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.

I'm still willing to give it a shot, since my takeaway from this tournament's results is that there is a way to make anything work.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
So far as proof of your "IG are OP" theory you've included a Dakka Poll, and an ITC list that spans, not only 7th edition, but a period when we had just Index prior to any FAQ when Stormraven spam was "dominating". The "Index" were a "stop-gap" solution, once again - this should be common sense.

Are you arguing IG were better in 7th than in 8th? Because in order for that to skew the data in the direction you're suggesting, that would have to be the case...

No not at all - just that the data is meaningless for the sake of proving "OP" or not at this point... just as meaningless as a 'Dakka Poll' as "evidence".

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I'm still willing to give it a shot, since my takeaway from this tournament's results is that there is a way to make anything work.

Good luck.

I would very much strongly advise that you include a detachment other than GK to keep your on-table footprint alive and well, and expand your deep strike footprint.

Saint Celestine fits very well into a GK list, because she can move 24" turn 1 and assault. She's only 150 points and far superior to anything we can field for a comparable cost.

Taurox Primes are solid too


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
So far as proof of your "IG are OP" theory you've included a Dakka Poll, and an ITC list that spans, not only 7th edition, but a period when we had just Index prior to any FAQ when Stormraven spam was "dominating". The "Index" were a "stop-gap" solution, once again - this should be common sense.

Are you arguing IG were better in 7th than in 8th? Because in order for that to skew the data in the direction you're suggesting, that would have to be the case...

No not at all - just that the data is meaningless for the sake of proving "OP" or not at this point... just as meaningless as a 'Dakka Poll' as "evidence".

pfft lol. AM head and shoulders above the competition in formal data collected across all ITC events, which weights major GTs far greater that RTTs... yeah.... ok.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I summed up the entire gaurd codex change in a few sentences...I wasn't specifically adressing any of your points but really just invalidating all of them straight up. The only unit that got worse was Scions. There is no negative...everything else got better. There is no dynamic change - it's basically the same stuff except its better or cheaper or both. The only real change to AM composition is going to be russes - which for some reason now have almost 3x the offensive potency if they use the catchen trait. d6 shots becomes 2d6 shots and reroll the lowest - forgive me - this is absurd.

Sigh. No. No it doesn't. Nothing you've said still invalidates any of the things I was talking about, because you're again talking about things unrelated to the specific list I was referring to.

I'm out. Enjoy your train wreck. I'd wish you the best, but I'm genuinely worried you'd turn it into devastator squads and not understand why it failed.

Enjoy thinking that Codex AM is somehow worse than index AM.

Imperial Soup did get worse, and that is what was winning, during a very SMALL slice of time. So far as proof of your "IG are OP" theory you've included a Dakka Poll, and an ITC list that spans, not only 7th edition, but a period when we had just Index prior to any FAQ when Stormraven spam was "dominating". The "Index" were a "stop-gap" solution, once again - this should be common sense.

Let's say your ITC list is just 'current data' that includes the more current Codex (which it is NOT), how many of those winning "AM lists" are just AM and not Imperial Soup? ...further how many are wins using the new Codex?

Your theories are based entirely on nerd-panic and a dishonest perspective of the so-called "data". You guys can argue about Tactical squads all day, but Space Marines are winning, and so is Chaos, and soon so will the Death Guard... making a BS claim of "OP" at this point is futile.

How did imperial soup get worse? Imperial soup is actually 90% gaurd anyways. Sometimes adding Celestine or some other OP champion. So how does gaurd getting better hurt imperial soup? Full flyer lists were erased from the game about 12 hours after storm raven spam dominated the first major tournament. So storm raven spam isn't even an option anymore - it can just be ignored. Space marines won a soft scoring tournament - 1 week after the guard codex was released. It really means nothing in the grand scheme. Gard being OP isn't a theory. It's mathematical fact.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I summed up the entire gaurd codex change in a few sentences...I wasn't specifically adressing any of your points but really just invalidating all of them straight up. The only unit that got worse was Scions. There is no negative...everything else got better. There is no dynamic change - it's basically the same stuff except its better or cheaper or both. The only real change to AM composition is going to be russes - which for some reason now have almost 3x the offensive potency if they use the catchen trait. d6 shots becomes 2d6 shots and reroll the lowest - forgive me - this is absurd.

Sigh. No. No it doesn't. Nothing you've said still invalidates any of the things I was talking about, because you're again talking about things unrelated to the specific list I was referring to.

