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.

 ross-128 wrote:
Well the good news about that is I'm pretty sure you can choose to not blam anyone, so if you roll a 1 on the morale test, just take it because it won't get any better.

Blamming on a 4 and rolling a 6 would be some bad feels though.

I mean, that's just the same level of screwed loyalist marines are with ATSKNF.

Alcibiades wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Aenarian wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Sad that they didnt fix any of the Russ variants like Vanquishers or Exterminators so they might actually see a table. Thanks GW

Would anyone actually take a Vanquisher or Exterminator if the weapon itself was free? I'm not sure I would.

The Exterminator maybe, it's not awful, just clearly inferior to the battlecannon in Strenght, AP and range (while being more expensive), if it were free it'd probably be worth taking. Not sure about the Vanquisher, it's just fundamentally broken as an MBT specialized anti-tank weapon.

The Exterminator has a slightly higher number of shots than the average for the BC and is arguably better against 2-wound infantry (depending on its Toughness and save)..

While true, those advantages are extremely slight, expecially in relation to the overall bonuses enjoyed by the BC, which nobody thought was particularly good either until it got to shoot twice

Mkay.. SO some things to point out.

I don't recall IG players not having CP to spend on strategems. In fact, I've had multiple games witnessed where the IG player at my LGS still had 7-8 Cp leftover, granted he was playing with the refund command point warlord trait but come on people. It's not like you don't have enough CP to spare to keep your Conscripts on the table for insane bravery. And the LD 8 still isn't that bad. Without the commissar, if the squad gets debuffed they'd be at LD0 or even in negatives against certain armies. now you get to lose even more men.

Soup lists might be on more tight CP budget but that is your own choice to take detachments from other armies and not get as many CP so quiet down

Also on another point, i don't recall regular infantry being more than 10 man squads. if they lose enough men that the commissar makes it worthless then the squad would be dead without him anyways. So what if the reroll can get worse. Plasma guns do have same chance to do that just as much. One moment could be a missed shot then on the reroll it turns into a 1 and your model dies. Point of rerolling is the chance to be better but also chance that it could get worse or sta just as bad, granted I do agree might be better if it was optional if it's a low roll, but it's nice to see some of the old 4th-5th rules and prices coming back into order on a lot of choices and model.

I think the Commissar Nerf is a good thing it was too good before. Morale was almost ignored by AM with list consisting only Conscripts and Tanks. With 12 + CP they still have enough stuff to ignore morale. There is still too much stuff in 8th that is immune to morale.

drbored wrote:
I just want to remind everyone that GW put out this FAQ and Errata based on community feedback. They took in a lot of the suggestions that people were giving them out of actual playtesting, seeing that playing against certain combos wasn't fun, and also fixing holes that had been made by their writing.

If people are really upset that they blew 500 dollars to make two 90 point squads of Conscripts to fit with the competitive meta, I'm sure there are lots of people on Ebay that would love to help you recoup that.

This!

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Well the good news about that is I'm pretty sure you can choose to not blam anyone, so if you roll a 1 on the morale test, just take it because it won't get any better.

Blamming on a 4 and rolling a 6 would be some bad feels though.

I mean, that's just the same level of screwed loyalist marines are with ATSKNF.

You don't have to spend an extra 31 points and kill an extra marine to get ATSKNF though.

How about not buying into such extreme power shifts from month-to-month? Or just playing proxyhammer because by the time you finish assembling an army, it's no longer playable?

Somewhat off-topic: I liked the old Commissar rule from way back where he would execute the commanding officer of the unit he was attached to in order to get a re-roll on a Leadership test, but if the second test also failed the unit would kill the Commissar and then break and run anyway.

I'm not saying it was the best rule in terms of gameplay and I'm not saying that it should be ported over to 8th, just that I think it was amusing and flavorful.

Oh I'm not worried about the nerf being expensive or difficult to re-build for. In this case it's really not, conscripts, guardsmen, veterans, SWT, command squads, and arguably HWT are all the same model and any Guard player worth their salt should have enough special weapons laying around to equip them anyway.

Guard models are imminently recyclable, once you have a good Guard collection you rarely have to buy anything new, you can massively overhaul your list with a stroke of a pencil.

It's just annoying to have two iconic units kicked straight down to "strictly casual".

