Let's list off some questions now that we have the "full picture".
Are we now allowed to wonder why the shadowsword can kill 200 points of enemy tanks every turn despite costing only 500ish itself and being quite durable? What about conscripts still being absurdly hard to kill in a single turn without spending 3-4 times as much on a glass cannon counter unit? Or should we "wait for the meta to settle"
Please, could some guard players explain to me how a sturdy tank that's very hard to kill should have the firepower to easily make its points back, yet we need glass cannon units to have that same sort of point efficiency versus conscripts, I'm curious.
Hey, they kept saying we needed to wait for the full picture, we have it now. I want them to explain how exactly it is balanced. Clearly something in the codex must make it balanced and I'm overlooking it, unless it is a trash heap of broken OP garbage and things are exactly as bad as people were predicting. Couldn't be though, right?
Galas wrote: This is a little inflamatory SilverAlien. You can do much better. And I'm saying this in a non-sarcastic way.
You know what though? Alien is right. We basically had all the leaks and previews available to us and we were still being told that we don't have the full picture. This was a justification.
Galas wrote: This is a little inflamatory SilverAlien. You can do much better. And I'm saying this in a non-sarcastic way.
I mean they keep calling him a heckler. But he isn't wrong. Guard had everything they possibly needed to win in the Index; then they got more.
Hilariously they keep saying "conscripts got nerfed be quiet!" when the key issue with conscripts remain. Oh and conscripts have been buffed really, regiments made them better than before.
I'm not discussing that, I have always said that in the IG codex Conscripts are actually more powerfull, I think the only unit that has come less powerfull where Scions.
Galas wrote: I'm not discussing that, I have always said that in the IG codex Conscripts are actually more powerfull, I think the only unit that has come less powerfull where Scions.
I think Scions are still great, even though the plasma dropsquad costs 24 more points, they received plenty of point reductions elsewhere to make up for it. Also extra hits on 6's now, so any IG player using searchlights now gets an extra shot on a 5+ while not being able to overheat in supercharged mode. It's a wash in balancing that leaves Scions still REALLY good.
The Shadowsword can kill 200 points of enemy tanks every turn despite costing only 500ish itself and being quite durable because it's the End of Existence for all other tanks. It is the tank to destroy any other tank.
.. Though as a Guard-player, I'd have to say that 5:2 destruction ratio in points per turn is actually pretty low and by far, not the most efficient. Some units can do the reverse: 2:5.
Galas wrote: I'm not discussing that, I have always said that in the IG codex Conscripts are actually more powerfull, I think the only unit that has come less powerfull where Scions.
I think Scions are still great, even though the plasma dropsquad costs 24 more points, they received plenty of point reductions elsewhere to make up for it. Also extra hits on 6's now, so any IG player using searchlights now gets an extra shot on a 5+ while not being able to overheat in supercharged mode. It's a wash in balancing that leaves Scions still REALLY good.
Yeah, I'll arguee that they are still TOO good.
But, barring some Warlord Traits and Artifacts, I think the problems of the OP and more powerfull IG units are just point costs. Make the things that deserve it more expensive, and they could be fine.
RedCommander wrote: The Shadowsword can kill 200 points of enemy tanks every turn despite costing only 500ish itself and being quite durable because it's the End of Existence for all other tanks. It is the tank to destroy any other tank.
Tricked out its the End Of All Things. CC overwatch with defensive gunners is a joy to behold.
Galas wrote: This is a little inflamatory SilverAlien. You can do much better. And I'm saying this in a non-sarcastic way.
I mean they keep calling him a heckler. But he isn't wrong. Guard had everything they possibly needed to win in the Index; then they got more.
Hilariously they keep saying "conscripts got nerfed be quiet!" when the key issue with conscripts remain. Oh and conscripts have been buffed really, regiments made them better than before.
Conscripts got a flat out buff in the form of the Grenadiers stratagem. 30d6 grenades in over watch, or God forbid, assault is beyond the pale given what they could already do.
RedCommander wrote: The Shadowsword can kill 200 points of enemy tanks every turn despite costing only 500ish itself and being quite durable because it's the End of Existence for all other tanks. It is the tank to destroy any other tank.
.. Though as a Guard-player, I'd have to say that 5:2 destruction ratio in points per turn is actually pretty low and by far, not the most efficient. Some units can do the reverse: 2:5.
Oh no please share. You know what the most efficient you can kill conscripts are? Roughly 2:1, with some absurd glass cannon units. For admech or SM, our tanks are lucky to get 3:1 if we buff them with HQs, not 5:2 before accounting for any buffs or even doctrines into account.
If 2:5 is fair, conscripts would cost 5 or 6 points, so they actually die to anti infantry weapons at a decent rate.
I think you have no idea what point efficiency looks like this edition. Please, share units that fit your criteria.
SilverAlien wrote: Hey, they kept saying we needed to wait for the full picture, we have it now. I want them to explain how exactly it is balanced. Clearly something in the codex must make it balanced and I'm overlooking it, unless it is a trash heap of broken OP garbage and things are exactly as bad as people were predicting. Couldn't be though, right?
I'll come straight out and say its not, at least from the view at 1 days play of several very very short games of 2k.
To be fair I legitimately think your area sounds like it was due for a meta shift, and you should be finding some people can adapt to it to a degree at least. Unless it really is that SM/elite infantry focused, and people can't shift at all.
It's a broken codex, but so were quite a few in 7e and it was still playable.
SilverAlien wrote: To be fair I legitimately think your area sounds like it was due for a meta shift, and you should be finding some people can adapt to it to a degree at least. Unless it really is that SM/elite infantry focused, and people can't shift at all.
It's a broken codex, but so were quite a few in 7e and it was still playable.
Playable, yes; but heavily stratified into 'Has a chance against the 500pt advantage Mechanicus congregation' and 'doesn't'. Sure the uber high tier folks got some variety in there, but the greater portion of us had to settle into that groove.
I'm genuinely worried this could put people off long term since it's up to the perennially scorned GMen players who've been getting the nasty end of the stick for quite a while to rise above it and not turn into the filth peddlers of the eldar eras. I was already a bit concerned with the index; the codex of, 'you can afford efficient hard counters to everything, in triplicate now' is worth a serious conversation about the proper order of things.
Even if you guys are right and the book is garbage why waste your vitriol on random forum people?
Ive been a guard player for almost 10 years since I got into the hobby in 08. I only have one army. Whether they're overpowered or underpowered this week I don't have another option readily available.
What would you like me to do about your perception of their overpoweredness?
MarboLives wrote: Even if you guys are right and the book is garbage why waste your vitriol on random forum people?
Ive been a guard player for almost 10 years since I got into the hobby in 08. I only have one army. Whether they're overpowered or underpowered this week I don't have another option readily available.
What would you like me to do about your perception of their overpoweredness?
Ah yes, the classic "you shouldn't discuss things on a discussion forum" argument.
MarboLives wrote: Even if you guys are right and the book is garbage why waste your vitriol on random forum people?
Ive been a guard player for almost 10 years since I got into the hobby in 08. I only have one army. Whether they're overpowered or underpowered this week I don't have another option readily available.
What would you like me to do about your perception of their overpoweredness?
I'm somewhere past the 12kpts mark of guard ( found 3 leman russes swimming in paint stripper i'd totally forgotten about this morning ) and i'm wary of my collection becoming useless because there's no viable opponents. What I don't want to see, and what could happen if we're not careful is "oh you play guard? i'd rather play someone else if that's alright" or, as the guard player, "Oh you play <weak, index only army>? I'll have to change my list so we're not wasting our time" both of which happened a great deal at the tail end of 7th. If on the other hand Guard becomes the new Space Marines in that everyone plays them that would be wonderful (and fluffy!) but I don't see it happening
We're in the hobby to have fun after all, and there's a genuine risk IG could quickly become 'not fun', at least for the majority of cases. If you can suggest some methods for keeping it fresh without buying models that aren't interesting to me as a player with my nebulous sense of what's neat or not, that'd be most welcome.
RedCommander wrote: The Shadowsword can kill 200 points of enemy tanks every turn despite costing only 500ish itself and being quite durable because it's the End of Existence for all other tanks. It is the tank to destroy any other tank.
.. Though as a Guard-player, I'd have to say that 5:2 destruction ratio in points per turn is actually pretty low and by far, not the most efficient. Some units can do the reverse: 2:5.
Oh no please share. You know what the most efficient you can kill conscripts are? Roughly 2:1, with some absurd glass cannon units. For admech or SM, our tanks are lucky to get 3:1 if we buff them with HQs, not 5:2 before accounting for any buffs or even doctrines into account.
If 2:5 is fair, conscripts would cost 5 or 6 points, so they actually die to anti infantry weapons at a decent rate.
I think you have no idea what point efficiency looks like this edition. Please, share units that fit your criteria.
It's not an exact ratio but bear with me.
For example, four regular joes with meltaguns in the right place, at the right time can certainly earn their points back and then some. Anyway, they are certainly way more efficient than a Shadowsword when it comes to points. Shadowsword kills things that cost less than it. Joes kill things that cost more than them. Does this make any sense?
I'm just being salty while saying I told you so tbh. It's cathartic.
As for balance, the codex is clearly a problem but it isn't insurmountable. Both from the opponent's standpoint and the guard players. Remember the difference between the guy who took a riptide and the guy who took three, possibly in that fething formation? Just use moderation if you think something is a touch strong, no big deal.
Worst case scenario, the tactics subforum will have more threads about finding good but not broken lists, and helping people find something ballpark for a given list. More work and annoying, but still playable.
For example, four regular joes with meltaguns in the right place, at the right time can certainly earn their points back and then some. Anyway, they are certainly way more efficient than a Shadowsword when it comes to points. Shadowsword kills things that cost less than it. Joes kill things that cost more than them. Does this make any sense?
Al-Rehem'd meltaguns certainly could for minimal cost but the Shadowsword (and arguably Hellhammer) can do it right from turn one, and potentially the enemy's turn one in overwatch. I'd suggest that for the tradeoff the SHCs are more reliable for the lower ratio, as very few things function at that ratio without the cooperation and cost of other units.
40% expected return is pretty good for unbuffed ranged shooting.
Melta is good but there are issues of getting it into range. You can drop in but screening is a thing.
For example, four regular joes with meltaguns in the right place, at the right time can certainly earn their points back and then some. Anyway, they are certainly way more efficient than a Shadowsword when it comes to points. Shadowsword kills things that cost less than it. Joes kill things that cost more than them. Does this make any sense?
You are literally just wrong about how effective meltas are for cost, particularly as those are almost always glass cannon units that get a single round of shooting off and struggle to do even that due to issues with range and screening, as opposed to a tank that can start firing across the map turn one.
I'm telling you, what I described there is exceptionally abnormal. Some armies can't hit that sort of damage consistently with buffs, SM with Robby G often fall in the 2-3 range when being buffed.
Arachnofiend wrote: Ah yes, the classic "you shouldn't discuss things on a discussion forum" argument.
That's not what he said, and you know it.
What he actually said was he didn't see the point. Which is fair. He wasn't one of the people insisting guard was super balanced I'm enjoying mocking right.
Are more point effective but very very fragile to any sort of long range shooting. Another glass cannon unit, albeit one far more practical than melta squads. A few units can easily take out something worth worth 70% of its cost, but will did at that same rate or faster to anti infantry fire power. God forbid someone uses something tailored for them, like autocannons or overcharged plasma.
Yeah totally broken, ruins what 8th edition was supposed to be; semi-balanced and quick.
Now IG has too many orders, it slows things down. Cheap infantry with effective doctrines, double tapping tanks, and literally no weaknesses. Broken, horribly broken.
I'm not bent at guard players, farm from that. Enjoy.
I'm bent GW would release the abomination without some clear weaknesses; it aint speed (move move move 24" units), it aint number of models (cheap infantry), it aint toughness (T8 tanks and super heavies), it aint firepower (double tapping tanks + increased -ap basilisks).
There are literally no weaknesses. Even LD on blobs doesn't matter with commissars. I'm not sure what to do against the guard.
RedCommander wrote: The Shadowsword can kill 200 points of enemy tanks every turn despite costing only 500ish itself and being quite durable because it's the End of Existence for all other tanks. It is the tank to destroy any other tank.
Tricked out its the End Of All Things. CC overwatch with defensive gunners is a joy to behold.
Galas wrote: This is a little inflamatory SilverAlien. You can do much better. And I'm saying this in a non-sarcastic way.
I mean they keep calling him a heckler. But he isn't wrong. Guard had everything they possibly needed to win in the Index; then they got more.
Hilariously they keep saying "conscripts got nerfed be quiet!" when the key issue with conscripts remain. Oh and conscripts have been buffed really, regiments made them better than before.
Conscripts got a flat out buff in the form of the Grenadiers stratagem. 30d6 grenades in over watch, or God forbid, assault is beyond the pale given what they could already do.
The 'Grenadiers' stratagem limits use to 'up to ten models in the unit', so no 30d6.
Note, though, that you'd probably never want to throw a grenade if you can instead order the unit, since FRFSRF is getting you 4 S3 shots per model at 12" instead of 3.5 S3 shots at 6". The grenade is very marginally better if you order the unit to re-roll 1s to hit instead, but it's hard to believe that this is worth a CP. I feel like the stratagem is largely only going to be useful if you don't have an officer nearby or on Overwatch.
You are literally just wrong about how effective meltas are for cost, particularly as those are almost always glass cannon units that get a single round of shooting off and struggle to do even that due to issues with range and screening, as opposed to a tank that can start firing across the map turn one.
Am I? Are you sure? I guess you are.
I will now endeavour to throw all my meltatroopers away.
Dionysodorus wrote: Note, though, that you'd probably never want to throw a grenade if you can instead order the unit, since FRFSRF is getting you 4 S3 shots per model at 12" instead of 3.5 S3 shots at 6". The grenade is very marginally better if you order the unit to re-roll 1s to hit instead, but it's hard to believe that this is worth a CP. I feel like the stratagem is largely only going to be useful if you don't have an officer nearby or on Overwatch.
Yes, it seems very niche. Something like Conscripts will probably use the Mordian regimental doctrine and you'll likely see Volley Fire used with them; that and the Overwatch benefits of Mordian make them a pretty thorny thing to dislodge with assault as much as shooting - and they can use Firing Squad! to try and pick off characters with their lasgun lightshow, so screens become less effective.
Dionysodorus wrote: Note, though, that you'd probably never want to throw a grenade if you can instead order the unit, since FRFSRF is getting you 4 S3 shots per model at 12" instead of 3.5 S3 shots at 6". The grenade is very marginally better if you order the unit to re-roll 1s to hit instead, but it's hard to believe that this is worth a CP. I feel like the stratagem is largely only going to be useful if you don't have an officer nearby or on Overwatch.
You are literally just wrong about how effective meltas are for cost, particularly as those are almost always glass cannon units that get a single round of shooting off and struggle to do even that due to issues with range and screening, as opposed to a tank that can start firing across the map turn one.
Am I? Are you sure? I guess you are.
I will now endeavour to throw all my meltatroopers away.
They are worth using, but they are you know, balanced? With weaknesses and problems actually using them. And are still not as point effective as you think. And no where near as good as the tank I mentioned.
MarboLives wrote: Even if you guys are right and the book is garbage why waste your vitriol on random forum people?
Ive been a guard player for almost 10 years since I got into the hobby in 08. I only have one army. Whether they're overpowered or underpowered this week I don't have another option readily available.
What would you like me to do about your perception of their overpoweredness?
I'm somewhere past the 12kpts mark of guard ( found 3 leman russes swimming in paint stripper i'd totally forgotten about this morning ) and i'm wary of my collection becoming useless because there's no viable opponents. What I don't want to see, and what could happen if we're not careful is "oh you play guard? i'd rather play someone else if that's alright" or, as the guard player, "Oh you play <weak, index only army>? I'll have to change my list so we're not wasting our time" both of which happened a great deal at the tail end of 7th. If on the other hand Guard becomes the new Space Marines in that everyone plays them that would be wonderful (and fluffy!) but I don't see it happening
We're in the hobby to have fun after all, and there's a genuine risk IG could quickly become 'not fun', at least for the majority of cases. If you can suggest some methods for keeping it fresh without buying models that aren't interesting to me as a player with my nebulous sense of what's neat or not, that'd be most welcome.
Having a bottom tier index, I was already in this boat vs index guard, now I dont want to play them with a 10ft pole. My friend plays IG, has done so for years as his primary faction. Guard have a pretty un-interactive playstyle, static gunline's are not fun to play against, and now that that gunline is broken...... sorry I'll pass. Definition of not fun. *Oh, I walk at you for a few turns while you rain down hellfire onto me? Ill pull models by the bucketload, and in response you will lose a few models*. This usually was the narrative of a horde vs elite army, but it used to be the elite player saying it. Now its the horde player saying it
Its funny, in 7th I was the one bringing very underpowered lists to have fun games against him (never ran the decurion for example, always took underpowered units in the majority of a list, even then it was at times not close at all) and now the shoe is on the other foot, even though I dont think I could stand a chance against the majority of his lists, without hard tailoring. :(
You are literally just wrong about how effective meltas are for cost, particularly as those are almost always glass cannon units that get a single round of shooting off and struggle to do even that due to issues with range and screening, as opposed to a tank that can start firing across the map turn one.
Am I? Are you sure? I guess you are.
I will now endeavour to throw all my meltatroopers away.
They are worth using, but they are you know, balanced? With weaknesses and problems actually using them. And are still not as point effective as you think. And no where near as good as the tank I mentioned.
Hmm, I might have been lucky with my meltatroopers? Not only with my dice but also with my position and timing? Who knows.
I still think they are golden and any Guard army worth their salt should field some of them. In addition to plasmaguns, of course. Melta are not the replacement for plasma but plasma flat out loses to melta in some situations.
Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".
MarboLives wrote: Even if you guys are right and the book is garbage why waste your vitriol on random forum people?
Ive been a guard player for almost 10 years since I got into the hobby in 08. I only have one army. Whether they're overpowered or underpowered this week I don't have another option readily available.
What would you like me to do about your perception of their overpoweredness?
I'm somewhere past the 12kpts mark of guard ( found 3 leman russes swimming in paint stripper i'd totally forgotten about this morning ) and i'm wary of my collection becoming useless because there's no viable opponents. What I don't want to see, and what could happen if we're not careful is "oh you play guard? i'd rather play someone else if that's alright" or, as the guard player, "Oh you play <weak, index only army>? I'll have to change my list so we're not wasting our time" both of which happened a great deal at the tail end of 7th. If on the other hand Guard becomes the new Space Marines in that everyone plays them that would be wonderful (and fluffy!) but I don't see it happening
We're in the hobby to have fun after all, and there's a genuine risk IG could quickly become 'not fun', at least for the majority of cases. If you can suggest some methods for keeping it fresh without buying models that aren't interesting to me as a player with my nebulous sense of what's neat or not, that'd be most welcome.
Having a bottom tier index, I was already in this boat vs index guard, now I dont want to play them with a 10ft pole. My friend plays IG, has done so for years as his primary faction. Guard have a pretty un-interactive playstyle, static gunline's are not fun to play against, and now that that gunline is broken...... sorry I'll pass. Definition of not fun. *Oh, I walk at you for a few turns while you rain down hellfire onto me? Ill pull models by the bucketload, and in response you will lose a few models*. This usually was the narrative of a horde vs elite army, but it used to be the elite player saying it. Now its the horde player saying it
Its funny, in 7th I was the one bringing very underpowered lists to have fun games against him (never ran the decurion for example, always took underpowered units in the majority of a list, even then it was at times not close at all) and now the shoe is on the other foot, even though I dont think I could stand a chance against the majority of his lists, without hard tailoring. :(
One would think you would be happy seeing as this codex opens up many different playstyles for Guard beyond what they were forced to do before, i.e. static gunlines.
Otto von Bludd wrote: Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".
It...kinda does? If one dex is clearly above any others, it is an aberration, and therefore corrections are needed (which is entirely possible, given GW's newfound enthusiam for FAQs). If the AM dex is indeed found to be a broken mess, then I have no doubt that GW will fix it.
Otto von Bludd wrote: Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".
It...kinda does? If one dex is clearly above any others, it is an aberration, and therefore corrections are needed (which is entirely possible, given GW's newfound enthusiam for FAQs). If the AM dex is indeed found to be a broken mess, then I have no doubt that GW will fix it.
Otto von Bludd wrote: Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".
It...kinda does? If one dex is clearly above any others, it is an aberration, and therefore corrections are needed (which is entirely possible, given GW's newfound enthusiam for FAQs). If the AM dex is indeed found to be a broken mess, then I have no doubt that GW will fix it.
Really? I have doubts.
Seriously, its the same thing that happened last ed. with the Necron Decurion.
Otto von Bludd wrote: Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".
It...kinda does? If one dex is clearly above any others, it is an aberration, and therefore corrections are needed (which is entirely possible, given GW's newfound enthusiam for FAQs). If the AM dex is indeed found to be a broken mess, then I have no doubt that GW will fix it.
Really? I have doubts.
Seriously, its the same thing that happened last ed. with the Necron Decurion.
But remember, this is NEW Games Workshop.
Honestly, I don't care much either way, they either fix it and prove they're intent on changing their usual edition change / low-tier army buff or they continue juggling previously trash armies to sell a bunch of stock-piled models from last edition. This is basically their business model for edition changes and it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.
Otto von Bludd wrote: Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".
It...kinda does? If one dex is clearly above any others, it is an aberration, and therefore corrections are needed (which is entirely possible, given GW's newfound enthusiam for FAQs). If the AM dex is indeed found to be a broken mess, then I have no doubt that GW will fix it.
So because one player feels that their particular army's book doesn't measure up to the guard book that makes the guard book an abomination? I don't agree. I do agree that if the book were to be found to be a broken mess in comparison to the other books, most of which have not yet been released, that GW should address that. It has yet to be demonstrated that the book is indeed a broken mess, and cannot in fact be demonstrated to be a broken mess yet, because the only way "broken mess" has any meaning is in relation to the rest of the army books, most of which are not yet out. In terms of internal balance and fun factor, the book is stellar. Overall external balance cannot be judged until we have more army books out, unless people thing codex vs index is a fair comparison.
If we just look at release books though, based on first impressions, comparing it to Admech, Chaos and SM for example, I don't see a big difference in the over all power level of competitive builds, but I do see a big difference in the variety of units that can be used to create competitive builds. That is to say the other released books can produce the same level of power, or greater, they just have fewer ways to do it. That's an issue with the internal balance of the other books, not with the Guard book.
Otto von Bludd wrote: Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".
It...kinda does? If one dex is clearly above any others, it is an aberration, and therefore corrections are needed (which is entirely possible, given GW's newfound enthusiam for FAQs). If the AM dex is indeed found to be a broken mess, then I have no doubt that GW will fix it.
The IG book isn't a broken mess so much as specific units/synergies. Even in the comments here the focus remains on Conscripts - and then following them, concerns over the efficacy of the newly buffed SHVs as perhaps a lagging second. Two units don't make for a broken book, at least if GW balances them individually. Unfortunately they seem to be reserving system-wide balancing for Chapter Approved as essentially none of the Errata/FAQs since they unveiled it as 'a thing' have had balance tweaks in them... so who knows.
It does remain to be seen just how the Codex's changes alone shake out in the meta, but other than shuffling units around in detachments to maintain battle-forged we'll probably still see Conscript-heavy 'Imperial Soup' lists at/near the top in the immediate future. The concern over SHVs is perhaps overblown. Though I do feel that the point reduction along with the firepower buffs might have been a bit much, something like a Shadowsword will struggle against its points cost in opposing armor.
It's a strong and diverse book marred in particular (but not solely) by a too-effective unit combo (Conscripts/Commissars).
Otto von Bludd wrote: Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".
MarboLives wrote: Even if you guys are right and the book is garbage why waste your vitriol on random forum people?
Ive been a guard player for almost 10 years since I got into the hobby in 08. I only have one army. Whether they're overpowered or underpowered this week I don't have another option readily available.
What would you like me to do about your perception of their overpoweredness?
I'm somewhere past the 12kpts mark of guard ( found 3 leman russes swimming in paint stripper i'd totally forgotten about this morning ) and i'm wary of my collection becoming useless because there's no viable opponents. What I don't want to see, and what could happen if we're not careful is "oh you play guard? i'd rather play someone else if that's alright" or, as the guard player, "Oh you play <weak, index only army>? I'll have to change my list so we're not wasting our time" both of which happened a great deal at the tail end of 7th. If on the other hand Guard becomes the new Space Marines in that everyone plays them that would be wonderful (and fluffy!) but I don't see it happening
We're in the hobby to have fun after all, and there's a genuine risk IG could quickly become 'not fun', at least for the majority of cases. If you can suggest some methods for keeping it fresh without buying models that aren't interesting to me as a player with my nebulous sense of what's neat or not, that'd be most welcome.
Having a bottom tier index, I was already in this boat vs index guard, now I dont want to play them with a 10ft pole. My friend plays IG, has done so for years as his primary faction. Guard have a pretty un-interactive playstyle, static gunline's are not fun to play against, and now that that gunline is broken...... sorry I'll pass. Definition of not fun. *Oh, I walk at you for a few turns while you rain down hellfire onto me? Ill pull models by the bucketload, and in response you will lose a few models*. This usually was the narrative of a horde vs elite army, but it used to be the elite player saying it. Now its the horde player saying it
Its funny, in 7th I was the one bringing very underpowered lists to have fun games against him (never ran the decurion for example, always took underpowered units in the majority of a list, even then it was at times not close at all) and now the shoe is on the other foot, even though I dont think I could stand a chance against the majority of his lists, without hard tailoring. :(
One would think you would be happy seeing as this codex opens up many different playstyles for Guard beyond what they were forced to do before, i.e. static gunlines.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for my friend, and I'm going to play against his guard, I'm just not going to be able to enjoy it at all. Its good he can play his army any way he wants, I remember that freedom from 7th and it is nice knowing you can be competitive with whatever playstyle you can think up. But as to playing against it? No thanks. Like I said Necrons had major problems playing against index guard, and now its not *oh, its not a static gunline again, this will be more fun*, its *oh, this is another way I'm about to get tabled, how fun*. If we were at the same power level then yes it would be more interesting fighting guard if they didnt run static gunlines 99.99% of the time, but the sheer weight of dice they can now throw down, coupled with their resilience and lack of hard counter, makes them not fun on any metric to fight.
On a side note, the conscript 'nerf', while not a nerf for IG, might tone down the level of them seen in soup lists.
Otto von Bludd wrote: Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".
It...kinda does? If one dex is clearly above any others, it is an aberration, and therefore corrections are needed (which is entirely possible, given GW's newfound enthusiam for FAQs). If the AM dex is indeed found to be a broken mess, then I have no doubt that GW will fix it.
The IG book isn't a broken mess so much as specific units/synergies. Even in the comments here the focus remains on Conscripts - and then following them, concerns over the efficacy of the newly buffed SHVs as perhaps a lagging second. Two units don't make for a broken book, at least if GW balances them individually. Unfortunately they seem to be reserving system-wide balancing for Chapter Approved as essentially none of the Errata/FAQs since they unveiled it as 'a thing' have had balance tweaks in them... so who knows.
It does remain to be seen just how the Codex's changes alone shake out in the meta, but other than shuffling units around in detachments to maintain battle-forged we'll probably still see Conscript-heavy 'Imperial Soup' lists at/near the top in the immediate future. The concern over SHVs is perhaps overblown. Though I do feel that the point reduction along with the firepower buffs might have been a bit much, something like a Shadowsword will struggle against its points cost in opposing armor.
It's a strong and diverse book marred in particular (but not solely) by a too-effective unit combo (Conscripts/Commissars).
If units of 30 T3 guys that do virtually no damage plus a Commissar are the Guard's strongest synergy (I'm not saying they are, but many seem to think so) I would say most other Codex armies have nothing to worry about.
Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for my friend, and I'm going to play against his guard, I'm just not going to be able to enjoy it at all. Its good he can play his army any way he wants, I remember that freedom from 7th and it is nice knowing you can be competitive with whatever playstyle you can think up. But as to playing against it? No thanks. Like I said Necrons had major problems playing against index guard, and now its not *oh, its not a static gunline again, this will be more fun*, its *oh, this is another way I'm about to get tabled, how fun*. If we were at the same power level then yes it would be more interesting fighting guard if they didnt run static gunlines 99.99% of the time, but the sheer weight of dice they can now throw down, coupled with their resilience and lack of hard counter, makes them not fun on any metric to fight.
I personally would use my index list vs index armies, and codex against codex because I agree it's an unfair advantage for the codex list, but I would do this with any army, not just Guard.
Otto von Bludd wrote: Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".
It...kinda does? If one dex is clearly above any others, it is an aberration, and therefore corrections are needed (which is entirely possible, given GW's newfound enthusiam for FAQs). If the AM dex is indeed found to be a broken mess, then I have no doubt that GW will fix it.
So because one player feels that their particular army's book doesn't measure up to the guard book that makes the guard book an abomination? I don't agree. I do agree that if the book were to be found to be a broken mess in comparison to the other books, most of which have not yet been released, that GW should address that. It has yet to be demonstrated that the book is indeed a broken mess, and cannot in fact be demonstrated to be a broken mess yet, because the only way "broken mess" has any meaning is in relation to the rest of the army books, most of which are not yet out. In terms of internal balance and fun factor, the book is stellar. Overall external balance cannot be judged until we have more army books out, unless people thing codex vs index is a fair comparison.
If we just look at release books though, based on first impressions, comparing it to Admech, Chaos and SM for example, I don't see a big difference in the over all power level of competitive builds, but I do see a big difference in the variety of units that can be used to create competitive builds. That is to say the other released books can produce the same level of power, or greater, they just have fewer ways to do it. That's an issue with the internal balance of the other books, not with the Guard book.
Honestly, it sounds like you're splitting hairs - because YOU feel the new Guard dex in comparison to the newly released books isn't a broken mess, it can't be labelled as such because of the possibility of equally overpowered codexes/synergies/combinations that future codexes might get? Knowing what we do about the current codexes (which is really all that can be compared to the Guard dex from a logical perspective at this point in time) many, many players are unhappy with the lack of poor external balance, and this is a legitimate concern. Regardless of how you or I feel, that stereotype will exist and will affect anyone playing in a casual setting, likely in the form of not finding opponents to play against or having unenjoyable games for both parties. Poor balance hurts everyone not playing in a tournament.
Otto von Bludd wrote: Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".
It...kinda does? If one dex is clearly above any others, it is an aberration, and therefore corrections are needed (which is entirely possible, given GW's newfound enthusiam for FAQs). If the AM dex is indeed found to be a broken mess, then I have no doubt that GW will fix it.
So because one player feels that their particular army's book doesn't measure up to the guard book that makes the guard book an abomination? I don't agree. I do agree that if the book were to be found to be a broken mess in comparison to the other books, most of which have not yet been released, that GW should address that. It has yet to be demonstrated that the book is indeed a broken mess, and cannot in fact be demonstrated to be a broken mess yet, because the only way "broken mess" has any meaning is in relation to the rest of the army books, most of which are not yet out. In terms of internal balance and fun factor, the book is stellar. Overall external balance cannot be judged until we have more army books out, unless people thing codex vs index is a fair comparison.
