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.

Spoletta wrote:
Guardmen are 4 ppm, that is the truth that we have to accept and that has been set in stone by veterans going to 5.

Yeah it makes tactical marines (loyal and not) look really bad in comparison, but the sad reality is that they are bad. Compared to other troops like kabalites and fire warriors, they are not so out of it at 4 ppm, so let's accept that tacs are just bad.

We also had the GW answer to this "Yeah tacs are bad, but you have those nice primaris troops right here!.Oh look now they are even cheaper!". Intercessors at 17 are exceptional troops, clearly meant to squat marine troops. The meta is a bit against 2W models right now, but mathematically intercessors are good.

4 ppm Infantry are the best performing troop in the game bar none by quite margin.

5 ppm Infantry are one of the best (joint top performing troops) still.

This isn’t a comparison between Tacs and Infantry either. This is a comparison between Infantry, Boyz, Cultists, Fire Warriors, Skitari Rangers and any other troop you think is half decent. They beat them all. Hands down.

If they stay at 4 ppm I’ll be petitioning GW to reduce the cost of every other troop in the game to balance. It makes Boyz going up to 7 ppm even more heinous and stupid.

w1zard wrote:
IMO, the fix for guard is a 4/5/6 point scheme. Concripts should still have the <Regiment> tag for access to doctrines, but the raw recruits rule should be changed to "Can't receive orders at all". Commissar summary execution should be: "If a unit within 6" fails a morale test, execute a model of your choice and redo the morale test without adding the roll"... simple, USEFUL, and you always at least break even regardless of the circumstances. It also ensures that large conscript units aren't totally immune to battle shock because at absolute maximum you are saving 5 models.

I like that a lot. It makes commissars reliable at keeping basic Infantry in line, but unable to totally stop Conscripts from fleeing.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
4 ppm Infantry are the best performing troop in the game bar none by quite margin.

5 ppm Infantry are one of the best (joint top performing troops) still.

This isn’t a comparison between Tacs and Infantry either. This is a comparison between Infantry, Boyz, Cultists, Fire Warriors, Skitari Rangers and any other troop you think is half decent. They beat them all. Hands down.

If they stay at 4 ppm I’ll be petitioning GW to reduce the cost of every other troop in the game to balance. It makes Boyz going up to 7 ppm even more heinous and stupid.

Agreed with this. I'm quite surprised that CA didn't bump them up to 5pts, because as it stands Infantry can outshoot Fire Warriors and that just isn't right.

I like the 4pt Conscript, 5pt Infantry, 6pt Veteran progression, but I'm not sure that Conscripts would be worth it at that price. Their terrible morale, reduced BS, and only receiving orders on a 4+ are more than a 1pt penalty, but at the same time 3pts feels too cheap. Maybe if they could still receive orders normally and had Ld6; then they'd basically be Infantry with 2/3 the accuracy, worse Ld, larger units, and no heavy weapons for a point cheaper.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Guardmen are 4 ppm, that is the truth that we have to accept and that has been set in stone by veterans going to 5.

Yeah it makes tactical marines (loyal and not) look really bad in comparison, but the sad reality is that they are bad. Compared to other troops like kabalites and fire warriors, they are not so out of it at 4 ppm, so let's accept that tacs are just bad.

We also had the GW answer to this "Yeah tacs are bad, but you have those nice primaris troops right here!.Oh look now they are even cheaper!". Intercessors at 17 are exceptional troops, clearly meant to squat marine troops. The meta is a bit against 2W models right now, but mathematically intercessors are good.

4 ppm Infantry are the best performing troop in the game bar none by quite margin.

5 ppm Infantry are one of the best (joint top performing troops) still.

This isn’t a comparison between Tacs and Infantry either. This is a comparison between Infantry, Boyz, Cultists, Fire Warriors, Skitari Rangers and any other troop you think is half decent. They beat them all. Hands down.

If they stay at 4 ppm I’ll be petitioning GW to reduce the cost of every other troop in the game to balance. It makes Boyz going up to 7 ppm even more heinous and stupid.

