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.

Alcibiades wrote:
Question. Do people still consider AM overpowered after this nerf?

OP? I don't know. Maybe? Maybe not.

What guard still have is probably the most cost effective codex we currently have. Most of the codex is, imo, undercosted.
Taurox, Manticores, Mortars, Primaris Psykers, some LR variants, ect.

The question that the future will answer is if its to much or workable.

(and yes Gman is OP and should be nerfed but the difference is that without him the Marine codex is mostly fine)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:
Ah another Guillimann player who thinks it's okay I'm broken but heaven forbid others might have good codex. They need to get nerf bat swung wildly hitting wrong targets like here(conscripts were problem. Not commisar. Now you eliminated commisars).

Guard ignoring moral was a problem. Invalidating all -ld stuff, esp when whole armies (Night Lords) rely on them, was a problem. Conscripts were just the most obvious abusers of the problem.

Ordana wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
Question. Do people still consider AM overpowered after this nerf?

OP? I don't know. Maybe? Maybe not.

What guard still have is probably the most cost effective codex we currently have. Most of the codex is, imo, undercosted.
Taurox, Manticores, Mortars, Primaris Psykers, some LR variants, ect.

The question that the future will answer is if its to much or workable.

(and yes Gman is OP and should be nerfed but the difference is that without him the Marine codex is mostly fine)

At the SoCal open (happened the same weekend we got this FAQ) only two Imperial Soup lists finished in the top 10; you had two Ynnari players and one Aeldari player also in the Top 10 while the rest were Chaos.

Would agree some of the IG options are undercosted - mostly Primaris Psykers, possibly Mortars and Taurox Primes; however, Malefic Lords are definitely better for Primaris Psykers for the same cost. But still, IG-only and even to a lesser extent IG-heavy Imperial Soup lists are not sweeping every tournament in the last 1-2 months and this FAQ's changes are likely to reduce that even further.

tneva82 wrote:
Ah another Guillimann player who thinks it's okay I'm broken but heaven forbid others might have good codex. They need to get nerf bat swung wildly hitting wrong targets like here(conscripts were problem. Not commisar. Now you eliminated commisars).

Ahhh Guard players with a chip on the shoulder about Marines, anyway nope wrong answer not a marine player try again.

Actually Commisars we're the issue they should not be any way to flat out ignore a whole sub section of the rules that reliably. It was a bad rule that should have been picked up in the what they laughably called play testing.

Commisars still benefit the low leadership units such as Conscripts and the Abhumans, the regular troops have other options that benefit them. That It now takes more effort than sticking 1 30pt model in the middle of the army is probably intended and a good change.

You do know whining about somebody else's codex when you blatently have the best codex by a large margin, makes you look a little silly and that you are trying to deflect attention from your overpowered codex in classic whataboutry style.

GhostRecon wrote:

Ordana wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
Question. Do people still consider AM overpowered after this nerf?

OP? I don't know. Maybe? Maybe not.

What guard still have is probably the most cost effective codex we currently have. Most of the codex is, imo, undercosted.
Taurox, Manticores, Mortars, Primaris Psykers, some LR variants, ect.

The question that the future will answer is if its to much or workable.

(and yes Gman is OP and should be nerfed but the difference is that without him the Marine codex is mostly fine)

At the SoCal open (happened the same weekend we got this FAQ) only two Imperial Soup lists finished in the top 10; you had two Ynnari players and one Aeldari player also in the Top 10 while the rest were Chaos.

Would agree some of the IG options are undercosted - mostly Primaris Psykers, possibly Mortars and Taurox Primes; however, Malefic Lords are definitely better for Primaris Psykers for the same cost. But still, IG-only and even to a lesser extent IG-heavy Imperial Soup lists are not sweeping every tournament in the last 1-2 months and this FAQ's changes are likely to reduce that even further.

Only two Imperium lists in the top 10 but one of them won the event. Funny you fail to mention that.

SeanDrake wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Ah another Guillimann player who thinks it's okay I'm broken but heaven forbid others might have good codex. They need to get nerf bat swung wildly hitting wrong targets like here(conscripts were problem. Not commisar. Now you eliminated commisars).

Ahhh Guard players with a chip on the shoulder about Marines, anyway nope wrong answer not a marine player try again.

Actually Commisars we're the issue they should not be any way to flat out ignore a whole sub section of the rules that reliably. It was a bad rule that should have been picked up in the what they laughably called play testing.

Commisars still benefit the low leadership units such as Conscripts and the Abhumans, the regular troops have other options that benefit them. That It now takes more effort than sticking 1 30pt model in the middle of the army is probably intended and a good change.

You do know whining about somebody else's codex when you blatently have the best codex by a large margin, makes you look a little silly and that you are trying to deflect attention from your overpowered codex in classic whataboutry style.

I'm curious what results or data you have to back up the assertion that Guard are the best codex by a large margin. It seems to be a common claim in threads like this, but the fact remains that as yet we have seen nothing to indicate that post-nerfs, there is anything in the Guard codex powerful enough to significantly warp the tournament scene.

It doesn't make a ton of sense to complain that the units and combinations that currently ARE impacting tournament balance in a significant manner should be nerfed before additional elements of the Guard codex when all we have as proof of the Guard's overpowered-ness is your and others say so.

