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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It's moving into double tap range, charging, and punching twice for no CP.

Just so I'm clear - what are you referring to as "punching twice" here? Straken's +1A aura, or the IG Order?

Bharring wrote:
LQR is broken, because it can affect the one thing your enemy wants to kill! And there are only about a dozen possible targets to pick from!

Sorry - LQR?

Not Online!!! wrote:
I mean i have my fair share of gripes with 8th but 7th was cancer.

Can we drop the whole "cancer" thing, please? I sincerely doubt that playing 7th edition, or an Eldar army, or whatever gave anyone a life-threatening condition.

There's a dictionary full of words for how bad something is - try using them.

Yes, to all participants of this topic and beyond, kindly stop using the word "cancer", as it is crass, callous and generating a lot of alerts on our end.

 Dysartes wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
It's moving into double tap range, charging, and punching twice for no CP.

Just so I'm clear - what are you referring to as "punching twice" here? Straken's +1A aura, or the IG Order?

Bharring wrote:
LQR is broken, because it can affect the one thing your enemy wants to kill! And there are only about a dozen possible targets to pick from!

Sorry - LQR?

Not Online!!! wrote:
I mean i have my fair share of gripes with 8th but 7th was cancer.

Can we drop the whole "cancer" thing, please? I sincerely doubt that playing 7th edition, or an Eldar army, or whatever gave anyone a life-threatening condition.

There's a dictionary full of words for how bad something is - try using them.

Not talking about the C word BUT

I actually LOVE 7th, it had some of the worst problems, but it had the best game play i have and every will have from table top gaming, there will never be a game better than 7th for me. I played Corsairs and a good friend (very good player, equal to top players for sure) was playing SM-WS demi company (the move out of vehicle, shoot, move into vehicle).

Quick story time/Batrep

His lists where built for fun, limited D weapons, he had lots of Marines with plasma, RHinos, Bikers, and the Skyhammer Formation (2 dev, 2 assualt, 2 drop pods)
My list, Prince bike, Baron Jump, Baron jump, Baron jump, 5x7 Reavers 2 Fusion guns, 1 Bike unit of 3 sargents (they could do that) with 3 force swords, 2 normal bikers on them and the Prince, unit of Jump heavy weapons, 2 Hornets, 1 Warphunter.

The game was a master class of movements, I could Move, shoot Move (and overwatch+move) he could Move shoot Move as well, we both had ways to DS and re-DS mid game.

It was just this game of, i move into a good position for a good shot, then move out into cover/away from him, but he would do the same. I had 1 D-weapon, but thats b.c he had the Skyhammer formation, we agreed it would be fair (Warp hunter in the list was basically my Anti-tank and he only had Rhinos and Drop pods, 8-9 in total, so killing 1 Rhino a turn was not a big deal).


Our game was 5 hours for 3 turns, and was equal the full time, we both called it as it was taking a long time, but we both left winning and feeling amazed. I will never forget that game.

7th, just like 8th can be amazing and more balanced if you and your partner go in knowing what type of game you want. but 7th rules actually made the game more strategy based for sure, they could have just cleaned it up and took away the formations (re-did codex's) and it would have been even better for. I like 8th, i just think its to stream line now (to the point it broke the game and needed to many rules adjustments).

Thanks for all the work and the write up! It still seems that one of the best ways to kill Guard, is to use Guard, but, the shooting advantage/benefits of the new Intercessors is pretty interesting to note and might allow some interesting counter ideas. The theoretical 22 Intercessors with Captain and Lieutenant would take out 22 Guardsmen, if they have the opportunity going first.

But still, it's all about overall list synergy.

Thanks again!

Spoletta wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
So where's the similar math with an Ancient letting Marines strike back even if slain?

I mean, since you've given the Guard a Company Commander within 6" to issue the fight twice Order, and assumed that the Guard Squads are still at full while being within 1" of an enemy unit.

This is why I say the math is garbage.

He included the cost of the support char in the calculation if read the previous post.

What i don't understand is the cost of the intercessors, could you break down what support have you considered? I see a reroll 1 in wounds and attacks in your math. Also, the AGL is free since CA2018.

