuted), but the general theme is:
- Mono lists don't usually show up in the top 10, but are present in the top 25 of most tournaments. - Of those high-placing mono lists, guard are present, but have never actually done the best - The ones Asmodios has listed have actually been the armies that place on the top, if soup lists are disregarded.
So essentially, if you take tournament data and strip out every list that takes its army from more than one Codex, Guard are absolutely top tier, but they're top tier with other people (DE, Tau, etc), rather than just being ridiculously OP and everyone else having to kneel at their feet.
He yet again every time he's been asked for player names or win history, goes quite, because the top competitive player's arn't going to play moni when their is no downside to playing soup, the fact that relatively unknowns are taking mono guard to the same level as the top players of the forced mono factions shows just how OP they are mono codex to mono codex.
I can't even parse what you said. First of all, player names and win history aren't available - all that's usually available is FACTION (MONO/NOT MONO) and PLACEMENT. Sometimes you can get the lists.
I would be willing to concede that it's unknown how a mono-codex-only tournament would go, but I suspect there would be a variety of lists at the top, weighting a bit towards Drukhari and CWE.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/19 16:38:55
I just don't understand why he's bothering to point out that guard have less mono-faction wins than armies that can't even soup, pointing at data from tournaments that don't punish soup at all. Ridiculous goal-posting. /Rant
Sluggaloo wrote: I just don't understand why he's bothering to point out that guard have less mono-faction wins than armies that can't even soup, pointing at data from tournaments that don't punish soup at all. Ridiculous goal-posting. /Rant
I think the point is that, with the data available, mono-guard has peers. While the data available are limited, there's not really any other information available besides pure speculation and contextually-independent math, which inevitably devolves into the discussion about context.
Without information, there's not very much utility in debating. I can, for example, assert that in my local meta, a mono-Drukhari list has tabled my Mono-Guard, my Soup Guard (though it did better), a friend's Mono-Guard, another friend's tournament preparation mono-guard, and others. It's currently the "List To Beat" in my local meta. However, my local meta isn't as much data as a tournament, so that's useless.
Sluggaloo wrote: I just don't understand why he's bothering to point out that guard have less mono-faction wins than armies that can't even soup, pointing at data from tournaments that don't punish soup at all. Ridiculous goal-posting. /Rant
I think the point is that, with the data available, mono-guard has peers. While the data available are limited, there's not really any other information available besides pure speculation and contextually-independent math, which inevitably devolves into the discussion about context.
Without information, there's not very much utility in debating. I can, for example, assert that in my local meta, a mono-Drukhari list has tabled my Mono-Guard, my Soup Guard (though it did better), a friend's Mono-Guard, another friend's tournament preparation mono-guard, and others. It's currently the "List To Beat" in my local meta. However, my local meta isn't as much data as a tournament, so that's useless.
So because the data doesn't show it we can't hit units are clearly a problem? That's basically the argument he's been making all along.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Sluggaloo wrote: I just don't understand why he's bothering to point out that guard have less mono-faction wins than armies that can't even soup, pointing at data from tournaments that don't punish soup at all. Ridiculous goal-posting. /Rant
I think the point is that, with the data available, mono-guard has peers. While the data available are limited, there's not really any other information available besides pure speculation and contextually-independent math, which inevitably devolves into the discussion about context.
Without information, there's not very much utility in debating. I can, for example, assert that in my local meta, a mono-Drukhari list has tabled my Mono-Guard, my Soup Guard (though it did better), a friend's Mono-Guard, another friend's tournament preparation mono-guard, and others. It's currently the "List To Beat" in my local meta. However, my local meta isn't as much data as a tournament, so that's useless.
So because the data doesn't show it we can't hit units are clearly a problem? That's basically the argument he's been making all along.
Yes?
That's how data works. To argue a point that the data doesn't show is ... silly. The only reliable way to determine if a unit is a problem in the first place is to consult the data. Anything else is just saying "I think this unit is a problem because X", which is not valuable.
Sluggaloo wrote: I just don't understand why he's bothering to point out that guard have less mono-faction wins than armies that can't even soup, pointing at data from tournaments that don't punish soup at all. Ridiculous goal-posting. /Rant
I think the point is that, with the data available, mono-guard has peers. While the data available are limited, there's not really any other information available besides pure speculation and contextually-independent math, which inevitably devolves into the discussion about context.