If we just look at release books though, based on first impressions, comparing it to Admech, Chaos and SM for example, I don't see a big difference in the over all power level of competitive builds, but I do see a big difference in the variety of units that can be used to create competitive builds. That is to say the other released books can produce the same level of power, or greater, they just have fewer ways to do it. That's an issue with the internal balance of the other books, not with the Guard book.
If you can see a big difference in the variety of units that can be used in a competitive build then you can see how your codex is significantly more powerful than the other released codex's. You have more strong/powerful units compared to the others that exploit specific combos/strategies to stay competitive.
No index army is complaining that its not fair a codex army is stronger than their index, thats a silly argument. I know my cron's are weaker than the codex armies, as do the blood angles, orks, tyranids etc. But when you look at every other codex release compared to this one, you can clearly see there is a massive power imbalance. Other armies had strengths and weaknesses, received nerf's as well as buffs. Guard? Near sweeping buffs across the board to an index that was already top tier. The two notable nerfs, plasma and conscripts didnt really nerf those units, as they are still very competitive and viable in any build. If a nerf still makes those choices still near auto-include options, it wasn't effective.
armageddon conscripts get 8 shots per model with FRFSRF... thats 240 shots from 90 points of models..... that are immune to morale. Granted orders are a 4+ to receive, but you have like 1000000 CP to use on re-rolls.
I'm not saying that they are the most powerful thing in the codex. But when your basic infantry unit that is meant to be chaff screens can put out that much dakka, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the codex. And as we can now see, the dakka that can put out is incredible.
Conscripts... Not so much. Technically a nerf, but not very strong one.
Apologies, I wasn't saying it wasn't a nerf, it 100% was. I was just pointing out that the two major nerfs didn't do enough to displace those units from being still top teir. And I agree, conscripts didn't really get nerfed, just changed. They got nerfed on paper, but they also got buffed by being within a faction.
Otto von Bludd wrote: Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".
It...kinda does? If one dex is clearly above any others, it is an aberration, and therefore corrections are needed (which is entirely possible, given GW's newfound enthusiam for FAQs). If the AM dex is indeed found to be a broken mess, then I have no doubt that GW will fix it.
So because one player feels that their particular army's book doesn't measure up to the guard book that makes the guard book an abomination? I don't agree. I do agree that if the book were to be found to be a broken mess in comparison to the other books, most of which have not yet been released, that GW should address that. It has yet to be demonstrated that the book is indeed a broken mess, and cannot in fact be demonstrated to be a broken mess yet, because the only way "broken mess" has any meaning is in relation to the rest of the army books, most of which are not yet out. In terms of internal balance and fun factor, the book is stellar. Overall external balance cannot be judged until we have more army books out, unless people thing codex vs index is a fair comparison.
If we just look at release books though, based on first impressions, comparing it to Admech, Chaos and SM for example, I don't see a big difference in the over all power level of competitive builds, but I do see a big difference in the variety of units that can be used to create competitive builds. That is to say the other released books can produce the same level of power, or greater, they just have fewer ways to do it. That's an issue with the internal balance of the other books, not with the Guard book.
Honestly, it sounds like you're splitting hairs - because YOU feel the new Guard dex in comparison to the newly released books isn't a broken mess, it can't be labelled as such because of the possibility of equally overpowered codexes/synergies/combinations that future codexes might get? Knowing what we do about the current codexes (which is really all that can be compared to the Guard dex from a logical perspective at this point in time) many, many players are unhappy with the lack of poor external balance, and this is a legitimate concern. Regardless of how you or I feel, that stereotype will exist and will affect anyone playing in a casual setting, likely in the form of not finding opponents to play against or having unenjoyable games for both parties. Poor balance hurts everyone not playing in a tournament.
I'm just stating a fact; you can't compare a book that is out to a book that isn't out. How can anyone call one codex a broken mess when the majority of them are unreleased? What if the following ones are twice as "broken"? What would the Guard book be then? In relation to the released books, the opinions I've been hearing from various competitive tournament players and organizers is that the Guard book is certainly competitive and on par, in terms of raw power level, with what the other books can do, however the Guard has a greater variety of potentially viable builds they can use to reach that power level. Based on my first impression, I agree with that assessment.
Which makes the book, overall, more powerful than the other codexes. The others have one or two different competitive builds, but you yourself are saying that guard have multiple different ways to field competitive armies, meaning there are exponentially more powerful units in the army that lend themselves to different playstyles...
Just because the competitive builds are on the same power level as the other codex's comp builds, doesn't mean that the codex itself is on the same power level as them.
If you can see a big difference in the variety of units that can be used in a competitive build then you can see how your codex is significantly more powerful than the other released codex's. You have more strong/powerful units compared to the others that exploit specific combos/strategies to stay competitive.
If I have one viable build that is as strong as any myriad of viable builds from another book, my army is just as strong as any incarnation of the other, it just isn't as potentially varied. That isn't an issue with the book that has the variety of viable builds, it's a legitimate issue with my own bland book.
Yes, your build is just as strong, but your codex isnt as strong as theirs as they can field many different variations of strong builds, while you are stuck relying on a single strat/broken unit in your codex. How can you not see this
Automatically Appended Next Post: 'bland' book = not as strong as an 'interesting' book
'Interesting' = guard codex
'Bland' = every other codex released so far
Klowny wrote: Yes, your build is just as strong, but your codex isnt as strong as theirs as they can field many different variations of strong builds, while you are stuck relying on a single strat/broken unit in your codex. How can you not see this
The competitive strength of a codex would be judged by it's most powerful potential list(s), so in our example my codex would be just as strong, but it would be much more boring and lacking in variety. I don't think people are complaining that the Guard book has too much viable variety (which it does have much of), they are complaining it's too strong overall in comparison to other books, which has yet to be demonstrated. I agree it has more variety, but that doesn't necessarily make it a stronger book. Variety and competitive strength are not synonymous.
Sorry, I thought we were talking about the codex power in general, not just the competitive strength of individual builds.
For example, Tyranids in 7th had a competitive list, that did quite well at tournaments, yet their codex was atrocious overall. Eldar had a lot of variety in their codex, and were also very powerful competitively. Even take Eldar away, the other top teir codex's in 7th all had more variety in their strong lists. You rank 7th codex's by power and the ones that had more variety always came out on top.There is not a single person in the world who would say that tyranids had a good codex, yet they had a competitive build.
While they are not synonymous, they are very closely linked. You can have a competitive list without having a powerful codex, but you cannot have variety in competitive lists without having a powerful codex. Ergo, the more variety in your codex, the greater its overall power in comparison to other armies who rely on singular builds to remain strong.
If the meta changes slightly, and a codex that has a single build drops out of power, it is now not considered a strong codex. If a codex has multiple different builds that can be strong, and the meta changes, they have more builds to choose from and can remain competitive. It is still considered a strong codex.
So while individual builds from different codex's may be on par with the guard codex in a 1v1 sense, overall, due to the variety of builds guard can field and still be strong, they are head and shoulders above the rest of the competition so far.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And I'm sorry, but competitive strength of a codex is not measured only by the power of its strongest list, that is a fallacy. There are other measures used to gauge power, variety of strong builds being one of them, points efficiency of units, ability to be used in 'soup' armies, single OP units, smite spam, access to CP, ease of play etc.
Guard tick all these boxes atm unfortunately. Most imperium armies (the majority of the competitive builds you say are strong) from the other codex's will use conscripts as their screens, as they are better than what their own codex can offer. While they have some intracicies, they are a fairly straightfoward army, not needing chain combos or careful positioning to be used efficiently, they are a more *point and click* army than ynnari for instance. Baneblades are incredibly strong now, as are Russ's. You can also spam CP, spam smite. EVERYTHING is dirt cheap. There are almost no drawbacks to fielding a guard army.
Klowny wrote: armageddon conscripts get 8 shots per model with FRFSRF... thats 240 shots from 90 points of models..... that are immune to morale. Granted orders are a 4+ to receive, but you have like 1000000 CP to use on re-rolls.
I'm not saying that they are the most powerful thing in the codex. But when your basic infantry unit that is meant to be chaff screens can put out that much dakka, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the codex. And as we can now see, the dakka that can put out is incredible.
I'm pretty sure that's not how the Armageddon doctrine works. Doesn't it just extend the rapid fire range of their lasguns out to 18 inches? It doesn't grant extra shots.
For that matter, I'm also pretty sure there's a hard cap of ten models for the Grenadier doctrine to prevent waves of explosive conscript death.
Klowny wrote: armageddon conscripts get 8 shots per model with FRFSRF... thats 240 shots from 90 points of models..... that are immune to morale. Granted orders are a 4+ to receive, but you have like 1000000 CP to use on re-rolls.
I'm not saying that they are the most powerful thing in the codex. But when your basic infantry unit that is meant to be chaff screens can put out that much dakka, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the codex. And as we can now see, the dakka that can put out is incredible.
I'm pretty sure that's not how the Armageddon doctrine works. Doesn't it just extend the rapid fire range of their lasguns out to 18 inches? It doesn't grant extra shots.
For that matter, I'm also pretty sure there's a hard cap of ten models for the Grenadier doctrine to prevent waves of explosive conscript death.
I dont have the codex, just taken from online reviews etc. Upon re-reading it, yeah I can see that its probably meant as range extension.
SilverAlien wrote: Hey, they kept saying we needed to wait for the full picture, we have it now. I want them to explain how exactly it is balanced. Clearly something in the codex must make it balanced and I'm overlooking it, unless it is a trash heap of broken OP garbage and things are exactly as bad as people were predicting. Couldn't be though, right?
You've missed the point, it's not about the full picture - its about waiting. You had to wait for the codex to be released. Now you have to wait for the meta to settle. Then you'll have to wait for the other codexes to be released to compare them. Then you'll have to wait for chapter approved to see if that fixes things. Then you'll have to wait for the new edition. At which point - you'll have to wait for the new codex to drop. It's the circle of (gw) life. No-one is just going to come out and admit they were wrong or you were right.
Here's my thoughts:
The codex is more powerful than any other army right now. That much is obvious. Anyone disputing that either has their head in the sand, doesn't understand the balance of the edition, or is just being contrarian.
The real question that we'll have to see is *how much* more powerful it is. It's top-level play will probably also be the top-level play for 40k in general, but is it going to be counterable?
If I play a non-guard faction, is it going to be possible for me to tailor a list to beat Tournament Level Imperial Guard and actually come away victorious? If so, that creates a metagame. It's not ideal, but it's at least interesting.
If tailoring is possible, I can show up to a tournament tailored to beat IG, and wing it against everyone else, or I can show up to a tournament with IG, or I can show up to a tournament with a TAC list and beat anyone who came looking specifically to face IG.
On the other hand... If it's not, that is really, really bad. If it's not possible to have decent odds against Imperial Guard, even when you've tailored your list specifically with them in mind, then that pretty much destroys any competitive scene that Warhammer 40k might have.
I'm playing a game against Imperial Guard on Tuesday. The guy who I'm playing against is, hands down, the best player at our LGS. (Myself not included in the running, because I'm not sure who's better between the two of us - We're the top two, though.) I've written a 'Tournament List' that could theoretically work against any faction, but I made it with Imperial Guard in mind because right now, when I think Tournament, I'm thinking of that metagame I mentioned above. (It's 3k, which isn't tournament standard, but whatever. I'm bringing Ultramarines, mostly, which seems to be one of the strongest individual factions at the moment outside of IG.(Or, at least, Guilliman is very strong and makes Ultramarines strong by proxy.))
If I win, or if I at least come within striking distance of victory and see ways to improve, that'll be my sign that the game is bent, but not broken.
If I get entirely trounced and don't see any way I could have any recourse bar just bringing Imperial Guard of my own, that's my cue that things are broken too far and need to be fixed.
SilverAlien wrote: Hey, they kept saying we needed to wait for the full picture, we have it now. I want them to explain how exactly it is balanced. Clearly something in the codex must make it balanced and I'm overlooking it, unless it is a trash heap of broken OP garbage and things are exactly as bad as people were predicting. Couldn't be though, right?
You've missed the point, it's not about the full picture - its about waiting. You had to wait for the codex to be released. Now you have to wait for the meta to settle. Then you'll have to wait for the other codexes to be released to compare them. Then you'll have to wait for chapter approved to see if that fixes things. Then you'll have to wait for the new edition. At which point - you'll have to wait for the new codex to drop. It's the circle of (gw) life. No-one is just going to come out and admit they were wrong or you were right.
Words of wisdom. This is so true.
And to put things into perspective. I played my first game since 5th ed, last night against the new Death Guard. Mortarion and 6 Death shroud terminators with poxwalker and plague marines. I played with my orks. Mortarian and his Death shroud bodyguard ripped through my entire army, granted I was a bit rusty as well. It would be easy for me to shout cheese, but now IG has a new dex that's just as cheesy from what I hear. Eventually cheese will counter cheese. It's called power creep. It's what makes GW their money. This will never change. I have learnt to enjoy it over the years
SilverAlien wrote: Hey, they kept saying we needed to wait for the full picture, we have it now. I want them to explain how exactly it is balanced. Clearly something in the codex must make it balanced and I'm overlooking it, unless it is a trash heap of broken OP garbage and things are exactly as bad as people were predicting. Couldn't be though, right?
You've missed the point, it's not about the full picture - its about waiting. You had to wait for the codex to be released. Now you have to wait for the meta to settle. Then you'll have to wait for the other codexes to be released to compare them. Then you'll have to wait for chapter approved to see if that fixes things. Then you'll have to wait for the new edition. At which point - you'll have to wait for the new codex to drop. It's the circle of (gw) life. No-one is just going to come out and admit they were wrong or you were right.
Words of wisdom. This is so true.
And to put things into perspective. I played my first game since 5th ed, last night against the new Death Guard. Mortarion and 6 Death shroud terminators with poxwalker and plague marines. I played with my orks. Mortarian and his Death shroud bodyguard ripped through my entire army, granted I was a bit rusty as well. It would be easy for me to shout cheese, but now IG has a new dex that's just as cheesy from what I hear. Eventually cheese will counter cheese. It's called power creep. It's what makes GW their money. This will never change. I have learnt to enjoy it over the years
Death Shroud Terminators aren't actually cheesy from everything I've seen, Morty is really good, Poxwalkers and Plague Marines are both firmly in the 'OK' department.
Really, the problem was probably just that Orks aren't very good, and lack options for dealing with elite infantry, and especially to deal with big stuff like Morty. (There's Tankbustas and... Just Tankbustas. Maybe Lootas, if you're being generous.)
Death Guard aren't a case of Power Creep, at least not unless I've really missed something.
SilverAlien wrote: Hey, they kept saying we needed to wait for the full picture, we have it now. I want them to explain how exactly it is balanced. Clearly something in the codex must make it balanced and I'm overlooking it, unless it is a trash heap of broken OP garbage and things are exactly as bad as people were predicting. Couldn't be though, right?
You've missed the point, it's not about the full picture - its about waiting. You had to wait for the codex to be released. Now you have to wait for the meta to settle. Then you'll have to wait for the other codexes to be released to compare them. Then you'll have to wait for chapter approved to see if that fixes things. Then you'll have to wait for the new edition. At which point - you'll have to wait for the new codex to drop. It's the circle of (gw) life. No-one is just going to come out and admit they were wrong or you were right.
Words of wisdom. This is so true.
And to put things into perspective. I played my first game since 5th ed, last night against the new Death Guard. Mortarion and 6 Death shroud terminators with poxwalker and plague marines. I played with my orks. Mortarian and his Death shroud bodyguard ripped through my entire army, granted I was a bit rusty as well. It would be easy for me to shout cheese, but now IG has a new dex that's just as cheesy from what I hear. Eventually cheese will counter cheese. It's called power creep. It's what makes GW their money. This will never change. I have learnt to enjoy it over the years
Death Shroud Terminators aren't actually cheesy from everything I've seen, Morty is really good, Poxwalkers and Plague Marines are both firmly in the 'OK' department.
Really, the problem was probably just that Orks aren't very good, and lack options for dealing with elite infantry, and especially to deal with big stuff like Morty. (There's Tankbustas and... Just Tankbustas. Maybe Lootas, if you're being generous.)
Death Guard aren't a case of Power Creep, at least not unless I've really missed something.
Like I said, i haven't played 40k in years. Last night was my first game. When you see a giant angel of death ripping through 120+ models one is inclined to think Cheese but yes, i'm not that clued up on Death Guard so I might be wrong...
No, deff gaurd can be dealt with even without codex just Orks have been crap for the last few editions with no survivability and expensive useless elite models.
vipoid wrote: So, here's a question - is the IG codex still OMGZ BROKEN OP if you don't use Conscripts or Super Heavy Tanks?
Of course it is, their mere presence breaks it!
On another note, I want to know what the hell Creed has that is considered his Relic. Is it the power sword that has no unique stats? The hot-shot laspistols?
Also: Why do Sergeants not include a Chain Sword as standard now? If I'm unable to purchase a Lasgun for them, at least make it so that they have something standardized instead of just having a Laspistol and Frag Grenades.
Fortunately the external balance issues don't bother me at all, though from what I am gathering it looks like a very strong codex. At this point I can't imagine taking 40K seriously enough to actually care about competitive play.
That said, I'm happy that the internal balance seems to be somewhat better, for sure. It really irks me when I see a codex with a slew of blatantly bad options compared to other units in the same codex.
vipoid wrote: So, here's a question - is the IG codex still OMGZ BROKEN OP if you don't use Conscripts or Super Heavy Tanks?
Manticores, infinite bs3 Russes, enough mortar HWTs to wipe out equivalent points of conscripts behind LOS blocking bastions, Reroll to hit wyverns, and the piece de resistance, SWT plasma gunners that all reroll 1s for *less* than the cost of a marine in power armour.
40 cadian Reroll 1s BS 4 plasma gunners with 40 scrubs of ablative wounds is 600 pts; easily squeaking in a pair of storm lords to cart them around and enough commanders to get rerolls on wounds or reroll 1s if they need to move for some reason.
As i'm fond of saying, GW sells 5 packs of resin plasma guns for this very purpose
dosiere wrote: Fortunately the external balance issues don't bother me at all, though from what I am gathering it looks like a very strong codex. At this point I can't imagine taking 40K seriously enough to actually care about competitive play.
That said, I'm happy that the internal balance seems to be somewhat better, for sure. It really irks me when I see a codex with a slew of blatantly bad options compared to other units in the same codex.
Well, it may bother you when you can't find people who want to play against your army.
B-b-b-but the internet told me 8th was perfect! T-this was the NEW Games Workshop(tm) who made a perfectly balanced game with zero flaws and that everything had changed! Oh nooooooooooooooooooooo....!
vipoid wrote: So, here's a question - is the IG codex still OMGZ BROKEN OP if you don't use Conscripts or Super Heavy Tanks?
It's very strong, but hardly unbeatable. Take away Conscripts/Scions and it would honestly be one of the best codexes they've ever released just for how much stuff is viable to take and not be worthless junk. Whilst Imperial Guard will now have to suffer ten years penance the same way 3.5 CSM/Eldar/Tau have in the eyes of Space Marine players, I'm very interested in seeing how the other books after this one shape up by comparison.
vipoid wrote: So, here's a question - is the IG codex still OMGZ BROKEN OP if you don't use Conscripts or Super Heavy Tanks?
Manticores, infinite bs3 Russes, enough mortar HWTs to wipe out equivalent points of conscripts behind LOS blocking bastions, Reroll to hit wyverns, and the piece de resistance, SWT plasma gunners that all reroll 1s for *less* than the cost of a marine in power armour.
40 cadian Reroll 1s BS 4 plasma gunners with 40 scrubs of ablative wounds is 600 pts; easily squeaking in a pair of storm lords to cart them around and enough commanders to get rerolls on wounds or reroll 1s if they need to move for some reason.
As i'm fond of saying, GW sells 5 packs of resin plasma guns for this very purpose
Hyperbole the post...
At 33pts per 3-HWT squad you can only field 3 (2.7 technically) for one squad of 30 Conscripts. Assuming three HWT squads and a 10.5 average on 3d6 you're causing ~2 wounds per squad to GEQ per squad, for a total ~6 wounds a shooting phase for 99pts. Hardly 'wiping out Conscripts/GEQ behind LOS blocking bastions.'
Base LRBT costs 152pts (battle cannon + HB); for that you're killing ~2 MEQ a turn + the heavy bolter (~.5). Punisher LRBT is 3.3 + HB. So yes, you can get ObSec on Russes now and each one is a T8 12W Sv3+ brick, but they're still not decimating armies with each individual tank.
Even your SWT example - you need at least 2 Vanguard detachments to field nearly that many SWT without going Brigade/Battalion (nets you 72 guys with 36 plasma guns). And Cadian only works standing still, so kind of wasting that benefit embarking them. Going Armageddon gives them 18" rapid fire on their Plasma Guns. Them plus the two SHV is pretty nasty, but hardly insurmountable - particularly if you stuff your SWTs in the Stormlords, now your opponent can focus on just the two... killing one before you disembark them could strand and damage (~6 guys die on avg) ~1/2 of the real damage-causing part of your army before they even really do something.
dosiere wrote: Fortunately the external balance issues don't bother me at all, though from what I am gathering it looks like a very strong codex. At this point I can't imagine taking 40K seriously enough to actually care about competitive play.
That said, I'm happy that the internal balance seems to be somewhat better, for sure. It really irks me when I see a codex with a slew of blatantly bad options compared to other units in the same codex.
Well, it may bother you when you can't find people who want to play against your army.
Well, I don't even have any guard models anymore, mostly because I couldn't stand the plastic Cadians. Again, I can't imagine caring enough about the competitiveness of 40k to even refuse myself. It really doesn't matter, and hasn't for a long time. Some guy wants to bring his OP guard spam list , I really don't care as long as it's painted and he's polite during the game. If I'm looking for a game where I can have fun and be competitive at the same time I have several others that cater to that much, much better than 40k.
Regarding tournaments... well aren't there always a few top lists? I Remember when it was tau, then eldar, then xxxxx, etc... GW doesn't do external balance worth a darn, and hasn't for a very long time. They rarely adjust things appropriately after releases and just as rarely get it right the first time either. So, now it's guard. Just another day. In a few months some other OP combo of some sort will be even better. What's the point in getting worked up, either in a positive or negative fashion about something that from GW is inevitable?
Arbitrator wrote: B-b-b-but the internet told me 8th was perfect! T-this was the NEW Games Workshop(tm) who made a perfectly balanced game with zero flaws and that everything had changed! Oh nooooooooooooooooooooo....!
vipoid wrote: So, here's a question - is the IG codex still OMGZ BROKEN OP if you don't use Conscripts or Super Heavy Tanks?
It's very strong, but hardly unbeatable. Take away Conscripts/Scions and it would honestly be one of the best codexes they've ever released just for how much stuff is viable to take and not be worthless junk. Whilst Imperial Guard will now have to suffer ten years penance the same way 3.5 CSM/Eldar/Tau have in the eyes of Space Marine players, I'm very interested in seeing how the other books after this one shape up by comparison.
Er pretty sure gw told us they'd play tested both in house and externally to ensure better balance.
personally I never believed it anymore than I think they've genuinely changed.
Oh no, not rerolls to hit. Why, those are just unheard of in 8th.
malamis wrote: and the piece de resistance, SWT plasma gunners that all reroll 1s for *less* than the cost of a marine in power armour.
And have BS4+ (meaning rerolling 1s does very little anyway). And T3 5+. And if you're talking about Cadia, the they only get those rerolls if they stand still.
You'll forgive me if I'm not yet trembling with fear.
40 cadian Reroll 1s BS 4 plasma gunners with 40 scrubs of ablative wounds is 600 pts; easily squeaking in a pair of storm lords to cart them around and enough commanders to get rerolls on wounds or reroll 1s if they need to move for some reason.
I assume you mean 'squeezing in'. And the most impressive thing about that build is that you were able to get 80 men using only 6-man units.
Regardless, I see you're now ignoring my question entirely, as I specifically asked if the IG codex was OPif you ignore super heavies and conscripts.
vipoid wrote: So, here's a question - is the IG codex still OMGZ BROKEN OP if you don't use Conscripts or Super Heavy Tanks?
See this is sort of the problem the people crying OP have. They see that Conscripts weren't nerfed into the ground and, god forbid, Superheavies and leman russes get a buff that actually makes them usable and desirable, and suddenly the entire codex is now more broken than 7th ed Eldar.
If you listened to them, it sounds like people are running in fear of all-sentinel lists led by a Lord Commissars, and Chimeras and Leman Russes were dominating the pre-codex meta like Wave Serpents did in 6th.
I even agreed that Conscripts probably needed a bigger nerf than just the order and unit size thing, but honestly I can't even voice that because 1.) to normal people it just lumps me in with the crazy impatient people who can't wait for their own codex to drop (especially since I still have an army waiting for their codex, the Nids) and 2.) for the crazy impatient people I didn't go far enough with my condemnations.
At 33pts per 3-HWT squad you can only field 3 (2.7 technically) for one squad of 30 Conscripts. Assuming three HWT squads and a 10.5 average on 3d6 you're causing ~2 wounds per squad to GEQ per squad, for a total ~6 wounds a shooting phase for 99pts. Hardly 'wiping out Conscripts/GEQ behind LOS blocking bastions.'
A. Cadian reroll 1s to hit leading to B. cadian reroll hits if they have an officer in range with option of c. cadian strat for +1 to hit targetted unit after the first ; though it'd probably be a waste of CP
Assuming just A. & B. it's a smidge over 3/team average. I will however withdraw the 'wipe' term, as it would require a bit more planning to pull off than is necessary to shepherd the volume of conscripts.
Base LRBT costs 152pts (battle cannon + HB); for that you're killing ~2 MEQ a turn + the heavy bolter (~.5). Punisher LRBT is 3.3 + HB. So yes, you can get ObSec on Russes now and each one is a T8 12W Sv3+ brick, but they're still not decimating armies with each individual tank.
Whereas a Cadian executioner commander at 225 with plasma sponsons is doing closer to 4.7 primaris a turn given double tap for 10 overcharged plasma shots (2d6 + 2d3 ) with reroll 1s, not counting the heavy bolter. More often than not, it's wiping full primaris squads per turn in this situation.
2 of them under Old Grudges and "Pound Them To Dust" on each other ( assuming 7 shots avg from the 2d6 with reroll ) on a Shadowsword could quite feasibly put it out of commission in one turn with just plasma, not even needing the +1 to hit strat. It's not the literal meaning decimation, but killing 540 pts with 450 pts in one turn is perhaps 'hanging, drawing and quartering' .
Basic Russes are as you've described. (Cadian) Tank commanders are a whole new breed of hell.
Even your SWT example - you need at least 2 Vanguard detachments to field nearly that many SWT without going Brigade/Battalion (nets you 72 guys with 36 plasma guns).
Why would that be a bad thing? It's not like the company commanders aren't going to be useful.
malamis wrote: Whereas a Cadian executioner commander at 225 with plasma sponsons is doing closer to 4.7 primaris a turn given double tap for 10 overcharged plasma shots (2d6 + 2d3 ) with reroll 1s, not counting the heavy bolter. More often than not, it's wiping full primaris squads per turn in this situation.
2 of them under Old Grudges and "Pound Them To Dust" on each other ( assuming 7 shots avg from the 2d6 with reroll ) on a Shadowsword could quite feasibly put it out of commission in one turn with just plasma, not even needing the +1 to hit strat. It's not the literal meaning decimation, but killing 540 pts with 450 pts in one turn is perhaps 'hanging, drawing and quartering' .
Basic Russes are as you've described. (Cadian) Tank commanders are a whole new breed of hell.
Still doesn't support your 'free/infinite BS3+ LRBT' statement. And a basic Shadowsword costs 404pts so using 450pts and 2 HQ slots that need to get within 36" intact to cripple it seems pretty fair to me. Especially considering in a battlefield scenario at least one is likely to end up crippled by then - they are still T8 W12 Sv3+ models that don't benefit from 'Character' protection. 225pts that your opponent can focus his AT on.
Even your SWT example - you need at least 2 Vanguard detachments to field nearly that many SWT without going Brigade/Battalion (nets you 72 guys with 36 plasma guns).
Why would that be a bad thing? It's not like the company commanders aren't going to be useful.
Just stating - doing so restricts the rest of your army choice. And it's still 12 6-guy squads with 3 PGs each - pretty fragile units. So sure it's a viable option, probably even a nasty list, but hardly proof positive that the Codex itself is broken. Compared to it being a good or strong Codex with at least one 'egregiously broken unit' and a handful of ones causing concern.
I know they're good but are they actually broken/OP?
Simply stating that they exist isn't very helpful.
If you haven't played against massed manticores, i'd imagine it wouldn't be
They're incomparable. To my knowledge at least - there isn't an equivalent indirect fire unit in any codex. With quite a selection of regimental buffs I do believe they have become OP if played right. Still experimenting with them.
malamis wrote: and the piece de resistance, SWT plasma gunners that all reroll 1s for *less* than the cost of a marine in power armour.
And have BS4+ (meaning rerolling 1s does very little anyway). And T3 5+. And if you're talking about Cadia, the they only get those rerolls if they stand still.
You'll forgive me if I'm not yet trembling with fear.
Which, if the target is important enough, is why it'd become 3+ with the Cadian strat, rerolling to hit if there's an officer pootling about. Or indeed both.
And the most impressive thing about that build is that you were able to get 80 men using only 6-man units.
Quite right; i dunno where I went wrong there. Possibly jumping ahead and adding in the officers? :\
Anyway corrected; 13 SWS for 39 plasma guns for 585 and 78 Gmen. £48 for the finecast plasma guns presently, *about* £120 for GMen depending on your standards. I've been experimenting with Oyumaru for the former and found it's better suited for meltaguns.
Tyel wrote: If you want to shoot MEQ a stationary Cadian Rus with a Punisher gets about 50% of its points back. Its around 43% without rerolling 1s.
This is good.
I would be reticent to take a 24" range unit if I planned to keep it sill as part of a gunline. I would probably go for a standard battle cannon, mainly due to the much longer range. The tank order to reroll number of shots is another reason to give Cadians mainly that type of turret weapon.
Klowny wrote: armageddon conscripts get 8 shots per model with FRFSRF... thats 240 shots from 90 points of models..... that are immune to morale. Granted orders are a 4+ to receive, but you have like 1000000 CP to use on re-rolls.
I'm not saying that they are the most powerful thing in the codex. But when your basic infantry unit that is meant to be chaff screens can put out that much dakka, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the codex. And as we can now see, the dakka that can put out is incredible.
This is wrong. The Armageddon doctrine allows them to rapid fire at a range of 18" rather than the standard 12" for the lasgun. It doesn't turn their weapons into rapid fire 2 before frfsrf.
The wording is "Infantry units with this doctrine may double the number of attacks they make with Rapid Fire weapons at a range of up to 18 ", rather than half the weapons range as normal."
So instead of it being 12" of rapid fire, it is now 18" of rapid fire.
A *LOT* of confusion going on here. Despite their claim, it seems that many people do not have the 'full picture' at all.