I'm out. Enjoy your train wreck. I'd wish you the best, but I'm genuinely worried you'd turn it into devastator squads and not understand why it failed.

Enjoy thinking that Codex AM is somehow worse than index AM.

Imperial Soup did get worse, and that is what was winning, during a very SMALL slice of time. So far as proof of your "IG are OP" theory you've included a Dakka Poll, and an ITC list that spans, not only 7th edition, but a period when we had just Index prior to any FAQ when Stormraven spam was "dominating". The "Index" were a "stop-gap" solution, once again - this should be common sense.

Let's say your ITC list is just 'current data' that includes the more current Codex (which it is NOT), how many of those winning "AM lists" are just AM and not Imperial Soup? ...further how many are wins using the new Codex?

Your theories are based entirely on nerd-panic and a dishonest perspective of the so-called "data". You guys can argue about Tactical squads all day, but Space Marines are winning, and so is Chaos, and soon so will the Death Guard... making a BS claim of "OP" at this point is futile.

How did imperial soup get worse? Imperial soup is actually 90% gaurd anyways. Sometimes adding Celestine or some other OP champion. So how does gaurd getting better hurt imperial soup? Full flyer lists were erased from the game about 12 hours after storm raven spam dominated the first major tournament. So storm raven spam isn't even an option anymore - it can just be ignored. Space marines won a soft scoring tournament - 1 week after the guard codex was released. It really means nothing in the grand scheme. Gard being OP isn't a theory. It's mathematical fact.

Imperial soup got worse because there's no reason to keep that 10% non-imperial guard in your soup. Just put in all guard, with Celestine.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I summed up the entire gaurd codex change in a few sentences...I wasn't specifically adressing any of your points but really just invalidating all of them straight up. The only unit that got worse was Scions. There is no negative...everything else got better. There is no dynamic change - it's basically the same stuff except its better or cheaper or both. The only real change to AM composition is going to be russes - which for some reason now have almost 3x the offensive potency if they use the catchen trait. d6 shots becomes 2d6 shots and reroll the lowest - forgive me - this is absurd.

Sigh. No. No it doesn't. Nothing you've said still invalidates any of the things I was talking about, because you're again talking about things unrelated to the specific list I was referring to.

I'm out. Enjoy your train wreck. I'd wish you the best, but I'm genuinely worried you'd turn it into devastator squads and not understand why it failed.

Enjoy thinking that Codex AM is somehow worse than index AM.

Imperial Soup did get worse, and that is what was winning, during a very SMALL slice of time. So far as proof of your "IG are OP" theory you've included a Dakka Poll, and an ITC list that spans, not only 7th edition, but a period when we had just Index prior to any FAQ when Stormraven spam was "dominating". The "Index" were a "stop-gap" solution, once again - this should be common sense.

Let's say your ITC list is just 'current data' that includes the more current Codex (which it is NOT), how many of those winning "AM lists" are just AM and not Imperial Soup? ...further how many are wins using the new Codex?

Your theories are based entirely on nerd-panic and a dishonest perspective of the so-called "data". You guys can argue about Tactical squads all day, but Space Marines are winning, and so is Chaos, and soon so will the Death Guard... making a BS claim of "OP" at this point is futile.

How did imperial soup get worse? Imperial soup is actually 90% gaurd anyways. Sometimes adding Celestine or some other OP champion. So how does gaurd getting better hurt imperial soup? Full flyer lists were erased from the game about 12 hours after storm raven spam dominated the first major tournament. So storm raven spam isn't even an option anymore - it can just be ignored. Space marines won a soft scoring tournament - 1 week after the guard codex was released. It really means nothing in the grand scheme. Gard being OP isn't a theory. It's mathematical fact.

Here's the thing, it isn't really though - a "mathematical fact". Your data is no data at all, your "math" is purely assumption and nerd-panic. Imperial Soup is not even "90% guard" and it did get worse. The mathematical fact is - you have NO data on the new codex, that is indisputable.

Further I'd add that Celestine has nothing to do with the IG Codex... she has the Imperium keyword and could be listed as an "OP or nerf" for EVERY Imperium army... if being able to include Celestine is your proof for OP, again, you have no argument - still in the new Codex they at least changed how the interaction will affect the greater list.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I summed up the entire gaurd codex change in a few sentences...I wasn't specifically adressing any of your points but really just invalidating all of them straight up. The only unit that got worse was Scions. There is no negative...everything else got better. There is no dynamic change - it's basically the same stuff except its better or cheaper or both. The only real change to AM composition is going to be russes - which for some reason now have almost 3x the offensive potency if they use the catchen trait. d6 shots becomes 2d6 shots and reroll the lowest - forgive me - this is absurd.

