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.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Guilliman existed before the codex, and the two major new power players in C:SM (Raven Guard and Salamanders) both don't get any benefit out of him. And none of these things are superior than Index Guard, so... my point stands.

Funny you should mention RG and Sallies; both of them got a massive power boost out of the codex, in fact I would say they've been resurgent BECAUSE of the massive power boost the codex gave them. Along with across-the-board points reductions and generally better rules, they got solid bonus rules for free plus good stratagems and relics.

A Space Marine player playing off the index is flat out weaker than the one playing off the codex, and noticeably so, and if you had paid any attention to the differences you'd have noticed that. So no, your point doesn't stand, it's a point made out of ignorance.

You're arguing against a point I didn't make. Space Marines got better than they were in the Index, obviously, but they didn't get better than the best faction at the time of the C:SM's publication. Space Marines needed some adjustments upwards (especially, y'know, non-Ultramarines) and the adjustments were thankfully reserved enough that they didn't come out of it clearly on top of the pack, merely "very good". The same can be said for the CSM codex.

Personally I consider both Marine codexes to be great successes because things that weren't good got better while the things that were already good stayed the same. I would have nerfed Guilliman if it was up to me, of course, but I guess it can't be perfect.

I'd have to agree, so far I think the codex releases have been pretty good. Both normal and Chaos space marines were improved compared to their index versions, but they weren't improved to a "codex creep" kind of level. If it wasn't for gulliman ruining it, I'd say both codices were pretty successfully done. The death guard and AdMech codices also seem to be pretty well thought out (though issues may shake out after more people play test them). All these armies were a bit lackluster in the index in one way or another (other than DG, obviously), but they had a lot of these issues ironed out and improved.

Imperial guard had the handicap of already being considered overpowered in the index though, possibly the only army that was, which meant that for the first time GW would have to release a codex where they actually reduce an army's effectiveness. Which is a tricky thing to do without upsetting a lot of IG/Imperium players, who tend towards being very noisy complainers (largely because there is a lot of them out there).

I really hope they manage it though. I want IG to be a good army, I really do. I much prefer a pure IG force, to those pesky Mary Sue Mareenz.

They definitely were improved to "codex creep" levels. Hell, just take a look at the reduced cost for wargear-- you can afford whole new squads in your marine list just out of reduced cost from wargear and units alone, making your list that much more powerful.

Actually, if I play my Blood Angels list as a generic Space Marines list-- without even having access to relics or chapter tactics or stratagems-- my list becomes remarkably more powerful just from point costs alone. Were I to add relics and chapter tactics and stratagems from the codex, there's no way my "normal" BA list could win against the redone version barring really lucky dice rolls, given equal skill.

Niiru wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Guilliman existed before the codex, and the two major new power players in C:SM (Raven Guard and Salamanders) both don't get any benefit out of him. And none of these things are superior than Index Guard, so... my point stands.

Funny you should mention RG and Sallies; both of them got a massive power boost out of the codex, in fact I would say they've been resurgent BECAUSE of the massive power boost the codex gave them. Along with across-the-board points reductions and generally better rules, they got solid bonus rules for free plus good stratagems and relics.

A Space Marine player playing off the index is flat out weaker than the one playing off the codex, and noticeably so, and if you had paid any attention to the differences you'd have noticed that. So no, your point doesn't stand, it's a point made out of ignorance.

You're arguing against a point I didn't make. Space Marines got better than they were in the Index, obviously, but they didn't get better than the best faction at the time of the C:SM's publication. Space Marines needed some adjustments upwards (especially, y'know, non-Ultramarines) and the adjustments were thankfully reserved enough that they didn't come out of it clearly on top of the pack, merely "very good". The same can be said for the CSM codex.

Personally I consider both Marine codexes to be great successes because things that weren't good got better while the things that were already good stayed the same. I would have nerfed Guilliman if it was up to me, of course, but I guess it can't be perfect.

