7pt guardsmen and 50+pt HQs

[domsto]

The issue is CP.

 

I think there is a very simple fix.

 

Insert one sentence.

 

"CP may only be used on the faction that generated them."

Yes that would fix everything in on go^^

 

There is only one little problem.

GW designed Knights and Custodes to only work if they are supportet by the CPs from another Souped in Faction so we will never see this because GW Intendet it to work the way it does.

[TheShredder]

 

The issue is CP.

 

I think there is a very simple fix.

 

Insert one sentence.

 

"CP may only be used on the faction that generated them."

Yes that would fix everything in on go^^

 

There is only one little problem.

GW designed Knights and Custodes to only work if they are supportet by the CPs from another Souped in Faction so we will never see this because GW Intendet it to work the way it does.

 

 

I'm not so sure. If anything, it seems like those factions were designed with the expectations that they would have access to relatively few CPs.

 

Hence why they become so utterly broken when given more liberal access to CPs.

[domsto]

 

 

 

The issue is CP.

 

I think there is a very simple fix.

 

Insert one sentence.

 

"CP may only be used on the faction that generated them."

Yes that would fix everything in on go^^

 

There is only one little problem.

GW designed Knights and Custodes to only work if they are supportet by the CPs from another Souped in Faction so we will never see this because GW Intendet it to work the way it does.

I'm not so sure. If anything, it seems like those factions were designed with the expectations that they would have access to relatively few CPs.

 

Hence why they become so utterly broken when given more liberal access to CPs.

Well i play Knights Solo (because of Honor!^^) and they have no chance to win on thier own.

They can't play the objectiv game, they can only win throw Tabeling.

Same goes for the Golden Boys.

And the Fact that both Custodes and Knights have Stratagems and Relics that give nothing to them but to the Souped in Guys just make this even more clear to me that GW never intendet them to stand on thier Own.

[MARK0SIAN]

Yeah, taking allies is how they designed 8th edition. They intend for you to take allies, they want you to take allies. From their point of view this is how the game should be played. If you’re waiting for them to take that away you’ll be waiting a long time.

 

I’m not saying nothing needs to change but they need to focus on changing CP generation across the board so that all armies have equal access to it. Make it so people aren’t taking allies for cp, just so they have that allied force from a fluff/narrative/gaming perspective.

[Captain_Krash]

Back in my day (Catachan 3rd edition codex) we payed 70 points a guardsmen squad before upgrades, 

 

Didn't bother us then...wouldn't honestly change anything.

 

Krash

[domsto]

Back in my day (Catachan 3rd edition codex) we payed 70 points a guardsmen squad before upgrades,

 

Didn't bother us then...wouldn't honestly change anything.

 

Krash

But you can't compare 3th Edition to 8th Edition.

It is completly different.

If you would put Guardsmen up to 7ppm he would become more expensiv as a Kabal Warrior which is better in Everything.

Or a Skitarii Ranger is also 7ppm and is better in Everything.

So you would have to up the Points for Kabal Warrior, Skitarii to balance that out and so on.

[Captain_Krash]

There actually not completely different...in fact the game has been the same base game since just with more rules piled on top of it. Each and every edition...there very similar 

 

Krash

[TheShredder]

Well i play Knights Solo (because of Honor!^^) and they have no chance to win on thier own.

They can't play the objectiv game, they can only win throw Tabeling.

 

I'm sorry but that is plain ludicrous.

 

Nothing prevents Knights from scoring objectives, and they have more than enough firepower to table most armies. 

 

Not to mention the fact that many TAC lists simply cannot deal with that level of armour skew (especially when combined with an ungodly amount of firepower).

[Lord Marshal]

Back in my day (Catachan 3rd edition codex) we payed 70 points a guardsmen squad before upgrades, 

 

Didn't bother us then...wouldn't honestly change anything.

 

Krash

 

Armies in 3rd were much smaller than they are now. There also weren't things like Knights to deal with, heavy army was far less prevalent, etc. 

[-Nemesis-]

Why not move away entirely from detachments being your main source of CPs? Why not just assign, say 3 CPs per 500 points? Then you can give additional small bonuses like 1CP for a battalion and 3CP for a brigade.

 

Most of my Drukhari lists are 2 battalions + 1 other.

 

@2000 pts, under current system, that's 3+5+5+1 = 14CPs

@2000 pts, under proposed system, that's 12+2 = 14CPs

 

A Custodes list at 2000 points basically HAS to bring an allied guard contingent for that second battalion, at the cost of their main force, just for CPs.  But let's say you want to build a pure custodes list, which will be a battalion + 1 other detachment if running pure.

