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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, lots changed, but I don't quite get your point.

Blast templates turned into number of shots (1 large blast is roughly 1d6, 2 large blasts roughly 2d6. This lines up well with the Manticore and Basilisk, who are 2 (average) and 1 large blast each).

Static or Swing damage is an artefact of 8th edition and never existed in 7th, so to bring it up in a comparison with 7th is more of a "LOOK OVER HERE" than it is a relevant argument. Tell me what stat in 7th matches the damage stat in 8th?

Do you really forget what "doubling out" the Toughness of a target did before?

Battlefield roles have only been enhanced, not change. Do you really think the Manticore needs the same AP value as a Leman Russ's main gun for cheaper? I think AP-1 is perfectly appropriate and lines up with its 7th edition iteration nicely.

Do you really not understand the difference between Leman Russes that can be fielded in units and Manticores that can't?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
He's just trolling you at this point.

Pot calling the kettle black, if I'm going to be honest.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Yes, lots changed, but I don't quite get your point.

Blast templates turned into number of shots (1 large blast is roughly 1d6, 2 large blasts roughly 2d6. This lines up well with the Manticore and Basilisk, who are 2 (average) and 1 large blast each).

Static or Swing damage is an artefact of 8th edition and never existed in 7th, so to bring it up in a comparison with 7th is more of a "LOOK OVER HERE" than it is a relevant argument. Tell me what stat in 7th matches the damage stat in 8th?

Do you really forget what "doubling out" the Toughness of a target did before?

Battlefield roles have only been enhanced, not change. Do you really think the Manticore needs the same AP value as a Leman Russ's main gun for cheaper? I think AP-1 is perfectly appropriate and lines up with its 7th edition iteration nicely.

Do you really not understand the difference between Leman Russes that can be fielded in units and Manticores that can't?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
He's just trolling you at this point.

Pot calling the kettle black, if I'm going to be honest.

What doubling out the toughness did back in the day was fairly irrelevant, because most things that were in danger of that had Eternal Warrior, were Independent Characters, or were never taken (for reference: see Daemon Princes, who all but disappeared from tables thanks to the ID rule).

Why does being in a squadron or not matter in 8th edition? It's not like you can't just take more Spearhead detachments.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

I'm not going to look at that. I don't go to that dumpsterfire of a site.

In any regards, given that the topic you chose is literally "Top ITC Tournament lists"...which doesn't include every single game played ever, it's incomplete data.

Which is a ridiculous standard. OF COURSE if we looked at every single game ever we'd find Dark Reaper dominating someone in October, but YOU don't have that data and GW DOESN'T have that data.

What we BOTH have is conscripts, commissars, malefic lords, storm ravens, etc DOMINATING.

We had that for the duration of a month(likely not factoring in the sudden dip when the FAQ hit on October 22nd), right after a Codex drop and before an update to the Imperial Armour list that let some wacky crap happen with R&H.

The "ridiculous standard" is that YOU talked about "It's only been a month" with regards to Dark Reapers and then trying to walk this crap out when I pointed out that it wasn't even a whole month before a "problem unit" saw a significant alteration to its mechanics while the book was still new.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

What doubling out the toughness did back in the day was fairly irrelevant, because most things that were in danger of that had Eternal Warrior, were Independent Characters, or were never taken (for reference: see Daemon Princes, who all but disappeared from tables thanks to the ID rule).

It absolutely is relevant when we're talking about Basilisks and Manticores, things that Martel likes to claim are now "erasing whole units from the board" but somehow they weren't doing that in 7th...?

Why does being in a squadron or not matter in 8th edition? It's not like you can't just take more Spearhead detachments.

You just answered your own question. If detachment limitations get put into place, then how do you "just take more Spearhead detachments"?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

I'm not going to look at that. I don't go to that dumpsterfire of a site.

In any regards, given that the topic you chose is literally "Top ITC Tournament lists"...which doesn't include every single game played ever, it's incomplete data.

Which is a ridiculous standard. OF COURSE if we looked at every single game ever we'd find Dark Reaper dominating someone in October, but YOU don't have that data and GW DOESN'T have that data.

What we BOTH have is conscripts, commissars, malefic lords, storm ravens, etc DOMINATING.