Sigh. No. No it doesn't. Nothing you've said still invalidates any of the things I was talking about, because you're again talking about things unrelated to the specific list I was referring to.

I'm out. Enjoy your train wreck. I'd wish you the best, but I'm genuinely worried you'd turn it into devastator squads and not understand why it failed.

Enjoy thinking that Codex AM is somehow worse than index AM.

Imperial Soup did get worse, and that is what was winning, during a very SMALL slice of time. So far as proof of your "IG are OP" theory you've included a Dakka Poll, and an ITC list that spans, not only 7th edition, but a period when we had just Index prior to any FAQ when Stormraven spam was "dominating". The "Index" were a "stop-gap" solution, once again - this should be common sense.

Let's say your ITC list is just 'current data' that includes the more current Codex (which it is NOT), how many of those winning "AM lists" are just AM and not Imperial Soup? ...further how many are wins using the new Codex?

Your theories are based entirely on nerd-panic and a dishonest perspective of the so-called "data". You guys can argue about Tactical squads all day, but Space Marines are winning, and so is Chaos, and soon so will the Death Guard... making a BS claim of "OP" at this point is futile.

How did imperial soup get worse? Imperial soup is actually 90% gaurd anyways. Sometimes adding Celestine or some other OP champion. So how does gaurd getting better hurt imperial soup? Full flyer lists were erased from the game about 12 hours after storm raven spam dominated the first major tournament. So storm raven spam isn't even an option anymore - it can just be ignored. Space marines won a soft scoring tournament - 1 week after the guard codex was released. It really means nothing in the grand scheme. Gard being OP isn't a theory. It's mathematical fact.

Imperial soup got worse because there's no reason to keep that 10% non-imperial guard in your soup. Just put in all guard, with Celestine.

Haha - right. You can't argue imperial soup got worse in defense of AM not being OP though. Imperial soup isn't needed anymore because AM got even more OP units. Celestine still technically makes it a soup list though. I see 0 reason to include her for both bragging rights of crushing people with mono build and also - Lemon russes and shadowswords are just that good

Slayer,
1.
5 SM + PG/Combi cost the same as 7 DAs when that discussion happens. Points were considered. Hence the 5 vs 7. That they now cost as much as 5 DAs is funny, but about to be changed.

The PG/Combi 5man vs 7 DAs was the more common comparision. There was a lot of 10 naked CSM vs 10 naked DAs - that's where I didn't know CSM were required to pay 10 pts for the champion. In both cases, I payed attention to points. In the second, a mistake made it 140pts : 130pts. I didn't know CSM loadouts, true. Easily adjusted for, and didn't really change much.

Please get over the long-discarded arguments. If you want to continue to argue 7e Tacs vs DAs, sure, but stick to what I'm arguing, not one-offs that were corrected.

2.
Certainly, you need numbers for statistical evidence. But that point was to illustrate a logical fallacy - post hoc - is still valid as statistical evidence. This branch was about if Appeal to Authority was evidence, or should just be dismissed as a logical fallacy. Bigger, valid numbers are better (valid is important - the bulk of the data provided here was 7E numbers). But we don't have those. Hence why people point to the top players, not just the top lists.

3.
A. GKs are 21ppm per people up-thread. They have some nice upgrades, but die just as fast as 13ppm Tacs. I can see where they have their uses, but they lose many of the Tacs' strengths.
B. Saying Kalabites can only be considered in optimized Raider/Venom Spam lists is awfully similar to saying Tacs can only be considered in Robout G. lists. It's worth considering Raiders/Venoms, but it's not everything.
C. I confess, I'm not that familiar with Necrons right now
D. I wouldn't call Genestealers mediocre. I haven't seen reason to rank them above Tacs. Care to elaborate?
E. Should have called the Crusader Squad
E. pt 2 - I didnt feel like listing CSM and SW flavors of Tacs seperately. I think both would be just below vanilla Tacs. SW above CSM. But I could be convinced to shuffle those 3.
E. pt 3 - Cult troops (Plague, Noise, Berzerker, Rubric) I wasn't familiar enough to rank. I know there are some shenanigans you can pull with Berzerkers now, but I doubt all 4 rank above Tacs. So leaving them off didn't impact the "Are Tacs average?" question.

