Arachnofiend wrote:

 Arbitrator wrote:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
Maybe Guard just need to suck again I guess, to return balance to the universe or some dumb crap.

There's a huge chunk of the fanbase who want anything that's not loyalist Space Marines to be worthless.

Remember it was only at the tail end of 7th that "CSM players still need to suffer for 3.5 being good" began to end.

I can't wait for the Tau/Eldar codex. It could be total crap, but there'll still be people insisting it needs nerfing to the dirt.

This victim complex needs to stop. Not everyone who sees the issues with Guard plays loyalist marines, and I'm sure that not everyone who plays loyalist marines just wants everything else to be bad. Just assuming that everyone who disagrees with you is arguing in bad faith is a terrible way to participate in a discussion.

Azuza001 wrote:
Personally I wish they would have kept the limits in. Remember when IG used to have platoons, and a single troop choice was a company command squad and 2 squads of infantry? I think if they had gone that route it may have fixed some things, like for conscripts if you want a squad it's a 0-1 option per infantry platoon and it doesn't count towards the base 2 infantry squads needed to count as a platoon. Stuff like that.

And yeah, I don't feel good playing my IG at the moment either. My solution is if I am playing them I ask my opponent of they are OK with it, and if so I will continue to play from the index. This has worked ok so far for us as I don't use conscripts, but it's not an optimal solution. I mean we should not have to make things worse to make them more balanced. And there is some cool stuff in the codex that is fine, the scions change, and the change to the russes seem balanced and fine to us, seems fluffy enough. But too much seems not well thought out. And hoping for chapter approved or an Errata to fix the problems is probably not going to happen.

 Trickstick wrote:
A general question for everyone: what does a "not op" Guard list look like now? People all have an opinion on what is or is not balanced but what sort of list do you think would be a good match up for your force? What would you be ok with seeing across the table and not baulk at facing?

Niiru wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
A general question for everyone: what does a "not op" Guard list look like now? People all have an opinion on what is or is not balanced but what sort of list do you think would be a good match up for your force? What would you be ok with seeing across the table and not baulk at facing?

Going just from what gets the most complaints on here at the moment... no conscripts, no superheavies, no named characters. Though to be honest a lot of problems with 40k can be removed by playing without named characters, which is pretty much how it has been for as long as I can remember. Special characters have always been game breaking more often than not.

Actually, unusually, in 8th edition the characters I know of from Orks and Eldar are actually not that powerful. They're pretty much fine. It's only been the imperial ones that have been... too much. Though orks and eldar are still index characters, so they may get stupid buffs when they get a codex. Hope not.

Please prove your point and go over the long history of 40k and how special characters have been more game breaking than not. Please do tell.

Sigh, forgot this was Dakka for a second there. I should have added "in my experience". There.

But it's hardly a long stretch to look back over various special character rules, and see how much more powerful many named characters were compared to the standard "non-special" HQ choices.

Yoda79 wrote:

ThePorcupine wrote:
Reasonable discussion? The dude lives for hyperbole. He even suggested people not play or buy their codex to protest GW. What reasonable discussion do you think can come out of him?

Many many people on this forum have a huge hate boner for armies they don't like; armies they perceive to be better than their army. Guard got a shiny new codex and he expected them to sweep every tournament. But lo and behold they're simply competitive, just like chaos, just like marines, just like sisters of battle, and harlequins, and even friggin' ORKS. If those tournament results show anything, it's a very HEALTHY competitive scene. One list isn't dominating everything. In fact, no list is the same. That's incredible! Now are all armies represented? Unfortunately no. And that's a shame, but it's a hell of a lot better than it's been in the past.

So since he couldn't reasonably rant about Guard being OP, he redirects his anger with some non-sensical "community is too tolerant and doesn't demand serious codexes!" rant. Like... what? Community doesn't demand serious codexes? What the hell does that even mean? The community was absolutely doing that. There were numerous threads about what the most OP units are and ideas on how to reign them in.

And, by the way, I think it's silly that the community was so enraged at OP russ tanks and superheavies but I don't see those in that tournament list.

<edit> As you can see, I'm a little riled up about this as well. I'm weary of people screaming that the sky is falling. The title of this very thread assumes that Guard is making a mess of tournaments. It's oh so tiring.