Yeah, 8 ppm Scions!

Karol wrote:
So they would cost 5pts less then strikes. That would be kind of a unfair considering they have 2W.

Play something else.

w1zard wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ultimately, within 8th edition, I suspect all we'll see is points rejiggering, Guardsmen will go to 5ppm, Veterans will be left where they are for one reason or another, Conscripts will stay 4ppm, and GW will call that "good enough".

Veterans being the same price as guardsmen is utterly stupid. They really need to be troops choices. Stromtroopers should be elites, but count as troops inside <Militarum Tempestus> detachments.

I'm actually not so sure on that, I could see an argument for 4 point Conscripts, 5 point Infantry,and 5 point Veterans.

Infantry: Troop Choice, Objective Secured - they hold objectives and give you your CPs

Veterans: Better BS, more access to special weapons (but they also pay more for special weapons), rule of 3 - they hit more often and harder than Infantry, but their weapons cost more and you can only have 3 of them. So unless you really want that sweet BS 3+ on your lasguns, you are going to be paying more than the standard Infantry Squad, the price is just in their equipment rather than the body.

The point being, the standard Infantry Squad will have its place as the boots on the ground, while Veterans will give you more bang for your buck but require more investment to hit much harder than a regular Infantry Squad.

kurhanik wrote:
I'm actually not so sure on that, I could see an argument for 4 point Conscripts, 5 point Infantry,and 5 point Veterans.

Infantry: Troop Choice, Objective Secured - they hold objectives and give you your CPs

Veterans: Better BS, more access to special weapons (but they also pay more for special weapons), rule of 3 - they hit more often and harder than Infantry, but their weapons cost more and you can only have 3 of them. So unless you really want that sweet BS 3+ on your lasguns, you are going to be paying more than the standard Infantry Squad, the price is just in their equipment rather than the body.

The point being, the standard Infantry Squad will have its place as the boots on the ground, while Veterans will give you more bang for your buck but require more investment to hit much harder than a regular Infantry Squad.

I find it so hard to justify taking Veterans as elite units. With CP being so useful, just taking more Infantry is almost always the better option. Or if I really need veterans, I take Scions, which fill up troop slots and so give CP. It's not even like you have to take Veterans to get a brigade working, as Astropaths, Enginseers and Platoon Commanders are all decent choices.

I would totally pay 6 point for troop veterans though. Maybe even 7, but that is a lot. Then you could do a proper mechvet brigade.

kurhanik wrote:
Veterans: Better BS, more access to special weapons (but they also pay more for special weapons), rule of 3 - they hit more often and harder than Infantry, but their weapons cost more and you can only have 3 of them. So unless you really want that sweet BS 3+ on your lasguns, you are going to be paying more than the standard Infantry Squad, the price is just in their equipment rather than the body.

The point being, the standard Infantry Squad will have its place as the boots on the ground, while Veterans will give you more bang for your buck but require more investment to hit much harder than a regular Infantry Squad.

Why should veterans cost the same as infantry if they are better? Points cost is purely supposed to be about tabletop performance, not be about "role"... and objective secured is another stupid rule.

Veterans being elite choices means that mechanized vet armies, or aircav vet, or even foot vet (elite light infantry) regiments are impossible to play on the tabletop.

Guard should have a choice between cheap but poorly trained meatshields (conscripts at 4ppm) meant to be tarpit units and objective holders, expensive but flexible and deadly vets (veterans at 6ppm) meant to be hard hitting glass cannons, or something between the two (guardsmen at 5ppm).

Either that, or vets should be eliminated entirely and just have the progression be conscript>guardsman>stormtrooper. Problem with that is people would have to run every regiment that is not a bog standard infantry regiment or a soviet style conscript regiment as a <Militarum Tempestus> regiment instead which limits people's options.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Guardmen are 4 ppm, that is the truth that we have to accept and that has been set in stone by veterans going to 5.

Yeah it makes tactical marines (loyal and not) look really bad in comparison, but the sad reality is that they are bad. Compared to other troops like kabalites and fire warriors, they are not so out of it at 4 ppm, so let's accept that tacs are just bad.

