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.

Note, though, that you'd probably never want to throw a grenade if you can instead order the unit, since FRFSRF is getting you 4 S3 shots per model at 12" instead of 3.5 S3 shots at 6". The grenade is very marginally better if you order the unit to re-roll 1s to hit instead, but it's hard to believe that this is worth a CP. I feel like the stratagem is largely only going to be useful if you don't have an officer nearby or on Overwatch.

SilverAlien wrote:

You are literally just wrong about how effective meltas are for cost, particularly as those are almost always glass cannon units that get a single round of shooting off and struggle to do even that due to issues with range and screening, as opposed to a tank that can start firing across the map turn one.

Am I? Are you sure? I guess you are.

I will now endeavour to throw all my meltatroopers away.

Dionysodorus wrote:
Note, though, that you'd probably never want to throw a grenade if you can instead order the unit, since FRFSRF is getting you 4 S3 shots per model at 12" instead of 3.5 S3 shots at 6". The grenade is very marginally better if you order the unit to re-roll 1s to hit instead, but it's hard to believe that this is worth a CP. I feel like the stratagem is largely only going to be useful if you don't have an officer nearby or on Overwatch.

Yes, it seems very niche. Something like Conscripts will probably use the Mordian regimental doctrine and you'll likely see Volley Fire used with them; that and the Overwatch benefits of Mordian make them a pretty thorny thing to dislodge with assault as much as shooting - and they can use Firing Squad! to try and pick off characters with their lasgun lightshow, so screens become less effective.

Dionysodorus wrote:
Note, though, that you'd probably never want to throw a grenade if you can instead order the unit, since FRFSRF is getting you 4 S3 shots per model at 12" instead of 3.5 S3 shots at 6". The grenade is very marginally better if you order the unit to re-roll 1s to hit instead, but it's hard to believe that this is worth a CP. I feel like the stratagem is largely only going to be useful if you don't have an officer nearby or on Overwatch.

It will be a nice stratagem for bullgryns.

 RedCommander wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

You are literally just wrong about how effective meltas are for cost, particularly as those are almost always glass cannon units that get a single round of shooting off and struggle to do even that due to issues with range and screening, as opposed to a tank that can start firing across the map turn one.

Am I? Are you sure? I guess you are.

I will now endeavour to throw all my meltatroopers away.

They are worth using, but they are you know, balanced? With weaknesses and problems actually using them. And are still not as point effective as you think. And no where near as good as the tank I mentioned.

 malamis wrote:

MarboLives wrote:
Even if you guys are right and the book is garbage why waste your vitriol on random forum people?

Ive been a guard player for almost 10 years since I got into the hobby in 08. I only have one army. Whether they're overpowered or underpowered this week I don't have another option readily available.

What would you like me to do about your perception of their overpoweredness?

I'm somewhere past the 12kpts mark of guard ( found 3 leman russes swimming in paint stripper i'd totally forgotten about this morning ) and i'm wary of my collection becoming useless because there's no viable opponents. What I don't want to see, and what could happen if we're not careful is "oh you play guard? i'd rather play someone else if that's alright" or, as the guard player, "Oh you play <weak, index only army>? I'll have to change my list so we're not wasting our time" both of which happened a great deal at the tail end of 7th. If on the other hand Guard becomes the new Space Marines in that everyone plays them that would be wonderful (and fluffy!) but I don't see it happening

We're in the hobby to have fun after all, and there's a genuine risk IG could quickly become 'not fun', at least for the majority of cases. If you can suggest some methods for keeping it fresh without buying models that aren't interesting to me as a player with my nebulous sense of what's neat or not, that'd be most welcome.

Having a bottom tier index, I was already in this boat vs index guard, now I dont want to play them with a 10ft pole. My friend plays IG, has done so for years as his primary faction. Guard have a pretty un-interactive playstyle, static gunline's are not fun to play against, and now that that gunline is broken...... sorry I'll pass. Definition of not fun. *Oh, I walk at you for a few turns while you rain down hellfire onto me? Ill pull models by the bucketload, and in response you will lose a few models*. This usually was the narrative of a horde vs elite army, but it used to be the elite player saying it. Now its the horde player saying it

Its funny, in 7th I was the one bringing very underpowered lists to have fun games against him (never ran the decurion for example, always took underpowered units in the majority of a list, even then it was at times not close at all) and now the shoe is on the other foot, even though I dont think I could stand a chance against the majority of his lists, without hard tailoring. :(

SilverAlien wrote:

 RedCommander wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

You are literally just wrong about how effective meltas are for cost, particularly as those are almost always glass cannon units that get a single round of shooting off and struggle to do even that due to issues with range and screening, as opposed to a tank that can start firing across the map turn one.

