Xenomancers wrote: Nah. the solution is that 3-4 point back feild camper models should not ignore leadership.
So what you really want is for Commissars to be removed altogether.
Got it.
Ignore-morale mechanics should be eliminated from the game barring special cases and units, and those should be costed appropiately. Morale is the weakness of the Horde Armies. They should have ways to "protect" them from Morale, but all those should be balanced and have weakness and counter-play. And no, Commisars didn't had Counter-play.
Snipers and assault both were the counter. Snipers would allow you to single the Commissars out and charging did not require the Commissar to be the closest target for you.
There's also a magical thing called maneuvering where you would try to make the Commissar the closest target for your shooting, but...
When you have whole armies like Night Lords that all of their "flavour" is working with morale, having a so easy way to ignore morale all together (And for the Horde Armies, the ones that should suffer the most from morale) is bad gameplay design.
And units that ignore To Hit modifiers negate things like the Raven Guard Chapter Tactic.
That's "bad gameplay design" too, yet you don't hear people whining that Dark Reapers need a nerf.
When you have whole armies like Night Lords that all of their "flavour" is working with morale, having a so easy way to ignore morale all together (And for the Horde Armies, the ones that should suffer the most from morale) is bad gameplay design.
And units that ignore To Hit modifiers negate things like the Raven Guard Chapter Tactic.
That's "bad gameplay design" too, yet you don't hear people whining that Dark Reapers need a nerf.
Are you comparing a specific unit with a full army?
Theres a reason why Sisters of Silence as a unit are good, but as an army are totally useless, and bad gameplay-design.
Read again those squad sizes and understand why you should leave this thread.
Really, discussing with you is an exercise in frustration.
Your argument relies upon people fielding a specific Regimental trait for a bonus LD or parking them near a Regimental/Platoon Standard.
Beyond that, you'd still be wrong since if someone has shot through 4 Wounds on a Heavy Weapons Squad they probably shot through the remaining 2 or if a Commissar does Summary Execution the squad basically ceases to exist.
The same thing goes for Special Weapon Squads and Command Squads(Tempestus and Veterans).
They're small sized units. That's the point I was making and that you seemed to ignore in favor of "BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE LEADERSHIP!!!11!".
And to be honest, I still believe the way they have changed Commisars is a sloopy fix, and probably they'll should tweak it more.
Something like killing one dude to lower the amount of Morale casualties D6, etc... so it is always usefull, but doesn't just literally negates morale.
The reality is that Morale was a bigger problems for Daemons than for Imperial Guard (And to be honest and fair, Orks and Tyranids). And that doesn't make any sense. (Maybe in the Tyranids +Synapse yes)
When you have whole armies like Night Lords that all of their "flavour" is working with morale, having a so easy way to ignore morale all together (And for the Horde Armies, the ones that should suffer the most from morale) is bad gameplay design.
And units that ignore To Hit modifiers negate things like the Raven Guard Chapter Tactic.
That's "bad gameplay design" too, yet you don't hear people whining that Dark Reapers need a nerf.
Are you comparing a specific unit with a full army? Theres a reason why Sisters of Silence as a unit are good, but as an army are totally useless, and bad gameplay-design.
You argued that there should be nothing that allows for negating an army's benefits when you brought up Night Lords v. Horde armies being able to negate morale.
I posted at least one unit that flat-out ignores an army/unit benefit. It would be one thing if Dark Reapers only negated a specific thing like saves from Cover or the modifier from a Flyer.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Xenomancers wrote: Supression for was really good. But killing a single whirlwind dropped the remaining 2 down to useless levels. That was a pretty big weakness.
Just like killing Commissars reduced Conscripts to useless levels?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: Snipers are a myth. They simply do not work in 8th edition as they are intended to.
Then bring that up with GW They deal a mortal wound in addition to the wound they cause when they roll a 6+.
Ideally, I would say that Snipers should be dealing 2 Damage per shot not just 1. And that most should have at least -1AP.
Conscripts still have the exact same role and effectiveness as they did before.
You just can't have them survive for 3 turns while the entire opposing army is forced to focus them.
Maybe guard might lose a game to Orks now? Oh no, the horror, you can't auto win against an entire race, or any assault based army without thinking.
Galas wrote: Martel we know it, Blood Angels Suck.
And to be honest, I still believe the way they have changed Commisars is a sloopy fix, and probably they'll should tweak it more.
Something like killing one dude to lower the amount of Morale casualties D6, etc... so it is always usefull, but doesn't just literally negates morale.
The reality is that Morale was a bigger problems for Daemons than for Imperial Guard (And to be honest and fair, Orks and Tyranids). And that doesn't make any sense.
I agree the nerf is too much - it made them useless options for all other infantry. The issue was with conscripts. However - it's not like the other units needs commissars to function. 10 mans aren't as susceptible to morale as 30 mans. With the change over to infantry from conscripts - more company commanders will be required anyways so it's just a defacto buff to the already amazing company commander.
They absolutely do not.
Special Weapon Squads are 6 models(3 with Lasguns, 3 with Specials).
Heavy Weapon Squads are 3 models, consisting of 2W each.
Ratlings are 5 models with an optional 5 more.
Tempestus Command Squads got a nerf to their points for Plasma Guns(anything BS3+ pays more now) and are 4 models in total.
If a Heavy Weapon Squad loses a model, then you're going to lose a model(meaning 2W) for Summary Execution--meaning you basically wipe out the whole squad.
Special Weapon Squads are basically going to be dead if you lose anyone in most circumstances. Same goes for Tempestus Command Squads.
And if you're referring to Heavy Weapon Teams or Special Weapon operators in Infantry Squads--you'd still be wrong, since Infantry Squads are 10 models.
Read again those profiles and understand why you are wrong.
Read again those squad sizes and understand why you should leave this thread.
Ehh, with a Commissar near a Heavy Weapon Squad can't run away-Ld 8 would mean all 3 teams (models) would need to be killed for them to be able to fail and a Commissar to use Summary Execution... Without Commissar they're Ld 6 so even 1 model lost can mean Morale casualties.
Same with all the other examples in that list-unless the casualties go to 8 models the Commissar is better than the units Ld (if 7) and after that it's the same. A Lord Commissar is even better. Just look at the chart made by YetAnotherFacelessMan from BoLS forums:
When you have whole armies like Night Lords that all of their "flavour" is working with morale, having a so easy way to ignore morale all together (And for the Horde Armies, the ones that should suffer the most from morale) is bad gameplay design.
And units that ignore To Hit modifiers negate things like the Raven Guard Chapter Tactic.
That's "bad gameplay design" too, yet you don't hear people whining that Dark Reapers need a nerf.
Are you comparing a specific unit with a full army?
Theres a reason why Sisters of Silence as a unit are good, but as an army are totally useless, and bad gameplay-design.
You argued that there should be nothing that allows for negating an army's benefits when you brought up Night Lords v. Horde armies being able to negate morale.
I posted at least one unit that flat-out ignores an army/unit benefit. It would be one thing if Dark Reapers only negated a specific thing like saves from Cover or the modifier from a Flyer.
I argued that the tools Horde Armies have to protect them from Morale loses should have counter play. I argue that those tools shouldn't just literally negate morale, and if they do, they should be scarce and costed appropiately.
Commisars, by how bad Snipers are, how unreliable Pyschic powers are, didn't had real Counter-play, but had the capacity to literally make the Night Lords primary tactic useless.
Dark Reapers offer counter play, they are a unit, you can kill them, and they can't be at all places at once.
If Eldar had characters for 50 points with a 6" Aura that allow squads to ignore all to-hit modifiers, I'll argue about that unit being bad gameplay-design, yes.
An unkillable wall of morale immune bodies that just needed to have the Commissars killed.
The issue is, for most armies up to this point, to kill those commies required a unit or two of snipers. So for eldar, this was 200 points, to kill one commissar fast enough to actually make much different in a game. 200 points to kill a 30 point model. So all an IG player had to do, is bring two commissars. Still a huge net gain. Or a bodyguard.
So generally it wasn't points-efficient to try and kill commissars. Or any character, using snipers. This is why snipers have been fairly useless in 8th, up until now.
Except, now that points have changed, it would only cost 120 points to kill a commissar (with Eldar) fast enough to really matter. So perhaps they would have been less of an issue, as tailoring a list to kill them isn't so innefficient. Shame we won't get a chance to find out how the meta would have been affected.
With the price drops, I think they'll become more common.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: The thing is Commissars would be a good choice if they built in good counterplay, like only allowing them to affect a certain number of units or if we had better ways to snipe characters.
I don't think that's good counterplay, I think that's enforced counterplay. I consider most enforced counterplay is bad because then it comes down to building a list that has one of everything in it, rock, paper, and scissors, to make sure you're protected against whatever might show up as opposed to actually outmaneuvering, outscoring, and outshooting your foe.
I generally think natural counteplay and synergy is better than enforced counterplay and synergy. Enforced synergy, like the re-roll aura issued by commanders, isn't bad, but I think the natural benefit that Conscripts and artillery offered each other is a very good thing. Artillery has a weakness to close assault, and the Conscripts are strong against close assault and can protect the artillery from one of the artillery's weaknesses, while the artillery in turn destroys threats to the Conscripts. There's no special rule that says this interaction a thing, it's the natural product of their capabilities.
Not just BA. GK, BT, etc. Any list that tries to punch with expensive models is 100% fail. This "nerf" does nothing to change that. It just means IG has to try a little harder.
When you have whole armies like Night Lords that all of their "flavour" is working with morale, having a so easy way to ignore morale all together (And for the Horde Armies, the ones that should suffer the most from morale) is bad gameplay design.
And units that ignore To Hit modifiers negate things like the Raven Guard Chapter Tactic.
That's "bad gameplay design" too, yet you don't hear people whining that Dark Reapers need a nerf.
Are you comparing a specific unit with a full army?
Theres a reason why Sisters of Silence as a unit are good, but as an army are totally useless, and bad gameplay-design.
You argued that there should be nothing that allows for negating an army's benefits when you brought up Night Lords v. Horde armies being able to negate morale.
I posted at least one unit that flat-out ignores an army/unit benefit. It would be one thing if Dark Reapers only negated a specific thing like saves from Cover or the modifier from a Flyer.
I argued that the tools Horde Armies have to protect them from Morale loses should have counter play. I argue that those tools shouldn't just literally negate morale, and if they do, they should be scarce and costed appropiately.
Commisars, by how bad Snipers are, how unreliable Pyschic powers are, didn't had real Counter-play, but had the capacity to literally make the Night Lords primary tactic useless.
And like I said, you could also have maneuvered to get at the Commissars or launched assaults to get at them.
Both are things that the Night Lords were known for.
Dark Reapers offer counter play, they are a unit, you can kill them, and they can't be at all places at once.
If Eldar had characters for 50 points with a 6" Aura that allow squads to ignore all to-hit modifiers, I'll argue about that unit being bad gameplay-design, yes.
Dark Reapers make the Raven Guard and Alpha Legion special ability useless. There are not ways to gain To Hit modifiers that Dark Reapers cannot negate.
It's the same situation but you're saying one is okay but the other isn't. Dark Reapers are a long ranged unit that can negate a counter to long ranged units with no downside.
It'd be neat if there were actual TO&Es you had to follow for the Guard, rather than a 'do what you want'.
I know most regiments have their own internal structure, but for units without the <REGIMENT> Keyword, there are definitely restrictions put on by the Departmento Munitorum.
Like, write up some fluff about how there are 'Company' Commissars and 'Lord' Commissars, and how the Lord Commissars are 1/regiment and 'company' Commissars are 1/company. In this case, it would be 1/detachment as a rules manifestation. This is assuming that a Detachment represents a Company, which seems to be the motif GW is going with.
I'm gonna guess that if dark reapers get shot and killed, the player cares. I can kill dozens and dozens of IG infantry a turn and just keep falling further and further behind.
IG players just don't understand how powerful freedom of not giving a feth about any given squad truly is.
"Oh boy, your 250 pt assault unit just killed 40 pts of dudes! Whatever shall I do? I know, I'll shoot your 250 pts off the table with a 1/3 of my remaining list."
Xenomancers wrote: come on dude...competitive gaurd is running like 2-3 commissars in range of every blob. You can't snipe that.
Then maybe there should have been a requirement for fielding a Commissar?
We need to have an Officer in order to field a Command Squad.
Why not have the same requirement for Commissars?
Personally, even if those could be ways to balance this, I'm opposed to the idea of "tax". "Tax" is recognising that you are so bad at balancing the game, you can't make every unit worth their cost in points in a balanced way.
The idea of picking units that you don't want, or even worse, bad units (Oh boy, this ultra OP model is balanced because you have to take 100 points of useless junk-troops to take it!) is just... un-fun. I'm not talking about making troops the best thing out there, but at least balance them so they have a place and are usefull.
In a balanced game, you don't need to put a "tax" of bad units to a "good" unit. Just make both of them usefull in their own ways.
And about Dark Reapers, again, Kanluwen, you are comparing a specific and single unit type to a guy that could make ALL of the Imperial Guard infantry INMUNE to a CORE RULE of the game. A Core Rule WHOLE factions or sub-factions use as their most important offensive tool. THATS bad gameplay design.
Sisters of Silence as an "anti-psyker" unit are good. A full army inmune to psychic power isn't, be it for special -army rules or for the hability to spamm characters that are capable of that.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It'd be neat if there were actual TO&Es you had to follow for the Guard, rather than a 'do what you want'.
I know most regiments have their own internal structure, but for units without the <REGIMENT> Keyword, there are definitely restrictions put on by the Departmento Munitorum.
Like, write up some fluff about how there are 'Company' Commissars and 'Lord' Commissars, and how the Lord Commissars are 1/regiment and 'company' Commissars are 1/company. In this case, it would be 1/detachment as a rules manifestation. This is assuming that a Detachment represents a Company, which seems to be the motif GW is going with.
I miss the old 0-1 and 1+ restriction. It cut down on a lot of the spam.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It'd be neat if there were actual TO&Es you had to follow for the Guard, rather than a 'do what you want'.
I know most regiments have their own internal structure, but for units without the <REGIMENT> Keyword, there are definitely restrictions put on by the Departmento Munitorum.
Like, write up some fluff about how there are 'Company' Commissars and 'Lord' Commissars, and how the Lord Commissars are 1/regiment and 'company' Commissars are 1/company. In this case, it would be 1/detachment as a rules manifestation. This is assuming that a Detachment represents a Company, which seems to be the motif GW is going with.
I miss the old 0-1 and 1+ restriction. It cut down on a lot of the spam.
I agree, though it was kinda dumb sometimes, e.g. Obliterators. The number of obliterators in a warband is absolutely something a Chaos Lord could control and either encourage or discourage.
Xenomancers wrote: come on dude...competitive gaurd is running like 2-3 commissars in range of every blob. You can't snipe that.
Then maybe there should have been a requirement for fielding a Commissar?
We need to have an Officer in order to field a Command Squad.
Why not have the same requirement for Commissars?
To be fair - you were taking a company commander for every commissar anyways.
Which still would mean that in a Patrol or Battalion, you're only going to be able to manage 2 or 3 Commissars as part of a limited number of Elites. A Brigade could manage 5 tops.
The Elite heavy Detachment becomes nothing and Supreme Command could bring you 1 Commissar total.
It means, all of a sudden, people have to instead field Lord Commissars who take up HQ slots instead.
Maneuver against most IG lists is physically impossible. This FAQ is not going to change that. There are no DS holes until after the opponent has committed all DSers.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It'd be neat if there were actual TO&Es you had to follow for the Guard, rather than a 'do what you want'.
I know most regiments have their own internal structure, but for units without the <REGIMENT> Keyword, there are definitely restrictions put on by the Departmento Munitorum.
Like, write up some fluff about how there are 'Company' Commissars and 'Lord' Commissars, and how the Lord Commissars are 1/regiment and 'company' Commissars are 1/company. In this case, it would be 1/detachment as a rules manifestation. This is assuming that a Detachment represents a Company, which seems to be the motif GW is going with.
I miss the old 0-1 and 1+ restriction. It cut down on a lot of the spam.
I agree, though it was kinda dumb sometimes, e.g. Obliterators. The number of obliterators in a warband is absolutely something a Chaos Lord could control and either encourage or discourage.
It was more for balance, since Necron Armies could definitely field more than 10 Pariahs per army, but they were pretty dang powerful if you could have more than one unit; they were one of those units that were fragile as hell for their points, but only needed one guy to reach combat to make back the entire squad's points. Having multiple units (and thus multiple targets) would make them significantly more survivable and likely to get at least one guy into the enemy gunline.
Xenomancers wrote: come on dude...competitive gaurd is running like 2-3 commissars in range of every blob. You can't snipe that.
Then maybe there should have been a requirement for fielding a Commissar?
We need to have an Officer in order to field a Command Squad.
Why not have the same requirement for Commissars?
Personally, even if those could be ways to balance this, I'm opposed to the idea of "tax". "Tax" is recognising that you are so bad at balancing the game, you can't make every unit worth their cost in points in a balanced way.
So you're fine with Command Squads not requiring an Officer anymore?
The idea of picking units that you don't want, or even worse, bad units (Oh boy, this ultra OP model is balanced because you have to take 100 points of useless junk-troops to take it!) is just... un-fun. I'm not talking about making troops the best thing out there, but at least balance them so they have a place and are usefull.
In a balanced game, you don't need to put a "tax" of bad units to a "good" unit. Just make both of them usefull in their own ways.
Like Xenomancers said, people were taking Officers anyways.
And about Dark Reapers, again, Kanluwen, you are comparing a specific and single unit type fo a guy that could make ALL of the Imperial Guard infantry INMUNE to a CORE RULE of the game. THATS bad gameplay design.
Sisters of Silence as an "anti-psyker" unit are good. A full army inmune to psychic power isn't, be it for special -army rules or for the hability to spamm characters that are capable of that.
I'm using one unit that I know of which has that specific rule as an example. Also--Sisters of Silence are effectively a full army that can be immune to Psychic Powers.
I find it astonishing how people are so upset by this mechanic yet nobody seems to have batted an eye at Bloodsecrators(or many other Standard Bearers) in Age of Sigmar being able to do the same thing for masses of Bloodreavers/blocks of infantry.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It'd be neat if there were actual TO&Es you had to follow for the Guard, rather than a 'do what you want'.
I know most regiments have their own internal structure, but for units without the <REGIMENT> Keyword, there are definitely restrictions put on by the Departmento Munitorum.
Like, write up some fluff about how there are 'Company' Commissars and 'Lord' Commissars, and how the Lord Commissars are 1/regiment and 'company' Commissars are 1/company. In this case, it would be 1/detachment as a rules manifestation. This is assuming that a Detachment represents a Company, which seems to be the motif GW is going with.
I miss the old 0-1 and 1+ restriction. It cut down on a lot of the spam.
eh, with detachments now a thing, thats easily worked around, and they havent released a book with such restrictions in places in over a decade and 4 editions now, it would run counter to the design philosophy theyve been pushing of "take whatever you want in whatever quantities you want!"
Martel732 wrote: I'm gonna guess that if dark reapers get shot and killed, the player cares. I can kill dozens and dozens of IG infantry a turn and just keep falling further and further behind.
IG players just don't understand how powerful freedom of not giving a feth about any given squad truly is.
"Oh boy, your 250 pt assault unit just killed 40 pts of dudes! Whatever shall I do? I know, I'll shoot your 250 pts off the table with a 1/3 of my remaining list."
I hate playing elite armies for that reason.
I like being able to throw away units because I can. It's a powerful ability. However, elite armies have their strength, namely that units have fewer weaknesses and more strengths each, making them less vulnerable to precision, calculated strikes, which they in turn deal out because their specialist options are significantly better at their specialty and not as weak at their weak suit than horde armies.
I can lose my conscripts, I can't lose my manticores. If you lose your devastators, the transport for your tactical squad can still make up the weight, and the tactical squad's embedded heavy weapon can also pick up the slack. Conscripts cannot pick up the slack for lost manticores, and manticores cannot pick up the slack for lost conscripts.
The Imperial Guard really is the hammer and the Space Marines really are the sword.
And about Dark Reapers, again, Kanluwen, you are comparing a specific and single unit type fo a guy that could make ALL of the Imperial Guard infantry INMUNE to a CORE RULE of the game. THATS bad gameplay design.
Sisters of Silence as an "anti-psyker" unit are good. A full army inmune to psychic power isn't, be it for special -army rules or for the hability to spamm characters that are capable of that.
I'm using one unit that I know of which has that specific rule as an example. Also--Sisters of Silence are effectively a full army that can be immune to Psychic Powers.
I find it astonishing how people are so upset by this mechanic yet nobody seems to have batted an eye at Bloodsecrators(or many other Standard Bearers) in Age of Sigmar being able to do the same thing for masses of Bloodreavers/blocks of infantry.
Because in Age of Sigmars you can snipe characters as much as you want.
If every army had Snipers in w40k and those where actually usefull, nobody will have problems with Commisars.
And yes, SoS as their own army just don't work. Just like Grey Knights having buffs agaisn't Daemons of Chaos is bad game-design (We discussed that in other thread, about GK)
Kanluwen wrote: And like I said, you could also have maneuvered to get at the Commissars or launched assaults to get at them.
Both are things that the Night Lords were known for.
... but lack rules for. Chaos has no snipers, there are rules around shooting, deep strike and assault that make it very hard to target a Commissar.
Chaos has snipers. There is no excuse now against Forge World units given that it's cheaper to buy the books off of iTunes/iBooks than it is to buy them from FW themselves. They have access to Marauders in the Renegades & Heretics list--which also gives Chaos access to many of the same units people are complaining about from Guard.
There is nothing for Assault that makes Commissars hard to target. They just have to be able to charge the unit. Shooting, as mentioned, can be maneuvered to make it happen. Deep Strike is a valid point.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It'd be neat if there were actual TO&Es you had to follow for the Guard, rather than a 'do what you want'.
I know most regiments have their own internal structure, but for units without the <REGIMENT> Keyword, there are definitely restrictions put on by the Departmento Munitorum.
Like, write up some fluff about how there are 'Company' Commissars and 'Lord' Commissars, and how the Lord Commissars are 1/regiment and 'company' Commissars are 1/company. In this case, it would be 1/detachment as a rules manifestation. This is assuming that a Detachment represents a Company, which seems to be the motif GW is going with.
I miss the old 0-1 and 1+ restriction. It cut down on a lot of the spam.
eh, with detachments now a thing, thats easily worked around, and they havent released a book with such restrictions in places in over a decade and 4 editions now, it would run counter to the design philosophy theyve been pushing of "take whatever you want in whatever quantities you want!"
I don't know if the 0-1 restriction ever coincided with the "free detachments" thing so I don't know if that would work on a per-detachment or per-army thing.
Per-detachment would still probably work though, as long as you forbid them from appearing in auxillary detachments. That way if you wanted, say, 3 Death Company Squads (one of the ones with the 0-1 restriction before it was removed) you basically needed to field 3 BA detachments.
And about Dark Reapers, again, Kanluwen, you are comparing a specific and single unit type fo a guy that could make ALL of the Imperial Guard infantry INMUNE to a CORE RULE of the game. THATS bad gameplay design.
Sisters of Silence as an "anti-psyker" unit are good. A full army inmune to psychic power isn't, be it for special -army rules or for the hability to spamm characters that are capable of that.
I'm using one unit that I know of which has that specific rule as an example. Also--Sisters of Silence are effectively a full army that can be immune to Psychic Powers.
I find it astonishing how people are so upset by this mechanic yet nobody seems to have batted an eye at Bloodsecrators(or many other Standard Bearers) in Age of Sigmar being able to do the same thing for masses of Bloodreavers/blocks of infantry.
Because in Age of Sigmars you can snipe characters as much as you want.
If every army had Snipers in w40k and those where actually usefull, nobody will have problems with Commisars.
Every army barring Orks has snipers or a sniper equivalent.
Snipers not being useful is a different story entirely. Additionally, the range on those banners is far superior to the measly 6" of a Commissar.
I play Bloodbound hordes in Age of Sigmar. Believe me, when all the shooting troops of your enemy can shoot at your "morale-inmunity" banners as much as they want, they aren't a problem.
Thats why I prefer the W40K Character rules. Now we only need snipers to be usefull ,and I think all be good.
Martel732 wrote: Maneuver against most IG lists is physically impossible. This FAQ is not going to change that. There are no DS holes until after the opponent has committed all DSers.
I love how you immediately assume that maneuver = Deep Strike.
So what, you can't move up along a flank and take shots at the Commissar when you move past the Conscript conga line?
Martel732 wrote: I'm gonna guess that if dark reapers get shot and killed, the player cares. I can kill dozens and dozens of IG infantry a turn and just keep falling further and further behind.
IG players just don't understand how powerful freedom of not giving a feth about any given squad truly is.
"Oh boy, your 250 pt assault unit just killed 40 pts of dudes! Whatever shall I do? I know, I'll shoot your 250 pts off the table with a 1/3 of my remaining list."
I hate playing elite armies for that reason.
I like being able to throw away units because I can. It's a powerful ability. However, elite armies have their strength, namely that units have fewer weaknesses and more strengths each, making them less vulnerable to precision, calculated strikes, which they in turn deal out because their specialist options are significantly better at their specialty and not as weak at their weak suit than horde armies.
I can lose my conscripts, I can't lose my manticores. If you lose your devastators, the transport for your tactical squad can still make up the weight, and the tactical squad's embedded heavy weapon can also pick up the slack. Conscripts cannot pick up the slack for lost manticores, and manticores cannot pick up the slack for lost conscripts.
Tac marines really can't pick up anything for marine heavy support. That's why razorback spamming is the thing to do.
Yeah the per-detachment 0-1 is what I had in mind for Basic Commissars and then 0-1 per Regiment keyword for Lord Commissars.
With that theory, you could run a Cadian Battalion with a Lord Commissar (for that Cadian regiment) and a regular Commissar (for that Cadian company).
Then, you could run a Tallarn Spearhead detachment with a Lord Commissar (or Commissar Tank Commander for fluff!) for that Tallarn regiment, and a Commissar / Commissar Regular Tank as the 'company' Commissar for that Tallarn tank company.
Then you could run a Cadian Vanguard detachment with Veterans, but since this Cadian regiment already brought their regimental Lord Commissar, they would only get 0-1 regular Commissars for this company.
Martel732 wrote: Maneuver against most IG lists is physically impossible. This FAQ is not going to change that. There are no DS holes until after the opponent has committed all DSers.
I love how you immediately assume that maneuver = Deep Strike.
So what, you can't move up along a flank and take shots at the Commissar when you move past the Conscript conga line?
Because I can't physically move past the conscript line because there are more units physically barring it from being a legal move. My IG opponents aren't morons. They know if they hold the formation for 2-3 turns, there will be no marines left. They are filling entire deployment zones for this exact purpose.
Edit: Do you really let power armor units BEHIND your conscript lines? Come on, man.
Galas wrote: I play Bloodbound hordes in Age of Sigmar. Believe me, when all the shooting troops of your enemy can shoot at your "morale-inminity" banners as much as they want, they aren't a problem.
I don't believe you at all.
I play Wanderers in AoS and the longest range you see in AoS now tends to be around 22".
Bloodsecrators have an 18" range when opening the Portal of Skulls. That range is doubled if they manage to get into a Skull Keep.
There's a 4" difference between the one of if not the longest ranged unit in AoS(Waywatcher, a hero itself) and the Bloodsecrator's ability. The Portal, additionally, does not require LOS to give its effect so...
Martel732 wrote: Maneuver against most IG lists is physically impossible. This FAQ is not going to change that. There are no DS holes until after the opponent has committed all DSers.
I love how you immediately assume that maneuver = Deep Strike.
So what, you can't move up along a flank and take shots at the Commissar when you move past the Conscript conga line?
Because I can't physically move past the conscript line because there are more units physically barring it from being a legal move. My IG opponents aren't morons. They know if they hold the formation for 2-3 turns, there will be no marines left. They are filling entire deployment zones for this exact purpose.
This actually makes me wonder about the wisdom of removing tank shock.
