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.

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

Even if snipers were as good as they need to be they would only really be a threat to the big monstrous creature HQ's (IE Daemon Princes and Guilliman). Even with a minor amount of LOS blocking terrain it's easy to find something to hide a model as small as a commissar behind.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

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".

Have to say it's kinda amusing to see you trying to defend this codex... when there are people out there who have played multiple games with the new codex, and have reported back with either:

1) The codex is so brokenly good, that it is not fun to play. I feel bad playing it and I'm shelving my army until it's fixed.

or

2) (slightly less common) My gaming group has outright banned certain units/doctrines from being played, and/or has reverted back to the index for the rules in order to avoid (1).


I've heard a few IG/Imperium players go "waah waah but eldar and tau were so op back in whenever" but that's just a stupid argument. They had maybe one or two good units, that had to be spammed to be overpowered, and 95% of casual game groups didn't play that way. The new IG codex is so good, that people are having to work at trying to find awful combinations that actually make a fair fight. And awful combinations are not fun to play.

Niiru wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

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".

Have to say it's kinda amusing to see you trying to defend this codex... when there are people out there who have played multiple games with the new codex, and have reported back with either:

1) The codex is so brokenly good, that it is not fun to play. I feel bad playing it and I'm shelving my army until it's fixed.

or

2) (slightly less common) My gaming group has outright banned certain units/doctrines from being played, and/or has reverted back to the index for the rules in order to avoid (1).


I've heard a few IG/Imperium players go "waah waah but eldar and tau were so op back in whenever" but that's just a stupid argument. They had maybe one or two good units, that had to be spammed to be overpowered, and 95% of casual game groups didn't play that way. The new IG codex is so good, that people are having to work at trying to find awful combinations that actually make a fair fight. And awful combinations are not fun to play.

It's too early.

A few anecdotal reports and 'Sky is Falling' freakouts with preliminary banning mean less than nothing - and are so characteristic of this community. None of this is new.

We'll have actual results soon enough though, and then you may very well be right.

 Gunzhard wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

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".

Have to say it's kinda amusing to see you trying to defend this codex... when there are people out there who have played multiple games with the new codex, and have reported back with either:

1) The codex is so brokenly good, that it is not fun to play. I feel bad playing it and I'm shelving my army until it's fixed.

or

2) (slightly less common) My gaming group has outright banned certain units/doctrines from being played, and/or has reverted back to the index for the rules in order to avoid (1).


I've heard a few IG/Imperium players go "waah waah but eldar and tau were so op back in whenever" but that's just a stupid argument. They had maybe one or two good units, that had to be spammed to be overpowered, and 95% of casual game groups didn't play that way. The new IG codex is so good, that people are having to work at trying to find awful combinations that actually make a fair fight. And awful combinations are not fun to play.

It's too early.

A few anecdotal reports and 'Sky is Falling' freakouts with preliminary banning mean less than nothing - and are so characteristic of this community. None of this is new.

We'll have actual results soon enough though, and then you may very well be right.

Ok, I can see where you're coming from, and I would usually agree with you. Just finding it hard to in this specific case, just because of how many issues seem to be coming up all at once. But you're right, more facts are always better.

A general question for everyone: what does a "not op" Guard list look like now? People all have an opinion on what is or is not balanced but what sort of list do you think would be a good match up for your force? What would you be ok with seeing across the table and not baulk at facing?

 Trickstick wrote:
A general question for everyone: what does a "not op" Guard list look like now? People all have an opinion on what is or is not balanced but what sort of list do you think would be a good match up for your force? What would you be ok with seeing across the table and not baulk at facing?

I'm afraid it's too early to say that yet. There will be much gnashing of teeth before we figure that out. I'm not going to base it off suggestions here anyway. Too much hyperbole. The dex looks pretty broke, though.

 Trickstick wrote:
A general question for everyone: what does a "not op" Guard list look like now? People all have an opinion on what is or is not balanced but what sort of list do you think would be a good match up for your force? What would you be ok with seeing across the table and not baulk at facing?

