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.

 gbghg wrote:
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.

Not if vets and infantry squads are both worth 5 points... that is what we are talking about here... vets wouldn't be any more expensive than regular infantry squads. If you intended to use them as a backfield objective holder than just leave them bare... if you wanted to use them as a frontline heavy hitter take 3 plasma guns... vets are actually MORE flexible in that scenario because they can pretty much do everything.

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

Then your tanks are a totally different doctrine as your stormtroopers, throwing away your army cohesion. You are playing two separate armies at that point that have merely allied rather than a cohesive fighting force of a single regiment.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Let me just load up my heavy infantry regiment in Chimeras and.... Oh
Oh no.

This x1000. Using stormtroopers as stand ins for "veterans" or "elite regiments" leads to a whole host of problems.

kurhanik wrote:
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...

Which I still think is a terrible thing. Vets being the same price as infantry means pretty much every competitive guard army runs the max complements of vets before they even touch infantry. My point still stands.

Vets are supposed to be their own thing, paying for the trade-off of having better aim for a higher price.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 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'.

It has Guardsmen right there in the title?

It just got Polandified by Martel and his clone/minion/offspring.

Yes, but the whole conversation was about how they made Marines seem less 'special'. Well, until the points costs of veterans vs troops came up.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Yes, but the whole conversation was about how they made Marines seem less 'special'. Well, until the points costs of veterans vs troops came up.

Personally, I think this hits the nail on the head.

Guard are strong this edition, nobody is debating that. If they are "overpowered" is arguable, mostly because the worst offenders in the guard index were nerfed into oblivion in the codex. Besides a few outstanding issues (guardsmen could really come up to 5ppm) I would personally say guard are "strong but balanced" territory.

The problem is that SM suck this edition, easily in the bottom 3 codices only above the abomination that is the GK codex. Guard being strong and SM sucking make SM look really bad by comparison. People seem infuriated by the fact that an army of "standard dudes" seems to outperform their supersoldiers. Eldar are arguably even worse than guard in terms of power and you don't see half as much "nerf eldar" threads as you do "nerf guard" threads. People seem to be ok with their space marines getting blown away by an army of psychic uber-elves, but get cognitive dissonance when their space marines get blown away by schmucks with laser pointers.

w1zard wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Yes, but the whole conversation was about how they made Marines seem less 'special'. Well, until the points costs of veterans vs troops came up.

Personally, I think this hits the nail on the head.

Guard are strong this edition, nobody is debating that. If they are "overpowered" is arguable, mostly because the worst offenders in the guard index were nerfed into oblivion in the codex. Besides a few outstanding issues (guardsmen could really come up to 5ppm) I would personally say guard are "strong but balanced" territory.

The problem is that SM suck this edition, easily in the bottom 3 codices only above the abomination that is the GK codex. Guard being strong and SM sucking make SM look really bad by comparison. People seem infuriated by the fact that an army of "standard dudes" seems to outperform their supersoldiers. Eldar are arguably even worse than guard in terms of power and you don't see half as much "nerf eldar" threads as you do "nerf guard" threads. People seem to be ok with their space marines getting blown away by an army of psychic uber-elves, but get cognitive dissonance when their space marines get blown away by schmucks with laser pointers.

This.

Guards could go to 5 ppm and probably should i agree, but that change wouldn't even make it in the top 5 of a "Most important balance changes" chart in an edition where we are enjoying the best balance in a loooong time. Yet it is receiving as much flack, if not more, of wraithknights and grav cannons of 7th.

Hmm let's see:

1) Disable CP sharing
2) Somehow fix Yannari trait
3) Change/remove Supreme Command Detachment
4) Cawl's Wrath to D2
5) Dissie cannons to D1
6) Rotate ion shields capped at 4++
7) Tank commanders BS to 4+
8) Limit infantry squads in some way


Yeah, definitely not in the top 5. Even there, i prefer guards at 4 ppm now that veterans are at 5. Guards are not a problem because they cost 4 ppm, that is not ruining anyone's day, they are a problem because they can receive a lot of support in the form of orders or through priest/Yarrick. Instead of increasing the base cost of guards, i would increase the cost of orders, putting the platoon commander at 30 and the company commander at 55. This would also reduce the soupability of guards a bit.