The way I see Marines dealing with this problem is loading up a Land Raider with Terminators (and a Dreadnought, if we're going by the 2nd edition fluff) and pinning the conscripts in place with a charge or something down the line while said Land Raider drives 'through' the line of conscripts and deposits its carried assets behind the line.
With the removal of tank-shock, this is no longer possible, and represents another straight Conscript buff that happened in the core rules!
Unit1126PLL wrote: It'd be neat if there were actual TO&Es you had to follow for the Guard, rather than a 'do what you want'.
I know most regiments have their own internal structure, but for units without the <REGIMENT> Keyword, there are definitely restrictions put on by the Departmento Munitorum.
Like, write up some fluff about how there are 'Company' Commissars and 'Lord' Commissars, and how the Lord Commissars are 1/regiment and 'company' Commissars are 1/company. In this case, it would be 1/detachment as a rules manifestation. This is assuming that a Detachment represents a Company, which seems to be the motif GW is going with.
I miss the old 0-1 and 1+ restriction. It cut down on a lot of the spam.
I agree, though it was kinda dumb sometimes, e.g. Obliterators. The number of obliterators in a warband is absolutely something a Chaos Lord could control and either encourage or discourage.
It was more for balance, since Necron Armies could definitely field more than 10 Pariahs per army, but they were pretty dang powerful if you could have more than one unit; they were one of those units that were fragile as hell for their points, but only needed one guy to reach combat to make back the entire squad's points. Having multiple units (and thus multiple targets) would make them significantly more survivable and likely to get at least one guy into the enemy gunline.
I laugh at the notion of Pariahs being powerful. Did you even PLAY 4th edition?
For the record, deepstriking was a very rare thing once upon a time; chaos was notable because they had such easy access to deepstrike at a time when most people only had one or two expensive units.
Part of the reason I miss 3rd edition is because it was a far simpler time, where simply having deepstrike, infiltrate or scout on one unit could make you a special snowflake army.
Martel732 wrote: Maneuver against most IG lists is physically impossible. This FAQ is not going to change that. There are no DS holes until after the opponent has committed all DSers.
I love how you immediately assume that maneuver = Deep Strike.
So what, you can't move up along a flank and take shots at the Commissar when you move past the Conscript conga line?
Because I can't physically move past the conscript line because there are more units physically barring it from being a legal move. My IG opponents aren't morons. They know if they hold the formation for 2-3 turns, there will be no marines left. They are filling entire deployment zones for this exact purpose.
If they're packed in so heavily then they are ripe for being charged and engaged in CC.
It's amazing how the BA player doesn't seem to want to get into CC
No, they aren't. Do you even play 8th? They get charged, lose nothing important, then leave CC for free, and then beta strike you off the table with undercosted tanks that I also can't physically assault. Rinse and repeat for hundreds of cheap models.
They actually spread out to do this, sacrificing infantry firepower that they don't need vs marines.
Martel732 wrote: No, they aren't. Do you even play 8th? They get charged, lose nothing important, then leave CC for free, and then beta strike you off the table. Rinse and repeat for hundreds of cheap models.
They leave CC, they don't get to "beta strike you off the table" unless they receive an Order--which Conscripts now do on a 50/50 shot.
If they don't get to--charge again.
Rinse and repeat, keeping your models in combat.
They actually spread out to do this, sacrificing infantry firepower that they don't need vs marines.
Then start piling in better or declaring Charges against more than one unit at a time.
Martel732 wrote: No, they aren't. Do you even play 8th? They get charged, lose nothing important, then leave CC for free, and then beta strike you off the table. Rinse and repeat for hundreds of cheap models.
They leave CC, they don't get to "beta strike you off the table" unless they receive an Order--which Conscripts now do on a 50/50 shot.
If they don't get to--charge again. Rinse and repeat, keeping your models in combat.
To be fair, even if the conscripts can't beta strike, the artillery, superheavies, and leman russ tanks can. That's martel's problem: regardless of what he does in melee, the big guns will always always always shoot him. I can see that being a problem.
I mean the rest of the list. The horde of undercosted artillery and tanks. The ones I CAN'T PHYSICALLY ASSAULT. The actual infantry doesn't have to do anything. It doesn't even have to be armed for it to do its job.
Martel732 wrote: No, they aren't. Do you even play 8th? They get charged, lose nothing important, then leave CC for free, and then beta strike you off the table. Rinse and repeat for hundreds of cheap models.
They leave CC, they don't get to "beta strike you off the table" unless they receive an Order--which Conscripts now do on a 50/50 shot.
If they don't get to--charge again.
Rinse and repeat, keeping your models in combat.
It's not the conscripts that beta strike you. They are there as an impassable wall that protects everything else which delivers the beta strike, after the conscripts freely leave combat.
You could take the guns off of conscripts and with morale immunity they'd still be auto-take.
Martel732 wrote: I'm gonna guess that if dark reapers get shot and killed, the player cares. I can kill dozens and dozens of IG infantry a turn and just keep falling further and further behind.
IG players just don't understand how powerful freedom of not giving a feth about any given squad truly is.
"Oh boy, your 250 pt assault unit just killed 40 pts of dudes! Whatever shall I do? I know, I'll shoot your 250 pts off the table with a 1/3 of my remaining list."
I hate playing elite armies for that reason.
I like being able to throw away units because I can. It's a powerful ability. However, elite armies have their strength, namely that units have fewer weaknesses and more strengths each, making them less vulnerable to precision, calculated strikes, which they in turn deal out because their specialist options are significantly better at their specialty and not as weak at their weak suit than horde armies.
I can lose my conscripts, I can't lose my manticores. If you lose your devastators, the transport for your tactical squad can still make up the weight, and the tactical squad's embedded heavy weapon can also pick up the slack. Conscripts cannot pick up the slack for lost manticores, and manticores cannot pick up the slack for lost conscripts.
Tac marines really can't pick up anything for marine heavy support. That's why razorback spamming is the thing to do.
Same damn smell. And yes, tacticals can, there was a discussion about embedded lascannons a while ago. Or you can have a sternguard squad full of plasma/melta. Whatever, you get the idea, Marines are flexible, use it to your advantage. If you're not using it, you're losing a volume-of-firepower war, because volume of fire is something you don't have as marines.
I really, really hate 1/army mechanics. 1/detachment mechanics are less bad, but still bad.
Martel732 wrote: No, they aren't. Do you even play 8th? They get charged, lose nothing important, then leave CC for free, and then beta strike you off the table. Rinse and repeat for hundreds of cheap models.
They leave CC, they don't get to "beta strike you off the table" unless they receive an Order--which Conscripts now do on a 50/50 shot.
If they don't get to--charge again.
Rinse and repeat, keeping your models in combat.
To be fair, even if the conscripts can't beta strike, the artillery, superheavies, and leman russ tanks can. That's martel's problem: regardless of what he does in melee, the big guns will always always always shoot him. I can see that being a problem.
Are they, though? The only choice to a volume of fire war is trying to assault. Which we are also discussing the problem with that. Only lascannons/missiles/autocannons can reach the problem units. Plasma/melta wont' be able to hit IG tanks, or even CSM tanks/havocs.
Martel732 wrote: No, they aren't. Do you even play 8th? They get charged, lose nothing important, then leave CC for free, and then beta strike you off the table. Rinse and repeat for hundreds of cheap models.
They leave CC, they don't get to "beta strike you off the table" unless they receive an Order--which Conscripts now do on a 50/50 shot.
If they don't get to--charge again.
Rinse and repeat, keeping your models in combat.
To be fair, even if the conscripts can't beta strike, the artillery, superheavies, and leman russ tanks can. That's martel's problem: regardless of what he does in melee, the big guns will always always always shoot him. I can see that being a problem.
It's not that big of a problem unless you're an idiot and don't attempt to make it difficult for the enemy units to fall back.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: Are they, though? The only choice to a volume of fire war is trying to assault. Which we are also discussing the problem with that. Only lascannons/missiles/autocannons can reach the problem units. Plasma/melta wont' be able to hit IG tanks, or even CSM tanks/havocs.
"Find a new way to get around it."
Which is what?
Use your Pile In/Consolidates to prevent the enemy from being able to move around you?
Galas wrote: I play Bloodbound hordes in Age of Sigmar. Believe me, when all the shooting troops of your enemy can shoot at your "morale-inminity" banners as much as they want, they aren't a problem.
I don't believe you at all.
I play Wanderers in AoS and the longest range you see in AoS now tends to be around 22".
Bloodsecrators have an 18" range when opening the Portal of Skulls. That range is doubled if they manage to get into a Skull Keep.
There's a 4" difference between the one of if not the longest ranged unit in AoS(Waywatcher, a hero itself) and the Bloodsecrator's ability. The Portal, additionally, does not require LOS to give its effect so...
Who the hell uses Skull Keeps?
But you are right, Weapon Ranges in AoS are much smaller than in Warhammer 40k.
But the fact that the aura is 18" doesn't means it creates a inmunity circle around the Bloodsecrator, BLoodreavers are still 7ppm. Any fast-moving shooting unit, deepstriking unit, etc... can kill them, and it doesn't matter that you have 50 bloodreavers between them and the Bloodsecrator, they can freely shoot at him.
But this is Offtopic, in resume: AoS and W40K are different games, is useless to compare them.
Martel732 wrote: No, they aren't. Do you even play 8th? They get charged, lose nothing important, then leave CC for free, and then beta strike you off the table. Rinse and repeat for hundreds of cheap models.
They leave CC, they don't get to "beta strike you off the table" unless they receive an Order--which Conscripts now do on a 50/50 shot.
If they don't get to--charge again.
Rinse and repeat, keeping your models in combat.
To be fair, even if the conscripts can't beta strike, the artillery, superheavies, and leman russ tanks can. That's martel's problem: regardless of what he does in melee, the big guns will always always always shoot him. I can see that being a problem.
It's not that big of a problem unless you're an idiot and don't attempt to make it difficult for the enemy units to fall back.
This is true.
It's also worth noting that one's own army should have at least /some/ guns. It's not like there is no opportunity at all to reduce enemy firepower until the conscripts are gone.
Martel732 wrote: No, they aren't. Do you even play 8th? They get charged, lose nothing important, then leave CC for free, and then beta strike you off the table. Rinse and repeat for hundreds of cheap models.
They leave CC, they don't get to "beta strike you off the table" unless they receive an Order--which Conscripts now do on a 50/50 shot.
If they don't get to--charge again.
Rinse and repeat, keeping your models in combat.
To be fair, even if the conscripts can't beta strike, the artillery, superheavies, and leman russ tanks can. That's martel's problem: regardless of what he does in melee, the big guns will always always always shoot him. I can see that being a problem.
It's not that big of a problem unless you're an idiot and don't attempt to make it difficult for the enemy units to fall back.
This is true.
It's also worth noting that one's own army should have at least /some/ guns. It's not like there is no opportunity at all to reduce enemy firepower until the conscripts are gone.
The guns they shoot off the table while the assault elements are trying to close? They have this luxury because it doesn't matter how many assault units make it across the board. They can just bog them down with cheap crap and THEN start shooting them.
daedalus wrote: Does this mean you and the rest are going to finally stop bitching?
Historical evidence shows that even if Marines are top tier, winning all the tournaments and guard are bottom tier, they will never, EVER stop bitching.
Xenomancers wrote: come on dude...competitive gaurd is running like 2-3 commissars in range of every blob. You can't snipe that.
Then maybe there should have been a requirement for fielding a Commissar?
We need to have an Officer in order to field a Command Squad.
Why not have the same requirement for Commissars?
To be fair - you were taking a company commander for every commissar anyways.
Which still would mean that in a Patrol or Battalion, you're only going to be able to manage 2 or 3 Commissars as part of a limited number of Elites. A Brigade could manage 5 tops.
The Elite heavy Detachment becomes nothing and Supreme Command could bring you 1 Commissar total.
It means, all of a sudden, people have to instead field Lord Commissars who take up HQ slots instead.
Not a really restriction at all though. AM feild 2x batallion or sometimes even 2x brigade with minimal wasted points. case in points AM have a unit in every force allocation that is worth spamming.
daedalus wrote: Does this mean you and the rest are going to finally stop bitching?
Historical evidence shows that even if Marines are top tier, winning all the tournaments and guard are bottom tier, they will never, EVER stop bitching.
Because there was soooo many complaints about Imperial Guard in 6th and 7th...
The truth is: People will complaint about the top-armies. In 40k, in Magic, in League of Legends, in everything.
Do you see anyone complaining about Tau or Eldar now? And it was LITERALLY the end of the world (For some people) with those armies in 7th.
People will stop bitching about Imperial Guard when they become unplayable or balanced. Then some people will still complaing if they have some OP unit like Flyrants, and will ignore that the rest of the codex is totally useless.
And to be honest I find fun how people talks about "Space Marine" players when every 3 of 4 peoples meet, has at minimun one space marine army of some flavour. That makes every 40k player a Space Marine player?
Tau can do something similar to the IG, but they just aren't nearly as good at it. Yet. Firewarriors/drones are only about half as expendable as geqs, so of course it works less well.
Can we please pause to remember that conscript still prevent alpha-strike charges incredibly well, they extend your anti-deep strike footprint to completely negate some armies that must arrive turn 1 or be tabled, they still are a lot of bodies for very cheap that can obsec all day long until removed, and they're still effective at shooting close range by volume of dice.
Acting like conscripts won't be in your competitive list is pretty funny.
The truth is: People will complaint about the top-armies. In 40k, in Magic, in League of Legends, in everything.
Do you see anyone complaining about Tau or Eldar now? And it was LITERALLY the end of the world (For some people) with those armies in 7th.
I saw a hell of a lot of people winging about Necrons in 8th even though they're bottom-tier.
It was very funny when we had AT THE SAME TIME two threads in 40k general discussion, one about Necrons being OP and other about Necrons being unplayable and useless The typical hysteria of a new-edition.
Marmatag wrote: Can we please pause to remember that conscript still prevent alpha-strike charges incredibly well, they extend your anti-deep strike footprint to completely negate some armies that must arrive turn 1 or be tabled, they still are a lot of bodies for very cheap that can obsec all day long until removed, and they're still effective at shooting close range by volume of dice.
Acting like conscripts won't be in your competitive list is pretty funny.
If they are worried about miraculously being prevented from falling back by tiny meq units, maybe the regular squads are better.
Marmatag wrote: Can we please pause to remember that conscript still prevent alpha-strike charges incredibly well, they extend your anti-deep strike footprint to completely negate some armies that must arrive turn 1 or be tabled, they still are a lot of bodies for very cheap that can obsec all day long until removed, and they're still effective at shooting close range by volume of dice.
Acting like conscripts won't be in your competitive list is pretty funny.
It will be just 1 squad instead of 3-4 now. The rest will be infantry squads. Which IMO are an equally good unit.
The truth is: People will complaint about the top-armies. In 40k, in Magic, in League of Legends, in everything.
Do you see anyone complaining about Tau or Eldar now? And it was LITERALLY the end of the world (For some people) with those armies in 7th.
I saw a hell of a lot of people winging about Necrons in 8th even though they're bottom-tier.
The Necron complain was less about them being OP and more of them being utterly boring to play against. Which, to be fair, was kinda true. When an army basically has a 4+ "nope" save after it's normal save, had little incentives to move, and had a relatively short range for their weapons, it ends up feeling like punching a rock till your fist bleeds because there's nothing better to do.
A lot of the Necron complaining was simply around how ineffective a lot of other troops are in the edition. And it's true, most of the troops are very ineffective.
That was also brought on by people having really different expectations of what 8th was going to be. I remember being super excited that I would be able to field land raiders! Then the reality is, land raiders still suck ass. So there's some adjusting. 8th was promised to be 1 thing, and is shaping up to be something completely different.
Marmatag wrote: The classic argument of someone with an OP army:
"it's easy to play against if you're not an idiot."
Kind of in line with the toxic dakka narrative that all marine players are stupid.
To be fair, I shouldn't have let Martel get under my skin.
It's important to remember though that Consolidate and Pile Ins are a thing and unless a unit has "Fly" it cannot move over/through intervening models.
There is nothing that should be preventing you from bottle-necking or making it extremely difficult if not impossible for Conscripts to get out of the Fight.
There is nothing that should be preventing you from bottle-necking or making it extremely difficult if not impossible for Conscripts to get out of the Fight.
It was very funny when we had AT THE SAME TIME two threads in 40k general discussion, one about Necrons being OP and other about Necrons being unplayable and useless The typical hysteria of a new-edition.
The Necron complain was less about them being OP and more of them being utterly boring to play against. Which, to be fair, was kinda true. When an army basically has a 4+ "nope" save after it's normal save, had little incentives to move, and had a relatively short range for their weapons, it ends up feeling like punching a rock till your fist bleeds because there's nothing better to do.
Are you sure you're not thinking of 7th edition Necrons?
Marmatag wrote: The classic argument of someone with an OP army:
"it's easy to play against if you're not an idiot."
Kind of in line with the toxic dakka narrative that all marine players are stupid.
To be fair, I shouldn't have let Martel get under my skin.
It's important to remember though that Consolidate and Pile Ins are a thing and unless a unit has "Fly" it cannot move over/through intervening models.
There is nothing that should be preventing you from bottle-necking or making it extremely difficult if not impossible for Conscripts to get out of the Fight.
Yeah, there is. More conscripts. They form a smooth wall the turn before they get charged, and then take all the losses off the back. Then, next turn, move something up to fill the gap and fall the conscripts back 2". It's a goddamn algorithm at this point. Good IG players don't let anything get behind them or around them. Because they know if nothing does, they win.
Marmatag wrote: The classic argument of someone with an OP army:
"it's easy to play against if you're not an idiot."
Kind of in line with the toxic dakka narrative that all marine players are stupid.
To be fair, I shouldn't have let Martel get under my skin.
It's important to remember though that Consolidate and Pile Ins are a thing and unless a unit has "Fly" it cannot move over/through intervening models.
There is nothing that should be preventing you from bottle-necking or making it extremely difficult if not impossible for Conscripts to get out of the Fight.
You are not granted a consolidation if someone retreats from combat. And, when you do pile in or consolidate, it must move you closer to the nearest enemy model.
It doesn't work out in practice the way you're discussing it here.
The Necron complain was less about them being OP and more of them being utterly boring to play against. Which, to be fair, was kinda true. When an army basically has a 4+ "nope" save after it's normal save, had little incentives to move, and had a relatively short range for their weapons, it ends up feeling like punching a rock till your fist bleeds because there's nothing better to do.
Are you sure you're not thinking of 7th edition Necrons?
Er, I was talking about the 7th edition necrons. I've seen a grand total of 1 thread complaining about necrons being OP in 8th and that was the hilarious one that coincided with the "Necrons are weak" thread. Then Necron threads in general seem to have faded into the nether.
Xenomancers wrote: come on dude...competitive gaurd is running like 2-3 commissars in range of every blob. You can't snipe that.
Then maybe there should have been a requirement for fielding a Commissar?
We need to have an Officer in order to field a Command Squad.
Why not have the same requirement for Commissars?
To be fair - you were taking a company commander for every commissar anyways.
Which still would mean that in a Patrol or Battalion, you're only going to be able to manage 2 or 3 Commissars as part of a limited number of Elites. A Brigade could manage 5 tops.
The Elite heavy Detachment becomes nothing and Supreme Command could bring you 1 Commissar total.
It means, all of a sudden, people have to instead field Lord Commissars who take up HQ slots instead.
Not a really restriction at all though. AM feild 2x batallion or sometimes even 2x brigade with minimal wasted points. case in points AM have a unit in every force allocation that is worth spamming.
Let's be 100% fair though--Guard were always going to be problematic once they removed the Platoon and Command Squad structures.
Marmatag wrote: The classic argument of someone with an OP army:
"it's easy to play against if you're not an idiot."
Kind of in line with the toxic dakka narrative that all marine players are stupid.
To be fair, I shouldn't have let Martel get under my skin.
It's important to remember though that Consolidate and Pile Ins are a thing and unless a unit has "Fly" it cannot move over/through intervening models. There is nothing that should be preventing you from bottle-necking or making it extremely difficult if not impossible for Conscripts to get out of the Fight.
You are not granted a consolidation if someone retreats from combat. And, when you do pile in or consolidate, it must move you closer to the nearest enemy model.
It doesn't work out in practice the way you're discussing it here.
CONSOLIDATE is the last part of the Fight phase. I did not say that you get it because someone Fell Back.
Consolidate is you moving each model in the unit up to 3" towards the nearest enemy model.
Between Pile In and Consolidation, you're looking at 6" to play with during the Fight phase.
Yes, and if their front is still bigger than yours or even the same size, you aren't enveloping a single model. Remember that your models touching other models don't get to move ANYWHERE, as per the FAQ.
Martel732 wrote: I mean the rest of the list. The horde of undercosted artillery and tanks. The ones I CAN'T PHYSICALLY ASSAULT. The actual infantry doesn't have to do anything. It doesn't even have to be armed for it to do its job.
This is sadly true.
Now hopefully with less conscripts walls we will see more gameplay variety.
Look at every unit debate on the forum, before long it became "Can it take out enough conscripts?". They are also the main reason why assault lists struggle right now.
I personally think they went to far with the commissars nerf. Whoever said the commissars should blame someone and treat the die roll as 1 is probably on to the correct solution. Then they help but they don't prevent it and it's never a negative.
The Necron complain was less about them being OP and more of them being utterly boring to play against. Which, to be fair, was kinda true. When an army basically has a 4+ "nope" save after it's normal save, had little incentives to move, and had a relatively short range for their weapons, it ends up feeling like punching a rock till your fist bleeds because there's nothing better to do.
Are you sure you're not thinking of 7th edition Necrons?
Er, I was talking about the 7th edition necrons. I've seen a grand total of 1 thread complaining about necrons being OP in 8th and that was the hilarious one that coincided with the "Necrons are weak" thread. Then Necron threads in general seem to have faded into the nether.
I've definitely seen more than 1 (though they do indeed seem to have died down) - most of the complaints were aimed at RPs.
I do agree that there was ample reason for people complaining about 7th edition necrons - if only because (as you said earlier) they were so damn boring to play against. And I say that as someone who played Necrons.
Darkagl1 wrote: I personally think they went to far with the commissars nerf. Whoever said the commissars should blame someone and treat the die roll as 1 is probably on to the correct solution. Then they help but they don't prevent it and it's never a negative.
Actually it could still be negative . If you suffer too many losses and then roll a 1, the commissar will just take one more head
No, actually i'm fine with this version, i know that sometimes it is silly that he makes things worse, but is fluffy as hell and after all he is causing a total of 4 points of damage, so who cares. He is an extremely cheap character that buffs your leadership and sometimes prevents some guys from running. He is fine, what more do you expect for 31 points?
Darkagl1 wrote: I personally think they went to far with the commissars nerf. Whoever said the commissars should blame someone and treat the die roll as 1 is probably on to the correct solution. Then they help but they don't prevent it and it's never a negative.
Actually it could still be negative . If you suffer too many losses and then roll a 1, the commissar will just take one more head
No, actually i'm fine with this version, i know that sometimes it is silly that he makes things worse, but is fluffy as hell and after all he is causing a total of 4 points of damage, so who cares. He is an extremely cheap character that buffs your leadership and sometimes prevents some guys from running. He is fine, what more do you expect for 31 points?
He can absolutely cause more than 4 pts of damage depending on the unit he is with. And I think people expect him to NOT actively harm our armies for the price (unless we are using conscripts). I know if I wanted one for fluff reasons I'd rather play 1969 points and have him do nothing - that way he is hurting me less.
Martel732 wrote:Well, for 40 pts, they can turn off a 250+ pt assault unit.
If by "turn off" you mean "get utterly annihilated by" then yes, you'd be right.
The Necron complain was less about them being OP and more of them being utterly boring to play against. Which, to be fair, was kinda true. When an army basically has a 4+ "nope" save after it's normal save, had little incentives to move, and had a relatively short range for their weapons, it ends up feeling like punching a rock till your fist bleeds because there's nothing better to do.
Are you sure you're not thinking of 7th edition Necrons?
Er, I was talking about the 7th edition necrons. I've seen a grand total of 1 thread complaining about necrons being OP in 8th and that was the hilarious one that coincided with the "Necrons are weak" thread. Then Necron threads in general seem to have faded into the nether.
I've definitely seen more than 1 (though they do indeed seem to have died down) - most of the complaints were aimed at RPs.
I do agree that there was ample reason for people complaining about 7th edition necrons - if only because (as you said earlier) they were so damn boring to play against. And I say that as someone who played Necrons.
I think after the Wraith was brought down to "normal" people generally forgot about them. The majority of the threads here were either about complaining about Ork weapons, Eldar being overcosted, Primaris Marines replacing normal marines, the obligitory "something is no longer being sold, omgwtfbbq" threads, and complaining about the flavour of the month. Necrons just got drowned out. Tbh I forgot they were even a faction until I came across a box of them for cheap recently.
Also my 7th edition Necron army was a Destroyer Cult backed by Wraiths. I was the actual bonafide aged cheddar. :3
"If by "turn off" you mean "get utterly annihilated by" then yes, you'd be right."
That IS turning them off in context. Because then the 250 pt squad instantly dies. 40 for 250, rinse and repeat. I happens 3 more times, and half the assault list is gone.
Darkagl1 wrote: I personally think they went to far with the commissars nerf. Whoever said the commissars should blame someone and treat the die roll as 1 is probably on to the correct solution. Then they help but they don't prevent it and it's never a negative.
Actually it could still be negative . If you suffer too many losses and then roll a 1, the commissar will just take one more head
No, actually i'm fine with this version, i know that sometimes it is silly that he makes things worse, but is fluffy as hell and after all he is causing a total of 4 points of damage, so who cares. He is an extremely cheap character that buffs your leadership and sometimes prevents some guys from running. He is fine, what more do you expect for 31 points?
He can absolutely cause more than 4 pts of damage depending on the unit he is with. And I think people expect him to NOT actively harm our armies for the price (unless we are using conscripts). I know if I wanted one for fluff reasons I'd rather play 1969 points and have him do nothing - that way he is hurting me less.
Both versions are good for the Commisar rule, threating the roll as a 1, or reducing the number of morale loses by D6 (Technically D6-1 because he blams one guy, but...). The second one is better because even rolling a 1, you have a net gain of 0, so you don't lose anything. In the first case in the theorical case of rolling a 1, you'll lose one extra guy yes, but thats in theory, and I think most people will prefer to threat their Morale roll as a 1 at a cost of one guy, instead of playing the dice game and maybe rolling 3 or more. (Rolling a 2 would be the same as the Commisar bonus)
I think after the Wraith was brought down to "normal" people generally forgot about them. The majority of the threads here were either about complaining about Ork weapons, Eldar being overcosted, Primaris Marines replacing normal marines, the obligitory "something is no longer being sold, omgwtfbbq" threads, and complaining about the flavour of the month. Necrons just got drowned out. Tbh I forgot they were even a faction until I came across a box of them for cheap recently.
Yeah, I think that sums it up.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Also my 7th edition Necron army was a Destroyer Cult backed by Wraiths. I was the actual bonafide aged cheddar. :3
I used Destroyer Cult and Wraiths as well.
Honestly, i loved my Destroyers in 7th. I own about 10 of the sods (not including the lords) and it was the first edition in ages where they were actually useful.
Martel732 wrote: "If by "turn off" you mean "get utterly annihilated by" then yes, you'd be right."
That IS turning them off in context. Because then the 250 pt squad instantly dies. 40 for 250, rinse and repeat. I happens 3 more times, and half the assault list is gone.
One solution is not spending 1000 points on four units; presumably, the 250 points is WAAAAY too much overkill for a 10 man guard squad. I am fairly sure you could do 8 160 points squads and have the same durability per 10 men (meaning you've now got double the durability against the incoming shooting) without infringing upon your ability to blenderize 40pt squads.
Martel732 wrote: "If by "turn off" you mean "get utterly annihilated by" then yes, you'd be right."
That IS turning them off in context. Because then the 250 pt squad instantly dies. 40 for 250, rinse and repeat. I happens 3 more times, and half the assault list is gone.
