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.

Yeah, but GW has showed me what's going to happen with the marine codex already. Space Wolves will get jizzed on, BA will get a crappy cut and paste. At some point, spite becomes the secondary victory condition because the primary can never be achieved.

This it the least harmful thing I can think of for this codex. Geqs are still undercosted, all the ignore-los weapon systems are undercosted, now Russes are probably undercosted since they reroll EVERYTHING TWICE.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

 Red_Five wrote:

fe40k wrote:
@MarNZ: Sorry Imperial factions no longer get a free pass on being overpowered this edition. They get to be balanced and re-balanced, just like every other faction. Also, you're deluding yourself if you think GW won't continue to balance the game, no matter what faction it is (say, Xenos) - as well as if you think the loss of Morale immune Conscripts [a mistake in the first place on a 3ppm model with those stats] will suddenly invalidate all the other top tier options AM has available.

I, for one, and glad Morale actually matters now - the only models that should even consider getting a free immunity would be extremely low (<5) model count, expensive, elite squads.

Morale kill should be a reasonable way of dealing with large, low priced, chaff models.

So Tyranids need to be reworked then.

The difference is that the main synapse creatures are The Big Ones with 10+ wounds.

The "main synapse creatures" that have 10+ Wounds are Hive Tyrants and Swarmlords (180 to 300 points each)--both of which have access to Tyrant Guards (37 points for 3W 3+ T5 that does NOTHING else), a unit explicitly designed since the early years to mitigate the fact that the Hive Tyrants are Monsters.
Broodlords (160 points) and Tyranid Primes (100 points if completely naked) both are 6W.
Tervigons are 14W and really are the only ones that don't have a special protection. (Probably the worst unit in the codex)
Tyranid Warriors are a Synapse unit, Zoanthropes are a unit, Shrikes are a unit. (Good synapse solution, but nothing even remotely on the level of an old commissar)
Maleceptors and Trygon Primes are solo-Synapse Monsters. (Both on the 200 points mark)

And then you have the Sporocysts' Psychic Resonator ability(if within range of a unit with the Synapse ability, then it gains Synapse). (You will never see one of those on a table, for obvious reasons)

So let's not pretend that there is some kind of innate downside that balances out Synapse, shall we? The same complaints that existed about daisy-chaining Commissars and hiding them behind LOS and what have you can easily be applied to Synapse as well.

Comments in red.

As you can see, synapse is a mechanic in which you actually have to invest a significant part of your list. And this is all to defend gants and gaunts, which are more vulnerable than a conscript.

Orange to apples.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
So just don't do that then. Just like I don't bring any BA special units anymore. Every single BA-specific unit is not worth bringing at the moment. Every single one. My current list is a UM list with no chapter tactics.

It's very spiteful of you to wish that an army's flavour be removed simply because yours has none.

What instead, should happen, is yours should become more flavourful and cool, rather than others becoming less. I believe that would make for a better game.

Remember that Martel is working from an Index list and in general just whines.

I'm quite convinced Martel likes nothing, and has never liked anything...ever. Or any edition of the game, or any models/rules/codices, etc.

I think this is pretty funny. AM players always mention ATSKNF so often - commissars are just ATSKNF bubbles now - for 31 points you can make 3-4 squads have ATSKNF. Yeah...I don't see too many jumping the gun to have that perk.

Viewing spite as a victory condition is a whole issue that I'm not going to touch with a 10-foot pole, but...

...well, fair enough I suppose. Your logic is sound, if you really just think being spiteful is a positive thing.

Martel732 wrote:
"Scions, for example, could grant bonuses to LD to friendly units within a bubble when they are slaying things."

There's a dozen units in the IG codex that need to cost more before anything gets any better.

So, would you also say that nothing in the marine codex should be buffed before Guilliman, Stormravens and assault cannon razorbacks are nerfed? Well, That seems like a bizarre stance, tbh, especially given that you have pretty much no proof at this point that some of the things you're likely complaining about if you're going all the way up to a dozen units have any kind of problematic balance.

At this point, all the units that have been competitive AM staples in tournaments have seen nerfs, and we have not seen any more major events to tell us what, if anything, might be problematic from the codex.

