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.

And the current IG codex seems to be far more relatively powerful than any codex I've known of in past editions, simply because Guard don't seem to have much in the way of bad choices. You could make a variety of armies, and still be powerful. Back when GK or Eldar or Tau were considered "OP", it was because of a single spammy list of one or two units, with the rest of their codex being either average or even sub-par.

Honestly, that's just crazy talk imo. This edition's IG don't hold a candle to 6th/7th ed Eldar. They really don't ...

SilverAlien wrote:

 Howscat wrote:
So... I play in the ITC for one of the teams currently in the top 5. We have talked long and hard about the IG codex and even to some of the guys that received review copies. The IG codex is very strong and has the possibility to shift the meta slightly. The strongest army is Chaos soup currently with Imperial soup second. Where this codex shines is at your local shop with those guys that where running pure IG armies to begin with. This book really helps with running different styles of IG beyond the Artillery/conscript spam we are all used to. Don't scream the the sky is falling just yet because we are getting some rapid fire codex releases right now. We have no clue what will happen then.

Yeah, this is kinda the issue. I know you think this sounds fine, but you are kinda confirming a lot of my fears.

From a soup list perspective it isn't a huge deal. From most of our perspectives, soup is now the only solid option because the relatively decent balance we had for each individual army just went away. That doesn't seem like a big deal for you, but our balance pretty much just got shot. It's back to 7e for a lot of us, where many of our armies depended on allies to face on other more broken armies, until our original army basically became vestigial.

If a single army is fine because it's weaker than soup... but you will probably need to run soup to compete with it? That's only balanced at a tournament level. For a lot of us the appeal of 8e was being able to run our stand alone army and not feel crippled. Guard already had some issues, somewhat mitigated by a number of guard players refusing to not run leman russes, but this is a big step backward.

I admitted that this is going to hit the local shop games hard. The reason I am saying not to freak out yet is because off all the codex's being released so quickly. For all we know when the eldar or tyranid codex hit the shelves we could be having the same conversation all over again. The IG codex does give me hope that the other factions will receive the same amount of love and attention in their books.

CassianSol wrote:

I know you said you played some playtesting games, but at least give it some time. It hasn't released yet. Instead of worrying about what it may be like, think about how to counter the army. Play it out on the table.

It may be unbalanced, but at least wait for it to be released and play against it a reasonable amount.

Give me a break, this is the same nonsense that was said when the 6th ed Tau codex came out, despite many many many people raising a giant red flag of doom as soon as the details leaked.

AM looks overpowered as hell, the codex that really just needed 1-2 nerfs instead just got buffed across the board.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

And those people saying "waah waah wait until the codex is released and see"... the codex has been released, the rules are out, it's done. No changes will be made now. Guard is overpowered.

You got some points costs with that? Any games under your belt? Have you tried different types of missions and terrain set ups? Adjusted your army to fight it yet? Seen the meta adjustments from the codexes scheduled to be released in the next few months at all?

No? Oh ok. Knee-jerk gonna knee-jerk.

I do love this. Oh yes, all the meta adjustments when we go from fighting an enemy with tough hordes of chaff and lots of long range shooting to fighting an enemy with hordes of tough and a wider variety of improved long range shooting. I wonder how that'll shake out.

Between the fact we've all played guard and can do really basic math, we all should be able tell about how much they improved. It isn't rocket science.

Like, what am I going to do exactly? Pull out even better versions of the units I was already using out of my Guard was already strong, now guard is strong enough I have to run some of my own to deal with it. Wonderful.

Martel732 wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

There is no reason to "give it time" The index AM was already blatantly overpowered accorss to board and winning practically every event. Apart from conscripts - everything is getting better. It's not hard to just write this edition off at this point.

It blatantly wasn't - lots of units were poor and only a very small subset of the codex was seeing use in event winning lists. That has largely been fixed with many of the weaker units getting buffed which is great. However, the problem units have not been properly addressed at all and are still the best units in the codex so that small subset that has been winning events is going to continue to do so.

