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.

Not Online!!! wrote:
Yeah except that doubling the firerate of lasguns is very much not so bonkers.

It is when both the lasgun platform and the buffing model are undercosted. If lasguns were s2, id agree. But s3 is very dangerous in 8th.

Martel732 wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
Yeah except that doubling the firerate of lasguns is very much not so bonkers.

It is when both the lasgun platform and the buffing model are undercosted. If lasguns were s2, id agree. But s3 is very dangerous in 8th.

Oh pls, autoguns are the same and the only think making autoguns dangerous was VotLW on top off doubling the rate, IG doesn't have that so no lasguns ain't half as Deadly as many claim.

Everything is dangerous when taken enmasse on undercosted models. Cultists are just no longer undercosted.

Lasguns are incredibly deadly for their cost. Thats the whole problem.

One lasgun isn't dangerous, but I've killed a daemon prince with a lucky shot from a laspistol before. Because the RNG was with me.

That being said, I don't think guard squads are undercosted. I think their commanders are.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
One lasgun isn't dangerous, but I've killed a daemon prince with a lucky shot from a laspistol before. Because the RNG was with me.

That being said, I don't think guard squads are undercosted. I think their commanders are.

I think both are, especially after the cultist changes. Look at grots and cultists. There is no conceivable justification for guardsmen other than GW doesn't do external balance.

Martel732 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
One lasgun isn't dangerous, but I've killed a daemon prince with a lucky shot from a laspistol before. Because the RNG was with me.

That being said, I don't think guard squads are undercosted. I think their commanders are.

I think both are, especially after the cultist changes. Look at grots and cultists. There is no conceivable justification for guardsmen other than GW doesn't do external balance.

Well very cynically there could be one other reason, make a pay to win army, as the 1k battalion of guard from the soup list isn't exactly cheap £$€ whike being available for model's per point in game.

Jokes on them. Got mine from victorian resin.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Just so I understand, you think FRFSRF and MMM is somehow LESS efficient than Re-roll 1s? Because I'd LOVE for one squad of my weapons to suddenly become RF2 for 35pts, over their ability to re-roll ones. If you think FRSSRF and MMM are validated at 35pts, youre insane.

And if you think an Officer is validated at anything over 30 points, you don't actually understand what they are.

Company Commanders are T3 with 4W, a 5+/5++ and a 6" aura for two units at a time. Park a Command Squad with a Vox-Caster(or any squad with a vox-caster) within 3" of the Officer and that range is extended to 18"...if the unit being Ordered also has a Vox-Caster.

And really, "reroll 1s" for units that are BS3+ natively is not really something to sneeze at now is it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
One lasgun isn't dangerous, but I've killed a daemon prince with a lucky shot from a laspistol before. Because the RNG was with me.
That being said, I don't think guard squads are undercosted. I think their commanders are.

And I think, again, that you need to step back and realize that while the buffs provided are certainly significant--killing the Guard units is just as significant as killing the Officers themselves. They become wasted points if they don't have anyone to Order.

And I also think you need to understand that, again, these Officers aren't actually really contributing jack to the army outside of their Orders. I get dirt cheap buffbots because they really can't do anything else.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
One lasgun isn't dangerous, but I've killed a daemon prince with a lucky shot from a laspistol before. Because the RNG was with me.

That being said, I don't think guard squads are undercosted. I think their commanders are.

The most unlikely thing I've ever seen happen was an Astropath firing his (BS6, because he's a blind guy) laspistol, hitting, wounding, and killing the Changeling, a model that one week earlier by the Index rules would have had a -1 to hit ability that would have made hitting the shot actually impossible.

gak happens, and you remember it. Balance decisions should instead be made based on average performance and stat comparisons.

Statistically, a guardsman is superior to a cultist. Performance-wise, guardsmen have featured heavily in nearly every tournament in 8th edition from the Index days until now.

I think to me that indicates that maybe they are undercosted, and maybe they should be moved in line with other recently nerfed units.

the_scotsman wrote:

Statistically, a guardsman is superior to a cultist. Performance-wise, guardsmen have featured heavily in nearly every tournament in 8th edition from the Index days until now.

