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.

I haven't played many games of 8th but I'm disappointed with these codexes and the issues they will cause. I liked the idea of even a yearly index where every army got a tweek to keep it balanced. I still say let the chips finish falling before we toss our hands up with a new CEO and edition.

 generalchaos34 wrote:
I think the 7th edition of "Bring the D" has permeated a lot of what we think nowadays about how weapons should be tuned, we forget about how some of those old "crappy" weapons like lasguns, or heavy bolters, or heck even Stubbers, can really do a lot to thin out these numbers. I personally like hordes and tanks, or both preferably. There should be no such thing as a 1 size fits all weapon/unit, which is what everyone wants.

I just spent an hour in a waiting room bored typing this up. So excuse me for the wall of text.

The issue I have with this is that we don't have a lascannon equivalent for hordes really, at least not widely available. Heavy bolters don't give anywhere like enough punch, not in the numbers most armies can field them. You see, the best anti horde weapon would be one that was more efficient at killing hordes than any other unit. Between the new wounding table and the way AP works this edition... the best weapon for killing geq efficiently would be str 2 AP 0.

Why? Think of it like this. str 6 AP -2 kills .833 GEQ per hit and .444 MEQ per hit, or 1.8ish GEQ for each MEQ killed . Str 4 AP -2 would be .666 vs .333, or exactly 2 to 1. Str 4 AP 0 would be 2.667 to 1, str 6 AP 0 is 2.5 to 1 etc.

This means the three most effective would be str 3 AP 0 at 3 to 1, str 2 AP -2 also at 3 to 1, or ideally str 2 AP 0 at 4 to 1. From this, we can now determine the most cost effective way of dealing with hordes, with the understanding that the more specialized and focused on killing hordes a weapon is, the more damage we would get against a horde per point spent, assuming everything is costed correctly.

Which leads us to the funny bit. What's the best way of getting any of those three in mass? Well considering str 2 AP -2 doesn't exist, we are left with str 3 AP 0 and str 2 AP 0 found most commonly on... hordes. Yes, hordes are the best counter to hordes in the game, due to the (frankly idiotic) way the new AP and wounding systems combine, though it's mainly on the AP system removing dedicated anti GEQ AP 5. So, until we either go back to the old system or they star giving us access to high volume of fire low str heavy weapons, there isn't anything you can bring that's actually dedicated anti horde, besides another horde.

Also it is worth noting that, as the more observant among you may have already noticed, technically none of this, not even the hypothetical str 2 AP 0 weapon, actually kills conscripts as effectively as a space marine tactical, for cost. That's correct, even a str 2 AP 0 weapon will be killing 12 points of conscripts for every 13 points of space marines. This is, presumably, meant to be mitigated by cover, and why the cover system makes it virtually impossible for anything with more than 5-10 models to easily acquire it. Even guardsmen who can get cover don't use it as effectively as space marines. For example, with both units in cover str 3 AP 0 kills 4.5 GEQ for each MEQ, or 6 if the guardsmen's unit is to large to take advantage. In short, high saving throw models have to use cover if they want to maximize longevity, making them at lot less versatile and more limited than units lacking in armor (or who rely on invulnerable or similar saves).

So we now know what it takes to kill hordes effectively: use the weakest most awful gun you can take in bulk and/or get as much cover onto the field as possible. Within reason of course, although technically a board with so much cover on it that every unit, even a horde, is benefitting from it is better for a sv 3+/4+ army than a horde army. Also, and this should be obvious, the actual pricing of the weapon/unit does matter. It's entirely possible, and even likely, that there is a str 4 AP 0 weapon or unit that kills conscripts more effectively for cost than a str 3 AP 0 unit/weapon might. Because things aren't always priced correctly, as we all know.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
I am not sure that there is anything at all in the Space Marine codex that kills GEQs more efficiently than Conscripts do.