I think this is closer to the overall truth of the matter. They have more undercosted units than any other codex, and now they have more viable units on top of it.

If only people realiced that having viable units isn't something bad, and instead something that the other Codex should achieve. If an army has many balanced but viable units, the others should take example.

But normally people don't do this diferentiation: Or the whole codex is totally bananas OP, or they are all extremely fine and "git gud"

Tycho wrote:

And the current IG codex seems to be far more relatively powerful than any codex I've known of in past editions, simply because Guard don't seem to have much in the way of bad choices. You could make a variety of armies, and still be powerful. Back when GK or Eldar or Tau were considered "OP", it was because of a single spammy list of one or two units, with the rest of their codex being either average or even sub-par.

Honestly, that's just crazy talk imo. This edition's IG don't hold a candle to 6th/7th ed Eldar. They really don't ...

Heres an example. How exactly is something bad that Guard doesn't have bad choices?

SilverAlien wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

And those people saying "waah waah wait until the codex is released and see"... the codex has been released, the rules are out, it's done. No changes will be made now. Guard is overpowered.

You got some points costs with that? Any games under your belt? Have you tried different types of missions and terrain set ups? Adjusted your army to fight it yet? Seen the meta adjustments from the codexes scheduled to be released in the next few months at all?

No? Oh ok. Knee-jerk gonna knee-jerk.

I do love this. Oh yes, all the meta adjustments when we go from fighting an enemy with tough hordes of chaff and lots of long range shooting to fighting an enemy with hordes of tough and a wider variety of improved long range shooting. I wonder how that'll shake out.

Between the fact we've all played guard and can do really basic math, we all should be able tell about how much they improved. It isn't rocket science.

Like, what am I going to do exactly? Pull out even better versions of the units I was already using out of my Guard was already strong, now guard is strong enough I have to run some of my own to deal with it. Wonderful.

Or, GW took the top-tier units and cut them down, and took the units people didn't bring competitively and beefed them up. Ideal.

 Howscat wrote:
I admitted that this is going to hit the local shop games hard. The reason I am saying not to freak out yet is because off all the codex's being released so quickly. For all we know when the eldar or tyranid codex hit the shelves we could be having the same conversation all over again. The IG codex does give me hope that the other factions will receive the same amount of love and attention in their books.

I play admech, deathguard, and CSM primarily. Telling me not to worry, the next codex might be even more over the top does not really make me less worried. It just confirms I spent a few hundred dollars on models that are likely going straight onto the shelf with this recent DG release. At least the leaks happened now, I can avoid wasting more cash.

/sigh, oh well, back to another edition of garbage rules. Wonderful.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

And those people saying "waah waah wait until the codex is released and see"... the codex has been released, the rules are out, it's done. No changes will be made now. Guard is overpowered.

You got some points costs with that? Any games under your belt? Have you tried different types of missions and terrain set ups? Adjusted your army to fight it yet? Seen the meta adjustments from the codexes scheduled to be released in the next few months at all?

No? Oh ok. Knee-jerk gonna knee-jerk.

The points costs of units with changes have been revealed, unless there are other significant changes which haven't been announced at all (unlikely).

The rest is irrelevent, as the new codex is clearly stronger than the index, so it's not like "Hmm Unit A and Unit B are both noticably better, but put together they will actually make Imperial Guard worse" is a likely scenario.

And as others have pointed out, saying that the new IG codex might be fine because the next codex might be even more powerful, is stupid. This is relying on codex creep to fix problems, which is even more unlikely than your other hopes.

So I'll admit, you might be right. Though the chances are along the lines of rolling all sixes on a handful of dice.

Oh, also, saying that the new IG might be totally balanced with specific terrain set ups is probably the most stupid of the things you said. Of course if you are completely free to set up a gaming table to specifically counter your opponents army, then you will get an advantage. But this isn't actually allowed in the rules, and shouldn't be necessary. And if having a terrain advantage only balances an army, then that army must be severely broken.