Additional consideration: Guards in melee wound marines on 0,33 not 0,5, unless they are catachans but in that case you should give a trait to the marines too. I would go with iron hands since it is the easiest to compute.

When we talk about balance we look to things that are being used. Catachans are being used. Iron Hands are typically not. Marines have little in the way of offensive buffs from traits. And one might say, "well I'm not using Catachans so don't nerf me!", and that's completely legitimate.

And despite this IG buffs come primarily from orders.

I could take Vostroyans or Armageddon to counter the range of Intercessors or pretend they're Mordians when doing overwatch, but that isn't a real accounting of what's out there.

That said this is a tiny piece of the picture. Marine bikes trash IG at shooting.

Why don't people take more bikes now? Well, they might, but they're also as risk of D2 weapons. Disintegrators will surely appear at some point in a tournament. One ravager kills a 3 man of bikes without blinking, but GEQ doesn't really mind.

And that's the core of the issue, right? 3 Ravagers will remove 10% of a marine army using bikes, but only 5% of an army featuring fictional 9 point IG. The more that people take low volume weapons the more GEQ profits. Any attempt to take high volume shooting risks exposure to burst cannons, dissies, etc. Any attempt to use special weapons to have a better role on the field only makes those losses sharper.

My talking points:

- Marines and IG are now probably reasonably close in mathhammer world under strict circumstances
- Catachans make a real mess of things
- Lots of common weapons make a mess of marines, but not GEQ
- The crime of IS isn't so much the points on a basic level, but the flexibility - IG can move faster, cover more objectives, die more slowly (relatively), and be combat monsters if they so choose
- GSC will probably make a mess of IG soon

With BBolters SM now have quite good returns on killing guards, especially if Crimson Fist.

One squad of sternguard with stormbolters clocks at 80 points, but removes more than 7 guards per phase. 10 if you include morale*, which is a 50% return, better than a dissie ravager on intercessors.

* (Unless they pay 2 CP but who pays 2 CPs for 3 guards? The 1CP stratagem will not save them)


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Well that is not true, Crimson fists and Dark Angels have offensive buffs, and quite strong ones.

This doesn't really matter though, i agree with your conclusions. Those squads are good because they are flexible.

Spoletta wrote:


* (Unless they pay 2 CP but who pays 2 CPs for 3 guards? The 1CP stratagem will not save them)

Depends on the mission and such. I see it quite commonly and it is perhaps more amplified in ITC. Saving 3 models could deny your opponent Kill More and Hold More, which is 2 points of their game total. It doesn't always happen that way, but it can be devastating.

In ITC i can see it happening, but you still inflicted 28 points and 2 CP of damage to the opponent with an 80 point squad.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
So where's the similar math with an Ancient letting Marines strike back even if slain?

I mean, since you've given the Guard a Company Commander within 6" to issue the fight twice Order, and assumed that the Guard Squads are still at full while being within 1" of an enemy unit.

This is why I say the math is garbage.

He included the cost of the support char in the calculation if read the previous post.

What i don't understand is the cost of the intercessors, could you break down what support have you considered? I see a reroll 1 in wounds and attacks in your math. Also, the AGL is free since CA2018.

Additional consideration: Guards in melee wound marines on 0,33 not 0,5, unless they are catachans but in that case you should give a trait to the marines too. I would go with iron hands since it is the easiest to compute.

When we talk about balance we look to things that are being used. Catachans are being used. Iron Hands are typically not. Marines have little in the way of offensive buffs from traits. And one might say, "well I'm not using Catachans so don't nerf me!", and that's completely legitimate.

And despite this IG buffs come primarily from orders.

I could take Vostroyans or Armageddon to counter the range of Intercessors or pretend they're Mordians when doing overwatch, but that isn't a real accounting of what's out there.

That said this is a tiny piece of the picture. Marine bikes trash IG at shooting.

Why don't people take more bikes now? Well, they might, but they're also as risk of D2 weapons. Disintegrators will surely appear at some point in a tournament. One ravager kills a 3 man of bikes without blinking, but GEQ doesn't really mind.

