Arachnofiend wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Guilliman existed before the codex, and the two major new power players in C:SM (Raven Guard and Salamanders) both don't get any benefit out of him. And none of these things are superior than Index Guard, so... my point stands.

Funny you should mention RG and Sallies; both of them got a massive power boost out of the codex, in fact I would say they've been resurgent BECAUSE of the massive power boost the codex gave them. Along with across-the-board points reductions and generally better rules, they got solid bonus rules for free plus good stratagems and relics.

A Space Marine player playing off the index is flat out weaker than the one playing off the codex, and noticeably so, and if you had paid any attention to the differences you'd have noticed that. So no, your point doesn't stand, it's a point made out of ignorance.

You're arguing against a point I didn't make. Space Marines got better than they were in the Index, obviously, but they didn't get better than the best faction at the time of the C:SM's publication. Space Marines needed some adjustments upwards (especially, y'know, non-Ultramarines) and the adjustments were thankfully reserved enough that they didn't come out of it clearly on top of the pack, merely "very good". The same can be said for the CSM codex.

Personally I consider both Marine codexes to be great successes because things that weren't good got better while the things that were already good stayed the same. I would have nerfed Guilliman if it was up to me, of course, but I guess it can't be perfect.

I'd have to agree, so far I think the codex releases have been pretty good. Both normal and Chaos space marines were improved compared to their index versions, but they weren't improved to a "codex creep" kind of level. If it wasn't for gulliman ruining it, I'd say both codices were pretty successfully done. The death guard and AdMech codices also seem to be pretty well thought out (though issues may shake out after more people play test them). All these armies were a bit lackluster in the index in one way or another (other than DG, obviously), but they had a lot of these issues ironed out and improved.

Imperial guard had the handicap of already being considered overpowered in the index though, possibly the only army that was, which meant that for the first time GW would have to release a codex where they actually reduce an army's effectiveness. Which is a tricky thing to do without upsetting a lot of IG/Imperium players, who tend towards being very noisy complainers (largely because there is a lot of them out there).

I really hope they manage it though. I want IG to be a good army, I really do. I much prefer a pure IG force, to those pesky Mary Sue Mareenz.

They definitely were improved to "codex creep" levels. Hell, just take a look at the reduced cost for wargear-- you can afford whole new squads in your marine list just out of reduced cost from wargear and units alone, making your list that much more powerful.

Actually, if I play my Blood Angels list as a generic Space Marines list-- without even having access to relics or chapter tactics or stratagems-- my list becomes remarkably more powerful just from point costs alone. Were I to add relics and chapter tactics and stratagems from the codex, there's no way my "normal" BA list could win against the redone version barring really lucky dice rolls, given equal skill.

Niiru wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Arachnofiend wrote:
Guilliman existed before the codex, and the two major new power players in C:SM (Raven Guard and Salamanders) both don't get any benefit out of him. And none of these things are superior than Index Guard, so... my point stands.

Funny you should mention RG and Sallies; both of them got a massive power boost out of the codex, in fact I would say they've been resurgent BECAUSE of the massive power boost the codex gave them. Along with across-the-board points reductions and generally better rules, they got solid bonus rules for free plus good stratagems and relics.

A Space Marine player playing off the index is flat out weaker than the one playing off the codex, and noticeably so, and if you had paid any attention to the differences you'd have noticed that. So no, your point doesn't stand, it's a point made out of ignorance.

You're arguing against a point I didn't make. Space Marines got better than they were in the Index, obviously, but they didn't get better than the best faction at the time of the C:SM's publication. Space Marines needed some adjustments upwards (especially, y'know, non-Ultramarines) and the adjustments were thankfully reserved enough that they didn't come out of it clearly on top of the pack, merely "very good". The same can be said for the CSM codex.

Personally I consider both Marine codexes to be great successes because things that weren't good got better while the things that were already good stayed the same. I would have nerfed Guilliman if it was up to me, of course, but I guess it can't be perfect.

I'd have to agree, so far I think the codex releases have been pretty good. Both normal and Chaos space marines were improved compared to their index versions, but they weren't improved to a "codex creep" kind of level. If it wasn't for gulliman ruining it, I'd say both codices were pretty successfully done. The death guard and AdMech codices also seem to be pretty well thought out (though issues may shake out after more people play test them). All these armies were a bit lackluster in the index in one way or another (other than DG, obviously), but they had a lot of these issues ironed out and improved.

Imperial guard had the handicap of already being considered overpowered in the index though, possibly the only army that was, which meant that for the first time GW would have to release a codex where they actually reduce an army's effectiveness. Which is a tricky thing to do without upsetting a lot of IG/Imperium players, who tend towards being very noisy complainers (largely because there is a lot of them out there).

I really hope they manage it though. I want IG to be a good army, I really do. I much prefer a pure IG force, to those pesky Mary Sue Mareenz.

Imperial Guard had some things that needed a buff that could have counteracted the things that needed heavy-handed nerfs, most notably the Leman Russ. I was glad to see the Russ got buffed, though I'm worried that Grinding Advance+the points reduction may have been too much (too early to say for sure but I would have only done one or the other).

 Melissia wrote:
They definitely were improved to "codex creep" levels. Hell, just take a look at the reduced cost for wargear-- you can afford whole new squads in your marine list just out of reduced cost from wargear and units alone, making your list that much more powerful.

Actually, if I play my Blood Angels list as a generic Space Marines list-- without even having access to relics or chapter tactics-- my list becomes remarkably more powerful just from point costs alone.

Well, that depends on what Chapter Approved brings. I know a lot of Ork players are hoping the wargear changes for space marines will also reflect similar reductions in the corresponding Ork wargear, like powerfist/powerklaw etc etc.

If this happens in chapter approved, it would be a great sign of how GW plan to keep the game balanced and up to date over time.

If it doesn't happen... there's going to be a lot of angry customers out there.

 Melissia wrote:
They definitely were improved to "codex creep" levels. Hell, just take a look at the reduced cost for wargear-- you can afford whole new squads in your marine list just out of reduced cost from wargear and units alone, making your list that much more powerful.

Actually, if I play my Blood Angels list as a generic Space Marines list-- without even having access to relics or chapter tactics or stratagems-- my list becomes remarkably more powerful just from point costs alone. Were I to add relics and chapter tactics and stratagems from the codex, there's no way my "normal" BA list could win against the redone version barring really lucky dice rolls, given equal skill.

But again, codex creep would imply codex:SM pushed the power level of the army higher than anything previously seen. Which it didn't. As a pure army codex SM was still worse than index guard, index sisters and index ynnari/harlequins. As a soup list, the codex barely even boosted imperial soup. RG's warlord trait and a couple of stratagems were pretty much it.

Codex guard similar has a fairly small change on soup lists (scions worse, conscripts arguably better overall), but as an army they are without a doubt stronger than any other single army by a decent margin. That's why we call it codex creep.

Sure, codex SM is better than index blood angels, but index guard was always better than both. So codex SM didn't push the power level up, it was just being SM in line with the more powerful existing armies.

Niiru wrote:
Well, that depends on what Chapter Approved brings. I know a lot of Ork players are hoping the wargear changes for space marines will also reflect similar reductions in the corresponding Ork wargear, like powerfist/powerklaw etc etc.

However, Chapter Approved doesn't exist yet, so I can't use that as a basis of comparison, now, can I?

feth do I hope it does what you say it will.

 Melissia wrote:
They definitely were improved to "codex creep" levels. Hell, just take a look at the reduced cost for wargear-- you can afford whole new squads in your marine list just out of reduced cost from wargear and units alone, making your list that much more powerful.

Actually, if I play my Blood Angels list as a generic Space Marines list-- without even having access to relics or chapter tactics or stratagems-- my list becomes remarkably more powerful just from point costs alone. Were I to add relics and chapter tactics and stratagems from the codex, there's no way my "normal" BA list could win against the redone version barring really lucky dice rolls, given equal skill.

Codex creep can't exist because the indexes were clearly placeholders for us to play WHILE the Codices get released. You can get frustrated (and I am as a Necron player) but I recognize this as a temporary thing.

So now we've had 5 Codices released. Four of them (SM, CSM, GK and DG) are pretty good stuff and balanced with each other internally and externally barring some extreme examples. AdMech is definitely a letdown compared to those ones but at least some issues are resolved, and we're supposed to get an FAQ that makes it a little...better.

Instead we aren't getting Guard issues resolved.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
They definitely were improved to "codex creep" levels. Hell, just take a look at the reduced cost for wargear-- you can afford whole new squads in your marine list just out of reduced cost from wargear and units alone, making your list that much more powerful.

Actually, if I play my Blood Angels list as a generic Space Marines list-- without even having access to relics or chapter tactics or stratagems-- my list becomes remarkably more powerful just from point costs alone. Were I to add relics and chapter tactics and stratagems from the codex, there's no way my "normal" BA list could win against the redone version barring really lucky dice rolls, given equal skill.

Codex creep can't exist because the indexes were clearly placeholders for us to play WHILE the Codices get released. You can get frustrated (and I am as a Necron player) but I recognize this as a temporary thing.

So now we've had 5 Codices released. Four of them (SM, CSM, GK and DG) are pretty good stuff and balanced with each other internally and externally barring some extreme examples. AdMech is definitely a letdown compared to those ones but at least some issues are resolved, and we're supposed to get an FAQ that makes it a little...better.

Instead we aren't getting Guard issues resolved.

I feel like part of the problem for some Guard/AM players in these discussions is when the term/labels that are thrown around portray the 'whole IG/AM Codex as broken' it draws a negative reaction and creates a generalized assessment that isn't well founded.

Yes, they are a few broken units in the Codex/Index, but a broken Codex/Index they don't make. People aren't screaming that Tau are broken for Commander/Drone spam, they're calling out the Commanders and Drones in specific; the Thousand Suns aren't broken, brimstones are/are borderline.

