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.

 Sluggaloo wrote:
Some people say the same thing about Orks not belonging in 40k. So yeah, not just your faction, you can say that about any faction. Because there's always THOSE people.

Personally, I want to hear the justification for that one lol

There just seems to be a lot more of "THOSE people" in relation to guard then there are against other factions, at least in my subjective experience. It doesn't help that guard as a tabletop fighting force has been pretty mediocre since 2nd or 3rd edition with only small windows of competitiveness in 5th and 6th. That fact seems to reinforce the idea of guard as a "NPC" faction in a lot of people's heads.

w1zard wrote:

 Sluggaloo wrote:
Some people say the same thing about Orks not belonging in 40k. So yeah, not just your faction, you can say that about any faction. Because there's always THOSE people.

Personally, I want to hear the justification for that one lol

There just seems to be a lot more of "THOSE people" in relation to guard then there are against other factions, at least in my subjective experience. It doesn't help that guard as a tabletop fighting force has been pretty mediocre since 2nd or 3rd edition with only small windows of competitiveness in 5th and 6th. That fact seems to reinforce the idea of guard as a "NPC" faction in a lot of people's heads.

Don't need to go far in dakka to find either:

1) People that say Orks are an NPC faction, that should be there just as target practice for MUH SPESHMEHREENS, i.e. shouldn't shoot well due to them never shooting well (when they used to have similar BS to space marines iirc in 2nd edition). Similarly so, that they should have dumb elements where there is equal chance for them to hurt themselves with their own weapons, which on the table top game gets old QUICK.

2) Others say that they don't fit into the general aesthetic of 40k, be it through being too "cartoony", "goofy"; or lorewise, through the fact that they're having a blast, bearing huge grins when every other faction is living in the nightmarish future.

Those people do exist

 Blndmage wrote:

 Sluggaloo wrote:
Sorry man, but in a soup allowing meta, choosing to not soup is your own choice to make. I don't like it either, but it's GW's stance. I grew up loving DOW1, and to this day those sort of army compositions are what I'd love to see in 40k. Mono faction armies, with a balance of infantry and vehicles, no superheavies... I'd love to see armies being given a separate quota for vehicles to bring and infantry to bring, as to whether that would work...that's another discussion entirely.

Necrons, Tau, and Orks disagree.

Again, factions should be balanced against the soup they can bring. Otherwise you'd never see anything other than imperium vs Ynarri/DE every top table winning tournaments. So yeah, thank feth Orks and Tau have some mean lists they can bring too, I feel bad for necrons though.

w1zard wrote:

 Sluggaloo wrote:
Some people say the same thing about Orks not belonging in 40k. So yeah, not just your faction, you can say that about any faction. Because there's always THOSE people.

Personally, I want to hear the justification for that one lol.

Orks are a 'comedy' faction that no longer fit the tone of 40k. They have to keep them around though because they have too many fans.

Asmodios wrote:

That's the issue soup makes it impossible to actually judge the strength of a codex and its units on that specific army. Not to mention when you nerf units based on soup you hurt mon armies which are already struggling in a soup meta and make it even harder for them to compete against soup.... But whatever nuke guard I wanna see what becomes the new "op unit" and watch the next wave of mono armies get whacked because of it

Are you really trying to claim that increasing the points of Infantry from 4ppm to 5ppm is "nuking" Guard? Really?

Your mono IG list is not better than a soup Imperium list on paper. That is another problem that needs to be fixed in a different way. Note, however, that if all units were balanced equally soup wouldn't be a problem. If a Baneblade were as effective as a Castellan for example then mono Guard players don't need to soup for this option.

I'm not sure that GW can balance this way though because of the sheer number of options a codex opens up. A Castellan will always be better than a Baneblade because it has specific Household traits and a ton of stratagems to raise it above, even if the Baneblade is pointed more efficiently than the Castellan.

Soup is another problem, but for me the answer is restricted CP or even restricted Stratagems. Only stratagems from your primary faction may be used.

