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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The differences between tanks and artillery aren't represented in this game anymore. Lasguns wound wyverns and fellblades at the same rate.

Yeah, you're right. Sure do miss when my artillery could fire indirectly and the tanks couldn't.

Those were the times.

Oh wait.

Indirect fire is not the main difference between mobile artillery and tanks. The difference is armor. The difference in armor between mobile artillery and tanks is negligible in 40k 8th - they are essentially the same thing - heck tanks and walkers aren't any different ether in terms of armor.

except the units in question (in terms of the game) are not artillery. Ork Big guns are Artillery (have the keyword and everything). Tanks don't even really exist in this edition as far as the game is concerned. The answer to "I want to play a tank company" is still Guard, because they have the widest variety of effective armored units, and overall still has the best tanks unless that person just want to run Predators and nothing else (all other marine tanks are terrible, unless land raiders are also tanks despite being transports) I'm also pretty sure that in previous editions things like the Chimera (and its variations) had the tank keyword. So in game it is not the same as saying "go play a different faction" If you are saying I like these 4 units and they suck, I feel for you and they should be viable. But in a discussion of power among what are "tanks" in the game of 40k guard largely has the best selection of effective "armored vehicles" filling the tank role.

RogueApiary wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Upping points across the board for IG is an adequate solution, provided we see what Regiment rules they will get. But without Regiment rules, I don't think they're worth 5ppm.

Are you serious?

Name the guard infantry unit that isn't better than equivalently priced units in other armies. Legitimately curious. I've got ogryns... and that's really about it.

Name a Guard character unit that IS better than an equivalently priced unit in other armies. Guard have good, cheap infantry because we don't have access to gak like Magnus or the Yncarne. FFS, Marines have a better MAIN BATTLE TANK than we do.

Super-heavy tanks are your equivalent units. Speaking of beast HQ's...can't you take HQ tanks that bosts their BS and give orders and stuff whilst having better toughness and weapon selection than marine predators?

The super heavies are garbage compared to Magnus. You literally can't move them or you hit on 5's and the second the enemy does the equivalent of a Leman Russ' damage they can pretty much be ignored the rest of the game since then they hit on 5's standing still and 6's on the move.

Oh, you mean the HQ tank that never sees turn one (turn 2 if I'm really lucky) in a tournament game even when I find a piece of terrain big enough to hide it because any competent player has the tools to alpha strike it? And T8 looks the same to a Lascannon as T7 btw so that really only helps against Eldar Lances, and even then not by much.

I've taken Leman Russ Tank Commanders and Pask to two tournaments now. They don't work. It's 243/253 points (more with demo cannon or multi/plas sponsons) for something that gets crippled/killed before it can even bring it's guns to bear. Theres a reason none of the top AM lists are taking these 'beast HQ' tanks or any tanks for that matter.

Should have used battle cannon. btw the reason IG are winning lots of games is because conscripts counter every viable strategy to get to undercosted tanks/artillery shooting over walls. This is why russes aren't used. They don't shoot over walls - which means losing is a possibility. The russ itself isn't any better or worse off than a predator. They are in the same ballpark.

In this topic, people not understanding that when people say X is the best unit, they mean for its point cost.

inb4 someone says Khorne Lord of Skulls is the best tank/artillery/jellyfish.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

drbored wrote:
The solution for conscripts is a simple one:
-Orders and Commissar effects do not effect Conscripts.

Why not just remove the Conscript entry from the IG book?

Your suggestion amounts to the same thing.

If you think no one would run conscripts that can't take orders, you should look at Cultists.

Breng77 wrote:
Mantacore is 69 points cheaper than the Quad Las pred, has longer range, higher strength, does not need LOS, and has more shots on average. I can run 3 for every 2 predators you bring.

Basilisks are 94 points less, has longer range, same strength, does not need LOS and has ~ the same shots on average, I can essentially field 2 for every predator you run.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
Except when you look at durability, and behind a conscript screen out of range or LOS, the IG tanks are far superior.

Sure, in the magical land of "50% of the gameboard is protected from line of sight at all times from all angles no matter what", a scenario which doesn't actually exist no matter how much people bitch and whine and moan that it does.

You don't need 50% you need about 5% to hide a few of these tanks, + their long range.

Higher strength means feth all past str 9. Most everything gets wounded on 3's at that point. The Manticore also does less damage and has worse AP.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
The differences between tanks and artillery aren't represented in this game anymore. Lasguns wound wyverns and fellblades at the same rate.

