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.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Put simply:
Why not?

"Why shouldn't a light chest plate give the same 3+ save as full-body armor that is so heavy it needs power assist to allow the user to move."

Think about it.

I'd suggest you do the same.

Carapace Armour, as we've seen it, has most recently been portrayed as a full suit of armour.

 Kanluwen wrote:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Put simply:
Why not?

"Why shouldn't a light chest plate give the same 3+ save as full-body armor that is so heavy it needs power assist to allow the user to move."

Think about it.

I'd suggest you do the same.

Carapace Armour, as we've seen it, has most recently been portrayed as a full suit of armour.

It's still much lighter than power armor. Look at the current storm trooper kit: it has a breastplate (with a couple of small loose-fitting thigh plates attached), knee pads, shoulder pads, gauntlets, and an optional helmet. There's large sections of exposed flesh and the armor they do have is clearly thinner and lighter than power armor.

And that's the heaviest armor we see. The new kasrkin models look even lighter. DKoK grenadiers lose the gauntlets and back plate. Where exactly have you seen carapace armor that is comparable to power armor?

johnpjones1775 wrote:
why not? because you'd be taking an army thats intended to be squishy and rely largely on either numbers and vehicles and making them elite infantry.

GOOD! Kasrkin, Grenadiers, Scions, etc ARE Elite Infantry. They're the ones wearing bloody Carapace Armour.

if you want an army of 3+ saves that are normal humans play SoB or votann.

Does every single Guardsman have Carapace Armour?

No? Crazy right?

making carapace armor a 3+ save is ridiculous.

Not really. It's not like Carapace Armour is spread all over the Guard roster. It's on Scions and it will be on Kasrkin. That's a mighty two units rocking it.

if you want different saves for different kinds of infantry, and to have light scouts, then accept a 6+ save for no armor, 5+ for flak/regular armor, and 4+ for heavy/carapace.

Or I can accept none of your ideas. A Cadian Guardsman is similarly statted to a GSC Neophyte, who's wearing frigging work clothes and rocking the same save as Flak Armour.

That ain't right.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or I can accept none of your ideas. A Cadian Guardsman is similarly statted to a GSC Neophyte, who's wearing frigging work clothes and rocking the same save as Flak Armour.

So nerf neophyte armor to Sv - like it should be. Unless you're making the claim that their armor is their mutated bodies gaining tough hide or plates under their clothes, in which case a 5+ is fine.

Friendly PSA, Emphasis mine.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

Its very clear that Guard have not been in a good place for a VERY long time (I came in just after the halcyon days of 5th edition when guard had some teeth in them still but still reeling after . At the dawn of 8th there was some hope with conscripts and then again with Greater Good choose your own regiments. However nothing has been able to stick in a competitive scene. Which brings us this very quandary...how do we fix guard? Its a complex army that has some of the largest diversity in its builds and lists, going from all mech, all armor, all artillery, and all foot troops and everything in between. Balancing all of these factors will be quite a chore that will take planning, depth, and a strong dose of rules sensibility, which probably won't be happening ( a girl can dream can't she?). What does the guard need? Rebuilding from the ground up? A whole new kind of organization? Maybe simply point fixes? There are many ways to do it...

This thread wasn't about narrative play, or campaigns, or making the army more match the fluff. This thread was meant to discuss how to fix Guard in a way to give it a better standing in competitive play.

So how do we define the ability of Armor? To defend against attacks? Powered Armor, at least in the fluff has been shown countless times to be unable to defend against Claws, Acid, bullets, bolter rounds, Las Weapons, missiles, ACs, las cannons, titanic feet, and psyker missiles.

Carapace armor has been shown to be JUST AS effective, that is to say, NOT AT ALL EFFECTIVE. Make it all 3+, who cares. Everyone is toting Assault d12 AP5 6MWs on a miss, Powered fart bombs these days. Honestly, does the ARmor value ever even come into effect these days?

 Kanluwen wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
why not? because you'd be taking an army thats intended to be squishy and rely largely on either numbers and vehicles and making them elite infantry.

