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.

Asmodios wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Anyone arguing that allies is the issue seems to have forgotten the last two editions where theoretically your Tyranid army could've ran Scatterbikes if it wanted. In my Necron army, I could run a Tyranid detachment with 3 Flyrants with little recourse.

Armies being able to ally in Scatterbikes and Flyrants didn't lead to them being broken. They were already broken by themselves due to how they were designed. CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

Moriarty wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Guardsmen without orders or support are 4ppm models.

Pleas Sir? Can my Grots pay +1pt per model, and get extra shots, movement, str, tough, Sv, range, ws and ld?

Can we make it so guardsmen can start taking shots for tanks or HWTs? ill take a reduced stat line for that ability any day

It's a Strategem. And no, you wouldn't actually take it.

yeah, I would in a second..... do you know how good tank commanders would be if i could spend a cp and transfer wounds to conscripts

Also, Id argue that what you can do with your CP and your ability to generate it is the single most important factor in an army this edition and I think the splash that vect caused before its cost adjustment is good evidence that it's a true statement. The dominance of soup points to this as well because as once again a recurring issue has been dumping CP into units that don't have access to enough CP to spam those useful strategems. For instance, knights have never been an issue outside the ability to spam cp from guard. Thats why "CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past" doesn't hold up. Those "few moments" are making and breaking whole armies

Yeah almost as good as ork vehicles would be if they could use that stratagem :/ unfortunately nobody's stratagem does that.

the_scotsman wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Anyone arguing that allies is the issue seems to have forgotten the last two editions where theoretically your Tyranid army could've ran Scatterbikes if it wanted. In my Necron army, I could run a Tyranid detachment with 3 Flyrants with little recourse.

Armies being able to ally in Scatterbikes and Flyrants didn't lead to them being broken. They were already broken by themselves due to how they were designed. CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:

Moriarty wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Guardsmen without orders or support are 4ppm models.

Pleas Sir? Can my Grots pay +1pt per model, and get extra shots, movement, str, tough, Sv, range, ws and ld?

Can we make it so guardsmen can start taking shots for tanks or HWTs? ill take a reduced stat line for that ability any day

It's a Strategem. And no, you wouldn't actually take it.

yeah, I would in a second..... do you know how good tank commanders would be if i could spend a cp and transfer wounds to conscripts

Also, Id argue that what you can do with your CP and your ability to generate it is the single most important factor in an army this edition and I think the splash that vect caused before its cost adjustment is good evidence that it's a true statement. The dominance of soup points to this as well because as once again a recurring issue has been dumping CP into units that don't have access to enough CP to spam those useful strategems. For instance, knights have never been an issue outside the ability to spam cp from guard. Thats why "CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past" doesn't hold up. Those "few moments" are making and breaking whole armies

Yeah almost as good as ork vehicles would be if they could use that stratagem :/ unfortunately nobody's stratagem does that.

I think it would still be amazing with HWT but man are lootas mean with a grot shield. Haven't watched a Battle report yet where they haven't just shredded units. Wish they could do it for at least their smaller vehicles wouldnt make sense for the really big stuff like stompas though

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

wow you are just angry today... settle down buddy its supposed to be a friendly discussion. I know it works only on infantry I was simply musing on how it would be amazing IF i could take wounds for a tank commander because I've found that most of my friends immediately kill them each game.

Re he heally?

Not buying it:

Asmodios wrote:

Moriarty wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Guardsmen without orders or support are 4ppm models.

Pleas Sir? Can my Grots pay +1pt per model, and get extra shots, movement, str, tough, Sv, range, ws and ld?

Can we make it so guardsmen can start taking shots for tanks or HWTs? ill take a reduced stat line for that ability any day

Asmodios wrote:
Also, why is it that i'm "desperately trying to take the discussion away from Guardsmen" when i was responding to someones else's post about grots? I think you might wanna take a break and a few deep breaths.

Its literally all you do? You're 'defence' of Guardsmen being too cheap is that they don't get chaos buffs. Or its a problem with soup and CP sharing. Or anything else not related to Guardsmen (or reality).