 

@2000 pts, under current system, that's 3+5+1 = 9CPs

@2000 pts, under proposed system, that's 12+1 = 13CPs

 

As an extreme CP-count example, I've often run a Brigade + Battalion with my guard.

 

@2000 pts, under current system, that's 3+12+5 = 20CPs

@2000 pts, under proposed system, that's 12+3+1 = 16CPs

 

And then at smaller point levels, you would have fewer resources, so you can't quickly and irrevocably swing the game in your favor by dumping an enormous load of CPs into an alpha strike.

 

Call me crazy, but that seems way more reasonable.

[HallofStovokor]

Imagine how overpowered a knight army would be in that system. If you brought a pure knight army with the CP to fund all their stratagems, they would be dominant. As much as everyone hates soup armies, knights can't bring a 4th T8 28W model to the table without losing out on the CP. Guardsmen are relatively easy to kill, so the 27 lasguns and 5 laspistols the loyal 32 bring to the fight don't really scare many people. Knights don't have to worry about close combat too much so the Guardsmen screen is only moderately helpful. It's guaranteed that the company commander isn't bringing anything to make the troops more potent. They might hold objectives or be a meat shield preventing charges, that's it. A well balanced list can still beat a knight army with loyal 32. If you were to make a Knight army of 3 big guys and 2 arimigers or 4 big guys, that is fully funded, only a list heavily skewed towards anti-tank could hope to win.

 

The best way to stop soup is to make CP only useful for the army keyword that generates it. Or maybe mix it up. Make the guard only able to fund themselves, but other imperials can fund the others.

[Kinstryfe]

To add to both concurrent conversations, I believe that points costs that high are too far for too little. 45pt, 50pt, 55pt squads would maybe still be tolerable but much more than that and guardsmen would quickly hit a point where they just aren't viable in their own army. The whole benefit to the current guard system is that it's really strong to start, but the drawback is that it can crumble really easily if any of it's parts are removed, which I think does a fine job of keeping them under control.

 

For the CP, I think one of three things need to happen. One would be for cp to be based on the point total of the game. I'm not thrilled with that as it removes a part of building a tactical list. Another would be for cp to generate during the game based on Warlord traits/presence ala kill team, from controlling objectives, or other actions. Basically, rewarding tactical decisions in the game with command points. My preferred system would be to either do away with generic attachments or give more codex specific detachments like Knights get. This would let the developers keep a bit tighter control on cp counts while still rewarding certain builds. I mean, as long as they get it right which... Yeah.

[TheShredder]

Regarding CPs, what if it was based on the number of points spent on particular units. e.g.:
- 1CP per 100pts spent on Troops or HQs.
- 1CP per 200pts spent on Elites, Fast Attack or Heavy Support.
- 1CP per 300pts spent on Lords of War or Fliers.

 

Just a rough idea, but the concept is to make it that cheap HQs and Troops don't generate a lot more CP than expensive HQs and Troops.

 

 

Another alternative would be to have each player gain a few CPs each turn, rather than a big pile that last for the whole game.

[MARK0SIAN]

Personally I don’t think you can ever balance CP if you tie it directly to models whose costs can vary from 4 pts each to 52 pts each. Whilst it remains tied directly to that it will always favour one or the other.

 

We need a completely different approach to CP, one that still encourages balanced lists but is equal in how it treats elite/expensive armies and horde/cheap armies.

[duz_]

=][= Discussion regarding how CP should work doesnt belong this thread.

Feel free to start a thread regarding CP mechanics in Amicus. =][=

[Vykes]

You know, even if Guardsmen went up to 7 points and 50+ point commanders, I'd bet they'd still want it readjusted upwards after a few months as they would still be too good.  After all, lets face it, it's a change of probably in the neighborhood of 100 points at the end of the day and that's not going to swing a battle dramatically to even out the odds.  The problem with the complaint is a misattributing the core issue that other armies have when facing Imperial Guard.  If they don't take that into account, then how are they going to hope for a more balanced solution? 

 

From the perspective of an individual who cares about the demi-gods and makes little non-nuanced 'shoo' gestures at the piddling mortals, the problem is fundamentally a marine one: for the past 25 years Guardsmen died when marines look at them.  Having flak armour deflect bolters is weeeeeeird for a lot of us.  The whole blasted army is effectively in old-school cover. Guard got better in durability and their orders remain excellent in tandem with great wide-ranging regiment traits (marine armies tend to have chapter tactics that affect marines, bikes, and dreads is all) and equally good Strategems.  Marines are objectively worse when the synergies of strategems/traits/orders come into play.  It's made all the worse with easy and relatively cheap access to weapons that are more effective against power armour than they have been in the past.  This isn't a problem fundamentally, it is in the era when marines feel like they're still dealing with a codex generation gap of writers not having fully realized the new arena that power armour got tossed into. 

