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.

Couldn''t GW just remove some units from the normal game. In gaming terms a veteran IG and a noob IG shouldn't matter much, but the options could still exist for narrative games. GW could even give them power levels for those people that want to use them.

Then matched play designers wouldn't have to worry if a IG vet should cost 6.5 or 6,75pts.

Karol wrote:
Couldn''t GW just remove some units from the normal game. In gaming terms a veteran IG and a noob IG shouldn't matter much, but the options could still exist for narrative games. GW could even give them power levels for those people that want to use them.

Then matched play designers wouldn't have to worry if a IG vet should cost 6.5 or 6,75pts.

You know what?...that’s an excellent idea. I could actually back that fully.

But if it helps, vets could carry on as a chapter master style stratagem. Though I wouldn’t even bother with that.

They could just merge the matched play vets load outs with scions. And then if someone really wanted to play non scions that are vet IG, they could make a vigilus style detachment, where everything would have to be a veteran. It would cost more, be it in CP or points, but would give extra rules or options to units. IMO a much better way to deal with the whole thing.

people playing normal games would have a much better setting rules wise, while those who don't care and maybe already play with house rules could just go power levels.

Same thing could be done to many other units in the game. The CSM for example, should be merged with chosen and possessed as matched play goes. A bit better stats, a bit better weapon load out. Maybe a mutation options. At the same time they could do crazy rules possessed or uber chosen with PL, for those that want to use those models.


GK termintors and paladins could be redone the same.

So basically you remove other armies units because the main problem lies with your army?

I'd say that is Envy at top level!

Ice_can wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Which is inline with what I said a couple of pages ago in a world of 4ppm guardsmen old marines are worth 8 points probably less.

Now I've stopped laughing and gotten up off the floor, I do have a serious question - if you're pricing a Tactical Marine at 8 points, where would you price a Stormtrooper?

The other option is to properly price guard at 5ppm and Catachans at 6ppm, in that world marines are still probably only 12 points maybe 11 but if 4ppm Guard aren't going anywhere all other infantry in the game is overcosted.

As stormtroopers no longer exsist in 40k at whatever you want in your home games.

Scions can go to 7 points each as deepstiking obsec plasma spam shouldn't be cheap.

Scions are just GW's Harry-Potter-Space-Latin renaming of Stormtroopers.

If you think Scions should be 7ppm, well, that's an unexpected suggestion from this thread

Karol wrote:
Couldn''t GW just remove some units from the normal game. In gaming terms a veteran IG and a noob IG shouldn't matter much, but the options could still exist for narrative games. GW could even give them power levels for those people that want to use them.

Then matched play designers wouldn't have to worry if a IG vet should cost 6.5 or 6,75pts.

Aside from just removing options from the IG book, how does that help Space Marines?

So, from following this thread, I would posit the following things to be broadly agreed to:

1: IG Infantry Squads are undercosted.
2: Most things Space Marines (but particularly Tactical Squads) are overcosted.

Things that are in contention:
1: If IG HQs are appropriately costed
2: If buff abilities should be considered when calculating appropriate cost on a model.

It's been mentioned that IG Company Commanders can only buff 2 units a turn whereas other factions' buffs are auras that affect all units within range. That is a fair point, but the flipside is that IG officers get about a half dozen different buffs they can apply, and can apply them automatically as the situation requires. Also, one can get 2 Company Commanders for less than 1 Space Marine (well, Dark Angels) Captain. From a practical standpoint, it is hard to get more than 4 units into an aura without sacrificing board control, which makes the aura vs specific units buff argument rather moot. I would argue there's rough equivalency there, both in effect and in points.

I think the reason this issue has been so contentious is that we're not used to the new, more responsive GW. In the past, if there was an egregious power imbalance, there was no hope of it getting fixed until the edition changed. That generated a lot of hard feeling. Now, we can reasonably hope for improvement every 6 months. GW may not deliver everything we want every time, but at the same time we don't want them to overcorrect either. GW dropped the price of Intercessors and of Scout sniper rifles. I don't think that was enough and I doubt few people do, but it was movement in the right direction, and we didn't have to wait 4 years for it. We don't have to wait 4 years for another chance at seeing improvement either.

