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.

 malamis wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

I highly doubt large squads were simultaneously spread out to avoid blasts, and always in cover. Small squads did indeed gain benefit from cover, but it is of note that 7th edition cover was 5+ not 4+ unless you were always in ruins.

That ignores the existence of the old fashioned Aegis Defence Line, which granted 2~ feet of models a 4+ cover save and cost as much as a single squad of guardsmen before upgrades.

I don't think I ever played a serious infantry (and even a few of the tankers) guard commander who didn't use at least one.

True, but I'm also not accounting for a ton of ignores cover shooting in the edition either. But Guard was pretty terrible in 7th.

Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Because of the Eldar effect. People on this site defended SCATTERBIKES. Why is this surprising? After all, they're just guardsmen.

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Termagants are the same statline as standard Guardsmen. Only difference is a point of armor and 2 points of Leadership.

Martel732 wrote:
Because of the Eldar effect. People on this site defended SCATTERBIKES. Why is this surprising? After all, they're just guardsmen.

People still defend Gladius and Decurion Wraiths. If the game had continued as it did, I personally saw the Genestealer Cult grand detachment as eventually becoming broke. Will never know if I was right on that one but I can definitely say I called everything else correctly so...

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Termagants are the same statline as standard Guardsmen. Only difference is a point of armor and 2 points of Leadership.

That is pretty significant when they have a worse gun, and worse save for the same cost. They are literally half as survivable, with worse range and damage output.

And more expensive than Conscripts at half the durability.

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Lets be real, an Ork Boy could use going down a point, but Guardsmen dont render them unplayable, that's a rather absurd statement there's other factors completely unrelated to IG that cause them issues, and if IG are causing Orks fits...Eldar are going to be even more frustrating.

Cant comment on nids because I havent looked at their list in a bit, but Orks have other issues and IG are not the source of most of them.

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Termagants are the same statline as standard Guardsmen. Only difference is a point of armor and 2 points of Leadership.

That is pretty significant when they have a worse gun, and worse save for the same cost. They are literally half as survivable, with worse range and damage output.

Worse ranged gun. It's higher Strength.

Guardsmen also can't be taken in groups of 20 or more, granting a native re-roll to their Wound rolls of 1 simply for having that many guys. That requires an Officer within 6"(18" if they take a Vox-Caster which costs points and the Officer has to be within 3" of another unit with a Vox-Caster).

And more expensive than Conscripts at half the durability.

One point more expensive than Conscripts at 1 point higher to save, with the ability to hit on 4s rather than 5s and not having to roll a D6 to check if they get to have Synapse or not.

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Unplayable? Really? That's the word we're going with?

You're sounding more ridiculous every post, like Xenomancers claiming Marines were the worst codex in 7th.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Termagants are the same statline as standard Guardsmen. Only difference is a point of armor and 2 points of Leadership.

That is pretty significant when they have a worse gun, and worse save for the same cost. They are literally half as survivable, with worse range and damage output.

Worse ranged gun. It's higher Strength.

Guardsmen also can't be taken in groups of 20 or more, granting a native re-roll to their Wound rolls of 1 simply for having that many guys. That requires an Officer within 6"(18" if they take a Vox-Caster which costs points and the Officer has to be within 3" of another unit with a Vox-Caster).

And more expensive than Conscripts at half the durability.

One point more expensive than Conscripts at 1 point higher to save, with the ability to hit on 4s rather than 5s and not having to roll a D6 to check if they get to have Synapse or not.

Nope, worse gun full stop. A S4 gun with 1 shot is worse at 12" than a S3 gun with 2 shots. Mathematically you would take a lasgun in almost every circumstance if given the option for a free gun.

As for conscripts yes they hit better, with a worse gun, so they end up doing a whole 0.028 more wounds per model at 12". But at half durability. With the commissar nerf though it is a more even comparison as the termagants are more resistant to morale.

I don't think until both books are out do we really know how this will shake out. Though Chaff for guard is more important than for nids given the respective strengths of the armies.

