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.

 Jidmah wrote:
I don't think anyone would be complaining if they were.

Uh, I would be.

gakky infantry that gets scooped off the table if a min intercessor squad so much as exists on the same table as them has no business being 7-8ppm, it's just fething asinine.

Like seriously, people think that two guardsmen are gonna be worth a W2 tactical marine? or that 3 guardsmen = an intercessor?

Right after we just finished changing the game so that in order to score an objective, you have to last through your entire opponent's turn without dialing back 8th edition's "three turn tablings are reasonably common and not unheard of at all" lethality? And after we added the whole "oh, and just in case 8th ed wasn't deadly enough here's blasts, and new unit coherency so if you're ever out of coherency with 2 other squad members you instantly die. oh, and no overwatch anymore. Oh, and we're going to delicately go through the marine codex with an artisanal comb and make sure we buff every weapon somehow, then just toss that out to the whole game and say feth balance lets see how this goes."

GEQ squads have the life expectancy of a bleeding chicken thrown into a piranha tank. Just because a couple of units were spared the additional ravaging of the 9th ed points update pass doesn't change that fact, it just means you lose 50 points instantly when a guardsman squad hits the table instead of losing 100 points instantly when eldar guardians hit the table.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I don't think anyone would be complaining if they were.

Uh, I would be.

gakky infantry that gets scooped off the table if a min intercessor squad so much as exists on the same table as them has no business being 7-8ppm, it's just fething asinine.

Like seriously, people think that two guardsmen are gonna be worth a W2 tactical marine? or that 3 guardsmen = an intercessor?

Right after we just finished changing the game so that in order to score an objective, you have to last through your entire opponent's turn without dialing back 8th edition's "three turn tablings are reasonably common and not unheard of at all" lethality? And after we added the whole "oh, and just in case 8th ed wasn't deadly enough here's blasts, and new unit coherency so if you're ever out of coherency with 2 other squad members you instantly die. oh, and no overwatch anymore. Oh, and we're going to delicately go through the marine codex with an artisanal comb and make sure we buff every weapon somehow, then just toss that out to the whole game and say feth balance lets see how this goes."

GEQ squads have the life expectancy of a bleeding chicken thrown into a piranha tank. Just because a couple of units were spared the additional ravaging of the 9th ed points update pass doesn't change that fact, it just means you lose 50 points instantly when a guardsman squad hits the table instead of losing 100 points instantly when eldar guardians hit the table.

Maybe the problem is the intercessors then, because most other armie's troops wont leafblow through guardsmen as fast as intercessors.

well the whole of SM 2.0 lineup aka traits ( bonus traits on top of normal traits on top of aditional traits), Auras, doctrines, kinda makes most of the sm units an issue comparatively to any other unit that has not access to such stacking effects...

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I don't think anyone would be complaining if they were.

Uh, I would be.

gakky infantry that gets scooped off the table if a min intercessor squad so much as exists on the same table as them has no business being 7-8ppm, it's just fething asinine.

Like seriously, people think that two guardsmen are gonna be worth a W2 tactical marine? or that 3 guardsmen = an intercessor?

Right after we just finished changing the game so that in order to score an objective, you have to last through your entire opponent's turn without dialing back 8th edition's "three turn tablings are reasonably common and not unheard of at all" lethality? And after we added the whole "oh, and just in case 8th ed wasn't deadly enough here's blasts, and new unit coherency so if you're ever out of coherency with 2 other squad members you instantly die. oh, and no overwatch anymore. Oh, and we're going to delicately go through the marine codex with an artisanal comb and make sure we buff every weapon somehow, then just toss that out to the whole game and say feth balance lets see how this goes."

GEQ squads have the life expectancy of a bleeding chicken thrown into a piranha tank. Just because a couple of units were spared the additional ravaging of the 9th ed points update pass doesn't change that fact, it just means you lose 50 points instantly when a guardsman squad hits the table instead of losing 100 points instantly when eldar guardians hit the table.

Maybe the problem is the intercessors then, because most other armie's troops wont leafblow through guardsmen as fast as intercessors.

General lethality as a percentage of your points value increased greatly between 7th and 8th and the value of defense that you gained through cover has steadily decreased.

The value of cover for Infantry specifically increased *slightly* from 8th to 9th, because it is now possible to claim cover by model again and theoretically it is possible to claim both -1 to hit cover and +1sv cover, but the value of cover has decreased for everything else because +1sv cover no longer exists for anything but infantry beasts and swarms.