I'd have to agree, so far I think the codex releases have been pretty good. Both normal and Chaos space marines were improved compared to their index versions, but they weren't improved to a "codex creep" kind of level. If it wasn't for gulliman ruining it, I'd say both codices were pretty successfully done. The death guard and AdMech codices also seem to be pretty well thought out (though issues may shake out after more people play test them). All these armies were a bit lackluster in the index in one way or another (other than DG, obviously), but they had a lot of these issues ironed out and improved.

Imperial guard had the handicap of already being considered overpowered in the index though, possibly the only army that was, which meant that for the first time GW would have to release a codex where they actually reduce an army's effectiveness. Which is a tricky thing to do without upsetting a lot of IG/Imperium players, who tend towards being very noisy complainers (largely because there is a lot of them out there).

I really hope they manage it though. I want IG to be a good army, I really do. I much prefer a pure IG force, to those pesky Mary Sue Mareenz.

Imperial Guard had some things that needed a buff that could have counteracted the things that needed heavy-handed nerfs, most notably the Leman Russ. I was glad to see the Russ got buffed, though I'm worried that Grinding Advance+the points reduction may have been too much (too early to say for sure but I would have only done one or the other).

 Melissia wrote:
They definitely were improved to "codex creep" levels. Hell, just take a look at the reduced cost for wargear-- you can afford whole new squads in your marine list just out of reduced cost from wargear and units alone, making your list that much more powerful.

Actually, if I play my Blood Angels list as a generic Space Marines list-- without even having access to relics or chapter tactics-- my list becomes remarkably more powerful just from point costs alone.

Well, that depends on what Chapter Approved brings. I know a lot of Ork players are hoping the wargear changes for space marines will also reflect similar reductions in the corresponding Ork wargear, like powerfist/powerklaw etc etc.

If this happens in chapter approved, it would be a great sign of how GW plan to keep the game balanced and up to date over time.

If it doesn't happen... there's going to be a lot of angry customers out there.

 Melissia wrote:
They definitely were improved to "codex creep" levels. Hell, just take a look at the reduced cost for wargear-- you can afford whole new squads in your marine list just out of reduced cost from wargear and units alone, making your list that much more powerful.

Actually, if I play my Blood Angels list as a generic Space Marines list-- without even having access to relics or chapter tactics or stratagems-- my list becomes remarkably more powerful just from point costs alone. Were I to add relics and chapter tactics and stratagems from the codex, there's no way my "normal" BA list could win against the redone version barring really lucky dice rolls, given equal skill.

But again, codex creep would imply codex:SM pushed the power level of the army higher than anything previously seen. Which it didn't. As a pure army codex SM was still worse than index guard, index sisters and index ynnari/harlequins. As a soup list, the codex barely even boosted imperial soup. RG's warlord trait and a couple of stratagems were pretty much it.

Codex guard similar has a fairly small change on soup lists (scions worse, conscripts arguably better overall), but as an army they are without a doubt stronger than any other single army by a decent margin. That's why we call it codex creep.

Sure, codex SM is better than index blood angels, but index guard was always better than both. So codex SM didn't push the power level up, it was just being SM in line with the more powerful existing armies.

Niiru wrote:
Well, that depends on what Chapter Approved brings. I know a lot of Ork players are hoping the wargear changes for space marines will also reflect similar reductions in the corresponding Ork wargear, like powerfist/powerklaw etc etc.

However, Chapter Approved doesn't exist yet, so I can't use that as a basis of comparison, now, can I?

feth do I hope it does what you say it will.

 Melissia wrote:
They definitely were improved to "codex creep" levels. Hell, just take a look at the reduced cost for wargear-- you can afford whole new squads in your marine list just out of reduced cost from wargear and units alone, making your list that much more powerful.

Actually, if I play my Blood Angels list as a generic Space Marines list-- without even having access to relics or chapter tactics or stratagems-- my list becomes remarkably more powerful just from point costs alone. Were I to add relics and chapter tactics and stratagems from the codex, there's no way my "normal" BA list could win against the redone version barring really lucky dice rolls, given equal skill.

Codex creep can't exist because the indexes were clearly placeholders for us to play WHILE the Codices get released. You can get frustrated (and I am as a Necron player) but I recognize this as a temporary thing.

