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.

There's also a significant number of cases where the Manticore can't be shot at all. If they had to draw los, they'd probably be costed about right.

 Galas wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Nah. the solution is that 3-4 point back feild camper models should not ignore leadership.

So what you really want is for Commissars to be removed altogether.

Got it.

Ignore-morale mechanics should be eliminated from the game barring special cases and units, and those should be costed appropiately. Morale is the weakness of the Horde Armies. They should have ways to "protect" them from Morale, but all those should be balanced and have weakness and counter-play. And no, Commisars didn't had Counter-play.

Snipers and assault both were the counter. Snipers would allow you to single the Commissars out and charging did not require the Commissar to be the closest target for you.

There's also a magical thing called maneuvering where you would try to make the Commissar the closest target for your shooting, but...

When you have whole armies like Night Lords that all of their "flavour" is working with morale, having a so easy way to ignore morale all together (And for the Horde Armies, the ones that should suffer the most from morale) is bad gameplay design.

And units that ignore To Hit modifiers negate things like the Raven Guard Chapter Tactic.

That's "bad gameplay design" too, yet you don't hear people whining that Dark Reapers need a nerf.

Supression for was really good. But killing a single whirlwind dropped the remaining 2 down to useless levels. That was a pretty big weakness.

 Kanluwen wrote:

When you have whole armies like Night Lords that all of their "flavour" is working with morale, having a so easy way to ignore morale all together (And for the Horde Armies, the ones that should suffer the most from morale) is bad gameplay design.

And units that ignore To Hit modifiers negate things like the Raven Guard Chapter Tactic.

That's "bad gameplay design" too, yet you don't hear people whining that Dark Reapers need a nerf.

Are you comparing a specific unit with a full army?
Theres a reason why Sisters of Silence as a unit are good, but as an army are totally useless, and bad gameplay-design.

Snipers are a myth. They simply do not work in 8th edition as they are intended to.

Conscripts still have the exact same role and effectiveness as they did before.

You just can't have them survive for 3 turns while the entire opposing army is forced to focus them.

Maybe guard might lose a game to Orks now? Oh no, the horror, you can't auto win against an entire race, or any assault based army without thinking.

/worlds smallest violin

still the most OP army in 8th

They still autowin vs BA due to how quickly BA run out of dudes. Their leadership could 3.

Spoletta wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Read again those squad sizes and understand why you should leave this thread.

Really, discussing with you is an exercise in frustration.

Your argument relies upon people fielding a specific Regimental trait for a bonus LD or parking them near a Regimental/Platoon Standard.

Beyond that, you'd still be wrong since if someone has shot through 4 Wounds on a Heavy Weapons Squad they probably shot through the remaining 2 or if a Commissar does Summary Execution the squad basically ceases to exist.
The same thing goes for Special Weapon Squads and Command Squads(Tempestus and Veterans).

They're small sized units. That's the point I was making and that you seemed to ignore in favor of "BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE LEADERSHIP!!!11!".

Martel we know it, Blood Angels Suck.

And to be honest, I still believe the way they have changed Commisars is a sloopy fix, and probably they'll should tweak it more.

Something like killing one dude to lower the amount of Morale casualties D6, etc... so it is always usefull, but doesn't just literally negates morale.


The reality is that Morale was a bigger problems for Daemons than for Imperial Guard (And to be honest and fair, Orks and Tyranids). And that doesn't make any sense. (Maybe in the Tyranids +Synapse yes)

 Galas wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

When you have whole armies like Night Lords that all of their "flavour" is working with morale, having a so easy way to ignore morale all together (And for the Horde Armies, the ones that should suffer the most from morale) is bad gameplay design.

And units that ignore To Hit modifiers negate things like the Raven Guard Chapter Tactic.

That's "bad gameplay design" too, yet you don't hear people whining that Dark Reapers need a nerf.

Are you comparing a specific unit with a full army?
Theres a reason why Sisters of Silence as a unit are good, but as an army are totally useless, and bad gameplay-design.

You argued that there should be nothing that allows for negating an army's benefits when you brought up Night Lords v. Horde armies being able to negate morale.