I will say what I want and I won't answer to you pleb. Nor anyone give you the right to proclaim you are better than anyone else or your opinion better. You should not be here junkie. And if you can't stop supporting junk then you are no good for any society. Learn to be demanding in your life but I guess from what I see you are just not worth it. Ignored . And that goes to anyone that don't like it . Mute or don't read. We are not all the same !!

brother_b wrote:
So the codex being out 1 week and we can't make any determination about the power of the IG.

A small tournament and all of a sudden the codex looks balanced?

Personally, I think that Tournaments are a horrible place to discuss the "balance" of a codex or army. Soup and specialized and gimmick armies seem all the rage.

The real problem is going to be playing with friends or others at gaming groups or gaming stores; it's going to be playing the small time unofficial tournament or the battle raged across the kitchen table.

For every 1 tournament games there are literally 1000s of regular games played I'd wager. I can tell you with facing the codex that I can not deal with armor and bodies... I don't know how to counter that.

And that, my friend's, is the power of guard. No weaknesses. I'd be more interested in finding a "what works" post than a "bitch about guard/apologize about guard" post.

So, what works?

 Gunzhard wrote:
What's embarrassing actually is the nerd panic "Sky is falling" freak out we get with every edition, and probably every 3rd or 4th codex release - since the dawn of 40k.

Fact is, (yes the fact) there is no real data yet. It's too early.

It might be broken as heck, but nothing is "obvious" yet, and frankly I think new Death Guard can do all the things people are crying about, just as well or better.

They have several great options for bubble wrap, durable as heck troops and armor.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

Kdash wrote:

Niiru wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:
Other dominant lists I've seen from other tourneys that occurred this weekend (though they were only 3 rounds):

SoCal Open Primer was won by Brandon Grant using a Conscript spam (iirc he won the NOVA Open too, using a similar list) - list.

Lords of War 15 was won by a Malefic Lord spamming Renegades and Heretics list.

Anyone know any of the entries from the ongoing first heat of the GT in nottingham? The only lists I know of are the ones from GW employees that are taking part.

Lawrence from Tabletop Tactics won heat 1 using BobbyG and Assault Cannon Razorback spam essentially. He basically tabled or got max points in every single game throughout the event. (In fact the top 6 players going into the final game were all on max points)
Those lists were -
1 x SoB
1 x Raven Guard
1 x Chaos
2 x BobbyG Ultramarines
1 BobbyG and Celestine

(If I’m remembering the above incorrectly, feel free to update!)
The Raven Guard list beat a BobbyG list in the final game due to it being the Relic (why why why is this still part of tournaments?) and he managed to seize. Basically, meant the Smurfs couldn’t win right from the first turn. Was an interesting Raven Guard list though – Interecessors, Agressors and Dreadnoughts (2 Contemptors, 1 Contemptor Mortis and 1 Mortis), Hellblasters and a Primaris Captain and Librarian along with a Stormtalon. I think a lot of people were surprised it won all 5 games with max points.

One thing to note – Lawrence managed to table an Astra Militarum list in 4 turns in game 4. It was a Super Heavy spam list I believe.

From what I gather there was only 1 Dark Eldar, 1 Ork, 1 Harlequin list there. I don’t think there were any Tau or Eldar. There were 2 pure Admech lists as well that apparently did reasonably. There were however lots of Magnus, Mortarion and BobbyG lists. Over 20% of the lists were Space Marines (1st and last place went to the Marines )

Warhammer Community will be posting a load of details and stats from the event over the course of this week apparently.

Thanks for this.

But some of these replies...let me make sure I understand this. Multiple sets of data come out which do not support the hypothesis that the IG codex is obviously, gamebreakingly OP and some just want to ignore that because it doesn't fit the feels? I will gladly grant that it isn't enough data to conclude anything but that was the point all along. People in the opposite camp were absolutely sure that we did not need to wait for data because the IG was obviously OP. Now, data contrary to the idea comes out and we are suddenly being told we need to wait for more?

It's totally correct to say this proves nothing and more data is needed, but that stance is totally contrary to what was being said before these results came in.

Edit: And I'm pretty sure that if an IG player had won one of these tournaments that would be "all the data we needed".

Darkagl1 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I find it funny that the imperial guard cheesepologists don't understand the concept of a sample size. One tournament means nothing. A feth ton of tournament data does

Except that one tournament is more data than you have for asserting they're broken.