Index was Conscripts primarily, not Infantry Squads.

I think to me that indicates that maybe they are undercosted, and maybe they should be moved in line with other recently nerfed units.

To me, it indicates that the benefit they provide to non-Guard armies needs to be addressed.

The Cultist nerf likely would have been enough by removing the Legion trait, same as Raw Recruits or the Commissar change would have been enough to reduce the appeal of Conscripts(who realistically need to be dropped to a 6+ save and lose the <Regiment> tags).
The same, IMO, applies to Gretchin.

In general, HQ points costs need a lot more "Who cares?" applied to them. Space Marine characters might hit on a 2+ but if their only use at present is to buff a gunline then you shouldn't really bill them for a fluffy statline.

There's cheap, and then theres TOO cheap.

Officers do have another invaluable use: use the inpenetrable wall of the character rule to hold an objective. There is inherent value in being a character.

In contrast, do you think the character rule makes basing part of a HQ's costs on defensive stats somewhat superfluous?

 Kanluwen wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Statistically, a guardsman is superior to a cultist. Performance-wise, guardsmen have featured heavily in nearly every tournament in 8th edition from the Index days until now.

Index was Conscripts primarily, not Infantry Squads.

I think to me that indicates that maybe they are undercosted, and maybe they should be moved in line with other recently nerfed units.

To me, it indicates that the benefit they provide to non-Guard armies needs to be addressed.

The Cultist nerf likely would have been enough by removing the Legion trait, same as Raw Recruits or the Commissar change would have been enough to reduce the appeal of Conscripts(who realistically need to be dropped to a 6+ save and lose the <Regiment> tags).
The same, IMO, applies to Gretchin.

You think Gretchin should be dropped (raised) to a 6+ save and lose the <clan> trait that they have a rule stating they don't benefit from?

I disagree that the Raw Recruits rule would be enough to make conscripts less appealing. Look at what they compete with:

Gretchin. Toughness 2, strength 2, gun is a laspistol, no save at all, no subfaction trait, the only buffs they have access to are reroll 1s to hit in the fight phase and a commissar that kills D3 models instead of 1 and doesn't have the "use my leadership" part of the rule.

Brimstone horrors. Save 6++, strength (iirc) 2, no gun at all, only buffs available are +1S and a 6+++ fnp aura.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
In contrast, do you think the character rule makes basing part of a HQ's costs on defensive stats somewhat superfluous?

Probably. It's at least a limiting factor.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Just so I understand, you think FRFSRF and MMM is somehow LESS efficient than Re-roll 1s? Because I'd LOVE for one squad of my weapons to suddenly become RF2 for 35pts, over their ability to re-roll ones. If you think FRSSRF and MMM are validated at 35pts, youre insane.

And if you think an Officer is validated at anything over 30 points, you don't actually understand what they are.

Company Commanders are T3 with 4W, a 5+/5++ and a 6" aura for two units at a time. Park a Command Squad with a Vox-Caster(or any squad with a vox-caster) within 3" of the Officer and that range is extended to 18"...if the unit being Ordered also has a Vox-Caster.

And really, "reroll 1s" for units that are BS3+ natively is not really something to sneeze at now is it?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
One lasgun isn't dangerous, but I've killed a daemon prince with a lucky shot from a laspistol before. Because the RNG was with me.
That being said, I don't think guard squads are undercosted. I think their commanders are.

And I think, again, that you need to step back and realize that while the buffs provided are certainly significant--killing the Guard units is just as significant as killing the Officers themselves. They become wasted points if they don't have anyone to Order.

And I also think you need to understand that, again, these Officers aren't actually really contributing jack to the army outside of their Orders. I get dirt cheap buffbots because they really can't do anything else.

the stat line is pointless since they are protected by being characters and only exist for the buffs they gave.
MMM literally wins you games by getting models on objectives that are otherwise out of range.
FRFSRF doubles the firepower of a unit basic unit.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
In contrast, do you think the character rule makes basing part of a HQ's costs on defensive stats somewhat superfluous?

