I dont get it though whats the point of blobbing up.
besides stacking benefits across the entire table rather than needing to spider out.
In the case of infantry, ablative wounds to keep those special/heavy weapons alive for more than a round. It basically all comes back to "Guard fold under sustained attacks. If Guard do not have a way to weather sustained attacks, then the guard player's entire game will be the process of deploying and then packing up."
Kanluwen wrote: You want an actual way of changing Conscripts?
Then put them into the Militarum Auxilia--something I brought up ages ago in the fething Guard wishlist threads where people kept trying to shut me down for wanting the Guard to become closer to T'au in being an aura/support heavy army.
They aren't necessary or distinct enough from normal squads to be taking up space, and guard infantry squads strain the low end of the points system enough themselves.
The math of the unit is just ridiculous, and the cascade of 100+ dice to 100+/3 dice to 100+/9(or12) dice just highlights the terribleness of the resolution system.
I'd be fine with that and then allowing large units of regular guardsman.
I wouldn't, and since it's my army--my vote counts for more than yours.
So your input to balance is more relevant than mine because it is your army? Why the need for a stupidly broken cheap infantry unit that can easily be imitated through the use of regular guardsman if you are just trying for fluff.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah IG lost its ability to blob regular guardsmen. If they could do that, I wouldn't mind giving up conscripts - you could 'fluffily' represent them with blobs of unupgraded guardsmen and still be paying higher points.
But then the same people would STILL be complaining about the same things for the same reason, and we'd also lose a fluffy unit that's existed for most of the lifespan of the game.
It's quickly becoming apparent that there's not going to be a reasonable outcome here. I suspect that even if that game I have is going goes as well as I think it will for SM and I show that the outcomes were of average probability, it's not going to be good enough for some people. Because the later part was already done half the thread ago with hypothetical units.
Less reason to complain about a unit that is 40% less durable per point, less if you actually buy upgrades for it.
And yet blob squads were still complained about in 7th, despite being more expensive than Conscripts...
So your input to balance is more relevant than mine because it is your army?
Yup. Now you're getting it!
Why the need for a stupidly broken cheap infantry unit that can easily be imitated through the use of regular guardsman if you are just trying for fluff.
Because that's what the non-Guard players want, don't you know?
Guard are supposed to be a tide of bodies, not a functioning army! They don't use tactics, they drown you in corpses! Never mind that this setup right now is closer to the way that the majority of Traitor Guard Regiments and Cultist Hordes are described as functioning...
Realistically, any idiot could see that this is the way things were going to swing because of the "Imperium" keywords--and the fact that the people who were consulted for playtesting are known for being of the mindset of Guard as a horde of bodies not a functioning army didn't help.
You all got the Guard you wanted. Mine are shelved until I get Codex: Cadia and an actual Guard army again.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah IG lost its ability to blob regular guardsmen. If they could do that, I wouldn't mind giving up conscripts - you could 'fluffily' represent them with blobs of unupgraded guardsmen and still be paying higher points.
But then the same people would STILL be complaining about the same things for the same reason, and we'd also lose a fluffy unit that's existed for most of the lifespan of the game.
It's quickly becoming apparent that there's not going to be a reasonable outcome here. I suspect that even if that game I have is going goes as well as I think it will for SM and I show that the outcomes were of average probability, it's not going to be good enough for some people. Because the later part was already done half the thread ago with hypothetical units.
Less reason to complain about a unit that is 40% less durable per point, less if you actually buy upgrades for it.
And yet blob squads were still complained about in 7th, despite being more expensive than Conscripts...
Different editions are different, but sure some people will always complain, I don't recall a ton of blob squad complaints beyond the beginning of 6th ed. Requiring 600 points to get the number of models that people are currently using for conscripts is a big difference. I'm of the opinion that any model that costs less than 5 points should have no better than a 6+ save, and should often be T2 (see gretchin) right now there are 2 such units that I am aware of (Conscripts and Brims) and both are considered way too good for their points cost.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Yeah IG lost its ability to blob regular guardsmen. If they could do that, I wouldn't mind giving up conscripts - you could 'fluffily' represent them with blobs of unupgraded guardsmen and still be paying higher points.
But then the same people would STILL be complaining about the same things for the same reason, and we'd also lose a fluffy unit that's existed for most of the lifespan of the game.
It's quickly becoming apparent that there's not going to be a reasonable outcome here. I suspect that even if that game I have is going goes as well as I think it will for SM and I show that the outcomes were of average probability, it's not going to be good enough for some people. Because the later part was already done half the thread ago with hypothetical units.
Less reason to complain about a unit that is 40% less durable per point, less if you actually buy upgrades for it.
And yet blob squads were still complained about in 7th, despite being more expensive than Conscripts...
So your input to balance is more relevant than mine because it is your army?
Yup. Now you're getting it!
Why the need for a stupidly broken cheap infantry unit that can easily be imitated through the use of regular guardsman if you are just trying for fluff.
Because that's what the non-Guard players want, don't you know?
Guard are supposed to be a tide of bodies, not a functioning army! They don't use tactics, they drown you in corpses! Never mind that this setup right now is closer to the way that the majority of Traitor Guard Regiments and Cultist Hordes are described as functioning...
Realistically, any idiot could see that this is the way things were going to swing because of the "Imperium" keywords--and the fact that the people who were consulted for playtesting are known for being of the mindset of Guard as a horde of bodies not a functioning army didn't help.
You all got the Guard you wanted. Mine are shelved until I get Codex: Cadia and an actual Guard army again.
You seem to have a tainted view of "what we all wanted" I never asked for Guard to be what you suggest.
Another solution could be to require "an order for ever 10 models in the target unit" for the order to take effect, and that a commisar will summarily execute "one model for every 10 model in the unit" . That way these crucial buffs would not inflate in value with large blobs, yet both the commissars and order system will remain the same for regular conscripts squads.
pismakron wrote: Another solution could be to require "an order for ever 10 models in the target unit" for the order to take effect, and that a commisar will summarily execute "one model for every 10 model in the unit" . That way these crucial buffs would not inflate in value with large blobs, yet both the commissars and order system will remain the same for regular conscripts squads.
I could see this, actually. An indirect buff to regular IG squads.
pismakron wrote: Another solution could be to require "an order for ever 10 models in the target unit" for the order to take effect, and that a commisar will summarily execute "one model for every 10 model in the unit" . That way these crucial buffs would not inflate in value with large blobs, yet both the commissars and order system will remain the same for regular conscripts squads.
This is a stupid idea.
Company Commanders(Senior Officers) issue two Orders per turn.
Platoon Commanders issue one Order per turn.
So, effectively, you would need to be a Company Commander to order a basic Conscript Squad(they start at 20 models) to do anything, or you'd need two Platoon Commanders to do the same.
And since Orders target units and a unit can never be the target of more than one Order per turn, it would require a rework of the Order system from the outset--at which point you might as well just redesign Conscripts.
pismakron wrote: Another solution could be to require "an order for ever 10 models in the target unit" for the order to take effect, and that a commisar will summarily execute "one model for every 10 model in the unit" . That way these crucial buffs would not inflate in value with large blobs, yet both the commissars and order system will remain the same for regular conscripts squads.
I could see this, actually. An indirect buff to regular IG squads.
So what happens to squads that are less than 10 models to begin with, such as HWS, SWS, or CCS?
Do they just get to have Orders not take up an Order from the officer? Commissars can't do anything to them?
pismakron wrote: Another solution could be to require "an order for ever 10 models in the target unit" for the order to take effect, and that a commisar will summarily execute "one model for every 10 model in the unit" . That way these crucial buffs would not inflate in value with large blobs, yet both the commissars and order system will remain the same for regular conscripts squads.
I could see this, actually. An indirect buff to regular IG squads.
So what happens to squads that are less than 10 models to begin with, such as HWS, SWS, or CCS?
Do they just get to have Orders not take up an Order from the officer? Commissars can't do anything to them?
Good idea!
It's not, but of course you'd think it is...
First of all, ask Dethypoo, Martel, or Marmatag and you'll learn I'm on your side - I want to nerf conscripts with a light touch, at best. There's definitely something out of whack with them as they are /right now/.
As for the Orders and Commissar nerfs suggested:
If its 1 order per ten and 1 mortal wound per ten, then units with less than 10 models still are on their first batch of 10 and therefore would take one order or one mortal wound, as they do now.
It's literally exactly the same as it is now except on conscripts, and considering I wanted to remove Orders completely from conscripts, I think this is an adequate compromise, killing at most 5 conscripts from a morale phase if they fail by that much but somehow still have more than 40 models left alive.
At BAO it was clear that the area denial and difficulty to remove conscripts - in conjunction with the other powerful tools guard have - made them the top 3 lists, 2 of which were undefeated.
Removing orders is a fine compromise to test first. I suspect that this won't actually change much, though. Don't put me in the "make them useless" bin. They need to function like a 3 pt model, and they just don't. Gretchin function like a 3 pt model. Conscripts don't. That's it.
Even if they had no orders and no armor, they still suck down insane firepower due to the wounding chart. And still have a huge physical footprint.
Hmmm... 120 conscripts, under orders do.. 2.3 wounds to a Land Raider at 24".
A Land Raider Crusader does 9 back at 24", or 12.6 at 12"
15 bolter guys inside average another 8.8 at 12".
Two of those setups could do 19 wounds moving up, then 40 odd with a good deploy, before any assaults. Up to that point the conscripts basically cant hurt them, so it all depends on what else is going on.
Still think the standard Raider is the better choice though, to fire Lascannons at Manticores or whatever.
Actually Kanluwen has a very good point, and it has not occured to me until now, but he is right.
back during 6th and 7th we had thread after thread about how we could fix the Guard codex and it always came down to two factions: Faction A composed of Guard players, whom wanted a good varied codex that allowed for everything from elite strike infantry, mechanised companies, drop troops, light infantry, scout companies, combined arms units, etc and Faction B composed primarily of Marine players, but also containing Eldar, Tau and some other factions players whom insisted that the Guard army should be a faceless, unvaried, massed Soviet style horde of cheap and useless infantry meat shielding a few tanks/artillery.
The Guard players wanted a varied and flexible codex
The Marine and co players wanted Codex: Blob Horde
Well, it looks like GW listened to little Timmy and co and gave us Codex: Soviet Penal Regiment. Congratulations all you whiners, you got what you wanted. Now live with it (and maybe next time do not tell us what we should want for our codex).
MoO I love you and all man, as a fellow guard player, but your posts are getting a bit vindictive in tone.
There's a ton more going on in the IG book than horde guard, it's just horde guard is the strongest right now.
I run a superheavy tank regiment though and am finding the Baneblades and their variants very fun, surprisingly so actually given that in previous editions it was a kinda on/off game type (either they brought the AT they needed or they didn't).
Marmatag wrote: At BAO it was clear that the area denial and difficulty to remove conscripts - in conjunction with the other powerful tools guard have - made them the top 3 lists, 2 of which were undefeated.
They didn't even need orders to dominate.
Couldn't be. Those were 30 man squads. The ones I keep hearing about that are the problem are the 50 man squads.
30 is still really strong. Maybe the more advanced players have figured out that they can save a few points by only taking EXACTLY what they need. If you aren't trying to use them for offense, and therefore don't care about order efficiency, this might be the case.
Step 1: get a wave serpent with a missile launcher. Searchlights have a 48" range, have no character protections, and require LoS to work. The Wave Serpent can pick off searchlights early on, negating 1/3 of that list's firepower immediately. Once the searchlights are down its blast mode, twin shuriken catapult, and shield discharge should be able to reasonably contribute to anti-infantry.
It also gets you 13 T7/3+ wounds that they'll have to chew through sooner or later if they want to win.
Step 2: make sure your warlord is a psyker with Conceal. A Warlock will do. The -1 to hit bubble will counter the searchlights early on, and when they go down those conscripts will be hitting on 6+.
Step 3: Bring two minimum size units of swooping hawks with sunrifles. Stick them in deep strike reserve (two units on the table, two in reserve, checks out) to protect them from alpha strikes. Doing this also forces him to deploy in a counter-deepstrike formation, which in turn will allow you to drop into whichever piece of board can bring the fewest models to bear. Position yourself right and he might only be able to bring one of the two squads in range at all, and that only partially.
Warlock's job is to cast conceal every turn and be a walking -1 to hit bubble. The wave serpent can protect him from shooting until the hawks drop. Wave serpent's job is to take out the searchlights, be a wound sponge, then help mop up. Swooping hawks give the conscripts another -1 to hit, so they'll only hit on 6s while the searchlights are up, and be completely harmless when the searchlights are down.
If the opportunity presents itself the swooping hawks can leap over the conscripts, carpet-bombing them in the process, and take out the commissar/officer from behind to speed things up, then if they survive hop back over to the safety of the warlock. Since they and the wave serpent have Fly, they can also do an assault-withdraw-shoot cycle to throw some extra dice around (and if they withdraw instead, you negate FRFSRF. Win-win).
Peak single-round dice output should be 40 from the sunburst rifles, 10 power sword attacks (20 if the conscripts don't withdraw, but they probably will), 2d6+4 from the wave serpent's guns, and a couple mortal wounds from shield discharge and grenade bombing.
While it won't wipe out the conscripts quickly, it should eventually win by attrition. The missile launcher with its d6 damage (and two shots) shouldn't have much trouble taking out the 3-wound searchlights, the Wave Serpent is the only alpha strike target and it'll be fine, and the whole game the conscripts will be either hitting on 6 or unable to hit. The ability to dictate where the engagement happens should also allow the hawks to basically shut out one of the two squads for a couple turns via positioning, so they can achieve defeat-in-detail. And throwing a bit over 50 dice per round means they should be putting out enough damage to wrap things up by turn 5, especially since the conscripts won't get saves against most of it.
Should comfortably fit within a 500 point game (because who the heck plays exactly 400). If you do need to squeeze it into exactly 400, you'll have to drop a couple sunrifles for lasblasters. Allocate wounds to those unfortunate models first, to protect the sunrifles. You won't care about being in rapid-fire range because they won't be able to hit you.
Ok, you've read a few rules incorrectly so I'll get that out of the way first.
1) conceal doesn't work on vehicles, unless the vehicle is the psycher casting it (Hemlocks)
2) Sun rifle only gives -1 to hit for that turn's assault, not shooting the next turn.
I'm pretty sure that already defeats your concept but I promised to do the math so...
I'll assume IG lose the seize roll.
Turn 1 Eldar: It's possible to keep the Wave Serpent in range of the searchlight but out of range of the conscripts, if you keep it turned sideways against the back edge of the table. So, let's assume the missiles kill one of the searchlights (math is swingy on this one but I'll assume the Eldar uses a command point to overcome bad luck - like I said I am *not* trying to make this harder than reality on the Eldar player.
Turn 1 IG: Everyone moves up. Conscripts are just barely out of range (or only have a few models in range at best) so they advance and do the move move move order for 2 move phases worth of movement. They leave small tails around their officers.
Turn 2 Eldar: Again, I'll assume command points to ensure second searchlight killed by missiles. Hawks have a choice of landing at max range or landing in rapid-fire range. The only way they get conceal is if they land near the warlock (which is presumably near the Serpent that Conscripts have been sprinting towards), but this could be an advantage - you'll get rapid fire but conceal will offset their rapid-fire.
I'll assume the warlock casts conceal - Eldar player has infinite command points to handle these things for the sake of our scenario.
First round of shooting at the conscripts:
Serpent's Shuriken Cannon: 3 shots, 2 hit, 1.66 wound, 0.55 save (actually 0.44 save due to 6's being AP). 1 conscript dies.
Hawks's Lasblasters @ Rapid fire 8x4= 32 shots, 21.33 hit, 10.66 wound, 3.55 save, so 7 more conscripts die.
Exarch's Sunrifles 2x4= 8 shots, 5.33 hit, 2.66 wound, no saves, 3 more conscripts die. I'll allow them to die in both squads (which isn't unlikely but also not certain) so that they both have the debuff.
Now there are some decisions to make, but let me give you some advice - hawks do not do well against conscripts in close combat. It's not worth it. BUT, it probably is worth it to stop frfsrf with the wave serpent, so lets do that. I'll assume, yet again, that the Eldar player rolls well on the charge but does no actual damage in combat because it's a flipping wave serpent. Scratch that, I don't want any nit-picking to bring me down, I'll give you a kill.
Also, we have to back up for some movement math here. So far, the conscripts have moved 19" (2 moves and 2 advances thanks to move move move orders), however the officers have only moved 9" (move+advance). Knowing that you have deep strike, the officers probably would have started in the exact middle of the pack, so about 3" behind the deployment line. The officers are therefor 6" in front of the deployment line, or 6" away from the middle of the map. Conscript tail would want to go past them to cover them safely. The front edge of the conscript 7x7 block is at 19" forward, so the back edge is at 12". It takes 2 conscripts to cover the officers with a tail on either side. Let's make it 3 to be safe, so 6 of the 100 conscripts are on tail duty
Ok, back to the charge. 88 conscripts are still alive. The 6 on tail duty have single fire, the other 83 have rapid fire. 170 overwatch shots (not effected by debuffs). Thanks to sun-rifles, their attacks in cc will also be on 6's, so lets just lump this all together shall we? You charged the very center of the line to get both groups, so there's plenty of room to pile in on the sides. I think 10 bases around the front of the wave serpent is fair, so 30 cc attacks.
Morale time. I'm assuming you split your attacks so congrats, 2 more kills. We now have 2 units of 43 conscripts.
IG Turn 2:
Now, before you complain about rapid fire range, I want to remind you that even without the combat, we'll have moved 25" forward at this point and even the back edge of the table is in Rapid-fire range. The pile-in and consolidate of the combat got us even closer. Our officers didn't get the bonus moves but do get an advance move, so they're more or less keeping up with the 6 conscripts who are tails.
Each conscript group shoots a different hawk group. 40 rapid fire and 3 singles for each. 83 shots. you still have conceal, and my searchlights are dead! So only 13.83 hit. 6.91 wound, 3.45 save. 3 dead hawks. Well, 3.5... if I'd combined both squads we'd be saying 7 dead hawks, out of your 10.
The conscripts charge. The range at this point is really easy. I'm getting tired, you kill a couple on overwatch but the math above is still mostly right - half the attacks because no rapid-fire, but they're back to hitting on 5's so it balances out. Math is clear, hawks are dead.
Do you want me to math the Warlock, Wave Serpent and conscripts all the way to the end? There are still over 80 conscripts to go here and I promise you, they win.
Please, PLEASE note that I have given as many advantages as I could think of to the Eldar here. If you see something I missed that you think hurts the conscripts, let me know, but let's not brush off all this time I just spent mathing out my poor space elves getting their faces rubbed in the dirt yet again...
Insectum7 wrote: Hmmm... 120 conscripts, under orders do.. 2.3 wounds to a Land Raider at 24".
A Land Raider Crusader does 9 back at 24", or 12.6 at 12"
15 bolter guys inside average another 8.8 at 12".
Two of those setups could do 19 wounds moving up, then 40 odd with a good deploy, before any assaults. Up to that point the conscripts basically cant hurt them, so it all depends on what else is going on.
Still think the standard Raider is the better choice though, to fire Lascannons at Manticores or whatever.
Doing 2 wounds to the land raider at 24" = 12.5% of it's total wounds
Doing 9 wounds to 120 conscripts = 7.5% of it's total wounds at 24".
2 of those set ups is 964 points, and would get targeted by other things to take them out before they got to the lines. Since you are looking at 18% of the guard army and 48.2% of the marine army, it seems like the guard army would have a lot more going on.
As a little follow-up, anyone looking to help me on my challange, here's a hint: Don't take Eldar on foot. Toughness 3 dainty little glass cannons are the exact wrong thing to field against 100 lasguns, no matter what aspect they are. I don't think we have anything that can beat them, but if we do it'll either be Wraith or Vehicle based.
Deathypoo wrote: As a little follow-up, anyone looking to help me on my challange, here's a hint: Don't take Eldar on foot. Toughness 3 dainty little glass cannons are the exact wrong thing to field against 100 lasguns, no matter what aspect they are. I don't think we have anything that can beat them, but if we do it'll either be Wraith or Vehicle based.
The answer has to involve Wave Serpents because those are busted as well. But there's just not as much back up as the IG get.
Deathypoo wrote: As a little follow-up, anyone looking to help me on my challange, here's a hint: Don't take Eldar on foot. Toughness 3 dainty little glass cannons are the exact wrong thing to field against 100 lasguns, no matter what aspect they are. I don't think we have anything that can beat them, but if we do it'll either be Wraith or Vehicle based.
Or superheavies. When I was considering what army to run for my superheavy tank idea, Eldar came pretty close to Guard, though I ended up with guard because of unit variety on the table, and the fact that they actually field companies of the vehicles in the fluff.
Martel732 wrote: I think superheavies play right into the IGs hands. But that's me.
I've been crushing most of the local guard lists recently. Being able to shove into combat with the Conscripts and then engage the artillery while being immune to retaliatory fire is just funny.
And if they fall back, then I bite the wounds and dive straight in again - they usually run out of space before I run out of tanks.
Martel732 wrote: 30 is still really strong. Maybe the more advanced players have figured out that they can save a few points by only taking EXACTLY what they need. If you aren't trying to use them for offense, and therefore don't care about order efficiency, this might be the case.
Deathypoo wrote: As a little follow-up, anyone looking to help me on my challange, here's a hint: Don't take Eldar on foot. Toughness 3 dainty little glass cannons are the exact wrong thing to field against 100 lasguns, no matter what aspect they are. I don't think we have anything that can beat them, but if we do it'll either be Wraith or Vehicle based.
I already posted a list that likely could grind the pure-conscript list into dust over the course of the five turns by a simple combination of tanking with a Wave Serpent and stacking to-hit penalties (which is remarkably effective against BS5+ for reasons that should be obvious).
And also by the end of that you'll have likely chewed through 102 guys with 10 troops, a transport, and a wizard so it should do plenty to satisfy an eldar superiority boner.
Deathypoo wrote: As a little follow-up, anyone looking to help me on my challange, here's a hint: Don't take Eldar on foot. Toughness 3 dainty little glass cannons are the exact wrong thing to field against 100 lasguns, no matter what aspect they are. I don't think we have anything that can beat them, but if we do it'll either be Wraith or Vehicle based.
Or superheavies. When I was considering what army to run for my superheavy tank idea, Eldar came pretty close to Guard, though I ended up with guard because of unit variety on the table, and the fact that they actually field companies of the vehicles in the fluff.
Yeah, I'm kinda depressed about it but it looks like I might finally be forced to buy Forgeworld to deal with IG. There have always been tough match-ups but this is the most impossible anything has felt before (yes yes I know it was Eldar last edition - I only owned one WK and 6 bikes but I get it).
Most of the Forgeworld Eldar stuff just looks like lower-quality rip-offs to me though, I've never been too excited about it.
Deathypoo wrote: As a little follow-up, anyone looking to help me on my challange, here's a hint: Don't take Eldar on foot. Toughness 3 dainty little glass cannons are the exact wrong thing to field against 100 lasguns, no matter what aspect they are. I don't think we have anything that can beat them, but if we do it'll either be Wraith or Vehicle based.
I already posted a list that likely could grind the pure-conscript list into dust over the course of the five turns by a simple combination of tanking with a Wave Serpent and stacking to-hit penalties (which is remarkably effective against BS5+ for reasons that should be obvious).
And also by the end of that you'll have likely chewed through 102 guys with 10 troops, a transport, and a wizard so it should do plenty to satisfy an eldar superiority boner.
Go 2 more posts up, I responded to that suggestion of yours. It doesn't work :(
Martel732 wrote: 30 is still really strong. Maybe the more advanced players have figured out that they can save a few points by only taking EXACTLY what they need. If you aren't trying to use them for offense, and therefore don't care about order efficiency, this might be the case.
That's 10 more models than the base squad...
So? It's still 30 dudes that never die to battleshock that almost every high RoF weapon wounds on a 3 and gives a 5+ or 6+ save. That cost 90 pts. Again, I think T3 5+ might be undercosted across the board in 8th ed. We'll see, I guess.
Deathypoo wrote: As a little follow-up, anyone looking to help me on my challange, here's a hint: Don't take Eldar on foot. Toughness 3 dainty little glass cannons are the exact wrong thing to field against 100 lasguns, no matter what aspect they are. I don't think we have anything that can beat them, but if we do it'll either be Wraith or Vehicle based.
Or superheavies. When I was considering what army to run for my superheavy tank idea, Eldar came pretty close to Guard, though I ended up with guard because of unit variety on the table, and the fact that they actually field companies of the vehicles in the fluff.
Yeah, I'm kinda depressed about it but it looks like I might finally be forced to buy Forgeworld to deal with IG. There have always been tough match-ups but this is the most impossible anything has felt before (yes yes I know it was Eldar last edition - I only owned one WK and 6 bikes but I get it).
Most of the Forgeworld Eldar stuff just looks like lower-quality rip-offs to me though, I've never been too excited about it.
Aw fair enough. If you don't like it then you don't like it.
I'd never advise anyone to spend money on models they hate though. If you're that depressed about facing conscripts then turn down the game or something, or ask your opponents to not be dick-feths. I wouldn't buy something I hated just to win some games; honestly I'd rather take my lumps and lose than that! Though I know everyone emphasizes winning differently.
Martel732 wrote: 30 is still really strong. Maybe the more advanced players have figured out that they can save a few points by only taking EXACTLY what they need. If you aren't trying to use them for offense, and therefore don't care about order efficiency, this might be the case.
It's at this point that I genuinely wonder if what I'm doing with infantry squads wouldn't come out to basically the exact same effect other people are seeing with conscripts.
Deathypoo wrote: As a little follow-up, anyone looking to help me on my challange, here's a hint: Don't take Eldar on foot. Toughness 3 dainty little glass cannons are the exact wrong thing to field against 100 lasguns, no matter what aspect they are. I don't think we have anything that can beat them, but if we do it'll either be Wraith or Vehicle based.
Or superheavies. When I was considering what army to run for my superheavy tank idea, Eldar came pretty close to Guard, though I ended up with guard because of unit variety on the table, and the fact that they actually field companies of the vehicles in the fluff.
Yeah, I'm kinda depressed about it but it looks like I might finally be forced to buy Forgeworld to deal with IG. There have always been tough match-ups but this is the most impossible anything has felt before (yes yes I know it was Eldar last edition - I only owned one WK and 6 bikes but I get it).
Most of the Forgeworld Eldar stuff just looks like lower-quality rip-offs to me though, I've never been too excited about it.
Aw fair enough. If you don't like it then you don't like it.
I'd never advise anyone to spend money on models they hate though. If you're that depressed about facing conscripts then turn down the game or something, or ask your opponents to not be dick-feths. I wouldn't buy something I hated just to win some games; honestly I'd rather take my lumps and lose than that! Though I know everyone emphasizes winning differently.
I don't want to tell my good friend I won't play his favorite army now that it's good (although that'll work fine with other people at the club). I don't mind losing but I like to have it be a competition instead of 7 hours of forgone conclusion (With the one guy at least, we drink/eat/chat while we play and the games are long). Compared to those two, a few bucks on some iffy models is the least bad choice lol.
Jeeeeeez I'm whining so much that I'm going to start to deserve some of the insults people are flinging
What's the difference between 2x50 man squads and 3x 33 man conscript squads?
Answer: You need to have 3 conscript tails near the out-of-los commissar, as opposed to 2 tails.
It's fine. I'll just let the tournament results that will pour in over the next few months do the talking. lol.
The whole point is that buffs multiplied by 50 are too efficient. If you take 3 squads of 33 then you need to buy another commissar (or have longer tails), another officer, and another searchlight, and you just gave yourself a severe nerf for no reason.
Martel732 wrote: 30 is still really strong. Maybe the more advanced players have figured out that they can save a few points by only taking EXACTLY what they need. If you aren't trying to use them for offense, and therefore don't care about order efficiency, this might be the case.
It's at this point that I genuinely wonder if what I'm doing with infantry squads wouldn't come out to basically the exact same effect other people are seeing with conscripts.
Maybe? Again, T3 5+ might be undercosted across the board. If they are dying in clumps of 10, then the battle shock thing doesn't even matter. The difference I is that I can kill 3 here, 4 there, 5 over there and force battle shock rolls. So it's less efficient. But still probably better than marines. I lost, through my own mistakes partially, hundreds of points of marines to two plasma bugs in one turn. This is physically impossible with guardsmen due to their cost.
What's the difference between 2x50 man squads and 3x 33 man conscript squads?
Answer: You need to have 3 conscript tails near the out-of-los commissar, as opposed to 2 tails.
It's fine. I'll just let the tournament results that will pour in over the next few months do the talking. lol.
When does it become something you decide you can deal with? What about 10x10 man squads? I can do virtually the same thing with infantry, and you want to know what it costs me? Maybe a tank, tops. And I wind up with more redundancy in commanders/commissars so I'm (apparently) even more than impossible to snipe.
What's not fine is their ability to shoot 4 times when ordered to.