I think the most likely thing that might happen is a series of point increases, but like I said I suspect it to be extremely unlikely at this point.

I'd be happy to be proved wrong, we shall find out in a week or so.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Or, GW took the top-tier units and cut them down, and took the units people didn't bring competitively and beefed them up. Ideal.

Hey, did they need conscripts durability at all? No? Then no, they didn't actually cut down top tier units. You can keep repeating this all you like, no one is stupid enough to think conscripts actually got a meaningful nerf.

Tycho wrote:

LOS blockers work wonders against things like conscripts though. Have you ever seen a conscript blob try to advance up a 6" street? I'm really thinking about cityfight amounts of terrain here, where having small elite units can really help. Hell, you could even have certain roads where something like a baneblade wouldn't even fit. Of course, you shouldn't go overboard.

I've never seen conscripts try to advance period. They're typically camped on objectives or bubble-wrapping things. The mobility of conscripts isn't really something that concerns anyone. It's the survivability. Adding a ton more LoS blockers means that you will still have to emerge within range of the consrcripts in order to kill them. At which point, you're also taking return fire. On top of that, like I said, in most cases, you aren't likely to be able to hit the Guard player while you're skulking about behind those blockers. Meanwhile, he's raining all sorts of indirect fire down on you. So again, not sure that it really helps like it used to. Better than nothing I guess?

Who the what now? How many tournaments have you played against Conscripts? Those suckers can move 12"+2D6" with the Move Move Move order, and they have obsec. They're incredible for last-turn objective grabs.

Niiru wrote:

Oh, also, saying that the new IG might be totally balanced with specific terrain set ups is probably the most stupid of the things you said. Of course if you are completely free to set up a gaming table to specifically counter your opponents army, then you will get an advantage. But this isn't actually allowed in the rules, and shouldn't be necessary. And if having a terrain advantage only balances an army, then that army must be severely broken.

So what you're saying is every army should be able to gunline equally? Because that's what you're implying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Or, GW took the top-tier units and cut them down, and took the units people didn't bring competitively and beefed them up. Ideal.

Hey, did they need conscripts durability at all? No? Then no, they didn't actually cut down top tier units. You can keep repeating this all you like, no one is stupid enough to think conscripts actually got a meaningful nerf.

You're assuming I felt they needed a durability nerf.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

Oh, also, saying that the new IG might be totally balanced with specific terrain set ups is probably the most stupid of the things you said. Of course if you are completely free to set up a gaming table to specifically counter your opponents army, then you will get an advantage. But this isn't actually allowed in the rules, and shouldn't be necessary. And if having a terrain advantage only balances an army, then that army must be severely broken.

So what you're saying is every army should be able to gunline equally? Because that's what you're implying.

No, what I'm saying is that every army should have the ability to react to any kind of terrain layout, perhaps not equally but to a standard where having non-optimal terrain isn't an automatic loss.

Is this the current state of the game? Haha, no.

Is this how the game should be? Yes, completely, and I dare you to disagree. I can't imagine anyone would agree with you.

Edit: Notice I never mention gunlines, as not all armies are capable of them. I have an Ork army, and they can't gunline. They can't even gun. Terrain layout still shouldn't mean an automatic loss to an ork army (though it currently does).

The tired old terrain argument. Newsflash: terrain blocks your weapons LoS to the conscripts, and the IG WILL have more indirect weapons than you. Good luck with that.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Or, GW took the top-tier units and cut them down, and took the units people didn't bring competitively and beefed them up. Ideal.

Hey, did they need conscripts durability at all? No? Then no, they didn't actually cut down top tier units. You can keep repeating this all you like, no one is stupid enough to think conscripts actually got a meaningful nerf.