And that's the core of the issue, right? 3 Ravagers will remove 10% of a marine army using bikes, but only 5% of an army featuring fictional 9 point IG. The more that people take low volume weapons the more GEQ profits. Any attempt to take high volume shooting risks exposure to burst cannons, dissies, etc. Any attempt to use special weapons to have a better role on the field only makes those losses sharper.

My talking points:

- Marines and IG are now probably reasonably close in mathhammer world under strict circumstances
- Catachans make a real mess of things
- Lots of common weapons make a mess of marines, but not GEQ
- The crime of IS isn't so much the points on a basic level, but the flexibility - IG can move faster, cover more objectives, die more slowly (relatively), and be combat monsters if they so choose
- GSC will probably make a mess of IG soon

Raven Guards -1 to hit at max range makes guard hit on 5's or 6's, which is significant since they can hug cover for a 2+ and fire 12 shots per 5, with a stormbolter Sargent.

Pleasestop wrote:

Raven Guards -1 to hit at max range makes guard hit on 5's or 6's, which is significant since they can hug cover for a 2+ and fire 12 shots per 5, with a stormbolter Sargent.

Yep - I could see RG bikes being a solid element. 24 shots though - 4 shots per bike x 5 plus 4 for the SB. The problem with bikes is that it's much harder to get cover than if they were infantry.

Kdash wrote:
Thanks for all the work and the write up! It still seems that one of the best ways to kill Guard, is to use Guard, but, the shooting advantage/benefits of the new Intercessors is pretty interesting to note and might allow some interesting counter ideas. The theoretical 22 Intercessors with Captain and Lieutenant would take out 22 Guardsmen, if they have the opportunity going first.

But still, it's all about overall list synergy.

Thanks again!

The best way to kill guard is assault, morale, and damaging their tanks enough to maim but not kill. Space marines should have no issues mowing down guard and getting into combat. Most hoard IG lists cannot get away from marines in a fall back phase since you can easily consolidate into the surrounding units.

The game was fundamentally designed poorly. High ap, high str weapons need to prey on armor. Invluns on armor just removes their natural predators (low RoF, high str/damage/ap). Buff armor T to 12+ (so that str 6 weapons wound on 6) give the 1+ or even 0+ saves (so those -3/-4 ap weapons actually have a role) and double up their wounds. Buff anti-tank to ludicrous levels (28 str 4d6 volcano cannons who cares), let str 14 dark lances do 2d6 damage with very limited shots (hell, re-roll against vehicles to help mitigate the dice gods and low ROF weapons.) Now you don't have a weapon that works against armor and infantry and knights don't need RIS to protect them from getting blown off the table by dissie cannons.

Give elite infantry the invlun saves. Expensive low wound models with invlun saves make those anti armor guns really inefficient at killing elite infantry and make them t5-8 (reducing anti-chaff weapons efficiency vs them).

Now chaff is actually chaff, elite infantry actually doesn't get blown off the table in a point efficient manner by all guns and you actually need las-cannons/dark lances instead of just spamming as much re-rollable s5-6 2d shots as you can get.

None of that is going to happen so now we have GW running around trying to nerf things as they pop up with limited testing budget and time. Swallowing spiders to get of flies, birds to get rid of spiders, cats to get rid of birds...

TL/DR this is a lot of relatively simple comparative mathhammer, much of which is going to be pretty boring for those who don't like this sort of thing.

I don't really understand your "applied unit costs" Daedalus.

I think you can take 3 company commanders and 6 IG squads for 330 points. This is more or less the cost of 3 barebones tacticals, a captain and a lieutenant. (I think its 1 point more, although you might have to take some gear).

Lets shoot some fire warriors.
Marines move but are outside 12"= 15*2/3*7/6*2/3*7/6*1/2=4.53 dead fire warriors.
Marines stay stationary or are within 12"= double the shots, therefore 9.07 dead fire warriors

Guard outside 12" without orders: 54*1/2*1/2*1/2=6.75 dead fire warriors.
Guard outside 12" with FRFSRF=13.5 dead fire warriors.
Guard in 12" with FRFSRF=27 dead fire warriors (and a further 0.75 from the sergeant's laspistols).

13.5>9, and 27>>>>9.

