Alcibiades wrote: Question. Do people still consider AM overpowered after this nerf?
OP? I don't know. Maybe? Maybe not.
What guard still have is probably the most cost effective codex we currently have. Most of the codex is, imo, undercosted.
Taurox, Manticores, Mortars, Primaris Psykers, some LR variants, ect.
The question that the future will answer is if its to much or workable.
(and yes Gman is OP and should be nerfed but the difference is that without him the Marine codex is mostly fine)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tneva82 wrote: 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).
Guard ignoring moral was a problem. Invalidating all -ld stuff, esp when whole armies (Night Lords) rely on them, was a problem. Conscripts were just the most obvious abusers of the problem.
Alcibiades wrote: Question. Do people still consider AM overpowered after this nerf?
OP? I don't know. Maybe? Maybe not.
What guard still have is probably the most cost effective codex we currently have. Most of the codex is, imo, undercosted.
Taurox, Manticores, Mortars, Primaris Psykers, some LR variants, ect.
The question that the future will answer is if its to much or workable.
(and yes Gman is OP and should be nerfed but the difference is that without him the Marine codex is mostly fine)
At the SoCal open (happened the same weekend we got this FAQ) only two Imperial Soup lists finished in the top 10; you had two Ynnari players and one Aeldari player also in the Top 10 while the rest were Chaos.
Would agree some of the IG options are undercosted - mostly Primaris Psykers, possibly Mortars and Taurox Primes; however, Malefic Lords are definitely better for Primaris Psykers for the same cost. But still, IG-only and even to a lesser extent IG-heavy Imperial Soup lists are not sweeping every tournament in the last 1-2 months and this FAQ's changes are likely to reduce that even further.
tneva82 wrote: 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).
Ahhh Guard players with a chip on the shoulder about Marines, anyway nope wrong answer not a marine player try again.
Actually Commisars we're the issue they should not be any way to flat out ignore a whole sub section of the rules that reliably. It was a bad rule that should have been picked up in the what they laughably called play testing.
Commisars still benefit the low leadership units such as Conscripts and the Abhumans, the regular troops have other options that benefit them. That It now takes more effort than sticking 1 30pt model in the middle of the army is probably intended and a good change.
You do know whining about somebody else's codex when you blatently have the best codex by a large margin, makes you look a little silly and that you are trying to deflect attention from your overpowered codex in classic whataboutry style.
Alcibiades wrote: Question. Do people still consider AM overpowered after this nerf?
OP? I don't know. Maybe? Maybe not.
What guard still have is probably the most cost effective codex we currently have. Most of the codex is, imo, undercosted.
Taurox, Manticores, Mortars, Primaris Psykers, some LR variants, ect.
The question that the future will answer is if its to much or workable.
(and yes Gman is OP and should be nerfed but the difference is that without him the Marine codex is mostly fine)
At the SoCal open (happened the same weekend we got this FAQ) only two Imperial Soup lists finished in the top 10; you had two Ynnari players and one Aeldari player also in the Top 10 while the rest were Chaos.
Would agree some of the IG options are undercosted - mostly Primaris Psykers, possibly Mortars and Taurox Primes; however, Malefic Lords are definitely better for Primaris Psykers for the same cost. But still, IG-only and even to a lesser extent IG-heavy Imperial Soup lists are not sweeping every tournament in the last 1-2 months and this FAQ's changes are likely to reduce that even further.
Only two Imperium lists in the top 10 but one of them won the event. Funny you fail to mention that.
tneva82 wrote: 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).
Ahhh Guard players with a chip on the shoulder about Marines, anyway nope wrong answer not a marine player try again.
Actually Commisars we're the issue they should not be any way to flat out ignore a whole sub section of the rules that reliably. It was a bad rule that should have been picked up in the what they laughably called play testing.
Commisars still benefit the low leadership units such as Conscripts and the Abhumans, the regular troops have other options that benefit them. That It now takes more effort than sticking 1 30pt model in the middle of the army is probably intended and a good change.
You do know whining about somebody else's codex when you blatently have the best codex by a large margin, makes you look a little silly and that you are trying to deflect attention from your overpowered codex in classic whataboutry style.
I'm curious what results or data you have to back up the assertion that Guard are the best codex by a large margin. It seems to be a common claim in threads like this, but the fact remains that as yet we have seen nothing to indicate that post-nerfs, there is anything in the Guard codex powerful enough to significantly warp the tournament scene.
It doesn't make a ton of sense to complain that the units and combinations that currently ARE impacting tournament balance in a significant manner should be nerfed before additional elements of the Guard codex when all we have as proof of the Guard's overpowered-ness is your and others say so.
What are the guard units that we have seen appearing in tournament lists?
-Conscripts (orders nerf, commissar nerf ties in, squad size nerf)
-Commissars (Summary execution nerf)
-MT Command Sqauds (Plasma for BS3+ nerf, limit per commander nerf)
-MT scion squads (Plasma for BS3+ nerf)
-Mortar teams (Base cost nerf)
At this point we're down to just Taurox primes, Manticores, Primaris Psykers and Earthshaker carriages which have not seen nerfs for units that we've seen in any significant capacity from the IG at tournaments. Every data point we have (which is admittedly not many) points to the influence of IG going DOWN, not UP, post codex and even pre the latest nerfs.
It would seem to be completely justified to want to take a serious look at something like, I don't know, the actual army composition that's been dominating the recent couple of tournaments, i.e. Magnus and Friends Monster Mash style lists?
But that's harder to justify, because people don't actually care about tournaments. They just like to use them to justify what they want to see changed - people actually want to see their buddy's army who they play with every week casually to get reduced in power, because they're having trouble winning against them.
If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant. Just say that. Otherwise, yeah, it is time to talk about the actually imbalanced combinations elsewhere unless we actually see IG performing at tournaments.
the_scotsman wrote: I'm curious what results or data you have to back up the assertion that Guard are the best codex by a large margin. It seems to be a common claim in threads like this, but the fact remains that as yet we have seen nothing to indicate that post-nerfs, there is anything in the Guard codex powerful enough to significantly warp the tournament scene.
It doesn't make a ton of sense to complain that the units and combinations that currently ARE impacting tournament balance in a significant manner should be nerfed before additional elements of the Guard codex when all we have as proof of the Guard's overpowered-ness is your and others say so.
What are the guard units that we have seen appearing in tournament lists?
-Conscripts (orders nerf, commissar nerf ties in, squad size nerf)
-Commissars (Summary execution nerf)
-MT Command Sqauds (Plasma for BS3+ nerf, limit per commander nerf)
-MT scion squads (Plasma for BS3+ nerf)
-Mortar teams (Base cost nerf)
At this point we're down to just Taurox primes, Manticores, Primaris Psykers and Earthshaker carriages which have not seen nerfs for units that we've seen in any significant capacity from the IG at tournaments. Every data point we have (which is admittedly not many) points to the influence of IG going DOWN, not UP, post codex and even pre the latest nerfs.
It would seem to be completely justified to want to take a serious look at something like, I don't know, the actual army composition that's been dominating the recent couple of tournaments, i.e. Magnus and Friends Monster Mash style lists?
But that's harder to justify, because people don't actually care about tournaments. They just like to use them to justify what they want to see changed - people actually want to see their buddy's army who they play with every week casually to get reduced in power, because they're having trouble winning against them.
If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant. Just say that. Otherwise, yeah, it is time to talk about the actually imbalanced combinations elsewhere unless we actually see IG performing at tournaments.
Exalted. I would also like to add that most people complaining about guard were willing to burn people at the stake for merely taking the basic russ, but after this FAQ, those suspiciously went quiet. Almost as if they needed to make a hyperbole about "every" unit in the guard dex being OP just to mask their displeasure at losing to conscripts and commissars.
Exalted. I would also like to add that most people complaining about guard were willing to burn people at the stake for merely taking the basic russ, but after this FAQ, those suspiciously went quiet. Almost as if they needed to make a hyperbole about "every" unit in the guard dex being OP just to mask their displeasure at losing to conscripts and commissars.
Don't jump at conclusions.
It's getting colder outside. Maybe some are struggling to type because they can't get their mittens unpinned from their sleeves?
Exalted. I would also like to add that most people complaining about guard were willing to burn people at the stake for merely taking the basic russ, but after this FAQ, those suspiciously went quiet. Almost as if they needed to make a hyperbole about "every" unit in the guard dex being OP just to mask their displeasure at losing to conscripts and commissars.
Don't jump at conclusions.
It's getting colder outside. Maybe some are struggling to type because they can't get their mittens unpinned from their sleeves?
I'm in canada and in a t-shirt. Get on my winter level
tneva82 wrote: 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).
Ahhh Guard players with a chip on the shoulder about Marines, anyway nope wrong answer not a marine player try again.
Actually Commisars we're the issue they should not be any way to flat out ignore a whole sub section of the rules that reliably. It was a bad rule that should have been picked up in the what they laughably called play testing.
Commisars still benefit the low leadership units such as Conscripts and the Abhumans, the regular troops have other options that benefit them. That It now takes more effort than sticking 1 30pt model in the middle of the army is probably intended and a good change.
You do know whining about somebody else's codex when you blatently have the best codex by a large margin, makes you look a little silly and that you are trying to deflect attention from your overpowered codex in classic whataboutry style.
I'm curious what results or data you have to back up the assertion that Guard are the best codex by a large margin. It seems to be a common claim in threads like this, but the fact remains that as yet we have seen nothing to indicate that post-nerfs, there is anything in the Guard codex powerful enough to significantly warp the tournament scene.
It doesn't make a ton of sense to complain that the units and combinations that currently ARE impacting tournament balance in a significant manner should be nerfed before additional elements of the Guard codex when all we have as proof of the Guard's overpowered-ness is your and others say so.
What are the guard units that we have seen appearing in tournament lists?
-Conscripts (orders nerf, commissar nerf ties in, squad size nerf)
-Commissars (Summary execution nerf)
-MT Command Sqauds (Plasma for BS3+ nerf, limit per commander nerf)
-MT scion squads (Plasma for BS3+ nerf)
-Mortar teams (Base cost nerf)
At this point we're down to just Taurox primes, Manticores, Primaris Psykers and Earthshaker carriages which have not seen nerfs for units that we've seen in any significant capacity from the IG at tournaments. Every data point we have (which is admittedly not many) points to the influence of IG going DOWN, not UP, post codex and even pre the latest nerfs.
It would seem to be completely justified to want to take a serious look at something like, I don't know, the actual army composition that's been dominating the recent couple of tournaments, i.e. Magnus and Friends Monster Mash style lists?
But that's harder to justify, because people don't actually care about tournaments. They just like to use them to justify what they want to see changed - people actually want to see their buddy's army who they play with every week casually to get reduced in power, because they're having trouble winning against them.
If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant. Just say that. Otherwise, yeah, it is time to talk about the actually imbalanced combinations elsewhere unless we actually see IG performing at tournaments.
Exalted. There's no evidence that the guard are overturning tournaments at all by themselves.
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.
It is a new edition with a "new GW" so Eldar and Tau are irrelevant, unless the idea is just to rotate armies into the spotlight for years while others suffer. Which if that is how you feel things should be, there is no point having a balance discussion with you. Where are Guilliman parking lot lists dominating? I've yet to see it. Storm Raven lists were dominating, and were addressed immediately. Beyond that it has been Guard Heavy Soup lists (Mostly guard + Celestine) and Chaos Soup lists. Celestine and guilliman are not the real offenders in this edition. The real offenders are/were conscripts + commissars, Scions, Primaris Psykers, Brims, Magnus, Malific Lords. That is what I see most in top lists. Followed by things like Berserkers/Noise Marines, Guard Artillery, Taurox primes, Storm Ravens. People Complain a lot about Assback + RG but what event has that won? Celestine gets a lot of play because she is flexible and durable and a good compliment to IG strength.
I'm not a huge fan of this fix to the commissar it is more than I wanted, other guard things have largely been addressed, and other units buffed. I think this nerf brings them down to probably 2nd best book right now.
the_scotsman wrote: If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant. Just say that. Otherwise, yeah, it is time to talk about the actually imbalanced combinations elsewhere unless we actually see IG performing at tournaments.
Ugh, is it possible to have a discussion about anything these days without going to extremes. The IG book was very powerful, people were understandably concerned. I play IG and wanted to see conscripts nerfed. Turning off morale for elite troops like Eldar is hardly the same thing as turning it off for a cheap horde, especially when it means giving up -1 to be hit. Tyranids have always revolved around synapse, it's as much a part of their army as big tanks are for Guard.
IG are still extremely powerful. The FAQ was inelegant, hopefully it will be refined. At least GW has shown the willingness to adjust, even if they still appear to lack expert guidance. That's why soup lists tend to be more problematic, too many moving parts. If soup lists went away, Guard would likely be the top army.
the_scotsman wrote: If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant. Just say that. Otherwise, yeah, it is time to talk about the actually imbalanced combinations elsewhere unless we actually see IG performing at tournaments.
Ugh, is it possible to have a discussion about anything these days without going to extremes. The IG book was very powerful, people were understandably concerned. I play IG and wanted to see conscripts nerfed. Turning off morale for elite troops like Eldar is hardly the same thing as turning it off for a cheap horde, especially when it means giving up -1 to be hit. Tyranids have always revolved around synapse, it's as much a part of their army as big tanks are for Guard.
IG are still extremely powerful. The FAQ was inelegant, hopefully it will be refined. At least GW has shown the willingness to adjust, even if they still appear to lack expert guidance. That's why soup lists tend to be more problematic, too many moving parts. If soup lists went away, Guard would likely be the top army.
You can tell by how a list that was exclusively Ultramarines with no soup won the last GT followed by a list that was exclusively Raven Guard with no soup.
Based on that data I can safely say Guard are the top book if you took away soup.
tneva82 wrote: 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).
Ahhh Guard players with a chip on the shoulder about Marines, anyway nope wrong answer not a marine player try again.
Actually Commisars we're the issue they should not be any way to flat out ignore a whole sub section of the rules that reliably. It was a bad rule that should have been picked up in the what they laughably called play testing.
Commisars still benefit the low leadership units such as Conscripts and the Abhumans, the regular troops have other options that benefit them. That It now takes more effort than sticking 1 30pt model in the middle of the army is probably intended and a good change.
You do know whining about somebody else's codex when you blatently have the best codex by a large margin, makes you look a little silly and that you are trying to deflect attention from your overpowered codex in classic whataboutry style.
I'm curious what results or data you have to back up the assertion that Guard are the best codex by a large margin. It seems to be a common claim in threads like this, but the fact remains that as yet we have seen nothing to indicate that post-nerfs, there is anything in the Guard codex powerful enough to significantly warp the tournament scene.
It doesn't make a ton of sense to complain that the units and combinations that currently ARE impacting tournament balance in a significant manner should be nerfed before additional elements of the Guard codex when all we have as proof of the Guard's overpowered-ness is your and others say so.
What are the guard units that we have seen appearing in tournament lists?
-Conscripts (orders nerf, commissar nerf ties in, squad size nerf)
-Commissars (Summary execution nerf)
-MT Command Sqauds (Plasma for BS3+ nerf, limit per commander nerf)
-MT scion squads (Plasma for BS3+ nerf)
-Mortar teams (Base cost nerf)
At this point we're down to just Taurox primes, Manticores, Primaris Psykers and Earthshaker carriages which have not seen nerfs for units that we've seen in any significant capacity from the IG at tournaments. Every data point we have (which is admittedly not many) points to the influence of IG going DOWN, not UP, post codex and even pre the latest nerfs.
It would seem to be completely justified to want to take a serious look at something like, I don't know, the actual army composition that's been dominating the recent couple of tournaments, i.e. Magnus and Friends Monster Mash style lists?
But that's harder to justify, because people don't actually care about tournaments. They just like to use them to justify what they want to see changed - people actually want to see their buddy's army who they play with every week casually to get reduced in power, because they're having trouble winning against them.
If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant. Just say that. Otherwise, yeah, it is time to talk about the actually imbalanced combinations elsewhere unless we actually see IG performing at tournaments.
Seriously why do guard players have such a hate boner for marines that they consider everyone who disagrees with them as a Marine player, can you point on the creed mini where the bad marine touched you?
Not sure I can take you seriously, as just above it is pointed out to one of your frothy compatriots that dominating in attendance is not the same as actually winning.
Alcibiades wrote: Question. Do people still consider AM overpowered after this nerf?
OP? I don't know. Maybe? Maybe not.
What guard still have is probably the most cost effective codex we currently have. Most of the codex is, imo, undercosted.
Taurox, Manticores, Mortars, Primaris Psykers, some LR variants, ect.
The question that the future will answer is if its to much or workable.
(and yes Gman is OP and should be nerfed but the difference is that without him the Marine codex is mostly fine)
At the SoCal open (happened the same weekend we got this FAQ) only two Imperial Soup lists finished in the top 10; you had two Ynnari players and one Aeldari player also in the Top 10 while the rest were Chaos.
Would agree some of the IG options are undercosted - mostly Primaris Psykers, possibly Mortars and Taurox Primes; however, Malefic Lords are definitely better for Primaris Psykers for the same cost. But still, IG-only and even to a lesser extent IG-heavy Imperial Soup lists are not sweeping every tournament in the last 1-2 months and this FAQ's changes are likely to reduce that even further.
I don't count FW stuff because it has a long history of gak balance (both ways) and its not allowed in most tournaments in my region anyway.
Yes Malefic Lords are horribly undercosted.
I expect most people are still playing with what they own. Waiting for codexes to be released before commit to buying a new army rather then going off of the index, Guard has only been out for a short while. I expect more of them to pop up, tho I may be wrong. The future will show.
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.
It is a new edition with a "new GW" so Eldar and Tau are irrelevant, unless the idea is just to rotate armies into the spotlight for years while others suffer. Which if that is how you feel things should be, there is no point having a balance discussion with you. Where are Guilliman parking lot lists dominating? I've yet to see it. Storm Raven lists were dominating, and were addressed immediately. Beyond that it has been Guard Heavy Soup lists (Mostly guard + Celestine) and Chaos Soup lists. Celestine and guilliman are not the real offenders in this edition. The real offenders are/were conscripts + commissars, Scions, Primaris Psykers, Brims, Magnus, Malific Lords. That is what I see most in top lists. Followed by things like Berserkers/Noise Marines, Guard Artillery, Taurox primes, Storm Ravens. People Complain a lot about Assback + RG but what event has that won? Celestine gets a lot of play because she is flexible and durable and a good compliment to IG strength.
I'm not a huge fan of this fix to the commissar it is more than I wanted, other guard things have largely been addressed, and other units buffed. I think this nerf brings them down to probably 2nd best book right now.
Gman Assback spam won the Warhammer World Heat 1. Tho many on this forum will tell you the field was extremely weak and it wasn't ITC so it doesn't count.
It's not IG players having a hate boner for Marine players, but rather due to one of the recent tournament having marines doing very well while guard was in the low 15's (except for one guy in 6th place), especially with a build that most people would have widely considered to be sub-par.
That and the two primary people arguing here against guard are marine players and constantly bring up marine examples.
SeanDrake wrote: Seriously why do guard players have such a hate boner for marines that they consider everyone who disagrees with them as a Marine player, can you point on the creed mini where the bad marine touched you?
Not sure I can take you seriously, as just above it is pointed out to one of your frothy compatriots that dominating in attendance is not the same as actually winning.
I think it's because most of the whiners complainers are the same ones whining complaining about Tactical Marines, even while lists that run 5 units of said marines are winning 40k tournaments.
There are some issues with the Guard codex (though I know a few extremists who would disagree with me on that), or were, at least. I think it's actually largely fine now, and I am willing to sit on my hands and wait for another couple tournaments to see how things shake out.
If you asked me my honest opinion, it would be thusly: The Guard codex appears powerful, because it has so many powerful and varied builds, but it isn't actually as powerful as it seems. The things that were good in the Index were nerfed (and nerfed again, in the FAQ), the things that were awful-to-trash in the Index became good. That's actually a good thing, I think. The reason I think this is just by reading what people complain about:
- Russes get double shots.
- Artillery ignores LoS.
- Orders are really really good
- Baneblade variants are too good (esp. the Shadowsword)
- Conscripts are really really good
- Commissars ignored morale
Russes and artillery are essentially mutually exclusive. You could bring a bit of both, but not a LOT of both. Orders are good - but we trade away generic re-roll auras (captains and lieutenants) to get them, so it's probably a wash. The Baneblade variants suffer badly from 'gun-itis' - they are very powerful, but they're not very durable, so their power often makes them fire magnets for enemy AT assets. Point for point, LRBTs and Land Raiders are more durable. Conscripts and commissars are FAQ'd, I think.
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.
Basically the point I was trying to make. The commissars buff at this point is the leadership aura. Unfortunately that is cheaper to get from a standard or the command tank strategem. This largely means commissars should stay home.
argonak wrote: The Valhallan stratagem might as well have been deleted. Its completely stupid now.
No, it works exactly the same as before in two out of three game types. In Open Play and Narrative Play, you get your models back for the cost of 1CP only.
It's only in Matched Play that you have to pay points as well.
Note that WE THE PLAYERS moaned that in 7th some armies got literally free models. In matched play you no longer get free models.
I would say the issues are that:
- GW creates stratagems that are not suitable for matched play
- Guilliman/Celestine do not comply with this rule, and create imbalance/unfairness.
argonak wrote: The Valhallan stratagem might as well have been deleted. Its completely stupid now.
No, it works exactly the same as before in two out of three game types. In Open Play and Narrative Play, you get your models back for the cost of 1CP only.
It's only in Matched Play that you have to pay points as well.
Note that WE THE PLAYERS moaned that in 7th some armies got literally free models. In matched play you no longer get free models.
I would say the issues are that:
- GW creates stratagems that are not suitable for matched play
- Guilliman/Celestine do not comply with this rule, and create imbalance/unfairness.
Don't forget Chaos cultists, who can also get free models back, and the Avatar of Khaine, whom I think can come back for 3CP and costs no RP.
Healing a model to a non-dead unit doesn't cost points - see also apothecaries. Different rules.
Avatar, yes - falls under this weird grey zone of "its the exact same character so it doesn't cost points" whereas it's not the same unit of conscripts coming back, it's a new one.
Alcibiades wrote: Question. Do people still consider AM overpowered after this nerf?
OP? I don't know. Maybe? Maybe not.
What guard still have is probably the most cost effective codex we currently have. Most of the codex is, imo, undercosted.
Taurox, Manticores, Mortars, Primaris Psykers, some LR variants, ect.
The question that the future will answer is if its to much or workable.
(and yes Gman is OP and should be nerfed but the difference is that without him the Marine codex is mostly fine)
At the SoCal open (happened the same weekend we got this FAQ) only two Imperial Soup lists finished in the top 10; you had two Ynnari players and one Aeldari player also in the Top 10 while the rest were Chaos.
Would agree some of the IG options are undercosted - mostly Primaris Psykers, possibly Mortars and Taurox Primes; however, Malefic Lords are definitely better for Primaris Psykers for the same cost. But still, IG-only and even to a lesser extent IG-heavy Imperial Soup lists are not sweeping every tournament in the last 1-2 months and this FAQ's changes are likely to reduce that even further.
I don't count FW stuff because it has a long history of gak balance (both ways) and its not allowed in most tournaments in my region anyway.
Yes Malefic Lords are horribly undercosted.
I expect most people are still playing with what they own. Waiting for codexes to be released before commit to buying a new army rather then going off of the index, Guard has only been out for a short while. I expect more of them to pop up, tho I may be wrong. The future will show.
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.
It is a new edition with a "new GW" so Eldar and Tau are irrelevant, unless the idea is just to rotate armies into the spotlight for years while others suffer. Which if that is how you feel things should be, there is no point having a balance discussion with you. Where are Guilliman parking lot lists dominating? I've yet to see it. Storm Raven lists were dominating, and were addressed immediately. Beyond that it has been Guard Heavy Soup lists (Mostly guard + Celestine) and Chaos Soup lists. Celestine and guilliman are not the real offenders in this edition. The real offenders are/were conscripts + commissars, Scions, Primaris Psykers, Brims, Magnus, Malific Lords. That is what I see most in top lists. Followed by things like Berserkers/Noise Marines, Guard Artillery, Taurox primes, Storm Ravens. People Complain a lot about Assback + RG but what event has that won? Celestine gets a lot of play because she is flexible and durable and a good compliment to IG strength.
I'm not a huge fan of this fix to the commissar it is more than I wanted, other guard things have largely been addressed, and other units buffed. I think this nerf brings them down to probably 2nd best book right now.
Gman Assback spam won the Warhammer World Heat 1. Tho many on this forum will tell you the field was extremely weak and it wasn't ITC so it doesn't count.
argonak wrote: The Valhallan stratagem might as well have been deleted. Its completely stupid now.
No, it works exactly the same as before in two out of three game types. In Open Play and Narrative Play, you get your models back for the cost of 1CP only.
It's only in Matched Play that you have to pay points as well.
Note that WE THE PLAYERS moaned that in 7th some armies got literally free models. In matched play you no longer get free models.
I would say the issues are that:
- GW creates stratagems that are not suitable for matched play
- Guilliman/Celestine do not comply with this rule, and create imbalance/unfairness.
Don't forget Chaos cultists, who can also get free models back, and the Avatar of Khaine, whom I think can come back for 3CP and costs no RP.
Cultists can only refresh a unit that already exists, it's a similar rule to Reanimation Protocols.
argonak wrote: The Valhallan stratagem might as well have been deleted. Its completely stupid now.
No, it works exactly the same as before in two out of three game types. In Open Play and Narrative Play, you get your models back for the cost of 1CP only.
It's only in Matched Play that you have to pay points as well.
Note that WE THE PLAYERS moaned that in 7th some armies got literally free models. In matched play you no longer get free models.
I would say the issues are that:
- GW creates stratagems that are not suitable for matched play
- Guilliman/Celestine do not comply with this rule, and create imbalance/unfairness.
Don't forget Chaos cultists, who can also get free models back, and the Avatar of Khaine, whom I think can come back for 3CP and costs no RP.
Cultists can only refresh a unit that already exists, it's a similar rule to Reanimation Protocols.
Yes, but if it was a 20 man unit with 1 model left, then you get 19 more models that you didn't have in your list.
If that's not getting more models for free I don't know what is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Silentz wrote: Healing a model to a non-dead unit doesn't cost points - see also apothecaries. Different rules.
Avatar, yes - falls under this weird grey zone of "its the exact same character so it doesn't cost points" whereas it's not the same unit of conscripts coming back, it's a new one.
Right, but perhaps it should, because that's an extra model that wasn't in the army list.
the_scotsman wrote: If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant. Just say that. Otherwise, yeah, it is time to talk about the actually imbalanced combinations elsewhere unless we actually see IG performing at tournaments.
Ugh, is it possible to have a discussion about anything these days without going to extremes. The IG book was very powerful, people were understandably concerned. I play IG and wanted to see conscripts nerfed. Turning off morale for elite troops like Eldar is hardly the same thing as turning it off for a cheap horde, especially when it means giving up -1 to be hit. Tyranids have always revolved around synapse, it's as much a part of their army as big tanks are for Guard.
IG are still extremely powerful. The FAQ was inelegant, hopefully it will be refined. At least GW has shown the willingness to adjust, even if they still appear to lack expert guidance. That's why soup lists tend to be more problematic, too many moving parts. If soup lists went away, Guard would likely be the top army.
Point one: It's not the same to turn off morale for those super-elite eldar infantry (like Guardians, at what...6ppm, and aspects, at 12-20 usually) as it is to turn off morale for a cheap chaff horde! That would be imbalanced and overpowered!
Point two: Tyranids have always been able to turn off morale for their cheap chaff hordes, that's their mechanic, and it's been balanced around!
Point three: if allies were removed, Guard would be top dogs in tournaments.
Disregarding the fact that point 1 and point 2 directly contradict one another, and the fact that Guard have always always always had the ability to mitigate morale with buffing characters, can anyone anywhere at any time give me any kind of proof that point three is true, because everyone is REAL fond of saying it. Because the number of Guard lists we have actually seen at tournaments without allies since the release of 8th is pretty dang slim, while the number of lists that are entirely Space Marines or Ynnari are much, much higher.
If you actually have data to back this up, show it, because I am very curious to know how you'd expect pure guard to win against a Guilliman parking lot list, Ynnari harlequins, or a craftworld Alaitoc list that can take a majority of its basic units with -2 to hit. How is a Guard artillery gunline going to be oppressively overpowering hitting on 6s with most of its weapons?
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, but if it was a 20 man unit with 1 model left, then you get 19 more models that you didn't have in your list.
If that's not getting more models for free I don't know what is.
Frankly I agree and would rather this sort of mechanic not exist at all, but at least with Tide of Traitors/Reanimation Protocol/whatever there's some counterplay by wiping the unit.
the_scotsman wrote: If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant. Just say that. Otherwise, yeah, it is time to talk about the actually imbalanced combinations elsewhere unless we actually see IG performing at tournaments.
Ugh, is it possible to have a discussion about anything these days without going to extremes. The IG book was very powerful, people were understandably concerned. I play IG and wanted to see conscripts nerfed. Turning off morale for elite troops like Eldar is hardly the same thing as turning it off for a cheap horde, especially when it means giving up -1 to be hit. Tyranids have always revolved around synapse, it's as much a part of their army as big tanks are for Guard.
IG are still extremely powerful. The FAQ was inelegant, hopefully it will be refined. At least GW has shown the willingness to adjust, even if they still appear to lack expert guidance. That's why soup lists tend to be more problematic, too many moving parts. If soup lists went away, Guard would likely be the top army.
Point one: It's not the same to turn off morale for those super-elite eldar infantry (like Guardians, at what...6ppm, and aspects, at 12-20 usually) as it is to turn off morale for a cheap chaff horde! That would be imbalanced and overpowered!
Point two: Tyranids have always been able to turn off morale for their cheap chaff hordes, that's their mechanic, and it's been balanced around!
Point three: if allies were removed, Guard would be top dogs in tournaments.
