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.

Tyel wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

My source is BCP mate.

Could you clarify please? I couldn't find anything but banks in a quick five minute google search for BCP. Seriously, please clarify.

Its the Best Coast Pairings App. It does a variety of things for tournament organisers, and as a result it tracks gaming events (including most significant 40k tournaments) across the world. It then records results. The free version is a bit meh ("Player 1: Faction name, X Wins, Y points etc, Player 2: Faction name, K Wins...). If you subscribe however you gain access to all the rosters in events recorded on the BCP database.

This means you can identify which lists are doing well, and that yes, imperial brigades regularly place.

Thanks for the actual source. The argument wasn't that brigades don't get used. I was wrong when I first said that. I'm saying that my research into it showed a minimum of guard squads being used. If there's a guard brigade, they're taking 6 squads, not 12. I found one example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Jesus. You don't know what BCP is?

Nope, should I have?

Not really, it's a pretty niche acronym to just throw out there. It's not like people should be shocked that others don't know about specific tournament support apps.

Yeah, that's what I figured. Thanks for the info.

 Mmmpi wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

My source is BCP mate.

Could you clarify please? I couldn't find anything but banks in a quick five minute google search for BCP. Seriously, please clarify.

Its the Best Coast Pairings App. It does a variety of things for tournament organisers, and as a result it tracks gaming events (including most significant 40k tournaments) across the world. It then records results. The free version is a bit meh ("Player 1: Faction name, X Wins, Y points etc, Player 2: Faction name, K Wins...). If you subscribe however you gain access to all the rosters in events recorded on the BCP database.

This means you can identify which lists are doing well, and that yes, imperial brigades regularly place.

Thanks for the actual source. The argument wasn't that brigades don't get used. I was wrong when I first said that. I'm saying that my research into it showed a minimum of guard squads being used. If there's a guard brigade, they're taking 6 squads, not 12. I found one example.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Jesus. You don't know what BCP is?

Nope, should I have?

Not really, it's a pretty niche acronym to just throw out there. It's not like people should be shocked that others don't know about specific tournament support apps.

Yeah, that's what I figured. Thanks for the info.

If you're wanting to discuss balance and in particular statistics of army builds with a shred of integrity I'd expect you to not only know what BCP was but also be using it regularly. Anyone who plays regularly in tournaments will know what it is. And many people who don't.

It's pointless discussing this anymore with you. You don't seem to understand my arguments (or you're willfully ignoring them). You have other people explaining that Guard aren't taken simply because they are the cheapest troop choice in Imperial soup. You have very limited data that is not giving you a full picture of competitive lists and your limited data is taking you to incorrect conclusions.

The maths for Guardsmen show that they outperform many troops for their cost. It has been done to death. Either you're not doing it properly or you aren't doing it at all.

Hey also have way, WAAY more flexibility than other units through orders.

Finally real life backs all of this up. Which is why they are taken en masse in the vast majority of Imperial lists.

You can keep making excuses all you like but until they change people will continue to take them and the game will continue to be imbalanced. Which means less people want to play the game. Which means less hobbyists, less money for GW and stores and we all lose.

text removed.

Reds8n

A big problem with balancing guard troops is that guard is supposed to have the cheapest troops in the game. And in a game where units are all individually supposed to match to each other instead of, say, “Oh, the Mechanicus are the robot vehicle people, they should have vehicles that are cheaper than everyone else’s to represent their vehicle affinity.” We have a problem where the balance has to be between humans with rifles compared to (what the next cheapest thing, kabs?) Eldar super aliens.

We should probably buff all the other units to match guardsmen in effectiveness. I could only imagine the smile on a SM player’s face if he or she found out that Tac marine points stayed the same, but they got a super killy new rule or two.

But then you further exacerbate Soup.

I faced a DA army with 5 10-man Ranger squads from AdMech on Monday. Sure, not a tourny-level list. The cheapo bodies let him castle up all his DA in one 3-story ruins.

