So, no more Commissars. But...

[Major_Gilbear]

 

But you do run Psychic support, I guess?

 

Within reason, do you need to? Afterall, not every meta is full of WAAC netlisters.

 

I am not sure I understand what a couple of minor psykers have to do with waac

 

I'm not accusing you of being WAAC; I'm simply pointing out that unless your local meta is, then you may not even need (m)any psykers at all.

[Captain_Krash]

I mean not that this is a solution at all but...how stringent is your meta that you "HAVE" to use the FAQ? Luckily within my group of players we could care less about FAQs unless something is completely broken or out of sync, therefore allowing us to use the codex "AS WRITTEN" Like I said this is not a 100% solution especially in a strict or tournament meta but it is an option.

 

Krash

[CoffeeGrunt]

I feel cherry-picking what you like and don't like in an FAQ is unsporting tbh.

[Captain_Krash]

It's not cherry picking its using rules as written chosing to completely ignore the FAQ is a valid stance. GW can state all they want about "Living rulebooks" but they still print rules then 1 week after release you get an FAQ/Errata's that totally changes what your printed source book states. Enough is enough I've been dealing with it for 20 years now and I'm damn well going to play it the way it is intended. Not because a bunch of people complain about a particular unit. Where were the elder/SM/Nercon nerfs last edition? Oh that's right there weren't any.

 

Krash

Edited October 26, 2017 by Captain_Krash

[CoffeeGrunt]

Your game is your game man, but most of the rest of us are pretty glad GW is more actively fixing problems that pop up in rules, and doing so punctually.

[Vel'Cona]

I feel cherry-picking what you like and don't like in an FAQ is unsporting tbh.

 

Inclined to agree.  In either case, OP seems to assume that we're all going to be following it, so I'd say the discussion should follow that format.  I do agree that it's acceptable for gaming groups to agree to follow or ignore whatever rulesets they enjoy, but that's a subject outside of consideration for the discussion of the FAQ-induced Commissar nerf.

 

As is, I think Commissars (as others have said) are not as auto-combo with Conscripts as they were pre-FAQ, which is a very good thing because it makes them much better for Infantry Squad/Heavy Weapon Squad/etc. formations, and there seems to be plenty of options both within and without the codex to reduce the damage from the Morale Phase.  Honestly, being susceptible to Morale "damage" is just a part of being an IG player; we're not super-soldiers, alien monsters or insanely dedicated warrior monks.  The IG are mortal men and women giving their all to protect the Imperium, and the real strength of this army isn't its ability to fight to heroic last stands or charge headlong into the enemy; it's in redundancy and combined arms approaches.  And I daresay that this codex is still VERY strong even if our humble Guardsmen occasionally "advance to the rear", as it were.  :P

[FallenSoldiers]

I do agree that the Guard should focus heavily on the “Department of Redundancy Department” aspect of things. Squads of 10 bodies should be effective enough to get the job done without many morale issues, especially if there are 6+ of them.

 

I think what this hurts the most is the combine squads idea. Unless you’re down to your last HWT and you want to lump them into an existing squad (or maybe an already weakened squad) to save them from being easily picked off next turn, it doesn’t make much sense to be making squad of 20+ anymore.

 

Lots of cheap bodies and no single lynchpin units seems to be a solid strategy. I wish you could take a flag in a normal 10 man squad, however!

[CoffeeGrunt]

You can only merge Infantry Squads. I just use it for stragglers to combine into mostly-intact squads. Putting everything into 20 man blobs just asks for focused fire on them tbh. I get that it's more efficient for Orders and  good load of FRFSRF, but tbh my Tallarn are based around the idea that I'll be losing men all over the place for the first few turns.

 

I keep thinking of Tom Hanks' character in the opening of Saving Private Ryan, "I wanna see plenty of beach between men. One man's a waste of ammo, five men's a juicy target!"

[Major_Gilbear]

I wish you could take a flag in a normal 10 man squad, however!

 

You could "combine squads" to join the flag command squad into a 10-man squad that's had a few casualties perhaps?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Combine Squads only works specifically on Infantry Squads, not the Keyword INFANTRY,  IIRC.

[Major_Gilbear]

Whoops, you're quite right, sorry.

[FallenSoldiers]

You can only merge Infantry Squads. I just use it for stragglers to combine into mostly-intact squads.

That’s what I was talking about. If you take a lascannon team in your infantry squad and they’re the last ones left alive, well, roll them into another infantry squad!!

[CoffeeGrunt]

Oh right. As Tallarn I forgot you could take Heavy Weapons in Infantry Squads. :P

[Feral_80]

I'm not accusing you of being WAAC; I'm simply pointing out that unless your local meta is, then you may not even need (m)any psykers at all.

Ah, but I do not take then to counter any particular waac configuration. I take psykers because they are useful, quick to use, and balanced. I like them.