Just because they weren't nerfed into the smoldering crater that you wanted them to be doesn't mean they weren't nerfed at all. Their efficiency with both commissars and Orders was nerfed, which indirectly reduces their points efficiency on both offense and defense. And that's before considering the effect of less reliable orders.

"One unit is about 10% above the power curve. We need to hike its cost by 33%, remove its ability to receive any kind of support at all, strip its armor save, and nerf every other unit in the codex just for being in the same book as it."--this thread in a nutshell

And that's what I call "balance by Exterminatus".

After playing against conscripts many times now, I can tell you this nerf will not be enough. They almost singlehandedly shut down anything I can field by just standing there. They don't need orders. They don't need to move much. They don't even need to shoot. They just need to buy time for the big guns. It's really easy to chop a marine list down to where it can't challenge for objectives at all. Especially if you try to do CC BA marines.

 ross-128 wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
Their efficiency with both commissars and Orders was nerfed.".

I know their order capability were nerfed, but did conscripts interactions with commissars change at all?

 ross-128 wrote:
"One unit is about 10% above the power curve. We need to hike its cost by 33%, remove its ability to receive any kind of support at all, strip its armor save, and nerf every other unit in the codex just for being in the same book as it."--this thread in a nutshell

And that's what I call "balance by Exterminatus".

10% above the power curve? They are as or more durable than every 4ppm infantry model in the game. That's not 10% above curve.

Yeah they can get 2+ armor saves with a -1 to hit under the right circumstances. That's pretty good for a 4ppm unit.

Who the what now? How many tournaments have you played against Conscripts? Those suckers can move 12"+2D6" with the Move Move Move order, and they have obsec. They're incredible for last-turn objective grabs

I've played several and like I said, the mobility isn't something that bothers most. It's the durability. I have yet to play a game where conscripts are pushed much past mid-field and they typically just kind of chill around objectives/things that need the bubble wrap. With my Marine list, it would actually help me if they were moving that much. Like I said though, it's not the speed. It's the durability.

 Insectum7 wrote:
So what you're saying is every army should be able to gunline equally? Because that's what you're implying.

You're assuming I felt they needed a durability nerf.

Well you see, either an army needs an effective way to slice through conscripts in melee before getting shot off the board, or it needs to at least potentially outshoot guard directly.

If you don't think conscripts need a durability nerf, then yes you do think every army should be able to gunline equally. Or melee focused armies should be entirely worthless, rather than turned into another gunline army.

That's the thing, conscripts cannot be killed efficiently except in a few very specific examples, and I'd be shocked if you can even name them. So most armies either field their own equivalent (if they also play guard/demons), or just outshoot whatever the conscripts are protecting and hope they have time to clear them later.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Howscat wrote:
I admitted that this is going to hit the local shop games hard. The reason I am saying not to freak out yet is because off all the codex's being released so quickly. For all we know when the eldar or tyranid codex hit the shelves we could be having the same conversation all over again. The IG codex does give me hope that the other factions will receive the same amount of love and attention in their books.

I play admech, deathguard, and CSM primarily. Telling me not to worry, the next codex might be even more over the top does not really make me less worried. It just confirms I spent a few hundred dollars on models that are likely going straight onto the shelf with this recent DG release. At least the leaks happened now, I can avoid wasting more cash.

/sigh, oh well, back to another edition of garbage rules. Wonderful.

Deathguard won a recent GT. Admech was on the weaker side of releases but there are some very potent combos in there. CSM with a sprinkling of daemons or renegades has dominated at every GT and Major tournament. Last edition I was playing pure Militarum Tempestus. They were hot garbage but i still enjoyed the game. So really you have to decide: Do you want to win tournaments, or have fun?

Niiru wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

Oh, also, saying that the new IG might be totally balanced with specific terrain set ups is probably the most stupid of the things you said. Of course if you are completely free to set up a gaming table to specifically counter your opponents army, then you will get an advantage. But this isn't actually allowed in the rules, and shouldn't be necessary. And if having a terrain advantage only balances an army, then that army must be severely broken.

