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.

 Gunzhard wrote:
Keeping in mind that the goal of this edition was to make everything viable ("even pyrovores!"). They seem to have succeeded in that goal with this book, that's not a bad thing or problem on its own; but whether it works in the overall meta, or if it's really just 'broken' only time will tell.

So when is it ok to call it broken? When all codices have been released around 2019? Doesn't sound like a constructive definition to me.

AM is too good right now. Until further notice, that's what matters when you go to a local tournament. Later, if the overall rules change, they might become balanced. That doesn't matter right now.

Kdash wrote:

stratigo wrote:

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.

Huh? I am actually genuinely curious as to the lists and enjoy/spend far too much time theory crafting and testing. A lot of tournament winning lists for guard that I’ve seen haven’t been pure guard/wouldn’t work/won’t fit points wise into the new codex guard without some changes. All I can go off is the odd list that gets published every now and then – and even then, you don’t always get to see the lists they went up against.
The latest tournament results I can find were from the Rise of the Primarch GT the other week and the Iron Halo event. Both were over 6 games each. Chaos won the GT and Alpha Legion won the Iron Halo. Only 1 Guard list were listed as finishing in the top 10 in both events – 9th and 10th respectively. Now – I don’t have access to the Space Marine lists that placed well, so I can’t tell if they were “soup” or not – but, even if they are soup it’s hardly resulting in them dominating the events.

in fact, using https://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/09/13/top-itc-tournament-lists-august-2017/ as a check point for winning lists in August (Sept one isn’t there yet) you can see that only 3 winning lists contained guard units, and I think only 1 one them had conscripts in, the other 2 being either Scions or Elysian’s in with Marines or as a Genestealer mash-up. But, from quickly checking the results via frontlinegaming and bestcoastpairings forall the major and GT events in September, Guard lists only won 1 of the events. I’ve not checked all the other events yet – but over 5-6 game events Guard aren’t stomping every large tournament right now apparently.

The reason I’m asking for “standard/general” players to share their lists and experience here, isn’t to berate them, steal their ideas etc etc, but it’s simply to attempt to learn from their lists and experiences to see whether I, personally, would have done anything different or whether, simply because of the lists, the outcome was always going to be the same.

The more information we get, the more we learn. The more we learn, the more we understand. The more we understand, the more we’re able to evolve.

In the top threes, almost every single GT contained a list with guard.

There's even a breakdown at the end that tells you the top lists. AM and Ultramarines tied for the most commonly used. I don't think you'll find anyone saying Guilliman isn't ridiculous and spikes space marine efficiency extremely high. Of course several of those list spiced in some AM.

Indeed the September breakdown is now on BoK. And, well, AM has spiked to the highest amount at 16 (followed by demons and ynnari at 11 each). with the note that a lot of other lists put in guard elements, largely in the form of conscripts as a screen.

Now, CSM also won 9 and, briefly looking through, the chaos lists are largely (not uniformly) the same (malefic lords are the single least balanced unit in the game).

The meta has indeed largely settled though and guard are the top of it. Elysians are indeed common, as they are very very good, although scions fill in. Conscripts are quite common too.

The list is, basically, conscripts, drop in element (elysians or scions) and artillery (mortars and earthshaker carriages being the most common of those). Sometimes some of these elements are replaced by another army.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Keeping in mind that the goal of this edition was to make everything viable ("even pyrovores!"). They seem to have succeeded in that goal with this book, that's not a bad thing or problem on its own; but whether it works in the overall meta, or if it's really just 'broken' only time will tell.

Chimeras are plenty good, but Taurox is better for spammy WAAC lists. The FW versions have a lot of dakka. The bigger argument is if you're better covering the table with foot troops and skipping transports altogether.

the point is that guard was already a (I'd argue the) dominant army of the meta with just the index, and they received a whole feth ton of buffs.

stratigo wrote:

Kdash wrote:

Spoiler:

stratigo wrote:

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.