Now are you going to get all 6 squads into 12" of some rather sad looking fire warriors? Probably not - but there are plenty of situations where you will get some squads into rapid fire range and you are getting a ludicrous return for your points.

Lets shoot 10 fire warriors at them at long range.
Against Marines:
10*1/2*2/3*1/3*13=14.4 points.
Against Guard:
10*1/2*2/3*2/3*4=8.888 points. So fire warriors are about 60% more effective for their points versus marines than guardsmen.

Maybe a bad example (as would say DE venom, or Eldar Shuriken weapons....)

What about the humble Necron warrior?
10*2/3*1/2*1/2*13=21.666 points of Marines.
10*2/3*2/3*5/6*4=14.81 points of guardsmen. So just 46% more efficient this time.

Intercessors fare a bit better, but not much.
You could have 11.5 intercessors plus characters - lets call it 12.
Against Fire Warriors:
Moving outside rapid fire: 12*2/3*7/6*2/3*7/6*2/3=4.84 dead fire warriors.
Inside rapid fire or stationary=9.67 fire warriors.
So... basically the same as the tacticals, still inferior to the guardsmen.

Taking fire?
Fire Warriors:
10*1/2*2/3*1/3*(17/2)=9.444 points of intercessors. So a lot better than Marines (unsurprisingly so) but still lose more points than Guardsmen.

Their own upside is getting shot by Guardsmen:
9*1/2*1/3*1/3*8.5=4.25 points of intercessors.
Compared with shooting at Guardsmen:
9*1/2*1/2*2/3*4=6 points of guardsmen.
So they are resilient versus S3 AP- attacks.

However thats about it. Shoot some Necrons at the Intercessors:
10*2/3*1/2*1/2*8.5=14.16
This is pretty marginal versus the Guardsmen above at 14.81.
It gets worse with S, AP or 2D.

Conclusion: Guardsmen have great firepower base, and obscene firepower with FRFSRF. They are also tough for their points, only losing out to intercessors against weak guns, and competing with them against anything more lethal. Cadia and Catachan are great chapter tactics - and quite why a 4 point model should - whatever the buffs - be able to fire 4 times at S3 and then charge in to punch 2/3 times at S4 is a mystery.

These are the reasons they are run at tournaments, and its getting a bit late in the day to claim other things could compete with them. If they did people would run them.

I feel say Raven Guard can perform well versus the BS 4+ armies like Guard and Tau. Unfortunately 40k is a meta system, and you have a high chance of drawing a BS 3+ army at some point in a tournament - especially Eldar, who combine modifiers to hit with obscene damage output and speed to be within 12" if they want to be.

I think this is also the reason Orks underperformed against expectations. While they should theoretically have the tools to cope with the IG+Castelan list, there are other lists that eat them up or chess clock them out.

Tyel your math on thoughness is wrong, you should include the cost of the supporting elements like Daedalus did.

If in a loyal 32 you kill 30 guards, you killed 180 points of models, not 120 because the 2 company commanders left now contribute a whole las pistol to the game.

This is in general is more true for IG than for SM. IG support elements tend to be dedicated, once you take out the supported elements, they are useless.This is true for commanders priests, straken and so on.

In the previous example for SM, if you kill the tac squads that captain and that Lt still have 1500 points of SM to buff, since they can buff anything.

This is something that should be corrected in Daedalus math too. Considering the full cost of SM supporting elements into the squads, is wrong.

Spoletta wrote:
Tyel your math on thoughness is wrong, you should include the cost of the supporting elements like Daedalus did.

If in a loyal 32 you kill 30 guards, you killed 180 points of models, not 120 because the 2 company commanders left now contribute a whole las pistol to the game.

This is in general is more true for IG than for SM. IG support elements tend to be dedicated, once you take out the supported elements, they are useless.This is true for commanders priests, straken and so on.

In the previous example for SM, if you kill the tac squads that captain and that Lt still have 1500 points of SM to buff, since they can buff anything.

This is something that should be corrected in Daedalus math too. Considering the full cost of SM supporting elements into the squads, is wrong.

Wait so still living charictors should be considered killed for guard because the infantry squads dead, but not for marines who shouldn't have the who cost of their charictors included in maths?