Am I? Are you sure? I guess you are.

I will now endeavour to throw all my meltatroopers away.

They are worth using, but they are you know, balanced? With weaknesses and problems actually using them. And are still not as point effective as you think. And no where near as good as the tank I mentioned.

Hmm, I might have been lucky with my meltatroopers? Not only with my dice but also with my position and timing? Who knows.

I still think they are golden and any Guard army worth their salt should field some of them. In addition to plasmaguns, of course. Melta are not the replacement for plasma but plasma flat out loses to melta in some situations.

Edit: Also, I do field The Tank. It's awesome.

Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".

 Klowny wrote:

 malamis wrote:

MarboLives wrote:
Even if you guys are right and the book is garbage why waste your vitriol on random forum people?

Ive been a guard player for almost 10 years since I got into the hobby in 08. I only have one army. Whether they're overpowered or underpowered this week I don't have another option readily available.

What would you like me to do about your perception of their overpoweredness?

I'm somewhere past the 12kpts mark of guard ( found 3 leman russes swimming in paint stripper i'd totally forgotten about this morning ) and i'm wary of my collection becoming useless because there's no viable opponents. What I don't want to see, and what could happen if we're not careful is "oh you play guard? i'd rather play someone else if that's alright" or, as the guard player, "Oh you play <weak, index only army>? I'll have to change my list so we're not wasting our time" both of which happened a great deal at the tail end of 7th. If on the other hand Guard becomes the new Space Marines in that everyone plays them that would be wonderful (and fluffy!) but I don't see it happening

We're in the hobby to have fun after all, and there's a genuine risk IG could quickly become 'not fun', at least for the majority of cases. If you can suggest some methods for keeping it fresh without buying models that aren't interesting to me as a player with my nebulous sense of what's neat or not, that'd be most welcome.

Having a bottom tier index, I was already in this boat vs index guard, now I dont want to play them with a 10ft pole. My friend plays IG, has done so for years as his primary faction. Guard have a pretty un-interactive playstyle, static gunline's are not fun to play against, and now that that gunline is broken...... sorry I'll pass. Definition of not fun. *Oh, I walk at you for a few turns while you rain down hellfire onto me? Ill pull models by the bucketload, and in response you will lose a few models*. This usually was the narrative of a horde vs elite army, but it used to be the elite player saying it. Now its the horde player saying it

Its funny, in 7th I was the one bringing very underpowered lists to have fun games against him (never ran the decurion for example, always took underpowered units in the majority of a list, even then it was at times not close at all) and now the shoe is on the other foot, even though I dont think I could stand a chance against the majority of his lists, without hard tailoring. :(

One would think you would be happy seeing as this codex opens up many different playstyles for Guard beyond what they were forced to do before, i.e. static gunlines.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".

It...kinda does? If one dex is clearly above any others, it is an aberration, and therefore corrections are needed (which is entirely possible, given GW's newfound enthusiam for FAQs). If the AM dex is indeed found to be a broken mess, then I have no doubt that GW will fix it.

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".

It...kinda does? If one dex is clearly above any others, it is an aberration, and therefore corrections are needed (which is entirely possible, given GW's newfound enthusiam for FAQs). If the AM dex is indeed found to be a broken mess, then I have no doubt that GW will fix it.

Really? I have doubts.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".

It...kinda does? If one dex is clearly above any others, it is an aberration, and therefore corrections are needed (which is entirely possible, given GW's newfound enthusiam for FAQs). If the AM dex is indeed found to be a broken mess, then I have no doubt that GW will fix it.

Really? I have doubts.

Seriously, its the same thing that happened last ed. with the Necron Decurion.

 Quickjager wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".