One solution is not spending 1000 points on assault units; presumably, the 250 points is WAAAAY too much overkill for a 10 man guard squad. I am fairly sure you could do 8 160 points squads and have the same durability per 10 men (meaning you've now got double the durability against the incoming shooting) without infringing upon your ability to blenderize 40pt squads.
I realize that, but not all opponents are guard. Against MANY foes, like Deathguard, the 250 pt unit is called for. So what's the right power armor assault unit? There really isn't one. That's the problem.
Darkagl1 wrote: I personally think they went to far with the commissars nerf. Whoever said the commissars should blame someone and treat the die roll as 1 is probably on to the correct solution. Then they help but they don't prevent it and it's never a negative.
Actually it could still be negative . If you suffer too many losses and then roll a 1, the commissar will just take one more head
No, actually i'm fine with this version, i know that sometimes it is silly that he makes things worse, but is fluffy as hell and after all he is causing a total of 4 points of damage, so who cares. He is an extremely cheap character that buffs your leadership and sometimes prevents some guys from running. He is fine, what more do you expect for 31 points?
the issue is that, when we're talking about units that cost 3 or 4 ppm, a 31pt support model is almost another squad. If the reroll ability is too variable in utility and value then all youre really buying is the +Ld, and for most units, thats just not a particularly worthwhile investment for most IG infantry units, just use those points to buy more dudes.
Its not an end of the world nerf, it just makes value of the Commissar such that their investment is difficult to justify and thus is likely to remain on the shelf. At least the Elites versions (Lord Commissar has more value with the Ld9 buff).
Ahem yes we probably should get back to the thread.
MARINE PLAYERS COMPLAIN TOO MUCH.
There, now back on track.
In all seriousness, I'm actually gonna make some AssRazors backing Flamer-equipped BAs just to see if it really is as bad as it sounds. I'm already doing so for Grey Knights. Only thing stopping me is MONEY.
Flamers are awful. I've got four heavy flamer marines, and eight jump flamer dudes, and two TLHF razors. Not to mention four frag cannon dreads. They never pull their weight.
Martel732 wrote: "If by "turn off" you mean "get utterly annihilated by" then yes, you'd be right."
That IS turning them off in context. Because then the 250 pt squad instantly dies. 40 for 250, rinse and repeat. I happens 3 more times, and half the assault list is gone.
One solution is not spending 1000 points on assault units; presumably, the 250 points is WAAAAY too much overkill for a 10 man guard squad. I am fairly sure you could do 8 160 points squads and have the same durability per 10 men (meaning you've now got double the durability against the incoming shooting) without infringing upon your ability to blenderize 40pt squads.
I realize that, but not all opponents are guard. Against MANY foes, like Deathguard, the 250 pt unit is called for. So what's the right power armor assault unit? There really isn't one. That's the problem.
I mean, the same problem exists within most books. Heck, even within Death Guard, the 8 160pt units would be better if they're building a 'zombie' list than it would be if they're building a 'plague marine' list, in which case you need the 250 pt squads again.
The fact that you need anti-horde stuff to kill hordes and anti-elite stuff to kill elites is not the fault of the guard codex.
I realize that, but the AMOUNT of anti-horde required by the old IG conscript scheme was insane. I'm not sure that 40 pt 10 man squads is going to be any better in practice.
My anti-horde was functional against Orks and Nids, but not IG. So that problem DOES seem like its the IG's fault.
Martel732 wrote: I realize that, but the AMOUNT of anti-horde required by the old IG conscript scheme was insane. I'm not sure that 40 pt 10 man squads is going to be any better in practice.
My anti-horde was functional against Orks and Nids, but not IG. So that problem DOES seem like its the IG's fault.
I'm just saying you can bring 8 ten-man squads with the same durability as the 4 you were bringing. That should neatly solve the issue against IG artillery, by doubling your wound count for not many more points. Then you said "but I need anti-elite stuff instead".
I don't know what to tell you. Bring some anti-elite, and some anti-horde. Kit your captains to blenderize elites, and your troops to blenderize hordes. I'm not going to build your list for you, but surely you have room in the last 7-800 points for anti-elite.
The saddest thing about the Commissar nerf is how badly it crafted.
If GW made it a 1 time power per model, I think everyone would have considered it a fair nerf.
If GW completely removed Summary Execution, IG players would have complained a lot, but most would still call it fair.
As it stands, it has badly affect the play of 3 units, whether or not you actually play an IG army.
Commissars: Generally aren’t worth the points to field. They have never been much of a shooting unit. They are not much of a melee unit. Now, as a buffing unit, you want to keep them away from anything except conscripts.
Lord Commissar: Maybe worth the points to field. Better than Commissars in Shooting and Melee, but still meh considering the points cost. As a buffing unit, it is okay around other units, and still a good idea for conscripts.
Commissar Yarrick: Unless you are fighting Orcs, probably not worth the points. A good short range shooter, and a great melee character, so that helps mitigate the points cost. As a buffing unit, Cadian regimental doctrine mostly duplicated the re-roll 1s. In combination with Take Aim, RegDoc is even better. So if you aren’t going to fight with Yarrick, or battle against Orcs (Yarrick buff + FRFSRF is still devastating vs Orcs), Yarrick point are probably better spent elsewhere. Making him warlord in smaller armies, might change that, but for bigger armies, there are better warlord choices.
IG players: now have to track every unit that has failed a morale roll within range of a commissar. In friendly games, you do this so that so as not to take advantage against your opponent. If you cheat in friendly games, you deserve it when other people refuse to play against you.
Non-IG players: You now have to track opposing units that have failed a morale roll within range of a commissar, especially in competitive play, since Summary Execution can only affect a given unit once.
So, in general, this nerf has made the game a little harder to play, a little slower to play, and a little less fun to play. It has also made a few models less tempting to buy, and the IG Start Collecting box set less of a value to the purchaser. Does it balance the armies for more competitiveness? A little. Could it have been accomplished more effectively? I don’t think tha there is a single player who can honestly say no.
Darkagl1 wrote: I personally think they went to far with the commissars nerf. Whoever said the commissars should blame someone and treat the die roll as 1 is probably on to the correct solution. Then they help but they don't prevent it and it's never a negative.
Actually it could still be negative . If you suffer too many losses and then roll a 1, the commissar will just take one more head
No, actually i'm fine with this version, i know that sometimes it is silly that he makes things worse, but is fluffy as hell and after all he is causing a total of 4 points of damage, so who cares. He is an extremely cheap character that buffs your leadership and sometimes prevents some guys from running. He is fine, what more do you expect for 31 points?
He can absolutely cause more than 4 pts of damage depending on the unit he is with. And I think people expect him to NOT actively harm our armies for the price (unless we are using conscripts). I know if I wanted one for fluff reasons I'd rather play 1969 points and have him do nothing - that way he is hurting me less.
Both versions are good for the Commisar rule, threating the roll as a 1, or reducing the number of morale loses by D6 (Technically D6-1 because he blams one guy, but...). The second one is better because even rolling a 1, you have a net gain of 0, so you don't lose anything. In the first case in the theorical case of rolling a 1, you'll lose one extra guy yes, but thats in theory, and I think most people will prefer to threat their Morale roll as a 1 at a cost of one guy, instead of playing the dice game and maybe rolling 3 or more. (Rolling a 2 would be the same as the Commisar bonus)
Hmm so make it blam a guy treat roll as 0. Then it's never a negative to blam, at worst it's exactly the same. If that still leaves conscripts too good, don't let his aura work on them. Commissars still fluffy, still useful, and morale still matters.
Ahem yes we probably should get back to the thread.
MARINE PLAYERS COMPLAIN TOO MUCH.
There, now back on track.
In all seriousness, I'm actually gonna make some AssRazors backing Flamer-equipped BAs just to see if it really is as bad as it sounds. I'm already doing so for Grey Knights. Only thing stopping me is MONEY.
It's like you're ignoring people like me that don't only play Marine armies...
Martel732 wrote: I realize that, but the AMOUNT of anti-horde required by the old IG conscript scheme was insane. I'm not sure that 40 pt 10 man squads is going to be any better in practice.
My anti-horde was functional against Orks and Nids, but not IG. So that problem DOES seem like its the IG's fault.
Neither Tyranids or Orks bring the firepower that Guard do. Maybe you were caught trying to bring knives to a gun fight.
I've tried a lot of variation already. But running out to meet hordes in CC is just not efficient enough. I've had more success running as red marines with no chapter tactics and leaving every single BA specific unit at home and going all shooting. There is just no payoff for running your ass across the table and then punching 20 pts of stuff dead.
Martel732 wrote: I realize that, but the AMOUNT of anti-horde required by the old IG conscript scheme was insane. I'm not sure that 40 pt 10 man squads is going to be any better in practice.
My anti-horde was functional against Orks and Nids, but not IG. So that problem DOES seem like its the IG's fault.
Neither Tyranids or Orks bring the firepower that Guard do. Maybe you were caught trying to bring knives to a gun fight.
Darkagl1 wrote: I personally think they went to far with the commissars nerf. Whoever said the commissars should blame someone and treat the die roll as 1 is probably on to the correct solution. Then they help but they don't prevent it and it's never a negative.
Actually it could still be negative . If you suffer too many losses and then roll a 1, the commissar will just take one more head
No, actually i'm fine with this version, i know that sometimes it is silly that he makes things worse, but is fluffy as hell and after all he is causing a total of 4 points of damage, so who cares. He is an extremely cheap character that buffs your leadership and sometimes prevents some guys from running. He is fine, what more do you expect for 31 points?
the issue is that, when we're talking about units that cost 3 or 4 ppm, a 31pt support model is almost another squad. If the reroll ability is too variable in utility and value then all youre really buying is the +Ld, and for most units, thats just not a particularly worthwhile investment for most IG infantry units, just use those points to buy more dudes.
Its not an end of the world nerf, it just makes value of the Commissar such that their investment is difficult to justify and thus is likely to remain on the shelf. At least the Elites versions (Lord Commissar has more value with the Ld9 buff).
Yep, I for one think they swung too far the other way, but it's not the end of the world. It's just for as much as everyone is bitching about the AM codex it's actually what GW should be aspiring to. Lots of fun fluffy good units. If anything there should be people complaining about the other dexes, not the AM one, and this fix removes a bit of the flavor which isn't great imo.
If "get assaulted by something and promptly die horribly" is a "turning off assault" in your book, isn't that something that literally any model with a wound stat can do?
Is a 250 point assault unit entitled to make its points back every time it charges no matter what? What if it charged a 50 point squad of Skitarii? What if it charged a 60 point squad of Veterans? What if it charged a 45 point Sentinel, or 80 points of Guardians?
Are you saying that no unit in the entire game should cost less than 250 points, because otherwise your imaginary 250 point assault unit might need to charge more than once?
duWhee wrote: The saddest thing about the Commissar nerf is how badly it crafted.
If GW made it a 1 time power per model, I think everyone would have considered it a fair nerf.
If GW completely removed Summary Execution, IG players would have complained a lot, but most would still call it fair.
As it stands, it has badly affect the play of 3 units, whether or not you actually play an IG army.
Commissars: Generally aren’t worth the points to field. They have never been much of a shooting unit. They are not much of a melee unit. Now, as a buffing unit, you want to keep them away from anything except conscripts.
Lord Commissar: Maybe worth the points to field. Better than Commissars in Shooting and Melee, but still meh considering the points cost. As a buffing unit, it is okay around other units, and still a good idea for conscripts.
Commissar Yarrick: Unless you are fighting Orcs, probably not worth the points. A good short range shooter, and a great melee character, so that helps mitigate the points cost. As a buffing unit, Cadian regimental doctrine mostly duplicated the re-roll 1s. In combination with Take Aim, RegDoc is even better. So if you aren’t going to fight with Yarrick, or battle against Orcs (Yarrick buff + FRFSRF is still devastating vs Orcs), Yarrick point are probably better spent elsewhere. Making him warlord in smaller armies, might change that, but for bigger armies, there are better warlord choices.
IG players: now have to track every unit that has failed a morale roll within range of a commissar. In friendly games, you do this so that so as not to take advantage against your opponent. If you cheat in friendly games, you deserve it when other people refuse to play against you.
Non-IG players: You now have to track opposing units that have failed a morale roll within range of a commissar, especially in competitive play, since Summary Execution can only affect a given unit once.
So, in general, this nerf has made the game a little harder to play, a little slower to play, and a little less fun to play. It has also made a few models less tempting to buy, and the IG Start Collecting box set less of a value to the purchaser. Does it balance the armies for more competitiveness? A little. Could it have been accomplished more effectively? I don’t think tha there is a single player who can honestly say no.
^what duWhee said.
The issue isnt the power level reduction, most people are fine with the shift in balance. The issues people have is that was a (in typical GW fashion) poorly constructed fix, especially for units other than Conscripts.
Martel732 wrote: I've tried a lot of variation already. But running out to meet hordes in CC is just not efficient enough. I've had more success running as red marines with no chapter tactics and leaving every single BA specific unit at home and going all shooting. There is just no payoff for running your ass across the table and then punching 20 pts of stuff dead.
Okay, let's say you brought 8 units of 160 point guys and doubled your durability. That means that scenario you listed before (where the guard shooting kills 4 250 point units) will take twice as long to kill the 160 point units.
But they don't really take twice as long to kill the 40 point guardsmen. In fact, if you get them all into combat, you've killed 80 guardsmen. That's bound to make a hole in the screen, and that's only in 1 fight phase with 1280 points of units. Surely your 80 men can endure the return fire and then get among the backfield with ~30 guys left at least!
Unless you think a guard player brings enough units and artillery to literally wipe out > 60 marines in a single shooting phase. That's... a lot of units. In order to kill 60 marines with manticores, you'd have to have something like 30 manticores all firing with no overkill (they kill on average 2 marines per turn).
Well then "I might charge a 250 point unit against a 40 point unit and not earn my cost back" is a pretty empty argument isn't it? You overkilled a unit, it died, that plays out the same way with any number of units. What's so special about that?
Darkagl1 wrote: I personally think they went to far with the commissars nerf. Whoever said the commissars should blame someone and treat the die roll as 1 is probably on to the correct solution. Then they help but they don't prevent it and it's never a negative.
Actually it could still be negative . If you suffer too many losses and then roll a 1, the commissar will just take one more head
No, actually i'm fine with this version, i know that sometimes it is silly that he makes things worse, but is fluffy as hell and after all he is causing a total of 4 points of damage, so who cares. He is an extremely cheap character that buffs your leadership and sometimes prevents some guys from running. He is fine, what more do you expect for 31 points?
He can absolutely cause more than 4 pts of damage depending on the unit he is with. And I think people expect him to NOT actively harm our armies for the price (unless we are using conscripts). I know if I wanted one for fluff reasons I'd rather play 1969 points and have him do nothing - that way he is hurting me less.
Both versions are good for the Commisar rule, threating the roll as a 1, or reducing the number of morale loses by D6 (Technically D6-1 because he blams one guy, but...). The second one is better because even rolling a 1, you have a net gain of 0, so you don't lose anything. In the first case in the theorical case of rolling a 1, you'll lose one extra guy yes, but thats in theory, and I think most people will prefer to threat their Morale roll as a 1 at a cost of one guy, instead of playing the dice game and maybe rolling 3 or more. (Rolling a 2 would be the same as the Commisar bonus)
Hmm so make it blam a guy treat roll as 0. Then it's never a negative to blam, at worst it's exactly the same. If that still leaves conscripts too good, don't let his aura work on them. Commissars still fluffy, still useful, and morale still matters.
That could be good too, yes. The point is making Commissars a tool to help agains't morale, not to NEGATE morale. With this probably they should have too a small discount in points because their utility isn't as good as before.
ross-128 wrote: Well then "I might charge a 250 point unit against a 40 point unit and not earn my cost back" is a pretty empty argument isn't it? You overkilled a unit, it died, that plays out the same way with any number of units. What's so special about that?
Not really. It sums up the plight of assault in general. You can shift the numbers around a little, but it will play out much the same. The cheapest assault unit I've got is 80 pts for 5 guys. 5 guys that won't wipe a 10 man IG unit, at that even if they all get there intact.
ross-128 wrote: Well then "I might charge a 250 point unit against a 40 point unit and not earn my cost back" is a pretty empty argument isn't it? You overkilled a unit, it died, that plays out the same way with any number of units. What's so special about that?
Not really. It sums up the plight of assault in general. You can shift the numbers around a little, but it will play out much the same. The cheapest assault unit I've got is 80 pts for 5 guys. 5 guys that won't wipe a 10 man IG unit, at that even if they all get there intact.
Did you see my suggestion, martel? About running 8 160pt units? (or perhaps 16 80 point units? The costs are the same).
Martel732 wrote: I've tried a lot of variation already. But running out to meet hordes in CC is just not efficient enough. I've had more success running as red marines with no chapter tactics and leaving every single BA specific unit at home and going all shooting. There is just no payoff for running your ass across the table and then punching 20 pts of stuff dead.
Okay, let's say you brought 8 units of 160 point guys and doubled your durability. That means that scenario you listed before (where the guard shooting kills 4 250 point units) will take twice as long to kill the 160 point units.
But they don't really take twice as long to kill the 40 point guardsmen. In fact, if you get them all into combat, you've killed 80 guardsmen. That's bound to make a hole in the screen, and that's only in 1 fight phase with 1280 points of units. Surely your 80 men can endure the return fire and then get among the backfield with ~30 guys left at least!
Unless you think a guard player brings enough units and artillery to literally wipe out > 60 marines in a single shooting phase. That's... a lot of units. In order to kill 60 marines with manticores, you'd have to have something like 30 manticores all firing with no overkill (they kill on average 2 marines per turn).
The transit time kills them. You won't hit at full strength, which slows down how fast you cut through them, and the vicious cycle begins. Wvyerns alone are frighteningly efficient vs marines, assuming all other artillery goes into marines AT elements. The fire coming from 2K of IG is just way too much for meq body counts. A 16 pt naked guy with no cover and T4 3+ is just too fragile in 8th. That's why no one is even trying this in tournaments anymore.
ross-128 wrote: Well then "I might charge a 250 point unit against a 40 point unit and not earn my cost back" is a pretty empty argument isn't it? You overkilled a unit, it died, that plays out the same way with any number of units. What's so special about that?
Not really. It sums up the plight of assault in general. You can shift the numbers around a little, but it will play out much the same. The cheapest assault unit I've got is 80 pts for 5 guys. 5 guys that won't wipe a 10 man IG unit, at that even if they all get there intact.
Did you see my suggestion, martel? About running 8 160pt units? (or perhaps 16 80 point units? The costs are the same).
Yes, and they have the firepower to engage that as well, because your chop time is going to be much higher. Don't forget a big chunk of these points are buffing characters as well.
ross-128 wrote: Well then "I might charge a 250 point unit against a 40 point unit and not earn my cost back" is a pretty empty argument isn't it? You overkilled a unit, it died, that plays out the same way with any number of units. What's so special about that?
Not really. It sums up the plight of assault in general. You can shift the numbers around a little, but it will play out much the same. The cheapest assault unit I've got is 80 pts for 5 guys. 5 guys that won't wipe a 10 man IG unit, at that even if they all get there intact.
Nothing there is new though. The only new thing that happens is that squads can walk away from assault. In the old days, you'd just let the commissar die and the squad would disappear. You give up a handful more points (that you didn't really care about anyway) and you still get to control when you shoot at the assault unit.
I feel like IG has always been a hard counter to elite assault lists.
It has, really. That's why I say power armor assault has been dead since 5th. The IG from 5th is why I say that. I was just kinda hoping 8th might change that. It didn't, just made it worse.
Let's do 1280 points of assault marines vs 1290 points of IG, with 360 of those points in guard squads (giving you 9), leaving 930 points for Wyverns (10)
Assumption list: 1) A single Wyvern kills, on average, exactly 1.75 marines per shooting phase.
2) It takes your jump troops two full turns to fly up the board (letting them charge the bottom of Turn 2 at the latest, top of Turn 2 at the earliest.)
3) One Assault Marine sergeant survives for every full 10 Assault Marines who are alive (even though they'd be in squads of 5; we'll assume some sergeants are being killed)
4) The guard screen is dense enough to allow for multi-charge tactics (if it was not this dense, there would be holes in it to charge into with the Fly assault marines). Assault casualties are split evenly among units.
If the guard go first: The Wyverns kill 18 Marines, the IG lasguns kill 5, leaving 57. The 57 remaining marines move up.
Turn 2
The Wyverns kill 17 Marines, the IG lasguns kill 9. The 32 remaining marines charge. 20 Guardsmen are killed, and the Marines consolidate (or not, doesn't matter).
Turn 3:
The Wyverns kill 18 marines, the IG lasguns kill 7.
7 assault marines dick around and eventually die (the Marine force is whittled to nothingness).
If the SM go first: Turn 1: The 80 Assault Marines move up. The Wyverns kill 18 Marines, the IG lasguns kill 5, leaving 57.
Turn 2: The remaining 57 Assault Marines move up and charge, killing 35 guardsmen. Each squad loses ~4 models, and so on average another is lost to morale: 9 more guardsmen drop for a total of 44 dead.
The remaining guardsmen fall back, and the Wyverns fire. The Wyverns do 17 wounds.
Turn 3: The remaining 40 Assault Marines charge the remainder of the IG screen, killing 25 guardsmen. This is ~3 per squad, so they're steady on morale.
The guardsmen fall back, and The Wyverns fire and kill 18 Marines.
Turn 4: The Space Marines are in amongst the artillery, preventing it from shooting, as 21 Guardsmen cannot effectively screen 10 wyverns against units with Fly. From here, the IG army will not kill 22 marines with lasguns until the battle ends.
SO, in conclusion, it seems like a normal 8th edition battle: whomever goes first wins.
Martel732 wrote: Maybe. But I'm never bringing that list because of the problems it has across the board.
If you say so. I still think you're just salty that this anti-horde tactic isn't good against elite units. For that my answer is: not the Guard's fault that you need different tools for different problems.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Let's do 1280 points of assault marines vs 1290 points of IG, with 360 of those points in guard squads (giving you 9), leaving 930 points for Wyverns (10)
Assumption list:
1) A single Wyvern kills, on average, exactly 1.75 marines per shooting phase.
2) It takes your jump troops two full turns to fly up the board (letting them charge the bottom of Turn 2 at the latest, top of Turn 2 at the earliest.)
3) One Assault Marine sergeant survives for every full 10 Assault Marines who are alive (even though they'd be in squads of 5; we'll assume some sergeants are being killed)
4) The guard screen is dense enough to allow for multi-charge tactics (if it was not this dense, there would be holes in it to charge into with the Fly assault marines). Assault casualties are split evenly among units.
If the guard go first:
The Wyverns kill 18 Marines, the IG lasguns kill 5, leaving 57. The 57 remaining marines move up.
Turn 2
The Wyverns kill 17 Marines, the IG lasguns kill 9.
The 32 remaining marines charge.
20 Guardsmen are killed, and the Marines consolidate (or not, doesn't matter).
Turn 3:
The Wyverns kill 18 marines, the IG lasguns kill 7.
7 assault marines dick around and eventually die (the Marine force is whittled to nothingness).
If the SM go first:
Turn 1:
The 80 Assault Marines move up.
The Wyverns kill 18 Marines, the IG lasguns kill 5, leaving 57.
Turn 2:
The remaining 57 Assault Marines move up and charge, killing 35 guardsmen. Each squad loses ~4 models, and so on average another is lost to morale: 9 more guardsmen drop for a total of 44 dead.
The remaining guardsmen fall back, and the Wyverns fire. The Wyverns do 17 wounds.
Turn 3:
The remaining 40 Assault Marines charge the remainder of the IG screen, killing 25 guardsmen. This is ~3 per squad, so they're steady on morale.
The guardsmen fall back, and The Wyverns fire and kill 18 Marines.
Turn 4:
The Space Marines are in amongst the artillery, preventing it from shooting, as 21 Guardsmen cannot effectively screen 10 wyverns against units with Fly. From here, the IG army will not kill 22 marines with lasguns until the battle ends.
SO, in conclusion, it seems like a normal 8th edition battle: whomever goes first wins.
Dude, I play orks and have gone first many times only to lose.
lolman1c wrote: Dude, I play orks and have gone first many times only to lose.
I actually lose a lot going first too. Turns out 3 baneblades just lumber around the field until the enemy deepstrikes on them and then they explode.
But Dakkadakka consensus seems to be that 8th is the edition of "go first = win first" and so I am just speaking to that. We can make a separate thread on whether or not that is true though.
Martel732 wrote: Maybe. But I'm never bringing that list because of the problems it has across the board.
If you say so. I still think you're just salty that this anti-horde tactic isn't good against elite units. For that my answer is: not the Guard's fault that you need different tools for different problems.
I'd have liked to see Conscripts affected the same way by Commissars as for orders. Commissar executes someone and you roll a d6. On a 4+, the squad auto-passes Morale. On a 1-3, the squad rolls for Morale as normal.
Not a Guard player, but I could see the use there. You could spend a CP to reroll but you can still fail again. You could also just spend 1 CP more and autopass. Then the whole thing becomes about choices and not insta-picks.
It still makes the interaction an "all or nothing" issue that erase one of the phases of the game for Imperial Guard. The oldmmissar rule was bad game design. Glad it is gone. Personally, I think the new rule is just... bad, it should be changed, but not going back to just "Shoot one guy, ignore morale", or any kind of "just ignore morale"
Martel732 wrote: It has, really. That's why I say power armor assault has been dead since 5th. The IG from 5th is why I say that. I was just kinda hoping 8th might change that. It didn't, just made it worse.
Remind me again why Marine players think they should be able to run power armoured bods towards the enemy line with minimal cover? I still do not understand why they are so surprised when dug in tanks and artillery wreck their exposed units.
Vaktathi wrote: the issue is that, when we're talking about units that cost 3 or 4 ppm, a 31pt support model is almost another squad. If the reroll ability is too variable in utility and value then all youre really buying is the +Ld, and for most units, thats just not a particularly worthwhile investment for most IG infantry units, just use those points to buy more dudes.
The commissar reroll results in additional 0 wounds on average.
Yes, zero.
This isn't the same as rerolling a bad result or rolling two and picking the highest.
Rolling a 1 then a 6 is equally as likely as rolling a 6 then a 1.
A LD4 unit taking 10 wounds will lose 6 plus D6.
A LD8 unit taking 10 wounds will lose 2 plus D6.
I know which i'd rather have. Yes you MIGHT lose an extra 5 or you might gain 5. You also might roll 1 damage for your lascannon.
In other words if a unit sustains 3 morale tests in a game and a commissar can cover two units then he saves 24 models or 72 points. You can do half as good and still make his cost.
Martel732 wrote: It has, really. That's why I say power armor assault has been dead since 5th. The IG from 5th is why I say that. I was just kinda hoping 8th might change that. It didn't, just made it worse.
Remind me again why Marine players think they should be able to run power armoured bods towards the enemy line with minimal cover? I still do not understand why they are so surprised when dug in tanks and artillery wreck their exposed units.
That's easy. We believe the fluff where our power Armour is equal to tank Armour and defects Las beams like rain charging gloriously through open ground shredding thr enemy with bolter fire.
Terminator Armour can take a lad cannon impact and keep on marching as it's legandry durability turns aside all but the mightiest blows.
Martel732 wrote: It has, really. That's why I say power armor assault has been dead since 5th. The IG from 5th is why I say that. I was just kinda hoping 8th might change that. It didn't, just made it worse.
Remind me again why Marine players think they should be able to run power armoured bods towards the enemy line with minimal cover? I still do not understand why they are so surprised when dug in tanks and artillery wreck their exposed units.
That's easy. We believe the fluff where our power Armour is equal to tank Armour and defects Las beams like rain charging gloriously through open ground shredding thr enemy with bolter fire.
Terminator Armour can take a lad cannon impact and keep on marching.
And Leman Russ battle tanks are some of the best armoured vehicles to exist, shrugging of the heaviest weapons and ignoring everything that isn't a high powered heavy weapon.
Its almost as though the game rules don't perfectly mirror the fluff. Nor should it.