Going just from what gets the most complaints on here at the moment... no conscripts, no superheavies, no named characters. Though to be honest a lot of problems with 40k can be removed by playing without named characters, which is pretty much how it has been for as long as I can remember. Special characters have always been game breaking more often than not.

Actually, unusually, in 8th edition the characters I know of from Orks and Eldar are actually not that powerful. They're pretty much fine. It's only been the imperial ones that have been... too much. Though orks and eldar are still index characters, so they may get stupid buffs when they get a codex. Hope not.

 Trickstick wrote:
A general question for everyone: what does a "not op" Guard list look like now? People all have an opinion on what is or is not balanced but what sort of list do you think would be a good match up for your force? What would you be ok with seeing across the table and not baulk at facing?

Yup it's definitely too early... but I'd venture if you completely avoid Conscripts, Taurox spam and deep striking plasma you'll have created a good faith list...

Niiru wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
A general question for everyone: what does a "not op" Guard list look like now? People all have an opinion on what is or is not balanced but what sort of list do you think would be a good match up for your force? What would you be ok with seeing across the table and not baulk at facing?

Going just from what gets the most complaints on here at the moment... no conscripts, no superheavies, no named characters. Though to be honest a lot of problems with 40k can be removed by playing without named characters, which is pretty much how it has been for as long as I can remember. Special characters have always been game breaking more often than not.

Actually, unusually, in 8th edition the characters I know of from Orks and Eldar are actually not that powerful. They're pretty much fine. It's only been the imperial ones that have been... too much. Though orks and eldar are still index characters, so they may get stupid buffs when they get a codex. Hope not.

Please prove your point and go over the long history of 40k and how special characters have been more game breaking than not. Please do tell.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
A general question for everyone: what does a "not op" Guard list look like now? People all have an opinion on what is or is not balanced but what sort of list do you think would be a good match up for your force? What would you be ok with seeing across the table and not baulk at facing?

Going just from what gets the most complaints on here at the moment... no conscripts, no superheavies, no named characters. Though to be honest a lot of problems with 40k can be removed by playing without named characters, which is pretty much how it has been for as long as I can remember. Special characters have always been game breaking more often than not.

Actually, unusually, in 8th edition the characters I know of from Orks and Eldar are actually not that powerful. They're pretty much fine. It's only been the imperial ones that have been... too much. Though orks and eldar are still index characters, so they may get stupid buffs when they get a codex. Hope not.

Please prove your point and go over the long history of 40k and how special characters have been more game breaking than not. Please do tell.

Sigh, forgot this was Dakka for a second there. I should have added "in my experience". There.

But it's hardly a long stretch to look back over various special character rules, and see how much more powerful many named characters were compared to the standard "non-special" HQ choices.

Niiru wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
A general question for everyone: what does a "not op" Guard list look like now? People all have an opinion on what is or is not balanced but what sort of list do you think would be a good match up for your force? What would you be ok with seeing across the table and not baulk at facing?

Going just from what gets the most complaints on here at the moment... no conscripts, no superheavies, no named characters. Though to be honest a lot of problems with 40k can be removed by playing without named characters, which is pretty much how it has been for as long as I can remember. Special characters have always been game breaking more often than not.

Actually, unusually, in 8th edition the characters I know of from Orks and Eldar are actually not that powerful. They're pretty much fine. It's only been the imperial ones that have been... too much. Though orks and eldar are still index characters, so they may get stupid buffs when they get a codex. Hope not.

Please prove your point and go over the long history of 40k and how special characters have been more game breaking than not. Please do tell.

Sigh, forgot this was Dakka for a second there. I should have added "in my experience". There.

But it's hardly a long stretch to look back over various special character rules, and see how much more powerful many named characters were compared to the standard "non-special" HQ choices.

You took that better than I would have. Good for you. One more to the list....

 Trickstick wrote:
A general question for everyone: what does a "not op" Guard list look like now? People all have an opinion on what is or is not balanced but what sort of list do you think would be a good match up for your force? What would you be ok with seeing across the table and not baulk at facing?