He could put everything DA in Azrael's bubble + a LT. It was 2 10-man LC Dev squads, 2 Rifleman Dreads, and a Hellblaster squad. All with cover, 4++, reroll-hits, reroll-wounds-of-1, T4+. All in a nice little corner.

What made it really nasty, though, was that instead of spending 13ppm on bodies in front of it, he spent 7ppm per body. With a 4+ 6++ 6+++, BS3+ S4 gun with 30" range and a special rule. Removing the biggest weakness an SM castle typically has.

Now, this is nothing new. It's not even a particularly nasty flavor (obviously things like replace-rangers-with-guardsmen and whatnot, but that BS3+ S4 30" gun worked better than the extra bodies would have, as I was running an Aspect Host w/no deathstar).

It also has it's weaknesses (I pushed him in, then stepped back and played the objectives - by time he realized what i was doing it was too late. I had 2 Aspect Warriors and 4 HQ still alive at the end of game, but won 12-6). But if Guardsmen are undercosted because it's what IG does, and Marines can take Guardsmen at the same cost, then Guardsmen are undercosted despite not being what Marines "does".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"We should probably buff all the other units to match guardsmen in effectiveness. I could only imagine the smile on a SM player’s face if he or she found out that Tac marine points stayed the same, but they got a super killy new rule or two."

I have long felt that there's two levels they've been balancing troops towards:

"Guardsmen" level:
Guardsmen
Conscripts
Vets
Kabalites
Fire Warriors
Wyches
Skittari Rangers
Skittari Vanguard
Cultists



"Marine" level:
Marines
Dire Avengers
Guardians (both kinds)
CWE Rangers
Scouts
Necron Warriors

I had hoped they'd rebalance towards the "Marine" level, but CA suggests they're trying to rebalance to the Guardsman.

CA also strongly suggests Marines themselves aren't getting another balance change, reinforcing that their days are numbered, but that's another thread. However, several other troops in their range and worse were adjusted downward.

Bharring wrote:
But then you further exacerbate Soup.

I faced a DA army with 5 10-man Ranger squads from AdMech on Monday. Sure, not a tourny-level list. The cheapo bodies let him castle up all his DA in one 3-story ruins.

He could put everything DA in Azrael's bubble + a LT. It was 2 10-man LC Dev squads, 2 Rifleman Dreads, and a Hellblaster squad. All with cover, 4++, reroll-hits, reroll-wounds-of-1, T4+. All in a nice little corner.

What made it really nasty, though, was that instead of spending 13ppm on bodies in front of it, he spent 7ppm per body. With a 4+ 6++ 6+++, BS3+ S4 gun with 30" range and a special rule. Removing the biggest weakness an SM castle typically has.

Now, this is nothing new. It's not even a particularly nasty flavor (obviously things like replace-rangers-with-guardsmen and whatnot, but that BS3+ S4 30" gun worked better than the extra bodies would have, as I was running an Aspect Host w/no deathstar).

It also has it's weaknesses (I pushed him in, then stepped back and played the objectives - by time he realized what i was doing it was too late. I had 2 Aspect Warriors and 4 HQ still alive at the end of game, but won 12-6). But if Guardsmen are undercosted because it's what IG does, and Marines can take Guardsmen at the same cost, then Guardsmen are undercosted despite not being what Marines "does".


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"We should probably buff all the other units to match guardsmen in effectiveness. I could only imagine the smile on a SM player’s face if he or she found out that Tac marine points stayed the same, but they got a super killy new rule or two."

I have long felt that there's two levels they've been balancing troops towards:

"Guardsmen" level:
Guardsmen
Conscripts
Vets
Kabalites
Fire Warriors
Wyches
Skittari Rangers
Skittari Vanguard
Cultists



"Marine" level:
Marines
Dire Avengers
Guardians (both kinds)
CWE Rangers
Scouts
Necron Warriors

I had hoped they'd rebalance towards the "Marine" level, but CA suggests they're trying to rebalance to the Guardsman.