What are the guard units that we have seen appearing in tournament lists?

-Conscripts (orders nerf, commissar nerf ties in, squad size nerf)
-Commissars (Summary execution nerf)
-MT Command Sqauds (Plasma for BS3+ nerf, limit per commander nerf)
-MT scion squads (Plasma for BS3+ nerf)
-Mortar teams (Base cost nerf)

At this point we're down to just Taurox primes, Manticores, Primaris Psykers and Earthshaker carriages which have not seen nerfs for units that we've seen in any significant capacity from the IG at tournaments. Every data point we have (which is admittedly not many) points to the influence of IG going DOWN, not UP, post codex and even pre the latest nerfs.

It would seem to be completely justified to want to take a serious look at something like, I don't know, the actual army composition that's been dominating the recent couple of tournaments, i.e. Magnus and Friends Monster Mash style lists?

But that's harder to justify, because people don't actually care about tournaments. They just like to use them to justify what they want to see changed - people actually want to see their buddy's army who they play with every week casually to get reduced in power, because they're having trouble winning against them.

If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant. Just say that. Otherwise, yeah, it is time to talk about the actually imbalanced combinations elsewhere unless we actually see IG performing at tournaments.

the_scotsman wrote:
I'm curious what results or data you have to back up the assertion that Guard are the best codex by a large margin. It seems to be a common claim in threads like this, but the fact remains that as yet we have seen nothing to indicate that post-nerfs, there is anything in the Guard codex powerful enough to significantly warp the tournament scene.

It doesn't make a ton of sense to complain that the units and combinations that currently ARE impacting tournament balance in a significant manner should be nerfed before additional elements of the Guard codex when all we have as proof of the Guard's overpowered-ness is your and others say so.

What are the guard units that we have seen appearing in tournament lists?

-Conscripts (orders nerf, commissar nerf ties in, squad size nerf)
-Commissars (Summary execution nerf)
-MT Command Sqauds (Plasma for BS3+ nerf, limit per commander nerf)
-MT scion squads (Plasma for BS3+ nerf)
-Mortar teams (Base cost nerf)

At this point we're down to just Taurox primes, Manticores, Primaris Psykers and Earthshaker carriages which have not seen nerfs for units that we've seen in any significant capacity from the IG at tournaments. Every data point we have (which is admittedly not many) points to the influence of IG going DOWN, not UP, post codex and even pre the latest nerfs.

It would seem to be completely justified to want to take a serious look at something like, I don't know, the actual army composition that's been dominating the recent couple of tournaments, i.e. Magnus and Friends Monster Mash style lists?

But that's harder to justify, because people don't actually care about tournaments. They just like to use them to justify what they want to see changed - people actually want to see their buddy's army who they play with every week casually to get reduced in power, because they're having trouble winning against them.

If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant. Just say that. Otherwise, yeah, it is time to talk about the actually imbalanced combinations elsewhere unless we actually see IG performing at tournaments.

Exalted. I would also like to add that most people complaining about guard were willing to burn people at the stake for merely taking the basic russ, but after this FAQ, those suspiciously went quiet. Almost as if they needed to make a hyperbole about "every" unit in the guard dex being OP just to mask their displeasure at losing to conscripts and commissars.

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Exalted. I would also like to add that most people complaining about guard were willing to burn people at the stake for merely taking the basic russ, but after this FAQ, those suspiciously went quiet. Almost as if they needed to make a hyperbole about "every" unit in the guard dex being OP just to mask their displeasure at losing to conscripts and commissars.

Don't jump at conclusions.

It's getting colder outside. Maybe some are struggling to type because they can't get their mittens unpinned from their sleeves?

 daedalus wrote:

 MechaEmperor7000 wrote:

Exalted. I would also like to add that most people complaining about guard were willing to burn people at the stake for merely taking the basic russ, but after this FAQ, those suspiciously went quiet. Almost as if they needed to make a hyperbole about "every" unit in the guard dex being OP just to mask their displeasure at losing to conscripts and commissars.

Don't jump at conclusions.

It's getting colder outside. Maybe some are struggling to type because they can't get their mittens unpinned from their sleeves?

I'm in canada and in a t-shirt. Get on my winter level

I'm in Valhalla Russia and it's below zero allready. So i got to adapt to typing with mittens on.

the_scotsman wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Ah another Guillimann player who thinks it's okay I'm broken but heaven forbid others might have good codex. They need to get nerf bat swung wildly hitting wrong targets like here(conscripts were problem. Not commisar. Now you eliminated commisars).

Ahhh Guard players with a chip on the shoulder about Marines, anyway nope wrong answer not a marine player try again.

Actually Commisars we're the issue they should not be any way to flat out ignore a whole sub section of the rules that reliably. It was a bad rule that should have been picked up in the what they laughably called play testing.

Commisars still benefit the low leadership units such as Conscripts and the Abhumans, the regular troops have other options that benefit them. That It now takes more effort than sticking 1 30pt model in the middle of the army is probably intended and a good change.

You do know whining about somebody else's codex when you blatently have the best codex by a large margin, makes you look a little silly and that you are trying to deflect attention from your overpowered codex in classic whataboutry style.

