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.

Reemule wrote:
My issue is...
The guard cost is overshadowed by the endless CP through the most effective units problems.

And there is no guarantee that fixing the CP issue, might fix the Guard.

I'd argue the Helverin Armiger is a example of this. Its amazing for 172 points. But it isn't a problem in the game due to the circumstances you need to take it make abusing it very hard to do.

Except when you start to compare it to any Dreadnought or Daemonengine there is.

The issue is if you just nerf Guard, then the next best thing will be used. And the next thing after that.

Fix the root cause. Fix CP being able to be stacked from other sources and used on something else where it benefits the most. We wouldn't be having this discussion if you couldn't power multiple Agents of Vect or Rotate Ion Shields or whatever with 2 cheap battalions to get an immediate 13 CP for minimal points investments.

If CP is meant to be a rare commodity and stratagems are meant to be powerful, sometimes game-changing things, then they need to be rare and limited.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Seems like Guard players up in arms any Imperial army can take their broken unit and they just wanna keep it to themselves.

Or maybe it's because they don't like the fact that any competent observer should see that their "broken unit"(read: the only one out of three worth taking as 'line troops') would just be replaced by the next most effective thing ad infinitum.

Are you serious? So knocking Infantry down to the same level of balance of other troops is bad how, exactly?

I'm not saying Conscripts don't need a fix, but don't pretend that 50 point Infantry squads are going to kill your army. Infantry are broken in their own army and with Knights. You're as bad as the Eldar defenders.

If CP were fixed to a certain formula it'd go a long way.

Say you get 3CP for being battleforged and you get 2CP for every 500 points of units you're allowed to bring. Meaning:
500 points- 5CP
1000 points - 7CP
1500 points - 9CP
2000 points - 11CP

Then bringing anything other than what your warlords detachment is counts as the extra relic stratagem. Meaning you can bring 1 soup detachment for -1CP or 2 soup detachments for -3CP.

It's simple and still gives you an incentive to not go overboard with soup, 1 soup detachment would be a common occurence but you'd also get fewer CP to power up all the super powerful strats with. It should also probabaly be specified that only your warlords detachment can regen CPs.

"The issue is if you just nerf Guard, then the next best thing will be used. And the next thing after that."
But each successive thing used is slightly less op. So isn't this a good thing?

"Fix the root cause."
Certainly. Fix that, too.

There is more than one problem. Don't decide not to fix one just because there is another.

Ice_can wrote:
Because your taking the same tired old refusal to accept facts logic about well x and y and z when the question was is a before c in the alphabet logic that has denominated the numerous previous threads on the topic that has repeatedly caused people to become frustrated and nolonger willing to entertain guard apologists desire for arguments.
You obviously have the internet as your posting here, google search dakka and I'm sure you'll find the many many threads that have been derailed by the points cost of infantry squads.

I'm only "refusing" to accept anything on the basis that I'm apparently not allowed to see what I'm being asked to accept!

Many threads have been derailed by the cost of infantry, I accept that. I also have seen lots of people claim that Guard have been mathematically proven to be undercosted. What I've never seen, despite searching - and all I've asked for here - is the actual proof that they are too efficient.

I have not claimed that guardsmen are not undercosted, or that they don't have exceptional anti-infantry shooting for their cost, or that they aren't efficient bubblewrap, or that the loyal 32 is good for the game, or anything like it. I haven't personally made a claim about the efficiency or value of Guardsmen at all.

All I'm trying to do is to ensure that people aren't claiming something has been mathematically proven when it hasn't.

Pina,
That change would help out janky lists like the Flyer Spam that got #2 at the LVO. Sure, the soup tax will cost them, but not nearly as much as the lack of troops currently costs them.

Bharring wrote:
Pina,
That change would help out janky lists like the Flyer Spam that got #2 at the LVO. Sure, the soup tax will cost them, but not nearly as much as the lack of troops currently costs them.

I mean yeah sure, but I'm not saying one fix is going to make the game universally better with no drawbacks. The flyer list is comprised of a bunch of units that are to an almost unanimous degree undercosted. We could easily throw in a limitation like the rule of three, where you can't have more than 3 of the flyer battlefield role in a matched play army.