GOOD! Kasrkin, Grenadiers, Scions, etc ARE Elite Infantry. They're the ones wearing bloody Carapace Armour.

if you want an army of 3+ saves that are normal humans play SoB or votann.

Does every single Guardsman have Carapace Armour?

No? Crazy right?

making carapace armor a 3+ save is ridiculous.

Not really. It's not like Carapace Armour is spread all over the Guard roster. It's on Scions and it will be on Kasrkin. That's a mighty two units rocking it.

if you want different saves for different kinds of infantry, and to have light scouts, then accept a 6+ save for no armor, 5+ for flak/regular armor, and 4+ for heavy/carapace.

Or I can accept none of your ideas. A Cadian Guardsman is similarly statted to a GSC Neophyte, who's wearing frigging work clothes and rocking the same save as Flak Armour.

That ain't right.

Kasrkin and what not are elite for the guard yes. In that sense they’re elite relative to their faction, they’re not elite relative to other factions.They’re maybe as good as a normal sister of battle, but with lighter armor.
Carapace armor being 4+ makes perfect sense. It’s cheaper and easier to manufacture and use than power armor, but doesn’t give the same level of protection.
And the GSC units you mentioned also have the same save as a Catachan.

Do you know what flak armor is? It’s not a ballistic vest or anything of the sort. It’s only purpose is to protect the wearer from fragments of metal…

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So how do we define the ability of Armor? To defend against attacks? Powered Armor, at least in the fluff has been shown countless times to be unable to defend against Claws, Acid, bullets, bolter rounds, Las Weapons, missiles, ACs, las cannons, titanic feet, and psyker missiles.

Carapace armor has been shown to be JUST AS effective, that is to say, NOT AT ALL EFFECTIVE. Make it all 3+, who cares. Everyone is toting Assault d12 AP5 6MWs on a miss, Powered fart bombs these days. Honestly, does the ARmor value ever even come into effect these days?

Armor is currently so important that invulnerable saves are becoming quickly irrelevant, at least on everything with AoC, which is a huge number of models.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So how do we define the ability of Armor? To defend against attacks? Powered Armor, at least in the fluff has been shown countless times to be unable to defend against Claws, Acid, bullets, bolter rounds, Las Weapons, missiles, ACs, las cannons, titanic feet, and psyker missiles.

Carapace armor has been shown to be JUST AS effective, that is to say, NOT AT ALL EFFECTIVE. Make it all 3+, who cares. Everyone is toting Assault d12 AP5 6MWs on a miss, Powered fart bombs these days. Honestly, does the ARmor value ever even come into effect these days?

In the real world, armor isn't equally effective at all locations against shots from all angles, and from all ranges. Depending on how it's hit, 12" of WWII battleship armor can stop a 16" AP shell. Likewise a 16" AP shell can penetrate that exact same armor. How are both possible? It all depends on the angle of the hit and the kinetic energy of the shell. So just because we see fluff show two sets of armor shrugging off hits from the same weapon doesn't make them the same.

All that said, if all we care about is (balanced) competitiveness, it would be nice to give a slight boost to staying power for the guard. I always liked the idea of being able to buy carapace armor to get better armor way back when. You want to staying power, you'll have to pay for it. Not sure if it'd be worth 1 pt per model or not...if it isn't then maybe it could be something like 5 pts to upgrade the squad's armor. I also think the dig in mechanic mentioned earlier might be cool (although I'm not as enthusiastic about the pack up action).

Ya know what? Let’s just go ahead and make all armies the same stat wise.

Depending on what BL book and author you read there’s fluff to show every faction is equally good and powerful as any other.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Kasrkin and what not are elite for the guard yes. In that sense they’re elite relative to their faction, they’re not elite relative to other factions.They’re maybe as good as a normal sister of battle, but with lighter armor.

They're better than a "normal" Sister of Battle.

You're confusing simply having Power Armor as being good at something. Anyone can wear power armor, theoretically.

Carapace armor being 4+ makes perfect sense.

Not when compared to the other 4+ equivalent troops.