In general though I don't think 3 point models should have better than a 6+ save.

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Termagants are the same statline as standard Guardsmen. Only difference is a point of armor and 2 points of Leadership.

That is pretty significant when they have a worse gun, and worse save for the same cost. They are literally half as survivable, with worse range and damage output.

Worse ranged gun. It's higher Strength.

Guardsmen also can't be taken in groups of 20 or more, granting a native re-roll to their Wound rolls of 1 simply for having that many guys. That requires an Officer within 6"(18" if they take a Vox-Caster which costs points and the Officer has to be within 3" of another unit with a Vox-Caster).

And more expensive than Conscripts at half the durability.

One point more expensive than Conscripts at 1 point higher to save, with the ability to hit on 4s rather than 5s and not having to roll a D6 to check if they get to have Synapse or not.

Nope, worse gun full stop. A S4 gun with 1 shot is worse at 12" than a S3 gun with 2 shots.

As for conscripts yes they hit better, with a worse gun, so they end up doing a whole 0.028 more wounds per model at 12". But at half durability. With the commissar nerf though it is a more even comparison as the termagants are more resistant to morale.

I don't think until both books are out do we really know how this will shake out. Though Chaff for guard is more important than for nids given the respective strengths of the armies.

In general though I don't think 3 point models should have better than a 6+ save.

Then you'd support a rule disallowing for Termagants to be able to claim the bonus from Venomthropes?

Breng77 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

which suggests that the AP change makes a big difference and that points should be considered when said unit goes up in durability. Blast/template and morale changes probably also play into this.

But, it didn't make a big difference because of the previous edition cover save. Now, Blast/template might be a factor. Point decrease is a factor. Needing a screen is probably the single largest factor. But going from always getting a 4+ to almost always getting a 5+ and sometimes getting a 4+ to always getting a 5+ and very very rarely getting a 4+ is not that big of a jump.

I can think of maybe 2 times I played against guard and they didn't get a cover save from something.

I highly doubt large squads were simultaneously spread out to avoid blasts, and always in cover.

daedalus wrote:Now, Blast/template might be a factor.

Even still, I note that they're currently able to spread out enough to deny any deep strike anywhere, condensed enough that it's impossible to fit a 1" base between them, and have enough left over to trail back to a single commissar hiding on the opposite side of a wall of tanks, so why not.

Small squads did indeed gain benefit from cover, but it is of note that 7th edition cover was 5+ not 4+ unless you were always in ruins.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Aegis-Defence-Line

It was... not an unusual thing for a guard player to have. Like, literally every one of them in my area had one, myself included. They could have been described as "popular".

Im still just really amused that *conscripts* of all things are a power issue.

I'm waiting for when Vespids become absolutely filthy

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Termagants are the same statline as standard Guardsmen. Only difference is a point of armor and 2 points of Leadership.

That is pretty significant when they have a worse gun, and worse save for the same cost. They are literally half as survivable, with worse range and damage output.

Worse ranged gun. It's higher Strength.

Guardsmen also can't be taken in groups of 20 or more, granting a native re-roll to their Wound rolls of 1 simply for having that many guys. That requires an Officer within 6"(18" if they take a Vox-Caster which costs points and the Officer has to be within 3" of another unit with a Vox-Caster).

And more expensive than Conscripts at half the durability.

One point more expensive than Conscripts at 1 point higher to save, with the ability to hit on 4s rather than 5s and not having to roll a D6 to check if they get to have Synapse or not.

Nope, worse gun full stop. A S4 gun with 1 shot is worse at 12" than a S3 gun with 2 shots.

As for conscripts yes they hit better, with a worse gun, so they end up doing a whole 0.028 more wounds per model at 12". But at half durability. With the commissar nerf though it is a more even comparison as the termagants are more resistant to morale.

I don't think until both books are out do we really know how this will shake out. Though Chaff for guard is more important than for nids given the respective strengths of the armies.

In general though I don't think 3 point models should have better than a 6+ save.