If you asked me to put down money I'd probably bet on a Cadian superheavy list being powerful, but we already saw one getting blown away by Guilliman-backed Tactical Squads, of all things.

So, should we sit tight on buffing anything up until we've nerfed the current Usual Suspects? Or should we be taking the opportunity to give buffs to units that need it regardless if their rules are seeing an update? seems petty to be taking door number one here, and if so, I hope your BA are comfy because I don't expect Guilliman nerfs until chapter approved at the earliest.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think this is pretty funny. AM players always mention ATSKNF so often - commissars are just ATSKNF bubbles now - for 31 points you can make 3-4 squads have ATSKNF. Yeah...I don't see too many jumping the gun to have that perk.

No. It is worse than ATSKNF, and actually generally worse than not taking a commissar to begin with.

I imagine a simpler fix could be that Summary Execution reduces Battleshock Casualties by the base Leadership of the unit (in addition to that provided by the Commissar). Adjust leadership accordingly. This becomes a "halfway" between the previous and current rulings, but most importantly, this still makes the Commissar less efficient on Conscripts compared to units with better Leadership.

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think this is pretty funny. AM players always mention ATSKNF so often - commissars are just ATSKNF bubbles now - for 31 points you can make 3-4 squads have ATSKNF. Yeah...I don't see too many jumping the gun to have that perk.

A few points here:
- Unlike SMs, IG don't have naturally high Ld to begin with.
- IG tend to have much higher squad sizes than SMs (e.g. most SM squads have a minimum of 5 members, whilst many IG ones have a minimum of 10).
- IG have to specifically pay for their ATSKNF. They don't get it automatically on every unit.
- With SMs, the reroll is optional. IG are forced to reroll it, even if a better result is physically impossible.
- The ATSKNF reroll doesn't cost you a model.

 vipoid wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think this is pretty funny. AM players always mention ATSKNF so often - commissars are just ATSKNF bubbles now - for 31 points you can make 3-4 squads have ATSKNF. Yeah...I don't see too many jumping the gun to have that perk.

A few points here:
- Unlike SMs, IG don't have naturally high Ld to begin with.
- IG tend to have much higher squad sizes than SMs (e.g. most SM squads have a minimum of 5 members, whilst many IG ones have a minimum of 10).
- IG have to specifically pay for their ATSKNF. They don't get it automatically on every unit.
- With SMs, the reroll is optional. IG are forced to reroll it, even if a better result is physically impossible.
- The ATSKNF reroll doesn't cost you a model.

Please add to that list the following:

- Space marines don't cost 3 points.

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think this is pretty funny. AM players always mention ATSKNF so often - commissars are just ATSKNF bubbles now - for 31 points you can make 3-4 squads have ATSKNF. Yeah...I don't see too many jumping the gun to have that perk.

No. It is worse than ATSKNF, and actually generally worse than not taking a commissar to begin with.

Whaaaat? I've always been having a space marine commit seppuku before taking my re-roll, have I been playing my marines wrong this whole time?

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think this is pretty funny. AM players always mention ATSKNF so often - commissars are just ATSKNF bubbles now - for 31 points you can make 3-4 squads have ATSKNF. Yeah...I don't see too many jumping the gun to have that perk.

No. It is worse than ATSKNF, and actually generally worse than not taking a commissar to begin with.

I agree - it is worthless - just like ATSKNF is. Just avoid commissars all together and take a single unit on conscripts with the intent on using 2 command point stratagem to keep them from breaking each turn if needed. Use infantry - which are also great and load up on las cannons.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Viewing spite as a victory condition is a whole issue that I'm not going to touch with a 10-foot pole, but...

...well, fair enough I suppose. Your logic is sound, if you really just think being spiteful is a positive thing.

Positive or not, it just is at this point. GW didn't give skyhammer of all things to BA. It's quite clear what they think.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Scions, for example, could grant bonuses to LD to friendly units within a bubble when they are slaying things."

There's a dozen units in the IG codex that need to cost more before anything gets any better.

So, would you also say that nothing in the marine codex should be buffed before Guilliman, Stormravens and assault cannon razorbacks are nerfed? Well, That seems like a bizarre stance, tbh, especially given that you have pretty much no proof at this point that some of the things you're likely complaining about if you're going all the way up to a dozen units have any kind of problematic balance.