CA also strongly suggests Marines themselves aren't getting another balance change, reinforcing that their days are numbered, but that's another thread. However, several other troops in their range and worse were adjusted downward.

A lot of problems just seem to come back to an army’s ability to soup in whatever they want to cover it’s weak spots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, do you put Scion in your first level or the marine level?

I'm not entirely sure which one I'd put Scions on. I haven't seen them on the table enough to be sure. For fluff reasons, I mostly ignore them beyond tabletop crunch ("Scions" is a terrible way of spelling "Vets", and a celebration of GW's aspires-to-flandarization mentality as well. In other words, a great example of much of what goes wrong at GW.). As such, I don't pay much attention to them.

Bharring wrote:
I'm not entirely sure which one I'd put Scions on. I haven't seen them on the table enough to be sure. For fluff reasons, I mostly ignore them beyond tabletop crunch ("Scions" is a terrible way of spelling "Vets", and a celebration of GW's aspires-to-flandarization mentality as well. In other words, a great example of much of what goes wrong at GW.). As such, I don't pay much attention to them.

Well, they are different units than vets. We still have vets and Scions. I’d more expect the joke to be a misspelling of “stormtroopers,” however.

That would have been the better joke. However, I'd expect Vets and Storm Troopers to have mostly, if not entirely, the same rules.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Finally real life backs all of this up. Which is why they are taken en masse in the vast majority of Imperial lists.

I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.

Do you think they'd be showing up in every soup list if CP generation were nerfed? If so, why, if currently nobody is taking any more than they are required to for CP purposes?

The "absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements" is 0. You can take any faction. They chose IG.

The CP farm is a big part of it. However, there's only a critical mass of bodies needed to do their job. What that critical mass is is quite debateable. But you can get that critical mass *and* get the CP from the detatchement at the same time.

Lets say somehow you think 20 bodies are the perfect amount of chaff. Would you take 20 bodies and an HQ for 1 CP when you could take 30 bodies and 2 HQ for only a few more points to get a bunch of CP? Lets say you think 50 bodies are the right amount of chaff. Why not bring 60 and a few other not-bad-choice units for even more CP?

You only see the "minimums" because the lists optimize the chaff bodies:CP ratio, for optimal returns. They aren't taking Guardsmen to run the table, they're taking them to do a job. And that job requires 30 or 60 Guardsmen, not 20 or 60 or 200.

catbarf wrote:

I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.

So why it is always the Guard and not other factions that can also generate CP cheaply such as SoB or Ad Mech?

 Trickstick wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Jesus. You don't know what BCP is?

Nope, should I have?

Not really, it's a pretty niche acronym to just throw out there. It's not like people should be shocked that others don't know about specific tournament support apps.

Not to mention that they are using the same source.

BCP = Blood of Kittens

And both those sources are highly flawed since they get only ITC results.

If you want to discuss balance please use the lists from GW Heats, anything else is useless in a balance discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the actual matter.

The numbers clearly show that guards are taken becaue they are the best CP detachment.
You don't fix this by increasing the cost of guards, the loyal 32 would be taken even if they costed 30 points more. While you would increase by 120 points the cost of mono AM lista that are 100% fine and not a problem for the balance.

As was already said in this thread, the really good aspect of the guards as a CP detachment is not in the (excellent) stats of the guards, but in the flexibility of the orders.

Do you want to do something that hurts guards CP detachment without crippinling mono AM? Bring CC to 55 points, which is only fair considering how much stuff they do.

Now you increased the loyal 32 by 50 points, with minimal impacts on the mono AM lists.

 Crimson wrote:

catbarf wrote:

I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.

So why it is always the Guard and not other factions that can also generate CP cheaply such as SoB or Ad Mech?

My guess is that it's the body count over all. The guard however to have access to longer ranged weapons, meaning they can camp backfield objectives better.