That's a pretty specific metric you got there. For example, Devourer Gaunts outpace them against GEQ.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Like, what is this point about devourer gaunts supposed to show? My claim was that "Conscripts shoot decently". Is it your position that in order to qualify as shooting decently, a unit armed with anti-infantry weapons must be more efficient against GEQs than gaunts with devourers? I think that would be pretty silly, but I can't figure out what else you're trying to do here if not weirdly and hypocritically offer your own absurdly specific metric. So, to respond to the bizarre point you seem to be trying to make: gaunts with devourers are actually incredibly shooty. That's why they're also so incredibly fragile for their cost, being easier to kill per-model than Conscripts while costing more than twice as much and requiring similar sorts of buffing to avoid massive morale losses. That Conscripts are actually very close to as efficient as these gaunts (at 12", although 18" with a doctrine) even without various of the buffs they can benefit from says to me that their shooting is pretty good.

Personally, I would say that if a unit is better at shooting GEQs in realistic scenarios than practically everything in the largest and best-known faction's codex, then that's reason to say that it does, in fact, shoot decently. I'm not sure where you disagree with that or why you find that to be such a specific metric.

The bombard rule of +5 hits for every 10 models, or maybe d3 for every 5 models, could help flamers, cannons ,etc... in dealing with hordes in a much more effective way without needing them to be s2 ap0 or something like that.

A Heavy d6 S5 AP-1 weapon that adds d6 hits for every 10 models in a unit would be a pretty damm good horde killer. 3d6 hits vs a 30-man Conscript horde vs d6 agaisnt a 5-man Space Marine squad for example.
But to be honest a weapon like this would SHRED Ork Boyz. So it should be priced accordingly.

 Grumblewartz wrote:
So much dramatic vitriol in this thread...sheesh. Can people please stop with the hyperbole - SAME OLD GW, NO IMPROVEMENTS! Correct me if i'm wrong, but one of the biggest gripes people had with GW was that there was no community interaction. Yet, they did respond and attempt to fix conscripts. Just because your definition of fix didn't match theirs, doesn't negate the fact that they are responding (and quickly) to players' concerns.

More importantly, and I just can't stress this enough, 40k, Fantasy, Battlefleet Gothic, Bloodbowl, every single game that GW has ever produced, was not intended to be played competitively. How many times do they have to say it for people to get the message? It was never the spirit of the game. Just because some versions of the rule set were better applicable to the tournament scene, doesn't mean that they ever wanted the game play that way. Its clear from all of their videos, battle reports, etc. that their idea of "competitive" play is not the same as most "competitive" players' definition.

At this point, I can't understand what it is you are getting worked up about. 8th is better balanced than any version to date. If you aren't purposely creating min/max, hyper competitive lists, attempting to abuse loopholes, then there really shouldn't be a problem. If you are and you complain that it isn't balanced and doesn't work, well, it is like complaining that a basketball doesn't work well when you use it to play volley ball. It just wasn't designed for that purpose.

So much this, have an exalt (whatever that does). Also:

 Skawt wrote:
I haven't played many games of 8th but I'm disappointed with these codexes and the issues they will cause. I liked the idea of even a yearly index where every army got a tweek to keep it balanced. I still say let the chips finish falling before we toss our hands up with a new CEO and edition.

Uh these codices have been some of the most balanced releases to come out from GW to date and the yearly index you're thinking of is called Chapter Approved. Of course there are some flaws with each release but the codex isn't even out yet. This "sky is falling" knee jerk response to every codex has been the norm since the dawn of the internet. I'll take 8th with all of its current flaws over 7th any day of the week.

 Insectum7 wrote:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This codex was GW's opportunity to show us they understood the balance of the game.

Turns out the "new GW" is the same as the "old GW," just with different priorities in regards to "which army should win easily."

You mean "give every army lots of viable options"?

Indeed! Like how Tau have mass commander suits and...uhhhh..Wait, bad example. It's like how CWE have...access to the Ynnari faction instead. I guess that counts as an option?

Did you notice that those two armies don't have codexes yet?

Yeah, that's kinda the problem. The game in its current state is very imbalanced.

 Galas wrote:
The bombard rule of +5 hits for every 10 models, or maybe d3 for every 5 models, could help flamers, cannons ,etc... in dealing with hordes in a much more effective way without needing them to be s2 ap0 or something like that.

