I made one of these threads at the start of 8th, and now almost every strong unit has been nerfed by games workshop and their feedback mechanisms. So who's at the top now? Vote for your top 5 strongest units and give me suggestions if there's anything I've missed! I've tried to group a few units with similar battlefield roles together.

I voted: Guilliman, Mortarion, Magnus, Dark Reapers and Tempestus Scions.

I voted Dark Reapers, and only Dark Reapers.

While Eldar may not be as OP as Imperial Guard, this specific unit is just a joke to play against. Did i say unit? I meant two detachments with 12 dark reaper units. Or a giant blob. it doesn't really matter, it's not like they need the obvious synergy of guide, and forewarned, to be beyond badass. Oh and for 1CP they can jump-shoot-jump.

It's interesting that each option already has at least one vote.

craftworld_uk wrote:
It's interesting that each option already has at least one vote.

You could vote at everything at the same time so probably someone just voted all the options.

Dark reapers are good but it shows how eldar players will spam their best units.

IG: infantry squads should have a lot more votes. The fact that Bobby G has more votes shows a lack of understanding on the part of the community on what true power is in 8th.

DKoK Engineers + Carcass shells + Acid bombs + Hades = ouch!

Situational admittedly.

Post FAQ, demo charge as well......mwhahahaha

Martel732 wrote:
IG: infantry squads should have a lot more votes. The fact that Bobby G has more votes shows a lack of understanding on the part of the community on what true power is in 8th.

Par for the course on dakka.

I votes
IG infantry
IG manitocres
Eldar Dark Reapers
Eldar SS
Eldar Psykers

Martel732 wrote:
IG: infantry squads should have a lot more votes. The fact that Bobby G has more votes shows a lack of understanding on the part of the community on what true power is in 8th.

IG Infantry is strong, but nowhere near the strongest. RG is crucial to other units being taken to higher levels.

Guilliman as a Standalone unit is busted beyond comprehension.

He gets dragged down by the fact that you can only take 1 and he is tied with the Space Marine Codex.

 Primark G wrote:
Dark reapers are good but it shows how eldar players will spam their best units.

Not eldar. All faction players in tournaments and quite a lot in random pickup games.

edit: IG infantry, manticore, plague crawler, dark reapers and scions for me.

I voted:

Imperial guard: infantry squads
Imperial guard: mortars
CSM: obliterators
Eldar: Dark reapers
Eldar: psykers

These units should be auto-includes in any powergaming list that has access to them. The primarchs are good, but none of them are auto-includes.

RG is dragged down by what he's buffing. Which is necessarily mediocre to crappy units. IG infantry make the most busted codex immune to assault and deep strike and captures objectives. For 4 ppm. Busted.

 Galas wrote:
Guilliman as a Standalone unit is busted beyond comprehension.

He gets dragged down by the fact that you can only take 1 and he is tied with the Space Marine Codex.

So what does that make space marines without guilliman?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Guilliman as a Standalone unit is busted beyond comprehension.

He gets dragged down by the fact that you can only take 1 and he is tied with the Space Marine Codex.

So what does that make space marines without guilliman?

A faction that would be fairly good if it had access to a screening unit and a decent psyker.

No cadian heavy weapon team?

 Niiai wrote:
No cadian heavy weapon team?

The mortars are good. The rest gets erased when you breathe at them.

 Niiai wrote:
No cadian heavy weapon team?

They are good...In infantry squads. Outside infantry squads they are bunch of T3 5+ W2 guys that are fairly expensive per point so prime targets. Mortars have some ability to hide though on many boards they are easy enough to spot anyway and rest need to be visible to be useful.

Martel732 wrote:
RG is dragged down by what he's buffing. Which is necessarily mediocre to crappy units. IG infantry make the most busted codex immune to assault and deep strike and captures objectives. For 4 ppm. Busted.

True enough. Guard infantry is so cheap it's sickening. But I still think Dark Reapers are, point for point, stronger than these guys.

Have you seen a squad of reapers, guided, move into LOS, shoot, and then for 1 cp, move back into hiding? Every turn? Yeah

Reapers are gonna get the hammer for sure. IG guardsmen might skate along for some time.

I had trouble deciding. Guilliman, Magnus, and infantry squads all seemed like easy picks. Dark reapers were one I had heard awful things about even if I have yet to personally face them, so sure toss that in as well.

But for my fifth I had a bunch of things that I'd heard were a little busted but never seen personally due anything that impressive. IG mortars, mortarion, and IG/eldar psykers. I ended up going Morty just because I figure it's more likely for me to miss my own model overperforming than an enemy model, but it was close.

One unit that I think is busted isn't an option on this list. The Wraithguard.

The next CA should absolutely wreck Dark Reapers. That unit is so brutally underpriced it's unreal. They could double the total price for a Dark Reaper and they'd be closer to balanced than they are now, especially as you consider all the different synergy options from psychic powers and stratagems available to them.

If they don't go up by at least 10 points per model, after the complete over nerfs to many other units in the game, I don't know what to say about GW's "balance team". As of now, the only counter to Dark Reapers is to play infantry hordes with no viable targets.

Still amused at how basic guardsmen are now a major powergaming element apparently...and Mortars?...oh my


For super serious though, for units that really force major shifts in how an opponent will have to deal with an army or can make or break a list or create killer combis, it's hard not to go with Dark Reapers, Bobby G, Celestine, Morty and Magnus.

Skitarii Vanguard should be voted the best basic infantry in the game. For 3pts more than a Guardsman you get +1BS, +1Sv, a 6++ Invulnerable, all the juicy Canticles and a 3-shot Lasgun that can cause 6 wounds.

You can be amused, but you are also incorrect in your assessments of true power in 8th ed. Taking up real estate as cheaply as possible is a huge chunk of the game.

Everytime I see Morty, he dies to a hail of manticore fire. I can't see how he belongs while IG exist as currently constituted.

" really force major shifts in how an opponent will have to deal with an army or can make or break a list or create killer combis"

This is exactly what IG infantry do.

I chose Hellblasters as with some easy buffs they can easily erase hard targets.

My votes went a few directions for various reasons.

Dark Reapers: While I think they're almost priced reasonably, the game rules make them better than they should be. However I dislike stacking dozens of rules to make units unhittable so while I own 12 of these models, no more than six come out unless you're being a dick. If you can't target/kill a handful of Toughness 3 models, that's a problem. They shouldn't get more than one turn of shooting normally.

Boyz: Still the most bang for your buck in the entire game when Ork character abilities are layered. I think there's no excuse for a cheap basic infantry model to get 5 attacks for any reason...at all. If they get better in the eventual Ork codex they'll be even more broken. So - not broken alone, but can be broken through assistance.

Guilliman/Celestine: not super powerful by themselves but what they do for armies and their survivability puts them up there as being broken simply by themselves. Add the force-multiplier element and they're way too cost efficient.

Manticore, etc.: Indirect fire in this game is strong (probably should get a generic -1 to hit penalty for any indirect weapons or something), but the ability of guard to boost and buy it cheap makes it really potent in the right mix.

pismakron wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Guilliman as a Standalone unit is busted beyond comprehension.

He gets dragged down by the fact that you can only take 1 and he is tied with the Space Marine Codex.

So what does that make space marines without guilliman?

A faction that would be fairly good if it had access to a screening unit and a decent psyker.

Anyone playing SM who's worth their salt will bring guardsmen to screen... in my list I run GMan, a UM detachment, and an AM detachment.... my only problem is that I can't take a fourth detachment and fit in more units of guardsmen...

 Primark G wrote:
I chose Hellblasters as with some easy buffs they can easily erase hard targets.

Not as easily as you think. You have to get to 15" to be truly effective. That's not easy.

Inceptors are really good too with the point reduction from CA - the plasma option is strong. I just wonder how long before Dark Reapers get hit with the nerf bat.

Given that, on average, Mortarion (with 18 wounds and a 4+ invul and Disgustingly Resilient) will require 81 Manticore shots (or about 12 vehicles worth of fire), the idea that Mortarion just routinely dies to hails of manticore fire doesnt jive terribly squarely in most practical contexts.

As for IG infantry, aside from board control, theyre not generally contributing much, and while board control has very real value, thats no different than literally every other edition of 40k where they were largely considered subpar garbage or mediocre at absolute best. There may be an argument for slight adjustments to certain things, but putting them in amongst the top 5 strongest units is being hyperbolic, much like previous claims about other IG units that have been addressed before.

Are there some things that should probably change? Yeah, indirect fire, in general, should require a spotter or have a modifier or something. Yeah the Shadowsword is a wee bit ridiculous. But the basic Infantry Squad being at the top of the powergaming list is...reaching.

I don't think so. The infantry squad facilitates the rest of the list. They don't have to contribute actively. They contribute by BEING.

 Elbows wrote:
Dark Reapers: While I think they're almost priced reasonably, the game rules make them better than they should be. However I dislike stacking dozens of rules to make units unhittable so while I own 12 of these models, no more than six come out unless you're being a dick. If you can't target/kill a handful of Toughness 3 models, that's a problem. They shouldn't get more than one turn of shooting normally.

Totally agree and why I have yet to pick up any. There may be a ton of rules that you can stack on them to make them powerful, but they can't really survive without at least 2-3 of those rules all together. By that point, you are investing a lot more into them than you really should.

And Eldar having powerful stratagems not only makes sense from a fluff perspective (tricksy elves), but it balances out the fact that they can't get as many CPs as other armies with access to cheaper Troops/HQs to fill Battalions/Brigades.
Most competitive Eldar lists struggle to get 10 total CPs, while most Imperium lists can easily pump out over a dozen CPs

-

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think so. The infantry squad facilitates the rest of the list. They don't have to contribute actively. They contribute by BEING.

and how was the same not true in 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th? Their tactical role, deployment methodology, etc hasnt really changed. Being a meatshield has what theyve always most famously been.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think so. The infantry squad facilitates the rest of the list. They don't have to contribute actively. They contribute by BEING.

and how was the same not true in 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th? Their tactical role, deployment methodology, etc hasnt really changed. Being a meatshield has what theyve always most famously been.

8th edition changed. Number of bodies matters more now, as do bubble wraps. Arguably way more than prior editions.

-

They are much harder to remove as well. No more deep striking heavy flamers saying "bye-bye" instantly.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think so. The infantry squad facilitates the rest of the list. They don't have to contribute actively. They contribute by BEING.

and how was the same not true in 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th? Their tactical role, deployment methodology, etc hasnt really changed. Being a meatshield has what theyve always most famously been.

They used to be extremely fragile with mediocre damage output. Now they are very durable with a very high damage out (with FRFSRF)

Attacking with S3 used to be very bad and a 5+ save used to be worthless. And they used to be 5 points per model (which I am sure they will be again)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:

Boyz: Still the most bang for your buck in the entire game when Ork character abilities are layered. I think there's no excuse for a cheap basic infantry model to get 5 attacks for any reason...at all. If they get better in the eventual Ork codex they'll be even more broken. So - not broken alone, but can be broken through assistance.

They can actually be buffed to 6 attacks per boy hitting on 2+. That is one attack per point. But that is not so easy to pull off.

Martel732 wrote:
They are much harder to remove as well. No more deep striking heavy flamers saying "bye-bye" instantly.

In some ways thats a fair point, I'll grant (though also limited largely to Space Marine armies in relevance) but given how you can also charge after deep striking now, and that DS is basically free of any variables or risk (no more scatter or mishap), that opens up new worlds of hurt for guardsmen. Also that you can doubletap with rapid fire weapons and still charge is another bonus to dealing with them. Sure they can fall back, but in most cases they're still probably dead or functionally broken either way.

pismakron wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think so. The infantry squad facilitates the rest of the list. They don't have to contribute actively. They contribute by BEING.

and how was the same not true in 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th? Their tactical role, deployment methodology, etc hasnt really changed. Being a meatshield has what theyve always most famously been.

They used to be extremely fragile with mediocre damage output. Now they are very durable with a very high damage out (with FRFSRF)

they're no more durable now relative to their previous edition incarnations than Orks, Grots, Guardians, Kabalite Warriors, Kroot, Gaunts, or any other light infantry unit. FRFSRF also isnt new, its been around for 9 years and 4 editions.

Attacking with S3 used to be very bad

it still is, only difference is now they can *potentially* hurt T7+ units (though not terribly well), otherwise against most things theyll actually be shooting at, S3 isnt any different than it was before.

and a 5+ save used to be worthless.

It's more useful now than it was before, but that goes for a dozens of units that arent guardsmen too. Yes, they get the 5+ against small arms fire now, but before with 4+ cover commonly available it wasnt always an issue either.

And they used to be 5 points per model (which I am sure they will be again)

we're talking a 1ppm change, which, even on relatively numerous units, probably isnt having the effect that many are ascribing here. Most IG lists have ~60 guardsmen (yes, some have lots more, some have none, 60 is what a typical brigade or double battalion will roll with), at 1850 or 2k, 60pts isnt going to swing guardsmen from being "ok" to "top 5".

No other units have a 5+ save for 4 ppm.

Charging from deep strike is a poor tactic, and it directly hard countered by the existence of guardsmen.

There might be a few more tools to hunt guardsmen, but the IG player doesn't care what happens to them. They are just there to buy time.

Martel732 wrote:
No other units have a 5+ save for 4 ppm.

Again, we're basically quibbling over 1ppm and 40-80pts in most tournament lists, not anything that should be catapulting a unit from "ok" to "top 5" status.

Charging from deep strike is a poor tactic,

that depends on the units in question, and is more an issue of "cant quite reach" than "bad idea". Sure, it wont always be smart or doable, but regardless, its another factor that does allow players another tool in the kit to engage those guardsmen on their own terms. Charging from DS/Infiltrate/etc wont always be applicable, but its there and *can* be powerful.

and it directly hard countered by the existence of guardsmen.

Having to clear through a screen of guardsmen isnt exactly a new 8E development...and you can use that DS charge as a method to clear such a screen as well.

There might be a few more tools to hunt guardsmen, but the IG player doesn't care what happens to them. They are just there to buy time.

which...again...is exactly what theyve always done...nothing has changed there, except now you have more tactical options than you did before.

Then why does it feel like marines have zero options?

It's a race. A race to clear the 4 ppm models before all the units that ignore LoS table your marines. There's nowhere to hide ,and making the assaults doesn't even change the outcome that much.

Fail assault -> marines get shot and die

Make assault and guardsmen aren't wiped -> the guardsmen leave CC and then marines get shot and die

Make assault and guardsmen ARE wiped -> marines get shot and die

There is no scenario where the marines live and even in the best case scenario, the IG has suffered no meaningful losses. In fact, I can't make IG suffer meaningful losses without my own shooting unless they allow it. I'm trading hundreds of points for 40 pts and I have no say in the matter whatsover.

If a guardian costs 8 ppm, maybe guardsmen should be 7 or 8. And then, that WOULD make a difference. Or make IG artillery/tanks a lot more expensive to reflect their infantry making them functionally immortal. Bottom line, the guardsmen beat you in the movement phase. IT doesn't matter if you clear them or not. They physically bar your movement, and that's game over right there.

The only other option is to shoot past them, and that's where the Bobby G lists come in. Because anything else is insanity the way the IG operate. BA might as well not even show up against them.

1 point more in the context of Infantry squads represents a increase of 25% in price. Thats huge. Just like Brimstones going from 2ppm to 3ppm.

 Galas wrote:
1 point more in the context of Infantry squads represents a increase of 25% in price. Thats huge. Just like Brimstones going from 2ppm to 3ppm.

And still might not be enough.

The list is biased, it needs many more options.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The list is biased, it needs many more options.

Such as?

Martel732 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The list is biased, it needs many more options.

Such as?

The entire IG codex?

Martel732 wrote:
IG: infantry squads should have a lot more votes. The fact that Bobby G has more votes shows a lack of understanding on the part of the community on what true power is in 8th.

Unless you're good at the game at which point...infantry squad ain't gak.

Necrons aren't exactly the shizzle these days, but Tesla Immortals and Scarabs and Wraiths might have deserved to be in position to be voted on.

ERJAK wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
IG: infantry squads should have a lot more votes. The fact that Bobby G has more votes shows a lack of understanding on the part of the community on what true power is in 8th.

Unless you're good at the game at which point...infantry squad ain't gak.

Until you play against another good player with ig squads in which case they are everything.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Still amused at how basic guardsmen are now a major powergaming element apparently...and Mortars?...oh my


For super serious though, for units that really force major shifts in how an opponent will have to deal with an army or can make or break a list or create killer combis, it's hard not to go with Dark Reapers, Bobby G, Celestine, Morty and Magnus.

They are only OP because they open up a brigade for as well as provide near assault immunity at the same time + their anti infantry firepower is quite massive for their cost.

Martel732 wrote:
Then why does it feel like marines have zero options?



It's a race. A race to clear the 4 ppm models before all the units that ignore LoS table your marines. There's nowhere to hide ,and making the assaults doesn't even change the outcome that much.

Fail assault -> marines get shot and die

Make assault and guardsmen aren't wiped -> the guardsmen leave CC and then marines get shot and die

Make assault and guardsmen ARE wiped -> marines get shot and die

There is no scenario where the marines live and even in the best case scenario, the IG has suffered no meaningful losses. In fact, I can't make IG suffer meaningful losses without my own shooting unless they allow it. I'm trading hundreds of points for 40 pts and I have no say in the matter whatsover.

Is this an "IG OP" thing, or more the type of build you want to play not working?

Because I want to play my chimera mounted mechanized grenadier stormtrooper regiment that ive been trying to make work since 4E and its not viable either.

Is every IG army literally able to table all your marines in one turn? You're assuming everything is gonna die as soon as it hits the table and that everything the IG have will be able to engage and destroy anything you have. Any time your Marines can be shot at, theyre automatically destroyed? There's never a gap in a line, and the IG player isnt also ceding control of the field in the process?

I have yet to accomplish such a feat or seen it accomplshed.

