Thanks Quickjager, and thats why I'll leave this thread once has been intoxicated by the negationists. Eldar, Tau, Imperial Guard, Space Marines, they are all the same kind of people

To everyone saying point efficient weapons haven't been used against Conscripts. That is because there is literally no weapon that is point efficient. If there ever WAS a weapon that was point efficient it would OP because it would kill everything else even FASTER because of how the wound chart works now. So no let us not introduce such a weapon and instead nerf the stats on Conscripts.

Theoretically, a Rubric Marine with a warpflamer should be the most efficient method of clearing conscripts; d6 auto-hits at S4 AP-2 is basically perfect stats for clearing them out.

4 hits, 3 wounds, no save so 3 killed conscripts. That's 9 points worth of stuff killed by my 33 point model. Remember that this is the perfect weapon for killing conscripts. Doing the math for an entire squad is going to look even worse because of the aspiring sorcerer tax.

Exactly now let us put it up against a more expensive model like say a Tactical Marine.

4 hits, 2 wounds, 5+ save, 1 marine effectively dead. That is 13 points.

Anything that kills Conscripts perfectly, kills ANYTHING (Except maybe Celestine) else even more effectively. Because conscripts are too durable for their points. Their armor save needs to reduced.

 Quickjager wrote:
Oh look it is MoO, lets get some quotes on his previous opinions.

 master of ordinance wrote:
In all honesty I just want to fell like the glory factions did over the past few years.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lets get with Melissa as well.

 Melissia wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
Lol that is a horrible argument; that is like the dumb GK players from last ed. saying "Dreadknights are fine! It doesn't matter they're overperforming because they're all we got!"

Maybe you feel that way, but you know what? Don't care. We've played the same army lists since 3rd edition and basically the same since 2nd. No army is in even remotely a similar situation than us, even Grey Knights.

We finally move from being a bottom tier, forgettable list to one that can actually contend competitively. It's fething nice to see. If only GW actually gave us new units, I might give a damn about you feeling like this is a horrible argument. But they don't. So I don't.

They're as bad as whatshisname defending Scatterbikes. Was it Bharring? Can't remember. He might have been the "Dire Avengers are worse than Chaos Marines" guy instead that purposely created an illegal loadout for the Marines...

Meanwhile, that rubric gets to enjoy a 2+ save against the return fire.

33 for 9 isn't too far off the roughly 1/3 ratio GW seems to have picked as average for a one-turn kill. 27 for 9 would be perfectly average, but then a tarpit that only takes average effort to kill wouldn't be much of a tarpit would it?

Now admittedly something doesn't have to be too far off the curve to tilt a game, but that also means if it's not that far off to begin with, you should exercise care when adjusting it: it doesn't have to be too far below the curve to fall from grace either.

It takes 81 points of conscripts to kill an 18 point rubric marine with a bolter, so they're not doing any better on return fire if some bolter bros are present to catch some wounds. An officer improves their efficiency more than he adds to their cost, so he's a net positive there, but then that is kind of his job.

This ratio or something close to it definitely crops up a lot on other units. A 62 point Rhino with its 10 T7/3+ wounds takes about 240 points of lascannon HWTs to kill, well on the high side being closer to 1/4 than 1/3. A 91 point Chimera with 11 T7/3+ takes closer to 264, slightly below 1/3, and is widely considered bad. And this is when you're practically just paying for the gun and nothing else, both the rhino and chimera are far more proportionally durable against anything that has a bit of armor of its own. (granted they're both also nearly unarmed, one because it literally only has a storm bolter, the other because it'll usually be hitting on 5+).

 Quickjager wrote:
Exactly now let us put it up against a more expensive model like say a Tactical Marine.

4 hits, 2 wounds, 5+ save, 1 marine effectively dead. That is 13 points.

Anything that kills Conscripts perfectly, kills ANYTHING (Except maybe Celestine) else even more effectively. Because conscripts are too durable for their points. Their armor save needs to reduced.

Take a look at Tarantula Turrets. 27 points is a BS4+ 6 shot Heavy Bolter.

 ross-128 wrote:
Meanwhile, that rubric gets to enjoy a 2+ save against the return fire.

33 for 9 isn't too far off the roughly 1/3 ratio GW seems to have picked as average for a one-turn kill. 27 for 9 would be perfectly average, but then a tarpit that only takes average effort to kill wouldn't be much of a tarpit would it?

Now admittedly something doesn't have to be too far off the curve to tilt a game, but that also means if it's not that far off to begin with, you should exercise care when adjusting it: it doesn't have to be too far below the curve to fall from grace either.

It takes 81 points of conscripts to kill an 18 point rubric marine with a bolter, so they're not doing any better on return fire if some bolter bros are present to catch some wounds. An officer improves their efficiency more than he adds to their cost, so he's a net positive there, but then that is kind of his job.

This ratio or something close to it definitely crops up a lot on other units. A 62 point Rhino with its 10 T7/3+ wounds takes about 240 points of lascannon HWTs to kill, well on the high side being closer to 1/4 than 1/3. A 91 point Chimera with 11 T7/3+ takes closer to 264, slightly below 1/3, and is widely considered bad. And this is when you're practically just paying for the gun and nothing else, both the rhino and chimera are far more proportionally durable against anything that has a bit of armor of its own. (granted they're both also nearly unarmed, one because it literally only has a storm bolter, the other because it'll usually be hitting on 5+).

Small arms with low/no AP is basically what All Is Dust is designed to protect against, if conscripts were efficient at killing rubrics that would be the most severe indication of conscripts being overpowered yet. The fact that the absolute ideal model for killing conscripts only meets the average mark kinda proves my point.

Do tarantulas being strong make conscripts not broken?

Hormagaunts are a pretty good unit to look at since they kill a lot of conscripts and are easily killed by them in return.

A hormagaunt is 5 pts per model, hits, on a 4+ and wounds on a 4+ with 2 attacks and no AP. They are only immune to morale if there is a Synapse creature near them, which costs more than a commissar and can be targeted unless it's a brood lord.

Now, a unit of genestealers that is large enough will slaughter the conscripts, but that's a hefty price for doing so at 10pts per model with no upgrades.4 attacks at 3+ to hit and reroll ones will likely mean 3 hits and 2-ish wounds per Genestealer, so a unit of 20 at 200 pts should roughly kill around 40 conscripts, or 120 points worth.
The problem then becomes a smart guard player will fall back and shoot the piss out of my assaulting units, making it less than a good trade. Also, while I'm wasting time on those conscripts, the artillery is killing everything I can use to kill the bigger stuff and hold objectives with.

It really makes for a game that I don't want play. it isn't fun for either person honestly. I quite literally have to throw my army at the guard screen to have any chance at all of winning and if the screen goes down, I win. If not, they win. There are no tactics there. Just praying to the dice gods.

So, we're well-aware of the overpowered Guard units right now, but, flipside... what are the weak ones?

Because if you nerf one part, you need to buff another. The goal is to get a faction as balanced as possible, where everything appeals to players, but some can use X instead of Y, not because it's Just Better, but because it fits the playstyle better.

I'm willing to take a crack at things until the Codex arrives in order to hammer some stuff out. The goal, of course, is to 8th it up, so units don't get a bajillion special rules, but we want everything looking like it could fit into someone's force,

So... what's the stuff that needs a boost?

Most people agree Leman Russes are underpowered. I'm not familiar enough with the army to state what else may need tuning up.

 ross-128 wrote:
Meanwhile, that rubric gets to enjoy a 2+ save against the return fire.

33 for 9 isn't too far off the roughly 1/3 ratio GW seems to have picked as average for a one-turn kill. 27 for 9 would be perfectly average, but then a tarpit that only takes average effort to kill wouldn't be much of a tarpit would it?

Now admittedly something doesn't have to be too far off the curve to tilt a game, but that also means if it's not that far off to begin with, you should exercise care when adjusting it: it doesn't have to be too far below the curve to fall from grace either.

It takes 81 points of conscripts to kill an 18 point rubric marine with a bolter, so they're not doing any better on return fire if some bolter bros are present to catch some wounds. An officer improves their efficiency more than he adds to their cost, so he's a net positive there, but then that is kind of his job.

This ratio or something close to it definitely crops up a lot on other units. A 62 point Rhino with its 10 T7/3+ wounds takes about 240 points of lascannon HWTs to kill, well on the high side being closer to 1/4 than 1/3. A 91 point Chimera with 11 T7/3+ takes closer to 264, slightly below 1/3, and is widely considered bad. And this is when you're practically just paying for the gun and nothing else, both the rhino and chimera are far more proportionally durable against anything that has a bit of armor of its own. (granted they're both also nearly unarmed, one because it literally only has a storm bolter, the other because it'll usually be hitting on 5+).