In that same vein, Conscripts synergizing with Commissars are what draw the vast majority of the ire/broken accusations. Scions are good as well, but were never the same level - with the previous changes to Command Squads trimming them some and the Codex's price increase on Plasma Guns for them they should be better balanced still. Beyond that, what was drawing truly 'broken' accusations and had quantifiable proof in tournament play? Not a lot - some good/no-brainer units in comparison to others in the Index (Manticores vs Basilisks for example) but Conscripts are particularly what people are focused on.

Many of the Codex buffs shore up weak units - some of which can draw some concern objectively on their own, such as the combined SHV buffs. However, outside of the lack of a (perceived or real) fix to Conscripts is the rest of the IG/AM roster filled with nothing but broken units as is being claimed/portrayed?

Objectively, say Conscripts were no longer a unit and did not exist in the Codex - is what remains still 'broken', or just good/competitive?

GhostRecon wrote:


Objectively, say Conscripts were no longer a unit and did not exist in the Codex - is what remains still 'broken', or just good/competitive?

I think there's been a lot of exaggeration on here, I'm probably guilty of it too. I actually don't think the IG codex is particularly overpowered by itself, and if conscripts were removed it would leave it to be a pretty balanced army overall. The problem is that IG is usable as imperial soup, so it causes brokenness by mixing in with space marines etc.

If conscripts were removed (or at least limited to 1 unit per detachment or something) and imperium allying was limited, then I think the problems would be solved. But it's not looking like gw are taking that route.

I'm going to again point out that the warlord traits and relics are often literally better versions of the best warlord traits and relics from previous codices. That's the most obvious and blatant way the codex as a whole is engaging in power creep. The fact doctrines apply to all vehicles, including super heavies, is another major sticking point. Individual units are an issue as well, conscripts remaining the most annoying for me personally.

So it isn't just a few broken units, there is a lot of stuff in the codex that simply isn't on par with previous entries.

How did RG get buffed by the codex? Strategems? He doesnt benefit from Chapter Tactics.

Edit: Ah, probably the Warlord trait.

 Crazyterran wrote:
How did RG get buffed by the codex? Strategems? He doesnt benefit from Chapter Tactics.

Edit: Ah, probably the Warlord trait.

Yep, which was probably the best WT until IG got the same trait except slightly better as an option for any regiment.

I'm going to keep harping on that because it annoys me considerably.

Well, at least if its like the Marine book, special characters will be forced to take the one that aligns with their homeworld, so Creed or Pask or Straken wont be able to take it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Instead we aren't getting Guard issues resolved.

Aren't plasma guns 15 points now? Scions command squads were a huge issue, bigger than the conscripts+commissar combo, and it should have been fixed now with an appropriate cost. No more plasma scions spam.

The max unit of 30 conscript and the ability to benefit from orders on 4+ are real nerfs, conscripts are still a very good option, but not overpowered.

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Instead we aren't getting Guard issues resolved.

Aren't plasma guns 15 points now? Scions command squads were a huge issue, bigger than the conscripts+commissar combo, and it should have been fixed now with an appropriate cost. No more plasma scions spam.

The max unit of 30 conscript and the ability to benefit from orders on 4+ are real nerfs, conscripts are still a very good option, but not overpowered.

Literally no one thought scions were more problematic than conscripts. And the conscript nerf did nothing, I bet they'll get Tau Commanders back in line by reducing it's attacks by 1 and fix Malefic Lords by reducing their ballistic skill next.

ERJAK wrote:

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Instead we aren't getting Guard issues resolved.

Aren't plasma guns 15 points now? Scions command squads were a huge issue, bigger than the conscripts+commissar combo, and it should have been fixed now with an appropriate cost. No more plasma scions spam.

The max unit of 30 conscript and the ability to benefit from orders on 4+ are real nerfs, conscripts are still a very good option, but not overpowered.

Literally no one thought scions were more problematic than conscripts. And the conscript nerf did nothing, I bet they'll get Tau Commanders back in line by reducing it's attacks by 1 and fix Malefic Lords by reducing their ballistic skill next.

Only imperium players rant towards conscripts. They were good, ok, but I usually don't lose against AM because it's impossible to kill all the little soldiers even if they are 150+ models. I lose because they can unleash tons of firepower for dirt cheap, including undercosted plasma guns on scions and orders on 50 man blobs of conscripts.

 Melissia wrote:
However, Chapter Approved doesn't exist yet

I do feel the need to point this out. If we are talking about the game as it stands at the moment, we can't discuss 'what ifs' from books like Chapter Approved or other codexes, since they don't exist. If the game has current balance issues, that is a legitimate issue at the moment. If it doesn't, then future books wouldn't be needed to remedy any such problem, so we won't need to discuss content of future books anyways.

Darsath wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
However, Chapter Approved doesn't exist yet

I do feel the need to point this out. If we are talking about the game as it stands at the moment, we can't discuss 'what ifs' from books like Chapter Approved or other codexes, since they don't exist. If the game has current balance issues, that is a legitimate issue at the moment. If it doesn't, then future books wouldn't be needed to remedy any such problem, so we won't need to discuss content of future books anyways.

This is true, but the point at the time was that codex creep was a problem due to the space marine wargear price changes making a big difference. However, games workshop have always say that they would do periodic balancing through chapter approved, and so the space marine "codex creep" is only a short term issue (and unavoidable) if the other wargear options get price reductions too. So chapter approved, while not released yet, should still be remembered to temper the codex complaints.

Of course, if chapter approved comes out and doesn't fix these issues, then suddenly you would have a confirmed codex creep problem and everything goes to hell.

Niiru wrote:

Darsath wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
However, Chapter Approved doesn't exist yet

I do feel the need to point this out. If we are talking about the game as it stands at the moment, we can't discuss 'what ifs' from books like Chapter Approved or other codexes, since they don't exist. If the game has current balance issues, that is a legitimate issue at the moment. If it doesn't, then future books wouldn't be needed to remedy any such problem, so we won't need to discuss content of future books anyways.

This is true, but the point at the time was that codex creep was a problem due to the space marine wargear price changes making a big difference. However, games workshop have always say that they would do periodic balancing through chapter approved, and so the space marine "codex creep" is only a short term issue (and unavoidable) if the other wargear options get price reductions too. So chapter approved, while not released yet, should still be remembered to temper the codex complaints.

Of course, if chapter approved comes out and doesn't fix these issues, then suddenly you would have a confirmed codex creep problem and everything goes to hell.

Except SM through DG it isn't codex creep. The index was a placeholder while the Codices were released so we can still play. Everyone got those wargear reductions and stuff once it came out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:


Instead we aren't getting Guard issues resolved.

Aren't plasma guns 15 points now? Scions command squads were a huge issue, bigger than the conscripts+commissar combo, and it should have been fixed now with an appropriate cost. No more plasma scions spam.

The max unit of 30 conscript and the ability to benefit from orders on 4+ are real nerfs, conscripts are still a very good option, but not overpowered.

There isn't a point increase on them per video reviews I saw, and they weren't being taken at 50 man squads anyway. They were being taken at...wait for it...20-40 man squads.

Also that 4+ might as well not exist. You know how silly and easy it is to gain CP for Imperial Guard? You can do TWO Brigades if you wanted. You get your rerolls all you want.

ERJAK wrote:

Literally no one thought scions were more problematic than conscripts.

I you did a little research you would find a few.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I you did a little research you would find a few.

Mostly I actually saw guard players claim this, which I think has more to do with how most guard players think their army should work than how it actually played out on the field.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I you did a little research you would find a few.

Mostly I actually saw guard players claim this, which I think has more to do with how most guard players think their army should work than how it actually played out on the field.

I am not a guard player. Nor I think is at least one other poster who I believe claimed the same thing.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
How did RG get buffed by the codex? Strategems? He doesnt benefit from Chapter Tactics.

Edit: Ah, probably the Warlord trait.

Yep, which was probably the best WT until IG got the same trait except slightly better as an option for any regiment.

I'm going to keep harping on that because it annoys me considerably.

You can't view the warlord traits in a vacuum, though. To benefit from the IG warlord trait you can't use a special character as your warlord (they have to take their regiment's WT) which means you're going to be nominating a company commander or a Lord Commissar as your warlord. Yes, the Company Commander is only 30pts base (and the Lord Commissar 55pts) but they're also T3 W4 models with a 5+/5++ and 4+/5++ respectively. Even your basic Ultramarine Captain is more survivable and more useful at T4 W5 3+/4++.

So to 'max' your benefit with the IG warlord trait you're going to have to hide that warlord out of LOS as even a sniper could kill him - so you get a strong warlord trait but it's on a model that is dramatically more removable than RG or another Ultramarine warlord option can be. So to get the most benefit from the WT and relic the IG player is paying 30pts + his relic option (unless he uses/IG gets the stratagem to get more than one... but as that's pre-game those CPs are non-rollable for the WT/relic) and has to hide him as completely from view as possible. Might even see a Command Squad or ogryn bodyguards get bought to sit with him to guarantee he doesn't get picked off - which potentially raises the 'tax' on the WT's use (and the relic too, if it's taken).

On average with an assumed 12CP the WT is returning the IG player 4 CP. The relic only gives 1CP back on a 5+ when your opponent uses a Stratagem, so assuming your opponent uses 6 you're getting 2 more CP.

Pretty good but on a very vulnerable model; compare to RG where you're paying a lot more but you're getting a very survivable vessel for your WT and he has some amazing aura buffs he doesn't have to hide to give out too.

They have to use their Warlord trait? That's not the case with other armies. In the AdMech book there is one list of generic traits for all admech, and then one list of WT you can only take on the corresponding forge world's leaders, but Cawl could opt not to take the Mars WT and instead take a generic one.