I'm curious what results or data you have to back up the assertion that Guard are the best codex by a large margin. It seems to be a common claim in threads like this, but the fact remains that as yet we have seen nothing to indicate that post-nerfs, there is anything in the Guard codex powerful enough to significantly warp the tournament scene.

It doesn't make a ton of sense to complain that the units and combinations that currently ARE impacting tournament balance in a significant manner should be nerfed before additional elements of the Guard codex when all we have as proof of the Guard's overpowered-ness is your and others say so.

What are the guard units that we have seen appearing in tournament lists?

-Conscripts (orders nerf, commissar nerf ties in, squad size nerf)
-Commissars (Summary execution nerf)
-MT Command Sqauds (Plasma for BS3+ nerf, limit per commander nerf)
-MT scion squads (Plasma for BS3+ nerf)
-Mortar teams (Base cost nerf)

At this point we're down to just Taurox primes, Manticores, Primaris Psykers and Earthshaker carriages which have not seen nerfs for units that we've seen in any significant capacity from the IG at tournaments. Every data point we have (which is admittedly not many) points to the influence of IG going DOWN, not UP, post codex and even pre the latest nerfs.

It would seem to be completely justified to want to take a serious look at something like, I don't know, the actual army composition that's been dominating the recent couple of tournaments, i.e. Magnus and Friends Monster Mash style lists?

But that's harder to justify, because people don't actually care about tournaments. They just like to use them to justify what they want to see changed - people actually want to see their buddy's army who they play with every week casually to get reduced in power, because they're having trouble winning against them.

If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant. Just say that. Otherwise, yeah, it is time to talk about the actually imbalanced combinations elsewhere unless we actually see IG performing at tournaments.

Exalted. There's no evidence that the guard are overturning tournaments at all by themselves.

 Commissar Benny wrote:

 Colonel Cross wrote:
There is at least light at the end of the tunnel. It was just an FAQ which can, eventually, be FAQd again. Which is frustrating since this wasn't an FAQ for the Commissar. This was a straight up rules change.

I've already written them a letter. We'll see if they respond. Your welcome to do the same:

gamefaqs@gwplc.com

Its ok for Eldar/Tau to dominate every tournament for years with no changes. Its ok for Guilliman parking lot lists to dominate for months with no changes. If however Imperial soup lists that contain "elements" of IG, immediate exterminatus of IG codex. Meanwhile the real offenders (Guilliman, Celestine etc) go ignored. Nope sorry, no patience for that garbage.

It is a new edition with a "new GW" so Eldar and Tau are irrelevant, unless the idea is just to rotate armies into the spotlight for years while others suffer. Which if that is how you feel things should be, there is no point having a balance discussion with you. Where are Guilliman parking lot lists dominating? I've yet to see it. Storm Raven lists were dominating, and were addressed immediately. Beyond that it has been Guard Heavy Soup lists (Mostly guard + Celestine) and Chaos Soup lists. Celestine and guilliman are not the real offenders in this edition. The real offenders are/were conscripts + commissars, Scions, Primaris Psykers, Brims, Magnus, Malific Lords. That is what I see most in top lists. Followed by things like Berserkers/Noise Marines, Guard Artillery, Taurox primes, Storm Ravens. People Complain a lot about Assback + RG but what event has that won? Celestine gets a lot of play because she is flexible and durable and a good compliment to IG strength.

I'm not a huge fan of this fix to the commissar it is more than I wanted, other guard things have largely been addressed, and other units buffed. I think this nerf brings them down to probably 2nd best book right now.

the_scotsman wrote:
If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant. Just say that. Otherwise, yeah, it is time to talk about the actually imbalanced combinations elsewhere unless we actually see IG performing at tournaments.

Ugh, is it possible to have a discussion about anything these days without going to extremes. The IG book was very powerful, people were understandably concerned. I play IG and wanted to see conscripts nerfed. Turning off morale for elite troops like Eldar is hardly the same thing as turning it off for a cheap horde, especially when it means giving up -1 to be hit. Tyranids have always revolved around synapse, it's as much a part of their army as big tanks are for Guard.

IG are still extremely powerful. The FAQ was inelegant, hopefully it will be refined. At least GW has shown the willingness to adjust, even if they still appear to lack expert guidance. That's why soup lists tend to be more problematic, too many moving parts. If soup lists went away, Guard would likely be the top army.

xmbk wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant. Just say that. Otherwise, yeah, it is time to talk about the actually imbalanced combinations elsewhere unless we actually see IG performing at tournaments.

Ugh, is it possible to have a discussion about anything these days without going to extremes. The IG book was very powerful, people were understandably concerned. I play IG and wanted to see conscripts nerfed. Turning off morale for elite troops like Eldar is hardly the same thing as turning it off for a cheap horde, especially when it means giving up -1 to be hit. Tyranids have always revolved around synapse, it's as much a part of their army as big tanks are for Guard.

IG are still extremely powerful. The FAQ was inelegant, hopefully it will be refined. At least GW has shown the willingness to adjust, even if they still appear to lack expert guidance. That's why soup lists tend to be more problematic, too many moving parts. If soup lists went away, Guard would likely be the top army.