 

Guard infantry are not great.  Alone, they are worth maybe only 5 points per model in the current environment.  But they have an incredible amount of 'Potential Kinetic Energy' that outstrip a lot of their competition.  When you add cheap, easily obtainable additions via the usual avenues of officers, traits, and strategems, their relative worth increases exponentially to the point that a lot of MEQ can't compete. Because while the cost per model increases with the cost of officers to an effective 7-8 points spread over a squad or two, they're at a point where their output is easily competing with models that cost double with relatively safe ways to normalize RNG swings in ways that marines can't.  Likewise, with poor general access to mid and long range sniper weapons, there's few ways to effectively deal with officers which keeps the benefits lasting and making guard "good to the last drop".  

 

I'm with Captain Krash, I remember my metal Cadians being 6 points per model prior to upgrades for certain and upgrades for veteran sergeants, with 40 point minimum junior officers well before traits and orders were ever a thing.  Likewise, guardsmen were easily pinned, broken, run off, tank shocked, moral-broken, and generally blown to pieces.  If you so happen to have your commissar take the lead in a squad, you kill the highest ranking officer and hope to the Emperor you don't roll a 1 on a D6, or said 40+ point commissar gets his head blown off by a rebelling squad, and they fall back anyway now without 2 officers.  Armies were smaller back in the days of yore for my game group, because we was poorer and games were played at the 1K-1.5K mark with 2-3 platoons.  And then things changed when the GT's came into vogue.  Yeah, 3E-4E can't compare, guardsmen are much better now than they were. 

 

So, if someone says '7 point guardsmen' I wouldn't bat a lash at it because while dumb comparatively, it's still gonna be more competitive than most contemporaries.  And more to the point, it means they just don't get the issue: a handful of points taken away from Imperial Guard players isn't going to solve a problem that fundamentally lies with other armies. 

[MrZakalwe]

It's spread to here!

 

Jokes aside if you upped IG infantry to 6 or 7 points the side would pretty much never be seen again if everybody else kept their current points costs.

 

I know hobbyists with fluffy Space Marine armies that barely play them now - just getting ploughed under by anything you face just isn't fun - that would be Guard with that change.

[Beams]

Guardsmen die when looked at.

 

They are t3 with a 5+ save

 

At 7 pts, you could spend 2 more and get +2 to armor,+1 BS +1 to LD, AoF, a better gun and more powerful strategems and order convictions. Sure you'd miss orders, since they are objectively way better than AoF, but most people would still make the switch.

 

Or you could pay +2 pts for +1 armor, +1 BS, deepstrike, -6" on your gun but -2 AP as well, keep orders and have the ability to take 4 special weapons including plasma.

 

Again, people would take the switch. And that's even forgetting the fact that guard officers at 50+ pts are more expensive than a Cannoness (45) and who can do some serious, serious damage in melee while handing out reroll 1's in an aura, which is equal to or better than most guard orders that effect one or two squads, especially when considering the potential for guard plasma to explode.

[Kinstryfe]

I don't think upping the cost would be as inconsequential as some may think. 30 points more per squad in my typical 2k lists plus a modest bump to officers means I'd need to trim about 300pts from my list. That's a pretty big deficit to start playing from compared to today, and I think it would mean almost every guard army becomes a tank parking lot with just enough infantry to feed their stratagems (or as pointed out, battalions of sisters or Scions will become the norm).

[TheShredder]

I don't think upping the cost would be as inconsequential as some may think. 30 points more per squad in my typical 2k lists plus a modest bump to officers means I'd need to trim about 300pts from my list. That's a pretty big deficit to start playing from compared to today, and I think it would mean almost every guard army becomes a tank parking lot with just enough infantry to feed their stratagems (or as pointed out, battalions of sisters or Scions will become the norm).

 

Same. It basically makes my infantry army unplayable, as I'd be playing a ~1500pt list at 2000pts.

[Gothical]

I read through that infamous thread (the drama is fantastic for a lunch break reprieve from work), and whilst there were some valid points it was a horror show.

 

For example, even if you pushed Guardsmen to 7 points per model, Knight armies will still include the "Loyal 32" because of the amount of board coverage and mobility (M,M,M) they have access to. Thus there will still be the same complaints - the armies would naturally undergo some tweaking but nothing so severe as to render the combination non-viable.