First don't take Celestine or guilliman.
Second play fluffy examples below:
Cool looking units like regimental and platoon banners are awesome models everyone has and no one uses.
Take medics and vox casters
Don't spam plasma like it's the new hotness... grenade launchers do still exist I assure you.
take autocannons heavy bolters and missle launchers for heavy weapons beats the heck out of mortar or lascannon spam
Use infantry troops instead of only multiple conscripts squads supported by commissars.
You don't need scions in fact up till about a year and a half ago few guard players used scions ever except that one guy you knew who had kaskrin becuase they looked cool. Feel free to use veterans again let's Make vets great again.
If you have Cadian models play cadia doctrine it's probably better then catachan anyway and you will look like you are powergaming if you do play catachan with Cadian models ... although I can see people playing tallarn if they don't have tallarn models since it really does play differently. Also it looks less dodgy if you play your actual regiment. Sadly I'll be playing steel legion rules or dkok and steel legion is probably the worst doctrine.
There is no need to spam multiple company commanders. It actually doesn't even make sense fluff wise. And bonus it cuts down on command squad spam.
Talk about commanders feel free to use a vanquisher command tank it's cool and fluffy as well. Play the leman russes you enjoy there is no need to spam punishers or executioners.
Stay away from fw units with busted rules like basilisk platforms that don't degrade, can fire in combat, and cost like half the price of a regular basilisk or Elysians with thier free deepstrike dam3 plasmaguns that still cost 7pts.
There is no need to spam multiple astorpaths and primaris psykers like it's the annual psychic convention 1 of each should suffice.
Don't stack ogryns so they become unkillable 2++ broken units that you keep healing
Don't abuse ogryn bodyguards to eat massive hits from pask which is likely not intended.
Don't spam more then 1 superheavy and it's usually good etiquette to inform your oppponent if you do want to bring one.
Doing the above should ensure you still have friends to play in the future.
Good news is your army will look fluffy and cool and still be strong enough to win most friendly local game store games.
If you find your list is still to strong feel free to take a deathstrike missile. It's fun to use and really a pointless waste of points too.
If someone is powergaming you feel free to ignore everything I said and curb stomp them.

I'm not against using special characters or doctrines that match my army even if it's strong. But there is a lot of stuff people do to optimize thier army that makes it to strong for friendly games especially when our codex is very strong at its basic level. And no one balks at a well painted fluffy army even if they do get curb stomped.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

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

Even if snipers were as good as they need to be they would only really be a threat to the big monstrous creature HQ's (IE Daemon Princes and Guilliman). Even with a minor amount of LOS blocking terrain it's easy to find something to hide a model as small as a commissar behind.

So the ruleset is broken at its core? Because this seems a damn bad issue, possibly related to the increase of the Wounds for small buffing characters

Niiru wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
A general question for everyone: what does a "not op" Guard list look like now? People all have an opinion on what is or is not balanced but what sort of list do you think would be a good match up for your force? What would you be ok with seeing across the table and not baulk at facing?

Going just from what gets the most complaints on here at the moment... no conscripts, no superheavies, no named characters. Though to be honest a lot of problems with 40k can be removed by playing without named characters, which is pretty much how it has been for as long as I can remember. Special characters have always been game breaking more often than not.

Actually, unusually, in 8th edition the characters I know of from Orks and Eldar are actually not that powerful. They're pretty much fine. It's only been the imperial ones that have been... too much. Though orks and eldar are still index characters, so they may get stupid buffs when they get a codex. Hope not.

Please prove your point and go over the long history of 40k and how special characters have been more game breaking than not. Please do tell.

Sigh, forgot this was Dakka for a second there. I should have added "in my experience". There.

But it's hardly a long stretch to look back over various special character rules, and see how much more powerful many named characters were compared to the standard "non-special" HQ choices.

Then it'll be no problem for you to do that task then.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
A general question for everyone: what does a "not op" Guard list look like now? People all have an opinion on what is or is not balanced but what sort of list do you think would be a good match up for your force? What would you be ok with seeing across the table and not baulk at facing?

Going just from what gets the most complaints on here at the moment... no conscripts, no superheavies, no named characters. Though to be honest a lot of problems with 40k can be removed by playing without named characters, which is pretty much how it has been for as long as I can remember. Special characters have always been game breaking more often than not.