I never talked about their offensive power. Why are you deflecting?

We are literally talking about just their sheer defensive mass.

Wakshaani wrote:
So... what's the stuff that needs a boost?

Leman Russ. Chimera. Sentinel. Deathstrike. Veterans. Nork. Kell. Vox networks. Multilasers .... vendettas?

 Quickjager wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Meanwhile, that rubric gets to enjoy a 2+ save against the return fire.

33 for 9 isn't too far off the roughly 1/3 ratio GW seems to have picked as average for a one-turn kill. 27 for 9 would be perfectly average, but then a tarpit that only takes average effort to kill wouldn't be much of a tarpit would it?

Now admittedly something doesn't have to be too far off the curve to tilt a game, but that also means if it's not that far off to begin with, you should exercise care when adjusting it: it doesn't have to be too far below the curve to fall from grace either.

It takes 81 points of conscripts to kill an 18 point rubric marine with a bolter, so they're not doing any better on return fire if some bolter bros are present to catch some wounds. An officer improves their efficiency more than he adds to their cost, so he's a net positive there, but then that is kind of his job.

This ratio or something close to it definitely crops up a lot on other units. A 62 point Rhino with its 10 T7/3+ wounds takes about 240 points of lascannon HWTs to kill, well on the high side being closer to 1/4 than 1/3. A 91 point Chimera with 11 T7/3+ takes closer to 264, slightly below 1/3, and is widely considered bad. And this is when you're practically just paying for the gun and nothing else, both the rhino and chimera are far more proportionally durable against anything that has a bit of armor of its own. (granted they're both also nearly unarmed, one because it literally only has a storm bolter, the other because it'll usually be hitting on 5+).

I never talked about their offensive power. Why are you deflecting?

We are literally talking about just their sheer defensive mass.

>3 paragraphs comparing durability curve of wound-soaking units vs things designed to kill them.
>1 sentence about how the rubrics fare under the return fire.

"Why are you deflecting?!?!11"

 ross-128 wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Meanwhile, that rubric gets to enjoy a 2+ save against the return fire.

33 for 9 isn't too far off the roughly 1/3 ratio GW seems to have picked as average for a one-turn kill. 27 for 9 would be perfectly average, but then a tarpit that only takes average effort to kill wouldn't be much of a tarpit would it?

Now admittedly something doesn't have to be too far off the curve to tilt a game, but that also means if it's not that far off to begin with, you should exercise care when adjusting it: it doesn't have to be too far below the curve to fall from grace either.

It takes 81 points of conscripts to kill an 18 point rubric marine with a bolter, so they're not doing any better on return fire if some bolter bros are present to catch some wounds. An officer improves their efficiency more than he adds to their cost, so he's a net positive there, but then that is kind of his job.

This ratio or something close to it definitely crops up a lot on other units. A 62 point Rhino with its 10 T7/3+ wounds takes about 240 points of lascannon HWTs to kill, well on the high side being closer to 1/4 than 1/3. A 91 point Chimera with 11 T7/3+ takes closer to 264, slightly below 1/3, and is widely considered bad. And this is when you're practically just paying for the gun and nothing else, both the rhino and chimera are far more proportionally durable against anything that has a bit of armor of its own. (granted they're both also nearly unarmed, one because it literally only has a storm bolter, the other because it'll usually be hitting on 5+).

I never talked about their offensive power. Why are you deflecting?

We are literally talking about just their sheer defensive mass.

>3 paragraphs comparing durability curve of wound-soaking units vs things designed to kill them.
>1 sentence about how the rubrics fare under the return fire.

"Why are you deflecting?!?!11"

I don't think you know what a paragraph is, although you do have ONE in there. Anyway, offensive power talk highlighted in red.

Arachnofiend wrote:
Most people agree Leman Russes are underpowered. I'm not familiar enough with the army to state what else may need tuning up.

It's a little underwhelming - much like the entire marine codex outside of Storm-ravens and guilliman. I think the best way to buff the LR is to give it a 2+ save. It's firepower is actually pretty good. Maybe some of the variants need a better main gun. It's pretty hard to find an "underpowered" compared to the rest of the units in the game unit in the gard index.

 Quickjager wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:

 ross-128 wrote:
Meanwhile, that rubric gets to enjoy a 2+ save against the return fire.

33 for 9 isn't too far off the roughly 1/3 ratio GW seems to have picked as average for a one-turn kill. 27 for 9 would be perfectly average, but then a tarpit that only takes average effort to kill wouldn't be much of a tarpit would it?

Now admittedly something doesn't have to be too far off the curve to tilt a game, but that also means if it's not that far off to begin with, you should exercise care when adjusting it: it doesn't have to be too far below the curve to fall from grace either.

It takes 81 points of conscripts to kill an 18 point rubric marine with a bolter, so they're not doing any better on return fire if some bolter bros are present to catch some wounds. An officer improves their efficiency more than he adds to their cost, so he's a net positive there, but then that is kind of his job.

This ratio or something close to it definitely crops up a lot on other units. A 62 point Rhino with its 10 T7/3+ wounds takes about 240 points of lascannon HWTs to kill, well on the high side being closer to 1/4 than 1/3. A 91 point Chimera with 11 T7/3+ takes closer to 264, slightly below 1/3, and is widely considered bad. And this is when you're practically just paying for the gun and nothing else, both the rhino and chimera are far more proportionally durable against anything that has a bit of armor of its own. (granted they're both also nearly unarmed, one because it literally only has a storm bolter, the other because it'll usually be hitting on 5+).

I never talked about their offensive power. Why are you deflecting?

We are literally talking about just their sheer defensive mass.

>3 paragraphs comparing durability curve of wound-soaking units vs things designed to kill them.
>1 sentence about how the rubrics fare under the return fire.

"Why are you deflecting?!?!11"

I don't think you know what a paragraph is, although you do have ONE in there. Anyway, offensive power talk highlighted in red.

1: The Rubric's save is an indication of the Rubric's durability, not the conscript's firepower.

2: You're still basically whining about one tangentially-related sentence. Is that really all you've got?

If winning tournament lists from now til 2018 contain conscripts would that not suggest a problem?

Chimeras suck because their one role of being transports or moveable bunkers was removed with fire points. Furthermore the units that would normally go in them were moved to Elites for some reason and Scions made them obsolete by being troops and being able to deepstrike with the same 3+ BS, while having just as many special weapons. What role can Chimera possibly fulfill now? What reason do IG need transports for now? They can shoot across the board or deepstrike up close. The only answer is Ogryns and those units themselves are overshadowed by Rough Riders who do not need transports. Seeing how most IG armies now run Celestine as an HQ, they already have a capable melee threat.

Chimeras such because they have no reason to be used. Even the variants suck because they used flamer-template weapons, with most flamers being horrible now. They're all overshadowed by the WONDERFUL Taurox Prime, which isn't even used for its transport capacity but rather the weapons mounted on it (22 Str 4 shots, then the autocannon or hellguns on the side).

What has happened to the Chimera isn't unique, but what is unique is that the IG have no good units to put inside to transport. This continues as a theme to an extent with the rest of the armies, the only units you would want to put in transports either have native deepstrike or have a stratagem to get them up the board. Chaos has the one unit in the game that is used almost solely for its transport capability The Kharbydis Assault Claw. The rest of the Index or Codices measure their transports by the firepower they can bring simply because there isn't much that is good that NEEDS a transport anymore.

How could you change the Chimera for the better? How can you make a transport in an army that doesn't need transports for their transport capacity good? I dunno, maybe in smaller games, but you would just take the Taurox. So perhaps the answer is to have the lasgun arrays scale up properly with the # of models inside? Make it so that you need to invest in bodies to make it good?\

Either way this isn't the thread for it. You act like we don't know the underperforming units of the Index, but we do. Perhaps you should make a thread addressing that?

EDIT: What I got Ross is you, Master of Ordinance, Melissa, and to a lesser extent Kanluwen going into every conscript thread defending a mathematically broken unit.

It is nice being the op army these days but that position has to be untenable.

I'm going to make these suggestions, and please feel free to rip me a new one if you don't like them:

1. Scrap conscripts. Ditch them from the list altogether. They're just too much trouble from a game play, army list and fluff perspective.

2. Make infantry squads into infantry platoons of a sort by allowing them to be up to 30 men.

3. Scrap command squads. They're only abused as special weapon squads. Move medics and platoon standards to the regular squads whilst making regimental standards an upgrade for junior officers.