It’s cheaper and easier to manufacture and use than power armor, but doesn’t give the same level of protection.

Cool, so then put non-Astartes PA at 4+.

No Black Carapace, the armor's effectiveness is reduced significantly.

And the GSC units you mentioned also have the same save as a Catachan.

And a Vostroyan(a whole regiment that when introduced was given the CARAPACE ARMOR doctrine as a hallmark), Valhallan, Tanith, etc etc.

What's your point? That the Guard armor hasn't been looked at, in a serious manner, since the 3.5E Doctrines book?

They literally called out in the 3.5E book that going from "Flak Armor" to a "Flak Vest" reduces your armor save. End of story.

Do you know what flak armor is?

Do you?

It’s not a ballistic vest or anything of the sort. It’s only purpose is to protect the wearer from fragments of metal…

Flak armour consists of multiple layers of different ablative and impact absorbent materials designed primarily to deflect or absorb the majority of the force from a shot or blow. It is meant to provide defence against low-velocity, dispersed damage, such as explosions, shrapnel and ricochet material, rather than to protect against a direct impact, in which case the armour's protection is almost negligible. The ablative characteristics of the armour provide further defence against heat and energy based damage.

What you're referring to is the "real world" version of flak jackets, which commonly were issued to vehicle crews.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or I can accept none of your ideas. A Cadian Guardsman is similarly statted to a GSC Neophyte, who's wearing frigging work clothes and rocking the same save as Flak Armour.

So nerf neophyte armor to Sv - like it should be. Unless you're making the claim that their armor is their mutated bodies gaining tough hide or plates under their clothes, in which case a 5+ is fine.

Or I'm "making the claim" that it's stupid to pretend that there aren't a bunch of numbers unused in some armies for saves...and that it shouldn't be rocket science to bump Guard units up a point of armor.

3+ carapace is fine. They've shown they have no issue with layering additional rules or tweaks to represent wargear effects--and PA being bonus Toughness, Wounds, or a negation to armor penetration characteristics is entirely within reason whilst allowing for the 3+ save to be used without just being forbidden from other armies.


And because I'm pretty sure you two will have aneurysms:
Conscripts should be a 5+ save, since they'd be getting "Flak Vests" rather than "Flak Armor".

 Kanluwen wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Kasrkin and what not are elite for the guard yes. In that sense they’re elite relative to their faction, they’re not elite relative to other factions.They’re maybe as good as a normal sister of battle, but with lighter armor.

They're better than a "normal" Sister of Battle.

You're confusing simply having Power Armor as being good at something. Anyone can wear power armor, theoretically.

Carapace armor being 4+ makes perfect sense.

Not when compared to the other 4+ equivalent troops.

It’s cheaper and easier to manufacture and use than power armor, but doesn’t give the same level of protection.

Cool, so then put non-Astartes PA at 4+.

No Black Carapace, the armor's effectiveness is reduced significantly.

And the GSC units you mentioned also have the same save as a Catachan.

And a Vostroyan(a whole regiment that when introduced was given the CARAPACE ARMOR doctrine as a hallmark), Valhallan, Tanith, etc etc.

What's your point? That the Guard armor hasn't been looked at, in a serious manner, since the 3.5E Doctrines book?

They literally called out in the 3.5E book that going from "Flak Armor" to a "Flak Vest" reduces your armor save. End of story.

Do you know what flak armor is?

Do you?

It’s not a ballistic vest or anything of the sort. It’s only purpose is to protect the wearer from fragments of metal…

Flak armour consists of multiple layers of different ablative and impact absorbent materials designed primarily to deflect or absorb the majority of the force from a shot or blow. It is meant to provide defence against low-velocity, dispersed damage, such as explosions, shrapnel and ricochet material, rather than to protect against a direct impact, in which case the armour's protection is almost negligible. The ablative characteristics of the armour provide further defence against heat and energy based damage.

What you're referring to is the "real world" version of flak jackets, which commonly were issued to vehicle crews.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Or I can accept none of your ideas. A Cadian Guardsman is similarly statted to a GSC Neophyte, who's wearing frigging work clothes and rocking the same save as Flak Armour.