 

It would be daft for a straight-up Guard army though. From the thread I read I saw various mathematical analyses that showed Guardsmen are worth roughly 4.6ppm before Orders are factored in, therefore my proposition would be that the Infantry Squad rises to 45 points for the unit.

 

You can then tweak the cost of the Officers upwards too given that they are the source of most of the complaints and maybe rework a couple of the orders. Officers are still extremely frail troops and are prime Sniper bait if you can engineer line of sight (ironically most complaining about Orders/Officers complain that Snipers suck when they are a great counter for this particular problem) so they shouldn't increase by too much, but it is unfair to front-load the cost onto infantry squads otherwise they become mathematically inferior to other troop units if Orders aren't available (range, dead officers, etc). I wouldn't even object to more expensive officers if they get minor reworks like additional wound(s), or improved saves (either Carapace Armour 4+ or increase Refractor Field to 4++), or Command Squads getting the Bodyguard rule.

[Vykes]

 

It would be daft for a straight-up Guard army though. From the thread I read I saw various mathematical analyses that showed Guardsmen are worth roughly 4.6ppm before Orders are factored in, therefore my proposition would be that the Infantry Squad rises to 45 points for the unit.

 

I generally agree with the sentiment, but factoring in the cost of a unit without the ubiquitously available advantage is kinda like factoring in the cost of tank with no guns: it's more than the statline, its what it's supposed to do (who would pay even ~175 points for a Land Raider with absolutely no guns?).  The orders are good, the orders are -very- good, and the unit itself isn't a 'tax' because it fulfills a prerequisite for building a force at an exceptionally affordable pricepoint.  Guardsmen contribute so much to the overall advantage of an army that it's hard to say that the stat line alone is what you're paying for. You're paying for a CP generator, a scoring unit, a blocking unit, an area denial unit for the already heavily knackered deepstrike forces, and a source of padding for characters among other roles.  As for the characters: the orders are an immense force multiplier, and there's easy methods to mitigate their admittedly weak moral in other black-hatted cases. 

 

So where does the fulcrum of balance lay?  (Okay I'll partially answer this and say 'other armies need to work better': not guard's fault, but Guard have received so many benefits at this point that the 'hands up and shrug' response isn't winning any friends.) 

 

That said, I'll see about playing a game without Chapter/legion tactics and strategems against my mate's guard army with no regimental tactics, orders, or strategems.  Might be a fun way to check for where the synergy and issues are (and again, if you're saying 'that's not fair because it's not using them to their natural advantage', then that's kinda the point in checking flat point-for-stats pricing). 

[Shamansky]

...

Same goes for the Golden Boys.

...

And the Fact that both Custodes and Knights have Stratagems and Relics that give nothing to them but to the Souped in Guys just make this even more clear to me that GW never intendet them to stand on thier Own.

 

Well hell no!

Last tournament, couple of days before CA-2018. Mono golden boys placed 10 of 50. The guy played agains the winner of that tournament (Tau) and it was almost a draw. So please no. Don't tell me the tales. People just don't like thinking. 

[sairence]

I generally agree with the sentiment, but factoring in the cost of a unit without the ubiquitously available advantage is kinda like factoring in the cost of tank with no guns: it's more than the statline, its what it's supposed to do (who would pay even ~175 points for a Land Raider with absolutely no guns?). The orders are good, the orders are -very- good, and the unit itself isn't a 'tax' because it fulfills a prerequisite for building a force at an exceptionally affordable pricepoint. Guardsmen contribute so much to the overall advantage of an army that it's hard to say that the stat line alone is what you're paying for. You're paying for a CP generator, a scoring unit, a blocking unit, an area denial unit for the already heavily knackered deepstrike forces, and a source of padding for characters among other roles. As for the characters: the orders are an immense force multiplier, and there's easy methods to mitigate their admittedly weak moral in other black-hatted cases.

That's not exactly a functioning comparison. A Guardsmen squad is fully equipped and ready to be used on its own. The equivalent to orders would be similar character effects, the easiest comparison is auras. On a side note, I fully agree with your earlier point about the weakness of marines. Serious work needed there.

 

so where does the fulcrum of balance lay? (Okay I'll partially answer this and say 'other armies need to work better': not guard's fault, but Guard have received so many benefits at this point that the 'hands up and shrug' response isn't winning any friends.)

I'm a bit unclear on the "so many benefits point". One of the main differences between 7th and 8th in my view has been that for Guard players nothing much has changed. We were able to continue playing pretty much as we have before, unlike a lot of other armies that had to change drastically. At the same time we've been hit with some of the most drastic and knee-jerk nerfs in this edition, aka Commissars and Conscripts. 2 weeks after the Codex came out no less.

