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.

Martel732 wrote:
Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.

Not everything is about killing power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Quasistellar wrote:


And heavy bolters being so expensive now--anyone have insight as to why HBs went up so much?

Shooting into combat (very minor) plus probably move+shoot. Which isn't something the Astraeus had to gain, but it still essentially pays for the privelege.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.

Not everything is about killing power.

No? So is it about durability? Mobility? Access to weapon options? Access to support units?

Or do you not have a scenario in which unit A is better than unit B at anything so you'll just say "nuh uh" and gesture vaguely?

God, I can't believe I ever used to respect your opinion as someone to listen to on this hellsite.

 Spartan089 wrote:
I'm blown away by some of these point costs, especially in guard, 28 point increase to the basic Leman Russ, 15 points for a single heavy bolter? 40 points for plasma sponsons?! 235 points for a fully kitted out Tank Comander (BC, plasma sponsons, hull Lascannon) seems way too expensive.

Some of the new weapon costs make no sense without a rules change.

So perhaps the rules for those weapons are changing.
Or perhaps they just make no sense.

the_scotsman wrote:

God, I can't believe I ever used to respect your opinion as someone to listen to on this hellsite.

Nice. Doing your best to contribute to the fame of this hellsite, huh? Pull your big boy pants up.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Not everything is about killing power.

You might have a point if GW didn't just end up reducing granularity (the opposite of what certain people said when it came to the across-the-board points cost rise) and put the min unit cost to 5 points.

Unit A being Guardsmen, assumably,:
-Durability is only slightly better. T3 with a 5+ save ain't going all that far these days.
-Mobility: Assuming this is a snarky remark about "M^3", that Order locks you out of other Orders.
-Access to weapon options: Guard Infantry Squads have access to weapon options. So do Ork Boyz Squads--which is what you arguably should be comparing them to, not Grots.
Also, every Lasgun taken away diminishes the effectiveness of FRFSRF by an equivalent percentage(remember: squad starts at 90% effectiveness for FRFSRF anyways thanks to Sergeants getting their Lasguns stripped away thanks to the Crudd book).
-Support Units: like what?
Orders are the Big Support Units here. And they're 1 per unit, without certain gimmicks in effect.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Not everything is about killing power.

You might have a point if GW didn't just end up reducing granularity (the opposite of what certain people said when it came to the across-the-board points cost rise) and put the min unit cost to 5 points.

Would I love it if they doubled points and gave some actual granularity at the bottom? Sure. Do I think it drastically change the game? No, I don't.

Do I think CSM are worth 14? When I look at Primaris, no. Do I think CSM at 14 with access to cheaper heavy weapons are worthwhile? They might be. (Not much really changed here except the cost of weapons)

A.T. wrote:

 Spartan089 wrote:
I'm blown away by some of these point costs, especially in guard, 28 point increase to the basic Leman Russ, 15 points for a single heavy bolter? 40 points for plasma sponsons?! 235 points for a fully kitted out Tank Comander (BC, plasma sponsons, hull Lascannon) seems way too expensive.

Some of the new weapon costs make no sense without a rules change.

So perhaps the rules for those weapons are changing.
Or perhaps they just make no sense.

They no longer suffer a -1 for moving and shooting, and they can always shoot even when engaged in combat. I.E. you will fire all the weapons on that vehicle every turn.

As opposed to the past where you could easily shut down a tank by charging it, now that just means your being shot at point blank range.

Phenatix wrote:
So this was quick. Here's a very simplified shooting match between "equal" points of CSM and Intercessors. Everybody's in rapid fire range all the time, no morale, no stratagems, no doctrines.

How many points do you need to drop chaos marines by in order to make the fight even?

