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.

 lolman1c wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
I don't think anything has yet went up in price going from Index to Codex. If anything they might have dropped in price due to how bad they were perceived to be.

Dude, IG has been perceived as the strongest army in this edition! Who told them they were poor?

Alot of other units such as Russes, Chimera's, Vets, etc were very overpriced for output and staying power.

 BrookM wrote:
Anything on the stream about the Militarum Tempestus?

This is what I want to see. Most of my army is made up of deepstriking scions and tauroxes.

 BrookM wrote:
Anything on the stream about the Militarum Tempestus?

I was told that their doctrine is that they get to make another shot if they roll a 6+ to hit within half range. It would be pretty useful if someone with a warhammer tv subscription could double check me so this isn't just a game of telephone.

Dionysodorus wrote:

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
That is not that much of a Conscript nerf.... wow. Especially in light of all the powerful things Militarum are gaining.

It's entirely possible that they also cost 4 points now. It's not like they'd advertise that.

I don't see why they wouldn't advertise it. They've mentioned point changes before.

These changes strikes the balance between different perspectives fairly well, I think.

There's a lot of stuff in this update:
Conscripts are 20-30, and orders only succeed on a 4+
Combined Squads is a stratagem
Vehicles can do work in close combat
Baneblades can move and shoot heavy weapons without penalty

So... do baneblades go up in cost?

I am praying Baneblades do not go up in cost, if only because they were kind of bad before.

I used them a lot, but I had to leverage the cheap ones (Stormhammers) if I wanted to do... anything really.

The expensive ones (baneblades, hellhammers) would never see play. With this change, I might bring them back out.... unless they also go up again.

Womp womp.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


So Baneblades can shoot while locked up and knights can't. The size of the Baneblade hull means that enemies cannot be within 3" of an objective if you park on it.

A knight will have to fall back to shoot its guns, giving up either an objective or a shooting phase.

A Baneblade can park on the objective, score forever and lose exactly zero shooting phases no matter how many ruffians bang on her iron skirts!

That means that, if you want to score on objectives, Baneblades will have more shooting phases than knights. This has already happened several times at my FLGS.

We had that one already.

The knight can charge right back after shooting effectively moving in the same spot where he was at the beginn of the players turn. So he also looses zero shooting phases.
Falling back and charge against is by the way a wise choice, as the attacker strikes first.

You seem to have very weird games, i have never seen one where an objective was overrun as you described and an objective denial through sheer size was required.
May be it is a result of your army composition (Super-Heavy Platoon).

But i must admit the 4+ helps the lascannons a lot and vs. T7 3+ targets a BB-variant with 4 sponsons seem to be better.
And with the regimental tactic even more.

Either way the upgraded rule was much needed for SHTs.

"Crush them" will fit your playstyle.


Someone compared a BB with Leman Russes worth the same points?

Firefox1 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


So Baneblades can shoot while locked up and knights can't. The size of the Baneblade hull means that enemies cannot be within 3" of an objective if you park on it.

A knight will have to fall back to shoot its guns, giving up either an objective or a shooting phase.

A Baneblade can park on the objective, score forever and lose exactly zero shooting phases no matter how many ruffians bang on her iron skirts!

That means that, if you want to score on objectives, Baneblades will have more shooting phases than knights. This has already happened several times at my FLGS.

We had that one already.

The knight can charge right back after shooting effectively moving in the same spot where he was at the beginn of the players turn. So he also looses zero shooting phases.
Falling back and charge against is by the way a wise choice, as the attacker strikes first.

You seem to have very weird games, i have never seen one where an objective was overrun as you described and an objective denial through sheer size was required.
May be it is a result of your army composition (Super-Heavy Platoon).

But i must admit the 4+ helps the lascannons a lot and vs. T7 3+ targets a BB-variant with 4 sponsons seem to be better.
And with the regimental tactic even more.

Either way the upgraded rule was much needed for SHTs.

"Crush them" will fit your playstyle.


Someone compared a BB with Leman Russes worth the same points?

It depends on how the points fall out, but since LRBTs got cheaper they might be better.

The problem with the knight's fall-back and charge to get in the same place is a failed charge roll. A baneblade can just sit there.