 Stux wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Sluggaloo wrote:
Some people say the same thing about Orks not belonging in 40k. So yeah, not just your faction, you can say that about any faction. Because there's always THOSE people.

Personally, I want to hear the justification for that one lol.

Orks are a 'comedy' faction that no longer fit the tone of 40k. They have to keep them around though because they have too many fans.

Nothing fits the tone of 40k better than the so called 'comedy' of Orks. Things that are funny to them probably aren't to anyone else.

 Sluggaloo wrote:
2) Others say that they don't fit into the general aesthetic of 40k, be it through being too "cartoony", "goofy"; or lorewise, through the fact that they're having a blast, bearing huge grins when every other faction is living in the nightmarish future.

 Stux wrote:
Orks are a 'comedy' faction that no longer fit the tone of 40k. They have to keep them around though because they have too many fans.

IDK. Yeah the way orks talk to each other is a little goofy, and that is a holdover from the RT days when 40k was basically an unapologetic parody.

But to me at least, an entire race of ridiculously tough fungoids that incorporate violence as a central pillar of their biology that both facilitates their asexual reproduction and serves to make them even stronger and tougher as long as they survive is fething terrifying. Add onto that fact they are all low-level psychics that can literally bend/rewrite reality with the strength of their collective belief, negating the need for higher intelligence and real technology... Orks are a serious contender with tyranids for the label of "perfect biological lifeform". I don't even play orks and I think that orks are absolutely beautiful, and unique to the 40k setting, nothing comes even close to them in any other sci-fi setting that I know of. They are pretty fething awesome.

w1zard wrote:

 Sluggaloo wrote:
2) Others say that they don't fit into the general aesthetic of 40k, be it through being too "cartoony", "goofy"; or lorewise, through the fact that they're having a blast, bearing huge grins when every other faction is living in the nightmarish future.

 Stux wrote:
Orks are a 'comedy' faction that no longer fit the tone of 40k. They have to keep them around though because they have too many fans.

IDK. Yeah the way orks talk to each other is a little goofy, and that is a holdover from the RT days when 40k was basically an unapologetic parody.

But to me at least, an entire race of ridiculously tough fungoids that incorporate violence as a central pillar of their biology that both facilitates their asexual reproduction and serves to make them even stronger and tougher as long as they survive is fething terrifying. Add onto that fact they are all low-level psychics that can literally bend/rewrite reality with the strength of their collective belief, negating the need for higher intelligence and real technology... Orks are a serious contender with tyranids for the label of "perfect biological lifeform". I don't even play orks and I think that orks are absolutely beautiful, and unique to the 40k setting, nothing comes even close to them in any other sci-fi setting that I know of. They are pretty fething awesome.

To you and to most people man. Orks are awesome.

I was being a little bit devil's advocate, I don't actually think they should be removed from the game. They just aren't my cup of tea. It's more than how they talk though, it's their tech and the way they use squigs and almost everything about their presentation that is at least a little tongue in cheek.

I understand the view that 40k maybe needs a bit of levity though, I'm also not a fan of making everything super grimdark just for the sake of everything being super grimdark!

And yes, I do like the core concept. Fungal race that grows on a planet like an infection and spreads through spores. Genuinely interesting idea for an alien race.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

That's the issue soup makes it impossible to actually judge the strength of a codex and its units on that specific army. Not to mention when you nerf units based on soup you hurt mon armies which are already struggling in a soup meta and make it even harder for them to compete against soup.... But whatever nuke guard I wanna see what becomes the new "op unit" and watch the next wave of mono armies get whacked because of it

Are you really trying to claim that increasing the points of Infantry from 4ppm to 5ppm is "nuking" Guard? Really?

Your mono IG list is not better than a soup Imperium list on paper. That is another problem that needs to be fixed in a different way. Note, however, that if all units were balanced equally soup wouldn't be a problem. If a Baneblade were as effective as a Castellan for example then mono Guard players don't need to soup for this option.

I'm not sure that GW can balance this way though because of the sheer number of options a codex opens up. A Castellan will always be better than a Baneblade because it has specific Household traits and a ton of stratagems to raise it above, even if the Baneblade is pointed more efficiently than the Castellan.