Then you'd support a rule disallowing for Termagants to be able to claim the bonus from Venomthropes?

Nope as you would need to pay for said venomthropes and that should be built into their cost. There is a difference between being able to pay for said save and having it native to a 3 point statline. For instance conscripts in cover get a 4+ save.

Breng77 wrote:

Nope as you would need to pay for said venomthropes and that should be built into their cost. There is a difference between being able to pay for said save and having it native to a 3 point statline. For instance conscripts in cover get a 4+ save.

How are you getting 20-30 models entirely in one of the few types of cover nowadays?

 daedalus wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Nope as you would need to pay for said venomthropes and that should be built into their cost. There is a difference between being able to pay for said save and having it native to a 3 point statline. For instance conscripts in cover get a 4+ save.

How are you getting 20-30 models entirely in one of the few types of cover nowadays?

Depends on the cover I suppose, and yes it is rare, but denying abilities to improve a save based on some other factor is not the same as, having that save base.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yeah, that's a true thing. The AP system certainly seems to favour 5+ and 6+ saves more than it did.

Or maybe the old AP system just was awful?

"I'm a 5+ save!"
"I'm AP5!"
"Aw crap, I don't get to do anything..."

The current system is much nicer and isn't so brutally punishing or having you remove buckets of models because someone just gets to ignore your saves.

Or as I loved to put it:
"Haha! I am a AP 5 gun!"
"Noo, my 5+ save is doomed!"
"Hahahaha scrub, I'm a 4+ save, you do nothing to me!"

I dunno if bringing Tyranids into the argument is really a good idea at this point - their codex drops in less than 2 weeks and might have several things completely change. I mean, we already know that depending on the Hive Fleet, those Termagants can choose to have a bonus 6+ save on top of their normal save, or count as always having cover unless they advance or charge. Depending on their stratagems and points changes (if any to the gant stuff), the lineup could be completely different in short order.

Breng77 wrote:

Nope as you would need to pay for said venomthropes and that should be built into their cost. There is a difference between being able to pay for said save and having it native to a 3 point statline. For instance conscripts in cover get a 4+ save.

And Termagants in cover(or with Jormungandr as their Hive Fleet) near a Venomthrope get a 5+ save and -1 to be hit.

That bumps Conscripts up to a 6+ to hit while keeping the Termagants at a 4+! OMG NERF OP! 20 POINTS PER TERMAGANT!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Breng77 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

Nope as you would need to pay for said venomthropes and that should be built into their cost. There is a difference between being able to pay for said save and having it native to a 3 point statline. For instance conscripts in cover get a 4+ save.

How are you getting 20-30 models entirely in one of the few types of cover nowadays?

Depends on the cover I suppose, and yes it is rare, but denying abilities to improve a save based on some other factor is not the same as, having that save base.

And Guardsmen/Conscripts' statlines were set up so that they could receive Orders.

That didn't stop them tacking on a 4+ requirement for Conscripts to receive Orders or retaining the 6" range limitation on Voice of Command still.
While at the same time, we know Hive Tyrants are getting an 18" Synapse range granting Summary Execution(minus the whole having to Summary Execute someone thing...) in an 18" bubble.

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Termagants are the same statline as standard Guardsmen. Only difference is a point of armor and 2 points of Leadership.

That is pretty significant when they have a worse gun, and worse save for the same cost. They are literally half as survivable, with worse range and damage output.

And more expensive than Conscripts at half the durability.

They are literally not half as survivable, because they don't suffer morale casualties. Which conscripts do. Kill 19/30 or 14/20 and you guarantee the death of the remainder of the unit.

Remember how 30-odd pages ago, Commissars got nerfed?

the_scotsman wrote:

They are literally not half as survivable, because they don't suffer morale casualties. Which conscripts do. Kill 19/30 or 14/20 and you guarantee the death of the remainder of the unit.

Remember how 30-odd pages ago, Commissars got nerfed?