I am super duper excited about Crush Them! for sure, and I actually don't run that many sponsons. A Trojan is worth more than a set of Sponsons, so saving points for Trojans is important.

Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't see why they wouldn't advertise it. They've mentioned point changes before.

These changes strikes the balance between different perspectives fairly well, I think.

If by that you mean "left conscripts absurdly durable for cost, doing nothing to address their ubiquity as a must take unit for every imperial player" in order to cater to those imperial guard players who really want their army to be overpowered and make a token attempt to mitigate the anger of people who'd like actual balance, then yes I suppose you could say that. But that's like striking a balance between flat earthers and round earthers by declaring that the earth is a cube. You are catering to people who are objectively incorrect when they should be ignored or laughed at instead.

If conscripts are still 3 ppm with no other nerfs, we should toss in the towel on the idea GW could ever actually balance a game.

Wow, I love the Valhallan rules, they are so fluffy and... fun to use.

SilverAlien wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:
I don't see why they wouldn't advertise it. They've mentioned point changes before.

These changes strikes the balance between different perspectives fairly well, I think.

If by that you mean "left conscripts absurdly durable for cost, doing nothing to address their ubiquity as a must take unit for every imperial player" in order to cater to those imperial guard players who really want their army to be overpowered and make a token attempt to mitigate the anger of people who'd like actual balance, then yes I suppose you could say that. But that's like striking a balance between flat earthers and round earthers by declaring that the earth is a cube. You are catering to people who are objectively incorrect when they should be ignored or laughed at instead.

If conscripts are still 3 ppm with no other nerfs, we should toss in the towel on the idea GW could ever actually balance a game.

You know, I think we proved at one point that without orders, Conscripts were on the bell curve. I can go back and check again.

Now orders are 50% flat less effective, and then some percentage less effective because of smaller unit sizes.

The salt is real.

The problems with Conscripts isn't the conscripts alone. The problems are the parking lot+Guilliman they have behind, and the Plasma-Scions they have in front.
A bunch of good cannon fodder (Something IG should have) with a properly balanced army behind them, isn't that bad.

Even as nerfed, I'd look hard at 30 Catachan Conscripts with a priest and Straken. That's 3 S4 attacks each, with a 50% of a second fight in the shooting phase with orders.

Anyway, with combined squads back (in some form), I think we'll have bigger fish to fry.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


It depends on how the points fall out, but since LRBTs got cheaper they might be better.

The problem with the knight's fall-back and charge to get in the same place is a failed charge roll. A baneblade can just sit there.

I am super duper excited about Crush Them! for sure, and I actually don't run that many sponsons. A Trojan is worth more than a set of Sponsons, so saving points for Trojans is important.

Well you can always fall only a little more than 1" to the enemy back. So it would be an auto-charge.

These days there seem to be more good choice for IG than ever esp. if you include FW.
Yes a trojan for a SHT seems worth it.

Firefox1 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


It depends on how the points fall out, but since LRBTs got cheaper they might be better.

The problem with the knight's fall-back and charge to get in the same place is a failed charge roll. A baneblade can just sit there.

I am super duper excited about Crush Them! for sure, and I actually don't run that many sponsons. A Trojan is worth more than a set of Sponsons, so saving points for Trojans is important.

Well you can always fall only a little more than 1" to the enemy back. So it would be an auto-charge.

These days there seem to be more good choice for IG than ever esp. if you include FW.
Yes a trojan for a SHT seems worth it.

That all depends. At my FLGS, Knights have been stranded out of combat or even in combat on more than one occasion, as have my Baneblades. The difference always was that while the knight had to fall back to shoot, the Baneblades could happily just sit there and be immune to enemy bullets.

It could be that our knight player is an idiot; I've not personally played against him as he seems scared of the IG tanks.

And, something to think about the Conscripts nerfs. We hare accustomed to the GW swinging balance-bat. When the only balancing change you do is one every 4-5 years, you go big or go home. Thats why many times, very good units become unplayable because they over-nerfed them.

With this new FAQ's, living document, etc... mentality, I'm glad to see that GW is trying a more humble approach. They want to balance Conscripts, not make them totally useless. So even if those changes don't are enough to make them balanced and they are still more powerfull than they should, I think GW will eventually with Chapter Approved, FAQ's, etc... balance them with small nerfs-buffs.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
You know, I think we proved at one point that without orders, Conscripts were on the bell curve. I can go back and check again.