Also I'm not sure why you think I'm angry? Your posts are comedic.

Nah, you are still being overly uppity. Some guy asked him about grots and their points in comparison to guardsmen. Get over yourself.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Also I'm not sure why you think I'm angry? Your posts are comedic.

It's probably because you've been putting out an extremely angry, rant-like tone for this whole conversation.

 Apple Peel wrote:

Nah, you are still being overly uppity. Some guy asked him about grots and their points in comparison to guardsmen. Get over yourself.

You got an appropriate points cost for a Guardsman yet?

You'll see from the last page they out perform Fire Warriors in terms of damage output point for point.

 CommunistNapkin wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:


Also I'm not sure why you think I'm angry? Your posts are comedic.

It's probably because you've been putting out an extremely angry, rant-like tone for this whole conversation.

Ah the old 30 post dakka user. Inferring (incorrectly) tone from text. Incredible.

Also off topic. You got a contribution to the thread or did you just come in here to low key insult me?

Ice_can wrote:
Right back to the maths to answer the question

1 basic infantry squad 40 points 5+ Sv

At 24 inches
9 lasgun shots
Hit on 4+ wound T3 on 4+ Ap0
2.25 wounds before armour

Within 12
18 lasgun shots and a laspistol
4.75 wounds before armour

Firewarriors
6 with just rifles is 42 points 4+ Sv
Hit on 4+ wound T3 on 3+ Ap0
2 wounds before armour

In 15
4 wounds before armour.

Add orders and the guard get further ahead.

Cultists at post CA2018
10 cultist at 50 points 6+Sv
10 autoguns
Hit on 4+ wound T3 on 4+ Ap0
2.5 wounds before armour

5 wounds before armour

If we factor in the extra range of the fire warrior and the fact their gun hurt light vehicle a bit more easily, this seems to be fairly well balanced as long as you don't add any order or boost. I would even say that the fire warrior come out a bit ahead of guards in such a comparison thanks to those advantages and slightly better armor.

The tricky part is how do we price unit synergy and optional boost. Right now, Guards are almost certainly underpriced because of their synergy and optional boosts.

epronovost wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Right back to the maths to answer the question

1 basic infantry squad 40 points 5+ Sv

At 24 inches
9 lasgun shots
Hit on 4+ wound T3 on 4+ Ap0
2.25 wounds before armour

Within 12
18 lasgun shots and a laspistol
4.75 wounds before armour

Firewarriors
6 with just rifles is 42 points 4+ Sv
Hit on 4+ wound T3 on 3+ Ap0
2 wounds before armour

In 15
4 wounds before armour.

Add orders and the guard get further ahead.

Cultists at post CA2018
10 cultist at 50 points 6+Sv
10 autoguns
Hit on 4+ wound T3 on 4+ Ap0
2.5 wounds before armour

5 wounds before armour

If we factor in the extra range of the fire warrior and the fact their gun hurt light vehicle a bit more easily, this seems to be fairly well balanced as long as you don't add any order or boost,.

The tricky part is how do we price unit synergy and optional boost. Right now, Guards are almost certainly underpriced because of their synergy and optional boosts.

How do you think their durability per point compares? Also its 40 points of Guard vs 42 points of FW.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Anyone arguing that allies is the issue seems to have forgotten the last two editions where theoretically your Tyranid army could've ran Scatterbikes if it wanted. In my Necron army, I could run a Tyranid detachment with 3 Flyrants with little recourse.

Armies being able to ally in Scatterbikes and Flyrants didn't lead to them being broken. They were already broken by themselves due to how they were designed. CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past.

In this instance, the two units largely already did the same thing, put out lots of mobile S6 shooting, and didn't really synergize, and had deployment and proximity restrictions. You wouldn't ever really run those together. Not every mismatch is a powercombo.

That said, we saw plenty of issues with allies in the previous edition with shennanigans like Skitarii in Drop Pods, BS/SW/DA superfriends deathstar lists, 6E Taudar ridiculousness, etc.

