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.
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.
But people do bring mono guard to GTs they simply dont win often... People do bring mono DE, E, Orks Tau, Tyranid and SM all which win more then mono guard. This is not a falacy it is raw data. The reason why even in an all mono meta guard would still not be the number 1 is simply that they are so easy to counter with -hit modifiers. That's why guard NEED a soup detachment in order to win GTs. They need something that covers this glaring weakness and they need somewhere to dump CPs. Without soup its a very good codex that can and will be countered quiet often
Please provide this "data" Asmodios because last I checked mono Guard had won a GT and other events.
For the sake of any logical discussion I would expect you to understand that if a faction is the majority of an army (>1000 points in a 2k game) it is the 'primary' and we can see that primary Guard is literally always on the top tables.
This wouldn't happen if Guard weren't incredibly powerful as a force.
In a world of no downside to souping you will always see factions that have the option to soup doing so. It happens in armies that are forced to be mono too. I guess that my Orks are 'souping' if I take a detachment of Evil Sunz and Bad Moonz? If I claimed that Ork boyz were fine at 4 ppm because the problem is actually those Bad Moonz Ork boyz I wonder how long I'd get away with it?
I can't believe some of you still cling to the idea that 4 ppm Guardsmen is fair and in any way balanced. It is clearly broken and needs to be fixed.
Trickstick wrote: I think the power of chaos has mutated this cultist thread into the once-thought-dead 5pt Guardsmen thread...
It was inevitable.
Seems to me the strength of a mono-faction list should be inversely proportional to its soup options, in which case mono-guard should be on the weak side of mono-faction options.
Just a thought.
"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."
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Fire Warriors are 7 points I thought? That's how one of my opponents a while back was playing them.
I actually really don't know. I don't own the Tau codex and always assumed they were 8ppm.
If fire warriors really are 7ppm that is actually a valid reason why guard should stay at 4ppm, because 5ppm guardsmen are roughly equal to 8ppm fire warriors in terms of mathematics. I believe the analysis that I saw between fire warriors and guardsmen had fire warriors listed as 8ppm.
vipoid wrote: 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)?
You shouldn't be shooting at vehicles with infantry that have anti-infantry guns.
Seems to me the strength of a mono-faction list should be inversely proportional to its soup options, in which case mono-guard should be on the weak side of mono-faction options.
Just a thought.
Why? Mono factions SHOULD be able to compete with soup lists. If your faction can't compete with soup lists as a mono-faction it probably means it needs buffs.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2018/12/20 06:58:45
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: Fire Warriors are 7 points I thought? That's how one of my opponents a while back was playing them.
I actually really don't know. I don't own the Tau codex and always assumed they were 8ppm.
If fire warriors really are 7ppm that is actually a valid reason why guard should stay at 4ppm, because 5ppm guardsmen are roughly equal to 8ppm fire warriors in terms of mathematics. I believe the analysis that I saw between fire warriors and guardsmen had fire warriors listed as 8ppm.
vipoid wrote: 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)?
You shouldn't be shooting at vehicles with infantry that have anti-infantry guns.
Seems to me the strength of a mono-faction list should be inversely proportional to its soup options, in which case mono-guard should be on the weak side of mono-faction options.
Just a thought.
Why? Mono factions SHOULD be able to compete with soup lists. If your faction can't compete with soup lists as a mono-faction it probably means it needs buffs.
Even at 7PPM firewarriors still loose to guardsmen in a shoot out.
They loose to 5PPM Guard as soon as buffs are applied, guard buffs are cheaper (HQ) and stronger/easier.
7PPM Firewarriors also loose to 5PPM guard in Close combat
Firewarriors at 7PPM and Guard at 5 is actually the balance point for those two units, Also 5PPM guard start balancing against Termagaunts, ork boys etc a lot less one sided at 5PPM than at 4PPM. Does it mean guard might actually loose an infantry shoot out yes, will they loose a slap fight, yes, wilk they auto loose every game NO.
It just a shame Choas players have to play uphill with 5PPM on Cultists, just removing heritic astartes (they aint astartes GW come on Know your own Fluff) would have be a much better solution than 5PPM.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/20 08:50:32
It doesn't make sense to balance Fire Warriors Vs Guardsmen based on them fighting each other. Fire Warriors have a strength 5 weapon, strength 5 is identical to strength 4 Vs toughness 3.
You're essentially saying Fire Warriors shouldn't pay for that extra point of strength. They should, it just doesn't help them when shooting guard, it isn't their optimal target.