4. Make conmissars harder to field. Make them HQ choices.

At the end of the day, the biggest problem with how the guard codex is currently designed is that fundamentally, as soon as/if conscripts get nerfed down to the point where they CAN'T effectively defend a gunline, the codex will completely disappear from competitive play. All other shooting focused codexes feature models that can withdraw from combat and still shoot OR have viable melee options they can use to protect against cc rush.

Every game I've had in 8th against guard sans conscripts with my melee armies, I've been able to come to grips with them, lock down a huge percentage of their gunline, and kill them in the fall back - charge - overwatch loop where they really can't do anything anymore.

That doesn't happen when facing eldar gunlines, or tau gunlines for the most part, because they have good access to units with Fly that they can use as a frontline. Guard are currently overpowered, but they're a brittle overpowered fueled by a couple of out of whack units, one of which (conscripts) is making a bunch of other units perform much better than they should (artillery and HWTs and Commanders etc)

I would love to see Chimera's useful again but that would require their firing points returning and veterans being worth taking as was stated above.

Scions could likely use a small point bump and then move Veterans back to Troop choices. If the Chimeras had their firing points back and were a bit cheaper I think you would see Veterans tooling around in them again.

I think putting in a kind of platoon requirement for Conscripts would also help a lot. Require two normal infantry squads per conscript squad and limit the size of conscript squads to 20 or 30. I think that would fix the problem without having to increase the point cost of conscripts, limiting commissar effectiveness, or any of the other more drastic fixes that would have a much wider effect than just fixing conscripts.

I think Russes would be worth taking again if you just tossed on a bunch more wounds. Their firepower is a bit meh but I think you would see people taking them again if they had the staying power to hang most of a game. Plus Vendetta's and Valks being tougher to kill than a Russ just feels extremely wrong.

For the most part I think you can balance the IG out by just moving around some units and making a few small changes.

the_scotsman wrote:
At the end of the day, the biggest problem with how the guard codex is currently designed is that fundamentally, as soon as/if conscripts get nerfed down to the point where they CAN'T effectively defend a gunline, the codex will completely disappear from competitive play. All other shooting focused codexes feature models that can withdraw from combat and still shoot OR have viable melee options they can use to protect against cc rush.

Every game I've had in 8th against guard sans conscripts with my melee armies, I've been able to come to grips with them, lock down a huge percentage of their gunline, and kill them in the fall back - charge - overwatch loop where they really can't do anything anymore.

That doesn't happen when facing eldar gunlines, or tau gunlines for the most part, because they have good access to units with Fly that they can use as a frontline. Guard are currently overpowered, but they're a brittle overpowered fueled by a couple of out of whack units, one of which (conscripts) is making a bunch of other units perform much better than they should (artillery and HWTs and Commanders etc)

Conscripts are the best OP option for troop choice - there are other OP options at troops for IG. They will still be the best army even if conscripts are removed from the game entirely (which they won't be)

 vonjankmon wrote:
I would love to see Chimera's useful again but that would require their firing points returning and veterans being worth taking as was stated above.

Scions could likely use a small point bump and then move Veterans back to Troop choices. If the Chimeras had their firing points back and were a bit cheaper I think you would see Veterans tooling around in them again.

I think putting in a kind of platoon requirement for Conscripts would also help a lot. Require two normal infantry squads per conscript squad and limit the size of conscript squads to 20 or 30. I think that would fix the problem without having to increase the point cost of conscripts, limiting commissar effectiveness, or any of the other more drastic fixes that would have a much wider effect than just fixing conscripts.

I think Russes would be worth taking again if you just tossed on a bunch more wounds. Their firepower is a bit meh but I think you would see people taking them again if they had the staying power to hang most of a game. Plus Vendetta's and Valks being tougher to kill than a Russ just feels extremely wrong.

For the most part I think you can balance the IG out by just moving around some units and making a few small changes.

Conscripts could be toned down slightly and still function (reduce their save to 6+ or 7+), alternatively guard could lose access to giant alph/beta strike components. Right now in the game Guard have
1.) The best(tied at worst) screen in the game
2.) The most access to good shooting that doesn't need LOS - this is an issue with the screen because the answer to their damage behind the screen could be shooting, but you cannot shoot what you cannot see, especially with the range it has.
3.) The best suicide deepstrike in the game, expendable plasma squads make a super alpha beta strike against many armies.
4.) Access to a ton of cheap anti-infantry fire, way cheaper than other books.

If you made conscripts have say a 6+ save, made units take a -1 to hit penalty for being out of LOS (and potentially reduced some range, but that isn't as needed in the case of a to hit penalty), recost plasma guns to 10-12 points for scions (maybe have millitarum tempestus have their own points table), raise cost on Mortars and Taurox.

Then buff their lesser units and I think they would be fine. They still have a cheap screen for their units, that will last a while but they will need to expose units if they want good shooting, and will have a bit less shooting overall.

Honestly, I think the LoS issue fixes them handily. The drop plasma hurts but it's SUPPOSED to. The Marine Codex has a Stratagem that gives a unit Intercept and I feel introducing more options like that raises tactical depth and solves plasma issues.

Anything that doesn't need LoS should just be capped at 24" or so. Let it shoot farther if it can draw line of sight, but cap it if it can't.

ThePorcupine wrote:
Deathstrike.

Always the deathstrike

such a silly one shot weapon.

Audustum wrote:
Honestly, I think the LoS issue fixes them handily. The drop plasma hurts but it's SUPPOSED to. The Marine Codex has a Stratagem that gives a unit Intercept and I feel introducing more options like that raises tactical depth and solves plasma issues.

Anything that doesn't need LoS should just be capped at 24" or so. Let it shoot farther if it can draw line of sight, but cap it if it can't.

A single unit with 12 inch range requirement can shoot at -1 to hit for 2 command points? This fixes drop scions IYO?

 Xenomancers wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Honestly, I think the LoS issue fixes them handily. The drop plasma hurts but it's SUPPOSED to. The Marine Codex has a Stratagem that gives a unit Intercept and I feel introducing more options like that raises tactical depth and solves plasma issues.

Anything that doesn't need LoS should just be capped at 24" or so. Let it shoot farther if it can draw line of sight, but cap it if it can't.

A single unit with 12 inch range requirement can shoot at -1 to hit for 2 command points? This fixes drop scions IYO?

I said more things like it. Yeah. I'd rather add counterplay then just straight up nerf the unit.

Breng77 wrote:

 vonjankmon wrote:
I would love to see Chimera's useful again but that would require their firing points returning and veterans being worth taking as was stated above.

Scions could likely use a small point bump and then move Veterans back to Troop choices. If the Chimeras had their firing points back and were a bit cheaper I think you would see Veterans tooling around in them again.

I think putting in a kind of platoon requirement for Conscripts would also help a lot. Require two normal infantry squads per conscript squad and limit the size of conscript squads to 20 or 30. I think that would fix the problem without having to increase the point cost of conscripts, limiting commissar effectiveness, or any of the other more drastic fixes that would have a much wider effect than just fixing conscripts.

I think Russes would be worth taking again if you just tossed on a bunch more wounds. Their firepower is a bit meh but I think you would see people taking them again if they had the staying power to hang most of a game. Plus Vendetta's and Valks being tougher to kill than a Russ just feels extremely wrong.

For the most part I think you can balance the IG out by just moving around some units and making a few small changes.

Conscripts could be toned down slightly and still function (reduce their save to 6+ or 7+), alternatively guard could lose access to giant alph/beta strike components. Right now in the game Guard have
1.) The best(tied at worst) screen in the game
2.) The most access to good shooting that doesn't need LOS - this is an issue with the screen because the answer to their damage behind the screen could be shooting, but you cannot shoot what you cannot see, especially with the range it has.
3.) The best suicide deepstrike in the game, expendable plasma squads make a super alpha beta strike against many armies.
4.) Access to a ton of cheap anti-infantry fire, way cheaper than other books.

If you made conscripts have say a 6+ save, made units take a -1 to hit penalty for being out of LOS (and potentially reduced some range, but that isn't as needed in the case of a to hit penalty), recost plasma guns to 10-12 points for scions (maybe have millitarum tempestus have their own points table), raise cost on Mortars and Taurox.

Then buff their lesser units and I think they would be fine. They still have a cheap screen for their units, that will last a while but they will need to expose units if they want good shooting, and will have a bit less shooting overall.

-1 to hit for out of LOS firing and you'd never see arty again in competitive as long as Raven Guard and Alpha Legion are a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You could bring back minimum ranges for arty again, which would serm more reasonable than giving a flat -1 to hit and allowing for counterplay.