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:
Somewhat off-topic: I liked the old Commissar rule from way back where he would execute the commanding officer of the unit he was attached to in order to get a re-roll on a Leadership test, but if the second test also failed the unit would kill the Commissar and then break and run anyway.

I'm not saying it was the best rule in terms of gameplay and I'm not saying that it should be ported over to 8th, just that I think it was amusing and flavorful.

Don't forget that the officer got +1 ld bonus as well, Commissars have a tendency to focus the mind.

So all I have to do now is take a company commander and give him Pietrovs MK .45?

Cheaper than a commissar and can give orders?

I like the commissar fix. Makes them fit the fluff better. Commissars are there to stiffen up the morale of your less passionate troops. Conscripts need them, regulars don't, but would still see a slight improvement in morale. That being said, a Commisar mght just have to make more than one example to convince his charges to stay in the fight. They will save four conscripts just by the morale increase, if you fail a morale check theres a chance that the Commisar will save a few that would have run off anyways, sometimes maybe their trigger finger gets a little more zealous, sometimes extra zealous.

Its not like its ideal to send newly minted conscripts to the front anyways. I am more worried about the FAQ not clarifying the Crusader unit AoF question.

 dracpanzer wrote:
I like the commissar fix. Makes them fit the fluff better. Commissars are there to stiffen up the morale of your less passionate troops. Conscripts need them, regulars don't, but would still see a slight improvement in morale. That being said, a Commisar mght just have to make more than one example to convince his charges to stay in the fight. They will save four conscripts just by the morale increase, if you fail a morale check theres a chance that the Commisar will save a few that would have run off anyways, sometimes maybe their trigger finger gets a little more zealous, sometimes extra zealous.

Its not like its ideal to send newly minted conscripts to the front anyways. I am more worried about the FAQ not clarifying the Crusader unit AoF question.

I agree it's a neat change from a fluff perspective. Depending on how panicked a unit is, that summary execution might only make matters worse. Game play wise though, I think conscripts are pretty dead in a competitive sense; they already shrunk from 50 to 30 men and now they will just melt away due to morale. It doesn't affect me personally as I never used any, but I don't think we'll see them in any more tournaments.

This s$&t sucks. Commissars need a purpose , not a reroll on a mandatory blam nerf. Agreed RAW before FAQ was too much but this is a bad fix. All the non-guard players chiming in goes to prove it, as they will celebrate any guard nerf ATM sadly. Plenty of better solutions in this thread then the FAQ. The commissar is on the front of the freaking codex and, lets be real, has been truly shafted by this.

To go from insta pass to mandatory blam on first time a unit fails for a reroll is 1) as morale nerf as far as you can go and 2) poorly worded and 3) not fluffy as say d3 blams. Seriously why does no one think of commissars going nuts shooting d3 or d6 for insta pass. Bloody sword, smoking bolt pistol is grimdark. Simpler and less of a nerf honestly.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Not to change the flow here but was really hoping for clarification on demo sws and using the grenadiers stratagem
As one is in a index and the other is in a codex. Also does anyone else here think grenade launchers should be cheaper( 4 or 3 pts??) to make them viable. Lastly was hoping for clarification on if tank commanders can order themselves, as the tank orders says friendly leman Russ's within 6"I think?

Didn't read the 5 pages, but here's my 2 cents about the commissar thing:

It's a little drastic, but honestly it fits. It's what they did in previous editions and it restores Morale as being a useful tool against the enemy, rather than all-or-nothing. Smart Guard players will learn to use LD boosts and other mitigation and work with the low LD, not try to avoid it.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Didn't read the 5 pages, but here's my 2 cents about the commissar thing:

It's a little drastic, but honestly it fits. It's what they did in previous editions and it restores Morale as being a useful tool against the enemy, rather than all-or-nothing. Smart Guard players will learn to use LD boosts and other mitigation and work with the low LD, not try to avoid it.

A commissar gives you one more point of ld, and a reroll plus an extra dead guardsman if you rolled a five or six. No one will ever use blam any other time.

One point of ld isn't worth 31 points. I'd rather bring eight more guardsman. This nerf might as well deleted the unit entry for anyone who wast bringing conscripts.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
Didn't read the 5 pages, but here's my 2 cents about the commissar thing:

It's a little drastic, but honestly it fits. It's what they did in previous editions and it restores Morale as being a useful tool against the enemy, rather than all-or-nothing. Smart Guard players will learn to use LD boosts and other mitigation and work with the low LD, not try to avoid it.