Likewise, in most of the above circumstances, the outcome wouldnt have been much different in previous editions, if you made it ito CC (though obviously not from DS) you probably wiped the unit and were exposed to fire. You could fail charges and be stuck for a turn. About the only difference is that, if the arent wiped, they can withdraw, but that is relatively minor most of the time too (as usually theyll be wiped one way or the other). For the most part, I'm not seeing where theres a huge difference from 7E to 8E here with basic guardsmen.

I find myself forced to wonder, is every army you face 9 Manticores behind an LoS blocking hill and 90 guardsmen arrayed in front playing from short edges? If so, ok, but otherwise it doesnt make much sense.

If a guardian costs 8 ppm, maybe guardsmen should be 7 or 8

When they get battle focus, BS3+, S4 pseuorending weapons, etc, then lets talk. As is, they have to rely on purchased officers being nearby for buffs and they end up in that range after kit and support units. Im also all for making Guardians cheaper, they should have been cheaper for the last 5 editions.

. And then, that WOULD make a difference. Or make IG artillery/tanks a lot more expensive to reflect their infantry making them functionally immortal.

Yes, the presence of infantry makes IG tanks immortal. Ok. There's no other way to engage and destroy tanks than through the use of heavy infantry assault units? We've been through most IG vehicles and their comparative performance before and they didnt appear to be wildly overpowered in doing so. As I stated before, im all up for some changes to no-LoS weapons in general, but not everything in the IG army ignores LoS, and those units generally arent being run by the dozen either. To reference earlier, when Morty was brought up, yeah Manticores can kill him, but it takes a dozen turns worth of Manticore fire to do so...

 Galas wrote:
1 point more in the context of Infantry squads represents a increase of 25% in price. Thats huge. Just like Brimstones going from 2ppm to 3ppm.

5 would make them appropriate. They would still be great at that price. IMO they are much better than a hormagant which costs 5. They are probably better than a gargoyle at 6 too. Manticore should be 165-175 IMO.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
The list is biased, it needs many more options.

Such as?

The entire IG codex?

Which five units would you pick that arn't on the list and are also better than every other unit in the game?

 Galef wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Dark Reapers: While I think they're almost priced reasonably, the game rules make them better than they should be. However I dislike stacking dozens of rules to make units unhittable so while I own 12 of these models, no more than six come out unless you're being a dick. If you can't target/kill a handful of Toughness 3 models, that's a problem. They shouldn't get more than one turn of shooting normally.

Totally agree and why I have yet to pick up any. There may be a ton of rules that you can stack on them to make them powerful, but they can't really survive without at least 2-3 of those rules all together. By that point, you are investing a lot more into them than you really should.

And Eldar having powerful stratagems not only makes sense from a fluff perspective (tricksy elves), but it balances out the fact that they can't get as many CPs as other armies with access to cheaper Troops/HQs to fill Battalions/Brigades.
Most competitive Eldar lists struggle to get 10 total CPs, while most Imperium lists can easily pump out over a dozen CPs

-

You can make a very competitive 2x battalion elder list. All of these units are good in their own way.
Farseer100
Autarch on Jetbike Reaper launcher/starlance130
2x Spiritseer 90
3x5 Rangers 180
2x5x Dire-avengers w exarch 128
(Serpent 3x SC 134)
1x20 man guardian w 2x SC 190

That's a legit 9 command point army minimum for 862 points - You could still take 30 reapers and another hq in this army too in this army too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OFC Guilliman leading the way here with almost 1/6 people thinking hes a top 5 most broken units.

I think assault sucks this edition. I don't like running things that suck. So no, it's not about what i want. You were the one that brought up assault from ds, not i. My position is that guardsmen almost win by default because almost nothing in the game is efficient at removing them. Theres mortars and grav flux bombards i guess.

Yup, here we go again. The community will not be satisfied until every unit in the IG codex is irrelevant. If the people calling for nerfs to IG actually had any interest in balance they would be asking for buffs to commissars. That hasn't happened. In your crusade against conscripts you have essentially deleted not 1 but 2 units from our codex. Commissars are just as likely to help you as screw you over now. No point in taking them. Just take regimental standard for leadership buffs. Conscripts & commissars will end up like penal legion, medusas, & half of our special characters. Now its guardsmen & mortars? Not everyone plays Catachans. The effectiveness of Catachan mortars is vastly better than other regiments. Nerfing them would essentially delete them from non Catachan lists. Guardsmen 5+ ppm? How did that work out in 7th? IG players got absolutely murdered.

As long as every single top Imperium list spams guardsmen, I will call for a nerf on them. As long as IG artillery tanks punch above their point cost, I'm going to call for a nerf on them. IG are frustrating and outrageous to play against. They are neo-Eldar of 8th ed. Sorry if that bothers you but it's empirically true, I think.

 Commissar Benny wrote:
Yup, here we go again. The community will not be satisfied until every unit in the IG codex is irrelevant. If the people calling for nerfs to IG actually had any interest in balance they would be asking for buffs to commissars. That hasn't happened. In your crusade against conscripts you have essentially deleted not 1 but 2 units from our codex. Commissars are just as likely to help you as screw you over now. No point in taking them. Just take regimental standard for leadership buffs. Conscripts & commissars will end up like penal legion, medusas, & half of our special characters. Now its guardsmen & mortars? Not everyone plays Catachans. The effectiveness of Catachan mortars is vastly better than other regiments. Nerfing them would essentially delete them from non Catachan lists. Guardsmen 5+ ppm? How did that work out in 7th? IG players got absolutely murdered.

The frustartion you feel comes from warhammer not having a lot of moving ellements. If you compare it to say magic the gathering you have different cards that are goodat diferent levels in the game. X-wing is smaller and has much bigger focus on movement of the small units and syngergi between units. Warhammer have some of this. Dark reapers + farseer is a synergistic unit, but you can not take many of it because of restrictions on the psykick phase. IG has fever of these restrictions. Orders is a good atemt, but it is not as important to the playstyle as just spamming the good units are. Lascannon has superior range and cost nothing negating a lot of counterplay. Mortars you can't even hide from. Quite good.Horrible hard to balance as their efectivness is often binary and can be deducted by mathhammer.

The best always comes to the top in any competitive environment. Right now dark reaper spam in the right hands can wreck anything in the game full stop. But when they get nerfed, and they will and should, IG is going to quickly become the unbeatable because reaper spam was the only predator to the otherwise unstoppable IG who have insane artillery, infantry, CP generation, and tanks which few normal lists can actually handle.

A percicieved streanght will also increase the liklyhood of people playing a list. Less exlorer type players as assassin and achievers start moving into the meta and play established things. So far 8tyeditionhas been great at fighting this!

Voted: girlyman, razors, ig infantry, scions, celestine. Haven't played vs dark reapers yet, so can't tell.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Dark Reapers: While I think they're almost priced reasonably, the game rules make them better than they should be. However I dislike stacking dozens of rules to make units unhittable so while I own 12 of these models, no more than six come out unless you're being a dick. If you can't target/kill a handful of Toughness 3 models, that's a problem. They shouldn't get more than one turn of shooting normally.

Totally agree and why I have yet to pick up any. There may be a ton of rules that you can stack on them to make them powerful, but they can't really survive without at least 2-3 of those rules all together. By that point, you are investing a lot more into them than you really should.

And Eldar having powerful stratagems not only makes sense from a fluff perspective (tricksy elves), but it balances out the fact that they can't get as many CPs as other armies with access to cheaper Troops/HQs to fill Battalions/Brigades.
Most competitive Eldar lists struggle to get 10 total CPs, while most Imperium lists can easily pump out over a dozen CPs

-

You can make a very competitive 2x battalion elder list. All of these units are good in their own way.
Farseer100
Autarch on Jetbike Reaper launcher/starlance130
2x Spiritseer 90
3x5 Rangers 180
2x5x Dire-avengers w exarch 128
(Serpent 3x SC 134)
1x20 man guardian w 2x SC 190

That's a legit 9 command point army minimum for 862 points - You could still take 30 reapers and another hq in this army too in this army too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OFC Guilliman leading the way here with almost 1/6 people thinking hes a top 5 most broken units.

well people tend to have long memories of broken things, even after somethings been enrfed in a FAQ people still remember it as broken unless it was spectacularly nerfed. I think Gulliman though is a strong option that simply synergizes so well with anything (best with ultramarines yeah but any IoM army would benifit from having him along) thing is synergy is one of those things that is hard to price/balance around.

Guilliman, celestine and magnus.

Ban named LoWs for the sake of 40k.

To complete the top 5 I'd say stormraven and scions. Razorbacks should be included as well but with only 5 choices they're out. Dark reapers are overpowered only against some list, if they face a green tide they won't be that scary and hordes are pretty common in this edition, I think SM in particular hate them but they're definitely not in the top 5 of the strongest units.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

Which five units would you pick that arn't on the list and are also better than every other unit in the game?

Off the top of my head I can think of a few more daemon units that I'd consider to be extremely powerful.
Not a single blood angel unit in the list?
There is at least one major Tyranid unit missing from the list.
There's no forge world units at all?
No Drukhari or Harlequins? No Ynarri?
Bullgryns?
AdMech are underrepresented.

The whole 5 choices is irrelevant when people can select every option.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
No Drukhari or Harlequins? No Ynarri?

Ynnari are dead. A detachment with Yvraine, Dark reapers and SS is somewhat competitive, but it's only because SS and DR are insanely good on their own. So the OP vote should still go to these two units.
Drukhari? Seriously?
Harlequins? Troupes with fusion and embraces in Starweavers are good for sure. But not OP, and completely useless against properly screened units.

fresus wrote:
Ynnari are dead.

I see what you did there.

fresus wrote:
A detachment with Yvraine, Dark reapers and SS is somewhat competitive, but it's only because SS and DR are insanely good on their own. So the OP vote should still go to these two units.

Are they better if they are allied with Ynarri? If so we should have the option to differentiate. Besides, it's a decision for the community to make, not you or I.

fresus wrote:
Drukhari? Seriously?
Harlequins? Troupes with fusion and embraces in Starweavers are good for sure. But not OP, and completely useless against properly screened units.

Yea Drukhari, I'm sure they have one or two units that can be considered powerful.
Harlequins are strong, they featured in all of the top Aeldari lists before Craftworld codex was released and they did well. Also the OP isn't calling for OP units, he's calling for strongest units. Harlies in Starweaver will be taken with some anti screening units I'd have thought so if we're going to assume Girlyman is the strongest unit in game, because of how he interacts with other units, we should surely assume the other units in this list are interacting with other units?

Anyway, as I said, the decision is not ours to make re Ynarri, Drukhari or Harlies but when a list is presented in such a way as this I can't help but feel it's a list of units that the OP perceives as too strong rather than the community.

I'm amazed not to see Broodlord on the list. Genuinely.
I'm amazed not to see Fiends of Slaanesh on the list. They have a unique ability that completely changes one of the core rules of the game.
Where are Bloodletters? Their biggest weakness (having to footslog) has now been removed.
No Skarbrand? Again we can't leave combat and he is a beast. If positioned correctly he only buffs his allies.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Anyway, as I said, the decision is not ours to make re Ynarri, Drukhari or Harlies but when a list is presented in such a way as this I can't help but feel it's a list of units that the OP perceives as too strong rather than the community.

The OP cannot add every single unit to the list, he has to make a choice, and we can point out specific units if we think they should be included.
I still can't think of any Drukhari unit that comes even close to the top 5.
Harlequin troupes were indeed very good when the index came out (when they were featured in most good Aeldari lists), but I really don't see them close to the current top 5. It's impossible to remove a good screening unit efficiently and fast enough to leverage the Harlies offensive power (melee and 6" fusion guns), which is why they can't compete with the top dogs that bring mass cheap infantry.

The goal is not to list good units, but just the 5 best in the game. That's why some factions don't even appear on the list.

fresus wrote:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Anyway, as I said, the decision is not ours to make re Ynarri, Drukhari or Harlies but when a list is presented in such a way as this I can't help but feel it's a list of units that the OP perceives as too strong rather than the community.

The OP cannot add every single unit to the list, he has to make a choice, and we can point out specific units if we think they should be included.
I still can't think of any Drukhari unit that comes even close to the top 5.
Harlequin troupes were indeed very good when the index came out (when they were featured in most good Aeldari lists), but I really don't see them close to the current top 5. It's impossible to remove a good screening unit efficiently and fast enough to leverage the Harlies offensive power (melee and 6" fusion guns), which is why they can't compete with the top dogs that bring mass cheap infantry.

The goal is not to list good units, but just the 5 best in the game. That's why some factions don't even appear on the list.

And as I said, there are units that should be on the list and aren't, in my opinion.

I've mentioned a number.

It really depends what is meant by strongest unit. If you mean, strongest unit in a vacuum, it would have to be Magnus/Mortarian.

If we mean most overpowered in an army context, then Imperial Guard Infantry is vastly too good relative to points. However, this is with regiment/character buffs/orders factored in. The IG army has a huge issue where this are too many layers of bonuses. Crap units like guard should not be getting rerolls from characters - the synergy should come through the orders system (which is already great). Guard units should not be getting rerolls, they are the worst of the worst - they should be boosted through regimental discipline and command structure. Similarly, they should be tactically inflexible. That warlord trait where they can recycle CP is absurd - they already get a vast amount of CPs through their design, to be able to do this as well just is unfluffy and bad design. These all add up to make the guard units far too good relative to function and value (they also slow the game down).

Dark Reapers are strong in a way that feels bad for the army design. Broadly the Eldar codex has good internal balance and it is pleasing that Guardians are now actually capable of things - they are no longer a burden! But Dark Reapers stick out like a sore thumb. They are a no brainer, even without buffs (of which there are plenty). A points hike to a level higher than the Index would easily resolve them.

Gulliman and Cawl are silly ones for the same reason as Dark Reapers, they are far too obvious choices. Yes, you can argue that what they are buffing isn’t the greatest but they significantly shape the Chapter Tactics/Forgeworld taken, deployment, formation and movement. They require no skill or thought to use, are difficult to kill and slow the game down. They are bad for the game because of the wider impact they have on army building and play style. Give them a couple more wounds and they’d be fine.
Magnus and Mortarian unbalance the game for different reasons. They tend to make an all or nothing game. If the Primarch user is able to preserve them until they get into the enemy, then they are likely to win, but quite often they have every AT weapon wiping them off the table. It makes for an incredibly binary outcome. You also end up with weird armies where significant portions are spent increasing the survivability of this already high cost unit.

Boyz: Still the most bang for your buck in the entire game when Ork character abilities are layered. I think there's no excuse for a cheap basic infantry model to get 5 attacks for any reason...at all. If they get better in the eventual Ork codex they'll be even more broken. So - not broken alone, but can be broken through assistance.

I was waiting for someone to use this argument. This edition started and I said boyz would be doing well until everyone figured out how easy it is to kill them. Now don't get me wrong, they are without a doubt the strongest unit Orkz possess, but they are only good if you take 120+ of them or a similar unit like Kommandos or stormboyz which are basically boyz with cool deployment or movement options. To me that isn't OP, it's just spam. If you took only 30 or 60 of them it wouldn't be even considered good let alone OP.

I read plagueburster crawlers ? Are they really so powerful ? I thought they were some kind of mixed bags

SemperMortis wrote:

Boyz: Still the most bang for your buck in the entire game when Ork character abilities are layered. I think there's no excuse for a cheap basic infantry model to get 5 attacks for any reason...at all. If they get better in the eventual Ork codex they'll be even more broken. So - not broken alone, but can be broken through assistance.

I was waiting for someone to use this argument. This edition started and I said boyz would be doing well until everyone figured out how easy it is to kill them. Now don't get me wrong, they are without a doubt the strongest unit Orkz possess, but they are only good if you take 120+ of them or a similar unit like Kommandos or stormboyz which are basically boyz with cool deployment or movement options. To me that isn't OP, it's just spam. If you took only 30 or 60 of them it wouldn't be even considered good let alone OP.

That argument can be made for IG as well. If you have one unit of 10 guardsmen in your force they aren't taking out swathes of models. You just need a lot of them as a meat shield, and with that comes high volume of fire.

for units i have used/ faced against this edition

Eversor assassin for the points they are terrific value and can be horrific
Neutron dune crawlers
Bobby G
Dark Reapers
any unit that due to their faction benefit can get themselves to at least -2 to hit

phillv85 wrote:
That argument can be made for IG as well. If you have one unit of 10 guardsmen in your force they aren't taking out swathes of models. You just need a lot of them as a meat shield, and with that comes high volume of fire.

There are a few differences;
1. Guard have access to a plethora of buffs that allow them to perform way better than what's intended.
2. Guard have access to far more buffs than a unit of Ork Boyz.
3. Guardsmen serve primarily, as you have said, as a meatshield. They perform this role (and others) too well for their cost.
4. The scariest thing about Ork Boyz is when 30 suddenly appear just over 9" away. That is not an inherent strength - it's Boyz + Weirdboy that is scary.
5. There are certain units that Boyz can literally do nothing about - flyers of almost every flavour, for example. Guardsmen are more flexible in this regard.
6. While Boyz are the strongest thing in the index, they are the ONLY thing to be scared of in an Ork list. Guardsmen are not the only legitimate threat in an IG list, they are simply the thing stopping you getting to the other (juicier) threats.

The original statement; "Boyz: Still the most bang for your buck in the entire game when Ork character abilities are layered" is entirely incorrect. Boyz are more points efficient with no character buffs. Why do you think no one takes Painboyz or KFF Meks? The most useful 'buff' the OG statement refers to is likely "Warpath" (and if taken means the Weirdboy can't take....) and "Da Jump" which are both psychic powers. So they can be cast once per turn.

Trust me, as an Ork player, the thing any opponent should be most scared of is the Weirdboys and Warboss, in that order. Weirdboys allow da jump shenanigans and completely bypass the biggest Ork problem - lack of speed. They also enable Orks to hurt high Toughness, good save, multi-wound targets through Smite. Warbosses also help with the movement issues because they allow Boyz to advance and charge in the same turn.