Yeah, you're right. Sure do miss when my artillery could fire indirectly and the tanks couldn't.

Those were the times.

Oh wait.

Indirect fire is not the main difference between mobile artillery and tanks. The difference is armor. The difference in armor between mobile artillery and tanks is negligible in 40k 8th - they are essentially the same thing - heck tanks and walkers aren't any different ether in terms of armor.

I... disagree completely.

The main difference is armour because the artillery can afford to have thinner armour, since getting into direct combat is not a design consideration because the entire vehicle is designed around indirect fire.

You're saying "the difference is armour" but that's one step too removed. "Why the difference in armour?" Well, because they're designed for different things - and that different things is indirect vs direct fire.

Gotta love IG players - they will actually try to convince you a manticore is bad...it's like they havn't even looked at a Nightspinner. Which is +36 points - has a way worse weapon - BUT is the most cost efficient weapon in the entire eldar codex....

 Xenomancers wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Upping points across the board for IG is an adequate solution, provided we see what Regiment rules they will get. But without Regiment rules, I don't think they're worth 5ppm.

Are you serious?

Name the guard infantry unit that isn't better than equivalently priced units in other armies. Legitimately curious. I've got ogryns... and that's really about it.

Name a Guard character unit that IS better than an equivalently priced unit in other armies. Guard have good, cheap infantry because we don't have access to gak like Magnus or the Yncarne. FFS, Marines have a better MAIN BATTLE TANK than we do.

Super-heavy tanks are your equivalent units. Speaking of beast HQ's...can't you take HQ tanks that bosts their BS and give orders and stuff whilst having better toughness and weapon selection than marine predators?

The super heavies are garbage compared to Magnus. You literally can't move them or you hit on 5's and the second the enemy does the equivalent of a Leman Russ' damage they can pretty much be ignored the rest of the game since then they hit on 5's standing still and 6's on the move.

Oh, you mean the HQ tank that never sees turn one (turn 2 if I'm really lucky) in a tournament game even when I find a piece of terrain big enough to hide it because any competent player has the tools to alpha strike it? And T8 looks the same to a Lascannon as T7 btw so that really only helps against Eldar Lances, and even then not by much.

I've taken Leman Russ Tank Commanders and Pask to two tournaments now. They don't work. It's 243/253 points (more with demo cannon or multi/plas sponsons) for something that gets crippled/killed before it can even bring it's guns to bear. Theres a reason none of the top AM lists are taking these 'beast HQ' tanks or any tanks for that matter.

Should have used battle cannon

Saving 18 points for a weaker gun doesnt solve the problem of the tank not living past turn 2. Why would I spend 12-15% of my points on a unit that MIGHT get to shoot twice?

The only tank I've seen do any good is the Relic Falchion. Survivable enough to live to shoot and can almost drop an Imperial Knight in a single turn on average.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone said "conscripts are fine."

I think people are usually willing to give nerfs to conscripts one way or another; for example, I am okay with removing orders.

What those of us "defending" Conscripts were defending against was not "nerf conscripts" but rather "Nerf conscripts so hard they're back to uselessness."

Another nerf I'd be okay with, for example, is making them 1 per 2 infantry squads, like they used to be. Another is making them lose D6 instead of 1 for the Summary Execution ability.

But more than 1 of those nerfs at a time is ridiculous imo.

Oh the irony. I made this exact same argument back in 7th for Tau not being a strong faction just the Riptide Wing and the Stormsurge and the mob clearly came and gutted the dex anyways. Despite how sweet it would be to do the same I agree. I want them nerfed but not so they are the worst unit in the dex. I doubt they will see competitive play (because 8th has a big spam issue) but in casual games they should be okay tier. It they can find a way to keep them viable without being OP that is fine as well.

I just hope people can be fair about Tau balancing changes in the future.

They're a xeno shooty army, its not going to happen.

 Xenomancers wrote:
Gotta love IG players - they will actually try to convince you a manticore is bad...it's like they havn't even looked at a Nightspinner. Which is +36 points - has a way worse weapon - BUT is the most cost efficient weapon in the entire eldar codex....

Hey keep misrepresenting my arguments some more. I never said it was bad, I said saying it has higher strength than a las pred is meaningless when you factor in the LC's better AP and damage because the to wound rolls are identical against everything but T9 and T5, which are not super common.