At this point, all the units that have been competitive AM staples in tournaments have seen nerfs, and we have not seen any more major events to tell us what, if anything, might be problematic from the codex.

If you asked me to put down money I'd probably bet on a Cadian superheavy list being powerful, but we already saw one getting blown away by Guilliman-backed Tactical Squads, of all things.

So, should we sit tight on buffing anything up until we've nerfed the current Usual Suspects? Or should we be taking the opportunity to give buffs to units that need it regardless if their rules are seeing an update? seems petty to be taking door number one here, and if so, I hope your BA are comfy because I don't expect Guilliman nerfs until chapter approved at the earliest.

It doesn't matter either way, since there won't be anything in the BA codex that can beat Rowboat gunline.

Spoletta wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think this is pretty funny. AM players always mention ATSKNF so often - commissars are just ATSKNF bubbles now - for 31 points you can make 3-4 squads have ATSKNF. Yeah...I don't see too many jumping the gun to have that perk.

A few points here:
- Unlike SMs, IG don't have naturally high Ld to begin with.
- IG tend to have much higher squad sizes than SMs (e.g. most SM squads have a minimum of 5 members, whilst many IG ones have a minimum of 10).
- IG have to specifically pay for their ATSKNF. They don't get it automatically on every unit.
- With SMs, the reroll is optional. IG are forced to reroll it, even if a better result is physically impossible.
- The ATSKNF reroll doesn't cost you a model.

Please add to that list the following:

- Space marines don't cost 3 points.

Nor do Commissars.

IG still field 10 dudes for 40 pts. You could lose half your list to morale and still be ahead of marines on the table top.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Viewing spite as a victory condition is a whole issue that I'm not going to touch with a 10-foot pole, but...

...well, fair enough I suppose. Your logic is sound, if you really just think being spiteful is a positive thing.

Positive or not, it just is at this point. GW didn't give skyhammer of all things to BA. It's quite clear what they think.

They didn't give it to Raven Guard either. A Chapter that is arguably the Chapter for pinpoint strikes that are intended to be ambushes combined with decapitation strikes...and they didn't get something that should have been a signature for them.

Doesn't matter anyways though, seeing as how what happened last edition happened last edition.

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"Scions, for example, could grant bonuses to LD to friendly units within a bubble when they are slaying things."

There's a dozen units in the IG codex that need to cost more before anything gets any better.

So, would you also say that nothing in the marine codex should be buffed before Guilliman, Stormravens and assault cannon razorbacks are nerfed? Well, That seems like a bizarre stance, tbh, especially given that you have pretty much no proof at this point that some of the things you're likely complaining about if you're going all the way up to a dozen units have any kind of problematic balance.

At this point, all the units that have been competitive AM staples in tournaments have seen nerfs, and we have not seen any more major events to tell us what, if anything, might be problematic from the codex.

If you asked me to put down money I'd probably bet on a Cadian superheavy list being powerful, but we already saw one getting blown away by Guilliman-backed Tactical Squads, of all things.

So, should we sit tight on buffing anything up until we've nerfed the current Usual Suspects? Or should we be taking the opportunity to give buffs to units that need it regardless if their rules are seeing an update? seems petty to be taking door number one here, and if so, I hope your BA are comfy because I don't expect Guilliman nerfs until chapter approved at the earliest.

It doesn't matter either way, since there won't be anything in the BA codex that can beat Rowboat gunline.

Previous editions do matter, though, as a backdrop.

Martel732 wrote:
IG still field 10 dudes for 40 pts. You could lose half your list to morale and still be ahead of marines on the table top.

If you lose half your army to morale alone, then I'm pretty sure the casualties necessary to cause that would mean that the other half of your list is also dead.

So, the IG have been tabled . . . and yet are somehow ahead of Marines.

Have the Marines been double-tabelled?

Martel732 wrote:
IG still field 10 dudes for 40 pts. You could lose half your list to morale and still be ahead of marines on the table top.

Infantry Squads are 40 points.
Conscripts are 20 models for 60 points or 30 for 90.

