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.

 DrGiggles wrote:


This is at 24" on planet bowling ball?

I'm considerably aware of terrain - the tournament results for marines at LVO might help us sort the rest of the equation.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Arguably, "Did you include $X" can be asked indefinitely - as there are more than enough permutations on the matchup to keep him busy long past the end of 8E.

The problem is we've had repeated instances in these kinds of debates/arguments where people act as though every single Order in the world is on the unit with there being no way at all for the other person to do anything about the character issuing the Order...which sure, you can't "deny" the Order like a psychic power, but like Aura toting characters the trick is to kill the Officer.

This is considerably difficult to do for the vast majority of armies, which is why I included a body guard in the initial post, because GSC will do it very easily.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Where every single Marine unit is in Gman's aura.

Where every single Craftworlder is Alaitoc, outside 12" range, while shooting with their 12" range guns and shorter. Every target is Doomed/Jinxed, every unit is Fortuned/Guideded/LQRed/etc, and at -4-to-hit. And Catlady.

Where every single Knight has T8 3++.

I'd keep going, but those are just about the only things people talk about in today's meta.

The game may not be as complex as we'd like, but it's a lot more complex than a lot of equations thrown out there.

And yet one must understand the math of these interactions to determine why something might be considered strong.

Haywire isn't often gunning for knights without Doom. Knights aren't taking on anti-tank without their best foot forward. IG aren't running around without orders.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 flaming tadpole wrote:
Guys...just think it through. It's already been stated ad nauseam in this thread and not one person arguing against it has even bothered countering it. How are you possibly going to balance a Castellan or guard or any op soup unit when 2 or more versions of that unit exist with wildly different power levels. How are you going to balance a Castellan that is incredibly op when taken with guard soup, but not even remotely near that strength when taken in a pure knight list. No one here is saying that the Castellan or guard or eldar flyers shouldn't increase in points. What they're saying is it would be a whole lot easier to balance these units if you remove the aspects of soup that make them vary so wildly in strength. Can we all at least agree that it would make more sense to remove these variables first and then balance undercosted units?

NO NERF POINTS SOUP'S FINE!

Seriously, this is how it always ends up. It's the same damn people time and time again throwing math out then arguing that anyone disagreeing with the math is arguing in bad faith, a Guard apologist, "as bad as Eldar players were", etc.

They don't want soup to be balanced. They want nerfs.

Allies are balanced due to limited unit interactions compared to previous editions. It's simply being able to take multiple broken units for an army instead of merely 1 or 2. If anything, the system shows which units are too effective and need to be hit.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 DrGiggles wrote:


This is at 24" on planet bowling ball?

I'm considerably aware of terrain - the tournament results for marines at LVO might help us sort the rest of the equation.

Not being snarky, just verifying that your math didn't take terrain into account.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Allies are balanced due to limited unit interactions compared to previous editions.

If by "limited unit interactions compared to previous editions" you mean "I can't just shove <Insert Power Character Here> into a unit to sponge up wounds while they go about their business and grant their USRs to the unit in question", then yeah--you're right.

But we didn't have to worry about Command Points and Stratagems before and you of all people should be aware of that issue...which also includes the "Haha you can't shoot me" element to boot.

It's simply being able to take multiple broken units for an army instead of merely 1 or 2. If anything, the system shows which units are too effective and need to be hit.

It shows that Command Point farming, even with the ability to regenerate them being nerfed, is still a large problem and that people build lists around it.

That's the whole damn reason I've continually stated that I want to see CP sharing penalized heavily and I want to see heavy restrictions on what Detachments can be taken in a "declared" army.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 flaming tadpole wrote:
Guys...just think it through. It's already been stated ad nauseam in this thread and not one person arguing against it has even bothered countering it. How are you possibly going to balance a Castellan or guard or any op soup unit when 2 or more versions of that unit exist with wildly different power levels. How are you going to balance a Castellan that is incredibly op when taken with guard soup, but not even remotely near that strength when taken in a pure knight list. No one here is saying that the Castellan or guard or eldar flyers shouldn't increase in points. What they're saying is it would be a whole lot easier to balance these units if you remove the aspects of soup that make them vary so wildly in strength. Can we all at least agree that it would make more sense to remove these variables first and then balance undercosted units?

NO NERF POINTS SOUP'S FINE!

Seriously, this is how it always ends up. It's the same damn people time and time again throwing math out then arguing that anyone disagreeing with the math is arguing in bad faith, a Guard apologist, "as bad as Eldar players were", etc.