GW did seem to be trying to make morale a thing in 8th. You could see that from the Chaos codex, where Night Lords were given all those -1 LD options... a max of -3 from nearby night lords units, -1 for a nearby Raptor squad, -1 from a Nurgle Icon nearby... Hard to set up and pull off, but if you manage a perfect storm you could inflict -5 leadership on an enemy unit. Amazing.

Except then, after the enemy of chaotic knightmares, the most frightening, bowel-loosening army in the 40k universe, surrounds their target (say, a unit of fresh conscripts, basically farmers with pitchforks) and unleashes their waves of terror... The Commissar shoots one guy in the head, and the rest of the squad become more courageous than Primarch Gulliman himself.

Because a guy in a furry hat with a pistol, is scarier than 5 units of Chaos-warped monstrosities SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to be as terrifying as possible.

It was stupid. You -know- it was stupid. And it completely wasted all of GW's time in trying to make morale a thing in 40k. Night Lords (and the other similar units/traits/abilities) were useless.

It means very little to Eldar, though they do have one or two leadership-modifying units and powers, but who wants to bet that Tyranids will have an entire Hive Fleet trait dedicated to it, much like Night Lords were? I think it's pretty likely. And so GW decided now was the time to finally fix the problem, and make morale an actual issue again. For IG, anyway. I think it's pretty much right for everyone else at the moment... Tau only ignore morale checks on a 6 (and that's with an upgrade they pay for), and Eldar just have normal morale stuff.

Ork mob rule is the only odd one now, but it requires them to take 30-man blobs of infantry but they pretty much ignore morale until they're mostly dead. Maybe they'll get a cap on their leadership or something.

Saying that, I do think they went a little far on the fix. The re-roll should be a choice, and not mandatory. Then it becomes a tactical choice, as you could decide depending on the odds of losing more guys.

I dunno who said it, but I did also like the idea of instead changing the Commissars rule to "kill D6 models, and auto-pass the morale test". I mean its pretty much the same in the long run I guess, but I like the fluffiness of a Commissar unloading his clip into the people running away.

grouchoben wrote:
Really? A nerf to Krieg? thank the lord they finally reigned us in, I was beginning to feel bad! (Krieg can no longer take any traits or relics from the codex, despite being <AM>.)

Seriously, this heavy nerfing of Commissars does actually leave Krieg in an enviable position in terms of morale resistance.

thats not what it says, krieg can't take regiment specific stuff but can take astra militarum stuff.

Auto pass with a Blam should have been a strategem anyways. It was only left the way it was as a legacy rule IMO.

Niiru wrote:

Because a guy in a furry hat with a pistol, is scarier than 5 units of Chaos-warped monstrosities SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to be as terrifying as possible.

It was stupid.

So is most stuff in 40k when you start to break it down that way. From the tanks with no suspension and turrets so small the gun breach alone would take up the entirety of the interior, to radios/voxes that have a shorter range than typical small arms, to strategic missile systems like Manticores and Deathstrikes being used as frontline battle units, to being able to fire more shots out of assault rifles just because some dude yells at you, to "oh those guys in that squad over there are not from the same planet, none of us remember our special doctrines!", to say nothing of people running into automatic weapons fire and artillery barrages to hack their enemies to death with literal swords, and all sorts of other stuff.

nateprati wrote:Why didnt they adress missing wargear like demo charges and riugh riders. Or am i missing somthing? Im going to end up using the index over this

GW has already stated we can use the index for missing units/options. The codexes represent the current model range and the indexes cover the legacy units/models. Use the most recent points value for the unit and gear.

MarsNZ wrote:
Most marine mouthbreathers take that for granted.

That was unnecessary.

Wow conscripts are not an auto-take now, great. I still would have directly nerfed the armor save rather than the commissar but... I guess this works.

The Tallarn stratagem is still pretty good, just no more 3 ambushing baneblades; just a squadron of Leman Russes now. The best thing though from just a feth cheese perspective is the removal of Ogryns wound dancing from each other and tanks, reminded me of Paladins in 5th.