Disregarding the fact that point 1 and point 2 directly contradict one another, and the fact that Guard have always always always had the ability to mitigate morale with buffing characters, can anyone anywhere at any time give me any kind of proof that point three is true, because everyone is REAL fond of saying it. Because the number of Guard lists we have actually seen at tournaments without allies since the release of 8th is pretty dang slim, while the number of lists that are entirely Space Marines or Ynnari are much, much higher.
If you actually have data to back this up, show it, because I am very curious to know how you'd expect pure guard to win against a Guilliman parking lot list, Ynnari harlequins, or a craftworld Alaitoc list that can take a majority of its basic units with -2 to hit. How is a Guard artillery gunline going to be oppressively overpowering hitting on 6s with most of its weapons?
Just wanna point out the irony that you demand data but then claim that pure guard is obviously not going to be able to beat an army that won't exist until Saturday.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, but if it was a 20 man unit with 1 model left, then you get 19 more models that you didn't have in your list.
If that's not getting more models for free I don't know what is.
Frankly I agree and would rather this sort of mechanic not exist at all, but at least with Tide of Traitors/Reanimation Protocol/whatever there's some counterplay by wiping the unit.
The counterplay to the Valhallan stratagem was to leave the unit alive; you could only resurrect it if it was completely wiped out.
tneva82 wrote: 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).
Ahhh Guard players with a chip on the shoulder about Marines, anyway nope wrong answer not a marine player try again.
Actually Commisars we're the issue they should not be any way to flat out ignore a whole sub section of the rules that reliably. It was a bad rule that should have been picked up in the what they laughably called play testing.
Commisars still benefit the low leadership units such as Conscripts and the Abhumans, the regular troops have other options that benefit them. That It now takes more effort than sticking 1 30pt model in the middle of the army is probably intended and a good change.
You do know whining about somebody else's codex when you blatently have the best codex by a large margin, makes you look a little silly and that you are trying to deflect attention from your overpowered codex in classic whataboutry style.
I'm curious what results or data you have to back up the assertion that Guard are the best codex by a large margin. It seems to be a common claim in threads like this, but the fact remains that as yet we have seen nothing to indicate that post-nerfs, there is anything in the Guard codex powerful enough to significantly warp the tournament scene.
It doesn't make a ton of sense to complain that the units and combinations that currently ARE impacting tournament balance in a significant manner should be nerfed before additional elements of the Guard codex when all we have as proof of the Guard's overpowered-ness is your and others say so.
What are the guard units that we have seen appearing in tournament lists?
-Conscripts (orders nerf, commissar nerf ties in, squad size nerf)
-Commissars (Summary execution nerf)
-MT Command Sqauds (Plasma for BS3+ nerf, limit per commander nerf)
-MT scion squads (Plasma for BS3+ nerf)
-Mortar teams (Base cost nerf)
At this point we're down to just Taurox primes, Manticores, Primaris Psykers and Earthshaker carriages which have not seen nerfs for units that we've seen in any significant capacity from the IG at tournaments. Every data point we have (which is admittedly not many) points to the influence of IG going DOWN, not UP, post codex and even pre the latest nerfs.
It would seem to be completely justified to want to take a serious look at something like, I don't know, the actual army composition that's been dominating the recent couple of tournaments, i.e. Magnus and Friends Monster Mash style lists?
But that's harder to justify, because people don't actually care about tournaments. They just like to use them to justify what they want to see changed - people actually want to see their buddy's army who they play with every week casually to get reduced in power, because they're having trouble winning against them.
If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant. Just say that. Otherwise, yeah, it is time to talk about the actually imbalanced combinations elsewhere unless we actually see IG performing at tournaments.
Seriously why do guard players have such a hate boner for marines that they consider everyone who disagrees with them as a Marine player, can you point on the creed mini where the bad marine touched you?
Not sure I can take you seriously, as just above it is pointed out to one of your frothy compatriots that dominating in attendance is not the same as actually winning.
...Can you show me in my post where I "considered anyone who disagrees with me a marine player"? Is there a good internet argument fallacy buzzword for when someone wants to assign you internet argument fallacy buzzwords to dismiss your argument that you did not actually commit? I think I said the word "power fist" at some point - was that politically incorrect and calling out Space Marines? Should I genericise that to "strength multiplying sergeant melee weapon" for you, would that make you feel less oppressed?
I am talking about BOTH dominating in attendance AND actually winning. The top army builds currently are all Chaos lists. And it's not like Magnus+Tzeentch Daemons is a particularly fluff-shattering ally combo that you can wave your hand and dismiss it as "chaos soup".
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, but if it was a 20 man unit with 1 model left, then you get 19 more models that you didn't have in your list.
If that's not getting more models for free I don't know what is.
Frankly I agree and would rather this sort of mechanic not exist at all, but at least with Tide of Traitors/Reanimation Protocol/whatever there's some counterplay by wiping the unit.
the_scotsman wrote: If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant. Just say that. Otherwise, yeah, it is time to talk about the actually imbalanced combinations elsewhere unless we actually see IG performing at tournaments.
Ugh, is it possible to have a discussion about anything these days without going to extremes. The IG book was very powerful, people were understandably concerned. I play IG and wanted to see conscripts nerfed. Turning off morale for elite troops like Eldar is hardly the same thing as turning it off for a cheap horde, especially when it means giving up -1 to be hit. Tyranids have always revolved around synapse, it's as much a part of their army as big tanks are for Guard.
IG are still extremely powerful. The FAQ was inelegant, hopefully it will be refined. At least GW has shown the willingness to adjust, even if they still appear to lack expert guidance. That's why soup lists tend to be more problematic, too many moving parts. If soup lists went away, Guard would likely be the top army.
Point one: It's not the same to turn off morale for those super-elite eldar infantry (like Guardians, at what...6ppm, and aspects, at 12-20 usually) as it is to turn off morale for a cheap chaff horde! That would be imbalanced and overpowered!
Point two: Tyranids have always been able to turn off morale for their cheap chaff hordes, that's their mechanic, and it's been balanced around!
Point three: if allies were removed, Guard would be top dogs in tournaments.
Disregarding the fact that point 1 and point 2 directly contradict one another, and the fact that Guard have always always always had the ability to mitigate morale with buffing characters, can anyone anywhere at any time give me any kind of proof that point three is true, because everyone is REAL fond of saying it. Because the number of Guard lists we have actually seen at tournaments without allies since the release of 8th is pretty dang slim, while the number of lists that are entirely Space Marines or Ynnari are much, much higher.
If you actually have data to back this up, show it, because I am very curious to know how you'd expect pure guard to win against a Guilliman parking lot list, Ynnari harlequins, or a craftworld Alaitoc list that can take a majority of its basic units with -2 to hit. How is a Guard artillery gunline going to be oppressively overpowering hitting on 6s with most of its weapons?
Just wanna point out the irony that you demand data but then claim that pure guard is obviously not going to be able to beat an army that won't exist until Saturday.
Are you familiar with the idea of a "null hypothesis?" the claim being made here is "Guard would be dominating tournaments if allies ("soup lists") were removed". Given how we have just had a solid nerf to almost everything we've seen from Guard in tournaments so far, AND we've never seen pure guard lists performing significantly well while we have seen pure lists from other factions much more commonly, AND we're just about to introduce a new codex whose most immediately obviously powerful subfaction build is a gunline built to counter gunline lists, I am going to contest the claim and require some sort of evidence be presented, yeah.
You can't possibly believe this is true. Chaos has been highly competitive and certainly has some problem units that need to be addressed but for pretty much every major tournament one form of Imperium or another has taking home the gold.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yes, but if it was a 20 man unit with 1 model left, then you get 19 more models that you didn't have in your list.
If that's not getting more models for free I don't know what is.
Frankly I agree and would rather this sort of mechanic not exist at all, but at least with Tide of Traitors/Reanimation Protocol/whatever there's some counterplay by wiping the unit.
the_scotsman wrote: If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant. Just say that. Otherwise, yeah, it is time to talk about the actually imbalanced combinations elsewhere unless we actually see IG performing at tournaments.
Ugh, is it possible to have a discussion about anything these days without going to extremes. The IG book was very powerful, people were understandably concerned. I play IG and wanted to see conscripts nerfed. Turning off morale for elite troops like Eldar is hardly the same thing as turning it off for a cheap horde, especially when it means giving up -1 to be hit. Tyranids have always revolved around synapse, it's as much a part of their army as big tanks are for Guard.
IG are still extremely powerful. The FAQ was inelegant, hopefully it will be refined. At least GW has shown the willingness to adjust, even if they still appear to lack expert guidance. That's why soup lists tend to be more problematic, too many moving parts. If soup lists went away, Guard would likely be the top army.
Point one: It's not the same to turn off morale for those super-elite eldar infantry (like Guardians, at what...6ppm, and aspects, at 12-20 usually) as it is to turn off morale for a cheap chaff horde! That would be imbalanced and overpowered!
Point two: Tyranids have always been able to turn off morale for their cheap chaff hordes, that's their mechanic, and it's been balanced around!
Point three: if allies were removed, Guard would be top dogs in tournaments.
Disregarding the fact that point 1 and point 2 directly contradict one another, and the fact that Guard have always always always had the ability to mitigate morale with buffing characters, can anyone anywhere at any time give me any kind of proof that point three is true, because everyone is REAL fond of saying it. Because the number of Guard lists we have actually seen at tournaments without allies since the release of 8th is pretty dang slim, while the number of lists that are entirely Space Marines or Ynnari are much, much higher.
If you actually have data to back this up, show it, because I am very curious to know how you'd expect pure guard to win against a Guilliman parking lot list, Ynnari harlequins, or a craftworld Alaitoc list that can take a majority of its basic units with -2 to hit. How is a Guard artillery gunline going to be oppressively overpowering hitting on 6s with most of its weapons?
Just wanna point out the irony that you demand data but then claim that pure guard is obviously not going to be able to beat an army that won't exist until Saturday.
It's true the alaitoc list won't exist till Saturday the others do. The issue is there is a broad assertion that there is overwhelming AM dominance with very little proof there actually is. What's more most of the supposedly amazing AM lists are chock full of FW nonsense which is not a reason to do anything to the codex (or index) units. We see various soup lists, which do use conscripts but are hardly a guard only issue and frankly may not change substantially with a conscript/commissar nerf. We see chaos and chaos demons. We see aeldari/ynnari. We see marines of both Guilliman/non guilliman varieties. We see some AM. If anything the tournament winning lists suggest to me we should be concerned about chaos demons (who are winning pre codex), aeldari/ynnari (who are winning pre codex and pre point cost reductions), and FW (whose elysians/earthshaker carriages/ maleific lords are very highly represented and balanced out of sync with the codex releases). Furthermore there should be concern that admech and grey knights may be undertuned.
You can't possibly believe this is true. Chaos has been highly competitive and certainly has some problem units that need to be addressed but for pretty much every major tournament one form of Imperium or another has taking home the gold.
I realize the original author is grossly overstating performance of Chaos, but "Top army builds" does not necessarily mean the same as "tournament winning lists."
I read a statistic about the composition of Grand Tournament armies. It was something like 25 Imperial, 14 Chaos, then Xenos. This is a single tournament, but it's consistent with the armchair analysis I have done of other tournament rosters.
So, competitively, I don't think Chaos is a) consistently taking 1st place at major tournaments or b) occupying space as the most popular army. It's very nice to be perceived that way after so many editions where we were not top dog, but I really can't agree with the analysis.
Guard has been out for 2 weeks. How many tournaments do they need to win in that time before people are allowed to be concerned by basic math on unit efficiency?
(also note they won 1 major tournament in those 2 weeks)
Yes the indexes have been out longer but I don't think a lot of people have been buying 200 model armies based on a temporary list.
People are concerned because of looking at the math on the codex, not because they are sweeping the field. Its way to early for that.
Ordana wrote: Guard has been out for 2 weeks. How many tournaments do they need to win in that time before people are allowed to be concerned by basic math on unit efficiency?
(also note they won 1 major tournament in those 2 weeks)
Yes the indexes have been out longer but I don't think a lot of people have been buying 200 model armies based on a temporary list.
You know, comments like this bug me.
I'm a defense wargamer by profession, and the difference between a wargame and a simulation (e.g. the difference between what I do and what someone with a computer simulator does) is that wargames often provide insights that simulators can't precisely because math doesn't actually help you determine the outcome of a wargame at all.
Ordana wrote: Guard has been out for 2 weeks. How many tournaments do they need to win in that time before people are allowed to be concerned by basic math on unit efficiency?
(also note they won 1 major tournament in those 2 weeks)
Yes the indexes have been out longer but I don't think a lot of people have been buying 200 model armies based on a temporary list.
It's like religion. There are the Mathodites and the Performlicans. The Mathodites measure quality based on statistical averages. The Performlicans want to see how that math plays out on the table before forming judgement.
In reality, what matters most to people is how tough that army was the last time they played them.
To answer your question, it will take as long as it must for both sides to get worn out from arguing. Then more reasonable people who don't care about absolutes will be able to have their say.
the_scotsman wrote: If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant
It may have been subconscious but you were letting your prejudice show
To answer some of your other points.
Yes guard always could largely mitigate morale in previous editions but this is 8th and unlike other editions anti horde weapons have been gutted to the point of uselessness for most armies. Which led to conscripts that were mathematical impossible for most armies to kill during a whole game.
This combined with massive amounts of los ignoring firepower were a recipe for disaster, which the other player could do very little about in most cases.
The codex is by far the most well rounded and interesting as far as internal balance goes, external balance against previously released codexs was wayyyyy out of whack.
Best chaff - yes
Best DS units - yes
Best artillery - yes
Best Tanks - yes
Best Super Heavy- yes
Best faction and sub faction rules - yes
Fastest infantry - yes
Shootiest infantry - yes
Toughest infantry - yes
Best snipers - yes
The list goes on pretty much with the only thing lacking being there special characters being good but not spectacular and close combat but even then being far from the worst.
If you cannot make a good list out of the IG codex then there really is not much hope for you. I
the_scotsman wrote: If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant
It may have been subconscious but you were letting your prejudice show
To answer some of your other points.
Yes guard always could largely mitigate morale in previous editions but this is 8th and unlike other editions anti horde weapons have been gutted to the point of uselessness for most armies. Which led to conscripts that were mathematical impossible for most armies to kill during a whole game.
This combined with massive amounts of los ignoring firepower were a recipe for disaster, which the other player could do very little about in most cases.
The codex is by far the most well rounded and interesting as far as internal balance goes, external balance against previously released codexs was wayyyyy out of whack.
Best chaff - yes
Best DS units - yes
Best artillery - yes
Best Tanks - yes
Best Super Heavy- yes
Best faction and sub faction rules - yes
Fastest infantry - yes
Shootiest infantry - yes
Toughest infantry - yes
Best snipers - yes
The list goes on pretty much with the only thing lacking being there special characters being good but not spectacular and close combat but even then being far from the worst.
If you cannot make a good list out of the IG codex then there really is not much hope for you. I
You are making some pretty broad assertions about best x, and treating them like fact with 0 to back it up. Like if you want to argue those points great, but you're just saying they have best x. I can assert all sorts of things but with not even an argument (much less statistical data) to back that up it's pretty meaningless.
Considering his argument started by accusing the_scotsman of having subconscious prejudice on a mere forum post, facts are probably never going to matter in this debate. And people wonder why no one can take "Guard is OP" seriously.
@ the_scotsman: For what it's worth, you've had the most sense out of all of this (and all involved should remember he hasn't been completely defending guard either and have pointed out problems with them as well). Just want to voice that I do agree with you and not with some of the insanities that have been posted here.
the_scotsman wrote: If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant
It may have been subconscious but you were letting your prejudice show
To answer some of your other points.
Yes guard always could largely mitigate morale in previous editions but this is 8th and unlike other editions anti horde weapons have been gutted to the point of uselessness for most armies. Which led to conscripts that were mathematical impossible for most armies to kill during a whole game.
This combined with massive amounts of los ignoring firepower were a recipe for disaster, which the other player could do very little about in most cases.
The codex is by far the most well rounded and interesting as far as internal balance goes, external balance against previously released codexs was wayyyyy out of whack.
Best chaff - yes
Best DS units - yes
Best artillery - yes
Best Tanks - yes
Best Super Heavy- yes
Best faction and sub faction rules - yes
Fastest infantry - yes
Shootiest infantry - yes
Toughest infantry - yes
Best snipers - yes
The list goes on pretty much with the only thing lacking being there special characters being good but not spectacular and close combat but even then being far from the worst.
If you cannot make a good list out of the IG codex then there really is not much hope for you. I
You are making some pretty broad assertions about best x, and treating them like fact with 0 to back it up. Like if you want to argue those points great, but you're just saying they have best x. I can assert all sorts of things but with not even an argument (much less statistical data) to back that up it's pretty meaningless.
Dismissing his post is taking it a little far.
I think what the author may have meant to say is: good / effective unit. The IG have some great tools at their disposal and it's possible to build a great list with these items. I agree with that point.
Best chaff - yes Yes.
Best DS units - yes Not really, unless by 'best' you mean 'shootiest' and you're talking about the index. Happy to go into more detail.
Best artillery - yes Yes, as it's been for ~8 editions now.
Best Tanks - yes Arguable, but for now (until Hammerheads get buffed), yes.
Best Super Heavy- yes Arguable. I would argue Mechanicus got the best superheavy in terms of the Warlord Titan.
Best faction and sub faction rules - yes No. Where's my -1 to hit? Where's my fall back and shoot? Can you imagine a -1 to-hit Leman Russ?
Fastest infantry - yes Sisters of Battle would like a word with you. And they can even shoot too.
Shootiest infantry - yes Arguable. By mass, yes. By quality, no.
Toughest infantry - yes Arguable. By points, sure. By models, certainly not.
Best snipers - yes Arguable; the Vindicare Assassin is Officio Assassinorum not Astra Militarum
Best chaff - yes
Best DS units - yes
Best artillery - yes
Best Tanks - yes
Best Super Heavy- yes
Best faction and sub faction rules - yes
Fastest infantry - yes
Shootiest infantry - yes
Toughest infantry - yes
Best snipers - yes
The list goes on pretty much with the only thing lacking being there special characters being good but not spectacular and close combat but even then being far from the worst.
If you cannot make a good list out of the IG codex then there really is not much hope for you. I
Best chaff - Chaos Cultists (Who coincidentally don't pay for reinforcement points on their stratagem, and have access to morale auto-pass)
Best DS units - Space Marines (As it probably should be)
Best artillery - Astra Militarum (Can't think of another faction it would be thematic for, so this isn't a suprise)
Best Tanks - Space Marines (Between the point efficiency of the pred to the over the top power of the repulsor, land raider and sicarian)
Best Super Heavy- Chaos, space marine in second
Best faction and sub faction rules - Space Marines, although Eldar are about to give them a run for thier money
Fastest infantry - Still Tyranids. Not that move distance means much in 8th
Shootiest infantry - Should be AM, but Space Marines are ruling it right now with their expanded weapon options, better BS, and the point efficient beauty of TAC marines
Toughest infantry - Have you tried to kill a space marine recently? Some lists I'm facing are getting 2+ armor saves, not counting many support models having invul saves. They are outdoing the Eldar right now and that's insane given they are cheaper than eldar.
Best snipers - Space Marine Scouts still rule that roost, but Astra Militarum still has cheaper snipers.
In addition (since you left them out):
Best Melee Infantry: Tyranids (primarily because they can shed so many causalities in their 30+ model units to actually get to the enemy line)
Best Support: Ultra Marines (Thanks, Gulliman)
Best Heavy Suppoert: AdMech (those giant robots are no joke)
Most Flexibility: Space Marines
Best Relics: Space Marines
Best Codex so far: Space Marines
Worst Codex so far: Grey Knights
I think each faction needs tweaking and that conscripts needed an adjustment of some kind (nerfing another random model from orbit seems like the wrong way to go about it), but that list was just terrible.
the_scotsman wrote: If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant
It may have been subconscious but you were letting your prejudice show
To answer some of your other points.
Yes guard always could largely mitigate morale in previous editions but this is 8th and unlike other editions anti horde weapons have been gutted to the point of uselessness for most armies. Which led to conscripts that were mathematical impossible for most armies to kill during a whole game.
This combined with massive amounts of los ignoring firepower were a recipe for disaster, which the other player could do very little about in most cases.
The codex is by far the most well rounded and interesting as far as internal balance goes, external balance against previously released codexs was wayyyyy out of whack.
Best chaff - yes
Best DS units - yes
Best artillery - yes
Best Tanks - yes
Best Super Heavy- yes
Best faction and sub faction rules - yes
Fastest infantry - yes
Shootiest infantry - yes
Toughest infantry - yes
Best snipers - yes
The list goes on pretty much with the only thing lacking being there special characters being good but not spectacular and close combat but even then being far from the worst.
If you cannot make a good list out of the IG codex then there really is not much hope for you. I
You are making some pretty broad assertions about best x, and treating them like fact with 0 to back it up. Like if you want to argue those points great, but you're just saying they have best x. I can assert all sorts of things but with not even an argument (much less statistical data) to back that up it's pretty meaningless.
Dismissing his post is taking it a little far.
I think what the author may have meant to say is: good / effective unit. The IG have some great tools at their disposal and it's possible to build a great list with these items. I agree with that point.
No dismissing his post is exactly what should be done. What has been asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. If he chooses to provide a more supported version of this rather than broadly asserting it as truth, I'll gladly respond to that. Does AM have good and effective units in those roles sure, but that should be the goal for most armies, but that isn't what he said and frankly I find it a mistake to say oh well he made a hyperbolic statement therefore he must have meant something more reasonable and the conclusion drawn from the hyperbolic statement should be accepted.
the_scotsman wrote: If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant
It may have been subconscious but you were letting your prejudice show
To answer some of your other points.
Yes guard always could largely mitigate morale in previous editions but this is 8th and unlike other editions anti horde weapons have been gutted to the point of uselessness for most armies. Which led to conscripts that were mathematical impossible for most armies to kill during a whole game.
This combined with massive amounts of los ignoring firepower were a recipe for disaster, which the other player could do very little about in most cases.
The codex is by far the most well rounded and interesting as far as internal balance goes, external balance against previously released codexs was wayyyyy out of whack.
Best chaff - yes
Best DS units - yes
Best artillery - yes
Best Tanks - yes
Best Super Heavy- yes
Best faction and sub faction rules - yes
Fastest infantry - yes
Shootiest infantry - yes
Toughest infantry - yes
Best snipers - yes
The list goes on pretty much with the only thing lacking being there special characters being good but not spectacular and close combat but even then being far from the worst.
If you cannot make a good list out of the IG codex then there really is not much hope for you. I
You are making some pretty broad assertions about best x, and treating them like fact with 0 to back it up. Like if you want to argue those points great, but you're just saying they have best x. I can assert all sorts of things but with not even an argument (much less statistical data) to back that up it's pretty meaningless.
Dismissing his post is taking it a little far.
I think what the author may have meant to say is: good / effective unit. The IG have some great tools at their disposal and it's possible to build a great list with these items. I agree with that point.
No dismissing his post is exactly what should be done. What has been asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. If he chooses to provide a more supported version of this rather than broadly asserting it as truth, I'll gladly respond to that. Does AM have good and effective units in those roles sure, but that should be the goal for most armies, but that isn't what he said and frankly I find it a mistake to say oh well he made a hyperbolic statement therefore he must have meant something more reasonable and the conclusion drawn from the hyperbolic statement should be accepted.
Yeah, but... what passes for evidence in this thread is very dodgy and there is a lot of hyperbole. Applying a standard like that means the whole thread can be ignored.
I agree with his assertion at the level that IG has the tools to make a good army. I think that what he was trying to say, when you ignore the rhetoric about anything being the best in the game.
You don't need the best units to make a winning army. You need a combination of good units that serve the right roles. Is anyone trying to say IG don't have the tools to make a good army?
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Considering his argument started by accusing the_scotsman of having subconscious prejudice on a mere forum post, facts are probably never going to matter in this debate. And people wonder why no one can take "Guard is OP" seriously.
@ the_scotsman: For what it's worth, you've had the most sense out of all of this (and all involved should remember he hasn't been completely defending guard either and have pointed out problems with them as well). Just want to voice that I do agree with you and not with some of the insanities that have been posted here.
Spoiler:
I don't DIlbert often, but it's oddly prescient today.
the_scotsman wrote: If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant
It may have been subconscious but you were letting your prejudice show
To answer some of your other points.
Yes guard always could largely mitigate morale in previous editions but this is 8th and unlike other editions anti horde weapons have been gutted to the point of uselessness for most armies. Which led to conscripts that were mathematical impossible for most armies to kill during a whole game.
This combined with massive amounts of los ignoring firepower were a recipe for disaster, which the other player could do very little about in most cases.
The codex is by far the most well rounded and interesting as far as internal balance goes, external balance against previously released codexs was wayyyyy out of whack.
Best chaff - yes
Best DS units - yes
Best artillery - yes
Best Tanks - yes
Best Super Heavy- yes
Best faction and sub faction rules - yes
Fastest infantry - yes
Shootiest infantry - yes
Toughest infantry - yes
Best snipers - yes
The list goes on pretty much with the only thing lacking being there special characters being good but not spectacular and close combat but even then being far from the worst.
If you cannot make a good list out of the IG codex then there really is not much hope for you. I
You are making some pretty broad assertions about best x, and treating them like fact with 0 to back it up. Like if you want to argue those points great, but you're just saying they have best x. I can assert all sorts of things but with not even an argument (much less statistical data) to back that up it's pretty meaningless.
Dismissing his post is taking it a little far.
I think what the author may have meant to say is: good / effective unit. The IG have some great tools at their disposal and it's possible to build a great list with these items. I agree with that point.
No dismissing his post is exactly what should be done. What has been asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence. If he chooses to provide a more supported version of this rather than broadly asserting it as truth, I'll gladly respond to that. Does AM have good and effective units in those roles sure, but that should be the goal for most armies, but that isn't what he said and frankly I find it a mistake to say oh well he made a hyperbolic statement therefore he must have meant something more reasonable and the conclusion drawn from the hyperbolic statement should be accepted.
Yeah, but... what passes for evidence in this thread is very dodgy and there is a lot of hyperbole. Applying a standard like that means the whole thread can be ignored.
I agree with his assertion at the level that IG has the tools to make a good army. I think that what he was trying to say, when you ignore the rhetoric about anything being the best in the game.
You don't need the best units to make a winning army. You need a combination of good units that serve the right roles. Is anyone trying to say IG don't have the tools to make a good army?
At the least an argument as to why they're the best. That said look at the conclusion he drew. It's not just that IG have the tools to make a good army, it's that external balance is out of whack with all other releases codices.
Darkagl1 wrote: At the least an argument as to why they're the best. That said look at the conclusion he drew. It's not just that IG have the tools to make a good army, it's that external balance is out of whack with all other releases codices.
Yeah, got it. Like I said, there's a kernel of truth in there and the original point was probably overstated.
Hard to believe everyone is so worked up over their precious new recruits and the rules for executing the cowards in the lot.
Best chaff - yes
Best DS units - yes
Best artillery - yes
Best Tanks - yes
Best Super Heavy- yes
Best faction and sub faction rules - yes
Fastest infantry - yes
Shootiest infantry - yes
Toughest infantry - yes
Best snipers - yes
The list goes on pretty much with the only thing lacking being there special characters being good but not spectacular and close combat but even then being far from the worst.
If you cannot make a good list out of the IG codex then there really is not much hope for you. I
Best chaff - Chaos Cultists (Who coincidentally don't pay for reinforcement points on their stratagem, and have access to morale auto-pass)
Best DS units - Space Marines (As it probably should be)
Best artillery - Astra Militarum (Can't think of another faction it would be thematic for, so this isn't a suprise)
Best Tanks - Space Marines (Between the point efficiency of the pred to the over the top power of the repulsor, land raider and sicarian)
Best Super Heavy- Chaos, space marine in second
Best faction and sub faction rules - Space Marines, although Eldar are about to give them a run for thier money
Fastest infantry - Still Tyranids. Not that move distance means much in 8th
Shootiest infantry - Should be AM, but Space Marines are ruling it right now with their expanded weapon options, better BS, and the point efficient beauty of TAC marines
Toughest infantry - Have you tried to kill a space marine recently? Some lists I'm facing are getting 2+ armor saves, not counting many support models having invul saves. They are outdoing the Eldar right now and that's insane given they are cheaper than eldar.
Best snipers - Space Marine Scouts still rule that roost, but Astra Militarum still has cheaper snipers.
In addition (since you left them out):
Best Melee Infantry: Tyranids (primarily because they can shed so many causalities in their 30+ model units to actually get to the enemy line)
Best Support: Ultra Marines (Thanks, Gulliman)
Best Heavy Suppoert: AdMech (those giant robots are no joke)
Most Flexibility: Space Marines
Best Relics: Space Marines
Best Codex so far: Space Marines
Worst Codex so far: Grey Knights
I think each faction needs tweaking and that conscripts needed an adjustment of some kind (nerfing another random model from orbit seems like the wrong way to go about it), but that list was just terrible.
No less than your post, no evidence supports the Space Marines as best codex argument you are making. I would put them 3rd at the moment, maybe 4th. They are clearly behind IG and Chaos based on tournament results.
Cultists are not even the best Chaos chaff unit let alone the best chaff unit.
DS unit has been leveled out with the guard changes, to the point where it is close with SM and Guard, same with tanks
Faction sub faction rules, clearly not marines, CSM have the same or better tactics, and better stratagems. Guard is also clearly better as their tactics apply to more models in faction.
IG infantry shoot far better than SM for their points. But sisters probably top this.
Toughness is relative, it takes 12 S4 AP 0 hits to kill a single marine in cover. it takes 9 to kill the same points worth of conscripts in the open. Now add AP to those shots. or take the marine out of cover and see the marine drop in durability.
Snipers- Ratlings are better snipers by far, their BS is the same, with the same weapon, at less than half the cost. As such they get double the number of shots for the same points. 5 scout snipers are 75 points (assuming no cammo cloaks), 5 points more than 10 Ratlings. So the ratlings deal twice as many wounds to their targets and are more likely to roll 6s for mortal wounds.
