40K: New Astra Militarum FAQ – Commisars and Ogryn Tweaked, Russes for All

  • Posted by
  • at

Another Codex, another FAQ. Commisars get nerfed and the new and improved Leman Russ is widely available.

The Ogryn Hyperloop has been closed, Commisars now only offer a reroll to failed morale checks, and a host of other changes await in the newly released FAQ for the Astra Militarum. There’s a lot of stuff to go through, including Tank commanders no longer being able to take the Dagger of Tu’sakh, so let’s just dive on in.

via Warhammer Community

The first change is making sure that all Leman Russes are brought into line with their codex cousins. If you’ve got a Genestealer Cults army, or you’ve got a Leman Russ from Imperial Armour – Index: Forces of the Astra Militarum, you’ll be able to take advantage of the new and improved Grinding Advance.

Secondly, and significantly, we’ve adjusted Commissars in line with feedback from the community, playtesters and observations from competitive gaming events around the world. Commissars still provide some much-needed insulation from Morale tests, but now, Summary Execution provides a re-roll at the cost of one unfortunate Guardsman rather than totally protecting you against any and all morale.

There’s a range of other adjustments in the errata designed to make your games run more smoothly – we’ve answered some of the most common questions you’ve asked since the book was released, as well as patching up any unintended interactions (like the infamous “Ogryn Hyperloop”).

Check out the updated FAQ here

It’s interesting to see the effects of community greenback on the game–it’s clear that this is very much a living system, and that the devs, for want of a better word, are watching.

Can you spot the difference between a GSC Russ company and a regular one? 

  • James Regan

    They fixed Yarric as well- he can now issue orders (to any regiment, as well), ending the weird phase where we knew he should have been able to, but RAW didn’t quite make it possible

  • Heinz Fiction

    Wow, commisars got shafted. A reroll on morale tests doens’t really help when you took 15 wounds…

    • Valentin Guéranger

      Exactly what I thought about this. What happens if you roll the best result on a dice but still loose models ? Do you have to reroll it, taking the risk of looping more models + the mandatory from summary exécution ? The faq will need a faq on its own.

      • I_am_Alpharius

        You have to re-roll, its not optional and be stuck with the second result. This roll could, of course, be worse. Sucks for sure, but fits the theme that the Commissar is “encouraging” all the men to stay. However, even if he/she shoots one doesn’t guarantee the unit will listen and it could scare them even more.

        • Heinz Fiction

          I agree. And paying points for something that is harmful to you in a lot of cases seems like a questionable game design decision to me.

          Also the “send the next wave” stratagem was virtually removed from matched play. No one will pay the full price for a unit to bring it back to full strength when he could just field a second unit of that type instead.

          • Tyr

            Yeah, pretty much. I mean, IG have loads of CP, but that doesnt mean that youre going to just throw them out like that… :/

          • Heinz Fiction

            It’s not a CP problem, it’s a reinforcement points problem. If I have the choice to spend 200 points for either 2 units 100 points each, or one unit of 100 points, that can rejoin the battle after it got a beating, there is really no question what I would do…

          • matty199

            Its not questionable its poor game design. TAke something that was fluffy but perhaps too good. Make it unusable. Good work retards

          • Spacefrisian

            So the cultist version is a superior version (tide of traitors), lolz

          • ellobouk

            Yeah… I just cut commissars from my lists. They were just fine, it’s the conscript swarm that was the problem… All you had to do was add a rule to the conscripts to limit the commissars effect on them, and then you can let the real soldiers get on with the job properly.

        • Valentin Guéranger

          I guess it’s true, and commissars still give their Ld 9 to the unit… On the bright side, Valhalla’s trait is now more useful than it was.

          • Chad Underdonk

            No they don’t. There is no rule for morale sharing in the Imperial Guard codex. Not for officers, not for commissars. If they aren’t part of the unit they don’t get to share it.

          • Aura of Discipline: its a 6″ aura allowing astra militarum to use the commissars LD.

          • Chad Underdonk

            Totally missed that one. It pretty much didn’t matter when he just killed one dudesman.

        • Tyr

          While true… it does mean that commissars are going to get relegated to the shelves again for the vast majority of armies. Might see some commissar tanks, at most… :/

        • GWELLS

          They can still sorta use their old ability if you give one the Draconian Disciplinarian warlord trait. He’ll just end up kiling a few more but stop the morale fail.

        • memitchell

          They messed up the eratta. It would be stupid to re-roll an advantageous result. And even more stupid to insist on it. It makes no sense.

          • Severius_Tolluck

            That has always been the design. You have always had to abide the result of a reroll regardless how much worse or better it is. This is not new.

          • BJ Mickle

            No, the issue is you roll a 1, but still fail because you lost say 9 guys. 1 guy runs away. Great, now you HAVE to shoot that guy, and now roll a 6 (causing you to lose 6 guys). Even though you had the best results, it forces you to roll again, even if the results were the best possible results. You technically failed the roll.

          • Severius_Tolluck

            That is besides the point. In all GW games, a reroll has always forced you to take the second result, good or bad. You are of course choosing to make yourself have a re roll by having the unit there, but that is a conscious thought you are having. A Choice you have made.

          • BJ Mickle

            But you usually have the choice whether you re-roll or not. Thus the only way to choose not to have the re-roll, is to not use commissars. It is almost always, and I can’t think of a single exception until now, worded as “You may re-roll…”

          • Severius_Tolluck

            Again, you are making the choice to always re roll by having the unit that issues it nearby in the aura it produces. I am not seeing the problem, but carry on with your grief over a unit that barely saw service for many editions and most builds and will continue to do so.

          • Taikishi

            The issue is that in every other game, including previous editions of 40K and Fantasy, re-rolls were optional AND modifiers applied before determining if you needed to re-roll.

            With the rules as they are now, if you hit on 2s with a -1 to hit and roll a 2 on the die, you can’t re-roll the die because the re-roll happens before the -1. Likewise, if Seraphim roll a 5 on Shield of Faith while within 6″ of Celestine (+1 to SoF saves), their Angelic Visage forces a re-roll even though you would pass with the +1.

            To be honest, the re-roll rules defy logic. They should always be optional and should come after you determine success or failure, just like they did in the past and just like they do in every other game.

          • Da Gargoyle

            Hence the original comments. Commissars are now wall flowers because of that one trait that is a boon to your opponent. No one will take them while other armies get to choose on whether they will enact their Aura’s on their troops.

          • Severius_Tolluck

            Hence why I said Commisars were always a lack luster unit that no one took really until the infamous index / codex commissar rules surfaced. I still do not see a problem with it. Everyone whinging for the sake of whinging.

          • Taikishi

            Welcome to how Sisters of Battle players feel about Seraphim and Celestine.

            Seraphim re-roll their failed Shield of Faith saves. Celestine adds 1 to the if result within 6″. Because modifiers are applied after re-rolls, if you roll a 5 on Shield of Faith, their Angelic Visage forces you to re-roll it before the +1 is applied. This means Seraphim have a 44% chance of passing SoF (1/6+5/6*1/3) instead of a 55% chance (1/3+2/3*1/3).

      • Jeremy Larson

        You’re guard, you have access to the cheapest, most economic Command Point batteries in the game. Just pay the two CP and pass.

        • generalchaos34

          im going to agree with this, Commissars are leadership beacons that occasionally shoot your men for being cowards, they shouldn’t be unstoppable bulwarks of morale, just like how the old priests were abused in 6th-7th.

          • Da Gargoyle

            The flaw in your argument is the fact that now, Commissars don’t stop headlong flight
            a la 7th Ed when the survivors of a failed moral test did fall back. Now all he does is increase the number of casualties, but the survivors remain capable of shooting and combat. How is that realistic or representative of a moral failure?

    • DoctorBored

      This was a necessary change when it came to Commissars. One guy being shot should not motivate 20 other conscripts in the face of the Chaos Terminators that just slaughtered 10 of them. It was un-fluffy and OP

      • Jory4001

        but now a commissar gives units a significantly higher chance to lose more models during morale instead of less.

        • Inquisitor Corwin

          That’s kind of how the commisariat works.
          “Hurry up and go die before I kill you!”
          Ever wonder why so many of them end up as victims of ‘friendly fire?’

          • Chad Underdonk

            Except 8th was supposed to get rid of self inflicted stuff that makes your army worse!

          • I_am_Alpharius

            What? Said whom exactly? Citation please!

          • Chad Underdonk

            Show me one other legacy fluff based rule that characters or armies have that makes their army worse instead of better.

            I’ll wait.

            Even a lot of the old infamous Ork stuff that used to make them worse for “fluffy” reasons is now long gone.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            I’ll take your one and raise you two….Kharn the Betrayer and Gorechild…..Ooo Ooo or Axe of Blind Fury….Ooo Ooo…Chaos Boon Stratagem….

            So were is this citation from GW saying 8th was getting rid of things that self inflict and make your army worse?

          • Chad Underdonk

            It was the way it was explained to me by someone who keeps his head far further into the rumor and explanation mill than I who was following 8th long before I even knew it was a thing.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            So why state it as a matter of fact when it was a load of rumour?

          • Chad Underdonk

            Because the way it was explained to me was that it was a publicly stated intention by the designers. The rules largely bore that out.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Publically you say? i.e. meaning recorded somewhere. Again citation on a website or publication please from an official GW spokesman……

          • Chad Underdonk

            I was repeating what I was told as fact. Sorry, but that’s the best I can do.

            I suspect if I could name his source (which I cannot) that it wouldn’t be official enough to qualify at any rate.

          • Marco Marantz

            Dont forget Daemon Bolts as well.

          • Da Gargoyle

            Actually GW stated that 8th was designed to return the game to a simpler format and remove the myriad of special rules that had complicated the games. It seems that as quickly as they reintroduce the codex range they re-introduce more special rules for each race. But in this case the special rule has gone from limiting the impact of a moral test to intensifying the negative result.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            *sigh* missing the point much? Yes indeed, the GW have said the aim of 8th was to produce a far more streamlined and tighter rules set (note this does not have to mean simpler) – which they have. But, the notion, made by Chad Underdonk, was that 8th was “suppose to get rid of self-inflicting stuff that make you army worse” is inane and has literally no basis in fact or comment by GW. It is simply some passing comment by some random person that meant nothing.

          • Da Gargoyle

            Written above in the article:

            “Commissars still provide some much-needed insulation from Morale tests, but now, Summary Execution provides a re-roll at the cost of one unfortunate Guardsman rather than totally protecting you against any and all morale.”

            The statement indicates they still expected the rule to benefit AM not annihilate it. It suggests to me they have no idea what they have done because in no way can the Errata text be considered an insulation from Morale tests. Every post so far has acknowledged that you are worse off with this rule & Commissars are now a liability.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            I think you’ve missed the point I was objecting to. It had nothing to do with the article…..

          • Dragon2928

            It was also supposed to get rid of people being completely immune to the morale phase… 😉

          • Heinz Fiction

            But then, going with the fluff, guard players should be forced to take commissars as they probably wouldn’t do it voluntarily now…

          • euansmith

            That’s a neat idea. Maybe a free “upgrade” that has to be attached to a unit and executes people at the drop of a very large hat. You would want to take Conscripts as a cheap unit to attach the homicidal Commissar to.