And maybe can we not accuse people of factional fanboyism because they don't agree with our opinions? Even if it's true, stating it openly isn't going to help change anybody's mind.

bananathug wrote:
Catachan + priest + straken + vigilus is so broken that you cannot have a discussion about guardsmen without it.

Sure, but that doesn't mean it's the only context in which Guardsmen should be discussed. Guardsmen should be balanced without any of those taken into consideration, and those overperforming buffs can be nerfed to make them also balanced as needed. Nerfing Guard as a whole until that specific combo stops overperforming just ensures that it becomes the only viable build, like how Marines are currently stuck taking Guilliman to be at all viable.

This discussion never goes anywhere because some players keep framing it in an unproductive way. They start with the claim that it's Guardsmen that are intrinsically unfair at their current base cost. Then to support that claim, they compare that base cost against performance under the effects of a doctrine, a character, a named character, a formation, and outright lies (eg Marmatag continuing to claim Fix Bayonets is a 'fight twice' ability, rather than an order that is virtually never usable).

Like, it's not hard to make the case that Guardsmen should be 5ppm when their raw stats make them the best basic infantry in the game, and both the Catachan doctrine and Straken provide too much benefit. That's addressing both the base cost, and the disproportionate benefit provided by that specific set of buffs. I just don't understand why some vocal anti-Guard players feel incapable of saying '4 points for the basic Guardsman profile is too low, and some of their buffs are undercosted' and instead go with '4 points for SIX S4 ATTACKS and SHOOTING FOUR TIMES NERF NOW'. It's just ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
Things that are in contention:
1: If IG HQs are appropriately costed
2: If buff abilities should be considered when calculating appropriate cost on a model.

The handy thing about Guard is that, unlike aura abilities that can affect a wide variety of units, the way orders behave is extremely predictable. There's a very small roster of units that can be buffed by orders, and a specific number of orders that can be issued per turn.

Assuming that there are no changes to how orders work, FRFSRF doubles the firepower of a naked squad, but doesn't affect their durability. Mathematically, that makes the FRFSRF squads about 41% more effective than their unbuffed counterparts. FRFSRF doesn't perform as ideally if you have any specials, heavies, or take the Sergeant into account, but there are more orders than just FRFSRF, so let's say that flexibility confers a 50% increase in performance.

Since giving orders is basically all officers are good for, I think we can fairly price an officer at (0.5 * Infantry Squad price * # of orders). If Infantry stay at 4pts, this means the fair price of a CC should be 40pts, and the Loyal 32 is 200pts. If Infantry go up to 5pts, then the CC should be 50pts, and the Loyal 32 become 250pts.

The thing is, FRFSRF and Move Move Move kind of break the orders system, since they're so much more useful than anything else (except, situationally, Get Back In The Fight). Take Aim, for example, only provides a 17% increase in firepower, meaning that even in a kitted-up infantry squad it's virtually always better to FRFSRF than to Take Aim. Move Move Move lets you outrun aircraft. In my ideal world, we'd nerf FRFSRF to be just +1 shot and/or only usable while stationary, nerf Move Move Move to just allow you to count an Advance roll as an auto-6, and add a -1 to hit penalty for Get Back In The Fight.

Then, with orders being the more subtle buffs they should be rather than game-changing performance enhancement, Infantry can be bumped up to 5ppm, and the CC can stay at 30pts. That puts the Loyal 32 at 210pts, a 30pt hike over their current cost, and with reduced performance. Rework the Catachan regimental bonus in some fashion, and give Straken a cost hike, and then I should think all reasonable players will be happy.

catbarf wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Catachan + priest + straken + vigilus is so broken that you cannot have a discussion about guardsmen without it.

Sure, but that doesn't mean it's the only context in which Guardsmen should be discussed. Guardsmen should be balanced without any of those taken into consideration

Sorry to burst your bubble but GW has pretty good track record so far in balancing units based on the best buffs available and not in the basic state, atleast with Marines. I do agree with you that that's how it should be done, but there is no indication GW is doing it that way atm.

bananathug wrote:
Catachan + priest + straken + vigilus is so broken that you cannot have a discussion about guardsmen without it.