Maybe nerf that... if they only shot once like cultists, or twice in rapid fire range, I wouldn't care. Though cultists are 5 pts for that amazing double tap potential. So maybe conscripts shouldn't shouldn't more than once.
So yeah... drop the rapid fire and make them exempt from "lol multishot" orders.
What's not fine is their ability to shoot 4 times when ordered to.
Maybe nerf that... if they only shot once like cultists, or twice in rapid fire range, I wouldn't care. Though cultists are 5 pts for that amazing double tap potential. So maybe conscripts shouldn't shouldn't more than once.
So yeah... drop the rapid fire and make them exempt from "lol multishot" orders.
Did you read the thread? Unlikely. Their durability is the primary problem.
Did you read the thread? Unlikely. Their durability is the primary problem.
Common problem among all the horde units this edition due to the nerf to anti-horde template/blast weapons. Not resolvable at a Conscript-level. At least they aren't a point cheaper with 4+ invulnerable saves like Brimstones.
Considering the win post is showing AM armies wiping the field in 2 turns, I'm more concerned with the offense.
Did you read the thread? Unlikely. Their durability is the primary problem.
Common problem among all the horde units this edition due to the nerf to anti-horde template/blast weapons. Not resolvable at a Conscript-level. At least they aren't a point cheaper with 4+ invulnerable saves like Brimstones.
Considering the win post is showing AM armies wiping the field in 2 turns, I'm more concerned with the offense.
I agree on all counts. Brimstones are a related problem, but demons can't have gunlines. Other hordes have schemes that are more manageable like synapse bugs that can be targeted or orks that break when you wear them down. Additionally, the bugs can't shoot. IG offense is also a HUGE problem exacerbated by conscripts.
Martel732 wrote: 30 is still really strong. Maybe the more advanced players have figured out that they can save a few points by only taking EXACTLY what they need. If you aren't trying to use them for offense, and therefore don't care about order efficiency, this might be the case.
That's 10 more models than the base squad...
So? It's still 30 dudes that never die to battleshock that almost every high RoF weapon wounds on a 3 and gives a 5+ or 6+ save. That cost 90 pts. Again, I think T3 5+ might be undercosted across the board in 8th ed. We'll see, I guess.
The 5+ save might be the save that benefited most from this edition, as in previous editions you basically never got a 5+ save against most anti-infantry weapons. Even anti-infantry weapons with better AP this edition are -1 AP, so you are getting a save against those as well.
Insectum7 wrote: Hmmm... 120 conscripts, under orders do.. 2.3 wounds to a Land Raider at 24".
A Land Raider Crusader does 9 back at 24", or 12.6 at 12"
15 bolter guys inside average another 8.8 at 12".
Two of those setups could do 19 wounds moving up, then 40 odd with a good deploy, before any assaults. Up to that point the conscripts basically cant hurt them, so it all depends on what else is going on.
Still think the standard Raider is the better choice though, to fire Lascannons at Manticores or whatever.
Doing 2 wounds to the land raider at 24" = 12.5% of it's total wounds
Doing 9 wounds to 120 conscripts = 7.5% of it's total wounds at 24".
2 of those set ups is 964 points, and would get targeted by other things to take them out before they got to the lines. Since you are looking at 18% of the guard army and 48.2% of the marine army, it seems like the guard army would have a lot more going on.
Obviously.
But im noodling around with ideas that can A: potentially remove lots of conscripts quickly. Or B: ignore/shield their damage output.
Land Raiders look good to me since conscripts can't do jack against them if they remain beyond 12" away. The Raiders also give protection for models behind them, and good anti tank fire for knocking out guard artillery. The Crusaders was more of an excercise to see how much damage they coukd do. Killing 40 conscripts in a single firing round, without commander buffs, with only half an armys points worth might have some merit, regardless.
Martel732 wrote: Brimstones are a related problem, but demons can't have gunlines.
They can if they have Pink Horrors with them, but it's much simpler to field a single Blue Horror per squad to attempt to spam Smite every turn.
Even without Blue Horrors, sacrificing a handful of 2 pt models that are extremely durable to cast Smites works quite well as a "gun line" due to mortal wounds ignoring all the rolls involved. No wounding, no saves, just make that 5+ psychic hit roll and it's cast.
1500 pts of Brimstones can average 50 mortal wounds per turn. No command auras needed.
Did you read the thread? Unlikely. Their durability is the primary problem.
Common problem among all the horde units this edition due to the nerf to anti-horde template/blast weapons. Not resolvable at a Conscript-level. At least they aren't a point cheaper with 4+ invulnerable saves like Brimstones.
Considering the win post is showing AM armies wiping the field in 2 turns, I'm more concerned with the offense.
This is totally fixable at the conscript level. Just don't give better than a 6+ save to 3 point models while also making them morale immue. Brims have the same problem, they should have no save at their cost. Conscripts at their cost with their stats should similarly not have a save, at 4 points they should have a 6+ save.
Martel732 wrote: Brimstones are a related problem, but demons can't have gunlines.
They can if they have Pink Horrors with them, but it's much simpler to field a single Blue Horror per squad to attempt to spam Smite every turn.
Even without Blue Horrors, sacrificing a handful of 2 pt models that are extremely durable to cast Smites works quite well as a "gun line" due to mortal wounds ignoring all the rolls involved. No wounding, no saves, just make that 5+ psychic hit roll and it's cast.
1500 pts of Brimstones can average 50 mortal wounds per turn. No command auras needed.
Are people just not doing this? Regardless, throw the brimstones into the "nerf bucket".
Martel732 wrote: Brimstones are a related problem, but demons can't have gunlines.
They can if they have Pink Horrors with them, but it's much simpler to field a single Blue Horror per squad to attempt to spam Smite every turn.
Even without Blue Horrors, sacrificing a handful of 2 pt models that are extremely durable to cast Smites works quite well as a "gun line" due to mortal wounds ignoring all the rolls involved. No wounding, no saves, just make that 5+ psychic hit roll and it's cast.
1500 pts of Brimstones can average 50 mortal wounds per turn. No command auras needed.
Which really could be fixed by giving horrors the GK smite rules where they do a single wound.
So, say conscripts go away. Infantry firing is almost identical to the same points of conscripts firing. With that in mind, the obvious advantage is that it's cheaper to order any number of conscripts than it is to order a bunch of squads of infantry. But consider at the same time that you don't really HAVE to have commissars babysitting your squads, because the most you can ever lose from a given squad is 10, so you could save points for your wall there, and have it be only slightly less durable in the grand scheme of things. Also, assaulting infantry does jack about orders, because the other X squads will simply take their normal orders while that squad is falling back.
For 490 points I could have 100 infantry and three company commanders for support, meaning 1 squad doesn't get orders, oh well. Arguably, this is actually going to be better in some cases. And for a 140 point difference. Yeah, you have the same problem as before and you cost me less points than a tank.
Sounds like the meta has changed and people aren't changing with it.
daedalus wrote: So, say conscripts go away. Infantry firing is almost identical to the same points of conscripts firing. With that in mind, the obvious advantage is that it's cheaper to order any number of conscripts than it is to order a bunch of squads of infantry. But consider at the same time that you don't really HAVE to have commissars babysitting your squads, because the most you can ever lose from a given squad is 10, so you could save points for your wall there, and have it be only slightly less durable in the grand scheme of things. Also, assaulting infantry does jack about orders, because the other X squads will simply take their normal orders while that squad is falling back.
For 490 points I could have 100 infantry and three company commanders for support, meaning 1 squad doesn't get orders, oh well. Arguably, this is actually going to be better in some cases. And for a 140 point difference. Yeah, you have the same problem as before and you cost me less points than a tank.
Sounds like the meta has changed and people aren't changing with it.
There is no mathematical place to turn regarding 3 pt models immune to psychology who are largely wounded on a 3 by anti-infantry weapons.
I even am building for more anti-infantry, but it's just making me autolose to Nidzilla and I still can't beat hordes.
Breng77 wrote: This is totally fixable at the conscript level. Just don't give better than a 6+ save to 3 point models while also making them morale immue. Brims have the same problem, they should have no save at their cost. Conscripts at their cost with their stats should similarly not have a save, at 4 points they should have a 6+ save.
Yep.
Martel732 wrote: Are people just not doing this? Regardless, throw the brimstones into the "nerf bucket".
Yep.
Breng77 wrote: Which really could be fixed by giving horrors the GK smite rules where they do a single wound.
There is no mathematical place to turn regarding 3 pt models immune to psychology who are largely wounded on a 3 by anti-infantry weapons.
Melissia showed how to do it two different ways with Marines earlier in this same thread.
I even am building for more anti-infantry, but it's just making me autolose to Nidzilla and I still can't beat hordes.
Yeah, I do kind of get the feeling that this game became even more rock, paper, scissory than it's been. I'm convinced that her suggestion as a core could be a surprisingly strong use of tac marines. I'm also curious to see how it would work against vehicles/mcs. I'm guessing better than expected. I'll have to mathhammer on it a bit later on. I don't like running my own code in the office.
daedalus wrote: So, say conscripts go away. Infantry firing is almost identical to the same points of conscripts firing. With that in mind, the obvious advantage is that it's cheaper to order any number of conscripts than it is to order a bunch of squads of infantry. But consider at the same time that you don't really HAVE to have commissars babysitting your squads, because the most you can ever lose from a given squad is 10, so you could save points for your wall there, and have it be only slightly less durable in the grand scheme of things. Also, assaulting infantry does jack about orders, because the other X squads will simply take their normal orders while that squad is falling back.
For 490 points I could have 100 infantry and three company commanders for support, meaning 1 squad doesn't get orders, oh well. Arguably, this is actually going to be better in some cases. And for a 140 point difference. Yeah, you have the same problem as before and you cost me less points than a tank.
Sounds like the meta has changed and people aren't changing with it.
Except it is 140 points more and far less durable, no commissars means you can start taking extra wounds at 2 casualties, you also have 20 less wounds for more points, which equates to less other firepower. This also assumes you buy no upgrades on those infantry squads. IMO durability is the only issue with conscripts, orders are secondary. If they had no save or T2 and a 6+ save at 3 points (like gretchin) they would be manageable, especially if their morale immunity was similar to grots (d3 wounds on 1)
daedalus wrote: Yeah, I do kind of get the feeling that this game became even more rock, paper, scissory than it's been. I'm convinced that her suggestion as a core could be a surprisingly strong use of tac marines. I'm also curious to see how it would work against vehicles/mcs. I'm guessing better than expected. I'll have to mathhammer on it a bit later on. I don't like running my own code in the office.
The solution to that should be in the Stratagems. Using CP to turn the tables. We need to pray for Stratagems that are anti-horde so that it becomes more of a chess match where I see your rock and paperize the hell out of it.
"Melissia showed how to do it two different ways with Marines earlier in this same thread. "
With all due respect, she's dead wrong about the efficacy of her plan. I know marines MUCH better than her. Tac marines being 13 pts kill the plan. They aren't killy enough for a 13 pt model to grind though the wounds fast enough.
Go 2 more posts up, I responded to that suggestion of yours. It doesn't work :(
You still made the mistake of engaging both blobs at the same time when I went out of my way to point out how much you could get out of using positioning to isolate them. Getting one extra commissar blam is not worth letting the second blob shoot at you. The only thing that should be engaging both blobs at once is the wave serpent, because you want it to be a bullet magnet and it wants to physically cram a wave serpent sized wedge between the two squads.
An eldar army has a ton of control over positioning. You know whether you're going first or not before you deploy, and can deploy accordingly. You can rapidly relocate your troops (or delay deployment via deep strike) to react to the enemy deployment stance.
Also, the sunrifle should work in the shooting phase based on the wording. It doesn't say anything about being restricted to the assault phase, and it says "until the end of THE turn", not "until the end of YOUR turn", so it should include both player's turns because each game turn includes both your turn and the opponent's. It's also pretty much the reason why assaulting the conscripts probably is worth it: the conscripts effectively won't be able to hit back, and thanks to the two-rank rule only a fraction of them can even attempt it.
The next best thing I can suggest is cramming the wave serpent full of Howling Banshees, though you'll still only want to engage one blob at a time. If you try to engage the entire enemy army at once they will just Lanchester's Square Law you to death.
Eldar have always been a finesse army. They pay a ton of points for mobility, so if you go charging down the center to engage the entire enemy force at once like a Space Marine you will always be at a disadvantage. Yes, this means Eldar are inherently difficult to play because mobility can be a difficult trait to exploit on limited board space. Eldar are also difficult to balance because if you make them equal in every other way, their mobility edge suddenly becomes a deciding factor in their favor.
If you want an army that can just beat down the front door of an enemy army with brute force I suggest Orks, 'Nids, Guard, or Space Marines. Or, really, anyone does the brute force game better than Eldar. Eldar rarely pay less than 20 points a model and rarely fire more than 4 shots, not exactly a pattern suited for Shock and Awe.
When you have a disadvantage in raw power but an advantage in mobility (which is basically par for the course for Eldar, no matter who they are facing), "Defeat in detail" should be your motto.
Except it is 140 points more and far less durable, no commissars means you can start taking extra wounds at 2 casualties, you also have 20 less wounds for more points, which equates to less other firepower. This also assumes you buy no upgrades on those infantry squads. IMO durability is the only issue with conscripts, orders are secondary. If they had no save or T2 and a 6+ save at 3 points (like gretchin) they would be manageable, especially if their morale immunity was similar to grots (d3 wounds on 1)
The claims are that people are getting tabled by guard who are doing this. Bringing one less tank won't turn most of those tablings into a win. And in some edge cases, like assault, it might actually be more effective, since the odds of overkilling an individual squad are greater.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: "Melissia showed how to do it two different ways with Marines earlier in this same thread. "
With all due respect, she's dead wrong about the efficacy of her plan. I know marines MUCH better than her. Tac marines being 13 pts kill the plan. They aren't killy enough for a 13 pt model to grind though the wounds fast enough.
So she essentially showed me nothing.
She showed her math. It was pretty sound. I don't honestly know what evidence you'd accept at this point.
Except it is 140 points more and far less durable, no commissars means you can start taking extra wounds at 2 casualties, you also have 20 less wounds for more points, which equates to less other firepower. This also assumes you buy no upgrades on those infantry squads. IMO durability is the only issue with conscripts, orders are secondary. If they had no save or T2 and a 6+ save at 3 points (like gretchin) they would be manageable, especially if their morale immunity was similar to grots (d3 wounds on 1)
The claims are that people are getting tabled by guard who are doing this. Bringing one less tank won't turn most of those tablings into a win. And in some edge cases, like assault, it might actually be more effective, since the odds of overkilling an individual squad are greater.
They are getting tabled because people are taking forever to chew through the wounds, if you leave commissars at home, multi- assaulting the infantry squads will chew through them, and yes 1 less tank makes a big deal.
Looking at the top BAO list assuming you keep the commissars (which with infantry squads makes bubble wrapping more difficult due to squad size)
You had
Yarrik
2xCompany commander
Commisar
4 x 30 conscripts
21 x mortar team
3 x tempestor prime
3 x command squads - plasma
3 x 5 scions -plasma
3 x Taurox prime
Primaris psyker
Astropath
2 X Basilisk
3 x Earthshaker carriage
If you had to swap for 5 point chaff, you would need to cut 240 points out of your list, which means either 48 less chaff models, or cutting quite a lot else (both basilisks and the astropaths for example, or a command squad and a scion squad and something else...) so it makes a big difference.
If instead you had T2 6+ save chaff, or T3 with no save, you would cut through them much quicker and get to the core of his army, especially if morale were not limited to a single loss, but instead was D3 losses. In that case 20 bolter shots kills 9 conscripts on average, instead of killing only 6, then if morale was D3 it would end up being more like 11. Melee armies would chew through that even faster, giving you a single turn of chaff per squad instead of 3.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's worth mentioning that Guard Infantry Squads are 4ppm, not 5, so he'd only have to free up 120 points, or less than the cost of a Basilisk.
Seems guard has the market cornered on cheap infantry then. How are cultists 5 points when guardsman are 4? I guess it is probably due to 10 man cap on squad size The basilisk is less than 120 points. So he would lose 1 basilisk and an astropath I guess. But he would lack enough commanders to order his units at that point.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's worth mentioning that Guard Infantry Squads are 4ppm, not 5, so he'd only have to free up 120 points, or less than the cost of a Basilisk.
Seems guard has the market cornered on cheap infantry then. How are cultists 5 points when guardsman are 4? I guess it is probably due to 10 man cap on squad size The basilisk is less than 120 points. So he would lose 1 basilisk and an astropath I guess. But he would lack enough commanders to order his units at that point.
Yes, but Orders aren't the problem, apparently.
If they were, then my suggestion of simply removing orders from conscripts should be just fine.
Orders are icing on the cake only, imo. Obviously, taking out orders HELPS, but likely, not enough. I'm all for making the Russ cheaper, etc as compensation across the whole of the codex. We are striving for balance, not penalization.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's worth mentioning that Guard Infantry Squads are 4ppm, not 5, so he'd only have to free up 120 points, or less than the cost of a Basilisk.
Seems guard has the market cornered on cheap infantry then. How are cultists 5 points when guardsman are 4? I guess it is probably due to 10 man cap on squad size The basilisk is less than 120 points. So he would lose 1 basilisk and an astropath I guess. But he would lack enough commanders to order his units at that point.
Yes, but Orders aren't the problem, apparently.
If they were, then my suggestion of simply removing orders from conscripts should be just fine.
right they aren't the main problem, they do make the units better though, so losing some still hurts a bit.
Unit1126PLL wrote: It's worth mentioning that Guard Infantry Squads are 4ppm, not 5, so he'd only have to free up 120 points, or less than the cost of a Basilisk.
Seems guard has the market cornered on cheap infantry then. How are cultists 5 points when guardsman are 4? I guess it is probably due to 10 man cap on squad size The basilisk is less than 120 points. So he would lose 1 basilisk and an astropath I guess. But he would lack enough commanders to order his units at that point.
Yes, but Orders aren't the problem, apparently.
If they were, then my suggestion of simply removing orders from conscripts should be just fine.
right they aren't the main problem, they do make the units better though, so losing some still hurts a bit.
Right, but the problem is: "Too many warm bodies!" - if removing orders doesn't help, then removing conscripts outright and letting IG infantry squads be 4ppm is still a problem, that's the point.
I just think armies need more anti-horde than they are taking, and I am also of the opinion that TAC lists are dead, just like I've believed since 5e.
They are getting tabled because people are taking forever to chew through the wounds, if you leave commissars at home, multi- assaulting the infantry squads will chew through them, and yes 1 less tank makes a big deal.
Yup. In addition to it being cheaper than you think, as was pointed out already, I can space my ranks out 4" or so. Probably don't need to even have that much space, but if you wanted to play it safe. Really, I only need the space between the first rank and the second rank spaced out that much. I leave barely less than a base's width between them, for whatever's assaulting me. That means they can still cover a minimum of 19" cover. I might have to double up to protect all my stuff. That still leaves me with five waves you have to go through if I have 100 infantry, the most of which you can only kill 20 of at a time unless you're shooting. You need to deal about 5 wounds each to the squads to force them to have a 50% chance to lose 1-3 conscripts. A tac squad could probably do that at 24" range. If you have a commissar, you're fine. If you don't, you lose 0-3 and the remaining 2-5 are still sitting there. Maybe a little easier to ignore, but I'm still going to put them in your way.
There's probably even more nasty ways you can organize this arrangement. At the end of the day though, you either have to overkill them or there's going to be a handful left, and it's still going to cost you several rounds of trying to get through them to do so.
Just want to throw this out there as food for thought...
D&D added a new classification of monster to one of their recent editions. The Minion comes in packs of several monsters, all with 1 wound each, but are about as hard to kill as a single monster of the same challenge rating. They die like flies and the horde aspect is their only defining trait.
Rather than treating Conscripts as individual models, maybe they should be treated as hordelings. Same with brimstones and other zerg types. Hordelings would have special rules that make them different from ordinary infantry that make them far easily to slaughter in masses. Starting with no saves... when a Space Marine is shown obliterating a guardsman's chest with a bolter pistol, don't tell me their armor somehow saved them.
I'd do something like give Rapid Fire weapons a bonus against Hordes. The idea is that they're just spraying bullets without quarter so horde mobs should be getting caught in the fire even if you miss the intended target.
the issue is their cost - plain and simple. a conscript should not cost less than a termagant - it's better than a termagant. There should also be no situation in the entire game where a melle unit like hormagaunts loses to equal points of shooty hordes - like hormagaunts do to conscripts. At 3 points here are the issues with a conscript. conscripts in their current form should cost 4 points and not be able to receive orders.
Go 2 more posts up, I responded to that suggestion of yours. It doesn't work :(
You still made the mistake of engaging both blobs at the same time when I went out of my way to point out how much you could get out of using positioning to isolate them. Getting one extra commissar blam is not worth letting the second blob shoot at you. The only thing that should be engaging both blobs at once is the wave serpent, because you want it to be a bullet magnet and it wants to physically cram a wave serpent sized wedge between the two squads.
An eldar army has a ton of control over positioning. You know whether you're going first or not before you deploy, and can deploy accordingly. You can rapidly relocate your troops (or delay deployment via deep strike) to react to the enemy deployment stance.
Also, the sunrifle should work in the shooting phase based on the wording. It doesn't say anything about being restricted to the assault phase, and it says "until the end of THE turn", not "until the end of YOUR turn", so it should include both player's turns because each game turn includes both your turn and the opponent's. It's also pretty much the reason why assaulting the conscripts probably is worth it: the conscripts effectively won't be able to hit back, and thanks to the two-rank rule only a fraction of them can even attempt it.
The next best thing I can suggest is cramming the wave serpent full of Howling Banshees, though you'll still only want to engage one blob at a time. If you try to engage the entire enemy army at once they will just Lanchester's Square Law you to death.
Eldar have always been a finesse army. They pay a ton of points for mobility, so if you go charging down the center to engage the entire enemy force at once like a Space Marine you will always be at a disadvantage. Yes, this means Eldar are inherently difficult to play because mobility can be a difficult trait to exploit on limited board space. Eldar are also difficult to balance because if you make them equal in every other way, their mobility edge suddenly becomes a deciding factor in their favor.
If you want an army that can just beat down the front door of an enemy army with brute force I suggest Orks, 'Nids, Guard, or Space Marines. Or, really, anyone does the brute force game better than Eldar. Eldar rarely pay less than 20 points a model and rarely fire more than 4 shots, not exactly a pattern suited for Shock and Awe.
When you have a disadvantage in raw power but an advantage in mobility (which is basically par for the course for Eldar, no matter who they are facing), "Defeat in detail" should be your motto.
If you focus more on one squad, it's possible you'll be able to get at 24" range of the second squad. A conscript squad can sit in the middle of a 4'x4' table and have the entire squad be within move+single shot range of all 4 table edges, so there is absolutely no way you can get out of range completely. One of your hawk squads would therefor survive a little longer. I don't see how that changes the outcome - it was never close to begin with.
Also, "the turn" means "your turn". When it's supposed to last longer, it'll be phrased like psychic powers that last "until your next psychic phase."
Xenomancers wrote: the issue is their cost - plain and simple. a conscript should not cost less than a termagant - it's better than a termagant. There should also be no situation in the entire game where a melle unit like hormagaunts loses to equal points of shooty hordes - like hormagaunts do to conscripts. At 3 points here are the issues with a conscript. conscripts in their current form should cost 4 points and not be able to receive orders.
No situation at all? Not even if the shooty unit is somehow able to find ample time to shoot? I don't think I like that idea of "balance" one bit. If there is no situation at all where a shooty unit can beat a melee unit, then what's the point of playing a shooty army?
Arkaine wrote: Just want to throw this out there as food for thought...
D&D added a new classification of monster to one of their recent editions. The Minion comes in packs of several monsters, all with 1 wound each, but are about as hard to kill as a single monster of the same challenge rating. They die like flies and the horde aspect is their only defining trait.
Rather than treating Conscripts as individual models, maybe they should be treated as hordelings. Same with brimstones and other zerg types. Hordelings would have special rules that make them different from ordinary infantry that make them far easily to slaughter in masses. Starting with no saves... when a Space Marine is shown obliterating a guardsman's chest with a bolter pistol, don't tell me their armor somehow saved them.
I'd do something like give Rapid Fire weapons a bonus against Hordes. The idea is that they're just spraying bullets without quarter so horde mobs should be getting caught in the fire even if you miss the intended target.
I do not like these solutions because they are messy and require changing multiple rules, but it gave me an idea.
What if we just allowed close combat wounds to spillover for Conscripts? So if you hit them with a Force Sword for D3 and roll a 3, it'll kill 3 models? 6 damage from a hammer takes out 6 in one might swing.
This gives some counterplay to the horde and makes them easier for melee to break through, though still somewhat of a speed bump. I don't propose adding it to shooting though because then lascannons and the like suddenly become TAC weapons. Adding it to melee let's assaulters have a chance of breaking through the bubble wrap in a reasonable time and is justifiable with how close units are in close combat.
Plus, we can do it by just adding a special rule to Conscripts rather than changing multiple rules.
They are getting tabled because people are taking forever to chew through the wounds, if you leave commissars at home, multi- assaulting the infantry squads will chew through them, and yes 1 less tank makes a big deal.
Yup. In addition to it being cheaper than you think, as was pointed out already, I can space my ranks out 4" or so. Probably don't need to even have that much space, but if you wanted to play it safe. Really, I only need the space between the first rank and the second rank spaced out that much. I leave barely less than a base's width between them, for whatever's assaulting me. That means they can still cover a minimum of 19" cover. I might have to double up to protect all my stuff. That still leaves me with five waves you have to go through if I have 100 infantry, the most of which you can only kill 20 of at a time unless you're shooting. You need to deal about 5 wounds each to the squads to force them to have a 50% chance to lose 1-3 conscripts. A tac squad could probably do that at 24" range. If you have a commissar, you're fine. If you don't, you lose 0-3 and the remaining 2-5 are still sitting there. Maybe a little easier to ignore, but I'm still going to put them in your way.
There's probably even more nasty ways you can organize this arrangement. At the end of the day though, you either have to overkill them or there's going to be a handful left, and it's still going to cost you several rounds of trying to get through them to do so.
The difference is with a commissar five 10 man units are significantly worse than a single 50 man unit as I can force 5 casualties in a turn instead of one. It is also less overwatch, likely little to no retaliatory attacks in close combat,
Xenomancers wrote: the issue is their cost - plain and simple. a conscript should not cost less than a termagant - it's better than a termagant. There should also be no situation in the entire game where a melle unit like hormagaunts loses to equal points of shooty hordes - like hormagaunts do to conscripts. At 3 points here are the issues with a conscript. conscripts in their current form should cost 4 points and not be able to receive orders.
No situation at all? Not even if the shooty unit is somehow able to find ample time to shoot? I don't think I like that idea of "balance" one bit. If there is no situation at all where a shooty unit can beat a melee unit, then what's the point of playing a shooty army?
I assume he mean in close combat, possibly in including overwatch. Which I would generally agree with.
On
They are getting tabled because people are taking forever to chew through the wounds, if you leave commissars at home, multi- assaulting the infantry squads will chew through them, and yes 1 less tank makes a big deal.
Yup. In addition to it being cheaper than you think, as was pointed out already, I can space my ranks out 4" or so. Probably don't need to even have that much space, but if you wanted to play it safe. Really, I only need the space between the first rank and the second rank spaced out that much. I leave barely less than a base's width between them, for whatever's assaulting me. That means they can still cover a minimum of 19" cover. I might have to double up to protect all my stuff. That still leaves me with five waves you have to go through if I have 100 infantry, the most of which you can only kill 20 of at a time unless you're shooting. You need to deal about 5 wounds each to the squads to force them to have a 50% chance to lose 1-3 conscripts. A tac squad could probably do that at 24" range. If you have a commissar, you're fine. If you don't, you lose 0-3 and the remaining 2-5 are still sitting there. Maybe a little easier to ignore, but I'm still going to put them in your way.
There's probably even more nasty ways you can organize this arrangement. At the end of the day though, you either have to overkill them or there's going to be a handful left, and it's still going to cost you several rounds of trying to get through them to do so.
The difference is with a commissar five 10 man units are significantly worse than a single 50 man unit as I can force 5 casualties in a turn instead of one. It is also less overwatch, likely little to no retaliatory attacks in close combat,
To be fair, you're not that likely to force 5 casualties a turn instead of 1 because to do that you'd have to kill ~5 guardsmen or so from each squad, precisely spread out between them. which is 25 guardsmen, which is what people are worried about having to do. Remember, before the Commissar hurts anyone they get a regular morale role, and Guardsmen have twice the leadership of Conscripts.
The overwatch and retaliatory attacks are a mixed blessing, because it also means that unless the Guard player deployed like a derp, you're only ever going to kill 10 guardsmen, max, in any given round of combat. So if you're, say, a unit of 'zerks, and you've charged Conscripts, you blenderize them in ~2 or so turns. If you charge well-deployed regular guardsmen, it'll take you 5 turns just to charge from unit to unit.