We also had the GW answer to this "Yeah tacs are bad, but you have those nice primaris troops right here!.Oh look now they are even cheaper!". Intercessors at 17 are exceptional troops, clearly meant to squat marine troops. The meta is a bit against 2W models right now, but mathematically intercessors are good.

4 ppm Infantry are the best performing troop in the game bar none by quite margin.

5 ppm Infantry are one of the best (joint top performing troops) still.

This isn’t a comparison between Tacs and Infantry either. This is a comparison between Infantry, Boyz, Cultists, Fire Warriors, Skitari Rangers and any other troop you think is half decent. They beat them all. Hands down.

If they stay at 4 ppm I’ll be petitioning GW to reduce the cost of every other troop in the game to balance. It makes Boyz going up to 7 ppm even more heinous and stupid.

Check your math, guards at 4ppm have exceptional durability, but have less firepower point per point than firewarriors and kabalite against a lot of targets. At 5 points they would be woefully behind them.

 Trickstick wrote:
Why would conscripts go to 6+ though? They have exactly the same equipment that regular Guardsmen have. Well, at least the type of conscripts we see in game do. Conscripts are just soldiers fresh from boot camp, or given less training than standard Guardsmen. To get a 6+ save you would need different models to represent the sort of "frateris militia" style men that a 6+ save would represent.

Erm . . . Catachan figures? Not armoured at all?

Maybe conscripts get armour that does not pass quality control?

Moriarty wrote:


Erm . . . Catachan figures? Not armoured at all?

They are so buff bullets just bounce off their abs

Spoletta wrote:
Check your math, guards at 4ppm have exceptional durability, but have less firepower point per point than firewarriors and kabalite against a lot of targets. At 5 points they would be woefully behind them.

Completely and utterly wrong.

The maths has been done. Its also been referenced in this thread. I'm not going to ask the person who's done it already to do it again.

I think you need to check your numbers.

Does this mean if the maths is as I've states you'll concede the point that Infantry are too cheap?

w1zard wrote:

Why should veterans cost the same as infantry if they are better? Points cost is purely supposed to be about tabletop performance, not be about "role"... and objective secured is another stupid rule.

Veterans being elite choices means that mechanized vet armies, or aircav vet, or even foot vet (elite light infantry) regiments are impossible to play on the tabletop.

Guard should have a choice between cheap but poorly trained meatshields (conscripts at 4ppm) meant to be tarpit units and objective holders, expensive but flexible and deadly vets (veterans at 6ppm) meant to be hard hitting glass cannons, or something between the two (guardsmen at 5ppm).

Points cost most definitely needs to take battlefield role into account. Objective secured is not a stupid rule at all.

A mechanised vet list or foot based vet list is absolutely possible on the tabletop. You just aren't happy because it doesn't give you a ton of CP. Well such is life. Its why my dedicated Biker Orks army has to take Grots or Boys for CP. Why pure jetbike armies aren't a thing anymore. Why pure Deathwing armies don't exist. Every faction has had the same change so I'm not sure why Guard should be any different? The complaint is even more confusing because Guard players are very quick to point out that their stratagems are 'useless' and the CP they provide is used only to feed better stratagems in other factions. I guess in a pure Guard list you won't miss not having CP then, as the stratagems are so poor?

I hope that you don't mean that dumb math that gets thrown around pitting one unit against each other, because it is 100% misleading in its results.

Man, if you truly run it you get that Hunters are the most OP thing in the game, because they are 250% better than Lemans, how can you even consider a math like that??.

Trickstick wrote:

kurhanik wrote:
I'm actually not so sure on that, I could see an argument for 4 point Conscripts, 5 point Infantry,and 5 point Veterans.

Infantry: Troop Choice, Objective Secured - they hold objectives and give you your CPs

Veterans: Better BS, more access to special weapons (but they also pay more for special weapons), rule of 3 - they hit more often and harder than Infantry, but their weapons cost more and you can only have 3 of them. So unless you really want that sweet BS 3+ on your lasguns, you are going to be paying more than the standard Infantry Squad, the price is just in their equipment rather than the body.