This is accurate.

for 100 points of HQs, you can have strength 4 guardsmen with 3 attacks and a ton of extra benefits via CP, which they have plenty of.

I'll put my challenge back out there:

What should the price be to have 4 strength, 3 attack guardsmen, with all of the bells and whistles via stratagems that they already have? What should the investment be? Because right now you can have 3 squads + the HQs for roughly 220 points. That's 90 marine level attacks and 5 CP. Explain to me what the cost should be for this.

Then, explain what the equivalent marine cost should be to produce the same results. (5CP, equivalent number of attacks, you can weight based on auras provided by the HQs taken).

180 points will buy you 10 Khorne Berzerkers with an Icon and Chainaxes. Assuming they're ran as World Eaters, they'd get 62 S6 AP-1 and 20 S5 AP0 attacks on the charge.

Meanwhile, the Guardsmen give 5 CPs, have better shooting (by roughly a metric fethton, since the Berzerkers can throw a whopping one grenade per turn), are more durable against everything and take up more space. Sure, the Khorne Berzerkers have a better melee output, but not by much, and let's not forget WHY ARE KHORNE BERZERKERS COMPARABLE IN MELEE TO GUARDSMEN?! WHAT?!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
180 points will buy you 10 Khorne Berzerkers with an Icon and Chainaxes. Assuming they're ran as World Eaters, they'd get 62 S6 AP-1 and 20 S5 AP0 attacks on the charge.

Meanwhile, the Guardsmen give 5 CPs, have better shooting (by roughly a metric fethton, since the Berzerkers can throw a whopping one grenade per turn), are more durable against everything and take up more space. Sure, the Khorne Berzerkers have a better melee output, but not by much, and let's not forget WHY ARE KHORNE BERZERKERS COMPARABLE IN MELEE TO GUARDSMEN?! WHAT?!

Also they only get that extra attack on the charge itself. If someone else counter charges you, you get zip.

Just like death company. I guess DC get packs at least.

I'll put my challenge back out there:

What should the price be to have 4 strength, 3 attack guardsmen, with all of the bells and whistles via stratagems that they already have? What should the investment be? Because right now you can have 3 squads + the HQs for roughly 220 points. That's 90 marine level attacks and 5 CP. Explain to me what the cost should be for this.

Then, explain what the equivalent marine cost should be to produce the same results. (5CP, equivalent number of attacks, you can weight based on auras provided by the HQs taken).

Challange accepted:

First: Colonel straken is 75 pts. Ministorum priests are 35 pts.
SUMMA SUMARUM 110 PTS.

Secondly it is a HQ and a elite.
So once again i caught you either lying or you are just ignorant again.

3 squads of IG = 120 pts.

So we are looking for a combination that costs 230 pts.

Chaos can have a full reroll dude for 70 pts.
leaves us with 140 pts.
which are 28 cultists atm.
Give them world eaters, that means they double their Attack value. Give them pistols and brutal assult weapons, they are now at three attacks.
use the double fighting stratagem.
They are now at six attacks.
28 x6 full rerolls. that would be a measly 168 attacks with rerolls.
Equal points.

Recyclable and have basically outflank.


Edit: if charged, you could still employ 28x4 attacks, which would be 112 attacks.
Not to mention that the exalted champion technically can mark an enemy Charachter for death.

Ghorgul wrote:Sorry to burst your bubble but GW has pretty good track record so far in balancing units based on the best buffs available and not in the basic state, atleast with Marines. I do agree with you that that's how it should be done, but there is no indication GW is doing it that way atm.

This thread is evaluating Marines' points cost based on their statline, not based on their statline as Ultramarines with Guilliman hanging nearby to give them full re-rolls. If we're going to limit ourselves to what GW is likely to do, then close the thread already, because what they're certainly not likely to do is go to DakkaDakka to take balancing cues.

Marmatag wrote:This is accurate.

for 100 points of HQs, you can have strength 4 guardsmen with 3 attacks and a ton of extra benefits via CP, which they have plenty of.