E. pt 4 - Infantry for Guard? There are several flavors. Conscripts and Guardsmen are listed. Vets I spaced. I also didn't break out Pulse rifle vs carbine vs breacher troops either.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I summed up the entire gaurd codex change in a few sentences...I wasn't specifically adressing any of your points but really just invalidating all of them straight up. The only unit that got worse was Scions. There is no negative...everything else got better. There is no dynamic change - it's basically the same stuff except its better or cheaper or both. The only real change to AM composition is going to be russes - which for some reason now have almost 3x the offensive potency if they use the catchen trait. d6 shots becomes 2d6 shots and reroll the lowest - forgive me - this is absurd.

Sigh. No. No it doesn't. Nothing you've said still invalidates any of the things I was talking about, because you're again talking about things unrelated to the specific list I was referring to.

I'm out. Enjoy your train wreck. I'd wish you the best, but I'm genuinely worried you'd turn it into devastator squads and not understand why it failed.

Enjoy thinking that Codex AM is somehow worse than index AM.

Imperial Soup did get worse, and that is what was winning, during a very SMALL slice of time. So far as proof of your "IG are OP" theory you've included a Dakka Poll, and an ITC list that spans, not only 7th edition, but a period when we had just Index prior to any FAQ when Stormraven spam was "dominating". The "Index" were a "stop-gap" solution, once again - this should be common sense.

Let's say your ITC list is just 'current data' that includes the more current Codex (which it is NOT), how many of those winning "AM lists" are just AM and not Imperial Soup? ...further how many are wins using the new Codex?

Your theories are based entirely on nerd-panic and a dishonest perspective of the so-called "data". You guys can argue about Tactical squads all day, but Space Marines are winning, and so is Chaos, and soon so will the Death Guard... making a BS claim of "OP" at this point is futile.

How did imperial soup get worse? Imperial soup is actually 90% gaurd anyways. Sometimes adding Celestine or some other OP champion. So how does gaurd getting better hurt imperial soup? Full flyer lists were erased from the game about 12 hours after storm raven spam dominated the first major tournament. So storm raven spam isn't even an option anymore - it can just be ignored. Space marines won a soft scoring tournament - 1 week after the guard codex was released. It really means nothing in the grand scheme. Gard being OP isn't a theory. It's mathematical fact.

Imperial soup got worse because there's no reason to keep that 10% non-imperial guard in your soup. Just put in all guard, with Celestine.

Haha - right. You can't argue imperial soup got worse in defense of AM not being OP though. Imperial soup isn't needed anymore because AM got even more OP units. Celestine still technically makes it a soup list though. I see 0 reason to include her for both bragging rights of crushing people with mono build and also - Lemon russes and shadowswords are just that good

Let's just say IG doesn't need Imperial Soup to win anymore - it still doesn't change the FACT that the interaction with "Soup" has changed the greater list building for IG; it's absolutely not as advantageous... and again Celestine is NOT in the IG codex, she just an "Imperium" unit, she doesn't have the Astra Militarum keyword and can't be assigned to a regiment.

Further if what you say is correct, where is your mathematical proof? ...oh right, you have NONE.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I summed up the entire gaurd codex change in a few sentences...I wasn't specifically adressing any of your points but really just invalidating all of them straight up. The only unit that got worse was Scions. There is no negative...everything else got better. There is no dynamic change - it's basically the same stuff except its better or cheaper or both. The only real change to AM composition is going to be russes - which for some reason now have almost 3x the offensive potency if they use the catchen trait. d6 shots becomes 2d6 shots and reroll the lowest - forgive me - this is absurd.

Sigh. No. No it doesn't. Nothing you've said still invalidates any of the things I was talking about, because you're again talking about things unrelated to the specific list I was referring to.

I'm out. Enjoy your train wreck. I'd wish you the best, but I'm genuinely worried you'd turn it into devastator squads and not understand why it failed.

Enjoy thinking that Codex AM is somehow worse than index AM.

Imperial Soup did get worse, and that is what was winning, during a very SMALL slice of time. So far as proof of your "IG are OP" theory you've included a Dakka Poll, and an ITC list that spans, not only 7th edition, but a period when we had just Index prior to any FAQ when Stormraven spam was "dominating". The "Index" were a "stop-gap" solution, once again - this should be common sense.

Let's say your ITC list is just 'current data' that includes the more current Codex (which it is NOT), how many of those winning "AM lists" are just AM and not Imperial Soup? ...further how many are wins using the new Codex?