If you want to maximize the effectiveness of "FRFSRF", you didn't really want to take Infantry Squads since those Infantry Squads can't be full Lasguns(Sergeants CANNOT TAKE LASGUNS and the benefit of an Infantry Squad versus Conscripts is that you can add HWTs and Special Weapons alongside of Voxes). You would want to take Conscript Squads since they are only ever having Lasguns. They now have a 50/50 shot at failing the Order thanks to their "Raw Recruits" ability--and anyone saying that Lasguns are dominating the tablespace is full of crap or refusing to ever utilize Cover.

But in any case, did you ever think the reason Guard can "lose half your list to morale and still be ahead of marines on the tabletop" is the fact that there are very few units with 3+ to Hit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Previous editions do matter, though, as a backdrop.

They really don't. Balancing armies based on "previous editions" is why we have crap like Guard not getting Lasguns for Sergeants or Hot-Shot Lasguns for Tempestors and Vox-Casters having a range that is effectively shouting distance.

If we were going to balance based upon previous editions, then Blood Angels would get nerfed hard thanks to their older lists.

 BoomWolf wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:

So, it works properly as an in game tool by not being the automatic answer to everything and actually requiring thought before using.
And it works fluffwise by only bring really useful to control people with lacking discipline.

What's the problem again?

We have special rule that's supposed to be beneficitial at a cost. Instead we have rule that has no benefit and only downsides. Totally illogical unfluffy rule.

Coupled that with not actually nerfing conscripts...When there are ways to fix conscripts that make sense fluffwise they went hit nerfbat elsewhere in an unfluffy rule.

Except it IS beneficial at a cost, when USED PROPERLY.

Use a commisar to rule conscripts, and as noted, you save 3 dudes per moral check at the very worst.
Use a commissar to control ACTUAL SOLDIERS, and it might backfire under certain conditions, or help under different conditions. Counting commissar effect by soldier death count.
2, pure help due to ld8 making you immune.
3, on a 6 you blam one and reroll, maybe losing a second, as opposed to just losing two.
4, it gets worse if you roll 5, blam, than 6. Otherwise either neutral or helps. Mostly helps
5, gets worse on a roll of 4/5 followed by a higher roll. Mostly helps.
6, gets worse on a roll of 3-5 followed by a higher roll, this is STILL more likely to help than hurt, and as long about as likely to change nothing. (long math short, it will come out about 33% to help,hurt, or be irrelevant.)
7/8, your squad is practically gone either way, no meaningful effect. Yes, you are slightly more likely to lose everyone, but that "everyone" is losing one extra dude.
9/10 your squad is actually gone either way.


Can't really find the downside here. At the very worst, you gain little to nothing.

Well, at worst you lose a half-health squad with with full weapon upgrade complement where otherwise you could have just lost one dude.

You are not paying for the rules, you are paying for a commissar, his good and his bad rolled into one.

And the point is, with the bad in there, and where you'd *really* want the old ability on such units (particularly if just reduced to the upgrade weapon models or nearly so), there's really no value in that investment for non-Conscript units over just putting those points into buying more of those units.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think this is pretty funny. AM players always mention ATSKNF so often - commissars are just ATSKNF bubbles now - for 31 points you can make 3-4 squads have ATSKNF. Yeah...I don't see too many jumping the gun to have that perk.

No. It is worse than ATSKNF, and actually generally worse than not taking a commissar to begin with.

I agree - it is worthless - just like ATSKNF is. Just avoid commissars all together and take a single unit on conscripts with the intent on using 2 command point stratagem to keep them from breaking each turn if needed. Use infantry - which are also great and load up on las cannons.

The issue that people have is exactly this conclusion, GW nerfed a unit to the point where the concensus is to just not take it.

Spoletta wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
I think this is pretty funny. AM players always mention ATSKNF so often - commissars are just ATSKNF bubbles now - for 31 points you can make 3-4 squads have ATSKNF. Yeah...I don't see too many jumping the gun to have that perk.

A few points here:
- Unlike SMs, IG don't have naturally high Ld to begin with.
- IG tend to have much higher squad sizes than SMs (e.g. most SM squads have a minimum of 5 members, whilst many IG ones have a minimum of 10).
- IG have to specifically pay for their ATSKNF. They don't get it automatically on every unit.
- With SMs, the reroll is optional. IG are forced to reroll it, even if a better result is physically impossible.
- The ATSKNF reroll doesn't cost you a model.