Playing a game of 5th vs a game of 9th makes the general discrepancy instantly obvious. 5th ed armies show up with fewer models, and end the game with VASTLY more models on the table compared to 9th ed/8th ed armies.

This didn't matter as much for scoring in 8th as opposed to 9th because scoring didn't rely on you surviving until the end of the next turn. now that this is absolutely critical to winning the game, there is a threshold over which your durability must lie in order to be a useful scoring unit, and not even a guardsman squad+a chimera appears to fall over that threshold.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
Maybe the problem is the intercessors then, because most other armie's troops wont leafblow through guardsmen as fast as intercessors.

I think its pretty clear marines are a problem.

But guard have their problems too - and its hard to say "nerf this" when in real games guard seem to be doing terribly.
If spamming undercosted guardsmen worked I think someone would have had a tournament run with them by now. Making guardsmen 6 or even 7 or 8 (...) points might make you feel better about your overcosted grots or guardians etc (and ecstatic about boyz) but its not helping you against the armies you'll actually face.

Hopefully a December CA, being drafted in the light of the codexes to come, will give a more general faction balance approach. Can't really bet on it at the moment though.

 Jidmah wrote:
I don't think anyone would be complaining if they were.

Guard players would. But they're far closer to Boys than Grots. Termaguants should probably be 6 if Guard are 7 if Boys are 8.

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I don't think anyone would be complaining if they were.

Guard players would. But they're far closer to Boys than Grots. Termaguants should probably be 6 if Guard are 7 if Boys are 8.

you could switch guard and cultist prices around, that'd allready be a better situation
.

There is no way an Ork boy is worth just 1 point more than a guardsman.

Has any one seen playtesting of a skew horde list? Like little to no care of killing or interacting with the opponent, in a 2250 lists some armies can easily fit 300+ models on to a 6x4 table, and not all armies can shift or out score 200-150 models in 5 turns, specialy if dense terrain means less interaction on turn 1.

Tyel wrote:
There is no way an Ork boy is worth just 1 point more than a guardsman.

Breton wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I don't think anyone would be complaining if they were.

Guard players would. But they're far closer to Boys than Grots.

See.

+1BS -1WS, +1T -1AS Assault 2 18" is a wash with Rapid Fire 1 24" Most of the stat-line changes wash.

Karol wrote:
Has any one seen playtesting of a skew horde list? Like little to no care of killing or interacting with the opponent, in a 2250 lists some armies can easily fit 300+ models on to a 6x4 table, and not all armies can shift or out score 200-150 models in 5 turns, specialy if dense terrain means less interaction on turn 1.

The big problem is that the mission set-up in 9th doesn't actually favour just sitting on objectives as much as some people in this thread seem to believe. What you really need is enough staying power to hold objectives with enough offensive power to remove enemies from objectives. Having a whole bunch of Grots standing on objectives will get you maybe 5 points more than your opponent for the primary mission each turn but will likely struggle at most of the secondaries and therefore quickly fall behind, especially if they have one bad turn where they can't get ahead on the primary scoring.

In short, a pure horde of something like Grots is a skew list that doesn't actually succeed in skewing the game in its favour.

Karol wrote:
Has any one seen playtesting of a skew horde list? Like little to no care of killing or interacting with the opponent, in a 2250 lists some armies can easily fit 300+ models on to a 6x4 table, and not all armies can shift or out score 200-150 models in 5 turns, specialy if dense terrain means less interaction on turn 1.

Yes, though I don't know why you'd go for a "2250" point list instead of the tournament standard 2k.

It's pretty laughably easy to beat a massive scoring horde style list in 9th with a decent tac list unless it's made up of a few select, good units like Orks (with proper defensive support) and nurgle daemons.

Pretty much any other horde skew you go up against you can beat up on incredibly easily with typical marine/custode/harlequin TAC list setups.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slipspace wrote:

Karol wrote:
Has any one seen playtesting of a skew horde list? Like little to no care of killing or interacting with the opponent, in a 2250 lists some armies can easily fit 300+ models on to a 6x4 table, and not all armies can shift or out score 200-150 models in 5 turns, specialy if dense terrain means less interaction on turn 1.