Plenty of examples of marines taking cover in the fluff.
I'm not surprised. This whole thread has been me NOT being surprised. Evidently, some IG players ARE surprised.
But yes, that whole point is why assault meqs are basically useless, and have been since 5th. Not numerous enough to survive gunlines, not punchy enough to take on truly fearsome CC foes. They sure did kick ass while on bikes and made invisible, though.
Vaktathi wrote: the issue is that, when we're talking about units that cost 3 or 4 ppm, a 31pt support model is almost another squad. If the reroll ability is too variable in utility and value then all youre really buying is the +Ld, and for most units, thats just not a particularly worthwhile investment for most IG infantry units, just use those points to buy more dudes.
The commissar reroll results in additional 0 wounds on average.
Yes, zero.
This isn't the same as rerolling a bad result or rolling two and picking the highest.
Rolling a 1 then a 6 is equally as likely as rolling a 6 then a 1.
A LD4 unit taking 10 wounds will lose 6 plus D6.
A LD8 unit taking 10 wounds will lose 2 plus D6.
I know which i'd rather have. Yes you MIGHT lose an extra 5 or you might gain 5. You also might roll 1 damage for your lascannon.
You forgot to add the 1 the Commissar kills.
And sure, LD8 by itself is amazing when you get it for free. But would you pay an extra 31 points to put it on a 3 point model, when 30 points can get you that AND a +1 BS?
ross-128 wrote: So, you want your basic power armor to basically be what a Dreadnought is currently, except that it still costs 13ppm?
Well. If Matt Ward writes us a new codex we might!
I was joking partly, but we soon so much fluff or marines running head long into battle, charging through gunfire like rain.
Marines are tough, and new primias are more marines as they should be. Termies too with extra wounds and now no more dieing to a single bad Las shot. Allied custoes are great for when you need some real heavy hitters.
Things have improved by a good margin for marine players.
The tanks no longer quite drop dead instantly with a single bad shot from a man portable scatter laser.
Gaurd to better reflect fluff. And the MC, AV gap is now gone.
Both armies improved. The land raider is viable again. The leman russ is tougher.
The tau, and eldar no longer are immune to loss of capability.
ross-128 wrote: If "get assaulted by something and promptly die horribly" is a "turning off assault" in your book, isn't that something that literally any model with a wound stat can do?
Is a 250 point assault unit entitled to make its points back every time it charges no matter what? What if it charged a 50 point squad of Skitarii? What if it charged a 60 point squad of Veterans? What if it charged a 45 point Sentinel, or 80 points of Guardians?
Are you saying that no unit in the entire game should cost less than 250 points, because otherwise your imaginary 250 point assault unit might need to charge more than once?
80 points of Guardians is maybe 10 models and 80 points of Conscripts is 26 models. There's a pretty big different here.
I find it pretty funny that all these IG guys were saying, "oh you pay all these points for marines but you get AND THEY SHALL KNOW NO FEAR, SO OP SPACE MARINES, remember <insert scenario> from <insert previous edition>, wow," now they get ATSKNF on their conscripts and it's "this ability sucks." LOL. Loving the tides of salt this thread is reaping.
You could run a 10 man assault squad. Lose 6 guys. Now, it's 8-(6+D6). You roll a 4. You're losing 2 models. You roll again. You get a 6. You lose the last 4. Bummer right? We've been dealing with this since 8th dropped.
Marmatag wrote: I find it pretty funny that all these IG guys were saying, "oh you pay all these points for marines but you get AND THEY SHALL KNOW NO FEAR, SO OP SPACE MARINES, remember <insert scenario> from <insert previous edition>, wow," now they get ATSKNF on their conscripts and it's "this ability sucks." LOL. Loving the tides of salt this thread is reaping.
You could run a 10 man assault squad. Lose 6 guys. Now, it's 8-(6+D6). You roll a 4. You're losing 2 models. You roll again. You get a 6. You lose the last 4. Bummer right? We've been dealing with this since 8th dropped.
Nopes, they're still pretty significantly different. ATSKNF says that you CAN reroll. The commissar ability is a compulsory reroll. In any situation where you cannot pass the morale test, taking one is just increasing the casualties you suffer.
Marmatag wrote: I find it pretty funny that all these IG guys were saying, "oh you pay all these points for marines but you get AND THEY SHALL KNOW NO FEAR, SO OP SPACE MARINES, remember <insert scenario> from <insert previous edition>, wow," now they get ATSKNF on their conscripts and it's "this ability sucks." LOL. Loving the tides of salt this thread is reaping.
You could run a 10 man assault squad. Lose 6 guys. Now, it's 8-(6+D6). You roll a 4. You're losing 2 models. You roll again. You get a 6. You lose the last 4. Bummer right? We've been dealing with this since 8th dropped.
You realize ATSKNF is optional, right? You can decide if the risk is worth it or not. The new Commissar rule goes off even if you failed by 1 and you lose an extra model in the bargain. I don't see how you can possibly look at those two rules and go "lol, it's the same as our rule guyz, lolIG are just whiny babies, salt mines 4thewin, lol."
GW have released a fix for commissars? I'm impressed. Sure, it could probably be fine-tuned a bit, but i'm trying to remember the last time they tried to fix a problem in a timely fashion. Maybe they are NuGW after all? If this keeps up, i might have to get me some dreadnoughts.
Vaktathi wrote: the issue is that, when we're talking about units that cost 3 or 4 ppm, a 31pt support model is almost another squad. If the reroll ability is too variable in utility and value then all youre really buying is the +Ld, and for most units, thats just not a particularly worthwhile investment for most IG infantry units, just use those points to buy more dudes.
The commissar reroll results in additional 0 wounds on average.
On average, sure, but we've got big tails on those, and run into issues where you will know ahead of the reroll that you will do worse or will do worse in most circumstances. The variability there and lack of choice in the reroll is what kills the functionality of that ability.
This isn't the same as rerolling a bad result or rolling two and picking the highest.
Rolling a 1 then a 6 is equally as likely as rolling a 6 then a 1.
A LD4 unit taking 10 wounds will lose 6 plus D6.
A LD8 unit taking 10 wounds will lose 2 plus D6.
And for anything other than Conscripts (as I noted above, "for *most* IG infantry units"), they're dead either way because they dont come in squad sizes larger than 10. The Ld boost also isnt as critcal because their base Ld isnt 4.
The issue now is that the Commissar provided a functional boon for hurt but still functional 10man units, and no longer does. A Veteran or Stormtrooper squad knocked down to 5 dudes from 10 would only have lost one dude on a failed test under the old ability, and passed the morale test on average 1 in 3 times. Now it has a higher 1 in 2.25 average pass rate, but it can be wiped entirely, and will lose more than one dude to Morale just as often as it will pass the test (counting the reroll).
As a result, the risk/reward is balanced such that the overall value nets out to roughly zero (higher chance to pass, but higher casualties on a fail), thus the only thing of value the Commissar is bringing is the Ld bonus, which isnt worth it for most infantry except Conscripts, or with a Lord Commissar (who can boost Ld to the point where the reroll is likely to be superfluous anyway).
I know which i'd rather have. Yes you MIGHT lose an extra 5 or you might gain 5. You also might roll 1 damage for your lascannon.
The issue is that you will run into situations where you know ahead of time the reroll will be worse no matter what, and have no choice in the matter. If you fail by 1 or 2 after losing 5 or 7 dudes in a unit but have all or most of the upgrade weapons left, youd probably not want to take the reroll if you had the choice.
In other words if a unit sustains 3 morale tests in a game and a commissar can cover two units then he saves 24 models or 72 points. You can do half as good and still make his cost.
Which would really only apply to Conscripts, going back to my earlier point about "most" IG infantry units.
TL;DR basically the change makes Elites commissars largely pointless outside of Conscripts because the reroll ability doesnt bring any net utility to the table given the squad sizes in question and doesnt provide enough of an Ld boost to be worth the investment.
Martel732 wrote: I'm not surprised. This whole thread has been me NOT being surprised. Evidently, some IG players ARE surprised.
But yes, that whole point is why assault meqs are basically useless, and have been since 5th. Not numerous enough to survive gunlines, not punchy enough to take on truly fearsome CC foes. They sure did kick ass while on bikes and made invisible, though.
I had great success with assault MEQ's in 5th with my CSM's. They just all had to ride in Rhinos. The big issue there was more the support units werent great
ross-128 wrote: So, you want your basic power armor to basically be what a Dreadnought is currently, except that it still costs 13ppm?
Like I said earlier, they won't be satisfied until the basic marine can tank 3 lascannon shots per turn, Terminators leaping across the board to wipe entire hordes off the table, and characters granting rerolls to everything without CP cost.
ross-128 wrote: So, you want your basic power armor to basically be what a Dreadnought is currently, except that it still costs 13ppm?
Like I said earlier, they won't be satisfied until the basic marine can tank 3 lascannon shots per turn, Terminators leaping across the board to wipe entire hordes off the table, and characters granting rerolls to everything without CP cost.
Because Movie Marines.
You'd have a point if marines outside of Guilliman were doing well, and Guard wasn't the single best performing faction in the game.
ross-128 wrote: So, you want your basic power armor to basically be what a Dreadnought is currently, except that it still costs 13ppm?
Like I said earlier, they won't be satisfied until the basic marine can tank 3 lascannon shots per turn, Terminators leaping across the board to wipe entire hordes off the table, and characters granting rerolls to everything without CP cost.
Because Movie Marines.
You'd have a point if marines outside of Guilliman were doing well, and Guard wasn't the single best performing faction in the game.
After the most recent FAQ, I'd be surprised if Guard end up still the reigning kings. They will be good, but Conscript spam with a Commissar was a huge thing in so many Imperium lists and not even just Guard. Now, you'll have Mortarions reliably taking out entire squads of 30 in one fight phase and after Morale.
Marmatag wrote: I find it pretty funny that all these IG guys were saying, "oh you pay all these points for marines but you get AND THEY SHALL KNOW NO FEAR, SO OP SPACE MARINES, remember <insert scenario> from <insert previous edition>, wow," now they get ATSKNF on their conscripts and it's "this ability sucks." LOL. Loving the tides of salt this thread is reaping.
You could run a 10 man assault squad. Lose 6 guys. Now, it's 8-(6+D6). You roll a 4. You're losing 2 models. You roll again. You get a 6. You lose the last 4. Bummer right? We've been dealing with this since 8th dropped.
Alright, you can have ATSKNF as a 31 point upgrade to your unit that requires you to sacrifice a model every time you use it.
Somehow I don't think you'd want that, though.
But really, if you think Marines are too expensive at 13 just how cheap do you want them? 12? 11? 10?
All I see here are Marine players salty that their "anti everything 7ed death star lists" fail in 8th due to low model count being a hindrance.
I mean, if your facing a horde army you equip it with anti horde weapons. Complaining to us that your anti elite killer units don't work as well against hordes is going to cause you to get some stick.
Dr. Mills wrote: All I see here are Marine players salty that their "anti everything 7ed death star lists" fail in 8th due to low model count being a hindrance.
I mean, if your facing a horde army you equip it with anti horde weapons. Complaining to us that your anti elite killer units don't work as well against hordes is going to cause you to get some stick.
That's list tailoring, and a non-solution. BA had zero death stars in 7th. Try again.
ross-128 wrote: So, you want your basic power armor to basically be what a Dreadnought is currently, except that it still costs 13ppm?
Like I said earlier, they won't be satisfied until the basic marine can tank 3 lascannon shots per turn, Terminators leaping across the board to wipe entire hordes off the table, and characters granting rerolls to everything without CP cost.
Because Movie Marines.
You'd have a point if marines outside of Guilliman were doing well, and Guard wasn't the single best performing faction in the game.
Wasn't there just a tourney thread that had Primaris marines without Guiliman taking second place and the highest Guard army at 4th? Anecdotal of course, but marines seem to be doing fairly well.
Marmatag wrote: I find it pretty funny that all these IG guys were saying, "oh you pay all these points for marines but you get AND THEY SHALL KNOW NO FEAR, SO OP SPACE MARINES, remember <insert scenario> from <insert previous edition>, wow," now they get ATSKNF on their conscripts and it's "this ability sucks." LOL. Loving the tides of salt this thread is reaping.
You could run a 10 man assault squad. Lose 6 guys. Now, it's 8-(6+D6). You roll a 4. You're losing 2 models. You roll again. You get a 6. You lose the last 4. Bummer right? We've been dealing with this since 8th dropped.
You realize ATSKNF is optional, right? You can decide if the risk is worth it or not. The new Commissar rule goes off even if you failed by 1 and you lose an extra model in the bargain. I don't see how you can possibly look at those two rules and go "lol, it's the same as our rule guyz, lolIG are just whiny babies, salt mines 4thewin, lol."
I don't think very many people are complaining about the nerf in relation to Conscripts, what everyone is complaining about is the nerf in regards to regular guardsmen and the more expensive stuff. For 31 points minimum, you get the option of killing a soldier and getting a worse result than before. Considering Commissar's really don't have that much of a damage output on their own, what with having a strength 4 bolt pistol and some sweet strength 3 melee attacks, you are paying those points for what is a +1 leadership bubble and a mandatory reroll on morale.
Infantry are 4 points, Veterans are 6 points, and Scions are 10 points (technically 9, but their minimal loadout requires an extra point spent). With one 10 man squad, the cost of a Commissar effectively increases the cost of the unit by 3 points per model and in exchange gives them a +1 leadership and a strictly worse AHSKNF.
Conscripts though, Commissars still have a role - that same 31 points gives them a +4 leadership.
Fix the relationship between Commissar and the 4+ and 3+ to hit units, and this nerf will be perfectly fine - either use the above formula but divide it by 2 rounding down, or give the Guard player the option to take the initial result or blam a flat 1d3 models from the unit. That way they still have a role with those units.
Dr. Mills wrote: All I see here are Marine players salty that their "anti everything 7ed death star lists" fail in 8th due to low model count being a hindrance.
I mean, if your facing a horde army you equip it with anti horde weapons. Complaining to us that your anti elite killer units don't work as well against hordes is going to cause you to get some stick.
Dr. Mills wrote: All I see here are Marine players salty that their "anti everything 7ed death star lists" fail in 8th due to low model count being a hindrance.
I mean, if your facing a horde army you equip it with anti horde weapons. Complaining to us that your anti elite killer units don't work as well against hordes is going to cause you to get some stick.
Dr. Mills wrote: All I see here are Marine players salty that their "anti everything 7ed death star lists" fail in 8th due to low model count being a hindrance.
I mean, if your facing a horde army you equip it with anti horde weapons. Complaining to us that your anti elite killer units don't work as well against hordes is going to cause you to get some stick.
There are no anti-horde weapons though.
"Take 10 Tacs, shoot with bolter, then charge," will generally wipe out a guard squad.
Dr. Mills wrote: All I see here are Marine players salty that their "anti everything 7ed death star lists" fail in 8th due to low model count being a hindrance.
I mean, if your facing a horde army you equip it with anti horde weapons. Complaining to us that your anti elite killer units don't work as well against hordes is going to cause you to get some stick.
5+ weirdboyz using d6 smites followed by a da jump charge
Warpfire? (honestly cant remember the name) Bolters
Every single one of the above has shredded my infantry, Conscripts or no, and I'm probably missing a few. Most of those are available to Marines, and even more are available via allies.
ross-128 wrote: So, you want your basic power armor to basically be what a Dreadnought is currently, except that it still costs 13ppm?
Like I said earlier, they won't be satisfied until the basic marine can tank 3 lascannon shots per turn, Terminators leaping across the board to wipe entire hordes off the table, and characters granting rerolls to everything without CP cost.
ross-128 wrote: So, you want your basic power armor to basically be what a Dreadnought is currently, except that it still costs 13ppm?
Like I said earlier, they won't be satisfied until the basic marine can tank 3 lascannon shots per turn, Terminators leaping across the board to wipe entire hordes off the table, and characters granting rerolls to everything without CP cost.
Because Movie Marines.
Give us some multilasers, we getting somewhere
Someone summon Matt Ward. We need him.
If Ward was fused with Goto, we'd truly have something to fear.
So, with regards to the 250 point CQC unit being "turned off" by the Conscripts, how do you think I feel about my artillery tanks and line tanks being "turned off" by CQC units?
That's how the strategy of the game works. Part of your goal is find a way to efficiently "turn off" enemy units and neutralize their contribution. Conscripts allow me to neutralize the threat your CQC units present to my tanks, without having to destroy them, which is inherently much more efficient that just trying to out-shoot/out-fight them, since there are a great many easy ways to neutralize just shooting it full of lead.
Also, Power Armor CQC, and, in fact, CQC as the core of a list, can die and stay dead, IMO.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: So, with regards to the 250 point CQC unit being "turned off" by the Conscripts, how do you think I feel about my artillery tanks and line tanks being "turned off" by CQC units?
That's how the strategy of the game works. Part of your goal is find a way to efficiently "turn off" enemy units and neutralize their contribution. Conscripts allow me to neutralize the threat your CQC units present to my tanks, without having to destroy them, which is inherently much more efficient that just trying to out-shoot/out-fight them, since there are a great many easy ways to neutralize just shooting it full of lead.
Also, Power Armor CQC, and, in fact, CQC as the core of a list, can die and stay dead, IMO.
Give me a way to as easily neutralize your shooting and we'll call it even.
Until then, I hope you like Rowboat gunlines, because that's what serious marines players have to do.
What's your issue with CC? It's a hell of a lot more interesting than gunlines that stay stock still 48" away and just roll dice.
Like hell it is.
I kind of go to sleep when melee is joined. I'd rather play a gunline than a CQC list, because at least then there's terrain, line of effect, firing lanes, areas where you just can't advance into because of weight of fire focused on that point, and etc. Playing with CQC is "go that way, don't get shot, and try to measure your distance just right enough to get your charge and they fail theirs."
I don't think CQC should be a thing, just that armies shouldn't be built around CQC at their core and it should instead be a specialist tasking for units, or a desperation maneuver.
What's your issue with CC? It's a hell of a lot more interesting than gunlines that stay stock still 48" away and just roll dice.
I can see why CC isn't very appealing, since once you cross no-man's land you either wipe your opponent or get wiped. It's another thing with the game where it lacks decent counterplay other than "back up and shoot".
And this is coming from someone with 40 khorne berserkers.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: So, with regards to the 250 point CQC unit being "turned off" by the Conscripts, how do you think I feel about my artillery tanks and line tanks being "turned off" by CQC units?
That's how the strategy of the game works. Part of your goal is find a way to efficiently "turn off" enemy units and neutralize their contribution. Conscripts allow me to neutralize the threat your CQC units present to my tanks, without having to destroy them, which is inherently much more efficient that just trying to out-shoot/out-fight them, since there are a great many easy ways to neutralize just shooting it full of lead.
Also, Power Armor CQC, and, in fact, CQC as the core of a list, can die and stay dead, IMO.
Give me a way to as easily neutralize your shooting and we'll call it even.
Until then, I hope you like Rowboat gunlines, because that's what serious marines players have to do.
How about Deep Strike and Transports for your gun-equipped infantry.
Also, actually using mobility to outflank cover positions and cripple enemy units, that works really well.
What's your issue with CC? It's a hell of a lot more interesting than gunlines that stay stock still 48" away and just roll dice.
I can see why CC isn't very appealing, since once you cross no-man's land you either wipe your opponent or get wiped. It's another thing with the game where it lacks decent counterplay other than "back up and shoot".
And this is coming from someone with 40 khorne berserkers.
Precisely. It comes down to a big ball of dice rolling.
As far as decent counterplay, Gunlines are usually pretty static, and lose some of their resilience for advancing. Securing objective out from under them is good counterplay, and for IG at least using precise strikes to cripple their support works great. I've done this with Immolators and Meltaguns, so it's definitely do-able. Keep in mind that IG tanks really have half the advertised wounds compared to an SM tank, since they at best re-roll 1's and naturally have gak ballistic skill; once they drop to 5+ they're fairly safe to ignore.
Dr. Mills wrote: All I see here are Marine players salty that their "anti everything 7ed death star lists" fail in 8th due to low model count being a hindrance.
I mean, if your facing a horde army you equip it with anti horde weapons. Complaining to us that your anti elite killer units don't work as well against hordes is going to cause you to get some stick.
5+ weirdboyz using d6 smites followed by a da jump charge
Warpfire? (honestly cant remember the name) Bolters
Every single one of the above has shredded my infantry, Conscripts or no, and I'm probably missing a few. Most of those are available to Marines, and even more are available via allies.
All of which are more point efficient towards Marines and Skitarii and Necrons?
None of those things work vs IG. They fill their entire DZ for the explicit purpose of turning off all those things. There is no flank. There is no DS area. There are transports, and that's it.
What's your issue with CC? It's a hell of a lot more interesting than gunlines that stay stock still 48" away and just roll dice.
I can see why CC isn't very appealing, since once you cross no-man's land you either wipe your opponent or get wiped. It's another thing with the game where it lacks decent counterplay other than "back up and shoot".
And this is coming from someone with 40 khorne berserkers.
This is an identical situation to long range static gunlines, except you have the option to back out of CC. The only counterplay to a basilisk is to kill it.
Martel732 wrote: None of those things work vs IG. They fill their entire DZ for the explicit purpose of turning off all those things. There is no flank. There is no DS area. There are transports, and that's it.
Umm, what do you mean? It's not hard to move to a position where a ruin no longer obscures an artillery tank, especially with 12" of move. I literally cannot believe it is impossible to move a Razorback to a position where it can see a Manticore.
What's your issue with CC? It's a hell of a lot more interesting than gunlines that stay stock still 48" away and just roll dice.
I can see why CC isn't very appealing, since once you cross no-man's land you either wipe your opponent or get wiped. It's another thing with the game where it lacks decent counterplay other than "back up and shoot".
And this is coming from someone with 40 khorne berserkers.
This is an identical situation to long range static gunlines, except you have the option to back out of CC. The only counterplay to a basilisk is to kill it.
Or cripple it.
Or hide in a transport. Or not be on the board until it's time for you to do your thing, etc. etc. etc. Against Khorne Bezerkers/Genestealers/Boyz, all there is to do is "shoot it and back up". Note that a significant amount of counterplay to ranged gunlines involves using LoS blocking terrain and circumventing the use of LoS blocking terrain, whereas CQC is terrain independent, especially because terrain is no longer even remotely a hinderance for chargers.
What's your issue with CC? It's a hell of a lot more interesting than gunlines that stay stock still 48" away and just roll dice.
Yeah versus your army of CC guys spending all their action to charge forward across the table, wiping out my unit on the charge, consolidating into my next unit who you then wipe out on my turn. Or my guys run away (assuming the people whining about fall back don't manage to get it nerfed in the future) and shoot at half their normal ability, unless you were successfully able to surround even one of my guys and then I can't. Either way you roll a bucketload of dice with your CC unit and I remove models. And don't get me started about how much more miserable it was in past editions.
Much fun. Much interesting. It takes so much tactics to race across the board and charge into CC combat. And yeah. Straight castling gunlines are just as boring.
I blame GW for making victory by straight tabling a thing. Objectives should always be more important than straight killing your enemy in my opinion, and objectives need to be made interesting to play with.
"Sir we killed all the chaos dudes!" "did you stop them summoning the planet killer?" "Uh, no. We forgot about that."
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: So, with regards to the 250 point CQC unit being "turned off" by the Conscripts, how do you think I feel about my artillery tanks and line tanks being "turned off" by CQC units?
That's how the strategy of the game works. Part of your goal is find a way to efficiently "turn off" enemy units and neutralize their contribution. Conscripts allow me to neutralize the threat your CQC units present to my tanks, without having to destroy them, which is inherently much more efficient that just trying to out-shoot/out-fight them, since there are a great many easy ways to neutralize just shooting it full of lead.
Also, Power Armor CQC, and, in fact, CQC as the core of a list, can die and stay dead, IMO.
Give me a way to as easily neutralize your shooting and we'll call it even.
Until then, I hope you like Rowboat gunlines, because that's what serious marines players have to do.
How about Deep Strike and Transports for your gun-equipped infantry.
Also, actually using mobility to outflank cover positions and cripple enemy units, that works really well.
What's your issue with CC? It's a hell of a lot more interesting than gunlines that stay stock still 48" away and just roll dice.
I can see why CC isn't very appealing, since once you cross no-man's land you either wipe your opponent or get wiped. It's another thing with the game where it lacks decent counterplay other than "back up and shoot".
And this is coming from someone with 40 khorne berserkers.
Precisely. It comes down to a big ball of dice rolling.
As far as decent counterplay, Gunlines are usually pretty static, and lose some of their resilience for advancing. Securing objective out from under them is good counterplay, and for IG at least using precise strikes to cripple their support works great. I've done this with Immolators and Meltaguns, so it's definitely do-able. Keep in mind that IG tanks really have half the advertised wounds compared to an SM tank, since they at best re-roll 1's and naturally have gak ballistic skill; once they drop to 5+ they're fairly safe to ignore.
Your advice reeks of someone that hasn't seen a Conscript squad. At all.
What's your issue with CC? It's a hell of a lot more interesting than gunlines that stay stock still 48" away and just roll dice.
Yeah versus your army of CC guys spending all their action to charge forward across the table, wiping out my unit on the charge, consolidating into my next unit who you then wipe out on my turn. Or my guys run away (assuming the people whining about fall back don't manage to get it nerfed in the future) and shoot at half their normal ability, unless you were successfully able to surround even one of my guys and then I can't. Either way you roll a bucketload of dice with your CC unit and I remove models. And don't get me started about how much more miserable it was in past editions.
Much fun. Much interesting. It takes so much tactics to race across the board and charge into CC combat. And yeah. Straight castling gunlines are just as boring.
I blame GW for making victory by straight tabling a thing. Objectives should always be more important than straight killing your enemy in my opinion, and objectives need to be made interesting to play with.
"Sir we killed all the chaos dudes!" "did you stop them summoning the planet killer?" "Uh, no. We forgot about that."
Boom.
Uh, if you couldn't tell by my avatar I play Thousand Sons. We're a midrange shooting army, the only CC threat we have is Magnus (which is of course a very large threat). Frankly the amount of tactics required in Warhammer is fairly limited, but at least CC armies interact with the board in a way that Guard doesn't have to.
Arachnofiend wrote: This is an identical situation to long range static gunlines, except you have the option to back out of CC. The only counterplay to a basilisk is to kill it.
Maybe two identical gunlines, but ranged weapons have long ranges (36+") Medium Range (around 24") and Close Range (6-18") and they generally offer different counterplay depending on the other army. Even against extremely long ranged gunlines, the counterplay is to try to outfox your opponent by intentionally offering up certain units to get blown up so you can get what you really need to take them out into position (medium range and close range have even more counterplay as trying to keep them outside of their range while inside of your own threat range gives you some challenge).
But regardless of what kind of CC army you play, the general idea is always "Close the distance, win game". Again, I run 40 Khorne Berserkers and something like 48 Genestealers (separate armies ofc). Different units, maybe different delivery methods, but overall the same gameplay and end result.
A Lord Commissar cannot hurt a standard Ld 7 Infantry Squad with 9 models (full squad with hvy wpns team) compared to a nine man squad without a Lord Commissar and the same initial dice roll. The times when the results of two failed checks (where the second failed check is a worse result) are higher than a single failed check the Ld 7 squad is wiped out anyway with the original roll. Some math guy could probably put a curve together, but I took Poli Sci...
He can only hurt a ten man squad compared to a ten man squad without a Lord Commissar if you lose 6 casualties and roll a 4 followed by a 5 or 6. That's a pretty specific and unlikely event (of course, that is all that will happen to me now). At 5 casualties or less the squad with the Lord Commissar is either better off (by one or two saved models) or no worse with the same initial rolls. Usually, you are saving 1 or 2 models per check which is pretty good if you are saving Scions, Veterans or the Lascannon and Plasmagun in an Infantry Squad. At 7 casualties or more the normal infantry are wiped out with the same initial morale roll as the first failed Lord Commissar check.