Both sisters and Admech are only fielding 17 models, as opposed to 32. Officers are more combat oriented then Techpriests, and techpriests can't fix stuff outside of IG or AdMech. Officers are cheaper than a canoness, and have options, unlike the current Missionary.

Spoletta wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Jesus. You don't know what BCP is?

Nope, should I have?

Not really, it's a pretty niche acronym to just throw out there. It's not like people should be shocked that others don't know about specific tournament support apps.

Not to mention that they are using the same source.

BCP = Blood of Kittens

And both those sources are highly flawed since they get only ITC results.

If you want to discuss balance please use the lists from GW Heats, anything else is useless in a balance discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the actual matter.

The numbers clearly show that guards are taken becaue they are the best CP detachment.
You don't fix this by increasing the cost of guards, the loyal 32 would be taken even if they costed 30 points more. While you would increase by 120 points the cost of mono AM lista that are 100% fine and not a problem for the balance.

As was already said in this thread, the really good aspect of the guards as a CP detachment is not in the (excellent) stats of the guards, but in the flexibility of the orders.

Do you want to do something that hurts guards CP detachment without crippinling mono AM? Bring CC to 55 points, which is only fair considering how much stuff they do.

Now you increased the loyal 32 by 50 points, with minimal impacts on the mono AM lists.

I was on board with everything until CC to 55 points. Jeez, what would you do to Tempestor Primes?

Take their coats away?

Ok i admit that 55 is a bit of overreaction, but 30 is really too low.

 Mmmpi wrote:

My guess is that it's the body count over all. The guard however to have access to longer ranged weapons, meaning they can camp backfield objectives better.

Both sisters and Admech are only fielding 17 models, as opposed to 32. Officers are more combat oriented then Techpriests, and techpriests can't fix stuff outside of IG or AdMech. Officers are cheaper than a canoness, and have options, unlike the current Missionary.

So you're saying that the Guard are better for their points than other alternatives? Almost like they were too cheap for what they bring!

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

catbarf wrote:

I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.

So why it is always the Guard and not other factions that can also generate CP cheaply such as SoB or Ad Mech?

My guess is that it's the body count over all. The guard however to have access to longer ranged weapons, meaning they can camp backfield objectives better.

Both sisters and Admech are only fielding 17 models, as opposed to 32. Officers are more combat oriented then Techpriests, and techpriests can't fix stuff outside of IG or AdMech. Officers are cheaper than a canoness, and have options, unlike the current Missionary.

Guard also have access to a warlord trait or relic that will essentially give another free 5-6CP over the course of the game. before the CP change, it was essentially unlimited CP but 5-6 is still amazing utility for a cheap squad. Also currently sisters are waiting for their new model line so I suspect even most tournament players aren't going to run out and buy overpriced outdated metal miniatures when you can buy cheap guard plastic instead

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

My guess is that it's the body count over all. The guard however to have access to longer ranged weapons, meaning they can camp backfield objectives better.

Both sisters and Admech are only fielding 17 models, as opposed to 32. Officers are more combat oriented then Techpriests, and techpriests can't fix stuff outside of IG or AdMech. Officers are cheaper than a canoness, and have options, unlike the current Missionary.

So you're saying that the Guard are better for their points than other alternatives? Almost like they were too cheap for what they bring!

No, I said more bodies.

Fifteen sisters actually have more fire power and both have more durability per model. Actually, AdMech probably have more firepower as well. But It's the bodies that people value right now.

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

My guess is that it's the body count over all. The guard however to have access to longer ranged weapons, meaning they can camp backfield objectives better.

Both sisters and Admech are only fielding 17 models, as opposed to 32. Officers are more combat oriented then Techpriests, and techpriests can't fix stuff outside of IG or AdMech. Officers are cheaper than a canoness, and have options, unlike the current Missionary.

So you're saying that the Guard are better for their points than other alternatives? Almost like they were too cheap for what they bring!

