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.

Yeah, unless you literally have just the one anti tank vehicle, this isn't really an issue. Plenty of ways to get redundancy, particularly as the shadow sword apparently comes in at 500ish points max. *glances at crusader knight, sighs*

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Just going to repost this:

IG lists were not winning tournaments. Conscripts, Scions and Forgeworld Earthshakers in conjunction with some soup were winning tournaments. The Codex toned down 2/3 of those units (the only two it had access to) with Scion plasma guns taking a very large point cost increase. Other IG units, which had no competitive presence at all, were buffed and a bunch of very fun looking and useful rules and stratagems were added.

I think part of the problem with the perception of this Codex being "WAUW OP" is that Guard have been bad for so long that people simply are not used to them being on the same level as actual competitive armies. This includes some Guard players who seem to have some kind of imperial stockholm syndrome where they've come to love being a garbage underdog after so many years of it and think that having some kind of list building freedom, on a competitive level, is a bad thing worthy of self flagellation.

The other issue is that people erroneously equated Scions, Conscripts and Earthsakers with "all of the IG" and, seeing as the Codex has numerically more buffs than nerfs, their thought process is "IG was crushing tournaments. IG was given more buffs than nerfs. More buffs than nerfs makes IG stronger, therefore, IG is stronger than before making them OP". The problem of course is what we already established, namely that "all of the IG" was not crushing tournaments, only Scions, Conscripts and FW. Even though the book contained more buffs than nerfs, the nerfs hit the units that mattered in a competitive sense. The end result is that we have no idea how IG will perform in the tournament scene yet seeing as their tournament level units were nerfed, and we will just have to wait and see.

edit: Another very significant nerf is the limit of one command squad per regimental detachment in matched play. This is an enormous change that the "IG OP before proven OP" camp seems to be glossing over, perhaps innocently as it hasn't been discussed very much. That is a big deal though, no more spamming plasma command squads, which were a big part of the Scion issue.

MAnticores and mortars actually were veyr common in these lists. THe manticore is better now with regimental tactics and so are mortars. Oh and elysians too, a lot of that is showing up

Conscripts nerf missed the point of conscripts and they will still show up in every tournament list ever, and for the nerfs they got, their buffs are, in my opinion, better for having access to regiments. Same with Scions really. More expensive scions are more a balance for the really fugging good scion order.

You know the armies all winning tournaments? The only change they might get is maybe adding a russ or two. Otherwise, enjoy your artillery conscript spam with maybe smite spam, probably celestine, maybe guilliman. With the Tallarn regiment, you could even replace scions with russes with a conscript screen.

No one should ever run the shadowsword with anything other than the required twin heavy bolter upgrade. The volcano cannon is so powerful it is going to kill whatever it shoots at and for 404pts if you lose it (very unlikely with the -1 to hit and +2 save buffs) then no big deal. Nothing packs as much punch as this in the game and the new codex reducing its cost, buffing it to 3D3 shots, allow it to move and shoot with no penalty, and giving regimental trait buffs is absouletly insane!!!

So now that the book is out and everyone has fully had a chance to read through it my gaming group has made the decison not to allow any Cadian/Catachan list to be played from he new codex. Though we all agreed that even the other AM codex lists are likely still overpowered we wanted to do a wait and see approach. This will help keep games fun for both players. The next likely change is likely going to be not allowing any of the Baneblade variants or forcing them to use the index variant. To date anyone playing the new AM codex rules for Cadian/Catachan lists has not lost a single game (not even close actually). This includes the games played with the spoiled codex rules for the last 2 weeks.

So it looks like I will be trying to figure out what regiment my AM will now be played since they are modeled and painted like Cadians. Honestly, I feel dirty even playing them since no one has a good time and may just take a break from 40k until some FAQ fixes this problem. I don’t want to constantly be “that guy” it has taken all the joy out of the game for me.

That sounds horrible to me, as I hate banning stuff. I honestly hope it works for your group though.

