Guard in the evolving meta

[Altasmurf]

I'm on the other side. I have no problem with a 5ppm guardsman. If anything I will not have to arbitarilly handicap my list to have games with my friends. Now I will state I am not in a hyper competitive environment, but a few of the guys do play tournaments so it's not a complete casual affair either. For the most part my guard has been dominant so I'm ok with the changes for the most part. (Still cursing the commissars fix)

[Thorakitai]

I think by dropping points across the board over the last few edditions, GW has painted themselves into a corner with cheap infantry pricing. I suspect the balanced price for guardsmen to be somewhere between 4 and 5 points, but there is no way to put them there.

 

For that matter, I think we all agree that veterans are mediocre at best at 6 points a model, and skitarii rangers and vanguard are not considered good at 7 and 8 points respectively, and were even worse before Chapter Approved dropped their costs.

 

Even at 5 points, guardsmen are still by far the best option for their purpose, and will still be taken in competitive lists. At 6 points I suspect they still will be (CP's make the difference here) and people will still complain about them.

[Spyboy]

The fix here is not a points increase, there is no way to increase the gaurdsmen by enough points they won't be taken by competitive lists to get more CP and still have them properly priced for gaurd lists. 4 points a model is 100% where they should be. The problem lies with soup lists exploiting gaurds cheapness, always has been the problem (well since the beginning of 8th)

[Feral_80]

At this point, the easiest solution would be to bring back platoons. Not going to happen as it requires rewriting the codex - which needs rewriting anyway already - but it would make it easier to discourage other armies to take Guard allies without impacting Guard itself.

[Tirak]

Simplest solution is to get rid of the Imperium keyword. Not sure what bringing back platoons will give given that battalions already are 2 Company Commanders for 3-6 squads, and I for one don't want to see us locked into being forced to field 3 squads per troop choice in the current detachment system. 18 squads required for a brigade is a bit much.

[Spyboy]

Like tarik said, Getting rid of the imperium keyword is the best solution I think.

[Mileposter]

You'd have to also get rid of the Chaos and Aeldari faction keywords as well to even that out. I'm not against that change, and actually gives the Ynnari an actual purpose, but it's worth mentioning.

 

Along with addressing those models that can't get used without the Imperium Keyword currently.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Mileposter

[duz_]

Call me mad I don't think using guard for CP's is a bad thing especially for SM's.

Ideally they could stand on their own, but I don't think its outrageous to ally in guard because were cheap. Thats the whole point.
It would be nice for SM's to be a bit cheaper points wise and for them to be able to claim a few more CP's in general. Or have their stratgems re-costed. As mentioned in various threads, its not so much IG is a problem, its that SM's aren't that great currently. Which is an issue for one of the most popular factions in the game.

[Feral_80]

I'm against removing the Imperium keyword. It's ok to ally imperial factions to some degrees, it's both fluffy and funny. As always, the problem is the abuse of the rule.

 

Basically, it is impossible with the current rules to bring players to build up good, fluffy armies. They just won't, as long as these are not the strongest possible builds. 

 

I don't know, allies are difficult. They are not even the worse problem of the game at the moment, and since a complete redesign of the rules is out of question for the moment, I'd rather see GW devoting its energies in addressing more severe issues rather than come out with a rushed, poorly designed half-fix for allies.

 

And yes, I agree one of the major issues is that SM at the moment are quite weak, despite being GW's top boys - which goes a long way in demonstrating that the company seems *genuinely* incapable of balancing stuff or, at least, that they quickly lose any consistency and control over codex design after they release the first two. Which is exactly what has happened, apparently.

[Colonel Cross]

It has been amusing looking at all the indexes and comparing them to one another and then doing the same with the codexes. It's like the rules writers have brief conversations with one another about a particular armies special rule for a unit (which could/should be just a general special rule) and see how they turn out different. Or comparing individual units can get odd. A Tau Fireblade has 5 wounds and a Company Commander has 4. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that but it just feels odd. Like their internal communication is not as synched as you'd want to believe.

 

Our cheap infantry wouldn't be required if every army didn't have a method to deep strike a large number of their units wherever and whenever they please. Or if smite wasn't so prevalent.

 

I regularly end my games with maybe a handful of guardsmen or less left. With 10 less on the table my TAC list will suffer even more. I just wish that GW would actually give us a complete FAQ before messing with more points. It just feels off putting that we've had this many point changes and yet there are still plenty of questions regarding Stratagems and the like. Unless something is game breaking or clearly alters the meta, it should be left alone until actual rules questions are clarified and all the codexes are out. Their efforts are not in line with what I'd think their priorities should be, in my most humble opinion.

[lash144]

If the rumours about the nerf are true they also have to nerf Veterans right?

[NatBrannigan]

A little while longer and o-one will be moaning about Guardsmen any more, it's already tailing off. Eldar are evil post codex (surprise surprise) and the Tau codex must be out soon which will probably have some obscene special rule in it for people to moan about.

[CrusherJoe]

I'm fully expecting Tau to get army-wide Interceptor back. Then let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin!

 

Also, eff Tau. Not a fan. 