You shouldn't be shooting at vehicles with infantry that have anti-infantry guns.
I guess if you happen to be facing a full Knight list, you're just not going to shoot them with your anti-infantry guns? You'll just let all your men practise their shooting on sparrows or something.
Or if you're facing a DE army with a lot of T5 vehicles, you'll just completely ignore the fact that the basic Tau guns wound them on 4s.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/20 09:26:43
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.
Stux wrote: It doesn't make sense to balance Fire Warriors Vs Guardsmen based on them fighting each other. Fire Warriors have a strength 5 weapon, strength 5 is identical to strength 4 Vs toughness 3.
You're essentially saying Fire Warriors shouldn't pay for that extra point of strength. They should, it just doesn't help them when shooting guard, it isn't their optimal target.
No I was comparing fire warriors to kabalites.
Ice_can wrote: Even at 7PPM firewarriors still loose to guardsmen in a shoot out.
I definitely believe they lose to 4ppm guardsmen, but what about 5ppm guardsmen? Mind showing me some math? I'm not saying I don't believe you I'm just saying I'd like to see it first. All of the comparisons I have seen puts 5ppm guardsmen roughly on par with 8ppm fire warriors IIRC.
Ice_can wrote: They loose to 5PPM Guard as soon as buffs are applied, guard buffs are cheaper (HQ) and stronger/easier.
Irrelevant. Should we bring markerlights into the equation too? You can't balance off of what buffs a unit MIGHT have because that balance becomes null and void as soon as those buffs aren't there. If guard buffs are too good then make the argument to nerf our buffing units, but infantry squads should not be paying the price for that.
Ice_can wrote: 7PPM Firewarriors also loose to 5PPM guard in Close combat
Ok, I'll buy this without question, but fire warriors can shoot further, what is your point?
Ice_can wrote: Firewarriors at 7PPM and Guard at 5 is actually the balance point for those two units, Also 5PPM guard start balancing against Termagaunts, ork boys etc a lot less one sided at 5PPM than at 4PPM. Does it mean guard might actually loose an infantry shoot out yes, will they loose a slap fight, yes, wilk they auto loose every game NO.
Again, show me the math. If it checks out, I will agree with you.
You shouldn't be shooting at vehicles with infantry that have anti-infantry guns.
I guess if you happen to be facing a full Knight list, you're just not going to shoot them with your anti-infantry guns? You'll just let all your men practise their shooting on sparrows or something.
A "full knight" list isn't going to have adequate screens. I think I'd rather charge with my infantry in that situation and tie up the knights in melee then shoot at them (almost) uselessly.
@everyone Look, I agree that cultists being 5ppm and guardsmen still being 4ppm is bullgak. But GW seems to have doubled down in the direction of cheap infantry. It's looking more and more like GW are saying that skitarii rangers, kabalites, and guardsmen are the "appropriately" priced infantry and everything else is just gak.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2018/12/20 09:57:13
w1zard wrote: Why? Mono factions SHOULD be able to compete with soup lists. If your faction can't compete with soup lists as a mono-faction it probably means it needs buffs.
I'm getting the impression you're not understanding the concept of inversely proportional, that being said, I've put my thoughts out there and have no particular interest in engaging in the eternal soup hate debate.
Glad you have an opinion, enjoy it.
"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."
w1zard, he's saying mono faction should be stronger than soup lists. That doesn't mean buffing the armies, that just benefits soup as well. It means buffing mechanics for solo factions, or even better, nerfing soup mechanics
P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it.
If fire warriors really are 7ppm that is actually a valid reason why guard should stay at 4ppm, because 5ppm guardsmen are roughly equal to 8ppm fire warriors in terms of mathematics. I believe the analysis that I saw between fire warriors and guardsmen had fire warriors listed as 8ppm.
I know which math you're talking about (I did it) and it was done with 7pt FW vs 5pt guard. In a shootout FW still lose a tiny bit to Guard but they perform better against marines. But Guardsmen can take more special weapons which evens the gap considerably vs marines. Adding heavy bolter + plasma is better point for point against MEQ than FW at long range, but they're even at short range. This was without considering external buffs.
It's clear now that GW is not balancing between codices, but only within a given codex. 4 ppm guardsmen are total bs, but in the context of their own codex, they are fine. Of course, that begs the question if anything in that codex is appropriately costed.
If fire warriors really are 7ppm that is actually a valid reason why guard should stay at 4ppm, because 5ppm guardsmen are roughly equal to 8ppm fire warriors in terms of mathematics. I believe the analysis that I saw between fire warriors and guardsmen had fire warriors listed as 8ppm.
