SilverAlien wrote: Would you also like to share the unit composition you used? Because barebones tacticals won't, and I'm curious what 170 point build you have that outdamages them, plasma of some I assume?
The question I was put up to was 2 squads of 50 conscripts each supported by a command squad and commissar, thus it was 361 points. This is a valid question, because a command squad can give two orders out a turn, and each conscript squad can only receive two orders, and the commissar would be unlikely to be able to cover more than two conscript squads that have been deployed in a meaningful way.
100 conscripts at 24" range with FRFSRF = 200 shots against a tactical squad in cover. 200 shots at 5+ hit about 66 times (5+ to-hit). Of these 66 hits, 22 are wounds (5+ to-wound). Of these wounds, a grand total of around 3.7 are unsaved against the basic tactical marine statline when tacticals are in cover (2+ save).
Compare this to 20 marines at 24" range firing 12 boltguns, 4 heavy bolters, 4 plasmaguns (edit: just so we're clear, these are obtained via combiplasma). -- 12 boltgun shots. Hits on 3+, 8 hit. Wounds on 3+, 4 wound. Saves on 2+, 0.67 unsaved. -- 12 hb shots. Hits on 3+, 8 hits. Wounds on 3+, 5.33 wound. Saves on 3+, 1.77 unsaved. -- 4 plasma shots. Hits on 3+, 2.67 hit. Wounds on 3+, 1.77 wound. Saves on 5+, 1.19 unsaved. -- Total of 3.67 unsaved wounds per turn, without using plasma overcharge, against tacticals in cover.
I am not including chapter tactics or character in this calculation for the tacticals either on offense or on defense, even though I AM including Orders. The marine list could actually be optimized further I imagine, but I made this list assuming no overcharge on plasma in order to reduce the amount of math needed.
edit to fix math, I remembered something wrong on a post of mine.
SilverAlien wrote: Would you also like to share the unit composition you used? Because barebones tacticals won't, and I'm curious what 170 point build you have that outdamages them, plasma of some I assume?
The question I was put up to was 2 squads of 50 conscripts each supported by a command squad and commissar, thus it was 361 points. This is a valid question, because a command squad can give two orders out a turn, and each conscript squad can only receive two orders, and the commissar would be unlikely to be able to cover more than two conscript squads that have been deployed in a meaningful way.
100 conscripts at 24" range with FRFSRF = 200 shots against a tactical squad in cover.
200 shots at 5+ hit about 66 times (5+ to-hit). Of these 66 hits, 22 are wounds (5+ to-wound). Of these wounds, a grand total of around 3.7 are unsaved against the basic tactical marine statline when tacticals are in cover (2+ save).
Compare this to 20 marines at 24" range firing 12 boltguns, 4 heavy bolters, 4 plasmaguns (edit: just so we're clear, these are obtained via combiplasma).
-- 12 boltgun shots. Hits on 3+, 8 hit. Wounds on 3+, 4 wound. Saves on 2+, 0.67 unsaved.
-- 12 hb shots. Hits on 3+, 8 hits. Wounds on 3+, 5.33 wound. Saves on 3+, 1.77 unsaved.
-- 4 plasma shots. Hits on 3+, 2.67 hit. Wounds on 3+, 1.77 wound. Saves on 5+, 1.19 unsaved.
-- Total of 3.67 unsaved wounds per turn, without using plasma overcharge, against tacticals in cover.
I am not including chapter tactics or character in this calculation for the tacticals either on offense or on defense, even though I AM including Orders. The marine list could actually be optimized further I imagine, but I made this list assuming no overcharge on plasma in order to reduce the amount of math needed.
edit to fix math, I remembered something wrong on a post of mine.
Okay, first off... being able to match tacticals offensively yet take way more punishment to kill isn't exactly proving balance? In fact, it's rather proving the point that there is something wrong. Those 20 marines will take a lot less time to die than 100 conscripts.
Also, since you did just yell at me for "dishonest" comparisons, I feel pretty in my rights to point out some issues:
-This doesn't apply to MEQ out of cover, as the cover disadvantages the conscripts more
-This only works outside rapid fire, as the big contributor to the space marines is the heavy bolter, rather than the other RF
Then the practical real world issues like wouldn't the HB be snap firing, but it also has longer range so would get extra shots before hand, but were they footslogging, because if so they were probably advancing, but if not would that mean the conscripts get in lasgun range before they get in bolter/plasma range etc. I'm counting these collectively as a wash, but did want to acknowledge them in case I get accused of dishonesty for not thinking of them.
Again, though, the main point is most units choose between firepower and toughness, conscripts seem to excel at both.
Actually, tacticals in cover take way more punishment than conscripts point per point. You're the one making conscripts out to be some unbeatable broken unit that needs to be nerfed to hell, not me. 360 points to just barely kill half a 5-man tactical squad in one turn? Okay, am I supposed to be impressed? Please, that's not even remotely impressive.
Tacticals get 2+ in cover, and most anti-infantry weapons don't have an AP value. A lot of anti-infantry weapons are S3, in fact, outside of space marine weapons where S3 is rare. If I had those same lasguns against T3 4+ save (guardsmen in cover, eldar or tau out of cover) they'd have done WAY more damage, and yet still not unsurmountable. 200 shots, 66 hits, 33 wounds, 16.5 unsaved-- yikes! And yet, it's really not all that hard for ANY army to do 16-17 wounds to a T3 unit with a 4+ save given 360 points to play with. Orks can do more than that with half the price. Eldar laugh at the idea of only doing that many wounds. Marines easily have options for that. Tyranids could do that in their sleep.
Even Guard have better options for doing that many wounds for 360 points.
Melissia wrote: Actually, tacticals in cover take way more punishment than conscripts point per point.
But nobody ever seems to put them in cover even though cover is a natural fit.
Because cover in 8th is something you can't constantly gain access to, unlike last edition? Currently cover is nice, but you'll have to leave it for a variety of reasons so it can't really be relied upon for most units.
It is the first compelling argument I've heard in favor of all the other light horde infantry (save orks) being overpriced with conscripts the balanced ones however.
Melissia wrote: Actually, tacticals in cover take way more punishment than conscripts point per point.
But nobody ever seems to put them in cover even though cover is a natural fit.
Because cover in 8th is something you can't constantly gain access to, unlike last edition?
Actually, for a five man squad, it should be trivial to get cover. Five man squads can easily fit in almost any area terrain. If you're not using cover on your boards, you're playing wrong and you have no excuse complaining about it.
Melissia wrote: Actually, for a five man squad, it should be trivial to get cover. Five man squads can easily fit in almost any area terrain. If you're not using cover on your boards, you're playing wrong and you have no excuse complaining about it.
I meant more in the sense of: infantry needs to move to do their job, and may need to be in a place terrain isn't. Which should also be a thing on most boards, at least from what I've seen.
Melissia wrote: Actually, for a five man squad, it should be trivial to get cover. Five man squads can easily fit in almost any area terrain. If you're not using cover on your boards, you're playing wrong and you have no excuse complaining about it.
I meant more in the sense of: infantry needs to move to do their job, and may need to be in a place terrain isn't. Which should also be a thing on most boards, at least from what I've seen.
And? That's always a conundrum for marines. The best solution is to charge conscript squads with assault marines while you let your tacticals move up.
Again, like I mentioned above, depending on your list it can be utterly trivial for other armies to do as many wounds as conscripts do for the points it takes to do those wounds-- and quite a few have ways to do far more than that in one turn.
And that's without getting in to the upcoming chapter tactics boosts. Oh man, imagine those calculations against raven guard! Ha. Against Raven Guard in cover, the 100 conscripts with orders are lucky to kill more than a single tactical marine in cover each turn! And Imperial Fists would also do more damage than the conscripts each turn as well (in fact, on average they'd wipe out a 5-man tactical squad every turn with 5.47 wounds per turn against marines in cover), even though people say IF's CT sucks.
Let's face it. Conscripts are not the end-all, be-all of imperial guard tactics. They're not broke as feth. Hell, they're not even in the top five things I'd worry about a guard player bringing. They're a blob that can take a while to kill. Whoopty freakin' do. And they don't even give cover to the vehicles behind them, meaning the ONLY thing they really stop you from doing is immediately assaulting the imperial guard vehicles behind them. And even for that, they're at most a speed bump, because if you really want to get through a conscript squad, you'll do so. It might take a few turns, but that's why it's a speed bump.
Basically, you're just mad that it takes actual effort to wipe out a 150 point squad whose entire purpose is to be difficult to wipe out. Of course it takes effort. It damn well should! FFS I even agree that they should take more damage from commissars than normal (but ONLY conscripts, not guardsmen). But this should at most be 1d6 mortal wounds, which is basically decimation for a conscript squad.
Melissia wrote: Actually, tacticals in cover take way more punishment than conscripts point per point.
But nobody ever seems to put them in cover even though cover is a natural fit.
Because cover in 8th is something you can't constantly gain access to, unlike last edition? Currently cover is nice, but you'll have to leave it for a variety of reasons so it can't really be relied upon for most units.
It is the first compelling argument I've heard in favor of all the other light horde infantry (save orks) being overpriced with conscripts the balanced ones however.
GW recommends 2 pieces of terrain for every 2 square feet. Perhaps they should clarify the footprint, but most of the terrain I and my friends use is generally 1 square foot in size. That means half the board is terrain of some sort, although that includes hills as well as ruined buildings.
So if you're following that model, the only person who should have having trouble getting his people into cover in a normal sized game is the horde player. If you're running a platoon sized force like most elite armies do (aprox 40 infantry), you ought to be in cover most of the time. There's going to be times you're not in cover sure, but that's what tactics are for.
I look at battle reports sometimes and I am amazed at the shooting galleries people like to play in. I generally play shooty armies, but I still want an interesting board to play on!
edit: Additionally I don't see why everyone assumes all 50 or 100 or whatever conscripts are going to be in range most of the time.
Again, I still think their is a notable point imbalance between them and many equivalent units, but I've said that a few times over. I will concede it is still possible the problem is every other light blob used as canon fodder being overpriced, and that cover actually balances their cost against marines and the like a bit more, but even that logic creates new issues I kinda wanna think through for a bit.
As for chapter tactics, I mean, guard will get regiments tactics as well. Depending on how CT are handled, that wait may be painful, but that one is a known temporary issue.
SilverAlien wrote: Again, I still think their is a notable point imbalance between them and many equivalent units, but I've said that a few times over. I will concede it is still possible the problem is every other light blob used as canon fodder being overpriced, and that cover actually balances their cost against marines and the like a bit more, but even that logic creates new issues I kinda wanna think through for a bit.
As for chapter tactics, I mean, guard will get regiments tactics as well. Depending on how CT are handled, that wait may be painful, but that one is a known temporary issue.
Hah! "Temporary issue." Ask the SoB or DE what GW's "Temporary" can be like. Bretonians waited until the planet exploded and still didn't get a codex!
Space Marine at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Space Marine at Long Range: 1 shot, .66 hits, .33 wounds, .11 damage
Space Marine in Melee: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Buffed Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 2 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Buffed Guardsman at Long Range: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, .11 damage
Buffed Guardsman in Melee: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage
Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage
Guardsman at Long Range: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage
Guardsman in Melee: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage
Buffed Conscript at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 1.33 hits, .44 wounds, .15 damage
Buffed Conscript at Long Range: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Buffed Conscript in Melee: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Conscript at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Conscript at Long Range: 1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage
Conscript in Melee:1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage
A Conscript with a Commissar is 3.6 points.
A Conscript with a Commissar and an Order is 4 points.
We'll consider the Commissar essential, because, without him, their resiliency is effectively halved.
3 Conscripts without Orders [11 points] are actually worse than a Space Marine, 95% at close range, 82% at long range, 41% in melee, and 100% as resilient. Conscripts clearly aren't the problem here.
3 Conscripts with Orders [12 points], however, are somewhat better than a marine, 204% at close range, 164% at long range, 82% in melee, and 100% as resilient.
In both cases, without commissar support, they become incredibly bad, and aren't worth 3 points, with or without orders.
argonak wrote: Hah! "Temporary issue." Ask the SoB or DE what GW's "Temporary" can be like. Bretonians waited until the planet exploded and still didn't get a codex!
Well... they said they'd try harder this time so..... lets just stay positive? I say, despite being one of the most pessimistic people regarding any and all DG news and changes.
Oh and as far as terrain goes, I always found the whole wobbly model bit was what held it back for many. It can be annoying trying to actually get units in and out of terrain, the fancier it is the more you have issues. That's why I know some people prefer not to run a ton, or anything to fancy.
Melissia wrote: FFS I even agree that they should take more damage from commissars than normal (but ONLY conscripts, not guardsmen). But this should at most be 1d6 mortal wounds, which is basically decimation for a conscript squad.
Which I think is another reasonable change, and you've managed to convince me that may be all it takes.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: A lot of people are forgetting that the Space Marine has a Bolt Pistol, which makes him considerably better than he sounds at close range. Remember, you can fire your Bolt Pistol and your Boltgun, and fire your Bolt Pistol in melee.
You actually can't fire pistols and other weapons, it's all pistols or all assault/heavy/RF weapons.
argonak wrote: Hah! "Temporary issue." Ask the SoB or DE what GW's "Temporary" can be like. Bretonians waited until the planet exploded and still didn't get a codex!
Well... they said they'd try harder this time so..... lets just stay positive?
Oh and as far as terrain goes, I always found the whole wobbly model bit was what held it back for many. It can be annoying trying to actually get units in and out of terrain, the fancier it is the more you have issues. That's why I know some people prefer not to run a ton, or anything to fancy.
Yes, I think GW really ought to bring back their old card terrain (the ones in that new smaller starter are a great sign!). Right now I've got a mixture of home made, Pegasus, and GW for buildings. They're a PITA to take places, and they were expensive which limits the quantity.
Card buildings are lightweight, cheap, and can be reliable as to their affects.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: A lot of people are forgetting that the Space Marine has a Bolt Pistol, which makes him considerably better than he sounds at close range. Remember, you can fire your Bolt Pistol and your Boltgun, and fire your Bolt Pistol in melee.
You actually can't fire pistols and other weapons, it's all pistols or all assault/heavy/RF weapons.
Corrected.
3 Conscripts with a Commissar but without Orders are cumulatively, 80% as effective as Space Marines. This is appropriate, considering they're 85% the price.
3 Conscripts without either are 67% as effective as Space Marines. This is also appropriate, considering they're 70% the price
3 Conscripts with both are 137% as effective as Space Marines. This is not appropriate, as they're 92% the price.
Clearly, Commissars and Conscripts on their own are very appropriately costed.
argonak wrote: Yes, I think GW really ought to bring back their old card terrain (the ones in that new smaller starter are a great sign!). Right now I've got a mixture of home made, Pegasus, and GW for buildings. They're a PITA to take places, and they were expensive which limits the quantity.
Card buildings are lightweight, cheap, and can be reliable as to their affects.
I really liked the look of those, I've never actually seen one before recently. Even my friends who've been in the hobby for a while didn't seem to be familiar with them.
In fact all it'd take is adding this to a conscript squad:
"Decimation Unlike Guardsmen, Conscripts are not hardened, trained fighters. Commissars must put extra effort in to maintaining discipline, and it is not unheard of for a Conscript squad to face decimation in order to ensure they continue fighting to the last man.
Whenever a Conscript squad receives the benefits of a Commissar or Lord Commissar's Summary Execution ability, instead of taking a maximum of 1 wound, roll 1d6 to determine the number of models wounded as a result of failing a Morale test."
Melissia wrote: In fact all it'd take is adding this to a conscript squad:
"Decimation Unlike Guardsmen, Conscripts are not hardened, trained fighters. Commissars must put extra effort in to maintaining discipline, and it is not unheard of for a Conscript squad to face decimation in order to ensure they continue fighting to the last man.
Whenever a Conscript squad receives the benefits of a Commissar or Lord Commissar's Summary Execution ability, instead of taking a maximum of 1 wound, roll 1d6 to determine the number of models wounded as a result of failing a Morale test."
Considering the actual numbers, which I believe to have corrected, the change shouldn't be to Commissars, but to Voice of Command:
Undisciplined Unlike Guardsmen, Conscripts are not trained fighters. Without the extensive drilling and oversight of sergeants, they are slow and inefficient when reacting to commands.
Whenever a Conscript Squad receives the benefits of Voice of Command, roll a D6. On a 3+, the Order takes effect, otherwise, it has no effect on the Conscripts this turn. It may not be re-issued this turn.
By percentages, this brings them back in line with Guardsmen. Losing a ton of models from Battleshock just makes them crap.
I'd be fine with either one. As long as the change only effects conscripts' ability to receive support from characters-- which is really the only problem here IMO.
I would second the proposal to do something about their efficiency receiving orders rather than to their durability, via morale or otherwise. I'd probably quibble over the exact mechanic, since I'm just going to use a CP to re-roll that 3+ if I fail, but it's not like we're actually writing rules here.
Melissia wrote: I'd be fine with either one. As long as the change only effects conscripts' ability to receive support from characters-- which is really the only problem here IMO.
It's pretty straightforward:
For 28% of the cost of a Space Marine, a Conscript with a Commissar is cumulatively 26% the effectiveness
For 23% of the cost of a Space Marine, a Conscript without a Commissar is cumulatively 22% the effectiveness
For 30% of the cost of a Space Marine, a Conscript with Orders and a Commissar is cumulatively 49% the effectiveness
Therefore, the problem is in Orders, not the Commissar.
Of course, we're not accounting for the fact that they're not really super efficient at killing things, even with orders, because the squad dispersed in a defensive line isn't exactly getting anywhere near it's full combat value. A squad packed up tight isn't getting it's true defensive value, but it loses less defensive value than it gains offensive value.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: By percentages, this brings them back in line with Guardsmen. Losing a ton of models from Battleshock just makes them crap.
I'd disagree with categorizing 3.5 on average instead of 1 as "tons".
Their entire purpose is to sit there and soak up damage, so making them worse at that just encourages players to use them in other ways instead. Where making them less useful to give orders to means they are at their best soaking up damage and rather iffy anywhere else.
Melissia wrote: Their entire purpose is to sit there and soak up damage, so making them worse at that just encourages players to use them in other ways instead. Where making them less useful to give orders to means they are at their best soaking up damage and rather iffy anywhere else.
Something who has a job to do can still be just a bit too effective at that job. A screening unit can be too good at screening.
Melissia wrote: Their entire purpose is to sit there and soak up damage, so making them worse at that just encourages players to use them in other ways instead. Where making them less useful to give orders to means they are at their best soaking up damage and rather iffy anywhere else.
Something who has a job to do can still be just a bit too effective at that job. A screening unit can be too good at screening.
If you can easily wipe it out in one turn like a lot of people in this thread-- including yourself, I should add-- suggest, it would suck at screening.
Melissia wrote: If you can easily wipe it out in one turn like a lot of people in this thread-- including yourself, I should add-- suggest, it would suck at screening.
Which your suggestion would not be at the level of, while making their lower leadership and thus morale issues, part of the reason they are so cheap, at least slightly felt even when a commissar is around. It's 2-5 more causalities per turn, not going to destroy the unit regardless.
Melissia wrote: If you can easily wipe it out in one turn like a lot of people in this thread-- including yourself, I should add-- suggest, it would suck at screening.
Which your suggestion would not be at the level of, while making their lower leadership and thus morale issues, part of the reason they are so cheap, at least slightly felt even when a commissar is around. It's 2-5 more causalities per turn, not going to destroy the unit regardless.
But it's unneccessary, and doesn't address the actual problem, because their survivability with a commissar is exactly in line with where it should be, relative to a tactical marine.
It would just be annoying to us, and not make a difference in any way, shape, or form for space marine players [who are really the only problem here, because everyone else handles it just fine, and I don't have a problem if *gasp* Space Marines aren't #1 at everything and other armies are actually able to compete], which would result in a chain of continued nerfing until the unit is left unrecognizable.
The unit as it is is pretty much perfectly priced for it's intended task. The problem is, that it can be used outside of its intended task better than units that are supposed to perform that other task.
God forbid any of you IG players ever see a decent codex. All you do is dismiss anyone's claims with literally "boohoo space marines", at least try to act a bit better than wave serpent spammers.
Quickjager wrote: God forbid any of you IG players ever see a decent codex. All you do is dismiss anyone's claims with literally "boohoo space marines", at least try to act a bit better than wave serpent spammers.
The statement "boohoo space marines" used to be true. Unfortunately, most people are either hypocrites or cannot see the forest for the trees. So their old argument sticks around in their head even when it is no longer true.
Quickjager wrote: God forbid any of you IG players ever see a decent codex. All you do is dismiss anyone's claims with literally "boohoo space marines", at least try to act a bit better than wave serpent spammers.
Okay, I was a little uncivil there.
But the supposed defensive problem is pretty much only with Space Marines, and even then, I'm not sure, because Space Marines are winning anyway.
Let's go through this:
Sisters have no problems. Jump over with assault troops to lock the tanks, storm-bolter conscripts to death with other troops.
Tyranids have slight problem, namely that they have to spend a whole turn to kill them before killing the tanks. Oh, I feel so sorry we get a whole turn to shoot while they die, considering that whole turn I get is my first turn.
Harlequins have those little flying transport things and the troops within can jump over the gunline to melt the tanks.
Chaos has metal boxes of Berzerkers. 6 Attacks per model is scary, considering there's not much we can do to actually stop the turn 2 charge save soak it up and shoot back once the Conscripts are dead.
IG can rip them apart, and doesn't care anyway, since we can trade counter-battlery artillery fire and pretend they don't exist.
Necrons have concentrated shooting to remove them, and don't die, or will at least die very slowly, in response.
Orks can try for a turn 1 assault like the Tyranids, and can get it reasonably, but the rest of the army is stuck walking and they can't just take a metal box for protection. Probably not as good at handling it as Tyranids or Chaos, but with all that melee the IG would be hard pressed to truly deplete it before it hits the frontline.
I can't say for Dark Eldar and ordinary Eldar, because I haven't actually seen them play. I've seen lots of Harlequins, though. I'm guessing DE work like Harlequins, considering they've always had good antitank, fast vehicles, and their vehicles aren't as fragile now.
I've watched Harlequins and Necrons both beat Conscripts and Tanks. I had Tyranids break my own line, and if I hadn't seized the initiative that game and killed a third of his gaunts and the Swarmlord before he went, I would have lost for sure.
So I'm not convinced. I think that the actual problem is Space Marine players not being able to find a unit in their book that can wipe them out in a turn for similar cost. What, precisely, wiping them out in a turn for similar even does for a shooting Space Marine army besides making Space Marines OP is also beyond me, because it's not like you can fire over them with Lascannon Predators or something to cripple their support and whittle them down over 3 turns.
I've also never seed a board where you can hide a 2000 point list entirely of Manticores and have them completely invisible from all locations other than the backside of the IG deployment zone, so I think the fear about a crapload of invisible artillery is also unfounded.
There are two groups of Space Marines that probably have no good options: Deathwatch and Grey Knights. By their nature, they have few units, they're lacking in offensive output across the board, and don't have access to the entire line, or even half the line, compounded with the latter army being shafted by the Rule of 1 on psychic powers and paying for really, really overpriced units that can't use the psychic power they paid for.
However, I'm also willing to accept a reduction to orders efficiency, or even a reduction in squad size, because fundamentally, those are factors contributing to them over-performing in a region and role they aren't intended to be used in, and aren't often used in. A reduction to their survivability would just annoy me, because it doesn't fix any actual problems and only "fixes" a problem that not so much a legitimate problem with conscripts but is a problem with other players perceptions of their own army's capabilities.
I am legitimately concerned about lists consisting of 3 Baneblades, or nothing but Stormtroopers with Plasmaguns. Those lists are cheese of the worst kind. But a list with 50-100 Conscripts, some artillery and some tanks, and some guardsmen, is, in my opinion, fluffy and fairly balanced. I've played several games with lists like that, and they've all been fun and somewhat close. Against the Tyranids, it was pretty tense, and there was a little while there where, after watching a Shadowsword, Pask, and his friend kill a single Terminator, I thought for sure the Grey Knights were going to plow through my line into my armor, until he failed a short charge and was out of CP.
I don't deny that there are things in my army that are OP, I think that Conscripts are not one of them.
I'm doubly concerned about the OP lists because it's going to result in army wide nerfs, and nerfs that don't actually resolve the problem, and will instead just hurt units I actually like, such as Basilisks and Leman Russ tanks, which are under-performing as is. [Okay, I like Baneblades, but 3 of them is silly. One's a fun centerpiece, but seriously, 3 is asking for it.]
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: their survivability with a commissar is exactly in line with where it should be, relative to a tactical marine.
Now, that's entirely debatable and depends on whether we think conscripts just standing about should fall between space marines just standing about and space marines in cover (for their cost, as always). I find the argument more compelling than anything previously mentioned up till this point, but consider, for example, how absurdly tough a sisters of battle is for her points when we start assuming cover is a given.
So it's a point worthy of consideration, but I do not view it as a certainty either way
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: It would just be annoying to us, and not make a difference in any way, shape, or form for space marine players [who are really the only problem here, because everyone else handles it just fine, and I don't have a problem if *gasp* Space Marines aren't #1 at everything and other armies are actually able to compete], which would result in a chain of continued nerfing until the unit is left unrecognizable.
Arguments like this don't exactly help, they just kinda make me start hoping the new codices are really overpowered and IG's comes dead last.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: So I'm not convinced. I think that the actual problem is Space Marine players not being able to find a unit in their book that can wipe them out in a turn for similar cost. What, precisely, wiping them out in a turn for similar even does for a shooting Space Marine army besides making Space Marines OP is also beyond me, because it's not like you can fire over them with Lascannon Predators or something to cripple their support and whittle them down over 3 turns.
Have any space marine classic players even been involved in this discussion? The only two who've mentioned they play any flavor are me, with CSM (which, for the record, makes the "now we get our chance" rhetoric even more hilarious) and the one dude who plays GKs. I use marines as a comparison point because those and guardsman are usually the comparison point everyone judges everything by (hence the terms GEQ and MEQ).
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: their survivability with a commissar is exactly in line with where it should be, relative to a tactical marine.
Now, that's entirely debatable and depends on whether we think conscripts just standing about should fall between space marines just standing about and space marines in cover (for their cost, as always). I find the argument more compelling than anything previously mentioned up till this point, but consider, for example, how absurdly tough a sisters of battle is for her points when we start assuming cover is a given.
So it's a point worthy of consideration, but I do not view it as a certainty either way
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: It would just be annoying to us, and not make a difference in any way, shape, or form for space marine players [who are really the only problem here, because everyone else handles it just fine, and I don't have a problem if *gasp* Space Marines aren't #1 at everything and other armies are actually able to compete], which would result in a chain of continued nerfing until the unit is left unrecognizable.
Arguments like this don't exactly help, they just kinda make me start hoping the new codices are really overpowered and IG's comes dead last.
We'd been pretty down low for a while, and we'll handle that just fine again.
And who are we kidding, they're absolutely going to be. That's how GW works. It's going to be a string of increasingly more powerful codecies, and halfway through they're going to release another marine book just to make sure they don't get eclipsed. I offer no vitrol to the Tau, or the Eldar.
Have any space marine classic players even been involved in this discussion? The only two who've mentioned they play any flavor are me, with CSM (which, for the record, makes the "now we get our chance" rhetoric even more hilarious) and the one dude who plays GKs. I use marines as a comparison point because those and guardsman are usually the comparison point everyone judges everything by (hence the terms GEQ and MEQ).
I don't know.
Also, try Rhinos full of Berzerkers.
It takes 3 Manticores to kill a Rhino in a turn. Said Rhino doesn't even have to survive one of my shooting phases if you went first, which you will just over 2/3 of the time. Berzerkers are very scary units, put 20 of them into a Conscript squad and it will evaporate, and they can attack tanks too once they're out of Conscripts to fight.
Close Quarters Combat is the counterplay to Imperial Guard gunlines.
Quickjager wrote: God forbid any of you IG players ever see a decent codex. All you do is dismiss anyone's claims with literally "boohoo space marines", at least try to act a bit better than wave serpent spammers.
Many IG players including myself have already stated we are fine with conscripts being 4ppm. Understand however that means that infantry squads will then have to be 5ppm & heavy weapons teams will also increase in cost. So by increasing the cost of conscripts you just increased the cost of half the army. This isn't hyperbole. Conscripts cannot equal the same cost as infantry squads. It makes no sense. They do not have the proper training as infantry squads. Therefore by default, infantry squads must cost more than conscripts. Do not be surprised if these changes push IG back to its 7th edition power levels.
Again, I'm fine with them nerfing IG. I don't care. We are a resourceful bunch. I'm just tired of the coming to the forums everyday & being told how broken we are & we should all feel bad about playing IG. Emperor forbid we be remotely competitive for a month after languishing for years.
Commissar Benny wrote: Many IG players including myself have already stated we are fine with conscripts being 4ppm. Understand however that means that infantry squads will then have to be 5ppm & heavy weapons teams will also increase in cost. So by increasing the cost of conscripts you just increased the cost of half the army. This isn't hyperbole. Conscripts cannot equal the same cost as infantry squads. It makes no sense. They do not have the proper training as infantry squads. Therefore by default, infantry squads must cost more than conscripts. Do not be surprised if these changes push IG back to its 7th edition power levels.
Again, I'm fine with them nerfing IG. I don't care. We are a resourceful bunch. I'm just tired of the coming to the forums everyday & being told how broken we are & we should all feel bad about playing IG. Emperor forbid we be remotely competitive for a month after languishing for years.
Well, again it's been put forth larger unit size offers certain advantages over smaller unit sizes (auras and other buffs mainly), which justifies say normal guardsman being cheaper than cultists and more effective than termagaunts or basically all the renegades and heretics infantry. The same logic can apply to conscripts.
Again, i have no idea if it is true, but it'd at least explain so of the odd pricing choices in 8th edition.
I really wish I could remember who originally gave me that as an explanation for why guard infantry are cheaper than termagaunts, as many times as I've paraphrased their argument.
Commissar Benny wrote: Many IG players including myself have already stated we are fine with conscripts being 4ppm. Understand however that means that infantry squads will then have to be 5ppm & heavy weapons teams will also increase in cost. So by increasing the cost of conscripts you just increased the cost of half the army. This isn't hyperbole. Conscripts cannot equal the same cost as infantry squads. It makes no sense. They do not have the proper training as infantry squads. Therefore by default, infantry squads must cost more than conscripts. Do not be surprised if these changes push IG back to its 7th edition power levels.
Again, I'm fine with them nerfing IG. I don't care. We are a resourceful bunch. I'm just tired of the coming to the forums everyday & being told how broken we are & we should all feel bad about playing IG. Emperor forbid we be remotely competitive for a month after languishing for years.
Well, again it's been put forth larger unit size offers certain advantages over smaller unit sizes (auras and other buffs mainly), which justifies say normal guardsman being cheaper than cultists and more effective than termagaunts or basically all the renegades and heretics infantry. The same logic can apply to conscripts.
Again, i have no idea if it is true, but it'd at least explain so of the odd pricing choices in 8th edition.
I really wish I could remember who originally gave me that as an explanation for why guard infantry are cheaper than termagaunts, as many times as I've paraphrased their argument.
Larger units are more buff-efficient, and some units, like 'gaunts and orks, get buffs for being in huge units. It's not really a cause for Termagaunt's price, I think, which is a little high.
Quickjager wrote: If this is what good codices do to people thank god I wasn't GK in 5th and god forbid GK ever become tier 1.