It...kinda does? If one dex is clearly above any others, it is an aberration, and therefore corrections are needed (which is entirely possible, given GW's newfound enthusiam for FAQs). If the AM dex is indeed found to be a broken mess, then I have no doubt that GW will fix it.

Really? I have doubts.

Seriously, its the same thing that happened last ed. with the Necron Decurion.

But remember, this is NEW Games Workshop.

Honestly, I don't care much either way, they either fix it and prove they're intent on changing their usual edition change / low-tier army buff or they continue juggling previously trash armies to sell a bunch of stock-piled models from last edition. This is basically their business model for edition changes and it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".

It...kinda does? If one dex is clearly above any others, it is an aberration, and therefore corrections are needed (which is entirely possible, given GW's newfound enthusiam for FAQs). If the AM dex is indeed found to be a broken mess, then I have no doubt that GW will fix it.

So because one player feels that their particular army's book doesn't measure up to the guard book that makes the guard book an abomination? I don't agree. I do agree that if the book were to be found to be a broken mess in comparison to the other books, most of which have not yet been released, that GW should address that. It has yet to be demonstrated that the book is indeed a broken mess, and cannot in fact be demonstrated to be a broken mess yet, because the only way "broken mess" has any meaning is in relation to the rest of the army books, most of which are not yet out. In terms of internal balance and fun factor, the book is stellar. Overall external balance cannot be judged until we have more army books out, unless people thing codex vs index is a fair comparison.

If we just look at release books though, based on first impressions, comparing it to Admech, Chaos and SM for example, I don't see a big difference in the over all power level of competitive builds, but I do see a big difference in the variety of units that can be used to create competitive builds. That is to say the other released books can produce the same level of power, or greater, they just have fewer ways to do it. That's an issue with the internal balance of the other books, not with the Guard book.

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".

It...kinda does? If one dex is clearly above any others, it is an aberration, and therefore corrections are needed (which is entirely possible, given GW's newfound enthusiam for FAQs). If the AM dex is indeed found to be a broken mess, then I have no doubt that GW will fix it.

The IG book isn't a broken mess so much as specific units/synergies. Even in the comments here the focus remains on Conscripts - and then following them, concerns over the efficacy of the newly buffed SHVs as perhaps a lagging second. Two units don't make for a broken book, at least if GW balances them individually. Unfortunately they seem to be reserving system-wide balancing for Chapter Approved as essentially none of the Errata/FAQs since they unveiled it as 'a thing' have had balance tweaks in them... so who knows.

It does remain to be seen just how the Codex's changes alone shake out in the meta, but other than shuffling units around in detachments to maintain battle-forged we'll probably still see Conscript-heavy 'Imperial Soup' lists at/near the top in the immediate future. The concern over SHVs is perhaps overblown. Though I do feel that the point reduction along with the firepower buffs might have been a bit much, something like a Shadowsword will struggle against its points cost in opposing armor.

It's a strong and diverse book marred in particular (but not solely) by a too-effective unit combo (Conscripts/Commissars).

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".

 Klowny wrote:

 malamis wrote:

MarboLives wrote:
Even if you guys are right and the book is garbage why waste your vitriol on random forum people?

Ive been a guard player for almost 10 years since I got into the hobby in 08. I only have one army. Whether they're overpowered or underpowered this week I don't have another option readily available.

What would you like me to do about your perception of their overpoweredness?

I'm somewhere past the 12kpts mark of guard ( found 3 leman russes swimming in paint stripper i'd totally forgotten about this morning ) and i'm wary of my collection becoming useless because there's no viable opponents. What I don't want to see, and what could happen if we're not careful is "oh you play guard? i'd rather play someone else if that's alright" or, as the guard player, "Oh you play <weak, index only army>? I'll have to change my list so we're not wasting our time" both of which happened a great deal at the tail end of 7th. If on the other hand Guard becomes the new Space Marines in that everyone plays them that would be wonderful (and fluffy!) but I don't see it happening

We're in the hobby to have fun after all, and there's a genuine risk IG could quickly become 'not fun', at least for the majority of cases. If you can suggest some methods for keeping it fresh without buying models that aren't interesting to me as a player with my nebulous sense of what's neat or not, that'd be most welcome.