RogueApiary wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 vonjankmon wrote:
I would love to see Chimera's useful again but that would require their firing points returning and veterans being worth taking as was stated above.

Scions could likely use a small point bump and then move Veterans back to Troop choices. If the Chimeras had their firing points back and were a bit cheaper I think you would see Veterans tooling around in them again.

I think putting in a kind of platoon requirement for Conscripts would also help a lot. Require two normal infantry squads per conscript squad and limit the size of conscript squads to 20 or 30. I think that would fix the problem without having to increase the point cost of conscripts, limiting commissar effectiveness, or any of the other more drastic fixes that would have a much wider effect than just fixing conscripts.

I think Russes would be worth taking again if you just tossed on a bunch more wounds. Their firepower is a bit meh but I think you would see people taking them again if they had the staying power to hang most of a game. Plus Vendetta's and Valks being tougher to kill than a Russ just feels extremely wrong.

For the most part I think you can balance the IG out by just moving around some units and making a few small changes.

Conscripts could be toned down slightly and still function (reduce their save to 6+ or 7+), alternatively guard could lose access to giant alph/beta strike components. Right now in the game Guard have
1.) The best(tied at worst) screen in the game
2.) The most access to good shooting that doesn't need LOS - this is an issue with the screen because the answer to their damage behind the screen could be shooting, but you cannot shoot what you cannot see, especially with the range it has.
3.) The best suicide deepstrike in the game, expendable plasma squads make a super alpha beta strike against many armies.
4.) Access to a ton of cheap anti-infantry fire, way cheaper than other books.

If you made conscripts have say a 6+ save, made units take a -1 to hit penalty for being out of LOS (and potentially reduced some range, but that isn't as needed in the case of a to hit penalty), recost plasma guns to 10-12 points for scions (maybe have millitarum tempestus have their own points table), raise cost on Mortars and Taurox.

Then buff their lesser units and I think they would be fine. They still have a cheap screen for their units, that will last a while but they will need to expose units if they want good shooting, and will have a bit less shooting overall.

-1 to hit for out of LOS firing and you'd never see arty again in competitive as long as Raven Guard and Alpha Legion are a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You could bring back minimum ranges for arty again, which would serm more reasonable than giving a flat -1 to hit and allowing for counterplay.

Because deploying them in LOS would be a problem? One faced by most heavy weapons in the game. Also you are talking about a match-up with 2 sub factions. Further maybe it means you don't spam them because in some match-ups they are sub-optimal. Minimum range is a poor solution because either it will be so large as to make them useless, or so small as to make no difference, because their screen will keep people out of the minimum range, it also doesn't solve any issue with them on turn 1 alpha striking armies with no real risk of retaliation.

Audustum wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Honestly, I think the LoS issue fixes them handily. The drop plasma hurts but it's SUPPOSED to. The Marine Codex has a Stratagem that gives a unit Intercept and I feel introducing more options like that raises tactical depth and solves plasma issues.

Anything that doesn't need LoS should just be capped at 24" or so. Let it shoot farther if it can draw line of sight, but cap it if it can't.

A single unit with 12 inch range requirement can shoot at -1 to hit for 2 command points? This fixes drop scions IYO?

I said more things like it. Yeah. I'd rather add counterplay then just straight up nerf the unit.

The issue is the point cost - not the counter play.

We really need weapons that become more efficient based on the size of the squad they're shooting, or if the targets have lower toughness.

For instance, consider this gun profile:

Machine Gun
Can be fired as one of two profiles:
Longshot: Strength 4, Rapid Fire 1, 24", AP0
Spray and Pray: Strength 1, Rapid Fire 3, 18", AP0, If the squad size being targeted is over 15 models and has a toughness 3 or less, this gun wounds on 2+. This weapon cannot wound targets with a toughness greater than 4.

As an example.

You might not like this weapon, but just think about the goals:

1. A weapon that is designed to shoot large squads, of low toughness models.
2. A weapon that can't wound anything, so it becomes highly situational to use this profile, to chew through hordes. Otherwise, when shooting at T8, you'd always use the "weaker" profile.
3. A weapon that has greatly diminished effectiveness against T3 models that aren't hordes, like Eldar.
4. A weapon that has greatly diminished effectiveness against T4+ hordes, like Orks.

This general *kind* of weapon is needed in the game. it doesn't exist right now. Anything that is efficient at killing Conscripts is absolutely devastating to Eldar and Orks, and will still be more efficient at killing MEQ than GEQ.

Even in the example I created, both gun profiles are equally effective at killing MEQ.

Breng77 wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 vonjankmon wrote:
I would love to see Chimera's useful again but that would require their firing points returning and veterans being worth taking as was stated above.

Scions could likely use a small point bump and then move Veterans back to Troop choices. If the Chimeras had their firing points back and were a bit cheaper I think you would see Veterans tooling around in them again.

I think putting in a kind of platoon requirement for Conscripts would also help a lot. Require two normal infantry squads per conscript squad and limit the size of conscript squads to 20 or 30. I think that would fix the problem without having to increase the point cost of conscripts, limiting commissar effectiveness, or any of the other more drastic fixes that would have a much wider effect than just fixing conscripts.

I think Russes would be worth taking again if you just tossed on a bunch more wounds. Their firepower is a bit meh but I think you would see people taking them again if they had the staying power to hang most of a game. Plus Vendetta's and Valks being tougher to kill than a Russ just feels extremely wrong.

For the most part I think you can balance the IG out by just moving around some units and making a few small changes.

Conscripts could be toned down slightly and still function (reduce their save to 6+ or 7+), alternatively guard could lose access to giant alph/beta strike components. Right now in the game Guard have
1.) The best(tied at worst) screen in the game
2.) The most access to good shooting that doesn't need LOS - this is an issue with the screen because the answer to their damage behind the screen could be shooting, but you cannot shoot what you cannot see, especially with the range it has.
3.) The best suicide deepstrike in the game, expendable plasma squads make a super alpha beta strike against many armies.
4.) Access to a ton of cheap anti-infantry fire, way cheaper than other books.

If you made conscripts have say a 6+ save, made units take a -1 to hit penalty for being out of LOS (and potentially reduced some range, but that isn't as needed in the case of a to hit penalty), recost plasma guns to 10-12 points for scions (maybe have millitarum tempestus have their own points table), raise cost on Mortars and Taurox.

Then buff their lesser units and I think they would be fine. They still have a cheap screen for their units, that will last a while but they will need to expose units if they want good shooting, and will have a bit less shooting overall.

-1 to hit for out of LOS firing and you'd never see arty again in competitive as long as Raven Guard and Alpha Legion are a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You could bring back minimum ranges for arty again, which would serm more reasonable than giving a flat -1 to hit and allowing for counterplay.

Because deploying them in LOS would be a problem? One faced by most heavy weapons in the game. Also you are talking about a match-up with 2 sub factions. Further maybe it means you don't spam them because in some match-ups they are sub-optimal. Minimum range is a poor solution because either it will be so large as to make them useless, or so small as to make no difference, because their screen will keep people out of the minimum range, it also doesn't solve any issue with them on turn 1 alpha striking armies with no real risk of retaliation.

Yay, lets make all guns across all factions the same. While we're at it, why don't we buff artillery to be all T7/8 with 12 wounds and just call them tanks? And what type of tables are you playing on that you can't get a firing angle on a unit behind LOS after moving 10+ inches? Basilisk cannons are freaking huge and even mortar bases eat up a ton of real estate.

If they're running them as Earthshakers with the gakky little toy WW2 models, ITC is going to institute an original dimensions rule soon to force players to build them with a similar footpeint to the OOP FW model.

Right, because only those two factions have -1 to hit penalties. Not like Tau, Eldar, fliers, or any vehicle with smoke launchers are a thing. Also, Marines and Chaos are the vast majority of players and -1 to hit is one of the best chapter tactics, so brushing them off as some sort of edge case is disingenuous as all get out. Marines and Chaos had the highest player counts at NOVA.

A 18-24" min range means they stop firing when the opponent hits the screen on the long edge deployment types. Which should be turn 2 at the latest. It also nerfs them by effectively removing their overwatch.

Also, going by the average scores at NOVA, Marines slightly outperformed Guard. So are we going to nerf Marines too?

 Marmatag wrote:
We really need weapons that become more efficient based on the size of the squad they're shooting, or if the targets have lower toughness.

Well Dunno about the T thing as that is what STR is for

but we already kinda have weapons that get better depending on the unit size its shooting.

they just need to be better.

like the vindi goes from d3 to d6 against units of 5

personally feel like they should of gone a step further and went d3 for sub 5 d6 for 5, 6 for 10. or some flavor of that.