I will say that the gap between codex armies thus far is in general much less than it was in previous editions.
the_scotsman wrote: If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant
It may have been subconscious but you were letting your prejudice show
To answer some of your other points. Whee, here go the goalposts, look at them dance!
Yes guard always could largely mitigate morale in previous editions but this is 8th and unlike other editions anti horde weapons have been gutted to the point of uselessness for most armies. Which led to conscripts that were mathematical impossible for most armies to kill during a whole game. Here we see that we are not isolating one given thing and instead we are considering them in the context of the game as a whole. Previously, the issue was "Actually Commisars we're the issue they should not be any way to flat out ignore a whole sub section of the rules that reliably. It was a bad rule that should have been picked up in the what they laughably called play testing." Now the issue is anti-horde weapons, because it can be pointed out that other armies have better morale-ignoring mechanics in 8th, and it has been part of Guard's character to have morale mitigated and often even removed by cheap characters who do little else.
This combined with massive amounts of los ignoring firepower were a recipe for disaster, which the other player could do very little about in most cases. Still looking at the army in context of the larger game.
The codex is by far the most well rounded and interesting as far as internal balance goes, external balance against previously released codexs was wayyyyy out of whack. Now we're going to break it down by category and look at them in a vacuum!
Best chaff - yes *Donald trump leaning into a microphone voice* Wrong. Brimstone horrors provide far better chaff, mathematically about double the durability of Conscripts for the points.
But hey, it's not like you can sit them in front of some kind of incredibly cheap ignores-LOS artillery battery, or an enormous number of cheap smite-batteries, or a superheavy that can fire 2d6 damage smites or 3D6 lascannon shots or something.
Best DS units - yes pre-nerf, I entirely agree. Now that the basic squad has increased in price by 12 points with the plasma change, we'll see how this one works out. There are other deep strike units that give them a run for their money though - have you seen the math on Lucius electropriests and the damage they put out?
Best artillery - yes Yep.
Best Tanks - yes Have we seen a Leman Russ in a tournament yet? I assume you're talking about a leman russ here, and not a baneblade, because otherwise you're double dipping. Not Razorbacks, huh?
Best Super Heavy- yes if you don't count the daemon gargantuans as superheavies I guess. Aetos'Rau'Keres doesn't have to be all that lucky to one-shot a baneblade with his staff.
Best faction and sub faction rules - yes Most interesting? Definitely. Best? hard to separate them from the rules for the actual units. Separated out, for instance, Iyanden is a strictly superior Valhalla. Also, unless I'm mistaken Guard is the only faction that does not get the -1 to hit stratagem almost everyone takes. And if you want to look at army-wide rules AND subfaction tactics,
we can talk about Mars in the context of Cawl allowing two canticles a turn with re-rolls...
Fastest infantry - yes Ynnari. Also, now Eldar.
Shootiest infantry - yes No? ....No. I'm pretty sure we can safely say this is not actually the case.
Toughest infantry - yes I wonder at this point if you're trolling.
Best snipers - yes except for the -1 to hit, -2 with the Alaitoc tactics, 3+sv in cover, 3 better LD, Obsec troop snipers for 5ppm more, right?
The list goes on pretty much with the only thing lacking being there special characters being good but not spectacular and close combat but even then being far from the worst.
If you cannot make a good list out of the IG codex then there really is not much hope for you. has anyone said Guard aren't a solid army? I hope everyone's codex gets this good internal balance. TBH though my guard list is probably my least competitive, because I play Vostroyans and most of the reason to play them is to use my awesome, gorgeous OOP metal models, all of which are uncompetitive builds. There's also those super OP Vostroyan army rules, which weirdly enough nobody seems to be whinging about.
the_scotsman wrote: If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant
It may have been subconscious but you were letting your prejudice show
To answer some of your other points. Whee, here go the goalposts, look at them dance!
Yes guard always could largely mitigate morale in previous editions but this is 8th and unlike other editions anti horde weapons have been gutted to the point of uselessness for most armies. Which led to conscripts that were mathematical impossible for most armies to kill during a whole game. Here we see that we are not isolating one given thing and instead we are considering them in the context of the game as a whole. Previously, the issue was "Actually Commisars we're the issue they should not be any way to flat out ignore a whole sub section of the rules that reliably. It was a bad rule that should have been picked up in the what they laughably called play testing." Now the issue is anti-horde weapons, because it can be pointed out that other armies have better morale-ignoring mechanics in 8th, and it has been part of Guard's character to have morale mitigated and often even removed by cheap characters who do little else.
This combined with massive amounts of los ignoring firepower were a recipe for disaster, which the other player could do very little about in most cases. Still looking at the army in context of the larger game.
The codex is by far the most well rounded and interesting as far as internal balance goes, external balance against previously released codexs was wayyyyy out of whack. Now we're going to break it down by category and look at them in a vacuum!
Best chaff - yes *Donald trump leaning into a microphone voice* Wrong. Brimstone horrors provide far better chaff, mathematically about double the durability of Conscripts for the points.
But hey, it's not like you can sit them in front of some kind of incredibly cheap ignores-LOS artillery battery, or an enormous number of cheap smite-batteries, or a superheavy that can fire 2d6 damage smites or 3D6 lascannon shots or something.
Best DS units - yes pre-nerf, I entirely agree. Now that the basic squad has increased in price by 12 points with the plasma change, we'll see how this one works out. There are other deep strike units that give them a run for their money though - have you seen the math on Lucius electropriests and the damage they put out?
Best artillery - yes Yep.
Best Tanks - yes Have we seen a Leman Russ in a tournament yet? I assume you're talking about a leman russ here, and not a baneblade, because otherwise you're double dipping. Not Razorbacks, huh?
Best Super Heavy- yes if you don't count the daemon gargantuans as superheavies I guess. Aetos'Rau'Keres doesn't have to be all that lucky to one-shot a baneblade with his staff.
Best faction and sub faction rules - yes Most interesting? Definitely. Best? hard to separate them from the rules for the actual units. Separated out, for instance, Iyanden is a strictly superior Valhalla. Also, unless I'm mistaken Guard is the only faction that does not get the -1 to hit stratagem almost everyone takes. And if you want to look at army-wide rules AND subfaction tactics,
we can talk about Mars in the context of Cawl allowing two canticles a turn with re-rolls...
Fastest infantry - yes Ynnari. Also, now Eldar.
Shootiest infantry - yes No? ....No. I'm pretty sure we can safely say this is not actually the case.
Toughest infantry - yes I wonder at this point if you're trolling.
Best snipers - yes except for the -1 to hit, -2 with the Alaitoc tactics, 3+sv in cover, 3 better LD, Obsec troop snipers for 5ppm more, right?
The list goes on pretty much with the only thing lacking being there special characters being good but not spectacular and close combat but even then being far from the worst.
If you cannot make a good list out of the IG codex then there really is not much hope for you. has anyone said Guard aren't a solid army? I hope everyone's codex gets this good internal balance. TBH though my guard list is probably my least competitive, because I play Vostroyans and most of the reason to play them is to use my awesome, gorgeous OOP metal models, all of which are uncompetitive builds. There's also those super OP Vostroyan army rules, which weirdly enough nobody seems to be whinging about.
One thing to add. In the case of deep strike and artillery the units actually being used in tournaments were often not the codex (or index) guard. They were elysians and earthshaker carriages.
Bobthehero wrote: Doesn't matter much for artillery, shouldn't that be one of the thing the Guard does better than anyone?
The issue pre-nerf was that they had one of the best screens/the best screen in the game to block for said artillery. I'm fine if they have the best (it isn't even close really). I just don't think it should be largely immune to damage due to an immovable screen.
Marmatag wrote: Guard is still the best army in the game. Complaining about this nerf is bad form.
I don't think that's true at all.
It is a valid perspective to wish others matched IG for power than it is to wish that IG be dragged down to match the others.
I for one wish all armies were as fluffy and cool with as many options for their armies as IG, rather than wishing that IG be stripped down to a monobuild in the name of Balance.
Bobthehero wrote: Doesn't matter much for artillery, shouldn't that be one of the thing the Guard does better than anyone?
The issue pre-nerf was that they had one of the best screens/the best screen in the game to block for said artillery. I'm fine if they have the best (it isn't even close really). I just don't think it should be largely immune to damage due to an immovable screen.
The artillery's not "immune to damage" because the conscripts do nothing against shooting. It's only immune to damage if your list building is "Alright, 2000 points of death company. LET'S ROCK"
Marmatag wrote: Guard is still the best army in the game. Complaining about this nerf is bad form.
I don't really see it that way. If tomorrow an FAQ came out that added 300 matched play points to Guilliman, Celestine and Magnus, with the explanation that "hey guys, these characters are really only for Narrative play so we added points to them in matched to keep everything more fun!" then I'd complain about that, because it would be a lazy, shortsighted change that made the model much less usable in the game. I'd feel bad for people who like Guilliman, even if I despise every aspect of him and his inclusion in 40k.
This is hyperbole, of course, because the Commissar change is nowhere near that bad - he's just a dedicated unit you take with Conscripts now rather than a general TAC piece for morale buffing - but it doesn't change the fact that a more elegant solution that did not affect his less problematic use cases could have been put in place instead. Send in the Next Wave was similar lazy, knee-jerk balance. If it was a big problem, they could have simply reworded it to operate identically to Tide of Traitors, a rule nobody has any problem with. Instead they just said "not for matched, guys, sorryyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!"
Marmatag wrote: Guard is still the best army in the game. Complaining about this nerf is bad form.
I don't think that's true at all.
It is a valid perspective to wish others matched IG for power than it is to wish that IG be dragged down to match the others.
I for one wish all armies were as fluffy and cool with as many options for their armies as IG, rather than wishing that IG be stripped down to a monobuild in the name of Balance.
Bobthehero wrote: Doesn't matter much for artillery, shouldn't that be one of the thing the Guard does better than anyone?
The issue pre-nerf was that they had one of the best screens/the best screen in the game to block for said artillery. I'm fine if they have the best (it isn't even close really). I just don't think it should be largely immune to damage due to an immovable screen.
The artillery's not "immune to damage" because the conscripts do nothing against shooting. It's only immune to damage if your list building is "Alright, 2000 points of death company. LET'S ROCK"
It is immune to damage if LOS blocking terrain exists and those conscripts deny the angles where you can see the artillery. Unless you also have artillery...which wait for it...is mostly limited to guard.
Which is why I said largely immune. Most tables have enough LOS blockers to hide several artillery pieces, then the screen blocks the deepstrike angles and movement to see said artillery, in addition to assault. If deepstrike worked like drop pods last edition it would be hard to block this off, but with a 9" no-go zone it is a simple matter.
Then why did they neither place first or second in the GT?
Which GT? Players matter you know. Guard is not an auto win, but it is right now in the top 2 armies in the game. Time will tell if that remains the case.
Then why did they neither place first or second in the GT?
You say "the GT" but there are a ton of GTs. You're saying "THE" GT because it fits your complainer narrative. In fact Guard have been dominating the ITC tournaments for a long time.
Ignoring cover and a 6+ feel-no-pain, respectively, are both complete positives and actually quite useful. They're not as good as the Ultramarines one, but Ultramarines are broke as feth right now anyway so that's not surprising. Certainly more powerful than Valhallans.
It is immune to damage if LOS blocking terrain exists and those conscripts deny the angles where you can see the artillery. Unless you also have artillery...which wait for it...is mostly limited to guard.
Which is why I said largely immune. Most tables have enough LOS blockers to hide several artillery pieces, then the screen blocks the deepstrike angles and movement to see said artillery, in addition to assault. If deepstrike worked like drop pods last edition it would be hard to block this off, but with a 9" no-go zone it is a simple matter.
Lasguns are 24" range.
You trying to say there is nothing that can hit artillery parked behind LOS blocking terrain that outranges 24"? That the LOS blocking terrain is high enough that you won't be able to use units that have "Fly" to go over/through it?
You can shoot past the Conscripts too. Guard Artillery doesn't get a special rule where they can't be targeted unless the infantry is killed first y'know. Guard Artillery is split between T6(Basilisks and Wyverns) or T7 (Manticores and Deathstrikes), with both variations having 11W and a 3+ save. Yeah the artillery will outrange most things shooting at it--but it's artillery, why shouldn't it be?
Then why did they neither place first or second in the GT?
Which GT? Players matter you know. Guard is not an auto win, but it is right now in the top 2 armies in the game. Time will tell if that remains the case.
The one that GW livestreamed last week or the week before?
Marmatag wrote: Guard is still the best army in the game. Complaining about this nerf is bad form.
Would anyone like to take a stroll down Data Avenue with me?
So, BoK has a tracker for 8th edition events, broken down by faction winner, with links to lists. Additonally, Frontline Gaming/ITC tracks individual player results and faction results.
Let's assume that any army in the top 3 is functionally a top tier army list on near equal footing. The justification being that 40k tournaments are score based with a limited number of rounds, meaning tourney match ups could very well be uneven, and that most top 3 lists are unbeaten in the tourney, with the winners decided on specific scores of how greatly they won or on soft scores.
Looking at BoK's site, we find that Ultramarines and Space Marines make up 12 entries in top 3, with 4 being 1st place.
IG have 8 entries in the top 3, with 4 being 1st place as well.
To put it in perspective, Chaos Marines and Chaos Daemons have a total of 10 entries in the top 3, with a single 1st place.
So far, the data shows that Marines and Guard are on pretty even footing. If we agree with my line of reasoning about being top 3, Chaos is doing equally well.
Now we can delve a little deeper into the ITC data.
ITC uses a point system that accumulates with wins, so the general idea is the higher the better. The top number for each faction (worth noting for this example) is as follows;
Going by just the first placer in each faction leads us to conclude that is in fact Daemons who are the true terror of the battlefield! But of course, its statistically irrelevant to cherry pick the top player who happens to mostly play one faction, so maybe we should take an average of the top 3 from each faction. This would give us
Which now puts both Daemons and Chaos Marines ahead of the vaunted, number 1, unbeatable codex that is Guard. But still, is top 3 even still significant? I'd argue no, for gauging the overall power of a codex, seeing as how luck and tournament match ups can dramatically alter a few players results.
If we expand to top 5, things get more interesting (in order this time);
This trend continues as you average more players. Guard scores drop off quickly after the top 5, while Chaos and Marines are much more gradual decline, meaning they'd continue to dominate the top 3 slots.
I don't know about all of you, but this seems to paint the picture that Chaos and Marines need to get nerfed to IG levels! Jokes aside, the hyperbolic nonsense that Guard is an unbeatable, #1 army that is dominating every tournament ever, is complete and utter horsegak. And don't forget this is all pre-nerf (but a lot of pre-codex too, to be fair).
Draw what conclusions you will, but it'd be hard for someone to look at this and somehow continue to claim that IG are sweeping every tournament with ease.
IG are a top tier codex, no one is denying that, but the bs that they're #1 at all times no matter what is exactly that, bs.
For every person in here complaining about the IG being super overpowered, I expect to see you in threads about Chaos and Marines being equally overpowered.
Then why did they neither place first or second in the GT?
You say "the GT" but there are a ton of GTs. You're saying "THE" GT because it fits your complainer narrative. In fact Guard have been dominating the ITC tournaments for a long time.
And how many of those ITC tournaments took place after the book dropped with the change to Orders for Conscripts?
How many took place after the points bump on Scions taking Plasma Guns?
Book's been out since October 7th. We really going to pretend there have been that many ITC events since then?
Marmatag wrote: Guard is still the best army in the game. Complaining about this nerf is bad form.
Would anyone like to take a stroll down Data Avenue with me?
So, BoK has a tracker for 8th edition events, broken down by faction winner, with links to lists. Additonally, Frontline Gaming/ITC tracks individual player results and faction results.
Let's assume that any army in the top 3 is functionally a top tier army list on near equal footing. The justification being that 40k tournaments are score based with a limited number of rounds, meaning tourney match ups could very well be uneven, and that most top 3 lists are unbeaten in the tourney, with the winners decided on specific scores of how greatly they won or on soft scores.
Looking at BoK's site, we find that Ultramarines and Space Marines make up 12 entries in top 3, with 4 being 1st place.
IG have 8 entries in the top 3, with 4 being 1st place as well.
To put it in perspective, Chaos Marines and Chaos Daemons have a total of 10 entries in the top 3, with a single 1st place.
So far, the data shows that Marines and Guard are on pretty even footing. If we agree with my line of reasoning about being top 3, Chaos is doing equally well.
Now we can delve a little deeper into the ITC data.
ITC uses a point system that accumulates with wins, so the general idea is the higher the better. The top number for each faction (worth noting for this example) is as follows;
Going by just the first placer in each faction leads us to conclude that is in fact Daemons who are the true terror of the battlefield! But of course, its statistically irrelevant to cherry pick the top player who happens to mostly play one faction, so maybe we should take an average of the top 3 from each faction. This would give us
Which now puts both Daemons and Chaos Marines ahead of the vaunted, number 1, unbeatable codex that is Guard. But still, is top 3 even still significant? I'd argue no, for gauging the overall power of a codex, seeing as how luck and tournament match ups can dramatically alter a few players results.
If we expand to top 5, things get more interesting (in order this time);
This trend continues as you average more players. Guard scores drop off quickly after the top 5, while Chaos and Marines are much more gradual decline, meaning they'd continue to dominate the top 3 slots.
I don't know about all of you, but this seems to paint the picture that Chaos and Marines need to get nerfed to IG levels! Jokes aside, the hyperbolic nonsense that Guard is an unbeatable, #1 army that is dominating every tournament ever, is complete and utter horsegak. And don't forget this is all pre-nerf (but a lot of pre-codex too, to be fair).
Draw what conclusions you will, but it'd be hard for someone to look at this and somehow continue to claim that IG are sweeping every tournament with ease.
IG are a top tier codex, no one is denying that, but the bs that they're #1 at all times no matter what is exactly that, bs.
For every person in here complaining about the IG being super overpowered, I expect to see you in threads about Chaos and Marines being equally overpowered.
We can now end our stroll down Data Avenue.
I have a shiny nickel that says it'll be really, incredibly, intensely easy for someone to look at this and continue to claim that IG are sweeping every tournament with ease.
*David Attenborough Voice* Here we see the Dakka poster confronted by numbers that do not conform to their previously held convictions. Let's watch what it does next.
I have a shiny nickel that says it'll be really, incredibly, intensely easy for someone to look at this and continue to claim that IG are sweeping every tournament with ease.
*David Attenborough Voice* Here we see the Dakka poster confronted by numbers that do not conform to their previously held convictions. Let's watch what it does next.
I'm sure there'll be some twisting and squirming with words. I imagine something along the lines of 'Marines are only good cause of Guilliman' and 'Guard are just amazing with every single unit [except the following 10]'.
It is immune to damage if LOS blocking terrain exists and those conscripts deny the angles where you can see the artillery. Unless you also have artillery...which wait for it...is mostly limited to guard.
Which is why I said largely immune. Most tables have enough LOS blockers to hide several artillery pieces, then the screen blocks the deepstrike angles and movement to see said artillery, in addition to assault. If deepstrike worked like drop pods last edition it would be hard to block this off, but with a 9" no-go zone it is a simple matter.
Lasguns are 24" range.
You trying to say there is nothing that can hit artillery parked behind LOS blocking terrain that outranges 24"? That the LOS blocking terrain is high enough that you won't be able to use units that have "Fly" to go over/through it?
You can shoot past the Conscripts too. Guard Artillery doesn't get a special rule where they can't be targeted unless the infantry is killed first y'know.
Guard Artillery is split between T6(Basilisks and Wyverns) or T7 (Manticores and Deathstrikes), with both variations having 11W and a 3+ save. Yeah the artillery will outrange most things shooting at it--but it's artillery, why shouldn't it be?
Do you not seriously understand the issue? The guard player has LOS blocking terrain in their Deployment zone that I cannot see behind with my long range weapons, Las gun range has nothing to do with it. If I cannot get an angle to see the artillery because any said space is blocked physically by Guard models I cannot target it because I CANNOT SEE IT. Flying over said terrain would assume I could get to it through the screen.... That is what I am trying to say. Range is irrelevant if I cannot see the target, if the screen blocks Deepstrike equivalent flanking around the terrain, or movement into those positions, with units that have range (most of which are slow). I then need to kill the screen to have the ability to kill the artillery at all. As for artillery range, it shouldn't have that range because it is bad for balance, unless it has a ridiculous minimum range (say cannot shoot anything closer than 24" or something similar.) Personally I am opposed to any long range ignores LOS weapons in this edition, it lessens strategy when one player does not need to move to do damage. guard players never seem to want to Acknowledge that this scenario exists, but it does.
It is immune to damage if LOS blocking terrain exists and those conscripts deny the angles where you can see the artillery. Unless you also have artillery...which wait for it...is mostly limited to guard.
Which is why I said largely immune. Most tables have enough LOS blockers to hide several artillery pieces, then the screen blocks the deepstrike angles and movement to see said artillery, in addition to assault. If deepstrike worked like drop pods last edition it would be hard to block this off, but with a 9" no-go zone it is a simple matter.
Lasguns are 24" range.
You trying to say there is nothing that can hit artillery parked behind LOS blocking terrain that outranges 24"? That the LOS blocking terrain is high enough that you won't be able to use units that have "Fly" to go over/through it?
You can shoot past the Conscripts too. Guard Artillery doesn't get a special rule where they can't be targeted unless the infantry is killed first y'know.
Guard Artillery is split between T6(Basilisks and Wyverns) or T7 (Manticores and Deathstrikes), with both variations having 11W and a 3+ save. Yeah the artillery will outrange most things shooting at it--but it's artillery, why shouldn't it be?
Do you not seriously understand the issue? The guard player has LOS blocking terrain in their Deployment zone that I cannot see behind with my long range weapons, Las gun range has nothing to do with it. If I cannot get an angle to see the artillery because any said space is blocked physically by Guard models I cannot target it because I CANNOT SEE IT.
I understand the issue. I just think that you and your opponent are ridiculous if you're allowing for him to have such heavy LOS blocking terrain density on his side but you don't have firing angles opened up on the flanks.
Flying over said terrain would assume I could get to it through the screen.... That is what I am trying to say. Range is irrelevant if I cannot see the target, if the screen blocks Deepstrike equivalent flanking around the terrain, or movement into those positions, with units that have range (most of which are slow). I then need to kill the screen to have the ability to kill the artillery at all. As for artillery range, it shouldn't have that range because it is bad for balance, unless it has a ridiculous minimum range (say cannot shoot anything closer than 24" or something similar.) Personally I am opposed to any long range ignores LOS weapons in this edition, it lessens strategy when one player does not need to move to do damage. guard players never seem to want to Acknowledge that this scenario exists, but it does.
If the screen is able to prevent you from moving over intervening terrain with "Fly"--then the screen isn't doing its job on the flanks that you should be able to be looking through.
Alternatively you could always consider, oh, using an actual Flyer? I hear some of them even have anti-tank loadouts...
Now if you want to discuss a reintroduction of minimum range to artillery? I'm down for that. I'd say 12" would be about right in this day and age.
I would also be open for a -1 to Hit against things that have been fired Indirectly.
Yeah I was surprised that there was no to-hit penalty for weapons firing out of LoS in 8E.
That said, it's also been interesting to see the Basilisk as a unit people actually take and think is consistently usable, cant recall such ever having been the case.
Blacksails, your data does not conform with certain poster's preconceived notions. This of course means either the data is wrong, the tournaments are wrong, or the data manipulation is wrong, or the world is wrong, or something.
Guard is, after all, the best codex. Mathematically, apparently.
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah I was surprised that there was no to-hit penalty for weapons firing out of LoS in 8E.
That said, it's also been interesting to see the Basilisk as a unit people actually take and think is consistently usable, cant recall such ever having been the case.
The funny part is that there is a penalty to Hit for weapons firing out of LoS...but it only seems to exist on the Master of Ordnance's Artillery Barrage ability.
It is immune to damage if LOS blocking terrain exists and those conscripts deny the angles where you can see the artillery. Unless you also have artillery...which wait for it...is mostly limited to guard.
Which is why I said largely immune. Most tables have enough LOS blockers to hide several artillery pieces, then the screen blocks the deepstrike angles and movement to see said artillery, in addition to assault. If deepstrike worked like drop pods last edition it would be hard to block this off, but with a 9" no-go zone it is a simple matter.
Lasguns are 24" range.
You trying to say there is nothing that can hit artillery parked behind LOS blocking terrain that outranges 24"? That the LOS blocking terrain is high enough that you won't be able to use units that have "Fly" to go over/through it?
You can shoot past the Conscripts too. Guard Artillery doesn't get a special rule where they can't be targeted unless the infantry is killed first y'know.
Guard Artillery is split between T6(Basilisks and Wyverns) or T7 (Manticores and Deathstrikes), with both variations having 11W and a 3+ save. Yeah the artillery will outrange most things shooting at it--but it's artillery, why shouldn't it be?
Do you not seriously understand the issue? The guard player has LOS blocking terrain in their Deployment zone that I cannot see behind with my long range weapons, Las gun range has nothing to do with it. If I cannot get an angle to see the artillery because any said space is blocked physically by Guard models I cannot target it because I CANNOT SEE IT.
I understand the issue. I just think that you and your opponent are ridiculous if you're allowing for him to have such heavy LOS blocking terrain density on his side but you don't have firing angles opened up on the flanks.
Flying over said terrain would assume I could get to it through the screen.... That is what I am trying to say. Range is irrelevant if I cannot see the target, if the screen blocks Deepstrike equivalent flanking around the terrain, or movement into those positions, with units that have range (most of which are slow). I then need to kill the screen to have the ability to kill the artillery at all. As for artillery range, it shouldn't have that range because it is bad for balance, unless it has a ridiculous minimum range (say cannot shoot anything closer than 24" or something similar.) Personally I am opposed to any long range ignores LOS weapons in this edition, it lessens strategy when one player does not need to move to do damage. guard players never seem to want to Acknowledge that this scenario exists, but it does.
If the screen is able to prevent you from moving over intervening terrain with "Fly"--then the screen isn't doing its job on the flanks that you should be able to be looking through.
Alternatively you could always consider, oh, using an actual Flyer? I hear some of them even have anti-tank loadouts...
Now if you want to discuss a reintroduction of minimum range to artillery? I'm down for that. I'd say 12" would be about right in this day and age.
I would also be open for a -1 to Hit against things that have been fired Indirectly.
It really doesn't take a ton of terrain to have this be the case, a single ruin that blocks LOS is enough to essentially make shooting these units impossible at range. These types of pieces are essentially required otherwise things like marine gunline dominate. The solution to those armies is LOS blocking terrain. But such terrain makes artillery all but invincible at range with a smart general piloting it.
Also we are talking about people running 100+ conscripts in this case, it is pretty easy to use that many bodies to essentially block your entire deployment zone. Which would stop the flyers as well. A minimum range of 12" is essentially worthless, which is why I don't bother with it because any range of value makes them unusable. I could see doing a -1 to hit, and have advocated such before.
All that said, I play Orks. Which Flyer should I use that has any chance of killing your artillery? Essentially my only option is to beat my way through your screen, unless you deploy it in a completely incompetent manner.
Vaktathi wrote: Yeah I was surprised that there was no to-hit penalty for weapons firing out of LoS in 8E.
That said, it's also been interesting to see the Basilisk as a unit people actually take and think is consistently usable, cant recall such ever having been the case.
Yep, the only thing really is that if you're out of LOS, its easier to claim ruin cover if you're non-infantry (because you're always 100% obscured from the perspective of the firer)
Honestly it sounds like Breng just doesn't like the very core idea of the Guard, and would rather they be an infantry-based low model-count assault army.
It really doesn't take a ton of terrain to have this be the case, a single ruin that blocks LOS is enough to essentially make shooting these units impossible at range. These types of pieces are essentially required otherwise things like marine gunline dominate. The solution to those armies is LOS blocking terrain. But such terrain makes artillery all but invincible at range with a smart general piloting it.
A "single ruin" shouldn't be blocking LOS in a 360 degree angle. Just throwing that out there.
Also we are talking about people running 100+ conscripts in this case, it is pretty easy to use that many bodies to essentially block your entire deployment zone. Which would stop the flyers as well. A minimum range of 12" is essentially worthless, which is why I don't bother with it because any range of value makes them unusable. I could see doing a -1 to hit, and have advocated such before.
To be completely honest, I said 12" because most of the stuff I've seen with minimum ranges has been Superheavies/Titanics with 24" minimum range(Supremacy Armour for example). But those things also have the ability to fire while still engaged in combat or at things in B2B with them/
All that said, I play Orks. Which Flyer should I use that has any chance of killing your artillery? Essentially my only option is to beat my way through your screen, unless you deploy it in a completely incompetent manner.
Wazbom Blastajet with Tellyporta Mega-Blastas and its Smasha Gun. Assault D3 with S8(versus T6 or 7) and an AP-2 versus 3+ saves.
Also, remember that the Smasha Gun lets you roll 2D6 for Wounding instead of a flat value and it lets you have +1 to hit vs a single unit once per turn.
PS--That's not a silver bullet for you, but it's something to rattle around in the noggin.
Ignoring cover and a 6+ feel-no-pain, respectively, are both complete positives and actually quite useful. They're not as good as the Ultramarines one, but Ultramarines are broke as feth right now anyway so that's not surprising. Certainly more powerful than Valhallans.
If you remove Rowboat, Ultramarines aren't broken. You can't be serious.
I believe that commissars should go down to something like 24-25 points with this new rule, or even better, change it to reduce morale loses by D6 and keep it at his current price.
But I think, even if IG is strong (And more important, diverse and competent, allowing for different builds, something we should celebrate, not critizise) because they have still a very efective chaff to protect their artillery (The best artillery in the game. As it should be of course, even if somes are worse and others better, but those are small point/balance changes. But I'll add that I think, the hability to ignore LOS isn't as valued by GW in point costs as it should be), and pretty good tanks, and very competent infantry even in Meele with Crusaders and Ogryns/Bullgryns. So they will be good.