A Heavy d6 S5 AP-1 weapon that adds d6 hits for every 10 models in a unit would be a pretty damm good horde killer. 3d6 hits vs a 30-man Conscript horde vs d6 agaisnt a 5-man Space Marine squad for example.
But to be honest a weapon like this would SHRED Ork Boyz. So it should be priced accordingly.

Yeah, that'd work. Or hell, bring back rotor cannons from the HH and toss them on a primaris squad/make them an option for havocs or chosen. That'd be fairly hilarious.

Darsath wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Did you notice that those two armies don't have codexes yet?

Yeah, that's kinda the problem. The game in its current state is very imbalanced.

So your main argument is that 1-2 codices per month isn't fast enough? Yup lets sit in the cesspool that was 7th edition for longer while they get every codex ready to be released simultaneously.

 Raphael the Raven wrote:

Darsath wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Did you notice that those two armies don't have codexes yet?

Yeah, that's kinda the problem. The game in its current state is very imbalanced.

So your main argument is that 1-2 codices per month isn't fast enough? Yup lets sit in the cesspool that was 7th edition for longer while they get every codex ready to be released simultaneously.

Do you believe the game is in a balanced state as it stands? I doubt it. The problem arises in creating codexes designed to be more powerful than their previous index counterparts. That, and we have no information on the content of future codexes to work off of to determine that they'll be on equal footing.

Darsath wrote:

 Raphael the Raven wrote:

Darsath wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:


Did you notice that those two armies don't have codexes yet?

Yeah, that's kinda the problem. The game in its current state is very imbalanced.

So your main argument is that 1-2 codices per month isn't fast enough? Yup lets sit in the cesspool that was 7th edition for longer while they get every codex ready to be released simultaneously.

Do you believe the game is in a balanced state as it stands? I doubt it. The problem arises in creating codexes designed to be more powerful than their previous index counterparts. That, and we have no information on the content of future codexes to work off of to determine that they'll be on equal footing.

I think the game is as balanced as it could be with the current releases. Is it perfect? No, but none of my games have felt like I lost on turn 1 because I just happen to have the loser codex of the current edition. My faction doesn't even have a codex and it performs decently against the current codexes (besides ad mech not a lot of players for that).

I think everyone should wait until about a year where everyone has gotten their codex/update to come to a conclusion on whats busted or imbalance about the game.

Let's not take it to the extreme. Everything in the codex isn't totally broke just like everything in 7th Eldar wasn't totally broke. I'm just not taking Pask, Conscripts, Baneblades, Manticores, Basilisks, Punishers, or Plasma Russes. My problem is Scions. I have WAY too many not to field them. Now I find myself building more models just to have HSVGs and Melta in order to not be a total jerk. Honestly, even at 15 points, plasma is still auto-take for competitive.

I'm going to try adding an subtracting Scions until I find a decent balance. I don't know what to do when I play Orks, though. I can't even come up with a list from the models I have that would be any fun for them. At least Tyranids, Chaos, and Marines have a few tricks up their sleeve. Orks are just walking into a firing squad even with regular guardsmen. Building a list to the point of trying to lose doesn't sound very fun .

Wait, I was wrong before, str 2 doesn't lose any punch vs toughness 7/8, so taking it in bulk can make it overly efficient. The amount it takes to kill 140 ish points of conscripts would be enough to total a predator of the same or higher cost. Which is again weird, and way to efficient for tank hunting.

Str 3 is indeed the answer. In fact, two sets of infantry backed by a company commander are currently a reasonable solution, killing 40 points of conscripts while costing 110 points, a 2.75 ratio. It isn't effective anti tank, 4.95 ratio, but is really effective on other guardsmen, 2.1 ration, or tacticals, 1.9 ratio, caught in the open. With cover that evens up, 3.8 ratio for space marines and 2.75 for the guardsmen predictably, the extra point of armor saving throw putting them even with conscripts in durability.

So yeah, we just need to get other armies sources of str 3 shooting that are roughly as cost effective as IG squads backed by company commanders. Though guard having the best answer to a really rough unit of their own isn't convincing me of their balance still.