We had that for the duration of a month(likely not factoring in the sudden dip when the FAQ hit on October 22nd), right after a Codex drop and before an update to the Imperial Armour list that let some wacky crap happen with R&H.

The "ridiculous standard" is that YOU talked about "It's only been a month" with regards to Dark Reapers and then trying to walk this crap out when I pointed out that it wasn't even a whole month before a "problem unit" saw a significant alteration to its mechanics while the book was still new.

Holy crap, dude, again....commissars and conscripts did not need their book to be good. They were good in the INDEX. In JUNE/JULY. There is a ton more lead time on them than with Dark Reapers.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

What doubling out the toughness did back in the day was fairly irrelevant, because most things that were in danger of that had Eternal Warrior, were Independent Characters, or were never taken (for reference: see Daemon Princes, who all but disappeared from tables thanks to the ID rule).

It absolutely is relevant when we're talking about Basilisks and Manticores, things that Martel likes to claim are now "erasing whole units from the board" but somehow they weren't doing that in 7th...?

Why does being in a squadron or not matter in 8th edition? It's not like you can't just take more Spearhead detachments.

You just answered your own question. If detachment limitations get put into place, then how do you "just take more Spearhead detachments"?

1) They weren't because of the AP system in 7th. A Land Raider was more afraid of a Manticore than a Space Marine was, which means that space marines had good chances of surviving manticore blasts.

2) If detachment limitations are put into place, then... it doesn't matter because of points costs. You can get 9 manticores into a 2k list with 3 detachments just as well as you can get 9 Leman Russes into a 2k list with 3 detachments. Yes, you can get more Russes than Manticores if you really wanted, but that's such a huge number of points that it becomes irrelevant.

Look, if you really think the reason the Manticore needs to exceed the Leman Russ in damage output is because it can't be fielded in squadrons, while simultaneously being cheaper, then I don't know what to tell you. Your logic is beyond bonkers.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

I'm not going to look at that. I don't go to that dumpsterfire of a site.

In any regards, given that the topic you chose is literally "Top ITC Tournament lists"...which doesn't include every single game played ever, it's incomplete data.

Which is a ridiculous standard. OF COURSE if we looked at every single game ever we'd find Dark Reaper dominating someone in October, but YOU don't have that data and GW DOESN'T have that data.

What we BOTH have is conscripts, commissars, malefic lords, storm ravens, etc DOMINATING.

We had that for the duration of a month(likely not factoring in the sudden dip when the FAQ hit on October 22nd), right after a Codex drop and before an update to the Imperial Armour list that let some wacky crap happen with R&H.

The "ridiculous standard" is that YOU talked about "It's only been a month" with regards to Dark Reapers and then trying to walk this crap out when I pointed out that it wasn't even a whole month before a "problem unit" saw a significant alteration to its mechanics while the book was still new.

Holy crap, dude, again....commissars and conscripts did not need their book to be good. They were good in the INDEX. In JUNE/JULY. There is a ton more lead time on them than with Dark Reapers.

And holy crap, dude, again...they saw changes from the Index to the Codex. Dark Reapers didn't see gak happen to them, despite being a strong unit in their Index as well.

Dark Reapers DID NOT NEED THEIR CODEX to be good. Let's make that abundantly clear right now. They were good even in their Index form; since that's literally their Codex form.

It wasn't until we started seeing more tanky units with -1 to Hit that we started seeing Dark Reapers more; and we didn't start seeing that happen until the Adeptus Mechanicus book since the only two books previous to that which had those traits were Marines & Spiky Marines...both of whom only had it on infantry and Dreadnoughts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Look, if you really think the reason the Manticore needs to exceed the Leman Russ in damage output is because it can't be fielded in squadrons, while simultaneously being cheaper, then I don't know what to tell you. Your logic is beyond bonkers.

I don't "think" anything about the Manticore beyond that they did it this way because of these reasons. I'm not a game designer. I don't pretend to be.

The Manticore was likely set up this way because of the fact that it has a finite number of rockets it can fire and it can only fire a single one of those rockets in a turn.