They don't want soup to be balanced. They want nerfs.

Allies are balanced due to limited unit interactions compared to previous editions. It's simply being able to take multiple broken units for an army instead of merely 1 or 2. If anything, the system shows which units are too effective and need to be hit.

EXACTLY - if it is showing up in soup it is probably too good. Ether a unit or a stratagem/spell interaction.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:but the counter argument to that is a like number of points cost guard will slaughter a like points cost of marines. 150ps of marines vs 150 points of guard. etc.

But a more interesting argument is what can those marines do better than the guard?

Take both units, face them off against a vehicle, or units in cover, or anything else. Two units standing and basically dueling isn't a clear representation of what they are used for. Guardsmen are obj holders. Marines are fluff wise, assault troops. If those marines were in melee, totally different outcome.

150 points of marines win hands down against 150 points of guards with BBolters.
There is one thing (and only one) that tacs do better than guards, and it is sitting in cover shooting at stuff.

Bharring wrote:"Several troops are also tougher per point, such as Marines and Plaguebearers."
Marines lose out per point in most cases. In the open, vs AP 0, they die exactly half as fast, but cost much more than twice as much. In cover, they die 1/3 as fast, but cost more than 3 times as much.

"Guard are also generally medium at melee"
One on one, sure. But 13 Guardsmen vs 4 Marines (equal points) sees Marines get destroyed in CC. In fact, Guardsmen win this fight vs most Troops. Because they're dirt cheap, and merely have no +s in CC, instead of having any drawback.

Wrong. A marine dies 3 times slower against S3 and 2,66 times slower against S4. In cover these numbers become 4,5 and 4.

An Actual Englishman wrote:

 flaming tadpole wrote:
Guys...just think it through. It's already been stated ad nauseam in this thread and not one person arguing against it has even bothered countering it. How are you possibly going to balance a Castellan or guard or any op soup unit when 2 or more versions of that unit exist with wildly different power levels. How are you going to balance a Castellan that is incredibly op when taken with guard soup, but not even remotely near that strength when taken in a pure knight list. No one here is saying that the Castellan or guard or eldar flyers shouldn't increase in points. What they're saying is it would be a whole lot easier to balance these units if you remove the aspects of soup that make them vary so wildly in strength. Can we all at least agree that it would make more sense to remove these variables first and then balance undercosted units?

Right the first thing you’re going to have to do here is prove that a Castellan is worth more in a soup list than a mono knight list.[u]

I have addressed this by the way. Truly balanced units, stratagems and psychic powers make soup a nonissue. The responses I received to this were monologues around opportunity cost and claims that a unit is worth more in an army that doesn’t generally specialise in a particular facet ofnwarfare. My belief is that any faction should be able to compete in any phase of the game as they wish. Certainly as far as ‘souper’ factions go anyways.

Man this was an interesting discussion until now, but if you are seriously doubting that then it means that you are here to troll.
It's like asking to show you that a baneblade has more firepower than a leman russ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 flaming tadpole wrote:
Guys...just think it through. It's already been stated ad nauseam in this thread and not one person arguing against it has even bothered countering it. How are you possibly going to balance a Castellan or guard or any op soup unit when 2 or more versions of that unit exist with wildly different power levels. How are you going to balance a Castellan that is incredibly op when taken with guard soup, but not even remotely near that strength when taken in a pure knight list. No one here is saying that the Castellan or guard or eldar flyers shouldn't increase in points. What they're saying is it would be a whole lot easier to balance these units if you remove the aspects of soup that make them vary so wildly in strength. Can we all at least agree that it would make more sense to remove these variables first and then balance undercosted units?

NO NERF POINTS SOUP'S FINE!

Seriously, this is how it always ends up. It's the same damn people time and time again throwing math out then arguing that anyone disagreeing with the math is arguing in bad faith, a Guard apologist, "as bad as Eldar players were", etc.

They don't want soup to be balanced. They want nerfs.

Allies are balanced due to limited unit interactions compared to previous editions. It's simply being able to take multiple broken units for an army instead of merely 1 or 2. If anything, the system shows which units are too effective and need to be hit.

This would be very true if not for the non linear interactions between factions. Mostly CP sharing and Doom.

 Xenomancers wrote:
EXACTLY - if it is showing up in soup it is probably too good. Ether a unit or a stratagem/spell interaction.

