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.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Well, it's a pretty simple mechanic that they've already changed once, so...

Not to the extent that you're suggesting. What you're suggesting would require going back and re-assessing the cost of every unit and every stratagem in every book they've released. Adjusting the cost of Guardsmen to reflect their actual value involves significantly less, and consequently has significantly less chance of cascading problems across the entire game.

I think you and I have different perspectives on what we'd do there. Suffice to say that I don't have the answers, but I'm reasonably sure 6 point IS doesn't move things in the right direction.

But why do IG have to be good ? If GW is suppose to rotate lists that are good, then why shouldn't they nerf the living hell out of IG, leave eldar untouched as they seem to like them a lot, and make an army like csm the next OP army ?

Karol wrote:
But why do IG have to be good ? If GW is suppose to rotate lists that are good, then why shouldn't they nerf the living hell out of IG, leave eldar untouched as they seem to like them a lot, and make an army like csm the next OP army ?

Who said they have to be good? GW isn't supposed to rotate anything. They're supposed to round the edges off stuff until we're approximately balanced. The lists will rotate themselves at that point.

As a mono-IG player, I would love if GW stopped nerfing my army because units from other armies become to good when they add IG to their list.

Nerf soup and/or detatchment-abuse and/or CP-abuse.

Don't nerf army X because army Y and Z becomes too good when combined with army X.

 MinscS2 wrote:
As a mono-IG player, I would love if GW stopped nerfing my army because units from other armies become to good when they add IG to their list.

Nerf soup and/or detatchment-abuse and/or CP-abuse.

Don't nerf army X because army Y and Z becomes too good when combined with army X.

It's not so much that (although I can imagine from a mono-guard perspective it may feel that way at times), it's the simple fact that at 4ppm Guardsmen are way too good.

Also, when was the last time IG got nerfed? I must have missed that meeting.

6ppm for Guardsmen makes sense, they are clearly better than Cultists and Kroot, equivalent to Storm Guardians and not as good as Fire Warriors. Either that or 5ppm and 45 point commanders, one way or another they need to change, they are way too cheap for what they provide right now.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:
But why do IG have to be good ? If GW is suppose to rotate lists that are good, then why shouldn't they nerf the living hell out of IG, leave eldar untouched as they seem to like them a lot, and make an army like csm the next OP army ?

Who said they have to be good? GW isn't supposed to rotate anything. They're supposed to round the edges off stuff until we're approximately balanced. The lists will rotate themselves at that point.

Well what other argument can there be made unless one wants IG to keep being good. I don't think GW wants balance, or can write anything close to balance rules. Only thing they can do, is at some time write very good rules for the army you happen to play. I don't play IG, any nerf to other armies, automaticly makes my army better, specially if the nerf is a real one, and not the types eldar get.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
As a mono-IG player, I would love if GW stopped nerfing my army because units from other armies become to good when they add IG to their list.

Nerf soup and/or detatchment-abuse and/or CP-abuse.

Don't nerf army X because army Y and Z becomes too good when combined with army X.

It's not so much that (although I can imagine from a mono-guard perspective it may feel that way at times), it's the simple fact that at 4ppm Guardsmen are way too good.

Also, when was the last time IG got nerfed? I must have missed that meeting.

6ppm for Guardsmen makes sense, they are clearly better than Cultists and Kroot, equivalent to Storm Guardians and not as good as Fire Warriors. Either that or 5ppm and 45 point commanders, one way or another they need to change, they are way too cheap for what they provide right now.

Start of 8th?
Middle of 8th?
but he some of us are not gifted with a a mid-term Memory.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 MinscS2 wrote:
As a mono-IG player, I would love if GW stopped nerfing my army because units from other armies become to good when they add IG to their list.

Nerf soup and/or detatchment-abuse and/or CP-abuse.

Don't nerf army X because army Y and Z becomes too good when combined with army X.