Didn't they just win an ITC tournament? None the less, conscripts receiving the rule that they lose D6 models from a commissar rather than 1 sounds fine to me. I don't see the need for nerfing orders on them since they do almost no damage even with orders so it's definitely the toughness that's the issue. I wouldn't mind conscripts being nerfed - though I run infantry squads over conscripts since I don't think conscripts are as great as people make them out to be. I've tried them and they're pretty good, but certainly not game breakingly good like everyone seems to think. I've got to ask - how have your games against them gone? Or, as I suspect, you haven't actually played against them yet and are whining mathhammer style, in which case I must respectfully ask you to please leave the thread.
Quickjager wrote: If this is what good codices do to people thank god I wasn't GK in 5th and god forbid GK ever become tier 1.
Didn't they just win an ITC tournament? None the less, conscripts receiving the rule that they lose D6 models from a commissar rather than 1 sounds fine to me. I don't see the need for nerfing orders on them since they do almost no damage even with orders so it's definitely the toughness that's the issue. I wouldn't mind conscripts being nerfed - though I run infantry squads over conscripts since I don't think conscripts are as great as people make them out to be. I've tried them and they're pretty good, but certainly not game breakingly good like everyone seems to think. I've got to ask - how have your games against them gone? Or, as I suspect, you haven't actually played against them yet and are whining mathhammer style, in which case I must respectfully ask you to please leave the thread.
Or how about you just leave the thread, because calling me a liar is a great start.
Quickjager wrote: If this is what good codices do to people thank god I wasn't GK in 5th and god forbid GK ever become tier 1.
Didn't they just win an ITC tournament? None the less, conscripts receiving the rule that they lose D6 models from a commissar rather than 1 sounds fine to me. I don't see the need for nerfing orders on them since they do almost no damage even with orders so it's definitely the toughness that's the issue. I wouldn't mind conscripts being nerfed - though I run infantry squads over conscripts since I don't think conscripts are as great as people make them out to be. I've tried them and they're pretty good, but certainly not game breakingly good like everyone seems to think. I've got to ask - how have your games against them gone? Or, as I suspect, you haven't actually played against them yet and are whining mathhammer style, in which case I must respectfully ask you to please leave the thread.
Or how about you just leave the thread, because calling me a liar is a great start.
I'm not entirely sure on which point I called you a liar, so I'll just back up the whole reply.
Here are the results of the first 8th edition GT, Boise Cup GT: http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/06/26/results-8th-edition-gt/ The the tourny data leading up to it, where grey knights have done quite well for themselves: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rkEukRKKxJK9ecUyZxXqn-trRd0gqoXIQb--BTyHdq8/edit#gid=741815058 When I said I don't think conscripts aren't game breakingly good, that was my opinion. I apologise if it seemed I was correcting you.
And my last note, asking how your games have gone against conscripts and commenting that I suspect you haven't played any is a bit insulting - if you had said you'd played any. Maybe I've missed it and if that is the case then I apologise again, but I don't believe you have. So I'm not entirely sure where I called you a liar?
Keeping to the topic on hand, nerfing conscripts points wise brings them inline to the Renegades & Heretics militia, whom I believe are overcosted for what they do.
Intruder wrote: I apologise if it seemed I was correcting you.
But... that is the whole point of a discussion/argument. Not everyone is equally right.
I'm still siding with the idea that conscript pricing is fine, but need to be worse at either orders or keeping their dudes when morale fails. Leaning more towards them being worse at orders, because it's fluffier than nerfing the Commissar.
Intruder wrote: I apologise if it seemed I was correcting you.
But... that is the whole point of a discussion/argument. Not everyone is equally right.
I'm still siding with the idea that conscript pricing is fine, but need to be worse at either orders or keeping their dudes when morale fails. Leaning more towards them being worse at orders, because it's fluffier than nerfing the Commissar.
Fluffier, yes, but I'm not sure it's the right direction. They already do barely any damage. If I have a 50 man conscript squad on the frontline and want to shoot at something, some models will be in rapid fire range, some will be in normal range, some will be out of range and some won't even be in LOS. So stacking 50 FRFSRF conscipts damage already isn't ridiculous - but now think, how the hell does it even reach that point? Their toughness is the issue. With commissars they are too tough. Without commissars they are nigh on useless. So I'm thinking either points balancing, which would throw the whole points costs of AM infantry out, or an alternative method. My preferred option would be losing 1d3 or 1d6 conscripts instead of 1 (tack it on as a conscript rule). That way they're easier to kill but not excessively so.
I realise this is 40k we're talking about, but a unit can do other things than just kill. Conscripts are cannon fodder, lasgun-armed grots. They bubblewrap tanks, sit on objectives and generally waste your opponent's time while the killy units blow them up. That functionality makes much more sense to me than having them kill tons of marines, just because someone shouted at them to lasgun harder.
Quickjager wrote: If this is what good codices do to people thank god I wasn't GK in 5th and god forbid GK ever become tier 1.
Didn't they just win an ITC tournament? None the less, conscripts receiving the rule that they lose D6 models from a commissar rather than 1 sounds fine to me. I don't see the need for nerfing orders on them since they do almost no damage even with orders so it's definitely the toughness that's the issue. I wouldn't mind conscripts being nerfed - though I run infantry squads over conscripts since I don't think conscripts are as great as people make them out to be. I've tried them and they're pretty good, but certainly not game breakingly good like everyone seems to think. I've got to ask - how have your games against them gone? Or, as I suspect, you haven't actually played against them yet and are whining mathhammer style, in which case I must respectfully ask you to please leave the thread.
Or how about you just leave the thread, because calling me a liar is a great start.
I'm not entirely sure on which point I called you a liar, so I'll just back up the whole reply.
Here are the results of the first 8th edition GT, Boise Cup GT: http://bloodofkittens.com/blog/2017/06/26/results-8th-edition-gt/ The the tourny data leading up to it, where grey knights have done quite well for themselves: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rkEukRKKxJK9ecUyZxXqn-trRd0gqoXIQb--BTyHdq8/edit#gid=741815058 When I said I don't think conscripts aren't game breakingly good, that was my opinion. I apologise if it seemed I was correcting you.
And my last note, asking how your games have gone against conscripts and commenting that I suspect you haven't played any is a bit insulting - if you had said you'd played any. Maybe I've missed it and if that is the case then I apologise again, but I don't believe you have. So I'm not entirely sure where I called you a liar?
Keeping to the topic on hand, nerfing conscripts points wise brings them inline to the Renegades & Heretics militia, whom I believe are overcosted for what they do.
Yes the Cup where GK aren't in? ... the cup that pretty much everyone agreed to not use as a basis for army power because it was so early in the game. Or the data that has few data points in it, which is why a community member decided to do a much larger sampling size that is still growing? Or maybe the fact you keep insisting that I'm lying about having played against IG? Yes that one seems to be the bit.
Arbitrator wrote: Bump their maximum numbers down to 20-30. They can still swarm, they're still cheap, but it makes their numbers more manageable. If you're having a problem dealing with T3/S5 infantry at that point then you're doing something wrong and need to take a look at your list.
Making them 1p more expensive makes them otherwise pointless next to Infantry Squads for anything less than spamming 50 of, which ironically might exacerbate the problem some.
No one cares about the toughness, everyone cares about the fact there isn't an efficient way to remove the sheer number of them. If you don't understand that then you probably don't have a history of play with or against horde armies.
Raven guard drop in a squad of 3 devestator centurions 9" away. 24 heavy bolter shots and 36 bolter shots follow. That kills about 25 of them (including blamming some sucker by the Commisar).
Preferably you snipe the Commisar out of the squad first with your Snipers of course.
Quickjager wrote: Or the data that has few data points in it, which is why a community member decided to do a much larger sampling size that is still growing?
Speaking of which:
There are a few more armies that participated in the records, but they have fewer than 20 games, causing their W/L ratios to be highly volatile an unrepresentative..
Just to say it again, I really don't think that increasing the cost of Conscripts is a good solution. There are too many other units (most - if not all - of which have not been shown to be OP) that will be affected by this, as their price is liable to go up as a result.
As a question though, what if Conscripts were 3.5pts per model? It wouldn't be my preferred solution but I'd be interested to hear what you guys think of the idea.
The fact that you actually asked that question is hilarious beyond belief. Do you play 40k via graph paper or something?
I'm glad you find it hilarious, as that was my goal. My post was in support of yours, though using what I intended to be the understated sarcasm that is the way of my people
Ah, in that case I apologise. I honestly hadn't realised that it was sarcasm.
As a question though, what if Conscripts were 3.5pts per model? It wouldn't be my preferred solution but I'd be interested to hear what you guys think of the idea.
Buying Conscripts in pre-assigned blobs makes some sense.
As a question though, what if Conscripts were 3.5pts per model? It wouldn't be my preferred solution but I'd be interested to hear what you guys think of the idea.
Buying Conscripts in pre-assigned blobs makes some sense.
Buy in sets of ten:
10 = 35 pts
50 = 175 pts
100 = 350 pts
The problem is that even with a price increase to 4 points conscripts will still be to powerful. Well, not really powerful. People still will not be able to chew threw 150 of them.
Dionysodorus wrote: Possibly orders are too efficient with Conscripts, but that's about the only thing they've got going on that strikes me as being particularly out of line with similar options.
There is a general problem with cheap low-toughness bad-save wounds in 8th, though. They are just too durable for their cost -- there's no way to efficiently deal with them. Conscripts are the standard example, but honestly regular Guardsmen are a problem too. Brimstone Horrors are 2 points for T3 4++ and so are even more durable than Conscripts. Razorwing Flocks are 7 points for T2 W4 7+, making them comparable to Conscripts against many weapons.
Meanwhile, no one actually has guns which are good for killing T3 5+ at their current prices. Lascannons murder multi-wound high-toughness good-save models -- they're several times more efficient against their preferred target than against single-wound infantry -- and they do it from far away. Rapid-firing plasma is ridiculously good against two-wound heavy infantry. Heavy Bolters and Assault Cannons shred MEQs. There's nothing that's great at killing Conscripts. You would expect something like a lasgun to be good for this -- they're low-strength with no AP -- but actually lasguns expect to kill more points of Marines than points of Conscripts (significantly more; this is not close).
The state of the game right now is as if we had all of these new multi-wound vehicles at their current costs and not a single multi-damage weapon. For everything else in the game, there are options I can take which are excellent counters to it. If I'm running into armies that use a lot of some kind of unit, I can bring a lot of guns that are good against that kind of unit and be heavily favored to win. This is an important mechanism for achieving a balanced meta -- you don't need things to be balanced in some absolute, objective sense, you just need to reach an equilibrium where people are preferentially tailoring their lists against the stronger stuff out there. But you can't do this to deal with hordes of cheap wounds. Basically anything you might take is actually an anti-MEQ gun in disguise. One can imagine an equilibrium where hordes and lots of vehicles (with lots of anti-infantry guns) are both viable, but this would drive out MEQs almost entirely.
It's called assault units, they exist, and I've personally seen a unit of beserkers mow down conscripts easily.
Also twin linked heavy flamers or flamers wreck these units, along with any kind of massed bolter fire with a captain nearby.
Quickjager wrote: Yes the Cup where GK aren't in? ... the cup that pretty much everyone agreed to not use as a basis for army power because it was so early in the game. Or the data that has few data points in it, which is why a community member decided to do a much larger sampling size that is still growing? Or maybe the fact you keep insisting that I'm lying about having played against IG? Yes that one seems to be the bit.
You can't lie about playing against IG when you never said it in the first place.
I think the fix for conscripts would be the following
1.) Commissars kill 1D3 conscripts to auto-pass a morale test. This way they whittle down a little bit faster.
2.)When issuing orders to a conscript unit, roll a D6, if the result is higher than their LD the order fails. Makes orders for conscripts less reliable.
3.) If conscripts choose to fall back, Take a morale Check with a +4 modifier to your roll. Makes falling back damaging to conscripts.
These 3 things would go a long way to balancing concripts IMO. IF you take morale with them you on average will lose 2 models, if you fall back you lose another 2 models on average, and after falling back you have a 33% chance they will not get back into the fight.
Breng77 wrote: 2.)When issuing orders to a conscript unit, roll a D6, if the result is higher than their LD the order fails. Makes orders for conscripts less reliable.
They currently get the commissar's leadership afaik.
Breng77 wrote: 2.)When issuing orders to a conscript unit, roll a D6, if the result is higher than their LD the order fails. Makes orders for conscripts less reliable.
They currently get the commissar's leadership afaik.
True, so maybe then #4, conscripts cannot benefit from the LD of other units.
Breng77 wrote: I think the fix for conscripts would be the following
1.) Commissars kill 1D3 conscripts to auto-pass a morale test. This way they whittle down a little bit faster.
2.)When issuing orders to a conscript unit, roll a D6, if the result is higher than their LD the order fails. Makes orders for conscripts less reliable.
3.) If conscripts choose to fall back, Take a morale Check with a +4 modifier to your roll. Makes falling back damaging to conscripts.
These 3 things would go a long way to balancing concripts IMO. IF you take morale with them you on average will lose 2 models, if you fall back you lose another 2 models on average, and after falling back you have a 33% chance they will not get back into the fight.
I like it, but it is very 7th edition in approach - adding three abilities/rules that bring two additional rolls in-game to the unit. Not sure how GW would receive that. I do like it, though' very on par with my earlier suggestion of Get back in line you rabble! (Instead of restricting casualties due to failed morale checks to one, Commissars and Lord Commissars using the Summary Execution rule halve (rounding up, to a minimum of one) all casualties caused by morale to Conscript units.)
I think either one addressing Conscripts' durability to morale loss when synergizing with a Commissar is the key to toning them down. While the others are right, and Orders do make them quite efficient it's also what makes them unique and unignorable as a screening unit/tarpit. Furthermore, I think most would find that even with Orders if Conscripts weren't so durable thanks to their virtual immunity through the Commissar they'd be easier to handle. Going from only ever losing 1 conscript in the morale phase to losing a handful every time you force a morale check means they'll get attritted down much more effectively than current.
Breng77 wrote: I think the fix for conscripts would be the following
1.) Commissars kill 1D3 conscripts to auto-pass a morale test. This way they whittle down a little bit faster.
2.)When issuing orders to a conscript unit, roll a D6, if the result is higher than their LD the order fails. Makes orders for conscripts less reliable.
3.) If conscripts choose to fall back, Take a morale Check with a +4 modifier to your roll. Makes falling back damaging to conscripts.
These 3 things would go a long way to balancing concripts IMO. IF you take morale with them you on average will lose 2 models, if you fall back you lose another 2 models on average, and after falling back you have a 33% chance they will not get back into the fight.
I like it, but it is very 7th edition in approach - adding three abilities/rules that bring two additional rolls in-game to the unit. Not sure how GW would receive that. I do like it, though' very on par with my earlier suggestion of Get back in line you rabble! (Instead of restricting casualties due to failed morale checks to one, Commissars and Lord Commissars using the Summary Execution rule halve (rounding up, to a minimum of one) all casualties caused by morale to Conscript units.)
I think either one addressing Conscripts' durability to morale loss when synergizing with a Commissar is the key to toning them down. While the others are right, and Orders do make them quite efficient it's also what makes them unique and unignorable as a screening unit/tarpit. Furthermore, I think most would find that even with Orders if Conscripts weren't so durable thanks to their virtual immunity through the Commissar they'd be easier to handle. Going from only ever losing 1 conscript in the morale phase to losing a handful every time you force a morale check means they'll get attritted down much more effectively than current.
Very true on the extra rolls. Alternatively if you wanted to save on that you could give them gretchin like stats, maybe S2 T3, and a 6+ save (or S/T 2 with a 5+ save), and make the commissar do D3 wounds for ignoring morale. This would also significantly decrease their durability.
It's called assault units, they exist, and I've personally seen a unit of beserkers mow down conscripts easily.
Also twin linked heavy flamers or flamers wreck these units, along with any kind of massed bolter fire with a captain nearby.
This doesn't actually engage with my post. As I explained, S4 attacks are more efficient against MEQs than GEQs, or these sorts of cheap wounds in general. Berzerkers put out a ton of S5 attacks and so are even more specialized than bolters for killing T4 instead of T3 and below. They get 3 attacks per fight and then their bolt pistols, I think? If enough of them get to charge just about anything, they'll shred it. Still, I would much rather throw a 10-man squad of Guardsmen in front of them than let them hit a 5-man Marine squad. I will happily surround them with Brimstone Horrors that they have to spend time digging through. I would strongly consider actually charging them with Razorwing Flocks, depending on support. Of course a very big squad of Berzerkers is much better against a Conscript horde than against most other single units, but that's only because they'll overkill other single units. They could multicharge and do much better against things other than GEQs. Conscripts are also particularly good at striking back at the Berzerkers because of their unit size and poor BS. They Overwatch relatively well and there will be a lot of them around to attack back. If I'm worried about Berzerkers getting to my gunline, that's a reason to take Conscripts or 10-man screener squads, not a reason to avoid them. Assault units countering Conscripts is such a weird idea. Literally the whole reason you bring Conscripts is to counter assault units that would otherwise be able to charge the stuff that you actually want kept safe.
Flamers are just S4 attacks. They're not templates anymore and work better on MEQs outside of cover than on GEQs. Heavy flamers are ridiculously inefficient against Conscripts compared to using them on just about any other sort of infantry. You might want to reread the post of mine that you think you're responding to.
I like it, but it is very 7th edition in approach - adding three abilities/rules that bring two additional rolls in-game to the unit. Not sure how GW would receive that. I do like it, though' very on par with my earlier suggestion of Get back in line you rabble! (Instead of restricting casualties due to failed morale checks to one, Commissars and Lord Commissars using the Summary Execution rule halve (rounding up, to a minimum of one) all casualties caused by morale to Conscript units.)
I agree that the above is too many rules. However, your own rule basically goes against the entire point of taking commissars.
If he's having to kill that many models to keep order then he's a really awful commissar.
I like it, but it is very 7th edition in approach - adding three abilities/rules that bring two additional rolls in-game to the unit. Not sure how GW would receive that. I do like it, though' very on par with my earlier suggestion of Get back in line you rabble! (Instead of restricting casualties due to failed morale checks to one, Commissars and Lord Commissars using the Summary Execution rule halve (rounding up, to a minimum of one) all casualties caused by morale to Conscript units.)
I agree that the above is too many rules. However, your own rule basically goes against the entire point of taking commissars.
If he's having to kill that many models to keep order then he's a really awful commissar.
It really isn't too many rules. I can do it with 2 rules.
Which wouldn't be more than many other units. In fact it is pretty easy fix overall.
On the Commissar change Summary execution to the same rule as an ork warboss.
Summary Execution - if a Friendly Astra Millitarum unit fails a morale test within 6" of a friendly commissar, he can restore order with a display of violence. If he does so the unit loses D3 mortal wounds but the morale test is considered to be passed.
No added rules there just one changed. Most IG units would not have a huge issue with this because any unit within 6" is LD 8, and no non-conscript squad is larger than 10 models. So at LD 8, they lose 1 model on a 6 if they take 3 casualties, If they take 5 casualties they have a 50-50 shots of losing at least a single model. So it isn't quite as good as the current rule, but it is good enough for most purposes, yes if you lose 8 models the last 2 are probably dead, but I really don't think that is a huge issue.
Then on the conscripts who currently have 0 special rules you add
Unwilling Combatants - This unit must always use its own leadership. Further when falling back or taking orders this unit must take an morale test with a +4 modifier on the D6 roll.
So slightly different than the initial post, in this scenario they can always accept orders, but may take casualties to do so. But it adds all of 1 rule to a unit.
I definitely wouldn't want to have to sacrifice 1d6 guys just to issue an order (they're ld4, so rolling 1d6+4 against that would result in 1d6 casualties).
I would be fine with having to take a 5th ed style LD test to issue an order to them, if they could still get their LD boosted by a Commissar. 2d6, aiming to be less than or equal to their LD score. The order would almost never go off if they're on their own, but if they have a Commissar their success rate would be about 70% and a Lord Commissar would make it about 80%.
ross-128 wrote: I definitely wouldn't want to have to sacrifice 1d6 guys just to issue an order (they're ld4, so rolling 1d6+4 against that would result in 1d6 casualties).
I would be fine with having to take a 5th ed style LD test to issue an order to them, if they could still get their LD boosted by a Commissar. 2d6, aiming to be less than or equal to their LD score. The order would almost never go off if they're on their own, but if they have a Commissar their success rate would be about 70% and a Lord Commissar would make it about 80%.
If they are standing near a commissar then it would be max 1D3. So it would result in 1D3 casualties. You could debate making it a +2 or 3 on the roll if the concern about them taking casualties is too high. With the commissar though at 1D3 you are average losing slightly less than 2 models to get the order off (16% of the time you will roll 1 on the D6, and 33% of the time you will roll a 1 on the D3, which you will probably roll if you roll a 3+ on the D6.), which if it is important is worth it.
I look at it this way. You have 50 conscripts, they get charged, lose say 10 models in combat, lose 2 more to morale at the end of the turn. If you stay in combat you stay at 38 models, if you decide you want to fall back, you likely lose another 2, down to 36 models. Now if you want them to "Get back into the fight", you can lose another 2 models to do it down to 34 models. So you end up losing 16 models. Right now you lose 11. So they would be essentially 33% less durable, but only if you want to do all those things. You could leave them in combat, or just fall back, and take fewer wounds.
Now if you aren't near a commissar you are going to die to these morale checks, but that is kind of already true, and so you won't take extra tests.
I don't really understand the angst over conscripts. Are they good? Obviously yes but I don't think that means they need a nerf. They're 3 point ablative wounds that can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Even with first rank second rank, you're still hitting on 5s and it's unlikely everything will be within 12".
They're a fine way to stop turn 1 charges but Guard NEED that. They wouldn't even be viable without some sort of screen. I get it that all of the bodies are a pretty strong foil to some lists like smite spam and Grey Knights (actual Grey Knights not storm ravens spam, hurricane bolters eat conscripts for lunch) but that's fine. There shouldn't be list types that have no soft match ups. That's part of the game otherwise why would you play anything other than the Uber army with no foils.
On the same note there are plenty of situations where mass conscripts are pretty useless. Against heavy shooting your opponent is going to just shoot past them (you'd have to have some crazy terrain to hide everything) while the conscripts slowly move into position to try to actually contribute, armies like harlequins can just go over them and anything really good in assault (berzerkers, ork boys) are going to evaporate your conscripts in a hurry even with a commissar. And of course if your opponent can snipe out your squishy commissars your blobs will melt to morale.
So I just don't see that they need a fix. They're good but not OP.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I can't think of any other armies where their armywide special rule causes some units to lose models during their own turn.
Though I do believe the Orks used to have that so fair enough.
Psychic powers can do it for most armies with perils. Daemon Summoning, can cause mortal wounds to the summoning model.
Plenty of units have rules that cause wounds to themselves, lose models during your own turn. I mean you could just say "Conscripts cannot take orders", but this at least gives you the option.
Or you could make the orders part a second rule for them.
Disorganized : "In order to gain the benefit of orders this unit must succeed on LD test."
Then leave the other rule as
Unwilling Combatants - This unit must always use its own leadership. Further when falling back this unit must take an morale test with a +4 modifier on the D6 roll.
This causes less casualties but has orders failing 33% of the time.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I can't think of any other armies where their armywide special rule causes some units to lose models during their own turn.
Though I do believe the Orks used to have that so fair enough.
Psychic powers can do it for most armies with perils. Daemon Summoning, can cause mortal wounds to the summoning model.
Plenty of units have rules that cause wounds to themselves, lose models during your own turn. I mean you could just say "Conscripts cannot take orders", but this at least gives you the option.
Or you could make the orders part a second rule for them.
Disorganized : "In order to gain the benefit of orders this unit must succeed on LD test."
Then leave the other rule as
Unwilling Combatants - This unit must always use its own leadership. Further when falling back this unit must take an morale test with a +4 modifier on the D6 roll.
This causes less casualties but has orders failing 33% of the time.
Psychic powers are a BRB special rule, though, not like, an army's defining one. I've noticed that each army tends to have the 'defining special rule' in 8th, that makes that army do a thing. Orders for the Guard, Canticles for AM, Reanimation Protocols, And They Shall Know No Fear, etc.
I don't really understand the angst over conscripts. Are they good? Obviously yes but I don't think that means they need a nerf. They're 3 point ablative wounds that can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Even with first rank second rank, you're still hitting on 5s and it's unlikely everything will be within 12".
They're a fine way to stop turn 1 charges but Guard NEED that. They wouldn't even be viable without some sort of screen. I get it that all of the bodies are a pretty strong foil to some lists like smite spam and Grey Knights (actual Grey Knights not storm ravens spam, hurricane bolters eat conscripts for lunch) but that's fine. There shouldn't be list types that have no soft match ups. That's part of the game otherwise why would you play anything other than the Uber army with no foils.
On the same note there are plenty of situations where mass conscripts are pretty useless. Against heavy shooting your opponent is going to just shoot past them (you'd have to have some crazy terrain to hide everything) while the conscripts slowly move into position to try to actually contribute, armies like harlequins can just go over them and anything really good in assault (berzerkers, ork boys) are going to evaporate your conscripts in a hurry even with a commissar. And of course if your opponent can snipe out your squishy commissars your blobs will melt to morale.
So I just don't see that they need a fix. They're good but not OP.
The problem is that they are so cheap that you can field 150 of them and still have a functional army (1450 points), and at that point, armies can't just fly over them, cannot really assault through them super easily (they just fall back and screen again). IG is happy to get into a shooting match with basically everything, so having impenetrable assault defense is a pretty big deal. I'm not positive the need a fix, but I do think they are too powerful for their cost given their interaction with commissars, orders, and the fall back mechanic.
I definitely disagree with the stated goal of some posters that "standard infantry should be able to cost-effectively wipe conscripts in one turn".
Mostly because that wouldn't be "conscripts being balanced", that would be "conscripts failing to do their job". The most that should be hoped for is a unit that can win a trade with the Conscripts over the course of two or three turns. If you want to remove them in one turn you *should* have to commit overwhelming force to it, because their entire job is to force your opponent to make hard decisions.
So obviously it can be a bit difficult to come to an agreement on what an appropriate balance measure would be, when we can't agree on what balance even is.
Still, I would be okay with orders being a bit unreliable on conscripts. I just wouldn't want them to be removed entirely, because that would just remove way too much utility. And I wouldn't want to have to sacrifice models to make it work, the Imperium may be ruthless but we're not Chaos here, orders don't run on blood magic. Lopping 12% off the squad just to issue an order is excessive.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I can't think of any other armies where their armywide special rule causes some units to lose models during their own turn.
Though I do believe the Orks used to have that so fair enough.
Psychic powers can do it for most armies with perils. Daemon Summoning, can cause mortal wounds to the summoning model.
Plenty of units have rules that cause wounds to themselves, lose models during your own turn. I mean you could just say "Conscripts cannot take orders", but this at least gives you the option.
Or you could make the orders part a second rule for them.
Disorganized : "In order to gain the benefit of orders this unit must succeed on LD test."
Then leave the other rule as
Unwilling Combatants - This unit must always use its own leadership. Further when falling back this unit must take an morale test with a +4 modifier on the D6 roll.
This causes less casualties but has orders failing 33% of the time.
Psychic powers are a BRB special rule, though, not like, an army's defining one. I've noticed that each army tends to have the 'defining special rule' in 8th, that makes that army do a thing. Orders for the Guard, Canticles for AM, Reanimation Protocols, And They Shall Know No Fear, etc.
And orks defining rule is? Mob rule? Which their chaff unit Gretchin don't get to use? So it would not be unprecedented for a unit to not benefit from an army wide special rule. Not all necrons have RP, Not all eldar have battle focus etc.
So like I said you could easily say "cannot take orders", but I figure making it harder for them to do so, is better than not having them at all.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I can't think of any other armies where their armywide special rule causes some units to lose models during their own turn.
Though I do believe the Orks used to have that so fair enough.
Psychic powers can do it for most armies with perils. Daemon Summoning, can cause mortal wounds to the summoning model.
Plenty of units have rules that cause wounds to themselves, lose models during your own turn. I mean you could just say "Conscripts cannot take orders", but this at least gives you the option.
Or you could make the orders part a second rule for them.
Disorganized : "In order to gain the benefit of orders this unit must succeed on LD test."
Then leave the other rule as
Unwilling Combatants - This unit must always use its own leadership. Further when falling back this unit must take an morale test with a +4 modifier on the D6 roll.
This causes less casualties but has orders failing 33% of the time.
Psychic powers are a BRB special rule, though, not like, an army's defining one. I've noticed that each army tends to have the 'defining special rule' in 8th, that makes that army do a thing. Orders for the Guard, Canticles for AM, Reanimation Protocols, And They Shall Know No Fear, etc.
And orks defining rule is? Mob rule? Which their chaff unit Gretchin don't get to use? So it would not be unprecedented for a unit to not benefit from an army wide special rule. Not all necrons have RP, Not all eldar have battle focus etc.
So like I said you could easily say "cannot take orders", but I figure making it harder for them to do so, is better than not having them at all.
I mean, cannot take orders is fine with me honestly. But people ITT believe the problem with conscripts is their durability, not firepower (see your own post about having 'impenetrable assault defense') which removing orders does not affect in the slightest.
Furthermore, despite all the panic-mode players here who wax lyrical about the Conscript's game-ruining offensive firepower, I don't really know any IG players, on the internet or otherwise, suggesting that anyone take conscripts for their firepower. Orders can help their firepower improve, so taking away orders removes that, but that's not what most people use them for anyways.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Marmatag wrote: How many points should i have to commit to eliminate 50 conscripts in 1 turn?
If, as Grey Knights, I sink 700 points into Storm Bolter power-armor strike squads, I can shoot a conscript squad off of the table in 1 turn.
Does this seem fair? 700 points of my troops, to kill 150 of yours?
Yes, because if you remove the conscript's durability you've removed their entire point in existing. They're literally walls, like supply-depots in Starcraft or Stone Walls in Age of Empires. Not being insta-deleted by enemy stuff is about all they have going for them.
right now 8th has its share of Spam..While Conscripts can be spammed you wont find many players running that sort of spam at tournaments effectively. An average player will wear themselves out playing in a 5-7 game tournament. Good players will be good regardless. Spam players will just find other spam to run...and there are way better lists that spam then conscipts
I ran 80 of the suckers and they are decent.. not over powered.. they do a job and do it well. Make conscripts ineffective and you will just see other spam get even worse.
ross-128 wrote: I definitely disagree with the stated goal of some posters that "standard infantry should be able to cost-effectively wipe conscripts in one turn".
Mostly because that wouldn't be "conscripts being balanced", that would be "conscripts failing to do their job". The most that should be hoped for is a unit that can win a trade with the Conscripts over the course of two or three turns. If you want to remove them in one turn you *should* have to commit overwhelming force to it, because their entire job is to force your opponent to make hard decisions.
So obviously it can be a bit difficult to come to an agreement on what an appropriate balance measure would be, when we can't agree on what balance even is.
Still, I would be okay with orders being a bit unreliable on conscripts. I just wouldn't want them to be removed entirely, because that would just remove way too much utility. And I wouldn't want to have to sacrifice models to make it work, the Imperium may be ruthless but we're not Chaos here, orders don't run on blood magic. Lopping 12% off the squad just to issue an order is excessive.
As I said they aren't in the original post I made losing 12% (unless you have no commissar) they are losing 4% on average. I prefer making the orders a separate rule though, but people complained "too many rules" because having 2 rules for a model is too many. But with the losses I picture the commissar "forward march" conscripts mill about, commissar shoots a conscript, "I said forward march" conscripts still a bit slow, he shoots another, and they get moving.
But I'd be fine with orders being unreliable instead, and only having the morale test on fall back.