        • Spacefrisian

          Is thinking bad?

        • I_am_Alpharius

          Does it though? With Ld9 on the Commissar, if you’re failing the Moral Test on the first roll, more often than not it will be because you’ve taken a huge amount of casualties during the turn. I don’t think it is half a bad as people are already crying.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Commissars are Ld. 8, not 9.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Doh! Correct. I was having Yarrick or a Lord Commissar in my mind. Rarer of course. Either way point still stands.

          • Chad Underdonk

            Commissars (or any other guard commanders) do not grant their morale to other units. The commissars morale of 8 or 9 only gets used if they are making a morale test against something like Mind War.

            IF, IF, IF they had incorporated their morale as an aura into that change I wouldn’t mind as much. But they most assuredly did not.

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            What the heck are you talking about? Aura of Discipline. Page 101.

          • Chad Underdonk

            Doh, shows how little it mattered when you were limited to only losing 1!

          • Watcherzero

            Sergeant and a banner provides leadership 8 though, its cheaper and doesn’t cost extra losses from execution therefore provides same survival chance to pass that morale check for the unit. Meanwhile Conscript blob users will just take Draconian Discipline that allows auto passes. Really Commisars are now harmful to your army.

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            … the heck are YOU talking about? Banner adds +1 leadership, and conscripts can’t get sergeants.

          • King Renegado

            GW nerfed the wrong unit. Should have been an addendum to raw recruits.

        • YetAnotherFacelessMan

          Incorrect, I’m afraid. Since the commissar is bringing his leadership of 8 to the conscripts, even in the worst case of rolling a 6 and executing one, he’s keeping 3 conscripts from running.

      • King Renegado

        Wrong. The change should have been to conscripts “raw recruits” rule.
        They should have lost d6 or 2d3 as a result of a commissar using summary execution. The problem with being forced to re-roll a failed morale check is now instead of an infantry, vet, or scion squad losing 1 model as a result of a failed morale check with a good roll, they could lose way more on an inferior re-roll.

        The commissars should have, themselves been left alone.

      • ellobouk

        it’s not just the bolt round to the head really, Commissars are trained for years to command, lead and inspire men, coupled with the degree of religious zealotry in the Imperium, I could quite easily see a Commissar rallying a last desperate stand in the face of impossible odds.
        Iron discipline, fear of what awaits you in the afterlife if you fail the emperor and a very charismatic man telling you to hold the line work wonders on morale.

        • Silverbeast

          But not on consricpts, who are convicts and fresh framboy reqruits. Thats absurd.

          • I_am_Alpharius

            Conscripts aren’t ever convicts, that Penal Legions. Conscripts are men/women brought into taken from Planet/Systems that are near warzone in need of fresh recruits quickly. They are mix of all shorts: from farmers; to people who would have been “recruited” the guard anyway, due to Imperial Tithes; to retired Veterans recalled to service. They’re not all inexperience and, all to some extent, inspired by the Imperial propaganda machine that they can be heros of the Imperium!

          • generalchaos34

            not according to the new book, they say it can be anything from convicts to kids, depending on the planet. I am personally painting all my conscripts up as penal legion, with orange jumpsuits and “recovered” cadian equipment so I can have them be regiment neutral (plus with the price of Valhallans I want my nice models to not be 3 pt garbage)

          • I_am_Alpharius

            May want to re-read the fluff entry on pg39 they are not ever convicts

          • generalchaos34

            you are correct, I didnt have it in hand and I could swear it said it, maybe its mentioned somewhere else, but I could swear I read that somewhere that wasn’t the Salvar Chem Dog fluff

        • euansmith

          “Don’t worry, lads, things look bad, we’re surrounded by Xeno-Chaos Scum and we’re down to our last power cells, but we’ve got our Commissar to lead us to victory in the Emperor’s name!.. um… Commissar..? Commissar Cain..? Has anyone seen Commissar Ciaphas Cain?”

    • Randy Randalman

      No, they got fixed. They were busted before when they could make it so 120 3-point models couldn’t be broken. It was absurd because opponents could never trade efficiently, and anti-infantry that wastes even elite troops couldn’t get rid of Conscripts. This is how it always should have been.

      • Inquisitor Corwin

        I’m a little back and forth on it, but overall I agree with you. Hell, I play guard and refused to use it because it was so clearly shenanigans. Few things make me happier than my OP army getting nerfed. Now I won’t have to hear the ‘oh, yeah. You’ve got guard,’ mumbling at my FLGS.

        • euansmith

          The 112th Scout Regiment, the Shenanigans, are a long and inglorious chapter in history in the annals of the Imperial Guard.

      • King Renegado

        That’s on the conscripts, not the commissar, dude.
        Commissars are now ONLY good for conscripts.
        They are statistically worse for any other infantry unit that would benefit from them.

        Here is what shoukd have been done:
        Not screw with summary execution rule at all, but add this to conscripts raw recruits rule:

        “If the unit is affected by a commissars summary execution rule, the unit suffers 2d3 (or d6) mortal wounds instead of 1.”

        • YetAnotherFacelessMan

          “They are statistically worse for any other infantry unit”

          This is AMAZINGLY false. I keep seeing people saying this and I’m boggled. I keep pointing out that at low roll modifiers, the commissar is outright better. I keep pointing out that at higher casualty levels, leadership 7 is never better than leadership 8, even if a guy gets shot.

          But people keep pulling the “what if I roll a low morale test the first time?!” hypothetical. What if you roll a high morale test first and reroll it low? What if you just say “I can’t succeed, so a guy gets shot” and just don’t roll the first die? It literally doesn’t matter! The dice aren’t related!

          Statistically worse… jesus.

          • King Renegado

            Look… Commissars ARE an inferior leadership buffer.
            You can take a flag and get +1ld for nearby units for 5 points.

            When you fail morale in the presence of a commissar you HAVE to lose one model AND make a re-roll even if you would have only lost one or two models on the first re-roll.

            Here is the short version for the math padawans: Commissar makes a unit LD8 UNTIL they fail a morale check. If they fail a morale check, it is the same as resolving the test at ld7 because the commissar is gonna kill one anyway.
            8-1=7
            You can say the “getting a worse result than the first one is hypothetical” all you want, but in reality it is still NOT a good unit buffer for ANYTHING other than conscripts because you are paying 34 points for a re-roll resolved at LD7.

          • Nameless

            Except its not. ignoring the result of reroll for the moment. the increase in leadership by 1(1 less model removed) is counteracted by the ability (costs 1 model). so if you loose enough models to auto fail a check, the commissar is adding nothing to the units resilience.

            now if you are auto failing the check, the reroll has 0 impact on the game, you roll 1 die and immediately pick it up and roll it again. the first result is of no consequence, you are rolling 1 die plus casualties for your leadership test -> the same as if no commissar was present.

            in this case its not statistically worse, it is statistically the same, the commissar makes no difference to the outcome.

          • King Renegado

            High casualties is NOT better “even if a guy gets shot.”
            Let’s pretend for just a second 2 squads get shot.
            Both squads take 5 casualties, and both squads roll a 4 on the morale check.
            One squad is in a commissar aura, the other is under no aura.

            Regular squad:
            10-5=5
            5+4=9 (ld 7, squad fails morale.)
            9-7= 2 models flee.
            3 troopers left out of squad.

            Under commissar:
            10-5=5
            5+4=9 (ld 8 morale fails) BLAM 4 models left re-roll. For argument’s sake, we roll another 4 on the morale check.
            9-8, 1 model flees.
            1 model blammed, another ran away.

            Both squads lost 2 models to the same morale check.
            Commissars are not worth their points because the forced re-roll is too much of a wild card at 34 points. A regimental standard is a much safer option.

    • LankTank

      I suppose commisars are just not intended to keep conscripts in the fight if they suffer massive casaulties. We play that if a unit fails a morale, the commissar executes 1. Then D3 models that were fleeing dont

    • YetAnotherFacelessMan

      It’s the aura of leadership now. Even when you lose 15 conscripts, the commissar will keep 3 (4 for lord commissar) from running. See my big post.

      • SiberianVI

        inquisitors do it better.

        • YetAnotherFacelessMan

          As they should… they outrank the commissar after all.

          However, that said, a basic inquisitor’s leadership boost is the same leadership boost as a Lord Commissar for more points base and without an invulnerable save. Inquisitor Greyfax does indeed do it better than even Lord Commissar, but she costs over twice his points cost.

          In both cases, the inquisitors do nothing to help the guardsmen build up to the valuable and potent Brigade. Yes, if you want a morale-boosting HQ unit, an Inquisitor is more potent than a basic Elite-level commissar, but you have to look at the unit as a whole. I think they’re fine.

    • Yves Ewen

      Well i guess if you took 15 wounds on conscripts, the opponent has made a serious effort to kill them. So they’re already wasted a lot of his firepower and the Conscripts have done their job. Can’t really blame them if they’re not around to get killed some more…

  • I_am_Alpharius

    Breaking News……Turns out it you use a bit of common sense and logic, instead of trying to abuse the rules, you can come to the same conclusion as the rules writers*….

    Well fancy that…how shocking Laurels of Command doesn’t allow you to circumvent the one order per unit per turn rule…who of thunk it…

    Good sensible stuff all around.

    The Commissar Summary Execution update is a interesting change out of the blue and a big one. Constript blobs are truly now not going to be a thing.

    *Admittedly, a lot the clarifications are unfortunate oversights that have crept in.

    • King Renegado

      Actually with laurels (per FAQ) you CAN give orders to the SAME unit twice. You just have to:
      1. Resolve the first order first.
      2. Cannot issue the same order twice. So no aprinting 36 inches across the table and no 2x rank fire.

  • robert-reynolds

    Unfortunate fix to conscript blobs via the commissar they should havd made it d6 wounds for summary execution this fix simply makes them unplayable and certainly not worth it. Shame because it was fluffy GW throwing baby out with bathwater.

    • Heinz Fiction

      Or at least have them automatically roll a 6. In some cases it would not save them but at least it wouldn’t make it worse…

    • I_am_Alpharius

      Although, D6 would make it too harsh against the smaller Infantry units.

  • Nick Wright

    not a guard player, but I’m legitimately bummed about the commissar nerf. Summary execution was an awesomely fluffy rule.

    • GWELLS

      Draconian Disciplinarian warlord trait on one could work I guess. But that would only be for the one.

      The change to Send in the Next Wave I don’t agree with however. I just don’t see it being used in Matched.

      • Inquisitor Corwin

        Matched play isn’t all there is, though. I -love- goofy narrative missions and weird ‘well, why not?’ kind of games. Try some of the narrative missions, as thet can be a hell of a lot of fun.

        • GWELLS

          Fair enough, I could definitely see that working with a Besiege the fort sytle game where endless conscripts rush forward to take a fortress held by the enemy. Valhallan style.

          Unfortunately most of my group prefer matched, ill have to find some converts.

    • Thomas

      Not *that* fluffy. I’d sooner take my chances with a single bolt pistol than a pair of Carnifex or a squad of hellspawned, gigantic Terminators.

      Makes sense for it to be something that has a chance to fail according to how badly the squad is being pummelled, instead of automatically making your guys more courageous than Space Marines.

