Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Talizvar wrote:

 Kroem wrote:
And before anyone jumps on me, I know that you can just proxy your models as the different clan rules. However, most people will be aiming for a fully painted up army that properly reflects the rules that they are using I imagine.

It is a nostalgia thing where I would hate to see anyone undo the old style multi-clan army but yes, it is terribly nice when people try to make their army reflect the rules.
Trying to stay in the spirit of WYSIWYG I figure is courtesy.
I would suggest picking like a shoulder plate or something that is common colour to the clan type in charge.

While, I love me a good themed army, I have over 25 years of Orks painted up, many in random clan colors and markings based on how I felt at the time. I'm at just under 500 ork models, with no two units being the same. i just don't see me going back and changing anything on an ork boy I painted in 1995, because of a rule change in 2018.

What I will likely do is paint my warlord and his bodyguard unit a specific color and the warband under him will get the clan rules therein.

Truthfully, I don't expect the ork codex to be good, While I do largely like what they are doing with the codexes, I expect the ork one to be similar to the Admech one, more a rehash with some clan rules, than a real measured approach at fixing orks. The 7th edition codex proved to me they simply don't care about orks. In the middle of a bunch of codex creep, the 7th codex took a steaming dump on Orks, I have no reason to believe anything has changed. Admech proved they may feel an index is good enough. Maybe I will be surprised, I hope I am, but until then, my poor Waaagh! Git'smasha is being used as NPCs in club campaigns and for super fluffy battles.

Yeah, really looking forward to more Codexes coming out in the future. We'll have things like Grey Knights and AdMech, armies with mostly 'new' plastic models that don't need much updating. I predict that Genestealer Cults, Deathwatch, and Thousand Sons will be just like that.

But then we have Craftworld Eldar and their cousins, the other Chaos and Loyalist factions, and then Tau, Orks, and Necrons, all in need of much more love. Hopefully they're saving plenty of love for the rest of those xenos.

Galas wrote:I agree with MechaEmperor7000 in the fact that even if the Conscripts nerfs aren't enough, the fact that GW has nerfed them shows how they are aware of them. The same goes for Scions, and for the buffs of LemanRusses, Baneblades, etc...
As much as you like to say that this Codex is pure powercreep and crap (And you can have a point in the Stratagems and Warlords Traits/Reliquis part, I'm not gonna discuss that), the part that affects units I think even if needs more fine tuning, shows how GW has actually do something with all the complaints people had. If what they have done is enough, time will tell, but the fact that at least they have done something is quite inspiring.

And Grey Knights have the same problem that Sisters of Silence. They are a highly specialized army, so theres only two ways then can work:
-They are a competitive army by themselves, but then have bonuses against deamons, what makes them OP against deamons.
-They are competitive against deaemons but by comparison they are weaker than all the rest of the armies, what makes them pretty bad.

They are in the second state now.

I have to disagree about the Power Creep part. Of "good" units, only Baneblades/Shadowswords got buffed, everything else was nerfed. Well, Manticores did get access to the Catachan Doctrine, but that's in line with Codex vs. Index, as opposed to real codex creep.

And, looking at it, most of the units that were buffed were really bad, and still aren't better than then "good" units.

I don't think it's power creep.


WRT to GK... I think that, considering us, them, and the deathwatch all don't have a whole lot of units and are fairly monobuild, we could all join together to be "The Inquisition". We were Witch Hunters and Daemon Hunters before, I don't really see why not again, and it would help all three of us competitively if we joined forces. But that's neither here nor there.

Pandabeer wrote:

I mostly agree but I'm not sure all Baneblade variants also needed to get a number of shots buff to their main cannons. A Shadowshord was already plenty scary with a D6 Volcano Cannon, a 3D3 Volcano Cannon sounded like cheese to me when I first heard it. Or Mordians with a 4+ overwatch when they use a stratagem. Of course, I'll have to see it on the table before drawing any final conclusions but that's how I feel about it right now.

Shadowswords did not need the buff and cost decrease. All thing considered, they probably didn't need either.

What I think is pretty bad about the Codex IG is how much RNG it contains.

Just looking at Leman Russes: D6 shots with the battlecannon, often even 2D6. Then you deal D3 damage. If you are a bit lucky, you can one-shot tanks or damage them to <25%, one-shot normal cybots(!!) with this or it won't do anything.

Conscripts are the same. If you roll the 4+ on most of your units in your first turn, their damage is almost as good as it was before.