Soup is another problem, but for me the answer is restricted CP or even restricted Stratagems. Only stratagems from your primary faction may be used.

 Stux wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Sluggaloo wrote:
Some people say the same thing about Orks not belonging in 40k. So yeah, not just your faction, you can say that about any faction. Because there's always THOSE people.

Personally, I want to hear the justification for that one lol.

Orks are a 'comedy' faction that no longer fit the tone of 40k. They have to keep them around though because they have too many fans.

Nothing fits the tone of 40k better than the so called 'comedy' of Orks. Things that are funny to them probably aren't to anyone else.

Yes increasing the points of guardsmen hurts mono guard armies (that already aren't winning) thus a "nuke" or "nerf". Increasing of guard has almost 0 effect on the most common soup build (which is winning) 32 total points. I'm not sure what the magic number for guardsmen is when soup players will decide to switch to the next best thing but what I do know is it isn't a 1 point increase so we will inevitably get back to "nuke guard" threads so lets skip the incremental point increases and just jump them to 10 or 15 at which point soup will still be alive and well guard will just be dead (which seems to be what posters that frequent these threads want as guard are NPC faction, boring to play against, dull, ect ect). The funny thing is those arguing that we should fix soup and then balance are constantly called "guard apologist" but my real concern is for A. codexes that cannot soup B. players that don't want to soup. Some peoples chosen army doesn't have the option of slapping 32 extra guardsmen onto their list to farm cp and other players simply don't want to. Id like for someone who wants to play DA and just DA to have some fighting chance against someone that's decided to cover all the weaknesses of their main army by bringing 2 other codexes to the game with 0 downsides. I think the fastest way to show people that souping is fundamentally broken (not any single unit) this edition is to just nuke guard into oblivion then watch the threads to nuke the next detachment that takes its place.

Asmodios wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

That's the issue soup makes it impossible to actually judge the strength of a codex and its units on that specific army. Not to mention when you nerf units based on soup you hurt mon armies which are already struggling in a soup meta and make it even harder for them to compete against soup.... But whatever nuke guard I wanna see what becomes the new "op unit" and watch the next wave of mono armies get whacked because of it

Are you really trying to claim that increasing the points of Infantry from 4ppm to 5ppm is "nuking" Guard? Really?

Your mono IG list is not better than a soup Imperium list on paper. That is another problem that needs to be fixed in a different way. Note, however, that if all units were balanced equally soup wouldn't be a problem. If a Baneblade were as effective as a Castellan for example then mono Guard players don't need to soup for this option.

I'm not sure that GW can balance this way though because of the sheer number of options a codex opens up. A Castellan will always be better than a Baneblade because it has specific Household traits and a ton of stratagems to raise it above, even if the Baneblade is pointed more efficiently than the Castellan.

Soup is another problem, but for me the answer is restricted CP or even restricted Stratagems. Only stratagems from your primary faction may be used.

 Stux wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Sluggaloo wrote:
Some people say the same thing about Orks not belonging in 40k. So yeah, not just your faction, you can say that about any faction. Because there's always THOSE people.

Personally, I want to hear the justification for that one lol.

Orks are a 'comedy' faction that no longer fit the tone of 40k. They have to keep them around though because they have too many fans.

Nothing fits the tone of 40k better than the so called 'comedy' of Orks. Things that are funny to them probably aren't to anyone else.

Yes increasing the points of guardsmen hurts mono guard armies (that already aren't winning) thus a "nuke" or "nerf". Increasing of guard has almost 0 effect on the most common soup build (which is winning) 32 total points. I'm not sure what the magic number for guardsmen is when soup players will decide to switch to the next best thing but what I do know is it isn't a 1 point increase so we will inevitably get back to "nuke guard" threads so lets skip the incremental point increases and just jump them to 10 or 15 at which point soup will still be alive and well guard will just be dead (which seems to be what posters that frequent these threads want as guard are NPC faction, boring to play against, dull, ect ect). The funny thing is those arguing that we should fix soup and then balance are constantly called "guard apologist" but my real concern is for A. codexes that cannot soup B. players that don't want to soup. Some peoples chosen army doesn't have the option of slapping 32 extra guardsmen onto their list to farm cp and other players simply don't want to. Id like for someone who wants to play DA and just DA to have some fighting chance against someone that's decided to cover all the weaknesses of their main army by bringing 2 other codexes to the game with 0 downsides. I think the fastest way to show people that souping is fundamentally broken (not any single unit) this edition is to just nuke guard into oblivion then watch the threads to nuke the next detachment that takes its place.