But conscripts are overpowered. Because at one point in time you could have 50 in a squad. And at one point in time, they always had orders. And at one point in time they could mitigate morale. And now they just simply don't cost enough and their lasguns are too good. Tomorrow they're going to have too high of strength and toughness, and the day after it'll be that they exist to begin with, cause they're just overpowered okay?

Why can't you see that?!

Officially putting the nail in the coffin of "Fleshborers are so baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad!":



So, with that Psyker ability called "Onslaught"? Termagants can Advance during their Movement phase, be granted the ability to fire their Fleshborers and not have any penalty to Hit and then charge to get into combat and mandating that Conscripts would have to Fall Back and be issued an Order to regroup.

So. Whining about Conscripts can officially stop and Commissars can be granted their original Summary Execution.

 Kanluwen wrote:
So. Whining about Conscripts can officially stop and Commissars can be granted their original Summary Execution.

B-but KaaaAAAAaaaaaan, that's only Nids! Marines need that power tooooo!

 daedalus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
So. Whining about Conscripts can officially stop and Commissars can be granted their original Summary Execution.

B-but KaaaAAAAaaaaaan, that's only Nids! Marines need that power tooooo!

Don't worry, a certain poster who play Nids and hates Guard will be along shortly to explain how Guard are still simply the absolute number one codex of all time, ever, period.

I have little issue with conscripts at this point. I actually think they over nerfed the commissar. I would prefer that he kept his original rules and conscripts a 6+ save.

I'd still prefer in general super cheap models not to have better than a 6+ save. This applies to more than conscripts.

As for Fleshborers are bad, so you need to take a psyker to get one squad of termagants to do that? Their guns (as guns) are still worse than a lasgun.

I mean that is a dumb argument, on a similar power imperial guard units can shoot lasguns 4 times at 12" range...and that only can fail on conscripts. It can also apply to more than 1 unit.

Fleshborers are not a good weapon.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Yeah, so other armies - like Orks, and Tyranids - pay more for less survivable & accurate stuff than Guardsmen... Imperial Guard's current state renders these armies unplayable. How do you not see this as a problem. Their cheaper, better chaff will protect their cheaper, better tanks & long range shooting.

Termagants are the same statline as standard Guardsmen. Only difference is a point of armor and 2 points of Leadership.

That is pretty significant when they have a worse gun, and worse save for the same cost. They are literally half as survivable, with worse range and damage output.

And more expensive than Conscripts at half the durability.

They are literally not half as survivable, because they don't suffer morale casualties. Which conscripts do. Kill 19/30 or 14/20 and you guarantee the death of the remainder of the unit.

Remember how 30-odd pages ago, Commissars got nerfed?

Remember that 2 CP stratagem that can save them outright, or I believe the relic IG has that helps with this?

That combo you're talking about as OP already existed in the index. Nothing has changed in that regard. Because you can still screen melee armies as guard without thinking, and you have the best shooting in the entire game, in the shooting edition. Besides, if you're running dakkagants, may as well make them devourers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:

B-but KaaaAAAAaaaaaan, that's only Nids! Marines need that power tooooo!

Congratulations on being "that guy," Xenos armies - as a whole - have a legitimate beef with the power level of imperial guard, and imperial soup. Well, maybe not Eldar. We'll see.

Synapse is also a 12" bubble not 18", and hive tyrants cost just a bit more than a commissar and can be targeted at all times.

Guys why are you still with this after 36 pages? Really. Just let it go

 Galas wrote:
Guys why are you still with this after 36 pages? Really. Just let it go

I mean that's fair, this isn't going anywhere productive lol, i'm out. Cheers y'all.

 Marmatag wrote:

Congratulations on being "that guy," Xenos armies - as a whole - have a legitimate beef with the power level of imperial guard, and imperial soup. Well, maybe not Eldar. We'll see.

I agree that index armies have a legitimate beef with codex armies. It's consistently apparent in tournament rankings. Eldar is the least bad out of all of them.

Maybe none of them will though once they get a codex.