 Purifier wrote:
They have to use their Warlord trait? That's not the case with other armies. In the AdMech book there is one list of generic traits for all admech, and then one list of WT you can only take on the corresponding forge world's leaders, but Cawl could opt not to take the Mars WT and instead take a generic one.

https://imgur.com/a/5IzSa

GhostRecon wrote:

You can't view the warlord traits in a vacuum, though. To benefit from the IG warlord trait you can't use a special character as your warlord (they have to take their regiment's WT) which means you're going to be nominating a company commander or a Lord Commissar as your warlord. Yes, the Company Commander is only 30pts base (and the Lord Commissar 55pts) but they're also T3 W4 models with a 5+/5++ and 4+/5++ respectively. Even your basic Ultramarine Captain is more survivable and more useful at T4 W5 3+/4++.

So to 'max' your benefit with the IG warlord trait you're going to have to hide that warlord out of LOS as even a sniper could kill him - so you get a strong warlord trait but it's on a model that is dramatically more removable than RG or another Ultramarine warlord option can be. So to get the most benefit from the WT and relic the IG player is paying 30pts + his relic option (unless he uses/IG gets the stratagem to get more than one... but as that's pre-game those CPs are non-rollable for the WT/relic) and has to hide him as completely from view as possible. Might even see a Command Squad or ogryn bodyguards get bought to sit with him to guarantee he doesn't get picked off - which potentially raises the 'tax' on the WT's use (and the relic too, if it's taken).

On average with an assumed 12CP the WT is returning the IG player 4 CP. The relic only gives 1CP back on a 5+ when your opponent uses a Stratagem, so assuming your opponent uses 6 you're getting 2 more CP.

Pretty good but on a very vulnerable model; compare to RG where you're paying a lot more but you're getting a very survivable vessel for your WT and he has some amazing aura buffs he doesn't have to hide to give out too.

I have literally never seen a Company Commander or Lord Commissar get killed by sniper fire in all of 8th edition. This does not sound like a real drawback. Their vulnerability to snipers relative to a Space Marine Captain will be relevant in only a tiny number of games and it's a threat that's very easily managed.

With 12 CP the Warlord Trait means that you expect to be able to spend 18 CP over the course of the game, not 16. It gives you an effective +50% CP. If you have the relic and your opponent uses 6 stratagems, then combined with the warlord trait you expect to have another 3 CP to spend. That's 21 total. That said, I'm not sure that you really need this many, although you could probably build around having tons of CP to spend (such as by bringing a Marine or GK detachment to use stratagems from, bringing multiple regiments to have a use for more than one unique stratagem, etc.).

Dionysodorus wrote:

GhostRecon wrote:

You can't view the warlord traits in a vacuum, though. To benefit from the IG warlord trait you can't use a special character as your warlord (they have to take their regiment's WT) which means you're going to be nominating a company commander or a Lord Commissar as your warlord. Yes, the Company Commander is only 30pts base (and the Lord Commissar 55pts) but they're also T3 W4 models with a 5+/5++ and 4+/5++ respectively. Even your basic Ultramarine Captain is more survivable and more useful at T4 W5 3+/4++.

So to 'max' your benefit with the IG warlord trait you're going to have to hide that warlord out of LOS as even a sniper could kill him - so you get a strong warlord trait but it's on a model that is dramatically more removable than RG or another Ultramarine warlord option can be. So to get the most benefit from the WT and relic the IG player is paying 30pts + his relic option (unless he uses/IG gets the stratagem to get more than one... but as that's pre-game those CPs are non-rollable for the WT/relic) and has to hide him as completely from view as possible. Might even see a Command Squad or ogryn bodyguards get bought to sit with him to guarantee he doesn't get picked off - which potentially raises the 'tax' on the WT's use (and the relic too, if it's taken).

On average with an assumed 12CP the WT is returning the IG player 4 CP. The relic only gives 1CP back on a 5+ when your opponent uses a Stratagem, so assuming your opponent uses 6 you're getting 2 more CP.

Pretty good but on a very vulnerable model; compare to RG where you're paying a lot more but you're getting a very survivable vessel for your WT and he has some amazing aura buffs he doesn't have to hide to give out too.

I have literally never seen a Company Commander or Lord Commissar get killed by sniper fire in all of 8th edition. This does not sound like a real drawback. Their vulnerability to snipers relative to a Space Marine Captain will be relevant in only a tiny number of games and it's a threat that's very easily managed.

With 12 CP the Warlord Trait means that you expect to be able to spend 18 CP over the course of the game, not 16. It gives you an effective +50% CP. If you have the relic and your opponent uses 6 stratagems, then combined with the warlord trait you expect to have another 3 CP to spend. That's 21 total. That said, I'm not sure that you really need this many, although you could probably build around having tons of CP to spend (such as by bringing a Marine or GK detachment to use stratagems from, bringing multiple regiments to have a use for more than one unique stratagem, etc.).

If you consider that many armies (such as Dark Eldar, Chaos Space Marines and Orks) don't even have the option to play snipers, it kind of ruins that idea of a weakness for the most part.

Dionysodorus wrote:
I have literally never seen a Company Commander or Lord Commissar get killed by sniper fire in all of 8th edition. This does not sound like a real drawback. Their vulnerability to snipers relative to a Space Marine Captain will be relevant in only a tiny number of games and it's a threat that's very easily managed.

Snipers are just one threat; just in general they are a very squishy model and with the WT trait you've given opponents a better reason to kill him if you give him the chance. Which means you probably won't see that warlord CO footslogging it lobbing Orders at Conscripts, for example. And I believe I mentioned some potential mitigation stratagies you'd see to preserve that warlord CO in my post, such as the obvious hiding him out of LOS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Darsath wrote:
If you consider that many armies (such as Dark Eldar, Chaos Space Marines and Orks) don't even have the option to play snipers, it kind of ruins that idea of a weakness for the most part.

Chaos can get snipers through FW's Renegades and Heretics; 34pts for 2 sniper rifles in a 5-man squad BS3+ Squad that benefit from -1 to hit against them and +1 to cover saves. But yes, within the CSM Codex, they don't you're right.

DE have Hexrifles which can target characters, but yes they're not a very easy weapon option to get enough of as needed. DE and Orks are both Index armies, though, and so as much as it sucks to say it you can't compare an Index army to a Codex one - even if it's what we have on hand. We have no idea, unfortunately, whether the DE and Ork Codices will give them tools/improvements to better handle hiding characters, to focus on this specific example/discussion.

GhostRecon wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:
I have literally never seen a Company Commander or Lord Commissar get killed by sniper fire in all of 8th edition. This does not sound like a real drawback. Their vulnerability to snipers relative to a Space Marine Captain will be relevant in only a tiny number of games and it's a threat that's very easily managed.

Snipers are just one threat; just in general they are a very squishy model and with the WT trait you've given opponents a better reason to kill him if you give him the chance. Which means you probably won't see that warlord CO footslogging it lobbing Orders at Conscripts, for example. And I believe I mentioned some potential mitigation stratagies you'd see to preserve that warlord CO in my post, such as the obvious hiding him out of LOS.

Well, no, Company Commanders are not a very squishy model. They're practically invulnerable, because they're characters with less than 10 wounds but more than a couple in an army that typically brings a ton of infantry bodies for them to hide within and behind. I don't think my warlord Company Commander or Lord Commissar has died... ever. I don't think I have ever killed an opponent's Company Commander or Lord Commissar when they were actually making any effort to protect them. In all games I've played or watched, I don't think I've ever seen one get sniped, get assassinated by jump infantry, get surprised by a deep striker, etc. I've seen a few situations where one was going to die in the next turn or two, but someone conceded first -- that was only going to happen because a tabling was clearly in progress. I only ever see Company Commanders die when they're on suicide missions -- when they're moving ahead of the rest of the army with just two squads because giving those squads orders is worth the Commander dying after the squads get wiped out next turn. And that's both pretty rare and obviously not something you'd ever do with your warlord; you would use one of your other officers for that. Space Marine Captains are far more vulnerable than Company Commanders because it's really inefficient to hide them away -- you're paying for CC ability and durability and so you really want to have them actually fighting things. With Commanders you're paying for orders and they can do this at basically zero risk to themselves.

You'd absolutely still see a warlord like this on foot, attempting to give orders to Conscripts. It's not like he has to be anywhere near the enemy to do this. Conscripts still come in blocks of 30 and with just 2 of them trailing back a bit the officer can be 12" away from the back of the main Conscript blob.

Snipers are NOT a threat mathematically.

While snipers can be an issue, it's not hard to hide a single model. There are also a lot of options for defending them, from ogryn bodyguard to the mask relic.

I'm also entirely unclear why IG gets to ignore every potential disadvantage their army should have. High model count fragile armies are weak to morale, so here are rules to ignore that issue. Fragile but cheap characters can be risky, so let's givs them better warlord traits and relics (even though, again, entire armies lack snipers), so that they overperform unless they are sniped.

Other armies actually have to be disadvantaged by their weaknesses. It's hard to spam CP as admech or SM variants, due to more expensive troops and HQs. So shouldn't we get something to give us as many CP as IG, if disadvantages don't matter? It's silly, wardian idiocy that cannot be justified.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Snipers are NOT a threat mathematically.

Thats mostly true, but Eldar can give a reasonable go at it with Rangers and casting Doom. Given that Rangers are probably their better troops option, and Farseers are practically a given, it's an easy combo to have.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Snipers are NOT a threat mathematically.

Thats mostly true, but Eldar can give a reasonable go at it with Rangers and casting Doom. Given that Rangers are probably their better troops option, and Farseers are practically a given, it's an easy combo to have.

Want to post the math on that? Don't know the casting potential of Doom or the stats of Rangers. Mostly people stuck with not using Eldar at the moment in my area.