A normal Commissar does have a few times when he can hurt a Ld 7 squad because of how the rule mechanic works. Its an unlikely outcome, but it can still deter folks. There is a bigger issue with a normal Commissar (who is Ld 8) and Ld 8 Troops (like with a Standard around). He can be a bigger potential hazard then since he is not increasing their leadership and the distribution of results means more chances of worse outcomes than without the Commissar. A Lord Commissar also has a few times when he can hurt Ld 8 Troops. After suffering 5 casualties, rolling a 5 could then result in rolling a 6 and suffering 1 extra casualty than a 5 without the Lord in a Ld 8 squad. After 6 casualties if you roll a 4 and then follow with a 5 or 6 its worse than the original 4. Not very likely, but there it is.
Its gets more weird when you cannot pass the test after losing 10 or more models and you have a large squad - like the Conscripts. Even then, its on the edge cases that you lose more because of the Commissar and then the loss isn't that much because of the Leadership boost.
It is an inelegant rule fix, but I am keeping my Lord Commissars for my regular Infantry, Veterans and Scions. I think that they can do a better fix than this one, but its not a disaster either.
Arachnofiend wrote: This is an identical situation to long range static gunlines, except you have the option to back out of CC. The only counterplay to a basilisk is to kill it.
Maybe two identical gunlines, but ranged weapons have long ranges (36+") Medium Range (around 24") and Close Range (6-18") and they generally offer different counterplay depending on the other army. Even against extremely long ranged gunlines, the counterplay is to try to outfox your opponent by intentionally offering up certain units to get blown up so you can get what you really need to take them out into position (medium range and close range have even more counterplay as trying to keep them outside of their range while inside of your own threat range gives you some challenge).
Yes, different gunlines have different abilities.
The way I have been dealing with Conscript spam is not getting close to them. My CSM army is loaded up with lascannons, starts the game with 22 shots. The last game I played against Imperial Soup, the only thing my opponent had that had the distance to shoot me from 48+ inches was Earthshaker batteries. After taking out 2 of the 4 first turn, standing still and chewing up the rest of his army was pretty simple.
Not saying this would happen every game, but the range on a gunline is something people don't always think about. It's probably the most important factor.
What's your issue with CC? It's a hell of a lot more interesting than gunlines that stay stock still 48" away and just roll dice.
I can see why CC isn't very appealing, since once you cross no-man's land you either wipe your opponent or get wiped. It's another thing with the game where it lacks decent counterplay other than "back up and shoot".
And this is coming from someone with 40 khorne berserkers.
At least in 8th you have activations and you can fall back, mechanics that give the meele phase a ton of depth compared with the meele phase of 3rd-7th editions.
4th edition melee was a total mess. It was even more all or nothing since you could consolidate into other units and (unless they had hit and run) completely lock them down.
Arachnofiend wrote: This is an identical situation to long range static gunlines, except you have the option to back out of CC. The only counterplay to a basilisk is to kill it.
Maybe two identical gunlines, but ranged weapons have long ranges (36+") Medium Range (around 24") and Close Range (6-18") and they generally offer different counterplay depending on the other army. Even against extremely long ranged gunlines, the counterplay is to try to outfox your opponent by intentionally offering up certain units to get blown up so you can get what you really need to take them out into position (medium range and close range have even more counterplay as trying to keep them outside of their range while inside of your own threat range gives you some challenge).
Yes, different gunlines have different abilities.
The way I have been dealing with Conscript spam is not getting close to them. My CSM army is loaded up with lascannons, starts the game with 22 shots. The last game I played against Imperial Soup, the only thing my opponent had that had the distance to shoot me from 48+ inches was Earthshaker batteries. After taking out 2 of the 4 first turn, standing still and chewing up the rest of his army was pretty simple.
Not saying this would happen every game, but the range on a gunline is something people don't always think about. It's probably the most important factor.
Arachnofiend wrote: This is an identical situation to long range static gunlines, except you have the option to back out of CC. The only counterplay to a basilisk is to kill it.
Maybe two identical gunlines, but ranged weapons have long ranges (36+") Medium Range (around 24") and Close Range (6-18") and they generally offer different counterplay depending on the other army. Even against extremely long ranged gunlines, the counterplay is to try to outfox your opponent by intentionally offering up certain units to get blown up so you can get what you really need to take them out into position (medium range and close range have even more counterplay as trying to keep them outside of their range while inside of your own threat range gives you some challenge).
Yes, different gunlines have different abilities.
The way I have been dealing with Conscript spam is not getting close to them. My CSM army is loaded up with lascannons, starts the game with 22 shots. The last game I played against Imperial Soup, the only thing my opponent had that had the distance to shoot me from 48+ inches was Earthshaker batteries. After taking out 2 of the 4 first turn, standing still and chewing up the rest of his army was pretty simple.
Not saying this would happen every game, but the range on a gunline is something people don't always think about. It's probably the most important factor.
Dr. Mills wrote: All I see here are Marine players salty that their "anti everything 7ed death star lists" fail in 8th due to low model count being a hindrance.
I mean, if your facing a horde army you equip it with anti horde weapons. Complaining to us that your anti elite killer units don't work as well against hordes is going to cause you to get some stick.
5+ weirdboyz using d6 smites followed by a da jump charge
Warpfire? (honestly cant remember the name) Bolters
Every single one of the above has shredded my infantry, Conscripts or no, and I'm probably missing a few. Most of those are available to Marines, and even more are available via allies.
All of which are more point efficient towards Marines and Skitarii and Necrons?
Yep, it's one of the problems the game has with balancing hordes. The most efficient anti horde thing is a horde. And while things like dual assrazors work it's mostly because they're overturned themselves. Using morale as the anti horde mechanic is fine, but it only works if there are both ways for hordes to mitigate morale losses and for people to fight against that. Personally I don't think this commissars change was the right one, but it did accomplish the goal. That said other hordes I don't think have the same vulnerability, which is going to leave them in the broken or crappy category.
Arachnofiend wrote: This is an identical situation to long range static gunlines, except you have the option to back out of CC. The only counterplay to a basilisk is to kill it.
Maybe two identical gunlines, but ranged weapons have long ranges (36+") Medium Range (around 24") and Close Range (6-18") and they generally offer different counterplay depending on the other army. Even against extremely long ranged gunlines, the counterplay is to try to outfox your opponent by intentionally offering up certain units to get blown up so you can get what you really need to take them out into position (medium range and close range have even more counterplay as trying to keep them outside of their range while inside of your own threat range gives you some challenge).
Yes, different gunlines have different abilities.
The way I have been dealing with Conscript spam is not getting close to them. My CSM army is loaded up with lascannons, starts the game with 22 shots. The last game I played against Imperial Soup, the only thing my opponent had that had the distance to shoot me from 48+ inches was Earthshaker batteries. After taking out 2 of the 4 first turn, standing still and chewing up the rest of his army was pretty simple.
Not saying this would happen every game, but the range on a gunline is something people don't always think about. It's probably the most important factor.
This is what my list has turned into as well.
So what's the issue?
It's a list I hate, and one that will always be inferior to its vanilla counterparts.
Arachnofiend wrote: This is an identical situation to long range static gunlines, except you have the option to back out of CC. The only counterplay to a basilisk is to kill it.
Maybe two identical gunlines, but ranged weapons have long ranges (36+") Medium Range (around 24") and Close Range (6-18") and they generally offer different counterplay depending on the other army. Even against extremely long ranged gunlines, the counterplay is to try to outfox your opponent by intentionally offering up certain units to get blown up so you can get what you really need to take them out into position (medium range and close range have even more counterplay as trying to keep them outside of their range while inside of your own threat range gives you some challenge).
Yes, different gunlines have different abilities.
The way I have been dealing with Conscript spam is not getting close to them. My CSM army is loaded up with lascannons, starts the game with 22 shots. The last game I played against Imperial Soup, the only thing my opponent had that had the distance to shoot me from 48+ inches was Earthshaker batteries. After taking out 2 of the 4 first turn, standing still and chewing up the rest of his army was pretty simple.
Not saying this would happen every game, but the range on a gunline is something people don't always think about. It's probably the most important factor.
This is what my list has turned into as well.
So what's the issue?
It's a list I hate, and one that will always be inferior to its vanilla counterparts.
No one likes having to tailor to specific threats, but that's sorta what this crazy diverse game is all about.
I personally just wish they would have a.) Brought back the Platoon structure, which IG players actually liked and that forced list diversity and made it impossible to spam just conscripts. b.) Made commissars significantly more expensive, commensurate with their outsized effects, or limit how many you can take or c.) Just simply drop them down to 1-2 wounds and make them much more vulnerable to snipers.
Snipers have gotten a lot better in this game and most armies have them, but their effectiveness is still limited by the fact that now suddenly even cheap, mundane characters have a ton of wounds.
Darkagl1 wrote: Personally I don't think this commissars change was the right one, but it did accomplish the goal.
Sure, if the goal was never to see commissars used again. Deleting the unit entirely would have achieved the same result. My doubts at the new GW are vindicated. Conscripts interact with commissars in awkward fashion; nerf conscripts and delete commissars ensuring neither unit sees the table. Now back to our regularly scheduled program, the SM/Eldar show.
Nice that the new Eldar can apply the old commissar rule to their entire army for free without needing to worry about the opponent sniping the source.
Darkagl1 wrote: Personally I don't think this commissars change was the right one, but it did accomplish the goal.
Sure, if the goal was never to see commissars used again. Deleting the unit entirely would have achieved the same result. My doubts at the new GW are vindicated. Conscripts interact with commissars in awkward fashion; nerf conscripts and delete commissars ensuring neither unit sees the table. Now back to our regularly scheduled program, the SM/Eldar show.
Nice that the new Eldar can apply the old commissar rule to their entire army for free without needing to worry about the opponent sniping the source.
Ah yes, the army with at minimum 8-9 point models.
Not sure. I've actually only played vs Drukhari and GSC with my revamped list. Kinda wish I had more CC against those two :\ As long as there are not a ton of LoS blocking on the table, I should do better vs IG and UM gun line.
Darkagl1 wrote: Personally I don't think this commissars change was the right one, but it did accomplish the goal.
Sure, if the goal was never to see commissars used again. Deleting the unit entirely would have achieved the same result. My doubts at the new GW are vindicated. Conscripts interact with commissars in awkward fashion; nerf conscripts and delete commissars ensuring neither unit sees the table. Now back to our regularly scheduled program, the SM/Eldar show.
Nice that the new Eldar can apply the old commissar rule to their entire army for free without needing to worry about the opponent sniping the source.
Ah yes, the army with at minimum 8-9 point models.
A Commissar comes in at 31 points minimum - and doesn't in and of himself contribute much to the fight. That means that you are paying 3 points per model on a 10 man squad of Infantry (now 7 points), Veterans (now 9 points), or Scions (now 13 points) if you are rolling him with one of them. All that for a +1 leadership and the chance to maybe lose less, or maybe lose more men.
That....doesn't look overly appealing.
Just faq the faq to make Commissars at least somewhat appealing to take to these units while maintaining the Conscript x Commissar nerf and all would be fine - otherwise it just seems much more worthwhile to scrounge for an extra 9 points and add an extra infantry squad.
Not sure. I've actually only played vs Drukhari and GSC with my revamped list. Kinda wish I had more CC against those two :\ As long as there are not a ton of LoS blocking on the table, I should do better vs IG and UM gun line.
Right on, right on. I wind up doing something similar for new armies or editions. I get that its boring, but getting a few successes with a baseline before adding the spice lets me know I've got a good fallback. BA dont have a codex, yadda, yadda, but I'll make no predictions on that front.
I'm sure many a UM player will tell you that Guilliman Razorspam is pretty boring, too. I would.
Darkagl1 wrote: Personally I don't think this commissars change was the right one, but it did accomplish the goal.
Sure, if the goal was never to see commissars used again. Deleting the unit entirely would have achieved the same result. My doubts at the new GW are vindicated. Conscripts interact with commissars in awkward fashion; nerf conscripts and delete commissars ensuring neither unit sees the table. Now back to our regularly scheduled program, the SM/Eldar show.
Nice that the new Eldar can apply the old commissar rule to their entire army for free without needing to worry about the opponent sniping the source.
Ah yes, the army with at minimum 8-9 point models.
A Commissar comes in at 31 points minimum - and doesn't in and of himself contribute much to the fight. That means that you are paying 3 points per model on a 10 man squad of Infantry (now 7 points), Veterans (now 9 points), or Scions (now 13 points) if you are rolling him with one of them. All that for a +1 leadership and the chance to maybe lose less, or maybe lose more men.
That....doesn't look overly appealing.
Just faq the faq to make Commissars at least somewhat appealing to take to these units while maintaining the Conscript x Commissar nerf and all would be fine - otherwise it just seems much more worthwhile to scrounge for an extra 9 points and add an extra infantry squad.
Not sure why you'd bother on Scions because 5 man squads are better. And then if you roll for 30 man Conscripts that's only 1 point a model with an extra left over for the Commisar.
Yea that is a weird point how anyone would want a commissar to reroll morale on scions. Morale doesn't matter, you're taking 5 man squads because that lets you get the most special weapons.
Arachnofiend wrote: This is an identical situation to long range static gunlines, except you have the option to back out of CC. The only counterplay to a basilisk is to kill it.
Maybe two identical gunlines, but ranged weapons have long ranges (36+") Medium Range (around 24") and Close Range (6-18") and they generally offer different counterplay depending on the other army. Even against extremely long ranged gunlines, the counterplay is to try to outfox your opponent by intentionally offering up certain units to get blown up so you can get what you really need to take them out into position (medium range and close range have even more counterplay as trying to keep them outside of their range while inside of your own threat range gives you some challenge).
Yes, different gunlines have different abilities.
The way I have been dealing with Conscript spam is not getting close to them. My CSM army is loaded up with lascannons, starts the game with 22 shots. The last game I played against Imperial Soup, the only thing my opponent had that had the distance to shoot me from 48+ inches was Earthshaker batteries. After taking out 2 of the 4 first turn, standing still and chewing up the rest of his army was pretty simple.
Not saying this would happen every game, but the range on a gunline is something people don't always think about. It's probably the most important factor.
This is what my list has turned into as well.
So what's the issue?
Well, with regards to Astra Militarum, a few things.
- It's weird thinking Chaos can outshoot Guard. Total reversal from previous editions going back to 2nd.
- It speaks to the importance of range. In 8th edition, the longest guns win the first couple turns.
- In 8th edition, straight shootouts between gunlines are possible. No close combat required. It was kind of that way with Tau / Eldar going back to 6th edition, but now it's easier to do with other armies. Yes, I know Lascannons have always been 48 inches, but it's a lot easier to spam long range firepower this edition.
Marmatag wrote: I find it pretty funny that all these IG guys were saying, "oh you pay all these points for marines but you get AND THEY SHALL KNOW NO FEAR, SO OP SPACE MARINES, remember <insert scenario> from <insert previous edition>, wow," now they get ATSKNF on their conscripts and it's "this ability sucks." LOL. Loving the tides of salt this thread is reaping.
You could run a 10 man assault squad. Lose 6 guys. Now, it's 8-(6+D6). You roll a 4. You're losing 2 models. You roll again. You get a 6. You lose the last 4. Bummer right? We've been dealing with this since 8th dropped.
You realize ATSKNF is optional, right? You can decide if the risk is worth it or not. The new Commissar rule goes off even if you failed by 1 and you lose an extra model in the bargain. I don't see how you can possibly look at those two rules and go "lol, it's the same as our rule guyz, lolIG are just whiny babies, salt mines 4thewin, lol."
Darkagl1 wrote: Personally I don't think this commissars change was the right one, but it did accomplish the goal.
Sure, if the goal was never to see commissars used again. Deleting the unit entirely would have achieved the same result. My doubts at the new GW are vindicated. Conscripts interact with commissars in awkward fashion; nerf conscripts and delete commissars ensuring neither unit sees the table. Now back to our regularly scheduled program, the SM/Eldar show.
Nice that the new Eldar can apply the old commissar rule to their entire army for free without needing to worry about the opponent sniping the source.
Ah yes, the army with at minimum 8-9 point models.
A Commissar comes in at 31 points minimum - and doesn't in and of himself contribute much to the fight. That means that you are paying 3 points per model on a 10 man squad of Infantry (now 7 points), Veterans (now 9 points), or Scions (now 13 points) if you are rolling him with one of them. All that for a +1 leadership and the chance to maybe lose less, or maybe lose more men.
That....doesn't look overly appealing.
Just faq the faq to make Commissars at least somewhat appealing to take to these units while maintaining the Conscript x Commissar nerf and all would be fine - otherwise it just seems much more worthwhile to scrounge for an extra 9 points and add an extra infantry squad.
Not sure why you'd bother on Scions because 5 man squads are better. And then if you roll for 30 man Conscripts that's only 1 point a model with an extra left over for the Commisar.
I noted already, with Conscripts, I have no issue with the nerf honestly, it needed to be patched. I think they just swung too far with all the other squads you might want to use. And I rather like Stormtroopers, so its always nice to have the option to have the Progenium class reunion on the battlefield without actively hurting me.
Quickjager wrote:Yea that is a weird point how anyone would want a commissar to reroll morale on scions. Morale doesn't matter, you're taking 5 man squads because that lets you get the most special weapons.
Um, unless I misread my codex, Tempestus Scions are 5-10 men strong - 5 is the baseline, not the mandatory number. And I could see running groups in a transport together, or a Commissar catching up with a unit that used deep strike the previous turn but wasn't deemed important enough to splat immediately. Not everyone defaults to 5 Scions, Plasma only mode.
Or you could take a 5 man command squad; 1 with a banner rest with plasma.
There is no incentive to bring 10 man Scions squads, you're IG you're going 2nd regardless. There is no combat squad equivalent. You can fit two 5 man squads in a single transport, since you're going to be removing the special weapons last anyway you can make the opponent split his fire making dice variance much more likely.
Commissar and Scions never made sense from a fluff or crunch perspective.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Its not like I don't like Scions, I have Psian Jackals with a Knight painted as one acting as support. The only connections commissars had with scions was they graduated from the same schola.
techsoldaten wrote: - In 8th edition, straight shootouts between gunlines are possible. No close combat required. It was kind of that way with Tau / Eldar going back to 6th edition, but now it's easier to do with other armies. Yes, I know Lascannons have always been 48 inches, but it's a lot easier to spam long range firepower this edition.
I think the take away from this is how important it is to have LoS blocking terrain. Far to many people do not utilize proper terrain.
Getting back to the latest FAQ, I'm hoping that GW takes another look at commissars. As they are post FAQ, there really is no point in fielding them. They are equally as likely to harm you as help you. The IG community warned GW about this months ago when the index first hit. That commissars need to be dealt with carefully or they go from awesome to worthless, and here we are.
I do find it interesting how quick GW was to absolutely destroy this unit entry due to concern trolls, while the valid criticisms of other unit entries went completely ignored. For example:
Platoon commanders - Why are these an elite slot? They will never be taken. If they shared HQ slot with company commanders they would be taken all the time. As they are they will rarely if ever be used.
Chimeras - In the running for the worst entry in the codex. Do not fulfill any requirements towards detachments to generate CP. Lost rear firing ports which in itself is a INSANE nerf, -1BS on the move, lost command vehicle & we now have to spend CP to issue orders from a chimera and lost amphibious rule. So let me see if I understand this correctly. A unit that needed a points reduction in 7th, INCREASED in points, lost almost all of its utility & its damage output decreased?
Overpowered units in a strong army are more of a problem than underpowed units in a strong army, it shouldn't be a surprise that the former gets addressed first. I'd love to see Mutilators (easily the worst unit in the CSM dex, possibly the worst Chaos unit period?) get the attention they need to be viable but I'm not going to be shocked if they give priority to tuning down Malefic Lords first.
Darkagl1 wrote: Personally I don't think this commissars change was the right one, but it did accomplish the goal.
Sure, if the goal was never to see commissars used again. Deleting the unit entirely would have achieved the same result. My doubts at the new GW are vindicated. Conscripts interact with commissars in awkward fashion; nerf conscripts and delete commissars ensuring neither unit sees the table. Now back to our regularly scheduled program, the SM/Eldar show.
Nice that the new Eldar can apply the old commissar rule to their entire army for free without needing to worry about the opponent sniping the source.
I mean the goal was making morale matter. They certainly accomished it. I fully acknowledge they did a gakky job of it and ruined commissars especially for non conscript squads, where a command squad with a banner is cheaper and can add special weapons too. New GW is certainly better than old GW and I hope in time they can be a bit more judicious in their changes.
Personally I think the best suggestion is blam a guy set die roll = 0. Never hurts, always helps, doesn't make conscripts immune. If that isn't enough on conscripts remove his command aura from working on conscripts.
ross-128 wrote: So, you want your basic power armor to basically be what a Dreadnought is currently, except that it still costs 13ppm?
Like I said earlier, they won't be satisfied until the basic marine can tank 3 lascannon shots per turn, Terminators leaping across the board to wipe entire hordes off the table, and characters granting rerolls to everything without CP cost.
Because Movie Marines.
Give us some multilasers, we getting somewhere
Someone summon Matt Ward. We need him.
If Ward was fused with Goto, we'd truly have something to fear.
The greatest power ever concived lol.
And yes more on topic.
Guard have gained alot recently. Yes the loss off blast markers has hurt Artillery in a way. No more massive pie plates of doom.
Tanks are alot more reliable. So is armoured hulls.
Plasma weapons are now dramatically less dangerous and very potant.
Things have changed alot for mechanical and AV heavy armies.
ross-128 wrote: So, you want your basic power armor to basically be what a Dreadnought is currently, except that it still costs 13ppm?
Like I said earlier, they won't be satisfied until the basic marine can tank 3 lascannon shots per turn, Terminators leaping across the board to wipe entire hordes off the table, and characters granting rerolls to everything without CP cost.
Because Movie Marines.
Give us some multilasers, we getting somewhere
Someone summon Matt Ward. We need him.
If Ward was fused with Goto, we'd truly have something to fear.
The greatest power ever concived lol.
And yes more on topic.
Guard have gained alot recently. Yes the loss off blast markers has hurt Artillery in a way. No more massive pie plates of doom.
Tanks are alot more reliable. So is armoured hulls.
Plasma weapons are now dramatically less dangerous and very potant.
Things have changed alot for mechanical and AV heavy armies.
TBh for the guard pie plates had been holding them back for ages. An anti-tank pie plate would only ever get 1 hit in 7th which meant battlecannons, earthshakers, etc almost never made their points back. combine with how crazy brittle a 3HP leman russ was, IG tanks were kind of a pushover.
Now, a battlecannon hits a single target as much as it hits a large unit. Big loss for stuff like a single big blast anti infantry weapon or flamer, which would rely on the super edge case of getting 10 models under the template for a super-value single shot but amazing for weapons that wanted to aim at tanks in the first place.
ross-128 wrote: So, you want your basic power armor to basically be what a Dreadnought is currently, except that it still costs 13ppm?
Like I said earlier, they won't be satisfied until the basic marine can tank 3 lascannon shots per turn, Terminators leaping across the board to wipe entire hordes off the table, and characters granting rerolls to everything without CP cost.
Because Movie Marines.
Give us some multilasers, we getting somewhere
Someone summon Matt Ward. We need him.
If Ward was fused with Goto, we'd truly have something to fear.
The greatest power ever concived lol.
And yes more on topic.
Guard have gained alot recently. Yes the loss off blast markers has hurt Artillery in a way. No more massive pie plates of doom.
Tanks are alot more reliable. So is armoured hulls.
Plasma weapons are now dramatically less dangerous and very potant.
Things have changed alot for mechanical and AV heavy armies.
TBh for the guard pie plates had been holding them back for ages. An anti-tank pie plate would only ever get 1 hit in 7th which meant battlecannons, earthshakers, etc almost never made their points back. combine with how crazy brittle a 3HP leman russ was, IG tanks were kind of a pushover.
Now, a battlecannon hits a single target as much as it hits a large unit. Big loss for stuff like a single big blast anti infantry weapon or flamer, which would rely on the super edge case of getting 10 models under the template for a super-value single shot but amazing for weapons that wanted to aim at tanks in the first place.
True, that seems to fit alott better explained like that. Tanks and anti tank is improved.
Infantry targets, well D6 hits can be abit underwhelming etc.
Vindicator seemed to suffer that, though long range artillery gained some advantages to, so its been a mix.
its been abit of a mix on artillery and heavy duty guns.
Flamers against blobs still hurt, but when you get 8+ orks under eemmplates then you could make lot of points back very quickly.
a few cgood flmer shots could change a entire game.
I think a more elegant solution for commissars would be to shoot a guy to skip rolling a moral die. I know it's been mentioned before in the thread, but that idea just really appeals to me as a great compromise.
I don't think anyone has mentioned yet how they passed over vendettas getting the roving gunship rule (or a points reduction), meaning they will continue to not see any table tops.
SideshowLucifer wrote: I think a more elegant solution for commissars would be to shoot a guy to skip rolling a moral die. I know it's been mentioned before in the thread, but that idea just really appeals to me as a great compromise.
You realize that would make his ability the equivalent of rolling a 1 for morale every time. Since you lose 1 dude anyways and the unit is probably taking more than a couple casualties.
.
Now you have to decide is that fair for the points and for the army?
Should it be d6 cut in half or 2d6 and take the lowest, etc
For me the always roll a 1 for the morale check seems a bit too good.
SideshowLucifer wrote: I think a more elegant solution for commissars would be to shoot a guy to skip rolling a moral die. I know it's been mentioned before in the thread, but that idea just really appeals to me as a great compromise.
You realize that would make his ability the equivalent of rolling a 1 for morale every time. Since you lose 1 dude anyways and the unit is probably taking more than a couple casualties.
.
Now you have to decide is that fair for the points and for the army?
Should it be d6 cut in half or 2d6 and take the lowest, etc
For me the always roll a 1 for the morale check seems a bit too good.
It depends a lot on how the rule was actually written. As he proposed it, it isn't an option, so any turn you lose a casualty you would lose at least 1 additional model. As I understand it he is saying your morale test would always be losses + 0 for your morale test at the cost of one slain model. Which means the following
1.) if a squad loses any models during a turn, you lose at least 1 additional model. So a squad of Ogryn who lose 1 model automatically lose 2 models.
2.)If you lose more models during a turn than your LD you lose that number (x - LD)+ 1 to morale. So if you have a squad of 30 conscripts, and 15 die, you would lose 8 additional models. A regular morale check would be 8-14 losses.
It would really hurt smaller squads, now if you made it optional it might work ok, but otherwise would be a bad rule.
I'm honestly a little confused by this much response to the FAQ. From what I understand, the IG codex took what was arguably the strongest index, and then gave it wall-to-wall buffs, increased shots, and points reductions.
Then they nerfed commissars. That's it.
Is nerfing a single unit in the codex really that big of an issue? I realize that the nerf was rather harsh, but still, I feel like the guard codex is very, VERY strong despite it.
Kap'n Krump wrote: I'm honestly a little confused by this much response to the FAQ. From what I understand, the IG codex took what was arguably the strongest index, and then gave it wall-to-wall buffs, increased shots, and points reductions.
Then they nerfed commissars. That's it.
Is nerfing a single unit in the codex really that big of an issue? I realize that the nerf was rather harsh, but still, I feel like the guard codex is very, VERY strong despite it.
What you're missing is that it wasn't "the strongest index" but rather two units(Conscripts and Commissars) were commonly being taken as part of Imperial Soup lists.
Kap'n Krump wrote: I'm honestly a little confused by this much response to the FAQ. From what I understand, the IG codex took what was arguably the strongest index, and then gave it wall-to-wall buffs, increased shots, and points reductions.
Then they nerfed commissars. That's it.
Is nerfing a single unit in the codex really that big of an issue? I realize that the nerf was rather harsh, but still, I feel like the guard codex is very, VERY strong despite it.
Yep. Buffs across the board.
You can tell by how plasma scions went up in price, conscripts only got orders on a 4+, and ended up with almost half their max unit size.
Those were my favorite buffs.
EDIT:
Also, people aren't upset by the strength nerf. In fact, there are still more than enough tools to compensate. They're upset that it is a theme nerf. I would rather have seen conscripts go away than commissars, since commissars are on the codex cover.