Just stop with the 32 BS it's a full brigade for the post CA rediculous price of 900points
Using between 60 and 80 guardsmen pluss 3 Order bots(also undercosted) 3 hell hounds and Heavy weapons teams (which should be paying the same points per guardsmen as infantry as they share stats keywords and orders with.
Elites slots to taste

Ice_can wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

That's the issue soup makes it impossible to actually judge the strength of a codex and its units on that specific army. Not to mention when you nerf units based on soup you hurt mon armies which are already struggling in a soup meta and make it even harder for them to compete against soup.... But whatever nuke guard I wanna see what becomes the new "op unit" and watch the next wave of mono armies get whacked because of it

Are you really trying to claim that increasing the points of Infantry from 4ppm to 5ppm is "nuking" Guard? Really?

Your mono IG list is not better than a soup Imperium list on paper. That is another problem that needs to be fixed in a different way. Note, however, that if all units were balanced equally soup wouldn't be a problem. If a Baneblade were as effective as a Castellan for example then mono Guard players don't need to soup for this option.

I'm not sure that GW can balance this way though because of the sheer number of options a codex opens up. A Castellan will always be better than a Baneblade because it has specific Household traits and a ton of stratagems to raise it above, even if the Baneblade is pointed more efficiently than the Castellan.

Soup is another problem, but for me the answer is restricted CP or even restricted Stratagems. Only stratagems from your primary faction may be used.

 Stux wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Sluggaloo wrote:
Some people say the same thing about Orks not belonging in 40k. So yeah, not just your faction, you can say that about any faction. Because there's always THOSE people.

Personally, I want to hear the justification for that one lol.

Orks are a 'comedy' faction that no longer fit the tone of 40k. They have to keep them around though because they have too many fans.

Nothing fits the tone of 40k better than the so called 'comedy' of Orks. Things that are funny to them probably aren't to anyone else.

Yes increasing the points of guardsmen hurts mono guard armies (that already aren't winning) thus a "nuke" or "nerf". Increasing of guard has almost 0 effect on the most common soup build (which is winning) 32 total points. I'm not sure what the magic number for guardsmen is when soup players will decide to switch to the next best thing but what I do know is it isn't a 1 point increase so we will inevitably get back to "nuke guard" threads so lets skip the incremental point increases and just jump them to 10 or 15 at which point soup will still be alive and well guard will just be dead (which seems to be what posters that frequent these threads want as guard are NPC faction, boring to play against, dull, ect ect). The funny thing is those arguing that we should fix soup and then balance are constantly called "guard apologist" but my real concern is for A. codexes that cannot soup B. players that don't want to soup. Some peoples chosen army doesn't have the option of slapping 32 extra guardsmen onto their list to farm cp and other players simply don't want to. Id like for someone who wants to play DA and just DA to have some fighting chance against someone that's decided to cover all the weaknesses of their main army by bringing 2 other codexes to the game with 0 downsides. I think the fastest way to show people that souping is fundamentally broken (not any single unit) this edition is to just nuke guard into oblivion then watch the threads to nuke the next detachment that takes its place.