Rangers are probably the worst snipers in the game, at least outside of FW which I'm not very familiar with, so I wouldn't be too worried. You get 5 Rangers for 100 points, shooting BS3+ sniper rifles. A Farseer within 24" of an enemy unit can cast Doom so that anything shooting that unit re-rolls wounds. This makes the Rangers 33% more efficient, so that they are almost half as shooty as Ratlings rather than only a third as shooty. 10 Rangers (200 points) shooting at a Doomed Company Commander would probably kill him. Obviously this all depends on a bunch of things working out. I still have yet to play on a table where it would be very difficult to hide a single character from infiltrating snipers.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Snipers are NOT a threat mathematically.

Thats mostly true, but Eldar can give a reasonable go at it with Rangers and casting Doom. Given that Rangers are probably their better troops option, and Farseers are practically a given, it's an easy combo to have.

Want to post the math on that? Don't know the casting potential of Doom or the stats of Rangers. Mostly people stuck with not using Eldar at the moment in my area.

A unit of 5 rangers costs 100 points. Vs a standard space marine captain =

Standard:
5 shots.
3.3 hits.
1.6 wounds.
0.5 unsaved wounds. So the captain is totally unharmed, or may take 1 wound out of a possible 5.

With Guide:
5 shots
3.3 hits
2.5 wounds
0.83 unsaved wounds. So the captain is more likely to have taken 1 wound out of 5.

So even with guide (which would make the total unit cost 220 points btw) it will take an entire 5 turn game to kill one standard captain in power armour.

I think the likes of Girlyman, and any captains wearing better armour (which most warlords would be I suspect) are pretty safe.

Vs a Lord Commissar, with guide you would do 1.5 wounds per turn. A bit better, assuming they park their warlord in line of sight of your snipers.

Also, this doesn't take into account CP rerolls for armour saves, and as we know Imperial Guard have CP for days. They're the only army that can reliably reroll a dice each turn, as well as use multiple other strategems.

It does seem like the entire strategem mechanic was designed solely for Imperial Guard.

1.5 a turn on a Commisar? Pfft forget that. I wouldn't need to change deployment because of a few Ranger squads.

Your math doesn't include the '6' bonus Mortal Wound...but other than that, yes Rangers are pretty terrible.

As far as snipers go, there are three good options: rattling snipers for pure ppm efficiency, skitarii with their anti tank rifle, or the vindicare sniper. The former is a good all round choice, can be taken in bulk. The second is good for weaker characters with low to non existent invulnerable saves. The last is mainly useful on models with high invulnerable saves you will need to kill over multiple turns regardless, such as grandpapa smurf.

All of this is a huge tangent though.

 Elbows wrote:
Your math doesn't include the '6' bonus Mortal Wound...but other than that, yes Rangers are pretty terrible.

I'm willing to bet a nice chunk of money that the amount of mortal wounds caused barely makes the shooting shorter by a round.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Your math doesn't include the '6' bonus Mortal Wound...but other than that, yes Rangers are pretty terrible.

I'm willing to bet a nice chunk of money that the amount of mortal wounds caused barely makes the shooting shorter by a round.

You would lose a nice chunk of money then. That bonus doubles the wounds against a SM captain.

 Elbows wrote:
Your math doesn't include the '6' bonus Mortal Wound...but other than that, yes Rangers are pretty terrible.

Actually, it does. You only get a mortal wound on a wound roll of 6, so you'll only get 1 mortal wound every 9 shots fired. So you'll get 1 bonus wound every two turns of firing, if you only have 5 rangers.

Unfortunatly rangers are by far the best troops choice for Eldar. But yeh, they're terrible.

Snipers need a huge buff in general, considering how powerful characters are right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spoletta wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Your math doesn't include the '6' bonus Mortal Wound...but other than that, yes Rangers are pretty terrible.

I'm willing to bet a nice chunk of money that the amount of mortal wounds caused barely makes the shooting shorter by a round.

You would lose a nice chunk of money then. That bonus doubles the wounds against a SM captain.

Umm, nope? Sorry, Spoletta, you owe Slayer a chunk of money. It doesn't double wounds against a SM captain. Every 9 shots you fire, which would normally be 1.7 unsaved wounds, you instead get 2.7 unsaved wounds. It's like a 60% increase, so it's not nothing, but it's nowhere near double.

Edit: Edited for correct maths, I still had the commissar stats written down instead of the captain. Which is a shame, because snipers almost seemed useful for a second there.

Hmmm?

9 fire at BS 3+ results in 6 hits.
4+ to wound results in 3 wounds and one mortal wound.
3+ armour save results in 1 failed save.
So the mortal wounds result in a 100% damage increase.

Its also terrible - about 30 points of value (on an ungeared Captain I think) for 180 points. 16% expected return is bad.

Tyel wrote:
Hmmm?

9 fire at BS 3+ results in 6 hits.
4+ to wound results in 3 wounds and one mortal wound.
3+ armour save results in 1 failed save.
So the mortal wounds result in a 100% damage increase.

Its also terrible - about 30 points of value (on an ungeared Captain I think) for 180 points. 16% expected return is bad.

Actually, you're right. For some reason the mathhammer site is giving me 6 hits, but 4.5 wounds, when it should clearly be only 3 wounds. I don't know why, I have the S and T input correctly.

Actually, no, I was using Guide in my example thats why the stats were off. I forgot about that. Guide boosts your base damage, without effecting the mortal wounds part.

Still, even with guide they're not very good, but still the best we have. I actually would love to run a couple units of 5 rangers, but they don't seem capable of actually killing characters. And even against normal troops, 10 rangers will only kill 2 space marines per turn, and so won't actually make their points back over an entire game of shooting.

20x.666x.17=2.26 mortal wounds without wound rerolls, Sooo, an additional 1.13 with rerolls. So 3.39 mortal wounds from 20 of them, in addition to 9.99 saveable wounds. Don't know what the armor of the target is, regardless I would just commit to it.

Didn't realize theyre 20 points per though.

If anything, the "Ordering Conscripts on 4+" isn't as much a fix, but just adds even more potential for swinginess to a game. There's a fine line between rolling 20 dice or rolling 40 dice, and reducing it to a coinflip leads to "roulette" scenarios. The same way D was "fair" because it only went off on 6s, or that Daemon Warp Storms were "fair" because you only had a 1 in 36 chance of rolling to lose half your army to Instability!

The real issue is not that Conscripts are a better DPS inflicting screen than Horrors, so much that its the units that they *are* screening are throwing down enough weight of dice to both blow through wound rolls/saves, as well as handle mass wounds.

 Purifier wrote:
They have to use their Warlord trait? That's not the case with other armies. In the AdMech book there is one list of generic traits for all admech, and then one list of WT you can only take on the corresponding forge world's leaders, but Cawl could opt not to take the Mars WT and instead take a generic one.

Every other codex has worked like that actually, and I'm 99% sure the AdMech codex is the same. You might want to check again in case you missed it (or to confirm that Cawl is a special snowflake when it comes to Warlord Traits)

I just checked the book myself, and Cawl has to take Static Psalm-Code. It's in the little paragraph directly above the table of FW-specific traits.

 Insectum7 wrote:
I am not a guard player. Nor I think is at least one other poster who I believe claimed the same thing.

I don't play Guard (sold my cadians a long time ago), but it was claimed that me being a Guard player is the only reason I could ever disagree with their irrational hysteria.

 Melissia wrote:
I don't play Guard (sold my cadians a long time ago), but it was claimed that me being a Guard player is the only reason I could ever disagree with their irrational hysteria.

You can claim irrational hysteria all you want, but you already tried that before and well... which unit ended up being in every winning imperial tournament list? Becoming a staple more omnipresent than anything else, from guilliman to plasma scions? That's right, it was conscripts! The unit you kept defending as balanced while accusing people of overreacting when they pointed out how broken they were.

Seriously, you really going to bring out the same non arguments, just to be proven wrong again? I would think it'd get old, calling people irrational then realizing they were 100% correct surely must make you feel at least a little embarrassed.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I don't play Guard (sold my cadians a long time ago), but it was claimed that me being a Guard player is the only reason I could ever disagree with their irrational hysteria.

You can claim irrational hysteria all you want, but you already tried that before and well... which unit ended up being in every winning imperial tournament list? Becoming a staple more omnipresent than anything else, from guilliman to plasma scions? That's right, it was conscripts! The unit you kept defending as balanced while accusing people of overreacting when they pointed out how broken they were.

Seriously, you really going to bring out the same non arguments, just to be proven wrong again? I would think it'd get old, calling people irrational then realizing they were 100% correct surely must make you feel at least a little embarrassed.

But wouldn't Scions and Papa Smurf be also staples? I don' t think also he has said they are balanced either.

SilverAlien wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I don't play Guard (sold my cadians a long time ago), but it was claimed that me being a Guard player is the only reason I could ever disagree with their irrational hysteria.

You can claim irrational hysteria all you want, but you already tried that before and well... which unit ended up being in every winning imperial tournament list? Becoming a staple more omnipresent than anything else, from guilliman to plasma scions? That's right, it was conscripts! The unit you kept defending as balanced while accusing people of overreacting when they pointed out how broken they were.

Seriously, you really going to bring out the same non arguments, just to be proven wrong again? I would think it'd get old, calling people irrational then realizing they were 100% correct surely must make you feel at least a little embarrassed.

You know what's nice to see though? Conscripts not getting nerfed a whole lot in response to said hysteria.

 NenkotaMoon wrote:

SilverAlien wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I don't play Guard (sold my cadians a long time ago), but it was claimed that me being a Guard player is the only reason I could ever disagree with their irrational hysteria.

You can claim irrational hysteria all you want, but you already tried that before and well... which unit ended up being in every winning imperial tournament list? Becoming a staple more omnipresent than anything else, from guilliman to plasma scions? That's right, it was conscripts! The unit you kept defending as balanced while accusing people of overreacting when they pointed out how broken they were.

Seriously, you really going to bring out the same non arguments, just to be proven wrong again? I would think it'd get old, calling people irrational then realizing they were 100% correct surely must make you feel at least a little embarrassed.

But wouldn't Scions and Papa Smurf be also staples? I don' t think also he has said they are balanced either.