So nerf neophyte armor to Sv - like it should be. Unless you're making the claim that their armor is their mutated bodies gaining tough hide or plates under their clothes, in which case a 5+ is fine.

Or I'm "making the claim" that it's stupid to pretend that there aren't a bunch of numbers unused in some armies for saves...and that it shouldn't be rocket science to bump Guard units up a point of armor.

3+ carapace is fine. They've shown they have no issue with layering additional rules or tweaks to represent wargear effects--and PA being bonus Toughness, Wounds, or a negation to armor penetration characteristics is entirely within reason whilst allowing for the 3+ save to be used without just being forbidden from other armies.


And because I'm pretty sure you two will have aneurysms:
Conscripts should be a 5+ save, since they'd be getting "Flak Vests" rather than "Flak Armor".

omg did you even read the paragraph you posted?
Flack vest, flak armor, they’re interchangeable.

C: Imperial Guard 3.5E pg 56 wrote:This specialization will lead a regiment to abandon bulky flak armour for a simple flak vest instead. All units taking this Doctrine reduce their Armour Save from a 5+ to a 6+.

You were saying?

A flak vest is part of the flak armour setup.

Just like Carapace Armour, the whole "system" can be worn piecemeal.

 Kanluwen wrote:

C: Imperial Guard 3.5E pg 56 wrote:This specialization will lead a regiment to abandon bulky flak armour for a simple flak vest instead. All units taking this Doctrine reduce their Armour Save from a 5+ to a 6+.

You were saying?

A flak vest is part of the flak armour setup.

Just like Carapace Armour, the whole "system" can be worn piecemeal.

give up trying to reason with him.
his own copy/paste supports what i said, but he shared it to try to counter me. either his reading comprehension is trash, or he's just so dead set on this his bias is effecting his reading comprehension. either way, this isn't an argument you can win, nor will you change his mind with facts or logic.

Arcanis161 wrote:
Friendly PSA, Emphasis mine.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

Its very clear that Guard have not been in a good place for a VERY long time (I came in just after the halcyon days of 5th edition when guard had some teeth in them still but still reeling after . At the dawn of 8th there was some hope with conscripts and then again with Greater Good choose your own regiments. However nothing has been able to stick in a competitive scene. Which brings us this very quandary...how do we fix guard? Its a complex army that has some of the largest diversity in its builds and lists, going from all mech, all armor, all artillery, and all foot troops and everything in between. Balancing all of these factors will be quite a chore that will take planning, depth, and a strong dose of rules sensibility, which probably won't be happening ( a girl can dream can't she?). What does the guard need? Rebuilding from the ground up? A whole new kind of organization? Maybe simply point fixes? There are many ways to do it...

This thread wasn't about narrative play, or campaigns, or making the army more match the fluff. This thread was meant to discuss how to fix Guard in a way to give it a better standing in competitive play.

If that’s what this thread is about they should have said in the original post (they didn’t), if they had I’d gave happily skipped past it. It just says it’s about fixing guard.

Arcanis161 wrote:
Friendly PSA, Emphasis mine.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

Its very clear that Guard have not been in a good place for a VERY long time (I came in just after the halcyon days of 5th edition when guard had some teeth in them still but still reeling after . At the dawn of 8th there was some hope with conscripts and then again with Greater Good choose your own regiments. However nothing has been able to stick in a competitive scene. Which brings us this very quandary...how do we fix guard? Its a complex army that has some of the largest diversity in its builds and lists, going from all mech, all armor, all artillery, and all foot troops and everything in between. Balancing all of these factors will be quite a chore that will take planning, depth, and a strong dose of rules sensibility, which probably won't be happening ( a girl can dream can't she?). What does the guard need? Rebuilding from the ground up? A whole new kind of organization? Maybe simply point fixes? There are many ways to do it...

This thread wasn't about narrative play, or campaigns, or making the army more match the fluff. This thread was meant to discuss how to fix Guard in a way to give it a better standing in competitive play.

where exactly is that specified in the OP?