Reemule wrote:
My issue is...
The guard cost is overshadowed by the endless CP through the most effective units problems.

And there is no guarantee that fixing the CP issue, might fix the Guard.

I'd argue the Helverin Armiger is a example of this. Its amazing for 172 points. But it isn't a problem in the game due to the circumstances you need to take it make abusing it very hard to do.

If it could fall back and shoot it would be flat out broken. There are lots of really good units that still have a weakness that can be exploited. Units that don't have and exploitable weaknesses are a problem.

Castellans and shinning spears are huge examples of this.

It's far from the only problem in this game though. Some stratagems are too good. Some relics are too good. Some warlord traits are too good. Some are traits are too good. In other words - the game is very poorly balanced.

Another way of fixing CP rather than limiting its generation is to limit how many CP a turn or even a phase a player can spend. That way it moderates the extreme CP scores that certain armies can accumulate.

For instance (and I'm just making up numbers not proposing) if the limit were 4 points per turn and I had 12 CPs but my opponent had 20, I could spend max CPs for the first 3 rounds as could my opponent. If the game lasts past 3 rounds then he's still good to go. IMHO most games are decided in the first few rounds after that it's just mop up or minimum engagement of units due to lack of units.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Another way of fixing CP rather than limiting its generation is to limit how many CP a turn or even a phase a player can spend. That way it moderates the extreme CP scores that certain armies can accumulate.

For instance (and I'm just making up numbers not proposing) if the limit were 4 points per turn and I had 12 CPs but my opponent had 20, I could spend max CPs for the first 3 rounds as could my opponent. If the game lasts past 3 rounds then he's still good to go. IMHO most games are decided in the first few rounds after that it's just mop up or minimum engagement of units due to lack of units.

This way expensive models/units (like Castellans) would profit the most, right?

A big problem with soup is how many stratagems are accessible and how many units they can be used on. You can't use the good stratagems on 2 knights, so the first knight in your list is much better than any further knights.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Reemule wrote:
My issue is...
The guard cost is overshadowed by the endless CP through the most effective units problems.

And there is no guarantee that fixing the CP issue, might fix the Guard.

I'd argue the Helverin Armiger is a example of this. Its amazing for 172 points. But it isn't a problem in the game due to the circumstances you need to take it make abusing it very hard to do.

Except when you start to compare it to any Dreadnought or Daemonengine there is.

After the buff to dreadnaughts, the comparison isn't so bad anymore. If you take a Dakkanaut, it's quite similar to an Armiger, except that it has no 5++, 1 less damage on the cannons and 4 less wounds. At the same time though the armiger costs 46 points more, degrades, is bigger and requires a dedicated detachment.

PiñaColada wrote:
If CP were fixed to a certain formula it'd go a long way.

Say you get 3CP for being battleforged and you get 2CP for every 500 points of units you're allowed to bring. Meaning:
500 points- 5CP
1000 points - 7CP
1500 points - 9CP
2000 points - 11CP

Then bringing anything other than what your warlords detachment is counts as the extra relic stratagem. Meaning you can bring 1 soup detachment for -1CP or 2 soup detachments for -3CP.

It's simple and still gives you an incentive to not go overboard with soup, 1 soup detachment would be a common occurence but you'd also get fewer CP to power up all the super powerful strats with. It should also probabaly be specified that only your warlords detachment can regen CPs.

Sure tell me what you can play as GSC with 11 CP...

Pro-tip : NOTHING, you spend like 7-8 CPs pregame and now you can't do anything.

I can't help seeing faction-specific stratagems as a mistake. Having CPs power a pool or rerolls you can use on anything would have kept things in check far better than have them unlock dozens of incredibly powerful abilities per army.

KurtAngle2 wrote:

PiñaColada wrote:
If CP were fixed to a certain formula it'd go a long way.