Without information, there's not very much utility in debating. I can, for example, assert that in my local meta, a mono-Drukhari list has tabled my Mono-Guard, my Soup Guard (though it did better), a friend's Mono-Guard, another friend's tournament preparation mono-guard, and others. It's currently the "List To Beat" in my local meta. However, my local meta isn't as much data as a tournament, so that's useless.
So because the data doesn't show it we can't hit units are clearly a problem? That's basically the argument he's been making all along.
This. "Oh everyone and their mum is bringing IG, but it's only because 180pts gets you 5cp.. their points are totally ok".
1400 points of guard+Castellan>2000 points of guard.
Pretty sure you could express this mathematically if you wanted to, and yes it fits "the data".
What doesn't automatically follow is that because the above exists and is top tier, guard are fine on their own, the castellan is fine on its own, but there is this magical thing called soup which is a problem.
I mean fine - nerf the soup. Then look at the meta. But so long as GW won't do that, and there are reasons why they might never accept it as necessary, they need to nerf either the guard, or the castellan, or preferably both.
Sluggaloo wrote: I just don't understand why he's bothering to point out that guard have less mono-faction wins than armies that can't even soup, pointing at data from tournaments that don't punish soup at all. Ridiculous goal-posting. /Rant
I think the point is that, with the data available, mono-guard has peers. While the data available are limited, there's not really any other information available besides pure speculation and contextually-independent math, which inevitably devolves into the discussion about context.
Without information, there's not very much utility in debating. I can, for example, assert that in my local meta, a mono-Drukhari list has tabled my Mono-Guard, my Soup Guard (though it did better), a friend's Mono-Guard, another friend's tournament preparation mono-guard, and others. It's currently the "List To Beat" in my local meta. However, my local meta isn't as much data as a tournament, so that's useless.
So because the data doesn't show it we can't hit units are clearly a problem? That's basically the argument he's been making all along.
This. "Oh everyone and their mum is bringing IG, but it's only because 180pts gets you 5cp.. their points are totally ok".
Well, no. I recognize that's silly, because there's cheaper battalions out there.
What people are bringing IG for is their firepower and numbers. Those numbers are very valuable screening something as strong as a Knight Castellan, and that firepower is very valuable supporting something like Smash Captains or whatever (as are the CP).
The argument is that numbers and firepower are all IG have, without the durability and sheer craziness of the Castellan, nor the melee power of the Smash Captain. Bringing mono-guard means simply bringing more of the same, which is considerably easier to defeat than soup.
1350 points of guard with a Castellan are much stronger than 2000 points of Guard, even though Guard make up the majority of the first list.
Sluggaloo wrote: I just don't understand why he's bothering to point out that guard have less mono-faction wins than armies that can't even soup, pointing at data from tournaments that don't punish soup at all. Ridiculous goal-posting. /Rant
I think the point is that, with the data available, mono-guard has peers. While the data available are limited, there's not really any other information available besides pure speculation and contextually-independent math, which inevitably devolves into the discussion about context.
Without information, there's not very much utility in debating. I can, for example, assert that in my local meta, a mono-Drukhari list has tabled my Mono-Guard, my Soup Guard (though it did better), a friend's Mono-Guard, another friend's tournament preparation mono-guard, and others. It's currently the "List To Beat" in my local meta. However, my local meta isn't as much data as a tournament, so that's useless.
So because the data doesn't show it we can't hit units are clearly a problem? That's basically the argument he's been making all along.
This. "Oh everyone and their mum is bringing IG, but it's only because 180pts gets you 5cp.. their points are totally ok".
Well, no. I recognize that's silly, because there's cheaper battalions out there.
What people are bringing IG for is their firepower and numbers. Those numbers are very valuable screening something as strong as a Knight Castellan, and that firepower is very valuable supporting something like Smash Captains or whatever (as are the CP).
The argument is that numbers and firepower are all IG have, without the durability and sheer craziness of the Castellan, nor the melee power of the Smash Captain. Bringing mono-guard means simply bringing more of the same, which is considerably easier to defeat than soup.