Will they win (As a pure Codex army without mixing) agaisn't the OP Guilliman parking lot or Chaos malefic lords, magnus, etc... spam? I don't think so, but those are the next lists in the chopping lot to be nerfed.
IG still needs balance adjustements, give buffs or point discounts to some Leman Russ variants that are still weak (Or useless), nerf the Shadowsword and buff the less potent Baneblade variants, fix chimeras, veterans, etc... but I think in general those are minor balance changes, that are more about points than rules.
The Commisar was a problem because it negated the problem of Morale for IG all together without counter play for the opponent and minimal investment for the IG player. And yes, Synapse and Tyranids should be tweaked to offer more counter play for the opponent. Orks have a nice morale mechanic, that is fitting and allow for counter-play to the opponent, it doesn't just make them inmune to morale. (The Warboss does I believe, killing D3 orks, but that kind of hability should be pretty limited)
I'm expecting Grey Knights buffs, Admech nerfs (To a small amount of units) and buffs (To a good amount of units, but to be honest the Admech problem is more about "Go Mars or Go home"), IG small balance tweaks and Space Marines and Chaos small balance tweaks and good nerfs to Guilliman, Magnus, etc... in Chappter APproved.
Will FW nerf Malefic Lords? I expect it to happen but... who knows with FW?
It really doesn't take a ton of terrain to have this be the case, a single ruin that blocks LOS is enough to essentially make shooting these units impossible at range. These types of pieces are essentially required otherwise things like marine gunline dominate. The solution to those armies is LOS blocking terrain. But such terrain makes artillery all but invincible at range with a smart general piloting it.
A "single ruin" shouldn't be blocking LOS in a 360 degree angle. Just throwing that out there.
Also we are talking about people running 100+ conscripts in this case, it is pretty easy to use that many bodies to essentially block your entire deployment zone. Which would stop the flyers as well. A minimum range of 12" is essentially worthless, which is why I don't bother with it because any range of value makes them unusable. I could see doing a -1 to hit, and have advocated such before.
To be completely honest, I said 12" because most of the stuff I've seen with minimum ranges has been Superheavies/Titanics with 24" minimum range(Supremacy Armour for example). But those things also have the ability to fire while still engaged in combat or at things in B2B with them/
All that said, I play Orks. Which Flyer should I use that has any chance of killing your artillery? Essentially my only option is to beat my way through your screen, unless you deploy it in a completely incompetent manner.
Wazbom Blastajet with Tellyporta Mega-Blastas and its Smasha Gun.
Assault D3 with S8(versus T6 or 7) and an AP-2 versus 3+ saves.
Also, remember that the Smasha Gun lets you roll 2D6 for Wounding instead of a flat value and it lets you have +1 to hit vs a single unit once per turn.
PS--That's not a silver bullet for you, but it's something to rattle around in the noggin.
The ruin doesn't need to block 360 degrees, 270 is easily enough and as often as not 180 is plenty. Blocking that much makes the angle you need to shoot behind it essentially requiring you to get into the opposing deployment zone. Which is hard to do when your opponent has a ton of bodies in their deployment zone.
Minimum ranges used to be common on basically all IG artillery units. Basilisks used to be minimum 36" I believe back in 4th or 5th ed. (which is why no one used them).
As for the Wazbom Blasta Jet - that is an awful solution
1.) The load out you suggest requires I get within 24" of said artillery, It hits on a 4+ with an average of 4 Telleport blasta shots (wazbom mega cannon would be better), these do 1 damage each. The smasha gun is ~72% to wound T6 when it does hit
2.) This is for 151 points. So not particularly cheap for its stats, and if I don't spam them they will likely die turn 1 to shooting.
3.) Math suggests that even if I get in range, the teleport blasta do ~1 wound, and the smasha gun does another 1 against T6 or 7. Which means the Teleport blasta rule does nothing. Now I could get lucky and do 6 damage with the smasha gun, and 1 with the teleport blasta then roll a 5+ and kill the unit. But it is hardly reliable.
It could work but it would take a lot of luck for that to work out, and still require me to be able to line up shots on you. So unless your recommendation is taking say 5 or 6 of these I don't really see it working out. But generally it reads more like, here is a long shot you could take to deal with this really powerful thing I have. Which is also not very good against basically anything else.
Now with the commissar nerf this is easier to deal with which I guess is the point.
Then why did they neither place first or second in the GT?
The codex has been out for 2 weekends.
It won the last one with the SoCal open.
So by your logic guard has won 50% of GT's.
Is that enough to qualify?
It's too few data points to say, but seeing as theres a mix of Marines, Chaos and IG in the top lists, I'd call that pretty balanced. I certainly wouldn't say IG is an obvious best. Just strong.
Then why did they neither place first or second in the GT?
You say "the GT" but there are a ton of GTs. You're saying "THE" GT because it fits your complainer narrative. In fact Guard have been dominating the ITC tournaments for a long time.
Hardly matters. If it were the clear "best", it would have been the top list. Right? It should have been blowing everything else out of the water. But it didn't, so why not?
Marmatag wrote: Guard is still the best army in the game. Complaining about this nerf is bad form.
Would anyone like to take a stroll down Data Avenue with me?
So, BoK has a tracker for 8th edition events, broken down by faction winner, with links to lists. Additonally, Frontline Gaming/ITC tracks individual player results and faction results.
Let's assume that any army in the top 3 is functionally a top tier army list on near equal footing. The justification being that 40k tournaments are score based with a limited number of rounds, meaning tourney match ups could very well be uneven, and that most top 3 lists are unbeaten in the tourney, with the winners decided on specific scores of how greatly they won or on soft scores.
Looking at BoK's site, we find that Ultramarines and Space Marines make up 12 entries in top 3, with 4 being 1st place.
IG have 8 entries in the top 3, with 4 being 1st place as well.
To put it in perspective, Chaos Marines and Chaos Daemons have a total of 10 entries in the top 3, with a single 1st place.
So far, the data shows that Marines and Guard are on pretty even footing. If we agree with my line of reasoning about being top 3, Chaos is doing equally well.
Now we can delve a little deeper into the ITC data.
ITC uses a point system that accumulates with wins, so the general idea is the higher the better. The top number for each faction (worth noting for this example) is as follows;
Going by just the first placer in each faction leads us to conclude that is in fact Daemons who are the true terror of the battlefield! But of course, its statistically irrelevant to cherry pick the top player who happens to mostly play one faction, so maybe we should take an average of the top 3 from each faction. This would give us
Which now puts both Daemons and Chaos Marines ahead of the vaunted, number 1, unbeatable codex that is Guard. But still, is top 3 even still significant? I'd argue no, for gauging the overall power of a codex, seeing as how luck and tournament match ups can dramatically alter a few players results.
If we expand to top 5, things get more interesting (in order this time);
This trend continues as you average more players. Guard scores drop off quickly after the top 5, while Chaos and Marines are much more gradual decline, meaning they'd continue to dominate the top 3 slots.
I don't know about all of you, but this seems to paint the picture that Chaos and Marines need to get nerfed to IG levels! Jokes aside, the hyperbolic nonsense that Guard is an unbeatable, #1 army that is dominating every tournament ever, is complete and utter horsegak. And don't forget this is all pre-nerf (but a lot of pre-codex too, to be fair).
Draw what conclusions you will, but it'd be hard for someone to look at this and somehow continue to claim that IG are sweeping every tournament with ease.
IG are a top tier codex, no one is denying that, but the bs that they're #1 at all times no matter what is exactly that, bs.
For every person in here complaining about the IG being super overpowered, I expect to see you in threads about Chaos and Marines being equally overpowered.
We can now end our stroll down Data Avenue.
I really wanted to see this, but was way to lazy to go looking. Sounds like some misconceptions need to change. Also be interested in how many of those guard lists are really soups.
Not surprising at all regarding the Marine codex. It's really damn powerful. I AM a little surprised at the Chaos scores... that's news to me. I hadn't given Chaos much attention (I rarely do).
I really wanted to see this, but was way to lazy to go looking. Sounds like some misconceptions need to change. Also be interested in how many of those guard lists are really soups.
Two of the marine lists were 'soups' I guess, involving at least conscripts in them.
One of the Guard lists had some GKs, but most were either pure, or had some assassins or a Knight.
All from the BoK records.
*Edit* Not a single one of the IG lists there had Guilliman or even Celestine. There's a separate section for Ministorum lists and other Imperial lists, so you can check those out for more soupy stuff.
Interesting to note, that nearly every one of the 8 IG lists on that site had conscripts, normally at least 60. With the nerf, I'm sure we'll be seeing a mix up of what Guard will bring, because the common theme was Conscripts plus commissars plus Scions, backed by artillery. Three of those things got nerfed, so we'll see how it pans out.
Melissia wrote: Not surprising at all regarding the Marine codex. It's really damn powerful. I AM a little surprised at the Chaos scores... that's news to me. I hadn't given Chaos much attention (I rarely do).
Magnus, Mortarion(to a lesser extend) and Malific Lords are what give Chaos its power.
so,
FW still produces wide outliers and Primarchs make good armies.
I really wanted to see this, but was way to lazy to go looking. Sounds like some misconceptions need to change. Also be interested in how many of those guard lists are really soups.
Two of the marine lists were 'soups' I guess, involving at least conscripts in them.
One of the Guard lists had some GKs, but most were either pure, or had some assassins or a Knight.
All from the BoK records.
*Edit* Not a single one of the IG lists there had Guilliman or even Celestine. There's a separate section for Ministorum lists and other Imperial lists, so you can check those out for more soupy stuff.
Interesting to note, that nearly every one of the 8 IG lists on that site had conscripts, normally at least 60. With the nerf, I'm sure we'll be seeing a mix up of what Guard will bring, because the common theme was Conscripts plus commissars plus Scions, backed by artillery. Three of those things got nerfed, so we'll see how it pans out.
Still I think it illustrates the point rather well. While AM may be good and fixing conscripts/commissars may be a net positive for the game (though most arguments I see against the nerf were on how they did it not that they did something), there's hardly justification for any sort of AM is wildly OP narrative. Beyond that if anything it's a justification for buffing GK and admech (assuming they're numbers are as bad as what you've posted suggests since they have a codex and aren't doing well).
Still I think it illustrates the point rather well. While AM may be good and fixing conscripts/commissars may be a net positive for the game (though most arguments I see against the nerf were on how they did it not that they did something), there's hardly justification for any sort of AM is wildly OP narrative. Beyond that if anything it's a justification for buffing GK and admech (assuming they're numbers are as bad as what you've posted suggests since they have a codex and aren't doing well).
Oh I agree. I've stated many times that the IG codex is very strong, with or without conscripts, but some sort of unbeatable monstrosity, the Guard codex is not. With conscripts more or less neutered, the real strength will still come from the arty supported by infantry squads or the occasionaly conscript squad back by the likes of the Valhallan relic.
*Edit* And Scions. Still good, now the plasma is costed within the realm of sanity.
Marmatag wrote: Guard is still the best army in the game. Complaining about this nerf is bad form.
Would anyone like to take a stroll down Data Avenue with me?
So, BoK has a tracker for 8th edition events, broken down by faction winner, with links to lists. Additonally, Frontline Gaming/ITC tracks individual player results and faction results.
Let's assume that any army in the top 3 is functionally a top tier army list on near equal footing. The justification being that 40k tournaments are score based with a limited number of rounds, meaning tourney match ups could very well be uneven, and that most top 3 lists are unbeaten in the tourney, with the winners decided on specific scores of how greatly they won or on soft scores.
Looking at BoK's site, we find that Ultramarines and Space Marines make up 12 entries in top 3, with 4 being 1st place.
IG have 8 entries in the top 3, with 4 being 1st place as well.
To put it in perspective, Chaos Marines and Chaos Daemons have a total of 10 entries in the top 3, with a single 1st place.
So far, the data shows that Marines and Guard are on pretty even footing. If we agree with my line of reasoning about being top 3, Chaos is doing equally well.
Now we can delve a little deeper into the ITC data.
ITC uses a point system that accumulates with wins, so the general idea is the higher the better. The top number for each faction (worth noting for this example) is as follows;
Going by just the first placer in each faction leads us to conclude that is in fact Daemons who are the true terror of the battlefield! But of course, its statistically irrelevant to cherry pick the top player who happens to mostly play one faction, so maybe we should take an average of the top 3 from each faction. This would give us
Which now puts both Daemons and Chaos Marines ahead of the vaunted, number 1, unbeatable codex that is Guard. But still, is top 3 even still significant? I'd argue no, for gauging the overall power of a codex, seeing as how luck and tournament match ups can dramatically alter a few players results.
If we expand to top 5, things get more interesting (in order this time);
This trend continues as you average more players. Guard scores drop off quickly after the top 5, while Chaos and Marines are much more gradual decline, meaning they'd continue to dominate the top 3 slots.
I don't know about all of you, but this seems to paint the picture that Chaos and Marines need to get nerfed to IG levels! Jokes aside, the hyperbolic nonsense that Guard is an unbeatable, #1 army that is dominating every tournament ever, is complete and utter horsegak. And don't forget this is all pre-nerf (but a lot of pre-codex too, to be fair).
Draw what conclusions you will, but it'd be hard for someone to look at this and somehow continue to claim that IG are sweeping every tournament with ease.
IG are a top tier codex, no one is denying that, but the bs that they're #1 at all times no matter what is exactly that, bs.
For every person in here complaining about the IG being super overpowered, I expect to see you in threads about Chaos and Marines being equally overpowered.
We can now end our stroll down Data Avenue.
Wow, nice digging there! Might change a couple minds, though watch out for others shifting the goalposts. I can see the crowd that crowed before that it was clearly brokenly strong in all regards in the Index so it is now clearly broken with the Codex suddenly crowing that we need to wait for more data to prove their world view.
Galas wrote:I believe that commissars should go down to something like 24-25 points with this new rule, or even better, change it to reduce morale loses by D6 and keep it at his current price.
But I think, even if IG is strong (And more important, diverse and competent, allowing for different builds, something we should celebrate, not critizise) because they have still a very efective chaff to protect their artillery (The best artillery in the game. As it should be of course, even if somes are worse and others better, but those are small point/balance changes. But I'll add that I think, the hability to ignore LOS isn't as valued by GW in point costs as it should be), and pretty good tanks, and very competent infantry even in Meele with Crusaders and Ogryns/Bullgryns. So they will be good.
Will they win (As a pure Codex army without mixing) agaisn't the OP Guilliman parking lot or Chaos malefic lords, magnus, etc... spam? I don't think so, but those are the next lists in the chopping lot to be nerfed.
IG still needs balance adjustements, give buffs or point discounts to some Leman Russ variants that are still weak (Or useless), nerf the Shadowsword and buff the less potent Baneblade variants, fix chimeras, veterans, etc... but I think in general those are minor balance changes, that are more about points than rules.
The Commisar was a problem because it negated the problem of Morale for IG all together without counter play for the opponent and minimal investment for the IG player. And yes, Synapse and Tyranids should be tweaked to offer more counter play for the opponent. Orks have a nice morale mechanic, that is fitting and allow for counter-play to the opponent, it doesn't just make them inmune to morale. (The Warboss does I believe, killing D3 orks, but that kind of hability should be pretty limited)
I'm expecting Grey Knights buffs, Admech nerfs (To a small amount of units) and buffs (To a good amount of units, but to be honest the Admech problem is more about "Go Mars or Go home"), IG small balance tweaks and Space Marines and Chaos small balance tweaks and good nerfs to Guilliman, Magnus, etc... in Chappter APproved.
Will FW nerf Malefic Lords? I expect it to happen but... who knows with FW?
All things I wouldn't mind seeing - though if going the route with reduce casualties, it might be better to give regular Commissars "reduce by 1d3" and Lord Commissars "reduce by 1d6", just to differentiate them a bit more and give the lords a bigger niche.
Blacksails wrote: Oh I agree. I've stated many times that the IG codex is very strong, with or without conscripts, but some sort of unbeatable monstrosity, the Guard codex is not. With conscripts more or less neutered, the real strength will still come from the arty supported by infantry squads or the occasionaly conscript squad back by the likes of the Valhallan relic.
*Edit* And Scions. Still good, now the plasma is costed within the realm of sanity.
The general consensus is that IG is strong, no one is arguing that. But the thing is a handful of players here hear that and go "omgwtfbbq they're OP".
It's like how when the GT heat results got posted and Tac Marines were in the winning list, most people took that as a sign that Tac Marines weren't completely useless while the same handful of people took that as a sign of people going insane because, obviously, "good = OP" and Tactical Marines can't ever be OP.
Basically there's no middle ground with them. Either it's OP or worthless. It can't just be "good" or even "above average". It's also why we can't really point out any issues ourselves, since in their minds any comments even remotely close to what they're saying is an omission that everything we've said so far is a lie, even when we have data backing it up.
Blacksails wrote: Oh I agree. I've stated many times that the IG codex is very strong, with or without conscripts, but some sort of unbeatable monstrosity, the Guard codex is not. With conscripts more or less neutered, the real strength will still come from the arty supported by infantry squads or the occasionaly conscript squad back by the likes of the Valhallan relic.
*Edit* And Scions. Still good, now the plasma is costed within the realm of sanity.
The general consensus is that IG is strong, no one is arguing that. But the thing is a handful of players here hear that and go "omgwtfbbq they're OP".
It's like how when the GT heat results got posted and Tac Marines were in the winning list, most people took that as a sign that Tac Marines weren't completely useless while the same handful of people took that as a sign of people going insane because, obviously, "good = OP" and Tactical Marines can't ever be OP.
Basically there's no middle ground with them. Either it's OP or worthless. It can't just be "good" or even "above average". It's also why we can't really point out any issues ourselves, since in their minds any comments even remotely close to what they're saying is an omission that everything we've said so far is a lie, even when we have data backing it up.
Agreed completely. Fortunately its only been like one or two posters who seem to be on an IG witch hunt. Most everyone else has been some varying degree of civil and reasonable.
While I still feel 40k is not living up to its potential as a game and that its still pretty poorly written and balanced, the IG codex is about as internally balanced as I've ever seen it, and more flavourful than the last one (tied with 5th, we gained doctrines, lost dozens of characters and wargear), so I'm looking forward to being to run a solidly mid tier mechanized and armoured company.
As a CP starved Necron player I'd be absolutely thrilled for a 31pt HQ to fill that expensive FOC slot. And one that comes with a +1 Ld buff? and reroll morale? Awesome!
(not sure if any other metal heads have laid their eerie green gaze at this thread yet, gave up reading it all on page 5)
torblind wrote: As a CP starved Necron player I'd be absolutely thrilled for a 31pt HQ to fill that expensive FOC slot. And one that comes with a +1 Ld buff? and reroll morale? Awesome!
(not sure if any other metal heads have laid their eerie green gaze at this thread yet, gave up reading it all on page 5)
Commissars are Elite.
I've been following this thread too. I play Guard and Necrons.
That said, Lord Commissars are only a little bit more expensive at 55 points, which I'm sure the Necrons would gladly take as well (especially since the Lord version is leadership 9).
We'd have flat Ld10 on the ones that need it, but the +1 Ld and reroll are always welcome, and at some 50 points, greatly so! Low T and bad save don't matter, our HQs die first thing caught in the open.
Being where Necrons are right now, means we can always provide perspective to anyone moaning over their nerfs, but I'll not derail this thread any further.
I've seen one guy crazy enough to believe this. The Magnus/Morty power couple is one of the lists that needs to stop; personally I think all the primarchs should have a rule where in order to take one 50% of your army should be comprised of their chapter/legion (so no taking Magnus in a 2000 point game unless you spend 585 points on Thousand Sons). You could probably give Celestine this rule, too.
I've seen one guy crazy enough to believe this. The Magnus/Morty power couple is one of the lists that needs to stop; personally I think all the primarchs should have a rule where in order to take one 50% of your army should be comprised of their chapter/legion (so no taking Magnus in a 2000 point game unless you spend 585 points on Thousand Sons). You could probably give Celestine this rule, too.
I'd be fine with it if they finally get the damn plastic sisters out. Ugh just wait till the lion shows up soup is only gonna get soupier.
I've seen one guy crazy enough to believe this. The Magnus/Morty power couple is one of the lists that needs to stop; personally I think all the primarchs should have a rule where in order to take one 50% of your army should be comprised of their chapter/legion (so no taking Magnus in a 2000 point game unless you spend 585 points on Thousand Sons). You could probably give Celestine this rule, too.
Remember the days when these crazy characters had minimum points limits that was required to field them?
I've seen one guy crazy enough to believe this. The Magnus/Morty power couple is one of the lists that needs to stop; personally I think all the primarchs should have a rule where in order to take one 50% of your army should be comprised of their chapter/legion (so no taking Magnus in a 2000 point game unless you spend 585 points on Thousand Sons). You could probably give Celestine this rule, too.
I'd be fine with it if they finally get the damn plastic sisters out. Ugh just wait till the lion shows up soup is only gonna get soupier.
At that point it's probably no longer be soup, but SOUPer Friends.
I've seen one guy crazy enough to believe this. The Magnus/Morty power couple is one of the lists that needs to stop; personally I think all the primarchs should have a rule where in order to take one 50% of your army should be comprised of their chapter/legion (so no taking Magnus in a 2000 point game unless you spend 585 points on Thousand Sons). You could probably give Celestine this rule, too.
Remember the days when these crazy characters had minimum points limits that was required to field them?
I am all for taking access to IC's away if you're not fielding them in a detachment of their own forces.
Allied detachments are great, since they allow you to field an army while still building it up to strength to field on its own, however, I don't think they've been particularly well implemented.
I'd at least go with having -1 CP for each detachment that contains models that do not share the Regiment keyword of your Warlord.
I've seen one guy crazy enough to believe this. The Magnus/Morty power couple is one of the lists that needs to stop; personally I think all the primarchs should have a rule where in order to take one 50% of your army should be comprised of their chapter/legion (so no taking Magnus in a 2000 point game unless you spend 585 points on Thousand Sons). You could probably give Celestine this rule, too.
Remember the days when these crazy characters had minimum points limits that was required to field them?
I've seen one guy crazy enough to believe this. The Magnus/Morty power couple is one of the lists that needs to stop; personally I think all the primarchs should have a rule where in order to take one 50% of your army should be comprised of their chapter/legion (so no taking Magnus in a 2000 point game unless you spend 585 points on Thousand Sons). You could probably give Celestine this rule, too.
I'd be fine with it if they finally get the damn plastic sisters out. Ugh just wait till the lion shows up soup is only gonna get soupier.
At that point it's probably no longer be soup, but SOUPer Friends.
Dohohoho
Ah yes, those CRAZY characters that needed permission like Coteaz and Nightbringer and Farsight. SUPER crazy characters............very much so
Ah yes, those CRAZY characters that needed permission like Coteaz and Nightbringer and Farsight. SUPER crazy characters............very much so
Coteaz was pretty crazy, at least since he became available for IG to take. I would put him in a big squad with 5 Lascannons and 5 Plasmaguns and use him to deny deep strike near my gunline.
Right now, not so much, but for at least some time, I think he was up there.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I'd at least go with having -1 CP for each detachment that contains models that do not share the Regiment keyword of your Warlord.
Yes, because using the units in your own codex is a heinous crime and should be punished accordingly.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I'd at least go with having -1 CP for each detachment that contains models that do not share the Regiment keyword of your Warlord.
Yes, because using the units in your own codex is a heinous crime and should be punished accordingly.
I assume the same exceptions would apply for ogryns, Fabius Bile, etc as they do currently.
Ah yes, those CRAZY characters that needed permission like Coteaz and Nightbringer and Farsight. SUPER crazy characters............very much so
Coteaz was pretty crazy, at least since he became available for IG to take. I would put him in a big squad with 5 Lascannons and 5 Plasmaguns and use him to deny deep strike near my gunline.
Right now, not so much, but for at least some time, I think he was up there.
And yet when he was back in C: Daemonhunters(where, FYI, he was available for IG to take), we didn't see him being super crazy...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I am all for taking access to IC's away if you're not fielding them in a detachment of their own forces.
Allied detachments are great, since they allow you to field an army while still building it up to strength to field on its own, however, I don't think they've been particularly well implemented.
I'd at least go with having -1 CP for each detachment that contains models that do not share the Regiment keyword of your Warlord.
No. That's stupid for any faction that can have a patchwork make-up(Eldar, Guard, and T'au all have forces that sometimes make up different factions within the same force as an example), and downright ridiculous simply because of things like the Inquisition existing.
Kanluwen wrote: No. That's stupid for any faction that can have a patchwork make-up(Eldar, Guard, and T'au all have forces that sometimes make up different factions within the same force as an example), and downright ridiculous simply because of things like the Inquisition existing.
What's stupid is that there are zero costs to cherry picking the best units from Imperium/Chaos and practically no incentive to run a non-soup army. You can justify Marines and Necrons allying with the fluff, I don't give a gak about your fluff justifications.
Kanluwen wrote: No. That's stupid for any faction that can have a patchwork make-up(Eldar, Guard, and T'au all have forces that sometimes make up different factions within the same force as an example), and downright ridiculous simply because of things like the Inquisition existing.
What's stupid is that there are zero costs to cherry picking the best units from Imperium/Chaos and practically no incentive to run a non-soup army. You can justify Marines and Necrons allying with the fluff, I don't give a gak about your fluff justifications.
Except nobody is really doing soup armies of Imperials and Necrons or Chaos.
Guard, Marines, etc are considered "factions".
In any regards, that's the whole reason keyword "Regiment", "Craftworld", etc exist. It's a penalty for not sticking within a grouping.
GW thought that the keyword system would be enough. They were wrong, especially for factions with extremely cheap HQ slots (Guard and Renegade Guard, for example).
Kanluwen wrote: No. That's stupid for any faction that can have a patchwork make-up(Eldar, Guard, and T'au all have forces that sometimes make up different factions within the same force as an example), and downright ridiculous simply because of things like the Inquisition existing.
What's stupid is that there are zero costs to cherry picking the best units from Imperium/Chaos and practically no incentive to run a non-soup army. You can justify Marines and Necrons allying with the fluff, I don't give a gak about your fluff justifications.
Except nobody is really doing soup armies of Imperials and Necrons or Chaos.
Guard, Marines, etc are considered "factions".
In any regards, that's the whole reason keyword "Regiment", "Craftworld", etc exist. It's a penalty for not sticking within a grouping.
Except they didn't really make the system cost. If the system limited bonuses to the top level keyword, ie get cadian bonus only if all detachments share cadian that would work. Ultimately they probably should have done that and then special ruled things like inquisitors.
Arachnofiend wrote: GW thought that the keyword system would be enough. They were wrong, especially for factions with extremely cheap HQ slots (Guard and Renegade Guard, for example).
Agreed. And what is the point have having keyword "Imperium?" Why not just keyword "Keywordless?"
When you talk about soups, do you mean mixed armies inside a detachement or between detachements? Does fielding, say, one detachement of pure Cadian, one detachement of pure Tallarn and one detachement of pure sisters count as soup?
Ah yes, those CRAZY characters that needed permission like Coteaz and Nightbringer and Farsight. SUPER crazy characters............very much so
Coteaz was pretty crazy, at least since he became available for IG to take. I would put him in a big squad with 5 Lascannons and 5 Plasmaguns and use him to deny deep strike near my gunline.
Right now, not so much, but for at least some time, I think he was up there.
As an excellent purchase but not necessarily auto-take (though with that fluff you'll take the badass every time).
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also you're clearly talking Grey Knights not Daemon Hunters. Which could still ally with Guard so...
Esmer wrote: When you talk about soups, do you mean mixed armies inside a detachement or between detachements? Does fielding, say, one detachement of pure Cadian, one detachement of pure Tallarn and one detachement of pure sisters count as soup?
I would consider that soup, yes. Unfortunately GW underestimated how free-for-all the detachment system is, you can take basically whatever you want as long as you have cheap enough HQ's.
Esmer wrote: When you talk about soups, do you mean mixed armies inside a detachement or between detachements? Does fielding, say, one detachement of pure Cadian, one detachement of pure Tallarn and one detachement of pure sisters count as soup?
I would count that as soup yes.
Soup imo is any army (not detachment) that uses multiple codexes
A detachment is pretty cheap to use if you want to for most armies. Its not hard to write a list with a Sisters detachment, a Marine detachment and a Guard detachment, letting you cherry pick the strongest units while maintaining strong codex traits.
Personally, I'd like to see the Command Point structure rearranged, though this is entirely a pipe dream, this is how I would structure it:
1) Redefine keywords and call out "Base Faction", "Main Faction" and "Subfaction(s)". Base Faction is Imperium, Aeldari, Chaos, etc, allowing for armies to be allied together. Other factions bring different rules.
2) When building an army, you select one "Main Faction" to form your detachment (I.E. Imperial Guard, Orks, Tyranids, etc). The percentage of your army that is that faction determines your Base Command Points: 2 for 25% or more, 3 for 50% or more, 4 for 75% or more, 5 for 100%.
3) Next, your army gets a Multiplier depending on composition. You only get to select one even if you meet multiple, and after multiplying your Base Command Points any fractions are lost. Army is over 33% any battlefield role other than Troops: 1.25. Army is 25% or more Troops: 1.5. Army is 50% or more Troops: 2.
This "Penalizes" allies by instead encouraging faction focus, removes the current "horde army bonus" you get for having spammable options, and achieves some of the effect of the current detachment system without requiring quite as many "tax" units to put your armies on the table.
The data Blacksails linked to includes RTTs, we were discussing GTs. If you want to discuss RTTs i'm certainly willing to do that. But i dominate RTTs with Grey Knights that wouldn't finish in the top 50 in any major event. Because RTT is local meta, just competitive.
In major events, IG has absolutely dominated.
And all these lolbags complaining about Guilliman, when confronted with the Chaos data, still complain about Guilliman, whereas Chaos is performing better - at major events - than Guilliman lists, which is 100% better than any loyalist marine list without Guilliman. Azrael excluded, of course.
Although forgeworld has a big part in that, and GW can't balance FW no matter how much people here will tell you "they're the same company" as if that's supposed to matter in regards to rulesets.