Personally, I think the outcome of a lot of games against codex IG will entirely depend on turn 1 luck or bad luck.

The RNG here is at least workable, as in you know exactly what your things are to be used for.

The reason Chaos hated RNG in their 6th-7th dex is because you could get something completely unrelated to what you want, and in worse case scenarios can actually harm you. At least when a Russ rolls straight 1's, it's still dealing /some/ damage against it's target, 7th edition Daemons that rolled badly on the warp storm table? Anything from losing your invul saves to losing entire units.

 Saevus wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:

 Kroem wrote:
And before anyone jumps on me, I know that you can just proxy your models as the different clan rules. However, most people will be aiming for a fully painted up army that properly reflects the rules that they are using I imagine.

It is a nostalgia thing where I would hate to see anyone undo the old style multi-clan army but yes, it is terribly nice when people try to make their army reflect the rules.
Trying to stay in the spirit of WYSIWYG I figure is courtesy.
I would suggest picking like a shoulder plate or something that is common colour to the clan type in charge.

While, I love me a good themed army, I have over 25 years of Orks painted up, many in random clan colors and markings based on how I felt at the time. I'm at just under 500 ork models, with no two units being the same. i just don't see me going back and changing anything on an ork boy I painted in 1995, because of a rule change in 2018.

What I will likely do is paint my warlord and his bodyguard unit a specific color and the warband under him will get the clan rules therein.

Truthfully, I don't expect the ork codex to be good, While I do largely like what they are doing with the codexes, I expect the ork one to be similar to the Admech one, more a rehash with some clan rules, than a real measured approach at fixing orks. The 7th edition codex proved to me they simply don't care about orks. In the middle of a bunch of codex creep, the 7th codex took a steaming dump on Orks, I have no reason to believe anything has changed. Admech proved they may feel an index is good enough. Maybe I will be surprised, I hope I am, but until then, my poor Waaagh! Git'smasha is being used as NPCs in club campaigns and for super fluffy battles.

I mean I will agree the 7th ed Ork book was bad, but it simply isn't true that it dropped during a string of codex creep. Codex creep is and always has been a myth. It is almost entirely random when good books drop (though some factions are far more likely than others to get good books). But 6 of the previous 7 codices released (imperial knights the only exception) were all sub par books, as were 5 out of the next 6. Basically a big sandwich of crap between Eldar releases in 6th and 7th. Straight creep would almost be better than the entirely random quality of codices in previous editions.


As for IG, I'm not sure how I feel as it does seem that they were great in the index version and only got better (their bad units got buffs, with very little nerf to some of their good units)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Trollbert wrote:
What I think is pretty bad about the Codex IG is how much RNG it contains.

Just looking at Leman Russes: D6 shots with the battlecannon, often even 2D6. Then you deal D3 damage. If you are a bit lucky, you can one-shot tanks or damage them to <25%, one-shot normal cybots(!!) with this or it won't do anything.

Conscripts are the same. If you roll the 4+ on most of your units in your first turn, their damage is almost as good as it was before.

Personally, I think the outcome of a lot of games against codex IG will entirely depend on turn 1 luck or bad luck.

Not sure this is a huge issue as the codex gave a lot of ways to mitigate the random. Conscripts are still amazing at their primary role for their points (arguably better with Regimental Doctrines/stratagems.)

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The RNG here is at least workable, as in you know exactly what your things are to be used for.

The reason Chaos hated RNG in their 6th-7th dex is because you could get something completely unrelated to what you want, and in worse case scenarios can actually harm you. At least when a Russ rolls straight 1's, it's still dealing /some/ damage against it's target, 7th edition Daemons that rolled badly on the warp storm table? Anything from losing your invul saves to losing entire units.

Still, the statistical variance of a 'normal' IG army in the shooting phase is insanely high in comparison to most other armies. The possibility to double the damage of a unit on a roll of 4+ is just poor design. A 150 points LRBT rolling average hit, wound and DMG rolls deals between 1.3 and 8 wound to a T7 unit before saves... Taking the damage rolls into account, it's 0.66 - 12 wounds, which is unlikely of course, but it will decide some games.

Just an Episode from my last game against IG. I played CSM and wanted to charge a LR demolisher. Since my dummy unit didn't roll high enough, my Daemon Prince had to take overwatch fire. Statistically, he should get take 0.x unsaved wounds. He got 6. The Prince killed the tank and the tank blow up. Using a CP, he rolles a 2 for the damage and my Prince died. So I lost 180 points and my warlord. I should have lost 1 wound.
That's the RNG a 180 points model is able to do in one phase of the game. As LRs will get cheaper, that is 8.5% of my opponents list. The rest of his list will also be RNG heavy.