The issue is, again... we don't need a weapon to deal with larger sized units for tyranids hordes, or ork hordes, or even demon hordes (brimstone spam is generally msu anyways). If we add more weapons which scale based on unit size means we'd also need to buff multiple units across multiple armies.

The same applies to deepstrike. Most deepstriking isn't broken, adding more counters might balance guard deepstrike but it just screws up the balance for everyone else.

The issue is guard not paying the same price everyone else does, and anyone arguing for more counter play needs to explain why overhauling half the game is better than nerfing 1-2 units. Yes, I know guard players wnat to deflect to anything other than the issue being their underpriced cheese filled army, but lacking tools to deal with hordes is not the issue. It's just guard. Guard is entirely the issue.

 Marmatag wrote:
We really need weapons that become more efficient based on the size of the squad they're shooting, or if the targets have lower toughness.

The Grav Bombard of the Forgeworld Leviathan does. I think for every 5 models in the unti it gains another d3 hits? I don't remember correctly.

I think the use of more S2 weapons that have rules like,

24" range,S2 Ap 0 Rapid fire 1. If the target unit has more than 15 models this gun is Rapid fire 3.

SilverAlien wrote:
The issue is, again... we don't need a weapon to deal with larger sized units for tyranids hordes, or ork hordes, or even demon hordes (brimstone spam is generally msu anyways). If we add more weapons which scale based on unit size means we'd also need to buff multiple units across multiple armies.

The same applies to deepstrike. Most deepstriking isn't broken, adding more counters might balance guard deepstrike but it just screws up the balance for everyone else.

The issue is guard not paying the same price everyone else does, and anyone arguing for more counter play needs to explain why overhauling half the game is better than nerfing 1-2 units. Yes, I know guard players wnat to deflect to anything other than the issue being their underpriced cheese filled army, but that's not the issue. It's just guard. Guard is entirely the issue.

Well lets just hope gw figures it out when AM codex comes out.

Points updates are pretty needed.

Yep. They really need to adjust some underlying assumptions they have regarding balance, like the price to benefit ratio of HQ buffs and how they scale prices for fodder vs elite units. Those issues are most obvious in guard, but not exclusive to them (it's why named characters and hordes are both such fixtures of the meta).

RogueApiary wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

RogueApiary wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 vonjankmon wrote:
I would love to see Chimera's useful again but that would require their firing points returning and veterans being worth taking as was stated above.

Scions could likely use a small point bump and then move Veterans back to Troop choices. If the Chimeras had their firing points back and were a bit cheaper I think you would see Veterans tooling around in them again.

I think putting in a kind of platoon requirement for Conscripts would also help a lot. Require two normal infantry squads per conscript squad and limit the size of conscript squads to 20 or 30. I think that would fix the problem without having to increase the point cost of conscripts, limiting commissar effectiveness, or any of the other more drastic fixes that would have a much wider effect than just fixing conscripts.

I think Russes would be worth taking again if you just tossed on a bunch more wounds. Their firepower is a bit meh but I think you would see people taking them again if they had the staying power to hang most of a game. Plus Vendetta's and Valks being tougher to kill than a Russ just feels extremely wrong.

For the most part I think you can balance the IG out by just moving around some units and making a few small changes.

Conscripts could be toned down slightly and still function (reduce their save to 6+ or 7+), alternatively guard could lose access to giant alph/beta strike components. Right now in the game Guard have
1.) The best(tied at worst) screen in the game
2.) The most access to good shooting that doesn't need LOS - this is an issue with the screen because the answer to their damage behind the screen could be shooting, but you cannot shoot what you cannot see, especially with the range it has.
3.) The best suicide deepstrike in the game, expendable plasma squads make a super alpha beta strike against many armies.
4.) Access to a ton of cheap anti-infantry fire, way cheaper than other books.

If you made conscripts have say a 6+ save, made units take a -1 to hit penalty for being out of LOS (and potentially reduced some range, but that isn't as needed in the case of a to hit penalty), recost plasma guns to 10-12 points for scions (maybe have millitarum tempestus have their own points table), raise cost on Mortars and Taurox.

Then buff their lesser units and I think they would be fine. They still have a cheap screen for their units, that will last a while but they will need to expose units if they want good shooting, and will have a bit less shooting overall.

-1 to hit for out of LOS firing and you'd never see arty again in competitive as long as Raven Guard and Alpha Legion are a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You could bring back minimum ranges for arty again, which would serm more reasonable than giving a flat -1 to hit and allowing for counterplay.

Because deploying them in LOS would be a problem? One faced by most heavy weapons in the game. Also you are talking about a match-up with 2 sub factions. Further maybe it means you don't spam them because in some match-ups they are sub-optimal. Minimum range is a poor solution because either it will be so large as to make them useless, or so small as to make no difference, because their screen will keep people out of the minimum range, it also doesn't solve any issue with them on turn 1 alpha striking armies with no real risk of retaliation.

Yay, lets make all guns across all factions the same. While we're at it, why don't we buff artillery to be all T7/8 with 12 wounds and just call them tanks? And what type of tables are you playing on that you can't get a firing angle on a unit behind LOS after moving 10+ inches? Basilisk cannons are freaking huge and even mortar bases eat up a ton of real estate.

If they're running them as Earthshakers with the gakky little toy WW2 models, ITC is going to institute an original dimensions rule soon to force players to build them with a similar footpeint to the OOP FW model.

Right, because only those two factions have -1 to hit penalties. Not like Tau, Eldar, fliers, or any vehicle with smoke launchers are a thing. Also, Marines and Chaos are the vast majority of players and -1 to hit is one of the best chapter tactics, so brushing them off as some sort of edge case is disingenuous as all get out. Marines and Chaos had the highest player counts at NOVA.

A 18-24" min range means they stop firing when the opponent hits the screen on the long edge deployment types. Which should be turn 2 at the latest. It also nerfs them by effectively removing their overwatch.

Also, going by the average scores at NOVA, Marines slightly outperformed Guard. So are we going to nerf Marines too?

Is artillery supposed to be good at killing flyers? Beyond which when won't you have LOS to flyers? Making Smoke a good thing to use is a bad thing? There are plenty of tables I have been on that given the essentially infinite range of many artillery units, that they can be hidden very well from most of the table, especially in short edge deployment types.

As for 18" to 24" min range, that only works if the screen doesn't move up, you are deployed properly to get into that range quickly. The prime targets for the artillery are moving up to the screen.

Though if you really want I can say No LOS means you hit on an unmodifiable 5+ I'd be fine with that. Min range just isn't a good rule, as it doesn't solve the main issues with the unit. They used to be worse at shooting when they had no LOS (used to not hit flyers at all.)

Also disingenuous to say marines did better at NOVA when they were basically absent from the top bracket, and many marine armies were taking Guard units in them. As for chapter tactics, Marines taking -1 to hit forgo taking Rowboat.. Those two factions are the only factions with blanket -1 to hit. I really have no issue if particular units are good against artillery.

Further you could go -1 to hit, then give a stratagem something like "Spotters, ignore the -1 to hit for non-los shooting this turn."

Take away conscripts armor save
Reduce the amount of special weapons units with deepstriking can take

Done

Of course none of this solves the area denial, which is half the problem.

Area denial isn't a problem if you can route the unit that's denying you the area. The problem is area denial plus a large amount of the game to kill the screen while the other player just murders your stuff from outside LoS.

Ah yes, area denial. Marines are not good at it so no one should be.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Ah yes, area denial. Marines are not good at it so no one should be.

Area denial negates quite a few armies. Straight up Adeptus Astartes actually can deal with it better than most.

Tau, Tyranids, Genestealers, Harlequins, Orks, all struggle with AM because of the giant shield in the way.

I like how everyone who hates marines assumes that any criticism must come from a marine centric viewpoint. If i was playing a Guilliman parking lot, I wouldn't care nearly as much about Conscripts shielding things, because I can blow those up from range.

You can completely negate commander spam, for instance, by having a swath of conscripts. Commanders will arrive, and will not be within 24" of your artillery or HWT. You'll force them to deep strike out of shooting range of anything meaningful, and then annihilate them, with your range + beta strike. All because you denied them the ability to drop in and actually fight.

The conscripts could vanish from the board after they deep strike in this case, because you have all the tools you need at that point on the table to light them up.

Or you could look at Orks. What can Orks do to get to you?

(a) slog across the board... nope, they will get blasted off the board by things like Wyverns (4d6, reroll wounds, lol seriously?)
(b) attempt to Da Jump / Stormboyz in? Nope, area denial.
(c) drive across the board in trukks or wagons. Nah, those die really fast to IG artillery.