So now we've had 5 Codices released. Four of them (SM, CSM, GK and DG) are pretty good stuff and balanced with each other internally and externally barring some extreme examples. AdMech is definitely a letdown compared to those ones but at least some issues are resolved, and we're supposed to get an FAQ that makes it a little...better.

Instead we aren't getting Guard issues resolved.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
They definitely were improved to "codex creep" levels. Hell, just take a look at the reduced cost for wargear-- you can afford whole new squads in your marine list just out of reduced cost from wargear and units alone, making your list that much more powerful.

Actually, if I play my Blood Angels list as a generic Space Marines list-- without even having access to relics or chapter tactics or stratagems-- my list becomes remarkably more powerful just from point costs alone. Were I to add relics and chapter tactics and stratagems from the codex, there's no way my "normal" BA list could win against the redone version barring really lucky dice rolls, given equal skill.

Codex creep can't exist because the indexes were clearly placeholders for us to play WHILE the Codices get released. You can get frustrated (and I am as a Necron player) but I recognize this as a temporary thing.

So now we've had 5 Codices released. Four of them (SM, CSM, GK and DG) are pretty good stuff and balanced with each other internally and externally barring some extreme examples. AdMech is definitely a letdown compared to those ones but at least some issues are resolved, and we're supposed to get an FAQ that makes it a little...better.

Instead we aren't getting Guard issues resolved.

I feel like part of the problem for some Guard/AM players in these discussions is when the term/labels that are thrown around portray the 'whole IG/AM Codex as broken' it draws a negative reaction and creates a generalized assessment that isn't well founded.

Yes, they are a few broken units in the Codex/Index, but a broken Codex/Index they don't make. People aren't screaming that Tau are broken for Commander/Drone spam, they're calling out the Commanders and Drones in specific; the Thousand Suns aren't broken, brimstones are/are borderline.

In that same vein, Conscripts synergizing with Commissars are what draw the vast majority of the ire/broken accusations. Scions are good as well, but were never the same level - with the previous changes to Command Squads trimming them some and the Codex's price increase on Plasma Guns for them they should be better balanced still. Beyond that, what was drawing truly 'broken' accusations and had quantifiable proof in tournament play? Not a lot - some good/no-brainer units in comparison to others in the Index (Manticores vs Basilisks for example) but Conscripts are particularly what people are focused on.

Many of the Codex buffs shore up weak units - some of which can draw some concern objectively on their own, such as the combined SHV buffs. However, outside of the lack of a (perceived or real) fix to Conscripts is the rest of the IG/AM roster filled with nothing but broken units as is being claimed/portrayed?

Objectively, say Conscripts were no longer a unit and did not exist in the Codex - is what remains still 'broken', or just good/competitive?

GhostRecon wrote:


Objectively, say Conscripts were no longer a unit and did not exist in the Codex - is what remains still 'broken', or just good/competitive?

I think there's been a lot of exaggeration on here, I'm probably guilty of it too. I actually don't think the IG codex is particularly overpowered by itself, and if conscripts were removed it would leave it to be a pretty balanced army overall. The problem is that IG is usable as imperial soup, so it causes brokenness by mixing in with space marines etc.

If conscripts were removed (or at least limited to 1 unit per detachment or something) and imperium allying was limited, then I think the problems would be solved. But it's not looking like gw are taking that route.

I'm going to again point out that the warlord traits and relics are often literally better versions of the best warlord traits and relics from previous codices. That's the most obvious and blatant way the codex as a whole is engaging in power creep. The fact doctrines apply to all vehicles, including super heavies, is another major sticking point. Individual units are an issue as well, conscripts remaining the most annoying for me personally.

So it isn't just a few broken units, there is a lot of stuff in the codex that simply isn't on par with previous entries.

How did RG get buffed by the codex? Strategems? He doesnt benefit from Chapter Tactics.

Edit: Ah, probably the Warlord trait.

 Crazyterran wrote:
How did RG get buffed by the codex? Strategems? He doesnt benefit from Chapter Tactics.

Edit: Ah, probably the Warlord trait.