      That said, perhaps a “pass the test on a 4+ and take d3 mortal wounds” could have been a better solution?

  • GWELLS

    I am happy they cleared up the Tallarn Ambush rule. So you can still do three Russes or Hellhounds behind enemy lines like many have been doing.

  • GWELLS

    The changes to Commisionars may mean people may start actually taking “Draconian Disciplinarian” on a Commisionar instead of “Grand Strategist” as their go-to warlord trait if they want to keep around their Conscripts blobs. Might cut down a bit on the Command Point abuse a little.

  • Tox

    The Forgeworld update is a lazy joke. Malcador tanks are now inferrior to Leman Russes while costing twice the points, Forgeworld Leman Russ tanks didn’t get a points drop, Thunderer tanks are still overcoated (210 points) and can’t double tap their demolisher cannon. The most common question was can DKoK engineers have their Hades Breaching Drill back… Still no FAQ on that despite them still selling the DKoK engineer Hades Breaching Drill set… Lazy phoned in junk of an update.

    • Zingbaby

      Fully agree, why ever take a Malcador?

      • Tox

        I have a Defender and an Annihilator I love how they look, but sadly may be shelved.

  • Carol Wohlmuth

    I hope you all enjoyed the brief span of time between 7th and 8th when you actually fielded commissar models. :p

    • Spacefrisian

      They still seem to function with regular infantry guardsman.

      • Karru

        Not really. Comissars are even more lethal with regular Infantry as you’ll need to always roll for the check and lose that additional model. Rolled a 1 for morale? Too bad, lose one model and re-roll and keep the re-roll.

        • YetAnotherFacelessMan

          ?!?! How?!

          So, laying it out again… if the infantry unit (lets say 9 models, since you took a heavy weapon team) gets shot, you get to use the commissar’s leadership of 8 (or 9 for a lord), rather than the sergeant’s 7.

          Losing 3 guys to shooting,
          Without Commissar: d6+3-7. On a 5 you lose 1, on a 6 you lose 2.
          With commissar: d6+3-8. On a 6 rerolled into 1-5, you lose 1, on a 6 you lose 2.

          Losing 7 guys to shooting,
          Without commissar: d6+7-7. You lose the same amount as the die roll.
          With commissar: d6+7-8. On a 1, you don’t lose anyone. Otherwise, roll a d6 and lose the amount on the die.

          Even losing 7+ guys out of an infantry squad, having a commissar is better than not.

          • King Renegado

            Your math is weak, padwan.
            If a regular infantry unit loses 8 models in the presence of a commissar they ALL die.
            8+d6-8 >8
            Meaning even if they roll a 1 BLAM and the last model runs anyway.
            Commissars are only good for conscripts.

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            Yes… and if there were 9 models and you lost 8 with a sergeant… they’d all be gone also. Notice how I didn’t bring up 8 as an example?

          • King Renegado

            Which brings me full circle to a point I have made many times today: this relegates commissars to ONLY benefitting conscripts.
            For a guy that plays scions and it is one of the few unit buffers we have access to and can transport, this is frustrating.

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            While I would argue that if you’re losing 8 models at a time, the unit is pretty gutted to begin with. If you’re losing 7, you could keep the special weapon and the heavy team at least. If you’re losing only 4 or 5, they’re better than a sergeant.

            Take a commissar if:
            1. You have a unit you expect to get shot and you don’t want to run.
            2. You need to fill elite choices relatively cheaply.
            3. You actually intend to use his power sword or plasma pistol at some point.
            4. Any combination of the above.

            Also, please don’t call people padawan learners. It’s super patronizing, petaQ.

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            Yes… and if there were 9 models and you lost 8 with a sergeant… they’d all be gone also. Notice how I didn’t bring up 8 as an example?

          • Karru

            Here’s the thing about the Commissar. Remember that you HAVE TO re-roll the check. If you lose 7 guys to shooting, and you roll a 1, you lose one model anyway and then you HAVE TO re-roll the result. It is much better to not have him near you anymore, because the “lose 1 model automatically and then re-roll even if you succeed” is a debuff, not a buff. It is much better to have a Company Standard next to them as it gives them the Ld 8 without the 1 auto loss model.

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            You mean if you lose 8 guys, but I get what you’re saying. Hear me now. If you have a leadership 7 sergeant, that means that if you lose 8 guys, you will lose d6+1 guy. Commissar leadership 8 and summary execution means that you would lose d6+1 guy. That is the exact same. If it initial die is discarded no matter what, then what you roll on it is irrelevant, because you have the same chance of rolling a 1 as you do a 6. Each facing is always a 1/6 chance, regardless of whatever die preceded it.

            For conscripts in all situations, or for infantry squads in situations where they lose less than 8 guys, the commissar is better than a lack of a commissar. There is never a negative to having a commissar. EVER.

          • evillsvain

            If you lose 7 men and roll 1 for Morale they pass the test. Commissars let units within 6″ use their Ld value which is 8 and 9 for Lord Commissar. You only lose 1 man and reroll the test if you fail it the first time so having a Commissar near is beneficial most of the time really. And yes, the banner gives +1 Ld but it isn’t a Character model with wargear benefits etc.and will be killed much easier.

    • YetAnotherFacelessMan

      They’re fine, even now. See my big post.

  • Inquisitor Corwin

    This pleases me greatly. As an Imperial Guard player, the army looks much more versatile, capable and interesting, rather than just a Timmy-grade netlist blob fest. Looking forward to taking my Chimaeras off the shelf.

    • GWELLS

      Thats true. This will encourage people to play around with stuff more, instead of just Conscipt Spam and Artillery. AM are probably the most versatile Codex in the game right now.

      Heck the changes to Commisionars might actually encourage people to actually take a different Warlord Trait than just “Grand Strategist”. “Draconian Disciplinarian” on a Commisionar will bring back the old “Summar Execution” more or less. And just one of those in an army will be much more balanced instead of like three but will still allow for Conscipt spam.

      The Tallarn clarification is good.

      • euansmith

        “The Tallarn clarification…”

        That sounds like an thriller by Robert Ludlum or
        Trevanian.

        • GWELLS

          The Tallarn Clarification….

          Coming to theatres Spring 2018………

          May the Gob-Emperor bless this dead world………………………………………………….

          Rated PG

      • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

        Idk, I liked getting reliable, first-turn 5″ charges, hitting on 2+.

        • GWELLS

          You still can. One unit can be vehicles, if its a squadron they can split as normal. So you can have a three Leman Russes in the back field as before.

          • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

            But you have to have a Tank Commander within 6″ of each single tank “outflanking” that you’re going to order to Get Around Them to make that 5″ charge work. It worked just fine when you could put 2 TCs and a pair of Russes in Reserves, but with the nerf, the strategy only really works if you deploy in corners or on long table edges and/or you go second, so you can bait your opponent’s assault units to get in closer, assuming he doesn’t play gunline. Played RAW, this strategy could take just about any list, so long as they didn’t optimize against Alpha Strike.

    • Chad Underdonk

      Who was stopping you “guard” player?

  • matty199

    They need to do the same nerf to the chaos equivalent of send in the next wave. Thanks for making commisars absolutely useless gw

  • Ανέστης Τσιουλάκης

    The relic from Valhallans still uses the previous ability, so you can have that one or two conscripts units with the previous ability.

    • YetAnotherFacelessMan

      Amazing point, Ανέστης! Command Chenkov lives!

      • generalchaos34

        as he should, thats a great way to keep Valhalla as it should be, the grinder of meat and the destroyer of men’s souls

  • Randy Randalman

    Brilliant FAQ. 20 point characters making 120, 3-point Conscripts unbreakable was stupid. No army in the game could trade efficiently; anti-infantry firepower that deletes Wraithguard Tyranid Warriors and Gravis Armor couldn’t make Conscripts run away. It was broken, stupid, and polluting the top tournament tables. Now AM players will actually have to think about how to protect their tanks and artillery, just like everyone else. More importantly, Conscripts will no longer be the default troops of Imperial Soup.

    • memitchell

      Why do you think AM players were not “thinking” by using something in their codex? They didn’t write the rules. They didn’t make a tortured interpretation of the rules. They didn’t abuse the rules. Don’t blame the people who think to use their codex thoughtfully. Oh,and what’s our pure an innocent faction? What are your no-brainer rules?

      • Chad Underdonk

        And most of us still were’t using conscripts as the default because conscripts are only good at standing around and catching bullets.

    • Rob brown

      Totally agree. Thank god the abomination was rectified. Now IG units are strengthened by commissars instead of being made nigh invulnerable. I had 30 conscripts last 6 rounds against 3 carnifexes whereas with this rule amended they’d have lasted 2. About time!

      • Watcherzero

        What do you mean strengthened? Commisars are now worse than banners as they cost you the life of an extra guardmans on a fail.

        • Rob brown

          They’re granting Leadership 8 or 9 so in many cases morale losses will never come into play.

    • Chad Underdonk

      How many games did you play against that list? Or is it all theorycraft like everyone else that was bitching?

      OMG!!! Did you hear what some tournament players did!!!!1111!!!!

      Commissars were fine, conscripts should never have had regimental bonuses and should have had the new commissar rule added to them specifically.

      Now they are quite literally worthless.

      • Rob brown

        Many games. They were infuriating and really disheartening to play against because they do everything better for less points. It’s about time it was fixed. It wasn’t just tournament plays taking multiple blobs of conscripts and bubble wrapping all their units with them.

        • Chad Underdonk

          Even so, the problem was conscripts, not Commissars.

        • King Renegado

          Okay, so the problem was CONSCRIPTS. Not commissars.
          Conscripts should have suffered 2d3 or d6 mortal wounds as a result of summary execution.
          Summary execution itself was not the problem.

          Also, have you ever fought orks or nids? What makes conscripts so much harder to shift than those armies?
          Commissars were at least snippable. Not so much the case when your enemy has nothing but fearless boyz or dozens of synapse monsters everywhere.

          • Rob brown

            The fact that conscripts are shooting rapid fire rifles and cost 3pts! How much is a basic gaunt with a 12″ weapon… 4 points. That’s why nids need synapse.

            It’s what commisars do to cheap troops, conscripts and guards that makes the sorry annoying. The leadership men and women of the guard shouldn’t be immune to morale.

          • King Renegado

            Gaunts also have superior BS, stronger guns and can be respawned by a tervigon or brought through a trygon tunnel.
            They have better offensive potential with the same staying power as conscripts.

          • Christopher A. Herrera

            Gaunts(and many tyranids) also need synapse to not only shoot/assault what’s near like smite status.

            You NEED a synapse babysitter even not suffering casualties.

            Also gaunts have a 6+ unlike conscripts with a 5+…….

          • King Renegado

            Tervigon tunnel is plenty competetive.
            Dude used it and took 3rd at a local tournament.
            You also need to consider something else, it isn’t really a fair comparison to compare a codex army to an index army.
            As of now, certain aspects of tyranids are either over costed(swarmy shouldn’t be 300 pts for example.), don’t do enough damage(heavy venom cannon.), need a better rend, need to hit more often(c-fex with crushing claws.), and definitely a way to shoot characters. (I will touch on that at the end.)
            In the gaunts vs conscripts argument, at 12″ will inflict the exact same damage on each respective squad.