Allies have been a constant source of problems since their 6E reintroduction.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

How do you think their durability per point compares? Also its 40 points of Guard vs 42 points of FW.

Its roughly comparable. The Guard have more models, but have a worst save. I would say the guards are more durable, but considering the guards could all get killed without being able to land a scratch on the fire warriors without being forced out of position, it's an interesting tradeoff. It's also possible that, being more numerous and having the same base size, not all ten guardsmen will be in range to fire on the fire warriors since the larger a squad get the harder it is to play on distences. A squad of six can play distence fairly easily. I don't know how moral would affect a squad of 10 vs a squad of 6 though.

A final warning and reminder to all participants of this thread: Rule #1 is not optional. Kindly stick to the topic and do not resort to insults, name calling or whatnot.

Right we need someone who is mathematically minded to do the comparative maths of Guardsmen with and without orders vs a variety of other troops that we consider to be competitive.

Both in terms of durability and output per point, probably against MEQ, GEQ and a vehicle unit as well as Lasguns, Bolters and a heavier weapon of choice.

It’s been done before and I can’t be bothered to do it again.

That will give us a good baseline for conversation rather than throwing incorrect assumptions about.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Right we need someone who is mathematically minded to do the comparative maths of Guardsmen with and without orders vs a variety of other troops that we consider to be competitive.

Both in terms of durability and output per point, probably against MEQ, GEQ and a vehicle unit as well as Lasguns, Bolters and a heavier weapon of choice.

It’s been done before and I can’t be bothered to do it again.

That will give us a good baseline for conversation rather than throwing incorrect assumptions about.

Don't forget you also need an analysis of different buffs they can receive, doctrines, range, cc ability, strategems, unit size, optional upgrades and what role are they filling general troops for an army or slot fillers to funnel CP to another army.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Right we need someone who is mathematically minded to do the comparative maths of Guardsmen with and without orders vs a variety of other troops that we consider to be competitive.

Both in terms of durability and output per point, probably against MEQ, GEQ and a vehicle unit as well as Lasguns, Bolters and a heavier weapon of choice.

It’s been done before and I can’t be bothered to do it again.

That will give us a good baseline for conversation rather than throwing incorrect assumptions about.

The reason why GW seems to have trouble with pointing correctly all its units seems to be linked to that difficulty. There is so much variable and different combinasion of units, weapons, strategical boosts, special rules, etc. that the point system is almost bound to be disbalanced in an area or another. It's a very difficult task even with the help of a mathematically minded person.

Plus, due to problem of scale, a point difference in infantry can make a sizeable difference. That's why I loved the idea of 10 pts guardsmen so much. It would allow more granularity. Right now, a barebone guard is 4 pts. It seems too low for my taste, but at the same time 5 pts per model might be a bit much if you make abstraction of all potential bonuses. A 4.5 pts would seem ideal, but beside skaven slaves in Fantasy, GW never made 1/2 point a thing.

epronovost wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

How do you think their durability per point compares? Also its 40 points of Guard vs 42 points of FW.

Its roughly comparable. The Guard have more models, but have a worst save. I would say the guards are more durable, but considering the guards could all get killed without being able to land a scratch on the fire warriors without being forced out of position, it's an interesting tradeoff. It's also possible that, being more numerous and having the same base size, not all ten guardsmen will be in range to fire on the fire warriors since the larger a squad get the harder it is to play on distences. A squad of six can play distence fairly easily. I don't know how moral would affect a squad of 10 vs a squad of 6 though.

It's really not comparible durability.

10 5+ wounds is way more durable than 6 4+ wounds.
Because incoming firepower doesn't scale with unit size.
It takes 15 wounds before armour to kill those 10 guardsmen outright. It takes 12 wounds before armour to kill those firewarriors.

Asmodios wrote:

Don't forget you also need an analysis of different buffs they can receive, doctrines, range, cc ability, strategems, unit size, optional upgrades and what role are they filling general troops for an army or slot fillers to funnel CP to another army.