I'll put my challenge back out there:

What should the price be to have 4 strength, 3 attack guardsmen, with all of the bells and whistles via stratagems that they already have? What should the investment be? Because right now you can have 3 squads + the HQs for roughly 220 points. That's 90 marine level attacks and 5 CP. Explain to me what the cost should be for this.

Then, explain what the equivalent marine cost should be to produce the same results. (5CP, equivalent number of attacks, you can weight based on auras provided by the HQs taken).

Every single time you complain about Guard, you get something wrong about their rules. It'd almost make me think you don't know enough about the army to fairly evaluate it.
-Straken + Priest is 110pts, not 100.
-The Priest is an Elites choice, not HQ.
-Getting the mandatory 2 HQs means adding a CC, for 140pts on just characters. Three squads + Straken + Priest + CC is 260pts.
-They're not 'marine level attacks' when they don't have Marine-level WS.
-Three squads have 96 attacks, not 90. Not really working against your point, but details.

So anyways: Catachans shouldn't be S4. WS3+ would be more appropriate, and less effective against T4. Infantry should be 50pts per squad. Straken should be 100pts. That puts the price of this deathball at 315 points.

At 12ppm, 315pts would buy you 26 Marines and some change. Against S3 fire, those Marines would be over two and a half times harder to kill than the 30 Guardsmen (four times harder to kill in cover), and could throw 52 shots at BS3+ S4, while the Catachans need to get into melee to use their 96 WS3+ S3 attacks (which, statistically, is only marginally better at anti-MEQ than 26 Marines' bolters Rapid Firing). The Marines would beat the Guardsmen handily at range, even with FRFSRF- at rapid fire range, 26 Marines will kill over half the Guardsmen in one volley, while 30 Guardsmen with FRFSRF will kill just 6 Marines.

I'm not going to address the challenge of 'equivalent number of attacks', because being dramatically harder to kill and better at ranged combat means they absolutely should not be as powerful in melee as the one-trick-pony, no-delivery-system, I-sure-hope-there-aren't-any-Vindicares, effectively-10ppm-for-T3-5+ blob.

You may now proceed to concoct another bad reading of the rules to whinge about how Guard need to be 7ppm.

catbarf wrote:

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
Things that are in contention:
1: If IG HQs are appropriately costed
2: If buff abilities should be considered when calculating appropriate cost on a model.

The handy thing about Guard is that, unlike aura abilities that can affect a wide variety of units, the way orders behave is extremely predictable. There's a very small roster of units that can be buffed by orders, and a specific number of orders that can be issued per turn.

Assuming that there are no changes to how orders work, FRFSRF doubles the firepower of a naked squad, but doesn't affect their durability. Mathematically, that makes the FRFSRF squads about 41% more effective than their unbuffed counterparts. FRFSRF doesn't perform as ideally if you have any specials, heavies, or take the Sergeant into account, but there are more orders than just FRFSRF, so let's say that flexibility confers a 50% increase in performance.

Since giving orders is basically all officers are good for, I think we can fairly price an officer at (0.5 * Infantry Squad price * # of orders). If Infantry stay at 4pts, this means the fair price of a CC should be 40pts, and the Loyal 32 is 200pts. If Infantry go up to 5pts, then the CC should be 50pts, and the Loyal 32 become 250pts.

The thing is, FRFSRF and Move Move Move kind of break the orders system, since they're so much more useful than anything else (except, situationally, Get Back In The Fight). Take Aim, for example, only provides a 17% increase in firepower, meaning that even in a kitted-up infantry squad it's virtually always better to FRFSRF than to Take Aim. Move Move Move lets you outrun aircraft. In my ideal world, we'd nerf FRFSRF to be just +1 shot and/or only usable while stationary, nerf Move Move Move to just allow you to count an Advance roll as an auto-6, and add a -1 to hit penalty for Get Back In The Fight.