The point being, the standard Infantry Squad will have its place as the boots on the ground, while Veterans will give you more bang for your buck but require more investment to hit much harder than a regular Infantry Squad.

I find it so hard to justify taking Veterans as elite units. With CP being so useful, just taking more Infantry is almost always the better option. Or if I really need veterans, I take Scions, which fill up troop slots and so give CP. It's not even like you have to take Veterans to get a brigade working, as Astropaths, Enginseers and Platoon Commanders are all decent choices.

I would totally pay 6 point for troop veterans though. Maybe even 7, but that is a lot. Then you could do a proper mechvet brigade.

Oh, I'm not saying Veterans wouldn't be better as a troop choice, I'm just saying that if everything stays as it is, but regular Infantry get a price bump, Veterans at least will have a place at 5ppm.

w1zard wrote:

kurhanik wrote:
Veterans: Better BS, more access to special weapons (but they also pay more for special weapons), rule of 3 - they hit more often and harder than Infantry, but their weapons cost more and you can only have 3 of them. So unless you really want that sweet BS 3+ on your lasguns, you are going to be paying more than the standard Infantry Squad, the price is just in their equipment rather than the body.

The point being, the standard Infantry Squad will have its place as the boots on the ground, while Veterans will give you more bang for your buck but require more investment to hit much harder than a regular Infantry Squad.

Why should veterans cost the same as infantry if they are better? Points cost is purely supposed to be about tabletop performance, not be about "role"... and objective secured is another stupid rule.

Veterans being elite choices means that mechanized vet armies, or aircav vet, or even foot vet (elite light infantry) regiments are impossible to play on the tabletop.

Guard should have a choice between cheap but poorly trained meatshields (conscripts at 4ppm) meant to be tarpit units and objective holders, expensive but flexible and deadly vets (veterans at 6ppm) meant to be hard hitting glass cannons, or something between the two (guardsmen at 5ppm).

Either that, or vets should be eliminated entirely and just have the progression be conscript>guardsman>stormtrooper. Problem with that is people would have to run every regiment that is not a bog standard infantry regiment or a soviet style conscript regiment as a <Militarum Tempestus> regiment instead which limits people's options.

Well, the idea is that while Veterans would be the same price per model as Infantry, they still pay more to kit out. With Chapter Approved, I think a Plasma Gun is 4 points more to give to a Veteran than an Infantryman. The slot they are in matters specifically because that is the current limiting factor of using them - they generate less cp, lack ob sec, and limit your other Elite choices.

So:
Infantry Squad (noting 5ppm), 1 Plasma Gun - 57 points --- 4+ to hit, a troop choice so A) basically required and B) objective secured
Veterans (also 5ppm), 3 Plasma Guns - 83 points (noting I don't have Chapter Approved yet, but I think 11 is the new points for Plasma) --- 3+ to hit, elite choice so A) limited by rule of 3 and Elite slots, and B) no objective secured

One squad is killier while the other is soakier, and neither are the same cost per unit in the end. I will admit that not all special weapons, and none of the heavy weapons have alternate points cost, so not a perfect example, but the other point still stands.

I am solely noting this on the thought process that GW is more likely to rejigger points than to say "hey, remember how we moved Veterans to the Elite slot 2 years ago? Pretend that didn't happen".

For your second point, with the loss of Carapace Armor for Veterans, some people already have to use Tempestus to mark their better kitted out troopers.

An Actual Englishman wrote:

w1zard wrote:

Why should veterans cost the same as infantry if they are better? Points cost is purely supposed to be about tabletop performance, not be about "role"... and objective secured is another stupid rule.

Veterans being elite choices means that mechanized vet armies, or aircav vet, or even foot vet (elite light infantry) regiments are impossible to play on the tabletop.

Guard should have a choice between cheap but poorly trained meatshields (conscripts at 4ppm) meant to be tarpit units and objective holders, expensive but flexible and deadly vets (veterans at 6ppm) meant to be hard hitting glass cannons, or something between the two (guardsmen at 5ppm).