Yep, which was probably the best WT until IG got the same trait except slightly better as an option for any regiment.

I'm going to keep harping on that because it annoys me considerably.

Well, at least if its like the Marine book, special characters will be forced to take the one that aligns with their homeworld, so Creed or Pask or Straken wont be able to take it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Instead we aren't getting Guard issues resolved.

Aren't plasma guns 15 points now? Scions command squads were a huge issue, bigger than the conscripts+commissar combo, and it should have been fixed now with an appropriate cost. No more plasma scions spam.

The max unit of 30 conscript and the ability to benefit from orders on 4+ are real nerfs, conscripts are still a very good option, but not overpowered.

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Instead we aren't getting Guard issues resolved.

Aren't plasma guns 15 points now? Scions command squads were a huge issue, bigger than the conscripts+commissar combo, and it should have been fixed now with an appropriate cost. No more plasma scions spam.

The max unit of 30 conscript and the ability to benefit from orders on 4+ are real nerfs, conscripts are still a very good option, but not overpowered.

Literally no one thought scions were more problematic than conscripts. And the conscript nerf did nothing, I bet they'll get Tau Commanders back in line by reducing it's attacks by 1 and fix Malefic Lords by reducing their ballistic skill next.

ERJAK wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Instead we aren't getting Guard issues resolved.

Aren't plasma guns 15 points now? Scions command squads were a huge issue, bigger than the conscripts+commissar combo, and it should have been fixed now with an appropriate cost. No more plasma scions spam.

The max unit of 30 conscript and the ability to benefit from orders on 4+ are real nerfs, conscripts are still a very good option, but not overpowered.

Literally no one thought scions were more problematic than conscripts. And the conscript nerf did nothing, I bet they'll get Tau Commanders back in line by reducing it's attacks by 1 and fix Malefic Lords by reducing their ballistic skill next.

Only imperium players rant towards conscripts. They were good, ok, but I usually don't lose against AM because it's impossible to kill all the little soldiers even if they are 150+ models. I lose because they can unleash tons of firepower for dirt cheap, including undercosted plasma guns on scions and orders on 50 man blobs of conscripts.

 Melissia wrote:
However, Chapter Approved doesn't exist yet

I do feel the need to point this out. If we are talking about the game as it stands at the moment, we can't discuss 'what ifs' from books like Chapter Approved or other codexes, since they don't exist. If the game has current balance issues, that is a legitimate issue at the moment. If it doesn't, then future books wouldn't be needed to remedy any such problem, so we won't need to discuss content of future books anyways.

Darsath wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
However, Chapter Approved doesn't exist yet

I do feel the need to point this out. If we are talking about the game as it stands at the moment, we can't discuss 'what ifs' from books like Chapter Approved or other codexes, since they don't exist. If the game has current balance issues, that is a legitimate issue at the moment. If it doesn't, then future books wouldn't be needed to remedy any such problem, so we won't need to discuss content of future books anyways.

This is true, but the point at the time was that codex creep was a problem due to the space marine wargear price changes making a big difference. However, games workshop have always say that they would do periodic balancing through chapter approved, and so the space marine "codex creep" is only a short term issue (and unavoidable) if the other wargear options get price reductions too. So chapter approved, while not released yet, should still be remembered to temper the codex complaints.

Of course, if chapter approved comes out and doesn't fix these issues, then suddenly you would have a confirmed codex creep problem and everything goes to hell.

Niiru wrote:

Darsath wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
However, Chapter Approved doesn't exist yet

I do feel the need to point this out. If we are talking about the game as it stands at the moment, we can't discuss 'what ifs' from books like Chapter Approved or other codexes, since they don't exist. If the game has current balance issues, that is a legitimate issue at the moment. If it doesn't, then future books wouldn't be needed to remedy any such problem, so we won't need to discuss content of future books anyways.

This is true, but the point at the time was that codex creep was a problem due to the space marine wargear price changes making a big difference. However, games workshop have always say that they would do periodic balancing through chapter approved, and so the space marine "codex creep" is only a short term issue (and unavoidable) if the other wargear options get price reductions too. So chapter approved, while not released yet, should still be remembered to temper the codex complaints.