It's not so much that (although I can imagine from a mono-guard perspective it may feel that way at times), it's the simple fact that at 4ppm Guardsmen are way too good.

So what other troop choice am I supposed to have as a Guard player?

Scions are Regiment locked to Tempestus.
Conscripts got nerfed into the ground thanks to the shift to Commissars and their points buff(and really could have been fixed by removing the <Regiment> tag and giving them a 6+ save instead of a 5+...both of which were incredibly popular suggestions at the outset of 8th).
Infantry Squads are the only <Regiment> Troops choice we have that actually is able to take the various options within the book and receive Orders reliably, but the flipside is that it is always a 10 man squad that always has one model(Sergeant) that is armed differently and thus reduces the effectiveness of the most whined about Order(FRFSRF) to 90% before any upgrades are added to the unit.

The constant whining about Infantry Squads is tiresome at this point. It never gets aimed at soup or the actual problem of shared CPs, it's always that the 4ppm Guardsmen are "way too good" and when called out as to why it just keeps coming down to "because".

Also, when was the last time IG got nerfed? I must have missed that meeting.

Commissars, Conscripts being the same price as Guardsmen, the whole of the GSC book and its mechanisms.

6ppm for Guardsmen makes sense, they are clearly better than Cultists and Kroot, equivalent to Storm Guardians and not as good as Fire Warriors. Either that or 5ppm and 45 point commanders, one way or another they need to change, they are way too cheap for what they provide right now.

6ppm doesn't make a damn bit of sense for Guardsmen when you compare their points to Rangers or Vanguard.
6ppm doesn't make a damn bit of sense when you actually realize that the army lives or dies based upon the price of those 5+, T3 models that don't get "auras" without being in Orders range of a 5+, T3 model or by paying for a Vox-Caster.

Stop trying to "fix" Guard until you're willing to sit down and realize that soup needs to be addressed first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Well, it's a pretty simple mechanic that they've already changed once, so...

Not to the extent that you're suggesting. What you're suggesting would require going back and re-assessing the cost of every unit and every stratagem in every book they've released. Adjusting the cost of Guardsmen to reflect their actual value involves significantly less, and consequently has significantly less chance of cascading problems across the entire game.

I think you and I have different perspectives on what we'd do there. Suffice to say that I don't have the answers, but I'm reasonably sure 6 point IS doesn't move things in the right direction.

It doesn't and it never will. That's the problem here: people focus upon the "points! points! points!" nonsense without recognizing the mechanisms of the game.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Stop trying to "fix" Guard until you're willing to sit down and realize that soup needs to be addressed first.

As Lord Commander of the Guard apologists I understand your position.

However, I disagree, you're supposed to pay more for those troops. Just like Chaos did when they increased the cost of Cultists, just like Orks did when they adjusted the cost of Boyz, strangely, they were able to *somehow* soldier on, so my answer to you would be to, soldier on.

Again, what you're proposing involves re-writing, re-working, and re-costing every codex, unit and model in the game as well as all the stratagems.

The other solution is to adjust the cost of a single unit that has proven to be problematic repeatedly. I love how Guard apologists would rather light the entire game on fire than acknowledge a problem with a single unit in their own codex. So Commissars and Conscripts got nerfed...almost two years ago, clearly you have been cursed, GW is clearly out to get you.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Stop trying to "fix" Guard until you're willing to sit down and realize that soup needs to be addressed first.

As Lord Commander of the Guard apologists I understand your position.

However, I disagree, you're supposed to pay more for those troops. Just like Chaos did when they increased the cost of Cultists, just like Orks did when they adjusted the cost of Boyz, strangely, they were able to *somehow* soldier on, so my answer to you would be to, soldier on.

There are some Ork players who won't stop whining about Guard being less points while ignoring they have higher Toughness, variable squad sizes, and generally aren't useless in CC.
Cultists having their cost increased was a mistake--but at the same time, you have variable squad sizes for them and they are meant to be chaff for the army. The common refrain was "Cultists should be just like Conscripts!"...but quite a few Guard players were trying to get Conscripts nerfed in a more sensible way that left them with a viable role.