The big problem is that the mission set-up in 9th doesn't actually favour just sitting on objectives as much as some people in this thread seem to believe. What you really need is enough staying power to hold objectives with enough offensive power to remove enemies from objectives. Having a whole bunch of Grots standing on objectives will get you maybe 5 points more than your opponent for the primary mission each turn but will likely struggle at most of the secondaries and therefore quickly fall behind, especially if they have one bad turn where they can't get ahead on the primary scoring.

In short, a pure horde of something like Grots is a skew list that doesn't actually succeed in skewing the game in its favour.

^This. And you probably won't get much of a lead on primaries, because in most missions it's pretty simple for your opponent to deny you the opportunity to score by killing the units attempting actions or the ones who can actually get within 3" of objectives.

The few types of setups you can do it with are the ones that can both get on the board quickly and can claim objectives by charging in and killing stuff with melee.

Example with Nurgle Daemons: You deploy with nurglings already sitting on several objectives. Your opponents have to move them off before getting objectives. Then, you take your more killy plaguebearers+support and get them up the board to reinforce the nurglings as a second wave, and typically the game is centered around reclaiming the objectives your opponents grab from nurglings.

This doesn't work with, say, cultists, because for 2ppm less than a plaguebearer you have T3 instead of T4, 6+sv instead of 5++, and no FNP as opposed to 5+fnp. The plaguebearers are over 2x as durable for the points. But, in exchange for that, the cultists also are slower to get on objectives, do less damage in melee, and don't have as good support options.

Karol wrote:
Has any one seen playtesting of a skew horde list? Like little to no care of killing or interacting with the opponent, in a 2250 lists some armies can easily fit 300+ models on to a 6x4 table, and not all armies can shift or out score 200-150 models in 5 turns, specialy if dense terrain means less interaction on turn 1.

One of the ork players i play against basically always plays horde and pretty much always loses. Sure, i won't table them but i don't need to. I only need to kill enough models so they don't hold objectives through my turn.

Breton wrote:
See.

+1BS -1WS, +1T -1AS Assault 2 18" is a wash with Rapid Fire 1 24" Most of the stat-line changes wash.

Okay - Ork at 8 points, guardsman at 7 points. Ork takes a shoota (you probably wouldn't but for sake of comparison).

Shooting intercessors.
Ork: 2*1/3*7/6*/1/2*1/3*10/8=16.2%
Guardsman: 2*1/2*1/3*1/3*10/7=15.87%.

Punching intercessors.
Ork: 2*2/3*1/2*1/3*10/8=27.77%. Or 41.66% if there are 20+ in the mob.
Guardsman: 1*1/2*1/3*1/3*10/7=7.94%.

Intercessor shooting back:
Ork: 2*2/3*1/2*8/20=26.666%.
Guardsman: 2*2/3*2/3*5/6*7/20=25.9%.

On a heads up comparison.
Ork->guardsmen shooting: 2*1/3*7/6*2/3*2/3*7/8=30.24%.
Guardsman->Ork shooting: 2*1/2*1/3*5/6*8/7=31.74%.

So in conclusion, your 7 point guardsmen are about as tough and shoot about as well as 8 point orks, but the orks does 3.5-5 times as much damage in assault. Which seems like something worth having.
(Also, because it will come up, Guardsmen sergeants only have las pistols, woe, thrice woe etc.)
I guess you'd wave away reroll charges and morale boosts on the grounds that Guardsmen can get orders - but then while orders are good, they are limited, especially if you want to spam guardsmen squads. Orks can get character boosts too.

Tyel wrote:
There is no way an Ork boy is worth just 1 point more than a guardsman.

Guardsmen are +1 movement, +1 BS and +1 Armor save they are -1WS, T, S, A. The Armor save pretty much washes the Increase in Toughness, So what you are left with is a cheap shooting infantry unit that can sit in cover and hold an area with a 24' gun that can be buffed in a number of ways by a similarly cheap HQ choice. In contrast Ork boyz are slower which is bad because since their area of expertise is in CC they want to be moving fast to use that +1 attack and Strength. Their shooting can not be buffed, however we have a plethora of ways to boost their CC abilities, +1 to hit, attack rerolls etc. But none of that is useful if you don't get into CC with your opponent where as the guardsmen is happy to plink away all game long.