Or it's "showing up in soup" because people numbercrunch the hell out of things--or just play follow the leader.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Allies are balanced due to limited unit interactions compared to previous editions.

If by "limited unit interactions compared to previous editions" you mean "I can't just shove <Insert Power Character Here> into a unit to sponge up wounds while they go about their business and grant their USRs to the unit in question", then yeah--you're right.

But we didn't have to worry about Command Points and Stratagems before and you of all people should be aware of that issue...which also includes the "Haha you can't shoot me" element to boot.

It's simply being able to take multiple broken units for an army instead of merely 1 or 2. If anything, the system shows which units are too effective and need to be hit.

It shows that Command Point farming, even with the ability to regenerate them being nerfed, is still a large problem and that people build lists around it.

That's the whole damn reason I've continually stated that I want to see CP sharing penalized heavily and I want to see heavy restrictions on what Detachments can be taken in a "declared" army.

Units already had some of these rules before CP and Strategems came about. It isn't good reasoning sorry.

I play Mono knights a lot.

In general that is 3 knights, and 3 armigers, or at times 3 knights, and a single armiger, at at other times, 3 main knights, and 4 armigers.

Either way I top out at 9 CP.

I don't play the Castellan in my lists as I can't get around the 3CP to RIS. For that same 3 CP, I can RIS another unit for 3 turns.

In general I'm also playing Tanaris, and I want to have access to the threat of bringing a Knight back with Our Darkest Hour also.

In general when you see someone talking about the Castellan, they are NOT talking about mono knights. Gman, Loyal 32, Rusty 17, et all seem to be the order of the day.

The Castellan in those cases can be broken. It seems if you can get it so it has access to more than about 10-12 CP, it has enough to really go to 11 in power.

The Castellan has 2 fates. Its either going to be increased in cost, and in that case the something else hits the ground, or CP will be fixed, and again it goes back on the shelf. Sucks to thats how I see it.

Spoletta wrote:

Man this was an interesting discussion until now, but if you are seriously doubting that then it means that you are here to troll.
It's like asking to show you that a baneblade has more firepower than a leman russ.

Rather than call me a troll please provide proof. Particularly if it is so easy as you claim.

Castellans are already too good on their own. Quit spouting that nonsense.

" It's simply being able to take multiple broken units for an army instead of merely 1 or 2."
The worst affenders are (a) IG + 1 Knight, and (b) A single Farseer or Ynnari HQ with another type of Eldar.

The crux of both is taking a single unit from a different book. Both are better with more, but that single unit is the lion's share of the problem.

"Wrong. A marine dies 3 times slower against S3 and 2,66 times slower against S4. In cover these numbers become 4,5 and 4. "

I was running numbers vs S-toohightocare.
Assuming the same number of successful wounds, vs AP0, a Guardsmen loses 4 of every 6 wounds, where a Marine loses 2 of every 6 - exactly twice as slow. S3 AP0 does work out to 3 times as slow, so both of our numbers are correct.

Although the S3/S4 numbers are more reasonable than the S-toohightocare, so your point stands, but I wanted to show that the other point is true too.

"Mostly CP sharing and Doom." In a game where IG/Knights are clearly the top dog. And where armies with Doom usually also have "Act Again" Word of the Phoenix as a power. Why does *Doom* make it to the top of the complaint list?

It's a power who's best use is in fighting IG+Knight. It's a power that scales *worse* as the biggest unit in the enemy list gets smaller. Lists that take it typically also have Agents of Vect and/or "...ANd I kill you twice a round!" as a psykic power. I'm not saying it's not good. I'd even agree with a slight nerf. But how is it even in the top 10 of what should be complained about?

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

You’re loading your computer to get the numbers? Alright, load away, I can wait.

You weren’t asking for transparency. Let’s be real. You’ve seen the numbers. You’ve said so yourself. You just don’t agree with the conclusion because you no doubt play Guard. And I wasn’t trying to score points. I was holding a mirror up to you so that you could understand your hypocritical behaviour. Know that as far as the numbers are concerned, our responses are exactly the same. You still haven’t given yours and I haven’t given mine. I can’t really be bothered to, if I’m honest.

I don't play Guard, and haven't for about six years or so, since (among other factors) the 7th edition codex led to my army being invalidated. I've never played with them in 8th, and when I have played against them, the Guardsmen seemed decent but far from overpowered.

I'm also not the one who ever claimed anything about the quality of Guard - all I've asked for is your claimed mathematical "proof" so I could understand the underlying assumptions.