1350 points of guard with a Castellan are much stronger than 2000 points of Guard, even though Guard make up the majority of the first list.
Good! Moving naturally from that conclusion, then, the problem is the ability to soup Guard, not the Imperial Guard codex itself. Nerfing Imperial Guard directly would only cripple its mono-codex lists, while the soup lists move on to the Next Big Thing™ and continue to be on top. If you truly wish to see Guard & Castellan leave the top tables, then you have to nerf Guard & Castellan, not just nerf IG and call it a day, while Castellan & Sisters' Faithful 17 or Castellan & AdMech's Robo-32 continue to stomp about largely unimpeded. Admech can bring basically the same abilities as IG now, for almost the same price. 1350 of Admech plus a Castellan would only be slightly worse than 1350 of IG plus a Castellan after Chapter Approved, I suspect, with the biggest absence being the IG's indirect fire assets going missing.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/19 17:15:11
Good! Moving naturally from that conclusion, then, the problem is the ability to soup Guard, not the Imperial Guard codex itself.
Ehhh, just because something is more problematic than guard doesn't mean guard itself isn't problematic.
And honestly, saying Guard would be "crippled" by a hike on infantry is hyperbole, most guard players run 80 or so guardsmen which would bump their lists by 80 pts total.
And that's before the drops from CA, Guard players would still have a net savings on points even if infantry were to go up 1 pt.
Anyway the whole point of bumping infantry is to bring them in line with other troop choices, because otherwise we'd need to drop marines to 10 pts/dire avengers to 9 pts/guardians to 6pts/necron warriors to 9pts/termagants to 3pts etc... just to compensate for 4 pt guard. Sure we could, but then we'd be cramming everything under 10 pts and that reduces granularity. It's far better to bump the cheapest stuff and balance around that then go the other way.
And honestly, saying Guard would be "crippled" by a hike on infantry is hyperbole, most guard players run 80 or so guardsmen which would bump their lists by 80 pts total.
And that's before the drops from CA, Guard players would still have a net savings on points even if infantry were to go up 1 pt.
This is probably accurate, despite being annoyed at what appears to be an obvious points discrepancy between Guard and Cultists, many of my lists ended up net positive on points due to other CA discounts.
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
Im not in favour of outright banning Soup since there would be no way to pretend witch hunters still exist without some Soup.
But what if they introduced a point limit on allies like AoS does? like allies can only be 10 or 20% the total point/power cost of the game.
Will that stop certain abuse cases? no.
will that stop some fluffy lists? unfortunately maybe
but it should tone done some of the shenanigans that go on
Just have that only apply to matched so you can still go hog wild in narrative and open play
"If you are forced to use your trump card, then the battle is already lost"
Ultimately, for the next year or so at least until potentially CA 2019, Guardsmen will be 4ppm. I expect guardsmen will be made 5ppm eventually. That said, I don't think it will solve many of the problems people ascribe to them however. I expect that for many Soup lists, the screening and CP bonuses would keep the "loyal 32" CP battery viable even with price increases that would break the functionality of guardsmen within an actual IG army.
I was surprised they didn't get the bump to 5 with CA however, that was unexpected, though not as much as a 25pt decreaae on Tank Commanders and Ork Boyz getting made 7ppm was shocking, I still don't know how GW came to those conclusions
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.
Vaktathi wrote: Ultimately, for the next year or so at least until potentially CA 2019, Guardsmen will be 4ppm. I expect guardsmen will be made 5ppm eventually. That said, I don't think it will solve many of the problems people ascribe to them however. I expect that for many Soup lists, the screening and CP bonuses would keep the "loyal 32" CP battery viable even with price increases that would break the functionality of guardsmen within an actual IG army.
I was surprised they didn't get the bump to 5 with CA however, that was unexpected, though not as much as a 25pt decreaae on Tank Commanders and Ork Boyz getting made 7ppm was shocking, I still don't know how GW came to those conclusions
In essence, if you play marines, take a year off. Or, learn to love playing Imperial Guard. Because Imperial Guard is the best army in the game. And there is no downside to bringing them.