Points cost most definitely needs to take battlefield role into account. Objective secured is not a stupid rule at all.

A mechanised vet list or foot based vet list is absolutely possible on the tabletop. You just aren't happy because it doesn't give you a ton of CP. Well such is life. Its why my dedicated Biker Orks army has to take Grots or Boys for CP. Why pure jetbike armies aren't a thing anymore. Why pure Deathwing armies don't exist. Every faction has had the same change so I'm not sure why Guard should be any different? The complaint is even more confusing because Guard players are very quick to point out that their stratagems are 'useless' and the CP they provide is used only to feed better stratagems in other factions. I guess in a pure Guard list you won't miss not having CP then, as the stratagems are so poor?

The reason a full vet list isn't possible on the tabletop is due to them being elite slot, limiting you to 3 Veterans. In past editions, Veterans were troops, so you could make a list that was pure Veterans without any standard Infantry or Conscripts. Hard to call a list a vet list if it only includes 3 squads of them.

If I ever get my hands on that Vigilus book, I do want to test out that Mechanized group with my Steel Legion. Might even be somewhat useable with Veterans due to the recent price cuts on them, their special weapons, and Chimera. If the bit I saw is true, I'd be able to move, disembark via stratagem, and then reembark said unit afterwards thanks to Steel Legion rules, which gives at least a small glimpse at the old Mech Vets from past editions.

The armageddon order can't be used on a unit that disembarked this turn, so your vet squad would have to spend a turn in the open before being able to hop in on your next turn.

Because they're the real protagonists in 40k

Marines are just a front

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
A mechanised vet list or foot based vet list is absolutely possible on the tabletop.

Please, enlighten me on this considering vets are elites and therefore limited to the rule of 3.

kurhanik wrote:
Well, the idea is that while Veterans would be the same price per model as Infantry, they still pay more to kit out. With Chapter Approved, I think a Plasma Gun is 4 points more to give to a Veteran than an Infantryman. The slot they are in matters specifically because that is the current limiting factor of using them - they generate less cp, lack ob sec, and limit your other Elite choices.

I just fundamentally disagree with the concept of a better unit being the same price as a worse unit tabletop wise. That is not how the points system is intended to work, and encourages spam. In your scenario, the only time I would ever take standard guardsmen is if my elite slots are full because veterans are just better in every way.

kurhanik wrote:
For your second point, with the loss of Carapace Armor for Veterans, some people already have to use Tempestus to mark their better kitted out troopers.

I don't mean in terms of models using the "counts as" rule... I mean if veterans are eliminated, people who want to run anything more elite than a standard infantry regiment will have to run stormtroopers or go home. Stormtroopers have their own rules and restrictions, and don't even get their doctrines if anything else in their detachment doesn't have the <Militarum Tempestus> keyword.

Tyel wrote:

Karol wrote:
So they would cost 5pts less then strikes. That would be kind of a unfair considering they have 2W.

Play something else.

40pts termintors, because GK don't have any other troops? termintors are even worse when comparing to primaris. They get same fire power for half the points and twice as many wounds, on top of chapter tactics or any synergy marines have between their units.

Please, enlighten me on this considering vets are elites and therefore limited to the rule of 3.

Can't IG "cheat" the way chaos does, where a catachan vet and cadian vet are two different type of models.

w1zard wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
A mechanised vet list or foot based vet list is absolutely possible on the tabletop.

Please, enlighten me on this considering vets are elites and therefore limited to the rule of 3.

kurhanik wrote:
Well, the idea is that while Veterans would be the same price per model as Infantry, they still pay more to kit out. With Chapter Approved, I think a Plasma Gun is 4 points more to give to a Veteran than an Infantryman. The slot they are in matters specifically because that is the current limiting factor of using them - they generate less cp, lack ob sec, and limit your other Elite choices.

I just fundamentally disagree with the concept of a better unit being the same price as a worse unit tabletop wise. That is not how the points system is intended to work, and encourages spam. In your scenario, the only time I would ever take standard guardsmen is if my elite slots are full because veterans are just better in every way.

kurhanik wrote:
For your second point, with the loss of Carapace Armor for Veterans, some people already have to use Tempestus to mark their better kitted out troopers.