Then, with orders being the more subtle buffs they should be rather than game-changing performance enhancement, Infantry can be bumped up to 5ppm, and the CC can stay at 30pts. That puts the Loyal 32 at 210pts, a 30pt hike over their current cost, and with reduced performance. Rework the Catachan regimental bonus in some fashion, and give Straken a cost hike, and then I should think all reasonable players will be happy.

This is quite possibly the most reasonable post I've seen in this entire thread! And the proposed changes to the orders look like they may balance things out a bit. Well done.

As for the Catachan doctrine, making it +1 S in the fight phase immediately after they make a successful charge, and not at other times, might be enough to tone it down some - at least make them less scary to attack, but still somewhat worrying to be charged by.

This is quite possibly the most reasonable post I've seen in this entire thread! And the proposed changes to the orders look like they may balance things out a bit. Well done.

As for the Catachan doctrine, making it +1 S in the fight phase immediately after they make a successful charge, and not at other times, might be enough to tone it down some - at least make them less scary to attack, but still somewhat worrying to be charged by.

That would be very much prudent. considering World eaters only gives you bonus attacks on a successfull charge, this should most certainly change.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

So anyways: Catachans shouldn't be S4. WS3+ would be more appropriate, and less effective against T4. Infantry should be 50pts per squad. Straken should be 100pts. That puts the price of this deathball at 315 points.

At 12ppm, 315pts would buy you 26 Marines and some change. Against S3 fire, those Marines would be over two and a half times harder to kill than the 30 Guardsmen (four times harder to kill in cover), and could throw 52 shots at BS3+ S4, while the Catachans need to get into melee to use their 96 WS3+ S3 attacks (which, statistically, is only marginally better at anti-MEQ than 26 Marines' bolters Rapid Firing). The Marines would beat the Guardsmen handily at range, even with FRFSRF- at rapid fire range, 26 Marines will kill over half the Guardsmen in one volley, while 30 Guardsmen with FRFSRF will kill just 6 Marines.

I'm not going to address the challenge of 'equivalent number of attacks', because being dramatically harder to kill and better at ranged combat means they absolutely should not be as powerful in melee as the one-trick-pony, no-delivery-system, I-sure-hope-there-aren't-any-Vindicares, effectively-10ppm-for-T3-5+ blob.

You may now proceed to concoct another bad reading of the rules to whinge about how Guard need to be 7ppm.

FRFSRF, really just should give 1 additional shot and not impact the rapidfire weapon beyond that.

 Marmatag wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Catachan + priest + straken + vigilus is so broken that you cannot have a discussion about guardsmen without it.

This is accurate.

for 100 points of HQs, you can have strength 4 guardsmen with 3 attacks and a ton of extra benefits via CP, which they have plenty of.

I'll put my challenge back out there:

What should the price be to have 4 strength, 3 attack guardsmen, with all of the bells and whistles via stratagems that they already have? What should the investment be? Because right now you can have 3 squads + the HQs for roughly 220 points. That's 90 marine level attacks and 5 CP. Explain to me what the cost should be for this.

Then, explain what the equivalent marine cost should be to produce the same results. (5CP, equivalent number of attacks, you can weight based on auras provided by the HQs taken).

The problem with insisting on the CP thing here is that GW just isn't pricing stuff around that, mainly because units can be taken in many different kinds of detachments and managing that is clearly not something they care to do. Command Points aren't something GW is making an element of points costs.

More fundamentally, IG work differently from just about every other army in the game, being extreme MSU by nature, and this has always messed with army building structure (requiring platoons in previous editions so that Guard armies could bring more than just 300pts of troops), and changing that would require some sort of platoon solution or creating giant units, something that would require a radical rewrite of the army's construction.

Also, you really need to re-review the IG codex again, a lot of your IG comments in threads like this have errors, the minimum cost for the above would be 260pts, again, as the Priest is not an HQ, you'd need an additional Company Commander to fill out the detachment and be able to issue Orders to all units, and Straken/Priest is 110, not 100.

So while you wont be able to get the CP, you can absolutely get equivalent close combat killing power (or better) for 260pts in other armies. A naked 30man Boyz mob will more than match that CC ability for 210pts.

Dandelion wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Except which weapons actually kill more points of guardsmen than anything else in the game?