I suppose if you wanted a compromise, you could give orders to conscripts a flat 50% chance to succeed that isn't dependent on any of their stats (so it wouldn't be modified by their LD getting boosted), but a Commissar can choose to blam someone for either a re-roll or an auto-pass.
So basically you give an order, and it either succeeds or you ask yourself "Hmm, how much do I *really* want that order?"
zedsdead wrote: right now 8th has its share of Spam..While Conscripts can be spammed you wont find many players running that sort of spam at tournaments effectively. An average player will wear themselves out playing in a 5-7 game tournament. Good players will be good regardless. Spam players will just find other spam to run...and there are way better lists that spam then conscipts
I ran 80 of the suckers and they are decent.. not over powered.. they do a job and do it well. Make conscripts ineffective and you will just see other spam get even worse.
Conscripts aren't as bad as everyone is making them out to be.
Actually, you will.
For instance, look at the above poster. He says it should take 700 points of troops to wipe out conscripts. Fine. Guess what? I can field 2 kitted storm ravens for the same cost, and just lay waste to your tanks, ignoring conscripts.
If you look at the ETC, you'll see people have realized that storm ravens are the only viable option for <insert flavor> marine lists. Guard is part of the reason for this raven spam problem. Also, if you look at the ETC, you'll see something like 6,000 conscripts between 200 players. That should tell you something. They are *very* viable.
Unit1126PLL wrote: I can't think of any other armies where their armywide special rule causes some units to lose models during their own turn.
Though I do believe the Orks used to have that so fair enough.
Psychic powers can do it for most armies with perils. Daemon Summoning, can cause mortal wounds to the summoning model.
Plenty of units have rules that cause wounds to themselves, lose models during your own turn. I mean you could just say "Conscripts cannot take orders", but this at least gives you the option.
Or you could make the orders part a second rule for them.
Disorganized : "In order to gain the benefit of orders this unit must succeed on LD test."
Then leave the other rule as
Unwilling Combatants - This unit must always use its own leadership. Further when falling back this unit must take an morale test with a +4 modifier on the D6 roll.
This causes less casualties but has orders failing 33% of the time.
Psychic powers are a BRB special rule, though, not like, an army's defining one. I've noticed that each army tends to have the 'defining special rule' in 8th, that makes that army do a thing. Orders for the Guard, Canticles for AM, Reanimation Protocols, And They Shall Know No Fear, etc.
And orks defining rule is? Mob rule? Which their chaff unit Gretchin don't get to use? So it would not be unprecedented for a unit to not benefit from an army wide special rule. Not all necrons have RP, Not all eldar have battle focus etc.
So like I said you could easily say "cannot take orders", but I figure making it harder for them to do so, is better than not having them at all.
I mean, cannot take orders is fine with me honestly. But people ITT believe the problem with conscripts is their durability, not firepower (see your own post about having 'impenetrable assault defense') which removing orders does not affect in the slightest.
Furthermore, despite all the panic-mode players here who wax lyrical about the Conscript's game-ruining offensive firepower, I don't really know any IG players, on the internet or otherwise, suggesting that anyone take conscripts for their firepower. Orders can help their firepower improve, so taking away orders removes that, but that's not what most people use them for anyways.
The orders for me are less the extra firepower, and more the Ignores penalties for fall back. The issue right now is this. Say I play orks. I run 30 boyz into your 50 conscripts.
You kill ~5 in overwatch. I get 100 attacks, kill 30 concripts. The remaining 20 hit back, kill 2 more orks. Lose 1 more to morale. They fall back, with no penalty, get to shoot kill 4 more orks. (down to 19) The rest of your army finishes off the ork squad for all purposes. Then you still have 19 to screen a second charging unit with. All this assumes that my mob gets there unhurt, makes the charge (which if they are unharmed is probably long), all the boyz get to swing(they won't). So in reality the scenario end up better for the conscripts than this would suggest.
With my changes you lose 1 more model to morale, 2 more to fall back, and 2 more to the order (or none if we go with the LD test method). SO you would be down to 14 instead of 19. Still not game breaking, just makes it a bit easier to grind them down.
Could someone math out the 700 points versus conscripts? I may be missing something (i.e. you may have factored in the Smite damage) but to my mind you would need more.
The point though is how bad all the probabilities are for killing them. While I realise its taking mathhammer to the point where people get really upset a basic marine outside rapid fire gets just 6.8% of his points back. That is the sort of percentage he would get shooting a lascannon Razorback.
Meanwhile the conscript shooting back gets 16% base, 32% with FRFSRF. 64% (!!!) if he is in rapid fire range.
The do great damage and are hard to kill. We can all wait on tournament results but I suspect the leafblower in a conscript sea is going to be a top tier army.
If you look at the ETC, you'll see people have realized that storm ravens are the only viable option for <insert flavor> marine lists. Guard is part of the reason for this raven spam problem. Also, if you look at the ETC, you'll see something like 6,000 conscripts between 200 players. That should tell you something. They are *very* viable.
And turn one assaults are the reason why conscripts are in almost every AM list, so assaulty armies are a part of the reason for this conscript problem. That rabbit hole keeps going.
ross-128 wrote: I suppose if you wanted a compromise, you could give orders to conscripts a flat 50% chance to succeed that isn't dependent on any of their stats (so it wouldn't be modified by their LD getting boosted), but a Commissar can choose to blam someone for either a re-roll or an auto-pass.
So basically you give an order, and it either succeeds or you ask yourself "Hmm, how much do I *really* want that order?"
You could do that and still just make it an LD test and keep them unable to be modified, then they only fail 33% of the time, and the commissar can kill to auto pass. But that requires including the commissar as part of the rules for the conscripts which really isn't clean.
zedsdead wrote: right now 8th has its share of Spam..While Conscripts can be spammed you wont find many players running that sort of spam at tournaments effectively. An average player will wear themselves out playing in a 5-7 game tournament. Good players will be good regardless. Spam players will just find other spam to run...and there are way better lists that spam then conscipts
I ran 80 of the suckers and they are decent.. not over powered.. they do a job and do it well. Make conscripts ineffective and you will just see other spam get even worse.
Conscripts aren't as bad as everyone is making them out to be.
Actually, you will.
For instance, look at the above poster. He says it should take 700 points of troops to wipe out conscripts. Fine. Guess what? I can field 2 kitted storm ravens for the same cost, and just lay waste to your tanks, ignoring conscripts.
If you look at the ETC, you'll see people have realized that storm ravens are the only viable option for <insert flavor> marine lists. Guard is part of the reason for this raven spam problem. Also, if you look at the ETC, you'll see something like 6,000 conscripts between 200 players. That should tell you something. They are *very* viable.
Wait, conscripts have a counter you can field that can outright ignore them? Wow I thought they were OP.
30 conscripts per players isn't impressive; the question is how many AM players there are, and whether those conscripts actually win, which remains to be seen. If it ends up with more than 200 conscripts per AM player, then I'd be surprised. Because that's 600 points of conscripts, which is a ton, and will be very unwieldy on the tabletop.
It really isn't too many rules. I can do it with 2 rules.
Which wouldn't be more than many other units. In fact it is pretty easy fix overall.
It's not just the number of rules but the fact that they're being put on what is ostensibly one of the most basic units in the game. Even 2 negative rules seems a bit much. Really, I'd think one negative rule would be enough. But maybe I just look at things weirdly.
No added rules there just one changed. Most IG units would not have a huge issue with this because any unit within 6" is LD 8, and no non-conscript squad is larger than 10 models. So at LD 8, they lose 1 model on a 6 if they take 3 casualties, If they take 5 casualties they have a 50-50 shots of losing at least a single model. So it isn't quite as good as the current rule, but it is good enough for most purposes, yes if you lose 8 models the last 2 are probably dead, but I really don't think that is a huge issue.
You're seriously underestimating how much this would hurt IG units.
zedsdead wrote: right now 8th has its share of Spam..While Conscripts can be spammed you wont find many players running that sort of spam at tournaments effectively. An average player will wear themselves out playing in a 5-7 game tournament. Good players will be good regardless. Spam players will just find other spam to run...and there are way better lists that spam then conscipts
I ran 80 of the suckers and they are decent.. not over powered.. they do a job and do it well. Make conscripts ineffective and you will just see other spam get even worse.
Conscripts aren't as bad as everyone is making them out to be.
Actually, you will.
For instance, look at the above poster. He says it should take 700 points of troops to wipe out conscripts. Fine. Guess what? I can field 2 kitted storm ravens for the same cost, and just lay waste to your tanks, ignoring conscripts.
If you look at the ETC, you'll see people have realized that storm ravens are the only viable option for <insert flavor> marine lists. Guard is part of the reason for this raven spam problem. Also, if you look at the ETC, you'll see something like 6,000 conscripts between 200 players. That should tell you something. They are *very* viable.
lol..your kidding me right !. Ravens aren't Viable because of Conscripts.. They are viable because they are one of the most efficient Units in the game for there cost. Add in a character buff and you have 4-6 units that lay down increadable.. re-rollable hits, from a unit that can not be locked into combat, can only be engaged by other fly units, can shoot while retreating and moving at full BS, move 40+ inches and are hard to hit.
That's why there is Raven spam..
Conscripts do only one thing against them.. that is keeping Ravens from double tapping your units with melta. 4-6 ravens laying rapid fire into them from Hurricane bolters make them melt away. Its effective for a turn or 2... then bye bye conscripts
zedsdead wrote: right now 8th has its share of Spam..While Conscripts can be spammed you wont find many players running that sort of spam at tournaments effectively. An average player will wear themselves out playing in a 5-7 game tournament. Good players will be good regardless. Spam players will just find other spam to run...and there are way better lists that spam then conscipts
I ran 80 of the suckers and they are decent.. not over powered.. they do a job and do it well. Make conscripts ineffective and you will just see other spam get even worse.
Conscripts aren't as bad as everyone is making them out to be.
Actually, you will.
For instance, look at the above poster. He says it should take 700 points of troops to wipe out conscripts. Fine. Guess what? I can field 2 kitted storm ravens for the same cost, and just lay waste to your tanks, ignoring conscripts.
If you look at the ETC, you'll see people have realized that storm ravens are the only viable option for <insert flavor> marine lists. Guard is part of the reason for this raven spam problem. Also, if you look at the ETC, you'll see something like 6,000 conscripts between 200 players. That should tell you something. They are *very* viable.
Well for starters, as Grey Knights you shouldn't be relying entirely on your shooting phase for your offensive output. You have a shooting phase, an assault phase, AND a psychic phase. Grey Knights are competent in all three phases, use them. Grey Knights are also pretty much a worst-case scenario for fighting any horde army, it's just a major weakness of theirs.
You also have to look at what you're getting by focusing Conscripts down like that. If you wipe the Conscripts in one turn of shooting, how many casualties are you taking in return? None? So by focusing them down like that, the Conscripts are dead and you still have 700 points of units that can continue to kill everything else on the board. Killing conscripts is not about scoring points, it's about removing an obstacle that is standing between you and the things you want to kill.
If you don't think removing that obstacle is worth committing that much effort, then find a way to ignore it instead and just send a unit that can eventually win a trade against them to tie them up. Winning a trade over a few turns against Conscripts is much cheaper than going for a one-turn wipe, you've just got to weigh points against time.
zedsdead wrote: right now 8th has its share of Spam..While Conscripts can be spammed you wont find many players running that sort of spam at tournaments effectively. An average player will wear themselves out playing in a 5-7 game tournament. Good players will be good regardless. Spam players will just find other spam to run...and there are way better lists that spam then conscipts
I ran 80 of the suckers and they are decent.. not over powered.. they do a job and do it well. Make conscripts ineffective and you will just see other spam get even worse.
Conscripts aren't as bad as everyone is making them out to be.
Actually, you will.
For instance, look at the above poster. He says it should take 700 points of troops to wipe out conscripts. Fine. Guess what? I can field 2 kitted storm ravens for the same cost, and just lay waste to your tanks, ignoring conscripts.
If you look at the ETC, you'll see people have realized that storm ravens are the only viable option for <insert flavor> marine lists. Guard is part of the reason for this raven spam problem. Also, if you look at the ETC, you'll see something like 6,000 conscripts between 200 players. That should tell you something. They are *very* viable.
Wait, conscripts have a counter you can field that can outright ignore them? Wow I thought they were OP.
30 conscripts per players isn't impressive; the question is how many AM players there are, and whether those conscripts actually win, which remains to be seen. If it ends up with more than 200 conscripts per AM player, then I'd be surprised. Because that's 600 points of conscripts, which is a ton, and will be very unwieldy on the tabletop.
That average of 30 per person is meaningless, not everyone is playing imperial guard. There's also an average of almost 1 storm raven per person, but that's because people who play them bring 5.
Look - if you accept that the storm raven spam isn't OP, then i'll accept that conscripts aren't OP, and we can have a 6 stormraven + draigo vs your IG army some time.
Not personally what i want out of 40k, but if it's balanced, I can get over my delicate sensibilities.
If i had my way, the "flyer wing" detachment would be deleted, and auxiliary detachment wouldn't be allowed in tournament play. And that directly harms my ability to win games...
Unit1126PLL wrote: Wait, conscripts have a counter you can field that can outright ignore them? Wow I thought they were OP.
30 conscripts per players isn't impressive; the question is how many AM players there are, and whether those conscripts actually win, which remains to be seen. If it ends up with more than 200 conscripts per AM player, then I'd be surprised. Because that's 600 points of conscripts, which is a ton, and will be very unwieldy on the tabletop.
If you can totally ignore the conscripts and win a shooting game against guard, it's fine. Not many armies can do that, usually only by spamming something we all acknowledge is broken (storm ravens).
Well, if say more than 25% of armies are using conscripts and thus some form of conscripts, that's also a balance issue.
The problem is that they are so cheap that you can field 150 of them and still have a functional army (1450 points), and at that point, armies can't just fly over them, cannot really assault through them super easily (they just fall back and screen again). IG is happy to get into a shooting match with basically everything, so having impenetrable assault defense is a pretty big deal. I'm not positive the need a fix, but I do think they are too powerful for their cost given their interaction with commissars, orders, and the fall back mechanic.
Yes you can still have a functional army but 150 conscripts is not a negligible cost. That plus the support commissar is at least 25% of your army in a 2000 point game and slightly more if you need or want a second commissar.
If we're talking about a shooting match and your opponent hasn't sunk 25% of his costs into ablative wounds you're going to be on the losing end of the exchange in all likelihood because that quarter of your army just isn't going to contribute.
In reference to backing out of assault I think you're overestimating how much room your going to have to do that. 150 conscripts takes up a lot of room and you're going to have to tightly pack up to keep them from just going over you and engaging the business part of your army Oh and you're also conceding the ability to pursue any win condition beyond tabling your opponent because if you aren't castling up your units going out to get objectives aren't benefitting from your screen or your spreading out and once again your opponent can just fly over the screen.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying conscripts are bad. They are definitely good. They just aren't game breaking.
What if they took a similar approach to Conscripts that they did with Command Squads. One Conscript unit per 2 Infantry Squads (similar to how they were limited to infantry platoons before)? And/or limit them to 30 bodies.
I don't mind conscripts so much, but it's probably because I play an army that can 1 turn wipe 50 for 200 points. And that 200 point unit is the core of my army anyway and I have multiple.
Drager wrote: I don't mind conscripts so much, but it's probably because I play an army that can 1 turn wipe 50 for 200 points. And that 200 point unit is the core of my army anyway and I have multiple.
What unit is that, Khorne Berzerkers? Why doesn't your opponent delete units so you don't get a second fight phase? Or are you using a different unit?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
perilsensitive wrote: What if they took a similar approach to Conscripts that they did with Command Squads. One Conscript unit per 2 Infantry Squads (similar to how they were limited to infantry platoons before)? And/or limit them to 30 bodies.
This would make sense. Just like it would make sense to delete the flyer wing, so people have to bring at least 1 hq and 1 troop per 2 fliers.
It really isn't too many rules. I can do it with 2 rules.
Which wouldn't be more than many other units. In fact it is pretty easy fix overall.
It's not just the number of rules but the fact that they're being put on what is ostensibly one of the most basic units in the game. Even 2 negative rules seems a bit much. Really, I'd think one negative rule would be enough. But maybe I just look at things weirdly.
No added rules there just one changed. Most IG units would not have a huge issue with this because any unit within 6" is LD 8, and no non-conscript squad is larger than 10 models. So at LD 8, they lose 1 model on a 6 if they take 3 casualties, If they take 5 casualties they have a 50-50 shots of losing at least a single model. So it isn't quite as good as the current rule, but it is good enough for most purposes, yes if you lose 8 models the last 2 are probably dead, but I really don't think that is a huge issue.
You're seriously underestimating how much this would hurt IG units.
Ok which units are really effected?
You need to do 4 wounds for this to start mattering at all at LD 8. At which point there is a 16% chance of losing 2 models. So really we are looking at units that can take more than 5 models (losing 5 models brings it to 33% chance of losing more than 1 model.)
So effected units are
Bullgryns - (in large squads) - This rule actually buffs these models because instead of losing a model their is a chance they lose 0 models, or 1 at most.
Conscripts - These are the problem we are discussing, so no issue here
Infantry squads - hurts them a bit, as they are likely to lose 1 extra model on average to morale
Tempestus Scions (if taken in larger squads) - again multiple smaller squads are just as good as single larger squads, and these are likely out of your bubble anyway.
Ogryns - (in large squads)-This rule actually buffs these models because instead of losing a model their is a chance they lose 0 models, or 1 at most.
Ratlings- only if you take larger squads, could instead take multiple small squads at no cost.
Rough riders - are they even staying near a commissar? That said, it is a break even for these squads as they are mutli-wound, so they were already losing 2 wounds. Worst case they lose 1 extra model (if one is wounded already) best case, they lose 0 models. Most common, they lose 1 model.
Special Weapons squads - hurt a bit, but not that much, if this squad has lost 4 models, losing 2 vs losing 1 is not a huge issue.
Veterans- Hurts them a bit, they lose an extra model on average.
So I'm confused where this hurts most of IG units? IT is a break even or buff for most units.
It is also not unfluffy, the unit start to run, commissar shoots 1 of the (up to 3 models) that are running, everyone else falls in line. Unless by unfluffy you mean that some units might have a model survive being shot.
As for 2 rules I actually fixed it with 1 negative rule on the Conscripts, but people didn't like taking extra wounds. You could do it with them not having issues with orders. Just have negative to falling back and no LD buff from commissar.
And turn one assaults are the reason why conscripts are in almost every AM list, so assaulty armies are a part of the reason for this conscript problem. That rabbit hole keeps going.
I think this is worth pointing out. Guard NEED a good screen. I would posit that the army would not even be competitive without one. All of your infantry folds to dedicated assault troops and once your opponent gets into the middle of your tanks they just aren't doing anything so without a good screen any sort of turn one assault can put you into an unwinnable position before you even get to take a turn.
Drager wrote: I don't mind conscripts so much, but it's probably because I play an army that can 1 turn wipe 50 for 200 points. And that 200 point unit is the core of my army anyway and I have multiple.
What unit is that, Khorne Berzerkers? Why doesn't your opponent delete units so you don't get a second fight phase? Or are you using a different unit?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
perilsensitive wrote: What if they took a similar approach to Conscripts that they did with Command Squads. One Conscript unit per 2 Infantry Squads (similar to how they were limited to infantry platoons before)? And/or limit them to 30 bodies.
This would make sense. Just like it would make sense to delete the flyer wing, so people have to bring at least 1 hq and 1 troop per 2 fliers.
that would be fine if they did that as well for armies that can spam bodies as well.
Razorflocks... 144 of them
Genestealer cult spam... no restriction.
I would gladly play against conscript spam then either of these two armies.
--- and that's because I have.
and btw... what makes conscript spam armies good is the ability to spam Touroxes...
Drager wrote: I don't mind conscripts so much, but it's probably because I play an army that can 1 turn wipe 50 for 200 points. And that 200 point unit is the core of my army anyway and I have multiple.
What unit is that, Khorne Berzerkers? Why doesn't your opponent delete units so you don't get a second fight phase? Or are you using a different unit?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
perilsensitive wrote: What if they took a similar approach to Conscripts that they did with Command Squads. One Conscript unit per 2 Infantry Squads (similar to how they were limited to infantry platoons before)? And/or limit them to 30 bodies.
This would make sense. Just like it would make sense to delete the flyer wing, so people have to bring at least 1 hq and 1 troop per 2 fliers.
I actually pointed this out earlier, but it's actually surprisingly hard to delete enough Conscripts to escape a Berzerker squad, especially if that squad attacks on a wide front. Because they consolidate 3" after inflicting casualties, and they only have to get one model within 1" to be "still in combat". So if there is one conscript within 4" of any one Berzerker model after casualties, they can consolidate and stick to you. And a conscript's base is only 2" wide.
It can vary quite a lot depending on how the Conscripts are placed and how the Berzerkers are placed, but in general, you have to remove a looooot of Conscripts to get them out of consolidation range. Especially if the Berzerkers had enough range on their charge+pile-in to really squeeze in there, or if the Conscripts are packed too tightly such that their second rank is still within 4" of the front line.
Tyel wrote: Could someone math out the 700 points versus conscripts? I may be missing something (i.e. you may have factored in the Smite damage) but to my mind you would need more.
700 points worth of GKSS with storm bolters at 9.1-11.9" range:
You'd get about 40 on average, with the result being fairly consistent within +/- 5.
That's not counting smite. That's, like, 33.3 guys at 700 points. Lets toss two more in to make 7 squads of 5. You have about an 83.3% chance of getting the smite off if memory serves. You'd get about 6 smites off on average. They fail that morale test and the commissar blams 1, leaving 3 of them left. That's assuming that the 50 conscripts were somehow impossibly positioned around the commissar that you:
1. Can't shoot him with about half of those bullets.
2. Can't assault to him with ANY of those knights.
At that point, I scratch my head and ask why you kept shooting them well beyond the point of usefulness.
What I think fixes the majority of the cited problems with conscripts would actually be to remove assault from deep strike and let people start deep striking within 9" again. Gets rid of a lot of the first turn assault worries, and then the wall of conscripts suddenly becomes less useful when a drop pod can just dump meltaguns behind it.
And turn one assaults are the reason why conscripts are in almost every AM list, so assaulty armies are a part of the reason for this conscript problem. That rabbit hole keeps going.
I think this is worth pointing out. Guard NEED a good screen. I would posit that the army would not even be competitive without one. All of your infantry folds to dedicated assault troops and once your opponent gets into the middle of your tanks they just aren't doing anything so without a good screen any sort of turn one assault can put you into an unwinnable position before you even get to take a turn.
No one disputes that you need a good screen.
The challenge is that either: (a) your screens are too effective, or (b) your firepower behind said screens is far too strong.
It's become clear that any kind of agreement is not going to be reached in this thread. I would never turn down a game against guard, but i will pull out the ravens.
The problem is that they are so cheap that you can field 150 of them and still have a functional army (1450 points), and at that point, armies can't just fly over them, cannot really assault through them super easily (they just fall back and screen again). IG is happy to get into a shooting match with basically everything, so having impenetrable assault defense is a pretty big deal. I'm not positive the need a fix, but I do think they are too powerful for their cost given their interaction with commissars, orders, and the fall back mechanic.
Yes you can still have a functional army but 150 conscripts is not a negligible cost. That plus the support commissar is at least 25% of your army in a 2000 point game and slightly more if you need or want a second commissar.
If we're talking about a shooting match and your opponent hasn't sunk 25% of his costs into ablative wounds you're going to be on the losing end of the exchange in all likelihood because that quarter of your army just isn't going to contribute.
In reference to backing out of assault I think you're overestimating how much room your going to have to do that. 150 conscripts takes up a lot of room and you're going to have to tightly pack up to keep them from just going over you and engaging the business part of your army Oh and you're also conceding the ability to pursue any win condition beyond tabling your opponent because if you aren't castling up your units going out to get objectives aren't benefitting from your screen or your spreading out and once again your opponent can just fly over the screen.
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying conscripts are bad. They are definitely good. They just aren't game breaking.
Largely depends on terrain, IG is one of the only armies with a lot of barrage shooting. You are right that it isn't nothing, but you also don't need 150 conscripts to bubble wrap.
As for tabling the opponent. It depends on the mission, objective placement etc. It depends on how crippling the IG firepower is as well. If I can castle and stay safe for 2 turns, and during that time cripple your army, then move onto the objectives, I'll be fine with that. You say fly over the screen, if I stop that until your flyers are dead, how does that work?
If your opponent hasn't sunk any points into screening units then his shooting army loses to any assault elements. IG also has a ton of points efficient shooting, so it is entirely possible that many armies have no more shooting playing 25% higher points.
perilsensitive wrote: What if they took a similar approach to Conscripts that they did with Command Squads. One Conscript unit per 2 Infantry Squads (similar to how they were limited to infantry platoons before)? And/or limit them to 30 bodies.
This would make sense. Just like it would make sense to delete the flyer wing, so people have to bring at least 1 hq and 1 troop per 2 fliers.
Which is something I said was astonishingly brilliant and reasonable when it was suggested back on, like, page 1 or 2.
And turn one assaults are the reason why conscripts are in almost every AM list, so assaulty armies are a part of the reason for this conscript problem. That rabbit hole keeps going.
I think this is worth pointing out. Guard NEED a good screen. I would posit that the army would not even be competitive without one. All of your infantry folds to dedicated assault troops and once your opponent gets into the middle of your tanks they just aren't doing anything so without a good screen any sort of turn one assault can put you into an unwinnable position before you even get to take a turn.
No one disputes that you need a good screen.
The challenge is that either: (a) your screens are too effective, or (b) your firepower behind said screens is far too strong.
It's become clear that any kind of agreement is not going to be reached in this thread. I would never turn down a game against guard, but i will pull out the ravens.
I will agree the screen's firepower is too strong, but not that the screen is too strong in and of itself. As I pointed out earlier, considering their relative effectiveness compared to tactical marines, they're almost right on target. However, they drastically exceed marines under the effect of orders.
So altering their survivability to "bring them in line" as it were wouldn't solve the problem. Only their "buffed by Orders" state is in excess of Space Marines, so the power of their "buffed by Orders" state is what needs to change.
perilsensitive wrote: What if they took a similar approach to Conscripts that they did with Command Squads. One Conscript unit per 2 Infantry Squads (similar to how they were limited to infantry platoons before)? And/or limit them to 30 bodies.
This would make sense. Just like it would make sense to delete the flyer wing, so people have to bring at least 1 hq and 1 troop per 2 fliers.
Which is something I said was astonishingly brilliant and reasonable when it was suggested back on, like, page 1 or 2.
It isn't actually that effective unfortunately, as you can still spam like 5 ravens even with requiring 1 HQ and 1 Troop per. I had initially thought the same thing, but Cheap HQ + scouts is like 130 points, So for like 650 points you can get 2 Ravens, so you can get 5-6 at 2k. It helps a little, but not that much.
I think you need to go on top of that and restrict to a single patrol detachment.
If anything I'd like to see GW take a look at regular squads of guardsmen. As it stands I don't know why I'd ever take them. They're too flimsy to really invest points into and not an efficient way to spend orders since you are at most affecting 1 heavy weapon and 1 special.
tomguycot wrote: If anything I'd like to see GW take a look at regular squads of guardsmen. As it stands I don't know why I'd ever take them. They're too flimsy to really invest points into and not an efficient way to spend orders since you are at most affecting 1 heavy weapon and 1 special.
agree...
I see tons of mathhammer on shooting and assaulting.
This seems to be ok.
but
Mathhammer the efficiency of the order per unit and Conscipts make maximum efficiency of that said order.
I think you need to go on top of that and restrict to a single patrol detachment.
I'd go one step further and say that you need a mandatory patrol/battalion/brigade before you can take any of the other detachments, and that you can't take any of the smaller ones if you have enough stuff to take a larger one. I could be described as somehow hostile toward the current state of the FOC though.
zedsdead wrote: - conscript spam armies are a challenge
- Brimstone horror spam is a challenge
- Razorflock spam is a challenge
- genestealer cult spam is a challenge
---- are any of these armies unbeatable ? nope.. can they be frustrating. Yea I guess.
These are generally competitive lists. I will gladly play against any one of them.
It isn't that I wouldn't play these armies, just that I don't think they look fun to play against. As such I hope that GW addresses the balance issues with these units. I also think they should address those with units that are garbage. I really want to see variety in what is taken.
I think part of the reason conscripts are so ubiquitous is because the regular guardsman isn't viable. Without the ability to blob squad the regular guys you are always better off either "downgrading" to conscripts to get a blob and thus buff efficiency or upgrade to vets for better ballistic skill and four times as many special weapons.
Regular infantry squads are really solid in lists without vehicles because they're how you put together a durable firebase which forces the enemy to come to you. 8 to 10 squads with one lascannon each, backed by mortar heavy weapon squads and snipers, guarantee that I'm outshooting you from 48". You have to close with me to use assault cannons and bolters, and that makes it easy for my drop squads and assassins to find targets.
I do think it would be kind of nice if as a compromise, I could blob 2-3 regular guardsman squads together. Mostly I just want that so I can protect heavy weapons with wound allocation shenanigans though.
It would make a kind of nice progression, 50 conscripts, 20-30 guardsmen, 10 veterans. Or you could extend it further: 50 conscripts, 30 guardsmen, 20 veterans, 10 scions.
I think you need to go on top of that and restrict to a single patrol detachment.
I'd go one step further and say that you need a mandatory patrol/battalion/brigade before you can take any of the other detachments, and that you can't take any of the smaller ones if you have enough stuff to take a larger one. I could be described as somehow hostile toward the current state of the FOC though.
I disagree with that. A mandatory patrol borders on meaningless. Beyond that I think that the troops in this game are not balanced enough to make requiring them fun. Also how do you enforce "have enough stuff to take a larger one"? If you mean "own enough" that is not enforceable. If you mean have enough in your list, then the requirement serves no purpose. there is no advantage to say taking a patrol with 1 HQ and 2 troops, a vanguard with 2 HQ 1 troop, and 4 elites, over taking a Battalion. Now if you mean "if you have enough troops in your army you must field the larger detachment (this doesn't work for the brigade) then that could kind of work, but most of the time would have little effect.
Now if they made everyone actually have comparable troops, I might agree, but as written the Imperium benefits wildly from the "must take troop detachments." or everyone else must pay a tax of one detachment, 1 HQ and 1 troop.
And turn one assaults are the reason why conscripts are in almost every AM list, so assaulty armies are a part of the reason for this conscript problem. That rabbit hole keeps going.
I think this is worth pointing out. Guard NEED a good screen. I would posit that the army would not even be competitive without one. All of your infantry folds to dedicated assault troops and once your opponent gets into the middle of your tanks they just aren't doing anything so without a good screen any sort of turn one assault can put you into an unwinnable position before you even get to take a turn.
No one disputes that you need a good screen.
The challenge is that either: (a) your screens are too effective, or (b) your firepower behind said screens is far too strong.
It's become clear that any kind of agreement is not going to be reached in this thread. I would never turn down a game against guard, but i will pull out the ravens.
Go ahead and pull out the ravens, I don't run screens of conscripts or anything because superheavies don't need them. In fact, we'd be in a good spot against stormraven spam and have been in prior games (if spam = 3).
Drager wrote: I don't mind conscripts so much, but it's probably because I play an army that can 1 turn wipe 50 for 200 points. And that 200 point unit is the core of my army anyway and I have multiple.
What unit is that, Khorne Berzerkers? Why doesn't your opponent delete units so you don't get a second fight phase? Or are you using a different unit?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
perilsensitive wrote: What if they took a similar approach to Conscripts that they did with Command Squads. One Conscript unit per 2 Infantry Squads (similar to how they were limited to infantry platoons before)? And/or limit them to 30 bodies.