Huh? I am actually genuinely curious as to the lists and enjoy/spend far too much time theory crafting and testing. A lot of tournament winning lists for guard that I’ve seen haven’t been pure guard/wouldn’t work/won’t fit points wise into the new codex guard without some changes. All I can go off is the odd list that gets published every now and then – and even then, you don’t always get to see the lists they went up against.
The latest tournament results I can find were from the Rise of the Primarch GT the other week and the Iron Halo event. Both were over 6 games each. Chaos won the GT and Alpha Legion won the Iron Halo. Only 1 Guard list were listed as finishing in the top 10 in both events – 9th and 10th respectively. Now – I don’t have access to the Space Marine lists that placed well, so I can’t tell if they were “soup” or not – but, even if they are soup it’s hardly resulting in them dominating the events.

in fact, using https://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/09/13/top-itc-tournament-lists-august-2017/ as a check point for winning lists in August (Sept one isn’t there yet) you can see that only 3 winning lists contained guard units, and I think only 1 one them had conscripts in, the other 2 being either Scions or Elysian’s in with Marines or as a Genestealer mash-up. But, from quickly checking the results via frontlinegaming and bestcoastpairings forall the major and GT events in September, Guard lists only won 1 of the events. I’ve not checked all the other events yet – but over 5-6 game events Guard aren’t stomping every large tournament right now apparently.

The reason I’m asking for “standard/general” players to share their lists and experience here, isn’t to berate them, steal their ideas etc etc, but it’s simply to attempt to learn from their lists and experiences to see whether I, personally, would have done anything different or whether, simply because of the lists, the outcome was always going to be the same.

The more information we get, the more we learn. The more we learn, the more we understand. The more we understand, the more we’re able to evolve.

 Formosa wrote:

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.

What's unnessesary about the rule besides that you say it is? They're special characters with specific fluff and have rules reflecting as such. The issue is if they're miscosted, which the person earlier couldn't really prove their point on that. You didn't seem to prove a point either, as any number of current rules can be considered unneeeded if you say so because.

Kdash wrote:


Will take a look at the September results shortly then - but the point i was trying to make, was that everyone is under the impression that Guard itself was broken and winning all the tournaments. Yes, they are doing consistently well in tournaments, but they aren’t the “auto win” a lot of people seem to be wanting to claim. We also have to list “soup” armies as different to Guard armies. Sure, they contain some Guard units (Forgeworld or GW) but they cannot be used to justify an overall army being OP.

As for soup lists – I really think that single sub-faction armies should have more of an incentive to take over soup lists. Sure, it’s fluffy to have a regiment of Guard supported by a small Marine force, but it should also have a very slight disadvantage to its playstyle over that of a “pure” list. Simply because of their differing abilities, styles and logistics. For example, how many times have the Marines left behind the Guard units because they were slow, stuck or not up to the job in all the fluff? I suggested it in the CP thread, but maybe we just need a change where the CP gained from a detachment bonus can only be used on units from that detachment. This would stop people taking that conscript Guard Battalion to screen and also use the +3 CP on the Marine units. This would, of course, only imply to soup armies made up of detachments from different sub-factions. A mixed soup single detachment would still get to use the CP, but they’d also be losing their regimental bonuses.

The codices punish soup armies, you can no longer throw an intercessor or Scout marine squad in to buff up your army or use powerful leaders like Guilliman or Celestine because unless they are in their own separate detachment they break battleforged and you lose out on regiment benefits, at the same time those characters will be weaker than the same ones across the table because they miss out on their own Chapter/Church doctrines.

 Trickstick wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
-They cannot move through enemy models

Do you think that sponsons count? Getting a model behind a sponson would be pretty easy. They are not part of the footprint of the model really, and we would not consider things like gun barrels as stopping movement. Is this covered somewhere that I have forgotten about?

I believe for vehicles that don't have bases, the hull of the vehicle is the base. A sponson is part of the hull.

WatcherZero wrote:

The codices punish soup armies, you can no longer throw an intercessor or Scout marine squad in to buff up your army or use powerful leaders like Guilliman or Celestine because unless they are in their own separate detachment they break battleforged and you lose out on regiment benefits, at the same time those characters will be weaker than the same ones across the table because they miss out on their own Chapter/Church doctrines.