Your theories are based entirely on nerd-panic and a dishonest perspective of the so-called "data". You guys can argue about Tactical squads all day, but Space Marines are winning, and so is Chaos, and soon so will the Death Guard... making a BS claim of "OP" at this point is futile.

How did imperial soup get worse? Imperial soup is actually 90% gaurd anyways. Sometimes adding Celestine or some other OP champion. So how does gaurd getting better hurt imperial soup? Full flyer lists were erased from the game about 12 hours after storm raven spam dominated the first major tournament. So storm raven spam isn't even an option anymore - it can just be ignored. Space marines won a soft scoring tournament - 1 week after the guard codex was released. It really means nothing in the grand scheme. Gard being OP isn't a theory. It's mathematical fact.

Here's the thing, it isn't really though - a "mathematical fact". Your data is no data at all, your "math" is purely assumption and nerd-panic. Imperial Soup is not even "90% guard" and it did get worse. The mathematical fact is - you have NO data on the new codex, that is indisputable.

I don't need data on the new codex. It's simple logic. When you add rules and point cost reductions to things the get better. So any data that shows AM index winning also shows that AM codex would have won it even easier. It's pretty hard to argue with that logic - you can try if you want though. You will first need to show me how Lemon russ/manticores/basalisks got worse with the addition of army traits that let them reroll the number of shots they take and russes even getting double shots...and reducing in points at the same time. Youll also need to prove that conscripts got worse when they cost 3 points and can have multiple orders on them at the same time...The codex is a huge improvement on the index which was already such a good rule set that MOST imperial armies include more AM in them than their actual army. I understand why you assume nerd panic - probably because thats what you always assume. I can tell you - this time it's different. I've never seen such blatant disregard for balance - except in forge world.

"In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is."

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

I summed up the entire gaurd codex change in a few sentences...I wasn't specifically adressing any of your points but really just invalidating all of them straight up. The only unit that got worse was Scions. There is no negative...everything else got better. There is no dynamic change - it's basically the same stuff except its better or cheaper or both. The only real change to AM composition is going to be russes - which for some reason now have almost 3x the offensive potency if they use the catchen trait. d6 shots becomes 2d6 shots and reroll the lowest - forgive me - this is absurd.

Sigh. No. No it doesn't. Nothing you've said still invalidates any of the things I was talking about, because you're again talking about things unrelated to the specific list I was referring to.

I'm out. Enjoy your train wreck. I'd wish you the best, but I'm genuinely worried you'd turn it into devastator squads and not understand why it failed.

Enjoy thinking that Codex AM is somehow worse than index AM.

Imperial Soup did get worse, and that is what was winning, during a very SMALL slice of time. So far as proof of your "IG are OP" theory you've included a Dakka Poll, and an ITC list that spans, not only 7th edition, but a period when we had just Index prior to any FAQ when Stormraven spam was "dominating". The "Index" were a "stop-gap" solution, once again - this should be common sense.

Let's say your ITC list is just 'current data' that includes the more current Codex (which it is NOT), how many of those winning "AM lists" are just AM and not Imperial Soup? ...further how many are wins using the new Codex?

Your theories are based entirely on nerd-panic and a dishonest perspective of the so-called "data". You guys can argue about Tactical squads all day, but Space Marines are winning, and so is Chaos, and soon so will the Death Guard... making a BS claim of "OP" at this point is futile.

How did imperial soup get worse? Imperial soup is actually 90% gaurd anyways. Sometimes adding Celestine or some other OP champion. So how does gaurd getting better hurt imperial soup? Full flyer lists were erased from the game about 12 hours after storm raven spam dominated the first major tournament. So storm raven spam isn't even an option anymore - it can just be ignored. Space marines won a soft scoring tournament - 1 week after the guard codex was released. It really means nothing in the grand scheme. Gard being OP isn't a theory. It's mathematical fact.

Here's the thing, it isn't really though - a "mathematical fact". Your data is no data at all, your "math" is purely assumption and nerd-panic. Imperial Soup is not even "90% guard" and it did get worse. The mathematical fact is - you have NO data on the new codex, that is indisputable.