Not in the first instance. Orders = the most common buffs but we can include doctrines and their equivalents if you wish. Range snd cc ability should be included but generally it’s the same for the units. Unit size and optional upgrades are irrelevant at this stage. My proposal is to compare only troops with other troops. I fail to see what any troop is if it is not a slot filler to funnel CP into something.

epronovost wrote:


The reason why GW seems to have trouble with pointing correctly all its units seems to be linked to that difficulty. There is so much variable and different combinasion of units, weapons, strategical boosts, special rules, etc. that the point system is almost bound to be disbalanced in an area or another. It's a very difficult task even with the help of a mathematically minded person.

Plus, due to problem of scale, a point difference in infantry can make a sizeable difference. That's why I loved the idea of 10 pts guardsmen so much. It would allow more granularity. Right now, a barebone guard is 4 pts. It seems too low for my taste, but at the same time 5 pts per model might be a bit much if you make abstraction of all potential bonuses. A 4.5 pts would seem ideal, but beside skaven slaves in Fantasy, GW never made 1/2 point a thing.

GW have stated that they don’t use formulas for things and they go with what ‘feels right’ which probably accounts for the odd points of some units and weapons.

I think 5 ppm is absolutely fine personally but let’s wait and see what the maths says.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Asmodios wrote:

Don't forget you also need an analysis of different buffs they can receive, doctrines, range, cc ability, strategems, unit size, optional upgrades and what role are they filling general troops for an army or slot fillers to funnel CP to another army.

Not in the first instance. Orders = the most common buffs but we can include doctrines and their equivalents if you wish. Range snd cc ability should be included but generally it’s the same for the units. Unit size and optional upgrades are irrelevant at this stage. My proposal is to compare only troops with other troops. I fail to see what any troop is if it is not a slot filler to funnel CP into something.

epronovost wrote:


The reason why GW seems to have trouble with pointing correctly all its units seems to be linked to that difficulty. There is so much variable and different combinasion of units, weapons, strategical boosts, special rules, etc. that the point system is almost bound to be disbalanced in an area or another. It's a very difficult task even with the help of a mathematically minded person.

Plus, due to problem of scale, a point difference in infantry can make a sizeable difference. That's why I loved the idea of 10 pts guardsmen so much. It would allow more granularity. Right now, a barebone guard is 4 pts. It seems too low for my taste, but at the same time 5 pts per model might be a bit much if you make abstraction of all potential bonuses. A 4.5 pts would seem ideal, but beside skaven slaves in Fantasy, GW never made 1/2 point a thing.

GW have stated that they don’t use formulas for things and they go with what ‘feels right’ which probably accounts for the odd points of some units and weapons.

I think 5 ppm is absolutely fine personally but let’s wait and see what the maths says.

All of those are important because they all have attached value to them. When evaluating a unit you have to look at everything it can bring to the table so everything I listed above and probably more I didn't even think of such as deployment options (ie forward operators and the such). Looking at simply how much damage a unit does at x inches to a unit fails to capture what a unit brings to the board and is an inadequate way to look at balance. If that is the only point costing factor in the game then the balance would be simple to achieve from simply x points will do y damage while having z durability while no other factors were important

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Right we need someone who is mathematically minded to do the comparative maths of Guardsmen with and without orders vs a variety of other troops that we consider to be competitive.

Both in terms of durability and output per point, probably against MEQ, GEQ and a vehicle unit as well as Lasguns, Bolters and a heavier weapon of choice.

It’s been done before and I can’t be bothered to do it again.

That will give us a good baseline for conversation rather than throwing incorrect assumptions about.

I did it for guards against FW and kabalites, and i'm not going to do it again.

The end result was that guards were heavily outgunned (without orders) by those two troops, but obiously won big when it came to durability.

Once you consider the orders though, they outgun pretty much ayone.

So to answer some previous questions. I think that the correct cost of a guard without orders and buffs is around 4,6 , so if it was brought to 5 i would have found it reasonable, but even at 4 is not a big problem. The cost of a gard with oders is the same, the problem is in the cost of the orders, they are too cheap. We are pointing our guns at the wrong target, leave the grunts alone and look at ultra cheap HQs, the problem is there.

