With the release of the new AM codex there has been some playtesting with the new rules. I am an avid AM player and have done exceedingly well with the AM index book never even using conscripts. AM was already the dominating army our local meta for both games and tournaments. In every tournament or event in 8th an AM list has won it.

WIth the previews, reviews, and leaks that have come out my gaming group is very concerned after play games to test out some lists. The new AM codex with unit buffs, points reductions, strategems and new relics just outclasses everything. Even armies with their recent codexes have not survived past turn 3 or 4. Index armies have zero chance of winning. The amount of firepower the Cadians can do by rerolling all hits and the damage the Catachans are capable of doing by rerolling the number of shots is insane. Honestly, it was so bad one player said he would never play AM in its current form again. It was obvious that neither player had fun because the AM player felt bad and his opponent had zero fun.

So now we are now forced to make some hard decisions for our upcoming events. Do we completely ban all new Codex AM from our events and only use the index, or ban several units, or make other changes. We don’t want to ruin both gamers experiences and want everyone to feel they have a chance to win. Our games have shown some AM units/buffs are just to good for what they cost.

This is just our initial list:

1) The Cadian trait to reroll all failed to hits makes units insanely to good especially when paired with the ability to spread the order for free on a 4+. In addition, the stratagems and relics that also allow for rerolling failed wounds or add +1 to hit rolls.
2) Regimental traits work on everything to include tanks and infantry. In contrast, these buffs only work on infantry/dreads in other armies
3) Basilisks able to reroll hits and now being -3 AP makes it insane to say the least for 108pts and even better with other buffs
4) Hellhound now gaining 2D6 shots with their 16” inferno cannon for only 101pts makes way to good at multiple roles.
5) Baneblades and in particular Shadowswords, getting a price reduction, more shots (3D3), the ability to move an shoot with no penalty, and benefits from regimental abilities, strategems and new psychic powers.
6) The AM previously capable of having the most command points now can generate more on both players turn giving them seemingly an an infinite amount.
7) Leman Russ tanks getting double shots if they only move half distance, a price reduction, and new plasma vents, orders, and chapter trait buffs makes Executioners just stupid. 2D6 shots of plasma overcharged from the turret makes it just to good. The punisher upgrades on Pask is leaves nothing alive.
8) The ability to now make a unit (i.e. a baneblade), +2 save and -1 to hit was badly designed. How was were some of these not infantry only?

So what is your local group doing to keep balance and make the game fun for everybody? I am in awe that GW gave so many buffs to the metas already widely accepted strongest 8th edition faction. The AM literally have zero weaknesses or counter builds due to their cost and unit choice variety. Either they did no playtesting with this codex or used some of the upcoming books which also may have ludicrous power. Meaning if you were a pre-AM codex you are likely going to struggle.

I know you said you played some playtesting games, but at least give it some time. It hasn't released yet. Instead of worrying about what it may be like, think about how to counter the army. Play it out on the table.

It may be unbalanced, but at least wait for it to be released and play against it a reasonable amount.

I think whoever it was they got in from the competitive scene for the AM army, he is entirely incapable of balancing anything. I mean I obviously don't know the dynamic, but if his playtesting of the index made him greenlight buffs across the board for AM, then he's clearly not very good at being objective.

Can the book actually come out before we have these threads popping up all over the damn forum?

CassianSol wrote:

I know you said you played some playtesting games, but at least give it some time. It hasn't released yet. Instead of worrying about what it may be like, think about how to counter the army. Play it out on the table.

It may be unbalanced, but at least wait for it to be released and play against it a reasonable amount.

The real problem is how bitter this codex has made several players in our towards 40k. Everyone hoped this codex would balance out AM with everyone else. Instead the opposite has happened and GW doubled down on broke. I hope somethign is done soon. We were really starting to grow as a group now that may stop. I play AM and I don’t want to be that guy. Who wants to play an army that neither player enjoys playing with or against. I don’t want to be constantly apologizing to my opponent.

I know what you mean. 8th and the attitude that GW was advertising going into it has done miracles for the 40k scene... but now that they're showing their hand, it looks like more of the same old same old, and it's hurting that forward momentum like crazy.

How much terrain are you testing with? One of the most common problems is that people try to fight a gunline with what is effectively zero terrain, as it doesn't really block LOS at all and so doesn't limit the gunline much. I would try to increase levels of terrain until the fight is fair. A Cadian gunline is a lot easier to handle if you have cityfight levels of tall buildings. Of course, that may not be practical to achieve but I would definitely experiment in that direction.

Some of the buffs really blow my mind. Was anyone really asking for the hellhound to get a buffs? I mean it pays only 20pts for a flamer that does 2D6 auto hits, STR 6, -1 AP, AND HAS A 16” RANGE!! The turret should cost more like 40pts when compared to other flamers w/ an 8” range.

Stratagems are such a powerful addition, anyone without a basic suite of stratagems besides the main rule book ones are honestly playing with a severe disadvantage.

 Trickstick wrote:
How much terrain are you testing with? One of the most common problems is that people try to fight a gunline with what is effectively zero terrain, as it doesn't really block LOS at all and so doesn't limit the gunline much. I would try to increase levels of terrain until the fight is fair. A Cadian gunline is a lot easier to handle if you have cityfight levels of tall buildings. Of course, that may not be practical to achieve but I would definitely experiment in that direction.

Most games had a good amount of terrain and it was LOS terrain. The list we developed of what must be changed is pretty comprehensive. Nothing just survives the hellhounds, Basilisks, and Executioners (now crazy good at both AT and heavy infantry). The saddest part is most of the AM players were not even taking “power lists.” If you haven’t faced the new AM stuff then good luck. Try not to get bitter during and after the game. Our next tournament is 5 weeks. If something isn’t done by GW we will likely be forced to make balance changes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vertrucio wrote:
Stratagems are such a powerful addition, anyone without a basic suite of stratagems besides the main rule book ones are honestly playing with a severe disadvantage.

Especially when most armies have about 7ish command points and the AM have in reality around 20 with a brigade, Creed, and their relics/traits.

WAaaaaaaaaaagh. WAaaaaggghh. I wonder what the next codex will be. It's obviously only ever "OMG the game is broken forever" and "Steaming hot garbage" would be nice for the codex to be.... you know. Actually out first.

 Hollow wrote:
WAaaaaaaaaaagh. WAaaaaggghh. I wonder what the next codex will be. It's obviously only ever "OMG the game is broken forever" and "Steaming hot garbage" would be nice for the codex to be.... you know. Actually out first.

Nothing really changes that much waiting, Maybe GW will listen if the book isnt even out and people are worried. Also, seems you are over reacting a bit.

 Vertrucio wrote:
Stratagems are such a powerful addition, anyone without a basic suite of stratagems besides the main rule book ones are honestly playing with a severe disadvantage.

In the 6 or so games I've played with my space marines I've only used one stratagem, strike from the shadows. The rest all seem a bit crap to me when compared with the critical rerolls the CPs give you.

Apple fox wrote:

 Hollow wrote:
WAaaaaaaaaaagh. WAaaaaggghh. I wonder what the next codex will be. It's obviously only ever "OMG the game is broken forever" and "Steaming hot garbage" would be nice for the codex to be.... you know. Actually out first.

Nothing really changes that much waiting, Maybe GW will listen if the book isnt even out and people are worried. Also, seems you are over reacting a bit.

The only parts of the codex not fully leaked are the fluff, photos, and painting guide. It is a silly assumption to believe that those sections are really going to impact the game balance we tested. Sure players can read the back story, but it will not change the results I just posted.

broxus wrote:
The saddest part is most of the AM players were not even taking “power lists.” If you haven’t faced the new AM stuff then good luck.

As an IG player, I'm on the other side of the coin. Of course I want my army to be good and kick some teeth in, but it is no fun if the opponent never had a chance. I'm going to run a Tallarn Armoured Brigade, which at least is not such a face beater as if I ran Cadian or Catachan. Those Catachans look evil, especially if you stick d6 shot weapons everywhere.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 Vertrucio wrote:
Stratagems are such a powerful addition, anyone without a basic suite of stratagems besides the main rule book ones are honestly playing with a severe disadvantage.

In the 6 or so games I've played with my space marines I've only used one stratagem, strike from the shadows. The rest all seem a bit crap to me when compared with the critical rerolls the CPs give you.

Honestly this is because most of the SM traits are meh at best.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trickstick wrote:

broxus wrote:
The saddest part is most of the AM players were not even taking “power lists.” If you haven’t faced the new AM stuff then good luck.

As an IG player, I'm on the other side of the coin. Of course I want my army to be good and kick some teeth in, but it is no fun if the opponent never had a chance. I'm going to run a Tallarn Armoured Brigade, which at least is not such a face beater as if I ran Cadian or Catachan. Those Catachans look evil, especially if you stick d6 shot weapons everywhere.

Honestly, the solution we may have to do is just ban the Catachan/Cadian lists, ban Baneblades, and limit basilisks/hellhounds. That may be enough but I don’t think it still fixes the Executioner/Punisher problem.

Yea i want to kick players teeth in. However, I don’t want to win just because of my codex and have everyone diminish my wins by saying it wasn’t you it was your codex. I think there is a fine balance between the two. Please post your results with Talleran lists. I am curious to see if that helps balance things out.

broxus wrote:
Honestly, the solution we may have to do is just ban the Catachan/Cadian lists, ban Baneblades, and limit basilisks/hellhounds. That may be enough but I don’t think it still fixes the Executioner/Punisher problem.

I would be very careful about outright banning things, it really is the nuclear option. For instance, I love my Shadowsword/Stormsword as it makes a great centrepiece to an armoured company list. If I just wasn't allowed to bring it I would probably not bother. Not that I always bring it, but it is nice to be able to. That is why I would, first and foremost, experiment within the current rules before changing points/rules or removing units. There are so many ways you can change the game through terrain and missions that it is a really powerful tool. If Guard are winning all of the time, there should be ways to structure the missions to balance that out. For instance, the Cadian gunline is not going to be very effective if your missions revolve around entering a city and capturing key points. Narrowing the sight lines of the army will make it so that you don't have to expose yourself to the entire enemy army at once, letting you nibble it to death. If they go artillery heavy to get around this, then they open themselves up to a direct attack. Hell, you could do crazy things like fill the deployment zones with lots of impassible terrain to break up gunlines, but give people extra reserves to compensate.

Just a few ideas but the mission rules are such a powerful tool for the TO that they really should be exploited to their fullest. Also, whilst you can hurt certain armies more than others, they are intrinsically "fair" because everyone has to play by them.

It seems very strange that Imperial Guard would get their codex around this time. The codexes are designed to give large buffs to that army, with things like chapter tactics, warlord traits, expanded psychic lores, points reductions and loads of stratagems. It would make sense to start with the armies with the least power to bring them up to speed. So it seems strange that they would elect to choose what was already the strongest index army to get more powerful.

Darsath wrote:
It seems very strange that Imperial Guard would get their codex around this time. The codexes are designed to give large buffs to that army, with things like chapter tactics, warlord traits, expanded psychic lores, points reductions and loads of stratagems. It would make sense to start with the armies with the least power to bring them up to speed. So it seems strange that they would elect to choose what was already the strongest index army to get more powerful.

It makes sense if Guard are one of the best selling armies. I assume they are, as Forgeworld was pretty much created as an IG model company until Badab/Heresy stuff became popular. Also, Guard players are some of the bigger spenders. You don't get marine players getting 10 Predators and 200 infantry quite as much. It was also a range which they could revitalise and generate a lot of interest in through the reintroduction of doctrines, something that will bring some of the old 3.5ed people back. There has always been a feeling of loss over the doctrine system.

As a long term guard player with what is essentially going to be the Catachan face stomp army since somewhere near the middle of 5th:

1. I'm going to have to pack SM and AdMech faaaar more often simply because it's going to be more fun for folks and make for longer games.
2. The baneblade variants are going to see *more* play but only as individual, unaugmented models ; they're big and scary but this way they're at least interesting to play against.
3. i'll probably stick to the index anyway given the animosity.

This is Our Time as IG; we should demonstrate we are in fact the better grade of player compared to our forebears in GK and Eldar eras by being upright and gracious about it.

Not least because it's going to go to someone else eventually.

Thought this was a thread about the Adeptus Mechanicus...

Besides the stupid dog latin name why did GW give the IG the same initials?

Anyway the answer is 9th edition.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Thought this was a thread about the Adeptus Mechanicus...

Besides the stupid dog latin name why did GW give the IG the same initials?

Anyway the answer is 9th edition.

The "done thing" is "AM" is the Guard, and Adeptus Mechanicus is "AdMech"
Just leaving them as "Imperial Guard" feels like it would have made the most sense...

 Purifier wrote:

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Thought this was a thread about the Adeptus Mechanicus...

Besides the stupid dog latin name why did GW give the IG the same initials?

Anyway the answer is 9th edition.

The "done thing" is "AM" is the Guard, and Adeptus Mechanicus is "AdMech"
Just leaving them as "Imperial Guard" feels like it would have made the most sense...

Imperialis Guardianos!

 Hollow wrote:
WAaaaaaaaaaagh. WAaaaaggghh. I wonder what the next codex will be. It's obviously only ever "OMG the game is broken forever" and "Steaming hot garbage" would be nice for the codex to be.... you know. Actually out first.

People said this when Eldar and Tau came out for 7th Ed and we know how that worked out, same as with the freebie formations - again people say "try it" -six months later everyone hates it.

The one possible positive is that GW is actually listening to some feedback and also making adjustments via FAQs - is it he right stuff, is it all covered - nope but its not the stinking mire that was 7th.

Having the Codex release system rather than universal updates does make this worse. Armies are neglected or don't receive proper attention and others do which makes them seem even better.

 Trickstick wrote:

Darsath wrote:
It seems very strange that Imperial Guard would get their codex around this time. The codexes are designed to give large buffs to that army, with things like chapter tactics, warlord traits, expanded psychic lores, points reductions and loads of stratagems. It would make sense to start with the armies with the least power to bring them up to speed. So it seems strange that they would elect to choose what was already the strongest index army to get more powerful.

It makes sense if Guard are one of the best selling armies. I assume they are, as Forgeworld was pretty much created as an IG model company until Badab/Heresy stuff became popular. Also, Guard players are some of the bigger spenders. You don't get marine players getting 10 Predators and 200 infantry quite as much. It was also a range which they could revitalise and generate a lot of interest in through the reintroduction of doctrines, something that will bring some of the old 3.5ed people back. There has always been a feeling of loss over the doctrine system.

It will certainly make Imperial Guard look like a strong army for inclusion in Imperium allied armies. Unfortunately, it also demonstrates a trend towards power creep if it is intended to sell whatever is the newest book. I hope not.

I think we're all forgetting the biggest victim here... the orks... imagine having a 370pts unit that basically has the same chance to wound itself with two of its weapons than damage the enemy? Now imagine a the other player basically has 3 units for the same points, each far more useful and effective tha that one unit. Now imagine 1 100pts unit can take down almost 200pts or orks a turn! Finally, imagine the only thing you are kinda okay at ( cc ) is now a dangerous tactic as you'll probably lose half your army in overwatch alone as your opponent has no negatives in their specialist skill, shooting.

Basically, our fun (already poor tactics) of mek army is our the window and our only competitive list of hordes is now useless.

broxus wrote:
With the release of the new AM codex there has been some playtesting with the new rules. I am an avid AM player and have done exceedingly well with the AM index book never even using conscripts. AM was already the dominating army our local meta for both games and tournaments. In every tournament or event in 8th an AM list has won it.

WIth the previews, reviews, and leaks that have come out my gaming group is very concerned after play games to test out some lists. The new AM codex with unit buffs, points reductions, strategems and new relics just outclasses everything. Even armies with their recent codexes have not survived past turn 3 or 4. Index armies have zero chance of winning. The amount of firepower the Cadians can do by rerolling all hits and the damage the Catachans are capable of doing by rerolling the number of shots is insane. Honestly, it was so bad one player said he would never play AM in its current form again. It was obvious that neither player had fun because the AM player felt bad and his opponent had zero fun.

So now we are now forced to make some hard decisions for our upcoming events. Do we completely ban all new Codex AM from our events and only use the index, or ban several units, or make other changes. We don’t want to ruin both gamers experiences and want everyone to feel they have a chance to win. Our games have shown some AM units/buffs are just to good for what they cost.

This is just our initial list:

1) The Cadian trait to reroll all failed to hits makes units insanely to good especially when paired with the ability to spread the order for free on a 4+. In addition, the stratagems and relics that also allow for rerolling failed wounds or add +1 to hit rolls.

The Cadian trait is to reroll 1s to Hit when the unit stands still. If the unit receives the "Take Aim!" Order(An Infantry unit only Order that grants Rerolls on to Hit rolls of 1), they instead get to reroll all failed to Hits. Additionally the Cadian Warlord Trait that allows you to spread the same Order for free requires you to be in Order distance, yadda yadda yadda.

If you're going to complain or playtest things, make sure you're playtesting them right.

Darsath wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

Darsath wrote:
It seems very strange that Imperial Guard would get their codex around this time. The codexes are designed to give large buffs to that army, with things like chapter tactics, warlord traits, expanded psychic lores, points reductions and loads of stratagems. It would make sense to start with the armies with the least power to bring them up to speed. So it seems strange that they would elect to choose what was already the strongest index army to get more powerful.

It makes sense if Guard are one of the best selling armies. I assume they are, as Forgeworld was pretty much created as an IG model company until Badab/Heresy stuff became popular. Also, Guard players are some of the bigger spenders. You don't get marine players getting 10 Predators and 200 infantry quite as much. It was also a range which they could revitalise and generate a lot of interest in through the reintroduction of doctrines, something that will bring some of the old 3.5ed people back. There has always been a feeling of loss over the doctrine system.

It will certainly make Imperial Guard look like a strong army for inclusion in Imperium allied armies. Unfortunately, it also demonstrates a trend towards power creep if it is intended to sell whatever is the newest book. I hope not.

On this note I think the Eldar book (that's next, right?) will be the real indicator here; if it's like IG tier then it's obvious there is blatant power creep (also proof that GW, even with outside playtesters, can't balance the game worth gak. "Most Balanced Edition" and all that crap).

I don't think GW will do anything to "fix" it, because like always GW doesn't understand the problem. They'll leave it up to the ITC or whomever to fix the issues while your WAAC gamers flock to the best stuff like they always do.

Well, we've seen GW's first major stumble. This edition, rules wise. Some might argue that was admech, but honestly they did at least fix a number of major issues with the army (enginseer HQs and cheaper troops opened it up so very much). So, even with admech being underwhelming, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt that they were making progress.

But this codex just doesn't illustrate that. It's not in line with the previous codices overall and numerous needed changes are not present. It's by far the first big misstep this edition, rules wise.

Now, if they address it in the FAQ/errata things will be good and GW will likely be praised for being responsive. If they make us wait till chapter approved, that's going to get a far more mixed response. If this codex sets the standard for others moving forward or is a one time thing GW fails address even in chapter approved, there will be a lot of animosity moving forward and some of those players which 8th drew back in might start gravitating away from 40k.

It'll be interesting to see how they respond to their first big screw up though. Is "new" GW capable of admitting its mistakes or will they compound them?

broxus wrote:With the release of the new AM codex there has been some playtesting with the new rules. I am an avid AM player and have done exceedingly well with the AM index book never even using conscripts. AM was already the dominating army our local meta for both games and tournaments. In every tournament or event in 8th an AM list has won it.

WIth the previews, reviews, and leaks that have come out my gaming group is very concerned after play games to test out some lists. The new AM codex with unit buffs, points reductions, strategems and new relics just outclasses everything. Even armies with their recent codexes have not survived past turn 3 or 4. Index armies have zero chance of winning. The amount of firepower the Cadians can do by rerolling all hits and the damage the Catachans are capable of doing by rerolling the number of shots is insane. Honestly, it was so bad one player said he would never play AM in its current form again. It was obvious that neither player had fun because the AM player felt bad and his opponent had zero fun.

So now we are now forced to make some hard decisions for our upcoming events. Do we completely ban all new Codex AM from our events and only use the index, or ban several units, or make other changes. We don’t want to ruin both gamers experiences and want everyone to feel they have a chance to win. Our games have shown some AM units/buffs are just to good for what they cost.

This is just our initial list:

1) The Cadian trait to reroll all failed to hits makes units insanely to good especially when paired with the ability to spread the order for free on a 4+. In addition, the stratagems and relics that also allow for rerolling failed wounds or add +1 to hit rolls.
2) Regimental traits work on everything to include tanks and infantry. In contrast, these buffs only work on infantry/dreads in other armies
3) Basilisks able to reroll hits and now being -3 AP makes it insane to say the least for 108pts and even better with other buffs
4) Hellhound now gaining 2D6 shots with their 16” inferno cannon for only 101pts makes way to good at multiple roles.
5) Baneblades and in particular Shadowswords, getting a price reduction, more shots (3D3), the ability to move an shoot with no penalty, and benefits from regimental abilities, strategems and new psychic powers.
6) The AM previously capable of having the most command points now can generate more on both players turn giving them seemingly an an infinite amount.
7) Leman Russ tanks getting double shots if they only move half distance, a price reduction, and new plasma vents, orders, and chapter trait buffs makes Executioners just stupid. 2D6 shots of plasma overcharged from the turret makes it just to good. The punisher upgrades on Pask is leaves nothing alive.
8) The ability to now make a unit (i.e. a baneblade), +2 save and -1 to hit was badly designed. How was were some of these not infantry only?

So what is your local group doing to keep balance and make the game fun for everybody? I am in awe that GW gave so many buffs to the metas already widely accepted strongest 8th edition faction. The AM literally have zero weaknesses or counter builds due to their cost and unit choice variety. Either they did no playtesting with this codex or used some of the upcoming books which also may have ludicrous power. Meaning if you were a pre-AM codex you are likely going to struggle.

1: And is still not better than FRF-SRF
2: So? IG doesn't have dreadnoughts, and their tanks are an integral part of their army's theme.
3: Except that Basilisks are still worse than manticores
4: Like clearing infantry and... clearing infantry. They're not even that good at it anyway.
5: Baneblades yes, will probably be too good.
6: Not like it matters, unless you're doing away with the rule that prevents you from using a strategem more than once per phase.
7: And Leman Russes still are mathematically inferior to the Manticore, and cost more.

There were a ton of buffs, but they were almost all to units that were very bad. With the exception of the super heavies, none of the other good units were buffed, and as evidenced by the fact that none of the post-buff units are better than the Manticore is now, I have no idea why the sky is falling.

Purifier wrote:I think whoever it was they got in from the competitive scene for the AM army, he is entirely incapable of balancing anything. I mean I obviously don't know the dynamic, but if his playtesting of the index made him greenlight buffs across the board for AM, then he's clearly not very good at being objective.

Because all the buffs are to things that are astoundingly bad, like Leman Russes.

Post buffs, all the tanks and artillery are still inferior to the current Manticore or Wyvern.


I don't have a book in hand yet, but with the exception of the Baneblades, from what I've heard, I think the writers probably did a very good job addressing problems where there were problems.

Hey guys, apparently having a virtually infinite number of CP isn't an issue because you can only use one stratagem per phase! Being able to reroll once every phase on top of every other stratagem you might want isn't an issue at all, and doesn't increase power in anyway.

Seriously, just stop. Your codex is broken, last time you tried to defend broken stuff you were shown to be totally wrong.

Oh, and conscripts weren't nerfed in any meaningful way. So again, no.

Sorry where do the infinite CPs come from?