Just stop with the 32 BS it's a full brigade for the post CA rediculous price of 900points
Using between 60 and 80 guardsmen pluss 3 Order bots(also undercosted) 3 hell hounds and Heavy weapons teams (which should be paying the same points per guardsmen as infantry as they share stats keywords and orders with.
Elites slots to taste

The vast majority of list were 32 guardsmen that's where the loyal 32 meme comes from..... but I guess that's now a conspiracy?
Also, the FW hellhound went up in points making that build less viable (funny you don't see anyone pointing that out or "guard apologists" complaining because most everyone found that unit to be blatantly under costed)
And heavy weapons teams are essentially fine right where they are (you don't see them abused besides the mortar) Which i think indirect fire weapons in general could be looked at and I wouldn't be surprised if they get an increase

Asmodios wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

That's the issue soup makes it impossible to actually judge the strength of a codex and its units on that specific army. Not to mention when you nerf units based on soup you hurt mon armies which are already struggling in a soup meta and make it even harder for them to compete against soup.... But whatever nuke guard I wanna see what becomes the new "op unit" and watch the next wave of mono armies get whacked because of it

Are you really trying to claim that increasing the points of Infantry from 4ppm to 5ppm is "nuking" Guard? Really?

Your mono IG list is not better than a soup Imperium list on paper. That is another problem that needs to be fixed in a different way. Note, however, that if all units were balanced equally soup wouldn't be a problem. If a Baneblade were as effective as a Castellan for example then mono Guard players don't need to soup for this option.

I'm not sure that GW can balance this way though because of the sheer number of options a codex opens up. A Castellan will always be better than a Baneblade because it has specific Household traits and a ton of stratagems to raise it above, even if the Baneblade is pointed more efficiently than the Castellan.

Soup is another problem, but for me the answer is restricted CP or even restricted Stratagems. Only stratagems from your primary faction may be used.

 Stux wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Sluggaloo wrote:
Some people say the same thing about Orks not belonging in 40k. So yeah, not just your faction, you can say that about any faction. Because there's always THOSE people.

Personally, I want to hear the justification for that one lol.

Orks are a 'comedy' faction that no longer fit the tone of 40k. They have to keep them around though because they have too many fans.

Nothing fits the tone of 40k better than the so called 'comedy' of Orks. Things that are funny to them probably aren't to anyone else.

Yes increasing the points of guardsmen hurts mono guard armies (that already aren't winning) thus a "nuke" or "nerf". Increasing of guard has almost 0 effect on the most common soup build (which is winning) 32 total points. I'm not sure what the magic number for guardsmen is when soup players will decide to switch to the next best thing but what I do know is it isn't a 1 point increase so we will inevitably get back to "nuke guard" threads so lets skip the incremental point increases and just jump them to 10 or 15 at which point soup will still be alive and well guard will just be dead (which seems to be what posters that frequent these threads want as guard are NPC faction, boring to play against, dull, ect ect). The funny thing is those arguing that we should fix soup and then balance are constantly called "guard apologist" but my real concern is for A. codexes that cannot soup B. players that don't want to soup. Some peoples chosen army doesn't have the option of slapping 32 extra guardsmen onto their list to farm cp and other players simply don't want to. Id like for someone who wants to play DA and just DA to have some fighting chance against someone that's decided to cover all the weaknesses of their main army by bringing 2 other codexes to the game with 0 downsides. I think the fastest way to show people that souping is fundamentally broken (not any single unit) this edition is to just nuke guard into oblivion then watch the threads to nuke the next detachment that takes its place.

Just stop with the 32 BS it's a full brigade for the post CA rediculous price of 900points
Using between 60 and 80 guardsmen pluss 3 Order bots(also undercosted) 3 hell hounds and Heavy weapons teams (which should be paying the same points per guardsmen as infantry as they share stats keywords and orders with.
Elites slots to taste

The vast majority of list were 32 guardsmen that's where the loyal 32 meme comes from..... but I guess that's now a conspiracy?
Also, the FW hellhound went up in points making that build less viable (funny you don't see anyone pointing that out or "guard apologists" complaining because most everyone found that unit to be blatantly under costed)
And heavy weapons teams are essentially fine right where they are (you don't see them abused besides the mortar) Which i think indirect fire weapons in general could be looked at and I wouldn't be surprised if they get an increase

The Loyal 32 is a nickname for the Battalion that's easily added. If you look at the various lists, you'll see plenty of Brigades, and many of the lists are going above their minimum requirements for Infantry on top of that.