Xenomancers wrote: the issue is their cost - plain and simple. a conscript should not cost less than a termagant - it's better than a termagant. There should also be no situation in the entire game where a melle unit like hormagaunts loses to equal points of shooty hordes - like hormagaunts do to conscripts. At 3 points here are the issues with a conscript. conscripts in their current form should cost 4 points and not be able to receive orders.
No situation at all? Not even if the shooty unit is somehow able to find ample time to shoot? I don't think I like that idea of "balance" one bit. If there is no situation at all where a shooty unit can beat a melee unit, then what's the point of playing a shooty army?
I'm talking about 30 unharmed hormagaunts charging a 50 man conscript blob. the conscripts win here - vs a unit designed for CC. Does that seem fair to you? This isn't even including orders. If they fall back and use get back into the fight. The win being charged by unharmed melle unit of their equal cost and lose about 12 models.
Arkaine wrote: Just want to throw this out there as food for thought...
D&D added a new classification of monster to one of their recent editions. The Minion comes in packs of several monsters, all with 1 wound each, but are about as hard to kill as a single monster of the same challenge rating. They die like flies and the horde aspect is their only defining trait.
Rather than treating Conscripts as individual models, maybe they should be treated as hordelings. Same with brimstones and other zerg types. Hordelings would have special rules that make them different from ordinary infantry that make them far easily to slaughter in masses. Starting with no saves... when a Space Marine is shown obliterating a guardsman's chest with a bolter pistol, don't tell me their armor somehow saved them.
I'd do something like give Rapid Fire weapons a bonus against Hordes. The idea is that they're just spraying bullets without quarter so horde mobs should be getting caught in the fire even if you miss the intended target.
I do not like these solutions because they are messy and require changing multiple rules, but it gave me an idea.
What if we just allowed close combat wounds to spillover for Conscripts? So if you hit them with a Force Sword for D3 and roll a 3, it'll kill 3 models? 6 damage from a hammer takes out 6 in one might swing.
This gives some counterplay to the horde and makes them easier for melee to break through, though still somewhat of a speed bump. I don't propose adding it to shooting though because then lascannons and the like suddenly become TAC weapons. Adding it to melee let's assaulters have a chance of breaking through the bubble wrap in a reasonable time and is justifiable with how close units are in close combat.
Plus, we can do it by just adding a special rule to Conscripts rather than changing multiple rules.
This isn't a hard problem to solve - increase their points cost and remove their ability to take orders.
How good (or bad) would it be to provide modifiers to hit and/or wound based on how many models are in the unit (over 20)? It would reinforce the idea that if you're shooting into this giant cluster of infantry you're bound to hit and wound several targets...
They are getting tabled because people are taking forever to chew through the wounds, if you leave commissars at home, multi- assaulting the infantry squads will chew through them, and yes 1 less tank makes a big deal.
Yup. In addition to it being cheaper than you think, as was pointed out already, I can space my ranks out 4" or so. Probably don't need to even have that much space, but if you wanted to play it safe. Really, I only need the space between the first rank and the second rank spaced out that much. I leave barely less than a base's width between them, for whatever's assaulting me. That means they can still cover a minimum of 19" cover. I might have to double up to protect all my stuff. That still leaves me with five waves you have to go through if I have 100 infantry, the most of which you can only kill 20 of at a time unless you're shooting. You need to deal about 5 wounds each to the squads to force them to have a 50% chance to lose 1-3 conscripts. A tac squad could probably do that at 24" range. If you have a commissar, you're fine. If you don't, you lose 0-3 and the remaining 2-5 are still sitting there. Maybe a little easier to ignore, but I'm still going to put them in your way.
There's probably even more nasty ways you can organize this arrangement. At the end of the day though, you either have to overkill them or there's going to be a handful left, and it's still going to cost you several rounds of trying to get through them to do so.
The difference is with a commissar five 10 man units are significantly worse than a single 50 man unit as I can force 5 casualties in a turn instead of one. It is also less overwatch, likely little to no retaliatory attacks in close combat,
To be fair, you're not that likely to force 5 casualties a turn instead of 1 because to do that you'd have to kill ~5 guardsmen or so from each squad, precisely spread out between them. which is 25 guardsmen, which is what people are worried about having to do. Remember, before the Commissar hurts anyone they get a regular morale role, and Guardsmen have twice the leadership of Conscripts.
The overwatch and retaliatory attacks are a mixed blessing, because it also means that unless the Guard player deployed like a derp, you're only ever going to kill 10 guardsmen, max, in any given round of combat. So if you're, say, a unit of 'zerks, and you've charged Conscripts, you blenderize them in ~2 or so turns. If you charge well-deployed regular guardsmen, it'll take you 5 turns just to charge from unit to unit.
I likely won't get 5, but I will likely get more than 1 and with a commissar their LD is the same. As for the mixed blessing it depends on how many units Incan charge with, can I hit or pile into more than 1 squad, can I shoot the rear squad and charge the front? For regular conscripts you will remove the front if I shoot resulting in a longer charge. All those squads also
Count as kill points now which could
Be a huge difference.
The difference is with a commissar five 10 man units are significantly worse than a single 50 man unit as I can force 5 casualties in a turn instead of one. It is also less overwatch, likely little to no retaliatory attacks in close combat
I would disagree on the overwatch part.
Units that have some way of negating overwatch are becoming a very real thing. Reivers can throw a grenade before charging and shut down overwatch from a unit of Conscripts, for example.
Motsie wrote: How good (or bad) would it be to provide modifiers to hit and/or wound based on how many models are in the unit (over 20)? It would reinforce the idea that if you're shooting into this giant cluster of infantry you're bound to hit and wound several targets...
That's kind of what I was getting at with my Hordes idea. Reclassify Conscripts, Brimstones, Orks, Cultists, etc as Hordes instead of Infantry. Then you can add special rules that only apply to Hordes.
I likely won't get 5, but I will likely get more than 1 and with a commissar their LD is the same. As for the mixed blessing it depends on how many units Incan charge with, can I hit or pile into more than 1 squad, can I shoot the rear squad and charge the front? For regular conscripts you will remove the front if I shoot resulting in a longer charge. All those squads also
Count as kill points now which could
Be a huge difference.
Kill points is a valid argument. This also makes guard go last even against other hordes.
Overwatch may or may not even be a thing. The reasonable marine player would charge a rhino into the conscript squad first. With a commissar, you'd have to kill at least 5 of them to have a 50% chance at losing another. You'd have to kill 3 of them in each squad minimum even force them to have the chance to fail the leadership. That's 30 guardsmen. It's definitely doable, but if it's doable, so is killing conscripts!
Ultimately, at the end of the day, we're talking about 0-4 extra wounds (per 50) assuming a commissar, and you're saying that's those extra 4 potential wounds would make the difference between conscripts and infantry. This is the point where I say again that if you need the extra four wounds to make a difference, you're probably going to wind up having problems with massed infantry regardless.
Xenomancers wrote: This isn't a hard problem to solve - increase their points cost and remove their ability to take orders.
How about no? They are already only a point cheaper than regular Guardsmen and quite frankly increasing the points cost would nerf them too hard. Likewise, do not remove their ability to take orders.
How about this: Instead of whining, adapt. Stop expecting to remove a blob unit taken solely for its tankiness in a single turn or less without a significant commitment - and no, that does not mean "its own points cost or less", it means 2 to 3 times its points cost. Start thinking. You know, that thing that Guard players had to do back when we where being stomped all the time? Try it.
Or if we nerf Conscripts then how about nerfing the Rhino as well? After all the Rhino is even more survivable than the Conscripts and requires at least three times its points cost in dedicated AT gear to bring down and can transport units safely within its self and can completely negate overwatch by charging first. It is much better than the Conscripts.
a conscript should not cost less than a termagant - it's better than a termagant.
Then maybe the problem lies not with the Conscripts but with the Termagaunts?
There should also be no situation in the entire game where a melle unit like hormagaunts loses to equal points of shooty hordes
This is just plain stupid. Melee should be inherently a lot more situational than shooting, and require skill to get close, but once it gets there should be good.
Xenomancers wrote: This isn't a hard problem to solve - increase their points cost and remove their ability to take orders.
How about no? They are already only a point cheaper than regular Guardsmen and quite frankly increasing the points cost would nerf them too hard. Likewise, do not remove their ability to take orders.
How about this: Instead of whining, adapt. Stop expecting to remove a blob unit taken solely for its tankiness in a single turn or less without a significant commitment - and no, that does not mean "its own points cost or less", it means 2 to 3 times its points cost. Start thinking. You know, that thing that Guard players had to do back when we where being stomped all the time? Try it.
Or if we nerf Conscripts then how about nerfing the Rhino as well? After all the Rhino is even more survivable than the Conscripts and requires at least three times its points cost in dedicated AT gear to bring down and can transport units safely within its self and can completely negate overwatch by charging first. It is much better than the Conscripts.
a conscript should not cost less than a termagant - it's better than a termagant.
Then maybe the problem lies not with the Conscripts but with the Termagaunts?
There should also be no situation in the entire game where a melle unit like hormagaunts loses to equal points of shooty hordes
This is just plain stupid. Melee should be inherently a lot more situational than shooting, and require skill to get close, but once it gets there should be good.
Once again you show that you aren't bothering to read the context for the posts you reply to or supply any mathhammer to support your conclusions. There's no point in arguing when you throw out baseless claims like these. Rhinos require at least 3x their own cost in AT? Wrong, plasma scion command squad does it at 1.5x. You want IG to be the new top dog, that is your opinion and it's fine, just use honest arguments instead.
Once again you show that you aren't bothering to read the context for the posts you reply to or supply any mathhammer to support your conclusions. There's no point in arguing when you throw out baseless claims like these. Rhinos require at least 3x their own cost in AT? Wrong, plasma scion command squad does it at 1.5x. You want IG to be the new top dog, that is your opinion and it's fine, just use honest arguments instead.
First of all, the two squads you need at 128 points are closer to 2x (140) than 1.5x (105). Second, the two mandatory tempestor primes that they are shackled to as per the FAQ raise the total cost to 208 points, juuuust 2 points shy of 3x and close enough for government work.
Thirdly, aren't people still saying plasma scions are OP at tankbusting? So if you want your own units to be as good at killing infantry as scions command squads are at tankbusting, doesn't that imply that you want *your* units to be OP? Or are you going to say that plasma command squads are fine?
Once again you show that you aren't bothering to read the context for the posts you reply to or supply any mathhammer to support your conclusions. There's no point in arguing when you throw out baseless claims like these. Rhinos require at least 3x their own cost in AT? Wrong, plasma scion command squad does it at 1.5x. You want IG to be the new top dog, that is your opinion and it's fine, just use honest arguments instead.
First of all, the two squads you need at 128 points are closer to 2x (140) than 1.5x (105). Second, the two mandatory tempestor primes that they are shackled to as per the FAQ raise the total cost to 208 points, juuuust 2 points shy of 3x and close enough for government work.
Thirdly, aren't people still saying plasma scions are OP at tankbusting? So if you want your own units to be as good at killing infantry as scions command squads are at tankbusting, doesn't that imply that you want *your* units to be OP? Or are you going to say that plasma command squads are fine?
This is a much better post, you are actually trying to argue the facts and not just dismiss them. Yes, if you include the cost of the tempestor primes and ignore the overkill then this is true, but then you should be using one squad of regular plasma scions instead of one command squad. Can still be done at below 2.5x the cost.
And no, nothing in my post implied anything about a comparison between conscript killers and rhino killers. It was a point about arguing the facts.
While one squad of regular plasma scions does get rid of the Tempestor Primes, it still only has 4 plasma guns, so it's not likely to kill the Rhino in one turn. It theoretically can, if everything hits, everything wounds, and nothing saves, but... not likely. The hot-shot lasguns will contribute a wound or two probably, but they're no plasma guns.
So you're going to need two squads, which will run you 248 points (12 of which are hot-shot lasguns, they cost 1 point). Without said primes to make them reroll 1s you'll probably lose one or two scions to Gets Hot in the process.
A 10-man and a 5-man with 6 plasma guns might have a chance of pulling it off for 186 points (somewhere between 2.6x and 2.7x) depending on just how much work the hot-shot lasguns put in, but you'll be cutting it close and losing one guy to Gets Hot.
ross-128 wrote: While one squad of regular plasma scions does get rid of the Tempestor Primes, it still only has 4 plasma guns, so it's not likely to kill the Rhino in one turn. It theoretically can, if everything hits, everything wounds, and nothing saves, but... not likely. The hot-shot lasguns will contribute a wound or two probably, but they're no plasma guns.
So you're going to need two squads, which will run you 248 points (12 of which are hot-shot lasguns, they cost 1 point). Without said primes to make them reroll 1s you'll probably lose one or two scions to Gets Hot in the process.
A 10-man and a 5-man with 6 plasma guns might have a chance of pulling it off for 186 points (somewhere between 2.6x and 2.7x) depending on just how much work the hot-shot lasguns put in, but you'll be cutting it close and losing one guy to Gets Hot.
You would be using one scion command squad, one tempestor prime and one scion squad. 163 pts by my count.
Melissia wrote: He's reading your arguments, they're just crappy and unconvincing.
Just like yours are, just on the other side of the issue.
EDIT: Anyway I brought some of my friends conscripts today to a match just for gaks and giggles, 2 x 30 man units, 2 Lord Commissars. Cheap easy to slot in. They held the CSM forces off admirably in the Fate of Konor campaign battle, they bought me enough time to destroy his forces in localized areas before moving to the next. Just Grey Knights on my own wouldn't have been able to do that. But for 250ish points I got 64 wounds; it's great.
The difference is with a commissar five 10 man units are significantly worse than a single 50 man unit as I can force 5 casualties in a turn instead of one. It is also less overwatch, likely little to no retaliatory attacks in close combat
I would disagree on the overwatch part.
Units that have some way of negating overwatch are becoming a very real thing. Reivers can throw a grenade before charging and shut down overwatch from a unit of Conscripts, for example.
Which means at worst their equal, usually conscipts are still better.
I likely won't get 5, but I will likely get more than 1 and with a commissar their LD is the same. As for the mixed blessing it depends on how many units Incan charge with, can I hit or pile into more than 1 squad, can I shoot the rear squad and charge the front? For regular conscripts you will remove the front if I shoot resulting in a longer charge. All those squads also
Count as kill points now which could
Be a huge difference.
Kill points is a valid argument. This also makes guard go last even against other hordes.
Overwatch may or may not even be a thing. The reasonable marine player would charge a rhino into the conscript squad first. With a commissar, you'd have to kill at least 5 of them to have a 50% chance at losing another. You'd have to kill 3 of them in each squad minimum even force them to have the chance to fail the leadership. That's 30 guardsmen. It's definitely doable, but if it's doable, so is killing conscripts!
Ultimately, at the end of the day, we're talking about 0-4 extra wounds (per 50) assuming a commissar, and you're saying that's those extra 4 potential wounds would make the difference between conscripts and infantry. This is the point where I say again that if you need the extra four wounds to make a difference, you're probably going to wind up having problems with massed infantry regardless.
4 casualties a turn can add up. Especially when you are starting with fewer models. It isn't huge, but anything speeds up the process it doesn't hurt.
Look at it this way if you had to take infantry squads and not conscripts it would be akin to these nerfs/buffs to conscripts
1.) Before the start of turn 1 kill 25% of all conscripts
2.) Issuing orders to this unit requires 1 order per 10 models
3.) Commissars reduce casualties to 1 per 10 models
4.) give conscripts +1 BS/WS
I'm pretty sure that would get shouted down as too severe if I suggested it.
Another important note is that smaller squads means always removing casualties near the attacking unit, which makes bubble wrap less effective.
Once again you show that you aren't bothering to read the context for the posts you reply to or supply any mathhammer to support your conclusions.
What context? Thusfar it has all come down to "We used to rofl stomp Guard units off the map but now they are presenting a slight challange - OH NO'S!"
There's no point in arguing when you throw out baseless claims like these. Rhinos require at least 3x their own cost in AT?
Someone else did the math, but it takes something in the range of nine lascannon teams IIR. Look back a few pages.
Wrong, plasma scion command squad does it at 1.5x.
Someone else did the math and it comes in at two points shy of 3 times. I humbly apologise.
You want IG to be the new top dog, that is your opinion and it's fine, just use honest arguments instead.
Not going to lie, I would love an edition where we just wiped the table with everything, but this is not it. This is the edition of players overreacting to tanky wound sponges being tanky wound sponges for the first time in I dont know. If it was my choice then Guard tanks would be amazing, Chimeras would be a lot cheaper and have their abilities back and Veterans would be troops, have doctrines and be a lot cheaper.
Ironically it was the self same players whom are now complaining about Guard infantry hordes whom insisted that the only real theme the Guard could have was to be a mass of cheap, faceless infantry. No, the wishes and dreams of the actual Guard players where denounced as "wrong" and we where repeatedly told that our army was not allowed to have anything like variation outside of the horde. And now we have this, the Marine players have won, the Guard players are staring in disgust and trying to make the best of a monodex build and at the same time having the self same "you dont know anything, your army is only allowed to be a faceless horde" faction whining incessantly about how the Guard infantry horde is overpowered.
Thou hath sown and now thou must reap.
4 casualties a turn can add up. Especially when you are starting with fewer models. It isn't huge, but anything speeds up the process it doesn't hurt.
It's been determined that requiring multiple turns to go through a conscript squad is too slow. As such, it sounds like this will still be equally effective.
And those 4 casualties are also, again, assuming that you've dealt 15-20 wounds across all the guardsmen, and the guard player rolls all 5s and 6s on the leadership. Literally the worst possible case for the guard player at that point. Average case sees maybe 1 casualty from that situation, more if you do more damage, but doing damage is something that apparently can't be reasonably done to conscripts, so I don't think it can be reasonably done here either.
Look at it this way if you had to take infantry squads and not conscripts it would be akin to these nerfs/buffs to conscripts
1.) Before the start of turn 1 kill 25% of all conscripts
2.) Issuing orders to this unit requires 1 order per 10 models
3.) Commissars reduce casualties to 1 per 10 models
4.) give conscripts +1 BS/WS
I'm pretty sure that would get shouted down as too severe if I suggested it.
Another important note is that smaller squads means always removing casualties near the attacking unit, which makes bubble wrap less effective.
5.) Let them take special/heavy weapons.
That may or may not be useful if you're doing layers of thin bubble wrap. Lets you fill up a couple battalions (or whatever the +9 CP one is) damn quick too. And it's closer to 33% of all conscripts, in number 1. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying getting rid of conscripts is the ideal, desired, or reasonable thing. I'm just saying that I would expect that the lists that had problems with one would have problems with a similar amount of the other, even with the point difference in mind.
master of ordinance wrote: What context? Thusfar it has all come down to "We used to rofl stomp Guard units off the map but now they are presenting a slight challange - OH NO'S!"
master of ordinance wrote: What context? Thusfar it has all come down to "We used to rofl stomp Guard units off the map but now they are presenting a slight challange - OH NO'S!"
Which is funny because Tau did NOT have the tournament showings to justify that. Chaos Daemons and Renegades and Heretics were the two most dominant factions in the last phase of 7th with Eldar being about equal to Chaos Daemons in the 2nd/3rd slot.
Let's chillax a little. Please. I doubt there's ever going to be a reconciliation of ideals here, but getting snippy at each other isn't going to head in any direction but a lock, followed by someone remaking this same thread within the next 48 hours, and, ya know, I mean, I've seen it happen again and again. With eldar, with IG in 5th, with grey knights. It's the same tired pattern over and over again, and I don't really know what anyone gets out of it, now that I stop and think. But like a train wreck in slow motion, I just can't turn away. Maybe that's just who I am.
I need to find time for that game. I'll show, step by step, that this can be solved with the worst unit in the SM codex (according to some) and, well, it probably won't solve anything at all. Even when I show that it's within average results. But I'm gonna try. And maybe I'll be wrong. But then I'll have a chance to reconcile my view, and that's worth a lot as far as the game goes.
..and "screw" is REALLY not that bad. I said "damn" earlier (and now) and no one's jumping my gak about it. And I'm sure I've had worse than that squeak by the censors here. But I'm the guy in favor of dissolving the filters, so YMMV.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I think I've defending the residing champion every time. Even Eldar, which I don't own a single model of.
...except heldrakes. Those things should go away forever.
ross-128 wrote: While one squad of regular plasma scions does get rid of the Tempestor Primes, it still only has 4 plasma guns, so it's not likely to kill the Rhino in one turn. It theoretically can, if everything hits, everything wounds, and nothing saves, but... not likely. The hot-shot lasguns will contribute a wound or two probably, but they're no plasma guns.
So you're going to need two squads, which will run you 248 points (12 of which are hot-shot lasguns, they cost 1 point). Without said primes to make them reroll 1s you'll probably lose one or two scions to Gets Hot in the process.
A 10-man and a 5-man with 6 plasma guns might have a chance of pulling it off for 186 points (somewhere between 2.6x and 2.7x) depending on just how much work the hot-shot lasguns put in, but you'll be cutting it close and losing one guy to Gets Hot.
You would be using one scion command squad, one tempestor prime and one scion squad. 163 pts by my count.
Once again you show that you aren't bothering to read the context for the posts you reply to or supply any mathhammer to support your conclusions.
What context? Thusfar it has all come down to "We used to rofl stomp Guard units off the map but now they are presenting a slight challange - OH NO'S!"
There's no point in arguing when you throw out baseless claims like these. Rhinos require at least 3x their own cost in AT?
Someone else did the math, but it takes something in the range of nine lascannon teams IIR. Look back a few pages.
Wrong, plasma scion command squad does it at 1.5x.
Someone else did the math and it comes in at two points shy of 3 times. I humbly apologise.
You want IG to be the new top dog, that is your opinion and it's fine, just use honest arguments instead.
Not going to lie, I would love an edition where we just wiped the table with everything, but this is not it. This is the edition of players overreacting to tanky wound sponges being tanky wound sponges for the first time in I dont know. If it was my choice then Guard tanks would be amazing, Chimeras would be a lot cheaper and have their abilities back and Veterans would be troops, have doctrines and be a lot cheaper.
Ironically it was the self same players whom are now complaining about Guard infantry hordes whom insisted that the only real theme the Guard could have was to be a mass of cheap, faceless infantry. No, the wishes and dreams of the actual Guard players where denounced as "wrong" and we where repeatedly told that our army was not allowed to have anything like variation outside of the horde. And now we have this, the Marine players have won, the Guard players are staring in disgust and trying to make the best of a monodex build and at the same time having the self same "you dont know anything, your army is only allowed to be a faceless horde" faction whining incessantly about how the Guard infantry horde is overpowered.
Thou hath sown and now thou must reap.
You are ignoring the context once again. It should be clear to anyone reading this thread properly that you are trying your best to ignore the basis for any post that contradicts your view.
master of ordinance wrote: In all honesty I just want to fell like the glory factions did over the past few years.
And that's why you shouldn't be allowed to be in these threads.
"You're saying things I disagree with, you shouldn't be allowed to do that"
Already a classic position in 2017
He literally just said, feth balance I want to be OP. You can't spin that, just like Melissa said the same thing in a different thread.
They're becoming toxic because they want to win so badly they are willing to say, SCREW BALANCE.
As though all members of the "nerf-conscripts" camp are nothing but paragons of civility. . .
I see you're typing in a controlled tone here, btw
Anyhoo. Looking at the tournament lists as posted, the thing I'd be inclined to look at is the Scions, not the Conscripts.
I wasn't aware I was in the civil conscripts thread, where we were always civil. And if you want to chide me on tone, you better get glasses that aren't one way after how you've been acting to sossen.
4 casualties a turn can add up. Especially when you are starting with fewer models. It isn't huge, but anything speeds up the process it doesn't hurt.
It's been determined that requiring multiple turns to go through a conscript squad is too slow. As such, it sounds like this will still be equally effective.
And those 4 casualties are also, again, assuming that you've dealt 15-20 wounds across all the guardsmen, and the guard player rolls all 5s and 6s on the leadership. Literally the worst possible case for the guard player at that point. Average case sees maybe 1 casualty from that situation, more if you do more damage, but doing damage is something that apparently can't be reasonably done to conscripts, so I don't think it can be reasonably done here either.
Look at it this way if you had to take infantry squads and not conscripts it would be akin to these nerfs/buffs to conscripts
1.) Before the start of turn 1 kill 25% of all conscripts
2.) Issuing orders to this unit requires 1 order per 10 models
3.) Commissars reduce casualties to 1 per 10 models
4.) give conscripts +1 BS/WS
I'm pretty sure that would get shouted down as too severe if I suggested it.
Another important note is that smaller squads means always removing casualties near the attacking unit, which makes bubble wrap less effective.
5.) Let them take special/heavy weapons.
That may or may not be useful if you're doing layers of thin bubble wrap. Lets you fill up a couple battalions (or whatever the +9 CP one is) damn quick too. And it's closer to 33% of all conscripts, in number 1. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying getting rid of conscripts is the ideal, desired, or reasonable thing. I'm just saying that I would expect that the lists that had problems with one would have problems with a similar amount of the other, even with the point difference in mind.
I did not include th addition of special and heavy weapons because then you end up with even less bodies. You will also really only get to 1 brigade because of all the other requirements you might get 1 and a battalion, but the 3 each or elite, fast, and heavy will eat your points quick.
As such I would disagree with your assertion that people would have the same issue with more expensive bubble wrap models because it would be fewer models or way more points. It still wouldn't be easy, but it would be better.
Xenomancers wrote: This isn't a hard problem to solve - increase their points cost and remove their ability to take orders.
How about no? They are already only a point cheaper than regular Guardsmen and quite frankly increasing the points cost would nerf them too hard. Likewise, do not remove their ability to take orders.
How about this: Instead of whining, adapt. Stop expecting to remove a blob unit taken solely for its tankiness in a single turn or less without a significant commitment - and no, that does not mean "its own points cost or less", it means 2 to 3 times its points cost. Start thinking. You know, that thing that Guard players had to do back when we where being stomped all the time? Try it.
Or if we nerf Conscripts then how about nerfing the Rhino as well? After all the Rhino is even more survivable than the Conscripts and requires at least three times its points cost in dedicated AT gear to bring down and can transport units safely within its self and can completely negate overwatch by charging first. It is much better than the Conscripts.
a conscript should not cost less than a termagant - it's better than a termagant.
Then maybe the problem lies not with the Conscripts but with the Termagaunts?
There should also be no situation in the entire game where a melle unit like hormagaunts loses to equal points of shooty hordes
This is just plain stupid. Melee should be inherently a lot more situational than shooting, and require skill to get close, but once it gets there should be good.
What If I told you...The guardsmen is also undercosted? Except it's not as easy to exploit because of it's max squad size. Plus why exploit it because you can just exploit conscripts? It is clear to me - and probably everyone at this point that in order to fix conscripts you will also have to increase the cost of a guardsmen.
master of ordinance wrote: In all honesty I just want to fell like the glory factions did over the past few years.
And that's why you shouldn't be allowed to be in these threads.
"You're saying things I disagree with, you shouldn't be allowed to do that"
Already a classic position in 2017
He literally just said, feth balance I want to be OP. You can't spin that, just like Melissa said the same thing in a different thread.
They're becoming toxic because they want to win so badly they are willing to say, SCREW BALANCE.
As though all members of the "nerf-conscripts" camp are nothing but paragons of civility. . .
I see you're typing in a controlled tone here, btw
Anyhoo. Looking at the tournament lists as posted, the thing I'd be inclined to look at is the Scions, not the Conscripts.
The "nerf-conscript" camp has more reasonable people than the other side. Just like how the "nerf-Scatterbike" side had unreasonable people from time to time (like Martel suggesting to bump up the lasers to 20 frickin points), except we are also dealing with people now who are power hungry and therefore don't even care.
That was the proper cost of a scatbike; 37 pts. 17 + 20 =37, 32 was still too cheap. It was NOT unreasonable in the context of C:CWE. People would still have used them at 37, but some would have given up. That's where a unit is balanced. They were still autotake at 32. Given what they look like in 8th, I think GW agreed with me in the end.
But yes, the IG crowd is now basically power-mad, just like Eldar/Tau. Yes, I know Daemons, but they were so fundamentally broken they weren't even worth discussing in 7th.
What If I told you...The guardsmen is also undercosted? Except it's not as easy to exploit because of it's max squad size. Plus why exploit it because you can just exploit conscripts? It is clear to me - and probably everyone at this point that in order to fix conscripts you will also have to increase the cost of a guardsmen.
Termagaunts are BS4+ and WS4+, which is likely why they share their point cost with Guardsmen.
The only real issue with them seems to be that there's not really enough room at the low end of the point scale to represent the difference between a spike rifle and a lasgun. There is a difference, obviously, but when a lasgun is already 0 points, well... you've gone and run out of room.
The thing is, with that particular combination of stats and weapons, those three units (conscripts, guardsmen, and gaunts) cannot ever be perfectly balanced against each other in the current points system. They're too similar to each other, and their point cost is so low that one point in either direction creates too large a swing.