I don't think such games which are decided by a few dice rolls are fun. I'd rather not invest 2 hours to get to turn 2 and in the end waste a game because one dice 3 dice rolls decided almost the entire course of the game.
That's why Warhammer Fantasy was so unpopular.

Trollbert wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The RNG here is at least workable, as in you know exactly what your things are to be used for.

The reason Chaos hated RNG in their 6th-7th dex is because you could get something completely unrelated to what you want, and in worse case scenarios can actually harm you. At least when a Russ rolls straight 1's, it's still dealing /some/ damage against it's target, 7th edition Daemons that rolled badly on the warp storm table? Anything from losing your invul saves to losing entire units.

Still, the statistical variance of a 'normal' IG army in the shooting phase is insanely high in comparison to most other armies. The possibility to double the damage of a unit on a roll of 4+ is just poor design. A 150 points LRBT rolling average hit, wound and DMG rolls deals between 1.3 and 8 wound to a T7 unit before saves... Taking the damage rolls into account, it's 0.66 - 12 wounds, which is unlikely of course, but it will decide some games.

Just an Episode from my last game against IG. I played CSM and wanted to charge a LR demolisher. Since my dummy unit didn't roll high enough, my Daemon Prince had to take overwatch fire. Statistically, he should get take 0.x unsaved wounds. He got 6. The Prince killed the tank and the tank blow up. Using a CP, he rolles a 2 for the damage and my Prince died. So I lost 180 points and my warlord. I should have lost 1 wound.
That's the RNG a 180 points model is able to do in one phase of the game. As LRs will get cheaper, that is 8.5% of my opponents list. The rest of his list will also be RNG heavy.

I don't think such games which are decided by a few dice rolls are fun. I'd rather not invest 2 hours to get to turn 2 and in the end waste a game because one dice 3 dice rolls decided almost the entire course of the game.
That's why Warhammer Fantasy was so unpopular.

But what you talk about is just the norm in 8th. Did you charge a lascannon team? well it is entirely possible for them to do 18 damage in overwatch. It is just improbable. Random damage makes this a thing, but it has been a thing for vehicles in every edition, roll a 6 followed by a 6, and another 6 chances are you 1 shot that expensive model. Your issue is one of failing to understand how stats work. Your idea that he should take 0.x wounds is based on a large number of events, in any one event he can easily take a ton of damage. I mean last edition charging a unit of 10 marines statistically you should have taken 0.37 wounds (as a DP), but it was entirely possible for you to die if the dice went against you. Random shots and damage does make for swingy outcomes, but you need to take that into account. IF that swinginess is deciding your games either 1.) You are relying on a few large models to win your games. 2.) There were a number of rolls that went against you (not a single roll).

Breng77 wrote:

Trollbert wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The RNG here is at least workable, as in you know exactly what your things are to be used for.

The reason Chaos hated RNG in their 6th-7th dex is because you could get something completely unrelated to what you want, and in worse case scenarios can actually harm you. At least when a Russ rolls straight 1's, it's still dealing /some/ damage against it's target, 7th edition Daemons that rolled badly on the warp storm table? Anything from losing your invul saves to losing entire units.

Still, the statistical variance of a 'normal' IG army in the shooting phase is insanely high in comparison to most other armies. The possibility to double the damage of a unit on a roll of 4+ is just poor design. A 150 points LRBT rolling average hit, wound and DMG rolls deals between 1.3 and 8 wound to a T7 unit before saves... Taking the damage rolls into account, it's 0.66 - 12 wounds, which is unlikely of course, but it will decide some games.

Just an Episode from my last game against IG. I played CSM and wanted to charge a LR demolisher. Since my dummy unit didn't roll high enough, my Daemon Prince had to take overwatch fire. Statistically, he should get take 0.x unsaved wounds. He got 6. The Prince killed the tank and the tank blow up. Using a CP, he rolles a 2 for the damage and my Prince died. So I lost 180 points and my warlord. I should have lost 1 wound.
That's the RNG a 180 points model is able to do in one phase of the game. As LRs will get cheaper, that is 8.5% of my opponents list. The rest of his list will also be RNG heavy.

I don't think such games which are decided by a few dice rolls are fun. I'd rather not invest 2 hours to get to turn 2 and in the end waste a game because one dice 3 dice rolls decided almost the entire course of the game.
That's why Warhammer Fantasy was so unpopular.