Asmodios wrote:
Also, the FW hellhound went up in points making that build less viable (funny you don't see anyone pointing that out or "guard apologists" complaining because most everyone found that unit to be blatantly under costed)

The Artemia pattern was a mistake in CA 2017 though. They missed out the cost of the weapon and never picked up on it because it was a FW unit and no one really bothers with them at GW.

w1zard wrote:

Yeah, but I have had people literally tell me to my face that guard shouldn't even be a playable faction and that normal humans shouldn't be a viable fighting force in the 40k setting. I highly doubt everyone who wants guard nerfed shares that opinion, but I am sure some do, and I don't think any other factions have that issue. Some people get really salty when their genetically enhanced supersoldiers/psychic uber elves/space egyptian killbots get destroyed by a bunch of plain jane humans wearing cardboard armor and wielding gakky laser pointers,

I've definitely encountered this several times. The most memorable was 4E, in a rare victory over Eldar, my opponent was mad not because he lost but because he lost to the *Guard* which just wasnt supposed to happen, it wasn't "fluffy" and the Guard were supposed to just be bad (which, to be fair, in 4E they were atrocious).

Had another incident where I played a demo game with a new player, I just brought some footslogging infantry, a pretty casual list built mostly around Autocannons (and almost nothing that would ignore his armor) and figured itd be a fun game for a new SM player. Well, being new to the game it didn't go so great for my opponent but it wasn't unfun for either of us and we played again thereafter several times. He was surprised however at the end, he thought that since he was fighting Guard that it was gonna be an easy rollover game because he figured they were just supposed to be hapless dudes incapable of actually winning.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

That's the issue soup makes it impossible to actually judge the strength of a codex and its units on that specific army. Not to mention when you nerf units based on soup you hurt mon armies which are already struggling in a soup meta and make it even harder for them to compete against soup.... But whatever nuke guard I wanna see what becomes the new "op unit" and watch the next wave of mono armies get whacked because of it

Are you really trying to claim that increasing the points of Infantry from 4ppm to 5ppm is "nuking" Guard? Really?

Your mono IG list is not better than a soup Imperium list on paper. That is another problem that needs to be fixed in a different way. Note, however, that if all units were balanced equally soup wouldn't be a problem. If a Baneblade were as effective as a Castellan for example then mono Guard players don't need to soup for this option.

I'm not sure that GW can balance this way though because of the sheer number of options a codex opens up. A Castellan will always be better than a Baneblade because it has specific Household traits and a ton of stratagems to raise it above, even if the Baneblade is pointed more efficiently than the Castellan.

Soup is another problem, but for me the answer is restricted CP or even restricted Stratagems. Only stratagems from your primary faction may be used.

 Stux wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Sluggaloo wrote:
Some people say the same thing about Orks not belonging in 40k. So yeah, not just your faction, you can say that about any faction. Because there's always THOSE people.

Personally, I want to hear the justification for that one lol.

Orks are a 'comedy' faction that no longer fit the tone of 40k. They have to keep them around though because they have too many fans.

Nothing fits the tone of 40k better than the so called 'comedy' of Orks. Things that are funny to them probably aren't to anyone else.

Yes increasing the points of guardsmen hurts mono guard armies (that already aren't winning) thus a "nuke" or "nerf". Increasing of guard has almost 0 effect on the most common soup build (which is winning) 32 total points. I'm not sure what the magic number for guardsmen is when soup players will decide to switch to the next best thing but what I do know is it isn't a 1 point increase so we will inevitably get back to "nuke guard" threads so lets skip the incremental point increases and just jump them to 10 or 15 at which point soup will still be alive and well guard will just be dead (which seems to be what posters that frequent these threads want as guard are NPC faction, boring to play against, dull, ect ect). The funny thing is those arguing that we should fix soup and then balance are constantly called "guard apologist" but my real concern is for A. codexes that cannot soup B. players that don't want to soup. Some peoples chosen army doesn't have the option of slapping 32 extra guardsmen onto their list to farm cp and other players simply don't want to. Id like for someone who wants to play DA and just DA to have some fighting chance against someone that's decided to cover all the weaknesses of their main army by bringing 2 other codexes to the game with 0 downsides. I think the fastest way to show people that souping is fundamentally broken (not any single unit) this edition is to just nuke guard into oblivion then watch the threads to nuke the next detachment that takes its place.