As for how to build, maybe try something fluffy with one of the remaining doctrines. My go-to would be to build a Tallarn light infantry force, lots of mobile infantry squads and veterans backed up by some lighter vehicles or a sprinkle of heavier armour. Seems really fun to use such a mobile Guard force, I know I am planning to (although my Armoured Company history may warrant a lot more than a "sprinkle").

Other theme lists could be fun too. Human wave Valhallan, a mechanised Steel Legion list, or even gunline Mordians could all be fun. Use the opportunity to try out interesting themes. For instance, I have not heard anyone even talk about Chimeras at all, so they can't be that OP!

 Trickstick wrote:
That sounds horrible to me, as I hate banning stuff. I honestly hope it works for your group though.

As for how to build, maybe try something fluffy with one of the remaining doctrines. My go-to would be to build a Tallarn light infantry force, lots of mobile infantry squads and veterans backed up by some lighter vehicles or a sprinkle of heavier armour. Seems really fun to use such a mobile Guard force, I know I am planning to (although my Armoured Company history may warrant a lot more than a "sprinkle").

Other theme lists could be fun too. Human wave Valhallan, a mechanised Steel Legion list, or even gunline Mordians could all be fun. Use the opportunity to try out interesting themes. For instance, I have not heard anyone even talk about Chimeras at all, so they can't be that OP!

The sad part is I think many AM players like myself are even bummed about this book. Not because it was “bad”, but because they obviously messed up and made it way to good. I wanted a competitive book with tons of options and flavor. However, no one wants a broken codex like we got. I don’t like being told, “you only win because of your stupid powerful codex.” It just takes all the joy from my games and my opponents have no fun as they are tabled by turn 3. I just don’t understand GWs buffs to our already great units to make them OP (i.e Baneblades, Hellhounds, Basilisks). I think most people agreed LRBTs needed a buff. However, did they need a price cut, regiment skills, double shooting, and plasma vent changes? Seems instead of making everything good and useful they said lets try to break the meta to sell models (most of us own tons of AM stuff and wont even need to buy more)

So do your friends also take such a stance against Robby G lists? How about Cawl and Castellans? Celestine soup? It seems pretty reactionary to ban Cadians and Catachans without even playing against them. It's also very groupthinkish because the potential power of Cadians and Catachans absolutely pales in comparison to the potential competitive power available to a Tallarn list, but your friends don't seem to mind Tallarns at all. They don't mind them because they are not even aware of how good they are, and they are not aware because they are just reacting emotionally and haven't taken the time to reason through what's actually in there and how it compares to other competitive lists.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
So do your friends also take such a stance against Robby G lists? How about Cawl and Castellans? Celestine soup? It seems pretty reactionary to ban Cadians and Catachans without even playing against them. It's also very groupthinkish because the potential power of Cadians and Catachans absolutely pales in comparison to the potential competitive power available to a Tallarn list, but your friends don't seem to mind Tallarns at all. They don't mind them because they are not even aware of how good they are, and they are not aware because they are just reacting emotionally and haven't taken the time to reason through what's actually in there and how it compares to other competitive lists.

WE have played numerous games against with and against them. How many times does everyone have to have no fun until you make a decision? I mean everyone realized it was broke in the first round of shooting. As I said other regiments may be banned soon but right now the Cadian/Catachan lists have already proven to be overpowered and zero fun to play with or against. No one has survived to turn 3 when I played my Cadians. The new AM codex has zero weaknesses. You can’t counter build when you are playing AM since they don’t have 1 or 2 good things. Instead they have a dozen amazing thing. I felt dirty playing them and my opponents had absouletly zero fun!

