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:

Of course, that list will probably struggle against other types of armies, but it then becomes all about transferring it into a TAC list once your opponent gets sick of bringing 6 manticores and watching them die Unless, of course, you're completely blocking the manticores into a corner with 2 bastions, so no LoS can be gotten at all - then you just have to hope they can't block up the buildings quickly/slap you for being a douche

I was in fact completely blocking the manticores in a corner with 2 bastions. T9 is a considerably different beast to t7/8 after all
As it happens i've stopped doing this outside of coaching other people's tournament armies because, after 3 knights dead in one turn to miracle dice it is, as you've pointed out, not particularly interesting until 10k+ games when the titans come out to play.

It is appallingly powerful though, the only thing that came close to killing this iteration of the concept was 3 storm raven 5 grand master babywalker GK, and that was when I still took SM scouts for deep strike spoilers. I'm looking forward to an opponent who wouldn't be soured from the game to try it out with codex power, but I may be waiting a while.

 malamis wrote:

Kdash wrote:

Of course, that list will probably struggle against other types of armies, but it then becomes all about transferring it into a TAC list once your opponent gets sick of bringing 6 manticores and watching them die Unless, of course, you're completely blocking the manticores into a corner with 2 bastions, so no LoS can be gotten at all - then you just have to hope they can't block up the buildings quickly/slap you for being a douche

I was in fact completely blocking the manticores in a corner with 2 bastions. T9 is a considerably different beast to t7/8 after all
As it happens i've stopped doing this outside of coaching other people's tournament armies because, after 3 knights dead in one turn to miracle dice it is, as you've pointed out, not particularly interesting until 10k+ games when the titans come out to play.

It is appallingly powerful though, the only thing that came close to killing this iteration of the concept was 3 storm raven 5 grand master babywalker GK, and that was when I still took SM scouts for deep strike spoilers. I'm looking forward to an opponent who wouldn't be soured from the game to try it out with codex power, but I may be waiting a while.

Somehow i managed to turn "blow up" into "block up"... lol...

Personally, i think people NEED to try to fight against lists like this - and if they fail to win, attempt to build something that can beat it.. Rather than just complain all the time, mainly for a few reasons -

1. You yourself learn and upon winning have a sense of achieving something. Yes, it might be annoying and disheartening for the first few losses, but it also provides a challenge and something to focus on. It also opens you up to looking at units you might previously have through are rubbish, or allow you to better understand your army/new synergies and combos.

2. If you can then reliably beat that army over several mission styles, others then start to become more open to playing “unbeatable” armies, instead of just refusing “just because…”.

3. It then forces the player with the crazy list to adapt themselves and change what they are doing. Sure, they might come up with an even worse list, but you then get another challenge, and yet more satisfaction for being the guy that beats the cheesiest/more waac guy in your meta. Definite gloating rights, right there

Kdash wrote:

Personally, i think people NEED to try to fight against lists like this - and if they fail to win, attempt to build something that can beat it.. Rather than just complain all the time, mainly for a few reasons -

1. You yourself learn and upon winning have a sense of achieving something. Yes, it might be annoying and disheartening for the first few losses, but it also provides a challenge and something to focus on. It also opens you up to looking at units you might previously have through are rubbish, or allow you to better understand your army/new synergies and combos.

2. If you can then reliably beat that army over several mission styles, others then start to become more open to playing “unbeatable” armies, instead of just refusing “just because…”.

3. It then forces the player with the crazy list to adapt themselves and change what they are doing. Sure, they might come up with an even worse list, but you then get another challenge, and yet more satisfaction for being the guy that beats the cheesiest/more waac guy in your meta. Definite gloating rights, right there

This and this and more this entirely. Sadly in my case since my playtime is highly variable I can't take the risk of putting folks off as most/all of my games these days are pickup.

If you're ever heading to Glasgow with your doods give me a ding; we should totally roll some dice one day

I still think we should have gotten rid of conscripts. But it's actually the commissars that are the real problem with the summary execution rule. It might be sacrilege but maybe that rule needs to go. Removing it and leaving it all up to aura of discipline to hold the line might be a lot fairer.