This is not really an issue. Guilliman is a LoW and Celestine is an HQ, and in general characters get very little out of Chapter Tactics. You can bring Guilliman, Celestine, and an Assassin in one Supreme Command detachment, not interfering at all with the rest of your army, as long as you can find two other HQs to stick in it. The detachment system is just not very limiting in practice because the two factions which have a real problem with souping -- Imperium and Chaos -- also have absurdly cheap HQ and Troops choices.

brother_b wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

brother_b wrote:

 N.I.B. wrote:
Wouldn't 20 Alpha Legion Berzerkers with Forward Operatives do a number on an AM gunline? Granted, they only have ~50% chance of going first, but when they do? They will munch through any screens and hit the tanks behind, with double Pile ins and then consolidate.

Backed up by Warp Time to send in something more in the same turn, like that stratagem that allow you to pick up a unit and place it 9" from the enemy and charge, plus las cannon Helbrutes.

Interesting but one fundamental problem with melee units is there is no way to keep a unit in close combat. Maybe if they could take out the bubblewrap and get to the gunline with their consolidation move.

This is entirely untrue and when people actually learn to do it I feel close combat wont be nearly as much of a problem as it is now.

Every unit gets to 3" consolidate after it attacks. Every time your units fight, if there are enemy models left, try to use the 3" to encircle a model or two. it doesn't have to be perfect, you just have to move your models such that there isn't a gap large enough between your bases to move the model through. Also remember for tanks that only infantry can move through most terrain.

Yes, there are instances where it isn't possible, and there are enemies with fly that can simply leave. but it isn't particularly hard to use that Consolidate to nab a model or two, and if you know they're limited to a single morale casualty, if you grab two guys, the unit has no way to leave combat.

The number of units that can get through a bubblewrapping unit of conscripts and get to the tanks in two turns is much higher than the number that can get through a unit of conscripts and get to the tanks in one turn.

Looks good, I haven't been able to do that. Honestly, I haven't tried to fully encircle because my melee units have been rather small. Maybe 10 at the most. Will look to try this out, 3" move doesn't seem like I can get fully around the squad though.

Thats the thing though, you do not need to encircle the whole unit. You can charge a bubble wrapping screen and encircle the few models on the end, or even just 1-2 models if you know your opponent wont get a chance to use morale to take them out (in other squads, encircling a special weapon or a sergeant that your opponent is unlikely to want to pull is also a good idea.)

There's so many IG threads now I'm not sure were to ask this. What's the general opinion on orders being automatic? Is ok or is it op?

In 7th, the only Special Characters you saw fairly frequently on a tournament basis were: Fateweaver and Khan. Necrons took Zahndrekh (and maybe Orikan), and Azrael was the key component to the Barkbarkstar. There was one fringe list in 7th with the 6e Eldar Codex where Maugan Ra was placed in an Aquila Stronghold to use Fast Shot with a Macrocannon, but it was a fringe list.

 MagicJuggler wrote:
In 7th, the only Special Characters you saw fairly frequently on a tournament basis were: Fateweaver and Khan. Necrons took Zahndrekh (and maybe Orikan), and Azrael was the key component to the Barkbarkstar. There was one fringe list in 7th with the 6e Eldar Codex where Maugan Ra was placed in an Aquila Stronghold to use Fast Shot with a Macrocannon, but it was a fringe list.

Wasn't Yarrick pretty popular too? Perfect officer of a Guard detachment.

 Trickstick wrote:

 MagicJuggler wrote:
In 7th, the only Special Characters you saw fairly frequently on a tournament basis were: Fateweaver and Khan. Necrons took Zahndrekh (and maybe Orikan), and Azrael was the key component to the Barkbarkstar. There was one fringe list in 7th with the 6e Eldar Codex where Maugan Ra was placed in an Aquila Stronghold to use Fast Shot with a Macrocannon, but it was a fringe list.

Wasn't Yarrick pretty popular too? Perfect officer of a Guard detachment.

Yarrick was...interesting. His main appeal was he was a Lord Commissar and Senior Officer in one, meaning unlike a Company Commander, you could hide him in a blob and still grant Orders/superior Leadership. That, and he had a special rule that let him roll to ignore dying, making him an amusing way to deny granting "Slay the Warlord." The big problem was that he was pricey pointwise, and Chain of Command meant that if you took *any* Company Command Squads that he could not be your Warlord.