But i guess "marines" therefore "buff guard."

When Chaos wants 6 CP, they bring useless cultists. When Guard wants 18 CP, they bring OP conscripts.

Balance!

Conscripts with commissars is nothing new.
In fact, with combined squads, it used to be 'proper' guardsmen with assault weapons!

So why are they better?

- You now have no prerequisites - you don't need a hundred and umpty ump point platoon for each one you field.
- You actually get your save reliably against small arms
-In theory you can hurt anything
- Orders are automatic and really powerful. Given that a unit cant have a transport, the double move order lets you get your coñscripts into the mid board, and fix bayonets gives you some serious melee power.

I would probably go with taking orders away, if anything.
Renegades and heretics militia have sub flak armour (6+) which doesnt feel too bad.

The commissar is fine -especially with conscripts and yarrick being a very characteristic armageddon list.

 Arkaine wrote:
When Chaos wants 6 CP, they bring useless cultists. When Guard wants 18 CP, they bring OP conscripts.

Balance!

When Marines want anything they scream and whine until GW grants it.
Balance.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
When Chaos wants 6 CP, they bring useless cultists. When Guard wants 18 CP, they bring OP conscripts.

Balance!

When Marines want anything they scream and whine until GW grants it.
Balance.

Please tell us where the Space Marine touched you.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Arkaine wrote:
When Chaos wants 6 CP, they bring useless cultists. When Guard wants 18 CP, they bring OP conscripts.

Balance!

When Marines want anything they scream and whine until GW grants it.
Balance.

As far as I have seen that is just you projecting.

I thought i'd share the batrep from the NOVA invitational, which was from the final table versus Astra Militarum.

For this batrep i'll keep track of them as "AM Player" and "Other Player."

AM player wins roll to go first, and Other Player fails to seize.
Other player concedes.

Pretty interesting tactics he used against AM, at the final table of a major tournament.

 Quickjager wrote:
Lets get with Melissa as well.

What I said about Celestine and the Sisters of Battle still stands. Do you dispute the well-documented fact that Sisters haven't been given any new units since third edition?

In other words, I'm right, and you know I'm right, you're just upset about it.

Galas wrote:
Please tell us where the Space Marine touched you.

sossen wrote:
As far as I have seen that is just you projecting.

So may I presume that the last few editions no longer exist or have existed?

 master of ordinance wrote:

Galas wrote:
Please tell us where the Space Marine touched you.

sossen wrote:
As far as I have seen that is just you projecting.

So may I presume that the last few editions no longer exist or have existed?

Those editions where Space Marines were so bad, they literally needed like 500-600 worth of free points in tanks and transports to compete? (Plus grav spam, I'll concede you that. But Grav was stupid)
But I'm not arguing about how SPace Marines aren't powerfull (In nearly every edition at least theres some kind of space marine flavour that is in the top end of the competitive scene)

I was just taking a laugh about your obsesion with Space Marines. "Imperial Guard..." "But space marines!".

 Marmatag wrote:
I thought i'd share the batrep from the NOVA invitational, which was from the final table versus Astra Militarum.

For this batrep i'll keep track of them as "AM Player" and "Other Player."

AM player wins roll to go first, and Other Player fails to seize.
Other player concedes.

Pretty interesting tactics he used against AM, at the final table of a major tournament.

But Imperial Guard are fan-favourites! They aren't Grey Knights, or Eldar or Tau, so is fine if they are stupidly broken.

The fact that this two armies are... literally 50-60% Imperial Guard is just a coincidence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZJfcuvh3E

Imperium vs Genestealer Cults

 Galas wrote:

But Imperial Guard are fan-favourites! They aren't Grey Knights, or Eldar or Tau, so is fine if they are stupidly broken.

The fact that this two armies are... literally 50-60% Imperial Guard is just a coincidence

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZJfcuvh3E

Imperium vs Genestealer Cults

I don't think people understand just how broken imperial guard is in this edition.

I've started playing Harlequins, because in order to stay competitive with Grey Knights, I would have to be at least 1,000 points of Imperial Guard, which i'm not willing to do. feth that.

 Marmatag wrote:
I thought i'd share the batrep from the NOVA invitational, which was from the final table versus Astra Militarum.

For this batrep i'll keep track of them as "AM Player" and "Other Player."

AM player wins roll to go first, and Other Player fails to seize.
Other player concedes.

Pretty interesting tactics he used against AM, at the final table of a major tournament.

Yeah, I'm sure none of that had to do with the Chaos player having an error in his list and not being able to transport his Berserkers in the assault claws for the final game once it was pointed out. But yeah, a dude totally gave up a shot at winning $1000 the final table because AM so OP.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/6ybh47/nova_invitational_2018_lists/

RogueApiary wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I thought i'd share the batrep from the NOVA invitational, which was from the final table versus Astra Militarum.

For this batrep i'll keep track of them as "AM Player" and "Other Player."

AM player wins roll to go first, and Other Player fails to seize.
Other player concedes.

Pretty interesting tactics he used against AM, at the final table of a major tournament.

Yeah, I'm sure none of that had to do with the Chaos player having an error in his list and not being able to transport his Berserkers in the assault claws for the final game once it was pointed out. But yeah, a dude totally gave up a shot at winning $1000 the final table because AM so OP.

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/6ybh47/nova_invitational_2018_lists/

So in other words, the final match at NoVa was:

 Galas wrote:
I doubt theres a point-time invested efficient way to remove Conscripts in the game.

 Quickjager wrote:
To everyone saying point efficient weapons haven't been used against Conscripts. That is because there is literally no weapon that is point efficient. .

Genestealers and Berzerkers would appear to be point efficient, no? If you don't think so, I would like to know why. Seriously.

 Galas wrote:
Conscripts aren't a unit well balanced. And the proof is that that they are used in winning lists in tournaments.

That is the weirdest proof ever. Conscripts were not the only units in those lists, nor does winning automatically mean OP instead of strong.

. . .

 Quickjager wrote:
I can go quote you too Insectum.

Is that a threat? I mean, you could, but make sure to put it in the proper context. If I was truly rude, pointing it out wouldn't really absolve yourself of responsibility regardless. You started this thread. Did you want an echo chamber or a discussion?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You realize Insectum thinks Tactical Marines are good. You really take him seriously at this point?

You might be surprised to know that Tacticals fare better against Conscripts, point for point, than the Scouts you prefer. But more to the point, is this truly the tenor here? The pro-nerf conscripts crowd has to refer to other topics in other threads to discredit the opposition?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
I doubt theres a point-time invested efficient way to remove Conscripts in the game.

 Quickjager wrote:
To everyone saying point efficient weapons haven't been used against Conscripts. That is because there is literally no weapon that is point efficient. .

Genestealers and Berzerkers would appear to be point efficient, no? If you don't think so, I would like to know why. Seriously.

 Galas wrote:
Conscripts aren't a unit well balanced. And the proof is that that they are used in winning lists in tournaments.

That is the weirdest proof ever. Conscripts were not the only units in those lists, nor does winning automatically mean OP instead of strong.

. . .

 Quickjager wrote:
I can go quote you too Insectum.

Is that a threat? I mean, you could, but make sure to put it in the proper context. If I was truly rude, pointing it out wouldn't really absolve yourself of responsibility regardless. You started this thread. Did you want an echo chamber or a discussion?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You realize Insectum thinks Tactical Marines are good. You really take him seriously at this point?

You might be surprised to know that Tacticals fare better against Conscripts, point for point, than the Scouts you prefer. But more to the point, is this truly the tenor here? The pro-nerf conscripts crowd has to refer to other topics in other threads to discredit the opposition?

Actually no they don't but you can continue to believe that if you want.

And yes it's totally legit to discredit people when they have incorrect beliefs. You really think anyone would listen to the guy that says Scatterbikes from 6th-7th are fair? You really think anyone will listen to the guy that says Riptides from 6th-7th are fair? You really anyone will listen to the guy that says Rubric Marines were ever worth anything until this edition? You really think anyone would listen to the guy that says Tactical Marines are good and were ever good?

It's a very easy way to sift through bad commenters.

Its also very easy to spot a knee-jerk reaction to an army getting a couple of good units for the first time in about a decade and suddenly not being an easy pug stomp for the power factions, but anyway pots and kettles and all that.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Its also very easy to spot a knee-jerk reaction to an army getting a couple of good units for the first time in about a decade and suddenly not being an easy pug stomp for the power factions, but anyway pots and kettles and all that.

That's not what you mean at all. You were blatantly quoted saying you wanted to be overpowered. You're easily one of the worst people to comment on army power.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You realize Insectum thinks Tactical Marines are good. You really take him seriously at this point?