 Klowny wrote:
No index army is complaining that its not fair a codex army is stronger than their index, thats a silly argument.

 malamis wrote:
If GW is genuinely going to go through all the factions and OP them out of all proportion to their original index then, let the good times roll.

You guys really need to realize that some armies are going to be stuck with index until next edition (or a WDex).

I mean, of course there are lists that aren't utterly dominant. Most OG IG players even have the models for these average lists. Like a Chimera Mechanized Infantry list, which is a pretty average list in power. Any weakness patch is up with a arty piece or two.

But... no one is going to play them... because those IG players also have models for the good lists... and the new IG players aren't going to play them...

 malamis wrote:

Kdash wrote:

Personally, i think people NEED to try to fight against lists like this - and if they fail to win, attempt to build something that can beat it.. Rather than just complain all the time, mainly for a few reasons -

1. You yourself learn and upon winning have a sense of achieving something. Yes, it might be annoying and disheartening for the first few losses, but it also provides a challenge and something to focus on. It also opens you up to looking at units you might previously have through are rubbish, or allow you to better understand your army/new synergies and combos.

2. If you can then reliably beat that army over several mission styles, others then start to become more open to playing “unbeatable” armies, instead of just refusing “just because…”.

3. It then forces the player with the crazy list to adapt themselves and change what they are doing. Sure, they might come up with an even worse list, but you then get another challenge, and yet more satisfaction for being the guy that beats the cheesiest/more waac guy in your meta. Definite gloating rights, right there

This and this and more this entirely. Sadly in my case since my playtime is highly variable I can't take the risk of putting folks off as most/all of my games these days are pickup.

If you're ever heading to Glasgow with your doods give me a ding; we should totally roll some dice one day

I'm sure i could prob sort something out Glasgow wise, but it'd have to wait til next year now though. Essentially i'm in a work and "build and prep" stage ready for the LCO in January. Was planning on a couple of events next month, but somehow i don't think i'll be ready

SilverAlien wrote:
Let's list off some questions now that we have the "full picture".

Are we now allowed to wonder why the shadowsword can kill 200 points of enemy tanks every turn despite costing only 500ish itself and being quite durable? What about conscripts still being absurdly hard to kill in a single turn without spending 3-4 times as much on a glass cannon counter unit? Or should we "wait for the meta to settle"

Please, could some guard players explain to me how a sturdy tank that's very hard to kill should have the firepower to easily make its points back, yet we need glass cannon units to have that same sort of point efficiency versus conscripts, I'm curious.

Because that's how a defensive screen should be. If the defensive barricade was easy to destroy without significant commitment, it wouldn't be any good.

If a list fields 100-150 conscripts, that's almost 500 points [481]. Your entire army can devote itself to eliminating them in a singe round, or you can devote fewer units to it to take a chunk out of them for a few turns while also engaging the supporting assets.

Other "survivable" units are at similar ranges of resilience. A Rhino, for example, at 72 points, takes on average 4 Lascannon/Missile Launcher teams to eliminate in a single round, totaling up to 312 points, or about 4x it's cost.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Klowny wrote:
No index army is complaining that its not fair a codex army is stronger than their index, thats a silly argument.

 malamis wrote:
If GW is genuinely going to go through all the factions and OP them out of all proportion to their original index then, let the good times roll.

You guys really need to realize that some armies are going to be stuck with index until next edition (or a WDex).

Yep - the attitude of "screw you I have my Codex, wait for months years or even never for your own Codex update is never helpful."

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Klowny wrote:
No index army is complaining that its not fair a codex army is stronger than their index, thats a silly argument.

 malamis wrote:
If GW is genuinely going to go through all the factions and OP them out of all proportion to their original index then, let the good times roll.

You guys really need to realize that some armies are going to be stuck with index until next edition (or a WDex).

Yep - the attitude of "screw you I have my Codex, wait for months years or even never for your own Codex update is never helpful."