As for the numbers (on offence, counting Wounds per point before saves, shooting is assumed to be at 12" range):

Shooting v T3 v T4 v T5 v T6 v T7 v T8 Guard 0.1250 0.0833 0.0833 0.0417 0.0417 0.0417 Marines 0.0684 0.0513 0.0342 0.0342 0.0342 0.0171 Melee Orks 0.0317 0.0238 0.0159 0.0159 0.0159 0.0079 Tau 0.0952 0.0952 0.0714 0.0476 0.0476 0.0476 Guardians* 0.1111 0.0833 0.0556 0.0556 0.0556 0.0278 Termagants 0.0833 0.0625 0.0417 0.0417 0.0417 0.0208 Necrons** 0.0808 0.0606 0.0404 0.0404 0.0404 0.0202 Combat v T3 v T4 v T5 v T6 v T7 v T8 Guard 0.0625 0.0417 0.0417 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 Marines 0.0342 0.0256 0.0171 0.0171 0.0171 0.0085 Melee Orks^ 0.1429 0.0952 0.0952 0.0476 0.0476 0.0476 Tau 0.0238 0.0159 0.0159 0.0079 0.0079 0.0079 Guardians 0.0417 0.0278 0.0278 0.0139 0.0139 0.0139 Termagants 0.0625 0.0417 0.0417 0.0208 0.0208 0.0208 Necrons 0.0404 0.0303 0.0202 0.0202 0.0202 0.0101
* Guardians have a slightly higher damage when shooting due to the Shuriken weapon getting AP on a 6 to wound.
** Necrons have AP -1 so will convert more Wounds to Unsaved Wounds
^ This is before taking into account Charge bonuses.

Conclusion: For shooting, Guard are most efficient per point against T5, with only Tau being close. Against T3 and T4, they're also among the best - Eldar and Necrons are about as good v T3, Eldar and Tau are about as good v T4. Against T6 and T7, the S3 penalty starts really coming into play, and Guard are pretty middle of the pack. Against T8, only Tau beat Guard. Overall, Guard are among the most efficient shooting troops in the game, but Guardians are generally better.

For melee, Orks are the clear winner of the all-round troops. After that, it's Guard and Termagants at the top, due primarily to sheer volume of attacks at low cost. However, please note that this list excludes the combat specialists - Hormagaunts, Daemons of all types etc. Pure Melee troops pretty much always blow the well-rounded troops out the water in terms of efficiency.

Unfortunately I don't have the defensive numbers available - I wasn't expecting to ever have to provide them to anyone else, since I only ever did them for my own benefit, and apparently I didn't save those files.

Either way, the point remains that while Guardsmen are generally among the best basic infantry in the game - again, not something I've ever disputed in this thread - that's a far cry from... how was it you put it originally? Too efficient for their cost mathematically?

Martel732 wrote:
I happily concede those analytical points. My contention is that they are invaluable as road blocks. Just taking up space has value in 8th. That's without factoring in the 24" gun. I contend they are worth 4 ppm without firing a shot. Denying movement and deep strike and now all assaults is just so valuable. The fly nerf added a point or two to their value alone.

That's fair, it's just hard to quantify. My issue is more with the assertion that it's been mathematically proven that they're underpriced, when as far as I can see the best things about them are things that are hard to quantify mathematically. Add in the fact that almost all maths in cases like this - including my own, I freely admit - rely on a number of assumptions, and when people fail to disclose their assumptions, it's easy for the claims to get overblown or misunderstood. That's why I always like to check assumptions and other underlying principles for myself, and balk at people appealing to authority without explaining their rationale.

Guardians are 8 points, right?

Correct, 8ppm.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Units already had some of these rules before CP and Strategems came about. It isn't good reasoning sorry.

That's your opinion.

Just like I'll say that pretending that the shift from a basic rule that was complained about(Ion Shields for example) to a CP driven Stratagem didn't change the way the unit would function is not arguing in good faith and shows you've got a bit of an axe to grind.

(8ppm Guardian Defenders, 6ppm Storm Guardians.)

Bharring wrote:
" It's simply being able to take multiple broken units for an army instead of merely 1 or 2."
The worst affenders are (a) IG + 1 Knight, and (b) A single Farseer or Ynnari HQ with another type of Eldar.

The crux of both is taking a single unit from a different book. Both are better with more, but that single unit is the lion's share of the problem.