Having a bottom tier index, I was already in this boat vs index guard, now I dont want to play them with a 10ft pole. My friend plays IG, has done so for years as his primary faction. Guard have a pretty un-interactive playstyle, static gunline's are not fun to play against, and now that that gunline is broken...... sorry I'll pass. Definition of not fun. *Oh, I walk at you for a few turns while you rain down hellfire onto me? Ill pull models by the bucketload, and in response you will lose a few models*. This usually was the narrative of a horde vs elite army, but it used to be the elite player saying it. Now its the horde player saying it

Its funny, in 7th I was the one bringing very underpowered lists to have fun games against him (never ran the decurion for example, always took underpowered units in the majority of a list, even then it was at times not close at all) and now the shoe is on the other foot, even though I dont think I could stand a chance against the majority of his lists, without hard tailoring. :(

One would think you would be happy seeing as this codex opens up many different playstyles for Guard beyond what they were forced to do before, i.e. static gunlines.

Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for my friend, and I'm going to play against his guard, I'm just not going to be able to enjoy it at all. Its good he can play his army any way he wants, I remember that freedom from 7th and it is nice knowing you can be competitive with whatever playstyle you can think up. But as to playing against it? No thanks. Like I said Necrons had major problems playing against index guard, and now its not *oh, its not a static gunline again, this will be more fun*, its *oh, this is another way I'm about to get tabled, how fun*. If we were at the same power level then yes it would be more interesting fighting guard if they didnt run static gunlines 99.99% of the time, but the sheer weight of dice they can now throw down, coupled with their resilience and lack of hard counter, makes them not fun on any metric to fight.

On a side note, the conscript 'nerf', while not a nerf for IG, might tone down the level of them seen in soup lists.

GhostRecon wrote:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".

It...kinda does? If one dex is clearly above any others, it is an aberration, and therefore corrections are needed (which is entirely possible, given GW's newfound enthusiam for FAQs). If the AM dex is indeed found to be a broken mess, then I have no doubt that GW will fix it.

The IG book isn't a broken mess so much as specific units/synergies. Even in the comments here the focus remains on Conscripts - and then following them, concerns over the efficacy of the newly buffed SHVs as perhaps a lagging second. Two units don't make for a broken book, at least if GW balances them individually. Unfortunately they seem to be reserving system-wide balancing for Chapter Approved as essentially none of the Errata/FAQs since they unveiled it as 'a thing' have had balance tweaks in them... so who knows.

It does remain to be seen just how the Codex's changes alone shake out in the meta, but other than shuffling units around in detachments to maintain battle-forged we'll probably still see Conscript-heavy 'Imperial Soup' lists at/near the top in the immediate future. The concern over SHVs is perhaps overblown. Though I do feel that the point reduction along with the firepower buffs might have been a bit much, something like a Shadowsword will struggle against its points cost in opposing armor.

It's a strong and diverse book marred in particular (but not solely) by a too-effective unit combo (Conscripts/Commissars).

If units of 30 T3 guys that do virtually no damage plus a Commissar are the Guard's strongest synergy (I'm not saying they are, but many seem to think so) I would say most other Codex armies have nothing to worry about.

 Klowny wrote:


Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for my friend, and I'm going to play against his guard, I'm just not going to be able to enjoy it at all. Its good he can play his army any way he wants, I remember that freedom from 7th and it is nice knowing you can be competitive with whatever playstyle you can think up. But as to playing against it? No thanks. Like I said Necrons had major problems playing against index guard, and now its not *oh, its not a static gunline again, this will be more fun*, its *oh, this is another way I'm about to get tabled, how fun*. If we were at the same power level then yes it would be more interesting fighting guard if they didnt run static gunlines 99.99% of the time, but the sheer weight of dice they can now throw down, coupled with their resilience and lack of hard counter, makes them not fun on any metric to fight.

I personally would use my index list vs index armies, and codex against codex because I agree it's an unfair advantage for the codex list, but I would do this with any army, not just Guard.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".

It...kinda does? If one dex is clearly above any others, it is an aberration, and therefore corrections are needed (which is entirely possible, given GW's newfound enthusiam for FAQs). If the AM dex is indeed found to be a broken mess, then I have no doubt that GW will fix it.