I posted at least one unit that flat-out ignores an army/unit benefit. It would be one thing if Dark Reapers only negated a specific thing like saves from Cover or the modifier from a Flyer.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Supression for was really good. But killing a single whirlwind dropped the remaining 2 down to useless levels. That was a pretty big weakness.

Just like killing Commissars reduced Conscripts to useless levels?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
Snipers are a myth. They simply do not work in 8th edition as they are intended to.

Then bring that up with GW They deal a mortal wound in addition to the wound they cause when they roll a 6+.

Ideally, I would say that Snipers should be dealing 2 Damage per shot not just 1. And that most should have at least -1AP.

Conscripts still have the exact same role and effectiveness as they did before.

You just can't have them survive for 3 turns while the entire opposing army is forced to focus them.

Maybe guard might lose a game to Orks now? Oh no, the horror, you can't auto win against an entire race, or any assault based army without thinking.

/worlds smallest violin

still the most OP army in 8th

Sure, why not.

 Galas wrote:
Martel we know it, Blood Angels Suck.

And to be honest, I still believe the way they have changed Commisars is a sloopy fix, and probably they'll should tweak it more.

Something like killing one dude to lower the amount of Morale casualties D6, etc... so it is always usefull, but doesn't just literally negates morale.


The reality is that Morale was a bigger problems for Daemons than for Imperial Guard (And to be honest and fair, Orks and Tyranids). And that doesn't make any sense.

I agree the nerf is too much - it made them useless options for all other infantry. The issue was with conscripts. However - it's not like the other units needs commissars to function. 10 mans aren't as susceptible to morale as 30 mans. With the change over to infantry from conscripts - more company commanders will be required anyways so it's just a defacto buff to the already amazing company commander.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

They absolutely do not.
Special Weapon Squads are 6 models(3 with Lasguns, 3 with Specials).
Heavy Weapon Squads are 3 models, consisting of 2W each.
Ratlings are 5 models with an optional 5 more.
Tempestus Command Squads got a nerf to their points for Plasma Guns(anything BS3+ pays more now) and are 4 models in total.

If a Heavy Weapon Squad loses a model, then you're going to lose a model(meaning 2W) for Summary Execution--meaning you basically wipe out the whole squad.
Special Weapon Squads are basically going to be dead if you lose anyone in most circumstances. Same goes for Tempestus Command Squads.
And if you're referring to Heavy Weapon Teams or Special Weapon operators in Infantry Squads--you'd still be wrong, since Infantry Squads are 10 models.

Read again those profiles and understand why you are wrong.

Read again those squad sizes and understand why you should leave this thread.

Ehh, with a Commissar near a Heavy Weapon Squad can't run away-Ld 8 would mean all 3 teams (models) would need to be killed for them to be able to fail and a Commissar to use Summary Execution... Without Commissar they're Ld 6 so even 1 model lost can mean Morale casualties.
Same with all the other examples in that list-unless the casualties go to 8 models the Commissar is better than the units Ld (if 7) and after that it's the same. A Lord Commissar is even better. Just look at the chart made by YetAnotherFacelessMan from BoLS forums:

come on dude...competitive gaurd is running like 2-3 commissars in range of every blob. You can't snipe that.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

When you have whole armies like Night Lords that all of their "flavour" is working with morale, having a so easy way to ignore morale all together (And for the Horde Armies, the ones that should suffer the most from morale) is bad gameplay design.

And units that ignore To Hit modifiers negate things like the Raven Guard Chapter Tactic.

That's "bad gameplay design" too, yet you don't hear people whining that Dark Reapers need a nerf.

Are you comparing a specific unit with a full army?
Theres a reason why Sisters of Silence as a unit are good, but as an army are totally useless, and bad gameplay-design.

You argued that there should be nothing that allows for negating an army's benefits when you brought up Night Lords v. Horde armies being able to negate morale.

I posted at least one unit that flat-out ignores an army/unit benefit. It would be one thing if Dark Reapers only negated a specific thing like saves from Cover or the modifier from a Flyer.