"Wrong. A marine dies 3 times slower against S3 and 2,66 times slower against S4. In cover these numbers become 4,5 and 4. "

I was running numbers vs S-toohightocare.
Assuming the same number of successful wounds, vs AP0, a Guardsmen loses 4 of every 6 wounds, where a Marine loses 2 of every 6 - exactly twice as slow. S3 AP0 does work out to 3 times as slow, so both of our numbers are correct.

Although the S3/S4 numbers are more reasonable than the S-toohightocare, so your point stands, but I wanted to show that the other point is true too.

"Mostly CP sharing and Doom." In a game where IG/Knights are clearly the top dog. And where armies with Doom usually also have "Act Again" Word of the Phoenix as a power. Why does *Doom* make it to the top of the complaint list?

It's a power who's best use is in fighting IG+Knight. It's a power that scales *worse* as the biggest unit in the enemy list gets smaller. Lists that take it typically also have Agents of Vect and/or "...ANd I kill you twice a round!" as a psykic power. I'm not saying it's not good. I'd even agree with a slight nerf. But how is it even in the top 10 of what should be complained about?

The fix for the Farseer to keep Doom as-is is quite simple. Limit it to just Craftworld getting the bonus. Super clean and eliminates lone Farseers from Dark Eldar lists without actual commitment towards more Eldar.

That's the only concern I have and I know I've expressed that before.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
(8ppm Guardian Defenders, 6ppm Storm Guardians.)

I dunno, 2-4 shots of S3 at BS4+ seems better than only ever 2 at S4 Rending BS3+. I wanna double check that math.

Aelyn wrote:

Unfortunately I don't have the defensive numbers available - I wasn't expecting to ever have to provide them to anyone else, since I only ever did them for my own benefit, and apparently I didn't save those files.

Either way, the point remains that while Guardsmen are generally among the best basic infantry in the game - again, not something I've ever disputed in this thread - that's a far cry from... how was it you put it originally? Too efficient for their cost mathematically?

Have you just done these numbers now? No worries. Interesting stats since they don’t factor in saves.

Either way you should probably look at their durability per point, both in and out of cover, compared to other troops and against different weapon profiles. I think you’ll find that information illuminating. Considering only offensive output is about as useful as reading only a quarter of a unit’s stat line and probably accounts for your opinion.

E - you state you haven’t included melee specialists in that comparison yet I see a melee specialist Ork compared to all other units?

"I dunno, 2-4 shots of S3 at BS4+ seems better than only ever 2 at S4 Rending BS3+. I wanna double check that math."

The Guardian Defenders get 2 shots vs the Guardsmens' 4, but it's 3+/3+ vs 4+/4+. The actual math, for damage per point, is:

2x(2/3)(2/3) = 8/9 wounds (presave) vs
4x(1/2)(1/2 ) = 1 wounds (presave)

So the numbers *do* match that. Although as with most mathhammer, it abstracts the fact that the Guardsmen have twice the durability (same defensive stats, twice the bodies) as the Guardians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"The fix for the Farseer to keep Doom as-is is quite simple. Limit it to just Craftworld getting the bonus. Super clean and eliminates lone Farseers from Dark Eldar lists without actual commitment towards more Eldar.

That's the only concern I have and I know I've expressed that before. "

Congrats, you've now fixed it so that IoM Soup wins everything. As apparently intended.

What is this fixation with nerfing one of the few effective counters to the solo Knight that shows up everywhere?

Some weapons need invuln penetration. Like melta. That fixes IKs.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

Unfortunately I don't have the defensive numbers available - I wasn't expecting to ever have to provide them to anyone else, since I only ever did them for my own benefit, and apparently I didn't save those files.

Either way, the point remains that while Guardsmen are generally among the best basic infantry in the game - again, not something I've ever disputed in this thread - that's a far cry from... how was it you put it originally? Too efficient for their cost mathematically?

Have you just done these numbers now? No worries. Interesting stats since they don’t factor in saves.

Either way you should probably look at their durability per point, both in and out of cover, compared to other troops and against different weapon profiles. I think you’ll find that information illuminating. Considering only offensive output is about as useful as reading only a quarter of a unit’s stat line and probably accounts for your opinion.

Doing a full tabulation of saves is much harder to read, and since most troops have AP- it generally doesn't change the efficiency too much. Again, I created these for my own benefit, so only included those elements which I needed to satisfy myself (and no, I didn't just run them - I just picked out a selection of "staple" troops.)