T3 BS/WS5+ S3 1W LD3-4, M6" with a 6+ save and both maybe having a weapon called "Improvised Firearms" with 18" Assault 2 S2 0AP 1D .

That's what Conscripts and Cultists should be for a 3ppm unit--just with Cultists getting the option for CCW+pistols and specials for every 1 in 10.

Again, what you're proposing involves re-writing, re-working, and re-costing every codex, unit and model in the game as well as all the stratagems.

Nope, it really doesn't.

Literally all that needed to happen is what happened with GSC and their "Brood Brothers" special rule. Any Guard Detachments you take in a non-Guard army(one led by a non-Guard Warlord--and give Guard specifically a trait in their book that says they cannot have a Warlord except as a Specialist Detachment when the army includes non-Guard Detachments)cannot include special characters and add half the CP value for the Detachment.

The other solution is to adjust the cost of a single unit that has proven to be problematic repeatedly. I love how Guard apologists would rather light the entire game on fire than acknowledge a problem with a single unit in their own codex. So Commissars and Conscripts got nerfed...almost two years ago, clearly you have been cursed, GW is clearly out to get you.

Because the problem isn't with the damn infantry squads!

Seriously, you people keep focusing upon Infantry Squads and ignoring the reason they're there:
To feed cheap CPs into the armies to do other things and add "board control".

As a chaos player, I would happily pay 5pt for guardsmen with MMM, the take cover stratagem, and literally no guns

 Continuity wrote:
As a chaos player, I would happily pay 5pt for guardsmen with MMM, the take cover stratagem, and literally no guns

MMM WE cultists would be boyz lite.
I like it

 Kanluwen wrote:

Because the problem isn't with the damn infantry squads!

Yes it is.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Stop trying to "fix" Guard until you're willing to sit down and realize that soup needs to be addressed first.

As Lord Commander of the Guard apologists I understand your position.

However, I disagree, you're supposed to pay more for those troops. Just like Chaos did when they increased the cost of Cultists, just like Orks did when they adjusted the cost of Boyz, strangely, they were able to *somehow* soldier on, so my answer to you would be to, soldier on.

There are some Ork players who won't stop whining about Guard being less points while ignoring they have higher Toughness, variable squad sizes, and generally aren't useless in CC.
Cultists having their cost increased was a mistake--but at the same time, you have variable squad sizes for them and they are meant to be chaff for the army. The common refrain was "Cultists should be just like Conscripts!"...but quite a few Guard players were trying to get Conscripts nerfed in a more sensible way that left them with a viable role.

T3 BS/WS5+ S3 1W LD3-4, M6" with a 6+ save and both maybe having a weapon called "Improvised Firearms" with 18" Assault 2 S2 0AP 1D .

That's what Conscripts and Cultists should be for a 3ppm unit--just with Cultists getting the option for CCW+pistols and specials for every 1 in 10.

Again, what you're proposing involves re-writing, re-working, and re-costing every codex, unit and model in the game as well as all the stratagems.

Nope, it really doesn't.

Literally all that needed to happen is what happened with GSC and their "Brood Brothers" special rule. Any Guard Detachments you take in a non-Guard army(one led by a non-Guard Warlord--and give Guard specifically a trait in their book that says they cannot have a Warlord except as a Specialist Detachment when the army includes non-Guard Detachments)cannot include special characters and add half the CP value for the Detachment.

The other solution is to adjust the cost of a single unit that has proven to be problematic repeatedly. I love how Guard apologists would rather light the entire game on fire than acknowledge a problem with a single unit in their own codex. So Commissars and Conscripts got nerfed...almost two years ago, clearly you have been cursed, GW is clearly out to get you.