The funny thing is, the armor doesn't matter. Having a 5+ save is just fine, it doesn't need to go to a 4+ or even a 3+. Units need to be defined by their purpose and other units that help them perform that role.

Just having a 5+ save means we can't hold an objective, or screen our tanks, as the definition/purpose of that unit is to screen and/or tank firepower, which it can't do. So just giving a unit a 6+ or a 4+ is literally meaningless. Infantry just can't perform that tanking role like it could in 8th.

But, put those 5+ save models in a chimera, now we have 20W on an objective, that is much harder to shift. Guard can't do that right now because a) the chimera is too expensive b) the chimera has no durability (even with AoC), and c) the chimera gives up 2VP to try to hold an objective for 4VP. It's just not viable. So it's not just the 5+ that is the problem, it's that Guard need models with a 5+ to tank 9th edition firepower, and there's nothing you can do to boost infantry to the point where it's viable to perform that role.

Drukhari have the same problem. Most of their Troops aren't that good, even Incubi are only decent in and of themselves. But, put them in a Raider where they can get anywhere on the board and punch above their weight class, and they wreck face. But caught on foot and we can wipe an Incubi squad with a bunch of lasguns.

So, what do we want a T3 unit with a 5+ save to do?

If you want it to hold objectives, then we have to give them staying power, and just an armor save won't do that. That's why I proposed buffing the chimera to have 9W and Ramshackle (and now AoC!). Then Guard can put 19W on an objective that's harder to shift, and enough firepower to defend itself. If the opponent want to clear an objective, then the anti-tank FP goes into the Chimera, leaving the LRBTs to wreck face. Target the LRBT, and the Chimera holds the Objective. Force the opponent into a choice. But right now there is no "choice" to be made, as the anti-infantry stuff clears our infantry, and the anti-tank stuff clears our tanks, and there's enough firepower to do both.

I want Infantry to no longer have to screen tanks, as infantry isn't durable enough to perform that role. However, even with a 5+ save, or even a 6+, infantry can still move block the mid-board. If the 6+ infantry can pre-game move or infiltrate, now we're talking. The unit has a purpose that it can fulfill, with 6+ infantry to screen the sides, and/or RND/EOAF/etc.? Heck ya!

Define the in-game purpose, then define the rules to make the unit fulfill that purpose.

But just "squad A has a 6+, squad B has a 5+ and squad C has a 4+" is just a waste of time.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
give up trying to reason with him.
his own copy/paste supports what i said, but he shared it to try to counter me. either his reading comprehension is trash, or he's just so dead set on this his bias is effecting his reading comprehension. either way, this isn't an argument you can win, nor will you change his mind with facts or logic.

Flak armour consists of multiple layers of different ablative and impact absorbent materials designed primarily to deflect or absorb the majority of the force from a shot or blow. It is meant to provide defence against low-velocity, dispersed damage, such as explosions, shrapnel and ricochet material, rather than to protect against a direct impact, in which case the armour's protection is almost negligible. The ablative characteristics of the armour provide further defence against heat and energy based damage.

Bolded the relevant sections for your reading comprehension.

If you want to whine about "reading comprehension" and try to be snarky, just remember that your statement was:

It’s not a ballistic vest or anything of the sort. It’s only purpose is to protect the wearer from fragments of metal…

But remember anyways:
There's space for a 3+ Carapace Armor save! You just don't want it.

You also don't seem to want anything other than "lolhordesofguardsmendyingpewpew", which is kinda funny.

 Kanluwen wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
give up trying to reason with him.
his own copy/paste supports what i said, but he shared it to try to counter me. either his reading comprehension is trash, or he's just so dead set on this his bias is effecting his reading comprehension. either way, this isn't an argument you can win, nor will you change his mind with facts or logic.

Flak armour consists of multiple layers of different ablative and impact absorbent materials designed primarily to deflect or absorb the majority of the force from a shot or blow. It is meant to provide defence against low-velocity, dispersed damage, such as explosions, shrapnel and ricochet material, rather than to protect against a direct impact, in which case the armour's protection is almost negligible. The ablative characteristics of the armour provide further defence against heat and energy based damage.