Scions sure are.

Guilliman is not the auto-include that either of those are for Imperium. I would never use Guilliman in my army, but i'm behind the curve not using conscripts and scions.

The probelm here.

Conscripts got a fine reduction in power. enough to make a difference, nothing outright destructive.

Is it enough? too soon to tell, maybe, maybe not.


HOWEVER, IG got many powerful buffs elsewhere, including some very powerful tactics, who (unless I missed something) apply to the conscripts.

So, it kina undid itself. and added IG domimance in other fields.

I'm feeling that unless CA nerfs IG a bit, or buffs the books before it, we'll either see a quick creep, or an IG dominate meta for a while.

 BoomWolf wrote:
The probelm here.

Conscripts got a fine reduction in power. enough to make a difference, nothing outright destructive.

Is it enough? too soon to tell, maybe, maybe not.


HOWEVER, IG got many powerful buffs elsewhere, including some very powerful tactics, who (unless I missed something) apply to the conscripts.

So, it kina undid itself. and added IG domimance in other fields.

I'm feeling that unless CA nerfs IG a bit, or buffs the books before it, we'll either see a quick creep, or an IG dominate meta for a while.

Not only are the IG tactics very powerful, but they also seem to have quite a few very strong strategems.

Now, some of the other armies so far have also had decent strategems, but the difference is that those armies will usually play with 6-9 CP's at most, and so can maybe use one or two strategems per turn for maybe 3 turns, before running out (assuming they're using an occasional 2CP strategem, which will burn through them a lot faster).

IG can easily go into a game with 15-20+ CP's, and burn through 3 or 4 stratagems each turn for the whole game. I think it will make a lot more difference than GW expects.

It looks like they balanced stratagems with the idea that most armies will have around the same number of command points. I suspect the guy in charge of stratagems plays Guard.

Having played at a doubles tournament recently that featured a few conscript blobs at low points values, I'm starting to think the orders nerf is at least..more interesting than it was before. In a 500-point doubles format, two players had one decent-sized conscript blob (I had 35, the other had a full 50) and one player had two 40-blobs (as well as two squads of plasma scions+prime).

I saw over the course of the day no less than three occasions where an order to conscripts won a game - one FRFSRF allowing me to wipe a unit off an objective, and 2 Move Move Moves letting a player swarm an objective with obsec.

On one hand, introducing unreliability of those wins would be good for the game's health big-picture. It's a drawback to conscripts that affects the game positively or negatively.

But at the same time, it's still a big swing. It's weird to see the game affected so heavily over a single die roll, and having that 4+ go off and send a wave of obsec bodies 12"+2D6" swarming through any holes in your defensive line to secure an objective on the last turn would still suck aggressively.

The most likely scenario if there is another nerf would be a points hike in chapter approved from 3 to 4, which may be the best we can hope for at this point. Balanced clumsily, to be fair, but at least balanced relatively. Removing their access to orders entirely would have likely been cleaner.

At least overall the armies with a significant chunk of their points in Conscripts only pulled a 3 - 2 - 2 WLD record, and still using the Index rules.

the_scotsman wrote:
Having played at a doubles tournament recently that featured a few conscript blobs at low points values, I'm starting to think the orders nerf is at least..more interesting than it was before. In a 500-point doubles format, two players had one decent-sized conscript blob (I had 35, the other had a full 50) and one player had two 40-blobs (as well as two squads of plasma scions+prime).

I saw over the course of the day no less than three occasions where an order to conscripts won a game - one FRFSRF allowing me to wipe a unit off an objective, and 2 Move Move Moves letting a player swarm an objective with obsec.

On one hand, introducing unreliability of those wins would be good for the game's health big-picture. It's a drawback to conscripts that affects the game positively or negatively.

But at the same time, it's still a big swing. It's weird to see the game affected so heavily over a single die roll, and having that 4+ go off and send a wave of obsec bodies 12"+2D6" swarming through any holes in your defensive line to secure an objective on the last turn would still suck aggressively.

The most likely scenario if there is another nerf would be a points hike in chapter approved from 3 to 4, which may be the best we can hope for at this point. Balanced clumsily, to be fair, but at least balanced relatively. Removing their access to orders entirely would have likely been cleaner.

At least overall the armies with a significant chunk of their points in Conscripts only pulled a 3 - 2 - 2 WLD record, and still using the Index rules.

Not that unreliable though, really. If the conscripts are in a position like that, where getting the order to them means they will overrun an objective or destroy an annoying enemy unit, then the IG player would just burn one of their many, many CP's on a reroll to make sure the order sticks. Makes the odds 75% of succeeding, which is not *quite* as good as a 2+, but it's better than a 3+.

Burning CPs is an attached cost though, even if said CPs were earned by the conscripts to begin with.
After all, if part of the issue is just how many CPs the Ig player has, making him waste a few on getting his conscripts to "probably" work like they used it-is a nerf.

As I said, its not huge, but its not small either. its a decent attempt that may or may not pan out.
Better than old GW balancing (total randomness), or blizzard balancing (it was OP? lets make it utterly unplayable instead)-you take it down a peg, but not all the way down, test the waters with the new level and if needed you adjust again.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Burning CPs is an attached cost though, even if said CPs were earned by the conscripts to begin with.
After all, if part of the issue is just how many CPs the Ig player has, making him waste a few on getting his conscripts to "probably" work like they used it-is a nerf.

As I said, its not huge, but its not small either. its a decent attempt that may or may not pan out.
Better than old GW balancing (total randomness), or blizzard balancing (it was OP? lets make it utterly unplayable instead)-you take it down a peg, but not all the way down, test the waters with the new level and if needed you adjust again.

And the ability to Send In The Next Wave. Nerf or buff? Then other stratagems that affect them, nerf or buff? And the Regimental buffs that affect them, nerf or buff? That's right, all buffs. Yes, buffs that everyone is getting, but Conscripts were doing GREAT right out of the index, and all in all, they're better from the Codex than from the Index.

 Purifier wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Burning CPs is an attached cost though, even if said CPs were earned by the conscripts to begin with.
After all, if part of the issue is just how many CPs the Ig player has, making him waste a few on getting his conscripts to "probably" work like they used it-is a nerf.

As I said, its not huge, but its not small either. its a decent attempt that may or may not pan out.
Better than old GW balancing (total randomness), or blizzard balancing (it was OP? lets make it utterly unplayable instead)-you take it down a peg, but not all the way down, test the waters with the new level and if needed you adjust again.

And the ability to Send In The Next Wave. Nerf or buff? Then other stratagems that affect them, nerf or buff? And the Regimental buffs that affect them, nerf or buff? That's right, all buffs. Yes, buffs that everyone is getting, but Conscripts were doing GREAT right out of the index, and all in all, they're better from the Codex than from the Index.

Part of this is the generic problem with guard: An already stellar, well-performing army got a TON better across the board, and even the nerfs to the overused stuff aren't crippling and came with buffs (as you point out).

 NenkotaMoon wrote:
But wouldn't Scions and Papa Smurf be also staples? I don' t think also he has said they are balanced either.

Actually, I argued that Scions are more overpowered than Conscripts, simply for the sheer amount of disposable, deep-striking firepower you can put on the board with them. Get rid of conscripts and have players use just guardsmen and scions, and the scions will still pull just as much weight as before with their disposable plasmacide squads.

That's why the biggest fix from this book won't be the conscript nerf, IMO, but (from the rumors I heard) the increase in price of plasma to 7 points to 15 points per gun. Adding 16 points to every dual plasma squad, or 32 to each quad-plasma squad, can dramatically change lists. Assuming no other changes, a 77 point dual plasma scion squad with voxcaster becomes 93 points-- the same price as a tactical marine squad with plasma/combiplasma, a pretty dramatic increase, especially when you consider how many plasmacide squads are needed in order for plasma scion spam to work as well as it has been.

It's unfortunate if this raises the cost of plasmaguns for regular guardsmen, mind you, but at the same time, that's not a huge nerf to regular guardsmen as they serve other roles and are much cheaper.

The rumours are that Plasma remains 7 points for 4+ BS models and 13 for 3+ BS models. A pretty good compromise at least in my opinion.

 Galas wrote:
The rumours are that Plasma remains 7 points for 4+ BS models and 13 for 3+ BS models. A pretty good compromise at least in my opinion.

I guess. It's sort of weird still -- were Veterans with plasma overpowered? Surely everyone gets that the issue was that Scions could deep strike.

Like I've said before, the biggest problem with Conscripts is that they hold the *exact same* strategical slot as regular Guardsmen, and since wounds are worth more than offensive value in that slot/job, they come out on top every time.

The solution would be to *remove* them from that job. And my immediate suggestion was and is to not have them be regular troop choices. Do not allow them to count towards Troop choices, making a 9 troop army trivial to create.

Their niche is supposed to be expendability, but at the moment they're doing so much more, not the least being that they allow for a tripple Batallion in every army at a trivial cost.

Even with regular Guardsmen it would be easy to make 9 troop choices, but at least you'd have to tax that extra point per guy.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Galas wrote:
The rumours are that Plasma remains 7 points for 4+ BS models and 13 for 3+ BS models. A pretty good compromise at least in my opinion.

I guess. It's sort of weird still -- were Veterans with plasma overpowered? Surely everyone gets that the issue was that Scions could deep strike.

I think at this point Veterans have no place in Imperial Guard. I think GW should merge Stormtroopers with Veterans. Basically giving Tempestus Scions the <regiment keyword> and lowering their cost 2ppm without deepstrike (So, +2ppm for deepstrike like Primaris Reivers have) and allowing them to take the Veteran weapons options. They'll basically come with default caparace armour, but as I see that every IG player wants their veterans to have it, I think theres no problem with that.

 Purifier wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Burning CPs is an attached cost though, even if said CPs were earned by the conscripts to begin with.
After all, if part of the issue is just how many CPs the Ig player has, making him waste a few on getting his conscripts to "probably" work like they used it-is a nerf.