Say you get 3CP for being battleforged and you get 2CP for every 500 points of units you're allowed to bring. Meaning:
500 points- 5CP
1000 points - 7CP
1500 points - 9CP
2000 points - 11CP

Then bringing anything other than what your warlords detachment is counts as the extra relic stratagem. Meaning you can bring 1 soup detachment for -1CP or 2 soup detachments for -3CP.

It's simple and still gives you an incentive to not go overboard with soup, 1 soup detachment would be a common occurence but you'd also get fewer CP to power up all the super powerful strats with. It should also probabaly be specified that only your warlords detachment can regen CPs.

Sure tell me what you can play as GSC with 11 CP...

Pro-tip : NOTHING, you spend like 7-8 CPs pregame and now you can't do anything.

This sounds like decisions you have chosen to make...

The top factions - Ynnari, Imperial Guard - have the ability to act twice. Move, Shoot, Fight - without cost. Additionally they also scale very well with their characters, and have a robust toolkit to support their core.

Access to CP is obviously a factor that creates imbalance. In the same way that "free stuff" was a problem in 7th, if you value CP at some point value, which isn't super hard to do - although it does vary based on faction - some factions get more "free stuff" than others.

At the end of the day, I went 5-1 at LVO, losing in game 5. My opponent openly cheated but i missed it, because i was exhausted. I don't think I would have been able to beat those top lists anyway, though. They're just too good at what they do. The top 4 at one point were AM+Castellan, AM+Castellan, Ynnari, Ynnari. I just can't compete with their ability to field bonkers insane efficient stuff coupled with multiple activations in a game where everyone else is activating once per phase.

I won't show up in any analysis, but i had a solid tournament and had a great time, running what is considered to be a non-meta list. Just a reminder to folks that you can still compete even if you aren't copying the latest overpowered thing. And yes, Guard and Ynnari are overpowered. This is widely known at this point.

Aelyn wrote:

You're the one stating that Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the existence and validity of the supporting maths.

There is no burden of proof. We're on a forum discussing toy soldiers and I've seen it multiple times. Inform yourself. Either find the maths or do it yourself. Make your own conclusions from informed knowledge as I have.

E -

Bharring wrote:
"The issue is if you just nerf Guard, then the next best thing will be used. And the next thing after that."
But each successive thing used is slightly less op. So isn't this a good thing?

"Fix the root cause."
Certainly. Fix that, too.

There is more than one problem. Don't decide not to fix one just because there is another.

Oh my God this. All day this. Thank you for explaining this in a reasoned and clear way.

I spoke with one of the top Ork players. He lost one game because of the chess clocks. People were wondering if this would happen, and i can count one time with absolute certainty where it did. He would have had 5 wins at least. Take this for what it's worth.

Soup is the problem, not the Castellan.
If the Castellan was the problem, we would see the chaos equivalent (renegade knight dominus) being played way more than it is.
Point adjustments won't fix it, rules about soup can.

 Marmatag wrote:
I spoke with one of the top Ork players. He lost one game because of the chess clocks. People were wondering if this would happen, and i can count one time with absolute certainty where it did. He would have had 5 wins at least. Take this for what it's worth.

It only happened the one time, which is kinda odd. What caused it for that game compared to the other games?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

Reemule wrote:
My issue is...
The guard cost is overshadowed by the endless CP through the most effective units problems.

And there is no guarantee that fixing the CP issue, might fix the Guard.

I'd argue the Helverin Armiger is a example of this. Its amazing for 172 points. But it isn't a problem in the game due to the circumstances you need to take it make abusing it very hard to do.

Except when you start to compare it to any Dreadnought or Daemonengine there is.

After the buff to dreadnaughts, the comparison isn't so bad anymore. If you take a Dakkanaut, it's quite similar to an Armiger, except that it has no 5++, 1 less damage on the cannons and 4 less wounds. At the same time though the armiger costs 46 points more, degrades, is bigger and requires a dedicated detachment.

Most of the time you can argue the degradation is fine, because at the point the Armiger is at BS4+/5+, the Dread would be dead.

I agree with one of the previous posters who said that the game was irrevocably changed when Apoc rules were allowed, and Superheavies were put into game.