Bolded the relevant sections for your reading comprehension.

If you want to whine about "reading comprehension" and try to be snarky, just remember that your statement was:

It’s not a ballistic vest or anything of the sort. It’s only purpose is to protect the wearer from fragments of metal…

But remember anyways:
There's space for a 3+ Carapace Armor save! You just don't want it.

You also don't seem to want anything other than "lolhordesofguardsmendyingpewpew", which is kinda funny.

…yes…it protects against burns and the concussive force of an explosion. Not lasers.

Ah yes, those famous energy explosions.

And I like how "burns and concussive force of an explosion" is now "fragments of metal".

Necron Warriors have a 4+ (I will never forgive the loss of our 3+ Warriors). So, compare that to a guardsman.

None of this matters. Literally all of this is a fluff debate. There are bugs made of spit and vomit that have claws that can cleave TERMINATOR armor in half, without even trying hard. Meanwhile, a Egyptian mummy made of death and metal, can fire a bolt of pure nothing, that dissolves even the thickest tank armor. But a Guardsman's flak vest/jacket/wife beater/bangle is somehow less capable of stopping those? WHO. CARES? Guard could be 4+ and it wouldn't make a difference lore wise. Stop arguing what armor literally can and can't do in a game where people summon demons made of rape and anger.

For game stats, it's fairly obvious why guard don't get anything below a 5+, and why their "elite" Scions don't get a 3+. Because they are cheap chaff units comparably to the "elite" armies that pay a premium for their stats. Like Custodes.

If we a

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Arcanis161 wrote:
Friendly PSA, Emphasis mine.

 generalchaos34 wrote:

Its very clear that Guard have not been in a good place for a VERY long time (I came in just after the halcyon days of 5th edition when guard had some teeth in them still but still reeling after . At the dawn of 8th there was some hope with conscripts and then again with Greater Good choose your own regiments. However nothing has been able to stick in a competitive scene. Which brings us this very quandary...how do we fix guard? Its a complex army that has some of the largest diversity in its builds and lists, going from all mech, all armor, all artillery, and all foot troops and everything in between. Balancing all of these factors will be quite a chore that will take planning, depth, and a strong dose of rules sensibility, which probably won't be happening ( a girl can dream can't she?). What does the guard need? Rebuilding from the ground up? A whole new kind of organization? Maybe simply point fixes? There are many ways to do it...

This thread wasn't about narrative play, or campaigns, or making the army more match the fluff. This thread was meant to discuss how to fix Guard in a way to give it a better standing in competitive play.

where exactly is that specified in the OP?

I did quote the OP? And I did bold, what seems to me to be, a clear indication that this topic was about fixing Guard for competitive play?

brainpsyk wrote:
The funny thing is, the armor doesn't matter. Having a 5+ save is just fine, it doesn't need to go to a 4+ or even a 3+. Units need to be defined by their purpose and other units that help them perform that role.

Just having a 5+ save means we can't hold an objective, or screen our tanks, as the definition/purpose of that unit is to screen and/or tank firepower, which it can't do. So just giving a unit a 6+ or a 4+ is literally meaningless. Infantry just can't perform that tanking role like it could in 8th.

But, put those 5+ save models in a chimera, now we have 20W on an objective, that is much harder to shift. Guard can't do that right now because a) the chimera is too expensive b) the chimera has no durability (even with AoC), and c) the chimera gives up 2VP to try to hold an objective for 4VP. It's just not viable. So it's not just the 5+ that is the problem, it's that Guard need models with a 5+ to tank 9th edition firepower, and there's nothing you can do to boost infantry to the point where it's viable to perform that role.

Look, if I can hold an objective with a 70pt Ork truck with x10 obsec grots in it? You Guard players can manage it with a 75pt chimera + squad.
You're a min total of 25pts more than my truck-of-grots & for that your ride has:+1T, +1sv, +1BS, twice the # of main guns (both of wich are better than my big shoota), and the option for more firepower if you want - SB/HS, HK missile, the lasgun arrays vs my truck.
And when that Guard squad disembarks? They have better saves, better guns, better morale, free Obsec (I can only have 1 obsec grot unit/detachment) and options for additional equipment (now for zero pts!).
Yeah, that's 25 pts well spent.