As I said, its not huge, but its not small either. its a decent attempt that may or may not pan out.
Better than old GW balancing (total randomness), or blizzard balancing (it was OP? lets make it utterly unplayable instead)-you take it down a peg, but not all the way down, test the waters with the new level and if needed you adjust again.

And the ability to Send In The Next Wave. Nerf or buff? Then other stratagems that affect them, nerf or buff? And the Regimental buffs that affect them, nerf or buff? That's right, all buffs. Yes, buffs that everyone is getting, but Conscripts were doing GREAT right out of the index, and all in all, they're better from the Codex than from the Index.

To be fair, other factions have received a similar stratagem to Send in the Next Wave - I think Chaos Marines can recycle Cultists and a certain Admech forgeworld can recycle battle servitors. Also, unless the Valhallan player has a Commissar sitting in the far far backfield, morale losses on them will be pretty bad, even with the Valhallan special rule of halving losses.

That said, I think the buffs outpace the nerfs, and personally think the simplest fix at this point would be to bump Conscripts to 4 and Infantry to 5, and keep Veterans where they are in points. Without the doctrines, strategems, etc they got, I think the nerf would have been enough, but with them factored in, they just need that little bump to make them less of an auto take while still remaining effective.

kurhanik wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Burning CPs is an attached cost though, even if said CPs were earned by the conscripts to begin with.
After all, if part of the issue is just how many CPs the Ig player has, making him waste a few on getting his conscripts to "probably" work like they used it-is a nerf.

As I said, its not huge, but its not small either. its a decent attempt that may or may not pan out.
Better than old GW balancing (total randomness), or blizzard balancing (it was OP? lets make it utterly unplayable instead)-you take it down a peg, but not all the way down, test the waters with the new level and if needed you adjust again.

And the ability to Send In The Next Wave. Nerf or buff? Then other stratagems that affect them, nerf or buff? And the Regimental buffs that affect them, nerf or buff? That's right, all buffs. Yes, buffs that everyone is getting, but Conscripts were doing GREAT right out of the index, and all in all, they're better from the Codex than from the Index.

To be fair, other factions have received a similar stratagem to Send in the Next Wave - I think Chaos Marines can recycle Cultists and a certain Admech forgeworld can recycle battle servitors. Also, unless the Valhallan player has a Commissar sitting in the far far backfield, morale losses on them will be pretty bad, even with the Valhallan special rule of halving losses.

That said, I think the buffs outpace the nerfs, and personally think the simplest fix at this point would be to bump Conscripts to 4 and Infantry to 5, and keep Veterans where they are in points. Without the doctrines, strategems, etc they got, I think the nerf would have been enough, but with them factored in, they just need that little bump to make them less of an auto take while still remaining effective.

Then you've still got the problem that Conscripts and Guardsmen are essentially built for the same role, and they will always compete with eachother for it. Why have the best and arguably the second best bubblewrap in the game in the same army, competing for the same spot?
I think Guardsmen, not Conscripts, should be the fighting base of the AM army. As such, the huuuuge incentive for taking conscripts over Guardsment that exists today needs to be removed. Making them inelligable for the Troop slot would make them a useful pick still, but would force you to mainly pick Guardsmen for your bubblewrap if you want that basically free 9 extra CP.

and 1) I already mentioned that others got those things, but others didn't have a unit in the Index that is outpacing units released in codexes, even WITH the buffs that Conscripts are now getting. and 2) why would anyone run without a Commissar? He's like half the survivability of every unit of Conscripts he's close to.

There used to be a requirement to have at least one infantry platoon (not just a squad) for each conscript or armored fist squad.
Bringing platoons back, along with those requirements, would cut down on how many troop choices you could easily afford, and how many conscripts squads you can have, but suggesting a change like that is a little late now.


I'm just glad the buffed a lot of the other choices in the codex, so you can build an effective army without using conscripts at all.

 Purifier wrote:


Then you've still got the problem that Conscripts and Guardsmen are essentially built for the same role, and they will always compete with eachother for it. Why have the best and arguably the second best bubblewrap in the game in the same army, competing for the same spot?
I think Guardsmen, not Conscripts, should be the fighting base of the AM army. As such, the huuuuge incentive for taking conscripts over Guardsment that exists today needs to be removed. Making them inelligable for the Troop slot would make them a useful pick still, but would force you to mainly pick Guardsmen for your bubblewrap if you want that basically free 9 extra CP.

and 1) I already mentioned that others got those things, but others didn't have a unit in the Index that is outpacing units released in codexes, even WITH the buffs that Conscripts are now getting. and 2) why would anyone run without a Commissar? He's like half the survivability of every unit of Conscripts he's close to.

What I meant with Commissar was that with Send in the Next Wave, you need to place them in your own deployment zone, within 6" of the board edge. Depending on how you play, your Commissars may be all much farther forward than this with Infantry Squads, Veterans, or other Conscript Squads trying to hold the line. Unless you keep one in the far back field twiddling his thumbs for half the game, the respawned Conscripts won't be in execution range.

Does anyone else think it's funny that it's a bad thing not to be in range to get executed? No? OK, I will shut up now . . . .

Seriously though I personally don't use conscripts, it's guardsmen or nothing in my IG force for the troop slot. I have over 100 guardsmen and I run them much like the old platoon rules. 3 squads of 10, 1 small group of hq's that "run" them. 3 groups like that. It works. And it dies. But it works.

Same with scions vs vets. I use vets, it's just what I have and how it works.

Panzergraf wrote:
There used to be a requirement to have at least one infantry platoon (not just a squad) for each conscript or armored fist squad.
Bringing platoons back, along with those requirements, would cut down on how many troop choices you could easily afford, and how many conscripts squads you can have, but suggesting a change like that is a little late now.

Not necessarily; they made big FOC/Org changes in detachments with an FAQ before, to fix Command Squad spam so they can make them a non-Troop choice like Purifier is advocating again. The problem appears to be that they're waiting/mulling additional balance changes to AM as part of Chapter Approved which is why we've seen almost nothing balance-wise in the latest FAQs.

Panzergraf wrote:
I'm just glad the buffed a lot of the other choices in the codex, so you can build an effective army without using conscripts at all.

This is the part that irritates me and why I brought mention to calling the Codex as a whole broken - without Conscripts there are lots of good options, but I severely doubt the IG Codex would receive as much angst as it is now if Conscripts had been nerfed into the ground or even removed. I'm just glad more of the rest of the army is fieldable again so my LRBTs and Mech Infantry might see some use.

kurhanik wrote:

 Purifier wrote:


Then you've still got the problem that Conscripts and Guardsmen are essentially built for the same role, and they will always compete with eachother for it. Why have the best and arguably the second best bubblewrap in the game in the same army, competing for the same spot?
I think Guardsmen, not Conscripts, should be the fighting base of the AM army. As such, the huuuuge incentive for taking conscripts over Guardsment that exists today needs to be removed. Making them inelligable for the Troop slot would make them a useful pick still, but would force you to mainly pick Guardsmen for your bubblewrap if you want that basically free 9 extra CP.

and 1) I already mentioned that others got those things, but others didn't have a unit in the Index that is outpacing units released in codexes, even WITH the buffs that Conscripts are now getting. and 2) why would anyone run without a Commissar? He's like half the survivability of every unit of Conscripts he's close to.

What I meant with Commissar was that with Send in the Next Wave, you need to place them in your own deployment zone, within 6" of the board edge. Depending on how you play, your Commissars may be all much farther forward than this with Infantry Squads, Veterans, or other Conscript Squads trying to hold the line. Unless you keep one in the far back field twiddling his thumbs for half the game, the respawned Conscripts won't be in execution range.

Commissars aren't the only way to get the boost for Valhallans. Pietrov's Mark 5(replacing a Bolt Pistol) turns any character into a Commissar.

Not only that, but Valhallans 1/2 the number of models that flee nativity, buying you time to just advance up to be in range of a commissar.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Not only that, but Valhallans 1/2 the number of models that flee nativity, buying you time to just advance up to be in range of a commissar.

I keep envisioning a relay race of Conscripts being handed off from Commissar to Commissar.

Purifier wrote:Like I've said before, the biggest problem with Conscripts is that they hold the *exact same* strategical slot as regular Guardsmen, and since wounds are worth more than offensive value in that slot/job, they come out on top every time.

The solution would be to *remove* them from that job. And my immediate suggestion was and is to not have them be regular troop choices. Do not allow them to count towards Troop choices, making a 9 troop army trivial to create.

Their niche is supposed to be expendability, but at the moment they're doing so much more, not the least being that they allow for a tripple Batallion in every army at a trivial cost.

Even with regular Guardsmen it would be easy to make 9 troop choices, but at least you'd have to tax that extra point per guy.

So what, move conscripts to heavy support? Elite? What about other troops that are mundane yet effective such as super durable Necron warriors or super shooty Tau firewarriors, or does your arbitrary requirements for what counts as troops not qualify these units? It's easier to make a 9 troop detachment with regular guardsmen so your proposed fix actually doesn't address your proposed problem.

GhostRecon wrote:but I severely doubt the IG Codex would receive as much angst as it is now if Conscripts had been nerfed into the ground or even removed.

You'd get a lot of angst from IG players after you strip away a cornerstone unit and one of the most fluffy options in the book. Consider the reaction if CSM lost cultists or SM lost scouts just because players didn't want to adapt to a new edition and put down their grav/plasma/melta and pick up a heavy bolter.

It's comical how unreal some of the suggestions have been, most of these suggestions make GW seem to be the height of game balance competence by comparison. Probably the only suggestion I've seen that doesn't seem to be inspired by a meth-addled-rage is the requirement to have a platoon for every conscript squad, which should also apply to commissars as it did in ages past.