 

 

That said, I'll see about playing a game without Chapter/legion tactics and strategems against my mate's guard army with no regimental tactics, orders, or strategems. Might be a fun way to check for where the synergy and issues are (and again, if you're saying 'that's not fair because it's not using them to their natural advantage', then that's kinda the point in checking flat point-for-stats pricing).

Not sure how much insight that will give you, considering you'll be running a Codex with very good internal balance against one that is arguably one of the big losers of the current edition.

 

I maintain that pure Guard armies are not a problem. I'm not an expert on the tournament scene, but I don't think we've cleaned out unless it was in support of the usual suspects. That leads me to belief that Guardsmen aren't too cheap as such, but rather that they're too cheap AND too useful for other Imperium armies. There's no real cost benefit analysis that needs to be done because there's no extra cost. And that's not something that points increases will be able to really fix. We'll just have the same discussion next year over in the AdMech forum.

 

The best way to address this is by reducing the benefits for mixing. Whether that happens by reducing or locking CPs of non-WL detachments or by locking relics and strategems of non-WL-detachments or something else...there's a lot more room there than just upping the points and hoping that'll be enough to mask a deeper issue.

[Gothical]

 

 

It would be daft for a straight-up Guard army though. From the thread I read I saw various mathematical analyses that showed Guardsmen are worth roughly 4.6ppm before Orders are factored in, therefore my proposition would be that the Infantry Squad rises to 45 points for the unit.

 

I generally agree with the sentiment, but factoring in the cost of a unit without the ubiquitously available advantage is kinda like factoring in the cost of tank with no guns: it's more than the statline, its what it's supposed to do (who would pay even ~175 points for a Land Raider with absolutely no guns?).  The orders are good, the orders are -very- good, and the unit itself isn't a 'tax' because it fulfills a prerequisite for building a force at an exceptionally affordable pricepoint.  Guardsmen contribute so much to the overall advantage of an army that it's hard to say that the stat line alone is what you're paying for. You're paying for a CP generator, a scoring unit, a blocking unit, an area denial unit for the already heavily knackered deepstrike forces, and a source of padding for characters among other roles.  As for the characters: the orders are an immense force multiplier, and there's easy methods to mitigate their admittedly weak moral in other black-hatted cases. 

 

So where does the fulcrum of balance lay?  (Okay I'll partially answer this and say 'other armies need to work better': not guard's fault, but Guard have received so many benefits at this point that the 'hands up and shrug' response isn't winning any friends.) 

 

That said, I'll see about playing a game without Chapter/legion tactics and strategems against my mate's guard army with no regimental tactics, orders, or strategems.  Might be a fun way to check for where the synergy and issues are (and again, if you're saying 'that's not fair because it's not using them to their natural advantage', then that's kinda the point in checking flat point-for-stats pricing). 

 

 

There is a flaw in the Land Raider example - if you kill the Officer the Guardsmen cannot have Orders, you cannot knock the guns off a tank any more. Also, people have indeed looked at the base cost of vehicles without weaponry as part of highlighting the issues with the Knight Castellan, particularly in reference to the Land Raider chassis and the stat disparity therein.

 

Furthermore, none of the comparisons with other units (often well-regarded shooting units such as Fire Warriors or Dark Eldar Warriors) did not include any bonuses from Character auras from their own Codex (or, in the Dark Eldar case, bonuses from Ynnari/Farseer powers souped in). Looking at the base performance of the unit is a requirement before one can move on to other balancing issues.

 

CP generation is the absolute major issue, and I would argue the crux of the ubiquity of the Loyal 32, but the Mods asked us to leave that out so I didn't mention it.

 

The fact that Infantry Squads do have easy access to Order bonuses is why I would argue the Officers need more of a rework/cost raise than the Infantry Squad. Perhaps a matched play rule saying you cannot have more HQ Officers than Elite ones for a start. Perhaps rework some of the more problematic Orders (FRF is often used for the calculations but it is MMM that people really object to for the speed it makes an Objective Secured unit go). I even pointed to significantly raising the cost of the Officer models so long as something was done about the squishyness (personally I like the Command Squad getting the Bodyguard rule thanks to the limitations on number of CS units in Matched Play and that the CS is not taken in the Loyal 32 thus making the package significantly more expensive if you want your Officers to live more than a turn or two).

 

Other points about area denial & blocking I do agree with, but that is something extremely hard to factor in cost-wise as it can become as much a liability as a bonus depending on the size of the game you are playing, the size of the board you are playing on, and the amount/type of terrain on said board.