Are orkz worth only a single point more than guardsmen? yep. Between 4th and 9th ork boyz have gone up from 6pts to 8pts and gained 1 Strength and lost 1 movement. Keep in mind boyz used to be +1 strength on the charge anyways. In 8th we also gained access to Klan Kultures but at the same time Guardsmen gained access to regiments so its a wash.

What am I missing here? Because from what I can see, boyz should be +1pt more than guardsmen and we are currently 3pts more.

SemperMortis wrote:

Tyel wrote:
There is no way an Ork boy is worth just 1 point more than a guardsman.

Guardsmen are +1 movement, +1 BS and +1 Armor save they are -1WS, T, S, A. The Armor save pretty much washes the Increase in Toughness, So what you are left with is a cheap shooting infantry unit that can sit in cover and hold an area with a 24' gun that can be buffed in a number of ways by a similarly cheap HQ choice. In contrast Ork boyz are slower which is bad because since their area of expertise is in CC they want to be moving fast to use that +1 attack and Strength. Their shooting can not be buffed, however we have a plethora of ways to boost their CC abilities, +1 to hit, attack rerolls etc. But none of that is useful if you don't get into CC with your opponent where as the guardsmen is happy to plink away all game long.

Are orkz worth only a single point more than guardsmen? yep. Between 4th and 9th ork boyz have gone up from 6pts to 8pts and gained 1 Strength and lost 1 movement. Keep in mind boyz used to be +1 strength on the charge anyways. In 8th we also gained access to Klan Kultures but at the same time Guardsmen gained access to regiments so its a wash.

What am I missing here? Because from what I can see, boyz should be +1pt more than guardsmen and we are currently 3pts more.

From the analysis above: 3.5x-5x the damage in assault, pound for pound, plus a built-in morale immunity when you get up toward the (higher) squad cap.

Squad cap is absolutely a factor in the power of a unit, and I can't for the life of me figure out why nobody can understand that when they'll happily bitch about the power of some deathstar unit or another benefitting from a stratagem, a psychic power, etc, etc. Why is a conscript the same points as a guardsman? Well gwarsh I dunno maybe because you can have 30 of them? And that was exactly the problem with them when they were the meta choice?

Ork boyz are 3ppm more than guardsmen currently.

And there's a reason you're seeing lists featuring Ork Boyz in competitive events...and NOT lists featuring guardsmen.

Boyz are vastly better at playing the 9th ed game.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I think that's just conscripts.

conscripts still have better SV then cultists and traits, which makes cultists at 6 ppm even more memeworthy.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I think that's just conscripts.

Conscripts and Guardsmen are still the same price

i mean the granularity is better now, considering that in 8th we also had militia and mutants share the same pts then them ....

Except that cultists are in a completely different army from guardsmen where they actually have a different role. Point by point comparisons between different armies are actually difficult because units don't exist in a vacuum, they exist in their own army. And I would dare say that a geq is more valuable to a meq army than to others, if only because they have more use for a unit providing cheap bodies.

Of course, in the current state of the game, light infantry doesn't matter all that much, no matter which codex they're from, but that has more to do with the absolutely insane killiness of the (by far) most popular army.

 Dolnikan wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I think that's just conscripts.

conscripts still have better SV then cultists and traits, which makes cultists at 6 ppm even more memeworthy.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I think that's just conscripts.

Conscripts and Guardsmen are still the same price

i mean the granularity is better now, considering that in 8th we also had militia and mutants share the same pts then them ....

Except that cultists are in a completely different army from guardsmen where they actually have a different role. Point by point comparisons between different armies are actually difficult because units don't exist in a vacuum, they exist in their own army. And I would dare say that a geq is more valuable to a meq army than to others, if only because they have more use for a unit providing cheap bodies.

Of course, in the current state of the game, light infantry doesn't matter all that much, no matter which codex they're from, but that has more to do with the absolutely insane killiness of the (by far) most popular army.

First underlined part:
Nope, same role, same job, not same statline. infact it is a hybrid between conscripts and guardsmen, which both full fill the same job.

Second underlined part:
Cultists DO exist in a vacuum, not perfectly but more so then any other unit in this game. they virtually have NO integration into most legions anymore, due to lacking traits or beeing specifically excluded from stratagems.

Bold part:$
That is why we saw at the end of 8th cultists not actually beeing tob choice anymore, or why in 9th they are so overpriced comparatively that it is a better option to pick a csm squad at this stage.