            Can’t quite remember the original topic but I will start to end with this:

            The big issue with the commissar nerf was that it is heavy handed. Commissars are still good, but ONLY for conscripts. If you are a guard player that doesn’t run conscripts (me) they are not good at all because summary execution is basically resolved no differently than a required re-roll at default squad leadership… Which isn’t worth the points.

            GW should have left summary execution alone, but instead errata’d conscripts “raw recruits” rule to make them suffer d6 (or 2d3) mortal wounds as a result of summary execution. Perhapse even increase his point cost by 10 to 15 points in addition the the above.

            Lastly, they should release a universal stratagem that lets an infantry unit target characters regardless if they are the closest model or not for 1 or 2 CP.

            People think I am “just salty” about a nerf, but I am not. I am “salty” because some people are celebrating an OVER nerfing to the WRONG unit as being “balanced and fair.”

            A nerf was needed, but needed for conscripts. Heck, I know how to defeat conscripts spam but I STILL don’t want to play a game against a jerk using 180 of them just because of how long that game would take.

      • CommieTrash

        They can still be okay with the Valhallan relic which prevents more than 1 model fleeing. Their stratagem is basically worthless now though…

    • Spacefrisian

      15 point Astropaths can do it to without shooting some one.

    • King Renegado

      Commissars are 34 pts. Nice try though.
      Unbreakable conscripts were dumb, but this nerf should have been an addendum to the “raw recruits” rule. (Make them suffer 2d3 or d6 mortal wounds instead kf 1 to autopass morale.)

      The nerf to commissars was just stupid.

  • Red_Five_Standing_By

    The Commissar errata is completely anti-fun.

    The original wording was definitely too powerful for 8th edition, especially with how cheap both the conscripts and Commissars were.

    But now, now the Commissar simply is not fun to play with. If you ever sustain heavy casualties and manage to roll low for morale, you HAVE to reroll it. There is no option. That is patently unfun and busted. It is wrong and it should be changed.

    Even if they add the word, “may”, to the rule, I don’t seriously see Commissars ever hitting the table with any kind of regularity. There are niche ways to use them but the codex has better options that most will field instead.

    I am really against these kinds of massive overhauls. This was not just a nerf, it was a complete re-work of the unit. This could have been fixed in a much more gentle way.

    This really makes me fearful for Nids. They have blanket fearless inside of Synapse bubbles. That is just as strong as (if not stronger than) the Commissar’s ability.

    • Chad Underdonk

      Conscripts should have been unable to gain regimental bonuses and 50/50 to kill the commissar and run. They didn’t need to nerf the Commissars considering the weak 8th morale and small squad sizes. Commissars also were not cheap compared to other choices in the army.

      • LankTank

        This I agree with. It was not the commissars but their effect on conscripts. Why not kills D6 conscripts instead of 1 to do the same rule

    • ReverendTiberiusJackhammer

      I’m split on the matter. It’s certainly a fairly drastic change, and I can’t speak to whether or not the model will still be “worth it” in-game. There are certainly times it’ll be more harm than help.

      That said, the “problem” – that the Commissar forces one to re-roll a low, but failed Morale test, likely resulting in even more models fleeing, is thematically brilliant. Often times a Commissar can resolve morale problems with fatal discipline, but sometimes shooting your own troops just makes things worse!

      Edit: Whoops, I whiffed a Commissar rule there. Removed that bit.

    • Heinz Fiction

      I also think it was the wrong way do adress the problem. If I was buying a codex, make purchase descisions based on it and two weeks later whole units get invalidated, I’d probably quit the game. This issue was known since the very beginning of 8th edition and could have been solved IN the codex, not after it’s release.

      • David Smith

        This was my thought too. I have no issues with the fix, in particular, they’re not my army, but why it’s in a FAQ rather than the codex is beyond me. I would have thought that the codex would be where to make the commisar change.

        • Watcherzero

          Its not a fix though, Commisars are now worse than banners, they cost 3 times as much and that extra 1 leadership costs you a guardsmans life if you narrowly fail a roll and forces you to reroll into potentially an even bigger loss of life.

      • Drpx

        Live by the meta, die by the meta.

      • Dennis J. Pechavar

        I’ve owned four Commissars since 3rd Ed when I started IG. They were good for a long time and subpar for a bit as well but they gave my troops stubborn ld to not run. Now they force rerolls no matter how slightly you fail a ld check…and kill yet another trooper. They needed a fix for how they were in this edition but the nerf bat makes it so that I don’t want to field them.

        • Chad Underdonk

          Right?

          I mean conscripts were a joke if included at all for how many editions? Not a core unit at all. And because of what effectively wound up being a short term problem with them we now have a core, iconic, and fluffy character that makes it worse, not better.

          • Dennis J. Pechavar

            I was always looked at funny when fielding commissars before this edition as there was always something better to field. Now I’m “that guy”. Same thing with my fielding conscripts, they were a joke till this edition. I’m just happy that I can field my tanks in this edition as the grav nerf and overall toughness boost to vehicles makes them far more durable.

    • Rob brown

      Except nids can’t endlessless fall back and continue shooting, while hammering you with artillery, deep strike plasma wielding scions and Taurus with half a dozen super weapons – all for a fraction of the points your models cost.

      Nids fearless is strong because it has to be. Though I suspect the penalties for falling out of synapse will be made stricter.

      This change to commisars needed to happen, if for no other reason than to stop IG armies being fun to play. Nobody wants to feel the main reason they won a game was because they were playing with a loaded deck.

      Good job GW great to see they’re paying attention to the impact of the codex and responding.

    • Christopher A. Herrera

      I sort of agree but don’t. This is gonna get salty and ranty so ignore if you want.

      First off on synapse. Remind me again what penalties guardsmen have for being outside of commisaur range? Can they shoot what they want? Charge what they want? MUST BE NICE. CAuse even my 400+ pt superheavies can’t necessarily do that(hierodules). But hey, at least we no longer eat ourselves so yeah.

      Like what. People are going to tell me this one HQ is shooting 5 separate guardsmen in the back when their separate units try to break? Does he even get that many shots when he targets enemies?

      It wasn’t fluffy. It was JUST op imo.

      Maybe this nerf is heavy handed. But they didn’t nerf conscripts really. Their save stayed the same as did their cost post initial borderline nonexistent nerf.

      I’m not sure this was the way to go, but really the commissars at most should be stopping one unit from breaking a turn. Cause what do they cost again? 60 points? You’ll pay at least 90 for the cheapest ignore LD for bugs. OH AND WAIT YOU ACTUALLY GET AN INVULN SAVE ON A CHARACTER UNDER 100 PTS(If you’re under 100 pts you’d have to talk me off a particularly long legged high horse to even justify a 6++ so you can imagine how I feel about maelefic lords).

      Maybe I’m just that salty at conscripts. But like. Tyranids. Meant to blot out even guardmen with numbers. Meant to overrun EVERYONE on raw numbers.

      Cheaper horde unit. More range. Better save. Fodder units benefit from survivability and being cheap more than anything else(imo).

      If I’m running 120 models in my army to be viable and the flavor of the week blots out that number on 50-75% of the cost? Your army needs to get kicked in the face on principle. Like, I want you to have feel badsies. I want you to have feel badsies even if you weren’t that guy. Even if you’ve played guard 30 years. Cause that’s how I’ve felt since the hayday of 4th edition tyranids where GW decided yeah lets keep kicking bugs in the face over and over and over. Cause misery loves company and of all the creatures in 40k the guard should be physically weak outside their metal boxes. Like thjey should have to take armor saves on a 6+ for pissing themselves when enemies get in 6″ to see if they slipped and died in a puddle of urine.

      Oh and lets not forget orders. Those exist. They existed before the codex too. I would totally take a casualty modifier instead of flat auto pass to have the tactical ability to on the fly do multiple different support things to my units in terms of competitive play.

      But while I love the pervasive optimism of most tyranid players online(I quit the tyranid hive forum like 3 times cause of the negativity despite it being an awesome resource), it is TOO SOON for gloom and doom. No codex so far has been remotely close to a nerf this edition. Just the faq’s in post.

    • ReveredChaplainDrake

      Let’s face it, Morale is just stupid this edition, easily being my least favorite core mechanic. Yes, worse than no vehicle facings. Commissar and Conscript interactions were just one of the dumb interactions that happened before.

      Other anomalies include Space Marines being braver in squads of 5 than squads of 10, Necrons being the most cowardly race in the game, and how 1-model units are essentially fearless. Seriously, the color you paint your Leman Russ has arguably more of a gameplay impact than an actual part of their statline.

  • Chad Underdonk

    Fifty points for an extra dead guardsman and a re-roll so I can get a worse result? Oh yeah, I’m buying all of those baby. So glad a few tournament players + a couple of conscript hordes + a bunch of complaining from folks who’ve never even fought the new IG codex yet (much less were at the tournaments or fought conscripts) = nerfing the one and only effective morale buff (and half the viable HQ choices) the IG has. For fiddy points all they do is let you smooth out the results of bad rolls…too bad you’ll still lose several since you can’t even use the Commissars already weakened morale. Nor does officer morale affect your troops any more!!!

    Thanks fellas!!!

    Oh well…thankfully I field the “previously” lackluster Valhallans that halve their morale casualties. I may not get another 8% of hits like those homeless Cadian refugees, but I’ll only lose half the dudes everyone else will on a bad roll!

    • YetAnotherFacelessMan

      Okay. Okay. I hear you… but why not spend 35 points instead, and just not roll the dice twice? Like… if you can’t pass the first die roll, say to your opponent “I fail the first roll” and just roll that good number the first time, since you’re so sure you can roll it. If you have to roll an initial die because your opponent is a stickler, roll it under a cup and never look at it so it won’t bother you. Dice are unrelated. Each die roll is a unique instance and unrelated to previous rolls. Leadership 8-1 is always just as good as Leadership 7, and always better than Leadership 6 or 4. If less than 8 guys this turn, having a commissar is just better than not.

      Though, if I could offer some unsolicited advice… since you really like the old version of the rules and since you’re running Valhallans, might I suggest the Valhallan relic pistol? It has the old version of the rule on it. You could run a “Command Chenkov” platoon commander with your conscripts and make sure they only lose a single conscript each turn. That was the more points-effective option, even before this errata.

      • Chad Underdonk

        Why not spend 35 points instead?

        Probably because my all infantry Valhallan army has way more Elite choices (that are now limited) than it has slots thanks to the movement of Lieutenants, Command Squads, Veteran Squads, Commissars, Preachers, and Special Weapons Squads all from troops (under the platoon system) to Elites. When you are fielding 200 screaming Valhallans you can’t fit everything into Elites…and you need those special weapons sections to make up for the choice of no vehicles.

        So to make up for the fact that I don’t have enough slots I no longer field Lieutenants or Commissars. Instead I field Captains (that I call Lieutenants for fluff) and Lord Commissars (as my representatives of the Commissariat).

        And before someone says I’m trying to skew the game by having so many elite choices…this exact same list was 100% legal and fieldable under the platoon system in 7th, and my Valhallans were purchased and designed to run as “Assault” Infantry well over a decade ago.