This would make sense. Just like it would make sense to delete the flyer wing, so people have to bring at least 1 hq and 1 troop per 2 fliers.
tomguycot wrote: I think part of the reason conscripts are so ubiquitous is because the regular guardsman isn't viable. Without the ability to blob squad the regular guys you are always better off either "downgrading" to conscripts to get a blob and thus buff efficiency or upgrade to vets for better ballistic skill and four times as many special weapons.
I actually agree, I would have liked something like you can deploy up to 3 Infantry squads at once as a single unit.
I actually agree, I would have liked something like you can deploy up to 3 Infantry squads at once as a single unit.
Well this was pretty much how they worked prior to 8th so I'm not sure why they were changed. Yes it would have been good with autopass orders but so are conscripts, veterans and scions.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I will agree the screen's firepower is too strong, but not that the screen is too strong in and of itself. As I pointed out earlier, considering their relative effectiveness compared to tactical marines, they're almost right on target. However, they drastically exceed marines under the effect of orders.
So altering their survivability to "bring them in line" as it were wouldn't solve the problem. Only their "buffed by Orders" state is in excess of Space Marines, so the power of their "buffed by Orders" state is what needs to change.
Well, that and bring in to line some of the big guns that are a bit to point effective as far as artillery goes. I suppose it is, to me, more natural to leave guard with the best big guns for the points and merely an okay screen. It's also reasonable to leave them a great screen but bring the big guns in line with other armies.
But you really can't justify having the best big guns and the best screen. That's a bit much, and means you will eb the best army outside a handful of units.
tomguycot wrote: I think part of the reason conscripts are so ubiquitous is because the regular guardsman isn't viable. Without the ability to blob squad the regular guys you are always better off either "downgrading" to conscripts to get a blob and thus buff efficiency or upgrade to vets for better ballistic skill and four times as many special weapons.
Which is an interesting argument.
I see a lot of people saying that conscripts at 4 ppm wouldn't change anything, because people would just use normal guardsman. Then I see others argue that normal guardsman don't work, as you can't take them in large enough squads (which ties back to the, guardsman are cheaper than equivalent units due to size issues thing).
It's a really interesting back and forth, and I wish people would start actually debating each other about it. People who actually paly as IG, and thus could better support either side of the argument than i would be able to.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I will agree the screen's firepower is too strong, but not that the screen is too strong in and of itself. As I pointed out earlier, considering their relative effectiveness compared to tactical marines, they're almost right on target. However, they drastically exceed marines under the effect of orders.
So altering their survivability to "bring them in line" as it were wouldn't solve the problem. Only their "buffed by Orders" state is in excess of Space Marines, so the power of their "buffed by Orders" state is what needs to change.
Well, that and bring in to line some of the big guns that are a bit to point effective as far as artillery goes. I suppose it is, to me, more natural to leave guard with the best big guns for the points and merely an okay screen. It's also reasonable to leave them a great screen but bring the big guns in line with other armies.
But you really can't justify having the best big guns and the best screen. That's a bit much, and means you will eb the best army outside a handful of units.
Aren't our big guns in line with everyone else's? What guns do you mean specifically? I can't think of any big gun that's ridiculously OP right now.
I actually agree, I would have liked something like you can deploy up to 3 Infantry squads at once as a single unit.
Well this was pretty much how they worked prior to 8th so I'm not sure why they were changed. Yes it would have been good with autopass orders but so are conscripts, veterans and scions.
True, they probably should have made orders function like psychic powers, give each a value, roll 2D6 over that value for the order to take. In fact if you did something like make them easy rolls, but made them -1 modifier for every 10 models in a unit, that would work well. So FRFSRF goes of on a 4. For a 10 man unit it would need a 5+, 20 would need a 6+, 30 would need a 7+
So that would be 91% chance to go off (baring CP re-rolls), for say a 5 man squad, 83% for a 10 man squad, 72% for a 20 man squad, 58% for a 30 man squad, 42% for 40, 27% for 50. So the orders have more effect for larger squads but are harder to get off. You then could have built in rules to some characters that gave them "casting" bonuses, and give them a stratagem for 2 CP that auto-passes an order.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Aren't our big guns in line with everyone else's? What guns do you mean specifically? I can't think of any big gun that's ridiculously OP right now.
The manticore is the one people mention most often, I've also heard people say the wyvern generally outperforms similar options in other armies (though I don't even know for sure what is the equivelent to these weapons, besides maybe whirlwinds and orc lobbas). . Heavy weapon squads are another, but that's not really tied into screening given they can be easily killed by anything that can shoot them. .
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: I will agree the screen's firepower is too strong, but not that the screen is too strong in and of itself. As I pointed out earlier, considering their relative effectiveness compared to tactical marines, they're almost right on target. However, they drastically exceed marines under the effect of orders.
So altering their survivability to "bring them in line" as it were wouldn't solve the problem. Only their "buffed by Orders" state is in excess of Space Marines, so the power of their "buffed by Orders" state is what needs to change.
Well, that and bring in to line some of the big guns that are a bit to point effective as far as artillery goes. I suppose it is, to me, more natural to leave guard with the best big guns for the points and merely an okay screen. It's also reasonable to leave them a great screen but bring the big guns in line with other armies.
But you really can't justify having the best big guns and the best screen. That's a bit much, and means you will eb the best army outside a handful of units.
Aren't our big guns in line with everyone else's? What guns do you mean specifically? I can't think of any big gun that's ridiculously OP right now.
No, your big guns surpass everyone else's. Even Tau. You are the shootiest army in 8th edition, and also the tankiest army in 8th edition. Those two things combine to broken status.
True, they probably should have made orders function like psychic powers, give each a value, roll 2D6 over that value for the order to take. In fact if you did something like make them easy rolls, but made them -1 modifier for every 10 models in a unit, that would work well. So FRFSRF goes of on a 4. For a 10 man unit it would need a 5+, 20 would need a 6+, 30 would need a 7+
So that would be 91% chance to go off (baring CP re-rolls), for say a 5 man squad, 83% for a 10 man squad, 72% for a 20 man squad, 58% for a 30 man squad, 42% for 40, 27% for 50. So the orders have more effect for larger squads but are harder to get off. You then could have built in rules to some characters that gave them "casting" bonuses, and give them a stratagem for 2 CP that auto-passes an order.
Or maybe even a base roll with a penalty for being a conscript, nothing for being a regular guardsman and a bonus for being veteran?
So we had a big discussion earlier in this thread about how the Manticore's not so good, and the Wyvern's not so good. In fact, people were claiming that conscripts have equivalent or better anti-infantry firepower. So... they're probably not OP, since conscript shooting is good (for their points) but not grand.
The Shadowsword's main gun vs any 1 wound model unit is d6 deaths, essentially, give or take. It's really not spectacular. The Space Marine one gets two such guns on the same tank, so ours isn't even the best.
Our big guns are certainly quite capable and very numerous, but they're not ultra-devastating, I don't think. I mean heck, I run a Baneblade company and it usually takes all three main guns to kill a Predator or the like - that's not great.
True, they probably should have made orders function like psychic powers, give each a value, roll 2D6 over that value for the order to take. In fact if you did something like make them easy rolls, but made them -1 modifier for every 10 models in a unit, that would work well. So FRFSRF goes of on a 4. For a 10 man unit it would need a 5+, 20 would need a 6+, 30 would need a 7+
So that would be 91% chance to go off (baring CP re-rolls), for say a 5 man squad, 83% for a 10 man squad, 72% for a 20 man squad, 58% for a 30 man squad, 42% for 40, 27% for 50. So the orders have more effect for larger squads but are harder to get off. You then could have built in rules to some characters that gave them "casting" bonuses, and give them a stratagem for 2 CP that auto-passes an order.
Or maybe even a base roll with a penalty for being a conscript, nothing for being a regular guardsman and a bonus for being veteran?
You could go that way, though I think having it be more difficult for larger effect would be desirable. It makes you consider whether taking the big unit is desirable or not. Now I will say as I have it set up it also would incentivize taking 29 models instead of 30. So maybe you start out even lower at like 2+ or 3+ for the order and make 1-10 models -1, 11-20 -2, 21-30 -3, 31-40 -4, 41-50 -5. Then you could also throw in a bonus for Vets if you want, but I think that their improved stats work just as well as a bonus in most cases.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So we had a big discussion earlier in this thread about how the Manticore's not so good, and the Wyvern's not so good. In fact, people were claiming that conscripts have equivalent or better anti-infantry firepower. So... they're probably not OP, since conscript shooting is good (for their points) but not grand.
The Shadowsword's main gun vs any 1 wound model unit is d6 deaths, essentially, give or take. It's really not spectacular. The Space Marine one gets two such guns on the same tank, so ours isn't even the best.
Our big guns are certainly quite capable and very numerous, but they're not ultra-devastating, I don't think. I mean heck, I run a Baneblade company and it usually takes all three main guns to kill a Predator or the like - that's not great.
At least compared to a Knight the Baneblade chassis is definitely not over the top. It's tame in fact. Worse ballistic skill, much worse weapon skill and still takes penalties for moving and shooting heavy weapons. The stormlord is the only one that I think is approaching being above the curve but that's mostly due to being a giant open topped transport.
What other artillery (long range, doesn't need line of sight) does exist in the game that isn't IG? Whirlwinds and orc lobbas are the two I know of.
Currently, the wyvern/manticore generally puts the different whirlwind configurations to shame, wyverns unsurprisingly better than orc lobbas.
Unit1126PLL wrote: So we had a big discussion earlier in this thread about how the Manticore's not so good, and the Wyvern's not so good. In fact, people were claiming that conscripts have equivalent or better anti-infantry firepower. So... they're probably not OP, since conscript shooting is good (for their points) but not grand.
Umm, I think that was me. Pointing out the manticore isn't good at killing light infantry, which is true. It's however great at killing heavy infantry, tanks, monstrous creatures.
As for the wyvern, I realized I forgot to include the re rolls failed wounds aspect, which cranks in up a notch. I'm now wondering if that was the math error Melissa kept mentioning but never clarifying.
You need to do 4 wounds for this to start mattering at all at LD 8. At which point there is a 16% chance of losing 2 models. So really we are looking at units that can take more than 5 models (losing 5 models brings it to 33% chance of losing more than 1 model.)
So effected units are
Bullgryns - (in large squads) - This rule actually buffs these models because instead of losing a model their is a chance they lose 0 models, or 1 at most.
Conscripts - These are the problem we are discussing, so no issue here
Infantry squads - hurts them a bit, as they are likely to lose 1 extra model on average to morale So twice as many then?
Tempestus Scions (if taken in larger squads) - again multiple smaller squads are just as good as single larger squads, and these are likely out of your bubble anyway. The reason you'd take them in 10-man squads is Order efficiency and to better protect their special weapons. It's far from an uncommon tactic.
Ogryns - (in large squads)-This rule actually buffs these models because instead of losing a model their is a chance they lose 0 models, or 1 at most.
Ratlings- only if you take larger squads, could instead take multiple small squads at no cost.
Rough riders - are they even staying near a commissar? That said, it is a break even for these squads as they are mutli-wound, so they were already losing 2 wounds. Worst case they lose 1 extra model (if one is wounded already) best case, they lose 0 models. Most common, they lose 1 model.
Special Weapons squads - hurt a bit, but not that much, if this squad has lost 4 models, losing 2 vs losing 1 is not a huge issue.
Veterans- Hurts them a bit, they lose an extra model on average. Bear in mind that that extra model will almost certainly be one with a special weapon.
Breng77 wrote: So I'm confused where this hurts most of IG units?
I'm confused as to why this is necessary in the first place. I'm also confused as to why you asked me which units were affected, only to then list them yourself anyway.
Breng77 wrote: IT is a break even or buff for most units.
No it isn't. It is largely irrelevant on Bullgryns and Ogryns (purely because the Commissar's Ld alone is usually enough to prevent losses from Morale), and detrimental to everything else.
It is also not unfluffy, the unit start to run, commissar shoots 1 of the (up to 3 models) that are running, everyone else falls in line.
Except that the Commissar isn't shooting just *one* of the 3 models that are running - he's potentially shooting all 3. What's more, this is in a squad that can have just 5 models left. The whole point of Commissars is that their troops fear them more than any actual enemy - and yet you're having him kill about half of his remaining men to get 2-3 back into line. If Commissars were this useless no one would ever bother using them.
Hell, you've actually made it possible for Commissars to kill more men than actually tried to run. Yes, people joke about trigger-happy Commissars. As a meme, it's funny. On the table it just makes them worthless.
And, once again, why is this necessary? Why do non-Conscript units need to suffer because Conscripts are considered by some to be OP?
SilverAlien wrote: The manticore and wyvern? Yes. The whirlwind and orc lobbas? Not off the top of my head.
So... you're complaining about units you don't even know the stats of.
Again.
How droll.
The Manticore is 125 pts and Whirlwind is 124 pts, for T7, 11 wounds, 3+ save defensively-- so you get the exact same defenses either way, and both can fire at things not in their line of sight. Offensively, the difference is the Whirlwind has 2d3 S7 AP-1 D2 shots, or 2d6 S6 AP0 D1 shots, and the Manticore has 2d6 S10 AP-2 1d3 damage shots.
Manticore fires 2d6 shots, for an average of 6-7. Of these, 3.5 will hit, 2.33 will wound, 1.55 will be unsaved and do 1d3 damage. Whirlwind will fire 2d3 shots, averaging 4 shots. Of these 2.67 will hit, 1.33 will wound, 0.67 will be unsaved and do 2 damage.
So looks like against most vehicles, the Manticore edges out the Whirlwind in alpha strike, but its firepower abruptly becomes zero in turns five and six, giving the whirlwind more staying power. Against T3 hordes, the Whirlwind has an option to go cheaper and take the castellan launcher, which will do more potential hits and wound T2/T3 on 2+, whjile saving you about nine points to spend elsewhere.
The Lobba can't really be compared to either one of these . The Lobba is a mere 30 points, for 48" S5 AP0 D1, firing at 4+ to hit. They are only T5 with 3 wounds, but they can't be targeted unless they're the closest unit (sneaky grots) and they can be taken en masse for cheap. They're an entirely different animal than the WW or Manticore.
I definitely think that a lot of this will shake out as three things happen.
1: People realize they actually have to worry about massed infantry now.
2: Codices get released, giving people broader toolboxes to deal with them.
3: People get more used to shooting and charging in the same turn with non-assault weapons, which can significantly raise the damage output of a lot of units.
I wasn't, then I read your post-- and now I am. Stuff it, spanker.
He's trying to make an argument, and is getting stats wrong either because of inexperience, or because he doesn't have his books in front of him at the moment.
Please be polite. Please don't get my thread locked.
Silver...you too. I'd much rather get to continue playing with the other kids, but you're going to get all of our toys taken away if you keep this up.
There, fixed my math. Had a brainfart on manticore's number of shots per rocket. Lobba is still IMO not comparable. You can get 4d6 shots off from four lobbas for the price of one manticore or whirlwind, and unlike manticores and whirlwinds, you can't target them with long-ranged firepower. For sheer volume of fire, Orks remain best-- and these guns get to hit on a 4+ to boot, so they get twice as many hits as a manticore for hte same price, while being able to fire the entire game instead of just the first four turns.
Melissia wrote: There, fixed my math. Had a brainfart on manticore's number of shots per rocket. Lobba is still IMO not comparable. You can get 4d6 shots off from four lobbas for the price of one manticore or whirlwind, and unlike manticores and whirlwinds, you can't target them with long-ranged firepower. For sheer volume of fire, Orks remain best-- and these guns get to hit on a 4+ to boot, so they get twice as many hits as a manticore for hte same price, while being able to fire the entire game instead of just the first four turns.
It can be compared to the wyvern, which gets more shots off for same price, one point lower strength but rerolls failed wounds and is generally superior to both it and the castellan launcher.
The manticore wasn't really the one in question, no one defends the manticore. The manticore does alpha strikes really well in an edition where tabling has been the norm
Arandmoor wrote: Silver...you too. I'd much rather get to continue playing with the other kids, but you're going to get all of our toys taken away if you keep this up.
Calling someone grumpy when they immediately jump on you the moment you post something is fairly reasonable, considering I've been making every effort to be polite despite nothing but insults coming from your side constantly. So you can shove it.
The Manticore is clearly far superior to the Whirlwind against even T7 3+ vehicles. It doesn't "edge it out", it does as much damage as 2.33 Whirlwinds. Yeah, it stops shooting after turn 4, but a Whirlwind needs to shoot for more than 9 turns to match its output. And of course it's better to front-load your shooting.
The Lobba is reasonably compared to the Wyvern or mortar Heavy Weapon Squads, not the Manticore (though against everything but GEQs you'd take the Manticore). Also note that you can shoot Lobbas. You just can't shoot their crew. It's also much worse than mortar Heavy Weapon Squads.
Melissia wrote: I didn't jump on you. It is honestly rather rude to complain about a unit when you don't even know its basic stats.
I mentioned I'd heard others complain about it, but didn't even know for sure how it compared to other similar units, clearly about to do comparisons after people mentioned more units to compare it to. Then went ahead and looked up the others as soon as I could access my indices.
From which we can tell, yes the wyvern does out perform the castellan whirlwind and orc lobbas of the same cost, amusingly the cheaper wyvern outperforms the castellan even on a 1 to 1 ratio. Now I'll start doing comparisons with the other artillery mentioned above.
I think targeting immunity is a pretty sweet tradeoff for a bit less firepower-per-point, especially in a faction like Orks where your primary offensive unit just happens to provide plenty of screening as a side effect of their desire to punch things in the face.
It's not quite as powerful on a unit with NLOS shooting since those can hide anyway... but it does make them less reliant on LOS blocking terrain than, say, mortar teams.
Again, the only thing you can't shoot is the unit of 2 Grot Gunners. You can still shoot the T5 W3 5+ gun. It is less durable than 3 mortar teams against lots of shooting, and has much less firepower.
You need to do 4 wounds for this to start mattering at all at LD 8. At which point there is a 16% chance of losing 2 models. So really we are looking at units that can take more than 5 models (losing 5 models brings it to 33% chance of losing more than 1 model.)
So effected units are
Bullgryns - (in large squads) - This rule actually buffs these models because instead of losing a model their is a chance they lose 0 models, or 1 at most.
Conscripts - These are the problem we are discussing, so no issue here
Infantry squads - hurts them a bit, as they are likely to lose 1 extra model on average to morale So twice as many then?
Tempestus Scions (if taken in larger squads) - again multiple smaller squads are just as good as single larger squads, and these are likely out of your bubble anyway. The reason you'd take them in 10-man squads is Order efficiency and to better protect their special weapons. It's far from an uncommon tactic.
Ogryns - (in large squads)-This rule actually buffs these models because instead of losing a model their is a chance they lose 0 models, or 1 at most.
Ratlings- only if you take larger squads, could instead take multiple small squads at no cost.
Rough riders - are they even staying near a commissar? That said, it is a break even for these squads as they are mutli-wound, so they were already losing 2 wounds. Worst case they lose 1 extra model (if one is wounded already) best case, they lose 0 models. Most common, they lose 1 model.
Special Weapons squads - hurt a bit, but not that much, if this squad has lost 4 models, losing 2 vs losing 1 is not a huge issue.
Veterans- Hurts them a bit, they lose an extra model on average. Bear in mind that that extra model will almost certainly be one with a special weapon.
Breng77 wrote: So I'm confused where this hurts most of IG units?
I'm confused as to why this is necessary in the first place. I'm also confused as to why you asked me which units were affected, only to then list them yourself anyway.
Breng77 wrote: IT is a break even or buff for most units.
No it isn't. It is largely irrelevant on Bullgryns and Ogryns (purely because the Commissar's Ld alone is usually enough to prevent losses from Morale), and detrimental to everything else.
It is also not unfluffy, the unit start to run, commissar shoots 1 of the (up to 3 models) that are running, everyone else falls in line.
Except that the Commissar isn't shooting just *one* of the 3 models that are running - he's potentially shooting all 3. What's more, this is in a squad that can have just 5 models left. The whole point of Commissars is that their troops fear them more than any actual enemy - and yet you're having him kill about half of his remaining men to get 2-3 back into line. If Commissars were this useless no one would ever bother using them.
Hell, you've actually made it possible for Commissars to kill more men than actually tried to run. Yes, people joke about trigger-happy Commissars. As a meme, it's funny. On the table it just makes them worthless.
And, once again, why is this necessary? Why do non-Conscript units need to suffer because Conscripts are considered by some to be OP?
No I haven't made it possible for commissars to kill more men than actually try to run unless you use the commissar ability when you lose 2 models, which would be dumb unless that is all that is left in the unit. You won't use it if you lose a single model, you won't lose it if you lose 2 models (unless that kills the squad), you will only use it when you lose 3+ models, in which case he likely kills less than try to run.
Also why do IG need to be basically immune to morale? Why is it a problem for you to lose 2-3 models to morale, the commissar is still giving your squads an LD buff. Now maybe you wouldn't take him, if you were not running conscripts, but I honestly don't think he is amazing if you aren't anyway.
In general it is a cleaner fix to do it this way, but I suppose you could say, he always kills 1D3 conscripts in his rule, it just makes the rules more complicated. Because "Units cannot lose more than 1 model, unless they are conscripts in which case they lose D3 models." is just wonkier rule writing.
Vaul's Wrath Support Battery with Shadow Weaver (48" Heavy D6, Str 6, Ap 0, D 1, wounds of 6+ give Ap -4).
Night Spinner with Doom Weaver (48" Heavy 2D6, Str 7, Ap 0, D 2, wounds of 6+ give Ap -4).
Dark Reapers with Tempest Launchers (36" Heavy 2D6, Str 4, Ap -2, D 1)
Good lord, what is with craftworld eldar pricing? I've barely looked at this index, but why on earth is everything so expensive?
The shadow weaver's are shockingly bad, making the castellan and wyvern look wonderful by comparison. I have no idea why d6 shots of str 6 costs nearly 100 points.
The Night spinner is better. It compares well with the whirlwind, and can even match the manticore when it comes to heavy infantry killing. It isn't anywhere near as potent vs tanks/MCs however.
This may have been FAQ's, but it appears only the exarch can take the tempest launcher? Otherwise it could be a competitive choice. .
ross-128 wrote: I think targeting immunity is a pretty sweet tradeoff for a bit less firepower-per-point, especially in a faction like Orks where your primary offensive unit just happens to provide plenty of screening as a side effect of their desire to punch things in the face.
It's not quite as powerful on a unit with NLOS shooting since those can hide anyway... but it does make them less reliant on LOS blocking terrain than, say, mortar teams.
There was some confusion before the FAQ hit, but now it is clear you can target the big guns irregardless of the gretchin.
No I haven't made it possible for commissars to kill more men than actually try to run unless you use the commissar ability when you lose 2 models, which would be dumb unless that is all that is left in the unit.
Well, yeah, because the whole point is to reduce casualties.
Breng77 wrote: You won't use it if you lose a single model, you won't lose it if you lose 2 models (unless that kills the squad), you will only use it when you lose 3+ models, in which case he likely kills less than try to run..
So, basically, you want Commissars to be entirely pointless. Got it.
Breng77 wrote: Also why do IG need to be basically immune to morale?
So that their infantry isn't complete garbage? Also, losing one guy isn't immune to Morale. See Tyranids for that.
Breng77 wrote: Why is it a problem for you to lose 2-3 models to morale, the commissar is still giving your squads an LD buff.
Why is it so important to you that IG infantry (other than Conscripts, weirdly enough) has to be absolute crap? Bear in mind that it isn't just 2-3 guys - it's 2-3 guys on top of the 5+ guys you lose to force that check in the first place. At that point you're losing near enough the entire squad anyway and might as well not have bothered with the Commissar in the first place.
I can only assume that you really love facing nothing but artillery Conscripts because you sure as hell don't seem want IG players to field anything else.
Breng77 wrote: Now maybe you wouldn't take him, if you were not running conscripts, but I honestly don't think he is amazing if you aren't anyway.
...
So you think that Commissars aren't great for most IG units . . . and yet you feel obliged to nerf them anyway.
In general it is a cleaner fix to do it this way, but I suppose you could say, he always kills 1D3 conscripts in his rule, it just makes the rules more complicated. Because "Units cannot lose more than 1 model, unless they are conscripts in which case they lose D3 models." is just wonkier rule writing.
The issue with what you're suggesting though is that if you make it universal then Conscripts are actually the least affected. Losing d3 models from a 50-man squad is almost inconsequential. Losing 2-3 extra guys from a 10-man squad on top of the 5+ casualties they took to inflict that morale check is basically a dead squad.
I appreciate that restricting the d3 models to conscripts isn't quite as neat, but it's very necessary otherwise you end up screwing over all other IG infantry unnecessarily and, if anything, make Conscripts far more desirable (since most other infantry would be getting basically no benefit from Commissars).
Vipoid is entirely correct. If you're going to be losing more models from commissars anyway, there's no reason to use smaller Guardsmen squads over the larger Conscript squad.
No I haven't made it possible for commissars to kill more men than actually try to run unless you use the commissar ability when you lose 2 models, which would be dumb unless that is all that is left in the unit.
Well, yeah, because the whole point is to reduce casualties.
Breng77 wrote: You won't use it if you lose a single model, you won't lose it if you lose 2 models (unless that kills the squad), you will only use it when you lose 3+ models, in which case he likely kills less than try to run..
So, basically, you want Commissars to be entirely pointless. Got it.
Breng77 wrote: Also why do IG need to be basically immune to morale?
So that their infantry isn't complete garbage? Also, losing one guy isn't immune to Morale. See Tyranids for that.
Breng77 wrote: Why is it a problem for you to lose 2-3 models to morale, the commissar is still giving your squads an LD buff.
Why is it so important to you that IG infantry (other than Conscripts, weirdly enough) has to be absolute crap? Bear in mind that it isn't just 2-3 guys - it's 2-3 guys on top of the 5+ guys you lose to force that check in the first place. At that point you're losing near enough the entire squad anyway and might as well not have bothered with the Commissar in the first place.
I can only assume that you really love facing nothing but artillery Conscripts because you sure as hell don't seem want IG players to field anything else.
Breng77 wrote: Now maybe you wouldn't take him, if you were not running conscripts, but I honestly don't think he is amazing if you aren't anyway.
...
So you think that Commissars aren't great for most IG units . . . and yet you feel obliged to nerf them anyway.
In general it is a cleaner fix to do it this way, but I suppose you could say, he always kills 1D3 conscripts in his rule, it just makes the rules more complicated. Because "Units cannot lose more than 1 model, unless they are conscripts in which case they lose D3 models." is just wonkier rule writing.
The issue with what you're suggesting though is that if you make it universal then Conscripts are actually the least affected. Losing d3 models from a 50-man squad is almost inconsequential. Losing 2-3 extra guys from a 10-man squad on top of the 5+ casualties they took to inflict that morale check is basically a dead squad.
I appreciate that restricting the d3 models to conscripts isn't quite as neat, but it's very necessary otherwise you end up screwing over all other IG infantry unnecessarily and, if anything, make Conscripts far more desirable (since most other infantry would be getting basically no benefit from Commissars).
The way I'm looking at it is those squads barely benefit from the commissar now, if I lose 5+ models in a 10 man squad, the difference between losing 1 more model and 2 more models is not huge (losing 3 models is extremely rare from a commissar). As for making conscripts more desirable, that is one of the reasons I support nerfs to them as well. If they took damage from fall back, had issues with orders, and did not benefit from the LD buff, they would lose models faster than other units. It is also why I would support larger infantry squads.
Right now the commissar is already incentivizing the choice that you make to conscript spam, because auto-lose only 1 model on LD 8 is already better for those conscripts than losing 1 model after losing 5+ models is for those small squads. Maybe a better fix given the current situation would be for summary execution to be units within 6" of a commissar use half the number of casualties rounded down for the purposes of morale checks. This would mean that for a 10 man squad you would need to take 6 casualties to risk losing a single model. The result would largely be that you never lose more than a single model in squads of 10 or less.
Then if you don't allow conscripts to use the LD of the commissar, and they take 20 casualties, they are still going to explode to morale (they would take 6+ D6 wounds), in this case you might not even bar them from using his LD (2 + d6 casualties for losing 20 models sounds fine to me).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: Vipoid is entirely correct. If you're going to be losing more models from commissars anyway, there's no reason to use smaller Guardsmen squads over the larger Conscript squad.
There already basically isn't a reason outside of maybe scions.
vipoid wrote: I appreciate that restricting the d3 models to conscripts isn't quite as neat, but it's very necessary otherwise you end up screwing over all other IG infantry unnecessarily and, if anything, make Conscripts far more desirable (since most other infantry would be getting basically no benefit from Commissars).
The only way to do a "neat" solution is to involve somehow having the low leadership of the conscripts factor in. Dividing the total of the failed morale check by the unit's unmodified leadership, and taking that many causalities rounded down (to a minimum of one). However... that's arguably worse than just taking on special rule of conscripts, as it's annoying and fiddly in the extreme.
"OR! You could redesign the entire codex! Here's my ideas:"
It's still being discussed if that fixes them. It would fix most of the issues of them being able to do non screening things too well, but there is still debate if that's the only issue with them, or if they also perform too well as a screening unit.
I honestly can't see the problem with Conscripts. They are cheap, but their cost skyrockets with the various addons you need to make them get work done. People have been trying hard to break them, but scions seem to benefit way more from these combos than the conscripts do.
ChargerIIC wrote: I honestly can't see the problem with Conscripts. They are cheap, but their cost skyrockets with the various addons you need to make them get work done. People have been trying hard to break them, but scions seem to benefit way more from these combos than the conscripts do.
Err... part of the reason conscripts are great is you don't need many addons (relatively) for them to do well. A single 30 point commissar and 30 point company commander can upgrade 100 conscripts to be fearless and double their firepower currently. That's less than a ppm, which isn't a huge price increase for that sort of improvement.
ChargerIIC wrote: I honestly can't see the problem with Conscripts. They are cheap, but their cost skyrockets with the various addons you need to make them get work done. People have been trying hard to break them, but scions seem to benefit way more from these combos than the conscripts do.
It does not skyrocket, the most efficient setup will cost you 60 pts per 300 pts of conscripts.
It does not skyrocket, the most efficient setup will cost you 60 pts per 300 pts of conscripts.
Skyrocket is hyperbole perhaps, but 20% overhead for a strategy that does have a few hard counters (if not necessarily one for EVERY army out there) is still a non-trivial number of points.
It does not skyrocket, the most efficient setup will cost you 60 pts per 300 pts of conscripts.
Skyrocket is hyperbole perhaps, but 20% overhead for a strategy that does have a few hard counters (if not necessarily one for EVERY army out there) is still a non-trivial number of points.
The snipers are not a hard counter, soft at best. Spending 100 pts to remove morale immunity for the conscripts on turn 2 is not efficient.
That's for eldar. Marines only need to pay 75 to remove them in one or two turns. Or 150 to remove them in one turn. And then you start sniping the other characters your opponent has, or adding wounds to their other units.
Once again, people act like these units used to deal with conscripts suddenly UP AND VANISH OH NOES! the moment the conscripts are dealt with. This is just sad.
Melissia wrote: That's for eldar. Marines only need to pay 75 to remove them in one or two turns. Or 150 to remove them in one turn. And then you start sniping the other characters your opponent has, or adding wounds to their other units.
Once again, people act like these units used to deal with conscripts suddenly UP AND VANISH OH NOES! the moment the conscripts are dealt with. This is just sad.