We could just try to rebalance the points for it to make sense for casual games. One of my groups removed smite from killteam (barring commanders) and it seems to have worked fine.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Unit A being Guardsmen, assumably,:
-Durability is only slightly better. T3 with a 5+ save ain't going all that far these days.
-Mobility: Assuming this is a snarky remark about "M^3", that Order locks you out of other Orders.
-Access to weapon options: Guard Infantry Squads have access to weapon options. So do Ork Boyz Squads--which is what you arguably should be comparing them to, not Grots.
Also, every Lasgun taken away diminishes the effectiveness of FRFSRF by an equivalent percentage(remember: squad starts at 90% effectiveness for FRFSRF anyways thanks to Sergeants getting their Lasguns stripped away thanks to the Crudd book).
-Support Units: like what?
Orders are the Big Support Units here. And they're 1 per unit, without certain gimmicks in effect.

Every S3, S4 and S5 weapon in the game gets +1 wound vs grots compared to guardsmen. So, basically everything people point at chaff. And +2sv is nothing...lol. OK.

Even without orders, guardsmen move 1" farther than grots.

I'll take that as a concession.

You're arguing that the sergeant being forced to take a laspistol is a handicap for the guardsmen....compared to a unit that has to take laspistols and no chainswords on every model. LOL.

Support units available to guardsmen: Priests (double their melee attacks for ~40ish points, I haven't seen the new values for guard in full so could be slightly off there) officers (orders), a few named characters for random stuff, and commissars for reroll morale at the cost of 1 casualty and +1LD.

Support units available to gretchin: Runtherds (reroll 1s in melee or D3 casualties to ignore morale for 40pts), painboy (6++ if within 3" for 55pts) and KFF (5++ for I think 80-ish points now?)

Add in the fact that grots get no traits or strats as well, and honestly the only explanation that makes sense is "grots are bad on purpose. GW doesn't want Ork players to field grots. GW does want guard players to play guardsmen."

Which sucks. I'm sorry, it just fething sucks. what is the purpose of having a matched play system if you're not using points to make the game more balanced? it's like if GW decided to give players who like playing pure scion armies their new traits in PA, then a bunch of people went and bought scion armies, and then GW decided "feth you people, scions are 20ppm now, guard armies are supposed to be guardsmen and leman russ tanks!!! Scions are a sometimes food!"

How many points do you need to drop chaos marines by in order to make the fight even?

That's .... worse than I thought ...

Pretty bleak if that's how it comes out. Hopefully CSM DO get some additional buffs ...

Tycho wrote:

How many points do you need to drop chaos marines by in order to make the fight even?

That's .... worse than I thought ...

Pretty bleak if that's how it comes out. Hopefully CSM DO get some additional buffs ...

Yeah, they're pretty bad in every incarnation of that model it seems...

I got completely tabled in Kill team twice in a row with an all chaos marine team the last time I played. Gonna have to count some dudes as possessed or Berzerkers or something.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.

Not everything is about killing power.

No? So is it about durability? Mobility? Access to weapon options? Access to support units?

Or do you not have a scenario in which unit A is better than unit B at anything so you'll just say "nuh uh" and gesture vaguely?

God, I can't believe I ever used to respect your opinion as someone to listen to on this hellsite.

I have no personal part in your quarrel with Daedalus81, but I had to chime in after reading this last bit;

I have been away from dakkadakka for quite some time (partly because low interest in 40k during the last year, but also because I got tired of the general mentality of a lot of forum members here. I blame Warseer shutting down on that last part. Seems most of the whiners found their way here.) so I have no distinct knowledge or remembrance of most of the users here, but you have in the short time I've been back established yourself as "that guy who feels compelled to whine about how bad his gretchin has become, over and over", and now I see you type this.

Have you ever considered that this forum is a "hellsite" due to the rampart negativity and pessimism spread by its own members; negativity and pessimism that you yourself help to spread right now in this very thread?

Anyway, this topic is essentially a circlejerk in complaints about 9th, an edition which I actually already like and consider a step-up from 8th in almost every way.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 4 test-games I had this weekend, but just reading this topic caused me to doubt myself whether I like 9th or not...
So I'm basically gonna scoot before I get dragged down in the cesspool of negativity where (sadly, genuinely so) so many forum members who have decided that they hate 9th before it's even officially released already are.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Not everything is about killing power.