And as I have said, I have looked at durability per point. Again, Guardsmen are good, but not the best in the game - though of course that varies based on the guns that are shooting at them.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
E - you state you haven’t included melee specialists in that comparison yet I see a melee specialist Ork compared to all other units?

Okay, I grant that could have been clearer - I excluded those Troops choices which are purely melee, and included a single "representative" statline from the represented armies, which for me is the slugga/choppa Ork over the shoota Ork. I also didn't take into account Dakka! Dakka! Dakka! in the shooting stats, because they were run before that rule existed - I only tweaked the formula to account for the points adjustment. This kinda proves my point about understanding the underlying assumptions.

Either way, I'm not blind to your attempts to move the goalposts. My point was never about whether Guard are efficient or not, it was about identifying the assumptions used in your claimed mathematical proof that they are too efficient for the cost. If nothing else, what exactly do you mean by "too efficient for their cost" - you're the one who made the statement, but you never explained what it actually means in this context.

Aelyn wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Aelyn wrote:

Unfortunately I don't have the defensive numbers available - I wasn't expecting to ever have to provide them to anyone else, since I only ever did them for my own benefit, and apparently I didn't save those files.

Either way, the point remains that while Guardsmen are generally among the best basic infantry in the game - again, not something I've ever disputed in this thread - that's a far cry from... how was it you put it originally? Too efficient for their cost mathematically?

Have you just done these numbers now? No worries. Interesting stats since they don’t factor in saves.

Either way you should probably look at their durability per point, both in and out of cover, compared to other troops and against different weapon profiles. I think you’ll find that information illuminating. Considering only offensive output is about as useful as reading only a quarter of a unit’s stat line and probably accounts for your opinion.

Doing a full tabulation of saves is much harder to read, and since most troops have AP- it generally doesn't change the efficiency too much. Again, I created these for my own benefit, so only included those elements which I needed to satisfy myself (and no, I didn't just run them - I just picked out a selection of "staple" troops.)

And as I have said, I have looked at durability per point. Again, Guardsmen are good, but not the best in the game - though of course that varies based on the guns that are shooting at them.

Either way, I'm not blind to your attempts to move the goalposts. My point was never about whether Guard are efficient or not, it was about identifying the assumptions used in your claimed mathematical proof that they are too efficient for the cost. If nothing else, what exactly do you mean by "too efficient for their cost" - you're the one who made the statement, but you never explained what it actually means in this context.

You’re claiming that factoring a unit’s durability per point is ‘moving the goalposts’ when considering whether they are mathematically too efficient for their cost? Interesting.

I think “too efficient for their cost” is self explanatory. They outperform most other troop units in terms of damage output per point and in terms of durability per point. There are a few units that have more durability per point by a margin, however those same units are nowhere near the damage output. And vice versa, the few units that have greater damage output at range vs very specific targets per point are nowhere near the durability. Is that clear enough? You’d know this if you had ran all the numbers. Like I said your table shows very little.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Units already had some of these rules before CP and Strategems came about. It isn't good reasoning sorry.

That's your opinion.

Just like I'll say that pretending that the shift from a basic rule that was complained about(Ion Shields for example) to a CP driven Stratagem didn't change the way the unit would function is not arguing in good faith and shows you've got a bit of an axe to grind.

Um no it's fact. As of last edition, Predators all had access to using Killshot in a group of three without the need for CP. Skitarii Infantry all had a free move before Stygies was forced down our throats. CSM armies could buy a Boon roll instead of needing to use CP on one character a turn. Infantry were already bundled up in large squads before we had to use a Stratagem! Black Guardians using Deep Strike could happen. I haven't even gotten into Formation benefits when, as a whole, none were problematic bar a few bad eggs. For example, Deathwatch could tailor make several different squads to get wounding benefits via those formations.

None of those things were broken. The issue is strictly the units at hand. Even if Knights HAD no allies, Castellans need to be looked at. Infantry also need to be looked at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
"I dunno, 2-4 shots of S3 at BS4+ seems better than only ever 2 at S4 Rending BS3+. I wanna double check that math."

The Guardian Defenders get 2 shots vs the Guardsmens' 4, but it's 3+/3+ vs 4+/4+. The actual math, for damage per point, is:

2x(2/3)(2/3) = 8/9 wounds (presave) vs
4x(1/2)(1/2 ) = 1 wounds (presave)

So the numbers *do* match that. Although as with most mathhammer, it abstracts the fact that the Guardsmen have twice the durability (same defensive stats, twice the bodies) as the Guardians.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"The fix for the Farseer to keep Doom as-is is quite simple. Limit it to just Craftworld getting the bonus. Super clean and eliminates lone Farseers from Dark Eldar lists without actual commitment towards more Eldar.