SilverAlien wrote:
Hey guys, apparently having a virtually infinite number of CP isn't an issue because you can only use one stratagem per phase! Being able to reroll once every phase on top of every other stratagem you might want isn't an issue at all, and doesn't increase power in anyway.

Seriously, just stop. Your codex is broken, last time you tried to defend broken stuff you were shown to be totally wrong.

Oh, and conscripts weren't nerfed in any meaningful way. So again, no.

No, it doesn't. I'm not sure where the infinite number of CP come from in the first place, and that would require strategems to be useful in all phases, and guard to not already have enough CP to use all the strategems they want.


The fact of the matter is the army got strictly worse. Good units were nerfed, and bad units were buffed, but the buffed bad units are still worse than even post-nerf good units.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Sorry where do the infinite CPs come from?

I'm assuming that you're using weighted dice and using Kurov's Aquila, which lets you gain a CP whenever the opponent uses a Stratagem on a roll of 5+.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
6: Not like it matters, unless you're doing away with the rule that prevents you from using a strategem more than once per phase.

Well don't forget that it is you can't use the same stratagem more than once a phase, you can still use as many different ones as you like. With the quantity of new ones that can be added, you can blow through a lot of points in a single phase. You could heal a tank, make it charge and hit on 2+, get a unit to throw 10 krak grenades, run your sentinels towards objectives and then Vengence for Cadia your shadowsword. Not to mention all the stratagems that buff units (Armoury and Commissar tank, or the Tallarn outflank) or you use as reactions like overwatch and cover. There are now so many things to spend the points on that you are going to have to be careful not to blow through them all too quickly. Guard forces are going to want as many command points as possible, it is pretty insane what they can do if they have enough points. I think that proper stratagem use is going to be what separates the great players from the good.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
Sorry where do the infinite CPs come from?

The *potential* comes from the fact that Guard have both a Warlord Trait and Relic that gives CP refunds (Warlord Trait works when you use a Strat, the Relic works when your opponent uses one) making IG the most efficient at regenerating CP.
Couple that as being the army that has the easiest time spamming CPs naively, and some find that overwhelming.

I will say though, "infinite" is more than a bit hyperbolic.

How much terrain are you testing with? One of the most common problems is that people try to fight a gunline with what is effectively zero terrain, as it doesn't really block LOS at all and so doesn't limit the gunline much. I would try to increase levels of terrain until the fight is fair. A Cadian gunline is a lot easier to handle if you have cityfight levels of tall buildings. Of course, that may not be practical to achieve but I would definitely experiment in that direction.

People have been almost mindlessly chanting this mantra as the miracle "cure-all" since 6th ed. At the time, it may actually have been true, but terrain (of any kind) has never mattered less in any way than in 8th. It's the one thing I really think they totally failed at in an otherwise great ruleset. Non-scatter deep-strike and non-scattering, indirect fire weaponry means all that formerly awesome LoS blocking terrain you have means way less than it did last edition. No one has more (or better) indirect fire capability than the Guard ...

More cover didn't work when one of the main issues of the editions tended to be very, very mobile (Scat bikes and Wave Serpent Shield Lasers come to mind)

None listened when we said they failed adeptus mechanicus codes. All startin to say oh you want broken thing and great value in codex while it does not work.

Not next coded in a row broken. Broken badly instead or making astra near other armies they buffed it.

You might now get the picture. Gw has made books before real feed badk was given. Thse books are stupod trash that have nothing to do with

A) playtest
B) armies real str in table
C) community feedback
D) so much praised balance of 8th edition

They suppose to be listening this edition to community. Guess what?? They dont

Gonna play broken guard as the rest. Havent see nothing else the last month. Who ever plays anything else looses. And i can verify it for the large part of wh community in my country.

We had index why the f didnt they made preparation to listen to community? From all playing 8th to bored with broken trash in a month.

Amd if you cant see it you ll soon learn the hard way. Los bla bla childish excuses. Parrots of paid review of balqmce and value. Its f broken. We can play our armies and we cant stop people playing theirs. Its just stupid.

And there ar even now lot of kids that wanna see the codex. Why dont you go play this broken trash alone see if it works

LOS blockers work wonders against things like conscripts though. Have you ever seen a conscript blob try to advance up a 6" street? I'm really thinking about cityfight amounts of terrain here, where having small elite units can really help. Hell, you could even have certain roads where something like a baneblade wouldn't even fit. Of course, you shouldn't go overboard.

It would make sense for GW to push high terrain boards as the way to go, they sell terrain. I do agree that the terrain rules are very basic and need an update though.

You could always just go into house rules too. -1 to hit without LOS is a simple one I just thought of, slight nerf to artillery but fits somewhat to how they used to work. I prefer to work inside the rules than add extra rules, but it really is preferable to straight up banning models. As I have said, that should be the nuclear option after all else has failed.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
The fact of the matter is the army got strictly worse.

That is... not even close to the fact of the matter. The fact of the matter isn't even in the same city as that statement.

With the regimental bonus and access to more stratagems, even Conscripts got *better* than their Index equivalent. "Oh but everyone gets that stuff" you say. Yes, but everyone weren't kicking codex armies butts with their index army. Conscripts were already dominating the meta, and now they're better than ever, even with the nerfs they got.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
No, it doesn't. I'm not sure where the infinite number of CP come from in the first place, and that would require strategems to be useful in all phases, and guard to not already have enough CP to use all the strategems they want.


The fact of the matter is the army got strictly worse. Good units were nerfed, and bad units were buffed, but the buffed bad units are still worse than even post-nerf good units.

I have no idea how you could possibly think there is a reachable point where more cp isn't useful. Yes, 50 cp might be overkill, but 30? Even if you front load it in the first three turns, you can absolutely burn through 10 cp a turn if you want to. Most armies cap out at 10, and even then that takes sacrifices, guard can get 12 with ease, and with relic and warlord trait could be looking at around 19-20 effective CP. You can easily find a usage for 7 cp a turn early on.

You think your army got worse? Are you joking? The main two nerfs were to plasma scions and conscript offensive power. Do you want to compare that to the buffs?

Artillery is amazing now, with catachan. The basilisk now has the same offensive power as the manticore per point and more durable per point, doesn't run out of shots, and honestly the manticore itself didn't need any buffs. Super heavies are fairly disgusting. Conscripts can now be more durable than they were pre codex, the thing they were already broken at. Plus absurd WTs and Relics which are direct upgrades to some of the best options in previous codices. This is just at a glance, I'm sure there is more stuff in not seeing, given the numerous price cuts and small rules changes.

Claiming guard is weaker post codex is just... laughable. Absolutely laughable. I can't believe you'd even try to claim that.

I dont remember being payed from gw. On contrary we pay plastic in2017. If they can make a set of rules for some armies then their job is not done.

I dont pay for nothing and you all know if you wnna play you can without gw. That said and since i waited enough for this trash either they release with the monh some serious stuff or they wont see not even a dime more.

Who ever prefers to be moacked go ahead. Once more faq papers in hand just when a new codex released will not happen. I wont do it again so soon. Its stupid and pathetic. Cant f read comunity feadback f joke of a company.

No more excuses. New edition work if you wwnt money f trash 8 editions ans they cant f playtest what they release. Broken armies ,armies not working new qmounts of money for absolutely nothing new. F joke company and younf still support it. Youn better shape up community before you realose this game has only suckers playing it...it will not be the first game it lost its core and said bb.

Yoda79 wrote:
I dont remember being payed from gw. On contrary we pay plastic in2017. If they can make a set of rules for some armies then their job is not done.

I dont pay for nothing and you all know if you wnna play you can without gw. That said and since i waited enough for this trash either they release with the monh some serious stuff or they wont see not even a dime more.

Who ever prefers to be moacked go ahead. Once more faq papers in hand just when a new codex released will not happen. I wont do it again so soon. Its stupid and pathetic. Cant f read comunity feadback f joke of a company.

No more excuses. New edition work if you wwnt money f trash 8 editions ans they cant f playtest what they release. Broken armies ,armies not working new qmounts of money for absolutely nothing new. F joke company and younf still support it. Youn better shape up community before you realose this game has only suckers playing it...it will not be the first game it lost its core and said bb.

Well whoa boy guess I'm a sucker.

morgoth wrote:
You can't spell GW without evil
If GW did it it must be evil, that's the whole point of them being GW isn't it?

I like the new book. It provides a lot of variety to the army. Yes, some things are a little over the top but not so much that I worry that I can't compete with it.
I still think conscripts should lose the ability to score objectives, but otherwise, I don't really see many problems with the codex. Like most fights when you have an index army against a codex army, your going to suffer until yours comes out.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
I like the new book. It provides a lot of variety to the army. Yes, some things are a little over the top but not so much that I worry that I can't compete with it.
I still think conscripts should lose the ability to score objectives, but otherwise, I don't really see many problems with the codex. Like most fights when you have an index army against a codex army, your going to suffer until yours comes out.

Don't get me wrong, I like the book. It's just way overtuned and some things, like conscripts, still need a proper fix, not just a variable nerf that you might fail an order (or not) and a unit size one. Those are way too small to nerf something that at the same time is getting buffs.

Tycho wrote:

How much terrain are you testing with? One of the most common problems is that people try to fight a gunline with what is effectively zero terrain, as it doesn't really block LOS at all and so doesn't limit the gunline much. I would try to increase levels of terrain until the fight is fair. A Cadian gunline is a lot easier to handle if you have cityfight levels of tall buildings. Of course, that may not be practical to achieve but I would definitely experiment in that direction.

People have been almost mindlessly chanting this mantra as the miracle "cure-all" since 6th ed. At the time, it may actually have been true, but terrain (of any kind) has never mattered less in any way than in 8th. It's the one thing I really think they totally failed at in an otherwise great ruleset. Non-scatter deep-strike and non-scattering, indirect fire weaponry means all that formerly awesome LoS blocking terrain you have means way less than it did last edition. No one has more (or better) indirect fire capability than the Guard ...

Regardless the opinion one could have about the codex - I say wait and see* but the signs are not good - this comment is spot-on, IMHO.
Terrain and how much is "interesting" is probably the greatest victim of 8th.

I dare to ask - people perceive and imbalance and I can see why. But how BIG is such imbalance? Are IG the 8th edition Eldar or there is nothing so far that operates at that obnoxious level?


* but then again, I underestimated the conscripts back then, very, very, VERY dumb Kaiyanwang

I agree. I expect conscripts will get one too, but honestly, most everything else in the codex seems fine to me. I also half expect indirect fire weapons to get a -1 to hit eventually.
If conscripts couldn't hold objectives and indirect fire weapons suffered a penalty, then things would be great.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
I like the new book. It provides a lot of variety to the army. Yes, some things are a little over the top but not so much that I worry that I can't compete with it.
I still think conscripts should lose the ability to score objectives, but otherwise, I don't really see many problems with the codex. Like most fights when you have an index army against a codex army, your going to suffer until yours comes out.

Except that one of the exceptions to this rule was guard. Who were on par with and in a few case notably better than codex armies before they got their codex. Which buffed them overall.

I don't want to face guard with my codices armies. Admech tactics discussion has basically descended into "how much guard do we need to take to have a chance (consensus is roughly half the army currently). With DG or CSM I'm at a loss, as I still can't kill conscripts efficiently and can't outshoot them at range. Grey Knights are having a bad day, and SM armies just got a wake up call that no, guilliman is not optional, you are playing ultramarines with him and you are allying with guard, and if you don't like it then tough luck.

I can't even imagine how indices armies feel tbh. They struggled with previous codices armies, but for most they might as well not show up.

CassianSol wrote:

I know you said you played some playtesting games, but at least give it some time. It hasn't released yet. Instead of worrying about what it may be like, think about how to counter the army. Play it out on the table.

It may be unbalanced, but at least wait for it to be released and play against it a reasonable amount.

There is no reason to "give it time" The index AM was already blatantly overpowered accorss to board and winning practically every event. Apart from conscripts - everything is getting better. It's not hard to just write this edition off at this point.

SilverAlien wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
I like the new book. It provides a lot of variety to the army. Yes, some things are a little over the top but not so much that I worry that I can't compete with it.
I still think conscripts should lose the ability to score objectives, but otherwise, I don't really see many problems with the codex. Like most fights when you have an index army against a codex army, your going to suffer until yours comes out.

Except that one of the exceptions to this rule was guard. Who were on par with and in a few case notably better than codex armies before they got their codex. Which buffed them overall.

I don't want to face guard with my codices armies. Admech tactics discussion has basically descended into "how much guard do we need to take to have a chance (consensus is roughly half the army currently). With DG or CSM I'm at a loss, as I still can't kill conscripts efficiently and can't outshoot them at range. Grey Knights are having a bad day, and SM armies just got a wake up call that no, guilliman is not optional, you are playing ultramarines with him and you are allying with guard, and if you don't like it then tough luck.

I can't even imagine how indices armies feel tbh. They struggled with previous codices armies, but for most they might as well not show up.

I play orks dude... pretty much used to this feeling by now... just glad the rext of you know how we have felt all this time.... maybe this will encourage you all to get gw to buff orks.

Clearly, no. The IG index was broken and OP, and they clearly either weren't paying attention or don't care, so they went and made it better in every way.

I'm not even sure how 'balance' would be achieved at this point. The codex is out. It's done. Maybe it'll be balanced next edition.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
I agree. I expect conscripts will get one too, but honestly, most everything else in the codex seems fine to me. I also half expect indirect fire weapons to get a -1 to hit eventually.
If conscripts couldn't hold objectives and indirect fire weapons suffered a penalty, then things would be great.

My one single Gripe is that Conscripts and Guardsmen are vying for the same slot. They're both cheap expendable chaff with poor offensive power in small numbers and no real melee to speak of, and their profiles are close to identical. Their job is the same, and that's poor game design. One is always going to do it better than the other.

your solution of not letting them hold objectives *at all* is not a bad solution. It forces Guardsmen into the list, and makes Conscripts only useful as bubblewrap and tarpits, which is exactly what they should be. I would just like to take it one step further and not allow them to fill a troop choice slot in a detachment, so that you can't use them to cap out on CP either. It's not like regular Guardsmen would have a hard time doing that too...

 Xenomancers wrote:

CassianSol wrote:

I know you said you played some playtesting games, but at least give it some time. It hasn't released yet. Instead of worrying about what it may be like, think about how to counter the army. Play it out on the table.

It may be unbalanced, but at least wait for it to be released and play against it a reasonable amount.

There is no reason to "give it time" The index AM was already blatantly overpowered accorss to board and winning practically every event. Apart from conscripts - everything is getting better. It's not hard to just write this edition off at this point.

What, you can't enjoy a game of GSC vs SM? Or anything else? Is the whole edition terrible because one codex is OP?
And I know it never gets talked about when it comes to balance, for obvious reasons, but what about power points? Since you've written off the edition, is that just competitive, because I've had huge enjoyment playing narrative (sometimes with open war cards for whacky fun).

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
Regardless the opinion one could have about the codex - I say wait and see* but the signs are not good - this comment is spot-on, IMHO.
Terrain and how much is "interesting" is probably the greatest victim of 8th.

I dare to ask - people perceive and imbalance and I can see why. But how BIG is such imbalance? Are IG the 8th edition Eldar or there is nothing so far that operates at that obnoxious level?

* but then again, I underestimated the conscripts back then, very, very, VERY dumb Kaiyanwang

This is a decent question. It is undeniably better than any previous codex, and as a stand alone army they are stronger than any other. To what degree remains to be seen, but I'm leaning towards slightly OP myself, at least compared to other codex armies. Again, most index armies are now at a more substantial disadvantage.

The reaction is partially due to the imbalances themselves and partially due to other factors. A big part of the frustration is that the nerfs for problematic units were tepid to the point of being ineffectual, while they felt comfortable tossing out massive buffs on multiple units, even as they added doctrines to every unit. Many units are being buffed in 2-3 different ways, between point changes, doctrines, and direct rule changes. That's a lot of buffs to do all at once, and makes their caution in nerfing certain units feel particularly egregious.

That and the fact you can point to huge swaths of their new relics, warlord traits, and a few stratagems as being directly superior to existing versions in previous codices is also not helping. Being superior in such a blatant and undeniable way provokes strong reactions.

Also, apologies if I seemed harsh earlier, I didn't mean to imply you or anyone else was stupid for advising caution before or now. It merely bothered me to see people being insulting and dismissive of others fears, despite such fears having been proven correct on past occasions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lolman1c wrote:
I play orks dude... pretty much used to this feeling by now... just glad the rext of you know how we have felt all this time.... maybe this will encourage you all to get gw to buff orks.

I'm unsure why someone who plays an already struggling index is happy to see the power level increased even higher. Yes, we all already want everyone to have a balanced codex, and hope they come sooner than later.

Also, I played CSM the last two editions, where the advice for our army was basically okay R&H or demons with token CSM allies. I'm fully aware how bad it could get. I'm unsure why you army falling even further down in the rankings is good news.

SilverAlien wrote:

Also, apologies if I seemed harsh earlier, I didn't mean to imply you or anyone else was stupid for advising caution before or now. It merely bothered me to see people being insulting and dismissive of others fears, despite such fears having been proven correct on past occasions.

I am often excessively harsh and abrasive so take offense from my part would be very hypocritical.

On topic: I find surprising that the guard has additional rules to get CP back, since the army is expected to really drove in them. This looks to me like a gross oversight.

I am happy to have started DG at the moment, the codex looks balanced albeit codex creep could push it back.

 Xenomancers wrote:

CassianSol wrote:

I know you said you played some playtesting games, but at least give it some time. It hasn't released yet. Instead of worrying about what it may be like, think about how to counter the army. Play it out on the table.

It may be unbalanced, but at least wait for it to be released and play against it a reasonable amount.

There is no reason to "give it time" The index AM was already blatantly overpowered accorss to board and winning practically every event. Apart from conscripts - everything is getting better. It's not hard to just write this edition off at this point.

Across the board?

So multilasers are OP? How about Chimeras and regular Tauroxes (the ones that can't take the gatling gun)? What about plasma cannon sentinels? Are grenade launchers OP? Missile launchers? Autocannons? Is the Index LRBT OP? How about sniper SWS? The Master of Ordinance with his single shot and 36" minimum range? How about medics?

And why is it that every instance of "AM winning every event" is actually Ultramarines with AM allies? If AM as a whole was that strong surely someone could win with a pure AM force?

I think everyone here is going a bit overboard (in both directions)

Think about how GW makes money here, they find theres a huge run on overpowered stuff. Think about how many people stocked up on stormravens when they started getting into 8th? Or how much brimstones sold out in the first few tournaments? Or even ravenwing flocks? Then the FAQs came out and were like "just kidding guys, thats stupid." GW is intentionally allowing this codex to be superpowered to get sales going on kits that don't move. I.E. guardsman squads, russes, basilisks (manticores are already sold out everywhere) and Baneblades. All of these will be set back in place once Chapter Approved comes out and does a big shift on the points. I myself foresee conscripts and infantry squads going up 1 point per model, back to the old prices, which also makes veterans more viable. I also would expect a 1pt. hike on Scions, or a 2pt premium to allow deepstrike.

Keep in mind that the turn around for printing is going to be 3-6 months depending on their supplier, so when they put in for AM it was with the knowledge of certain things that had not been broken yet by the community (like conscript spam, im sure they already knew it would be a problem which is why they made the changes they did).

Also keep in mind that just because they have a network of play testers doesn't mean that they will listen to them.

Also we have no idea how things like the "rule of one" will play into things come Chapter Approved, they could put a limit on certain kids of units, the amounts of detachments, etc.

Is this book overpowered, yes, yes it is, is it going to be OP forever? Highly unlikely. Will there be other OP books? YES. The only outlier in this entire equation is Admech being a rather dull book in general.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

CassianSol wrote:

I know you said you played some playtesting games, but at least give it some time. It hasn't released yet. Instead of worrying about what it may be like, think about how to counter the army. Play it out on the table.

It may be unbalanced, but at least wait for it to be released and play against it a reasonable amount.

There is no reason to "give it time" The index AM was already blatantly overpowered accorss to board and winning practically every event. Apart from conscripts - everything is getting better. It's not hard to just write this edition off at this point.

What, you can't enjoy a game of GSC vs SM? Or anything else? Is the whole edition terrible because one codex is OP?
And I know it never gets talked about when it comes to balance, for obvious reasons, but what about power points? Since you've written off the edition, is that just competitive, because I've had huge enjoyment playing narrative (sometimes with open war cards for whacky fun).

None of my group wants to play narrative. To answer your question though - No - I can't find enjoyment in a game where balance isn't even a factor. 80% of this game is list design. It's exceptionally depressing to know I'm failing at making a strong army just by not picking AM to start with. It sucks the fun out of it for me. Power points is just another failed point system if the game was balanced there wouldn't be any meaningful difference between the 2 anyways.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 generalchaos34 wrote:
I think everyone here is going a bit overboard (in both directions)

Think about how GW makes money here, they find theres a huge run on overpowered stuff. Think about how many people stocked up on stormravens when they started getting into 8th? Or how much brimstones sold out in the first few tournaments? Or even ravenwing flocks? Then the FAQs came out and were like "just kidding guys, thats stupid." GW is intentionally allowing this codex to be superpowered to get sales going on kits that don't move. I.E. guardsman squads, russes, basilisks (manticores are already sold out everywhere) and Baneblades. All of these will be set back in place once Chapter Approved comes out and does a big shift on the points. I myself foresee conscripts and infantry squads going up 1 point per model, back to the old prices, which also makes veterans more viable. I also would expect a 1pt. hike on Scions, or a 2pt premium to allow deepstrike.

Keep in mind that the turn around for printing is going to be 3-6 months depending on their supplier, so when they put in for AM it was with the knowledge of certain things that had not been broken yet by the community (like conscript spam, im sure they already knew it would be a problem which is why they made the changes they did).

Also keep in mind that just because they have a network of play testers doesn't mean that they will listen to them.

Also we have no idea how things like the "rule of one" will play into things come Chapter Approved, they could put a limit on certain kids of units, the amounts of detachments, etc.

Is this book overpowered, yes, yes it is, is it going to be OP forever? Highly unlikely. Will there be other OP books? YES. The only outlier in this entire equation is Admech being a rather dull book in general.

True - they could change all the rules next year with chapter approved - but it's no excuse for making an army this OP to begin with. I know GW needs to make money. However - rules doesn't really sell their stuff. I got Primaris stuff because it looks cool to me and I figured they would make a balanced game around it. Turns out - they are worthless piles of garbage rules wise. What we have here is truely a a failure to understand what balance is. They literally pull point values out of their butts for most stuff.

Glad to know I kept my leafblower IG force. They are ready to come out for some sweet easy wins and maybe some trophies!

(y)

If there isn't any meaningful difference between the sides because the game is perfectly balanced, all you'd be playing is chess without squares. I'm not arguing for op and up stuff, but I think that's a little far.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
If there isn't any meaningful difference between the sides because the game is perfectly balanced, all you'd be playing is chess without squares. I'm not arguing for op and up stuff, but I think that's a little far.

That's not how balance works. For the 1,000th time.

 ross-128 wrote:
Across the board?

And why is it that every instance of "AM winning every event" is actually Ultramarines with AM allies? If AM as a whole was that strong surely someone could win with a pure AM force?

It'd actually be fairly unlikely for a given IG army to not include at least a few of the better units from the index, unless you ran mechanized veterans backed by leman russes and valkyries. The guard index was very strong, and a contender for single strongest index army without a doubt.