 Vaktathi wrote:

While true, those advantages are extremely slight, expecially in relation to the overall bonuses enjoyed by the BC, which nobody thought was particularly good either until it got to shoot twice

 Crimson Devil wrote:

nateprati wrote:Why didnt they adress missing wargear like demo charges and riugh riders. Or am i missing somthing? Im going to end up using the index over this

GW has already stated we can use the index for missing units/options. The codexes represent the current model range and the indexes cover the legacy units/models. Use the most recent points value for the unit and gear.

While this is true, I suspect it will be changed at some point, as it is starting to cause conflicts (and it will only get worse as more codices and FAQ's are released).

For example, the new codex Eldar Autarch has lost the ability to take any weapon options, so he has lost the reaper launcher, fusion pistol, mandiblaster and banshee mask as options. So, you say, just use the index version instead! However, the index Autarch banshee mask has a rule written in his datasheet. And the codex howling banshee masks have a -new rule-, that's completely different. So if you're using the Index Autarch, do you use his rule from the index, or the new banshees rule for their masks? Common sense says the new rule, but RAW... well, no idea.

Also, there's a new ability in the Codex for the Autarch to be able to snipe characters. Which is fine and not overpowered, because he only gets a pistol anyway. Except if you can use the Index Autarch, you can give him a 48" missile launcher instead. That can snipe characters. Which is clearly not intended.

This is just two examples I've come up with, from -one single model- in an army. There's bound to be more, especially as more books come out.

So I wouldn't be surprised if GW put an end to it by just saying Codex trumps Index. Though they may wait until all the codices come out, and then retire the indexes then. Just wanted to point out that, while you're meant to use the most recent points, there's no rule in place regarding gear options or rules options.

Glinch wrote:
Mkay.. SO some things to point out.

<Snip>

Also on another point, i don't recall regular infantry being more than 10 man squads. if they lose enough men that the commissar makes it worthless then the squad would be dead without him anyways. So what if the reroll can get worse. Plasma guns do have same chance to do that just as much. One moment could be a missed shot then on the reroll it turns into a 1 and your model dies. Point of rerolling is the chance to be better but also chance that it could get worse or sta just as bad, granted I do agree might be better if it was optional if it's a low roll, but it's nice to see some of the old 4th-5th rules and prices coming back into order on a lot of choices and model.

This actually makes no sense. Rerolling to hit rolls of a 1 on an overcharged plasma shot turns your odds of killing that guy into 1/36. Rerolling a failed morale test is idiotically worse. I'll save my 62+ points per 2k list and just use a command squad with banner and Lascannon or another squad with a plasma gun and heavy bolter. I never even used conscripts so I'm kind of pissed that my iconic Commissars I painted almost 20 years ago are now going on the shelf because they can cause MORE harm than good. GTFO if you try and tell me I was a bandwagon power gamer sad my conscripts are garbage now. Just give me D3 casualties for a failed morale test and I'm good. But the possibility of wiping a squad AFTER a guy is killed is obnoxious.

Honestly, its this general phasing out of loadout options among other things that killed 8th for me.

The Commissar change was, in fact, a brutal and unnecessary over-correction, and one only need to look as far as Militarum Tempestus to prove it.

MT players were pretty reliant on Commissars to keep their dudesmen on the table. An MT Scion costs 2.5x more than a regular guardsman and 3.33x more than a conscript, but is only a hair more survivable than either of them and has otherwise identical Leadership ability to standard guardsmen. Losses incurred by morale checks hurt MT disproportionately harder than they do other Guard armies, and unlike regular Guard armies we don't have tons of CP to throw around to try to ignore morale tests with. In short, MT needed commissars to remain survivable on the battlefield, and the Commissar nerf hurts them more than anyone in the faction.

Its also worth mentioning that "Comissars still provide Leadership 8" is a bs justification of their worth. Both Scions and regular guardsmen will get similar utility out of a Platoon/Regimental standard for a mere 5 points.

Was the old ability potentially overpowered on conscripts? Yes, but that issue could have been addressed separately, perhaps a rule that says that conscripts lose D6 models as a result of Summary Execution, as opposed to 1. Alternatively a rule that says that Scions lose 1 model and stay put instead of having to reroll a morale check. Either way "one size fits all" fits nobody.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Either way "one size fits all" fits nobody.