The snipers don't vanish, but they are hardly going to do as much vs the rest of the AM army given that there is little reason to expose the other officers instead of hiding behind vehicles. I only assume that the commissar is visible because he might have to be exposed sometimes. After the commissar is dead the snipers are 18 pt models firing a single bolter shot with about a 1/9 of inflicting a mortal wound per shot. That is not good for a 18 pt model.
The snipers are not a hard counter, soft at best. Spending 100 pts to remove morale immunity for the conscripts on turn 2 is not efficient.
I'm seeing 10 snipers at BS 3+ with the standard S4 sniper rifle have about a 60% chance to kill the commissar turn 1, unless he's hiding, and odds are you're going first anyway. Not sure where you're getting turn 2 from.
The snipers don't vanish, but they are hardly going to do as much vs the rest of the AM army given that there is little reason to expose the other officers instead of hiding behind vehicles. I only assume that the commissar is visible because he might have to be exposed sometimes. After the commissar is dead the snipers are 18 pt models firing a single bolter shot with about a 1/9 of inflicting a mortal wound per shot. That is not good for a 18 pt model.
I think we should cripple Green Tide lists because they make my melta guns cost way too much for what they're doing.
There are two groups of Space Marines that probably have no good options: Deathwatch and Grey Knights. By their nature, they have few units, they're lacking in offensive output across the board, and don't have access to the entire line, or even half the line, compounded with the latter army being shafted by the Rule of 1 on psychic powers and paying for really, really overpriced units that can't use the psychic power they paid for.
I was looking hard at deathwatch for a possible 8th edition army (went with IF instead. Hopefully I'll be able to start posting pics soon), and guard conscripts was one of the nuts I felt I needed to be able to crack.
Deathwatch gain a lot in their 8th edition index by being fully mounted. To the point where if I were doing a Deathwatch army, rather than a deatchwatch killteam or detachment to attach to a different force, I'd still fully mount the army.
And the mount of choice here is the corvis darkstar transport. Stock. Maybe replacing the assault cannons with las for some extra anti-vehical punch, but considering the army's problems fielding enough wounds to handle incoming fire without folding, the assault cannons put out enough fire to help even out the problem.
Then there's the fact that the transports benefit from the master of the watch's reroll bubble, and things immediately get scary.
So, Deathwatch vs conscripts...because the army is going to probably be fully mounted, the conscripts are just something you ignore and fly over. If the IG player uses them to hard wrap their tanks so you can't just fly over them, Deathwatch has things like frag cannons (which they should be taking in this edition, specifically for anti-horde work, despite their cost considering that if you don't spend the points you don't underperform vs hordes, you just lose. They're also not bad against MEQ given the shear number of shots they put out. If you have 4 frag cannons in your army that can concentrate fire, they'll hit the conscripts with 8d6 S4 shots that reroll all misses. In addition you'll have 12 assault cannon shots from each corvis, also rerolling all misses because of the master's bubble.
Finally, because the inquisition and deathwatch go together like peanut butter and chocolate, there's a good chance you're fielding an inquisitor. As long as he's a psychic, he'll be able to disable the conscripts' overwatch if you take, and successfully cast, the fear power (lowering their leadership won't matter because of the commissar), which will allow your kill team to charge and clean up anything left. If you roll right, you should be able to use the remaining conscripts to consolidate into the tanks they were protecting and avoid all IG overwatch if you were packing an inquisitor.
And speaking of commissars, inquisitors usually pack assassins. And, as bad as units like ratlings and rangers are at getting rid of commissars and commanders, the officio assassinorum don't really have that problem.
Deathwatch can handle conscripts. It's GKs that have a problem.
Proposing snipers as a solution to conscripts = never played with snipers, or against competent guard. It just doesn't work. If you have line of sight on the commissar your opponent is playing badly.
daedalus wrote: I think we should cripple Green Tide lists because they make my melta guns cost way too much for what they're doing.
If Green Tide lists were the optimal target for meltaguns then I'd accept the comparison, but this is probably the best matchup for sniper rifles and they won't be more than ok. Sniping Guilliman with ten snipers would take quite some time, likewise with Ghazgkhull Thraka or most other special characters that you might see.
Yeah seriously, as soon as your opponent sees dudes holding sniper rifles in your list that commissar is going right back behind a wall or a vehicle and telling a short line of the back couple conscripts in each unit to keep the other 48 in line.
Man, come event time I wish I could play against some of these awful guard players that put their characters in sniper line of fire.
Marmatag wrote: Proposing snipers as a solution to conscripts = never played with snipers, or against competent guard. It just doesn't work. If you have line of sight on the commissar your opponent is playing badly.
I still want to see the board set up where this is consistently possible and the conscripts remain effective.
I can think of maybe one tournament game it could have happened on, and also I suppose my CoD games when those happened WAAAAY back in the day.
Meanwhile, there's perfectly timed deep striking on at least 2-3 of the sniper rifle units I've looked at, and they can come in turn 1.
Well if there is enough LoS blocking terrain that some is always in easy reach of the Commissar, then you also have enough LoS blocking terrain on the board for assault units to get to the conscripts without eating full volleys.
Unless for some reason all of the terrain is on one side of the board, in which case you should be giving your opponent some very nasty looks for setting the terrain up like that.
If you assume that you're always in a Normandy situation where your army is pushing up a flat, empty beach while your enemy fires out of entrenched positions with tons of cover, bunkers, and LoS blockers... well of course you're at a disadvantage, the terrain is incredibly one-sided!
ross-128 wrote: Well if there is enough LoS blocking terrain that some is always in easy reach of the Commissar, then you also have enough LoS blocking terrain on the board for assault units to get to the conscripts without eating full volleys.
Unless for some reason all of the terrain is on one side of the board, in which case you should be giving your opponent some very nasty looks for setting the terrain up like that.
If you assume that you're always in a Normandy situation where your army is pushing up a flat, empty beach while your enemy fires out of entrenched positions with tons of cover, bunkers, and LoS blockers... well of course you're at a disadvantage, the terrain is incredibly one-sided!
The thing is, given we've established guard have things like cheap chaff to screen and numerous long range LoS ignoring artillery units to shoot with. So a properly built army will always be dictating terms of engagement. Unless your army is primarily deepstriking, you should expect to slog across the board under fire for at leas a turn before you do anything, and if they start blowing up transports and the like it just gets worse.
So now in addition to Schrodinger's Conscripts (conscripts are both dispersed and concentrated at the same, they collapse into whichever formation is most advantageous when you observe them), we also just automatically assume that any map the Imperial Guard fight on is constructed like Omaha Beach.
"I wonder why we need so many guys to take this beach?"
"Must be Germans are OP."
ross-128 wrote: So now in addition to Schrodinger's Conscripts (conscripts are both dispersed and concentrated at the same, they collapse into whichever formation is most advantageous when you observe them), we also just automatically assume that any map the Imperial Guard fight on is constructed like Omaha Beach.
"I wonder why we need so many guys to take this beach?" "Must be Germans are OP."
How many games of 8th do you have under your belt, with or against guard, give or take? If you don't mind my asking.
Marmatag wrote: Proposing snipers as a solution to conscripts = never played with snipers, or against competent guard. It just doesn't work. If you have line of sight on the commissar your opponent is playing badly.
Wasn't thinking Vindicare.
There's also the Calidus(?...chick with polymorphine) Assassin who can deepstrike into charge range and then easily 1-round the hidden commissar you've got hiding behind that building.
Sure there are ways to even protect an officer in this case, but they all have their problems. You don't get to math-hammer conscripts while gaining the benefits of every single kind of positioning at the same time.
If the conscripts can move forward and rapid fire while taking orders, you're going to have to conga-line the conscripts for coherence and expose your officers to deepstrike assassination.
If you hide your officers inside the blob, removing enough conscripts makes the officers attackable in the fight phase, AND they'll be vunlerable to sniper fire the whole game because if the squad is in the open, so are the officers.
If you hold your officers back and blob them for protection, you don't get to attack with the entire blob. The math is a LOT less scary when you're only able to double-tap with 12-20 of them because the rest are strung out and bubblewrapping two VIPs behind a building.
Conscripts cannot attack with 100-200 lasgun shots while benefiting from invincible officers that cannot be attacked by deepstrike or by snipers. That kind of positioning is physically impossible.
Marmatag wrote: Proposing snipers as a solution to conscripts = never played with snipers, or against competent guard. It just doesn't work. If you have line of sight on the commissar your opponent is playing badly.
Wasn't thinking Vindicare.
There's also the Calidus(?...chick with polymorphine) Assassin who can deepstrike into charge range and then easily 1-round the hidden commissar you've got hiding behind that building.
Sure there are ways to even protect an officer in this case, but they all have their problems. You don't get to math-hammer conscripts while gaining the benefits of every single kind of positioning at the same time.
If the conscripts can move forward and rapid fire while taking orders, you're going to have to conga-line the conscripts for coherence and expose your officers to deepstrike assassination.
If you hide your officers inside the blob, removing enough conscripts makes the officers attackable in the fight phase, AND they'll be vunlerable to sniper fire the whole game because if the squad is in the open, so are the officers.
They cannot all attack with invincible officers that cannot be attacked by deepstrike. That kind of positioning is physically impossible.
Getting a deepstrike behind enemy lines is most often impossible if they have a model count like AM usually do. The minimum distance restricts you by a lot, even with a slightly shorter distance like the assassin has. And if you announce that you are placing an assassin in deepstrike, you can be sure that the AM player will think about it while positioning his army.
As for the different modes of moving in big blobs and firing vs acting as bubblewrap, that depends on the matchup. If your opponent intends to deepstrike close to or assault your army, you use them as efficient bubblewrap. If your opponent is very shooty you can freely use your conscripts as mobile flashlights, packing them as tightly as the circumstances allow you to. Since the shooty armies don't focus on getting the conscripts out of the way as fast as possible it doesn't matter as much if the commissar is visible.
ross-128 wrote: So now in addition to Schrodinger's Conscripts (conscripts are both dispersed and concentrated at the same, they collapse into whichever formation is most advantageous when you observe them), we also just automatically assume that any map the Imperial Guard fight on is constructed like Omaha Beach.
"I wonder why we need so many guys to take this beach?"
"Must be Germans are OP."
I've really been wondering this.
"Just shoot the tanks! Space Marines have Lascannons, it's not like you're Orks or something and have to melee them!"
"I can't, they're behind buildings!"
I'm honestly not sure how you can fit 5+ tanks completely out of Line of Sight. On a 4x4 Battlefield [the regulation size for 1000 points], assuming there are approximately 2 Games Workshop terrain features distributed evenly per 2x2 tile, using Search and Destroy deployment, I don't think it's actually possible to completely hide more than 1 Manticore. Of course, that doesn't stop you from making a castle wall or something, or having a perfectly 5-Manticore-sized U-shaped building with no windows, but at some point it becomes your responsibility to point out that your opponent had set the board up in a completely unfair manner. [No offense to Marmatag, since Grey Knights have neither Missile Launchers nor Lascannons and, like Orks, have to kill tanks in CQC]
I am 90% certain that a hypothetical shooting opponent can target and blow up at least a few IG tanks and artillery guns.
ross-128 wrote: So now in addition to Schrodinger's Conscripts (conscripts are both dispersed and concentrated at the same, they collapse into whichever formation is most advantageous when you observe them), we also just automatically assume that any map the Imperial Guard fight on is constructed like Omaha Beach.
"I wonder why we need so many guys to take this beach?"
"Must be Germans are OP."
I mean, the rulebook has really vague guidelines for how to place terrain unless I'm overlooking something, so yeah generally you should always be able to get a big LoS blocking piece where you want it as guard, possibly two. That's still within the rulebook's suggestions, its hard to argue it's even being abusice so much as playing the game as intended. The only thing preventing this is sportsmanship or using a set of tournament or house rules.
ross-128 wrote: So now in addition to Schrodinger's Conscripts (conscripts are both dispersed and concentrated at the same, they collapse into whichever formation is most advantageous when you observe them), we also just automatically assume that any map the Imperial Guard fight on is constructed like Omaha Beach.
"I wonder why we need so many guys to take this beach?"
"Must be Germans are OP."
I mean, the rulebook has really vague guidelines for how to place terrain unless I'm overlooking something, so yeah generally you should always be able to get a LoS blocking piece where you want it as guard, possibly two. Assuming standard GW terrain, this isn't really enough to hide more than 2 or 3 tanks.
Am I overlooking something?
Yeah.
Those LoS blocking terrain elements are placed before selection of deployment zones, and they're not nearly big enough to hide a half-dozen tanks behind them from all locations on the battlefield reasonably accessible to the enemy.
Let's look, for example, at a hypothetical game. There are 12 terrain features to be placed, an even mix of GW Ruins, GW Forest, GW Sector Mechanicus, and GW Battlescape. 2 are placed in each tile, as advised in the rulebook, so that they're evenly dispersed across the board.
It's likely that, in any given deployment zone, the Imperial Guard player will have 2 "opaque" terrain pieces behind which to hide a vehicle. From experience, a Sector Mechanicus thing can hide 1 tank, and a Ruin with all the windows boarded up can hide 2 if you're clever and squeeze in tight. However, both of these hiding places can be negated by the attacker moving to the left or the right.
The longer the deployment line, the harder it is to hide a tank, because the easier it is for the opponent to access enfilade positions that bypass your cover.
I have really never had a problem keeping my officers safe, and I've been using lots of 9-model infantry squads rather than Conscripts so it's presumably harder for me to both buff all my units and protect the officers. I've never felt like this has significantly compromised the effectiveness of my squads. My ranged firepower always seems to degrade much more slowly than my opponents'.
I can typically wait until the entire enemy army is deployed before I have to really commit to a deployment strategy. If I see deployed snipers, I make sure I'm either out of range or LoS. I usually want my blob to be as far away from the enemy as possible anyway.
Certainly nothing is going to deep strike within 12" of my officers -- the whole point of them is to be in the middle of a ton of infantry. Really nothing's going to deep strike within 24" of them most of the time until I start losing my forward units to enemy fire, and if I need to I can have an infantry squad advance up to prevent deep striking for another turn, or I can deep strike a throwaway unit on my turn that the enemy then has to kill.
I haven't run up against really fast CC yet like Warptime or Swarmlord shenanigans. I've seen beefy things in Land Raiders, and a mix of transported and deep striking assault squads. I can deal with the transported units by peeling off one or two squads at a time to go be speed bumps; if a squad isn't going to survive the turn anyway then I don't care if they're close to my Commissar or not. And then the deep strikers just never get a chance to come in on anything other than Ratlings or an outlying mortar team or a throwaway squad that I've advanced forward.
Edit: But yeah, meanwhile I have only rarely had trouble finding stuff to shoot with my stationary lascannons. Vehicles are hard to hide, especially if you have more than a few and you're trying to keep them all close to a buff character. I did play one game where someone only deployed two things, a Land Raider and a big FW dreadnought, and there was a turn or two where a few of my lascannons couldn't shoot, but this table had all these walls and ruins that the vehicles had to navigate around and through anyway. I may have lost a turn of shooting but it would have taken him two turns longer to get to my lines, and I was able to be really annoying about blocking alleys with throwaway units, etc.
Marmatag wrote: Proposing snipers as a solution to conscripts = never played with snipers, or against competent guard. It just doesn't work. If you have line of sight on the commissar your opponent is playing badly.
Wasn't thinking Vindicare.
There's also the Calidus(?...chick with polymorphine) Assassin who can deepstrike into charge range and then easily 1-round the hidden commissar you've got hiding behind that building.
Sure there are ways to even protect an officer in this case, but they all have their problems. You don't get to math-hammer conscripts while gaining the benefits of every single kind of positioning at the same time.
If the conscripts can move forward and rapid fire while taking orders, you're going to have to conga-line the conscripts for coherence and expose your officers to deepstrike assassination.
If you hide your officers inside the blob, removing enough conscripts makes the officers attackable in the fight phase, AND they'll be vunlerable to sniper fire the whole game because if the squad is in the open, so are the officers.
They cannot all attack with invincible officers that cannot be attacked by deepstrike. That kind of positioning is physically impossible.
Getting a deepstrike behind enemy lines is most often impossible if they have a model count like AM usually do. The minimum distance restricts you by a lot, even with a slightly shorter distance like the assassin has. And if you announce that you are placing an assassin in deepstrike, you can be sure that the AM player will think about it while positioning his army.
As for the different modes of moving in big blobs and firing vs acting as bubblewrap, that depends on the matchup. If your opponent intends to deepstrike close to or assault your army, you use them as efficient bubblewrap. If your opponent is very shooty you can freely use your conscripts as mobile flashlights, packing them as tightly as the circumstances allow you to. Since the shooty armies don't focus on getting the conscripts out of the way as fast as possible it doesn't matter as much if the commissar is visible.
I believe what he is getting at there is that if you look at conscripts, see what they can do, and assume they can do all of it at once, of course they will seem over powered. I'm not saying you think this, as you are noting that they have to alter by match up, but looking through this thread it seems people think they can be shooty bubblewrap that is also spread over the entirety of the board and always taking orders.
If they are acting as bubblewrap, they cannot effectively bring their numbers to bear as an offensive tool, same if they are simply scattered around a good chunk of the board to deny deep strike. If they are lined up in a wall marching 6" forward each turn with FRFSRF they cannot bubblewrap or deny deep strikes very well except along their very specific area. Conscripts need numbers to effectively do all of these jobs - flashlights don't do enough damage if the squad is reduced to few enough members to effectively use orders, and even removing casualties in the most advantageous way possible, you lose enough conscripts and your bubble wrap falls apart.
Probably the best fix for Conscripts is, as noted several times in the thread, is to give them a rule that either A) makes them lose 1d3 or 1d6 models to morale from Commissar (cannot be more than they would have lost to morale in first place though), or B) make orders only succeed on a 4+ on a single d6. Their issue isn't their stats or their price, so much as their scaling. Fix the scaling in such a way as above and they lose a touch of their bite while also being fairly fluffy - the Commissar has to blam 2 or 3 guys to keep the rabble in order, and the officer needs to baby step them to follow his orders to the letter.
So I actually looked through the GW terrain and never realized till now how few opaque pieces of terrain their are. Outside a few bits owned by the shop we play at sometimes and one other guy in our area, most of our stuff is homemade. This tends to mean we have more than a few pieces along the lines of "large rock hills" and "shipping containers", because those are easy to hand make.
SilverAlien wrote: So I actually looked through the GW terrain and never realized till now how few opaque pieces of terrain their are. Outside a few bits owned by the shop we play at sometimes and one other guy in our area, most of our stuff is homemade. This tends to mean we have more than a few pieces along the lines of "large rock hills" and "shipping containers", because those are easy to hand make.
Yeah. I thought as much.
There's very little "official" terrain that's 100% opaque, since since vehicles have to both be in the terrain piece and be 50% obscured to even get the cover bonuses, that means that it's essentially impossible to actually get cover for the tanks, and if there's so much as a window in the wall, then the tank is entirely unprotected.
Now, most of us use non-GW terrain, probably, since it's expensive. One of the local stores has a collection of large european buildings, which are fun to play with because they have many removable floors to have troops on, and are also able to block off Line of Fire. However, most of the time, it's still possible to flank the building for enfilade fire, at which point it's granting no benefits if even a scrap of the vehicle is visible.
ChargerIIC wrote: I honestly can't see the problem with Conscripts. They are cheap, but their cost skyrockets with the various addons you need to make them get work done. People have been trying hard to break them, but scions seem to benefit way more from these combos than the conscripts do.
It does not skyrocket, the most efficient setup will cost you 60 pts per 300 pts of conscripts.
Which shows you haven't actually played many games against Guard. I've played 15 games this edition with two 30-man units of Conscripts so far, and not once have I been able to get away with buffing both sets with a single officer/commissar. The nature of terrain, needing to block multiple paths of approach, and the need to pursue objectives makes your most efficient combo a complete theoretical bogeyman.
Further, I have never achieved this mythical 120 shot FRFSRF. Either half the squad is out of range, out of LOS, or dead by the time FRFSRF at 12" comes into play. My all time best is 24/30 models getting full FRFSRF against a unit that failed its charge roll. Hell, I rarely even get to use FRFSRF because I'm usually giving them GBITF, MMM or FFTE instead.
Seriously, there should be a minimum games played with/against Conscripts requirement to post here.
RogueApiary wrote: Which shows you haven't actually played many games against Guard. I've played 15 games this edition with two 30-man units of Conscripts so far, and not once have I been able to get away with buffing both sets with a single officer/commissar. The nature of terrain, needing to block multiple paths of approach, and the need to pursue objectives makes your most efficient combo a complete theoretical bogeyman.
Further, I have never achieved this mythical 120 shot FRFSRF. Either half the squad is out of range, out of LOS, or dead by the time FRFSRF at 12" comes into play. My all time best is 24/30 models getting full FRFSRF against a unit that failed its charge roll. Hell, I rarely even get to use FRFSRF because I'm usually giving them GBITF, MMM or FFTE instead.
Seriously, there should be a minimum games played with/against Conscripts requirement to post here.
I can't comment on your issues, all I can say from looking at the ETC lists:
is that you seem to have problems that most players running conscripts don't. Many of the lists above are running one commissar for two or more conscript squads. Some are running two commissars for three squads. The guy with 400 conscripts is running three commissars. Not all of them are running a full complement of commanders but they appear to not need particularly many in any case.
Note that I have never referred to a full unit of 50 conscripts getting rapid fire, that's a ridiculous idea and will never happen. I only ever talk about 24'' range.
is that you seem to have problems that most players running conscripts don't. Many of the lists above are running one commissar for two or more conscript squads. Some are running two commissars for three squads. The guy with 400 conscripts is running three commissars. Not all of them are running a full complement of commanders but they appear to not need particularly many in any case.
Note that I have never referred to a full unit of 50 conscripts getting rapid fire, that's a ridiculous idea and will never happen. I only ever talk about 24'' range.
Have the results from ETC come in yet? Just because people are bringing it doesn't necessarily mean it will do well. Looking at the top 3 ATC teams' lists. Only one of the top three teams had a member take conscripts, and he brought 80. It is also possible that these players saw how dominant flyer spam was in the first few events of 8th and are trying to counter it by bringing so many bodies the fliers can't possibly chew through them all? I also see some issues with doing well just from time constraints assuming 2.5 hour games. Placing 400 models is going to take a minute. Moving them every turn and rolling shots for those in range, even longer. Trays can help speed that up a bit until they bump into any terrain feature.
You may not have, but I've seen it in used in this thread multiple as 'proof' that Conscripts punch above their weight in terms of damage output.
is that you seem to have problems that most players running conscripts don't. Many of the lists above are running one commissar for two or more conscript squads. Some are running two commissars for three squads. The guy with 400 conscripts is running three commissars. Not all of them are running a full complement of commanders but they appear to not need particularly many in any case.
Note that I have never referred to a full unit of 50 conscripts getting rapid fire, that's a ridiculous idea and will never happen. I only ever talk about 24'' range.
Have the results from ETC come in yet? Just because people are bringing it doesn't necessarily mean it will do well. Looking at the top 3 ATC teams' lists. Only one of the top three teams had a member take conscripts, and he brought 80. It is also possible that these players saw how dominant flyer spam was in the first few events of 8th and are trying to counter it by bringing so many bodies the fliers can't possibly chew through them all? I also see some issues with doing well just from time constraints assuming 2.5 hour games. Placing 400 models is going to take a minute. Moving them every turn and rolling shots for those in range, even longer. Trays can help speed that up a bit until they bump into any terrain feature.
You may not have, but I've seen it in used in this thread multiple as 'proof' that Conscripts punch above their weight in terms of damage output.
He's spammed conscripts and primaris, with a couple of vindicares. I'm not entirely sure how he plans to kill vehicles, but it seems the idea of the army is to ignore them and sit on objectives.
I think it will help to keep in mind that a lot of these lists are, on purpose, absolutely bats**t insane. They're the epitome of WAAC, so while the conversation of "how strong is this?" is applicable, so is "if I tried to run this at my local store, would my friends punch me in the face for it?"
IMO, this matters. These are not normal lists.
That said, they're really going to be interesting to analyze.
He's spammed conscripts and primaris, with a couple of vindicares. I'm not entirely sure how he plans to kill vehicles, but it seems the idea of the army is to ignore them and sit on objectives.
The answer to your vehicle question is in the format. It's not a singles event. The lists are lopsided and one dimensional because the team actually has some input on the matchups.
No decent sane player would be running those lists in a singles event.
What if instead of just making it easier to brute force conscripts or make synergies within the IG army list directly weaker what if we make the commissars and the officers have have more effective counter play (snipers, psychic powers, other anti character stuff) against them?
I feel like those IG characters are some of the best support troops in game and are pretty tough for their cost and support abilities. Decreasing the number of wounds that IG characters get I think might make IG armies that are heavily reliant on characters change up their tactics.
If LoS is a problem with commissars maybe forcing the commissar to have LoS on a whole squad to apply his buffs might make the guy have to play more aggressively and in the open.
Make Imperial guard characters like glass cannons of support sounds like it could be fun to play as and against.
PIUS_2 wrote: What if instead of just making it easier to brute force conscripts or make synergies within the IG army list directly weaker what if we make the commissars and the officers have have more effective counter play (snipers, psychic powers, other anti character stuff) against them?
I feel like those IG characters are some of the best support troops in game and are pretty tough for their cost and support abilities. Decreasing the number of wounds that IG characters get I think might make IG armies that are heavily reliant on characters change up their tactics.
If LoS is a problem with commissars maybe forcing the commissar to have LoS on a whole squad to apply his buffs might make the guy have to play more aggressively and in the open.
Make Imperial guard characters like glass cannons of support sounds like it could be fun to play as and against.
PIUS_2 wrote: What if instead of just making it easier to brute force conscripts or make synergies within the IG army list directly weaker what if we make the commissars and the officers have have more effective counter play (snipers, psychic powers, other anti character stuff) against them?
I feel like those IG characters are some of the best support troops in game and are pretty tough for their cost and support abilities. Decreasing the number of wounds that IG characters get I think might make IG armies that are heavily reliant on characters change up their tactics.
If LoS is a problem with commissars maybe forcing the commissar to have LoS on a whole squad to apply his buffs might make the guy have to play more aggressively and in the open.
Make Imperial guard characters like glass cannons of support sounds like it could be fun to play as and against.
The commissar is a W3 T3 5+ character. The company commander is a W4 T3 5+ character. The commander also has a refractor field. I'm not really sure what you could do these characters to make them more fragile.
Guard already goes second almost always. As a result, guard has to deal with the high likelihood of starting their game already down a point from First Blood, at least against any player that knows what they're doing. Your solution of "making IG characters fragile" not only increases the odds of this happening, but it also, at least with regard to Commanders, increases the odds of Slay the Warlord turn 1. In addition, we're also the army most negatively affected by KP as a scenario. Like, to the point where I pretty much have to table people in order to win KP. Your ideas for changes would force me to play as broken of lists as I possibly can. You just encouraged me to run 400 conscripts. Thanks.
He's spammed conscripts and primaris, with a couple of vindicares. I'm not entirely sure how he plans to kill vehicles, but it seems the idea of the army is to ignore them and sit on objectives.
The answer to your vehicle question is in the format. It's not a singles event. The lists are lopsided and one dimensional because the team actually has some input on the matchups.
No decent sane player would be running those lists in a singles event.
My guess is he intends on spamming Smite, which is actually pretty good at killing fliers and the like.
Regardless of how one feels about Conscripts in this topic, this list is the ultimate 'Conscripts are super OP ubermen' wet dream. Very interested to see the results come August.
Spamming psychic is a wonderful way to take down ravens, and many other high toughness things.
Purifiers in the GK codex are actually fairly underrated, their problem is a base cost of 140 for the unit, before wargear. That's a lot for a 3" d6 smite.
I'm not at all surprised to see people building lists around smite spam. You can take bottom of the barrel psykers that have a tiny cost, and they're pretty much on par with the best psykers in the game when it comes to smite.
I played a game - albeit casual - against someone with a raven. he went first, flew across the table, and nuked my storm raven. Sad day! But out of this raven emerged 2 squads of purifiers, who summarily advanced, and did 9 mortal wounds to his raven with smite. This was pretty satisfying.
Regardless of how one feels about Conscripts in this topic, this list is the ultimate 'Conscripts are super OP ubermen' wet dream. Very interested to see the results come August.
That looks like a pretty mean list, but he's almost entirely relying on the primaris for anti-tank. I don't know what the specific rules are at play here, but I'd think a three stormlord list with a bunch of its own primaris psykers would be the most obvious counter I would throw (and would still be pretty damn nasty against about anything else).
Melissia wrote: I'm pretty sure he's praying he doesn't end up facing a berserker army, cause he'd get torn to shreds.
Considering there isn't a berzerker army, and are a grand total of 20 berzerkers in the entire tournament, spread over two armies. Because berserkers with a transport run a bit expensive for a unit that will never get more than one fight against most decent players, if even that.
PIUS_2 wrote: What if instead of just making it easier to brute force conscripts or make synergies within the IG army list directly weaker what if we make the commissars and the officers have have more effective counter play (snipers, psychic powers, other anti character stuff) against them?
I feel like those IG characters are some of the best support troops in game and are pretty tough for their cost and support abilities. Decreasing the number of wounds that IG characters get I think might make IG armies that are heavily reliant on characters change up their tactics.
If LoS is a problem with commissars maybe forcing the commissar to have LoS on a whole squad to apply his buffs might make the guy have to play more aggressively and in the open.
Make Imperial guard characters like glass cannons of support sounds like it could be fun to play as and against.
The commissar is a W3 T3 5+ character. The company commander is a W4 T3 5+ character. The commander also has a refractor field. I'm not really sure what you could do these characters to make them more fragile.
Guard already goes second almost always. As a result, guard has to deal with the high likelihood of starting their game already down a point from First Blood, at least against any player that knows what they're doing. Your solution of "making IG characters fragile" not only increases the odds of this happening, but it also, at least with regard to Commanders, increases the odds of Slay the Warlord turn 1. In addition, we're also the army most negatively affected by KP as a scenario. Like, to the point where I pretty much have to table people in order to win KP. Your ideas for changes would force me to play as broken of lists as I possibly can. You just encouraged me to run 400 conscripts. Thanks.
I didn't think about KP and the like. But that seems to be an issue that needs to be a dressed with armies that rely on squishy small and cheap squads anyways. :c
Instead of making IG characters weaker we make them even better at supporting your army but at a greater cost?
Give the imperial guard officers two additional orders each but increase the points cost for each by 40 points (the cost of two platoon commanders.)
Make squads that have to do moral tests under a commissar auto pass except one squad which faces the summary excution but increase the cost of them by 20 points (the cost of not shooting 4 guardsmen with his bolt pistol.)
Increasing their point cost and buff effectiveness I think will make the enemy feel like they have greater counterplay since IG will have very expensive characters so their anti character stuff are making back their points faster (and not killing more or less models) per turn.
IG fans (like myself) might be happy to see that having MSU might be a little more effective, we might not need as many characters on the table, vox casters might see more use, and it might just be more lore friendly to not see a company commander leading only two squads at a time, or a platoon commander only commanding one squad like Sargents.
Give the imperial guard officers two additional orders each but increase the points cost for each by 40 points (the cost of two platoon commanders.)
That's actually a really interesting idea. It seems too expensive on it's own, but I like it because it would potentially give you a reason to take voxcasters. You could consolidate down to fewer commanders (which is arguably how it should be) and then voxcast out to the further squads. Might be an unintended consequence, but that's a change I'd actually be willing to consider playtesting.
Make squads that have to do moral tests under a commissar auto pass except one squad which faces the summary excution but increase the cost of them by 20 points (the cost of not shooting 4 guardsmen with his bolt pistol.)