I know which math you're talking about (I did it) and it was done with 7pt FW vs 5pt guard. In a shootout FW still lose a tiny bit to Guard but they perform better against marines. But Guardsmen can take more special weapons which evens the gap considerably vs marines. Adding heavy bolter + plasma is better point for point against MEQ than FW at long range, but they're even at short range. This was without considering external buffs.
Take that as you will.
This is why GW needs to go ahead and make Infantry a 4.5 point model. 45 for a squad is about all I can think of to not annoy both sides of the argument.
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.
45 pts for 10 guys might reduce some of the complaints, but many of the people arguing for 4 or 5 are doing so from the stance that 4 is high enough or below 5 is unacceptable; it's not that there isn't a middleground position that they'd both like, it's that they see very different value in the Guardsman.
That said, bump the Sarge to 9ppm and leave the Guardsman unchanged, and you implement what you're looking for without having to put "4.5 ppm" (or other fractional points) into the system.
I know they won't do it, but I wish they did that with Marines to incentivise larger squads from time to time. I'd love to see 10mans be viable, but there's just no reason to. Bump Sarge's points and drop the PPM, and you could reach a point it's viable to not play MSU.
(I want my Exarchs to get a bump too, but not to push non-MSU: Aspects in MSU makes much more sense - the problem is Exarchs are actually worth more per model than their squadies (unlike stock Sarges).)
Bharring wrote: 45 pts for 10 guys might reduce some of the complaints, but many of the people arguing for 4 or 5 are doing so from the stance that 4 is high enough or below 5 is unacceptable; it's not that there isn't a middleground position that they'd both like, it's that they see very different value in the Guardsman.
That said, bump the Sarge to 9ppm and leave the Guardsman unchanged, and you implement what you're looking for without having to put "4.5 ppm" (or other fractional points) into the system.
I know they won't do it, but I wish they did that with Marines to incentivise larger squads from time to time. I'd love to see 10mans be viable, but there's just no reason to. Bump Sarge's points and drop the PPM, and you could reach a point it's viable to not play MSU.
(I want my Exarchs to get a bump too, but not to push non-MSU: Aspects in MSU makes much more sense - the problem is Exarchs are actually worth more per model than their squadies (unlike stock Sarges).)
30k does the same thing where an initial squad costs X amount, but adding more dudes is cheaper and certain upgrades might just be a flat cost for the whole squad rather than a per-model basis. So yeah you can do your MSU but it can cost you in the long run.
I hadn't considered just making the Sergeant 9 points simply because every other Sergeant equivalent is priced the same as their other squad members. 7th edition was clearly too long ago for me hahaha!
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.
Bharring wrote: 45 pts for 10 guys might reduce some of the complaints, but many of the people arguing for 4 or 5 are doing so from the stance that 4 is high enough or below 5 is unacceptable; it's not that there isn't a middleground position that they'd both like, it's that they see very different value in the Guardsman.
That said, bump the Sarge to 9ppm and leave the Guardsman unchanged, and you implement what you're looking for without having to put "4.5 ppm" (or other fractional points) into the system.
I know they won't do it, but I wish they did that with Marines to incentivise larger squads from time to time. I'd love to see 10mans be viable, but there's just no reason to. Bump Sarge's points and drop the PPM, and you could reach a point it's viable to not play MSU.
(I want my Exarchs to get a bump too, but not to push non-MSU: Aspects in MSU makes much more sense - the problem is Exarchs are actually worth more per model than their squadies (unlike stock Sarges).)
If you bump the Sergeant up, I want him to actually fething do something. This is something I've addressed in the past with my attempts at reworking the Orders system to be a bit closer to 'armywide auras'.
As it stands now? He's basically an Officer that takes up a Lasgun slot in my squad and gives no Order to the squad.
Kan,
The point in bumping the Sarge up here, is to retain a specific points level for the squad.
For the purpose of this discussion, lets assume the squad, as a whole, is worth 45 points. You can imagine they got a 4+ save half the time or whatever if you think that's too much for what they are now (or a 6+ half the time if you think that's too little). Whatever. Squad is worth 45 points in this hypothetical.
With the squad being worth 45 points, would it really be a problem to bump the Sarge to 9ppm, but keep the Squaddies at 4ppm?
Alternately, if Guardsmen are worth 4ppm, would you have a problem if the Sarge went up to 13ppm, but Guardsmen went down to 3ppm (net 0 change), without the Sarge getting buffed?