Galas wrote: I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote: He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
Vaktathi wrote: Ultimately, for the next year or so at least until potentially CA 2019, Guardsmen will be 4ppm. I expect guardsmen will be made 5ppm eventually. That said, I don't think it will solve many of the problems people ascribe to them however. I expect that for many Soup lists, the screening and CP bonuses would keep the "loyal 32" CP battery viable even with price increases that would break the functionality of guardsmen within an actual IG army.
I was surprised they didn't get the bump to 5 with CA however, that was unexpected, though not as much as a 25pt decreaae on Tank Commanders and Ork Boyz getting made 7ppm was shocking, I still don't know how GW came to those conclusions
In essence, if you play marines, take a year off. Or, learn to love playing Imperial Guard. Because Imperial Guard is the best army in the game. And there is no downside to bringing them.
scuse me? but best army ? how do you quantify that marmatag?
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.
Vaktathi wrote: Ultimately, for the next year or so at least until potentially CA 2019, Guardsmen will be 4ppm. I expect guardsmen will be made 5ppm eventually. That said, I don't think it will solve many of the problems people ascribe to them however. I expect that for many Soup lists, the screening and CP bonuses would keep the "loyal 32" CP battery viable even with price increases that would break the functionality of guardsmen within an actual IG army.
I was surprised they didn't get the bump to 5 with CA however, that was unexpected, though not as much as a 25pt decreaae on Tank Commanders and Ork Boyz getting made 7ppm was shocking, I still don't know how GW came to those conclusions
Like I've said in another thread, the Boyz thing is more complicated than saying "Oh no they made my guyz more expensive GW hates Orks".
On top of Klan rules they also added the Dakka rule. It probably doesn't make Boyz a point more, but what ALSO happened is that the codex made some Grenade upgrade free. and you got one per 10 Boyz.
So assuming you were already buying the upgrade with Index Orks, your squads are still the same price. If you weren't buying the upgrade, you're kinda forced into purchasing the upgrade. Which is free.
CaptainStabby wrote: If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.
jy2 wrote: BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.
vipoid wrote: Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?
MarsNZ wrote: ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
Tyel wrote: 1400 points of guard+Castellan>2000 points of guard.
True.
But:
2000 points of guard> 2000 points of any Imperial army without guard or Castellan, soup or mono.
This is why the guard is the problem. You can't just nerf the soup, because then you're nerfing several armies which are way weaker than the mono guard.
Nerf the Guard, nerf the Castellan*.
(*Preferably by nerfing the problematic stratagems and relics, so builds without them wouldn't be affected.)
Sluggaloo wrote: The fact that you can bring almost twice the amount of guard infantry as ork boyz feels just wrong. I think the +1 pt to ork boyz and cultists was fair, but I am dumbfounded at people defending 4 pt guardsmen... How is this even a discussion.
Because they have a case of don't nerf me guard itis.
Symptoms include passionate pleading that soup is the issue, it's all soups fault, guard are weak.
If left untreated "don't nerf me guard itis" maye result in vomiting falsehoods as facts.
Be on the lookout for "don't nerf me gaurd itis", do your civic duty and report them to the inquisition for treatment.
Its so ironic seeing "pleading that soup is the issue" as "vomiting falsehoods" yet can you provide any data that suggests otherwise? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that every winning "guard" list since the conscript nerf has been soup? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that SM, Orks, DE, Eldar, Tau all have more mono GT wins then guard? Do you have any evidence that suggests the issue is guardsmen in and of themselves and not simply there ability to provide CP to elite armies like knights? I'd be all for a guard increase in points if I believed they were the issue and not simply soup (like all data suggests). Why not address the issue of shared CP pools and then fine tweak points instead of increasing guard by a point which won't change any of those loyal 32 lists? I think it would actually be nice to see some mono imperial lists from time to time at the top tables but as long as CP is shared with no drawback your going to simply see buffs/nerfs that only make sense in the context of uninhibited souping and ruin the chances of any mono faction to truly compete.
Orks and Tau are not able to soup up.. So is that really supposed to be an argument that they have more mono wins because they are always going to be mono? Eldar and DE can soup with each other, but have no reason to because there's no real synergy like an Imperium or Chaos army grants so they tend to stay mono as well.
As for more Mono GT wins.. Well they're going to take the best thing possible, which is usually going to be soup, and IG can soup quite well.