By the way, the cost of a guardman in a soup is 6 points already if you consider the fact that once you shred those 30 guys he has 2 useless models. Those 30 guards cost 180 points, but they are still taken, so increasing the cost of guards is moot as long as there is CP sharing (for the loyal 32),

Also, let's try to keep down the hyperboles. The guards being at 4 ppm is not on the same level of 7th eldars, stating the contrary means being heavy biased in the matter. Sorry if you play BA, they are hard countered by guards, but half the factions in the game have no particular hard matchup against mono AM, especially after the artemia nerf. They are a good faction, but not an OP one (when mono).

7ht eldars were the most broken things the game have experienced at least in the past 4 editions, while here we are discussing a truly marginal matter for the balance of the game. If tomorrow the guards were to be brought to 5ppm, there would be ZERO impact on the meta.

Ice_can wrote:

epronovost wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

How do you think their durability per point compares? Also its 40 points of Guard vs 42 points of FW.

Its roughly comparable. The Guard have more models, but have a worst save. I would say the guards are more durable, but considering the guards could all get killed without being able to land a scratch on the fire warriors without being forced out of position, it's an interesting tradeoff. It's also possible that, being more numerous and having the same base size, not all ten guardsmen will be in range to fire on the fire warriors since the larger a squad get the harder it is to play on distences. A squad of six can play distence fairly easily. I don't know how moral would affect a squad of 10 vs a squad of 6 though.

It's really not comparible durability.

10 5+ wounds is way more durable than 6 4+ wounds.
Because incoming firepower doesn't scale with unit size.
It takes 15 wounds before armour to kill those 10 guardsmen outright. It takes 12 wounds before armour to kill those firewarriors.

You really only have to do something like 12 wounds to the Guardsmen as well because of morale. 8 dead means the remaining 2 more run away on a 1+.

The firewarriors at LD7 also need 12 wounds to wipe out, ish, because there is a nonzero chance the remaining sergeant will not run away - in fact, with bonding knives, there is always a nonzero chance of the remaining model fleeing, though I think that costs extra. Even at ld6 with no sergeant, you still aren't guaranteed to wipe out the squad unless you do 12 wounds - same with Imperial Guard.

Identical in fact.

Spoletta wrote:
We are pointing our guns at the wrong target, leave the grunts alone and look at ultra cheap HQs, the problem is there.

That's a fair point. This thread was originally about how the orders make the guardsmen perform patently superhuman feats. Perhaps nerfing the orders would be a good solution from both the balance and fluff perspective.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

epronovost wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

How do you think their durability per point compares? Also its 40 points of Guard vs 42 points of FW.

Its roughly comparable. The Guard have more models, but have a worst save. I would say the guards are more durable, but considering the guards could all get killed without being able to land a scratch on the fire warriors without being forced out of position, it's an interesting tradeoff. It's also possible that, being more numerous and having the same base size, not all ten guardsmen will be in range to fire on the fire warriors since the larger a squad get the harder it is to play on distences. A squad of six can play distence fairly easily. I don't know how moral would affect a squad of 10 vs a squad of 6 though.

It's really not comparible durability.

10 5+ wounds is way more durable than 6 4+ wounds.
Because incoming firepower doesn't scale with unit size.
It takes 15 wounds before armour to kill those 10 guardsmen outright. It takes 12 wounds before armour to kill those firewarriors.

You really only have to do something like 12 wounds to the Guardsmen as well because of morale. 8 dead means the remaining 2 more run away on a 1+.

The firewarriors at LD7 also need 12 wounds to wipe out, ish, because there is a nonzero chance the remaining sergeant will not run away - in fact, with bonding knives, there is always a nonzero chance of the remaining model fleeing, though I think that costs extra. Even at ld6 with no sergeant, you still aren't guaranteed to wipe out the squad unless you do 12 wounds - same with Imperial Guard.

Identical in fact.

This assumes that Ld isn't mitigated by strategum use, it will be if it's game critical, it's also depending upon all that damage being done in a single turn for moral to kick in.
Do damage over multiple turns and guard win big in durability.