Because the problem isn't with the damn infantry squads!

Seriously, you people keep focusing upon Infantry Squads and ignoring the reason they're there:
To feed cheap CPs into the armies to do other things and add "board control".

We already proved Infantry to be a mathematical problem. What more do you want?

 Continuity wrote:
As a chaos player, I would happily pay 5pt for guardsmen with MMM, the take cover stratagem, and literally no guns

No, you wouldn't. You people constantly say this and yet ignore that it will never be "5pts for guardsmen with MMM".

You're having to pay also for the Officer issuing the Order and he is having to be sat within range, and "Take Cover!" requires the unit to be getting shot at.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

We already proved Infantry to be a mathematical problem. What more do you want?

Math doesn't mean jack when you're chasing metas. Anyone and everyone with two brain cells to rub together should know that nerfing Infantry Squads will do nothing but harm Guard armies and change the Loyal 32 to whatever quippy name you scrubs come up with for the replacement.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Math doesn't mean jack when you're chasing metas. Anyone and everyone with two brain cells to rub together should know that nerfing Infantry Squads will do nothing but harm Guard armies and change the Loyal 32 to whatever quippy name you scrubs come up with for the replacement.

The issue with the Loyal 32 is that they are cheap, generate lots of CP, have a LOT of dakka and are good at capping objectives. If you "force" everyone to move to AdMech battalions, you lose half of their appeal since the Rusty 17 can't cap objectives effectively and have poor dakka. They also have half the wounds.

 Kanluwen wrote:
No, you wouldn't. You people constantly say this and yet ignore that it will never be "5pts for guardsmen with MMM".

Yes, I would. How do I know this? Because I would take them at 5ppm with no orders and no synergy whatsoever. Why? Because even then, they are better than Cultists.

Furthermore, your convoluted solution would have cascading effects across the every Imperial Codex in the game, unless you're really naive enough to say that none of the Imperium armies were built with the idea of Guard allies in mind. I mean, I guess you could say that, but that is putting some amazing willpower into your confirmation bias. We won't even mention that increasing the cost of Guardsmen would accomplish the same thing with a far simpler solution.

So again, suck it up, soldier on. You are not being oppressed.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
No, you wouldn't. You people constantly say this and yet ignore that it will never be "5pts for guardsmen with MMM".

Yes, I would. How do I know this? Because I would take them at 5ppm with no orders and no synergy whatsoever. Why? Because even then, they are better than Cultists.

Furthermore, your convoluted solution would have cascading effects across the every Imperial Codex in the game, unless you're really naive enough to say that none of the Imperium armies were built with the idea of Guard allies in mind. I mean, I guess you could say that, but that is putting some amazing willpower into your confirmation bias. We won't even mention that increasing the cost of Guardsmen would accomplish the same thing with a far simpler solution.

So again, suck it up, soldier on. You are not being oppressed.

Dude calm down. First you call him generalfield Marshall of the apologists and now you step even further out and claim that he complains about beeing oppressed whilest all he has done is counter arguing your points.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
No, you wouldn't. You people constantly say this and yet ignore that it will never be "5pts for guardsmen with MMM".

Yes, I would. How do I know this? Because I would take them at 5ppm with no orders and no synergy whatsoever. Why? Because even then, they are better than Cultists.

No, you wouldn't. You'll say you will on the internet but when push comes to shove---you aren't doing it.

And again:
Why shouldn't they be better than Cultists? They're Guardsmen, part of an actual fighting force rather than a bunch of hooligans that are driven in front of the main advance as bullet sponges.

Furthermore, your convoluted solution would have cascading effects across the every Imperial Codex in the game, unless you're really naive enough to say that none of the Imperium armies were built with the idea of Guard allies in mind. I mean, I guess you could say that, but that is putting some amazing willpower into your confirmation bias. We won't even mention that increasing the cost of Guardsmen would accomplish the same thing with a far simpler solution.