I don't mean in terms of models using the "counts as" rule... I mean if veterans are eliminated, people who want to run anything more elite than a standard infantry regiment will have to run stormtroopers or go home. Stormtroopers have their own rules and restrictions, and don't even get their doctrines if anything else in their detachment doesn't have the <Militarum Tempestus> keyword.

That last bit is fairly debunked with the Tempestus Drop Force specialist detachment. Militarum Tempestus can take Advisors and Auxillia without losing Stormtroopers.

w1zard wrote:

I just fundamentally disagree with the concept of a better unit being the same price as a worse unit tabletop wise. That is not how the points system is intended to work, and encourages spam. In your scenario, the only time I would ever take standard guardsmen is if my elite slots are full because veterans are just better in every way.

Whilst I agree that it seems wrong to have a unit with worse stats to cost the same than unit with better stats, the fact is that being a troop is worth something, worth quite a lot in fact. Troops have objective secured, and more importantly are much more effective generating CP. These are tangible effects which should be reflected in the point cost of the unit.

Karol wrote:
Can't IG "cheat" the way chaos does, where a catachan vet and cadian vet are two different type of models.

No, a veteran squad is a veteran squad, regardless of the doctrine or regiment tag it has. You get 2/3/4 at the appropriate point levels and that is it.

 Apple Peel wrote:
That last bit is fairly debunked with the Tempestus Drop Force specialist detachment. Militarum Tempestus can take Advisors and Auxillia without losing Stormtroopers.

Oh I am well aware. But you can't say... run a "heavy infantry" regiment using stormtroopers and take tanks without losing your doctrine. Trying to run any kind of "elite infantry" guard list using stormtroopers as your "veterans" doesn't work the second you want to include anything except advisors, taurox, or valks.

 Crimson wrote:
Whilst I agree that it seems wrong to have a unit with worse stats to cost the same than unit with better stats, the fact is that being a troop is worth something, worth quite a lot in fact. Troops have objective secured, and more importantly are much more effective generating CP. These are tangible effects which should be reflected in the point cost of the unit.

I see your point, but I want to just re-iterate that points are NOT the way to balance this. Again, I bring up the example of why the hell should I take basic Infantry Squads if I have elite slots open for veterans in that scenario, since veterans cost the same and are better in pretty much every way?

 Apple Peel wrote:
That last bit is fairly debunked with the Tempestus Drop Force specialist detachment. Militarum Tempestus can take Advisors and Auxillia without losing Stormtroopers.

Oh I am well aware. But you can't say... run a "heavy infantry" regiment using stormtroopers and take tanks without losing your doctrine. Trying to run any kind of "elite infantry" guard list using stormtroopers as your "veterans" doesn't work the second you want to include anything except advisors, taurox, or valks.

Good thing I’m building Militarum Tempestus list, in which I only use that stuff! Hew hew hew.

w1zard wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Whilst I agree that it seems wrong to have a unit with worse stats to cost the same than unit with better stats, the fact is that being a troop is worth something, worth quite a lot in fact. Troops have objective secured, and more importantly are much more effective generating CP. These are tangible effects which should be reflected in the point cost of the unit.

I see your point, but I want to just re-iterate that points are NOT the way to balance this. Again, I bring up the example of why the hell should I take basic Infantry Squads if I have elite slots open for veterans in that scenario, since veterans cost the same and are better in pretty much every way?

Vets are glass cannon's, they have a much better damage output but are every bit as fragile as regular infantry squads. They also cost more (extra special weapon choices and the increased cost for those special weapons), in short they'll be less efficent as objective holders, screening units and ablative wounds, things you'll still want typical infantry squads for as they're more cost efficient.

w1zard wrote:
Oh I am well aware. But you can't say... run a "heavy infantry" regiment using stormtroopers and take tanks without losing your doctrine. Trying to run any kind of "elite infantry" guard list using stormtroopers as your "veterans" doesn't work the second you want to include anything except advisors, taurox, or valks.