Tyel wrote:
There is no way an Ork boy is worth just 1 point more than a guardsman.

They're basically on par, and actually guardsmen get a lot of easy but powerful buffs from characters and AM rules. Orks only get morale buffs from the boss and some bonus in combat basically, buffing boyz is utterly expensive point wise.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:


And there's a reason you're seeing lists featuring Ork Boyz in competitive events...and NOT lists featuring guardsmen.

Boyz are vastly better at playing the 9th ed game.

Ork boyz in competitive events are present mostly in Ghaz's lists. Because Ghaz is competitive, not the boyz.

All AM tournament lists have guardsmen, not all orks ones have boyz and some of those have just the bare minimum to be legal and avoid losing CPs.

Orks are probably better at playing the 9th than AM since the latter is one dimensional and this edition punishes lists with their tipycal style of playing, but it's not true that boyz are superior to guardsmen.

 Blackie wrote:
They're basically on par, and actually guardsmen get a lot of easy but powerful buffs from characters and AM rules. Orks only get morale buffs from the boss and some bonus in combat basically, buffing boyz is utterly expensive point wise.

At 8 points each, Orks are more resilient to damage from S3 and S4, shoot better and do massively more damage in assault.
You can takes in blobs of 30, have a considerable boost to dealing with morale issues and reroll charges which is nice.

Guard are good at 5 points. I think they should be 6 for some notional comparative balancing - or almost all the other various 1 wound troops should come down. I think Boyz should be 7 again. etc.
But this is on the basis that IG need buffs. Which I'm loathe to do, because 8th edition, and soup, but that's the reality they are in now.

Tyel wrote:


At 8 points each, Orks are more resilient to damage from S3 and S4, shoot better and do massively more damage in assault.
You can takes in blobs of 30, have a considerable boost to dealing with morale issues and reroll charges which is nice.

Guard are good at 5 points. I think they should be 6 for some notional comparative balancing - or almost all the other various 1 wound troops should come down. I think Boyz should be 7 again. etc.
But this is on the basis that IG need buffs. Which I'm loathe to do, because 8th edition, and soup, but that's the reality they are in now.

Guardsmen and Ork boyz are almost exactly equivalent to dmg resistance. a S4 shot against a guardsmen wounds on 3s but the guardsmen has a 5+ save. So 12 shots ends with 8 wounds and 5.3 damage. Against Orkz its 12 shots ends with 6 wounds and 5 damage Not exactly ground breaking difference. Against S3 shots 12 shots is 6 wounds and 4 damage and against orkz its 4 wounds and 3.33 dmg. Of course that also ignores the fact that boyz like to be advancing to use their CC prowess better and as such tend not to benefit from cover much if at all. Where as its fairly easy to plop 10 guardsmen in a terrain feature and enjoy either -1 to hit, +1 armor or both.

Regardless, you are correct, boyz are more durable....slightly.

5 guardsmen at 5ppm are 25pts about equivalent to 3 ork boyz 24pts.

19-24' guardsmen get 5 shots for 2.5 hits and against T4 that is .83 wounds
Orkz can't shoot, out of range.

13-18' guard get 5 shots for 2.5 hits and .83 wounds
Orkz get 6 shots for 2.33 hits and 1.16 wound.

0-12' Guard get 10 shots for 5 hits and 1.63 wounds
Orkz get 6 shots 2.33 hits and 1.16 wounds.

So, even without adding in buffs guard are better at shooting in all scenarios except for 13-18' range, and even then the difference is marginal. Orkz have zero ways to buff this outside of Kultures (reroll 1s or freeboota +1 to hit if you kill something) Guard have easy access to PC and CC's which can double their rate of fire or make them more effective against certain targets.

In CC those same guardsmen get 5 attacks for 2.5 hits and gain .83 wounds
Those Orkz get 6 attacks for 4 hits and 2 wounds. So significantly better.

The major difference? to actually use those better CC attacks the orkz have to get into assault range which isn't as easy to do as people make it out to be.

So for damage potential I think orkz are better than guard, but not by 3ppm, maybe 1.

Tyel wrote:


At 8 points each, Orks are more resilient to damage from S3 and S4, shoot better and do massively more damage in assault.
You can takes in blobs of 30, have a considerable boost to dealing with morale issues and reroll charges which is nice.