But what you talk about is just the norm in 8th. Did you charge a lascannon team? well it is entirely possible for them to do 18 damage in overwatch. It is just improbable. Random damage makes this a thing, but it has been a thing for vehicles in every edition, roll a 6 followed by a 6, and another 6 chances are you 1 shot that expensive model. Your issue is one of failing to understand how stats work. Your idea that he should take 0.x wounds is based on a large number of events, in any one event he can easily take a ton of damage. I mean last edition charging a unit of 10 marines statistically you should have taken 0.37 wounds (as a DP), but it was entirely possible for you to die if the dice went against you. Random shots and damage does make for swingy outcomes, but you need to take that into account. IF that swinginess is deciding your games either 1.) You are relying on a few large models to win your games. 2.) There were a number of rolls that went against you (not a single roll).

The lascannon analogy is true but lascannons have 1 'layer' of extra randomness, LRBT have 2 or even 3 if you cant the number of dice.
I don't think I have a problem with understanding of how stats work. What I did with my 0.x wounds calculation is I showed you the relation of expected value and variance and how big the difference is. The problem with your explanation that "On one occasion he can take tons of damage..." is exactly what I'm complaining: The amount of dice rolls in one game is not high enough to balance these huge variances. And therefore it creates a bad games. I was not that mad that I lost that game, I knew I had a chance to win if this one melee phase would have come out differently, so it was kinda rewarding, but it still felt like I'd have had a lot more fun otherwise.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Galas wrote:I agree with MechaEmperor7000 in the fact that even if the Conscripts nerfs aren't enough, the fact that GW has nerfed them shows how they are aware of them. The same goes for Scions, and for the buffs of LemanRusses, Baneblades, etc...
As much as you like to say that this Codex is pure powercreep and crap (And you can have a point in the Stratagems and Warlords Traits/Reliquis part, I'm not gonna discuss that), the part that affects units I think even if needs more fine tuning, shows how GW has actually do something with all the complaints people had. If what they have done is enough, time will tell, but the fact that at least they have done something is quite inspiring.

And Grey Knights have the same problem that Sisters of Silence. They are a highly specialized army, so theres only two ways then can work:
-They are a competitive army by themselves, but then have bonuses against deamons, what makes them OP against deamons.
-They are competitive against deaemons but by comparison they are weaker than all the rest of the armies, what makes them pretty bad.

They are in the second state now.

I have to disagree about the Power Creep part. Of "good" units, only Baneblades/Shadowswords got buffed, everything else was nerfed. Well, Manticores did get access to the Catachan Doctrine, but that's in line with Codex vs. Index, as opposed to real codex creep.

And, looking at it, most of the units that were buffed were really bad, and still aren't better than then "good" units.

I don't think it's power creep.


WRT to GK... I think that, considering us, them, and the deathwatch all don't have a whole lot of units and are fairly monobuild, we could all join together to be "The Inquisition". We were Witch Hunters and Daemon Hunters before, I don't really see why not again, and it would help all three of us competitively if we joined forces. But that's neither here nor there.

Thats exactly what I said. They have nerfed the good units (If those nerfes are enough is up to discussion but the fact that they have been nerfed is a good sing), and the bad or mediocre units have been buffed.
I believe too that Baneblades could have been perfect with the two buffs of erasing the -1 to hit for moving and the +1d6 impacts, but maybe those two things PLUS the -40 point cost reduction is a bit too much, specifically for the Shadowsword as you said.

But probably I just explained myself badly in the previous post, I apologize.

Trollbert wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Trollbert wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The RNG here is at least workable, as in you know exactly what your things are to be used for.

The reason Chaos hated RNG in their 6th-7th dex is because you could get something completely unrelated to what you want, and in worse case scenarios can actually harm you. At least when a Russ rolls straight 1's, it's still dealing /some/ damage against it's target, 7th edition Daemons that rolled badly on the warp storm table? Anything from losing your invul saves to losing entire units.

Still, the statistical variance of a 'normal' IG army in the shooting phase is insanely high in comparison to most other armies. The possibility to double the damage of a unit on a roll of 4+ is just poor design. A 150 points LRBT rolling average hit, wound and DMG rolls deals between 1.3 and 8 wound to a T7 unit before saves... Taking the damage rolls into account, it's 0.66 - 12 wounds, which is unlikely of course, but it will decide some games.