As to your second point, it's actually not true. See RG did always run with guard, but guard didn't always run with RG. You saw a lot of variations in imperial soup, including assassins, psykers, admech (Cawl+kastalens), SoB (particularly with Celestine), or just FW guard units supplementing the core, which was conscripts and plasma scions (or elysians). Many of those variations also won tournaments, or at least placed high in them, though the RG combo was more common than most. But the constant between them was always the guard portion, it was present across every imperial soup army and variation.

So while RG may have been the flashy centerpiece to many winning lists, guard was always the workhorse.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
If there isn't any meaningful difference between the sides because the game is perfectly balanced, all you'd be playing is chess without squares. I'm not arguing for op and up stuff, but I think that's a little far.

On a pure theoretical level you could be right but this is disingenuous. People clearly want an acceptable compromise between variety and reasonably equal chances to win for each side (adjusted for skill).

I concede that is not easy to quantify (or to implement.. at least for GW).

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
If there isn't any meaningful difference between the sides because the game is perfectly balanced, all you'd be playing is chess without squares. I'm not arguing for op and up stuff, but I think that's a little far.

You also shouldn't have armies that are other army+1. Which is honestly what guard looks like to a lot of us. It has almost anything you could possibly need in it somewhere.

If different armies have different strengths/weaknesses, what is the weakness of guard currently? Lower BS seems irrelevant when you can take it in bulk to the point you still outdamage more accurate armies. They aren't weak against assault hilariously, as many imperial armies take IG infantry specifically to protect from assault, and I actually think IG infantry can put out more damage in melee than orks now, if you wanted to build your army that way, which is just hilarious to me. They've got numerous options for anti infantry and tank, as well as both fragile glass cannons and tough bastions. They can generate CP more easily than anyone else to boot, and have no difficulty fitting in whatever they need due to the cheap HQ options.

Tell me the weakness of guard right now, because I can tell you the weakness of each and every existing codex army.

Addressing points from the OP:

1) The Cadian trait to reroll all failed to hits makes units insanely to good especially when paired with the ability to spread the order for free on a 4+. In addition, the stratagems and relics that also allow for rerolling failed wounds or add +1 to hit rolls.

Cadian armies have to build around this heavily for it to work. Firstly, they must stand still to reroll 1s, so there's a real tradeoff when there's numerous tactical objectives scattered around the table. Also, either full reroll orders will only affect 1 heavy weapon in an infantry squad or they're in a HWS and very easy to just, y'know, shoot?

2) Regimental traits work on everything to include tanks and infantry. In contrast, these buffs only work on infantry/dreads in other armies

Sure, that one does seem pretty unfair.

3) Basilisks able to reroll hits and now being -3 AP makes it insane to say the least for 108pts and even better with other buffs

Because they weren't zomg broken when they insta-gibbed MEQs on 2+ with no questions asked in previous editions? Now, MEQs still get a save, and 5+ in cover.

4) Hellhound now gaining 2D6 shots with their 16” inferno cannon for only 101pts makes way to good at multiple roles.

Yep, and they used to be 20" range that ignored cover and hitting fewer than 8 guys was an utter misplay on the controlling player's part. For a slightly lower cost they're returning to their original capability.

5) Baneblades and in particular Shadowswords, getting a price reduction, more shots (3D3), the ability to move an shoot with no penalty, and benefits from regimental abilities, strategems and new psychic powers.

SHV having a move and shoot penalty was a massive oversight. Going down to a 5+ BS at full strength, and worse when weakened, made them basically not worth taking from the index.

6) The AM previously capable of having the most command points now can generate more on both players turn giving them seemingly an an infinite amount.

As others have mentioned, pure hyperbole. And it's typically only going to be 1 reroll per phase, with maybe the +1 save on a single unit in your shooting phase.

7) Leman Russ tanks getting double shots if they only move half distance, a price reduction, and new plasma vents, orders, and chapter trait buffs makes Executioners just stupid. 2D6 shots of plasma overcharged from the turret makes it just to good. The punisher upgrades on Pask is leaves nothing alive.

Index Leman Russes were watery hot garbage. Trust me. They needed this. A lascannon or fusion gun can still cripple them in short order, anyways.

8) The ability to now make a unit (i.e. a baneblade), +2 save and -1 to hit was badly designed. How was were some of these not infantry only

SHV not having 2+ was pretty ridiculous, I guess terminators and marines in cover are the only ones deserving of that save stat? -1 to hit on such a big model, on the other hand, is admittedly very questionable.

SilverAlien wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Across the board?

And why is it that every instance of "AM winning every event" is actually Ultramarines with AM allies? If AM as a whole was that strong surely someone could win with a pure AM force?

It'd actually be fairly unlikely for a given IG army to not include at least a few of the better units from the index, unless you ran mechanized veterans backed by leman russes and valkyries. The guard index was very strong, and a contender for single strongest index army without a doubt.

As to your second point, it's actually not true. See RG did always run with guard, but guard didn't always run with RG. You saw a lot of variations in imperial soup, including assassins, psykers, admech (Cawl+kastalens), SoB (particularly with Celestine), or just FW guard units supplementing the core, which was conscripts and plasma scions (or elysians). Many of those variations also won tournaments, or at least placed high in them, though the RG combo was more common than most. But the constant between them was always the guard portion, it was present across every imperial soup army and variation.

So while RG may have been the flashy centerpiece to many winning lists, guard was always the workhorse.

So if you consider just one unit in a codex to be OP, that's enough to claim that "the entire codex is OP across the board" and nerf everything, even jokes like the PC sentinel that can blow themselves up on a 1-2, because hey they're sure to bring the one strong unit so everything else doesn't count?

Something tells me you'd never apply the same standard to your own codex.

There were only four really strong units in the Index: conscripts, plasma scions, taurox primes, and manticores.

Of those only the first two really drew complaints, and they were both nerfed. So how does this make "the entire codex OP across the board"? What would massive across-the-board nerfs accomplish here other than giving you warm and fuzzy feels?

Solution: Add more Line of Sight-blocking Terrain so the AM player is forced to move. Don't use Kill Points in your games, but instead focus on Objectives.

When AM armies have to move to get to objectives or to line up a shot on the enemy, they are forced to make decisions. When AM armies make decisions, they have to give up certain things, such as being in range of an officer for orders, or being able to shoot heavy weapons and the like.

During your next games, use some LARGE LOS-blocking pieces. Cover up any holes in terrain or simply say that if there is a wall between one model and another, then it blocks Line of Sight.

I have a feeling you'll notice something very different happen with AM games when the players must focus entirely on objectives instead of kill points, and when more elite focused armies can focus their energy on taking objectives and killing only a few of the AM's units in order to secure them, instead of having a lop-sided, cross-table shoot-out, which the AM always win.

I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH.

The Astra Militarum EXCEL at sitting in one spot and shooting you to death. They are the army that does that the best, but the game is not meant to be played like that! This is why Tau gunlines, Ultramarine gunlines, AdMech gunlines, and other GUNLINES THAT DON'T MOVE are so hard to beat! Games and Tournaments aren't using enough Line of Sight Blocking terrain to force those gunlines to MOVE OUT OF POSITION.

Force the AM and other gunlines to move and they have to get closer to assaults, get closer to enemy rapid fire weapons, get closer to grenades, and get further away from the safety of their deployment zone, their precious buffing HQ's and Elites, and other things besides. It also opens up their back line to be deployed in for enemy deep strikers and flankers.

Proper terrain and LOS blocking rules NERF GUNLINES IMMEDIATELY without changing ANY RULES.

Just going to repost this:

IG lists were not winning tournaments. Conscripts, Scions and Forgeworld Earthshakers in conjunction with some soup were winning tournaments. The Codex toned down 2/3 of those units (the only two it had access to) with Scion plasma guns taking a very large point cost increase. Other IG units, which had no competitive presence at all, were buffed and a bunch of very fun looking and useful rules and stratagems were added.

I think part of the problem with the perception of this Codex being "WAUW OP" is that Guard have been bad for so long that people simply are not used to them being on the same level as actual competitive armies. This includes some Guard players who seem to have some kind of imperial stockholm syndrome where they've come to love being a garbage underdog after so many years of it and think that having some kind of list building freedom, on a competitive level, is a bad thing worthy of self flagellation.

The other issue is that people erroneously equated Scions, Conscripts and Earthsakers with "all of the IG" and, seeing as the Codex has numerically more buffs than nerfs, their thought process is "IG was crushing tournaments. IG was given more buffs than nerfs. More buffs than nerfs makes IG stronger, therefore, IG is stronger than before making them OP". The problem of course is what we already established, namely that "all of the IG" was not crushing tournaments, only Scions, Conscripts and FW. Even though the book contained more buffs than nerfs, the nerfs hit the units that mattered in a competitive sense. The end result is that we have no idea how IG will perform in the tournament scene yet seeing as their tournament level units were nerfed, and we will just have to wait and see.

edit: Another very significant nerf is the limit of one command squad per regimental detachment in matched play. This is an enormous change that the "IG OP before proven OP" camp seems to be glossing over, perhaps innocently as it hasn't been discussed very much. That is a big deal though, no more spamming plasma command squads, which were a big part of the Scion issue.

 ross-128 wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Across the board?

And why is it that every instance of "AM winning every event" is actually Ultramarines with AM allies? If AM as a whole was that strong surely someone could win with a pure AM force?

It'd actually be fairly unlikely for a given IG army to not include at least a few of the better units from the index, unless you ran mechanized veterans backed by leman russes and valkyries. The guard index was very strong, and a contender for single strongest index army without a doubt.

As to your second point, it's actually not true. See RG did always run with guard, but guard didn't always run with RG. You saw a lot of variations in imperial soup, including assassins, psykers, admech (Cawl+kastalens), SoB (particularly with Celestine), or just FW guard units supplementing the core, which was conscripts and plasma scions (or elysians). Many of those variations also won tournaments, or at least placed high in them, though the RG combo was more common than most. But the constant between them was always the guard portion, it was present across every imperial soup army and variation.

So while RG may have been the flashy centerpiece to many winning lists, guard was always the workhorse.

So if you consider just one unit in a codex to be OP, that's enough to claim that "the entire codex is OP across the board" and nerf everything, even jokes like the PC sentinel that can blow themselves up on a 1-2, because hey they're sure to bring the one strong unit so everything else doesn't count?

Something tells me you'd never apply the same standard to your own codex.

As someone who took pains to bring balanced 6/7E Eldar lists to friendly games, I've got to say - the irony here is real. Something about fate repeating itself.

 ross-128 wrote:
So if you consider just one unit in a codex to be OP, that's enough to claim that "the entire codex is OP across the board" and nerf everything, even jokes like the PC sentinel that can blow themselves up on a 1-2, because hey they're sure to bring the one strong unit so everything else doesn't count?

Something tells me you'd never apply the same standard to your own codex.

There were only four really strong units in the Index: conscripts, plasma scions, taurox primes, and manticores.

Of those only the first two really drew complaints, and they were both nerfed. So how does this make "the entire codex OP across the board"? What would massive across-the-board nerfs accomplish here other than giving you warm and fuzzy feels?

Across the board implies a generalization. It does not mean literally every possible unit with every possible loadout is OP. Just that it isn't isolated to a single or even 2-3 builds.

Also, it wasn't so much "needed nerfs on everything" as much as didn't need 2-3 buffs on the majority of units. Seriously, between doctrines on everything, even super heavies, point drops on a ton of units and improved rules on many, this codex handed out more buffs than any other when many units were already compareable in effectiveness to other options (that didn't receive doctrines) in their army.

Plus again the directly superior warlord traits and relics.

Lastly, no the conscripts did not receive significant nerfs they are overall better post codex than pre codex.

Actually I find the Cadia trait pretty mediocre in objetive games. They need to stand still to allow for those bonuses to apply. If they need to move 1-2 turns, in a game that last 3-4 turns normally, thats half of the game that they aren't using those bonuses, ignoring artillery.

If that's the worst of the traits (and I can't remember all of them) I think they still win that overall. I mean, it is way more versatile than idk night lords and more useful than word bearers for example. I don't even remember most of the alternative forge world dogmas they had so many duds.

Oh yeah I'm not gonna discuss that. Personally, I think the fact that Regiment doctrines apply to superheavys isn't innecesary. I can understand applyng them to vehicles, but superheavys is a bit to much.
Theres a reason why Admech Forgeworld Dogmas doesn't apply to Imperial Knights but it applys to vehicles.

So... I play in the ITC for one of the teams currently in the top 5. We have talked long and hard about the IG codex and even to some of the guys that received review copies. The IG codex is very strong and has the possibility to shift the meta slightly. The strongest army is Chaos soup currently with Imperial soup second. Where this codex shines is at your local shop with those guys that where running pure IG armies to begin with. This book really helps with running different styles of IG beyond the Artillery/conscript spam we are all used to. Don't scream the the sky is falling just yet because we are getting some rapid fire codex releases right now. We have no clue what will happen then.

 Howscat wrote:
So... I play in the ITC for one of the teams currently in the top 5. We have talked long and hard about the IG codex and even to some of the guys that received review copies. The IG codex is very strong and has the possibility to shift the meta slightly. The strongest army is Chaos soup currently with Imperial soup second. Where this codex shines is at your local shop with those guys that where running pure IG armies to begin with. This book really helps with running different styles of IG beyond the Artillery/conscript spam we are all used to. Don't scream the the sky is falling just yet because we are getting some rapid fire codex releases right now. We have no clue what will happen then.

Wise words.

IG will get hit hard with nerfs when sales go flat.

 Purifier wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
I like the new book. It provides a lot of variety to the army. Yes, some things are a little over the top but not so much that I worry that I can't compete with it.
I still think conscripts should lose the ability to score objectives, but otherwise, I don't really see many problems with the codex. Like most fights when you have an index army against a codex army, your going to suffer until yours comes out.

Don't get me wrong, I like the book. It's just way overtuned and some things, like conscripts, still need a proper fix, not just a variable nerf that you might fail an order (or not) and a unit size one. Those are way too small to nerf something that at the same time is getting buffs.

I wonder what you think is buffing Conscripts so much in terms of the tactics? The three I can see that would really benefit conscripts would be Vostroya and Armageddon (both range buffs basically) and Catachans (making them S4).

Valhalla seems like the one people are talking about the most, but Commissars are so ubiquitous and so easy to hide I wouldn't even consider that one. Mordia comes with such a high drawback (having to have ALlllllllllllllllllllll your conscripts in a base-to-base daisy chain instead of covering the massive footprint you can with 30 models) I would also never really see use for it. Same with Cadia, not moving is real crappy and the whole "reroll all misses" sounds great until you realize it never makes sense for lasgunners, FRFSRF is still better. All the orders, obviously the nerf applies there, and I didn't see anything I'd rather use than FRFSRF/Move Move Move/Get Back in the Fight if you fall back.

If you offered me, a guy who's used Conscripts in tournaments before and knows how good they are, the option between running Index conscripts without doctrines, stratagems, or special Orders, or the opposite, I'd take door number one every time. I was actually all set to move over to Infantry squads as my go-to until I saw that the Combined Squads stratagem is NOT pre-game like I anticipated, which is probably a good thing because allowing me to pay a chunk of CPs to have my infantry squads form Voltron before the game started would've been pretty danged OP.

Conscripts were head and shoulders above the rest because of their versatility and their reliability in winning games. They could use Move Move Move to flood an absolute gak-ton of obsec bodies onto objectives at the end of the game. They could FRFSRF to out-shoot most non-chaff units. They had huge 50-man footprints you could snake across the whole board if you wanted to. They could fall back and be guaranteed to shoot. They could go Khorne Bezerker mode to get 12" of pile-ins in a single turn. Now, they might be able to do all that, and they might not. That is going to be a significant nerf to their ability to secure wins. Is it enough to knock them out of being able to be in tournament lists? I doubt it, you'd have to get a price bump to 4ppm or a removal of the morale ability to have people totally switch over to Infantry Squads

drbored wrote:
The Astra Militarum EXCEL at sitting in one spot and shooting you to death. They are the army that does that the best, but the game is not meant to be played like that! This is why Tau gunlines, Ultramarine gunlines, AdMech gunlines, and other GUNLINES THAT DON'T MOVE are so hard to beat! Games and Tournaments aren't using enough Line of Sight Blocking terrain to force those gunlines to MOVE OUT OF POSITION.

This is why I am leaning towards a Tallarn force. I hate playing gunline as it takes a lot of the dynamic nature out of the game, and gives your opponent all the fun of positioning. Sure, the Cadians are powerful but if I played them there would always be the temptation to sit that russ in place for the +1 to hit. If I take Tallarn I can move as much as I want.

 Galas wrote:
Oh yeah I'm not gonna discuss that. Personally, I think the fact that Regiment doctrines apply to superheavys isn't innecesary. I can understand applyng them to vehicles, but superheavys is a bit to much.

I heard that you don't get doctrines in an auxiliary detachment. That would force someone to take extra HQs if they want Catachan/Cadian or whatever for your SH. I really wish I could remember where I read that though, but I can't, so don't take my word for it. It doesn't really affect Tallarn that much, as "shoot after advancing as if you have assault weapons" isn't great. you would still take the -1 to hit after all. I guess it would be good with 8 flamers and Crush Them!, although I can probably live without it. Then again, the Supreme Command detatchment is only 3hq and you get an extra CP with it. It would depend on the list I think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
...Mordia comes with such a high drawback (having to have ALlllllllllllllllllllll your conscripts in a base-to-base daisy chain instead of covering the massive footprint you can with 30 models...

I know I shouldn't point this out, as it is totally not RAI and makes me feel dirty, but that is not what the rule says. "If the base of every model in an Infantry unit with this doctrine is touching the base of at least one other model from the same unit". So if you put every model in a pair with another one, that satisfies the rule. I wouldn't do it but that is how it is written. Pairs of Mordians with 2" between them.

 Kanluwen wrote:

broxus wrote:
With the release of the new AM codex there has been some playtesting with the new rules. I am an avid AM player and have done exceedingly well with the AM index book never even using conscripts. AM was already the dominating army our local meta for both games and tournaments. In every tournament or event in 8th an AM list has won it.

WIth the previews, reviews, and leaks that have come out my gaming group is very concerned after play games to test out some lists. The new AM codex with unit buffs, points reductions, strategems and new relics just outclasses everything. Even armies with their recent codexes have not survived past turn 3 or 4. Index armies have zero chance of winning. The amount of firepower the Cadians can do by rerolling all hits and the damage the Catachans are capable of doing by rerolling the number of shots is insane. Honestly, it was so bad one player said he would never play AM in its current form again. It was obvious that neither player had fun because the AM player felt bad and his opponent had zero fun.

So now we are now forced to make some hard decisions for our upcoming events. Do we completely ban all new Codex AM from our events and only use the index, or ban several units, or make other changes. We don’t want to ruin both gamers experiences and want everyone to feel they have a chance to win. Our games have shown some AM units/buffs are just to good for what they cost.

This is just our initial list:

1) The Cadian trait to reroll all failed to hits makes units insanely to good especially when paired with the ability to spread the order for free on a 4+. In addition, the stratagems and relics that also allow for rerolling failed wounds or add +1 to hit rolls.

The Cadian trait is to reroll 1s to Hit when the unit stands still. If the unit receives the "Take Aim!" Order(An Infantry unit only Order that grants Rerolls on to Hit rolls of 1), they instead get to reroll all failed to Hits. Additionally the Cadian Warlord Trait that allows you to spread the same Order for free requires you to be in Order distance, yadda yadda yadda.

If you're going to complain or playtest things, make sure you're playtesting them right.

Umm yea we know and did it correctly.

 Howscat wrote:
So... I play in the ITC for one of the teams currently in the top 5. We have talked long and hard about the IG codex and even to some of the guys that received review copies. The IG codex is very strong and has the possibility to shift the meta slightly. The strongest army is Chaos soup currently with Imperial soup second. Where this codex shines is at your local shop with those guys that where running pure IG armies to begin with. This book really helps with running different styles of IG beyond the Artillery/conscript spam we are all used to. Don't scream the the sky is falling just yet because we are getting some rapid fire codex releases right now. We have no clue what will happen then.

That's a large part of the problem.

Those "soup"-lists don't really exist outside the tournament-biotope. 99.999% of 40K players will never meet one. Most people don't build armies that way and its unlikely some guy's random collection meets the requirement.

More mainstream guard armies are very common though, and they have already dominated normal 40K games with the index. Against some fun mono-Khorne Daemons or your average no-Commander Tau collection or some such, it's almost pointless playing.

That's why this one will be felt much more painfully across the entire community, precisely because it is not an exotic freak-list limited to a specific, very small pool of players in a very specific setting with its own unique rules and etiquette about playing.

 Howscat wrote:
So... I play in the ITC for one of the teams currently in the top 5. We have talked long and hard about the IG codex and even to some of the guys that received review copies. The IG codex is very strong and has the possibility to shift the meta slightly. The strongest army is Chaos soup currently with Imperial soup second. Where this codex shines is at your local shop with those guys that where running pure IG armies to begin with. This book really helps with running different styles of IG beyond the Artillery/conscript spam we are all used to. Don't scream the the sky is falling just yet because we are getting some rapid fire codex releases right now. We have no clue what will happen then.

Yeah, this is kinda the issue. I know you think this sounds fine, but you are kinda confirming a lot of my fears.

From a soup list perspective it isn't a huge deal. From most of our perspectives, soup is now the only solid option because the relatively decent balance we had for each individual army just went away. That doesn't seem like a big deal for you, but our balance pretty much just got shot. It's back to 7e for a lot of us, where many of our armies depended on allies to face on other more broken armies, until our original army basically became vestigial.

If a single army is fine because it's weaker than soup... but you will probably need to run soup to compete with it? That's only balanced at a tournament level. For a lot of us the appeal of 8e was being able to run our stand alone army and not feel crippled. Guard already had some issues, somewhat mitigated by a number of guard players refusing to not run leman russes, but this is a big step backward.

LOS blockers work wonders against things like conscripts though. Have you ever seen a conscript blob try to advance up a 6" street? I'm really thinking about cityfight amounts of terrain here, where having small elite units can really help. Hell, you could even have certain roads where something like a baneblade wouldn't even fit. Of course, you shouldn't go overboard.

I've never seen conscripts try to advance period. They're typically camped on objectives or bubble-wrapping things. The mobility of conscripts isn't really something that concerns anyone. It's the survivability. Adding a ton more LoS blockers means that you will still have to emerge within range of the consrcripts in order to kill them. At which point, you're also taking return fire. On top of that, like I said, in most cases, you aren't likely to be able to hit the Guard player while you're skulking about behind those blockers. Meanwhile, he's raining all sorts of indirect fire down on you. So again, not sure that it really helps like it used to. Better than nothing I guess?

Regardless the opinion one could have about the codex - I say wait and see* but the signs are not good - this comment is spot-on, IMHO.
Terrain and how much is "interesting" is probably the greatest victim of 8th.

I dare to ask - people perceive and imbalance and I can see why. But how BIG is such imbalance? Are IG the 8th edition Eldar or there is nothing so far that operates at that obnoxious level?


* but then again, I underestimated the conscripts back then, very, very, VERY dumb Kaiyanwang

IMO they are NOT as bad as 7th ed Eldar. Whether you think their units are under-costed, or everyone else's units are over-costed, the Astra-Militarum has a ton of extremely efficient units. The real issue is that conscripts needed a nerf and a lot of the tanks needed some buffs. Instead what it looks like is that everything got a buff. The supposed "fix" for conscripts may actually have made them even better than they currently are. I'm with you in terms of being in the "wait and see" camp, but it does feel a little like classic GW where you have a few solid releases in a row and then BAM! Some crazy nonsense just appears out of nowhere and none of the other books can stand up to it. Fingers crossed that doesn't happen but man, it doesn't look good.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
If there isn't any meaningful difference between the sides because the game is perfectly balanced, all you'd be playing is chess without squares. I'm not arguing for op and up stuff, but I think that's a little far.