 Kanluwen wrote:

And holy crap, dude, again...they saw changes from the Index to the Codex. Dark Reapers didn't see gak happen to them, despite being a strong unit in their Index as well.

Dark Reapers DID NOT NEED THEIR CODEX to be good. Let's make that abundantly clear right now. They were good even in their Index form; since that's literally their Codex form.

It wasn't until we started seeing more tanky units with -1 to Hit that we started seeing Dark Reapers more; and we didn't start seeing that happen until the Adeptus Mechanicus book since the only two books previous to that which had those traits were Marines & Spiky Marines...both of whom only had it on infantry and Dreadnoughts.

Think about it for just a second. Dark Reapers started to become good when Mechanicus came out middle of September. Commissars/Conscripts, again, June/July. Even then few people would be banking on Dark Reapers because Mechanicus...a weaker book until CA... has -1 to hit. Meanwhile IG gets nerfed incrementally. Conscripts become more viable again once IS are in line. Dark Reapers are not the whole picture and other changes are necessary for Eldar.

Well, let it be said by me at least:
The Manticore should be AP-1, and the Basilisk should be AP-2. I don't think it'd cripple the dex, it'd line them up with their 3rd-7th edition counterparts, and it'd put the Leman Russ back into contention for heavy support slots without having to buff an already fairly good tank.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And holy crap, dude, again...they saw changes from the Index to the Codex. Dark Reapers didn't see gak happen to them, despite being a strong unit in their Index as well.

Dark Reapers DID NOT NEED THEIR CODEX to be good. Let's make that abundantly clear right now. They were good even in their Index form; since that's literally their Codex form.

It wasn't until we started seeing more tanky units with -1 to Hit that we started seeing Dark Reapers more; and we didn't start seeing that happen until the Adeptus Mechanicus book since the only two books previous to that which had those traits were Marines & Spiky Marines...both of whom only had it on infantry and Dreadnoughts.

Think about it for just a second. Dark Reapers started to become good when Mechanicus came out middle of September. Commissars/Conscripts, again, June/July. Even then few people would be banking on Dark Reapers because Mechanicus...a weaker book until CA... has -1 to hit. Meanwhile IG gets nerfed incrementally. Conscripts become more viable again once IS are in line. Dark Reapers are not the whole picture and other changes are necessary for Eldar.

It's quite clear at this point that all the data in the world isn't going to sway someone who isn't objective about the army they play.

 Kanluwen wrote:


Tyranid Primes are Characters. They're expensive compared to Officers, certainly, however they do come with more than just Orders as a benefit for the points cost.

Unless they are fielded with a lot of Warriors, they are not cost-efficient.

The only time you don't get the trait is:
A) If you're something with keyword "Fly"
B) You've Advanced
C) You've Charged

And for B&C, you only lose it until your next Movement Phase.

And Termagants are infantry with short range weapons in an army that must play aggressively. Which means Termagants need to advance to be in range, and they will be in charge range of the enemy.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And holy crap, dude, again...they saw changes from the Index to the Codex. Dark Reapers didn't see gak happen to them, despite being a strong unit in their Index as well.

Dark Reapers DID NOT NEED THEIR CODEX to be good. Let's make that abundantly clear right now. They were good even in their Index form; since that's literally their Codex form.

It wasn't until we started seeing more tanky units with -1 to Hit that we started seeing Dark Reapers more; and we didn't start seeing that happen until the Adeptus Mechanicus book since the only two books previous to that which had those traits were Marines & Spiky Marines...both of whom only had it on infantry and Dreadnoughts.

Think about it for just a second. Dark Reapers started to become good when Mechanicus came out middle of September. Commissars/Conscripts, again, June/July. Even then few people would be banking on Dark Reapers because Mechanicus...a weaker book until CA... has -1 to hit. Meanwhile IG gets nerfed incrementally. Conscripts become more viable again once IS are in line. Dark Reapers are not the whole picture and other changes are necessary for Eldar.

It's quite clear at this point that all the data in the world isn't going to sway someone who isn't objective about the army they play.

I was just coming here to say this. There is plenty of objective and well reasoned posts here for the points bump in guardsmen, and nothing but mental gymnastics for keeping it the same. Dark Reapers keep being brought up, and I don't think anyone has any other opinion except they (and a few other changes) are going to get nerfed.