Orks could be potentially waiting upwards of 6 months... so I guess I just don;t play for half a year then -_-

 lolman1c wrote:
Orks could be potentially waiting upwards of 6 months... so I guess I just don;t play for half a year then -_-

Or just play with people who are nice? Terrain, scenarios, lists. There are lots of things that can be done to address balance by discussing before the game. One of the most fun games I ever had was where we put a road across the map and I had to get a convoy through whilst daemons deep struck on every side. I think I got a Chimera off and technically won, although it was a pyrrhic victory.

So what would be the OK list then for IG. Nothing I guess. Well, moving from this community to Bolt Action.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Other "survivable" units are at similar ranges of resilience. A Rhino, for example, at 72 points, takes on average 4 Lascannon/Missile Launcher teams to eliminate in a single round, totaling up to 312 points, or about 4x it's cost.

But they're Rhinos, and that means they're Marine units, and as we all know, Marine units can never be overpowered.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:
Let's list off some questions now that we have the "full picture".

Are we now allowed to wonder why the shadowsword can kill 200 points of enemy tanks every turn despite costing only 500ish itself and being quite durable? What about conscripts still being absurdly hard to kill in a single turn without spending 3-4 times as much on a glass cannon counter unit? Or should we "wait for the meta to settle"

Please, could some guard players explain to me how a sturdy tank that's very hard to kill should have the firepower to easily make its points back, yet we need glass cannon units to have that same sort of point efficiency versus conscripts, I'm curious.

Because that's how a defensive screen should be. If the defensive barricade was easy to destroy without significant commitment, it wouldn't be any good.

If a list fields 100-150 conscripts, that's almost 500 points [481]. Your entire army can devote itself to eliminating them in a singe round, or you can devote fewer units to it to take a chunk out of them for a few turns while also engaging the supporting assets.

Other "survivable" units are at similar ranges of resilience. A Rhino, for example, at 72 points, takes on average 4 Lascannon/Missile Launcher teams to eliminate in a single round, totaling up to 312 points, or about 4x it's cost.

I haven't seen any Ultramarine armies fielding rhino screens as of yet.

There is a lot of denial about guard. They are undoubtably the strongest codex. If all subsequent codex come out at this strength, it would be distinctly unfair to anyone playing the preceding codex, and if you think this is a likely result, you don’t know gw

The best we can hope for is for them to tone down conscripts, again, artillery some (minus one to hit units you can’t see), and probably russes a bit

stratigo wrote:
There is a lot of denial about guard. They are undoubtably the strongest codex. If all subsequent codex come out at this strength, it would be distinctly unfair to anyone playing the preceding codex, and if you think this is a likely result, you don’t know gw

The best we can hope for is for them to tone down conscripts, again, artillery some (minus one to hit units you can’t see), and probably russes a bit

I also think there is a lot of over the top screaming about the guard codex as well. Sure, it’s strong now that it has added stratagems and doctrines, but, can builds from the previous codices still match up to the vast majority of “op” guard lists? I think there are builds that can. It might take people some time to play test them and make them successful, but they are there – especially in a mission scenario.

I’ve asked several times now across a few threads, for those that are super butthurt about the codex to draft up some viable “unbeatable” 2k point pure guard armies for us to consider – but I am still waiting. Until we get one, we can’t discuss ways and builds to beat it (and no – I’m not going to be the one creating the lists to discuss, cos I’m not overly bothered right now and I don’t even have a Guard army).
Once we have some lists we can first look at the other codices and some of the index armies a well.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
So what would be the OK list then for IG. Nothing I guess. Well, moving from this community to Bolt Action.

Would you rather face standard Dark Eldar, or even Dark Eldar Ynnari? Or Dakkabot + Cawl spam? How about horror spam with all the extras (which is still winning tournaments btw)? What about Tau commander spam?