If you want to know what's "OP" in regards Ork choices the only real candidate is the KMK, in my opinion. Something that again, isn't on the list.

No, the point still stands exactly as I said. My point was that you needed numbers to make them viable. 10 guardsmen aren't doing anything with all the buffs in the game.

Not played much but Saint Celestine was impressive

And now you can buy her on her own (well with the twins I think)

Oblitorstors.

At worst, they are auto cannons, at best, statistical better laz cannons. I have melted knights in a single turn of shooting. A 195 point unit, wasting a 400+point unit in a single round.

phillv85 wrote:
No, the point still stands exactly as I said. My point was that you needed numbers to make them viable. 10 guardsmen aren't doing anything with all the buffs in the game.

I said 30-60 boyz not 10. A comparable number of guardsmen points wise would be 45-90. And in that number they are amazingly good at their task of being a meatshield and being able to push out a ridiculous number of shots at 24inches with FRFSRF

Boyz in such small numbers are useless because to even threaten a target they have to be within 17 inches of them at the start of the turn, (23 with a warboss nearby) and that isn't even a real threat until they close to about 13 (19) inches. Boyz are not doing well anymore because people have been bringing more anti horde weapons and weapons that obliterate any chance of Orkz retaliating.

Commisars should cost 28-30ppm and reduce morale loses by D6 after killing 1 dude. (With Lord Commisars reducing morale loses 2d6 and Yarrick 3d6)

Since the release of codex: daemons, bloodletters have suddenly become amazeballs.
For a few CP and ~ 200ish points you can drop a 30 man blob 9" away and roll 3d6 charge. Stupid number of attacks with decent WS/STR/AP, and once the screen is dead your opponent has to deal with this blob of guys so the rest of your army is safer for a turn. Do it again next turn and suddenly all his big guns are tied up/dead. all for a little over 400 points and 6 CP

Dark Angels Hellblasters or Plasma cannonade Doreto are in my top 5.

CassianSol wrote:
Dark Reapers are strong in a way that feels bad for the army design. Broadly the Eldar codex has good internal balance and it is pleasing that Guardians are now actually capable of things - they are no longer a burden! But Dark Reapers stick out like a sore thumb. They are a no brainer, even without buffs (of which there are plenty). A points hike to a level higher than the Index would easily resolve them.

I kind of agree, however you have to keep in mind that Reapers are still T3 1W models. I wouldn't go more the 32-35ppm total. Actually, it might be better just to drop their "always hit on 3+" rule and replace it with "never suffer -1 for firing Heavy weapons". Or even just drop the special snowflake rule entirely and give them BS2+ like the Crismon Hunters. That way they have to stay still of suffer -1 (thus hitting on 3+ as they do now), and can be affected by other units that impose other -1s

This would also make dropping them via Webway strike less appealing as they would count as moving (even though they'd still hit on 3+ like now). Also making them BS2+ would mess with the way they get re-rolls. A Guided Reaper unit with BS2+ could NOT re-roll 2s since re-rolls happen before modifiers.

-

SemperMortis wrote:

phillv85 wrote:
No, the point still stands exactly as I said. My point was that you needed numbers to make them viable. 10 guardsmen aren't doing anything with all the buffs in the game.

I said 30-60 boyz not 10. A comparable number of guardsmen points wise would be 45-90. And in that number they are amazingly good at their task of being a meatshield and being able to push out a ridiculous number of shots at 24inches with FRFSRF

If we're doing a numerical comparison and are taking FRFSRF into account, we have to take into account Officers as well.

90 guardsmen and the bare minimum number of officers to make FRFSRF available for all squads is 500pts before any upgrades or kit, in which case we're looking at more than 80+ Boyz for that same investment, not 60.

 Galef wrote:

CassianSol wrote:
Dark Reapers are strong in a way that feels bad for the army design. Broadly the Eldar codex has good internal balance and it is pleasing that Guardians are now actually capable of things - they are no longer a burden! But Dark Reapers stick out like a sore thumb. They are a no brainer, even without buffs (of which there are plenty). A points hike to a level higher than the Index would easily resolve them.

I kind of agree, however you have to keep in mind that Reapers are still T3 1W models. I wouldn't go more the 32-35ppm total. Actually, it might be better just to drop their "always hit on 3+" rule and replace it with "never suffer -1 for firing Heavy weapons". Or even just drop the special snowflake rule entirely and give them BS2+ like the Crismon Hunters. That way they have to stay still of suffer -1 (thus hitting on 3+ as they do now), and can be affected by other units that impose other -1s

This would also make dropping them via Webway strike less appealing as they would count as moving (even though they'd still hit on 3+ like now). Also making them BS2+ would mess with the way they get re-rolls. A Guided Reaper unit with BS2+ could NOT re-roll 2s since re-rolls happen before modifiers.

-

Compared to a marine with a ml, they are 40 ppm easy. Lose some rules or pay a lot of points.

Martel732 wrote:
Compared to a marine with a ml, they are 40 ppm easy. Lose some rules or pay a lot of points.

T3 is still a big deal (not as much as prior editions, but still). I'd say a 35ppm Reaper with BS2+ and no other special unit rules (other than the general Eldar ones) would be fair.
Keep in mind the part of the Marine's points cost is the S4, grenades and morale mitigating ATSKNF. Whether those rules actually help a devastor shoot is irrelevant, he has the rules and they cost.

-

T3 is not a big deal at all. Just stop.

35 ppm is 2 pts cheaper than that marine with a ML. They are still an autotake. You have to price them so that its' actually a question of whether to use them.

Whether rules help a given model is completely relevant, as this is the philosophy that has crippled basal marines for decades.

Shadowsword
Guilliman
Magnus
Manticore

the last slot is close between Scions and AL Bezerkers, I think. Scions are still too strong for cost, but they're nowhere near where they were when they were released [mostly because you can only have 1 CS unit], but Bezerkers are also hilariously strong. I've heard there's some Eldar stuff, but it's basically SM, IG, and Tyranids where I am, so I haven't seen the Eldar in action.

I'm not entirely certain that the Shadowsword is better than Guilliman or Magnus, but it's definitely up there.

Martel732 wrote:
T3 is not a big deal at all. Just stop.

35 ppm is 2 pts cheaper than that marine with a ML.

Whether rules help a given model is completely relevant, as this is the philosophy that has crippled basal marines for decades.

To be fair, I'd argue the ML Marines are probably too expensive to begin with. I think you can agree with that too.
With no rules changes at all, just points, I agree that Reapers are worth more than ML Marines.

My point is that they SHOULDN"T be. Tweak what needs to be tweaked, but no 1 wound Eldar should be more than its equivalent role Marine.

-

 Galef wrote:

CassianSol wrote:
Dark Reapers are strong in a way that feels bad for the army design. Broadly the Eldar codex has good internal balance and it is pleasing that Guardians are now actually capable of things - they are no longer a burden! But Dark Reapers stick out like a sore thumb. They are a no brainer, even without buffs (of which there are plenty). A points hike to a level higher than the Index would easily resolve them.

I kind of agree, however you have to keep in mind that Reapers are still T3 1W models. I wouldn't go more the 32-35ppm total. Actually, it might be better just to drop their "always hit on 3+" rule and replace it with "never suffer -1 for firing Heavy weapons". Or even just drop the special snowflake rule entirely and give them BS2+ like the Crismon Hunters. That way they have to stay still of suffer -1 (thus hitting on 3+ as they do now), and can be affected by other units that impose other -1s

This would also make dropping them via Webway strike less appealing as they would count as moving (even though they'd still hit on 3+ like now). Also making them BS2+ would mess with the way they get re-rolls. A Guided Reaper unit with BS2+ could NOT re-roll 2s since re-rolls happen before modifiers.

-

Ehhh - bs 2+ would probably break them even more but it's more of a give and take there. First - I'd say that reapers should be capped at 5x models per unit. Next to compare them to a marine with a heavy. +1 T is worth roughly 2 ppm +1 S and a grenade is worth 1 ppm. Their weapons can be considered about even in krak mode but the reaper launcher secondary mode is far superior that alone is 5 ppm additional cost that needs to be added. The special rule to always hit on 3's is worth an additional 5 ppm - not only does it mean you can move and shoot without penalty - it also means -1 to stacking is ignored as well. So I think they should cost +9 to a marine with a missile.

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
T3 is not a big deal at all. Just stop.

35 ppm is 2 pts cheaper than that marine with a ML.

Whether rules help a given model is completely relevant, as this is the philosophy that has crippled basal marines for decades.

To be fair, I'd argue the ML Marines are probably too expensive to begin with. I think you can agree with that too.
With no rules changes at all, just points, I agree that Reapers are worth more than ML Marines.

My point is that they SHOULDN"T be. Tweak what needs to be tweaked, but no 1 wound Eldar should be more than its equivalent role Marine.

-

Eldar have always been better than their equivalent role marine. Eldar get useful special rules and marines get S4 and grenades .

phillv85 wrote:
No, the point still stands exactly as I said. My point was that you needed numbers to make them viable. 10 guardsmen aren't doing anything with all the buffs in the game.

Hot damn. That is some useful information. A low point cost, low statline model needs large numbers to make them viable?! Holy cow man do you have any more incredible tips? I think all of my points still stand also. Ork Boyz aren't anywhere near OP in the same way IG Infantry are.

Yup 45 sounds about right for their rule set.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

phillv85 wrote:
No, the point still stands exactly as I said. My point was that you needed numbers to make them viable. 10 guardsmen aren't doing anything with all the buffs in the game.

Hot damn. That is some useful information. A low point cost, low statline model needs large numbers to make them viable?! Holy cow man do you have any more incredible tips? I think all of my points still stand also. Ork Boyz aren't anywhere near OP in the same way IG Infantry are.

Ork boyz aren't protecting the most broken tanks and artillery in the game.

Voted Maggy, Morty and Girly because of their force multiplication and buffing capabilities.
Stealers because when used right they are wrecking machines.
Manticore/Basilisk for similar reasons (i.e hidden behind IG gun walls/BLoS/screens).

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Oblitorstors.

At worst, they are auto cannons, at best, statistical better laz cannons. I have melted knights in a single turn of shooting. A 195 point unit, wasting a 400+point unit in a single round.

I wish people would stop with gak like this. This is so unlikely as to not even be worth consideration.

Since Boyz are on here I have no idea why Bloodletters aren't? Particularly when they can deep strike for CP.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Oblitorstors.

At worst, they are auto cannons, at best, statistical better laz cannons. I have melted knights in a single turn of shooting. A 195 point unit, wasting a 400+point unit in a single round.

I wish people would stop with gak like this. This is so unlikely as to not even be worth consideration.

Ehh I wouldn't call them a top 5 unit. They are getting better with these bonkers nurgle tress though. Being daemons they can benift from the +2 to cover save provided by being within 6 inches of the tree. This gives the Oblits a 0+ save. Meaning they will have a 3+ save against las cannons and a 2+ save against dark reapers....Prepare to watch these things get spammed to high heaven.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Oblitorstors.

At worst, they are auto cannons, at best, statistical better laz cannons. I have melted knights in a single turn of shooting. A 195 point unit, wasting a 400+point unit in a single round.

I wish people would stop with gak like this. This is so unlikely as to not even be worth consideration.

Ehh I wouldn't call them a top 5 unit. They are getting better with these bonkers nurgle tress though. Being daemons they can benift from the +2 to cover save provided by being within 6 inches of the tree. This gives the Oblits a 0+ save. Meaning they will have a 3+ save against las cannons and a 2+ save against dark reapers....Prepare to watch these things get spammed to high heaven.

The other thing to consider is how cheap they are too. They are only 195 points for potentially 12 laz Cannon shots. That can benefit from heretics and daemon powers, can deep strike, have a 3+ armor and a 5++ are 3 wounds a piece.

They are honestly the best unit in the chaos codex on their own excluding primarchs


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I have done that with my oblits to knights several times reliably. I run 2 squads of them with a sorcerer, so 24 shots are gonna burn most anything.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Oblitorstors.

At worst, they are auto cannons, at best, statistical better laz cannons. I have melted knights in a single turn of shooting. A 195 point unit, wasting a 400+point unit in a single round.

I wish people would stop with gak like this. This is so unlikely as to not even be worth consideration.

Ehh I wouldn't call them a top 5 unit. They are getting better with these bonkers nurgle tress though. Being daemons they can benift from the +2 to cover save provided by being within 6 inches of the tree. This gives the Oblits a 0+ save. Meaning they will have a 3+ save against las cannons and a 2+ save against dark reapers....Prepare to watch these things get spammed to high heaven.

The other thing to consider is how cheap they are too. They are only 195 points for potentially 12 laz Cannon shots. That can benefit from heretics and daemon powers, can deep strike, have a 3+ armor and a 5++ are 3 wounds a piece.

They are honestly the best unit in the chaos codex on their own excluding primarchs


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also I have done that with my oblits to knights several times reliably. I run 2 squads of them with a sorcerer, so 24 shots are gonna burn most anything.

They have 2+ armor.

Sorry 2+ not 3 + fat fingers on a little phone.

I still can't believe all the salt over IG here... Manticores already had their prices bumped, Scions had melta and plasma both increased to SM costs (thereby also making vet squads and CCS's, which were fine, less useful), and both conscripts and commissars were nerfed into uselessness. Can people give it a rest already?

Scions are just fine for their price. They cost almost as much as SM's, pay SM price for their weapons and don't benefit from even their own regimental doctrine most of the time. They drop in and die. I've never used them and seen them last more than 1 turn on the board. Their ability to deepstrike is nice, but at the end of the day they're a glass cannon.

Manticores... fore pete's sake people.. just shoot them with anti-tank weaponry and they go down! I don't want to hear all this gak about them being completely out of LoS all the time too when the IG player is supposedly dropping 9 of them. Can you kill a predator? GREAT. you can kill a manticore.

As far as IG infantry squads go, I keep hearing people go on about them being powerful because of buffs. You know aside from doctrines those buffs cost pts right? A company commander costs 30 pts and can only give 2 squads orders normally and is otherwise -literally useless-. That 30 pt price tag to issue orders to 2 squads raises the average price of those "buffed" guardsmen to 5.5 pts a model. Still sound OP? That's a 37% increase in the average ppm just to get orders that amount to firing 1-2 more shots, or rerolling 1's on something. I don't see anyone complaining about cultists that are the same price, come in blobs like conscripts, and are easily made fearless. I played all through 7th, and 5ppm IG infantry were utterly useless garbage.

Here's my synopsis.
-stop comparing units (ANY faction's unit) to equivalent units that are worse than the average.
-stop equating units being "Good" with "OP", or "too powerful". It's fine for a faction to have a unit that's better than another's equivalent unit.
-stop calling for knee-jerk reaction nerfs to units. GW has shown they're listening and has shown how stupid things get when you listen to the community's reactions. You get just as many bad nerfs as you get good ones and not much really improves.

Spoken like an IG player.

"Everything's fine here, move along."

Manticores are still too cheap. 4 ppm is too cheap for a model with 5+ armor. Basilisks are too cheap. Russes are too cheap. Mortar teams are too cheap. Scions are still too cheap. Shall I go on?

And IG infantry is powerful because it exists. They don't need buffs or upgrades or auras. Just stand there and win the game.

Martel732 wrote:
Spoken like an IG player.

"Everything's fine here, move along."

Manticores are still too cheap. 4 ppm is too cheap for a model with 5+ armor. Basilisks are too cheap. Russes are too cheap. Mortar teams are too cheap. Scions are still too cheap. Shall I go on?

And IG infantry is powerful because it exists. They don't need buffs or upgrades or auras. Just stand there and win the game.

Spoken like a true salt shaker. "Everything is too cheap. Nerf it all"

Better nerf conscripts and commissars again, just to play it safe.

Not everything. Just a lot of things. Guardsmen in particular are in nearly every high-placing Imperial list. That's a huge red flag. Just like people fielding 50 dark reapers. The red flags will draw attention from GW.

Lots of IG players are not handling their Eldar moment very well.

Martel732 wrote:
Not everything. Just a lot of things. Guardsmen in particular are in nearly every high-placing Imperial list. That's a huge red flag. Just like people fielding 50 dark reapers. The red flags will draw attention from GW.

Lots of IG players are not handling their Eldar moment very well.

There's a difference between spamming, and using. Just because it's in most high placing imperial lists, doesn't mean it's a red flag. 50 dark reapers is a lot of points invested in them. 60 guardsmen is hardly any.

That's exactly the problem. 60 guardsmen should be a more significant investment because of all the utility they provide. It IS a red flag.

240 points for more models than my entire army of primaris infantry at 2000 points? GTFO.

 Xenomancers wrote:
240 points for more models than my entire army of primaris infantry at 2000 points? GTFO.

You remember my post? Where I said stop comparing any army's units to equivilent units that are worse than average? Apparently you didn't read it. But sure.. go ahead, keep comparing an above average infantry like IG, to a terrible infantry like pure primaris marines, and keep expecting your perspective not to get skewed.

OMG, you can put 60 primaris models on the board for 2k pts, but I only get 15 Leman russes for that costs? PLZ NERF.

There is no infantry comparable to guardsmen. That's the problem. There is no artillery comparable to IG artillery. There are no psykers comparable to your psykers. There are few tanks comparable to the Russ. Hell, Bullgryns are better at CC than my BA.

 Xenomancers wrote:
240 points for more models than my entire army of primaris infantry at 2000 points? GTFO.

OOOH Model count is the entire way to measure strength to an army (sarcasm, but muted.. because GK are bad, Primaris are bad), in that way Orks will field 240 boyz, THEY must be the strongest

It's not model count per se, but immunity to assault and deep strike and objective capping power. Those things are derived from model count. I respect these things way more than Bobby G. IG can throw out Bobby G level firepower and cover the board. Bobby G is buffing non-flyers and so they have to huddle in a corner. Frankly, I'm surprised Bobby G ever does well in ITC.

 chrispy1991 wrote:
I played all through 7th, and 5ppm IG infantry were utterly useless garbage.