You know you can have asymmetrical balance right? Like that is an actual design concept that can work, aka Starcraft.Being balanced doesn't mean everything is the same. It makes it easier to balance, that's a given, but it isn't the only way.

Now I agree 100% balance for 40k would be almost impossible, especially while allies exist. There are simply so many options there's no feasible way one person could have enough knowledge of every single army to balance them. But at the same time some of the changes in the IG codex coming up are pretty blatantly bad ideas, at least in regard to the other armies around right now. For example, with the buffs Leman Russes got, I'm pretty sure they didn't need a points discount, same for Baneblades. I'd also argue that giving our infantry chapter tactics that add very noticeable advantages should've come with point increases as well. These guardsmen at 4pts right now are far and away better than they ever were in previous editions for 5pts. I wouldn't be surprised to see our matched points sheets in the back to be completely redone with chapter approved. Price increases across the board is about the easiest way they'll have to tone the army down. As it sits statswise even infantry squads are easily worth 6pts per model with doctrines, orders, general buffs this edition gives them, strategems, and in general just good old fashioned numbers.

I'm going to play a few test games when the book comes out against the most "powerful" armies in my meta (we're the very definition of casual, most insist on playing powerlevel if that gives you an idea) I'll ask them to bring their most tryhard stuff they have and we'll see what happens. If the IG codex is as good as some people say, I'm just going to straight up take a point handicap, or perhaps make my own match play points sheet with more balanced points built in. As it stands against new players I had already stopped running my index guard because most just didn't have the tools to beat even an average infantry squad list. Most lists and units just completely lack basic tools to deal with infantry this edition, to the point that if I play even remotely intelligently I can pick off the obvious anti horde elements in the first turn and then be invincible for the rest of the game. I didn't know what else to do besides spam veterans, which kind of lacks any point when they lost all the options that made them interesting in the first place.

I don't know if the codex is the end of the world just yet or if we're at 7th edition Taudar level, but I can already tell we're pretty darn powerful. I know the main issue is guard being used as allies for other armies but I honestly think a mono IG build would wreck people on the tournament level as well. I've yet to see a strategem that seemed useless for example, every single one I could immediately come up with a use for (albeit some are desperation tactics, they're absolutely useful), which I've not seen in any other codex so far. Our relics are great, we have one of the best warlord traits in the game, we have armywide buffs that put everyone else to shame, a variety of special tricks through the orders system, and that's just what I've gathered secondhand through reviews. I'm sure I'll find more once I read the book.

It's a shame too, in a vacuum this codex is what every IG player has always wanted. The INTERNAL balance, aka how the units stack up to one another in the same book, is pretty good. It's legitimately difficult trying to find a far and away best regiment trait, as each one has some very good benefits and rewards a certain style of army. Tank regiments are not only possible but pretty flavorful units in and of themselves, and the detachment system makes it possible to create mixed regiments or fluffy combined arms units the way the books always talk about. It's a shame it had to come in a way that infuriates the rest of the community to the point that in competitive areas most IG players will be viewed with a scorn that I haven't seen since Leafblower was at its height. My meta is pretty chill and I don't think I'll run into that problem, but I don't know how people would react if I started winning a whole bunch even with self imposed handicaps in place.

 Xenomancers wrote:

There is no reason to "give it time" The index AM was already blatantly overpowered accorss to board and winning practically every event. Apart from conscripts - everything is getting better. It's not hard to just write this edition off at this point.

It blatantly wasn't - lots of units were poor and only a very small subset of the codex was seeing use in event winning lists. That has largely been fixed with many of the weaker units getting buffed which is great. However, the problem units have not been properly addressed at all and are still the best units in the codex so that small subset that has been winning events is going to continue to do so.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

There is no reason to "give it time" The index AM was already blatantly overpowered accorss to board and winning practically every event. Apart from conscripts - everything is getting better. It's not hard to just write this edition off at this point.

It blatantly wasn't - lots of units were poor and only a very small subset of the codex was seeing use in event winning lists. That has largely been fixed with many of the weaker units getting buffed which is great. However, the problem units have not been properly addressed at all and are still the best units in the codex so that small subset that has been winning events is going to continue to do so.

I think this is closer to the overall truth of the matter. They have more undercosted units than any other codex, and now they have more viable units on top of it.

broxus wrote:
Honestly, the solution we may have to do is just ban the Catachan/Cadian lists, ban Baneblades, and limit basilisks/hellhounds.

No problem. While we're at it, we first need to perma-ban any army with T4 Sv3+ (or better) along with Necrons, and we're golden.

 malamis wrote:
As a long term guard player with what is essentially going to be the Catachan face stomp army since somewhere near the middle of 5th:

1. I'm going to have to pack SM and AdMech faaaar more often simply because it's going to be more fun for folks and make for longer games.
2. The baneblade variants are going to see *more* play but only as individual, unaugmented models ; they're big and scary but this way they're at least interesting to play against.
3. i'll probably stick to the index anyway given the animosity.

This is Our Time as IG; we should demonstrate we are in fact the better grade of player compared to our forebears in GK and Eldar eras by being upright and gracious about it.

Not least because it's going to go to someone else eventually.

I resent this. I played eldar, and never in my 20 years of 40k have I taken a list that could be seen as spammy, TFG or WAAC.

And the current IG codex seems to be far more relatively powerful than any codex I've known of in past editions, simply because Guard don't seem to have much in the way of bad choices. You could make a variety of armies, and still be powerful. Back when GK or Eldar or Tau were considered "OP", it was because of a single spammy list of one or two units, with the rest of their codex being either average or even sub-par.

And those people saying "waah waah wait until the codex is released and see"... the codex has been released, the rules are out, it's done. No changes will be made now. Guard is overpowered. It's the FAQ or Chapter Approved that will bring any corrections, but I suspect that 8th will simply be the time of Imperial Soup.

Tycho wrote:
but it does feel a little like classic GW where you have a few solid releases in a row and then BAM! Some crazy nonsense just appears out of nowhere and none of the other books can stand up to it. Fingers crossed that doesn't happen but man, it doesn't look good.

Well it feels a bit like the infamous happening in 6th.... DA (ok, bland perhaps) > CSM (helldrake + meh) > Tau (game over balance).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

It's a shame too, in a vacuum this codex is what every IG player has always wanted. The INTERNAL balance, aka how the units stack up to one another in the same book, is pretty good. It's legitimately difficult trying to find a far and away best regiment trait, as each one has some very good benefits and rewards a certain style of army.

This is true. Is awesome that there are like..? 2-4 regiments good for selection for just a tank company.

Niiru wrote:

And those people saying "waah waah wait until the codex is released and see"... the codex has been released, the rules are out, it's done. No changes will be made now. Guard is overpowered.

You got some points costs with that? Any games under your belt? Have you tried different types of missions and terrain set ups? Adjusted your army to fight it yet? Seen the meta adjustments from the codexes scheduled to be released in the next few months at all?

No? Oh ok. Knee-jerk gonna knee-jerk.

And the current IG codex seems to be far more relatively powerful than any codex I've known of in past editions, simply because Guard don't seem to have much in the way of bad choices. You could make a variety of armies, and still be powerful. Back when GK or Eldar or Tau were considered "OP", it was because of a single spammy list of one or two units, with the rest of their codex being either average or even sub-par.

Honestly, that's just crazy talk imo. This edition's IG don't hold a candle to 6th/7th ed Eldar. They really don't ...

SilverAlien wrote:

 Howscat wrote:
So... I play in the ITC for one of the teams currently in the top 5. We have talked long and hard about the IG codex and even to some of the guys that received review copies. The IG codex is very strong and has the possibility to shift the meta slightly. The strongest army is Chaos soup currently with Imperial soup second. Where this codex shines is at your local shop with those guys that where running pure IG armies to begin with. This book really helps with running different styles of IG beyond the Artillery/conscript spam we are all used to. Don't scream the the sky is falling just yet because we are getting some rapid fire codex releases right now. We have no clue what will happen then.

Yeah, this is kinda the issue. I know you think this sounds fine, but you are kinda confirming a lot of my fears.

From a soup list perspective it isn't a huge deal. From most of our perspectives, soup is now the only solid option because the relatively decent balance we had for each individual army just went away. That doesn't seem like a big deal for you, but our balance pretty much just got shot. It's back to 7e for a lot of us, where many of our armies depended on allies to face on other more broken armies, until our original army basically became vestigial.

If a single army is fine because it's weaker than soup... but you will probably need to run soup to compete with it? That's only balanced at a tournament level. For a lot of us the appeal of 8e was being able to run our stand alone army and not feel crippled. Guard already had some issues, somewhat mitigated by a number of guard players refusing to not run leman russes, but this is a big step backward.

I admitted that this is going to hit the local shop games hard. The reason I am saying not to freak out yet is because off all the codex's being released so quickly. For all we know when the eldar or tyranid codex hit the shelves we could be having the same conversation all over again. The IG codex does give me hope that the other factions will receive the same amount of love and attention in their books.

CassianSol wrote:

I know you said you played some playtesting games, but at least give it some time. It hasn't released yet. Instead of worrying about what it may be like, think about how to counter the army. Play it out on the table.

It may be unbalanced, but at least wait for it to be released and play against it a reasonable amount.

Give me a break, this is the same nonsense that was said when the 6th ed Tau codex came out, despite many many many people raising a giant red flag of doom as soon as the details leaked.

AM looks overpowered as hell, the codex that really just needed 1-2 nerfs instead just got buffed across the board.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

And those people saying "waah waah wait until the codex is released and see"... the codex has been released, the rules are out, it's done. No changes will be made now. Guard is overpowered.

You got some points costs with that? Any games under your belt? Have you tried different types of missions and terrain set ups? Adjusted your army to fight it yet? Seen the meta adjustments from the codexes scheduled to be released in the next few months at all?

No? Oh ok. Knee-jerk gonna knee-jerk.

I do love this. Oh yes, all the meta adjustments when we go from fighting an enemy with tough hordes of chaff and lots of long range shooting to fighting an enemy with hordes of tough and a wider variety of improved long range shooting. I wonder how that'll shake out.

Between the fact we've all played guard and can do really basic math, we all should be able tell about how much they improved. It isn't rocket science.

Like, what am I going to do exactly? Pull out even better versions of the units I was already using out of my Guard was already strong, now guard is strong enough I have to run some of my own to deal with it. Wonderful.

Martel732 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

There is no reason to "give it time" The index AM was already blatantly overpowered accorss to board and winning practically every event. Apart from conscripts - everything is getting better. It's not hard to just write this edition off at this point.

It blatantly wasn't - lots of units were poor and only a very small subset of the codex was seeing use in event winning lists. That has largely been fixed with many of the weaker units getting buffed which is great. However, the problem units have not been properly addressed at all and are still the best units in the codex so that small subset that has been winning events is going to continue to do so.

I think this is closer to the overall truth of the matter. They have more undercosted units than any other codex, and now they have more viable units on top of it.

If only people realiced that having viable units isn't something bad, and instead something that the other Codex should achieve. If an army has many balanced but viable units, the others should take example.

But normally people don't do this diferentiation: Or the whole codex is totally bananas OP, or they are all extremely fine and "git gud"

Tycho wrote:

And the current IG codex seems to be far more relatively powerful than any codex I've known of in past editions, simply because Guard don't seem to have much in the way of bad choices. You could make a variety of armies, and still be powerful. Back when GK or Eldar or Tau were considered "OP", it was because of a single spammy list of one or two units, with the rest of their codex being either average or even sub-par.

Honestly, that's just crazy talk imo. This edition's IG don't hold a candle to 6th/7th ed Eldar. They really don't ...

Heres an example. How exactly is something bad that Guard doesn't have bad choices?

SilverAlien wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

And those people saying "waah waah wait until the codex is released and see"... the codex has been released, the rules are out, it's done. No changes will be made now. Guard is overpowered.

You got some points costs with that? Any games under your belt? Have you tried different types of missions and terrain set ups? Adjusted your army to fight it yet? Seen the meta adjustments from the codexes scheduled to be released in the next few months at all?

No? Oh ok. Knee-jerk gonna knee-jerk.

I do love this. Oh yes, all the meta adjustments when we go from fighting an enemy with tough hordes of chaff and lots of long range shooting to fighting an enemy with hordes of tough and a wider variety of improved long range shooting. I wonder how that'll shake out.

Between the fact we've all played guard and can do really basic math, we all should be able tell about how much they improved. It isn't rocket science.

Like, what am I going to do exactly? Pull out even better versions of the units I was already using out of my Guard was already strong, now guard is strong enough I have to run some of my own to deal with it. Wonderful.

Or, GW took the top-tier units and cut them down, and took the units people didn't bring competitively and beefed them up. Ideal.

 Howscat wrote:
I admitted that this is going to hit the local shop games hard. The reason I am saying not to freak out yet is because off all the codex's being released so quickly. For all we know when the eldar or tyranid codex hit the shelves we could be having the same conversation all over again. The IG codex does give me hope that the other factions will receive the same amount of love and attention in their books.

I play admech, deathguard, and CSM primarily. Telling me not to worry, the next codex might be even more over the top does not really make me less worried. It just confirms I spent a few hundred dollars on models that are likely going straight onto the shelf with this recent DG release. At least the leaks happened now, I can avoid wasting more cash.

/sigh, oh well, back to another edition of garbage rules. Wonderful.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

And those people saying "waah waah wait until the codex is released and see"... the codex has been released, the rules are out, it's done. No changes will be made now. Guard is overpowered.

You got some points costs with that? Any games under your belt? Have you tried different types of missions and terrain set ups? Adjusted your army to fight it yet? Seen the meta adjustments from the codexes scheduled to be released in the next few months at all?

No? Oh ok. Knee-jerk gonna knee-jerk.

The points costs of units with changes have been revealed, unless there are other significant changes which haven't been announced at all (unlikely).

The rest is irrelevent, as the new codex is clearly stronger than the index, so it's not like "Hmm Unit A and Unit B are both noticably better, but put together they will actually make Imperial Guard worse" is a likely scenario.

And as others have pointed out, saying that the new IG codex might be fine because the next codex might be even more powerful, is stupid. This is relying on codex creep to fix problems, which is even more unlikely than your other hopes.

So I'll admit, you might be right. Though the chances are along the lines of rolling all sixes on a handful of dice.

Oh, also, saying that the new IG might be totally balanced with specific terrain set ups is probably the most stupid of the things you said. Of course if you are completely free to set up a gaming table to specifically counter your opponents army, then you will get an advantage. But this isn't actually allowed in the rules, and shouldn't be necessary. And if having a terrain advantage only balances an army, then that army must be severely broken.

I think the most likely thing that might happen is a series of point increases, but like I said I suspect it to be extremely unlikely at this point.

I'd be happy to be proved wrong, we shall find out in a week or so.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Or, GW took the top-tier units and cut them down, and took the units people didn't bring competitively and beefed them up. Ideal.

Hey, did they need conscripts durability at all? No? Then no, they didn't actually cut down top tier units. You can keep repeating this all you like, no one is stupid enough to think conscripts actually got a meaningful nerf.

Tycho wrote:

LOS blockers work wonders against things like conscripts though. Have you ever seen a conscript blob try to advance up a 6" street? I'm really thinking about cityfight amounts of terrain here, where having small elite units can really help. Hell, you could even have certain roads where something like a baneblade wouldn't even fit. Of course, you shouldn't go overboard.

I've never seen conscripts try to advance period. They're typically camped on objectives or bubble-wrapping things. The mobility of conscripts isn't really something that concerns anyone. It's the survivability. Adding a ton more LoS blockers means that you will still have to emerge within range of the consrcripts in order to kill them. At which point, you're also taking return fire. On top of that, like I said, in most cases, you aren't likely to be able to hit the Guard player while you're skulking about behind those blockers. Meanwhile, he's raining all sorts of indirect fire down on you. So again, not sure that it really helps like it used to. Better than nothing I guess?

Who the what now? How many tournaments have you played against Conscripts? Those suckers can move 12"+2D6" with the Move Move Move order, and they have obsec. They're incredible for last-turn objective grabs.

Niiru wrote:

Oh, also, saying that the new IG might be totally balanced with specific terrain set ups is probably the most stupid of the things you said. Of course if you are completely free to set up a gaming table to specifically counter your opponents army, then you will get an advantage. But this isn't actually allowed in the rules, and shouldn't be necessary. And if having a terrain advantage only balances an army, then that army must be severely broken.

So what you're saying is every army should be able to gunline equally? Because that's what you're implying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Or, GW took the top-tier units and cut them down, and took the units people didn't bring competitively and beefed them up. Ideal.

Hey, did they need conscripts durability at all? No? Then no, they didn't actually cut down top tier units. You can keep repeating this all you like, no one is stupid enough to think conscripts actually got a meaningful nerf.

You're assuming I felt they needed a durability nerf.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

Oh, also, saying that the new IG might be totally balanced with specific terrain set ups is probably the most stupid of the things you said. Of course if you are completely free to set up a gaming table to specifically counter your opponents army, then you will get an advantage. But this isn't actually allowed in the rules, and shouldn't be necessary. And if having a terrain advantage only balances an army, then that army must be severely broken.

So what you're saying is every army should be able to gunline equally? Because that's what you're implying.

No, what I'm saying is that every army should have the ability to react to any kind of terrain layout, perhaps not equally but to a standard where having non-optimal terrain isn't an automatic loss.

Is this the current state of the game? Haha, no.

Is this how the game should be? Yes, completely, and I dare you to disagree. I can't imagine anyone would agree with you.

Edit: Notice I never mention gunlines, as not all armies are capable of them. I have an Ork army, and they can't gunline. They can't even gun. Terrain layout still shouldn't mean an automatic loss to an ork army (though it currently does).

The tired old terrain argument. Newsflash: terrain blocks your weapons LoS to the conscripts, and the IG WILL have more indirect weapons than you. Good luck with that.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Or, GW took the top-tier units and cut them down, and took the units people didn't bring competitively and beefed them up. Ideal.

Hey, did they need conscripts durability at all? No? Then no, they didn't actually cut down top tier units. You can keep repeating this all you like, no one is stupid enough to think conscripts actually got a meaningful nerf.

Just because they weren't nerfed into the smoldering crater that you wanted them to be doesn't mean they weren't nerfed at all. Their efficiency with both commissars and Orders was nerfed, which indirectly reduces their points efficiency on both offense and defense. And that's before considering the effect of less reliable orders.

"One unit is about 10% above the power curve. We need to hike its cost by 33%, remove its ability to receive any kind of support at all, strip its armor save, and nerf every other unit in the codex just for being in the same book as it."--this thread in a nutshell

And that's what I call "balance by Exterminatus".

After playing against conscripts many times now, I can tell you this nerf will not be enough. They almost singlehandedly shut down anything I can field by just standing there. They don't need orders. They don't need to move much. They don't even need to shoot. They just need to buy time for the big guns. It's really easy to chop a marine list down to where it can't challenge for objectives at all. Especially if you try to do CC BA marines.

 ross-128 wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
Their efficiency with both commissars and Orders was nerfed.".

I know their order capability were nerfed, but did conscripts interactions with commissars change at all?

 ross-128 wrote:
"One unit is about 10% above the power curve. We need to hike its cost by 33%, remove its ability to receive any kind of support at all, strip its armor save, and nerf every other unit in the codex just for being in the same book as it."--this thread in a nutshell

And that's what I call "balance by Exterminatus".

10% above the power curve? They are as or more durable than every 4ppm infantry model in the game. That's not 10% above curve.

Yeah they can get 2+ armor saves with a -1 to hit under the right circumstances. That's pretty good for a 4ppm unit.

Who the what now? How many tournaments have you played against Conscripts? Those suckers can move 12"+2D6" with the Move Move Move order, and they have obsec. They're incredible for last-turn objective grabs

I've played several and like I said, the mobility isn't something that bothers most. It's the durability. I have yet to play a game where conscripts are pushed much past mid-field and they typically just kind of chill around objectives/things that need the bubble wrap. With my Marine list, it would actually help me if they were moving that much. Like I said though, it's not the speed. It's the durability.

 Insectum7 wrote:
So what you're saying is every army should be able to gunline equally? Because that's what you're implying.

You're assuming I felt they needed a durability nerf.

Well you see, either an army needs an effective way to slice through conscripts in melee before getting shot off the board, or it needs to at least potentially outshoot guard directly.

If you don't think conscripts need a durability nerf, then yes you do think every army should be able to gunline equally. Or melee focused armies should be entirely worthless, rather than turned into another gunline army.

That's the thing, conscripts cannot be killed efficiently except in a few very specific examples, and I'd be shocked if you can even name them. So most armies either field their own equivalent (if they also play guard/demons), or just outshoot whatever the conscripts are protecting and hope they have time to clear them later.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Howscat wrote:
I admitted that this is going to hit the local shop games hard. The reason I am saying not to freak out yet is because off all the codex's being released so quickly. For all we know when the eldar or tyranid codex hit the shelves we could be having the same conversation all over again. The IG codex does give me hope that the other factions will receive the same amount of love and attention in their books.

I play admech, deathguard, and CSM primarily. Telling me not to worry, the next codex might be even more over the top does not really make me less worried. It just confirms I spent a few hundred dollars on models that are likely going straight onto the shelf with this recent DG release. At least the leaks happened now, I can avoid wasting more cash.

/sigh, oh well, back to another edition of garbage rules. Wonderful.

Deathguard won a recent GT. Admech was on the weaker side of releases but there are some very potent combos in there. CSM with a sprinkling of daemons or renegades has dominated at every GT and Major tournament. Last edition I was playing pure Militarum Tempestus. They were hot garbage but i still enjoyed the game. So really you have to decide: Do you want to win tournaments, or have fun?

Niiru wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

Oh, also, saying that the new IG might be totally balanced with specific terrain set ups is probably the most stupid of the things you said. Of course if you are completely free to set up a gaming table to specifically counter your opponents army, then you will get an advantage. But this isn't actually allowed in the rules, and shouldn't be necessary. And if having a terrain advantage only balances an army, then that army must be severely broken.

So what you're saying is every army should be able to gunline equally? Because that's what you're implying.

No, what I'm saying is that every army should have the ability to react to any kind of terrain layout, perhaps not equally but to a standard where having non-optimal terrain isn't an automatic loss.

Is this the current state of the game? Haha, no.

Is this how the game should be? Yes, completely, and I dare you to disagree. I can't imagine anyone would agree with you.

Edit: Notice I never mention gunlines, as not all armies are capable of them. I have an Ork army, and they can't gunline. They can't even gun. Terrain layout still shouldn't mean an automatic loss to an ork army (though it currently does).

Okay. But from what I see, Guard lists are good at gunlining, and tournament tables often favor gunlines. So it doesn't surprise me that an army good at gunlining is winning tournaments.

I can be totally fine with that, because I often fight on tables with more terrain, and missions that require more movement.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
Their efficiency with both commissars and Orders was nerfed.".

I know their order capability were nerfed, but did conscripts interactions with commissars change at all?

Their unit size affects their interaction with commissars, because it determines how many models the commissar has to blam to keep a given number of conscripts in line. Smaller units means the commissar is killing more models (or more accurately, saving fewer).

For example, a 10 man LD8 squad can only lose 4 models at most to morale in the first place, so a commissar can only ever save 3. And if he's somehow overseeing 5 of those squads (50 models) that's up to 5 blams. In a 50 man squad you can lose around 23 to morale if they really get hammered, and a commissar can save 22 of those with just one blam.

