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.

Kdash wrote:

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.

mek boys a) can't charge from ruins without making an impossible 11in charge so they gain no benefit from cover, are a small 5-10 man unit that's easily spammed and get absolutely crushed by overwatch each time they charge unless they charge into something like artillery. And stormboyz still require 2 turns to get into melee even with the extra range movement. The meka dread also doesn't make it into melee first turn even with the supa charga this is why people take it for cheap kff but honestly it's cheaper just to take a big Mek w kff on bike becuase you are. Itngettingnthe manorityy of your army into melee turn 1.
Da jump is the only reliable way to get 30 orks into melee turn 1 and that's if your opponent doesn't put in a cheap deep strike screen like cyclops demo vehicles, (which are also brokenly overpowered unit for guard) like I do 7in away from my guard blob.
I play both armies but good try.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:

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...

If you considering spamming the most overpowered units that doesn't make sense fluff wise and playing the most overpowered regiment bonus of an army of models you don't have playing gunk sure!!!
Becuase that's not what I said
I said don't spam crap like company commanders which don't make sense, don't spam plasma, don't spam cheap psykers, don't spam punisher and executioner tanks, don't spam mortars and lascannons. Dont spam conscripts and scions. Don't abuse rules like the ogryn bodyguard and other power build crap that make you completely look like a tool bag in a non tournament setting.
we all know what side of the river you stand on and players likely that are why this codex needs to be nerfed the fek down.

Kdash wrote:

 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.

Dude, don't you try mathhammer on me! I was there! This isn't your heretical propaganda! This is Xenos truth! I geuss the only way for me to win with orks is to buy 6 packets of £15 models to just have 1 unit of 30 stom boyz... Mork help me if I want to be competitive at my local friendly games. £250+ just for 3 units...

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Trickstick wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
That really isn't a problem. Just spread your shots around, then followup with HWT, Leman Russes, and Scions.

It's not the biggest problem but it does add another layer of decision making. More importantly, it adds decisions that the user can get wrong. Forcing the opponent to make hard targeting decisions that they can get wrong is one of the things you can do to swing the game in your favour.

Decision: do I shoot my Russ at the non-dead target or drop Scions and finish it off?

WHAT decision making, again?

You know that you have to drop the scions before the army shoots, right?

....right?

Imo guard look strong. I think conscripts may still be a bit too good and mortars may be a bit over the top, but the gak that's winning tournies is FW earthshaker carriages and elysians which really isn't a codex problem.

That's just not true at all. Yes some lists have Elysians and some have basilisks platforms but every list has commanders and command squads, conscripts and commissars,
Some have scions and tempestus primes and scion command squads, taurox primes and manticores
Many have astorpath and primaris psykers spam, mortar or lascannon hws spam.
This was all pre codex and all those units got better and we got new ultra competitive units for tournaments such as ogryn bodyguard shenanigans

Darkagl1 wrote:
Imo guard look strong. I think conscripts may still be a bit too good and mortars may be a bit over the top, but the gak that's winning tournies is FW earthshaker carriages and elysians which really isn't a codex problem.

This statement is just not accurate, at all. Some of the winning lists included Elysians and Earthshakers batteries... but at least in the case of the Elysians - they were the LEAST offensive units in those lists. Scions are still BETTER, though a little more expensive as they should be. Earthshaker batteries are pretty darn good, but the lack of model and current trend means it's going away.

The 'sh*t that's winning the tournies' is the Taurox spam, the mortar spam, the psyker spam, Celestine and Conscript spam.

 Formosa 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.

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.

You're still listing generalizations and not specific examples that were actually correct. It's as though Special Characters aren't an issue and never were...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also you saying Lysamder was anything close to broken is hilarious.

To prove that Special Characters have always been broken and should never be used under any circumstances:



Just insanely broken and clearly the best unit in the game.

Isn't there an animation online with him defeating an entire dark eldar army?

Kdash wrote:
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.

Sorry, this is 8th edition, unit's don't need to space out anymore. 30 conscripts are 5x6" which is roughly the size of a trukk. On a regular 6'x4' table, If you are not playing quarters, 3000 points of guard can comfortably deploy 12" from the centerline. The only reason to get closer would be objectives or ruins, but they really don't have anything to gain from letting you charge those conscripts turn one.

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.