Normally small arms, massed small arms but you can't bring that to bear since you need to buy expensive AT equipment.

I'd like a weapon on a unit please as even lasguns kill more points of marines than guardsmen.

Marines are one of the few "elite" units that are more vulnerable to small arms than guardsmen. Hence why marines in general suck. Currently even Primaris are more durable per point than guardsmen against lasgun/boltgun

Just some math to prove my point:
Boltgun shooting Primaris and guardsmen (skip shooting and go straight to wounding):
- Primaris: 1*1/2*1/3=1/6 wounds = .17 W = .17*17/2= 1.42 pts lost
- Guard: 1*2/3*2/3= 4/9 W = 4/9*4 1.77 pts lost

So, a primaris marine is 25% more durable per point against boltguns than a guardsmen. It's not great, but that can be fixed with points. And the truth is that tact marines are way overcosted and guardsmen are undercosted. Iron that out (10 pt marines and 5 pt guard) and boltguns are easily anti-horde.

Doing the math again with 5 pt guard:
- Guard: 1*2/3*2/3= 4/9 W =4/9*5= 2.22 pts lost, which makes Primaris 50% more durable per point against boltguns. So there you go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kingheff wrote:
The way I see it, on a battlefield, put 120 pts up against each other and who wins?
Ten marines, ten dire avengers, thirteen guardians with a scatter laser and thirty guardsmen. I'd say the other three are fairly well balanced, I'd probably say the guardians are the strongest choice of the others but guard easily beat the marines and avengers,the guardians are more of a match, able to use the scatter laser platform to outrange the guard and force them forward, giving the guardians the ability to get the first volley off plus the platform has a 3+ to tank but that's only two wounds.
Marines versus guardians is interesting, If the marines can keep it at 24" they can start to thin out the guardians since the scatter laser doesn't really scare marines much.
With frfsrf against protect if you want to bring in an hq protect is amazing on the platform giving a 2+ but the guard do get a lot of shots, especially within 12" where the guardians need to be, with the caveat that protect isn't guaranteed by any means.
Oh, this is all completely me judging by eye, obviously. I'm too lazy to math it out but if I was a betting man I know where my money's going.

Why did you give the guardians a support weapon but not give the guardsmen heavy weapons? or the marines for that matter? tbh though, marines, dire avengers and guardians are behind the power curve. When kabalites are 6 pts to the guardians 8pt... yeah.
Also, consider that the guardians have 12" guns, meaning that aside from the laser they are outranged. and the laser is only going to kill a couple guardsmen per turn (4*2/3*5/6*2/3= 1.5 kills). At 24" those 30 guardsmen will kill 30*1/2*1/2*2/3= 5 guardians per turn. Oh, and the guardsmen have way more wounds. Oh, and guardsmen can take 2 heavy bolters for the same price as 1 scatter laser. 6*1/2*2/3*5/6=1.66 kills.

I just gave the guardians the scatter laser as a defensive buff, originally I had 15 guardians which for the comparison would have been better I admit.
Regardless, the guard are still way ahead of some of the most iconic troops in the game and not by a small margin.

@ Vakhati

You’re right. But I can’t see the old platoon system coming back (it was only ever to get around the limitations of the old FOC anyway). The alternative though, forcing them into bigger squads, might work. If the minimum size was 20 models (matching the old two squad minimum of the platoons) and the Max was 50, it might help eleviate the cheap cost and easy CP generating problems of the IG. Maybe.

On the other hand, that'd buff FRFSRF since it would effectively buff two squads.

Kcalehc wrote:As for the Catachan doctrine, making it +1 S in the fight phase immediately after they make a successful charge, and not at other times, might be enough to tone it down some - at least make them less scary to attack, but still somewhat worrying to be charged by.

Not Online!!! wrote:That would be very much prudent. considering World eaters only gives you bonus attacks on a successfull charge, this should most certainly change.

I mostly object to S4 on the grounds that it's odd from a design perspective. Catachans shouldn't rival Marines in strength, or be able to peel open tanks. And there are lots of humans in the game who are supposed to be big, buff dudes, but are S3.