You do get that the full cost of them is required to be paid for an MSU detachment. You know that thing that's required for CP right?

I think that i already explained my reasoning for that.

Spoletta wrote:
Tyel your math on thoughness is wrong, you should include the cost of the supporting elements like Daedalus did.

If in a loyal 32 you kill 30 guards, you killed 180 points of models, not 120 because the 2 company commanders left now contribute a whole las pistol to the game.

This is in general is more true for IG than for SM. IG support elements tend to be dedicated, once you take out the supported elements, they are useless.This is true for commanders priests, straken and so on.

In the previous example for SM, if you kill the tac squads that captain and that Lt still have 1500 points of SM to buff, since they can buff anything.

This is something that should be corrected in Daedalus math too. Considering the full cost of SM supporting elements into the squads, is wrong.

I don't agree. If all the guards are dead the two company commanders might only contribute a whole 2 las pistols, but they can still sit on backfield objectives. Sure you can go kill them, or put 2 models on said objectives, but thats still something you need to do which is not always convenient if large portions of your army is dead. You can't say company commanders are worth 0 points.
Your argument would maybe have more to it if I literally have the loyal 32 - but if I have a brigade, and looking at the LVO you should, there are typically more units. Okay 30 guardsmen are dead? I'll go buff my mortars or more guardsmen or have these commanders sprint across the table to help claim or contest something late game.

Sure the SM characters can buff more units. Also if the units they are babysitting die, they can jog over the field and buff something else. I don't know however, beyond modelling whole armies which will become abstract and somewhat arbitrary, you can express this as a performance/points ratio any more than issues above. I can't very easily put a points value on move^3 - I just know it is an exceptionally useful ability that contributes to winning games.

I can only say however that we know, outside of Guilliman lists, that Marines typically don't perform, and since I believe 40k largely comes down to probability, this would suggest they are mathematically inferior - as opposed to just being consistently unlucky.

If you want a solution to the soup issue, I would say keep it simple, something like +6 CP for a battleforged army that's mono faction instead of the usual +3. Or if you wanted to go in the other direction, soup armies don't get +3 CP for being battle forged, but to me it might incentivize more soup to make up for it, so why not reward mono faction armies more instead of punishing soup? Or if you don't think it's enough, go for both options: +6 CP for battleforged mono armies and something like +1 CP for battleforged soup armies. That way mono armies get a loyal 32 battalion's worth of CP without having to take them while soup still maintains their tactical flexibility. Easy to remember and less book keeping.

So with all the talk on soups had anyone tried running different armies to balance each other that aren't gaurd/Knight or eldars? Even without directly affecting each other they can still cover weaknesses.

Example below is plain but you have 3 different elements range, armor, troops. Something that should be common in lists.

2k
Tau batt (bork)
- suit, etheral
- 3x fire warriors with turret
Gaurd spearhead (catachan)
- tank commander
- 3x Russ
Eldar outrider (saim)
- autarch on bike
- 3x6 wind riders
- 2x exarch planes.

What if this was the basic idea behind a standard army?

MacDaddyNasty wrote:
So with all the talk on soups had anyone tried running different armies to balance each other that aren't gaurd/Knight or eldars? Even without directly affecting each other they can still cover weaknesses.

Example below is plain but you have 3 different elements range, armor, troops. Something that should be common in lists.

2k
Tau batt (bork)
- suit, etheral
- 3x fire warriors with turret
Gaurd spearhead (catachan)
- tank commander
- 3x Russ
Eldar outrider (saim)
- autarch on bike
- 3x6 wind riders
- 2x exarch planes.

What if this was the basic idea behind a standard army?

Taudar is famously strong and is a large part of why the ally table got gutted. Riptide wings were a problem for the same exact reasons Castellans currently are. They were undercosted for what they did, had extra rules that made them overperform for their cost, and most importantly ANYONE COULD RUN THEM. Looking back at tournament results there were very few if any pure Tau lists that did well. Most had eldar, sisters of silence, or any other number of things to compensate for their weaknesses. It's part of why its a little ridiculous that xenos soup is too strong to be allowed, but here we are on year 2 of Imperial soup consistently placing at top tables.

