But why?! Of all the careers in the game, it makes the most sense by far for Guardsmen to have a minimal advancement cost for this stat.

Because of the need for game balance. Toughness is one of the most valuable stats (at least in a combat-heavy campaign).

Eh, I don't find that line of reasoning so convincing. Toughness is important for sure, but I don't think the Guardsman properties/progression exactly necessitates the expense of that upgrade. If nothing else, one of the mental stats should cost more to upgrade instead.

Surrealistik said:

All but one of the mental characteristics cost as more to upgrade than Toughness anyway.

With the exception of the Sororitas and Cleric career paths, every career has three cheap characteristics, three medium-cost characteristics, and three expensive ones. The Guardsman already has this.

Sure, but WS/BS can often prove redundant, as much as it makes sense for the Guardsman to have minimal upgrade costs for both. Mechanically it is far, far more efficient to specialize and excel in one or the other. This is why at least one of three of his cheap characteristics is unsatisfactory, and doesn't justify the expense of the Toughness upgrade.

Surrealistik said:

You get three cheap characteristics for each career... whether or not you take advantage of them is another matter entirely. It's entirely possible, and not at all difficult, to build a Guardsman character who can perform solidly in any form of combat and move between them as the situation dictates (that seems to be the point, actually - the character is an all-round combatant, able with a multitude of weapons and styles); beyond that, the idea of aiming for 'efficiency' in XP expenditure seems, to me at least, to be an entirely shallow notion, one more concerned with building a particularly lethal collection of numbers than actually developing a character.

Personally, I don't take the career paths as being the be-all-and-end-all of character development anyway. They're the starting point, the core concept around which everything else is built. If a particular concept calls for a different arrangement of characteristics (within reason) and is justifiable within the context of the narrative, then I'll rearrange them... an assassin who is more social infiltrator than blade-wielding bringer of death? Swap the costs of WS and Fel.

That is, however, a different matter to simply making one stat cheaper because you don't think it's fair that you don't get four of the five core combat stats (WS, BS, S, T and Ag being those five) at the cheapest rates. In my games, if you want cheaper Toughness increases for your Guardsman, justify to me why that character should get such a benefit, and what should lose out in return.

N0-1_H3r3 said:

Here's the thing. Good design needs to be concerned with both mechanical balance, and fluff. Fluffwise it makes a great deal of sense for Guardsmen to have minimal Toughness upgrade costs, especially when Arbitrators enjoy them. They're Guardsmen. Nuff said. Second, with respect to mechanical balance, a Guardsman specced in either ballistics or melee is more effective than a generalist relative to XP investment. Much more effective. Yes, it is theoretically possible and not especially difficult to create a Guardsman decent at both, but in balance, the specialist, especially the ballistics specialist, is mechanically superior by a significant margin.

So, with the above in mind, it seems clear that the minimal upgrade costs for melee and ballistics simply do not justify the increase in cost for Toughness. Overall, it appears that a design convention has just been applied indiscriminately in the case of the Guardsman career with respect to upgrade pricing.

Second, with respect to mechanical balance, a Guardsman specced in either ballistics or melee is more effective than a generalist relative to XP investment. Much more effective. Yes, it is theoretically possible and not especially difficult to create a Guardsman decent at both, but in balance, the specialist, especially the ballistics specialist, is mechanically superior by a significant margin.

Er... what? How is either getting shot up over a hundred metres range or being cut to bits in a hive tunnel mechanically superior to being competent in both situations?

Scatter pistols, dual wielded or otherwise, are great for melee combat (far better still if you suck up an attack of opportunity for a +30 PB bonus to hit), and in the meanwhile, you destroy everything comfortably at range, while being able to use grenades and other thrown weapons well. The ranged specialist has a good answer for almost everything.

Granted, the melee specialist is a lot more limited, but many (certainly not all) of its deficits can be addressed by ballistic shields, charging and use of cover.

Surreal, keep in mind that if you change WS or BS to a higher xp cost, then you are unbalancing the guardsman career and giving it a higher focus on the lower valued stat. Sure, it tends to be 'better' to specialize in either shooting or melee (at least in the beginning). The point is that with both WS and BS xp costs low, a Guardsman is free to choose one or the other path equally. If you bump WS up to 250, you are then hampering Guardsmen who want to go the melee route, and vice versa with raising BS. More so than making the Guardsman a generalist, it gives a Guardsman character an equal choice on the direction to take his character if they want to be a specialist. Also, don't forget Guardsmen get numerous and cheap Sound Constitution advances compared to a lot of other classes too.

dvang said:

I'm not necessarily advocating an increase in cost for either WS or BS. I'm simply stating that mechanical and fluff reasons alike support a minimal Toughness cost, rather than the current one.