Codex isn't even out yet and the sky is falling.

Even if there were such a thing as "the new GW", it's the same old hyperbolic community overreacting at everything.

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

I play Nids, and I have no issues with Guard. I can tear through conscripts quite well and open holes where I need them. I struggle against too many tanks, but I do have units in my list just for anti-armor as well.
Honestly, when I play, I look at what I need to destroy of their's to win, then what I need to destroy it with and what they will try to destroy mine with and target that first.
As long as I play the game a turn or two ahead I don't usually have issues.
Space Marines are the only codex that does give me issues because roboat is just unkillable for me. My old tactic of throwing Swarmy at him doesn't work now since he can spend a CP or 2 and still attack back even if I killed him and kill Swarmy, then still come back to life afterwards.
Guard doesn't even come close to that kind of frustration for me. I'm actually excited to play against different guard armies now.

I keep hearing people saying that the printing cycle is too long and chapter approved will not be able to change anything, which is false.

It has become clear that GW printing cycle is closer to one month, maybe one and half. We had a lot of proofs that it is this way.

At the very least they can change rules and point costs in that time frame.

 Skawt wrote:
I haven't played many games of 8th but I'm disappointed with these codexes and the issues they will cause. I liked the idea of even a yearly index where every army got a tweek to keep it balanced. I still say let the chips finish falling before we toss our hands up with a new CEO and edition.

As long as a tweak is all that's needed. I was interested in the 'nu' gw, so i went for the first best benchmark i could find - the fantasy version, the general's handbook. From what i can tell, the issues weren't actually fixed, just as you say tweaked slightly. Now maybe it'll be different for chapter approved, but its the same company and the same design team, so my magic 8 ball says no.

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Skawt wrote:
I haven't played many games of 8th but I'm disappointed with these codexes and the issues they will cause. I liked the idea of even a yearly index where every army got a tweek to keep it balanced. I still say let the chips finish falling before we toss our hands up with a new CEO and edition.

As long as a tweak is all that's needed. I was interested in the 'nu' gw, so i went for the first best benchmark i could find - the fantasy version, the general's handbook. From what i can tell, the issues weren't actually fixed, just as you say tweaked slightly. Now maybe it'll be different for chapter approved, but its the same company and the same design team, so my magic 8 ball says no.

Not in my experience. The GHB2 fixed 90% of the game. All the OP stuff from GHB1 era was brought down to a competitive level, and everything not competitive was given that slight buff needed. It opened the list building possiblities for all factions immensely. I honestly think that it was the best book ever printed by GW, finely designed and perfectly executed. I expect much less from CA though, since GHB2 came from the observation of a 1 year stable meta.

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Skawt wrote:
I haven't played many games of 8th but I'm disappointed with these codexes and the issues they will cause. I liked the idea of even a yearly index where every army got a tweek to keep it balanced. I still say let the chips finish falling before we toss our hands up with a new CEO and edition.

As long as a tweak is all that's needed. I was interested in the 'nu' gw, so i went for the first best benchmark i could find - the fantasy version, the general's handbook. From what i can tell, the issues weren't actually fixed, just as you say tweaked slightly. Now maybe it'll be different for chapter approved, but its the same company and the same design team, so my magic 8 ball says no.

I believe it isn't the same design team anymore, just for reference.

General's Handbook 1 and 2 are widely regarded as excellent products in the AOS community. Not flawless, but very good.

Honestly I wish we had never got Codexes and had the rules for each unit freely available (and therefore more easily tweaked). Then points and army special rules are all housed in a yearly Chapter Approved.

Spoletta wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Skawt wrote:
I haven't played many games of 8th but I'm disappointed with these codexes and the issues they will cause. I liked the idea of even a yearly index where every army got a tweek to keep it balanced. I still say let the chips finish falling before we toss our hands up with a new CEO and edition.