I think he's saying that guard are better for sitting on the backfield simply squatting on objectives. Part of the problem with soup is that you can take another army to do "x" job you don't excel at. Why take a techpriest as a CP detachment when its ability to fix tanks is completely wasted and why take skitari with good 30 inch shooting when they are going to just sit in the back all game not really shooting. When you can take units to do ever job but just sit on something you are obviously going to default to the cheapest wounds per model to do the sitting

 Mmmpi wrote:

No, I said more bodies.

Fifteen sisters actually have more fire power and both have more durability per model. Actually, AdMech probably have more firepower as well. But It's the bodies that people value right now.

Then that's better value!

This is not rocket science, if you can choose from all the troop choices of the Imperium, but one is almost always chosen over the others by the top end competitive players, then that troop choice is (for whatever reason) clearly the best! It brings more value for its points than other options. It is undercosted compared to the others.

catbarf wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Finally real life backs all of this up. Which is why they are taken en masse in the vast majority of Imperial lists.

I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.

Do you think they'd be showing up in every soup list if CP generation were nerfed? If so, why, if currently nobody is taking any more than they are required to for CP purposes?

Guardsmen and CCs are not taken purely for CP generation purposes. As I explained above, if they were, then people would be taking 15 rangers+2 techpriests instead, for 15 fewer points.

Guardsmen and CCs are taken because 180 points of them are as useful or more useful than 400-500 points of other armies' CP generating troops.

Every CP generating screen detachment is going to have two major purposes: The obvious, giving 5 or 12cp to your real workhorse units (it's in the name) and whatever secondary use you can get out of them. Guard has the second-cheapest Battalion in the game behind admech at 165 with other competitors being Chaos Daemons at 292 for the usually-taken nurgle battalion and Drukhari at 234 (imperial soup has a huge advantage in CP generation over the other soups). Tau are not a soup army but they do out-do guard at 160pts I believe (forget the exact pts cost of a fireblade).

One is screening, keeping your opponent from getting close turn 1/2 by putting a paper-thin buffer zone of movement blocking models on the table. Guardsmen are not the best at this job at the Battalion level, because they have no pregame movement with which to widen the net zone - currently, only Nurglings and marine Scouts do this from the troops role for free. I'll take "the reason scouts exist in competitive 40k" for 300, Alex. Guard does do this if you go to Brigade level by bringing Scout Sentinels, who you see start to crop up any time a fast assault turn 1 or an all-out deep strike turn 1 becomes a meta move. Depending on how ork da jump affects the meta, you'll probably see guard detachments go from battalion to brigade.

One is bubblewrap, keeping your opponent from getting close by actually not dying, and tying things up. Guard have no competition here, their CP detachments are nearly 1.5x as durable for the points as their closest competitor, nurglings/poxwalkers/plaguebearers, and they blow away competition like marine scouts, grots, kabalites and skitarii. To be more durable than naked guardsmen with no support for the points against anti-chaff firepower, you need to either be elite infantry with extreme weaknesses against anti-elite firepower (intercessors, kataphrons, etc) or you need to be buffed up by expensive aura buffers.

Another is damage. Again, thanks to orders, the Little Guard Detachment That Could is head and shoulders better than any competition even close to their price bracket. Guardsmen outdamage the cheaper admech minimum detachment by 2x against almost all targets. Pretty good for 15pts. many min detachments (like nurglings, grots, wracks, and brims) put out zero firepower. Their closest competition I believe is Tau, makes sense, the longrange shooting faction, who Guard only outperform by 33%. You wear that second-place medal proudly, tau.

Another is holding objectives. Guess which minimum obsec detachment moves the fastest? Hint, it's not Eldar.

One more time for the people in the back: Tournament players are not taking minimum guard detachments just because they give the best CP for the points. Because they don't. people are taking minimum guard detachments because they are head-and-shoulders above every other CP-generating detachment in the entire game while still being one of the very cheapest. And not just better at one thing. Better at everything. Anything you want to do with cheap troops from any faction, Guard does better.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Take their coats away?

No, those were gifts from the Schola!