Jesus Christ all this defending of undercoated Guardsmen.

It makes no difference if Vets are 5ppm. Perhaps they need to go back up.

4ppm Guardsmen are too cheap. They are taken en masse in competitive lists. Both of these things can be evidenced.

Spoletta I missed your previous question because you didn't quote me - the maths I'm referring to has Guardsmen offensive output per point against archetypal units. It also has durability per point against archetypal weapons. Then the same was done for Fire Warriors, Kabalites etc. Guardsmen were seen to be the best performing unit in any scenario.

Wizard the rule of 3 is for matched play only. If you want to run a fluffy vet only list play narrative or open. Or learn to live with it, like every other army. Again my Orks bikes are bound by the rule of 3, they've also had their maximum squad size reduced from index to codex. I don't see why IG should have more different rules to every other army (you already get pointed stratagems with orders that can't be denied).

On the lack of changes for Guardsmen in CA, the cynic in me thinks the only reason they stayed at 4ppm was because of the Boxing day Vostroyan release. But I'm sure many of you will call that paranoia, despite it being logical business practice.

30 guard in the scheme of things is not 'en masse'. 130 would be.

 Mmmpi wrote:
30 guard in the scheme of things is not 'en masse'. 130 would be.

How about 60? Or 80?

How about the fact that they feature in every competitive Imperium list, regardless of whether 30 or 120 are taken?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Jesus Christ all this defending of undercoated Guardsmen.

It makes no difference if Vets are 5ppm. Perhaps they need to go back up.

4ppm Guardsmen are too cheap. They are taken en masse in competitive lists. Both of these things can be evidenced.

Spoletta I missed your previous question because you didn't quote me - the maths I'm referring to has Guardsmen offensive output per point against archetypal units. It also has durability per point against archetypal weapons. Then the same was done for Fire Warriors, Kabalites etc. Guardsmen were seen to be the best performing unit in any scenario.

Wizard the rule of 3 is for matched play only. If you want to run a fluffy vet only list play narrative or open. Or learn to live with it, like every other army. Again my Orks bikes are bound by the rule of 3, they've also had their maximum squad size reduced from index to codex. I don't see why IG should have more different rules to every other army (you already get pointed stratagems with orders that can't be denied).

On the lack of changes for Guardsmen in CA, the cynic in me thinks the only reason they stayed at 4ppm was because of the Boxing day Vostroyan release. But I'm sure many of you will call that paranoia, despite it being logical business practice.

If that math says that against typical targets GEQ at 4ppm are superior to the alternatives, then that math is wrong. For example Fire warriors point per point outshoot guards against all T4, 6,7,8 targets and do so at longer range. Against T5 guards shoot a bit better, but at shorter ranges. The only target against which they are better is T3 (at shorter range).

Compared to kabalites, guards are outshoot against all targets of T4 or greater except against vehicles, and even against those targets guards are not much better.

Even against guardians the guards come really short on firepower, but there they have the range advantage, so i'm not going to make that comparison.

Against T6 ot T7 3+ targets they are even worse than necron warriors, and those things are not exactly renown for firepower.

Guards have exceptional durability, but when it comes to firepower they come short.

Probably that math you were talking about took orders in considerations, which makes them a lot better even including the costs of said orders. That though points to my solution of leaving guards at 4ppm but increasing the cost of orders.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
30 guard in the scheme of things is not 'en masse'. 130 would be.

How about 60? Or 80?

How about the fact that they feature in every competitive Imperium list, regardless of whether 30 or 120 are taken?

In 'every' competitive imperium list we see 30+ 2 officers. That's not a horde. That's not even a perk of guardsmen, outside of their price. If you gave them conscript stats and upgrades you, still see them taken.

IG lists field 60+. The rest don't. They take the Loyal 32 and no more. How many guard main lists do you see in tournaments?

Define what is an IG list, because no so long ago I was told that an army with 3 interceptor squads and the rest IG and SoB is a GK army.