As long as a tweak is all that's needed. I was interested in the 'nu' gw, so i went for the first best benchmark i could find - the fantasy version, the general's handbook. From what i can tell, the issues weren't actually fixed, just as you say tweaked slightly. Now maybe it'll be different for chapter approved, but its the same company and the same design team, so my magic 8 ball says no.

Not in my experience. The GHB2 fixed 90% of the game. All the OP stuff from GHB1 era was brought down to a competitive level, and everything not competitive was given that slight buff needed. It opened the list building possiblities for all factions immensely. I honestly think that it was the best book ever printed by GW, finely designed and perfectly executed. I expect much less from CA though, since GHB2 came from the observation of a 1 year stable meta.

There are some issues with GHB2. They nerfed Beastclaws (without allies) to near bottom tier levels.

SilverAlien wrote:
Wait, I was wrong before, str 2 doesn't lose any punch vs toughness 7/8, so taking it in bulk can make it overly efficient. The amount it takes to kill 140 ish points of conscripts would be enough to total a predator of the same or higher cost. Which is again weird, and way to efficient for tank hunting.

Str 3 is indeed the answer. In fact, two sets of infantry backed by a company commander are currently a reasonable solution, killing 40 points of conscripts while costing 110 points, a 2.75 ratio. It isn't effective anti tank, 4.95 ratio, but is really effective on other guardsmen, 2.1 ration, or tacticals, 1.9 ratio, caught in the open. With cover that evens up, 3.8 ratio for space marines and 2.75 for the guardsmen predictably, the extra point of armor saving throw putting them even with conscripts in durability.

So yeah, we just need to get other armies sources of str 3 shooting that are roughly as cost effective as IG squads backed by company commanders. Though guard having the best answer to a really rough unit of their own isn't convincing me of their balance still.

How about Genestealers? They offer a 2.57 ratio, killing 93.3 points of Conscripts at cost of 240 points.

Sisters Dominions offer a 3.33 ratio, killing 18 points of Conscripts at cost of 60 points.

Boyz offer a 1.69 ratio, killing 106.668 points at cost of 180 points.

After reading this thread, and arguments/discussion from both sides, I feel there is far too much hyperbole and ideal scenario issues, and far too much vacuum chamber number crunching.

Just my though, shouldn't we just wait a month or two, get feedback and playtime on it. Hopefully there will be some tournament data to add as well.

With all this, I'm sure GW will see if weeks are needed, and chapter approved will issue errata etc.

 Dr. Mills wrote:
After reading this thread, and arguments/discussion from both sides, I feel there is far too much hyperbole and ideal scenario issues, and far too much vacuum chamber number crunching.

Just my though, shouldn't we just wait a month or two, get feedback and playtime on it. Hopefully there will be some tournament data to add as well.

With all this, I'm sure GW will see if weeks are needed, and chapter approved will issue errata etc.

I am in agreeance. I have realised math-hammer, while handy as a very basic guide, doesn't lend itself to on table performance all that well. The perfect world scenarios math hammer loves to quote happen very rarely, and even then its only an indication on average performance. It is a handy tool to use but it shouldn't be the be all and end all of a conversation, but unfortunately too many people hold it as the gold standard of a units performance.

Additionally, while it certainly does appear that IG have been given a substantial buff and they are looking like the top teir codex, even if it dues turn out to be true, its not the end of the game. Eldar were dominant in 7th, but everybody built to fight eldar. Do the same in 8th, build to face massed tanks and infantry, and you should be at least decently competitive against a whole swath of army builds and playstyles.

So, couple of things I’d like to talk about that have been mentioned on this thread.