You might want to talk with the game designers then, because that's what they say they do.

I mean, you lot constantly whine about playtesting and "how did they miss X, Y, Z!". The answer is because they're building the game around pure armies, not the watered down trash that you people run.

And no actually, "increasing the cost of Guardsmen" wouldn't accomplish the same thing except for garbage soup lists. It screws up purely Guard armies(which I literally put a safeguard in as part of my "convoluted solution") to protect the trash that people who are doing nothing but chasing the meta are fielding.

So again, suck it up, soldier on. You are not being oppressed.

And you're not being nerfed by having your bullet sponge unit losing their access to traits they never should have had in the first place. Suck it up, traitor on.

And you're not being nerfed by having your bullet sponge unit losing their access to traits they never should have had in the first place. Suck it up, traitor on.

Are you honestly arguing that cultists should be more expensive and trait less compared to guardsmen?

Not Online!!! wrote:

And you're not being nerfed by having your bullet sponge unit losing their access to traits they never should have had in the first place. Suck it up, traitor on.

Are you honestly arguing that cultists should be more expensive and trait less compared to guardsmen?

Nope.

I'm arguing that they never should have had traits in the first place--just like Conscripts never should have. Both should have been cheap units(3pts) with garbage stats and a garbage S2 AP0 1D weapon that had a short range and Assault instead of RF. The whole point of those units literally should have been to take up space and maybe hurt something.

I'm also willing to wildly speculate at this point that we're going to see the Renegade Guardsmen profile that we have in Blackstone Fortress and the Beastmen potentially make an appearance in the updated CSM book.

What better way to differentiate between Cultists and Renegade Guardsmen than one having access to traits and the other not? I mean, would it not make sense for the Renegade Guardsmen to have training that has 'adapted' to what the Legions they fight alongside of do?

Yeah, Cultists without any traits at 4 points is totally equal to 4 point Infantry with traits. Makes sense. Totally.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

And you're not being nerfed by having your bullet sponge unit losing their access to traits they never should have had in the first place. Suck it up, traitor on.

Are you honestly arguing that cultists should be more expensive and trait less compared to guardsmen?

Nope.

I'm arguing that they never should have had traits in the first place--just like Conscripts never should have. Both should have been cheap units(3pts) with garbage stats and a garbage S2 AP0 1D weapon that had a short range and Assault instead of RF. The whole point of those units literally should have been to take up space and maybe hurt something.

I'm also willing to wildly speculate at this point that we're going to see the Renegade Guardsmen profile that we have in Blackstone Fortress and the Beastmen potentially make an appearance in the updated CSM book.

What better way to differentiate between Cultists and Renegade Guardsmen than one having access to traits and the other not? I mean, would it not make sense for the Renegade Guardsmen to have training that has 'adapted' to what the Legions they fight alongside of do?

No, disagree the cultists in the csm are a catch all name and in case of some legions are better trained then others. Cough al cough.

Also traitor guardsmen need to go in a propper lost and the damned /R&H list.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Dude calm down. First you call him generalfield Marshall of the apologists and now you step even further out and claim that he complains about beeing oppressed whilest all he has done is counter arguing your points.

He countered my point with exactly what I said would happen, a wildly convoluted solution in service to his own desperate need to preserve the state of his precious guard, at the expense of the rest of the game. I find his arguments and stances to be utterly disingenuous, he would literally light every other codex in the game on fire to keep Guardsmen at 4ppm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
No, you wouldn't. You'll say you will on the internet but when push comes to shove---you aren't doing it.

Also, I would, every day of the week and twice on Sunday, it's not even vaguely close.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Dude calm down. First you call him generalfield Marshall of the apologists and now you step even further out and claim that he complains about beeing oppressed whilest all he has done is counter arguing your points.