Actually, unusually, in 8th edition the characters I know of from Orks and Eldar are actually not that powerful. They're pretty much fine. It's only been the imperial ones that have been... too much. Though orks and eldar are still index characters, so they may get stupid buffs when they get a codex. Hope not.

Please prove your point and go over the long history of 40k and how special characters have been more game breaking than not. Please do tell.

Sigh, forgot this was Dakka for a second there. I should have added "in my experience". There.

But it's hardly a long stretch to look back over various special character rules, and see how much more powerful many named characters were compared to the standard "non-special" HQ choices.

Then it'll be no problem for you to do that task then.

Ok. 4th edition Mephiston was significantly better than a standard librarian. 7th edition Ghazkrul was better than a standard warboss. Eldrad is better than a standard farseer.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought this was all kinda obvious... it's why a lot of casual games I've played over the years has had a "no special characters" ruling, as having a special character (if your opponent didn't have one) was a sizable advantage.

Niiru wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
A general question for everyone: what does a "not op" Guard list look like now? People all have an opinion on what is or is not balanced but what sort of list do you think would be a good match up for your force? What would you be ok with seeing across the table and not baulk at facing?

Going just from what gets the most complaints on here at the moment... no conscripts, no superheavies, no named characters. Though to be honest a lot of problems with 40k can be removed by playing without named characters, which is pretty much how it has been for as long as I can remember. Special characters have always been game breaking more often than not.

Actually, unusually, in 8th edition the characters I know of from Orks and Eldar are actually not that powerful. They're pretty much fine. It's only been the imperial ones that have been... too much. Though orks and eldar are still index characters, so they may get stupid buffs when they get a codex. Hope not.

Please prove your point and go over the long history of 40k and how special characters have been more game breaking than not. Please do tell.

Sigh, forgot this was Dakka for a second there. I should have added "in my experience". There.

But it's hardly a long stretch to look back over various special character rules, and see how much more powerful many named characters were compared to the standard "non-special" HQ choices.

Then it'll be no problem for you to do that task then.

Ok. 4th edition Mephiston was significantly better than a standard librarian. 7th edition Ghazkrul was better than a standard warboss. Eldrad is better than a standard farseer.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought this was all kinda obvious... it's why a lot of casual games I've played over the years has had a "no special characters" ruling, as having a special character (if your opponent didn't have one) was a sizable advantage.

You should have seen mephiston back in 2nd. happy times. But back then, special characters were opponent's consent

Niiru wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
A general question for everyone: what does a "not op" Guard list look like now? People all have an opinion on what is or is not balanced but what sort of list do you think would be a good match up for your force? What would you be ok with seeing across the table and not baulk at facing?

Going just from what gets the most complaints on here at the moment... no conscripts, no superheavies, no named characters. Though to be honest a lot of problems with 40k can be removed by playing without named characters, which is pretty much how it has been for as long as I can remember. Special characters have always been game breaking more often than not.

Actually, unusually, in 8th edition the characters I know of from Orks and Eldar are actually not that powerful. They're pretty much fine. It's only been the imperial ones that have been... too much. Though orks and eldar are still index characters, so they may get stupid buffs when they get a codex. Hope not.

Please prove your point and go over the long history of 40k and how special characters have been more game breaking than not. Please do tell.

Sigh, forgot this was Dakka for a second there. I should have added "in my experience". There.

But it's hardly a long stretch to look back over various special character rules, and see how much more powerful many named characters were compared to the standard "non-special" HQ choices.

Then it'll be no problem for you to do that task then.

Ok. 4th edition Mephiston was significantly better than a standard librarian. 7th edition Ghazkrul was better than a standard warboss. Eldrad is better than a standard farseer.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought this was all kinda obvious... it's why a lot of casual games I've played over the years has had a "no special characters" ruling, as having a special character (if your opponent didn't have one) was a sizable advantage.