Aren't you a little salty to be a Stormtrooper?

Niiru wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

nateprati wrote:Why didnt they adress missing wargear like demo charges and riugh riders. Or am i missing somthing? Im going to end up using the index over this

GW has already stated we can use the index for missing units/options. The codexes represent the current model range and the indexes cover the legacy units/models. Use the most recent points value for the unit and gear.

While this is true, I suspect it will be changed at some point, as it is starting to cause conflicts (and it will only get worse as more codices and FAQ's are released).

For example, the new codex Eldar Autarch has lost the ability to take any weapon options, so he has lost the reaper launcher, fusion pistol, mandiblaster and banshee mask as options. So, you say, just use the index version instead! However, the index Autarch banshee mask has a rule written in his datasheet. And the codex howling banshee masks have a -new rule-, that's completely different. So if you're using the Index Autarch, do you use his rule from the index, or the new banshees rule for their masks? Common sense says the new rule, but RAW... well, no idea.

Also, there's a new ability in the Codex for the Autarch to be able to snipe characters. Which is fine and not overpowered, because he only gets a pistol anyway. Except if you can use the Index Autarch, you can give him a 48" missile launcher instead. That can snipe characters. Which is clearly not intended.

This is just two examples I've come up with, from -one single model- in an army. There's bound to be more, especially as more books come out.

So I wouldn't be surprised if GW put an end to it by just saying Codex trumps Index. Though they may wait until all the codices come out, and then retire the indexes then. Just wanted to point out that, while you're meant to use the most recent points, there's no rule in place regarding gear options or rules options.

There is no conflict with the Autarch.

The codex Autarch is the rules for Autarch-you can't use the index one.
Especially not mix the index wargear with the codex special abilities. you might as well been using 5th S10 broadsides in 7th.
You use index rules only for units that have NO codex rules, not if you want wargear that is no longer there.

 BoomWolf wrote:

Niiru wrote:

 Crimson Devil wrote:

nateprati wrote:Why didnt they adress missing wargear like demo charges and riugh riders. Or am i missing somthing? Im going to end up using the index over this

GW has already stated we can use the index for missing units/options. The codexes represent the current model range and the indexes cover the legacy units/models. Use the most recent points value for the unit and gear.

While this is true, I suspect it will be changed at some point, as it is starting to cause conflicts (and it will only get worse as more codices and FAQ's are released).

For example, the new codex Eldar Autarch has lost the ability to take any weapon options, so he has lost the reaper launcher, fusion pistol, mandiblaster and banshee mask as options. So, you say, just use the index version instead! However, the index Autarch banshee mask has a rule written in his datasheet. And the codex howling banshee masks have a -new rule-, that's completely different. So if you're using the Index Autarch, do you use his rule from the index, or the new banshees rule for their masks? Common sense says the new rule, but RAW... well, no idea.

Also, there's a new ability in the Codex for the Autarch to be able to snipe characters. Which is fine and not overpowered, because he only gets a pistol anyway. Except if you can use the Index Autarch, you can give him a 48" missile launcher instead. That can snipe characters. Which is clearly not intended.

This is just two examples I've come up with, from -one single model- in an army. There's bound to be more, especially as more books come out.

So I wouldn't be surprised if GW put an end to it by just saying Codex trumps Index. Though they may wait until all the codices come out, and then retire the indexes then. Just wanted to point out that, while you're meant to use the most recent points, there's no rule in place regarding gear options or rules options.

There is no conflict with the Autarch.

The codex Autarch is the rules for Autarch-you can't use the index one.
Especially not mix the index wargear with the codex special abilities. you might as well been using 5th S10 broadsides in 7th.
You use index rules only for units that have NO codex rules, not if you want wargear that is no longer there.

Now see Boomwolf, I actually agree with you. I think the intention is to only use index rules for models with no Codex datasheet, such as Chaos Lords on Juggernauts.

However, you'll find lots of people (like earlier) who say that actually you can use the Index version of the model even for wargear options that are missing. I've had people on dakka saying they will be using axes on their sergeants, even though the new IG codex only has power swords now. There's a lot of other examples too.

I agree with you, that it's only for models/units with whole datasheets missing. But we seem to be the only ones. My post was an effort to point out the problems this could cause.