If an IG army is something like 1950pts in only IG units, then it is less common. But if it is having your warlord being an IG dude, that it is a lot of armies.

Probably that math you were talking about took orders in considerations, which makes them a lot better even including the costs of said orders. That though points to my solution of leaving guards at 4ppm but increasing the cost of orders.

Well math is one thing. Another is the fact that while your IG dudes may not be the best at killing t6-7 stuff, they are still ok at it considering the numbers and point costs. And their cost means IG players can load up on baneblades, castellans, Lemman Russ cmds, basilisks etc for their anti heavy stuff. Other armies have to deal with tanks using their basic dudes with basic weapons and have zero free points to load take something like a castellan, or their method of dealing with tanks is melee. Which after the deep strike nerfs is not "easy" to do with 160 chaff standing in front of the tanks.

Spoletta wrote:
If that math says that against typical targets GEQ at 4ppm are superior to the alternatives, then that math is wrong. For example Fire warriors point per point outshoot guards against all T4, 6,7,8 targets and do so at longer range. Against T5 guards shoot a bit better, but at shorter ranges. The only target against which they are better is T3 (at shorter range).

Compared to kabalites, guards are outshoot against all targets of T4 or greater except against vehicles, and even against those targets guards are not much better.

Even against guardians the guards come really short on firepower, but there they have the range advantage, so i'm not going to make that comparison.

Against T6 ot T7 3+ targets they are even worse than necron warriors, and those things are not exactly renown for firepower.

Guards have exceptional durability, but when it comes to firepower they come short.

Probably that math you were talking about took orders in considerations, which makes them a lot better even including the costs of said orders. That though points to my solution of leaving guards at 4ppm but increasing the cost of orders.

I honestly can't remember if the maths took orders into account but I distinctly remember same points of Guard outperforming same points of other units both in terms offence and the obvious massive advantage they have I'm defence

The solution is certainly not to leave Guardsmen at 4ppm when, as you have yourself stated, they also have exceptional (read - the best of any troop by a long way) durability. This is not balanced. This is yet another reason why they need to be repointed appropriately.

 Mmmpi wrote:
In 'every' competitive imperium list we see 30+ 2 officers. That's not a horde. That's not even a perk of guardsmen, outside of their price. If you gave them conscript stats and upgrades you, still see them taken.

IG lists field 60+. The rest don't. They take the Loyal 32 and no more. How many guard main lists do you see in tournaments?

No mate. You are wrong. Look at the top lists. They aren't just taking a minimum battalion of Guard. Many take a brigade and many take even more by taking 8 units. Why do you think I raised those numbers earlier? They are commonly taken in the top competitive lists.

Guard primary (main) are the most common of all the Imperium soup lists taken to tournaments. They are certainly one of if not the most competitive configuration.

I field 60 Guardsmen due to the brigade requirements. It is no where near a large amount. In fact, I think it is a tiny number and they die off pretty quickly. If you are talking about "en mass" you need to be getting 120. Maybe 90 would do, but 120 is the point at which infantry is a major factor in the game.

@AAE

I just checked. Outiside of specifically IG lists, you only see a battalion. Ususally the L32, but occastionally with a few mortar squads.

However, inside IG lists, you do see a brigade. And they use six squads. And no more.

So great that they only take the bare minimum.

 Mmmpi wrote:
@AAE

I just checked. Outiside of specifically IG lists, you only see a battalion. Ususally the L32, but occastionally with a few mortar squads.

However, inside IG lists, you do see a brigade. And they use six squads. And no more.

So great that they only take the bare minimum.

I like russes too much. I'm basically taking armoured lists with 60 Guard as a brigade tax. I know that taking more would probably result in a better force, but playing with 120 infantry is annoying.

Edit: Unless you gunline I guess, but I despise playing gunline.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
@AAE

I just checked. Outiside of specifically IG lists, you only see a battalion. Ususally the L32, but occastionally with a few mortar squads.

However, inside IG lists, you do see a brigade. And they use six squads. And no more.

So great that they only take the bare minimum.