Sure you can. Just take a Tempestus battalion and then add a spearhead for the tanks.

 Trickstick wrote:

w1zard wrote:
Oh I am well aware. But you can't say... run a "heavy infantry" regiment using stormtroopers and take tanks without losing your doctrine. Trying to run any kind of "elite infantry" guard list using stormtroopers as your "veterans" doesn't work the second you want to include anything except advisors, taurox, or valks.

Sure you can. Just take a Tempestus battalion and then add a spearhead for the tanks.

Let me just load up my heavy infantry regiment in Chimeras and.... Oh
Oh no.

Guardsmen are so good because GW loves money. Imperial Guard are one of the most expensive armies to collect and if the most competitive army also costs the most money, then GW sales go through the roof. Just look at their profits last year!

Just look at Chapter Approved 2018. The models that got the greatest reductions were the ones that arguably sell the least. Tyranids is a great example of this, with a lot of the big nids taking reductions but only the ones that are barely used by most people.

The other side of mass points reductions means those who build to a set list, MUST buy more models to make their army up to the points it used to be.

In about a year, when they have reached market saturation, i will put good money on the belief they will nerf Imperial Guard with points increases and instead favour another army that will lead to better sales.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

w1zard wrote:
Oh I am well aware. But you can't say... run a "heavy infantry" regiment using stormtroopers and take tanks without losing your doctrine. Trying to run any kind of "elite infantry" guard list using stormtroopers as your "veterans" doesn't work the second you want to include anything except advisors, taurox, or valks.

Sure you can. Just take a Tempestus battalion and then add a spearhead for the tanks.

Let me just load up my heavy infantry regiment in Chimeras and.... Oh
Oh no.

Taurox are pretty good.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

w1zard wrote:
Oh I am well aware. But you can't say... run a "heavy infantry" regiment using stormtroopers and take tanks without losing your doctrine. Trying to run any kind of "elite infantry" guard list using stormtroopers as your "veterans" doesn't work the second you want to include anything except advisors, taurox, or valks.

Sure you can. Just take a Tempestus battalion and then add a spearhead for the tanks.

Let me just load up my heavy infantry regiment in Chimeras and.... Oh
Oh no.

Taurox are pretty good.

Taroxes are great, as long as you buy a wheel conversion kit and throw away the silly tracks.

As far as I can glean from this conversation, guardsmen are awesome not for their ability to kill things (seriously, they have lasguns? why are we even discussing the math for that, no one is winning games on lasguns or bolt shots. And if you're complaining about the HW or SW thats a seperate point cost), but for the meta aspects such as board control and CP generation.

Fix the CP thing by not permitting people to use CPs from one detachment on another unless they're the same sub-faction. Thats the way it should have been from the beginning.

I doubt anyone can fix board control without a new game revision though. Its too varied. I watch youtube game reports, and some people use nearly zero terrain in their battles, while others pack it to the gills. At that point you're playing different games.

The terrain rules in 8th edition were just too basic. The recommended terrain piece count should be higher (imo), and more terrain should be made that blocks LOS. My terrain supply consisted of ruins, trees, bushes, hills. . . a really diverse selection. My opponent and I would take turns placing it until we felt like there was enough, although ussually we just went until we ran out. The only house rule was you had to leave enough room between one piece and another for the vehicles to drive through.

gbghg wrote:The armageddon order can't be used on a unit that disembarked this turn, so your vet squad would have to spend a turn in the open before being able to hop in on your next turn.

Blast. Well, better to find that out now than later. I guess I should have taken more than a cursory look at the leaks (I don't have the book yet, probably won't get it for awhile).

w1zard wrote:

kurhanik wrote:
Well, the idea is that while Veterans would be the same price per model as Infantry, they still pay more to kit out. With Chapter Approved, I think a Plasma Gun is 4 points more to give to a Veteran than an Infantryman. The slot they are in matters specifically because that is the current limiting factor of using them - they generate less cp, lack ob sec, and limit your other Elite choices.