You can tell by how a list that was exclusively Ultramarines with no soup won the last GT followed by a list that was exclusively Raven Guard with no soup.

Based on that data I can safely say Guard are the top book if you took away soup.

yep. For sure.

the_scotsman wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
Ah another Guillimann player who thinks it's okay I'm broken but heaven forbid others might have good codex. They need to get nerf bat swung wildly hitting wrong targets like here(conscripts were problem. Not commisar. Now you eliminated commisars).

Ahhh Guard players with a chip on the shoulder about Marines, anyway nope wrong answer not a marine player try again.

Actually Commisars we're the issue they should not be any way to flat out ignore a whole sub section of the rules that reliably. It was a bad rule that should have been picked up in the what they laughably called play testing.

Commisars still benefit the low leadership units such as Conscripts and the Abhumans, the regular troops have other options that benefit them. That It now takes more effort than sticking 1 30pt model in the middle of the army is probably intended and a good change.

You do know whining about somebody else's codex when you blatently have the best codex by a large margin, makes you look a little silly and that you are trying to deflect attention from your overpowered codex in classic whataboutry style.

I'm curious what results or data you have to back up the assertion that Guard are the best codex by a large margin. It seems to be a common claim in threads like this, but the fact remains that as yet we have seen nothing to indicate that post-nerfs, there is anything in the Guard codex powerful enough to significantly warp the tournament scene.

It doesn't make a ton of sense to complain that the units and combinations that currently ARE impacting tournament balance in a significant manner should be nerfed before additional elements of the Guard codex when all we have as proof of the Guard's overpowered-ness is your and others say so.

What are the guard units that we have seen appearing in tournament lists?

-Conscripts (orders nerf, commissar nerf ties in, squad size nerf)
-Commissars (Summary execution nerf)
-MT Command Sqauds (Plasma for BS3+ nerf, limit per commander nerf)
-MT scion squads (Plasma for BS3+ nerf)
-Mortar teams (Base cost nerf)

At this point we're down to just Taurox primes, Manticores, Primaris Psykers and Earthshaker carriages which have not seen nerfs for units that we've seen in any significant capacity from the IG at tournaments. Every data point we have (which is admittedly not many) points to the influence of IG going DOWN, not UP, post codex and even pre the latest nerfs.

It would seem to be completely justified to want to take a serious look at something like, I don't know, the actual army composition that's been dominating the recent couple of tournaments, i.e. Magnus and Friends Monster Mash style lists?

But that's harder to justify, because people don't actually care about tournaments. They just like to use them to justify what they want to see changed - people actually want to see their buddy's army who they play with every week casually to get reduced in power, because they're having trouble winning against them.

If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant. Just say that. Otherwise, yeah, it is time to talk about the actually imbalanced combinations elsewhere unless we actually see IG performing at tournaments.

Seriously why do guard players have such a hate boner for marines that they consider everyone who disagrees with them as a Marine player, can you point on the creed mini where the bad marine touched you?

Not sure I can take you seriously, as just above it is pointed out to one of your frothy compatriots that dominating in attendance is not the same as actually winning.

Do we have data from other tournaments? Wasn't sure if ITC had posted any.

It can't just be a knee jerk on GWs part?

GhostRecon wrote:

Ordana wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
Question. Do people still consider AM overpowered after this nerf?

OP? I don't know. Maybe? Maybe not.

What guard still have is probably the most cost effective codex we currently have. Most of the codex is, imo, undercosted.
Taurox, Manticores, Mortars, Primaris Psykers, some LR variants, ect.

The question that the future will answer is if its to much or workable.

(and yes Gman is OP and should be nerfed but the difference is that without him the Marine codex is mostly fine)

At the SoCal open (happened the same weekend we got this FAQ) only two Imperial Soup lists finished in the top 10; you had two Ynnari players and one Aeldari player also in the Top 10 while the rest were Chaos.

Would agree some of the IG options are undercosted - mostly Primaris Psykers, possibly Mortars and Taurox Primes; however, Malefic Lords are definitely better for Primaris Psykers for the same cost. But still, IG-only and even to a lesser extent IG-heavy Imperial Soup lists are not sweeping every tournament in the last 1-2 months and this FAQ's changes are likely to reduce that even further.

I don't count FW stuff because it has a long history of gak balance (both ways) and its not allowed in most tournaments in my region anyway.
Yes Malefic Lords are horribly undercosted.

I expect most people are still playing with what they own. Waiting for codexes to be released before commit to buying a new army rather then going off of the index, Guard has only been out for a short while. I expect more of them to pop up, tho I may be wrong. The future will show.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

 Commissar Benny wrote:

 Colonel Cross wrote:
There is at least light at the end of the tunnel. It was just an FAQ which can, eventually, be FAQd again. Which is frustrating since this wasn't an FAQ for the Commissar. This was a straight up rules change.

I've already written them a letter. We'll see if they respond. Your welcome to do the same:

gamefaqs@gwplc.com

Its ok for Eldar/Tau to dominate every tournament for years with no changes. Its ok for Guilliman parking lot lists to dominate for months with no changes. If however Imperial soup lists that contain "elements" of IG, immediate exterminatus of IG codex. Meanwhile the real offenders (Guilliman, Celestine etc) go ignored. Nope sorry, no patience for that garbage.