I hate to talking about something on topic, as you guys seem to be having so much fun talking about your own thing... but anywho -

The Taurox Prime seems to be a rather underpriced bit of kit. And this becomes even more obvious when that guy has bought 5 of them as "transports" to a fight, where not one single unit in his army seems to be able to actually ride one.

As far as I am aware, only Tempestus troops can ride a Taurox Prime, or an Inquisitor, and he has none of either of those in his list. So he's paying for a transport just for its weaponry... which basically means that the Prime is worth it's points for weaponry and toughness alone, and gets a 10-person transport capacity for free.

Would seem the Prime needs a massive nerf, or a big points increase.

Conscripts should be the worst infantry in the book. They are conscripts! They should be there to be bullet shields and should not be overshadowing the rest of the army, who are the trained guardsmen.
I like the suggestion above that the Commissar kills a conscript to use his leadership. I also like the other ideas of double morale losses for them and they in no way should be able to receive orders.
As long as they are better guardsmen than the Guardsman are, there is an issue. The orders should be one of those things that define the discipline as well as something for morale. Rabble won't stay around long no matter if you shoot one or not if things go too far sideways.

The Taurox Prime is definitely out of line compared to both the Chimera and the standard Taurox.

Some adjustments I'd consider on that front:

TPrime to 70 points from current 65

Chimera to 70 points from current 75

Allow standard Taurox to take the taurox gatling gun

Multilaser to ~7-8 points from 10

Restore 2 firing ports to Chimera

As you can see I tend to favor small adjustments, but in general that should push all three transport options a bit closer together.

After how with Chaos Marines Codex and FAQ's GW buffed the worst units in the Chaos Range and nerfed the ones that deserved it (Like Brimstones) I'm confident that GW will nerf conscripts ,Tempestus, etc... but buff the units that aren't good like Leman Russes.

 Galas wrote:
After how with Chaos Marines Codex and FAQ's GW buffed the worst units in the Chaos Range and nerfed the ones that deserved it (Like Brimstones) I'm confident that GW will nerf conscripts ,Tempestus, etc... but buff the units that aren't good like Leman Russes.

Yeah they seem to mostly be on top of things for once.

Though i forget if girlyman is still on the op tourny must take side of things.

I gotta be honest...I don't like the idea of conscripts anymore. If I could, I'd do away with them altogether.

But since I can't, I suggest limiting their numbers to 20 per squad.

 Gamgee wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone said "conscripts are fine."

I think people are usually willing to give nerfs to conscripts one way or another; for example, I am okay with removing orders.

What those of us "defending" Conscripts were defending against was not "nerf conscripts" but rather "Nerf conscripts so hard they're back to uselessness."

Another nerf I'd be okay with, for example, is making them 1 per 2 infantry squads, like they used to be. Another is making them lose D6 instead of 1 for the Summary Execution ability.

But more than 1 of those nerfs at a time is ridiculous imo.

Oh the irony. I made this exact same argument back in 7th for Tau not being a strong faction just the Riptide Wing and the Stormsurge and the mob clearly came and gutted the dex anyways. Despite how sweet it would be to do the same I agree. I want them nerfed but not so they are the worst unit in the dex. I doubt they will see competitive play (because 8th has a big spam issue) but in casual games they should be okay tier. It they can find a way to keep them viable without being OP that is fine as well.

I just hope people can be fair about Tau balancing changes in the future.

You post this in every thread but Tau are still one of the best factions in the game. Just because you choose to ignore the best units in the codex because it doesn't match your playstyle or collection doesn't mean they aren't good.

It has literally been proven with recorded competitive data that Tau are a top faction. There's no opinion involved.

And I would LOVE to have a unit as effective & efficient as commanders in my GK codex. I would absolutely love it. And people would cry all day that GK are OP. And I'd say, "oh, but i can't spam the garbage in my codex and win, therefore GK are bad," all the while, GK are dominating tournaments coast to coast and internationally.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone said "conscripts are fine."

I think people are usually willing to give nerfs to conscripts one way or another; for example, I am okay with removing orders.

What those of us "defending" Conscripts were defending against was not "nerf conscripts" but rather "Nerf conscripts so hard they're back to uselessness."

Another nerf I'd be okay with, for example, is making them 1 per 2 infantry squads, like they used to be. Another is making them lose D6 instead of 1 for the Summary Execution ability.

But more than 1 of those nerfs at a time is ridiculous imo.