Strictly my opinion here, but the game as it stands no longer represents the majority of players. There is one guy at my local who brings three Knights. Literally no one else even has a superheavy or even a LOW. Orlk players aren't fielding Orkanauts, no one even owns baneblades, and the SM players don't bring LRs because, well, they aren't sold, or they aren't good? No one even plays "Counts as" with LOWs.

My question now is, is GW basing their rules off the Meta, and the championship play, alienating the vast majority of their players, or are they basing the rules off the casuals, thus upsetting the Meta Listers?

 Marmatag wrote:
I spoke with one of the top Ork players. He lost one game because of the chess clocks. People were wondering if this would happen, and i can count one time with absolute certainty where it did. He would have had 5 wins at least. Take this for what it's worth.

How?

Seems much more likely he lost due to not being ready to play his force the full amount of turns in the time allotted?

Losing to the chess clock is like saying I lost cause I couldn't shoot guys that were out of range, or I lost because I couldn't Deepstrike on turn 5. Schematically null.

 Wibe wrote:
Soup is the problem, not the Castellan.
If the Castellan was the problem, we would see the chaos equivalent (renegade knight dominus) being played way more than it is.
Point adjustments won't fix it, rules about soup can.

Nah dude - you are flat out wrong. Point can fix any unit. There is really no point in debating this. Choas castellans can't take relic plasma or 4++ warlord trait. There is no point in taking a choas castellan over a mechanicus one. That is why you don't see it much. BUT YOU DO SEE IT. I saw it plenty at LVO. You are much mroe likely to see a 2x Gatling crusader for chaos and those are kind of off meta but get work done - also very much hard countered by Castellans.

The game essentially rotates around the Castellan right now. If you can't see it - you are blind. CP ofc are an issue - but the Castellan is not the only unit that CP is too good on. In a game without endless CP - Castellans would still dominate.

Aelyn wrote:
All I was asking for was a link to the maths, so I can understand the underlying assumptions, "rules of engagement" etc. If you're so confident in the maths and the conclusions, and if it's been done time and time again, it shouldn't be hard to provide evidence of that.

Please note that I'm not saying guardsmen suck, nor am I attempting to lay a trap. I just want to see the maths, because I've seen the claim that guardsmen are mathematically better quite a few times, but I've never actually seen it substantiated.

One must always assume that IS are under orders and since most are Catachan there isn't many other considerations to shooting until combat. This makes the real cost of a squad of IS 55 points - 40 for the troops and half of a commander for orders. But let's go deeper. Add a priest, Harker, Straken, and an Ogryn Bodyguard. All this to supoort a block of 60.

240 + 30 + 30 + 30 + 75 + 50 + 52 = 507

This makes the cost of a single IS Catachan model 8.5 points. Technically they cost 9.4 points, because the sarge is pretty useless half the time, but let's meet in the middle and call it 9.

Note that this fulfills the requirements for two battalions and so is capable of providing 10 CP.

Let's make a Pseudo profile for this unit:

Guard - M6 WS4 BS4 S4 T3 W1 A3 LD6 5+ Sarge - M6 WS4 BS4 S4 T3 W1 A5 LD7 5+ Big Fat Jerks: Reroll all to hit rolls of 1 in the shooting phase. Supermen: At the start of their shooting phase this unit may pick one of the following abilities: - Move as if it were the move phase including advancing, but may not charge - Change all RF 1 weapons to RF2 - Shoot if they fell back - Fight Twice - Reroll wound rolls of 1 9 points per model

A captain, lieutenant, and 30 marines is 524 points. That makes these marines 17.5 points each. Let's do their profile.

Marine- M6 WS3 BS3 S4 T4 W1 A1 LD7 3+ Sarge - M6 WS3 BS3 S4 T4 W1 A2 LD8 3+ Accurate Fat Jerks: Reroll all to hit rolls of 1. Precise Fat Jerks: Reroll all to wound rolls of 1. Smoke Screen Sha-pow! : This unit may fall back and shoot, but not charge with a -1 to hit. 17.5 points per model

Provides 5 CP

What about shooting?