Generally, most discussion about Guard Special Characters focused on Pask, due to him having +1 BS, guaranteed Preferred Enemy (albeit "versus a single codex", which was still pretty handy) as a Warlord Trait, rerolling to penetrate vs vehicles (Tank Hunter, but his squadmate doesn't get it), but the big thing was these combining with a Punisher getting Rending with him. Of course, the drawback was that Pask was in a tank with 3 HP, and 7e Marines got Power Armor Grav Cannons.

WatcherZero wrote:

Kdash wrote:


Will take a look at the September results shortly then - but the point i was trying to make, was that everyone is under the impression that Guard itself was broken and winning all the tournaments. Yes, they are doing consistently well in tournaments, but they aren’t the “auto win” a lot of people seem to be wanting to claim. We also have to list “soup” armies as different to Guard armies. Sure, they contain some Guard units (Forgeworld or GW) but they cannot be used to justify an overall army being OP.

As for soup lists – I really think that single sub-faction armies should have more of an incentive to take over soup lists. Sure, it’s fluffy to have a regiment of Guard supported by a small Marine force, but it should also have a very slight disadvantage to its playstyle over that of a “pure” list. Simply because of their differing abilities, styles and logistics. For example, how many times have the Marines left behind the Guard units because they were slow, stuck or not up to the job in all the fluff? I suggested it in the CP thread, but maybe we just need a change where the CP gained from a detachment bonus can only be used on units from that detachment. This would stop people taking that conscript Guard Battalion to screen and also use the +3 CP on the Marine units. This would, of course, only imply to soup armies made up of detachments from different sub-factions. A mixed soup single detachment would still get to use the CP, but they’d also be losing their regimental bonuses.

The codices punish soup armies, you can no longer throw an intercessor or Scout marine squad in to buff up your army or use powerful leaders like Guilliman or Celestine because unless they are in their own separate detachment they break battleforged and you lose out on regiment benefits, at the same time those characters will be weaker than the same ones across the table because they miss out on their own Chapter/Church doctrines.

In a sense, they do, but i think people are looking to adapt their soup armies into 1 main detachment and 1 detachment of all the soup items to add in.

sossen wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Keeping in mind that the goal of this edition was to make everything viable ("even pyrovores!"). They seem to have succeeded in that goal with this book, that's not a bad thing or problem on its own; but whether it works in the overall meta, or if it's really just 'broken' only time will tell.

So when is it ok to call it broken? When all codices have been released around 2019? Doesn't sound like a constructive definition to me.

AM is too good right now. Until further notice, that's what matters when you go to a local tournament. Later, if the overall rules change, they might become balanced. That doesn't matter right now.

How about at least until we have some actual results with THIS codex that is only 4 days old. What was dominating tournaments was AM "Index" unit spamming with Imperial Soup... and at least this new codex will make it less advantageous to cherry-pick soup ingredients.

It might be too good... but this "until further notice, that's what matters when you go to a local tournament" is total BS because the book is 4 days old.

If I had a dime for every "Sky is falling" freakout I've seen after GW releases a codex going all the way back to 2nd edition...

Kdash wrote:

WatcherZero wrote:

Kdash wrote:


Will take a look at the September results shortly then - but the point i was trying to make, was that everyone is under the impression that Guard itself was broken and winning all the tournaments. Yes, they are doing consistently well in tournaments, but they aren’t the “auto win” a lot of people seem to be wanting to claim. We also have to list “soup” armies as different to Guard armies. Sure, they contain some Guard units (Forgeworld or GW) but they cannot be used to justify an overall army being OP.

As for soup lists – I really think that single sub-faction armies should have more of an incentive to take over soup lists. Sure, it’s fluffy to have a regiment of Guard supported by a small Marine force, but it should also have a very slight disadvantage to its playstyle over that of a “pure” list. Simply because of their differing abilities, styles and logistics. For example, how many times have the Marines left behind the Guard units because they were slow, stuck or not up to the job in all the fluff? I suggested it in the CP thread, but maybe we just need a change where the CP gained from a detachment bonus can only be used on units from that detachment. This would stop people taking that conscript Guard Battalion to screen and also use the +3 CP on the Marine units. This would, of course, only imply to soup armies made up of detachments from different sub-factions. A mixed soup single detachment would still get to use the CP, but they’d also be losing their regimental bonuses.