Nobody ran Blood Angels where I was at in 4th so I can't comment, but Da Lucky Stick Warboss was always a better choice than Ghaz (and in fact any Biker Warboss was better) and having multiple Farseers was better than a single Eldrad due to getting more powers to use and generating more Warp Charges. They look better singularly but when you add the actual point cost they're not any better, and most of the time worse.

Eldrad off the top of my head in 4th was silly crazy awesome vs a normal farseer. Psychic phase back then wasn't even a phase, you cast the powers in the moving or shooting phase depending on what they were.

I feel a bit funny about this topic as well, for example I normally hate named charecters and won't use them. I will make a mini kharn (lord with axe of Blind Fury) and call him Flakes instead of taking Kharn for example. But recently I asked my normal Tyrnaid opponent "Hey, why don't take the Swarmlord?" She never considered it and personally I don't see a problem with it, I think it's an interesting variation for a hive tyrant. But I do remember back in 3rd why they got rid of the "with opponents consent" rule when they moved to 4th. It was because no one ever gave consent and people would buy these beautiful models and then have to beg to be able to use them. That's not good.

Next game I play with my Guard I am going to try something, I am going to add the rule "issuing a command costs 1 command point" and see how that effects things. Since I normally start with 12+ when my opponent only gets 5 or 6 I think this has the possibility to help lower the effects of the guard.

Heck has anyone tried a game and not issued orders to see how well guard do? Or try without using commissars? I am not saying "I couldn't take them because my group banned them" , I mean actually make a list and play it semi competitively and see how it works missing one of those "key" tools? If you win or lose how close was it? I think that's the kind of experimenting we should be doing with guard, not just flat out "it's op I won't play you" or "I feel Dirty playing, but it is what it is so here I go".

gungo wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
A general question for everyone: what does a "not op" Guard list look like now? People all have an opinion on what is or is not balanced but what sort of list do you think would be a good match up for your force? What would you be ok with seeing across the table and not baulk at facing?

First don't take Celestine or guilliman.
Second play fluffy examples below:
Cool looking units like regimental and platoon banners are awesome models everyone has and no one uses.
Take medics and vox casters
Don't spam plasma like it's the new hotness... grenade launchers do still exist I assure you.
take autocannons heavy bolters and missle launchers for heavy weapons beats the heck out of mortar or lascannon spam
Use infantry troops instead of only multiple conscripts squads supported by commissars.
You don't need scions in fact up till about a year and a half ago few guard players used scions ever except that one guy you knew who had kaskrin becuase they looked cool. Feel free to use veterans again let's Make vets great again.
If you have Cadian models play cadia doctrine it's probably better then catachan anyway and you will look like you are powergaming if you do play catachan with Cadian models ... although I can see people playing tallarn if they don't have tallarn models since it really does play differently. Also it looks less dodgy if you play your actual regiment. Sadly I'll be playing steel legion rules or dkok and steel legion is probably the worst doctrine.
There is no need to spam multiple company commanders. It actually doesn't even make sense fluff wise. And bonus it cuts down on command squad spam.
Talk about commanders feel free to use a vanquisher command tank it's cool and fluffy as well. Play the leman russes you enjoy there is no need to spam punishers or executioners.
Stay away from fw units with busted rules like basilisk platforms that don't degrade, can fire in combat, and cost like half the price of a regular basilisk or Elysians with thier free deepstrike dam3 plasmaguns that still cost 7pts.
There is no need to spam multiple astorpaths and primaris psykers like it's the annual psychic convention 1 of each should suffice.
Don't stack ogryns so they become unkillable 2++ broken units that you keep healing
Don't abuse ogryn bodyguards to eat massive hits from pask which is likely not intended.
Don't spam more then 1 superheavy and it's usually good etiquette to inform your oppponent if you do want to bring one.
Doing the above should ensure you still have friends to play in the future.
Good news is your army will look fluffy and cool and still be strong enough to win most friendly local game store games.
If you find your list is still to strong feel free to take a deathstrike missile. It's fun to use and really a pointless waste of points too.
If someone is powergaming you feel free to ignore everything I said and curb stomp them.