Oh the irony. I made this exact same argument back in 7th for Tau not being a strong faction just the Riptide Wing and the Stormsurge and the mob clearly came and gutted the dex anyways. Despite how sweet it would be to do the same I agree. I want them nerfed but not so they are the worst unit in the dex. I doubt they will see competitive play (because 8th has a big spam issue) but in casual games they should be okay tier. It they can find a way to keep them viable without being OP that is fine as well.

I just hope people can be fair about Tau balancing changes in the future.

You post this in every thread but Tau are still one of the best factions in the game. Just because you choose to ignore the best units in the codex because it doesn't match your playstyle or collection doesn't mean they aren't good.

It has literally been proven with recorded competitive data that Tau are a top faction. There's no opinion involved.

And I would LOVE to have a unit as effective & efficient as commanders in my GK codex. I would absolutely love it. And people would cry all day that GK are OP. And I'd say, "oh, but i can't spam the garbage in my codex and win, therefore GK are bad," all the while, GK are dominating tournaments coast to coast and internationally.

Tau have an abhorrent internal balance. I know that as you don't play Tau, you don't care about that and only about their external balance. That Commanders are OP I can agree with. But as a Tau player, personally I want internal balance for my Codex. So yes, Is totally legitimate to say that Tau need to be fixed just like Tyranid in 7th needed even when Flyrant being pretty OP.
Sorry that I'm not of the crow of "edition-hotness" and I don't like to use my crisis suits as 10 Commanders.
But this is offtopic, so I'll leave this here.

 Galas wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I don't think anyone said "conscripts are fine."

I think people are usually willing to give nerfs to conscripts one way or another; for example, I am okay with removing orders.

What those of us "defending" Conscripts were defending against was not "nerf conscripts" but rather "Nerf conscripts so hard they're back to uselessness."

Another nerf I'd be okay with, for example, is making them 1 per 2 infantry squads, like they used to be. Another is making them lose D6 instead of 1 for the Summary Execution ability.

But more than 1 of those nerfs at a time is ridiculous imo.

Oh the irony. I made this exact same argument back in 7th for Tau not being a strong faction just the Riptide Wing and the Stormsurge and the mob clearly came and gutted the dex anyways. Despite how sweet it would be to do the same I agree. I want them nerfed but not so they are the worst unit in the dex. I doubt they will see competitive play (because 8th has a big spam issue) but in casual games they should be okay tier. It they can find a way to keep them viable without being OP that is fine as well.

I just hope people can be fair about Tau balancing changes in the future.

You post this in every thread but Tau are still one of the best factions in the game. Just because you choose to ignore the best units in the codex because it doesn't match your playstyle or collection doesn't mean they aren't good.

It has literally been proven with recorded competitive data that Tau are a top faction. There's no opinion involved.

And I would LOVE to have a unit as effective & efficient as commanders in my GK codex. I would absolutely love it. And people would cry all day that GK are OP. And I'd say, "oh, but i can't spam the garbage in my codex and win, therefore GK are bad," all the while, GK are dominating tournaments coast to coast and internationally.

Tau have an abhorrent internal balance. I know that as you don't play Tau, you don't care about that and only about their external balance. That Commanders are OP I can agree with. But as a Tau player, personally I want internal balance for my Codex. So yes, Is totally legitimate to say that Tau need to be fixed just like Tyranid in 7th needed even when Flyrant being pretty OP.
Sorry that I'm not of the crow of "edition-hotness" and I don't like to use my crisis suits as 10 Commanders.
But this is offtopic, so I'll leave this here.

Hear hear. The data shows it's only Tau commanders + drones + troops being spammed and it's clearly falling in effectiveness as people adapt to their one note trick. Not all of us want 2-3 commanders in a casual list just to stand a chance and far more in comp lists. The internal balance for casual play is so bad it's ridiculous. Except you never once will admit that because you don't really care about balancing anything. I'm not some fair weather balance person here I'm trying to make serious balance suggestions for the long term that will stick. I was right on board with Tyranid buffs in 7th and supported Ork buffs and much more alongside my Tau balance changes. Heck I'll admit I was wrong when I thought Necrons were too strong in 8th they could use some small buffs too.

In line with my preference for small adjustments, the most I would consider is putting them behind a platoon-style structure (ie 2 infantry squads for 1 conscript squad, which would handily boot them out of soup lists), or having them roll to pass orders.