What is it about termagaunts that makes them the gold standard of balance for you, anyway? Why should the whole of 40k revolve around that one particular unit?
And for that matter, why should Imperial Guard shooting be made as bad as Tyranid shooting? Tyranids hardly bother to shoot at all!
Now, if the only real problem you have is "it's possible for my Space Marines to lose to Guard, and I don't like that", then raising conscripts to be "more than a termagaunt" and adjusting every other infantry unit in the codex accordingly would fix that "problem".
After all, "more than a termagaunt" would put Conscripts at 5ppm, Guardsmen at a minimum of 6ppm, and Veterans at 7ppm. Certainly wouldn't have to worry about ever losing to Guardsmen then. You might not even see a single guardsman on the table after that, people would just stop using them entirely.
But nuking half the codex from orbit is far from an elegant solution.
The "nerf-conscript" camp has more reasonable people than the other side. Just like how the "nerf-Scatterbike" side had unreasonable people from time to time (like Martel suggesting to bump up the lasers to 20 frickin points), except we are also dealing with people now who are power hungry and therefore don't even care.
The "nerf-conscript" camp has just as many unreasonable people as the other side does, quite frankly.
Nonsense like "it should cost multiple Orders" or the awful comparisons made by some posters of Orders to Auras should tell you everything you need to know.
I did not include th addition of special and heavy weapons because then you end up with even less bodies. You will also really only get to 1 brigade because of all the other requirements you might get 1 and a battalion, but the 3 each or elite, fast, and heavy will eat your points quick.
As such I would disagree with your assertion that people would have the same issue with more expensive bubble wrap models because it would be fewer models or way more points. It still wouldn't be easy, but it would be better.
Like I said, the weapons may or may not be useful.
I guess that's a fair point about the 3 other slots. The brigades still hand out a ton of CP, which might get useful when the codex happens (assuming that everything isn't totally revamped).
Okay, okay. Looking at that winning list, you change the two basilisks into more earthshakers, and suddenly you've freed up 56 points. You lose a couple heavy bolters, but functionally, not really too much changes in that list as far as the firepower. That buys you another 10 more infantry (with change). You're at 100 infantry now.
I think he had an Primaris psyker in there right? Downgrade the primaris to an astropath, and I think you're one point shy of having another squad. That puts you 10 infantry under where you were before, you can still keep the commissars bubbling the important squads, and little actually changes, because your limiting factor is attacks, apparently.
Actual changes? You lost some maneuverability with some guns you weren't going to move anyway, smite got a little harder, you have 10 less infantry in your apparently unassailable wall, you have to try just a teensy bit harder with the commissars, and you can't order every single guardsman.
Oh, and the actual difference in orders, when you take BS into account?
(assuming 12-24" range for all guardsmen and firing at other guardsmen because the proportions will come out the same)
A: 140 S: 3 AP: 0 D: 1 @ BS or WS: 4+
vs T: 3 sv 5+
(assuming 12-24" range for all conscripts and firing at other guardsmen because the proportions will come out the same)
A: 240 S: 3 AP: 0 D: 1 @ BS or WS: 5+
vs T: 3 sv 5+
So the infantry have a 63% to do 20-27 wounds, and the conscripts have a 63% to do 22-30. It's about a 10% reduction in firepower.
Again, this isn't to show you they're identical. I'm not going to convince anyone of that, because it's not true. All I'm trying to show is that even if conscripts didn't exist, it doesn't significantly cripple that list.
Horde is strong this edition. Either the meta shifts to deal with that (applying the IG theory to SM, lots of cheap disposable 11 point scouts) or you're just going to have to nerf guard back into third tier again so that literally ANY combination of SM units becomes competitive. Even if you do the latter, you're never going to get rid of facesmash lists though. They'll just shift into whatever form becomes most effective.
The "nerf-conscript" camp has more reasonable people than the other side. Just like how the "nerf-Scatterbike" side had unreasonable people from time to time (like Martel suggesting to bump up the lasers to 20 frickin points), except we are also dealing with people now who are power hungry and therefore don't even care.
You realize that there have been several solutions posted to this same thread with solutions for how SM deal with this? You realize that they came with math? You realize the only refutation they received was the equivalent of "No, it won't work."?
Sometimes people might get "unreasonable" when they're faced with people who's primary argument comes from overzealous belief.
What If I told you...The guardsmen is also undercosted? Except it's not as easy to exploit because of it's max squad size. Plus why exploit it because you can just exploit conscripts? It is clear to me - and probably everyone at this point that in order to fix conscripts you will also have to increase the cost of a guardsmen.
Termagaunts are BS4+ and WS4+, which is likely why they share their point cost with Guardsmen.
The only real issue with them seems to be that there's not really enough room at the low end of the point scale to represent the difference between a spike rifle and a lasgun. There is a difference, obviously, but when a lasgun is already 0 points, well... you've gone and run out of room.
The thing is, with that particular combination of stats and weapons, those three units (conscripts, guardsmen, and gaunts) cannot ever be perfectly balanced against each other in the current points system. They're too similar to each other, and their point cost is so low that one point in either direction creates too large a swing.
What is it about termagaunts that makes them the gold standard of balance for you, anyway? Why should the whole of 40k revolve around that one particular unit?
And for that matter, why should Imperial Guard shooting be made as bad as Tyranid shooting? Tyranids hardly bother to shoot at all!
Now, if the only real problem you have is "it's possible for my Space Marines to lose to Guard, and I don't like that", then raising conscripts to be "more than a termagaunt" and adjusting every other infantry unit in the codex accordingly would fix that "problem".
After all, "more than a termagaunt" would put Conscripts at 5ppm, Guardsmen at a minimum of 6ppm, and Veterans at 7ppm. Certainly wouldn't have to worry about ever losing to Guardsmen then. You might not even see a single guardsman on the table after that, people would just stop using them entirely.
But nuking half the codex from orbit is far from an elegant solution.
I never said they should cost more. I just said that scripts are better than a termagaunt and cost 3 instead of 4. At the same point cost the unit seems more even. Though it's arguably better for a horde unit to have a 5+ save over a 6+ save because their job is to absorb fire/take - they aren't supposed to deal a lot of damage. The termagant has more movement and can take different weapon options which adds to it's value.
I did not include th addition of special and heavy weapons because then you end up with even less bodies. You will also really only get to 1 brigade because of all the other requirements you might get 1 and a battalion, but the 3 each or elite, fast, and heavy will eat your points quick.
As such I would disagree with your assertion that people would have the same issue with more expensive bubble wrap models because it would be fewer models or way more points. It still wouldn't be easy, but it would be better.
Like I said, the weapons may or may not be useful.
I guess that's a fair point about the 3 other slots. The brigades still hand out a ton of CP, which might get useful when the codex happens (assuming that everything isn't totally revamped).
Okay, okay. Looking at that winning list, you change the two basilisks into more earthshakers, and suddenly you've freed up 56 points. You lose a couple heavy bolters, but functionally, not really too much changes in that list as far as the firepower. That buys you another 10 more infantry (with change). You're at 100 infantry now.
I think he had an Primaris psyker in there right? Downgrade the primaris to an astropath, and I think you're one point shy of having another squad. That puts you 10 infantry under where you were before, you can still keep the commissars bubbling the important squads, and little actually changes, because your limiting factor is attacks, apparently.
Actual changes? You lost some maneuverability with some guns you weren't going to move anyway, smite got a little harder, you have 10 less infantry in your apparently unassailable wall, you have to try just a teensy bit harder with the commissars, and you can't order every single guardsman.
Oh, and the actual difference in orders, when you take BS into account?
(assuming 12-24" range for all guardsmen and firing at other guardsmen because the proportions will come out the same)
A: 140 S: 3 AP: 0 D: 1 @ BS or WS: 4+
vs T: 3 sv 5+
(assuming 12-24" range for all conscripts and firing at other guardsmen because the proportions will come out the same)
A: 240 S: 3 AP: 0 D: 1 @ BS or WS: 5+
vs T: 3 sv 5+
So the infantry have a 63% to do 20-27 wounds, and the conscripts have a 63% to do 22-30. It's about a 10% reduction in firepower.
Again, this isn't to show you they're identical. I'm not going to convince anyone of that, because it's not true. All I'm trying to show is that even if conscripts didn't exist, it doesn't significantly cripple that list.
Horde is strong this edition. Either the meta shifts to deal with that (applying the IG theory to SM, lots of cheap disposable 11 point scouts) or you're just going to have to nerf guard back into third tier again so that literally ANY combination of SM units becomes competitive. Even if you do the latter, you're never going to get rid of facesmash lists though. They'll just shift into whatever form becomes most effective.
The "nerf-conscript" camp has more reasonable people than the other side. Just like how the "nerf-Scatterbike" side had unreasonable people from time to time (like Martel suggesting to bump up the lasers to 20 frickin points), except we are also dealing with people now who are power hungry and therefore don't even care.
You realize that there have been several solutions posted to this same thread with solutions for how SM deal with this? You realize that they came with math? You realize the only refutation they received was the equivalent of "No, it won't work."?
Sometimes people might get "unreasonable" when they're faced with people who's primary argument comes from overzealous belief.
1. Those solutions were basically list tailoring. No that isn't a solution.
2. I'm speaking as a Necrons, Skitarii, and CSM as well. Good to assume I speak for Space Marines though, huh?
1. Those solutions were basically list tailoring. No that isn't a solution.
2. I'm speaking as a Necrons, Skitarii, and CSM as well. Good to assume I speak for Space Marines though, huh?
Why were they list tailoring? They had a lot of flamers in the one, granted, but I'm pretty sure you could do well without them even. I'd run the numbers, but people don't really seem concerned with silly things like that, and it's a particular amount of work for me to set it up.
I'm pretty sure the first SM method would work for CSM. Maybe you should go look at it. I'm not familiar enough with Necrons or Skitariii to tell you how to play your army though. Maybe someone in the tactics subforum can?
I did not include th addition of special and heavy weapons because then you end up with even less bodies. You will also really only get to 1 brigade because of all the other requirements you might get 1 and a battalion, but the 3 each or elite, fast, and heavy will eat your points quick.
As such I would disagree with your assertion that people would have the same issue with more expensive bubble wrap models because it would be fewer models or way more points. It still wouldn't be easy, but it would be better.
Like I said, the weapons may or may not be useful.
I guess that's a fair point about the 3 other slots. The brigades still hand out a ton of CP, which might get useful when the codex happens (assuming that everything isn't totally revamped).
Okay, okay. Looking at that winning list, you change the two basilisks into more earthshakers, and suddenly you've freed up 56 points. You lose a couple heavy bolters, but functionally, not really too much changes in that list as far as the firepower. That buys you another 10 more infantry (with change). You're at 100 infantry now.
I think he had an Primaris psyker in there right? Downgrade the primaris to an astropath, and I think you're one point shy of having another squad. That puts you 10 infantry under where you were before, you can still keep the commissars bubbling the important squads, and little actually changes, because your limiting factor is attacks, apparently.
Actual changes? You lost some maneuverability with some guns you weren't going to move anyway, smite got a little harder, you have 10 less infantry in your apparently unassailable wall, you have to try just a teensy bit harder with the commissars, and you can't order every single guardsman.
Oh, and the actual difference in orders, when you take BS into account?
(assuming 12-24" range for all guardsmen and firing at other guardsmen because the proportions will come out the same)
A: 140 S: 3 AP: 0 D: 1 @ BS or WS: 4+
vs T: 3 sv 5+
(assuming 12-24" range for all conscripts and firing at other guardsmen because the proportions will come out the same)
A: 240 S: 3 AP: 0 D: 1 @ BS or WS: 5+
vs T: 3 sv 5+
So the infantry have a 63% to do 20-27 wounds, and the conscripts have a 63% to do 22-30. It's about a 10% reduction in firepower.
Again, this isn't to show you they're identical. I'm not going to convince anyone of that, because it's not true. All I'm trying to show is that even if conscripts didn't exist, it doesn't significantly cripple that list.
Horde is strong this edition. Either the meta shifts to deal with that (applying the IG theory to SM, lots of cheap disposable 11 point scouts) or you're just going to have to nerf guard back into third tier again so that literally ANY combination of SM units becomes competitive. Even if you do the latter, you're never going to get rid of facesmash lists though. They'll just shift into whatever form becomes most effective.
Just a note, while you picked the ranges for 63% of wound to fall if you look at the percentages in those ranges they skew on the lower end for Infantry and the higher end for Conscripts. For instance 52% of that 63% for Infantry will be between 20-23, whereas only 42% of the 63% is 22-25 for the Conscripts. Infantry Squads also only have a 38.7% chance of doing 25 or more wounds, vs 65.4% chance for Conscripts. Similarly Conscripts only have a 27% chance of doing less than 23 wounds, where that chance is 52% for infantry squads.
Just a note, while you picked the ranges for 63% of wound to fall if you look at the percentages in those ranges they skew on the lower end for Infantry and the higher end for Conscripts. For instance 52% of that 63% for Infantry will be between 20-23, whereas only 42% of the 63% is 22-25 for the Conscripts. Infantry Squads also only have a 38.7% chance of doing 25 or more wounds, vs 65.4% chance for Conscripts. Similarly Conscripts only have a 27% chance of doing less than 23 wounds, where that chance is 52% for infantry squads.
So, my line of thinking was to pick the clear point of highest non-zero probability, and then add that whichever one adjacent to it is the higher number up until I get to about 65% or so. I don't like adding too many on, because then you have a wider swing of outcomes. I suppose if I went up to 31 on the conscripts, that would give me about 68% which is a good number from a standard deviation point of view, which would also drop the bottom of the infantry to 19. I mostly stopped there because the percentages came out almost exact and I thought "good enough for me". So, lets not call it 10%. Let's call it 13%
Regardless, these are the reasons why I share the full spectrum of data, so that you can draw your own conclusions and not rely on my editorializing.
I never said they should cost more. I just said that scripts are better than a termagaunt and cost 3 instead of 4. At the same point cost the unit seems more even. Though it's arguably better for a horde unit to have a 5+ save over a 6+ save because their job is to absorb fire/take - they aren't supposed to deal a lot of damage. The termagant has more movement and can take different weapon options which adds to it's value.
That still doesn't answer why a Termagaunt should be the standard that Imperial Guard shooting is held to.
After all, let's take those termagaunts to planet bowling ball to play some mathhammer. Following lazy mathhammer conventions, which seem to be well established here until they become inconvenient, we're going to assume the whole army is engaged simultaneously, everything is in ideal range, and the unit that we're trying to "prove" is too strong goes first.
Let's do a simple shooting contest:
30 Termagaunts with Fleshborers and Synapse vs 10 Tactical Marines (let's say they somehow managed to be supported by a single warrior for the cheapest possible source of synapse)
T4: 8 Fleshborer shots, 4 hits, 2 wounds, 0 unsaved, 6 tactical marines remain. Based on previous turn's average, tacticals win after two more turns with only 4 casualties. Maybe 5 if one of the gaunts gets lucky before it dies.
Also note that it took those two squads six turns to shoot each other to pieces (even if two of them were just Space Marines mopping up a crippled target). Because applying equal points of basic shooting is simply not a fast way to kill anything.
Does it make Space Marines OP that 130 points of tacticals with bolters can simply shoot 120 points of Termagaunts with 24 points of synapse support off the table, and only take 65 points of casualties? That's without the tacticals charging to maximize their first-turn advantage, without them getting a free turn at 24", without their numerous sources of re-rolls, and without chapter tactics. Or are Termagaunts perhaps a poor standard to measure shooting by?
Overall I'd be willing to bet that point for point, termagaunts get curb-stomped by literally any other faction's basic infantry. At least, as long as you're mathhammering a shootout in ideal range on planet bowling ball. Boyz might have to assault to do it, but why would Boyz ever not assault.
So pardon me if I'm not entirely on board with balancing *my* faction's infantry around Termagaunts.
master of ordinance wrote: In all honesty I just want to fell like the glory factions did over the past few years.
And that's why you shouldn't be allowed to be in these threads.
What, because I miss spelt feel? Next time try to not cherry pick my posts as you might have noted that I specifically did not like the idea of my armies only build being conscripts.
He literally just said, feth balance I want to be OP. You can't spin that, just like Melissa said the same thing in a different thread.
I said I would like to be OP. And yes I would, it would really feel nice to deliver the exact same beat down that we suffered for years at the hands of other factions. However that is not going to happen. And if you had ever bothered to read my posts you would note that I want the Guard to be overpowered in a flexible way (as Marines where), not as a single monobuild codex.
They're becoming toxic because they want to win so badly they are willing to say, SCREW BALANCE.
Perhaps if you had spent the last few years grasping desperately at straws, trying everything just to even glimpse a draw then perhaps you would have reached the tipping point too. But in this case it is more of a reaction to the whole "Oh noes I can no longer stomp all over IG armies, they must be OP!" reaction coming from certain players.
sossen wrote:
What If I told you...The guardsmen is also undercosted? Except it's not as easy to exploit because of it's max squad size. Plus why exploit it because you can just exploit conscripts? It is clear to me - and probably everyone at this point that in order to fix conscripts you will also have to increase the cost of a guardsmen.
What if I told you that actually Guardsmen are about right for their points cost and that upping that cost would nerf them into oblivion? What if I told you that the real problem is this entrenched thought process amongst certain factions that they should be easily able to win against certain armies and now that this is no longer possible they are struggling to grasp the fact that their outdated tactics need to be thrown out and that they need to adapt?
But yes, why bother thinking when you are the chosen faction and you can just whine and whine until GW come running with the dummy and a sweet nerf to fix that nasty booboo.
1. Those solutions were basically list tailoring. No that isn't a solution.
2. I'm speaking as a Necrons, Skitarii, and CSM as well. Good to assume I speak for Space Marines though, huh?
Why were they list tailoring? They had a lot of flamers in the one, granted, but I'm pretty sure you could do well without them even. I'd run the numbers, but people don't really seem concerned with silly things like that, and it's a particular amount of work for me to set it up.
I'm pretty sure the first SM method would work for CSM. Maybe you should go look at it. I'm not familiar enough with Necrons or Skitariii to tell you how to play your army though. Maybe someone in the tactics subforum can?
Because they are lists that people would never take in a general situation.
The reason I gave in my post is that I am simply following the same lazy conventions other people do when they mathhammer: the unit you're trying to prove is strong goes first in order to skew the results toward the predetermined conclusion.
However, in this case it would be easy to rationalize as being the result of space marines easily finishing deployment first, and therefore getting first turn.
First turn also likely wouldn't be enough to let the Termagaunts win (though it would give them a *chance* with favorable RNG), it would just extend the shootout well past turn 7 and result in the Space Marines barely limping away, but still victorious. Unless the Space Marines leverage the other advantages that they were ignoring to turn it back into a curb-stomp.
I don't know what a Nidzilla list looks like, but remember that what we keep saying to do HAS space for anti-tank/anti-TMC units still, so long as you're playing games higher than 500-600 points (which is fundamentally broken point levels anyway).
master of ordinance wrote: What if I told you that actually Guardsmen are about right for their points cost and that upping that cost would nerf them into oblivion? What if I told you that the real problem is this entrenched thought process amongst certain factions that they should be easily able to win against certain armies and now that this is no longer possible they are struggling to grasp the fact that their outdated tactics need to be thrown out and that they need to adapt?
But yes, why bother thinking when you are the chosen faction and you can just whine and whine until GW come running with the dummy and a sweet nerf to fix that nasty booboo.
What if I told you that not everyone that sees conscripts as a problem play a faction that was previously powerful? That is the problem with your whole " well if you had suffered you'd want to be OP too!" mantra, that idea gets the crap we have had forever instead of thinking, hey this might be too good, maybe if it were tweaked the game would be better for it. I'm all for buffs to other IG stuff that currently sucks. I want a game where variety is possible. The problem right now is that we have fallen back into the realm of skew lists that I was hoping this edition would fix. Most armies cannot realistically handle 5 knights and 200 conscripts with a single army build.
ross-128 wrote: So nobody should have to consider the possibility that they might face a horde?
Remember that despite what everyone thinks some players still want to run *small group of super elite mary sues* and as this tends to be what they face they build and optimise for that one thing. Sadly this means that when they face a horde army they find themselves woefully under equipped.
I don't know what a Nidzilla list looks like, but remember that what we keep saying to do HAS space for anti-tank/anti-TMC units still, so long as you're playing games higher than 500-600 points (which is fundamentally broken point levels anyway).
I guess we're just going to have to see, because I can't pack in enough anti-T3 to a reasonable 2K BA list to have a hope vs IG. No good IG player is going lose to the three Rhinos of tac marines. That list gets crushed against my losing BA lists probably.
Breng77 wrote: Especially when all 3 Rhinos are fairly likely to die on turn 1.
That doesn't even have to be true. The bottom line is that you are still dedicating huge chunks of a list to kill units that the IG don't need to kill you back.
Breng77 wrote: Especially when all 3 Rhinos are fairly likely to die on turn 1.
So what you're saying is, your opponent is dedicating 630+ points of dedicated, high-yield anti-tank units to taking down your cheap-ass 70pt rhinos, basically guaranteeing that your own long-ranged firepower gets two free turns of shooting basically without being shot back at.
Breng77 wrote: Especially when all 3 Rhinos are fairly likely to die on turn 1.
That doesn't even have to be true. The bottom line is that you are still dedicating huge chunks of a list to kill units that the IG don't need to kill you back.
True, but looking at the winning list from BAO the 5 basilisks and 6 plasma scion squads are pretty likely to kill those Rhinos, or most anything else they want. I will say here that basilisks having effectively unlimited range and no need for LOS is a bit silly as well.
Breng77 wrote: Especially when all 3 Rhinos are fairly likely to die on turn 1.
So what you're saying is, your opponent is dedicating 630+ points of dedicated, high-yield anti-tank units to taking down your cheap-ass 70pt rhinos, basically guaranteeing that your own long-ranged firepower gets two free turns of shooting basically without being shot back at.
Shooting at what? in the winning BAO list assuming it goes second, turn 1 your heavy weapons shoot conscripts, then turn 2 maybe they shoot scions, but at that point your Rhinos are dead, as well as likely their contents.
Breng77 wrote: Shooting at what? in the winning BAO list assuming it goes second, turn 1 your heavy weapons shoot conscripts, then turn 2 maybe they shoot scions, but at that point your Rhinos are dead, as well as likely their contents.
Actually, those top-tier BAO lists often had very close games. Your apocalyptic vision of them easily winning without any effort and laughing off anything you throw at them is nothing more than worthless hyperbole, just like 90% of the posts in this thread arguing for nerfs to Conscripts are.
Breng77 wrote: Shooting at what? in the winning BAO list assuming it goes second, turn 1 your heavy weapons shoot conscripts, then turn 2 maybe they shoot scions, but at that point your Rhinos are dead, as well as likely their contents.
Actually, those top-tier BAO lists often had very close games. Your apocalyptic vision of them easily winning without any effort and laughing off anything you throw at them is nothing more than worthless hyperbole, just like 90% of the posts in this thread arguing for nerfs to Conscripts are.
Did they, I seem to remember them winning pretty easily all things considered. Further if they only had close games on the top tables playing against other top tier broken armies....that says something. Like close games vs Other IG,Tau Commander Spam, Brimstone horror spam, Guiliman/Azreal bubble. None of those lists are particularly fun or good for the game.
Breng77 wrote: Shooting at what? in the winning BAO list assuming it goes second, turn 1 your heavy weapons shoot conscripts, then turn 2 maybe they shoot scions, but at that point your Rhinos are dead, as well as likely their contents.
Actually, those top-tier BAO lists often had very close games. Your apocalyptic vision of them easily winning without any effort and laughing off anything you throw at them is nothing more than worthless hyperbole, just like 90% of the posts in this thread arguing for nerfs to Conscripts are.
How well would IG have to do over the next few months for you to think maybe there is a problem?
Well, I mean if your position is that every single unit in every single one of the top 15 lists needs to be nerfed into the ground... at least you're consistent I guess?
I wasn't aware I was in the civil conscripts thread, where we were always civil. And if you want to chide me on tone, you better get glasses that aren't one way after how you've been acting to sossen.
If you read back on it, I think sossen and I got on rather well, coming to an agreement about Tactical Squads armed appropriately having better anti-tank firepower than conscripts, point for point. The time I got short (admittedly it reads much harsher than I was intending) with him was after he appeared to get short with someone else for showing how well Ork boyz killed conscripts in melee, as though assault units aren't allowed in the conversation.
The "nerf-conscript" camp has more reasonable people than the other side.
Tell you what, let's keep going and see where this line of conversation gets us. Probably not very far. But I'm sure we can go back and find some gems of hyperbole.
Let's put it aside and go back to basics, if we want to have a conversation:
100 Overwatch shots by conscripts = slightly less than 2 dead marines. 100 conscript shots = 3.6 marine casualties, or 1 Land Raider wound. They're decent against infantry, pretty terrible against vehicles. "Amazing durability": Agreed. They are very durable as a unit if you can't kill their Commissar, which is admittedly pretty difficult. I'm not the type to assume they will be easily sniped.
That said, Conscripts are vulnerable to massed small arms fire, and assaults that can do a lot of casualties at once, so they can't return fire very effectively. As for things specifically good at killing conscripts, we've got the TLAC Razors (which are effective, but you need a bunch and you're probably better off shooting them at something that can hurt you more.) But have any of you guys done the math yet on the Repulsor? I don't have the SM book, but form the leaks I'm seeing the following possible build:
I don't know the points, but that's a total 27x 3+ to hit, 3+ to wound, -1 AP shots, plus 2x 3+ to hit, 2+ to wound, -1 AP shots, plus 5D6x 3+ to hit, 3+ to wound, 0 AP shots. For which my math gives me 16 Conscripts kills a round, on the move (it has Machine Spirit) and without buffs. Nobody in a tournament wouldn't be buffing that thing.
As has been shown, 10 Berzerkers can do a pretty good number on Conscripts, and 10 Berzerkers in a Rhino is 230 compared to the Conscripts+Support of 210 (I think)
Orks will plow through them if they get there. I know that's situational, but nobody I've seen running a successful Ork army brings less than 90 Boyz, and that's by far the low end.
I'll stand by my assertion that Conscripts are strong, but actually ok. Deep Striking Scions with a 7 point Plasma Gun is my issue.
Tyel wrote: How well would IG have to do over the next few months for you to think maybe there is a problem?
It's very possible for me to think of most of the people whining in this thread as whiners who whine because they lost a match, and also think some adjustments need to be made. And maybe if you bother to look instead of being lazy, you might notice I have done exactly that.
And yet people say I'm angry all the time, gee I wonder why I appear annoyed so much.
Conscripts aren't the core of the problem. They are, at best, an ancillary part. Even without Conscripts, IG wouldn't really be any less powerful. If they don't use conscripts, they can use guardsmen for barely any more points who when played right are just as good defensively and actually better offensively. Conscripts are easier to use than guardsmen to be sure; but no more effective in the end and in many ways less so. And given that Conscripts are a fluffy unit that takes a LOT of time to assemble and paint, I'm not really keen on just nerfing them in to non-existence.
The core of the problem is GW basically radically redesigned the Guard army-- Guard actually changed the most out of all the armies-- and did so without considering the consequences of doing so and adjusting accordingly.
ross-128 wrote: Well, I mean if your position is that every single unit in every single one of the top 15 lists needs to be nerfed into the ground... at least you're consistent I guess?
The powerful ones found most common should be more than likely. Just as things that never see play likely should be buffed.
ross-128 wrote: Overall I'd be willing to bet that point for point, termagaunts get curb-stomped by literally any other faction's basic infantry. At least, as long as you're mathhammering a shootout in ideal range on planet bowling ball. Boyz might have to assault to do it, but why would Boyz ever not assault.
Wait, what? You made the contest unbalanced to begin with. Space Marines are not "basic" infantry. They're elite galactic soldiers, MEQs if you will. You show an example of hordes getting mowed down by elite infantry then act like that's strange. Here's a fun bit... Terminators will mow down Marines too. Medium infantry COUNTERS Light infantry just as Heavy infantry counters the Mediums. Light infantry is meant to die and overwhelms small packs of super elite infantry by drowning them in fire.
If you wanted to prove some kind of point, at least compare them to other Light Infantry. Maybe Cultists?
So what you're saying is, your opponent is dedicating 630+ points of dedicated, high-yield anti-tank units to taking down your cheap-ass 70pt rhinos, basically guaranteeing that your own long-ranged firepower gets two free turns of shooting basically without being shot back at.
Fun fact: Takes about five earthshakers to kill an average rhino.
Do you know why we don't talk about LRBT? Or chimeras? Or hellhounds? Or Rough Riders?
Because we KNOW they're over costed. Or people forgot the last one even existed.
Do you know why we do talk about conscripts? Or plasma scions? Or Rawbutt Girlyman? Or stormravens, Celestine, etc?
Because we know they are in fact undercosted due to the fact they are in almist EVERY list that can take them. Because they for their statline are insanely efficent and then add bonuses on top with reroll or anti deepstrike or insane mobility and firepower.