Two squads of IG shooting @ 24" w/ FRFSRF - 180 (fictional) points

36 * .583 * .333 * .333 = 2.3 // v MEQ x ~2 for 12"
36 * .583 * .5 * .666 = 7 // v GEQ x ~2 for 12"

And our marine buddies - one squad for 175 fictional points

10 * .777 * .583 * .333 = 1.5 // v MEQ x 2 for 12" or standing still
10 * .777 * .777 * .666 = 4 // v GEQ x 2 for 12" or standing still

What about melee?

Two squads of IG

32 * .5 * .5 * .333 = 2.7 // v MEQ x 2 for fight twice
32 * .5 * .666 * .666 = 7.1 // v GEQ x 2 for fight twice

One squad of marines

11 * .777 * .583 * .333 = 1.7 // v MEQ
11 * .777 * .777 * .666 = 4.4 // v GEQ

What about getting hit?

IG

1 * .5 * .666 * 9 = 3 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound
1 * .5 * .5 * 9 = 2.3 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound in cover

1 * .666 * .666 * 9 = 4 // points lost from 1 bolter wound
1 * .666 * .5 * 9 = 3 // points lost from 1 bolter wound in cover

1 * .833 * .833 * 9 = 6.2 // points lost from 1 asscan wound
1 * .833 * .666 * 9 = 5 // points lost from 1 asscan wound in cover

1 * .666 * 9 = 6 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound in or out of cover

Marines

1 * .333 * .333 * 17.5 = 1.9 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound
1 * .333 * .167 * 17.5 = 1 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound in cover

1 * .5 * .333 * 17.5 = 2.9 // points lost from 1 bolter wound
1 * .5 * .167 * 17.5 = 1.5 // points lost from 1 bolter wound in cover

1 * .666 * .5 * 17.5 = 5.8 // points lost from 1 asscan wound
1 * .666 * .333 * 17.5 = 3.9 // points lost from 1 asscan wound in cover

1 * .666 * .833 * 17.5 = 9.7 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound
1 * .666 * .666 * 17.5 = 7.8 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound in cover


Conclusion

Catachans certainly fight better than marines before even consider fight twice. They shoot better, unless the marine is standing still and if the IG are at long range only. Marines are certainly more durable but quickly lose any strong edge out of cover and against any AP3+ weapons and lost much of it when any AP was involved.

I would do fire warriors and such, but I'm out of time at the moment.

And then you need to consider mortars.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
All I was asking for was a link to the maths, so I can understand the underlying assumptions, "rules of engagement" etc. If you're so confident in the maths and the conclusions, and if it's been done time and time again, it shouldn't be hard to provide evidence of that.

Please note that I'm not saying guardsmen suck, nor am I attempting to lay a trap. I just want to see the maths, because I've seen the claim that guardsmen are mathematically better quite a few times, but I've never actually seen it substantiated.

One must always assume that IS are under orders and since most are Catachan there isn't many other considerations to shooting until combat. This makes the real cost of a squad of IS 55 points - 40 for the troops and half of a commander for orders. But let's go deeper. Add a priest, Harker, Straken, and an Ogryn Bodyguard. All this to supoort a block of 60.

240 + 30 + 30 + 30 + 75 + 50 + 52 = 507

This makes the cost of a single IS Catachan model 8.5 points. Technically they cost 9.4 points, because the sarge is pretty useless half the time, but let's meet in the middle and call it 9.

Note that this fulfills the requirements for two battalions and so is capable of providing 10 CP.

Let's make a Pseudo profile for this unit:

Guard - M6 WS4 BS4 S4 T3 W1 A3 LD6 5+ Sarge - M6 WS4 BS4 S4 T3 W1 A5 LD7 5+ Big Fat Jerks: Reroll all to hit rolls of 1 in the shooting phase. Supermen: At the start of their shooting phase this unit may pick one of the following abilities: - Move as if it were the move phase including advancing, but may not charge - Change all RF 1 weapons to RF2 - Shoot if they fell back - Fight Twice - Reroll wound rolls of 1 9 points per model

A captain, lieutenant, and 30 marines is 524 points. That makes these marines 17.5 points each. Let's do their profile.