I'll try to contribute by addressing some of the very confused issues I've read so far. Some have been addressed already, but just to sum up that hybris can obfuscate reason...
Aaranis wrote: I played my first game post AdMech codex against a Guard list with 8 Leman Russes, including Pask and another Tank Commander. [...]
I'd like to have T8 in my army too :/
Your good low-S weapons (phosphor, arc rifle) wound T8 at 5+, just like T7. Your good/excellent high-S weapons (lascannon/neutron laser) wound T8 at 3+, just like T7.
The only weapons to which LR T8 makes a difference are autocannons (rarely used) and torsion cannon (which is crap, never used). If you use a Knight there are a couple more possible possible weapons in this list, but still of limited use in most armies.
As AdMech, facing T8 does not really matter that much. I play AdMech too and my concerns are others.
Quickjager wrote:
I think Scions are still great, even though the plasma dropsquad costs 24 more points, they received plenty of point reductions elsewhere to make up for it. Also extra hits on 6's now, so any IG player using searchlights now gets an extra shot on a 5+ while not being able to overheat in supercharged mode.
This is simply so wrong. 1) You need to have an all-Scions detachment to use that rule, but fair enough this can be done. 2) Especially, if you are referring to Sabre platforms, you are very wrong: they cannot receive the Tempestus Scions keyword (as any other datasheet around: AM codex, p. 132), thus what you fear cannot happen. Do you bother reading the manuals before postulating? And, despite everything, believe me: Scions are *a lot* less viable now, you'll see them much less on the field. Still good and still playable, but certainly not overpowered.
malamis wrote:
Conscripts got a flat out buff in the form of the Grenadiers stratagem. 30d6 grenades in over watch, or God forbid, assault is beyond the pale given what they could already do.
As above: simply wrong. I assume by 'assault' you mean 'shooting'. Above all: READ THE CODEX, p. 135. The stratagem you refer to states that "up to 10 models in the unit" can fire a grenade. 30 conscripts = 10d6, never 30d6. This is not a doctrine to use on conscripts, but rather on either a full-Scion squad or, with limited results, a full Veteran/Infantry squad, for which it is certainly not that much more effective than FRSRF on average (4x10 lasguns = 40 shots; roll 10d6 and see if you get much better than this, by paying a CP).
Klowny wrote:
armageddon conscripts get 8 shots per model with FRFSRF.
Uh, what?! Not really. READ the Armageddon doctrine properly and you'll understand that it refers to the standard rapid-fire double shots, *not* to an additional duplication! Codex, p. 133: "double the number of attacks they make with r.f. weapons at a range of up to 18", RATHER THAN half the weapon's range as normal". It might be poorly worded, but it obviously and simply means that lasguns fire 2 shots instead of 1 at 18" rather than 12", or 4 shots with FRFSRF. Certainly not 8, ever.
As for LR discussion: sadly they were crap in their first iteration. You certainly did not see many around. Now they are good, and you'll see more. But they still die, and still don't do miracles. Also: the attractive possibility to combine different regiments requires separate detachments to optimize. AM now really encourages combined arms armies (and fluff-wise, this is great): but believe me, this comes at a cost: due to the way doctrines work now, it will not be so easy to field brigades and get 13+ CP unless you give up some significant flexibility/combos now. There is a design rationale behind all this, and I appreciate it.
I do not even consider the debates about point-cost efficiency ratio, because I do not play Mathhammer and every good player knows that performance on the field depends on *many* other factors that cannot be taken into account this way.
Besides playing AdMech, I also play AM since many, many years. I've played it quite a lot this edition so far, and after seeing the codex I can say this: it is powerful, it is great, it is inspired and well conceived. It mantains some flaws, i.e. nearly useless units/options, but still it is a huge improvement over the past Codexes in terms of design quality, and an excellent omen for the future Codexes. It is NOT OP, and it is nowhere near some 7th ed. broken nonsense, luckily. People tend to over-react, but 8th ed. is objectively much better and playable than any previous one, even now that it's just at the beginning. Before whining, wait and see the next codexes (Eldar incoming: I can already feel the paranoia ). Wait and see the coming Chapter Approved fixes. Wait, play, and READ the manuals properly before seeing the sky falling.
Aaranis wrote: I played my first game post AdMech codex against a Guard list with 8 Leman Russes, including Pask and another Tank Commander. [...]
I'd like to have T8 in my army too :/
Your good low-S weapons (phosphor, arc rifle) wound T8 at 5+, just like T7. Your good/excellent high-S weapons (lascannon/neutron laser) wound T8 at 3+, just like T7.
The only weapons to which LR T8 makes a difference are autocannons (rarely used) and torsion cannon (which is crap, never used). If you use a Knight there are a couple more possible possible weapons in this list, but still of limited use in most armies.
As AdMech, facing T8 does not really matter that much. I play AdMech too and my concerns are others.
I meant having T8 in my army to have more resilience, you're right it doesn't change anything for me when I do the shooting. We're clear on that point that's for sure.
Apart from that, if there is something I don't complain when playing AdMech, is the overall resistance of certain units no T8, but frankly we have some tough stuff nevertheless.
Still doesn't support your 'free/infinite BS3+ LRBT' statement. And a basic Shadowsword costs 404pts so using 450pts and 2 HQ slots that need to get within 36" intact to cripple it seems pretty fair to me. Especially considering in a battlefield scenario at least one is likely to end up crippled by then - they are still T8 W12 Sv3+ models that don't benefit from 'Character' protection. 225pts that your opponent can focus his AT on.
'basic' shadowsword sure, but if you're burning so many points on a superheavy, you're as well fully tricking it out. Is that the minority opinion?
Still, fair point. They're not super heavy tier but they *are* in the top tier of points per wound on a lot of target profiles, quite apart from survivability.
Just stating - doing so restricts the rest of your army choice. And it's still 12 6-guy squads with 3 PGs each - pretty fragile units. So sure it's a viable option, probably even a nasty list, but hardly proof positive that the Codex itself is broken. Compared to it being a good or strong Codex with at least one 'egregiously broken unit' and a handful of ones causing concern.
24" Stationary Cadian plasma gun SWTs pay 35~ points per median dead primaris before any other buffs - under the same condition 30 FRSR conscripts (assuming a 20pt officer) manage slightly over 28 when the order goes off and 46 when it doesn't. I've been searching *hard* for a better alternative as I hate painting infantry but (Cadian) SWT plasma really is up there.
SWT also have the benefit of being overkilled compared to conscripts which while situational can make a difference in comparing survivability - 3 5 man squads of primaris would unload on conscripts fruitfully, but against 2 sws, 2 of the marine squads would have to unload on one to kill it reliably outside of rapid fire, guaranteeing that the second would have at least one plasma gun before morale.
So far, everything i've been cooking up in my calculations/simulations comes out as 'IG are beyond any other race in raw damage output' and given 1. the amount of options they have to bypass the hard counters ( LOS etc) and 2. how it would appear 8th is still a shooting game, there's cause for concern at the very least.
Base LRBT costs 152pts (battle cannon + HB); for that you're killing ~2 MEQ a turn + the heavy bolter (~.5). Punisher LRBT is 3.3 + HB. So yes, you can get ObSec on Russes now and each one is a T8 12W Sv3+ brick, but they're still not decimating armies with each individual tank.
Whereas a Cadian executioner commander at 225 with plasma sponsons is doing closer to 4.7 primaris a turn given double tap for 10 overcharged plasma shots (2d6 + 2d3 ) with reroll 1s, not counting the heavy bolter. More often than not, it's wiping full primaris squads per turn in this situation.
But, then you are spending 225 points in order to kill 100 points of Interessors. Chances are a marine player would be "reasonably" happy with that trade - though, you could argue that if you're targeting the marines with that weapon the game is probably already won for the Guard.
malamis wrote: 2 of them under Old Grudges and "Pound Them To Dust" on each other ( assuming 7 shots avg from the 2d6 with reroll ) on a Shadowsword could quite feasibly put it out of commission in one turn with just plasma, not even needing the +1 to hit strat. It's not the literal meaning decimation, but killing 540 pts with 450 pts in one turn is perhaps 'hanging, drawing and quartering' .
Basic Russes are as you've described. (Cadian) Tank commanders are a whole new breed of hell.
Alternatively you could take 2 squads of Lascannon devs, a basic captain and a basic lieutenant for 464 points. These will do 25 wounds on average to a shadowsword (20 if you assume the "take cover" stratagem is used). This goes up to 29.9 and 23.9 wounds using the cherub to make 2 additional shots. You can also add in the Storm of Fire warlord trait for the odd -4 rend shots on a 6. Salamanders chapter tactics also bumps up the damage resulting in 35 wounds on average without the cherub shots and assuming the 2+ save (though i'd prob take Raven Guard cos guard hitting back on a 5+ will be super strong).
If those 2 teams survive the return fire, then they can go on to kill 2 Russes a turn (3 if you split fire and are Salamanders)
Even your SWT example - you need at least 2 Vanguard detachments to field nearly that many SWT without going Brigade/Battalion (nets you 72 guys with 36 plasma guns).
Why would that be a bad thing? It's not like the company commanders aren't going to be useful.
But htis won't ever be a thing. You'd need 2 vanguard detachments and then a 3 super heavy detachment in order to get the doctines on the SHVs. And even then, the commanders wont be able to issue orders while everything is inside the stormlords (stratagem only works in chimeras). Sure, 3 stormlords will put of a fair amount of pain, but with the speed you can take out a lot of SHVs now, i'd be surprised if they were all alive by the time you get into position with everything. Just spreading everything out or hiding in rhinos/razorbacks outside of plasma range will see pretty much everything survive first turn. (mega bolter only doing 6 wounds to a rhino a turn)
I do not even consider the debates about point-cost efficiency ratio, because I do not play Mathhammer and every good player knows that performance on the field depends on *many* other factors that cannot be taken into account this way.
There is one problem with this position in regards to IG:
A lot of their shooting specifically, and new abilities in general, ignore those factors.
Cover? 1s still fail against 2^n saves, or I can just AP 2+ you into oblivion
LOS? haha, 9 Manticores. aka 18d6 of s10 anywhere I want with a buffet cart of buffs to choose from. Hell have each triplet in a different regimental detachment to make sure you have enough for each augmented situation.
Turn 1 Charge? All the conscripts. Or I can just run you over, shoot you, and run you over again with a SHT for 1cp.
Deep Strike? I'll take 35 pt scout sentinels and give you cause to struggle placing models in your own deployment area
Super High Toughness? Again, Manticores.
Running for objectives? My tanks can move 20" in one turn. In some cases with ObSec
I don't mean to be facetious here, but what's left?
Whats bugging me, and probably a great many more people, is that playing IG really *could* come down to just the mathhammer. with SHTs we can even get drop advantage and still pack enough turn 1 fire to render your army inert.
Now regarding your mention of the conscript grenade thing someone was good enough to prove me wrong already, should have read harder :|
Base LRBT costs 152pts (battle cannon + HB); for that you're killing ~2 MEQ a turn + the heavy bolter (~.5). Punisher LRBT is 3.3 + HB. So yes, you can get ObSec on Russes now and each one is a T8 12W Sv3+ brick, but they're still not decimating armies with each individual tank.
Whereas a Cadian executioner commander at 225 with plasma sponsons is doing closer to 4.7 primaris a turn given double tap for 10 overcharged plasma shots (2d6 + 2d3 ) with reroll 1s, not counting the heavy bolter. More often than not, it's wiping full primaris squads per turn in this situation.
But, then you are spending 225 points in order to kill 100 points of Interessors. Chances are a marine player would be "reasonably" happy with that trade - though, you could argue that if you're targeting the marines with that weapon the game is probably already won for the Guard.
I think you'll find i'd be targetting the considerably more expensive Hellblasters from outside of their range seeing as they're the only element in the army that can do consistent damage to my armour.
malamis wrote: 2 of them under Old Grudges and "Pound Them To Dust" on each other ( assuming 7 shots avg from the 2d6 with reroll ) on a Shadowsword could quite feasibly put it out of commission in one turn with just plasma, not even needing the +1 to hit strat. It's not the literal meaning decimation, but killing 540 pts with 450 pts in one turn is perhaps 'hanging, drawing and quartering' .
Basic Russes are as you've described. (Cadian) Tank commanders are a whole new breed of hell.
Alternatively you could take 2 squads of Lascannon devs, a basic captain and a basic lieutenant for 464 points. These will do 25 wounds on average to a shadowsword (20 if you assume the "take cover" stratagem is used). This goes up to 29.9 and 23.9 wounds using the cherub to make 2 additional shots. You can also add in the Storm of Fire warlord trait for the odd -4 rend shots on a 6. Salamanders chapter tactics also bumps up the damage resulting in 35 wounds on average without the cherub shots and assuming the 2+ save (though i'd prob take Raven Guard cos guard hitting back on a 5+ will be super strong).
Now this is valid; add in an ADL and you have a genuine anti-tank threat. I'm totally going to steal it. There is however the factor that your IG opponent would see where you're establishing this bunker, as your 4 drops mean they'd have time to counter deploy the smaller number of tanks whilst you're building it, and probably going 2nd as a consequence.
And even then, the commanders wont be able to issue orders while everything is inside the stormlords (stratagem only works in chimeras). Sure, 3 stormlords will put of a fair amount of pain, but with the speed you can take out a lot of SHVs now, i'd be surprised if they were all alive by the time you get into position with everything. Just spreading everything out or hiding in rhinos/razorbacks outside of plasma range will see pretty much everything survive first turn. (mega bolter only doing 6 wounds to a rhino a turn)
However the 2 stormlords means I have 2 drops and thus will go first unless you seize, which is the only reason I brought them up. I will then redeploy as I see fit to concentrate my plasma, and perhaps position my stormlords to provide LOS blocking to your main anti infantry items. You get 1 turn of shooting, at the targets I decide to give you, using the units I decide to leave you with, after which my stationary buffs set your army list on fire
This is pure theory. You cannot expect to face all or even some of these situations in every game. Are you sure any IG player will want to field 9 Manticores (= 1200 pts), i.e. severely limiting the mobility of over half his army, in an objectives game?
How can you assume that I can drown you in 2^n no AP saves always and anywhere, when lasguns are 24" range and obviously 90 conscripts will never be able to shoot all at the same target (and even if they do, don't expect miracles) on a real battlefield?
Sentinels are 35 pts plus weapons, and anybody except Tallarn goes with h.flamer because it's the only really useful weapon, thus their real cost is 52 pts per model. They are still great, but also fragile. Destroy them on turn 1 and delay your deepstrike to turn 2, which may not be that bad an idea anyway in many games...
Tanks moving 20" in a turn? Sure you realize that is not an optimal use for LR, but rather a desperation move. And as for ObSec: it's a joke on tanks. First, it requires a Vangaurd detachment (and don't think it's so easy or obvious to field one, if you also want to have *other*, more useful advantages for your army). Second, a Leman Russ is 1 model, it will still lose vs any other Troop with ObSec and 2+ models...not that big deal really. It's more a boon to encourage people to try Tank companies, but alone they will still struggle to achieve much.
Etc. etc. I repeat: by playing with and against AM you'll realize that Mathhammer does not explain everything, and that AM's many and often exciting options come at a tactical price that is also one of her weak points.
It's not pure theory when it's been done. Guard armies focused on tabling with massive no-LOS firepower have been winning tournaments since the stormraven nerf.
I do not even consider the debates about point-cost efficiency ratio, because I do not play Mathhammer and every good player knows that performance on the field depends on *many* other factors that cannot be taken into account this way.
There is one problem with this position in regards to IG:
A lot of their shooting specifically, and new abilities in general, ignore those factors.
Cover? 1s still fail against 2^n saves, or I can just AP 2+ you into oblivion
LOS? haha, 9 Manticores. aka 18d6 of s10 anywhere I want with a buffet cart of buffs to choose from. Hell have each one in a different regimental detachment to make sure you have enough for each augmented situation.
Turn 1 Charge? All the conscripts. Or I can just run you over, shoot you, and run you over again with a SHT for 1cp.
Deep Strike? I'll take 35 pt scout sentinels and give you cause to struggle placing models in your own deployment area
Super High Toughness? Again, Manticores.
Running for objectives? My tanks can move 20" in one turn. In some cases with ObSec
I don't mean to be facetious here, but what's left?
Whats bugging me, and probably a great many more people, is that playing IG really *could* come down to just the mathhammer. with SHTs we can even get drop advantage and still pack enough turn 1 fire to render your army inert.
Now regarding your mention of the conscript grenade thing someone was good enough to prove me wrong already, should have read harder :|
9 Manticores?? Taking the "Why?!?" out of the picture to start with... 1 manticore will kill 2 marines a turn - so all 9 will kill 18 a turn if they are all outside of transports and cover and not Raven Guard. If they are Raven Guard and in cover you only kill 1 per Manticore, so 9 a turn... You only have 4 turns of shooting for a cost of 1202 (presuming you have Harker to re-roll ones). Maybe i need to play against 9 of them, but, i'm personally not seeing it as broken... Cheesy if you aren't expecting it, but not broken as there are options to avoid it. (this isn't taking into account the catachan doctrine)
In regards to deep-striking, conscripts and sentinels - you'll prob see a lot more turn 2 and turn 3 deep-strikes now vs Guard. Sentinels can be useful and annoying, but will die before the deep-strikes happen. As for conscripts, as soon as i kill 10-15 of them on the first turn, i'd have no real issues with deep-striking after to kill them or just waiting another turn when they are dead (thats if i don't take enough to kill 30 t3 guys a turn).
If manticores are targeting the transports or high toughness, they aren't targeting something else. They are good, but they aren't killing transports in a single turn on their own reliably.
Sure, Russes can now move and obsec objectives up to 20" away, but what if there is an obsec squad already on the objective? Also, the chances of them having full movement late game for objective securing are very slim unless you spend 10 points on track guards. If you are chasing objectives early game with them, then hey aren't removing threats and therefore not winning you the game.
Special weapon teams won't be getting the drop on much 1st turn. Scions still can, but, their cost has risen a lot for plasma and can still be countered with screening them out of rapid fire range.
Right now, i think Guard are strong, but, i think people need to take a step back first and think. There are options to beat them, and there are certainly options where you get completely tabled - it's just noone wants to work them out. On that note - i'd like someone to come up with the most "OP" 2k points list they can think of containing all the broken units they can think of and fit, and then, everyone here, together, can discuss how you'd beat it in a standard matched play game.
One thing that concerns me, which i mentioned on reddit and not seen anywhere else is ogryn bodyguard spam. For 60 points you can get a 3+/2++ 6 wound model, that can pass wounds off onto another bodyguard within 3" of it if you fail the 2++ save, on a 3+. 6 of them in a battalion will be un-killable. 12 of them in 2 battalions will be ridiculous to deal with. If you can put of mortal wounds on mass they will just claim whatever ground they want. Add in a couple of priests for extra attacks and you're laughing.
But htis won't ever be a thing. You'd need 2 vanguard detachments and then a 3 super heavy detachment in order to get the doctines on the SHVs.
I'm going to add this to my signature for a while:
The Supreme Command Detachment Allows You To Take Lords Of War With 90pts Worth of Imperial Guard HQs And Benefit From Regiment Bonuses
But if you have 2 vanguard detachments you cannot take 2 supreme command detachments in a 2k list, as you can only have 3 detachments in matched play. Because of that, you'd need to take 3 SHVs in a super heavy detachment in order to be match play legal and get the benefits.
If you want 2 supreme command detachments you will only get 8 Special weapon teams and then only 24 plasma guns across 48 models. On top of that you could get another 12 plasma pistols if you go all out on commanders. That's not exactly a force in itself to worry about for 1684 points (more if you add weapons to the Stormlords). I'd be totally happy going up against that as i'd know i'd build a list to cripple and survive the stormlords.
As for going 2nd - if you play standard book rules you will always go 2nd, yes, but, if you are playing in a tournament you have the roll off so you still have a decent chance of going 1st.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
feral_80 wrote: This is pure theory. You cannot expect to face all or even some of these situations in every game. Are you sure any IG player will want to field 9 Manticores (= 1200 pts), i.e. severely limiting the mobility of over half his army, in an objectives game?
How can you assume that I can drown you in 2^n no AP saves always and anywhere, when lasguns are 24" range and obviously 90 conscripts will never be able to shoot all at the same target (and even if they do, don't expect miracles) on a real battlefield?
Sentinels are 35 pts plus weapons, and anybody except Tallarn goes with h.flamer because it's the only really useful weapon, thus their real cost is 52 pts per model. They are still great, but also fragile. Destroy them on turn 1 and delay your deepstrike to turn 2, which may not be that bad an idea anyway in many games...
Tanks moving 20" in a turn? Sure you realize that is not an optimal use for LR, but rather a desperation move. And as for ObSec: it's a joke on tanks. First, it requires a Vangaurd detachment (and don't think it's so easy or obvious to field one, if you also want to have *other*, more useful advantages for your army). Second, a Leman Russ is 1 model, it will still lose vs any other Troop with ObSec and 2+ models...not that big deal really. It's more a boon to encourage people to try Tank companies, but alone they will still struggle to achieve much.
Etc. etc. I repeat: by playing with and against AM you'll realize that Mathhammer does not explain everything, and that AM's many and often exciting options come at a tactical price that is also one of her weak points.
I'd argue that multi laser sentinels are by far the better choice at 45 points each. Their job isn't to kill stuff, but to deny deep-strike on the first turn or 2. I'd rather scout them up, hold the group and get off some str 6 pot shots before expecting them to just die.
Spearhead gives LRs obsec, not vanguard, so pretty easy to fill for Guard and will prob be taken most of the time if you already have a brigade.
I agree on the conscripts thing though. 30 guys are generally used for screening so even if you charge them, chances are 1/4 to 1/3 will be outside of rapid fire for overwatch, so shooting normally you'll never get full shots off (even if you pass the 4+ for orders)
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Arachnofiend wrote: It's not pure theory when it's been done. Guard armies focused on tabling with massive no-LOS firepower have been winning tournaments since the stormraven nerf.
It's not been winning all the tournaments though. Chaos have been taking a lot of events recently.
if Guard really are super strong it just means you'll see a bigger rise in the number of Alpha Legion/Raven Guard/Stygies lists in the future to counter all the artillery. Note that they only army so far NOT to get a -1 to hit doctrine is Guard themselves and several other armies already have options to get the -1 to hit anyway.
Aye, Vanguard = Spearhead in my mind, I don't know why I keep confusing them. Anyway, the one focused on Heavy Support.
Good point about the -1 to be hit, it's a *huge* pain in the ass for the Guard and quite a frustrating form of spam. I feel quite bored to play Stygies VIII already. I really hope that Codex: AM has paved the way for more inspired design, since it is objectively much more original and well devised than the stuff we've seen so far (except possibly the wonderfully themed Death Guard). Let's see from next week - we really don't want an Eldar Craftworld with -1 hit, right?
Not *that* easy to fill a tank-based Spearhead (800-1000 pts) AND a full Brigade, really, unless you significantly limit your options in the Brigade. Thinking tactically, it's much easier to field a 2x Battalion, which is already 3 CP less.
These posts are bringing out quite clearly what is probably the greatest strength of the Guard: flexibility. The best feature of the Codex is that most of its many options are viable (which is very different from 'broken'). From the 9 Manticores (as threating as risky...) to a fully balanced army. Hell, you could even field an assault swarm composed entirely of DKK+Catahans+Ogryns+Priests, and it wouldn't even perform badly.
Thus, facing an AM army means you could face a huge variety of threats, to which it is difficult to respond and even more risky than usual to tailor a counter-army. This seems to be the real source of despair for most people, but I guess it's just a matter of learning. And since it naturally brings players to building all-comers lists ready for everything...it's a great thing to me.
feral_80 wrote: Aye, Vanguard = Spearhead in my mind, I don't know why I keep confusing them. Anyway, the one focused on Heavy Support.
Not *that* easy to fill a tank-based Spearhead (800-1000 pts) AND a full Brigade, really, unless you significantly limit your options in the Brigade. Thinking tactically, it's much easier to think to 2x Battalion, which is already 3 CP less.
These posts are bringing out quite clearly what is probably the
greatest strength of the Guard: flexibility. The best feature of the Codex is that most of its many options are viable (which is very different from 'broken'). From the 9 Manticores (as threating as risky...) to a fully balanced army. Hell, you could even field an assault swarm composed entirely of DKK+Catahans+Ogryns+Priests, and it wouldn't even perform bad I think.
Thus, facing an AM army means you could face a huge variety of threats, to which it is difficult to respond and even more risky than usual to tailor a counter-army. This seem to be the real source of despair for most people, but I guess it's just a matter of learning. And since it naturally brings players to building all-comers lists ready for everything...it's a great thing to me.
A basic brigade now costs 612 points i believe, while keeping doctrines. And i agree on the max tank spearhead being too expensive. I'd expect to see a tank commander and maybe 2-3 LRs to keep is cheap and able to benefit from things like the Tallarn stratagem.
feral_80 wrote: This is pure theory. You cannot expect to face all or even some of these situations in every game. Are you sure any IG player will want to field 9 Manticores (= 1200 pts), i.e. severely limiting the mobility of over half his army, in an objectives game?
1197, which is an extra conscript - Well A. They move faster than infantry if they really need to and B. there's still plenty of points left for 60 inches (28mm bases) of conscripts + buffs in 1.5k , possibly as a double row at the edge of deployment to prevent any deep strike mischief turn 1 and buff the whole lot of them with commisar auras.
How can you assume that I can drown you in 2^n no AP saves always and anywhere, when lasguns are 24" range and obviously 90 conscripts will never be able to shoot all at the same target (and even if they do, don't expect miracles) on a real battlefield?
I wasn't specifically referring to conscripts there, but i'd suggest that, in this goofy theoretical build/army core ( 9 manticores, 54 conscripts 2 Lord Commisars and 1 commander - 1499, add in russ commanders and scout sentinels to take it to 2k ) that the weight and distribution of manticore fire is enough to render most dedicated anti-X units irrelevant and/or the ones beyond their range. Hell the conscripts might not even fire, just blanket the objectives and give you more urgent things to address than the 18d6 s10 if it's an objective card game.
Now to your point, IG now has enough orders and stratagems that, even taking LOS into account I probably *could* ensure the 54 conscripts would be all able to shoot at least up to 24", especially if using the wide wall deployment method and collapsing them into gaps in the terrain.
Sentinels are 35 pts plus weapons, and anybody except Tallarn goes with h.flamer because it's the only really useful weapon, thus their real cost is 52 pts per model.
Except in this instance, (and really the only reason to take scout sentinels) i'm not after fire power; i'm after screwing your deployment and objectives. In this case 40 point multilaser sentinels are adequate, and hell maybe add a tallarn battalion detachment just for high speed conscripts and commisar(s).
Tanks moving 20" in a turn? Sure you realize that is not an optimal use for LR, but rather a desperation move.
I have to ask, have you faced 'loud' guard in 8th? As in if you're not out of LOS or drowning in transports you're going to lose 1/2 of your entire army in the first turn of shooting? If i'm advancing it's because i've nothing worthwhile left to shoot at and it's turn 4. With Cadia, it's entirely possible this will upgrade to turn 3.
First, it requires a Vangaurd detachment (and don't think it's so easy or obvious to field one, if you also want to have *other*, more useful advantages for your army). Second, a Leman Russ is 1 model, it will still lose vs any other Troop with ObSec and 2+ models...not that big deal really. It's more a boon to encourage people to try Tank companies, but alone they will still struggle to achieve much.
I think you mean spearhead ? (pg 132) Also, Tank Commanders are themselves Leman Russ so you can fill in the HQ with them and still take 6 manticores, or alternatively, 2 detachments for an extra CP.
Now, sure Obsec is a smidge weak in this case... against conscripts. If the TCLR is contesting, or quite possibly, body blocking - they're big enough to park over an objective at the right angle - it's entirely capable of killing or breaking a large percentage of other obsec units outright barring the aforementioned before it's relevant.
the *only* situation where an LR is at a disadvantage to other obsec units, is multi-level buildings with objectives atop them.
Etc. etc. I repeat: by playing with and against AM you'll realize that Mathhammer does not explain everything, and that AM's many and often exciting options come at a tactical price that is also one of her weak points.
This remains to be proven; for now against the other Codex (as opposed to Index) armies, IG outshoots, out melee's and outlasts all of them if it is built to emphasise any one role. The ultimate concern is that it does all of them *well* on such a large variety of units, and out indirect-fire's any army by virtue of none of them even attempting the challenge.
Thus, facing an AM army means you could face a huge variety of threats, to which it is difficult to respond and even more risky than usual to tailor a counter-army. This seems to be the real source of despair for most people, but I guess it's just a matter of learning. And since it naturally brings players to building all-comers lists ready for everything...it's a great thing to me.
You've nailed the entire thread with just this statement.
9 Manticores?? Taking the "Why?!?" out of the picture to start with... 1 manticore will kill 2 marines a turn - so all 9 will kill 18 a turn if they are all outside of transports and cover and not Raven Guard. If they are Raven Guard and in cover you only kill 1 per Manticore, so 9 a turn... You only have 4 turns of shooting for a cost of 1202 (presuming you have Harker to re-roll ones). Maybe i need to play against 9 of them, but, i'm personally not seeing it as broken... Cheesy if you aren't expecting it, but not broken as there are options to avoid it. (this isn't taking into account the catachan doctrine)
Except I strongly doubt manticores will ever *be* catachan. Cadians reroll 1s *anyway* and with the strat of +1 to hit a wounded model, if unit X is to be deleted, unit X is going to be deleted
If manticores are targeting the transports or high toughness, they aren't targeting something else. They are good, but they aren't killing transports in a single turn on their own reliably.
Now this is quite true, and is why i'm only fielding 6 of them with the SupCom SHTs presently.
Sure, Russes can now move and obsec objectives up to 20" away, but what if there is an obsec squad already on the objective? Also, the chances of them having full movement late game for objective securing are very slim unless you spend 10 points on track guards. If you are chasing objectives early game with them, then hey aren't removing threats and therefore not winning you the game.
I had forgotten about track guards!
For 10 points, I can safely cash in my cadian stationary bonus and shoot for 3 turns until I need to move to cap objectives, knowing i'll get there. Yeah I think i'll have some of that thank you.
One thing that concerns me, which i mentioned on reddit and not seen anywhere else is ogryn bodyguard spam. For 60 points you can get a 3+/2++ 6 wound model, that can pass wounds off onto another bodyguard within 3" of it if you fail the 2++ save, on a 3+. 6 of them in a battalion will be un-killable. 12 of them in 2 battalions will be ridiculous to deal with. If you can put of mortal wounds on mass they will just claim whatever ground they want. Add in a couple of priests for extra attacks and you're laughing.
I think you've got your numbers wrong; they can have a 2+/4++ as the +2 save is mutually exclusive with the invul.
The concept is sound though; add in adequate medic command squads teams with, perhaps, lascannons and you'd be punched right out of the venue
But if you have 2 vanguard detachments you cannot take 2 supreme command detachments in a 2k list, as you can only have 3 detachments in matched play. Because of that, you'd need to take 3 SHVs in a super heavy detachment in order to be match play legal and get the benefits.