        And while I thank you for the unsolicited advice, I have never, nor will never, run conscripts because they aren’t nearly as useful as actually guardsmen. They also are completely unfluffy because the lore states that a Planetary Governor would almost never send anything other than his best troops offworld for the Imperial Tithe as the risk to getting his head blown off by the Commissariat for sending ineffective troops was a direct threat to his own life. Therefore the only time a conscripted guardsman should be around would be on their own homeworld like whiteshields (ooops, they no longer have a homeworld) or because they are locally raised and unblooded to fill gaps in the line (in which case they shouldn’t get regimental bonuses, and don’t deserve to run with my regiments). And while I realize at some point they decided to create some sort of background to give Chenkov conscripts to fulfill some sort of Russian Wave Tactic fever dream of a designer, that was not his initial schtick, nor have I ever appreciated or used that option.

        • YetAnotherFacelessMan

          Okay… so. If you have never and will never run conscripts because they aren’t fluffy, then the only instance you have to complain about in this change is if you lose exactly 5 or exactly 6 casualties in a turn. At which point you will be losing slightly less than 2 and slightly less than 3 casualties from morale on average, as opposed slightly less than one. In all other senses, it’s basically the exact same.

          I think your army sounds fine and fluffy, but you’re a fool if you think you can’t update your force organization for a decade. A brigade and a Vanguard detachment should give you 12 slots for troops and 14 for elites, so I think you’ll be able to fit that just fine.

          I wish you the best in your conscript-free vision of Valhallans. Know that your men, led by a commissar, are basically still immune to morale. The more games you play, the more the outliers should get buried under the average result: 8 is a really good leadership for squads of 10, especially with a reroll built in.

          • Chad Underdonk

            Unless of course I use the combine squads stratagem to give me something better at holding or taking ground.

            As for slots, it takes 14 (which I can reach) to cover all the elites just in the Valhallans for the equivalent of 4 platoons (old style). 6 Command Squads, 8 Special Weapons Squads. That doesn’t count abhumans (and ratlings are incredibly important now), preachers, or simple commissars. And my maximum is 18 slots no matter how I formulate it. Luckily the 9 heavy weapon squads or 8 Infantry squads isn’t a huge challenge to do in formations.

            Its also not a vision, it has long since been a reality.

            http://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/1912541_967993156547795_5638675977765916340_n.jpg?oh=d12e25631d6a0b4200735792c260f1ea&oe=5A70445C

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            Okay, so that seems like you have a wonderful and fluffy force. If you combine guard squads, then a commissar will be helpful up to 7 dead a turn, a lord commissar will be helpful to 8 dead a turn, and beyond that you’ll need to spend more CP. I think commissars are still worth bringing if your combining squads, but they shine in the exact opposite situation as the one you’re used to, and I can see how that’d be jarring.

            As for slots, you might need to bring in a third detachment or spend CP, but you seem to have a very specific vision of what you want to bring, so I’m sure you’ll figure it out. Best of luck, sir. I still think you’re overreacting.

          • Chad Underdonk

            I’m actually not that upset by it after realizing the aura of command existed.

            Its much more about the righteous indignation I feel after getting a key unit nerfed because of a tournament gimmick list and a lot of crying over net lists.

            It isn’t like guard suck now. Its more like someone gave me a really nice gift, then told me it was going to be postage due. Just kind of sours the appreciation.

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            Fair enough!

  • Frank O’Donnell

    At this point you have to ask who is designing the game ? that a rule should get such a complete turn around a 2 weeks after the dex hit is not a good thing for the game designers.

    While yes the rules with the commissar’s needed a change it has now in all honesty gone to far the other way, I wrote on many a form that the commissar rule would be fine if he reduced the amount of models lost by half (rounding up) so if the morel test was failed by 5 or 6 you would lose 3 models.

    Yes I do play guard from time to time but don’t use commissar’s before anyone think’s I’m crying over spilt milk.

    • ZeeLobby

      I don’t think they really “design” the rules. I just think they write them and then fix them, haha.

    • Drpx

      All the codices are already written.

  • Spacefrisian

    Many get real salty that conscripts get nerfed, boohoo. Full regiments of them, what a joke, thats not lore friendly, thats being that annoying person that also moves his 2356 Orks 1 at a time and has only 2 dice.

    • Chad Underdonk

      They didn’t touch conscripts. They went after the commissars which were useful for the whole army.

    • Wildcard1980

      They fix they put in for conscripts worked for me but this the step too far. This rule as been in the game for as long as commissars have been used. If they did like it they should have fixed them by making them more points not by forcing a reroll for a moral test you might not even want too reroll.

  • I_am_Alpharius

    Also note the wording on the Laurels of Command (bolded key parts)

    “Q: If I issue an order to a unit with an Officer who has the Laurels of Command, and I roll a 4+ to issue another order to the same unit, do I resolve the first order before issuing the second?
    A: Yes.

    Some gamers have argued that you issue all orders for the army before using other units and/or resolving them. This makes it clear you don’t. You issue an order and then resolve the effect on the unit, issue an order and then resolve. The order just has to be first action you do when choosing a unit with an Officer in it during the Shooting Phase.

    • Unimpressed

      this still does not change the last sentence of VoC so technically the laurels are still against the rules 😀

      • I_am_Alpharius

        Many abilities “break the rules”, that’s the point of a lot of them. My point is the timing of when orders are issued. Many gamers have be arguing you have to issue ALL your order with every Officer before resolving them. Which is simply not the case.

        • Unimpressed

          it is not about issueing the orders … it is about being affected by more than one order per turn. this is the point i am referring to and which needs clarification by GW. following VoC a UNIT can ONLY be AFFECTED by ONE ORDER PER TURN. so if you play the game RAW the laurels are technically useless even if GW intends that the laurels overrule VoC.

  • Valeli

    People running 100+ unbreakable conscripts were definitely abusing things, but I rather liked the old rule in less abusive situations.

    Maybe they could have just limited commissars squads of “x” size, and set another limit on commisars/army or something to keep the rule but stop the abuse.

    Thus new take is a bit lack luster as has been said by some. More troubling to me is having the base rule to something so significantly changed from what is said in the books I (assume?) Are still being sold without clarification.

    Not a problem for competitive folk. But it’s more obnoxious to some new player who just got a book, shows up for a game, and is told his book is full of lies.

    Faq’s aren’t bad, but this seems a bit like throwing out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak.

    • Drpx

      This is the Imperium, we don’t throw the baby out, we shoot it from a cannon.

    • 301stFeinminsterArmoured

      Outperforming Astartes in Morale, despite having half their Leadership is a failure of design. Giving Guardsmen a low-yield version of ATSKNF at a cost is more elegant than wasting page space with a bunch of exceptions.

  • Drpx

    How did they get “neuter Commissars” from “Conscripts are undercosted”?

    • Lebowski1111111111

      undercost compared to what, a 4 point guardsman with better BS and WS and access to special weapons? or are guardsman by extension also undercost?

      the problem was they were effectively immune from morale and could be in large units, even a 30 man squad is large from the codex , ive got no problem with it and i play guard.

  • YetAnotherFacelessMan

    It’s so weird reading all the people freaking out about the commissar change… we all knew that conscripts ignoring leadership was one of the problems, yeah?

    So, let’s run through the scenarios. Let’s take a hypothetical unit of conscripts with a commissar and hurt them, then see if they’d be better of if he weren’t there.

    3 conscripts shot to death:
    Conscripts without: d6+3-4. On a roll of a 1, none flee.
    With Commissar: d6+3-9. No conscripts flee, even on a 6.

    5 conscripts shot to death:
    Conscripts without: d6+5-4. You’re losing between 2 to 7 conscripts.
    With Commissar: d6+5-9. On a 1-5, you pass. On a 5-6, you lose a conscript and reroll. That means you have a 2/3 chance of passing, a 2/9 chance of losing 1 conscript, a 1/18 chance of losing 2, and a 1/18 chance of losing 3. That’s 0.39 conscripts lost on average.

    9 conscripts shot to death:
    Conscripts without: d6+9-4. You’re losing between 6 to 11.
    With Commissar: d6+9-9. You can’t pass anymore, so you lose the 1 for execution and your first roll is irrelevant. You’re losing 2 to 7.

    So, long story short, if you’re losing around 5 conscripts a turn, the commissar’s leadership boost will basically negate the morale. If you’re losing above 9, his leadership will reduce the losses by 4 guardsmen. Still worth it, in my eyes.

    • Wildcard1980

      Your forgetting that unless you are talking about your warlord there is no LD sharing so your going off of the LD of the conscripts only no matter who is rolling.

      • YetAnotherFacelessMan

        Oh my lord! EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU! Page 101! Your codex! Read it!

        • James Regan

          by this point of scrolling down through this comments section I feel your pain and I don’t even own the AM codex.

        • Wildcard1980

          Your right forgot about that but doesn’t stop them from being useless now. But I do admit when I’m wrong.

        • I_am_Alpharius

          Read* a Codex? Are you MAD!!!!

          *but so true.

    • Simon Bates

      You make a very good point here. A lot of us have been thinking “but what if I can’t pass the morale test but make a relatively low roll and have to re-roll it?” It’s very simple, don’t make the first roll, since it doesn’t matter. Agree with your opponent that you’ll just add 1 to your morale test roll to allow for the futile Summary Execution.

      In general, what the Commissar’s rules now really mean is that you get to make a “pass or fail” morale test using his leadership value, before taking a real test. If you pass, then you take no casualties; if you fail you take a normal morale test and suffer one additional casualty even if you pass. Considering that all AM infantry units are getting at least +1 Ld from the Commissar (+2 for a Lord), the additional casualty suffered for failing the first test is negated by the boost to the Ld anyway. Looked at this way – where the initial morale test roll is irrelevant beyond whether it is a pass or a fail – the worst that can happen is the Commissar makes no difference and even then only if he is providing just a single point Ld boost. Every other possible outcome (where either test is passed, or where both tests are failed but the Commissar is boosting the unit’s Ld by more than 1 point) will be an improved outcome compared to the Commissar not being present.

      • YetAnotherFacelessMan

        Yes*! Thank you!

        *(With the exception of Vallhalan conscripts that have lost 20+ models in one turn.)

  • I’ve always found it amusing that if something isn’t busted, then the community at large will voice that its not worth taking.

    • YetAnotherFacelessMan

      And how many of that community will then talk absolute nonsense about said units even though they’ve clearly never read the unit’s entry in the codex…

  • ReveredChaplainDrake

    Lot of complaints about the Commissar thing. Honestly, I would’ve made it an optional thing you can do, so that it would only bite you in the rear if you got greedy or unlucky, which is even what it sounds like it should be. But no, I double-checked. Mandatory. If this *were* a typo (e.g. missing a “may” somewhere), what would people think of that fix? I may hate IG, but I hate skornergy more. I’d be saltier if Commissars allied to GSCs now physically *do not function at all anymore*, but hey.