Here is where your argument falls down. You are scared of 5ppm Infantry because you didn't have a good time in 7th. This isn't 7th. They are way, WAAAYYY better now. They are worth at least 5 ppm.

Martel732 wrote:
It's not model count per se, but immunity to assault and deep strike and objective capping power. Those things are derived from model count. I respect these things way more than Bobby G. IG can throw out Bobby G level firepower and cover the board. Bobby G is buffing non-flyers and so they have to huddle in a corner. Frankly, I'm surprised Bobby G ever does well in ITC.

Model count seems to have an impact in the metas, I don't want to make It sound like it doesn't. But non-power armor factions all have some cheap bodies, even (relatively) elder. And SM/imperium have a HUGE advantage in you can take those same "OP" units as a battleforged list for basically no penalty (1 hq 2 troops) and keep your fancy chapter tactics. But just as Crispy noted, comparing apples to apples, not apples to raisins. If we compare 8th ed riptides to primaris, primaris looks good

Once you start swapping out marines for guardsmen, there's no reason to stop. That's the problem. Guardsmen are a crutch for Imperial soup lists; a crutch that needs changed.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 chrispy1991 wrote:
I played all through 7th, and 5ppm IG infantry were utterly useless garbage.

Here is where your argument falls down. You are scared of 5ppm Infantry because you didn't have a good time in 7th. This isn't 7th. They are way, WAAAYYY better now. They are worth at least 5 ppm.

They wern't bad in 7th ether. Azreal in a 50 man infantry blob was quite hilarious.

Guardsmen were better at sucking up scatterlasers than marines, too. Still are.

Martel732 wrote:
Guardsmen were better at sucking up scatterlasers than marines, too. Still are.

Worse than gretchin, so gretchin more op than guardsmen?

No, that was just a fun fact.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

phillv85 wrote:
No, the point still stands exactly as I said. My point was that you needed numbers to make them viable. 10 guardsmen aren't doing anything with all the buffs in the game.

Hot damn. That is some useful information. A low point cost, low statline model needs large numbers to make them viable?! Holy cow man do you have any more incredible tips? I think all of my points still stand also. Ork Boyz aren't anywhere near OP in the same way IG Infantry are.

How very childish.

The problem with IG isn't just that their units are super cost-effective compared to other factions, they also have access to some of the best strategems, tons of buffs and extra's like orders and regiment bonusses on everything.

Add to that their huge pool of unit choices and the fact that their "strength" (cheap quantity) is rewarded at every turn by the 8th edition rules.

The IG codex is really awesome and their internal design is pretty sweet, but it's overall power came out way too high. You could play it without orders and/or regiment bonusses and it would still be great. The nerfs fixed some issues, but we're not quite there yet.

So after a few days of voting the top 20 are:

1. Guilliman
2. Dark reapers
3. Magnus
4. Mortarion
5. Celestine
6. Imperial guard infantry squads
7. Baneblade Chassis Tank
8. Manticores / Basilisk
9. Hemlock wraithfighter
10. Leman russ
11. Scions
12. Genestealers
13. Khorne berserkers
14. Razorback
15. Stormraven, stormhawk or stormtalon
16 Shining spears
17. Obliterators
18. Mortar teams
19. Hellblasters
Joint 20. Kastellans and Tau Commander

If it's of any interest to people, here were the top 20 from the last thread I made on this (just after the space marine codex dropped near the start of 8th)

1) Guilliman
2) conscripts
3) Stormraven
4) Brimstone horrors
5) tempestus scions
6) Celestine
7) Razorbacks
8) Magnus
9) Tau commander
10) ork boys
11) Imperial knights
12) genestealer
13) manticores / basilisks
14) kastellan robots
15) Belisarius cawl
16) taurox prime
17) daemon prince
18) baneblade variants
19) Harlequins
20) khorne berserkers

Surprisingly, despite a small nerf since the last poll, celestine has actually risen from 6th to 5th place. Just as a one off thing, that says something good for game balance.I think. It's surprising how little this list has changed though with all the codexes dropping and chapter approved changing things up too.

 Xenomancers wrote:
240 points for more models than my entire army of primaris infantry at 2000 points? GTFO.

Comparing an arbitrary amount of naked infantry with no context to the number of heavy infantry in a composed army is what we're gonna go with here?

Martel732 wrote:Spoken like an IG player.

"Everything's fine here, move along."

Manticores are still too cheap. 4 ppm is too cheap for a model with 5+ armor. Basilisks are too cheap. Russes are too cheap. Mortar teams are too cheap. Scions are still too cheap. Shall I go on?

And IG infantry is powerful because it exists. They don't need buffs or upgrades or auras. Just stand there and win the game.

Martel732 wrote:There is no infantry comparable to guardsmen. That's the problem. There is no artillery comparable to IG artillery. There are no psykers comparable to your psykers. There are few tanks comparable to the Russ. Hell, Bullgryns are better at CC than my BA.

Yeah, and Battlecannon Russ tanks are better tank hunters than Quadlas predators, and Mortarian just dies like clockwork to Manticores that should be 200pts that can never be retaliated against because theres always an effective screen in place and LoS blocking terrain available right where its needed, and Guardsmen should be 7ppm, etc every IG unit outclasses everything everyone else has.

These things have been raised and debated in other threads, often in considerable detail, and shown that they arent anywhere near what is being portrayed.

I'm all on board with making changes to indirect fire weapons in general, I think the Catachan doctrine is a wee bit too abusable when paired with blast weapons, the Shadowsword is overgunned, etc, but when we get things like "a 5+ armor save makes guardsmen OP" or "Russ tanks are too cheap" (despite most comparisons to equivalents not showing such in multiple threads), or that Stormtroopers, after already taking at least 4 distinct nerfs to transports/weapons/command elements, are still too cheap, it makes it hard to take as seriously.

I'm all on board with making changes to indirect fire weapons in general, I think the Catachan doctrine is a wee bit too abusable when paired with blast weapons, the Shadowsword is overgunned, etc, but when we get things like "a 5+ armor save makes guardsmen OP" or "Russ tanks are too cheap" (despite most comparisons to equivalents not showing such in multiple threads), or that Stormtroopers, after already taking at least 4 distinct nerfs to transports/weapons/command elements, are still too cheap, it makes it hard to take as seriously.

I agree, but also understand where those things are coming from. IG are so much better at pretty much everything then most armies that it is hard to pinpoint where the problem lies. Hence every comparison creates another complaint.

I do think GW is doing the right thing about it tho, small point changes (except FW ) over time and rule changes one by one.

Sedraxis wrote:
The problem with IG isn't just that their units are super cost-effective compared to other factions, they also have access to some of the best strategems, tons of buffs and extra's like orders and regiment bonusses on everything.

Add to that their huge pool of unit choices and the fact that their "strength" (cheap quantity) is rewarded at every turn by the 8th edition rules.

The IG codex is really awesome and their internal design is pretty sweet, but it's overall power came out way too high. You could play it without orders and/or regiment bonusses and it would still be great. The nerfs fixed some issues, but we're not quite there yet.

Ig was already the best army in the game before it's codex came out. People seem to have forgotten that.

Sedraxis wrote:

I'm all on board with making changes to indirect fire weapons in general, I think the Catachan doctrine is a wee bit too abusable when paired with blast weapons, the Shadowsword is overgunned, etc, but when we get things like "a 5+ armor save makes guardsmen OP" or "Russ tanks are too cheap" (despite most comparisons to equivalents not showing such in multiple threads), or that Stormtroopers, after already taking at least 4 distinct nerfs to transports/weapons/command elements, are still too cheap, it makes it hard to take as seriously.

I agree, but also understand where those things are coming from. IG are so much better at pretty much everything then most armies that it is hard to pinpoint where the problem lies. Hence every comparison creates another complaint.

I do think GW is doing the right thing about it tho, small point changes (except FW ) over time and rule changes one by one.

This is basically right.

It's like filling out an old D&D character sheet. You only had so many points to spend. You can't buy up strength, and also vitality, to high levels. Guard can do both. That's the problem. You could pinpoint a few units for adjustment, but really it's a design flaw with the army.

Across the board they need damage reduction or an equivalent points increase.
Across the board they need reduced survivability or an equivalent points increase.

Both of those statements are true, but not necessarily true together.

Guard are in a really bad place, because they invalidate quite a few armies just by existing. That's not good for the game. At all.

IG still needs some nerfs, mostly an across the board points increase.

Someone once calculated here that on average only a s2 ap- weapon deals more points of damage to MEQ then GEQ. So that's the biggest design flaw of 8th edition right there.

Matched play should disallow imperium (and maybe Chaos/Aeldari/ynnari) as sole faction keywords since it just invalidates so much. Have a low model weakness in you imperium force? just add a guard detachment it'll fix that up real quick.

 chrispy1991 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Spoken like an IG player.

"Everything's fine here, move along."

Manticores are still too cheap. 4 ppm is too cheap for a model with 5+ armor. Basilisks are too cheap. Russes are too cheap. Mortar teams are too cheap. Scions are still too cheap. Shall I go on?

And IG infantry is powerful because it exists. They don't need buffs or upgrades or auras. Just stand there and win the game.

Spoken like a true salt shaker. "Everything is too cheap. Nerf it all"

Better nerf conscripts and commissars again, just to play it safe.

The problem is guardsmen are currently causing a race to the bottom. You either bring them up, or absolutely everything else down. There is very little in the game that is actually worth shooting at guardsmen when viewed through the lense of cost for effect, even weapons ostensibly designed for clearing hordes, and those few things are all equally cheap models with high volumes of fire. (Pink horrors in units of 20+, cultists, other guardsmen, deep striking flamers of tzeentch)

Even at 5ppm guard would still be worth it, because of a few factors: the flattened wound chart makes them almost 33% more effective vs T4, while S4 shooting back at them became 33% LESS effective since they now actually get an armor save. having less of a save and more wounds per point is incredibly valuable in an edition where it now requires S6 to wound t3 on 2s. The horde clearing abilities of heavy bolters and heavy flamers, previously the 'gold standard' for shooting at GEQ, not only got more expensive themselves, but became similarly 33% less effective because of the introduction of rend mechanics. It gets even worse because of the HF no longer ignoring cover.

Basically, guard got the good end of all the core rules changes, and while everyone else got worse relative to shooting at them, they got better at shooting back, and additionally can now actually leverage embedded special and heavy weapons without giving up any firepower at all. Marines didn't change in base cost, most weapons got more expensive. Guard got cheaper, their weapons got cheaper.

The above pretty clearly shows why they need a cost bump, and I say that as someone who likes seeing guard in use and play, right now they are simply too strong because of the unique ability to simply take more stuff in an edition that favors he who rolls more dice




On the subject of dark reapers, they are slightly undercosted, but even if they were bumped by 5ppm would still see play, because of the incredible meta-warping effects of negative hit modifiers. The reason DRs are getting spammed is because of all the different ways things can get -1 or more to hit, and because they can get this themselves it becomes a circular problem. Yet the -1 to hit has to be a thing because of guard-style shooting.

Solution: bump IG by a small value until a balance is reached (not big hammer nerfs), and remove as much of the army wide -1 as possible. Both were equally terrible mistakes

Oh anopther problem is that there is always a chance those guardsman can hurt you with their flashlights so that should be taken into account and it currently isn't properly yet.

As a whole tough I am a fun of this design principle, makes for more fun games and less I might as well not bother unpacking my army.

" and shown that they arent anywhere near what is being portrayed. "

Have they, though? Battle cannon Russ might be slightly inferior at AT compared to quadlas pred, but its better in every other phase of the game. Defense, anti-infantry, and benefits from regiments. So yeah, I think Russes are slightly too cheap.

And yeah, 5+ armor saves on a 4 ppm model is uncalled for due to how this game scales.

"every IG unit outclasses everything everyone else has. "

That's actually not too far off. Because cheaper is better in 8th.

 Earth127 wrote:
Oh anopther problem is that there is always a chance those guardsman can hurt you with their flashlights so that should be taken into account and it currently isn't properly yet.

Oh they absolutely can hurt you! A guardsman with FRFSRF will cause same amount of wounds to a marine, than amarine firing a bolter at another marine. Except the marine costs over three times as much. Even if you account the cost of the commander, the lasgun guardsmen are 2,4 times more effective at killing marines than same points worth of bolter marines are. And it the target unit is guardsmen too, then the IG gets relatively even better at killing them compared to the marines. It's pretty crazy.

Solution: bump IG by a small value until a balance is reached (not big hammer nerfs), and remove as much of the army wide -1 as possible. Both were equally terrible mistakes

Exalted. I said the same thing in a post months back. Army wide -1 to hit is literally insane. Plus infantry squads being the most problematic of the to lowly costed infantry need to start the nerf train to achieve game balance.

Martel732 wrote:
There is no infantry comparable to guardsmen. That's the problem. There is no artillery comparable to IG artillery. There are no psykers comparable to your psykers. There are few tanks comparable to the Russ. Hell, Bullgryns are better at CC than my BA.

Actually I think gaunts are quite comparable to guardsmen, at least of you talk about the blobs and not the weapon teams. Jorm has 5+ leviatan has 6+ 6+++. 40 points for a screen. Fearless. Or you cqn go on the offense with devilgaunts, posible out of a transport.

I don't wanne draw to much atension to them. Would probably stil play them at 5 point base. (Although gargoyles are 6, so they would be better as a screen.)

Gaunts cant take heavy weapons. Nids can always kill infantery, tanks, needs more effort.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To the op. With pool having options added late in the vote I would start a new pool for better data.

Dark reapers at 2nd place is an exaggeration made by frustrated space marines players. Deepstriking scions with plasmas are way more broken.

Dark reapers are quite powerful of course but still T3 dudes that are not cheap at all. All the other units in the top 10 are quite tough to kill instead, including guardsmen that are also T3 but undercosted. And they're part on an army that isn't overpowered at all.

I was dubious about including Guilliman, but my other choices are Alpha Legion Cultists (they slaughter anything T5 and lower given the right support), Primaris Psykers (exceptionally cheap choice of smite, especially after the tripling or so of the Malefic Lord's points), Dark Reapers for clearing screens, and Mortar Teams (output vs. price).

Obliterators, Noise Marines, Leviathans, Magnus, Mortarion, the humble Guardsman, plasma-spam Scions, Khorne Berzerkers, Celestine, LRBT, Fiends of Slaanesh, and the not included Triple Predator Annihilator (or quadruple) and Chaos Sorcerer are honourable mentions. I also have a soft spot for Warp Talons, especially against IG.

Brimstone Horrors shouldn't be on the list anymore.

 DoomMouse wrote:
So after a few days of voting the top 20 are:

1. Guilliman
2. Dark reapers
3. Magnus
4. Mortarion
5. Celestine
6. Imperial guard infantry squads
7. Baneblade Chassis Tank
8. Manticores / Basilisk
9. Hemlock wraithfighter
10. Leman russ
11. Scions
12. Genestealers
13. Khorne berserkers
14. Razorback
15. Stormraven, stormhawk or stormtalon
16 Shining spears
17. Obliterators
18. Mortar teams
19. Hellblasters
Joint 20. Kastellans and Tau Commander

If it's of any interest to people, here were the top 20 from the last thread I made on this (just after the space marine codex dropped near the start of 8th)

1) Guilliman
2) conscripts
3) Stormraven
4) Brimstone horrors
5) tempestus scions
6) Celestine
7) Razorbacks
8) Magnus
9) Tau commander
10) ork boys
11) Imperial knights
12) genestealer
13) manticores / basilisks
14) kastellan robots
15) Belisarius cawl
16) taurox prime
17) daemon prince
18) baneblade variants
19) Harlequins
20) khorne berserkers

Surprisingly, despite a small nerf since the last poll, celestine has actually risen from 6th to 5th place. Just as a one off thing, that says something good for game balance.I think. It's surprising how little this list has changed though with all the codexes dropping and chapter approved changing things up too.

Excellent, exalted!

 Blackie wrote:
Dark reapers at 2nd place is an exaggeration made by frustrated space marines players. Deepstriking scions with plasmas are way more broken.

Dark reapers are quite powerful of course but still T3 dudes that are not cheap at all. All the other units in the top 10 are quite tough to kill instead, including guardsmen that are also T3 but undercosted. And they're part on an army that isn't overpowered at all.

T3 doesn't matter in 8th.

Martel732 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Dark reapers at 2nd place is an exaggeration made by frustrated space marines players. Deepstriking scions with plasmas are way more broken.

Dark reapers are quite powerful of course but still T3 dudes that are not cheap at all. All the other units in the top 10 are quite tough to kill instead, including guardsmen that are also T3 but undercosted. And they're part on an army that isn't overpowered at all.

T3 doesn't matter in 8th.

Um, yes it does. Vs T3, most weapons increase wound rolls needed by 16-17%. S4 needs 3s instead of 4s, S6/7 needs 2s instead of 3s. It is only S5 and 8+ that doesn't care about T3/T4. Considering in prior editions S6+ didn't care whether a unit was T3/T4, I think you can make an argument that being T4 matters MORE in 8th than in prior editions.

What you are thinking of is the difference between S3 and S4, which I agree is largely irrelevant in 8th (except against T6/7, which is the majority of MCs and vehicles).

-

 Earth127 wrote:

Matched play should disallow imperium (and maybe Chaos/Aeldari/ynnari) as sole faction keywords since it just invalidates so much. Have a low model weakness in you imperium force? just add a guard detachment it'll fix that up real quick.

This is a problem with the Guard being too good more than the Imperium keyword itself. Personally, the whole separation of Guard and Marines has always been a big disconnect for me. I'd hate to see that link go, though I could do without 350 point Brigades.

I'd put Celestine at the top of the list tbh. 14 effective wounds of character-protected 2+/4+ with regenning meatshields, a flurry of attacks that makes most characters jealous, and her absolutely zany do-whatever-she-wants start of turn ability... She could go up 100 points tomorrow and I'd still call her good.