Please add to that list the following:

- Space marines don't cost 3 points.

The problem is that, given the low per model cost and the functionality of the new Summary Execution ability, there's no reason to bother with the Commissar outside of Conscripts (and less reason to bother with Conscripts even there over alternative mechanisms). Why pay 31pts just for +1Ld for 10 man units that cost 40pts base such as an Infantry Squad? Even if we're expecting a Commissar bubble to encompass 3 units routinely, you're talking about increasing the cost per model by 25% for an ability that has a high chance of backfiring and +1Ld, why bother instead of just buying more dudes?

Lots of lists have spent more time as elite than BA. Most, in fact, as this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
IG still field 10 dudes for 40 pts. You could lose half your list to morale and still be ahead of marines on the table top.

If you lose half your army to morale alone, then I'm pretty sure the casualties necessary to cause that would mean that the other half of your list is also dead.

So, the IG have been tabled . . . and yet are somehow ahead of Marines.

Have the Marines been double-tabelled?

If the marines have no models, and the IG still have all their tanks, that's pretty far ahead. The infantry are just buying time.

Spoletta wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

 Red_Five wrote:

fe40k wrote:
@MarNZ: Sorry Imperial factions no longer get a free pass on being overpowered this edition. They get to be balanced and re-balanced, just like every other faction. Also, you're deluding yourself if you think GW won't continue to balance the game, no matter what faction it is (say, Xenos) - as well as if you think the loss of Morale immune Conscripts [a mistake in the first place on a 3ppm model with those stats] will suddenly invalidate all the other top tier options AM has available.

I, for one, and glad Morale actually matters now - the only models that should even consider getting a free immunity would be extremely low (<5) model count, expensive, elite squads.

Morale kill should be a reasonable way of dealing with large, low priced, chaff models.

So Tyranids need to be reworked then.

The difference is that the main synapse creatures are The Big Ones with 10+ wounds.

The "main synapse creatures" that have 10+ Wounds are Hive Tyrants and Swarmlords (180 to 300 points each)--both of which have access to Tyrant Guards (37 points for 3W 3+ T5 that does NOTHING else), a unit explicitly designed since the early years to mitigate the fact that the Hive Tyrants are Monsters.
Broodlords (160 points) and Tyranid Primes (100 points if completely naked) both are 6W.
Tervigons are 14W and really are the only ones that don't have a special protection. (Probably the worst unit in the codex)
Tyranid Warriors are a Synapse unit, Zoanthropes are a unit, Shrikes are a unit. (Good synapse solution, but nothing even remotely on the level of an old commissar)
Maleceptors and Trygon Primes are solo-Synapse Monsters. (Both on the 200 points mark)

And then you have the Sporocysts' Psychic Resonator ability(if within range of a unit with the Synapse ability, then it gains Synapse). (You will never see one of those on a table, for obvious reasons)

So let's not pretend that there is some kind of innate downside that balances out Synapse, shall we? The same complaints that existed about daisy-chaining Commissars and hiding them behind LOS and what have you can easily be applied to Synapse as well.

Comments in red.

As you can see, synapse is a mechanic in which you actually have to invest a significant part of your list. And this is all to defend gants and gaunts, which are more vulnerable than a conscript.

Orange to apples.

Tyranids easily ignore morale. For pretty much every edition, I could make the list I wanted to field without paying any attention to morale and end up with all the synapse I need. A lot of your comments reference units who basically get synapse for free. Not picking a side in the argument, but Nids easily get better than Commissar levels of morale. Which is a main feature of the army, so I'm fine with it.

Termangants and hormagaunts aren't nearly as cost effective as geq, either.

Martel732 wrote:
If the marines have no models, and the IG still have all their tanks, that's pretty far ahead.

That wasn't what you said though. You said that the IG player could lose half his list to morale. Not half his Infantry. Half his list.

And, as I said, if half his list has been lost to morale, then the other half would have had to be lost to generate the necessary casualties for that to happen (which would also mean that the IG player had basically no tanks in the first place).