As for going 2nd - if you play standard book rules you will always go 2nd, yes, but, if you are playing in a tournament you have the roll off so you still have a decent chance of going 1st.
Depends a lot on the tournament surely? Still valid though.
Thus, facing an AM army means you could face a huge variety of threats, to which it is difficult to respond and even more risky than usual to tailor a counter-army. This seems to be the real source of despair for most people, but I guess it's just a matter of learning. And since it naturally brings players to building all-comers lists ready for everything...it's a great thing to me.
I thought list tailoring against your opponent was considered a dick move? I design my lists mostly from a tac point of view even if I know my opponent is going to play a specific setup.
I thought list tailoring against your opponent was considered a dick move? I design my lists mostly from a tac point of view even if I know my opponent is going to play a specific setup.
It's more taking into account the dramatic shift in what 'all comers' means now that 'standard expectation' breaking builds are going to crop up a lot more often. I know I broke my local meta for quite a while back when the super heavy company was introduced.
Thus, facing an AM army means you could face a huge variety of threats, to which it is difficult to respond and even more risky than usual to tailor a counter-army. This seems to be the real source of despair for most people, but I guess it's just a matter of learning. And since it naturally brings players to building all-comers lists ready for everything...it's a great thing to me.
I thought list tailoring against your opponent was considered a dick move? I design my lists mostly from a tac point of view even if I know my opponent is going to play a specific setup.
There are two different types of tailoring really. Adjusting for a local meta is fine really, I wouldn't even call it tailoring. The egregious type is changing your force once you know your opponent, or bringing multiple lists that you can pull out depending on what you face. That is creating a rather unfair advantage (unless your opponent is fine with it of course!).
When people talk about list tailoring, they usually mean "I know you're playing with a lot of Slugga Ork Boyz with exactly zero heavy armor and no tanks. So I'm gonna change out all of the plasma guns in my list that I usually take in case of heavy armor for more flamers and heavy flamers specifically to counter you".
but if the meta favours tanks (i.e: regardless of which faction you take, you're gonna be at least bringing transports for everyone), then swapping out plasma guns for melta guns (like in 5th edition) isn't unheard of (and actually encouraged).
SilverAlien wrote: Let's list off some questions now that we have the "full picture".
Are we now allowed to wonder why the shadowsword can kill 200 points of enemy tanks every turn despite costing only 500ish itself and being quite durable? What about conscripts still being absurdly hard to kill in a single turn without spending 3-4 times as much on a glass cannon counter unit? Or should we "wait for the meta to settle"
Please, could some guard players explain to me how a sturdy tank that's very hard to kill should have the firepower to easily make its points back, yet we need glass cannon units to have that same sort of point efficiency versus conscripts, I'm curious.
The shadowsword costs 404 pts. Why would you ever put sponsons on it? It is insanely underpriced and can do up to 108 damage with its main gun alone each turn. It will kill your biggest unit each turn especially since it can now move and shoot with no penalty.
I have no idea why people keep talking about the 500pt shadowsword is able to kill a 200pt tank per turn. First as I have stated it is 400pts. Second the only reason it is only killing a 200pt tank is because that was obviously the most expensive tank they had. It would kill the 300-500 point tank, knight, or other super heavy if they had it. Then since it is easy to make it -1 to hit and give it +2 to its save you are likely never going to kill the thing unless you have a Shadowsword. Each turn this will erase you most expensive big unit.
While they were priced in line with their utility in a vacuum, they didn't get priced taking the access to the new buffs into account I think.
Possibly, but were they really great in the index?
I know that they were (and still are) cheap. However, it was my understanding that they were mainly used to fill out HS choices for a Brigade. They might do a bit of damage, but they're hardly reliable - especially against anything tougher than basic infantry. What's more, fielding large numbers of them is impractical due to the sheer size of their footprint. Even with the doctrines and such, I don't think they'll be OP.
On 12d6 shots all day every day for < 280 which ignores that sweet sweet LOS limitation is kind of a big deal.
12d6 is a bit disingenuous, since that would require 3 Wyverns.
Also, is this rerolling 1s or rerolling all misses? If the latter, where is that coming from? Is it a new rule for Wyverns? Because if it's just rerolling 1s, that's not very impressive on a BS4+ model (IIRC you go from 6/12 to 7/12).
Also, there's usually an upper limit to the number of models you can realistically hide behind LoS-blocking terrain.
Anyway corrected; 13 SWS for 39 plasma guns for 585 and 78 Gmen. £48 for the finecast plasma guns presently, *about* £120 for GMen depending on your standards. I've been experimenting with Oyumaru for the former and found it's better suited for meltaguns.
Even then, I'd have thought you'd want those SWSs to go in Chimeras or such. Starting them on the field seems a dubious strategy to me.
Of course, it's early days so I could be entirely wrong.
You only got the first paragraph. The second para was for my own enjoyment
Can't argue with that, I suppose.
Also, I just reread my previous post and realise that it came across as being more hostile/aggressive than I intended. I apologise for that and I thank you for remaining polite and friendly in this post.
Scheming against meta is NOT tailoring, because there is no guarantee the meta you expect will show up exactly as you expect it. List tailoring involves definite knowns.
The Shadowsword might technically be able to do 108 damage... But there's nothing that has that many wounds, and the odds of doing 108 damage are infinitesimal.
Realistically, it deletes an average of 3 models without invulns that are 6 or less wounds, or absolutely demolishes a single vehicle or something.
broxus wrote: The shadowsword costs 404 pts. Why would you ever put sponsons on it?
Well there are a few reasons:
1- A Shadowsword with 4 sponsons looks really good! OK, so not the best reason but it counts.
2- You get bs4 lascannons against titanic units.
3- Increased overwatch fire can help I guess.
4- Increased buff potential. Giving the Shadowsword a buff, such as the Vostroyan's +1 to hit or a Trojan's reroll to hit and you can affect a lot more guns for increased efficiency.
You can have an army consisting entirely of them without paying a tax of any kind. Something of a big deal
Really? How does that work?
Supreme command detachment. They're HQs. Take 6 in 2 such detachments for two regimental doctrines and Tallarn your opponent from the side whilst Cadianing them from the front. Add in a SHT if you feel like it and that's a 2k army right there.
Possibly, but were they really great in the index?
I know that they were (and still are) cheap. However, it was my understanding that they were mainly used to fill out HS choices for a Brigade. They might do a bit of damage, but they're hardly reliable - especially against anything tougher than basic infantry. What's more, fielding large numbers of them is impractical due to the sheer size of their footprint. Even with the doctrines and such, I don't think they'll be OP.
Doctrines in particular are what make them a bit dangerous; they don't *need* buffing characters to benefit such as the Cadian case, and 30 pts a full HWT mortar team is not bad. More significantly though, it means the *screening* HWT models for the lascannon/missile launcher are still useful.
If combined with the +1 to hit cadian strategem, the mortar HWT is paying exactly its points cost on average to kill a 1 wound marine assuming 3 shots average. 200 pts of cadian mortars is a dead SM devastator squad a turn, practically anywhere on a 4x4' board.
On 12d6 shots all day every day for < 280 which ignores that sweet sweet LOS limitation is kind of a big deal.
12d6 is a bit disingenuous, since that would require 3 Wyverns.
Also, is this rerolling 1s or rerolling all misses? If the latter, where is that coming from? Is it a new rule for Wyverns? Because if it's just rerolling 1s, that's not very impressive on a BS4+ model (IIRC you go from 6/12 to 7/12).
Rerolling 1s, but again the ever lovely +1 to hit cadian strat. Its still only 1 HS choice though as they come in unit choices of 3 which are then 3 independent models. There's no reason not to take them in full batteries unless you're trying to bulk out a detachment.
Also, there's usually an upper limit to the number of models you can realistically hide behind LoS-blocking terrain.
Behind my bastion pair when placed diagonally, it's 7 manticores/wyverns and a master of ordnance. Or all of my pre codex 2k army sans the Shadowsword and bastion occupants. Templates were the only thing preventing this from happening in 7th, it was *almost* as good then.
I'm not kidding when I say Loud Guard can wipe armies in 2 turns of shooting, because nothing can hurt them back if they really don't want it to
Which, if the target is important enough, is why it'd become 3+ with the Cadian strat
You have to hit and wound without the bonus before you can use that strategy though.
Hence (plasma) Pask, who is usually enough and doesn't need it (and can now order himself to shoot better). Failing that it'll be the Manticores singly, or the Mighty MoO.
Even then, I'd have thought you'd want those SWSs to go in Chimeras or such. Starting them on the field seems a dubious strategy to me.
Of course, it's early days so I could be entirely wrong.
If going for this, and not playing in a 'first finished deploy, first turn' i'd go for the ADL. if it is first deploy first turn, then stormswords for a 2k army consisting of 3 drops, or even Gorgons.
Alternatively, I have enough Valkyries to transport all of them so it's possible to throw them straight into rapid fire range turn 1 using, say Mordian traits to eliminate keystone characters. I've been pondering the Command Squad approach for this for a while but SWS are actually more point efficient.
Also, I just reread my previous post and realise that it came across as being more hostile/aggressive than I intended. I apologise for that and I thank you for remaining polite and friendly in this post.
It's all good dood; the guard owe it to everyone to be the paragons of 'This Guy' given the grief we've endured for decades now that T'Empra has favored us at last. This is why i'm so concerned about the codex; with all the tasty tanks it's possible to stumble onto a community wrecking win button and not realise it.
This exact scenario happened with fantasy in my area when the Overlords came out; the entire fantasy section of the community just cashed out for something like 3 months.
After 11 years of the hobby (anniversary was Saturday!) i'm seeing the signs already - hence why i'll only play index guard against index armies and have spent almost my entire Sunday here talking Guard
Go for it dood, just be aware of what you're playing with; Hell on Legs for many an established community which, if you're not careful, might never recover.
Go for it dood, just be aware of what you're playing with; Hell on Legs for many an established community which, if you're not careful, might never recover.
The codex is broke. The conscript nerf is pathetic. So why do I have to justify it? I didn't write the fething thing, and I'm beyond tired of this accusatory tone. Am I now not allowed to play this edition? If you don't want to play against guard, don't play against guard.
crimsondave wrote: The codex is broke. The conscript nerf is pathetic. So why do I have to justify it? I didn't write the fething thing, and I'm beyond tired of this accusatory tone. Am I now not allowed to play this edition? If you don't want to play against guard, don't play against guard.
That's the problem we want fixed you shouldn't be ostracized for playing guard but if its no fun to play against then your going to have no one to play with.
We all pay a fortune for the models and invest time in building and painting so when we put them on the table we want to play an actual game, not just remove them because the game was decided before it began.
broxus wrote: The shadowsword costs 404 pts. Why would you ever put sponsons on it?
Well there are a few reasons:
1- A Shadowsword with 4 sponsons looks really good! OK, so not the best reason but it counts.
2- You get bs4 lascannons against titanic units.
3- Increased overwatch fire can help I guess.
4- Increased buff potential. Giving the Shadowsword a buff, such as the Vostroyan's +1 to hit or a Trojan's reroll to hit and you can affect a lot more guns for increased efficiency.
Another thing to add - if you are targeting a Knight with a Shadowsword without giving it buffs, you'll only do 18 wounds on average to it with the main weapon.Taking extra lascannons, while expensive, practically ensures you kill what you are targeting in one turn. You really don't want to be leaving the big things alive with a handful of wounds, as it means you then have to commit another round of volcano cannon fire when it could have been destroying another thing.
MarboLives wrote: Even if you guys are right and the book is garbage why waste your vitriol on random forum people?
Ive been a guard player for almost 10 years since I got into the hobby in 08. I only have one army. Whether they're overpowered or underpowered this week I don't have another option readily available.
What would you like me to do about your perception of their overpoweredness?
I'm somewhere past the 12kpts mark of guard ( found 3 leman russes swimming in paint stripper i'd totally forgotten about this morning ) and i'm wary of my collection becoming useless because there's no viable opponents. What I don't want to see, and what could happen if we're not careful is "oh you play guard? i'd rather play someone else if that's alright" or, as the guard player, "Oh you play <weak, index only army>? I'll have to change my list so we're not wasting our time" both of which happened a great deal at the tail end of 7th. If on the other hand Guard becomes the new Space Marines in that everyone plays them that would be wonderful (and fluffy!) but I don't see it happening
We're in the hobby to have fun after all, and there's a genuine risk IG could quickly become 'not fun', at least for the majority of cases. If you can suggest some methods for keeping it fresh without buying models that aren't interesting to me as a player with my nebulous sense of what's neat or not, that'd be most welcome.
Depends on the matchup, I'd still say DeathGuard+Some reserve points for demons+CSM is still the most capable army, to a point of being OP
"Tide of Traitors and "Walking Dead" with "Cloud of Flies", Guaranteed 1st turn charges, More mortal wounds than you'd ever need, good anty horde/heavy infantry/vehicle options
Ironically CHaos is most reliable of all the armies and for a Mathhammer fan is the most fun as you pretty much can simply watch events on the table uunfold that you have already seen on your excel sheet
Behind my bastion pair when placed diagonally, it's 7 manticores/wyverns and a master of ordnance. Or all of my pre codex 2k army sans the Shadowsword and bastion occupants. Templates were the only thing preventing this from happening in 7th, it was *almost* as good then.
I'm not kidding when I say Loud Guard can wipe armies in 2 turns of shooting, because nothing can hurt them back if they really don't want it to
For me, playing your version of “loud Guard” I would be comfortable taking it against most lists, but, I’d have concerns vs certain lists though. For example, Space marine flyers would probably provide a massive threat to your manticores while remaining relatively “safe”. For example, a 210 point Xiphon would need the firepower of 3 cadian manticores to reliably kill it – whereas, it can then kill 1 manticore a turn on average. It’d take even more in order to kill a stormraven.
So, if you, for example, come up against 1 xiphon, 2 stormravens alongside a battalion of marines containing a few additional lascannons, a bit of plasma/grav and a handful of assault cannons, you’d be in a lot of trouble, simply because the flyers “should” be able to get into a position to draw line of site on the manticores with their movement. It’s also the kind of list that doesn’t need to worry about bubble wrap until everything in the backfield is dead and it becomes an objective grabbing game.
Of course, that list will probably struggle against other types of armies, but it then becomes all about transferring it into a TAC list once your opponent gets sick of bringing 6 manticores and watching them die Unless, of course, you're completely blocking the manticores into a corner with 2 bastions, so no LoS can be gotten at all - then you just have to hope they can't block up the buildings quickly/slap you for being a douche
That's the problem we want fixed you shouldn't be ostracized for playing guard but if its no fun to play against then your going to have no one to play with.
We all pay a fortune for the models and invest time in building and painting so when we put them on the table we want to play an actual game, not just remove them because the game was decided before it began.
Balance benefits everyone.
Here here. Beyond and above that, an abundance of players that no-one wants to play leads to a withered community, which starts a feedback loop that can destroy the ability to play with your expensive models.
Depends on the matchup, I'd still say DeathGuard+Some reserve points for demons+CSM is still the most capable army, to a point of being OP
This is quite likely the case; i'm waiting for a number of hardcore DG players to catch up on their projects so we can put both codexii through their paces. OP vs OP is where fun times are had after all. If GW is genuinely going to go through all the factions and OP them out of all proportion to their original index then, let the good times roll.
Sadly after 11 years I'm a bit lacking in the hope department.
This is quite likely the case; i'm waiting for a number of hardcore DG players to catch up on their projects so we can put both codexii through their paces. OP vs OP is where fun times are had after all. If GW is genuinely going to go through all the factions and OP them out of all proportion to their original index then, let the good times roll.
Sadly after 11 years I'm a bit lacking in the hope department.
This, i think, is what is causing the majority of people to be overly salty right now. It is an unfortunate by-product of the way GW are releasing things, and thus, will happen each time a new codex is released until we have them all – with one group of people being happy and the other group not.
If things “ARE” properly balanced as codex vs codex then, I do hope GW don’t do anything to drastic in the short term that then needs to be un-done in 6 months time.
But, as you said – not many people have much faith in GW’s record and idea of “play testing”.
That's the problem we want fixed you shouldn't be ostracized for playing guard but if its no fun to play against then your going to have no one to play with.
We all pay a fortune for the models and invest time in building and painting so when we put them on the table we want to play an actual game, not just remove them because the game was decided before it began.
Balance benefits everyone.
Here here. Beyond and above that, an abundance of players that no-one wants to play leads to a withered community, which starts a feedback loop that can destroy the ability to play with your expensive models.
Depends on the matchup, I'd still say DeathGuard+Some reserve points for demons+CSM is still the most capable army, to a point of being OP
This is quite likely the case; i'm waiting for a number of hardcore DG players to catch up on their projects so we can put both codexii through their paces. OP vs OP is where fun times are had after all. If GW is genuinely going to go through all the factions and OP them out of all proportion to their original index then, let the good times roll.
Sadly after 11 years I'm a bit lacking in the hope department.
I think this time it's a realistic expectation
Why?
Money, their market cap rose 400% once they started OPing stuff I don't see them stopping for exactly this reason
Of course, that list will probably struggle against other types of armies, but it then becomes all about transferring it into a TAC list once your opponent gets sick of bringing 6 manticores and watching them die Unless, of course, you're completely blocking the manticores into a corner with 2 bastions, so no LoS can be gotten at all - then you just have to hope they can't block up the buildings quickly/slap you for being a douche
I was in fact completely blocking the manticores in a corner with 2 bastions. T9 is a considerably different beast to t7/8 after all As it happens i've stopped doing this outside of coaching other people's tournament armies because, after 3 knights dead in one turn to miracle dice it is, as you've pointed out, not particularly interesting until 10k+ games when the titans come out to play.
It is appallingly powerful though, the only thing that came close to killing this iteration of the concept was 3 storm raven 5 grand master babywalker GK, and that was when I still took SM scouts for deep strike spoilers. I'm looking forward to an opponent who wouldn't be soured from the game to try it out with codex power, but I may be waiting a while.
Of course, that list will probably struggle against other types of armies, but it then becomes all about transferring it into a TAC list once your opponent gets sick of bringing 6 manticores and watching them die Unless, of course, you're completely blocking the manticores into a corner with 2 bastions, so no LoS can be gotten at all - then you just have to hope they can't block up the buildings quickly/slap you for being a douche
I was in fact completely blocking the manticores in a corner with 2 bastions. T9 is a considerably different beast to t7/8 after all As it happens i've stopped doing this outside of coaching other people's tournament armies because, after 3 knights dead in one turn to miracle dice it is, as you've pointed out, not particularly interesting until 10k+ games when the titans come out to play.
It is appallingly powerful though, the only thing that came close to killing this iteration of the concept was 3 storm raven 5 grand master babywalker GK, and that was when I still took SM scouts for deep strike spoilers. I'm looking forward to an opponent who wouldn't be soured from the game to try it out with codex power, but I may be waiting a while.
Somehow i managed to turn "blow up" into "block up"... lol...
Personally, i think people NEED to try to fight against lists like this - and if they fail to win, attempt to build something that can beat it.. Rather than just complain all the time, mainly for a few reasons -
1. You yourself learn and upon winning have a sense of achieving something. Yes, it might be annoying and disheartening for the first few losses, but it also provides a challenge and something to focus on. It also opens you up to looking at units you might previously have through are rubbish, or allow you to better understand your army/new synergies and combos.
2. If you can then reliably beat that army over several mission styles, others then start to become more open to playing “unbeatable” armies, instead of just refusing “just because…”.
3. It then forces the player with the crazy list to adapt themselves and change what they are doing. Sure, they might come up with an even worse list, but you then get another challenge, and yet more satisfaction for being the guy that beats the cheesiest/more waac guy in your meta. Definite gloating rights, right there
Personally, i think people NEED to try to fight against lists like this - and if they fail to win, attempt to build something that can beat it.. Rather than just complain all the time, mainly for a few reasons -
1. You yourself learn and upon winning have a sense of achieving something. Yes, it might be annoying and disheartening for the first few losses, but it also provides a challenge and something to focus on. It also opens you up to looking at units you might previously have through are rubbish, or allow you to better understand your army/new synergies and combos.
2. If you can then reliably beat that army over several mission styles, others then start to become more open to playing “unbeatable” armies, instead of just refusing “just because…”.
3. It then forces the player with the crazy list to adapt themselves and change what they are doing. Sure, they might come up with an even worse list, but you then get another challenge, and yet more satisfaction for being the guy that beats the cheesiest/more waac guy in your meta. Definite gloating rights, right there
This and this and more this entirely. Sadly in my case since my playtime is highly variable I can't take the risk of putting folks off as most/all of my games these days are pickup.
If you're ever heading to Glasgow with your doods give me a ding; we should totally roll some dice one day
I still think we should have gotten rid of conscripts. But it's actually the commissars that are the real problem with the summary execution rule. It might be sacrilege but maybe that rule needs to go. Removing it and leaving it all up to aura of discipline to hold the line might be a lot fairer.
Klowny wrote: No index army is complaining that its not fair a codex army is stronger than their index, thats a silly argument.
malamis wrote: If GW is genuinely going to go through all the factions and OP them out of all proportion to their original index then, let the good times roll.
You guys really need to realize that some armies are going to be stuck with index until next edition (or a WDex).
I mean, of course there are lists that aren't utterly dominant. Most OG IG players even have the models for these average lists. Like a Chimera Mechanized Infantry list, which is a pretty average list in power. Any weakness patch is up with a arty piece or two.
But... no one is going to play them... because those IG players also have models for the good lists... and the new IG players aren't going to play them...
Personally, i think people NEED to try to fight against lists like this - and if they fail to win, attempt to build something that can beat it.. Rather than just complain all the time, mainly for a few reasons -
1. You yourself learn and upon winning have a sense of achieving something. Yes, it might be annoying and disheartening for the first few losses, but it also provides a challenge and something to focus on. It also opens you up to looking at units you might previously have through are rubbish, or allow you to better understand your army/new synergies and combos.
2. If you can then reliably beat that army over several mission styles, others then start to become more open to playing “unbeatable” armies, instead of just refusing “just because…”.
3. It then forces the player with the crazy list to adapt themselves and change what they are doing. Sure, they might come up with an even worse list, but you then get another challenge, and yet more satisfaction for being the guy that beats the cheesiest/more waac guy in your meta. Definite gloating rights, right there
This and this and more this entirely. Sadly in my case since my playtime is highly variable I can't take the risk of putting folks off as most/all of my games these days are pickup.
If you're ever heading to Glasgow with your doods give me a ding; we should totally roll some dice one day
I'm sure i could prob sort something out Glasgow wise, but it'd have to wait til next year now though. Essentially i'm in a work and "build and prep" stage ready for the LCO in January. Was planning on a couple of events next month, but somehow i don't think i'll be ready
SilverAlien wrote: Let's list off some questions now that we have the "full picture".
Are we now allowed to wonder why the shadowsword can kill 200 points of enemy tanks every turn despite costing only 500ish itself and being quite durable? What about conscripts still being absurdly hard to kill in a single turn without spending 3-4 times as much on a glass cannon counter unit? Or should we "wait for the meta to settle"
Please, could some guard players explain to me how a sturdy tank that's very hard to kill should have the firepower to easily make its points back, yet we need glass cannon units to have that same sort of point efficiency versus conscripts, I'm curious.
Because that's how a defensive screen should be. If the defensive barricade was easy to destroy without significant commitment, it wouldn't be any good.
If a list fields 100-150 conscripts, that's almost 500 points [481]. Your entire army can devote itself to eliminating them in a singe round, or you can devote fewer units to it to take a chunk out of them for a few turns while also engaging the supporting assets.
Other "survivable" units are at similar ranges of resilience. A Rhino, for example, at 72 points, takes on average 4 Lascannon/Missile Launcher teams to eliminate in a single round, totaling up to 312 points, or about 4x it's cost.
Klowny wrote: No index army is complaining that its not fair a codex army is stronger than their index, thats a silly argument.
malamis wrote: If GW is genuinely going to go through all the factions and OP them out of all proportion to their original index then, let the good times roll.
You guys really need to realize that some armies are going to be stuck with index until next edition (or a WDex).
Yep - the attitude of "screw you I have my Codex, wait for months years or even never for your own Codex update is never helpful."
Klowny wrote: No index army is complaining that its not fair a codex army is stronger than their index, thats a silly argument.
malamis wrote: If GW is genuinely going to go through all the factions and OP them out of all proportion to their original index then, let the good times roll.
You guys really need to realize that some armies are going to be stuck with index until next edition (or a WDex).
Yep - the attitude of "screw you I have my Codex, wait for months years or even never for your own Codex update is never helpful."
Orks could be potentially waiting upwards of 6 months... so I guess I just don;t play for half a year then -_-
lolman1c wrote: Orks could be potentially waiting upwards of 6 months... so I guess I just don;t play for half a year then -_-
Or just play with people who are nice? Terrain, scenarios, lists. There are lots of things that can be done to address balance by discussing before the game. One of the most fun games I ever had was where we put a road across the map and I had to get a convoy through whilst daemons deep struck on every side. I think I got a Chimera off and technically won, although it was a pyrrhic victory.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Other "survivable" units are at similar ranges of resilience. A Rhino, for example, at 72 points, takes on average 4 Lascannon/Missile Launcher teams to eliminate in a single round, totaling up to 312 points, or about 4x it's cost.
But they're Rhinos, and that means they're Marine units, and as we all know, Marine units can never be overpowered.
SilverAlien wrote: Let's list off some questions now that we have the "full picture".
Are we now allowed to wonder why the shadowsword can kill 200 points of enemy tanks every turn despite costing only 500ish itself and being quite durable? What about conscripts still being absurdly hard to kill in a single turn without spending 3-4 times as much on a glass cannon counter unit? Or should we "wait for the meta to settle"
Please, could some guard players explain to me how a sturdy tank that's very hard to kill should have the firepower to easily make its points back, yet we need glass cannon units to have that same sort of point efficiency versus conscripts, I'm curious.
Because that's how a defensive screen should be. If the defensive barricade was easy to destroy without significant commitment, it wouldn't be any good.
If a list fields 100-150 conscripts, that's almost 500 points [481]. Your entire army can devote itself to eliminating them in a singe round, or you can devote fewer units to it to take a chunk out of them for a few turns while also engaging the supporting assets.
Other "survivable" units are at similar ranges of resilience. A Rhino, for example, at 72 points, takes on average 4 Lascannon/Missile Launcher teams to eliminate in a single round, totaling up to 312 points, or about 4x it's cost.
I haven't seen any Ultramarine armies fielding rhino screens as of yet.
There is a lot of denial about guard. They are undoubtably the strongest codex. If all subsequent codex come out at this strength, it would be distinctly unfair to anyone playing the preceding codex, and if you think this is a likely result, you don’t know gw
The best we can hope for is for them to tone down conscripts, again, artillery some (minus one to hit units you can’t see), and probably russes a bit
stratigo wrote: There is a lot of denial about guard. They are undoubtably the strongest codex. If all subsequent codex come out at this strength, it would be distinctly unfair to anyone playing the preceding codex, and if you think this is a likely result, you don’t know gw
The best we can hope for is for them to tone down conscripts, again, artillery some (minus one to hit units you can’t see), and probably russes a bit
I also think there is a lot of over the top screaming about the guard codex as well. Sure, it’s strong now that it has added stratagems and doctrines, but, can builds from the previous codices still match up to the vast majority of “op” guard lists? I think there are builds that can. It might take people some time to play test them and make them successful, but they are there – especially in a mission scenario.
I’ve asked several times now across a few threads, for those that are super butthurt about the codex to draft up some viable “unbeatable” 2k point pure guard armies for us to consider – but I am still waiting. Until we get one, we can’t discuss ways and builds to beat it (and no – I’m not going to be the one creating the lists to discuss, cos I’m not overly bothered right now and I don’t even have a Guard army).
Once we have some lists we can first look at the other codices and some of the index armies a well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NenkotaMoon wrote: So what would be the OK list then for IG. Nothing I guess. Well, moving from this community to Bolt Action.
Would you rather face standard Dark Eldar, or even Dark Eldar Ynnari? Or Dakkabot + Cawl spam? How about horror spam with all the extras (which is still winning tournaments btw)? What about Tau commander spam?
Taking 3 spearheads of Leman Russ tanks is probably going to suck massively, despite getting to shoot twice if they move <5". Running 3 super heavies are going to run into the same problem as Knight lists vs anyone that knows it is coming. Mass Scion plasma spam is now pretty expensive and they are still a suicide unit (88 points for a 4 man plasma squad + commander tax) that isn't likely to carry a game for you just on your own if you spam it.
it is harder now, to make an army with Guard that isn't somewhat reasonable in a fair amount of circumstances, but there are still things you can do with most of the other armies as well.
stratigo wrote: There is a lot of denial about guard. They are undoubtably the strongest codex. If all subsequent codex come out at this strength, it would be distinctly unfair to anyone playing the preceding codex, and if you think this is a likely result, you don’t know gw
The best we can hope for is for them to tone down conscripts, again, artillery some (minus one to hit units you can’t see), and probably russes a bit
Yeah remember 6th we had chaos and dark angels come out roughly equal in power gave us hope for balance, then tau and eldar came and fekked up everything.
My assessment is that there are absolutely combinations within the IG codex that can be super obnoxious. If I were to change a few things, it would be:
1) A blanket rule that disallows stratagems that don't specifically call out Titanic units and psychic power buffs in general from being used on friendly Titanic units. Just like Death stars or "Titan on a Skyshield" lists from 7th, when a unit gets too big it becomes problematic to balance. The Knight stratagems in the admech codex were perfect for this. The stratagems that the Baneblades have access to are way too permissive - being able to spend the same number of cp to boost the save of an infantry squad from 5+ to 4+ and the save of a 26 wound superheavy from 3+ to 2+ is just dumb.
2) Make the Take Cover stratagem Infantry only for mork's sake. 1cp to allow a SHV to Take Cover is just stupid.
3) Bump conscripts to 4ppm.
4) Bump the cost of the Hellhound up. 2d6 on the big flamer feels good, about as destructive as a super-flamer tank should feel, but it's just too powerful for its point cost. The Bane Wolf and Devil Dog seem just fine/slightly underpowered maybe, so I would add the cost to the Inferno Cannon specifically.
We had several old IG players turn up to test-run the codex, and in general, everything went pretty well. 2 games were kind of stompy - one with a dedicated tournament player who wanted to see how his current Conscript SPam+Plasma Scion tournament list fared getting matched with a pretty non-competitive opponent, and one player running a super-buffed up Shadowsword with Cadian doctrines. The other three games were losses for the IG, against lists and armies I was worried might have problems fighting them, so that was good to see.
The more I think about how to fix the commissar/conscript issue, the more I think that maybe Summary Execution just doesn't need to exist. Couldn't you just, in both narrative and mechanical terms, subsume any Guard killed by the Commissar to stop the others running away into the guys you lose due to a failed Morale check? Also, it makes sense the Commissar would have more trouble controlling a larger unit. Maybe bump Commissars' Ld up to make them a bit more effective without the need for SumEx?