In the conscripts' case, they went from 50 to 30.
The raw maximum possible losses at ld4 were 26 before, 16 after. So a commissar went from saving up to 25 models at a time to saving up to 15. In practical terms this isn't really a full 40% reduction because most rolls won't be max rolls, but it is a reduction.

Fewer models in a unit also means they can't conga line as far, so they have less flexibility in commissar placement and may need to bring more commissars to cover their units.

A smaller unit also reduces the power of wound allocation, since it is easier to wipe one particular unit in order to clear a particular part of the board.

So basically yes, their defensive power did get nerfed. Just not to the degree that certain people wanted.

 Howscat wrote:
Deathguard won a recent GT. Admech was on the weaker side of releases but there are some very potent combos in there. CSM with a sprinkling of daemons or renegades has dominated at every GT and Major tournament. Last edition I was playing pure Militarum Tempestus. They were hot garbage but i still enjoyed the game. So really you have to decide: Do you want to win tournaments, or have fun?

What I'd like is to not have to make the call between playing my CSM as CSM or army admech as admech and being able to field a decent army. 8e was the first to really present that opportunity as long as I've been playing. Shame GW couldn't even manage to keep that balance for 6 months. Until this garbage fire of a codex they'd mostly done okay. Even admech wasn't that bad.

Also, if it's the list I'm thinking of, I'm gonna be a little annoyed you referred to it as a DG army.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
So what you're saying is every army should be able to gunline equally? Because that's what you're implying.

You're assuming I felt they needed a durability nerf.

Well you see, either an army needs an effective way to slice through conscripts in melee before getting shot off the board, or it needs to at least potentially outshoot guard directly.

If you don't think conscripts need a durability nerf, then yes you do think every army should be able to gunline equally. Or melee focused armies should be entirely worthless, rather than turned into another gunline army.

That's the thing, conscripts cannot be killed efficiently except in a few very specific examples, and I'd be shocked if you can even name them. So most armies either field their own equivalent (if they also play guard/demons), or just outshoot whatever the conscripts are protecting and hope they have time to clear them later.

You give the viable tactics in your own post. Outshoot what the Conscripts are protecting (which you don't have to have gunline to do, btw. as there are deep strikers with good shooting capability.) And you don't have to kill the conscripts efficiently, you just have to mitigate them eventually.

You'd be shocked if I can name Berzerkers and Genestealers?

 Insectum7 wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
So what you're saying is every army should be able to gunline equally? Because that's what you're implying.

You're assuming I felt they needed a durability nerf.

Well you see, either an army needs an effective way to slice through conscripts in melee before getting shot off the board, or it needs to at least potentially outshoot guard directly.

If you don't think conscripts need a durability nerf, then yes you do think every army should be able to gunline equally. Or melee focused armies should be entirely worthless, rather than turned into another gunline army.

That's the thing, conscripts cannot be killed efficiently except in a few very specific examples, and I'd be shocked if you can even name them. So most armies either field their own equivalent (if they also play guard/demons), or just outshoot whatever the conscripts are protecting and hope they have time to clear them later.

You give the viable tactics in your own post. Outshoot what the Conscripts are protecting (which you don't have to have gunline to do, btw. as there are deep strikers with good shooting capability.) And you don't have to kill the conscripts efficiently, you just have to mitigate them eventually.

You'd be shocked if I can name Berzerkers and Genestealers?

Any guard player with a pulse can shut down deepstrikers to the point where there's hardly a point in even bringing them, that's not a counterargument.

Same for assault, Even the most powerful close combat armies are, at best, going to burn through the conscript screens turn one and then get shot up next phase. We still have Get Back in the Fight, and some regiments can straight up fire into close combat with certain orders.

 Insectum7 wrote:
...tournament tables often favor gunlines.

That sounds like the real root of the problem here. Maybe people should favour tournaments where gunlines are less effective.

Martel732 wrote:
The tired old terrain argument. Newsflash: terrain blocks your weapons LoS to the conscripts, and the IG WILL have more indirect weapons than you. Good luck with that.

So much this. In 8th edition, with more 1st turn reserve shenanigans and early charges, the power that conscripts as a simple bubble-wrapping unit have is really strong. More terrain doesn't actually solve this problem, in fact, it might make it worse. Guard has access to plenty of models that can be held in reserve (such as Sions), models that don't require any line of sight (mortars) and high speed models (Valkyries).

I think nobody that is sane or know the minimun about math and balance, is arguing that Conscripts aren't OP.

But I have seen many people talking about how the fact that Imperial Guard has the most of the codex as viable, is bad. When it is not. Obviously, the outliers need to be nerfed, and I believe that they have went overbuffing many units, baneblades for example, and some types of LemanRusses.

I think the problem here is that codexs like Gk and Admech have soome piss poor internal balance. Some people say "AdMech has some good combos, so thats fine". No! I don't want "some combos". I don't want Commander+GunDrone spam. I want a codex that offers me a ton of viable options.

I hope for Chapter Approved to buff the units of the Codexs that have fall behind IG, nerf the most blatanty OP units in the IG codex without making them unusable, and tweak probably some of the units of the IG codex that aren't as OP but probably have been overbuffed. And yes, even if at th end of the day GW has make Conscripts even more powerfull, at least they have shown that they recognise them as a problem.
I think that Scions actually are in a good spot now, but without trying them out, I can't say more.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Any guard player with a pulse can shut down deepstrikers to the point where there's hardly a point in even bringing them, that's not a counterargument.

Same for assault, Even the most powerful close combat armies are, at best, going to burn through the conscript screens turn one and then get shot up next phase. We still have Get Back in the Fight, and some regiments can straight up fire into close combat with certain orders.

It's easy to block DS shooting form Plasma spam, sure. Much less so units like Obliterators with a 24" range. I'd advocate a combined arms approach anyways.

For assault. . . I'm genuinely curious as to what the Tyranid and Ork codexes will bring to the table. I sorta don't care what the landscape looks like now, as horde CC armies can do a lot to shift meta, imo. Indexes have given us baselines, but every codex has heaped new options and viability on their respective armies. Tyranids is only about a month away now, so I'm definitely not about to get settled into any assumptions about overall game balance.

This codex was GW's opportunity to show us they understood the balance of the game.

Turns out the "new GW" is the same as the "old GW," just with different priorities in regards to "which army should win easily."

 ross-128 wrote:

Their unit size affects their interaction with commissars, because it determines how many models the commissar has to blam to keep a given number of conscripts in line. Smaller units means the commissar is killing more models (or more accurately, saving fewer).

For example, a 10 man LD8 squad can only lose 4 models at most to morale in the first place, so a commissar can only ever save 3. And if he's somehow overseeing 5 of those squads (50 models) that's up to 5 blams. In a 50 man squad you can lose around 23 to morale if they really get hammered, and a commissar can save 22 of those with just one blam.

In the conscripts' case, they went from 50 to 30.
The raw maximum possible losses at ld4 were 26 before, 16 after. So a commissar went from saving up to 25 models at a time to saving up to 15. In practical terms this isn't really a full 40% reduction because most rolls won't be max rolls, but it is a reduction.

Your other points about unit size are valid, but I want to point out that this is looking at durability sort of backwards, in a way that ends up being misleading. This is probably easiest to see with an example: if a model that has a 5+ save gets nerfed to having a 6+ save, how should we think about the benefit here? One way to look at it is that this is a 50% reduction in the number of models that the save actually saves, which sounds like a huge deal. But nobody cares about this number. What matters is how many models aren't saved. What I care about is something like: "How many more bolter shots can this unit absorb before getting destroyed?" A unit is twice as durable if it can take twice as many hits, not if it can pass twice as many saves. This is why the jump from 6+ to 5+ is worth far less than the jump from 3+ to 2+, even though the jump from 3+ to 2+ is a much smaller proportional change in the number of models saved.

And so the effect of unit size on morale losses should probably be thought about not in terms of how many Conscripts a Commissar is saving, but instead in terms of how many Conscripts he's blamming. And I'm not sure that the effect is at all significant. The problem is that unit size is basically irrelevant until it gets down to ~10. More but smaller units of Conscripts will spend a little more time with sufficiently small units, but not much. For example, suppose the enemy is killing 10 Conscripts per turn per unit. That's enough that they're always going to fail morale. If I have 3 units of 50 Conscripts, then a typical unit's lifespan looks like 50->40->39->29->28->18->17->7->6->0. 4 out of the 50 Conscripts died of morale, or 12 across all 3 units. My opponent had to kill everything else the old-fashioned way. Now suppose that I have 5 units of 30 Conscripts. Now a unit's lifespan looks like 30->20->19->9->8->0. 2 out of 30 died of morale, or, again, 12 across all 5 units. Either way my opponent had to kill the same number of Conscripts and I lost the same number to morale.

You can fiddle with this to get things to work out a little better one way or the other -- I just picked nice round numbers -- but mostly it just doesn't matter. In general we should expect smaller units to have an advantage because they're more likely to get completely wiped out, avoiding a morale loss. Smaller units have another advantage in that there are more opportunities for your opponent to waste firepower overkilling them. But, again, these are probably just not relevant factors when we're talking about such large units.

It's true that there's a sense in which the Commissar is more valuable for the larger unit, which is what you were seeing. But this is not because the unit+Commissar gets better as the unit gets bigger. It's because the unit alone gets much worse as the unit gets bigger.

 Marmatag wrote:
This codex was GW's opportunity to show us they understood the balance of the game.

Turns out the "new GW" is the same as the "old GW," just with different priorities in regards to "which army should win easily."

You mean "give every army lots of viable options"?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This codex was GW's opportunity to show us they understood the balance of the game.

Turns out the "new GW" is the same as the "old GW," just with different priorities in regards to "which army should win easily."

You mean "give every army lots of viable options"?

Balance is more than internally balanced codexes. FFS

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This codex was GW's opportunity to show us they understood the balance of the game.

Turns out the "new GW" is the same as the "old GW," just with different priorities in regards to "which army should win easily."

You mean "give every army lots of viable options"?

Indeed! Like how Tau have mass commander suits and...uhhhh..Wait, bad example. It's like how CWE have...access to the Ynnari faction instead. I guess that counts as an option?

SilverAlien wrote:

 Howscat wrote:
Deathguard won a recent GT. Admech was on the weaker side of releases but there are some very potent combos in there. CSM with a sprinkling of daemons or renegades has dominated at every GT and Major tournament. Last edition I was playing pure Militarum Tempestus. They were hot garbage but i still enjoyed the game. So really you have to decide: Do you want to win tournaments, or have fun?

What I'd like is to not have to make the call between playing my CSM as CSM or army admech as admech and being able to field a decent army. 8e was the first to really present that opportunity as long as I've been playing. Shame GW couldn't even manage to keep that balance for 6 months. Until this garbage fire of a codex they'd mostly done okay. Even admech wasn't that bad.

Also, if it's the list I'm thinking of, I'm gonna be a little annoyed you referred to it as a DG army.

Ok. Be annoyed and angry. I play this game to have fun and relax when I am not working. I did that in 7th and now in 8th. If you don't want to play against IG then don't play them.

I want a balanced game just as much as you do. I go to my FLGS every week and play fluffy games with my friends too. I get tired of playing against the same soup lists at the tournaments (My entire team is tired of it). I am tired of people hating on me for playing the same army i have always been running.

So GW made a OP codex (you do remember the old GW?). So, maybe when the Eldar codex comes out it blows everything out of the water. Who knows what will happen in the next 3-6 months of releases? You want to know how to fix ALL of 40k? GW hires 40 mathematicians to do all the number crunching on units and there interactions to assign a points value. Until then, Just try to have some fun.

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This codex was GW's opportunity to show us they understood the balance of the game.

Turns out the "new GW" is the same as the "old GW," just with different priorities in regards to "which army should win easily."

You mean "give every army lots of viable options"?

Indeed! Like how Tau have mass commander suits and...uhhhh..Wait, bad example. It's like how CWE have...access to the Ynnari faction instead. I guess that counts as an option?

Did you notice that those two armies don't have codexes yet?

 Marmatag wrote:
This codex was GW's opportunity to show us they understood the balance of the game.

Turns out the "new GW" is the same as the "old GW," just with different priorities in regards to "which army should win easily."

Honestly I think they just woefully underestimated how good lots of cheap infantry and tanks are this edition. Think about 7th, where guard had to bring stupid amounts of stuff just to survive into turn 3. It kind of feels like GW saw that, said "well, they clearly need their stuff to be cheaper because it dies so fast" and then forgot to realize that guardsmen get their save in the open 80% of the time now and without the damage table of old IG vehicles survive much longer.

Most of these new buffs wouldn't be near as crazy if the units weren't so cheap. Guardsmen at say 6pts a guy, tanks around 30pts more, baneblades not getting a discount or perhaps even an increase, etc. Without seeing the codex I can't do great math right now to figure out where stuff needs to be, because a lot of units got tweaks, but I think the best thing to balance the IG codex right now would probably be to just adjust all the points to represent the fact that IG has gotten much better as a whole. IG is no longer just hordes of chaff like it used to be, even just run of the mill guardsmen can do quite well now with the various buffs and honestly their points should reflect that. Think about skitarii, they're paying 8-9pts a guy that is basically just a guardsman with a +4 save, one better BS, and a slightly better weapon. It really doesn't make sense that IG should be paying half price for their line infantry when even our lasguns are excellent weapons in their own right thanks to FRFSRF and other orders. Not to mention we get access to a heavy, special, and a plasma pistol/ccw.

Honestly I'd welcome some point increases as strange as that sounds. My models keep getting cheaper and cheaper pointswise and I'm starting to feel like what was 1500pts in 7th is barely a 1000 in 8th. I've had to resort to bringing my other Imperial armies as allies just so that I'm not pushing around 2-300 infantry a game at 1500 and above. At least combined squads are back so I don't have to run the little boogers individually, so I can blob a bunch up turn one and save my opponent and myself some headaches.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This codex was GW's opportunity to show us they understood the balance of the game.

Turns out the "new GW" is the same as the "old GW," just with different priorities in regards to "which army should win easily."

You mean "give every army lots of viable options"?

Balance is more than internally balanced codexes. FFS

Yeah, thats the point. This codex has good internal balance but bad external balance. They should fix the problems with the external balance without making it a travesty of a codex like the 95% of the ones we have had for all the living time of Warhammer, where only 2-3 options are viable (Or even one like Flyrants!) but the rest is hot garbage.
But you seem to be cool with Tau being only competitive because Commander-spam, because I'm handicaping myself if I chose to not play that list, so you have 0 regard for internal balance, if a Codex has a broken unit that allows them to compete, then they are fine, so probably I'm talking to a wall now.

OP alarmists here, there and everywhere!

 Insectum7 wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This codex was GW's opportunity to show us they understood the balance of the game.

Turns out the "new GW" is the same as the "old GW," just with different priorities in regards to "which army should win easily."

You mean "give every army lots of viable options"?

Indeed! Like how Tau have mass commander suits and...uhhhh..Wait, bad example. It's like how CWE have...access to the Ynnari faction instead. I guess that counts as an option?

Did you notice that those two armies don't have codexes yet?

No they want to scream and rage. Some people here like to whine and argue more than they like to play the game. I need to stop visiting this forum, it makes the game les fun to see all this. It's all feeding itself on a loop,at this point.

Guys. Chapter Approved is a thing. Remember to breath.

Everybody seems stuck in the mindset that GW only gets one shot at balancing a codex every five or so years. Incremental nerfs to overperforming units, buffs to underperforming ones, and regular rules updates to tweak issues is supposed to be what we're encouraging.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This codex was GW's opportunity to show us they understood the balance of the game.

Turns out the "new GW" is the same as the "old GW," just with different priorities in regards to "which army should win easily."

Honestly I think they just woefully underestimated how good lots of cheap infantry and tanks are this edition. Think about 7th, where guard had to bring stupid amounts of stuff just to survive into turn 3. It kind of feels like GW saw that, said "well, they clearly need their stuff to be cheaper because it dies so fast" and then forgot to realize that guardsmen get their save in the open 80% of the time now and without the damage table of old IG vehicles survive much longer.

Most of these new buffs wouldn't be near as crazy if the units weren't so cheap. Guardsmen at say 6pts a guy, tanks around 30pts more, baneblades not getting a discount or perhaps even an increase, etc. Without seeing the codex I can't do great math right now to figure out where stuff needs to be, because a lot of units got tweaks, but I think the best thing to balance the IG codex right now would probably be to just adjust all the points to represent the fact that IG has gotten much better as a whole.

This is an interesting point. I don't have the old IG codex easily available, but it sounds like they reduced the costs of IG vehicles, and 8th edition made them tougher because of how the new rules work.
Which is weirdly the opposite of what they did with Ork vehicles. They're pretty much twice the cost now, but with worse shooting options. Yeh, they're tougher (moderately), but they didnt gain more than IG vehicles which apparently were reduced in points?
Which is why Ork vehicles are now basically removed from the game, as they are unplayable in a competitive setting.

In before someone says "but orks don't have a codex yet so thats ok". It's not ok, when IG vehicles (which are already multiple times better) are getting buffed.

 Formerly Wu wrote:
Guys. Chapter Approved is a thing. Remember to breath.

Chapter Approved would have gone to the printers months ago.


...besides which, having to rely on additional purchases to fix balance issues is hardly a great sell, is it..?

 Formerly Wu wrote:
Guys. Chapter Approved is a thing. Remember to breath.

Everybody seems stuck in the mindset that GW only gets one shot at balancing a codex every five or so years. Incremental nerfs to overperforming units, buffs to underperforming ones, and regular rules updates to tweak issues is supposed to be what we're encouraging.

I'm not sure, but I feel like part of the problem is that this doesn't actually feel very fast to people. Probably lots of people here play pretty regularly, which makes it worse. Like, maybe if you play one game every other month, then "hopefully the yearly update will improve things" is pretty satisfying. You suffer for a handful of games -- or maybe not if you don't even play against the thing you're objecting to in most of your games -- and then maybe it'll be fixed. But if you're playing every weekend, you're looking at very long stretches without balance updates. Worse, there's much more of an expectation now that games get frequent and prompt balance passes. Video games are what's driving this, presumably. Updates for competitive multiplayer games often come out at least monthly, and they typically aim to balance the game (especially to tone down things that are too strong) pretty aggressively.

I still find it rather amusing that from 7th to 8th edition, Conscripts did not change, just the core rules, and FRFSRF got marginally better too, I guess, but that's not why they're good.

In 7th, they cost 3ppm, could be taken in units of 50, were hitting on 5s with lasguns, had 5+ armor, and a Commissar would kill one to make them autopass morale. In 8th index, they cost 3ppm, could be taken in units of 50, were hitting on 5s with lasguns, had 5+ armor, and a Commissar would kill one to make them autopass morale. It's not that Conscripts got better from 7th to 8th, it's just that the basic things that hurt them most (blasts, sweeping advance, literally everything except their own lasguns ignoring cover and being AP 5 or better) disappeared.

While Conscripts in particular with their 5+ armor have put them in a position where they are certainly excessively durable and should go back to their 5th ed cost of 4ppm, there are other units benefiting from the same core rule changes. Regular guardsmen, Ork Boyz, Nid 'gants, and even Gretchin with their virtually unnoticed armor save buff benefit from actually getting to roll (slightly worse) saves and immunity to morale/d3 morale casualties max.

To put it another way, if termagants or hormagants get their Sv stat buffed to 5+ and remain the same price, everybody would flip their gak, foaming at the mouth and fuming with the righteous fury because there's another unit Marines can't point, click, and delete anymore.

The edition change has shifted the focus from the biggest model you can buy and spamming the D to lots of basic troops, and I frankly prefer it that way. I absolutely accept that Conscripts need to be more points to be more balanced (also, soup is bad and it should feel bad), but I argue the leftover mindset of 7th (and consequent overemphasis on multiple damage, fewer shot weapons) that people don't want to break from is at least in part a cause of this anger towards Conscripts. It's partially justified, partially unjustified.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Chapter Approved would have gone to the printers months ago.

Too bad they're never doing another one, then. /s

...besides which, having to rely on additional purchases to fix balance issues is hardly a great sell, is it..?

They could always just go back to not bothering at all. Something tells me that might not be satisfactory.

So much dramatic vitriol in this thread...sheesh. Can people please stop with the hyperbole - SAME OLD GW, NO IMPROVEMENTS! Correct me if i'm wrong, but one of the biggest gripes people had with GW was that there was no community interaction. Yet, they did respond and attempt to fix conscripts. Just because your definition of fix didn't match theirs, doesn't negate the fact that they are responding (and quickly) to players' concerns.

More importantly, and I just can't stress this enough, 40k, Fantasy, Battlefleet Gothic, Bloodbowl, every single game that GW has ever produced, was not intended to be played competitively. How many times do they have to say it for people to get the message? It was never the spirit of the game. Just because some versions of the rule set were better applicable to the tournament scene, doesn't mean that they ever wanted the game play that way. Its clear from all of their videos, battle reports, etc. that their idea of "competitive" play is not the same as most "competitive" players' definition.

At this point, I can't understand what it is you are getting worked up about. 8th is better balanced than any version to date. If you aren't purposely creating min/max, hyper competitive lists, attempting to abuse loopholes, then there really shouldn't be a problem. If you are and you complain that it isn't balanced and doesn't work, well, it is like complaining that a basketball doesn't work well when you use it to play volley ball. It just wasn't designed for that purpose.

If horde armies in 40k finally don't suck, that's fine by me. The high cost and effort of getting a horde army onto the table easily justifies any in-game advantage they might have.

 Galas wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This codex was GW's opportunity to show us they understood the balance of the game.

Turns out the "new GW" is the same as the "old GW," just with different priorities in regards to "which army should win easily."

You mean "give every army lots of viable options"?

Balance is more than internally balanced codexes. FFS

Yeah, thats the point. This codex has good internal balance but bad external balance. They should fix the problems with the external balance without making it a travesty of a codex like the 95% of the ones we have had for all the living time of Warhammer, where only 2-3 options are viable (Or even one like Flyrants!) but the rest is hot garbage.
But you seem to be cool with Tau being only competitive because Commander-spam, because I'm handicaping myself if I chose to not play that list, so you have 0 regard for internal balance, if a Codex has a broken unit that allows them to compete, then they are fine, so probably I'm talking to a wall now.

You routinely argue that Tau are bad. I contest that and use facts, while you counter with something that amounts to, "but that's not how I feel!" Armies that aren't balanced, can still be good. For instance, Imperial Guard. Not balanced, but bonkers insane awesome. Tau. Not balanced, but very good. Cheers. I dun learned ya

 KommissarKiln wrote:
I still find it rather amusing that from 7th to 8th edition, Conscripts did not change, just the core rules, and FRFSRF got marginally better too, I guess, but that's not why they're good.

In 7th, they cost 3ppm, could be taken in units of 50, were hitting on 5s with lasguns, had 5+ armor, and a Commissar would kill one to make them autopass morale. In 8th index, they cost 3ppm, could be taken in units of 50, were hitting on 5s with lasguns, had 5+ armor, and a Commissar would kill one to make them autopass morale. It's not that Conscripts got better from 7th to 8th, it's just that the basic things that hurt them most (blasts, sweeping advance, literally everything except their own lasguns ignoring cover and being AP 5 or better) disappeared.

While Conscripts in particular with their 5+ armor have put them in a position where they are certainly excessively durable and should go back to their 5th ed cost of 4ppm, there are other units benefiting from the same core rule changes. Regular guardsmen, Ork Boyz, Nid 'gants, and even Gretchin with their virtually unnoticed armor save buff benefit from actually getting to roll (slightly worse) saves and immunity to morale/d3 morale casualties max.