So when people bring up conscripts it isn't because like SOME people have said, "waaah they hurt marines", but because they represent an incredibly stupid point outlier.
Arkaine wrote: Wait, what? You made the contest unbalanced to begin with. Space Marines are not "basic" infantry. They're elite galactic soldiers, MEQs if you will.
If they're so elite, why do I see so damn many of them?
Arkaine wrote: Wait, what? You made the contest unbalanced to begin with. Space Marines are not "basic" infantry. They're elite galactic soldiers, MEQs if you will.
If they're so elite, why do I see so damn many of them?
You shouldn't. Maybe your opponents are cheating.
13 pts model vs 4 pts a model. There should 3 times as many cultists/gaunts/guard on the field.
Sorry, it was meant more as a poke at the number of space marine players out there, myself included. I feel like when I used to go to the game store, it was at least 50% (if not more) marine armies.
That might actually be part of the problem. It's easier to kill marines because it's what you're expecting with a random player/army.
Melissia wrote: So basically the argument returns, once again, to "Marines should roflstomp everyone else ezpz".
Pretty much. That's the lore, that's the game balance. They roflstomp everything easily by design. The cost of doing so is fewer models on the table. Other elite armies like Grey Knights roflstomp even easier and have even fewer models on the table. It's the difference between unarmored Rebels and laser-resistant Imperial Stormtroopers.
Beating them isn't usually about going for the face or obliterating all in your path. It's playing the objectives or outgunning them with tanks. Fewer models means more focused weaknesses while giant armies of cheap stuff can afford to diversify their strengths to exploit just about any weakness. I played against Brimstones recently and while I was mowing them down like nothing I was only killing 8-10 pts of models while a single Smite from them could murder a 40 pt Terminator. Losses are felt more with elite armies.
daedalus wrote: Sorry, it was meant more as a poke at the number of space marine players out there, myself included. I feel like when I used to go to the game store, it was at least 50% (if not more) marine armies.
That might actually be part of the problem. It's easier to kill marines because it's what you're expecting with a random player/army.
I also think that, because the tradition is "prep for marines", there are a number of players not really equipped for hordes of little guys.
daedalus wrote: Sorry, it was meant more as a poke at the number of space marine players out there, myself included. I feel like when I used to go to the game store, it was at least 50% (if not more) marine armies.
That might actually be part of the problem. It's easier to kill marines because it's what you're expecting with a random player/army.
Yeah blame GW for that. Marines have been getting super friend codex books for ages, all unique and super snowflake to favor GW's poster boys. They're more interested in the lore than the balance and the lore says that Mankind Will Triumph Over Darkness.
When Tyranids have six codex books just for them then we'll see as many players I'm sure. XD
Melissia wrote: So basically the argument returns, once again, to "Marines should roflstomp everyone else ezpz".
And before anyone responds by spazzing out over me saying this, think about what Arkaine is actually saying here.
Given two units of equal points-- not equal numbers, but equal points-- he's saying "Marines should always be mowing down hordes". That, point for point, Marines should simply be better than all horde armies, and the weak-ass Termagants should actually be the norm when it comes to hordes. "Why is it surprising you that marines beat hordes without even using all their strengths? That's how it should be."
So, Arkhaine, what use should Termagants have other than being chew toys for your marines? Your marines were outnumbred three to one, and beat them easily with minimal casualties, and you say "this is how it should be". So why should any Tyranid player take them?
Melissia wrote:So basically the argument returns, once again, to "Marines should roflstomp everyone else ezpz".
Pretty much. The Marine players are crying because they want an easy time, and any suggestions, points or anything that proves contrary to their claims is quickly being brushed aside as "false,", "List tailoring", "Wouldnt work", You dont know anything" or "You just want to pwn everyone with your OP models" In short, Marine players no longer have an easy time and now have to think and they do not like this.
Arkaine wrote: 13 pts model vs 4 pts a model. There should 3 times as many cultists/gaunts/guard on the field.
Funny thing that, we see an average of three times as many Imperial Guardsmen on the board and we get the screaming whine threads from the Marine players about how OP this is.
tl;dr: Non-Marine players are not there to serve as scratching posts for the amusement of Marine players who want to get their jollies off with a cheap win. It's sad and funny how people whined about Master of Ordinance saying "about time we get to win and be powerful...", yet ultimately, all of you are no fething different.
Melissia wrote: So basically the argument returns, once again, to "Marines should roflstomp everyone else ezpz".
And before anyone responds by spazzing out over me saying this, think about what Arkaine is actually saying here.
Given two units of equal points-- not equal numbers, but equal points-- he's saying "Marines should always be mowing down hordes". That, point for point, Marines should simply be better than all horde armies, and the weak-ass Termagants should actually be the norm when it comes to hordes. "Why is it surprising you that marines beat hordes without even using all their strengths? That's how it should be."
So, Arkhaine, what use should Termagants have other than being chew toys for your marines?
I suppose you've never played any tactics or strategy game before, huh? The old Swordsman beats Peasant but loses to Archer gig who is overrun by Peasant gig? Did you know that Cavalry roflstomp everything that isn't mounted until they run into Spearmen?
Gaunts are wounds and objective takers. They also fire so many shots that they force absurd numbers of saves, so heavy infantry like Terminators can get shot to death by them. They're terrible at masses of "basic" (lol) Space Marines with similar firepower to their own but they're pretty great at dealing with things that rely on their invulnerable saves to be invincible, since you'll still fail those 1/3 of the time, and units that sport very few shots/attacks per model since kiling 2 gaunts per turn isn't going to help when you're receiving 60 attacks in return.
I suppose you've never played any tactics or strategy game before, huh? The old Swordsman beats Peasant but loses to Archer gig who is overrun by Peasant gig? Did you know that Cavalry roflstomp everything that isn't mounted until they run into Spearmen?
I think you're thinking of "Rock, Paper, Scissors".
And as far as I can tell, 40k isn't really a tactics or strategy game anymore. It appears to be a list building exercise with a Candyland component to it. Particularly nowadays, but I'd say anything post 6th for sure, and I'm not even sure about prior.
Arkaine wrote: I suppose you've never played any tactics or strategy game before, huh?
So basicaly your argument is, "Guard should always be beaten every time by Marines, and if you want to beat Marines, you need to play a different faction who is their hard counter".
Yeah, I'm gonna ignore your advice on game design now unless you rephrase that.
Also, as a side note, I've played strategy games since before Windows even existed. Pure Rock-Paper-Scissors games are the most simplistic and often least well designed games, and entirely forgettable. Even bastions of mediocrity like Starcraft don't follow hard-RPS style mechanics.
I'd rather have my guardsmen make my opponent really have to work hard and leverage every advantage he can get to wring out a victory. Getting roflstomped by bone-stock tacticals like those poor Termagaunts doesn't sound like a good game to me.
And statements like "Spess Mehreens are supermen so they should roflstomp at equal points values" miss the entire point of the points system. The entire point of the points system is to tell me how many guardsmen I need to win. If my points can't buy enough guardsmen, then the points aren't working.
There WERE three Termagaunts for every space marine, it was precisely 30 vs 10. 30 Termagaunts died, 4 Space Marines died (5 if you're generous). That's somewhere between a 6:1 and 7:1 k/d ratio. Of course you don't actually need 60 Termagaunts to beat 10 Space Marines, it's probably closer to 40, because the end results start to snowball very quickly once you go past the "just barely enough to win" tipping point.
So no. Termagaunts are a terrible benchmark. Saying that a unit is balanced with a termagaunt, in the termagaunt's current state, would be an insult. Their only redeeming feature is that they can be replenished by a Tervigon, and I'm not sure that's even enough to save them.
I suppose you've never played any tactics or strategy game before, huh? The old Swordsman beats Peasant but loses to Archer gig who is overrun by Peasant gig? Did you know that Cavalry roflstomp everything that isn't mounted until they run into Spearmen?
I think you're thinking of "Rock, Paper, Scissors".
And as far as I can tell, 40k isn't really a tactics or strategy game anymore. It appears to be a list building exercise with a Candyland component to it. Particularly nowadays, but I'd say anything post 6th for sure, and I'm not even sure about prior.
No, not rock paper scissors. Advantage vs Non-Advantage. Archers can still kill Peasants if you can keep the blob away from them long enough to do so. Cavalry can still kill Spearmen at grave cost to them or virtually effortlessly if they manage to flank charge them. Rock Paper Scissors is the defining rule that Scissors will always defeat Paper. Tactics games give you stats and special rules that say this isn't true but it's very likely and you should plan accordingly.
Everything from Warhammer Fantasy to 40k has been balanced this way, with certain units and weapons doing well against X-type of unit and terribly against Y-type. Lascannons are arguably amazing at dealing with tanks and but aren't going to kill many of your 50 conscripts.
This 8th edition seems to be bringing back the tactics and strategy element to the game through Stratagems. List building remains important but we keep getting ways to "cheat" mid-game to attempt to turn the tables in our favor. All while expending limited resources that must be carefully rationed throughout the game. It's definitely become more in favor of the conniving general who knows his enemy's capabilities and how to exploit his enemy's weak points.
Melissia wrote:So basically the argument returns, once again, to "Marines should roflstomp everyone else ezpz".
Pretty much. The Marine players are crying because they want an easy time, and any suggestions, points or anything that proves contrary to their claims is quickly being brushed aside as "false,", "List tailoring", "Wouldnt work", You dont know anything" or "You just want to pwn everyone with your OP models"
In short, Marine players no longer have an easy time and now have to think and they do not like this.
Btw. Marine player here, and I'm on your side. Not sure what you're looking to accomplish with this.
The advantage of conscripts is that they're hard to take down quickly. In this thread, people are saying they should not have that advantage. What advantage should they have?
Melissia wrote:So basically the argument returns, once again, to "Marines should roflstomp everyone else ezpz".
Pretty much. The Marine players are crying because they want an easy time, and any suggestions, points or anything that proves contrary to their claims is quickly being brushed aside as "false,", "List tailoring", "Wouldnt work", You dont know anything" or "You just want to pwn everyone with your OP models"
In short, Marine players no longer have an easy time and now have to think and they do not like this.
Btw. Marine player here, and I'm on your side. Not sure what you're looking to accomplish with this.
*points to the BA terminators I'm assembling as I post*
Same here, but I took it as MoO intending to say "the ones whining about conscripts here"
Arkaine wrote: I suppose you've never played any tactics or strategy game before, huh?
So basicaly your argument is, "Guard should always be beaten every time by Marines, and if you want to beat Marines, you need to play a different faction who is their hard counter".
Literally never said that, I said Space Marines will always slaughter Gaunts/Guard/Cultists/Conscripts. But keep pulling figments of your own imagination from your mind to declare what Imperial Guard the FACTION can do. Guardsmen are the Guard faction are completely different things yet you tried to combine the two into a horrific logical fallacy.
I'm going to start ignoring you until you choose to be rational.
Melissia wrote: Also, as a side note, I've played strategy games since before Windows even existed. Pure Rock-Paper-Scissors games are the most simplistic and often least well designed games, and entirely forgettable. Even bastions of mediocrity like Starcraft don't follow hard-RPS style mechanics.
And no one is discussing Rock Paper Scissors here, once again you're injecting words into a post that aren't there.
40k has always been built around the idea that Devastators are better against tanks than Space Marines are while Assault Marines are better in close combat.
The people claiming that marine players just want to stomp are absurd. Marines are turning out to be average at best in 8th. Even if conscripts were fixed tomorrow, that wouldn't change.
Melissia wrote: The advantage of conscripts is that they're hard to take down quickly. In this thread, people are saying they should not have that advantage. What advantage should they have?
Oooh, ooh! It gives you a lot of minis to paint up real nice before putting them back in the bag 20 at a time!
I suppose you've never played any tactics or strategy game before, huh? The old Swordsman beats Peasant but loses to Archer gig who is overrun by Peasant gig? Did you know that Cavalry roflstomp everything that isn't mounted until they run into Spearmen?
I think you're thinking of "Rock, Paper, Scissors".
And as far as I can tell, 40k isn't really a tactics or strategy game anymore. It appears to be a list building exercise with a Candyland component to it. Particularly nowadays, but I'd say anything post 6th for sure, and I'm not even sure about prior.
No, not rock paper scissors. Advantage vs Non-Advantage. Archers can still kill Peasants if you can keep the blob away from them long enough to do so. Cavalry can still kill Spearmen at grave cost to them or virtually effortlessly if they manage to flank charge them. Rock Paper Scissors is the defining rule that Scissors will always defeat Paper. Tactics games give you stats and special rules that say this isn't true but it's very likely and you should plan accordingly.
Everything from Warhammer Fantasy to 40k has been balanced this way, with certain units and weapons doing well against X-type of unit and terribly against Y-type. Lascannons are arguably amazing at dealing with tanks and but aren't going to kill many of your 50 conscripts.
This 8th edition seems to be bringing back the tactics and strategy element to the game through Stratagems. List building remains important but we keep getting ways to "cheat" mid-game to attempt to turn the tables in our favor. All while expending limited resources that must be carefully rationed throughout the game. It's definitely become more in favor of the conniving general who knows his enemy's capabilities and how to exploit his enemy's weak points.
Ah, I see you're missing a lot of context. Don't worry, that's easy to do when a thread gets this long.
The context of the Termagaunt discussion is not something like "anti-tank kills tanks, anti-infantry kills infantry". That's pretty much a given, of course good anti-infantry weapons should be a thing. The context of the Termagaunt discussion is that someone was trying to argue that Guardsmen and Conscripts should be balanced using the Termagaunt as a benchmark. ie, they should only be even at best with Termagaunts point for point.
This of course raised a question: is the Termagaunt even a good benchmark? Is the Termagaunt even balanced itself? The answer of course turned out to be no. The Termagaunt is woefully underpowered, it sucks against everything in every role.
Martel732 wrote: The people claiming that marine players just want to stomp are absurd. Marines are turning out to be average at best in 8th. Even if conscripts were fixed tomorrow, that wouldn't change.
You're the one that said killing conscripts in two turns isn't fast enough, so you have no room to complain.
Yes, it is. You're merely choosing to read it the way you wish to. I described it exactly as 40k is. A match of a unit type countering another unit type because of inherent advantages. These examples that YOUR side has posted described no other units on the field, only a two blob assault which ends with expected mathhammer results. You may as well complain that your Space Marines couldn't kill a Wraithknight.
Melissia wrote: The advantage of conscripts is that they're hard to take down quickly. In this thread, people are saying they should not have that advantage. What advantage should they have?
Those people can say whatever they want because those people aren't me. I'm not the one arguing against their durability and I'd welcome you to stick to MY arguments rather than holding me accountable for others say.
I did. However, the question I asked did not assume your viewpoint:
Melissia wrote: The advantage of conscripts is that they're hard to take down quickly. In this thread, people are saying they should not have that advantage. What advantage should they have?
Quickjager wrote: I want to take a force of Deathwatch and not get destroyed because my boys are more expensive than YOUR boys w/ toys.
Well take anti-horde weapons then, dont be one of these idiots whom takes anti heavy infantry weapons and then complains when he gets mobbed. Or just ally in Guardsmen.
Arkaine wrote:
I suppose you've never played any tactics or strategy game before, huh? The old Swordsman beats Peasant but loses to Archer gig who is overrun by Peasant gig? Did you know that Cavalry roflstomp everything that isn't mounted until they run into Spearmen?
Well actually Cavalry died to archers a lot. And English Axemen during the 100 years war. And a lot of other things too. But please do tell me why marines should not have a hard counter.
Melissia wrote: I did. However, the question I asked did not assume your viewpoint:
Melissia wrote: The advantage of conscripts is that they're hard to take down quickly. In this thread, people are saying they should not have that advantage. What advantage should they have?
Then you'll note that I've already answered many posts ago and your insistence on asking the question merely denotes a poor understanding of my clearly stated viewpoint. I figured if you were asking then you did not like my given answer and expected a different one.
master of ordinance wrote: Well actually Cavalry died to archers a lot. And English Axemen during the 100 years war. And a lot of other things too. But please do tell me why marines should not have a hard counter.
You're confused. I never said that Marines should not have a hard counter, in fact I listed one of theirs. I stated that Gaunts weren't it. That's all.
Also, you're enhancing my point since I stated already that these counters are not absolute, though I also did not list Axemen or Archers at all in the Spearmen example because like the Gaunts vs Marines example it's 1v1. Cavalry were an often used counter to archers as well thanks to horse barding and shields. This is not an example of Rock Paper Scissors, that's the claim my opponent made, it's an example of advantages and disadvantages and properly applied tactics can make a disadvantaged unit the victor. Just as 40k is already balanced the same way.
The same questions being asked right now by those who think conscripts are balanced have already been answered pages ago. If you have any questions, read the threads first.
Quickjager wrote: Let me just play another army; great answer. Or the better one "just ally in Guardsmen".
You got NO answer, Conscripts are just part of the problem and you won't even acknowledge it.
You are Deathwatch. You have frag cannons. You have flamers. You have a lot of horde killing stuff. All I am saying is make use of it. Or do the solution that so many Marine players gave to Guard players and ally in units.
That is a fair perspective to a point, however you fail to acount for numbers. 1v1 Light Infantry will die to Mediums and likewise Mediums to Heavies. What we have with conscripts, though, is a horde of Light Infantry taking on a very small unit of Heavy Infantry. Conscripts vs Marines will still lose in a 1v1 game, but when it comes to 5v1 the tables start to turn ever so slightly.
Give conscripts two new rules.
"Decimation: When applying Summary Execution to a Conscript squad, roll 1d6 to determine the number of casualties; this cannot increase the number of casualties over what they would have received due to failing a morale check."
"Untrained Masses: When applying Orders to this unit, roll a 1d6. On a 1 or 2, the Order fails, and the conscripts cannot receive a new Order this turn.
Martel732 wrote: The people claiming that marine players just want to stomp are absurd. Marines are turning out to be average at best in 8th. Even if conscripts were fixed tomorrow, that wouldn't change.
SM are still overpowered. Always have been and always will be.
Razorbacks with twin assault cannons, stormravens, guilliman... all marines units. And all among the overpowered stuff in 8th edtion.
Specific chapters like BA or SW are different armies, with tons of units in common but different key strenghts and styles.
AM is probably the top tier army in 8th, I believe it is, but it's not even remotely broken as SM, eldar or tau were in 7th edition. And those armies were overpowered even with casual lists while AM is very powerful only bringing the same list. Not everyone plays the same tournament list forever. Conscripts are not a problem, they're competitive, but there always have been competitive units in 40k. In 8th edition at least 10 other things should be toned down before them. And half of them are actually SM stuff.
Quickjager wrote: Let me just play another army; great answer. Or the better one "just ally in Guardsmen".
You got NO answer, Conscripts are just part of the problem and you won't even acknowledge it.
You are Deathwatch. You have frag cannons. You have flamers. You have a lot of horde killing stuff. All I am saying is make use of it. Or do the solution that so many Marine players gave to Guard players and ally in units.
That is a fair perspective to a point, however you fail to acount for numbers. 1v1 Light Infantry will die to Mediums and likewise Mediums to Heavies. What we have with conscripts, though, is a horde of Light Infantry taking on a very small unit of Heavy Infantry. Conscripts vs Marines will still lose in a 1v1 game, but when it comes to 5v1 the tables start to turn ever so slightly.
You're ignoring Frag cannons that while they are bread and butter are also 30 goddamn points. You can't spam them, 8 frag cannons is 240 point not including the bodies they're on. You have nothing but horrible answers like Eldar players gave to everyone.
EDIT: You say people are talking in bad faith, then what are you doing? Acting like the world is out to get you?
master of ordinance wrote: That is a fair perspective to a point, however you fail to acount for numbers. 1v1 Light Infantry will die to Mediums and likewise Mediums to Heavies. What we have with conscripts, though, is a horde of Light Infantry taking on a very small unit of Heavy Infantry. Conscripts vs Marines will still lose in a 1v1 game, but when it comes to 5v1 the tables start to turn ever so slightly.
I did not fail to account actually. The person I was responding to created an example of equal point values of gaunts vs space marines. It is my expressed opinion that if both sides have an equal number of points worth of models, the slightly heavier infantry will win due to attrition. This is simply the advantage stockier infantry have against horde troops, along with the superior weapons such infantry come with. Where the hordes win though is in attacking something even more elite with even fewer shots to compete with them, as at that point the attrition swings the other way and you're losing more points than you kill.
Martel732 wrote: The people claiming that marine players just want to stomp are absurd. Marines are turning out to be average at best in 8th. Even if conscripts were fixed tomorrow, that wouldn't change.
SM are still overpowered. Always have been and always will be.
Razorbacks with twin assault cannons, stormravens, guilliman... all marines units. And all among the overpowered stuff in 8th edtion.
Specific chapters like BA or SW are different armies, with tons of units in common but different key strenghts and styles.
AM is probably the top tier army in 8th, I believe it is, but it's not even remotely broken as SM, eldar or tau were in 7th edition. And those armies were overpowered even with casual lists while AM is very powerful only bringing the same list. Not everyone plays the same tournament list forever. Conscripts are not a problem, they're competitive, but there always have been competitive units in 40k. In 8th edition at least 10 other things should be toned down before them. And half of them are actually SM stuff.
Any marine OPness is probably more bound to the fact that they have far more options than other factions, and so outliers are bound to happen. But probably 95% of those choices are definitely not OP.
7th ed. is totally irrelevant to the discussion, honestly.
It's still a bad idea to use Termagants as your basis for balance. Things can be broken but not overpowered, and right now, 'gants are exactly there.
Mind you, tyranids are leagues above where they were in previous editions, so most 'nid players aren't complaining too much about it. But you're not gonna find many of them arguing 'gants are the bees knees.
7th ed. is totally irrelevant to the discussion, honestly.
It's not. Because the majority of players that are complaining about conscripts wants to play like a no brainer. Just like they probably did in 7th edition. With SM mostly.
Conscripts' spam is not the reason why the AM is the current top tier army.
Quickjager wrote: The reason Stormravens are insane is because they're firepower literally doubled and rerolls are easily accessible.
Yeah, I did notice one thing immediately in the new edition... lots of things have doubled in wounds or survival and the new S vs T rules have nerfed wound rates... yet most weapons haven't become any stronger.
Plasmas are still 1 or 2 shots at S7, Meltas are still 1 shot at S8, Lascannons are still 1 shot at S9, Heavy Bolters are still 3 shots at S5. Heck, Flamers have probably gone down in the number of shots they can hit with since 1d6 is far less than the 10+ I could land before.
With things like normal Bolters no longer denying saves to things like Gaunts/Conscripts/Guard/Cultists, their survival has also increased. Even Heavy Bolters can't penetrate that 5+ armor.
So the result is that everything is a little better at surviving yet the guns are no better at killing. Hence the horde meta we now have. More shots = win.
Which is why my proposition was to get rid of those 4 shots per 3 pt Conscript scenarios. <_<
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Blackie wrote: Conscripts' spam is not the reason why the AM is the current top tier army.
It is at our place. Conscripts murdered a Wraithknight, the thing that was eating up all the tanks with ease fell to laser spam.
That's some immensely lucky rolling. With T8, 24 wounds, and a 3+ save it would take on average 2,400 conscript lasgun shots to take down. And if you Fortune'd your wraithknight that increases the number of shots on average to over three thousand. Yes, sure, it can happen faster; but it's not likely to.
Having a single conscript squad take down a wraithknight is about as likely for a single Terminator Captain with a thunder hammer to take down a Wraithknight on its lonesome. Actually, less likely than the captain.
Melissia wrote: That's some immensely lucky rolling. With T8, 24 wounds, and a 3+ save it would take on average 2,400 conscript lasgun shots to take down. And if you Fortune'd your wraithknight that increases the number of shots on average to over three thousand.
This. If you play 100 games with eldar vs AM that WK would be killed by conscripts' fire power maybe once or twice.
Quickjager wrote: The reason Stormravens are insane is because they're firepower literally doubled and rerolls are easily accessible.
Yeah, I did notice one thing immediately in the new edition... lots of things have doubled in wounds or survival and the new S vs T rules have nerfed wound rates... yet most weapons haven't become any stronger.
Well, close to twice as long. Now, instead of the predator twin-lascannon turret getting one shot that rerolls, it just flat out gets two shots. Quad-Las preds are something local players are thinking of picking up lately.
Melissia wrote: Well, close to twice as long. Now, instead of the predator twin-lascannon turret getting one shot that rerolls, it just flat out gets two shots. Quad-Las preds are something local players are thinking of picking up lately.
If you want to get nitty gritty one could bring in the ap mods system (Heavy Bolters got better vs. marines) or the damage mod (Las does D6 wounds vs. MCs now) etc. but it's neither here nor there. Units fire more heavy weapons, more effectively now. The weapons that lose out in the mix is stuff like the Bolter, whose AP previously butchered Guard in the open.
Twin linked weapons becoming two of the same weapon is a huge boon, regardless. You get my drift.
Melissia wrote: That's some immensely lucky rolling. With T8, 24 wounds, and a 3+ save it would take on average 2,400 conscript lasgun shots to take down.
Hitting on 5+ = (1/3) chance
Wound on 6 = (1/6) chance
Fail 3+ armor = (1/3) chance
(1/3)*(1/6)*(1/3) = 1/54
24 / (1/54) = 24 * 54 = 1296 Lasgun shots.
Not sure how you got on average 2400.
Could you share your math, or point out the error in mine?
Melissia wrote: That's some immensely lucky rolling. With T8, 24 wounds, and a 3+ save it would take on average 2,400 conscript lasgun shots to take down. And if you Fortune'd your wraithknight that increases the number of shots on average to over three thousand. Yes, sure, it can happen faster; but it's not likely to.
Having a single conscript squad take down a wraithknight is about as likely for a single Terminator Captain with a thunder hammer to take down a Wraithknight on its lonesome. Actually, less likely than the captain.
Actually he did this when the FAQ hadn't clarified the searchlight rules. Conscripts were hitting on 2+ and wounding on 6+ while shooting 4 times. So every Conscript had about a 50% chance of causing a wound. 3+ saves can fail.
Melissia wrote: That's some immensely lucky rolling. With T8, 24 wounds, and a 3+ save it would take on average 2,400 conscript lasgun shots to take down. And if you Fortune'd your wraithknight that increases the number of shots on average to over three thousand. Yes, sure, it can happen faster; but it's not likely to.
Having a single conscript squad take down a wraithknight is about as likely for a single Terminator Captain with a thunder hammer to take down a Wraithknight on its lonesome. Actually, less likely than the captain.
Actually he did this when the FAQ hadn't clarified the searchlight rules. Conscripts were hitting on 2+ and wounding on 6+ while shooting 4 times. So every Conscript had about a 50% chance of causing a wound. 3+ saves can fail.
Marmatag wrote:
Could you share your math, or point out the error in mine?
My script says it happens about 51% of the time with your number of shots, so I'd assume you're on average. Melissia's has a 0.01% chance to fail, so maybe she was going for worst case? Still pretty silly though.
Arkaine wrote:
Actually he did this when the FAQ hadn't clarified the searchlight rules. Conscripts were hitting on 2+ and wounding on 6+ while shooting 4 times. So every Conscript had about a 50% chance of causing a wound. 3+ saves can fail.
I can do a million push-ups when no one's watching.
Yeah as people seem to love repeating to me, it's "100% legal" now and even the big tournaments are allowing it all in. Wish I could just ban it all and focus on balancing the core game that actually benefits the stores we play at.
Arkaine wrote:
Actually he did this when the FAQ hadn't clarified the searchlight rules. Conscripts were hitting on 2+ and wounding on 6+ while shooting 4 times. So every Conscript had about a 50% chance of causing a wound. 3+ saves can fail.
I can do a million push-ups when no one's watching.
Good for you. No clue what that has to do with anything.
Yeah as people seem to love repeating to me, it's "100% legal" now and even the big tournaments are allowing it all in. Wish I could just ban it all and focus on balancing the core game that actually benefits the stores we play at.
I feel exactly the same way. Let's balance the game, and see some playtesting of the Forgeworld content, before it's rolled in.
I agree Termagaunts are probably up there for the worst infantry in the game. Although I wonder if that might go to Guardians.
Conscripts by contrast are amongst if not the best.
40k has never really been a system of "X" is meant to counter "Y". This idea of light and heavy infantry doesn't exist - its never mentioned in the game rules. Stuff either works or it doesn't.
Marines are good against Termagaunts because gaunts suck. They are bad against conscripts because conscripts are really good. The Marine doesn't change.
Quickjager wrote: Let me just play another army; great answer. Or the better one "just ally in Guardsmen".
You got NO answer, Conscripts are just part of the problem and you won't even acknowledge it.
You are Deathwatch. You have frag cannons. You have flamers. You have a lot of horde killing stuff. All I am saying is make use of it. Or do the solution that so many Marine players gave to Guard players and ally in units.
I'm Thousand Sons, we're probably in the best position to kill conscripts because warpflamers look like the ideal conscript killing weapon.