Taking 3 spearheads of Leman Russ tanks is probably going to suck massively, despite getting to shoot twice if they move <5". Running 3 super heavies are going to run into the same problem as Knight lists vs anyone that knows it is coming. Mass Scion plasma spam is now pretty expensive and they are still a suicide unit (88 points for a 4 man plasma squad + commander tax) that isn't likely to carry a game for you just on your own if you spam it.

it is harder now, to make an army with Guard that isn't somewhat reasonable in a fair amount of circumstances, but there are still things you can do with most of the other armies as well.

stratigo wrote:
There is a lot of denial about guard. They are undoubtably the strongest codex. If all subsequent codex come out at this strength, it would be distinctly unfair to anyone playing the preceding codex, and if you think this is a likely result, you don’t know gw

The best we can hope for is for them to tone down conscripts, again, artillery some (minus one to hit units you can’t see), and probably russes a bit

Yeah remember 6th we had chaos and dark angels come out roughly equal in power gave us hope for balance, then tau and eldar came and fekked up everything.

This codex is worrying.

My assessment is that there are absolutely combinations within the IG codex that can be super obnoxious. If I were to change a few things, it would be:

1) A blanket rule that disallows stratagems that don't specifically call out Titanic units and psychic power buffs in general from being used on friendly Titanic units. Just like Death stars or "Titan on a Skyshield" lists from 7th, when a unit gets too big it becomes problematic to balance. The Knight stratagems in the admech codex were perfect for this. The stratagems that the Baneblades have access to are way too permissive - being able to spend the same number of cp to boost the save of an infantry squad from 5+ to 4+ and the save of a 26 wound superheavy from 3+ to 2+ is just dumb.

2) Make the Take Cover stratagem Infantry only for mork's sake. 1cp to allow a SHV to Take Cover is just stupid.

3) Bump conscripts to 4ppm.

4) Bump the cost of the Hellhound up. 2d6 on the big flamer feels good, about as destructive as a super-flamer tank should feel, but it's just too powerful for its point cost. The Bane Wolf and Devil Dog seem just fine/slightly underpowered maybe, so I would add the cost to the Inferno Cannon specifically.

We had several old IG players turn up to test-run the codex, and in general, everything went pretty well. 2 games were kind of stompy - one with a dedicated tournament player who wanted to see how his current Conscript SPam+Plasma Scion tournament list fared getting matched with a pretty non-competitive opponent, and one player running a super-buffed up Shadowsword with Cadian doctrines. The other three games were losses for the IG, against lists and armies I was worried might have problems fighting them, so that was good to see.

The more I think about how to fix the commissar/conscript issue, the more I think that maybe Summary Execution just doesn't need to exist. Couldn't you just, in both narrative and mechanical terms, subsume any Guard killed by the Commissar to stop the others running away into the guys you lose due to a failed Morale check? Also, it makes sense the Commissar would have more trouble controlling a larger unit. Maybe bump Commissars' Ld up to make them a bit more effective without the need for SumEx?

 Nazrak wrote:
The more I think about how to fix the commissar/conscript issue, the more I think that maybe Summary Execution just doesn't need to exist. Couldn't you just, in both narrative and mechanical terms, subsume any Guard killed by the Commissar to stop the others running away into the guys you lose due to a failed Morale check? Also, it makes sense the Commissar would have more trouble controlling a larger unit. Maybe bump Commissars' Ld up to make them a bit more effective without the need for SumEx?

Yes, this! Thank you! I said this earlier somewhere. It might seem like sacrilege but summery execution needs to go. I resisted it before but I'm converted now.

It works fluff wise too. If the commissar succeeded in turning a loss of 5 to morale into 2, you could simply say he blew away 2 to make an example, and those 3 who would have also fled now get a sudden burst of inspiration having seen the commissars wrath first hand.

The thing with Commissars is that they went from zero to hero due to the fact that they can now affect multiple units. If I remember, last edition they only affected the unit they joined, effectively becoming a very expensive "Morale insurance" upgrade to an otherwise cheap unit.

Maybe make it so that each Commissar can only activate Summary execution once per turn?

 Nazrak wrote:
The more I think about how to fix the commissar/conscript issue, the more I think that maybe Summary Execution just doesn't need to exist. Couldn't you just, in both narrative and mechanical terms, subsume any Guard killed by the Commissar to stop the others running away into the guys you lose due to a failed Morale check? Also, it makes sense the Commissar would have more trouble controlling a larger unit. Maybe bump Commissars' Ld up to make them a bit more effective without the need for SumEx?