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Dark reapers at 2nd place is an exaggeration made by frustrated space marines players. Deepstriking scions with plasmas are way more broken.

Dark reapers are quite powerful of course but still T3 dudes that are not cheap at all. All the other units in the top 10 are quite tough to kill instead, including guardsmen that are also T3 but undercosted. And they're part on an army that isn't overpowered at all.

T3 doesn't matter in 8th.

Um, yes it does. Vs T3, most weapons increase wound rolls needed by 16-17%. S4 needs 3s instead of 4s, S6/7 needs 2s instead of 3s. It is only S5 and 8+ that doesn't care about T3/T4. Considering in prior editions S6+ didn't care whether a unit was T3/T4, I think you can make an argument that being T4 matters MORE in 8th than in prior editions.

What you are thinking of is the difference between S3 and S4, which I agree is largely irrelevant in 8th (except against T6/7, which is the majority of MCs and vehicles).

-

It doesn't matter for dark reapers, certainly.

Martel732 wrote:
It doesn't matter for dark reapers, certainly.

Because....reasons? If it makes you fell any better, I don't use Reapers because every time I've tried them, they die fast even with buffs. Combine with the fact that that aren't very mobile and you have to proxy the models anyway (because GW stopped making them for some reason*) and it is pretty much an easy decision for me to leave them out of my lists.



*finecast is not a valid media for miniatures, therefore any model that is currently produced in finecast may as well be out of production.

-

Because the reapers aced everything before it can exploit the t3 as if it were exploitable when the unit is in cover rerolling saves.

T3 doesn't matter when you have a 2+ save, or you're hiding behind LOS, with the ability to move into view, shoot, and then move back out of LOS. Also, you have Tempest Launchers, which are really good.

Reapers are so good. So incredibly good.

Do you think people bring 30 reapers to the table because they aren't balls out awesomesauce? Oh look a swiss army knife unit that is very protectable and has amazing synergy with everything in my codex. I should bring none of this.

 Marmatag wrote:
T3 doesn't matter when you have a 2+ save, or you're hiding behind LOS, with the ability to move into view, shoot, and then move back out of LOS. Also, you have Tempest Launchers, which are really good.

So presumably you don't have problem with your eldar opponents having T4 dark reapers? After all it doesn't matter do they have T3 or T4...

Functionally, it wouldn't matter much. Bring the cost for their other abilities in line and they can have T4 for free. 3+ armor is so leaky outside of cover that the T3/T4 thing is really meaningless.

 Marmatag wrote:
T3 doesn't matter when you have a 2+ save, or you're hiding behind LOS, with the ability to move into view, shoot, and then move back out of LOS. Also, you have Tempest Launchers, which are really good.

Reapers are so good. So incredibly good.

Do you think people bring 30 reapers to the table because they aren't balls out awesomesauce? Oh look a swiss army knife unit that is very protectable and has amazing synergy with everything in my codex. I should bring none of this.

I lol'd.

Surely reapers aren't fun for Eldar players either? I know what it's like to have an auto include unit and it sucks. It limits list design and kills any possible interesting choices.

This is why Guard are so bizarre, it's not just infantry or leman russes or scions that are broken by themselves. Arguably they (and more) are very strong relative to other codexes' units. If a new player picks up Guard they can throw a relatively competitive list without thinking about it. This is unique. No other faction has such good internal balance and external strength.

In truth I do understand, but Eldar were dominating as Ynaari before and after the nerf to Soulburst. And we don't know what codex eldar would look like without OP dark reapers. I contend they would still be viable, because reapers aren't the only good unit, just so undercosted that is all you'll see.

Eldar are solid without them, but then they are cast down below the ranks of the IG. Eldar, like marines, have no effective way to clear the guardsmen. At least not in time.

Martel732 wrote:
Eldar are solid without them, but then they are cast down below the ranks of the IG. Eldar, like marines, have no effective way to clear the guardsmen. At least not in time.

Eldar absolutely do.

Deep strike in 20 guardians and clear chaff like a boss. 160 points for 40 shots hitting on 3s, wounding on 3s, with a rend on 6s. (If you were Ulthwe you could make them hit on 2s).

Meanwhile, everything else stays out of LOS, or laughs as Alaitoc in cover.

That's 160 pts of guardians to kill 40 pts of spastic losers. You won't be able to project past the first squad with 12" guns.

You can't get out of LoS vs IG.

Martel732 wrote:
That's 160 pts of guardians to kill 40 pts of spastic losers. You won't be able to project past the first squad with 12" guns.

You can't get out of LoS vs IG.

It's still more efficient than pretty much anyone else. And, you could drop your guardians in a congaline and hit multiple squads that were lined up at the outer most layer.

Maybe. Sometimes IG players add a cheap tank to the outer line to prevent such shenanigans, though. When everything is so cheap, you can basically do whatever you want.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe. Sometimes IG players add a cheap tank to the outer line to prevent such shenanigans, though. When everything is so cheap, you can basically do whatever you want.

Yeah I get it.

The best answer to Guard is to try and shoot past their chaff.

CSM do well leveraging berzerkers though.

Berzerkers are THE melee unit in 8th. Thematically appropriate, but leaves all other melee-wannabes in the cold.

 Marmatag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe. Sometimes IG players add a cheap tank to the outer line to prevent such shenanigans, though. When everything is so cheap, you can basically do whatever you want.

Yeah I get it.

The best answer to Guard is to try and shoot past their chaff.

CSM do well leveraging berzerkers though.

Hmm....funny link.

One of the tyranid / cultists list has one detachement of nids, 1 5 man understreangh unit of GSC and then the rest astra militarum. So several of the lists have more IG then the 20 at the top should indicate. Some of the imperial lists probably have IG in them.

Martel732 wrote:
That's 160 pts of guardians to kill 40 pts of spastic losers. You won't be able to project past the first squad with 12" guns.

You can't get out of LoS vs IG.

wait.. you're complaining about a 10 man squad of conscripts?!? bs5+ ld 5 conscripts? commisar actually causes more losses to morale conscripts? regular squads are 50 pts nude. for bs3 ld7. but 10 bodies of any basic infantry aren't that hard to remove and get around..

No, regular guardsmen. They are 4ppm, not 5.

600 points of Ork boyz vs 600 points of guardsmen in a vacuum. Who wins? Here's a hint. In their first volley that guardsmen will kill on average 1/5th of the Orkz and be beyond Ork range. Turn 2 they walk backwards a bit and shoot again. Turn 3 they repeat and on turn 4 they double tap and then overwatch the survivors for an easy win.


That is why they are too cheap.

SemperMortis wrote:
600 points of Ork boyz vs 600 points of guardsmen in a vacuum. Who wins? Here's a hint. In their first volley that guardsmen will kill on average 1/5th of the Orkz and be beyond Ork range. Turn 2 they walk backwards a bit and shoot again. Turn 3 they repeat and on turn 4 they double tap and then overwatch the survivors for an easy win.


That is why they are too cheap.

I think that is a little disingenious. Forcing your opponent to kite back in his own deployment zone is already half a victory, because you get board control and a lead in victory points. I actually think Orks can deal with Guardsmen better than many other factions simply because we have access to cheap wounds and lots and lots of low-strength attacks. Tyranids can also do some damage with their insane Termagant+stratagem alphastrike. But many other factions just has nothing that can deal with Guardsmen efficiently. They are four points per wound, a decent armour save, they can fall back and shoot, they can fire four shots per model out to 12" (18" for Armageddon). They are just bananas.

And yes, big blobs of fearless cultists (with Abbadon or, what is it, Iron Warriors?) are a tough nut to crack too. Even though they only have a 6+ save and don't get that sweet FRFSRF order.

Martel732 wrote:
That's 160 pts of guardians to kill 40 pts of spastic losers. You won't be able to project past the first squad with 12" guns.

You can't get out of LoS vs IG.

Why are we assuming IG infantry always have a table value of 40pts? In most cases, especially outside the most insanely min/max'd if lists where they all just get a mortar and thats it, most IG infantry squads are gonna cost 50-70pts, most 55 or 60. At that point, 160pt Guardian unit costing 2.5-3x what that IG squad costs is not an inappropriate level of force to bring to bear, thats about what you should be bringing to bear with most units in the game. If I want to kill a Predator with Manticores, i need to average 4 turns worth of fire to do it, or about 3x the cost of the Predator in Manticores if I want to do it all in one turn.

Likewise, why are we assuming that IG can always hit anything, anywhere, and with enough firepower to obliterate it? Most IG weapons do not ignore LoS, including most of the big ones. Even among those that can, theyre not annihilating everything at the drop of a hat. A Manticore is averaging 2 dead marines a turn, or 3 wounds to a tank/weeny infantry. Without running a company of them, they're not just obliterating everything on the board.

Also, those -1 to hit traits *really* do hurt.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
T3 doesn't matter when you have a 2+ save, or you're hiding behind LOS, with the ability to move into view, shoot, and then move back out of LOS. Also, you have Tempest Launchers, which are really good.

Reapers are so good. So incredibly good.

Do you think people bring 30 reapers to the table because they aren't balls out awesomesauce? Oh look a swiss army knife unit that is very protectable and has amazing synergy with everything in my codex. I should bring none of this.

I lol'd.

Surely reapers aren't fun for Eldar players either? I know what it's like to have an auto include unit and it sucks. It limits list design and kills any possible interesting choices.

This is why Guard are so bizarre, it's not just infantry or leman russes or scions that are broken by themselves. Arguably they (and more) are very strong relative to other codexes' units. If a new player picks up Guard they can throw a relatively competitive list without thinking about it. This is unique. No other faction has such good internal balance and external strength.

Hrm, the army isn't *that* well balanced. Outside of some of the Russ variants, the codex artillery, and some of the infantry, theres a lot of mediocre and outright bad units. Deathstrikes, Chimeras, Vanquishers (the specialized AT tank that is bad at hunting tanks), Bane Wolfs, Eradicators, etc. Add in FW and the vast bulk of that is not terribly competitive. Not that the IG codex doesnt have some good units, but you cant take just anything and slap it together to make a usable army.

SemperMortis wrote:
600 points of Ork boyz vs 600 points of guardsmen in a vacuum. Who wins? Here's a hint. In their first volley that guardsmen will kill on average 1/5th of the Orkz and be beyond Ork range. Turn 2 they walk backwards a bit and shoot again. Turn 3 they repeat and on turn 4 they double tap and then overwatch the survivors for an easy win.


That is why they are too cheap.

table space to withdraw is not infinite, the table edge, terrain and other units matter. Likewise, give those Boyz shootas and the Orks are trading casualties at a point for point even ratio with the Guardsmen, albeit with a shorter max range but with dramatically superior CC capability to boot.

"Why are we assuming IG infantry always have a table value of 40pts? "

Because that's how my foes use them. They don't pretend they are anything other than expendable chaff. Giving them equipment paradoxically makes them less powerful. It's not min-maxing to accept them for what they are.

"Likewise, why are we assuming that IG can always hit anything, anywhere, and with enough firepower to obliterate it?"

Because they do? At least in my games against them.

"Also, those -1 to hit traits *really* do hurt. "

Not really. You just throw more dice and kill your opponent. -1 to hit just delays the inevitable. Once Eldar lose their dark reaper cheese, they'll be back to being victims. Because they can't kill fast enough.

I understand that many IG players can't accept that they are the Eldar of 8th ed. They have the most busted units, and field the armies with the least amount of available counterplay. Just own it and quit trying to deny it. Put 120-150 guardsmen down and every assault list in the game save alpha legion autoloses. No counterplay. There is no way to shift that many models. They need to cost more. Marines/admech/eldar can't outshoot IG, even though they are forced to do exactly that.

I voted for (in no particular order):
Roboute Guilliman: Even with the price bump, he gives insane buffs to his Ultramarine buddies and is disgusting in close combat.
Magnus the Red: He moves fast, he has a pretty solid invulnerable save, and he can cast a 2d6 mortal wound Smite. He's undercosted for sure.
Mortarion: Of the ones I voted for, this is the only one I've actually fielded myself. Morty has so many special rules and abilities that make him extremely powerful. He's even better when he's surrounded by his Death Guard brothers.
Saint Celestine: She can move insanely quick thanks to her Act of Faith, getting into your face turn 1 easily, and she hits like a truck. And usually you have to kill her twice. Very powerful.
Biovores: These murder machines hand out mortal wounds like candy, and when they miss they make a minefield that you have to waste precious shots to destroy or else take even MORE mortal wounds. I suspect they are criminally undercosted, but I honestly don't know how many points they cost as I don't have the Tyranids book.

Individually Dark Reapers are far beyond anything else power-level wise. Along with stratagems far superior to what other codexes have (like auspex without range limit) and hardest in the game transports - they are the staple of Eldar power.
And Eldar players who field more than 10 reapers should burn in warp.

But considering the synergy with other units, Stormravens, Guilliman, Berzerkerz and Poxwalkers are also pretty powerful.

Stormravens are unparalleled in leveling hordes of screening units... along with anything else. But I think GK Stormravens are the most powerful, because Draigo can jump along them, providing aura for many turns.

Berzerkerz in vacuum are very situational, but hydradominatus there are certain stratagems which make them shine even without Mr. Kharn Rapetrain.

Poxwalkers are excellent power multiplier for screening units. If you go first or put them out of threat range you essentially make your screen impregnable. I usually carry 80 Poxwalkers with me, but recent games forced me to expand my collection to 120 Poxwalkers to absorb all the Brimstones and Cultists my enemy can kill, along with enemy's infantry lucky enough to get in close combat with my zombies.

Guilliman... well, nothing to add here. Undercosted monstrosity with superior protection and synergy, counterchange potential. The only thing which made other SM stand-and-shoot armies viable is his lack of protection for his troops (like index Azrael).
I think he will receive new influx of popularity with new Custodes aura of 5++ for every Imperium unit within 9".

Depends on what surrounds them

Dark reapers are good without support, and Eldar support only helps them so much, while, say, obliterators can be buffed half a dozen different ways to create both a ferociously deadly, and extraordinarily hard to shift unit.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

This is why Guard are so bizarre, it's not just infantry or leman russes or scions that are broken by themselves. Arguably they (and more) are very strong relative to other codexes' units. If a new player picks up Guard they can throw a relatively competitive list without thinking about it. This is unique. No other faction has such good internal balance and external strength.

Hrm, the army isn't *that* well balanced. Outside of some of the Russ variants, the codex artillery, and some of the infantry, theres a lot of mediocre and outright bad units. Deathstrikes, Chimeras, Vanquishers (the specialized AT tank that is bad at hunting tanks), Bane Wolfs, Eradicators, etc. Add in FW and the vast bulk of that is not terribly competitive. Not that the IG codex doesnt have some good units, but you cant take just anything and slap it together to make a usable army.

I agree with this. Imperial Guard does not have great internal balance, unfortunately. Not like, say, Tyranids. No one is usinge mechanized Guard infantry these day. Melta-vets in chimeras used to be a go-to strat for many of my Guard opponents, but not anymore. In fact, I think the Elite and Fast Attack slots in Guard are pretty bland. And while Guard has the best bubble wrap in the game, Guard does not have great first turn, deep-strike denial like scouts or rangers. I see many Guard players using their mandatory scout sentinels for that purpose, which is hardly ideal.
The good thing is that the Regiment doctrines has good internal balance. I think I have seen at least Cadian, Catachan, Armageddon, Valhallan and Tallarn amongst my opponents. In some other factions Alaitoc, Alpha Legion and Raven Guard are totally dominant because the -1 to hit is simply a lot better than any of the alternatives. And incidentally, I think that Guard (and Tau) are suffering more because of these stacked hit modifiers than most other factions.

But Guardsmen are still a top five unit, and hands down the best troop choice in the game.

I wanted to vote for Wulfen but they aren't on the list .
Haven't faced any of the units mentioned here, used Bloat Drones and Obliterators myself. Drones are pretty nasty, only because they are very annoying: can't be killed, can't be tarpitted. Their damage output is mediocre, though.

pismakron wrote:
Guard does not have great first turn, deep-strike denial like scouts or rangers. I see many Guard players using their mandatory scout sentinels for that purpose, which is hardly ideal.

That's exactly what Scout Sentinels are for though isn't it? They aren't the worst chassis to be fulfilling such a role either, they are pretty decent little gun platforms truth be told.

They have probably the worst cost to occupied area ratio in the game. They are not a bad unit per se, but using them as anti deep strike is the same as using tac marines for chaff. They can do it, but it doesn't mean that they are good at it.

Spoletta wrote:
They have probably the worst cost to occupied area ratio in the game. They are not a bad unit per se, but using them as anti deep strike is the same as using tac marines for chaff. They can do it, but it doesn't mean that they are good at it.

They push out before the first turn, which is an advantage they have over guardsmen.

stratigo wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
They have probably the worst cost to occupied area ratio in the game. They are not a bad unit per se, but using them as anti deep strike is the same as using tac marines for chaff. They can do it, but it doesn't mean that they are good at it.

They push out before the first turn, which is an advantage they have over guardsmen.

But marine scouts do that covering more area for same price. Think that's his point.

Though it's still fairly cheap so good brigade fillers while pushing deep strikers away.

stratigo wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
They have probably the worst cost to occupied area ratio in the game. They are not a bad unit per se, but using them as anti deep strike is the same as using tac marines for chaff. They can do it, but it doesn't mean that they are good at it.

They push out before the first turn, which is an advantage they have over guardsmen.

Sure, but they push out after deployment where scouts and rangers infiltrate. That means the kroot and sentinels can be screened away by the infiltrating units. But sentinels are clearly better than nothing.

Apart from that, scouts and rangers can deploy on the upper floor of ruins or on top of buildings. Or they can deploy forwards but out of LOS. That can be a real nuisance for opponents.

pismakron wrote:

stratigo wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
They have probably the worst cost to occupied area ratio in the game. They are not a bad unit per se, but using them as anti deep strike is the same as using tac marines for chaff. They can do it, but it doesn't mean that they are good at it.