Nazrak wrote: The more I think about how to fix the commissar/conscript issue, the more I think that maybe Summary Execution just doesn't need to exist. Couldn't you just, in both narrative and mechanical terms, subsume any Guard killed by the Commissar to stop the others running away into the guys you lose due to a failed Morale check? Also, it makes sense the Commissar would have more trouble controlling a larger unit. Maybe bump Commissars' Ld up to make them a bit more effective without the need for SumEx?
Yes, this! Thank you! I said this earlier somewhere. It might seem like sacrilege but summery execution needs to go. I resisted it before but I'm converted now.
It works fluff wise too. If the commissar succeeded in turning a loss of 5 to morale into 2, you could simply say he blew away 2 to make an example, and those 3 who would have also fled now get a sudden burst of inspiration having seen the commissars wrath first hand.
The thing with Commissars is that they went from zero to hero due to the fact that they can now affect multiple units. If I remember, last edition they only affected the unit they joined, effectively becoming a very expensive "Morale insurance" upgrade to an otherwise cheap unit.
Maybe make it so that each Commissar can only activate Summary execution once per turn?
Nazrak wrote: The more I think about how to fix the commissar/conscript issue, the more I think that maybe Summary Execution just doesn't need to exist. Couldn't you just, in both narrative and mechanical terms, subsume any Guard killed by the Commissar to stop the others running away into the guys you lose due to a failed Morale check? Also, it makes sense the Commissar would have more trouble controlling a larger unit. Maybe bump Commissars' Ld up to make them a bit more effective without the need for SumEx?
This could also work, but also doesn't fix the general problem with morale-immune hordes existing. Unless you fix the underlying mechanical issues (the way objectives are scored, the existence of the universal auto-pass stratagem, the way obsec works in 8th, etc) you could have another unit become undercosted and hyper-efficient just as easily.
I'd honestly rather see SumEx stay the way it is because I like the way it interacts with almost every other IG unit (i.e, generally saves you 1-2 casualties but rarely more than that) and see a second nerf to conscripts.
The advantage they have being able to stack a unit up to 30 makes them more than comparable to regular IG per model. They should be 4ppm, period.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: The thing with Commissars is that they went from zero to hero due to the fact that they can now affect multiple units. If I remember, last edition they only affected the unit they joined, effectively becoming a very expensive "Morale insurance" upgrade to an otherwise cheap unit.
Don't forget though - last edition you could also merge units. So, whilst a Commissar could only be attached on one unit, that one unit could be up to 5 infantry squads.
Even then, I rarely ever saw Commissars used - everyone just took Priests and got Fearless instead.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: Maybe make it so that each Commissar can only activate Summary execution once per turn?
You might as well just say 'Summary Execution only affects Conscripts'. It amounts to the same thing.
And then you'll never see conscripts because Infantry Squads are then better in every way. They shoot better, they fight better, they have better morale, they have the option of special/heavy weapons if needed. The only negative trait Infantry Squads have over Conscripts if they cost the same would be that they can't be in 20-30 man units, but with how cheap guard are, you can get those bodies easily.
If you cost Conscripts the same as Infantry Squads, there's no point in taking them, but if you can't really cost Infantry Squads up, because they're pretty balanced.
Maybe make it so Conscripts lose two/three guardsmen as a result of Summary Execution, or just ditch Summary Execution.
And then you'll never see conscripts because Infantry Squads are then better in every way. They shoot better, they fight better, they have better morale, they have the option of special/heavy weapons if needed. The only negative trait Infantry Squads have over Conscripts if they cost the same would be that they can't be in 20-30 man units, but with how cheap guard are, you can get those bodies easily.
If you cost Conscripts the same as Infantry Squads, there's no point in taking them, but if you can't really cost Infantry Squads up, because they're pretty balanced.
Maybe make it so Conscripts lose two/three guardsmen as a result of Summary Execution, or just ditch Summary Execution.
And I agree with you. Totally serious. There is zero need for them in the game, least of all for Guard. They have normal Guardsmen that are doing the expendable bubblewrap just fine. Conscripts are just being picked because they do it even better as they're cheaper.
And I agree with you. Totally serious. There is zero need for them in the game, least of all for Guard. They have normal Guardsmen that are doing the expendable bubblewrap just fine. Conscripts are just being picked because they do it even better as they're cheaper.
Seems like a good way to make a fluffy Cadian 8th collector cry. Conscripts are an intrinsic part of the IG lore, as many regiments use hordes of cheap, poorly trained troops to throw into the meat grinder. Just because their current balance is off is no reason to go to extreme measures. They were fine before 8th hit and now they should just be scrapped after a few months? I think a tweak to summary execution could go a long way to help. Maybe, instead of a blanket "only 1 casualty" it could work like a save? Say, for most squads you get a 2+ save against moral casualties but for conscripts it is a 4+ due to them needing more persuading?
And then you'll never see conscripts because Infantry Squads are then better in every way. They shoot better, they fight better, they have better morale, they have the option of special/heavy weapons if needed. The only negative trait Infantry Squads have over Conscripts if they cost the same would be that they can't be in 20-30 man units, but with how cheap guard are, you can get those bodies easily.
If you cost Conscripts the same as Infantry Squads, there's no point in taking them, but if you can't really cost Infantry Squads up, because they're pretty balanced.
Maybe make it so Conscripts lose two/three guardsmen as a result of Summary Execution, or just ditch Summary Execution.
That's not at all true. A conscript is a guard squad you can get to 30 models. Given the way stratagems, unit buffs, the newly buffed orders, and psychic powers work, that's an enormous advantage over a 10-model squad you can spend a CP to make a 20-model squad.
It has been shown multiple times that conscripts for 4ppm are still on par with or superior to every other competing chaff option (Cultists, Gants, Grots, Kroot, etc). That's precisely because of the power and flexibility of the buffs available to them, along with (for a chaff model) a very decent basic kit/statline.
Infantry squads will not replace conscripts as long as conscripts can be 30-strong.
I'd be reluctant to get rid of Conscripts completely; I think they have a place in the background and I think taking away people's options in their armies should be avoided where possible.
But as for the points thing, if GsC Acolytes are 5ppm/PL5, why not the same for Guardsmen? Then make Conscripts 4/PL4, and then also they're not the same price as Gretchin, while being better at EVERYTHING.
1) getting rid of conscripts would be fine IFF
2) they allowed the Combined Squads or whatever stratagem to be used before the game started, so IG infantry squads could /start/ the game at 30 men, instead of having to spend 1 CP turn one to become 1 20 and 2 10 and then 1 CP turn 2 to finally become 30 (now that they've been shot back down to 20 again lol).
In my opinion, Combined Squads is not intended to give you large blocks of troops to buff. It is intended to save you kill points by merging the remaining lascannon and sergeant from one squad into another. Using it to combine squads just for getting orders would be a waste of precious command points. With all of the stratagems IG now get, using up 6+ before the battle would be a waste. Better spending them on all of the +1 saves and such that you need.
I wonder if you scaled flamer weapons similarly to the Demolisher cannon, where the larger the squad is the more shots it potentially generates.
Something like at <10 1d6, 10-20 2D6, 20< 3D6 might provide a counter to the horde armies. You could apply something like that to numerous weapons are are supposed to be anti-horde.
The problem here would be Ork/Nid armies that are already not top tier being hit badly by a change like this also.
Honestly though I kind of wish they had just removed Conscripts, I think the complaining about them is a bit missing the forest for the trees since normal Infantry are very close to being as good. They're not quite there but are close and when you factor in Commissar vulnerability may eventually become better if more ways to pick out characters becomes more common.
I played my first game against Codex-based Imperial Guard tonight. It was 3,000 points.
OH. MY. GOD.
It is, if anything, more powerful than anyone here has said.
His list was not cheese - He brought Plasma Russes, as many regular Guardsmen as he had Conscripts (60 of each), Heavy Weapons Teams with Mortars, and Scout Sentinels alongside his Manticores, the anti-tank Baneblade Variant, some Elysians, and a few other bits and bobs.
I brought just about the hardest list I could think of with Space Marines, going with a Guilliman-centric artillery line, Celestine, Dominions, and Bikes backed by a Chapter Master with a fethload of plasma.
Due to a slightly bad roll, he got first turn. (Then again, it's not a crazy bad roll, just a 1/3rd chance - Pretty common, overall.)
He then proceeded to wreck around 3/5ths of my army in a single shooting phase.
Just to be clear - Everything in my army had cover. We had enough terrain. (I couldn't completely block my tanks/artillery off from Line of Sight, mainly because that would have weakened me while not doing anything to stop his Manticores.)
The problem was that he had way more drops than me, letting him counter-deploy everything I put down, and he had enough firepower to just blow me off the board.
In one phase, he completely killed 1,324 points of models (Battlescribe makes this really easy to check, I wasn't obsessively counting mid-game), on top of damaging to one extent or another damage every vehicle in my army except for my Repressor.
Oh, and it gets worse - This is despite the fact that he *forgot to Deep Strike his Elysians*, which would have amounted to another 27 Plasma shots.
Even if I'd gotten first turn, it wouldn't nearly have been enough. I could probably have killed his Leman Russes with average dice, and killed a good number of Conscripts and Guardsmen, but I wouldn't have been able to kill enough to matter - Getting into Rapid Fire range with my bike Plasma wouldn't really have been viable until his screens were dead (Meaning until turn 2-3), same would my Fusion Pistols on the Seraphim I brought to work with Celestine. The Elysians he had sitting in reserve would have more than compensated for the loss.
So, in summary: His army was not seriously optimized, mine was close to as strong as I can get it without just changing armies, and I didn't even come close. Hell, I didn't even come close to coming close. I would have been lucky to survive turn 2, since he'd killed all of my most durable units on turn 1, leaving mostly buff characters, damaged Dreadnoughts, and random little things lying around.
I would have needed first turn, really great dice on my attacks, lucky charge rolls, AND for him to have a really suboptimal turn one. If he'd brought an actual Tournament list, I wouldn't have had a prayer.
Waaaghpower wrote: I played my first game against Codex-based Imperial Guard tonight. It was 3,000 points.
SNIP...
But you haven't waited for the meta to settle?
There is serious balance issues with the codex and not much will change that I'm afraid. For the time being, they are the codex to beat and expect optimised lists to be tabling armies in 2 turns. New definition of leaf-blower lists.
Never thought I'd say this, but hopefully future releases will power-creep and be on par with IG to at least provide a level playing field (sorry if you've already got a codex released! Including myself, Death Guard sadly)
Waaaghpower wrote: I played my first game against Codex-based Imperial Guard tonight. It was 3,000 points.
SNIP...
But you haven't waited for the meta to settle?
There is serious balance issues with the codex and not much will change that I'm afraid. For the time being, they are the codex to beat and expect optimised lists to be tabling armies in 2 turns. New definition of leaf-blower lists.
Never thought I'd say this, but hopefully future releases will power-creep and be on par with IG to at least provide a level playing field (sorry if you've already got a codex released! Including myself, Death Guard sadly)
I'd agree with your sentiment, but there's a problem that would present aside from the general issue of 'Old codices are worse off':
Guardsmen can already kill enemy armies in two turns. (Pure guard, too, no soup. In case I didn't mention that! He wasn't playing ANY soup.)
What happens when someone's army gets STRONGER?
Like, first turn advantage for guard is already massive - If I get it, it's a close game that's an uphill battle. If he gets it, it's a trounce.
So what happens when someone can bring even more firepower than Imperial Guard currently can?
The other option is either to make everyone a lot more durable - Decreasing unit cost doesn't help, because cheaper units also means more guns and more leafblowing. But currently, the only way to make stuff more durable is with strategems, psychic power buffs, and re-rolls. Which is the kind of crap that made 7th edition a complete slog to try and play through. Do you want that?
I didn't think so.
Initially, I was lamenting that my Death Korps infantry cost 5 points per model instead of 4, as they have no real advantages over guardsmen with doctrines (as their rules are ~a doctrine but they cost 1 pt more and they cannot take heavy weapons), but now I think it's pretty cool not being as broken.
In terms of conscripts being removed, i don't think that is necessary.
However, if they continue to prove to be a problem in the next month or so, then, i'd be happy to have them go back to the 0-1 unit restriction they were previously.
Stops the spam and keeps them as part of the game.
I think that the best fix for conscripts is limiting the executions to one per turn. This way the previous conscript nerf becomes a real nerf.
It reinforces the idea that they are a meat wall but are a constant issue to keep in line.
Waaaghpower wrote: I played my first game against Codex-based Imperial Guard tonight. It was 3,000 points.
OH. MY. GOD.
So which part would you say was the problem? Clearly conscripts and guardsmen didn't really come into play here, they do virtually no damage at 24" with their flashlights - was it the superheavy, the Manticores, the Leman Russes? Which regiment did he play?
Seems like a good way to make a fluffy Cadian 8th collector cry. Conscripts are an intrinsic part of the IG lore, as many regiments use hordes of cheap, poorly trained troops to throw into the meat grinder. Just because their current balance is off is no reason to go to extreme measures. They were fine before 8th hit and now they should just be scrapped after a few months? I think a tweak to summary execution could go a long way to help. Maybe, instead of a blanket "only 1 casualty" it could work like a save? Say, for most squads you get a 2+ save against moral casualties but for conscripts it is a 4+ due to them needing more persuading?
True, but Cadian Kasrkin used to be a thing as well, and they were still ditched. And again, look at all the rules you need to have in order to make conscripts fair. Final answer, I say get rid of them. And get rid of summary execution as well. Aura of discipline only. This would help address the wall of unbreakable bubble wraps.
I'd kill to use a psychic power more than once per turn... Oh what's that you can do the same order multiple times per turn? I can't even cast hammerhand or sanctuary more than once per.
Quickjager wrote: I'd kill to use a psychic power more than once per turn... Oh what's that you can do the same order multiple times per turn? I can't even cast hammerhand or sanctuary more than once per.
The ways of the warp-spawned mutant amount to nothing when compared with the strength of the human spirit.
Quickjager wrote: I'd kill to use a psychic power more than once per turn... Oh what's that you can do the same order multiple times per turn? I can't even cast hammerhand or sanctuary more than once per.
"Sorry, sir, I can't order my men to Fire on my Target. Sergeant Baggs already gave that order to his men and I don't want to look like a copycat now, do I? I mean, I wanted to issue my order first, but he called dibs. Normally, I'd go with Bring it Down instead, but Captain Perkins beat me to it by a hair."
Quickjager wrote: I'd kill to use a psychic power more than once per turn... Oh what's that you can do the same order multiple times per turn? I can't even cast hammerhand or sanctuary more than once per.
You can also fire the same weapons more than once per turn, and you can also use multiple of the same buffing unit to buff up different parts of your army.
It's almost like rules don't always have to have the same restrictions on them?
Waaaghpower wrote: I played my first game against Codex-based Imperial Guard tonight. It was 3,000 points.
OH. MY. GOD.
So which part would you say was the problem? Clearly conscripts and guardsmen didn't really come into play here, they do virtually no damage at 24" with their flashlights - was it the superheavy, the Manticores, the Leman Russes? Which regiment did he play?
The entire codex simply suffers from being to cheap.
Most stuff should cost more points.
The usual conscripts/mortars/Taurox/ect are just the worst offenders.
Miscosted units ruin everything. Every time. For all the moaning about formations, only formations that gave free units or were made up of already miscosted units mattered.
On behalf of all the Eldar players from 6th and 7th edition, please allow me to welcome you all to the club of "never able to find opponents to play against" and "constantly apologizing for units you don't even play"..........I would offer you a tissue for your tears, but we already used up all we had..........
DJ Illuminati wrote: On behalf of all the Eldar players from 6th and 7th edition, please allow me to welcome you all to the club of "never able to find opponents to play against" and "constantly apologizing for units you don't even play"..........I would offer you a tissue for your tears, but we already used up all we had..........
Bah, the Guard have been here before in 5th. I personally didn't find leafblower too bad but it still caused difficulties. Everything is cyclical.
The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again.
I am enjoying that the arguments I'm seeing are "just because guard is broken compared to the first five codices doesn't mean it's actually OP! Wait for the rest" or "just because guard has a ton of undercosted units doesn't actually make them good! Wait for the meta to settle!"
Hilarious. Always some excuse hardcore defenders give for their cheese fest.
Waaaghpower wrote: I played my first game against Codex-based Imperial Guard tonight. It was 3,000 points.
OH. MY. GOD.
So which part would you say was the problem? Clearly conscripts and guardsmen didn't really come into play here, they do virtually no damage at 24" with their flashlights - was it the superheavy, the Manticores, the Leman Russes? Which regiment did he play?
Guardsmen with just lasguns using FRFSRF are probably the most cost effective way to kill light infantry in the game. I'm not joking, they kick the crap out of flamers. They are just so cheap, 110 points for 40-80 str 3 shots at 4+ is an absolute steal.
2017/10/11 17:05:33 Subject: Now that the imperial guard codex is out...
I am enjoying that the arguments I'm seeing are "just because guard is broken compared to the first five codices doesn't mean it's actually OP! Wait for the rest" or "just because guard has a ton of undercosted units doesn't actually make them good! Wait for the meta to settle!"
I would not be nearly as upset of they had shown even a small amount of love to Grey Knights, of my two armies I play Grey Knights got a really lame codex, and the Eldar index felt like the nerfbat was being swung due to Internet hyperbole and they just kept swinging that bat past the point of being competitive and we'll into nearly unplayable, I fully expect the Eldar codex to either be worthless like the index, or they swing the other way and make it even more broken than AM.......either way I am not looking forward to the new codex especially, GW has shown that they have no idea how to make balanced and fair codexes.........
2017/10/11 17:05:33 Subject: Now that the imperial guard codex is out...
I am enjoying that the arguments I'm seeing are "just because guard is broken compared to the first five codices doesn't mean it's actually OP! Wait for the rest" or "just because guard has a ton of undercosted units doesn't actually make them good! Wait for the meta to settle!"
I would not be nearly as upset of they had shown even a small amount of love to Grey Knights, of my two armies I play Grey Knights got a really lame codex, and the Eldar index felt like the nerfbat was being swung due to Internet hyperbole and they just kept swinging that bat past the point of being competitive and we'll into nearly unplayable, I fully expect the Eldar codex to either be worthless like the index, or they swing the other way and make it even more broken than AM.......either way I am not looking forward to the new codex especially, GW has shown that they have no idea how to make balanced and fair codexes.........
Craftworlds (and, to some degree DE and Harlequins - although its less significant) have been doomed by Ynnari.
Strength from death remains as game breaking as it was in 7th. The solution was to gimp Eldar stats to points.
Which makes regular CE suck. Barring a major re-write I don't see that changing.
Waaaghpower wrote: I played my first game against Codex-based Imperial Guard tonight. It was 3,000 points.
OH. MY. GOD.
So which part would you say was the problem? Clearly conscripts and guardsmen didn't really come into play here, they do virtually no damage at 24" with their flashlights - was it the superheavy, the Manticores, the Leman Russes? Which regiment did he play?
Well, the Conscripts and Guardsmen WOULD have come into play, had I gotten first turn turn - I would have had to pump a ton of firepower into them to get a half-decent chance of being able to assault even one of his tanks. Thanks to his conscripts and guardsmen, even if I *had* gotten turn 1, it wouldn't have mattered.
He had the regiment that gives re-rolls on number of shots for his Manticores, and Cadians on just about everything else. (Except a small detachment of Elysians he forgot to use.)
EVERYTHING he had was overpowered, except maybe the Scout Sentinels. (Simply because the Sentinels didn't have anything to do the whole game.)
I will take a stab at devils advocate, even though I see quite a bit of cheese in the codex imo.
Guard cannot hold objectives, and they will drag turns out since they amount of dice rolling is a bit appalling. What that means is the heavy hitting fast moving compact forces can still win.
Yeah you have conscripts packed on that objective, but your giant ass army has gobbled up two turns in 2.5 hours. If I'm going second that means I can remove those models easily (They are conscripts) and take the objective. Next match.
Guard suffer from the same issue as Tau, their BS is garbage. For vehicles I see too many people focus on KILLING tanks instead of just gimping tanks. That short moving, terrible shooting tank is a non-factor when you strip wounds off it. (And guard don't have marker lights, ha!)
Finally, I'm not sure why people are still worried about conscripts, CRUSH them. Take some anti hoard weapons instead of plasma guns in your army. Way too many people focus on, "This plasma gun is great against terminators and vehicles so I'm going to only take it." Take units with flame throwers, frag, and pistols, charge up the table and pin that wimpy unit in combat. (Get behind them so they cannot fall back.) Nearly every army has a turn one/two charge unit, USE THEM.
A well balanced guard list is really hard to beat. Conscript spam or scion spam is not.
Every weapon your fire at conscripts puts the IG player further and further ahead. They want you to CRUSH them. That means you aren't crushing something actually valuable. IT's a lose/lose proposition for IG opponents.
sfshilo wrote: Finally, I'm not sure why people are still worried about conscripts, CRUSH them. Take some anti hoard weapons instead of plasma guns in your army. Way too many people focus on, "This plasma gun is great against terminators and vehicles so I'm going to only take it." Take units with flame throwers, frag, and pistols, charge up the table and pin that wimpy unit in combat. (Get behind them so they cannot fall back.) Nearly every army has a turn one/two charge unit, USE THEM.
Check the math on those anti-horde options. The vast majority do not favor the player trying to kill the conscripts. Not to say that you should not take any of those weapons, but the reason why conscripts are so good is because the hard counter weapons do not do their job well enough. You end up spending way more pts than you should just trying to take out the conscripts while the meat of the AM army is killing you. Even as many as 150 conscripts with support still only represent ~25% of a full 2000 pt army. The rest of the points can be poured into pure shooting units like tanks, heavy weapons teams, artillery etc, and guard has some of the most efficient options in this category as well.
Check the math on those anti-horde options. The vast majority do not favor the player trying to kill the conscripts. Not to say that you should not take any of those weapons, but the reason why conscripts are so good is because the hard counter weapons do not do their job well enough. You end up spending way more pts than you should just trying to take out the conscripts while the meat of the AM army is killing you. Even as many as 150 conscripts with support still only represent ~25% of a full 2000 pt army. The rest of the points can be poured into pure shooting units like tanks, heavy weapons teams, artillery etc, and guard has some of the most efficient options in this category as well.
The main problem is volume of fire. As a small elite army you'll just never have the volume of fire to match conscript spam. There aren't any weapons that do enough shots, which is why they should make stuff like barrage weapons scale with the number of models in the target unit.
sfshilo wrote: I will take a stab at devils advocate, even though I see quite a bit of cheese in the codex imo.
Guard cannot hold objectives, and they will drag turns out since they amount of dice rolling is a bit appalling. What that means is the heavy hitting fast moving compact forces can still win.
Yeah you have conscripts packed on that objective, but your giant ass army has gobbled up two turns in 2.5 hours. If I'm going second that means I can remove those models easily (They are conscripts) and take the objective. Next match.
Guard suffer from the same issue as Tau, their BS is garbage. For vehicles I see too many people focus on KILLING tanks instead of just gimping tanks. That short moving, terrible shooting tank is a non-factor when you strip wounds off it. (And guard don't have marker lights, ha!)
Finally, I'm not sure why people are still worried about conscripts, CRUSH them. Take some anti hoard weapons instead of plasma guns in your army. Way too many people focus on, "This plasma gun is great against terminators and vehicles so I'm going to only take it." Take units with flame throwers, frag, and pistols, charge up the table and pin that wimpy unit in combat. (Get behind them so they cannot fall back.) Nearly every army has a turn one/two charge unit, USE THEM.
A well balanced guard list is really hard to beat. Conscript spam or scion spam is not.
I think your underestimating the amount of firepower it takes to kill 20 conscripts.
It takes 54 Heavy Bolter (str5 ap -1) shots to kill 20 Conscripts for a Marine player (2/3 hit, 2/3 wound, 1/6 save)
43 Assault cannon shots.
68 bolter shots.
How much firepower do you have to remove a single conscript squad after Guard has been shooting you for 2 turns?
It's not really directed at you. I must admit, I was merely apprehensive about how the changes to flamers and blasts would play out, but now that I see the full glory of GW's error, I was FAR to reserved in my concern.
There need to be more guns with extra shots against big units. Flamers could be 2d6 vs 10+ models. Actually, I could see all of the old blast weapons getting a rule like that, such as the demolisher has. It would put them back in their old place of being the anti horde weapon of choice. Maybe make it 11+ so that all our fixed squads were not horribly annihilated and everyone just takes 9 model units when they can.
I think the changes to blasts and templates mattered less than the absence of AP.
Flamers will never hit more than 1-3 guys in older editions if they spread out (which they will, if you have flamers). Small blasts hit 1, mostly, and large blasts hit 3-5 or so depending on formation.
What has really changed, I think, is that conscripts now get their armour save against most everything (instead of not getting their armour save against most things).
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think the changes to blasts and templates mattered less than the absence of AP.
Flamers will never hit more than 1-3 guys in older editions if they spread out (which they will, if you have flamers). Small blasts hit 1, mostly, and large blasts hit 3-5 or so depending on formation.
What has really changed, I think, is that conscripts now get their armour save against most everything (instead of not getting their armour save against most things).
Maybe. Or maybe it's a synergistic combination of both, and the immunity to psychology and the virtual immunity to melee via the fallback mechanic.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think the changes to blasts and templates mattered less than the absence of AP.
Flamers will never hit more than 1-3 guys in older editions if they spread out (which they will, if you have flamers). Small blasts hit 1, mostly, and large blasts hit 3-5 or so depending on formation.
What has really changed, I think, is that conscripts now get their armour save against most everything (instead of not getting their armour save against most things).
Maybe. Or maybe it's a synergistic combination of both, and the immunity to psychology and the virtual immunity to melee via the fallback mechanic.
The Immunity to Psychology has existed since 2nd, IIRC. Certainly since 3rd.
And the immunity to Melee existed in 5th with the "Send in the Next Wave" iteration in that edition, where you just evaporated the conscripts then shot the enemy (and put the conscripts back somewhere else).
The biggest problem with this edition I think is allowing 1st Turn Charges. It forces gunline armies to turtle even harder than they used to do.
I don't think 1st turn charges has a thing to do with it. Even when 1st turn charges go off, they accomplish nothing because you can't lock anyone in CC to protect yourself from beta strike.
Martel732 wrote: I don't think 1st turn charges has a thing to do with it. Even when 1st turn charges go off, they accomplish nothing because you can't lock anyone in CC to protect yourself from beta strike.
Right! I think that is a symptom. I think GW allowed first turn charges, so gunline armies turtled, and everything devolved into "party at the turtling gunline" and an entire game, literally from the top of turn 1, of people caught in close combat.
So they just said "here's a way to get out of combat."
Maybe. Close combat outside of invisible death stars has been total trash for some time now, though. This is just a new and exciting way to make melee suck.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I think the changes to blasts and templates mattered less than the absence of AP.
Flamers will never hit more than 1-3 guys in older editions if they spread out (which they will, if you have flamers). Small blasts hit 1, mostly, and large blasts hit 3-5 or so depending on formation.
What has really changed, I think, is that conscripts now get their armour save against most everything (instead of not getting their armour save against most things).
The thing is, the fact that you had to space out was in itself quite a hard counter against hordes. At maximum coherency you were vastly increasing your footprint, lowering the amount of shots you get and weakening yourself in melee. Whilst removing templates has probably been a good move for ease of play, nothing has replaced their ability to influence how a horde is played. Now you can put so many bodies in such a small area that you can just overwhelm the enemy with bodies.
Martel732 wrote: From what I've seen, they don't start clumping until all the deep strikers are committed.
I used to ask my opponent if they had blasts. If they said no I knew I was going to have a much easier time. The sheer difference in rapid fire shots when spaced vs clumped made blasts so valuable for taking on hordes.
I won't be playing in tournaments until this is fixed. I will also refuse every game against imperial guard that comes up. Sorry. Your cheese army isn't fun to play against. Curb stomp someone else.
I will continue to play them like I would have in 7th edition, as in I won't gloat on a win and won't belittle them specifically for playing guard if I lose.
Marmatag wrote: I won't be playing in tournaments until this is fixed. I will also refuse every game against imperial guard that comes up. Sorry. Your cheese army isn't fun to play against. Curb stomp someone else.
Do you at least look at the lists before refusing? I know it is your right to refuse to play whomever you like, but I am just imagining a sad 60 year old with a super fluffy Steel Legion list that he is really excited to play. The person is far more important than the codex when it comes to a good game.
Martel732 wrote: They don't feel bad, trust me. They know EXACTLY what they are doing.
Which doesn't change the fact that you're suffering through 4 hours of doing something you don't like to attempt to make your opponent feel bad at the end it. Or...something else I'm missing.
It leaves one scratching their head as to what you're doing with your time.
Martel732 wrote: About as pleasant as playing it on my end. Except one takes 4 hours and one takes 20 seconds.
So you'd suffer through 4 hours of doing something you don't like just to make your opponent feel bad at the end of it?
Sounds delightful.
No, he meant it took 4 hours to lose to Eldar.
You lose to guard in about 20 seconds. (assuming they go first, and they roll dice with normal human speed).
Awesome, that means I'll get to win hundreds of times in 4 hours instead of only once!
If you subtract setup time, you should be winning your games in about 15-20 minutes if you go first. That's how long it should take before your opponent realizes he stands no chance.
Marmatag wrote: I won't be playing in tournaments until this is fixed. I will also refuse every game against imperial guard that comes up. Sorry. Your cheese army isn't fun to play against. Curb stomp someone else.
Do you at least look at the lists before refusing? I know it is your right to refuse to play whomever you like, but I am just imagining a sad 60 year old with a super fluffy Steel Legion list that he is really excited to play. The person is far more important than the codex when it comes to a good game.
I'm curt on the forums but i'm actually quite pleasant in real life. I would not hurt someone's feelings, but i'm also there for enjoyment. I can only play on the weekends with my life the way it is. I don't want to spend my time getting plunged by a broken army.
If you subtract setup time, you should be winning your games in about 15-20 minutes if you go first. That's how long it should take before your opponent realizes he stands no chance.
1) Normal guardsmen become 5pts per model putting them in line with every other infantry in terms of points per power
2) Conscripts points are increased 4pts per model
3) Hellhound inferno cannon cost increased from 20pts to 40pts (it was stupid it was ever this cheap with 16” range)
4) Basilisks and Manticores both increased in cost by 10pts
5) Leman Russ tanks become 10pts more to their original cost due to all the buffs they received.
6) Regimental tactics should only work on infantry and Leman Russ tanks similar to every unit (why are they the only army that can do this)
7) Commisars fearless aura can only work on 1 squad per turn. In addition, after killing a model add the following rule (if a commissar uses summary execution on unit has more than 10 models roll a D6. On a 3+ the summary execution restores faith in the emperor. If the roll is failed the commissar must execute another model to restore faith in the Emperor. Keep performing this test until the test is passed.
8) The +1 cover save strategem only works on infantry and must be used at the beginning of your opponents shooting phase
9) Heavy weapon teams cost increased to 8pts (the same as 2 conscript models under my pricing)
10) Baneblade variants all increased by 50pts due to all the buffs they recieved (why did they get massive buffs and reduced in cost?)