So all the data points to soup being the issue.....
Asmodios wrote: So all the data points to soup being the issue.....
Getting rid of soup goes against the fiduciary responsibility of management. But please, let's resurrect a complaint about something that is simply never going away. As if this thread hasn't explored the depths of futility already...
"In relating the circumstances which have led to my confinement in this refuge for the demented, I am aware that my present position will create a natural doubt of the authenticity of my narrative."
Its so ironic seeing "pleading that soup is the issue" as "vomiting falsehoods" yet can you provide any data that suggests otherwise? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that every winning "guard" list since the conscript nerf has been soup?
Please do provide data detailing of this 0% winrate for mono guard since Chapter Approved '17.
Are we supposed to ignore the fact that SM, Orks, DE, Eldar, Tau all have more mono GT wins then guard?
Pointless comparison. Orks, Tau and Tyranids have no way of allying with anything else other than their own respective factions. Because hey, I agree, soup is too strong. The fact that any imperial player can soup up with undercosted guardsmen is a big part of the problem, but soup being a problem doesn't change the fundamental issue specific to guardsmen, which are undercosted. There's a reason they exist in the vast majority of imperial armies at the moment. They, along with my ork boyz, and jimmy's cultists, and jane's firewarriors are the reason people are struggling to find a reason to ever bring power armor to the table. Cheap, undercosted units spammed are too good at what they do. Board control, tarpitting, screening vs assault, objective denial, durability per point etc are vital in this edition.
Do you have any evidence that suggests the issue is guardsmen in and of themselves and not simply there ability to provide CP to elite armies like knights? I'd be all for a guard increase in points if I believed they were the issue and not simply soup (like all data suggests). Why not address the issue of shared CP pools and then fine tweak points instead of increasing guard by a point which won't change any of those loyal 32 lists?
As I mentioned above, I agree that soup is dumb. I'd go as far to say that most players don't like soup (GW is happy with it as MORE SALES). Fact is though, that is another issue. Because on the other hand, guardsmen are too good for 4 pts. Look at other 4 pt units like termagaunts, look at 3 pt units like grots. Guardsmen are much better.
I think it would actually be nice to see some mono imperial lists from time to time at the top tables but as long as CP is shared with no drawback your going to simply see buffs/nerfs that only make sense in the context of uninhibited souping and ruin the chances of any mono faction to truly compete.
It would be nice to see mono guard, but just because guard have access to all of the juicy toys the imperium has to offer through soup, doesn't mean they're weak. Imperial players are absolutely spoilt for choice in units you can take. If we were to make mono-faction armies a rule, AM would completely gak on any other army easily just from the raw, cheap firepower and board control alone. Just like in the index days.
How can you say that "If we were to make mono-faction armies a rule, AM would completely gak on any other army easily just from the raw, cheap firepower and board control alone" when you see more mono armies winning tournaments then mono guard. If mono guard was so much better then Tau DE Eldar Orks ect then surely we would see it have more wins. The fact that these lists win Gts with the more competitive soup list builds yet mono guard isn't showing either A.mono guard not brought or B. not winning. Both scenarios show that mono guard is inherently less competitive then those mono books (especially when factions like Eldar can stack -hit which is the ultimate counter to mono guard). The fact is that there is zero evidence to show that guardsmen are causing any issues in the meta beside CP sharing (which a 1 point increase wont fix). So people should either work on fixing the actual issue or provide evidence for their claims
Asmodios wrote: So all the data points to soup being the issue.....
Getting rid of soup goes against the fiduciary responsibility of management. But please, let's resurrect a complaint about something that is simply never going away. As if this thread hasn't explored the depths of futility already...
Nobody wants to get rid of soup.... there should simply be some sort of a downside for soup or a bonus for mono
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/19 20:46:25
Vaktathi wrote: Ultimately, for the next year or so at least until potentially CA 2019, Guardsmen will be 4ppm. I expect guardsmen will be made 5ppm eventually. That said, I don't think it will solve many of the problems people ascribe to them however. I expect that for many Soup lists, the screening and CP bonuses would keep the "loyal 32" CP battery viable even with price increases that would break the functionality of guardsmen within an actual IG army.
