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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Red_Five wrote:
Personally, I think one of the things that made Commissars better in 8th was their ability to affect multiple squads all at once rather than only giving their bonuses to the squad they were attached to.

The problem is this magical "layering" that people keep claiming was happening.

You'd have conga lines of Conscripts acting as charge protection/sniper protection and a Commissar at one end...with vehicles at the other end/behind the Conscripts and terrain.

What exactly did Commissars do for vehicles? Nothing.

And more to the point, how come casualty removal did not tear holes within those congas?

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Killing Guardsmen was far easier in previous editions because of the absolute nature of saves. Blobs of Guardsmen in CC with Priests and the Invulnerable hymn didn't go down like chumps and were annoying for a reason.

It didn't necessarily make them broken or OP though. People whined about them for the same reason you're whining about them now:
The army you expected to die like tissue paper to a stiff breeze didn't, based upon a lynchpin character that if it got singled out or killed via singling out completely ruined the strategy the Guard player was using.

Exactly this. I still do not understand how other players are calling Guard overpowered when you can neuter them simply by removing a few characters. But hey-ho there are those here who demand that Guard armies roll over and die as soon as the first marine/guardian/whatever is placed on the table because 'reasons', and those sought's will never be satisfied until they can happily wipe entire Imperial Guard armies off the board on the first turn.

It's the nature of this forum. There are some who are very much in the mentality "I want absolute balance in this game except for the army that I play"

So Guard can no longer ignore the Morale phase. Good. The rest of their codex more than makes up for it.

Persecution complex is running rampant. How did everyone know I wanted my one spacemarine to destroy an entire IG army? I enjoy getting 20 games finished in an hour, 3 minutes is all it should take to beat such a horrible NPC faction. Blahblahblah.

Get over yourself MoO and deadelus. We aren't here to take a turn behind you, we just wanted balance.

I... kinda stopped taking any of this seriously roughly 25 pages ago. I definitely stopped taking this seriously in the last couple pages. That's why I turned snide.

I also don't think I ever claimed anything about anyone believing that one space marine should be able to destroy an entire IG army.

Wasn't you, it was MoO.

Fair enough.

...you know that I play other armies too, right? I'm not jumping up to defend my pet army here. Hell, I probably have more money in GK than IG at this point. Got at least 2000-something points of SM, and about 1500 of Tau too, though that last one's by a 7th ed estimate, so I dunno if it'd be more or less now.

I honestly don't think the IG issues were that bad at the point of the codex, and I can't honestly see there being any major balance problems with the codex post FAQ. There's just not really any evidence supporting it at the tournament scene. Now, if you were to come to me and say something like "the GK codex is fethed", then we'd be talking. Needs buffed seriously. From a fundamental game design philosophy, I think it's strange to me that we fixate on what we can take away from a codex to increase the perception of balance, rather than adding to others to increase theirs.

Nids get synapse now???!?!?!?

WHO KNEW!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!

Honestly, this thread has basically devolved into everyone claiming to want balance but nobody agreeing on what balance is.

Although it's pretty obvious that some perspectives are heavily skewed, like the ones holding up termagants as some kind of ideal.

>believes tactical marines are garbage
>believes termagants are balanced and should be the standard for all GEQ.
>termagants lose horribly to tacticals point for point.
>"balance"

 master of ordinance wrote:
And more to the point, how come casualty removal did not tear holes within those congas?

Defender can pick up any model from unit as casualty. So imagine unit like this:


U..U..U..U..U
........U4
........U3
........U1
........U2
........U
........C

C is commisar, U is conscript. Numbers there are order of casualty removals. This is actually legal. And YES this actually causes hole in there. But that's not big issue. Screen isn't intended to be there forever anyway. Turn or two is enough. Since there's still conscript nearby commisar unit gets benefit still.

This sort of conga-lining and casualty removal is pretty effective done right. At least 40k forces you to move toward coherencion. In AOS it's not even required so unit can stand still forever if it chooses(if it moves and stuff ends out of coherency THAT is bad) and shorter ranges of weapons make it even more effective than in 40k.

But who says they didn't get holes? They might have just got holes where defender didn't CARE.

 daedalus wrote:
Fair enough.

...you know that I play other armies too, right? I'm not jumping up to defend my pet army here. Hell, I probably have more money in GK than IG at this point. Got at least 2000-something points of SM, and about 1500 of Tau too, though that last one's by a 7th ed estimate, so I dunno if it'd be more or less now.