No one minds Robby G since the Stormraven nerf. I expect some significat AM nerfs coming soon which may change all of this discussion if GW is willing to balance it out. No of the other lists you mentioned are nearly as strong as the AM combos. It is also going to make the imperial soup problem worse since everyone is going to try and squeeze in some new AM cheese.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
So do your friends also take such a stance against Robby G lists? How about Cawl and Castellans? Celestine soup? It seems pretty reactionary to ban Cadians and Catachans without even playing against them. It's also very groupthinkish because the potential power of Cadians and Catachans absolutely pales in comparison to the potential competitive power available to a Tallarn list, but your friends don't seem to mind Tallarns at all. They don't mind them because they are not even aware of how good they are, and they are not aware because they are just reacting emotionally and haven't taken the time to reason through what's actually in there and how it compares to other competitive lists.

in your plot to downplay IG tournament winning lists you've failed to include astropaths, primaris psykers, commissars, company commanders, command squads, manticores, heavy weapon team spam, sgt harker, tempestor primes, scion squads, taurox primes as well as basilisk, conscripts, and scions command squads. This ignores all the fw units that also are spammed in winning lists such as elysians, artillery platforms, artillery carriages, thudd guns, and cyclops demo vehicles. So ya other than the above list PRE-BUFF guard had no other units are spammed in tournament winning lists. Feel free to now add infantry squads, baneblade variants, ogryn bodyguard shenanigans, bullgryn, pask and maybe creed to the list of tournament spam lists just becuase of the new broken combos in this codex. Not All the above units are overpowered but they are all extremely competitive and several of them are just brokenly overpowered.

This codex needs a shotgun behind the shed old yeller style from the chapter approved book and errata. It is ridiculous levels of power-creep. Also bobbgy g and Celestine are pretty much just single drop in characters to guard tournament lists now with bobby g being partially redundant in a Cadian list.

hey guys, dont feed the trolls.....

Where's all the Tau and Eldar players at? THEY were king at the tournament scene for many editions. People complained about jet bike spam, and Tau's overwatch but GW never "fixed" those factions.

My friend played Eldar and Tau last edition. Every time he played them he felt like was losing friends and it became boring playing them so he sold those armies and played different one. He didn't like being a one dimensional faction.


Guards weakness is melee....figure it out.....

Derek4real wrote:
hey guys, dont feed the trolls.....

Where's all the Tau and Eldar players at? THEY were king at the tournament scene for many editions. People complained about jet bike spam, and Tau's overwatch but GW never "fixed" those factions.

My friend played Eldar and Tau last edition. Every time he played them he felt like was losing friends and it became boring playing them so he sold those armies and played different one. He didn't like being a one dimensional faction.


Guards weakness is melee....figure it out.....

I have had Eldar for years, never had any issues with friends because I didn't play the one list that was overpowered in those editions. Eldar had a lot of fun choices that weren't in any way overpowered. Pretty much "avoid spamming X" and the army was fine.

Problem with current IG seems to be that even if you pick a wide variety of units in your list (eg. avoid spam, which used to be the big problem with cheese lists), you still have a better than average chance of winning, because so many of the IG units are incredibly powerful and/or efficient for their points. Far more so than a lot of armies. I'd do some comparisons with Orks, but it's really far too depressing.

However, one short example which takes into account your final patronising line of the "Guards weakness is melee.... figure it out..."... well, it has already been figured out on the Orks thread (as well as another thread but I forget which), and for the points the conscripts can pretty easily become *almost* as killy in melee as a basic unit of Ork boys. Doesn't even take much. Two cheap IG characters (one of which you'd have anyway) and the use of Orders, and they can stand toe to toe with an unbuffed Boyz squad. And the characters don't actually ruin the points efficiency, because Boyz were more expensive to start with and the IG characters are cheap. All this, while still being about 500% better than the Boyz at shooting.

Not saying anyone would actually play a conscripts blob like this, because they would get even *better* killiness out of them by just leaving them to shoot stuff and stay out of combat. But they can do both, and if they die in that melee well... who cares, they cost nothing.