11) Scions in your detachment no longer make your detachmen regiment battleforged (it is this way for every other codex)
12) the relic and trait that return command points both work on a 6+ instead of a 5+
These changes would still result in the Astra Militarum being extremely powerful, but people would feel like they at least have a chance to beat them. Right now it feels like the Astra Militarum have about a 15-25% points advantage over other codexes. This makes them not undefeatable but very hard to win against in evenly match opponents and dice rolls.
Martel732 wrote: They don't feel bad, trust me. They know EXACTLY what they are doing.
You know, you really should just find better people to play against. Why would you play against people who are no fun?
Marmatag wrote: I'm curt on the forums but i'm actually quite pleasant in real life. I would not hurt someone's feelings, but i'm also there for enjoyment. I can only play on the weekends with my life the way it is. I don't want to spend my time getting plunged by a broken army.
Again, you really just need to find nice people to play against (not that I am implying you don't, how would I know?). The codex doesn't matter if the person using it is a good sport that you talk to about stuff before hand. I remember several different armies waxing and waning in power over the years. I know people who took all the advantages and were horrible to play against, so I just didn't. I have known some of the nicest people who could make a game so enjoyable to. An Eldar player I used to know was one of the best painters I have ever seen, and games were always enjoyable even at the height of Eldar OP-ness.
I know it is easy to make sweeping generalisations but it is really important to understand the person you are playing against and not assume that they are going to be a bad matchup just because the codex is broken or not. Hell, I've had some of the most fun games I have ever played against OP codexes, because we talked about it beforehand and played some fun mission we thought up to balance things. That Cadian gunline that someone has been lovingly painting for 15 years is OP now? Why not mix things up by playing a meat-grinder game where you keep respawning your Tyranids until you eventually drag them down. Make the mission that they have a certain amount of time until a VIP is rescued. They win? You can still continue until everything is yummy bio-paste.
My point is that two friendly players with a bit of compromise can have wonderful games no matter what the current codexes are. Tournaments are different of course, but they are their own thing.
Martel732 wrote: They don't feel bad, trust me. They know EXACTLY what they are doing.
You know, you really should just find better people to play against. Why would you play against people who are no fun?
Sometimes it's that or nothing, there's a limited pool of players in any given location. If you don't like the local meta, what are your other options? Don't play. Play but enjoy yourself less. Move?
Torga_DW wrote: Sometimes it's that or nothing, there's a limited pool of players in any given location. If you don't like the local meta, what are your other options? Don't play. Play but enjoy yourself less. Move?
True. I live between near two large cities and have loads of options for gaming. I sometimes forget how sparse other places can be.
I understand your sentiment but with limited game time i'd rather just avoid guard altogether. At least with Eldar it was easy to pluck out the OP stuff.
With Guard it's basically everything. And it's easier just to refuse games with them, than to come up with some crazy scenario where i don't get faced turn 1.
Marmatag wrote: I understand your sentiment but with limited game time i'd rather just avoid guard altogether. At least with Eldar it was easy to pluck out the OP stuff.
With Guard it's basically everything. And it's easier just to refuse games with them, than to come up with some crazy scenario where i don't get faced turn 1.
True. If given the choice it is far easier to just play against the Salamander player...
I guess it is because I'm coming at this from the other side. I have been writing list and have to think along the lines of "Hmmm, maybe my shadowsord and 5 russes wouldn't be the most fun to play against...".
broxus wrote: Changes I would make to balance out the codex:
1) Normal guardsmen become 5pts per model putting them in line with every other infantry in terms of points per power
2) Conscripts points are increased 4pts per model
3) Hellhound inferno cannon cost increased from 20pts to 40pts (it was stupid it was ever this cheap with 16” range)
4) Basilisks and Manticores both increased in cost by 10pts
5) Leman Russ tanks become 10pts more to their original cost due to all the buffs they received.
6) Regimental tactics should only work on infantry and Leman Russ tanks similar to every unit (why are they the only army that can do this)
7) Commisars fearless aura can only work on 1 squad per turn. In addition, after killing a model add the following rule (if a commissar uses summary execution on unit has more than 10 models roll a D6. On a 3+ the summary execution restores faith in the emperor. If the roll is failed the commissar must execute another model to restore faith in the Emperor. Keep performing this test until the test is passed.
8) The +1 cover save strategem only works on infantry and must be used at the beginning of your opponents shooting phase
9) Heavy weapon teams cost increased to 8pts (the same as 2 conscript models under my pricing)
10) Baneblade variants all increased by 50pts due to all the buffs they recieved (why did they get massive buffs and reduced in cost?)
11) Scions in your detachment no longer make your detachmen regiment battleforged (it is this way for every other codex)
12) the relic and trait that return command points both work on a 6+ instead of a 5+
These changes would still result in the Astra Militarum being extremely powerful, but people would feel like they at least have a chance to beat them. Right now it feels like the Astra Militarum have about a 15-25% points advantage over other codexes. This makes them not undefeatable but very hard to win against in evenly match opponents and dice rolls.
Most of that list looks fine, except 6, 7, and 11.
For 6: I think instead of removing the ability from guard vehicles, they should just make an errata for the older codices that GRANT their traits to all vehicles.
For 7: If you limit Commissar use to 1 unit, it basically ties them to Conscripts even harder, and your keep rolling and executing roll is slightly too complex. Instead just make Commissar blam 1d3 or 1d6 members of units of over 10.
For 11: Scions already don't gain the regimental bonus when in a non scion detachment, and are one of the units that actually got hit with a fair nerf - the Scions themselves were not the problem, the plasma was, and that got bumped up. Even in an all Scion detachment, plasma is the only weaponry that has immediate use from their doctrine, the rest you either need to wait a turn to get closer (their lasguns) or wait a turn to lose the penalty for moving with heavy (volley guns). If Scions are still overperforming slightly with plasma, just give a scion only bump of a small handful of points to plasma and that would be fixed.
Marmatag wrote: I understand your sentiment but with limited game time i'd rather just avoid guard altogether. At least with Eldar it was easy to pluck out the OP stuff.
With Guard it's basically everything. And it's easier just to refuse games with them, than to come up with some crazy scenario where i don't get faced turn 1.
True. If given the choice it is far easier to just play against the Salamander player...
I guess it is because I'm coming at this from the other side. I have been writing list and have to think along the lines of "Hmmm, maybe my shadowsord and 5 russes wouldn't be the most fun to play against...".
As always, it depends on your local meta. If it's super competitive, that wouldn't be out of place. If its people alpha-striking with tactical squads, yeah that probably wouldn't make for a fun game.
Marmatag wrote: I understand your sentiment but with limited game time i'd rather just avoid guard altogether. At least with Eldar it was easy to pluck out the OP stuff.
With Guard it's basically everything. And it's easier just to refuse games with them, than to come up with some crazy scenario where i don't get faced turn 1.
True. If given the choice it is far easier to just play against the Salamander player...
I guess it is because I'm coming at this from the other side. I have been writing list and have to think along the lines of "Hmmm, maybe my shadowsord and 5 russes wouldn't be the most fun to play against...".
As always, it depends on your local meta. If it's super competitive, that wouldn't be out of place. If its people alpha-striking with tactical squads, yeah that probably wouldn't make for a fun game.
*looks at list with alpha striking tactical squads that just took on a fellblade* Ahh, bring it!
Marmatag wrote: I understand your sentiment but with limited game time i'd rather just avoid guard altogether. At least with Eldar it was easy to pluck out the OP stuff.
With Guard it's basically everything. And it's easier just to refuse games with them, than to come up with some crazy scenario where i don't get faced turn 1.
Sounds like us in 7th vs Necrons, Eldar, Marines. I now see it sucks being the OP army too. Honestly, I think I liked being the underdog better.
I still say people are overreacting. Even if the codex is statistically better, a good player can still come through. in 5th edition I won 3-0 against Meltavet spam (one of the most popular Guard builds at the time) using tyranids, and I didn't have access to the fancy (then new) stuff like Doom, Tervigons or even Trygons. Just Genestealers. Lots and lots of genestealers.
I also went 1-0 against Tau in 6th edition with Khorne Berserkers. The guy lost so badly that he accused me of foul play....because he was cheating and therefore the only way I could beat him was if I was cheating too (I wasn't. He sat in a corner thinking he could shoot me off the board. I just ignored his big stuff and went straight for the squishy fire warriors. What he cheated was lying about the amount of hull points our units had, and I was new to 6th at the time).
I'm actually looking for a Guard player near me with a cheese set up, just to see how powerful this could be. And I will face him with either Alaitoc Snipers, Biel Tan Aspect Warriors or Kabalite gunboats. I want a challenge baby.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: I still say people are overreacting. Even if the codex is statistically better, a good player can still come through. in 5th edition I won 3-0 against Meltavet spam (one of the most popular Guard builds at the time) using tyranids, and I didn't have access to the fancy (then new) stuff like Doom, Tervigons or even Trygons. Just Genestealers. Lots and lots of genestealers.
I also went 1-0 against Tau in 6th edition with Khorne Berserkers. The guy lost so badly that he accused me of foul play....because he was cheating and therefore the only way I could beat him was if I was cheating too (I wasn't. He sat in a corner thinking he could shoot me off the board. I just ignored his big stuff and went straight for the squishy fire warriors. What he cheated was lying about the amount of hull points our units had, and I was new to 6th at the time).
I'm actually looking for a Guard player near me with a cheese set up, just to see how powerful this could be. And I will face him with either Alaitoc Snipers, Biel Tan Aspect Warriors or Kabalite gunboats. I want a challenge baby.
What, bs no you can't; since 5th 90% of games could be called simply based off army list composition. That remains the same today.
EDIT: The game has always been 70% WHAT IS IN THE LIST.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: I still say people are overreacting. Even if the codex is statistically better, a good player can still come through. in 5th edition I won 3-0 against Meltavet spam (one of the most popular Guard builds at the time) using tyranids, and I didn't have access to the fancy (then new) stuff like Doom, Tervigons or even Trygons. Just Genestealers. Lots and lots of genestealers.
I also went 1-0 against Tau in 6th edition with Khorne Berserkers. The guy lost so badly that he accused me of foul play....because he was cheating and therefore the only way I could beat him was if I was cheating too (I wasn't. He sat in a corner thinking he could shoot me off the board. I just ignored his big stuff and went straight for the squishy fire warriors. What he cheated was lying about the amount of hull points our units had, and I was new to 6th at the time).
I'm actually looking for a Guard player near me with a cheese set up, just to see how powerful this could be. And I will face him with either Alaitoc Snipers, Biel Tan Aspect Warriors or Kabalite gunboats. I want a challenge baby.
I've played against Codex Guard. No, you can't just beat it with 'Good play', you also need luck. A LOT of luck.
See, because 'Skilled play' doesn't really help when you lose more than half your army in a single shooting phase. If the Imperial Guard player goes first, he pretty much wins automatically unless your table is covered with a simply ridiculous amount of terrain specifically to counter Imperial Guard, (By which I mean, 95% of the board is covered with LoS blockers, and that remaining 5% is also LoS blockers, and the IG player wasn't told about this in advance.)
If you build your entire list around not dying, you maybe could survive a little better, but then you won't have anything that can budge the incredibly durable, cost-effective Imperial Guard codex.
You don't even get a chance to employ 'Skilled play' unless you get first turn, so that's 1/3rd of games already auto-lost. (Assuming you use Chapter approved rules. Otherwise it's something like 3/10ths, the odds of Seizing the Initiative with a command point for re-rolls.)
Then, you need to have an army that can put out enough damage to significantly hurt your opponent in one round. If you don't destroy at least 1/3rd of the IG player's army, he's still going to have easily enough firepower to kill you.
You can't assault his good units, because they're all screened off by 100+ conscripts.
Then, when you're fighting him after he's lost 1/3rd of his forces, you have to make sure you can't be tarpitted yourself by the chaff units, and you have to have an army that's tanky enough to survive the still-incredibly-powerful shooting that IG can put out even after taking heavy losses. You need to weather a turn with minimal casualties, because you're going to have to hit back just as hard as you did on turn one.
So, in short, if you want to have a chance at beating Imperial Guard, you need:
Good dice
Really good firepower
Really good durability
Screening units
You know the only place you can reliably get all of these (except luck) without sacrificing model count or points?
Imperial, freaking, Guard.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: I still say people are overreacting. Even if the codex is statistically better, a good player can still come through. in 5th edition I won 3-0 against Meltavet spam (one of the most popular Guard builds at the time) using tyranids, and I didn't have access to the fancy (then new) stuff like Doom, Tervigons or even Trygons. Just Genestealers. Lots and lots of genestealers.
I also went 1-0 against Tau in 6th edition with Khorne Berserkers. The guy lost so badly that he accused me of foul play....because he was cheating and therefore the only way I could beat him was if I was cheating too (I wasn't. He sat in a corner thinking he could shoot me off the board. I just ignored his big stuff and went straight for the squishy fire warriors. What he cheated was lying about the amount of hull points our units had, and I was new to 6th at the time).
I'm actually looking for a Guard player near me with a cheese set up, just to see how powerful this could be. And I will face him with either Alaitoc Snipers, Biel Tan Aspect Warriors or Kabalite gunboats. I want a challenge baby.
Ordinarily, I would agree with this 100%. Like Waaaghpower pointed out though, when an army has a devastating turn 1 alpha strike that cripples a 1/3 of your army with you having no way of preventing it, it becomes an uphill struggle regrouping from that. Sure, you might be able to pull out a win with brilliant tactics and hot dice, but the odds are against that of happening.
Most games of 8th I've seen have a clear end by turn 3-4 due to that very reason for any army really, but the current form of IG just really emphasising that point as they can do it so easily.
I often use melee armies so seeing something like half my army being wiped before they even do anything is a common sight to me. Thinking my way around obstacles is always a fun challenge.
EDIT: Most pre-8th edition games (Spanning from late 3rd-7th) ended on turn 3-4 for me too. It is very rare for me to get a game that lasts past that without both sides essentially resorting to a slapfight (in fact the only time when I had that happen was when my predator had insane luck and kept avoiding anything worse than a Crew Stunned result, which it ignored due to having Daemonic Possession. But I don't usually count that one because it was due to insane luck on my part).
The whole codex/index meta is a mess of imbalances. The 6 games i have against the AM/IG codex, has been a poor play experience, my opponent made it tolerable. My meta has 4 diehard AM/IG players, 2 power gamers with AM/IG and an imperial soup player.
I am waiting for chapter approved before i sharpen my pitch fork and lite a torch.
i will not be entering an other tournament or going to the open nights at an lgs until i see the chapter approved. My index/lists are in a stagnant state, half my options are overcosted/not viable or a strictly worse option. Reaching for them as a test, resulted in an even worse ass whooping. Each short coming has only been made more obvious with every codex as they come out. But the AM/IG codex is a spotlight on every little fault and how stagnant my lists have become.
It is going to take an act of the emporer to change my current negative opinion. Good luck GW.
Remember, "if you have a better lower tier army and someone with a higher tier army beats you, you have the right to belittle their victory DSP style," is what I'm getting right now from this crowd.
Funny how much some Guard players are starting to sound like Eldar players from 7th. The stalwarts I recognize from the lean years of late have a far more realistic take I find.
NurglesR0T wrote: Problem is that even if a IG player tried to put together a fluffy list like a tank company, it would be deemed OP abuse.
They can't win either way lol
It's not their fault, honestly. It seems everything is just super viable, no matter how you build your IG army. I bought the codex. I tend to buy all the codexes (codeci? codexiei? whatever). Wait codices! Anyway, I tend to buy them all. I really love the book. I was blown away by how powerful their units are, and their army over all.
I have always loved the IG, I just have a small amount of models and it's a labor intensive army painting wise. I look forward to seeing how this plays out in the long run. Luckily the guys I play against are all good sports, and we have 2 dedicated IG players so we'll be seeing the armies a lot.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: I still say people are overreacting. Even if the codex is statistically better, a good player can still come through. in 5th edition I won 3-0 against Meltavet spam (one of the most popular Guard builds at the time) using tyranids, and I didn't have access to the fancy (then new) stuff like Doom, Tervigons or even Trygons. Just Genestealers. Lots and lots of genestealers.
I also went 1-0 against Tau in 6th edition with Khorne Berserkers. The guy lost so badly that he accused me of foul play....because he was cheating and therefore the only way I could beat him was if I was cheating too (I wasn't. He sat in a corner thinking he could shoot me off the board. I just ignored his big stuff and went straight for the squishy fire warriors. What he cheated was lying about the amount of hull points our units had, and I was new to 6th at the time).
I'm actually looking for a Guard player near me with a cheese set up, just to see how powerful this could be. And I will face him with either Alaitoc Snipers, Biel Tan Aspect Warriors or Kabalite gunboats. I want a challenge baby.
Well if this were honestly the case those lovely Berserker Marines from 6th edition would've been used more often in tournaments, or are tournament users just netlisters that don't know what they're doing?
Okay, how about these for a proposed nerf for Codex IG
1) Grinding advance: (change to) If a Leman Russ moves less than 1/2 of its Current Movement characteristic, it may shoot all of it’s weapons without a movement penalty
2) Conscripts
A) Conscript Commander: part of the unit (like a sergeant) with the datasheet like a Platoon Commander. Same cost. Can only give orders to it’s unit, and is the only officer model that can give orders to the unit. Still a character, and can be individually targeted as such. Unit can be targeted normally.
B) Conscript Commissar: Similar to Conscript Commander, but use Commissar.
C) No more orders on 4+
D) Neither Conscript Commander, nor Conscript Commissar is mandatory, but neccessary for Orders and Summary Execution. Neither model counts towards Battleforge detachments.
E) Return max unit size to 50 Conscripts + Commander and Commissar
F) Unit cannot advance, except by voice order
G) The unit saves on the conscript stat-line, unless the Commander/Commisar is individually targeted, and then those models save on their respective stat-lines.
broxus wrote: Changes I would make to balance out the codex:
1) Normal guardsmen become 5pts per model putting them in line with every other infantry in terms of points per power
2) Conscripts points are increased 4pts per model
3) Hellhound inferno cannon cost increased from 20pts to 40pts (it was stupid it was ever this cheap with 16” range)
4) Basilisks and Manticores both increased in cost by 10pts
5) Leman Russ tanks become 10pts more to their original cost due to all the buffs they received.
6) Regimental tactics should only work on infantry and Leman Russ tanks similar to every unit (why are they the only army that can do this)
7) Commisars fearless aura can only work on 1 squad per turn. In addition, after killing a model add the following rule (if a commissar uses summary execution on unit has more than 10 models roll a D6. On a 3+ the summary execution restores faith in the emperor. If the roll is failed the commissar must execute another model to restore faith in the Emperor. Keep performing this test until the test is passed.
8) The +1 cover save strategem only works on infantry and must be used at the beginning of your opponents shooting phase
9) Heavy weapon teams cost increased to 8pts (the same as 2 conscript models under my pricing)
10) Baneblade variants all increased by 50pts due to all the buffs they recieved (why did they get massive buffs and reduced in cost?)
11) Scions in your detachment no longer make your detachmen regiment battleforged (it is this way for every other codex)
12) the relic and trait that return command points both work on a 6+ instead of a 5+
These changes would still result in the Astra Militarum being extremely powerful, but people would feel like they at least have a chance to beat them. Right now it feels like the Astra Militarum have about a 15-25% points advantage over other codexes. This makes them not undefeatable but very hard to win against in evenly match opponents and dice rolls.
For now, I’d probably caution against raising the points cost of Guard infantry, rather, potentially look at reducing the cost of other armies basic infantry instead. Currently there is no difference between a Conscript and a Termagant, but one is considered OP because it can FRFSRF, while the other can potentially just keep getting models back. Both can be immune to morale.
Inferno cannon, I agree could prob use a slight increase in points, but I’ve not seen enough of it to fully gauge its power in comparison to other, similar options elsewhere.
Basilisks I think are pretty reasonable right now – you don’t see them one shotting things very often and can only really reliably do so when taken in groups of 3 or 4. If someone is investing 432 points into 1 shotting a Rhino via Basilisks I think you have a good trade off. Manticores, however, could do with a slight increase as they have the flexibility to hit both infantry and vehicles. For example, Manticores only need 399 points to kill a rhino. The trade off is only 4 shots, but, by turn 4 most games of 8th have finished anyway – Guard or no Guard. A 10 point increase will bring them in line with Basilisks.
Currently not enough info on whether the 10 point decrease in Russes is having a massive impact on the game. More results are required to see whether or not the Russ is “too good” for its points.
Admech have their dogma’s affecting everything in their army (and can even affect Knights via a CP). The only ones that don’t effect everything is Marines and Chaos. I’m expecting Eldar and Tyranids to have everything affect everything (or at least Tyranids anyway). Take it from Guard you also need to take it from Admech. Currently i’m not too fussed about not seeing a Landraider fall back and still shoot, or a -2 to hit flyer, or a re-rolling 1 hit and 1 wound Predator etc.
Commisars I think need a slight change for Conscripts only. I think it should be along the lines of shooting 1+1d3 per 10 models alive in the unit. This would mean a 25-man unit would lose at least 3 models, but up to 7 could be lost. A similar mechanic already exists in the way the Leviathan’s Grav Flux works. It is also quick and easy to resolve.
While I agree the stratagem working on certain units is a bit… illogical, changing it to the start of the phase is also pretty illogical. Why would a unit that isn’t getting shot at take cover? Yes, it prob needs changing so it doesn’t effect Baneblades and flyers, but that’s about it.
Likewise, with leaving standard infantry as they are, Heavy weapons teams have just had an increase anyway. Give it a bit of time to see whether this has any kind of impact first, before just increasing them again “just cos”.
Unfortunately, Baneblades needed to changes in order to make them a reasonable option. Rising them up to above where they were before the changes is just a massive knee-jerk in my view. Some of them didn’t even come down in points, but you still want to increase them across the board? A fully tooled up, flamer Shadowsword currently costs 614 points. You want to make it 664 points because it now fires 3d3 shots instead of d6? It doesn’t even have an invuln and can still easily die in 1 turn of shooting. A basic Shadowsword would cost 414 points with your changes. 414 points to “likely” kill 1 tank a turn until it starts to degrade.
As someone else said, Scion’s already don’t get any benefit from being in another detachment as they are treated like Auxilia.
I would leave the relic as it is at a 5+ and change the trait to a 6+. Most armies you go up against are going to have between 4 and 7 CP. Even if they use all the CP on 1 CP stratagems you’re only going to get the benefit of 1-2 CP per game on average. Hardly game breaking. If they use the points on 2CP stratagems you’ll be getting even less.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Spoiler:
duWhee wrote: Okay, how about these for a proposed nerf for Codex IG
1) Grinding advance: (change to) If a Leman Russ moves less than 1/2 of its Current Movement characteristic, it may shoot all of it’s weapons without a movement penalty
2) Conscripts
A) Conscript Commander: part of the unit (like a sergeant) with the datasheet like a Platoon Commander. Same cost. Can only give orders to it’s unit, and is the only officer model that can give orders to the unit. Still a character, and can be individually targeted as such. Unit can be targeted normally.
B) Conscript Commissar: Similar to Conscript Commander, but use Commissar.
C) No more orders on 4+
D) Neither Conscript Commander, nor Conscript Commissar is mandatory, but neccessary for Orders and Summary Execution. Neither model counts towards Battleforge detachments.
E) Return max unit size to 50 Conscripts + Commander and Commissar
F) Unit cannot advance, except by voice order
G) The unit saves on the conscript stat-line, unless the Commander/Commisar is individually targeted, and then those models save on their respective stat-lines.
Non-IG armies playing against Codex IG armies get a bonus 25% (points/power level) reinforcement reserve which cannot be deployed until turn 2.
This doesn’t address everything, but I think it is a workable good start.
But, then you’d have to change the Tallarn doctrine as it’ll be pretty pointless.
Conscripts don’t need those kinds of changes. I think a simple change to how the commissar works with them would be perfectly fine.
If you nerf the brigade down to 6cp, you need to do it for every army. Which, if I’m honest isn’t a bad idea to start with.
If you are playing “friendly play” you might as well play narrative or open play. Then you can essentially make whatever rules you want. Completely pointless trying to make an official rule for matched play that messes with the army structure.
Kdash wrote: Same reason why i keep looking at the Armageddon Basilisks over the standard ones....
They look cool, although if I got some basilisks I think I would have fun modelling the crew loading it or braced for firing. I only have 2 manticores and 2 fw hydras now though.
One thing about all of this "op-ness" that is getting thrown around, I am having an easier time fitting the less good units like hydras and vanquishers into my lists.
Kdash wrote: Same reason why i keep looking at the Armageddon Basilisks over the standard ones....
They look cool, although if I got some basilisks I think I would have fun modelling the crew loading it or braced for firing. I only have 2 manticores and 2 fw hydras now though.
One thing about all of this "op-ness" that is getting thrown around, I am having an easier time fitting the less good units like hydras and vanquishers into my lists.
To be fair, i'm all but set on the idea of running 2 FW vanquishers as part of my list as standard now. Couple of things need clarification, but if all goes the way i think it'd be 2 of them outflanking in a Tallaran spearhead.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually find it funny that some people want Baneblades to go up, when the criticism in my baneblade thread is "Not enough other stuff in the army."
Which is it? Would the army be more fun with "other stuff" or would the army be more fun if Baneblades went up 50 points each?
Huh? These two things aren't in tension at all. This is actually how most people respond to lists that bring a lot of anything they consider overpowered -- they think the list should bring less of that thing and more other stuff, and also that the overpowered stuff should be less overpowered. Like, obviously the objection to your superheavy tank army doesn't go away if superheavy tanks get cheaper so that you can bring more other stuff, right? The objection is obviously that you're bringing too much of something they think is too good, especially when massed.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually find it funny that some people want Baneblades to go up, when the criticism in my baneblade thread is "Not enough other stuff in the army."
Which is it? Would the army be more fun with "other stuff" or would the army be more fun if Baneblades went up 50 points each?
Huh? These two things aren't in tension at all. This is actually how most people respond to lists that bring a lot of anything they consider overpowered -- they think the list should bring less of that thing and more other stuff, and also that the overpowered stuff should be less overpowered. Like, obviously the objection to your superheavy tank army doesn't go away if superheavy tanks get cheaper so that you can bring more other stuff, right? The objection is obviously that you're bringing too much of something they think is too good.
Is it? Most people in the other thread were bored because there wasn't enough "variety" or things to shoot at that weren't baneblades.
Making baneblades more expensive just means I bring less "variety."
I don't think anyone in the other thread was saying they wouldn't want to play against my superheavy tank company because they thought it was op. I think (if I drew the right lessons from it) they meant they wouldn't play against it because they thought it was boring.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually find it funny that some people want Baneblades to go up, when the criticism in my baneblade thread is "Not enough other stuff in the army."
Which is it? Would the army be more fun with "other stuff" or would the army be more fun if Baneblades went up 50 points each?
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually find it funny that some people want Baneblades to go up, when the criticism in my baneblade thread is "Not enough other stuff in the army."
Which is it? Would the army be more fun with "other stuff" or would the army be more fun if Baneblades went up 50 points each?
These aren't mutually exclusive statements.
I assumed that having something get more expensive meant you brought less of everything else...
E.g. if you bring a Predator and a scout squad to a 200 point game, then the pred goes up to 190 points, the scout squad goes away. That's the type of thing I'm talking about.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually find it funny that some people want Baneblades to go up, when the criticism in my baneblade thread is "Not enough other stuff in the army."
Which is it? Would the army be more fun with "other stuff" or would the army be more fun if Baneblades went up 50 points each?
These aren't mutually exclusive statements.
I assumed that having something get more expensive meant you brought less of everything else...
E.g. if you bring a Predator and a scout squad to a 200 point game, then the pred goes up to 190 points, the scout squad goes away. That's the type of thing I'm talking about.
And people are talking about you bringing less baneblades that happen to be more expensive.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually find it funny that some people want Baneblades to go up, when the criticism in my baneblade thread is "Not enough other stuff in the army."
Which is it? Would the army be more fun with "other stuff" or would the army be more fun if Baneblades went up 50 points each?
These aren't mutually exclusive statements.
I assumed that having something get more expensive meant you brought less of everything else...
E.g. if you bring a Predator and a scout squad to a 200 point game, then the pred goes up to 190 points, the scout squad goes away. That's the type of thing I'm talking about.
And people are talking about you bringing less baneblades that happen to be more expensive.
There's a few problems with bringing fewer tanks:
1) It's unfluffy. If a Baneblade company is being fielded, it is 3-5 tanks strong, unless the entire regiment (22 vehicles in my case) has been wiped out down to 2 (or 1), which is not something I want to have in my fluff for obvious reasons. You can read the Baneblade series of novels for details, but the commanders will always form scratch companies of 3-5 tanks until they literally have less than 3-5 tanks left in the whole regiment. The only time 1 or 2 tanks will be fielded separately is if they're not in a company at all and have instead been split off and deployed to support another regiment (and I am always happy to play team games with other guard commanders to form such a battlegroup, only bringing 1 or two tanks!)
2) It means I don't get regimental doctrines. While I'm okay with this, generally, it's kind of sucky. I would like to have my regiment know some neat tactic or strategy or whatever to differentiate them. Armageddon fits the fluff pretty well, as does Vostroyan, Tallarn, and Catachan. I've not decided yet.
3) It reduces my CPs that I get, which are pretty important and vital this edition, though I'd still field 3 tanks even if they had to be in 3 Auxiliary detachments and the Super Heavy Detachment didn't exist, per item 1.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I actually find it funny that some people want Baneblades to go up, when the criticism in my baneblade thread is "Not enough other stuff in the army."
Which is it? Would the army be more fun with "other stuff" or would the army be more fun if Baneblades went up 50 points each?
Huh? These two things aren't in tension at all. This is actually how most people respond to lists that bring a lot of anything they consider overpowered -- they think the list should bring less of that thing and more other stuff, and also that the overpowered stuff should be less overpowered. Like, obviously the objection to your superheavy tank army doesn't go away if superheavy tanks get cheaper so that you can bring more other stuff, right? The objection is obviously that you're bringing too much of something they think is too good.
Is it? Most people in the other thread were bored because there wasn't enough "variety" or things to shoot at that weren't baneblades.
Making baneblades more expensive just means I bring less "variety."
I don't think anyone in the other thread was saying they wouldn't want to play against my superheavy tank company because they thought it was op. I think (if I drew the right lessons from it) they meant they wouldn't play against it because they thought it was boring.
Maybe I drew the wrong conclusion.
I think the problem is assuming they want your list to still be viable. If you instead consider that they want your list to stop existing, then demanding that you have to bring other stuff while simultaneously making that other stuff unaffordable makes sense.
There is something odd I've noticed about the whole elite vs horde thing though: the assumption that each army would be trading 100% of its firepower every turn while spreading wounds across 100% of their wound pool every turn.
That's just not how real games play out unless both sides consist entirely of artillery and both players have zero sense of target priority.
An elite army's small board footprint can be a strength if you play it right. A horde army basically has to use all the space in their deployment zone, but an elite army can deploy in one corner and push that lane. Set up your deep strikers first so your opponent has to do some deployment before seeing which corner you'll commit to, deploy all of your offensive units in one corner, then when the game starts push that corner with everything you have to turn that flank.