So because one player feels that their particular army's book doesn't measure up to the guard book that makes the guard book an abomination? I don't agree. I do agree that if the book were to be found to be a broken mess in comparison to the other books, most of which have not yet been released, that GW should address that. It has yet to be demonstrated that the book is indeed a broken mess, and cannot in fact be demonstrated to be a broken mess yet, because the only way "broken mess" has any meaning is in relation to the rest of the army books, most of which are not yet out. In terms of internal balance and fun factor, the book is stellar. Overall external balance cannot be judged until we have more army books out, unless people thing codex vs index is a fair comparison.

If we just look at release books though, based on first impressions, comparing it to Admech, Chaos and SM for example, I don't see a big difference in the over all power level of competitive builds, but I do see a big difference in the variety of units that can be used to create competitive builds. That is to say the other released books can produce the same level of power, or greater, they just have fewer ways to do it. That's an issue with the internal balance of the other books, not with the Guard book.

Honestly, it sounds like you're splitting hairs - because YOU feel the new Guard dex in comparison to the newly released books isn't a broken mess, it can't be labelled as such because of the possibility of equally overpowered codexes/synergies/combinations that future codexes might get? Knowing what we do about the current codexes (which is really all that can be compared to the Guard dex from a logical perspective at this point in time) many, many players are unhappy with the lack of poor external balance, and this is a legitimate concern. Regardless of how you or I feel, that stereotype will exist and will affect anyone playing in a casual setting, likely in the form of not finding opponents to play against or having unenjoyable games for both parties. Poor balance hurts everyone not playing in a tournament.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".

It...kinda does? If one dex is clearly above any others, it is an aberration, and therefore corrections are needed (which is entirely possible, given GW's newfound enthusiam for FAQs). If the AM dex is indeed found to be a broken mess, then I have no doubt that GW will fix it.

So because one player feels that their particular army's book doesn't measure up to the guard book that makes the guard book an abomination? I don't agree. I do agree that if the book were to be found to be a broken mess in comparison to the other books, most of which have not yet been released, that GW should address that. It has yet to be demonstrated that the book is indeed a broken mess, and cannot in fact be demonstrated to be a broken mess yet, because the only way "broken mess" has any meaning is in relation to the rest of the army books, most of which are not yet out. In terms of internal balance and fun factor, the book is stellar. Overall external balance cannot be judged until we have more army books out, unless people thing codex vs index is a fair comparison.

If we just look at release books though, based on first impressions, comparing it to Admech, Chaos and SM for example, I don't see a big difference in the over all power level of competitive builds, but I do see a big difference in the variety of units that can be used to create competitive builds. That is to say the other released books can produce the same level of power, or greater, they just have fewer ways to do it. That's an issue with the internal balance of the other books, not with the Guard book.

If you can see a big difference in the variety of units that can be used in a competitive build then you can see how your codex is significantly more powerful than the other released codex's. You have more strong/powerful units compared to the others that exploit specific combos/strategies to stay competitive.

No index army is complaining that its not fair a codex army is stronger than their index, thats a silly argument. I know my cron's are weaker than the codex armies, as do the blood angles, orks, tyranids etc. But when you look at every other codex release compared to this one, you can clearly see there is a massive power imbalance. Other armies had strengths and weaknesses, received nerf's as well as buffs. Guard? Near sweeping buffs across the board to an index that was already top tier. The two notable nerfs, plasma and conscripts didnt really nerf those units, as they are still very competitive and viable in any build. If a nerf still makes those choices still near auto-include options, it wasn't effective.

Plasma was a nerf. It wasn't ENOUGH, but it was a solid nerf.

Conscripts... Not so much. Technically a nerf, but not very strong one.

armageddon conscripts get 8 shots per model with FRFSRF... thats 240 shots from 90 points of models..... that are immune to morale. Granted orders are a 4+ to receive, but you have like 1000000 CP to use on re-rolls.

I'm not saying that they are the most powerful thing in the codex. But when your basic infantry unit that is meant to be chaff screens can put out that much dakka, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the codex. And as we can now see, the dakka that can put out is incredible.

 Klowny wrote:


I'm not saying that they are the most powerful thing in the codex.

gak man, with points efficiency like that they're a contender for the most powerful thing in the game!