I like russes too much. I'm basically taking armoured lists with 60 Guard as a brigade tax. I know that taking more would probably result in a better force, but playing with 120 infantry is annoying.

Edit: Unless you gunline I guess, but I despise playing gunline.

I'd use more as well, but that's less of a power issue, and more of a theme one. However, I was referring to the top placing lists for major tournaments.
Besides, after the first 60, you start having to make trade offs, such as bodies for killing power. You yourself take fewer in exchange for Russes (russi?).

 Mmmpi wrote:
I'd use more as well, but that's less of a power issue, and more of a theme one. However, I was referring to the top placing lists for major tournaments.
Besides, after the first 60, you start having to make trade offs, such as bodies for killing power. You yourself take fewer in exchange for Russes (russi?).

You really need a good screen to use Russes much, or they just get tied up in combat. I think 60 is the minimum I would try, although I have been tempted to take an extra battalion and go for 90. I do find myself taking the minimal troops that a detachment needs, just to unlock as many CP as I can.

 Trickstick wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
I'd use more as well, but that's less of a power issue, and more of a theme one. However, I was referring to the top placing lists for major tournaments.
Besides, after the first 60, you start having to make trade offs, such as bodies for killing power. You yourself take fewer in exchange for Russes (russi?).

You really need a good screen to use Russes much, or they just get tied up in combat. I think 60 is the minimum I would try, although I have been tempted to take an extra battalion and go for 90. I do find myself taking the minimal troops that a detachment needs, just to unlock as many CP as I can.

Definitely. But at the same time, you should theoretically not need more than those 60, or 30 if you include other units to fill the gap.

Bring back the platoons so IG have to take 25 men in a Troops slot, but get a slotless Orderbot (platoon commander) and special weapon wielders (PCS).

I foresee something like 120 points for a bare Platoon.

Then make Veterans a Troops choice, but leave them at 6ppm (at least until this change shakes out).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Bring back the platoons so IG have to take 25 men in a Troops slot, but get a slotless Orderbot (platoon commander) and special weapon wielders (PCS).

I foresee something like 120 points for a bare Platoon.

Then make Veterans a Troops choice, but leave them at 6ppm (at least until this change shakes out).

I don't actually like forced platoons. It doubles brigade troop tax and greatly hurts the flexibility of Guard lists.

I would just make platoon commanders more viable somehow. Company commanders to 40 points could work. I was originally thinking a "can't have more company than platoon commanders" rule, but you should be able to just take a single company commander and no platoon commanders if you want, for small forces.

That's why I said move Vets to troops. Give the people that want to run 10 guardsmen in a slot an option, but make it cost more points.

Ideally, it should keep IG infantry spam viable, while still giving the 10 guys an option.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
That's why I said move Vets to troops.

I missed that. I'm blaming the Christmas sandwiches making me sleepy...

I think 4/5/6 troops would be my ideal solution, although I do have 1 problem with it. Mechanised infantry basically become useless at that point, with mechvets becoming the better choice by far. I know it is not that important but I actually quite like the idea of standard mech infantry, if only from a theme perspective. No idea if you could save them, or if they would just disappear in a 6 point troop vet world.

Just a point but wasn't the whole purpose of Platoons to allow IG to field enough models?

(This was back in the days when you had one FoC - once you filled those 6 troop slots, there was no taking a second detachment for more.)

I'm not entirely opposed to bringing them back (provided Vets are moved back to troops) but they do seem like something that really shouldn't be necessary with the current detachment rules.

 vipoid wrote:
Just a point but wasn't the whole purpose of Platoons to allow IG to field enough models?

(This was back in the days when you had one FoC - once you filled those 6 troop slots, there was no taking a second detachment for more.)

I'm not entirely opposed to bringing them back (provided Vets are moved back to troops) but they do seem like something that really shouldn't be necessary with the current detachment rules.

Perhaps, but they also balanced 40 pt guardsmen I think.

Plus? Honestly without platoons, armies aren't that thematic imo. "Here's my entire Mechanized Company, with as many squads as a typical platoon...."