It really is kinda ridiculous. Currently guard seem to have no real weaknesses. I can't think of any examples from other armies that could delete a tank per turn without issue. There's one or two units I can think of that *might* have a chance to do it, but they would then die on turn two as they are specialists and fragile, and so would be a suicide squad. Basically like scions, except that they cost more in points and aren't as good. Notice a trend?

Derek4real wrote:
hey guys, dont feed the trolls.....

Where's all the Tau and Eldar players at? THEY were king at the tournament scene for many editions. People complained about jet bike spam, and Tau's overwatch but GW never "fixed" those factions.

My friend played Eldar and Tau last edition. Every time he played them he felt like was losing friends and it became boring playing them so he sold those armies and played different one. He didn't like being a one dimensional faction.


Guards weakness is melee....figure it out.....

Except it isn't. Melee solves nothing in 8th.

Ya melee isn't an issue for guard who A) has a plethora of cheap screens and B) the best doctrine also makes basic units like conscripts into decent melee units who are equivilant to irk boys. Catachan doctrine with straken and a priest pretty much solves the entire issue of basic guards being poor in melee. Rerolls, + str, and extra atks is good enough even if you don't include the other regiments myriad of ways the new codex solves this issue such as shooting while in combat, shooting into a friendly combat, massive overwatch potential etc.
but hey if one of the floats your boat there is always he current broken rule units in bullgryns with 2++ saves who only got cheaper and stronger then eve before.

You can either go Catachan for the S4 or Mordian I think it is for the equivalent of shooting in their regular phase for Overwatch at 5+. Either way works.

Personally I wish they would have kept the limits in. Remember when IG used to have platoons, and a single troop choice was a company command squad and 2 squads of infantry? I think if they had gone that route it may have fixed some things, like for conscripts if you want a squad it's a 0-1 option per infantry platoon and it doesn't count towards the base 2 infantry squads needed to count as a platoon. Stuff like that.

And yeah, I don't feel good playing my IG at the moment either. My solution is if I am playing them I ask my opponent of they are OK with it, and if so I will continue to play from the index. This has worked ok so far for us as I don't use conscripts, but it's not an optimal solution. I mean we should not have to make things worse to make them more balanced. And there is some cool stuff in the codex that is fine, the scions change, and the change to the russes seem balanced and fine to us, seems fluffy enough. But too much seems not well thought out. And hoping for chapter approved or an Errata to fix the problems is probably not going to happen.

brother_b wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I was told spore mines were D3 when I was playing them.

First they roll to hit. Then its 1-nothing happens 2-5 1 mortal 6-d3 mortals. They cost 36 points. If they do miss their shot becomes a mine that does the same thing (but you can shoot it before it hits you) Ultimately if you spam like 15 biovores - you will get an average of 8 mortal wounds on a target - but that doesnt take into account for what happens to the missed spore mines. They are best against flyers because flyers can't avoid the mines because they are forced to move. Really - they suck. Only reliable method Nids have to deal with SHV is close combat - but Nids are probably the best at getting into combat in the game. They can easily charge first turn with 2-3 units. Armies that rely on shooting struggle with this - but not AM. AM has more than enough bodies to stop CC from typing up any important units. Unlike ADmech who have a bunch of units that can't fall back from CC and shoot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:
I don't really understand *in tournaments" how an AM list could ever hope to win against any of the following lists:

- Raven guard
- Alpha legion
- Azrael parking lot
- DG with Mortarion

And probably many more that i'm not recalling at the moment.

It's quite simple really. AM can hide a significant portion of their army and still shoot with it - and most of their shooting is effective against EVERYTHING. Whats available to shoot? 3 Point models. This is basically an auto win condition.

Hiding a significant portion of your army doesn't matter. It's only -1 with Stygies. Pask shoots 49 shots, at BS 2. You think Stygies will hide from him? Other tanks in his army will have a worse BS but can DOUBLE TAP so that works out. And can't tanks take advantage of Cadian's doctrines? Stay still, double tap, reroll ones, or get the Take Aim stratagem and reroll all misses.