The codices punish soup armies, you can no longer throw an intercessor or Scout marine squad in to buff up your army or use powerful leaders like Guilliman or Celestine because unless they are in their own separate detachment they break battleforged and you lose out on regiment benefits, at the same time those characters will be weaker than the same ones across the table because they miss out on their own Chapter/Church doctrines.

In a sense, they do, but i think people are looking to adapt their soup armies into 1 main detachment and 1 detachment of all the soup items to add in.

Or worse, I imagine there will be a fair share of "soup" combinatorics due to the FAQ that states that a unit that has the appropriate keywords can use a Stratagem, even if not in the detachment that unlocked said Stratagem (meaning Mortarion with Warptime, or other combos).

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

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.

What's unnessesary about the rule besides that you say it is? They're special characters with specific fluff and have rules reflecting as such. The issue is if they're miscosted, which the person earlier couldn't really prove their point on that. You didn't seem to prove a point either, as any number of current rules can be considered unneeeded if you say so because.

There is nothing in lysanders lore that is outside the norm of space marines that warrants eternal warrior, while other literal eternal warriors don't receive the rule (kharn being a good example), so yes, it's a rule he should not have received, but he did, that is a big disjoint between rules and fluff and this, broken.

And no the issue isn't just if they are misconsted, some characters had rules that literally did nothing until faq'd or that just didn't work, so broken.

Then you get characters who overperform for there cost (guiliman is a good example of that at the moment) and are also broken.

And I also wasn't trying to prove his point or yours in fact, I just said I could help, which I did by pointing out that special character and character balance has been all over the place since 3rd, but again you didn't bother reading the post properly.

And lastly. Yes, any number of rules these days can be considered pointless because a lot of them are, we don't need multiple names rules that do the same thing, we also don't need rules that are completely a waste of time (like old spulblaze), or auto wound/pass rules, mortal wounds etc. As that is bad design.

 Gunzhard wrote:

sossen wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:
Keeping in mind that the goal of this edition was to make everything viable ("even pyrovores!"). They seem to have succeeded in that goal with this book, that's not a bad thing or problem on its own; but whether it works in the overall meta, or if it's really just 'broken' only time will tell.

So when is it ok to call it broken? When all codices have been released around 2019? Doesn't sound like a constructive definition to me.

AM is too good right now. Until further notice, that's what matters when you go to a local tournament. Later, if the overall rules change, they might become balanced. That doesn't matter right now.

How about at least until we have some actual results with THIS codex that is only 4 days old. What was dominating tournaments was AM "Index" unit spamming with Imperial Soup... and at least this new codex will make it less advantageous to cherry-pick soup ingredients.

It might be too good... but this "until further notice, that's what matters when you go to a local tournament" is total BS because the book is 4 days old.

If it is more advantageous to avoid going for imperium soup then that's because a purer list would be better than the prior soup lists. These tournament players aren't stupid. Besides, it's easy to shove Celestine/assassins et al into another detachment and still enjoy the regimental buffs with the meat of the list.

I can't see any compelling reason to think that AM is going to perform worse with the codex and as of now the other lists remain the same.

I didnt wade through all 20 pages of this thread but I do have an opinion on the matter. I think that the IG codex is extremely good. potentially over the top... but they had to be due to the proliferation of 1st turn charges,deep striking perfectly and the old system of finishing set up first, go first. This army seems clearly designed with the thought that they will only get 1 solid shooting phase off before 50% of the army is tied up. That is why bubble wrap armies are so successful as well. I think people really overestimate the durability of the tanks in this army and/ or try too hard to kill each one in 1 turn rather than bring them down to the crucial 5+ to hit. Idk, maybe it is because I play the army that I clearly see all of the glaringly obvious counters. I am also of the opinion that if you take out the FW artillery, the IG suddenly becomes far more balanced as Artillery rules for all armies are a little Wack.

Note, I may be a bad example for this because I never have good dice. 2D6 manticores average me 4 shots a turn. and D6 damage is always a 1. I can see how OP this army can be with hot dice.