I honestly don't think the IG issues were that bad at the point of the codex, and I can't honestly see there being any major balance problems with the codex post FAQ. There's just not really any evidence supporting it at the tournament scene. Now, if you were to come to me and say something like "the GK codex is fethed", then we'd be talking. Needs buffed seriously. From a fundamental game design philosophy, I think it's strange to me that we fixate on what we can take away from a codex to increase the perception of balance, rather than adding to others to increase theirs.

Because adding stuff to Imperium based armies will end up bad when one ability gets through that makes Imperial Soup OP when combined with something else. Which is what CAN'T happen if you take stuff away. It is why I expect to see GK never buffed for the rest of the edition because changing one of the first codices would require GW to actually PROPERLY playtest & cost things when they apparently could not do it the first time (I mean why would they increase Terminator costs? I just gave up at that point).

 Quickjager wrote:

Because adding stuff to Imperium based armies will end up bad when one ability gets through that makes Imperial Soup OP when combined with something else. Which is what CAN'T happen if you take stuff away. It is why I expect to see GK never buffed for the rest of the edition because changing one of the first codices would require GW to actually PROPERLY playtest & cost things when they apparently could not do it the first time (I mean why would they increase Terminator costs? I just gave up at that point).

I always have that last bit of hope, but I'm an optimist.

I think a lot of where things went wrong was in the 8th design philosophy where "characters are standalone" and "force multipliers are a bubble". No one would have noticed commissars exist if they still attached to a squad and were 30-something points a squad for the buff. Of course, there's a lot of bad other design decisions that would need to change for that to make sense, like combined squads.

I'd also say that anything that affects all imperium units (like bobby g) should probably be dialed back to respective armies.

 ross-128 wrote:
Honestly, this thread has basically devolved into everyone claiming to want balance but nobody agreeing on what balance is.

Although it's pretty obvious that some perspectives are heavily skewed, like the ones holding up termagants as some kind of ideal.

>believes tactical marines are garbage
>believes termagants are balanced and should be the standard for all GEQ.
>termagants lose horribly to tacticals point for point.
>"balance"

The problem is most of the people wanting "Balance" for marines, especially GK and BA players, is that they want it to return to the 5th edition "Balance", i.e: they auto-win without needing much effort. Notice how almost all complaints about space marines in general boils down to "I can't walk in a straight line directly towards the enemy, in the open, without suffering wounds and I can't kill the enemy unit in a single turn. I should be able to do both with any unit in the codex or the entire faction is Underpowered".

This is why I can't really take them seriously, since such a unit is a textbook definition of an OP unit (having no exploitable weaknesses while being able to take on any target), yet they still claim that anything less would make marines underpowered.

I never claimed that. I honestly don' t have a fix, which is why i don't think gw can fix it either.

For the record, ig was a tough matchup in 5th as well.

And i also don't care who you take seriously. If don't understand why 4 pt models turning off every assault unit in the game is bad, i'll say the same.

If GW can't fix commissars reasonably, then there's no hope XD

Is there one amongst us who would have been reacted so negatively if they were simply nerfed to affect only one unit per.moral phase?

The issue wasn't the rule itself but how it interacted with spammed horde units. Treat the cause not the symptom. It's not rocket science.

The cracks are showing in this "new gw" and its unfortunately their lack.of talent in the rules department.... but hey, they aren't a games company, right?

Commisars should reduce Loses to morale 1d3 (And cost something like 20-24 points).
Lord Commisars should reduce Morale Loses 1d6, and Yarrick 1d6+3.

Whoops. Read rule somewhat wrong. Out of coherency you don't have to move but if you do must get to coherency. So above congaline if you get hole you can stay still out of coherency forever. Of course if you can't get to coherency you can't move period. Still not that bad if you already are at objective

 Davidian wrote:
If GW can't fix commissars reasonably, then there's no hope XD

Is there one amongst us who would have been reacted so negatively if they were simply nerfed to affect only one unit per.moral phase?

The issue wasn't the rule itself but how it interacted with spammed horde units. Treat the cause not the symptom. It's not rocket science.

The cracks are showing in this "new gw" and its unfortunately their lack.of talent in the rules department.... but hey, they aren't a games company, right?

Despite not giving GW the benefit of doubt, you need to acknowledge two things:
1) They are actually fixing problems in the game right now. Unlike in previous editions, another fix to comissars is not impossible. If this were 6th or 7th edition, the next rule change would require a new edition of WH40k to drop first. Nerfing slightly overpowered stuff "to the ground!" is also pretty common among everyone trying to balance their games. A good company would buff those things back to useful level later.
2) Any game that can claim to be at least somewhat balanced reached that point through iteration. The chances of getting any given rule "right" the first or second time are pretty low, especially how inaccurate their play testing results seem to be. Even companies with a high level of professionalism in game design like Wizards of the Coast or Fantasy Flight Games tend to have huge screw-ups from time to time.