He countered my point with exactly what I said would happen, a wildly convoluted solution in service to his own desperate need to preserve the state of his precious guard, at the expense of the rest of the game. I find his arguments and stances to be utterly disingenuous, he would literally light every other codex in the game on fire to keep Guardsmen at 4ppm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
No, you wouldn't. You'll say you will on the internet but when push comes to shove---you aren't doing it.

Also, I would, every day of the week and twice on Sunday, it's not even vaguely close.

Jesus can you two stop, take a step back and actually consider the others argument?

Kanluwen has a point guardsmen beeing 4 ppm is not an issue for a mono guard army. In fact most IoM armies are also not built with ally consideration, even Knights.
The problem is fundamentaly at the core mechanic of CP / soup interaction.

However, guardsmen could easily be pushed to 5 ppm if we consider the cultist to be his equal. If GW goes through with the nerf for them in regards to traits this would however not be justifiable for IG squads to stay at 4 ppm.

Not to mention that Conscripts would finally see play again at 4 ppm if infantry would be moved up.
However gw has recently pushed down veterans to 5 ppm in order to promote people using them, completly disregarding the fact that at 6ppm as a Troop choice they would've seen play.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Kanluwen has a point guardsmen beeing 4 ppm is not an issue for a mono guard army. In fact most IoM armies are also not built with ally consideration, even Knights.
The problem is fundamentaly at the core mechanic of CP / soup interaction.

This solution is called 9th edition. Perhaps we advocate for a solution that is not 9th edition before we light this entire edition on fire, perhaps we take the utterly radical step of adjusting a single model's points before we toss the entire edition in the trash can.

I also disagree on the problem, CP/soup interaction is the boogieman that's supposedly in your closet, it's a red herring. Furthermore, radically re-writing it instead of adjusting the points on one obviously problematic model is like euthanizing your dog because it crapped on your carpet.

Not Online!!! wrote:
However, guardsmen could easily be pushed to 5 ppm if we consider the cultist to be his equal.

I do not, not even close, give them a 5+ save and you take a small step towards even, then you have to add +1 LD, then you might start to get close. But that doesn't come close to accounting for the vast disparity in weapons availability. That doesn't even touch on orders by the way, which I'm aware comes at a tax. Of course, providing LD for Cultists currently has a significantly higher tax.

They are much closer to Storm Guardians than they are to Chaos Cultists.

Not Online!!! wrote:
If GW goes through with the nerf for them in regards to traits this would however not be justifiable for IG squads to stay at 4 ppm.

This is not a matter of going through, this is printed and done.

I'm open to the idea of increasing the cost of Company Commanders also, bump them up to 45 ppm I think that solves a lot of problems also. Veterans at 5ppm is absurd also, that just boggles the mind when looking at Chaos Cultists.

This solution is called 9th edition. Perhaps we advocate for a solution that is not 9th edition before we light this entire edition on fire, perhaps we take the utterly radical step of adjusting a single model's points before we toss the entire edition in the trash can.

I also disagree on the problem, CP/soup interaction is the boogieman that's supposedly in your closet, it's a red herring. Furthermore, radically re-writing it instead of adjusting the points on one obviously problematic model is like euthanizing your dog because it crapped on your carpet.

First, stop delegtimising all arguments about soup and cp interaction as a Red Hering, seriously you Start to sound like a broken record and it is considered a Totschlag argument, one which can not be argued against because it supposedly drafts from a higher legitimiced position (E.g. Arguing with the Bible).
It is regarded as impolite and used only by people not beeing capable to argue propperly.

Also so long ion bullwark exists so long you can not argue that soup was intended for balance and that therefore we should balance according to soup. Because clearly gw doesn't.

Secondly: we don't have this yet black on white that all legions will suffer from the Mere Mortals rule. So stop this instant putting it up as a strawman.

Thirdly: yes there can be a valid argument made between 5 ppm guardsmen and 5 ppm cultists, mainly based around traits, auras and imunity of morale aswell as weapons. So yes the comparison holds closer then you think.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:Yeah, Cultists without any traits at 4 points is totally equal to 4 point Infantry with traits. Makes sense. Totally.