I'm trying to understand this one. So there would be fewer casualties per turn but the commissar would cost more points? That would scale in conscripts favor over multiple turns if so. I don't know if the anti-conscript people would be okay with that and honestly, I sounds like a boost conscripts genuinely don't need. I might misunderstand though.
Increasing their point cost and buff effectiveness I think will make the enemy feel like they have greater counterplay since IG will have very expensive characters so their anti character stuff are making back their points faster (and not killing more or less models) per turn.
IG fans (like myself) might be happy to see that having MSU might be a little more effective, we might not need as many characters on the table, vox casters might see more use, and it might just be more lore friendly to not see a company commander leading only two squads at a time, or a platoon commander only commanding one squad like Sargents.
Yeah, don't get me wrong, I agree with the sentiment entirely. I just haven't seen an individual implementation that I actually like. I'm really hoping that when the codex comes out, the points remain the same, but the platoon structure as it was in 5th-7th comes back. I kind of does weird things with the detachment system, but it's really the simplest and most elegant solution.
Honestly, I suspect part of the reason why they broke up platoons was to reward IG with more command points (probably in an effort to balance almost always going last) but the conscript spam was kind of an unforseen consequence. I think maybe if platoons were brought back (with conscripts being 0-1 per platoon), then you could give IG +1 CP to make up for the fact that they're paying for a minimum of two more troops than they're reporting in their actual detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Hey, I hate crossposting stuff, but this is pretty relevant to this thread WRT snipers being something worth discussing. Melissa and I both responded the same way, and I think there's a factor here that needs to be discussed more. I ask people read the copypasta below and comment.
Spoiler:
So lets have a look at some tables I see people playing on. Maybe we can work through this, and I'll see if I can show you just what we're talking about in a way that will help you understand our viewpoint.
That's Adepticon. Adepticon's usually pretty spare, but that's sparse even for Adeption to be honest, but it happens sometimes. Now, you probably don't know since you appear to be a casual player from your immediate hatred of all things from Forge World (and yes, FW is allowed there, so there's a double whammy) but it's a pretty big tournament scene. Like, the biggest in North America that I'm aware of. Maybe even the biggest if you count the non-gw games that go on there too. But, so anyway, that's kinda what competitive players expect. So that's one of the tables there. Not too many places to hide a commissar if you ask me. Sure, there's a couple. It'd be pretty hard to keep them out of LOS of a deep striking sniper though, and there's quite a few of those. You might not even have to move too much. You could probably blam him turn 1 even. Yeah, sure, if someone spams conscripts, it might get tricky, but I find you usually have that problem with just about any unit in the game. That other table's looking about the same too. But we can't see that too well. Lets keep going.
Not actually sure where this one is happening, to be honest, but man, I'd love to snipe some gak there.
Oh, we might have found one. Those buildings look like they have closed fronts! Sides look pretty open too. You'd have to really work to not be able to get a shot in through one of those windows.
Yeah, this place has some tall hills. I wouldn't be too worried with a couple Vindicares or some Ratlings though. Hell, that looks like a bigger table than normal, though that could be perspective, so you might even being able to deploy those scouts in no-man's land where they could do something.
Out of sincere curiosity, how are these tables matching up for you? Because they look about right to me, and I've been to Adepticon, oh, maybe 3-4 years, and play local tournaments, and have spent time watching the games at Gencon. They ALL basically look like this. Maybe a few tables will have a bit more terrain, but not enough where I'd expect genuine LOS issues. The joke my Adepticon Team has is "Hey, they might have cover, but you always get the shot."
So, I think I have something that might satisfy both parties without nerfing Guard/Conscripts into the ground.
Change the Commissar's abilities to 'units wholly within' and increase the bubble to 9 or 12 inches. This stops spaghetti lines to cover and requires each Conscript blob to have a Commissar without damaging the impact they have on line squads.
RogueApiary wrote: So, I think I have something that might satisfy both parties without nerfing Guard/Conscripts into the ground.
Change the Commissar's abilities to 'units wholly within' and increase the bubble to 9 or 12 inches. This stops spaghetti lines to cover and requires each Conscript blob to have a Commissar without damaging the impact they have on line squads.
Oh now that's interesting. Same wording as for the ork force field. I think this is a good solution.
How so? 12 inches wholly within should be able to cover more than one infantry squad or a 50 man conscript squad pretty easily. It makes them vulnerable to snipers, but that'd be kind of the point of the change, in which case you take advantage of the fact that he's 31 points and take a second as sniper insurance. It basically makes them the tax on the conscript squad without screwing up their ability to service 2+ infantry squads.
You could even change my proposal to be if the unit is within the combined radius of one or more Commissars, it gets the buffs, but that might slow the game up with extra measuring.
Because let's be honest, running a conga line of 50 dudes back to a wall so he can execute the closest one is kinda goofy and not exactly a sign of tactical genius.
Because it impacts their use to normal guardsmen, when the problem isn't normal guardsmen.
Normally, one does not perform surgery with a halberd when a scalpel is present.
You can easily fit 4 infantry squads wholly within said 12" bubble, in fact, here's 6 of them. How is this nerfing their ability to buff normal infantry again? Less pithy one liners, more actual arguments please.
EDIT: I'd like to add that the photo is not even the best case scenario for the regular infantry squads assuming a 12" wholly within bubble. Since morale checks that are likely to cause dudes to run are usually after 3-4 guys die you could push each of those squads out a couple inches and take casualties from the ones outside the bubble until you end up with the 5-7 survivors still within the bubble. The enemy either kills too few to force a morale check likely to cause fleeing models, or it's business as usual and the Commissar blams one.
Because it impacts their use to normal guardsmen, when the problem isn't normal guardsmen.
Normally, one does not perform surgery with a halberd when a scalpel is present.
You can easily fit 4 infantry squads wholly within said 12" bubble, in fact, here's 6 of them. How is this nerfing their ability to buff normal infantry again? Less pithy one liners, more actual arguments please.
EDIT: I'd like to add that the photo is not even the best case scenario for the regular infantry squads assuming a 12" wholly within bubble. Since morale checks that are likely to cause dudes to run are usually after 3-4 guys die you could push each of those squads out a couple inches and take casualties from the ones outside the bubble until you end up with the 5-7 survivors still within the bubble. The enemy either kills too few to force a morale check likely to cause fleeing models, or it's business as usual and the Commissar blams one.
This really doesn't do anything to solve the problem, though - Conscripts will remain an effective block of bodies that are very difficult to whittle down; and that durability, paired with Orders, makes them arguably too efficient. Nerfing their ability to take Orders - from what some have suggested, by adding a chance for the Order to fail all the way to the nuclear option of outright removing their ability to take them - still doesn't really fix the crux of the imbalance with Conscripts: their durability thanks to their synergy with a Commissar.
Even suggestions to tweak a Commissar's 'Summary Execution' (SE) rule to cause D3 or D6 casualties instead of only one, ever, to Conscripts would work well. It is clear with their stat-line and equipping them with lasguns that the idea was to let them be threatening with the storm of shots they can put out - with a tweak to SE, now when they suffer enough casualties to cause a morale check they're losing more than one model most of the time.
That was the idea behind my own suggestion, Get Back In Line You Rabble! - where SE reduces Conscript morale losses by half instead of by one. Paired with the Commissar's LD bubble, you wouldn't actually begin to lose more than 1 or 2 until the Conscript unit is taking heavy casualties. By scaling it you'd end up 'rewarding' your opponent for trying to focus them down, whereas just whittling at the unit would only cause a couple of SE casualties at a time.
For example, even with 8 casualties and a 6 in the morale roll, my idea would only result in 3 SE casualties. 16 casualties? A minimum of 5 (rounding up) to a maximum of 7. It even works thematically/fluff-wise; they're a poorly trained unit with very low morale, after all... it'd take a much sterner line to convince 34 freshly conscripted former-civilians to continue to fight if 16 of their number were instantly cut down around them... some probably slinking off or playing dead, even, in the chaos of the moment while the commissar works to reassert control. I think it was Necropolis where Commissar Knowles had to gun down a handful of PDF to motivate them - they were getting annhilated, of course, but that's the point and why I like the scalability of the suggestion. It incentivizes an opponent to do more than nibble at the unit if he really wants to thin their numbers, and unlike the current SE or even the d3/d6 suggestions doesn't punish him for dedicating all that firepower with a fixed, modest number of battle shock losses - but, still preserves a good chunk of the durability having a Commissar bestows upon Conscripts.
Regardless - half, D6, D3 - I think an adjustment to SE is the best way to balance Conscripts effectively. By reducing their durability you allow an opponent to actually attrit them effectively; by not neutering their viability in numbers and the threat they provide with Orders, they're not an ignorable threat either.
Because it impacts their use to normal guardsmen, when the problem isn't normal guardsmen.
Normally, one does not perform surgery with a halberd when a scalpel is present.
You can easily fit 4 infantry squads wholly within said 12" bubble, in fact, here's 6 of them. How is this nerfing their ability to buff normal infantry again? Less pithy one liners, more actual arguments please.
EDIT: I'd like to add that the photo is not even the best case scenario for the regular infantry squads assuming a 12" wholly within bubble. Since morale checks that are likely to cause dudes to run are usually after 3-4 guys die you could push each of those squads out a couple inches and take casualties from the ones outside the bubble until you end up with the 5-7 survivors still within the bubble. The enemy either kills too few to force a morale check likely to cause fleeing models, or it's business as usual and the Commissar blams one.
Problem, this is a best case scenario with no obstacles or variable for terrain.
So, you can literally barely fit 50 models in base to base around a commissar at 9". The bubble around a commissar at 12" is large enough to fit about two full size conscript squads.
The fun thing about this is when I say "fit two full size conscript squads", I mean that's literally THE MOST things you can fit in there. This is talking with a computer generated model with the most optimium spots around.it. A person could probably work that out, but you thought moving that many conscripts was slow before, oh just WAIT until you make them have to pay attention to where every last mini goes.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Oh, also, people get to choose one of the below:
1. Claim sniper rifles aren't useful because of hiding from LOS and mock players who suggest otherwise.
-or-
2. Suggest that "reasonable" leadership mechanics involve preventing commissars from ever practically going within 12" of any significant sized terrain, in addition to becoming something that by virtue of bad rules, becomes even harder for an assault army to cope with. Before there's the possibility that a guard player might screw up and let a commissar get in range of a melee consolidation. Now every commissar is in the epicenter of the conscript atom, so he's even harder to assault.
The best solution is the just change up the conscripts themselves still. Make them a 6+ armor save, weapons that were ap - have more value as a result.
Easy? Yes. Best choice? No. The entire purpose of guardsmen is to soak up damage. They're decent at that. But the problem with reducing their ability to soak up damage is then players using them become more reliant on their ability to benefit more from orders due to their size to increase their offensive capability, which again is another thing people complained about.
It'd be better that they keep their defensive value but have their offensive value nerfed, and the way that happens is by nerfing their ability to receive orders.
You see that is something that I have frequently seen but not a real concern still. Their offensive power is good when orders come into effect, because high pt. to order efficiency. But allowing a greater amount to be killed via more common means also diminishes that efficiency.
50 conscript unit will still survive at least two turns. It's just they become a more viable target than before.
That's the thing, conscript squads can already be taken down in two turns if you focus on them. But again, nerfing their defense will make people rely more on their offense, which kinda defeats the purpose of the unit to begin with. They should be good at taking damage, but iffy elsewhere.
Melissia wrote: Easy? Yes. Best choice? No. The entire purpose of guardsmen is to soak up damage. They're decent at that.
They are not decent at that, they are the best at that (for screening purposes at least, we can make a case for others being better objective grabbers due to cover).
You can say "the whole point is to soak damage" and that doesn't matter a bit if we all agree they are too good at that. A unit designed as a glass cannon's job might be just to kill as many enemy units as possible, but it still shouldn't be able to deal out three times its point cost in damage a turn. Conscripts who face an army with a ton of anti infantry weapons should be expected to crumble. If you strategy is "bubble wrap expensive shooty units with chaff" and someone takes units to clear chaff, your big expensive units should be exposed by turn three at the latest.
Let's look at a random example from the tank side. It would take roughly two turns average for two units of heavy weapon guardsman with lascannons to kill a razorback, over which they cost a little under twice as much. They are a reasonably fragile unit, so we can assume this is fairly top tier. A predator is a more resiellient unit, loaded with four lascannon star it costs a bit more but still should generally be able to do it in two turns, albeit not as reliably.
That should be the norm for killing conscripts. They should not be a roadblock expected to last 3-4 turns, any unit being targeted by a counter unit twice it's value should only be able to do its job, whether it be screening or firing heavy weapons, for a couple turns. That's reasonable.
Melissia wrote: That's the thing, conscript squads can already be taken down in two turns if you focus on them. But again, nerfing their defense will make people rely more on their offense, which kinda defeats the purpose of the unit to begin with. They should be good at taking damage, but iffy elsewhere.
The number of units that can take down a conscript squad in two turns for twice its cost is extremely limited, and most of those are melee units who won't even get in range till turn 2-3.
Melissia wrote: But they aren't "too good" at soaking up damage.
Focus on them and you can delete them. Duh.
Except, again, not wth a reasonable amount of firepower. I can take twice their price in anti infantry shooting in most armies and they'd be lucky to kill them by turn three. That's unreasonable.
Anything can focus anything down given infinite points, but pricing is an issue. Twice their cost is what it should take to have a good shot at wiping in two, almost guaranteed by three.
SilverAlien wrote: I can take twice their price in anti infantry shooting in most armies and they'd be lucky to kill them by turn three. That's unreasonable.
Not for a unit intended to do literally nothing else but take damage.
SilverAlien wrote: I can take twice their price in anti infantry shooting in most armies and they'd be lucky to kill them by turn three. That's unreasonable.
Not for a unit intended to do literally nothing else but take damage.
It's not unreasonable at all.
Except, a unit that's intended to nothing but take damage surviving twice it's cost in tailored anti whatever firepower for two turns has done it's job. That's two turns your guns have been firing totally unmolested, with the enemies anti infantry tied up clearing the chaff and the anti tank unable to effectively engage. If you haven't managed to gain a major advantage in that time, well that's on you.
Guard doesn't need to sit in the corner with their big guns firing unmolested for 4+ turns to win.
SilverAlien wrote: Guard doesn't need to sit in the corner with their big guns firing unmolested for 4+ turns to win.
So fething shoot their big guns with your fething lascannons already. Or are you one of those players that only ever plays with terrain that blocks off line of sight to a full third of the map from all angles, and lets the enemy use that side every time?
All the conscripts do really is stop you from rendering said big guns completely useless by tying them up in an eternal assault. And dedicated assault armies can tear through conscripts pretty damn fast. If the conscripts are too far forward you can assault them with multiple dedicated assault units and wipe them out in a turn or two. If they're too far back, they'll run out of places to Fall Back to and thus be stuck in melee until you annihilate them.
Melissia wrote: All the conscripts do really is stop you from rendering said big guns completely useless by tying them up in an eternal assault. And dedicated assault armies can tear through conscripts pretty damn fast. If the conscripts are too far forward you can assault them with multiple dedicated assault units and wipe them out in a turn or two. If they're too far back, they'll run out of places to Fall Back to and thus be stuck in melee until you annihilate them.
Plus prevent all short range and melee anti tank options from being able to approach them, turning things into a long range shootout with IG, a fight most armies can't win, outside of builds most people agree are fairly broken (stormraven). Or melee armies can spend 2-3 turns being bombarded just trying to get through the chaff. Because again, you are going to take at least some period of time to get into melee range, barring like 1-2 psychic powers and a few units that can reliably charge out of deepstrike.
Dunno, I'm just failing to see how this is a balanced build. If it were vulnerable to an anti infantry heavy build, it'd be one thing. But it isn't. It's not even weak to melee builds, because again the number of armies who can clear them in melee are limited. Plus you can just fall back and concentrate fire on most of those given they tend to be very fragile.
It seems like the only winning strategy is to outshoot them with long range firepower. Which is annoying both in the sense guard are good at that so many armies won't be able to, and two it's the single most boring and dull way to play 40k.
SilverAlien wrote: Dunno, I'm just failing to see how this is a balanced build. If it were vulnerable to an anti infantry heavy build
It is vulnerable to anti-infantry.
In fact, supremely so. Devastator squad with four heavy bolters along with a razorback with twin assault cannons is 24 shots, half of which are S5 (8 hits, 5.33 wounds, 4.44 unsaved) and the other half S6 (8 hits, 5.55 unsaved). They fire this, dealing ~10 unsaved wounds. Then you ram a rhino with assault marines in, pile in to them and deal 31 S4 attacks (11 base, +10 more from chainsword, +10 more from shooting pistols) at WS3+ for another ~10 unsaved wounds. That's half the squad annihilated in one turn, and you're setitng yourself to annihilate the rest of the squad the next turn or keep the conscripts tied up so you can focus on the vehicles.
SilverAlien wrote: Dunno, I'm just failing to see how this is a balanced build. If it were vulnerable to an anti infantry heavy build
It is vulnerable to anti-infantry.
In fact, supremely so. Devastator squad with four heavy bolters along with a razorback with twin assault cannons is 24 shots, half of which are S5 (8 hits, 5.33 wounds, 4.44 unsaved) and the other half S6 (8 hits, 5.55 unsaved). They fire this, dealing ~10 unsaved wounds. Then you ram a rhino with assault marines in, pile in to them and deal 31 S4 attacks (11 base, +10 more from chainsword, +10 more from shooting pistols) at WS3+ for another ~10 unsaved wounds. That's half the squad annihilated in one turn, and you're setitng yourself to annihilate the rest of the squad the next turn or keep the conscripts tied up so you can focus on the vehicles.
That's what, a bit over 400 points of models to clear less than half of a 150 point squad? That's not vulnerable to anti infantry at all. Vulnerable means, if you see 1000 points of dedicated anti infatry coming up the field, you realize your three squads of conscripts likely won't see turn three. As it is, those conscripts are far too resistant to anti infantry fire.
It's trivial for a IG to include 4+ units of conscripts, and even an army entirely made of dedicated anti infantry would struggle to clear that many in a decent time frame. 600 points of conscripts, 660 with commissars, would take an army made up up of literally nothing but anti infantry to clear them in two turns. Say we take 5 sets of the above units, going over 400 points a bit. That's 100 wounds per turn, so two to clear the conscripts once they get in range, meaning three if we factor in they aren't getting turn one charges from a rhino, That's not at all a reasonable ratio.
SilverAlien wrote: That's what, a bit over 400 points of models to clear less than half of a 150 point squad?
A 150 point tarpit squad. Said squad should reliably perform its duty of being a tarpit, because that's what it's intended to do. You're just mad you can't just point at the enemy, say "pew pew" and ask them to remove all their models without effort.
And I find it hilarious that you're complaining about conscripts in here but you're whining about the flyer nerf in the other thread, as if 6+ stormravens in a single list was somehow less awful than a couple conscript squads.
SilverAlien wrote: That's what, a bit over 400 points of models to clear less than half of a 150 point squad?
A 150 point tarpit squad.
And I find it hilarious that you're complaining about conscripts in here but you're whining about the flyer nerf in the other thread, as if 6+ stormravens in a single list was somehow less awful than a couple conscript squads.
Tarpits are supposed to stop a type of unit, not every type of unit. Tarpits again, should be easily cleared by the appropriate counter unit. four squads of conscripts should not see turn three if an entire army is anti infantry, costing in excess of three time said unit's cost. Even if the anti infantry isn't the best anti infantry, that shouldn't be a thing.
Whining about the nerf? That's not what I'm doing. I'm currently arguing the flyer detachment shouldn't exist actually, that all flyer lists shouldn't have ever been an option, GW originally allowing the option was moronic and them patching it up hastily doesn't deserve praise. .
Have there really been that many of you repeatedly getting pounded by conscripts? Or is most of this based off 1-2 time bad experiences and/or band wagonning based of pure number crunching in a vacuum? I find it hard to believe that everyone here crying nerf has substantial play testing already against guard lists wielding a high model count of conscripts...
It could take the entire 2000 points to clear the a few squads of conscripts in a turn. Doesnt matter. If youre mass assaulting them, then youre good to go for getting at the meat behind them in turn two. The points required to take out a single unit are meaningless in the scope of the game, the end result is whats important.
If you gotta get through em, dedicate wbatever is necessary to get through em. Its that simple.
RogueApiary wrote: So, I think I have something that might satisfy both parties without nerfing Guard/Conscripts into the ground.
Change the Commissar's abilities to 'units wholly within' and increase the bubble to 9 or 12 inches. This stops spaghetti lines to cover and requires each Conscript blob to have a Commissar without damaging the impact they have on line squads.
It would also limit his influence to the range of his bolt pistol, which is stunningly fluffy where conscripts are concerned.
Nelson Mechanized wrote: Have there really been that many of you repeatedly getting pounded by conscripts? Or is most of this based off 1-2 time bad experiences and/or band wagonning based of pure number crunching in a vacuum? I find it hard to believe that everyone here crying nerf has substantial play testing already against guard lists wielding a high model count of conscripts...
Here is what generally happened: I lost and could tell the issue was I couldn't get through the conscripts fast enough. Most of my army would be shot off before I could get through. So I looked for better alternatives, using math hammer. Realized I was using the best option for my army. Looked for options in my other army. Realized there weren't any better options. Began looking at just taking more of the previous options, realized it was far too costly, would basically amount to list tailoring.
So yeah. Basically there aren't any good options of someone is running 4 squads of conscripts. By the time anything I field gets through them, most of my army is shot off the board. Or I just get wiped.
So I can either tailor my list with tons of snipers, or just run my army as if it were guard at just trade shots, which is still an uphill battle but actually less of one than trying to clear the conscripts to expose the units. Neither is ideal. The basic idea is: if the conscripts aren't dead and the artillery isn't exposed by the start of my third turn, it'll have done too much damage for my army to recover. It needs to at least be taking wounds and getting tied up in combat by then or it's a sweep.
How many IG players have even run an optimized list? 200 conscripts, tons of artillery and heavy weapons, no overcosted tanks etc. Have any of you even tried to run such a list?
And how many games have you played while running 200+ conscripts? With artillery? Please share if you have so much more insight. I'm feeling pretty good about the four or so I've done comparatively, considering so far none of the people defending conscripts have even stated they've run more than two full squads. Actually, I'm not positive anyone has claimed to have run two full squads.
In case it wasn't clear, my games were: two games to realize I didn't have enough firepower, followed by my vain attempt to find a better source amounting to nothing. One to confirm snipers did indeed work if I could get LoS on the commissar, and one to realize what an awful idea trying to quickly clear conscripts with bezerkers was.
None. I witnessed one, and in the one I witnessed, the guard army lost.
But the difference is here?
I'm not fearmongering about them, but you are. In multiple threads, at that.
I'm not saying "OH MY GOD THEY'RE SO OPPLS NERF!" in every thread, even ones completely unrelated to conscripts, as happened so many times in this forum. And you've participated in this.
The conscript "discussion" got so bad that the mods were handing out warnings left and right for derailing threads, and plenty of threads were closed because of it.
And for what? Because you lost a match or two, and you've driven your psyche in to a corner doing biased mathhammer whining about how you'll have to devote a lot of points to taking down in a single turn a unit whose only purpose is to be hard to take down?
If you wonder why I seem dismissive of you, that's why.
Melissia wrote: I'm not fearmongering about them, but you are. In multiple threads, at that.
I'm not saying "OH MY GOD THEY'RE SO OPPLS NERF!" in every thread, even ones completely unrelated to conscripts, as happened so many times in this forum. And you've participated in this.
The conscript "discussion" got so bad that the mods were handing out warnings left and right for derailing threads, and plenty of threads were closed because of it.
Fearmongering? We are arguing about balance issues in a single forum with maybe a couple dozen people participating. We aren't even arguing in the place where people actually go for tactics advice. It's not like this will have any effect on the game, this is an academic exercise for (at least for some of us) fun. I've even stated I don't think changes from GW right now are warranted due to just how rapidly codices are going to be coming, which will heavily alter overall balance.
This is theorycrafting and debate not me trying desperately to get something nerfed. I'm not quite arrogant and delusional enough to think GW is reading every post in this thread, waiting with baited breath for each point and counter point, every post bringing us closer to a point adjustment or something.
As for derailing, if you didn't defensively start posting about how conscripts are fine every single time someone mentions them being unbalanced it wouldn't be an issue. People just reference it as an obviously broken unit which, by your own admission they are to some degree, even if only due to orders and when used for non screening purposes.
The fact your only useful argument continues to be "they are supposed to be hard to kill, therefor it is impossible they are too hard to kill" hasn't been helping the issue die down. You did this even when the suggestion that would "ruin their usage" amounted to an additional two conscripts on average lost per morale phase compared to the current version. Which is why you've apparently switched to getting weirdly personal and acting like this is somehow a personal affront to you, a person who doesn't even use or play against the unit in question to any great degree by your own admission.
So there, it's a theorycrafting thread we all know won't matter, I want to argue about numbers and math hammer online and this is an engaging topic with a lot of interesting discussion. We all on the same page now?
The reason it got locked Melissa was because people were throwing out accusations and personal attacks. Chill. Right now we know IG are overpreforming to an extent. We know Scions, flyers, and atry is a part of that. Others say it also encompasses conscripts and I agree with them.
It looks like the new Marine codex is introducing more anti-infantry units. So, I'm guessing GW saw this coming.
The new primaris mini-centurion devastators look like they'll chew infantry spam up, and spit it out at a fair price-point under their basic load-out.
They have something like 2 assault 6 S4 guns, and can fire twice per shooting phase. Come in squads of 3-6.
Add in a primaris rhino or a captain's aura and you're talking about a ton of lead being thrown a fair distance downrange with very, very good accuracy.
Arandmoor wrote: It looks like the new Marine codex is introducing more anti-infantry units. So, I'm guessing GW saw this coming.
The new primaris mini-centurion devastators look like they'll chew infantry spam up, and spit it out at a fair price-point under their basic load-out.
They have something like 2 assault 6 S4 guns, and can fire twice per shooting phase. Come in squads of 3-6.
Add in a primaris rhino or a captain's aura and you're talking about a ton of lead being thrown a fair distance downrange with very, very good accuracy.
broxus wrote: If nerf conscrips and how they work with commissars they need to nerf the Tyranid and Orc hordes and immunity to moral tests.
Bolters and standard infantry weapons are your answer to conscripts.
The issue with both of these is that conscripts aren't really comparable to most other units in terms of durability. Compared to guard infantry they have a 25% discount, compared to termagaunts they have that and a better armor save, literally jsut a better grot, and compared to ork boyz they are half the price, better armor save, one worse toughness. So more efficient anti infantry weapons are a bit unreasonable for other armies/units, for which the existing answers are efficient enough and IG hordes are flat out better than tyranid and grot hordes in virtually every way right now.
The only unit even close is the brimstone horrors, who lack the morale rules the others have as a hypothetical weak spot that may not mean much in practice. But, as we see by them being the other standout chaff unit in most etc lists, that weakness is probably not compensating for the invulnerable save and even lower pricetag.
daedalus wrote: I think GW should inflate the point system by a factor of 10x, that way greater granularity of control over point cost balance may be achieved.
And then I get to say "Conscripts cost 35 points now. How can you say they're too cheap?!"
I was actually thinking about this earlier. Say hypothetically that grots are worth exactly three points and normal guardsman are worth exactly four, as the game is currently balanced. There really isn't any way to fit termagaunts and conscripts in without pushing their stats up or down.
Then again, this implies a level of fine control over the balance I don't think GW has ever bothered with.
Isn't there some grand tournament that is going to happen here soon where some dude is bringing 399 conscripts? According to these forums, he should auto-win no problem. Even though at the last ITC tournament, guard didn't even get in the top 3 if I recall. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Commissar Benny wrote: Isn't there some grand tournament that is going to happen here soon where some dude is bringing 399 conscripts? According to these forums, he should auto-win no problem. Even though at the last ITC tournament, guard didn't even get in the top 3 if I recall. Will be interesting to see how it plays out.
I am interested to see how they get on. Conscripts with smite spam for is an interesting take on the meta. Its a team tournament though which skews things a bit.
Its possible it still isn't as good as "put your entire army around RG, laugh due to having all the rerolls" but we shall see.
Most of the complaining about conscripts is probably based on maths - but mathematics doesn't lie. You need a very good reason to explain why a unit which point for point does more damage than most regular infantry and is harder to kill than most regular infantry isn't going to be very good.
Guard have lots of good units these days (most things aside from Leman Russ Tanks - due to the weird game-wide 50 point tax that seems to effect all non-Super Heavy Tanks) but I struggle to think of a match up where bringing two units of 50 will be a bad choice.
In some games you are bubble wrapping for direct charges. In others you are area denying for deep strike and equivalent deployment rules. Against pure gunlines just mob up on objectives and shoot back. People have said you can't do all three at once but you don't typically need to.
I think all this doom and gloom for 19 page now is quiet amusing. There are ways around the conscripts like massed fire and thinning them out in shooting and assaulting with CC units. 50 conscrips die pretty fast with a 5+
Rickels wrote: I think all this doom and gloom for 19 page now is quiet amusing. There are ways around the conscripts like massed fire and thinning them out in shooting and assaulting with CC units. 50 conscrips die pretty fast with a 5+
The issue is they don't die that fast when your enemy has 200 of them for a mere 600 points. That's when getting through them before the guard has shot you off the table becomes a real chore.
Most of the complaining about conscripts is probably based on maths - but mathematics doesn't lie.
But, like any system, they're susceptible to poorly considered input.
Almost all the mathhammer I've seen attempted assumes the conscripts are unharmed and within 12" of the enemy.
Almost all the screening unit theorycrafting I've seen attempted assumes they're spread out across an entire side of the table.
Almost all the complaints assume they're paradoxically doing both at once.
I mean, mathhammer is a model. It's not perfect. We all know it's not perfect. I get that. I just wish we could come up with a better way of doing it than somehow assuming they teleport into existence at whatever the most advantageous place is going to be, unharmed and ready to fire. It's just unreasonable to assume that all 50 are going to be alive at that point, and I feel like that should be considered more heavily when modelling the damage output.
Having that been said, Katherine already had a legitimate argument for why they have a little too much damage when they're shooting (and are getting ordered), and made the case that orders on conscripts were too powerful. Katherine also used the same estimates to determine that their staying power was actually in line with their point values in direct comparison to how survivable space marines are. That was about half the thread ago. Since then we still have seen helpful suggestions like "give conscripts 6+ armor", "don't let commissars keep conscripts in line", and other things even less coherent that not only failed to solve the issue made conscripts inadvertently even moreso the only infantry worth taking in the army.
At this point, if you have to change ANYTHING for conscripts, the only two reasonable things to do are:
- Reinstate the platoon and make them 0-1 for the overhead of the rest of the troops
- Make them BS 6+. That gives them about 58% of 2-4 dead space marines at full strength, at 12" FRFSRF range, which is a bunch of conditions that shouldn't matter because they'll never happen.
The first option is my preferred, because it solves it through a convention that's been in place for years, and it's fluffy. The second option is something I've been contemplating for a while. I still don't know if I like it, but I'd be interested in seeing it happen. It completely makes anything that can force a -1 on shooting attacks to become utterly immune to them, which I definitely DON'T like the idea of. I can't accept with a serious face that laser light is too slow to hit a Valkyrie.
We had numbers indicating MSU of space marines all in cover were similar to conscripts standing out in the open. There is a bit of a difference between the two, both in terms of usage and how many such units/models are likely to exist in given game.
Personally, my stance currently is: they are a bit too useful when bunched up and given orders, but this is an easy fix.