First off, people need to stop looking at things as 1 unit vs 1 unit for 1 turn only, especially in regards to conscript killing.
For example, a punisher LR with 3 heavy bolters will kill 30 conscripts a turn, on average (which is a full max squad). Sure, the LR costs ~166 points and the conscripts cost 90 points, but, the LR will then go on to kill another unit the next turn. Just because something isn’t “points efficient” at killing a lesser pointed unit doesn’t mean it sucks at the job overall.
The aim of beating conscripts is killing the unit (unless you are playing Valhalla, then you want to reduce it to around <5 models to keep it from respawning). If you could kill a unit of 50 a turn previously, you’re going to find it way easier to kill a unit of 20-30 after this codex is released. Likewise, if you aren’t setup to kill 20-30 t3 models a turn, you’ll likely struggle overall.
Just because 1 unit might not be able to do it, doesn’t mean your overall army can’t. Build a list that can answer various situations.
An example of this, is MWG’s latest Admech vs Catachan Guard vault bat rep. Josh’s 1 unit of 4 Dakkabots essentially destroyed 4 units of 10-man infantry squads in one turn without using the protocol for extra shots. Yes, points wise this isn’t “efficient”, but, game wise it is. Losing 8-9 models in 4, 10 man units, from a single unit’s shooting phase is a pretty big hit in terms of guard efficiency and power in the following turns. Likewise, we saw that a neutron laser Dunecrawler can pretty much 1 shot a LR. Yes, LRs can have a massive amount of firepower now, but, they still die. (not seen all the other batreps yet though)
Another option Admech have that can help vs IG, is sniper Rangers. Characters aren’t going to survive shooting from the str 7 rifles. Standard snipers will also work, but, it’s less likely imo.
Just because something is less efficient that something else “on paper” doesn’t mean it will be the case in game over multiple turns.

Baneblades, I’m glad they got changed, but the impact of the 40-point decrease remains to be seen. Fully tooled up, these are still going to cost 540+ points. Getting the benefit of the regiment when taken in a supreme command detachment or full super heavy detachment is a nice bonus and means you must build for it (essentially making a fully tooled up shadowsword cost at least 630 points – not including missiles and pintle weapons.) Costly, but still probably worth it. And even then, you have 3 pretty useless company commanders if you’re mixing detachments.

People keep saying conscripts got “more durable” as well. Personally, I’m not seeing it. They took a big hit in terms of max squad size and still likely won’t ever be getting the bonus from cover. Sure, they can use the stratagem to put them on +1 save and then get both psychic powers on them for a 3+ save and -1 to hit… But, if you do that, I’d be happy and just shoot at the bigger targets behind them or at another unit of infantry next to them. Sure, being Valallan allows you to bring dead units back, but, chances are once they are brought back they will be out of position for a turn or 2, by which time, your backline units have been charged.

Hellhounds now do what they are meant to – kill basic infantry squads. More so, when they are Catachan. I don’t really see much of a problem here as they still die to a lascanon team.

Cadian rules, are pretty good as well, but can lead to a one-dimensional play style. Heavy cover (lots of ruins and woods with objectives in them) will be the bane of this army as you’ll rack up the maelstrom points over them. If you are really worried about those 12+2d6” moving conscripts moving around late game for objectives… Just kill them, or reduce them in size so your obsec beats theirs.

I’m personally looking at Vostroyan/Valhallan super heavies and Tallaran/Valhallan LR detachments, as being the ones to watch. My SHVs will hit on 2’s and LRs will outflank. That, or one/both could essentially ignore the damage penalties in the shooting phase when above 3 wounds. If you want to stop those tanks, you need to kill them in one turn rather than leaving them alive.

The “ultramarines” style warlord trait is handy, but, not as game breaking as people think. The same was said when the Ultramarines got it, but, it’s hardly what is winning games for them. The relic is also pretty nice, but, again, you’re prob only getting 2 or 3 CP back, if you are lucky. (Remember, this is 1 dice per stratagem, not 1 dice per CP used)

As always, the biggest bane of IG will be the armies taking -1 to hit detachments/auras. Hitting on 5’s and 6’s is a big drop in effectiveness. Sure, Cadian infantry can re-roll everything (except the 4’s/5’s) but, suddenly a lot more things start surviving. LRs will start to struggle a lot in those instances.

Another example of beating Guard in objective/ITC games was highlights by FLG. They did Deathguard vs Catachan, and the Deathguard only lost because, after getting a big early game advantage, Frankie decided not to “hide” in order to keep things interesting in the bat rep.