    Speaking of skornergy (and IG rules not working), I don’t like the implication that Genestealer Cults *can* take Officers, but the Officers can’t give orders anymore. Not just the specific orders. Any of them. Anybody else catch that? Oh well, guess I’ll just ally in Tank Commanders, Manticores, Wyverns and Baneblades, all of which I can keep behind a wall of synapsed gribblies. Just as Games Workshop intended for Tyranids to function. 😛

    Another potential oversight that I didn’t see get brought up amidst all the ‘muh Commissar’: while the Cult Russ now has Grinding Advance, it doesn’t have the updated Emergency Plasma Vents.
    Nice going, GW. You *almost* had it.

    • Simon Bates

      Fluff-wise it makes more sense for it to be mandatory, but I’d probably have allowed it as an option instead to make it more fun for gaming. It really isn’t as bad as lots of people seem to think though.

      I think you’re wrong about orders though. I understand this to meant that Brood Brothers officers can give orders to Brood Brothers Infantry, with “Brood Brothers” being, in effect, a Regiment of their own.

  • Ronin

    As someone who played guard since 6th, HA! I don’t have to feel as guilty about running my army.

  • Wildcard1980

    To everyone who says that shooting one person cant be as scary as the people shooting at them, its also a reminder that even if they run away now the commissar will still kill them later in a more horrible way then the enemy and as good measure kill there families also. Thats what makes them scarier Not to mention this now makes commissar useless. So instead of making it something along the lines of even making it a 50/50 thing with conscripts so it works along the same lines as orders. They just made them a waste of points, I would rather that a HW SQD of morters for 33 points then a commissar at this point or more conscripts .

    • King Renegado

      This. The point of the commissar was as a tax to make troopers not run.
      And at 34 pts and a meseley 3 wounds at T3, he isnt hard to get rid of.
      As it is now, there is no point in bringing him, since for his cost I could just get another squad to try to do some damage, reduce the incoming enemy attack and lower my chances of taking a morale check in the first place.

      • Munn

        ‘He isn’t hard to get rid of’ pffft. I get thinking it was a step too far but stow that garbage. Picking out a Commissar behind 180 conscripts was almost impossible against a halfway decent guard player. Picking out his 3 buddies was a pipe dream.

      • Wildcard1980

        Your right I forgot about that but didn’t change the fact that they are useless now.

    • Simon Bates

      “To everyone who says that shooting one person cant be as scary as the people shooting at them, its also a reminder that even if they run away now the commissar will still kill them later in a more horrible way then the enemy and as good measure kill there families also.”
      Maybe, but that only works if they think the Commissar will live long enough to make good on the threat. Arguments to realism are a slippery slope, but it was a slightly odd abstraction that executing one trooper *always* results in nobody else fleeing.

      As to his overall impact, for LD7 and (especially) lower units, the Commissar is still an overall net gain in terms of models not lost to morale checks in all conceivable situations, except when he breaks even. No unit that gains from the Commissar’s Ld value (ie has a Ld lower than 8) will ever really lose more models, (except, Vallhallan conscripts taking 20+ losses) as a consequence of Summary Execution than they would have done if they had not been in range of the Commissar.

  • Rainthezangoose

    Everyone else: “Moral Immunity makes horde armies broken and they are completly dominating the meta”
    Imperial Guard Players: “Waaaah my broken commissars are fair now Waaaaah”

    • Wildcard1980

      This was far from fair, instead of raising point cost or possible making the rule similar to the 4+ that they did with orders from officers they made them useless. Your better off taking more CC or PC now to get the orders out or just buying more conscripts then taking a commissar now.

  • Simon Chatterley

    I own a footblob Astra Militarum army that I was aiming to play as 10 infantry squads, 6 heavy weapon teams, 6 special weapon teams and a Command Squad. I have 1 Lord Commissar who will be deployed in the middle with Nork Deddog and the Commander.

    I couldn’t be happier right now TBH. Conscripts were never right and I felt another nerf was absolutely needed.

    The Ogryn hyperloop was the product of the single worst rule I’ve ever read on release. Clearly not proof read by someone who plays the game or understands English.

    • Mateusz Kuzio

      Conscripts are not nerfed. They stay the same, only commissars are touch by those changes. If u want to make morale resistant 180 conscripts, then there are more than enough ways to do it.

  • Yves Ewen

    Well it was about time. Every AM player and imperial soup player with a competitive build in mind started his build with the no brainer conscript blob. This is just detrimental to list building as much as it is for the games on the table. I can’t understand people really complaining that this was removed.
    You can however argue about the way it was done.
    I do feel for the guys that waited out AM Codex to be sure that said blobs were not nerfed into oblivion before buying into them, and now GW sneaks up from behind with the steel chair of nerfing, so they’re pretty much done for from one day to the other. These guys wasted a lot of money for sure, and i can understand they’re pretty pissed now.
    Even if it doesn’t change the fact that this was necessary.

    • Wildcard1980

      This rule every talk about as if it’s not been around since commissars have been around in 40k and now your right as this was one of the Worest ways to do this type of rules change. But the problem is in that we can now take as many of something as we want so instead of limiting he number of commissars to say 2 or 3 we can now take 5-6. That’s the biggest thing I have seen about 8th is there isn’t a limit of something it’s just throw down and go. So instead of fixing a problem that can effect any character spam with tons off Assassins or primus Psyker’s. The flaw is the whole system not this one rule. There where also better ways to change the rule.

  • Marco Marantz

    I have to say; the time between the FAQ and codex, and the changes they put in the FAQ, just boggles my mind. The fact that they didnt include these changes in the codex just shocks me. Its like they must not have even play tested the codex. Very poor.

  • Angus MacKenzie

    Frankly the change to commissars are was needed and they definitely got nerfed. However I see no issue with the new way they work now. They basically function to prevent additional casualties to units like conscripts after the unit has taken low to moderate damage.

    Conscripts have Ld 4 and a 50/50 of losing additional models if they suffer even 1 casualty. The commissar doubles their Ld (and that of ALL other conscript units nearby). The commissar ability only starts to become a problem if the unit suffers more than about 5 casualties.

    Consider that the conscripts have watched half dozen of their friends be vaporized and rather than fight the walking death robots what dun it, they book it, commissar be damned. As for the chance of extra casualties from the reroll, we’ll just pretend the commissar got pistol-happy and shot a few more as they ran, effectively increasing panic and making the situation worse.

    Seems reasonable until you realize that I just got fluff into your hyper-realistic, min-maxed, points-efficient war simulator that’s strictly designed for competitive, tournament play. And we can’t have that. All we can have is whining….and completely justified self-righteous anger (sarcasm) at “GW” for not knowing how to make the game they’ve successfully mass-produced for over 3 decades (and likely 1/3 more time than most players have been alive).

    • Wildcard1980

      People seem to be saying this was needed when this FAQ makes commissar now more a liability then a benefit. The way it’s FAQ say you have to make the reroll if you fail the test and you lose an extra model so if you take a bunch of caulties and fail even on a one and your lucky enough to get one on your first roll you still have to reroll which even if you only roll a three you have still lost 4 guys more then you would have without one. Also even if you do roll higher on the first roll you would have to roll at least two less to make it work in your favor so how he F is that in any way a good change. There are so many ways they could have fixed this by if nothing else Doubling there point for a start or something like that. Not by changing a rule that has been around for the better part of over 30 years. So it’s now completely useless to take them it’s now better to just take another PC or even CC and get the LD. Not to mention many of the people bitching and IG being unbeatable comes from the fact they are still using index’s and don’t have the full use of stratagems and relics and the like. So a this point GW has just made sure they will never sell another Commissar model for as long as this is in place. Also to so completely change a rule not even a full month, hell bearly two weeks after a book has been released is so piss poor.

      And just since you put it out there I have been playing for almost 25 years.

  • memitchell

    The should have changed the rule to:
    SUMMARY EXECUTION: Apparently we simply can’t get this rule right. Therefore, it’s cancelled.

    It would work great in its new, present form if the Moral Check was pass-fail. Then, for the price of one slain model, the unit would get a re-roll to pass the test, and maybe not retreat or something. Which was the original intention of the entire concept, dating back many versions of the game.

    But, failed Moral Checks also inflict damage. And, sometimes a unit has lost so much it will auto-fail its Moral Check. With this new rule, which seems to have been written by someone unfamiliar with the new Moral rules, it’s quite possible to auto-fail the check. Then, lose a model to SE, and then re-roll and autofail the re-check, and maybe incur even worse damage. Or, just barely fail the check (with a maximum penalty of losing one model). And, be forced to still lose a model to SE, and still barely fail the re-check, and now have to lose another model for no benefit at all. Or simply be forced to risk a worse result

    To add to the confusion, it only comes into play for the first failed Moral check of the Moral Phase. So, chose the order you take Moral tests wisely. Or, more specifically, the order you fail Moral checks.

    Meanwhile, your Tyranid opponent’s Synapes creatures do not even take Moral checks, and somehow that’s more fair than the Commissar having limited a unit’s Moral failure damage to one model, instead of no models. If the “problem” was Conscripts, then fix conscripts. Instead of making the Commissar something of a liability to other infantry. With regular Infantry, the Commissar’s Aura of Discipline might save the loss of one model. Or, at the price of loosing one more model, cause the possible loss of even more models. WTF?

    • YetAnotherFacelessMan

      “Incur even worse damage”.

      I can’t even anymore. Find my posts. Look at my chart. Read my breakdown. I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.

      • Wildcard1980

        We are talking about in a situation where say you fail the check by one and would only lose one guy. Now your forced to reroll and fail by 3 so now you lose 4 guys. So now instead just being a LD bubble now they can cause more problems. That’s the issue people have not your chart and it’s more the principle about taking a rule that works in the same way as any mod army from the ork LD mod rule to Tyraind synap and makes it the most useless moral rule so far. They would have been better off just getting ride of it all together

        • YetAnotherFacelessMan

          OHMYLORDHOW MANY TIMES?!

          Okay. Let’s make sure I understand what you’re talking about. You’re saying that if you have a unit of infantry and you roll a morale test and get a 1, you’re afraid that a commissar would make you reroll that 1 and potentially get a worse result? Is that your concern? I’m not misrepresenting you?

          Okay… if it is possible for the commissar to pass the morale test on a 1, let’s say 7 guys have died, then 0 models flee. On everything else, you reroll and lose a guardsmen. Then, you’re losing 1 guy for each pip on the die, since you’re losing (d6+7-8)+1, which simplifies down to d6-1+1, or just d6. Following me? So, the commissar has a 1/6 chance of losing no guardsmen, then a 5/6 chance of losing as many guardsmen as a sergeant would, if 7 guardsmen died. That’s always better than a conscript and almost always better than a sergeant (equal to a sergeant if it’s a base commissar and the sergeant is near a regimental standard).

          But you’re not talking about that, right? You’re talking about when failure is guaranteed. Okay. So, let’s talk about failure being guaranteed. Now, first of all, I reject your premise. I think it’s bad statistics. BUT, let’s take it at face value. Let’s say 12 conscripts just died. It’s a guaranteed loss, either way. Let’s say you roll a ONE. The absolute BEST possible roll. That’s 1+12-4=9. Nine conscripts run. Now, let’s say you have a commissar, who also rolls a one initially, then BLAMs someone and rerolls into a 4. 4+12+1-8=9. If you reroll the absolute best result into the average result, the results are the same.