Marine- M6 WS3 BS3 S4 T4 W1 A1 LD7 3+ Sarge - M6 WS3 BS3 S4 T4 W1 A2 LD8 3+ Accurate Fat Jerks: Reroll all to hit rolls of 1. Precise Fat Jerks: Reroll all to wound rolls of 1. Smoke Screen Sha-pow! : This unit may fall back and shoot, but not charge with a -1 to hit. 17.5 points per model

Provides 5 CP

What about shooting?

Two squads of IG shooting @ 24" w/ FRFSRF - 180 (fictional) points

36 * .583 * .333 * .333 = 2.3 // v MEQ x ~2 for 12"
36 * .583 * .5 * .666 = 7 // v GEQ x ~2 for 12"

And our marine buddies - one squad for 175 fictional points

10 * .777 * .583 * .333 = 1.5 // v MEQ x 2 for 12" or standing still
10 * .777 * .777 * .666 = 4 // v GEQ x 2 for 12" or standing still

What about melee?

Two squads of IG

32 * .5 * .5 * .333 = 2.7 // v MEQ x 2 for fight twice
32 * .5 * .666 * .666 = 7.1 // v GEQ x 2 for fight twice

One squad of marines

11 * .777 * .583 * .333 = 1.7 // v MEQ
11 * .777 * .777 * .666 = 4.4 // v GEQ

What about getting hit?

IG

1 * .5 * .666 * 9 = 3 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound
1 * .5 * .5 * 9 = 2.3 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound in cover

1 * .666 * .666 * 9 = 4 // points lost from 1 bolter wound
1 * .666 * .5 * 9 = 3 // points lost from 1 bolter wound in cover

1 * .833 * .833 * 9 = 6.2 // points lost from 1 asscan wound
1 * .833 * .666 * 9 = 5 // points lost from 1 asscan wound in cover

1 * .666 * 9 = 6 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound in or out of cover

Marines

1 * .333 * .333 * 17.5 = 1.9 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound
1 * .333 * .167 * 17.5 = 1 // points lost from 1 lasgun wound in cover

1 * .5 * .333 * 17.5 = 2.9 // points lost from 1 bolter wound
1 * .5 * .167 * 17.5 = 1.5 // points lost from 1 bolter wound in cover

1 * .666 * .5 * 17.5 = 5.8 // points lost from 1 asscan wound
1 * .666 * .333 * 17.5 = 3.9 // points lost from 1 asscan wound in cover

1 * .666 * .833 * 17.5 = 9.7 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound
1 * .666 * .666 * 17.5 = 7.8 // points lost from 1 disintegrator wound in cover


Conclusion

Catachans certainly fight better than marines before even consider fight twice. They shoot better, unless the marine is standing still and if the IG are at long range only. Marines are certainly more durable but quickly lose any strong edge out of cover and against any AP3+ weapons and lost much of it when any AP was involved.

I would do fire warriors and such, but I'm out of time at the moment.

And then you need to consider mortars.

Did you factor this at 24 inches, with the new Bolter rule?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Seems like Guard players up in arms any Imperial army can take their broken unit and they just wanna keep it to themselves.

Or maybe it's because they don't like the fact that any competent observer should see that their "broken unit"(read: the only one out of three worth taking as 'line troops') would just be replaced by the next most effective thing ad infinitum.

Are you serious? So knocking Infantry down to the same level of balance of other troops is bad how, exactly?

But that's not the thing.

You're NOT "knocking Infantry down to the same level of balance of other troops". You're knocking them based upon their interaction with soup and solely with soup, focused entirely upon the points costs while ignoring that there are plenty of other potential fixes that make them less attractive options for soup and retain the efficacy of the unit within the Guard.