 Formosa wrote:

There is nothing in lysanders lore that is outside the norm of space marines that warrants eternal warrior, while other literal eternal warriors don't receive the rule (kharn being a good example), so yes, it's a rule he should not have received, but he did, that is a big disjoint between rules and fluff and this, broken.

And no the issue isn't just if they are misconsted, some characters had rules that literally did nothing until faq'd or that just didn't work, so broken.

Then you get characters who overperform for there cost (guiliman is a good example of that at the moment) and are also broken.

"Broken" usually refers to game pieces that are so overpowered that they unhinge the balance of a game. Guilliman is a good example of this since he pushes all other characters that could fulfill the same role out of lists, and also because any space marine army with him is better than any space marine army without him - also pushing ultramarines past any other chapter.

When you claim something is broken, you should adhere to this definition that is commonly used across many games, and not make up your own.

And I also wasn't trying to prove his point or yours in fact, I just said I could help, which I did by pointing out that special character and character balance has been all over the place since 3rd, but again you didn't bother reading the post properly.

And lastly. Yes, any number of rules these days can be considered pointless because a lot of them are, we don't need multiple names rules that do the same thing, we also don't need rules that are completely a waste of time (like old spulblaze), or auto wound/pass rules, mortal wounds etc. As that is bad design.

This is just your opinion, I personally think that just rolling X+ for a mortal wounds is designed way better than those "take d6 S4 AP5 wound, allocated randomly" rules all over 6th and 7th. You basically roll a dozen dice less for the same result.

 Formosa wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

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.

What's unnessesary about the rule besides that you say it is? They're special characters with specific fluff and have rules reflecting as such. The issue is if they're miscosted, which the person earlier couldn't really prove their point on that. You didn't seem to prove a point either, as any number of current rules can be considered unneeeded if you say so because.

There is nothing in lysanders lore that is outside the norm of space marines that warrants eternal warrior, while other literal eternal warriors don't receive the rule (kharn being a good example), so yes, it's a rule he should not have received, but he did, that is a big disjoint between rules and fluff and this, broken.

And no the issue isn't just if they are misconsted, some characters had rules that literally did nothing until faq'd or that just didn't work, so broken.

Then you get characters who overperform for there cost (guiliman is a good example of that at the moment) and are also broken.

And I also wasn't trying to prove his point or yours in fact, I just said I could help, which I did by pointing out that special character and character balance has been all over the place since 3rd, but again you didn't bother reading the post properly.

And lastly. Yes, any number of rules these days can be considered pointless because a lot of them are, we don't need multiple names rules that do the same thing, we also don't need rules that are completely a waste of time (like old spulblaze), or auto wound/pass rules, mortal wounds etc. As that is bad design.

I agree.

Since Chaos seems to be winning most tournaments, are they a bigger problem than the Guard?

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Since Chaos seems to be winning most tournaments, are they a bigger problem than the Guard?

The current GT is the first tournament using the new IG codex (though any IG players would be running with a new codex, so they are a little disadvantaged on that score), so I'd be interested to hear any results from this weekend.

Chaos seems to be a very well made codex, I've said before that I hoped that every codex matched it in balance. It seemed to be both internally and externally balanced. Alpha Legion is probably the most powerful option though, they do have a couple sneaky tactics which can be powerful if the opponent isn't expecting them. They can be countered pretty easily with bubblewrap units though, which is what IG excel at, so I'm surprised that they're causing that much trouble.

I thought the last set of tournament stats I read had Imperial armies (IG or Soup, mostly) taking up something like 9 out of the top 20 wins, with Chaos on about 5 or 6 and Xenos taking the rest... with no Orks or Necrons on the board at all. I can't remember where I read that though (one of the threads on Dakka somewhere) so it may have been incorrect (or I may be misremembering).

There was a link to a website that listed all the wins/losses etc from major tournaments, I'm sure someone will pop up and link it.

The Chaos lists may be using Brimstones as their cheap conscripts alternative. They're basically the only other unit in the game that can compete with conscripts on bubblewrap duty, and they get a single smite per unit too. No shooting though. Brimstones got nerfed sometime in the last few months, so some of your Chaos wins in tournaments may have been pre-nerf.

Niiru wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Since Chaos seems to be winning most tournaments, are they a bigger problem than the Guard?