By me, soup is fine. I like fielding different units in a single army (in a fluffy way) or just adding assassins or inquisitors to the fray. The problem is the abuse of this mechanic.

Really, restricting CPs to sub-factions they were generated by (Battleforged bonus CPs can be used by anyone) should deal with it pretty effectively. No more CP-farms as we know them, period.
CompensCastellan Knights (and that Eldar thing) being undercosted is a different thing that has to be dealt with.

My simple armchair solution - which all of these are - would be to have CP a fixed number for everyone regardless of detachments, regardless of codex, faction, and soup. Let's say the magic number would be 6 CP for a whole fight. This would mean that there is no need to fill out several detachments just to eke out a CP or two(or 5 if you are going for loyal 32). It would also mean that the currency exchange of CP over every single codex would be fixed, ie. no codex would be designed to be more CP using than the other, but instead standardized against each other. Hell, if people want things to be a bit more nuanced and variable let's say all codexes get 13 CP, then have the stratagem pricing be the thing that differs more. So something like IG would get a lot of 1CP stratagems while something like the Aeldari would have 2-3 CP stratagems on average.

This would just simplify the system and make it standardized enough to be easier to balance and nobody would be needing to take a detachment chaff just to get a few more CP.

bananathug wrote:
The game was fundamentally designed poorly. High ap, high str weapons need to prey on armor. Invluns on armor just removes their natural predators (low RoF, high str/damage/ap). Buff armor T to 12+ (so that str 6 weapons wound on 6) give the 1+ or even 0+ saves (so those -3/-4 ap weapons actually have a role) and double up their wounds. Buff anti-tank to ludicrous levels (28 str 4d6 volcano cannons who cares), let str 14 dark lances do 2d6 damage with very limited shots (hell, re-roll against vehicles to help mitigate the dice gods and low ROF weapons.) Now you don't have a weapon that works against armor and infantry and knights don't need RIS to protect them from getting blown off the table by dissie cannons.

Give elite infantry the invlun saves. Expensive low wound models with invlun saves make those anti armor guns really inefficient at killing elite infantry and make them t5-8 (reducing anti-chaff weapons efficiency vs them).

Now chaff is actually chaff, elite infantry actually doesn't get blown off the table in a point efficient manner by all guns and you actually need las-cannons/dark lances instead of just spamming as much re-rollable s5-6 2d shots as you can get.

None of that is going to happen so now we have GW running around trying to nerf things as they pop up with limited testing budget and time. Swallowing spiders to get of flies, birds to get rid of spiders, cats to get rid of birds...

I agree completely with this. It's quite similar in effect to how Epic deals with weapons, where some are anti-tank and others are anti-personnel and you can't use one for the other purpose in a lot of cases. I think GW were far too conservative in how they converted units and weapons from 7th into 8th. The rules actively encourage high volume of fire/attacks over anything else, which leaves low ROF anti-tank weapons as poor options in most cases. This is also partly down to the ridiculous ramping up in attack output for many weapons and units. As a recent example, I was watching a game with the new GSC this week and a single unit of Acolytes put out something like 80 attacks (they were buffed by a psychic power at the time) while a Genestealer unit did something similar. That Acolyte unit clawed a wave Serpent to death. We were discussing things after the game and the problem with these units is they don't have a defined purpose any more because the way the rules work make them good at everything. A unit with 60+ attacks will kill pretty much anything regardless of the target but that leaves no room for any tactical decision making because there is no optimal target. Widening out the range of Toughness and Save values while also taking a different approach to elite units.weapons other than adding more attacks would go a long way to making the game better.

As far as soup is concerned I think we just need a valid reason to go mono-Codex. Allies are fine as a concept but there needs to be inherent weaknesses and disadvantages for taking them otherwise they will continue to dominate. Making that weakness a reduction in CPs or stratagem access (or both) seems like the most logical approach since those are the hardest elements to balance when dealing with soup. That goes hand-in-hand with actually balancing units in general, and GW has definitely dropped the ball big time in that area too, but I don't think you can move towards a balanced game without dealing with both.

Tyel wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
Tyel your math on thoughness is wrong, you should include the cost of the supporting elements like Daedalus did.