They push out before the first turn, which is an advantage they have over guardsmen.

Sure, but they push out after deployment where scouts and rangers infiltrate. That means the kroot and sentinels can be screened away by the infiltrating units. But sentinels are clearly better than nothing.

Apart from that, scouts and rangers can deploy on the upper floor of ruins or on top of buildings. Or they can deploy forwards but out of LOS. That can be a real nuisance for opponents.

Don't IG have Ratling Snipers that can infiltrate?

Scout Sentinels must be considered to have something above those units?

AM can literally make a list that's mathematically impossible to table by turn 5.

Take for example 500 infantry squads in a 2k point list:
500 wounds, 5+ Sv
-750 AP0 shots landed
-600 AP-1 shots landed
-500 AP-2~AP-4 shots landed

Why are AM infantries overpowered? It ignores/nullifies many primary damaging mechanics the game works on:
-multi damage weapons have no increased effect
-AP is largely irrelevant because they're already base 5+ save

Obviously it doesn't factor in morale issue, but there's not a single army in the game that can guarantee 500 AP-2~AP-4 shot hits in any given game.

 skchsan wrote:
AM can literally make a list that's mathematically impossible to table by turn 5.

Take for example 500 infantry squads in a 2k point list:
500 wounds, 5+ Sv
-750 AP0 shots landed
-600 AP-1 shots landed
-500 AP-2~AP-4 shots landed

Why are AM infantries overpowered? It ignores/nullifies many primary damaging mechanics the game works on:
-multi damage weapons have no increased effect
-AP is largely irrelevant because they're already base 5+ save

Obviously it doesn't factor in morale issue, but there's not a single army in the game that can guarantee 500 AP-2~AP-4 shot hits in any given game.

That is true for a lot of infantries actually, AM is not even the best one at this game.

500 Tgants with Jorm do that and are also immune to morale with bigger squads.


Also, since we are in the realm of pure math, there are lists that can get more than 750 hits in a single round. Yes they are highly unlikely, but so is that list.

 skchsan wrote:
AM can literally make a list that's mathematically impossible to table by turn 5.

Take for example 500 infantry squads in a 2k point list:
500 wounds, 5+ Sv
-750 AP0 shots landed
-600 AP-1 shots landed
-500 AP-2~AP-4 shots landed

Why are AM infantries overpowered? It ignores/nullifies many primary damaging mechanics the game works on:
-multi damage weapons have no increased effect
-AP is largely irrelevant because they're already base 5+ save

Obviously it doesn't factor in morale issue, but there's not a single army in the game that can guarantee 500 AP-2~AP-4 shot hits in any given game.

Not in matched play at least. Max would be 36 infantry squads, but then you also need 9 Elites, 9 Fast Attack, 9 Heavy Support, and 9 HQ

Spoletta wrote:
That is true for a lot of infantries actually, AM is not even the best one at this game.

500 Tgants with Jorm do that and are also immune to morale with bigger squads.

Also, since we are in the realm of pure math, there are lists that can get more than 750 hits in a single round. Yes they are highly unlikely, but so is that list.

I agree that others armies can do this as well. But in that particular example, termagaunts have +6 Sv, which would only require 500 AP-1 hits, and there are plethora of cheap AP-1 basic weaponries, far more than AP-2 and above.

As far as the theoretical 750 hits in a single round go, let's take for example how many of each weapon is required to land 750 hits & wounds in 1 turn, assuming all are S4:
Hurricane bolters @ half range, +2 BS: 750/(24*(5/6)*(4/6))=56.25 hurricane bolters required (56.25 hurricane bolters w/o platform @ 10 PPW = 562.5 pts)
Reg bolters @ half range, +2 BS: 750/(2*(5/6)*(4/6))=675 boltguns required (675 Marines @ 13 PPM = 8775 pts)
Stormbolters @ half range, +2 BS: 750/(4*(5/6)*(4/6))=337.5 boltguns required (337.5 Marines w/ SB @ 13+2 PPM = 5062.5 pts)
Any 2d6 weapon, ALWAYS rolling 12 hits, +2 BS: 750/(12*(5/6)*(4/6))=75 2d6 weapons required

I tend to focus on imperium examples only. Can you explain your 750 using other armies I'm not aware of?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
That is true for a lot of infantries actually,

Yes, this is true for any armies that have chaff models that can be picked up for 5 points or less per model.

 skchsan wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
That is true for a lot of infantries actually, AM is not even the best one at this game.

500 Tgants with Jorm do that and are also immune to morale with bigger squads.

Also, since we are in the realm of pure math, there are lists that can get more than 750 hits in a single round. Yes they are highly unlikely, but so is that list.

I agree that others armies can do this as well. But in that particular example, termagaunts have +6 Sv, which would only require 500 AP-1 hits, and there are plethora of cheap AP-1 basic weaponries, far more than AP-2 and above.

As far as the theoretical 750 hits in a single round go, let's take for example how many of each weapon is required to land 750 hits & wounds in 1 turn, assuming all are S4:
Hurricane bolters @ half range, +2 BS: 750/(24*(5/6)*(4/6))=56.25 hurricane bolters required (56.25 hurricane bolters w/o platform @ 10 PPW = 562.5 pts)
Reg bolters @ half range, +2 BS: 750/(2*(5/6)*(4/6))=675 boltguns required (675 Marines @ 13 PPM = 8775 pts)
Stormbolters @ half range, +2 BS: 750/(4*(5/6)*(4/6))=337.5 boltguns required (337.5 Marines w/ SB @ 13+2 PPM = 5062.5 pts)
Any 2d6 weapon, ALWAYS rolling 12 hits, +2 BS: 750/(12*(5/6)*(4/6))=75 2d6 weapons required

I tend to focus on imperium examples only. Can you explain your 750 using other armies I'm not aware of?

Aggressors are less than 2 points per S4 shot.
Also, Jorm tgants are 5+.

Spoletta wrote:
Aggressors are less than 2 points per S4 shot.

Eh... I think not...
3x Aggressor w/ boltstorm gauntlets/fragstorm grenade launcher = 111 pts
Max S4 shots provided per model = 12 (6+d6)

So... 111/3 = 37; 37/12 = 3.08 pts per S4 shot.

Just for arguments' sake, say aggressors have +2 BS:

750/(12*(5/6)*(4/6)) = 112.5 Aggressor w/ boltstorm gauntlets/fragstorm grenade launcher needed @ 37 ppm = 4162.5 pts

Staggering.

Spoletta wrote:
Also, Jorm tgants are 5+.

Touche.

Agressors ideally shoot twice.

Spoletta wrote:
Agressors ideally shoot twice.

112.5/2*37=2081.25 pts

Why do they shoot twice?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Instead continueing this nonsense (yes, I think I'm being nonsensical myself), I think we can agree on the fact that amassed single wounds have no inherent weakness and therefore it cannot be countered.

Against high Sv, you bring high AP.
Against high T, you bring high S.
Against high W, you bring high D.

The game generally works with the above three guidelines.

What do you bring against low T, low Sv, low W, whose accumulated total wound count reaches a staggering level?

 skchsan wrote:

Why do they shoot twice?

They shoot twice if they don't move. That's why no one uses the flamer variant, as they practically never get to benefit from that rule.

No Azreal for dark angels? That reroll misses and 4++ bubble are pretty game winning.

There are 3 counters to massed chaps:

- High number of S2 attacks
- Weapons that can inflict damage on multiple models
- Morale

We lack the first one and there are maybe 3 weapons that have the second ability.

Which means that we should look at morale, and indeed, even if it is true that killing 2 marines is the same as killing 6 guards, said 6 guards can cause a squad wipe on 5+.

Guards lose the attrition war against SM, the problem is that right now the games are so fast that there is no attrition war, just alpha strikes.

IDK about 750... thats an insane amount, I dont think anyone can do that.

But if i HAD the models i so would do this (i really want to but dont have the model nor am i spending the money on metal models)

x3 Outriders
Canoness SB
Canoness SB Relice
Celestine 2 Gemini
Dominions x5: x5 SB x18
Retributors x5: x4 HB's x6


90 Dominions with 90 SB's > Scout, get within range turn 1 shoot 360 Bolters
30 Reitributors with 24 HB's, hide in cover, shoot 72 S5 -1ap shots
2 Canoness gives re-rolls to 1's within 6" not everyone will get to re-roll but most will.

Thats 432 shots

It is true that there are not good counters to hordes, at least not ones which would not work equally well or better against more elite opponents.

I think that this is mainly because the failed at converting the old template weapons into the new system. While I really don't want templates back, some weapons should become more effective against big units. There are some rare weapons which do this, but it should be way more common, and I think there is better way to do this mechanically. I think that weapons that basically do low powered AoE attacks should deal hits, or have attacks, based on the number of models in the target unit. E.g. "This weapon's attack characteristic is equal to the number of models in the target unit, up to the maximum of 2D6." I think something like that would be pretty good at simulating things like frag missiles or maybe even flamers.

 skchsan wrote:

Instead continueing this nonsense (yes, I think I'm being nonsensical myself), I think we can agree on the fact that amassed single wounds have no inherent weakness and therefore it cannot be countered.

Against high Sv, you bring high AP.
Against high T, you bring high S.
Against high W, you bring high D.

The game generally works with the above three guidelines.

What do you bring against low T, low Sv, low W,

Volume of fire.

whose accumulated total wound count reaches a staggering level?

Guard armies typically aren't 500 dudes. The highest model count IG armies you typically see on the field are shy of 200 models at the ultra high end, and most are half that model count or less. My 2k IG Brigade list runs under 90 models.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Guard armies typically aren't 500 dudes. The highest model count IG armies you typically see on the field are shy of 200 models at the ultra high end, and most are half that model count or less. My 2k IG Brigade list runs under 90 models.

Soooooooooooo your army is at the ultra low end then?

 skchsan wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Guard armies typically aren't 500 dudes. The highest model count IG armies you typically see on the field are shy of 200 models at the ultra high end, and most are half that model count or less. My 2k IG Brigade list runs under 90 models.

Soooooooooooo your army is at the ultra low end then?

Not from my experience, my list generally has 60-70something weeny infantry and 9-10 vehicles of various sorts depending on what im feeling like.


Looking at tables I see, the army list forum, seeing tournament lists, etc. Infantry centric heavy armies tend to run ~120 models at 2k, more mixed or tank heavy lists tend to run 70-90 models.

More than that and you literally run out of deployment zone space quite often

If you do 6 wounds to a unit of guardsmen, they will probably lose models to moral,
if you do 8 wounds to a unit of guardsmen, you will kill the unit no matter what to morale.
so 75 units of 10 less 150 wounds that morale will do, we now need to do 600 wounds.
There is a fair chance that multiple units will be totally lost to 6 or 7 wounds to morale. since there are 75 units, lets say 1/3rd suffer these bad rolls or 25 untis. so 3.5 wounds less for those units. 87.5 wounds, and 50 by 8 wounds, 100 saved wounds
The fact is, you only need to do 562.5 wounds to cause 750 casualties. Thanks morale!

my math is also slighty off, 8 wounds dont auto kill.. they technically can have 1 survivor on a roll of 1, b/c ld 7.. whoops
but i am also assuming they don't lose any models at less than 6 wounds, so i feel it balances

Martel732 wrote:
They are much harder to remove as well. No more deep striking heavy flamers saying "bye-bye" instantly.

We thought GW: 8” versus 9”.
My vote went to Bobby G, SS, DR, Magnus and Mortarion.

 Crimson wrote:
It is true that there are not good counters to hordes, at least not ones which would not work equally well or better against more elite opponents.

I think that this is mainly because the failed at converting the old template weapons into the new system. While I really don't want templates back, some weapons should become more effective against big units. There are some rare weapons which do this, but it should be way more common, and I think there is better way to do this mechanically. I think that weapons that basically do low powered AoE attacks should deal hits, or have attacks, based on the number of models in the target unit. E.g. "This weapon's attack characteristic is equal to the number of models in the target unit, up to the maximum of 2D6." I think something like that would be pretty good at simulating things like frag missiles or maybe even flamers.

That's like saying there are no counters against heavy vehicles, at least ones that work equally well against infantry, true but utterly missing the point. Different target profiles require different weapons, it's one of the key aspects of 8th ed. There are a lot of weapons that will decimate hordes, Hurricane Bolters, Tesla weapons, Aggressors, massed infantry, and close combat just to name a few. So the problem isn't lack of options, but one of misplaced expectations, people want their anti-horde weapons to work just as well against heavy infantry, which is like wanting plasma pistols to be great at killing land raiders.

None of the options you listed are actually COST EFFECTIVE against hordes. They are just the least poor of the available options. Frequently because the platforms for said weapons are very expensive.

I have one question. Why does people say that the new AP sistem punishes marines and power armour?

Agaisnt the old AP5-6 they are the same. Agaisn't AP4 they are now 4+, thats worse, but in cover they are still 3+.
Agaisnt the old AP3 they have now a 5+ save or 4+ in cover (The same as before in cover)
Agaisnt the old AP2, they have a 6+ save, or a +5 in cover. (This is worse than before in cover but better outside it)
And the old AP1 now put thems at 7+ and 6+ in cover.

So out of cover marines are better agaisn't everything than before, barring the now AP-1. In cover they are worse agaisn't AP-3 and AP-4, but thats applies to everybody with the new cover rules.

There are many weapons that are effective against horde units. Bolters will cost-effectively kill kroot, boyz, pox-walkers, hormagaunts and so on. But Guardsmen have a wound for every four points and a 5+ save, and this is what makes them super durable. It has nothing to do with 'hordes' in general.

I don't think that's the issue. The issue is the buff that 5+ armor received. Marines weren't durable in 7th, or 6th, or 5th, or 4th. The were durable in 3rd, which might as well have never happened now.

Martel732 wrote:
None of the options you listed are actually COST EFFECTIVE against hordes. They are just the least poor of the available options. Frequently because the platforms for said weapons are very expensive.

Auto cannons do a great job at 48", multi-las at 36", they can cause damage with impunity to any amount of 40pts of Gaurdsmen fire.
at 6" it changes. but thank goodness boards are more than 24" square.

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think that's the issue. The issue is the buff that 5+ armor received. Marines weren't durable in 7th, or 6th, or 5th, or 4th. The were durable in 3rd, which might as well have never happened now.

The issue is the low point cost per wound of Guardsmen relative to other Infantry types. How durable marines were in prior edition is irrelevant, and saying that there are no cost-effective anti horde weapons is simply wrong. There is no weapon profile that kills Guardsmen better that it kills Tactical Marines, but that does not hold true for horde units in general.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pumaman1 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
None of the options you listed are actually COST EFFECTIVE against hordes. They are just the least poor of the available options. Frequently because the platforms for said weapons are very expensive.

Auto cannons do a great job at 48", multi-las at 36", they can cause damage with impunity to any amount of 40pts of Gaurdsmen fire.
at 6" it changes. but thank goodness boards are more than 24" square.

Autocannons are awful against Guardsmen and multilasers are terrible in general.

 Grimgold wrote:


That's like saying there are no counters against heavy vehicles, at least ones that work equally well against infantry, true but utterly missing the point. Different target profiles require different weapons, it's one of the key aspects of 8th ed. There are a lot of weapons that will decimate hordes, Hurricane Bolters, Tesla weapons, Aggressors, massed infantry, and close combat just to name a few. So the problem isn't lack of options, but one of misplaced expectations, people want their anti-horde weapons to work just as well against heavy infantry, which is like wanting plasma pistols to be great at killing land raiders.

No, you got it completely backwards. All of these weapons you mention are actually more effective against heavy infantry than light infantry when the point cost of the target unit is taken in account. That is the problem. People want weapons that are better at killing IG than killing equivalent points worth of marines. No such weapons exist.

pismakron wrote:


Autocannons are awful against Guardsmen and multilasers are terrible in general.

It is more a statement of perspective. Not that the weapons noted are wonderful. But using it well means its invincible against the disputed guardsmen.
And as noted, really you only need to get 7 or 8 wounds in on a unit to remove it, it you build in that loss of 8-12 points, they become 5ppm, does that help?

They need to be 5-6 ppm up front to limit the table coverage. And to pay for their fancy armor.

 Galas wrote:
I have one question. Why does people say that the new AP sistem punishes marines and power armour?

Agaisnt the old AP5-6 they are the same. Agaisn't AP4 they are now 4+, thats worse, but in cover they are still 3+.
Agaisnt the old AP3 they have now a 5+ save or 4+ in cover (The same as before in cover)
Agaisnt the old AP2, they have a 6+ save, or a +5 in cover. (This is worse than before in cover but better outside it)
And the old AP1 now put thems at 7+ and 6+ in cover.

So out of cover marines are better agaisn't everything than before, barring the now AP-1. In cover they are worse agaisn't AP-3 and AP-4, but thats applies to everybody with the new cover rules.

Marines & power armor are "punished" in the sense that GEQ & vehicles got a respectable amount of boost while MEQ's and TEQ's went down in effectiveness with the new AP system. Bolters were reputable GEQ counter prior to 8th by making their 5+ Sv irrelevant against their S4AP5.

Durability is now measured by whether if you have T8 or have a lot of single wounds for toughness to not matter.

In that sense, guardsmen are one of the most superior-est units in the game.

Martel732 wrote:
And to pay for their fancy armor.

"fancy armor"
"fancy armor"
"fancy armor"



All credibility of any argument is lost when someone starts calling IG T-shirt saves "fancy". I'm done watching this thread aside from the poll itself. It's devolved into pointless arguments.

 chrispy1991 wrote:

All credibility of any argument is lost when someone starts calling IG T-shirt saves "fancy". I'm done watching this thread aside from the poll itself. It's devolved into pointless arguments.

It is not fancy, but now it actually works against most common anti infantry weapons. For example, guardsmen became 33% more durable against bolters. This should be reflected in their cost, but it really isn't.