I'm also pretty sure they have dropped the "we are not a games company"-thing, just because then new CEO is much less of a than John Kirby was.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Honestly, this thread has basically devolved into everyone claiming to want balance but nobody agreeing on what balance is.

Although it's pretty obvious that some perspectives are heavily skewed, like the ones holding up termagants as some kind of ideal.

>believes tactical marines are garbage
>believes termagants are balanced and should be the standard for all GEQ.
>termagants lose horribly to tacticals point for point.
>"balance"

The problem is most of the people wanting "Balance" for marines, especially GK and BA players, is that they want it to return to the 5th edition "Balance", i.e: they auto-win without needing much effort. Notice how almost all complaints about space marines in general boils down to "I can't walk in a straight line directly towards the enemy, in the open, without suffering wounds and I can't kill the enemy unit in a single turn. I should be able to do both with any unit in the codex or the entire faction is Underpowered".

This is why I can't really take them seriously, since such a unit is a textbook definition of an OP unit (having no exploitable weaknesses while being able to take on any target), yet they still claim that anything less would make marines underpowered.

Okay first off, there are EASILY identified units in every codex/index that are weak. For the GK it has always been a set of units.

- Crowe: a HQ with a AP 0 weapon. Useless in everything as it isn't like he has 20 attacks to beat the save of an opponent, he has 5. 5 attacks at STR4 with a Damage 1 weapon. His biggest saving grace is the master swordsmen rule and his smite/purifying flame. The problem is GK smite sucks. I want to love him, but I can't as he doesn't buff anyone nor can he actually kill ANYTHING effectively. Why the feth is he LD 8?

- Voldus/Librarian: Victims of the Psychic system, there is no advantage to have them cast a spell over a Strike Squad. Librarians offer denial, but every unit in the army can deny already. Voldus remains usable being a GM w/ a artifact weapon.

- Brother Captains: They are actually fine, it's just they ONLY enhance the Smite psychic power, which sucks to suck slightly less.

- Dreadnoughts: Overpriced garbage, take what wrong with the SM dreadnought increase the price and then add what is wrong with GK units. The FW Dreadnought is alright.

- Purifiers: Lost an attack, lost being able to cast 2 spells, still can't deepstrike, gained a weird psychic backlash rule if the opponent gets denied by the Purifiers. Get an side-upgraded smite.

- Psycannons: Their profile literally did not change at all, they gained no shots and remain a 24 inch weapon with AP-1. But hey feth rending you lose that. Overpriced.


In short the psychic system kneecaps the GK army, you are paying for powers you can't actually use. Further the smite they get SUCKS because it has reduced range w/ D1 mortal wounds. Then the Purifiers get a worse smite that is D6 as it only has 3 inch range, ignoring the fact EVERYONE else has a chance to get this at 18 inch range. If GW addressed these issues I would shut up, there aren't even all the issues but these are the biggest ones that prevent GK from being played as a PSYCHIC ELITE army.

Want me to do the Ork Index now?

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
This is why I can't really take them seriously, since such a unit is a textbook definition of an OP unit (having no exploitable weaknesses while being able to take on any target), yet they still claim that anything less would make marines underpowered.

I'll continue to roll my eyes about BA up until they get their codex. Pure GK are legitimately screwed at this point though unless GW actually does fix issues in chapter approved like they claim they will. They're probably overall worse off in relative power than they were in early 5th ed with the demonhunter codex.

IG is totally okay now.

I've almost lost a match after the release of the Codex. I didn't though.

 RedCommander wrote:
IG is totally okay now.

I've almost lost a match after the release of the Codex. I didn't though.

Whew lad. Thank god you didn't lose. You'd ruin the image of the new Guard forever. We can do nothing but win. It has been written.

 daedalus wrote:
I... kinda stopped taking any of this seriously roughly 25 pages ago. I definitely stopped taking this seriously in the last couple pages. That's why I turned snide.

I also don't think I ever claimed anything about anyone believing that one space marine should be able to destroy an entire IG army.

Yeah that was not you but Scotsman in full flow to myself.

Quick question all joking aside has any Guard player lost a game using the codex and if so how and who against?

Quick question all joking aside has any Guard player lost a game using the codex and if so how and who against?

Lost 2 out of 4 games at a small tournament last weekend.
One VS Custodes, and one VS Tyranids. In both cases we ran out of time and had to end the games after turn 3. I think I could have won the game VS Tyranids if we'd kept on going for two more turns, but as it was he won on points.

My army list was mostly tanks and infantry in Chimeras.