Surrealistik said:

In terms of fluff, the main purpose of guardsmen, as foot-soldiers, is to die in vast numbers, trampled by an ork horde, eaten alive by a hive swarm or ravaged by a chaos warband. (Their tanks and artillery are quite good, though, hence frequent quotes about big guns and whatnot.) Sure, there may be some indications that they are tougher than average; but a 250 starting cost *is* tougher than average. There is not a great deal of support for having a specialised career path in the fluff either - most guardsmen, aside from a few specialised regiments, are equally competent with blade or bullet.

In terms of mechanics, saying that a guardsmen would be more effective with a given stat is besides the point. As assassin would also be more effective with cheaper toughness, so would a tech-priest, or a psyker. But the phrase you used was mechanical balance. In terms of balance, to allow guardsmen to choose which stat they have cheap would unfairly advantage them over other classes (you could certainly make the same argument for an assassin, for instance; and you could well argue that scum should be allowed to choose between agility and fellowship). It would also mean you wouldn't get many all-rounder guardsmen.

As an aside - if you could choose to have WS more expensive and in return get T cheap, it would no longer make sense to have S cheap. So you could end up remodelling the entire character class...

Surrealistik said:

So, what would be your sollution / they you would say it should be?

Cardinalsin said:

250 is actually average progression given existing advancement trends. 500 is slow/below average, and 100 is above average. Guardsmen with average Toughness progression? Hell no! As hard as they get it, most WH40k fluff in balance represents the Guardsman as a rough and tumble sort, trained and conditioned to soak up to the human limit of physical punishment and endurance.

Further it really makes little sense that Arbitrators get minimal T advancement costs when Guardsmen don't, I mean really? As hardcore as Arbitrators are, they're civilian police that rarely are subject to the same rigors of your average Guardsman trooper.

Third, from a mechanical perspective, the fact that specialization is optimal is important, and not at all besides the point. It clearly illustrates that minimal costs for both melee and ballistic skills are not as advantageous as minimal costs for a combat skill and a physical or mental statistic, thus Guardsmen can be more accurately said to have "two and a half" cheap progressions. Given this, and the very generous progression schedule for several other classes, as well as the Guardsman's lack of flexibility and striking ineptitude outside of combat, I do not at all see the issue with simply making T advancement cheaper. The sad fact is that combat wise, the Assassin and Arbitrator currently do it better, and they simultaneously have the skills and progression to handle many other tasks effectively (Arbitrator especially!).

Surrealistik said:

Some are some aren't. I imagine a vast majority are conscripts from middle hives put through a basic training. Sure veterans and experienced soldiers are tough nuts but this is well within the advance frame work available. 250 for the first advance is hardly out of the realms of possibility to increase.

Surrealistik said:

Arbitrators are far from civilian policemen. They might be called upon to take down heretics in all levels of society and as such they are punished mentally and physically to incorruptable arms of the Emperors justice.

Surrealistik said:

I think this is what it's coming down. Assassins have great difficulty increasing their Fellowship, Intellegence or Perception skills so I'm not sure what other tasks you mean. Both the Assassin and Guardsmen are in the same boat they can do either way of combat well but not much else,if you are coming down to only buying cheap advances.

Advance wise Assassins get shooting skills earlier than Guardsman but Guards seem to get melee skills earlier. So according to that Melee is what they are supposed to be doing, which is backed up by the fact that their cheapest stat is strength.

Actually this is why i've always it that if you use pistols in melee combat you use WS. It's far more do with position and speed than it is to do with trajectory and lead. It's a lot harder to create a gun only character with this rule, knowing that in combat they had to use a dump stat. After all melee characters already have to put up with range problems.

Why would a fresh Arbite trooper's physique be somehow more rigourously trained than that of a greenhorn Guardsman? Further, given that you can invest in these improvements at any point of your career, and that the costs are static throughout, I don't think they were meant to respect experience.

They're effectively the feds of the Imperium. Civilian officers. Decorated civilian officers with a great deal of authority and jurisdiction, but civilian officers nonetheless.

Covertly stalking others and entering secured areas are both things that readily come to mind. There are several Agility based skills that are consistently viable outside of combat situations. Further, the Assassin's Intelligence score is significantly easier to increase relative to the Guardsman's (to say nothing of his skill selection), making him superior outside of combat. Then there's the Arbitrator who basically puts them both completely to shame by excelling in nearly all circumstances.

Which is silly and inconsistent with the Fluff. Assassins and Guardsmen alike are, more often than not, far more shooty than melee.

I'm approaching this from a vantage of RAW, which says that ranged is (far) better than melee, and that Assassins and Arbitrators trounce the Guardsman both in and out of combat.

Surrealistik said:

From the core rulebook: "Arbitrators are infamous for their prodigious stamina and zeal, and their ability to survive all manner of wounds and punishment in their quest to catch the quarry." You may not instinctively feel that arbitrators should be tough, but the background is pretty clear on this point.

Cardinalsin said:

And Guardsmen are not, or are substantially less durable? I think Arbitrators are and should be tough, and given their due, but the IG at the least are every bit as resilient. The latter has a very rich fluff history (far more so than the Arbitrator) that highlights incredible (albeit mortal) fortitude.