I was surprised they didn't get the bump to 5 with CA however, that was unexpected, though not as much as a 25pt decreaae on Tank Commanders and Ork Boyz getting made 7ppm was shocking, I still don't know how GW came to those conclusions
It's already been pretty much confirmed that CA was playtested back in march-july ish and was based on basically a post FAQ1 meta, it hasn't been updated to take into account what has been going on since be that codex's etc and not FAQ2.
It's not bad it's just not exactly cutting-edge meta.
So all the data points to soup being the issue.....
No. I don't see Ad Mech + Iron Hands winning tournaments, I don't see SoB + Inquisition + Assassins winning tournaments. Most soup builds are not powerful, there is only a tiny fraction of them that are, and on Imperium side all of those include Guard.
Asmodios wrote: Nobody wants to get rid of soup.... there should simply be some sort of a downside for soup or a bonus for mono
This.
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.
Its so ironic seeing "pleading that soup is the issue" as "vomiting falsehoods" yet can you provide any data that suggests otherwise? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that every winning "guard" list since the conscript nerf has been soup?
Please do provide data detailing of this 0% winrate for mono guard since Chapter Approved '17.
Are we supposed to ignore the fact that SM, Orks, DE, Eldar, Tau all have more mono GT wins then guard?
Pointless comparison. Orks, Tau and Tyranids have no way of allying with anything else other than their own respective factions. Because hey, I agree, soup is too strong. The fact that any imperial player can soup up with undercosted guardsmen is a big part of the problem, but soup being a problem doesn't change the fundamental issue specific to guardsmen, which are undercosted. There's a reason they exist in the vast majority of imperial armies at the moment. They, along with my ork boyz, and jimmy's cultists, and jane's firewarriors are the reason people are struggling to find a reason to ever bring power armor to the table. Cheap, undercosted units spammed are too good at what they do. Board control, tarpitting, screening vs assault, objective denial, durability per point etc are vital in this edition.
Do you have any evidence that suggests the issue is guardsmen in and of themselves and not simply there ability to provide CP to elite armies like knights? I'd be all for a guard increase in points if I believed they were the issue and not simply soup (like all data suggests). Why not address the issue of shared CP pools and then fine tweak points instead of increasing guard by a point which won't change any of those loyal 32 lists?
As I mentioned above, I agree that soup is dumb. I'd go as far to say that most players don't like soup (GW is happy with it as MORE SALES). Fact is though, that is another issue. Because on the other hand, guardsmen are too good for 4 pts. Look at other 4 pt units like termagaunts, look at 3 pt units like grots. Guardsmen are much better.
I think it would actually be nice to see some mono imperial lists from time to time at the top tables but as long as CP is shared with no drawback your going to simply see buffs/nerfs that only make sense in the context of uninhibited souping and ruin the chances of any mono faction to truly compete.
It would be nice to see mono guard, but just because guard have access to all of the juicy toys the imperium has to offer through soup, doesn't mean they're weak. Imperial players are absolutely spoilt for choice in units you can take. If we were to make mono-faction armies a rule, AM would completely gak on any other army easily just from the raw, cheap firepower and board control alone. Just like in the index days.
How can you say that "If we were to make mono-faction armies a rule, AM would completely gak on any other army easily just from the raw, cheap firepower and board control alone" when you see more mono armies winning tournaments then mono guard. If mono guard was so much better then Tau DE Eldar Orks ect then surely we would see it have more wins. The fact that these lists win Gts with the more competitive soup list builds yet mono guard isn't showing either A.mono guard not brought or B. not winning. Both scenarios show that mono guard is inherently less competitive then those mono books (especially when factions like Eldar can stack -hit which is the ultimate counter to mono guard). The fact is that there is zero evidence to show that guardsmen are causing any issues in the meta beside CP sharing (which a 1 point increase wont fix). So people should either work on fixing the actual issue or provide evidence for their claims
No your once agiain arguing logical fallacies as facts.
It's like saying vanilla ice cream is clearly rubbish because when given the choice of vanilla with any topping of their choice(chocolate sauce, marshmallows etc) or just plain raspberry ice cream. No-one choose plain vanilla ice-cream.
That isn't what the data actually proves.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/19 21:05:07