So, no, in the scenario you brought up the IG player has nothing left.

Call me pedantic if you want (wouldn't be the first time ), but I'd argue there's a big difference between losing half your Infantry to morale and losing half your list to morale.

Martel732 wrote:
The infantry are just buying time.

So maybe shoot the tanks instead?

If we were "re-balanced" so that any infantry unit could expect half our losses to be to morale, that would effectively double our cost per wound (because every wound would become two wounds).

So, conscripts would effectively be 6 points for a T3 wound. Which they kind of already are with the commissar nerf.

Infantry would be 8 points for a T3 wound, which would basically make them a Guardian with a lasgun. Is there seriously anyone here who would say "Guardians are too strong, they need to replace their shuriken catapults with lasguns"? Well maybe Martel would, since Guardians are not Space Marines.

So no, in a hypothetical world where Guard took double casualties just for being Guard, they'd be hot garbage. Turns out you've got to be careful with words like "half" and "double".

 vipoid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
If the marines have no models, and the IG still have all their tanks, that's pretty far ahead.

That wasn't what you said though. You said that the IG player could lose half his list to morale. Not half his Infantry. Half his list.

And, as I said, if half his list has been lost to morale, then the other half would have had to be lost to generate the necessary casualties for that to happen (which would also mean that the IG player had basically no tanks in the first place).

So, no, in the scenario you brought up the IG player has nothing left.

Call me pedantic if you want (wouldn't be the first time ), but I'd argue there's a big difference between losing half your Infantry to morale and losing half your list to morale.

Martel732 wrote:
The infantry are just buying time.

So maybe shoot the tanks instead?

I mean infantry part of the list. Tanks can't be lost to morale.

Martel732 wrote:
Termangants and hormagaunts aren't nearly as cost effective as geq, either.

Termagants are the same points(40 for 10) and statlines as Guardsmen, minus the save of 6+ instead of 5+.
Hormagaunts are more expensive, certainly, but both units additionally have bonuses for being taken in units of 20+ in the form of reroll Wound rolls of 1(which Guard have to issue an Order to obtain locking you out of other Orders or requiring taking the Laurels of Command Relic).

The biggest difference that exists between Termagants and GEQ are their weapons and saves. Assault on Termagants v. Rapid Fire on GEQ. Assault weapons always have those specific values while Rapid Fire requires you to adjust the distance between you and your enemy(which in Infantry Squads that take HWTs can negatively impact your units).
And the existence of Venomthropes, which grant a -1 to Hit rolls versus enemy shooting which the Guard do not have as a thing.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
IG still field 10 dudes for 40 pts. You could lose half your list to morale and still be ahead of marines on the table top.

Infantry Squads are 40 points.
Conscripts are 20 models for 60 points or 30 for 90.

If you want to maximize the effectiveness of "FRFSRF", you didn't really want to take Infantry Squads since those Infantry Squads can't be full Lasguns(Sergeants CANNOT TAKE LASGUNS and the benefit of an Infantry Squad versus Conscripts is that you can add HWTs and Special Weapons alongside of Voxes). You would want to take Conscript Squads since they are only ever having Lasguns. They now have a 50/50 shot at failing the Order thanks to their "Raw Recruits" ability--and anyone saying that Lasguns are dominating the tablespace is full of crap or refusing to ever utilize Cover.

But in any case, did you ever think the reason Guard can "lose half your list to morale and still be ahead of marines on the tabletop" is the fact that there are very few units with 3+ to Hit?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Previous editions do matter, though, as a backdrop.

They really don't. Balancing armies based on "previous editions" is why we have crap like Guard not getting Lasguns for Sergeants or Hot-Shot Lasguns for Tempestors and Vox-Casters having a range that is effectively shouting distance.

If we were going to balance based upon previous editions, then Blood Angels would get nerfed hard thanks to their older lists.

If that doesn't explain their 6th-7th edition performance nothing will. Easily one of the worst armies those editions.

"The biggest difference that exists between Termagants and GEQ are their weapons and saves. "

Pretty big effing difference, 24" and 5+ armor.

Do not somehow try to spin that tyranid little bugs are remotely as effective as geqs. Don't even try.