I don't need data on the new codex. It's simple logic. When you add rules and point cost reductions to things the get better. So any data that shows AM index winning also shows that AM codex would have won it even easier. It's pretty hard to argue with that logic - you can try if you want though. You will first need to show me how Lemon russ/manticores/basalisks got worse with the addition of army traits that let them reroll the number of shots they take and russes even getting double shots...and reducing in points at the same time. Youll also need to prove that conscripts got worse when they cost 3 points and can have multiple orders on them at the same time...The codex is a huge improvement on the index which was already such a good rule set that MOST imperial armies include more AM in them than their actual army. I understand why you assume nerd panic - probably because thats what you always assume. I can tell you - this time it's different. I've never seen such blatant disregard for balance - except in forge world.

For the record, I cannot say the new IG Codex is 'OP or not' with any certainty - but I know with indisputable fact that you have NO DATA, and your claims are total BS. You claimed "mathematical fact" ...that statement is just pure B.S.. Now you're saying Logic but again there is nothing to back up your loose theory...

Show me this data of "AM index winning" with the Imperial Soup parsed out... thing is, you can't do it. Show at least that same data versus more current Codex... thing is, you can't do it. Show that same data using just the NEW IG Codex... thing is, you can't do it.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I've never seen such blatant disregard for balance

Given GW's loooooooooooooooooooooong history of terrible balance, if this is the worst balanced book you've ever seen, how much did you play previous editions?. Are we going to say that the current IG codex is definitively less balanced than something like say...damn near the entirety of 7E as a whole (between Eldar & Necrons, Gladius, 2++ rerollable invisible deathstars, etc)? 4E Eldar and 3.5E CSM? 5E Space Wolves & GK's? 2E Eldar & Space Wolves? 6E Eldar & Tau? There's a very long list of broken books, I don't think anything has quite hit the levels of balance absurdity 7th peaked at.

IG have a mathematical advantage for sure. But how big is it? That's the question. A list like Bobby G 72 asscannon shots is pretty good at mitigating some of those advantages for sure as well.

I can tell you this: the gap between IG and UM is way smaller than IG and BA, and will probably remain so. So that's where I'm coming from.

Martel732 wrote:
IG have a mathematical advantage for sure. But how big is it? That's the question. A list like Bobby G 72 asscannon shots is pretty good at mitigating some of those advantages for sure as well.

I can tell you this: the gap between IG and UM is way smaller than IG and BA, and will probably remain so. So that's where I'm coming from.

BA are crap right now, is there anyone that disagrees? ...but they don't have a Codex. They're still using the "stop-gap" Index.

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
IG have a mathematical advantage for sure. But how big is it? That's the question. A list like Bobby G 72 asscannon shots is pretty good at mitigating some of those advantages for sure as well.

I can tell you this: the gap between IG and UM is way smaller than IG and BA, and will probably remain so. So that's where I'm coming from.

BA are crap right now, is there anyone that disagrees? ...but they don't have a Codex. They're still using the "stop-gap" Index.

I'm also projecting out what they're going to get based off the actual marine codex. It's not looking good. Lots of strategems to try to punch people = autofail in 8th.

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
IG have a mathematical advantage for sure. But how big is it? That's the question. A list like Bobby G 72 asscannon shots is pretty good at mitigating some of those advantages for sure as well.

I can tell you this: the gap between IG and UM is way smaller than IG and BA, and will probably remain so. So that's where I'm coming from.

BA are crap right now, is there anyone that disagrees? ...but they don't have a Codex. They're still using the "stop-gap" Index.

...What about my Codex.

You are proving my point for me. You attribute soup success to the units married with AM codex/index. While AM comprise 80-90% of the list in most cases. And you don't see players just replacing the AM elements with space marines or whatever other imperial faction you wish. It is always AM. Case and point. AM are OP.

I don't know what proofs you want? I can prove a lemon russ is more efficient than a preditor - that conscripts are more efficient than tactical marines. I can prove that a shadowsword has more firepower than a space marine falchion which is supposed to have 2 volcano cannons compared to one AND chapter traits can make it EVEN BETTER.

There is practically unlimited proof unless you are being willfully blind to it.

Martel732 wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
IG have a mathematical advantage for sure. But how big is it? That's the question. A list like Bobby G 72 asscannon shots is pretty good at mitigating some of those advantages for sure as well.

I can tell you this: the gap between IG and UM is way smaller than IG and BA, and will probably remain so. So that's where I'm coming from.

BA are crap right now, is there anyone that disagrees? ...but they don't have a Codex. They're still using the "stop-gap" Index.

I'm also projecting out what they're going to get based off the actual marine codex. It's not looking good. Lots of strategems to try to punch people = autofail in 8th.