Now orders are 50% flat less effective, and then some percentage less effective because of smaller unit sizes.

The salt is real.

People kept arguing that conscripts were only as durable per point as space marines in cover which made them balanced. Which was and is absurd. In fact it was literally just you who keeps forgetting that no, there was no merit to that argument.

People weren't running conscripts in every decent imperial list because they were on curve, or because of their offensive potential.

While I like that many of these regiments are going to play very differently, the army-wide rules are...oddly chosen. For instance the Catachan rules will likely end up producing weird Catachan-heavy-artillery armies...where the Valhallans will really just be used for massive vehicle and tank formations (which is fine considering the Soviet/Russian inspired background I guess).

It just seems to me that the special rules are not necessarily very fitting (at all, in some cases) for the regiments they're added to. And, honestly, almost none of the infantry special rules are going to make IG players go "hmmmm, I need to take more infantry!". This is fine I suppose since Guard back in 2nd ed, etc. were really "the" way to take armour. I actually miss the days when IG armour trounced normal Space Marine armour. It gave you a reason to take guard over Space Marines and they played quite differently.

This codex is screaming "powerful" to me. After spending a weekend helping paint my buddy's Steel Legion I was inspired to make a small guard force (which would be run alongside my CSM as traitor guard most likely)...but now I'll have to be careful to not pick something too damn good.

 Galas wrote:
And, something to think about the Conscripts nerfs. We hare accustomed to the GW swinging balance-bat. When the only balancing change you do is one every 4-5 years, you go big or go home. Thats why many times, very good units become unplayable because they over-nerfed them.

With this new FAQ's, living document, etc... mentality, I'm glad to see that GW is trying a more humble approach. They want to balance Conscripts, not make them totally useless. So even if those changes don't are enough to make them balanced and they are still more powerfull than they should, I think GW will eventually with Chapter Approved, FAQ's, etc... balance them with small nerfs-buffs.

We'll see. Personally I doubt that actually happens. GW is buffing conscripts more than it nerfed them with this codex, which indicates they truly are clueless.

 Elbows wrote:
While I like that many of these regiments are going to play very differently, the army-wide rules are...oddly chosen. For instance the Catachan rules will likely end up producing weird Catachan-heavy-artillery armies...where the Valhallans will really just be used for massive vehicle and tank formations (which is fine considering the Soviet/Russian inspired background I guess).

It just seems to me that the special rules are not necessarily very fitting (at all, in some cases) for the regiments they're added to. And, honestly, almost none of the infantry special rules are going to make IG players go "hmmmm, I need to take more infantry!". This is fine I suppose since Guard back in 2nd ed, etc. were really "the" way to take armour. I actually miss the days when IG armour trounced normal Space Marine armour. It gave you a reason to take guard over Space Marines and they played quite differently.

This codex is screaming "powerful" to me. After spending a weekend helping paint my buddy's Steel Legion I was inspired to make a small guard force (which would be run alongside my CSM as traitor guard most likely)...but now I'll have to be careful to not pick something too damn good.

I'll go point by point:

1) I think the army wide rules are fine. The Catachans are themed after Vietnam War-era U.S. forces, and their doctrine required precise and shockingly powerful artillery barrages even more often than the famous napalm airstrikes. Valhallans, based on the Soviet Union, should certainly run mass armoured formations (as you rightly point out) but it's worth noting that the stratagems can tip the balance: if the Regiment's unique stratagems focus on Infantry (as the Valhallan example does), then you're only getting half the regimental bonus if you use Tanks (just the Doctrine, not the Stratagems).

2) This... doesn't really make sense to me. IG infantry are doing far better on the tabletop than the tanks; in fact, as a superheavy tank player, I've gone out of my way to include more infantry than ever before because of how much more useful they are than more armour.

3) The codex is very powerful. This probably means that my armoured regiment (which has existed since the 3rd edition Mars pattern baneblade kit from FW was a thing) will probably get accused of bandwagon powergaming, but whatever. Also, Chaos guard are Renegades and Heretics from FW, and are actually fun and interesting if you want to run them in the same army as CSM without violating the detachment faction rules.