Chance to roll 9 or higher is 27.77%, thanks to 'ere we go!, orks bump that chance to a whooping 47.84%. You could also spend a CP to just re-roll one die, going slightly over 50%, but you can only do that once.
So, basically you do 7 coin flips and need at least 3 successes, which is - unless I fudged my math - a 49.21% chance of failure.

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?

Victories against top tier armies are only won by having enough boyz left standing at the end of the game to score objectives. Charging most of your points head first into conscripts will not bring you closer to that goal by any means.

That's pretty much the issue with battlewagons, trukks, kanz, planes and almost any other ork unit. They get killed faster than boyz, so you have nothing left at the end of the game. That's also the very reason the gargantuan squiggoth is seeing so much play right now.
If your meta is not die-hard competitive orks are in a lot less dire position since a lot of stuff is *almost* competitive. Against the top armies though? 300 boyz are just 1800 points, so plenty of space for weirdboyz.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Trickstick wrote:
To prove that Special Characters have always been broken and should never be used under any circumstances:

Spoiler:

Just insanely broken and clearly the best unit in the game.

Played against him four times, three times he was eaten by gretchin, once he threw a demo charge into his own face.

Not 'ard enuff.

 Jidmah wrote:

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.

It was like 3am, and I'd been off sick that day, so I admit I pretty much just picked 3 names out of thin air. I remembered Mephiston being extremely good, as was Eldrad, and I thought I needed a third name and Ghazzy sprang to mind. Totally forgot about the lukky stikk alternative (which is what I actually had in my lists at that time, I think). A better one would probably have been Draigo.

Niiru wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

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.

It was like 3am, and I'd been off sick that day, so I admit I pretty much just picked 3 names out of thin air. I remembered Mephiston being extremely good, as was Eldrad, and I thought I needed a third name and Ghazzy sprang to mind. Totally forgot about the lukky stikk alternative (which is what I actually had in my lists at that time, I think). A better one would probably have been Draigo.

Draigo was good but that's it. Most of the time you were better off with a regular Librarian.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Formosa 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.

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.

You're still listing generalizations and not specific examples that were actually correct. It's as though Special Characters aren't an issue and never were...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also you saying Lysamder was anything close to broken is hilarious.

Of course I am generalising, I dont know what you know, and yep Lysander was broken because he was a special character with eternal warrior "just cos" with no justification for having it other than ... having it, adding unnessary rules is a indication of being broken, also broken isnt always good, its characters that just dont work, because they are broken.

5th, 6th and 7th being freshest in my mind, and each one of those had stupid OP specials, 7th being the worst offender when using allies.

Kdash wrote:

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.

It is really poor form to lie.

When people say that the same lists already winning tournaments will KEEP winning tournaments, it doesn't take to much effort to go "Oh, you mean artillery and conscript spam with smite and celestine/G man support". The most competetive lists likely will not change, everyone is already meta building to beat guard and, guess what, they haven't managed it yet. Chaos comes closest, and they haven't dethroned the king of lists yet. Have some initiative.

 Formosa wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Formosa 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.

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.

You're still listing generalizations and not specific examples that were actually correct. It's as though Special Characters aren't an issue and never were...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also you saying Lysamder was anything close to broken is hilarious.

Of course I am generalising, I dont know what you know, and yep Lysander was broken because he was a special character with eternal warrior "just cos" with no justification for having it other than ... having it, adding unnessary rules is a indication of being broken, also broken isnt always good, its characters that just dont work, because they are broken.

5th, 6th and 7th being freshest in my mind, and each one of those had stupid OP specials, 7th being the worst offender when using allies.

If your justification for Lysander being broken is because he had EW, you clearly don't have any idea about what's balanced in the game and what's not.

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.

cant comment too much on the new IG book yet (life and all), but having played this game for over a decade and at least 5 editions now, I cannot recall a more broken army across most of the codex than 7E Eldar, even the mediocre stuff was good relative to other army's equivalents.

Not that that excuses any current imbalances in 8E, and GW has always been terrible (seemingly intentionally so) at balance, but lets not distort history here, the 7E Eldar book was an across the board abomination of power creep. Even leaving out scatterbikes and wraith knights, that army was stupidly powerful across the board with very few exceptions (yeah, Fire Dragons totally needed a free "AP0" buff and free access to BS5) and in fact every edition where Eldar have gotten a codex ( all but 5th) theyve either been the clear top dog or not far off.

And I say that as someone who has over 5k points of Eldar

 Vaktathi wrote:
cant comment too much on the new IG book yet (life and all), but having played this game for over a decade and at least 5 editions now, I cannot recall a more broken army across most of the codex than 7E Eldar, even the mediocre stuff was good relative to other army's equivalents.