The problem is a Rubric with a warpflamer is 33 points, so each rubric has to kill 11 conscripts to earn their points back. That's just one Rubric, not the whole squad (the poor Aspiring Sorcerer I'm paying a premium for is wasting his smite on a 3 point model too). Even if you assume every hit is a kill (wounding on 3's with no armor save so it'll be good but not that good) that's 3 turns of uninterrupted shooting with none of the rubrics dying in the return fire. It's gonna look even worse if you math it out.
Now remember, this is the absolute ideal unit to be killing conscripts. Literally does not get better than a Rubric with a warpflamer, and it still looks pretty damn underwhelming.
Tyel wrote: I am not really sure where this thread is going.
I agree Termagaunts are probably up there for the worst infantry in the game. Although I wonder if that might go to Guardians.
Conscripts by contrast are amongst if not the best.
40k has never really been a system of "X" is meant to counter "Y". This idea of light and heavy infantry doesn't exist - its never mentioned in the game rules. Stuff either works or it doesn't.
Marines are good against Termagaunts because gaunts suck. They are bad against conscripts because conscripts are really good. The Marine doesn't change.
The Termagaunt thing is basically a discussion on just how low, ideally, people would like to see Conscripts go. The Termagaunts are just a point of comparison, since it turns out they're a good example of a unit that sucks.
Some people apparently want them to be legit trash tier, and consider that to be the "correct" place for them. On the other hand, I'd like them to remain a bit on the strong side so that people actually have to stop now and then to ask, "what if they bring conscripts"?
Tyel wrote: 40k has never really been a system of "X" is meant to counter "Y". This idea of light and heavy infantry doesn't exist - its never mentioned in the game rules. Stuff either works or it doesn't.
Marines are good against Termagaunts because gaunts suck. They are bad against conscripts because conscripts are really good. The Marine doesn't change.
Light Infantry is mentioned all over the Guard regiments, but if you're referring to spelling out what counters what, that's rarely listed in tactics games. It doesn't say Lascannons eat monstrous creatures alive but we use them because they're effective. That's what counters are... units or weapons that are effective against other units. They're not a game term though they are considered as part of the balancing of any good strategy game. You're focusing a bit too much on the Rock Paper Scissors thing that these other guys brought up which has nothing to do with what units are effective against other units in 40k. It's merely a comparison of stats, rate of fire and accuracy and damage versus the resiliency of the target. Hordes explode to mass bolter fire from space marines while something that uses a lascannon probably isn't going to be killing as many of them. If a unit is great against a particular unit, that in itself is the definition of a counter.
Insectum7 wrote: Long story short though, 1296 Conscript shots to kill a WK.
Pre-buffs, which for some reason the WK was mentioned as possibly being able to receive Fortune yet no buffs for the Conscripts were mentioned.
Now that the FAQ has neutered the Sable Weapon searchlights, Conscripts can still hit on 4+, wound on 6+, and shoot 4 times due to orders.
3/6*1/6= 8.3% chance to cause a wound per shot. That's at least 1 wound per 12 shots. The Wraithknight ignores on average 1/3 of those.
That means you need about 864 shots (24*12*3) to kill one with the order and searchlight buffs.
At 4 shots per conscript, 216 conscripts are needed to kill a Wraithknight in a single shooting phase.
Spread across four turns, you only need about 1 blob of them. Sure, the Wraithknight can target them instead but then he's not murdering your more threatening to his life tanks. And how long would it take a Wraithknight to wipe out a blob of 50 conscripts??
If people were only taking 1 blob of Conscripts, I'd kiss them on the lips.
1296 conscript shots in a turn, at 1 shot per conscript, is 3,888 points.
648 marine shots in a turn, at 1 shot per marine, costs 8,424 points.
Marines are a less efficient way to kill a Wraithknight.
Yes. They're a particular amount of shooting. That's factored into their points. So is that power armor. So is that pistol. So are those krak grenades.
There's all that statline too. Oh, and that crazy ability that lets you capture points that other squads are on.
Martel732 wrote: The people claiming that marine players just want to stomp are absurd. Marines are turning out to be average at best in 8th. Even if conscripts were fixed tomorrow, that wouldn't change.
SM are still overpowered. Always have been and always will be.
Razorbacks with twin assault cannons, stormravens, guilliman... all marines units. And all among the overpowered stuff in 8th edtion.
Specific chapters like BA or SW are different armies, with tons of units in common but different key strenghts and styles.
AM is probably the top tier army in 8th, I believe it is, but it's not even remotely broken as SM, eldar or tau were in 7th edition. And those armies were overpowered even with casual lists while AM is very powerful only bringing the same list. Not everyone plays the same tournament list forever. Conscripts are not a problem, they're competitive, but there always have been competitive units in 40k. In 8th edition at least 10 other things should be toned down before them. And half of them are actually SM stuff.
SM are not even close to overpowered. You're crazy. Twin assault cannons were hot for like two weeks. There's too many things in the game they are awful against for their cost. (Like mech)
"And those armies were overpowered even with casual lists"
You are absolutely out of your mind if you thought casual marine lists were OP in 7th.
Bolters maybe, but the marines can at least bring a lascannon.
That situation is also just an artifact of the wound table. They're both rolling the exact same to wound and save, and the return fire makes a mockery of their defensive stats, so of course the weaker (and therefore cheaper) weapon on the flimsier (therefore cheaper) platform is "more efficient".
If you stick strictly to small arms, technically the most efficient way to bring down a Wraithknight would be a mass of S1 AP- weapons carried by WS6+ S1 T1 A1 Sv7+ models, with the best BS you can put on that stat line for 1 point. Assuming you can get them all in range.
A proper anti tank weapon would probably be more efficient than any small-arms option though.
Quickjager wrote: Let me just play another army; great answer. Or the better one "just ally in Guardsmen".
You got NO answer, Conscripts are just part of the problem and you won't even acknowledge it.
You are Deathwatch. You have frag cannons. You have flamers. You have a lot of horde killing stuff. All I am saying is make use of it. Or do the solution that so many Marine players gave to Guard players and ally in units.
That is a fair perspective to a point, however you fail to acount for numbers. 1v1 Light Infantry will die to Mediums and likewise Mediums to Heavies. What we have with conscripts, though, is a horde of Light Infantry taking on a very small unit of Heavy Infantry. Conscripts vs Marines will still lose in a 1v1 game, but when it comes to 5v1 the tables start to turn ever so slightly.
Ah yes. Flamers and Frag Cannons! Please show the math on those!
7th ed. is totally irrelevant to the discussion, honestly.
It's not. Because the majority of players that are complaining about conscripts wants to play like a no brainer. Just like they probably did in 7th edition. With SM mostly.
Conscripts' spam is not the reason why the AM is the current top tier army.
This is completely insulting and not warranted at all. Marines were NOT an auto anything in 7th by default. They had ONE specific formation/detachment that made them competitive and everything else was invisible super friends death stars. Most marine units in 7th were actually poor. And this seems to have carried over to 8th. The fundamental concept of marines does not seem to work as intended in a game like this.
If you couldn't beat a casual marine list in 7th, you are a terrible player.
1296 conscript shots in a turn, at 1 shot per conscript, is 3,888 points.
648 marine shots in a turn, at 1 shot per marine, costs 8,424 points.
Marines are a less efficient way to kill a Wraithknight.
Yes. They're a particular amount of shooting. That's factored into their points. So is that power armor. So is that pistol. So are those krak grenades.
There's all that statline too. Oh, and that crazy ability that lets you capture points that other squads are on.
And this is why tac marines are turning out to be STILL be a dumpster fire. They pay for things are aren't always relevant. Or even commonly relevant.
At 4 shots per conscript, 216 conscripts are needed to
have a roughly 50% chance to
kill a Wraithknight in a single shooting phase.
when all 216 of them teleport to 12" radius range, which they do. No, seriously. I've seen it. It's not even a rule or anything the player does to physically move the models. They just fething teleport. I've been trying to contact CERN or Dr. Hawking or even just Bill Nye but the moment I say "Warhammer" they tell me to go read a book and maybe go outside and hang up the phone.
[Removed flawed circle diagram for number of 1" bases in rapid fire radius thanks to Insectum7 spotting it.]
master of ordinance wrote: Which formation was that? The free transports one, or the assault from deepstrike one or the buffed libby one or the Scout one or the...
The scout one?
Pretty sure SM had the double gladius and psychic super friends in 7th. There was much teeth gnashing for the Skyhammer, and much complaining, but I don't remember it ever really dominating tournaments.
Softer marine lists tended to struggle. The reason being that the regular marine is quite expensive. Once you start tooling him up with weapons he becomes very expensive. And he is not that hard to kill.
With that said I am not sure how twin assault cannon razorbacks "were a thing two weeks ago". Okay they are not great against tanks - but they beat a lot of things in an SM list if the meta were to go all mech.
Twin las isn't too bad either, especially if you are thinking about predators.
master of ordinance wrote: Which formation was that? The free transports one, or the assault from deepstrike one or the buffed libby one or the Scout one or the...
The scout one?
Pretty sure SM had the double gladius and psychic super friends in 7th. There was much teeth gnashing for the Skyhammer, and much complaining, but I don't remember it ever really dominating tournaments.
Softer marine lists tended to struggle. The reason being that the regular marine is quite expensive. Once you start tooling him up with weapons he becomes very expensive. And he is not that hard to kill.
With that said I am not sure how twin assault cannon razorbacks "were a thing two weeks ago". Okay they are not great against tanks - but they beat a lot of things in an SM list if the meta were to go all mech.
Twin las isn't too bad either, especially if you are thinking about predators.
Something tells me that a lot of Marine woes could be solved by removing all the broken stuff they have and instead going the Infinity route with Heavy Infantry each having 2 wounds apiece.
At 4 shots per conscript, 216 conscripts are needed to
have a roughly 50% chance to
kill a Wraithknight in a single shooting phase.
when all 216 of them teleport to 12" radius range, which they do. No, seriously. I've seen it. It's not even a rule or anything the player does to physically move the models. They just fething teleport. I've been trying to contact CERN or Dr. Hawking or even just Bill Nye but the moment I say "Warhammer" they tell me to go read a book and maybe go outside and hang up the phone.
Fun fact: It's pretty darn likely that those conscripts can't physically fit into rapid fire range around the Wraithknight.
I don't know how large the WL base is, but here's the most optimal possible arrangement of circles in a 16" diameter circle:
That's 196 conscripts MAXIMUM in a 16" circle, in case you didn't want to count each one. If the WL base is larger than 4", then you'd be able to fit more in, but obviously the center can't be occupied by conscripts up to a 1" circle around it, so that's going to remove quite a few as well. I don't think it can be done, and I certainly don't think it can be done should the other player not be complicit.
Since you're trying to manipulate my post by cutting out the 90% that describes the complete opposite of what you said, namely that it doesn't require them to do so in a single shooting phase or even have 216 conscripts to do so (see the 1 blob part, ~50 conscripts) and tries to make fun of mathhammer in general, I'll just post my original comment here.
I'll also throw in what was originally stated as the method by which the Conscripts downed the Wraithknight mention that apparently began all of this back and forth.
Melissia wrote: That's some immensely lucky rolling. With T8, 24 wounds, and a 3+ save it would take on average 2,400 conscript lasgun shots to take down. And if you Fortune'd your wraithknight that increases the number of shots on average to over three thousand. Yes, sure, it can happen faster; but it's not likely to.
Having a single conscript squad take down a wraithknight is about as likely for a single Terminator Captain with a thunder hammer to take down a Wraithknight on its lonesome. Actually, less likely than the captain.
Actually he did this when the FAQ hadn't clarified the searchlight rules. Conscripts were hitting on 2+ and wounding on 6+ while shooting 4 times. So every Conscript had about a 50% chance of causing a wound. 3+ saves can fail.
Remove the Regiment keyword, possibly make them Auxilia. This would prevent them from taking orders.
Add a rule where if they're forced to take a morale test, they lose X additional models, even if the test was passed. Could be a fixed number, like 2 or 3, or a random D3 or D6. This would keep Commisars useful for them and other units while keeping them from sticking around forever.
Both or either would tone Conscipts down a bit while keeping them useful and cheap.
Insectum7 wrote: Long story short though, 1296 Conscript shots to kill a WK.
Sadly that's not even the least effective way to kill a Wraithknight.
Sooo... A single SM squad throwing a single Frag grenade at it every turn?
1296 conscript shots in a turn, at 1 shot per conscript, is 3,888 points. 648 marine shots in a turn, at 1 shot per marine, costs 8,424 points.
Marines are a less efficient way to kill a Wraithknight.
That's why Marines get Lascannons, Melta, Powerfists, etc. We actually did this one earlier, optimally equipped Tac Squads handily beat out Conscripts against high T/AV targets.
I don't know how large the WL base is, but here's the most optimal possible arrangement of circles in a 16" diameter circle: That's 196 conscripts MAXIMUM in a 16" circle, in case you didn't want to count each one. If the WL base is larger than 4", then you'd be able to fit more in, but obviously the center can't be occupied by conscripts up to a 1" circle around it, so that's going to remove quite a few as well. I don't think it can be done, and I certainly don't think it can be done should the other player not be complicit.
Why is the diameter of the circle only 16"? Rapid fire Range is 12" Your circle should be 30ish inches in diameter.
Insectum7 wrote: Long story short though, 1296 Conscript shots to kill a WK.
Sadly that's not even the least effective way to kill a Wraithknight.
Sooo... A single SM squad throwing a single Frag grenade at it every turn?
1296 conscript shots in a turn, at 1 shot per conscript, is 3,888 points.
648 marine shots in a turn, at 1 shot per marine, costs 8,424 points.
Marines are a less efficient way to kill a Wraithknight.
That's why Marines get Lascannons, Melta, Powerfists, etc.
Stop it, you are suggesting that the Marines actually use any one of the countless advantages they have and as we have seen in this thread as soon as Conscripts get involved all of those advantages magically vanish.
I can do it all day just like you cowboy, lets calculate a powerfist v. conscripts. Oh wait, I don't need to the -1 to hit already makes it less point efficient even if it was equally priced. I was unaware Osteogenesis imperfecta became commonplace in the IG and they can't hold their melta or lascannons anymore. I'll send a Sister of Battle their way so she can hold it for them.
Quickjager wrote: I can do it all day just like you cowboy, lets calculate a powerfist v. conscripts. Oh wait, I don't need to the -1 to hit already makes it less point efficient even if it was equally priced. I was unaware Osteogenesis imperfecta became commonplace in the IG and they can't hold their melta or lascannons anymore. I'll send a Sister of Battle their way so she can hold it for them.
Quickjager wrote: I can do it all day just like you cowboy, lets calculate a powerfist v. conscripts. Oh wait, I don't need to the -1 to hit already makes it less point efficient even if it was equally priced. I was unaware Osteogenesis imperfecta became commonplace in the IG and they can't hold their melta or lascannons anymore. I'll send a Sister of Battle their way so she can hold it for them.
I was on about the WK arguement, but I have noted that as soon as Conscripts enter any given comparison scenario all Marine units instantly lose their advantages. The same with Conscript vs Marine scenarios.
Look I am simply reminded of this thread I am about to link to go on anymore. It has almost all the same actors to an extent, just sub out the IG for the Tau players (or T'au? wtf are they called now).
Since you're trying to manipulate my post by cutting out the 90% that describes the complete opposite of what you said, namely that it doesn't require them to do so in a single shooting phase or even have 216 conscripts to do so (see the 1 blob part, ~50 conscripts) and tries to make fun of mathhammer in general, I'll just post my original comment here.
I'll also throw in what was originally stated as the method by which the Conscripts downed the Wraithknight mention that apparently began all of this back and forth.
Manipulate your post?! Gosh! Not I!
Actually, on a more serious note: No. I did it for brevity, and to highlight the specific point I was addressing. My post was already long enough without including, for example, 9 lines of extraneous text and a decent size graphic inside of a quote box that I was actually directly addressing anyway. For example.
And yeah, you DO say afterward, spread out across four turns. It's not that you're wrong, it's that you initially express it in a form that's fundamentally flawed, and then turn it into something that's ultimately not terribly useful.
And that doesn't address the other point that I made about your math: it's not a kill, it's the average kill on a very wide spectrum of possibilities. That means that, in reality, your math isn't showing that there's there's still some 48-49% chance that the conscripts do LESS than 24 wounds. That's why mathhammer averages are junk math.
Fun fact: Where it says "Arkaine wrote:" in that quote box there from where I "manipulated your post"? You can click on that and see your original post were anyone so inclined to do so.
Quickjager wrote: Look I am simply reminded of this thread I am about to link to go on anymore. It has almost all the same actors to an extent, just sub out the IG for the Tau players (or T'au? wtf are they called now).
You mean taking stuff out of context...? Like Moo has been doing? IG get all that stuff to the extent I don't even know why you're talking about in efficient ways to kill WK.
These magical advantages SM? Like Rob G.? Who we already know is too strong?
EDIT: It really is like the godforsaken Riptide threads.
daedalus wrote: And yeah, you DO say afterward, spread out across four turns. It's not that you're wrong, it's that you initially express it in a form that's fundamentally flawed, and then turn it into something that's ultimately not terribly useful.
That's generally how math works. One step at a time to arrive at a finality. That's like arguing that it's fundamentally flawed to say that it takes on average 12 shots to land a wound, it's merely a step in the overall analysis. The step is not wrong, as mine was not, and since I -already- recognized without you needing to tell me that 216 conscripts on the field might be a bit much, I went a step further and made it enter the realm of reality with the single blob. Which you apparently took issue with for reasons I'll never comprehend fully lacking your unique thought process.
daedalus wrote: And that doesn't address the other point that I made about your math: it's not a kill, it's the average kill on a very wide spectrum of possibilities. That means that, in reality, your math isn't showing that there's there's still some 48-49% chance that the conscripts do LESS than 24 wounds. That's why mathhammer averages are junk math.
It doesn't have to address it because I made it abundantly clear in my own post when I stated "average". For those who don't understand what the word means, I can do no more than hold my face in my hands and shake my head slowly. Probability is little more than that, probability, a spectrum analysis with plenty of standard deviations to consider when using it for real world applications. But that's a bit excessive for a forum post, wouldn't you agree? After all, your own math was legitimately faulty due to being brief and not checking your work. Keeping things simple is a great way to avoid such errors.
daedalus wrote: Fun fact: Where it says "Arkaine wrote:" in that quote box there from where I "manipulated your post"? You can click on that and see your original post were anyone so inclined to do so.
Or since many won't out of laziness, I could simply point out and relink it to highlight the point that you butchered my point to suit your own. I like keeping things transparent rather than allowing such shady and underhanded silliness to go unnoticed by the less observant people.
Quickjager wrote: You mean taking stuff out of context...? Like Moo has been doing? IG get all that stuff to the extent I don't even know why you're talking about in efficient ways to kill WK.
The context as I understand it:
Most, if not all, mathammer involving conscripts has involved, A: Conscripts, B: A Commissar, C: Somebody to give orders. aka. The ideal setup, the one we figure is most likely to occur.
Comparisons often happen between Conscripts and Tacticals, for whatever reason.
The Tacticals in the case vs. the Wraithknight, were assumed only to have bolters, which is pointless. It's not an accurate representation of what you'd see on the table. Just as it would be silly to run scenarios in which Conscripts are without their Orders and Commissar.
When MoO agreed with me, you appeared to respond with: "But Powerfists vs. Conscripts are terrible." Which is bizarro.
That's generally how math works. One step at a time to arrive at a finality. That's like arguing that it's fundamentally flawed to say that it takes on average 12 shots to land a wound, it's merely a step in the overall analysis. The step is not wrong, as mine was not, and since I -already- recognized without you needing to tell me that 216 conscripts on the field might be a bit much, I went a step further and made it enter the realm of reality with the single blob. Which you apparently took issue with for reasons I'll never comprehend fully lacking your unique thought process.
Starting with x number of conscripts at 4 shot range in one turn and then extrapolating from there what it would turn into if you took them to a different range and and number of turns is a logical progression? Seems backwards to me. To each their own I suppose.
It doesn't have to address it because I made it abundantly clear in my own post when I stated "average". For those who don't understand what the word means, I can do no more than hold my face in my hands and shake my head slowly. Probability is little more than that, probability, a spectrum analysis with plenty of standard deviations to consider when using it for real world applications. But that's a bit excessive for a forum post, wouldn't you agree? After all, your own math was legitimately faulty due to being brief and not checking your work. Keeping things simple is a great way to avoid such errors.
The circle math was flawed, yeah. Totally. If that's the worst mistake I make today, I'm doing pretty fine for myself.
I don't presume to know whether or not people here know what averages are. Based upon how they get used and the things people claim, I would suspect that the vast majority of them don't. And the only time you ever used the word 'average' is when you were referring to the Wraithknight armor saves. I saw what you were doing, which is why I called you out on it.
By the way, you included FRFSRF but you didn't include Fortune, so you're cherry picking buffs there as much as anyone.
And no, I do not think it is excessive in one of two forum threads that's continued on for > 20 pages of people loudly bickering back and forth about the same thing and not getting anywhere. At some point you have to use as precise a tool to prove the point as you can, or just walk away and be done with it.
Or since many won't out of laziness, I could simply point out and relink it to highlight the point that you butchered my point to suit your own. I like keeping things transparent rather than allowing such shady and underhanded silliness to go unnoticed by the less observant people.
Oh, sure. Transparent like setting up the initial story about the conscripts killing the wraithknight in the game at your store, and then LATER mentioning that it was because of rules that have been changed (because everyone knew they were broken)
daedalus wrote: I don't presume to know whether or not people here know what averages are. Based upon how they get used and the things people claim, I would suspect that the vast majority of them don't. And the only time you ever used the word 'average' is when you were referring to the Wraithknight armor saves. I saw what you were doing, which is why I called you out on it.
Assume everyone's an idiot, great way to go about it. I did my math correctly and you didn't. I'll take your advice and from now forever explain the minutia to you specifically since you've proven yourself worthy of your own reasoning.
daedalus wrote: By the way, you included FRFSRF but you didn't include Fortune, so you're cherry picking buffs there as much as anyone.
You're right, how dare I presume they shoot at the target when it hasn't been buffed with skills that are entirely usable by their own army. Silly me. I guess we should also assume that Conscripts always have Celestine near them and Guilliman is now de facto pick in every SM army. Even though people generally make comparisons for either with, without, or both.
daedalus wrote: And no, I do not think it is excessive in one of two forum threads that's continued on for > 20 pages of people loudly bickering back and forth about the same thing and not getting anywhere. At some point you have to use as precise a tool to prove the point as you can, or just walk away and be done with it.
Such as by using pie plate diagrams to prove a point other than the one your quoted opponent was referring to? Sounds simple enough, I guess that's why it was... how'd you put it... flawed.
daedalus wrote: Oh, sure. Transparent like setting up the initial story about the conscripts killing the wraithknight in the game at your store, and then LATER mentioning that it was because of rules that have been changed (because everyone knew they were broken)
I think you mean transparent as in being completely honest about the circumstances of the kill rather than never mentioning that fact at all when my math still proved that Conscripts can kill a Wraithknight before the game ends, and what a trade! Just look at that point differential.
You're a typical Dakkanaut, assuming everyone else is trying to be as deceitful while you are OPENLY being with your selective reading. You're reading posts as though you yourself were writing them. Now go back and read them like a normal person would with no ulterior motive behind them. An off the cuff remark turns into full disclosure yet I'm the one being less than transparent? On what planet, mate? On what planet... Not Earth.
Between your one million pushups, your fake circle graph, and your accusations that honesty is proof of ill intentions, I can conclude you are 100% ignorable.
daedalus wrote: I don't presume to know whether or not people here know what averages are. Based upon how they get used and the things people claim, I would suspect that the vast majority of them don't. And the only time you ever used the word 'average' is when you were referring to the Wraithknight armor saves. I saw what you were doing, which is why I called you out on it.
Assume everyone's an idiot, great way to go about it. I did my math correctly and you didn't. I'll take your advice and from now forever explain the minutia to you specifically since you've proven yourself worthy of your own reasoning.
Sigh. Okay... so, there are kids here. More than a few, last time I checked, though I was away for a while. I don't expect kids to necessarily understand enough about averages to know how applicable they are in particular situations. Further, some people are just bad at math. I know several people like that in real life and they're not idiots. They're just bad at math. I'm going to call that out when I see it, but that doesn't mean that I think people are idiots.
So then, are you twisting my words around to make me seem like the bad guy? Or do you think people who aren't good at math are idiots? If it's the first one, then I would hope that you would show me instead the courtesy you expect for yourself. If it's the second one, then, well, that's kinda rude.
Also, my simulations are accurate. The circle (which is independent from my simulator) wasn't large enough, because I made it a radius instead of diameter. If you're calling my simulations into account, you can feel free to vet the source code. You can find it for free in my sig. And even then, the model for the circle IS useful, even if not particularly applicable in the given situation. Averages though, even when calculated correctly, are really not.
daedalus wrote: By the way, you included FRFSRF but you didn't include Fortune, so you're cherry picking buffs there as much as anyone.
You're right, how dare I presume they shoot at the target when it hasn't been buffed with skills that are entirely usable by their own army. Silly me. I guess we should also assume that Conscripts always have Celestine near them and Guilliman is now de facto pick in every SM army. Even though people generally make comparisons for either with, without, or both.
No. Fortune was in the very same comment. You were just complaining about how it was brought up that the WK could have received fortune but FRFSRF wasn't considered. This has nothing to do with Celestine, Guilliman, Harker, Eldrad, or anyone or anything else. It was literally within the specific context of the comment.
daedalus wrote: And no, I do not think it is excessive in one of two forum threads that's continued on for > 20 pages of people loudly bickering back and forth about the same thing and not getting anywhere. At some point you have to use as precise a tool to prove the point as you can, or just walk away and be done with it.
Such as by using pie plate diagrams to prove a point other than the one your quoted opponent was referring to? Sounds simple enough, I guess that's why it was... how'd you put it... flawed.
Well, "garbage in, garbage" out as they say. I dunno what else you want from me.
daedalus wrote: Oh, sure. Transparent like setting up the initial story about the conscripts killing the wraithknight in the game at your store, and then LATER mentioning that it was because of rules that have been changed (because everyone knew they were broken)
I think you mean transparent as in being completely honest about the circumstances of the kill rather than never mentioning that fact at all when my math still proved that Conscripts can kill a Wraithknight before the game ends, and what a trade! Just look at that point differential.
I mean, yeah, they _can_ do it, maybe, if you don't like, attack them with something, or something. For that matter, a handful of meltaguns could do it too if you left them alone for four rounds standing within 12 inches. Guard can get those pretty cheaply too. I guess it depends on how you feel like losing your WK. Not my place to tell you how to play your army.
You're a typical Dakkanaut, assuming everyone else is trying to be as deceitful while you are OPENLY being with your selective reading. You're reading posts as though you yourself were writing them. Now go back and read them like a normal person would with no ulterior motive behind them. An off the cuff remark turns into full disclosure yet I'm the one being less than transparent? On what planet, mate? On what planet... Not Earth.
I'm just saying, for all amount of jumping on me for "misrepresenting" what you're saying, you don't do an awful lot of good representing yourself when you leave out details like that until the page after when everyone crunches the numbers to state how impossible it was. If you're going to be so anal retentive as to link (additionally, if I wanted to obfuscate your original message, I would have) back to that original post, you'd probably be more concerned with amending your off the cuff remarks to reflect reality.
You know, thinking about it, I probably did jump the gun a little with the circle diagram. I'll give you that. I've been in both thread since the beginning until I just recently quit the other one. Don't remember where it was, but I think we were at a minimum of 20 pages. In those 20 pages, we had conscripts lining deployment zones, we had them stretched out over/around/behind tanks, we had 20 man conga llnes, and then the next thing you know, they'd all snap to 12" away from anything, immediately FRFSRFing, totally unharmed by any enemy fire. So yeah, after about 40 pages of that, I probably did see a little red when I saw what looked like it was the start of yet another bad comparison.
Between your one million pushups, your fake circle graph, and your accusations that honesty is proof of ill intentions,
Still don't get the pushups thing, huh?
The graph was real, and will be useful in the future. It was just inaccurate to the situation.
Just because it's (eventually) honest doesn't mean that it's not unhelpful. And then, it's only helpful if you read through both pages, in order, following the conversations, to get to that conclusion. But if you thought people were going to do that, you wouldn't have had to link back to your original comment initially. It's like a news organization, publishing a story, and then posting on twitter that it turned out to not be real, but never redacting the story. Sure, it was confirmed false. It's still out there though.
28 pages and very few concessions made by anyone. It's the Tau/Eldar all over again. And Waveserpents before that. And GK before that. And IG before that.
Martel732 wrote: 28 pages and very few concessions made by anyone. It's the Tau/Eldar all over again. And Waveserpents before that. And GK before that. And IG before that.
With regards to the issue at hand, I'm glad a lot of IG players who argue against the more dramatic changes still agree that no orders on conscripts would be a good change. That's the best it can get I think.