If in a loyal 32 you kill 30 guards, you killed 180 points of models, not 120 because the 2 company commanders left now contribute a whole las pistol to the game.

This is in general is more true for IG than for SM. IG support elements tend to be dedicated, once you take out the supported elements, they are useless.This is true for commanders priests, straken and so on.

In the previous example for SM, if you kill the tac squads that captain and that Lt still have 1500 points of SM to buff, since they can buff anything.

This is something that should be corrected in Daedalus math too. Considering the full cost of SM supporting elements into the squads, is wrong.

I don't agree. If all the guards are dead the two company commanders might only contribute a whole 2 las pistols, but they can still sit on backfield objectives. Sure you can go kill them, or put 2 models on said objectives, but thats still something you need to do which is not always convenient if large portions of your army is dead. You can't say company commanders are worth 0 points.
Your argument would maybe have more to it if I literally have the loyal 32 - but if I have a brigade, and looking at the LVO you should, there are typically more units. Okay 30 guardsmen are dead? I'll go buff my mortars or more guardsmen or have these commanders sprint across the table to help claim or contest something late game.

Sure the SM characters can buff more units. Also if the units they are babysitting die, they can jog over the field and buff something else. I don't know however, beyond modelling whole armies which will become abstract and somewhat arbitrary, you can express this as a performance/points ratio any more than issues above. I can't very easily put a points value on move^3 - I just know it is an exceptionally useful ability that contributes to winning games.

I can only say however that we know, outside of Guilliman lists, that Marines typically don't perform, and since I believe 40k largely comes down to probability, this would suggest they are mathematically inferior - as opposed to just being consistently unlucky.

Sure if you consider a brigade things are a little different, but not much.
Take for example the brigade of the winning list, which has 8 squads, priest, straken and enough company commanders for all the squads. If you remove 2 squads, you have also "removed" a company commander. If you remove the 8 squads, you have "removed" Straken, Priest and 3 CC, which makes the basic cost of guard 6,5 points. Those guards are worse meatshields than kabalites.

Apart from 3 small mortar squads, where orders have minimal effect, you don't have much to order around. All those supports are now potential free kill points and character kills.

Guards are incredibly good, but it's not honest to say that they can shoot twice, move move move, A3 AND meathshield at 4ppm. They can meatshield at 4ppm and are the best in the game in this role, but if you also make them shooty, mobile and punchy, they are no longer good meathshields.

Your logic is flawed because of a number of facts

Objective still exist and 1CC I can't kill (charictor) or outscore(lack of obsec or just not enough models left) that "removed" model is still contributing.

They can order themselves so still getting use of those at a reduced return.

Deepstrike doesn't ignore charictors so still plugs up that deepstrike denial zone.


Ignoring the above and working under the pretence you created, why does noone else not get to add their charictors into the cost of their troops in maths then?

Really though the answer to the problem is in the GSC codex,
The broodbrothers rule should realy just have been the default Guard CP rules period you get the allies but not the broken CP ontop of the best chaff.

Hopefully it would also allow some of the previous nerfs ans auch to attempt to bring guard CP under control to be revoked.

 Dysartes wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
I mean i have my fair share of gripes with 8th but 7th was cancer.

Can we drop the whole "cancer" thing, please? I sincerely doubt that playing 7th edition, or an Eldar army, or whatever gave anyone a life-threatening condition.

There's a dictionary full of words for how bad something is - try using them.

I remain adamant in me naming it that way, since the Rule bloat growth rate, Formations ,etc have had a eerily similar way of behaviour to a tumor and was unhealthy for the game.

Also "was" not you would get.
The only way i can see you actually get it would be if you drank all paint pots and worked on resin, made lines out off the dust and took that line down.

5th was good, 6 th showed the bloat rate and 7th was in that case the absolute endpoint.

Also as someone that actually has to regulary get tumors cut out of himself i could care less about your sentiment about it.

Ice_can wrote:
Your logic is flawed because of a number of facts

Objective still exist and 1CC I can't kill (charictor) or outscore(lack of obsec or just not enough models left) that "removed" model is still contributing.

They can order themselves so still getting use of those at a reduced return.