The current GT is the first tournament using the new IG codex (though any IG players would be running with a new codex, so they are a little disadvantaged on that score), so I'd be interested to hear any results from this weekend.

Chaos seems to be a very well made codex, I've said before that I hoped that every codex matched it in balance. It seemed to be both internally and externally balanced. Alpha Legion is probably the most powerful option though, they do have a couple sneaky tactics which can be powerful if the opponent isn't expecting them. They can be countered pretty easily with bubblewrap units though, which is what IG excel at, so I'm surprised that they're causing that much trouble.

I thought the last set of tournament stats I read had Imperial armies (IG or Soup, mostly) taking up something like 9 out of the top 20 wins, with Chaos on about 5 or 6 and Xenos taking the rest... with no Orks or Necrons on the board at all. I can't remember where I read that though (one of the threads on Dakka somewhere) so it may have been incorrect (or I may be misremembering).

There was a link to a website that listed all the wins/losses etc from major tournaments, I'm sure someone will pop up and link it.

The Chaos lists may be using Brimstones as their cheap conscripts alternative. They're basically the only other unit in the game that can compete with conscripts on bubblewrap duty, and they get a single smite per unit too. No shooting though. Brimstones got nerfed sometime in the last few months, so some of your Chaos wins in tournaments may have been pre-nerf.

I guess I can provide some data.

Most people are using Blood of Kittens to see who is winning, but though it is helpful it is currently missing pretty much all the ITC Majors and GTs from September.

Going off of what they have and filling in what I can from the BestCoastPairings App, there have been 4 CSM tournament wins in August and September (The Brawl, The Gateway, Iron Halo, and Invasion)

Those same sources show 4 wins for AM in that same period (Rampager, Eastcon, Nova, and 3City Heresy).

The question of what is in winning Imperium lists is much harder to answer as not all tournaments uploaded lists or made sure that they were formatted in a way that was legible.

There were 5 tournaments(Gencon, Hammer of Wrath, Augustus Prime, Castle Assault, and Come the Apocalypse) that I could find that were won by a non-AM Imperial army that contained some kind of AM units. These range anywhere from a single Tempestor Prime and Command squad to an army that is mostly AM with some random other things thrown in. Interestingly, two of these lists only used AM psykers (either Primaris or Astropaths) and not the units that are normally thought of as being the broken part of that army. All told, you end up with two armies that are effectively AM (but lose the name because they added other stuff to it), two armies with a handleful of AM psykers, and one army that has a total of 6 AM models in two units (worth less than 150 pts). You can take that to mean what you will.

Obviously, winning tournaments is not the only metric of a strong army. Consistent placing in the top 3 or top 5 of events is telling as well. These two armies show up a lot in these areas too. I'm not going to add up each of the finishes and try to present some sort of objective power ranking between the two as there are far too many other factors at play for that to be anything other than an act of futility. I will end with one interesting piece of information on this topic though. Everyone knows the obvious example of AM or mostly AM armies dominating the podium of a GT/Major. That is obviously the Nova Open with 1st, 3rd, and 5th going to AM-centric armies. However, there are two examples of this happening for CSM/Chaos as well (I say CSM/Chaos because there is a tendency to bring Renegades for Malefic Lords or Demons for Horrors in these list too, though they are all majority points in CSM as far as I can find). The Gateway has all of the top 3 lists being CSM, while Invasion has 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th as all CSM-centric lists. These events are both after the nerf to Horrors as well.

Make of this info what you will.

Is it safe to say "it's 3rd edition all over again"?

I mean, calling something overpowered when not even half of the codexes have been released is a bit OTT. Surely it's better to judge the AM codex once we have at least 75% of the codexes available to us, rather than call for changes literally a week onto its life?

Index armies will always suffer until they get a codex. Fair play to GW for trying to get as many out as soon as they can. Also, the AM are so strong right now, for not only being in a good place for the rules of 8th, but also their amount of units available.

Yeah but if codexes that follow are as strong that fekkes over admech smurfs etc.

Its 6th all over again if that's the case and that will have everyone that just came back leave again.

Chaos have a lot of bubble wrap options, not just Brimstones... poxwalkers are awesome but even standard cultists can fill that roll.