There are many units that are cost efficent at removing hordes at range (mostly xeno, SM only have aggressors). As has been said though, they are equally good against elite stuff.

Xenos weapons though tend to be "Ok" at killing hordes, meaning that over 3 turns they get the job done. Aggressors are the only unit that in 2 turns does the same, but they pay for that in delivery.

In assault things change obviously, and there are many ways to take those out.

 chrispy1991 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
And to pay for their fancy armor.

"fancy armor"
"fancy armor"
"fancy armor"



All credibility of any argument is lost when someone starts calling IG T-shirt saves "fancy". I'm done watching this thread aside from the poll itself. It's devolved into pointless arguments.

For 4 pts, its fancy AF.

 chrispy1991 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
And to pay for their fancy armor.

"fancy armor"
"fancy armor"
"fancy armor"



All credibility of any argument is lost when someone starts calling IG T-shirt saves "fancy". I'm done watching this thread aside from the poll itself. It's devolved into pointless arguments.

Yeah, if someone were to tell me in 7th edition that we would eventually complain about a unit being OP because it had a 5+ save, i know i would have had a good hard laugh.

Also, Tshirt saves are 6+. Get it right.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

 chrispy1991 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
And to pay for their fancy armor.

"fancy armor"
"fancy armor"
"fancy armor"



All credibility of any argument is lost when someone starts calling IG T-shirt saves "fancy". I'm done watching this thread aside from the poll itself. It's devolved into pointless arguments.

Yeah, if someone were to tell me in 7th edition that we would eventually complain about a unit being OP because it had a 5+ save, i know i would have had a good hard laugh.

There is a point value that can break any unit.

Spoletta wrote:

Yeah, if someone were to tell me in 7th edition that we would eventually complain about a unit being OP because it had a 5+ save, i know i would have had a good hard laugh.

This is because in 7th you usually didn't actually get to attempt that 5+ save, in 8th you do. This in itself I think is a good thing, as in previous editions the difference between having a low save and no save at all didn't really matter. But his increased survivability should be taken account in the unit's cost. This really cannot be that difficult concept, can it?

To be honest I like that now 6+ and 5+ saves actually matter for the most part. When the most popular, and basic weapon of the game makes those two saves irrelevant... yeah.

They just need to be priced accordingly to their uselfulness in the context of the current edition.

 Crimson wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Yeah, if someone were to tell me in 7th edition that we would eventually complain about a unit being OP because it had a 5+ save, i know i would have had a good hard laugh.

This is because in 7th you usually didn't actually get to attempt that 5+ save, in 8th you do. This in itself I think is a good thing, as in previous editions the difference between having a low save and no save at all didn't really matter. But his increased survivability should be taken account in the unit's cost. This really cannot be that difficult concept, can it?

Oh i get it don't worry, i just find it funny

 Galas wrote:
To be honest I like that now 6+ and 5+ saves actually matter for the most part. When the most popular, and basic weapon of the game makes those two saves irrelevant... yeah.

They just need to be priced accordingly to their uselfulness in the context of the current edition.

Indeed.

pismakron wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
600 points of Ork boyz vs 600 points of guardsmen in a vacuum. Who wins? Here's a hint. In their first volley that guardsmen will kill on average 1/5th of the Orkz and be beyond Ork range. Turn 2 they walk backwards a bit and shoot again. Turn 3 they repeat and on turn 4 they double tap and then overwatch the survivors for an easy win.


That is why they are too cheap.

I think that is a little disingenious. Forcing your opponent to kite back in his own deployment zone is already half a victory, because you get board control and a lead in victory points. I actually think Orks can deal with Guardsmen better than many other factions simply because we have access to cheap wounds and lots and lots of low-strength attacks. Tyranids can also do some damage with their insane Termagant+stratagem alphastrike. But many other factions just has nothing that can deal with Guardsmen efficiently. They are four points per wound, a decent armour save, they can fall back and shoot, they can fire four shots per model out to 12" (18" for Armageddon). They are just bananas.

And yes, big blobs of fearless cultists (with Abbadon or, what is it, Iron Warriors?) are a tough nut to crack too. Even though they only have a 6+ save and don't get that sweet FRFSRF order.

I don't think its disingenuous at all, I very clearly pointed out in a vacuum. the point is that Pt for Pt a 4pt guardsmen will beat a 6pt Ork. 2 Orkz vs 3 guardsmen and the 3 guardsmen win every time. THAT is why I think they are over powered. I am not arguing that Ork Boyz need to be 5ppm.

Basically You have to look at it this way. An Ork boy and A Guardsmen are basically the same thing. They specialize in one type of warfare and excel at it. For Ork boyz that is CC, for Guardsmen it is ranged standoff and area denial. The key difference is that a Boy is useless at shooting, but slightly tougher and way better in CC while the guardsmen not that great in CC, slightly faster and significantly better at Ranged combat. the problem is that a guardsmen is 2/3rds the price of an Ork boy.

SemperMortis wrote:
The key difference is that a Boy is useless at shooting

A Shoota Boy is not useless at shooting, model for model, they're actually trading casualties at a slightly favorable ratio to Guardsmen when within the 18" Assault range of the Shoota. Now, the Orks cost more, because not only are they matching the guardsmen man for man on the shooting range (albeit with not quite as long of a max range), but they're dramatically and emphatically superior in close combat as well.

The Slugga boy doesn't stack up quite as well, but the Shoota Boy isn't bad.

 Vaktathi wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
The key difference is that a Boy is useless at shooting

A Shoota Boy is not useless at shooting, model for model, they're actually trading casualties at a slightly favorable ratio to Guardsmen when within the 18" Assault range of the Shoota. Now, the Orks cost more, because not only are they matching the guardsmen man for man on the shooting range (albeit with not quite as long of a max range), but they're dramatically and emphatically superior in close combat as well.

The Slugga boy doesn't stack up quite as well, but the Shoota Boy isn't bad.

Except the guardsmen have an ability to double their shooting damage with an order (effectively increasing the cost of a guardsman to 5.5 points, still cheaper than an ork boy.)

Ork Boyzs are a great unit from a balance and design standpoint. Very rewarding when used well, effective at their role, but with a strong weakness as an horde, both to morale and to anti horde weapons (S5 and -1AP weapons like heavy bolters and heavy flamers destroy them, and as they cost 50% more than a guardsmen is actually very efficient, as it should be)

 Vaktathi wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
The key difference is that a Boy is useless at shooting

A Shoota Boy is not useless at shooting, model for model, they're actually trading casualties at a slightly favorable ratio to Guardsmen when within the 18" Assault range of the Shoota. Now, the Orks cost more, because not only are they matching the guardsmen man for man on the shooting range (albeit with not quite as long of a max range), but they're dramatically and emphatically superior in close combat as well.

The Slugga boy doesn't stack up quite as well, but the Shoota Boy isn't bad.

60pts of shoota boyz at 18 have 20 shots, about 7 hits and 5ish wounds vs a 5+ save = 3.66 casualties
60pts of guardsmen at 12 have 30 shots, 15 hits and 5 wounds which is over 4 casualties

only at 18 are they better, and even then, barely. at 24-19 its completely one sided, at 12-1 its heavily in favor of guard, so 1/4th of the time orks are slightly better. the rest they get dominated

Infantry Squads should win agaisn't orks in a shooting match. In general IG should be a much better shooting army than a Ork shooting army.

Of course the problem here is the difference margin.

You really have to wait until all the army books ate out before you can honestly compare units in armies. Strategies, army rules and such really need to be considered. GW knows this...Wait to compare that Ork Boy with a guardsmen once he gets clan rules and stratagems.

I play non spam IG and -2 to hit Elder tear me up when I hit them on 6's! Armywide -1 to hit rules and scouts with space marine like +3 saves in cover and dark reapers are just as OP as anything guard has. Maybe GW needs to look at the force of charts again to reduce spam but again, until you have all army bookjs out, it's apples to oranges. That's my opinion anyway.

With the new Magnus rules i think i would need to change my vote, he is fine now.

For those who didn't follow the spoilers, he now no longer rerolls invul, effectively reducing his wounds by 33%. He has a fixed warlord trait (+1 power known), so he loses the 6+++, which together with the forementioned change it means that it has 55% of his former durability. Now he is where he should be, a model which can rack several times his cost in enemy points, but also carries a big risk. High risk, high reward, i like it.

Now i'm waiting for Mortarion's turn.

Edit: Those numbers assumed that he had the +1 invul power. If we instead look at the formed unbuffed durability to the currect unbuffed durability, he kept 69,5% of it. 83,3% against weapons without AP.

Stridarion wrote:
You really have to wait until all the army books ate out before you can honestly compare units in armies. Strategies, army rules and such really need to be considered. GW knows this...Wait to compare that Ork Boy with a guardsmen once he gets clan rules and stratagems.

I play non spam IG and -2 to hit Elder tear me up when I hit them on 6's! Armywide -1 to hit rules and scouts with space marine like +3 saves in cover and dark reapers are just as OP as anything guard has. Maybe GW needs to look at the force of charts again to reduce spam but again, until you have all army bookjs out, it's apples to oranges. That's my opinion anyway.

You forget this is GW we are talking about. Anything good in 4th edition codex was destroyed in 7th and as it stands anything good in 7th was destroyed by the index. Honestly, and I actually believe this, I believe Ork Boyz are not going to get a buff at all, if anything they will receive a nerf.

Crimson wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
The key difference is that a Boy is useless at shooting

A Shoota Boy is not useless at shooting, model for model, they're actually trading casualties at a slightly favorable ratio to Guardsmen when within the 18" Assault range of the Shoota. Now, the Orks cost more, because not only are they matching the guardsmen man for man on the shooting range (albeit with not quite as long of a max range), but they're dramatically and emphatically superior in close combat as well.

The Slugga boy doesn't stack up quite as well, but the Shoota Boy isn't bad.

Except the guardsmen have an ability to double their shooting damage with an order (effectively increasing the cost of a guardsman to 5.5 points, still cheaper than an ork boy.)

But at that point we are not talking about both units in a vacuum, or comparing an equal number of points of them. We are comparing unsupported Orks with a group of Guardsmen and their support units. Plus, unless all the infantry squads are bunched up tight (or we assume this engagement starts on like turn 3 or 4 and both boyz and guard are untouched so that they could spam command points to combine squads), which kind of makes the screen less effective on the whole, you need to invest in vox casters as well to effectively put those orders to use.

SemperMortis wrote:

Stridarion wrote:
You really have to wait until all the army books ate out before you can honestly compare units in armies. Strategies, army rules and such really need to be considered. GW knows this...Wait to compare that Ork Boy with a guardsmen once he gets clan rules and stratagems.

I play non spam IG and -2 to hit Elder tear me up when I hit them on 6's! Armywide -1 to hit rules and scouts with space marine like +3 saves in cover and dark reapers are just as OP as anything guard has. Maybe GW needs to look at the force of charts again to reduce spam but again, until you have all army bookjs out, it's apples to oranges. That's my opinion anyway.

You forget this is GW we are talking about. Anything good in 4th edition codex was destroyed in 7th and as it stands anything good in 7th was destroyed by the index. Honestly, and I actually believe this, I believe Ork Boyz are not going to get a buff at all, if anything they will receive a nerf.

To be fair, from my limited understanding of Orks, Boyz are one of the few things that don't need a buff. If Boyz stay mostly the same and everything else gets buffed, things would work out fairly well for them.

kurhanik wrote:

But at that point we are not talking about both units in a vacuum, or comparing an equal number of points of them. We are comparing unsupported Orks with a group of Guardsmen and their support units.

I was comparing equal points, that's why I said that in this situation a guardsman effectively costs 5.5 points (one 30 point commander can buff 20 guardsmen, so +1.5 points per guardsman.) And you absolutely have to take buffs into account, especially as they're so cheap and so powerful. Being able to double the firepower is pretty damn significant.

SemperMortis wrote:

Stridarion wrote:
You really have to wait until all the army books ate out before you can honestly compare units in armies. Strategies, army rules and such really need to be considered. GW knows this...Wait to compare that Ork Boy with a guardsmen once he gets clan rules and stratagems.

I play non spam IG and -2 to hit Elder tear me up when I hit them on 6's! Armywide -1 to hit rules and scouts with space marine like +3 saves in cover and dark reapers are just as OP as anything guard has. Maybe GW needs to look at the force of charts again to reduce spam but again, until you have all army bookjs out, it's apples to oranges. That's my opinion anyway.

You forget this is GW we are talking about. Anything good in 4th edition codex was destroyed in 7th and as it stands anything good in 7th was destroyed by the index. Honestly, and I actually believe this, I believe Ork Boyz are not going to get a buff at all, if anything they will receive a nerf.

Boyz and Stormboyz are fine. With Klan Tactics and Stratagems they'll become even more powerfull. Is the rest of the codex the thing that needs buffs.

 Crimson wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
The key difference is that a Boy is useless at shooting

A Shoota Boy is not useless at shooting, model for model, they're actually trading casualties at a slightly favorable ratio to Guardsmen when within the 18" Assault range of the Shoota. Now, the Orks cost more, because not only are they matching the guardsmen man for man on the shooting range (albeit with not quite as long of a max range), but they're dramatically and emphatically superior in close combat as well.

The Slugga boy doesn't stack up quite as well, but the Shoota Boy isn't bad.

Except the guardsmen have an ability to double their shooting damage with an order (effectively increasing the cost of a guardsman to 5.5 points, still cheaper than an ork boy.)

Then we're no longer talking about things in a vacuum, we're making a different comparison than the one originally proposed, and we're assuming it's a Company Commander being split among multiple units, not one by themselves and not a Platoon Commander, and that they're nearby.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
The key difference is that a Boy is useless at shooting

A Shoota Boy is not useless at shooting, model for model, they're actually trading casualties at a slightly favorable ratio to Guardsmen when within the 18" Assault range of the Shoota. Now, the Orks cost more, because not only are they matching the guardsmen man for man on the shooting range (albeit with not quite as long of a max range), but they're dramatically and emphatically superior in close combat as well.

The Slugga boy doesn't stack up quite as well, but the Shoota Boy isn't bad.

60pts of shoota boyz at 18 have 20 shots, about 7 hits and 5ish wounds vs a 5+ save = 3.66 casualties
60pts of guardsmen at 12 have 30 shots, 15 hits and 5 wounds which is over 4 casualties

I'm not denying that, point for point, the Guardsmen are better at shooting, my point was that, model for model they are effectively identical at shooting while *also* being dramatically superior in CC, hence the cost disparity.

No, the Orks are never going to be as cost effective as the Guardsmen at shooting, because they have a wider array of abilities, and have to pay for them. If they're just as good as Guardsmen at shooting *and* are superior in CC, they *should* cost more, so they do.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Then we're no longer talking about things in a vacuum, we're making a different comparison than the one originally proposed, and we're assuming it's a Company Commander being split among multiple units, not one by themselves and not a Platoon Commander, and that they're nearby.

So? You can't just ignore the fact that a unit has an easy way to double their firepower, that is an insanely powerful advantage.

You don't even have to compare other stats. Guardsmen have a better save for less points. That makes them by far the best space-filler in the game, which is the name of the game. Assaulting is for chumps, especially because guardsmen exist.

Martel732 wrote:
You don't even have to compare other stats. Guardsmen have a better save for less points. That makes them by far the best space-filler in the game, which is the name of the game.

By that logic assault marines are better than harlequins and firewarriors better than genestealers.

None of the units you listed are as cheap as guardsmen, and only fire warriors are deployed for space-filling purposes.

The 4 ppm with 5+ armor is a special price point for sure.

 Crimson wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Then we're no longer talking about things in a vacuum, we're making a different comparison than the one originally proposed, and we're assuming it's a Company Commander being split among multiple units, not one by themselves and not a Platoon Commander, and that they're nearby.

So? You can't just ignore the fact that a unit has an easy way to double their firepower, that is an insanely powerful advantage.

Because that's called a moving goalpost from what the original scenario proposed and to which I was responding.

Including officers and support characters is another scenario, in which case, yeah the guardsmen dramatically outshoot the Shoota Boyz at 12" and under when splitting a Company commander who's in range. That's a pretty optimally set up situation for the IG. One would hope that, at now roughly the same cost (pending list design) and conditional on battlefield setup (gotta be close enough to issue orders and be in that sweet spots for the quad shots), they'd massively outshoot the other unit that can otherwise match them at shooting model for model and simultaneously dramatically outfight them. By the same token, I'm not going to complain about the Boyz massively overkilling the Guardsmen in close combat by generally a 4-1 margin in average casualties inflicted either, because they should.

Slugga Boyz should definitely be cheaper however, they compare less favorably to either guardsmen or shootaboyz.

where are grots? Reece says grots are very strong.

I voted the Astra Militarum Infantry Squads.

I would personally like to see Astra Militarum Infantry go up a few points. They are quite difficult to deal with, though that is more due to the current meta of the game favoring horde armies rather than the unit itself being powerful.

I suppose Azrael is pretty much an auto-take whenever I face Dark Angels, due to his Invul bubble. I'd also like to see him get more expensive.

As a Tyranid player this thread makes me happy.

Why..

In the entire thing I have heard Tyranids mentioned maby 3 times and never as broken just strong. I find our new codex light years ahead of what we had and top tyre competitive but with great internal and external balance. We have tons of viable builds and wile we have our stronger units (Flyrants, Hive guard, Genestealers, Dev Gaunts, Biovores) they are not instant win buttons by a long shot. I wish every codex was as well designed as tyranids. (That beeing said there are still some issues with GW's quality control and decisions that leave a lot to be desired)

I think nids are borderline broken but next to IG its tough to tell.

I like Tyranids, from a balance standpoint. They've got a wide variety of good builds, and I've never left a game against them thinking "What could I possibly have done to deal with that, then?". They work well without making anything unplayable or useless.

Martel732 wrote:
I think nids are borderline broken but next to IG its tough to tell.