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

My guess is that it's the body count over all. The guard however to have access to longer ranged weapons, meaning they can camp backfield objectives better.

Both sisters and Admech are only fielding 17 models, as opposed to 32. Officers are more combat oriented then Techpriests, and techpriests can't fix stuff outside of IG or AdMech. Officers are cheaper than a canoness, and have options, unlike the current Missionary.

So you're saying that the Guard are better for their points than other alternatives? Almost like they were too cheap for what they bring!

No, I said more bodies.

Fifteen sisters actually have more fire power and both have more durability per model. Actually, AdMech probably have more firepower as well. But It's the bodies that people value right now.

This is the most hilariously short-sighted way of looking at this, that I'm not even certain how to respond to it.

Are you actually trying to say that orders should be discounted for the guard detachments when you take two company commanders in every one?

against nearly any target, Guard+2CCs with FRFSRF outdamage:

15 skitarii rangers
15 tau firewarriors (assuming Tau are in range of the Cadre Fireblades they brought with AND the fireblades got 1 markerlight on their target)
15 marine scouts (assuming the scouts have a captain aura)
15 sisters of battle (assuming the sisters have the same aura from one of their canonesses)
30 GSC neophytes
30 Termagants
30 grots+2 smites from weirdboyz
15 kabalites in an archon aura (and even if they have the reroll 1 to wound aura relic too)

and obviously, all the min detachments that don't shoot at all, of which there are several.

and this damage gap comes along with the fact that the loyal 32 are often 2/3 to 1/2 as expensive as many competing detachments.

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

No, I said more bodies.

Fifteen sisters actually have more fire power and both have more durability per model. Actually, AdMech probably have more firepower as well. But It's the bodies that people value right now.

Then that's better value!

This is not rocket science, if you can choose from all the troop choices of the Imperium, but one is almost always chosen over the others by the top end competitive players, then that troop choice is (for whatever reason) clearly the best! It brings more value for its points than other options. It is undercosted compared to the others.

Apparently it is rocket science.

Guard have better long ranged guns, and twice the wounds.
If that's what you need, that's what you take.

If you need massive short ranged fire power, and psychic defense, you take the sisters. 215 points for four DtW attempts?

If you need repair stuff and mid ranged fire power, take the AdMech.

The latter two are both more durable per wound than guardsmen.

If your army however is a knight and three smash captains, the bonus wounds are more useful. It's all a trade off, and people chose cheap easy to kill bodies.

To better reflect the massive, inescapably slow bureaucracy and overhead of managing a force the size of the Astra Militarum, with it's countless soldiers and innumerable apparatus of war, I propose all AM detachments award only half the CP they normally would (rounding up).

Monoguard players won't notice because it wasn't like they were using those CP for guard strats anyway

Mmmpi wrote:I'll I got from this is that you're acting like an elitist prick because I don't use your specific app of choice.

Until you decide to remove your head from your butt, we are done.

PS: I win.

First rule 1.

Second its not my 'app of choice' its simply the most comprehensive database we have on competitive 40k.

There is nothing to win. Nothing is at stake here man. Just 2 people trying to have a discussion.

Put yourself in my shoes. Imagine you knew something for a fact but I kept denying it, asking for a source and then didn't know the source when it was provided. You'd get frustrated too I suspect.

 Apple Peel wrote:
A big problem with balancing guard troops is that guard is supposed to have the cheapest troops in the game. And in a game where units are all individually supposed to match to each other

I don't understand what you mean here. Where has anyone said that Guard are supposed to have the cheapest troops in the game? Did GW say this?

catbarf wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Finally real life backs all of this up. Which is why they are taken en masse in the vast majority of Imperial lists.

I've been following the last couple of pages of discussion waiting for someone to explain how taking the absolute minimum needed to meet CP requirements, implying that there is no reason to take them besides farming CPs, constitutes using them 'en masse'. At best it sounds like they're the most useful CP-farming choice, which is first and foremost a matter of cheapness rather than anything they do on the table.