Of course, if chapter approved comes out and doesn't fix these issues, then suddenly you would have a confirmed codex creep problem and everything goes to hell.

Except SM through DG it isn't codex creep. The index was a placeholder while the Codices were released so we can still play. Everyone got those wargear reductions and stuff once it came out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Instead we aren't getting Guard issues resolved.

Aren't plasma guns 15 points now? Scions command squads were a huge issue, bigger than the conscripts+commissar combo, and it should have been fixed now with an appropriate cost. No more plasma scions spam.

The max unit of 30 conscript and the ability to benefit from orders on 4+ are real nerfs, conscripts are still a very good option, but not overpowered.

There isn't a point increase on them per video reviews I saw, and they weren't being taken at 50 man squads anyway. They were being taken at...wait for it...20-40 man squads.

Also that 4+ might as well not exist. You know how silly and easy it is to gain CP for Imperial Guard? You can do TWO Brigades if you wanted. You get your rerolls all you want.

ERJAK wrote:

Literally no one thought scions were more problematic than conscripts.

I you did a little research you would find a few.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I you did a little research you would find a few.

Mostly I actually saw guard players claim this, which I think has more to do with how most guard players think their army should work than how it actually played out on the field.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I you did a little research you would find a few.

Mostly I actually saw guard players claim this, which I think has more to do with how most guard players think their army should work than how it actually played out on the field.

I am not a guard player. Nor I think is at least one other poster who I believe claimed the same thing.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
How did RG get buffed by the codex? Strategems? He doesnt benefit from Chapter Tactics.

Edit: Ah, probably the Warlord trait.

Yep, which was probably the best WT until IG got the same trait except slightly better as an option for any regiment.

I'm going to keep harping on that because it annoys me considerably.

You can't view the warlord traits in a vacuum, though. To benefit from the IG warlord trait you can't use a special character as your warlord (they have to take their regiment's WT) which means you're going to be nominating a company commander or a Lord Commissar as your warlord. Yes, the Company Commander is only 30pts base (and the Lord Commissar 55pts) but they're also T3 W4 models with a 5+/5++ and 4+/5++ respectively. Even your basic Ultramarine Captain is more survivable and more useful at T4 W5 3+/4++.

So to 'max' your benefit with the IG warlord trait you're going to have to hide that warlord out of LOS as even a sniper could kill him - so you get a strong warlord trait but it's on a model that is dramatically more removable than RG or another Ultramarine warlord option can be. So to get the most benefit from the WT and relic the IG player is paying 30pts + his relic option (unless he uses/IG gets the stratagem to get more than one... but as that's pre-game those CPs are non-rollable for the WT/relic) and has to hide him as completely from view as possible. Might even see a Command Squad or ogryn bodyguards get bought to sit with him to guarantee he doesn't get picked off - which potentially raises the 'tax' on the WT's use (and the relic too, if it's taken).

On average with an assumed 12CP the WT is returning the IG player 4 CP. The relic only gives 1CP back on a 5+ when your opponent uses a Stratagem, so assuming your opponent uses 6 you're getting 2 more CP.

Pretty good but on a very vulnerable model; compare to RG where you're paying a lot more but you're getting a very survivable vessel for your WT and he has some amazing aura buffs he doesn't have to hide to give out too.

They have to use their Warlord trait? That's not the case with other armies. In the AdMech book there is one list of generic traits for all admech, and then one list of WT you can only take on the corresponding forge world's leaders, but Cawl could opt not to take the Mars WT and instead take a generic one.

 Purifier wrote:
They have to use their Warlord trait? That's not the case with other armies. In the AdMech book there is one list of generic traits for all admech, and then one list of WT you can only take on the corresponding forge world's leaders, but Cawl could opt not to take the Mars WT and instead take a generic one.

https://imgur.com/a/5IzSa

GhostRecon wrote:

You can't view the warlord traits in a vacuum, though. To benefit from the IG warlord trait you can't use a special character as your warlord (they have to take their regiment's WT) which means you're going to be nominating a company commander or a Lord Commissar as your warlord. Yes, the Company Commander is only 30pts base (and the Lord Commissar 55pts) but they're also T3 W4 models with a 5+/5++ and 4+/5++ respectively. Even your basic Ultramarine Captain is more survivable and more useful at T4 W5 3+/4++.