Not at all. I think Character is one of the most undercosted traits in the whole game. If I were designing an algorithm for costing Character protection, it'd apply a percentage increase to the base points value, then afterwards add a flat points fee to the cost.

Currently, characters in the 75-120 points value are almost universally overcosted/underwhelming, and characters in the 250+ range and <40 zone are almost universally undercosted.

I mean protected characters when I say characters, the character keyword is much less impactful when you don't have the protection.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
In contrast, do you think the character rule makes basing part of a HQ's costs on defensive stats somewhat superfluous?

I think this is one of the big problems with trying to cost HQs. They're generally either nigh-untouchable (or touchable only with Mortal Wounds - which ignore defences anyway), or else they can be freely targeted.

In other words, character defences don't matter . . . right up until they do.

 vipoid wrote:

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
In contrast, do you think the character rule makes basing part of a HQ's costs on defensive stats somewhat superfluous?

I think this is one of the big problems with trying to cost HQs. They're generally either nigh-untouchable (or touchable only with Mortal Wounds - which ignore defences anyway), or else they can be freely targeted.

In other words, character defences don't matter . . . right up until they do.

Sensible rules for charachters would be nice.

Personally I think an algorithmic method (that I'm sure GW is using) is the root many of the price fudges. The body of a Company Commander is just as practically relevant as a Necron Overlord - i.e. not relevant at all because if your gunline just got shredded into mist, your HQ is about to die horribly, invulns and T(whatever) be damned.

 vipoid wrote:
I think this is one of the big problems with trying to cost HQs. They're generally either nigh-untouchable (or touchable only with Mortal Wounds - which ignore defences anyway), or else they can be freely targeted.

In other words, character defences don't matter . . . right up until they do.

I agree, it should be the exact opposite!

Maybe the game is just ment to be played with 7-8k pts per side. Then the resiliance of a single character just won't matter much with very few expetions.

Well, maybe if they added a few more HP to Gman and Catlady, people would complain about them less!

(#notaserioussuggestion)

the_scotsman wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Statistically, a guardsman is superior to a cultist. Performance-wise, guardsmen have featured heavily in nearly every tournament in 8th edition from the Index days until now.

Index was Conscripts primarily, not Infantry Squads.

I think to me that indicates that maybe they are undercosted, and maybe they should be moved in line with other recently nerfed units.

To me, it indicates that the benefit they provide to non-Guard armies needs to be addressed.

The Cultist nerf likely would have been enough by removing the Legion trait, same as Raw Recruits or the Commissar change would have been enough to reduce the appeal of Conscripts(who realistically need to be dropped to a 6+ save and lose the <Regiment> tags).
The same, IMO, applies to Gretchin.

You think Gretchin should be dropped (raised) to a 6+ save and lose the <clan> trait that they have a rule stating they don't benefit from?

Sorry, there was meant to be another line there about the points hike being unnecessary on Cultists with the drop of the Legion trait, same as how I felt the points hike on Conscripts was unnecessary with Raw Recruits introduced and/or if the Commissar change had actually been in the codex.

"The same, IMO applies to Gretchin" is meant to reference that their points should be lower--same as Cultists.

And as I've said, multiple times now, I'm absolutely on board with a Conscript rework. I don't think they should be anywhere near what they are currently.

I disagree that the Raw Recruits rule would be enough to make conscripts less appealing.

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. The fact that it consumes the Order issued while potentially not having it actually apply makes me feel like we would have seen them still make appearances but mostly with a Commissar babysitter.

Look at what they compete with:
Gretchin. Toughness 2, strength 2, gun is a laspistol, no save at all, no subfaction trait, the only buffs they have access to are reroll 1s to hit in the fight phase and a commissar that kills D3 models instead of 1 and doesn't have the "use my leadership" part of the rule.

Sure, and they also have access to a Stratagem that lets them act as a buffer for the heavier Ork units IIRC.

Brimstone horrors. Save 6++, strength (iirc) 2, no gun at all, only buffs available are +1S and a 6+++ fnp aura.