          “But you’re talking about rerolling the best result into the average result. What if you roll the absolute best result into the absolute worst result,” you might ask. I’ll answer. THE SAME THING AS IF YOU REROLLED LITERALLY ANYTHING INTO THE ABSOLUTE WORST RESULT! Dice don’t care! They don’t have memory! If you can’t pass the first test, it DOESN’T MATTER what the first result is! IT HAS NO BEARING!

          Lets say that you have a die that is guaranteed to roll a 1 because you’re a cheater. You have the same conscript scenario. 1+12-4=9. Commissar turn. You take some other non-weighted die and you THROW IT INTO THE PARKING LOT! Whatever number it rolled, you roll your loaded die as a reroll. 1+12+1-8=6. You’re better off on the same roll! Look at that!

          Let’s say you DON’T have loaded dice! In that case, take a d6 and roll it. Apply whatever number you get as the conscripts’ first roll and the commissar’s second. What about the commissar’s first roll? Take one of your d6s and THROW IT INTO THE PARKING LOT! It doesn’t matter what the first d6 was, because it has no bearing on the second d6.

          Let’s take the average of d6s instead. These are pure and perfect dice that always roll an average of 3.5 over time. 3.5+12-4=11.5…. 3.5+12+1-8=8.5

          Do you think a poxwalker with a 7+ armor and 5+++ DR is more durable than a terminator?! What if you roll a 1 and then reroll it into a 5+?! MADNESS! STOP!

    • generalchaos34

      are we all forgetting the Ld 8-9 bonus from the Commissar in the first place? typically if you are failing a check you are failing it BIG, meaning a reroll isnt going to be much worse, and you might even get that 1 to mitigate it, im not a fan of the “must” take the reroll bit from a rules perspective but that is a very very Guard type of rule “There are no cowards in this regiment!”.

  • YetAnotherFacelessMan

    I don’t know if anyone is still reading this, but I drew up a helpful chart. As you can see, any given number for conscripts and up to 8 losses for infantry, the commissar will reduce casualties from morale.

    At 8 losses, the commissar is the exact same as a sergeant, which is to say that the minimum result is still a destroyed unit (unless you combined squads earlier in the game, in which case the commissar is still the same as having a sergeant).

    Long story short: Commissars reduce casualties from morale.

    http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/91a5a38dfd8965a4ff36da1e804a239df3ab5320780fb82d704ad66b25624ff9.png

    • YetAnotherFacelessMan

      For those of you interested, here is the pre-nerf chart. Look how stagnant that morale phase is. Why even bother killing conscripts? You’ll never kill enough of them. (Valhallans can still do this, utilizing their relic.)

      http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fb21ed2eb36a813a5e3f6e154ac9c910d25e3183b133b9b2ab886903deaa097d.png

    • Wildcard1980

      Your chart fails to mention that having a commissars can cause more Dmg because you have to reroll the test it’s and can get a worest result.

      • YetAnotherFacelessMan

        OHMYLORDHOW MANY TIMES?!

        Okay. Listen. Let’s say you roll a die and you get a 2. If you’re using a regular sergeant, that 2 is final, right? If you’re rolling a commissar, that 2 is rerolled. That’s your example? I’m not misrepresenting your concern?

        Okay… if the commissar can pass on a 1, let’s say 7 guys have died, then 0 flee on a roll of 1. On everything else, you reroll and lose a guardsmen. Then, you’re losing 1 guy for each pip on the die, since you’re losing d6+1-1. Following me? So, the commissar has (1/6)*0+(1/36)*1+(1/36)*2+(1/36)*3+(1/36)*4+(1/36)*5+(1/36)*6 lost guardsmen on average. This is always superior to the alternative, so long as there is a chance to pass the morale test.

        But you’re not talking about that, right? You’re talking about when failure is guaranteed. Okay. So, let’s talk about failure being guaranteed. Now, first of all, I reject your premise. I think it’s bad statistics. BUT, let’s take it at face value. Let’s say 12 conscripts just died. It’s a guaranteed loss, either way. Let’s say you roll a ONE. The absolute BEST possible roll. That’s 1+12-4=9. Nine conscripts run. Now, let’s say you have a commissar, who also rolls a one initially, then BLAMs someone and rerolls into a 4. 4+12+1-8=9. If you reroll the absolute best result into the average result, the results are the same.

        “But what if you roll the absolute best result into the absolute worst result,” you might ask. I’ll answer. THE SAME THING AS IF YOU REROLLED LITERALLY ANYTHING INTO THE ABSOLUTE WORST RESULT! Dice don’t care! They don’t have memory! If you can’t pass the first test, it DOESN’T MATTER what the first result is! IT HAS NO BEARING!

        Lets say that you have a die that is guaranteed to roll a 1 because you’re a cheater. You have the same conscript scenario. 1+12-4=9. Commissar turn. You take a second die and you THROW IT INTO THE PARKING LOT! Whatever number it rolled, you roll your loaded die as a reroll. 1+12+1-8=4. You’re better off on the same roll! Look at that!

        Let’s say you DON’T have loaded dice! In that case, take a d6 and roll it. Then compare that number to conscripts and to commissars. What about the first roll? Take one of your d6s and THROW IT INTO THE PARKING LOT! It doesn’t matter what the first d6 was, because it has no bearing on the second d6.

        Let’s take the average of d6s instead. These are pure and perfect dice that always roll an average of 3.5 over time. 3.5+12-4=11.5…. 3.5+12+1-8=8.5

        Do you think a poxwalker with a 7+ armor and 5+++ DR is more durable than a terminator?! What if you roll a 1 and then reroll it into a 5+?! MADNESS! STOP!

        • Wildcard1980

          So for all your talk about numbers. Your talking about two different rules. Your combining both the LD bubble and sacrifice rules. Yes your numbers for the LD bubble are spot on but if you take the separately.

          So take your first test. Your have a one in six chance of no loses now you roll a 2 that means you lose one man because you failed by one. Now your forced to reroll since loseing one guy is a definite because with the rule you have to lose one guy same result a two now because of the rule you lose one guy to the dice roll and now one to the commissar. So because of the rule you lost an extra guy just because now if the rule was optional it would be bad but because we have to reroll it really sucks. Also we can take it at the other end. They kill 14 guys in a no way to pass that test. Best you can hope for is to lose 7 guys because your already over the leader ship 8 but again you say a 4 now you reroll and get a 3 guess what you still lost the same amount of troops because only a 1 or 2 would have give you a better result since you still have to kill one guy.

          Because while in the world big numbers and laws of avages the have the LD bubble helps a lot but your talking about two different rules. And yes the LD sThey would have been better off just ditching the whole rule and just make it a reroll failed LD test or just throw it out and just give us the LD bubble. Now we get the Worest of both rules because we don’t get the choice to use it or not.

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            Okay. If the rule summary execution were removed, your average deaths on an EXACT AMOUNT of 7 deaths WOULD drop from 2.9 to 2.5, assuming the commissar still applied his leadership bubble of 8. Either way, an infantry squad would be wiped on average, so I assume we’re talking about conscripts. Conscripts in this situation would lose 6.5 models on average. When 4 models die, the commissar we have and the hypothetical commissar without summary execution both average the same lost models to morale. With 3 models dying, the summary execution reduces the average. In all instances where success is possible, the summary execution increases the chance of only losing 1 model without changing the chances of losing 0 models.

            I’ve never debated that the commissar kills an extra guy in the instance of a failure. I’m saying that the commissar who has both rules simultaneously CAN NOT create an instance where his presence causes MORE DAMAGE to a squad than his absence would (outside of having a second leadership-buffing unit, like Greyfax).

            My chart does NOT compare a commissar to a hypothetical commissar without summary execution, because COMMISSARS HAVE THAT RULE. That hypothetical commissar is just a thought experiment and has no place on my chart.

            I understand you’re upset about the change… but please understand that my chart doesn’t show whether the change was good or bad. My chart doesn’t show whether the change was well executed.

            My chart shows how commissars, even now, reduce casualties by morale. If you add a commissar, your average morale-based deaths will decrease. That’s just the way the math works. If you pay the extra points and add an Inquisitor instead (especially Greyfax), your average morale deaths will decrease even more. If you use the valhallan relic, your morale deaths will decrease even more.

            But at no time is the commissar actually a detriment to an otherwise unescorted unit.

          • Wildcard1980

            Your going by the numbers without regards to how reality works. Please explain with your charts. If in a game I on my first roll I would have lost less people then being given a reroll and auto loseing an extra guy for the effort isnt a crappy rule, especially making us take the reroll even if we dont want to. So for all your mouthing off reality beats your math.

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            If the first die can’t succeed, you’re upset that it HURTS YOUR FEELINGS?!

            Okay. Let’s do this.

            You have 6 initial numbers that the die could result in, and 6 numbers that the die could be rerolled to.

            If you roll a X into a Y, I will call that X/Y. Here we go.

            1/1: Nothing Changed. Just roll 1 die with a leadership of 7 and get 1.
            1/2: Nothing Changed. Just roll 1 die with a leadership of 7 and get 2.
            1/3: Nothing Changed. Just roll 1 die with a leadership of 7 and get 3.
            1/4: Nothing Changed. Just roll 1 die with a leadership of 7 and get 4.
            1/5: Nothing Changed. Just roll 1 die with a leadership of 7 and get 5.
            1/6: Nothing Changed. Just roll 1 die with a leadership of 7 and get 6.

            [More of the same]

            6/1: OH MY GOD, THE SPECIAL RULE SAVED YOU GUYS AND SOMEHOW THIS GETS IGNORED?!??!?!?!? Wait, no. It’s the exact same as 1/1. Just roll 1 die with a leadership of 7 and get 1.

            When you roll a morale test and you roll a 6, do you ever think to yourself “Oh man, if I reroll this, I might get another 6”? You might. You have a 1/6 chance of getting another 6 if you reroll it. Each die roll is a unique event that doesn’t care what you’re rerolling it off of.

            You want to talk about reality? Do you ever see Death Guard players roll armor saves for their poxwalkers against Heavy Bolters? They could pass their armor save on a 8+. I’ve never seen it once.

            What if they rolled a 6 on their armor save, but then rolled a 1 on their disgustingly resilient? Wouldn’t that just be terrible?! No. No it wouldn’t. No one rolls the armor save because the armor save can’t be passed. It doesn’t matter.

            Now, when 4 guardsmen die, the commissar’s reroll matters. When 6 guys die, the reroll matters. When 7 guys die, you still have a chance of losing 0 on a roll of 1. Beyond that, the commissar is effectively leadership 7.

            That is fine to me. When trying to contain a mass panic because an entire squad’s worth of guys were just erased, a commissar is only as good as a sergeant, but always better than a conscript.

            In “reality”, you won’t ever EVER roll the first roll unless there’s a chance 0 conscripts will run. If it’s 8 or more conscripts lost, just say “I autofail the first one, so this roll is the second one. 1 guy dies to the commissar, leadership 8, here we go” and roll the die.

            That’s reality. I have no idea what you’re talking about.

            Chart, as per your request:
            http://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f57a7641718e3b9d6733108fd5472bd73e6036c1b3c011abfebe0bf52a22f049.png

    • King Renegado

      Only for conscripts. That is the point I keep trying to drive home. Commissars are still beneficial to conscripts.
      For all other regimental infantry, they simply grant a re-roll at an ld7 equivalent.
      For their cost, it isn’t worth it foe anything other than conscripts.