So what you're saying is every army should be able to gunline equally? Because that's what you're implying.

No, what I'm saying is that every army should have the ability to react to any kind of terrain layout, perhaps not equally but to a standard where having non-optimal terrain isn't an automatic loss.

Is this the current state of the game? Haha, no.

Is this how the game should be? Yes, completely, and I dare you to disagree. I can't imagine anyone would agree with you.

Edit: Notice I never mention gunlines, as not all armies are capable of them. I have an Ork army, and they can't gunline. They can't even gun. Terrain layout still shouldn't mean an automatic loss to an ork army (though it currently does).

Okay. But from what I see, Guard lists are good at gunlining, and tournament tables often favor gunlines. So it doesn't surprise me that an army good at gunlining is winning tournaments.

I can be totally fine with that, because I often fight on tables with more terrain, and missions that require more movement.

 Kap'n Krump wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
Their efficiency with both commissars and Orders was nerfed.".

I know their order capability were nerfed, but did conscripts interactions with commissars change at all?

Their unit size affects their interaction with commissars, because it determines how many models the commissar has to blam to keep a given number of conscripts in line. Smaller units means the commissar is killing more models (or more accurately, saving fewer).

For example, a 10 man LD8 squad can only lose 4 models at most to morale in the first place, so a commissar can only ever save 3. And if he's somehow overseeing 5 of those squads (50 models) that's up to 5 blams. In a 50 man squad you can lose around 23 to morale if they really get hammered, and a commissar can save 22 of those with just one blam.

In the conscripts' case, they went from 50 to 30.
The raw maximum possible losses at ld4 were 26 before, 16 after. So a commissar went from saving up to 25 models at a time to saving up to 15. In practical terms this isn't really a full 40% reduction because most rolls won't be max rolls, but it is a reduction.

Fewer models in a unit also means they can't conga line as far, so they have less flexibility in commissar placement and may need to bring more commissars to cover their units.

A smaller unit also reduces the power of wound allocation, since it is easier to wipe one particular unit in order to clear a particular part of the board.

So basically yes, their defensive power did get nerfed. Just not to the degree that certain people wanted.

 Howscat wrote:
Deathguard won a recent GT. Admech was on the weaker side of releases but there are some very potent combos in there. CSM with a sprinkling of daemons or renegades has dominated at every GT and Major tournament. Last edition I was playing pure Militarum Tempestus. They were hot garbage but i still enjoyed the game. So really you have to decide: Do you want to win tournaments, or have fun?

What I'd like is to not have to make the call between playing my CSM as CSM or army admech as admech and being able to field a decent army. 8e was the first to really present that opportunity as long as I've been playing. Shame GW couldn't even manage to keep that balance for 6 months. Until this garbage fire of a codex they'd mostly done okay. Even admech wasn't that bad.

Also, if it's the list I'm thinking of, I'm gonna be a little annoyed you referred to it as a DG army.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
So what you're saying is every army should be able to gunline equally? Because that's what you're implying.

You're assuming I felt they needed a durability nerf.

Well you see, either an army needs an effective way to slice through conscripts in melee before getting shot off the board, or it needs to at least potentially outshoot guard directly.

If you don't think conscripts need a durability nerf, then yes you do think every army should be able to gunline equally. Or melee focused armies should be entirely worthless, rather than turned into another gunline army.

That's the thing, conscripts cannot be killed efficiently except in a few very specific examples, and I'd be shocked if you can even name them. So most armies either field their own equivalent (if they also play guard/demons), or just outshoot whatever the conscripts are protecting and hope they have time to clear them later.

You give the viable tactics in your own post. Outshoot what the Conscripts are protecting (which you don't have to have gunline to do, btw. as there are deep strikers with good shooting capability.) And you don't have to kill the conscripts efficiently, you just have to mitigate them eventually.