 Trickstick wrote:
I think 4/5/6 troops would be my ideal solution, although I do have 1 problem with it. Mechanised infantry basically become useless at that point, with mechvets becoming the better choice by far. I know it is not that important but I actually quite like the idea of standard mech infantry, if only from a theme perspective. No idea if you could save them, or if they would just disappear in a 6 point troop vet world.

This is actually a real world problem. IRL mechanized transports are expensive, difficult to maintain, and limited in number. It makes sense to give it to your best soldiers so they can make the most use of them. Traditionally, mechanized infantry formations consisted of the most well trained/experienced soldiers a given military had outside of specialized units like commandos or paratroopers. "Veterans" don't have to literally be veterans, they could just be extremely well trained troops that happen to be as good as other regiment's actual veterans.

Alternatively, if you want to maintain that platoon structure... infantry platoons should allow every "part" of the infantry platoon to take a dedicated transport. One for each squad and one for the command squad+officer.

I think with the whole lot of people talking about top list having just the loyal 32 or not, we should site our sources so we can cross examine more effectively. Is that fair?

I used Blood of Kittens because I remember people saying it was a good source for lists.

 Mmmpi wrote:
I used Blood of Kittens because I remember people saying it was a good source for lists.

So so.

It has only ITC results.

Downunderpairing is a bit better.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
30 guard in the scheme of things is not 'en masse'. 130 would be.

How about 60? Or 80?

How about the fact that they feature in every competitive Imperium list, regardless of whether 30 or 120 are taken?

This probably wont change until you make them too expensive within the context of the IG army itself. The value there isn't in the Guardsmen in and of themselves, it's the detachment CP and CP regen benefits on top of all that. You could make Guardsmen 7ppm and still see the standard CP battery in many lists, but actual Guard armies built around Guardsmen would flat out disappear.

Nobody is winning games spamming Guardsmen and Infantry Squads. Even in competitive lists, we rarely see more than the minimum number of Infantry Squads needed just to fill out detachment slots, it's almost always 3 or 6 units (usually 3), and the most I've ever seen in a competitive winning tournament list was 9 (the Straken/triple Jetbike Captain/Triple BA Smashcaptain list). Classic Guard infantry wall lists, which are built around spamming these ostensibly horrifically broken units, don't actually do very well.

The reason you see them in every competitive list is the cheap, shareable, and regenerating CP, with some extra added board control and bubblewrap on top. If the CP battery stops being a thing, you'll stop seeing Guardsmen in every list regardless of what they cost.

I'm sure Guardsmen will get bumped up in price at some point. I was honestly surprised they weren't bumped with CA, but I don't think we'll see any change to their Soup usage at 5ppm at all either.

w1zard wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Yes, but the whole conversation was about how they made Marines seem less 'special'. Well, until the points costs of veterans vs troops came up.

Personally, I think this hits the nail on the head.

Guard are strong this edition, nobody is debating that. If they are "overpowered" is arguable, mostly because the worst offenders in the guard index were nerfed into oblivion in the codex. Besides a few outstanding issues (guardsmen could really come up to 5ppm) I would personally say guard are "strong but balanced" territory.

The problem is that SM suck this edition, easily in the bottom 3 codices only above the abomination that is the GK codex. Guard being strong and SM sucking make SM look really bad by comparison. People seem infuriated by the fact that an army of "standard dudes" seems to outperform their supersoldiers. Eldar are arguably even worse than guard in terms of power and you don't see half as much "nerf eldar" threads as you do "nerf guard" threads. People seem to be ok with their space marines getting blown away by an army of psychic uber-elves, but get cognitive dissonance when their space marines get blown away by schmucks with laser pointers.

Indeed, people get really irked by guard not being basically an NPC faction quite often. If guardsmen are actually functional, something is wrong!