So to 'max' your benefit with the IG warlord trait you're going to have to hide that warlord out of LOS as even a sniper could kill him - so you get a strong warlord trait but it's on a model that is dramatically more removable than RG or another Ultramarine warlord option can be. So to get the most benefit from the WT and relic the IG player is paying 30pts + his relic option (unless he uses/IG gets the stratagem to get more than one... but as that's pre-game those CPs are non-rollable for the WT/relic) and has to hide him as completely from view as possible. Might even see a Command Squad or ogryn bodyguards get bought to sit with him to guarantee he doesn't get picked off - which potentially raises the 'tax' on the WT's use (and the relic too, if it's taken).

On average with an assumed 12CP the WT is returning the IG player 4 CP. The relic only gives 1CP back on a 5+ when your opponent uses a Stratagem, so assuming your opponent uses 6 you're getting 2 more CP.

Pretty good but on a very vulnerable model; compare to RG where you're paying a lot more but you're getting a very survivable vessel for your WT and he has some amazing aura buffs he doesn't have to hide to give out too.

I have literally never seen a Company Commander or Lord Commissar get killed by sniper fire in all of 8th edition. This does not sound like a real drawback. Their vulnerability to snipers relative to a Space Marine Captain will be relevant in only a tiny number of games and it's a threat that's very easily managed.

With 12 CP the Warlord Trait means that you expect to be able to spend 18 CP over the course of the game, not 16. It gives you an effective +50% CP. If you have the relic and your opponent uses 6 stratagems, then combined with the warlord trait you expect to have another 3 CP to spend. That's 21 total. That said, I'm not sure that you really need this many, although you could probably build around having tons of CP to spend (such as by bringing a Marine or GK detachment to use stratagems from, bringing multiple regiments to have a use for more than one unique stratagem, etc.).

Dionysodorus wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:

You can't view the warlord traits in a vacuum, though. To benefit from the IG warlord trait you can't use a special character as your warlord (they have to take their regiment's WT) which means you're going to be nominating a company commander or a Lord Commissar as your warlord. Yes, the Company Commander is only 30pts base (and the Lord Commissar 55pts) but they're also T3 W4 models with a 5+/5++ and 4+/5++ respectively. Even your basic Ultramarine Captain is more survivable and more useful at T4 W5 3+/4++.

So to 'max' your benefit with the IG warlord trait you're going to have to hide that warlord out of LOS as even a sniper could kill him - so you get a strong warlord trait but it's on a model that is dramatically more removable than RG or another Ultramarine warlord option can be. So to get the most benefit from the WT and relic the IG player is paying 30pts + his relic option (unless he uses/IG gets the stratagem to get more than one... but as that's pre-game those CPs are non-rollable for the WT/relic) and has to hide him as completely from view as possible. Might even see a Command Squad or ogryn bodyguards get bought to sit with him to guarantee he doesn't get picked off - which potentially raises the 'tax' on the WT's use (and the relic too, if it's taken).

On average with an assumed 12CP the WT is returning the IG player 4 CP. The relic only gives 1CP back on a 5+ when your opponent uses a Stratagem, so assuming your opponent uses 6 you're getting 2 more CP.

Pretty good but on a very vulnerable model; compare to RG where you're paying a lot more but you're getting a very survivable vessel for your WT and he has some amazing aura buffs he doesn't have to hide to give out too.

I have literally never seen a Company Commander or Lord Commissar get killed by sniper fire in all of 8th edition. This does not sound like a real drawback. Their vulnerability to snipers relative to a Space Marine Captain will be relevant in only a tiny number of games and it's a threat that's very easily managed.