It is a new edition with a "new GW" so Eldar and Tau are irrelevant, unless the idea is just to rotate armies into the spotlight for years while others suffer. Which if that is how you feel things should be, there is no point having a balance discussion with you. Where are Guilliman parking lot lists dominating? I've yet to see it. Storm Raven lists were dominating, and were addressed immediately. Beyond that it has been Guard Heavy Soup lists (Mostly guard + Celestine) and Chaos Soup lists. Celestine and guilliman are not the real offenders in this edition. The real offenders are/were conscripts + commissars, Scions, Primaris Psykers, Brims, Magnus, Malific Lords. That is what I see most in top lists. Followed by things like Berserkers/Noise Marines, Guard Artillery, Taurox primes, Storm Ravens. People Complain a lot about Assback + RG but what event has that won? Celestine gets a lot of play because she is flexible and durable and a good compliment to IG strength.

I'm not a huge fan of this fix to the commissar it is more than I wanted, other guard things have largely been addressed, and other units buffed. I think this nerf brings them down to probably 2nd best book right now.

Gman Assback spam won the Warhammer World Heat 1. Tho many on this forum will tell you the field was extremely weak and it wasn't ITC so it doesn't count.

It's not IG players having a hate boner for Marine players, but rather due to one of the recent tournament having marines doing very well while guard was in the low 15's (except for one guy in 6th place), especially with a build that most people would have widely considered to be sub-par.

That and the two primary people arguing here against guard are marine players and constantly bring up marine examples.

I should just change my signature to, "yes IG, I'm glad conscripts aren't invulnerable, now help us get Robute nerfed".

SeanDrake wrote:
Seriously why do guard players have such a hate boner for marines that they consider everyone who disagrees with them as a Marine player, can you point on the creed mini where the bad marine touched you?

Not sure I can take you seriously, as just above it is pointed out to one of your frothy compatriots that dominating in attendance is not the same as actually winning.

I think it's because most of the whiners complainers are the same ones whining complaining about Tactical Marines, even while lists that run 5 units of said marines are winning 40k tournaments.

There are some issues with the Guard codex (though I know a few extremists who would disagree with me on that), or were, at least. I think it's actually largely fine now, and I am willing to sit on my hands and wait for another couple tournaments to see how things shake out.

If you asked me my honest opinion, it would be thusly: The Guard codex appears powerful, because it has so many powerful and varied builds, but it isn't actually as powerful as it seems. The things that were good in the Index were nerfed (and nerfed again, in the FAQ), the things that were awful-to-trash in the Index became good. That's actually a good thing, I think. The reason I think this is just by reading what people complain about:

- Russes get double shots.
- Artillery ignores LoS.
- Orders are really really good
- Baneblade variants are too good (esp. the Shadowsword)
- Conscripts are really really good
- Commissars ignored morale

Russes and artillery are essentially mutually exclusive. You could bring a bit of both, but not a LOT of both. Orders are good - but we trade away generic re-roll auras (captains and lieutenants) to get them, so it's probably a wash. The Baneblade variants suffer badly from 'gun-itis' - they are very powerful, but they're not very durable, so their power often makes them fire magnets for enemy AT assets. Point for point, LRBTs and Land Raiders are more durable. Conscripts and commissars are FAQ'd, I think.

Kdash wrote:

Darkagl1 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

Darkagl1 wrote:


Why are you posting conscript numbers when his post is about infantry squads?

Mmm. My bad. Reading comprehension for the win.

There's sort of several questions going on here. First, did conscripts need a nerf to morale mitigation. The consensus appears to be yes. The second is was this an effective way of doing it, and it does appear to be. Third is does the commissars still have a place with conscripts. Fourth does the commissars still have a place with infantry squads/vets/MT. Fifth is if the commissars does have a place is summary execution still a benefit. Sixth is can the commissars be replaced with something more effective.

1.) As above most seem to agree that something needed doing
2.) It certainly seems effective
3.) Yes the leadership buff alone is pretty useful
4.) Yes the leadership buff alone is useful
5.) For conscripts yes, for infantry it's trickier. You have to lose enough models that morale matters and you risk losing more than 1(at least 4) and not so many that his rule doesn't matter (less than 9), then roll poorly enough that someone flees and then well enough that his reroll saves someone. The problem becomes that case is pretty unlikely. At low incoming casualties you're unlikely to need him at high casualties you're unlikely to get the second roll being good. There is a sweet spot, but now it's pretty edge.
6.) This becomes the issue for conscripts assuming you're bringing a russ 2 cp nets you leadership 9. For infantry either the 2 cp for leadership 9 or the banner gets you the leadership buff (assuming you aren't already catachans).

This leaves us in a position where the unit doesn't function super well as it was intended to for the basic infantry squad and for conscripts works ok, but mainly due to leadership bubble. To me this is a failure of design. There are more elegant ways for the summary execution to work. Pop a dude take half morale losses, pop a dude morale die is a 1. Both of those maintain the purpose and the flavor of the commissars. That said perhaps they wouldn't be enough to fix conscripts but then you probably should go after something else, for instance add "conscripts can never modify their leadership" to raw recruits.

EDIT: Ignore 5 I math bad.