Marmatag wrote: The data Blacksails linked to includes RTTs, we were discussing GTs. If you want to discuss RTTs i'm certainly willing to do that. But i dominate RTTs with Grey Knights that wouldn't finish in the top 50 in any major event. Because RTT is local meta, just competitive.
In major events, IG has absolutely dominated.
And all these lolbags complaining about Guilliman, when confronted with the Chaos data, still complain about Guilliman, whereas Chaos is performing better - at major events - than Guilliman lists, which is 100% better than any loyalist marine list without Guilliman. Azrael excluded, of course.
Although forgeworld has a big part in that, and GW can't balance FW no matter how much people here will tell you "they're the same company" as if that's supposed to matter in regards to rulesets.
Be careful there, you might be accused of moving goalposts even though we were only talking about major events in the first place!
Marmatag wrote: The data Blacksails linked to includes RTTs, we were discussing GTs. If you want to discuss RTTs i'm certainly willing to do that. But i dominate RTTs with Grey Knights that wouldn't finish in the top 50 in any major event. Because RTT is local meta, just competitive.
Look at those goalposts go! I can't even keep up they're zipping around so quickly!
For the record, in this thread, you've mentioned GTs precisely once, and in every single other post, simply mentioned tournaments and ITC events.
Its okay to admit you're wrong. Either that or pony up the data that supports your assertion.
I'll also add that ITC scores only factor in up to 3 RTTs, with the other two scores coming from GTs or above.
In major events, IG has absolutely dominated.
[CITATION NEEDED]
And all these lolbags complaining about Guilliman, when confronted with the Chaos data, still complain about Guilliman, whereas Chaos is performing better - at major events - than Guilliman lists, which is 100% better than any loyalist marine list without Guilliman. Azrael excluded, of course.
I can't wait to see all the threads and posts you'll make about how OP chaos are.
But I'm also sure the irony is lost on you getting upset about being called out on Guilliman.
Marmatag wrote: The data Blacksails linked to includes RTTs, we were discussing GTs. If you want to discuss RTTs i'm certainly willing to do that. But i dominate RTTs with Grey Knights that wouldn't finish in the top 50 in any major event. Because RTT is local meta, just competitive.
In major events, IG has absolutely dominated.
And all these lolbags complaining about Guilliman, when confronted with the Chaos data, still complain about Guilliman, whereas Chaos is performing better - at major events - than Guilliman lists, which is 100% better than any loyalist marine list without Guilliman. Azrael excluded, of course.
Although forgeworld has a big part in that, and GW can't balance FW no matter how much people here will tell you "they're the same company" as if that's supposed to matter in regards to rulesets.
"Here you will find a continually updated list of major Grand Tournament Winner Lists for 8th Edition Warhammer 40k."
This is from the BoK site Blacksails linked.
"Looking at BoK's site, we find that Ultramarines and Space Marines make up 12 entries in top 3, with 4 being 1st place.
IG have 8 entries in the top 3, with 4 being 1st place as well.
To put it in perspective, Chaos Marines and Chaos Daemons have a total of 10 entries in the top 3, with a single 1st place. "
Are there a number of major events that were not listed here? Or is there additional data you would like to show, filtering out the RTTs and showing only GTs? Even disregarding the ITC scoring data set you take issue with, Guard appears to be doing about equal/slightly worse than marines and chaos.
Although forgeworld has a big part in that, and GW can't balance FW no matter how much people here will tell you "they're the same company" as if that's supposed to matter in regards to rulesets.
FW doesnt appear to be a major balance issue in most respects. There are a couple stinkers they borked up on. That always happens. However, FW stuff is still largely relatively rare at competitive events. Chaos appears to be the one faction sporting lots of FW at the competitive level and getting a major boost from it. We're certainly not seeing tons of FW stuff dominating top tables, looking at competitive lists it's basically Malefic Lords, Shadow Spectres, some gun platforms, some Elysian and R&H stuff, and thats about it, a relatively small part of FW's overall offering that people cherrpick.
We certainly didnt see FW dominate 7E, the main GW studio borked that one all on its own, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of isses with 8th arent FW related either (e.g. Conscripts, Celestine, Magnus, Mortarion, RobbyG, etc)
Although forgeworld has a big part in that, and GW can't balance FW no matter how much people here will tell you "they're the same company" as if that's supposed to matter in regards to rulesets.
FW doesnt appear to be a major balance issue in most respects. There are a couple stinkers they borked up on. That always happens. However, FW stuff is still largely relatively rare at competitive events. Chaos appears to be the one faction sporting lots of FW at the competitive level and getting a major boost from it. We're certainly not seeing tons of FW stuff dominating top tables, looking at competitive lists it's basically Malefic Lords, Shadow Spectres, some gun platforms, some Elysian and R&H stuff, and thats about it, a relatively small part of FW's overall offering that people cherrpick.
We certainly didnt see FW dominate 7E, the main GW studio borked that one all on its own, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of isses with 8th arent FW related either (e.g. Conscripts, Celestine, Magnus, Mortarion, RobbyG, etc)
Has Mortarion replaced ARK in the problematic daemon build? I would have thought with how laughably ridiculous he was pre the release of morty he would be a tough guy to shift.
Arachnofiend wrote: GW thought that the keyword system would be enough. They were wrong, especially for factions with extremely cheap HQ slots (Guard and Renegade Guard, for example).
Yup essentially limiting to detachments for Keyword bonuses is not enough to incentivize solo faction armies in any way. The only thing it really does is create a disincentive for taking a single unit from an allied faction as doing so either costs you your faction bonus or 1 CP and a full detachment.
Arachnofiend wrote: GW thought that the keyword system would be enough. They were wrong, especially for factions with extremely cheap HQ slots (Guard and Renegade Guard, for example).
Yup essentially limiting to detachments for Keyword bonuses is not enough to incentivize solo faction armies in any way. The only thing it really does is create a disincentive for taking a single unit from an allied faction as doing so either costs you your faction bonus or 1 CP and a full detachment.
Which literally will not change until you cannot take single units from Allied factions or artificial constructs like "You can only use one Codex when writing your army list" are put into play.
I can take a problem unit like Guilliman or Mortarion or Magnus without needing to take a whole Detachment. They're Lords of War. But being unable/penalized for taking single Lords of War would mean that a Guard army has to take a Supreme Command Detachment to field one of their Codex Superheavies or when Khorne Daemonkin get redone they'd need to do the same in order to field a Lord of Skulls or when AdMech take one of the Knights that got shoved into their book they'd all be in the same boat.
Although forgeworld has a big part in that, and GW can't balance FW no matter how much people here will tell you "they're the same company" as if that's supposed to matter in regards to rulesets.
FW doesnt appear to be a major balance issue in most respects. There are a couple stinkers they borked up on. That always happens. However, FW stuff is still largely relatively rare at competitive events. Chaos appears to be the one faction sporting lots of FW at the competitive level and getting a major boost from it. We're certainly not seeing tons of FW stuff dominating top tables, looking at competitive lists it's basically Malefic Lords, Shadow Spectres, some gun platforms, some Elysian and R&H stuff, and thats about it, a relatively small part of FW's overall offering that people cherrpick.
We certainly didnt see FW dominate 7E, the main GW studio borked that one all on its own, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of isses with 8th arent FW related either (e.g. Conscripts, Celestine, Magnus, Mortarion, RobbyG, etc)
While I will agree that FW isn't a problem with most of their stuff, it should be noted that 95% of FW not being a problem isn't really a solution if that remaining 5% is particularly prolific. Not making any claim about what should be done with FW, just pointing out that most of their stuff being a problem doesn't mean they aren't a key issue. In particular you reference conscripts as an issue, but do note that the majority of damage dealing units in the most up to date AM lists I've seen (though after the FAQ who knows) were earthshaker carriages and elysians.
Although forgeworld has a big part in that, and GW can't balance FW no matter how much people here will tell you "they're the same company" as if that's supposed to matter in regards to rulesets.
FW doesnt appear to be a major balance issue in most respects. There are a couple stinkers they borked up on. That always happens. However, FW stuff is still largely relatively rare at competitive events. Chaos appears to be the one faction sporting lots of FW at the competitive level and getting a major boost from it. We're certainly not seeing tons of FW stuff dominating top tables, looking at competitive lists it's basically Malefic Lords, Shadow Spectres, some gun platforms, some Elysian and R&H stuff, and thats about it, a relatively small part of FW's overall offering that people cherrpick.
We certainly didnt see FW dominate 7E, the main GW studio borked that one all on its own, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of isses with 8th arent FW related either (e.g. Conscripts, Celestine, Magnus, Mortarion, RobbyG, etc)
While I will agree that FW isn't a problem with most of their stuff, it should be noted that 95% of FW not being a problem isn't really a solution if that remaining 5% is particularly prolific. Not making any claim about what should be done with FW, just pointing out that most of their stuff being a problem doesn't mean they aren't a key issue. In particular you reference conscripts as an issue, but do note that the majority of damage dealing units in the most up to date AM lists I've seen (though after the FAQ who knows) were earthshaker carriages and elysians.
That's because the majority of that 95% is unusably BAD. Forgeworld is a balance problem - it just so happens that the stuff that is not a problem in a positive light is a problem in a negative light because the rules are so poorly designed to accomplish what the units are supposed to accomplish.
The only units that function in a basic manner are those that copy so exactly the functions of other existing models that they squeak by.The 8th ed rules from FW have put new meaning to the term "incompetent" - they make base GW look incredibly good, which is a feat.
I've seen one guy crazy enough to believe this. The Magnus/Morty power couple is one of the lists that needs to stop; personally I think all the primarchs should have a rule where in order to take one 50% of your army should be comprised of their chapter/legion (so no taking Magnus in a 2000 point game unless you spend 585 points on Thousand Sons). You could probably give Celestine this rule, too.
Although forgeworld has a big part in that, and GW can't balance FW no matter how much people here will tell you "they're the same company" as if that's supposed to matter in regards to rulesets.
FW doesnt appear to be a major balance issue in most respects. There are a couple stinkers they borked up on. That always happens. However, FW stuff is still largely relatively rare at competitive events. Chaos appears to be the one faction sporting lots of FW at the competitive level and getting a major boost from it. We're certainly not seeing tons of FW stuff dominating top tables, looking at competitive lists it's basically Malefic Lords, Shadow Spectres, some gun platforms, some Elysian and R&H stuff, and thats about it, a relatively small part of FW's overall offering that people cherrpick.
We certainly didnt see FW dominate 7E, the main GW studio borked that one all on its own, and the overwhelmingly vast majority of isses with 8th arent FW related either (e.g. Conscripts, Celestine, Magnus, Mortarion, RobbyG, etc)
While I will agree that FW isn't a problem with most of their stuff, it should be noted that 95% of FW not being a problem isn't really a solution if that remaining 5% is particularly prolific. Not making any claim about what should be done with FW, just pointing out that most of their stuff being a problem doesn't mean they aren't a key issue. In particular you reference conscripts as an issue, but do note that the majority of damage dealing units in the most up to date AM lists I've seen (though after the FAQ who knows) were earthshaker carriages and elysians.
in general however, FW stuff isnt any greater power/balance issue than mainline studio stuff, usually less, which was the main point. Yeah they have some broken stuff, and it should be addressed, but it doesnt appear to have the effect on the game or widespread mass selection that most of the big main studio balance issues do.
The stuff like Earthshaker platforms is more a min maxing issue. Theyre a bit cheaper than an actual Basilisk, but are easier to kill and immobile. It makes them easier to spam, and they're cheap to convert (which contributes to their popularity), but they're also legitimately less valuable than actual Basilisks too, much the same way up armored T7 Armageddon pattern basilisks are more exensive than normal Basilisks.
In the most recent tournament after the codex dropped, the SoCal open, it was:
1. Imperial Guard Featuring the usual combos of taurox prime, plasma scions, conscripts, and Celestine. Even post nerf this list is still #1, because Guard is still number 1 overall.
3. Astra Militarum + Grey Knights It's a typical AM list, but with 3 grand master nemesis dreadknights. Grey Knights are back to being codex: Dreadknight. Typical AM list with plasma scion spam and mortar spam.
4. Ynaari Yncarne, Yvraine, a ton of wave serpents, dark reapers, and guardians
5. Alpha Legion The usual berzerker list, with magnus and malefic lords.
Well we will see how the next couple of tournaments go about then, but just like I said with the Tactical Marine thread...it is one of those rare things that happens so little it might as well not matter.
Marmatag wrote: In the most recent tournament after the codex dropped, the SoCal open, it was:
1. Imperial Guard
Featuring the usual combos of taurox prime, plasma scions, conscripts, and Celestine. Even post nerf this list is still #1, because Guard is still number 1 overall.
3. Astra Militarum + Grey Knights
It's a typical AM list, but with 3 grand master nemesis dreadknights. Grey Knights are back to being codex: Dreadknight. Typical AM list with plasma scion spam and mortar spam.
4. Ynaari
Yncarne, Yvraine, a ton of wave serpents, dark reapers, and guardians
5. Alpha Legion
The usual berzerker list, with magnus and malefic lords.
Marmatag wrote: In the most recent tournament after the codex dropped, the SoCal open, it was:
1. Imperial Guard
Featuring the usual combos of taurox prime, plasma scions, conscripts, and Celestine. Even post nerf this list is still #1, because Guard is still number 1 overall.
So, lets breathe for a second, and then clarify the timeline. This is post-codex, but not "post nerf" (assuming that your definition of "nerf" is the commissar change). Date on the AMFAQ article is 22/10/2017.
Okay, so IG with Celestine and some Seraphim got first. Didn't see the Seraphim coming.
I like it. Probably worked like the 6x5 tac razorspam list did: no one saw it coming. Also, 40 cultists, presumably for a screen. Definitely seeing a trend here.
3. Astra Militarum + Grey Knights
It's a typical AM list, but with 3 grand master nemesis dreadknights. Grey Knights are back to being codex: Dreadknight. Typical AM list with plasma scion spam and mortar spam.
No. Full stop.
It's 1014 points of GK. It's monster mash with three dreadknights and a librarian. There's infantry squads, mortar spam, and only two squads of plasma scions. There's scout sentinels and a fething sniper/GL special weapons squad in there.
I mean, I'll cry right alongside you about how gakky the GK codex is. I have before. I imagine I will again. It's disingenuous to call this "a typical AM list" though when referring to the tournament scene anymore than it is to call it a typical GK list.
4. Ynaari
Yncarne, Yvraine, a ton of wave serpents, dark reapers, and guardians
So that one looks typical enough to me for a Ynarri list. I'm admittedly no expert on Eldar though. I guess we'll see if that gets shaken up enough post-release this weekend.
5. Alpha Legion
The usual berzerker list, with magnus and malefic lords.
Yeah, that's unsurprising from what I can read of it. Wished it wasn't hand-written.
So, is this considered a "GT"? I don't honestly know what the definition is, but I can't find "socal open" and "GT" put together in the same page really anywhere.
From the one photo I could find of people at the SoCal open wrap-up, it looks like it's roughly about the size of if the St. Louis metro scene got together in a room at once, maybe a little larger. So it's a decent sized group probably. Maybe, what, 50-60 people, at least visible, in the picture.
Good break down Daedalus. I didn't bother sifting through the lists as I'm pretty tired from doing from my earlier fact finding adventure, so thanks for the clarification here.
So was there ever supporting evidence provided for this?
I might have missed it.
This though. Where is this.
Oh, and to answer this, there's evidence that IG are a top 3 codex with Marines and Chaos, but nothing to support some hyperbolic assertion that IG are dominating every tournament or are unbeatable, or otherwise sitting on some lone #1 pedestal high above every other army.
Marines are not on the same level as Guard & Chaos. These are the top two, and Guard usually beats Chaos. Taurox primes laugh in the face of brimstones, and conscripts love getting hit by smites.
I would say Guilliman makes marines tier 2, just like the Yncarne makes Eldar tier 2. It's pretty much the same idea and the same thing. You wouldn't say eldar are tier 2. You'd say Ynaari. You wouldn't say marines are tier 2. You'd say Guilliman lists. It's the same damn thing really.
Look guard are a tier 1 army. And they're better, heads up, than the other tier 1 army.
Marmatag wrote:Marines are not on the same level as Guard & Chaos. These are the top two, and Guard usually beats Chaos.
Odd, its almost as if we have tourney data that shows marines meaning as often as Guard, and having higher average ITC scores than Guard. Weird, that must mean...Marines suck right? That must surely be the only logical conclusion.
I would say Guilliman makes marines tier 2, just like the Yncarne makes Eldar tier 2. It's pretty much the same idea and the same thing. You wouldn't say eldar are tier 2. You'd say Ynaari. You wouldn't say marines are tier 2. You'd say Guilliman lists. It's the same damn thing really.
Would then also say that Guard aren't tier 1, only conscripts and scions are? It must be nice only applying standards and logic one way.
Look guard are a tier 1 army. And they're better, heads up, than the other tier 1 army.
Based on...? Your feelings? If only someone had sifted through the tourney data already for you...
Well the whole GK's codex is pretty weak so having a unit like the GMDK in there just doesn't make sense. I agree - Nerf GMDK.
TBH - I am bringing a 1000 point list in a team tornament with 3 GMDK and 3 paladins - should be fun.
I don't care what you do with Grey Knights at this point. They're not a tournament army. One guy lucking into the top 5 with four Grey Knights models doesn't really get me excited about playing them, or buying $500 worth of AM to run a Grey Knights list.
3 GMNDK and 3 paladins would be a fun team tournament list.
Well the whole GK's codex is pretty weak so having a unit like the GMDK in there just doesn't make sense. I agree - Nerf GMDK.
TBH - I am bringing a 1000 point list in a team tornament with 3 GMDK and 3 paladins - should be fun.
I don't care what you do with Grey Knights at this point. They're not a tournament army. One guy lucking into the top 5 with four Grey Knights models doesn't really get me excited about playing them, or buying $500 worth of AM to run a Grey Knights list.
I mean, those 4 grey knight models were half his list.
It's like saying someone with 3 Baneblades got in the top 5 but it's not a real guard army because it's only 3 models.
Marmatag wrote: In the most recent tournament after the codex dropped, the SoCal open, it was:
1. Imperial Guard
Featuring the usual combos of taurox prime, plasma scions, conscripts, and Celestine. Even post nerf this list is still #1, because Guard is still number 1 overall.
So, lets breathe for a second, and then clarify the timeline. This is post-codex, but not "post nerf" (assuming that your definition of "nerf" is the commissar change). Date on the AMFAQ article is 22/10/2017.
Okay, so IG with Celestine and some Seraphim got first. Didn't see the Seraphim coming.
I like it. Probably worked like the 6x5 tac razorspam list did: no one saw it coming. Also, 40 cultists, presumably for a screen. Definitely seeing a trend here.
3. Astra Militarum + Grey Knights
It's a typical AM list, but with 3 grand master nemesis dreadknights. Grey Knights are back to being codex: Dreadknight. Typical AM list with plasma scion spam and mortar spam.
No. Full stop.
It's 1014 points of GK. It's monster mash with three dreadknights and a librarian. There's infantry squads, mortar spam, and only two squads of plasma scions. There's scout sentinels and a fething sniper/GL special weapons squad in there.
I mean, I'll cry right alongside you about how gakky the GK codex is. I have before. I imagine I will again. It's disingenuous to call this "a typical AM list" though when referring to the tournament scene anymore than it is to call it a typical GK list.
4. Ynaari
Yncarne, Yvraine, a ton of wave serpents, dark reapers, and guardians
So that one looks typical enough to me for a Ynarri list. I'm admittedly no expert on Eldar though. I guess we'll see if that gets shaken up enough post-release this weekend.
5. Alpha Legion
The usual berzerker list, with magnus and malefic lords.
Yeah, that's unsurprising from what I can read of it. Wished it wasn't hand-written.
So, is this considered a "GT"? I don't honestly know what the definition is, but I can't find "socal open" and "GT" put together in the same page really anywhere.
From the one photo I could find of people at the SoCal open wrap-up, it looks like it's roughly about the size of if the St. Louis metro scene got together in a room at once, maybe a little larger. So it's a decent sized group probably. Maybe, what, 50-60 people, at least visible, in the picture.
According to best coast pairings So Cal open had 136 players.
It is of note that if we look out the standings we get
6. Ynnari
7. Chaos
8. Chaos
9. Chaos (alpha legion)
10. Aeldari
11. Chaos
12. Astra Millitarum
13. Orks
14. Astra Millitarum (Death Korps)
15. Chaos (alpha legion)
16. Space Marines
17. Astra Millitarum
18. Space Marines (ultra marines)
19. Chaos
19. Death guard.
SO for overall Chaos seems to have done quite a bit better, though AM placed 2 in the top 3. (especially since one of those is half GK)
Chaos had 8 in the top 20, 5 in the top 10, 2 in the top 5
AM had 5 in the top 20, 2 in the top 10, and 2 in the top 5
Based on these results these 2 factions are clearly the top 2 (with an edge to Chaos). Next would be Aeldari (including ynnari) having the next best at 3 in the top 10, but only 3 in the top 20, and 1 in the top 5.
Vaktathi wrote: Its interesting that none of these IG lists are played without allies.
It's nice to have a close combat deterrent. It's the main reason guard ally anything. Not sure why they don't just throw in a shadow-sword instead of an allied force - I guess they are just having fun.
Vaktathi wrote: Its interesting that none of these IG lists are played without allies.
It's nice to have a close combat deterrent. It's the main reason guard ally anything. Not sure why they don't just throw in a shadow-sword instead of an allied force - I guess they are just having fun.
Some of those allied models are beautiful though. I'd run Celestine just because its a great model.
daedalus wrote: Infantry/Scions/HWS alone are probably about $500. I'd imagine it's closer to 650-700 when you add the sentinels and Yarrick, at least.
You'd be saving dat 10 bucks on free shipping though, so that'd be worth it.
So what's the difference between a GT and an RTT anyway? Which one is this considered?
ITC has the criteria, but generally its 30-ish people or less is an RTT, anything bigger is a GT or a Major (major having a minimum threshold of people).
So if this event had more than 30 people, its a GT.
There's other rules like number of rounds to be completed, but the general idea is people attending. It gets weirder when some events call themselves a GT but are listed as an RTT on the ITC page.
Of course non-ITC events can call themselves whatever they want.
SO for overall Chaos seems to have done quite a bit better, though AM placed 2 in the top 3. (especially since one of those is half GK)
Chaos had 8 in the top 20, 5 in the top 10, 2 in the top 5
AM had 5 in the top 20, 2 in the top 10, and 2 in the top 5
Based on these results these 2 factions are clearly the top 2 (with an edge to Chaos). Next would be Aeldari (including ynnari) having the next best at 3 in the top 10, but only 3 in the top 20, and 1 in the top 5.
I'll concede the 1st place as being AM, but I'm still unwilling to accept the list with the majority of points in GK (that is, 3rd place) being referred to as an AM list.
I like that breakdown otherwise. Does anyone have this depth of data for Heat 1 of the GW tournament?
Well the whole GK's codex is pretty weak so having a unit like the GMDK in there just doesn't make sense. I agree - Nerf GMDK.
TBH - I am bringing a 1000 point list in a team tornament with 3 GMDK and 3 paladins - should be fun.
I don't care what you do with Grey Knights at this point. They're not a tournament army. One guy lucking into the top 5 with four Grey Knights models doesn't really get me excited about playing them, or buying $500 worth of AM to run a Grey Knights list.
3 GMNDK and 3 paladins would be a fun team tournament list.
Well it's a team tournament so and I'm going to be allied with admech running 5 robots and cawl and some chaff. I think we have a pretty good chance to win it. It will be 16 or less teams. I don't disillusion myself though. If there are a ton of IG players we will lose quickly.
SO for overall Chaos seems to have done quite a bit better, though AM placed 2 in the top 3. (especially since one of those is half GK)
Chaos had 8 in the top 20, 5 in the top 10, 2 in the top 5
AM had 5 in the top 20, 2 in the top 10, and 2 in the top 5
Based on these results these 2 factions are clearly the top 2 (with an edge to Chaos). Next would be Aeldari (including ynnari) having the next best at 3 in the top 10, but only 3 in the top 20, and 1 in the top 5.
I'll concede the 1st place as being AM, but I'm still unwilling to accept the list with the majority of points in GK (that is, 3rd place) being referred to as an AM list.
I like that breakdown otherwise. Does anyone have this depth of data for Heat 1 of the GW tournament?
Majority is very narrow, it isn't pure AM, but about half. SO it is a soup list that is heavy in AM.
Marmatag wrote:Marines are not on the same level as Guard & Chaos. These are the top two, and Guard usually beats Chaos.
Odd, its almost as if we have tourney data that shows marines meaning as often as Guard, and having higher average ITC scores than Guard. Weird, that must mean...Marines suck right? That must surely be the only logical conclusion.
SO for overall Chaos seems to have done quite a bit better, though AM placed 2 in the top 3. (especially since one of those is half GK) Chaos had 8 in the top 20, 5 in the top 10, 2 in the top 5 AM had 5 in the top 20, 2 in the top 10, and 2 in the top 5
Based on these results these 2 factions are clearly the top 2 (with an edge to Chaos). Next would be Aeldari (including ynnari) having the next best at 3 in the top 10, but only 3 in the top 20, and 1 in the top 5.
I'll concede the 1st place as being AM, but I'm still unwilling to accept the list with the majority of points in GK (that is, 3rd place) being referred to as an AM list.
I like that breakdown otherwise. Does anyone have this depth of data for Heat 1 of the GW tournament?
Majority is very narrow, it isn't pure AM, but about half. SO it is a soup list that is heavy in AM.
About as heavy in AM as it is in GK, surely? In fact, heavier in GK, even by the narrowest of margins.
I still remember the hope this forum had that 8th would be the balanced edition, that GW finally learned how to design a good game.
Well, in the mid level the game is much better balanced than before. The high competitive end? Well. Even X-wing, Infinity and Warmahordes, as balanced as they are, have 3-4 meta builds that you play or you are called a moron if you try to use them in a competitive tournament.
Of course, you always have the kind of pro-player that brings a completely anti-meta lists (league of legends is a good example of this, tournament players are famous for using builds with their heroes that nobody tought where actually any good), and then those lists become meta.
One great example was the blue-ezreal build. Nobody used that, everybody tought Ezreal was a crappy character. One pro-player used that list in a tournament, the next 6 months you had 1 Ezreal minimun in every game with the blue-Ezreal build.
Majority is very narrow, it isn't pure AM, but about half. SO it is a soup list that is heavy in AM.
Yeah, majority of, like, 14 points was it? I wouldn't have brought it up were it not to draw attention to how literally silly it is to call it an AM list.
SO for overall Chaos seems to have done quite a bit better, though AM placed 2 in the top 3. (especially since one of those is half GK)
Chaos had 8 in the top 20, 5 in the top 10, 2 in the top 5
AM had 5 in the top 20, 2 in the top 10, and 2 in the top 5
Based on these results these 2 factions are clearly the top 2 (with an edge to Chaos). Next would be Aeldari (including ynnari) having the next best at 3 in the top 10, but only 3 in the top 20, and 1 in the top 5.
I'll concede the 1st place as being AM, but I'm still unwilling to accept the list with the majority of points in GK (that is, 3rd place) being referred to as an AM list.
I like that breakdown otherwise. Does anyone have this depth of data for Heat 1 of the GW tournament?
Majority is very narrow, it isn't pure AM, but about half. SO it is a soup list that is heavy in AM.
About as heavy in AM as it is in GK, surely? In fact, heavier in GK, even by the narrowest of margins.
True, I would need to really know how the list played, I don't think points are the only thing that decide how "heavy" something is. If the 3 Dreadknights were what were doing a majority of the work then I would agree, but I'm thought is that is likely not the case. But I could be wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Should also point out that the "AM List with GK" literally has a GK character as a Warlord.
Yes because being "GK" primary lets that player compete for best GK instead of best AM in the ITC.
SO for overall Chaos seems to have done quite a bit better, though AM placed 2 in the top 3. (especially since one of those is half GK) Chaos had 8 in the top 20, 5 in the top 10, 2 in the top 5 AM had 5 in the top 20, 2 in the top 10, and 2 in the top 5
Based on these results these 2 factions are clearly the top 2 (with an edge to Chaos). Next would be Aeldari (including ynnari) having the next best at 3 in the top 10, but only 3 in the top 20, and 1 in the top 5.
I'll concede the 1st place as being AM, but I'm still unwilling to accept the list with the majority of points in GK (that is, 3rd place) being referred to as an AM list.
I like that breakdown otherwise. Does anyone have this depth of data for Heat 1 of the GW tournament?
Majority is very narrow, it isn't pure AM, but about half. SO it is a soup list that is heavy in AM.
About as heavy in AM as it is in GK, surely? In fact, heavier in GK, even by the narrowest of margins.
True, I would need to really know how the list played, I don't think points are the only thing that decide how "heavy" something is. If the 3 Dreadknights were what were doing a majority of the work then I would agree, but I'm thought is that is likely not the case. But I could be wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Should also point out that the "AM List with GK" literally has a GK character as a Warlord.
Yes because being "GK" primary lets that player compete for best GK instead of best AM in the ITC.
I mean, do you think 1014 points of his list was sitting on its hands?
I suspect that 986 points of even IG cannot withstand the attentions of a 2000 point army, nor can it leverage enough punishment to overcome the deficit in points. The 1014 points was obviously not just like, sitting in the corner with its dick in its hands.
1. I called it AM + GK, which is a combination of both. It's basically 50/50. To call it a Grey Knights list is wrong, to call it an AM list is wrong, so i used both.
2. Of course they call the list GK, because that allows them to potentially land "Best Grey Knights Player" for the year. In case you didn't know, GK are one of the worst rated factions in the ITC this season.
It makes logical sense that people would soup GK into their AM for some psychic defense and offense, with Chaos being the only other real tier 1 army.
Where are the Guilliman lists in this tourney? You already know the answer, but you don't want to admit it.
SO for overall Chaos seems to have done quite a bit better, though AM placed 2 in the top 3. (especially since one of those is half GK)
Chaos had 8 in the top 20, 5 in the top 10, 2 in the top 5
AM had 5 in the top 20, 2 in the top 10, and 2 in the top 5
Based on these results these 2 factions are clearly the top 2 (with an edge to Chaos). Next would be Aeldari (including ynnari) having the next best at 3 in the top 10, but only 3 in the top 20, and 1 in the top 5.