Not that that excuses any current imbalances in 8E, and GW has always been terrible (seemingly intentionally so) at balance, but lets not distort history here, the 7E Eldar book was an across the board abomination of power creep. Even leaving out scatterbikes and wraith knights, that army was stupidly powerful across the board with very few exceptions (yeah, Fire Dragons totally needed a free "AP0" buff and free access to BS5) and in fact every edition where Eldar have gotten a codex ( all but 5th) theyve either been the clear top dog or not far off.

And I say that as someone who has over 5k points of Eldar

It's worth noting that the Eldar dominance lasted the test of time as well, regardless of other releases and changes in meta.

This IG book has been out for 3 days, there is no real data yet. It might be totally broken but it's just way too early to tell.

It's not too early, but keep telling yourself that.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Formosa 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.

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.

You're still listing generalizations and not specific examples that were actually correct. It's as though Special Characters aren't an issue and never were...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also you saying Lysamder was anything close to broken is hilarious.

Of course I am generalising, I dont know what you know, and yep Lysander was broken because he was a special character with eternal warrior "just cos" with no justification for having it other than ... having it, adding unnessary rules is a indication of being broken, also broken isnt always good, its characters that just dont work, because they are broken.

5th, 6th and 7th being freshest in my mind, and each one of those had stupid OP specials, 7th being the worst offender when using allies.

If your justification for Lysander being broken is because he had EW, you clearly don't have any idea about what's balanced in the game and what's not.

And you clearly cant read.

I will highlight it for you

"adding unnessary rules is a indication of being broken, also broken isnt always good, its characters that just dont work, because they are broken"

Unless you have some points to raise yourself, single line answers are utterly worthless.

 Gunzhard wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
cant comment too much on the new IG book yet (life and all), but having played this game for over a decade and at least 5 editions now, I cannot recall a more broken army across most of the codex than 7E Eldar, even the mediocre stuff was good relative to other army's equivalents.

Not that that excuses any current imbalances in 8E, and GW has always been terrible (seemingly intentionally so) at balance, but lets not distort history here, the 7E Eldar book was an across the board abomination of power creep. Even leaving out scatterbikes and wraith knights, that army was stupidly powerful across the board with very few exceptions (yeah, Fire Dragons totally needed a free "AP0" buff and free access to BS5) and in fact every edition where Eldar have gotten a codex ( all but 5th) theyve either been the clear top dog or not far off.

And I say that as someone who has over 5k points of Eldar

It's worth noting that the Eldar dominance lasted the test of time as well, regardless of other releases and changes in meta.

Thing is... you say that like it's unexpected.

It might just be me, but when I first started 40k wayyyyyy back when, Eldar were the army of specialists. Glass cannons. Their units were the best of the best, aspect warriors who focused on one job and being the best at that job, at the expense of all else. They were fragile, and if you made a mistake at any point (deployment, movement, charging) then you were punished severely for it. If you played a perfect game though, they would murder their opponents.

That's what Eldar is. At least, thats what I always thought they were, and that's how they've always been described in our local game groups. Glass cannons, fragile, elite specialists, etc etc.

So in casual games, a normal player is likely to make mistakes, and so the Eldar army will play pretty averagely-to-bad, because the units die fast and are expensive to field. But in a tournament, where people should be playing pretty much perfectly, then Eldar come into their own as powerhouses.

This is how I expect Eldar to be. And this is coming from a period in time where I played Tyranids, so it wasn't like I even had any investment in Eldar. It's just what I thought. Marines are elites, but jack of all trades, with no real weaknesses. Orks are tough melee headbangerz with crazy rules. Tau are shooty gunlines that fold to a punch in the face. Etc Etc Etc.

Problem seems to be in 7th was that Wraithknights and Scatbikes were *too* good. They made it so that you could make mistakes, and still cause a lot of damage and not suffer too much in return. Fine, they needed to be nerfed. I have never seen an Eldar player disagree with this. Unfortunately they got nerfed so much, that they are now worse compared to similar imperium units pretty much across the board, and yet still more expensive.

To make this relevant to the thread though - IG should be a mixed army of horde infantry (generally poor stats, but cheap and can drown in shots - the shooty version of Orks) but with a strong vehicle/tank support. The choice should be between lots of infantry and a tank or two, or lots of tanks with a couple infantry squads to screen them. The problem is that, unlike Tau/Orks/Eldar (who got points increases across the board), IG units seem to be cheaper than they once were, as well as more effective, allowing them to be BOTH a horde infantry army, and a strong mechanised army, AND have a strong elites backbone (ogryns/bullgryns/scions are all strong still, on paper anyway).