The Ld bonus for infantry squads are ok, but, it alone does not justify bringing a commissar for them.

Ok, so I just ran some additional numbers looking at non-Commissar vs Commissar with Infantry Squad and got the following (as like the previous poster I ran this over 5000 cases. The lost figure represents models lost before the morale phase, while everything else is a total figure once morale has been resolved.) The formatting sucks cos Dakka can't do tables or tab spaces apparently... –

Lost / Commissar / Normal / Ld 8 / Lord Comm
(2) / 2.00 / 2.17 / 2.00 / 2.00
(3) / 3.19 / 3.51 / 3.17 / 3.00
(4) / 4.50 / 5.00 / 4.53 / 4.20
(5) / 6.01 / 6.65 / 6.01 / 5.48
(6) / 7.66 / 8.31 / 7.69 / 7.02
(7) / 9.50 / 9.50 / 8.99 / 8.45
(8) / 10.0 / 10.0 / 9.83 / 9.53


As you can see, the Commissar still provides a benefit to the Infantry Squad, however, you’re not likely to see its effects most of the time. The main instances are where it makes you immune to morale when taking 2 casualties and when you lose 4 or 6 models from the unit.

The 3rd column represents you getting Ld 8 on the Infantry squad from a source other than a commissar (i.e Catachan regimental doctrine). The results are pretty similar to the Commissars results, however, this gives you a chance of keeping the squad alive when you take 8 casualties, whereas the Commissar does not, due to him shooting the last guy in the head.

All in all, I’d suggest that taking a Commissar for Infantry Squads now is only beneficial when you only take 2 casualties. The rest of the time, you’d be better off spending the 31 points elsewhere. Also, if you can get the Leadership 8 buff from elsewhere for free/cheaper, it would be more worth it than taking a Commissar.

Overall, I think it will come down to personal preference and whether or not you think you’ll be taking mass casualties a turn, or just a couple. If you have the spare points and like the model, then there is no massive detriment to your army for taking a Commissar.

However, when looking at using a Lord Commissar, you start to see the differences a bit more, but still, not a substantial improvement.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Esmer wrote:
I'm playing Valhallans and I feel a bit confused about what GW has done to my Russkies.
The Valhallan stratagem is now completely useless, the Valhallan regimental doctrine, however, is not - in fact it has become much more valuable due to the Commissar nerf (as have regimental standards, so time to unfold those hammer-and-sickle flags).
So we basically went from mediocre doctrine (why would anyone care about halfed Ld losses when the Commissar is reducing the losses to 1 by default anyway) and great - altough by no means OP - stratagem to great doctrine and unusable stratagem in one fell swoop.
There is a "In Soviet Russia" joke somewhere in there, I'm sure.
I still plan to field conscript hordes buffed by Commissars, but I don't think that tactic is viable anymore if you play anyone BUT Valhallans. It's a bit sad that "Send in the next wave" won't see any use ever now, because the idea of Chenkov sending an endless stream of cannon fodder straight into enemy fire was mega-fluffy. They should have nerfed "SITNW" by limiting it to conscripts or vanilla infantry squads instead of making it completely useless.

Vallhallan's never needed a Commissar though, and still don't.

You you need is a Company Commander with the Pistol relic and you're sorted.

Basically the point I was trying to make. The commissars buff at this point is the leadership aura. Unfortunately that is cheaper to get from a standard or the command tank strategem. This largely means commissars should stay home.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Do we have data from other tournaments? Wasn't sure if ITC had posted any.

It can't just be a knee jerk on GWs part?

I think it's not GW knee-jerking, I think it's the community.

GW is just listening to the community. I don't really blame them. People got what they asked for as far as community interaction goes.

 argonak wrote:
The Valhallan stratagem might as well have been deleted. Its completely stupid now.

No, it works exactly the same as before in two out of three game types. In Open Play and Narrative Play, you get your models back for the cost of 1CP only.

It's only in Matched Play that you have to pay points as well.

Note that WE THE PLAYERS moaned that in 7th some armies got literally free models. In matched play you no longer get free models.

I would say the issues are that:
- GW creates stratagems that are not suitable for matched play
- Guilliman/Celestine do not comply with this rule, and create imbalance/unfairness.

 Silentz wrote:

 argonak wrote:
The Valhallan stratagem might as well have been deleted. Its completely stupid now.

No, it works exactly the same as before in two out of three game types. In Open Play and Narrative Play, you get your models back for the cost of 1CP only.

It's only in Matched Play that you have to pay points as well.

Note that WE THE PLAYERS moaned that in 7th some armies got literally free models. In matched play you no longer get free models.

I would say the issues are that:
- GW creates stratagems that are not suitable for matched play
- Guilliman/Celestine do not comply with this rule, and create imbalance/unfairness.

Don't forget Chaos cultists, who can also get free models back, and the Avatar of Khaine, whom I think can come back for 3CP and costs no RP.

Healing a model to a non-dead unit doesn't cost points - see also apothecaries. Different rules.

Avatar, yes - falls under this weird grey zone of "its the exact same character so it doesn't cost points" whereas it's not the same unit of conscripts coming back, it's a new one.

Ordana wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:

Ordana wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
Question. Do people still consider AM overpowered after this nerf?