I'll concede the 1st place as being AM, but I'm still unwilling to accept the list with the majority of points in GK (that is, 3rd place) being referred to as an AM list.
I like that breakdown otherwise. Does anyone have this depth of data for Heat 1 of the GW tournament?
Majority is very narrow, it isn't pure AM, but about half. SO it is a soup list that is heavy in AM.
Uhh, if I recall that list was led by a GK as the warlord and was over half GK. So not really an AM list at all.
SO for overall Chaos seems to have done quite a bit better, though AM placed 2 in the top 3. (especially since one of those is half GK)
Chaos had 8 in the top 20, 5 in the top 10, 2 in the top 5
AM had 5 in the top 20, 2 in the top 10, and 2 in the top 5
Based on these results these 2 factions are clearly the top 2 (with an edge to Chaos). Next would be Aeldari (including ynnari) having the next best at 3 in the top 10, but only 3 in the top 20, and 1 in the top 5.
I'll concede the 1st place as being AM, but I'm still unwilling to accept the list with the majority of points in GK (that is, 3rd place) being referred to as an AM list.
I like that breakdown otherwise. Does anyone have this depth of data for Heat 1 of the GW tournament?
Majority is very narrow, it isn't pure AM, but about half. SO it is a soup list that is heavy in AM.
About as heavy in AM as it is in GK, surely? In fact, heavier in GK, even by the narrowest of margins.
True, I would need to really know how the list played, I don't think points are the only thing that decide how "heavy" something is. If the 3 Dreadknights were what were doing a majority of the work then I would agree, but I'm thought is that is likely not the case. But I could be wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Should also point out that the "AM List with GK" literally has a GK character as a Warlord.
Yes because being "GK" primary lets that player compete for best GK instead of best AM in the ITC.
I mean, do you think 1014 points of his list was sitting on its hands?
I suspect that 986 points of even IG cannot withstand the attentions of a 2000 point army, nor can it leverage enough punishment to overcome the deficit in points. The 1014 points was obviously not just like, sitting in the corner with its dick in its hands.
No I don't think it was doing nothing, but I think it might have mostly been a huge distraction for the opponent rather than the meat of his killing power. Again I have no idea.
SO for overall Chaos seems to have done quite a bit better, though AM placed 2 in the top 3. (especially since one of those is half GK)
Chaos had 8 in the top 20, 5 in the top 10, 2 in the top 5
AM had 5 in the top 20, 2 in the top 10, and 2 in the top 5
Based on these results these 2 factions are clearly the top 2 (with an edge to Chaos). Next would be Aeldari (including ynnari) having the next best at 3 in the top 10, but only 3 in the top 20, and 1 in the top 5.
I'll concede the 1st place as being AM, but I'm still unwilling to accept the list with the majority of points in GK (that is, 3rd place) being referred to as an AM list.
I like that breakdown otherwise. Does anyone have this depth of data for Heat 1 of the GW tournament?
Majority is very narrow, it isn't pure AM, but about half. SO it is a soup list that is heavy in AM.
Uhh, if I recall that list was led by a GK as the warlord and was over half GK. So not really an AM list at all.
I don't get the attachment to the warlord. Who cares, as often as not that warlord was probably denying warlord points.
Marmatag wrote: It makes logical sense that people would soup GK into their AM for some psychic defense and offense, with Chaos being the only other real tier 1 army.
No it doesn't. AM have the bestest psykers in the game, and for only 15 or 40 points. Makes no sense at all. I've seen GK players repeat that enough it can't be wrong. Even then, the difference surely couldn't be worth losing 1014 points of conscripts, right?
Where are the Guilliman lists in this tourney? You already know the answer, but you don't want to admit it.
That is clearly a GK list with AM back up to fill the chaff role. Everything Imperial gets better with AM chaff. The question is whether to bother with that or go pure AM.
Didn't we just have a discussion in another thread where I brought up that GK might do Psychic better than AM, and a GK player came and told me how wrong I was?
Seems kinda weird now they're saying GK is needed as a Psychic defense and offense for a list that supposidly does Psychic better.
Marmatag wrote: It makes logical sense that people would soup GK into their AM for some psychic defense and offense, with Chaos being the only other real tier 1 army.
No it doesn't. AM have the bestest psykers in the game, and for only 15 or 40 points. Makes no sense at all. I've seen GK players repeat that enough it can't be wrong. Even then, the difference surely couldn't be worth losing 1014 points of conscripts, right?
Where are the Guilliman lists in this tourney? You already know the answer, but you don't want to admit it.
I don't get the attachment to the warlord. Who cares, as often as not that warlord was probably denying warlord points.
You don't get those traits and relics that are said to be gamebreakingly good.
Why can't they take relics. Sure they cannot take the warlord trait, but surely they can have relics. Also good chance this list was done and practiced prior to the new book for AM, so last minute changes are bad.
Well the whole GK's codex is pretty weak so having a unit like the GMDK in there just doesn't make sense. I agree - Nerf GMDK.
TBH - I am bringing a 1000 point list in a team tornament with 3 GMDK and 3 paladins - should be fun.
I don't care what you do with Grey Knights at this point. They're not a tournament army. One guy lucking into the top 5 with four Grey Knights models doesn't really get me excited about playing them, or buying $500 worth of AM to run a Grey Knights list.
I mean, those 4 grey knight models were half his list.
It's like saying someone with 3 Baneblades got in the top 5 but it's not a real guard army because it's only 3 models.
I think you could make a legit argument on either side.
Why can't they take relics. Sure they cannot take the warlord trait, but surely they can have relics. Also good chance this list was done and practiced prior to the new book for AM, so last minute changes are bad.
Codex: Astra Militarium, page 138:
I assume there's something similar at the top of all the relic sections in each codex. I can't be bothered to confirm.
Maybe he was thinking he could do 12 mortal wounds to a daemon primarch with his GK portion? I mean i dunno. The list is measurably weaker than the typical winning AM list. The best answer would be he's trying to get "Best Grey Knights player" for 2017.
Marmatag wrote: Maybe he was thinking he could do 12 mortal wounds to a daemon primarch with his GK portion? I mean i dunno. The list is measurably weaker than the typical winning AM list. The best answer would be he's trying to get "Best Grey Knights player" for 2017.
You can tell it's measurably weaker than the typical winning AM list because it probably beat a ton of copies of that AM list in its climb up the rankings.
Oh wait. That means it's stronger not weaker. Silly me.
Why can't they take relics. Sure they cannot take the warlord trait, but surely they can have relics. Also good chance this list was done and practiced prior to the new book for AM, so last minute changes are bad.
Codex: Astra Militarium, page 138:
I assume there's something similar at the top of all the relic sections in each codex. I can't be bothered to confirm.
I have heard people say that even if your warlord is not an Guard character you can buy Guard relics with Command Points anyway.
So no need to waste your warlord on a Guard model and instead you can make a dreadknight beatstick better.
The reason he took a GMDK warlord is because the greyknight warlord trait that allows for reroll charges is basically mandatory for greyknights models. It increases your chance of charging turn 1 to about 40%.
The synergy between GK and AM is huge. GK stratgems are awesome but they can't produce the command points. AM can produce command points but don't have anything particularly great to spend them on (nor do they need to anyways). GK's also need backfeild units so they can deepstrike their heavy elements into battle - AM no only offers backfeild - they offer OP as feth backfield units which are even more important to kill than your GMDK. What do GK offer AM they couldn't get on their own? Nothing really - the GK could be removed and units within their own codex will fill the hole equally well or better in most cases. For the cost of those GKGM - you could include 5 russ commanders and just blow your enemy up turn 1. I fail to see any advantage of not going full guard.
Xenomancers wrote: The reason he took a GMDK warlord is because the greyknight warlord trait that allows for reroll charges is basically mandatory for greyknights models. It increases your chance of charging turn 1 to about 40%.
The synergy between GK and AM is huge. GK stratgems are awesome but they can't produce the command points. AM can produce command points but don't have anything particularly great to spend them on (nor do they need to anyways). GK's also need backfeild units so they can deepstrike their heavy elements into battle - AM no only offers backfeild - they offer OP as feth backfield units which are even more important to kill than your GMDK. What do GK offer AM they couldn't get on their own? Nothing really - the GK could be removed and units within their own codex will fill the hole equally well or better in most cases. For the cost of those GKGM - you could include 5 russ commanders and just blow your enemy up turn 1. I fail to see any advantage of not going full guard.
I'd pass on the Russ Commanders. They still aren't good.]
A GMNDK definitely could have some purpose for the Guard, but he'd need supporting assets from his own book, and I'd be hesitant to invest in any real backup for him.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: I probably should point out that the warlord wasn't the Grand Master in Dreadknight. It was the Librarian.
Well - it produces the same affect - though - I use the DKGM because his base is bigger and gives me more bubble range. I fully expect for my warlord to die when I play GK - so hiding my Warlord just doesn't make sense - kind of like it also doesn't make sense to include a GK librarian EVER. A paladin ancient or a brother captain is better in every way in this supreme command setup. In all honesty he'd be better with a unit of 3 paladins than any-other HQ or elite choice anyways.
I have heard people say that even if your warlord is not an Guard character you can buy Guard relics with Command Points anyway.
I have mixed feelings about that, but that'd fall into a YMDC thread. I don't hold up games at tournaments with rules questions normally, but I probably be asking the TO about that one pretty quickly.
So no need to waste your warlord on a Guard model and instead you can make a dreadknight beatstick better.
Actually, the librarian is warlord. Looks like he went with First to the Fray, which is probably what I would have done.
I'm guessing that he played it smart, and used all the mortars to clean out any enemy screens that came along, leaving nothing for the enemy long range stuff to really shoot at, and then deep struck when it was clear, going all in for the melee the moment they hit the table. Scions and GMDK weapons poke holes in transports if needed, and then whatever is convenient/closest gets assaulted.
Powers on the libby were GoI and Sanctuary. GoI is a no brainer. I don't know if I get sanctuary though, but I'm not sure I could pick a better one since the GMDK had most of the others.
I also don't get the SWS, but maybe that was just a point filler with things he had painted already?
Marmatag wrote: Maybe he was thinking he could do 12 mortal wounds to a daemon primarch with his GK portion? I mean i dunno. The list is measurably weaker than the typical winning AM list. The best answer would be he's trying to get "Best Grey Knights player" for 2017.
You can tell it's measurably weaker than the typical winning AM list because it probably beat a ton of copies of that AM list in its climb up the rankings.
Oh wait. That means it's stronger not weaker. Silly me.
No, its because it has MARINES in it Unit.
If an army has IG in it, that makes it a stronger list. But if you include marines, and beat IG, that means your list is weak and you won through pure chance and/or application of superior intelligence.
Life is so much more calming and relaxing when any data, no matter whether or not it supports the hypothesis, can be made to support the hypothesis through wanting it to.
This is the second time I've seen Xenomancers say a high-placing list at a tournament has a unit that is irredeemably bad and has no possible reason to be in a list.
I am beginning to question his understanding of Warhammer 40,000.
Unit1126PLL wrote: This is the second time I've seen Xenomancers say a high-placing list at a tournament has a unit that is irredeemably bad and has no possible reason to be in a list.
I am beginning to question his understanding of Warhammer 40,000.
It's really weird to me, because he seems to genuinely get it in the first half of the of the statement, but then the second half somehow arrives at the utterly opposite conclusion from the reality of the tournament's outcome.
Xenomancers wrote: The reason he took a GMDK warlord is because the greyknight warlord trait that allows for reroll charges is basically mandatory for greyknights models. It increases your chance of charging turn 1 to about 40%.
The synergy between GK and AM is huge. GK stratgems are awesome but they can't produce the command points. AM can produce command points but don't have anything particularly great to spend them on (nor do they need to anyways). GK's also need backfeild units so they can deepstrike their heavy elements into battle - AM no only offers backfeild - they offer OP as feth backfield units which are even more important to kill than your GMDK. What do GK offer AM they couldn't get on their own? Nothing really - the GK could be removed and units within their own codex will fill the hole equally well or better in most cases. For the cost of those GKGM - you could include 5 russ commanders and just blow your enemy up turn 1. I fail to see any advantage of not going full guard.
I'd pass on the Russ Commanders. They still aren't good.]
A GMNDK definitely could have some purpose for the Guard, but he'd need supporting assets from his own book, and I'd be hesitant to invest in any real backup for him.
That's the thing that's great about GMDK - they don't need support - they support themselves. It would be great to surround themselves with strike squad marines but that's just to expensive. How are LR commanders not good? With a huge AM army in front of them they will never get assaulted. They have T8 and 12 wounds which is respectable and their firepower is pretty much better than any tank near their point cost...A battle cannon with 2d6str 8 ap-2 d3 damage shots is great vs everything. Throw on a las cannon and 2 HB and a stubber for good messure. Just table armies. Is it really much better than a manticore? Not by much but they edge them out with use orders and strategems. That's saying a lot too - manticores are one of the biggest problem units in the game.
Unit1126PLL wrote: This is the second time I've seen Xenomancers say a high-placing list at a tournament has a unit that is irredeemably bad and has no possible reason to be in a list.
I am beginning to question his understanding of Warhammer 40,000.
It's really weird to me, because he seems to genuinely get it in the first half of the of the statement, but then the second half somehow arrives at the utterly opposite conclusion from the reality of the tournament's outcome.
I get it man. GK work great with AM. It doesn't change the fact that AM can be just as good and maybe even better just by using their own units. GKGM are really good - if greyknights could ignore the deployment rules and deepstrike their whole army they would be a top tier army. It would just be a bunch of GMGM and strike squad marines running around though. I am bitter about it but I can remain objective - GK are worthless without AM and AM can beat the best soup list you can come up with easily. It's just the way it is man. Why you pay less for your units to get more that's just the end result.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: This is the second time I've seen Xenomancers say a high-placing list at a tournament has a unit that is irredeemably bad and has no possible reason to be in a list.
I am beginning to question his understanding of Warhammer 40,000.
If you think I'm talking out of my butt - go to the GK tactics form and see what actual GK players think about librarians.
Marmatag wrote: Maybe he was thinking he could do 12 mortal wounds to a daemon primarch with his GK portion? I mean i dunno. The list is measurably weaker than the typical winning AM list. The best answer would be he's trying to get "Best Grey Knights player" for 2017.
You can tell it's measurably weaker than the typical winning AM list because it probably beat a ton of copies of that AM list in its climb up the rankings.
Oh wait. That means it's stronger not weaker. Silly me.
I just wanted to highlight a giant assumption.
Back to your regularly scheduled defending of the editions most op faction.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: If the local shop mislabels the Dreadknights again, I am totally making an army of them. I just need to fix the dang baby carrier.
Yeah it's the same thing for russes too. They should be called LR commanders as well.
master of ordinance wrote: So, how have people been doing with the Guard post-FAQ? Is anything standing out as really strong or really weak?
Comissars are a serious threat to your own infantry - I've just dropped them and replaced them with ministorum priests (I'm using Catachan) to avoid any more 3 models masscares from the double tap. If not running catachans you can probably swap a regimental standard into your command squad and still be good & save points.
I stopped using conscripts after the first nerf, but the other IG players is still using them. Commisars summary execution has the least effect on conscript squads, so his list hasn't changed much. I suspect he'll eventually go the standard 40pt squad route like me pretty soon. The extra BS is completly worth the points and it's safer to have your morale checks in smaller squads that are more immune to running.
Leman Russ tanks are the hotness right now - Vanquishers are still terrible all or nothing units, but the battle cannon is shining. As a Catachan player I've largely started using the D6 attack options (battle cannon, plasma cannon, etc.)
Hellhounds are still fantastic. They get to reroll one of their attack dice in catachan so they've been pure money for me.
The standard infantry flamer is still only getting used when AM is charged, but vicious traps is nice. Despite all the fear of ambush, no one has picked tallarn for their long term AM regiment
Heh. Only comment from that spiky bits article about the army lists:
If Justin Gibbs was running Grey Knights because he took a supreme command of them behind a conscript + yarrik wall, then that alpha legion list should have been filed under "malefic lord" or "cheeky psychic gits"
daedalus wrote: Heh. Only comment from that spiky bits article about the army lists:
If Justin Gibbs was running Grey Knights because he took a supreme command of them behind a conscript + yarrik wall, then that alpha legion list should have been filed under "malefic lord" or "cheeky psychic gits"
I fething hate the 40k community.
Hate the game not the community. The community wanted a balanced game and that's not what they got. Imperial armies that don't include a core of AM are not viable. people are upset about it.
daedalus wrote: Heh. Only comment from that spiky bits article about the army lists:
If Justin Gibbs was running Grey Knights because he took a supreme command of them behind a conscript + yarrik wall, then that alpha legion list should have been filed under "malefic lord" or "cheeky psychic gits"
I fething hate the 40k community.
Hate the game not the community. The community wanted a balanced game and that's not what they got. Imperial armies that don't include a core of AM are not viable. people are upset about it.
by this standard seemingly few or no IG armies are winning events without allies and bits from other armies either...
The big consistent thing is, much like 7th, superfriends lists exploiting synergies that were not intended because armies are still designed as self contained forces but can be taken and built ala-carte from anywhere.
daedalus wrote: Heh. Only comment from that spiky bits article about the army lists:
If Justin Gibbs was running Grey Knights because he took a supreme command of them behind a conscript + yarrik wall, then that alpha legion list should have been filed under "malefic lord" or "cheeky psychic gits"
I fething hate the 40k community.
Hate the game not the community. The community wanted a balanced game and that's not what they got. Imperial armies that don't include a core of AM are not viable. people are upset about it.
by this standard seemingly few or no IG armies are winning events without allies and bits from other armies either...
The big consistent thing is, much like 7th, superfriends lists exploiting synergies that were not intended because armies are still designed as self contained forces but can be taken and built ala-carte from anywhere.
Give it time. A lot of these results are pre codex before literally every unit in the IG codex got buffed. I have a pretty good knowledge of imperial armies. I'd be hard pressed to include anything but AM units at this point if I was playing strictly to win. It's also fair to assume that a lot of the people playing AM with allies actually prefer to play the army they are allying AM with.
daedalus wrote: Heh. Only comment from that spiky bits article about the army lists:
If Justin Gibbs was running Grey Knights because he took a supreme command of them behind a conscript + yarrik wall, then that alpha legion list should have been filed under "malefic lord" or "cheeky psychic gits"
I fething hate the 40k community.
Hate the game not the community. The community wanted a balanced game and that's not what they got. Imperial armies that don't include a core of AM are not viable. people are upset about it.
Fine. Be upset. Do you see how irrationally blind that emotion is making people though?
The list he's complaining about is that GK/AM list we've been discussing. This one:
Spoiler:
It's on the page he made the comment, that he's referring to by the player's name. He looks at that list and he sees conscripts in that list. He must. I don't see any conscripts in that list. Do you? He thinks that the GK faction is going to be hiding behind the conscripts (that don't exist in the list). Stop and seriously think about that for a while.
He's so completely lost in his own paralyzing fixation on this imaginary movie playing through his head about things he thinks he knows about IG. He's SO fixated on these things that he "knows" to be true that he literally can't see that they're entirely inapplicable to the list.
It's cemented my thought from some time ago. There's nothing that could be done with or to the AM codex at this point that would change the movie people have playing in their brains convincing them that it's unstoppable. It's stopped being a topic of conversation, and it's a bullet point utterly solidified by faith. It's a religion.
Hate the game not the community. The community wanted a balanced game and that's not what they got. Imperial armies that don't include a core of AM are not viable. people are upset about it.
Well, I mean except for Space Marines, Sisters of Battle, AdMech. All of which traditionally don't need AM Infantry in their list to work.
Inquisition/Assassins needs AM since they lack valid troop choices. Grey Knights have always benefitted from including a cheaper faction and would probably be loading up on space marines if you succeed in nerfing AM to uselessness.
Hate the game not the community. The community wanted a balanced game and that's not what they got. Imperial armies that don't include a core of AM are not viable. people are upset about it.
Well, I mean except for Space Marines, Sisters of Battle, AdMech. All of which traditionally don't need AM Infantry in their list to work.
Inquisition/Assassins needs AM since they lack valid troop choices. Grey Knights have always benefitted from including a cheaper faction and would probably be loading up on space marines if you succeed in nerfing AM to uselessness.
Am I forgetting a faction?
You seem to be forgetting that AM infantry are hands down better than those other armies infantry. Also - space marine infantry is trash.
daedalus wrote: Heh. Only comment from that spiky bits article about the army lists:
If Justin Gibbs was running Grey Knights because he took a supreme command of them behind a conscript + yarrik wall, then that alpha legion list should have been filed under "malefic lord" or "cheeky psychic gits"
I fething hate the 40k community.
Hate the game not the community. The community wanted a balanced game and that's not what they got. Imperial armies that don't include a core of AM are not viable. people are upset about it.
Thank you. I didn't sign up to play Astra Militarum.
daedalus wrote: Heh. Only comment from that spiky bits article about the army lists:
If Justin Gibbs was running Grey Knights because he took a supreme command of them behind a conscript + yarrik wall, then that alpha legion list should have been filed under "malefic lord" or "cheeky psychic gits"
I fething hate the 40k community.
Hate the game not the community. The community wanted a balanced game and that's not what they got. Imperial armies that don't include a core of AM are not viable. people are upset about it.
Fine. Be upset. Do you see how irrationally blind that emotion is making people though?
The list he's complaining about is that GK/AM list we've been discussing. This one:
Spoiler:
It's on the page he made the comment, that he's referring to by the player's name. He looks at that list and he sees conscripts in that list. He must. I don't see any conscripts in that list. Do you? He thinks that the GK faction is going to be hiding behind the conscripts (that don't exist in the list). Stop and seriously think about that for a while.
He's so completely lost in his own paralyzing fixation on this imaginary movie playing through his head about things he thinks he knows about IG. He's SO fixated on these things that he "knows" to be true that he literally can't see that they're entirely inapplicable to the list.
It's cemented my thought from some time ago. There's nothing that could be done with or to the AM codex at this point that would change the movie people have playing in their brains convincing them that it's unstoppable. It's stopped being a topic of conversation, and it's a bullet point utterly solidified by faith. It's a religion.
I understand your frustration with people- realistically though the guy isn't wrong - Just about every unit in the AM codex is under-pointed so just sub conscripts with infantry and his point is the same. Though seeing some of the eldar reviews now - I think this is the standard going forward. GK and space marines just got left out of having a viable codex except for maybe 1 viable build each. (AM robots spam - Guilliman - supreme command GMDK) hopefully this will all be fixed with chapter approved. BTW when the eldar codex drops a lot of heat will come off AM. Eldar has a lot of units dropping 30-40% in cost.
Hate the game not the community. The community wanted a balanced game and that's not what they got. Imperial armies that don't include a core of AM are not viable. people are upset about it.
Well, I mean except for Space Marines, Sisters of Battle, AdMech. All of which traditionally don't need AM Infantry in their list to work.
Inquisition/Assassins needs AM since they lack valid troop choices. Grey Knights have always benefitted from including a cheaper faction and would probably be loading up on space marines if you succeed in nerfing AM to uselessness.
Am I forgetting a faction?
You seem to be forgetting that AM infantry are hands down better than those other armies infantry. Also - space marine infantry is trash.
Wheren't Scouts pretty damm good by your own metrics?
More Dakka wrote: I read that the FW Conqueror and Annihilator LR tanks now have access to the shoots twice Grinding Advance rules, can anyone verify this?
I tried asking in the AM Tactics thread but that's become a cluster-feth since the FAQ nerfed conscripts back to the stoneage.
Wasn't aware there was a FW erratas. However - in any case unless they can be LR commanders they will never be picked.
Thank you. I didn't sign up to play Astra Militarum.
Me either! I signed up to play Daemonhunters. That codex that had stormtroopers, chimeras, and inducted imperial guard! Oooh man though, was there ever that awesome Grey Knight codex in 5th. The one that had acolytes. They weren't guard, which was sad, but they were still pretty cool. Lotta people started playing then. Of course, it was weird that they took away the storm troo... oh hey, there's allies in 6th edition! That's kinda cool!
I'm... not going to continue this, but my point is this: Grey Knights, in particular, out of all of the marine codexes, are special. They've ALWAYS had access to cheap screening units, and through a lot of it, it was actually IG units. Have they always NEEDED it? No, not especially. This edition they admittedly need it more.
The issue here is a fundamental unwillingness to accept that Codex: Whatever has now turned into Codex: Imperium. You might or might not like it, but it's here, and looking back on previous editions, I don't think it's going anywhere really, especially for GK.
daedalus wrote: Heh. Only comment from that spiky bits article about the army lists:
If Justin Gibbs was running Grey Knights because he took a supreme command of them behind a conscript + yarrik wall, then that alpha legion list should have been filed under "malefic lord" or "cheeky psychic gits"
I fething hate the 40k community.
Hate the game not the community. The community wanted a balanced game and that's not what they got. Imperial armies that don't include a core of AM are not viable. people are upset about it.
by this standard seemingly few or no IG armies are winning events without allies and bits from other armies either...
The big consistent thing is, much like 7th, superfriends lists exploiting synergies that were not intended because armies are still designed as self contained forces but can be taken and built ala-carte from anywhere.
Give it time. A lot of these results are pre codex before literally every unit in the IG codex got buffed.
wait...did my Hydras and Chimeras get buffs and suddenly become good?
Oh wait, nope...
Even many of those that got buffs still arent seeing tables (like half the Russ variants).
I guess we'll see moving forward, but from the data at hand the issue appears far more that allies are the issue in general across all armies, rather thn IG being a single standout powerbox.
It's also fair to assume that a lot of the people playing AM with allies actually prefer to play the army they are allying AM with.
Most of these people playing power lists have little such army loyalty and simply buy, build, and play whatever they find powerful and fun themselves. More to the point, even if we are accepting this argument, it goes equally well for IG which are seemingly always including elements from other armies as well and not just playing straight IG either...
daedalus wrote: Heh. Only comment from that spiky bits article about the army lists:
If Justin Gibbs was running Grey Knights because he took a supreme command of them behind a conscript + yarrik wall, then that alpha legion list should have been filed under "malefic lord" or "cheeky psychic gits"
I fething hate the 40k community.
Hate the game not the community. The community wanted a balanced game and that's not what they got. Imperial armies that don't include a core of AM are not viable. people are upset about it.
Thank you. I didn't sign up to play Astra Militarum.
Then don't...?
Like...seriously.
Nobody is forcing you to, and by the same theme, all of these IG lists are having to include elements of other armies themselves...
Hate the game not the community. The community wanted a balanced game and that's not what they got. Imperial armies that don't include a core of AM are not viable. people are upset about it.
Well, I mean except for Space Marines, Sisters of Battle, AdMech. All of which traditionally don't need AM Infantry in their list to work.
Inquisition/Assassins needs AM since they lack valid troop choices. Grey Knights have always benefitted from including a cheaper faction and would probably be loading up on space marines if you succeed in nerfing AM to uselessness.
Am I forgetting a faction?
You seem to be forgetting that AM infantry are hands down better than those other armies infantry. Also - space marine infantry is trash.
Wheren't Scouts pretty damm good by your own metrics?
Scouts are trash too but they are better than tactical marines. Scout bikers aren't bad.
daedalus wrote: Heh. Only comment from that spiky bits article about the army lists:
If Justin Gibbs was running Grey Knights because he took a supreme command of them behind a conscript + yarrik wall, then that alpha legion list should have been filed under "malefic lord" or "cheeky psychic gits"
I fething hate the 40k community.
Hate the game not the community. The community wanted a balanced game and that's not what they got. Imperial armies that don't include a core of AM are not viable. people are upset about it.
Fine. Be upset. Do you see how irrationally blind that emotion is making people though?
The list he's complaining about is that GK/AM list we've been discussing. This one:
Spoiler:
It's on the page he made the comment, that he's referring to by the player's name. He looks at that list and he sees conscripts in that list. He must. I don't see any conscripts in that list. Do you? He thinks that the GK faction is going to be hiding behind the conscripts (that don't exist in the list). Stop and seriously think about that for a while.
He's so completely lost in his own paralyzing fixation on this imaginary movie playing through his head about things he thinks he knows about IG. He's SO fixated on these things that he "knows" to be true that he literally can't see that they're entirely inapplicable to the list.
It's cemented my thought from some time ago. There's nothing that could be done with or to the AM codex at this point that would change the movie people have playing in their brains convincing them that it's unstoppable. It's stopped being a topic of conversation, and it's a bullet point utterly solidified by faith. It's a religion.
I tots see the conscripts. It's listed right under the Grand Master in Dreadknight Warlord.
Right now, speaking of Codexes, I'll rank the powerfull ones like this:
1º-Imperial Guard.
1º/2º- Craftworld Eldar (?)
3º- Codex: Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines.
I'll put Grey Knights as the least powerfull codex right now. AdMech isn't as bad, but isn't really that strong.
But to be honest, I don't think the most powerfull codex IN GENERAL has access to the most broken lists. I think the most powerlists right now are:
1º- Magnus, Changeling, Brimstones and Malefic Lords Spam
2º- Guilliman+Parking Lot
3º- Imperial Guard mortar+astropath+Taurox spam/ Ynnari Eldar Dark Reaper spam.
Unit1126PLL wrote: This is the second time I've seen Xenomancers say a high-placing list at a tournament has a unit that is irredeemably bad and has no possible reason to be in a list.
I am beginning to question his understanding of Warhammer 40,000.
It's really weird to me, because he seems to genuinely get it in the first half of the of the statement, but then the second half somehow arrives at the utterly opposite conclusion from the reality of the tournament's outcome.
Sadly, I think it's you two missing it. That Librarian is absolutely inferior. There's a near unanimous consent in the GK Tactics thread on this very board about that. 1d4chan too (so I mean, like wow, Dakka and 1d4chan agreement).
The exception being if the player was claiming it was an 'Index' Librarian and thus got full powered Smite, but most places won't let you get away with that I think.