So, just to be clear, we're assuming this is ACTUALLY a 1v1, and not just a minor part of a larger battle?

Because if so, then yeah, of course a Guard player will spend 2 CP to save four guardsmen. But how often does that happen in an actual game, where you have other units that matter more?

Ice_can wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

epronovost wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

How do you think their durability per point compares? Also its 40 points of Guard vs 42 points of FW.

Its roughly comparable. The Guard have more models, but have a worst save. I would say the guards are more durable, but considering the guards could all get killed without being able to land a scratch on the fire warriors without being forced out of position, it's an interesting tradeoff. It's also possible that, being more numerous and having the same base size, not all ten guardsmen will be in range to fire on the fire warriors since the larger a squad get the harder it is to play on distences. A squad of six can play distence fairly easily. I don't know how moral would affect a squad of 10 vs a squad of 6 though.

It's really not comparible durability.

10 5+ wounds is way more durable than 6 4+ wounds.
Because incoming firepower doesn't scale with unit size.
It takes 15 wounds before armour to kill those 10 guardsmen outright. It takes 12 wounds before armour to kill those firewarriors.

You really only have to do something like 12 wounds to the Guardsmen as well because of morale. 8 dead means the remaining 2 more run away on a 1+.

The firewarriors at LD7 also need 12 wounds to wipe out, ish, because there is a nonzero chance the remaining sergeant will not run away - in fact, with bonding knives, there is always a nonzero chance of the remaining model fleeing, though I think that costs extra. Even at ld6 with no sergeant, you still aren't guaranteed to wipe out the squad unless you do 12 wounds - same with Imperial Guard.

Identical in fact.

This assumes that Ld isn't mitigated by strategum use, it will be if it's game critical, it's also depending upon all that damage being done in a single turn for moral to kick in.
Do damage over multiple turns and guard win big in durability.

So assuming no buffs from stratagem or characters, and assuming the Guardsmen take multiple turns to kill the 10! then you need to maybe (depending on morale) need to do 3 more total wounds to the squad over those multiple turns.

"Winning big" indeed.

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, just to be clear, we're assuming this is ACTUALLY a 1v1, and not just a minor part of a larger battle?

Because if so, then yeah, of course a Guard player will spend 2 CP to save four guardsmen. But how often does that happen in an actual game, where you have other units that matter more?

Rarely.

 Crimson wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
We are pointing our guns at the wrong target, leave the grunts alone and look at ultra cheap HQs, the problem is there.

That's a fair point. This thread was originally about how the orders make the guardsmen perform patently superhuman feats. Perhaps nerfing the orders would be a good solution from both the balance and fluff perspective.

I wouldn't mind a reworking of orders. I find them fluffy so don't want them to go away but wouldn't mind personally if they had reduced effectiveness. Peoples main issue always seems to be FRFSRF so maybe just reduce the number of added shots

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Anyone arguing that allies is the issue seems to have forgotten the last two editions where theoretically your Tyranid army could've ran Scatterbikes if it wanted. In my Necron army, I could run a Tyranid detachment with 3 Flyrants with little recourse.

Armies being able to ally in Scatterbikes and Flyrants didn't lead to them being broken. They were already broken by themselves due to how they were designed. CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past.

In this instance, the two units largely already did the same thing, put out lots of mobile S6 shooting, and didn't really synergize, and had deployment and proximity restrictions. You wouldn't ever really run those together. Not every mismatch is a powercombo.

That said, we saw plenty of issues with allies in the previous edition with shennanigans like Skitarii in Drop Pods, BS/SW/DA superfriends deathstar lists, 6E Taudar ridiculousness, etc.

Allies have been a constant source of problems since their 6E reintroduction.

So what synergy is offered with allied Guard outside the CP for 8th?

The answer is none. They would be taken on their own merit.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Anyone arguing that allies is the issue seems to have forgotten the last two editions where theoretically your Tyranid army could've ran Scatterbikes if it wanted. In my Necron army, I could run a Tyranid detachment with 3 Flyrants with little recourse.