[Schlitzaf]

Lash what rumors? Also I think the larger issue with Gaurdsman, is that they and other GeQ style armies, T3, 4+/5+ saves are becoming the real ‘norm’ once more. Not in the sense that that the MeQ is the standard, but the norm.

 

Is not uncommon to see armies with several units consisting of T3 and 4+ or lower saves. Or units like that. Gaurdsman becoming ubiquitous, via R&H, Blood Brothers and Imperium. Then the units like Cultists, Eldar Units in general, and finally lesser extent hordes like Orks and Nids. Represent something folks aren’t adjusted to fighting.

 

The question of “how to handle hordes” in Adeptus Astartes Forum. Showcases just that literal wall. Players are used to taking high damage/raw attack potential units. Which against hordes ironically is what you don’t want*. What you want is be able to attrition.

 

Or take a hit. For that you need bodies and wounds. Also you have to multiple engage enemy units. You cannot single star one unit or it’ll go bye bye. It needs support. (See Stormraven Thread). Single Stars vs elite style armies in contrast exactly what you need.

 

Because single Stars only need a good one to render that force negligible. In the end folks are building to murder Marines, and still think in that box. It’s important to have a way. I use PowSwords in my Crusader Squad for exactly that reason. Because my other men can handle the enemy chaff without and needing the extra attack is unneeded.

 

Folks are thinking in one dimensional, raw damage mindset. To beat armies like Gaurdsman you need to be able to take a hit. Then for the finishing blow have the raw offensive ability

[lash144]

The rumor that Guardsman will increase to 5 points in march. With that increase it would be kind of stupid to leave Vets at 6ppm.

[Colonel Cross]

Why would that be stupid? They're elites and pay nearly double for plasma and more for melta. Just for +1BS and approximately 0 survivability or any special abilities other than a heavy flamer, shotguns, or 3x special weapons. They're already ignored in nearly every list. If they go up, they'll definitely go on the shelf. I've tried to make them work with 3 Flamers, a heavy flamer, and shotguns jumping out of a Valk and even using the Catachan flamer order. Totally not worth it but kind fun. Otherwise they're boring.

[depthcharge12]

Does anyone take Hydras or AA? I see triple crimson hunters or double stormraven lists and poop my pants a little especially with 5+ to hit with most of our army.

 

However, I feel that a single hydra wouldn’t be enough as it would likely get target priority. Has anyone tried Bikestodes with the missile launchers?

[CrusherJoe]

No hydras/AA. Aerial Spotter on a Basilisk followed by overlapping fields of fire pretty much gets the job done vs. aircraft.

[Feral_80]

Hydra is sadly useless, especially against Eldar.

[Thorakitai]

The rumor that Guardsman will increase to 5 points in march. With that increase it would be kind of stupid to leave Vets at 6ppm.

Keep in mind that skitarii rangers are 7 points currently, for a much better gun, +1 save and a 6++ (which is pretty worthless really) and are taken primarily as CP taxes (being troops). In that context, 7 point vets would be silly, they are bad enough as it is.

[Altasmurf]

The rumor that Guardsman will increase to 5 points in march. With that increase it would be kind of stupid to leave Vets at 6ppm.

Not really. Most people don't use vets and vets are used in a different role. Guard squads are flak and cp batteries. Vets provide focused special weapon firepower, albeit not as good as stormies.

[Withershadow]

Hydra is sadly useless, especially against Eldar.

Eh, 3 hydra platforms is 225 points which put out 24 shots ignoring the flyer bonus (so the Crimson Hunters or whatever would be sitting on -1).  Re-rolling 1s and hitting on 5+ is 9 hits rounding down fractions.

[Feral_80]

Hum, I don't see what's impressive there really. You pay more than a Crimson Hunter to (perhaps) bring one down to half wounds, then your platform(s) will just die so easily. And very few players (if any at all) have 3 Hydra *platforms*, most might at best have the tank version, which is likely even worse. I am not sold at all that those points are well spent, also because you'll just want to cry if your Hydras instead face Wave serpents. Edited February 10, 2018 by Feral_80

[depthcharge12]

Hum, I don't see what's impressive there really. You pay more than a Crimson Hunter to (perhaps) bring one down to half wounds, then your platform(s) will just die so easily. And very few players (if any at all) have 3 Hydra *platforms*, most might at best have the tank version, which is likely even worse. I am not sold at all that those points are well spent, also because you'll just want to cry if your Hydras instead face Wave serpents.

They hit on threes against units with the fly keyword (the wave serpents for example) for what it’s worth.

 

Would it just be better to get Hellhounds to fill out those FA slots towards a Brigadeand use those as AA?

[Feral_80]

No reasonable amount of Hydras is going to stop a Wave serpent before it delivers its cargo anyway, so they are completely useless regardless of hitting on 3s.

 

I think Hellhounds would work more or less the same against fliers, i.e. rather poorly. I don't understand why people seem so excited about using Hellhounds against vehicle flyers: yes they hit automatically, but wounding on 4+ or 5+ and at only AP 1 D 1, they are not going to bring down any flyer. However, compared to Hydras at least they have the advantage of being mobile and much more flexible, so contrary to Hydras they are still an excellent asset for an AM army. They are just very unsuited to fire at Eldar vehicles.

Edited February 11, 2018 by Feral_80