Sadly, I think it's you two missing it. That Librarian is absolutely inferior. There's a near unanimous consent in the GK Tactics thread on this very board about that. 1d4chan too (so I mean, like wow, Dakka and 1d4chan agreement).
The exception being if the player was claiming it was an 'Index' Librarian and thus got full powered Smite, but most places won't let you get away with that I think.
And even the index Librarian wasn't great. But that's a different discussion. I've said before:
Of course, when an army can potentially consist of 20-50 primaris psykers unless you house rule a limit to detachments (and that list would likely be deceptively powerful) I don't see anything out of hand about giving GK the Scooty Puff Senior version of smite, or at least on the HQs. Hell, at least the _librarian_. As it stands now, I don't know why you would take one now.
I agree about the Librarian. I disagree with everyone's takeaway, which appears to be a jumble of cognitive dissonance and IG hate.
Thing is, we've now seen two situations (three if you count that chaos list no one is talking about) where, at a competitive event, a contender went contrary to popular wisdom and placed super high in spite of it. Everyone wants to point fingers, but no one wants to sit down and dig into what are the actual reasons people are pointing those fingers. That's the useful (but difficult) discussion to have. Anything else is the same hundreds of pages worth of complaining about conscripts we've seen in the last few months. And that's getting boring.
So here's my thoughts. It's probably a combination of several of the below:
1. Identifying the shortcomings of one codex and supplementing them with another one is the single most useful thing you can do to improve your standing.
2. Units identified as "useless" are useful, but their uses are counter-intuitive. This might not apply to all such units.
3. Player skill probably goes a lot further toward placement than we're all willing to admit.
4. A longtime player used to a weak codex is going to be very, very good with a strong one. This was once said back in 5th as something along the lines of "A competent demonhunters player will be nigh unstoppable with the GK codex". I think that was Grey Templar, but that was many beers ago.
daedalus wrote: Thing is, we've now seen two situations (three if you count that chaos list no one is talking about) where, at a competitive event, a contender went contrary to popular wisdom and placed super high in spite of it.
By the Chaos list you mean the one with 1000 points of Obliterators right? I guess it'd be a surprise list for most people, but everything in it is considered to be pretty great in chaos circles other than maybe the nurgle herald. It's certainly not "won with a bunch of tac marines" weird.
More Dakka wrote: I read that the FW Conqueror and Annihilator LR tanks now have access to the shoots twice Grinding Advance rules, can anyone verify this?
I tried asking in the AM Tactics thread but that's become a cluster-feth since the FAQ nerfed conscripts back to the stoneage.
Wasn't aware there was a FW erratas. However - in any case unless they can be LR commanders they will never be picked.
By the Chaos list you mean the one with 1000 points of Obliterators right? I guess it'd be a surprise list for most people, but everything in it is considered to be pretty great in chaos circles other than maybe the nurgle herald. It's certainly not "won with a bunch of tac marines" weird.
Yeah, that's the one. Maybe it's that I'm not in the chaos tactica threads, but I'm pretty sure anything not in the malific lord or horrors (?) category is regarded as "trash" here.
At any rate, it's not the netlist I hear everyone complaining about. So it was at least a pleasant surprise to me.
By the Chaos list you mean the one with 1000 points of Obliterators right? I guess it'd be a surprise list for most people, but everything in it is considered to be pretty great in chaos circles other than maybe the nurgle herald. It's certainly not "won with a bunch of tac marines" weird.
Yeah, that's the one. Maybe it's that I'm not in the chaos tactica threads, but I'm pretty sure anything not in the malific lord or horrors (?) category is regarded as "trash" here.
At any rate, it's not the netlist I hear everyone complaining about. So it was at least a pleasant surprise to me.
Yeah the CSM codex has a lot of good stuff in it that doesn't get as much attention as malefic lords, magnus etc. Obliterators are probably the singularly best unit in the codex, they've largely snuck by before now in the eyes of people who weren't paying attention because they really were trash tier in the Index.
It definitely isn't the #1 netlist, so it proves that Chaos has multiple good builds (though seeing someone use a legion other than AL would be nice) and that's certainly cool.
By the Chaos list you mean the one with 1000 points of Obliterators right? I guess it'd be a surprise list for most people, but everything in it is considered to be pretty great in chaos circles other than maybe the nurgle herald. It's certainly not "won with a bunch of tac marines" weird.
Yeah, that's the one. Maybe it's that I'm not in the chaos tactica threads, but I'm pretty sure anything not in the malific lord or horrors (?) category is regarded as "trash" here.
At any rate, it's not the netlist I hear everyone complaining about. So it was at least a pleasant surprise to me.
The 'good' lists and the 'complained of' lists are not always the same. In 7th, just about all the hate was focused on Space Marine formations, Necron FNP, Eldar and Tau. You know what the best lists were? Renegades and Heretics artillery barrage and Chaos Daemon Flying Circus. Tauder was the only one even close that people complained about.
So if your basis is "the best lists aren't the same as what people whine on forums about" then yeah, that's been true for awhile.
Sadly, I think it's you two missing it. That Librarian is absolutely inferior. There's a near unanimous consent in the GK Tactics thread on this very board about that. 1d4chan too (so I mean, like wow, Dakka and 1d4chan agreement).
The exception being if the player was claiming it was an 'Index' Librarian and thus got full powered Smite, but most places won't let you get away with that I think.
And even the index Librarian wasn't great. But that's a different discussion. I've said before:
Of course, when an army can potentially consist of 20-50 primaris psykers unless you house rule a limit to detachments (and that list would likely be deceptively powerful) I don't see anything out of hand about giving GK the Scooty Puff Senior version of smite, or at least on the HQs. Hell, at least the _librarian_. As it stands now, I don't know why you would take one now.
I agree about the Librarian. I disagree with everyone's takeaway, which appears to be a jumble of cognitive dissonance and IG hate.
Thing is, we've now seen two situations (three if you count that chaos list no one is talking about) where, at a competitive event, a contender went contrary to popular wisdom and placed super high in spite of it. Everyone wants to point fingers, but no one wants to sit down and dig into what are the actual reasons people are pointing those fingers. That's the useful (but difficult) discussion to have. Anything else is the same hundreds of pages worth of complaining about conscripts we've seen in the last few months. And that's getting boring.
So here's my thoughts. It's probably a combination of several of the below:
1. Identifying the shortcomings of one codex and supplementing them with another one is the single most useful thing you can do to improve your standing.
2. Units identified as "useless" are useful, but their uses are counter-intuitive. This might not apply to all such units.
3. Player skill probably goes a lot further toward placement than we're all willing to admit.
4. A longtime player used to a weak codex is going to be very, very good with a strong one. This was once said back in 5th as something along the lines of "A competent demonhunters player will be nigh unstoppable with the GK codex". I think that was Grey Templar, but that was many beers ago.
Index Librarian can at least have a Storm Shield too.
Anyway, I'll at least contribute:
1. Agreed.
2. Some units are getting a lot of hate that may not deserve it so much.
3. I'll disagree on this one. I think many expectations are about in line. I'd personally say faction selection is about 35%, list building is 40% and then 25% is actual skill.
4. I'm going to disagree here too. A good player with a weak codex might get a boost (up to 25% based on what I said at #3) but just because you used a weak codex before does not ipso facto mean you're a great player.
Hate the game not the community. The community wanted a balanced game and that's not what they got. Imperial armies that don't include a core of AM are not viable. people are upset about it.
Well, I mean except for Space Marines, Sisters of Battle, AdMech. All of which traditionally don't need AM Infantry in their list to work.
Inquisition/Assassins needs AM since they lack valid troop choices. Grey Knights have always benefitted from including a cheaper faction and would probably be loading up on space marines if you succeed in nerfing AM to uselessness.
Am I forgetting a faction?
You seem to be forgetting that AM infantry are hands down better than those other armies infantry. Also - space marine infantry is trash.
Wheren't Scouts pretty damm good by your own metrics?
Scouts are awesome. Intercessors are...alright. Tactical Marines are all bad though.
By the Chaos list you mean the one with 1000 points of Obliterators right? I guess it'd be a surprise list for most people, but everything in it is considered to be pretty great in chaos circles other than maybe the nurgle herald. It's certainly not "won with a bunch of tac marines" weird.
Yeah, that's the one. Maybe it's that I'm not in the chaos tactica threads, but I'm pretty sure anything not in the malific lord or horrors (?) category is regarded as "trash" here.
At any rate, it's not the netlist I hear everyone complaining about. So it was at least a pleasant surprise to me.
Yeah the CSM codex has a lot of good stuff in it that doesn't get as much attention as malefic lords, magnus etc. Obliterators are probably the singularly best unit in the codex, they've largely snuck by before now in the eyes of people who weren't paying attention because they really were trash tier in the Index.
It definitely isn't the #1 netlist, so it proves that Chaos has multiple good builds (though seeing someone use a legion other than AL would be nice) and that's certainly cool.
The CSM codex is definitely one of the best Codices written in terms of internal balance, with only a real few exceptions being bad as a whole (Black Legion without Abigail, Chaos Marines themselves, Mutilators, Chosen are a little lackluster but they're not terrible I guess, etc).
Index Librarian can at least have a Storm Shield too.
It has bugged me for a while that "knights" can't get shields.
Anyway, I'll at least contribute:
3. I'll disagree on this one. I think many expectations are about in line. I'd personally say faction selection is about 35%, list building is 40% and then 25% is actual skill.
At this point I don't meaningfully distinguish between faction selection and list building. At least for soup. I also think "luck" legitimately deserves to be in there too. I've seen enough make or break situations go far enough off the bell curve at the perfect time to know that's not something that you can necessarily skill your way back from.
If I had to throw out percentages, I'd say 40% faction/list building, 40% actual skill, and 20% luck, but I'm still undecided about the first two percentages.
4. I'm going to disagree here too. A good player with a weak codex might get a boost (up to 25% based on what I said at #3) but just because you used a weak codex before does not ipso facto mean you're a great player.
In retrospect, maybe I overstated the case for the boost said player would receive. Regardless of the actual amount of boost, I do think it's real.
My problem with the "standard" analysis of what's going on in the tournament scene is the rigid binary thinking present.
I don't think there's a single person here who will disagree with point 1 that I made.
I don't know how you can disagree with point 2 in the face of these weird "b-side" lists that have been placing highly in tournaments without retreating to the notion that "the rest of the list is carrying the suboptimal handicap". But if that were true, then surely an equal skill player without the handicap would have done better, right?
"Player skill probably goes a lot further toward placement than we're all willing to admit" is a tricky one, but if point 2 is true, then I think we have to accept that point 3 is at least somewhat correct*. And with my own admittedly lazy caveat of "than we're willing to admit", I'm almost absolutely sure it's true. The question then becomes how much more.
Point 4 is something I'd never be able to prove without tracking player performance by army from edition to edition. Based upon my anecdotal data among people I know at roughly equal skill levels who've played lackluster codexes spanning from 3rd ed to now, it seems to track pretty consistently.
* So here's the paradox: Say that GK is a handicap, and so are Tac squads, and that IG is fundamentally better than everything else. So then why are there armies dipping into these lackluster armies placing, and not pure AM? Way I see it is that you (as in the thread, not you specifically) either have to admit that skill is a higher contributor than is credited, or there are units in armies that operate on par with AM, or that all we're really playing is candyland and all this thinking is a glorious waste of time.
Marmatag wrote: Maybe he was thinking he could do 12 mortal wounds to a daemon primarch with his GK portion? I mean i dunno. The list is measurably weaker than the typical winning AM list. The best answer would be he's trying to get "Best Grey Knights player" for 2017.
You can tell it's measurably weaker than the typical winning AM list because it probably beat a ton of copies of that AM list in its climb up the rankings.
Oh wait. That means it's stronger not weaker. Silly me.
No, its because it has MARINES in it Unit.
If an army has IG in it, that makes it a stronger list. But if you include marines, and beat IG, that means your list is weak and you won through pure chance and/or application of superior intelligence.
Life is so much more calming and relaxing when any data, no matter whether or not it supports the hypothesis, can be made to support the hypothesis through wanting it to.
Is it sad that when I read the first part I thought you were being serious? That said yeah the amount of let's ignore results (because they don't say what I want) in here is staggering. As near as I can tell all we can say (based on data) at this point is something seems like it may be off with admech and perhaps pure GK, and yet there is so much nerf guard.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: Right now, speaking of Codexes, I'll rank the powerfull ones like this:
1º-Imperial Guard.
1º/2º- Craftworld Eldar (?)
3º- Codex: Space Marines and Chaos Space Marines.
I'll put Grey Knights as the least powerfull codex right now. AdMech isn't as bad, but isn't really that strong.
But to be honest, I don't think the most powerfull codex IN GENERAL has access to the most broken lists. I think the most powerlists right now are:
1º- Magnus, Changeling, Brimstones and Malefic Lords Spam
2º- Guilliman+Parking Lot
3º- Imperial Guard mortar+astropath+Taurox spam/ Ynnari Eldar Dark Reaper spam.
Not sure what you're saying. What metric are you going by to define something as powerful, when the order in which the broken lists come from runs counter to the power ranking. Like does guard have the best internal balance...probably (which is a good thing and something they should want to be true of every codex). Maybe it's power once "broken" things are excluded, but that sorta is wishy washy because "broken" ain't really an objective thing to judge.
Unit1126PLL wrote: This is the second time I've seen Xenomancers say a high-placing list at a tournament has a unit that is irredeemably bad and has no possible reason to be in a list.
I am beginning to question his understanding of Warhammer 40,000.
It's really weird to me, because he seems to genuinely get it in the first half of the of the statement, but then the second half somehow arrives at the utterly opposite conclusion from the reality of the tournament's outcome.
Sadly, I think it's you two missing it. That Librarian is absolutely inferior. There's a near unanimous consent in the GK Tactics thread on this very board about that. 1d4chan too (so I mean, like wow, Dakka and 1d4chan agreement).
The exception being if the player was claiming it was an 'Index' Librarian and thus got full powered Smite, but most places won't let you get away with that I think.
Even unanimous consent doesn't mean much if it flies in the face of evidence. I mean there was near unanimous consent that ulcers weren't caused by bacteria.
I play neither conscripts nor commissars in my AM lists, and even I think the commissar nerf was too harsh.
It probably would have been better to change conscripts to make them too unruly to be properly controlled by commissars, instead of gutting the commissars one thing the commissars had going for them.
One Eldar Craftworld gets the Commissar ability for free, detachment wide, but it's too powerful in the hands of AM when they pay for it and have to be within a bubble ?
@Darkagl1
My ranking was based in number of "viable and powerfull" options that every Codex has. Imperial Guard for me has the most of those. But at the same time, those options can't compete with the wildly over powered options of some other codex, indexes or lists.
A good example was Flyrants in 7th. The Tyranid Codex as a whole, sucked **s, but the Flyrant was one of the most broken units in 7th and by his power, lists with 5-6 Flyrants where winning tournaments.
3. I'll disagree on this one. I think many expectations are about in line. I'd personally say faction selection is about 35%, list building is 40% and then 25% is actual skill.
GTs are won by the same small group of people. If skill was not the dominate factor than the pool of winners would be much greater as anyone could show up and win provided they got the faction, list, and strength of schedule right. It would be very difficult to a GT more than once.
Galas wrote: @Darkagl1
My ranking was based in number of "viable and powerfull" options that every Codex has. Imperial Guard for me has the most of those. But at the same time, those options can't compete with the wildly over powered options of some other codex, indexes or lists.
A good example was Flyrants in 7th. The Tyranid Codex as a whole, sucked **s, but the Flyrant was one of the most broken units in 7th and by his power, lists with 5-6 Flyrants where winning tournaments.
The example makes sense, but I wouldn't call Flyrants broken as much as SUPER good.
3. I'll disagree on this one. I think many expectations are about in line. I'd personally say faction selection is about 35%, list building is 40% and then 25% is actual skill.
GTs are won by the same small group of people. If skill was not the dominate factor than the pool of winners would be much greater as anyone could show up and win provided they got the faction, list, and strength of schedule right. It would be very difficult to a GT more than once.
People would STILL use the skill argument if Cultists were BS/WS2+, S10, T10, M10" and they were all carrying twin assault cannons, and it was Codex Cultist.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Should also point out that the "AM List with GK" literally has a GK character as a Warlord.
Yeah it's really a GK list with AM support. I know that doesn't support the narrative that AM are OMGWTFBBQ OH SO POWAFAHL TEHY KEEL EVRRTHAN AN DUN FRAID'A NOFFIN! and such, but it's just good decency to be honest about it.
Galas wrote: @Darkagl1
My ranking was based in number of "viable and powerfull" options that every Codex has. Imperial Guard for me has the most of those. But at the same time, those options can't compete with the wildly over powered options of some other codex, indexes or lists.
A good example was Flyrants in 7th. The Tyranid Codex as a whole, sucked **s, but the Flyrant was one of the most broken units in 7th and by his power, lists with 5-6 Flyrants where winning tournaments.
The example makes sense, but I wouldn't call Flyrants broken as much as SUPER good.
3. I'll disagree on this one. I think many expectations are about in line. I'd personally say faction selection is about 35%, list building is 40% and then 25% is actual skill.
GTs are won by the same small group of people. If skill was not the dominate factor than the pool of winners would be much greater as anyone could show up and win provided they got the faction, list, and strength of schedule right. It would be very difficult to a GT more than once.
People would STILL use the skill argument if Cultists were BS/WS2+, S10, T10, M10" and they were all carrying twin assault cannons, and it was Codex Cultist.
There are other posts I should respond to too but I'm on a phone.
You have it right. People want to justify placing well on something besides their list building, but it's not really true in this game. 40k is just NOT that complex and has 0 'mechanical' skill to test either. We're even less complicated than we'd seem at first glance due being in an alpha strike meta.
The people who routinely show up high in tournaments have two things in common:
Time and money to attend a wide swath of tournaments. Most players are much more regionally focused and thus you won't see them all the time, even if good, because they just aren't going everywhere.
Adhere the closest to what math can tell us are the most efficient units and lists. Frequently they do not invent these lists, that title belongs to the internet Hive mind Gestalt, but they cram more in then their opponents.
Crimson Devil wrote: GTs are won by the same small group of people. If skill was not the dominate factor than the pool of winners would be much greater as anyone could show up and win provided they got the faction, list, and strength of schedule right. It would be very difficult to a GT more than once.
I'm going to offer that the current pool of GT winners is increasingly being held together by TOs. I had a judge at NOVA last year tell me "I hate to see my GT winners in bracket 3 or 4" in response to a complaint about pairings. You have TOs ignoring rules violations (berserkers at NOVA, taking more than the allowed points elsewhere, etc) or handing out "slaps on the wrist" at top tables. And NOVA ostensibly has a charitable mission; Frontline Gaming is first and foremost a RETAILER and stands to profit from netlists, especially if people win consistently and having well-known names tout their lists is good advertising. So, strength of schedule is going to be heavily against your average player. There is a skill factor, and list building is important (though again, influenced by the TOs even more since they are now writing the 40K rules) but I would argue that the difference between skill of the top 8 and the rest of the top 50 in the country is probably a lot less than people claim it is.
I give the commissar change a month tops before its changed again.
A simple solution would be that you lose no more than D6 models each time you fail a morale check for a conscript squad and D3 each time you fail a morale test for an infantry platoon.
Makes it so that summary execution scales with bigger squad sizes without literally gutting them as the new rule does, but allows the use of morale to thin numbers as it should do.
commissars already reduce the amount of casualties conscripts take by 4/5, and also give a reroll to failed morale tests.
Pretty good for 30 points.
If someone shoots twenty models worth three points off the table, it should be pretty good for you even if the other ten run for it. That's what, two or three twin assault cannons used for 90 points lost? Then your stuff that actually does damage gets to reply.
Conscripts were stupid before. They won't revert the change, since commissars work fine for other units, buffing leadership and giving you a reroll to ten men infantry squads. For thirty points.
People fail to grasp that infantry squads still benefit quite a bit from commisars, but special weapons and heavy weapons teams benefit even more to the point of being virtually immune to moral with him around.
You have to be really spoiled for choice to complain your 30 point model isn't an end-all-be-all solution to any and all moral checks any unit in your army ever has to make.
BoomWolf wrote: People fail to grasp that infantry squads still benefit quite a bit from commisars, but special weapons and heavy weapons teams benefit even more to the point of being virtually immune to moral with him around.
You have to be really spoiled for choice to complain your 30 point model isn't an end-all-be-all solution to any and all moral checks any unit in your army ever has to make.
You're wrong.
Explain how a 10 model Infantry Squad benefits from having a Commissar around when they lose 4 models and have a -2 LD modifier. Explain how a 6 model Special Weapon Squad or a 3 model Heavy Weapons Squad benefit from this.
You can lose the whole squad thanks to the Commissar's forced reroll instead of potentially just losing a single model on a lucky roll. Said it before, saying it again anyways: Commissars are dead. Anyone saying otherwise and using examples that aren't Conscript Squads are full of crap.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crazyterran wrote: commissars already reduce the amount of casualties conscripts take by 4/5, and also give a reroll to failed morale tests.
Pretty good for 30 points.
If someone shoots twenty models worth three points off the table, it should be pretty good for you even if the other ten run for it. That's what, two or three twin assault cannons used for 90 points lost? Then your stuff that actually does damage gets to reply.
Conscripts were stupid before. They won't revert the change, since commissars work fine for other units, buffing leadership and giving you a reroll to ten men infantry squads. For thirty points.
The change will stand.
A 15 point Astropath with a Laspistol can make a squad immune to Morale Tests for a turn and negate cover benefits on an enemy within 18" for all the Guard units within 6" of the Astropath. Additionally, you don't get "given" a reroll to failed Morale tests.
You must make a reroll. It doesn't matter if you manage to eke out just losing 1 guy on a Morale test of LD5 or LD4--you're rerolling and possibly losing more guys in addition to the mandatory blammed model.
There's literally no point to Commissars now. Stop trying to act like there is.
Crazyterran wrote: commissars already reduce the amount of casualties conscripts take by 4/5, and also give a reroll to failed morale tests.
Pretty good for 30 points.
If someone shoots twenty models worth three points off the table, it should be pretty good for you even if the other ten run for it. That's what, two or three twin assault cannons used for 90 points lost? Then your stuff that actually does damage gets to reply.
Conscripts were stupid before. They won't revert the change, since commissars work fine for other units, buffing leadership and giving you a reroll to ten men infantry squads. For thirty points.
The change will stand.
See earlier in the thread for my analysis of Summary Execution.
TL;DR: The commissar is a LD buff. The summary execution roll, when its effects are analyzed, is a negative rule, not a positive one. There is no value of casualties where the Summary Execution does not increase the number of casualties taken on average.
If it were an OPTIONAL reroll ala ATSKNF, then you could argue "the commissar gives a LD boost and a reroll". but as it stands, you're saying "plasma weapons are amazing, they have good strength, damage, and the Gets Hot rule is a great bonus!"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BoomWolf wrote: People fail to grasp that infantry squads still benefit quite a bit from commisars, but special weapons and heavy weapons teams benefit even more to the point of being virtually immune to moral with him around.
You have to be really spoiled for choice to complain your 30 point model isn't an end-all-be-all solution to any and all moral checks any unit in your army ever has to make.
I'll put this in the simplest possible terms.
Infantry units from the IG are LD7, right?
the commissar makes them LD8.
7 to 8 is +1.
The average effect of the Summary Execution roll goes from close to 0 at 3 casualties, to -.6 at 5 casualties, to -1 at 6+ casualties.
Do you know what 1 -1 is?
Do you see why Commissars are no longer useful for units that only receive 1 LD from him?
What if they changed it so that if you roll a two or more on a leadership test and fail, you shoot a model and count the roll as a 1? You break even on a two, but gain on the rest, and it does nothing on a one for the morale test.
Crazyterran wrote: What if they changed it so that if you roll a two or more on a leadership test and fail, you shoot a model and count the roll as a 1? You break even on a two, but gain on the rest, and it does nothing on a one for the morale test.
At that point, you might as well just reset it to what it was before.
Crazyterran wrote: What if they changed it so that if you roll a two or more on a leadership test and fail, you shoot a model and count the roll as a 1? You break even on a two, but gain on the rest, and it does nothing on a one for the morale test.
At that point, you might as well just reset it to what it was before.
I actually suggested this earlier, though I would leave it at "if you fail a morale test, he shoots a model and count the D6 roll as a 1" because it actually provides a drawback for what was previously his abuse case (Conscripts) while leaving his normal use case about the same (infantry).
For conscripts, you would guarantee squad death by killing a fixed number (I forget the exact math but I think it was 13 dead to kill the remaining 7 from a 20-squad and 18 to kill the remaining 12 from a 30-squad.
for 10-man squads, 8 dead would guarantee the remaining 2 die, and for smaller squads (SWS/HWS) the commissar would work as he does now/as he did before.
Fun part, I actually went over the whole scenario by each possibly number of casualties taken by an infantry squad WAY back on this very thread, and how it is STILL a mathematical improvement.
And I got promotly ignored. little things like math and facts do not seem to be important to most of the old-commi lovers (who was so absurdly broken it wasnt funny) and they refuse to accept he still has value.
Long story short, as I laze to gather it across the various posts
If you are in an "always fail" category, the commisar Ld just cancels out the blam, for every 1 rolled into 6, there is a 6 rolled into 1. thats mathematically a non-factor.
HOWEVER, a 10 man squad is never, ever in the "always fail" category without major penalties combined with heavy casualties that would render the whole squad dead to begin with whether or not the commisar is even there.
BUT, on the edge cases, who are the most common for a 10 man squad (and even more common for lower than 10 man), there is a mathematical reduction of casualties taken.
The only, single case where a commisar actually causes more trouble than good is a squad with ld7 that started the turn in 10 models and taken exactly 8 casualties. hardly a case where it even matters any more.
Especially in squads like heavy weapons or special weapons who have less than 10 members and only Ld6. Or ratlings with their poor Ld.
A special weapon team for example, is saving 2 guys before the potential blam, so bare minimum 1 saved. a heavy weapon is outright immune to moral with commisar around as they CANT fail at 2 casualties, and at 3 they are already dead.
As for Ld reductions-that's exactly where you shine with the commisar.
As long the debuff bubble doesn't reach the commisar itself, the squad is technically not effected by it at all, as the squad take a penalty, and then uses the commisar's ld anyway, who is uneffected at 8 still.
As for conscripts, due to Ld buff alone, he saves at least 3 guys per moral test. yes, other models have bubbles too, but not quite as cheap as this one. also-no need for an extra detachment for your inquisitor.
As the commisar currently stands-he has uses, can be vaulable when used correctly, but not always the best option.
That is THE definition of well balanced.
Now, I'm too sick, and lazy, to have the enegy to actually put down the equasions that prove me right, but the end result is simple, commisars are a slight improvement for infantry squads, great help to special/heavy weapons and ratlings, and somewhat helpful for conscripts.
Even for command squads he's still a net gain (despite the flag)
For a mere 30 point model who packs the shooting capacity of two more of your dudes on a body of three, you really can't ask for much more.
BoomWolf wrote: Fun part, I actually went over the whole scenario by each possibly number of casualties taken by an infantry squad WAY back on this very thread, and how it is STILL a mathematical improvement. And I got promotly ignored. little things like math and facts do not seem to be important to most of the old-commi lovers (who was so absurdly broken it wasnt funny) and they refuse to accept he still has value.
Long story short, as I laze to gather it across the various posts
If you are in an "always fail" category, the commisar Ld just cancels out the blam, for every 1 rolled into 6, there is a 6 rolled into 1. thats mathematically a non-factor.
HOWEVER, a 10 man squad is never, ever in the "always fail" category without major penalties combined with heavy casualties that would render the whole squad dead to begin with whether or not the commisar is even there. BUT, on the edge cases, who are the most common for a 10 man squad (and even more common for lower than 10 man), there is a mathematical reduction of casualties taken. The only, single case where a commisar actually causes more trouble than good is a squad with ld7 that started the turn in 10 models and taken exactly 8 casualties. hardly a case where it even matters any more.
Especially in squads like heavy weapons or special weapons who have less than 10 members and only Ld6. Or ratlings with their poor Ld. A special weapon team for example, is saving 2 guys before the potential blam, so bare minimum 1 saved. a heavy weapon is outright immune to moral with commisar around as they CANT fail at 2 casualties, and at 3 they are already dead.
As for Ld reductions-that's exactly where you shine with the commisar. As long the debuff bubble doesn't reach the commisar itself, the squad is technically not effected by it at all, as the squad take a penalty, and then uses the commisar's ld anyway, who is uneffected at 8 still.
As for conscripts, due to Ld buff alone, he saves at least 3 guys per moral test. yes, other models have bubbles too, but not quite as cheap as this one. also-no need for an extra detachment for your inquisitor.
As the commisar currently stands-he has uses, can be vaulable when used correctly, but not always the best option. That is THE definition of well balanced.
Now, I'm too sick, and lazy, to have the enegy to actually put down the equasions that prove me right, but the end result is simple, commisars are a slight improvement for infantry squads, great help to special/heavy weapons and ratlings, and somewhat helpful for conscripts. Even for command squads he's still a net gain (despite the flag)
For a mere 30 point model who packs the shooting capacity of two more of your dudes on a body of three, you really can't ask for much more.
Actually you could instead ask for 8 more guardsmen (32 points, instead of 31 for the Commissar since he has a mandatory bolt pistol).
That's actually the problem - the Commissar shoots like two, has the wounds of three, might save ~1 on an infantry squad (maybe possibly), and costs as much as eight.
EDIT:
Also, the re-roll is not actually a wash, as it costs a model. So essentially (mathematically) if the re-rolls cancel out, then the Commissar just kills one model for no reason.
BoomWolf wrote: HOWEVER, a 10 man squad is never, ever in the "always fail" category without major penalties combined with heavy casualties that would render the whole squad dead to begin with whether or not the commisar is even there.
BUT, on the edge cases, who are the most common for a 10 man squad (and even more common for lower than 10 man), there is a mathematical reduction of casualties taken.