To put it another way, if termagants or hormagants get their Sv stat buffed to 5+ and remain the same price, everybody would flip their gak, foaming at the mouth and fuming with the righteous fury because there's another unit Marines can't point, click, and delete that troop unit anymore.

The edition change has shifted the focus from the biggest model you can buy and spamming the D to lots of basic troops, and I frankly prefer it that way. I absolutely accept that Conscripts need to be more points to be more balanced (also, soup is bad and it should feel bad), but I argue the leftover mindset of 7th (and consequent overemphasis on multiple damage, fewer shot weapons) that people don't want to break from is at least in part a cause of this anger towards Conscripts. It's partially justified, partially unjustified.

All good points, I do need to partially object to the last part though, specifically about how people need to stop bringing big game weapons and bring stuff to kill hordes.

Or in other words, what efficiently removes hordes aside from other hordes? Like say I'm playing against a space marine player, how does he stop my 200 guardsman list? Because almost every weapon in the game that can kill conscripts (and by extension, less powerful horde units) is mathematically better at killing marines. Even lasguns, which I would argue is probably one of the most brutally efficient anti horde weapons out there, can kill more points in space marines than guardsmen in most scenarios.

For example, I had a game against a primaris player the other day, his whole army aside from a stormtalon was primaris. I killed his aggressors turn 1, what is he supposed to do to take out the 100 or so guardsmen in my list at 75PL? Intercessors? Hellblasters? Even the Inceptors have a hard time.

This is essentially an issue that came up with the loss of templates, which were formally the horde counter (arguably way too efficient, but I digress) Used to be a space marine with a 5pt flamer could wipe half a guard squad in a single turn as it ignored our saves, auto hit, and wounded on 3's. Take multiple flamers and large blasts like vindicators and a space marine player had a reasonable option to keep hordes in check. It got out of hand when everything started getting ignore cover/shred/was a wyvern, but the basic premise worked. Now, these traditional anti horde weapons are laughable in roles they used to excel, so that now a flamer at best kills maybe 1 or 2 guardsmen, who got CHEAPER. Now, I'm glad templates are gone personally, they slowed the game down massively and invited lots of arguments, but I still feel template weapons should get some sort of bonus for targeting larger units. Many people proposed the "additional d6 per 10 models in the target unit" fix, which would be a fair middle ground in most scenarios, but at this rate it looks like it's not going to happen.

As you said, the units in themselves haven't changed much, it's just the core rules have drastically changed how they interact with the game. It's similar to monstrous creatures in 7th being able to stick a toe in cover or vehicles being nigh invincible in 5th, yet the actual units getting fairly minor changes for the most part. Without figuring out a way to get the core rules to better interact with hordes, or giving armies tools that work with the new ruleset, conscripts, and in addition most infantry hordes, will continue to be an issue for most lists.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This codex was GW's opportunity to show us they understood the balance of the game.

Turns out the "new GW" is the same as the "old GW," just with different priorities in regards to "which army should win easily."

You mean "give every army lots of viable options"?

Balance is more than internally balanced codexes. FFS

Yeah, thats the point. This codex has good internal balance but bad external balance. They should fix the problems with the external balance without making it a travesty of a codex like the 95% of the ones we have had for all the living time of Warhammer, where only 2-3 options are viable (Or even one like Flyrants!) but the rest is hot garbage.
But you seem to be cool with Tau being only competitive because Commander-spam, because I'm handicaping myself if I chose to not play that list, so you have 0 regard for internal balance, if a Codex has a broken unit that allows them to compete, then they are fine, so probably I'm talking to a wall now.

You routinely argue that Tau are bad. I contest that and use facts, while you counter with something that amounts to, "but that's not how I feel!" Armies that aren't balanced, can still be good. For instance, Imperial Guard. Not balanced, but bonkers insane awesome. Tau. Not balanced, but very good. Cheers. I dun learned ya

Again, you only seem to care about external balance and have 0 regards about internal balance, when bot are equally important. A game without external balance is bad, yes. But a game with 0 internal balance is even worse.
And I have never said that Tau are bad. Commander and Dron spamm is pretty damm good, like Flyrants where in 7th. But they have an abhorrent internal balance. But of course, as you don't have a problem with that, because as long as an army has one single viable competitive build even if is literally spamming ONE unit all the time,, you will just diminish it as my "feels". You and your alternative facts.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Or in other words, what efficiently removes hordes aside from other hordes?

...

As you said, the units in themselves haven't changed much, it's just the core rules have drastically changed how they interact with the game. It's similar to monstrous creatures in 7th being able to stick a toe in cover or vehicles being nigh invincible in 5th, yet the actual units getting fairly minor changes for the most part. Without figuring out a way to get the core rules to better interact with hordes, or giving armies tools that work with the new ruleset, conscripts, and in addition most infantry hordes, will continue to be an issue for most lists.

Well, from a core rules perspective, the answer would be "morale." Morale is devastating to hordes that don't have Leadership backstops. For conscripts, though, commissars exist as very efficient answers to morale.

You could attack that by making characters easier to single out (risky for unintended knock-on effects), by changing the efficiency of that interaction (by increasing the casualties taken even with a commissar present- doable but clunky), or by making conscripts themselves less valuable on the table (removing their Objective Secured bonus- my personal fix, as it's elegant, fluff-appropriate, and enhances the role of basic infantry squads).

You could also just kick them up a point in cost, but that creates too many downstream internal balance issues to be worth it in my opinion.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
what efficiently removes hordes aside from other hordes?

Speaking as someone who plays space marines, if your running a primaris army and need anti horde take Aggressors. even without captain/lieutenant support, a squad of six will wipe out a conscript squad with average rolls.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
what efficiently removes hordes aside from other hordes?

Conscripts, the poster boys of "hordes" suck at taking anything out. They're not offensive. They're not efficiently taking anything out.

But to answer your question, punishers. Punishers efficiently remove conscripts with 40 shots. I honestly think the new guard codex will fix itself. Guard will be hesitant to use conscripts because they know there are many guard players out there who will be fielding lots of russes which can mow down conscripts.

ItsPug wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
what efficiently removes hordes aside from other hordes?

Speaking as someone who plays space marines, if your running a primaris army and need anti horde take Aggressors. even without captain/lieutenant support, a squad of six will wipe out a conscript squad with average rolls.

I think the 7th edition of "Bring the D" has permeated a lot of what we think nowadays about how weapons should be tuned, we forget about how some of those old "crappy" weapons like lasguns, or heavy bolters, or heck even Stubbers, can really do a lot to thin out these numbers. I personally like hordes and tanks, or both preferably. There should be no such thing as a 1 size fits all weapon/unit, which is what everyone wants. You honestly can't expect to load up on lascannons and hope that it will wipe out a conscript squad. When I first saw Agressors I thought they were garbage, then I got to see them play and I am honestly surprised by how well they can work. Same thing with dakka repulsors, HB devastators, and sternguard.

The real question you have to ask yourself, is the game unbalanced or is your concept of list building to blame? Im the type of guy who used to run codex compliant lists before Gladius were a thing, and I felt just a tad dirty afterwards (but not too much, my opponents were running unkillable tetrad lists and other 7th edition nonsense). Additionally Infantry is the back bone of the guard and you should be taking plenty of them to run around and grab objectives, shoot stuff, etc and not just loading up on one type of unit and hoping that it works in all situations.

Is this book overpowered? probably yes. are we overreacting to all this? definitely

 Howscat wrote:
So GW made a OP codex (you do remember the old GW?). So, maybe when the Eldar codex comes out it blows everything out of the water. Who knows what will happen in the next 3-6 months of releases? You want to know how to fix ALL of 40k? GW hires 40 mathematicians to do all the number crunching on units and there interactions to assign a points value. Until then, Just try to have some fun.

/sigh, I guess that's fair. I just thought GW was finally getting it, was finally starting to make some progress and figure out how to balance things. I thought they could keep getting better at least. No such luck it seems. Seeing them backslide this badly has left a bad taste in my mouth.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Howscat wrote:
So GW made a OP codex (you do remember the old GW?). So, maybe when the Eldar codex comes out it blows everything out of the water. Who knows what will happen in the next 3-6 months of releases? You want to know how to fix ALL of 40k? GW hires 40 mathematicians to do all the number crunching on units and there interactions to assign a points value. Until then, Just try to have some fun.

/sigh, I guess that's fair. I just thought GW was finally getting it, was finally starting to make some progress and figure out how to balance things. I thought they could keep getting better at least. No such luck it seems. Seeing them backslide this badly has left a bad taste in my mouth.

Kind of the same here.

ThePorcupine wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
what efficiently removes hordes aside from other hordes?

Conscripts, the poster boys of "hordes" suck at taking anything out. They're not offensive. They're not efficiently taking anything out.

But to answer your question, punishers. Punishers efficiently remove conscripts with 40 shots. I honestly think the new guard codex will fix itself. Guard will be hesitant to use conscripts because they know there are many guard players out there who will be fielding lots of russes which can mow down conscripts.

This isn't really true.

First, Conscripts shoot decently. They're not quite as good as Guardsmen but they're certainly better than most other basic infantry. They're as efficient against T4 as a standard Battle Sister (who is far more efficient than a Marine). Likewise they're respectable in CC, and of course they're easy to buff in a variety of ways, and still can be ordered, if unreliably. I am not sure that there is anything at all in the Space Marine codex that kills GEQs more efficiently than Conscripts do. Aggressors that didn't move do better than rapid-firing Conscripts, though not better than FRFSRF Conscripts, and obviously it is pretty hard to actually pull this off with them. The codex even gives Conscripts some great tools for being used aggressively, since two of the doctrines improve their range or at least rapid-fire range, one makes them a lot scarier in CC, and at least one of the stratagems can be used to significantly boost their output (and they already had an option through FW for improving their BS). I expect that the range doctrines are particularly significant since it used to be hard to use Conscripts as a screen while also shooting with lots of them.

Second, Punishers don't efficiently remove Conscripts. A maximally-efficient Punisher is going to cost you I think 152 points, and it kills about 20% of its cost in Conscripts if it gets to fire a storm bolter, heavy bolter, and punisher cannon while stationary. This is pathetic by normal standards -- usually a dedicated counter-unit does a lot better than this against its preferred target, especially when it has the kinds of limitations the Punisher has (in particular its 24" range). For comparison, that same Punisher kills 44% of its cost in Tactical Marines in a turn. Also note that this is still less efficient than Conscripts for killing Conscripts. It's true that in a nothing-but-Punishers world you probably prefer Bullgryns with slab shields, but it's actually pretty close -- it's mostly the need to pay for Commissars that would make the Conscripts less desirable than the Bullgryns as meat shields.

Dionysodorus wrote:
I am not sure that there is anything at all in the Space Marine codex that kills GEQs more efficiently than Conscripts do.

That's a pretty specific metric you got there. For example, Devourer Gaunts outpace them against GEQ.

I haven't played many games of 8th but I'm disappointed with these codexes and the issues they will cause. I liked the idea of even a yearly index where every army got a tweek to keep it balanced. I still say let the chips finish falling before we toss our hands up with a new CEO and edition.

 generalchaos34 wrote:
I think the 7th edition of "Bring the D" has permeated a lot of what we think nowadays about how weapons should be tuned, we forget about how some of those old "crappy" weapons like lasguns, or heavy bolters, or heck even Stubbers, can really do a lot to thin out these numbers. I personally like hordes and tanks, or both preferably. There should be no such thing as a 1 size fits all weapon/unit, which is what everyone wants.

I just spent an hour in a waiting room bored typing this up. So excuse me for the wall of text.

The issue I have with this is that we don't have a lascannon equivalent for hordes really, at least not widely available. Heavy bolters don't give anywhere like enough punch, not in the numbers most armies can field them. You see, the best anti horde weapon would be one that was more efficient at killing hordes than any other unit. Between the new wounding table and the way AP works this edition... the best weapon for killing geq efficiently would be str 2 AP 0.

Why? Think of it like this. str 6 AP -2 kills .833 GEQ per hit and .444 MEQ per hit, or 1.8ish GEQ for each MEQ killed . Str 4 AP -2 would be .666 vs .333, or exactly 2 to 1. Str 4 AP 0 would be 2.667 to 1, str 6 AP 0 is 2.5 to 1 etc.

This means the three most effective would be str 3 AP 0 at 3 to 1, str 2 AP -2 also at 3 to 1, or ideally str 2 AP 0 at 4 to 1. From this, we can now determine the most cost effective way of dealing with hordes, with the understanding that the more specialized and focused on killing hordes a weapon is, the more damage we would get against a horde per point spent, assuming everything is costed correctly.

Which leads us to the funny bit. What's the best way of getting any of those three in mass? Well considering str 2 AP -2 doesn't exist, we are left with str 3 AP 0 and str 2 AP 0 found most commonly on... hordes. Yes, hordes are the best counter to hordes in the game, due to the (frankly idiotic) way the new AP and wounding systems combine, though it's mainly on the AP system removing dedicated anti GEQ AP 5. So, until we either go back to the old system or they star giving us access to high volume of fire low str heavy weapons, there isn't anything you can bring that's actually dedicated anti horde, besides another horde.

Also it is worth noting that, as the more observant among you may have already noticed, technically none of this, not even the hypothetical str 2 AP 0 weapon, actually kills conscripts as effectively as a space marine tactical, for cost. That's correct, even a str 2 AP 0 weapon will be killing 12 points of conscripts for every 13 points of space marines. This is, presumably, meant to be mitigated by cover, and why the cover system makes it virtually impossible for anything with more than 5-10 models to easily acquire it. Even guardsmen who can get cover don't use it as effectively as space marines. For example, with both units in cover str 3 AP 0 kills 4.5 GEQ for each MEQ, or 6 if the guardsmen's unit is to large to take advantage. In short, high saving throw models have to use cover if they want to maximize longevity, making them at lot less versatile and more limited than units lacking in armor (or who rely on invulnerable or similar saves).

So we now know what it takes to kill hordes effectively: use the weakest most awful gun you can take in bulk and/or get as much cover onto the field as possible. Within reason of course, although technically a board with so much cover on it that every unit, even a horde, is benefitting from it is better for a sv 3+/4+ army than a horde army. Also, and this should be obvious, the actual pricing of the weapon/unit does matter. It's entirely possible, and even likely, that there is a str 4 AP 0 weapon or unit that kills conscripts more effectively for cost than a str 3 AP 0 unit/weapon might. Because things aren't always priced correctly, as we all know.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
I am not sure that there is anything at all in the Space Marine codex that kills GEQs more efficiently than Conscripts do.

That's a pretty specific metric you got there. For example, Devourer Gaunts outpace them against GEQ.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Like, what is this point about devourer gaunts supposed to show? My claim was that "Conscripts shoot decently". Is it your position that in order to qualify as shooting decently, a unit armed with anti-infantry weapons must be more efficient against GEQs than gaunts with devourers? I think that would be pretty silly, but I can't figure out what else you're trying to do here if not weirdly and hypocritically offer your own absurdly specific metric. So, to respond to the bizarre point you seem to be trying to make: gaunts with devourers are actually incredibly shooty. That's why they're also so incredibly fragile for their cost, being easier to kill per-model than Conscripts while costing more than twice as much and requiring similar sorts of buffing to avoid massive morale losses. That Conscripts are actually very close to as efficient as these gaunts (at 12", although 18" with a doctrine) even without various of the buffs they can benefit from says to me that their shooting is pretty good.

Personally, I would say that if a unit is better at shooting GEQs in realistic scenarios than practically everything in the largest and best-known faction's codex, then that's reason to say that it does, in fact, shoot decently. I'm not sure where you disagree with that or why you find that to be such a specific metric.

The bombard rule of +5 hits for every 10 models, or maybe d3 for every 5 models, could help flamers, cannons ,etc... in dealing with hordes in a much more effective way without needing them to be s2 ap0 or something like that.

A Heavy d6 S5 AP-1 weapon that adds d6 hits for every 10 models in a unit would be a pretty damm good horde killer. 3d6 hits vs a 30-man Conscript horde vs d6 agaisnt a 5-man Space Marine squad for example.
But to be honest a weapon like this would SHRED Ork Boyz. So it should be priced accordingly.

 Grumblewartz wrote:
So much dramatic vitriol in this thread...sheesh. Can people please stop with the hyperbole - SAME OLD GW, NO IMPROVEMENTS! Correct me if i'm wrong, but one of the biggest gripes people had with GW was that there was no community interaction. Yet, they did respond and attempt to fix conscripts. Just because your definition of fix didn't match theirs, doesn't negate the fact that they are responding (and quickly) to players' concerns.

More importantly, and I just can't stress this enough, 40k, Fantasy, Battlefleet Gothic, Bloodbowl, every single game that GW has ever produced, was not intended to be played competitively. How many times do they have to say it for people to get the message? It was never the spirit of the game. Just because some versions of the rule set were better applicable to the tournament scene, doesn't mean that they ever wanted the game play that way. Its clear from all of their videos, battle reports, etc. that their idea of "competitive" play is not the same as most "competitive" players' definition.

At this point, I can't understand what it is you are getting worked up about. 8th is better balanced than any version to date. If you aren't purposely creating min/max, hyper competitive lists, attempting to abuse loopholes, then there really shouldn't be a problem. If you are and you complain that it isn't balanced and doesn't work, well, it is like complaining that a basketball doesn't work well when you use it to play volley ball. It just wasn't designed for that purpose.

So much this, have an exalt (whatever that does). Also:

 Skawt wrote:
I haven't played many games of 8th but I'm disappointed with these codexes and the issues they will cause. I liked the idea of even a yearly index where every army got a tweek to keep it balanced. I still say let the chips finish falling before we toss our hands up with a new CEO and edition.

Uh these codices have been some of the most balanced releases to come out from GW to date and the yearly index you're thinking of is called Chapter Approved. Of course there are some flaws with each release but the codex isn't even out yet. This "sky is falling" knee jerk response to every codex has been the norm since the dawn of the internet. I'll take 8th with all of its current flaws over 7th any day of the week.

 Insectum7 wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This codex was GW's opportunity to show us they understood the balance of the game.

Turns out the "new GW" is the same as the "old GW," just with different priorities in regards to "which army should win easily."

You mean "give every army lots of viable options"?

Indeed! Like how Tau have mass commander suits and...uhhhh..Wait, bad example. It's like how CWE have...access to the Ynnari faction instead. I guess that counts as an option?

Did you notice that those two armies don't have codexes yet?

Yeah, that's kinda the problem. The game in its current state is very imbalanced.

 Galas wrote:
The bombard rule of +5 hits for every 10 models, or maybe d3 for every 5 models, could help flamers, cannons ,etc... in dealing with hordes in a much more effective way without needing them to be s2 ap0 or something like that.

A Heavy d6 S5 AP-1 weapon that adds d6 hits for every 10 models in a unit would be a pretty damm good horde killer. 3d6 hits vs a 30-man Conscript horde vs d6 agaisnt a 5-man Space Marine squad for example.
But to be honest a weapon like this would SHRED Ork Boyz. So it should be priced accordingly.

Yeah, that'd work. Or hell, bring back rotor cannons from the HH and toss them on a primaris squad/make them an option for havocs or chosen. That'd be fairly hilarious.

Darsath wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Did you notice that those two armies don't have codexes yet?

Yeah, that's kinda the problem. The game in its current state is very imbalanced.

So your main argument is that 1-2 codices per month isn't fast enough? Yup lets sit in the cesspool that was 7th edition for longer while they get every codex ready to be released simultaneously.

 Raphael the Raven wrote:

Darsath wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Did you notice that those two armies don't have codexes yet?

Yeah, that's kinda the problem. The game in its current state is very imbalanced.

So your main argument is that 1-2 codices per month isn't fast enough? Yup lets sit in the cesspool that was 7th edition for longer while they get every codex ready to be released simultaneously.

Do you believe the game is in a balanced state as it stands? I doubt it. The problem arises in creating codexes designed to be more powerful than their previous index counterparts. That, and we have no information on the content of future codexes to work off of to determine that they'll be on equal footing.

Darsath wrote:

 Raphael the Raven wrote:

Darsath wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Did you notice that those two armies don't have codexes yet?

Yeah, that's kinda the problem. The game in its current state is very imbalanced.

So your main argument is that 1-2 codices per month isn't fast enough? Yup lets sit in the cesspool that was 7th edition for longer while they get every codex ready to be released simultaneously.

Do you believe the game is in a balanced state as it stands? I doubt it. The problem arises in creating codexes designed to be more powerful than their previous index counterparts. That, and we have no information on the content of future codexes to work off of to determine that they'll be on equal footing.

I think the game is as balanced as it could be with the current releases. Is it perfect? No, but none of my games have felt like I lost on turn 1 because I just happen to have the loser codex of the current edition. My faction doesn't even have a codex and it performs decently against the current codexes (besides ad mech not a lot of players for that).

I think everyone should wait until about a year where everyone has gotten their codex/update to come to a conclusion on whats busted or imbalance about the game.

Let's not take it to the extreme. Everything in the codex isn't totally broke just like everything in 7th Eldar wasn't totally broke. I'm just not taking Pask, Conscripts, Baneblades, Manticores, Basilisks, Punishers, or Plasma Russes. My problem is Scions. I have WAY too many not to field them. Now I find myself building more models just to have HSVGs and Melta in order to not be a total jerk. Honestly, even at 15 points, plasma is still auto-take for competitive.

I'm going to try adding an subtracting Scions until I find a decent balance. I don't know what to do when I play Orks, though. I can't even come up with a list from the models I have that would be any fun for them. At least Tyranids, Chaos, and Marines have a few tricks up their sleeve. Orks are just walking into a firing squad even with regular guardsmen. Building a list to the point of trying to lose doesn't sound very fun .

Wait, I was wrong before, str 2 doesn't lose any punch vs toughness 7/8, so taking it in bulk can make it overly efficient. The amount it takes to kill 140 ish points of conscripts would be enough to total a predator of the same or higher cost. Which is again weird, and way to efficient for tank hunting.

Str 3 is indeed the answer. In fact, two sets of infantry backed by a company commander are currently a reasonable solution, killing 40 points of conscripts while costing 110 points, a 2.75 ratio. It isn't effective anti tank, 4.95 ratio, but is really effective on other guardsmen, 2.1 ration, or tacticals, 1.9 ratio, caught in the open. With cover that evens up, 3.8 ratio for space marines and 2.75 for the guardsmen predictably, the extra point of armor saving throw putting them even with conscripts in durability.

So yeah, we just need to get other armies sources of str 3 shooting that are roughly as cost effective as IG squads backed by company commanders. Though guard having the best answer to a really rough unit of their own isn't convincing me of their balance still.

Codex isn't even out yet and the sky is falling.

Even if there were such a thing as "the new GW", it's the same old hyperbolic community overreacting at everything.

Maybe Guard just need to suck again I guess, to return balance to the universe or some dumb crap.

I play Nids, and I have no issues with Guard. I can tear through conscripts quite well and open holes where I need them. I struggle against too many tanks, but I do have units in my list just for anti-armor as well.
Honestly, when I play, I look at what I need to destroy of their's to win, then what I need to destroy it with and what they will try to destroy mine with and target that first.
As long as I play the game a turn or two ahead I don't usually have issues.
Space Marines are the only codex that does give me issues because roboat is just unkillable for me. My old tactic of throwing Swarmy at him doesn't work now since he can spend a CP or 2 and still attack back even if I killed him and kill Swarmy, then still come back to life afterwards.
Guard doesn't even come close to that kind of frustration for me. I'm actually excited to play against different guard armies now.

I keep hearing people saying that the printing cycle is too long and chapter approved will not be able to change anything, which is false.