 MarsNZ wrote:

Purifier wrote:Like I've said before, the biggest problem with Conscripts is that they hold the *exact same* strategical slot as regular Guardsmen, and since wounds are worth more than offensive value in that slot/job, they come out on top every time.

The solution would be to *remove* them from that job. And my immediate suggestion was and is to not have them be regular troop choices. Do not allow them to count towards Troop choices, making a 9 troop army trivial to create.

Their niche is supposed to be expendability, but at the moment they're doing so much more, not the least being that they allow for a tripple Batallion in every army at a trivial cost.

Even with regular Guardsmen it would be easy to make 9 troop choices, but at least you'd have to tax that extra point per guy.

So what, move conscripts to heavy support? Elite? What about other troops that are mundane yet effective such as super durable Necron warriors or super shooty Tau firewarriors, or does your arbitrary requirements for what counts as troops not qualify these units? It's easier to make a 9 troop detachment with regular guardsmen so your proposed fix actually doesn't address your proposed problem.

Easy one. Still troop, just give it a rule saying conscripts don't fill the obligatory slots in a detachment.

 Mulletdude wrote:

 MarsNZ wrote:

Purifier wrote:Like I've said before, the biggest problem with Conscripts is that they hold the *exact same* strategical slot as regular Guardsmen, and since wounds are worth more than offensive value in that slot/job, they come out on top every time.

The solution would be to *remove* them from that job. And my immediate suggestion was and is to not have them be regular troop choices. Do not allow them to count towards Troop choices, making a 9 troop army trivial to create.

Their niche is supposed to be expendability, but at the moment they're doing so much more, not the least being that they allow for a tripple Batallion in every army at a trivial cost.

Even with regular Guardsmen it would be easy to make 9 troop choices, but at least you'd have to tax that extra point per guy.

So what, move conscripts to heavy support? Elite? What about other troops that are mundane yet effective such as super durable Necron warriors or super shooty Tau firewarriors, or does your arbitrary requirements for what counts as troops not qualify these units? It's easier to make a 9 troop detachment with regular guardsmen so your proposed fix actually doesn't address your proposed problem.

Easy one. Still troop, just give it a rule saying conscripts don't fill the obligatory slots in a detachment.

So do Guardians get this? Scouts? Anything else that's considered a "Conscript-esque" unit?

There is no real fix. Conscripts have been changed in a good way, move on and find something else to complain about.

I think Conscripts are a failure as long as they are better than the rank and file guardsman. Conscripts should have literally been meat shields with a las rifle. No special rules, no orders, nothing. Just dirt cheap and scared of the commissar.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if we see them lose their ability to hold objectives down the road since they are an unorganized rabble. At least that would make the Guardsmen needed in the Guard army.

 MarsNZ wrote:
one of the most fluffy options in the book.

But are they really?

The conscripts as we know them now were introduced in the Cadian army list in Codex: Eye of Terror in... 2003? as White Shields - specifically Cadian child soldiers.

Other than those, guard conscripts are just guardsmen. It's not like anyones models would be useless if they were removed from the Codex either, as they could just be fielded as regular guard squads.

Panzergraf wrote:
Other than those, guard conscripts are just guardsmen. It's not like anyones models would be useless if they were removed from the Codex either, as they could just be fielded as regular guard squads.

I've always thought they should just remove Conscripts all together.

Did Penal Legion make it into the index/codex? Honestly not sure

 MarsNZ wrote:

Purifier wrote:Like I've said before, the biggest problem with Conscripts is that they hold the *exact same* strategical slot as regular Guardsmen, and since wounds are worth more than offensive value in that slot/job, they come out on top every time.

The solution would be to *remove* them from that job. And my immediate suggestion was and is to not have them be regular troop choices. Do not allow them to count towards Troop choices, making a 9 troop army trivial to create.

Their niche is supposed to be expendability, but at the moment they're doing so much more, not the least being that they allow for a tripple Batallion in every army at a trivial cost.

Even with regular Guardsmen it would be easy to make 9 troop choices, but at least you'd have to tax that extra point per guy.

So what, move conscripts to heavy support? Elite? What about other troops that are mundane yet effective such as super durable Necron warriors or super shooty Tau firewarriors, or does your arbitrary requirements for what counts as troops not qualify these units?.

You've completely missed the point. It's the internal balance between guardsmen and conscripts that I want to fix. And yiur examples are at worst as bad as guardsmen, and are all beat out by conscripts. "It's easier with guardsmen!" Yeah, but not NEARLY as preferable. If you had to use guardsmen to fill slots they would see proper use instead of just being the choice for people that don't have enough models for conscripts.

And there is nothing arbitrary about my suggestion. Show me the bubblewrap unit that is performing at the level of conscripts and that is outperforming the basic choice for its army. Firewarriors aren't a conscript analogue, kroot are. Firewarriors are the equivalent to guardsmen. And if kroot were being picked over firewarriors in every competitive list at 3pp then yeah, I'd suggest the same for them. It's about making a place for both units, instead of making one simply outperform the other.

 Galas wrote:
I think at this point Veterans have no place in Imperial Guard. I think GW should merge Stormtroopers with Veterans. Basically giving Tempestus Scions the <regiment keyword> and lowering their cost 2ppm without deepstrike (So, +2ppm for deepstrike like Primaris Reivers have) and allowing them to take the Veteran weapons options. They'll basically come with default caparace armour, but as I see that every IG player wants their veterans to have it, I think theres no problem with that.

You could do that with about half the options in every Codex tho. Not saying you're wrong, but clearly that's not how GW write their rules.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 BoomWolf wrote:
Burning CPs is an attached cost though, even if said CPs were earned by the conscripts to begin with.
After all, if part of the issue is just how many CPs the Ig player has, making him waste a few on getting his conscripts to "probably" work like they used it-is a nerf.

As I said, its not huge, but its not small either. its a decent attempt that may or may not pan out.
Better than old GW balancing (total randomness), or blizzard balancing (it was OP? lets make it utterly unplayable instead)-you take it down a peg, but not all the way down, test the waters with the new level and if needed you adjust again.

And the ability to Send In The Next Wave. Nerf or buff? Then other stratagems that affect them, nerf or buff? And the Regimental buffs that affect them, nerf or buff? That's right, all buffs. Yes, buffs that everyone is getting, but Conscripts were doing GREAT right out of the index, and all in all, they're better from the Codex than from the Index.

Part of this is the generic problem with guard: An already stellar, well-performing army got a TON better across the board, and even the nerfs to the overused stuff aren't crippling and came with buffs (as you point out).

So like Eldar in 7th Edition, in other words. Sure, they got "nerfed" in that they lost access to Mantle of the Laughing God and Malefic Daemonology, Monofilament Weapons were no longer +1 Strength vs vehicles, and Serpent Shields became one-use, but "everyone Bike gets a Scatter Laser", D proliferation and Flickerjump more than made up for it.

This is why I don't call it Codex Creep so much as Codex Favoritism.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Mulletdude wrote:

 MarsNZ wrote:

Purifier wrote:Like I've said before, the biggest problem with Conscripts is that they hold the *exact same* strategical slot as regular Guardsmen, and since wounds are worth more than offensive value in that slot/job, they come out on top every time.

The solution would be to *remove* them from that job. And my immediate suggestion was and is to not have them be regular troop choices. Do not allow them to count towards Troop choices, making a 9 troop army trivial to create.

Their niche is supposed to be expendability, but at the moment they're doing so much more, not the least being that they allow for a tripple Batallion in every army at a trivial cost.

Even with regular Guardsmen it would be easy to make 9 troop choices, but at least you'd have to tax that extra point per guy.

So what, move conscripts to heavy support? Elite? What about other troops that are mundane yet effective such as super durable Necron warriors or super shooty Tau firewarriors, or does your arbitrary requirements for what counts as troops not qualify these units? It's easier to make a 9 troop detachment with regular guardsmen so your proposed fix actually doesn't address your proposed problem.

Easy one. Still troop, just give it a rule saying conscripts don't fill the obligatory slots in a detachment.

So do Guardians get this? Scouts? Anything else that's considered a "Conscript-esque" unit?

There is no real fix. Conscripts have been changed in a good way, move on and find something else to complain about.

Lol, saying that because people think conscripts need a nerf of some kind, that Guardians should get the same nerf.

Guardians are already among the worst troops choices possible, to the point where Eldar only have one vaguely usable choice in Rangers... and they're a Sniper unit, widely held as the most pointless units in the whole of 8th edition. If Guardians get nerfed any more, I might start proxying them as grots.

 MagicJuggler wrote:

This is why I don't call it Codex Creep so much as Codex Favoritism.

Pretty good explanation for this.

Guardians are terrible because they're basically Veterans that are 8 points a model. That's way too expensive for their statline.

Granted, they have battle focus, an extra 1" of movement, and 1 better WS. But their weapon selection is much worse, and the stuff they do have is not worth an extra 2ppm on such a fragile model. Especially since they only have 1 S3 AP0 attack to use that WS on, making that stat basically a waste for them. Guardians should only be 6 points, 7 at most. Definitely not 8.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Mulletdude wrote:

 MarsNZ wrote:

Purifier wrote:Like I've said before, the biggest problem with Conscripts is that they hold the *exact same* strategical slot as regular Guardsmen, and since wounds are worth more than offensive value in that slot/job, they come out on top every time.

The solution would be to *remove* them from that job. And my immediate suggestion was and is to not have them be regular troop choices. Do not allow them to count towards Troop choices, making a 9 troop army trivial to create.

Their niche is supposed to be expendability, but at the moment they're doing so much more, not the least being that they allow for a tripple Batallion in every army at a trivial cost.

Even with regular Guardsmen it would be easy to make 9 troop choices, but at least you'd have to tax that extra point per guy.

So what, move conscripts to heavy support? Elite? What about other troops that are mundane yet effective such as super durable Necron warriors or super shooty Tau firewarriors, or does your arbitrary requirements for what counts as troops not qualify these units? It's easier to make a 9 troop detachment with regular guardsmen so your proposed fix actually doesn't address your proposed problem.