The only, single case where a commisar actually causes more trouble than good is a squad with ld7 that started the turn in 10 models and taken exactly 8 casualties. hardly a case where it even matters any more.
The problem is that IG players fixate on how they can mitigate casualties, because that number of people in that screen or in that squad hiding the plasmagun is effectively a life bar for what you really care about. Overall, yeah, with the leadership buff, the commissar still helps mitigate some casualties versus no casualties, but they're unhappy that it doesn't cap the upper bounds. The reason why everyone freaks out about the infantry squad is because that case of 8 casualties is more important this edition than it's been since 5th: It's because it's gone from 30 points to always have a way to save that plasmagun to having no benefit over an LD7 squad and pocketing the 30 points for something else.
The LD8 buff actually completely counteracts the model executed. The frustration is that this means that the max lost is still reduced for conscripts, but not at all anymore for infantry or anything else LD7. As I run the numbers, it looks like the commissar never does actually make things worse, but at anything above 8 casualties he's becomes unhelpful. It's worth mentioning that he also never reduces the max casualties, which is important, because that's kind of been the point for, like, 4 editions now. Regardless, I have an attempt at running the numbers below.
I'm kinda hung over today, so feel free to validate that for yourselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post: TL;DR: It's a solution for a problem guard don't really care about.
Unit1126PLL-if your commisar only saves one dude, you used him poorly. used properly, he saves quite a few over the course of the game, quite possibly ones with extra gear.
Thats exactly what I mean by being balanced.
If he could have brainlessly saves more models than he costs, he's a no-brainer and thus overpowered.
Currently, he CAN get his points and more-but only when used well. meaning, he's good but not too good.
Unfortunatly, the dakka common mindset seems to be "its either OP or useless"
BoomWolf wrote: Fun part, I actually went over the whole scenario by each possibly number of casualties taken by an infantry squad WAY back on this very thread, and how it is STILL a mathematical improvement.
And I got promotly ignored. little things like math and facts do not seem to be important to most of the old-commi lovers (who was so absurdly broken it wasnt funny) and they refuse to accept he still has value.
Long story short, as I laze to gather it across the various posts
If you are in an "always fail" category, the commisar Ld just cancels out the blam, for every 1 rolled into 6, there is a 6 rolled into 1. thats mathematically a non-factor.
HOWEVER, a 10 man squad is never, ever in the "always fail" category without major penalties combined with heavy casualties that would render the whole squad dead to begin with whether or not the commisar is even there.
BUT, on the edge cases, who are the most common for a 10 man squad (and even more common for lower than 10 man), there is a mathematical reduction of casualties taken.
The only, single case where a commisar actually causes more trouble than good is a squad with ld7 that started the turn in 10 models and taken exactly 8 casualties. hardly a case where it even matters any more.
Especially in squads like heavy weapons or special weapons who have less than 10 members and only Ld6. Or ratlings with their poor Ld.
A special weapon team for example, is saving 2 guys before the potential blam, so bare minimum 1 saved. a heavy weapon is outright immune to moral with commisar around as they CANT fail at 2 casualties, and at 3 they are already dead.
As for Ld reductions-that's exactly where you shine with the commisar.
As long the debuff bubble doesn't reach the commisar itself, the squad is technically not effected by it at all, as the squad take a penalty, and then uses the commisar's ld anyway, who is uneffected at 8 still.
As for conscripts, due to Ld buff alone, he saves at least 3 guys per moral test. yes, other models have bubbles too, but not quite as cheap as this one. also-no need for an extra detachment for your inquisitor.
As the commisar currently stands-he has uses, can be vaulable when used correctly, but not always the best option.
That is THE definition of well balanced.
Now, I'm too sick, and lazy, to have the enegy to actually put down the equasions that prove me right, but the end result is simple, commisars are a slight improvement for infantry squads, great help to special/heavy weapons and ratlings, and somewhat helpful for conscripts.
Even for command squads he's still a net gain (despite the flag)
For a mere 30 point model who packs the shooting capacity of two more of your dudes on a body of three, you really can't ask for much more.
Someone else went through the numbers - the Commissar IS slightly advantageous for a leadership 7 unit, but to the extent that you'll rarely see its effects, and also less useful than having another source of Leadership 8 (ie: Banner, Catachan), and for 55 points, as opposed to the 31 min for a Commissar, you can get a Lord Commissar, which is Leadership 9 bubble.
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.
Based on those numbers, the Commissar saves an average of 0.5 models, with two wound levels jumping as high as 0.75 models. On average he won't actively hurt you, but also won't benefit you overly much - 7.75 more Infantry also have the advantage of having a higher damage output than the Commissar and his humble Bolt Pistol, unless you feel like going crazy and throwing a Power Fist and Plasma Pistol on him or the like, but at that point you have a single expensive model that you could instead have brought even more infantry with.
Then, throw in Leadership debuffs, and Commissars can actively start to make things worse for you.
At this point, probably the simplest solution would either be the above one of Execution turning die roll into a 1, or just having the rule reduce casualties by 1d3 - that way it never actively hurts you, the worst you get is breaking even, and you still have a 2 in 3 chance of it benefiting you.
Yes, for the fifty millionth time in this thread, the commissar does provide *some* benefit to non-conscript units. He provides a +1LD buff which drops off to a null benefit over 5 casualties. No, there will not be a value of casualties where not having a commissar at all is better than having a commissar.
What I have been trying to explain is that Summary Execution ON ITS OWN is NOT A BENEFICIAL RULE. Listing the re-roll from summary execution as a bonus thing that the commissar does is like listing Gets Hot as a bonus rule that you get with a plasma gun.
The math is not actually difficult to do. The math you linked earlier in the thread was comparing no commissar to having a commissar.
The reason why this is important is because the Guard have another morale buff available, the Regimental Standard. It is five points to the commissar's 30. As it stands, turning Summary Execution from an additional beneficial rule to a malus, the alternative of the standard is always superior to the commissar for any unit that starts at LD7 (non-conscripts).
the_scotsman wrote: Yes, for the fifty millionth time in this thread, the commissar does provide *some* benefit to non-conscript units. He provides a +1LD buff which drops off to a null benefit over 5 casualties. No, there will not be a value of casualties where not having a commissar at all is better than having a commissar.
What I have been trying to explain is that Summary Execution ON ITS OWN is NOT A BENEFICIAL RULE. Listing the re-roll from summary execution as a bonus thing that the commissar does is like listing Gets Hot as a bonus rule that you get with a plasma gun.
The math is not actually difficult to do. The math you linked earlier in the thread was comparing no commissar to having a commissar.
The reason why this is important is because the Guard have another morale buff available, the Regimental Standard. It is five points to the commissar's 30. As it stands, turning Summary Execution from an additional beneficial rule to a malus, the alternative of the standard is always superior to the commissar for any unit that starts at LD7 (non-conscripts).
Many units in the history of games have not been as good as another option.
Compared to the state Commissars were before where they were simply to much this is acceptable.
Crazyterran wrote: commissars already reduce the amount of casualties conscripts take by 4/5, and also give a reroll to failed morale tests.
Pretty good for 30 points.
If someone shoots twenty models worth three points off the table, it should be pretty good for you even if the other ten run for it. That's what, two or three twin assault cannons used for 90 points lost? Then your stuff that actually does damage gets to reply.
Conscripts were stupid before. They won't revert the change, since commissars work fine for other units, buffing leadership and giving you a reroll to ten men infantry squads. For thirty points.
The change will stand.
The complaint isn't about running commisars with conscripts. Conscript blob lists, the few people still running them, can still make use of commisars and work. It's the rest of the Astra Militarum that is struggling with the change. Double tapping commisars are doing more damage to infantry squads than a normal failed morale check is. If the change had been restricited to just conscripts it wouldn't have been a problem.
If the goal is to move AM players away conscript blobs this wasn't the way to do it.
Just use 10 man squads and accept that a unit made of 4 point models is easy to remove. They are actually far more effective than a 4 point model should be already.
Martel732 wrote: Just use 10 man squads and accept that a unit made of 4 point models is easy to remove. They are actually far more effective than a 4 point model should be already.
I use 10 man squads, but I would point out the following:
1) The goal is to have every model be viable. Conscripts are still viable but commisars have been nuked from orbit if you have anything other than a conscript blob. That can't be right
2) This change made conscripts more attractive, not less. I don't think that was the intention
I've removed commissars from my lists after they wiped out the surivors of 10 man squads that would have lived if they'd taken a normal moral test. The conscript player is taking 4. I suspect the next round of tournaments (post-FAQ implementation) will show the same thing.
Cut your losses and use 10 man squads as road blocks and then just write them off. Force idiots like me to charge my BA into a 40 pt squad then just erase them on your turn. After I trade elite infantry for 4 point spankers about 5 times, the game is over.
You don't need a single commissar. You don't need your infantry to kill a single model. You don't need to make a single save. You don't need to pass a single LD check. You just need to BE. And you win. My play is irrelevant.
Martel732 wrote: Just use 10 man squads and accept that a unit made of 4 point models is easy to remove. They are actually far more effective than a 4 point model should be already.
I use 10 man squads, but I would point out the following:
1) The goal is to have every model be viable. Conscripts are still viable but commisars have been nuked from orbit if you have anything other than a conscript blob. That can't be right
2) This change made conscripts more attractive, not less. I don't think that was the intention
I've removed commissars from my lists after they wiped out the surivors of 10 man squads that would have lived if they'd taken a normal moral test. The conscript player is taking 4. I suspect the next round of tournaments (post-FAQ implementation) will show the same thing.
Just run 30 man conscript and use 2 point stratagem to auto pass morale. You have the command points to spare. Just take an infantry 3 more infantry squads instead of the 4 commissars you had - problem solved.
Martel732 wrote: Or that. Or use 10 man squads and literally just not have a care.
I wish I could field:
1 pt WS - BS - S 1 T 1 W 1 Sv - LD 3 models. But guardsmen are pretty close.
Yeah GW certainly isn't charing you enough points for just existing. IMO just existing with a line of flat 1's should cost 3 points. Flat 3's should be 4 points. Having a rapid fire gun 5 points - at the very minimum.
Martel732 wrote: But with GW's logic, I get these guys for 1 pt! I mean, they can't hurt anything, right?
They do no damage so lets give them a 4++ save. No problem - daemons should have invo saves. Forget the fact that characters become effectively immortal behind them.
Martel732 wrote: Just use 10 man squads and accept that a unit made of 4 point models is easy to remove. They are actually far more effective than a 4 point model should be already.
I use 10 man squads, but I would point out the following:
1) The goal is to have every model be viable. Conscripts are still viable but commisars have been nuked from orbit if you have anything other than a conscript blob. That can't be right
2) This change made conscripts more attractive, not less. I don't think that was the intention
I've removed commissars from my lists after they wiped out the surivors of 10 man squads that would have lived if they'd taken a normal moral test. The conscript player is taking 4. I suspect the next round of tournaments (post-FAQ implementation) will show the same thing.
Just run 30 man conscript and use 2 point stratagem to auto pass morale. You have the command points to spare. Just take an infantry 3 more infantry squads instead of the 4 commissars you had - problem solved.
Well that works so long as I run a single 30 man conscript blob. Since I need 6 squads to get brigade that's a hell of a lot of CP you are asking me to spend a turn on a unit that's not even as effective as chaos cultists.
Martel732 wrote: Just use 10 man squads and accept that a unit made of 4 point models is easy to remove. They are actually far more effective than a 4 point model should be already.
It occurred to me why that is. It's all based around a d6, and their stats are basically marines -1 (3 instead of 4). Which is a 16.5% reduction in quality when competing with a marine (1/6 = ~16.5%). But their price is >66% less than a marine. So they're paying drastically less than a marine for a 16.5% reduction in performance in any given stat.
Martel732 wrote: Just use 10 man squads and accept that a unit made of 4 point models is easy to remove. They are actually far more effective than a 4 point model should be already.
It occurred to me why that is. It's all based around a d6, and their stats are basically marines -1 (3 instead of 4). Which is a 16.5% reduction in quality when competing with a marine (1/6 = ~16.5%). But their price is >66% less than a marine. So they're paying drastically less than a marine for a 16.5% reduction in performance in any given stat.
But 4 down to 3 is a 25% reduction. And Guard don't have power armour.
Martel732 wrote: Just use 10 man squads and accept that a unit made of 4 point models is easy to remove. They are actually far more effective than a 4 point model should be already.
It occurred to me why that is. It's all based around a d6, and their stats are basically marines -1 (3 instead of 4). Which is a 16.5% reduction in quality when competing with a marine (1/6 = ~16.5%). But their price is >66% less than a marine. So they're paying drastically less than a marine for a 16.5% reduction in performance in any given stat.
But 4 down to 3 is a 25% reduction. And Guard don't have power armour.
That isn't how math works; going from a 4 to a 3 is a ~16% difference, it's a dice. Further the real problem is breakpoints, S4, S7, S9, are the most important thresholds because they start wounding the most common T. IG lasguns don't hit that breakpoint because they make up for it statistically in other ways like numbers. IG in theory, practice, and design are supposed to be effective because they defeat their opponents through numbers.
Which goes to mess with an edition that doesn't scale properly with model count. Which is why people hated conscripts. IG are still in a pretty good spot. It isn't going to change unless Orks get a Greentide unit more effective than what they already have. Which ISN'T what they need, they need point reductions on everything BUT their boys.
If you go from hitting 4 times out of 6 to 3 times out of 6 you aren't hitting 16% less you're hitting 25% less.
The change in probability is 16% but the reduction in effectiveness is 25%.
Armour is even worse - the difference between 5+ and 3+ is much more than 33%. Not only has your ability to save been halved but weapons that don't allow you to save are vastly more plentiful.
This is vital to understand in an edition with modifiers - the effect of modifiers is not linear. - 1 to hit costs a marine 25% of his shooting but costs an Ork 50%.
This is vital to understand in an edition with modifiers - the effect of modifiers is not linear. - 1 to hit costs a marine 25% of his shooting but costs an Ork 50%.
A bit hard to follow but effectively valid. Using the 216 method it's easier to see this in action. The average points that has to be dumped in conscripts to kill a marine out of orders and rapid fire is 81, or 27 conscripts. Modify any of the parameters in the marine's favor by 1 and it ends up at 162. This is part of why I hold the Heavy Bolter is so dangerous, because it's effectively reducing almost everything in the game's base survivability by 25%.
It is not accurate to say it reduces almost everything by 25%. A heavy bolter reduces a marine's survivability by 25%. IT reduces a conscripts survivability by 50%
malamis wrote: This is part of why I hold the Heavy Bolter is so dangerous, because it's effectively reducing almost everything in the game's base survivability by 25%.
Wrong.
A Heavy Bolter reduces: 2+ save to 3+ save (5/6 to 4/6, 20% reduction in defense) 3+ save to 4+ save (4/6 to 3/6, 25% reduction in defense) 4+ save to 5+ save (3/6 to 2/6, 33% reduction in defense) 5+ save to 6+ save (2/6 to 1/6, 50% reduction in defense) 6+ save to 7+ save (1/6 to 0/6, 100% reduction in defense)
Notice how these numbers become much bigger the lower your armor gets. Power armor and terminator armor, while effected by armor penetrating weapons more than previous editions, are still better at resisting them than carapace, flak, or ork armor.
Fun fact: terminators in cover ignore heavy bolters' reduction in armor entirely, letting them remain relatively unharmed by them while holding objectives.
Martel732 wrote: Just use 10 man squads and accept that a unit made of 4 point models is easy to remove. They are actually far more effective than a 4 point model should be already.
It occurred to me why that is. It's all based around a d6, and their stats are basically marines -1 (3 instead of 4). Which is a 16.5% reduction in quality when competing with a marine (1/6 = ~16.5%). But their price is >66% less than a marine. So they're paying drastically less than a marine for a 16.5% reduction in performance in any given stat.
to add to the other people arguing the math here, it's not just the reduction in any one stat, it's all of them combined. Guardsmen have 1 lower stat in everything than an SM (except Sv which is 2 different). This doesnt mean they are only 1 stat point different because these all interact and stack with each other.
A guardsmen missing 50% of shots instead of 33% isnt just a 16.6 point spread. Those stats carry through every step of that shooting process, such that it takes 18 Guardsmen lasgun shots to average one dead Space Marine, versus 3.375 Space Marine bolter shots to kill a guardsmen, an almost 600% differencr in casualty output. Those small differences stack up to make huge result changes real quick, hence the cost disparity.
malamis wrote: This is part of why I hold the Heavy Bolter is so dangerous, because it's effectively reducing almost everything in the game's base survivability by 25%.
Wrong.
A Heavy Bolter reduces:
2+ save to 3+ save (5/6 to 4/6, 20% reduction in defense)
3+ save to 4+ save (4/6 to 3/6, 25% reduction in defense)
4+ save to 5+ save (3/6 to 2/6, 33% reduction in defense)
5+ save to 6+ save (2/6 to 1/6, 50% reduction in defense)
6+ save to 7+ save (1/6 to 0/6, 100% reduction in defense)
Notice how these numbers become much bigger the lower your armor gets. Power armor and terminator armor, while effected by armor penetrating weapons more than previous editions, are still better at resisting them than carapace, flak, or ork armor.
Fun fact: terminators in cover ignore heavy bolters' reduction in armor entirely, letting them remain relatively unharmed by them while holding objectives.
Which only matters if the units are costed correctly. Nobody cares if a Conscript is 50% less durable than before because there is 4 for every Marine.
As has been mentioned before, the decreased stats across the board make the IG...
3/4 BS * 3/4 S = 9/16 offensive value
3/4 T * 2/4 Sv = 6/16 defensive value
If you average their value, you'd be looking at 15/32 combined value, or 47% value... comparing only those two considerations.
Arguably, the improved WS value of the SM is an improvement over the IG, and the overall viability of their CC potential has value. If we consider this to be worth half of the offensive difference, we'd be looking at 7/8 value in the IG... so about 41% the value of a Marine.
Chapter Tactics vs IG Orders? Hard to pin down, I'd call it a wash. You build an SM list to max benefit from the CT, but the IG have a variety of Orders to benefit their weaker units as needed.
I agree that IG Infantry squad grunts should be worth 5 points each, rather than 4, and I believe Conscripts should be flat-out removed, but 4 pts each would be better balance as the 41% value was relative to an Infantry guy vs Marine, not Conscript vs Marine. Conscripts should be roughly 33% of the cost of a Marine.
A Heavy Bolter reduces:
2+ save to 3+ save (5/6 to 4/6, 20% reduction in defense)
3+ save to 4+ save (4/6 to 3/6, 25% reduction in defense)
4+ save to 5+ save (3/6 to 2/6, 33% reduction in defense)
5+ save to 6+ save (2/6 to 1/6, 50% reduction in defense)
6+ save to 7+ save (1/6 to 0/6, 100% reduction in defense)"
This is one way to spin the math. It's meant to tell the tale that the poster wants to tell. It's not the most relevant math, though.
The real tale is here that matters for marine players is this:
-1 AP DOUBLES casualties for 2+ armor models.
It increases casualties by 50% for 3+ armor models.
We care about models being picked up, NOT reduction in resistance. I don't think that getting to save lascannons on a 6+ makes up for this phenomenon, but being in cover certainly does. Hence, the rise of the coward marines.
Also, IG infantry are priced to just be speed bumps for the big guns. They don't need to have guns. They don't need to live. They don't need to pass armor saves. They don't need to pass morale. They just need to be. Minimal investments are the path to success in this edition. IG undercuts the marines, game, set, match.
greatbigtree wrote: As has been mentioned before, the decreased stats across the board make the IG...
3/4 BS * 3/4 S = 9/16 offensive value
3/4 T * 2/4 Sv = 6/16 defensive value
That's not how those stats work...they arent directly fractional relationships like that. Comparing them that way doesn't reflect the actual performance.
greatbigtree wrote: As has been mentioned before, the decreased stats across the board make the IG...
3/4 BS * 3/4 S = 9/16 offensive value
3/4 T * 2/4 Sv = 6/16 defensive value
If you average their value, you'd be looking at 15/32 combined value, or 47% value... comparing only those two considerations.
Arguably, the improved WS value of the SM is an improvement over the IG, and the overall viability of their CC potential has value. If we consider this to be worth half of the offensive difference, we'd be looking at 7/8 value in the IG... so about 41% the value of a Marine.
Chapter Tactics vs IG Orders? Hard to pin down, I'd call it a wash. You build an SM list to max benefit from the CT, but the IG have a variety of Orders to benefit their weaker units as needed.
I agree that IG Infantry squad grunts should be worth 5 points each, rather than 4, and I believe Conscripts should be flat-out removed, but 4 pts each would be better balance as the 41% value was relative to an Infantry guy vs Marine, not Conscript vs Marine. Conscripts should be roughly 33% of the cost of a Marine.
Last I checked...My chapter tactics don't affect my tanks...So it's hardly a wash. Orders are just free BSAM gets for no freaking reason...army traits are capter tactics but better.
greatbigtree wrote: As has been mentioned before, the decreased stats across the board make the IG...
3/4 BS * 3/4 S = 9/16 offensive value
3/4 T * 2/4 Sv = 6/16 defensive value
That's not how those stats work...they arent directly fractional relationships like that. Comparing them that way doesn't reflect the actual performance.
Xenomancers wrote: Orders are just free BSAM gets for no freaking reason...
in much the same way Space Marines get ATSKNF and the ability to Deep Strike almost anything that isn't a tank, or that Eldar get Battle Focus, etc. Every army gets a unique mechanic of some sort, for Space Marines it's ATSKNF and wide availability of Deep Striking, for IG it's Orders.
One can argue the relative power of these abilities, especially over different editions, but there *is* a reason they're there.
Last I checked...My chapter tactics don't affect my tanks...So it's hardly a wash. Orders are just free BSAM gets for no freaking reason...army traits are capter tactics but better.
Orders require a character to issue them.
The characters might be cheaper than dirt, but if the characters aren't within their Voice of Command radius or 3" of a Vox-Caster and being issued to a unit with a Vox-Caster? They're not doing anything.
Tanks require a specific type of character(Tank Commander) to be issued Orders and even then it only applies to Leman Russ variants.
Last I checked...My chapter tactics don't affect my tanks...So it's hardly a wash. Orders are just free BSAM gets for no freaking reason...army traits are capter tactics but better.
Orders require a character to issue them.
The characters might be cheaper than dirt, but if the characters aren't within their Voice of Command radius or 3" of a Vox-Caster and being issued to a unit with a Vox-Caster? They're not doing anything.
Tanks require a specific type of character(Tank Commander) to be issued Orders and even then it only applies to Leman Russ variants.
Most the AM army traits have a bonus to their tanks. None of the space marine ones do. They can even give their tanks orders and put commanders to make them shoot as good/better than a space marine - in every LR. It really just seems like the elite army has less elite stuff than mass produced one. It's a dang joke. Space marine tanks are supposed to be more advanced than imperial guard tanks.
3 may be 25% less than 4, but i'd suggest that's a bit of a red herring as far as a percentage goes. It doesn't reflect the odds of making a dice roll. Each pip is a 16.5% increment. I didn't bother adding the numbers for a combined effect but yes, that can and probably should be done. Shooting is to hit and to wound, for 33% worse. Melee is to hit and to wound, for 33% worse. Yes, the save is worse (also interestingly 33%). So even using those aggregates, we still get a similar situation - the model is 33% less effective while costing >66% less in price.
edit: thinking about it, to reach parity, a marine needs to be shooting and fighting in melee every turn to achieve relative performance compared to the prices. Either that, or a guardsman should cost ~33% less than a marine, which would be about 8 points. I find that interesting to think about.
I always viewed Orders as AM's Aura Bonus, but gakky.
Every other character has an "aura bonus" from the lowly Canoness's re-rolling 1s to hit to the monster Guilliman re-rolling everything to ever.
AM have no such aura bonus, but instead get orders.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Orders are aura bonuses that affect only 1 unit in the Aura rather than all of them (hence the gakky).
It's debatable whether some are better than an aura bonus or not (e.g. re-roll 1s to hit but only in shooting is shittier than the Canoness's, while "Get Back In The Fight" is very good, as is FRFSRF, though FRFSRF is like a more reliable version of the aura bonus from the Space Marine Ancient).
Last I checked...My chapter tactics don't affect my tanks...So it's hardly a wash. Orders are just free BSAM gets for no freaking reason...army traits are capter tactics but better.
Orders require a character to issue them.
The characters might be cheaper than dirt, but if the characters aren't within their Voice of Command radius or 3" of a Vox-Caster and being issued to a unit with a Vox-Caster? They're not doing anything.
Tanks require a specific type of character(Tank Commander) to be issued Orders and even then it only applies to Leman Russ variants.
Most the AM army traits have a bonus to their tanks. None of the space marine ones do. They can even give their tanks orders and put commanders to make them shoot as good/better than a space marine - in every LR. It really just seems like the elite army has less elite stuff than mass produced one. It's a dang joke. Space marine tanks are supposed to be more advanced than imperial guard tanks.
What if I told you that the IG would get a character that would give ALL the tanks within 6" Fire on my Target - AND that he would be a cheap infantry character you could hide out of LOS instead of a tank you could just target first.
Last I checked...My chapter tactics don't affect my tanks...So it's hardly a wash. Orders are just free BSAM gets for no freaking reason...army traits are capter tactics but better.
Orders require a character to issue them.
The characters might be cheaper than dirt, but if the characters aren't within their Voice of Command radius or 3" of a Vox-Caster and being issued to a unit with a Vox-Caster? They're not doing anything.
Tanks require a specific type of character(Tank Commander) to be issued Orders and even then it only applies to Leman Russ variants.
Dont bother arguing with him, he's a marine player and you know marine players. Anything they dont get is 'bs'
Last I checked...My chapter tactics don't affect my tanks...So it's hardly a wash. Orders are just free BSAM gets for no freaking reason...army traits are capter tactics but better.
Orders require a character to issue them.
The characters might be cheaper than dirt, but if the characters aren't within their Voice of Command radius or 3" of a Vox-Caster and being issued to a unit with a Vox-Caster? They're not doing anything.
Tanks require a specific type of character(Tank Commander) to be issued Orders and even then it only applies to Leman Russ variants.
Dont bother arguing with him, he's a marine player and you know marine players. Anything they dont get is 'bs'
Heck, even things that are worse versions of things they do get are gak!
Last I checked...My chapter tactics don't affect my tanks...So it's hardly a wash. Orders are just free BSAM gets for no freaking reason...army traits are capter tactics but better.
Orders require a character to issue them.
The characters might be cheaper than dirt, but if the characters aren't within their Voice of Command radius or 3" of a Vox-Caster and being issued to a unit with a Vox-Caster? They're not doing anything.
Tanks require a specific type of character(Tank Commander) to be issued Orders and even then it only applies to Leman Russ variants.
Most the AM army traits have a bonus to their tanks. None of the space marine ones do. They can even give their tanks orders and put commanders to make them shoot as good/better than a space marine - in every LR. It really just seems like the elite army has less elite stuff than mass produced one. It's a dang joke. Space marine tanks are supposed to be more advanced than imperial guard tanks.
Space Marine tanks are more advanced. If you look at the pure profile, the SM tanks are faster and have more firepower (4 lascannons vs 1 Vanquisher Cannon, 1 Hull Lascannon, 2 Heavy Bolter Sponsons for the tank destroyer versions of each tank).
The difference is in Doctrine. For the SM, the tanks are just sorta there (I guess. Every time I want to field a Space Marine tank company I get yelled at by SM players that they always have infantry and never field pure tank formations), while the Imperium actively fields massed tank units.
This is reflected in Grinding Advance, where the Leman Russ slows the pace of its advance to enable the gunner to fire more accurately and therefore more often, and in Tank Commanders who can command tanks.
It's worth noting that the SM have a tank commander too - Sgt. Chronus.
Last I checked...My chapter tactics don't affect my tanks...So it's hardly a wash. Orders are just free BSAM gets for no freaking reason...army traits are capter tactics but better.
Orders require a character to issue them.
The characters might be cheaper than dirt, but if the characters aren't within their Voice of Command radius or 3" of a Vox-Caster and being issued to a unit with a Vox-Caster? They're not doing anything.
Tanks require a specific type of character(Tank Commander) to be issued Orders and even then it only applies to Leman Russ variants.
Most the AM army traits have a bonus to their tanks. None of the space marine ones do. They can even give their tanks orders and put commanders to make them shoot as good/better than a space marine - in every LR. It really just seems like the elite army has less elite stuff than mass produced one. It's a dang joke. Space marine tanks are supposed to be more advanced than imperial guard tanks.
Space Marine tanks are more advanced. If you look at the pure profile, the SM tanks are faster and have more firepower (4 lascannons vs 1 Vanquisher Cannon, 1 Hull Lascannon, 2 Heavy Bolter Sponsons for the tank destroyer versions of each tank).
The difference is in Doctrine. For the SM, the tanks are just sorta there (I guess. Every time I want to field a Space Marine tank company I get yelled at by SM players that they always have infantry and never field pure tank formations), while the Imperium actively fields massed tank units.
This is reflected in Grinding Advance, where the Leman Russ slows the pace of its advance to enable the gunner to fire more accurately and therefore more often, and in Tank Commanders who can command tanks.
It's worth noting that the SM have a tank commander too - Sgt. Chronus.
Can only take 1 chronus. You can take a supreme command of LR commander and have each tank buff the other with reroll 1's. Plus the LR turret is equal to 3 las cannons and you can take hull las cannon. So the lemon clearly has more firepower in commander form. This isn't even factoring in catachen trait or the other one that makes you degrade slower or the 2 plasma cannons or heavy bolters you can add in. Or the +1 toughness. Again. The russ is clearly better than a predator. If marine chapter tactics affected our tanks though it would be a much closer comparison.
Well in real life - tanks 1 shot each other and it's a game to acquire the target first. That's who wins the duel. I'm okay with fantasy tanks having fantasy guns. But the elite army should have more advanced weapons.
It would have been a lot cooler if marine preds got the shoot twice with the turret rule and the LR guns were just made crudely stronger (like they add +1 to wound rolls with their turret weapon because their shells are so big) or something like that.