That's the only concern I have and I know I've expressed that before. "

Congrats, you've now fixed it so that IoM Soup wins everything. As apparently intended.

What is this fixation with nerfing one of the few effective counters to the solo Knight that shows up everywhere?

I've ALREADY said Knights need to be redesigned. Even without allies, they're almost broken. This isn't like last edition where everyone and their mother has Grav and Haywire to strip HP.

Martel732 wrote:
Some weapons need invuln penetration. Like melta. That fixes IKs.

Agreed. Honestly Invo saves should just be an AP modifier and they should max out at 3. 4++ Wracks getting saves from volcano lances is beyond idiotic.

Aelyn wrote:
Either way, I'm not blind to your attempts to move the goalposts. My point was never about whether Guard are efficient or not, it was about identifying the assumptions used in your claimed mathematical proof that they are too efficient for the cost. If nothing else, what exactly do you mean by "too efficient for their cost" - you're the one who made the statement, but you never explained what it actually means in this context.

So let's go over the data that you consider irrelevant, just so we're all on the same page:

AM/Knights, not SM/Knights, not Sisters/Knights, not Custodes/Knights, not even AdMech/Knights (who has to be carried by the loyal 32 as usual) not any other faction/Knights is crushing at a competitive level, and have been for the past several months, through big-FAQ2, through CA2018. - this is irrelevant.
Orders are irrelevant, we're not allowed to consider them in our calculation because out there somewhere, is some fethwit who runs guard without Commanders and loses a lot. - Super.
Regimental Doctrines are irrelevant, we're also not allowed to consider them in our calculations, because reasons - Super.

Did I miss anything? Are there any other utterly unrealistic conditions you'd like to place on the debate? Who's moving the goalposts?

As much as I find English to be a bit hyperbolic, he's not wrong on this.

I mean the mental gymnastics you people go through in defense of the most problematic units in the entire game put Nadia to shame. As I've stated many times, give me Guardsmen at 5ppm that I can't target with strats or psychic powers and I'll take them over Cultists in 9/10 lists, give me a Company Commander and I'll take them in 10/10 lists, no question, not even vaguely debatable.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
EXACTLY - if it is showing up in soup it is probably too good. Ether a unit or a stratagem/spell interaction.

Or it's "showing up in soup" because people numbercrunch the hell out of things--or just play follow the leader.

number crunching is exactly what I am saying. Soup units win the number crunch. These are also known as OP units. Or min units so as to include as many other OP units as possible - like space marine scouts.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Um no it's fact. As of last edition, Predators all had access to using Killshot in a group of three without the need for CP. Skitarii Infantry all had a free move before Stygies was forced down our throats. CSM armies could buy a Boon roll instead of needing to use CP on one character a turn. Infantry were already bundled up in large squads before we had to use a Stratagem! Black Guardians using Deep Strike could happen. I haven't even gotten into Formation benefits when, as a whole, none were problematic bar a few bad eggs. For example, Deathwatch could tailor make several different squads to get wounding benefits via those formations.

None of those things were broken. The issue is strictly the units at hand. Even if Knights HAD no allies, Castellans need to be looked at. Infantry also need to be looked at.

I note that you actually avoided the point I made: there were elements that people complained about last edition that are now gone as basic rules which now require CPs. Yeah some stuff doesn't get talked about...as an example Consolidated Squads isn't something I tend to hear about simply because you can't shove characters into the mob.

And by the way, "Skitarii Infantry" aren't really what gets complained about with the context of Stygies. It's Dragoons with the -1 to be hit stacking alongside their Incense.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Orders are irrelevant, we're not allowed to consider them in our calculation because out there somewhere, is some fethwit who runs guard without Commanders and loses a lot - super.

Best line to come out of this thread so far. 10/10

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
You’re claiming that factoring a unit’s durability per point is ‘moving the goalposts’ when considering whether they are mathematically too efficient for their cost? Interesting.

I think “too efficient for their cost” is self explanatory. They outperform most other troop units in terms of damage output per point and in terms of durability per point. There are a few units that have more durability per point by a margin, however those same units are nowhere near the damage output. And vice versa, the few units that have greater damage output at range vs very specific targets per point are nowhere near the durability. Is that clear enough? You’d know this if you had ran all the numbers. Like I said your table shows very little.