Just stop with the 32 BS it's a full brigade for the post CA rediculous price of 900points
Using between 60 and 80 guardsmen pluss 3 Order bots(also undercosted) 3 hell hounds and Heavy weapons teams (which should be paying the same points per guardsmen as infantry as they share stats keywords and orders with.
Elites slots to taste

The vast majority of list were 32 guardsmen that's where the loyal 32 meme comes from..... but I guess that's now a conspiracy?
Also, the FW hellhound went up in points making that build less viable (funny you don't see anyone pointing that out or "guard apologists" complaining because most everyone found that unit to be blatantly under costed)
And heavy weapons teams are essentially fine right where they are (you don't see them abused besides the mortar) Which i think indirect fire weapons in general could be looked at and I wouldn't be surprised if they get an increase

The Loyal 32 is a nickname for the Battalion that's easily added. If you look at the various lists, you'll see plenty of Brigades, and many of the lists are going above their minimum requirements for Infantry on top of that.

Kind of like at the BAO where a bunch of lists whent over the "loyal 32" and statistically lowered their win percentage and points per round the higher the amount over that they took of guard. Obviously there is more then one way to skin a cat but does not change the fact that the main issue is the guard funneling CP to another army while acting as glorified objective holders.

Seriously though if guardsmen were the issue and more guard=more winning then why aren't we seeing guard infantry spam lists dominating the meta? Reality just doesn't line up with the hypothesis that guard are broken. Meanwhile, soup is the predominant thing taken for every single faction in the game that can take it yet somehow we are the ones denying reality? Seriously why havent players like nick nanavati figured out that hes being stupid by not just spaming guardsmen and instantly winning games. Heck why dont you go steam roll the LVO this year with your brilliance and pick up that nice cash prize.... all these idiot top players keep gravitating to soup and the most winning faction in the game yannari

Once I'm done rebuilding my army you WILL have me attending LVO events.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Once I'm done rebuilding my army you WILL have me attending LVO events.

Well, I'll wish you good luck (unless you're playing Chaos, or Eldar), and offer my condolences for taking part in such events at the same time...

 Trickstick wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
Also, the FW hellhound went up in points making that build less viable (funny you don't see anyone pointing that out or "guard apologists" complaining because most everyone found that unit to be blatantly under costed)

The Artemia pattern was a mistake in CA 2017 though. They missed out the cost of the weapon and never picked up on it because it was a FW unit and no one really bothers with them at GW.

This statement is undervalued, especcially when we look at the Index lists.

In recent Chapter Tactics #93 podcast Reecius & Co talk about cultist point increase (starting around 50:30) we get some hilarious quotes:

-'Chaos Space Marines [The Troop choice] are just bad' (and did not have any point changes in CA18)

-'Cultist [point change] is kick in the nuts'

They also talk about force multipliers with the 40 Cultist units and point out large model sized units scale better with stratagems. Well I'm sure we all understand that 'Shoot twice' (as an example) is times 2 the damage output, so Doubling damage costs same amount of CP for 20 model unit and 40 model unit, which means that you actually get more damage from the used CPs. So they suggest leaving cultists at 4 points but capping maximum unit size to 30 would have been better adjustment. However the statement on this is finished in dumbfounding manner:

-'Real fix for Cultists would have been making them [go] up to a maximum of 30 [models per unit], leave them at 4 points, [which] In my opinion would have been better than 40 models [per unit] and 5 points, but that's not what chapter approved is for.'