I also think commissars have a bit too much synergy with them, given you will never realistically take conscripts without a commissar, and 30 points to boost two or more squads is a token price for a unit whose leadership is supposed to be a major downside, and currently the game lacks many ways to deal with characters, particularly with the conga line way conscripts are often fielded. It's also not much of an issue with a 50-100 conscripts unless you are playing really low point games, but more than that starts becoming a problem.
As far as solutions go, I've seen a number that work
So the 0-1 per platoon approach works imo, because in moderation they aren't a balance issue.
The commissar's aura working like the force field big mek aura and requiring the entire unit to be inside the range helps keep the commissar from safely hiding from sniper rifles and means you'll take one per conscript squad, a bit more reasonable than the one per 2-3 you can currently do. It also makes redundancy harder.
I also still think a 6+ armor save would work, even at a 6+ they absorb damage slightly better than normal squads of infantry of the same cost (30 wounds on an 6+ Is 25, 75 points dead for 3 point conscripts. 30 on a 5+ is 20 dead, 80 points on a normal squad). Considering that conscripts would still synergize better with commissars in this scenario, they'd still have a useful role.
I also did have one additional thought: this game just needs more low strength AP-2 weaponry. This would arguably be the best way to kill such a unit if coated correctly, but currently there are few weapons like that, and those that do exist tend be high strength and a bit overkill for conscripts. It also won't further invalidate other horde armies, who are all generally 6+ across the board, or rocking invulnerable saves (though brimstone horrors could use a hit as well it seems).
Low strAP-2 weaponry ends up being better against SHV rather than conscripts, because each point of rend is actually very valuable now. The problem is largely that this armor which was effectivly nonexistent in a previous edition, now is always there but the points haven't changed. It makes their durability quite literally 33 percent better against AP- weapons for no points increase.
It was a problem some people predicted but I didn't think anything of it at the time, because so many theories were floating around how the AP system would work. Remember people though lasguns might end up being AP +1 ? literally improving the opponents armor save. It was an interesting idea that would have been great if GW ever got rid of the 1 always means a fail system.
The commissar's aura working like the force field big mek aura and requiring the entire unit to be inside the range helps keep the commissar from safely hiding from sniper rifles and means you'll take one per conscript squad, a bit more reasonable than the one per 2-3 you can currently do. It also makes redundancy harder.
That would ruin the Commissar and nobody would ever use it, unless you also gave him a big boost to his range.
If you going to nerf the conscripts ability to get orders or their synergy with the commisar then they would have to go through every army that has this effect (nids/orks) and remove it as well.
All of this is MATHHAMMER and has not been proven in a GT yet so its all theory atm. Stop for a second and give it a bit to see if it really is the mountain you making this molehill into
daedalus wrote: I think GW should inflate the point system by a factor of 10x, that way greater granularity of control over point cost balance may be achieved.
And then I get to say "Conscripts cost 35 points now. How can you say they're too cheap?!"
I was actually thinking about this earlier. Say hypothetically that grots are worth exactly three points and normal guardsman are worth exactly four, as the game is currently balanced. There really isn't any way to fit termagaunts and conscripts in without pushing their stats up or down.
Then again, this implies a level of fine control over the balance I don't think GW has ever bothered with.
It does not take army context into account, is the problem.
Basically, a Guardsman is not always a Guardsman. They're not always worth 4 points. You need to take the rest of the army they belong to into account.
Take a guardsman and add him to a Tau army. Are they still worth 4 points when stacked up against a Firewarrior? How about in a World Eaters list? Necrons? Eldar?
Termagaunts are worth what they're worth in the context of a Tyranids list. Conscripts are, OTOH, worth 3 PPM in the context of the IG.
Most of the complaining about conscripts is probably based on maths - but mathematics doesn't lie.
But, like any system, they're susceptible to poorly considered input.
Almost all the mathhammer I've seen attempted assumes the conscripts are unharmed and within 12" of the enemy.
Almost all the screening unit theorycrafting I've seen attempted assumes they're spread out across an entire side of the table.
Almost all the complaints assume they're paradoxically doing both at once.
You see this isn't true. That's the issue. Maybe I am come across harshly - I don't mean to be - but I don't see it like that at all.
Take your 210 all in cost of 50 conscripts (and in truth 180 points would be more reasonable since you can split the characters between two units) and shoot some basic marines out of cover with FRFSRF. So 100 shots.
Then compare what would happen if your shot say 210 points worth of tactical marines (16) at the same target.
The conscripts do over twice the damage.
Now take your conscript and shoot him with a S4 no rend hit and a naked tactical marine with the same. In terms of points lost the Conscripts are losing just 60% of what the Marine player is losing.
Against an S3 hit no rend its about 70%.
S4 -1 rend? The conscript player is losing a full 50% fewer points than the Marine player.
How about S6 -1 rend, because assault cannons are meant to blend T3 units? Well again, the guard player is losing just 48% of the points the naked marine player would be. So its pretty bad.
So in conclusion conscripts have about the same damage output as basic marines without orders against regular T4 infantry (and they are even better vs T3). They can easily and cheaply get an order to double their firepower, which gives them some of the best firepower for regular infantry in the game.
They are considerably more resilient than basic marines to any firepower you are likely to get. In fact you can do the numbers and they come out tougher than almost every infantry unit in the game (barring Brimstones). For another comparison shooting bolters into Conscripts is just a little over half as effective as shooting them into Boys. Shooting them with bolters is just slightly more efficient than shooting a lascannon armed Razorback! At what point does it become silly?
None of this requires them to be in 12" - if some or all of them are their firepower just becomes even more effective. Sometimes it is going to happen because people fail charges.
None of this requires them to block off an entire side of the table. The fact they are cheap and can therefore provide area denial, bubble wrapping or blob up on objectives is just a further perk.
Even if they got nerfed down to a 6+ save and couldn't take orders they would still be pretty good in terms of comparable cheap horde units.
They are awesome in every situation I imagine.
Whether or not they are as awesome as the all in RG buffed alpha strike I don't know. We shall have to see. But I expect IG to place highly in tournaments and will be surprised if they don't.
Harlequins came 2nd in that tournament and I just don't see how Harlequins would have a hope against guard with a solid sea of conscripts.
The commissar's aura working like the force field big mek aura and requiring the entire unit to be inside the range helps keep the commissar from safely hiding from sniper rifles and means you'll take one per conscript squad, a bit more reasonable than the one per 2-3 you can currently do. It also makes redundancy harder.
That would ruin the Commissar and nobody would ever use it, unless you also gave him a big boost to his range.
How the Hell would it help him avoid snipers and stay in cover?
Arandmoor wrote: It does not take army context into account, is the problem.
Basically, a Guardsman is not always a Guardsman. They're not always worth 4 points. You need to take the rest of the army they belong to into account.
Take a guardsman and add him to a Tau army. Are they still worth 4 points when stacked up against a Firewarrior? How about in a World Eaters list? Necrons? Eldar?
Termagaunts are worth what they're worth in the context of a Tyranids list. Conscripts are, OTOH, worth 3 PPM in the context of the IG.
Well... no termagaunts aren't if we accept conscripts are. Everyone pretty much agrees on that. I don't think anyone is arguing termagaunts or grots are balanced in fact, there is a reason they are basically absent from competitive lists. Indeed, most of the people defending conscripts in this thread have argued termagaunts are overpriced/too weak, same with grots.
The context here doesn't amount to much. Termagaunts and grots are currently weaker, benefit less from synergy within their own army than conscripts, and are generally just meh.
The commissar's aura working like the force field big mek aura and requiring the entire unit to be inside the range helps keep the commissar from safely hiding from sniper rifles and means you'll take one per conscript squad, a bit more reasonable than the one per 2-3 you can currently do. It also makes redundancy harder.
That would ruin the Commissar and nobody would ever use it, unless you also gave him a big boost to his range.
How the Hell would it help him avoid snipers and stay in cover?
Assuming that was addressed to me, it would keep him from staying out of line of sight, if you read the quote again. Prevents the weird conga line where the commissar is executing a model on the other side of a solid wall outside his pistol's range.
Also yes the idea was it'd be a 9" to 12" bubble, not 6"
Arandmoor wrote: It does not take army context into account, is the problem.
Basically, a Guardsman is not always a Guardsman. They're not always worth 4 points. You need to take the rest of the army they belong to into account.
Take a guardsman and add him to a Tau army. Are they still worth 4 points when stacked up against a Firewarrior? How about in a World Eaters list? Necrons? Eldar?
Termagaunts are worth what they're worth in the context of a Tyranids list. Conscripts are, OTOH, worth 3 PPM in the context of the IG.
Well... no termagaunts aren't if we accept conscripts are. Everyone pretty much agrees on that. I don't think anyone is arguing termagaunts or grots are balanced in fact, there is a reason they are basically absent from competitive lists. Indeed, most of the people defending conscripts in this thread have argued termagaunts are overpriced/too weak, same with grots.
The context here doesn't amount to much. Termagaunts and grots are currently weaker, benefit less from synergy within their own army than conscripts, and are generally just meh.
Grots aren't "meh". They're redundant in their list and they suck. There's a big difference.
Conscripts have a big advantage over guardsmen that grots do not have over orks. Namely, their maximum squad size is five times the size of a normal guardsman squad. That's a huge advantage over guardsmen.
Grots can be accompanied by a handler that does much the same thing a commissar does. However, regular boyz mobs are the same size as grot mobs, shoot almost as good, and CC about 8 times as good for twice the price per model.
Grots seem to be a 7th edition unit that simply isn't fully compatible with the 8th edition rules. They're a very poor comparison to conscripts. The only thing the two units have in common is price.
Also, conscripts can't be pooped out, 10 at a time, by an HQ unit specifically devised to synergise with them. They also carry assault guns, in a mobile army, so that they can move, advance, and shoot (albeit they'll only hit on a 5+ when they do). I feel that gaunts have lots of synergy with their own army. I have no idea where you get the idea that they don't.
SilverAlien wrote:
The commissar's aura working like the force field big mek aura and requiring the entire unit to be inside the range helps keep the commissar from safely hiding from sniper rifles and means you'll take one per conscript squad, a bit more reasonable than the one per 2-3 you can currently do. It also makes redundancy harder.
Devil's in the details though. That sounds like it COULD be reasonable at first, until you find out what people's ideas of a reasonable distance is. Nine inches is enough space to barely fit a mathematically optimum-placed squad of conscripts inside the bubble. That's not useful, and you'd just hate the player for "slow playing" because he took an hour each time he moved to make sure everyone could be where they were supposed to be. It also makes moving anywhere near terrain basically impossible. At 12" you have basically the same problem with terrain, but placement becomes a bit more forgiving. Also, it might've been hard before, but the placement at 12" guarantees that assaulty armies NEVER get to the chewy commissariat center of the conscript tootsieroll pop. Of course, at 18" fully inside the bubble, it's become useful, and you can actually navigate terrain and be able to do things like have enough flexibility to deploy with other units also in your deployment zone but everyone's going to look at crazy ol' daedalus over here increasing the range and immediately panic.
Maybe it could be 12", and every model just had to be within 12" range of SOME commissar somewhere, rather than all being within 12" of one specific commissar? I'm trying to be reasonable.
I also still think a 6+ armor save would work, even at a 6+ they absorb damage slightly better than normal squads of infantry of the same cost (30 wounds on an 6+ Is 25, 75 points dead for 3 point conscripts. 30 on a 5+ is 20 dead, 80 points on a normal squad). Considering that conscripts would still synergize better with commissars in this scenario, they'd still have a useful role.
I also did have one additional thought: this game just needs more low strength AP-2 weaponry. This would arguably be the best way to kill such a unit if coated correctly, but currently there are few weapons like that, and those that do exist tend be high strength and a bit overkill for conscripts. It also won't further invalidate other horde armies, who are all generally 6+ across the board, or rocking invulnerable saves (though brimstone horrors could use a hit as well it seems).
But is the issue their survivability or is it their damage? I'm confused because I keep hearing one, but then it seems like its the other.
Quickjager wrote:The problem is largely that this armor which was effectivly nonexistent in a previous edition, now is always there but the points haven't changed. It makes their durability quite literally 33 percent better against AP- weapons for no points increase.
That's a pretty marine-centric way of looking at it. I remind you that all that cover they lost in 8th edition didn't decrease their points either. Seems to be a wash teetering on maybe a little better off for Guard than they were before.
At this point, if you have to change ANYTHING for conscripts, the only two reasonable things to do are:
- Reinstate the platoon and make them 0-1 for the overhead of the rest of the troops
- Make them BS 6+. That gives them about 58% of 2-4 dead space marines at full strength, at 12" FRFSRF range, which is a bunch of conditions that shouldn't matter because they'll never happen.
The first option is my preferred, because it solves it through a convention that's been in place for years, and it's fluffy. The second option is something I've been contemplating for a while. I still don't know if I like it, but I'd be interested in seeing it happen. It completely makes anything that can force a -1 on shooting attacks to become utterly immune to them, which I definitely DON'T like the idea of. I can't accept with a serious face that laser light is too slow to hit a Valkyrie.
This brings up a point I've been wondering.
Why didn't GW add in to the shooting rules "A 6 on the dice always hits, (regardless of modifiers)"
At this point, if you have to change ANYTHING for conscripts, the only two reasonable things to do are:
- Reinstate the platoon and make them 0-1 for the overhead of the rest of the troops
- Make them BS 6+. That gives them about 58% of 2-4 dead space marines at full strength, at 12" FRFSRF range, which is a bunch of conditions that shouldn't matter because they'll never happen.
The first option is my preferred, because it solves it through a convention that's been in place for years, and it's fluffy. The second option is something I've been contemplating for a while. I still don't know if I like it, but I'd be interested in seeing it happen. It completely makes anything that can force a -1 on shooting attacks to become utterly immune to them, which I definitely DON'T like the idea of. I can't accept with a serious face that laser light is too slow to hit a Valkyrie.
This brings up a point I've been wondering.
Why didn't GW add in to the shooting rules "A 6 on the dice always hits, (regardless of modifiers)"
Because that allows certain armies to ignore the special rules of other armies, e.g. Orks would ignore the hard-to-hit rule (or the Raven Guard Chapter Tactics) if they're firing while moving with heavy weapons.
You see this isn't true. That's the issue. Maybe I am come across harshly - I don't mean to be - but I don't see it like that at all.
Take your 210 all in cost of 50 conscripts (and in truth 180 points would be more reasonable since you can split the characters between two units) and shoot some basic marines out of cover with FRFSRF. So 100 shots.
Then compare what would happen if your shot say 210 points worth of tactical marines (16) at the same target.
The conscripts do over twice the damage.
Here's the post Katherine came up with earlier. I agree with it completely:
Space Marine at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Space Marine at Long Range: 1 shot, .66 hits, .33 wounds, .11 damage
Space Marine in Melee: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Buffed Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 2 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Buffed Guardsman at Long Range: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, .11 damage
Buffed Guardsman in Melee: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage
Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage
Guardsman at Long Range: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage
Guardsman in Melee: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage
Buffed Conscript at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 1.33 hits, .44 wounds, .15 damage
Buffed Conscript at Long Range: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Buffed Conscript in Melee: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Conscript at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Conscript at Long Range: 1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage
Conscript in Melee:1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage
A Conscript with a Commissar is 3.6 points.
A Conscript with a Commissar and an Order is 4 points.
We'll consider the Commissar essential, because, without him, their resiliency is effectively halved.
3 Conscripts without Orders [11 points] are actually worse than a Space Marine, 95% at close range, 82% at long range, 41% in melee, and 100% as resilient. Conscripts clearly aren't the problem here.
3 Conscripts with Orders [12 points], however, are somewhat better than a marine, 204% at close range, 164% at long range, 82% in melee, and 100% as resilient.
In both cases, without commissar support, they become incredibly bad, and aren't worth 3 points, with or without orders.
Corrected.
3 Conscripts with a Commissar but without Orders are cumulatively, 80% as effective as Space Marines. This is appropriate, considering they're 85% the price.
3 Conscripts without either are 67% as effective as Space Marines. This is also appropriate, considering they're 70% the price
3 Conscripts with both are 137% as effective as Space Marines. This is not appropriate, as they're 92% the price.
Clearly, Commissars and Conscripts on their own are very appropriately costed.
You see this isn't true. That's the issue. Maybe I am come across harshly - I don't mean to be - but I don't see it like that at all.
Take your 210 all in cost of 50 conscripts (and in truth 180 points would be more reasonable since you can split the characters between two units) and shoot some basic marines out of cover with FRFSRF. So 100 shots.
Then compare what would happen if your shot say 210 points worth of tactical marines (16) at the same target.
The conscripts do over twice the damage.
Here's the post Katherine came up with earlier. I agree with it completely:
Space Marine at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Space Marine at Long Range: 1 shot, .66 hits, .33 wounds, .11 damage
Space Marine in Melee: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Buffed Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 2 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Buffed Guardsman at Long Range: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, .11 damage
Buffed Guardsman in Melee: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage
Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage
Guardsman at Long Range: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage
Guardsman in Melee: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage
Buffed Conscript at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 1.33 hits, .44 wounds, .15 damage
Buffed Conscript at Long Range: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Buffed Conscript in Melee: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Conscript at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Conscript at Long Range: 1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage
Conscript in Melee:1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage
A Conscript with a Commissar is 3.6 points.
A Conscript with a Commissar and an Order is 4 points.
We'll consider the Commissar essential, because, without him, their resiliency is effectively halved.
3 Conscripts without Orders [11 points] are actually worse than a Space Marine, 95% at close range, 82% at long range, 41% in melee, and 100% as resilient. Conscripts clearly aren't the problem here.
3 Conscripts with Orders [12 points], however, are somewhat better than a marine, 204% at close range, 164% at long range, 82% in melee, and 100% as resilient.
In both cases, without commissar support, they become incredibly bad, and aren't worth 3 points, with or without orders.
Corrected.
3 Conscripts with a Commissar but without Orders are cumulatively, 80% as effective as Space Marines. This is appropriate, considering they're 85% the price.
3 Conscripts without either are 67% as effective as Space Marines. This is also appropriate, considering they're 70% the price
3 Conscripts with both are 137% as effective as Space Marines. This is not appropriate, as they're 92% the price.
Clearly, Commissars and Conscripts on their own are very appropriately costed.
That math is off by a bit. Three conscripts without orders will be dealing just as many wounds vs MEQ as the marine on average. At 24'' they fire 3 shots, 1 hit, 1/3 wounds and 1/9 damage. While the marine fires 1 shot, 2/3 hits, 1/3 wounds and 1/9 damage. So three conscripts without orders but with a commissar (10.8 pts by those numbers) are just as effective as one space marine (13 pts) at 83% of the cost. And since FRFSRF makes them twice as shooty, three conscripts with orders dish out 200% of what the marine does on average at 92% of his price.
You see this isn't true. That's the issue. Maybe I am come across harshly - I don't mean to be - but I don't see it like that at all.
Take your 210 all in cost of 50 conscripts (and in truth 180 points would be more reasonable since you can split the characters between two units) and shoot some basic marines out of cover with FRFSRF. So 100 shots. Then compare what would happen if your shot say 210 points worth of tactical marines (16) at the same target. The conscripts do over twice the damage.
Here's the post Katherine came up with earlier. I agree with it completely:
Space Marine at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage Space Marine at Long Range: 1 shot, .66 hits, .33 wounds, .11 damage Space Marine in Melee: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Buffed Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 2 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage Buffed Guardsman at Long Range: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, .11 damage Buffed Guardsman in Melee: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage
Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage Guardsman at Long Range: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage Guardsman in Melee: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage
Buffed Conscript at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 1.33 hits, .44 wounds, .15 damage Buffed Conscript at Long Range: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage Buffed Conscript in Melee: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Conscript at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage Conscript at Long Range: 1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage Conscript in Melee:1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage
A Conscript with a Commissar is 3.6 points. A Conscript with a Commissar and an Order is 4 points.
We'll consider the Commissar essential, because, without him, their resiliency is effectively halved.
3 Conscripts without Orders [11 points] are actually worse than a Space Marine, 95% at close range, 82% at long range, 41% in melee, and 100% as resilient. Conscripts clearly aren't the problem here.
3 Conscripts with Orders [12 points], however, are somewhat better than a marine, 204% at close range, 164% at long range, 82% in melee, and 100% as resilient.
In both cases, without commissar support, they become incredibly bad, and aren't worth 3 points, with or without orders.
Corrected.
3 Conscripts with a Commissar but without Orders are cumulatively, 80% as effective as Space Marines. This is appropriate, considering they're 85% the price. 3 Conscripts without either are 67% as effective as Space Marines. This is also appropriate, considering they're 70% the price 3 Conscripts with both are 137% as effective as Space Marines. This is not appropriate, as they're 92% the price.
Clearly, Commissars and Conscripts on their own are very appropriately costed.
That math is off by a bit. Three conscripts without orders will be dealing just as many wounds vs MEQ as the marine on average. At 24'' they fire 3 shots, 1 hit, 1/3 wounds and 1/9 damage. While the marine fires 1 shot, 2/3 hits, 1/3 wounds and 1/9 damage. So three conscripts without orders but with a commissar (10.8 pts by those numbers) are just as effective as one space marine (13 pts) at 83% of the cost. And since FRFSRF makes them twice as shooty, three conscripts with orders dish out 200% of what the marine does on average at 92% of his price.
Your math is off. Space marine is 1/2 wounds (4+, not 5+), not 1/3rd, meaning instead of 1/9 damage, it is 1/6. Bringing it back to what Katherine calculated.
Yes, Conscripts with orders are too good, that's daedalus's point as well as mine and Katherine's.
Arandmoor wrote: Also, conscripts can't be pooped out, 10 at a time, by an HQ unit specifically devised to synergise with them. They also carry assault guns, in a mobile army, so that they can move, advance, and shoot (albeit they'll only hit on a 5+ when they do). I feel that gaunts have lots of synergy with their own army. I have no idea where you get the idea that they don't.
If you look at the pricing and offensive options of that HQ, you realize it's not really that useful. It's so expensive that the 60 termagaunts it creates over the course of a game only make up for like 2/3rds of the cost. It's good, but no better than the HQ optiosn available to guard. As for the whole assault weapon thing, it's a 12 inch single shot assault weapon with 4 str and no ap. Being able to advance and fire doesn't help much compared to a 24" RF weapon.
So termagaunts are fairly garbage. No offensive power even compared to barebones IG infantry or conscripts, over costed as disposable bodies (6+ for 4 points is worse than any suggested nerf to conscripts), HQs aren't particularly more efficient point wise compared to what guard has. Just no real purpose. Why would you take them?
daedalus wrote: But is the issue their survivability or is it their damage? I'm confused because I keep hearing one, but then it seems like its the other.
That's because the disagreement now boils down to some thinking both are an issue, some think only the damage is the issue.
3 Conscripts with a Commissar but without Orders are cumulatively, 80% as effective as Space Marines. This is appropriate, considering they're 85% the price.
3 Conscripts without either are 67% as effective as Space Marines. This is also appropriate, considering they're 70% the price
3 Conscripts with both are 137% as effective as Space Marines. This is not appropriate, as they're 92% the price.
Clearly, Commissars and Conscripts on their own are very appropriately costed.
This all banks on commissars only being able to effect a single unit of conscripts at a time, which again isn't what currently happens, a commissar can effect two conscript units easily, three if you push things.
You see this isn't true. That's the issue. Maybe I am come across harshly - I don't mean to be - but I don't see it like that at all.
Take your 210 all in cost of 50 conscripts (and in truth 180 points would be more reasonable since you can split the characters between two units) and shoot some basic marines out of cover with FRFSRF. So 100 shots.
Then compare what would happen if your shot say 210 points worth of tactical marines (16) at the same target.
The conscripts do over twice the damage.
Here's the post Katherine came up with earlier. I agree with it completely:
Space Marine at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Space Marine at Long Range: 1 shot, .66 hits, .33 wounds, .11 damage
Space Marine in Melee: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Buffed Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 2 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Buffed Guardsman at Long Range: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, .11 damage
Buffed Guardsman in Melee: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage
Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage
Guardsman at Long Range: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage
Guardsman in Melee: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage
Buffed Conscript at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 1.33 hits, .44 wounds, .15 damage
Buffed Conscript at Long Range: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Buffed Conscript in Melee: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Conscript at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Conscript at Long Range: 1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage
Conscript in Melee:1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage
A Conscript with a Commissar is 3.6 points.
A Conscript with a Commissar and an Order is 4 points.
We'll consider the Commissar essential, because, without him, their resiliency is effectively halved.
3 Conscripts without Orders [11 points] are actually worse than a Space Marine, 95% at close range, 82% at long range, 41% in melee, and 100% as resilient. Conscripts clearly aren't the problem here.
3 Conscripts with Orders [12 points], however, are somewhat better than a marine, 204% at close range, 164% at long range, 82% in melee, and 100% as resilient.
In both cases, without commissar support, they become incredibly bad, and aren't worth 3 points, with or without orders.
Corrected.
3 Conscripts with a Commissar but without Orders are cumulatively, 80% as effective as Space Marines. This is appropriate, considering they're 85% the price.
3 Conscripts without either are 67% as effective as Space Marines. This is also appropriate, considering they're 70% the price
3 Conscripts with both are 137% as effective as Space Marines. This is not appropriate, as they're 92% the price.
Clearly, Commissars and Conscripts on their own are very appropriately costed.
That math is off by a bit. Three conscripts without orders will be dealing just as many wounds vs MEQ as the marine on average. At 24'' they fire 3 shots, 1 hit, 1/3 wounds and 1/9 damage. While the marine fires 1 shot, 2/3 hits, 1/3 wounds and 1/9 damage. So three conscripts without orders but with a commissar (10.8 pts by those numbers) are just as effective as one space marine (13 pts) at 83% of the cost. And since FRFSRF makes them twice as shooty, three conscripts with orders dish out 200% of what the marine does on average at 92% of his price.
Your math is off. Space marine is 1/2 wounds (4+, not 5+), not 1/3rd, meaning instead of 1/9 damage, it is 1/6. Bringing it back to what Katherine calculated.
Yes, Conscripts with orders are too good, that's daedalus's point as well as mine and Katherine's.
That's included in the calculation. The space marine gets 2/3 hits, that is divided by two for his 4+ to wound yielding 1/3 wounds. Just like the lasgun a bolter has no AP so 1/9 damage.
Arandmoor wrote: Also, conscripts can't be pooped out, 10 at a time, by an HQ unit specifically devised to synergise with them. They also carry assault guns, in a mobile army, so that they can move, advance, and shoot (albeit they'll only hit on a 5+ when they do). I feel that gaunts have lots of synergy with their own army. I have no idea where you get the idea that they don't.
If you look at the pricing and offensive options of that HQ, you realize it's not really that useful. It's so expensive that the 60 termagaunts it creates over the course of a game only make up for like 2/3rds of the cost. It's good, but no better than the HQ optiosn available to guard. As for the whole assault weapon thing, it's a 12 inch single shot assault weapon with 4 str and no ap. Being able to advance and fire doesn't help much compared to a 24" RF weapon.
So termagaunts are fairly garbage. No offensive power even compared to barebones IG infantry or conscripts, over costed as disposable bodies (6+ for 4 points is worse than any suggested nerf to conscripts), HQs aren't particularly more efficient point wise compared to what guard has. Just no real purpose. Why would you take them?
daedalus wrote: But is the issue their survivability or is it their damage? I'm confused because I keep hearing one, but then it seems like its the other.
That's because the disagreement now boils down to some thinking both are an issue, some think only the damage is the issue.
3 Conscripts with a Commissar but without Orders are cumulatively, 80% as effective as Space Marines. This is appropriate, considering they're 85% the price.
3 Conscripts without either are 67% as effective as Space Marines. This is also appropriate, considering they're 70% the price
3 Conscripts with both are 137% as effective as Space Marines. This is not appropriate, as they're 92% the price.
Clearly, Commissars and Conscripts on their own are very appropriately costed.
This all banks on commissars only being able to effect a single unit of conscripts at a time, which again isn't what currently happens, a commissar can effect two conscript units easily, three if you push things.
We can make Termagaunts good, if you like. 3pts per model?
The damage is absolutely the issue. Katherine demonstrated that against most weapons a Conscript and a Marine's toughness are about right, point for point.
You're doing Shroedinger's Conscripts again. Is the commissar hiding from snipers behind LOS blocking terrain? If so, is he tying two or three conscript units to that one terrain piece as well as one? And if he is out where the squads can appropriately be spread out, the problem goes away because he can be sniped. Oh, and if the conscripts are trying to get 3 units in range of the Commissar, are they all packed together also? Or are they providing a screen? If it's a screen, if a conga-line back to the commissar takes 10 models, you might as well buy another commissar for the unit...
...seriously, all this stuff requires tabletop tactics.
Quickjager wrote:The problem is largely that this armor which was effectivly nonexistent in a previous edition, now is always there but the points haven't changed. It makes their durability quite literally 33 percent better against AP- weapons for no points increase.
That's a pretty marine-centric way of looking at it. I remind you that all that cover they lost in 8th edition didn't decrease their points either. Seems to be a wash teetering on maybe a little better off for Guard than they were before.
How is that Marine centric? Marines have rarely benefited from cover outside of jink saves or night fighting. Are you saying having 33% reduction of incoming fire is not worth anything? Or are you talking about how Aegis Defense Line isn't as good?
You see this isn't true. That's the issue. Maybe I am come across harshly - I don't mean to be - but I don't see it like that at all.
Take your 210 all in cost of 50 conscripts (and in truth 180 points would be more reasonable since you can split the characters between two units) and shoot some basic marines out of cover with FRFSRF. So 100 shots.
Then compare what would happen if your shot say 210 points worth of tactical marines (16) at the same target.
The conscripts do over twice the damage.
Here's the post Katherine came up with earlier. I agree with it completely:
Space Marine at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Space Marine at Long Range: 1 shot, .66 hits, .33 wounds, .11 damage
Space Marine in Melee: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Buffed Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 2 hits, .66 wounds, .22 damage
Buffed Guardsman at Long Range: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, .11 damage
Buffed Guardsman in Melee: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage
Guardsman at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, 1 hit, .33 wounds, ,11 damage
Guardsman at Long Range: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage
Guardsman in Melee: 1 shots, .5 hit, .16 wounds, ,05 damage
Buffed Conscript at Rapid Fire: 4 shots, 1.33 hits, .44 wounds, .15 damage
Buffed Conscript at Long Range: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Buffed Conscript in Melee: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Conscript at Rapid Fire: 2 shots, .665 hit, .22 wounds, .07 damage
Conscript at Long Range: 1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage
Conscript in Melee:1 shots, .33 hit, .11 wounds, ,03 damage
A Conscript with a Commissar is 3.6 points.
A Conscript with a Commissar and an Order is 4 points.
We'll consider the Commissar essential, because, without him, their resiliency is effectively halved.
3 Conscripts without Orders [11 points] are actually worse than a Space Marine, 95% at close range, 82% at long range, 41% in melee, and 100% as resilient. Conscripts clearly aren't the problem here.
3 Conscripts with Orders [12 points], however, are somewhat better than a marine, 204% at close range, 164% at long range, 82% in melee, and 100% as resilient.
In both cases, without commissar support, they become incredibly bad, and aren't worth 3 points, with or without orders.
Corrected.
3 Conscripts with a Commissar but without Orders are cumulatively, 80% as effective as Space Marines. This is appropriate, considering they're 85% the price.
3 Conscripts without either are 67% as effective as Space Marines. This is also appropriate, considering they're 70% the price
3 Conscripts with both are 137% as effective as Space Marines. This is not appropriate, as they're 92% the price.
Clearly, Commissars and Conscripts on their own are very appropriately costed.