You might be surprised to know that Tacticals fare better against Conscripts, point for point, than the Scouts you prefer. But more to the point, is this truly the tenor here? The pro-nerf conscripts crowd has to refer to other topics in other threads to discredit the opposition?

Actually no they don't but you can continue to believe that if you want.

And yes it's totally legit to discredit people when they have incorrect beliefs. You really think anyone would listen to the guy that says Scatterbikes from 6th-7th are fair? You really think anyone will listen to the guy that says Riptides from 6th-7th are fair? You really anyone will listen to the guy that says Rubric Marines were ever worth anything until this edition? You really think anyone would listen to the guy that says Tactical Marines are good and were ever good?

It's a very easy way to sift through bad commenters.

Run the numbers. In a sustained firefight the Tacs fare better with their improved saves.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Its also very easy to spot a knee-jerk reaction to an army getting a couple of good units for the first time in about a decade and suddenly not being an easy pug stomp for the power factions, but anyway pots and kettles and all that.

That's not what you mean at all. You were blatantly quoted saying you wanted to be overpowered. You're easily one of the worst people to comment on army power.

No, I said that I was enjoying being powerful and that I felt it was deserved after the asshammering we have taken for the past... How many years now?
But if we are going to go into this Slayer-Fan then would you care to comment as to your outright hatred of the Guard codex? And was it not you whom I recall defending the vast stockpile of Marine buffs last edition? Or was it the Tau Rapetide you told us was perfectly fine? I forget, the number of blatant hypocrites in these threads makes things easy to mix up.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Its also very easy to spot a knee-jerk reaction to an army getting a couple of good units for the first time in about a decade and suddenly not being an easy pug stomp for the power factions, but anyway pots and kettles and all that.

Try maybe 5 years if that. If that. Hardly the faction worst off

Look all the IG think that unit point costs are one way, i.e. up. Which isn't true. If there is room for nerfs there is room for buffs. BUT this thread isn't for the buffs; it is for the nerf of ONE specific unit.

As for your point Insectum on Berserkers and Genestealers. You missed the addendum that anything good against conscripts are better against literally anything else. Which is what I'm trying to highlight, conscripts occupy a niche where anything high RoF is better against literally anything else. Those 2 units aren't getting through the blob in one turn, for which they are paying a large amount of points to do. But against any other unit, they would be through and would have done more damage pointwise in doing so. That is the part that is insane about conscripts that they can stonewall a dedicated assault force for 2 turns guaranteed, maybe 3 if the positioning is good. You get nothing for fighting the blob and if you're a shooting army, you're going against IG, an army that has really good MSU shooting.

If there were ways to influence the positioning of enemy units like a universal psychic force push, or explosive rounds pushing conscripts out of position giving enough room for a deepstrike, they would be much less of a problem. But there is no way to properly influence enemy unit positioning beyond how big your guns are. But conscripts don't care about guns, they WANT to shot at.

The only real answer I have is reduce the armor save so that AP0 weapons actually start getting a return of some kind.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You realize Insectum thinks Tactical Marines are good. You really take him seriously at this point?

You might be surprised to know that Tacticals fare better against Conscripts, point for point, than the Scouts you prefer. But more to the point, is this truly the tenor here? The pro-nerf conscripts crowd has to refer to other topics in other threads to discredit the opposition?

Actually no they don't but you can continue to believe that if you want.

And yes it's totally legit to discredit people when they have incorrect beliefs. You really think anyone would listen to the guy that says Scatterbikes from 6th-7th are fair? You really think anyone will listen to the guy that says Riptides from 6th-7th are fair? You really anyone will listen to the guy that says Rubric Marines were ever worth anything until this edition? You really think anyone would listen to the guy that says Tactical Marines are good and were ever good?

It's a very easy way to sift through bad commenters.

Run the numbers. In a sustained firefight the Tacs fare better with their improved saves.

No they don't, not for the points. It's a difference of ONE for 3 points. Once you get to actual outfitting it's not even a contest and the Tactical Marines lose significantly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 master of ordinance wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Its also very easy to spot a knee-jerk reaction to an army getting a couple of good units for the first time in about a decade and suddenly not being an easy pug stomp for the power factions, but anyway pots and kettles and all that.

That's not what you mean at all. You were blatantly quoted saying you wanted to be overpowered. You're easily one of the worst people to comment on army power.

No, I said that I was enjoying being powerful and that I felt it was deserved after the asshammering we have taken for the past... How many years now?
But if we are going to go into this Slayer-Fan then would you care to comment as to your outright hatred of the Guard codex? And was it not you whom I recall defending the vast stockpile of Marine buffs last edition? Or was it the Tau Rapetide you told us was perfectly fine? I forget, the number of blatant hypocrites in these threads makes things easy to mix up.

I have always been outright against Gladius and Riptides power. You can go through all 6000 posts of mine and you're going to find a pretty consistent line of thought.

Breng77 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Its also very easy to spot a knee-jerk reaction to an army getting a couple of good units for the first time in about a decade and suddenly not being an easy pug stomp for the power factions, but anyway pots and kettles and all that.

Try maybe 5 years if that. If that. Hardly the faction worst off

And before that? There has been one brief moment of power during the months of the legendary Leafblower, which would be a legitimate arguement except it was actually a Inquisition + GK + Guard list and required about 2K's worth of things to work. So...
And even if it where not, is 5 years of being so weak that just about every other codex used you as their whipping boy not enough to warrant a little bit of power? Apparently not.

No, being useless in the past doesn't is a legitimate reason to be overpowered in the future. The goal is balance.

And thats why Imperial Guard now doesn't only deserve nerfs. Conscripts, Elysians, Taurox Primes, Scions, need nerfs, but other units deserve buffs , like Tau Commanders deserve a pretty big nerf but basically everything else in the Tau Codex deserves a buff.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

No they don't, not for the points. It's a difference of ONE for 3 points. Once you get to actual outfitting it's not even a contest and the Tactical Marines lose significantly.

You're going to have to show your math. Here's what I got:

Unequipped Tacs and Scouts (bolters) 10 x .666 x .666 x .666 = 2.9

5 Tacs = 65 points. 65/2.9 = 22.4 ppkill
5 Scouts = 55 points. 55/2.9 = 18.9 ppkill

Or to put it another way:

65 ponts of Tac Marines kills 2.9 Conscripts - worth 8.7 points
66 points of Scouts kills 3.5 Conscripts - worth 10.6 points

However

100 Conscript shots vs. Marines 100 x .333 x .333 x .333 = 3.6 - worth 46.8 points
100 Conscript shots vs. Scouts 100 x .333 x .333 x .5 = 5.5 - worth 60.5 points

Scouts do more damage by 20% but take more damage by 31%. They lose quicker than they make up for by damage. Both squads can be armed identically for the job, HB and Combi-something, so Scouts don't get any benefit there. The only way Scouts become favored is if you take certain increments of points, for example, Scouts can get an HB for the difference in cost between min squads. That works up until the Marines pay the extra 10 points, and then the Tacs fare better again. If you graphed the Heavy Bolter example based on a point by point expenditure, Tacs would be ahead ~80% of the time.

If you got something different please share.

 Quickjager wrote:

As for your point Insectum on Berserkers and Genestealers. You missed the addendum that anything good against conscripts are better against literally anything else. Which is what I'm trying to highlight, conscripts occupy a niche where anything high RoF is better against literally anything else. Those 2 units aren't getting through the blob in one turn, for which they are paying a large amount of points to do. But against any other unit, they would be through and would have done more damage pointwise in doing so. That is the part that is insane about conscripts that they can stonewall a dedicated assault force for 2 turns guaranteed, maybe 3 if the positioning is good. You get nothing for fighting the blob and if you're a shooting army, you're going against IG, an army that has really good MSU shooting.

Ok. But to be clear, there ARE "point-efficient" ways to deal with conscripts.

About the ROF issue, it's an interesting point. I'll mull it over but my instinct is that the wish for a simple shooting solution against conscripts is barking up the wrong tree in the first place. IMO, the more practical solution is to ignore them in favor of dealing with more dangerous targets, and then spend many times their points to shoot, assault, and neuter blobs when the time is right.

I'll mention again that I'm open to other rules-changes, like just making them not ob-sec. I'm not convinced that anything like points increase or save decrease is warranted though.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

No they don't, not for the points. It's a difference of ONE for 3 points. Once you get to actual outfitting it's not even a contest and the Tactical Marines lose significantly.