You might have a point if GW didn't just end up reducing granularity (the opposite of what certain people said when it came to the across-the-board points cost rise) and put the min unit cost to 5 points.

Would I love it if they doubled points and gave some actual granularity at the bottom? Sure. Do I think it drastically change the game? No, I don't.

Do I think CSM are worth 14? When I look at Primaris, no. Do I think CSM at 14 with access to cheaper heavy weapons are worthwhile? They might be. (Not much really changed here except the cost of weapons)

We really need the codexes to go back to individual points costs for individual datasheets. It blindingly obvious that having the same gun on a unit that can only take one of them with no special abilities isn't as effective as one that can do something like infiltrate or that has a greater movement speed.

Also apologies for double posting, the mobile site isn't letting me copy/paste this quote into my previous post.

I never said anything about killing power, but i think others have picked this up adequately.

Tycho wrote:

How many points do you need to drop chaos marines by in order to make the fight even?

That's .... worse than I thought ...

Pretty bleak if that's how it comes out. Hopefully CSM DO get some additional buffs ...

Not happening. Not until a codex. What GW does between now and then I have no idea. Are they going to point CSM down again later and then back up when (if) they get traits? I think that would be viewed by the forum as a move to "get people to buy more CSM and then to nerf them after they meet the sales target". It seems more likely that we'll just have to run them as-is and find their niche.

10 CSM per 7 Intercessors.

20 * .666 * .5 * .333 = 2.2
14 * .666 * .5 * .5 = 2.3

It's just that CSM lose shots twice as fast.

If you have a PG and one less CSM in RF range?

16 * .666 * .5 * .333 = 1.8
2 * .666 * .833 * .833 * 2 = 1.8
3.6

Now the Primaris are closer to losing models at the same rate as the CSM, but CSM have to be much closer.

The missions and table size make longer ranges less special so CSM might be useful in that context. Who knows.

Nonono, you don't get to backpedal on this garbage take you've been spewing for years now Martel.

YOU have continually argued that Guard punch above their weight class for being "just bodies on the field".

So which is it? Are they just bodies on the field or are they a viable unit that is expected to have kill power?

I have definitely seen Scotsman saying positive things about 9th, it's not all whining, all the time. He, like others, has identified 9th as being the MSU/anti-horde edition, and that's not really that controversial of a thing to say.

The frustration that you're seeing today is a result of these new points/FAQs that seem wildly out of whack with the actual state of the game. Unless in your 9th practicing, you used the new points (which I'm sure you didn't unless you're a reviewer/playtester), your point is moot. The points craziness is really where the wheels are falling off here. I was pretty optimistic about 9th too until I woke up to this crazy state of things. I don't blame anybody getting angry about it today.

Just relax, they'll fix all the pt values in CA 2021.

ccs wrote:
Just relax, they'll fix all the pt values in CA 2021.

So everyone else gets to enjoy getting tabled by indomitous marines and Custodes, GK and TS for the next year.

Ice_can wrote:

ccs wrote:
Just relax, they'll fix all the pt values in CA 2021.

So everyone else gets to enjoy getting tabled by indomitous marines and Custodes, GK and TS for the next year.

Except of you just got squatted or play non marines.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Prove they're not.

You are the one who has continually argued that Guardsmen aren't taken for their offensive abilities but rather their ability to simply be a body on the board.

By your logic, they priced them the same as the Grots--another unit taken "to simply be a body on the board".

Toodles.

Well, let's compare them defensively first.

GROTS: Toughness 2, SV 6+
GUARD: Toughness 3, SV 5+

RIght off th bat, a huge difference. Bolters wound Guardsmen on a 3+ but Grots on a 2+. 1/3rd of Guard survive those hits, 1/6ths of grots.

So that's a pretty big difference off the bat. If this, and only this, was different, Guardsmen should be more expensive than a Grot by a bit.