That math is off by a bit. Three conscripts without orders will be dealing just as many wounds vs MEQ as the marine on average. At 24'' they fire 3 shots, 1 hit, 1/3 wounds and 1/9 damage. While the marine fires 1 shot, 2/3 hits, 1/3 wounds and 1/9 damage. So three conscripts without orders but with a commissar (10.8 pts by those numbers) are just as effective as one space marine (13 pts) at 83% of the cost. And since FRFSRF makes them twice as shooty, three conscripts with orders dish out 200% of what the marine does on average at 92% of his price.
Your math is off. Space marine is 1/2 wounds (4+, not 5+), not 1/3rd, meaning instead of 1/9 damage, it is 1/6. Bringing it back to what Katherine calculated.
Yes, Conscripts with orders are too good, that's daedalus's point as well as mine and Katherine's.
That's included in the calculation. The space marine gets 2/3 hits, that is divided by two for his 4+ to wound yielding 1/3 wounds. Just like the lasgun a bolter has no AP so 1/9 damage.
That's not how math works though - he has a 2/3rds to hit, and it's absolute, so he either hits or he doesn't. If he hits, it's 1/2, if he doesn't it's nothing. The nothing is already accounted for by the fact that it's 2/3rds and not 1, so the hit has a 50% chance to wound, because when you scale it up to large squad sizes, that's how it works.
9 Marines: 9 shots, 6 hit, 3 (not 2) wound, 1 dead space marine.
29 conscripts plus commissar: 29 shots, 9.66 hits, 3.22 wounds, 1.07 dead space marines.
This all banks on commissars only being able to effect a single unit of conscripts at a time, which again isn't what currently happens, a commissar can effect two conscript units easily, three if you push things.
But then if someone's only bringing one commissar to babysit that many points, it becomes EVEN MORE WORTHWHILE to bring that squad of snipers to take him out, right? Eh, eh? Right? So they're either not bringing redundancy and can be manageable by a sniper squad in one turn with something like 60-70% odds (it's been a few pages since the math), or they're taking plenty of commissars to be safe and the point balance is more along the lines of what would be expected for the price. (Or still, for n means of dealing with commissars, the number of commissars in a given army is always equal to N+1)
Yay, we've gone from page 6 back to page 2! And now you say that there's too much terrain he can hide the commissars behind, and then I post three more pictures of competitive tournament games and ask where, and then the thread gets ignored until someone new starts it over with either the same arguments from page 1 again or some easy and obvious solution that they came up with that makes either the army or the game literally unplayable. And then we go back to about page 3.
How is that Marine centric? Marines have rarely benefited from cover outside of jink saves or night fighting. Are you saying having 33% reduction of incoming fire is not worth anything? Or are you talking about how Aegis Defense Line isn't as good?
That's what I'm saying is marine-centric about thinking it was just a flat net win for guard. I'm poking fun at it likely not occurring to many marine players to have given much thought to that 5+ save being the same one guard mostly tried to get through cover in older editions, which happened much more frequently back then.
Unit1126PLL wrote: That's not how math works though - he has a 2/3rds to hit, and it's absolute, so he either hits or he doesn't. If he hits, it's 1/2, if he doesn't it's nothing. The nothing is already accounted for by the fact that it's 2/3rds and not 1, so the hit has a 50% chance to wound, because when you scale it up to large squad sizes, that's how it works.
I clearly stated that I was calculating the average amount of damage that the marine/the three conscripts will deal, fractions of damage are perfectly acceptable as averages. Katherine based her calculations on one commissar per 50 conscripts, which is why each conscript is counted as 3.6 points to account for the overhead for support. So 29 of those conscripts would cost 105 points.
Unit1126PLL wrote: The damage is absolutely the issue. Katherine demonstrated that against most weapons a Conscript and a Marine's toughness are about right, point for point.
No, I don't believe anyone has except when comparing marines in cover to conscripts outside of cover. It's a fairly easy calculation. Four conscripts are a point less than a space marine, if we assume one commissar per two squads of conscripts then four conscripts per space marine is actually almost perfect as a balancing point.
Given that: Nine bolter hits on conscripts results in four wounds (9*2/3*2/3), for 12 points lost. Nine bolter hits on space marines results in 1.5 wounds (9*1/2*1/3) for 19.5 points lost. Inside cover, marines lose (9*1/2*1/6) for a total of .75 wounds, 9.75 points.
So, should conscripts stranding out in the open screening be closer to marines in cover than they are to marines in the open? Again, debatable. I'm of the opinion no.
Unit1126PLL wrote: You're doing Shroedinger's Conscripts again. Is the commissar hiding from snipers behind LOS blocking terrain? If so, is he tying two or three conscript units to that one terrain piece as well as one? And if he is out where the squads can appropriately be spread out, the problem goes away because he can be sniped. Oh, and if the conscripts are trying to get 3 units in range of the Commissar, are they all packed together also? Or are they providing a screen? If it's a screen, if a conga-line back to the commissar takes 10 models, you might as well buy another commissar for the unit...
...seriously, all this stuff requires tabletop tactics.
You do remember that friendly models, such as the large tanks you are screening, can block enemy line of site? Also, how far away are the tanks going to be from terrain for you to need more than 2-3 conscripts to form a line?
daedalus wrote: \And now you say that there's too much terrain he can hide the commissars behind.
Is there some rule where tanks and other large models don't block LoS I somehow overlooked in the rulebook or what? If so my entire group has been misplaying horribly. You need terrain to hide tanks and artillery absolutely, you can just use the tanks/artillery you are screening to block LoS to the commissar however.
How is that Marine centric? Marines have rarely benefited from cover outside of jink saves or night fighting. Are you saying having 33% reduction of incoming fire is not worth anything? Or are you talking about how Aegis Defense Line isn't as good?
That's what I'm saying is marine-centric about thinking it was just a flat net win for guard. I'm poking fun at it likely not occurring to many marine players to have given much thought to that 5+ save being the same one guard mostly tried to get through cover in older editions, which happened much more frequently back then.
Well you aren't paying 75 points for a Defence Line anymore. I'd say that is a pretty big change. If you are still paying for a Defence Line I find that a bit questionable unless you're going for that rare and miraculous 3+ armor save on your infantry via Psychic power and ADL.
daedalus wrote: You... don't have anything in your list to deal with vehicles, either?
Hey, 1 in 6 chance killing it puts some mortal wounds on the commissar too, so there's that!
Which puts me back to getting in a long range shootout with the guard tanks, because I can't use any melee/short range anti tank with the conscript screen, which is extremely durable unless I kill the commissar, which I can't snipe unless I kill the tanks/vehicles blocking line of sight. So I'm back to finding something efficient enough to wipe the morale immune conscripts before the big guns shoot me off the field (and I've discussed how such units are simply not present for most armies) or I can just bring long range guns and struggle because again that's guard's specialty.
You see, this is why this is both extremely annoying and a balance issue, conscripts just invalidate large swaths of other armies and force them to fight guard on their terms. The fact the tactics they invalidate are things infinitely more interesting than "shooting gallery" don't help. There needs to be an actual weakness somewhere.
Unit1126PLL wrote: That's not how math works though - he has a 2/3rds to hit, and it's absolute, so he either hits or he doesn't. If he hits, it's 1/2, if he doesn't it's nothing. The nothing is already accounted for by the fact that it's 2/3rds and not 1, so the hit has a 50% chance to wound, because when you scale it up to large squad sizes, that's how it works.
I clearly stated that I was calculating the average amount of damage that the marine/the three conscripts will deal, fractions of damage are perfectly acceptable as averages. Katherine based her calculations on one commissar per 50 conscripts, which is why each conscript is counted as 3.6 points to account for the overhead for support. So 29 of those conscripts would cost 105 points.
I understand now, as I mentioned before.
Your math is off though - Commissars are 31 points, IIRC (I forgot the bolt pistol last time), meaning that 29 conscripts plus commissar is 118.
daedalus wrote: You... don't have anything in your list to deal with vehicles, either?
Hey, 1 in 6 chance killing it puts some mortal wounds on the commissar too, so there's that!
Which puts me back to getting in a long range shootout with the guard tanks, because I can't use any melee/short range anti tank with the conscript screen, which is extremely durable unless I kill the commissar, which I can't snipe unless I kill the tanks/vehicles blocking line of sight. So I'm back to finding something efficient enough to wipe the morale immune conscripts before the big guns shoot me off the field (and I've discussed how such units are simply not present for most armies) or I can just bring long range guns and struggle because again that's guard's specialty.
You see, this is why this is both extremely annoying and a balance issue, conscripts just invalidate large swaths of my army and force me to fight guard on their terms. The fact the tactics they invalidate are things infinitely more interesting than "shooting gallery" don't help. There needs to be an actual weakness somewhere.
Only one tank is blocking LOS to the commissar - you don't have to get in a shoot-out with the entire Guard army, just need to nail one tank, then snipe the commissar.
Surely your army has enough AT to kill a single tank?
They have 1 attack. Counting the pistol as an attack is incredibly disingenuous considering the pistol can only be fired on the marine's turn.
Which means for every full game turn a marine stays locked in combat and survives, he gets 3 attacks, not 4, as her math would imply.
As for the math, just look at the end fractions.
Against MEQ, a boltgun round from a Space Marine has a (1/9) chance to deal 1 damage (a failed save wound). A Lasgun shot from a conscript has a (1/27) chance for the same.
Commissars can and are split between 2 conscript squads in practice. So, the cost is 15 points per 150, for a 10% increase. Let's say she's right about the cost of the order at 0.4.
That puts the total cost for a conscript at 3.7 points, with the cost of the marine being 13. Rapid fire comparison:
(1/27) * 4 = 0.148 (1/9) * 2 = 0.222
For the Marine Boltgun you're paying 13 points for 0.222 damage. Or, 0.017 damage per point.
For the Conscript Lasgun you're paying 3.7 points for 0.148 damage. Or, 0.04004 damage per point.
Per point in this scenario, the Conscripts are roughly 2.355 times as efficient against MEQ. Because rapid fire is a scalar 2x multiple that is applied equally to both the Conscript and the Marine, the Conscript is also 2.355 times as efficient when both are outside of rapid fire range.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Only one tank is blocking LOS to the commissar - you don't have to get in a shoot-out with the entire Guard army, just need to nail one tank, then snipe the commissar.
Surely your army has enough AT to kill a single tank?
I'm now having to take enough long range anti tank to kill it in a single turn (otherwise the commissar can move behind a different one) and enough snipers to kill the commissar in one turn (otherwise he ducks behind a different one again, and chances are my anti tank is now too damaged to get a second one turn KO) and then I can try to clear the infantry, so then I can finally try to get the majority artillery and tanks before they wipe me my army off the field.
All that, to counter the extremely clever and skillful tactic of sitting in the corner with a bunch of artillery and bodies. This is, frankly, not a reasonable level of counter play and tailoring at this point.
Marmatag wrote: Katherine also gives marines 2 attacks in melee.
They have 1 attack. Counting the pistol as an attack is incredibly disingenuous considering the pistol can only be fired on the marine's turn.
Which means for every full game turn a marine stays locked in combat and survives, he gets 3 attacks, not 4, as her math would imply.
As for the math, just look at the end fractions.
Against MEQ, a boltgun round from a Space Marine has a (1/9) chance to deal 1 damage (a failed save wound). A Lasgun shot from a conscript has a (1/27) chance for the same.
Commissars can and are split between 2 conscript squads in practice. So, the cost is 15 points per 150, for a 10% increase. Let's say she's right about the cost of the order at 0.4.
That puts the total cost for a conscript at 3.7 points, with the cost of the marine being 13. Rapid fire comparison:
(1/27) * 4 = 0.148
(1/9) * 2 = 0.222
For the Marine Boltgun you're paying 13 points for 0.222 damage. Or, 0.017 damage per point.
For the Conscript Lasgun you're paying 3.7 points for 0.148 damage. Or, 0.0494 damage per point.
Per point in this scenario, the Conscripts are roughly 2.89 times as efficient against MEQ. Because rapid fire is a scalar 2x multiple that is applied equally to both the Conscript and the Marine, the Conscript is also 2.89 times as efficient when both are outside of rapid fire range.
Commissars can be split between two conscript squads if:
1) You bring 2 conscript squads.
2) Your conscript squads are very close together.
3) Your commissar is not hiding behind terrain, unless you're comfortable using a good portion of your conscripts to make a conga line (and if you are, this has repercussions for your casualty removal).
I'm not sure it's a safe assumption to just divide the Commissar in half and call it a day. Having 1 commissar affect 2 squads is not without its limitations to list-building, play, and deployment.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Only one tank is blocking LOS to the commissar - you don't have to get in a shoot-out with the entire Guard army, just need to nail one tank, then snipe the commissar.
Surely your army has enough AT to kill a single tank?
I'm now having to take enough long range anti tank to kill it in a single turn (otherwise the commissar can move behind a different one) and enough snipers to kill the commissar in one turn (otherwise he ducks behind a different one again, and chances are my anti tank is now too damaged to get a second one turn KO) and then I can try to clear the infantry, so then I can finally try to get the majority artillery and tanks before they wipe me my army off the field.
All that, to counter the extremely clever and skillful tactic of sitting in the corner with a bunch of artillery and bodies. This is, frankly, not a reasonable level of counter play and tailoring at this point.
You and I will have to disagree on how much counterplay an army should require. I believe it should require more than "CHARGE!". Destroying a single tank in a single turn with my entire army save two squads of snipers is not hard. I have done it more than once.
Incidentally, if you're truly worried about an army castled in a corner with a bunch of artillery and bodies - don't, unless you're hell bent on not playing objective missions that makes them move.
Unit1126PLL wrote: You and I will have to disagree on how much counterplay an army should require. I believe it should require more than "CHARGE!". Destroying a single tank in a single turn with my entire army save two squads of snipers is not hard. I have done it more than once.
Incidentally, if you're truly worried about an army castled in a corner with a bunch of artillery and bodies - don't, unless you're hell bent on not playing objective missions that makes them move.
Well yes, counter play is good and should be required in equal measure.
An army who sits in the corner just trying to table you with no real tactics beyond "shoot guns at appropriate target" should not require the level of counter play we discussed. It's like stormravens, yes I can beat a stormraven heavy list even before the nerf, it was just an unreasonable level of work to counter what amounted to "take under priced units and shoot stuff".
Quick question...what would happen if they were to simply change the max squad size for conscripts from 50 to 30 like every other horde unit in the game?
Unit1126PLL wrote: You and I will have to disagree on how much counterplay an army should require. I believe it should require more than "CHARGE!". Destroying a single tank in a single turn with my entire army save two squads of snipers is not hard. I have done it more than once.
Incidentally, if you're truly worried about an army castled in a corner with a bunch of artillery and bodies - don't, unless you're hell bent on not playing objective missions that makes them move.
Well yes, counter play is good and should be required in equal measure.
An army who sits in the corner just trying to table you with no real tactics beyond "shoot guns at appropriate target" should not require the level of counter play we discussed. It's like stormravens, yes I can beat a stormraven heavy list even before the nerf, it was just an unreasonable level of work to counter what amounted to "take under priced units and shoot stuff".
That army won't succeed though if you play smart against it. It just won't. If castle-in-a-corner-and-shoot was the end-all-be-all of 40k, Tau would be fighting with Guard for the top spots. Instead, the top spot is Sororitas, and Tau are somewhere way down on the bottom.
There is something else special about Guard beyond the usual castle-and-shoot tactic. I believe it is plasma scions, as well as the ease of access to superheavy vehicles.
Ah yes, hold on while we castle in a corner and shoot with our 24" range and no LoS problems whatsoever from all that LoS blocking terrain we're allegedly using to hide our commissars.
Unit1126PLL wrote: You and I will have to disagree on how much counterplay an army should require. I believe it should require more than "CHARGE!". Destroying a single tank in a single turn with my entire army save two squads of snipers is not hard. I have done it more than once.
Incidentally, if you're truly worried about an army castled in a corner with a bunch of artillery and bodies - don't, unless you're hell bent on not playing objective missions that makes them move.
Well yes, counter play is good and should be required in equal measure.
An army who sits in the corner just trying to table you with no real tactics beyond "shoot guns at appropriate target" should not require the level of counter play we discussed. It's like stormravens, yes I can beat a stormraven heavy list even before the nerf, it was just an unreasonable level of work to counter what amounted to "take under priced units and shoot stuff".
That army won't succeed though if you play smart against it. It just won't. If castle-in-a-corner-and-shoot was the end-all-be-all of 40k, Tau would be fighting with Guard for the top spots. Instead, the top spot is Sororitas, and Tau are somewhere way down on the bottom.
There is something else special about Guard beyond the usual castle-and-shoot tactic. I believe it is plasma scions, as well as the ease of access to superheavy vehicles.
If they can't handle those, what about the below? I mean, if 150 Conscripts with some Commissars and commanders is beyond 'equal counter play'... here's a rather plain Steel Legion list. Ignore the part where it has 133 T7 3+ save wounds; they're not Conscripts so should be easy to handle:
Unit1126PLL wrote: You and I will have to disagree on how much counterplay an army should require. I believe it should require more than "CHARGE!". Destroying a single tank in a single turn with my entire army save two squads of snipers is not hard. I have done it more than once.
Incidentally, if you're truly worried about an army castled in a corner with a bunch of artillery and bodies - don't, unless you're hell bent on not playing objective missions that makes them move.
Well yes, counter play is good and should be required in equal measure.
An army who sits in the corner just trying to table you with no real tactics beyond "shoot guns at appropriate target" should not require the level of counter play we discussed. It's like stormravens, yes I can beat a stormraven heavy list even before the nerf, it was just an unreasonable level of work to counter what amounted to "take under priced units and shoot stuff".
That army won't succeed though if you play smart against it. It just won't. If castle-in-a-corner-and-shoot was the end-all-be-all of 40k, Tau would be fighting with Guard for the top spots. Instead, the top spot is Sororitas, and Tau are somewhere way down on the bottom.
There is something else special about Guard beyond the usual castle-and-shoot tactic. I believe it is plasma scions, as well as the ease of access to superheavy vehicles.
If they can't handle those, what about the below? I mean, if 150 Conscripts with some Commissars and commanders is beyond 'equal counter play'... here's a rather plain Steel Legion list. Ignore the part where it has 133 T7 3+ save wounds; they're not Conscripts so should be easy to handle:
Unit1126PLL wrote: You and I will have to disagree on how much counterplay an army should require. I believe it should require more than "CHARGE!". Destroying a single tank in a single turn with my entire army save two squads of snipers is not hard. I have done it more than once.
Incidentally, if you're truly worried about an army castled in a corner with a bunch of artillery and bodies - don't, unless you're hell bent on not playing objective missions that makes them move.
Well yes, counter play is good and should be required in equal measure.
An army who sits in the corner just trying to table you with no real tactics beyond "shoot guns at appropriate target" should not require the level of counter play we discussed. It's like stormravens, yes I can beat a stormraven heavy list even before the nerf, it was just an unreasonable level of work to counter what amounted to "take under priced units and shoot stuff".
That army won't succeed though if you play smart against it. It just won't. If castle-in-a-corner-and-shoot was the end-all-be-all of 40k, Tau would be fighting with Guard for the top spots. Instead, the top spot is Sororitas, and Tau are somewhere way down on the bottom.
There is something else special about Guard beyond the usual castle-and-shoot tactic. I believe it is plasma scions, as well as the ease of access to superheavy vehicles.
If they can't handle those, what about the below? I mean, if 150 Conscripts with some Commissars and commanders is beyond 'equal counter play'... here's a rather plain Steel Legion list. Ignore the part where it has 133 T7 3+ save wounds; they're not Conscripts so should be easy to handle:
Heavy Weapons Squad [3 PL, 27pts] . Heavy Weapon Team: Mortar
. Heavy Weapon Team: Mortar
. Heavy Weapon Team: Mortar
Heavy Weapons Squad [3 PL, 27pts] . Heavy Weapon Team: Mortar
. Heavy Weapon Team: Mortar
. Heavy Weapon Team: Mortar
Heavy Weapons Squad [3 PL, 27pts] . Heavy Weapon Team: Mortar
. Heavy Weapon Team: Mortar
. Heavy Weapon Team: Mortar
+ Dedicated Transport +
Chimera [5 PL, 93pts]: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter
Chimera [5 PL, 93pts]: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter
Chimera [5 PL, 93pts]: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter
Chimera [5 PL, 93pts]: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter
Chimera [5 PL, 93pts]: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter
Chimera [5 PL, 93pts]: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter
Chimera [5 PL, 93pts]: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter
Chimera [5 PL, 93pts]: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter
Chimera [5 PL, 93pts]: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter
Chimera [5 PL, 93pts]: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter
++ Total: [110 PL, 1995pts] ++
Any particular reason for not running a commissar or two?
Not really. Could remove a command squad for 1, clear a few points elsewhere for 2.
Automatically Appended Next Post: To explain further: the squads are so small a Commissar's LD and SE benefit are pretty small to minuscule. I rated it as inferior to squeezing in more firepower. With 10 man squads and LD7, you have to kill 4-5 guardsman to have an average chance of forcing any battleshock losses (assuming a 3.5 on a D6).
I see a lot of math for conscripts vs marines, but I dont think I've seen the math include any special/heavy weapons on the marines, despite the fact that conscripts are assumed to have commissars standing nearby. Two Plasma Guns and a Heavy Bolter ought to change the outcome between (real world) units. Plasmas aren't cheap but they wound on 2s and allow no save.
Not to mention Frags, which average more kills than a bolter double-tap vs. Conscripts, and Combat Squads allow two throws.
Unit1126PLL wrote: That army won't succeed though if you play smart against it. It just won't. If castle-in-a-corner-and-shoot was the end-all-be-all of 40k, Tau would be fighting with Guard for the top spots. Instead, the top spot is Sororitas, and Tau are somewhere way down on the bottom.
There is something else special about Guard beyond the usual castle-and-shoot tactic. I believe it is plasma scions, as well as the ease of access to superheavy vehicles.
Castle and shoot guard can easily table most armies, making objectives a bit of a non issue. I've seen this strategy used to table multiple armies reliably. We literally have a player in our group who does this, I've literally been running you through how we beat it, playing smart doesn't cut it when your enemy has a huge chunk of virtually untouchable guns firing every turn.
Tau are crap because they are overcosted for the amount of firepower they bring. I can and have out shot tau with CSM in 8th. Now that shield drones can actually soak wounds, maybe the staying power will make them more worthwhile, but they were doing abdly because of pricing.
SoB are another shooty army with high toughness and firepower for their cost, trading the range of IG for mobility. It's not hard to realize why they are good.
Insectum7 wrote: I see a lot of math for conscripts vs marines, but I dont think I've seen the math include any special/heavy weapons on the marines, despite the fact that conscripts are assumed to have commissars standing nearby. Two Plasma Guns and a Heavy Bolter ought to change the outcome between (real world) units. Plasmas aren't cheap but they wound on 2s and allow no save.
Not to mention Frags, which average more kills than a bolter double-tap vs. Conscripts, and Combat Squads allow two throws.
Full Squad output (combi-squadded for extra grenade, assume Missile Launcher for multipurpose) ~ 6.86 kills.
Its because most special weapons dont help. Marine plasma is worse than bolters vs conscripts due to the high cost. The ML is a little better but not much. Heavy bolter is quite a bit better but its the gun you didn't take.
Unit1126PLL wrote: You and I will have to disagree on how much counterplay an army should require. I believe it should require more than "CHARGE!". Destroying a single tank in a single turn with my entire army save two squads of snipers is not hard. I have done it more than once.
Incidentally, if you're truly worried about an army castled in a corner with a bunch of artillery and bodies - don't, unless you're hell bent on not playing objective missions that makes them move.
Well yes, counter play is good and should be required in equal measure.
An army who sits in the corner just trying to table you with no real tactics beyond "shoot guns at appropriate target" should not require the level of counter play we discussed. It's like stormravens, yes I can beat a stormraven heavy list even before the nerf, it was just an unreasonable level of work to counter what amounted to "take under priced units and shoot stuff".
That army won't succeed though if you play smart against it. It just won't. If castle-in-a-corner-and-shoot was the end-all-be-all of 40k, Tau would be fighting with Guard for the top spots. Instead, the top spot is Sororitas, and Tau are somewhere way down on the bottom.
There is something else special about Guard beyond the usual castle-and-shoot tactic. I believe it is plasma scions, as well as the ease of access to superheavy vehicles.
If they can't handle those, what about the below? I mean, if 150 Conscripts with some Commissars and commanders is beyond 'equal counter play'... here's a rather plain Steel Legion list. Ignore the part where it has 133 T7 3+ save wounds; they're not Conscripts so should be easy to handle:
Heavy Weapons Squad [3 PL, 27pts] . Heavy Weapon Team: Mortar
. Heavy Weapon Team: Mortar
. Heavy Weapon Team: Mortar
Heavy Weapons Squad [3 PL, 27pts] . Heavy Weapon Team: Mortar
. Heavy Weapon Team: Mortar
. Heavy Weapon Team: Mortar
Heavy Weapons Squad [3 PL, 27pts] . Heavy Weapon Team: Mortar
. Heavy Weapon Team: Mortar
. Heavy Weapon Team: Mortar
+ Dedicated Transport +
Chimera [5 PL, 93pts]: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter
Chimera [5 PL, 93pts]: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter
Chimera [5 PL, 93pts]: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter
Chimera [5 PL, 93pts]: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter
Chimera [5 PL, 93pts]: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter
Chimera [5 PL, 93pts]: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter
Chimera [5 PL, 93pts]: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter
Chimera [5 PL, 93pts]: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter
Chimera [5 PL, 93pts]: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter
Chimera [5 PL, 93pts]: Heavy Bolter, Heavy Bolter, Storm Bolter
++ Total: [110 PL, 1995pts] ++
The big difference is things like lascannons can drill down multiple wounds on those chimeras, killing those vehicles might blow them up hurting other vehicles etc. Also killing them actually hurts your damage out put. Consider this for each Chimera you could have 31 Conscripts. So equal points of concripts would be 310 wounds, that only go down 1 at a time.
Sorry. Conscripts don't need a nerf. Here is why you are wrong if you think they do.
They are not that good.
If you think conscripts are strong because of cost+ unit synergy you are inexperienced in 40k or are not used to fighting hordes.
30 termagants with devourers can churn out 90 s4 shots at 18 inches at BS4+ for 240 pts. Within synapse they ignore the morale phase.
Ork boyz can pump out similar shot count or bury an opponent with an obscene amount attacks that can hit on 2s. Oh and their mobs are fearless too.
30 boyz with choppas and sluggas will typically also kill a leman russ equivalent in a single assault.
For conscripts to be "combat effective" you are almost paying baneblade prices.
361 pts for two 50 man squads with a company commander and a commissar. 400 (200 per 50 man squad in 12") S3 shots in rapid fire. IF all those conditions are met, they COULD kill ONE leman russ or equivalent. OR wipe out MOST of a unit of boyz/gaunts.
Know what else can reliably kill a tank for half the points? 2 lascannon squads.
Know what else can kill a ton of boyz? Mortars for around 1/3 the cost
I will agree to an extent that certain weapons should do more damage vs hordes (namely things that used to be blasts), but if you are losing to conscripts, you are losing to all hordes.
Stop whining, and improve your game.
And no... I don't use conscripts. Never have, never will. I just know how to fight hordes. My regular opponents have been orks and nids for a long time.
Unit1126PLL wrote: That army won't succeed though if you play smart against it. It just won't. If castle-in-a-corner-and-shoot was the end-all-be-all of 40k, Tau would be fighting with Guard for the top spots. Instead, the top spot is Sororitas, and Tau are somewhere way down on the bottom.
There is something else special about Guard beyond the usual castle-and-shoot tactic. I believe it is plasma scions, as well as the ease of access to superheavy vehicles.
Castle and shoot guard can easily table most armies, making objectives a bit of a non issue. I've seen this strategy used to table multiple armies reliably. We literally have a player in our group who does this, I've literally been running you through how we beat it, playing smart doesn't cut it when your enemy has a huge chunk of virtually untouchable guns firing every turn.
Tau are crap because they are overcosted for the amount of firepower they bring. I can and have out shot tau with CSM in 8th. Now that shield drones can actually soak wounds, maybe the staying power will make them more worthwhile, but they were doing abdly because of pricing.
SoB are another shooty army with high toughness and firepower for their cost, trading the range of IG for mobility. It's not hard to realize why they are good.
If you're getting tabled by Guard, you need tougher units. Guard firepower is numerous but mediocre; a Falchion, for example, is an SM vehicle that can make short work of many threats, and just sit there enduring the entire IG army's firepower for the rest of eternity, especially if it has cover or the (recently nerfed) VSG. Even if guard destroy the rest of the army, the Falchion is invulnerable, and presuming you moved it and your other stuff to get objectives and the IG player is just castled, you win. Ta-daa!
WingedCamel wrote: Sorry. Conscripts don't need a nerf. Here is why you are wrong if you think they do.
They are not that good.
If you think conscripts are strong because of cost+ unit synergy you are inexperienced in 40k or are not used to fighting hordes.
30 termagants with devourers can churn out 90 s4 shots at 18 inches at BS4+ for 240 pts. Within synapse they ignore the morale phase.
Ork boyz can pump out similar shot count or bury an opponent with an obscene amount attacks that can hit on 2s. Oh and their mobs are fearless too.
30 boyz with choppas and sluggas will typically also kill a leman russ equivalent in a single assault.
For conscripts to be "combat effective" you are almost paying baneblade prices.
361 pts for two 50 man squads with a company commander and a commissar. 400 (200 per 50 man squad in 12") S3 shots in rapid fire. IF all those conditions are met, they COULD kill ONE leman russ or equivalent. OR wipe out MOST of a unit of boyz/gaunts.
Know what else can reliably kill a tank for half the points? 2 lascannon squads.
Know what else can kill a ton of boyz? Mortars for around 1/3 the cost
I will agree to an extent that certain weapons should do more damage vs hordes (namely things that used to be blasts), but if you are losing to conscripts, you are losing to all hordes.
Stop whining, and improve your game.
And no... I don't use conscripts. Never have, never will. I just know how to fight hordes. My regular opponents have been orks and nids for a long time.
The difference is that the conscripts aren't the damage dealers in the army, but instead just wounds to protect the damage dealers. They are not offensively scary, the are obnoxious because they block access to the stuff that kills you. The ability to fall back without penalty is very good for them. I'm not sure they "need" a nerf, but they are one of the best screening units in the entire game, and are half the points of the horde units you mention.
Insectum7 wrote: I see a lot of math for conscripts vs marines, but I dont think I've seen the math include any special/heavy weapons on the marines, despite the fact that conscripts are assumed to have commissars standing nearby. Two Plasma Guns and a Heavy Bolter ought to change the outcome between (real world) units. Plasmas aren't cheap but they wound on 2s and allow no save.
Not to mention Frags, which average more kills than a bolter double-tap vs. Conscripts, and Combat Squads allow two throws.
Full Squad output (combi-squadded for extra grenade, assume Missile Launcher for multipurpose) ~ 6.86 kills.
Its because most special weapons dont help. Marine plasma is worse than bolters vs conscripts due to the high cost. The ML is a little better but not much. Heavy bolter is quite a bit better but its the gun you didn't take.
It's what you actually see on the table. People are mathhammering against units that don't exist. Whereas plasma, combi-plasma, Missile Launcher is a pretty legit build for a Tac Squad.
Points wise the specials dont always help, but they sure help the squad. Besides, the plasma in my example appears to be the only loss-per-point, while everything else gives a gain.
Bretonians waited until the planet exploded and still didn't get a codex!