WS3+ says 'I'm still a human, but I'm good at fighting' to me. Then Renegades can have their Mark of Khorne conferring +1S on the charge, and be conceptually distinct.

Not Online!!! wrote:FRFSRF, really just should give 1 additional shot and not impact the rapidfire weapon beyond that.

Oh yeah, I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that. My point was that even just small tweaks to each of the problematic areas (Infantry cost, Straken cost, Catachan buff, and Marine cost) can combine to significantly address the current imbalance without requiring Marmatag's hyperbolic overreactions. Throw in some tweaks to FRFSRF and MMM and we're good to go.

The fix to infantry is pretty simple IMO - they need to be costed appropriately for what they’re worth. Which is certainly more than 4 points. It may be more than 5 in all honesty.

Either way that won’t stop IG dominating the meta (they simply have too many other, hyper efficient options), nor will it fix marines.

There’s no point comparing anything to a 4ppm Guardsman to be honest because there isn’t a unit that beats it.

However it's difficult to price in the inherent value of 'cheap wounds' when the game is lacking effective anti-horde weapons. And by anti-horde weapons I mean weapons that kill cheap infantry like guardsmen far more effectively than elite infantry like marines. These mythical weapons are really rare and barely exist. This problem is further compounded by the fact that because of low amount of total wounds, or high price per wound, the MEQs are particularly weak, the old 'anti-horde' weapons are efficient against them and so are 'anti-tank' weapons, atleast when compared against GEQs. That's why there is inherent value in cheap wounds.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The fix to infantry is pretty simple IMO - they need to be costed appropriately for what they’re worth. Which is certainly more than 4 points. It may be more than 5 in all honesty.

Either way that won’t stop IG dominating the meta (they simply have too many other, hyper efficient options), nor will it fix marines.

There’s no point comparing anything to a 4ppm Guardsman to be honest because there isn’t a unit that beats it.

Company commanders also need to be costed appropriately.
Even with FRFSRF and MoveMoveMoce being made less OP they arn't ballanced at 30 points either.

Ice_can wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The fix to infantry is pretty simple IMO - they need to be costed appropriately for what they’re worth. Which is certainly more than 4 points. It may be more than 5 in all honesty.

Either way that won’t stop IG dominating the meta (they simply have too many other, hyper efficient options), nor will it fix marines.

There’s no point comparing anything to a 4ppm Guardsman to be honest because there isn’t a unit that beats it.

Company commanders also need to be costed appropriately.
Even with FRFSRF and MoveMoveMoce being made less OP they arn't ballanced at 30 points either.

Agreed dude.

In terms of the topic and helping marines, I’m starting to lean towards Marmatag’s idea (I think) that perhaps a full revision of all troops’ points cost is necessary. Like the minimum troop cost should be 6 pts (Grots) and then 8 pts (Infantry et al) then go up from there. Instinctively I feel that GW has undervalued the cost of all troops in the game, given that they allow CP generation and hence stratagem usage, one of the key elements of a successful army. I don’t feel that troops ‘pay’ for that ability at all. The same could be said for objective secured.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The fix to infantry is pretty simple IMO - they need to be costed appropriately for what they’re worth. Which is certainly more than 4 points. It may be more than 5 in all honesty.

Either way that won’t stop IG dominating the meta (they simply have too many other, hyper efficient options), nor will it fix marines.

There’s no point comparing anything to a 4ppm Guardsman to be honest because there isn’t a unit that beats it.

Company commanders also need to be costed appropriately.
Even with FRFSRF and MoveMoveMoce being made less OP they arn't ballanced at 30 points either.

Agreed dude.

In terms of the topic and helping marines, I’m starting to lean towards Marmatag’s idea (I think) that perhaps a full revision of all troops’ points cost is necessary. Like the minimum troop cost should be 6 pts (Grots) and then 8 pts (Infantry et al) then go up from there. Instinctively I feel that GW has undervalued the cost of all troops in the game, given that they allow CP generation and hence stratagem usage, one of the key elements of a successful army. I don’t feel that troops ‘pay’ for that ability at all. The same could be said for objective secured.