Kap'n Krump wrote: I'm honestly a little confused by this much response to the FAQ. From what I understand, the IG codex took what was arguably the strongest index, and then gave it wall-to-wall buffs, increased shots, and points reductions.
Then they nerfed commissars. That's it.
Is nerfing a single unit in the codex really that big of an issue? I realize that the nerf was rather harsh, but still, I feel like the guard codex is very, VERY strong despite it.
nobody is stating otherwise, mostly the issue is that the change basically kills the value of the Elites commissar for anything not involving Conscripts is all and allies shennanigans are still alivr and well.
I always laugh when people say that you should flank the IG gun-line for close combat armies. Like, do you even play 40k, at all?
And Unit, the problem here is that the IG community was so high on their own 7th ed Eldar status, you couldn't even discuss changes to conscripts, without people claiming there was no problem, or responding with some derisive comments about space marines. If GW is actually listening to feedback, and the feedback they're getting from IG players are "this is fine, everyone is a noob space marine," you already saw how they'd react. Maybe in the future be a part of the solution.
In the competitive arena, it was beyond obvious that conscripts and commissars were BOTH broken, relative to the strength of the rest of the armies in this game. Summary execution, and rules like it, are fundamentally not good for any kind of matched play.
Commissars were hardly an issue outside of Conscripts, nobody found them broken outside of that use.
That said, both units and the summary execution mechanic have been part of the army for many years and many editions, more than many armies have even existed and have their place.
Curiously, this is really the first edition where conscripts have ever had actual value. Commissars likewise have also spent most of their existence through the editions on shelves rather than the tabletop. These are both units that historically have been either pointless or awful, and in some ways, despite there having been some real issues with abuse of conscripts, it's also hard for people to square that because theyve been nothing but garbage level flair for most of the game's existence. The fact that Conscripts and Commissars are power units would have been literally laughable in most editions (unlike something such as say, Scatterlaser jetbikes, which would have had the ability to be very powerful in every edition of the last 20 years had they been available).
Conscripts were generally useless because you had to pay for a platoon command squad and 2 infantry squads before they would even be available as an option (and you only got one squad), and usually by that time the base units would have ate up so many points that conscripts became pointless. If conscripts had a prerequisite unit choices and didn't count towards the compulsory, you'd see them a lot less.
I would much sooner have seen Conscripts removed as an option, than see Commies given the stink-finger like that. His ability, regarding morale, has always basically been instead of losing a unit, you lose one dude. It's what he is supposed to do.
Anyhow, I haven't picked up the Codex yet. I really haven't been playing much. I was NOT enjoying my turn on the 8th edition throne. I would have been quite happy with a mid-range codex. More fun for me, that way.
Again, I think most IG players were aware of an issue with Conscripts though it was my experience [using a single 30-man squad at 1500 points] that they weren't the ungodly game-breaker that other people found... but then again I wasn't spamming the crap out of them either. I would have been completely happy with their removal, I've never really liked using them.
I'm also saddened that Commies are essentially useless. I was very happy using them to support "regular" squads, and I rather like the models. Oh well, c'est la vie.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Conscripts were generally useless because you had to pay for a platoon command squad and 2 infantry squads before they would even be available as an option (and you only got one squad), and usually by that time the base units would have ate up so many points that conscripts became pointless. If conscripts had a prerequisite unit choices and didn't count towards the compulsory, you'd see them a lot less.
Well you also had Combined Squads being a thing, allowing for those Infantry Squads to actually have more staying power than they do now.
Kap'n Krump wrote:I'm honestly a little confused by this much response to the FAQ. From what I understand, the IG codex took what was arguably the strongest index, and then gave it wall-to-wall buffs, increased shots, and points reductions.
Then they nerfed commissars. That's it.
Is nerfing a single unit in the codex really that big of an issue? I realize that the nerf was rather harsh, but still, I feel like the guard codex is very, VERY strong despite it.
The problem is that they nerfed the wrong unit. Rather than focus on the Conscripts, they nerfed the Commissar, to the point that the only time you'd even want to bring one is to use with Conscripts.
Marmatag wrote:I always laugh when people say that you should flank the IG gun-line for close combat armies. Like, do you even play 40k, at all?
And Unit, the problem here is that the IG community was so high on their own 7th ed Eldar status, you couldn't even discuss changes to conscripts, without people claiming there was no problem, or responding with some derisive comments about space marines. If GW is actually listening to feedback, and the feedback they're getting from IG players are "this is fine, everyone is a noob space marine," you already saw how they'd react. Maybe in the future be a part of the solution.
In the competitive arena, it was beyond obvious that conscripts and commissars were BOTH broken, relative to the strength of the rest of the armies in this game. Summary execution, and rules like it, are fundamentally not good for any kind of matched play.
Um...were we reading the same threads? I remember all of 2-3 people saying Conscripts were fine as is, and literally everyone else, Guard players included, suggesting fixes. The only thing close to what you were saying is people were screaming about WHAT the change should be - some were suggesting Commissars kill a d3 Conscripts, others a d6, others focused on orders, some said make them and Infantry +1 point per model each, and still more just said "lol, Conscripts should always kill the Commissar on a 6!".
And were Commissars really an issue with 10 man squads? As already noted, unless you blob up into one big ball of infantry, the price of a Commissar effectively increased the price of your Infantry, Vets, and Scions by 3 points per model, and on those occasions where he used his summary execution rule, it usually only would save 1-3 models.
Unit1126PLL wrote:I think they were both broken... with eachother.
I do not believe Commissars were broken in Scion armies, or in line infantry squads, or with veteran squads, or HWTs.
They were only broken with Conscripts.
I'm sad that it was the commissar that was removed from the tabletop; it should have been the conscripts.
Yup, this. Though they are still somewhat passable with Conscripts - 31 points for +4 leadership on a cheap, 30 man blob, isn't bad, and will force the opponent to focus down at least a few extra conscripts than if they were alone.
Its just that now they act as an actual hindrance to the regular infantry. Make the Commissar be actually helpful to the more experienced squads, or at least less of a liability to them, and I'd shut up. Use the new formula but divide by 2 for non-Conscripts, or maybe Summary Execution on non-Conscript units kills 1 guy, but them decreases morale losses by 1d6 or 1d3 - that way you always at least break even, and will more often than not lose fewer men than before.
I've honestly been thinking that it might be necessary to write a lengthy proposal to the FAQ team over this.
Adding another element to "Raw Recruits" would have been far, far simpler.
Rough proposal:
When this unit is targeted by a Commissar's "Summary Execution" ability, it suffers 2D3 models removed to impose order instead of a single model. Additionally if there is only one model within 6" that has the "Summary Execution" ability, then compare the number of models lost to Summary Execution to the number of models lost to enemy attacks that caused the Morale Test.
If it is greater than or equal, then the Commissar immediately suffers D6 attacks from the Conscripts as they fire in panic and anger.
SideshowLucifer wrote: I think a more elegant solution for commissars would be to shoot a guy to skip rolling a moral die. I know it's been mentioned before in the thread, but that idea just really appeals to me as a great compromise.
You realize that would make his ability the equivalent of rolling a 1 for morale every time. Since you lose 1 dude anyways and the unit is probably taking more than a couple casualties.
.
Now you have to decide is that fair for the points and for the army?
Should it be d6 cut in half or 2d6 and take the lowest, etc
For me the always roll a 1 for the morale check seems a bit too good.
I guess it appeals to me because it's not random. so if a commissar makes Conscripts LD8, that means for a 30-blob, you'd kill the last 10 if you killed 20, and for a 20-blob, you'd kill the last 7 if you killed 14.
For everyone else, the commissar would work like he used to - effectively Blam one guy to ignore morale, because an auto-1 on LD8 would only finish off the last dude if you'd already killed 9.
seems like a pretty elegant solution for Commissars with Conscripts solely, but it depends on how fair you'd consider his rules applying to normal infantry.
a Commissar body costs 30, ignoring weapons, because the weapons are priced according to what the weapons do. His defensive stats are approximately worth 3 guardsmen, call that 15 points. to almost everyone but conscripts, his LD power is +1LD, price that at 5 points to be equal to the Banner.
So once he saves 3 Guardsmen or 4 conscripts during a battle, his Summary Execution ability would be in the black. And we know to actually save a guardsman, you need to have the alternative be losing 2+ to morale, because the commissar kills 1 (you go even if you would have lost 1 guardsman anyway).
How would you value that ability? Would you consider it more fair if you knew when targeting a unit of conscripts *exactly* how many you had to kill to wipe the squad out?
Kanluwen wrote: I've honestly been thinking that it might be necessary to write a lengthy proposal to the FAQ team over this.
Adding another element to "Raw Recruits" would have been far, far simpler.
Rough proposal:
When this unit is targeted by a Commissar's "Summary Execution" ability, it suffers 2D3 models removed to impose order instead of a single model. Additionally if there is only one model within 6" that has the "Summary Execution" ability, then compare the number of models lost to Summary Execution to the number of models lost to enemy attacks that caused the Morale Test.
If it is greater than or equal, then the Commissar immediately suffers D6 attacks from the Conscripts as they fire in panic and anger.
See when i say guard players don't acknowledge the problem, this is what i'm talking about.
Do you really think losing 1 model, to losing 2d3, is going to make any measurable difference when you're fielding hundreds of them? It will not.
Your guys fixes show a complete lack of understanding of the problem, and a serious desire to maintain the status quo.
Commissars are a very cheap unit. You can pay 31 points to boost morale. For perspective, death company have 7 leadership. How much does a scion squad, guardsman squad have? What does a commissar do for them?
Marmatag wrote: Commissars are a very cheap unit. You can pay 31 points to boost morale. For perspective, death company have 7 leadership. How much does a scion squad, guardsman squad have? What does a commissar do for them?
Base guardsman leadership (as long as the sergeant is alive, which is a long while) is 7. Eight, in the cases of two regimental doctrines, or a banner, or near an Inquisitor, or near a commissar tank (that only costs CPs not points).
Meaning the commissar is an active hindrance, that's what he does for them. Makes the army worse.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Conscripts were generally useless because you had to pay for a platoon command squad and 2 infantry squads before they would even be available as an option (and you only got one squad), and usually by that time the base units would have ate up so many points that conscripts became pointless. If conscripts had a prerequisite unit choices and didn't count towards the compulsory, you'd see them a lot less.
It was also the time of the basic bolter completely ignoring Conscripts' armor and Stomp having the possibility of wiping the entire squad in one go. I remember seeing different suggestions back in 7th on how to make a Conscript blob of doom though - it basically involved taking a Priest, since they were seen as better than Commissars in most ways, and then simply tarpitting something big and hoping it didn't have Stomp.
SideshowLucifer wrote: I think a more elegant solution for commissars would be to shoot a guy to skip rolling a moral die. I know it's been mentioned before in the thread, but that idea just really appeals to me as a great compromise.
You realize that would make his ability the equivalent of rolling a 1 for morale every time. Since you lose 1 dude anyways and the unit is probably taking more than a couple casualties.
.
Now you have to decide is that fair for the points and for the army?
Should it be d6 cut in half or 2d6 and take the lowest, etc
For me the always roll a 1 for the morale check seems a bit too good.
I guess it appeals to me because it's not random. so if a commissar makes Conscripts LD8, that means for a 30-blob, you'd kill the last 10 if you killed 20, and for a 20-blob, you'd kill the last 7 if you killed 14.
For everyone else, the commissar would work like he used to - effectively Blam one guy to ignore morale, because an auto-1 on LD8 would only finish off the last dude if you'd already killed 9.
seems like a pretty elegant solution for Commissars with Conscripts solely, but it depends on how fair you'd consider his rules applying to normal infantry.
a Commissar body costs 30, ignoring weapons, because the weapons are priced according to what the weapons do. His defensive stats are approximately worth 3 guardsmen, call that 15 points. to almost everyone but conscripts, his LD power is +1LD, price that at 5 points to be equal to the Banner.
So once he saves 3 Guardsmen or 4 conscripts during a battle, his Summary Execution ability would be in the black. And we know to actually save a guardsman, you need to have the alternative be losing 2+ to morale, because the commissar kills 1 (you go even if you would have lost 1 guardsman anyway).
How would you value that ability? Would you consider it more fair if you knew when targeting a unit of conscripts *exactly* how many you had to kill to wipe the squad out?
Huh, that solution is pretty decent, and also it does not involve much math - all you need to remember is "blam a guy, I roll a 1 now" I guess pricing would depend on if he blams the guy before the morale check, or only after a failed check.
Kanluwen wrote: I've honestly been thinking that it might be necessary to write a lengthy proposal to the FAQ team over this.
Adding another element to "Raw Recruits" would have been far, far simpler.
Rough proposal:
When this unit is targeted by a Commissar's "Summary Execution" ability, it suffers 2D3 models removed to impose order instead of a single model. Additionally if there is only one model within 6" that has the "Summary Execution" ability, then compare the number of models lost to Summary Execution to the number of models lost to enemy attacks that caused the Morale Test.
If it is greater than or equal, then the Commissar immediately suffers D6 attacks from the Conscripts as they fire in panic and anger.
See when i say guard players don't acknowledge the problem, this is what i'm talking about.
Do you really think losing 1 model, to losing 2d3, is going to make any measurable difference when you're fielding hundreds of them? It will not.
Your guys fixes show a complete lack of understanding of the problem, and a serious desire to maintain the status quo.
Commissars are a very cheap unit. You can pay 31 points to boost morale. For perspective, death company have 7 leadership. How much does a scion squad, guardsman squad have? What does a commissar do for them?
1) Death Company have 1 lower leadership than normal marine units because they lack a sergeant. With a sergeant, a normal marine unit has LD8 to a guardsman sergeant's LD7. They also get ATSKNF base, which allows for a re-roll if they fail. If you're taking 5-man squads of Guard units, you lose the last member 1/2 the time if you took 4 casualties. If you're taking a 5-man squad of death company, you lose the last member 1/4 of the time if you took 4 casualties, thanks to ATSKNF. IIRC, Death Company are the worst leadership you can get on a marine unit, and they're still 50% to 600% likely to lose members to morale than equivalent LD guard units. Normal marines of the LD8 variety are comparatively better off.
2) Death Company also have a character they can take to boost their morale, who happens to make them completely immune to leadership casualties. He also provides a close combat buff, so he seems to be a no-brainer if you want to go more than a couple 5-man squads.
3) It is generally understood that Death Company are a very weak unit currently. Just like you would dismiss someone complaining that their unit is not as strong as Guilliman, why would you want other units brought in line with Death Company?
Kanluwen wrote: I've honestly been thinking that it might be necessary to write a lengthy proposal to the FAQ team over this.
Adding another element to "Raw Recruits" would have been far, far simpler.
Rough proposal:
When this unit is targeted by a Commissar's "Summary Execution" ability, it suffers 2D3 models removed to impose order instead of a single model. Additionally if there is only one model within 6" that has the "Summary Execution" ability, then compare the number of models lost to Summary Execution to the number of models lost to enemy attacks that caused the Morale Test.
If it is greater than or equal, then the Commissar immediately suffers D6 attacks from the Conscripts as they fire in panic and anger.
See when i say guard players don't acknowledge the problem, this is what i'm talking about.
Do you really think losing 1 model, to losing 2d3, is going to make any measurable difference when you're fielding hundreds of them? It will not.
Your guys fixes show a complete lack of understanding of the problem, and a serious desire to maintain the status quo.
Commissars are a very cheap unit. You can pay 31 points to boost morale. For perspective, death company have 7 leadership. How much does a scion squad, guardsman squad have? What does a commissar do for them?
They are Leadership 7 with their sergeant - a Commissar provides them +1 to their Leadership stat and a mandatory version of ATSKNF that you kill one of your own men to activate.
Pretty much everyone has agreed that the Commissar/Conscript relationship was too strong. The annoyance was that they threw the baby out with the bath water and made the Commissar a hindrance to normal Infantry.
Death Company are an example of the level of inefficiency you see across space marines as a whole. Guilliman makes them viable. And don't point to a Raven Guard list that came in second in a weak pool, in a non-ITC event.
Astorath + 10 DC is roughly 350 points, for 11 models, with jump packs and *just* chainswords, that are still just 1 wound, T4, 3+.
And these are the best assault marines available in ANY marine codex, except for a Grey Knights strike squad, which is still really bad except for 1 gimmick that doesn't scale with more than 1 squad.
I mean just recognize when you have it good.
"Oh how about we change commissars so they shoot TWO conscripts? That's balanced right guys? Right?"
MechaEmperor7000 wrote:Conscripts were generally useless because you had to pay for a platoon command squad and 2 infantry squads before they would even be available as an option (and you only got one squad), and usually by that time the base units would have ate up so many points that conscripts became pointless. If conscripts had a prerequisite unit choices and didn't count towards the compulsory, you'd see them a lot less.
It was also the time of the basic bolter completely ignoring Conscripts' armor and Stomp having the possibility of wiping the entire squad in one go. I remember seeing different suggestions back in 7th on how to make a Conscript blob of doom though - it basically involved taking a Priest, since they were seen as better than Commissars in most ways, and then simply tarpitting something big and hoping it didn't have Stomp.
SideshowLucifer wrote: I think a more elegant solution for commissars would be to shoot a guy to skip rolling a moral die. I know it's been mentioned before in the thread, but that idea just really appeals to me as a great compromise.
You realize that would make his ability the equivalent of rolling a 1 for morale every time. Since you lose 1 dude anyways and the unit is probably taking more than a couple casualties.
.
Now you have to decide is that fair for the points and for the army?
Should it be d6 cut in half or 2d6 and take the lowest, etc
For me the always roll a 1 for the morale check seems a bit too good.
I guess it appeals to me because it's not random. so if a commissar makes Conscripts LD8, that means for a 30-blob, you'd kill the last 10 if you killed 20, and for a 20-blob, you'd kill the last 7 if you killed 14.
For everyone else, the commissar would work like he used to - effectively Blam one guy to ignore morale, because an auto-1 on LD8 would only finish off the last dude if you'd already killed 9.
seems like a pretty elegant solution for Commissars with Conscripts solely, but it depends on how fair you'd consider his rules applying to normal infantry.
a Commissar body costs 30, ignoring weapons, because the weapons are priced according to what the weapons do. His defensive stats are approximately worth 3 guardsmen, call that 15 points. to almost everyone but conscripts, his LD power is +1LD, price that at 5 points to be equal to the Banner.
So once he saves 3 Guardsmen or 4 conscripts during a battle, his Summary Execution ability would be in the black. And we know to actually save a guardsman, you need to have the alternative be losing 2+ to morale, because the commissar kills 1 (you go even if you would have lost 1 guardsman anyway).
How would you value that ability? Would you consider it more fair if you knew when targeting a unit of conscripts *exactly* how many you had to kill to wipe the squad out?
Huh, that solution is pretty decent, and also it does not involve much math - all you need to remember is "blam a guy, I roll a 1 now" I guess pricing would depend on if he blams the guy before the morale check, or only after a failed check.
Post failure makes the most sense. I like it, it's clean, it works like it's supposed to, but it still leaves morale weaknesses. If conscripts are still too strong don't let commissars aura hit them imo.
Pretty much everyone has agreed that the Commissar/Conscript relationship was too strong. The annoyance was that they threw the baby out with the bath water and made the Commissar a hindrance to normal Infantry.
Absolutely untrue. Every single conscript thread featured the same cast of characters saying "it was too strong" proposing adjustments that really did nothing whatsoever to address the core problem. So either you guys didn't understand why it was too strong, or you didn't care. Either way, the outcome of not participating in a meaningful discussion, if indeed GW is listening to the community, backfired for you.
Marmatag wrote: Death Company are an example of the level of inefficiency you see across space marines as a whole. Guilliman makes them viable. And don't point to a Raven Guard list that came in second in a weak pool, in a non-ITC event.
Astorath + 10 DC is roughly 350 points, for 11 models, with jump packs and *just* chainswords, that are still just 1 wound, T4, 3+.
And these are the best assault marines available in ANY marine codex, except for a Grey Knights strike squad, which is still really bad except for 1 gimmick that doesn't scale with more than 1 squad.
I mean just recognize when you have it good.
"Oh how about we change commissars so they shoot TWO conscripts? That's balanced right guys? Right?"
For my own curiousity, do you feel that Guilliman needs a nerf?
Kap'n Krump wrote: I'm honestly a little confused by this much response to the FAQ. From what I understand, the IG codex took what was arguably the strongest index, and then gave it wall-to-wall buffs, increased shots, and points reductions.
Then they nerfed commissars. That's it.
Is nerfing a single unit in the codex really that big of an issue? I realize that the nerf was rather harsh, but still, I feel like the guard codex is very, VERY strong despite it.
What you're missing is that it wasn't "the strongest index" but rather two units(Conscripts and Commissars) were commonly being taken as part of Imperial Soup lists.
That isn't accurate Guard was the base for many of those soup lists no just 2 units. At the worst it was a top 2 index army. It lacked in internal balance but had a number of very good point efficient units
Conscripts were the most taken of these in soup lists that were not IG based primarily because they fill a role that most other imperial armies don't have, a cheap screen. But compare IG to most index armies and see what comes out as the top index. Initially it would be Marines with Storm Raven spam. Once that was fixed though it was a competition between IG and Chaos.
Unit1126PLL wrote:I think they were both broken... with eachother.
I do not believe Commissars were broken in Scion armies, or in line infantry squads, or with veteran squads, or HWTs.
They were only broken with Conscripts.
I'm sad that it was the commissar that was removed from the tabletop; it should have been the conscripts.
Yup, this. Though they are still somewhat passable with Conscripts - 31 points for +4 leadership on a cheap, 30 man blob, isn't bad, and will force the opponent to focus down at least a few extra conscripts than if they were alone.
Its just that now they act as an actual hindrance to the regular infantry. Make the Commissar be actually helpful to the more experienced squads, or at least less of a liability to them, and I'd shut up. Use the new formula but divide by 2 for non-Conscripts, or maybe Summary Execution on non-Conscript units kills 1 guy, but them decreases morale losses by 1d6 or 1d3 - that way you always at least break even, and will more often than not lose fewer men than before.
These are good points, but something that is being overlooked: Commissars are supposed to be bad people.
Mechanics-wise, I get it. Losing an additional model and being forced to reroll can be harsh (or maybe not.)
Fluff-wise, Commissars punishing Guardsmen for cowardice and having it backfire is totally in-line with the character.
I don't think Commissars will vanish from the tabletop. The impact on mechanics are being overstated, he's still going to be useful for the leadership buff, and fluffy players are not going to want to get rid of them. They're the new Assault Marine / Raptor, a slightly sub-optimal unit that pops up in games because it's cool.
Part of me is wondering when IG infantry started caring about losing a couple more bodies. There are Relics / Stratagems to prevent a seriously bad morale loss on a key unit. If Summary Execution has that much of an impact on Scions / HWTs, isn't is possible to keep them away?
Pretty much everyone has agreed that the Commissar/Conscript relationship was too strong. The annoyance was that they threw the baby out with the bath water and made the Commissar a hindrance to normal Infantry.
Absolutely untrue. Every single conscript thread featured the same cast of characters saying "it was too strong" proposing adjustments that really did nothing whatsoever to address the core problem. So either you guys didn't understand why it was too strong, or you didn't care. Either way, the outcome of not participating in a meaningful discussion, if indeed GW is listening to the community, backfired for you.
GW isnt scouring Dakka for game design feedback, hate to tell you this. If they were, a lot of other things would have changed as well, and likely would have changed first.
And if they are, could you guys *please* make the Vanquisher and Exterminators worth taking?
Stop with this BS about the "Commisars don't help now, they actually are an hindrance". Is mathematically demostrable that it is ALWAYS better to have a Commisar that to not have him, with Conscripts, Tempestus, Ratlings and Infantry squads.
We can discuss about how minimal is in some of those untis the "buff", and if it is worth it for 31 points minimun. In my opinion? It isn't. Thats why I would change the Commisar rule to shoot a guy and reduce morale loses by a 1D6. And probably reduce them to 25 points minimun. This way they aren't inmune to morale and ARMIES like Night Lords can actually do SOMETHING agaisn't Imperial Guard.
But to achieve a valid point the hyperbole about commisars making the army worse needs to die.
Pretty much everyone has agreed that the Commissar/Conscript relationship was too strong. The annoyance was that they threw the baby out with the bath water and made the Commissar a hindrance to normal Infantry.
Absolutely untrue. Every single conscript thread featured the same cast of characters saying "it was too strong" proposing adjustments that really did nothing whatsoever to address the core problem. So either you guys didn't understand why it was too strong, or you didn't care. Either way, the outcome of not participating in a meaningful discussion, if indeed GW is listening to the community, backfired for you.
We must have been reading different threads then....I remember 1-2 people saying that they were fine, and literally everyone else saying they needed a nerf. The issue was nobody could agree on what. Things that were suggested:
Commissar kills 1d3 or 1d6 conscripts
Conscripts no longer take orders, or at the least must roll for it
Conscripts squad size reduced
Increase points cost of Conscripts and Infantry by 1
Conscripts do not work with Commissar
Conscripts actively go out of their way to kill Commissar
And so on.
What we instead got was - Orders only go off on a 4+ - so they no longer have much of an offense (though they had little to begin with), squad size reduced, and now also a forced morale reroll that can actively make things worse for you. And honestly speaking - all of this is FINE on CONSCRIPTS - they are supposed to be a barrier that you can break past, not an unmovable wall. Commissars are still decent with Conscripts - throw one in with a Conscript blob and you get +4 Leadership for effectively +1ppm.
The problem is that Infantry, Veterans, HWT, Scions, etc, also got hit with the nerf. These units were not broken with a Commissar - the old Summary Execution rule basically made it so that you'd get 2-3 survivors if you got hit fairly hard, not an impenetrable wall.
Marmatag wrote: Death Company are an example of the level of inefficiency you see across space marines as a whole. Guilliman makes them viable. And don't point to a Raven Guard list that came in second in a weak pool, in a non-ITC event.
Astorath + 10 DC is roughly 350 points, for 11 models, with jump packs and *just* chainswords, that are still just 1 wound, T4, 3+.
And these are the best assault marines available in ANY marine codex, except for a Grey Knights strike squad, which is still really bad except for 1 gimmick that doesn't scale with more than 1 squad.
I mean just recognize when you have it good.
"Oh how about we change commissars so they shoot TWO conscripts? That's balanced right guys? Right?"
For my own curiousity, do you feel that Guilliman needs a nerf?
I would say yes, but only if the rest of marines are buffed. Without Guilliman space marines have nothing in a proper tournament.
I have a Bobby G Asscannon party list. Without Bobby G it's a joke.
I'm willing to entertain a points cost increase for Guilliman but I want that to come with viable terminators, assault terminators, assault squads, veterans (vanguard, sternguard), drop pods, rhinos, flamers, heavy flamers, land raiders, centurions (assault, devastator), grav-weaponry, heavy bolters, boltguns that have value, artillery (thunderfire, whirlwind), vindicators, dreadnoughts with anything other than double dakka arms, i mean the list goes on... Also, I want Knights that can fit into a themed marine army and have their cost be appropriate considering how wicked strong a baneblade is.
I would also change Guilliman so he buffs space marines of all flavors, so he's not just a "blue marines only" kind of thing. Primarchs should transcend their legion.
FWIW, i would also say Magnus is undercosted too. I have Magnus, and he's just a model you "don't play" outside of competitive. Because he wrecks shop. Celestine is another model that needs a fat nerf that i abuse.
I still think that a points bump would have been a more elegant solution, and better reflective of the capabilities and value of those models. S3 guns are better, and so is T3, and so is 5+ armor.
Kanluwen wrote: I've honestly been thinking that it might be necessary to write a lengthy proposal to the FAQ team over this.
Adding another element to "Raw Recruits" would have been far, far simpler.
Rough proposal:
When this unit is targeted by a Commissar's "Summary Execution" ability, it suffers 2D3 models removed to impose order instead of a single model. Additionally if there is only one model within 6" that has the "Summary Execution" ability, then compare the number of models lost to Summary Execution to the number of models lost to enemy attacks that caused the Morale Test.