Go through the tournament results - IG players have been losing plenty of matches. Brandon Grant, who apparently is dominating the California tourney scene, is the closest you probably have to an undefeated 'IG' player. I use 'IG' because he actually just plays Imperial Soup and abuses that to get all the counters he can; for example in SoCal he'd tweaked his list to include two Culexus to counter the Malefic Lord spam/take advantage of his Primaris/Astropath spam.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And nvm; he lost a match this weekend at the ABU Extralife Ironman GT. An Alaitoc player took 1st and he took 2nd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Top 10 from that GT

GK player had GK, Ravenguard, and Stormtroopers.

Salamanders player was primarily Valhallans and a mixed Supreme HQ detachment with Celestine.

Dark Angels player was a mix of DA with a Valhallan detachment (27 Conscripts 2x 5 Stormtrooper squads)

I'm gonna look at the GK list and see Imperial Monstermash. I already know it, it saddens me.

Honestly I believe that tournaments should require to share two faction keywords instead of only one.

 Quickjager wrote:
I'm gonna look at the GK list and see Imperial Monstermash. I already know it, it saddens me.

The GK list

GhostRecon wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
I'm gonna look at the GK list and see Imperial Monstermash. I already know it, it saddens me.

The GK list

Lol, the title of the list

I wish Chaos could ally with Xenos. I'd make a "Thousand Sons list" that only has Magnus, Tyrannids, and Eldar.

Tyran wrote:
Commissars weren't fine.

They were fine in all cases, with the sole exception of what they did for conscripts. As such, perhaps the problem was in fact conscripts, rather than Commissars.

Even ignoring conscripts, the idea that Commissars suddenly made guardsmen have better morale than Space Marines is silly.

You're right, that idea is silly, its a shame that so many continue to believe that that is what Commissars actually did. To start with, even with Commissar leadership and excluding the ATSKNF re-roll, IG units have the same probability of failing a morale check as an average marine squad. Once you include the ATSKNF re-roll, Marine probability is much better than guard probability, even with commissars. This is on top of the fact that guardsmen are significantly easier to kill than marines are, which increases the probability that guardsmen will *need* to test morale significantly. But then when you consider what the space marines have access to, rules and ability wise... lets see:

-Ultramarines = Ld 9, so now they have a flat out superior chance of passing morale compared to guardsmen
-Psychic Fortress librarius power = Target unit is flat out immune to morale
-Rites of War Warlord Trait = Units within 6" of the Warlord are flat out immune to morale (i.e. Commissar dialed up to 11)
-Standard of the Emperor Ascendant Relic = Friendly units within 6" autopass morale tests (again, Commissar dialed up to 11)
-Chaplains = Units within 6" use the Chaplains Leadership of 9, so basically any chapter can get a similar buff to Ultramarines (and Ultramarine units become Ld 10), again making their chances of surviving morale much better than guardsmen
-Rhino Primaris = -1 on your morale roll for friendly units within 12", a unit of tac marines under the influence of a chaplain and a rhino primaris is effectively ld 10. Ultramarines are effectively LD11. *with rerolls*.
-Lysander = Imp Fists within 6" get +1 Ld, now they are Ultramarines too. You can stack this with a Chaplain and a Rhino Primaris to make Imp Fists effectively LD11, with rerolls. At the point that becomes relevant, there is a good possibility that the entire squad was whiped and you aren't making a morale test anyway.
-Grimaldus = Black Templars within 6" become ultramarines too (Ld9)
-Ancients = +1 Leadership within 6"
-Cenobyte Servitors = Black Templars within 12" autopass morale
etc
etc
etc

Yeah. I get it, guardsman plus commissar looks better on paper than a basic marine squad sans upgrades (but only on paper, because a rerollable ld 8 on a unit that doesn't suffer many casualties on average is still superior to a one model stop-loss policy on a unit that will likely be taking enough casualties to all but guarantee a morale failure anyway), but thats not an apples to apples comparison. Once you stack all the leadership shenanigans a marine army has access to, its no contest in favor of the marines, especially when you factor in the amount of casualties that marines actually take versus the amount of casualties guardsmen take.

Sure they were overnerfed, but they weren't fine. They only need to make the execution optional instead of obligatory and it would be fine.

Not really, no. People still wouldn't take it, because there is only a very narrow band of situations in which killing one of your own models to reroll a leadership check is actually worth doing for a guard squad. What your version of Summary Execution provides is essentially a solution to a non-existent problem as far as guard players are concerned, so all what the Commissar really has going for it then is basically +1 leadership, which guard players can get for 25 points less with a standard.

Also killing guardsmen was far easier in previous editions.

lolwut?