OP? I don't know. Maybe? Maybe not.

What guard still have is probably the most cost effective codex we currently have. Most of the codex is, imo, undercosted.
Taurox, Manticores, Mortars, Primaris Psykers, some LR variants, ect.

The question that the future will answer is if its to much or workable.

(and yes Gman is OP and should be nerfed but the difference is that without him the Marine codex is mostly fine)

At the SoCal open (happened the same weekend we got this FAQ) only two Imperial Soup lists finished in the top 10; you had two Ynnari players and one Aeldari player also in the Top 10 while the rest were Chaos.

Would agree some of the IG options are undercosted - mostly Primaris Psykers, possibly Mortars and Taurox Primes; however, Malefic Lords are definitely better for Primaris Psykers for the same cost. But still, IG-only and even to a lesser extent IG-heavy Imperial Soup lists are not sweeping every tournament in the last 1-2 months and this FAQ's changes are likely to reduce that even further.

I don't count FW stuff because it has a long history of gak balance (both ways) and its not allowed in most tournaments in my region anyway.
Yes Malefic Lords are horribly undercosted.

I expect most people are still playing with what they own. Waiting for codexes to be released before commit to buying a new army rather then going off of the index, Guard has only been out for a short while. I expect more of them to pop up, tho I may be wrong. The future will show.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

 Commissar Benny wrote:

 Colonel Cross wrote:
There is at least light at the end of the tunnel. It was just an FAQ which can, eventually, be FAQd again. Which is frustrating since this wasn't an FAQ for the Commissar. This was a straight up rules change.

I've already written them a letter. We'll see if they respond. Your welcome to do the same:

gamefaqs@gwplc.com

Its ok for Eldar/Tau to dominate every tournament for years with no changes. Its ok for Guilliman parking lot lists to dominate for months with no changes. If however Imperial soup lists that contain "elements" of IG, immediate exterminatus of IG codex. Meanwhile the real offenders (Guilliman, Celestine etc) go ignored. Nope sorry, no patience for that garbage.

It is a new edition with a "new GW" so Eldar and Tau are irrelevant, unless the idea is just to rotate armies into the spotlight for years while others suffer. Which if that is how you feel things should be, there is no point having a balance discussion with you. Where are Guilliman parking lot lists dominating? I've yet to see it. Storm Raven lists were dominating, and were addressed immediately. Beyond that it has been Guard Heavy Soup lists (Mostly guard + Celestine) and Chaos Soup lists. Celestine and guilliman are not the real offenders in this edition. The real offenders are/were conscripts + commissars, Scions, Primaris Psykers, Brims, Magnus, Malific Lords. That is what I see most in top lists. Followed by things like Berserkers/Noise Marines, Guard Artillery, Taurox primes, Storm Ravens. People Complain a lot about Assback + RG but what event has that won? Celestine gets a lot of play because she is flexible and durable and a good compliment to IG strength.

I'm not a huge fan of this fix to the commissar it is more than I wanted, other guard things have largely been addressed, and other units buffed. I think this nerf brings them down to probably 2nd best book right now.

Gman Assback spam won the Warhammer World Heat 1. Tho many on this forum will tell you the field was extremely weak and it wasn't ITC so it doesn't count.

So one tournament is domination for months?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Silentz wrote:

 argonak wrote:
The Valhallan stratagem might as well have been deleted. Its completely stupid now.

No, it works exactly the same as before in two out of three game types. In Open Play and Narrative Play, you get your models back for the cost of 1CP only.

It's only in Matched Play that you have to pay points as well.

Note that WE THE PLAYERS moaned that in 7th some armies got literally free models. In matched play you no longer get free models.

I would say the issues are that:
- GW creates stratagems that are not suitable for matched play
- Guilliman/Celestine do not comply with this rule, and create imbalance/unfairness.

Don't forget Chaos cultists, who can also get free models back, and the Avatar of Khaine, whom I think can come back for 3CP and costs no RP.

Cultists can only refresh a unit that already exists, it's a similar rule to Reanimation Protocols.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Silentz wrote:

 argonak wrote:
The Valhallan stratagem might as well have been deleted. Its completely stupid now.

No, it works exactly the same as before in two out of three game types. In Open Play and Narrative Play, you get your models back for the cost of 1CP only.

It's only in Matched Play that you have to pay points as well.

Note that WE THE PLAYERS moaned that in 7th some armies got literally free models. In matched play you no longer get free models.

I would say the issues are that:
- GW creates stratagems that are not suitable for matched play
- Guilliman/Celestine do not comply with this rule, and create imbalance/unfairness.

Don't forget Chaos cultists, who can also get free models back, and the Avatar of Khaine, whom I think can come back for 3CP and costs no RP.

Cultists can only refresh a unit that already exists, it's a similar rule to Reanimation Protocols.

Yes, but if it was a 20 man unit with 1 model left, then you get 19 more models that you didn't have in your list.

If that's not getting more models for free I don't know what is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silentz wrote:
Healing a model to a non-dead unit doesn't cost points - see also apothecaries. Different rules.

Avatar, yes - falls under this weird grey zone of "its the exact same character so it doesn't cost points" whereas it's not the same unit of conscripts coming back, it's a new one.