Imperial Guard have been an awful faction (in competitive terms) for most of this game's history (with exceptions only for 5E and 8E, and for 5E the strength was almost entirely in the vehicles). People are mostly used to the idea of Guard being a non-factor competitively on general principle, and there is always a subset that gets offended about Guard actually being good. I can recall numerous instances of games over many editions where I've personally encountered opponents were perplexed/upset/surprised/etc about losing to an Imperial Guard army, not because they lost, but because they lost to IG. Now, there are some things that could use changing or toning down. I think the Shadowsword is still too capable, the Catachan doctrine is far too good (particularly with tanks and artillery), tank commanders are undercosted, etc, but the focus from the community is overwhelmingly on the basic putz trooper. This is the only edition in 40k's history where the actual basic Troop guardsmen has widely been considered a good, functional unit, particularly where they weren't outshined by something with better BS spamming gobs plasma guns on general principle.

And that, for some reason, drives people bonkers.

 vipoid wrote:
Just a point but wasn't the whole purpose of Platoons to allow IG to field enough models?

(This was back in the days when you had one FoC - once you filled those 6 troop slots, there was no taking a second detachment for more.)

I'm not entirely opposed to bringing them back (provided Vets are moved back to troops) but they do seem like something that really shouldn't be necessary with the current detachment rules.

I think we're running into two ends of the same issue with Guard here. Fundamentally, most armies in the game are built around a similar number of units, and the size of armies varies by how large those units are. The outliers we see are those like Custodes and Knights, with very few but very powerful units, and Guard, with huge numbers of rather weeny units. This posed problems and required the platoon structures during the 3E-7E era because there weren't enough FoC slots to accommodate that many units. It raises issues in 8E because it's really easy to take cheap individual units that unlock detachments and associated bonuses, and so we end up with a Battalion Detachment basically being a single 3E-7E Troop choice.

 Mmmpi wrote:
@AAE

I just checked. Outiside of specifically IG lists, you only see a battalion. Ususally the L32, but occastionally with a few mortar squads.

However, inside IG lists, you do see a brigade. And they use six squads. And no more.

So great that they only take the bare minimum.

Source?

I know this is wrong because at the BAO there were multiple Imperial soup lists with Brigades of 60 and 80+ Guardsmen in the top 25. I remember the discussion around it clearly. So your source seems wrong nor you haven’t checked properly.

Define ‘IG List’. Are you on about mono IG lists with no soup elements whatsoever?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
30 guard in the scheme of things is not 'en masse'. 130 would be.

How about 60? Or 80?

How about the fact that they feature in every competitive Imperium list, regardless of whether 30 or 120 are taken?

This probably wont change until you make them too expensive within the context of the IG army itself. The value there isn't in the Guardsmen in and of themselves, it's the detachment CP and CP regen benefits on top of all that. You could make Guardsmen 7ppm and still see the standard CP battery in many lists, but actual Guard armies built around Guardsmen would flat out disappear.

Nobody is winning games spamming Guardsmen and Infantry Squads. Even in competitive lists, we rarely see more than the minimum number of Infantry Squads needed just to fill out detachment slots, it's almost always 3 or 6 units (usually 3), and the most I've ever seen in a competitive winning tournament list was 9 (the Straken/triple Jetbike Captain/Triple BA Smashcaptain list). Classic Guard infantry wall lists, which are built around spamming these ostensibly horrifically broken units, don't actually do very well.

The reason you see them in every competitive list is the cheap, shareable, and regenerating CP, with some extra added board control and bubblewrap on top. If the CP battery stops being a thing, you'll stop seeing Guardsmen in every list regardless of what they cost.

I'm sure Guardsmen will get bumped up in price at some point. I was honestly surprised they weren't bumped with CA, but I don't think we'll see any change to their Soup usage at 5ppm at all either.

I don’t disagree that making Guardsmen 5ppm won’t change their usage in the meta lists one bit. You’ll also notice that no one is calling for 7ppm Guardsmen.

Increasing the cost of Infantry to 5ppm is about making the unit fairly pointed. I’m not for a moment suggesting that’ll fix soup or the other messes that GW have created.

I suspect the reason IG are so unpopular at present is the number of zealots who maintain that many of their obviously undercoated units are actually perfectly pointed and react very defensive to any suggestion of changing them. IRL I find Guard players to be very pleasant and they rarely take the most optimised units. They also admit that some of their units could do with an adjustment.