Pask's punisher will of course practically ignore the -1 to hit from other armies, but it will have a larger effect on the rest of the army. A standard punisher Russ re-rolling 1’s will only kill 3 marines on average with its 40 shots when at BS5, as tanks don’t get re-roll everything. As for infantry re-rolling all hits when they get the order, they only re-roll failed hits so they will be able to re-roll 1’s, 2’s and 3’s only. A basilisk for example re-rolling 1’s due to Cadian doctrines only kills 1 marine, a manticore only killing 2. Sure, every model lost for marines hurts, but, it’s hardly tabling quality.


As for hiding a significant part of the army so only conscripts remain targetable for most of the army isn’t a bad thing either sometimes. It allows you to easily make the decision to just destroy the conscripts, taking away any late game advantage they might provide in terms of the objective game, while you’re also able to somewhat weather the BS5 firepower.

brother_b wrote:
The ability to fall back seriously handicaps melee armies, as there is no way to lock in units and their is absolutely no penalty for falling back when you're IG and can just issue the get back in the fight order from one of your numerous cheap commanders. Then the melee unit is at the mercy of the entire gunline that didn't move and can now double tap and take advantage of whatever orders and broken stratagem combination you desire.

For melee armies, 30-man conscript squads might be a problem, but, I’d argue that if you want to run a melee focused army you need to be able to kill those 30 conscripts in a single round of combat allowing you to potentially pile into something else. If you can’t get past the screen then, you will struggle in the following shooting phase. It’s another reason why Raven Guard and Alpha Legion are potentially so good, as they can use jump packs to get behind screens on the first turn if they go for the standard “spread across the table” setup with the screen.

brother_b wrote:
Nobody has offered up a solution to what GW will do about the AM codex and tournaments. I'm not sure there is a solution and think with this codex we've ushered in the era of necessary soup and AM dominance.

So far no one has offered up any “solutions” because, despite asking, no one has yet provided us with a list – unbeatable or not, to discuss what we can do to get past it with various armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SilverAlien wrote:
Yeah, unless you literally have just the one anti tank vehicle, this isn't really an issue. Plenty of ways to get redundancy, particularly as the shadow sword apparently comes in at 500ish points max. *glances at crusader knight, sighs*

A shadowsword with 4 lascanons and 5 twin heavy bolters is now 540 points. It is 568 if you want the flamers (i believe)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

broxus wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
So do your friends also take such a stance against Robby G lists? How about Cawl and Castellans? Celestine soup? It seems pretty reactionary to ban Cadians and Catachans without even playing against them. It's also very groupthinkish because the potential power of Cadians and Catachans absolutely pales in comparison to the potential competitive power available to a Tallarn list, but your friends don't seem to mind Tallarns at all. They don't mind them because they are not even aware of how good they are, and they are not aware because they are just reacting emotionally and haven't taken the time to reason through what's actually in there and how it compares to other competitive lists.

WE have played numerous games against with and against them. How many times does everyone have to have no fun until you make a decision? I mean everyone realized it was broke in the first round of shooting. As I said other regiments may be banned soon but right now the Cadian/Catachan lists have already proven to be overpowered and zero fun to play with or against. No one has survived to turn 3 when I played my Cadians. The new AM codex has zero weaknesses. You can’t counter build when you are playing AM since they don’t have 1 or 2 good things. Instead they have a dozen amazing thing. I felt dirty playing them and my opponents had absouletly zero fun!

Out of genuine curiosity what lists have you been running, and what lists have you been going up against? Part of this challenge, for me, is thinking up ways to beat said "unbeatable" lists.

Killing 30 conscripts in a single turn with MEQ attacks takes 68-69 (or 83 asuming no AP) attacks on average. And because of the commisar, there is moral immunity.

for CSM this this means: 14 khorne berserkers (224 points), 18 mutilators (700 points), 43 raptors(731 points) or 25 warp talons(675 points). I know you're not supposed to attack conscripts but that is a bit excessive wouldn't you say?(I calculated each unit seperately with minimal upgrades, upgrades only make the points inefficiency worse).