But if you want to go cheap? (and have a smaller footprint than a Chimera) (& have access to Legends units) Then stuff 5 naked Scions in a FW Centaur Light Carrier. You'll be at 95pts. Not as durable as a Chimera + squad, but the Centaur is still more durable than the people riding in it, has twice the firepower of my truck, a 3+ sv,and oh look - you've spent less than the Obsec Grot player.

 Kanluwen wrote:
There's space for a 3+ Carapace Armor save!

Maybe if you ignore the fact that 40k is a miniatures game and the need for the rules to reflect those miniatures.

 Blndmage wrote:
Necron Warriors have a 4+ (I will never forgive the loss of our 3+ Warriors). So, compare that to a guardsman.

And compare it to a Guardian, which is also a 4+ now.

Your Immortals are 3+ saves though, right?

ccs wrote:

Look, if I can hold an objective with a 70pt Ork truck with x10 obsec grots in it? You Guard players can manage it with a 75pt chimera + squad.
You're a min total of 25pts more than my truck-of-grots & for that your ride has:+1T, +1sv, +1BS, twice the # of main guns (both of wich are better than my big shoota), and the option for more firepower if you want - SB/HS, HK missile, the lasgun arrays vs my truck.
And when that Guard squad disembarks? They have better saves, better guns, better morale, free Obsec (I can only have 1 obsec grot unit/detachment) and options for additional equipment (now for zero pts!).
Yeah, that's 25 pts well spent.

But if you want to go cheap? (and have a smaller footprint than a Chimera) (& have access to Legends units) Then stuff 5 naked Scions in a FW Centaur Light Carrier. You'll be at 95pts. Not as durable as a Chimera + squad, but the Centaur is still more durable than the people riding in it, has twice the firepower of my truck, a 3+ sv,and oh look - you've spent less than the Obsec Grot player.

I don't disagree with any of it, it's dead on, in isolation.

What's different is that Guard give up 2 VPs for that Chimera, as BID is the secondary almost always taken against guard. Orks give up 0. So that 25 points just cost us 2 VPs.

The rest of the Guard army has other difficulties. You're using those grots to take an objective, Guard need those infantry to take the objective AND screen our tanks. So Guard just gave up 2VPs, and gave up screens for our TCs.

Guard TCs have no melee, while most Ork vehicles do. So by not screening, the Orc buggies, boyz, even kill rigs and battlewagons just bad touched a LRBT, now Guard gave up 2 VPs, and gave up the heavy hitters, and are now out of the game. With the changes to Waagh, that's turn 2.

That's why Guard needs more than just a few points tweaks. Guard still lack the firepower to avoid the bad touch, and lack melee to even get out of melee, the ability to run away while giving up 14VPs just for showing up.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Blndmage wrote:
Necron Warriors have a 4+ (I will never forgive the loss of our 3+ Warriors). So, compare that to a guardsman.

And compare it to a Guardian, which is also a 4+ now.

Your Immortals are 3+ saves though, right?

Ya, and they gave us their T5 back too.

 Kanluwen wrote:
There's space for a 3+ Carapace Armor save! You just don't want it.

I will say, Sister Crusaders have master-crafted carapace armour and they're 3+ save. Our Crusaders are 3+ only due to the storm shield.

Do I personally think carapace should move to 3+? No.

Our increased durability should come from better medics, with 6+++ auras like other factions. That in itself would be a massive buff. Now we have some form of save all of the time and some defence against mortals.

ccs wrote:
Then stuff 5 naked Scions in a FW Centaur Light Carrier.

I'm still sad they removed the Centaur. All it needed to be good was transport capacity of 6 and open-topped. Instantly better.

 Kanluwen wrote:

From OK_Entrepeneur3004 on reddit. They were point-blank asked about something they had said earlier.

But how do we know he's accurate? What's his sources? Has he been proven accurate before?