This could also work, but also doesn't fix the general problem with morale-immune hordes existing. Unless you fix the underlying mechanical issues (the way objectives are scored, the existence of the universal auto-pass stratagem, the way obsec works in 8th, etc) you could have another unit become undercosted and hyper-efficient just as easily.

I'd honestly rather see SumEx stay the way it is because I like the way it interacts with almost every other IG unit (i.e, generally saves you 1-2 casualties but rarely more than that) and see a second nerf to conscripts.

The advantage they have being able to stack a unit up to 30 makes them more than comparable to regular IG per model. They should be 4ppm, period.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The thing with Commissars is that they went from zero to hero due to the fact that they can now affect multiple units. If I remember, last edition they only affected the unit they joined, effectively becoming a very expensive "Morale insurance" upgrade to an otherwise cheap unit.

Don't forget though - last edition you could also merge units. So, whilst a Commissar could only be attached on one unit, that one unit could be up to 5 infantry squads.

Even then, I rarely ever saw Commissars used - everyone just took Priests and got Fearless instead.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Maybe make it so that each Commissar can only activate Summary execution once per turn?

You might as well just say 'Summary Execution only affects Conscripts'. It amounts to the same thing.

the_scotsman wrote:
3) Bump conscripts to 4ppm.

And then you'll never see conscripts because Infantry Squads are then better in every way. They shoot better, they fight better, they have better morale, they have the option of special/heavy weapons if needed. The only negative trait Infantry Squads have over Conscripts if they cost the same would be that they can't be in 20-30 man units, but with how cheap guard are, you can get those bodies easily.

If you cost Conscripts the same as Infantry Squads, there's no point in taking them, but if you can't really cost Infantry Squads up, because they're pretty balanced.

Maybe make it so Conscripts lose two/three guardsmen as a result of Summary Execution, or just ditch Summary Execution.

Scrap conscripts. Ditch them. I'm totally seriously.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
3) Bump conscripts to 4ppm.

And then you'll never see conscripts because Infantry Squads are then better in every way. They shoot better, they fight better, they have better morale, they have the option of special/heavy weapons if needed. The only negative trait Infantry Squads have over Conscripts if they cost the same would be that they can't be in 20-30 man units, but with how cheap guard are, you can get those bodies easily.

If you cost Conscripts the same as Infantry Squads, there's no point in taking them, but if you can't really cost Infantry Squads up, because they're pretty balanced.

Maybe make it so Conscripts lose two/three guardsmen as a result of Summary Execution, or just ditch Summary Execution.

Not if we make infantry 5 ppm or 6 ppm.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Scrap conscripts. Ditch them. I'm totally seriously.

And I agree with you. Totally serious. There is zero need for them in the game, least of all for Guard. They have normal Guardsmen that are doing the expendable bubblewrap just fine. Conscripts are just being picked because they do it even better as they're cheaper.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And then you'll never see conscripts because Infantry Squads are then better in every way.

Make conscript 7 points for 2 models?

Martel732 wrote:
Not if we make infantry 5 ppm or 6 ppm.

Are infantry squads actually overpowered, or are we just screwing them over for the sake of a single overpowered unit?

 Purifier wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Scrap conscripts. Ditch them. I'm totally seriously.

And I agree with you. Totally serious. There is zero need for them in the game, least of all for Guard. They have normal Guardsmen that are doing the expendable bubblewrap just fine. Conscripts are just being picked because they do it even better as they're cheaper.

I wouldn't object to this.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
Scrap conscripts. Ditch them. I'm totally seriously.

Seems like a good way to make a fluffy Cadian 8th collector cry. Conscripts are an intrinsic part of the IG lore, as many regiments use hordes of cheap, poorly trained troops to throw into the meat grinder. Just because their current balance is off is no reason to go to extreme measures. They were fine before 8th hit and now they should just be scrapped after a few months? I think a tweak to summary execution could go a long way to help. Maybe, instead of a blanket "only 1 casualty" it could work like a save? Say, for most squads you get a 2+ save against moral casualties but for conscripts it is a 4+ due to them needing more persuading?