Do you think they'd be showing up in every soup list if CP generation were nerfed? If so, why, if currently nobody is taking any more than they are required to for CP purposes?

I've already said like a hundred times in this thread that they aren't only taken in minimum sizes to fulfil CP requirements. Are you sure you read the last few pages?

Scotsman also mentioned a cheaper Imperial Battalion in Ad Mech. If cost was the only factor that would be taken instead but it isn't.

Spoletta wrote:

Not to mention that they are using the same source.

BCP = Blood of Kittens

And both those sources are highly flawed since they get only ITC results.

What? BCP is not the same as Blood of Kittens. Blood of kittens uses BCP and that's it. Also if they were the same how did our friend above fail to find those lists that have more than 6 units of Guardsmen?

ITC is the standard for competitive 40k. It's also the most common. It suits our needs for a discussion around balance unless you know a more commonly used format?

 Mmmpi wrote:
My guess is that it's the body count over all. The guard however to have access to longer ranged weapons, meaning they can camp backfield objectives better.

Both sisters and Admech are only fielding 17 models, as opposed to 32. Officers are more combat oriented then Techpriests, and techpriests can't fix stuff outside of IG or AdMech. Officers are cheaper than a canoness, and have options, unlike the current Missionary.

Almost like there should be a minimum cost per troop wound for Imperial soup and that 4 ppm is too low right? priced

E - so I read the responses that happened as I was writing this post and it is clear to me that the Guard apologists aren't going to change their tack on this, regardless of all the logical arguments presented their way. They literally have an excuse for everything. This discussion is pointless and really, really sad. In my experience Guard players are a lot more open to change of their units, that they admit are under priced, in real life. Its a shame some of you can't be so open and honest on here.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

My guess is that it's the body count over all. The guard however to have access to longer ranged weapons, meaning they can camp backfield objectives better.

Both sisters and Admech are only fielding 17 models, as opposed to 32. Officers are more combat oriented then Techpriests, and techpriests can't fix stuff outside of IG or AdMech. Officers are cheaper than a canoness, and have options, unlike the current Missionary.

So you're saying that the Guard are better for their points than other alternatives? Almost like they were too cheap for what they bring!

No, I said more bodies.

Fifteen sisters actually have more fire power and both have more durability per model. Actually, AdMech probably have more firepower as well. But It's the bodies that people value right now.

This is the most hilariously short-sighted way of looking at this, that I'm not even certain how to respond to it.

Are you actually trying to say that orders should be discounted for the guard detachments when you take two company commanders in every one?

against nearly any target, Guard+2CCs with FRFSRF outdamage:

15 skitarii rangers
15 tau firewarriors (assuming Tau are in range of the Cadre Fireblades they brought with AND the fireblades got 1 markerlight on their target)
15 marine scouts (assuming the scouts have a captain aura)
15 sisters of battle (assuming the sisters have the same aura from one of their canonesses)
30 GSC neophytes
30 Termagants
30 grots+2 smites from weirdboyz
15 kabalites in an archon aura (and even if they have the reroll 1 to wound aura relic too)

and obviously, all the min detachments that don't shoot at all, of which there are several.

and this damage gap comes along with the fact that the loyal 32 are often 2/3 to 1/2 as expensive as many competing detachments.

Then why did you respond?

But I suppose you want an actual answer to your wondering.

When did I say orders should be discounted? RF2 las guns don't really equal the damage on heavier things compared to two meltas and a combi-plasma.

I think you're also forgetting all the other abilities those units have besides raw firepower.

Lemondish wrote:
To better reflect the massive, inescapably slow bureaucracy and overhead of managing a force the size of the Astra Militarum, with it's countless soldiers and innumerable apparatus of war, I propose all AM detachments award only half the CP they normall would (rounding up).

Monoguard players won't notice because it wasn't like they were using those CP for guard anyway

Could there be an exception for Militarum Tempestus detachments? They are more efficient.