I haven't seen any rumors but I wouldn't be surprised... until then though - you could always take Celestine! ...she's as much a Blood Angel as she is an Astra Militarum.

From the BA strat thread:

"BA have nice options than flyers spam. "

"I've found death company have performed fairly well, as long as they're not over-equipped. They can be equipped as ASM with boltguns and more attacks, and they're fairly good at being that."

"I love my inferno pistols. They do so much work for me."

"'ve been really happy with using the following:

The Sanguinor (6" +1A Bubble)
Chaplain (Reroll failed hits in Fight Phase)
Brother Corbulo (+1 S, on to hit rolls of 6 you generate another Attack) "

Yeah, people disagree, Gunzhard.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
IG have a mathematical advantage for sure. But how big is it? That's the question. A list like Bobby G 72 asscannon shots is pretty good at mitigating some of those advantages for sure as well.

I can tell you this: the gap between IG and UM is way smaller than IG and BA, and will probably remain so. So that's where I'm coming from.

BA are crap right now, is there anyone that disagrees? ...but they don't have a Codex. They're still using the "stop-gap" Index.

I'm also projecting out what they're going to get based off the actual marine codex. It's not looking good. Lots of strategems to try to punch people = autofail in 8th.

I haven't seen any rumors but I wouldn't be surprised... until then though - you could always take Celestine! ...she's as much a Blood Angel as she is an Astra Militarum.

I honestly don't see how she helps at all. She's not very killy, and she can't lock anything in CC. What I need are wyches I guess.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Quickjager wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
IG have a mathematical advantage for sure. But how big is it? That's the question. A list like Bobby G 72 asscannon shots is pretty good at mitigating some of those advantages for sure as well.

I can tell you this: the gap between IG and UM is way smaller than IG and BA, and will probably remain so. So that's where I'm coming from.

BA are crap right now, is there anyone that disagrees? ...but they don't have a Codex. They're still using the "stop-gap" Index.

...What about my Codex.

Yeah, it sucks. I'm actually feeling bad for GK, and after 5th, I NEVER thought I'd say that.

 Xenomancers wrote:
You are proving my point for me. You attribute soup success to the units married with AM codex/index. While AM comprise 80-90% of the list in most cases. And you don't see players just replacing the AM elements with space marines or whatever other imperial faction you wish. It is always AM. Case and point. AM are OP.

I don't know what proofs you want? I can prove a lemon russ is more efficient than a preditor - that conscripts are more efficient than tactical marines. I can prove that a shadowsword has more firepower than a space marine falchion which is supposed to have 2 volcano cannons compared to one AND chapter traits can make it EVEN BETTER.

There is practically unlimited proof unless you are being willfully blind to it.

Let's get this out of the way - you may be right about the Codex's power level eventually - but you clearly have no idea what the words "mathematical" and "fact" mean.

Where are you getting these numbers now, 80-90% of mostly AM? ...where are you getting the "data" on what people are replacing units with other units on? You cannot prove ANYTHING you are saying hah.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I've never seen such blatant disregard for balance

Given GW's loooooooooooooooooooooong history of terrible balance, if this is the worst balanced book you've ever seen, how much did you play previous editions?. Are we going to say that the current IG codex is definitively less balanced than something like say...damn near the entirety of 7E as a whole (between Eldar & Necrons, Gladius, 2++ rerollable invisible deathstars, etc)? 4E Eldar and 3.5E CSM? 5E Space Wolves & GK's? 2E Eldar & Space Wolves? 6E Eldar & Tau? There's a very long list of broken books, I don't think anything has quite hit the levels of balance absurdity 7th peaked at.

2++ reroll stars weren't blatant - they were more subtle. It doesn't just jump right out of the page at you. You had to do a little research to really find the combo. IG stuff is out of the box so much better and clear right in front of you...I didn't play second edition man I'm not sure I was alive yet. I was born in 86 - was I alive yet? I starting in 3rd or 4th edition and didn't get serious about the game until 5th. I saw the blood angels then and the GK then. They were really powerful but the gap was not like this. IG right now should basically never lose a game if they build the right list.

2nd ed tyranids. 2nd ed CSM.

 Xenomancers wrote:
IG right now should basically never lose a game if they build the right list.

I don't think anyone is denying IG aren't really strong and got a boost from the Index to the Codex...but hyperbole like this is ridiculous and does nothing to further the conversation.

People said the exact same things when Eldar and Tau got their books in 6th and 7th. All of this had happened before and will happen again.