Pretty sure I said traitless Cultists should be 3ppm, same as Conscripts(who should absolutely lose <Regiment>, be bumped to a 6+ save, and "Raw Recruits" should be dealing with them using nearby LD rather than receiving Orders) and that both units should have their guns reduced to a S2 AP0 1D 18" Assault 2 weapon.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

And you're not being nerfed by having your bullet sponge unit losing their access to traits they never should have had in the first place. Suck it up, traitor on.

Are you honestly arguing that cultists should be more expensive and trait less compared to guardsmen?

Nope.

I'm arguing that they never should have had traits in the first place--just like Conscripts never should have. Both should have been cheap units(3pts) with garbage stats and a garbage S2 AP0 1D weapon that had a short range and Assault instead of RF. The whole point of those units literally should have been to take up space and maybe hurt something.

I'm also willing to wildly speculate at this point that we're going to see the Renegade Guardsmen profile that we have in Blackstone Fortress and the Beastmen potentially make an appearance in the updated CSM book.

What better way to differentiate between Cultists and Renegade Guardsmen than one having access to traits and the other not? I mean, would it not make sense for the Renegade Guardsmen to have training that has 'adapted' to what the Legions they fight alongside of do?

No, disagree the cultists in the csm are a catch all name and in case of some legions are better trained then others. Cough al cough.

And yet you would be better off to have Renegade Guardsmen and Cultists in the book to open up some more options. Much like how GSC had their "catch-all name" of "Neophyte Hybrids" broken up into "Hybrids" and "Brood Brothers" to represent the difference.

Also traitor guardsmen need to go in a propper lost and the damned /R&H list.

Nothing stopping them from being in both.

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Stop trying to "fix" Guard until you're willing to sit down and realize that soup needs to be addressed first.

As Lord Commander of the Guard apologists I understand your position.

However, I disagree, you're supposed to pay more for those troops. Just like Chaos did when they increased the cost of Cultists, just like Orks did when they adjusted the cost of Boyz, strangely, they were able to *somehow* soldier on, so my answer to you would be to, soldier on.

Again, what you're proposing involves re-writing, re-working, and re-costing every codex, unit and model in the game as well as all the stratagems.

The other solution is to adjust the cost of a single unit that has proven to be problematic repeatedly. I love how Guard apologists would rather light the entire game on fire than acknowledge a problem with a single unit in their own codex. So Commissars and Conscripts got nerfed...almost two years ago, clearly you have been cursed, GW is clearly out to get you.

I think this pretty clearly shows you don't know what the feth you're talking about. The points increase to boyz resulted in a mass drop of boys in list to be replaced by grots as better CP farms/screen, while boys themselves are taken based sole to the ability of an individual list to throw them across the board with Tellyporta/Da Jump/Dead Sneaky. The reason Orks players "soldier on" is because most people want to play the game even with weakened armies, not because we collectedly decided 7 point orks was a fair change.

And yet you would be better off to have Renegade Guardsmen and Cultists in the book to open up some more options. Much like how GSC had their "catch-all name" of "Neophyte Hybrids" broken up into "Hybrids" and "Brood Brothers" to represent the difference.

Still disagree, instead i would go about to split off seperate units from them: AL gets Saboteurs / agents which would be scout equivalent.
IW would get quasi traitor guard. (equipment wise atleast)

The rest should get cultists.

That is how it should be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pretty sure I said traitless Cultists should be 3ppm, same as Conscripts(who should absolutely lose <Regiment>, be bumped to a 6+ save, and "Raw Recruits" should be dealing with them using nearby LD rather than receiving Orders) and that both units should have their guns reduced to a S2 AP0 1D 18" Assault 2 weapon.

Nope that suggestion still is bad. Also shows that the simplification of the S to T value was a bad thing overall.