No, I'm saying that trying to shift the discussion from "Can you explain or provide the underlying assumptions for the sweeping assertion you made" to "can I provide and defend the calculations I have done for my own benefit" is moving the goalposts. You tried to call me a hypocrite when I didn't instantly provide the numbers requested, yet completely ignored the fact that I was willing to provide the basis for my calculations, something you have stubbornly and persistently refused to do despite this being my entire point from the beginning.

For the record, the reason I don't think "too efficient for their cost" is self explanatory is that it can cover a wide range of qualities:

- Being the "most efficient" troop choice in the game.
- Being the "most efficient" troop choice in the Imperial lineup
- Being more than (for example) 50% more efficient than the "average" troop choice.
- Being the "most efficient" unit in their codex.
- Being the "most efficient" horde unit in the game.
- Being the cheapest Battalion-filler in the game.
- Just being generally good value overall when compared to other troop choices.

You haven't said which of these you are using, if any, and that's before considering that "most efficient" is itself a nebulous term unless you're willing to clarify what you mean when you talk about efficiency.. "Too efficient" implies that it's actively damaging the game, and I want to understand why exactly you're asserting that, if that's even what you are asserting.

One last time: I do not think Guard are bad. I have never claimed Guard are bad. All I want to know is, when you said:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
We can (and have) prove that 4ppm Guardsmen are too efficient for their cost mathematically compared to other units.

What exactly do you mean by "prove... mathematically", and can you provide (either directly or via a link) the assumptions and calculations that underpin the assertion?

Because right now, it looks like the answer is "um... look the other way!" So rather than saying it's been "proven", I'd say it's been "asserted, for unspecified conditions".

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Aelyn wrote:
Either way, I'm not blind to your attempts to move the goalposts. My point was never about whether Guard are efficient or not, it was about identifying the assumptions used in your claimed mathematical proof that they are too efficient for the cost. If nothing else, what exactly do you mean by "too efficient for their cost" - you're the one who made the statement, but you never explained what it actually means in this context.

So let's go over the data that you consider irrelevant, just so we're all on the same page:

AM/Knights, not SM/Knights, not Sisters/Knights, not Custodes/Knights, not even AdMech/Knights (who has to be carried by the loyal 32 as usual) not any other faction/Knights is crushing at a competitive level, and have been for the past several months, through big-FAQ2, through CA2018. - this is irrelevant.
Orders are irrelevant, we're not allowed to consider them in our calculation because out there somewhere, is some fethwit who runs guard without Commanders and loses a lot. - Super.
Regimental Doctrines are irrelevant, we're also not allowed to consider them in our calculations, because reasons - Super.

Did I miss anything? Are there any other utterly unrealistic conditions you'd like to place on the debate? Who's moving the goalposts?

As much as I find English to be a bit hyperbolic, he's not wrong on this.

I mean the mental gymnastics you people go through in defense of the most problematic units in the entire game put Nadia to shame. As I've stated many times, give me Guardsmen at 5ppm that I can't target with strats or psychic powers and I'll take them over Cultists in 9/10 lists, give me a Company Commander and I'll take them in 10/10 lists, no question, not even vaguely debatable.

None of the tournament results are directly relevant to English's specific claim that 4ppm guardsmen have been mathematically proven to be too efficient for their points cost. They provide evidence that the Loyal 32 are very good at their role - CP generation and objective grabbing - but that's not actually the same thing. I have not disputed the statement that the detachment rules allow the Loyal 32 to provide CP to other detachments while providing objective-grabbers is overall a detriment to the game at competitive levels.

Similarly, I have never claimed orders or regimental doctrines are irrelevant. I want to know whether they are being taken into account when stating Guardsmen to be too efficient, and if so whether other force multipliers are taken into account for the units to which they're being compared - I think it's extremely unlikely, simply because this results in a massively ballooning criteria and lots of caveats, but I want to be sure.

I haven't even defended Guard at all, except to say that they aren't the single most efficient Troops choice by every measurable metric in the entire game - and I think everyone would agree with that. All I've done is to ask for more information about English's claims, information he has refused to provide except to say "I think this one person probably posted it at some point" and "but, but, how can you say I'm not automatically correct without showing me a thirty-page thesis to prove a negative."*

*Some exaggeration for effect.