I believe there is no balance concern that can't be adressed by increasing/decreasing points cost. And I think that's what's needed in the new AM codex and hoping that is what Chapter approved will bring. They said it would in there, it was in the general's handbook for aos(I and II), So fingers crossed??

I was going to add this to my post in the "What do you think of 8th now" thread but it makes more sense here.

I feel like Guard, specifically the Leman Russ percieved OPness is the tournament communities own fault. People kept calling the Leman Russ terrible and useless when really it was decent just not the best. This lead to GW overtweaking their buff.

GW listened to your hyperbole and they acted on it, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Earth127 wrote:
Killing 30 conscripts in a single turn with MEQ attacks takes 68-69 (or 83 asuming no AP) attacks on average. And because of the commisar, there is moral immunity.

for CSM this this means: 14 khorne berserkers (224 points), 18 mutilators (700 points), 43 raptors(731 points) or 25 warp talons(675 points). I know you're not supposed to attack conscripts but that is a bit excessive wouldn't you say?(I calculated each unit seperately with minimal upgrades, upgrades only make the points inefficiency worse).


I believe there is no balance concern that can't be adressed by increasing/decreasing points cost. And I think that's what's needed in the new AM codex and hoping that is what Chapter approved will bring. They said it would in there, it was in the general's handbook for aos(I and II), So fingers crossed??

Alternatively, 2 stormtalons with heavy bolters kill 24 a turn between them allowing a 5 man marine squad to kill the remaining 6 via shooting and combat. Sure, it's 19.75% of your army to kill 4.5% of theirs but it's an option. Alternatively, you could argue that you don’t need to actually kill all 30 conscripts if you are a shooting army, as reducing a conscript squad by 25 models basically makes them irrelevant. This then allows your deep striking melee units to easily get around the larger screens and into, either the smaller units, or backline units. For me, at this point, it becomes more about cycling units into combat, rather than hoping to kill all of the screening units in one go. However, if they are only running 1 30 man units and then several basic infantry squads, then sacrificing 350 points of shooting turn one to clear 30 models is probably a no brainier choice due to the options it then provides.

Another option, for marines anyway, is to just run a leviathan dread down the centre of the table and watch blobs melt.

Everything i guess, will depend on whether you can deep-strike or are resilient enough to weather 1 turn of shooting without crumbling.

But for commissars, Chaos soup can utilize cheap bodies coupled with durability; on par in lethality with IG.

Death Guard have even more options for cheap bodies (coupled with durability.

Some of the index armies are falling behind, but it's way too early to start banning IG regiments, if only because the other newer armies haven't been absorbed into the meta - and the IG book has been out for literally 2 days...

Kdash wrote:
as reducing a conscript squad by 25 models basically makes them irrelevant.

5 conscripts on an objective is the same amount of points won as 30 conscripts on the same.

Azuza001 wrote:
Personally I wish they would have kept the limits in. Remember when IG used to have platoons, and a single troop choice was a company command squad and 2 squads of infantry? I think if they had gone that route it may have fixed some things, like for conscripts if you want a squad it's a 0-1 option per infantry platoon and it doesn't count towards the base 2 infantry squads needed to count as a platoon. Stuff like that.

And yeah, I don't feel good playing my IG at the moment either. My solution is if I am playing them I ask my opponent of they are OK with it, and if so I will continue to play from the index. This has worked ok so far for us as I don't use conscripts, but it's not an optimal solution. I mean we should not have to make things worse to make them more balanced. And there is some cool stuff in the codex that is fine, the scions change, and the change to the russes seem balanced and fine to us, seems fluffy enough. But too much seems not well thought out. And hoping for chapter approved or an Errata to fix the problems is probably not going to happen.