Reecius implies CA is not the place to change unit size limitations, only the point costs? I hope this is just a mid-discussion offhand blurb than honest opinion. Every chapter approved entry has 'Models per unit' entry next to 'Points per model' entry, so CA clearly is a place to change the model limits of datasheets.
I'm jumping at this because
1) Reecius is part of the playtesters (to my understanding?)
2) Him being part of the playtesters implies he is in contact with those who makes decisions on these changes
3) Therefore Reecius and other playtesters inherently have much better handle of the thought processes on GW's end.
Therefore I sincerely hope the above offhand comment is not a reflection of the balance team's approch on point and rule adjustment process.

P.S. They also say Mutilators are still horrible, but no one is surprised really

While we can only trust the Reecius is correct, we can't doubt what we see in CA. There are 16 pages of Points Updates and 4 updated Datasheets that could have easily been covered by Errata to the impacted codexes. They probably just didn't want to have to add errata for Intercessors in five different codexes plus Horrors in three different codexes.

As for the impact of Stratagems on Cultist, is there any doubt? I pretty sure no body uses stratagems on the 10 model objective camper units. It's all about the maximum sized units that get to wreck face due to mass fire. I'm sure if they limited cultist to 20 models per unit we would see far less than half as many cultist on the table.

The thing is, they DID change rules. They updated datasheets for Intercessors and Daemons. So "Chapter Approved isn't the place for rules" is factually incorrect.

Besides, Reecius is basically the GW Minister of Propaganda at this point, so I'd take anything he says with a grain of salt because of his relationship with them.

Wow. It's like you didn't even read what I said.

The rules updates where:

Intercessors: Added Melee weapon options to all Intercessor Squads based on the various update packs available including the newly released Imperial Fist upgrade pack. Yes, it's and update. It also could have been released as errata to C:SM, C:BA, CA, C:SW and CW. I guess they decided a new data sheet in CA was a better option than 5 errata.

Horrors: Updated to the latest version of the rules instead of having errata to C:CSM, C:TS, and C:CD. Doesn't this just match the errata already put out?

Bloodcrushers: Updated data sheet to go with Wrath and Rapture that gives more reflective stats and adds unit Champion. Could have been errata.

Bloodcrushers: Updated data sheet to go with Wrath and Rapture that adds unit Champion. Could have been errata.

Fiends: Updated data sheet to go with Wrath and Rapture that adds unit Champion. Could have been errata.

How do I know this? Because GW said so on CA page 140.

It's still updating the rules, however minor. So it still proves Reese's GW propaganda as false.

There are no absolutes in life or Chapter Approved, but go ahead and hate on Reese if it helps.

 alextroy wrote:
There are no absolutes in life or Chapter Approved, but go ahead and hate on Reese if it helps.

Honestly? After his derogatory statements towards GK players he deserves any bit of hate he gets.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
There are no absolutes in life or Chapter Approved, but go ahead and hate on Reese if it helps.

Honestly? After his derogatory statements towards GK players he deserves any bit of hate he gets.

This is an unbelievably ignorant comment, but I guess I should expect that by now.

 SHUPPET wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
There are no absolutes in life or Chapter Approved, but go ahead and hate on Reese if it helps.

Honestly? After his derogatory statements towards GK players he deserves any bit of hate he gets.

This is an unbelievably ignorant comment, but I guess I should expect that by now.

The idea of Reece making "derogatory comments" would be like a kitten pulling a knife on you...

Yeah. Let me guess, by 'derogatory comments', he means "waa he said something I dislike about GK from a balance perspective"

Of course, I haven't heard every comment that the guy has made. Could he have said something horrible at some point? Sure, I guess. But I'm not going to believe it unless presented with the quote in question, in context. I think that is a reasonable approach in an age where it is easy to jump to conclusions on little evidence.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Yeah. Let me guess, by 'derogatory comments', he means "waa he said something I dislike about GK from a balance perspective"

He's the new Matt Ward.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 SHUPPET wrote:
Yeah. Let me guess, by 'derogatory comments', he means "waa he said something I dislike about GK from a balance perspective"

He's the new Matt Ward.

I mean he did "break the game" in a way by having such deviant missions and house rules...