They actually are equally resilient, T4 and 6+ isn't very different to T3 and 5+. Boyz can take blobs of 30? Sure, but guardsmen work in cheap squad of 10, while boyz can't be both cheap and effective. You either invest tons of points on them by bringing max squads or giving them transports or you'll end up with pure tax. 3x10 guardsmen still have their purpose.

Close combat is also in favor of boyz but tipycally they'll fight 1-3 turns in the entire game as they need to be in combat, while guardsmen could fire since turn 1 and double tap for dirty cheap. Boyz melee is really lackluster unless we're talking about massive investments of points.

Being the same price or with a difference of 1ppm sounds about right, 5 vs 8 (with kabalite warriors at 9, and crappy gretchins also 5) is clearly imbalanced.

 Blackie wrote:

Tyel wrote:
There is no way an Ork boy is worth just 1 point more than a guardsman.

They're basically on par, and actually guardsmen get a lot of easy but powerful buffs from characters and AM rules. Orks only get morale buffs from the boss and some bonus in combat basically, buffing boyz is utterly expensive point wise.

Boys have their buffs on the boys. Guardsmen have their buffs on a different unit. That’s not insignificant. Guard are better than grits by way more than boys are better than guardsmen. 5 grots, 6 gaunts, 7 guards, 8 boys feels prettty fair.

You seem to not be aware that dipping into those additional buffs usually requires bring 240 points of boyz that are extremely likely not never fight even once during a game.

How likely are guardsmen to never shoot even once?

But yes, I agree that 5 grots, 6 gaunts, 7 guards, 8 boys seems fair in a vacuum.

In general, I'm not a huge fan of comparing units across codices. There is so much to factor in, like synergies with other units, detachment traits, stratagems, transports, weapon options, available support characters or utility and what not. It's night impossible to compare all that directly.

5 points might be the correct point value for guard even if other codices pay more for objectively worse units. However, I'm certain that, in the context of the ork codex, gretchin are not worth 5 points.

SemperMortis wrote:
Regardless, you are correct, boyz are more durable....slightly.

5 guardsmen at 5ppm are 25pts about equivalent to 3 ork boyz 24pts.

19-24' guardsmen get 5 shots for 2.5 hits and against T4 that is .83 wounds
Orkz can't shoot, out of range.

13-18' guard get 5 shots for 2.5 hits and .83 wounds
Orkz get 6 shots for 2.33 hits and 1.16 wound.

0-12' Guard get 10 shots for 5 hits and 1.63 wounds
Orkz get 6 shots 2.33 hits and 1.16 wounds.

So, even without adding in buffs guard are better at shooting in all scenarios except for 13-18' range, and even then the difference is marginal. Orkz have zero ways to buff this outside of Kultures (reroll 1s or freeboota +1 to hit if you kill something) Guard have easy access to PC and CC's which can double their rate of fire or make them more effective against certain targets.

Yes, but do the same numbers if Guardsmen are 7 or 8 points. At 8 points the Ork shoots better and takes less damage. At 7 its about break even. In both scenarios the Ork get their significant bonus to assault - except in this case they'd be getting it for free.

30 model blob, in a system that prefers MSU, is hardly free imo.

Personally i still think Guardsmen should get to 6 ppm in order to make conscripts something that doesn't look as no brain no choice, but that enters wishfull territory.

Not Online!!! wrote:
30 model blob, in a system that prefers MSU, is hardly free imo.

Personally i still think Guardsmen should get to 6 ppm in order to make conscripts something that doesn't look as no brain no choice, but that enters wishfull territory.

God, this is silly. Especially when I get accused of hyperbolically defending orks, lol.

The system does not prefer MSU in 9th. At least, not the primary objective. The addition of the requirement to survive a full turn means unless you have the wounds to survive enough firepower that you're at least inconvenient to target, you're just dead weight.

In addition, scoring at the start means that most of the time the only way to leverage obsec is through the assault phase: Charging in to something that is on an objective and probably not even being able to kill what's on the objective completely, but having enough durability to survive its swings for 2 turns.