You're going to have to show your math. Here's what I got:

Unequipped Tacs and Scouts (bolters) 10 x .666 x .666 x .666 = 2.9

5 Tacs = 65 points. 65/2.9 = 22.4 ppkill
5 Scouts = 55 points. 55/2.9 = 18.9 ppkill

Or to put it another way:

65 ponts of Tac Marines kills 2.9 Conscripts - worth 8.7 points
66 points of Scouts kills 3.5 Conscripts - worth 10.6 points

However

100 Conscript shots vs. Marines 100 x .333 x .333 x .333 = 3.6 - worth 46.8 points
100 Conscript shots vs. Scouts 100 x .333 x .333 x .5 = 5.5 - worth 60.5 points

Scouts do more damage by 20% but take more damage by 31%. They lose quicker than they make up for by damage. Both squads can be armed identically for the job, HB and Combi-something, so Scouts don't get any benefit there. The only way Scouts become favored is if you take certain increments of points, for example, Scouts can get an HB for the difference in cost between min squads. That works up until the Marines pay the extra 10 points, and then the Tacs fare better again. If you graphed the Heavy Bolter example based on a point by point expenditure, Tacs would be ahead ~80% of the time.

If you got something different please share.

 Quickjager wrote:

As for your point Insectum on Berserkers and Genestealers. You missed the addendum that anything good against conscripts are better against literally anything else. Which is what I'm trying to highlight, conscripts occupy a niche where anything high RoF is better against literally anything else. Those 2 units aren't getting through the blob in one turn, for which they are paying a large amount of points to do. But against any other unit, they would be through and would have done more damage pointwise in doing so. That is the part that is insane about conscripts that they can stonewall a dedicated assault force for 2 turns guaranteed, maybe 3 if the positioning is good. You get nothing for fighting the blob and if you're a shooting army, you're going against IG, an army that has really good MSU shooting.

Ok. But to be clear, there ARE "point-efficient" ways to deal with conscripts.

About the ROF issue, it's an interesting point. I'll mull it over but my instinct is that the wish for a simple shooting solution against conscripts is barking up the wrong tree in the first place. IMO, the more practical solution is to ignore them in favor of dealing with more dangerous targets, and then spend many times their points to shoot, assault, and neuter blobs when the time is right.

I'll mention again that I'm open to other rules-changes, like just making them not ob-sec. I'm not convinced that anything like points increase or save decrease is warranted though.

You talk about faring better when you deliberately try to make the Scouts look bad. You can do the Heavy Bolter to make up the cost, and then you talk about adding another 10 to the Tactical Marines without adding that 10 to the Scouts. Not to mention Scouts can get to rapid fire range without spending extra points on it. Or get to melee range because a CCW with a 4+ is better than a single attack with a 3+.

That said, you're using Bolters for the Scouts when nobody should be using Bolter Scouts. If I want Bolters (and who does?) I can use Assault Centurions or Sternguard (who get better Bolters).
So if you can't kill quick enough, you aren't making progres to get to the targets they're blocking. Which leads to the next point...

Also those "point efficient" models are more point efficient vs other models because that's how ridiculous Conscripts are. You're clearly not playing a competitive game, whereas we are. Your perspective is completely out of whack.

Breng77 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Its also very easy to spot a knee-jerk reaction to an army getting a couple of good units for the first time in about a decade and suddenly not being an easy pug stomp for the power factions, but anyway pots and kettles and all that.

Try maybe 5 years if that. If that. Hardly the faction worst off

Exactly 5 years since 5th edition. 10 years would be 4th where IG were okay but not as good as 5th.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You talk about faring better when you deliberately try to make the Scouts look bad. You can do the Heavy Bolter to make up the cost, and then you talk about adding another 10 to the Tactical Marines without adding that 10 to the Scouts. Not to mention Scouts can get to rapid fire range without spending extra points on it. Or get to melee range because a CCW with a 4+ is better than a single attack with a 3+.

CCW with a 4+? Are you giving them powerfists? Or are you saying that Scouts have 2 attacks with a CCW but a 4+ save. Did you know that Scouts with a CCW have 3 3+ S4 attacks in a charge round (1 BPistol 2Attacks), like Tac marines do (2 bolter, 1 A). Again, in that round the damage output of each model is the same, except the marines still survive better, and front load more of the attacks prior to Conscripts getting overwatch, so again it's a lead for Tacs. Scouts would have additional damage output in a sustained combat, but every example I've seen involving Conscripts has them falling back out of melee and shooting on orders, so there's no advantage in that scenario.

You could add another Scout for the cost of a Heavy Bolter on the Marines, but it doesn't get the scouts enough past the marines in damage output to make up for their worse armor save in a sustained fight (I already provided the math on that). You could go further and get a combi-weapon on the sarge, but the Marines in turn could do the same and still be better off on a point by point basis. Min squad armed up vs min squad armed up, Tacs fare better because of the save. Min squad armed up vs. Min squad armed up +1 for cost difference still has Tacs ahead in the long run.

It's true that Scouts can infiltrate, and that can be useful. It can also just mean the Conscripts run over them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Also those "point efficient" models are more point efficient vs other models because that's how ridiculous Conscripts are. You're clearly not playing a competitive game, whereas we are. Your perspective is completely out of whack.

If you're having trouble dealing with Conscripts, and Genestealers and Berzerkers are the best killers of Conscripts, why would you not use them to kill Conscripts? That would be the competetive solution. Basic CSMs could kill the pesky Elysians or whatever, Cultists could probably handle them fine.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Its also very easy to spot a knee-jerk reaction to an army getting a couple of good units for the first time in about a decade and suddenly not being an easy pug stomp for the power factions, but anyway pots and kettles and all that.

Try maybe 5 years if that. If that. Hardly the faction worst off

Exactly 5 years since 5th edition. 10 years would be 4th where IG were okay but not as good as 5th.

They were actually good in early 6th as well, with IG blobs dominating many early events. So it might be even less than 5. IG has little to complain about vs some other factions still weaker than they are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

You talk about faring better when you deliberately try to make the Scouts look bad. You can do the Heavy Bolter to make up the cost, and then you talk about adding another 10 to the Tactical Marines without adding that 10 to the Scouts. Not to mention Scouts can get to rapid fire range without spending extra points on it. Or get to melee range because a CCW with a 4+ is better than a single attack with a 3+.

CCW with a 4+? Are you giving them powerfists? Or are you saying that Scouts have 2 attacks with a CCW but a 4+ save. Did you know that Scouts with a CCW have 3 3+ S4 attacks in a charge round (1 BPistol 2Attacks), like Tac marines do (2 bolter, 1 A). Again, in that round the damage output of each model is the same, except the marines still survive better, and front load more of the attacks prior to Conscripts getting overwatch, so again it's a lead for Tacs. Scouts would have additional damage output in a sustained combat, but every example I've seen involving Conscripts has them falling back out of melee and shooting on orders, so there's no advantage in that scenario.

You could add another Scout for the cost of a Heavy Bolter on the Marines, but it doesn't get the scouts enough past the marines in damage output to make up for their worse armor save in a sustained fight (I already provided the math on that). You could go further and get a combi-weapon on the sarge, but the Marines in turn could do the same and still be better off on a point by point basis. Min squad armed up vs min squad armed up, Tacs fare better because of the save. Min squad armed up vs. Min squad armed up +1 for cost difference still has Tacs ahead in the long run.

It's true that Scouts can infiltrate, and that can be useful. It can also just mean the Conscripts run over them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Also those "point efficient" models are more point efficient vs other models because that's how ridiculous Conscripts are. You're clearly not playing a competitive game, whereas we are. Your perspective is completely out of whack.

If you're having trouble dealing with Conscripts, and Genestealers and Berzerkers are the best killers of Conscripts, why would you not use them to kill Conscripts? That would be the competetive solution. Basic CSMs could kill the pesky Elysians or whatever, Cultists could probably handle them fine.

You miss the point here that those units stomp things that aren't conscripts better than they do conscripts, so if they need to be spammed to deal with conscripts other things suffer more.

So what's probably going to happen after the sudden increase in so many people buying guardsmen kits making GW a lot of money is the codex is going to drop, conscripts become balanced (or trash-tier in the eyes of conscript players) and then everyone is going to whine and complain for about a month, then jump on the next bandwagon. Repeat ad naseum.

I've seen it happen literally every time. There's going to always be a list that does exceptionally well, but at least riptide wings were more interesting to fight against than conscripts and their 40 minute phases.

 Don Savik wrote:
but at least riptide wings were more interesting to fight against than conscripts and their 40 minute phases.

Lel, no. You can at least feel like you did something against conscript spam. "Well I killed 60 guardsmen but still lost" is a much better feeling then "I was tabled turn 2".