I couldn't agree more. I've been avoiding artillery and conscripts, but it seems almost everything is too good now. The painful part is how good the content of the book is compared to the previous. We actually have options for ways to make our guard different. GW just booted it. I hope they will fix it. I'm just thinking about all those Scions I bought when the Index first came out never dreaming guard would be OP. Fourty-five scions counting the Prime with 4 Taurox Primes. I'll probably use about 15 and let the rest and all the TPs collect dust.

Kdash wrote:

Earth127 wrote:
Killing 30 conscripts in a single turn with MEQ attacks takes 68-69 (or 83 asuming no AP) attacks on average. And because of the commisar, there is moral immunity.

for CSM this this means: 14 khorne berserkers (224 points), 18 mutilators (700 points), 43 raptors(731 points) or 25 warp talons(675 points). I know you're not supposed to attack conscripts but that is a bit excessive wouldn't you say?(I calculated each unit seperately with minimal upgrades, upgrades only make the points inefficiency worse).


I believe there is no balance concern that can't be adressed by increasing/decreasing points cost. And I think that's what's needed in the new AM codex and hoping that is what Chapter approved will bring. They said it would in there, it was in the general's handbook for aos(I and II), So fingers crossed??

Alternatively, 2 stormtalons with heavy bolters kill 24 a turn between them allowing a 5 man marine squad to kill the remaining 6 via shooting and combat. Sure, it's 19.75% of your army to kill 4.5% of theirs but it's an option. Alternatively, you could argue that you don’t need to actually kill all 30 conscripts if you are a shooting army, as reducing a conscript squad by 25 models basically makes them irrelevant. This then allows your deep striking melee units to easily get around the larger screens and into, either the smaller units, or backline units. For me, at this point, it becomes more about cycling units into combat, rather than hoping to kill all of the screening units in one go. However, if they are only running 1 30 man units and then several basic infantry squads, then sacrificing 350 points of shooting turn one to clear 30 models is probably a no brainier choice due to the options it then provides.

Another option, for marines anyway, is to just run a leviathan dread down the centre of the table and watch blobs melt.

Everything i guess, will depend on whether you can deep-strike or are resilient enough to weather 1 turn of shooting without crumbling.

I was answering the poster before who said melee focussed armies should be able to kill conscripts in 1 turn to prevent fall back shenannigans. It's hilarriously ineffeciant to try.

You only need 1 or 2 OP choices in your army to make other good choices shine tough. Conscripts being top good at their primary job (a goood screen) means everything else gets more chance to do their stuff (artillery/ leman russes to shoot you off the board). People tend to overdo nerfs on a forum like this.

 Purifier wrote:

Kdash wrote:
as reducing a conscript squad by 25 models basically makes them irrelevant.

5 conscripts on an objective is the same amount of points won as 30 conscripts on the same.

Ok, irrelevant in terms of their designed "role" for the early stages of a game. Conscripts are "generally" there to provide a screen of bodies and FRFSRF with hundreds of shots early game. Dropping them down to 5 men massively reduces their impact and ability to meet those roles.

Plus, later on, a 5 man squad is waaaay easier to deal with than a 30 man squad, and chances are you can easily contest that objective yourself due to them having practically zero threat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
[quote=Earth127 741164 9640411 null

I was answering the poster before who said melee focussed armies should be able to kill conscripts in 1 turn to prevent fall back shenannigans. It's hilarriously ineffeciant to try.

You only need 1 or 2 OP choices in your army to make other good choices shine tough. Conscripts being top good at their primary job (a goood screen) means everything else gets more chance to do their stuff (artillery/ leman russes to shoot you off the board). People tend to overdo nerfs on a forum like this.