I don't know man. I have faced a pretty hard list (It wasn't all that bad) in a tournament. It had mortal wound spam with Zoantropoes and 6 biovores, 4 Dakkafexes, 9 Tyranid Guards (The ones that shoot without LOS), with my totally unoptimiced and gakky Dark Angel list (Like, Deathwing Ancient with dual LC+Company Master in Terminator with TH/SS+ 5 Tartaros with dual LC, a venerable dreadnought with heavy plasma cannon, etc...) and even then I wasn't anihilated. We ended 8 points to 18 in his favour.

In the same tournament, the next round a Eldar army spamming Dark Reapers anihilated 70% of my army in my first turn (To be honest he played much better than me, and I deployed like gak, but yeah)

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm not denying that, point for point, the Guardsmen are better at shooting, my point was that, model for model they are effectively identical at shooting while *also* being dramatically superior in CC, hence the cost disparity.

No, the Orks are never going to be as cost effective as the Guardsmen at shooting, because they have a wider array of abilities, and have to pay for them. If they're just as good as Guardsmen at shooting *and* are superior in CC, they *should* cost more, so they do.

Points for points Guardsmen are BETTER at shooting and have BETTER durability, they also have access to BETTER buffs that enhance both their durability and damage. A guardsmen will statistically kill a 6pt Ork before that ork gets into CC, Fact. So the only way that Orkz have an upper hand is by overloading a flank OR by using other shenanigans like Da Jump, and when you do that you have to factor in that cost. So a 30 unit of Boyz with a weirdboy punting them forward is 242pts, and gives the Ork player a 40%ish chance to get into CC. for that same cost an IG player can take 50 Guardsmen AND a company commander AND still have points left over. So those 30 orkz maybe get the charge off (likely they don't) and if they fail they then face anywhere from 60-140 shots depending on orders going off and range of other units of Guardsmen to the unit that was assaulted. 60 will statistically kill 10 Boyz, 140 will statistically kill about 23, which wipes the squad due to morale. the middle ground (100 shots) kills 16 which kills another D6 +2 due to morale leaving the squad with on average 9 models, or in other words, Useless.

But lets say the unthinkable happens and the Guardsmen decide to go kamikazi and assault the orkz. They will lose but not nearly as badly as the orkz would lose in a shooting match. Ohh and in case you are wondering, 30 shoota boyz kill about 9-10 Guardsmen in a single shooting phase, unless the guardsmen are in cover then its 6 or 7.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again though, I am not advertising for Orkz to get a buff for boyz, I am merely pointing out that guardsmen are better and should probably be 5ppm not 4ppm.

Another thing to look at would be to compare Guardsmen (4ppm) to Grots (3ppm) Grots are worse in every way imaginable to guardsmen and yet they are only 1ppm cheaper.

Err...no. Sorry to spoil this, but mathwise grots are even a better screen than guards, for the exact reason we say that guards are better than boyz i.e. lots and lots of cheap buffs.

You don't hear people complaining about them because orks have nothing worthy to screen, but if they had credible long range shooting, you wouldn't hear the end of it.

Spoletta wrote:
Err...no. Sorry to spoil this, but mathwise grots are even a better screen than guards, for the exact reason we say that guards are better than boyz i.e. lots and lots of cheap buffs.

You don't hear people complaining about them because orks have nothing worthy to screen, but if they had credible long range shooting, you wouldn't hear the end of it.

Except none of those "cheap" buffs are worth using on Grots. +1 attack on a S2 model? +1 WS on a 1 attack model? what cheap buffs do you see as worth it? The only buff I can think of is the Herders who make them borderline fearless. No, Grots are crap for the exact reason that I pointed out, while they are cheap, they serve no purpose because they lack any kind of damage output, Guardsmen can push out 1 S3 shot at 24 or 2 at 12, Grots can do 1 shot at 12, thats it. Guardsmen also have access to heavy weapons and other benefits, Grots have access to literally NOTHING.

TL;DR - Aggressors are better at killing hordes of infantry than las cannon devs are at killing LRBTs, that's not an opinion, that's math. So if you guys could kindly stop parroting the (debunked) idea that hordes have no counter in 8th ed that would be great. Math follows,

I explained this with math in a prior thread but I suppose I'll have to explain this in a simpler manner than I did last time, since I didn't seem to clearly get my ideas across. Instead of doing this roundabout like last time, I'll try and establish the scoring system right off of the bat, so we can all be on the same page from the outset. Prepare for some moneyball,

So the question is how do we rank a units effectiveness at killing another unit? The answer is by measuring the time it takes a unit to kill a target and the number of points you have to commit to kill a unit as a measure of effeincy. The below is the formula I've been using:

(Rounds to kill * Point cost of attacker)/(point cost of the target) = Attack Effectiveness

This gives us a number between generally between 1 and 6, it can be less than 1 in extremely favorable matchups and more than six in really bad matchups. This is our rating, but we still need a scale, which is where turns to table comes into it.

Lets say your goal is to table your opponent, but that's only half a goal, because it doesn't have a deadline, so let's set it for tabling your opponent by turn six. Assuming equal starting points, and no casualties, you would need to inflict an average of 1/6th of your armies point value per turn to accomplish a tabling by turn six. But that's silly, of course your opponent is going to kill your guys, and we'll assume he and his forces are as capable as you and your own. So You'll start with all of your forces and end with a negligible amount, so you'll have an average available value of half of your army. Assuming you are giving as good as you are getting, to tabel your opponent by turn six you need to inflict a third of your points as damage per round. So first round you'd need to inflict points worth of 667 damage, 444 on the second, 296 on the third round, 197 on the fourth round, 131 on the fifth round, 87 on the sixth round. That will get you within 10% of tabling your opponent, which is close enough for our purposes.

So we plug those into the above formula, (3 * 2,000)/(2,000) we get three. So to table a worthwhile opponent you need an average Attack effectiveness of three, thus we have our scale, an attack effectiveness of 3 or less is decent, more than 3 is bad, Simple enough.

With the goalpost firmly fixed, let's start looking at some of the examples I gave:

Target is a 30 man guard squad, no upgrades, and we'll assume no immune to morale shenanigans. So 120 points,

Aggressors, 111 points, 9.5 shots per aggressor, S4 AP -. So without double fire that's 29 shots, 2/3 chance to hit 2/3 chance to wound, and a 2/3 chance to fail the save. So you'll end up with 29 * 8/27 or 9 dead, with leadership 7 that's another 5.5 lost due to morale.so call it 15 dead in a single volley. Based on those number, it will take them about 2 rounds to kill a 30 man guard blob, plug those into the formula from above:

(2 * 111)/120 = 1.85, which is a great attack effectiveness, if you entire army was this good you could table an opponent by turn 4. Double shot from aggressors will go well below 1, so yes despite what you guys think hordes have hard counters.

Just to give another example, how does the math look for a dev squad shooting at a LRBT with 4 las cannons. 4 shots, 2/3 chance to hit, 2/3 chance to wound, and a 5/6 chance to fail the save 3.5 damage per failed save. So the damage per round is 4 * 10/27 * 3.5 (damage per failed save) for 5 damage inflicted per round. So about 2.4 rounds required to kill a LRBT,

( 2.4 * 165)/152 = an attack effectiveness of 2.6.

Why stop there, to close out I'll compare hell blasters and aggressors against a Tac squad.

Hell blasters - 2/3 chance to hit, 5/6 chance to wound, and no saves, and we'll split the difference between rapid fire and not with 1.5 shots per blaster. So they inflict 4 wounds per round, for a 1.25 rounds to kill so here is rating:
(1.25 * 165)/65 = 3.17

Aggressors - 2/3 chance to hit, 1/2 chance to wound, 1/3 chance to fail a save with 29 shots, so 3 wounds inflicted per round, so 1.66 rounds.
(1.66 * 111)/65 = 2.83

Whelp you heard it here first, in addition to being good anti-horde aggressors are also better at taking out tac marines than hell blasters are. It's like that unicorn you guys said didn't exists, something that works against hordes of light infantry and small units of heavy infantry.

Tyranids and also eldar are not even remotely overpowered, be honest about that. I don't see them dominating competitive metas, although they're very good in casual ones since they have lots of viable combinations.

 Blackie wrote:
Tyranids and also eldar are not even remotely overpowered, be honest about that. I don't see them dominating competitive metas, although they're very good in casual ones since they have lots of viable combinations.

No they are not.
But AM is the top tier army these days.
This is not really reflected in the poll
For AM, the sum seems to be larger than the accumulation of the parts.

 Grimgold wrote:
TL;DR - Aggressors are better at killing hordes of infantry than las cannon devs are at killing LRBTs, that's not an opinion, that's math. So if you guys could kindly stop parroting the (debunked) idea that hordes have no counter in 8th ed that would be great. Math follows,

I explained this with math in a prior thread but I suppose I'll have to explain this in a simpler manner than I did last time, since I didn't seem to clearly get my ideas across. Instead of doing this roundabout like last time, I'll try and establish the scoring system right off of the bat, so we can all be on the same page from the outset. Prepare for some moneyball,

So the question is how do we rank a units effectiveness at killing another unit? The answer is by measuring the time it takes a unit to kill a target and the number of points you have to commit to kill a unit as a measure of effeincy. The below is the formula I've been using:

(Rounds to kill * Point cost of attacker)/(point cost of the target) = Attack Effectiveness

This gives us a number between generally between 1 and 6, it can be less than 1 in extremely favorable matchups and more than six in really bad matchups. This is our rating, but we still need a scale, which is where turns to table comes into it.

Lets say your goal is to table your opponent, but that's only half a goal, because it doesn't have a deadline, so let's set it for tabling your opponent by turn six. Assuming equal starting points, and no casualties, you would need to inflict an average of 1/6th of your armies point value per turn to accomplish a tabling by turn six. But that's silly, of course your opponent is going to kill your guys, and we'll assume he and his forces are as capable as you and your own. So You'll start with all of your forces and end with a negligible amount, so you'll have an average available value of half of your army. Assuming you are giving as good as you are getting, to tabel your opponent by turn six you need to inflict a third of your points as damage per round. So first round you'd need to inflict points worth of 667 damage, 444 on the second, 296 on the third round, 197 on the fourth round, 131 on the fifth round, 87 on the sixth round. That will get you within 10% of tabling your opponent, which is close enough for our purposes.

So we plug those into the above formula, (3 * 2,000)/(2,000) we get three. So to table a worthwhile opponent you need an average Attack effectiveness of three, thus we have our scale, an attack effectiveness of 3 or less is decent, more than 3 is bad, Simple enough.

With the goalpost firmly fixed, let's start looking at some of the examples I gave:

Target is a 30 man guard squad, no upgrades, and we'll assume no immune to morale shenanigans. So 120 points,

Aggressors, 111 points, 9.5 shots per aggressor, S4 AP -. So without double fire that's 29 shots, 2/3 chance to hit 2/3 chance to wound, and a 2/3 chance to fail the save. So you'll end up with 29 * 8/27 or 9 dead, with leadership 7 that's another 5.5 lost due to morale.so call it 15 dead in a single volley. Based on those number, it will take them about 2 rounds to kill a 30 man guard blob, plug those into the formula from above:

(2 * 111)/120 = 1.85, which is a great attack effectiveness, if you entire army was this good you could table an opponent by turn 4. Double shot from aggressors will go well below 1, so yes despite what you guys think hordes have hard counters.

Just to give another example, how does the math look for a dev squad shooting at a LRBT with 4 las cannons. 4 shots, 2/3 chance to hit, 2/3 chance to wound, and a 5/6 chance to fail the save 3.5 damage per failed save. So the damage per round is 4 * 10/27 * 3.5 (damage per failed save) for 5 damage inflicted per round. So about 2.4 rounds required to kill a LRBT,

( 2.4 * 165)/152 = an attack effectiveness of 2.6.

Why stop there, to close out I'll compare hell blasters and aggressors against a Tac squad.

Hell blasters - 2/3 chance to hit, 5/6 chance to wound, and no saves, and we'll split the difference between rapid fire and not with 1.5 shots per blaster. So they inflict 4 wounds per round, for a 1.25 rounds to kill so here is rating:
(1.25 * 165)/65 = 3.17

Aggressors - 2/3 chance to hit, 1/2 chance to wound, 1/3 chance to fail a save with 29 shots, so 3 wounds inflicted per round, so 1.66 rounds.
(1.66 * 111)/65 = 2.83

Whelp you heard it here first, in addition to being good anti-horde aggressors are also better at taking out tac marines than hell blasters are. It's like that unicorn you guys said didn't exists, something that works against hordes of light infantry and small units of heavy infantry.

The issue here is that you are counting on morale to do a decent amount of the work. What happens when those 30 guardsman are in 3 squads of 10. Your numbers go way down to 10 on average per turn meaning you are taking 3 turns to kill all 30. To the point where the aggressors are still better at killing marines. It is not that nothing exists that kills chaff it is that nothing exists that kills it better than it kills other things.

 Grimgold wrote:
TL;DR - Aggressors are better at killing hordes of infantry than las cannon devs are at killing LRBTs, that's not an opinion, that's math. So if you guys could kindly stop parroting the (debunked) idea that hordes have no counter in 8th ed that would be great. Math follows,

I explained this with math in a prior thread but I suppose I'll have to explain this in a simpler manner than I did last time, since I didn't seem to clearly get my ideas across. Instead of doing this roundabout like last time, I'll try and establish the scoring system right off of the bat, so we can all be on the same page from the outset. Prepare for some moneyball,

So the question is how do we rank a units effectiveness at killing another unit? The answer is by measuring the time it takes a unit to kill a target and the number of points you have to commit to kill a unit as a measure of effeincy. The below is the formula I've been using:

(Rounds to kill * Point cost of attacker)/(point cost of the target) = Attack Effectiveness

This gives us a number between generally between 1 and 6, it can be less than 1 in extremely favorable matchups and more than six in really bad matchups. This is our rating, but we still need a scale, which is where turns to table comes into it.

Lets say your goal is to table your opponent, but that's only half a goal, because it doesn't have a deadline, so let's set it for tabling your opponent by turn six. Assuming equal starting points, and no casualties, you would need to inflict an average of 1/6th of your armies point value per turn to accomplish a tabling by turn six. But that's silly, of course your opponent is going to kill your guys, and we'll assume he and his forces are as capable as you and your own. So You'll start with all of your forces and end with a negligible amount, so you'll have an average available value of half of your army. Assuming you are giving as good as you are getting, to tabel your opponent by turn six you need to inflict a third of your points as damage per round. So first round you'd need to inflict points worth of 667 damage, 444 on the second, 296 on the third round, 197 on the fourth round, 131 on the fifth round, 87 on the sixth round. That will get you within 10% of tabling your opponent, which is close enough for our purposes.

So we plug those into the above formula, (3 * 2,000)/(2,000) we get three. So to table a worthwhile opponent you need an average Attack effectiveness of three, thus we have our scale, an attack effectiveness of 3 or less is decent, more than 3 is bad, Simple enough.

With the goalpost firmly fixed, let's start looking at some of the examples I gave:

Target is a 30 man guard squad, no upgrades, and we'll assume no immune to morale shenanigans. So 120 points,

Aggressors, 111 points, 9.5 shots per aggressor, S4 AP -. So without double fire that's 29 shots, 2/3 chance to hit 2/3 chance to wound, and a 2/3 chance to fail the save. So you'll end up with 29 * 8/27 or 9 dead, with leadership 7 that's another 5.5 lost due to morale.so call it 15 dead in a single volley. Based on those number, it will take them about 2 rounds to kill a 30 man guard blob, plug those into the formula from above:

(2 * 111)/120 = 1.85, which is a great attack effectiveness, if you entire army was this good you could table an opponent by turn 4. Double shot from aggressors will go well below 1, so yes despite what you guys think hordes have hard counters.

Just to give another example, how does the math look for a dev squad shooting at a LRBT with 4 las cannons. 4 shots, 2/3 chance to hit, 2/3 chance to wound, and a 5/6 chance to fail the save 3.5 damage per failed save. So the damage per round is 4 * 10/27 * 3.5 (damage per failed save) for 5 damage inflicted per round. So about 2.4 rounds required to kill a LRBT,

( 2.4 * 165)/152 = an attack effectiveness of 2.6.

Why stop there, to close out I'll compare hell blasters and aggressors against a Tac squad.

Hell blasters - 2/3 chance to hit, 5/6 chance to wound, and no saves, and we'll split the difference between rapid fire and not with 1.5 shots per blaster. So they inflict 4 wounds per round, for a 1.25 rounds to kill so here is rating:
(1.25 * 165)/65 = 3.17

Aggressors - 2/3 chance to hit, 1/2 chance to wound, 1/3 chance to fail a save with 29 shots, so 3 wounds inflicted per round, so 1.66 rounds.
(1.66 * 111)/65 = 2.83

Whelp you heard it here first, in addition to being good anti-horde aggressors are also better at taking out tac marines than hell blasters are. It's like that unicorn you guys said didn't exists, something that works against hordes of light infantry and small units of heavy infantry.

That's cool and all but what happens if you happen to play an army that has no access to Aggressors?

 Grimgold wrote:
TL;DR - Aggressors are better at killing hordes of infantry than las cannon devs are at killing LRBTs, that's not an opinion, that's math. So if you guys could kindly stop parroting the (debunked) idea that hordes have no counter in 8th ed that would be great. Math follows,

I explained this with math in a prior thread but I suppose I'll have to explain this in a simpler manner than I did last time, since I didn't seem to clearly get my ideas across.

The reason that you didn't get your "idea across" last time, was that you assumed Guardsmen with a 6+ Save. Now you are assuming Guardsmen in squads of 30, with the resulting higher morale losses?

 Grimgold wrote:
TL;DR - Aggressors are better at killing hordes of infantry than las cannon devs are at killing LRBTs, that's not an opinion, that's math.

I't also math that Aggressors are better at killing marines that they're at killing the guard. That is the problem. There practically are no weapons which would be better at killing guard than they would be at killing equal points of MEQs or other elite infantry.