Just an Episode from my last game against IG. I played CSM and wanted to charge a LR demolisher. Since my dummy unit didn't roll high enough, my Daemon Prince had to take overwatch fire. Statistically, he should get take 0.x unsaved wounds. He got 6. The Prince killed the tank and the tank blow up. Using a CP, he rolles a 2 for the damage and my Prince died. So I lost 180 points and my warlord. I should have lost 1 wound.
That's the RNG a 180 points model is able to do in one phase of the game. As LRs will get cheaper, that is 8.5% of my opponents list. The rest of his list will also be RNG heavy.

I don't think such games which are decided by a few dice rolls are fun. I'd rather not invest 2 hours to get to turn 2 and in the end waste a game because one dice 3 dice rolls decided almost the entire course of the game.
That's why Warhammer Fantasy was so unpopular.

But what you talk about is just the norm in 8th. Did you charge a lascannon team? well it is entirely possible for them to do 18 damage in overwatch. It is just improbable. Random damage makes this a thing, but it has been a thing for vehicles in every edition, roll a 6 followed by a 6, and another 6 chances are you 1 shot that expensive model. Your issue is one of failing to understand how stats work. Your idea that he should take 0.x wounds is based on a large number of events, in any one event he can easily take a ton of damage. I mean last edition charging a unit of 10 marines statistically you should have taken 0.37 wounds (as a DP), but it was entirely possible for you to die if the dice went against you. Random shots and damage does make for swingy outcomes, but you need to take that into account. IF that swinginess is deciding your games either 1.) You are relying on a few large models to win your games. 2.) There were a number of rolls that went against you (not a single roll).

The lascannon analogy is true but lascannons have 1 'layer' of extra randomness, LRBT have 2 or even 3 if you cant the number of dice.
I don't think I have a problem with understanding of how stats work. What I did with my 0.x wounds calculation is I showed you the relation of expected value and variance and how big the difference is. The problem with your explanation that "On one occasion he can take tons of damage..." is exactly what I'm complaining: The amount of dice rolls in one game is not high enough to balance these huge variances. And therefore it creates a bad games. I was not that mad that I lost that game, I knew I had a chance to win if this one melee phase would have come out differently, so it was kinda rewarding, but it still felt like I'd have had a lot more fun otherwise.

But using "expected" as a gage for your decisions when there is variance is perhaps not a good idea because the game has never had enough dice to go with expected, especially when not expected is that you die. That has always been a thing, I'm not sure when it hasn't been. In deathstar 40k where things took no damage? But then the random winning roll was for powers at the start of the game. My overall point is if a single roll costs you the game, you were not winning the game prior to that.

The issue is what would the solution to less random be? Have everything do static damage and shots? That makes all weapons in general more powerful, and the game will generally just be about getting as many shots as you can and blowing people away. At which points large models just don't see the table at all, or those weapons are costed in a way where they are not very effective.

guard is now the eldar of 7th ed.

New edition "balance" trashed in less then than 6 months. Core rule changes already being abandoned.

This does not bode well.

Trollbert wrote:

Still, the statistical variance of a 'normal' IG army in the shooting phase is insanely high in comparison to most other armies. The possibility to double the damage of a unit on a roll of 4+ is just poor design. A 150 points LRBT rolling average hit, wound and DMG rolls deals between 1.3 and 8 wound to a T7 unit before saves... Taking the damage rolls into account, it's 0.66 - 12 wounds, which is unlikely of course, but it will decide some games.

Just an Episode from my last game against IG. I played CSM and wanted to charge a LR demolisher. Since my dummy unit didn't roll high enough, my Daemon Prince had to take overwatch fire. Statistically, he should get take 0.x unsaved wounds. He got 6. The Prince killed the tank and the tank blow up. Using a CP, he rolles a 2 for the damage and my Prince died. So I lost 180 points and my warlord. I should have lost 1 wound.
That's the RNG a 180 points model is able to do in one phase of the game. As LRs will get cheaper, that is 8.5% of my opponents list. The rest of his list will also be RNG heavy.

I don't think such games which are decided by a few dice rolls are fun. I'd rather not invest 2 hours to get to turn 2 and in the end waste a game because one dice 3 dice rolls decided almost the entire course of the game.
That's why Warhammer Fantasy was so unpopular.

I'm not sure this is true. Like, the thing with Demolishers on Overwatch is that they're more likely to do 6 wounds than 1. But that's true for anything firing multiple guns with d6 damage. You expect pretty similar variance from a quad-lascannon Predator.