Deepstrike doesn't ignore charictors so still plugs up that deepstrike denial zone.


Ignoring the above and working under the pretence you created, why does noone else not get to add their charictors into the cost of their troops in maths then?

Really though the answer to the problem is in the GSC codex,
The broodbrothers rule should realy just have been the default Guard CP rules period you get the allies but not the broken CP ontop of the best chaff.

Hopefully it would also allow some of the previous nerfs ans auch to attempt to bring guard CP under control to be revoked.

"Remove" could not be the correct term, but surely they have now a severely reduced value. Should we call them "Neutralized"? I don't care about the term.
Also, other factions should totally include the cost of the support in the model cost when talking about meatshielding, but some supports are easier to neutralize than others. A farseer is almost never neutralized for example, you would have to almost table the eldar army.

The GSC codex rule is nice, but which is your main detachment, the one with the warlord?

Spoletta wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Your logic is flawed because of a number of facts

Objective still exist and 1CC I can't kill (charictor) or outscore(lack of obsec or just not enough models left) that "removed" model is still contributing.

They can order themselves so still getting use of those at a reduced return.

Deepstrike doesn't ignore charictors so still plugs up that deepstrike denial zone.


Ignoring the above and working under the pretence you created, why does noone else not get to add their charictors into the cost of their troops in maths then?

Really though the answer to the problem is in the GSC codex,
The broodbrothers rule should realy just have been the default Guard CP rules period you get the allies but not the broken CP ontop of the best chaff.

Hopefully it would also allow some of the previous nerfs ans auch to attempt to bring guard CP under control to be revoked.

"Remove" could not be the correct term, but surely they have now a severely reduced value. Should we call them "Neutralized"? I don't care about the term.
Also, other factions should totally include the cost of the support in the model cost when talking about meatshielding, but some supports are easier to neutralize than others. A farseer is almost never neutralized for example, you would have to almost table the eldar army.

The GSC codex rule is nice, but which is your main detachment, the one with the warlord?

Who your warlord is allowed to be and shouldn't be allowed to be should have been controlled, a custodes or deathwatch vet isn't taking orders from guard comander.
You ask them for help not just order them around like your inquisition.

But that aside who your comander is shouldn't matter call it
Adminitratoum oversight, any IG detachment only generates half the number of CP rounding up for a detachment unless it is only from a single regiment.

Plenty of lore talks about guard being unable to react to manoeuvres at the speed of a number of other factions due to the rediculous complicated chain of command and lack of authority.
It hits soup and doesn't affect mono guard.

Ice_can wrote:

Who your warlord is allowed to be and shouldn't be allowed to be should have been controlled, a custodes or deathwatch vet isn't taking orders from guard comander.
You ask them for help not just order them around like your inquisition.

But that aside who your comander is shouldn't matter call it
Adminitratoum oversight, any IG detachment only generates half the number of CP rounding up for a detachment unless it is only from a single regiment.

Plenty of lore talks about guard being unable to react to manoeuvres at the speed of a number of other factions due to the rediculous complicated chain of command and lack of authority.
It hits soup and doesn't affect mono guard.

And what do you do, if you have a guard army that is formed out of diffrent Regiments?

Not Online!!! wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Who your warlord is allowed to be and shouldn't be allowed to be should have been controlled, a custodes or deathwatch vet isn't taking orders from guard comander.
You ask them for help not just order them around like your inquisition.

But that aside who your comander is shouldn't matter call it
Adminitratoum oversight, any IG detachment only generates half the number of CP rounding up for a detachment unless it is only from a single regiment.

Plenty of lore talks about guard being unable to react to manoeuvres at the speed of a number of other factions due to the rediculous complicated chain of command and lack of authority.
It hits soup and doesn't affect mono guard.

And what do you do, if you have a guard army that is formed out of diffrent Regiments?

The lore is pretty consistent on the fact that the regiments don't mix well, be it for different patterns of equipment or language or cultural differences. Like maybe exclude tempestuous and auxiliaries but mixing vostrian, cadian and mordian regiments is going to cause issues.

Also it's not like loosing say 6 CP is going to hurt a pure guard list now is it as "Guard strategums are Trash".