Right, but perhaps it should, because that's an extra model that wasn't in the army list.

xmbk wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant. Just say that. Otherwise, yeah, it is time to talk about the actually imbalanced combinations elsewhere unless we actually see IG performing at tournaments.

Ugh, is it possible to have a discussion about anything these days without going to extremes. The IG book was very powerful, people were understandably concerned. I play IG and wanted to see conscripts nerfed. Turning off morale for elite troops like Eldar is hardly the same thing as turning it off for a cheap horde, especially when it means giving up -1 to be hit. Tyranids have always revolved around synapse, it's as much a part of their army as big tanks are for Guard.

IG are still extremely powerful. The FAQ was inelegant, hopefully it will be refined. At least GW has shown the willingness to adjust, even if they still appear to lack expert guidance. That's why soup lists tend to be more problematic, too many moving parts. If soup lists went away, Guard would likely be the top army.

Point one: It's not the same to turn off morale for those super-elite eldar infantry (like Guardians, at what...6ppm, and aspects, at 12-20 usually) as it is to turn off morale for a cheap chaff horde! That would be imbalanced and overpowered!

Point two: Tyranids have always been able to turn off morale for their cheap chaff hordes, that's their mechanic, and it's been balanced around!

Point three: if allies were removed, Guard would be top dogs in tournaments.

Disregarding the fact that point 1 and point 2 directly contradict one another, and the fact that Guard have always always always had the ability to mitigate morale with buffing characters, can anyone anywhere at any time give me any kind of proof that point three is true, because everyone is REAL fond of saying it. Because the number of Guard lists we have actually seen at tournaments without allies since the release of 8th is pretty dang slim, while the number of lists that are entirely Space Marines or Ynnari are much, much higher.

If you actually have data to back this up, show it, because I am very curious to know how you'd expect pure guard to win against a Guilliman parking lot list, Ynnari harlequins, or a craftworld Alaitoc list that can take a majority of its basic units with -2 to hit. How is a Guard artillery gunline going to be oppressively overpowering hitting on 6s with most of its weapons?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, but if it was a 20 man unit with 1 model left, then you get 19 more models that you didn't have in your list.

If that's not getting more models for free I don't know what is.

Frankly I agree and would rather this sort of mechanic not exist at all, but at least with Tide of Traitors/Reanimation Protocol/whatever there's some counterplay by wiping the unit.

the_scotsman wrote:

xmbk wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
If you want IG back to where they were in 7th, please, just say so. Don't enact a charade of caring about tournament balance or game mechanic balance (seriously, you're complaining that IG could turn off morale when Tyranids and now Iyanden can just do that, army-wide, for far less effort?) if you just want to be able to roll across the table straight into the gunline and wipe out leman russes in a single round because you brought 1 power fist sergeant. Just say that. Otherwise, yeah, it is time to talk about the actually imbalanced combinations elsewhere unless we actually see IG performing at tournaments.

Ugh, is it possible to have a discussion about anything these days without going to extremes. The IG book was very powerful, people were understandably concerned. I play IG and wanted to see conscripts nerfed. Turning off morale for elite troops like Eldar is hardly the same thing as turning it off for a cheap horde, especially when it means giving up -1 to be hit. Tyranids have always revolved around synapse, it's as much a part of their army as big tanks are for Guard.

IG are still extremely powerful. The FAQ was inelegant, hopefully it will be refined. At least GW has shown the willingness to adjust, even if they still appear to lack expert guidance. That's why soup lists tend to be more problematic, too many moving parts. If soup lists went away, Guard would likely be the top army.

Point one: It's not the same to turn off morale for those super-elite eldar infantry (like Guardians, at what...6ppm, and aspects, at 12-20 usually) as it is to turn off morale for a cheap chaff horde! That would be imbalanced and overpowered!

Point two: Tyranids have always been able to turn off morale for their cheap chaff hordes, that's their mechanic, and it's been balanced around!

Point three: if allies were removed, Guard would be top dogs in tournaments.

Disregarding the fact that point 1 and point 2 directly contradict one another, and the fact that Guard have always always always had the ability to mitigate morale with buffing characters, can anyone anywhere at any time give me any kind of proof that point three is true, because everyone is REAL fond of saying it. Because the number of Guard lists we have actually seen at tournaments without allies since the release of 8th is pretty dang slim, while the number of lists that are entirely Space Marines or Ynnari are much, much higher.

If you actually have data to back this up, show it, because I am very curious to know how you'd expect pure guard to win against a Guilliman parking lot list, Ynnari harlequins, or a craftworld Alaitoc list that can take a majority of its basic units with -2 to hit. How is a Guard artillery gunline going to be oppressively overpowering hitting on 6s with most of its weapons?

Just wanna point out the irony that you demand data but then claim that pure guard is obviously not going to be able to beat an army that won't exist until Saturday.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, but if it was a 20 man unit with 1 model left, then you get 19 more models that you didn't have in your list.

If that's not getting more models for free I don't know what is.

Frankly I agree and would rather this sort of mechanic not exist at all, but at least with Tide of Traitors/Reanimation Protocol/whatever there's some counterplay by wiping the unit.

The counterplay to the Valhallan stratagem was to leave the unit alive; you could only resurrect it if it was completely wiped out.