Armies being able to ally in Scatterbikes and Flyrants didn't lead to them being broken. They were already broken by themselves due to how they were designed. CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past.

In this instance, the two units largely already did the same thing, put out lots of mobile S6 shooting, and didn't really synergize, and had deployment and proximity restrictions. You wouldn't ever really run those together. Not every mismatch is a powercombo.

That said, we saw plenty of issues with allies in the previous edition with shennanigans like Skitarii in Drop Pods, BS/SW/DA superfriends deathstar lists, 6E Taudar ridiculousness, etc.

Allies have been a constant source of problems since their 6E reintroduction.

So what synergy is offered with allied Guard outside the CP for 8th?

The answer is none. They would be taken on their own merit.

They offer 3
1. Cheap CP (the main reason they are taken)
2. Cheap objective holders (remove armies like knights or custodes main weakness)
3. Cheap screens (once again turns an ok army like knights into a powerhouse when the easiest place to kill them (cc) is now hard to get to)
Adding in soup right now offers key benefits in CP and unit diversity with 0 drawbacks that's why it has dominated the entirety of the edition so far

Spoletta wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Right we need someone who is mathematically minded to do the comparative maths of Guardsmen with and without orders vs a variety of other troops that we consider to be competitive.

Both in terms of durability and output per point, probably against MEQ, GEQ and a vehicle unit as well as Lasguns, Bolters and a heavier weapon of choice.

It’s been done before and I can’t be bothered to do it again.

That will give us a good baseline for conversation rather than throwing incorrect assumptions about.

I did it for guards against FW and kabalites, and i'm not going to do it again.

The end result was that guards were heavily outgunned (without orders) by those two troops, but obiously won big when it came to durability.

Once you consider the orders though, they outgun pretty much ayone.

So to answer some previous questions. I think that the correct cost of a guard without orders and buffs is around 4,6 , so if it was brought to 5 i would have found it reasonable, but even at 4 is not a big problem. The cost of a gard with oders is the same, the problem is in the cost of the orders, they are too cheap. We are pointing our guns at the wrong target, leave the grunts alone and look at ultra cheap HQs, the problem is there.

By the way, the cost of a guardman in a soup is 6 points already if you consider the fact that once you shred those 30 guys he has 2 useless models. Those 30 guards cost 180 points, but they are still taken, so increasing the cost of guards is moot as long as there is CP sharing (for the loyal 32),

Also, let's try to keep down the hyperboles. The guards being at 4 ppm is not on the same level of 7th eldars, stating the contrary means being heavy biased in the matter. Sorry if you play BA, they are hard countered by guards, but half the factions in the game have no particular hard matchup against mono AM, especially after the artemia nerf. They are a good faction, but not an OP one (when mono).

7ht eldars were the most broken things the game have experienced at least in the past 4 editions, while here we are discussing a truly marginal matter for the balance of the game. If tomorrow the guards were to be brought to 5ppm, there would be ZERO impact on the meta.

Right once again for the hard of reading

9 lasgun guard with a bolter sargent 41 points

Non Rapid Fire
1.72 guardsmen
1.3 Firewarriors
.58 marines
.31 wounds on T7 3+
.28 wounds on T8 3+


Rapid Fire
3.44 guardsmen
2.58 Firewarriors
1.17 marines
.61 wounds on T7 3+
.56 wounds on T8 3+

Non Rapid Fire FRFSRF
3.22 guardsmen
2.42 Firewarriors
1.08 marines
.56 wounds on T7 3+
.53 wounds on T8 3+

Rapid Fire FRFSRF
6.44 guardsmen
4.83 Firewarriors
2.17 marines
1.11 wounds on T7 3+
1.06 wounds on T8 3+

6 Firewarriors 42 points

Non Rapid Fire
1.33 guardsmen
1 Firewarriors
.67 marines
.33 wounds on T7 3+
.33 wounds on T8 3+

Rapid Fire
2.67 guardsmen
2 Firewarriors
1.33 marines
.67 wounds on T7 3+
.67 wounds on T8 3+