Personally, the reason I keep coming back to this these threads is because I want someone to complete the Craftworld Eldar Challenge. I've yet to see anything that even comes close to beating 100 conscripts with full buffs (commissar, officer, searchlights), for the 400~450 point price.
That, and I'm annoyed at blatantly incorrect math getting thrown around ("2400 shots to kill a Wraith Knight"... ugh it hurts, I'm glad someone else addressed it).
There's no need to "concede" when your argument consists of 90% hyperbole in a blatant attempt to try to push for harsher and harsher nerfs than are actually needed.
The ridiculous notions that conscripts need a 6+ save, a lower to-hit than they already have, lower toughness, and/or increased points is over the top nonsense. The only thing making Conscripts more powerful than intended is their ability to synergize far too well with IG characters.
Unfortunately I'm not able to spend too much time pouring over Index Xenos atm, but I feel like an important move for Eldar is to threaten Commissars with Rangers. I looked and Doom appears to not require LOS, seems like if the Guard player slipped you could Doom-snipe the Commissars, commanders, etc.
Its not a full solution yet, but its one that can hamper enemy movement while the rest of your army does whatever it needs to. Its true that Eldar dont have much high-rate-of-fire guns though. Still mulling it over.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Melissia wrote: There's no need to "concede" when your argument consists of 90% hyperbole in a blatant attempt to try to push for harsher and harsher nerfs than are actually needed.
Yeah, lets ratchet up the tone again with more acusations.
Melissia wrote: There's no need to "concede" when your argument consists of 90% hyperbole in a blatant attempt to try to push for harsher and harsher nerfs than are actually needed.
The ridiculous notions that conscripts need a 6+ save, a lower to-hit than they already have, lower toughness, and/or increased points is over the top nonsense. The only thing making Conscripts more powerful than intended is their ability to synergize far too well with IG characters.
You are just wrong. Conscripts aren't OP because of synergy. They are Flat out OP to begin with - then they get synergy on top of it - making them the best unit on all of 40k BY FAR.
Martel732 wrote: 28 pages and very few concessions made by anyone. It's the Tau/Eldar all over again. And Waveserpents before that. And GK before that. And IG before that.
Can you concede that conscripts dont damage vehicles very well?
You are just wrong. Conscripts aren't OP because of synergy. They are Flat out OP to begin with - then they get synergy on top of it - making them the best unit on all of 40k BY FAR.
Conscripts without a commissar would be pretty laughable. If they couldnt shoot after falling back, that would also be huge.
Martel732 wrote: 28 pages and very few concessions made by anyone. It's the Tau/Eldar all over again. And Waveserpents before that. And GK before that. And IG before that.
Can you concede that conscripts dont damage vehicles very well?
You are just wrong. Conscripts aren't OP because of synergy. They are Flat out OP to begin with - then they get synergy on top of it - making them the best unit on all of 40k BY FAR.
Conscripts without a commissar would be pretty laughable.
Would they really? You can just bring a brigade and pick auto pass to LD for 2 command points something basically every turn until the game is over. Heck - more points for manticores. You have to include an HQ anyways tough so might as well.
Breng77 wrote: And yet when changes to that synergy were suggested those were also shot down as too harsh....
Weren't shot down when I suggested them. In fact, people thought my suggestions were a good idea.
Xenomancers wrote: You are just wrong. Conscripts aren't OP because of synergy. They are Flat out OP to begin with - then they get synergy on top of it - making them the best unit on all of 40k BY FAR.
And this is what I'm talking about; 90% hyperbole.
Without synergy, conscripts can't double their firepower; at best, they can output the damage of a tactical squad, and being unable to fall back and shoot dramatically reduces their damage output. Without synergy, conscripts take massive amounts of casualties due to morale checks. Without synergy, conscript squads are incredibly static, having only basic infantry movement. They're at best a speed bump, and even then, not much of one. Marine players can delete an unsupported conscript squad in one turn of shooting+assault fairly easily.
Martel732 wrote: 28 pages and very few concessions made by anyone. It's the Tau/Eldar all over again. And Waveserpents before that. And GK before that. And IG before that.
Can you concede that conscripts dont damage vehicles very well?
You are just wrong. Conscripts aren't OP because of synergy. They are Flat out OP to begin with - then they get synergy on top of it - making them the best unit on all of 40k BY FAR.
Conscripts without a commissar would be pretty laughable.
Would they really? You can just bring a brigade and pick auto pass to LD for 2 command points something basically every turn until the game is over. Heck - more points for manticores. You have to include an HQ anyways tough so might as well.
You can only do that for 1 unit per turn, so yeah without a commissar limiting them to a single casualty and buffing their LD, they would be much easier to deal with. Do 10 casualties to 2 different Conscript squads. 1 Auto-passes, the other takes 6+ D6 casualties. Right now they would lose 2 model, between 2 different squads.
Breng77 wrote: And yet when changes to that synergy were suggested those were also shot down as too harsh....
Weren't shot down when I suggested them. In fact, people thought my suggestions were a good idea.
Xenomancers wrote: You are just wrong. Conscripts aren't OP because of synergy. They are Flat out OP to begin with - then they get synergy on top of it - making them the best unit on all of 40k BY FAR.
And this is what I'm talking about; 90% hyperbole.
Without synergy, conscripts can't double their firepower; at best, they can output the damage of a tactical squad, and being unable to fall back and shoot dramatically reduces their damage output. Without synergy, conscripts take massive amounts of casualties due to morale checks. Without synergy, conscript squads are incredibly static, having only basic infantry movement. They're at best a speed bump, and even then, not much of one. Marine players can delete an unsupported conscript squad in one turn of shooting+assault fairly easily.
I suggested that commissars do D3 wounds, and was told it was too harsh...soo
But yes without synergy they are much less good. I doubt though that Marine players could easily delete 50 conscripts in a singe turn.
Breng77 wrote: I suggested that commissars do D3 wounds, and was told it was too harsh...soo
Funny thing is, my solution was actually more harsh than yours. I suggested 1D6 I think that's more a reaction to the utterly ridiculous nerf suggested like removing their armor saves entirely or making them cost the same as guardsmen.
Breng77 wrote: But yes without synergy they are much less good. I doubt though that Marine players could easily delete 50 conscripts in a singe turn.
Without synergy buffing the conscripts, a detachment of a captain, lieutenant, three 5-man tactical squads with flamer/combiflamers, in a pair of rhinos could delete 50 conscripts in one turn of shooting, grenades, and assault (using the rhinos to get in to flamer/grenade range and then to absorb overwatch, relying on popping smoke to survive turn one).
Yes, this is a lot of force to be focusing on one target-- slightly over three times the cost of the conscript squad before wargear on the HQ units. But it's not unreasonable to use ~3 times the points to completely delete a tarpit squad in a single turn.
That's assuming a 50-man blob of course. If the tarpit squad is spread out to the point that you can't actually kill all of them this way, well congratulations you just opened up a hole to take advantage of. If the tarpit squad is bubble wrapping, you just unwrapped them and you're set up for the one-two punch.
assuming that they haven't spent those same 3x points on having 2 more conscript walls to dig through after the first. But it would be better than now by a good deal.
If your objection is "I have to focus fire, this sucks!", well... yeah. If you want to take out a durable unit, you need more firepower than if you want to take out a fragile unit. That's just the nature of the game.
The issue is not that it needs focus fire to take them out, it is that it does, and they are super cheap so can be spammed. As I said doing away with the commissar morale buff goes a long way in helping this.
Insectum7 wrote: Unfortunately I'm not able to spend too much time pouring over Index Xenos atm, but I feel like an important move for Eldar is to threaten Commissars with Rangers. I looked and Doom appears to not require LOS, seems like if the Guard player slipped you could Doom-snipe the Commissars, commanders, etc.
Its not a full solution yet, but its one that can hamper enemy movement while the rest of your army does whatever it needs to. Its true that Eldar dont have much high-rate-of-fire guns though. Still mulling it over.
Minimum squad of snipers and a farseer is already over half the points cost... And I really have to stress that I don't think any Eldar on foot will ever be part of the answer. Lasguns are just entirely too effective against T3 W1 models that cost anywhere from 8 to 36 points, no matter what shenanigans they bring to the table.
Then again, our mech will lose to conscripts as well, at least for everything I've mathed out so far. So who knows.
Martel732 wrote: 28 pages and very few concessions made by anyone. It's the Tau/Eldar all over again. And Waveserpents before that. And GK before that. And IG before that.
With regards to the issue at hand, I'm glad a lot of IG players who argue against the more dramatic changes still agree that no orders on conscripts would be a good change. That's the best it can get I think.
People who claim they are IG players agree with that.
Insectum7 wrote: Unfortunately I'm not able to spend too much time pouring over Index Xenos atm, but I feel like an important move for Eldar is to threaten Commissars with Rangers. I looked and Doom appears to not require LOS, seems like if the Guard player slipped you could Doom-snipe the Commissars, commanders, etc.
Its not a full solution yet, but its one that can hamper enemy movement while the rest of your army does whatever it needs to. Its true that Eldar dont have much high-rate-of-fire guns though. Still mulling it over.
Minimum squad of snipers and a farseer is already over half the points cost... And I really have to stress that I don't think any Eldar on foot will ever be part of the answer. Lasguns are just entirely too effective against T3 W1 models that cost anywhere from 8 to 36 points, no matter what shenanigans they bring to the table.
Then again, our mech will lose to conscripts as well, at least for everything I've mathed out so far. So who knows.
If Rangers are in 24" of Conscripts, you're doing it wrong.
Insectum7 wrote: Unfortunately I'm not able to spend too much time pouring over Index Xenos atm, but I feel like an important move for Eldar is to threaten Commissars with Rangers. I looked and Doom appears to not require LOS, seems like if the Guard player slipped you could Doom-snipe the Commissars, commanders, etc.
Its not a full solution yet, but its one that can hamper enemy movement while the rest of your army does whatever it needs to. Its true that Eldar dont have much high-rate-of-fire guns though. Still mulling it over.
Minimum squad of snipers and a farseer is already over half the points cost... And I really have to stress that I don't think any Eldar on foot will ever be part of the answer. Lasguns are just entirely too effective against T3 W1 models that cost anywhere from 8 to 36 points, no matter what shenanigans they bring to the table.
Then again, our mech will lose to conscripts as well, at least for everything I've mathed out so far. So who knows.
One does not simply throw Eldar face-first into a meatgrinder and expect them to win. Considering every time someone suggests a lists and some tactics, you proceed to throw the tactics out the window and toss that list face-first into a meatgrinder. You then wonder why they do so poorly.
Based on the tactics you seem to prefer, I think Orks might fit your playstyle better.
Breng77 wrote: And yet when changes to that synergy were suggested those were also shot down as too harsh....
Weren't shot down when I suggested them. In fact, people thought my suggestions were a good idea.
Xenomancers wrote: You are just wrong. Conscripts aren't OP because of synergy. They are Flat out OP to begin with - then they get synergy on top of it - making them the best unit on all of 40k BY FAR.
And this is what I'm talking about; 90% hyperbole.
Without synergy, conscripts can't double their firepower; at best, they can output the damage of a tactical squad, and being unable to fall back and shoot dramatically reduces their damage output. Without synergy, conscripts take massive amounts of casualties due to morale checks. Without synergy, conscript squads are incredibly static, having only basic infantry movement. They're at best a speed bump, and even then, not much of one. Marine players can delete an unsupported conscript squad in one turn of shooting+assault fairly easily.
Conscripts are included in almost every winning tournament list that I have seen. It's not Hyperbole. This is fact. Kinda of like the math that swaths of people are posting in this thread that shows how insane their point efficiency is compared to other units.
One does not simply throw Eldar face-first into a meatgrinder and expect them to win. Considering every time someone suggests a lists and some tactics, you proceed to throw the tactics out the window and toss that list face-first into a meatgrinder. You then wonder why they do so poorly.
Based on the tactics you seem to prefer, I think Orks might fit your playstyle better.
But Orks can't sit back and shoot the Conscripts to death and there's no snipers to kill the Commissars and Officers!
Conscripts are included in almost every winning tournament list that I have seen. It's not Hyperbole. This is fact. Kinda of like the math that swaths of people are posting in this thread that shows how insane their point efficiency is compared to other units.
Conscripts being part of winning lists means diddly when mentioned in a vacuum.
We haven't seen Conscripts as part of a "pure" Guard list. We've only seen the Imperium lists so far.
If Rangers are in 24" of Conscripts, you're doing it wrong.
You have 12" extra to play with. Use it.
inb4themagictailexplanation
Sigh... why are the tails magical? They are so straightforward... and also unnecessary when dealing with rangers.
You place the commissar *behind* the conscripts, not in front. You place it 6" behind the *back* of the unit. Rangers have 36" range. So the *back* of the unit of conscripts is 30" from the rangers. They have feet. They use their feet to walk 6". Now the entire unit of conscripts is within 24" of the rangers and the rangers are all dead.
Even if they have a warlock for conceal, the searchlight allows them to still shoot and therefore slaughter the rangers.
Even if you kill the searchlights with something else, the conscripts can advance and move move move, and charge the rangers the next turn.
One does not simply throw Eldar face-first into a meatgrinder and expect them to win. Considering every time someone suggests a lists and some tactics, you proceed to throw the tactics out the window and toss that list face-first into a meatgrinder. You then wonder why they do so poorly.
Based on the tactics you seem to prefer, I think Orks might fit your playstyle better.
But Orks can't sit back and shoot the Conscripts to death and there's no snipers to kill the Commissars and Officers!
You know your full of it, the Celestial Lions were decimated by Ork snipa's.
Insectum7 wrote: Unfortunately I'm not able to spend too much time pouring over Index Xenos atm, but I feel like an important move for Eldar is to threaten Commissars with Rangers. I looked and Doom appears to not require LOS, seems like if the Guard player slipped you could Doom-snipe the Commissars, commanders, etc.
Its not a full solution yet, but its one that can hamper enemy movement while the rest of your army does whatever it needs to. Its true that Eldar dont have much high-rate-of-fire guns though. Still mulling it over.
Minimum squad of snipers and a farseer is already over half the points cost... And I really have to stress that I don't think any Eldar on foot will ever be part of the answer. Lasguns are just entirely too effective against T3 W1 models that cost anywhere from 8 to 36 points, no matter what shenanigans they bring to the table.
Then again, our mech will lose to conscripts as well, at least for everything I've mathed out so far. So who knows.
One does not simply throw Eldar face-first into a meatgrinder and expect them to win. Considering every time someone suggests a lists and some tactics, you proceed to throw the tactics out the window and toss that list face-first into a meatgrinder. You then wonder why they do so poorly.
Based on the tactics you seem to prefer, I think Orks might fit your playstyle better.
I have run a scenario as straightforward as possible every single time with the math to show not only dice rolls, but distances... And people act like it's so magically freaking impossible to get the conscripts in 24" range of anything. I literally give every single benefit to the Eldar that I can think of, every time, just to TRY to avoid nit-picking. People always find one spot where they say THEY can avoid range (without ever saying explicitly where they'd place their units to do it, just leaving it as a given that my math is all wrong).
And at the end of every example, where I show the conscripts dominate while losing like 1/4th of their number, people will settle on one nit-picky factoid like that invalidates the whole thing. The scenarios are never remotely close, the fact that you thought of one small adjustment that keeps 2 extra hawks alive for one more turn doesn't change that the vast majority of conscripts are still alive and will just kill you the next turn.
Conscripts are included in almost every winning tournament list that I have seen. It's not Hyperbole. This is fact. Kinda of like the math that swaths of people are posting in this thread that shows how insane their point efficiency is compared to other units.
Conscripts being part of winning lists means diddly when mentioned in a vacuum.
We haven't seen Conscripts as part of a "pure" Guard list. We've only seen the Imperium lists so far.
A unit being so good it is taken by other armies in preference to their own options tells us a lot about the balance of said unit.
If Rangers are in 24" of Conscripts, you're doing it wrong.
You have 12" extra to play with. Use it.
inb4themagictailexplanation
Sigh... why are the tails magical? They are so straightforward... and also unnecessary when dealing with rangers.
The reason they're "magical" is anytime someone has suggested something to you, there's magically a tail that lets the Conscripts wrap around a piece of cover/vehicle/whatever protecting the Commissars and Officers so they can do their business while the Conscripts can still fire.
So basically it's because you make the most wonderfully "Best Case" scenarios when it comes to the Conscript's side of things while ignoring the possibility for the opposite side to have such a thing.
You place the commissar *behind* the conscripts, not in front. You place it 6" behind the *back* of the unit. Rangers have 36" range. So the *back* of the unit of conscripts is 30" from the rangers. They have feet. They use their feet to walk 6". Now the entire unit of conscripts is within 24" of the rangers and the rangers are all dead.
So your argument is that a unit which can start off the board is parked in front of a unit of Conscripts, with nothing blocking LOS.
Even if they have a warlock for conceal, the searchlight allows them to still shoot and therefore slaughter the rangers.
Remind me again why the Rangers have parked themselves where a Searchlight--a stationary piece of gear--can see them?
Even if you kill the searchlights with something else, the conscripts can advance and move move move, and charge the rangers the next turn.
Which leaves a whole turn for the Rangers to shoot the Conscripts or maneuver away from them.
Why is it that your scenarios only involve the Conscripts or Guard elements moving or having support?
One does not simply throw Eldar face-first into a meatgrinder and expect them to win. Considering every time someone suggests a lists and some tactics, you proceed to throw the tactics out the window and toss that list face-first into a meatgrinder. You then wonder why they do so poorly.
Based on the tactics you seem to prefer, I think Orks might fit your playstyle better.
But Orks can't sit back and shoot the Conscripts to death and there's no snipers to kill the Commissars and Officers!
You know your full of it, the Celestial Lions were decimated by Ork snipa's.
To that end, I will admit I really want to see a unit of Gretchin Snipers...
Conscripts are included in almost every winning tournament list that I have seen. It's not Hyperbole. This is fact. Kinda of like the math that swaths of people are posting in this thread that shows how insane their point efficiency is compared to other units.
Conscripts being part of winning lists means diddly when mentioned in a vacuum.
We haven't seen Conscripts as part of a "pure" Guard list. We've only seen the Imperium lists so far.
A unit being so good it is taken by other armies in preference to their own options tells us a lot about the balance of said unit.
No, it tells us a lot about tournaments...
Notably that players try to cram as much as they can into a list, pointswise, and go for what they deem the most efficient way to do so.
Breng77 wrote: The issue is not that it needs focus fire to take them out, it is that it does, and they are super cheap so can be spammed.
150 points isn't really THAT cheap.
Especially when you consider that scions exist...
A minimum squad of Rubrics without any upgrades is 119 points. Only two of them need to be carrying a warpflamer (and they should be carrying warpflamers) to equal the cost of your 50 man squad of conscripts.
To most any army that isn't Astra Militarum, 150 points for 50 wounds is insanely cheap.
First - most lists don't have snipers. Why? Because snipers suck. The ones that do have snipers - you just park a tank to block LOS - stand farther away from said snipers - konga line situation is far more efficient than points wasted on snipers that can't even see characters or are out of range to characters. Plus there is redudancy as a strategy. Can always just take 3+ commasars which are cheap as gak when the end result is - take this combo and automatically win - you can afford to waste a few points to make sure that combo works everytime.
Notably that players try to cram as much as they can into a list, pointswise, and go for what they deem the most efficient way to do so.
The unit being the most point efficient way to do something to the point it becomes a staple across multiple armies is again a good indicator that balance is off.
Conscripts are too good right now. You can argue how and why, but its obvious there is an issue. The people who think it stops and ends with orders also amuse me.
Insectum7 wrote: Unfortunately I'm not able to spend too much time pouring over Index Xenos atm, but I feel like an important move for Eldar is to threaten Commissars with Rangers. I looked and Doom appears to not require LOS, seems like if the Guard player slipped you could Doom-snipe the Commissars, commanders, etc.
Its not a full solution yet, but its one that can hamper enemy movement while the rest of your army does whatever it needs to. Its true that Eldar dont have much high-rate-of-fire guns though. Still mulling it over.
Minimum squad of snipers and a farseer is already over half the points cost... And I really have to stress that I don't think any Eldar on foot will ever be part of the answer. Lasguns are just entirely too effective against T3 W1 models that cost anywhere from 8 to 36 points, no matter what shenanigans they bring to the table.
Then again, our mech will lose to conscripts as well, at least for everything I've mathed out so far. So who knows.
Xenomancers wrote: First - most lists don't have snipers. Why? Because snipers suck. The ones that do have snipers - you just park a tank to block LOS - stand farther away from said snipers . . . . [and so forth]
Right. But, Rangers are a decent Troops choice for Eldar, and a Farseer with Doom (which is an amazing power) is sort of a no-brainer thing to have around, as far as I can tell. These are points not spent to take out conscripts, from what I'm seeing. These are points spent because you're playing Eldar in the first place. Every turn they don't spend shooting at Commissars is a turn they can do something else. From my perspective, you're threatening Commissar-sniping almost for free, by their mere presence.
Like I said previously, I don't think it's a full solution. But I think it's a good move to make, regardless.
If Rangers are in 24" of Conscripts, you're doing it wrong.
You have 12" extra to play with. Use it.
inb4themagictailexplanation
Sigh... why are the tails magical? They are so straightforward... and also unnecessary when dealing with rangers.
The reason they're "magical" is anytime someone has suggested something to you, there's magically a tail that lets the Conscripts wrap around a piece of cover/vehicle/whatever protecting the Commissars and Officers so they can do their business while the Conscripts can still fire.
So basically it's because you make the most wonderfully "Best Case" scenarios when it comes to the Conscript's side of things while ignoring the possibility for the opposite side to have such a thing.
To me, it's always there when needed. The only thing "magical" would be if it "magically" wasn't there when someone wanted to try to get a flyer closest-to-closest. If your IG players don't do this as a given, maybe it's no wonder you don't think conscripts are OP.
Also, what good would a tail do for rangers? Every time someone comes back with a positioning issue, I try to accommodate it if they can articulate it, but calling the IG player "magical" and implying the Eldar player is stupid doesn't give me a basis to re-run any numbers.
You place the commissar *behind* the conscripts, not in front. You place it 6" behind the *back* of the unit. Rangers have 36" range. So the *back* of the unit of conscripts is 30" from the rangers. They have feet. They use their feet to walk 6". Now the entire unit of conscripts is within 24" of the rangers and the rangers are all dead.
So your argument is that a unit which can start off the board is parked in front of a unit of Conscripts, with nothing blocking LOS.
Even if they have a warlock for conceal, the searchlight allows them to still shoot and therefore slaughter the rangers.
Remind me again why the Rangers have parked themselves where a Searchlight--a stationary piece of gear--can see them?
The Eldar player has to put them someplace with los on the commissar. On a more open table (like the ones I normally play on), this means everyone has los to almost any place. On a more crowded one, there's only going to be so many places the Rangers can legally deploy with los to the commissar.
My scenarios are more "line-em-up and go" because I don't know how on earth we're supposed to objectively determine who comes out ahead if both players are trying to deploy smart.
Honestly, you guys act like it's a CRAZY assumption that a commissar would hide behind a tank in a large game, but somehow these rangers are going to have the perfect terrain to snipe the commissar without being seen by a searchlight and also without being inside the conscripts shooting range despite that being mathematically impossible if the guard player doesn't deploy like an idiot.
Even if you kill the searchlights with something else, the conscripts can advance and move move move, and charge the rangers the next turn.
Which leaves a whole turn for the Rangers to shoot the Conscripts or maneuver away from them.
Why is it that your scenarios only involve the Conscripts or Guard elements moving or having support?
I never denied Rangers support, or movement, I just don't see the point of movement, and the support you're asking for needs to be specified.
I wasn't assuming the Rangers wouldn't get another turn to shoot, I'm just not seeing that it matters.
Or better yet they start to run. Conscripts actually have an order to advance and shoot, on top of "move move move," so literally nothing the rangers can do will allow them to outrun the conscripts.
This is exactly the nit-picky nonsense that has no effect on the results but is used as if it discredits everything I wrote.
Look, if you want to be taken seriously, put it all on the table. Describe the terrain, describe the placement and the distances and work out the math behind the dice rolls (and show each step to better spot potential errors.). I'm really tired of putting a lot of work in to mathing out these scenarios and then just being told I did it wrong with no proof. Support what you're saying with numbers.
Notably that players try to cram as much as they can into a list, pointswise, and go for what they deem the most efficient way to do so.
The unit being the most point efficient way to do something to the point it becomes a staple across multiple armies is again a good indicator that balance is off.
Conscripts are too good right now. You can argue how and why, but its obvious there is an issue. The people who think it stops and ends with orders also amuse me.
Several of us IG players have agreed that conscripts need nerfed. However, the whiners here aren't going to be happy unless they are turned into complete trash. Cutting their firepower in HALF is LITERALLY not good enough for you.
Don't worry. If Marines are truly getting curb stomped by IG on a regular basis GW won't let it last.
"Can you concede that conscripts dont damage vehicles very well? "
I never commented on that. Ever. Conscripts don't kill much outside 12" that well in general. That's not my concern. It's all about taking up space and being THE tarpit in the game. The offense is just a cherry on top. They are so cheap that they could not shoot at all and still be effective.
"Cutting their firepower in HALF is LITERALLY not good enough for you. "
Read my above comment. Understand what they are are being used for and what their true power is.
Insectum7 wrote: Unfortunately I'm not able to spend too much time pouring over Index Xenos atm, but I feel like an important move for Eldar is to threaten Commissars with Rangers. I looked and Doom appears to not require LOS, seems like if the Guard player slipped you could Doom-snipe the Commissars, commanders, etc.
Its not a full solution yet, but its one that can hamper enemy movement while the rest of your army does whatever it needs to. Its true that Eldar dont have much high-rate-of-fire guns though. Still mulling it over.
Minimum squad of snipers and a farseer is already over half the points cost... And I really have to stress that I don't think any Eldar on foot will ever be part of the answer. Lasguns are just entirely too effective against T3 W1 models that cost anywhere from 8 to 36 points, no matter what shenanigans they bring to the table.
Then again, our mech will lose to conscripts as well, at least for everything I've mathed out so far. So who knows.
Xenomancers wrote: First - most lists don't have snipers. Why? Because snipers suck. The ones that do have snipers - you just park a tank to block LOS - stand farther away from said snipers . . . . [and so forth]
Right. But, Rangers are a decent Troops choice for Eldar, and a Farseer with Doom (which is an amazing power) is sort of a no-brainer thing to have around, as far as I can tell. These are points not spent to take out conscripts, from what I'm seeing. These are points spent because you're playing Eldar in the first place. Every turn they don't spend shooting at Commissars is a turn they can do something else. From my perspective, you're threatening Commissar-sniping almost for free, by their mere presence.
Like I said previously, I don't think it's a full solution. But I think it's a good move to make, regardless.
Ah, yeah, jumping around from thread to thread over the course of a week destroys context haha. My own personal crusade is to find a list of Craftworld Eldar that can beat conscripts on cost. 100 conscripts+commissar+officer+2 searchlights is 401 points. I want a list, I don't care how tailored, that can beat that for the same points cost. At this point I'll up it to anything <500 points, because no list has been remotely close so far.
crimsondave wrote: Several of us IG players have agreed that conscripts need nerfed. However, the whiners here aren't going to be happy unless they are turned into complete trash. Cutting their firepower in HALF is LITERALLY not good enough for you.
Don't worry. If Marines are truly getting curb stomped by IG on a regular basis GW won't let it last.
Shockingly, the unit whose players have attested would still be taken if they had literally zero firepower and cost the same probably won't be fixed solely by reducing their firepower. Because the larger issue is they are far too hard to remove for their cost.
Ah, yeah, jumping around from thread to thread over the course of a week destroys context haha. My own personal crusade is to find a list of Craftworld Eldar that can beat conscripts on cost. 100 conscripts+commissar+officer+2 searchlights is 401 points. I want a list, I don't care how tailored, that can beat that for the same points cost. At this point I'll up it to anything <500 points, because no list has been remotely close so far.
Ah, ok. This sounds familiar now, something like a 4x4 board too, right? I'll give it some more thought, but that's pretty specific. Is there a turn limit?
Side note, I just noticed Shuriken Cannons are Assault Weapons, that's kinda neat.
crimsondave wrote: Several of us IG players have agreed that conscripts need nerfed. However, the whiners here aren't going to be happy unless they are turned into complete trash. Cutting their firepower in HALF is LITERALLY not good enough for you.
Don't worry. If Marines are truly getting curb stomped by IG on a regular basis GW won't let it last.
Shockingly, the unit whose players have attested would still be taken if they had literally zero firepower and cost the same probably won't be fixed solely by reducing their firepower. Because the larger issue is they are far too hard to remove for their cost.
So you would rather I take 4 units of 10 regular guard instead? I could deploy them as a meat shield out of coherency where you couldn't lock them all up. Would that not make up for the extra 10 points and 10 models? Not to mention they hit 50% instead of 33%. If firepower is not the issue, then the problem is all IG infantry.