You'd be shocked if I can name Berzerkers and Genestealers?

 Insectum7 wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
So what you're saying is every army should be able to gunline equally? Because that's what you're implying.

You're assuming I felt they needed a durability nerf.

Well you see, either an army needs an effective way to slice through conscripts in melee before getting shot off the board, or it needs to at least potentially outshoot guard directly.

If you don't think conscripts need a durability nerf, then yes you do think every army should be able to gunline equally. Or melee focused armies should be entirely worthless, rather than turned into another gunline army.

That's the thing, conscripts cannot be killed efficiently except in a few very specific examples, and I'd be shocked if you can even name them. So most armies either field their own equivalent (if they also play guard/demons), or just outshoot whatever the conscripts are protecting and hope they have time to clear them later.

You give the viable tactics in your own post. Outshoot what the Conscripts are protecting (which you don't have to have gunline to do, btw. as there are deep strikers with good shooting capability.) And you don't have to kill the conscripts efficiently, you just have to mitigate them eventually.

You'd be shocked if I can name Berzerkers and Genestealers?

Any guard player with a pulse can shut down deepstrikers to the point where there's hardly a point in even bringing them, that's not a counterargument.

Same for assault, Even the most powerful close combat armies are, at best, going to burn through the conscript screens turn one and then get shot up next phase. We still have Get Back in the Fight, and some regiments can straight up fire into close combat with certain orders.

 Insectum7 wrote:
...tournament tables often favor gunlines.

That sounds like the real root of the problem here. Maybe people should favour tournaments where gunlines are less effective.

Martel732 wrote:
The tired old terrain argument. Newsflash: terrain blocks your weapons LoS to the conscripts, and the IG WILL have more indirect weapons than you. Good luck with that.

So much this. In 8th edition, with more 1st turn reserve shenanigans and early charges, the power that conscripts as a simple bubble-wrapping unit have is really strong. More terrain doesn't actually solve this problem, in fact, it might make it worse. Guard has access to plenty of models that can be held in reserve (such as Sions), models that don't require any line of sight (mortars) and high speed models (Valkyries).

I think nobody that is sane or know the minimun about math and balance, is arguing that Conscripts aren't OP.

But I have seen many people talking about how the fact that Imperial Guard has the most of the codex as viable, is bad. When it is not. Obviously, the outliers need to be nerfed, and I believe that they have went overbuffing many units, baneblades for example, and some types of LemanRusses.

I think the problem here is that codexs like Gk and Admech have soome piss poor internal balance. Some people say "AdMech has some good combos, so thats fine". No! I don't want "some combos". I don't want Commander+GunDrone spam. I want a codex that offers me a ton of viable options.

I hope for Chapter Approved to buff the units of the Codexs that have fall behind IG, nerf the most blatanty OP units in the IG codex without making them unusable, and tweak probably some of the units of the IG codex that aren't as OP but probably have been overbuffed. And yes, even if at th end of the day GW has make Conscripts even more powerfull, at least they have shown that they recognise them as a problem.
I think that Scions actually are in a good spot now, but without trying them out, I can't say more.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Any guard player with a pulse can shut down deepstrikers to the point where there's hardly a point in even bringing them, that's not a counterargument.

Same for assault, Even the most powerful close combat armies are, at best, going to burn through the conscript screens turn one and then get shot up next phase. We still have Get Back in the Fight, and some regiments can straight up fire into close combat with certain orders.

It's easy to block DS shooting form Plasma spam, sure. Much less so units like Obliterators with a 24" range. I'd advocate a combined arms approach anyways.

For assault. . . I'm genuinely curious as to what the Tyranid and Ork codexes will bring to the table. I sorta don't care what the landscape looks like now, as horde CC armies can do a lot to shift meta, imo. Indexes have given us baselines, but every codex has heaped new options and viability on their respective armies. Tyranids is only about a month away now, so I'm definitely not about to get settled into any assumptions about overall game balance.