I argued that the tools Horde Armies have to protect them from Morale loses should have counter play. I argue that those tools shouldn't just literally negate morale, and if they do, they should be scarce and costed appropiately.
Commisars, by how bad Snipers are, how unreliable Pyschic powers are, didn't had real Counter-play, but had the capacity to literally make the Night Lords primary tactic useless.

Dark Reapers offer counter play, they are a unit, you can kill them, and they can't be at all places at once.
If Eldar had characters for 50 points with a 6" Aura that allow squads to ignore all to-hit modifiers, I'll argue about that unit being bad gameplay-design, yes.

 Kanluwen wrote:

An unkillable wall of morale immune bodies that just needed to have the Commissars killed.

The issue is, for most armies up to this point, to kill those commies required a unit or two of snipers. So for eldar, this was 200 points, to kill one commissar fast enough to actually make much different in a game. 200 points to kill a 30 point model. So all an IG player had to do, is bring two commissars. Still a huge net gain. Or a bodyguard.

So generally it wasn't points-efficient to try and kill commissars. Or any character, using snipers. This is why snipers have been fairly useless in 8th, up until now.

Except, now that points have changed, it would only cost 120 points to kill a commissar (with Eldar) fast enough to really matter. So perhaps they would have been less of an issue, as tailoring a list to kill them isn't so innefficient. Shame we won't get a chance to find out how the meta would have been affected.



With the price drops, I think they'll become more common.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:
The thing is Commissars would be a good choice if they built in good counterplay, like only allowing them to affect a certain number of units or if we had better ways to snipe characters.

I don't think that's good counterplay, I think that's enforced counterplay. I consider most enforced counterplay is bad because then it comes down to building a list that has one of everything in it, rock, paper, and scissors, to make sure you're protected against whatever might show up as opposed to actually outmaneuvering, outscoring, and outshooting your foe.


I generally think natural counteplay and synergy is better than enforced counterplay and synergy. Enforced synergy, like the re-roll aura issued by commanders, isn't bad, but I think the natural benefit that Conscripts and artillery offered each other is a very good thing. Artillery has a weakness to close assault, and the Conscripts are strong against close assault and can protect the artillery from one of the artillery's weaknesses, while the artillery in turn destroys threats to the Conscripts. There's no special rule that says this interaction a thing, it's the natural product of their capabilities.

Not just BA. GK, BT, etc. Any list that tries to punch with expensive models is 100% fail. This "nerf" does nothing to change that. It just means IG has to try a little harder.

 Xenomancers wrote:
come on dude...competitive gaurd is running like 2-3 commissars in range of every blob. You can't snipe that.

Then maybe there should have been a requirement for fielding a Commissar?
We need to have an Officer in order to field a Command Squad.

Why not have the same requirement for Commissars?

IG officers aren't expensive enough for that to be a real tax.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
come on dude...competitive gaurd is running like 2-3 commissars in range of every blob. You can't snipe that.

Then maybe there should have been a requirement for fielding a Commissar?
We need to have an Officer in order to field a Command Squad.

Why not have the same requirement for Commissars?

To be fair - you were taking a company commander for every commissar anyways.

 Galas wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Galas wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

When you have whole armies like Night Lords that all of their "flavour" is working with morale, having a so easy way to ignore morale all together (And for the Horde Armies, the ones that should suffer the most from morale) is bad gameplay design.

And units that ignore To Hit modifiers negate things like the Raven Guard Chapter Tactic.

That's "bad gameplay design" too, yet you don't hear people whining that Dark Reapers need a nerf.

Are you comparing a specific unit with a full army?
Theres a reason why Sisters of Silence as a unit are good, but as an army are totally useless, and bad gameplay-design.

You argued that there should be nothing that allows for negating an army's benefits when you brought up Night Lords v. Horde armies being able to negate morale.

I posted at least one unit that flat-out ignores an army/unit benefit. It would be one thing if Dark Reapers only negated a specific thing like saves from Cover or the modifier from a Flyer.

I argued that the tools Horde Armies have to protect them from Morale loses should have counter play. I argue that those tools shouldn't just literally negate morale, and if they do, they should be scarce and costed appropiately.
Commisars, by how bad Snipers are, how unreliable Pyschic powers are, didn't had real Counter-play, but had the capacity to literally make the Night Lords primary tactic useless.