  • Fredddy

    So, they nerfed infantry IG to death after 3 weeks. Whats for next FAQ? Bikedar move max 6″? SM roll armorsave no better than 4+? Battlewagon transport capacity 5 models?

    • Rob brown

      To death, wow there was clearly a lot riding on those commisars. Must have been a broken rule if removing means all infantry are now useless.

      • Fredddy

        Without commissar you kill one, you get two dead. And the nerf of send in the next wave hurts too.

        • YetAnotherFacelessMan

          If you kill “one”, the sergeant’s base leadership lets you ignore that, even on a 6.

          Oh. You sound like you’re saying “If you kill one CONSCRIPT”. Rob Brown was saying that there is more to infantry IG than just conscripts.

          Also, you’re mistaken. If you kill a single conscript, with their base leadership, you’re losing 1 on average, not 2. d6+1-4 = d6-3, so you lose none on a 1-3, 1 on a 4, 2 on a 5, and 1 on a 6.

          (1/2)*0+(1/6)*1+(1/6)*2+(1/6)*3=
          (1/6)+(2/6)+(3/6)=
          6/6= 1 average.

          Now, if you add a new commissar, it’s the same as it was for the old commissar up to killing 3 at once, where there is a 1/36 chance the commissar will kill one and still let another flee/get shot.

          This chance increases slightly with each extra dead conscript, until eventually your opponent actually stands a chance of making the conscripts’ weakness come into play… unless you add command points, a psyker, or the valhallan relic.

          Please see my charts. I posted them just before your original post, if you sort posts by “Newest”.

          • Fredddy

            No one cries about 7-8 dead conscripts, 15+ dead are where things really matter. And standing a chance of making the conscripts’ weakness come into play- really? People really had no chance against a unit of 5+/5+, A1? So that they had to look so desperately for that very little hope of finding a weakness of that unbreakable iron wall of Sv5+? Not even a thermal exhaust port leading into the main reactor of those T3 W1 murder machines? Whoa.

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            When 15+ conscripts die, commissars will reduce the amount of dead conscripts.

            If 15+ is what matters, my point stands that you still have literally every other unit of IG infantry.

            If you happen to play Valhallans, they can still use the relic.

            If you can manifest a psychic power on a 4+, then one unit can be flat immune to leadership.

            However, the way conscripts were previously, it was near-impossible for an opposing army to have enough shots to kill them over the course of the game. A unit of space marines shooting the entire game at one unit of conscripts might cause enough wounds to kill it. That’s not healthy for the hobby.

            Now, if you focus down the conscripts, you force your opponent to make a decision: Pay the CP to save them, or lose some more conscripts. Previously, it didn’t matter. Your opponent just pulled 1 more conscript at the end of the turn… because why would he NOT invest in a commissar?

            Commissars are still useful. They’re just no longer a T3 W40 superheavy tank. (Though you can still have two T3 W30 superheavy tanks with the valhallan relic.)

          • Fredddy

            Conscripts are not unkillable, they might not run (if you dont have a sniper…), but otherwise they die easily. People always had the tools to kill them, they just refuse to use them. They make armies as if there were only MEQ opponents and wonder that how those pesky hordes eat their 20 man strong armies. They need time to forget the slightly updated versions of their 7th ed armies and adapt to the new era where a horde army is actually a thing.

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            I believe you, really I do… but let’s take one of the most cost-effective tools of killing conscripts out there: The mortar. It can shoot conscripts without LoS and without fear of retaliation. A single mortar shoots 3.5 shots a turn and kills 1.6 conscripts a turn on average. A wyvern is also a great choice for killing conscripts. It shoots 14 shots a turn, killing 8.2 conscripts. Adding another 0.82 conscripts from the heavy bolter, you’re taking out 9 of them a turn. It would take 3 turns of dedicated fire for a wyvern to wipe out a squad of conscripts with a pre-nerf commissar’s buff, and it’s probably one of the best options.

            But most armies don’t bring mortars and wyverns. Space marines, for instance, might bring a razorback with twin heavy bolters and think that’s a fair bit of anti-infantry for its points. Hitting 4 shots a turn and killing 2.2 conscripts a turn, it would take 10 turns for that anti-infantry choice to take out a unit of conscripts.

            Yes, you can tailor your list to conscripts take them out… but it’s more difficult for some armies than others. If a space marine player can focus fire on a single unit of conscripts in order to take them out through morale, I think the game will be better for it.

          • Fredddy

            HB is not anti-infantry, at least not anti-light infantry. Bring tactical marines. 50-60 of them. For a unit of 10, 6 dead conscript from shooting, 3 more from cc.
            A marine army of 8-10 barefoot 10 man tacticals, some cheap HQ and lascannon/ml devs kills an entire IG army in 2-3 turns and killing 100 MEQ is much harder task than killing 200 guardsmen/conscripts.

          • Chad Underdonk

            Actually 3 Devastator squads with 4 heavy bolters is one of the more effective horde busters the marines have. 3+ to wound and -1 save tends to make a dent. The problem being that they can’t take casualties without making them relatively expensive.

            Whirlwinds are slightly less effective, but much more resilient considering they can hide and still be effective. Three Whirlwinds at 300 points would be effective at reducing hordes over a five or six round game to manageable levels while the rest of the army concentrates on the killy stuff.

            Neither of which are in common usage right now. And players being lazy would rather scream for a nerf than change their army or collect new units to adapt to the times.

          • YetAnotherFacelessMan

            Okay, so in order to fight against 200 conscripts, which runs 600 points, you’d like a marine player to bring 1400 points of no-upgrade marines? Assuming the the marines can kill 9 conscripts each turn like in your example, with the previous version of the commissar’s ability, assuming they took no casualties along the way, it would take a unit of 10 marines 3 turns to kill 30 conscripts.

            Setting aside the idea that people might not own that many bolter marines, as special weapon marines are popular (and for good reason), it would take the marines 3 turns to kill “their weight” in conscripts. It would take 100 marines 3 turns to kill 300 conscripts, sure. However, 300 conscripts is still only 900 points. For the 500 extra points, you could bring anti-everything weapons of your own, like a basilisk. A cadian basilisk kills 2.28 marines a turn, does so from well beyond the marines’ range, and costs around 100 points. For the difference between the conscripts and marines, you could bring 5 basilisks and erase 10 marines a turn before we get into lasguns vs bolters. Every marine lost decreases the speed they can kill conscripts, but they have no defense against the basilisks, because they only have bolters and one krak grenade, at best.

            I’m not just speaking in hypotheticals here. The tournament list that kicked off the conversation that led to this nerf featured heavily hundreds of conscripts supported by commissars, basilisks, and scions. As your marines move 6″ a turn and shoot at the mass of human bodies, it’s the artillery that’s doing the work. If you bring units to counter the artillery, that’s less bolter shots for the conscripts.

            Now, if you’d said that the answer were tanks, I’d agree with you… if not for two things. Firstly, the artillery supporting the conscripts in the above example is strength 9 and does d3 damage, so it’s great at pounding tanks into submission. Secondly, the conscripts are great at securing objectives, as they outnumber many other units, even the ones with objective secured.

            Getting back to the original thrust of the conversation: Conscripts bring a little too many wounds to the table for their cost. The easiest way to undo that is in the morale phase. If you kill 9 conscripts with the old commissar, you’re really killing 10. If you kill 9 with the new commissar, you’re killing 15 on average. That’s a big difference.

            If, in our hypothetical tacticals vs conscripts fight, you had 3 units of tacticals that split their fire equally between two units of conscripts, they’d do 13 to one and 14 to another, which would mean 23 dead on one and 24 dead on the other, on average. That’s near 50 dead conscripts, as opposed to only 30! Your hypothetical is MUCH easier for your marines to win.

            Now, imagine if you were a marine player WITHOUT 100 bolter-toting guys. You brought 3 tactical squads in razorbacks, maybe a terminator squad, and a predator with some lascannons. You thought that seemed like a balanced “take all comers” list. You’re still probably screwed, regardless… but if you focus your fire on one unit at a time and your razorbacks hold long enough for your predator to take out a few of the basilisks… you might MAYBE stand a chance… assuming he isn’t just ignoring the morale phase.

          • Fredddy

            Look, I play an infantry IG army since 10-15 years, that is my only army. 100 conscripts, 100 “normal” guardsman. The mass SM armies were always among my toughest opponents. And they are even better now with the bolter wounding on 5+ up to T7. A guy actually won a GT with an army like this. But people refuse to accept this, they want their 7th ed lists work and cry for GW to move whatever is in the way. And GW sadly answers them with bulls*t reasoning like the big experiences of 2 weeks of tournaments, without even waiting to finish the codexes (IG codex was made not for this king for a day period we experiencing now but to work with the 10+ codexes coming out till next summer with their own natural codex creep and meta adjustments). As for your 200 conscript+5 basilisk list: this issue could be easily overcame with the reintroduction of platoon structure which prevented you from taking more, than 2 conscript squads in a decent army. But no, going helter-skelter with the nerf bat for the first cry is easier. And dont tell me they can not get a few more tacticals while they cry about the IG bandwagoners suddenly appearing with 300 conscripts out of nowhere.

        • Rob brown

          Maybe but with Commissar lords having ld 9 bubbles, you have to lose at least 3 models first and roll a 6 on a D6, before you lose a wound.

          As to the Second Wave nerf, free models are what made daemon spam and some of the most broken formations so rididulous. Paying points for models is the name of the game.

          • Fredddy

            I dont think send in the next wave was so OP. It fit the infantry theme, thats all. It was only one unit in a turn, on the edge of your deployment zone. Not an uncounted mass of daemons apperaing wherever you like.

  • Magpie842

    @YetAnotherFacelessMan:disqus : I literally just signed in and am making my first post to congratulate you for being a hero of the internet.

    A voice of sanity and reason against a tide of reactionary misunderstanding of the functional effects of this rule change.

    I hope that many have heard your voice, and I will be referring people who don’t understand the impact of this rule change to your graphs and posts.

    Just… keep doing it.

    • YetAnotherFacelessMan

      Thank you, Magpie842. As one of the only two people on the internet who know you aren’t me with a separate login, thank you. You made it all worth it.

  • This Dave

    While they did give the improved Grinding Advance to all the Russ variants did they also give the slightly discounted price that they got in the Codex?

  • Da Gargoyle

    It is quite clear from the commentary above that GW have no idea how badly they have broken the Commissars. And I quote:

    “Commissars still provide some much-needed insulation from Morale tests, but now, Summary Execution provides a re-roll at the cost of one unfortunate Guardsman rather than totally protecting you against any and all morale.”

    That statement says it all. Either this guy does not view Commissars as forcing a re-roll, which is how the Errata is written, or he believes that adding an extra casualty to a worse result than the original failed moral roll is a good thing. In any event the rule change does not in any shape resemble the statement that you get much needed insulation from Morale tests.

    • Fredddy

      They got me at community feedback (of 2 weeks which is not even enough to write a proper list) and playtesting feedback (which should be done before releasing the codex).