 JNAProductions wrote:
Plasma was a nerf. It wasn't ENOUGH, but it was a solid nerf.

Conscripts... Not so much. Technically a nerf, but not very strong one.

Apologies, I wasn't saying it wasn't a nerf, it 100% was. I was just pointing out that the two major nerfs didn't do enough to displace those units from being still top teir. And I agree, conscripts didn't really get nerfed, just changed. They got nerfed on paper, but they also got buffed by being within a faction.

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

 Retrogamer0001 wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Let us wait to see some tournament results before we go crazy. And no, the book is not an "abomination" it's excellent. Your problem may be that you feel your own army's book doesn't measure up. That's a legitimate concern, but doesn't make the Guard book an "abomination".

It...kinda does? If one dex is clearly above any others, it is an aberration, and therefore corrections are needed (which is entirely possible, given GW's newfound enthusiam for FAQs). If the AM dex is indeed found to be a broken mess, then I have no doubt that GW will fix it.

So because one player feels that their particular army's book doesn't measure up to the guard book that makes the guard book an abomination? I don't agree. I do agree that if the book were to be found to be a broken mess in comparison to the other books, most of which have not yet been released, that GW should address that. It has yet to be demonstrated that the book is indeed a broken mess, and cannot in fact be demonstrated to be a broken mess yet, because the only way "broken mess" has any meaning is in relation to the rest of the army books, most of which are not yet out. In terms of internal balance and fun factor, the book is stellar. Overall external balance cannot be judged until we have more army books out, unless people thing codex vs index is a fair comparison.

If we just look at release books though, based on first impressions, comparing it to Admech, Chaos and SM for example, I don't see a big difference in the over all power level of competitive builds, but I do see a big difference in the variety of units that can be used to create competitive builds. That is to say the other released books can produce the same level of power, or greater, they just have fewer ways to do it. That's an issue with the internal balance of the other books, not with the Guard book.

Honestly, it sounds like you're splitting hairs - because YOU feel the new Guard dex in comparison to the newly released books isn't a broken mess, it can't be labelled as such because of the possibility of equally overpowered codexes/synergies/combinations that future codexes might get? Knowing what we do about the current codexes (which is really all that can be compared to the Guard dex from a logical perspective at this point in time) many, many players are unhappy with the lack of poor external balance, and this is a legitimate concern. Regardless of how you or I feel, that stereotype will exist and will affect anyone playing in a casual setting, likely in the form of not finding opponents to play against or having unenjoyable games for both parties. Poor balance hurts everyone not playing in a tournament.

I'm just stating a fact; you can't compare a book that is out to a book that isn't out. How can anyone call one codex a broken mess when the majority of them are unreleased? What if the following ones are twice as "broken"? What would the Guard book be then? In relation to the released books, the opinions I've been hearing from various competitive tournament players and organizers is that the Guard book is certainly competitive and on par, in terms of raw power level, with what the other books can do, however the Guard has a greater variety of potentially viable builds they can use to reach that power level. Based on my first impression, I agree with that assessment.

Which makes the book, overall, more powerful than the other codexes. The others have one or two different competitive builds, but you yourself are saying that guard have multiple different ways to field competitive armies, meaning there are exponentially more powerful units in the army that lend themselves to different playstyles...

Just because the competitive builds are on the same power level as the other codex's comp builds, doesn't mean that the codex itself is on the same power level as them.

 Klowny wrote:


If you can see a big difference in the variety of units that can be used in a competitive build then you can see how your codex is significantly more powerful than the other released codex's. You have more strong/powerful units compared to the others that exploit specific combos/strategies to stay competitive.

If I have one viable build that is as strong as any myriad of viable builds from another book, my army is just as strong as any incarnation of the other, it just isn't as potentially varied. That isn't an issue with the book that has the variety of viable builds, it's a legitimate issue with my own bland book.