You'll be using (close to) 100% of your army to engage 30-50% of theirs, depending on a variety of factors like board footprint, weapon ranges, and how well your opponent can respond to your deployment once you run out of deep strikers and he sees what you're doing. If you can turn that flank before they can reposition the rest of their army (which with those points ratios you should only need one or two turns if you can engage on turn 1) you'll have secured a potentially decisive points advantage that you can leverage on the rest of the board.
Frankly, I'm not here to go over in detail the issues you're having with your army, and I also don't much care, to be blunt. Your own thread is fine for that.
All that I'm saying is that people asking you to bring less baneblades and have them cost more are not, in any way shape or form, mutually exclusive statements.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: I still say people are overreacting. Even if the codex is statistically better, a good player can still come through. in 5th edition I won 3-0 against Meltavet spam (one of the most popular Guard builds at the time) using tyranids, and I didn't have access to the fancy (then new) stuff like Doom, Tervigons or even Trygons. Just Genestealers. Lots and lots of genestealers.
I also went 1-0 against Tau in 6th edition with Khorne Berserkers. The guy lost so badly that he accused me of foul play....because he was cheating and therefore the only way I could beat him was if I was cheating too (I wasn't. He sat in a corner thinking he could shoot me off the board. I just ignored his big stuff and went straight for the squishy fire warriors. What he cheated was lying about the amount of hull points our units had, and I was new to 6th at the time).
I'm actually looking for a Guard player near me with a cheese set up, just to see how powerful this could be. And I will face him with either Alaitoc Snipers, Biel Tan Aspect Warriors or Kabalite gunboats. I want a challenge baby.
Well if this were honestly the case those lovely Berserker Marines from 6th edition would've been used more often in tournaments, or are tournament users just netlisters that don't know what they're doing?
Like I said, a skilled player with a bad army is better than an unskilled player with a good army. My opponent decided to park his ass in a corner thinking he could shoot everything I had off the board, then proceeded to focus on my dreadnoughts and tanks and forgot my berserkers existed. He also didn't take into account Morale and thought that the bonuses from his defensive grenades and overwatch would protect his fire warriors. From Berserkers. I basically ended up controlling all of the objectives on the board by the end of turn 2 and his battlesuits ended up chasing a single backpedaling dreadnought for most of the game. Just because someone has a bigger gun doesn't necessarily mean they will win in a firefight, especially if they're holding the gun backwards. Similarly, my 3.5 Iron Warriors have also lost to a 3rd edition Dark Eldar army simply because I didn't know about Dark Lances (DE players being THAT rare at the time).
When life gives you lemons, make exploding lemons. Blaming your loss on an opponent's army choice rather than actually try to find a way around it just seem cowardly to me.
Like I said, a skilled player with a bad army is better than an unskilled player with a good army. My opponent decided to park his ass in a corner thinking he could shoot everything I had off the board, then proceeded to focus on my dreadnoughts and tanks and forgot my berserkers existed. He also didn't take into account Morale and thought that the bonuses from his defensive grenades and overwatch would protect his fire warriors. From Berserkers. I basically ended up controlling all of the objectives on the board by the end of turn 2 and his battlesuits ended up chasing a single backpedaling dreadnought for most of the game. Just because someone has a bigger gun doesn't necessarily mean they will win in a firefight, especially if they're holding the gun backwards. Similarly, my 3.5 Iron Warriors have also lost to a 3rd edition Dark Eldar army simply because I didn't know about Dark Lances (DE players being THAT rare at the time).
When life gives you lemons, make exploding lemons. Blaming your loss on an opponent's army choice rather than actually try to find a way around it just seem cowardly to me.
That's not always true, though. In the case of my last game against Guard, my opponent made a ton of mistakes - Lots of exploitable gaps in his screen, nowhere near enough troops near the Relic making it super wide open, tanks crowded too close together, meaning that one assault could potentially bog a bunch of them down.
The problem is, none of those mistakes matter when he has board-covering range, easy counter-deployment access, and can kill half my army in a single shooting phase.
Like I said, a skilled player with a bad army is better than an unskilled player with a good army. My opponent decided to park his ass in a corner thinking he could shoot everything I had off the board, then proceeded to focus on my dreadnoughts and tanks and forgot my berserkers existed. He also didn't take into account Morale and thought that the bonuses from his defensive grenades and overwatch would protect his fire warriors. From Berserkers. I basically ended up controlling all of the objectives on the board by the end of turn 2 and his battlesuits ended up chasing a single backpedaling dreadnought for most of the game. Just because someone has a bigger gun doesn't necessarily mean they will win in a firefight, especially if they're holding the gun backwards. Similarly, my 3.5 Iron Warriors have also lost to a 3rd edition Dark Eldar army simply because I didn't know about Dark Lances (DE players being THAT rare at the time).
When life gives you lemons, make exploding lemons. Blaming your loss on an opponent's army choice rather than actually try to find a way around it just seem cowardly to me.
That's not always true, though. In the case of my last game against Guard, my opponent made a ton of mistakes - Lots of exploitable gaps in his screen, nowhere near enough troops near the Relic making it super wide open, tanks crowded too close together, meaning that one assault could potentially bog a bunch of them down.
The problem is, none of those mistakes matter when he has board-covering range, easy counter-deployment access, and can kill half my army in a single shooting phase.
Those mistakes absolutely matter. If there are gaps in the screen, then Alpha Legion or Raven Guard (just as examples) will drop in, march through the gaps, and feth over all of his tanks.
Boom, just won the game right there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blacksails wrote: Frankly, I'm not here to go over in detail the issues you're having with your army, and I also don't much care, to be blunt. Your own thread is fine for that.
All that I'm saying is that people asking you to bring less baneblades and have them cost more are not, in any way shape or form, mutually exclusive statements.
I didn't see anyone really asking for me to bring less, except for where it let me bring more other stuff.
Their problem with 3 baneblades wasn't "too hard to kill" (at least, most of them. Some people said that, but I'm not sure they've actually tried. 1 Baneblade is FAR easier to kill than its equivalent points in LRBTs) or that they were "Too numerous" but rather they were too "boring".
Which I get, and have endeavored to bring more 'stuff' that isn't heavy armour. Until you make my army 150 points more expensive, then I have less of that other stuff.
Like I said, a skilled player with a bad army is better than an unskilled player with a good army. My opponent decided to park his ass in a corner thinking he could shoot everything I had off the board, then proceeded to focus on my dreadnoughts and tanks and forgot my berserkers existed. He also didn't take into account Morale and thought that the bonuses from his defensive grenades and overwatch would protect his fire warriors. From Berserkers. I basically ended up controlling all of the objectives on the board by the end of turn 2 and his battlesuits ended up chasing a single backpedaling dreadnought for most of the game. Just because someone has a bigger gun doesn't necessarily mean they will win in a firefight, especially if they're holding the gun backwards. Similarly, my 3.5 Iron Warriors have also lost to a 3rd edition Dark Eldar army simply because I didn't know about Dark Lances (DE players being THAT rare at the time).
When life gives you lemons, make exploding lemons. Blaming your loss on an opponent's army choice rather than actually try to find a way around it just seem cowardly to me.
That's not always true, though. In the case of my last game against Guard, my opponent made a ton of mistakes - Lots of exploitable gaps in his screen, nowhere near enough troops near the Relic making it super wide open, tanks crowded too close together, meaning that one assault could potentially bog a bunch of them down.
The problem is, none of those mistakes matter when he has board-covering range, easy counter-deployment access, and can kill half my army in a single shooting phase.
Those mistakes absolutely matter. If there are gaps in the screen, then Alpha Legion or Raven Guard (just as examples) will drop in, march through the gaps, and feth over all of his tanks.
Boom, just won the game right there.
Firstly: When I say 'Gaps' I mean 'Small areas where my Seraphim/Celestine could jump over conscripts and get into assault'. Not large gaps that Infiltrators could exploit.
Secondly: I had every intention of exploiting those gaps, but as I have noted several times now, over half my army was destroyed in one turn, before I got to go. This isn't a hypothetical. His mistakes didn't matter, because I didn't survive long enough to exploit them.
Like I said, a skilled player with a bad army is better than an unskilled player with a good army. My opponent decided to park his ass in a corner thinking he could shoot everything I had off the board, then proceeded to focus on my dreadnoughts and tanks and forgot my berserkers existed. He also didn't take into account Morale and thought that the bonuses from his defensive grenades and overwatch would protect his fire warriors. From Berserkers. I basically ended up controlling all of the objectives on the board by the end of turn 2 and his battlesuits ended up chasing a single backpedaling dreadnought for most of the game. Just because someone has a bigger gun doesn't necessarily mean they will win in a firefight, especially if they're holding the gun backwards. Similarly, my 3.5 Iron Warriors have also lost to a 3rd edition Dark Eldar army simply because I didn't know about Dark Lances (DE players being THAT rare at the time).
When life gives you lemons, make exploding lemons. Blaming your loss on an opponent's army choice rather than actually try to find a way around it just seem cowardly to me.
That's not always true, though. In the case of my last game against Guard, my opponent made a ton of mistakes - Lots of exploitable gaps in his screen, nowhere near enough troops near the Relic making it super wide open, tanks crowded too close together, meaning that one assault could potentially bog a bunch of them down.
The problem is, none of those mistakes matter when he has board-covering range, easy counter-deployment access, and can kill half my army in a single shooting phase.
Those mistakes absolutely matter. If there are gaps in the screen, then Alpha Legion or Raven Guard (just as examples) will drop in, march through the gaps, and feth over all of his tanks.
Boom, just won the game right there.
Firstly: When I say 'Gaps' I mean 'Small areas where my Seraphim/Celestine could jump over conscripts and get into assault'. Not large gaps that Infiltrators could exploit.
Secondly: I had every intention of exploiting those gaps, but as I have noted several times now, over half my army was destroyed in one turn, before I got to go. This isn't a hypothetical. His mistakes didn't matter, because I didn't survive long enough to exploit them.
That's happened to me before, against guilliman armies. 8th edition is simply brutal, and that's not Guard's fault.
I've lost two superheavy tanks (or lost 1 and had one crippled) which is half my army at 2k on the top of Turn 1. It's just a thing that happens; this is not unique to guard.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Heck, there's a thread in this very forum where a CSM player tabled an Eldar player top of turn 1.
This really isn't just a problem with guard, so acting like it's the guard codex's fault is just ... asinine. It's not.
I didn't see anyone really asking for me to bring less, except for where it let me bring more other stuff.
The first page alone in your superheavy thread had multiple people saying you could bring less than 3.
Their problem with 3 baneblades wasn't "too hard to kill" (at least, most of them. Some people said that, but I'm not sure they've actually tried. 1 Baneblade is FAR easier to kill than its equivalent points in LRBTs) or that they were "Too numerous" but rather they were too "boring".
Which doesn't change the fact that people wanted you to bring less of them.
Which I get, and have endeavored to bring more 'stuff' that isn't heavy armour. Until you make my army 150 points more expensive, then I have less of that other stuff.
You seem to be conveniently missing the incredibly obvious solution of bringing less baneblades in order to bring more other non-baneblades.
Which again, as I have stated, means the statement of increasing their cost and you bringing more non-baneblades are not mutually exclusive.
I didn't see anyone really asking for me to bring less, except for where it let me bring more other stuff.
The first page alone in your superheavy thread had multiple people saying you could bring less than 3.
Their problem with 3 baneblades wasn't "too hard to kill" (at least, most of them. Some people said that, but I'm not sure they've actually tried. 1 Baneblade is FAR easier to kill than its equivalent points in LRBTs) or that they were "Too numerous" but rather they were too "boring".
Which doesn't change the fact that people wanted you to bring less of them.
Which I get, and have endeavored to bring more 'stuff' that isn't heavy armour. Until you make my army 150 points more expensive, then I have less of that other stuff.
You seem to be conveniently missing the incredibly obvious solution of bringing less baneblades in order to bring more other non-baneblades.
Which again, as I have stated, means the statement of increasing their cost and you bringing more non-baneblades are not mutually exclusive.
I think you missed my post where I gave a whole variety of reasons why bringing less than 3 doesn't make sense from a fluff perspective or a rules perspective.
So, to reiterate:
1) It breaks my army's fluff and nerfs my army's rules to bring less than 3, so I won't. (incidentally, it's also bad form to tell someone how to play their army).
2) People are bored with just 3 superheavies.
Conclusion: I bring 3 superheavies and also a bunch of other neat and cool things.
BUT WAIT, we have to make those superheavies more expensive! Then we'll complain that he doesn't bring enough OTHER THINGS! That way, he's forced to drop a baneblade if he wants to play games! Yes, we have successfully broken his fluff, damaged his rules, dictated his army composition, and made the game thoroughly unenjoyable for him! MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
That's happened to me before, against guilliman armies. 8th edition is simply brutal, and that's not Guard's fault.
I've lost two superheavy tanks (or lost 1 and had one crippled) which is half my army at 2k on the top of Turn 1. It's just a thing that happens; this is not unique to guard.
Was that pre or post-codex? Because Guard super-heavies are now both cheaper and harder to cripple.
Furthermore, Guard are both the best army at crippling opponents in such a way, and one of the most resilient armies against it. Yes, it's a problem with 8th edition, but it is a problem that Guard exploit far more easily than any other army. Their range makes it nearly impossible to counter-deploy against or hide from, their screens make it impossible to assault and tie up.
(Also: By my math, that amount of damage output from Space Marines is only really possible if he takes 1000ish points of anti-tank fire, plus Guilliman, or if he gets very good dice. It's not going to be a common eventuality.)
That's happened to me before, against guilliman armies. 8th edition is simply brutal, and that's not Guard's fault.
I've lost two superheavy tanks (or lost 1 and had one crippled) which is half my army at 2k on the top of Turn 1. It's just a thing that happens; this is not unique to guard.
Was that pre or post-codex? Because Guard super-heavies are now both cheaper and harder to cripple.
Furthermore, Guard are both the best army at crippling opponents in such a way, and one of the most resilient armies against it. Yes, it's a problem with 8th edition, but it is a problem that Guard exploit far more easily than any other army.
(Also: By my math, that amount of damage output from Space Marines is only really possible if he takes 1000ish points of anti-tank fire, plus Guilliman, or if he gets very good dice. It's not going to be a common eventuality.)
It was before, but I'm not sure how being cheaper and harder to cripple makes them not dead. They didn't gain more wounds.
And actually it was just some double-tapping Hellblasters (the plasma guys) followed by a charge from assault devastators on one.
The other one just got shot full of angry lascannons, I think it took 4d6 damage once everything was said and done plus a smattering of other bullets from other sources.
None of which changes the fact that you are physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually capable of taking less than 3.
You just don't want to.
And that's fine. Your battle to fight and all that. I don't care because the chances of me facing an army like yours ranges from zero to some fraction slightly larger than zero.
But once more, the original statement to which I responded is not mutually exclusive.
To keep this somewhat on topic, the price cut wasn't needed and I'm surprised (not really, classic GW). I've always wanted a Shadowsword, maybe this will be my time. Still, I think they would have been better simply removing the -1 to hit when moving and leaving points alone.
Blacksails wrote: None of which changes the fact that you are physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually capable of taking less than 3.
You just don't want to.
And that's fine. Your battle to fight and all that. I don't care because the chances of me facing an army like yours ranges from zero to some fraction slightly larger than zero.
But once more, the original statement to which I responded is not mutually exclusive.
To keep this somewhat on topic, the price cut wasn't needed and I'm surprised (not really, classic GW). I've always wanted a Shadowsword, maybe this will be my time. Still, I think they would have been better simply removing the -1 to hit when moving and leaving points alone.
I think you forgot the purpose of the game, blacksails. I am physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually capable of fighting in a war, or jumping out of a plane, or something. That doesn't mean that I want to. And we do this for fun, remember?
I have to try to make it fun for my opponents while keeping it fun for myself.
The best way to do that is to bring stuff that isn't baneblades, at least if my takeaway from that thread is any indication. Making their price go back up just means the ones that didn't change price (e.g. stormsword) become my choice again, and restricts my army composition.
That's happened to me before, against guilliman armies. 8th edition is simply brutal, and that's not Guard's fault.
I've lost two superheavy tanks (or lost 1 and had one crippled) which is half my army at 2k on the top of Turn 1. It's just a thing that happens; this is not unique to guard.
Was that pre or post-codex? Because Guard super-heavies are now both cheaper and harder to cripple.
Furthermore, Guard are both the best army at crippling opponents in such a way, and one of the most resilient armies against it. Yes, it's a problem with 8th edition, but it is a problem that Guard exploit far more easily than any other army.
(Also: By my math, that amount of damage output from Space Marines is only really possible if he takes 1000ish points of anti-tank fire, plus Guilliman, or if he gets very good dice. It's not going to be a common eventuality.)
It was before, but I'm not sure how being cheaper and harder to cripple makes them not dead. They didn't gain more wounds.
And actually it was just some double-tapping Hellblasters (the plasma guys) followed by a charge from assault devastators on one.
The other one just got shot full of angry lascannons, I think it took 4d6 damage once everything was said and done plus a smattering of other bullets from other sources.
How, pray tell, did he get that close to your Baneblade with (I'm assuming since the numbers don't make sense otherwise) 10 Hellblasters and a unit of (I don't know what 'Assault Devestators are supposed to be). Did you not have any screens?
Also: 4d6 damage is, on average, just 14 wounds. (It's also the result of firing two full squads of Lascannon Devestators buffed by Guilliman - A metric ton of points into dedicated anti-tank fire.) That 'Smattering of other sources' should have, on average, dealt almost half the damage needed to kill it.
@ WaaaghPower: It sounds like your opponent was a decent player, recognized the actual threats to his army, made an active effort to eliminate them, and you just had a bad string of rolls. Also you said your army was a gulliman based artillery line? If this was space marines then they were never really known for stationary gunlines (that's kinda the guard's shtick). Maybe try some more mobile space marine options since trying to out-artillery Guard is like trying to beat Muhammad Ali in a fistfight, rather than just suing him for physical assault.
Blacksails wrote: None of which changes the fact that you are physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually capable of taking less than 3.
You just don't want to.
And that's fine. Your battle to fight and all that. I don't care because the chances of me facing an army like yours ranges from zero to some fraction slightly larger than zero.
But once more, the original statement to which I responded is not mutually exclusive.
To keep this somewhat on topic, the price cut wasn't needed and I'm surprised (not really, classic GW). I've always wanted a Shadowsword, maybe this will be my time. Still, I think they would have been better simply removing the -1 to hit when moving and leaving points alone.
I think you forgot the purpose of the game, blacksails. I am physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually capable of fighting in a war, or jumping out of a plane, or something. That doesn't mean that I want to. And we do this for fun, remember?
I have to try to make it fun for my opponents while keeping it fun for myself.
The best way to do that is to bring stuff that isn't baneblades, at least if my takeaway from that thread is any indication. Making their price go back up just means the ones that didn't change price (e.g. stormsword) become my choice again, and restricts my army composition.
I know its for fun. That's why the next line I wrote specifically said that it was fine.
Its also fine if you take not 3 baneblades.
But making the price go down didn't make baneblades any more fun to play against (quite the opposite) nor make your fundamental army composition much better either. Frankly, the only way to address the issues people have with your army composition is to address the composition of your army by not taking as many baneblades.
Alternatively, we lower the cost of baneblades dramatically, but in turn massively nerf durability and firepower to match, which has a certain appeal to me, now that I think about it. Never was fond of the intro of superheavies, but the cat's out of the bag meow.
I get your attachment to your army, and you seem to have a good grasp on how people may (or do) react to it. Lowering the prices was an unnecessary buff for a solidly performing set of units (especially the shadowsword, even before the gun buff too).
If people are simultaneously lamenting the price cut and your army composition, rest assured they are not mutually exclusive. That's all I'm saying. You're more than welcome to play the way you want and I respect that.
I have to try to make it fun for my opponents while keeping it fun for myself.
"And I only have fun if i stomp face with 3 baneblades. Commander Periwinkle of the Tears & Beers Brigade, who rides in his Shadowsword with his faithful cat Mittens MUST join in the battle when General Fethwizzle twirls his mustache and proclaims, 'Nyehhhh!' Oh, it's too bad you stand no chance of victory. I need my fun, after all."
This is how your posts are coming across in response to blacksails. I dunno man. Give your opponents a break maybe? I mean jeeze.
I liked playing Celestine in 7th edition but i stopped altogether because she crushed my local meta and made games un-fun for my opponent.
That's happened to me before, against guilliman armies. 8th edition is simply brutal, and that's not Guard's fault.
I've lost two superheavy tanks (or lost 1 and had one crippled) which is half my army at 2k on the top of Turn 1. It's just a thing that happens; this is not unique to guard.
Was that pre or post-codex? Because Guard super-heavies are now both cheaper and harder to cripple. Furthermore, Guard are both the best army at crippling opponents in such a way, and one of the most resilient armies against it. Yes, it's a problem with 8th edition, but it is a problem that Guard exploit far more easily than any other army.
(Also: By my math, that amount of damage output from Space Marines is only really possible if he takes 1000ish points of anti-tank fire, plus Guilliman, or if he gets very good dice. It's not going to be a common eventuality.)
It was before, but I'm not sure how being cheaper and harder to cripple makes them not dead. They didn't gain more wounds.
And actually it was just some double-tapping Hellblasters (the plasma guys) followed by a charge from assault devastators on one.
The other one just got shot full of angry lascannons, I think it took 4d6 damage once everything was said and done plus a smattering of other bullets from other sources.
How, pray tell, did he get that close to your Baneblade with (I'm assuming since the numbers don't make sense otherwise) 10 Hellblasters and a unit of (I don't know what 'Assault Devestators are supposed to be). Did you not have any screens?
Also: 4d6 damage is, on average, just 14 wounds. (It's also the result of firing two full squads of Lascannon Devestators buffed by Guilliman - A metric ton of points into dedicated anti-tank fire.) That 'Smattering of other sources' should have, on average, dealt almost half the damage needed to kill it.
Sorry, Assault Centurions.
And they infiltrated with the Raven Guard stratagem. Shrike came along as well, though he didn't do much.
And I think most of the lascannon damage came from a couple of predators and a razorback. IIRC the 'smattering of other damage' was things like smites and whatever shooting was left that wasn't lascannons.
I have to try to make it fun for my opponents while keeping it fun for myself.
"And I only have fun if i stomp face with 3 baneblades. Commander Periwinkle of the Tears & Beers Brigade, who rides in his Shadowsword with his faithful cat Mittens MUST join in the battle when General Fethwizzle twirls his mustache and proclaims, 'Nyehhhh!' Oh, it's too bad you stand no chance of victory. I need my fun, after all."
This is how your posts are coming across in response to blacksails. I dunno man. Give your opponents a break maybe? I mean jeeze.
I liked playing Celestine in 7th edition but i stopped altogether because she crushed my local meta and made games un-fun for my opponent.
Marmatag, I've played 3 Baneblades since they became a legal army in 5th.
They've been bad every single edition since then till now. I still played them then, when they got stomped. I don't particularly care about 'stomping' one way or another.
I didn't ask for them to be good. Now they are, and people don't want to play them. I ask how to help, they say bring other things that aren't baneblades. That tells me that sure, I'll bring more that isn't baneblades.
The way you seem to read it, you're saying "don't bring your army. Build a new one."
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: @ WaaaghPower: It sounds like your opponent was a decent player, recognized the actual threats to his army, made an active effort to eliminate them, and you just had a bad string of rolls. Also you said your army was a gulliman based artillery line? If this was space marines then they were never really known for stationary gunlines (that's kinda the guard's shtick). Maybe try some more mobile space marine options since trying to out-artillery Guard is like trying to beat Muhammad Ali in a fistfight, rather than just suing him for physical assault.
Nah. Other than one unlucky explosion on a tank that put a couple of wounds my dreads, and one really bad but irrelevant roll on a cheap unit of Dominions (three 1s on four 2+ saves, not that it matters,) my rolls were actually generally pretty good - All things considered. (All I really got to roll were armor saves, mostly on 5+ and 6+. I made about half my 5+ saves.)
He just had so many rerolls on pretty much everything that bad dice weren't ever possible for him.
(He WAS a decent opponent, though. Super nice guy, also.)
And they infiltrated with the Raven Guard stratagem. Shrike came along as well, though he didn't do much.
And I think most of the lascannon damage came from a couple of predators and a razorback. IIRC the 'smattering of other damage' was things like smites and whatever shooting was left that wasn't lascannons.
So it WASN'T Ultramarines?
Also: I'm still confused how he managed to assault you, get within 12" of your Baneblade, and hit your tanks with SMITE, a power that targets only the closest unit. Conscripts, or just regular Guardsmen, and even a remotely decent deployment should have prevented this.
Bringing less than 3 baneblades = not playing your army at all? Okay, I guess? Just keep wrecking people, and lamenting that you don't know what to do about it. I mean seriously.
Marmatag wrote: Bringing less than 3 baneblades = not playing your army at all? Okay, I guess? Just keep wrecking people, and lamenting that you don't know what to do about it. I mean seriously.
Do you read my posts? There are dozens of reasons to bring 3, as well as some reasons not to, in the fluff. We could take it to PMs but I am happy to talk the fluff over with you surrounding Imperial superheavies.
Also, it's worth noting that bringing 2 baneblades is essentially bringing 0; they're not very durable for their points (someone did the math on this, I think it's like 24 pts per T8 3+ wound, which is less tough than LRBTs or Land Raiders point for point) and so people with "reasonable" lists can actually quite easily alpha-strike them if they've brought enough anti-tank to also deal with LRBTs and Land Raiders. (my Baneblades come out to almost exactly 21 pts per T8 3+ wound, and they're not very 'optimized'. Leman Russes are ~13 points per T8 3+ wound. Land Raiders are ~20 points per T8 2+ wound. And this is after the point discount on the superheavies).
Marmatag wrote: Bringing less than 3 baneblades = not playing your army at all? Okay, I guess? Just keep wrecking people, and lamenting that you don't know what to do about it. I mean seriously.
That is actually a legitimate concern since the Superheavy detachment requires a minimum of 3 choices, otherwise he'd be running 2 auxillary detachments just for the core of his army (and since most places limit Matched Play to 3 detachments in total, that's quite a significant handicap). Not to mention Steel Fury companies are traditionally (in fluff) made up of 3 or more Baneblade Superheavy tanks (or equivalent variants). Plus this line of thinking just sound like people should only play Unit when his army is weak, but he should be shunned as a pariah if his army actually has a chance to win (i.e: he should be the seal ready to clubbed and somehow it's his fault for not wanting a clubbing).
@ WaaaghPower: He never actually said the army that shaved off two Superheavies was an Ultramarine only army, but I do admit the way he phrased it did sound like so.
But, I was doing some mathhammer, and,,, is he LR turret weapon firing twice really that big a deal? The basic BC has less damage output (against a somewhat arbitarily chosen T8 3+ target) than a Mechanicus Neutron Laser Onager Dunecrawler).
And a Stormsurge with an ATS and shield generator and a basic Baneblade have approximately the same damage output with respect to each other.
But, I was doing some mathhammer, and,,, is he LR turret weapon firing twice really that big a deal? The basic BC has less damage output (against a somewhat arbitarily chosen T8 3+ target) than a Mechanicus Neutron Laser Onager Dunecrawler).
And a Stormsurge with an ATS and shield generator and a basic Baneblade have approximately the same damage output with respect to each other.
Personally, not really that big of a deal. However people see that a Punisher has the potential to do 49 shots in a single turn (9 from 3 heavy bolters, 20 x 2 from it's double-firing punisher cannon) and everybody freaks. Most people sort of forget that these are BS4+ S5 AP0 shots and a fully decked out Punisher isn't exactly cheap. The other Russes are even less impressive since their guns weren't all that good to begin with, but then people conveniently forget these exist when complaining (and don't even get me started on my favourite guard tank, the Hellhound).
But, I was doing some mathhammer, and,,, is he LR turret weapon firing twice really that big a deal? The basic BC has less damage output (against a somewhat arbitarily chosen T8 3+ target) than a Mechanicus Neutron Laser Onager Dunecrawler).
And a Stormsurge with an ATS and shield generator and a basic Baneblade have approximately the same damage output with respect to each other.
No, TBH we still wont see leman russes in tournaments, with the possible exception of pask in a punisher. But I wouldnt bet on it, because mortar squads and wyverns are both superior anti horde weapons already. not to mention Vultures. Pask is a 250 point unit that can be killed without too much trouble by a single volley from a lascannon devastator squad.
The only reaosn people complain about Leman Russes is because they're a common unit and people can go "BUT muh DOUBLED FIREPOWER?!?!?!?!???!?!?" It doesn't actually matter that they're still not terribly great.
The units that are actually a problem in the guard codex are conscripts, plasma scions, mortars, (all nerfed at least somewhat) manticores (admittedly buffed, which was dumb) and forgeworld stuff like elysians, arty carriages, etc (all of which were unchanged by the codex, and stand alongside the malefic lord and alphabet soup tzeentch daemon as testament to forgeworld's horrible balance).
people have a huge problem with units like Basilisks, Russes, etc getting buffed because they're in the same book with conscripts and mortars. The same people would have cried if in 7th GW decided to give a buff to Shining Spears and Wraithblades, because having a book with some OP choices and some useless choices is somehow better than a book with some OP choices and some balanced choices. It definitely doesn't push people towards the few broken choices almost exclusively. Which is why Guilliman is not in every SM list, Celestine is not in every SoB list, and Tyranid lists in 7th featured a large variety of units and not just Flyrants.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: @ WaaaghPower: It sounds like your opponent was a decent player, recognized the actual threats to his army, made an active effort to eliminate them, and you just had a bad string of rolls. Also you said your army was a gulliman based artillery line? If this was space marines then they were never really known for stationary gunlines (that's kinda the guard's shtick). Maybe try some more mobile space marine options since trying to out-artillery Guard is like trying to beat Muhammad Ali in a fistfight, rather than just suing him for physical assault.
Nah. Other than one unlucky explosion on a tank that put a couple of wounds my dreads, and one really bad but irrelevant roll on a cheap unit of Dominions (three 1s on four 2+ saves, not that it matters,) my rolls were actually generally pretty good - All things considered. (All I really got to roll were armor saves, mostly on 5+ and 6+. I made about half my 5+ saves.)
He just had so many rerolls on pretty much everything that bad dice weren't ever possible for him.
Hows that different to playing a Space Marine opponent where they are rerolling everything due to Captains and Lieutenants and the Ancient even allows them to get a final attack off if a unit dies?
Only a couple of weeks ago I saw a squad of Salmander terminators with heavy flamers putting out more shots than even post Codex Leman Russ punisher is capable of and rerolling wounds thanks to their captain, he tabled the Space Wolf army on turn 2.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: @ WaaaghPower: It sounds like your opponent was a decent player, recognized the actual threats to his army, made an active effort to eliminate them, and you just had a bad string of rolls. Also you said your army was a gulliman based artillery line? If this was space marines then they were never really known for stationary gunlines (that's kinda the guard's shtick). Maybe try some more mobile space marine options since trying to out-artillery Guard is like trying to beat Muhammad Ali in a fistfight, rather than just suing him for physical assault.