I just fundamentally disagree with the concept of a better unit being the same price as a worse unit tabletop wise. That is not how the points system is intended to work, and encourages spam. In your scenario, the only time I would ever take standard guardsmen is if my elite slots are full because veterans are just better in every way.

Except rule of 3 means that you aren't spamming Veterans until the elite slots are full, you are spamming until you hit 3 squads total. And you could be using those elite slots for other things as well, and unless you plan on just throwing in 3 squads/150 points of BS 3+ lasguns, you are paying extra for the special weapons, so they still come out as more expensive per model.

Crimson wrote:

w1zard wrote:

I just fundamentally disagree with the concept of a better unit being the same price as a worse unit tabletop wise. That is not how the points system is intended to work, and encourages spam. In your scenario, the only time I would ever take standard guardsmen is if my elite slots are full because veterans are just better in every way.

Whilst I agree that it seems wrong to have a unit with worse stats to cost the same than unit with better stats, the fact is that being a troop is worth something, worth quite a lot in fact. Troops have objective secured, and more importantly are much more effective generating CP. These are tangible effects which should be reflected in the point cost of the unit.

This.

gbghg wrote:

w1zard wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Whilst I agree that it seems wrong to have a unit with worse stats to cost the same than unit with better stats, the fact is that being a troop is worth something, worth quite a lot in fact. Troops have objective secured, and more importantly are much more effective generating CP. These are tangible effects which should be reflected in the point cost of the unit.

I see your point, but I want to just re-iterate that points are NOT the way to balance this. Again, I bring up the example of why the hell should I take basic Infantry Squads if I have elite slots open for veterans in that scenario, since veterans cost the same and are better in pretty much every way?

Vets are glass cannon's, they have a much better damage output but are every bit as fragile as regular infantry squads. They also cost more (extra special weapon choices and the increased cost for those special weapons), in short they'll be less efficent as objective holders, screening units and ablative wounds, things you'll still want typical infantry squads for as they're more cost efficient.

Also this.

Note, I still personally would rather the 4-5-6 deal with Veterans as Troops. I'm just arguing the point that GW is much more likely to bump the point of the standard Infantry Squad by 1ppm than they are to change the battlefield role of Veterans.

Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

w1zard wrote:
Oh I am well aware. But you can't say... run a "heavy infantry" regiment using stormtroopers and take tanks without losing your doctrine. Trying to run any kind of "elite infantry" guard list using stormtroopers as your "veterans" doesn't work the second you want to include anything except advisors, taurox, or valks.

Sure you can. Just take a Tempestus battalion and then add a spearhead for the tanks.

Let me just load up my heavy infantry regiment in Chimeras and.... Oh
Oh no.

Man, I do like the look of the Chimera far more than the Taurox.

Sumilidon wrote:Guardsmen are so good because GW loves money. Imperial Guard are one of the most expensive armies to collect and if the most competitive army also costs the most money, then GW sales go through the roof. Just look at their profits last year!

Just look at Chapter Approved 2018. The models that got the greatest reductions were the ones that arguably sell the least. Tyranids is a great example of this, with a lot of the big nids taking reductions but only the ones that are barely used by most people.

The other side of mass points reductions means those who build to a set list, MUST buy more models to make their army up to the points it used to be.

In about a year, when they have reached market saturation, i will put good money on the belief they will nerf Imperial Guard with points increases and instead favour another army that will lead to better sales.

Eh, if that were true Guard and other Horde armies would be consistently better over the years. Instead we have the situation where Guard was bad for a good chunk of 3rd, 4th, 6th, and 7th editions, Tyranids were bad from 5th-7th, and Orks from 6th-7th.

I can't argue with your point on mass point reductions though. They really need to just multiply the points on everything so that they can be rejiggered with more granularity.

Another dakka thread reduced to salt about Guardsmen.

I'll live for a thousand years at this rate.

 Cephalobeard wrote:
Another dakka thread reduced to salt about Guardsmen.

I'll live for a thousand years at this rate.

But this isn't about guardsmen. It's about marines being 'not good'.