Martel732 wrote: "Can you concede that conscripts dont damage vehicles very well? "
I never commented on that. Ever. Conscripts don't kill much outside 12" that well in general. That's not my concern. It's all about taking up space and being THE tarpit in the game. The offense is just a cherry on top. They are so cheap that they could not shoot at all and still be effective.
"Cutting their firepower in HALF is LITERALLY not good enough for you. "
Read my above comment. Understand what they are are being used for and what their true power is.
Alright. At least we can agree on that. Yeah I totally think that the primary use for conscripts is as a wall against deep striking/assault. IIRC one of the tourney lists we saw seemed to attest to that.
Not at all they are super flexible unit and priced right on the money.
I will continue to use them because players haven't found a good counter against a shooting horde army. I think players for the most part hyper focus on them without changing tactics what so ever.
Meanwhile IG may be the most flexible army out there.
I mean I never see trios of Whirlwinds or Thunderfire cannons on the table, nor tiny jump assault units that could make a real mess for my conscripts.
Once Conscripts get nerfed, then Rough Riders will because they are another gem in the IG codex.
They are phenomenal, in my play style at least. And darn cool too. I think they are overlooked mainly and no one bothers with them due to lack of easy to collect models on the market. Once they make a new series of kits, people will unlock thier awesome power and that will be next unit people complain about.
I think 40k is about masses of plastic due to $$ GW can collect so I'll embrace that for my part.
Insectum7 wrote: Unfortunately I'm not able to spend too much time pouring over Index Xenos atm, but I feel like an important move for Eldar is to threaten Commissars with Rangers. I looked and Doom appears to not require LOS, seems like if the Guard player slipped you could Doom-snipe the Commissars, commanders, etc.
Its not a full solution yet, but its one that can hamper enemy movement while the rest of your army does whatever it needs to. Its true that Eldar dont have much high-rate-of-fire guns though. Still mulling it over.
Minimum squad of snipers and a farseer is already over half the points cost... And I really have to stress that I don't think any Eldar on foot will ever be part of the answer. Lasguns are just entirely too effective against T3 W1 models that cost anywhere from 8 to 36 points, no matter what shenanigans they bring to the table.
Then again, our mech will lose to conscripts as well, at least for everything I've mathed out so far. So who knows.
Xenomancers wrote: First - most lists don't have snipers. Why? Because snipers suck. The ones that do have snipers - you just park a tank to block LOS - stand farther away from said snipers . . . . [and so forth]
Right. But, Rangers are a decent Troops choice for Eldar, and a Farseer with Doom (which is an amazing power) is sort of a no-brainer thing to have around, as far as I can tell. These are points not spent to take out conscripts, from what I'm seeing. These are points spent because you're playing Eldar in the first place. Every turn they don't spend shooting at Commissars is a turn they can do something else. From my perspective, you're threatening Commissar-sniping almost for free, by their mere presence.
Like I said previously, I don't think it's a full solution. But I think it's a good move to make, regardless.
Ah, yeah, jumping around from thread to thread over the course of a week destroys context haha. My own personal crusade is to find a list of Craftworld Eldar that can beat conscripts on cost. 100 conscripts+commissar+officer+2 searchlights is 401 points. I want a list, I don't care how tailored, that can beat that for the same points cost. At this point I'll up it to anything <500 points, because no list has been remotely close so far.
Best I can think of is Storm Guardians w/ flamers in Waveserpents playing slowly. It takes about 5 turns for conscripts to down a single serpent, so the serpents either stay out of rapid fire range, or repeatedly shoot-charge to prevent FRFSRF for 4 turns. They can kill roughly 8 conscripts per turn then unload the guardians on turn 5 to kill and additional ~20. That leaves about 40 conscripts vs 20 guardians + 1 serpent on turn 5. which would eventually be a win for the eldar by turn 10 or so... Not ideal, but it works theoretically.
womprat49 wrote: They are phenomenal, in my play style at least. And darn cool too. I think they are overlooked mainly and no one bothers with them due to lack of easy to collect models on the market. Once they make a new series of kits, people will unlock thier awesome power and that will be next unit people complain about.
I think 40k is about masses of plastic due to $$ GW can collect so I'll embrace that for my part.
I have 6 rough Riders and use them in most games. They are great. In fact, I'm currently building 13 converted rough Riders/death Riders now. Minimum squad sizes + Eversor is pretty great insurance to get someone in CC with back field units and then grab OBJs with their speed.
womprat49 wrote: Not at all they are super flexible unit and priced right on the money.
I will continue to use them because players haven't found a good counter against a shooting horde army. I think players for the most part hyper focus on them without changing tactics what so ever.
Meanwhile IG may be the most flexible army out there.
I mean I never see trios of Whirlwinds or Thunderfire cannons on the table, nor tiny jump assault units that could make a real mess for my conscripts.
Once Conscripts get nerfed, then Rough Riders will because they are another gem in the IG codex.
Do you also think Commissars and Commanders are priced "right on the money?" In any game system where you could pay 20% of the cost of a unit to double its firepower, that would be considered autoinclude. Same for a 20% increase that practically, what, doubles your durability? Autoincludes are mostly bad for the game. There should be a real decisions to make when it comes to building a list, but that just isn't the case for Conscripts and their accessories.
Can I have a 60 point upgrade that gives my Stormraven 2 S9, 4 S8 and 12 S4 shots per turn? Yeah didn't think so.
For your point about people not finding a good counter, it's because there isn't one. Not for Guard anyway. It's pretty clear that GW knew that by removing templates they were buffing hordes, and so they built a counter to them in the main rules: morale. Then for some reason when writing the rules they though "Hey wouldn't it be cool if most armies could just flat our ignore morale?"
No, no it fething wouldn't.
And for the love of God, before anyone says it, snipers are not a cost efficient counter.
Quickjager wrote: For what it is worth I didn't care about their offensive power, making them easier to kill will impact their offensive power to manageable levels.
It's worth a lot, IMO. If we can all agree that their offensive power isn't that scary beyond the 12" band, we could probably avoid some amount of fairly fruitless side-tracking.
It's primarily a durabiliy thing, especially against armies that rely on getting close to the rest of the gunline.
One thing to consider though is that snipers failing to do their job even against the most fragile of targets suggests a problem with snipers.
Characters are powerful and abundant in 8th. Everyone needs a way to deal with them in general. So, focusing only on neutering the IG's characters is missing the forest for the trees. And rather unfair, since we were doing the character buff thing before 8th ed made it cool.
Snipers do need to be fixed. They need to be reasonably able to take down things like Rowboat and Commissars, preferably in a way that allows them to challenge a monster like Rowboat without necessarily turning a Commissar into a joke. Either that, or the rules protecting characters need to be loosened so that targeting a character with non-sniper units is a little easier (though that would mean snipers continue to have no real role on the table).
And if fixing snipers would also address the problem people have with conscripts... then wouldn't nerfing conscripts into the ground on top of that be overkill?
Commissars are more protected than Guilliman. Snipers do their job against Guilliman. He can't save mortal wounds.
4 Vindicare Assassins can hurt Guilliman.
4 Vindicare Assassins can't even see the Commissar.
I would also change the rules for targeting characters such that if there are 2 characters within range, you can pick which one you shoot against. Ran into this in a game. Someone had 4 assassins. The Culexus was the nearest one. Meaning, I had to kill that, hitting on 6s, before i could touch the other characters, an inch behind. That makes no sense.
Characters should be targetable if there are no NON-character units closer within range.
Snipers do need to be fixed. They need to be reasonably able to take down things like Rowboat
So much no. Anything that could kill RG would kill a commissar 10 times over already and would be obscenely strong against everything else as well. Sniper degrade strong heroes and kill weaker heroes. They don't need fixing at this time.
Marmatag wrote: Commissars are more protected than Guilliman. Snipers do their job against Guilliman. He can't save mortal wounds.
4 Vindicare Assassins can hurt Guilliman.
4 Vindicare Assassins can't even see the Commissar.
I would also change the rules for targeting characters such that if there are 2 characters within range, you can pick which one you shoot against. Ran into this in a game. Someone had 4 assassins. The Culexus was the nearest one. Meaning, I had to kill that, hitting on 6s, before i could touch the other characters, an inch behind. That makes no sense.
Characters should be targetable if there are no NON-character units closer within range.
Those Vindicare assassins can deep-strike wherever they want on the board to shoot. They can see the Commissar. You just stick them in reserve, he can't block LoS to every direction at once. So then you just find a line of fire, deep strike on it anywhere within 72" (I'm sure you can find a piece of open board within 72"), and kill him.
Snipers do need to be fixed. They need to be reasonably able to take down things like Rowboat
So much no. Anything that could kill RG would kill a commissar 10 times over already and would be obscenely strong against everything else as well. Sniper degrade strong heroes and kill weaker heroes. They don't need fixing at this time.
Well yes, the ~200-250 points of snipers you should need to give a very expensive model like Girlyman a bad day should basically vaporize a 30 point Commissar. What I meant by "not turning the Commissar into a joke" was a matter of cost scaling. Dealing with a Commissar should of course be significantly cheaper than dealing with Girlyman, but non-trivial.
crimsondave wrote: Several of us IG players have agreed that conscripts need nerfed. However, the whiners here aren't going to be happy unless they are turned into complete trash. Cutting their firepower in HALF is LITERALLY not good enough for you.
Don't worry. If Marines are truly getting curb stomped by IG on a regular basis GW won't let it last.
Shockingly, the unit whose players have attested would still be taken if they had literally zero firepower and cost the same probably won't be fixed solely by reducing their firepower. Because the larger issue is they are far too hard to remove for their cost.
So you would rather I take 4 units of 10 regular guard instead? I could deploy them as a meat shield out of coherency where you couldn't lock them all up. Would that not make up for the extra 10 points and 10 models? Not to mention they hit 50% instead of 33%. If firepower is not the issue, then the problem is all IG infantry.
Again, 3 points vs 4 points for the same wounds/armor save may not seem like a big difference, but the cost going from 150 to 200 for 50 bodies helps balance things out greatly. Plus, that's 5 potential morale casualties vs 1, and you might even need 2 commissars to buff all the individual units. All those costs add up and make normal squads far more balanced overall.
So yes I'd prefer you take normal guard over conscripts. Most would.
Melissia wrote: Well, close to twice as long. Now, instead of the predator twin-lascannon turret getting one shot that rerolls, it just flat out gets two shots. Quad-Las preds are something local players are thinking of picking up lately.
Now that the new codex is out, anyone looking at taking multiple preds is looking at pred autocannons and heavy bolters.
Are you taking one or two preds? Quad Las.
Three or more? Autocannon and bolters.
And if fixing snipers would also address the problem people have with conscripts... then wouldn't nerfing conscripts into the ground on top of that be overkill?
I'm not sure that guarantees much. IG character models are small and easy to hide, and IG has tanks to hide behind. Rather than being a direct counter, snipers restrict movement of supporting characters.
Not that I think conscripts need to be nerfed, I just see snipers as an annoyance. An IG player can hide the characters and Wyvern the snipers. Although if they're dedicating firepower to kill sniper squads, it could buy you some valuable time as you're doing whatever you need to do.
Edit: huh, a Manticore only averages 2.4 wounds against a Land Raider. Also, Auto Launchers can be an amusing defense against drop-Scions w/plasma. The more I look at it, the more I like the vehicle-protected advance.
Ah, yeah, jumping around from thread to thread over the course of a week destroys context haha. My own personal crusade is to find a list of Craftworld Eldar that can beat conscripts on cost. 100 conscripts+commissar+officer+2 searchlights is 401 points. I want a list, I don't care how tailored, that can beat that for the same points cost. At this point I'll up it to anything <500 points, because no list has been remotely close so far.
Ah, ok. This sounds familiar now, something like a 4x4 board too, right? I'll give it some more thought, but that's pretty specific. Is there a turn limit?
Side note, I just noticed Shuriken Cannons are Assault Weapons, that's kinda neat.
Yup, 4x4 board. No turn limit (although if the conscripts are ahead after 6 turns or so I'll consider it an iffy proposition), whatever terrain that is even minimally realistic, and I'm pretty much granting Eldar all the little things I can think of, like first turn.
Any argument that something is "out of range" of the conscripts by turn 2 is going to be looked at with suspicion though, seeing as they can get to the middle of the table on turn 1, and everything is in range of the middle of the table.
Also... yup, Shuriken Cannons being Assault weapons are why they are so common now. Scatter lasers are worse (especially if you move) and cost more, Starcannons are WAY overpriced after the errata nerf, and brightlances are still brightlances and are therefore the only other heavy weapon taken.
Insectum7 wrote: Unfortunately I'm not able to spend too much time pouring over Index Xenos atm, but I feel like an important move for Eldar is to threaten Commissars with Rangers. I looked and Doom appears to not require LOS, seems like if the Guard player slipped you could Doom-snipe the Commissars, commanders, etc.
Its not a full solution yet, but its one that can hamper enemy movement while the rest of your army does whatever it needs to. Its true that Eldar dont have much high-rate-of-fire guns though. Still mulling it over.
Minimum squad of snipers and a farseer is already over half the points cost... And I really have to stress that I don't think any Eldar on foot will ever be part of the answer. Lasguns are just entirely too effective against T3 W1 models that cost anywhere from 8 to 36 points, no matter what shenanigans they bring to the table.
Then again, our mech will lose to conscripts as well, at least for everything I've mathed out so far. So who knows.
Xenomancers wrote: First - most lists don't have snipers. Why? Because snipers suck. The ones that do have snipers - you just park a tank to block LOS - stand farther away from said snipers . . . . [and so forth]
Right. But, Rangers are a decent Troops choice for Eldar, and a Farseer with Doom (which is an amazing power) is sort of a no-brainer thing to have around, as far as I can tell. These are points not spent to take out conscripts, from what I'm seeing. These are points spent because you're playing Eldar in the first place. Every turn they don't spend shooting at Commissars is a turn they can do something else. From my perspective, you're threatening Commissar-sniping almost for free, by their mere presence.
Like I said previously, I don't think it's a full solution. But I think it's a good move to make, regardless.
Ah, yeah, jumping around from thread to thread over the course of a week destroys context haha. My own personal crusade is to find a list of Craftworld Eldar that can beat conscripts on cost. 100 conscripts+commissar+officer+2 searchlights is 401 points. I want a list, I don't care how tailored, that can beat that for the same points cost. At this point I'll up it to anything <500 points, because no list has been remotely close so far.
Best I can think of is Storm Guardians w/ flamers in Waveserpents playing slowly. It takes about 5 turns for conscripts to down a single serpent, so the serpents either stay out of rapid fire range, or repeatedly shoot-charge to prevent FRFSRF for 4 turns. They can kill roughly 8 conscripts per turn then unload the guardians on turn 5 to kill an additional ~20. That leaves about 40 conscripts vs 20 guardians + 1 serpent on turn 5. which would eventually be a win for the eldar by turn 10 or so... Not ideal, but it works theoretically.
Hey! You didn't show your work but the math checks out on a single shot basis at least. Good start lol
2 FULL HP Wave Serpents = 6 shuriken cannons = 18 shots, 12 hit, 10 wound, 2 get AP and 2.66 of the other 8 are saved, so 7.33 dead. +1 to morale.
One FULL conscript squad with frfsrf+searchlight at max range is 100 shots, 50 hits, 8.33 wounds, 5.55 saves = 2.78 damage. I'm going to use this as the standard and double it for rapid fire, and take percentages off it as they die off.
Ok, so I'm going to play out the Turns with just the serpents. I think your better off avoiding as much rapid-fire as you can rather than charging repeatedly - overwatch+1 round of melee + guaranteed rapid fire is better for the conscripts than one frfsrf long range shot, and you're almost never going to be hit with rapid fire from more than one target if you keep your distance.
Turn 1 Eldar: you move to the far right, such that only the right squad can return fire with a full squad.
All shots are directed at the right conscript squad, so 8 die.
Turn 1 IG: The right squad moves into range. The entire squad is in range because the shuriken cannon only has 24" range and the block can move 6". The left squad does the advance+fire order - they should have to roll about 1" on the advance to get into range, but I admit I'm having trouble visualizing exactly how they move past the right squad and how much that hurts them. It also has to do with the exact placement of the wave serpents, obviously. So... I'm already off hardcore math, but
42 Conscripts = 2.78 x 0.84 = 2.34 damage
??? conscripts = round that up to 3.
Turn 2 Eldar: I don't think you can avoid rapid-fire now. If you go around the near side, the left squad gets you. If you go around the far side, the right squad gets you. I think the correct tactical choice is to go far side, so the smaller unit is getting rapid fire.
Kill 8 more conscripts.
Turn 2 IG: Move towards own starting zone, where wave serpents now are. Right squad is in rapid-fire range, lefts squad is all within 24" but not rapid-fire.
34 conscripts = 2 x 2.78 x 0.68 = 3.78 damage
50 conscripts = 2.78
One wave serpent has now lost 9-10 hp. Either way, efficiency is down.
Turn 3 Eldar: Keep moving along the back edge.
Technically one wave serpent is shooting at BS4+ now, but also we've been rounding down their kills slightly for 2 turns in a row so let's just say it's even. 7 more conscripts die. (morale later this turn)
It looks bad for the Wave serpent. I think it's destroyed next turn, so maybe now is when you deploy guardians? Please feel free to math out some other version, because I'm not going to math out every possible option lol.
24 storm guardians deploy (Definiately way more points than the 401 on conscripts, but I did say we're up to 500 now for Eldar)
4d6 worth of flamers do 14 hits, 9.33 wound, 3.11 save, 6.22 dead conscripts.
20 pistols = 13.33 hits, 8.88 wound, 2.96 save, 5.92 dead conscripts.
24 guardian attacks, 16 hit + 4.44 from re-roll = 20.44 hit, 10.22 wound, 3.41 save, 6.81 dead conscripts (I just realized I forgot to remove the overwatch guardian but I'm not re-doing that. More advantage to Eldar is fine lol)
In the interests of always favoring Eldar, I will assume they made their pile-in and consolidate such that they brought the other conscripts into combat. I have a hard time figuring out off the top of my head how much they can pile-in, but I'm going to assume that 10 more conscripts is heavily favoring the Eldar, because I've seen what tight blocks of conscripts can do with consolidate. So that's 2 more dead guardians.
Final tally is 5 dead storm guardians. Let's favor Eldar again, they're split such that there is no loss to morale.
The unit of 8 conscripts is now down to 7 from morale.
Turn 3 IG:
Searchlights are interesting in that they're only good for one-on-one targetting. The ideal breakdown would probably involve shooting most of the 50 man conscript squad at the bigger of the two guardian squads with searchlight bufff.... but blah blah that math is complicated and I think even if we just favor the Eldar again, the outcome here is overwhelming.
Both squads back off, they both are ordered to fallback+fire, they have rapid fire range. They need to kill 19 remaining storm guardians.
Now between that overkill and the lack of searchlight, I'm going to claim that the next turn's damage to the wave serpent will be rounded up (because one of them is at 9.5 hp, and it's about to take 2.78 more damage). I've put a million little tid-bits in the Eldar's favor, this one isn't unreasonable and lets me end early on a very clean note... let me explain.
Turn 4 Eldar: Finish off conscripts sqaud
Turn 4 IG:Finish off Wave Serpent.
We are now back to exactly half of what we started with. Except, of course, there's nothing in the serpent. They go on forever but without the burst of damage from the storm guardians, the conscripts eventually win.
I ask that if you see anything I didn't calculate well, please show your own math. I tried to be SO generous to the Eldar (not to mention they have almost 25% more points and have a tailored list) and I don't want someone to just say "Conscripts can't get in range like you think they can" and pretend that cancels out everything I just mathed out.
Also... yup, Shuriken Cannons being Assault weapons are why they are so common now. Scatter lasers are worse (especially if you move) and cost more, Starcannons are WAY overpriced after the errata nerf, and brightlances are still brightlances and are therefore the only other heavy weapon taken.
Also... yup, Shuriken Cannons being Assault weapons are why they are so common now. Scatter lasers are worse (especially if you move) and cost more, Starcannons are WAY overpriced after the errata nerf, and brightlances are still brightlances and are therefore the only other heavy weapon taken.
Also... yup, Shuriken Cannons being Assault weapons are why they are so common now. Scatter lasers are worse (especially if you move) and cost more, Starcannons are WAY overpriced after the errata nerf, and brightlances are still brightlances and are therefore the only other heavy weapon taken.
Hey! You didn't show your work but the math checks out on a single shot basis at least. Good start lol
2 FULL HP Wave Serpents = 6 shuriken cannons = 18 shots, 12 hit, 10 wound, 2 get AP and 2.66 of the other 8 are saved, so 7.33 dead. +1 to morale.
...
I ask that if you see anything I didn't calculate well, please show your own math. I tried to be SO generous to the Eldar (not to mention they have almost 25% more points and have a tailored list) and I don't want someone to just say "Conscripts can't get in range like you think they can" and pretend that cancels out everything I just mathed out.
In a real scenario it should be possible to avoid line of sight from searchlights that cant move, but assuming you cant, Eldar spends turn 1 killing the search light from range. Wave serpents should also have scatter lasers and CTMs (which are close enough to shuriken cannons in damage but longer range so they can sit by the edge of the table).
Turn 1: Eldar kills searchlights from 36" range
-Guard move into 24" range, fires 200 shots with FRFSRF doing ~3.7 damage (best case scenario for guard, likely going to be much less due to terrain issues, not being in range, forced to advance+fire, etc..)
Turn 2: Eldar kills 8+1 conscripts
-Guard moves into 18" range, fires 182 shots doing ~3.4 damage with FRFSRF Turn 3: Each wave serpent moves up and kills 12+2 conscripts (serpent shields, 2 moral checks) then charges both conscript squads (assuming 0 damage in combat as most likely outcome)
-Guard falls back and shoots 154 rapidfire shots doing ~2.8 damage
Turn 4: Eldar kills 7+1 conscripts (due to BS 4+ on first wave serpent now), charges both conscript squads again (again 0 damage assumed for combat)
- Guard falls back and shoots 138 shots doing ~2.5 damage
Turn 5: First wave serpent has taken 12.4 damage now, but assuming it died, 1 wave serpent kills 4 conscripts, flamers/pistols kill ~12, 44 combat attacks (assuming chainswords) kills ~13, 2 die to moral. (38 conscripts left) Guard fights and kills maybe 2?
-Guard falls back and shoots 76 shots killing ~ 8 guardians
Turn 6: ~12 guardians get back in wave serpent and repeat (but now its only 38 conscripts to 1 waveserpent rather than 50+searchlight so eldar win easily)
Deathypoo wrote: We are now back to exactly half of what we started with. Except, of course, there's nothing in the serpent. They go on forever but without the burst of damage from the storm guardians, the conscripts eventually win.
The first of that itself presents an issue since objectives are taken by a show of force. Four of your turns have subsided yet half the units remain. Unless you happen to have the magic counter units in the rest of your list, and they aren't busy getting destroyed or focusing other targets, it's a challenge requiring a solution. Even in the followup, the game is already over. Long range anti-tank spam is simple but long-range anti-horde is more of Guilliman's missile spamming forte and still isn't climbing any win ladders. Short range can be useful but then we're dealing with the tactics aspect of the game which can vary. As much as I'm sure some would love to see Conscripts on equal footing with Space Marines, even though every unit in the game has similar priced units that it devours or dies to easily, the SMs themselves aren't in a great spot either and about as great of a measuring stick as the state of gaunts. Which oddly enough made it appropriate that someone decided to pit the two against each other... <_<
crimsondave wrote: Several of us IG players have agreed that conscripts need nerfed. However, the whiners here aren't going to be happy unless they are turned into complete trash. Cutting their firepower in HALF is LITERALLY not good enough for you.
Don't worry. If Marines are truly getting curb stomped by IG on a regular basis GW won't let it last.
Shockingly, the unit whose players have attested would still be taken if they had literally zero firepower and cost the same probably won't be fixed solely by reducing their firepower. Because the larger issue is they are far too hard to remove for their cost.
So you would rather I take 4 units of 10 regular guard instead? I could deploy them as a meat shield out of coherency where you couldn't lock them all up. Would that not make up for the extra 10 points and 10 models? Not to mention they hit 50% instead of 33%. If firepower is not the issue, then the problem is all IG infantry.
Again, 3 points vs 4 points for the same wounds/armor save may not seem like a big difference, but the cost going from 150 to 200 for 50 bodies helps balance things out greatly. Plus, that's 5 potential morale casualties vs 1, and you might even need 2 commissars to buff all the individual units. All those costs add up and make normal squads far more balanced overall.
So yes I'd prefer you take normal guard over conscripts. Most would.
How would you feel about 2 squads of 20 conscripts? I have 40 conscripts I'd like to field, but I don't want to be OP either. I could change out to all regulars, but I'd have to buy another box of Heavy Weapons not to mention conscripts are part of my regiments fluff. I am willing to can them though if people just absolutely didn't want to play them.
Hey! You didn't show your work but the math checks out on a single shot basis at least. Good start lol
2 FULL HP Wave Serpents = 6 shuriken cannons = 18 shots, 12 hit, 10 wound, 2 get AP and 2.66 of the other 8 are saved, so 7.33 dead. +1 to morale.
...
I ask that if you see anything I didn't calculate well, please show your own math. I tried to be SO generous to the Eldar (not to mention they have almost 25% more points and have a tailored list) and I don't want someone to just say "Conscripts can't get in range like you think they can" and pretend that cancels out everything I just mathed out.
In a real scenario it should be possible to avoid line of sight from searchlights that cant move, but assuming you cant, Eldar spends turn 1 killing the search light from range. Wave serpents should also have scatter lasers and CTMs (which are close enough to shuriken cannons in damage but longer range so they can sit by the edge of the table).
Turn 1: Eldar kills searchlights from 36" range
-Guard move into 24" range, fires 200 shots with FRFSRF doing ~3.7 damage (best case scenario for guard, likely going to be much less due to terrain issues, not being in range, forced to advance+fire, etc..)
Turn 2: Eldar kills 8+1 conscripts
-Guard moves into 18" range, fires 182 shots doing ~3.4 damage with FRFSRF Turn 3: Each wave serpent moves up and kills 12+2 conscripts (serpent shields, 2 moral checks) then charges both conscript squads (assuming 0 damage in combat as most likely outcome)
-Guard falls back and shoots 154 rapidfire shots doing ~2.8 damage
Turn 4: Eldar kills 7+1 conscripts (due to BS 4+ on first wave serpent now), charges both conscript squads again (again 0 damage assumed for combat)
- Guard falls back and shoots 138 shots doing ~2.5 damage
Turn 5: First wave serpent has taken 12.4 damage now, but assuming it died, 1 wave serpent kills 4 conscripts, flamers/pistols kill ~12, 44 combat attacks (assuming chainswords) kills ~13, 2 die to moral. (38 conscripts left) Guard fights and kills maybe 2?
-Guard falls back and shoots 76 shots killing ~ 8 guardians
Turn 6: ~12 guardians get back in wave serpent and repeat (but now its only 38 conscripts to 1 waveserpent rather than 50+searchlight so eldar win easily)
Hmm, problem with that approach is that one wave serpent only has a 50/50 shot of killing a sabre. I can round up for Eldar's favor like I do for everything else if it were just one, but there are two and the odds are that you won't kill both.
Not only that, but serpents only have 24" range, so odds are you have to walk right into rapid fire range to hit the searchlights beyond.
I don't like "oh the searchlights don't see me" scenarios because the guard can stand right in front of them, to where if you shoot at anything they can see you. Yeah, it's possible there's some los as you move around the board, but for it to be exactly where you need to be to see the guards AND be at max range of the guard to avoid rapid fire frfsrf? Less likely.
Anyway, if you're spending the first two turns of Serpent shooting on killing the spotlights, I think this whole alternate scenario falls apart :(
Arkaine wrote:
Deathypoo wrote: We are now back to exactly half of what we started with. Except, of course, there's nothing in the serpent. They go on forever but without the burst of damage from the storm guardians, the conscripts eventually win.
The first of that itself presents an issue since objectives are taken by a show of force. Four of your turns have subsided yet half the units remain. Unless you happen to have the magic counter units in the rest of your list, and they aren't busy getting destroyed or focusing other targets, it's a challenge requiring a solution. Even in the followup, the game is already over. Long range anti-tank spam is simple but long-range anti-horde is more of Guilliman's missile spamming forte and still isn't climbing any win ladders. Short range can be useful but then we're dealing with the tactics aspect of the game which can vary. As much as I'm sure some would love to see Conscripts on equal footing with Space Marines, even though every unit in the game has similar priced units that it devours or dies to easily, the SMs themselves aren't in a great spot either and about as great of a measuring stick as the state of gaunts. Which oddly enough made it appropriate that someone decided to pit the two against each other... <_<
I... I'm honestly not sure what's being said here. Like, at all. But I am curious so here I am responding to it haha. Care to edit that into something a little more clear?
Not ideal, but it works theoretically.