Unlike how I *thought* Eldar needed to be played (and maybe that changed in 7th, but I'm more used to the 4th/5th edition Eldar), IG don't need to be played carefully as they are not glass cannons. They are iron cannons. They blow stuff up, shrug off incoming fire, and then blow more stuff up.

I should stop writing opinion stuff on here really. I'm sure Slayer will pop up with "name 50 times when Eldar have been referred to as glass cannons, with wikipedia sources", and I really don't care enough to respond. This is all my opinion. But I'd always seen Eldar's niche as being the elite army that required precision to use, or they die easy and fast. I've never known them to be any different (barring the occasional broken unit, but I've never played with seerstars/scatbikes/wraithknights so maybe I've just been fortunate to avoid all these). I guess I just find it annoying that IG have units that are stronger, faster, killier, cheaper, and tougher... literally needing no care to play, and with no weaknesses. I cant see them being that fun to play for or against, and a lot of people seem to be agreeing with that.

Ok I'm done. Need to not dakka when tired. Not that it'll stop me.

I love the AM codex for its lore to table top but I think its too strong and I love AM. what I would like to see

Commissars/lord com up 10 poinrs
if the lemon russ stays with shooting twice ( insane) then it needs it go up in points OR remove shoot twice and if you dont move add two shots to a single d6 roll
Hellhound dosnt need to be two d6
Baneblade point increase all tanks
Cadian doc for infantry only (Cadians love reroll ones but tanks arty and bane blade is insane
point increase to psykers
point increase to Tourox prime by at least 20 points. They bring an insane amount of fire power for a trans. also you can only bring one to one Commissar or Scion unit.
Conscripts can only be brought one Conscript unit to two infantry squads.
Catachen reroll random attacks to flamer weapons only.


This would keep the guard strong but I think it would help alot. after all we dont know what the other codex will bring.

Legio_xx wrote:
if the lemon russ stays with shooting twice ( insane) then it needs it go up in points OR remove shoot twice and if you dont move add two shots to a single d6 roll

You will take my new found ability to move my tanks without degrading the firepower from my cold dead hands! No longer will the mighty Tvashtan 422nd be punished for not wanting to play a boring gunline!

Martel732 wrote:
It's not too early, but keep telling yourself that.

For people who prefer to base their conclusions upon actual data, it's unarguably too early. It's been 3 days.

 Trickstick wrote:

Legio_xx wrote:
if the lemon russ stays with shooting twice ( insane) then it needs it go up in points OR remove shoot twice and if you dont move add two shots to a single d6 roll

You will take my new found ability to move my tanks without degrading the firepower from my cold dead hands! No longer will the mighty Tvashtan 422nd be punished for not wanting to play a boring gunline!

lol was just a thought. I always push my men up. its weird to see my under powered 7th list become so strong. roughly this

Tank comander vanq, tank body guard (sometimes pask and a plasma tank for reroll ones)
comp comander in chimera for orders

Platoon 1
squad x2 lascannon combined
30 conscript and commissar

Platoon 2
squad x2 lascannon
30 conscript and commissar

Platoon 2
squad x2 autocannon
30 conscript and commissar

main battle tank
main battle tank

Priest
Primaris psyker.

I would push up everything but infantry gun line and deny deep strike. did okay but could never go toe to toe with a real list.. now.. my list is super strong.

Legio_xx wrote:
Tank comander vanq

Ah, a truly discerning commander you must be. You have gained my respect General.

I don't care if it isn't great, I will probably always run my mars alpha tank commander as my warlord. It just seems exactly the tank that the commander would take. I hope that the FW update is not too long and makes them ok. You have to love a co-axial stubber.

 Trickstick wrote:

Legio_xx wrote:
Tank comander vanq

Ah, a truly discerning commander you must be. You have gained my respect General.

I don't care if it isn't great, I will probably always run my mars alpha tank commander as my warlord. It just seems exactly the tank that the commander would take. I hope that the FW update is not too long and makes them ok. You have to love a co-axial stubber.

Yes! you get me! lol I have been a Cadain lore player since the first plastic Cadains hit the shelves when I heard I could have a Tank commander I knew what tank he would drive.