Second, as completely gimped as Guardsmen are outside of combat, is it really too much to ask that they be the best career for what they're meant to do (besides Psykers obviously but that's acceptable)?

Also compared to Arbitrators and Techpriests (who both get the cheap T) Guardsmen can start as Feralworlders with a +5 T (so they would pay 250 for their first +5 T where the others pay 250 for their second +5 T and so on). Guardsmen are one of two careers with cheap WS and while Assassins also get a few rogue-like melee goodies (Acrobatics, Assassin Strike) only Guardsmen get the cheap Str increases and Crushing Blow for higher damage. Melee and heavy weapons (with the high Str+T to carry them and Bulging Biceps) are really what Guardsmen are about. Using the big toys on the battlefield.

And at higher level melee gets better than pistols or Scatter weapons. I also agree with what someone else wrote earlier, the Guardmen already gets the 5 combat characteristics cheapest of any career (3 at 100, 2 at 250). Assassins are second (3 at 100, 1 at 250, 1 at 500). It's all about balance.

Surrealistik said:

Surrealistik said:

You're version excelling means (for all but one of the remaining stats) clearly implies that Guardsmen excel at toughness seeing as both perception and fellowship are 250 first point advances and make up a very large portion of their skill base.

In additional Arbites have rubbish agility and I don't know about you but dodges (and guards get step aside earlier than everyone else) mitigate far more damage than a point of toughness.

So in essence a guardsman is equal to or less than an at shooting Assassin but has a lot more armour at start, can carry more weapons and armour and is better in melee which you have chosen to not take.

Chester said:

You do realize that the Volg Hive variant exists right? If an Arbitrator wants a free starting bonus to Toughness, that's always an option, and it comes at a minimal cost. Second, cheap Strength isn't great. Agility and Toughness are both superior. Yes, you can do great melee damage, but according to RAW, ballistics are hands down superior by a huge margin. Dual-wield Scatter/Full Auto is very hard to outpace with melee. Further, the Arbitrator's high Toughness permits him to readily use Heavy weapons.

Further, at higher levels, melee's advances over Scatter weapons is diminished by dual wielding, while Ballistics obviously completely outstrips melee at every range beyond adjacent. In effect, two of three of the Guardsman's cheap stat progressions aren't especially useful.

Face Eater said:

Actually no, it doesn't. While the Assassin has an easier time outside of combat than the Guardsman, he obviously still struggles. It's the Arbitrator who excels, with cheap Intelligence advancement, and medium advancement pricing for Perception and Fellowship.

Second, Dodge, with the exception of Step Aside, only applies once per round, not per attack as Toughness does, and is unreliable, doubly so for the Guardsman who cannot cheaply raise his Agility. The value of Toughness in enabling a character to make various important checks related to it also cannot be underestimated.

Third, a Guardsman is hardly equal to a shooting assassin, especially in melee where said Assassin can easily and effectively dual wield Scatter/FA pistols (hello Half Action Acrobatics disengage for +30 PB shots), and Parrying proves yet another confounding factor. In the meanwhile, the Assassin is faster, more mobile, and can basically disappear at will and strike at his leisure with hit and run/guerrila warfare. About the only meaningful combat advantage the Guardsman really enjoys is the greater ease with which he can heft weaponry and armour.

Surrealistik said:

Which class (aside from Psykers) are you arguing is better at combat than the Guardsman, and why?

Cardinalsin said:

Assassin easily. Speed, + unparalleled stealth, + reliable, effective dodge, + fast and deadly ballistics talent progression including the dual wielding tree + acrobatics + good awareness progression.

Arbitrators somewhat due to extraordinarily cheap Toughness, + best awareness progression in the game. Everything else is roughly comparable, though the Guardsman has a somewhat better ballistics progression.

I will point out (as someone else did before) that the IG's job is to go there in large numers, soak up the damage by it's large number, and strike hard with their heavy weapons. Nobody notice that guards are the class with the easiest access to powerfull weapons? Hello, 2. rank offers both grenade launchers and heavy Sp weapons, both for only 100 exps each! that's the way they are ment to be fighting, by dishing out a lot! in ranged combat! to use a wow-quote: massive range-dd! And to make sure they are some of the best fighters you also get cc-potential very cheap (both strengh and WS). If you don't like the way GW has created the Guardsmen, then sorry, but they invented this universe. feel free to change it in your group after disussing it with your GM/players, but don't expect all of us to agree to it. Some of us like the way it is now.

and a personal comment: stupid fuking small laptop-keyboard! i can't write on this thing, so please excuse my typos.

segara82 said:

Mechanically melee is laughably weak and limited, as to almost be inconsequential. Second, yes, IG have good weapons and ballistics progression, but that's really the only thing they've really got going for them, aside from being able to heft the heavy hitters better than most professions, which in itself isn't particularly useful in combat proper.