Offense:
GROTS: BS 4+, Str 3, AP -, Range 12"
GUARD: BS 4+, Str 3, AP -, Range 24" (2 shots at 12")

Offensively, at the very least you see effectively double the shot count (10 Grotshots at 12" vs 19 Guardshot at 12") (no Grotshot at 13-24, 9 Guardshot at 13-24)

So Guard should be more expensive by a fair amount.

Heck, Guard are even better in *melee* than a Grot!

You also have better leadership on Guard, which makes them more survivable, and more movement, which is vital for taking objectives, perhaps the most important aspect of bodies on the field.

For now, we're setting aside other factors, like Orders (guard only) or faction bonuses (Guard get them, Grots don't) or Strategems, which have their own cost.

It's impossible to say that Guard and Grots should be the same cost when measured fairly. They just aren't.

I'm not saying that grots are overpriced, but I *am* saying that, comparatively, Guardsmen are criminally undercosted. A fair run would see them closer to 8 points a model, on par with Boys, while Conscripts would be more aligned with Grots in terms of ability and points, while veterans would be lined up with the more specialized boys, like Kommandos or Tankbustas. (That one's more open-ended, so would need a whole comparison in and of itself.)

But to put ten Grots and ten Guardsmen, side by side, and say that they're of equal value is just madness. Guardsmen need to at least be 8 to get parity with boys.

Lines up MUCH better then. T 4 and SV 6+ vs T 3 and SV 5+ gives you similar resiliency, firepower between Shootaboys (2 shots at 8", BS 5+ and Guardsmen (2 shots at 1-12", 1 shot at 13-18", BS 4+) is comparable in that a 5+ hit and 4+ wound (v Marine) is the same as a 4+hit 5+ wound, with the small difference at 13-18 and 19-24 being roughly equal. Guardsmen are faster, essential in a game about objectives, but Shootaboys are better in melee, so there's a tradeoff there.

But you just can't say that Grots are equal to Guard with a straight face. They're simply not on the same level.

I cannot believe, and I am being genuine here, that a grown man is complaining at point increases to a unit, that he decided to build an army out of, knowing full well it would be trash from the beginning.... That's your self created problem, not many other peoples, wear it.

I think the problem is, if this had just been a quick point update included in either the core rules or a free FAQ that was less concerned about balancing the factions and more about simply updating the points for 9th and realise the idea of smaller armies, there would be a lot less salt.

But since this is the new Chapter Approved, with which we'll be stuck with for another year, and it has done little to help problem factions back up (and in some instances has made things WORSE) it just serves to rub salt in the wound even more.

Ice_can wrote:

ccs wrote:
Just relax, they'll fix all the pt values in CA 2021.

So everyone else gets to enjoy getting tabled by indomitous marines and Custodes, GK and TS for the next year.

Why will TS be tabling people?

But he's about to say just that. So he can be justified in fielding hordes of undercosted models.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

ccs wrote:
Just relax, they'll fix all the pt values in CA 2021.

So everyone else gets to enjoy getting tabled by indomitous marines and Custodes, GK and TS for the next year.

Why will TS be tabling people?

Smite spam for days, as apparently they can cast it as many times per caster as they want.
Also they apparently took lighter points increases than many other armies.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Spoiler:

 MinscS2 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.

Not everything is about killing power.

No? So is it about durability? Mobility? Access to weapon options? Access to support units?

Or do you not have a scenario in which unit A is better than unit B at anything so you'll just say "nuh uh" and gesture vaguely?

God, I can't believe I ever used to respect your opinion as someone to listen to on this hellsite.

I have no personal part in your quarrel with Daedalus81, but I had to chime in after reading this last bit;

I have been away from dakkadakka for quite some time (partly because low interest in 40k during the last year, but also because I got tired of the general mentality of a lot of forum members here. I blame Warseer shutting down on that last part. Seems most of the whiners found their way here.) so I have no distinct knowledge or remembrance of most of the users here, but you have in the short time I've been back established yourself as "that guy who feels compelled to whine about how bad his gretchin has become, over and over", and now I see you type this.