If it is greater than or equal, then the Commissar immediately suffers D6 attacks from the Conscripts as they fire in panic and anger.
See when i say guard players don't acknowledge the problem, this is what i'm talking about.
Do you really think losing 1 model, to losing 2d3, is going to make any measurable difference when you're fielding hundreds of them? It will not.
Show me where a Conscript Squad can number "hundreds of models". I'll wait.
Additionally, losing 2d3 means you're losing at least a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 6. That's after factoring in your actual casualties to enemy fire.
And not to mention the second part of that--requiring two Commissars in order to ensure that the Commissar himself doesn't get fragged.
Your guys fixes show a complete lack of understanding of the problem, and a serious desire to maintain the status quo.
Commissars are a very cheap unit. You can pay 31 points to boost morale. For perspective, death company have 7 leadership. How much does a scion squad, guardsman squad have? What does a commissar do for them?
You pay 31 points and an Elite slot, something that is actually fairly competitive for Commissars.
And who cares what Death Company have?
Scion Squads and Guardsmen Squads both have Sergeant equivalents. The Commissar effectively does nothing for them and did nothing for them before beyond allowing for your unit to just take one casualty from Morale instead of potentially losing more thanks to this pants on head idiotic change.
PS--I expect to hear you whining about Iyanden's Craftworld trait like you've been in this thread complaining about the Commissar ability.
Unit1126PLL wrote:I think they were both broken... with eachother.
I do not believe Commissars were broken in Scion armies, or in line infantry squads, or with veteran squads, or HWTs.
They were only broken with Conscripts.
I'm sad that it was the commissar that was removed from the tabletop; it should have been the conscripts.
Yup, this. Though they are still somewhat passable with Conscripts - 31 points for +4 leadership on a cheap, 30 man blob, isn't bad, and will force the opponent to focus down at least a few extra conscripts than if they were alone.
Its just that now they act as an actual hindrance to the regular infantry. Make the Commissar be actually helpful to the more experienced squads, or at least less of a liability to them, and I'd shut up. Use the new formula but divide by 2 for non-Conscripts, or maybe Summary Execution on non-Conscript units kills 1 guy, but them decreases morale losses by 1d6 or 1d3 - that way you always at least break even, and will more often than not lose fewer men than before.
These are good points, but something that is being overlooked: Commissars are supposed to be bad people.
Noone is arguing that Commissars should be firing hugs at the Conscripts or the other Guard squads.
Mechanics-wise, I get it. Losing an additional model and being forced to reroll can be harsh (or maybe not.)
I expect Iyanden to get this same treatment week one of their book. No excuses. If it was too powerful for flipping Conscripts, it's too powerful for Wraithguard and Aspect Warriors.
Fluff-wise, Commissars punishing Guardsmen for cowardice and having it backfire is totally in-line with the character.
Fluff-wise, that "backfire" is the Commissars being ganked by veteran guardsmen and panicking recruits alike.
I don't think Commissars will vanish from the tabletop. The impact on mechanics are being overstated, he's still going to be useful for the leadership buff, and fluffy players are not going to want to get rid of them. They're the new Assault Marine / Raptor, a slightly sub-optimal unit that pops up in games because it's cool.
The impact on mechanics is far from being overstated.
Part of me is wondering when IG infantry started caring about losing a couple more bodies. There are Relics / Stratagems to prevent a seriously bad morale loss on a key unit. If Summary Execution has that much of an impact on Scions / HWTs, isn't is possible to keep them away?
Sure it is--by not taking a Commissar. I cannot overstate this now:
I will not ever take a Commissar at this point. I despised the unit before but had planned on occasionally running one with a Primaris Psyker since it's fluffy and they refuse to give "It's For Your Own Good" to Officers as well as Commissars(despite the fact that many Regiments train their Officers to recognize the signs of corruption yadda yadda yadda).
If I want a LD boost at this point, I'll take an Officio Prefectus Tank via the 2CP Stratagem. LD9 in a 6" Aura around a Leman Russ Battle Tank.
And as a bonus, no stupid "you must reroll" or losing numbers of models thanks to the whining of folks like Marmatag.
Marmatag wrote: Death Company are an example of the level of inefficiency you see across space marines as a whole. Guilliman makes them viable. And don't point to a Raven Guard list that came in second in a weak pool, in a non-ITC event.
Astorath + 10 DC is roughly 350 points, for 11 models, with jump packs and *just* chainswords, that are still just 1 wound, T4, 3+.
And these are the best assault marines available in ANY marine codex, except for a Grey Knights strike squad, which is still really bad except for 1 gimmick that doesn't scale with more than 1 squad.
I mean just recognize when you have it good.
"Oh how about we change commissars so they shoot TWO conscripts? That's balanced right guys? Right?"
Interesting theory, why should we value nonGW events more highly than GW events when determining balance?
Marmatag wrote: Death Company are an example of the level of inefficiency you see across space marines as a whole. Guilliman makes them viable. And don't point to a Raven Guard list that came in second in a weak pool, in a non-ITC event.
Astorath + 10 DC is roughly 350 points, for 11 models, with jump packs and *just* chainswords, that are still just 1 wound, T4, 3+.
And these are the best assault marines available in ANY marine codex, except for a Grey Knights strike squad, which is still really bad except for 1 gimmick that doesn't scale with more than 1 squad.
I mean just recognize when you have it good.
"Oh how about we change commissars so they shoot TWO conscripts? That's balanced right guys? Right?"
Interesting theory, why should we value nonGW events more highly than GW events when determining balance?
Because GW doesn't balance exclusively for competitive environments, when it comes to missions, and also rules where applicable. Some of the "chapter approved" updates are taken directly from the ITC rules that had been in place since 8th released.
ITC use their own sets of missions, standardized terrain layouts, and rules built for a fair play environment.
And to the guy who said, "show me how you field hundreds, i'll wait." Again this shows a complete lack of understanding. Prior to the nerf you'd see 200+ conscripts on the table sometimes, with every imperium list fielding at least 2-3 squads. When you have 90 bodies, and you force a morale check, losing 2D3 means NOTHING. Max it out at "3" and it's 6 models out of 90+, who cares, they're still locking out anyone for multiple turns while the big guns eviscerate everything.
Yes, so blatantly OP on Aspect warriors. Now, when we lose 3 of our 5 guys, on a 6 we only lose 1 guy to LD, instead of the 1 we'd normally lose. Or when we lose 4 of our 5 guys, we only lose 1 guy. So very broken. Aspects are LD8, rarely fielded in squad sizes of 6+, and several can show up as units of 3.
It's really more of a thing for Guardians. Which are Guardsmen at 8ppm.
Protection from battleshock is a more reasonable thing on more elite units than horde units.
Martel732 wrote: At 3 ppm, they must suffer full battle shock, or close to full battleshock. If they cost more, something like a 2D3 solutions becomes viable.
And how, praytell, do you make them cost more?
A minimum sized squad is 60 points right now.
60 points for 20 models with BS5+ firing S3 AP0 24" Rapid Fire 1, accepting Orders only within 6"(they don't get access to a Vox-Caster) on a roll of 4+.
90 points for 30.
By comparison, it's 40 points for 10 BS4+ firing 9 of the same guns(the Sergeant only has access to a Laspistol to start with, anything else requires purchase--including a fething Chainsword that they kept trying to push on us in the past) accepting Orders automatically and having access to a Vox-Caster at 5 points for extending Orders to 18" assuming the Officer issuing them is within 3" range of a Vox-Caster as well.
If you want Conscripts to be 80/120? Then I want BS3+ Guardsmen, I want Lasguns on Sergeants, and I want Tempestors to have access to Hellguns as well. I want Veteran Squads being "Every model in this unit can take an item from the Astra Militarum Special Weapons List" as well.
Since apparently you've decided we have to pay Space Marine prices for things, we might as well just have more Space Marine tricks right?
You're thinking of conscripts as a shooting platform. What made them strong is their ability to make guard immune to numerous armies out there - any assault army, really, except Ynaari, and most mid-range shooting armies.
But this has been explained like a thousand times. The time for talk on this one is over, GW has appropriately toned down conscripts.
Now, let's hope they realize the rest of the guard codex is completely out of whack with reality.
I don't think Commissars will vanish from the tabletop. The impact on mechanics are being overstated, he's still going to be useful for the leadership buff, and fluffy players are not going to want to get rid of them. They're the new Assault Marine / Raptor, a slightly sub-optimal unit that pops up in games because it's cool.
The impact on mechanics is far from being overstated.
Overstated is the correct term. Here's the math behind the impact of having / not having him:
In each scenario, > 91% of the time it's better to have a Commissar. For Conscripts, there's about an 8% of chance of rerolling for more losses with Summary Execution. And that's only when they take 8 or more losses in a turn.
So that's nice to think we have a community that can come up with edge cases to suggest doomsday scenarios, it demonstrates just how clever and imaginative everyone is. But come on.
I don't think Commissars will vanish from the tabletop. The impact on mechanics are being overstated, he's still going to be useful for the leadership buff, and fluffy players are not going to want to get rid of them. They're the new Assault Marine / Raptor, a slightly sub-optimal unit that pops up in games because it's cool.
The impact on mechanics is far from being overstated.
Overstated is the correct term. Here's the math behind the impact of having / not having him:
In each scenario, > 91% of the time it's better to have a Commissar. For Conscripts, there's about an 8% of chance of rerolling for more losses with Summary Execution. And that's only when they take 8 or more losses in a turn.
So that's nice to think we have a community that can come up with edge cases to suggest doomsday scenarios, it demonstrates just how clever and imaginative everyone is. But come on.
Bharring wrote: Yes, so blatantly OP on Aspect warriors. Now, when we lose 3 of our 5 guys, on a 6 we only lose 1 guy to LD, instead of the 1 we'd normally lose. Or when we lose 4 of our 5 guys, we only lose 1 guy. So very broken. Aspects are LD8, rarely fielded in squad sizes of 6+, and several can show up as units of 3.
It's really more of a thing for Guardians. Which are Guardsmen at 8ppm.
Protection from battleshock is a more reasonable thing on more elite units than horde units.
And? That's literally the argument that I made with putting a bespoke rule on the Conscripts(aka: "the horde unit") themselves rather than a half-assed nerf to the Commissars.
Guard units are based 10 models for Infantry and Veteran Squads, 6 models for Special Weapons Squads, 5 models for Scions and Ratlings, 4 models for Command Squads and Servitors , 3 models for Ogryn Squads, Heavy Weapon Squads, and Wyrdvane Psykers, and Crusaders are 2 models.
And unlike Eldar, Marine, T'au, Skitarii, etc--the units that have Sergeants(Infantry, Veteran, and Scion Squads) are forced to purchase a CCW for the Sergeant who also is mandated to only carry a crummy pistol in order to benefit from FRSRF.
Martel732 wrote: At 3 ppm, they must suffer full battle shock, or close to full battleshock. If they cost more, something like a 2D3 solutions becomes viable.
And how, praytell, do you make them cost more?
A minimum sized squad is 60 points right now.
60 points for 20 models with BS5+ firing S3 AP0 24" Rapid Fire 1, accepting Orders only within 6"(they don't get access to a Vox-Caster) on a roll of 4+.
90 points for 30.
By comparison, it's 40 points for 10 BS4+ firing 9 of the same guns(the Sergeant only has access to a Laspistol to start with, anything else requires purchase--including a fething Chainsword that they kept trying to push on us in the past) accepting Orders automatically and having access to a Vox-Caster at 5 points for extending Orders to 18" assuming the Officer issuing them is within 3" range of a Vox-Caster as well.
If you want Conscripts to be 80/120? Then I want BS3+ Guardsmen, I want Lasguns on Sergeants, and I want Tempestors to have access to Hellguns as well. I want Veteran Squads being "Every model in this unit can take an item from the Astra Militarum Special Weapons List" as well.
Since apparently you've decided we have to pay Space Marine prices for things, we might as well just have more Space Marine tricks right?
I already said to try 4 ppm and 5 ppm for conscripts and geqs, respectively. Those are NOT marine prices. [MON EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius] As is stands, these models are NOT paying for their combination of S3 24" guns, T3, 5+. So we get this hamfisted fix instead of a proper rebalancing.
Marmatag wrote: You're thinking of conscripts as a shooting platform. What made them strong is their ability to make guard immune to numerous armies out there - any assault army, really, except Ynaari, and most mid-range shooting armies.
But this has been explained like a thousand times. The time for talk on this one is over, GW has appropriately toned down conscripts.
Now, let's hope they realize the rest of the guard codex is completely out of whack with reality.
Except multiple times during that "explanation" it also had people complaining about the Conscripts as a shooting platform.
People like Martel were constantly whining about the Conscripts shooting them down without the artillery not being involved. There was the whole hyperbolic nonsense from day one as well surrounding "Conscripts are gonna be able to take down Titans!".
So which is it? Are they a road bump or a spike trap?
Marmatag wrote: You're thinking of conscripts as a shooting platform. What made them strong is their ability to make guard immune to numerous armies out there - any assault army, really, except Ynaari, and most mid-range shooting armies.
But this has been explained like a thousand times. The time for talk on this one is over, GW has appropriately toned down conscripts.
Now, let's hope they realize the rest of the guard codex is completely out of whack with reality.
Except multiple times during that "explanation" it also had people complaining about the Conscripts as a shooting platform.
People like Martel were constantly whining about the Conscripts shooting them down without the artillery not being involved. There was the whole hyperbolic nonsense from day one as well surrounding "Conscripts are gonna be able to take down Titans!".
So which is it? Are they a road bump or a spike trap?
Pre-orders nerf & squad size nerf they were a brutal shooting platform on weight of dice.
After those changes they were still an unkillable wall.
I have never complained about their firepower specifically. I always have referred to it as icing on the cake. My beef has always been the impassable physical barrier aspect. If you are going to name drop, at least get it right.
It was humiliating to get shot 200 times, but that was never the FUNDAMENTAL problem.
It's easy enough to stand outside their lethal range. Of course, you can't get outside the range of the big guns, which was the whole point of the conscripts in the first place anyway. Heads IG wins, tails I lose.
If anyone's still on the fence about when it makes sense to take commissars if you dont' use full blob conscripts:
the answer is actually never.
Reason: the Aura of Discipline ability causes +1LD to normal guard infantry units (LD7 becomes LD8). This is duplicated by the 5-point Regimental Standard, which also features a longer range.
Now, what does the Summary Execution rule do, post-nerf? Well, since it triggers any time you fail, you can actually simulate it really easily in excel. Create a column for "number of casualties" put in any number. Create a column for Initial Roll, random integer between 1 and 6. Create another column for "Second Roll" between 1 and 6.
First, we have the "Casualties from initial morale roll" =IF(A2+B2-8>=0,A2+B2-8,0). This is a conditional formula that shows your casualties, plus your initial roll column, minus your LD of 8. If this number is negative, it just displays 0, because no models die to morale.
Second, we have "Casualties from Summary Execution+Reroll": =IF(D2>0,IF(A2+C2-8>0,A2+C2-7,1),0). This one is a double conditional. First, it checks if the last column was non-zero, and if it was zero, it only displays 0 (commissar doesn't shoot if you don't fail). Then, it rolls on your second random re-roll column, and displays the new casualties: 1 if you passed the reroll, more than 1 if you still failed.
Subtract your Casualties from Summary Execution column from your Casualties From Morale column to obtain the number of men saved by the heroic disciplinary action of the commissar. I ran this simulation 5000 times to look at the averages.
There is no value of number of casualties a guard unit can take where Summary Execution, on its own, is a beneficial rule. It is only a detriment.
So, if we value 1 point of morale for guard at 5 points, the commissar's body at 15, then the commissar breaks even for Conscripts and Ratlings, and returns only a 20-point value for normal guard units for the cost of 31 points. And this is not giving Summary Execution a negative value in points because its effect is so close to 0 on average unless you're talking about conscripts taking 8+ casualties.
Martel732 wrote: At 3 ppm, they must suffer full battle shock, or close to full battleshock. If they cost more, something like a 2D3 solutions becomes viable.
And how, praytell, do you make them cost more?
A minimum sized squad is 60 points right now.
60 points for 20 models with BS5+ firing S3 AP0 24" Rapid Fire 1, accepting Orders only within 6"(they don't get access to a Vox-Caster) on a roll of 4+.
90 points for 30.
By comparison, it's 40 points for 10 BS4+ firing 9 of the same guns(the Sergeant only has access to a Laspistol to start with, anything else requires purchase--including a fething Chainsword that they kept trying to push on us in the past) accepting Orders automatically and having access to a Vox-Caster at 5 points for extending Orders to 18" assuming the Officer issuing them is within 3" range of a Vox-Caster as well.
If you want Conscripts to be 80/120? Then I want BS3+ Guardsmen, I want Lasguns on Sergeants, and I want Tempestors to have access to Hellguns as well. I want Veteran Squads being "Every model in this unit can take an item from the Astra Militarum Special Weapons List" as well.
Since apparently you've decided we have to pay Space Marine prices for things, we might as well just have more Space Marine tricks right?
I already said to try 4 ppm and 5 ppm for conscripts and geqs, respectively. Those are NOT marine prices.[MON EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius] As is stands, these models are NOT paying for their combination of S3 24" guns, T3, 5+. So we get this hamfisted fix instead of a proper rebalancing.
When you're mandated to be a 10 man squad with no flexibility, you can whine about Guard prices. That's why we're cheaper--we don't get flex outside of our "Elite" units--and for whatever reason, Conscripts.
A squad of 5 Tactical Marines is 65 points. For T4 3+ with S4 24" RF1 guns across the squad at 0 points.
Doesn't matter. We have our "fix". I'm just describing a scenario that makes old commissars viable. Any battle shock ignoring mechanic is not viable under the current pricing.
Marmatag wrote: Death Company are an example of the level of inefficiency you see across space marines as a whole. Guilliman makes them viable. And don't point to a Raven Guard list that came in second in a weak pool, in a non-ITC event.
Astorath + 10 DC is roughly 350 points, for 11 models, with jump packs and *just* chainswords, that are still just 1 wound, T4, 3+.
And these are the best assault marines available in ANY marine codex, except for a Grey Knights strike squad, which is still really bad except for 1 gimmick that doesn't scale with more than 1 squad.
I mean just recognize when you have it good.
"Oh how about we change commissars so they shoot TWO conscripts? That's balanced right guys? Right?"
Interesting theory, why should we value nonGW events more highly than GW events when determining balance?
Because GW doesn't balance exclusively for competitive environments, when it comes to missions, and also rules where applicable. Some of the "chapter approved" updates are taken directly from the ITC rules that had been in place since 8th released.
ITC use their own sets of missions, standardized terrain layouts, and rules built for a fair play environment.
And to the guy who said, "show me how you field hundreds, i'll wait." Again this shows a complete lack of understanding. Prior to the nerf you'd see 200+ conscripts on the table sometimes, with every imperium list fielding at least 2-3 squads. When you have 90 bodies, and you force a morale check, losing 2D3 means NOTHING. Max it out at "3" and it's 6 models out of 90+, who cares, they're still locking out anyone for multiple turns while the big guns eviscerate everything.
Hmm sure seems like you cherry picking the data set so that data that doesn't support your omg poor marines narrative is excluded. If ITC is so amazingballs at making bespoke rules they hadn't tuned down conscripts because... face it you have a preconceived notion and will accept anything that supports it and reject anything that doesn't.
Doesn't matter. We have our "fix". I'm just describing a scenario that makes old commissars viable. Any battle shock ignoring mechanic is not viable under the current pricing.
No, you're really not. Old Commissars were viable.
New Commissars are trash. They're finished, done. End of fething story.
But you got your pound of flesh huh? Can't wait to see what you whine about ruining the game for you next. I'm going to guess Synapse.
Marmatag wrote: You're thinking of conscripts as a shooting platform. What made them strong is their ability to make guard immune to numerous armies out there - any assault army, really, except Ynaari, and most mid-range shooting armies.
But this has been explained like a thousand times. The time for talk on this one is over, GW has appropriately toned down conscripts.
Now, let's hope they realize the rest of the guard codex is completely out of whack with reality.
Except multiple times during that "explanation" it also had people complaining about the Conscripts as a shooting platform.
People like Martel were constantly whining about the Conscripts shooting them down without the artillery not being involved. There was the whole hyperbolic nonsense from day one as well surrounding "Conscripts are gonna be able to take down Titans!".
So which is it? Are they a road bump or a spike trap?
Heh, I see how this post tries to cause confusion by suggesting a false contradiction.
They filled both roles. Conscripts were a road bump because they could take a ridiculous number of models that ignored morale. Conscripts were also a great shooting / CC unit, having a ton of shots / attacks. Someone playing against Guard could have a hard time shooting up 120 bodies while still taking 120+ lasgun shots per turn.
In theory, yes, Conscripts could take down a Titan. Unlikely, but possible. Where I had trouble with them was with Noise Marines, who could regularly pick off 10 Conscripts per round of shooting, but would then face 100+ shots in response. And they cost less than that 10 man squad of NMs.
Maybe the latest changes mean those 10 wounds turn into 13 wounds on average. It's still an incredible unit.
Marmatag wrote: You're thinking of conscripts as a shooting platform. What made them strong is their ability to make guard immune to numerous armies out there - any assault army, really, except Ynaari, and most mid-range shooting armies.
But this has been explained like a thousand times. The time for talk on this one is over, GW has appropriately toned down conscripts.
Now, let's hope they realize the rest of the guard codex is completely out of whack with reality.
Except multiple times during that "explanation" it also had people complaining about the Conscripts as a shooting platform.
People like Martel were constantly whining about the Conscripts shooting them down without the artillery not being involved. There was the whole hyperbolic nonsense from day one as well surrounding "Conscripts are gonna be able to take down Titans!".
So which is it? Are they a road bump or a spike trap?
Heh, I see how this post tries to cause confusion by suggesting a false contradiction.
They filled both roles. Conscripts were a road bump because they could take a ridiculous number of models that ignored morale. Conscripts were also a great shooting / CC unit, having a ton of shots / attacks. Someone playing Guard could have a hard time shooting up 120 bodies while still taking 120+ lasgun shots per turn.
In theory, yes, Conscripts could take down a Titan. Unlikely, but possible. Where I had trouble with them was with Noise Marines, who could regularly pick off 10 Conscripts per round of shooting, but would then face 100+ shots in response. And they cost less than that 10 man squad of NMs.
Maybe the latest changes mean those 10 wounds turn into 13 wounds on average. It's still an incredible unit.
Marmatag wrote: Death Company are an example of the level of inefficiency you see across space marines as a whole. Guilliman makes them viable. And don't point to a Raven Guard list that came in second in a weak pool, in a non-ITC event.
Astorath + 10 DC is roughly 350 points, for 11 models, with jump packs and *just* chainswords, that are still just 1 wound, T4, 3+.
And these are the best assault marines available in ANY marine codex, except for a Grey Knights strike squad, which is still really bad except for 1 gimmick that doesn't scale with more than 1 squad.
I mean just recognize when you have it good.
"Oh how about we change commissars so they shoot TWO conscripts? That's balanced right guys? Right?"
Interesting theory, why should we value nonGW events more highly than GW events when determining balance?
Because GW doesn't balance exclusively for competitive environments, when it comes to missions, and also rules where applicable. Some of the "chapter approved" updates are taken directly from the ITC rules that had been in place since 8th released.
ITC use their own sets of missions, standardized terrain layouts, and rules built for a fair play environment.
And to the guy who said, "show me how you field hundreds, i'll wait." Again this shows a complete lack of understanding. Prior to the nerf you'd see 200+ conscripts on the table sometimes, with every imperium list fielding at least 2-3 squads. When you have 90 bodies, and you force a morale check, losing 2D3 means NOTHING. Max it out at "3" and it's 6 models out of 90+, who cares, they're still locking out anyone for multiple turns while the big guns eviscerate everything.
Hmm sure seems like you cherry picking the data set so that data that doesn't support your omg poor marines narrative is excluded. If ITC is so amazingballs at making bespoke rules they hadn't tuned down conscripts because... face it you have a preconceived notion and will accept anything that supports it and reject anything that doesn't.
They aren't dealing with points of units and changing rules because they did in 7th, and it was a nightmare. In 8th edition, GW has promised to be more responsive in regards to the ruleset and insofar they have, except it took them way too long to adjust conscripts, and IG as a whole are still way more powerful than many other whole armies (Orks, Eldar, Non Guilliman marines).
And the fact that GW has incorporated ITC rules into their core ruleset is pretty telling. You can act like the ITC circuit is this tiny little thing, but it's far bigger than any formal warhammer GT by orders of magnitude.
Marmatag wrote: You're thinking of conscripts as a shooting platform. What made them strong is their ability to make guard immune to numerous armies out there - any assault army, really, except Ynaari, and most mid-range shooting armies.
But this has been explained like a thousand times. The time for talk on this one is over, GW has appropriately toned down conscripts.
Now, let's hope they realize the rest of the guard codex is completely out of whack with reality.
Except multiple times during that "explanation" it also had people complaining about the Conscripts as a shooting platform.
People like Martel were constantly whining about the Conscripts shooting them down without the artillery not being involved. There was the whole hyperbolic nonsense from day one as well surrounding "Conscripts are gonna be able to take down Titans!".
So which is it? Are they a road bump or a spike trap?
Heh, I see how this post tries to cause confusion by suggesting a false contradiction.
They filled both roles. Conscripts were a road bump because they could take a ridiculous number of models that ignored morale. Conscripts were also a great shooting / CC unit, having a ton of shots / attacks. Someone playing Guard could have a hard time shooting up 120 bodies while still taking 120+ lasgun shots per turn.
In theory, yes, Conscripts could take down a Titan. Unlikely, but possible. Where I had trouble with them was with Noise Marines, who could regularly pick off 10 Conscripts per round of shooting, but would then face 100+ shots in response. And they cost less than that 10 man squad of NMs.
Maybe the latest changes mean those 10 wounds turn into 13 wounds on average. It's still an incredible unit.
Noise Marines? Really? That's your example?
I could also point to Berzerkers, CSMs, Helbrutes, Rhinos and other things they wrecked in my armies.
But I don't really need to. We're talking about Conscripts.
Same mechanics, only orders don't always work and der Commissar doesn't let them autopass morale tests.
They probably aren't dead. Just a couple points overcosted. Depends how you value them having the character rule. If you estimate 5 points per point of LD they offer 15 points of value to conscripts. The remaining 15 goes to their defenses and the character rule. Decent value when with specifically conscripts. Everything else, you want the cheaper flag.
The take away from this thread is simply; there is no point in talking to each other anymore. Marine players and Guard players seem to think the other is the fething devil.
Crimson Devil wrote: The take away from this thread is simply; there is no point in talking to each other anymore. Marine players and Guard players seem to think the other is the fething devil.
Actually it's more like a handful of players have an inherent need to complain.
There have been good points made on both sides but the comical extremes some people have went to have basically made both side of the conversation something I no longer want to touch even with a 10 foot pole.
There have been good points made on both sides but the comical extremes some people have went to have basically made both side of the conversation something I no longer want to touch even with a 10 foot pole.
Yeah, I'll normally stick in longer than reasonable myself, but I'm done.
Marmatag wrote: Death Company are an example of the level of inefficiency you see across space marines as a whole. Guilliman makes them viable. And don't point to a Raven Guard list that came in second in a weak pool, in a non-ITC event.
Astorath + 10 DC is roughly 350 points, for 11 models, with jump packs and *just* chainswords, that are still just 1 wound, T4, 3+.
And these are the best assault marines available in ANY marine codex, except for a Grey Knights strike squad, which is still really bad except for 1 gimmick that doesn't scale with more than 1 squad.
I mean just recognize when you have it good.
"Oh how about we change commissars so they shoot TWO conscripts? That's balanced right guys? Right?"
Interesting theory, why should we value nonGW events more highly than GW events when determining balance?
Because GW doesn't balance exclusively for competitive environments, when it comes to missions, and also rules where applicable. Some of the "chapter approved" updates are taken directly from the ITC rules that had been in place since 8th released.