This change is not going to cause the sky falling. It is going to reduce some of the dominance of the soup lists taking advantage of the best troops in the game. They are still among the best even at 5 PPM. With the points increased to the conscrips and guardsmen, I would not be opposed to buffing Commissars back, that would be fair and balanced.

At this point we just have to see what the fabled FAQ will hold.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And holy crap, dude, again...they saw changes from the Index to the Codex. Dark Reapers didn't see gak happen to them, despite being a strong unit in their Index as well.

Dark Reapers DID NOT NEED THEIR CODEX to be good. Let's make that abundantly clear right now. They were good even in their Index form; since that's literally their Codex form.

It wasn't until we started seeing more tanky units with -1 to Hit that we started seeing Dark Reapers more; and we didn't start seeing that happen until the Adeptus Mechanicus book since the only two books previous to that which had those traits were Marines & Spiky Marines...both of whom only had it on infantry and Dreadnoughts.

Think about it for just a second. Dark Reapers started to become good when Mechanicus came out middle of September. Commissars/Conscripts, again, June/July. Even then few people would be banking on Dark Reapers because Mechanicus...a weaker book until CA... has -1 to hit. Meanwhile IG gets nerfed incrementally. Conscripts become more viable again once IS are in line. Dark Reapers are not the whole picture and other changes are necessary for Eldar.

Mechanicus was also the first time we had stacking negative hit modifiers, as we saw with Dragoons.

And this isn't a question of "Conscripts become more viable again". They aren't going to be until Commissars are changed or Infantry Squads get nerfed into dirt. This is literally the issue that you are blinding yourself to.

How many of those lists that were in the tournaments were pure Guard? How many weren't carrying Inquisitors, Guilliman, or Assassins? Did this include that one "Cadian" list(which was really a soup list, since it had one Battalion or Brigade Detachment of Vostroyans, one Outrider Detachment of Death Korps Death Riders, and then a Spearhead Detachment of a Primaris Psyker and Manticores) where the guy either blatantly cheated by giving a Primaris Psyker the Cadian Relic or didn't read his own book enough to know that he couldn't do so?

With Guard, we're literally just looking at a fething revolving door of "Is X Troop choice good with <Insert Soup List Here>?". We saw it with Scions(reasonably altered to have more expensive Plasma Guns), we saw it with Command Squads(Matched Play requirement of an Officer to be present for every Command Squad taken--totally reasonable!), we saw it with Conscripts, we're potentially seeing it again with the Infantry Squads.

When will we actually address the fething issue of soup lists without harming the Guard as their own entity?

 Kanluwen wrote:

Iyanden trait is on 8PPM Eldar, not 4ppm Guardsman with equal if not more firepower; it's not a good comparison.

Same ability; perfect example.

If its a perfect example, and the same ability, then the double cost for the Iyanden should tell you that on conscripts its way overpowered and warranted the nerfs

 Sasori wrote:

I was just coming here to say this. There is plenty of objective and well reasoned posts here for the points bump in guardsmen, and nothing but mental gymnastics for keeping it the same. Dark Reapers keep being brought up, and I don't think anyone has any other opinion except they (and a few other changes) are going to get nerfed.

The point that you're missing with regards to why Dark Reapers "keep being brought up" is that people have been saying "Wait and see! Wait and see!" with regards to them.

They're a problem now. They've been a problem unit since the beginning, but they lacked anything to really take it out on aside from a few weird trick lists(Stealth Suit heavy lists, for example).

So why aren't they getting the swing upside the head that Commissars got?

This change is not going to cause the sky falling. It is going to reduce some of the dominance of the soup lists taking advantage of the best troops in the game. They are still among the best even at 5 PPM. With the points increased to the conscrips and guardsmen, I would not be opposed to buffing Commissars back, that would be fair and balanced.

At this point we just have to see what the fabled FAQ will hold.

And you're part of why I make these arguments. You literally talk about how "it is going to reduce some of the dominance of soup lists taking advantage of the best troops in the game".