Doing both would be too much at once, completely removing orders is entirely too far, and ripping out their spine (ie making the commissar useless to them) would mean no conscript would ever touch the table for the rest of the edition.

And these massive combi-nerfs where people want to give them a price hike, remove orders, remove the commissar, remove their armor, and make them take double battleshock at the same time? Those are right out. If you did all that they'd struggle to be worth 1 point, much less 3 or the proposed 4.

 Gamgee wrote:

Hear hear. The data shows it's only Tau commanders + drones + troops being spammed and it's clearly falling in effectiveness as people adapt to their one note trick. Not all of us want 2-3 commanders in a casual list just to stand a chance and far more in comp lists. The internal balance for casual play is so bad it's ridiculous. Except you never once will admit that because you don't really care about balancing anything. I'm not some fair weather balance person here I'm trying to make serious balance suggestions for the long term that will stick. I was right on board with Tyranid buffs in 7th and supported Ork buffs and much more alongside my Tau balance changes. Heck I'll admit I was wrong when I thought Necrons were too strong in 8th they could use some small buffs too.

To be fair

most of these power level comparisons are based off the competitive results

the kinda place where people used to one trick triple riptides and other power lists in the first place.

so commander spam is to be expected.

Right but we need to get to the heart of the issue then and that is 8th has no safeguard against spam lists. There is no CAD from 7th days that everyone must conform too or something to take its place and limit certain selections.

I think that only a single detachment should be allowed to be used for tournament level games and everyone has to use the same one. All the other one's should be for open play. This is the most obvious way to get a balanced army is by giving everyone similar amounts of things.

Also I do realise that Desu and will not continue that topic as it is off topic in this thread.

They may go the route that AoS did and only allow 20% of your army as allies and you can only choose one alliance.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Conscripts should be the worst infantry in the book. They are conscripts! They should be there to be bullet shields and should not be overshadowing the rest of the army, who are the trained guardsmen.
I like the suggestion above that the Commissar kills a conscript to use his leadership. I also like the other ideas of double morale losses for them and they in no way should be able to receive orders.
As long as they are better guardsmen than the Guardsman are, there is an issue. The orders should be one of those things that define the discipline as well as something for morale. Rabble won't stay around long no matter if you shoot one or not if things go too far sideways.

Have you actually played against/with conscripts? You regularly lose 15+ in a turn. Against a Cawl ball, you lose 30+. Making them Ld 8 after killing a conscript as you suggest still causes you to lose 23 in the latter scenario and 8 in the former BEFORE you even roll the D6 during the morale phase. Now if we stack your double morale losses suggestion onto that, there'd be no point bringing Conscripts except in blocks of 50, and even that would be questionable.

If GW listens to most of you, they might as well just not release an am codex. Good lord.

 Gamgee wrote:
Right but we need to get to the heart of the issue then and that is 8th has no safeguard against spam lists. There is no CAD from 7th days that everyone must conform too or something to take its place and limit certain selections.

I think that only a single detachment should be allowed to be used for tournament level games and everyone has to use the same one. All the other one's should be for open play. This is the most obvious way to get a balanced army is by giving everyone similar amounts of things.

Also I do realise that Desu and will not continue that topic as it is off topic in this thread.

Do you even understand what you're saying here?

There absolutely is a "safeguard against spam lists". There are detachments with specific numbers of slots, etc.

 Gamgee wrote:
Right but we need to get to the heart of the issue then and that is 8th has no safeguard against spam lists. There is no CAD from 7th days that everyone must conform too or something to take its place and limit certain selections.

I think that only a single detachment should be allowed to be used for tournament level games and everyone has to use the same one. All the other one's should be for open play. This is the most obvious way to get a balanced army is by giving everyone similar amounts of things.

Also I do realise that Desu and will not continue that topic as it is off topic in this thread.

You'd need to bring back platoons then, because there'd be no way to fit a remotely competitive Guard army in a single detachment assuming you made Battalion the standard matched play detachment for everybody. You cant make Brigade the standard because theres a ton of armies that cant even come close to filling the slots before running over points. If anything, just drop the recommended detachment number from 3 to 2 at the 2k level. Still offers list building flexibility and makes brigade more attractive as a means to get more slots.

I know, but currently there are too many of them. You can take a vanguard detachment and get as much of that slot as you need for example.

There needs to be only a single detachment and an allied detachment again like in 7th and everyone and every race has to adhere to it for maximum balance.