And like I said, you could also have maneuvered to get at the Commissars or launched assaults to get at them.

Both are things that the Night Lords were known for.

Dark Reapers offer counter play, they are a unit, you can kill them, and they can't be at all places at once.
If Eldar had characters for 50 points with a 6" Aura that allow squads to ignore all to-hit modifiers, I'll argue about that unit being bad gameplay-design, yes.

Dark Reapers make the Raven Guard and Alpha Legion special ability useless. There are not ways to gain To Hit modifiers that Dark Reapers cannot negate.

It's the same situation but you're saying one is okay but the other isn't. Dark Reapers are a long ranged unit that can negate a counter to long ranged units with no downside.

It'd be neat if there were actual TO&Es you had to follow for the Guard, rather than a 'do what you want'.

I know most regiments have their own internal structure, but for units without the <REGIMENT> Keyword, there are definitely restrictions put on by the Departmento Munitorum.

Like, write up some fluff about how there are 'Company' Commissars and 'Lord' Commissars, and how the Lord Commissars are 1/regiment and 'company' Commissars are 1/company. In this case, it would be 1/detachment as a rules manifestation. This is assuming that a Detachment represents a Company, which seems to be the motif GW is going with.

I'm gonna guess that if dark reapers get shot and killed, the player cares. I can kill dozens and dozens of IG infantry a turn and just keep falling further and further behind.

IG players just don't understand how powerful freedom of not giving a feth about any given squad truly is.

"Oh boy, your 250 pt assault unit just killed 40 pts of dudes! Whatever shall I do? I know, I'll shoot your 250 pts off the table with a 1/3 of my remaining list."

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
come on dude...competitive gaurd is running like 2-3 commissars in range of every blob. You can't snipe that.

Then maybe there should have been a requirement for fielding a Commissar?
We need to have an Officer in order to field a Command Squad.

Why not have the same requirement for Commissars?

Personally, even if those could be ways to balance this, I'm opposed to the idea of "tax". "Tax" is recognising that you are so bad at balancing the game, you can't make every unit worth their cost in points in a balanced way.

The idea of picking units that you don't want, or even worse, bad units (Oh boy, this ultra OP model is balanced because you have to take 100 points of useless junk-troops to take it!) is just... un-fun. I'm not talking about making troops the best thing out there, but at least balance them so they have a place and are usefull.
In a balanced game, you don't need to put a "tax" of bad units to a "good" unit. Just make both of them usefull in their own ways.

And about Dark Reapers, again, Kanluwen, you are comparing a specific and single unit type to a guy that could make ALL of the Imperial Guard infantry INMUNE to a CORE RULE of the game. A Core Rule WHOLE factions or sub-factions use as their most important offensive tool. THATS bad gameplay design.
Sisters of Silence as an "anti-psyker" unit are good. A full army inmune to psychic power isn't, be it for special -army rules or for the hability to spamm characters that are capable of that.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It'd be neat if there were actual TO&Es you had to follow for the Guard, rather than a 'do what you want'.

I know most regiments have their own internal structure, but for units without the <REGIMENT> Keyword, there are definitely restrictions put on by the Departmento Munitorum.

Like, write up some fluff about how there are 'Company' Commissars and 'Lord' Commissars, and how the Lord Commissars are 1/regiment and 'company' Commissars are 1/company. In this case, it would be 1/detachment as a rules manifestation. This is assuming that a Detachment represents a Company, which seems to be the motif GW is going with.

I miss the old 0-1 and 1+ restriction. It cut down on a lot of the spam.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It'd be neat if there were actual TO&Es you had to follow for the Guard, rather than a 'do what you want'.

I know most regiments have their own internal structure, but for units without the <REGIMENT> Keyword, there are definitely restrictions put on by the Departmento Munitorum.

Like, write up some fluff about how there are 'Company' Commissars and 'Lord' Commissars, and how the Lord Commissars are 1/regiment and 'company' Commissars are 1/company. In this case, it would be 1/detachment as a rules manifestation. This is assuming that a Detachment represents a Company, which seems to be the motif GW is going with.