Stratagem wise, I can only see a small portion of them being used most of the time. These being +1 to the save, repair a vehicle and the regiment specific ones. Cool, you can throw 10 krak grenades, but it’s not going to happen very often. Commissar tank – very situational and not something you prob want to be spamming as a “just in case”. Crush them, nice, but, unless it’s on a SHV, not really impressive. Consolidate squads can be nice if you are going heavy/special weapon heavy infantry squads, but, beyond that all you are doing is making a BS4 conscript squad. Chances are you’ll have enough orders anyway so won’t need to worry about that. Mobile Command Vehicle will be a mainstay for Armageddon lists, but probably not that great beyond that. Likewise, defensive gunners will be a big thing for Mordian tanks, but beyond that dependant on the tank. The rest are just even more situational.

The way I see myself setting up my army, would be a cheapish brigade, a spearhead and a supreme command. In which, I prob won’t even have a commissar and run them as Valhallan, Tallarn and Vostroyan. There are options now, which will hopefully see IG lists start to vary a little.

Guard can, and will, be beaten by a lot of lists – especially in objective games, you are just going to have to play for it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If horde armies in 40k finally don't suck, that's fine by me. The high cost and effort of getting a horde army onto the table easily justifies any in-game advantage they might have.

You have just described pay to win.

 Klowny wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:
After reading this thread, and arguments/discussion from both sides, I feel there is far too much hyperbole and ideal scenario issues, and far too much vacuum chamber number crunching.

Just my though, shouldn't we just wait a month or two, get feedback and playtime on it. Hopefully there will be some tournament data to add as well.

With all this, I'm sure GW will see if weeks are needed, and chapter approved will issue errata etc.

I am in agreeance. I have realised math-hammer, while handy as a very basic guide, doesn't lend itself to on table performance all that well. The perfect world scenarios math hammer loves to quote happen very rarely, and even then its only an indication on average performance. It is a handy tool to use but it shouldn't be the be all and end all of a conversation, but unfortunately too many people hold it as the gold standard of a units performance.

Additionally, while it certainly does appear that IG have been given a substantial buff and they are looking like the top teir codex, even if it dues turn out to be true, its not the end of the game. Eldar were dominant in 7th, but everybody built to fight eldar. Do the same in 8th, build to face massed tanks and infantry, and you should be at least decently competitive against a whole swath of army builds and playstyles.

I have been saying that for years, Mathshammer is a tool, nothing more, plus dice dont use the law of mathematics, they use the law of Mechanics so any maths done to gain a perfect understanding of the statistics is inherently wrong.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 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.

Yeah, if only there were some kind of drawback to issuing orders to conscripts.

 Formosa wrote:
I have been saying that for years, Mathshammer is a tool, nothing more, plus dice dont use the law of mathematics, they use the law of Mechanics so any maths done to gain a perfect understanding of the statistics is inherently wrong.

Those are the same thing.

The point of mathhammer is comparing units.

Its not the case that you can go "right, 4+ to hit, 4+ to wound, no save, 10 wounds on the target, therefore I need exactly 40 shots to kill it and this will always happen".

What you can do is calculate that 9 shots at 3+, 3+ is better than say 12 shots at 4+, 4+ for the same points. Therefore if you are facing the choice you probably want the first option unless there is some synergy to suggest otherwise.

Now in a game anything can happen. Maybe the 3+ having player is unlucky while the 4+ player rolls nothing but 6s.
Over time however this is unlikely to be repeated. Whether you play competitively or casually performance will tend towards the norm and good units will do better than bad units. Therefore if you put good units in your lists you are improving your chances to win.

Will IG win every single game now? No. Play enough and you will get bad dice. They will however win more than they lose because the odds have been skewed heavily in their favour. Much like Eldar in 7th.

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

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

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

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

If you ask me the main problem seems to be that morale, yet again, doesn't impact the game as much as it should. If you could sweep Conscripts or Boys or if they'd lose guys no matter what Comissar stands next to them, their armor and toughness would not matter that much. However, it seems the more Codizes come out the more Boni to morale everybody gets. Apply Chaos tears here for being the only faction that lost army wide fearless without any replacement but Abaddon ;-)