Frankly, Daemons are a hard thing to balance around IMO.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ordana wrote:
the stat line is pointless since they are protected by being characters and only exist for the buffs they gave.

They give two buffs a turn, modifiable by Warlord Traits or Stratagems or a few Relics that give some wonkiness.

MMM literally wins you games by getting models on objectives that are otherwise out of range.

Then kill the units that can receive the Order. Because it's just <Regiment> Infantry.

FRFSRF doubles the firepower of a unit basic unit.

A unit's basic gun.
It doesn't apply to any upgrades or even the Sergeant's weapon.

We don't need even cheaper units. Its just a dodge around the fact that guardsmen deliver more than 4 pts of value.

Martel732 wrote:
We don't need even cheaper units. Its just a dodge around the fact that guardsmen deliver more than 4 pts of value.

Yeah 5ppm Guardsmen would have significant changes to the overall meta (for the better). 11-12ppm Marines/CSM would be the next needed step. -1ppm for both Necron Troops would be good too. Eldar Troops are probably fine overall, but Kabalites could do with +1ppm
Troop cost has much wider implications than just the value of the model itself. And will continue to affect games so long as CPs are generated disproportionately through 5CP Battalions.

Any army having access to Troops less than 5ppm, while other armies can't get anything less than 10ppm, especially when those factions are Imperium, Choas or Eldar, creates imbalance in the game. You either HAVE to take a cheapo Battalion even if you dont' want too, or you outright cannot take allies at all. Necrons are a good example of a faction that is suffering wildly from this. They don't even show up at most tourneys, although admittedly they have other issues too.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I also kinda like one of the earlier proposals that Battalions should require more than just Troops and HQs, although I'd personally like that to just be your choice of 1 Ellite, Fast OR Heavy, rather than 1 of each. It wouldn't do too much to "balance" anything, but at least it puts a bit more cost associated with taking a Battalion and makes that group of Allies make a bit more sense fluffy-wise. Why wouldn't they bring along some kind of specialist unit?

And from GW's pov, this would help sell more models. Most, if not all Start Collecting boxes are 1 HQ, 1 Troop and 1 "special" unit
If Battalions suddenly required at least 1 special units, SC boxes are much more appealing for quick Allie-pickups

-

Bharring wrote:
Well, maybe if they added a few more HP to Gman and Catlady, people would complain about them less!

(#notaserioussuggestion)

And yet 1 more wound to Rowboat would be a nerf not a buff. Since it would mean he is no longer protected by the Character keyword, so yes people might complain less? :p

The 8.5/9th edition fix is to generate CP from points values (and your warlord being alive, for spice), or Knight-style detachments for every codex. For now, I like the idea that a Battalion needs "more", but I really think it should be points costs and not units, because cheap units are still cheap (and in respect of their codex, normally should be cheap).

I seriously can't believe some people are still arguing that Guard squads are not overpowered for their cost. And I was a die-hard fan of IG up until I played a different army and saw how easy guard have it.

The current state of guard is literally indefensible by logic, only by woo and irrationality.

 Phaeron Gukk wrote:
The 8.5/9th edition fix is to generate CP from points values (and your warlord being alive, for spice), or Knight-style detachments for every codex. For now, I like the idea that a Battalion needs "more", but I really think it should be points costs and not units, because cheap units are still cheap (and in respect of their codex, normally should be cheap).

GW wouldn't even need to update editions. They aren't shy about changing the core rules through FAQ (that's how we got 5CP Battalions in the first place)

GW could easily drop all Command benefits from Detachments and grant them through Points/Power levels instead.
The concept of "detachments" granting bonuses is a more recent thing anyway (7E/8E). When I first started playing (4E) the Force Organization Chart was how you rostered your units and nothing more.

The Detachments need to be that only: a way to bring your models in a structured way.
CPs can be something like 3 per 500pts/25PL. Maybe, MAYBE the heavier detachments could grant just a bit more. Battalions could grant just 1-2CPs only and Brigades 4-5 or so, but not have a huge number above what is granted for game size.
A combo of both game size and more structure (but heavier on the game size) could do a lot to even out how many CPs any faction or combo of factions can generate.

-