There's a reason that light, shooting-based obsec infantry is basically irrelevant at this point. Nobody takes Skitarii, Cultists, Fire Warriors, Guardians, Kabalites, etc. That includes guardsmen too, though the result of that is more that guard is essentially nonexistent in the meta and has a terrible winrate where they do exist.

the reason guardsmen seem silly in comparison to gretchins, cultists, guardians, kabalites, etc is because guardsmen are actually priced properly for what they do. of COURSE a Guardian is not worth two friggin guardsmen, but that's because someone playtested guard for 9th and you can't playtest guard without a ton of guardsmen, and they said "Hey uh, this formula you applied to all the infantry game is busted, I feel like I'm playing against 3000 points when I pit these dudes against space marines" and GW went and adjusted the point costs of only guardsmen down.

I'm guessing people weren't testing huge legions of skitarii, or fire warriors, or kabalites in their games.

 Jidmah wrote:
You seem to not be aware that dipping into those additional buffs usually requires bring 240 points of boyz that are extremely likely not never fight even once during a game.

Ere We Go, Mob Rule, And DDD don’t show as needing 20-30 model mobs, just Green tide does. Even Green Tide is on the unit, not an additional buffing character. They work better, but don’t appear to require them.


And you said people weren’t going to complain about 7 point guardsmen

the_scotsman wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
30 model blob, in a system that prefers MSU, is hardly free imo.

Personally i still think Guardsmen should get to 6 ppm in order to make conscripts something that doesn't look as no brain no choice, but that enters wishfull territory.

God, this is silly. Especially when I get accused of hyperbolically defending orks, lol.

The system does not prefer MSU in 9th. At least, not the primary objective. The addition of the requirement to survive a full turn means unless you have the wounds to survive enough firepower that you're at least inconvenient to target, you're just dead weight.

In addition, scoring at the start means that most of the time the only way to leverage obsec is through the assault phase: Charging in to something that is on an objective and probably not even being able to kill what's on the objective completely, but having enough durability to survive its swings for 2 turns.

There's a reason that light, shooting-based obsec infantry is basically irrelevant at this point. Nobody takes Skitarii, Cultists, Fire Warriors, Guardians, Kabalites, etc. That includes guardsmen too, though the result of that is more that guard is essentially nonexistent in the meta and has a terrible winrate where they do exist.

the reason guardsmen seem silly in comparison to gretchins, cultists, guardians, kabalites, etc is because guardsmen are actually priced properly for what they do. of COURSE a Guardian is not worth two friggin guardsmen, but that's because someone playtested guard for 9th and you can't playtest guard without a ton of guardsmen, and they said "Hey uh, this formula you applied to all the infantry game is busted, I feel like I'm playing against 3000 points when I pit these dudes against space marines" and GW went and adjusted the point costs of only guardsmen down.

I'm guessing people weren't testing huge legions of skitarii, or fire warriors, or kabalites in their games.

it'd still say morale mechanics and terrain prefer MSU over Hordes, but also armored/ durable units over both.
It's why intercissors MSU are alot better then CSM MSU.


however i agree with your sentiment torwards light infantry, allbeit i'd include even light melee infanrty like horms

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I think that's just conscripts.

conscripts still have better SV then cultists and traits, which makes cultists at 6 ppm even more memeworthy.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I think that's just conscripts.

Conscripts and Guardsmen are still the same price

i mean the granularity is better now, considering that in 8th we also had militia and mutants share the same pts then them ....

Except that cultists are in a completely different army from guardsmen where they actually have a different role. Point by point comparisons between different armies are actually difficult because units don't exist in a vacuum, they exist in their own army. And I would dare say that a geq is more valuable to a meq army than to others, if only because they have more use for a unit providing cheap bodies.

Of course, in the current state of the game, light infantry doesn't matter all that much, no matter which codex they're from, but that has more to do with the absolutely insane killiness of the (by far) most popular army.

First underlined part:
Nope, same role, same job, not same statline. infact it is a hybrid between conscripts and guardsmen, which both full fill the same job.

Second underlined part:
Cultists DO exist in a vacuum, not perfectly but more so then any other unit in this game. they virtually have NO integration into most legions anymore, due to lacking traits or beeing specifically excluded from stratagems.

Bold part:$
That is why we saw at the end of 8th cultists not actually beeing tob choice anymore, or why in 9th they are so overpriced comparatively that it is a better option to pick a csm squad at this stage.

Cultists are a unit of cheap bodies and a screening unit for an elite army. That makes them completely different from guardsmen who form the core of a not at all elite army. So they both have a completely different context. That CSM currently don't work as a troops choice has nothing to do with that and is more because GW truly doesn't know what to do with them.