And just so we can be 100% clear here:
There's 3 Guard troop choices, with one of them(Scions) being unable to be receive the army's special rules(Orders) from the <Regiment> Heroes and the other(Conscripts) requiring a 4+ to do the same thing.

Is it any fricking shock that Infantry Squads are preferred over the other two?

I'm not saying Conscripts don't need a fix, but don't pretend that 50 point Infantry squads are going to kill your army. Infantry are broken in their own army and with Knights. You're as bad as the Eldar defenders.

Sure, right. That's why I've totally never ever suggested things like:
A) Reworking Infantry Squads to make it so Heavy Weapon Teams can only Move or Fire(no "-1 to hit" nonsense--just flatout move or fire)
B) Reworking the Heavy Weapon Team options for Infantry Squads to be more in line with other factions(this is unlikely to happen as Brood Brothers retained Mortars, etc--although I believe Mortars are more expensive there, which is great and I hope makes its way over to Guard)
C) Reworking the Orders system entirely from the ground up.

Conscripts needed ONE damn thing to be fixed. Two if you wanted to really ensure they retained viable while not being too reliable:
Ditch the <Regiment> and give them Auxilia as a keyword. No Orders, no Auras that aren't faction specific, no Regimental traits, etc. Raw Recruits could have been tied to making them only able to use a Commissar's "Summary Execution" to modify their Leadership.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Wibe wrote:
Soup is the problem, not the Castellan.
If the Castellan was the problem, we would see the chaos equivalent (renegade knight dominus) being played way more than it is.
Point adjustments won't fix it, rules about soup can.

Nah dude - you are flat out wrong. Point can fix any unit. There is really no point in debating this. Choas castellans can't take relic plasma or 4++ warlord trait. There is no point in taking a choas castellan over a mechanicus one. That is why you don't see it much. BUT YOU DO SEE IT. I saw it plenty at LVO. You are much mroe likely to see a 2x Gatling crusader for chaos and those are kind of off meta but get work done - also very much hard countered by Castellans.

The game essentially rotates around the Castellan right now. If you can't see it - you are blind. CP ofc are an issue - but the Castellan is not the only unit that CP is too good on. In a game without endless CP - Castellans would still dominate.

I came to tell you your wrong... and you are, but I don't care.

When I play Mono knights the Castellan and Valiant never get to the table cause I don't have CP to rotate their shields. They are already useless in that view.

If you increase the cost, all your going to do is: See people trim something and keep abusing it, or, Level up and bring a Porphyrion (does real good with the Raven Strat),or downgrade and run a Crusader (also does good for the Raven Strat).

Either way, you will still be here, complaining, and wanting them nerfed, cause you didn't fix the core problem.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

You're the one stating that Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the existence and validity of the supporting maths.

There is no burden of proof. We're on a forum discussing toy soldiers and I've seen it multiple times. Inform yourself. Either find the maths or do it yourself. Make your own conclusions from informed knowledge as I have.

I've done maths on it. It's shown that guardsmen are more efficient in some ways and less in others, when compared to other troops choices. I've also searched for the maths, and found lots of people claiming maths has proved this, yet strangely not been able to find the maths itself - at least, not maths that says what people say it does.

Since you are incapable of actually demonstrating your point and are resorting to attacking me for trying to have an informed debate, I'll have to assume that the maths does not exist and that you are either lying or misinformed.

Daedalus - This is exactly the reason I was asking. You've added so many additional units, assumptions, etc that you're no longer talking about the efficiency of 4ppm Guard - you're talking about the efficiency of two battalions with interlocking abilities and support, then comparing it to another arbitrary battalion of Marines (without chapter tactics, apparently) which most people would agree is pretty suboptimal anyway. It's indicative of the power of Guard as a whole - which, again, I am not disputing - but it's hardly evidence that 4ppm Guardsmen are mathematically the most efficient troops for their cost.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Did you factor this at 24 inches, with the new Bolter rule?

It is notated in the analysis, yes. Marines standing still and in cover are better at shooting and being hit, but that's not very ideal though. It works great for when my Rubrics get into position though.

Out of curiosity, in what ways were they not the most efficient by your math?