Have you ever considered that this forum is a "hellsite" due to the rampart negativity and pessimism spread by its own members; negativity and pessimism that you yourself help to spread right now in this very thread?

Anyway, this topic is essentially a circlejerk in complaints about 9th, an edition which I actually already like and consider a step-up from 8th in almost every way.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 4 test-games I had this weekend, but just reading this topic caused me to doubt myself whether I like 9th or not...
So I'm basically gonna scoot before I get dragged down in the cesspool of negativity where (sadly, genuinely so) so many forum members who have decided that they hate 9th before it's even officially released already are.

I have definitely seen Scotsman saying positive things about 9th, it's not all whining, all the time. He, like others, has identified 9th as being the MSU/anti-horde edition, and that's not really that controversial of a thing to say.

The frustration that you're seeing today is a result of these new points/FAQs that seem wildly out of whack with the actual state of the game. Unless in your 9th practicing, you used the new points (which I'm sure you didn't unless you're a reviewer/playtester), your point is moot. The points craziness is really where the wheels are falling off here. I was pretty optimistic about 9th too until I woke up to this crazy state of things. I don't blame anybody getting angry about it today.

MSU? Anti-Horde? Neither of those things are true. As far as I can tell. Where is the thread for this?

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Spoiler:

 MinscS2 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Grots costing the same as guardsmen is prima facie absurd. The burden lies with the guard players who support this to prove that these units are equivalent across many games.

Not everything is about killing power.

No? So is it about durability? Mobility? Access to weapon options? Access to support units?

Or do you not have a scenario in which unit A is better than unit B at anything so you'll just say "nuh uh" and gesture vaguely?

God, I can't believe I ever used to respect your opinion as someone to listen to on this hellsite.

I have no personal part in your quarrel with Daedalus81, but I had to chime in after reading this last bit;

I have been away from dakkadakka for quite some time (partly because low interest in 40k during the last year, but also because I got tired of the general mentality of a lot of forum members here. I blame Warseer shutting down on that last part. Seems most of the whiners found their way here.) so I have no distinct knowledge or remembrance of most of the users here, but you have in the short time I've been back established yourself as "that guy who feels compelled to whine about how bad his gretchin has become, over and over", and now I see you type this.

Have you ever considered that this forum is a "hellsite" due to the rampart negativity and pessimism spread by its own members; negativity and pessimism that you yourself help to spread right now in this very thread?

Anyway, this topic is essentially a circlejerk in complaints about 9th, an edition which I actually already like and consider a step-up from 8th in almost every way.
I thoroughly enjoyed the 4 test-games I had this weekend, but just reading this topic caused me to doubt myself whether I like 9th or not...
So I'm basically gonna scoot before I get dragged down in the cesspool of negativity where (sadly, genuinely so) so many forum members who have decided that they hate 9th before it's even officially released already are.

I have definitely seen Scotsman saying positive things about 9th, it's not all whining, all the time. He, like others, has identified 9th as being the MSU/anti-horde edition, and that's not really that controversial of a thing to say.

The frustration that you're seeing today is a result of these new points/FAQs that seem wildly out of whack with the actual state of the game. Unless in your 9th practicing, you used the new points (which I'm sure you didn't unless you're a reviewer/playtester), your point is moot. The points craziness is really where the wheels are falling off here. I was pretty optimistic about 9th too until I woke up to this crazy state of things. I don't blame anybody getting angry about it today.

MSU? Anti-Horde? Neither of those things are true. As far as I can tell. Where is the thread for this?

Ah, I can see by your oblivious nature to this statement that you have not been visiting the 9th edition thread in news and rumours. You are a wise man.

Ice_can wrote:

Smite spam for days, as apparently they can cast it as many times per caster as they want.
Also they apparently took lighter points increases than many other armies.

I do quite enjoy the smiting, but it will be harder than it was before to get big smites into a list. Shamans might become quite popular again, but then it is a lot harder to keep characters safe.