It has become clear that GW printing cycle is closer to one month, maybe one and half. We had a lot of proofs that it is this way.

At the very least they can change rules and point costs in that time frame.

 Skawt wrote:
I haven't played many games of 8th but I'm disappointed with these codexes and the issues they will cause. I liked the idea of even a yearly index where every army got a tweek to keep it balanced. I still say let the chips finish falling before we toss our hands up with a new CEO and edition.

As long as a tweak is all that's needed. I was interested in the 'nu' gw, so i went for the first best benchmark i could find - the fantasy version, the general's handbook. From what i can tell, the issues weren't actually fixed, just as you say tweaked slightly. Now maybe it'll be different for chapter approved, but its the same company and the same design team, so my magic 8 ball says no.

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Skawt wrote:
I haven't played many games of 8th but I'm disappointed with these codexes and the issues they will cause. I liked the idea of even a yearly index where every army got a tweek to keep it balanced. I still say let the chips finish falling before we toss our hands up with a new CEO and edition.

As long as a tweak is all that's needed. I was interested in the 'nu' gw, so i went for the first best benchmark i could find - the fantasy version, the general's handbook. From what i can tell, the issues weren't actually fixed, just as you say tweaked slightly. Now maybe it'll be different for chapter approved, but its the same company and the same design team, so my magic 8 ball says no.

Not in my experience. The GHB2 fixed 90% of the game. All the OP stuff from GHB1 era was brought down to a competitive level, and everything not competitive was given that slight buff needed. It opened the list building possiblities for all factions immensely. I honestly think that it was the best book ever printed by GW, finely designed and perfectly executed. I expect much less from CA though, since GHB2 came from the observation of a 1 year stable meta.

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Skawt wrote:
I haven't played many games of 8th but I'm disappointed with these codexes and the issues they will cause. I liked the idea of even a yearly index where every army got a tweek to keep it balanced. I still say let the chips finish falling before we toss our hands up with a new CEO and edition.

As long as a tweak is all that's needed. I was interested in the 'nu' gw, so i went for the first best benchmark i could find - the fantasy version, the general's handbook. From what i can tell, the issues weren't actually fixed, just as you say tweaked slightly. Now maybe it'll be different for chapter approved, but its the same company and the same design team, so my magic 8 ball says no.

I believe it isn't the same design team anymore, just for reference.

General's Handbook 1 and 2 are widely regarded as excellent products in the AOS community. Not flawless, but very good.

Honestly I wish we had never got Codexes and had the rules for each unit freely available (and therefore more easily tweaked). Then points and army special rules are all housed in a yearly Chapter Approved.

Spoletta wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Skawt wrote:
I haven't played many games of 8th but I'm disappointed with these codexes and the issues they will cause. I liked the idea of even a yearly index where every army got a tweek to keep it balanced. I still say let the chips finish falling before we toss our hands up with a new CEO and edition.

As long as a tweak is all that's needed. I was interested in the 'nu' gw, so i went for the first best benchmark i could find - the fantasy version, the general's handbook. From what i can tell, the issues weren't actually fixed, just as you say tweaked slightly. Now maybe it'll be different for chapter approved, but its the same company and the same design team, so my magic 8 ball says no.

Not in my experience. The GHB2 fixed 90% of the game. All the OP stuff from GHB1 era was brought down to a competitive level, and everything not competitive was given that slight buff needed. It opened the list building possiblities for all factions immensely. I honestly think that it was the best book ever printed by GW, finely designed and perfectly executed. I expect much less from CA though, since GHB2 came from the observation of a 1 year stable meta.

There are some issues with GHB2. They nerfed Beastclaws (without allies) to near bottom tier levels.

SilverAlien wrote:
Wait, I was wrong before, str 2 doesn't lose any punch vs toughness 7/8, so taking it in bulk can make it overly efficient. The amount it takes to kill 140 ish points of conscripts would be enough to total a predator of the same or higher cost. Which is again weird, and way to efficient for tank hunting.

Str 3 is indeed the answer. In fact, two sets of infantry backed by a company commander are currently a reasonable solution, killing 40 points of conscripts while costing 110 points, a 2.75 ratio. It isn't effective anti tank, 4.95 ratio, but is really effective on other guardsmen, 2.1 ration, or tacticals, 1.9 ratio, caught in the open. With cover that evens up, 3.8 ratio for space marines and 2.75 for the guardsmen predictably, the extra point of armor saving throw putting them even with conscripts in durability.

So yeah, we just need to get other armies sources of str 3 shooting that are roughly as cost effective as IG squads backed by company commanders. Though guard having the best answer to a really rough unit of their own isn't convincing me of their balance still.

How about Genestealers? They offer a 2.57 ratio, killing 93.3 points of Conscripts at cost of 240 points.

Sisters Dominions offer a 3.33 ratio, killing 18 points of Conscripts at cost of 60 points.

Boyz offer a 1.69 ratio, killing 106.668 points at cost of 180 points.

After reading this thread, and arguments/discussion from both sides, I feel there is far too much hyperbole and ideal scenario issues, and far too much vacuum chamber number crunching.

Just my though, shouldn't we just wait a month or two, get feedback and playtime on it. Hopefully there will be some tournament data to add as well.

With all this, I'm sure GW will see if weeks are needed, and chapter approved will issue errata etc.

 Dr. Mills wrote:
After reading this thread, and arguments/discussion from both sides, I feel there is far too much hyperbole and ideal scenario issues, and far too much vacuum chamber number crunching.

Just my though, shouldn't we just wait a month or two, get feedback and playtime on it. Hopefully there will be some tournament data to add as well.

With all this, I'm sure GW will see if weeks are needed, and chapter approved will issue errata etc.

I am in agreeance. I have realised math-hammer, while handy as a very basic guide, doesn't lend itself to on table performance all that well. The perfect world scenarios math hammer loves to quote happen very rarely, and even then its only an indication on average performance. It is a handy tool to use but it shouldn't be the be all and end all of a conversation, but unfortunately too many people hold it as the gold standard of a units performance.

Additionally, while it certainly does appear that IG have been given a substantial buff and they are looking like the top teir codex, even if it dues turn out to be true, its not the end of the game. Eldar were dominant in 7th, but everybody built to fight eldar. Do the same in 8th, build to face massed tanks and infantry, and you should be at least decently competitive against a whole swath of army builds and playstyles.

So, couple of things I’d like to talk about that have been mentioned on this thread.

First off, people need to stop looking at things as 1 unit vs 1 unit for 1 turn only, especially in regards to conscript killing.
For example, a punisher LR with 3 heavy bolters will kill 30 conscripts a turn, on average (which is a full max squad). Sure, the LR costs ~166 points and the conscripts cost 90 points, but, the LR will then go on to kill another unit the next turn. Just because something isn’t “points efficient” at killing a lesser pointed unit doesn’t mean it sucks at the job overall.
The aim of beating conscripts is killing the unit (unless you are playing Valhalla, then you want to reduce it to around <5 models to keep it from respawning). If you could kill a unit of 50 a turn previously, you’re going to find it way easier to kill a unit of 20-30 after this codex is released. Likewise, if you aren’t setup to kill 20-30 t3 models a turn, you’ll likely struggle overall.
Just because 1 unit might not be able to do it, doesn’t mean your overall army can’t. Build a list that can answer various situations.
An example of this, is MWG’s latest Admech vs Catachan Guard vault bat rep. Josh’s 1 unit of 4 Dakkabots essentially destroyed 4 units of 10-man infantry squads in one turn without using the protocol for extra shots. Yes, points wise this isn’t “efficient”, but, game wise it is. Losing 8-9 models in 4, 10 man units, from a single unit’s shooting phase is a pretty big hit in terms of guard efficiency and power in the following turns. Likewise, we saw that a neutron laser Dunecrawler can pretty much 1 shot a LR. Yes, LRs can have a massive amount of firepower now, but, they still die. (not seen all the other batreps yet though)
Another option Admech have that can help vs IG, is sniper Rangers. Characters aren’t going to survive shooting from the str 7 rifles. Standard snipers will also work, but, it’s less likely imo.
Just because something is less efficient that something else “on paper” doesn’t mean it will be the case in game over multiple turns.

Baneblades, I’m glad they got changed, but the impact of the 40-point decrease remains to be seen. Fully tooled up, these are still going to cost 540+ points. Getting the benefit of the regiment when taken in a supreme command detachment or full super heavy detachment is a nice bonus and means you must build for it (essentially making a fully tooled up shadowsword cost at least 630 points – not including missiles and pintle weapons.) Costly, but still probably worth it. And even then, you have 3 pretty useless company commanders if you’re mixing detachments.

People keep saying conscripts got “more durable” as well. Personally, I’m not seeing it. They took a big hit in terms of max squad size and still likely won’t ever be getting the bonus from cover. Sure, they can use the stratagem to put them on +1 save and then get both psychic powers on them for a 3+ save and -1 to hit… But, if you do that, I’d be happy and just shoot at the bigger targets behind them or at another unit of infantry next to them. Sure, being Valallan allows you to bring dead units back, but, chances are once they are brought back they will be out of position for a turn or 2, by which time, your backline units have been charged.

Hellhounds now do what they are meant to – kill basic infantry squads. More so, when they are Catachan. I don’t really see much of a problem here as they still die to a lascanon team.

Cadian rules, are pretty good as well, but can lead to a one-dimensional play style. Heavy cover (lots of ruins and woods with objectives in them) will be the bane of this army as you’ll rack up the maelstrom points over them. If you are really worried about those 12+2d6” moving conscripts moving around late game for objectives… Just kill them, or reduce them in size so your obsec beats theirs.

I’m personally looking at Vostroyan/Valhallan super heavies and Tallaran/Valhallan LR detachments, as being the ones to watch. My SHVs will hit on 2’s and LRs will outflank. That, or one/both could essentially ignore the damage penalties in the shooting phase when above 3 wounds. If you want to stop those tanks, you need to kill them in one turn rather than leaving them alive.

The “ultramarines” style warlord trait is handy, but, not as game breaking as people think. The same was said when the Ultramarines got it, but, it’s hardly what is winning games for them. The relic is also pretty nice, but, again, you’re prob only getting 2 or 3 CP back, if you are lucky. (Remember, this is 1 dice per stratagem, not 1 dice per CP used)

As always, the biggest bane of IG will be the armies taking -1 to hit detachments/auras. Hitting on 5’s and 6’s is a big drop in effectiveness. Sure, Cadian infantry can re-roll everything (except the 4’s/5’s) but, suddenly a lot more things start surviving. LRs will start to struggle a lot in those instances.

Another example of beating Guard in objective/ITC games was highlights by FLG. They did Deathguard vs Catachan, and the Deathguard only lost because, after getting a big early game advantage, Frankie decided not to “hide” in order to keep things interesting in the bat rep.

Stratagem wise, I can only see a small portion of them being used most of the time. These being +1 to the save, repair a vehicle and the regiment specific ones. Cool, you can throw 10 krak grenades, but it’s not going to happen very often. Commissar tank – very situational and not something you prob want to be spamming as a “just in case”. Crush them, nice, but, unless it’s on a SHV, not really impressive. Consolidate squads can be nice if you are going heavy/special weapon heavy infantry squads, but, beyond that all you are doing is making a BS4 conscript squad. Chances are you’ll have enough orders anyway so won’t need to worry about that. Mobile Command Vehicle will be a mainstay for Armageddon lists, but probably not that great beyond that. Likewise, defensive gunners will be a big thing for Mordian tanks, but beyond that dependant on the tank. The rest are just even more situational.

The way I see myself setting up my army, would be a cheapish brigade, a spearhead and a supreme command. In which, I prob won’t even have a commissar and run them as Valhallan, Tallarn and Vostroyan. There are options now, which will hopefully see IG lists start to vary a little.

Guard can, and will, be beaten by a lot of lists – especially in objective games, you are just going to have to play for it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If horde armies in 40k finally don't suck, that's fine by me. The high cost and effort of getting a horde army onto the table easily justifies any in-game advantage they might have.

You have just described pay to win.

 Klowny wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:
After reading this thread, and arguments/discussion from both sides, I feel there is far too much hyperbole and ideal scenario issues, and far too much vacuum chamber number crunching.

Just my though, shouldn't we just wait a month or two, get feedback and playtime on it. Hopefully there will be some tournament data to add as well.

With all this, I'm sure GW will see if weeks are needed, and chapter approved will issue errata etc.

I am in agreeance. I have realised math-hammer, while handy as a very basic guide, doesn't lend itself to on table performance all that well. The perfect world scenarios math hammer loves to quote happen very rarely, and even then its only an indication on average performance. It is a handy tool to use but it shouldn't be the be all and end all of a conversation, but unfortunately too many people hold it as the gold standard of a units performance.

Additionally, while it certainly does appear that IG have been given a substantial buff and they are looking like the top teir codex, even if it dues turn out to be true, its not the end of the game. Eldar were dominant in 7th, but everybody built to fight eldar. Do the same in 8th, build to face massed tanks and infantry, and you should be at least decently competitive against a whole swath of army builds and playstyles.

I have been saying that for years, Mathshammer is a tool, nothing more, plus dice dont use the law of mathematics, they use the law of Mechanics so any maths done to gain a perfect understanding of the statistics is inherently wrong.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
So what you're saying is every army should be able to gunline equally? Because that's what you're implying.

You're assuming I felt they needed a durability nerf.

Well you see, either an army needs an effective way to slice through conscripts in melee before getting shot off the board, or it needs to at least potentially outshoot guard directly.

If you don't think conscripts need a durability nerf, then yes you do think every army should be able to gunline equally. Or melee focused armies should be entirely worthless, rather than turned into another gunline army.

That's the thing, conscripts cannot be killed efficiently except in a few very specific examples, and I'd be shocked if you can even name them. So most armies either field their own equivalent (if they also play guard/demons), or just outshoot whatever the conscripts are protecting and hope they have time to clear them later.

You give the viable tactics in your own post. Outshoot what the Conscripts are protecting (which you don't have to have gunline to do, btw. as there are deep strikers with good shooting capability.) And you don't have to kill the conscripts efficiently, you just have to mitigate them eventually.

You'd be shocked if I can name Berzerkers and Genestealers?

Any guard player with a pulse can shut down deepstrikers to the point where there's hardly a point in even bringing them, that's not a counterargument.

Same for assault, Even the most powerful close combat armies are, at best, going to burn through the conscript screens turn one and then get shot up next phase. We still have Get Back in the Fight, and some regiments can straight up fire into close combat with certain orders.

Yeah, if only there were some kind of drawback to issuing orders to conscripts.

 Formosa wrote:
I have been saying that for years, Mathshammer is a tool, nothing more, plus dice dont use the law of mathematics, they use the law of Mechanics so any maths done to gain a perfect understanding of the statistics is inherently wrong.

Those are the same thing.

The point of mathhammer is comparing units.

Its not the case that you can go "right, 4+ to hit, 4+ to wound, no save, 10 wounds on the target, therefore I need exactly 40 shots to kill it and this will always happen".

What you can do is calculate that 9 shots at 3+, 3+ is better than say 12 shots at 4+, 4+ for the same points. Therefore if you are facing the choice you probably want the first option unless there is some synergy to suggest otherwise.

Now in a game anything can happen. Maybe the 3+ having player is unlucky while the 4+ player rolls nothing but 6s.
Over time however this is unlikely to be repeated. Whether you play competitively or casually performance will tend towards the norm and good units will do better than bad units. Therefore if you put good units in your lists you are improving your chances to win.

Will IG win every single game now? No. Play enough and you will get bad dice. They will however win more than they lose because the odds have been skewed heavily in their favour. Much like Eldar in 7th.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Maybe Guard just need to suck again I guess, to return balance to the universe or some dumb crap.

There's a huge chunk of the fanbase who want anything that's not loyalist Space Marines to be worthless.

Remember it was only at the tail end of 7th that "CSM players still need to suffer for 3.5 being good" began to end.

I can't wait for the Tau/Eldar codex. It could be total crap, but there'll still be people insisting it needs nerfing to the dirt.

If you ask me the main problem seems to be that morale, yet again, doesn't impact the game as much as it should. If you could sweep Conscripts or Boys or if they'd lose guys no matter what Comissar stands next to them, their armor and toughness would not matter that much. However, it seems the more Codizes come out the more Boni to morale everybody gets. Apply Chaos tears here for being the only faction that lost army wide fearless without any replacement but Abaddon ;-)

Even when I played space marines, I always planned for horde armies. I love loading up on heavy bolters and assault cannons. Thin the heard while targeting their heavier stuff with your lascannons and missiles. Stop trying to table your opponent and out-think them instead.
Marines have the tools to play the current meta. Try using them and stop looking for silver bullets to win. Remember to engage vehicles so they can't shoot that turn. you don't have to destroy them to neutralize them.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Even when I played space marines, I always planned for horde armies. I love loading up on heavy bolters and assault cannons. Thin the heard while targeting their heavier stuff with your lascannons and missiles. Stop trying to table your opponent and out-think them instead.
Marines have the tools to play the current meta. Try using them and stop looking for silver bullets to win. Remember to engage vehicles so they can't shoot that turn. you don't have to destroy them to neutralize them.

Bubblewrap is made specifically to stop you from engaging vehicles. If you managed to get a charge on a vehicle and every Conscript in that sector isn't dead, then the enemy played their conscripts wildly wrong.

Marines have tools but pay too much for them, and so run out of models too quickly.

There is enough deep striking and speed to get through holes you make sometimes. I've had games where I couldn't and in those cases I just quickly engaged what I could so the artillery didn't pound me into dust.
Some heavy bolters and assault cannons should open some holes though through any bubble wrap, especially if you can get them a good sight line from a building or something.
A flamer armed land raider is also pretty good at removing screens and letting the troops out to engage things behind them. If you keep them pressed into a corner, then its easier to take objectives with what you have left.

 Purifier wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Even when I played space marines, I always planned for horde armies. I love loading up on heavy bolters and assault cannons. Thin the heard while targeting their heavier stuff with your lascannons and missiles. Stop trying to table your opponent and out-think them instead.
Marines have the tools to play the current meta. Try using them and stop looking for silver bullets to win. Remember to engage vehicles so they can't shoot that turn. you don't have to destroy them to neutralize them.

Bubblewrap is made specifically to stop you from engaging vehicles. If you managed to get a charge on a vehicle and every Conscript in that sector isn't dead, then the enemy played their conscripts wildly wrong.

Yes, remember folks, every guard list includes at least 100 conscripts, and every player is an expert at using them. Your opponent will never make mistakes, and would never think about running anything but the most competitive choices. If you put terrain on the table, your opponent will have nothing but conscripts, manticores, and mortar teams across the table from you. This is the nightmare world in which you live - despair!

in a competitive tournament environment, you're going to see lists like that, yes. And people are usually going to string their conscripts correctly, and position them such that you can't encircle one in the front to prevent a fallback, and cover all their tanks such that fast assault units and deep strikers can never get to them, and always hide their characters perfectly out of LOS of all snipers...usually. in a casual, normal play environment, that isn't going to be the case.

Assault is more technical to play in 8th than shooting, that is a definite fact. Shooting is an easier style to play - more stationary positioning decisions, less movement micromanagement. It's easy to screw up a charge-pile in-consolidate sequence to allow vs deny overwatch, allow vs deny fall back, and maximise the number of models available to attack. it's easy to make the wrong choice as to the first unit to attack with and leave yourself open to a counterattack interrupt. It is a lot easier to position your units to get cover, to allow for Heroic Interventions, and to protect characters if you're not planning on doing much movement with them in the game. But saying that because something is more difficult, or takes more thought, means that it is impossible is disingenuous.

 Purifier wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Even when I played space marines, I always planned for horde armies. I love loading up on heavy bolters and assault cannons. Thin the heard while targeting their heavier stuff with your lascannons and missiles. Stop trying to table your opponent and out-think them instead.
Marines have the tools to play the current meta. Try using them and stop looking for silver bullets to win. Remember to engage vehicles so they can't shoot that turn. you don't have to destroy them to neutralize them.

Bubblewrap is made specifically to stop you from engaging vehicles. If you managed to get a charge on a vehicle and every Conscript in that sector isn't dead, then the enemy played their conscripts wildly wrong.

He meant getting that leman russ into the 5+/6+ BS range, not assaulting it.

Tyel wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I have been saying that for years, Mathshammer is a tool, nothing more, plus dice dont use the law of mathematics, they use the law of Mechanics so any maths done to gain a perfect understanding of the statistics is inherently wrong.

Those are the same thing.

The point of mathhammer is comparing units.

Its not the case that you can go "right, 4+ to hit, 4+ to wound, no save, 10 wounds on the target, therefore I need exactly 40 shots to kill it and this will always happen".

What you can do is calculate that 9 shots at 3+, 3+ is better than say 12 shots at 4+, 4+ for the same points. Therefore if you are facing the choice you probably want the first option unless there is some synergy to suggest otherwise.

Now in a game anything can happen. Maybe the 3+ having player is unlucky while the 4+ player rolls nothing but 6s.
Over time however this is unlikely to be repeated. Whether you play competitively or casually performance will tend towards the norm and good units will do better than bad units. Therefore if you put good units in your lists you are improving your chances to win.

Will IG win every single game now? No. Play enough and you will get bad dice. They will however win more than they lose because the odds have been skewed heavily in their favour. Much like Eldar in 7th.

No they are not the same thing, one takes statistics in a vacuum, the other admits it cannot take into account the intagible factors such as surface tension, dice weight, momentum, then you have unit position and all those other factors.
You cannot ever account for the random factors of real life, the people who swear by mathshammer always forget to take this into account, claiming that because something sucks due to maths, it must suck full stop, its bad science to not try to take as much relavant information as possible into account when making a decision.

 Formosa wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I have been saying that for years, Mathshammer is a tool, nothing more, plus dice dont use the law of mathematics, they use the law of Mechanics so any maths done to gain a perfect understanding of the statistics is inherently wrong.

Those are the same thing.

The point of mathhammer is comparing units.

Its not the case that you can go "right, 4+ to hit, 4+ to wound, no save, 10 wounds on the target, therefore I need exactly 40 shots to kill it and this will always happen".

What you can do is calculate that 9 shots at 3+, 3+ is better than say 12 shots at 4+, 4+ for the same points. Therefore if you are facing the choice you probably want the first option unless there is some synergy to suggest otherwise.

Now in a game anything can happen. Maybe the 3+ having player is unlucky while the 4+ player rolls nothing but 6s.
Over time however this is unlikely to be repeated. Whether you play competitively or casually performance will tend towards the norm and good units will do better than bad units. Therefore if you put good units in your lists you are improving your chances to win.

Will IG win every single game now? No. Play enough and you will get bad dice. They will however win more than they lose because the odds have been skewed heavily in their favour. Much like Eldar in 7th.

No they are not the same thing, one takes statistics in a vacuum, the other admits it cannot take into account the intagible factors such as surface tension, dice weight, momentum, then you have unit position and all those other factors.
You cannot ever account for the random factors of real life, the people who swear by mathshammer always forget to take this into account, claiming that because something sucks due to maths, it must suck full stop, its bad science to not try to take as much relavant information as possible into account when making a decision.

Loaded dice are indeed a good counter to mathammer.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
How about Genestealers? They offer a 2.57 ratio, killing 93.3 points of Conscripts at cost of 240 points.

Sisters Dominions offer a 3.33 ratio, killing 18 points of Conscripts at cost of 60 points.

Boyz offer a 1.69 ratio, killing 106.668 points at cost of 180 points.