Rapid Fire with Cadre Fireblade(only works on rapid fire)
4 guardsmen
3 Firewarriors
2 marines
1 wounds on T7 3+
1 wounds on T8 3+

Also as I feel points matter
Guard
Non Rapid Fire
6.88 guardsmen
9.04 Firewarriors
7.58 marines

Rapid Fire
13.78 guardsmen
18.08 Firewarriors
15.17marines

Non Rapid Fire FRFSRF
12.89 guardsmen
16.92 Firewarriors
14.08 marines

Rapid Fire FRFSRF
25.78 guardsmen
33.83 Firewarriors
28.17 marines

6 Firewarriors 42 points

Non Rapid Fire
5.33 guardsmen
7 Firewarriors
8.67 marines

Rapid Fire
10.67 guardsmen
14 Firewarriors
17.33 marines

Rapid Fire with Cadre Fireblade(only works on rapid fire)
16 guardsmen
21 Firewarriors
26 marines

Your basic infantry are overly durable for their points, even at 5ppm they still give up less points unbuffed to enemy shooting.

Add the rediculous over performance of orders and it's a perfect example of just how broken you can make a unit.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Anyone arguing that allies is the issue seems to have forgotten the last two editions where theoretically your Tyranid army could've ran Scatterbikes if it wanted. In my Necron army, I could run a Tyranid detachment with 3 Flyrants with little recourse.

Armies being able to ally in Scatterbikes and Flyrants didn't lead to them being broken. They were already broken by themselves due to how they were designed. CP is merely attached to a few special moments here and there, just like formations were in the past.

In this instance, the two units largely already did the same thing, put out lots of mobile S6 shooting, and didn't really synergize, and had deployment and proximity restrictions. You wouldn't ever really run those together. Not every mismatch is a powercombo.

That said, we saw plenty of issues with allies in the previous edition with shennanigans like Skitarii in Drop Pods, BS/SW/DA superfriends deathstar lists, 6E Taudar ridiculousness, etc.

Allies have been a constant source of problems since their 6E reintroduction.

So what synergy is offered with allied Guard outside the CP for 8th?

The CP's are a huge one thay can't be discounted. Being able to pull in an extra 8-10 CP between the 32 themselves and thr CP regen they can bring, thats often enough right there in and of itself.


However one of the other big things is board control and numbers. These are powerful abilities for armies like Knights and Custodes and Smashcaptain lists that otherwise would often lack the ability to play objectives while they simultaneously smash the bejeesus out of everything and refuse to die, or would lack screeners that would enable many other opponents to more effectively get to grips. That's been no secret. Likewise, it enables access to things like psyker support that some armies dont inherently already have, or cheaper psyker options that do nothing else but that.

We can see this in non-IG related examples as well. DE don't natively have access to Doom but get made way stronger when allied with CWE (often just for Doom).

 Insectum7 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
So, just to be clear, we're assuming this is ACTUALLY a 1v1, and not just a minor part of a larger battle?

Because if so, then yeah, of course a Guard player will spend 2 CP to save four guardsmen. But how often does that happen in an actual game, where you have other units that matter more?

Rarely.

Had it done to both my armies atleast once.
Simply put having those 16 points of guard stick around means that having a 300+ point riptide or 400+ point knight on an objective ment nothing. Because that inconsequential obsec rule.
Which means overly durable troops are a problem.

 Crimson wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
We are pointing our guns at the wrong target, leave the grunts alone and look at ultra cheap HQs, the problem is there.

That's a fair point. This thread was originally about how the orders make the guardsmen perform patently superhuman feats. Perhaps nerfing the orders would be a good solution from both the balance and fluff perspective.

I proffer a new idea. Perhaps officers have to pay for orders.
We already have an example with the Tempestor Prime.
Perhaps an officer gets one order base (being an infantry officer, after all), and add 5 as an upgrade.
CCs could have a maximum of of two, so paying 5 points like the Tempestor Prime.
Platoon Commanders stay the same and get played more?