 

As for the faq, we use all of it with zero room for negotiations. I am already pissed off by GW's tendency to spread revisions between several, sometimes inconsistent documents. We do not need to increase complexity by only adopting some sections of those. What's written is the dogma, no matter if we like it or not. It's the only way to have a shared set of rules.

[Die4Emprah]

 

I'm not accusing you of being WAAC; I'm simply pointing out that unless your local meta is, then you may not even need (m)any psykers at all.

Ah, but I do not take then to counter any particular waac configuration. I take psykers because they are useful, quick to use, and balanced. I like them.

 

As for the faq, we use all of it with zero room for negotiations. I am already pissed off by GW's tendency to spread revisions between several, sometimes inconsistent documents. We do not need to increase complexity by only adopting some sections of those. What's written is the dogma, no matter if we like it or not. It's the only way to have a shared set of rules.

 

This is pretty much it. If my group picked what rules to follow/not follow, we'd be arguing more, and having less fun.

[HenricusTyranicus]

I think GW was a little clumsy about how it implemented the nerf, but it was necessary. And if they do similar things when other armies are demonstrated to be totally out of whack, that will be better for the game. So yeah, I'm planning on abiding by the FAQ religiously.

[Halfpint100]

Got a 1k list in the army list section using inquisitors for ld9 boosts and a flag, cause flags are cool. hopefully will use it on wednesday. 

[Otto von Bludd]

Catachan Commissar Tank Commander with a banner command squad hiding behind it with an officer nearby for LD 11 catachans is probably what I'll do for the center of my line.

[NatBrannigan]

I can't wait for people to start saying that "Flags are OP"...

 

Still love that everyone now seems to want to take them! I knew you'd all come around to them eventually.

[hhhdan]

they still don't work with inquisitors or lord commissars though... 

 

So i'm thinking greyfax or coteaz > inquisitor + flag 

Inquisitor + kell might be good too if taking Creed (or a commander with laurels and cadian trait for maximum order efficiency)

[NatBrannigan]

It still annoys me just how much better Coteaz is than a similarly tooled up Ordo Malleus Inquisitor. There's no reason not to take the special character instead which is a shame...

 

Anywho, looking at the rules I have to say I'm on the flags don't stack side of the argument, which is a shame but hardly the end of days.

 

I think what we've learnt from this thread is that Commissars are now a bit poo, but there are loads of ways to get a similar effect. Maybe not quite as good but in most cases, more flexible. My main gripe is that the iconic Commissar is going to be a very rare site indeed on the table :(

[Feral_80]

Greyfax also is an excellent defensive support, well worth her points I believe. Unluckily her miniature sucks badly, but she can be proxied with something else - I for example will use Solomon Lok, which I think looks great (and whose rules are very poor, on the other hand).

 

And yes, it's a real shame that Commissars now are so useless. GW has to face a dilemma here: continue to piss off thousands of players and at the same time relegate to the shelf (of both private collections and stores...) a most iconic AM character; or, issue yet a new FAQ to mitigate the nerf, which would be an admission of how poorly they have handled this matter so far.

 

In either case, I see no painless solution (although the latter at least would be honest) - here is what you get when you act before you think.

Edited October 28, 2017 by Feral_80

[Guardsman Bob]

I can't wait for people to start saying that "Flags are OP"...

 

Still love that everyone now seems to want to take them! I knew you'd all come around to them eventually.

The guy who said turn them into a swath of cheep bullet magnets almost convinced me. Very trixy that one.

[Plasmablasts]

I had a go at the mathhammer for the new summary execution and considered the most likely amendment, I.e. making it discretionary.

 

The numbers below are the numbers of casualties already taken that turn, then the numbers of additional casualties taken in the morale phase for Ld 8 (without SE), with the current mandatory SE and with an optional SE. I only included a re-roll when optional if one rolled 5 or 6 and would take at least 2 additional casualties.

 

3: 0.17 / 0.19 / 0.17

4: 0.50 / 0.50 / 0.42

5: 1.00 / 1.00 / 0.83

6: 1.67 / 1.78 / 1.39

7: 2.50 / 2.92 / 2.17

8: 3.50 / 4.50 / 3.17

9: 4.50 / 5.50 / 4.17

 

You can determine the additional casualties for Ld 7 and Ld 9 by counting the prior casualties as 1 higher or 1 lower respectively. So, SE as it stands is mostly worse (and never better) than using the Commissar’s Ld alone. It is better than being Ld 7 however, until you’ve taken at least 8 casualties, when they become equivalent. So, there is still some merit in supporting your infantry squads with a Commissar (albeit not the best form of morale mitigation).

 

Making the SE rule discretionary would improve it, and be better than being Ld 8 alone - but not better than Ld 9...

 

Edit: Corrected the error that didn’t alter my conclusion but was starting to stick out like a sore thumb to me.

Edited October 29, 2017 by Plasmablasts

[Withershadow]

Making it discretionary would mean it's never a detriment, and that alone would be a decent change.  Or something like if fail, kill one and test again on a D3.

Edited October 29, 2017 by Withershadow