There are way too many "what ifs" for you to make that claim, but if you've been focusing on 30 man squads and leaving clumps of 5 all over, then your marines or whatever have most probably been whiped out during the same period, and all those 5 man conscript squads are gonna be awesome objective holders, and you have very little left to move them off objectives with.

gungo wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
So do your friends also take such a stance against Robby G lists? How about Cawl and Castellans? Celestine soup? It seems pretty reactionary to ban Cadians and Catachans without even playing against them. It's also very groupthinkish because the potential power of Cadians and Catachans absolutely pales in comparison to the potential competitive power available to a Tallarn list, but your friends don't seem to mind Tallarns at all. They don't mind them because they are not even aware of how good they are, and they are not aware because they are just reacting emotionally and haven't taken the time to reason through what's actually in there and how it compares to other competitive lists.

in your plot to downplay IG tournament winning lists

We'll stop right here since everything you're going to say afterwards will be based upon this shaky foundation, and therefore won't matter. Unless, that is, you can link me to an IG Codex list which has won a tournament. Because I have been talking about the IG codex. Or could it be you jumped the gun so badly in your own mind that you actually think the IG Codex has been crushing the tournament scene even though it's been out of a total of 2 days.

Edit: I'll reiterate, it's way too early to be calling this codex broken OP. It may well prove to be, but currently you can't say it is with any degree of certainty like some are pretending to be able to do. It's way too early to be doing that as there is no meaningful evidence beyond "my feels".

 Purifier wrote:
There are way too many "what ifs" for you to make that claim, but if you've been focusing on 30 man squads and leaving clumps of 5 all over, then your marines or whatever have most probably been whiped out during the same period, and all those 5 man conscript squads are gonna be awesome objective holders, and you have very little left to move them off objectives with.

Just how many 30 man squads are you expecting to face??

The more i look at building Guard lists, the more i'm leaning towards 10 man infantry squads over conscripts. So far, the most i've had in a list has been 80 conscripts, and that was an idea quickly dropped to no more than 60. As i stated before, there are options to easily drop 30 down to 5 for around 300 points (and under in some cases) for SM armies, leaving me with the other 1700 points to do other things with. But, i would have no issue with spending 600 points on durable, -1 to hit t6/t7 or t8 units that are capable of decimating 2 30 man squads in a turn whilst surviving a lot of return firepower. This then gives the guard player a choice. Try to prevent the horde killers from killing more and moving onto tougher targets, or try to focus on other threats and leaving something like a Leviathan dreadnought killing whatever it wants.

Those 639 points btw, would be 2 stormtalons with heavy bolters and a double grav flux leviathan using Raven Guard tactics. Whichever you target first turn you'd suffer at least a -1 to hit as i'd keep you out of 12" range of the Leviathan, and, if you've deployed smartly and are out of first turn range, i'd just give you a -2 to hit via smoke launchers. But, even then, the 2 stormtalons have already destroyed most of 1 squad of conscripts.

As for the other 1361 points - you get to fill it with whatever you want for ranged tank destroying and screening.

Could it be that we just have crappy and rare Sniper rules?

 Purifier wrote:

Kdash wrote:
as reducing a conscript squad by 25 models basically makes them irrelevant.

5 conscripts on an objective is the same amount of points won as 30 conscripts on the same.

But easier to brush off that objective in a later turn and easier to outnumber, meaning they are not a priority target turn 1.

"Close Combat is the counter to Ig....." *looks down at ork index... looks up at table to see the majority of my ork force destroyed turn 1 and I was only able to run 1" more making my cc army a whole 2 turns away from the charge... looks at lines of infintry and conscripts ready to destroy me turn 2... looks at my characters being killed by snipers from 72" away, geuss I can't run and charge anymore. Oh and bye bye invulns and fnp... See battle wagon destroyed by scion deepstrike then orks inside cleaned ip by turux prime. Looks at my 30 man blob I da jumped over and see that 60 shots in overwatch rerolling misses does not taste good. Still have to make that 9"charge... fail.... cry... go home... read people complaining about their army when I play Orks... cry some more* (the actual game I played vs a codex IG army today).