Bharring wrote: Kan,
The point in bumping the Sarge up here, is to retain a specific points level for the squad.
For the purpose of this discussion, lets assume the squad, as a whole, is worth 45 points. You can imagine they got a 4+ save half the time or whatever if you think that's too much for what they are now (or a 6+ half the time if you think that's too little). Whatever. Squad is worth 45 points in this hypothetical.
With the squad being worth 45 points, would it really be a problem to bump the Sarge to 9ppm, but keep the Squaddies at 4ppm?
Alternately, if Guardsmen are worth 4ppm, would you have a problem if the Sarge went up to 13ppm, but Guardsmen went down to 3ppm (net 0 change), without the Sarge getting buffed?
Until the Sergeant is something other than a Laspistol, it doesn't matter how much you try to justify it as 'buffing' the squad's points. I can point to the fact that he comes with nothing but a Laspistol and Frag Grenades as why the squad is cheap. The only difference between him and the 'squaddies' is the lack of a Lasgun, lack of any meaningful upgrades(oh boy a Bolt Pistol, Plasma Pistol, Boltgun or a Chainsword or Power Sword!), and that he comes with an extra attack and point of Leadership.
So until the Sergeant is packing a Lasgun or able to issue Orders to the Squad or do something other than literally just be a fething body with a pistol that doesn't even benefit from FRFSRF anymore, I don't want to hear any suggestions about 'buffing' the squad's points cost that route.
Bharring wrote: Kan,
The point in bumping the Sarge up here, is to retain a specific points level for the squad.
For the purpose of this discussion, lets assume the squad, as a whole, is worth 45 points. You can imagine they got a 4+ save half the time or whatever if you think that's too much for what they are now (or a 6+ half the time if you think that's too little). Whatever. Squad is worth 45 points in this hypothetical.
With the squad being worth 45 points, would it really be a problem to bump the Sarge to 9ppm, but keep the Squaddies at 4ppm?
Alternately, if Guardsmen are worth 4ppm, would you have a problem if the Sarge went up to 13ppm, but Guardsmen went down to 3ppm (net 0 change), without the Sarge getting buffed?
Until the Sergeant is something other than a Laspistol, it doesn't matter how much you try to justify it as 'buffing' the squad's points. I can point to the fact that he comes with nothing but a Laspistol and Frag Grenades as why the squad is cheap. The only difference between him and the 'squaddies' is the lack of a Lasgun, lack of any meaningful upgrades(oh boy a Bolt Pistol, Plasma Pistol, Boltgun or a Chainsword or Power Sword!), and that he comes with an extra attack and point of Leadership.
So until the Sergeant is packing a Lasgun or able to issue Orders to the Squad or do something other than literally just be a fething body with a pistol that doesn't even benefit from FRFSRF anymore, I don't want to hear any suggestions about 'buffing' the squad's points cost that route.
Why does it matter if a point increase is loaded onto the sergeant? It makes absolutely no difference, the squad is always a set size. It's just a good way to give them a point bump without increasing every model by a full point.
If your argument is they shouldn't go up at all then fair enough, I disagree but I could understand it. But this seems like a really weird place to draw a line in the sand.
Trickstick wrote: Is there even a mechanism to have different parts of a squad cost different amounts? I thought they got rid of that when 8th came out.
Upgrades and other stuff baked into the model.
To put it in perspective:
A Guardsman is 4ppm with his Lasgun and Frag Grenades.
A Sergeant is 4ppm as it stands now with his Laspistol and Frag Grenades.
A Platoon Commander(one of the closest equivalents to a Sergeant as it stands) comes with a Laspistol, Refractor Field, Voice of Command, Frag Grenades along with a bump to WS/BS 3+ and an 2 additional Wounds and an additional Attack compared to a normal Sergeant. For 20 points, he comes with a 5+ Invulnerable, the ability to issue a single Order, an additional point of WS/BS plus an additional attack and another 2 Wounds.
Ideally, Sergeants don't need to bring that much craziness--but ffs they should do something if we can't even give them the same weapon as the rest of the basic squad loadout.
Why does it matter if a point increase is loaded onto the sergeant? It makes absolutely no difference, the squad is always a set size. It's just a good way to give them a point bump without increasing every model by a full point.
If your argument is they shouldn't go up at all then fair enough, I disagree but I could understand it. But this seems like a really weird place to draw a line in the sand.