Nah. Other than one unlucky explosion on a tank that put a couple of wounds my dreads, and one really bad but irrelevant roll on a cheap unit of Dominions (three 1s on four 2+ saves, not that it matters,) my rolls were actually generally pretty good - All things considered. (All I really got to roll were armor saves, mostly on 5+ and 6+. I made about half my 5+ saves.)
He just had so many rerolls on pretty much everything that bad dice weren't ever possible for him.
Hows that different to playing a Space Marine opponent where they are rerolling everything due to Captains and Lieutenants and the Ancient even allows them to get a final attack off if a unit dies?
Only a couple of weeks ago I saw a squad of Salmander terminators with heavy flamers putting out more shots than even post Codex Leman Russ punisher is capable of and rerolling wounds thanks to their captain, he tabled the Space Wolf army on turn 2.
That's literally impossible.
2 Heavy Flamers is, at most, 12 shots. 8 Storm Bolters is 32 shots.
A LRP gets 49 shots.
But, I was doing some mathhammer, and,,, is he LR turret weapon firing twice really that big a deal? The basic BC has less damage output (against a somewhat arbitarily chosen T8 3+ target) than a Mechanicus Neutron Laser Onager Dunecrawler).
And a Stormsurge with an ATS and shield generator and a basic Baneblade have approximately the same damage output with respect to each other.
No, TBH we still wont see leman russes in tournaments, with the possible exception of pask in a punisher. But I wouldnt bet on it, because mortar squads and wyverns are both superior anti horde weapons already. not to mention Vultures. Pask is a 250 point unit that can be killed without too much trouble by a single volley from a lascannon devastator squad.
The only reaosn people complain about Leman Russes is because they're a common unit and people can go "BUT muh DOUBLED FIREPOWER?!?!?!?!???!?!?" It doesn't actually matter that they're still not terribly great.
The units that are actually a problem in the guard codex are conscripts, plasma scions, mortars, (all nerfed at least somewhat) manticores (admittedly buffed, which was dumb) and forgeworld stuff like elysians, arty carriages, etc (all of which were unchanged by the codex, and stand alongside the malefic lord and alphabet soup tzeentch daemon as testament to forgeworld's horrible balance).
people have a huge problem with units like Basilisks, Russes, etc getting buffed because they're in the same book with conscripts and mortars. The same people would have cried if in 7th GW decided to give a buff to Shining Spears and Wraithblades, because having a book with some OP choices and some useless choices is somehow better than a book with some OP choices and some balanced choices. It definitely doesn't push people towards the few broken choices almost exclusively. Which is why Guilliman is not in every SM list, Celestine is not in every SoB list, and Tyranid lists in 7th featured a large variety of units and not just Flyrants.
The big complaint Ive heard isnt so much the buffs to the units themselves (grinding advance, points reductions) its that we got all of this AND really good regiment traits that buff most of our army and all our tanks. Space Marines in particular are very salty that their tanks don't get chapter traits yet ours do for example and I cant say I blame them. Its essentially the whole "Gee Bill, why do you get TWO hotdogs?" issue.
I think the various buffs wouldve been somewhat groaned about, its just our regiment traits are icing on the cake. Yes Admech get this too to a degree but their codex specifically forbids knights getting their forgeworld trait, while our superheavies do. Fluff doesnt matter here, in that Knights arent usually from the same forgeworld as the Admech yet IG baneblades are, its a rules mechanic thing and I understand that. Im not really sure why Guilleman and Mortarion having their chapter abilities as lords of war is fine yet IG is the dealbreaker, but there you go. Best guess is its people who play a chapter that doesnt get a primarch, in that case I would be salty too.
Thats why IG units absolutely deserve a small points hike, or at least not a discount. Leman russes for example only need a small tweak since most were terrible before, grinding advance made them useable, punishers being the exception and could oribably use a larger price increase, alongside Pask going up in price.
What angers people that we got buffs on top of regiment traits that significantly buff our whole army, which in other people's eyes at least, was already perfect. It doesnt matter that regular Leman Russes were crap, IG had a good index therefore their tanks didn't need buffs in people's eyes. We can sit here and weep about being picked on but to be honest Im pretty most of us IG players had similar reactions to Tau and Eldar releases. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that.
And can you blame them? Catachans for example got +1s on infantry across the board, that alone is easily worth a point in other codexes, yet all of our infantry stayed the same pointswise. And this is ignoring more useful abilities like the Cadian reroll 1's. I'm pretty sure that easily pushes guardsmen into being worth at least 5pts per man. Then you need to tack on relics, orders, regimental traits, and warlord traits which, like it or not, do affect a unit's abilities and usefulness and therefore should have at least some influence on its cost. Im not saying infantry squads should be 80pts a squad or anything, but they definitely didnt need to stay at 40pts. That many buffs at least puts them in 50 minimum, possibly even 60pts territory if youre really squeezing every ounce of abilities out of them like cadians can.
But, I was doing some mathhammer, and,,, is he LR turret weapon firing twice really that big a deal? The basic BC has less damage output (against a somewhat arbitarily chosen T8 3+ target) than a Mechanicus Neutron Laser Onager Dunecrawler).
And a Stormsurge with an ATS and shield generator and a basic Baneblade have approximately the same damage output with respect to each other.
Weapon range is a huge factor - being able to move and shoot is also a factor. More shots with the same average damage is about 50% more effective vs non vehcials. Being t8 is a factor. Not to say the dun crawler is bad - dune crawlers - were probably the best vehcial in the game before guard got super buffed.
The Storm Surge takes 25.7 unbuffed spacemarine lascannon shots to kill.
The Baneblade takes 20.1 unbuffed spacemarine lascannon shots to kill.
We can drop it to a Meltagun if you prefer, to make the T8 Baneblade matter. Here it is outside of melta range:
The Stormsurge takes 25.7 unbuffed space marine meltagun shots again; nothing changed.
The Baneblade takes 22.3 unbuffed space marine meltagun shots to kill. Still less durable than the stormsurge.
We can drop it to Strength 7 - let's do plasma guns that aren't overcharged (the only Strength 7 "antitank" weapon I can think of).
The Stormsurge takes 120 unbuffed space marine plasma gun shots to kill.
The Baneblade takes 140 unbuffed Space Marine plasma gun shots to kill.
So if you are trying to kill a baneblade with plasma guns, it is more durable than the Stormsurge. But against any real antitank firepower, the stormsurge is actually more durable, and puts out about the same amount of firepower.
Autocannons are S7, AP-1, D2. They serve as antitank in a pinch.
Also, how much more expensive is a Stormsurge than a Baneblade?
Edit: Also, firepower:
Stormsurge has:
4d6 (14) S5 shots. (Cluster Missile System)
8 more S5 shots (at 18"). (2 Burst Cannons)
8 more S5 shots that don't need LoS. (2 Smart Missiles)
And then its main gun, which either does:
Pulse Blastcannon (Max Range 30")
2 S14 AP-4 D6 shots.
4 S12 AP-2 D3 shots.
6 S10 AP0 D1 shots.
or
Pulse Driver Cannon
1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots.
All at a 4+, degrading.
It WILL take a Shield Generator, and probably a Multi-Tracker and Advanced Targeting Systems, for reroll 1s and -1 AP on all guns. It also has 4 Destroyer missiles.
This costs: 442 points, with the Blastcannon. It jumps up by about 50 points to take the Driver.
A Baneblade has:
2 S7 AP-1 D2 shots. (Autocannon)
3d6 (10.5) S9 AP-3 D3 shots. (Baneblade cannon)
1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots, at 24". (Demolisher cannon)
3 S4 shots. (Heavy Stubber)
4 S9 AP-3 Dd6 shots. (4 Lascannons)
24 S5 AP-1 shots. (4 Twin Heavy Bolters.)
All at a 4+, degrading.
This costs 689 points. A fair amount more than the Stormsurge. (Although I am looking at the Index, so didn't the Baneblade drop by like, 40 points?)
Against, say, Marines, the Stormsurge kills:
5 with secondary weapons, and either 1.11 with its main gun (10-20") or .83 (less than 10"), for about 6 total.
Baneblade kills:
.33 with the Auto, 3.65 with the main cannon, .69 with the Demolisher, .25 with the Stubber, 1.39 with the Lascannons, and 4 with the Heavy Bolters, for 10.31 total.
Baneblade is nearly twice as good.
What if they fire at each other? We'll assume each is undamaged and in optimal range.
Stormsurge does 2.5 wounds with its secondaries and 2.67 with its main (10-20") or 4 with its main (less than 10"). Average that to around 6 wounds.
Baneblade does .5 with autocannon, 5.25 with its main cannon, 1.17 with Demolisher, .17 with its stubber, 2.33 with its Lascannons, and 2 with its Heavy Bolters, for 11.42. Nearly double that of Stormsurge.
Now, I just realized I forgot to reroll 1s for the Surge, which it can get so long as it targets just one unit. That being said, the Baneblade is a LOT better than a Stormsurge.
JNAProductions wrote: Autocannons are S7, AP-1, D2. They serve as antitank in a pinch.
Also, how much more expensive is a Stormsurge than a Baneblade?
I'm pretty sure it's cheaper, by a good bit. The base platform is 180 I believe.
Autocannons aren't antitank weapons. There's a reason the Hydra is not actually very good at its job, and that reason is mostly the fact that Str 7 -1 doesn't cut it.
JNAProductions wrote: Autocannons are S7, AP-1, D2. They serve as antitank in a pinch.
Also, how much more expensive is a Stormsurge than a Baneblade?
Edit: Also, firepower:
Stormsurge has:
4d6 (14) S5 shots. (Cluster Missile System)
8 more S5 shots (at 18"). (2 Burst Cannons)
8 more S5 shots that don't need LoS. (2 Smart Missiles)
And then its main gun, which either does:
Pulse Blastcannon (Max Range 30")
2 S14 AP-4 D6 shots.
4 S12 AP-2 D3 shots.
6 S10 AP0 D1 shots.
or
Pulse Driver Cannon
1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots.
All at a 4+, degrading.
It WILL take a Shield Generator, and probably a Multi-Tracker and Advanced Targeting Systems, for reroll 1s and -1 AP on all guns. It also has 4 Destroyer missiles.
This costs: 442 points, with the Blastcannon. It jumps up by about 50 points to take the Driver.
A Baneblade has:
2 S7 AP-1 D2 shots. (Autocannon)
3d6 (10.5) S9 AP-3 D3 shots. (Baneblade cannon)
1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots, at 24". (Demolisher cannon)
3 S4 shots. (Heavy Stubber)
4 S9 AP-3 Dd6 shots. (4 Lascannons)
24 S5 AP-1 shots. (4 Twin Heavy Bolters.)
All at a 4+, degrading.
This costs 689 points. A fair amount more than the Stormsurge. (Although I am looking at the Index, so didn't the Baneblade drop by like, 40 points?)
Against, say, Marines, the Stormsurge kills:
5 with secondary weapons, and either 1.11 with its main gun (10-20") or .83 (less than 10"), for about 6 total.
Baneblade kills:
.33 with the Auto, 3.65 with the main cannon, .69 with the Demolisher, .25 with the Stubber, 1.39 with the Lascannons, and 4 with the Heavy Bolters, for 10.31 total.
Baneblade is nearly twice as good.
What if they fire at each other? We'll assume each is undamaged and in optimal range.
Stormsurge does 2.5 wounds with its secondaries and 2.67 with its main (10-20") or 4 with its main (less than 10"). Average that to around 6 wounds.
Baneblade does .5 with autocannon, 5.25 with its main cannon, 1.17 with Demolisher, .17 with its stubber, 2.33 with its Lascannons, and 2 with its Heavy Bolters, for 11.42. Nearly double that of Stormsurge.
Now, I just realized I forgot to reroll 1s for the Surge, which it can get so long as it targets just one unit. That being said, the Baneblade is a LOT better than a Stormsurge.
I edited some math in. The Stormsurge is cheaper, yes. But worse.
JNAProductions wrote: Autocannons are S7, AP-1, D2. They serve as antitank in a pinch.
Also, how much more expensive is a Stormsurge than a Baneblade?
Edit: Also, firepower:
Stormsurge has: 4d6 (14) S5 shots. (Cluster Missile System) 8 more S5 shots (at 18"). (2 Burst Cannons) 8 more S5 shots that don't need LoS. (2 Smart Missiles) And then its main gun, which either does: Pulse Blastcannon (Max Range 30") 2 S14 AP-4 D6 shots. 4 S12 AP-2 D3 shots. 6 S10 AP0 D1 shots. or Pulse Driver Cannon 1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots. All at a 4+, degrading. It WILL take a Shield Generator, and probably a Multi-Tracker and Advanced Targeting Systems, for reroll 1s and -1 AP on all guns. It also has 4 Destroyer missiles. This costs: 442 points, with the Blastcannon. It jumps up by about 50 points to take the Driver.
A Baneblade has: 2 S7 AP-1 D2 shots. (Autocannon) 3d6 (10.5) S9 AP-3 D3 shots. (Baneblade cannon) 1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots, at 24". (Demolisher cannon) 3 S4 shots. (Heavy Stubber) 4 S9 AP-3 Dd6 shots. (4 Lascannons) 24 S5 AP-1 shots. (4 Twin Heavy Bolters.) All at a 4+, degrading. This costs 689 points. A fair amount more than the Stormsurge. (Although I am looking at the Index, so didn't the Baneblade drop by like, 40 points?)
Against, say, Marines, the Stormsurge kills: 5 with secondary weapons, and either 1.11 with its main gun (10-20") or .83 (less than 10"), for about 6 total. Baneblade kills: .33 with the Auto, 3.65 with the main cannon, .69 with the Demolisher, .25 with the Stubber, 1.39 with the Lascannons, and 4 with the Heavy Bolters, for 10.31 total. Baneblade is nearly twice as good.
What if they fire at each other? We'll assume each is undamaged and in optimal range. Stormsurge does 2.5 wounds with its secondaries and 2.67 with its main (10-20") or 4 with its main (less than 10"). Average that to around 6 wounds. Baneblade does .5 with autocannon, 5.25 with its main cannon, 1.17 with Demolisher, .17 with its stubber, 2.33 with its Lascannons, and 2 with its Heavy Bolters, for 11.42. Nearly double that of Stormsurge.
Now, I just realized I forgot to reroll 1s for the Surge, which it can get so long as it targets just one unit. That being said, the Baneblade is a LOT better than a Stormsurge.
I edited some math in. The Stormsurge is cheaper, yes. But worse.
Yes, which is about what you would expect, right? The cheaper unit is worse?
Also don't forget the Stormsurge can do 4d3 mortal wounds as well, essentially automatically if it has Markerlight support.
JNAProductions wrote: Autocannons are S7, AP-1, D2. They serve as antitank in a pinch.
Also, how much more expensive is a Stormsurge than a Baneblade?
Edit: Also, firepower:
Stormsurge has:
4d6 (14) S5 shots. (Cluster Missile System)
8 more S5 shots (at 18"). (2 Burst Cannons)
8 more S5 shots that don't need LoS. (2 Smart Missiles)
And then its main gun, which either does:
Pulse Blastcannon (Max Range 30")
2 S14 AP-4 D6 shots.
4 S12 AP-2 D3 shots.
6 S10 AP0 D1 shots.
or
Pulse Driver Cannon
1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots.
All at a 4+, degrading.
It WILL take a Shield Generator, and probably a Multi-Tracker and Advanced Targeting Systems, for reroll 1s and -1 AP on all guns. It also has 4 Destroyer missiles.
This costs: 442 points, with the Blastcannon. It jumps up by about 50 points to take the Driver.
A Baneblade has:
2 S7 AP-1 D2 shots. (Autocannon)
3d6 (10.5) S9 AP-3 D3 shots. (Baneblade cannon)
1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots, at 24". (Demolisher cannon)
3 S4 shots. (Heavy Stubber)
4 S9 AP-3 Dd6 shots. (4 Lascannons)
24 S5 AP-1 shots. (4 Twin Heavy Bolters.)
All at a 4+, degrading.
This costs 689 points. A fair amount more than the Stormsurge. (Although I am looking at the Index, so didn't the Baneblade drop by like, 40 points?)
Against, say, Marines, the Stormsurge kills:
5 with secondary weapons, and either 1.11 with its main gun (10-20") or .83 (less than 10"), for about 6 total.
Baneblade kills:
.33 with the Auto, 3.65 with the main cannon, .69 with the Demolisher, .25 with the Stubber, 1.39 with the Lascannons, and 4 with the Heavy Bolters, for 10.31 total.
Baneblade is nearly twice as good.
What if they fire at each other? We'll assume each is undamaged and in optimal range.
Stormsurge does 2.5 wounds with its secondaries and 2.67 with its main (10-20") or 4 with its main (less than 10"). Average that to around 6 wounds.
Baneblade does .5 with autocannon, 5.25 with its main cannon, 1.17 with Demolisher, .17 with its stubber, 2.33 with its Lascannons, and 2 with its Heavy Bolters, for 11.42. Nearly double that of Stormsurge.
Now, I just realized I forgot to reroll 1s for the Surge, which it can get so long as it targets just one unit. That being said, the Baneblade is a LOT better than a Stormsurge.
I edited some math in. The Stormsurge is cheaper, yes. But worse.
Yes, which is about what you would expect, right? The cheaper unit is worse?
Also don't forget the Stormsurge can do 4d3 mortal wounds as well, essentially automatically if it has Markerlight support.
About half as good.
And 4d3 mortal wounds, with support, on a 4+ (rerolling ones). 3+ if it's anchored. That's an average of 6.22 mortal wounds, ASSUMING MARKERLIGHT SUPPORT. The Baneblade does more damage EVERY TURN without any support.
JNAProductions wrote: Autocannons are S7, AP-1, D2. They serve as antitank in a pinch.
Also, how much more expensive is a Stormsurge than a Baneblade?
Edit: Also, firepower:
Stormsurge has:
4d6 (14) S5 shots. (Cluster Missile System)
8 more S5 shots (at 18"). (2 Burst Cannons)
8 more S5 shots that don't need LoS. (2 Smart Missiles)
And then its main gun, which either does:
Pulse Blastcannon (Max Range 30")
2 S14 AP-4 D6 shots.
4 S12 AP-2 D3 shots.
6 S10 AP0 D1 shots.
or
Pulse Driver Cannon
1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots.
All at a 4+, degrading.
It WILL take a Shield Generator, and probably a Multi-Tracker and Advanced Targeting Systems, for reroll 1s and -1 AP on all guns. It also has 4 Destroyer missiles.
This costs: 442 points, with the Blastcannon. It jumps up by about 50 points to take the Driver.
A Baneblade has:
2 S7 AP-1 D2 shots. (Autocannon)
3d6 (10.5) S9 AP-3 D3 shots. (Baneblade cannon)
1d3 (2) S10 AP-3 Dd6 shots, at 24". (Demolisher cannon)
3 S4 shots. (Heavy Stubber)
4 S9 AP-3 Dd6 shots. (4 Lascannons)
24 S5 AP-1 shots. (4 Twin Heavy Bolters.)
All at a 4+, degrading.
This costs 689 points. A fair amount more than the Stormsurge. (Although I am looking at the Index, so didn't the Baneblade drop by like, 40 points?)
Against, say, Marines, the Stormsurge kills:
5 with secondary weapons, and either 1.11 with its main gun (10-20") or .83 (less than 10"), for about 6 total.
Baneblade kills:
.33 with the Auto, 3.65 with the main cannon, .69 with the Demolisher, .25 with the Stubber, 1.39 with the Lascannons, and 4 with the Heavy Bolters, for 10.31 total.
Baneblade is nearly twice as good.
What if they fire at each other? We'll assume each is undamaged and in optimal range.
Stormsurge does 2.5 wounds with its secondaries and 2.67 with its main (10-20") or 4 with its main (less than 10"). Average that to around 6 wounds.
Baneblade does .5 with autocannon, 5.25 with its main cannon, 1.17 with Demolisher, .17 with its stubber, 2.33 with its Lascannons, and 2 with its Heavy Bolters, for 11.42. Nearly double that of Stormsurge.
Now, I just realized I forgot to reroll 1s for the Surge, which it can get so long as it targets just one unit. That being said, the Baneblade is a LOT better than a Stormsurge.
I edited some math in. The Stormsurge is cheaper, yes. But worse.
Yes, which is about what you would expect, right? The cheaper unit is worse?
Also don't forget the Stormsurge can do 4d3 mortal wounds as well, essentially automatically if it has Markerlight support.
About half as good.
And 4d3 mortal wounds, with support, on a 4+ (rerolling ones). 3+ if it's anchored. That's an average of 6.22 mortal wounds, ASSUMING MARKERLIGHT SUPPORT. The Baneblade does more damage EVERY TURN without any support.
About half as good in firepower (and not even because you forgot the re-roll ones, as you admit) but more durable against big guns is fine. The Baneblade's also actually 703 points and does slightly more damage because you forgot one Twin Heavy Bolter.
Besides, if you mix and match the Baneblade's weapons more it changes.
For example, my Baneblades are the "classic" loadout, with only one set of sponsons (2 lascannons and 2 twin heavy bolters per tank, plus the default armament (1 baneblade cannon, 1 autocannon, 1 demolisher cannon, 1 twin heavy bolter)). Alternatively, the Baneblade you're testing against could be "optimized" with heavy flamers, in which case the cost rockets to 767 points and it actually loses firepower until the enemy is 8" away. So it all depends on what you've given the tank.
But, I was doing some mathhammer, and,,, is he LR turret weapon firing twice really that big a deal? The basic BC has less damage output (against a somewhat arbitarily chosen T8 3+ target) than a Mechanicus Neutron Laser Onager Dunecrawler).
In fairness, some LR variants were due for a buff, the BC being one of them. But all LRs getting double shots for a trifling penalty AND a points cut was a little overboard. They could have reasonably buffed the weaker LR weapons, but instead just blanked buffed everything, which smacks of laziness to me.
But, I was doing some mathhammer, and,,, is he LR turret weapon firing twice really that big a deal? The basic BC has less damage output (against a somewhat arbitarily chosen T8 3+ target) than a Mechanicus Neutron Laser Onager Dunecrawler).
In fairness, some LR variants were due for a buff, the BC being one of them. But all LRs getting double shots for a trifling penalty AND a points cut was a little overboard. They could have reasonably buffed the weaker LR weapons, but instead just blanked buffed everything, which smacks of laziness to me.
Weapon costs should have been tweaked. The leman Russ Battlecannon is about perfect where it sits, whereas a Punisher at this points cost is pretty insane, especially with a tank commander or pask. Generic ones arent near as crazy, its mainly how Pask combines with the punisher that pushes it over the top. If anything Pask needs the biggest point increase, with the punisher getting a small amount on top of that.
Like I said, a skilled player with a bad army is better than an unskilled player with a good army. My opponent decided to park his ass in a corner thinking he could shoot everything I had off the board, then proceeded to focus on my dreadnoughts and tanks and forgot my berserkers existed. He also didn't take into account Morale and thought that the bonuses from his defensive grenades and overwatch would protect his fire warriors. From Berserkers. I basically ended up controlling all of the objectives on the board by the end of turn 2 and his battlesuits ended up chasing a single backpedaling dreadnought for most of the game. Just because someone has a bigger gun doesn't necessarily mean they will win in a firefight, especially if they're holding the gun backwards. Similarly, my 3.5 Iron Warriors have also lost to a 3rd edition Dark Eldar army simply because I didn't know about Dark Lances (DE players being THAT rare at the time).
When life gives you lemons, make exploding lemons. Blaming your loss on an opponent's army choice rather than actually try to find a way around it just seem cowardly to me.
That's not always true, though. In the case of my last game against Guard, my opponent made a ton of mistakes - Lots of exploitable gaps in his screen, nowhere near enough troops near the Relic making it super wide open, tanks crowded too close together, meaning that one assault could potentially bog a bunch of them down.
The problem is, none of those mistakes matter when he has board-covering range, easy counter-deployment access, and can kill half my army in a single shooting phase.
Those mistakes absolutely matter. If there are gaps in the screen, then Alpha Legion or Raven Guard (just as examples) will drop in, march through the gaps, and feth over all of his tanks.
Boom, just won the game right there.
Firstly: When I say 'Gaps' I mean 'Small areas where my Seraphim/Celestine could jump over conscripts and get into assault'. Not large gaps that Infiltrators could exploit.
Secondly: I had every intention of exploiting those gaps, but as I have noted several times now, over half my army was destroyed in one turn, before I got to go. This isn't a hypothetical. His mistakes didn't matter, because I didn't survive long enough to exploit them.
That's happened to me before, against guilliman armies. 8th edition is simply brutal, and that's not Guard's fault.
I've lost two superheavy tanks (or lost 1 and had one crippled) which is half my army at 2k on the top of Turn 1. It's just a thing that happens; this is not unique to guard.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Heck, there's a thread in this very forum where a CSM player tabled an Eldar player top of turn 1.
This really isn't just a problem with guard, so acting like it's the guard codex's fault is just ... asinine. It's not.
*Coughs* Well Guilliman is REALLY good.
>.>
But it's not a superheavy list that breaks the meta since superheavies are all or nothing as a list. If you can't effectively deal with them, you will be smeared across the board, if you can take out, minimum, of one superheavy a turn, you'll win in 3 to 4 turns just by killing all the super heavies, and most competitive lists have the ability to kill superheavies. It's sort of the competitive litmus. Superheavies would be a bummer for someone playing a less anti tank focused casual list. My calgar list is too fragile to survive the baneblade alpha and hit back, while my guilliman list is completely fine with it. Rhinos make good cover for a turn, and either die or can move to open up a firelane.
People who think all superheavies are a tournament winning list need to pay attention to tournaments. They win rarely, and only as an anti meta pick, eg, everyone builds an army to kill hordes since hordes are dominating, a superheavy list will knock out the people who went too far with anti horde and sacrificed most of their anti tank weaponry. The problem with this being smite spam rocks the pants off super heavies and hordes protecting smite spam is pretty much 100 percent of all chaos lists, and a lot of imp soup lists do it too.
That's happened to me before, against guilliman armies. 8th edition is simply brutal, and that's not Guard's fault.
I've lost two superheavy tanks (or lost 1 and had one crippled) which is half my army at 2k on the top of Turn 1. It's just a thing that happens; this is not unique to guard.
Was that pre or post-codex? Because Guard super-heavies are now both cheaper and harder to cripple.
Furthermore, Guard are both the best army at crippling opponents in such a way, and one of the most resilient armies against it. Yes, it's a problem with 8th edition, but it is a problem that Guard exploit far more easily than any other army. Their range makes it nearly impossible to counter-deploy against or hide from, their screens make it impossible to assault and tie up.
(Also: By my math, that amount of damage output from Space Marines is only really possible if he takes 1000ish points of anti-tank fire, plus Guilliman, or if he gets very good dice. It's not going to be a common eventuality.)
Hmm... let's see, I had 2 devastator squads with missle launchers at 10 men and 2 5 man hellblasters for my antitank shooting. Plus Guilliman himself, and 2 librarians for psychic chipping.
4 missile launchers hit roughly 3.5ish times (actual math is hard. rounding to nearest half interger) and wound roughly 2.5 times, netting just under 2 wounds after saves. hellblasters hit roughly 9 times (a little less) and wound roughly 7ish (6.75 or somthing) for, let's split the difference and say 13 wounds. two hellblasters plus a smite kills a baneblade and lets my missiles shoot somewhere else for roughly 14 to 16 damage depending on rerolls. And that's not including other incidental fire.
Baneblade armies require the ability to craft an effective list and the ability to pick out proper firelanes. I managed to hide most of my anti tank in cover or behind a rhino, preserving my firepower for the first turn alpha, loosing all my tactical screens, my rhinos, and a few expendables in my dev unit. In return I nuked a baneblade and half another, roughly statistically even, maybe a little better.
Baneblades are by no means overwhelmingly good, not even now with a price decrease. Aptly, their weight (in points) in leman russes would do better in my opinion.
But, I was doing some mathhammer, and,,, is he LR turret weapon firing twice really that big a deal? The basic BC has less damage output (against a somewhat arbitarily chosen T8 3+ target) than a Mechanicus Neutron Laser Onager Dunecrawler).
In fairness, some LR variants were due for a buff, the BC being one of them. But all LRs getting double shots for a trifling penalty AND a points cut was a little overboard. They could have reasonably buffed the weaker LR weapons, but instead just blanked buffed everything, which smacks of laziness to me.
Weapon costs should have been tweaked. The leman Russ Battlecannon is about perfect where it sits, whereas a Punisher at this points cost is pretty insane, especially with a tank commander or pask. Generic ones arent near as crazy, its mainly how Pask combines with the punisher that pushes it over the top. If anything Pask needs the biggest point increase, with the punisher getting a small amount on top of that.
I don't get it. Do people not just shoot the crap out of pask? He's got a 29" threat range. Don't put anything in that that can't take a whole bunch of S5 AP0. He deals on average about 5 wounds to your normal transport, or kills 5 marines in cover. If he lives more than one turn, you're kind of making a mistake, because he's 250ish points with leman russ defenses. I wasn't being hyperbolic when I said it's not unreasonable for 4 lasdevs to kill him in a single round of shooting - their wound potential is double his health. On average, it'll take 2 dev squads, if they're unbuffed.
The paskisher is a thing that looks super unreasonable and scary on paper. Do you know why FW Vultures aren't sweeping through tournaments en masse, despite putting out almost the same firepower for cheaper? Because 40 S5 AP0 shots isn't particularly scary in 8th, where they don't have the ability to glance vehicles to death.
MechaEmperor7000 wrote: @ WaaaghPower: It sounds like your opponent was a decent player, recognized the actual threats to his army, made an active effort to eliminate them, and you just had a bad string of rolls. Also you said your army was a gulliman based artillery line? If this was space marines then they were never really known for stationary gunlines (that's kinda the guard's shtick). Maybe try some more mobile space marine options since trying to out-artillery Guard is like trying to beat Muhammad Ali in a fistfight, rather than just suing him for physical assault.
Nah. Other than one unlucky explosion on a tank that put a couple of wounds my dreads, and one really bad but irrelevant roll on a cheap unit of Dominions (three 1s on four 2+ saves, not that it matters,) my rolls were actually generally pretty good - All things considered. (All I really got to roll were armor saves, mostly on 5+ and 6+. I made about half my 5+ saves.)
He just had so many rerolls on pretty much everything that bad dice weren't ever possible for him.
(He WAS a decent opponent, though. Super nice guy, also.)
And they infiltrated with the Raven Guard stratagem. Shrike came along as well, though he didn't do much.
And I think most of the lascannon damage came from a couple of predators and a razorback. IIRC the 'smattering of other damage' was things like smites and whatever shooting was left that wasn't lascannons.
So it WASN'T Ultramarines?
Also: I'm still confused how he managed to assault you, get within 12" of your Baneblade, and hit your tanks with SMITE, a power that targets only the closest unit. Conscripts, or just regular Guardsmen, and even a remotely decent deployment should have prevented this.
People play more than one game. I am roughly 90 percent certain I am the ultramarine player he played against. I did win, and I did so by surviving the first turn fire through use of terrain and sacrificing my rhinos, and taking out one and a half baneblades on his turn.