Try fielding an army of nothing but Guard. They are by no means bad, but it's not a guaranteed tabling like Martel constantly seems to have happen to him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 davou wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Iyanden trait is on 8PPM Eldar, not 4ppm Guardsman with equal if not more firepower; it's not a good comparison.

Same ability; perfect example.

If its a perfect example, and the same ability, then the double cost for the Iyanden should tell you that on conscripts its way overpowered and warranted the nerfs

Except it's an army-wide trait rather than a 6" aura.

Thanks for playing though!

The reason dark reapers are OP levels good is not because of the dark reapers, themselves. On their own, they're solid, but even their PPW stat isn't great.

Why they're good: You can soulburst/forewarn a large group of them and they ignore all of the -1 to hit that are so in vogue right now. They're like a perfect anti-meta choice.

 davou wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Iyanden trait is on 8PPM Eldar, not 4ppm Guardsman with equal if not more firepower; it's not a good comparison.

Same ability; perfect example.

If its a perfect example, and the same ability, then the double cost for the Iyanden should tell you that on conscripts its way overpowered and warranted the nerfs

To be fair, at least when talking infantry squads, the Commissar + Infantry is 71 points for 11 models (6.5 ppm or so) and two Battlefield Role slots (assuming Elites choice Commissars), while the 10 Morale Immune Except For One Casualty Guardians are 80 points for 10. The comparison is a fairly good one, I think, because once the fact that the Commissar costs points and roles stops being ignored the difference between the two becomes a lot more even.

Of course, the Guardians are spending a Craftworld trait, and so we should include the Imperial Guard traits too. Perhaps the Armageddon one?

 Kanluwen wrote:

 davou wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Iyanden trait is on 8PPM Eldar, not 4ppm Guardsman with equal if not more firepower; it's not a good comparison.

Same ability; perfect example.

If its a perfect example, and the same ability, then the double cost for the Iyanden should tell you that on conscripts its way overpowered and warranted the nerfs

Except it's an army-wide trait rather than a 6" aura.

Thanks for playing though!

So what is it? The same and a perfect example, or not the same? You're talking out of your ass just to be contrarian with people who think your pet army warranted the nerfs it got.

 Kanluwen wrote:


How many of those lists that were in the tournaments were pure Guard? How many weren't carrying Inquisitors, Guilliman, or Assassins? Did this include that one "Cadian" list(which was really a soup list, since it had one Battalion or Brigade Detachment of Vostroyans, one Outrider Detachment of Death Korps Death Riders, and then a Spearhead Detachment of a Primaris Psyker and Manticores) where the guy either blatantly cheated by giving a Primaris Psyker the Cadian Relic or didn't read his own book enough to know that he couldn't do so?

I feel like it's pretty irrelevant if it's a soup army or not. Being soup doesn't make you immune from nerfs. There were plenty of pure IG at LVO in high tables.

 davou wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 davou wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Iyanden trait is on 8PPM Eldar, not 4ppm Guardsman with equal if not more firepower; it's not a good comparison.

Same ability; perfect example.

If its a perfect example, and the same ability, then the double cost for the Iyanden should tell you that on conscripts its way overpowered and warranted the nerfs

Except it's an army-wide trait rather than a 6" aura.

Thanks for playing though!

So what is it? The same and a perfect example, or not the same? You're talking out of your ass just to be contrarian with people who think your pet army warranted the nerfs it got.

It's the same ability as the pre-nerf Commissar, thus it is the perfect example. The differences of Iyanden having it as an army-wide trait rather than needing a character 6" to babysit them.

Did you come in just to argue or did you actually have anything useful to add?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


How many of those lists that were in the tournaments were pure Guard? How many weren't carrying Inquisitors, Guilliman, or Assassins? Did this include that one "Cadian" list(which was really a soup list, since it had one Battalion or Brigade Detachment of Vostroyans, one Outrider Detachment of Death Korps Death Riders, and then a Spearhead Detachment of a Primaris Psyker and Manticores) where the guy either blatantly cheated by giving a Primaris Psyker the Cadian Relic or didn't read his own book enough to know that he couldn't do so?

I feel like it's pretty irrelevant if it's a soup army or not. Being soup doesn't make you immune from nerfs. There were plenty of pure IG at LVO in high tables.

And how many of them actually placed well?