Yes, your build is just as strong, but your codex isnt as strong as theirs as they can field many different variations of strong builds, while you are stuck relying on a single strat/broken unit in your codex. How can you not see this


Automatically Appended Next Post:
'bland' book = not as strong as an 'interesting' book

'Interesting' = guard codex
'Bland' = every other codex released so far

 Klowny wrote:
Yes, your build is just as strong, but your codex isnt as strong as theirs as they can field many different variations of strong builds, while you are stuck relying on a single strat/broken unit in your codex. How can you not see this

The competitive strength of a codex would be judged by it's most powerful potential list(s), so in our example my codex would be just as strong, but it would be much more boring and lacking in variety. I don't think people are complaining that the Guard book has too much viable variety (which it does have much of), they are complaining it's too strong overall in comparison to other books, which has yet to be demonstrated. I agree it has more variety, but that doesn't necessarily make it a stronger book. Variety and competitive strength are not synonymous.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about the codex power in general, not just the competitive strength of individual builds.

For example, Tyranids in 7th had a competitive list, that did quite well at tournaments, yet their codex was atrocious overall. Eldar had a lot of variety in their codex, and were also very powerful competitively. Even take Eldar away, the other top teir codex's in 7th all had more variety in their strong lists. You rank 7th codex's by power and the ones that had more variety always came out on top.There is not a single person in the world who would say that tyranids had a good codex, yet they had a competitive build.

While they are not synonymous, they are very closely linked. You can have a competitive list without having a powerful codex, but you cannot have variety in competitive lists without having a powerful codex. Ergo, the more variety in your codex, the greater its overall power in comparison to other armies who rely on singular builds to remain strong.

If the meta changes slightly, and a codex that has a single build drops out of power, it is now not considered a strong codex. If a codex has multiple different builds that can be strong, and the meta changes, they have more builds to choose from and can remain competitive. It is still considered a strong codex.

So while individual builds from different codex's may be on par with the guard codex in a 1v1 sense, overall, due to the variety of builds guard can field and still be strong, they are head and shoulders above the rest of the competition so far.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I'm sorry, but competitive strength of a codex is not measured only by the power of its strongest list, that is a fallacy. There are other measures used to gauge power, variety of strong builds being one of them, points efficiency of units, ability to be used in 'soup' armies, single OP units, smite spam, access to CP, ease of play etc.

Guard tick all these boxes atm unfortunately. Most imperium armies (the majority of the competitive builds you say are strong) from the other codex's will use conscripts as their screens, as they are better than what their own codex can offer. While they have some intracicies, they are a fairly straightfoward army, not needing chain combos or careful positioning to be used efficiently, they are a more *point and click* army than ynnari for instance. Baneblades are incredibly strong now, as are Russ's. You can also spam CP, spam smite. EVERYTHING is dirt cheap. There are almost no drawbacks to fielding a guard army.

 Klowny wrote:
armageddon conscripts get 8 shots per model with FRFSRF... thats 240 shots from 90 points of models..... that are immune to morale. Granted orders are a 4+ to receive, but you have like 1000000 CP to use on re-rolls.

I'm not saying that they are the most powerful thing in the codex. But when your basic infantry unit that is meant to be chaff screens can put out that much dakka, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the codex. And as we can now see, the dakka that can put out is incredible.

I'm pretty sure that's not how the Armageddon doctrine works. Doesn't it just extend the rapid fire range of their lasguns out to 18 inches? It doesn't grant extra shots.

For that matter, I'm also pretty sure there's a hard cap of ten models for the Grenadier doctrine to prevent waves of explosive conscript death.

 Spinner wrote:

 Klowny wrote:
armageddon conscripts get 8 shots per model with FRFSRF... thats 240 shots from 90 points of models..... that are immune to morale. Granted orders are a 4+ to receive, but you have like 1000000 CP to use on re-rolls.

I'm not saying that they are the most powerful thing in the codex. But when your basic infantry unit that is meant to be chaff screens can put out that much dakka, it doesn't bode well for the rest of the codex. And as we can now see, the dakka that can put out is incredible.

I'm pretty sure that's not how the Armageddon doctrine works. Doesn't it just extend the rapid fire range of their lasguns out to 18 inches? It doesn't grant extra shots.

For that matter, I'm also pretty sure there's a hard cap of ten models for the Grenadier doctrine to prevent waves of explosive conscript death.

I dont have the codex, just taken from online reviews etc. Upon re-reading it, yeah I can see that its probably meant as range extension.