Posting nonsense like they'll never ever lose is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on dakka, and I witnessed the birth of the CRASSUS meme.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
You are proving my point for me. You attribute soup success to the units married with AM codex/index. While AM comprise 80-90% of the list in most cases. And you don't see players just replacing the AM elements with space marines or whatever other imperial faction you wish. It is always AM. Case and point. AM are OP.

I don't know what proofs you want? I can prove a lemon russ is more efficient than a preditor - that conscripts are more efficient than tactical marines. I can prove that a shadowsword has more firepower than a space marine falchion which is supposed to have 2 volcano cannons compared to one AND chapter traits can make it EVEN BETTER.

There is practically unlimited proof unless you are being willfully blind to it.

Let's get this out of the way - you may be right about the Codex's power level eventually - but you clearly have no idea what the words "mathematical" and "fact" mean.

Where are you getting these numbers now, 80-90% of mostly AM? ...where are you getting the "data" on what people are replacing units with other units on? You cannot prove ANYTHING you are saying hah.

Are you disagreeing with me that imperial soup lists aren't mostly imperial guard? I am confused...what is your angle here? are you trying to confuse me with semantics?

Lets clear this up right now. Are tournament winning soup lists mostly imperial guard or something else? Because them being mostly imperial guard is something I would call a fact. The data that they are winning more than other armies I would also call a fact.

Martel732 wrote:

Yeah, it sucks. I'm actually feeling bad for GK, and after 5th, I NEVER thought I'd say that.

Haha. Yeah.

i'm at the crossroads. Do i go balls deep into buying IG and AM to round out GK, or just wait for the next primarch to drop and collect something completely different? If Angron drops i'm done with GK for sure.

The biggest insult is our psychic powers... and those won't change until 9th at the earliest.

Martel732 wrote:
2nd ed tyranids. 2nd ed CSM.

2nd ed Eldar, 3rd edition Blood Angels (prior to TAR), 3.5 CSM codex, 4th ed Tyranids for a spell, 5th edition BA had a short window on top but GK were good for longer, 7th edition Eldar was probably the most broken I've seen in all of the editions.

I'm waiting to see how the GK do... our GK player seems to think they're great but from the Internet (the least reasonable source) they do sound pretty nerfed.

BA in 8th were bad when it was just all Index armies, and even worse now - unfortunately the FTG guys are involved again, so the Codex will likely also suck.

 Marmatag wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

Yeah, it sucks. I'm actually feeling bad for GK, and after 5th, I NEVER thought I'd say that.

Haha. Yeah.

i'm at the crossroads. Do i go balls deep into buying IG and AM to round out GK, or just wait for the next primarch to drop and collect something completely different? If Angron drops i'm done with GK for sure.

The biggest insult is our psychic powers... and those won't change until 9th at the earliest.

You're always safest just playing/building something you enjoy. The power shifts too often to bandwagon, unless you have and like to spend all that cash money. Its not ideal when certain factions get hosed. GW has a long history of shoddy balance and it benefits no one.

 Blacksails wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
IG right now should basically never lose a game if they build the right list.

I don't think anyone is denying IG aren't really strong and got a boost from the Index to the Codex...but hyperbole like this is ridiculous and does nothing to further the conversation.

People said the exact same things when Eldar and Tau got their books in 6th and 7th. All of this had happened before and will happen again.

Posting nonsense like they'll never ever lose is probably one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on dakka, and I witnessed the birth of the CRASSUS meme.

No this is progress to me...you agree that the AM codex is OP? to what degree yet you aren't certain? I think we are closer in opinion than you think then. I think this is worse than 7th eldar and 6th tau though. way worse than 5th GK.

I refuse to buy conscripts. I refuse to accept that untrained guardsmen are better BA than BA at pushing objectives.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
2nd ed tyranids. 2nd ed CSM.

2nd ed Eldar, 3rd edition Blood Angels (prior to TAR), 3.5 CSM codex, 4th ed Tyranids for a spell, 5th edition BA had a short window on top but GK were good for longer, 7th edition Eldar was probably the most broken I've seen in all of the editions.

I'm waiting to see how the GK do... our GK player seems to think they're great but from the Internet (the least reasonable source) they do sound pretty nerfed.

BA in 8th were bad when it was just all Index armies, and even worse now - unfortunately the FTG guys are involved again, so the Codex will likely also suck.

I 90% agree, except 5th ed BA were never truly above IG or SW. But they WERE damn good.