In any regards, no. It does seem like "being soup" does make you immune from nerfs since Inquisitors are still basically untouched and Guilliman only saw what is effectively a token points increase. Same with Dark Reapers being given "time to see how things shake out".

The price of Manticores is perfectly reasonable compared to the Leman Russ. The manticore has higher strength, but can only shoot for four turns, and cannot move and shoot effectively, it is T7 W11 and is a about 10 points cheaper than a Leman Russ. On average it will shoot 7 times, at S10 AP -2 The Leman Russ can move and shoot, and will average 7 S8 AP-2 shots assuming it didn't move more than 6in. These two unit's produce similar firepower, with slight advantages to each (strength for the manticore, mobility and toughness for the tank) their respective pricing makes sense, as does Basilisk costs when you factor in it only shoots on average 4.5 shots per turn.

Riggs wrote:
The price of Manticores is perfectly reasonable compared to the Leman Russ. The manticore has higher strength, but can only shoot for four turns, and cannot move and shoot effectively, it is T7 W11 and is a about 10 points cheaper than a Leman Russ. On average it will shoot 7 times, at S10 AP -2 The Leman Russ can move and shoot, and will average 7 S8 AP-2 shots assuming it didn't move more than 6in. These two unit's produce similar firepower, with slight advantages to each (strength for the manticore, mobility and toughness for the tank) their respective pricing makes sense, as does Basilisk costs when you factor in it only shoots on average 4.5 shots per turn.

1) It doesn't ever need to move to shoot.
2) The vast majority of games do not go past turn 4.

Only shooting for 4 turns hardly matters when the games are generally decided by turn 3, with 4-5 determining overall score rather than the winner/loser.

How would you adjust the Manticore if it could fire every turn, rather than 4 total times? Because in practice it's firing every single turn.

I would be fine with IG artillery hitting on 6s without line of sight, and never suffering from minus to hit modifiers from outside LOS. If you can see your target, you go to 4+. Or cut their dice pool on these weapons by about 60%. Manticores, Heavy Weapon Teams should fire a flat 4 shots per turn. Wyerns would fire 8 shots.

I think manticores russss and basilisks are all too cheap atm.

 Kanluwen wrote:

And how many of them actually placed well?

In any regards, no. It does seem like "being soup" does make you immune from nerfs since Inquisitors are still basically untouched and Guilliman only saw what is effectively a token points increase. Same with Dark Reapers being given "time to see how things shake out".

I get the sense that your issue is less IG nerfs and more than other people aren't being nerfed as much. I can guarantee you Dark Reapers were not on the radar when CA was being written. 25 to RG is not huge in percentage, but it is also not small. Gradual increases are better than constant ups and downs.

Bobby g got stomped out at lvo.

 Kanluwen wrote:


Did you come in just to argue or did you actually have anything useful to add?

I came here to read the thread at first, but you need some perspective man. People aren't calling you out for being unreasonable because there's a conspiracy against you, they're doing it because you being unreasonable and circular. When a point is made, you argue against it; when its pointed out that you've changed your position relative to some other argument you made, you get defensive and try to doublethink both sides, and when something finally strikes a chord as making sense you just shout those dark reapers or another army didn't get the same treatment so yours shouldn't either.

The guard nerfs were warranted. Dark reaper nerfs will be warranted too. Guilliman warrants heavy nerfs... But none of those last two things invalidates the first one.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And how many of them actually placed well?

In any regards, no. It does seem like "being soup" does make you immune from nerfs since Inquisitors are still basically untouched and Guilliman only saw what is effectively a token points increase. Same with Dark Reapers being given "time to see how things shake out".

I get the sense that your issue is less IG nerfs and more than other people aren't being nerfed as much.

That's part of my issue certainly. It's why I specifically called you out over the comment about the Guard codex being "out for more than a couple of months". We got hamfisted nerfs to Guard within a month and problem units for other factions released afterwards are being treated with kid gloves while the Guard codex still has three units that operated in tandem just vanishing from the lists, effectively, because of that hamfisted garbage.


And what did it do to soup lists? It changed nothing. They still go to Guard for it.

It's quite sad since GW actually has a way of fixing it thanks to the lessons they learned with Age of Sigmar.