With 12 CP the Warlord Trait means that you expect to be able to spend 18 CP over the course of the game, not 16. It gives you an effective +50% CP. If you have the relic and your opponent uses 6 stratagems, then combined with the warlord trait you expect to have another 3 CP to spend. That's 21 total. That said, I'm not sure that you really need this many, although you could probably build around having tons of CP to spend (such as by bringing a Marine or GK detachment to use stratagems from, bringing multiple regiments to have a use for more than one unique stratagem, etc.).

If you consider that many armies (such as Dark Eldar, Chaos Space Marines and Orks) don't even have the option to play snipers, it kind of ruins that idea of a weakness for the most part.

Dionysodorus wrote:
I have literally never seen a Company Commander or Lord Commissar get killed by sniper fire in all of 8th edition. This does not sound like a real drawback. Their vulnerability to snipers relative to a Space Marine Captain will be relevant in only a tiny number of games and it's a threat that's very easily managed.

Snipers are just one threat; just in general they are a very squishy model and with the WT trait you've given opponents a better reason to kill him if you give him the chance. Which means you probably won't see that warlord CO footslogging it lobbing Orders at Conscripts, for example. And I believe I mentioned some potential mitigation stratagies you'd see to preserve that warlord CO in my post, such as the obvious hiding him out of LOS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Darsath wrote:
If you consider that many armies (such as Dark Eldar, Chaos Space Marines and Orks) don't even have the option to play snipers, it kind of ruins that idea of a weakness for the most part.

Chaos can get snipers through FW's Renegades and Heretics; 34pts for 2 sniper rifles in a 5-man squad BS3+ Squad that benefit from -1 to hit against them and +1 to cover saves. But yes, within the CSM Codex, they don't you're right.

DE have Hexrifles which can target characters, but yes they're not a very easy weapon option to get enough of as needed. DE and Orks are both Index armies, though, and so as much as it sucks to say it you can't compare an Index army to a Codex one - even if it's what we have on hand. We have no idea, unfortunately, whether the DE and Ork Codices will give them tools/improvements to better handle hiding characters, to focus on this specific example/discussion.

GhostRecon wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
I have literally never seen a Company Commander or Lord Commissar get killed by sniper fire in all of 8th edition. This does not sound like a real drawback. Their vulnerability to snipers relative to a Space Marine Captain will be relevant in only a tiny number of games and it's a threat that's very easily managed.

Snipers are just one threat; just in general they are a very squishy model and with the WT trait you've given opponents a better reason to kill him if you give him the chance. Which means you probably won't see that warlord CO footslogging it lobbing Orders at Conscripts, for example. And I believe I mentioned some potential mitigation stratagies you'd see to preserve that warlord CO in my post, such as the obvious hiding him out of LOS.

Well, no, Company Commanders are not a very squishy model. They're practically invulnerable, because they're characters with less than 10 wounds but more than a couple in an army that typically brings a ton of infantry bodies for them to hide within and behind. I don't think my warlord Company Commander or Lord Commissar has died... ever. I don't think I have ever killed an opponent's Company Commander or Lord Commissar when they were actually making any effort to protect them. In all games I've played or watched, I don't think I've ever seen one get sniped, get assassinated by jump infantry, get surprised by a deep striker, etc. I've seen a few situations where one was going to die in the next turn or two, but someone conceded first -- that was only going to happen because a tabling was clearly in progress. I only ever see Company Commanders die when they're on suicide missions -- when they're moving ahead of the rest of the army with just two squads because giving those squads orders is worth the Commander dying after the squads get wiped out next turn. And that's both pretty rare and obviously not something you'd ever do with your warlord; you would use one of your other officers for that. Space Marine Captains are far more vulnerable than Company Commanders because it's really inefficient to hide them away -- you're paying for CC ability and durability and so you really want to have them actually fighting things. With Commanders you're paying for orders and they can do this at basically zero risk to themselves.

You'd absolutely still see a warlord like this on foot, attempting to give orders to Conscripts. It's not like he has to be anywhere near the enemy to do this. Conscripts still come in blocks of 30 and with just 2 of them trailing back a bit the officer can be 12" away from the back of the main Conscript blob.

Snipers are NOT a threat mathematically.