No what gw did do is lower the point cost from 7th to 8th

Of kabalites, firewarriors, guardsmen, whilest leaving units like base spacemarines at 13pts.

Not Online!!! wrote:
So basically you remove other armies units because the main problem lies with your army?

I'd say that is Envy at top level!

If they seem to be a problem for balanced rules and there isn't much mechanical difference between the units why not. Has nothing to do with envy. Can someone explain to me why vets and scions have to exist as an option in the same codex? Or sternguard and space marine veterans?

Aside from just removing options from the IG book, how does that help Space Marines?

leaves space for design to work their magic. Right now any point changes bring up the argument from IG users that, this or that point shift makes this or that IG unit cost like another IG unit. This way they can never be balanced.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The fix to infantry is pretty simple IMO - they need to be costed appropriately for what they’re worth. Which is certainly more than 4 points. It may be more than 5 in all honesty.

Either way that won’t stop IG dominating the meta (they simply have too many other, hyper efficient options), nor will it fix marines.

There’s no point comparing anything to a 4ppm Guardsman to be honest because there isn’t a unit that beats it.

Company commanders also need to be costed appropriately.
Even with FRFSRF and MoveMoveMoce being made less OP they arn't ballanced at 30 points either.

Agreed dude.

In terms of the topic and helping marines, I’m starting to lean towards Marmatag’s idea (I think) that perhaps a full revision of all troops’ points cost is necessary. Like the minimum troop cost should be 6 pts (Grots) and then 8 pts (Infantry et al) then go up from there. Instinctively I feel that GW has undervalued the cost of all troops in the game, given that they allow CP generation and hence stratagem usage, one of the key elements of a successful army. I don’t feel that troops ‘pay’ for that ability at all. The same could be said for objective secured.

Yep. The price of having a single wound needs to be evaluated.

Just like the price of super heavies should be evaluated.

I find it hilarious that guard players think everything would be fair if the loyal32 would just cost 210 points instead of 180. Sorry, that isn't changing anything. I guess the goal is to remain the best faction in the game by a country mile, rather than achieve true & fair balance.

Karol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
So basically you remove other armies units because the main problem lies with your army?

I'd say that is Envy at top level!

If they seem to be a problem for balanced rules and there isn't much mechanical difference between the units why not. Has nothing to do with envy. Can someone explain to me why vets and scions have to exist as an option in the same codex? Or sternguard and space marine veterans?

Aside from just removing options from the IG book, how does that help Space Marines?

leaves space for design to work their magic. Right now any point changes bring up the argument from IG users that, this or that point shift makes this or that IG unit cost like another IG unit. This way they can never be balanced.

You realise you could just, let's say double all the point costs and then beginn the finetuning.
That would yield better results.
I will however accept you removal idea especially in the case of primaris marines.

Karol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
So basically you remove other armies units because the main problem lies with your army?

I'd say that is Envy at top level!

If they seem to be a problem for balanced rules and there isn't much mechanical difference between the units why not. Has nothing to do with envy. Can someone explain to me why vets and scions have to exist as an option in the same codex? Or sternguard and space marine veterans?

Aside from just removing options from the IG book, how does that help Space Marines?

leaves space for design to work their magic. Right now any point changes bring up the argument from IG users that, this or that point shift makes this or that IG unit cost like another IG unit. This way they can never be balanced.

Traditionally Stormtroopers were basicallly an ELITE choice, and were not a troop choice. In certain armies you could take them as a troop choice but only if you fufilled a certain requirement IE were playing stormtroopers.

Company Veterans were basically for command squads and were an HQ Choice. They would accompany company commanders / captains similar to Command Squads for Guard who also used to be an HQ choice. This was changed for only this edition for some reason.

Sternguard were for a long time the go to for special weapons and had special ammunition..

Veterans for Guardsmen could have a better armor save but weren't stormtroppers they were better than normal on the line guardsmen and concripts and could be taken in squads of ten, and could take more heavy weapons than a normal platoon. They were also a troop choice along with guardsmen, and conscripts.