I'm not against using special characters or doctrines that match my army even if it's strong. But there is a lot of stuff people do to optimize thier army that makes it to strong for friendly games especially when our codex is very strong at its basic level. And no one balks at a well painted fluffy army even if they do get curb stomped.

So deliberately play the worst gunk in the codex...

Why don't simply come up with your own points values?

It would take some playtesting, but that's the point of points.

gungo wrote:
Don't abuse ogryn bodyguards to eat massive hits from pask which is likely not intended.

But the 18 Ogryn Bodyguard + 5 Tank Commanders build is so amusing!

"What's that? You want to shoot my Ogryn? They're all characters and the tank's closer, sorry. Oh, you pushed a wound through on it? My bodyguards will spread the damage across them. Keep it up! Only 100 more wounds against T8 before you start doing damage to the tanks!"

broxus wrote:
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.

I commend you for both acknowledging that the AM codex is overpowered and taking steps to ensure others have fun. Although banning those lists alone helps it doesn't undo the pure cheese that the new codex puts out.

Are you allowed to run those lists during competitive tournaments at your local store?

Niiru wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:
A general question for everyone: what does a "not op" Guard list look like now? People all have an opinion on what is or is not balanced but what sort of list do you think would be a good match up for your force? What would you be ok with seeing across the table and not baulk at facing?

Going just from what gets the most complaints on here at the moment... no conscripts, no superheavies, no named characters. Though to be honest a lot of problems with 40k can be removed by playing without named characters, which is pretty much how it has been for as long as I can remember. Special characters have always been game breaking more often than not.

Actually, unusually, in 8th edition the characters I know of from Orks and Eldar are actually not that powerful. They're pretty much fine. It's only been the imperial ones that have been... too much. Though orks and eldar are still index characters, so they may get stupid buffs when they get a codex. Hope not.

Please prove your point and go over the long history of 40k and how special characters have been more game breaking than not. Please do tell.

Sigh, forgot this was Dakka for a second there. I should have added "in my experience". There.

But it's hardly a long stretch to look back over various special character rules, and see how much more powerful many named characters were compared to the standard "non-special" HQ choices.

Its ok mate, I can help.

3rd: they had a cap, but were almost always "good"
4th: cap removed, certain characters were hella broken, but most were meh
5th: very mixed bag from stupid broken to utter trash
6th: same as 5th
7th: this was the Ed for mega broken chracters and special characters.
8th: HERO HAMMER!!!!!!!!! is back, Gw claimed that the days of "superfriends" was over, they stuck to formula and failed miserably and now rather than just affecting there own unit, they have bubble! woooo good job GW.

So over the years Special characters have had hies and lows, but on the whole they have always been better than the non special kind, which is bonkers, lysander, Draigo etc. have given them all a bad name.

Niiru wrote:
7th edition Ghazkrul was better than a standard warboss.

Nope. A MA warboss with da lukky stikk was almost unkillable and half his points. He also buffed his entire unit with +1 WS.
Anything that could stop a MA warboss with rerollable saves could just as easily kill Thrakka.

 lolman1c wrote:
"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).

So... What happens when you get 3, 4 or 5 charges off into the conscripts and infantry squads first turn?
Snipers are useful, but, unless they are taking 3 vindicares or shooting 12-18 snipers into 1 basic character, you're characters aren't dying 90% of the time. Plus, if they are taking Vindicares, unless they are taking a separate non-guard detachment they won't get the doctrine benefits.
As above - chances of Ratlings killing 1 Big Mek in a turn are extremely slim unless they are spammed, so, chances are you'll be keeping your auras/most of your auras til turns 3.
Sure, Scion's can deep-strike and destroy the battle wagon turn one, but, as Orks you have it way easier to force someone outside of rapid fire range turn 1-2 than most, due to number of bodies. No rapid fire plasma and suddenly you need 24 plasma shots to 1 turn a battle wagon and thats BEFORE you consider the fact you might have a Big Mek KFF next to it.
You do realise that 60, str 3 shots hitting on 6’s, re-rolling 1’s and wounding on 5’s isn’t exactly scary or going to cause your blob of 30 boyz any problems… right? On average a Cadian squad will kill 3 boyz… Wow. A Mordian squad hitting on 5’s will give 6… You still get 73 attacks and will kill 21 or so of the conscripts on top of the 4 you kill from Slugga fire. Not amazing, sure, but if it’s a screen unit you either won’t be getting hit back so can consolidate into the next unit, or you’ll be able to surround the last 5-6 conscripts so they can’t fall back and you don’t get shot.
Nothing in IG can re-roll all misses in overwatch, and only cadian’s that stand still and get ordered can do so normally.
Failing a charge, even with the ‘ere we go can suck yes, but, that’s where you need to take more than 1 unit to charge with if charging 1st turn is your plan. Banking everything on one charge is very risky and can quickly backfire.