Likewise the 2d6 shots. Against something that ends up getting a 5+ save and with lots of wounds, a LR shooting its battle cannon twice at 4+ to hit shows a variance of about 7 in total damage dealt, compared to a variance of about 5.9 for a hypothetical 7-shot gun that is otherwise identical. Put another way, the standard deviation of the result for the 2d6 gun is only about 10% higher.

Pancakey wrote:
guard is now the eldar of 7th ed.

New edition "balance" trashed in less then than 6 months. Core rule changes already being abandoned.

This does not bode well.

And you know this how?

I like the new AM codex. It means when playing against them, there will be a ton of differences in armies.

Yeah this seems like a pretty powerful codex. It does feel a little like creep, what with the russes firing twice and boost to the number of shots of super heavies along with all the powerful abilities. I'm happy for IG players, how neat to have being a Mordian or Tallarn mean something. I cringe at the idea of facing an IG gunline like the game recently shown on youtube between IG and Death Guard.

I look forward to the codex and the upcoming discussion on how to counter the might of the guard.

I disagree OP - when you improve an army thats already overperfoming - it just makes things worse. Basically the whole index Astra rules needed flat nerfs. A few units that wern't being used could have used some point reductions but those were few. Now they are even adding special rules to a lot of these units. It's going to be so flapping OP it wont even be worth playing against. All over again.

So is everyone playing Baneblade-variants as being able to Overwatch even if enemy Infantry within 1"? Cos that might make mine do work instead of being a bit sad.

So, I just watched the MWG IG codex review, and from what I could tell, it sounds like they took what was arguably the best index and made everything better with more shots and a points cut, with a variety of regimental doctrines, orders, and stratagems to give you anything from 4+ to hit on overwatch to 2++ save ogryn.

Is that about right? Because that sounds crazy to me. I couldn't beat the IG index as orks, and it damn sure sounds like I can't beat the IG codex.

At this rate, the ork codex will have to be half points cost with double attacks and shots to even have a chance, but in the meantime I'm still waiting to not pay 25 points for power klaws.

I think it bodes very well that the conscript nerf was not an over reaction.

Maybe it wasn't enough. But the idea that their design team is looking for the problem units and trying to keep them a viable choice while bringing them in line instead of just trying to nerf them into oblivion is the best possible situation we can be in. I really look forward to the ongoing balancing of the game.

I agree with Lance845. Every unit that was problematic, maybe because it was too powerfull, or too bad, has been receive changes.
If those changes are enough, time will tell, and probably they will touch them again. But the fact that they have touched everything speaks volumes about how fine tuning they are doing this time compared with previous editions.

I don't think it bodes well at all.

There is no way the Guard codex was reached through "balance". Its taken the best pure index and made it considerably better. Yes soups might be better - but that is a more fundamental issue with game design.

It was reached through whim. And what we know is that when GW start doing Codexes on a whim you get massively varying power levels. Its happened in every edition in every game they have ever done.

One author - "every unit must have 3 special rules because I love them and they are my babies".
Possibly the same author: "Another Ork codex? I hate those guys. Gimp 80% of the units, I'm off to the pub."

You can fantasise that your faction will one day get the Eldar treatment but you may be waiting a very long time.

 bullyboy wrote:
Seeing the improvements to the leman Russ and regiment doctrines, I'm really looking forward to seeing what we'll get with Eldar and beyond (looking at you Dark Angels).

I'm just hoping for a competitive Eldar Codex to go with the IG Codex.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

Pancakey wrote:
guard is now the eldar of 7th ed.

New edition "balance" trashed in less then than 6 months. Core rule changes already being abandoned.

This does not bode well.

And you know this how?

It's Pancakey.. Did you expect otherwise?

If the rule of Codex Creep holds true, then either Eldar or Tyranids will be way more powerful than IG soon enough.

In the interim, I think tournaments will have to implement really hard rules on LOS blocking cover to curb the overwhelming firepower of IG armies. The fact that you can take a Battalion and a Brigade to get 15 Command Points without sacrificing anything tactically... And the incredible number of shots you can put out...

After watching a Land Raider get downed by a Conscript squad with 120 lasgun shots, I take back what I said earlier. The IG codex really needed a balance in the other direction.

Let's just hope that over the next few months, as more people confirm or deny the power of the Codex, that the Chapter Approved will have some answers by years end...

So I plugged the numbers into anydice. .02% chance (no, that's not a typo) of doing 7 wounds to a Land Raider with 120 shots.

And I think I might've added 6 extra shots by accident too.