Niiru wrote:

 Otto von Bludd wrote:
Since Chaos seems to be winning most tournaments, are they a bigger problem than the Guard?

The current GT is the first tournament using the new IG codex (though any IG players would be running with a new codex, so they are a little disadvantaged on that score), so I'd be interested to hear any results from this weekend.

Chaos seems to be a very well made codex, I've said before that I hoped that every codex matched it in balance. It seemed to be both internally and externally balanced. Alpha Legion is probably the most powerful option though, they do have a couple sneaky tactics which can be powerful if the opponent isn't expecting them. They can be countered pretty easily with bubblewrap units though, which is what IG excel at, so I'm surprised that they're causing that much trouble.

I thought the last set of tournament stats I read had Imperial armies (IG or Soup, mostly) taking up something like 9 out of the top 20 wins, with Chaos on about 5 or 6 and Xenos taking the rest... with no Orks or Necrons on the board at all. I can't remember where I read that though (one of the threads on Dakka somewhere) so it may have been incorrect (or I may be misremembering).

There was a link to a website that listed all the wins/losses etc from major tournaments, I'm sure someone will pop up and link it.

The Chaos lists may be using Brimstones as their cheap conscripts alternative. They're basically the only other unit in the game that can compete with conscripts on bubblewrap duty, and they get a single smite per unit too. No shooting though. Brimstones got nerfed sometime in the last few months, so some of your Chaos wins in tournaments may have been pre-nerf.

Talking about the Endurance GT at Warzone Atlanta? It's only 1000pts, FYI, so may not compare quite as well to the 2k pts GTs. Still, from the NOVA Open it was Cultists being used to screen as much/more than Brimstones.

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Is it safe to say "it's 3rd edition all over again"?

I mean, calling something overpowered when not even half of the codexes have been released is a bit OTT. Surely it's better to judge the AM codex once we have at least 75% of the codexes available to us, rather than call for changes literally a week onto its life?

Index armies will always suffer until they get a codex. Fair play to GW for trying to get as many out as soon as they can. Also, the AM are so strong right now, for not only being in a good place for the rules of 8th, but also their amount of units available.

That doesnt make the codex less OP right now though. Yes, even more powerful codexes may be down the line but that doesnt help anyone right now does it?

Heck I took a 76 PL list against a 100PL Dark Angels list yesterday and he conceded on Turn 2. A balanced codex is not capable of pulling stuff like that.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Heck I took a 76 PL list against a 100PL Dark Angels list yesterday and he conceded on Turn 2. A balanced codex is not capable of pulling stuff like that.

All of the codexes are capable of pulling that off - without seeing the lists it doesn't mean anything.

If you did that against a top tier DA list then you've got a point. If his list was weaksauce then it means nothing.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Heck I took a 76 PL list against a 100PL Dark Angels list yesterday and he conceded on Turn 2. A balanced codex is not capable of pulling stuff like that.

All of the codexes are capable of pulling that off - without seeing the lists it doesn't mean anything.

If you did that against a top tier DA list then you've got a point. If his list was weaksauce then it means nothing.

Um, no.

Pulling this off against a list that has a 4++ bubble is insane.

Do you know how hard it is for a normal list to pop Dark Angels that fast? I can't imagine being outnumbered by them. Outside of Guilliman, DA are the most competitive by virtue of that 4++.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Dr. Mills wrote:
Is it safe to say "it's 3rd edition all over again"?

I mean, calling something overpowered when not even half of the codexes have been released is a bit OTT. Surely it's better to judge the AM codex once we have at least 75% of the codexes available to us, rather than call for changes literally a week onto its life?

Index armies will always suffer until they get a codex. Fair play to GW for trying to get as many out as soon as they can. Also, the AM are so strong right now, for not only being in a good place for the rules of 8th, but also their amount of units available.

That doesnt make the codex less OP right now though. Yes, even more powerful codexes may be down the line but that doesnt help anyone right now does it?

Heck I took a 76 PL list against a 100PL Dark Angels list yesterday and he conceded on Turn 2. A balanced codex is not capable of pulling stuff like that.

Thanks for appreciating the current state of the imbalance. It's refreshing to see someone who gained from this codex actually have a sane response to it.