Kdash wrote:
So... What happens when you get 3, 4 or 5 charges off into the conscripts and infantry squads first turn?

Both players stare in awe as ork boyz bend spacetime and traverse the entire battlefield in order to charge conscripts 25-30'' away.

sossen wrote:

Kdash wrote:
So... What happens when you get 3, 4 or 5 charges off into the conscripts and infantry squads first turn?

Both players stare in awe as ork boyz bend spacetime and traverse the entire battlefield in order to charge conscripts 25-30'' away.

Or, they could take things like Kommandos and Stormboyz. Maybe a Meka Dread if you're feeling fancy.

Stormboyz can do a maximum of 12"+3d6 per turn, so them getting into combat is pure luck, often even impossible..

So to get 5 charges off you would still have to get about 10 units within 10" of your enemy, which means fielding almost nothing but kommandoz and stormboyz.

This is
A) tailoring to have some chance at all
B) basically gambling. One less successful charge than needed and you're toast.

You might just all advice him to field 45 lootaz and just hit 135 times with them.

Seriously, I feel like half the people giving "great" advice to ork players on dakkadakka don't have single game with 8th edition orks under their belt.

 Jidmah wrote:
Stormboyz can do a maximum of 12"+3d6 per turn, so them getting into combat is pure luck, often even impossible..

So to get 5 charges off you would still have to get about 10 units within 10" of your enemy, which means fielding almost nothing but kommandoz and stormboyz.

This is
A) tailoring to have some chance at all
B) basically gambling. One less successful charge than needed and you're toast.

You might just all advice him to field 45 lootaz and just hit 135 times with them.

Seriously, I feel like half the people giving "great" advice to ork players on dakkadakka don't have single game with 8th edition orks under their belt.

So, basically, with stormboyz you are looking at an average of an 8.5" charge into screening units if you both deploy on your 12" line. I accept however that potentially this can be deployed around - but when fighting guard, deployment space is at a premium and you can give yourself a reasonable chance.

Personally, i was thinking more along the lines of 3 Kommando units, a 30 boyz squad, 1 or 2 stormboyz units and maybe a Meka dread. Essentially possibly giving me up to 7 charge attempts with re-rolls at ~9". Making 3 of them would be the aim.

I don't consider this tailoring though - i consider it currently one of the few viable ways of playing orks vs competitive lists - lots of bodies (who'd have guessed for Orks?) and lots of charging into melee. (again, who'd have guessed?)

My alternatives? Battlewagons, Big Guns, maybe a Trukk or 2 along with foot slogging a couple of units? Hrm... Which do you think will do more damage/have a greater chance of victory vs all the strong lists right now?

ryzouken wrote:

gungo wrote:
Don't abuse ogryn bodyguards to eat massive hits from pask which is likely not intended.

But the 18 Ogryn Bodyguard + 5 Tank Commanders build is so amusing!

"What's that? You want to shoot my Ogryn? They're all characters and the tank's closer, sorry. Oh, you pushed a wound through on it? My bodyguards will spread the damage across them. Keep it up! Only 100 more wounds against T8 before you start doing damage to the tanks!"

I would refuse to play anyone who even used two bodyguards to spread wounds around. That was a broken mechanism back in 5th and I have no intention of playing against it again. I would also be very unhappy about a bodyguard tanking wounds for a tank but would probably still play against it, depending on the person really. This tuff is top of my list of things that need FAQing.