I can guarantee you Dark Reapers were not on the radar when CA was being written. 25 to RG is not huge in percentage, but it is also not small. Gradual increases are better than constant ups and downs.

They damned well should have been "on the radar" when CA was being written. Especially since CA was written with the help of the external playtesters, which theoretically includes tournament players.

Well considering how heated this has gotten it makes me glad that I stepped out of here for a bit and just watched the madness unfold.

First off, for anyone who claims that we shouldn't see 5ppm Guardsmen, you're frankly just being silly at this point. Not only does this correct the internal balance issue inside of your own book between Conscripts, Guardsman and Veterans but it also means you're less likely to be dragged into soup lists as easily so all the bandwagon players can leave your army alone in favor of whatever new flavor of the month rolls out next.

8th edition is the edition of constant updates and tweaks. EVERY army will be going through similar things (particularly after they have codexes based on how index only factions aren't really mucked with as much so far) and will see units go up and down in points as the game continues to evolve and grow.

Basically, this is going to be a reoccurring thing for some time to come and Guard aren't special. This isn't a malevolent plot against your army, it's just how the game works for every army.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And how many of them actually placed well?

In any regards, no. It does seem like "being soup" does make you immune from nerfs since Inquisitors are still basically untouched and Guilliman only saw what is effectively a token points increase. Same with Dark Reapers being given "time to see how things shake out".

I get the sense that your issue is less IG nerfs and more than other people aren't being nerfed as much.

That's part of my issue certainly. It's why I specifically called you out over the comment about the Guard codex being "out for more than a couple of months". We got hamfisted nerfs to Guard within a month and problem units for other factions released afterwards are being treated with kid gloves while the Guard codex still has three units that operated in tandem just vanishing from the lists, effectively, because of that hamfisted garbage.


And what did it do to soup lists? It changed nothing. They still go to Guard for it.

It's quite sad since GW actually has a way of fixing it thanks to the lessons they learned with Age of Sigmar.

I can guarantee you Dark Reapers were not on the radar when CA was being written. 25 to RG is not huge in percentage, but it is also not small. Gradual increases are better than constant ups and downs.

They damned well should have been "on the radar" when CA was being written. Especially since CA was written with the help of the external playtesters, which theoretically includes tournament players.

Dark Reapers hadn't made a large impact on the tournament scene at the time of CA. That's why they weren't on the radar, Dark Reapers didn't get a wait and see, they got a 'no data points to suggest they were over the top'. I know you won't go look at any report sites or anything of that nature but GW was using the available data points (tournament performance) to make those decisions. At that point there was no indication, from organized events, that Reapers were OTT. And the reason they haven't been addressed since then is because they're trying to address these issues in cycle now (per the warhammer community article). I know you won't acknowledge that Conscripts and Commissars were dominant before their codex and you think they got nerfed one month after codex but what they got was nerfed several months after their index.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Well considering how heated this has gotten it makes me glad that I stepped out of here for a bit and just watched the madness unfold.

First off, for anyone who claims that we shouldn't see 5ppm Guardsmen, you're frankly just being silly at this point. Not only does this correct the internal balance issue inside of your own book between Conscripts, Guardsman and Veterans but it also means you're less likely to be dragged into soup lists as easily so all the bandwagon players can leave your army alone in favor of whatever new flavor of the month rolls out next.

You know what else would have done that?

"Battleline If"

Age of Sigmar literally has shown ways to tone down "soup" style lists. It has to deal with the way that Battleline units work, where a certain percentage of your army has to be made up of them and they have the term of "Battleline If" for a unit where if you're taking a pure army("Allegiance") it becomes Battleline rather than just being a normal unit. There's also units that become "Battleline If" when you have the Allegiance and a specific Hero.

8th edition is the edition of constant updates and tweaks. EVERY army will be going through similar things (particularly after they have codexes based on how index only factions aren't really mucked with as much so far) and will see units go up and down in points as the game continues to evolve and grow.

Basically, this is going to be a reoccurring thing for some time to come and Guard aren't special. This isn't a malevolent plot against your army, it's just how the game works for every army.

What armies have gotten these tweaks?