I miss the old 0-1 and 1+ restriction. It cut down on a lot of the spam.

I agree, though it was kinda dumb sometimes, e.g. Obliterators. The number of obliterators in a warband is absolutely something a Chaos Lord could control and either encourage or discourage.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
come on dude...competitive gaurd is running like 2-3 commissars in range of every blob. You can't snipe that.

Then maybe there should have been a requirement for fielding a Commissar?
We need to have an Officer in order to field a Command Squad.

Why not have the same requirement for Commissars?

To be fair - you were taking a company commander for every commissar anyways.

Which still would mean that in a Patrol or Battalion, you're only going to be able to manage 2 or 3 Commissars as part of a limited number of Elites. A Brigade could manage 5 tops.
The Elite heavy Detachment becomes nothing and Supreme Command could bring you 1 Commissar total.

It means, all of a sudden, people have to instead field Lord Commissars who take up HQ slots instead.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And like I said, you could also have maneuvered to get at the Commissars or launched assaults to get at them.

Both are things that the Night Lords were known for.

... but lack rules for. Chaos has no snipers, there are rules around shooting, deep strike and assault that make it very hard to target a Commissar.

Maneuver against most IG lists is physically impossible. This FAQ is not going to change that. There are no DS holes until after the opponent has committed all DSers.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
It'd be neat if there were actual TO&Es you had to follow for the Guard, rather than a 'do what you want'.

I know most regiments have their own internal structure, but for units without the <REGIMENT> Keyword, there are definitely restrictions put on by the Departmento Munitorum.

Like, write up some fluff about how there are 'Company' Commissars and 'Lord' Commissars, and how the Lord Commissars are 1/regiment and 'company' Commissars are 1/company. In this case, it would be 1/detachment as a rules manifestation. This is assuming that a Detachment represents a Company, which seems to be the motif GW is going with.

I miss the old 0-1 and 1+ restriction. It cut down on a lot of the spam.

I agree, though it was kinda dumb sometimes, e.g. Obliterators. The number of obliterators in a warband is absolutely something a Chaos Lord could control and either encourage or discourage.

It was more for balance, since Necron Armies could definitely field more than 10 Pariahs per army, but they were pretty dang powerful if you could have more than one unit; they were one of those units that were fragile as hell for their points, but only needed one guy to reach combat to make back the entire squad's points. Having multiple units (and thus multiple targets) would make them significantly more survivable and likely to get at least one guy into the enemy gunline.

 Galas wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
come on dude...competitive gaurd is running like 2-3 commissars in range of every blob. You can't snipe that.

Then maybe there should have been a requirement for fielding a Commissar?
We need to have an Officer in order to field a Command Squad.

Why not have the same requirement for Commissars?

Personally, even if those could be ways to balance this, I'm opposed to the idea of "tax". "Tax" is recognising that you are so bad at balancing the game, you can't make every unit worth their cost in points in a balanced way.

So you're fine with Command Squads not requiring an Officer anymore?

The idea of picking units that you don't want, or even worse, bad units (Oh boy, this ultra OP model is balanced because you have to take 100 points of useless junk-troops to take it!) is just... un-fun. I'm not talking about making troops the best thing out there, but at least balance them so they have a place and are usefull.
In a balanced game, you don't need to put a "tax" of bad units to a "good" unit. Just make both of them usefull in their own ways.

Like Xenomancers said, people were taking Officers anyways.

And about Dark Reapers, again, Kanluwen, you are comparing a specific and single unit type fo a guy that could make ALL of the Imperial Guard infantry INMUNE to a CORE RULE of the game. THATS bad gameplay design.
Sisters of Silence as an "anti-psyker" unit are good. A full army inmune to psychic power isn't, be it for special -army rules or for the hability to spamm characters that are capable of that.

I'm using one unit that I know of which has that specific rule as an example. Also--Sisters of Silence are effectively a full army that can be immune to Psychic Powers.

I find it astonishing how people are so upset by this mechanic yet nobody seems to have batted an eye at Bloodsecrators(or many other Standard Bearers) in Age of Sigmar being able to do the same thing for masses of Bloodreavers/blocks of infantry.