The reason why it shouldn't be on the Sergeant is that the Sergeant gets no benefit other than being a 'tax' in the unit effectively.
The squad is always a set size of 10, and one model is always a Sergeant. That means that from the outset you have a single model that can never benefit from FRFSRF and is, for most intents and purposes, going to be standing around like a wallflower with that 1 additional point of LD.
You make it so that the Sergeant can take a special weapon at points cost for the weapon or they come standard with the same gun as the rest of the squad? Fine. Boost the points up to 5 or 6 for the Sergeant, making the squad a bit more expensive base. Hell--make the Sergeant BS3+, meaning they'll pay more points for Plasmas or Meltas as well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/20 19:38:57
Bharring wrote: Kan,
The point in bumping the Sarge up here, is to retain a specific points level for the squad.
For the purpose of this discussion, lets assume the squad, as a whole, is worth 45 points. You can imagine they got a 4+ save half the time or whatever if you think that's too much for what they are now (or a 6+ half the time if you think that's too little). Whatever. Squad is worth 45 points in this hypothetical.
With the squad being worth 45 points, would it really be a problem to bump the Sarge to 9ppm, but keep the Squaddies at 4ppm?
Alternately, if Guardsmen are worth 4ppm, would you have a problem if the Sarge went up to 13ppm, but Guardsmen went down to 3ppm (net 0 change), without the Sarge getting buffed?
Until the Sergeant is something other than a Laspistol, it doesn't matter how much you try to justify it as 'buffing' the squad's points. I can point to the fact that he comes with nothing but a Laspistol and Frag Grenades as why the squad is cheap. The only difference between him and the 'squaddies' is the lack of a Lasgun, lack of any meaningful upgrades(oh boy a Bolt Pistol, Plasma Pistol, Boltgun or a Chainsword or Power Sword!), and that he comes with an extra attack and point of Leadership.
So until the Sergeant is packing a Lasgun or able to issue Orders to the Squad or do something other than literally just be a fething body with a pistol that doesn't even benefit from FRFSRF anymore, I don't want to hear any suggestions about 'buffing' the squad's points cost that route.
I mean it's either that or we do my route that's kinda convoluted, OR we can listen to the people that really want to destroy all Guard armies with a bunch of nerfs.
I'm just coming up with a compromise between two parties.
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.
I mean it's either that or we do my route that's kinda convoluted, OR we can listen to the people that really want to destroy all Guard armies with a bunch of nerfs.
I'm just coming up with a compromise between two parties.
But there's the crux of the issue: Some people won't be happy until Guard are effectively an NPC faction. There are people who seriously think that the trained troops who have served in active warzones should be BS5+, same as the raw recruits(a literal rule the unit has!) or random scum that in some cases are as wildly undisciplined as Orks. There are people who seriously think that Orders for every army would 'even the playing field' while ignoring that those armies also have things allowing for multiple auras to overlap or be attached to Psyker abilities.
I've said before and I'll continue to repeat this:
Guard need a complete redesign from the ground up. Releasing them 'as is' was a terrible idea.
Why does it matter if a point increase is loaded onto the sergeant? It makes absolutely no difference, the squad is always a set size. It's just a good way to give them a point bump without increasing every model by a full point.
If your argument is they shouldn't go up at all then fair enough, I disagree but I could understand it. But this seems like a really weird place to draw a line in the sand.
The reason why it shouldn't be on the Sergeant is that the Sergeant gets no benefit other than being a 'tax' in the unit effectively.
But there's nothing wrong with that. Because you can't take a sergeant on its own. There's literally no practical difference being a sergeant being 9pts and Guardsmen all costing 4.5pts, except the former is much cleaner to implement.
I mean it's either that or we do my route that's kinda convoluted, OR we can listen to the people that really want to destroy all Guard armies with a bunch of nerfs.
I'm just coming up with a compromise between two parties.
But there's the crux of the issue: Some people won't be happy until Guard are effectively an NPC faction. There are people who seriously think that the trained troops who have served in active warzones should be BS5+, same as the raw recruits(a literal rule the unit has!) or random scum that in some cases are as wildly undisciplined as Orks. There are people who seriously think that Orders for every army would 'even the playing field' while ignoring that those armies also have things allowing for multiple auras to overlap or be attached to Psyker abilities.
I've said before and I'll continue to repeat this:
Guard need a complete redesign from the ground up. Releasing them 'as is' was a terrible idea.
Well it isn't like we both have to listen to that party in question. I don't think most people think it's unreasonable for Sergeants to get Lasguns at all.
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.