Easy one. Still troop, just give it a rule saying conscripts don't fill the obligatory slots in a detachment.

So do Guardians get this? Scouts? Anything else that's considered a "Conscript-esque" unit?

There is no real fix. Conscripts have been changed in a good way, move on and find something else to complain about.

If there is no real fix, then they haven't been fixed. This is a hill you and the rest of the IG players saying conscripts are fine can die on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
I think Conscripts are a failure as long as they are better than the rank and file guardsman. Conscripts should have literally been meat shields with a las rifle. No special rules, no orders, nothing. Just dirt cheap and scared of the commissar.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if we see them lose their ability to hold objectives down the road since they are an unorganized rabble. At least that would make the Guardsmen needed in the Guard army.

I could see Conscripts becoming even CHEAPER if...

-they got a 7+
-they no longer were Obj. Secured
-Commissar instead of making them immune, made it so they lose 2D6 LESS to morale
-No orders
-40 per unit required
-No rapidfire

If they received the above nerfs and got a point cheaper MAYBE they would be balanced.

At the very least their current points should have them be at 6+ armor save and make them lose access to orders period

 ross-128 wrote:
Guardians are terrible because they're basically Veterans that are 8 points a model. That's way too expensive for their statline.

Granted, they have battle focus, an extra 1" of movement, and 1 better WS. But their weapon selection is much worse, and the stuff they do have is not worth an extra 2ppm on such a fragile model. Especially since they only have 1 S3 AP0 attack to use that WS on, making that stat basically a waste for them. Guardians should only be 6 points, 7 at most. Definitely not 8.

I would agree that Guardians are nothing special, but I'd note that basically all Eldar non-jump infantry pay a Wave Serpent premium. With the sole and merely possible exception of Dark Reapers and Wraithguard (who also happen to be the most expensive), it is silly to deploy any of them on the table. You'd never just take Guardians or Dire Avengers or Howling Banshees or Striking Scorpions or Fire Dragons and deploy them normally, because basically every Eldar squad is a Command Squad loaded with (generally short-range) special weapons and they have no ablative wounds. Even Fire Dragons are a solid unit only because they have the option to ride in a Wave Serpent. Probably even Dark Reapers should start in a Serpent to avoid a turn 1 alpha strike. It'd be hard to justify Guardians even at 6 points if all they were good for was a heavy weapon and then some (very respectable) 12" shooting, with no transport option (except insofar as lists absolutely need screeners and if 6 point screeners are all you have then 6 point screeners are what you'll use). But 6 point Guardians are a really appealing option as a Wave Serpent death squad.

Niiru wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Mulletdude wrote:

 MarsNZ wrote:

Purifier wrote:Like I've said before, the biggest problem with Conscripts is that they hold the *exact same* strategical slot as regular Guardsmen, and since wounds are worth more than offensive value in that slot/job, they come out on top every time.

The solution would be to *remove* them from that job. And my immediate suggestion was and is to not have them be regular troop choices. Do not allow them to count towards Troop choices, making a 9 troop army trivial to create.

Their niche is supposed to be expendability, but at the moment they're doing so much more, not the least being that they allow for a tripple Batallion in every army at a trivial cost.

Even with regular Guardsmen it would be easy to make 9 troop choices, but at least you'd have to tax that extra point per guy.

So what, move conscripts to heavy support? Elite? What about other troops that are mundane yet effective such as super durable Necron warriors or super shooty Tau firewarriors, or does your arbitrary requirements for what counts as troops not qualify these units? It's easier to make a 9 troop detachment with regular guardsmen so your proposed fix actually doesn't address your proposed problem.

Easy one. Still troop, just give it a rule saying conscripts don't fill the obligatory slots in a detachment.

So do Guardians get this? Scouts? Anything else that's considered a "Conscript-esque" unit?

There is no real fix. Conscripts have been changed in a good way, move on and find something else to complain about.

Lol, saying that because people think conscripts need a nerf of some kind, that Guardians should get the same nerf.

Actually, I'm saying that because Guardians fulfill a similar fluff role to the Conscripts--they're supposed to be the "lolwhywouldyoutakethat" infantry.

Guardians are already among the worst troops choices possible, to the point where Eldar only have one vaguely usable choice in Rangers... and they're a Sniper unit, widely held as the most pointless units in the whole of 8th edition. If Guardians get nerfed any more, I might start proxying them as grots.

It's amazing how everyone whines about Sniper Scouts for Marines and Sniper Drones yet Rangers, a similar unit, are "the most pointless units in the whole of 8th edition".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Quickjager wrote:

If there is no real fix, then they haven't been fixed. This is a hill you and the rest of the IG players saying conscripts are fine can die on.

There is no real fix because there is no real problem beyond Imperial Soup.

End of story. Finished.

I could see Conscripts becoming even CHEAPER if...

-they got a 7+
-they no longer were Obj. Secured
-Commissar instead of making them immune, made it so they lose 2D6 LESS to morale
-No orders
-40 per unit required
-No rapidfire

If they received the above nerfs and got a point cheaper MAYBE they would be balanced.

At the very least their current points should have them be at 6+ armor save and make them lose access to orders period

So do Jetbikes get removed from the ability to get Psyker abilities? Crisis Suits from Markerlights?

I mean, since we're going to start putting in "special exemptions" for specific units we might as well start fixing problems that aren't there.

 Kanluwen wrote:

It's amazing how everyone whines about Sniper Scouts for Marines and Sniper Drones yet Rangers, a similar unit, are "the most pointless units in the whole of 8th edition".

Could you point me to a thread here or on reddit or somewhere where more than like one person is complaining about sniper scouts or sniper drones?

Rangers have the damage output of conscripts at 12+ inches without orders (or now the whole host of potential buffs) while being 2.5 times more efficient to shoot with bolters.

Being able to tickle characters doesn't really change this.

They are comically dire.

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

It's amazing how everyone whines about Sniper Scouts for Marines and Sniper Drones yet Rangers, a similar unit, are "the most pointless units in the whole of 8th edition".

Could you point me to a thread here or on reddit or somewhere where more than like one person is complaining about sniper scouts or sniper drones?

Read the pre-Codex stuff. I'm not bothering searching, but those two got whined about quite often.

Amusingly enough though, those Rangers are a great way to counter all those big nasty Conscripts since they allow you to take out the support units that make Conscripts so durable.

Now I could stretch this point out like a conga line of conscripts but I would be treading worn ground at that point.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

It's amazing how everyone whines about Sniper Scouts for Marines and Sniper Drones yet Rangers, a similar unit, are "the most pointless units in the whole of 8th edition".

Could you point me to a thread here or on reddit or somewhere where more than like one person is complaining about sniper scouts or sniper drones?

Read the pre-Codex stuff. I'm not bothering searching, but those two got whined about quite often.

Amusingly enough though, those Rangers are a great way to counter all those big nasty Conscripts since they allow you to take out the support units that make Conscripts so durable.

Why do you repeat this?
It was obviously rubbish 3 months ago.
It doesn't work in theory.
It hasn't happened on any tables.
Why argue it?

 Quickjager wrote:
If all LoS blockers were required to be as thick as your skull, you would have a point. But they don't need to be.

Now I could stretch this point out like a conga line of conscripts but I would be treading worn ground at that point.

And there it is, the inevitable moaning about a "conga line of conscripts".

Man I wish I played tables like yours where there's so much scenery you're completely unable to get shots on things.

 Kanluwen wrote:

It's amazing how everyone whines about Sniper Scouts for Marines and Sniper Drones yet Rangers, a similar unit, are "the most pointless units in the whole of 8th edition".

Who complains about Scouts and Drones?

Rangers put out a very small amount of damage for their points, and they barely scratch the characters that they're meant to be designed to kill. They can't make their points back. They are fairly durable, but that's about it.

I don't recall seeing any complaining about snipers in 8th. There's nothing to complain about, they're wasted points. Even the Vindicare Assassin is highly unlikely to ever kill a character, and he's the most powerful sniping unit that I know of.

Tyel wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Amusingly enough though, those Rangers are a great way to counter all those big nasty Conscripts since they allow you to take out the support units that make Conscripts so durable.

Why do you repeat this?
It was obviously rubbish 3 months ago.
It doesn't work in theory.
It hasn't happened on any tables.
Why argue it?

For the same reason people repeat the "rubbish" about huge conga lines with commissars that are completely untargetable in all circumstances.

If it's such a problem for you, then maybe the problem isn't the units but the boards you're playing on.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Quickjager wrote:
If all LoS blockers were required to be as thick as your skull, you would have a point. But they don't need to be.

Now I could stretch this point out like a conga line of conscripts but I would be treading worn ground at that point.

And there it is, the inevitable moaning about a "conga line of conscripts".

Man I wish I played tables like yours where there's so much scenery you're completely unable to get shots on things.

I know right? It means I get shot at less as well! Unlike the plains of Tau Sept B'owling L'anes, I don't get instantly blown up by stuff if I'm careful and I can leverage that LoS to walk the half of my army that can't deepstrike across the board. Then I got the terrain problem of not being able to move very effectively in a straight line. Slows down the game in a good way in the end.

[edit: screw it, not getting in to this argument again, delete this post]

 Kanluwen wrote:

Tyel wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:


Amusingly enough though, those Rangers are a great way to counter all those big nasty Conscripts since they allow you to take out the support units that make Conscripts so durable.

Why do you repeat this?
It was obviously rubbish 3 months ago.
It doesn't work in theory.
It hasn't happened on any tables.
Why argue it?

For the same reason people repeat the "rubbish" about huge conga lines with commissars that are completely untargetable in all circumstances.

If it's such a problem for you, then maybe the problem isn't the units but the boards you're playing on.

Commisars aren't always untargetable but don't pretend they're easy to kill. Math has been provided on that.