But see, the melee units aren't balanced as counters to conscripts. In fact they literally can't be balanced to be a conscript counter in this ruleset. As we saw above, str 4 AP 0 isn't particularly effective against GEQ compared to MEQ, so anything that kills conscripts effectively at that point level kills other armies even more effectively. Particularly for the melee armies, as cover can't even factor in. Genestealers being good at ripping through infantry will effect guard less than almost any other army, same with orks. For orks the unit is clearly so geared for offense as to become a glass cannon, making it impractical to actually use. Genestealers are more even, but again guard is the least effected by genestealers and will be more resistant to them than any other army in the game, so they cannot be a proper counter. It's quite literally impossible. Even massed str 3 in melee favors normal guardsmen or space marines as a target compared to conscripts, and str 4 with or without AP makes it even worse.

The dominions are more likely to be balanced towards this, as a ranged unit with AP 0 weapons cover can swing things around to favor 3+ or even 4+ heavy armies. However, in practice even against such armies the dominions are more point efficient, for example going from 2.0 to 4.2 depending if marines have cover, vs the 3.333 for conscripts.

In short, you are highlighting particularly point efficient anti infantry that is, if anything, better suited for killing anything but GEQ, but can also perform well there due to just how efficient they are offensively. This is different than a counter, which should favor GEQ as a target or at least lean as much as possible towards them. As we established technically nothing actually wants to target guard more than SM in the open, even normal guardsmen have this advantage.

For that, it needs to be ranged (so 4+/3+ armies can benefit from cover) and it needs to be str 3 AP 0. Massed str 4 AP 0 is probably the runner up, but still has to deal with improved point effectiveness vs toughness 6/7 and 4. Which is much the same reason AP isn't ideal, it can make targeting 4+-2+ saves more effective.

 Arbitrator wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Maybe Guard just need to suck again I guess, to return balance to the universe or some dumb crap.

There's a huge chunk of the fanbase who want anything that's not loyalist Space Marines to be worthless.

Remember it was only at the tail end of 7th that "CSM players still need to suffer for 3.5 being good" began to end.

I can't wait for the Tau/Eldar codex. It could be total crap, but there'll still be people insisting it needs nerfing to the dirt.

I mean, honestly if you think the guard codex is balanced and want other codices to sit at this level, you are basically saying you want to punish CSM players more. Just saying, guard being OP screws with all the released codices.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Even when I played space marines, I always planned for horde armies. I love loading up on heavy bolters and assault cannons. Thin the heard while targeting their heavier stuff with your lascannons and missiles. Stop trying to table your opponent and out-think them instead.
Marines have the tools to play the current meta. Try using them and stop looking for silver bullets to win. Remember to engage vehicles so they can't shoot that turn. you don't have to destroy them to neutralize them.

Bubblewrap is made specifically to stop you from engaging vehicles. If you managed to get a charge on a vehicle and every Conscript in that sector isn't dead, then the enemy played their conscripts wildly wrong.

Yes, remember folks, every guard list includes at least 100 conscripts, and every player is an expert at using them. Your opponent will never make mistakes, and would never think about running anything but the most competitive choices. If you put terrain on the table, your opponent will have nothing but conscripts, manticores, and mortar teams across the table from you. This is the nightmare world in which you live - despair!

in a competitive tournament environment, you're going to see lists like that, yes. And people are usually going to string their conscripts correctly, and position them such that you can't encircle one in the front to prevent a fallback, and cover all their tanks such that fast assault units and deep strikers can never get to them, and always hide their characters perfectly out of LOS of all snipers...usually. in a casual, normal play environment, that isn't going to be the case.

Assault is more technical to play in 8th than shooting, that is a definite fact. Shooting is an easier style to play - more stationary positioning decisions, less movement micromanagement. It's easy to screw up a charge-pile in-consolidate sequence to allow vs deny overwatch, allow vs deny fall back, and maximise the number of models available to attack. it's easy to make the wrong choice as to the first unit to attack with and leave yourself open to a counterattack interrupt. It is a lot easier to position your units to get cover, to allow for Heroic Interventions, and to protect characters if you're not planning on doing much movement with them in the game. But saying that because something is more difficult, or takes more thought, means that it is impossible is disingenuous.

My group has already adapted to this, sadly. It's not impossible, but my win rate is definitely lower than 7th. The SW guy has 100 conscripts. The IG guy has 200. The girlyman player has 150. They don't really make mistakes in terms of deep striking because its trivial to measure 8" between units. We want to win, and so commissars are always hidden because not hiding them is flat out dumb if your opponent has snipers. The game is NOT that complex.

Loaded dice are indeed a good counter to mathammer.

Congrats, that's not even remotely explicable to what he said.

That's exactly what he implied. Mathhammer works with large sample sizes. Period. The best armies usually roll enough dice to get a good sample size every game. Marines don't, but they're not a good army, imo. If you are quadatapping conscripts, you WILL roll the average.

 sfshilo wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Even when I played space marines, I always planned for horde armies. I love loading up on heavy bolters and assault cannons. Thin the heard while targeting their heavier stuff with your lascannons and missiles. Stop trying to table your opponent and out-think them instead.
Marines have the tools to play the current meta. Try using them and stop looking for silver bullets to win. Remember to engage vehicles so they can't shoot that turn. you don't have to destroy them to neutralize them.

Bubblewrap is made specifically to stop you from engaging vehicles. If you managed to get a charge on a vehicle and every Conscript in that sector isn't dead, then the enemy played their conscripts wildly wrong.

He meant getting that leman russ into the 5+/6+ BS range, not assaulting it.

"I've had games where I couldn't and in those cases I just quickly engaged what I could so the artillery didn't pound me into dust."

Exactly, if the codex has stuff that makes this impossible to do anymore then we are all in trouble lol.

I don't know about the rest of you, but my stuff doesn't get enough turns of movement to get to the artillery before its dead or tarpitted.

I will say this: just because an outcome isn't guaranteed doesn't mean the odds aren't slanted. If I told you that you would have to roll all 6s every turn to have any chance of winning, you'd be a fool to say "so you're saying there's a chance."

However, 40k's ability to swing very heavily on the dice also means we shouldn't sweat the small stuff. If something is within +/-5% or so of typical efficiency at something, its effect will probably get lost in variance. It has an edge sure, it's even a little unfair on average, but any individual game if won't really be noticeable when the dice routinely swing outcomes by more than 50% so it's just not worth worrying about.

If something is more in the +/-10% band then its edge might be more routinely noticeable, but that is more likely to be "unit X is good/bad at Y" than "unit X is bonkers OP/unusable".

Basically while mathhammer can be useful, it's important to take it with a grain of salt and have a sense of scale. Very often the appropriate response to a small difference is "eh, close enough", not "the end is nigh!"

fresus wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
I have been saying that for years, Mathshammer is a tool, nothing more, plus dice dont use the law of mathematics, they use the law of Mechanics so any maths done to gain a perfect understanding of the statistics is inherently wrong.

Those are the same thing.

The point of mathhammer is comparing units.

Its not the case that you can go "right, 4+ to hit, 4+ to wound, no save, 10 wounds on the target, therefore I need exactly 40 shots to kill it and this will always happen".

What you can do is calculate that 9 shots at 3+, 3+ is better than say 12 shots at 4+, 4+ for the same points. Therefore if you are facing the choice you probably want the first option unless there is some synergy to suggest otherwise.

Now in a game anything can happen. Maybe the 3+ having player is unlucky while the 4+ player rolls nothing but 6s.
Over time however this is unlikely to be repeated. Whether you play competitively or casually performance will tend towards the norm and good units will do better than bad units. Therefore if you put good units in your lists you are improving your chances to win.

Will IG win every single game now? No. Play enough and you will get bad dice. They will however win more than they lose because the odds have been skewed heavily in their favour. Much like Eldar in 7th.

No they are not the same thing, one takes statistics in a vacuum, the other admits it cannot take into account the intagible factors such as surface tension, dice weight, momentum, then you have unit position and all those other factors.
You cannot ever account for the random factors of real life, the people who swear by mathshammer always forget to take this into account, claiming that because something sucks due to maths, it must suck full stop, its bad science to not try to take as much relavant information as possible into account when making a decision.

Loaded dice are indeed a good counter to mathammer.

lol yes I suppose they would be, but you know damn well that's not what I'm talking about, metal dice are a thing, so are wooden, and mixes of both, plastic and metal numbers are also a thing, resin dice, so much variation, not to mention all the other factors.

No one is talking about small differences in 8th. And even small differences add up. Like how nearly every weapon is better at killing marines than guardsmen on a per point basis.

Martel732 wrote:
That's exactly what he implied. Mathhammer works with large sample sizes. Period. The best armies usually roll enough dice to get a good sample size every game. Marines don't, but they're not a good army, imo. If you are quadatapping conscripts, you WILL roll the average.

Who me? I didn't imply anything, you infered it if you are referring to my previous statement, if I'm wrong no worries, if you are talking about what I said, you have the wrong conclusion.

"plus dice dont use the law of mathematics, they use the law of Mechanics "

While technically true, is only relevant in the case of mismolded or loaded dice. For practical purposes, they are random independent events.

The type of dice don't change the odds of rolling a 6 unless it is weighted in favor of or against rolling a 6. Even consider imperfect dice, we can still agree that a 6 has a 1/6 chance of being rolled on average across all 6 sided dice.

I'm really confused what point you're trying to make Formosa.

The only thing Mathhammer assumes are the following six givens:

1) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 1 on a six sided die.
2) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 2 on a six sided die.
3) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 3 on a six sided die.
4) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 4 on a six sided die.
5) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 5 on a six sided die.
6) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 6 on a six sided die.

Anything else like surface tension and dice mass fall under undefinable variables that prevent any consistency in calculations and can easily be subverted by using properly balanced dice on a flat surface. Assuming ideal conditions is always necessary because those conditions are what we should be striving for.

Not rolling misshapen frankendice on top of a pizza.

To be fair, most mathhammer assumes a lot more than that.

1) Models in the unit are in-range of the target.

2) There is no intervening terrain/firing through windows that would prevent some number (greater than 0) of models in the firing unit from shooting.

3) There are no buffs on the target unit, or if there are buffs they're assumed to automatically apply regardless of counterplay, necessity of dice rolls, etc.

3) There are no buffs on the firing unit, or if there are buffs they're assumed to automatically apply regardless of counterplay, necessity of dice rolls, etc.

4) Human psychology is perfect (or imperfect) and always makes the right decisions (or never makes the right decisions) in the abstract space of our minds rather than at the table actually playing.

5) Even before play begins, deployment must be assumed to be perfect for or at least irrelevant to the situation being calculated.

I'm sure there are more still...

Sure on paper 150 points of x is more points efficient at killing 150 points of y than 150 points of z. But in a game this raaaarely happens.

For example - in the necron thread mathhammer was brought up to give the case that equal points of scarabs will do more damage to a single squad than wraiths. The math checks out and sure, they do.

But in a game 99.99 times out of 100 this wont happen. Why?

Equal points of scarabs is almost two whole squads, thats 18 bases, vs 6 on the wraiths. You know how hard it is to get 18 bases into contact with a single enemy unit enemy vs 6?

Also, scarabs are used for DS defence, so they are spread out across the board, usually as frontline meatshields. If a unit gets charged, even if you pull your slain models from the halfway across the board, you will still have models out of range of the fight, even after consolidation.

Finally, using scarabs vs wraiths as an example, sure equal points of scarabs will outdamage equal points of wraiths, but the wraiths are 12"M (ignoring all models/terrain) T5 3W 3++ vs the scarabs 10"M T3 3W 6+. You know how much easier it is to kill those scarabs vs the wraiths? Incredibly. So the likelyhood of 6 wraiths getting into combat is exponentially higher than the scarabs.

Mathhammer is good for estimating damage in a perfect world, but it doesn't take into account all the other variables that make units strong. Movement, toughness, saves, special rules, weapons etc all factor into the equation.

Mathhammer isnt the golden standard of a units efficiency, its a tool used when deciding if the unit is worth taking, but its not the only metric (as some people on these forums would have you believe).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
To be fair, most mathhammer assumes a lot more than that.

1) Models in the unit are in-range of the target.

2) There is no intervening terrain/firing through windows that would prevent some number (greater than 0) of models in the firing unit from shooting.

3) There are no buffs on the target unit, or if there are buffs they're assumed to automatically apply regardless of counterplay, necessity of dice rolls, etc.

3) There are no buffs on the firing unit, or if there are buffs they're assumed to automatically apply regardless of counterplay, necessity of dice rolls, etc.

4) Human psychology is perfect (or imperfect) and always makes the right decisions (or never makes the right decisions) in the abstract space of our minds rather than at the table actually playing.

5) Even before play begins, deployment must be assumed to be perfect for or at least irrelevant to the situation being calculated.

I'm sure there are more still...

It doesn't have to assume that if you don't want it to. You can use it for ceilings only, if you want. If only half the unit is in range, then you halve your ceiling. But a better math hammer unit with half the unit in range is STILL better than an inferior unit that is half in range.

 Klowny wrote:
My point about math hammer has been lost. Sure on paper 150 points of x is more points efficient at killing 150 points of y than 150 points of z. But in a game this raaaarely happens.

For example - in the necron thread mathhammer was brought up to give the case that equal points of scarabs will do more damage to a single squad than wraiths. The math checks out and sure it does.

But in a game this will 99.99 times out of 100 this wont happen. Why?

Equal points of scarabs is almost two whole squads, thats 18 bases, vs 6 on the wraiths. You know how hard it is to get 18 bases into contact with the enemy vs 6?

Also, scarabs are used for DS defence, so they are spread out across the board, usually as frontline meatshields. If a unit gets charged, even if you pull your slain models from the halfway across the board, you will still have models out of range of the fight, even after consolidation.

Finally, using scarabs vs wraiths as an example, sure equal points of scarabs will outdamage equal points of wraiths, but the wraiths are 12"M (ignoring all models/terrain) T5 3W 3++ vs the scarabs 10"M T3 3W 6+. You know how much easier it is to kill those scarabs vs the wraiths? Incredibly. So the likelyhood of 6 wraiths getting into combat is exponentially higher than the scarabs.

Mathhammer is good for estimating damage in a perfect world, but it doesn't take into account all the other variables that make units strong. Movement, toughness, saves, special rules all factor into the equation.

Mathhammer isnt the golden standard of a units efficiency, its a tool used when deciding if the unit is worth taking, but its not the only metric (as some people on these forums would have you believe).

Yep, and you bet your bottom dollar every calculation of conscript offensive power is going to include FRFSRF, even though that's now a coinflip.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Even when I played space marines, I always planned for horde armies. I love loading up on heavy bolters and assault cannons. Thin the heard while targeting their heavier stuff with your lascannons and missiles. Stop trying to table your opponent and out-think them instead.
Marines have the tools to play the current meta. Try using them and stop looking for silver bullets to win. Remember to engage vehicles so they can't shoot that turn. you don't have to destroy them to neutralize them.

Bubblewrap is made specifically to stop you from engaging vehicles. If you managed to get a charge on a vehicle and every Conscript in that sector isn't dead, then the enemy played their conscripts wildly wrong.

Yes, remember folks, every guard list includes at least 100 conscripts, and every player is an expert at using them. Your opponent will never make mistakes, and would never think about running anything but the most competitive choices. If you put terrain on the table, your opponent will have nothing but conscripts, manticores, and mortar teams across the table from you. This is the nightmare world in which you live - despair!

in a competitive tournament environment, you're going to see lists like that, yes. And people are usually going to string their conscripts correctly, and position them such that you can't encircle one in the front to prevent a fallback, and cover all their tanks such that fast assault units and deep strikers can never get to them, and always hide their characters perfectly out of LOS of all snipers...usually. in a casual, normal play environment, that isn't going to be the case.

Assault is more technical to play in 8th than shooting, that is a definite fact. Shooting is an easier style to play - more stationary positioning decisions, less movement micromanagement. It's easy to screw up a charge-pile in-consolidate sequence to allow vs deny overwatch, allow vs deny fall back, and maximise the number of models available to attack. it's easy to make the wrong choice as to the first unit to attack with and leave yourself open to a counterattack interrupt. It is a lot easier to position your units to get cover, to allow for Heroic Interventions, and to protect characters if you're not planning on doing much movement with them in the game. But saying that because something is more difficult, or takes more thought, means that it is impossible is disingenuous.

So all I have to do for Conscripts to be perfectly balanced is to assume that they either A) don't get fielded at all, or B) are played wrong.

We can end the thread on the worst argument made right there.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
To be fair, most mathhammer assumes a lot more than that.

1) Models in the unit are in-range of the target.

2) There is no intervening terrain/firing through windows that would prevent some number (greater than 0) of models in the firing unit from shooting.

3) There are no buffs on the target unit, or if there are buffs they're assumed to automatically apply regardless of counterplay, necessity of dice rolls, etc.

3) There are no buffs on the firing unit, or if there are buffs they're assumed to automatically apply regardless of counterplay, necessity of dice rolls, etc.

4) Human psychology is perfect (or imperfect) and always makes the right decisions (or never makes the right decisions) in the abstract space of our minds rather than at the table actually playing.

5) Even before play begins, deployment must be assumed to be perfect for or at least irrelevant to the situation being calculated.

I'm sure there are more still...

It doesn't have to assume that if you don't want it to. You can use it for ceilings only, if you want. If only half the unit is in range, then you halve your ceiling. But a better math hammer unit with half the unit in range is STILL better than an inferior unit that is half in range.

And then you have to talk about unit sizes. 10 Marines can be in range of the Conscripts, and only 10 conscripts can be in range back. In fact, that's likely, given a certain deployment, terrain pattern, psychological priority for each player, objective placement, or other happenstance.

To say 'half this unit is in range of that target unit' doesn't necessarily mean the other unit also has only half in range, even when comparing two completely identical units. If you're not comparing identical units, then you have to take in board space, maneuverability, necessity of leaving models behind ('tails') to get buffs, initial deployment, player priorities when moving the unit, etc.

 Arkaine wrote:
The only thing Mathhammer assumes are the following six givens:

1) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 1 on a six sided die.
2) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 2 on a six sided die.
3) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 3 on a six sided die.
4) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 4 on a six sided die.
5) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 5 on a six sided die.
6) There is a 1/6 chance of rolling a 6 on a six sided die.

Anything else like surface tension and dice mass fall under undefinable variables that prevent any consistency in calculations and can easily be subverted by using properly balanced dice on a flat surface. Assuming ideal conditions is always necessary because those conditions are what we should be striving for.

Not rolling misshapen frankendice on top of a pizza.

Studies have shown that untrue.

"Mathhammer", as people use it, is a very basic form of probability analysis. It is usually just a simple expected outcome calculation. Very few people go much further, into things like standard deviations and such. Mathhammer does ok for a basic understanding but is sometimes overly relied upon without a proper understanding of how probabilities work.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
I am not sure that there is anything at all in the Space Marine codex that kills GEQs more efficiently than Conscripts do.

That's a pretty specific metric you got there. For example, Devourer Gaunts outpace them against GEQ.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Like, what is this point about devourer gaunts supposed to show? My claim was that "Conscripts shoot decently".

Fair enough. But running the numbers, GEQ appear to be the only targets in which the claim about efficiency is true. (I don't have my codex with me, but it's a fun challenge) Even then, they're relying on a 12" rapid fire range (Vostroyans excepted, if I read the rumors correctly). Using Devourer Gaunts was more a point about limiting the claim to the SM codex.

I would say their anti infantry is good, but beyond that their damage output is pretty terrible, and their effective range is quite limited.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trickstick wrote:
"Mathhammer", as people use it, is a very basic form of probability analysis.

Agreed. A fun rabbit-hole, but it's still a rabbit-role.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Yep, and you bet your bottom dollar every calculation of conscript offensive power is going to include FRFSRF, even though that's now a coinflip.

I didn't use it, so you lose! Easy conversion though.

The orders thing hurt the conscripts. No one is denying that. They got army traits though which some are really good.

Lets also not forget the fact that the real reason conscripts are OP is that they cost less than other fodder infantry and they have a better weapon - better abiltiies - and in most cases better saves. They should cost 4 points period.

It's just gonna be funny to watch the balancing going forward considering the methodolgy seems to be 'make the thing worse in a way that doesn't matter and make something that was already okay better!'

Oh noes, gun drones are too good! To balance them we'll make crisis suits cheaper and make drones deepstrike outside of 10"

Oh noes, Girlydude too good, I know! We'll drop centurions 25pts per and drop his imperium buff radius from 12"-11"!

Oh noes, Stormravens too good, better drop it's attacks by 1 and make Devastators weapons 3-7pts cheaper.

Oh noes, Celestine too good, better increase Dominions and immolators by 25pts per unit and bump her up to 300(Because god forbid SoB get anything nice.)

Nope, this codex is broken. I don't need to wait I've seen all the leaks. AM got too many tools when their toolbox was already full. While some armies can counter some of those tools, it's almost impossible to counter them all unless you're playing another AM/IG army.

1) Cheap troops. Conscripts or not, IG has access to numerous cheap troops that can bubblewrap the heavy hitters. Sure they kind of nerfed conscripts, that was a good thing. It doesn't remove the horde though, only shrinking the blob a little and not allowing a 100% chance for orders. The weakness to horde armies should be leadership. Doesn't matter when the commissars in town and you only lose 1 body per turn for battleshock.

2) Orders. There are too many, and they're too powerful. IG can throw out numerous orders each turn and these orders synergize insanely with the army as a whole.

3) Double shooting tanks. Why? Grinding advance allows a double tap? So the army that sits still in a gunline, which is basically just about every IG army, gets a bonus for doing what they're supposed to do. Couple the power of double tapping gunlines with fast units and you have an army that can wait until the last turn or two to start taking objectives.

4) Speed. Move move move can send an IG unit 14"-24" in a turn. Enough to rush forward and grab last second objectives. No other army has troops that fast. Even jump pack troops can only move at the most 18". Apparently IG are faster than even Harlequins and bikes.

5) No-LOS needed units. The guard can sit back and unleash a storm of indirect fire. They could do that earlier. Apparently though the fire needed to get deadlier in the form of -3 basilisk strikes. Why?

6) Stratagems/doctrines/traits make the everyday trooper far more effective than the elite space marines and other elite armies. Double tapping russes with catachan? Sure why not. Nigh invulnerable ogres? Good idea!

Salty? Yes. Feast on my tears, whatever. I know that scions got a points nerf and conscripts were taken down a notch. Good trade though, and I didn't even mention the fact that super heavies now got more shooty and many of the units got cheaper. Yay!

In the edition of soup and blobs, hats off my humble guardsmen, hats off. And yes, I do own IG, along with several other armies. Hopefully this is not the beginning of codex creep or 8th will be all for naught.

ERJAK wrote:
It's just gonna be funny to watch the balancing going forward considering the methodolgy seems to be 'make the thing worse in a way that doesn't matter and make something that was already okay better!'

Oh noes, gun drones are too good! To balance them we'll make crisis suits cheaper and make drones deepstrike outside of 10"

Oh noes, Girlydude too good, I know! We'll drop centurions 25pts per and drop his imperium buff radius from 12"-11"!

Oh noes, Stormravens too good, better drop it's attacks by 1 and make Devastators weapons 3-7pts cheaper.

Oh noes, Celestine too good, better increase Dominions and immolators by 25pts per unit and bump her up to 300(Because god forbid SoB get anything nice.)

Agreed, its very out of character from what they have been doing recently. Maybe FLG had too much of an influence on 'playtesting', Reece does adore his guard :p

Considering the next two codex's out are nids and eldar, will be interesting to see what happens. Will eldar get nerfed admech style? will tyranids finally devour the galaxy?

Tune in next week! Same Bat time, same bat channel.