ITC use their own sets of missions, standardized terrain layouts, and rules built for a fair play environment.
And to the guy who said, "show me how you field hundreds, i'll wait." Again this shows a complete lack of understanding. Prior to the nerf you'd see 200+ conscripts on the table sometimes, with every imperium list fielding at least 2-3 squads. When you have 90 bodies, and you force a morale check, losing 2D3 means NOTHING. Max it out at "3" and it's 6 models out of 90+, who cares, they're still locking out anyone for multiple turns while the big guns eviscerate everything.
Hmm sure seems like you cherry picking the data set so that data that doesn't support your omg poor marines narrative is excluded. If ITC is so amazingballs at making bespoke rules they hadn't tuned down conscripts because... face it you have a preconceived notion and will accept anything that supports it and reject anything that doesn't.
They aren't dealing with points of units and changing rules because they did in 7th, and it was a nightmare. In 8th edition, GW has promised to be more responsive in regards to the ruleset and insofar they have, except it took them way too long to adjust conscripts, and IG as a whole are still way more powerful than many other whole armies (Orks, Eldar, Non Guilliman marines).
And the fact that GW has incorporated ITC rules into their core ruleset is pretty telling. You can act like the ITC circuit is this tiny little thing, but it's far bigger than any formal warhammer GT by orders of magnitude.
I'm not pretending they're anything, I'm also not advocating rejecting data because it doesn't support my viewpoints. I have been and continue to be concerned about horde type units in 8th due to the lack of an effective counter weapon. While morale appears to be a useful counter the existence of morale mitigation is extremely prevalent in horde type armies and is unfortunately of a very binary nature. I personally think this particular change is poorly executed because it pretty well wrecks commissars especially for non conscript uses, and for conscripts the command tank is arguably a better choice. That said I was and would have continued to be perfectly fine waiting for chapter approved and really more codices to drop before advocating any sort of sweeping change. You can't accurately assess the strength of AM versus orks or eldar because the codices aren't out yet and taking the approach to make codex armies = index armies in strength is silly.
the_scotsman wrote: If anyone's still on the fence about when it makes sense to take commissars if you dont' use full blob conscripts:
the answer is actually never.
Reason: the Aura of Discipline ability causes +1LD to normal guard infantry units (LD7 becomes LD8). This is duplicated by the 5-point Regimental Standard, which also features a longer range.
Now, what does the Summary Execution rule do, post-nerf? Well, since it triggers any time you fail, you can actually simulate it really easily in excel. Create a column for "number of casualties" put in any number. Create a column for Initial Roll, random integer between 1 and 6. Create another column for "Second Roll" between 1 and 6.
First, we have the "Casualties from initial morale roll" =IF(A2+B2-8>=0,A2+B2-8,0). This is a conditional formula that shows your casualties, plus your initial roll column, minus your LD of 8. If this number is negative, it just displays 0, because no models die to morale.
Second, we have "Casualties from Summary Execution+Reroll": =IF(D2>0,IF(A2+C2-8>0,A2+C2-7,1),0). This one is a double conditional. First, it checks if the last column was non-zero, and if it was zero, it only displays 0 (commissar doesn't shoot if you don't fail). Then, it rolls on your second random re-roll column, and displays the new casualties: 1 if you passed the reroll, more than 1 if you still failed.
Subtract your Casualties from Summary Execution column from your Casualties From Morale column to obtain the number of men saved by the heroic disciplinary action of the commissar. I ran this simulation 5000 times to look at the averages.
There is no value of number of casualties a guard unit can take where Summary Execution, on its own, is a beneficial rule. It is only a detriment.
So, if we value 1 point of morale for guard at 5 points, the commissar's body at 15, then the commissar breaks even for Conscripts and Ratlings, and returns only a 20-point value for normal guard units for the cost of 31 points. And this is not giving Summary Execution a negative value in points because its effect is so close to 0 on average unless you're talking about conscripts taking 8+ casualties.
You're not looking at the bigger picture. It's not whether it saved more men on it's own, but if it saves more men than if you had no commissar at all.
A commissar saves about 12-15 points each and every morale test that matters. If you take enough casualties to wipe a LD4 unit the commissar will keep the unit up.
the_scotsman wrote: If anyone's still on the fence about when it makes sense to take commissars if you dont' use full blob conscripts:
the answer is actually never.
Reason: the Aura of Discipline ability causes +1LD to normal guard infantry units (LD7 becomes LD8). This is duplicated by the 5-point Regimental Standard, which also features a longer range.
Now, what does the Summary Execution rule do, post-nerf? Well, since it triggers any time you fail, you can actually simulate it really easily in excel. Create a column for "number of casualties" put in any number. Create a column for Initial Roll, random integer between 1 and 6. Create another column for "Second Roll" between 1 and 6.
First, we have the "Casualties from initial morale roll" =IF(A2+B2-8>=0,A2+B2-8,0). This is a conditional formula that shows your casualties, plus your initial roll column, minus your LD of 8. If this number is negative, it just displays 0, because no models die to morale.
Second, we have "Casualties from Summary Execution+Reroll": =IF(D2>0,IF(A2+C2-8>0,A2+C2-7,1),0). This one is a double conditional. First, it checks if the last column was non-zero, and if it was zero, it only displays 0 (commissar doesn't shoot if you don't fail). Then, it rolls on your second random re-roll column, and displays the new casualties: 1 if you passed the reroll, more than 1 if you still failed.
Subtract your Casualties from Summary Execution column from your Casualties From Morale column to obtain the number of men saved by the heroic disciplinary action of the commissar. I ran this simulation 5000 times to look at the averages.
There is no value of number of casualties a guard unit can take where Summary Execution, on its own, is a beneficial rule. It is only a detriment.
So, if we value 1 point of morale for guard at 5 points, the commissar's body at 15, then the commissar breaks even for Conscripts and Ratlings, and returns only a 20-point value for normal guard units for the cost of 31 points. And this is not giving Summary Execution a negative value in points because its effect is so close to 0 on average unless you're talking about conscripts taking 8+ casualties.
You're not looking at the bigger picture. It's not whether it saved more men on it's own, but if it saves more men than if you had no commissar at all.
A commissar saves about 12-15 points each and every morale test that matters. If you take enough casualties to wipe a LD4 unit the commissar will keep the unit up.
Why are you posting conscript numbers when his post is about infantry squads?
I was considering the whole picture - see my later posts. I was wondering if specifically the Summary Execution rule provided any value or whether it should be disregarded.
Yes, any time a conscript squad takes casualties from morale the commissar will save a couple. If you only use him for LD buffing and his bonus saves 10, he pays for himself.
The tricky part is, each and every test that matters he saves a Max of 3, and more frequently two as my math points out Summary Execution quickly normalizes his value to +2LD on conscripts...and +0 LD on everything else.
I would say to get decent value out of a commissar you want to be taking 60+ conscripts in min sized units. Which is not unheard of. If you're only running one conscript squad, just decide when you take a bad morale test whether there are enough models alive to warrant 2CP. Otherwise, skip the commissar and consider a flag.
Kanluwen wrote: And unlike Eldar, Marine, T'au, Skitarii, etc--the units that have Sergeants(Infantry, Veteran, and Scion Squads) are forced to purchase a CCW for the Sergeant who also is mandated to only carry a crummy pistol in order to benefit from FRSRF.
*Looks at the gakky force stave my aspiring sorcerers have to buy and cries*
the_scotsman wrote: I was considering the whole picture - see my later posts. I was wondering if specifically the Summary Execution rule provided any value or whether it should be disregarded.
Yes, any time a conscript squad takes casualties from morale the commissar will save a couple. If you only use him for LD buffing and his bonus saves 10, he pays for himself.
The tricky part is, each and every test that matters he saves a Max of 3, and more frequently two as my math points out Summary Execution quickly normalizes his value to +2LD on conscripts...and +0 LD on everything else.
I would say to get decent value out of a commissar you want to be taking 60+ conscripts in min sized units. Which is not unheard of. If you're only running one conscript squad, just decide when you take a bad morale test whether there are enough models alive to warrant 2CP. Otherwise, skip the commissar and consider a flag.
The other option if you happen to have a russ convienent is the command tank. Gives more leadership and costs only CP if it was already being brought along.
Why are you posting conscript numbers when his post is about infantry squads?
Mmm. My bad. Reading comprehension for the win.
There's sort of several questions going on here. First, did conscripts need a nerf to morale mitigation. The consensus appears to be yes. The second is was this an effective way of doing it, and it does appear to be. Third is does the commissars still have a place with conscripts. Fourth does the commissars still have a place with infantry squads/vets/MT. Fifth is if the commissars does have a place is summary execution still a benefit. Sixth is can the commissars be replaced with something more effective.
1.) As above most seem to agree that something needed doing
2.) It certainly seems effective
3.) Yes the leadership buff alone is pretty useful
4.) Yes the leadership buff alone is useful
5.) For conscripts yes, for infantry it's trickier. You have to lose enough models that morale matters and you risk losing more than 1(at least 4) and not so many that his rule doesn't matter (less than 9), then roll poorly enough that someone flees and then well enough that his reroll saves someone. The problem becomes that case is pretty unlikely. At low incoming casualties you're unlikely to need him at high casualties you're unlikely to get the second roll being good. There is a sweet spot, but now it's pretty edge.
6.) This becomes the issue for conscripts assuming you're bringing a russ 2 cp nets you leadership 9. For infantry either the 2 cp for leadership 9 or the banner gets you the leadership buff (assuming you aren't already catachans).
This leaves us in a position where the unit doesn't function super well as it was intended to for the basic infantry squad and for conscripts works ok, but mainly due to leadership bubble. To me this is a failure of design. There are more elegant ways for the summary execution to work. Pop a dude take half morale losses, pop a dude morale die is a 1. Both of those maintain the purpose and the flavor of the commissars. That said perhaps they wouldn't be enough to fix conscripts but then you probably should go after something else, for instance add "conscripts can never modify their leadership" to raw recruits.
I don't think Commissars will vanish from the tabletop. The impact on mechanics are being overstated, he's still going to be useful for the leadership buff, and fluffy players are not going to want to get rid of them. They're the new Assault Marine / Raptor, a slightly sub-optimal unit that pops up in games because it's cool.
The impact on mechanics is far from being overstated.
Overstated is the correct term. Here's the math behind the impact of having / not having him:
In each scenario, > 91% of the time it's better to have a Commissar. For Conscripts, there's about an 8% of chance of rerolling for more losses with Summary Execution. And that's only when they take 8 or more losses in a turn.
So that's nice to think we have a community that can come up with edge cases to suggest doomsday scenarios, it demonstrates just how clever and imaginative everyone is. But come on.
Actually my findings were that Summary Execution is never a beneficial rule. There is no situation where on average it does not cause more casualties due to morale.
It's just weird in that it *appears* to be some kind of beneficial rule. But in reality it's more like a "gets hot" version of a morale boost.
the_scotsman wrote: Actually my findings were that Summary Execution is never a beneficial rule. There is no situation where on average it does not cause more casualties due to morale.
It's just weird in that it *appears* to be some kind of beneficial rule. But in reality it's more like a "gets hot" version of a morale boost.
I think the issue is there are places where it can be beneficial, but people aren't seeing the other half of the die rolls. Like they go oh 4 casualties I roll a 6 blam a guy roll a 1 all good. But you could also roll a 5 blame the one guy who was going to flee and then roll a 6 and now have 2 extra run.
For instance 3 casualties it can only hurt roll a 6 blam and roll 1-5 you're in same place roll a 6 now 2 are dead.
For 4 roll a 5 and you get the same scenario but now 1-4 same place 5 + 1 casualty 6 +2. Roll a 6 1-4 benefit +1, Roll a 5 same, Roll a 6 + 1.
This unfortunately leads to not understanding the times where it helps are countered by where it's worse or no benefit.
Hmm now that I'm thinking about it on a purely average basis imagining conscripts having lost more than 8 casualties. Your morale loss goes from 1d6 to 1+1d6, that isn't a good rule.
I don't think Commissars will vanish from the tabletop. The impact on mechanics are being overstated, he's still going to be useful for the leadership buff, and fluffy players are not going to want to get rid of them. They're the new Assault Marine / Raptor, a slightly sub-optimal unit that pops up in games because it's cool.
The impact on mechanics is far from being overstated.
Overstated is the correct term. Here's the math behind the impact of having / not having him:
In each scenario, > 91% of the time it's better to have a Commissar. For Conscripts, there's about an 8% of chance of rerolling for more losses with Summary Execution. And that's only when they take 8 or more losses in a turn.
So that's nice to think we have a community that can come up with edge cases to suggest doomsday scenarios, it demonstrates just how clever and imaginative everyone is. But come on.
Is it just me or is everyone ignoring this link?
I'm not. The value added from the morale boost is unchanged and pretty easy to quantify. The article is kind of missing the forest for the trees because it compares "no commissar" to "with commissar" instead of actually trying to figure out the value of the FAQ change.
The commissar went from a model you should pretty much bring with any build that featured more than 30 infantry bodies, to one you should only bring for the canned synergy when you have 60-100 conscripts to cover.
Would I rather have canned synergy over auto include? Yeppers. I don't get as triggered as juggler when a game puts in a unit called "THE STABBERBUFFER. BUFFS ALL STABBERS WITHIN 6". BRING THE STABBERS WITH HIM." But it is comparatively lazy game design.
Alcibiades wrote: Question. Do people still consider AM overpowered after this nerf?
Now that Commisars aren't an "ignore-everything" for 31 points possibly not. It'll still be hard for melee armies to make due with getting their stuff through the blob, but now at least there s a good chance to get through.
Alcibiades wrote: Question. Do people still consider AM overpowered after this nerf?
This FAQ took out a lot of issues such as bodyguard shenanigans, deepstrike shenanigans, made morale an issue in many builds. It also seemed to cut out some forgeworld broken combos.
However certain units are still op like Elysian plasmagun drop troops are just cheaper scions even if they are no longer 3 damage and can't spam command squads, basilisk platforms are just undercosted still, smite spam is still a thing, but overall guard are a solid strong tier 1 army still but I don't think they are overpowered anymore.
I have more of an issue with things that need to be improved like send in the next wave should be a replacement for a not quite dead conscript squad instead of a reinforcement point squad, steel legion order should allow disembark and reembark same turn. And the commissar ability should either be voluntary and the summary execution casulty should count for morale model loss. Overall minor quibbles for a very strong codex.
Alcibiades wrote: Question. Do people still consider AM overpowered after this nerf?
They could be, but they're probably just in the realm of "very good" now. I wouldn't make a definitive answer unless we see AM still dominating tournaments after this but if I had to say then they're on the upper end of reasonable now.
The next head on the chopping block is, of course, Guilliman. Enjoy your time on the top while it lasts, loyalist scum!
Alcibiades wrote: Question. Do people still consider AM overpowered after this nerf?
Now that Commisars aren't an "ignore-everything" for 31 points possibly not. It'll still be hard for melee armies to make due with getting their stuff through the blob, but now at least there s a good chance to get through.
A melee army that struggles with 30 T3 wounds. I'm guessing it's a Tau melee army.
Alcibiades wrote: Question. Do people still consider AM overpowered after this nerf?
Now that Commisars aren't an "ignore-everything" for 31 points possibly not. It'll still be hard for melee armies to make due with getting their stuff through the blob, but now at least there s a good chance to get through.
A melee army that struggles with 30 T3 wounds. I'm guessing it's a Tau melee army.
Have you ever done the math on it or just being obtuse?
Take a Vanguard squad for example with all Chainswords and nothing else. That's like 20 attacks right? On the charge they inflict around 6 wounds and then without morale issues they would just fall back and then the artillery shoots them again.
In terms of melee, maybe only Berserker Marines and Genestealers would be able to be point efficient against Conscripts ignoring morale, and even then those units HAVE to be able to make it. Now Conscripts aren't completely invincible to morale for only 31 points, it makes it easier for ALL melee armies.
At this point any IG complaining have a chip on their shoulders almost as big as a Taunar. They still have a good codex, the nerfs literally took NO flavor away, oh wow a commissar is only a maybe take?
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Actually it's more like a handful of players have an inherent need to complain.
Well that seems to be the most effective strategy at getting GW's attention, its how we got here after all.
Quickjager wrote: At this point any IG complaining have a chip on their shoulders almost as big as a Taunar. They still have a good codex, the nerfs literally took NO flavor away, oh wow a commissar is only a maybe take?
Commissars are out, conscripts are out, chimeras are out, platoon commanders are out, rough riders are out (lack models & not in the codex), Valhallans are out (send in the next wave nerf). I just find it entertaining that Guilliman parking lot lists have been dominating nearly every tournament for months yet remain unchanged while imperial soup armies that contained elements of IG immediately necessitated a nerf to the IG codex.
There is at least light at the end of the tunnel. It was just an FAQ which can, eventually, be FAQd again. Which is frustrating since this wasn't an FAQ for the Commissar. This was a straight up rules change.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Actually it's more like a handful of players have an inherent need to complain.
Well that seems to be the most effective strategy at getting GW's attention, its how we got here after all.
Quickjager wrote: At this point any IG complaining have a chip on their shoulders almost as big as a Taunar. They still have a good codex, the nerfs literally took NO flavor away, oh wow a commissar is only a maybe take?
Commissars are out, conscripts are out, chimeras are out, platoon commanders are out, rough riders are out (lack models & not in the codex), Valhallans are out (send in the next wave nerf). I just find it entertaining that Guilliman parking lot lists have been dominating nearly every tournament for months yet remain unchanged while imperial soup armies that contained elements of IG immediately necessitated a nerf to the IG codex.
Commissars are still going to be taken if anyone takes conscripts, which some people still will do. Keyword, some. Not all.
Chimeras were out in the Index not the FAQ Platoon Commanders were out in the Index not the FAQ Rough Riders can be taken in the Index, literally nothing changed Valhallans FREE TACTICS THAT LITERALLY ONLY HAVE UPSIDES are still good
You remind me of Chaos players in 5th when Grey Knights dropped, except they had a DAMN good reason.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Actually it's more like a handful of players have an inherent need to complain.
Well that seems to be the most effective strategy at getting GW's attention, its how we got here after all.
Quickjager wrote: At this point any IG complaining have a chip on their shoulders almost as big as a Taunar. They still have a good codex, the nerfs literally took NO flavor away, oh wow a commissar is only a maybe take?
Commissars are out, conscripts are out, chimeras are out, platoon commanders are out, rough riders are out (lack models & not in the codex), Valhallans are out (send in the next wave nerf). I just find it entertaining that Guilliman parking lot lists have been dominating nearly every tournament for months yet remain unchanged while imperial soup armies that contained elements of IG immediately necessitated a nerf to the IG codex.
Commissars are still going to be taken if anyone takes conscripts, which some people still will do. Keyword, some. Not all.
Chimeras were out in the Index not the FAQ Platoon Commanders were out in the Index not the FAQ Rough Riders can be taken in the Index, literally nothing changed
Valhallans FREE TACTICS THAT LITERALLY ONLY HAVE UPSIDES are still good
You remind me of Chaos players in 5th when Grey Knights dropped, except they had a DAMN good reason.
For the hundredth time, the people complaining about the commissar nerf the most are the people who weren't taking conscripts. Commissars are now worthless for anything BUT conscripts.
Everyone's chapter tactics are only upsides. So what? The Valhallan stratagem might as well have been deleted. Its completely stupid now.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Conscripts were generally useless because you had to pay for a platoon command squad and 2 infantry squads before they would even be available as an option (and you only got one squad), and usually by that time the base units would have ate up so many points that conscripts became pointless. If conscripts had a prerequisite unit choices and didn't count towards the compulsory, you'd see them a lot less.
But they were still very good as a blob of 35-50 bodies with a hidden character like a priest or comissar. They were quite amazing for 4 ppm. Used them every time i played ig to great results in 7-th.
Commissars are now worthless for anything BUT conscripts.
There are still units that benefit from ld8 like ratlings and to a lesser extent ogryns/bullgryns. Probably even more than conscrypt blobs point-for-point.
Colonel Cross wrote: There is at least light at the end of the tunnel. It was just an FAQ which can, eventually, be FAQd again. Which is frustrating since this wasn't an FAQ for the Commissar. This was a straight up rules change.
I've already written them a letter. We'll see if they respond. Your welcome to do the same:
Its ok for Eldar/Tau to dominate every tournament for years with no changes. Its ok for Guilliman parking lot lists to dominate for months with no changes. If however Imperial soup lists that contain "elements" of IG, immediate exterminatus of IG codex. Meanwhile the real offenders (Guilliman, Celestine etc) go ignored. Nope sorry, no patience for that garbage.
I'm playing Valhallans and I feel a bit confused about what GW has done to my Russkies.
The Valhallan stratagem is now completely useless, the Valhallan regimental doctrine, however, is not - in fact it has become much more valuable due to the Commissar nerf (as have regimental standards, so time to unfold those hammer-and-sickle flags).
So we basically went from mediocre doctrine (why would anyone care about halfed Ld losses when the Commissar is reducing the losses to 1 by default anyway) and great - altough by no means OP - stratagem to great doctrine and unusable stratagem in one fell swoop.
There is a "In Soviet Russia" joke somewhere in there, I'm sure.
I still plan to field conscript hordes buffed by Commissars, but I don't think that tactic is viable anymore if you play anyone BUT Valhallans. It's a bit sad that "Send in the next wave" won't see any use ever now, because the idea of Chenkov sending an endless stream of cannon fodder straight into enemy fire was mega-fluffy. They should have nerfed "SITNW" by limiting it to conscripts or vanilla infantry squads instead of making it completely useless.
Why are you posting conscript numbers when his post is about infantry squads?
Mmm. My bad. Reading comprehension for the win.
There's sort of several questions going on here. First, did conscripts need a nerf to morale mitigation. The consensus appears to be yes. The second is was this an effective way of doing it, and it does appear to be. Third is does the commissars still have a place with conscripts. Fourth does the commissars still have a place with infantry squads/vets/MT. Fifth is if the commissars does have a place is summary execution still a benefit. Sixth is can the commissars be replaced with something more effective.
1.) As above most seem to agree that something needed doing
2.) It certainly seems effective
3.) Yes the leadership buff alone is pretty useful
4.) Yes the leadership buff alone is useful
5.) For conscripts yes, for infantry it's trickier. You have to lose enough models that morale matters and you risk losing more than 1(at least 4) and not so many that his rule doesn't matter (less than 9), then roll poorly enough that someone flees and then well enough that his reroll saves someone. The problem becomes that case is pretty unlikely. At low incoming casualties you're unlikely to need him at high casualties you're unlikely to get the second roll being good. There is a sweet spot, but now it's pretty edge.
6.) This becomes the issue for conscripts assuming you're bringing a russ 2 cp nets you leadership 9. For infantry either the 2 cp for leadership 9 or the banner gets you the leadership buff (assuming you aren't already catachans).
This leaves us in a position where the unit doesn't function super well as it was intended to for the basic infantry squad and for conscripts works ok, but mainly due to leadership bubble. To me this is a failure of design. There are more elegant ways for the summary execution to work. Pop a dude take half morale losses, pop a dude morale die is a 1. Both of those maintain the purpose and the flavor of the commissars. That said perhaps they wouldn't be enough to fix conscripts but then you probably should go after something else, for instance add "conscripts can never modify their leadership" to raw recruits.
EDIT: Ignore 5 I math bad.
The Ld bonus for infantry squads are ok, but, it alone does not justify bringing a commissar for them.
Ok, so I just ran some additional numbers looking at non-Commissar vs Commissar with Infantry Squad and got the following (as like the previous poster I ran this over 5000 cases. The lost figure represents models lost before the morale phase, while everything else is a total figure once morale has been resolved.) The formatting sucks cos Dakka can't do tables or tab spaces apparently... –
As you can see, the Commissar still provides a benefit to the Infantry Squad, however, you’re not likely to see its effects most of the time. The main instances are where it makes you immune to morale when taking 2 casualties and when you lose 4 or 6 models from the unit.
The 3rd column represents you getting Ld 8 on the Infantry squad from a source other than a commissar (i.e Catachan regimental doctrine). The results are pretty similar to the Commissars results, however, this gives you a chance of keeping the squad alive when you take 8 casualties, whereas the Commissar does not, due to him shooting the last guy in the head.
All in all, I’d suggest that taking a Commissar for Infantry Squads now is only beneficial when you only take 2 casualties. The rest of the time, you’d be better off spending the 31 points elsewhere. Also, if you can get the Leadership 8 buff from elsewhere for free/cheaper, it would be more worth it than taking a Commissar.
Overall, I think it will come down to personal preference and whether or not you think you’ll be taking mass casualties a turn, or just a couple. If you have the spare points and like the model, then there is no massive detriment to your army for taking a Commissar.
However, when looking at using a Lord Commissar, you start to see the differences a bit more, but still, not a substantial improvement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Esmer wrote: I'm playing Valhallans and I feel a bit confused about what GW has done to my Russkies.
The Valhallan stratagem is now completely useless, the Valhallan regimental doctrine, however, is not - in fact it has become much more valuable due to the Commissar nerf (as have regimental standards, so time to unfold those hammer-and-sickle flags).
So we basically went from mediocre doctrine (why would anyone care about halfed Ld losses when the Commissar is reducing the losses to 1 by default anyway) and great - altough by no means OP - stratagem to great doctrine and unusable stratagem in one fell swoop.
There is a "In Soviet Russia" joke somewhere in there, I'm sure.
I still plan to field conscript hordes buffed by Commissars, but I don't think that tactic is viable anymore if you play anyone BUT Valhallans. It's a bit sad that "Send in the next wave" won't see any use ever now, because the idea of Chenkov sending an endless stream of cannon fodder straight into enemy fire was mega-fluffy. They should have nerfed "SITNW" by limiting it to conscripts or vanilla infantry squads instead of making it completely useless.
Vallhallan's never needed a Commissar though, and still don't.
You you need is a Company Commander with the Pistol relic and you're sorted.
Vallhallan's never needed a Commissar though, and still don't.
You you need is a Company Commander with the Pistol relic and you're sorted.
I'm absolutely determined to use Commissars with my Valhallans in some way - they're WW2 Soviet Russia in space, how can they not have Commissars?
The Valhallan Relic is an obvious auto-include now but it can only be taken once (and I usually put my company commander with something better than conscripts anyway), but I'd say that Commissars can still have their use when having more than one conscript squad in their Ld aura. Right off the cuff, I'm picturing something like this:
2 conscript squads in the front, a Commissar, a platoon commander and a command squad with regimental standard and 3 flamers (when fighting horde armies) or plasma guns (when fighting MEQs) in the back. The conscript squads have Ld9 and halved morale losses and bog down the enemy in close combat, while the platoon commander orders the command squad to fire into said close combat. Sound good?
Colonel Cross wrote: There is at least light at the end of the tunnel. It was just an FAQ which can, eventually, be FAQd again. Which is frustrating since this wasn't an FAQ for the Commissar. This was a straight up rules change.
I've already written them a letter. We'll see if they respond. Your welcome to do the same:
Its ok for Eldar/Tau to dominate every tournament for years with no changes. Its ok for Guilliman parking lot lists to dominate for months with no changes. If however Imperial soup lists that contain "elements" of IG, immediate exterminatus of IG codex. Meanwhile the real offenders (Guilliman, Celestine etc) go ignored. Nope sorry, no patience for that garbage.
Ahhh how can I say this, so your happy to kill an edition of 40k so you can have an overpowered army or you want all armies balanced except for easy mode guard. well at least your more honest than most guard players in here.
As for the Tau and elder I noticed you stopped going back before you got to guard leaf blower and parking lot armies.
Guard are still the top codex by a large margin after the balancing pass they received and if the following codexs are on the same power lvl as pre guard codexs than another pass should happen to bring them in line. Probably reverse some of the index to codexs buffs or the pt reductions should do it.
Ah another Guillimann player who thinks it's okay I'm broken but heaven forbid others might have good codex. They need to get nerf bat swung wildly hitting wrong targets like here(conscripts were problem. Not commisar. Now you eliminated commisars).