I'm glad I am not the only one who thinks Tank commanders should drive Vanquishers

 Haighus wrote:
I'm glad I am not the only one who thinks Tank commanders should drive Vanquishers

Imagine if vanquishers worked like they used to do, and could fire normal battlecannon shells as an second profile. Maybe but the vanquisher slightly as well. Str 9 or 2d6 dmg perhaps?

my 2 pence.

OP as heck. Every unit is very viable, (except hydras) Most codexes have to be pretty decerning with the units they select to be decent, while I'm pretty sure guard could just throw darts at the appendix toss in Yarric, and have a fair shot vs any ones "all comers list"

That said, I love the book, and that Ill now see a wider variety of guard, and story behind peoples armies.

I recently bought into Dark Eldar and Ynari, and I seriously hope they can stand up better then my Raptors have been.

jimmyjames2112 wrote:
my 2 pence.

OP as heck. Every unit is very viable, (except hydras) Most codexes have to be pretty decerning with the units they select to be decent, while I'm pretty sure guard could just throw darts at the appendix toss in Yarric, and have a fair shot vs any ones "all comers list"

That said, I love the book, and that Ill now see a wider variety of guard, and story behind peoples armies.

I recently bought into Dark Eldar and Ynari, and I seriously hope they can stand up better then my Raptors have been.

I don't know if you can throw darts at a board and autowin, IG has and always will be heavily about combos, and there's definitely some dumb combos you could take that would be almost auto losses.

That said, I don't feel like all units being viable choices should be considered an OP codex. That's literally the point of a balanced codex, I should be able to look at the book and say "ah, ok, that's what this unit is for. I don't need it for this list but I can totally see where I would want it." The codex does a pretty good job at that in my opinion. Almost every unit has a regiment that it will function well with and certain buffs that make it come into its own. The way your IG army plays massively changes based on its regiment, and that in itself is really awesome to see. I feel more like I bought 7 codexes in one, and I really love the idea that no two guard players will be alike based on what Regiments they take. IG is going to be an absolute nightmare to prepare for now, you could be facing anything from a static gunline to an elusive tank army to an artillery park with assault infantry in front, many other variants, or even combinations of the above. I think this is part of the reason why people hate the codex so much in some instances, IG used to be a really predictable force that you could plan for, but now even if you know what regiment the guy has good luck guessing what he's actually taking and planning on counters for it. And since IG players tend to have stupidly large collections, if a meta wisens up to what they have and starts to counter, they can change their list completely on a whim and throw people through a loop to a degree that no other codex can when it comes to "chapter tactics".

The other problem isn't that every unit is viable, it's that many things are so damn cheap it's just overwhelming, especially since regiment traits were added for free and majorly change units' behaviors. It's like someone wrote the points with 7th in mind, to an almost worrying degree. I'm taking the same lists I had in 7th, down to the exact wargear and squad layouts, and yet I'm just hitting far harder than I ever did before. Infantry last longer, tanks take longer to shut down, fire is more reliable, cover is easier to deal with and yet at the same time I no longer need to rely on it, etc. etc. and that's before I add in the additional stuff I'm getting with the spare points I have. It's frustrating because whoever wrote this book clearly loved Imperial Guard and played it, there are so many little touches that really show someone cared about this book and did their best on it. It's just that things are too cheap, almost as if the book was written in a vacuum without knowledge of what other armies were going to be priced at, as internal points costs are for the most part very consistent and reasonable.

If the IG codex got a points tweak tomorrow, with more realistic points that keep 8th's changes in mind, 95% of the codex would be fixed. Leman Russes would be much more balanced with a slight points increase, infantry across the board could use a 1pt increase, characters could use a 5-10 increase in many instances, and so many other small things. The command points rerolls are stupid good and one of the few things I don't feel get properly adjusted even with point adjustments, but honestly that's because our strategems are so good, not because we have so many points. The issue is many armies have strategems that are for the most part almost entirely useless, while most IG traits have a lot of utility and can be game changing. For example if space marine armies were showing up with 20 command points tomorrow I don't think you'd see much issue with it, nor admech or chaos. Combined with the fact command points are so easy for us to get and that we can generate them as well, that's what makes it so powerful. Only way to really fix that would be to make the warlord trait and relic work on 6's in my opinion, at that point they'd be pretty balanced and not an autotake, while still being handy. Otherwise you'd have to tweak strategem point costs across the board and just accept IG gets more command points than any other army in the game if they want them.