Everything they've previewed has been a solid buff, aside from conscripts size and orders. But so far, we've seen global buffs in the form of Doctrines and Strategems, plus specific buffs to units like LRBTs and Baneblades (the former of whom get a price drop) They also hinted that command squads could be larger, but there are no other specific buffs for infanry.

IG, more than any other army, can really milk CPs. A brigade is almost trivial to run at 2000pts, giving us tons of options.

The buffs portrayed so far do seem to make IG armor stronger, which makes sense, given that the collective wisdom after the index was that the best stuff was all infantry: Scions, conscripts, heavy weapon squads. So, making the armor worth taking, especially in an edition in which that was a specific goal, makes sense.

SilverAlien wrote:


If conscripts are still 3 ppm with no other nerfs, we should toss in the towel on the idea GW could ever actually balance a game.

So it's not possible for them to make further changes in the future? Isn't it better to make incremental nerfs instead of making one huge one and then having to back up?

SilverAlien wrote:

We'll see. Personally I doubt that actually happens. GW is buffing conscripts more than it nerfed them with this codex, which indicates they truly are clueless.

Well, that's why they outsourced balance and playtesting to the ITC guys for 8th, no?

While catachan is good for basilisk and manticore artillery with harker.

Vahallan definitely makes tank companies and baneblade variants better. Send in the next wave is a nice infantry ability but limited due to deployment.

But we still don't have the complete picture without all orders, relics, strategems, and warlord traits.

I think the conscript nerf may be fine considering how much everything has been buffed. Manticores still suck unless they changed the fact it can't reliably fire until turn 4.

 Elbows wrote:
While I like that many of these regiments are going to play very differently, the army-wide rules are...oddly chosen. For instance the Catachan rules will likely end up producing weird Catachan-heavy-artillery armies...where the Valhallans will really just be used for massive vehicle and tank formations (which is fine considering the Soviet/Russian inspired background I guess).

Few of the famous regiments really have clear play styles that could be represented on the table top, especially with 8th edition really streamlining terrain. I think for Catachans to play like Death World Veterans, they'd need their own list from the ground up. (Or play as GSC, essentially). The IG codex has, for the most part, represented the fairly standard infantry company, with the mechanized and armored companies now kind of shoehorned in.

What we know about the regiments is generally two things: a type of terrain or battlezone (jungle, ice, desert) or an overriding philosophy (drilled discipline, pride in arms). for the most part, this is background: it explains where they came from, and how they view imperial service.

On the whole though, I think I'd rather they think of 8 different useful doctrines, and then assign them, then try to think of rules that really match each famous regiment.

Daedalus81 wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:


If conscripts are still 3 ppm with no other nerfs, we should toss in the towel on the idea GW could ever actually balance a game.

So it's not possible for them to make further changes in the future? Isn't it better to make incremental nerfs instead of making one huge one and then having to back up?

It's also entirely possible for them to simply reverse if they go to far. It's also easier to find a point between two known points than one that's only known to be larger/smaller than two known points. Larger balance changes carry no more risk than small ones if the responsiveness is actually true, and given that a single weak unit has far less effect than a single strong unit, there really is no justification for an overwhelming amount of caution here.

So again, if they can't figure out what I just said independently or think they actually fixed conscripts, we shouldn't really hold hope for them managing to balance anything later either.

Really hoping there is more to Tallarn then just advance and shoot. No penalty on tanks heavy weapons though is good I guess.

Wonderwolf wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
We'll see. Personally I doubt that actually happens. GW is buffing conscripts more than it nerfed them with this codex, which indicates they truly are clueless.

Well, that's why they outsourced balance and playtesting to the ITC guys for 8th, no?

Outsourced playtesting, not actual balance adjustments. Whether this means itc aren't very good at actually finding optimized builds or they just ignore feedback and don't make changes to the degree they recommend is debatable, though I find the latter more likely.

Damn. I had a good run steamrolling over Guard at the start of this Edition... Looks like they are making a comeback.

Just had a thought about combined squads. This might be a way to run a brigade with 6 infantry squads for troops, but combine them into blobs and have only a couple of drops instead of 6.

That all depends when the stratagem is used, obviously. If it's pre-game like the ravenguard one, then it will reduce the number of drops you have. If it's during the game then it's far less useful.